Originally Posted by TheNext44
Anyway, here's one example... the one I have been giving.
These guys were on fire that season, and were unhittable... for that season.
This happens all the time in real life. People get into a grove and excel at something (selling cars, painting, lecturing, picking up women or men, figuring out math problems, doing their laundry...) for awhile, due to hard work and skill. However they are unable to continue this not because of luck or randomness, but because being great is hard to sustain. Especially in baseball, where there is an opponent trying to beat you, and adjusting to your excellence.
This is just one explanations, there are many others.
Just because a guy has one great year at something, but never again, does not mean that it was because of luck, or that it was random.
This sounds like random variance to me. Being so great is not sustainable because there is a luck component to reaching that high level of performance in anything, thus in any of those example, the reason it could not be sustained, was because your usual performance due to one's skills is not good enough and needs the luck component to "get on fire".
In the case of Pedro, he was continuously and consistently utterly dominant for a long period of time in basically ever statistical measure... except BAPIP. So I ask, what was he really controlling to make him so dominant? It clearly wasnt BAPIP. He wasn't on fire or anything during those seasons, he was just ridiculously good. That became his normal level of performance. Unhittable to me means a guy that misses bats, not a guy who does let you hit, but just not hard, because in practice, that has proven to be controlled to only a very very, almost immaterial amount for anyone.