And there, perhaps, is the flaw in sports sometimes...is the purpose to show which team has better skills, or are the skills just a means of scoring points. Last night the Pirates had better hitting, better pitching, and (with the exception of one bad play in the 9th) better fielding. There's no denying they were the better team overall...but that really didn't matter because they didn't actually turn them into runs. Does this mean there's a flaw in the game (i.e. runs don't measure skill therefore they're irrelevant)? Maybe...but it could also be that skills are simply "suggested behaviors to achieve runs". Focusing just on hits, runs, first-downs, time of possessions, pitches thrown, ice time, might make for great talking points on TV, but they're really just constructs to keep us occupied in pursuits of runs, goals, points, baskets, or touchdowns.
In many way, I see school like this baseball game...it's possible to have the skills, but not be able to earn the points. The grades serve as a construct to measure skills but not always accurately. Having skills might lead to higher grades, but it doesn't always translate. That's an argument that's been used for years to complain against standardized tests and traditional grading structures. But perhaps, that's not the problem at all. Perhaps it's the skills that are irrelevant...it should be about what the skills lead to. With all the Keystone test-prep, and curriculum re-writing, we're focusing so much on skills, we're forgetting what the skills should really be for. Literary devices, computation, grammar, spelling, dates and times...all good stuff, but these "skills" are just in service to the results. The results, of course, vary by person, including making money, interacting with people, solving problems, completing research, etc.
So the Pirates lost, because in the end, as much as we'd like to think it, stats and skills don't matter unless they serve to create points. Points are dumb...but they were here first. The game is to get as many as possible.