Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911
I'm familiar with McCracken's article and Bill James' positive take on it. I think some of the points are true indeed. But I also am aware that some contact pitchers have high inning careers of greatness. These sample sizes seem unreasonable to chalk up to sheer dumb luck.
|
The article did have some good points, but I agree that its whole "FIP is all that matters" conclusion is too simplistic and goes too far. And some of the points were really grasping at straws; the quotes from Maddux and Pedro were an especially poor attempt to help prove the merits of the study (of course a long scoreless innings streak will have a lot of luck...what does that have to do with that specific discussion?)
I've noticed that when it comes to sports and gambling, statisticians love to claim as many "this is completely random" findings as they possibly can. A lot of that probably has to do with being the devil's advocate about the general public's often faulty attempts to find reason in trends or insufficient statistics.
And with having such a passion to do so, it's easy for them to go too far in the other direction (and be too quick to dismiss the possible meaning in some numbers)