Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
I dont think I have to tell you that sometimes mistakes in sports end up not mattering to the outcome. Doesnt mean the mistakes didnt happen.
But how far down do you want to break it? Wood may have hung a curve that a guy missed that day and gotten away with it for a harmless foul, strike 2. I don't know. But there are elements of luck in anything. I'm sure he may have made a bad pitch in that game somewhere. Had a guy crushed it into the seats we may not be having this conversation.
Apparently I missed this thread the first time around. I think JORR's reply here nicely sums up the debate.
It's simple really(I just wanted to be like the 12th guy in the thread to say that):
If you think Wood's game is better, you value stats and probabilities primarily over everything else in sports, and pretty much think of athletes as cyborgs, devoid of human emotion. Since RPB admittedly thinks Bill James knows more about baseball than anyone who's ever lived, it makes sense he's in this group.
If you think a perfect game is better - you value results over hypotheticals, but ironically probably have a more abstract view of sports than the other group. You realize that the building pressure of a perfect game the last few innings is far and away harder to deal with than anything Wood had to deal with on a May afternoon.
Rick did destroy the fallable Game Score argument in this thread though.