I think the issue here is that you misunderstand the point of "sabermetric" analysis. If you read Bill James, Baseball Prospectus, Rob Neyer, the Hardball Times, any of them, they will never--NEVER--state or imply that the teams with "the best stats" are guaranteed to win, or that they "should" win.

I'm not generally in the habit of quoting Donald Rumsfeld with approval, but one of his weird formulations about battlefield intelligence somewhat applies here: we have known knowns, known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns. Performance analysis (the phrase I prefer to sabermetrics) fills up the first quadrant. "Intangibles" probably goes in the second, and the other two I leave to the imagination (call it the realm of the Baseball Gods).

That the Tigers beat the Yankees in the ALDS, or that the 83-win Cardinals will raise a flag at their home opener, doesn't invalidate statistical findings or blunt the predictive power of the metrics going forward. It just indicates that you never know what's going to happen. Were that series played a thousand times, I'm pretty confident that the Yankees would have won more than half, maybe up to two-thirds. Were the 2006 postseason played a thousand times, I frankly doubt the Cardinals would have won it more than 20 or so times.

But the unpredictability, the random element, is part of what makes the game so compelling (if at times infuriating). Nobody here--and with the exception of the brilliant Shore, we're all very, very amateur "sabermetricians"--ever takes the deterministic, almost Marxist view you seem to ascribe to us.

Baseball isn't math; there's no surefire formula to predict performance or pick winners. (If there were, Vegas would have found it by now.) But "math" can help one understand baseball. And whether teams understand and act upon a few simple, well-proven concepts--power hitters with patience are more valuable than singles hitters who don't draw walks, high-strikeout pitchers are more likely to achieve success, teams shouldn't overinvest in unpredictable relief pitchers, most players play their best ball in their late 20s, etc--generally determine how well they do over a course of years. That's all we're saying here.

"Very fair analysis and stats can never be discounted, but I believe the point is that it is not the only way to analyze sports.  If that were true, the best teams on paper would win every year, when in fact that often does not happen."

Does the best subjective team win every year?  If what you are looking for is a foolproof method and nobody ever said that they exist.  In fact, the case you illustrate is a perfect example of what we look at as truth.  The best team on paper has a probability to win each game.  The problem is that that probability isn't 100%.  Even the best team has less than a 25% of winning the WS even if they make the playoffs.  

"There are simply too many factors involved in winning a championship to simply look at stats."

I also hate the use of the word "stats" since it refers to all statistics, but that is clearly not what we are talking about here.  The teams with the best sabremetric stats will be the best teams in the league.  On occasion you'll have a 2005 Clevland Indians, but those are anomolies.  

"For instance, if a player is batting .217 but has a slugging percentage of .688 because most of his hits are doubles, triples and homers (Mark McGwire?), is he really helping the team that way?  In some ways, yes.  But I would argue that the low batting average, probable high strikeouts and lack of run production outweighs the benefit of slugging percentage here."

If he is hitting .217 and his OBP is .250, then he isn't likely helping his team as much as his OPS suggests.  However, in the case of Mark McGwire, he is walking a ton and getting on base a ton.  He is likely helping his team a ton as well.  

If you "would" argue that stuff, then why don't you.  Show me how his low batting average equates to a lack of run production?  You may think it makes sense, but that doesn't mean it is true.  See, I want truth here, not perceptions.  And I haven't even said anything about a statistic yet.

"Obviously, guys like Billy Beane have done wonders by focusing on stats like OBPS, but it is not the only factor.  If a blog becomes nothing more than trading stats, what's the point?  Why do you think teams spend so much money on psychological profiles, testing, interviewing and other forms of analysis instead of just looking at stats when drafting/paying for free agents?"

Again, you don't use the term stats correctly.  You presume that any old statistic will do.  No, it is in analyzing the best statistics, arguing why they are so, and then comparing players based on it.  Is it the be all end all?  No.  A player with an OPS of 20 points higher than another player is statistically similiar.  You can then choose which player you want on hair and eye color.  And how much money DO teams spend on this?  Do you know for a fact is it "so much"?  And just because teams do it, are we to believe that is the best way?

"How could the Yankees, with that ridiculous lineup last year, get hammered by the Tigers, who were inferior on paper?  Yes, they had better pitching, but the statistics would probably have favored guys like Jeter, ARod, Sheffield, Matsui, Abreu, Cano and Giambi over guys like Robertson, Rogers and Verlander."

Let me ask you a question.  If the Yankees and Tigers were to replay that series all over again, and you had to pony up 10,000 dollars to bet on one team, who would you bet on and why?  Just because the Tigers won once, doesn't mean they'd win every time.  It's not like the Yankees had a 100% probability to win every game.  Think about this a little analytically.  This falls under the category "Shit happens."

"Part of a blog is to offer opinions, vent frustrations, discuss what you like and don't like about your teams, AND to provide good evidence when discussing an argument.  But if everything is based on science, not only will it be very boring, it won't be very realistic."

Science isn't realistic?  Call Newton, Einstein and Darwin.  Opinions are fine, if you aren't stating a mistruth that many opinions are.  I can opine that the world is flat, but that doesn't mean it is an opinion or true.  And the arguments against statistical analysis are very weak at best.  In fact, I haven't once seen it win.

Btw, if you have gotten this far, two changes that would help out a bit.

1. Paragraphs.  It makes it a lot easier to read.
2. "Reply to this comment" I think it is called that.  It drops your comment below the one you are replying to making it easier to read still.

However, when people clash with "stat geeks" I don't think it's anti-intellectualism. I consider myself a bit of a baseball stat geek, but not nearly to the point of some people. Those uber stat geeks sometimes bother me because I feel they do it at the detriment of enjoying the game. Isn't that what it's really supposed to be about? I just feel like the game can get over analyzed to the point where the fun of watching it gets sucked out...

Same thing happens with terms like sabremetrician.