Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
I thought a pitcher's BABIP could be indicative of his ability to induce weak contact and therefore having a higher one than typical could indicate he was not pitching as well as before and not just random bad luck.
Anyhow I guess his bad luck just disappeared the day he was sent to Houston and his BIP then dropped by over .3 for the rest of the season. Just regression to the mean, inconsequential.
|
Yeah Peter, I vaguely seem to remember someone on here posting about how they used that same statistic to declare that Spahn was just lucky and not so great a pitcher. Good thing his luck didn't last for more than 363 wins or 20 or so successful winning seasons. Otherwise, people might actually begin to question the infallibility of such a statistical measure and the thoroughly conclusive answer that can be gleaned and ultimately drawn from it in regards to something as readily and objectively measurable as the level of Spahn's luck. But of course, we all know that a loss of faith in statistical infallibility would never happen, especially when such a conclusive and non-arguable determination of Spahn's luck is drawn from such totally unbiased and all-inclusive statistical and intangible data by qualified data scientists in their unrivaled capacity and knowledge, the results of which they so unselfishly bestow upon and honor us with. For without them, we, the unknowing minions, would truly be in the dark. But fortunately for us, we have our beloved statisticians and data scientists to instead smile down upon us with their sage and benevolent wisdom, and lead us unto the light! Amen.
(Shoot! Did I just cross a line and post something religious? If so, my apologies, no offense meant to anyone............well, almost!
)