Some Curious Things About BABIP

[Rondell Tate]

RonCo +1

[knockahoma]

The games in this conversation are no longer fun to play--Knock's quotes are often cherry-picked and mis-used. The saber rules of thumb are applied to the wrong questions. Knock is astounded that movement of players from park to park can (or can not) end up with major swings), when this has been proven true often ... in fact there's a great discussion in, I think Hardball Times 2007 book about Josh Beckett's move from Florida to Boston) that shows how the park itself changed his entire performance.

Ron, what quotes are cherry-picked? Where did I say I was "astounded" that ball parks have an effect, or don't? Are you kidding, Ron? I played high school, summer ball and college ball and I don't get it that parks have an effect? Ron, I'm not one of those guys who played a table top game and some softball at the family reunion every summer. Maybe you're used to talking to that sort.




I've said that any disagreements on BABIP are largely a matter of degree, what percentage is pitching, luck, defense in BABIP? Did I even F***in give a number on pitcher contribution to BABIP? What do you give it? I really don't care what the number finally winds up being. What I actuallly wrote was that there seems to be more consistency in BABIP in real life regarding team changes for pitchers than in OOTP.

And maybe that should be addressed.

As I wrote previously, I have no emotional involvement over what percentage belongs to the pitcher. I'm simply CURIOUS to look at what effect trades had on BABIP numbers. But, apparently, I've hit one of those no-no, taboo, we can't ask question subjects. We can't look further into the issue. Now, others can. James can continue taking different angles on defense, object to commonly held theories, adjust. You can see TONS of new studies on BABIP, many new interpretations and the guys try to dig deeper.

But, they're probably going around and around in circles, right? You know what, if you want to muzzle everybody, just start your own baseball game.

Unbelievable. Tell ya what. The conversations are no longer "fun"? I'll leave this board and you can have it to yourself. That way, no one will ever tip over one of your Deities, all praise the great and wonderful BABIP.

The Holy One is just as described by Ron, with not one jot or tittle removed.

[OldFatGuy]

Frustrating, huh Knockahoma?

I don't blame you. I've gotten a bit tired of it too. The folks on here claim "the evidence this" and "the data that" when the fact is, the data is too incomplete to make the assumptions being made.

All luck and defense? Right. A ground ball hit 5 foot to the left of a shortstop is entirely dependent on the shortstop's skill at moving 5 feet. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how hard the ball was hit 5 feet to his left. Right. And the pitcher has no ability to influence how hard the ball was hit. Right. Yet the pitcher is responsible when the ball is hit extremely hard for a home run. Right. He's responsible for one but not the other. Right.

Sorry to see you go Knockahoma. I was impressed with your patience and perseverence in tackling the issue, as well as your much more open mindedness to the question at hand. Yes I said openmindedness. Those of us on the side of common sense have had to endure basically being called idiots because "the evidence" says this or that. OK, then I should be free to call others idiots for not realizing there's more evidence missing than is available when it comes to explaining BABIP. An awful lot of the folks, SABR folks, that Knockahoma quoted seem to get that. An awful lot of folks here don't.

[jar2574]

Knock -

Would be sad to see you go.

I believe RonCo implied that you are using the bolded quote out of context. I don't know whether that's true because I don't know where you got the quote. I saw it on Wikipedia, but don't know the original source.

You could certainly refute his point by showing us the context and proving that the quote was not "cherry-picked." Why not try to do that, rather than get so frustrated that you want to leave?

It's clear we're not going to agree on the pitcher's control over BABIP, but you proposed some changes to pitchers control over it in OOTP. From 1-4, on a 10 point scale. Right?

So I'd be interested in hearing what data you would use to model that change. Because without showing Markus actual data, that change is never going to happen.

If you want to change the game, you need to present evidence to show that your model is better. Mr. Messersmith's career is just not enough.

Lastly, people disagree about BABIP on this forum, but no one said we shouldn't talk about it, so your last few points just don't seem applicable. No one is "muzzling" anyone.

[jar2574]

OFG -

Common sense tells me to act on the best available evidence. That's all we can do in life. And that's what I try to do with regard to BABIP.

