Michael: Just as a cautionary note, your team is currently sporting a .250 BABIP. That would be a record. The vast, vast majority of team seasons to date have BABIP's between .270 and .310. The current record is .257 by the 2007 Walla Walla squad.
I'm just saying that seems likely that your pitching staff won't stay this good, even if it defies Father Time and stays healthy.
Note: I have noticed that at least some younger pitchers seems to have higher BABIPs than their ratings would indicate. If this is a rule (and I don't know if it is), then it may be that the inverse is true for older pitchers. Maybe it's the game's way of including "wily old veteran knowledge". If so, then your staff's BABIP may stay unnaturally low.
Note 2: By the same token, the BABIP of Houston, Denver, and Seattle are all above .310 and if they even out and drop over time, then the ERAs of those teams can be expected to similarly come down.
I never understood what meaning BABIP really had. I mean, I understand the concept, but I always thought it was more of a team defense stat than one that reflected on a pitcher. Of course, the Derek Lowes of the world might have a better BABIP than the Eric Miltons, but overall, I just don't get how a pitcher can control the action once the ball hits the bat (unless, of course, he's a Greg Maddux with the glove).
Anyone care to illuminate me?
Oh, and while I'm here, for anyone who wants to knock me for beating up the weaker teams in the league early in the season: it's not my fault the schedule had the Scorpions play the Paddlewheelers 12 times so far.
If the game treats BABIP the way it is believed to function in the real world, you're exactly right. A pitcher has virtually no control over BABIP and it is a function of luck.* If that is true, then your team's BABIP will likely regress to the mean and look much more like the average .290 than it's current .250. That means that even if your pitchers pitch exactly as well as they are pitching now, their ERAs and runs allowed will rise.
Of course, it is possible that you have the most amazingly talented defense in SDMB history, but I find that unlikely.
* To be nitpicky, among major league pitchers, there appears to be virtually no correlation year to year in BABIP, suggesting that it is random. Knuckleballers and some other pitchers may have a minimal ability to consistently reduce their BABIP. It is an unsettled question among the stathead community, although the common position is that BABIP can be treated as random for almost all intents and purposes.
Interesting stuff, it's got me thinking about how certain pitchers might affect how the ball goes into play; Mariano Rivera's bat-sawing has to have an effect, right?
Oh, and to go back to your initial note, I do expect my pitching to come back to Earth (well, the non-Cuomo pitchers; he's right on mark with last season), but at the same time, I expect my hitters to actually, you know, hit, too.
While it's fun winning 2-1 games (and I expect to continue to win those games, due to my Carrol/Cuomo combo), I wouldn't mind winning 7-3 every now and again.
Just came up for air (we broke a decent sized story this week) to see a stathead question! Woot!
It's true that the early wisdom behind BABIP (Voros McCracken's research from a few years ago) indicated that, once the bat hit the ball the pitcher was largely out of the equation, there's been some challenges to it over the last while.
There is some evidence that pitchers on the absolute extremes, top or bottom, effect their BABIP in a small way. Largely through control ability and establishing a limited hitting zone for the batter. But by and large I don't think anyone's punched a huge hole in the BABIP phenomenon.
What most people DON'T realize about BABIP is how much it tells about pitchers with high K and BB rates. In short, if in X number of batters a pitcher strikes out 50% of them his BABIP may still be .290 or so but his overall out-rate will be rollicking. Ditto for walks, a pitcher giving up a ton of BB can have an average BABIP but still have an ERA or 5+. Not a pretty sight.
So there's more to it than that, of course, but all things being equal BABIP is a valid stat, even if defense-dependent (all pitching metrics except the Three True Outcomes are). It's a good judge of a pitcher and how well the team behind him is performing.
Oh, there's also some information that minor league BABIP is significantly higher than MLB numbers. That is, the process by which players get through the minors weeds out or improves players who are not good at it. So that indicates that below the Major League level pitchers DO have some control over BABIP.
Here's the chart from Baseball Prospectus (adjusted for altitude and such) 1996-2004:
Yes, indeed. And that's part of the sorting out process in the low minors. I think Tippett claimed that the real defensive jump happens between AA and AAA. So pitchers making that jump are largely seperated by their abilities.
Thanks Nate. Sitting in a hotel room in Yuma and pontificating from the seat of my pants, I couldn't recall anything with nearly the level of detail you had. I think I understand reasonably well the big picture concepts relating to BABIP, but you definitely have a much better grasp of the current state of the research and the details.
Also, the other big picture idea I had taken away from the BABIP research is that if a pitcher has good stats in Ks, BBs, and home runs allowed, but a high BABIP, then his ERA is likely to come down the following year* because the first three (Ks, BBS, HRs) are controllable by the pitcher and therefore repeatable whereas the BABIP is likely to regress to the mean and therefore drop the ERA. The inverse of course is also likely true where a low BABIP is not sustainable and will likely lead to a higher ERA.
* Assuming that there's not something fundamentally wrong with the defense behind the pitcher.
You're talking about the application of the plexiglass principle as it applies to BABIP, Mack.
For the non-stathead crowd the PP simply states that all stats tend towards the mean. If a team suddenly wins 20 games more in a season than in the previous season the smart betting is that they'll revert the following season.
So if a pitcher is suddenly FAR above the mean in BABIP in season 1 it's likely they'll find that unsustainable and head back towards the average in subsequent years. Ditto for the converse, of course.
Michael: Just as a cautionary note, your team is currently sporting a .250 BABIP. That would be a record. The vast, vast majority of team seasons to date have BABIP's between .270 and .310. The current record is .257 by the 2007 Walla Walla squad.
