clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

all hallows eve eve

 just a few idle thoughts before you go out to march for a return to sanity, or dress up like a brett farve picture-text message, or burn down vacant houses for fun: 

the worst part of the postseason is listening to people try to make obviously terrible conclusions about a tiny sample size, from a small sample size.

for instance, breathless reporting on how well teams do if they've won the first two games of the series, affirming the obvious point that it's easier to win 2 of 5 games than 4 of 5 games. said reporters go on from pointing out the obvious to note that all three giants' ws victories (the most recent of which was 1954) came after winning games 1 and 2. gee! do the giants have in their club dna the ability  to win after taking the first two games? or is this instead just a vindication of the same obvious point above?

irritatingly similar claims come re: how a hitter is hitting in the postseason, how a pitcher is pitching, etc. these statistics are stated without any apparent irony or concept that the meaningfulness of a player being 2 for 10 in the series (bad!) v. being 4 for 10 (great) is basically nil.

if you can make it through all this blather without throwing something at your tv, radio, or computer you're doing better than i am.

it occurred to me the other day that the giants may be the answer to a question i asked several months ago - what team got better value from rookies? bumgarner and posey were both outstanding.

the cardinals down in the afl are not accomplishing much, though adron chambers is having a nice run with the rafters.

here's a question for discussion: if tony la russa were "guest-managering" for either ws teams, what would that look like? how would he manage differently? who would he get along with better on each team? who would rub him the wrong way? which team would he manage better?