Wearing "Red" has done squat for the likes of the Washington Redskins, the Chicago Blackhawks and the KC Chiefs and IIRC the 49ers wear red too and they're not exactly a powerhouse of late. And the new Washington Nationals wear red and they suck.
In the animal world, the last I looked lions and hyenas aren't "red" and no other animal screws with either. Then we have the tiger, both Siberian and Bengal variety and they aren't "red". Then there's the BLACK Mamba and Anaconda and they aren't red., etc, etc, etc...
If I paid for this 'study' I want a refund. There's no cause and effect here. 'They' might as well have said that all athletes won, or the toughest animals were all born on days with with a 'y'.
They're a game out of first in the NL East, and 1.5 games out of the Wild Card spot. Suck, they do not.
I think the thrust of the study is "all else being equal, red helps". No talent can not be made up for by wearing red, but for two equal competitors (or close to equal) red may help.
"They're a game out of first in the NL East, and 1.5 games out of the Wild Card spot. Suck, they do not."
In case you did not see this post I wanted to draw attention to your error, Condor51.
Leave the new Nats alone in your assessments. Give them time to find out that they have a home and we shall see. Right now they are just dandy and the stadium is more filled than most in any league just for emphasis.