ReplyDeleteI'm just saying that seems likely that your pitching staff won't stay this good, even if it defies Father Time and stays healthy.
Note: I have noticed that at least some younger pitchers seems to have higher BABIPs than their ratings would indicate. If this is a rule (and I don't know if it is), then it may be that the inverse is true for older pitchers. Maybe it's the game's way of including "wily old veteran knowledge". If so, then your staff's BABIP may stay unnaturally low.
Note 2: By the same token, the BABIP of Houston, Denver, and Seattle are all above .310 and if they even out and drop over time, then the ERAs of those teams can be expected to similarly come down.
I never understood what meaning BABIP really had. I mean, I understand the concept, but I always thought it was more of a team defense stat than one that reflected on a pitcher. Of course, the Derek Lowes of the world might have a better BABIP than the Eric Miltons, but overall, I just don't get how a pitcher can control the action once the ball hits the bat (unless, of course, he's a Greg Maddux with the glove).
ReplyDeleteAnyone care to illuminate me?
Oh, and while I'm here, for anyone who wants to knock me for beating up the weaker teams in the league early in the season: it's not my fault the schedule had the Scorpions play the Paddlewheelers 12 times so far.
If the game treats BABIP the way it is believed to function in the real world, you're exactly right. A pitcher has virtually no control over BABIP and it is a function of luck.* If that is true, then your team's BABIP will likely regress to the mean and look much more like the average .290 than it's current .250. That means that even if your pitchers pitch exactly as well as they are pitching now, their ERAs and runs allowed will rise.
ReplyDeleteOf course, it is possible that you have the most amazingly talented defense in SDMB history, but I find that unlikely.
* To be nitpicky, among major league pitchers, there appears to be virtually no correlation year to year in BABIP, suggesting that it is random. Knuckleballers and some other pitchers may have a minimal ability to consistently reduce their BABIP. It is an unsettled question among the stathead community, although the common position is that BABIP can be treated as random for almost all intents and purposes.
Nate, do you know anything different?
Interesting stuff, it's got me thinking about how certain pitchers might affect how the ball goes into play; Mariano Rivera's bat-sawing has to have an effect, right?
ReplyDeleteOh, and to go back to your initial note, I do expect my pitching to come back to Earth (well, the non-Cuomo pitchers; he's right on mark with last season), but at the same time, I expect my hitters to actually, you know, hit, too.
While it's fun winning 2-1 games (and I expect to continue to win those games, due to my Carrol/Cuomo combo), I wouldn't mind winning 7-3 every now and again.
Just came up for air (we broke a decent sized story this week) to see a stathead question! Woot!
ReplyDeleteIt's true that the early wisdom behind BABIP (Voros McCracken's research from a few years ago) indicated that, once the bat hit the ball the pitcher was largely out of the equation, there's been some challenges to it over the last while.
There is some evidence that pitchers on the absolute extremes, top or bottom, effect their BABIP in a small way. Largely through control ability and establishing a limited hitting zone for the batter. But by and large I don't think anyone's punched a huge hole in the BABIP phenomenon.
What most people DON'T realize about BABIP is how much it tells about pitchers with high K and BB rates. In short, if in X number of batters a pitcher strikes out 50% of them his BABIP may still be .290 or so but his overall out-rate will be rollicking. Ditto for walks, a pitcher giving up a ton of BB can have an average BABIP but still have an ERA or 5+. Not a pretty sight.
So there's more to it than that, of course, but all things being equal BABIP is a valid stat, even if defense-dependent (all pitching metrics except the Three True Outcomes are). It's a good judge of a pitcher and how well the team behind him is performing.
Oh, there's also some information that minor league BABIP is significantly higher than MLB numbers. That is, the process by which players get through the minors weeds out or improves players who are not good at it. So that indicates that below the Major League level pitchers DO have some control over BABIP.
ReplyDeleteHere's the chart from Baseball Prospectus (adjusted for altitude and such) 1996-2004:
Majors .309
IL+AA .314 (AAA)
Eas+Sou .316 (AA)
Caro+FSL .316 (Hi-A)
SAL+ML .321 (Mid-A)
NY-P .323 (Low-A)
App .340 (Rookie)
Wouldn't minor league BABIP be worse than in the majors, not just because of the pitchers, but because the fielders are better at defense, too?
ReplyDeleteYes, indeed. And that's part of the sorting out process in the low minors. I think Tippett claimed that the real defensive jump happens between AA and AAA. So pitchers making that jump are largely seperated by their abilities.
ReplyDeleteThanks Nate. Sitting in a hotel room in Yuma and pontificating from the seat of my pants, I couldn't recall anything with nearly the level of detail you had. I think I understand reasonably well the big picture concepts relating to BABIP, but you definitely have a much better grasp of the current state of the research and the details.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the other big picture idea I had taken away from the BABIP research is that if a pitcher has good stats in Ks, BBs, and home runs allowed, but a high BABIP, then his ERA is likely to come down the following year* because the first three (Ks, BBS, HRs) are controllable by the pitcher and therefore repeatable whereas the BABIP is likely to regress to the mean and therefore drop the ERA. The inverse of course is also likely true where a low BABIP is not sustainable and will likely lead to a higher ERA.
* Assuming that there's not something fundamentally wrong with the defense behind the pitcher.
You're talking about the application of the plexiglass principle as it applies to BABIP, Mack.
ReplyDeleteFor the non-stathead crowd the PP simply states that all stats tend towards the mean. If a team suddenly wins 20 games more in a season than in the previous season the smart betting is that they'll revert the following season.
So if a pitcher is suddenly FAR above the mean in BABIP in season 1 it's likely they'll find that unsustainable and head back towards the average in subsequent years. Ditto for the converse, of course.