BABIP?!?

[mhuber92211]

So this is often a point of discussion in evaluating a previous season for a player but i don't think I understand its value as a metric and hopefully I am not the only one.

 

To me it would be logical that someone with a high batting average would have to have a high BABIP as well as a high OBP. I understand that it is a way to look to see if the player was somewhat more "lucky" but I don't get how an assumption of a high BABIP means that the player's numbers would be more of a fluke then any other form of measurement.

 

Thanks for the explanation in advance!

[UMFan83]

Well one thing to consider is if a player has an unusually high BABIP for his career numbers. This will overvalue numbers on a year to year basis. For the case of DeRosa, I am under the impression that his BABIP was unusually high last year, leading to the thought that his will regress this year at least slightly.

[BigbadB]

I don't think anything can explain whether a player can repeat what appears to be a flukish season.

 

BABIP is just another one of those stats. I like this one a little bit, because it does show how far off their "luck" factor compared to their average really is.

 

If a guy is consistently within a certain range, when they have a season that's WAY out of range, you can make a strong case that they'll never repeat that, but even that's not foolproof.

[wade]

This is purely my understanding-

 

The way I see it there's a league average for batted balls in play. When a player is way above that leage average, they may come back to earth the next year. It also will sometimes mirror guys who've had a huge spike in their numbers, like Gary Matthews Jr.

 

This is the same with pitchers. Maddux allows a lot of balls in play. If they find people's gloves, great. If they find the stands or gaps, he's in trouble. When he's pitching well (past couple of years), it's usually because his BABIP against is lower than normal.

 

It's why high strikeout pitchers are so desirable, they don't allow the ball in play as much.

[frostwyrm]

This is purely my understanding-

 

The way I see it there's a league average for batted balls in play. When a player is way above that leage average, they may come back to earth the next year. It also will sometimes mirror guys who've had a huge spike in their numbers, like Gary Matthews Jr.

 

This is the same with pitchers. Maddux allows a lot of balls in play. If they find people's gloves, great. If they find the stands or gaps, he's in trouble. When he's pitching well (past couple of years), it's usually because his BABIP against is lower than normal.

 

It's why high strikeout pitchers are so desirable, they don't allow the ball in play as much.

 

HR/9 explains a lot of Maddux's decline. He had superhuman location in his prime, now his location is more like a normal human being's and he occasionally throws mistake pitches that get clobbered.

[wade]

This is purely my understanding-

 

The way I see it there's a league average for batted balls in play. When a player is way above that leage average, they may come back to earth the next year. It also will sometimes mirror guys who've had a huge spike in their numbers, like Gary Matthews Jr.

 

This is the same with pitchers. Maddux allows a lot of balls in play. If they find people's gloves, great. If they find the stands or gaps, he's in trouble. When he's pitching well (past couple of years), it's usually because his BABIP against is lower than normal.

 

It's why high strikeout pitchers are so desirable, they don't allow the ball in play as much.

 

HR/9 explains a lot of Maddux's decline. He had superhuman location in his prime, now his location is more like a normal human being's and he occasionally throws mistake pitches that get clobbered.

 

I agree. I guess the way I'm looking at it is the homers count as hits. If they were just warning track flies, they'd be outs.

 

I know it's not an exact correlation, but that's how I was looking at it.

[wastra]

I just think BABIP can't be looked at in a vaccuum. If a player shows sudden improvement or regression, you can check to see if there has been a dramatice change in BABIP WITHOUT A corresponding increase in OBP relative to AVG (the differential...i.e. he's not being more patient) along with slugging (just hitting it harder this year).

 

It's important because it really takes very little for a guy to go rom .275 to .290 in batting average- it only takes a couple of lucky hits every other week or so to really change numbers, but doesn't really prove that a guy is seeing the ball better or making better contact.

 

 

It's just another tool in a long line of statistical analyses that can help evaluate players.

[Guest]

homeruns don't count as ball in play and are not part of BABIP.

[CoolHandLuke]

Shouldn't you also look at LD% when looking at BABIP? I think it shows luck(unluck) when the player still makes hard contact the same amount but his IP average fluctuates.

