Stewart/Dewitt swap?

[Guest]

So your contention is that Headley is his normal self in Petco park, and then becomes some hyper-inflated version of himself in every other ballpark? What luck then, he should come to the Cubs, where he can spend 159 games a year as super-Headley!

My contention is that his road numbers are artificially inflated by an unsustainable BABIP, perpetuating a myth that he'll continue to be an .800 hitter outside of PetCo.

 

So Headley's performance at every other park over 1000+ PAs is the outlier, and will regress to his performance in one of the most pitcher friendly parks in the game, which is the expected norm.

[davearm2]

So your contention is that Headley is his normal self in Petco park, and then becomes some hyper-inflated version of himself in every other ballpark? What luck then, he should come to the Cubs, where he can spend 159 games a year as super-Headley!

My contention is that his road numbers are artificially inflated by an unsustainable BABIP, perpetuating a myth that he'll continue to be an .800 hitter outside of PetCo.

 

So Headley's performance at every other park over 1000+ PAs is the outlier, and will regress to his performance in one of the most pitcher friendly parks in the game, which is the expected norm.

Not sure why this is so hard for you to understand. Headley's BABIP on the road is anomalous and isn't sustainable, and thus is due for some regression. Conversely, getting outside of PetCo should boost his home BABIP a bit.

 

If we take Headley's career stats and adjust the home BABIP up from .297 to .320, and the road BABIP from .374 to .320, his career OPS becomes .699.

 

If we adjust both to .310 (the upper range of what's considerered a "normal" BABIP), then his career OPS becomes .684.

 

If we adjust both to .334 (LD% + .140), then his career OPS becomes .722.

[sneakypower]

Not sure why this is so hard for you to understand. Headley's BABIP on the road is anomalous and isn't sustainable, and thus is due for some regression. Conversely, getting outside of PetCo should boost his home BABIP a bit.

 

If we take Headley's career stats and adjust the home BABIP up from .297 to .320, and the road BABIP from .374 to .320, his career OPS becomes .699.

 

If we adjust both to .310 (the upper range of what's considerered a "normal" BABIP), then his career OPS becomes .684.

 

If we adjust both to .334 (LD% + .140), then his career OPS becomes .722.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_f3SZ5Tu916o/SkoaZ7qiwZI/AAAAAAAANb4/HejDI2CTVpM/s400/DoubleFacepalmRickerPicard.jpg

[davearm2]

So lame. If you've got a critique or can show me what I've done wrong, then by all means let's hear it.

 

Otherwise you come off looking like a lemming that thinks my analysis must be flawed but has no idea why.

Edited December 5, 2011 by davearm2

[Guest]

Not sure why this is so hard for you to understand. Headley's BABIP on the road is anomalous and isn't sustainable, and thus is due for some regression. Conversely, getting outside of PetCo should boost his home BABIP a bit.

 

If we take Headley's career stats and adjust the home BABIP up from .297 to .320, and the road BABIP from .374 to .320, his career OPS becomes .699.

 

If we adjust both to .310 (the upper range of what's considerered a "normal" BABIP), then his career OPS becomes .684.

 

If we adjust both to .334 (LD% + .140), then his career OPS becomes .722.

 

Didn't you just contend that it shouldn't? Kind of makes me question your credibility on this whole thing.

[SouthSideRyan]

There is no "normal" BABIP for hitters.

[davearm2]

Not sure why this is so hard for you to understand. Headley's BABIP on the road is anomalous and isn't sustainable, and thus is due for some regression. Conversely, getting outside of PetCo should boost his home BABIP a bit.

 

If we take Headley's career stats and adjust the home BABIP up from .297 to .320, and the road BABIP from .374 to .320, his career OPS becomes .699.

 

If we adjust both to .310 (the upper range of what's considerered a "normal" BABIP), then his career OPS becomes .684.

 

If we adjust both to .334 (LD% + .140), then his career OPS becomes .722.

 

Didn't you just contend that it shouldn't? Kind of makes me question your credibility on this whole thing.

It should. I misspoke.

[XZero771679666304]

There is no "normal" BABIP for hitters.

 

Yes, but some people can't process the concept of gray area.

[sneakypower]

So lame. If you've got a critique or can show me what I've done wrong, then by all means let's hear it.

 

Otherwise you come off looking like a lemming that thinks my analysis must be flawed but has no idea why.

YOU'RE ACTUALLY SAYING "hmm, that road avg. doesn't look quite right, let's arbitrarily just take away 15% of his hits"

[treebird]

this guy seems smart, let's let him write front page articles

[Yeti]

wow

[davearm2]

There is no "normal" BABIP for hitters.

Fine. Average.

[davearm2]

So lame. If you've got a critique or can show me what I've done wrong, then by all means let's hear it.

 

Otherwise you come off looking like a lemming that thinks my analysis must be flawed but has no idea why.

