Comments on: Getting to know BABIP

By: Rick in Boston

Rick in Boston — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 17:42:35 +0000

I think it’s also good for helping explain why players you see every day are struggling. Like the example above of Cano – his line drives were consistant with his past, but his fly ball rate increased.

By: the most felonious vocalist in the wide world of showbusiness

the most felonious vocalist in the wide world of showbusiness — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:25:56 +0000

I think a lot of people missed one of the more important conclusions of the article, Line Drive % is a terrible way of predicting future BABIP. Even folks who read BP and idolize Bill James often think that LD% is a good way to predict BABIP. It’s not. The previous season’s BABIP is a much better indicator of future BABIP than LD%. So, to say that Nick Swisher’s high LD% was evidence of his unlucky BABIP is false. The article shows us that his 2009 BABIP can be better predicted with his 2008 BABIP than with his 2008 LD%. Of course, there are far more effective ways to predict his BABIP, but those are kind of complicated and the formulas aren’t readily available. But using LD% to predict future BABIP is kind of like using pitcher Wins to predict future ERA.

By: 27 this year

27 this year — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:43:46 +0000

Giambi is a good case. His BA and probably his BABIP was so low because he always hit the ball toward the part of the field with an extra defender.

By: D.B.H.O.F. p.k.a Don Corleone

D.B.H.O.F. p.k.a Don Corleone — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:03:40 +0000

“I am sure you can come up with other examples of how a certain player often makes his outs, and how that is a function of how he can be pitched to and defensed.”

Very true

By: D.B.H.O.F. p.k.a Don Corleone

D.B.H.O.F. p.k.a Don Corleone — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:02:43 +0000

While I am not the biggest stat guy out there, statistics that break down line drives, pop ups, ground balls are very important in understanding the year a guy had if you did not see it first hand day in and day out. As I did not see much of Swisher last year it was interesting to read this.

By: Short Porch

Short Porch — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:48:54 +0000

You forgot the category ‘easily defensed.’ If you are spraying the ball all over the place, that’s one thing.

If you are as predictable on a good percentage of your batted balls, if you are a dead pull hitter for instance, or are easily jammed and just pound the ball to 3B/Shortstop regularly, that will skew the stats.

When Bernie got jammed, he’d hit a lazy two hopper to second, seemingly every time. I am sure you can come up with other examples of how a certain player often makes his outs, and how that is a function of how he can be pitched to and defensed.

By: I wonder how Kobe feels about this … | River Avenue Blues

I wonder how Kobe feels about this … | River Avenue Blues — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:31:04 +0000

[...] (Jeter’s wiki page has since been fixed … h/t Slugger27) [...]

By: Short Porch

Short Porch — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:26:35 +0000

Well all that must have gone down the memory hole since last night.

What remains on Wikipedia is a searing indictment of his defense. They should really hand him a centerfielder’s glove, move A-Rod to short.

Jeter’s defense has been the subject of criticism from a number of sabermetricians, including Bill James, Rob Neyer and the publication, Baseball Prospectus.[22][23][24][25][26] The book The Fielding Bible by John Dewan contains an essay by James in which he concludes that Jeter “was probably the most ineffective defensive player in the major leagues, at any position.”[22] A 2008 study by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania found that from 2002-2005 Jeter was the worst defensive shortstop in the Major Leagues.[27] Jeter responded to this criticism by saying “I play in New York, man. Criticism is part of the game, you take criticism as a challenge.”

I am a Yankee fan to the bone, but Jeter just is not a good shortstop.

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:20:04 +0000

Cano’s case was very strange this year. He had a low BABIP in the first half which really killed his BA then, but it more or less worked itself out because he had a solid second half. He hit .307/.333/.482 after the ASB, and those are essentially his career numbers (.303/.336/.468). I’d, of course, love for his OBP to creep up but I’ll take it if it comes with a high SLG.

What was more interesting about Cano was how low his BA was when he had a high line drive percentage, which one assumes would turn into hits. But, he also had his lowest GB/FB ratio, made up of a career low GB% (grounders turn into hits easier than fly balls) and a career high FB% (his ratio here has been climbing each year, something to keep an eye on). So it seems that Cano was hitting the ball hard at a decent rate but it was going right to people, and the hits just weren’t falling. But on the other hand, he was also getting under the ball a lot more, causing him to pop up more.

By: Evan

Evan — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:03:17 +0000

I agree that particular metrics should be used as premises for a conclusion rather than conclusions in themselves. Also, there are times when there’s more to the discrepancy between expected vs. actual performance than just random variation. That said, it does not eliminate the value of quantifying certain phenomena. These metrics are helpful in discerning things that sense experience may have trouble understanding and thus explaining to others. When done with care, they do a decent enough job to explain much of what we can see with similar extensive observational analysis. Even with the most accurate and precise measurement that one can come up with, there is always a chance that a highly unlikely outcome will come about if given a small enough sample. To say that elimination of luck is needed for a measurement to be worth anything, particularly for something like baseball, is asking a lot.