Originally Posted by Homer Bailey
A whole lot to disagree with there. Sure, some great relievers in history have had low BABIP's in the career. Rivera and Hoffman come to mind. However, its beyond unfair to put Logan in that group.
Across MLB, there is little to support that relievers do a better job of controlling BABIP than starters. Currently, starters in the MLB have a .294 BABIP against, while relievers have .290.
Whether or not a pitcher is pitching 1 inning or 7 innings, you still want the same things: High K rate, low walk rate, low HR rate. The fact that Logan doesn't K enough guys, and walks too many guys doesn't make it OK just because he's a reliever and he's had some BABIP luck. I'd find it very, very, very difficult to argue that Logan is such a good pitcher that he's able to control his BABIP, yet he's not good enough to strike guys out, and not good enough to prevent from walking them.
Sure, some pitchers' "stuff" is better suited for the bullpen than the rotation, and obviously relievers pitch differently that starters. That doesn't mean that FIP and xFIP are any less valuable for a reliever than it is a starter. It certainly is a better predictor of talent and future success than ERA is.
Much wider and broader range of BABIP for relief pitchers than starters. The overall average of them is meaningless for this discussion, it's the range that exists within that average that's important.
Plenty of relievers, not just the elite ones have been able to maintain low BABIP over their careers. Extremely logical that a pitcher can control his BABIP by getting weak contact, but can't get a lot of K's. Not sure why that is hard to understand.