370 foot line drives that go over the fence are still home runs.  If they don't go over the fence, they are either caught or are base hits.  So no.  Those stats are not flawed.  They're counting stats.  How many times did "X" happen?

But with BABIP, 370 foot line drives that stay in the park (caught, or fall in for hits) are counted.  370 foot line drives that go over the fence are not.  It's the reverse for FIP.

That's dumb.

I'm sorry for you that you're unable to comprehend the difference.  Should somebody draw you a picture if the words are confusing?

Posted by burnsy483 on 5/23/2014 11:10:00 AM (view original):
I mean, the answer is yes.  This has been discussed among us in a different forum, but if you take any 1 stat and try to get any hard conclusion about anything, there's a great chance you're going to be incorrect.

That said, BABIP doesn't have home runs for a reason.  If you want home runs in the stat, then you don't understand the purpose of the stat in the first place.  It's like looking at doubles and saying "why isn't home runs included?"

Dude comes to bat 8 times over two games.  He hits three home runs.  He strikes out twice.  He grounds out three times.

Batting average is .375.  BABIP is .000.

BABIP says, wow, dude has been very unlucky.  He should be batting much higher than .375. 

Sure.  That makes a lot of sense.  What a useful statistic.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/23/2014 11:11:00 AM (view original):
370 foot line drives that go over the fence are still home runs.  If they don't go over the fence, they are either caught or are base hits.  So no.  Those stats are not flawed.  They're counting stats.  How many times did "X" happen?

But with BABIP, 370 foot line drives that stay in the park (caught, or fall in for hits) are counted.  370 foot line drives that go over the fence are not.  It's the reverse for FIP.

That's dumb.

I'm sorry for you that you're unable to comprehend the difference.  Should somebody draw you a picture if the words are confusing?

"370 foot line drives that stay in the park (caught, or fall in for hits) are counted.  370 foot line drives that go over the fence are not...That's dumb."

You just described home runs again.  Well, the inverse.  But he fact that a stat is dependent on whether or not the ball goes over the wall makes it dumb.  So, the "home run" stat is dumb. 

Posted by tecwrg on 5/23/2014 11:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 5/23/2014 11:10:00 AM (view original):
I mean, the answer is yes.  This has been discussed among us in a different forum, but if you take any 1 stat and try to get any hard conclusion about anything, there's a great chance you're going to be incorrect.

That said, BABIP doesn't have home runs for a reason.  If you want home runs in the stat, then you don't understand the purpose of the stat in the first place.  It's like looking at doubles and saying "why isn't home runs included?"

Dude comes to bat 8 times over two games.  He hits three home runs.  He strikes out twice.  He grounds out three times.

Batting average is .375.  BABIP is .000.

BABIP says, wow, dude has been very unlucky.  He should be batting much higher than .375. 

Sure.  That makes a lot of sense.  What a useful statistic.

Fun with small samples!  And yes, he has been unlucky.  His batting average should be higher than .375.  The average player, in 3 balls in play, is most likely to get 1 hit.  So his batting average should probably be .500.  I'm glad you get the stat now.

It's kind of a dumb stat because it tries to measure luck.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/23/2014 11:31:00 AM (view original):
It's kind of a dumb stat because it tries to measure luck.

The stat can be used to try to quantify whether a player has lucky or not.  I disagree that that inherently makes it a dumb stat.

Other sports aren't measuring luck.

Ball rolls around the rim and falls in.   It's just a basket.
Ball hits the pin and rolls away.   It's just another stroke.
Fumble is recovered.  Dude was in the right place at the right time.
Car in front of spins out of control and you ram him.   Wrong place, wrong time.

All just good/bad luck.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/23/2014 11:35:00 AM (view original):
Other sports aren't measuring luck.

Ball rolls around the rim and falls in.   It's just a basket.
Ball hits the pin and rolls away.   It's just another stroke.
Fumble is recovered.  Dude was in the right place at the right time.
Car in front of spins out of control and you ram him.   Wrong place, wrong time.

All just good/bad luck.

Yes. Although you may have heard people in football mention that the team who trots out the same team who went 10-6 with a +20 turnover ratio may be more likely to regress the next year, because many people think that turnover ratio is mostly luck.  Is that dumb?

