I agree with you RR. I always enjoy his posts.
Computer connected directly to the modem
Get to a command prompt. (START, run, cmd). Type "ipconfig /release" (without the quotes). Shut down computer. Turn off computer. Turn off all ethernet hubs/switches. Turn off cable/DSL modem. Leave off overnight. Turn everything back on.
Network with Router
Log into the router's admin console. (Often http://192.168.1.1/) Release the IP address. (Method varies by router manufacturer) Turn off router, ethernet hubs/switches, and the cable/DSL modem. Leave off overnight. Turn everything back on.
If you are using a cable/DSL modem and a router, you may wish to connect your computer directly to the cable/DSL modem. Please note that this could significantly impact your system security. This allows your ISP's DHCP to issue you a new (hopefully changed) IP address based of the (hardware) MAC address of your computer's ethernet card.
If all the above has not worked to change your IP address and you have a router, check and see if there is a "Clone MAC Address" option. Using it should change your IP address; however, you'll only be able to do it once (in most cases).
These will not work in all cases. If all else fails contact your internet service provider (ISP) and ask them if they are able to change your IP address or how long your connection needs to be off for your IP address to change.
It seems to be common sense but, if you care to gain wisdom on the subject, here is a paper based on a statistical sampling of MLB from 1900 - 2002, (2032 team seasons total).
The 2003 Tigers were 43 - 119 and had an above .500 record in one run games.
Apparently you didn't read the article. Record in one run games correlates only slightly to overall winning %. The greater the run differential of the win, the stronger the correlation. The article has graphs which are fairly conclusive based upon 2032 team seasons in 100 years of MLB.
If you think about it, it is really just common sense.
"Tom Ruane and Bill James independently studied team success in one-run games several years ago. Both found that luck was the overriding factor. Quoting from Ruane's 1998 study:
...how a team does one year in close games is absolutely no use in predicting how it will do the next. Things like that are usually called "the breaks of the game" or, more succinctly, luck.And from James' 2002 study:
My conclusion is that winning a lot of one-run games has a persistence of zero (meaning that it appears to be luck) but that losing a lot of one-run games is not necessarily completely meaningless. It's mostly just bad luck, but it doesn't appear to me that it entirely disappears in the following season."
I believe in causality, (and not luck), however there are some systems, such as baseball, whose causes and effects are so complex they can only be analyzed by probabilities. On the microscopic level you are correct. On the macroscopic level, the sabremetricians are correct.
Dusty is not a great baseball tactician but, in the end, I don't think that matters much. I think creating a harmonious clubhouse is more valuable than in game tactics and I think Dusty seems to do that well.
involves having the right pitcher to preserve the lead. Or the right hitter to hit in clutch situations
Which is why having a smart manager can win you games by playing the right matchups as often as possible and having the wisdom to know what to do or what to try.