Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Knicks Beat Lakers With Familiar Strategy

My average on comments in play: very low.

So, inspired by a discussion that we had on the site regarding Skip Schumaker in yesterday's thread, I decided to do a little bit of investigative work on a particular theory that I've been thinking about for a few days.  One useful tool for evaluating pitchers in a slump has been Batting average on balls in play, which is given by the formula (H-HR)/(AB-HR-K).  What this tells you is how hitters do when not factoring home runs and strikeouts into the equation.  It has been shown that pitchers have very little control over what the BABIP they allow is.  A pitcher that allows a low BABIP is essentially being very unlucky.  A pitcher that allows a high BABIP is getting very unlucky.  The expectation, then, is that these pitchers are the ones most ripe to revert to the mean.

Though it is somewhat counterintuitive, (it certainly was to Voros McCracken, who discovered this fact), it actually makes some sense--once the opposing player puts a bat on the ball, the pitcher's involvement in the play is over.  Therefore, one would not expect the pitcher to be able to influence the outcome after the ball is put on the bat from year to year.  The question, however, is whether or not this trend would apply to hitters, as well.  In the game thread, in particular, it was applied to Skip Schumaker, with the argument that his 2007 BABIP was unsustainable, and that he was due to fall back to Earth.

The logical reason for a pitcher's BABIP being random, however, doesn't seem to jibe with a hitter's BABIP being random, however.  A hitter's involvement in the play is not over after the bat is put on the ball--the guy has to get to first base.  Therefore, you would expect the hitter to have some control over whether or not he actually reaches base.  In particular, you would expect a fast player to be more able to reach first base before the opposing defense successfully makes a play.  My counter-hypothesis, therefore, was that a high BABIP correlates with a fast player.  Using stolen bases as a lazy proxy for speed, I took the seven leaders in post-WWII stolen bases, and looked at their career numbers to eliminate any small sample size issues.  The result was the following table:


So far, so good.  Every one of these guys had a BABIP that beat their batting average.  Additionaly, the better the rate at which they stole bases, the more they beat their BABIP by, on average.  Vince Coleman, with the highest SB rate, had a BABIP that beat his batting average by 50 points.  High school statistics tell me that I would expect 40% of the variation in the differential between BABIP and AVG to be explainable by the rate at which a player steals bases.  Looks like we might have something.

Not so fast, perhaps.  I expanded the list to include a wide array of hall of famers, and a few other notable players. The table generated there is shown below.


All of a sudden, my theory looks a little less convincing.  Jim Thome, the slowest player on the list (in terms of career SB, at least), also had a BABIP that outperformed his AVG by the greatest amount.  Willie Mays, hardly a slowpoke, had a career BABIP that actually underperformed his career average.  The amount of variation in the BABIP differential went from 40% to 25%.  

Some of this is clearly explainable by the fact that stolen bases are probably not all that great of a proxy for actual speed, as being a successful base stealer is as dependent on being able to read the defense and leading off well as it is upon actually being able to run quickly.  There is also the problem that some of these players (Griffey, I'm looking at you) started out much faster than they ended up, and career numbers probably mix together seasons where the player's style of play changed pretty significantly.  

So, where does that leave things?  The very fastest players can sustain a higher BABIP than their AVG would indicate.  For slower players, however, it seems much more doubtful that they'd be able to do so.  If I have some time later, perhaps it will be worth looking at some single season statistics and seeing if a clearer pattern can emerge.  Or perhaps there is better data on player speed out there.  Regardless, it's something to think about while waiting for the playoffs to begin.  

Comment 45 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Alternate explanation:
Slap hitting singles hitters are always going to have a BABIP exceeding their AVG because they don't hit HR, and thus have nothing depressing the numerator, but get to remove all of their K from the equation.  Hence the apparent anomalies of Griffey and Mays.

by Valatan on Oct 3, 2007 10:44 AM EDT reply actions  

Hey, you read my mind!
I 100% agree with this...  On the far ends of the spectrum you have strike-out prone slap hitters and strike out adverse power hitters.

