Some Curious Things About BABIP

[knockahoma]

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:

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..."

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:

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:

.

246
.252
.242

"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.

[jar2574]

Seems much more likely to me that BAPIP is lower at home because the home team plays better defense at home than on the road. They know how the grass is cut, how to read grounders on the turf, the angle the ball takes off the wall, how to rob a homer at the wall, etc...

Also, I see inconsistency in BAPIP from year to year much more often than consistency. But I haven't researched the topic as much as others.

[knockahoma]

Seems much more likely to me that BAPIP is lower at home because the home team plays better defense at home than on the road. They know how the grass is cut, how to read grounders on the turf, the angle the ball takes off the wall, how to rob a homer at the wall, etc...

Maybe. Things to consider, which is really all I wanna do. . By Gum, even if a pitcher has NO control over BABIP, what do I care? I just want to have an accurate view of baseball and I want OOTP to have the best chance at recreating that world.

I think even BABIP proponents are concerned about 'backing into' BABIP from the pitcher stand point as far as OOTP10 goes.

It would be an aggravated mistake if pitchers control more balls in play that many believe. Some bullet-point thoughts up for discussion:

* Messersmith going from a top-notch defensive club to a horrible defensive club. Yet, his BABIP remains remarkably constant. To the point of game-playing, how many times is that likely to happen to Messersmith in a replay, if the defense is accurately represented?

Something appears to be missing in either BABIP, or TOT/ZN stats. Early on in my look at them, they often seem to clash and give mixed messages, or fail to support the conclusion of the other.

* Robbing a homer at the wall is a fairly rare event, even more so due to "knowledge of the wall". Even at Fenway, it was about how to play a ball OFF the wall, minimizing what was already a hit. How many times a year does that happen to one pitcher? The grass? As a former infielder grass doesn't have much to do with anything, unless it's taller, or shorter. But those two grass conditions are both home and away. More likely, the unfamiliar infield would cause an error, which wouldn't count on BABIP... I'm assuming. Of course, this is my experience talking, not some great study.

* Other sports acknowledge a "pump-up" factor with home field, or home court advantage. Other factors might include weather or surface type. But all things being equal, a home field advantage is usually assigned to energy and comfort of being before a friendly crowd who tries to pump you up to your best level. This seems a fair option for pitchers at home with lower BABIP. The obvious next question, and one the author of that article failed to follow, is this: What do the rest of pitcher stats show about home versus away? Things that have nothing to do with fielders: K's, BBs, and HRs? Can we adjust the ballpark factor for that answer?

* What is considered a consistent BABIP? A twenty point spread? Looking at Messersmith, in 4 years, 3 with a fine defensive team and 1 with a horrible defensive team (according to TOT/ZN), his BABIP ranged from only .242-.253.

* At any rate, it seems that comparing these two stats is an obvious way to test the other's merits and weaknesses.

[silvam14]

Another one of these threads?

[knockahoma]

It doesn't have to be

Isn't meant to be a knock-down thread. Mostly, I'm looking into some stuff that interests me. Anyone is welcome to throw in some thoughts, or not. As a bonus, we get to evaluate some of the latest stuff on the subject.


I think it would be interesting to study pitchers who are traded from a good defensive team to a bad one, or vice versa.

[jbergey22]

Its interesting keep up the good work.

When you were comparing the defenses on the pitcher/pitchers traded to good/poor fielding teams in which their BABIP stayed basically the same did you take into consideration on whether or not they were GB/FB pitchers and compare that particular part of the defense.

Also, I do agree that certain pitchers do maintain more control over the BABIP stat over other particular pitchers. I think BABIP theorists have a problem with this because in order for this theory to hold as much merit this cant be true.

It seems for gaming purposes this is a great way to create an engine other than maybe giving the top 5/bottom 5 BABIP pitchers in the league more control over the situation.

If you look at guys like Carlos Silva and L Hernandez who just chuck it up over the plate at 86-88 mph you will see their BABIP most years is over .300 while guys like Johan Santana/Greg Maddux in their prime were better than league average in BABIP category athough it is not excessive enough that anything can really be proved.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by knockahoma

As a former infielder grass doesn't have much to do with anything, unless it's taller, or shorter. But those two grass conditions are both home and away. More likely, the unfamiliar infield would cause an error, which wouldn't count on BABIP... I'm assuming. Of course, this is my experience talking, not some great study.

