I don't find the overall end results all that interesting, but when it's broken down into the strategies of WHY those end results happen I find it very interesting. Winning close games is basically how teams win in the playoffs. A good bullpen, defense, and having guys who don't strike out often are intuitively good strategies to win those kinds of games, but I don't know if the stats corroborate that kind of intuition. I did a write up on it in the Broxton days. Our record was highly dependent on K numbers. Games with 3BB or over and 9Ks or under were heavily skewed towards wins vs the contrary. I can't fully grasp the numbers these guys are dealing with but at the time I suggested that MKEs results coupled with the Astros huge shift to get even mediocre filler pieces in the lineup who just didn't K had something to do with an analytical point of saturation where if Ks by game reach a certain point, your offense completely decays. Houston went from nearly a 11-12K team per game to south of 9. We were near 13 for stretches of the year. Having guys who K 200 times is fine as long as its lessened by the whole. Walker, Granderson replacing Villar Broxton followed. Moose, Cain, Gamel are big influencers on that. I don't know how to explain it or why. I just have little doubt the analytics guys keyed in on it for some reason.