Talk:1972 in baseball

Baseball High‑importance

	Baseball portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Years

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

1972 baseball strike was just created and belongs here somewhere, I would imagine. gren グレン 07:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logical fallacy in article

There is a logical error committed in two places in this article. Twice it claims that since the lost games were not made up it effected who won the AL East Division (Detroit instead of Boston). Wrong, wrong, wrong, for two reasons. One, even if the extra games had been played, Boston still might have lost, perhaps by even five games, so the elimination of the extra games by itself did not prevent Boston from winning the division. I forget the name of this type of fallacy (I want to say Hasty Conclusion, but I'm sure that's wrong) where one assumes that the same conclusion would have happened even if the earlier event had been different. Secondly, suppose a starting pitcher walked the first batter and then retired the next 27 batters. You can bet your last dollar that somebody will say something like, "If only he had gotten the first batter out - he would have had a perfect game!" No, no, and NO! You can't assume that's the case, because if he had gotten that first batter out, he might have then given up 10 more hits and not gotten out of the first inning. In other words, you can't assume that because an antecedent event hadn't occurred, that everything else that happened after it would have still happened the way it did.

Having said all of that (you still reading this?), I won't delete it or change it. Maybe someone else will. However I may change some other parts, since there are certain statements that violate NPOV. __209.179.14.48 (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]