I'm enjoying your posts but I'll tweak your nose on this one. No way an unfamiliar infield would cause an error directly IMO. An error is a misplayed chance, a wild throw; both are unlikely to be caused by infield set up. A different set up may make you late to the ball or early to the ball, or to misjudge the ball. All will affect BABIP.

For example a bad hop is almost never an scored an error so that would affect BABIP (luck) directly. Now the extent of a bad bounce that gets away from a fielder would change with familiarity and positioning.

What affects BABIP here would be small changes in positioning, sightlines to the ball coming off the bat, reading the speed of a ground ball. We all see, in every game, one or three grounders that just go under the glove, or past the fingertips etc.

When 985 out of 1000 chances are turned into outs it seems to me that luck plays a big part both ways. The SS doesn't have his glove down yet the ball "good hops" into it. We only discuss the bad hops that lead to hits. Never the good lucky bounces that look like great plays (and probably are!!).

[knockahoma]

I'm enjoying your posts but I'll tweak your nose on this one. No way an unfamiliar infield would cause an error directly IMO. An error is a misplayed chance, a wild throw; both are unlikely to be caused by infield set up. A different set up may make you late to the ball or early to the ball, or to misjudge the ball. All will affect BABIP.

I was thinking of all the different fields I played on as SS in high school and college. I've also been on a softball team for years that travels to tournaments, so you see some really different types of infields there. Many times you'll get a hop that's a little high, or low, based on the infield's condition. Many times that slight change in ball direction will bounce off the heel of a fielder's glove. E6 from the booth. But the fielder saw the trickery provided by the field.

What affects BABIP here would be small changes in positioning, sightlines to the ball coming off the bat, reading the speed of a ground ball. We all see, in every game, one or three grounders that just go under the glove, or past the fingertips etc.

I'm not sure why positioning would come into play on a different field, unless it is a sightline issue. I guess you might adjust for grass cut. But, does that explain the neat divide between home and away numbers?

I had thought also of reading the speed of a grounder. I was taught that my job as a shortstop is to get in front of the ball if I had time.I can see a shortstop being lazy, thinking " I'll backhand this one" and getting fooled by the speed of a grounder between SS and 3B that goes into left field, but not after that. And that would be a rare occurence. I honestly don't remember that ever happening to me. We kind of got the feel of the infield speed during infield practice.

But, I'm willing to say that could happen. But would that stuff lead to a 7 point difference between home and visiting pitchers on their BABIP? That's hard for me to believe.

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. It’s essentially impossible for this to happen randomly.

If luck isn't the culprit, I'd find it much easier to believe as a former infielder, pitcher and hitter, to assign some of that to the pitcher, feeling comfortable at home, just like the other players.

I want to come back to this, though. It'll be interesting to see how TOT/YR applies to this question. I remember some players doing more poorly on the road than at home, for example.

When 985 out of 1000 chances are turned into outs it seems to me that luck plays a big part both ways. The SS doesn't have his glove down yet the ball "good hops" into it. We only discuss the bad hops that lead to hits. Never the good lucky bounces that look like great plays (and probably are!!).

I agree. I actually remember many times when grounders took a "teeny-teeny bad hop", unseen from the bench or crowd, that allowed me to get to the ball. I saw a lot of luck playing shortstop. As I approached 40, there got to be a lot more "unlucky balls", just out of my reach.

Seriously, though. That kind of luck-- according to the author-- can't be the answer over millions of ABs. We'd be back at the fielder being more comfortable with home grass, or give more credit to the pitcher. No doubt, both are effects. But, I didn't see home field advantage stuff on grass that often. (line of sight is a very keen observation. Sounds like you've played ball. In my experience, it was an occasional problem, but not to that degree. And so, I start to look at the pitcher.

I guess we should go look at TOT/ZN for home and away numbers.

[knockahoma]

Its interesting keep up the good work.

When you were comparing the defenses on the pitcher/pitchers traded to good/poor fielding teams in which their BABIP stayed basically the same did you take into consideration on whether or not they were GB/FB pitchers and compare that particular part of the defense.

Nope, I didn't. That's a good idea. I'll look at that. Dodgers OF versus Braves OF coming up.

