Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Josh Hamilton BABIP

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Jackaroo Dave View Post
    Note that you could substitute "batting average" for BABIP in all those categories. If two batters have the same batting average, the one with the lower BABIP is the better hitter, e.g. Carew and Dimaggio.

    I don't see the point of using BABIP to evaluate hitters. It's a composite that doesn't reflect any particular skill. What specific ability is measured by batting average without home runs and strikeouts that isn't better measured by batting average?

    Of course it's a component of a batter's profile, and I suppose there are some players who hit a lot of line drives, not many homers, and strike out a lot, but I don't think a significant chunk hit the BABIP trifecta.

    I think its main use is in evaluating pitching and defense and their interaction. Also, because it's subject to random fluctuations, it's useful in identifying lucky pitchers and batters.

    We tend to think that if something has a name, it's a natural class of some sort. The save is a good example. But as pointed out, the more outs that are strikeouts and the fewer hits are homers, the higher your BABIP.

    In short, I can't imagine a GM saying, "What we need is a player with a high BABIP," unless, of course, he just meant a player with a high batting average.
    I accidentally put "high walk" for Hamilton and meant to put him as low walk. What I found interesting is that I would have assumed that what separated a Schmidt or Mathews from a High batting average power hitter would have been primarily their rate of strikeouts-such as Schmidt versus Pujols or Bonds, but you get higher average power hitters who strikout just as much but tend to have higher BABIP in exchange for fewer walks.

    So the real question is why does patience and selectivity tend to go with lower BABIP?

    Comment


    • #17
      Because if you can't hit the ball over the wall pitchers won't have to nibble.

      Barry Bonds has a lower BABIP because 40 to 70 of his hits don't get counted in BABIP. So unless he bats .500 or so his BABIP is going to be around .280 to .300.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Ubiquitous View Post
        Because if you can't hit the ball over the wall pitchers won't have to nibble.

        Barry Bonds has a lower BABIP because 40 to 70 of his hits don't get counted in BABIP. So unless he bats .500 or so his BABIP is going to be around .280 to .300.

        So is there anyway to get a list of batting average on non-K's?

        Comment


        • #19
          BABIP is simply H-HR/AB-K-HR+SF

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Ubiquitous View Post
            BABIP is simply H-HR/AB-K-HR+SF
            I know. I am wondering if there is a way to get batting average on (balls in play + home runs)

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by brett View Post
              I know. I am wondering if there is a way to get batting average on (balls in play + home runs)
              Yes, simply don't subtract HR from BABIP.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by csh19792001 View Post
                Still, like his regular career batting average, it's impossible and probably completely unbreakable.

                How likely is it that Ruth and Cobb happened to belie all the probabilities, and were (objectively, in a vacuum) simply the greatest two ballplayers that ever lived? It isn't the best parallel...but consider.... the greatest minds of the past 50 years pretty much concur that Mozart, Bach, Beethoven haven't been equaled since, and probably never will be. Nor has Issac Newton been approached in his intellect and innovation.....even though he lived ages ago.

                http://bigthink.com/ideas/13154
                But this all opinions and subjective viewpoints. How do you even begin to quantify things like art and science and to who was "better" and "greater"? Yes, Newton is very famous and an important historical scientific figure. But was he any smarter, or more intelligent than a man like Nikola Tesla?
                Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                Comment


                • #23
                  The smaller parks nowadays have also contributed to the slightly lower BABIP.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    my question from the other thread here again since nobody really answered:

                    how can BA be higher than BABIP? usually BA must be lower unless player has zero Ks in the season right? is the highest BA you can reach on a given BABIP = the BABIP?
                    I now have my own non commercial blog about training for batspeed and power using my training experience in baseball and track and field.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by dominik View Post
                      my question from the other thread here again since nobody really answered:

                      how can BA be higher than BABIP? usually BA must be lower unless player has zero Ks in the season right? is the highest BA you can reach on a given BABIP = the BABIP?
                      I don't really understand your question, but here are a few examples of BA being higher than BABIP. Ks do not have to be 0.

                      http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...&year=1980&t=b
                      http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...&year=1947&t=b
                      http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...&year=1948&t=b

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by ipitch View Post
                        I don't really understand your question, but here are a few examples of BA being higher than BABIP. Ks do not have to be 0.

                        http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...&year=1980&t=b
                        http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...&year=1947&t=b
                        http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...&year=1948&t=b
                        how does this work? you can only get a hit if the ball is in play, right? so if BABIP measures BA on balls in play this is the highest you can achieve, right? or where do the extra hits come from?

                        you know what I mean? sorry I'm no native speaker.

                        one more example to make it clear what I mean:

                        A player has 600 ABs. 100 of them are Ks. that means he has 500 balls in play. Asume he got 160 hits. this would mean his BABIP is .320 (160/500)
                        But due to the Ks his BA would only be .267 (160/600). Is my math wrong?

