This is the logic of someone who believes in momentum:
Prediction: Team A has momentum, they will have continued success
Result: If team A wins, my belief in momentum is justified. If team B wins, then I argue that the momentum shifted and therefore the team with momentum won (and my belief in momentum is also justified).
From a rational perspective, the above argument is BS. How can momentum shift? Wouldn't that require team A to not have momentum in the first place? Doesn't having momentum by definition make it impossible to shift? The momentum argument is a logical fallacy.
Now lets look at the stats this series:
When Detroit has a scoring inning, the next team to have a scoring inning is: A's (4 times), Tigers (1 time)
When Oakland has a scoring inning, the next team to have a scoring inning is: A's (5 times), Tigers (3 times)
When Detroit wins a game, the next team to win a game is: A's (1 time)
When Oakland wins a game, the next team to win a game is: A's (1 time), Tigers (1 time)
This means that either there are A LOT of shifts in momentum or that it doesn't exist. Let's assume you still believe in momentum, and you just think it has shifted a lot. Presumably, the only useful purpose of momentum is as a predictor of future success. If momentum changes this much, then it is a terrible predictor of success (you might as well flip a coin).
A. The idea of a shift in momentum is illogical
B. Momentum does not exist or it shifts often
C. Because it changes often, its only purpose (as a predictor) is compromised.
D. Therefore, momentum, even if you believe in its existence, is completely useless.