|
|
Big League Angels
Posts: 1018
| In my opinion. To discredit BABIP entirely is idiotic, but so is basing a player based off of BABIP. This is just another tool that looks beyond the standard statistics. I wonder if there was this kind of debate when WHIP was established. |
|
| |
|
| Chilidaviseyez - 6/15/2009 4:11 PM IEBRUIN - 6/15/2009 4:07 PM Trying to catch up to a 100mph heater that is this thread will take time. Please. A thread titled BABIP is a hanging curve during a hot day game at New Yankee Stadium.
And yet, Tex struggled early in the season. It happens!!! |
|
| |
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 16907
| IEBRUIN - 6/15/2009 4:14 PM
Chilidaviseyez - 6/15/2009 4:11 PM IEBRUIN - 6/15/2009 4:07 PM Trying to catch up to a 100mph heater that is this thread will take time. Please. A thread titled BABIP is a hanging curve during a hot day game at New Yankee Stadium.
And yet, Tex struggled early in the season. It happens!!!
f'n Hatcher |
|
| |
|
Location: Earth | Seriously considering printing each page of this thread in color, laminating it, and passing it out to each of my employees, then issuing a quiz on it Friday. |
|
| |
|
Hall of Famer
Posts: 22687
Location: AngelsWin.com: Where Angels Fans Are @ | Adam - 6/15/2009 4:23 PM Seriously considering printing each page of this thread in color, laminating it, and passing it out to each of my employees, then issuing a quiz on it Friday. This would be the look on their faces after they've skimmed over the pages.  followed up by a 
|
|
| |
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 5134
| I have a BABIP after reading this thread (big ass bulge in pants) |
|
| |
|
| Locking Thread |
|
| |
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 9890
Location: Along the mother road. | dochalo - 6/15/2009 4:34 PM I have a BABIP after reading this thread (big ass bulge in pants) It was the thought of Adam and the thong, wasn't it?
|
|
| |
|
| Unlocking Thread.
doc? |
|
| |
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 5134
| Chilidaviseyez - 6/15/2009 4:35 PM
dochalo - 6/15/2009 4:34 PM I have a BABIP after reading this thread (big ass bulge in pants) It was the thought of Adam and the thong, wasn't it?
 |
|
| |
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 7328
Location: My Own Private Idaho | Chilidaviseyez - 6/15/2009 4:35 PM dochalo - 6/15/2009 4:34 PM I have a BABIP after reading this thread (big ass bulge in pants) It was the thought of Adam and the thong, wasn't it?
Chili isn't mailing anything in today. He's got his Kobe game on! |
|
| |
|
All-Star
Posts: 3749
| IEBRUIN - 6/15/2009 3:01 PM
And anyone can be a closer.
Can closers be comedians?
See Justin Spiere |
|
| |
|
| So the answer is no? |
|
| |
|
All-Star
Posts: 3749
| Lifetime - 6/15/2009 3:07 PM
Fan Strong - 6/15/2009 3:01 PM
Lifetime - 6/15/2009 2:55 PM
So, BABIP is valuable to know why again?
Why not? Why is batting average valuable to know? Or OBP? Or SLG?
Besides, you can use this metric to spot who is getting lucky and who isn't. It's a good thing to use when you're about to give out a huge contract to a pitcher or hitter. If a hitter with a .300 career BABIP suddenly has a .400 BABIP in his contract year (or any year for that matter ), you see that the hitter got lucky and isn't going to repeat it again.
If the Angels did that with GMJ, and weren't relying on hope (as Stoneman believed some players "figure" it out later, and compared GMJ to some player who finally starting hitting in his mid-30s ), they'd realize that GMJ's numbers were inflated because of a BABIP that didn't match anything he did before. The Angels would be $50 million dollars richer and wouldn't have a disaster on their hands.
Same can be said for pitchers. If a pitcher suddenly has a .250 BABIP in their contract year (or any year ), you can see that the pitcher got lucky and isn't going to repeat it again.
It can be useful if used properly.
yes because observation and looking at available standard stats just doesn't give you that insight. I don't think many here though GMJ would reproduce the year he had before being signed as an Angel. We didn't need BABIP to tell us that. Well, most of us didn't anyway.
You should've told the infallible Bill Stoneman. |
|
| |
|
All-Star
Posts: 3749
| IEBRUIN - 6/15/2009 4:57 PM
So the answer is no?
Would someone please think of the illegitimate children of Pujols? |
|
| |
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 16907
| AngelsLakersFan - 6/15/2009 4:59 PM
Lifetime - 6/15/2009 3:07 PM
Fan Strong - 6/15/2009 3:01 PM
Lifetime - 6/15/2009 2:55 PM
So, BABIP is valuable to know why again?
Why not? Why is batting average valuable to know? Or OBP? Or SLG?
Besides, you can use this metric to spot who is getting lucky and who isn't. It's a good thing to use when you're about to give out a huge contract to a pitcher or hitter. If a hitter with a .300 career BABIP suddenly has a .400 BABIP in his contract year (or any year for that matter ), you see that the hitter got lucky and isn't going to repeat it again.
