Fluke year

One thing sad about the steroid scandal is that fluke seasons such as Brady Anderson's 50-homer year seem to be suspect to many. Here's just one example of the 'roids insinuation with regards to Anderson. (Although the author also wrote that Ichiro's ".270 average so far this year [2004] suggests that he won't return to his 2001 form this season either", heh.)

That's sad, the automatic suspicion. While you can probably never predict who's going to have a fluke season, you can say that, with the hundreds of players in the game, the statistical chances of at least one ballplayer a season having a great year for no other reason than pure luck are pretty high. So the question shouldn't be "what are the chances that Brady Anderson would hit 50 homers?", it should be "what are the chances that a ballplayer would do something unusual given his previous career?", given that of course any such unusual thing would be clearly remembered. The probability in the latter question is much, much higher, naturally.

All I'm saying is, sometimes a fluke year is due to external reasons (Norm Cash and his corked bat in 1961), and sometimes a fluke year is just that, a fluke year.

And on that sober note, Happy Valentine's Day one and all!

Posted by Daryl |  Email this post