Quote:
Originally Posted by jojo
But isn't Pedro actually a perfect example for the argument that BABIP isn't something even a dominating pitcher can consistently influence?
1999 was perhaps his most dominating season and his BABIP was .343. The next season it was .253. The season after that it was .322. If BABIP is something a pitcher has a great deal of control over, why was Pedro apparently so miserable at controlling his during his peak years?
An unfounded conclusion from data? The conclusion is that when looking for an ability to control BABIP, only a handful of historical outliers can be found and even then, the affect they seemingly wielded upon their BABIP was rather small (i.e. their ERA was roughly .3 lower than would be predicted). Thus whatever effect an average pitcher has on BABIP isn't large enough to overcome randomness. Can pitchers effect their BABIP? Intuitively, they probably do have some effect-it just isn't a big effect. So language like "Unfounded conclusion from data by guys who have no background in logic." really needs to be backed by some solid logic/data for the narrative to have any traction IMHO.
Code:
Season K/9 BB/9 BABIP LOB% ERA FIP
Career 10.04 2.42 0.291 75.90% 2.93 2.91
1992 9 1.13 0.292 71.40% 2.25 1.16
1993 10.01 4.79 0.28 79.20% 2.61 3.08
1994 8.83 2.8 0.281 72.60% 3.42 3.32
1995 8.04 3.05 0.268 75.90% 3.51 3.9
1996 9.22 2.91 0.304 68.80% 3.7 3.27
1997 11.37 2.5 0.274 79.90% 1.9 2.39
1998 9.67 2.58 0.284 79.90% 2.89 3.4
1999 13.2 1.56 0.343 77.60% 2.07 1.39
2000 11.78 1.33 0.253 86.60% 1.74 2.17
2001 12.57 1.93 0.322 75.90% 2.39 1.61
2002 10.79 1.81 0.288 75.80% 2.26 2.24
2003 9.93 2.27 0.304 78.20% 2.22 2.21
2004 9.41 2.53 0.303 73.20% 3.9 3.58
2005 8.63 1.95 0.257 76.90% 2.82 2.95
2006 9.29 2.65 0.273 65.20% 4.48 4.05
2007 10.29 2.25 0.413 73.80% 2.57 1.92
2008 7.18 3.63 0.329 71.10% 5.61 5.18
|
As I said, I am done with this. The only way to discuss this further is to go deep into analytic philosophy and advanced logic. No one wants that. I know I don't.
So again, just let me say that what you have done is provide one logical explanation for the data. But it is invalid for anyone to conclude that this is the only or even the best, or even one of the best explanations for the data.