Except, in this case, inconclusive does back me up. The assertion is that you "need" an ace to win the World Series. Or that that is the magic ingredient. Inconclusive data means that opinion is not correct, it's not well-founded. I reject that notion precisely because the data suggests it's wildly overblown and not nearly as important as it is made out to be. Again, your last two lines made the point I made earlier - all you're really saying is that you prefer having elite talent over not having it. Well, yeah, I think we can all agree to that. But having an elite pitcher is a guarantee of nothing and a requirement to win nothing. So you're mistaking my argument to suggest I believe we shouldn't have an ace. I'd love for us to trade for, sign, or develop an ace. What I reject is the notion that getting one is the most necessary component of winning a title. You'll note we had one of these for most of our playoff failures and we barely managed to win games much less titles. That doesn't mean the problem was Johan Santana, it just means the notion that having someone like him is the solution to playoff struggles is preposterous. The only real solution to playoff struggles is having a whole lot better luck to go with as many elite talents as you can muster together.