Originally Posted by TDog
If one is going to argue that strikeouts are meaninless because winning teams struck out a lot, you could argue that home runs are meaningless because the team that won the World Series hit the fewest home runs in the majors.
Well, no not really because only a neanderthal would come to this conclusion for several reasons:
- No one has ever said "winning teams strike out a lot." So, first and foremost, you're setting a defense against people who don't exist. The argument is that strikeouts are a meaningless indicator of offensive ouput. Sometimes teams with a good offense strike out a lot. Sometimes teams with bad offenses don't strike out very much. There just isn't a lot of correlation between the two. But that doesn't automatically assume that winning teams will always have a great offense. There are plenty of teams that win with below average offenses and plenty of teams that lose with high powered offenses. This discussion has only been framed between strikeouts and offense.
- As has been hashed and rehashed over and over again, the playoffs are a general crapshoot, so if you're argument is based on playoff success, it's already a losing proposition. No one in the history of the world who understands how math and statistics work would take an 11-22 game sample size over a 162 games. So that's pointless.
- Even most general rules of thumb have aberrations from time to time. It's why the Twins can beat the Tigers. It's why the career .205 hitter can hit a homer off the best pitcher in baseball. Crazy stuff just happens in baseball. That's what makes it so wonderful. But that doesn't mean because Crazy Thing A happens that it invalidates everything you've learned beforehand. Teams that hit more home runs generally win more games. That's just what some very basic numbers say. You can believe it not, if you like. You can think teams should all be playing 1950's-style ball with slap hitters laying down sacrifice bunts all night long if you want, but those teams, more often than not, just don't win enough games. I'm sorry.
So, therefore, you can see why no one, and certainly not anyone on these boards, I'm sure, would be silly enough to argue that point.