Intelligent Life Found In Baseball Chatroom

Terry Pruett, in the Dodger Thought chatroom, is speaking about the much overused and seriously-flawed stat called BABIP. But for me this view applies to almost all stats including the traditional ones.  He eloquently describes my position on stat boys and the use of their stats (the second group he mentions) better that I have been able to. (I use the label stat boys for the people running around the Internet throwing out numbers without....well you've heard it before. Bill James, Rob Neyer, now those are advanced metric people I have great admiration for.)

I think the folks at Fangraphs and others that do this for a living understand the true use of this stat...the problem is the blogger or commenter or sportswriter that knows just enough to be dangerous and begins labeling players "lucky" or "unlucky" without looking at underlying causes.


Mr. TiensGohan also from the Dodger Thought chat room beautifully describes what launched the VODF rampage. He too is talking about the stat boys' favorite stat but again it can apply to many others. It's the disdain used in conjunction with other advanced metrics from people who just like to see themselves in Internet print that are the enemies of the sabre professionals.




TiensyGohanCollapse

There was an article on Fangraphs a couple weeks back about this very issue. Basically the point made was that calling BABIP-fueled performances "lucky" or "unlucky" not only misrepresents statistical analysis, but risks alienating popular audience by using condescending language that does not align well with reality. As you say, it is not just "luck" when Lincecum heaves a meatball down the pipe two, three times per game. It is not just "luck" that Billingsley's pitches have been hit harder. A fan will naturally feel that a stats analysis that calls BABIP "luck" has missed the point.

Terry Pruett makes a far more thoughtful, cogent presentation than I ever could regarding the special stat boy stat. 

Terry PruettCollapse

Now, the statement: I feel that, over time, each player (pitcher OR hitter) establishes his own mean level of BABIP, which may or may not conform to league average. For a hitter like a Matt Kemp, it would seem that the fact that he A) Crushes the ball, and B) Runs very well (infield hits)...will lead to a generally consistent high BABIP over time (and it has).

On pitchers, I would think that someone like Capuano (who for his career has a low .297 BABIP...not that far off from his current .270) has pitched long enough at basically the same BABIP level to say definitively that he is a "low BABIP pitcher". On the other hand, Billingsley does have a very high BABIP this year compared to his career levels...but his line drive percentage is also up substantially over his best years. Perhaps Billingsley has EARNED that high BABIP, and luck has nothing to do with it. Perhaps. For sure...and this is my opinion, Capuano has been far more effective than Billingsley this year.

Here are some links to a sports oasis that houses the best sports writing in the country. Rani Jazayerli talks about the plight of the K.C. Royals. The trials and travails of a minor league system gone wrong. Grantland. Jonah Keri, a supremely talented writer, wrote a great piece on last night's All-Star Game.

I found the recent post by Chris Jackson at Tragic Illness about the Dodger minor league pitchers very useful. It serves a real purpose to tamp down the hysteria about prospects. It was also a break from the over-snarked, dead-horse beating that usually goes on there.