> > Me: > Bob, _nothing_ can guarantee a championship. Prospectively you are correct. But when sustained success occurs in any endeavor it is most reasonable to assume that there is a reason behind that success. If a statistical analysis fails to find that reason you can call it luck (or God's intervention or voodoo magic) but what are the odds of that being true. If you flip a coin enough times you should get a 50/50 split. If you get 60/40 for enough flips you can no longer call it luck, You must look for a different solution. The Braves have won their division 10 consecutive years, > but they've only won a World Series once. If they hadn't managed that once, > it wouldn't mean that they were run by incompetents. There are a few non-luck >explanations.
1)The things that make for division winning are not the things that make for championship winning. Their pitching has been fine statistically but their starters who are overpowering during the season are less so in th playoffs. 2) There is a team out there that is a better post season team than they are. To say that a team is better than another team during the regular season is one thing. Better in the playoffs may be another (I obviously think it is). Nothing can guarantee a championship, because bad luck happens. Yes but over time luck must even out. Or it no longer luck, it is divine intervention or magic. I actually do not believe in either so my answer is that there are not yet ways to measure this phenomena. They might not - they're in the same division > with the A's and the Mariners, both of whom will be very good for a very > long time. The A's in particular. Depends on whether they can keep the A's together. If they don't win the series I think Giambi will walk. (Let me add that I hope he doesn't). Cleveland dominated the AL Central for > years. They were a blown Jose Mesa save from winning the Series in 1995. > Your argument, so far as I can tell, boils down to the idea that Kenny > Lofton is an inferior player because Jose Mesa couldn't pitch. That does not make >sense. _ I know it doesn't make sense and that is not what I am saying. The Marlins are of course a special case because they were broken up after the series so it is not possible to tell if they were a special team. The Indians have been very good but not special. The mark of a special team is the ability to repeat with the same core. That is what is not luck. Nothing_ can guarantee a championship, so judging a team > by whether it wins a World Series or not is analytically invalid, because no > matter how good your team is, it still might not. You can just increase the > odds. But this the only way we judge teams. To be great (not good) you must win championships- not just one but many. You must dominate. The Yankees not the Braves were the team of the Decade. We will see who if any it is this time. >
