I see things a little differently. When I look back on certain games I never think to myself, “Man, we should have won that game,” or “We really should have lost that one.” This is because over the course of the game, and season, I think things tend to even out and everything happens for a reason.

Let’s say that Sherrill gives up a two run home run in the bottom of the eleventh after a would be strike was missed (hypothetical of course), perhaps earlier in the game an ump missed a strike off the inside corner to an Orioles hitter, pushing the count to 1-0 instead of 0-1, now let’s say that same hitter jacks a solo shot that gave the O’s the lead that put them in the position to win in the eleventh in the first place. Both teams were jipped but the missed call at the end of the game sticks out like a sore thumb.

I don’t know if that really made sense, but to me I can never look back on an NFL, or even MLB, season and think that the team SHOULD have been 1-2 more games better(in NFL terms a huge difference maker) because so many other things happened during the course of the game that went both teams way and impacted the outcome. I also cringe when people gripe about various injuries and whatnot for their team because although there are some exceptions, chances are that the opposing team has just as many issues as your team does, whether it be injuries, chemistry problems, personal issues, or contract disputes.

About Pythag. I see the basic point that scoring and allowing runs are how you win and lose games. But that’s how you lose individual games, not seasons. I read a piece that the DBacks were legit last year because they tended to lose big and win close, which was because they had stellar setup and closer guys in their bullpen but couldn’t come up with decent mop-up guys throughout the year to keep the losing games respectable. This would indicate that their pythag was more askew than their actual record due to flaky circumstances.

Maybe that’s all just an excuse, but I can see the core point. The Orioles outscored the Nationals in the recent series (I think) but lost the series. Maybe it should all even out over time, but maybe not. The premise that an 18-1 game or a 1-18 game should have any bearing on the likely outcome of the 161 other games is only true to the extent that the same players might be playing those other games.

And go on and on and on explaining it’s deficiencies. It’s a very simple quick calculation that people attempt to align with historical records. Absolutely no one claims it is a very accurate tool, so don’t expect it to be. But, for example, perhaps the Mariners should have paid attention to it last year, just as a data point, to realize they weren’t as strong a team as they thought they were.