Were #3

[Duman]

In hard hit ball %.  So when our batters hit the ball, they hit it hard.  The problem is were are #2 in Strike outs as a team.  So we don't hit the ball a whole lot of the time (278 Ks in 1037 AB)

[juliogotay]

In hard hit ball %.  So when our batters hit the ball, they hit it hard.  The problem is were are #2 in Strike outs as a team.  So we don't hit the ball a whole lot of the time (278 Ks in 1037 AB)

I read an article a couple of weeks ago that pointed out how low the Astros batting average was on balls in play. The point was that it was well below the norm and would not stay that low because of the law of averages. So the team was ready for some good luck. As per your point, your "luck" is usually better on a hard hit ball than a not-hard hit ball.

[jbm]

IIRC, these guys "measure" how hard a ball is hit visually. 

I am personally finding it hard to square their claim (Astros #3 spot on this measure) and the Astros low team BA (probably # last).  I have watched a lot of games this year and don't recall a lot of screamers finding gloves.  Certainly not enough to explain this apparent oddity.

[HudsonHawk]

IIRC, these guys "measure" how hard a ball is hit visually. 

I am personally finding it hard to square their claim (Astros #3 spot on this measure) and the Astros low team BA (probably # last).  I have watched a lot of games this year and don't recall a lot of screamers finding gloves.  Certainly not enough to explain this apparent oddity.

I think what explains this oddity is the enormous number of at bats in which the ball is *not* put into play.  Even if every ball you put into play was a base hit, if you only made contact 15% of the time, your batting average is going to be crap.

[Mr. Happy]

I think what explains this oddity is the enormous number of at bats in which the ball is *not* put into play.  Even if every ball you put into play was a base hit, if you only made contact 15% of the time, your batting average is going to be crap.

This. This right here.

[jbm]

You are correct, but I guess it doesn't square with BABIP.

[HudsonHawk]

You are correct, but I guess it doesn't square with BABIP.

I have no idea what BABIP is, but I can assure you if you swing and miss 80% of the time, you're batting average will not be good, irrespective of what you do the other 20%.

[Duman]

According to this fangraphs data:

The Astros make contact 75.5% of the time they swing the bat.  The Brewers make contact the most (84.7%) Braves make contact the least (75.4). That is right - Astros = 29th.
The Astros swing and miss on 10.6% of the total pitches they see.  The Braves swing and miss the most (12.1%) and the Royals swing and miss the least (7.0%). Astros tied for 25th most.

No matter how you look at it, they miss the ball alot when they swing. 

I know the Astros are tracking speed of the ball when it comes off the bat.  And the MLB is in the beginning phases of tracking batter f/x to be able to have that data.  I don't think it is public yet to any other source.  When it becomes available, there will be much more definitive info on hard hit balls. 

[Ebby Calvin]

I have no idea what BABIP is

Batting Average for Balls In Play.  I think the benchmark is .300

[HudsonHawk]

Batting Average for Balls In Play.  I think the benchmark is .300

So it's basically batting average if you ignore striking out.  What's the point?  What information does it attempt to provide?

[Duman]

It basically tries to explain away luck.  If it is under .300 you are being unlucky and some hits should start falling.  If you are over .300, you are getting lucky and are due to regress. 

[subnuclear]

It also ignores homeruns. Just at looks at hits that could be fielded.

[HudsonHawk]

It basically tries to explain away luck.  If it is under .300 you are being unlucky and some hits should start falling.  If you are over .300, you are getting lucky and are due to regress. 

I'm not seeing how it explains away luck when all it does is lower the average of guys who don't strike out a lot and inflate the average of guys who do.  I'm just suspect of a hit rate stat that shows Chris Carter's higher than Tony Gwynn's.

[HudsonHawk]

It also ignores homeruns. Just at looks at hits that could be fielded.

OK, I guess that makes a little sense, but I'm still not seeing how you can say a guy who strikes out 30% of the time is a victim of "bad luck" and why you'd expect his batting average to improve simply by getting more at bats.

[jbm]

I find the way the stat is used to be completely misleading.  If it is indicative of anything, it is indicative of how hard teams/players hit the ball.  Teams that square up their non-homers, should have a good BABIP on average.  Teams/players making weak contact should have low BABIPs.  Thus, the conundrum with the Astros hitting it hard, but having a low BABIP.  If one buys into the lucky/unlucky sorcery, then it is explained as the "Astros are unlucky."  Doesn't square with my observations at all, especially over 30+ games and lots of batted balls.