[Outshined_One]

This is the same with pitchers. Maddux allows a lot of balls in play. If they find people's gloves, great. If they find the stands or gaps, he's in trouble. When he's pitching well (past couple of years), it's usually because his BABIP against is lower than normal.

 

Actually, there have been studies done on that. Essentially speaking, very few pitchers have shown the statistical ability to be able to control and sustain their BABIP against for any meaningful length of time. Those that can do it have only been able to do that over a relatively short period of time. Moreover, those pitchers are the best pitchers in their prime (Maddux in the mid-90s, Pedro in the late 90s).

 

Pretty much all other pitchers are at the mercy of BABIP.

 

The bottom line with BABIP is to say that everyone eventually regresses to a certain mean. That doesn't mean every .350 hitter is eventually going to become a .250 hitter or whatever. You can have a high average and still have a BABIP within that mean.

[sherwood921]

Shouldn't you also look at LD% when looking at BABIP? I think it shows luck(unluck) when the player still makes hard contact the same amount but his IP average fluctuates.

 

Agree. I believe I recall one of my coaches saying if you hit all line drives you'd hit .800, grounders somewhere around .300 and flyballs around .270. The only problem with line drives is that it doesn't take account hard hit balls. A rocket one-hopper is almost as desirable as a line drive, and in some cases more desirable. Just like a hard hit flyball can result in a hr.

[Derwood]

BABIP is also fluctuating. Did Juan Pierre suddenly become a better hitter in the 2nd half last year, or were more of his "flares" just finding holes? Without looking, I'd say his BABIP spiked in the 2nd half.

[wade]

homeruns don't count as ball in play and are not part of BABIP.

 

Well, then that shows my lack of understanding. I think I'll be at BP for a few minutes.

 

I have the general idea, but I'm need more learnin.

[UK1679666180]

BABIP= H-HR/AB-K-HR

 

HRs are eliminated from the equation.

 

It's an interesting stat, not much value can come from it.

[shawndgoldman]

BABIP is also fluctuating. Did Juan Pierre suddenly become a better hitter in the 2nd half last year, or were more of his "flares" just finding holes? Without looking, I'd say his BABIP spiked in the 2nd half.

 

They sure did. Pierre's BABIP was around .250 for the first few months of the season, and climbed up over .300 in the 2nd half. His career BABIP is .320, but was only .305 last year. The league average is somewhere around .300.

 

As for the general discussion, BABIP is Batting Average on Balls in Play, so it doesn't take into account home runs or strikeouts. Thus, its calculated by (Hits - HR)/(ABs - HRs - K).

 

There are a few things to consider when looking at BABIP:

1) a pitcher doesn't have much control over the % line drives given up, but can control the % of ground balls and fly balls given up. Changing a pitcher's GB/FB ratio will change both his BABIP and his average, OBP, and slugging rates against.

2) a hitter's BABIP doesn't vary much from season to season. A hitter can control the line drive % (ala Jeter), and can also control his BABIP through excellent bat handling (ala Ichiro) or speed (ala Pierre). However, usually a hitter won't improve dramatically in these abilities with time.

3) an anomolous BABIP is usually a sign that the extra hits on balls in play was due to good fortune (or bad fortune or team fielding, for BABIP against). Players tend to not change their abilities with regards to BABIP, just their luck. A hitter with an anomolously high BABIP one season can be expected to have a BABIP closer to their career norm the following year. Likewise for BABIP against with a pitcher.

 

This is all relavent because of Mark DeRosa. His BABIP in 2006 was well above his career average. His BABIP bump comes from an increase in line drive %. If that represents a change in his ability to hit line drives, then we can expect him to produce at or near his 2006 level. If the extra live drive % is a result of friendly scoring of those few lucky hits that found holes (a soft liner to the OF that falls is more likely to be called a line drive than one that is caught), then his production will likely return to his pre-2006 level.

 

Its hard to say what caused his increased LD% in 2006. Only time will tell, i suppose...

 

(OT aside: Derwood, you realize that if OSU and Michigan win their bowl games, and ND and Wisconsin win out, then PSU will have 4 losses, all to teams that will likely end the season in the top 5? I'm a HUGE PSU fan, and think a big win Saturday and a win in the Outback bowl would make this a successful season.)