Slap hitters don't hit home runs, and strike out a lot... In any case as you say that depresses the numerator and gives a BABIP higher than their BA.

On the other end you have guys like Albert.  They hit the long ball but don't strike out much.  Their BABIP is depressed by taking away the homeruns, but since they don't srike out much their BABIP isn't elevated enough to compensate.

The St. Louis Cardinals- 11 time World Champions!

by Zubin on Oct 3, 2007 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

Thome et al
It also seems like players whom hit the ball well and maintain a good average despite striking out a lot have a high BABIP.  Thome is one of these players, as is Jim Edmonds, and I remember at least in his heyday Jimmy's BABIP was phenomenal.

by mdarshan on Oct 3, 2007 10:57 AM EDT reply actions  

Dang
Beat me to the K reference. [shakes fist angrily]
Everywhere is within walking distance if you have the time.

by Solanus on Oct 3, 2007 10:59 AM EDT up reply actions  

Lankford is another example
IIRC: He has some crazy BAIP numbers.

by DriverZn on Oct 3, 2007 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

Reggie Jackson
You might want to take another look at his averages. I'm going to guess you're missing about 1000 hits.

Something else to think about is guys with significant strikeout rates. I'm sure there have been plenty of studies done about it, but it might help to explain some of Thome's variance (not to mention Vince Coleman and his unhealthy strikeout totals).

Everywhere is within walking distance if you have the time.

by Solanus on Oct 3, 2007 10:57 AM EDT reply actions  

Val,
Don't you mean: "A pitcher that allows a LOW BABIP is getting very lucky" instead of:  "A pitcher that allows a HIGH BABIP is getting very lucky" as the opposite counterpart was correctly identified in the prior sentence.
"Requiescat In Pace - 2007 Zombie Cardinals"

by AustinBOB on Oct 3, 2007 11:02 AM EDT reply actions  

Yes,
a low BABIP is considered very lucky.  See Haren, Dan -- 2007 (at least the first half)

by chuckb on Oct 3, 2007 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

speed only explains part
speed is the difference in infield hits vs. groundouts.  speed is not going to help on a linedrive or flyball.

maybe there is some formula like (groundball rate*speed factor) + linedrive rate - (flyball rate - homerun rate) to predict BABIP.

by hit and run on Oct 3, 2007 11:08 AM EDT reply actions  

Agree
If a batter hits lots of infield hits then speed factors in but for the most part I think the K rate and HR rate plays a huge part in it, take Pujols' career BABIP (I just calculated this so let me know if I am wrong) of .320 versus his .332 avg. Pujols Ks very rarely but hits a lot of HRs, both of these are ways to lower a high average into a lower BABIP.  I would think that a high K low HR guy that still hits .250 somehow would have a very high BABIP.  For example I looked at Adam Kennedy, career batting average of .275 yet he has a .312 BABIP, he has a SO rate of 15% compared to Pujols 10%, he has a HR rate of 1.5% compared to APs 7.0%.  Kennedy may also have more speed 129 SB to 38 for AP but I think in the end his K rate lowers his average but when he hits the ball in play it will fall for a hit just as often has a ball hit by Pujols.  Assuming .300 is near league average then both of them out perform the average but I don't think that is luck I think it is more that the types of hits they get just seem to fall that often.  This is also why I think Kennedy with his .238 BABIP this year is bound to rebound to his career norms.

by StLHugo on Oct 3, 2007 11:31 AM EDT up reply actions  

I could be rambling
however, I think someone like Pujols having a lower BABIP ave vs AVE makes sense to me because of his expanded zone.  The guy gets wood on EVERYTHING.  

I'd be curious if his BABIP is higher than his AVE if you can take out "good/bad" pitches, like sliders outside of the zone etc.  