I highly suspect if one scoured the genesis of the stat, it was created to support a preconceived hypothesis that hitters/pitchers have no control over the result of batted balls.  Anyone who has ever watched a hitter rolling over on pitches for a week and then squaring it up over a week, or watched a pitcher keeping batters off balance versus feeding them meat knows full well that isn't true.  

[HudsonHawk]

I highly suspect if one scoured the genesis of the stat, it was created to support a preconceived hypothesis that hitters/pitchers have no control over the result of batted balls.  Anyone who has ever watched a hitter rolling over on pitches for a week and then squaring it up over a week, or watched a pitcher keeping batters off balance versus feeding them meat knows full well that isn't true.  

Yeah, I hear this all the time from statgeeks...every ball put in play has an equal chance of becoming a base hit, and it's just dumb luck that separates the screaming line drive and the routine ground ball. Which is ridiculous on its face.

[Ebby Calvin]

Yeah, I hear this all the time from statgeeks...every ball put in play has an equal chance of becoming a base hit, and it's just dumb luck that separates the screaming line drive and the routine ground ball. Which is ridiculous on its face.

I'm no statgeek (remove the word 'stat' and you're pretty close), but I think their intention is to separate the screaming line drive that lands in a SS's glove from the screamer that's hit two feet to Jeter's left.

[chuck]

And yet most of Springer's hits to date have been seeing eye grounders, choppers and dribblers.

[HudsonHawk]

I'm no statgeek (remove the word 'stat' and you're pretty close), but I think their intention is to separate the screaming line drive that lands in a SS's glove from the screamer that's hit two feet to Jeter's left.

So how does it do that?  Are they counting only the screaming line drives?  When I look at the stat, it seems to be defaulting to exactly as I describe...that every ball in play has the same potential and it's just chance that turns it into a hit or an out.  That may not be the intent, but I'm not seeing where that's the not the result.  And that's an absurd premise.

[Rag Arm]

Seems to me you're either good or you're not.Badasses do not need luck, therefore luck sucks. We just need badasses, if they're not a badass then we need to find a way to get em the luck outta here.

[Mr. Happy]

Seems to me you're either good or you're not.Badasses do not need luck, therefore luck sucks. We just need badasses, if they're not a badass then we need to find a way to get em the luck outta here.

You're right.

[Limey]

In hard hit ball %.  So when our batters hit the ball, they hit it hard.  The problem is were are #2 in Strike outs as a team.  So we don't hit the ball a whole lot of the time (278 Ks in 1037 AB)

Swing hard in case you hit it?

[mrpink]

So how does it do that?  Are they counting only the screaming line drives?  When I look at the stat, it seems to be defaulting to exactly as I describe...that every ball in play has the same potential and it's just chance that turns it into a hit or an out.  That may not be the intent, but I'm not seeing where that's the not the result.  And that's an absurd premise.

I think when the stat first came about that was the premise.  It was obviously absurd and since then someone created xBABIP which takes into account line drive percentage among other things.

No one claims it's a rule that a player with a low BABIP will see his average rise...more like a guideline really.  To use Chris Johnson as an example he had a .394 BABIP last year while he only had a career BABIP of .354 (including last year's data point).  Saber guys were screaming that he was bound to regress from his .321 average and they have so far been right as he's hit .236 this year.
It's just another tool that can be used to give us a more complete understanding of outliers.

With regard to the Astros, they're dead last in Avg, Babip, and Line Drive Percentage. They're still shitty.

[Ty in Tampa]

BABIP

If your stat acronym needs more than 4 letters then you're reaching.

[HudsonHawk]

It's just another tool that can be used to give us a more complete understanding of outliers.

It's another way to slice and dice the data, but I'm not seeing where it answers any questions, clarifies anything or provides any more detail.  It's as bad as OPS.

[Mr. Happy]

It's another way to slice and dice the data, but I'm not seeing where it answers any questions, clarifies anything or provides any more detail.  It's as bad as OPS.

But HH, OPS must mean something because it is up on the scoreboard at MMPUS... /ducks/

[jbm]

Do we really need the concept of BABIP to know that CJ would be unlikely to repeat last year?  

Anyone familiar with him, knows when he was hot, he was hitting shots.  When you hit shots for a long period, both your BABIP and BA will rise.  Those familiar with him also know that he can get into funks where he is tentative and somewhat sulky.  He isn't squaring the ball up during these periods and his BABIP and BA will show it.   It's certainly not luck, and not even regression as it is often used; it is simply a measure of his recent performance.  Nothing more.

