Came across this article today. I cannot stand the logic used here:
I don't have the time or inclination to completely dissect this pile of doo doo, so I'll just touch on a couple of points and let others chime in either in support of the article or against.
1)Their point differential didn't match their win-loss record:
Seriously? I hate people who use this, as the stat is so flawed. To be ridiculous for a moment, if I lose my first game by 300 points and win my next 15 by 10 points each I've got a huge negative point differential. Is my 15-1 team terrible? or is it more likely the first game was an aberration?
For those who follow baseball this was the same logic used against the Orioles last year, how could they possible be any good when they have a negative run differential? It's impossible!
It defys logic! Next year, you just watch, they'll suck again.........
ummmmm..........anybody noticing the Orioles sucking this year? They probably have one of the brightest futures in MLB with some of the best young stars.
2) They were remarkably good in close games
Once again, the same logic used against the Orioles last year, who were something like 30-6 in 1 run games. It's an interesting stat, but to use being good in close games as some kind of negative is seriously flawed thinking.
Isn't at all possible that a team is good in close games becasuse they stay cool under pressure and have players and coaches that respond well to adversity? Isn't that at least a possibility, which means that won't change from year to year?
I'll stop there, because very few of his points against have anything at all to do with the players on the team. It's just using "advanced" metrics to reach the result you want to reach.