From: satrape@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (James V Satrape)
Subject: Re: luck in baseball
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 12:24:23 GMT

In article <19734@optima.cs.arizona.edu> dkl@cs.arizona.edu (David K. Lowenthal) writes:
>
>Well, I do not believe in luck in baseball, because the game is based
>on skill.  

Based on skill is true, but that doesn't mean that luck plays no role.
The two are not mutually exclusive which your statement seems to imply.
For example, I would say that poker is a game based on luck.  Would you
say that there is no skill involved?  (If so, would you like to play a 
little poker?).

>
>1) The Twins were lucky to win game 7 because of Smith's baserunning error.
>
>Response: NO, that is not luck.  The Braves played a player who is notorious
>  for doing dumb things.  Part of a player's makeup is his brain.  That
>  makes Smith a poorer player, and the Braves a poorer team overall than
>  they would have been had Smith been a smart player.
>
Good argument why it was may not have been bad luck for the Braves that 
they lost, but that has nothing to do with whether it was good luck or not 
for the Twins.  The Twins benefitted because the opponent made a mistake,
this mistake was not a normal mistake for Smith (he does not make stupid
baserunning errors the majority of times he is on base).  It took no 
extraordinary skill on the part of the Twins to induce the specific
error.  The fact that it was made at the crucial time to aid the Twins was 
lucky for them.  If you walk down an empty street and find a $5 bill, that's 
your good luck right?  Could have been carelessness on the part of the 
person who lost it but that doesn't change the fact that it was luck for you.  

>2) Intangibles are luck.
>
>Response: NO, that is not luck.  Intangibles are things like managerial
>moves and team drive.  You are telling me that if you took 2 equal teams
>and had Tony LaRussa manage one and someone that knows nothing about baseball
>managed that other, that when LaRussa's team performed better that would be
>luck?
I've never heard people call things like managerial skill or team drive "luck".
Nor do I recall any arguments that say managarial skill is completely
irrelevent (as in the ridiculous example you quote above).  What I have heard
is that things like "team drive" may not have any measurable effect on the
results of games.  This is a different argument, but has nothing to do with
luck.

>
>3) Bloop hits are luck and line drive outs are bad luck.
>
>Response: NO, that is not luck.  Are you going to say that you lost
>the game on a couple of bloopers and that is bad luck?  

Yes I am.  By saying so, does that refute your argument (your argument seemed
to be based on the premise that I would not disagree).

>What if your team got some bloopers in the same game? 

Also perhaps luck.  Is there a rule that says only one team can be lucky
per game?

> What if the hitter fought off a good pitch and fisted it into right?
Requires skill to adjust and push the ball to right, I agree.  
But also some luck for the ball to drop in.

>
>4) Bad calls are bad luck.
>
>Response: This is the only ray of hope the luck believers have.  But my
>argument is that first, several bad calls happen after bad plays.  

Bad calls usually happen on close plays, which may or may not have anything
to do with bad plays.

> Also, if you play well enough, you can overcome a bad call.

So?  What does this have to do with luck?  If you play well enough
you can overcome bad luck too.  Or are you saying that bad luck cannot
be overcome?

>
>My basic argument is that the good teams are the ones who don't allow
>luck to enter into the game.

I would say that good teams allow luck to enter the game less.  If there
were no luck in baseball, a good sound decision (for example, by the manager)
would always have a positive outcome.  A mistake (either mental or physical)
would always be punished.

If you disagree with my description of luck above, how about giving 
your definition of luck.  

Jim