Shandler: Trout's Decline Was Expected

[BK METS]

I agree.. and that is why I say, the BABIP stat is flawed. It might work for 80 or even 90% of the players in MLB, to determine if they are getting lucky with their hits, compared to the amount of balls they hit in play. I think, when you have a player like Trout, you need to throw out the BABIP stat and just say that the guy is good. Enough of the "defying gravity" crap. His BABIP last year was .383 and per Shandler, this was impossible to sustain, and thus his stats were going to drop. And, in fact, Trout's BABIP so far this year is .332, but his real stats, the stats that we care about the most, (HR, RBI, Runs, BA, Steals) are on pace to match last year's stats in HRs and runs, over-produce in RBIs, and short on steals and BA.. So the point is, BABIP for many players, means nothing.

Personally, I think WAR and BABIP and other newly created stats are interesting and give a different view of players and their talents. But, to base your view or opinion of a player, on these stats alone and use them to state a claim that a player is "defying gravity", if he contains his averages, is just silly.

Here is a good pre-season blog on Trout. Not because it is pro-Trout. More because it shows the inconsistencies of BABIP amongst the elite players.

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/ ... ss-in-2013

[BK METS]

"Shandler: Rebound Probable Following Trout's Slow Start" A much more accurate headline for the way I read Shandler's column in USA Today. Batting Average aside, this is the way Shandler described what had happened and what to expect going forward in 2013.

Tom K, I believe, chose a poor headline that led to some unfortunate overreactions in this thread.

Wrong. Tom was right on with his headline.

[ToddZ]

I agree.. and that is why I say, the BABIP stat is flawed. It might work for 80 or even 90% of the players in MLB, to determine if they are getting lucky with their hits, compared to the amount of balls they hit in play. I think, when you have a player like Trout, you need to throw out the BABIP stat and just say that the guy is good. Enough of the "defying gravity" crap. His BABIP last year was .383 and per Shandler, this was impossible to sustain, and thus his stats were going to drop. And, in fact, Trout's BABIP so far this year is .332, but his real stats, the stats that we care about the most, (HR, RBI, Runs, BA, Steals) are on pace to match last year's stats in HRs and runs, over-produce in RBIs, and short on steals and BA.. So the point is, BABIP for many players, means nothing.

Personally, I think WAR and BABIP and other newly created stats are interesting and give a different view of players and their talents. But, to base your view or opinion of a player, on these stats alone and use them to state a claim that a player is "defying gravity", if he contains his averages, is just silly.

Here is a good pre-season blog on Trout. Not because it is pro-Trout. More because it shows the inconsistencies of BABIP amongst the elite players.

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/ ... ss-in-2013

I'm not going to belabor this but let's get the facts straight.

On a per plate appearance basis, Trout is 5 short on HR, 31 short on runs, 29 short on steals and .029 points in average. He's plus 5 with RBI.

This is not a defense of Ron's opinions, just pointing out Trout is not performing as well in 4 of the 5 roto categories in terms of rate of performance. With the extra month he may make up some of what is lost above, but on a rate basis, he's not as good as last season -- which is all many number crunchers were saying would happen (some more extreme than others).

With respect to BABIP -- it's principles, when applied correctly, apply to 100% of players.

[Outlaw]

There is a 100 games to go - let the season play out before anyone says he regressed or his stats were not as good 2012.

Definition = Batting average on balls in play (abbreviated BABIP) measures how many of a batter’s balls in play go for hits, or how many balls in play against a pitcher go for hits, excluding homeruns.[1] BABIP is commonly used as a red flag in sabermetric analysis, as a consistently high or low BABIP is hard to maintain - much more so for pitchers than hitters. Therefore, BABIP can be used to spot fluky seasons by pitchers, as with other statistical measures; those pitchers whose BABIPs are extremely high can often be expected to improve in the following season, and those pitchers whose BABIPs are extremely low can often be expected to regress in the following season.

