Posted by MikeT23 on 5/22/2014 5:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 5/22/2014 4:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/22/2014 4:38:00 PM (view original):
Seems like he has a different idea of "ball in play".      Probably because a ball hit 370 feet to dead center qualifies as "in play" whereas, if hit to LF, it's not.    All balls hit 370 feet are not created equal and BABIP doesn't really seem to take very much of the actual game into account.

It takes into account all balls in the playing field.  There's a reason why the stat exists.  Including home runs defeats the purpose.  It seems you don't get the reason why people look at the stat as well.

Do you not think that someone can understand a stat and just not like it, badluckjr?

 

It appears he doesn't understand it.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/22/2014 5:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2014 12:41:00 PM (view original):
By definition, the IP stands for "in play".    HR aren't "in play".    The designers of BABIP were trying to exclude luck in fielding, I assume, and there is no fielding luck involved in HR.    So I don't know that it's flawed by excluding HR.   It's just not relevant to "whiff vs. other outs" discussions. 

This, burnsyluck.

I like how you agree that your husband doesn't understand the concept of the stat yet defend him anyway.

FWIW, I understand BABIP exactly.  I just don't find it to be a very meaningful or useful stat.

Any statistic where a batter can hit a screaming line drive 370 feet in fair territory, in which sometimes it is included in the stat, and sometimes it's not, seems inherently flawed.

Much like FIP.  Sometimes 370 foot line drives are included, and sometimes they're not.  

In fact, FIP is much dumber than BABIP because it's purpose is to measure a pitcher's effectiveness by removing fielding from the equation.  A hard hit line drive that hits a foot from the top of the LCF wall should not be treated differently from the EXACT SAME hit that is hit in a park where the wall is two feet shorter.

I seem to recall already having this discussion about FIP under his alter ego other ID.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/22/2014 6:25:00 PM (view original):
FWIW, I understand BABIP exactly.  I just don't find it to be a very meaningful or useful stat.

Any statistic where a batter can hit a screaming line drive 370 feet in fair territory, in which sometimes it is included in the stat, and sometimes it's not, seems inherently flawed.

Much like FIP.  Sometimes 370 foot line drives are included, and sometimes they're not.  

In fact, FIP is much dumber than BABIP because it's purpose is to measure a pitcher's effectiveness by removing fielding from the equation.  A hard hit line drive that hits a foot from the top of the LCF wall should not be treated differently from the EXACT SAME hit that is hit in a park where the wall is two feet shorter.

I seem to recall already having this discussion about FIP under his alter ego other ID.

You clearly don't understand the point of BABIP if you think that it's flawed based on nonsense like "some fly balls are home runs and others aren't."

BABIP is just a percentage of X. How you use it is up to you.

Right.

"X" does not have much value, since "Y" is excluded from the calculation.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/22/2014 7:02:00 PM (view original):
Right.

"X" does not have much value, since "Y" is excluded from the calculation.

See?

Exhibit 5001. You don't understand the point of BABIP.

That's every stat. Kill 'em all!

Including home runs in BABIP makes it much less useful. 

Posted by bad_luck on 5/22/2014 7:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/22/2014 7:02:00 PM (view original):
Right.

"X" does not have much value, since "Y" is excluded from the calculation.

See?

Exhibit 5001. You don't understand the point of BABIP.

Yet, I do.  I just don't find it very interesting or meaningful.

Include HR's, and now it is more interesting AND meaningful.

I'm sorry for you that you're unable to understand this simple concept.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/22/2014 7:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/22/2014 7:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/22/2014 7:02:00 PM (view original):
Right.

"X" does not have much value, since "Y" is excluded from the calculation.

See?

Exhibit 5001. You don't understand the point of BABIP.

Yet, I do.  I just don't find it very interesting or meaningful.

Include HR's, and now it is more interesting AND meaningful.

I'm sorry for you that you're unable to understand this simple concept.

Exhibit 5002.

Your second line proves your first sentence false.

Explain to me what you think the point of BABIP is.

Let's look at Pedro Alvarez.

