Re: An American View of Cricket (longish)

In rec.sport.baseball Richard R. Hershberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Yes, if the Devil Rays beat the Yankees in one game, in some
> sense the Devil Rays are the stronger team for those three hours.

No, not stronger.  Better.  More efficient, if you like.

> And if the Yankees come back and pound the Devil Rays in the
> second game of the double header, then the Yankees are the
> stronger team for those three hours. 

And that's all you can say.

> This is, of course, not at all what everyone other than our
> little buddy means by "stronger team", which is why he is talking
> past everyone.

But any other definition of "better team" is meaningless.  You
can put words together if you like but that doesn't mean the words
amount to anything.

> Once you realize that what he is talking about is neither
> relevent to the current discussion nor of interest in its own
> right, interpreting his posts is much simpler.

The point is that any definition of "better team" that is not
directly tied to the result of the last game is merely a prediction
that may, or may not, pan out.

But clowns like you treat these predictions as concrete fact and
you fill this ng with effluvium based on this faulty thinking.  But
the effluvium is more important to you than the game itself so
naturally you rebel when your nose is rubbed in it.

cordially, as always,

rm