  |
|
|
|
Page 3
The 1967 Yankees did well because they played against only weak opponents. They did not compete against any strong teams. Merely observing the simulation league statistics does NOT reveal that fact and of greater importance, when one observes ANY leagues' statistics, all that is revealed is how the teams fared against each other.
Statistics cannot account for the human factor which is the major weakness of any computer simulation and which is why general managers who build teams based primarily on statistics rarely win championships. The next time you argue that the 1961 Yankees were better than the 1969 Mets, better remember the context of each team's league and the many interpretations that can be made about the Yankees 240 home runs and the Mets pitching staff of Seaver, Koosman, Ryan, Gentry and McGraw that yielded only 119 home runs. The Yankees were better, weren't they? But wait. Compare the 1961 American League to the 1969 National League. Would Mickey, Roger and Moose have done what they did if they faced Seaver, Jenkins, Gibson, and Marichal? Or should the question be how would the 1969 Mets pitchers have done against the 1961 American League? That is why baseball is so great. That is why we can argue forever and not be convinced, at least most of the time, that we are wrong. But the least that we can do is remember that our cases are subjective and that the statistics we use are relative, which leaves us with debates that will go on forever. And that is a good thing. Reference:
The copyright of the article The 1967 Yankees: An Underrated Team? - Page 3 in NY Yankees is owned by Harold Friend. Permission to republish The 1967 Yankees: An Underrated Team? - Page 3 in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.
|
|
|
|