                        I also don't get why bretts BABIP is .368

                        he had 449 ABs -22 Ks (amazing BTW) which is 427. he had 175 hits so with my math his BABIP is .409 (175/427). Why is my math wrong?
                        Last edited by dominik; 05-14-2012, 03:13 PM.
                        I now have my own non commercial blog about training for batspeed and power using my training experience in baseball and track and field.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Jackaroo Dave View Post
                          Note that you could substitute "batting average" for BABIP in all those categories. If two batters have the same batting average, the one with the lower BABIP is the better hitter, e.g. Carew and Dimaggio.

                          I don't see the point of using BABIP to evaluate hitters. It's a composite that doesn't reflect any particular skill. What specific ability is measured by batting average without home runs and strikeouts that isn't better measured by batting average?

                          Of course it's a component of a batter's profile, and I suppose there are some players who hit a lot of line drives, not many homers, and strike out a lot, but I don't think a significant chunk hit the BABIP trifecta.

                          I think its main use is in evaluating pitching and defense and their interaction. Also, because it's subject to random fluctuations, it's useful in identifying lucky pitchers and batters.

                          We tend to think that if something has a name, it's a natural class of some sort. The save is a good example. But as pointed out, the more outs that are strikeouts and the fewer hits are homers, the higher your BABIP.

                          In short, I can't imagine a GM saying, "What we need is a player with a high BABIP," unless, of course, he just meant a player with a high batting average.
                          That may be possible for samples, very small samples but no way is luck a factor in career BABIP.
                          We're talking 7-8- 9 thousand at bats. If a hitter had some bloops drop in, for sure he hit some bullets at some fielders.

                          Toss out that luck factor when we're speaking about career BABIP.

                          On the other hand, I think with some hitters , light hitters BABIP does prove something.
                          Have you ever watched Carew or Boggs, they found openings more than most hitters.
                          Not a fluke, Carew and Boogs in the top 5 career BABIP. Every time I saw these two come to bat, looked like they could hit one up the middle or over the infield at will.

                          Same with Jeter, no luck in his BABIP, good and bad cancel each other out.. They jam him and jam him and he still finds that area in RF to get the base hit.
                          Jeter, 10,000 at bats, that BABIP is legit.
                          Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 05-14-2012, 03:27 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Ubiquitous View Post
                            BABIP is simply H-HR/AB-K-HR+SF
                            I think you mean this, no?

                            (H-HR)/(AB-K-HR+SF) (I am a math dweeb )
                            Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by leewileyfan View Post
                              However, in the case of Issac Newton, much of his postulates on the universe and its physical dynamics have been tweaked, modified , upgraded and challenged.

                              The LAWS are LAWS. The rest is theory and is being re-defined.

                              As to music, that is very subjective. Another consideration is that the great composers whom you mentioned were creating musical themes in a virtual vacuum, in which instrumental limitation defined parameters of sound creation and harmonics ... and in which these talents pushed everything to the limits, and then some.

                              BABBIP also functions largely on a variable very different today from the time of Ruth and Cobb. CONTACT meant everything to hitters; and stuff, placement, ball motion and change of speed were EVERYTHING to pitchers, who wanted batters to hit the ball [at someone]. The pitcher wanted batters to swing at pitches they would otherwise have preferred to take.

                              A modern hitter should have an extravagant BABBIP because, as I understand it, K's are removed from the denominator. In a world where contact has become a cheap commodity, batted balls in play shrink as a portion of outs made.
                              In general that has some truth LEE, but certainly not with Babe Ruth. The last thing they wanted this guy to do was get some wood on the ball.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Shoeless, Of course career BABIP is not due to luck. Pitchers' and batters' BABIP does fluctuate from year to year due to randomness. So it's useful in identifying short run improvement or decline due to luck. Carew's and Boggs's abilities are better reflected by their batting averages than by their BABIP because the former include home run and strike out data, as well as, say, Carew's formidable bunting skill.

                                For pitchers the story is different, because BABIP excludes--was designed to exclude--the batting events in which the defense did not participate. So it's useful in identifying pitchers helped by excellent defenses and good pitchers whose higher era reflects a shoddy defense. Useful, not definitive.

                                If all I know about a batter is that his BABIP increased or decreased, I don't even know whether he got better or worse. If his BA held and his BABIP went up, he probably got worse. But if I don't
                                include the BA, I can't make anything of the change in BABIP. With BA, I can say, all else being equal, an increase is an improvement. With BABIP, all else is never equal because it's a second level derived stat.
                                Last edited by Jackaroo Dave; 05-14-2012, 04:45 PM.
                                Indeed the first step toward finding out is to acknowledge you do not satisfactorily know already; so that no blight can so surely arrest all intellectual growth as the blight of cocksureness.--CS Peirce

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X