In short, BABIP has added no new insights into the conversation of baseball, but instead has mainly served as a corrupting concept.

[HudsonHawk]

Do we really need the concept of BABIP to know that CJ would be unlikely to repeat last year?  

Anyone familiar with him, knows when he was hot, he was hitting shots.  When you hit shots for a long period, both your BABIP and BA will rise.  Those familiar with him also know that he can get into funks where he is tentative and somewhat sulky.  He isn't squaring the ball up during these periods and his BABIP and BA will show it.   It's certainly not luck, and not even regression as it is often used; it is simply a measure of his recent performance.  Nothing more.

In short, BABIP has added no new insights into the conversation of baseball, but instead has mainly served as a corrupting concept.

What was his Batting Average On Curveballs Above The Belt Hit To Left Field On Thursday Night Games?  If his BACABHLFTNG was less .297, it's an indication he needs his right contact lens adjusted.

[NeilT]

I knew Astros management spending money on expensive OPSs would once again lead to a Talk Zone kerfuffle, and I don't think the team is playing that much better now that they have them.

[HudsonHawk]

I knew Astros management spending money on expensive OPSs would once again lead to a Talk Zone kerfuffle, and I don't think the team is playing that much better now that they have them.

I don't mind expensive OPSs, I just wish they'd have found some better ones for their money.  Something outside of the .400-.600 range.

[Dark Star]

I was a big fan of OPs back in HS and college, the Hawaiian-style shirts, and especially their canvas shorts. Lightweight and water-resistant, great for the beach, and sailing, and surfing.

But I had thought OPs had long gone out of style. Shows what I know.

[HudsonHawk]

I was a big fan of OPs back in HS and college, the Hawaiian-style shirts, and especially their canvas shorts. Lightweight and water-resistant, great for the beach, and sailing, and surfing.

But I had thought OPs had long gone out of style. Shows what I know.

Did you have the corduroy shorts?  Did they look like THIS?

[Limey]

If your stat acronym needs more than 4 letters sounds like something R2D2 would say then you're reaching.

FIFY

[Dark Star]

Did you have the corduroy shorts?  Did they look like THIS?

Yeah. I had some white ones, and some blue ones.

And yeah, they did sorta look like that.

[94CougarGrad]

In short, BABIP has added no new insights into the conversation of baseball, but instead has mainly served as a corrupting concept.

And weird shit like this BABIP is why I pay attention to about half of the stats, if that. If that makes me a bad fan, or an uneducated one, then so be it. I'm not a baseball fan because I wake up, fire up the computer, and read the stats on how the Astros performed in the game last night. "Hey, babe, how'd our starter do against left-handed hitters with the roof open, at least one runner on base and a grackle perched atop the right-field foul pole?" I'm a fan because I turned on the televi--

Sigh. Never fuckin' mind.

[Ron Brand]

I'm a stat nerd. Maybe not to the level of most, but I enjoy them quite a bit. In the schools I went to, we didn't have math teachers, we had coaches reading from a book. It wasn't until I realized that I could just substitute baseball statistics for the math problems that I began to understand and even love math, but it was baseball that got me there. I can still go to the games and enjoy them on a visceral level - I don't think about the percentages of the shift, or much beyond the superficial stuff like matchups or placement.

I remember spending a late night with a girl, probably early in college. We had hit the bong pretty hard, and we'd turned the TV on and Frankenstein was showing so we watched it. As we watched this movie which is just mythic to me, this iconic movie that I'd marveled at since being a little kid - some curtain came off and what I saw was a wooden stage with a crummy set, heard the clumping of the actors as they walked across it. I could see every little thing that had been hidden from me before, and my knowledge had ruined the childlike wonder and admiration I'd had.

Knowledge of stats has not dulled my feeling for baseball.

[Mr. Happy]

I'm a stat nerd. Maybe not to the level of most, but I enjoy them quite a bit. In the schools I went to, we didn't have math teachers, we had coaches reading from a book. It wasn't until I realized that I could just substitute baseball statistics for the math problems that I began to understand and even love math, but it was baseball that got me there. I can still go to the games and enjoy them on a visceral level - I don't think about the percentages of the shift, or much beyond the superficial stuff like matchups or placement.

I remember spending a late night with a girl, probably early in college. We had hit the bong pretty hard, and we'd turned the TV on and Frankenstein was showing so we watched it. As we watched this movie which is just mythic to me, this iconic movie that I'd marveled at since being a little kid - some curtain came off and what I saw was a wooden stage with a crummy set, heard the clumping of the actors as they walked across it. I could see every little thing that had been hidden from me before, and my knowledge had ruined the childlike wonder and admiration I'd had.

