Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Josh Hamilton BABIP

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

  • #31
    Don't strike out a lot and hit some homers and you'll have a higher batting average than BABIP. It also helps to have a bunch of SF but it is not required.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by honus wagner rules View Post
      i think you mean this, no?

      (h-hr)/(ab-k-hr+sf) (i am a math dweeb )
      (h-hr)(ab+k+hr+sf)^-1

      Comment


      • #33
        Ah now I understand.

        So does this mean your BA can only be higher than your BABIP if you hit more HRs than Ks?
        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


        • #34
          Originally posted by dominik View Post
          Ah now I understand.

          So does this mean your BA can only be higher than your BABIP if you hit more HRs than Ks?


          That is not the only way. You can have a higher BA even with more strikeouts than HR.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Jackaroo Dave View Post
            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 cans say, all else being equal, an increase is an improvement. With BABIP, all else is never equal.
            No debate there, I can see that.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Jackaroo Dave View Post
              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 cans say, all else being equal, an increase is an improvement. With BABIP, all else is never equal.
              Its funny because a lot of times when a player is struggling, I will read someone post that his BABIP is down and so he wasn't lucky, however often when I look at power hitters who decline suddenly like Mike Schmidt in '88 and '89, his Ks are actually down to a career LOW rate, but its his BABIP that plummets. In other words, BABIP loss may not show poor luck. Of course Schmidt lost a chunk off of his home run rate so he was making more outs. In contrast, George Brett's final 3 years show his BABIP to be pretty normal, and his extra base hit rates to be normal, but in his case, his K rate rose to a career high. Odd-Schmidt only struck out 59 times in 538 at bats in his last 2 years (11.0%) but hit just 48 extra base hits (8.9%). Brett K'd 12.7% in his 3 decline years, but had 9.1% extra base hits and actually improved his extra base hits per hit on his career rate. I just think its interesting to see two players decline for apparently different reasons.

              Comment


              • #37
                Brett,

                Different strategies? Often a player in decline will try to work the count, and BB (and K) will rise. But Schmidt, maybe, felt that he had some slack in BB, but if he didn't swing more aggressively, his already low BA would fall off the earth.

                Looking at Brett's last years, it looks to me like a bunch of hits turned into strikeouts. There is so much fluctuation in his XBH that I can't see a trend. HR = 10, 7, 19. His 1990 last hurrah looks like an outlier, with a career high in BABIP punctuating a normal, gradual decline. (Not saying he hit a lot of bloop doubles or anything.) Perhaps pitchers realized that his K's were going up and adjusted.
                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


                • #38
                  Ya know what, I'm not saying this thread wouldn't exist, but it would be a lot shorter, I bet, if Fangraphs didn't calculate and publish hitter's BABIP.
                  Last edited by Jackaroo Dave; 05-14-2012, 05:22 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


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Jackaroo Dave View Post
                    Brett,

                    Different strategies? Often a player in decline will try to work the count, and BB (and K) will rise. But Schmidt, maybe, felt that he had some slack in BB, but if he didn't swing more aggressively, his already low BA would fall off the earth.

                    Looking at Brett's last years, it looks to me like a bunch of hits turned into strikeouts. There is so much fluctuation in his XBH that I can't see a trend. HR = 10, 7, 19. His 1990 last hurrah looks like an outlier, with a career high in BABIP punctuating a normal, gradual decline. (Not saying he hit a lot of bloop doubles or anything.) Perhaps pitchers realized that his K's were going up and adjusted.
                    Brett definately got less patient in his final years. He is one of the few guys who went from a freeswinger to a fairly patient hitter ('85-'88) and back to a freeswinger and I think a lot of it was because the franchinse wanted to make sure he got to 3000 hits.

                    As for '90, not it was a strange year. It was not really out of line with his other totally healthy years: '76, '79, '85 and '88. Those 4 years plus '90 give a pretty good idea of how he hit when he was healthy. He probably got lucky a little in '90, and here is the most amazing side of the stats: Brett hit .267 with 12 doubles and 2 home runs and 29 RBI at the all star break through half of his games played. .341 OB% and .350 slugging. After the break he went .388/.433/.673, 33 doubles, 5 triples, 12 home runs, 58 RBI and about a 210 OPS+. His BABIP after the break was .398 while it was .296 before.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      What ever the case, the reason why there are ups and over in a career, a high BABIP shows the hitter making the most out of balls in play and over a career and thats good, luck plays a tiny part, a very tiny part, career.

                      There is no logical reason for one hitter to have more or less good or bad luck than another, not over a career.
                      Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 05-14-2012, 05:51 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
                        What ever the case, the reason why there are ups and over in a career, a high BABIP shows the hitter making the most out of balls in play and over a career and thats good, luck plays a tiny part, a very tiny part, career.

                        There is no logical reason for one hitter to have more or less good or bad luck than another, not over a career.
                        No argument here.
                        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


                        • #42
                          Probability dictates that there will be hitters that have more or less good or bad "luck" over a career. We probably should not expect as extreme of luck as we would in 100 at bats or 500 but it is still certainly possible and highly likely that there is still some "luck" present in every ballplayer's career line.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            I was going to mention something else about home run hitters declining. I hadn't realized how much of their BA was due to home runs. When Albert Pujols is not hitting home runs he's a career .275 hitter. And if his home runs turn into deep fly outs he's a .256 hitter so if a power hitter loses his home run power the average goes too. Barry Bonds hit .239 excluding his home runs.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by brett View Post
                              I was going to mention something else about home run hitters declining. I hadn't realized how much of their BA was due to home runs. When Albert Pujols is not hitting home runs he's a career .275 hitter. And if his home runs turn into deep fly outs he's a .256 hitter so if a power hitter loses his home run power the average goes too. Barry Bonds hit .239 excluding his home runs.
                              Well, if you take just a little power away from virtually any player in the game and you'll see their batting average drop dramatically. Groundball hitters, line drive hitters, flyball hitters, it doesn't matter if the ball is hit just a little bit less than they normally hit it they are not going to be getting their hits.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by brett View Post
                                I was going to mention something else about home run hitters declining. I hadn't realized how much of their BA was due to home runs. When Albert Pujols is not hitting home runs he's a career .275 hitter.
                                Forgive me . . . . That's another reason why I think abuse of BABIP is pernicious.
                                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