RedSoxdominate wrote:I think one of the problems with the one-run differential approach is that it fails to take into account the quality of a bullpen. this is why bullpens are so important in baseball, so that a team can hold onto a one-run lead late in a game. Look at the teams with perhaps the best bullpens in the AL: Anahiem and Chicago. Those two teams, not surprisingly, made it to the ALCS. Sure, some of it is luck, but some of it is also good arms late in a game stepping it up to silence bats that can feast on lesser-quality starting pitching.
failing to take into account the possiblity that teams had bigger
leads before winning a game by one run. What if most of their one-run wins happened after their bullpens gave up three or more runs in the last two innings? Then it's not an issue of bullpen quality.
Likewise, what if most of the one-run wins are a result of the other team's bullpen absolutely collapsing at the end of the game? (I realize this means one team is likely better than the other, but you have to look outside the individual matchup, to, say, a game between two other teams, one evenly matched with the winner of the first game, but the other with a better bullpen than the loser of the first game. Different opponent strengths and weaknesses are going to significantly affect a team's record, and the amount of games they play against each other is, by-and-large, a product of luck.)
Mookie4ever wrote:Over a 162 game schedule there is going to be no such thing as luck. Clutch is a more valuable concept than luck.
Except that clutch isn't quantifiable and thus we cannot assume that it exists. I'm sure that's what you meant to say, right?
Your wisemen don't know how it feels to be thick as a brick...