There are some subtleties in the article I might take issue with, but overall I think it does well to highlight how many sabermetricians (including myself) have an understanding of randomness that differs from mainstream, and consequently why many are reluctant to accept some sabermetric principles. And no, sabermetricians (well good ones at least) don't just chalk everything up to randomness without looking for special-cause. It's just that sometimes there's nothing there to see, but many people hate to accept that.