Some Curious Things About BABIP

[knockahoma]

So this would say that if Markus has it right, Messersmith could be expected to have a BABIP within 10 points of his real value only 3.5 out of every 10 sims.

I would be happy with that result. To me, the red flag is when Messersmith has a BABIP 40 or 50 points over his imported self in five out of six seasons with the Padres. I guess I should really do a 20 season sim on that to make sure.

By, the way, as another point of agreement, I concur that Sabermetrics gets the headlines only on disagreements. In fact, looking around, it's my impression that the biggest fireball of all IS BABIP.

It all makes you wonder about the nature of baseball. You don't see this kind of stuff with basketball and football, not the same kind of philosophical pinnings. I can't recall the name of the book, but a guy back in the 60s wrote a novel where a man played a table-top baseball game. The whole book turned into a tome of philosophy about reality and the real world.

Try selling that read to Larry Csonka.

I'm gone til tomorrow.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by knockahoma

Geez,
What I was saying was that, even back in the day, managers were more concerned with pitchers giving up homers, a lot of walks, or getting enough strikeouts than they were just with hits.

In other words, BABIP came along and said, " Look at me! I'm a new stat! Look at me!" Several years later, Voros comes along and says, " That ain't much of a stat. Look at HRs, BBs, and Ks first."

But that's what baseball people had been doing a long time... and never really stopped doing, in my opinion.

Now you know why I'm confused by this argument as I always have been. DIPS makes perfect sense, yet no one will argue more vehemently then former players. Pitchers have been told forever to strike guys out, not walk batters and try to avoid home runs, yet some nerd puts it on paper and it's a Baseball World War.

For arguments sake let's sake Maddux can truly limit BABIP by about .010 which is what Tango suggested earlier. That is a grand total of 4-5 hits a season. Less then a hit a month in a full season.

If one of the best at this skill is only that much better then average, then why is it a big deal anyway?

If it's such an important skill where is the one fly ball pitcher in baseball today who can get by on limiting hits but doesn't strike out a lot of guys and walks a lot of guys? Where is he?

EDIT: BABIP came out of the DIPS studies, I do not know of anyone who tracked it or used it for anything beforehand.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by andymac

I think this is where you are off. I absolutely think that "baseball people" used to look at "hits" as being just as important as HR's, BB's & K's. In fact, they didn't even look at HR's, BB's & K's all that much. They looked at IP, Hits & E.R.A.

I think they looked at Ks, BB, and HR, too. But they often put Hits, ERA, and to a lesser extent IP at equal weights as the TTO. It's the weighting that's at question.

And, no, McCracken's work did not say that "BABIP is not much of a stat." And no, the saber-synchophants did not go blindly nodding their heads...

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by knockahoma

I would be happy with that result. To me, the red flag is when Messersmith has a BABIP 40 or 50 points over his imported self in five out of six seasons with the Padres. I guess I should really do a 20 season sim on that to make sure.

By, the way, as another point of agreement, I concur that Sabermetrics gets the headlines only on disagreements. In fact, looking around, it's my impression that the biggest fireball of all IS BABIP.

It all makes you wonder about the nature of baseball. You don't see this kind of stuff with basketball and football, not the same kind of philosophical pinnings. I can't recall the name of the book, but a guy back in the 60s wrote a novel where a man played a table-top baseball game. The whole book turned into a tome of philosophy about reality and the real world.

Try selling that read to Larry Csonka.

I'm gone til tomorrow.

You can't make sweeping generalizations based on one pitcher in a handful of sims. Especially OOTP as a historical game since we know defense matters very much and you can't import the real life defenders with the correct ratings.

I'll say it for what feels like the 20th time.

Your expectations of this game and how this game works do not line up.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by knockahoma

I
By, the way, as another point of agreement, I concur that Sabermetrics gets the headlines only on disagreements. In fact, looking around, it's my impression that the biggest fireball of all IS BABIP.

It's just the latest soup of the day. RBI, ERA, OBP, and many others have preceded it.

[asavoca]

Just wondering...

Originally Posted by 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:



" 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 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:



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:

.

"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.

[knockahoma]

Thanks for the replies on BABIP origins. I thought someone on a post long ago had attributed that to roto players.... (suck it up, Knocka, suck it up). I was wrong.


