Is Babe Ruth's statement meaningful? Quote from Babe Ruth:

Every strike brings me closer to the next home run.

As I understand memorylessness, this is meaningless.  For every at-bat, there is a certain probability that he will strike, and there is a certain probability that he will hit a home run, and that's that.  The likelihood of a home run at any particular point in time does not increase as strikes accrue.
However, I have an intuitive understanding of what he means.  Is there some statistically-rigorous way to express it or make sense of it?
Maybe it makes sense for someone looking back on Babe Ruth's career with the benefit of hindsight.  Or, maybe if we imagine an omniscient deity who can see the entire timeline of the universe at once.  The deity can indeed see that, from any particular moment, there are N strikes remaining before Ruth hits the next home run.  Another strike reduces that number to N-1.  So, indeed, every strike brings him closer to the next home run.


Epilogue
If I could go back in time and rewrite this question, I would have omitted all the baseball references and simply described a guy rolling dice, hoping for a seven.  He says, "I'm hoping for a seven, but I'm not bothered when I get something else, because every roll of the dice brings me closer to that seven!"  Assuming he eventually rolls a seven, is his assertion the gambler's fallacy?  Why or why not?
Thanks to @Ben for articulating that this is not the gambler's fallacy.  It would have been the gambler's fallacy if he had instead said, "Every roll of the dice which does not result in a seven makes it more likely that the next roll results in a seven."
The guy didn't make any such statement, and he didn't make any statement at all about probability, merely about the passage of time.
By assuming that there is a seven in his future, we have made it undeniably true that every roll of the dice brings him closer to the seven.  In fact, it is trivially true.  Every second that ticks by, even when he is sleeping, brings him closer to that seven.

As I see it, there are two interpretations to this statement.
The Non-gambler's fallcy interpretation is merely a statement about the deterministic course of events that will occur in the future. In that case, you can index all hit hits that are home runs (i.e. the set $\{k_1, k_2, \dots k_m\}$ where $k_i$ is the index corresponds to his $i$'th homerun (total of $m$ homeruns) out of the set of all his hits. After swinging for his $j$th career ball, for $k_i < j < k_{i+1}$, he is one hit closer to his $k_{i+1}$'th hit, which is a homerun. This is not a probabilistic statement, but a statement that is true if you take a deterministic viewpoint of events.
But, in this interpretation, you could say it's meaningless because the fact that he hit the $j$'th ball has nothing to do with getting closer to his next home run. All that mattered here was the passage of time. You could equally say that sitting at the dinner table, or falling asleep, or sitting in a room and counting to ten also brings him closer to his next homerun.
The gambler's fallacy interpretation would be this:
"After each strike, the expected number of subsequent hits before my next homerun is lower."
This is the Gambler's fallacy, assuming that each hit in isolation has an equal probability and is independent of other hits. (But this is a questionable assumption.) Under this assumption, if the probability of each homerun is $p$, you can calculate that the expected number of swings before the next homerun is
$$
E[\text{number of swings before homerun}] = \sum_{i=1}^\infty i (1-p)^{i-1} p = \frac{1}{p}.
$$
This number is independent of the history of hits, making the statement the gambler's fallacy.
Now, my suspicion is that, if you presented both the interpretations to Babe Ruth, he would suggest that the first interpretation is closer to what he means than the second.