In other words, too bad you couldn't easily check his BABIP with pitches he swings at in the strike zone, I'd be willing to bet that's higher (you can say that about everybody) BUT I bet Pujols BABIP on pitches outside the zone is better than everybody else's.

by rocKStark5 on Oct 3, 2007 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions  

K rate and HR rate
would explain the difference, positive or negative, between BA and BABIP.  I think you're right in that regard.  But I don't know if that's the best way to look at BABIP, because it doesn't consider the nature of the ball in play.  It looks like you're thinking the same way when you say that it's not luck, it's the type of hit.
Intuition tells me BABIP is closely related to LD%, and modified by infield hits (speed).  I also think that certain hitters are more likely to turn a LD into a hit - the ones we call "gap hitters" - and these are the hitters with lots of doubles and triples.
So maybe the formula for predicting BABIP is more like (LD%*Gapfactor)+(GB%*Speedfactor).
Obviously I have no idea what I'm talking about.

by hit and run on Oct 3, 2007 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions  

but that's my point
having a high BABIP probably is a reproducible skill for a hitter--a hitter with a high BABIP is not as likely to regress to the mean as a pitcher with a high BABIP allowed.

by Valatan on Oct 3, 2007 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

I think it's a valid point
That's why I'm trying to wrap my stat-inexperienced head around the cause.  That skill has to show up in other stats as well.

I think the biggest factor in a high BABIP would be the ability to "place" a line drive where desired.  That might show up as doubles and triples (which, conveniently, also take the speed necessary to turn a grounder into an infield hit).  I would assume, then, that a contact hitter with higher percentage of doubles and triples would have a higher BABIP.  Maybe I'll have the time to peruse the stats to test that hypothesis.

Thanks for the thought-inspiring post.

by hit and run on Oct 3, 2007 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions  

SLGBIP or OPSBIP
Maybe use Slugging instead of BA per BIP?

by cdb on Oct 3, 2007 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions  

Batters have limited ability to
place a line drive where they desire.  They have the ability to hit or not hit line drives but placement is largely random variation.

by azruavatar on Oct 3, 2007 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions  

If this is right then why do pitching coaches
talk about teaching hitters to drive or pull or muscle the ball to certain locations in the field.  I hear this all the time, whether it's from coaches and managers or from commentators during games.  

by nycardfan on Oct 3, 2007 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

the difference between pulling a ball or
driving it is in start contrast to "placing it in a gap".  I'm not saying that batters have no control over ball placement (obviously they do) but it's not as much as some people think.

by azruavatar on Oct 3, 2007 10:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

What an interesting post...
I agree with the person above that it's very thought provoking.  I would be interested to know if there are more refined ways to quantify how well a batter sees the ball, how well he centers it on the bat, and how consistently he locates it in gaps (beyond fly ball and line drive percentages).  I guess what I'd like to know about with more specificty is eye and hand coordination skills.

This comes to mind because I remember a sports commentator freezing frames of Skip's hits and showing how well he seems to see the ball and how well placed it was on the bat.  He was using him as one among many examples of batters with good eye and hand coordination.  I know that's just an ad hoc example.  But it made me wonder whether people can measure specific individual skills like that, which could be developed and/or adjusted to better their future performances.  

Also, either Val or Liam brought up that Skip is now being trained by coaches to be an aggressive hitter.  That made me wonder how such "aggressiveness" could be evaluated in terms of his future potential.  It seems like plate discipline (in order to increase your number of walks) would be easier to teach to someone who may be an aggressive hitter, but who also sees the ball well.  Seeing the ball well, I would think, would be essential to quantifying his skillset and how he might develop his batting (and walking) potential.

by nycardfan on Oct 3, 2007 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

certain players will have higher
BABIPs (Ichiro immediately comes to mind) but these players are the exception not the rule. There are still limits to how much of a deviation from normal BABIP is talent and reproducible.

by azruavatar on Oct 3, 2007 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions  

I THINK...
...what you're really looking for here (statistically speaking) is "infield hits"... once upon a time, guys like Rod Carew and Tim Raines were liable to drop down a bunt, and beat any throw to first.

