Here we go again. With the Cardinals' win in Game One and then Game Three of the World Series, reporters universally rolled out their time-honored and utterly fatuous analysis of how game wins affect Series victory.
Yes we know, the Game One winner ends the season in a dogpile most of the time. Ditto for the Game Three victor. As you already know if you visit this space, the winner of any game in the Series more often takes home the title.
The simple truth is that teams that win the World Series win most of the games. Duh. If the eventual champs sweep, they win every game. (Duh 2.) If they need six games to secure the title, they still win two-thirds of the contests. (Still duh.)
So yeah, the winner of Game Anything wins most of the time. Consider this: the Game Seven victor takes the Commissioner's Trophy 100% of the time. The statement is so patently obvious that analysts refrain from mentioning it for fear of looking like morons. But they appear unable to exercise similar self-control (actually, it's similar insight they lack) with the other games.
Why didn't we hear this about Game Two? Because the Rangers tied the Series, so there didn't seem to be an advantage.
Here's the point: this is a wholly retrospective analysis, not predictive in the least. That the Cardinals won Game Three doesn't suggest they'll win the Series; teams that won the Series in previous years generally won Game Three. And Four and Five and Six.
b
No comments:
Post a Comment