Lynch:

You can't make sweeping generalizations based on one pitcher in a handful of sims. Especially OOTP as a historical game since we know defense matters very much and you can't import the real life defenders with the correct ratings.

Messersmith was a red flag. He was just the first clue. You might have missed all those sims and real life stats on BABIP variances I posted over-night? It's gone way beyond Messersmith.

Again, this seems to be getting lost. I'm not upset that Messersmith performs poorly in a sim. I think it signals something might be wrong when he performs BADLY in 5 out of 6 as a Padre and very well 5 out of 6 times as a Dodger. Anyway, it's well beyond Messersmith. I think I looked at about 200 pitchers last night and posted what I found.


Ron has said that he believes Marcus already employs some pitcher influence on BABIP. So, it's just a matter of raising, or lowering the volume on that, and voila! I don't believe I'm out of whack with what the game can be, at all. It still doesn't fix the import problems, but it might help minimize them. The idea: if we can discover the true life BABIP variances and get the game to ape them, then by statistical definition, the defense and pitching are working correctly.

Hey. You wrote a while back that we couldn't know which teams were good defensively back in the 70s. The stats sucked. What defensive stats do you like and dislike for accuracy?

Ron,

Originally Posted by andymac
I think this is where you are off. I absolutely think that "baseball people" used to look at "hits" as being just as important as HR's, BB's & K's. In fact, they didn't even look at HR's, BB's & K's all that much. They looked at IP, Hits & E.R.A.

Ron: I think they looked at Ks, BB, and HR, too. But they often put Hits, ERA, and to a lesser extent IP at equal weights as the TTO. It's the weighting that's at question.

I've got a couple of major league baseball friends, one from the 90s and one back from the late 70s and early 80s. I'll ask them for some history. We've got so many interesting conversations going here. I've been meaning to set up a couple of interviews with an old major league coach and just pump him for information.

And, no, McCracken's work did not say that "BABIP is not much of a stat." And no, the saber-synchophants did not go blindly nodding their heads...

Here's a good example of what I mean, bold mine:

What this meant, from a prospective point of view, is that you could have a better idea of how a pitcher would perform in subsequent years by looking at his defense-independent statistics and ignoring his BABIP, than you could by looking at his ERA or a component ERA. McCracken devised a statistic called DIPS (Defense Independent Pitching Statistics) ERA to give us a view of what kind of performance to expect from a pitcher going forward, unclouded by a high or low BABIP.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=6366

[knockahoma]

I have been quite impressed with an article earlier linked to by Vogon. I think it says some interesting things about what was baseball theory back in the 50s. For now, it's the best I can find. You can draw inferences on what was popular wisdom and when that wisdom was first confronted by new theories. The writer makes his own comments, which I like. Maybe both sides will like this:

During a recent trip back east, I was able to find a noteworthy
article written by the great Branch Rickey back in the 1950's
that, incredibly enough, reads like a stathead analysis of today.
The article appeared in the August 2, 1954 edition of LIFE
magazine on page 78, and is entitled "Goodby To Some Old Baseball
Ideas".

