Doesn’t everyone with a crazy-high average early on have an unsustainable BABIP? And doesn’t every pitcher getting lit up have a hot mess in the luck stats? That’s kinda standard.
Comment by lester bangs — April 13, 2012 @ 10:28 am
I also like how Jackson’s simplified his stance at the plate, eliminated the leg kick. Quieter is often better.
Comment by lester bangs — April 13, 2012 @ 10:30 am
No offense, but the entire section on BABIP is quite unnecessary. Yes, we know that a BABIP north of .600 is unsustainable, and that someone hitting for such a high average so early means that their BABIP is too high. It did not warrant mentioning at all.
But the IFH stuff and K% are much more relevant and interesting.
Even a .380 BABIP probably is unsustainable. I’d guess his “true talent” BABIP should be estimated to be no higher than about .360 based on the highest modern BABIP for players with long careers.
Comment by Detroit Michael — April 13, 2012 @ 11:16 am
What do you expect these writers to do? We are 5 games in and their job is to write about fantasy baseball.
*If he doesn’t spell out the babip fueled, unsustainable production, you guys will roast him for making declarations regarding a small sample.
*If he does spell it out the unsustainable rate for you (as he did here), you guys throw a fit because he’s stating the obvious
I think the author is merely saying that we’re 5 games in, we certainly can’t draw any concrete conclusions but jackson’s performance has been interesting for a few reasons.
what’s wrong with that?
Comment by toddler gets it — April 13, 2012 @ 2:31 pm
The content of the article was fine – the history of hot five game stretches, infield hits and K% were all great discussion points. It just didn’t have to be prefaced with a proclamation that his 643 babip over five games is unsustainable.
Comment by Dandy Salderson — April 13, 2012 @ 2:40 pm
Agreed. Anyone who expects Jackson to breakout is not likely basing his/her belief on these first 24 PA’s, but rather on the adjusted, shortened stance/approach at the plate. I was quite surprised that this wasn’t mentioned in the article.
I guess you’d be the civilian board with oversight over police.
To me, Fangraphs is as much about the exchange as the original articles and I generally enjoy both. When I wrote for HBT I found as much insight in the comments as in the original content. I think the better and more self-confident writers engage those who respond.
All that said, there was precious little content in the article and not much to respond to, assuming one understands the vagaries of small sample sizes.
The same guys complaining at BABIP being in this article would be the ones complaining about the lack of BABIP if it were left out. “I can’t believe you wrote an article on Jackson’s potential breakout without mentioning his unsustainably high BABIP. Isn’t this Fangraphs?”
I get SO angry when Roger Ebert names the actors in the film he is reviewing. Its like duh I already know that why don’t you write something of substance? I register my displeasure with sarcasm in the comments section.
Comment by I know everything — April 14, 2012 @ 7:09 pm
Let’s not forget though that he has Miggy AND Fielder batting behind him. Even if he bats .260 for the year, I don’t see why he wouldn’t be able to score 110 runs, hit maybe 5-10 HR, and possibly steal 15-20. Still quite useful.