JB's April 40: More Ks Ain't OK...Or are they?

[Tony Cloninger]

A good hitter is successful 35% of the time and great ones 40%, because getting on base makes a good hitter, not a batting average.

As for the adjustments at the plate, I am assuming you are talking about Jay Bruce. So let's get into that. Jay Bruce DID make an adjustment this season. He did what a lot of people wanted him to do. Start going the other way on that outside pitch. He has. Often. So what is the next step? What is the next adjustment he should make?

Well he is not going to be chocking up with 2 strikes, that is for sure.
I like his approach. If people are going to possibly think that by going the other way....his power will suffer...then his strike outs would have gone down as well. I think this will help him in the long run...his new approach. I hope he does not get frustrated with it and eventually the homers will come.

[Ghosts of 1990]

You know where Bruce is at overall offensively six years in? Out of five stars he is about a 2.5 or three star hitter. That's the reality of it.

Some people might say well I'm fine with who he is and that's okay. But he's definitely shown the world and the organization that he's not a cornerstone as we all thought and I wouldn't be surprised if Jocketty made him available behind closed doors as soon as this offseason. It really stinks. Jay has basically played his way right out of Cincinnati.

It's sad we even have to have discussions about this about one of our supposed cornerstones or best players. If you watch Jay up close day in and day out it's not a slump or a slow start but who he has become. A player who is completely lost in terms of approach at the dish mentally. And it's been a slow decline. Despite the power numbers being okay I would argue that he's actually declined in terms of being a complete hitter (hit tool) season over season. I liked him a lot more as a hitter when he was 21 years old fresh out of the minor leagues.

[BCubb2003]

That isn't exactly true. Not all balls in play are created equally. Making contact on non-strikes has a much lower BABIP than contact on strikes. Contact on strikes in the middle and inner part of the zone have higher BABIP than contact on strikes on the outer third of the plate.

That sounds very sensible, but doesn't it render BABIP moot? It's not the ball in play, it's how you hit it?

[Wonderful Monds]

A good hitter is successful 35% of the time and great ones 40%, because getting on base makes a good hitter, not a batting average.

I don't know that I agree with that necessarily. At least, I think a good offense probably needs a good hitter for average or two.

[Kc61]

That sounds very sensible, but doesn't it render BABIP moot? It's not the ball in play, it's how you hit it?

BABIP in normal discussion has come to be a synonym for luck. This is incorrect.

BABIP means batting average on balls in play. It is influenced by luck. But there are a large number of other factors influencing BABIP.

Batted ball type -- e.g., line drive rate, fly ball rate, all influence BABIP.

Quality of contact, hard or soft. Hitter speed, fast guys have higher BABIP on grounders. As Doug notes, whether hitter makes contact with bad pitches. Ballpark factors. Quality of opponent defense.

There may be some BABIP formulas that automatically adjust for these factors. But generally, you can't just say BABIP=luck. It doesnt.

Usually I think folks attribute BABIP to luck when it's wildly out of line. At that point you say, well, it has to correct, it's so far out of line.

[dougdirt]

That sounds very sensible, but doesn't it render BABIP moot? It's not the ball in play, it's how you hit it?

There is a lot of things that go into BABIP. Line drives go for hits about 72% of the time. Grounders about 28% of the time. Fly Balls 22% of the time. Generally speaking, guys with groundball tendencies are probably going to have slightly better BABIP rates than guys who are big fly ball hitters. Guys who don't hit pop ups (Votto) can sustain a higher BABIP because a pop up is essentially a 100% out. Speed of course comes into play too. Fast guys are going to leg out a handful of extra singles that other normal speed guys wouldn't.

[BCubb2003]

There is a lot of things that go into BABIP. Line drives go for hits about 72% of the time. Grounders about 28% of the time. Fly Balls 22% of the time. Generally speaking, guys with groundball tendencies are probably going to have slightly better BABIP rates than guys who are big fly ball hitters. Guys who don't hit pop ups (Votto) can sustain a higher BABIP because a pop up is essentially a 100% out. Speed of course comes into play too. Fast guys are going to leg out a handful of extra singles that other normal speed guys wouldn't.

If you'll humor me, it sounds like BABIP is useful stat except for everything that happens in real life.

[mth123]

If you'll humor me, it sounds like BABIP is useful stat except for everything that happens in real life.

It's useful when used correctly. Most of the time its not.

[BCubb2003]

It's useful when used correctly. Most of the time its not.

Can you give me an example?

[Kc61]

Can you give me an example?

If normally good hitter has a .175 BABIP it is so far out of the range that there is a high likelihood he (if healthy) will start to have the hits fall for him.

That's an example.

BABIP is very useful when someone is wildly out of the normal range.