If the Angels did that with GMJ, and weren't relying on hope (as Stoneman believed some players "figure" it out later, and compared GMJ to some player who finally starting hitting in his mid-30s ), they'd realize that GMJ's numbers were inflated because of a BABIP that didn't match anything he did before. The Angels would be $50 million dollars richer and wouldn't have a disaster on their hands.
Same can be said for pitchers. If a pitcher suddenly has a .250 BABIP in their contract year (or any year ), you can see that the pitcher got lucky and isn't going to repeat it again.
It can be useful if used properly.
yes because observation and looking at available standard stats just doesn't give you that insight. I don't think many here though GMJ would reproduce the year he had before being signed as an Angel. We didn't need BABIP to tell us that. Well, most of us didn't anyway.
You should've told the infallible Bill Stoneman.
Infallible? I don't know that Stoneman |
|
| |
|
All-Star
Posts: 3749
| That's the handle he uses to post on here. |
|
| |
|
Orem Owlz
Posts: 116
| The following link is to a very good article that explains the basics of BABIP as well as provides some more in-depth research regarding BABIP for hitters.
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=8932
The most important thing to realize about BABIP, as has been stated many times in this thread and misinterpreted, is that it isn't supposed to be reflective of skill. If Pujols has a lower BABIP than Quinlan, all that tells you (broadly speaking, not accounting for certain modifiers, etc) is that Quinlan has been getting luckier with the balls he puts in play than Pujols. It doesn't mean Pujols is a worse hitter.
The reason it is a more informative stat for predicting future performance is because BABIP has been shown to have very low correlation with itself. That is to say, being a good hitter consistently over time does not result in a consistently high BABIP. BABIP can be thought of as batting average with skill stripped out of it - HR's are considered skill - throw that out. Strike outs are considered a lack of skill - throw that out. Etc. What you are left with is a hitters batting average on balls actually put in play.
If BABIP is atypically high, you can conclude that the player was lucky for that period of time, and will not be able to sustain his performance. If BABIP is atypically low, you can conclude that the player was getting unlucky, and his future performance will be better.
Read those 2 sentences six times. Now think about Pujols vs. Quinlan. Since Pujols' BABIP is lower than league average, we can conclude that he has gotten unlucky, and that his future hitting performance will get better. This means that Pujols is a better hitter now than his numbers even suggest, since his numbers reflect some bad luck. Conversely, we can conclude that Quinlan has gotten lucky, and that his future hitting performance will get worse. That means that Quinlan is a worse hitter now than his numbers suggest. Knowing that, you can look at Quinlan's vs. Pujols' current stats (anything you like, say batting average). I bet Pujols' batting average is higher than Quinlan's. Therefore, the proper conclusion is that Pujols is an even better hitter than Quinlan than their batting averages alone would suggest, due to the luck factor exposed by BABIP analysis. The fact that Pujols' batting average is higher than Quinlan's even with his bad luck handicap and Quinlan's good luck shows that he's WAY better than Quinlan. That's how BABIP can be applied to that comparison.
The fact that there are certain types of hitters that have more control over BABIP than others, etc, is just something to take into consideration when looking at BABIP. However, you will be a better projector of future stats by blindly using BABIP than you will be by just looking at surface level stats alone and concluding that those stats will be future stats. That's why it is useful.
Edited by ModernFaulkner 2009-06-15 5:36 PM
|
|
| |
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 16907
| hmm, I disagree. It doesn't reveal anything new to me and really has little value. If you need BABIP to reveal that Pujols is a better hitter than his higher AVG alone would suggest, you haven't been paying much attention.
There could be a number of factors that influence fluctuations in BABIP from year to year so quantifying them as luck (good or bad) isn't really all that reliable or telling. But I only read those two sentences 5 times so maybe I missed something.
|
|
| |
|
| " If BABIP is atypically high, you can conclude that the player was lucky for that period of time..."
That could be said about any stat. |
|
| |
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 17053
| I can look at photos of Quinlan and Pujols and conclude that Pujols is a better baseball player than Quinlan. |
|
| |
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 17976
| "If Pujols has a lower BABIP than Quinlan, all that tells you (broadly speaking, not accounting for certain modifiers, etc) is that Quinlan has been getting luckier with the balls he puts in play than Pujols. It doesn't mean Pujols is a worse hitter." Any statistic that puts Pujols and Quinlin in the same category better either be talking about shoe size or favorite Chinese food restaurant.
|
|
| |
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 10227
| IEBRUIN - 6/15/2009 6:11 PM
" If BABIP is atypically high, you can conclude that the player was lucky for that period of time..."
That could be said about any stat.
Sucks to be Figgins. Since his BABIP is unusually high.
