You are shooting at a reflection of sabermetricians in a fun house mirror. And ironically, in doing so, you use some of the same ammunition sabermetricians use.

Four points;
1. In referring to luck “evening out”, you are echoing the point sabermetricians make. There is, of course, regression to the mean. Over enough time, that will almost certainly happen. But as you correctly point out, in any one season a player may be more or less lucky. It may even extend over more than a year, although obviously the longer the sample, the more likely it is there will be regression.

Naturally, we are dealing with real people, and not everyone fits neatly into a statistical profile. We are talking about probabilities, about trying to project based on information gathered and interpreted over a long time. We are not ignoring outliers or eccentricities; we are simply not generalizing from them. (I am not using "we" to include myself among sabermetricians, only to represent people who respect their work.)

2. As a matter of fact, sabermetricians are keenly aware of actual balls in play and the speed and arc of pitches and batted balls. There is a great deal of work now being done in tracking such information to see how it affects interpretations of what happens. As you correctly point out, the knowledge is limited right now, but is increasing rapidly. But that has nothing to do with being more comfortable with numbers. The numbers simply are means to make sense of what is happening, but they are based on real events.

3. I cannot emphasize this too much. There is no conflict between sabermetric analysis and scouting; on the contrary they are complements. Of course there are zealots in both camps (camps is a misleading word if it suggests antagonistic groups) who foment that red herring. There are “scouting types” who mock or ignore the advanced statistics and there are pseudo sabermetricians who mock or ignore the scouts. Such silliness is inevitable. But read BP or Baseball Analysts or Hardball Times or any other serious sabermetrically oriented site and you will find regular and heartfelt admiration for scouting insights. As a matter of fact, they often refer to scouting reports, invite scouts to participate in discussions and hire scouting experts for their staffs.

4. This last point is a bit tangential, but it seems to me you use the word “skepticism” quite differently from the way I understand it. In my lexicon, it refers to the willingness to leave viewpoints open to revision, to a disposition to doubt. That does not preclude making assertions or declaring a particular view wrong or misguided. I suppose to be entirely accurate, we should all preface every remark with a statement such as “to this point the evidence indicates that…” and then continue “you are wrong.” But that becomes clunky. The skepticism is implicit in the very approach sabermetricians use which is to ask a question and then seek means to answer it based on more than anecdote or baseball lore. Often, the conclusions vindicate baseball lore, by the way.

So there is nothing contradictory in claiming that sabermetrics is built on skepticism while stating that someone's interpretation is "completely misleading". No more than a scientist, whose entire field is built on skepticism, fiercely defending a position and attacking another. No matter how fiery the rhetoric, we all know that if the evidence requires revision, we will have to change our view. As humans beings, that may be difficult, but it remains the ideal.

As I began, your criticisms attack a fun house mirror image. It finds some cliched distortion of sabermetric thinking as purely number based with no understanding of actual situations or of balls in play while the exact opposite is true. Sometimes the rhetoric gets shrill, a remnant I think of earlier days when sabermetrics was trying to establish itself against the neanderthal (see, now I am doing it) attacks of threatened columnists, but much of that rhetoric has been toned down and all thoughtful fans and baseball insiders share each others insights.