Speed may be (after defense) the hardest attribute to "measure" in baseball. My late father told me that Stan "The Man" could really run in the 1940s; but since the stolen base was a seldom-used tactic at the time, Musial's speed showed up in other ways (going from 1st to 3rd on a single; scoring from 1st on a double; and so forth). Sadly, there's no metric to show that kind of speed.

In addition to the sociological benefits of "breaking the color line", Jackie Robinson added the concept of disrupting the opponent's defense by stealing bases... and by looking like he was going to steal a base even when he wasn't! Robinson was a bit of an "outlier", though (as was Pete Reiser)... it took Maury Wills to make the stolen base a serious offensive threat for the first time since the "dead-ball" era.

Base-stealing became (and remained) a serious offensive threat from the '60s through the '80s (Wills, Brock, Morgan, Carew, Coleman, R. Henderson), but declined in the '90s because of (in this goalie's opinion) three factors:

  1. Home Run Derby (bigger sluggers, smaller ballparks) Why steal? You're already in scoring position at first base with a "slugger" at the plate!
  2. The Death of Artificial Turf (in St. Louis, Cincinnati, Houston, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Kansas City, and Seattle; only Toronto and Minnesota remain with "fake" grass.) Faster players were vital on the "faster" surface; clubs can let real grass grow longer to "slow down" infield grounders. (Yes, I'm looking at you, Cubbies!)
  3. The Stopwatch! (Pitchers are "timed" on their throws to the plate; catchers are "timed" on their throws to second; if the pitcher-catcher combination is "quick" enough, runners don't even attempt a steal! Nevermind the possibility that the pitch may be a breaking ball, and hence slower to reach the catcher, and nevermind that the catcher still has to make a good throw to 2nd; runners are instructed not to even try "swiping" the bag.)
I dunno if "infield hits" are kept as a statistic by any of the SABRmetric outfits; that might be a place to start.

There are still guys who get "leg hits" in today's game; there are even more who get what was once called "Joe Torre leg hits"... Joe (a notoriously slow runner) led the league in batting with the Cardinals, in part because of his "leg hits"... line drives off the third baseman's leg, off the shortstop's leg, and so on... (big grin!)

"In this game, don't nobody know nuthin' about nuthin'." -- attributed to Lawrence Peter "Yogi" Berra

by The Ol Goaler on Oct 3, 2007 11:43 AM EDT reply actions  

great post
You can find batted ball breakdowns at fangraphs...  it would take a long time to put together a decent study using that, though.  I'm sure it's available elsewhere in an easier-to-use form.

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1153&position=OF

scroll down to "IFH%" - that's "infield hits".

by SleepyCA on Oct 3, 2007 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

Au contraire!
A former colleague of mine has developed a system called Bases Produced that aims to measure just the sort of thing you're talking about. (His definitions are at the link.)

by liam on Oct 3, 2007 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

HR penalty
Why are homeruns removed in this metric?  This seems a penalty against power hitters, as noted above.  A homerun is a fair ball and, in my opinion, should be considered 'in play'.  Gameday considers a homerun 'in play'.  And more importantly - it is a metric of a batter's ability - at least with regards to power.  Why not simply use BABIP = (H/(AB-SO).  This would seem to reflect ability moreso than the current formula.  Maybe this already exists out there and is called something else?  Not sure, but doesn't make sense to me to remove HR.

by cdb on Oct 3, 2007 11:53 AM EDT reply actions  

Agree sort of
While I agree that HRs are "in play" what this metric is trying to do is analyze that batting average on balls the defense has a factor in, for a HR the defense has no way to factor into the play (except the extremes of in the park and barely over the wall grabs).  In the end though it isn't really a penalty since you use BABIP to analyze players against themselves more then against others, if they have a high/low BABIP the idea is that it is a luck thing versus a league average BABIP that says they are who they say they are.

by StLHugo on Oct 3, 2007 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

So BABIP isn't a good metric to use for hitters
Exactly, which to means that BABIP isn't a useful metric to measure hitters' overall performance.  Why penalize the hitter by removing the most productive outcome possible from a batter's results?  