Perhaps you can provide me with some new evidence that will change my views on BABIP by clarifying a few of your statements. Namely:

If something is "missing," then wouldn't it be difficult to quantify?

How do we know that "more evidence is missing than available when explaining BABIP"?

It seems to me that you don't agree with the evidence presented, don't believe there's been enough study, and believe future evidence will prove your beliefs correct. Fair enough.

But how do you know how much future evidence exists? How can you be certain, in advance, that future evidence will confirm rather than contradict your beliefs? Frankly, this sort of certainty seems to violate common sense.

[knockahoma]

I believe RonCo implied that you are using the bolded quote out of context. I don't know whether that's true because I don't know where you got the quote. I saw it on Wikipedia, but don't know the original source.

It's a request worth responding to.

I don't mind anyone disagreeing with me-- even vigorously. But, I have a short temper when people suggest I'm intentionally bending information to fit my arguments. "Cherry-picking" has a subtle, yet obvious negative connotation to it.

I'll give the link, but first I want to show what I wrote in response to this:

:knock - I don't think the bold part is the consensus view and I don't think what I said has been "refuted by most." But these issues have been discussed ad nausum in the other 2 long threads, so I'll just leave it at that

I totally understand wanting to avoid the frustration. I do believe that's the current wisdom on BABIP. I'd be willing to go check the biggies for their view. I want to get it right, not argue. So, I'll probably go find some stuff from James, Tango, Tippett, etc.

I found the quote on Tango's site, originally. It's a summation of his belief, not a snatched out of context quote. I just double-checked to make sure it was Tango's site. To the best of my knowledge it is, and this link also gives quote credit to Tango:

http://www.orioleshangout.com/article.asp?ID=1360

The Luck of Trachsel

By Ted Cook



A lot has been made on the primary Orioles Hangout message board about the travails of Steve Trachsel. There seems to be two primary sides to the discussion – those who don’t like him (the stats oriented folks are often accused of being on this side), and those who do like him (or at least tolerate him, and in some cases even respect him). Both sides seem to be fairly well entrenched. For the record, I typically lean towards the don’t like side (even though I don’t really dislike him, in fact, I have a lot of respect for what he’s accomplished).



One problem is that the discussion tends to go in the direction of false statements or exaggerations being made by one side or the other. These statements and exaggerations tend to focus on BABIP, and the dreaded word that is guaranteed to get under the collar of any “traditionalist” – LUCK.



Personally, I wish the word luck had never been introduced into the conversation way back when. What is often credited (ridiculed?) as being luck is what I prefer to think of as being “that which can’t be easily explained.” What we call luck is really statistical noise (due to small sample size) which clouds the signal. Of course, given the choice between “luck” and “statistical noise clouding the signal” or “that which can’t be easily explained,” I can understand why people just say a player is lucky.



The “luck” of a pitcher is typically due to stats such as BABIP, LOB%, and HR/FB%. This article will focus on those three stats.



One false statement or idea often attributed to the DLTC (Don’t Like Trachsel Crowd) is that Trachsel has been lucky throughout his 15-year career. Some people seem to think he was always a junkballer who struck out fewer than he walked. The truth is that he was actually a pretty good major league pitcher as recently as 2004.



Tom Tango recently began a stats wiki page, which includes an entry for BABIP. In that entry he states “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.”[/

http://www.tangotiger.net/wiki/index.php?title=BABIP

It's clear we're not going to agree on the pitcher's control over BABIP, but you proposed some changes to pitchers control over it in OOTP. From 1-4, on a 10 point scale. Right?

I have no such pessimism, Jar. I don't know how many times I have to write it. I have no emotional attachment to this issue. If Tango is right, then I'm interested in seeing what pitcher contribution can be detected in BABIP.

I would love to hear Tango's thoughts on how the average player's career partitions out and what that might mean to BABIP. Excluding the big stars, many players go in and out of productive numbers. Many players do seem to go through 3 or 4 year periods of "consistency" in various categories, homers, batting average, BABIP, stolen bases, etc.

