I pretty much agree. Baseball is a complex game at the major league level. Especially now with all the analytical and game-planning stuff.
The "cheating" element can't be overlooked either-detecting pitch-tipping and stealing signs. That has become huge, for better or worse.
But on the Yankee thread you just said that the Yankees beat the Twins because they're the Twins, and that the Yankees over-reliance on bullpen contributed heavily to them losing to the Astros - implying that luck had little to do with either result.
We've mentioned possible issues with his ability to play the position and injuries (back, Lisfranc).
There's a pretty good chance he's a goner anyway, rendering all this a moot point.
Greinke's payroll cost is not a killer. He's on the books for 2 years at a net AAV of about 24 mill per year after Arizona's contribution of 10.33 mill.
Also woth noting is that Verlander's deal expires in 2021 just like Greinke's.
There are two possible downsides. One is he's not a good first baseman. The other is he's more subject to injury.
Pretty much the same as they were for David Ortiz. Although Ortiz was a decent first baseman when he played.
But how can there can be bias collecting batting averages and ERA's?
Some of this stuff is purely objective.
And if it's 'cherry-picked', a reader with any baseball IQ can see that and respond accordingly.
In the 1966 World Series, Baltimore beat the Dodgers by scores of 5-2, 6-0, 1-0 and 1-0.
Not only did the Dodgers never have a lead, or a tie other than 0-0, they didn't score a run in the last 33 innings.