[AtomicDumpling]

Hitters have much more control over their BABIP than pitchers do. Pitcher BABIP is based on the quality of the defense behind him and a large measure of luck with very little if any influence from the skill of the pitcher. Almost all pitchers, whether good or bad, end up with a career BABIP of around .290-.295 unless they played for many years with an unusually bad or good defense behind them. Hitter BABIP is based on his line drive rate primarily, but a hitter's true (or expected) BABIP tends to remain constant throughout his career, so if you see a batter's BABIP deviate from his career BABIP you can expect a regression to his normal BABIP soon.

[mth123]

Can not something that will continue for long. you give me an example?

I'm not sure what everyone else does and I'm sure some will disagree with me, but here is how I use it.

First and foremost compare a player's BABIP to his own history. Joey Votto always has a high BABIP. If you look at his .383 BABIP and say its way above the average of .300 so a correction is coming, you'd probably be wrong. Looking back, Votto has a career BABIP number of .360 with a .404 in 2012. His current BABIP is probably not out of line or a function of luck, but more a reflection of his skill level.

Secondly, look deeper into the hit types. Is something way out of the ordinary happening? Is a guy who usually has a LD rate of 15% suddenly hitting LD at a 30% rate? If so, it probably explains a good BABIP, but it's probably not going to continue for a long time. If the hit types are all in line, but the BABIP result is way different from normal, "the way the ball bounces" is probably at play.

Is a pitcher's BABIP luck or is he giving up ropes all over the place? Gary Majewski was a guy who had an unusualy low BABIP when the reds acquired him, so his ERA looked good as well. After coming to the Reds, his BABIP was really high. Some thought that meant better days were coming, but watching Majewski, you could see that guys were killing the ball when he pitched. Rheal Cormier was another guy with a real low BABIP when the Reds acquired him and given his histroy, it was pretty certain that he wasn't the answer that his ERA suggested he might be.

When a guy is young and doesn't have a long track record, I use the .300 league average standard, but once a guy has had some time in (for a pitcher I go with about 400 innings or so) I rely more on his history. I'm not saying that's how everyone does it, but blindly using league average and crying "LUCK" is a misuse of the stat IMO.

[AtomicDumpling]

How does BABIP fit into this? When you put the ball in play, you're a .300 hitter. If you don't, you're batting zero.

If you walk you are a 1.000 hitter.

If you hit the ball you have a 70% chance of making an out.

Hitters should be judged by their OBP and their SLG, not their strikeout rate. Generally speaking, if you go to the plate just trying to make contact to avoid a strikeout then your OBP and especially your SLG are going to suffer.

[Norm Chortleton]

If you walk you are a 1.000 hitter.

If you hit the ball you have a 70% chance of making an out.

Hitters should be judged by their OBP and their SLG, not their strikeout rate. Generally speaking, if you go to the plate just trying to make contact to avoid a strikeout then your OBP and especially your SLG are going to suffer.

That also gives you a chance to advance a runner or drive in a run 70% of the time, if someone is on base. Which, btw, is 70% more than if you K.

[gilpdawg]

I'm not sure what everyone else does and I'm sure some will disagree with me, but here is how I use it.

First and foremost compare a player's BABIP to his own history. Joey Votto always has a high BABIP. If you look at his .383 BABIP and say its way above the average of .300 so a correction is coming, you'd probably be wrong. Looking back, Votto has a career BABIP number of .360 with a .404 in 2012. His current BABIP is probably not out of line or a function of luck, but more a reflection of his skill level.

Secondly, look deeper into the hit types. Is something way out of the ordinary happening? Is a guy who usually has a LD rate of 15% suddenly hitting LD at a 30% rate? If so, it probably explains a good BABIP, but it's probably not going to continue for a long time. If the hit types are all in line, but the BABIP result is way different from normal, "the way the ball bounces" is probably at play.

Is a pitcher's BABIP luck or is he giving up ropes all over the place? Gary Majewski was a guy who had an unusualy low BABIP when the reds acquired him, so his ERA looked good as well. After coming to the Reds, his BABIP was really high. Some thought that meant better days were coming, but watching Majewski, you could see that guys were killing the ball when he pitched. Rheal Cormier was another guy with a real low BABIP when the Reds acquired him and given his histroy, it was pretty certain that he wasn't the answer that his ERA suggested he might be.

When a guy is young and doesn't have a long track record, I use the .300 league average standard, but once a guy has had some time in (for a pitcher I go with about 400 innings or so) I rely more on his history. I'm not saying that's how everyone does it, but blindly using league average and crying "LUCK" is a misuse of the stat IMO.

The assumption that BABIP will normalize for a certain hitter or pitcher assumes that said player is major league quality. A guy like Brandon Larson wouldn't have a normal BABIP because he couldn't hit. A lot of people claim luck, when it's really suck. I made the same mistake with Majeski that a lot of people did. I know better now.

Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk HD