by Knish on Oct 3, 2007 1:24 PM EDT up reply actions  

It isn't a penalty though
It isn't penalizing them in anyway though.  If you look at a hitter without HRs and without Ks, how often does a ball they hit turn into a hit?  If that average comes to near .300 then they are a normal hitter supposedly.  Taking out HRs is not a penalty since you also take out the ABs that resulted in HRs.  You don't just take 32 Hs away from AP because he hit 32 HRs you take away 32 ABs and their result so you can measure how many of his balls found holes in the defense.

by StLHugo on Oct 3, 2007 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

I don't think so....
Pretend neither of these cases had any Ks this year:

A. a player with 600 at bats and 200 hits - none of which are homeruns.  BABIP = 200/600 = 0.333

B. a player with 600 at bats and 200 hits, but 40 of those hits are homeruns.  BABIP = (200-40)/(600-40) = 160/560 = 0.286.  

I would call that a penalty.

by cdb on Oct 3, 2007 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

You aren't looking at it correctly
You are comparing hitter A to hitter B using BABIP and are coming to the conclusion that hitter A is better in that stat which is the wrong way to look at BABIP.  Like I said earlier BABIP is used to compare a hitter with himself.

Hitter A has a BA of .333 and a BABIP of .333, he performs at his BABIP which is a bit "high"

Hitter B has a BA of .333 and a BABIP of .286 thus he has been under performing and should really have a higher BABIP and a higher BA as well.  His BABIP is "low".

This whole discussion revolves around whether hitter A is lucky and hitter B is unlucky or if there is something else too it, say A is fast and can run out more hits, or he plugs the gaps and B hits lots of high fly balls that will either go out for HRs or be caught and very few LDs.  It is an imperfect stat but it also is not used to compare two hitters you use it to analyze one person.

by StLHugo on Oct 3, 2007 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions  

OK
OK - so lets not use it to compare players.  Would you then conclude that hitter B is unlucky and hitter A is performing to his ability?  Do you have to look at other stats (such as homeruns or slugging or speed) to reliably interpret BABIP?  Not trying to be antagonistic - but the more I think about this, the more confused I become regarding the value of the statistic.

by cdb on Oct 3, 2007 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions  

Value
That is exactly the question we were having the other day, what is the value of BABIP for hitters?  If the league average BABIP is .300 then should we expect a guy with a .290 BABIP to somehow add 10 points to his average next year by coming back to the mean?  Well not exactly, for a pitcher though it is a bit more predictable, if no balls hit against them are finding any holes, how often can that hold out?  It is a weird stat and one I like to see combined with LD%, GB% etc. so that we can accurately describe the hitter using all the stats.

by StLHugo on Oct 3, 2007 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

Of course it's penalizing him
It doesn't matter if you remove the associated ABs.  The best possible outcome for a hitter is to hit a Home Run.  So why would you evaluate a hitter by removing HRs?

Take this example.  Which player would you rather have?  Clearly Player A, right?  Same average, but 3x the HR and half the strike outs.  

             Player A    Player B
AB           500        500
Hits         120        140
HR           30         10
Ttl Hits     150        150
Avg          .300       .300
K            40         80

Yet, here's the BABIP:

BABIP         0.279      0.341

BABIP is a useful tool, but not to compare hitters.  It penalizes HR hitters and rewards high strike outs.

by Knish on Oct 3, 2007 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

Exactly
I said it shouldn't be used to COMPARE hitters but that doesn't mean it penalizes a HR hitter either.  You use the stat to analyze someone, if you have low Ks and high HRs and thus a low BABIP that just shows that among other things you might have a bit of bad luck and your balls just don't find as many holes, or in Pujols case it just proves that the guy knows how to hit, he has a near average BABIP (.312 I think it was) and he outperforms that by hitting HRs, yet he doesn't K at all either, he is just that good.

by StLHugo on Oct 3, 2007 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions  

I see your point, but...
I dunno.  I guess BABIP can be a useful way to measure hitters' ability to beat out infield hits.  Just seems to me that it's not that useful a metric compared to OBP.  But for a guy like Schu who doesn't have a large sample size, how do you know if a high BABIP is luck or ability?  

by Knish on Oct 3, 2007 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions  

look at his composition of batted balls
it's almost never difficult to say whether a BABIP is lucky or unlucky based on the LD, GB and FB percentages.  Those hits statistically fall at a certain rate.  The goal of BABIP isn't to evaluate whether a player hits HRs or whether they are a slugger it's to see whether their AVG is artificially inflated by fielders not getting to certain plays.

