Yeah, you're right about it being Ben. The rest of the point stands.

We're all always in danger of swaying to your views, Dial.

People seem to miss when Steve or someone else in the "majority" (e.g. Field) slams other people. And yet they don't miss it when Kevin or BL engages in it. Odd phenomenon. I have no explanation for it.

Jerks tend to get worse treatment than non-jerks, even when the non-jerks are jerkier in the present circumstance. Call it the Oblonsky Effect after the character at the beginning of Anna Karenina. The guy posting as Backlasher knew what he was getting into.

Jerks tend to get worse treatment than non-jerks, even when the non-jerks are jerkier in the present circumstance.

Or, jerks tend not to recognize jerkiness when they're surrounded by other jerks, but when a non-jerk interloper comes in, his non-jerkiness makes them think he's a jerk when he's actually not. Call it the "circle jerk" effect.

Chris: Your unbiased eyes apparently didn't notice that BL wasn't trying to "prop up" SS's "minority opinion," instead BL was explaining why Steve was speaking so harshly to him. But, again, your absence of prejudice must have missed that. People seem to miss when Steve or someone else in the "majority" (e.g. Field) slams other people. And yet they don't miss it when Kevin or BL engages in it. Odd phenomenon. I have no explanation for it.

Well, that's nonsense because he wasn't talking to Steve.

And SS doesn't really appear to have a "minority opinion".

And it's an "odd phenomonon" to you because the VBB seem to miss it when Steve or someone else in the majority gets called on slamming others - only when kevin or BL get called on it.

Odd phenomenon that.

Or, jerks tend not to recognize jerkiness when they're surrounded by other jerks

You have certainly summed up one clique nicely.

VBB seem to miss it when Steve or someone else in the majority gets called on slamming others

Yeah, sure. Show me one thread devoted to Steve or anyone other than Kevin or BL slamming somebody, Dial.

You have certainly summed up one clique nicely.

They're actually easier to identify by their mortarboard icons, but if my summation helps, glad to be of service.

"devoted to"?

I can find one where Field and I chewed someone for a bunch of posts over their attitude/condescending tone (one that was in the majority).

But you'll have to get teh VBB Google Boy to hunt it up for you -
that's your favorite tactic, claim something never happened so someone else has to google it up, then pretend like it doesn't address what you were saying.

They're actually easier to identify by their mortarboard icons

So, kevin in; Treder out?

this was a fine discussion until BL had to start misrepresenting Steve's position (although I didn't help). I could have ignored it, but then that would be me letting the majority (Andy, kevin, BL) shout down the minority (Steve), and injustice like that is tough to stand by and watch idly.

that's your favorite tactic, claim something never happened so someone else has to google it up, then pretend like it doesn't address what you were saying.

Good one, Chris. You might recall we're the ones that actually back up our claims with links to current medical, legal, and social scientific research. Your group is famous for googling sim league stats or making assertions requiring us to repost arguments we made ages ago. But keep it up, Chris. Your venom is now certified and approved by the powers that be at the site. I'm probably in danger of being banned, while you're allowed to misstate and insult with impunity. Yeah, there's no "minority" or "majority" at a site with financially coercive icons or reflecting "in" status.

this was a fine discussion until BL had to start misrepresenting Steve's position (although I didn't help). I could have ignored it, but then that would be me letting the majority (Andy, kevin, BL) shout down the minority (Steve), and injustice like that is tough to stand by and watch idly.

Did you ever know that you're my hero?

Your venom is now certified and approved by the powers that be at the site. I'm probably in danger of being banned, while you're allowed to misstate and insult with impunity. Yeah, there's no "minority" or "majority" at a site with financially coercive icons or reflecting "in" status.

My venom? What venom?

misstate and insult? Who wrote the "circle of jerks" post?

And who claimed no majority or minority? And on evey topic?

You claim victim status over everything, JC, and thus you lose your credibility.

Your group is famous for googling sim league stats

What's funny, is you say I misstate or insult in the same post you write this. That occurred by one poster one time, and you hold it up as representative. How's that for intellecutal honesty?

"MY group"? I have no group. You just want there to be a group so you have something to attack.

You claim victim status over everything, JC, and thus you lose your credibility.

Wow. You now get to assign credibility too, Chris? Gee, I wish I had the professor icon more than ever!

You now get to assign credibility too...Gee, I wish I had the professor icon more than ever!

have kevin assign you some - he's a prof.

You now get to assign credibility too, Chris?

Well, of course I get to assign who has credibility with me, and who doesn't.

Who does that for you - BL or kevin?

Who does that for you - BL or kevin?

Well, Kevin thinks Bill Walton's the greatest b-ball player in history, so he's out. And BL, well, there are unmentionable details that exclude him. RETARDO, of course, is unqualified, so we named Andy head of credibility assignation.

And the Knicks just beat Phoenix in triple overtime.

I can think of but five: 1906 (by far the biggest one), 1969 (where the Mets strength in their top three starters was enough to nullify the much greater Orioles' offense), 1985, 1987 and 1988. Five out of what, 101?

(out of order) Posted: January 02, 2006 at 01:52 PM (#1803006)

I guess it all depends on what meets your mark for upset. By any standard I think 1914 (Miracle Braves) & 1931 (two time defending champ with Grove at his all-time best lose to team that they actually outscored) belong on the list

The 1914 Braves were 68 and 19 over their last 87 games. That's not exactly a tiny sample size, and calling that World Series any great upset is silly. That was a fairly even matchup of two very good teams. The league factor tilts towards the A's, but the Braves appeared far stronger at the end of the year.

The 1931 A's had a Pythag of 97-55; the 1931 Cardinals' Pythag was 97-57. That's pretty much a pickem in my book.

1913, and 1918 are debatable, but there are definate league strength questions involved given that the AL won 10 out of 12 Series, and threw an 11th. Makes 1914 that much more deserving to be mentioend here.

The 1913 A's and Giants were mirror images of each other, in that the A's had far better hitting and the Giants far better pitchig. But here the league strength, as you say, favored the AL, which would make that Series a pretty even matchup. No big upset there.

The '33 Giants were 8 games worse than the Senators.

Their combined ERA+ and OPS+ were identical: 217.

I've read that the Tigers were favored in 1934, but I don't remember where I read that.

The Cardinals went 40-20 over the last two months, and their combined OPS+ and ERA+ were all of 4 points below Detroit's.

The Cubs won 7 more games than the Tigers.