A little.   A team with Manning/Brady isn't going to turn the ball over as much as a team with Schaub/Vick.   I don't think it's "mostly luck". 

That's fair, it was more a "all things equal" kind of statement.  And yes, that's why you always need to dive in a little deeper and not just immediately assume one thing or another.  If Miguel Cabrera has a .350 BABIP this year, it probably doesn't mean he's lucky.

Posted by burnsy483 on 5/23/2014 11:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/23/2014 11:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 5/23/2014 11:10:00 AM (view original):
I mean, the answer is yes.  This has been discussed among us in a different forum, but if you take any 1 stat and try to get any hard conclusion about anything, there's a great chance you're going to be incorrect.

That said, BABIP doesn't have home runs for a reason.  If you want home runs in the stat, then you don't understand the purpose of the stat in the first place.  It's like looking at doubles and saying "why isn't home runs included?"

Dude comes to bat 8 times over two games.  He hits three home runs.  He strikes out twice.  He grounds out three times.

Batting average is .375.  BABIP is .000.

BABIP says, wow, dude has been very unlucky.  He should be batting much higher than .375. 

Sure.  That makes a lot of sense.  What a useful statistic.

Fun with small samples!  And yes, he has been unlucky.  His batting average should be higher than .375.  The average player, in 3 balls in play, is most likely to get 1 hit.  So his batting average should probably be .500.  I'm glad you get the stat now.

I'm 53 years old and haven't played organized baseball since I was 12 years old

The Houston Astros inexplicably sign me to be their DH.  They give me 500 AB's.  I strike out 375 times, and tap out weakly to the pitcher 125 times.

BABIP says I was prett damn unlucky.  I should have had around 38 base hits.

That sound about right?

My point was that other sports aren't creating stats to measure luck.    Because trying to measure luck is kinda dumb.   So, all things being equal, a stat that attempts to measure luck is kinda dumb.

But let's use BABIP for a moment.

I guess it's pretty close to .300 for the league.   So, essentially, 3 out of every 10 balls put in play is a hit.

100% of the MLB strikeouts do not fall in for hits.   Striking out takes that 30% chance of a hit, and we're not even counting homers, away from your team.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/23/2014 11:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 5/23/2014 11:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/23/2014 11:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 5/23/2014 11:10:00 AM (view original):
I mean, the answer is yes.  This has been discussed among us in a different forum, but if you take any 1 stat and try to get any hard conclusion about anything, there's a great chance you're going to be incorrect.

That said, BABIP doesn't have home runs for a reason.  If you want home runs in the stat, then you don't understand the purpose of the stat in the first place.  It's like looking at doubles and saying "why isn't home runs included?"

Dude comes to bat 8 times over two games.  He hits three home runs.  He strikes out twice.  He grounds out three times.

Batting average is .375.  BABIP is .000.

BABIP says, wow, dude has been very unlucky.  He should be batting much higher than .375. 

Sure.  That makes a lot of sense.  What a useful statistic.

Fun with small samples!  And yes, he has been unlucky.  His batting average should be higher than .375.  The average player, in 3 balls in play, is most likely to get 1 hit.  So his batting average should probably be .500.  I'm glad you get the stat now.

I'm 53 years old and haven't played organized baseball since I was 12 years old

The Houston Astros inexplicably sign me to be their DH.  They give me 500 AB's.  I strike out 375 times, and tap out weakly to the pitcher 125 times.

BABIP says I was prett damn unlucky.  I should have had around 38 base hits.

That sound about right?

Miguel Cabrera, as I stated before, won't be considered lucky if he has a .350 BABIP this year, because it's in line with his career BABIP.  He hits the ball really hard, so a higher percentage of his balls in play are hits than yours would be, for example.  If Brendan Ryan has a BABIP of .280 this year, he isn't unlucky, because that's in line with what he does for his career.  He doesn't hit the ball very hard most of the time.

So, no, when you have a .000 BABIP, you won't be unlucky, because that would be in line with what your career BABIP should be.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/23/2014 11:49:00 AM (view original):
My point was that other sports aren't creating stats to measure luck.    Because trying to measure luck is kinda dumb.   So, all things being equal, a stat that attempts to measure luck is kinda dumb.

"Because trying to measure luck is kinda dumb."

Again, I disagree.  It's probably easier in baseball to measure than other sports.