Some Curious Things About BABIP

[OldFatGuy]

Originally Posted by 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.

Or the simplest explanation of the difference betweeen home and away BABIP for pitchers is that pitchers pitch better at home than they do when they are away. Comfortable with the mound and all.

Or a combination of the two.

[RonCo]

Anything is possible, of course. And I'm sure the "right" answer is a mixture of both. The data, however, suggests a fairly heavy weighting in one direction over the other. No absolutes, of course.

[jar2574]

Originally Posted by knockahoma

So, I wondered. If BABIP is largely defense and luck, what are the odds to get readings like that over four seasons?

The odds are very good that some pitcher, somewhere, would have consistent BABIP over four seasons.

We wouldn't be having this discussion if someone hadn't looked at what you're looking at.

If the data didn't support the conclusion that most pitchers cannot control BABIP most of the time, then BABIP would never have been controversial -- and we probably wouldn't be talking about it -- because it would have supported conventional wisdom.

The odds of any given pitcher having consistent BABIP might be low, while the odds of some pitcher, somewhere, having consistent BABIP through random chance are high.

[knockahoma]

Hi, Ron.

I'll look for hitters BABIP at home and away. I was looking at a report on Oakland before you posted. The hitters in Oakland have consistently done better on the road. Pitchers did better at home. I'll try to hunt up the other numbers.

The immediate idea is that it's a pitcher's park. But the guy said that foul balls caught were only minimally better than the average ballpark (2.9% to 3.2% of outs, I think?). I'll have to go find it again. The guy said we didn't have to identify the cause, but just assume the pitcher's park worked for the Oakland pitchers. It always surprises me when they fail to even consider that pitchers just pitch better at home and it's reflected in BABIP. I suspect strongly that's because they feel a pitcher can't control his BABIP to that extent.

Jar:

The odds are very good that some pitcher, somewhere, would have consistent BABIP over four seasons.

What struck me is that I found stretches like that in probably half or more of the pitchers I looked at (mostly good pitchers). You can check it out on the OOTP historicals. When I get a chance, I'll post some team staffs.

That's what made me wonder what a stable pitcher's BABIP would be? In all our discussions, I don't remember reading that. Is it 10 points, 20 points? I'd think closer to the latter. And what's a "consistent" BABIP for hitters?

If anyone already knows the answer to that, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, I'll do some hunting.

If the data didn't support the conclusion that most pitchers cannot control BABIP most of the time, then BABIP would never have been controversial -- and we probably wouldn't be talking about it -- because it would have supported conventional wisdom.

The more I read the more I understand that's not "current wisdom". I believe I got this from Tango's Tiger's (?) site:

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.

I do think it's worth noting that the BABIP controversy was out of the womb based on a two year study by McCracken. He figured pitchers had little, or no control over BABIP. Personally, I had a problem with McCracken's interpretation. Now, I don't have much of a problem at all with the issue, since now we agree a pitcher contributes to BABIP, but how much? I just want to know what the number is.

But, as an ex-player and fan, I would not expect a strongly consistent 15 year career in most players. If you look at batters, you can often see them go through 3 or 4 year swings. It's interesting to see how careers parse up. And in about half the pitchers I saw, there was this type of parsing. Yeah, large swings when you look at the entire career. But a surprising amount of consistency over periods of three, or four years. I'd be interested what people had to say about that.

We wouldn't be having this discussion if someone hadn't looked at what you're looking at.

I suspect that's true. But, I haven't read about it yet. So, I'd like to track it down.

I'll put up a team staff of pitchers and show you what I mean about stretches of consistency.

[RonCo]

Enjoy your explorations!

[knockahoma]

Another thing on the plate. What was an average pitcher BABIP in the 70's? I understand .290-.300 is pretty average today. Not back in the day. And what does that mean?

I know the BA has gone up from .250 to about .270 since then. The BABIP too, then. I'm too tired today to wrap my head around the possible implications, or paths of exploration presented by that change. Maybe tomorrow.

But, if anyone has already looked at any of these factors, I'd appreciate the info. Otherwise, I'll post what I can dig up.

[knockahoma]

This is kind of an interesting look at BABIP from baseball-reference.com . Luis Tiant's performance by catcher for 1975:

Tim Blackwell .359 283 PA

Carlton Fisk .249 463 PA

Tim McCarver .429 38 PA

Bob Montgomery .260 276 PA

Obviously, not enough data. But interesting. I'm reminded of Steve Carlton's deep dependence on his special catcher, Tim McCarver. It would be interesting to see if there was a BABIP difference with Carlton with Tim at catcher versus others.

[knockahoma]

2008 BABIP average

NL .303
AL .303


2004 BABIP average

NL .299
AL .303

1994 BABIP average

NL .303
AL .303


1984 BABIP average

NL .290
AL .288


1974 BABIP average

NL .284
AL .285

1964 BABIP average

NL .286
AL .277


1954 BABIP average

NL .277
AL .278


Unfortunately, baseball prospectus' info stops at 1954.

[OldFatGuy]

Well, obviously, pitchers have gotten more and more unlucky and/or the hitters have gotten more skilled. Funny how it's all skill when it comes to hitters and all luck when it comes to pitchers.

The only real thing this tells us is the same thing that Toby Harrah told us it tells us a very long time ago when he said something along the lines of "Baseball stats are like a woman in a bikini. They show you a lot, but not everything." It's still just as true today as the day he said it. Yet some (like McCracken) want to make firm conclusions based on data (stats) that still "don't show us everything."

We may one day have the data to reach these types of conclusions, but right now, we just don't. There's still more unknown instead of known when it comes to explaining the results of baseball. We've gotten good at counting the results, but the data to explain every result is still just not available. At least not yet.

