Dave Cameron of Fangraphs had a good post entitled "Accepting Randomness" in which he used the example of the NFC winning 14 straight Super Bowl coin tosses to illustrate that Dan Haren's .350 BABIP could in fact be dumb luck and not have any cause, e.g., bad mechanics, tipping pitches, etc. that people tend to ascribe in those situations. And that's entirely true. BUT - it's also wrong to assume that his .350 BABIP |STAR|must|STAR| be dumb luck. It might well be, and it might not be. There could be a problem with his location, mechanics, etc. that partially or entirely explains it. I think the more common mistake in our circles is to assume bad BABIP or HR/FB rate is always bad luck. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. The hard part is knowing which is which.

On a related note, we were talking about this on our radio show a few months back, and I started wondering aloud whether the hitting count affected BABIP - after all, if it's truly random, then getting the ball in play on 0-2, should be no different than doing so on 3-1. Todd Zola of Mastersball.com was listening, and emailed us the following chart in real time: (I'm not sure if this is several years of data or just this year, but it's all of major league baseball, so the sample is not that small).

First Pitch 0.305
1-0 Count 0.305
2-0 Count 0.311
3-0 Count 0.315
0-1 Count 0.294
1-1 Count 0.300
2-1 Count 0.306
3-1 Count 0.312
0-2 Count 0.286

1-2 Count 0.291
2-2 Count 0.294
Full Count 0.307

For example, it's .315 on 3-0, and .286 on 0-2. It's .305 on the first pitch. So let's say a guy like Haren (or Aaron Harang, or Dave Bush) gets a rep as an extreme strike thrower - then batters might swing more often at the first pitch, rather than taking a pitch and getting behind. So right there, the pitcher's BABIP would change not on bad luck, but due to a repeatable phenomenon.

Because in the end, nothing is random, i.e., every result has a cause - even the NFC's coin flip streak. The reason we treat that as random is that the cause (the NFC players guessing right, the AFC players guessing wrong, the ref flipping the coin with just so much wrist action) is not likely to be repeatable. But when it comes to pitchers getting hit harder or less hard as they progress through their careers, it's unclear whether the causes are unrepeatable (ball hit at such an angle that it trickles just out of the fielder's reach) or repeatable (pitcher has an almost imperceptibly sprained UCL and has lost some movement or velocity).

Cameron was not saying that Haren's .350 BABIP must be bad luck - only that it might well be. And while I agree with him, I think in our circles it's important to emphasize the other side of it - that while there's a lot of variance in baseball - even over a five-month stretch - sometimes the seemingly anomalous results are due to causes which persist.

In practice, if I know that someone in my league takes the BABIP-and-HR/FB-rate-equals-luck hypothesis as biblical truth, I'll try and deal my "unlucky" guys to them at close to their luck neutral value. And I'll try to acquire those guys whose past performance isn't all that impressive, but who have the underlying physical tools, scouting pedigree and opportunity to get better. Of course, if I were in a novice league, I'd do just the opposite - trade for the guys like Haren with good peripherals and modest cosmetic stats. As Scott Pianowski says - "It's about playing against the bias of your league." But how many of us are really playing in leagues these days where Haren isn't considered a top-25 starter?