Last year, Boston led baseball in runs with 878
- They scored 0-1 runs almost one of eight games (20 times)
- They scored 2 runs at almost the same rate as above (18 times)
- They scored 3 runs at a similar rate (17 times)
All in all, while leading baseball in runs scored, they scored 3 runs or less in over a quarter of their games. Due to the large sample of the sport, you can't judge baseball players or teams on individual games, it's too unreliable. Players and team greatness is measured entirely by end of year stats, not in game averages. We evaluate football and basketball players and their greatness by their averages (think Russell Westbrook and the attention he receives for averaging a triple-double) but baseball players are measured for their end of year totals like WAR.
If you want to live and die with a baseball team for 162 games I can't really stop you but even if the Cubs win 102 games, that means for 60 days of the 180 day long regular season, twice a week, two whole months of the six, you're going to be upset about the outcome. You're going to find fault in something. And that's EVEN IF they're one of the most successful teams of recent memory.
I felt that the way last year went (the Cubs steam roll the regular season, face numerous pressures to win in the WS, find a way to do it) would mean that people would give up on the consternation of every game (Omlet's "all or nothing" offense line or "guy X is only hitting sub .200, we need to sit him") but alas, it seemingly hasn't. There is always some hitter struggling, some pitcher who is struggling, whatever it is, you can't let one game or even a month of games get in the way.
