And this is where I believe the entire blog-o-sphere goes off the rails.  BABIP has become the de facto "luck" factor.  Even the most astute analysts and best and brightest minds - (most WAAAAY smarter than I) have accepted so entirely the concept that EVERY pitcher is supposed to - (and will always) run a .300 BABIP.  It's simply not true.  I would argue that you look through the list of washed out MLB pitchers over the last 40 years and you'll see the vast majority of them ran BABIPs severely over the .300 level - and they did it steadily and repeatedly.
The thing is - all TTO analysis of pitchers is designed to completely ignore hits.  The ASSUMPTION is that hits are the purview of the defense - and skews in BABIP are luck or noise or anything BUT skill.
I said *BEFORE* the 2010 season that the problem with Fister was his H/9.  In AAA, when he was actually posting the numbers that GOT him his MLB job - that his Hits/9 were 1.5 HIGHER than *EVERY OTHER SP* at Tacoma. 
I think you're absolutely right - Fister has a "skill" that allows him to run 100 ISO's routinely.  He has a skill that allows him to walk only 2 guys a game. 
BUT ... the *price* for those skills is in "perpetually" running .350 BABIPs. 
Fister has a unique pitcher profile -- which SHOULDN'T play by normal analytical rules.  There aren't enough comps to comp him fairly.  He's Silva/Wang like statistically - but an utterly different pitcher in how he generates those stats.
So, in 2010, he comes up - with a top-flight defense - and throws 11 great starts.  And for those 11 starts runs a BABIP that is unsustainable - (.240 ish).  He gets off the DL and runs sky high BABIPs in his next 17 starts (.350 ish). 
The knee jerk analysis is - "good luck" - "bad luck".  MY analysis - (stated BEFORE he came up), is that .350 was his likely "normal" BABIP.  So, my analysis says - "good luck" - "normal luck".  The league figured out what he does.  And because of his unique game and size he CAN sustain a 100-120 ISO. 
But, since he hit AA, his hits/9 have CONSISTENTLY been about 1.5 hits more than his fellow starters.  The "normal" analysis of hitters says -- if his K-rate climbs and everything else stays the same, the pitcher "should" improve.  But, Fister isn't playing by normal rules.  I would argue that there is actually a linkage - that his BABIP increased for the same reasons that his K-rate increased. 
Just like Silva.  Just like Wang.  Fister gives hitters a unique challenge that they aren't used to facing.  But, if AAA hitters can generate 11 hits per game off him, it's a REAL hard sell to come up with legitimate reasons why MLB hitters are going to do worse.  Remember, Fister is NOT a 20-year old kid, just learning his craft.  He turns 27 this season. 
When you pointed out the height/angle factors that make Fister a unique pitcher, I think you hit the nail on the head.  I think it HIGHLY likely that the same thing that allows him to run 100-120 ISOs is the same thing that is going to make him a career .350 BABIP pitcher. 
I think there are all number of guys that could be more accurately assessed if there wasn't the knee jerk rationalization that ALL BABIP numbers are luck/fluke.  Sexson's collapse - Griffey's - Weaver, HoRam, (Washburn in a positive way) ... and that's just guys that have been through Seattle recently.  The default is to dismiss BABIP and plug in .300 and "pretend" that reality is what would've happened if the .300 BABIP had been the case.
The problem is that for "most" hitters and pitchers, the .300 BABIP is reality.  For most, skews are fluke and luck.  But, for those players where it is NOT luck - where BABIP (good or bad) has become part of the "skill" set -- it is ignored ... typically to the peril of those doing the analysis.
Doug Fister is a .350 BABIP pitcher - the same as Ichiro is a .350 BABIP hitter.  Doug Fister *MAKES* the aggregate opposition turn into Ichiro.  And I believe the analysts fail when they dismiss even the possibility that there are these outlier cases.  Maybe Fister isn't such a case.  But, there is NOTHING in his minor or MLB history that suggests otherwise.  He's been turning opposition hitters into Ichiro for some time.  But, for a couple of months in Seattle, the opposition wasn't wise to the reality.
I believe they are today.  I believe the .350 BABIP is Fister's norm - just as much as the 2-BB and 110 ISO are his norm.  And I think, (sadly), that the masses will continue to plug a .300 BABIP into the Fister equation and keep saying he's better than he is - just as they kept plugging the .300 BABIP into the Washburn equation and saying he was worse than he was.

I think thats the risk with Fister next year. He always ran high BABIPs in the minors too (generally around .340).
In the majors though, Fister's BABIP has regressed to around average. So now we find whether or not Fister has improved to a true talent level around .300 or if the 2nd half is a sign of BABIP regression.

Your comment made me wonder - what WERE Maddux' hit/9 totals in the minors.
Drafted out of HS, Maddux actually had almost 500 innings in the minors. His line: (unfortunately, don't have Ks except for his final 22 innings):
7.9-H/9; 0.3-HR/9; 2.7-BB/9; (7.2-K/9 in his final 27 innings in AAA).
At 7.9 hits a game, Maddux' hit stinginess was something he showed up with straight out of HS.
Mind you, he got beat up a bit in his first 200 MLB innings (over 10 hits per 9), but clearly he wasn't hurt by poor defense in the minors.

I don't have the numbers, but I do believe I have read that BABIP numbers tend to be higher in the minors than the majors.