[Begin excerpts]
"Baseball people generally are allergic to new ideas. We are
slow to change. For 51 years I have judged baseball by personal
observation, by considered opinion, and by accepted statistical
methods. But recently I have come upon a device for measuring
baseball which has compelled me to put different values on some
of my oldest and most cherished theories. It reveals some new
and startling truths about the nature of the game. It is a means
of gauging with a high degree of accuracy important factors which
contribute to winning and losing baseball games. It is the most
disconcerting and at the same time the most constructive thing to
come into baseball in my memory.
[...]
If the baseball world is to accept this new system of analyzing
the game -- and eventually it will -- it must first give up
preconceived ideas. I had to. The formula outrages certain
standards that experienced baseball people have sworn by all
their lives. Runs batted in? A misleading figure. Strikeouts?
I always rated them highly as a determining force in pitching. I
do now. But new facts convince me that I have overrated their
importance in so far as game importance is concerned. Even
batting average must be reexamined.
[...]
There are people who pride themselves on their ability to quote
what Johnny Whosit hit the year of the big flood. Among fans it
is the accepted standard of excellence at bat. Why? Principally
because it is easy to figure. Even the professionals lean upon
it. But batting average is only a partial means of determining a
man's effectiveness on offense. It neglects a major factor, the
base on balls, which is reflected only negatively in the batting
average (by not counting it as a time at bat). Actually, walks
are extremely important.
[...]
Statistics, of course, cannot tell the whole story. They fall
short of bridging the gap between human expectancy and
fulfillment. They cannot measure such intangibles as
intelligence, courage, disposition, effort.
But somehow baseball's intangibles balance out. They reflect
themselves in other ways. Over an entire season, or many
seasons, individuals and teams build an accumulation of
mathematical constants. A man can work with them. He can
measure results and establish values. He can then construct a
formula which expresses something tangible [...]
[...]
We took the figures to mathematicians at a famous research
institute. Did they know baseball? No, but that was not
essential.
Their job was to take our figures and our guidance and, by the
process of correlation analysis, see what relation one set of
figures had to another.
[...]
After six weeks the finding came back. Among them was one which
constitutes a framework around which to build a formula. The
mathematicans discovered that by subtracting opponents runs from
the runs scored per game by a team over a season they got a
column of figures which correlated strongly with the final
standings.
[...]
This, of course, was just the beginning. By using [the above
mentioned relationship] as a guide it was possible to jump off
into unexplored territory, testing the footing to learn where we
were on solid ground and where we sank in. If we could separate
the measurable component parts of offense and relate them to one
to another, we would have half of the formula. If we could do
the same with defense we would have all of it.
[...]
These were the three basic, measurable ingredients for offense;
on base average, extra base power, and clutch"
[Ed. note -- the "clutch" that Rickey refers to here is
the percentage of all baserunners who score, not what we
nowadays typically call clutch hitting -- i.e. average with RISP
or LIPS]
[...]
Unfortunately, there was no way of applying all three of these
basic factors to individual as well as teams. Clutch was
strictly a team figure. You may say that runs batted in is a
partial substitute for the clutch figure, but after giving it a
thorough trial we found there was still no place for RBIs in the
formula. As a statistic RBIs were not only misleading but
dishonest. They depended on managerial control, a hitter's
position in the batting order, park dimensions, and the success
of his teammates in getting on base ahead of him. That left two
measurable factors -- on base average and power -- by which to
gauge the overall offensive worth of an individual."
[...]
Fielding averages? Utterly worthless as a yardstick. They are
not only misleading but deceiving. Take Zeke Bonura, the old
White Sox first baseman, generally regarded as a poor fielder.
The fielding averages showed that he led the American League in
fielding for three years. Why? Zeke has "good hands"! Anything
he reached, he held. Result: an absence of errors. But he was
also slow moving and did not cover much territory. Balls that a
quicker man may have fielded went for base hits, but the fielding
averages do not reflect this.
[...]

But pitching! There's something a man can get his teeth into. If there is any one phase of the game on which I might consider myself an expert it is pitching. Poise, control and stuff are three important assets possessed by great pitchers. And what about his skills? What can he make a baseball do? Does one count for more than another?



Walter Johnson and Preacher Roe


There have been pitchers who have gotten by without one or the other of these basic requirements, but they would have been exceptions in any league and they are not the best. I doubt if Walter Johnson ever gave a thought to pitching to spots, the stock in trade of current pitchers. He just wound up and fired. If you have a strong back and a buggy-whip arm you don't have to think. Preacher Roe, Brooklyn's oldest and most artful pitcher of recent years, is the other extreme. Roe doesn't have much speed, but he has variety. He has control and poise. He sets batters up to swing at a certain pitch. He keeps them off balance and guessing.




