beltrans_boy wrote: Ok, first of all, don't patronize me. I'd like to have a civilized discussion here.
it's difficult not to get frustrated. we just entirely disagree on your premise that BABIP is fundamental to evaluating hitting. so we are really just talking past each other. wait...it looks like you wrote 2 separate messages. let me see if i can combine this.
beltrans_boy wrote: So if Player A hits a sharp liner to CF and Andruw Jones makes a diving catch to rob him of a base hit, that's not unlucky? I'd argue that it is, especially when you compare it to Player B who knocks a bloop single into CF just over the second baseman's head off the handle of the bat.
Or what about a defensive alignment/shift (say, where the infield is in) that allows a batted ball that would normally be a routine out to become a base hit?
you just destroyed your whole argument for BABIP.
if Andruw makes a diving catch, why would you call that luck?
that argues for BABIP, instead of just a gold glove OF making a routine catch (for him). that's not luck. Andruw's done that for 5 years.
and think of a shift-that's just a manager playing the odds (good ones at that). that's not luck, that's the opposing team doing what's it's supposed to do-prevent hits/runs.
beltrans_boy wrote: Skill takes care of a large portion of batting, but luck does enter into the equation at one point or another. To ignore the factor of fortune is ridiculous.
beltrans_boy wrote: I believe his batting average of .395 is largely the result of luck, yes.
that's fine. actually, based on his BABIP number, his AVG should be higher, so he is unlucky, right? see, this is just noise.
I think it's interesting though that you are thinking about measures of predicting someone's hitting. this actually may be a case where there are better numbers on pitching than on hitting.