I've looked at this fairly new statistic in the past but never saw much difference from it and OBP which I've considered one of the most meaningful stats, whether in Fantasy or Coaching. Yes people will be able to site plenty of one offs on BABIP vs OBP, but when you average it all amongst 600 players its practically the same. How one can say luck is involved one way or the other is beyond me. Luck in 20 AB's maybe, not400, 500, 600 or 700. A question for all the BABIP supporters, why are HR's not included? Are they not Balls in play? OBP measures everything, Total PA's, Walks, Hits, ,SF's, etc...

There is no regression in his current pace IMO. He's exceeding in some and down in some. Overall his pace equals another top 3 ADP next year. 1-2 mini hot streaks by him and/or if the Angel lineup ever starts producing around him, he could blow his 2012 Stats away with 100 games left. Look at his big in increase in XBH this year.


2012 2013 pace
PA 639 - 749
AB 559 - 660
R 129 - 115
H 182 - 196
2B 27 - 49
3B 8 - 15
HR 30 - 29
RBI 83 - 103
BB 67 - 74
K 139 - 137
AVG .326 - .297
OB AVG .399 - .367
SB 49 - 35
CS 5 - 7
SF 7- 10

With 1-2 small Hitting tears Trout could easliy have these numbers at years end.

13
PA 749
AB 660
R 130
H 210
2B 52
3B 15
HR 37
RBI 123
BB 80
K 125
AVG .315
OB AVG .385
SB 35
CS 7
SF 10

BABIP is a poor mans OBP stat IMO and confusing to boot. We already have enough 3 digit decimal Stats.

[ToddZ]

I'm happy to represent BABIP supporters and answer the questions if it was more than rhetorical and the answers will be

1. not considered a defense of Ron's original argument and follow-up
2. will be considered with an open mind

because the main reason those that don't believe BABIP is useful don't truly understand what it measures and why that is important.

I'm traveling today but can pop back in tonight and address the questions about BABIP.

[KJ Duke]

I'm happy to represent BABIP supporters and answer the questions if it was more than rhetorical and the answers will be

1. not considered a defense of Ron's original argument and follow-up
2. will be considered with an open mind

because the main reason those that don't believe BABIP is useful don't truly understand what it measures and why that is important.

I'm traveling today but can pop back in tonight and address the questions about BABIP.

I agree with Todd. BABIP is useful, but it can't be applied in a vanilla way across players which is often implied in articles. It's helpful in understanding and projecting changes in BA, but luck is just one factor in a higher/lower BABIP. For those writers/readers that suggest/think it's just a measure of BA luck, they're missing half the story.

[Top Dawg]

Agreed. You also have to factor in how hard and fast the ball is coming off the bat. Is the player grounding out slowly to the infield or hitting rocket line drives....

[Outlaw]

I'm happy to represent BABIP supporters and answer the questions if it was more than rhetorical and the answers will be

1. not considered a defense of Ron's original argument and follow-up
2. will be considered with an open mind

because the main reason those that don't believe BABIP is useful don't truly understand what it measures and why that is important.

I'm traveling today but can pop back in tonight and address the questions about BABIP.

Todd- when you have time it would be appreciated by me and I am sure others. Maybe start a new thread on it? Like many, we hear this term used a lot these days and I for one will say I'm not exactly sure what it means and I dont know what I don't know. As for Ron's argument, we still have 100 games to go, either way. Everyone's entitled to their own opinions and all of them should be respected. It is up to the reader to decide value in them.

TX Mike

[BK METS]

Todd, I never dismissed the BABIP stat as not being useful. All I said was, it is flawed and shouldn't be used as the basis of a player "defying gravity", if his number is too high. Especially the top line drive hitters in the game such as Trout, Cabrera, and Harper.

Other than that, I agree with you.

[Glenneration X]

BABIP, like any metric, is useful as part of the equation but isn't the be all, tell all. Nothing is. There are many other pieces to the puzzle in trying to figure out what to expect from a player moving forward. Personally I combine many of these, along with an eye test if possible, and sometimes other factors that are much less scientific, in determining whether I believe in a player or not.

[DOUGHBOYS]

I'll be the ying to Todd's yang.....Wait a minute, that didn't come out right....

I don't look at BABIP as a tool or even as a pocket knife. In my little mind, BABIP is a distraction. A well-meaning stat that gets too much attention. In a small way, it reminds me of those that think doubles turn into homers. Because like those people that say that doubles turn into homers, we're missing too many pieces of the puzzle.
Permit me to cherry pick a doubles hitter. Well, too bad, you have to permit me since I'm writing and you're reading.
In 1999, Craig Biggio hit 56 doubles. 13th most for a season in Big League history. Fantasy folks didn't run to pickup Biggio in 2000 (btw, he did not have a good 2000) because of those doubles. We KNEW Craig Biggio and knew he was not a power hitter. We know he was a Michael Young, gap to gap type hitter.

BABIP is the same way. It is a one size, fits all stat. If a batter has a high BABIP, he is considered luckier than most. It pales in itself, in that it does not include the hardest balls hit on a great trajectory, home runs.
Without the mph and direction of these balls hit, BABIP could be worse than a tool. It could be a mirage. A bastion of hope, for a player who is said to be unlucky.
It's stat that has some information. And some information is the worst kind of information for fantasy players. Like seeing a byte from Corey Hart that he'll be back in April. That 'some information' hurt a lot of drafters.
BABIP, typically, is an off season stat. It is designed to say that one batter could have been unlucky the last season. When using the stat in-season, I would encourage players to WATCH a few of the questioned players at bats.
After doing so, if he is hitting 'at 'em' balls, line drives to fielders and making outs, than sure he is unlucky. But, if he is lunging at pitches or rolling over outside fast balls for easy grounds, then no, he's not unlucky, he sucks.

I don't believe in BABIP. I feel it is a stat in its infancy. I believe it will later be helped by other determinations such as mph off the bat and how fast the ball was traveling when caught by the fielder, till then, while some may view it as a tool now or even helpful, I don't.

[Glenneration X]

BABIP is the same way. It is a one size, fits all stat.

Doughy, no disrespect, but I believe this is where you misunderstand BABIP.

[DOUGHBOYS]

BABIP is the same way. It is a one size, fits all stat.

Doughy, no disrespect, but I believe this is where you misunderstand BABIP.

How?
Please explain....

[Glenneration X]

BABIP is the same way. It is a one size, fits all stat.

Doughy, no disrespect, but I believe this is where you misunderstand BABIP.

How?
Please explain....

Each hitter creates his own BABIP baseline.

[ToddZ]

Dan - my take is your beef is with the use (or misuse) of BABIP and not the stat itself.

There is some irony in that you are actually helping me make the BABIP argument using the doubles turning into homers notion since that was disproved several years ago - but yet the contention still exists even though it has been proven erroneous.

The problem with elements of BABIP is the interpretations are non-intuitive which fundamentally insults our intelligence.

The world was flat once.
Until it wasn't.

And contrary to what Carl Everett believes, dinosaurs did exist even though none of us saw one.

[DOUGHBOYS]

This explains little, Glenn.
Each hitter creates his own, every stat.
BABIP encompasses every player.[quote][/quote]

[Glenneration X]

This explains little, Glenn.
Each hitter creates his own, every stat.
BABIP encompasses every player.

You stated that "if a batter has a high BABIP, he is luckier than most." If I understand BABIP correctly, that is not the case. A batter creates his own baseline. They differ, some higher, some lower. They are considered having a "luckier" sample size, whether season, half-season, month, etc., when their BABIP is higher for that time frame than their previously set baseline. It's not gauged against a standard throughout the player pool as it is for pitching.

