BABIP?!?

[UK1679666180]

I don't pay any attention to the stat either for hitters or pitchers.

 

 

Unless you have a production rating chart for each of the hitters and pitchers, I can't draw any conclusions from BABIP for a hitter or its impact on ERA or WHIP.

[Guest]

I don't pay any attention to the stat either for hitters or pitchers.

 

 

Unless you have a production rating chart for each of the hitters and pitchers, I can't draw any conclusions from BABIP for a hitter or its impact on ERA or WHIP.

 

its information available to you. if you choose to ignore it, that's your loss. For the life of me I don't understand why anyone in a decision making capacity would ignore useful information.

[UK1679666180]

But, it's not very valid.

 

What does it tell you about a pitcher when he has a higher BABIP and a low ERA?

[Guest]

But, it's not very valid.

 

What does it tell you about a pitcher when he has a higher BABIP and a low ERA?

 

That he could be even better? Of course, that very rarely happens. If a pitcher has a high BABIP and a low ERA, he very likely has a high K rate and/or low homerun and walk rates. I think the corollary is that a pitchers peripherals are a better predictor of their future performance than their ERA in a specific year. BABIP explains why that is the case.

[Guest]

perhaps you are missing the point - BABIP is not a tool you use to judge a pitcher by itself - its a tool to help explain a pitchers performance and predict their future performance.

[UK1679666180]

I'm not judging it by itself, I'm just trying to figure what it adds to any possible conclusion about a hitter's or pitcher's performance.

 

Obviously it involves a luck or bad luck factor (espec. with a hitter), but unless a player has been able to keep that trend thru his career, it'll likely even out obviously.

 

Take Derosa for example, beyond improvements in approach at the plate and XBH ratios, if those two remain similar do you need a spike in BABIP to show that his '06 might've been a fluke?

 

If you're basing a pitcher's performance mostly on ERA, BABIP doesn't need to point out that flaw.

[Guest]

so why is it invalid?

[Guest]

http://baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5709&PHPSESSID=d5e81d894719e8536f0f2fbeeb4845a0

[UK1679666180]

It doesn't show anything. I fail to see anything useful that can come from that stat.

 

I tend to look mostly at BB/9, K/9, HR/9, as well as XBH/9. If I do that, I will have most likely eliminated the need to look at BABIP.

[Guest]

I disagree. its another part of the puzzle. why ignore information that's readily available? Derosa is a perfect example since he really has no meaningful statistics prior to last year. BABIP suggests he played above his level - something to consider. Read the Zito article.

[UK1679666180]

I disagree. its another part of the puzzle. why ignore information that's readily available? Derosa is a perfect example since he really has no meaningful statistics prior to last year. BABIP suggests he played above his level - something to consider. Read the Zito article.

 

But, Derosa did not have a jump in his singles. His statistical jump had to do with his increase in doubles more than anything else. His LD% had a nice increase as well. If it was a jump in singles, I would be more inclined to agree that it was a fluke. He did have a slight increase in BBs as well as Ks, which might have helped his BABIP as well.

 

Obviously, it still can be a fluke but BABIP doesn't indicate that.

[Guest]

I disagree. its another part of the puzzle. why ignore information that's readily available? Derosa is a perfect example since he really has no meaningful statistics prior to last year. BABIP suggests he played above his level - something to consider. Read the Zito article.

 

But, Derosa did not have a jump in his singles. His statistical jump had to do with his increase in doubles more than anything else. His LD% had a nice increase as well. If it was a jump in singles, I would be more inclined to agree that it was a fluke. He did have a slight increase in BBs as well as Ks, which might have helped his BABIP as well.

 

Obviously, it still can be a fluke but BABIP doesn't indicate that.

 

sure it does.

[UK1679666180]

How do explain his increase in DBs? I don't consider hitting DBs has much to do with hitting the ball where the defenders aren't compared to how well he hits the ball.

 

You're not giving the hitter enough credit when you point out his BABIP when the increase has more to do with non HR XBHs moreso than singles.

[Geech]

How do explain his increase in DBs? I don't consider hitting DBs has much to do with hitting the ball where the defenders aren't compared to how well he hits the ball.

 

Why? A few inches can make the difference between a foul ball and a double down the line. For that matter, a few inches can make the difference between a ball that's caught and a ball that rolls to the wall.

 

In the playoffs this year, Tori Hunter's mistake in the field made the difference between a single and an inside-the-park homerun.

[Guest]

that's something to look at - but I still don't see how that makes BABIP invalid.