This was a very mild upset, I suppose, since the Cubs were hot at the end of the year and had a OPS+/ERA+ combined edge of 8 points. But a very mild upset at best.

The '42 Yanks pythaged out to 107 wins, and that franchise had won the last 8 world series they'd been in.

Except that the Cardinals were a frightenly good team at the end of the year, they also had a 107-47 Pythag, and in addition, had an ERA+ of 134. That was nowhere near an upset to anyone other than to the historians of the time. Statheads could have made a fortune with the odds they likely could have gotten taking the Cardinals that year.

The '43 Cards were seven games better than their opponent, though league strength plays a real wild card role by the point in the war.

Their hitting strength was equal, but the Cardinals had much better pitching. I will concede the upset here.

The Cubs won 10 more games than the Tigers in '45.

And were also better in ERA+ and OPS+. But beneath the surface, this wasn't that much of an upset. The Cubs piled up big numbers against the weak NL wartime teams (21-1 vs. the Reds), but were only 6 and 16 against the 2nd place Cardinals, whereas the Tigers were 40-25 against the first division. A very evenly matched pair of teams which played a very close Series, as should have been expected.

The '46 Red Sox won 104 games, but then again they had an almost identitcal pythag to the team that beat them.

Even Pythags, and Boston was fading fast down the stretch after an early clinching. The very close Series was likely decided by the fact that Williams was hobbled by an injury sustained in a practice game while waiting for the NL playoff to finish.

The '53 Dodgers won 105 games.

The Yankees had better Pythags, and a better combined ERA+ / OPS +. This was one of the best matchups in World Series history, and the Dodgers were a great hitting team, but this was certainly no upset by any stretch of the imagination.

The '54 Indians won 111.

They did this by going 89-21 against five of the worst teams ever to grace a Major League diamond, and by going 11-11 against the only two other AL teams with a winning record. And I know this will be met with howls of protest, but they also spent the entire month of March playing exhibition games against the Giants, and the Giants easily beat them then, as well as sweeping them in the Series. That Indians team had a historically great pitching staff, but otherwise was filled with mediocrities, and as soon as they faced a bit of stiff competition they folded like an accordian.

And you had to witness those lower five AL teams that year just to begin to appreciate how bad they were. As Jerry said about Elaine's kick-step, they were "beyond stink."

There's an integration based league strength issue cloudying how good the Indians were, but that same argument makes '53 more of an upset (or for that matter, '52 and '51).

The AL's relative weakness in the early 50's was masked by the Yankees' World Series success, but it could be seen in the success of the NL castoffs who flourished there in the twilight of their careers. Steve notes that the NL wasn't that much faster to integrate, but if you look at the comparative All-Star rosters during that period you'll see a marked difference in the numbers of A-level HOFers in the two leagues, with a big advantage to the NL—and not just in black players, either. The Yankees managed to parlay their mystique, money, and scouting advantages to rise above the rest of the AL, but the 1953 season marked the end of the first Stengel dynasty, since their Big Three starters (Raschi, Reynolds, and Lopat) dropped off the cliff the next year, and it was only due to the utter depravity of the bottom five AL teams that the Yanks were able to pile up those 103 wins. But up through 1953 the Yankees had consistently great pitching, and that got them through five straight Series in as great a run as you'll ever see.

I've read arguments that the '59 Dodgers are the worst WS champs ever (82-74 pythag record). Or at least the worst pre-divisional play ones.

Both the Dodgers and the White Sox that year had an OPS+ of 96. The White Sox had all of a 114 to 111 edge in ERA+, and the NL was a much better league.

The '62 Giants won 103 games.

And were in a better league. But the combined OPS+ /ERA+ difference was but 2. I have to admit that this small difference surprised me, and I honestly think that this Series (subjectively at least) qualifies as an upset. But think about it---four feet in any direction on that last swing of McCovey's bat and the Giants would have won anyway. Those were two closely matched teams who played one of the most tightly contested Series ever, one which could easily have gone either way.

The '63 Yanks were going for the threepeat & had 104 wins.

And were slightly better on paper, though again in an inferior league. But no team with Koufax, Drysdale, and Yankee dominator Johnny Podres could ever have been called a real underdog in that Series.

I'll address the rest of your selected Series tomorrow whenever I find time. Your post was a very good one, and forced me to jog my memory and my record books.

My point isn't that all these WSs were upsets - there's several here I don't think were (then again I probably missed a few that weren't) but there's a lot more than 5 out of 100ish.

So far I'd say you've really only added one: the wartime 1943 Series. But there are more to come, and tomorrow's batch might find some better examples.

Remember, I'm looking for serious upsets, not cases of mild ones which could have gone either way. But again, good post.

Jeez, I missed all the brawling while my foggy brain was stuck back in 1913 trying to figure out why I forgot that the A's had such a mediocre pitching staff. But I love you all (meaning all of you), and don't none of you ever change. We're better than the WWF any day.

And BTW Chris, I had the pleasure of meeting Kevin the other day, and guess what?---shock of shocks---he didn't have horns, and he didn't frighten the children and little old ladies who were in my shop at the time.

But he did say that you get $500 an hour to haunt houses. Is that true?

Chris, I did not attack Treder is this thread.

I took issue with something Flynn said about McCormick and limited my discussion to the effect that McCormick wasn't that good. It was Treder who responded to me, calling one of my posts "fatuous" and using other condescending phraseologies.

Look, Treder lives for this stuff. National League vs American League. The Willie Mays Giants vs anybody. If he was being unfairly attacked, he would have left the thread 300 0r more posts ago.

I hardly know a thing about the Negro Leagues but I read a bit about the 1935 Pittsburgh Crawfords, featuring Cool Papa Bell, Satchel Paige, Oscar Charleston and Josh Gibson. I don't recall any Negro Leagues team being mentioned in the discussion. Is it because they are considered inferior or because of the difficulty to translate their stats to an MLB environment? Could this team, or another Negro League team be part of the top 20, or 50 or 100 teams in baseball history? Are there any old threads dealing with this? Thanks.

Put one of those better Monarchs or Crawfords / Grays teams up there with a Paige or a Ray Brown on the mound, and they could match up against any team. Whether or not any one team had the pitching depth to compete with the very top ML teams over the course of a long season is another story. But in a short series, quite likely. And certainly an all-time all-star team of Negro Leaguers could hold their own very well against their ML counterparts, even more emphatically if one restricts the ML roster to those from the pre-1947 period.