If such a three year period exists, then we can't measure it? That's a tough break, indeed. But maybe we can find clues within those partitions. Like what happens to a pitcher who is traded from a great defensive team mid-season to a bad one? What happens to BABIP in the last two-year gasp of a pitcher's career. Does it explode as homers and walks often do?

These are questions I was simply exploring. I would have done it anyway. I was curious, but I figured that doing it online would inspire questions or information that might have evaded me.

If you want to change the game, you need to present evidence to show that your model is better. Mr. Messersmith's career is just not enough.

But, I wasn't lobbying for Marcus to change the game based on Messersmith's record. Every study has a page 1, even if it's a 200 page study.

In reading these studies about BABIP, I find many "broad looks", looks at hundreds of pitchers. I think we should look at hundreds of pitchers individually. What would that show? I dunno. But whenever you study a great-sized group of people without delving into the specific situations of these people, you create white noise.

My thinking, then, was to list pitcher after pitcher's stats and ask straight-forwardly, as I had, " What inferences do you take from this particular case? Anything?"

I can't tell you what percentage of a BABIP should be assigned to hitter, "luck", or pitcher.

It's clear we're not going to agree on the pitcher's control over BABIP, but you proposed some changes to pitchers control over it in OOTP. From 1-4, on a 10 point scale. Right?

I have no such pessimism. I've changed my mind numerous times in my life and I bet you have too. The emphasis I was trying to relate I'll bold:

So, if pitcher contribution to BABIP (scale 1-10) was currently at 1, I'd like to see it move to a 2, or 3, or 4. Whatever correctly models what happens to BABIP when a pitcher moves from one team to another.

Lastly, people disagree about BABIP on this forum, but no one said we shouldn't talk about it, so your last few points just don't seem applicable. No one is "muzzling" anyone.

I think there have been a few posts intended to shut down the conversation. That's clear to me. They can't actually muzzle me. But they can ridicule the conversation, or imply I'm cherry-picking, or say we're getting nowhere, going round and round. They can post a roll of the eyes. None are intended to encourage the conversation to continue, Jar.

Let me put it this way: never in my life have I wasted my time reading and posting on a thread that I felt was a waste of time.

If someone else wants to read that thread, what the hell do I care? I've got yardwork to do.

[knockahoma]

OFG.

Thanks, man. Yes, it has been disappointing. I try to disagree without disparaging the other person. But I've learned in life that many think of simple disagreement as the strongest kind of disparaging.

[jar2574]

knock -

Good luck with your research.

I have a lot more reading to do also. I ordered "The Book," "Baseball Between the Numbers," and another baseball book via amazon and should get them soon. I'm sure they'll discuss BABIP, among other things.

And I didn't mean to be pessimistic. If we both have open minds, I agree that we may both agree on BABIP eventually, just probably not today.

[knockahoma]

Thanks, Jar.

I'm going to close my participation in the thread, now. Thank you for posting the results on 74 from the other game.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by knockahoma

Meanwhile, Andy Messersmith had a 2.86 ERA.

That's too much emphasis on defense, IMO. It doesn't reflect what most often happens in real life. Andy's ERA went to 3.00 his first season in Atlanta and his BABIP matched what it had been just two years earlier in LA when he won 20 games (.257).

In other words, I don't believe even the worst major league defense by itself (BABIP) would turn an ace like Messersmith into one of the worst pitchers in the NL.

That's my concern with OOTP's modeling.

Seems to me you're forgetting that OOTP cannot under any circumstances mimic human effort. It is well known that good pitchers seem to elevate the play of the entire team. That will affect BABIP. Andy Messersmith was a hero to all players at the time and maybe 8 guys playing their asses off, even on a bad team, for their hero had an effect on his BABIP. OOTP cannot be expected to account for this or any other individual case.

[jbergey22]

I hope you dont close the topic knock. You may or may not have been on to something but we cant know for sure unless you continue. I wasnt trying to come down on you I just didnt understand how you worded a couple of things.

