Chuck Ruether

I think even using raw wins, regardless of division or competition, is even a poor way to evaluate how "good" a team is. This year is a prime example, in that Baltimore persisted into the playoffs despite a talent level that many well-respected baseball people were baffled by their continued competitiveness. However, they still won 93 games in a decidedly difficult division and defeated a Texas team that was the class of the AL for the season in a playoff. Often cited as proof that they weren't as good as their record was their run differential, which I feel like is widely accepted as a better indicator of a team's true ability, if such a thing can actually be computed. Would run differential or Pythagorean record establish a higher correlation? Even that, I fear, is going to produce a low correlation, as with so few samples - even at 8 teams a year for 15+ years, I fear the data is incomplete for conclusions - one occurrence like the '06 Cardinal run to a title might alter the data. That team was beset by injury for much of the year, only getting healthy at the end of the season, and was considered, talent-wise, much better than their record. Or the aberration that was the 2001 Seattle Mariners, which saw a 17-win jump in pythagorean record from '00 to '01, despite being no better talent-wise, and likely worse with the departure of a young Alex Rodriguez. In the end, it's probably inaccurate to call the playoffs a true crapshoot, but it's hard to really establish an argument that winning more regular season games indicates talent superiority or portends greater success in the postseason.