Andy,

Wow. That was impressive. When I saw your original post, with 1 pre-'69 team, and 3 from the 1980s, I figured that you just named all the major upsets you could think of off the top of your head.

Good post yourself there.

Few random thoughts basd on your posts . . .

In several Seriesesez - such as 1914 and 1942- you mention how a team did later in the season as a reason why it wasn't an upset. What about 1990 then? The Reds made it 18-19 games over .500 in May and ended the year 91-71. That's a rather middling last 4 months.

The AL's relative weakness in the early 50's was masked by the Yankees' World Series success, but it could be seen in the success of the NL castoffs who flourished there in the twilight of their careers. Steve notes that the NL wasn't that much faster to integrate, but if you look at the comparative All-Star rosters during that period you'll see a marked difference in the numbers of A-level HOFers in the two leagues, with a big advantage to the NL—and not just in black players, either. The Yankees managed to parlay their mystique, money, and scouting advantages to rise above the rest of the AL, but the 1953 season marked the end of the first Stengel dynasty, since their Big Three starters (Raschi, Reynolds, and Lopat) dropped off the cliff the next year, and it was only due to the utter depravity of the bottom five AL teams that the Yanks were able to pile up those 103 wins. But up through 1953 the Yankees had consistently great pitching, and that got them through five straight Series in as great a run as you'll ever see.

For me to really buy this, I'd like to see the Yanks blow the league away every year. But under Stengal they almost never ran away with it. Between 1954 & 1953 there should be an upset somewhere. As for the consistently great pitching, I once went through the careers of Allie Reynolds and Vic Raschi at retrosheet. Both had some nice stretches, but I don't know if either were ever really great. Both very good. Reynolds very very good. But great's a bit much.

The 1931 A's had a Pythag of 97-55; the 1931 Cardinals' Pythag was 97-57. That's pretty much a pickem in my book.

Having Lefty Grove available in a short series on your side should be an advantage though. One study I'll never do: how do teams who overachieve their pythag do in the World Series. 10 games over? Wow.

But beneath the surface, this wasn't that much of an upset. The Cubs piled up big numbers against the weak NL wartime teams (21-1 vs. the Reds), but were only 6 and 16 against the 2nd place Cardinals, whereas the Tigers were 40-25 against the first division. A very evenly matched pair of teams which played a very close Series, as should have been expected.

You missed one of the best reasons for why this one may not have been an upset: Hank Greenberg returned. Though looking it up (does quick & dirty check) they didn't play any better after he got there, so nevermind that.

And were in a better league. But the combined OPS+ /ERA+ difference was but 2.

Doesn't the first point cancel out the second? OPS+ and ERA+ are both centered at 100 regardless of league, so doing better by these measures in a better league is more impressive.

Few other things I justed noticed. The '41 Dodgers had a better pythag than the Yanks, and went 40-18 over the last two months while the Bronx Bombers went 34-23. The '49 Dodgers also had a better pythag than the Yanks, and went 41-19 From Aug 1 on, notably better than the Yanks did. The '51 Giants, over course, had a fantastic stretch run, plus the advantage of a system for cheating at home. The '58 Braves went 38-20 over the last two months while the Yanks staggered in at 27-28. League strength favors the Braves, too.


Going over your list I'd say you just have a different standard for what amounts to an upset than I do. Based on that, I don't have a problem with your original post accept for one thing:

I can think of but five: 1906 (by far the biggest one), 1969 (where the Mets strength in their top three starters was enough to nullify the much greater Orioles' offense), 1985, 1987 and 1988. Five out of what, 101?

Seems to me fairly clear that many/most of the Series ever played were close enough in comparative quality versus the two teams that there's no way it could be called an upset either way. So claiming five out of 101 is a stacking the deck against the potential number of upsets.

My own list of World Series upsets (done with no real series reviews of anything other than my memory and a quickie look of the postseaon page at b-ref):

1906 - Obvious on
1914 - League quality, better record, A's had WS experience
1931 - Great team, Grove in his prime, and I think the AL was a little stronger at the time
1935 - Tigers went 12-14 in September. Cubs went 23-3 (!!). Cubs led league in runs and runs allowed. Cubs won more games. Tigers won in 6.
1943 - Agreed on
1945 - Though is any World Series the Cubs lose really an upset?
1954 - I don't think difference in league quality was steep enough to offset a 14 game advantage
1958 - Think those Braves were historic underachievers and should've done better.
1959 - 82-74 pythag? Yeesh
1960 - Automatic rule: get outscored 60-27 yet win, and it's an upset.
1962 - Not sure if NL's that much stronger by this time, but I do think SFG was the better team
1969 - Great O's team
1974 - OK, so the A's were gritty. Still doesn't make since that the best team they played was their easiest postseason series victory.
1985 - Agreed
1987 - Worst World Series winner ever
1988 - Mickey Hatcher doubled his regular season homer total.
1990 - Reds played .500 for last four months. 1988-90 A's were karmic payback to Bay Area for 1972-4
1995 - Scary good line up & #1 in ERA.
1998 - Just checking to see who's still reading this
2003 - Ten game advantage in wins, almost as many in pythag. Make as many "pulled fat" jokes as one wants, Wells has been that heavy for years and almost never had it cause him to leave that early. Marlins actually outscored that postseason overall & in each of the last two rounds of playoffs. Amazingly hard to do that yet still win.

Maybe 2004. I can understand the ALCS being such a giant lift to the Red Sox that they'd take it up a notch. What I can't understand is why the Cards took it down several notches and played their worst ball of the year then. Bobby Thomson's blast didn't cause the Yanks to play like a big pile of poo in October '51.

Making 30 foot putts is luck - AFTER YOU HAVE A PRO BASELINE

That seems counter-intuitive to me. Why wouldn't some pro golfers be better at putting than others?

But this is not really a golf thread. I think Andy's analyses of World Series upsets are very interesting, and elaborate some things we talked about in earlier threads. The key thing is probably to separate upsets as the press, fans, and bettors perceived them at the time from upsets that really look genuinely astonishing now. I think of 1972, for instance. The Big Red Machine against a bunch of flaky weird-looking guys in garish uniforms; Reggie Jackson out for the Series and Vida Blue coming off a terrible season. Gene Tenace, whom nobody'd ever heard of, hitting four home runs. That was a considerable upset in the day, though from this distance it looks like the start of a dynasty.

And BTW Chris, I had the pleasure of meeting Kevin the other day, and guess what?---shock of shocks---he didn't have horns, and he didn't frighten the children and little old ladies who were in my shop at the time.