Like Ive mentioned it DOES seem certain(somewhere around 10%) of pitchers seem to have more ability to control the outcomes. Perhaps Messersmith is one of these rare examples. If this is true we'd have to find a reasonable explanation and find out if it really is true which means the toughest part is yet to be done.

[RonCo]

Knock -

The term "cherry picking" may well have a negative connotation, though I think it fit in the situation. And I may have over-stated a situation by saying you were astounded that a pitcher's ERA could jump a run+ by moving teams even though it happens a lot. I do at least see why you might be perturbed at these characterizations...

That said, I have to ponder how you can get that put off by these comments when the OP directly sets the stage by directly characterizing the sabermetrically inclined as oafs and louts with "BABIP" painted on their chests and foreheads, and who chuck tomatoes at the voice of reason who is calmly asking questions. The inclusion of the tomato splatting on the statue of Voros McCracken was particularly sensitive and done with great humility and respect.

I agree with you that the OOTP game engine is not going to provide results that are routinely consistent with reality on the individual player level on a single-season view, especially regarding pitcher BABIP. This is most likely because:

1) Pitchers are less consistent than hitters, as your quote from Tango supports
2) The OOTP fielding model doesn't appear to load well (though it appears to be able to be made better by manual editing).
3) Pick your favorite option and insert it here.

[Left-handed Badger]

Originally Posted by jar2574

I don't know how crummy Detroit or San Diego defenses were in 1974, but why wouldn't a pitcher's ERA shoot up if he was traded to a hitter's park(Colorado) or to a team with a bad defense?

If you don't believe that is possible, then in essense, you're saying that you think BABIP is in the pitcher's control. And we're just going in circles at this point.

There are players that exhibit consistent BABIPs, but they are the exception, and the data suggest that we should not interpret that consistency as having been within the pitcher's control, except in rare cases.

Whether Messersmith is one of those cases, I have no idea. But even if he was, his BABIP would probably go up in hitter's parks and in front of bad defenses.

Well, the Braves in the 70s were a bad defensive ball club in a HR park (why do you think they called that stadium "The Launching Pad" ) And yet while his ERA rose it didnt skyrocket.

[Left-handed Badger]

Originally Posted by jar2574

Yeah, I don't understand this comment either.

How would you model BABIP, if you didn't tie it to a team's defense?

What statistical data would you rely on in designing your model?

A model cannot be built solely around Mr. Messersmith. He is but one man.

At least 2. Ray Kremer from the Pirates of the 1920s I believe on his bullpen page on baseball-reference being specifically mentioned as "anti-BABIP" and consistently having lower than expected totals in that regard.

Plus somebody mention before here I believe that most knuckleballers are exceptions.

[Vogon Poet]

Originally Posted by knockahoma

If Tango is right, then I'm interested in seeing what pitcher contribution can be detected in BABIP.

Here you go: http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/inde..._dips_numbers/

You can get a pitcher's "true" BABIP by adding 3700 league average balls in play to his numbers.

Let's say we're looking at Greg Maddux in 1992. He had a .257 BABIP on 756 BIP. 3700/(756+3700)=.83, so we regress his BABIP 83% of the way back to the mean. Atlanta's BABIP that year was .287, so we'll use that. 83%*.287 + 17%*.257 = .282.

If all we know about Maddux is what he did in 1992, then we would assume a "true" BABIP of .282. His actual .257 BABIP was a combination of 17% skill and 83% fielding/ballpark/luck/etc. as best as we can tell.

We, of course, know a lot more about Maddux than just 1992. For his career he had 15,285 BIP. Regression equals 3700/(15285+3700) = .195, so we regress his career BABIP less than 20%. His actual BABIP was .286 versus a league average of .295. .286*80.5% + .295*19.5% = .288. That's our best estimate of his true BABIP for his whole career.

This is why we say that pitcher’s haev little influence on balls in play. What it ACTUALLY means is that the *metric* hits per ball in play explains very little, if you only have 500 balls in play. If you had 37,000 BIP, it would explain almost everything. The problem is that no pitcher is involved with 37,000 BIP in his career.

