We think we know, but we really don’t. The truth is that there is very little consistency in baseball, even if you think there is.

Adrian Gonzalez has driven in 90 runs in 10-straight seasons.

Robinson Cano has scored and driven in at least 75-runs in 8-straight seasons.

Max Scherzer has produced at least 230 strikeouts in 5-straight seasons.

Runs of consistency like this are very rare, we all know that. What makes them even more difficult to discern is the fact that we likely misunderstand what the term consistent actually means?

Gonzalez has been extremely effective at driving in runs. However, he is at the mercy of his teammates as well, is he not? He can only drive them in if they are on base. Therefore his “consistency” has a component of personal production but there’s also a dependence on his teammates.

Cano can only score if he’s driven in by his teammates. He can only drive in teammates that are on base. You get it.

Starting to see what I’m getting at here? the “consistent” players have to count on their teammates to have the success they do. Player A may be the same as he always is, offering that consistent effort/approach. It’s not his fault if his teammates let him down, but that’s how many would view it if Player A doesn’t reach his expected totals in categories like runs scored and runs batted in. Wouldn’t be right, but that’s obviously what would happen.

Another significant issue with the term consistency is sample size.

As noted elsewhere in this Guide we often become consumed by small sample sizes. We’ve all done it. You know what I mean. Player B is hitting .215 after two months and since he’s supposed to be a .265 hitter you drop him. Player C has a 4.43 ERA through nine starts, a full run higher than you were expected. Adios to him. We let the smallish sample size warp our opinion on players (the prime example of this mistake is what Joey Votto did last season going from crap early to superstardom late). We often jump to the final chapter of the book without reading the main body of it. Understand that even a full season of work, say 500 at-bats, isn’t always enough time for things to “even out” or “level off.” You have to play the long game sometimes, so don’t forget that when it’s mid-May and your previously consistent pitcher is sucking eggs.

How about the idea that we’re looking at the wrong things when we measure consistency as we’re often more concerned with the end result than the parts that make up the result? Remember back at the top when I referred to Scherzer’s run of 230 strikeout seasons? What if just 45 more of the 900 batters he faces in 2017 put the ball in play than they did last year? If that happens, and Scherzer doesn’t up his strikeout rate, it’s possible he won’t reach 230 strikeouts again (that’s barely one extra guy per start putting the ball in play). What if Scherzer, in this example, executes his pitches in the exact same manner as last season? Same usage rates, same targeting of pitches, same pitching sequencing. What if he does everything the same yet the batters make changes that result in a dip in the strikeouts which will be read as a loss of consistency from the righty? Is it really Scherzer’s fault that the strikeout total fell? Is it? Would you still grant him the title of consistent? I’d take odds that you wouldn’t.

Another example:

Let’s talk homers. Let’s say that you draft Nelson Cruz expecting 40 homers. He’s hit 40, 44 and 43 the last three years so it seems totally reasonable to expect another 40 in 2017. After all, he’s the most consistently elite homer hitter in baseball the last three years. If he hits 34 homers in 2017 has he been “consistent”? The answer will likely lie with how you view the term. For the fourth year in a row he will have hit 34 homers, a rather remarkable achievement. That’s consistent. However, would you agree with that position or not when speaking of his 2017 effort? I’d likely say you wouldn’t. Let’s bring it to the real world. Over the course of six months and 162 games, Cruz hits 34 homers instead of 40. That means he was off expectations by about 15 percent. That’s not very consistent. Or is it? Think of it like this. Over the course of six months he hit one fewer homer a month. That’s one fewer homer per 27 games or one fewer homer per 100 at-bats. Is losing one big fly per 100 at-bats really something you can hold against Cruz? Is he really inconsistent if he loses six homers then? I’d say no. You might disagree.

Be cautious what your expectations are when you think of or use the word “consistency.” The path to reaching that goal may not be as obvious as you think it is.