Andy,
kevin and I have broken bread a handful of times. Well, we've broken hops anyway.

Chris, I did not attack Treder is this thread.

I didn't say that. I said you were taking the majority position that McCormick wasn't a significant loss (by majority: you BL, Andy).

But I agree that Steve loves to argue early NL/Giants.

But "condescending phraseologies" is the way Steve writes (and while extremely annoying), it's also the way BL writes, and very often yourself (and sometimes me).

That seems counter-intuitive to me. Why wouldn't some pro golfers be better at putting than others?

Some are, but they are better than others from 15 feet in. And they are somewhat better at lagging the ball within two feet of the target (which means the next putt is easier), but going in the hole is a different matter.

After you get that far away, the balance of other things outweighs the difference in skill. And once you get 30 feet, almost no player (and none I could cite) has the skill to make that putt with any regularity - at least distinguishable from any other pro.

The subtleties of a putting green are too large if the ball has to roll too far.

And again, this is with a very high level baseline - not you and me.

Some are, but they are better than others from 15 feet in. And they are somewhat better at lagging the ball within two feet of the target (which means the next putt is easier), but going in the hole is a different matter

OK, Chris, that makes sense. You're trying to find a zone of performance where luck takes over. By analogy, some basketball players are better 3-point shooters than others, obviously, but if you take the ten best 3-point shooters and give them a bunch of attempts from half-court, you're running a luck-heavy event.

That makes sense to me too, but I'm not sure of the point. In basketball or golf, part of the skill seems to be knowing how to get yourself into position to score. So, if it's true the further out you go, the more "luck" enters into the putt, isn't it also true at some point you'll go out so far you wouldn't be putting, but chipping (or in basketball, making the next pass or next few dribbles)? And it's not "luck" to make the chip that sets up the three foot putt, or that makes the pass that sets up the open three, right?

I'm not sure the long putt going in the hole should be considered "luck".

I'm pretty sure some guys are consistently better than others at long putts. If one puts 5% in whereas the average is 2% (pulling numbers out of my ass), calling the one out of 20 that sinks in "luck" is not exact IMHO. Now if all golfers equally suck from over 30 feet, forget this post but I doubt it. "Rare" does not necessarily mean "lucky". I'd consider lucky an awful drive going straight into the woods but hitting a tree and bouncing back in an excellent position.

That seems counter-intuitive to me. Why wouldn't some pro golfers be better at putting than others?

Some are, but they are better than others from 15 feet in. And they are somewhat better at lagging the ball within two feet of the target (which means the next putt is easier), but going in the hole is a different matter.

After you get that far away, the balance of other things outweighs the difference in skill. And once you get 30 feet, almost no player (and none I could cite) has the skill to make that putt with any regularity - at least distinguishable from any other pro.

The subtleties of a putting green are too large if the ball has to roll too far.

And again, this is with a very high level baseline - not you and me.

Question for Chris: Granting all this (and I'm not a golfer, but it seems intuitively correct), if you gave the best pro putters 1000 tries at a (say) 50 ft. putt, and a set of average pro putters the exact same 1000 putts, are you saying that the best putters wouldn't make at least a fair number more of those putts? And wouldn't the mediocre putters be more likely to three-putt from that distance?

Just asking---I have no idea how this would play out.

My only thoughts on a possible analogy would be in pool. On a short shot (up to maybe four feet), there would be relatively little or no difference between a pro and any good local player. (The difference would show up in the positioning of the cue ball for the next shot.) On a spot shot (a shot of medium length and medium difficulty), there would be a big, big difference between a pro and an amateur, but not much difference among pros. But faced with a truly difficult layout which requires lots of imagination and precision cue ball control on successive shots---that's where the differences between the top tournament players and the perennial 9th to 16th place finishers begin to show up. And their marginally different success rates in these difficult racks, though these differences are slim, are what makes for the difference between the handful of players even casual ESPN browsers are aware of (Efren Reyes, Allison Fisher) and those only us hard core fans know about (Charlie Williams, Monica Webb).

Of course another way of saying this would just be "consistency."

I would suspect a roughly similar situation holds for golf, but I'd be interested in how you'd describe what separates the Tigers from the perennial 9th-16th finishers.

(out of order),

Thanks for your comments. I will get back to the rest of your list later.

In basketball or golf, part of the skill seems to be knowing how to get yourself into position to score. So, if it's true the further out you go, the more "luck" enters into the putt, isn't it also true at some point you'll go out so far you wouldn't be putting, but chipping (or in basketball, making the next pass or next few dribbles)? And it's not "luck" to make the chip that sets up the three foot putt, or that makes the pass that sets up the open three, right?

That is correct.

The point is that you can only reduce hte luck so far. And the more you restrict the events (removing chipping or approach or whatever), the more luck plays a role - or the more the result is luck - but it is important to remember that the baseline is already established that everyone putting is at a very high level. When I discuss this with my b-i-l, it took a while to undersand I'm not saying that "putting is luck". It isn't. You can remove a fantastic portion of having your ability to win a golf tournament by being "better" - as you say JC, chipping it closer than 30 feet more often.

What makes Tiger better than those other guys, is that he has shorter putts to make more often, and he's better at making putts from 8 -15 feet. Which is a distinguishable and repeatable skill.

Why does this matter?

Because at the highest levels of MLB, not just MLB, but even hte next level - the Yankees, the Braves, when the best of the best are playing a single game (or just 4 games), the chance that a GB hitting the edge of the grass, or hitting the base, or having some goofy backspin on a bunt, any small thing where one game means elimination, then luck has a larger role - after you have a baseline that is very, very high.

Sometimes in these discussion, luck is used too broadly - it isn't luck that Tejada didn't "play to the whistle", or that Byrnes didn't go back and touch the plate. It isn't bad luck that Giambi didn't slide - it is *good luck* for the Yankees that Giambi was on the bases to give them the chance to make the play - clearly a faster runner would have gotten to the plate sooner - but the Yankees still had to make the play (arguably the greatest defensive play ever). And that wasn't luck - good or bad on either side of the ball.

if you gave the best pro putters 1000 tries at a (say) 50 ft. putt, and a set of average pro putters the exact same 1000 putts, are you saying that the best putters wouldn't make at least a fair number more of those putts? And wouldn't the mediocre putters be more likely to three-putt from that distance?

Yes, I am saying that the difference between teh two wouldn't be there. One problem is that all (I'm talking top 100 guys or so, not every person claiming to be a pro) pros adjust constantly.