YOU'RE ACTUALLY SAYING "hmm, that road avg. doesn't look quite right, let's arbitrarily just take away 15% of his hits"

Except it's not arbitrary at all. It's specifically aimed at correcting an anomaly in the data.

 

That's the whole point, actually... trying to see what Headley would be if he was neither lucky nor unlucky, and if his home ballpark was neither hitter-friendly nor pitcher-friendly.

Edited December 5, 2011 by davearm2

[Sammy Sofa]

There is no "normal" BABIP for hitters.

 

Yes, but some people can't process the concept of gray area.

 

Well done.

[javy knows my name]

wow

[mul21]

So lame. If you've got a critique or can show me what I've done wrong, then by all means let's hear it.

 

Otherwise you come off looking like a lemming that thinks my analysis must be flawed but has no idea why.

 

You're not going to account in any way for the balls that were outs at PetCo that would turn into home runs somewhere else (i.e Wrigley)? I'm not going to take the time to look at numbers, but just leaving that part out makes your analysis flawed.

[Guest]

Except it's not arbitrary at all. It's specifically aimed at correcting an anomaly in the data.

 

That's the whole point, actually... trying to see what Headley would be if he was neither lucky nor unlucky.

 

Given the sample size involved, how can you realistically call that an anomaly?

 

 

BTW - him having a higher than average (of all players) BABIP is not necessarily an indication of good luck.

Edited December 5, 2011 by David

[SouthSideRyan]

There is no "normal" BABIP for hitters.

Fine. Average.

 

Who cares what average BABIP is? He's not a pitcher.

[mul21]

So lame. If you've got a critique or can show me what I've done wrong, then by all means let's hear it.

 

Otherwise you come off looking like a lemming that thinks my analysis must be flawed but has no idea why.

YOU'RE ACTUALLY SAYING "hmm, that road avg. doesn't look quite right, let's arbitrarily just take away 15% of his hits"

Except it's not arbitrary at all. It's specifically aimed at correcting an anomaly in the data.

 

That's the whole point, actually... trying to see what Headley would be if he was neither lucky nor unlucky.

 

It may be aimed at correcting it, but you're way off because you either didn't use a specific methodology or just failed to explain it. Therefore, yes, it's completely arbitrary. How did you come up with the numbers? How do you know Headley isn't a guy who can sustain a .340-.350 babip in a relatively neutral park?

[Yeti]

Except it's not arbitrary at all. It's specifically aimed at correcting an anomaly in the data.

 

That's the whole point, actually... trying to see what Headley would be if he was neither lucky nor unlucky.

 

Given the sample size involved, how can you realistically call that an anomaly?

he's just making stuff up at this point and calling it statistical analysis

[Butterscup1679666578]

i hate these last two pages so much

[davearm2]

Except it's not arbitrary at all. It's specifically aimed at correcting an anomaly in the data.

 

That's the whole point, actually... trying to see what Headley would be if he was neither lucky nor unlucky.

 

Given the sample size involved, how can you realistically call that an anomaly?

Because everything we know about BABIP suggests it is an anomaly.

[Guest]

Except it's not arbitrary at all. It's specifically aimed at correcting an anomaly in the data.

 

That's the whole point, actually... trying to see what Headley would be if he was neither lucky nor unlucky.

 

Given the sample size involved, how can you realistically call that an anomaly?

Because everything we know about BABIP suggests it is an anomaly.

 

Some players' abilities are such that they'll lean toward having higher BABIP's than "average," just as others have skillsets that will lead to lower ones. After a certain amount of PAs, it's pretty fair to peg a player as one of those guys.

[davearm2]

So lame. If you've got a critique or can show me what I've done wrong, then by all means let's hear it.

 

Otherwise you come off looking like a lemming that thinks my analysis must be flawed but has no idea why.

YOU'RE ACTUALLY SAYING "hmm, that road avg. doesn't look quite right, let's arbitrarily just take away 15% of his hits"

Except it's not arbitrary at all. It's specifically aimed at correcting an anomaly in the data.

 

That's the whole point, actually... trying to see what Headley would be if he was neither lucky nor unlucky.

 

It may be aimed at correcting it, but you're way off because you either didn't use a specific methodology or just failed to explain it. Therefore, yes, it's completely arbitrary. How did you come up with the numbers? How do you know Headley isn't a guy who can sustain a .340-.350 babip in a relatively neutral park?

I did use a specific methodology, but it is true I didn't explain it fully because it'd be exceedingly boring and tedious. If you'd like me to, I would be happy to.

 

I don't know of any reason to believe Headley will deviate from usual BABIP trends going forward.

[SouthSideRyan]

I don't know of any reason to believe Headley will deviate from usual BABIP trends going forward.

 

Besides his previous performance over a decent sized sample.