Oh, I totally agree with you. But SF honestly believes, as many do, that from a pure mathematical standpoint that past events have an impact on future events, and it would be a disservice to readers to allow the myth to be perpetuated.
If you want to say the Nats are likely to lose a game because Detwiler's puking and the bullpen is tired, have at it. Just don't say we're "due", because we've won so many in a row. That's simply not correct.
1. I heard Chris Keith, CIO of the NY Stock Exchange, explain the great crash of 1987 or so. The Exchange found that if trade 1 was a "buy", there was a 75% change that trade 2 would be a "buy". And if trades 1 and 2 were buys, there was about a 90% chance that trade 3 would also be a buy. Keith's explanation? The big firms were using computer systems as probes to tell them to buy or sell. Often they were "arbing" the real stocks in NY against a futures contract in Chicago. With an automated execution system -- it's called the Designated Order Turn-around (DOT) -- firms can fire off orders, now, in .2 seconds or less. Key: all the systems were observing pretty much the same data.
That's an explanation of how one event can influence the next event.
2. No such connection exists in baseball. Teams might be tired from a flight, pitchers might have control-trouble, or batters might hit right at fielders. The only carry-on element might be team morale. Teams might put out less effort, teams might be fired up, but that effect is feeble compared to what the NYSE observed.