But no, Brad Faxon wouldn't make more than Billy Mayfair - with any regularity. The putt is just too long.

BUT yes, Faxon would be within 3 feet *alot* more than Mayfair. A ton more. But mostly because he wouldn't be running the ball by the hole all the time. Especially if the goal is to make the putt - not "get it close". From 50 feet *all* pros are simply trying to "get it close". Everyone of them. Almost never are they thinking "I'm going to make this" (I htink it's really never). So when it does go in, they got lucky.

Particularly if we are talking about a golf tournament, where you have to be able to make that 50-footer with just one attempt.

it is *good luck* for the Yankees that Giambi was on the bases to give them the chance to make the play - clearly a faster runner would have gotten to the plate sooner

Maybe I misunderstand the meaning you assign to *good luck*, but even the fact that a slow runner/bad baserunner was on the bases is, for me, not the kind of thing you can chalk to "luck". It's a part of the player's skill set, and a part of the team's skill set. Reading the rest of your post, I'm possibly just nitpicking though.

The 74 A's? I know we'd like a year from their 3-peat, but they only won 90 games in 1974. Yes, their run diff was better, but still, an all-time top-20 team?

Chris: I get the point, I think, but this seems to come up against Daly's point above about luck being the residue of design. Giambi being slow is not luck, it's as Yankee Blower said, part of his skill set; part of the As design. The good coaches (eg Belichick) will never aver to luck, they'll explain they have to be better. Don't you recall how in your own experience or in watching sports you'll have a coach explain to his team that they have to play better b/c of the "luck" factors (eg, home court officiating)?

when the best of the best are playing a single game (or just 4 games), the chance that a GB hitting the edge of the grass, or hitting the base, or having some goofy backspin on a bunt, any small thing where one game means elimination, then luck has a larger role

It's happened. Eighth inning, Game Seven, 1960, Tony Kubek. You can argue that that was non-luck-related: perhaps Rizzuto or Jeter would never have been hit in the throat by such a ball; the Yankee pitchers didn't have to proceed to collapse. But if the ball didn't hit whatever pebble it hit, the Yankees would almost certainly have won the Series. That's the baseball equivalent of the drive into the woods that bounces off a tree onto the fairway.

On the other hand, the wider the focus, the harder it is to ascribe things to pebbles. It's easier to argue for the 1952-53 Dodgers as a truly great team than for the 1954 Indians. You'd think that a really magnificent team would have been able to organize at least one win in its World Series.

Giambi being slow is not luck, it's as Yankee Blower said, part of his skill set; part of the As design. The good coaches (eg Belichick) will never aver to luck, they'll explain they have to be better. Don't you recall how in your own experience or in watching sports you'll have a coach explain to his team that they have to play better b/c of the "luck" factors (eg, home court officiating)?

Both you and Yankee Blower aren't reading that correctly.

You are correct - Giambi being slow isn't luck - that Giambi wasn't pinch-run for with a fast runner (soemthing the Yankees cannot control) was *good luck for teh Yankees*.

It isn't luck at all for the A's. Luck isn't a zero-sum game.

Once in my book shop's window, we had a little display featuring three choice items of Washington Senators memorabilia: A program from the last game of the 1924 World Series; two ticket stubs from that game; and the pebble that kicked Earl McNeely's ground ball over Freddy Lindstrom's head.

I sold the program, and like an idiot gave away the ticket stubs, but I still have the pebble. It even has a Certificate of Authenticity.

And as John D. Rockefeller might have put it, "GOD gave the Senators that World Series."

Bob,
that play is in my mind when I think about luck.

The key thing is probably to separate upsets as the press, fans, and bettors perceived them at the time from upsets that really look genuinely astonishing now.

In the former category, I'd consider 1966. The Dodgers had won 2 of the last 3 Series and were coming in with a rotation of Koufax, Drysdale, and Osteen. Baltimore had never appeared in a series and their rotation was 23 year old Dave McNally, 20 year old Jim Palmer, and 21 year old Wally Bunker. Nobody counted on them holding the Dodgers to 2 runs in 4 games.

But that victory looks a whole lot less surprising in light of Baltimore's success to come over the next 5 years.

Hey, folks,

I could swear that baseball-reference or retrosheet had a page where you could see the league results for all teams for all years. In other words, the franchises were listed across the top, the year on the left-hand side, and the win totals in columns for each team, with playoff appearances appearing in bold. But I can't find it now. Can anyone help me?

OoO, that's a good list.

Chris, I agree with your description of "luck". To me, fluctation in performance at the extremes counts as "luck" much of the time. I don't discount choking, I just think players are accused of it too often -- "character" is less important than sportswriters like to think when it comes to this.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL.shtml

and the corresponding AL page, Death.

To me, fluctation in performance at the extremes counts as "luck" much of the time. I don't discount choking, I just think players are accused of it too often -- "character" is less important than sportswriters like to think when it comes to this.

That sums up my perception of it precisely.

Sportswriters/sports broadcasters are paid to generate good stories (that in turn sell ad space), not to dispassionately analyze. Athletes "choking" or "rising to the occasion" make for great stories; dry examination of ongoing fluctuations and cyclical patterns in rates of performance most assuredly don't. This doesn't mean athletes can't or don't choke or elevate their game in the clutch, but what it does mean is that just because the sport's PR machines (which is of course what sports media has always effectively been) play up that aspect doesn't make it true, or at least not as true as it needs to be for the best story.

But no single page for Pythags, OPS+ and ERA+, right?

Sportswriters/sports broadcasters are paid to generate good stories (that in turn sell ad space), not to dispassionately analyze. Athletes "choking" or "rising to the occasion" make for great stories; dry examination of ongoing fluctuations and cyclical patterns in rates of performance most assuredly don't. This doesn't mean athletes can't or don't choke or elevate their game in the clutch, but what it does mean is that just because the sport's PR machines (which is of course what sports media has always effectively been) play up that aspect doesn't make it true, or at least not as true as it needs to be for the best story.

This seems kind of vacuous, however. You acknowledge the existence of "choking" and "heroics," but then state that sport's PR machines play up that angle when often they should (apparently) be writing "dry examinations of ongoing fluctuations and cyclical patterns." But how are they (or us) to know which is causally important? This seems to be the issue BL was raising above. A ball hitting a pebble isn't luck; luck is attributed to the outcome that occurs as a consequence of the ball hitting the pebble (a game changing play). But even that play is difficult to isolate as the cause for a series (or season) loss. Didn't we all engage this discussion in the context of that blown call in the playoffs? Did the blown call cause the loss, was it "bad luck", was it a crapshoot?