[Vogon Poet]

Originally Posted by Left-handed Badger

At least 2. Ray Kremer from the Pirates of the 1920s I believe on his bullpen page on baseball-reference being specifically mentioned as "anti-BABIP" and consistently having lower than expected totals in that regard.

Plus somebody mention before here I believe that most knuckleballers are exceptions.

I think people have brought up all the major exceptions--knuckleballers are lower, groubndballers are higher, etc. I don't think the Tippett study has been posted yet, but it has lots of awesome graphs so it's always worth multiple looks: http://www.diamond-mind.com/articles/ipavg2.htm

Good pitchers consistently post better-than-expected BABIPs. Aside from the pitchers Tippett looks at, Mariano Rivera has always done it too. And I think as the HITfx data becomes more prevalent, we're gonna discover a lot more meaningful relationships for BABIP in the next couple years.

[knockahoma]

Ron,

The term "cherry picking" may well have a negative connotation, though I think it fit in the situation.

I posted a summation of Tango's position. It was not a quote "cherry-picked" that misleads people from Tango's real position. So, I don't know how you could still think it fit the situation.

That said, I have to ponder how you can get that put off by these comments when the OP directly sets the stage by directly characterizing the sabermetrically inclined as oafs and louts with "BABIP" painted on their chests and foreheads, and who chuck tomatoes at the voice of reason who is calmly asking questions

I'm fast becoming sabermetrically inclined! You missed this in my 2nd paragraph?

" 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."

There's a lot of value there. I agree with Vogon that BABIP is going to open up to us in the next few years with more research. Again,You mis-read me.

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.

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 didn't direct that at you, or anyone in particular. It would have applied to anyone who fit the above description. That's why I carefully and purposefully wrote, " MOST OF THE CROWD seemed reasonable." That's how I saw it.

I have to finish some work, but I'll respond to a couple of other things when I get back.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by knockahoma

I've said that any disagreements on BABIP are largely a matter of degree, what percentage is pitching, luck, defense in BABIP? Did I even F***in give a number on pitcher contribution to BABIP? What do you give it? I really don't care what the number finally winds up being. What I actuallly wrote was that there seems to be more consistency in BABIP in real life regarding team changes for pitchers than in OOTP.

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.

Originally Posted by knockahoma

As I wrote previously, I have no emotional involvement over what percentage belongs to the pitcher. I'm simply CURIOUS to look at what effect trades had on BABIP numbers. But, apparently, I've hit one of those no-no, taboo, we can't ask question subjects. We can't look further into the issue. Now, others can. James can continue taking different angles on defense, object to commonly held theories, adjust. You can see TONS of new studies on BABIP, many new interpretations and the guys try to dig deeper.

But, they're probably going around and around in circles, right? You know what, if you want to muzzle everybody, just start your own baseball game.

Unbelievable. Tell ya what. The conversations are no longer "fun"? I'll leave this board and you can have it to yourself. That way, no one will ever tip over one of your Deities, all praise the great and wonderful BABIP.

The Holy One is just as described by Ron, with not one jot or tittle removed.

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.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

Frustrating, huh Knockahoma?

I don't blame you. I've gotten a bit tired of it too. The folks on here claim "the evidence this" and "the data that" when the fact is, the data is too incomplete to make the assumptions being made.

All luck and defense? Right. A ground ball hit 5 foot to the left of a shortstop is entirely dependent on the shortstop's skill at moving 5 feet. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how hard the ball was hit 5 feet to his left. Right. And the pitcher has no ability to influence how hard the ball was hit. Right. Yet the pitcher is responsible when the ball is hit extremely hard for a home run. Right. He's responsible for one but not the other. Right.

Sorry to see you go Knockahoma. I was impressed with your patience and perseverence in tackling the issue, as well as your much more open mindedness to the question at hand. Yes I said openmindedness. Those of us on the side of common sense have had to endure basically being called idiots because "the evidence" says this or that. OK, then I should be free to call others idiots for not realizing there's more evidence missing than is available when it comes to explaining BABIP. An awful lot of the folks, SABR folks, that Knockahoma quoted seem to get that. An awful lot of folks here don't.

You hit the nail on the head.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

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.

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.