[Guest]

BABIP= H-HR/AB-K-HR

 

HRs are eliminated from the equation.

 

It's an interesting stat, not much value can come from it.

I think it has more value applied to pitchers than hitters.

[UK1679666180]

Depends, I believe Prior was healthy and productive as well as Randy Johnson in his prime both had BABIPs in the .300s b/c of their high K ratios.

[Guest]

2) a hitter's BABIP doesn't vary much from season to season.

Actually it does when compared to the YTY variance of other offensive metrics. (Though a hitter's BABIP doesn't vary nearly as much as a pitcher's BABIP allowed.) The YTY R-Squared value for the BABIP of hitters is about 0.22, while the same stat for IsoP and IsoD each come to around 0.62. (That's based on a data set of ~ 4000 pairs of player-seasons; every player with consecutive 500+ PA seasons since 1955.)

 

If a player hits with power and/or patience in year A you can predict he'll do the same in year B with a high degree of confidence. You can be far less confident about such predictions about his BABIP, however.

[cheapseats]

Depends, I believe Prior was healthy and productive as well as Randy Johnson in his prime both had BABIPs in the .300s b/c of their high K ratios.

 

????

 

BABIP ignores K's.

[Derwood]

Depends, I believe Prior was healthy and productive as well as Randy Johnson in his prime both had BABIPs in the .300s b/c of their high K ratios.

 

????

 

BABIP ignores K's.

 

right, so as such, 300 K's by Randy Johnson don't count as 0 for 300, they count for 0 for 0. I think he's just explaining why a guy like Prior or RJ has a BABIP against of .300 despite a OpAvg. much lower

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Depends, I believe Prior was healthy and productive as well as Randy Johnson in his prime both had BABIPs in the .300s b/c of their high K ratios.

 

????

 

BABIP ignores K's.

 

That's his point - because they rack up a lot of Ks, they have fewer ABs that they get outs with, so their BABIP will be higher.

[cheapseats]

Depends, I believe Prior was healthy and productive as well as Randy Johnson in his prime both had BABIPs in the .300s b/c of their high K ratios.

 

????

 

BABIP ignores K's.

 

That's his point - because they rack up a lot of Ks, they have fewer ABs that they get outs with, so their BABIP will be higher.

 

But it doesn't work that way. Strikeouts are simply removed from the equation; having a high strikeout total has a very tenuous (if any) correlation to BABIP.

 

Using Randy Johnson and Mark Prior as examples:

 

Randy Johnson's K/9 was 11.2 in 2002 and his BABIP was .292. The next year, his K/9 dropped to 9.5, but his BABIP shot up to .357. In the next season, his K/9 increased to 10.0 and his BABIP went down to .269. In 2005, his K/9 dropped to 8.1 and his BABIP rose to .288.

 

Mark Prior's 2004 K/9 was 9.5 and his BABIP was .333. In 2005, his K/9 was 9.8 and his BABIP was .283. His K/9 dropped to 7.7 in 2006, but his BABIP increased to .298.

 

I'm not suggesting the relationship is the inverse of what has been suggested here; if we were to look at enough data, it would appear that there's no relationship.

 

BABIP is influenced by 1) the defense behind the pitcher and 2) luck.

[UK1679666180]

 

BABIP is influenced by 1) the defense behind the pitcher and 2) luck.

 

Doesn't that make the stat pretty much invalid?

[Guest]

 

BABIP is influenced by 1) the defense behind the pitcher and 2) luck.

 

Doesn't that make the stat pretty much invalid?

 

no, that's the whole point. by reviewing the effect of those two things, you can isolate the other statistics and understand anomalous ERA's or WHIPs etc.

[cheapseats]

 

BABIP is influenced by 1) the defense behind the pitcher and 2) luck.

 

Doesn't that make the stat pretty much invalid?

 

no, that's the whole point. by reviewing the effect of those two things, you can isolate the other statistics and understand anomalous ERA's or WHIPs etc.

 

Yep, what stitch said.

 

BABIP can be a very, very useful tool in evaluating pitchers.