But how are they (or us) to know which is causally important?

By applying our powers of perception, analysis, and deduction, just as we do in interpreting and understanding all other aspects of the world around us.

I forgot to add that I agree with Andy about the '54 season. Steve's post focused on quantity, but I think quality is at least as important. Both the Giants and Indians were integrated, but one team had the greatest player in history having arguably his best season and the other team, well, didn't. On a lesser scale, the same holds true for the leagues as a whole.

By applying our powers of perception, analysis, and deduction, just as we do in interpreting and understanding all other aspects of the world around us.

But I would offer that it's a crappy coach who blames his loss on a pebble, and not on his team's inability to score enough to win. Likewise, it's a crappy GM who blames his series loss on "luck", rather than his team's inability to outscore their opponent.

I like your confidence in causal explanation. Apparently this is less complex than identifying steroids users or understanding the harms associated with steroid use.

Just a reminder to everyone: VOTE 2001 ATHLETICS!

C'mon, 104-58 pythagorean record, first of 2 consecutive years with over 100 wins (how many teams have done that?), and of course:

THE GOLDEN AGE OF MONEYBALL!

The Giambi brothers reunited! Billy McMillon! Chad Bradford! Walks, walks, and more walks! You know DMB's gonna love them! Show some loyalty to the team that gave you some of Primer's greatest threads!

Only the individual player can tell us if he choked, if the pitcher beat him, or if he had a bad day. I would just like sportswriters , and for that matter coaches, to recognize the other possibilities and not be so quick to label someone a choker.

Only the individual player can tell us if he choked, if the pitcher beat him, or if he had a bad day.

Really? I mean, I can understand if we learn later that a player was injured or sick, but a player gets to determine whether his failure or success was choking or "rising to the occasion?" I don't believe that at all.

But I would offer that it's a crappy coach who blames his loss on a pebble, and not on his team's inability to score enough to win. Likewise, it's a crappy GM who blames his series loss on "luck", rather than his team's inability to outscore their opponent.

No disagreement. Coaches are paid to motivate their players, and GMs are paid to continuously improve their rosters. But that doesn't mean that the vagaries of random happenstance can't and don't influence the outcome of sporting events, whether athletes, coaches, GMs, and the media understand it or acknowledge it or not.

But I would offer that it's a crappy coach who blames his loss on a pebble, and not on his team's inability to score enough to win.

Of course this is true, but it's not a coach's job to make brutally frank, intellectually honest proclamations about his team or anything else. A coach is more than anything else a cheerleader.

I would consider myself a bad parent if I blamed my kid for costing his LL team a game when the ball he didn't field hit a pebble. Nor would I, if I were the coach, blame the team generally. I think that just destroys their confidence. I think the same is true on the professional level. Players shouldn't be credited when they don't deserve it, but neither should they be blamed.

I only mean that the player alone knows in his heart which one it is. Since the rest of us can never have that certain knowledge, we should be charitable and not be too quick to assign character flaws.

I think that's not the point. The point instead is that no single play "costs" anybody anything. Luck doesn't cause losses; this is the point of claiming that luck is the residue of design. If you're good enough, you overcome the shitty call or the ball off the seam or pebble. It's not cheerleading to say this; it's placing the responsibility for performance where it belongs: on the players and on the coaches and on the management. You control what you can control, and if you do it better than the other guy, you get the money, the power, and then the women.

it's a crappy coach who blames his loss on a pebble

It's crappy rhetoric and cowardly form to blame a loss on a pebble. But as Spectacular Bid could tell you, if he were Mr. Ed, sometimes the smallest damndest things really are responsible.

Is everyone agreeing, then, that it's wrong to blame losses (or credit wins) on luck?

it's placing the responsibility for performance where it belongs: on the players and on the coaches and on the management.

No one could possibly dispute this.

But the issue for us as "thinking fans" of a sport, and as armchair analysts attempting to understand what's going on, the issue isn't about "responsibility." It's about separating fact from myth, perceiving truth through the fog of hype and hope.

You control what you can control

This is true of everyone everywhere, all the time. But it remains the case that for all of us, "what you can control" isn't everything. Some factors are beyond the capacity of the competitors to control, and sometimes some of these factors have an impact -- maybe negligible, maybe minor, maybe huge -- on outcomes.

In the sports context, we generally refer to this complex of uncontrollable factors as "luck." For reasons I still don't really comprehend, this term often seems to aggravate some folks, so if you prefer, substitute whatever other term seems more appropriate: randomness, chance, happenstance, coincidence, fluke, whatever. The point is that no matter how well talented, well-prepared, thorough, well-conditioned, etc. etc. you are, some things are beyond your control.

I totally buy Rickey's maxim, "luck is the residue of design." I understand precisely what he meant. Well-designed teams with better players are in a far better position to capitalize on breaks than poorer-designed teams with inferior players. Absolutely right. But that doesn't mean the breaks don't continue to occur.

No. Sometimes that's exactly the right thing to do.

Saying that a single play doesn't cost you the game (or series, or whatever) reminds me of the debates over clutch performance and leveraged situations. It depends on whether you choose to judge the play at that specific moment in time, or whether you treat the HR in the first as equally important as Bobby Thomson.

If you're good enough, you overcome the shitty call or the ball off the seam or pebble.

No, you can't.

That's the point above. When two teams are all but equal, then this one pebble shot *is* the difference. And it *is* luck. In the bottom of the ninth, and hte winning run scores you simply cannot overcome it.

In addition, even in teh first, if both sides then throw no-hitters, it was luck.

Is everyone agreeing, then, that it's wrong to blame losses (or credit wins) on luck?

You are broadening. I definitely think it is appropriate to say luck was the tipping point in the deciding of many games. Particularly games where two teams are evenly matched.

I definitely think it is appropriate to say luck was the tipping point in the deciding of many games. Particularly games where two teams are evenly matched.

I strongly agree. I think luck has a lot to do with outcomes in lots of baseball games. It's obviously in the self-interest of the sport's promoters to downplay this aspect, and promote instead the myth of the mighty and courageous hero-jocks, the righteousness of victory and the shame of defeat. But that doesn't mean that luck doesn't matter.

I agree with Chris; it depends on how evenly matched the teams are.