Whatever combination of these three qualities a pitcher has, the
total is reflected by one standard -- Earned Run Average. [...]
There have been attempts to substitute for ERA, but none of them
has been convincing or successful.
[...]
[...] More surprisingly still, I found that the ability to strike
batters out was not a determinent of good pitching in the real
sense.
[...]
It turned out that hits allowed, walks allowed and clutches were
of equal importance. But not strikeouts. After examining all
the evidence, I was forced to admit, and I did so grudingly, that
strikeouts contributed nothing more to the end result than pop
fouls caught by the catcher. After all, they were just another
means of getting men out.
[...]
We now have an instrument for determining the value of elements
which go into the two basic departments of baseball. We can
examine with sharper insight the performance of a team or
individual over a given period. This knowledge can be used to
detect flaws that would not otherwise be noted, to give a proper
balance to baseball forces, to rearrange batting orders
intelligently, to pinpoint problems in pitching. Although the
formula gives a comprehensive diagnosis of teams and players, it
has limitations. It cannot predict the performance of a team on
any given day or in any brief series because players have good
and bad days. Nor can it foresee with accuracy the outcome of a
pennant race because players do not always live up to past
performances. But the formula is a valuable tool for analysis
and just think of what it will do in those hot-stove league
arguments.
[...]
Now that I believe in this formula, I intend to use it as
sensibly as I can in building my Pittsburhgh club into a pennant
contender. What is wrong with the Pirates? The formula opened
my eyes to the fact that the Pirates OBA is almost as high as
that of the league-leading New York Giants. We get plenty of men
on base. But they stay there! Our clutch figure is pathetically
low [...] My purpose is to raise a crop of plauers [...] and my
scouts must indeed use their eyes to find more power for clutch.
This study has been a series of surprises to me. I repeat:
baseball people -- and that includes myself -- are slow to change
and accept new ideas. [...] It is the hardest thing in the
world to get big league baseball to change anything -- even
spikes on a pair of shoes. But they will accept this new
interpretation of baseball statistics eventually. They are bound
to."
[End of excerpts]

Wow! Forty years ago (and 25 years before Bill James), one of the greatest
baseball management minds of all time discovered the same basic conclusions
that sabermetrics has been pushing for years. This should be a powerful
counterargument to the oft-touted line that "no baseball executive or manager
has ever agreed with or used stathead ideas."
RBI's are misleading? Strikeouts overrated? Batting averages not meaningful?
Fielding percentage useless? A mathematical relationship between winning
percentage and runs scored/runs allowed? Individual offense boiling down to
on base average and power? The concept that relevant analysis can be
performed by non-baseball insiders? Truly remarkable!
In fact, Rickey commits publically to using the conclusions of this article to
rebuild a pathetic Pittsburgh franchise (Rickey took over the Pirates in 1951,
and team proceded to lose 90, 112, 104, and 101 games through the 1954
season). How'd he do?
For starters, the very next season, 1955, the Pirates' SLG jumped
11 points, and then another 19 the year after that. In four
years, the Pirates' SLG went from .350 to .410, consistent with
the goals he outlined above.
The team's ERA improved by over a run in just two seasons (and stayed at that
level for several years afterward), as the team allowed 1.5 fewer baserunners
per 9 innings, again in keeping
with the conclusions of the article.
Overall, the Pirates climbed over the .400 winning percentage mark the very
next year (for the first time since 1951), and were over .500 by 1958. The
culmination of Rickey's rebuilding occured in 1960 when the Pirates, led by a
core of talent built by Branch Rickey, won the World Series on Bill
Mazeroski's famous HR over the Yankees.
Rickey had left the Pirates by then, but the foundation he laid, using
essentially stathead principles, *did* produce a winner.
P.S. I should mention that I was originally inspired to search for this
article by a presentation at the national SABR convention in San Diego that
credits Allan Roth, a statistician who actually performed the analysis in
Rickey's article, as being the first modern baseball analyst. The
presentation was entitled "Allen Roth's True Discovery of
Sabermetrics Revealed, with Others' Bells and Whistles" 'by C. David
Stephan of Los Angeles. The author preserved and catalogued Roth's
files for the A.A.F.

You can see the formulas here:http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/...o_old_idea.htm

[Vogon Poet]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

For arguments sake let's sake Maddux can truly limit BABIP by about .010 which is what Tango suggested earlier. That is a grand total of 4-5 hits a season. Less then a hit a month in a full season.

If one of the best at this skill is only that much better then average, then why is it a big deal anyway?

I think Maddux only came up because I used him as an example. I picked him at random, not because he was the best ever at it.

The best ever (or at least since 1916) is Charlie Hough, whose "true" BABIP skill was worth 23 points (Maddux, by this method, was 5 points better than average). Assuming 600 BIP/yr, he prevented 14 hits per year through his BABIP skill. I'd guess that translates into .25-.50 runs off his ERA.

Now that's not peak skill, but total across Hough's entire career, downside and all. Certainly nothing to scoff at, though certainly not as big as the impact of other facets of the game. Again, I don't think anyone is really surprised by this.