[jar2574]

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

Well, obviously, pitchers have gotten more and more unlucky and/or the hitters have gotten more skilled. Funny how it's all skill when it comes to hitters and all luck when it comes to pitchers.

Batters hit the ball harder, farther, and defense is less valued than it was in the 60s and 70s.

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

The only real thing this tells us is the same thing that Toby Harrah told us it tells us a very long time ago when he said something along the lines of "Baseball stats are like a woman in a bikini. They show you a lot, but not everything." It's still just as true today as the day he said it. Yet some (like McCracken) want to make firm conclusions based on data (stats) that still "don't show us everything."

We may one day have the data to reach these types of conclusions, but right now, we just don't. There's still more unknown instead of known when it comes to explaining the results of baseball. We've gotten good at counting the results, but the data to explain every result is still just not available. At least not yet.

The bikini has gotten smaller and baseball stats reveal more than ever.

It would be foolish to ignore beautiful ladies and new baseball stats just because they don't reveal everything.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by knockahoma

Unfortunately, baseball prospectus' info stops at 1954.

I'd guess that's because Retrosheet's box scores and play-by-play files used to stop at 1954.

[Left-handed Badger]

Originally Posted by RchW

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!!).

Umm, physics play into the bounces and such. We dont put our glove down and hope for the best, we put it in a certain way because 20 years of fielding grounders experience tells us it is 99 times out of 100 going to bounce to this spot based on the angle/speed it is moving. The other time something else happens. Hits a pebble, gopher hole whatever.

Course, this does assume you judged right. So, it is an educated guess. But, I doubt the MLers are flailing away hoping the ball hits their glove.

[knockahoma]

The other time something else happens. Hits a pebble, gopher hole whatever.

In our softball league, play continues as the gopher is considered part of the umpire crew.

[CBL-Commish]

Originally Posted by knockahoma

2008 BABIP average

NL .303
AL .303


2004 BABIP average

NL .299
AL .303

1994 BABIP average

NL .303
AL .303


1984 BABIP average

NL .290
AL .288


1974 BABIP average

NL .284
AL .285

1964 BABIP average

NL .286
AL .277


1954 BABIP average

NL .277
AL .278


Unfortunately, baseball prospectus' info stops at 1954.

My first thought is that the advances in bat technology, strength training for hitters, the shrinking strike zone, and the disappearance of 155-lb middle infielders has out paced any advances in fielding and pitching. In other words, more balls are hit harder today than they were 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago.

[knockahoma]

I think all of those things have had their effect. I was curious to see what happened to BABIP-- if anything-- the year the mound was lowered.

In other words, more balls are hit harder today than they were 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago.

This is why I began this thread. To get ideas and then to see if they can be verified by numbers, or personal testimony. One thing that's missing from that list is the classic complain about pitching depth-- expansion.

[CBL-Commish]

Originally Posted by knockahoma

One thing that's missing from that list is the classic complain about pitching depth-- expansion.

I left it off because I think that expansion of the talent pool has far outpaced the expansion of baseball, and the only reasons people think pitching is scarce is teams use a lot more pitchers than they used to, and other factors have driven runs higher than historical averages.

If all the new MallParks were 375-440-375 the same people would be talking about how expansion diluted hitting.

[knockahoma]

In 1968, hitting nearly died in the AL.

Carl Yastremski won the league batting title with a .301 BA. He was the only qualifying hitter over .300 that year. Finishing 2nd in the arctic cold race was Oakland's Cater with a .290 BA.

The AL pitchers finished with a league-wide BABIP of .262. The NL was 17 points higher with .279.

The baseball minds decided to lower the pitching mound by several inches. Now, rather than "Stand tall and fall", many pitchers would begin to "drop and drive".

The effect was immediate on league wide BABIPs. In 1969 the rates were:

NL BABIP: .285
AL BABIP: .273.


So, what inferences do we take from this stuff? Any at all?

[knockahoma]

My concern with BABIP in OOTP was featured in a 1974 replay last night. Andy Messersmith consistently beat the league average in BABIP through out his career. He appeared to me far more consistent than knuckle-baller Phil Niekro in that category.

In the replay, Messersmith gave up the EXACT number of homers as real life and was within literally a couple of walks and k's from his real life totals. An amazing reproduction on those numbers!

But Messersmith's 2.60 ERA didn't follow. Instead of the sub .250 BABIP he had in real life, his BABIP ballooned to above .300. That's back in the 70s by the way when the average BABIP was more .275-.285. Messersmith finished at 3.85, a point and a half beyond his actual ERA that year.

In this one instance, Messersmith's lack of control over his BABIP ruined a great replay for the pitcher. All other numbers were spot-on. Messersmith, who gave up 25 HRs, needed that good BABIP. Stripped of it, he finished with a nearly 4.00 ERA. LA finished 1st, so the defense probably imported decently.

I've been studying a lot of pitchers from the mid-70s. I've especially been looking at pitchers traded in mid-season. It's my growing belief that while defense and luck are major factors in real life BABIP, the better the pitcher, the less luck involved. In other words, you could take a mediocre pitcher, transplant him to an excellent defense and see good improvement.

But so far, I'm seeing a pattern with very good pitchers. If you transplant them back and forth between teams, their BABIP often remains consistent.

That's exactly what I would expect of a good pitcher who can exercise control over K's, BBs, HRs and BABIP in various degrees.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by knockahoma

In our softball league, play continues as the gopher is considered part of the umpire crew.

He's the one with the best vision, right?

[knockahoma]

He's the one with the best vision, right?

.