FanGraphs Baseball

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. “Justin Ruggiano is just a product of good luck and good timing.”

    Not so! (He could drop 80 points of BABIP and still have a strong .347 wOBA — assuming all other rates hold.)

    I certainly hope he does well, but you look at some of his stats and it screams regression. 13.5 SwStrk %! 26.3 K%!! .401 BABIP!! I was just wondering how far it would go. A .347 wOBA, tossed in with ~20 SBs is pretty good in our current run environment. He could be a sneaky pickup, and with the Marlins I would think he can get a full season load of PAs. It is the Marlins though, so who know. Justin already told me “he got this.”

    http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/justin-ruggiano-disputes-fox-ken-rosenthal-marlins-cf-190349699–mlb.html

    Comment by Atari — December 20, 2012 @ 12:22 pm

  2. It looks like about 80% of the players were “unlucky” last year. Shouldn’t the difference be centered around zero if luck is random?

    Comment by Greg — December 20, 2012 @ 12:30 pm

  3. Yeah, I’ve got to love that strange intersection of employment, social media, and humor. Well done on Ruggiano’s part.

    And yes, the “assuming all other rates hold” is the bigger concern for Ruggiano. I would not be surprised to see both his K% increase and his HR% decrease.

    I don’t think, however, he will stabilize at a damning BABIP. He could survive some BABIP drops, but the other rates will determine his fate. That and the whims of the Marlins FO.

    Comment by Bradley Woodrum — December 20, 2012 @ 12:39 pm

  4. That is a great point. Boden’s xBABIP is predicting an average in the .315 BABIP area. For three years now, it’s been around .299. That certainly warrants investigation.

    As a point of interest, the mean and median difference between wOBA and DLX for 2012 was 16 points. So I would suggest that, if a person wanted to adjust expectations down, adjust them down by 16 points.

    Comment by Bradley Woodrum — December 20, 2012 @ 12:46 pm

  5. But even so it wouldn’t be surprising if a majority of the players were lucky or unlucky right? Just because luck is random doesn’t mean it’s evenly distributed. Or am I wrong there?

    Comment by The Artful Dodger — December 20, 2012 @ 12:52 pm

  6. With a sample size that large, it would be pretty surprising. If “luck” isn’t evenly distributed, we might want to reconsider our notions of luck.

    Comment by Sparkles Peterson — December 20, 2012 @ 1:09 pm

  7. I certainly think it is possible for a skewed display of luck. I think it is MORE possible, however, that by fusing together to separate regressionary systems that we have a bias somewhere in the gears. That will be my first assumption, but I am happy to leave the door open to skewage as well.

    Comment by Bradley Woodrum — December 20, 2012 @ 1:32 pm

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


Current day month ye@r *

Close this window.

1.849 Powered by WordPress