Some Curious Things About BABIP

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

First, correlation does not necessarily equal causation. Second, crime rates have been trending downwards for quite a few years now, quite apart from concealed weapons laws, tougher sentencing, better policing, etc. See the book Freakonomics for an interesting take on what the biggest influence is on why crime rates have been trending downwards for the last fifteen years or so.

The point is that the anti-concealed people ignore the facts and just keep screaming whatever it is they are screaming.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by knockahoma

That's how I felt about it. I've been reading various sites and I thought a couple of posts on these past threads reminded me of Doctrinism--- only certain types of questions allowed, and not too many.

I can not believe I'm replying.

No one knows the exact way that credit for BABIP should be given between defense/luck/pitcher. It's probably different for every pitcher, stadium and era of play. If someone had the dead sea baseball scrolls which contain this information they would gladly share.

You seem to be looking for pitchers who have pitched better when their defense is better? There are plenty before your eyes. Seattle clearly has improved the outfield defense and shockingly fly ball pitcher Jarrod Washburn is having a great season in a stadium that suppresses home runs.

2009 BABIP - .269
2008 BABIP - .306
2009 ERA - 3.23
2008 BABIP - 4.69

Even the mainstream media gets the Rangers are better because their defense is much improved by adding Andrus and moving Young to 3rd and Davis to 1st.

The reason these discussions turn badly is because:
A. You approach the issue in a terrible fashion. Again the backstory in your original post is to insight an argument, only an idiot can't see that.
B. You have questions that you think people don't want to hear. The issue is that you have questions which can be researched, but you don't do the research. You want people to share your opinion based on questions you aren't willing to research yourself.
C. You misrepresent what your 'opposition' is saying. No one here is nearly as dogmatic as you are presenting them to be.

I know I'm wasting my time replying to someone who is just out for a trollish fight in the forums and I hope I can resist going forward.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

The point is that the anti-concealed people ignore the facts and just keep screaming whatever it is they are screaming.

Sweet Jesus can we please at least stay on topic.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

I asked the same thing at one point and no answer ever appeared. I was told I didn't understand BABIP all because they didn't understand what I was actually asking. Seemed funny to me...saying I was the one who didn't understand.



This is why I gave up talking about the entire topic. They know it all and the rest of us are morons. They remind me of those people who go around screaming that the creation of laws allowing people to carry concealed weapons will create a wild west environment even though every state that has those laws has seen a dramatic drop in violent crimes. These people just grasp onto something and regardless of any information that has come along that disagrees in whatever degree with their original thought is written off as wrong or insignificant because they are the closed minded ones who can not even consider the idea they may not be 100% correct about something. Then combine that with the patronizing way they talk to those who disagree.

You have impressed me with your efforts and patience. You certainly have a lot more patience than I do.

And your contribution is to throw around political stereotypes? Seems quite patronizing to those who wish to discuss baseball related matters here.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by RchW

And your contribution is to throw around political stereotypes? Seems quite patronizing to those who wish to discuss baseball related matters here.

So you chose 1 sentence out of all that to point out. Must have hit home.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

Sweet Jesus can we please at least stay on topic.

Yes. Tell that to the people who responded to that one sentence including yourself.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

The reason these discussions turn badly is because:
A. You approach the issue in a terrible fashion. Again the backstory in your original post is to insight an argument, only an idiot can't see that.
B. You have questions that you think people don't want to hear. The issue is that you have questions which can be researched, but you don't do the research. You want people to share your opinion based on questions you aren't willing to research yourself.
C. You misrepresent what your 'opposition' is saying. No one here is nearly as dogmatic as you are presenting them to be.

I know I'm wasting my time replying to someone who is just out for a trollish fight in the forums and I hope I can resist going forward.

Here is where you could be wrong. It's quite possible someone knows the answer to the question already and rather than wasting time trying to convince you of it they are trying to get you to look it up for yourself since you wouldn't believe it if they did try to tell you.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

I know I'm wasting my time replying to someone who is just out for a trollish fight in the forums and I hope I can resist going forward.

I hope you can resist too. You always use the word, or some variation of the word, troll on anyone you don't agree with.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

I hope you can resist too. You always use the word, or some variation of the word, troll on anyone you don't agree with.

Yeah you are right, people that want to have legitimate discussions generally write a post to start a thread like the tomato throwing nonsense that kicked this off.

[knockahoma]

A. You approach the issue in a terrible fashion. Again the backstory in your original post is to insight an argument, only an idiot can't see that.

No, it wasn't Lynch. Dramatized? Meant to be entertaining? Yes. I work in radio and that's how I think when I write. I dramatize a lot. But that's all. You're familiar with the term exegesis? I'm going to do one on my first several paragraphs. Your interpretation was not my intent.

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.

The poster, from the get-go, is trying to explain his view of the audience. The separation is so important that it begins in the 2nd sentence of the piece. MOST of the crowd seemed reasonable. Only a FEW had BABIP painted in blood. A strong visual meant to alert such people that they were over-reacting to questions-- even OBJECTIONS-- about a statistic. Again, this was aimed at a potential few. The majority were reasonable. Probably, the poster expected all to immediately imagine themselves as part of the larger, more reasonable group.

