I think a few things are happening here (in our little back-and-forth). One is that we do agree on a few things, like the fact that the Sox aren't terrible and that small samples are not good for predicting. On the flip side, you seem to be mixing my post with some things other people are saying, which I get is probably just to save time, but it muddies the waters.
Thanks for not doing the internet-thing and assuming the worst. If I've mixed up your points with some others, I apologize. I'm sick in bed with a summer cold and probably mashed up my response a little. (This also explains, but doesn't excuse, my rambling. I'll try to be more succinct.)
Additionally, I think that you are conflating concepts like luck, randomness, samples sizes, etc. a little too loosely.
I'm sure I have, but this is a baseball fan board, not a academic forum, am I right?
...my point is that you can't point to 'bad luck' on a few plays as reasons not to worry about small sample size results, because it ignores the other side of the coin. Yes, there is randomness involved with every play, and it can work for or against your team, but that is the error term in the equation of predicted versus actual results that plays out on a large scale, which makes it a wash by definition. This is a stochastic process.
"...this is a baseball fan board, not a academic forum, am I right?" Apparently not. ;^)
Seriously, I agree with you. But allow me to (over)simplify the probability problem, as it relates to my (and your?) point.
Let's say the Red Sox win-loss probability could be made into a coin. Flip the coin at home and there's a 60% chance it'll turn up heads, a win. Flip the coin on the road and there's a 54% chance it'll turn up heads, a win. The fact that the last 10 times you flipped the coin it came up tails six times does not mean anything going forward. It's not predictive. That's just as true if the last ten times you flipped the coin it came up tails
every time. Basic rule of probability, but
very counter-intuitive.
Does it make fans
think the Sox aren't really a .570 team? Sure. "What have you done for me lately?"
Might the 4-6 rough patch (12-14 since the ASG) be a signal that something's changed, that the win-loss coin, for whatever reason (injuries, fatigue...) has found a
new balance and the team isn't as good as it was previously? Sure, that's possible too. But a 10-game patch of poor play and bad luck is a classic example of small sample size. Teams, like batters, slump.
Additionally, you can argue that it's 'luck' that the bases were loaded when a bad play was made by the defender, but that's very different than saying that the bad play was a result of luck.
I disagree. Luck, or rather, probability, figures into the offensive side too. As far as I know, there's no recorded stat for individual BA with bases loaded, but let's pretend there is and that Ortiz's BAwBL (pron. "bauble") is an amazing .500. Half the time he's going to make an out. Again, flip a coin. (Let's ignore the fact that with the bases loaded you don't have to get a hit to drive in a run.) If Ortiz comes up 10 times in two weeks and doesn't drive in a run, what does that mean going forward? Nothing more than flipping a coin 10 times and it coming up tails means anything about the result of the next coin toss. Probability.
Unless you think that Red Sox players are somehow psychologically spooked when batting with the bases loaded, then the stretch of bases-loaded squanders, though painful to watch, is probably a good thing going forward. Although, like a coin toss, the bad stretch doesn't predict a better results going forward, in the long run, the coin will come up heads 50% of the time and this team will hit better than .223 with the bases loaded.
Does losing 13 of the last 20 games mean that the true Red Sox talent level is a .350 win percentage? No, but it also doesn't mean that they are truly as good as they looked before this bad/unlucky stretch.
Agreed. At one point, the Sox looked like a 95-win team. Recently, the've looked like an 85-win team. They'll probably end up somewhere in the middle. Whether that's 89, 90 or 91 wins, I dunno. That's why they play the games.