Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman
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.
Simply not true. Unfounded conclusion from data by guys who have no background in logic. I have seen the data, I have read the reports. This is not something that is new to me.
This is what frustrates me the most about Sabermatricians. They draw conclusions from data, that are possible explanations, and assume that they are the only explanation. They take great data, and are lazy with their analysis of it. Happens on an myriad of subjects. Most of the leading Sabermatricians avoid this, but there are enough amateurs talking about it that it's impossible for fans to know what's accurate and what's not.
I don't want to bore this board with analytic philosophy lessons, so I will stop now and just say we disagree.
BTW, your explanation is very credible. It's just not the only one that's credible, in fact there are dozens that are just as credible.