View Single Post
Old 06-17-2009, 09:19 AM   #16
knockahoma
All Star Reserve
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 792
Quote:
I'm not trying to belittle your thread by any means. My post was meant more to say that I have a great deal of difficulty following some of this deep statistical talk. I sometimes have to re-read these threads several times slowly to figure out what everyone is trying to prove in here. Then I feel dumb! Damn you!!!
No, it's okay, Silvam. I realize the last thread got heated. And frankly, I ain't going there on this one. I just want to look at some stuff. Last night I was perusing a bunch of pitchers from the 70s.

It was interesting how many of them hit .300 + BABIP in their last couple of years. Some might say, " Well, management threw them out because they were old and unlucky!" I want to look at that. From the older perspective, it could be read as an indicator their stuff was getting hit harder-- a statistical sign that they were headed to the glue factory.

I also noticed a TON of pitchers who had BABIP over three or four year periods that read like:

.
Quote:
271
.271
.264
.278
So, I wondered. If BABIP is largely defense and luck, what are the odds to get readings like that over four seasons?
knockahoma is offline   Reply With Quote