He's having a rough 2014, hitting .217/.312/.373 with 8 home runs.

Will that get better? We need more info to make a reasonable guess.

His 2014 BABIP is .237. His career BABIP is .293.

We can guess, with some certainty (we'd really need to look at his batted ball profile to be more sure), that he will turn things around this year. It seems like he's been a victim of bad luck and it's likely that balls he puts in play will go for hits at a rate closer to his career average and his triple slash will go up.

Adding HR to BABIP clouds that picture because HR rate isn't a function of luck. HR rate needs to be separate so that you can evaluate it. A HR rate down significantly is a bad sign for future performance, not a good one.

Posted by bad_luck on 5/22/2014 7:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/22/2014 7:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/22/2014 7:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/22/2014 7:02:00 PM (view original):
Right.

"X" does not have much value, since "Y" is excluded from the calculation.

See?

Exhibit 5001. You don't understand the point of BABIP.

Yet, I do.  I just don't find it very interesting or meaningful.

Include HR's, and now it is more interesting AND meaningful.

I'm sorry for you that you're unable to understand this simple concept.

Exhibit 5002.

Your second line proves your first sentence false.

Exhibit 6670 on why bad luck knows nothing

Excuse me for butting in for a moment.

Just happened upon this thread and it's more than obvious you are all knowledgeable and dedicated fans of the game. Will not pretend I know more than any of you about the game or some of the debate and exchange previous. Found it interesting and educational. I remember the mound change and the fences moving. Casual fan. Old school.  BA/OBP/SLG.

Then there are all the other issues you brought up.  From PED to stats I never heard of or understand. 

I'm going to simply throw another bone on the fire. Something I heard today. It involves the manager and strategy.

Phillies are playing the Marlins in Miami.  Tie game bottom of the ninth. Phillies RP hasn't given up a run in the last 10 outings.

First Marlin makes an out.  Second guy gets on.  PHILLIES go into a prevent double defense.  Corners play the line and outfield is way deep. Two guys get hits that should have been outs if the guys were playing their regular positions.

Marlins win. Phillies lose. That's baseball.

There are so many variables. It even goes to the manager and the pitch count or if you got laid last night or one of your teammates is a complete ******* to you that day. How many fans are in the stands that day. What's the weather.  So many variables.  

In the long run I suppose it's up to the individual and if he can overcome all the obstacles.  Regardless, the best talent under the current circumstance will prevail in his era and we can spend the rest of our lives speculating.

That's what stats are for. 

Posted by bad_luck on 5/22/2014 8:05:00 PM (view original):
Let's look at Pedro Alvarez.

He's having a rough 2014, hitting .217/.312/.373 with 8 home runs.

Will that get better? We need more info to make a reasonable guess.

His 2014 BABIP is .237. His career BABIP is .293.

We can guess, with some certainty (we'd really need to look at his batted ball profile to be more sure), that he will turn things around this year. It seems like he's been a victim of bad luck and it's likely that balls he puts in play will go for hits at a rate closer to his career average and his triple slash will go up.

Adding HR to BABIP clouds that picture because HR rate isn't a function of luck. HR rate needs to be separate so that you can evaluate it. A HR rate down significantly is a bad sign for future performance, not a good one.

When you're grounding balls into a shift constantly, it's not bad luck, it's bad approach.  When you hit three pop fly home runs at Wrigley on a windy day.....balls that would normally be fly outs, it's a function of circumstance or luck.  There's so many variables that can be tossed in there on any given day, that one has to wonder if advanced stats properly takes everything into consideration.  I know Bill James recently changed his thinking on clutch hitting based on whether they were really looking at statistics properly when it came to clutch hitting, because all situations could not be accounted for in the way advanced stats are measured.

Baseball is not black and white, it's a game based a great bit on circumstance and situation.  When you've watched 2-3,000 games in your life, you understand that moving a runner over is entirely preferable to not moving him over.  You understand that just because there isn't much of a correlation to strikeout rate to runs scored over a season, in single games, it can play a huge factor between a win and a loss.