Can I start my rants on Figgins sucks, his BABIP proves it now? |
|
| |
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 17976
| BABIP = Punch & Judy Metric |
|
| |
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 9890
Location: Along the mother road. | IEBRUIN - 6/15/2009 6:11 PM " If BABIP is atypically high, you can conclude that the player was lucky for that period of time..." That could be said about any stat. ERA?
|
|
| |
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 9890
Location: Along the mother road. | LightTheHalo - 6/15/2009 6:13 PM I can look at photos of Quinlan and Pujols and conclude that Pujols is a better baseball player than Quinlan. Racist.
|
|
| |
|
All-Star
Posts: 3749
| If I'm trying to see if a player has been lucky I tend to just look at his singles rate on balls in play. If the singles rate is way up, and everything else is fairly consistent, then I would conclude he was lucky. In Figgins case he's extra base hits are way up, really a bounce back from two years before, so the high BABIP is probably not a fluke. |
|
| |
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 17053
| Racist.
-------
I can look at photos of Quinlan and Pujols and conclude that Pujols is an inferior human being to Quinlan.
There. That was racist. |
|
| |
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 9890
Location: Along the mother road. | LightTheHalo - 6/15/2009 6:33 PM Racist. ------- I can look at photos of Quinlan and Pujols and conclude that Pujols is an inferior human being to Quinlan. There. That was racist. No, that was just because you saw Scott Boras standing behind Albert. That's not racist.
|
|
| |
|
All-Star
Posts: 3138
| "The most important thing to realize about BABIP, as has been stated many times in this thread and misinterpreted, is that it isn't supposed to be reflective of skill. If Pujols has a lower BABIP than Quinlan, all that tells you (broadly speaking, not accounting for certain modifiers, etc) is that Quinlan has been getting luckier with the balls he puts in play than Pujols. It doesn't mean Pujols is a worse hitter. "
Modern, everything you said there is dead wrong. I think you are thinking about pitcher BABIP. Pitcher BABIP isn't a skill. Hitter BABIP is a skill. So, to say that if Pujols has a lower BABIP than Quinlan....that means Q is getting "lucky" or "luckier" than Pujols ... and that is just incorrect.
"If BABIP is atypically high, you can conclude that the player was lucky for that period of time, and will not be able to sustain his performance. If BABIP is atypically low, you can conclude that the player was getting unlucky, and his future performance will be better."
Are you talking about hitter or pitcher BABIP? If it's pitcher BABIP, I agree...but from the looks of things, you're talking about hitters, which makes your post incorrect. Many hitters can maintain a high BABIP. Speedsters, those guys who hit everything hard, etc etc. Hitter BABIP is a skill. Hitter BABIP isn't luck.
"Now think about Pujols vs. Quinlan. Since Pujols' BABIP is lower than league average, we can conclude that he has gotten unlucky, and that his future hitting performance will get better. This means that Pujols is a better hitter now than his numbers even suggest, since his numbers reflect some bad luck. Conversely, we can conclude that Quinlan has gotten lucky, and that his future hitting performance will get worse. That means that Quinlan is a worse hitter now than his numbers suggest."
Again, that is just incorrect. Pitcher BABIP is not the same as hitter BABIP. I'm not exactly sure what you're thinking of, but if I had to guess, you're thinking that since pitcher BABIP isn't a skill, that it applies to hitters, and that every hitter should have a league average BABIP, and if someone like Q has a higher BABIP than Pujols, it means Pujols is unlucky and Q is lucky. Which is wrong. |
|
| |
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 17976
| Fan Strong you are wrong. Quinlan is far luckier than Pujols in that he has almost no talent or abilities that make him a major league player and yet the Angels are paying him $1 million dollars this year to take up a roster spot. Pujols must make his money on talent and performance alone. Quinlan is the luckiest player in baseball. |
|
| |
|
All-Star
Posts: 3138
| "The most important thing to realize about BABIP, as has been stated many times in this thread and misinterpreted, is that it isn't supposed to be reflective of skill. If Pujols has a lower BABIP than Quinlan, all that tells you (broadly speaking, not accounting for certain modifiers, etc) is that Quinlan has been getting luckier with the balls he puts in play than Pujols. It doesn't mean Pujols is a worse hitter. "
Just to get back to this post. Pitcher BABIP isn't supposed to be reflective of skill. Hitter BABIP is. In other words, you have BABIP misunderstood.
Also, BABIP doesn't measure offensive value. It just shows what a hitter's batting average is on balls in play. Everyone knows Pujols is the best hitter (and player) in the game. Anyone who looks at BABIP to compare hitters is misusing and doesn't understand what BABIP is for.
Edited by Fan Strong 2009-06-15 6:55 PM
|
|
| |
|
All-Star
Posts: 3138
| Well, Scioscia has got to have him. I think that's the only reason he is still with the team. The guy stopped hitting lefties years ago. Yet he's still playing against them. Go figure. |
|
| |
|
Hall of Fame
Posts: 17976
| So, just what is it for? |
|
| |
|
All-Star
Posts: 3138
| Already posted what it's for and how it can be used a few pages back. |
|
| |
BABIP....?????
