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?

You were not unlucky and looking at your BABIP wouldn't show you as unlucky. Your career BABIP would, in all likelihood, always be low.

For hitters, you have to establish a baseline. Career BABIP is still somewhat correlated to skill (batted ball profile, speed, etc.). Henry Blanco was a terrible hitter. He had a .250 BABIP. Considering his age, you would not call him unlucky if he was signed to play this year, got 500 PA, and had a BABIP of .230.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/23/2014 11:58:00 AM (view original):
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.

No one has said that a strikeout was the same as a ball in play. The argument is that strikeouts are the same as outs in play.

Posted by bad_luck on 5/23/2014 12:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/23/2014 11:58:00 AM (view original):
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.

No one has said that a strikeout was the same as a ball in play. The argument is that strikeouts are the same as outs in play.

Correct.  Mike's point, I'm assuming, is essentially "if 30% of balls in play are hits, then strike out less and put those balls in play." The counter to that is - if you're focusing so much effort on not striking out, then you won't be driving the ball as much, hitting fewer homers and hitting the ball less hard.  Your BABIP, btw, would go down.

That said, there are times where it's more important to put the ball in play than others.

Posted by bad_luck on 5/23/2014 12:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/23/2014 11:58:00 AM (view original):
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.

No one has said that a strikeout was the same as a ball in play. The argument is that strikeouts are the same as outs in play.

"The argument is that strikeouts are the same as outs in play."

And virtually any and every knowledgeable and credible baseball person says "No, they're not".

Since you're saying "Yes, they are", what does that say about your knowledge and credibility?

Posted by burnsy483 on 5/23/2014 12:06:00 PM (view original):

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.

How so?  We've already discussed "lucky" home runs.   What about fielder positioning?    When a player hits into a shift and makes an out is he unlucky or did they just play him properly?  

Bad break on a flyball?   Lucky or poor fielding?

2B covers on a steal attempt and batter hits in the hole he left behind.   Lucky or good hitting?

Posted by burnsy483 on 5/23/2014 12:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/23/2014 12:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/23/2014 11:58:00 AM (view original):
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.

No one has said that a strikeout was the same as a ball in play. The argument is that strikeouts are the same as outs in play.

Correct.  Mike's point, I'm assuming, is essentially "if 30% of balls in play are hits, then strike out less and put those balls in play." The counter to that is - if you're focusing so much effort on not striking out, then you won't be driving the ball as much, hitting fewer homers and hitting the ball less hard.  Your BABIP, btw, would go down.

That said, there are times where it's more important to put the ball in play than others.

Pretty much.

Let's say, in your scenario, that BABIP drops to 20% if a 100 strikeout guy never strikes out.   I think that's a HUGE drop but the number still works.    He's added 20 hits to his totals.  Is it not worth it to put the ball in play?

Posted by tecwrg on 5/23/2014 12:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/23/2014 12:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/23/2014 11:58:00 AM (view original):
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.

No one has said that a strikeout was the same as a ball in play. The argument is that strikeouts are the same as outs in play.

"The argument is that strikeouts are the same as outs in play."

And virtually any and every knowledgeable and credible baseball person says "No, they're not".

Since you're saying "Yes, they are", what does that say about your knowledge and credibility?

I think we've been over this before.

Most of the time, all outs have the same negative run value. A small percentage of the time, a groundball out up the middle or to the right side or a deep fly out is less of a negative than a strikeout, pop out, shallow fly out, or groundball to the pitcher/3rd baseman. More often than that, a groundball out is signigicantly worse than a strikeout, a fly out, or a pop out.

Overall, things even out and a pop out or a strikeout is no worse than any other out. The rate that outs are made is much, much more important.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/23/2014 12:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 5/23/2014 12:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/23/2014 12:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/23/2014 11:58:00 AM (view original):
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.

No one has said that a strikeout was the same as a ball in play. The argument is that strikeouts are the same as outs in play.

Correct.  Mike's point, I'm assuming, is essentially "if 30% of balls in play are hits, then strike out less and put those balls in play." The counter to that is - if you're focusing so much effort on not striking out, then you won't be driving the ball as much, hitting fewer homers and hitting the ball less hard.  Your BABIP, btw, would go down.

That said, there are times where it's more important to put the ball in play than others.

Pretty much.

Let's say, in your scenario, that BABIP drops to 20% if a 100 strikeout guy never strikes out.   I think that's a HUGE drop but the number still works.    He's added 20 hits to his totals.  Is it not worth it to put the ball in play?

To be clear, I'm talking about the 100 AB that ended with a whiff when I say 20%.   Not his BABIP for every AB. 

Posted by bad_luck on 5/23/2014 1:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/23/2014 12:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/23/2014 12:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/23/2014 11:58:00 AM (view original):
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.