[DOUGHBOYS]

This explains little, Glenn.
Each hitter creates his own, every stat.
BABIP encompasses every player.

You stated that "if a batter has a high BABIP, he is luckier than most." If I understand BABIP correctly, that is not the case. A batter creates his own baseline. They differ, some higher, some lower. They are considered having a "luckier" sample size, whether season, half-season, month, etc., when their BABIP is higher for that time frame than their previously set baseline. It's not gauged against a standard throughout the player pool as it is for pitching.

And nothing is mentioned of the 'quality of contact'. It's one size fits all in that each batter is treated the same with the statistic. I don't care about luck as much as I do about the integrity of the stat itself. It takes away, perhaps, a batter's best hit balls in home runs. And gauges lesser hit balls that are in play.
When players are constantly rolling over a pitch like Soriano vs. a curve, it comes off as 'unlucky' to those that do not want to delve. And I use Soriano because he is the first player that comes to mind with being an easy out even when making contact.

It's a stat that leaves out a lot of the story. For me, I won't use it. It feels like a tool or helper for others.
And that's good.
I find it misleading.

[Glenneration X]

It's a stat that leaves out a lot of the story.

I don't disagree, well not completely anyway. It's why I stated that I believe BABIP is only a piece to the puzzle in my original post on the subject earlier today. I agree that it would be misleading if used in a vacuum.

The question for me personally whenever I see a change in a player's BABIP (or any metric for that matter) is whether it is just a "lucky" streak or if a new baseline is being created. That's where the other pieces of the puzzle come into play. No metric, no one part of the puzzle, is the tell all be all on its own. This game would be too easy if any were.

[DOUGHBOYS]

To tell the truth, I would rather see a 'QOC' stat and this would tell me a lot more than BABIP.
QOC, would be Quality of Contact.
It would tell me a lot more because if I'm interested in garnering a power guy or rbi guy, I can see how and where each ball is hit.
On the other end, a speed guy would not be as married to this stat as we're just hoping he makes it on base, and sometimes we want our speedsters to not hit the ball hard.
This is what I mean about a 'one size fits all' stat.
With QOC, we can differentiate between the two groups, something that can't be done with BABIP.

[DOUGHBOYS]

It's a stat that leaves out a lot of the story.

I don't disagree, well not completely anyway. It's why I stated that I believe BABIP is only a piece to the puzzle in my original post on the subject earlier today. I agree that it would be misleading if used in a vacuum.

The question for me personally whenever I see a change in a player's BABIP (or any metric for that matter) is whether it is just a "lucky" streak or if a new baseline is being created. That's where the other pieces of the puzzle come into play. No metric, no one part of the puzzle, is the tell all be all on its own. This game would be too easy if any were.

And this is my point.
As is, it's a dangerous stat. Half a story. More misleading than informational.
I'll stay away.

[ToddZ]

And this is my point.
As is, it's a dangerous stat. Half a story. More misleading than informational.
I'll stay away.

It's only dangerous if misapplied. When applied properly, it is quite powerful. Even in its present state of evolution.

[DOUGHBOYS]

And this is my point.
As is, it's a dangerous stat. Half a story. More misleading than informational.
I'll stay away.

It's only dangerous if misapplied. When applied properly, it is quite powerful. Even in its present state of evolution.

Our differences aren't large.
I won't use the stat till more is known, velocity, direction, etc.
You feel there are already enough clues to the puzzle.

[DOUGHBOYS]

Thanks for the debate, Glenn and Todd.
It's been a long week for me and this is quite therapeutic

[Glenneration X]

Thanks for the debate, Glenn and Todd.
It's been a long week for me and this is quite therapeutic

One thing I think we all can agree with, there's more than one avenue to success at this game. We all use what we're comfortable with and what we believe in while trying to achieve that success.

Thanks to you too Doughy. One of the fun parts of this hobby and especially these boards is getting to give your opinions and weigh it against those whose opinions you respect even when disagreeing.