Add new comment

Sandy, my point is not that they *were* lucky. They probably weren't. I think the naked eye could tell us that they had skills on that side of the ball. My point is, that if they were lucky, how would you *know*. The variable list is clearly one that you could make a logical assumption should equal out over time. But over how much time? Are we reverse-engineering the metrics and then assuming random factors equal out? Suppose they did not...again, how would you know?
I think it's great that the sabermetric community is attempting to quantify this stuff. Perhaps they're on to something. I just have a hard time believing we can isolate the variables enough to get more than a pretty good correlation. And even then, if there is proof of causation.
I'm not trying to dismiss this in the "it's just to complex, let's not even try" vain. In fact, I would surprised if the ability to isolate some of those variables doesn't improve, with the increasing capability of today and tomorrow's technology. Especially with regard to some of the first on my list, like batted ball speed, trajectory, and positioning. There would be a lot of data to mine, but I can at least visualize some of that happening.