How Bad Can You Be?

http://www.billjamesonline.com/stats121/

Winning 1 run games, if primarily a skill, would show up in the next season's record too since many teams return similar rosters. But it doesn't. At all.

He doesn't say that at all. He just notes that teams that do well in one-run games tend to not do well in them the next year. That could be because of many variables. It doesn't necessarily mean they didn't have a skill at winning them. He also notes, while these teams win less one-run games, they are usually still successful the next year:

"1) Out of these twelve teams who played great in one-run games, nine of them won 90 or more games. The next year? Despite the drop in wininng percentage in one-run games, eight of the teams won 90 or more the next year as well. These teams are good overall, not simply because they won the one-run games, by luck as some would suggest."

So, these teams were still more likely to be good than lucky. That hardly shows a lack of skill at one-run games.

Again, none of James' article applies to SOM.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-much-luck-is-involved-in-one-run-games/

It's not that there is NO skill level in winning 1 run games over the course of a season. It's just that there's a lot more luck involved than with teams that have the ability to blow teams out. A single sequencing shift can alter the entire game, and that's not a predictable skill. Sequencing luck occurs in dice based games too so the real life vs simulation distinction that you're trying to make in this thread has no bearing.

First of all, the author makes it clear he cannot assert when and where luck actually occurs:

"“Luck” is a dangerous word in baseball analysis. If a hitter has a .450 BABIP or a pitcher has a 3.5% HR/FB, us saber-minded analysts usually chalk it up to luck and move on. To equate the difference of the rate from the league average is a disservice to the players. Oftentimes, some of that middle-ground can be explained."

Secondly, the author makes it clear that skill is very much involved in one run games: "The resulting model showed that there are certain team attributes which lend themselves to better records in close games. However, the model had limited explanatory power. There were only three significant coefficients: isolated power for hitters, and strikeouts per nine and walks per nine of relievers. This means that those three variables are the most important for explaining a team’s one-run winning percentage."

Finally, the distinction I make between SOM and MLB luck is correct and has complete bearing. There is no sequencing in the dice rolls in SOM online. No roll affects the next one. The only place luck occurs is when a roll produces an improbable result or when HAL's decisions significantly affect those results. That is significantly different from the luck in MLB which is affected by a multitude of natural phenomena surrounding the game.

http://207.56.97.150/articles/james_onerun.htm

And finally the great Bill James does explain how 1 run games "involve a huge amount of luck".

Yes Bill James is great, and he does say 1-run games involve a "huge amount of luck." However, he modified that assertion with his earlier thesis: "My conclusion is slightly different. My conclusion is that winning a lot of one-run games has a persistence of zero (meaning that it appears to be luck) but that losing a lot of one-run games is not necessarily completely meaningless."

James is a smart stats guy, but even he knows his analysis didn't prove luck, it just suggested its apparent likelihood. He shows that prudence when he acknowledges that team inability to win one-run games is indicative of team skill:

"1) There does seem to be some persistent tendency of teams to play poorly in one-run games, and

2) Teams which play well in one-run games do seem to have some identifiable characteristics, to a small degree."

Again very interesting, if not conclusive. However, it was the most convincing article you presented. Again, none of this applies to luck in SOM, so we should really begin discussing that. This discussion of MLB luck has been interesting, but let's try to solve the SOM luck puzzle.

Yawn

That's very incisive, Steve. I did put some thought into those responses; so you should be respectful and respond or not. There's no call to be rude.

Good evening.