BABIP explained

It's a good article explaining how BABIP works for those of us who aren't complete stat heads.

Looks like this guy is running a series on advanced stats. Could make for some interesting reading throughout the off season.

3 months ago Doghnut 12 comments 5 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

thank you for posting this

by scottsharp76 on Nov 21, 2009 11:36 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I always wondered what batting avg. on balls in play was good for, it seems it’s a better indicator of what a pitcher is up to than a hitter. I mean it says almost the same thing as batting average doesn’t it?

Senator, we have another old saying,"Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining." Fletcher

by jimmontg on Nov 21, 2009 11:52 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Rec'd

good read. always have needed explanation over this

(Yunel is still the Queen of Hearts)

by GoBravesNY on Nov 21, 2009 5:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I rec'd it.

http://www.capitolavenueclub.com/

by PWHjort on Nov 21, 2009 6:34 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I don't like it even more now...

Home runs are hits, why eliminate them? And it also seems to ignore that there are things like hitting balls harder that can increase babip, getting into hitters or pitchers counts from both sides, for people to get better contact. Just don’t like it. It can help some, like say French with the Mets last year, but I’m not much for it compared to some of the other advanced stats.

by Mr. Sanchez on Nov 22, 2009 2:12 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Home runs are eliminated because there's little luck involved

And “it” doesn’t “do” anything, like “ignore that there are things like hitting balls harder that can increase babip”. People’s faulty interpretations that fail to take into account its limitations do, but that’s their problem, not BABIP’s. Some hitters/pitchers have naturally low/high BABIP’s due to their abilities. Failing to take things like that into account is just as bad as ignoring any of the insights BABIP can provide.

http://www.capitolavenueclub.com/

by PWHjort on Nov 23, 2009 1:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Home runs are also eliminated by definition. The “in play” part excludes home runs from the parameters.

http://www.capitolavenueclub.com/

by PWHjort on Nov 23, 2009 1:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It's a hit...

and I understand the stat. But as you say about babip you can say about all stats, it requires understanding and context. It’s all a mess to me.

by Mr. Sanchez on Nov 23, 2009 9:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I tried to explain this below...

.. before reading your post. I think BABIP against is a great tool for predicting pitching success in the future, but that BABIP is not very useful for hitting.

by cavebird on Nov 23, 2009 9:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I am not sure pitcher/hitter BABIP abilities are so similar

You state that “Some hitters/pitchers have naturally low/high BABIP’s due to their abilities.” I think that skews what is actually happening here. I agree on hitters—-historically, certain hitters have much higher BABIP than other hitters. Probably has something to do with line drive percentage, but certainly has to do with being a good hitter. (Just some random examples over large numbers of ABs: Good: Todd Helton, .328 lifetime batting average, .337 lifetime BABP; Ty Cobb, .366 lifetime batting average, .372 lifetime BABIP. Bad: Mark Belanger (classic good field/no hit SS): .228 lifetime batting average; .261 lifetime BABIP; Dave Kingman, .236 lifetime batting average; .252 lifetime BABIP.)

For pitchers it is more random. While flyball pitchers tend to have a slightly lower BABIP (and correspondingly higher HR/9 rate), pitchers’ BABIP tends to revert to the mean and not stay particularly high or low except for pitchers who just aren’t major league caliber and have bery high BABIPs because they are basically throwing batting practice. For example, Greg Maddux had a career .286 BABIP against while Jamie Moyer, a far lesser pitcher, has a career .287 BABIP against. Some more numbers (all lifetime BABIP against): Smoltz: .287; Pedro: .282; Chan Ho Park, .292. (Mark Hendrickson, on the other hand, has a career .308 BABIP because he basically throws batting practice.) There are a few anomolies here: Andy Pettite .313 lifetime BABIP against; Millwood, .299, Schilling .297; that I am simply at a loss to explain. Nevertheless, BABIP against can be a good tool to predict future success—-if a pitcher has a great year due to a very low BABIP against (like .250 or below), that pitcher is not likely to repeat the performance. On the other hand, if a pitcher struggles while having a very high BABIP against, that pitcher is a likely bounceback candidate.

I think it is good to point this out, because some people seem to consider an increase BABIP for hitters as luck, when this is not necessarily the case. The idea that BABIP fluctuation is luck is much more applicable to pitchers.

by cavebird on Nov 23, 2009 9:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I can agree with that...

and the idea of BABIP for a hitter still baffles me a bit. It seems to take out the ability of a hitter to actually put the bat on the ball (Ks) and do it solidly (HR). It’s like you need a full array of metric stats to put a single metric into proper context. Just seems like a long way to go a short distance to me.

by Mr. Sanchez on Nov 23, 2009 9:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think you're making it more than it is

BABIP is useful to tell you whether a hitter/pitcher is experiencing good/bad luck. It should be used in conjunction with the batted ball stats – Line Drive, Fly Ball, and Ground Ball %. For example, someone could look at Ichiro and say, “He had a good year, but look at his BABIP – he got lucky!” But if you look at his history of high BABIP, and his high LD and GB % (coupled with his speed), you’ll see that it’s not fluky and that you can bank on a high BABIP and therefore high BA in most years.

BABIP is also useful in predicting a good bounce-back candidate. Case in point – Nick Swisher. He had a low BABIP in 08, which led to a poor season and the White Sox selling low. If you took a look at his BABIP’s from previous seasons, you’d see that the only difference between 08 and his good years is BABIP. Therefore, it shouldn’t be a huge surprise that in 09, his BABIP was higher, so all of his stats went up.

"…aren’t worthy enough to hold his (Pujols) ass cheeks apart while Playboy models wipe him with thousand dollar bills after he craps out the cure to whatever previously-incurable disease." by royhobbs 1/7/09

by buzzdeadwax on Nov 23, 2009 4:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs