The audience settled in. Although most of the crowd seemed reasonable, a few had BABIP painted in blood across their forehead and naked chests. The speaker stood.
" First," he began, " I love stats. I love the direction of sabermetrics in general. But, I've had some experiential and philosophical questions about BABIP."
A tomato missed its mark and struck the stone statue of Voros McCracken standing next to him. He held up his hands:
" I'm here only to suggest that the mystery may go deeper on this balls in play issue. I'm not saying pitchers control everything, nor fielders, nor hitters. I don't know what may come of this discussion. But, let's agree that BABIP is not a religion, it's a --"
The second tomato splattered against his shoulder. He wiped it away and continued,
" Recently, I've been perusing a stat called RTOT/YR. That stat is defined as: The number of runs below or above the average the fielder was worth in about 135 games. I've seen many strange fluctuations in fielders with good, or excellent reputations. Cesar Cedeno of Houston, for example. Here are Cesar's scores in a period of years:
Quote:
1973 +9.3
1974 +7.1
1975 +7.1
1976 -4.3
1977 -4.3
1978 -0.8
1979 -0.8
1980 +4.9
1981 +4.9
1982 +5.0
|
" As you can see, Cesar was good, bad, average and good again. Was he injured? A fair question. One worth pursuing. I can tell you he played at least 135 games each year, 157 as a high. So, why the fluctuation? Is it injury, luck, or does the pitcher exhibit more control on balls in play that is covered by noise? In examining Omar Visquel and other shortstops, Bill James frowned over what various fielding stats showed. He felt they were missing something "important" when Visquel appeared just average. Having looked at the fluctuations of RTOT/YR, one might come to a similar conclusion.
" I'm not a baseball GM," he continued, " But I do play in a solo and on-line OOTP league. " So, I'm aware that we need a good statistical bank. As someone wrote..."
Quote:
The reliability of any metric will increase as its sample size will increase. For a pitcher, seasonal BABIP is a largely unreliable measure of his skill. In order for this metric to do a good job in measuring his skill, you need several seasons worth of data.
This leads to the myth that a pitcher's skill in hit prevention is mostly the product of luck: we can't see year-to-year consistency in the metric as the noise overwhelms the signal. But, as we increase the number of years, the signal can finally match the noise.
For hitters, a seasonal BABIP is a bit more indicative in explaining his skill in getting hits: the year-to-year consistency is stronger for batters than for pitchers.
|
" The author went on to show a graph that had a surprising result. It wasn't just knuckle-ballers, or fly-ball pitchers who exhibited significant control over BABIP. In fact, it's much broader than that. It just depends on where the pitcher is throwing:
Quote:
In every year from 1995 to 2008 (and probably before - I didn’t bother going back any further once I found this obvious of a trend), the batting average of balls in play allowed by the home team’s pitchers was lower than the road team’s pitchers. The two lines generally move together, so when league BABIP is up or down, it’s up or down for both home and road in proportional amounts. But the home line never crosses the road line. It gets close in 2004, when the gap is just two points, but then diverges back to the more normal five to 10 point spread.
Over that 14 year period, home team BABIP allowed is .295, while road team BABIP allowed is .302. We’re talking millions of plate appearances here, so a seven point spread is certainly significant. It’s essentially impossible for this to happen randomly. There is something inherent to being the home team that allows you to reduce the amount of hits you allow on balls in play. This is, for lack of a batter term, a home field advantage.
|
BABIP Splits | FanGraphs Baseball
He saw many in the audience nodding and hesitated. "But, isn't that a conclusion led a bit by bias? Isn't it also possible that the pitchers themselves felt the effect of the home crowd? Yet, this appears never to be considered. And yet, it's very possible that the knowledge, or comfort attributed to the fielder's better performance could also exist for the pitcher, while the batter may be affected negatively? Again, not even considered."
He spread his hands to the audience. " I'm asking for feedback, here. I've read that pitchers lack control over their BABIP. But when I look at the BABIP of many, many pitchers, I do see consistency. I also see pitchers keeping that consistency when they are traded to far inferior defensive teams. Here's the first pitcher that came to mind once I considered that path of exploration on the matter. Andy Messersmith-- chosen not because of preconceptions, but simply because I'm a Braves fan.
Here's Andy's numbers.
In 1974, the Dodgers finished third in the NL in TOT/YR, with a +3.2. In 75, the Dodgers finished 1st with a +7.9. Cincy was a distant runner-up at +5.2. Finally, in 1976, LA finished first again (+5.6) over 2nd place Philly (+2.6).
The common BABIP theory, as often provided on the internet and originating with Voros McCracken, gives most of the credit for Andy's BABIP to the defense and or/luck. And LA certainly shows up well in the TOT/YR category. Andy's BABIP those three years:
.
"This seems extremely consistent to me," the speaker said. In fact, nobody threw a tomato. It did seem consistent.
"That's because of the defense!" someone shouted.
"But then, what would happen to Messersmith's BABIP if he were traded from the best defensive team to the very worst? A HORRIBLE defensive team?"
Several prognosticators shouted that the BABIP would, rise, balloon, perhaps explode to above .300. After all, a pitcher has little to do with his BABIP.
" In 1977, Andy Messersmith went to the Atlanta Braves. The Braves finished dead last in TOT/YR. A shockingly dismal -12.7!!! The nearest team of defensive futility was the chicago cubs at -4.1!!
And so, what happened to Messersmith's BABIP?
.253 BABIP
Of course, this is just one example. But, one would think it beneficial to cross-check these types of stats. It's only a four year period, true. Some might suggest that's not enough time. But, if so, then there's an inherent and eternal flaw in stats like BABIP. From real life, we know that some players shine for only two, or three, or four years. If we cannot feel comfortable in measuring their success, that is a flaw. And a serious one."
He paused.