Let's say you sim a season of one 1985 Royals against a "second" 1985 Royals. Each "team" must use the same lineup as the other one does in a given game, no substitutions allowed. Someone will win the pennant. How?

That's a semi-silly example, but a real one might be the 1947-56 Dodger/Yankee World Series rivalry. Why did the Yankees win five of six World Series? One possibility is "luck": Brooklyn might just as easily have won four or even five of those matchups as one. Another is that the Yankees had a manly je ne sais quoi. A third is that the Yankees had just slightly better benches and bullpens and tactics. It's extremely hard to know, with such an even matchup, what the two teams could control.

Or, as an afterthought to the 1960 example: Stengel had won the battle of rival designs. Bobby Shantz is the perfect guy to pitch to Bill Virdon. Shantz gets the double-play ball. The Series is effectively over.

Once the pebble intervenes, of course the tired Shantz, in hindsight, should not pitch to Dick Groat, who is exactly the guy you want up, a right-handed .325 hitter. A bunch of other things happen that are traceable to design, not luck. Sure. But sans pebble, they don't happen at all.

I definitely think it is appropriate to say luck was the tipping point in the deciding of many games. Particularly games where two teams are evenly matched.

In the context of this discussion, would you folks care to discuss the Merkel boner?

Was it luck or other that Merkle forgot that he had to touch second to end the game?

Was it luck or other that Joe Tinker saw before everyone else the game was still in doubt?

Was it luck or other that Iron Man Mcginnity decided to take matters into his own hands and intercept the ball in play and toss it into the crowd?

Was it luck or other that the games' governing body ruled in favor of the Cubs and granted them the victory?

At the risk of this getting buried at the bottom of this thread, I had a question that occurred to me this morning as I was figuring out who to vote for here:

Why are the 1911 A's considered better than the 1910 A's?

The 1911 A's won 101 games, with 99 Pythag wins, an OPS+ of 119, an ERA+ of 104, and beat a 99-win Giants team 4-2 in the World Series.

The 1910 A's won 102 games, with 103 Pythag wins, an OPS+ of 122, an ERA+ of 133, and beat a 104-win Cubs team (that was appearing in their 4th World Series in 5 years).

I can't find a single thing that would make one prefer the 1911 A's over the 1910 A's. What am I missing?

The 1910 A's were just lucky! :o)

I can't find a single thing that would make one prefer the 1911 A's over the 1910 A's. What am I missing?

The 1911 A's are in the next decade, thus balancing out team distribution.

Kevin,
that is all "other".

Every event there is well within the control of the players.

The 1911 A's are in the next decade, thus balancing out team distribution.

Hmm, when I was making my choices, I defined my decades starting in xxx0, so I had the 1910 & 1911 A's in the same decade. Oh well, shows what I know.

Kiko, my response was mostly tongue-in-cheek.

I actually have no answer, other than east Coast Bias. The real answer is the 1911 A's beat the might Giants while the 1910 A's merely beat the lowly Cubs.

Was it luck or other that Merkle forgot that he had to touch second to end the game?

Some combination of ignorance, carelessness, and custom. Not luck.

Was it luck or other that Joe Tinker saw before everyone else the game was still in doubt?

Alertness, intelligence, and competitive zeal. Not luck.

Was it luck or other that Iron Man Mcginnity decided to take matters into his own hands and intercept the ball in play and toss it into the crowd?

Rowdiness and panic. Not luck.

Was it luck or other that the games' governing body ruled in favor of the Cubs and granted them the victory?

Decisiveness and wisdom. Not luck.

What we don't know is that there might have been 5 or 10 different things that happened during that game up to that point that were a function of luck -- bounces, coincidences, blinks by an umpire, whatever -- that created the 9th-inning in the first place. And there might have been 50 or 100 or 500 or more such tiny things that had happened to both teams all season long that created the situation of them being so closely aligned in the standings during the season's closing days.

The breaks might have pretty much evened out between both teams that year. But they might not have. And the shorter the span of games, the greater the likelihood they wouldn't have.

Kiko, my response was mostly tongue-in-cheek.

Miserlou, I figured that. Thanks for trying.

Why are the 1911 A's considered better than the 1910 A's?
Your question is a good one. I don't know why (or even if) the 1911 team is considered better. The big difference between 1910 and 1911 is that scoring went up across the league, as runs per game per team increased by one in the AL between 1910 and 1911. Frank Baker became Home Run Baker. Maybe that's why the team is more "popular". In 1911, the A's scored 188 more and allowed 160 more runs than in 1911. Does that make them better? I don't know. They sure were good both years.

Chris,

How is a ball hitting the edge of the grass/dirt different from a ball landing an inch away from a fielder's glove or an inch above the OF wall?

How is a ball hitting the edge of the grass/dirt different from a ball landing an inch away from a fielder's glove or an inch above the OF wall?

Beacause it causes the ball to move unpredictably. And it's a rarity.

Um, Johnny Evers made the play in 1908, not Tinker.

I agree that none of that stuff was "luck," though there's always something arbitrary about arbiters' decisions. A better example of what I'm saying is the Pine Tar game, where the rules themselves were unclear (and had to be altered in the aftermath). That one could have gone either way. (Merkle, by contrast, was simply forced out at second, and it was really tough to argue, no matter what the custom, that he should have been considered safe.)

Wow, a lot has happened since I was here. I'll deal with the high points.

Every event there is well within the control of the players.

Despite all the conversation, I'm not sure you are any closer to a consistent usage of the term "luck". Its easy when you deal with the Tango's becuase I know his version of luck is just entropy in a projection, more often than not. He doesn't look backward too often. With some, its downright impossible.

I see people agreeing with you Dial, and then throwing out things that you would not call "luck". As I stated, there are very few things that are not within the control of the player. So, what is your "baseline". How much control must the player have before its not luck? Does it matter if the control is small, but the impact is huge, or the marginal control makes a difference?

And then you have this other class of things, which are low probability outcomes based on repeatability. I'm curious about this one too. Just about everything a baseball player does occurs as a minority event. The confidence interval around a "median" performance for OPS is probably more forgiving than most players even hitting a home run. So ia a 30% occurence luck. Then just about everyone this side of Ted Williams is lucky to get a base hit. Does the amount of control the other party exhibits influence your determination? So if RJ shuts someone down is it luck?

Remember, the minority opinion you are joining is saying "injury" is luck. Deviations from median OPS performance is luck. You seem to moving things into the realms of pebbles on infields, or 1 in 1,000,000 occurences. If that is the case, how many postseasons have been effected by a casual certainty to such luck? How many regular seasons. Let's list them, because right now its excuse making.