EDIT: here's a Google doc of all pitchers since 1916: BABIP, pitcher and mates

[RonCo]

I suspect Branch Rickey would adore the fundamental concept of DIPS.

[knockahoma]

One more last correction from my red, sleep-deprived eyes.

I think this is where you are off. I absolutely think that "baseball people" used to look at "hits" as being just as important as HR's, BB's & K's. In fact, they didn't even look at HR's, BB's & K's all that much. They looked at IP, Hits & E.R.A.

Ron: I think they looked at Ks, BB, and HR, too. But they often put Hits, ERA, and to a lesser extent IP at equal weights as the TTO. It's the weighting that's at question.

. I was recalling an article I read on pitchers and simple hits per inning as a new wrinkle back in the late 70s, or early 80s. But, I can't find details on how hits per inning was viewed in, say, the 60s and 70s.

Rickey's article whispers to my memory, by implying a differentiation did exist on how strikeouts, walks and hits were viewed when he writes,

It turned out that hits allowed, walks allowed and clutches of equal importance. But not strikeouts. After examining all the evidence, I was forced to admit, and I did so grudingly, that strikeouts contributed nothing more to the end result than pop fouls caught by the catcher

But, with nothing more than that to back me at this time, I'd rather withdraw the assertion and say, " I'm not certain how they looked at hits per inning back then."

I suspect Branch Rickey would adore the fundamental concept of DIPS.

The only real problem I've ever had with the concept was McCracken's unusual first interpretation. I know Tippett, Tango and others have corrected his original view in writing, interpreting McCracken's view just as I did. Since then, it's just been a matter of degree people seem to be arguing. I don't have an emotional stake in what that number turns out to be.

I've read several people lately who believe BABIP, or it's next-gen cousin, will become more and more revealing. They're talking about clocking hit balls on radar. That, by itself, will interest me. What inferences could we draw from a pitcher whose balls in play average 5MPH slower than another's?

At any rate, I'm truly done for the day. Y'all have fun with the game.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by knockahoma

Messersmith was a red flag. He was just the first clue. You might have missed all those sims and real life stats on BABIP variances I posted over-night? It's gone way beyond Messersmith.

Again, this seems to be getting lost. I'm not upset that Messersmith performs poorly in a sim. I think it signals something might be wrong when he performs BADLY in 5 out of 6 as a Padre and very well 5 out of 6 times as a Dodger. Anyway, it's well beyond Messersmith. I think I looked at about 200 pitchers last night and posted what I found.

The numbers you posted last night looked like they lined up pretty well with real life, am I missing something in those numbers? In your own post you say they look pretty good.

Messersmith could be a red flag, or he could be one pitcher in a handful of sims. Based on everything else you've posted I don't know why you'd still assume he is a sign of a larger problem.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by Vogon Poet

I think Maddux only came up because I used him as an example. I picked him at random, not because he was the best ever at it.

The best ever (or at least since 1916) is Charlie Hough, whose "true" BABIP skill was worth 23 points (Maddux, by this method, was 5 points better than average). Assuming 600 BIP/yr, he prevented 14 hits per year through his BABIP skill. I'd guess that translates into .25-.50 runs off his ERA.

Now that's not peak skill, but total across Hough's entire career, downside and all. Certainly nothing to scoff at, though certainly not as big as the impact of other facets of the game. Again, I don't think anyone is really surprised by this.

EDIT: here's a Google doc of all pitchers since 1916: BABIP, pitcher and mates

A hit every other week is useful certainly, but I think that if he truly is the best of all time... then it's not a huge stretch to say that pitchers who can survive in the major leagues pretty much have the a similar ability to limit hits on balls in play.

I do think that the knuckleballers are a special case as well. Once Wakefield is done... there are none on the horizon. It might be that knuckleballers can't survive in current day baseball, would Hough or the Niekros survive today? I think that they might, but I really do not think they would be as successful as they were.

[Left-handed Badger]

Originally Posted by RonCo

There are other things that can affect this -- imbalances in player ratings, league totals, park factors, in particular. Also, if a single team amasses a collection of players on the far end of a scale, the numbers _could_ sway one way or another.