No one has said that a strikeout was the same as a ball in play. The argument is that strikeouts are the same as outs in play.

"The argument is that strikeouts are the same as outs in play."

And virtually any and every knowledgeable and credible baseball person says "No, they're not".

Since you're saying "Yes, they are", what does that say about your knowledge and credibility?

I think we've been over this before.

Most of the time, all outs have the same negative run value. A small percentage of the time, a groundball out up the middle or to the right side or a deep fly out is less of a negative than a strikeout, pop out, shallow fly out, or groundball to the pitcher/3rd baseman. More often than that, a groundball out is signigicantly worse than a strikeout, a fly out, or a pop out.

Overall, things even out and a pop out or a strikeout is no worse than any other out. The rate that outs are made is much, much more important.

Wrong, Perfesser Einstein.

Look at a run expectancy chart.  Please show me an instance where an out that advances runners results in the same (or worse) new expected value than an out that does not advance runners.  Since you'll be unable to do that, let me jump ahead to my next question: how does an out that advances runners "have the same negative run value" as an out that does not advance runners?

I get the "double plays are devastating" argument.  They are bad for an offense.  But it's part of the risk/reward of trying to make something happen by putting the ball in play.  I'll take the more instances of increasing my chances of scoring runs over the fewer instances of inning killing GIDP every time.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/23/2014 1:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/23/2014 1:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/23/2014 12:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/23/2014 12:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/23/2014 11:58:00 AM (view original):
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.

No one has said that a strikeout was the same as a ball in play. The argument is that strikeouts are the same as outs in play.

"The argument is that strikeouts are the same as outs in play."

And virtually any and every knowledgeable and credible baseball person says "No, they're not".

Since you're saying "Yes, they are", what does that say about your knowledge and credibility?

I think we've been over this before.

Most of the time, all outs have the same negative run value. A small percentage of the time, a groundball out up the middle or to the right side or a deep fly out is less of a negative than a strikeout, pop out, shallow fly out, or groundball to the pitcher/3rd baseman. More often than that, a groundball out is signigicantly worse than a strikeout, a fly out, or a pop out.

Overall, things even out and a pop out or a strikeout is no worse than any other out. The rate that outs are made is much, much more important.

Wrong, Perfesser Einstein.

Look at a run expectancy chart.  Please show me an instance where an out that advances runners results in the same (or worse) new expected value than an out that does not advance runners.  Since you'll be unable to do that, let me jump ahead to my next question: how does an out that advances runners "have the same negative run value" as an out that does not advance runners?

I get the "double plays are devastating" argument.  They are bad for an offense.  But it's part of the risk/reward of trying to make something happen by putting the ball in play.  I'll take the more instances of increasing my chances of scoring runs over the fewer instances of inning killing GIDP every time.

I'm not arguing that an out that does not advance runners is ever better than an out that does. It's just the same most of the time.

Base Runners			1993-2010
1B	2B	3B	0 outs	1 outs	2 outs
__	__	__	0.240	0.168	0.133
1B	__	__	0.061	0.071	0.071
__	2B	__	0.015	0.027	0.034
1B	2B	__	0.015	0.027	0.033
__	__	3B	0.002	0.009	0.015
1B	__	3B	0.006	0.012	0.016
__	2B	3B	0.003	0.008	0.008
1B	2B	3B	0.004	0.010	0.012
			73.0%
			20.6%
			6.4%

73% of the time, all outs are exactly the same, plus all the times in the other 27% where a strikeout is exactly the same as a pop out, ground ball to third, shallow fly out, or ground ball out to the pitcher.

20.6% of the time, a ground ball out is a disaster while all strike outs, shallow fly outs, and pop outs are the same. Included in this 20.6% is about 5% of the time where a fly ball is better.

6.4% of the time, a ground ball to 2nd or first (and sometimes SS) and a deep fly ball are better than outs that don't advance the runner.

Combined with the 5% from the second group, you're looking at about 12%. 12% of the time, a certain out in play is less negative than a strikeout. 20% of the time, a certain out in play is much worse than a strikeout. 73% of the time, how the out is made makes no difference. 

And again, no one is arguing that players shouldn't try to hit the ball.

Where are you getting the 73%, 20.6%, and 6.4% numbers from?

So you are saying that 1 out of every 5 ground outs ends in a double play? 

Posted by tecwrg on 5/23/2014 2:08:00 PM (view original):
Where are you getting the 73%, 20.6%, and 6.4% numbers from?

The plate appearance percentages from this.

"The following table presents the frequency of plate appearances that started in each base/out state."

Posted by The Taint on 5/23/2014 2:10:00 PM (view original):
So you are saying that 1 out of every 5 ground outs ends in a double play? 

Nope.

Define disaster.