Sure. But sans pebble, they don't happen at all.


Yes. YOu can find "but for" causality all over the place in any series. Maybe one of those events you could say was a low probability outcome. Cherry picking that outcome and throwing the series in the hands of luck is pretty broad. You will always find sufficient reasons both before and after any low probability event space that are controllable and are subject to percentage play.

In addition, even in teh first, if both sides then throw no-hitters, it was luck.


Just so I'm straight, is the no-hitter luck or skill? Because I imagine its got about the same probability as the pebble on the infield.

In the sports context, we generally refer to this complex of uncontrollable factors as "luck." For reasons I still don't really comprehend, this term often seems to aggravate some folks, so if you prefer, substitute whatever other term seems more appropriate: randomness, chance, happenstance, coincidence, fluke, whatever.

If there were one thing that you described as luck, we could do this. The problem is than any measured outcome in baseball is a function of multiple persons and external factors. The presence of an externality does not constitute luck in Chris's definition which you seem to be adopting. I don't think Dial considers McCormick's injury to be "luck" either. I don't think he considers a .350 OPS to be luck either. You apparently do, which is why there is a problem.

It's about separating fact from myth, perceiving truth through the fog of hype and hope.

If you did that rather than attributing things as "luck" then we would never have had a problem.

Didn't we all engage this discussion in the context of that blown call in the playoffs? Did the blown call cause the loss, was it "bad luck", was it a crapshoot?


That question remains unanswered by the "Minority Report"

But "condescending phraseologies" is the way Steve writes (and while extremely annoying), it's also the way BL writes, and very often yourself (and sometimes me).


Yep, it sure is, and you seem to go into a tizzy when he is called on it, but have a truckload of fun if its JC or BL that gets called on it. Steve was pontificating, and insulting long before BL arrived. He called Steve on it. You want to call me for calling Steve on it.

Any bets on what your buddy Jimmy tries to shut down.

And I'm surprised you are rallying to this cause. It would seem by your very posts that you would agree McCormick's injury has absolutely nothing to do with luck. In fact, it has to do with suboptimal pitcher utilization.

And Andy is still likely correct. "But for" Koufax not going down for two months, the Giants likely lose.

That's just like pointing at a pebble in the infield. Its just one cause among many, any of which can be "but for"

And it took that post from Andy before Steve stopped pontificating about luck, and actually starting to argue about evidence. It was fairly remarkable for me to see. If it had been someone talking about one of his teams choking up, he would have gone back to "Luck is part of our daily lives"

But your right 250 IP of 105 ERA+ is good value, even compared with 60 IP of 160 ERA+. Context will determine which is more valuable to a given team.

But that game is kind of interesting. By that logic, I can state that Pete Smith was considered the Braves best minor leaguer among Avery, Glavine, and Smoltz. If Pete would have pitched to that potential, the Braves would have won the WS 1991-1996, assuming the Lucky Strike didn't occur.

The underlying point is that "luck" has no consistent definition among the fanboys, and the line on what is luck and what is skill moves entirely for rhetorical purposes.

Personally, I thought it was a good thread, until Steve said for about the seventh time, "Luck which is part of our life. Period." as a counter argument.

I personally think you have your minority and majority mixed up a little bit. Field agreed with Treder that McCormick was just as important as Koufax. JC wasn't around. So at most, you have a 2-2 opinion on people opining. And that "bad luck happens to saber teams" mantra is definately in the majority.

The big difference between 1910 and 1911 is that scoring went up across the league, as runs per game per team increased by one in the AL between 1910 and 1911.

As a consequence of the introduction of the cork-centered "live" ball.

Cherry picking that outcome and throwing the series in the hands of luck is pretty broad

Well, yes; most of the time even a seven-game series comes down to a definite if small advantage. You have Jack Morris starting or Randy Johnson in the bullpen, and the other guy doesn't.

There are rare occasions, events that have really happened, where some fluky thing changes a loss to a win. It's like a continuum from design to luck:

1998 Yankees clobber Padres >
1980 Phillies manage KC without undue angst >
1952 Yankees edge Dodgers >
1991 Twins in extra-inning game seven >
1960 Pirates, bad hop reprieve after being outscored 51-21 to that point

Of course you're cherry-picking the rare occasion. But the cherry is there. Or the cherry pit, maybe.

There are rare occasions, events that have really happened, where some fluky thing changes a loss to a win.

1924: Game 7. Grounder to Fred Lindstrom takes crazy hop over his head and helps Senators tie score to take the game in extra innings. Then they score in part thanks to another crazy hop over Lindstrom's head.

Then they score in part thanks to another crazy hop over Lindstrom's head.

That was one crazy inning (the 12th). The guy who scored the winning run had hit a double, but only after the catcher dropped a foul pop-up... after tripping over his mask!

Walter Johnson won that game in relief.

I agree with Steve and Chris (and presumably kevin) that the 1908 race was not decided by luck, at least not if we mean the Merkel incident. That was resolved by corruption in the league office.

To me, the right way to approach this whole issue is not to ask "What is luck?", but to ask "What is skill?". If we all agree that no batter has the skill to make a ball hit a pebble, then hitting the pebble was luck. I'd say the same for McCovey's line drive at Richardson -- unless you believe that he had the skill to guide that ball more precisely, then its actual trajectory was a matter of chance. In saying that, I recognize that the ball got there as a matter of physics in one sense; that's true of every batted ball. Nor can the physics explain the confluence of external events -- game situation, importance, etc. -- and it's that combination of precise trajectory and game state which creates what we generally call luck.

To me, the right way to approach this whole issue is not to ask "What is luck?", but to ask "What is skill?".

Good call.

How about something like this:

Skill is the combination of innate talent, training, and conditioning, and its application to the game/season at hand.

Remember, the minority opinion you are joining is saying "injury" is luck.

I am not "joining" an opinion. I am stating mine as mine, and that is all.

As I stated, there are very few things that are not within the control of the player.

I agree, but that means you agree that there are some things that are not in the control of the player.

So, what is your "baseline". How much control must the player have before its not luck?

I don't always know - I've listed a few. What's yours?

Just so I'm straight, is the no-hitter luck or skill? Because I imagine its got about the same probability as the pebble on the infield.

It's skill, with *likely* some luck support. Sometimes, not always.

But outside influences go a long way to creating "lucky" plays. A no-hitter isn't done that way. A pebble is.