Quote:
Originally Posted by chazzycat
No one is being "penalized" for having a high or low BABIP for a week. BABIP in this context is just a tool that helps us figure out what's really going on.
Back to Nick Ahmed - his BABIP is .353. That lofty number explains why his overall production has met expectations, in terms of wOBA or wRC+ or whatever stat you like. But if you look closely at his batting line vs. the projections, you will see he is under-performing in both walk rate (Eye rating) and ISO (Power rating). Those are both more skill based than BABIP, which has a huge luck component. So I'm guessing those are the ratings that actually were penalized in the update, not his BABIP rating. BABIP just helps us explain why his production remained high.
|
He is literally, being penalized, he has a -3 adjustment. Like I said, small sample sizes, he could just be getting more pitches to hit this week. Let's say one hit, JUST ONE, of his hits was a 3-1 pitch that's outside the zone, which he laced for a single to knock in a runner from 3rd. We can say he lays off that pitch, now he has a .282 BA and a 7% BB rate, both well above his career rates.
You can't penalize guys for increased BABIP like that in such a small sample size. Look at Justin Turner, turns out he wasn't just lucky.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkgo
literally explained in the first post
also has nothing to do with your theory that "glove-first" cards are getting hosed
|
Yeah, I read it. Why can't it be both? This has everything to do w/ what I was saying about glove first guys. Look at the spreadsheet, now look at which position which positions are being penalized the most and at the highest impact. Do you think it's just random variance that one CF got a positive bump and like 30 got a negative bump?