" 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."

Here, the writer is attempting to share a commonality. He makes a point of complimenting the development, design and aim of sabermetrics. However, BABIP has caused him concern. It doesn't quite feel right by his experience as a ballplayer and he sees some potential statistical inconsistencies that he wants included in the discussion.

A tomato missed its mark and struck the stone statue of Voros McCracken standing next to him. He held up his hands:

The Voros statue is meant to be a humorous representation of how A FEW sometimes let themselves become over-zealous, as if the laws and theories of BABIP are immutable and should be venerated. It is not a misrepresentation of a FEW who write things such as, " It has been proven...the argument is over." Bill James wrote a somewhat cutting commentary on these very types. He called them "bad" sabermetricians, incapable of admitting much remains unknown, fearing it, ignoring it while saying, "What Monster?"

In fact, James was doing the exact same thing. Was he trolling for fights? No. He was reminding-- thru dramatization and metaphor- that the discussion is far from over. Discuss away and away and away.

" 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 writer again is trying to clarify that he sees a lot of solid philosophy in BABIP. He pointedly admits he's following a trail that may lead him to any number of conclusions. The tomato-throw? I think the equivalent of tomato-throws on forums is pretty obvious. I surely have recognized when they've been thrown at me.

As far as the other stuff, all I've been doing on several threads is researching links and stats. I didn't ask anyone to research FOR me. I asked if they'd already seen something, or if they had inferences based on the research I brought to the thread.

Lastly, I haven't attacked you in any way on any post. Nor have I personally attacked anyone else. Nowhere on this thread do you see me treating an individual with lack of respect. I got sharp with Ron only because he specifically pointed at me and implied I was taking a quote out of context.

I certainly did not have Ron, or you, or specifically anyone else in mind when I posted that. I had a vague recollection of a few posts that were pretty zealous, posts that said, " It's been studied. The discussion is over." I couldn't even tell you who wrote it, since I'm new to the board and the names still blur. But, even then, I thought of these as temporary attitudes, where people get too passionate in the moment.

And that brings me full-circle to my purpose in writing what I did: NOT to start fights, but to remind a potential few of their attitude, thereby changing the conversation into one of productivity.

Honestly, I figured everyone, no matter what attitude they came in with, would read that and say, " He's talking about someone else. Okay. What's he got to say this time?"

I think I'll let it go at that.

[knockahoma]

Lynch,

I will add this. If I'd really wanted to do some trollin' and start trouble, your 2nd post to me would have been a good excuse.

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

Instead, consider how I responded to your post.

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.



Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.

I wasn't interested in picking a fight. I was just writing a cautionary tale.

[RonCo]

Ah, the old "tell those guys with bad attitudes to check 'em at the door" approach. Yes, that always works so well.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by knockahoma

Of course, I invite someone else to research that. Makes me do less work!

Can you give me a 10 paragraph summary on how I misunderstood this too?

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by knockahoma

I was just writing a cautionary tale.

We don't need a cautionary tale. You are a smart guy. If you want to put together evidence and try to draw conclusions from it... then do that. Don't randomly punch around baseball-reference picking an example here and an example there while ignoring hundreds of examples who don't meet the criteria for which you are looking.

It's pretty simple: There is a ton of evidence that a lot of what people used to consider pitching skill is actually defense. It's so intuitive that it's hard to believe how hard people will argue against it.

I've been watching Blue Jays/Nationals tonight:

In the top of the 7th, Chavez hit an absolute bullet to center with a man on first and no one out. Harris made a diving catch to save a triple and a run. Detwiler was able to get the next two outs and was unscathed.

In the bottom of the 7th, a deep fly ball was out of Wells' reach for a ground rule double. Later in the inning Wells dropped a ball he almost caught as he got to the wall. These two doubles led to 2 runs being scored off Cecil.

Harris' play was a tougher play then either play Wells didn't make. So Cecil got charged with 2 runs in that inning and Detwiler got charged with none. In reality it was Harris playing better then Wells that dictated the results. Detwiler's line will look better then it should because of the brilliant play, Cecil's won't look as good as it could have because Wells made neither of his tough opportunities, the second of which absolutely should have been hung onto.

I don't know exactly how much skill pitcher's have in controlling hits on balls in play. I do know that it's MUCH LESS then most fans think and it's MUCH LESS then I thought before I was exposed to this theory.

You claim to have played at a decent level. It always amazes me how hard players seem to argue against these concepts. They know more then anyone how much work is put into defensive positioning and scouting and the impact it can have.

If pitchers have so much control on what happens in balls in play, then why teams employ so many shifts against hitters like Ortiz, and why does Ortiz hit the ball into the shift so much? Why don't teams have shifts based on who their pitchers are instead of who is hitting?

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

The point is that the anti-concealed people ignore the facts and just keep screaming whatever it is they are screaming.