Based on a few things Markus has said, I'm thinking he's double-counted a couple things people are using as "possible BABIP control factors." Hence his pitchers control BABIP a little bit more than real pitchers do. Regardless, from your numbers above, assuming the additional consistency is true, whatever influence is happening is not influencing things _too_ badly.

Either way, though, while OOTP is going to create several consistent pitchers, it can't today guarantee that the right guys (Andy Messersmith?) are going to be the consistent ones in any particular year. To do this, random nature of the game of baseball would need to be coded out of the game.

Actually you could give Messersmith that consistency. You could give them an "affect BABIP" attribute. Not even sure how to begin with that (especially since I know squat about computer coding). But, I suppose you could have most fairly low and those would be the ones that seem inconsistent, and then you could have the occasional Messersmith or Ray Kremer who would have a high rating in it.

[Aytumious]

Delete.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by Left-handed Badger

Actually you could give Messersmith that consistency. You could give them an "affect BABIP" attribute. Not even sure how to begin with that (especially since I know squat about computer coding). But, I suppose you could have most fairly low and those would be the ones that seem inconsistent, and then you could have the occasional Messersmith or Ray Kremer who would have a high rating in it.

Not really--not without changing the fundamental algorithms that the game engine uses. Yes, you could give each pitcher a small BABIP offset from league norm--then over several thousand BIP, that offset would become a visible effect (as it seems to in real life). But it would not change the fact that random chance is going to allow that pitcher's BABIP to vary from year-to-year within the contraints that Knockahoma just advertised. In addition, this isn't really about the offset, it's about the removal of randomness, regardless of the value of Messersmith's skill.

In order to make certain _Messersmith_ is one of those consistent guys you would need to change the algorithm to be aware of the past, and if his BABIP is ranging too high you would need to change the current result from a hit to an out--and visa versa. Of course, then you might well start asking why hitter's are no longer performing as expected.

If you want to remove the variance from the game, you need to remove (or at least greatly reduce) the effect of chance, which is a step I would not advocate.

[RonCo]

In other words, giving Andy Messersmith a small BAIBP offset that is "correct" should result in better career numbers for him (as his BIP grows larger random noise will reduce), but it will not make him any more consistent from year-to-year. The variance will just move around a different center.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by RonCo

In other words, giving Andy Messersmith a small BAIBP offset that is "correct" should result in better career numbers for him (as his BIP grows larger random noise will reduce), but it will not make him any more consistent from year-to-year. The variance will just move around a different center.

Not that I am actually advising this either because Im not sure that its true but wouldnt (as an example)+/-25% of his career BABIP be closer to HIS reality rather than +/-75+% of the league average BABIP?

IMO by going down this road we are creating a bigger mess however.

[RonCo]

Oh... I misread your first idea. You're talking about a variable that says "hold these guys constant." If you're going to do it, that's the way to do it--but realize that for every player you hold artificially constant, you'll need to make one of the "accidentally constant" players less consistent. In addition, in order to know what to do to make Messersmith (in this example) constant, you'll need a stay-resident "current stats" bucket to force the game to change hits to outs (or visa versa) when necessary to keep things in the "proper" ballpark...in other words, you remove the randon nature of luck when necessary and force-fit a result.

This would have several possible ramifications. Let's say Messersmith has been having a rough time of it for an outing or two, and his BABIP has risen heavily. Unless _very carefully_ designed, the next team Messersmith faces is a strong candidate for a no-hitter. Likewise, if Messersmith goes on a binge and throws two a couple low-hit shut-outs, then hitters on the next team in line are going to feast. This kind of behavoir then, as I noted, could throw hitter performance out of line.

As far as the +/-75% ... I think that's way, way overstating things. That swing doesn't match what Knockahoma got on his tests--which showed OOTP pitchers were _too consistent_ relative to real pitchers.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by RonCo

As far as the +/-75% ... I think that's way, way overstating things. That swing doesn't match what Knockahoma got on his tests--which showed OOTP pitchers were _too consistent_ relative to real pitchers.

I stated that incorrectly either way I meant +/-.075 not 75% and I just took that figure from a pretty extreme case. Greg Maddux had a difference of high of .380 BABIP to a low of .248. I wasnt actually taking Knocks testing into consideration for this statement. It was the most extreme sample I could find and 99.9 percent wouldnt fit into this category. I should have stated it differently athough you still understood what I was getting at.