Clearly my last post wasn't clear enough yet. I was not trying to dismiss offensive design. My point was the first step is to uncover if there is a potential issue. I believe I have done that. The second step would be to further evaluate that issue to see if there is a way to minimize it. So the next step would be to evaluate OBP and see if it does or does not correlate to run scoring variance.
If it doesn't then perhaps there is some other factor to look at. Or perhaps it isn't related to offensive construct. But if it does then there would be some evidence that the all or nothing offense has some issues that reduce Ws.
So I apologize for not being clear. I was just trying to determine if there was any foundation for an issue that my eye test told me that high variance (which the O's have) was a problem. Now that I have satisfied myself that they do indeed have high variance it begs further evaluation.
Its really Systems Engineering 101. No need to dig to what you suspect is the ultimate factor right out the gate. Start at upfront premise and see if there is anything there or not. If you find that your original premise wasn't really an issue then you can stop digging and spending resources on a non issue.
At this point really the next step if I was doing a systems evaluation would be to look at other teams and see if there are other teams with high variances and how that has impacted their Ws and Ls. Then I would know I was really onto something (and its more my interest and curiosity. I suspect MLB data guys have looked at this in depth). I am not suggesting at all that I have thought of some new thing.