Cleveland was exponentially less likely to win 21 in a row than the Dodgers lose 11 in a row. Simple probability theory tells us it's not even close.
It's really this simple.
CLE by a wide margin here.
Right, except for actual math =).
Sure. But how many 11 game losing streaks have you seen in the history of baseball? Plenty. Maybe much less like with upper echelon teams but you can count the number of teams that have done what CLE just achieved with less than two hands (one depending on how you fall with the tie thing)
Not by the best team in the league. That's the point. If the worst team in the league lost 11 in a row, it wouldn't be a big deal.
The opposite is true, too: A top team is more likely to win 21 in a row than the worst team winning 11 in a row.
Oh for sure. Not denying that. Even said so with upper echelon teams. I just think winning 20+ games (regardless of who you are) is insanely difficult to do in a sport like baseball where the day to day stuff is so up & down in that sport. Impresses me more than losing streaks. Even by good teams.
I'll leave the probability stuff up to you guys. I admit I was taking SL's word as gold there (which is almost always spot on) but seemed sound to me. I just look at the history of baseball and come across far more impressed with what CLE has accomplished that what the Dodgers have blundered the past couple of weeks