Published around the same time as my look at the Rangers BABIP for both pitchers and hitters, Sam Mellinger, on his Royals blog, wrote a post entitled "Take Your BABIP and Shove It."
An attention grabbing title, for sure. His main point is this:
The more BABIP I see, the more I see it as an indication of skill, not luck.
He continues his rant by citing specific examples of great hitters with consistently great BABIPs, and crappy pitchers with consistently crappy BABIPs:
These guys ain't just lucky. They're good.
The funny thing is, I don't think anyone familiar with the statistic is going to argue with him. I don't think anyone sees Albert Pujols' .346 BABIP in 2008 and thinks, "Wow, what a fluke." I don't think anyone sees Jake Peavy's BABIP of .285 in 2008 and concludes that it is the result of pure luck. Why? Because we know that these guys are good. They are consistently good. They dominate year in and year out. Their career totals and yearly averages are terrific. They have shown an ability to consistently replicate their high level of play. Pujols' career BABIP is .322 over 5382 total plate appearances. Peavy's career BABIP is .295 over 1261 IP. Thus, when they turn in stellar BABIPs like they did in 2008, it is expected.
BABIP in and of itself does not measure luck. Sure, the league averages are around .300 from year to year, but a high BABIP for hitters does not imply that the hitter was lucky, and a low BABIP for pitchers does not imply that the pitcher was lucky. It can, however, and it takes a little bit more stat-crawling to reach this conclusion.
He goes on to add:
BABIP's predictive uses are limited.
I agree, and I would think that most familar with BABIP would agree, with this statement. In my mind, here is where BABIP can be useful in predicting future performance:
**when a veteran player's BABIP significantly deviates from their career average
**when a young player has a BABIP that significantly deviates from the league average
Perhaps there are a few more, but those are the only instances that draw my attention in terms of BABIP. And Mellinger is right, the uses are "limited". But within these "limited" occurences, BABIP can be an extremely useful tool.
I am left to wonder who's analysis he is reading that is glorifying BABIP in a manner that makes him take such a strong stance against it. Who is out there proclaiming that BABIP is always applicable in predicting future success? It's as if he feels many people in his audience are of this mindset, and for all we know, they might be. It seems that he feels he is really "putting his foot down" about this "issue," when really there is no need for it.
As I came towards the end of the article, I was able to overlook his argumentative stance and recognize that his primary message was mostly correct: that BABIP is not always useful, and for good players BABIP is more of a result of skill than it is luck. Sounds good, right? And then I read this:
So, in conclusion, lets all make a pact that BABIP has no place on this blog.
Sigh. I guess we should all just take our BABIP and shove it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment