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.
45 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Alternate explanation:
Hey, you read my mind!
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.
Thome et al
Lankford is another example
Reggie Jackson
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).
Val,
speed only explains part
maybe there is some formula like (groundball rate*speed factor) + linedrive rate - (flyball rate - homerun rate) to predict BABIP.
Agree
I could be rambling
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.
K rate and HR rate
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.
but that's my point
I think it's a valid point
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.
SLGBIP or OPSBIP
by cdb on Oct 3, 2007 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Batters have limited ability to
If this is right then why do pitching coaches
by nycardfan on Oct 3, 2007 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions
the difference between pulling a ball or
What an interesting post...
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
I THINK...
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:
- Home Run Derby (bigger sluggers, smaller ballparks) Why steal? You're already in scoring position at first base with a "slugger" at the plate!
- 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!)
- 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.)
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!)
great post
http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1153&position=OF
scroll down to "IFH%" - that's "infield hits".
Au contraire!
HR penalty
Agree sort of
So BABIP isn't a good metric to use for hitters
It isn't a penalty though
I don't think so....
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
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.
OK
by cdb on Oct 3, 2007 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Value
Of course it's penalizing him
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.
Exactly
I see your point, but...
look at his composition of batted balls
It's not just about infield hits. it's about flyballs, line drives and any hit that the defense is involved in.
Today
BABIP
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.
For those at work
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/y2007/gd.html?2007_10_03_colmlb_phimlb_1
nice post Val
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.
Quick analysis
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 

