[cheapseats]

How do explain his increase in DBs?

 

Derosa hit a double in every 29.6 AB in 2005.

Derosa hit a double in every 13 AB in 2006.

Yes, that's an increase.

 

Derosa hit a HR in every 18.5 AB in 2005.

Derosa hit a HR in every 40(!) AB in 2006.

 

Usually when there's an increase in doubles, it occurs because of a decrease in HR's.

 

I'd be happy to have Derosa platoon with Jacque, but it's unlikely that he'll be used in such a fashion.

[Guest]

you're also comparing 520 at-bats to 148.

[cheapseats]

you're also comparing 520 at-bats to 148.

 

Of course. I can't go back in time and make the Rangers give Derosa more atbats in 2005.

 

But if we're going to throw out all data previous to 2006 because he was a part-time player in those years, we can't observe that he had an increase in his double rate, either.

 

I don't understand why UK looks at XBH rather than slugging percentage. SLG% is a better way to judge power than looking at XBH.

[UK1679666180]

Why? A few inches can make the difference between a foul ball and a double down the line. For that matter, a few inches can make the difference between a ball that's caught and a ball that rolls to the wall.

 

In the playoffs this year, Tori Hunter's mistake in the field made the difference between a single and an inside-the-park homerun.

 

There really aren't many cheap doubles in this game, most are obviously hit hard. BABIP accounts for doubles and triples putting too much emphasis on where the defense isn't compared to how hard he hit the ball, that's my beef with BABIP.

 

Derosa hit a double in every 29.6 AB in 2005.

Derosa hit a double in every 13 AB in 2006.

Yes, that's an increase.

 

Derosa hit a HR in every 18.5 AB in 2005.

Derosa hit a HR in every 40(!) AB in 2006.

 

Usually when there's an increase in doubles, it occurs because of a decrease in HR's.

 

'05 was a fluke year as well for HRs, of course you're using HRs in the discussions of BABIP.

 

I don't understand why UK looks at XBH rather than slugging percentage. SLG% is a better way to judge power than looking at XBH.

 

SLG% doesn't isolate singles or HRs from DBs and TRs.

 

that's something to look at - but I still don't see how that makes BABIP invalid.

 

I'm more likely to consider a single not dependent on how hard a batter hit a ball compared to where he placed the single. I can't say the same thing for doubles, obviously no matter how hard you hit the ball, many times it will be hit at someone. But, over time the odds will favor the skill of a hitter (higher line drive %) compared to the essence of using BABIP (luck).

 

If a hitter has similar BB/K, HR, and single ratios but the jump in his BABIP was caused by XBHs while having a higher LD%, I'm more inclined to use luck (BABIP) as the reason compared to he just hit the ball better than he ever had.

 

That doesn't equate to him being able to do so again as well as him not being the answer to the Cubs 2 biggest problems on offense with limited chances to improve it.

[cheapseats]

 

If a hitter has similar BB/K, HR, and single ratios but the jump in his BABIP was caused by XBHs while having a higher LD%, I'm more inclined to use luck (BABIP) as the reason compared to he just hit the ball better than he ever had.

 

Yep, that's pretty much how every analyst uses BABIP. I don't know of anyone who places much emphasis on "single ratios" and XBH's, though. All you really need to do is look at the correlation of line drive percentage to BABIP and compare those figures to the batter's past numbers.

 

I think we're really just arguing over semantics. When most analysts refer to BABIP, they're referring to more than just the statistic itself; they're referring to it in relation to line drive percentage, pop-fly percentage, HR/FB percentage, etc.

 

A good place to check out such stats is The Hardball Times, by the way.

[baseball7897]

 

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

 

Doesn't that make the stat pretty much invalid?

 

Yeah it does.

[Rob]

 

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

 

Doesn't that make the stat pretty much invalid?

 

Yeah it does.

 

Not really.

 

It has no real value in quantifying how good a player has been... true.

 

However, one can easily use BABIP to help predict future success or failure for subsequent years. It's hardly infallible, but an abnormally high or low BABIP typically means the season was a fluke. If it deviates more than a few points from (LD% + .110) then watch out next season.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Count me in the I really wouldn't care if people stopped referring to a player's BABIP group.

[Rob]

Count me in the I really wouldn't care if people stopped referring to a player's BABIP group.

 

Why would you actually want to know less about a player and his chances of future success? I just don't get it.

[imb]

People need to get over thinking that just because a statistic doesn't tell you the whole story, that it is invalid. Statistics are just puzzle pieces, they fit together to give you the big picture.