Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Josh Hamilton BABIP

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

  • Ubiquitous
    replied
    Originally posted by brett View Post

    On a related note, what makes one hitter like Cabrera or Hamilton high BABIP guys while Bonds and Pujols are significantly lower? I guess part is that Bonds and Pujols k'd less but does that mean that they didn't hit the ball as hard.
    Walks are generally the answer. Barry Bonds would wait for a pitch he could drive and if he got a hold of one he would crush it over the fence which doesn't count in BABIP. Josh Hamilton is not being as selective. He's swinging at a lot more pitches.

    Leave a comment:


  • leewileyfan
    replied
    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
    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.
    Last edited by leewileyfan; 05-13-2012, 04:40 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • brett
    replied
    Originally posted by Matthew C. View Post
    A great pure hitter who was also very fast and left-handed.


    Also a .383 with the gloves of that period might match a .367. Is there any table of relative BABIP out there.

    On a related note, what makes one hitter like Cabrera or Hamilton high BABIP guys while Bonds and Pujols are significantly lower? I guess part is that Bonds and Pujols k'd less but does that mean that they didn't hit the ball as hard.

    I would think that more patient hitters would have higher BABIPs because they are selective, but that doesn't seem to hold. Homers are important of course, but with 2 power hitters what makes one have a high BABIP?

    It is fascinating that there are MANY different stylistic categories of hitters.

    You have low K hitters who don't walk a lot but have high BABIP and who are not power hitters, like Ichiro.
    You have low K hitters who walk a lot and have high BABIP but are not power hitters like Boggs.
    You have lower K high walk guys with less great BABIP and power like Bonds
    High K High walk power hitters with lesser BABIP like Mathews or Schmidt
    High K low walk power hitters with great BABIP like Cabrera and Hamilton. What makes them different from Mathews or Schmidt? I'd assume fly ball rates.
    Last edited by brett; 05-13-2012, 06:20 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bothrops Atrox
    replied
    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
    One should never expect talent to be distributed evenly. So yeah, it is possible. Even though I have Mays #2 and a Bonds with no PED discount #3.

    But people also overly-romanticize the past. Who's to say that Stravinski or Bortok weren't more brilliant, but that audience for that style of music has disappeared - not the brilliance. Maybe their music would be considered "standards" 100 years from now too if not for social changes. That is why we can't think of it as a vacuum. maybe Konrad Zuse was just as intelligent as Newton and his impact just as great, etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • csh19792001
    replied
    Originally posted by Matthew C. View Post
    A great pure hitter who was also very fast and left-handed.
    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.

    By creating ideas, humans achieve immortality.
    Last edited by csh19792001; 05-13-2012, 03:09 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bothrops Atrox
    replied
    Originally posted by csh19792001 View Post
    http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/7...stribution.png

    ESPN: Jeter's legacy is his BABIP (2011)

    43 years worth of data. If the 100th percentile in the distribution since 69' is .367, how did Cobb maintain a .383 CAREER BABIP?
    A great pure hitter who was also very fast and left-handed.

    Leave a comment:


  • csh19792001
    replied
    Originally posted by brett View Post
    How do those compare all-time, and also among more recent players, maybe sinced 1960?


    ESPN: Jeter's legacy is his BABIP (2011)

    43 years worth of data. If the 100th percentile in the distribution since 69' is .367, how did Cobb maintain a .383 CAREER BABIP?

    Leave a comment:


  • Ubiquitous
    replied
    Ty Cobb is #1 with a .383 averaged, followed distantly by Shoeless Joe and Rogers Hornsby.

    Since 1960 the best was Rod Carew at .359 and followed closely by Clemente, Jeter, and Kemp.

    If we more closely try to resemeble Hamilton's playing time we still get Cobb at #1 with a .404 average and if we do it from 1960 and on we get Rod Carew followed by Wade Boggs, Ichiro, and Jeter.

    Through first 6 seasons since 1960 it is Jeter at .372 followed by Boggs, Abreu, Allen, Carew.

    From age 26 to 31 it is Carew at .374 followed by Boggs and Mo Vaughn.

    Leave a comment:


  • brett
    started a topic Josh Hamilton BABIP

    Josh Hamilton BABIP

    I noticed that Josh Hamilton has a career .341 BABIP, and has been consistently over .300 and went .390 in 2010.

    How do those compare all-time, and also among more recent players, maybe sinced 1960?

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X