I don't have time to get the numbers, but I was looking at Don Sutton today. He spent half a season with the Dodgers and half with the Astros. His BABIP was pretty stable with both clubs. Later, he went to Milwaukee, and again, his BABIP stayed within a reasonable range. Well... what is considered a reasonable range for BABIP, mathematically? I'd like to bring his BABIP number here, along with the TOT/ZN numbers for those clubs.

Anyway, thank you guys. I've got a bias coming into this discussion, but I don't want to be dogmatic. I just like the feedback so I can mull things over.

More importantly, if somebody says, " Hey, it could be this.", I'd like to devise some way to test the theories, including my own. That way the conversation remains productive and enlightening for all.

[lynchjm24]

I'm not sure what's curious about it. Wouldn't you expect BABIP to be lower at home? I wouldn't expect the home team to win 54% of the time and allow a higher BABIP.

First reaction is that park effects are a huge part of the issue. There are huge advantages to being a left or right handed pitcher in many stadiums, and teams tend to realize that and manage their roster accordingly.

The best example is left handed pitchers in Fenway. Boston has always limited them and their opposition can't build their roster around the dimensions.

If you want to have a serious discussion, you'd have to start with:

A. Links to whatever that defensive stat is. I follow this stuff religiously and have never heard of it. I have no idea what the scale is for a team. Is that 8 runs per position the Braves were worse then the Cubs, or is it 8 runs aggregate?

B. Stop posting in such a ridiculous fashion. You can deny it all you like, but it's clear that the backstory is created to start a fight. Post the facts and save the tomato nonsense.

C. An open mind. Not only have you decided what you think, you've decided what many of us think.

[lynchjm24]

Nevermind. In an age of stats like UZR there is no use talking about a stat that is basically a glorified zone rating.

Yes, it might be useful for importing historical players with more accurate OOTP ratings. No it's not useful for rehashing DIPS for the 50th time.

Everyone enjoy wasting your time on this. I've learned my lesson.

[Killing Time]

Originally Posted by silvam14

Another one of these threads?

[silvam14]

Originally Posted by knockahoma

It doesn't have to be

Isn't meant to be a knock-down thread. Mostly, I'm looking into some stuff that interests me. Anyone is welcome to throw in some thoughts, or not. As a bonus, we get to evaluate some of the latest stuff on the subject.


I think it would be interesting to study pitchers who are traded from a good defensive team to a bad one, or vice versa.

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!!!

[Killing Time]

Threads like this make kitty cry.

[knockahoma]

Jim,

Usually, by the few posts I remember of you, you seem like a nice guy. I wrote the opening as a reminder that BABIP is not a religion. I acknowledged that most in the "audience" were reasonable. But, I've seen people freak out if you disagreed with their vision of BABIP on many sites, now, after doing a bunch of reading on the subject.

Tango and James continue to question assertions and theories about pitching and defense to help them better understand baseball. These days, pretty much everyone agrees pitchers have some type of control over BABIP; it's the degree of control , and how much data is needed to determine the degree of that control. that seems to be in discussion. And for the Belanger-lovin' fan of defense that I am, I'm trying to figure out the split between defense and pitcher on BABIP.

I'm not sure what's curious about it. Wouldn't you expect BABIP to be lower at home? I wouldn't expect the home team to win 54% of the time and allow a higher BABIP.

First reaction is that park effects are a huge part of the issue. There are huge advantages to being a left or right handed pitcher in many stadiums, and teams tend to realize that and manage their roster accordingly.

Okay. My first reaction is that's not enough to explain the divide between home/visitor BABIP. That's purely a gut reply. But, I'll try to dig up some math on that.

In an age of stats like UZR there is no use talking about a stat that is basically a glorified zone rating.

This is a worthy comment. I used TOT/YR because Baseball-Reference.com features it on their site. But, I'll take a look at UZR and see how it applies to the question.

[knockahoma]

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:

.

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?

[Malleus Dei]

No offense, but why is this thread in the OOTP 10 forum?

[knockahoma]

Hi Mal,



If this belongs on a different board, I have no problems with that.

[knockahoma]

BABIP at home versus away.

It sounds like a fresh trail at any rate for those studying the issue. I'd sure like to see the home and away BABIP for a group of pitchers. That's probably the easiest next step.

[RonCo]

The simplest explanation of the difference between home and away BABIP for pitchers is that hitters hit better at home than they do when they are away.