Some here have judged some players too quickly, so those (not all the same people, BTW, a point you elide) who would give up on Balfour are judging him too quickly? Sample size is a concept that goes against human perception, so it will be something that baseball fans will always struggle with. If a batter looks horrible for a week, how could he possibly be good? If a pitcher we are otherwise unfamiliar with comes up and stinks up the joint, he can't possibly be good. I bet if you thought back at the generalizations you've made about a player based on small samples, you were probably wrong about as often as you were right. The problem is, it's difficult to stay objective when trying to self assess in that situation, however. It's a small sample, but it is a sample, and sometimes extremity trumps sample size. It's a factor, of course. But when you are talking about 3 IP, it's easy for luck (if that's what caused Balfours's troubles.. I don't really know, of course) to trump skill. It's like saying Gwynn's first 36 AB were So good that they couldn't possibly have been a result of luck. In reality, the sample was so small that it allows for the possibility of very extreme outcomes. The calculations take it all into account. If you are interested in more information, shoot me a message.