That’s why we call it true talent level; it is “filtered” from outside characteristics. The only way to do that, of course, is to look at a large enough sample size; random variation is exactly why you can’t look at one play on Sportscenter and decide, based on that highlight reel, that Derek Jeter’s a great defender.

Well, not if you expect anyone to care about your defensive evaluations, anyway.

What about playing platoon splits? I can see how micro-managing based on small sample size contexts is folly, but so is making decisions without a player’s skill set and health in mind.

When dealing with probability, it is implied that you are speaking in generalizations. Trying to make adjustments for specific contextual situations, and throwing out the rules of probability in the process, is how you end up with Jose Vidro as your DH.

When Raul Ibanez is facing a LHP, and his shoulder is hurting, and the shellfish he ate for lunch isn’t sitting too well, and he’s got a speck of dust in his eye, he’s not going to perform as the “true talent level” Raul we expect from his career or seasonal averages. Raul is not a .450 slugging “coin” – he has skill sets that are affected by context. If you’re playing poker, and you know that historically your opponent bluffs an average of 70% of the time, do you call his bluff without a second thought of the cards in play? The point is, you can’t just assign someone a “true talent level” derived from an non-context specific average and claim that your “true talent level” is a good representation of probabilities involved in any one event.

Sorry Jeff…I need a Red Bull

Like I saidbefore sign him now before he hits number #600

and why would the Reds get rid of him before he hit 600 for them?

Thanks!