by Navin Vaswani - March 4, 2011
The uber-talented Bradley Woodrum, of DRaysBay fame, released his much-anticipated BABIP video this morning. Yes, indeed, it is another great day to be alive.
Long live the Luck Dragons. And Mr. Woodrum, too.
H/T: DRaysBay. Duh.
Obviously this is a simplification (and an awesome one), but I think DIPS theory has generally omitted one BIG thing that has undermined it’s perceived legitimacy.
The relatively little control on BABIP demonstrated by major league pitchers is not due to the fact that BABIP cannot be affected by a pitcher. That is to say, if you our I started pitching against major league hitters, we would put up repeatable BABIPs MUCH higher than .300.
What McCracken observed was essentially one of selection bias. That is, it’s not that major league pitchers can’t affect BABIP. It’s that major league pitchers are by definition those that are the very best at limiting BABIP. Among those who are good enough pitchers to succeed in the majors, there is relatively little spread. But among the larger population of “guys who could theoretically pitch”, there is much greater variation.
We should be careful not go all “JC Bradbury” on this and confuse a normal distribution among a biased sample for evidence that the sample is itself representative the larger population.
Good addition. I think the same applies to hitters. The video showed Joe Fan hitting and said that if he could catch up to a fastball, and put it in play, he had the same chance as everyone of hitting a single or a double. But this doesn’t take into account mechanical issues such as bat speed and basic hitting skills. If I made contact with a major league pitch, and somehow put it in play, it wouldn’t be anything more than a dribbler to the pitcher or a pop up on the infield. So, no, I don’t think my BABIP would be 300. I think it would be .001, and I’d consider myself lucky.
Foul outs aren’t included? Those are ball in play (until such time as they’re ruled foul). I always assumed they were part of the stat. So if a guy pops up into foul territory to the catcher 9 times in a row, then gets a hit, his BABIP is 1.000? Doesn’t make sense to me. Not including foul outs is akin to saying that pitchers have little to no control over pop ups within the lines, but have as much control over pop ups in foul territory as they do homers, walks, and strikeouts.
BABIP = (HR-H) / (AB-HR-K+SF)
Foul outs are, by definition, included.
Whoops. (H-HR), note vice versa.
Would have bee so much better if not for the sounding out of BABIP. It’s “batting average on balls in play”, not “bahbip”; It’s longer but it doesn’t sound silly either.
In today’s fast-paced and high-tech society, who’s got time to say “batting average on balls in play”? I’m sorry to say, but I’m on Team Bahbip.
I admire the initiative and think that it’s great when people create anything and all that stuff, but….THAT’S “uber-talented”? Scanning a bunch of Crayola drawings and plugging them into Windows MovieMaker? Hell, by those standards, I’m an absolute prodigy.
(And I’m just talking about the production values, not the dubious sabermetric claims in there.)
I have zero doubt that you are absolutely an absolute prodigy, David.
Dude, my whole point was that you’re obviously easy to impress, so your judgments – serious or sarcastic – are kinda useless.
Just don’t lapse into disingenuous praise for primitive videos with dubious content. You waste people’s time.
Duly noted, David. I’m going to make up those valuable two minutes and 22 seconds to you. I promise!
You’re right, because, much like the guitar parts at the beginning and end, the video is awesome because of its superb production quality and the technical skills of the artist. It is ABSOLUTELY not awesome and hysterical because of the (obvious and intentional) lack of either. The luck dragons were a totally serious metaphor, too.
Xenophanes gets me.
I share your sense of humor, friend.
I’m kind of with DavidMI here. I love what these videos represent. I think they are funny at times, and I love any reference to a dragon…. but at the same time, I don’t think it helps spread the word about these stats, and doesn’t even do a very good job explaining them.
If we are admitting that these movies are just to laugh at, for us saber inclined goofballs, then these movies get an A. No further comment. But if they are actually meant for outsiders or disbelievers, I think they come up way short. I’d never want to show one of these to someone who didn’t already know what these topics were, as I fear it may scare them off further…