PDA

View Full Version : Score another point for DIPS theory



RedsManRick
08-03-2011, 11:45 AM
http://mlb.sbnation.com/2011/8/3/2340803/position-players-pitching-babip-stats



Over those 203 innings, the position players have posted a 7.64 ERA, and a 7.82 RA/9. That ERA is supported by the peripherals, as the position players have generated 77 strikeouts, 157 walks, and 33 home runs. The home runs aren't laugh-out-loud horrible but they're bad, and the strikeout-to-walk ratio is ghastly. Predictably ghastly, sure, but ghastly nonetheless, as position players possess neither command nor putaway pitches.

But there was one statistic that blew me away. One statistic that caught me so off guard that I double-, triple-, and quadruple-checked it. I looked at the position players' collective batting average allowed on balls in play (BABIP). I was expecting something in the mid-.300s or so, figuring that they'd allow a greater rate of solid contact than the typical figure you see with real pitchers. Why wouldn't they? They aren't real pitchers.

But I didn't get a BABIP in the mid-.300s.

I got .296.

signalhome
08-03-2011, 12:37 PM
Great stuff.

Johnny Footstool
08-03-2011, 02:04 PM
The small sample size (which the author addresses up front) really lessens the impact of this news.

757690
08-03-2011, 02:21 PM
The small sample size (which the author addresses up front) really lessens the impact of this news.

I think a bigger issue is the unique situation that exists whenever a position player takes the mound. I wouldn't compare any stats of that particular situation to stats of when a real pitcher is on the mound, or at least draw any conclusions from that comparison.

RedsManRick
08-03-2011, 03:28 PM
Nobody's talking conclusions, just pointing out that it is another data point the fits the DIPS theory expectation and which runs counter to our intuition. Not proof, just a small piece of evidence to be taken with a large grain of salt.

Johnny Footstool
08-03-2011, 03:55 PM
Nobody's talking conclusions, just pointing out that it is another data point the fits the DIPS theory expectation and which runs counter to our intuition. Not proof, just a small piece of evidence to be taken with a large grain of salt.

Sure. This article is very interesting, but I just don't think it does much in terms of convincing anyone who is on the fence.

*BaseClogger*
08-03-2011, 06:51 PM
The BABIP is obviously lower than expected because of the added benefit of having a superior fielder on top of the hill...

nate
08-03-2011, 09:38 PM
The BABIP is obviously lower than expected because of the added benefit of having a superior fielder on top of the hill...

Nice one, 'clogger!