Knowledge of stats has not dulled my feeling for baseball.

I'm the opposite. I'm not against advanced stats. For example, hit spray charts and hitting zone analysis can be valuable. But I gave up long ago trying to keep up with the stat du jour.

[juliogotay]

I think the numbers are part of the charm of baseball. Each of us individually has to decide what is important and what is superfluous.

[NeilT]

I think the numbers are part of the charm of baseball. Each of us individually has to decide what is important and what is superfluous.

or be wishy washy and change our opiniion from moment to moment, and depending on the last thing read.

Frankly I suspect that there are variations on BAPIT that are pretty useful, and I'd be interested in any links to articles that discuss the use of the stat.  I promise I'd read the first paragraph before my head spun off into the blogosphere.

[HudsonHawk]

I think the numbers are part of the charm of baseball. Each of us individually has to decide what is important and what is superfluous.

Most of the recent "sabermetric" (God how I hate defiling the good name of SABR with that term) stats are neither important or useful in any other way than satisfying someone's need to make up a new stat. I understand that stat geeks have a need to arrange player names on lists, and are constantly seeking new ways to do that. Good for them. But that doesn't make the stat important or particularly useful in evaluating baseball skill.

[juliogotay]

or be wishy washy and change our opiniion from moment to moment, and depending on the last thing read.

Frankly I suspect that there are variations on BAPIT that are pretty useful, and I'd be interested in any links to articles that discuss the use of the stat.  I promise I'd read the first paragraph before my head spun off into the blogosphere.

Then maybe you'll enjoy this. Or not.
 http://www.astroscounty.com/2014/05/great-article-on-babip-and-xbabip.html

[NeilT]

Then maybe you'll enjoy this. Or not.
 http://www.astroscounty.com/2014/05/great-article-on-babip-and-xbabip.html

I did enjoy it, and am now a firmly entrenched believer in xbapit, until HH tells me how foolish it is.

[geezerdonk]

I did enjoy it, and am now a firmly entrenched believer in xbapit, until HH tells me how foolish it is.

Why don't you just call yourself a dumb ass and eliminate the extra step?

[NeilT]

Why don't you just call yourself a dumb ass and eliminate the extra step?

Feel better?

[HudsonHawk]

Why don't you just call yourself a dumb ass and eliminate the extra step?

Why don't you go fuck yourself.

[NeilT]

Why don't you go fuck yourself.

See, I always change my mind when I read HH.  That's what I should have said.

[Mr. Happy]

See, I always change my mind when I read HH.  That's what I should have said.

But you're always the gentleman, counselor. We'll do your dirty work for you. Fuck off, Geezerdonk, you douche bag.

[NeilT]

But you're always the gentleman, counselor. We'll do your dirty work for you. Fuck off, Geezerdonk, you douche bag.

Well said.

[Arky Vaughan]

This thread has more straw men than a Wizard of Oz cosplay convention. I've never seen anyone argue that every ball in play has an equal chance of becoming a hit. I've seen people provide data that indicates that some variations in batting average on balls in play appear to be somewhat, though not exclusively, random.

[David in Jackson]

A good basic explanation: http://sports.espn.go.com/fantasy/baseball/flb/story?page=mlbdk2k10babipprimer

[HudsonHawk]

This thread has more straw men than a Wizard of Oz cosplay convention. I've never seen anyone argue that every ball in play has an equal chance of becoming a hit. I've seen people provide data that indicates that some variations in batting average on balls in play appear to be somewhat, though not exclusively, random.

What are those data?  How were they measured?  How was it determined that a hit is random?  When I look at BAPIP, that's what it appears to do...assume that certain, if not all balls in play have an equal opportunity to become a hit.  How are the data filtered?

[das]

Did you have the corduroy shorts?  Did they look like THIS?

I just wasted 30 minutes looking at every one of those pics.  Some serious sk8tr memories from the 70's in there.

[94CougarGrad]

I'm a stat nerd. Maybe not to the level of most, but I enjoy them quite a bit.

And I'm cool with stat nerds. They often tell me interesting stuff that I wouldn't otherwise have known. I'm much more of a facts nerd. ("Did you know the human head weighthz eight poundthz?") But as for paying attention to stats myself, I'm limited. I hear some term like BABIP and wonder where it stops as I head for the beer line.