Interesting statement considering you offered no supporting evidence to your claim (other than your certainty it is true), and failed to consider any other contributing reasons as to why crime rates are falling. You appeared to have concluded correlation equals causation, the very first thing I warned about in my reply. That has a bearing on the main topic of this thread, since the subject matter is very much in the realm of proper statistical analysis.

It would seem you are letting personal politics, preference, bias, whatever one might wish to term it, colour your perception of the data (baseball or otherwise).


Note: I have no dog in this fight (baseball or otherwise). In terms of DIPS-related topics, RonCo has posted all manner of in-depth statistical studies and backed it up with some sound analysis.

[Left-handed Badger]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Interesting statement considering you offered no supporting evidence to your claim (other than your certainty it is true), and failed to consider any other contributing reasons as to why crime rates are falling. You appeared to have concluded correlation equals causation, the very first thing I warned about in my reply. That has a bearing on the main topic of this thread, since the subject matter is very much in the realm of proper statistical analysis.

It would seem you are letting personal politics, preference, bias, whatever one might wish to term it, colour your perception of the data (baseball or otherwise).


Note: I have no dog in this fight (baseball or otherwise). In terms of DIPS-related topics, RonCo has posted all manner of in-depth statistical studies and backed it up with some sound analysis.

Did you consider that he might have been saying not that less gun control causes less crime. But, that less gun control doesnt mean the crime rate would skyrocket, which is what his opponents were claiming. At least that was what i got out of it.

[Left-handed Badger]

Anyhow, with all this BABIP research the impression I have been getting the last couple of threads (and since I started trying to understand sabremetrcs really) is that.

A) Pitching is almost entirely dependent on defense.

B) Defense is inconsequential.


And given, some of the other hitting stats. I cant help but think EVERY team should build their team:

You should spend all your money on all the mashers you can get. Especially if they can draw huge amounts of walks. If they are defense it is a "slight" bonus. But, dont worry about it whatsoever. As for your pitching unless they can strike out an ungodly anount of batters go for as cheap as possible. Because they are just bodies on the roster to throw the ball.

Now, I know this isnt what is intentionally being applied from you guys, necessarily. But, this is how it is being interpretted by me. I want to know how I get from there to where I can at least decipher where the rest of you are coming from.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

We don't need a cautionary tale. You are a smart guy. If you want to put together evidence and try to draw conclusions from it... then do that. Don't randomly punch around baseball-reference picking an example here and an example there while ignoring hundreds of examples who don't meet the criteria for which you are looking.

It's pretty simple: There is a ton of evidence that a lot of what people used to consider pitching skill is actually defense. It's so intuitive that it's hard to believe how hard people will argue against it.

I've been watching Blue Jays/Nationals tonight:

In the top of the 7th, Chavez hit an absolute bullet to center with a man on first and no one out. Harris made a diving catch to save a triple and a run. Detwiler was able to get the next two outs and was unscathed.

In the bottom of the 7th, a deep fly ball was out of Wells' reach for a ground rule double. Later in the inning Wells dropped a ball he almost caught as he got to the wall. These two doubles led to 2 runs being scored off Cecil.

Harris' play was a tougher play then either play Wells didn't make. So Cecil got charged with 2 runs in that inning and Detwiler got charged with none. In reality it was Harris playing better then Wells that dictated the results. Detwiler's line will look better then it should because of the brilliant play, Cecil's won't look as good as it could have because Wells made neither of his tough opportunities, the second of which absolutely should have been hung onto.

I don't know exactly how much skill pitcher's have in controlling hits on balls in play. I do know that it's MUCH LESS then most fans think and it's MUCH LESS then I thought before I was exposed to this theory.

You claim to have played at a decent level. It always amazes me how hard players seem to argue against these concepts. They know more then anyone how much work is put into defensive positioning and scouting and the impact it can have.

If pitchers have so much control on what happens in balls in play, then why teams employ so many shifts against hitters like Ortiz, and why does Ortiz hit the ball into the shift so much? Why don't teams have shifts based on who their pitchers are instead of who is hitting?

Well said. I've not said much on this because it is tough to articulate. Every game I watch (and every game I played) there are several such plays where the 50/50 result swinging one way or the other can change everything. Even a poor defensive team like the Nationals (and they tried to give it away tonight) can win if they make 1 or 2 plays at a critical point in the game. The Jays OTOH are demonstrably a superior defensive team but failed at their critical opportunities and wasted a good start by Cecil.

The eventual winner was, of course, completely in the hands of the pitcher.

[Left-handed Badger]

What


How was in the hands of the pitcher? Didnt the 2 just finish pointing out that those great plays were the difference in the game thereby undermining that?

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by Left-handed Badger

B) Defense is inconsequential.

?

I think it's the complete opposite, defense is very important and it's clear that a shift has occured in the major leagues to value it more highly.

The Blue Jays led the AL in ERA last year. Look at their pitching staff. They led the league in ERA because they had the best defense in the league.

Argue against DIPS all you like, but you easily tell many major league teams take it quite seriously.