Struggles, no offense, but I have a difficult time grasping your logic. It's probably my fault.
For example,
Quote:
|
The Major League Baseball season is a really bad test of the abilities of baseball teams, though, isn't it?
|
I just can't really begin to assimilate the relevancy of this statement. It's like trying to eat jello with chopsticks. Bet you're already thinking up a way to tear that one down and dissect it.
Quote:
|
They 'should' have finished 90-72. Minnesota slightly over-performed their Pythag (three games) and 'should' have finished 92-70.
|
If you darted out and took a look at Bill James Relative Power Index for 2006 as basis for this (I believe RPI is based loosely on Pythagorean theorem)...your statement was indeed plausible...but not accurate. In fact this index noted Minnesota EXPW-L at 94-68. Probably just a type-o on your part.
Just to save a whole lot of bickering I'm just going to say you're correct and I'm absolutely incorrect with my concept of what is plausible and what is not. Let's just say you're logic is deeply profound and I'm sim-tistically challenged.