It's not just about infield hits.  it's about flyballs, line drives and any hit that the defense is involved in.

by azruavatar on Oct 3, 2007 10:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

Today
is probably the best day to pose this query.  During Monday's discussion about Skip, Larry linked some old posts about BABIP.  I read those and I get most of it.  But what I still don't understand (and here is my query), how does BABIP relate to pitchers and "what's luck got to do with it?" (Ripping off Tina Turner there)

by cardsgirl95 on Oct 3, 2007 12:45 PM EDT reply actions  

BABIP
I agree with only applying speed to the groundballs, if you have GB%.  Also, FBs less often turn into hits, while LDs almost always are hits.

3B to 2B ratio is another good indicator of speed.

In general, hitters and fielders affect BABIP, while pitchers show very little difference at the major league level.

JC Bradbury's work with PrOPS (predicted OPS) is similar - he's predicting AVG, OBP, and SLG simply based on the types of batted balls each player hits.  I don't think he adjusts GBs based on speed, though.

by Sky Kalkman on Oct 3, 2007 1:00 PM EDT reply actions  

nice post Val
i agree w/ your basic point, which is that a batter has far more control over his BABIP than a pitcher ---- ergo, a batter has a better chance to sustain an unusually high BABIP, as opposed to a pitcher's chances of sustaining an unusually low one.

but even with hitters, there seem to be parameters. your examples suggest that it's a rare player indeed who can maintain a BABIP of .320 or above. if a player surpasses that level in a short sample (a la skip schumaker, who inspired yesterday's discussion), the strong likelihood is that he won't sustain it. obviously there's always the slim chance he'll turn out to be a special player --- somebody like ichiro, tony gwynn, rod carew (career BABIP .361), wade boggs (.348) --- but the odds are way against it.

by lboros on Oct 3, 2007 2:41 PM EDT reply actions  

Quick analysis
I looked at the 2007 season stats for about 50 players.  There was no correlation between BABIP and 2B+3B% as I had hypothesized.

One thing struck me about the players with the highest BABIP (>.350): they had high SLG (most >.550), high HR/H (most >12%), and high OPS (most >.950).  Topping the list was M. Holliday (.380 BABIP).

These are the players who, apparently, wait for a good pitch to hit and then hit it hard.

Skip's numbers didn't follow the same pattern.

by hit and run on Oct 3, 2007 4:46 PM EDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

The Internet's #1 St. Louis Cardinals blog.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

N1046613005_8392_small
Our 2010-2011 strays
649494__1__small
Hall of WAR: Part 2

Recent FanPosts

Hahaha_small
These were a few of my favorite things (fink reminisces about the 2011 regular season)
Dsc01844_small
Cardinals take the Governor's Joplin Challenge, will help build 35 homes for torando victims
St-louis-cardinals-script_small
Best Cardinals of All-Time - Relief Pitching Edition
St-louis-cardinals-script_small
Best Cardinals of All-Time - Starting Pitching Edition
Small
Two Trades That Set the Cards Back in the 70s
Nyc_small
Cardinals Offense vs. Reds Offense - 2012
Nyc_small
Cardinals Rotation vs. Reds Rotation - 2012
St-louis-cardinals-script_small
Best Cardinals by Position - Center Fielders

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Jack_benny__1__small DanUpBaby

Editors

Bendermad_small azruavatar

Trigun_001_small the red baron

Images_small tom s.

Authors

1989_bgh_cropped_small bgh

Valverde_medium_small vivaelpujols