I have been reading in "Baseball Between the Numbers." The last chapter talked about how Mike Redmond has had great success when facing Tom Glaving over his career. Hitting, I think .429 over a span of 48 at bats. But Baseball Prospectus kind of shrugs it off saying that if over the course of an entire career, with Redmond facing Glavine, then he would only hit around .275 which is higher than what the rest of the league has hit. The sample is taken over the course of years too. It isn’t 48 straight at bats. It is realistic to say that Redmond faced Glavine through good and bad. During slumps and hot streaks. If it was how Redmond did the first 48 at bats of a season. Then yes, I would be very suspect.
But what if they are wrong. What if Redmond just owns Glavine? I mean I played baseball and there are certain pitchers that I just saw better. That I had more success hitting. One lefty in particular, in what was a small sample also.
So while I believe it is unlikely that Redmond would hit .429 over his career against Glavine? Yes, very, very unlikely. But is it to far fetched to say that he could hit .300? We are not sure. Sometimes statisitics override actuality, or maybe I should say predictions based on statisitics. But I really enjoy the majority of this book and recommend it to all of you. Of course people who dislike statisitics may enjoy it less, but it may open their eyes a little too.