If you write exactly the opposite of what Jacko writes, then you're undervaluing your success rate if you're using a mere 95% as your accuracy. Don't be modest.
But the problem is that hypothetically, he didn't necessarily had to be worse, maybe he sprayed balls everywhere and hit doubles like a mo-fo.
Get my drift?
It's always been said that BA is a flawed stat but it can be used to back up certain parts of your argument, but you can never use it as the basis, again, you're better than that, please don't make stuff up.