BABIP Gods Smile on Braves

nsacpi said:
I think your point is correct but you are not understanding that correlation does not imply causalitt
Click to expand...

But how large of a historical data set do I need to show before it can be considered causality? At some point one has to wonder maybe there is something there. Not at the individual player level of course. Too much noise in that. However, I think it could help buck the notion that you have regress all players BABIP to 300.
 
thethe said:
But how large of a historical data set do I need to show before it can be considered causality? At some point one has to wonder maybe there is something there. Not at the individual player level of course. Too much noise in that. However, I think it could help buck the notion that you have regress all players BABIP to 300.
Click to expand...

look at what i added to my post
 
nsacpi said:
look at what i added to my post
Click to expand...

I'm not interested in one year samples for individual players. As I said that is too much noise.

I'd be more interested in looking at career stats for the total player population and stratifying wRC+ and seeing what the BABIP numbers are.
 
thethe said:
Come on now. Yes - There is noise but overall the better hitters in the league have a higher wRC+.

This is not hard nor sure should it be unexpected. Better hitters hit more line drives because they make better contact because they see the ball better. That is what makes them better.

I just think its wrong to say X hitter has a BABIP of Y but you have to regress why to Z which is the league average BABIP. Sure - Nobody is going to BABIP 400 for a season or even 360 but you should not assume a regression to 300 for every hitter. That is way to simplistic of an analysis.
Click to expand...

Sometimes the simple answer is the best. We went through this before the last few years when the Braves would run high on BABIP. And the outcome is always the same. Unless you run a team of hitters that post a high LD% the end result is going to be the same. A team with a BABIP close to .300 which in the end tells us nothing about how good of a hitting team we have.
 
thethe said:
I'm not interested in one year samples for individual players. As I said that is too much noise.

I'd be more interested in looking at career stats for the total player population and stratifying wRC+ and seeing what the BABIP numbers are.
Click to expand...

What would you expect players that averaged a 105 WRC+ or higher have for their BABIP as a group?
 
thethe said:
I don't know but I'm assuming you are asking because its around 300?
Click to expand...

No I'm genuinely curious and I don't have that information.

I'm just not a one size fits all guy when it comes to this discussion. There will be players that run average to below average BABIPs and be good hitters.
 
thewupk said:
No I'm genuinely curious and I don't have that information.

I'm just not a one size fits all guy when it comes to this discussion. There will be players that run average to below average BABIPs and be good hitters.
Click to expand...

2017:

>wRC+ 105 - .31803
<wRC+ 105 - .294169

2016:

>wRC+ 105 - .315682
<wRC+ 105 - .294809


So it still kind of rings true.
 
Sorted wRC+ with 300 PA, and picked out the below average BABIPs.

In top 30 (4)

Stanton 156 .288
Donaldson 149 .289
Springer 140 .297
Bellinger 138 .299

Next 30 (12)

Next 30 (8)

Next 30 (12)

Next 13 (5) 105 wRC+


In total 41 of the 133 with wRC+ 105+ had BABIP below league average in 2017 (I actually think there might be a couple more because I think I started looking at .300 BABIP or below and was too lazy to count them again.

I'm not sure i'm drawing any particular major conclusions here.

15 of players ranked 181-210 in wRC+ (96-92) had below average BABIPs. Some of those 15 had particularly high BABIPs to finish with fairly low wRC+. Some of those include Bogaerts, Markakis, Spangenburg, Pina, LeMahieu, C. Vasquez, D. Gordon.

All in all not seeing major pattens.
 
thethe said:
2017:

>wRC+ 105 - .31803
<wRC+ 105 - .294169

2016:

>wRC+ 105 - .315682
<wRC+ 105 - .294809


So it still kind of rings true.
Click to expand...

Umm, of course a higher wRC+ is going to correlate with higher BABIP...that's a big part of how they got the higher wRC+.

That's like breaking the news to us that it's warmer when the sun comes out, and then trying to argue that the warmth makes the sun appear. Folks routinely confuse correlation with causation, as evidenced here. It's the same silly thing as football guys talking about how teams with 100+ yards rushing in a game often win...they run the ball to kill time because they are winning...they don't win because they were effective at rushing the ball.

We already know there is a positive correlation between LD% and BABIP...that's what makes a good hitter good. We also know there is a correlation between BABIP, being LHed, speed, and not pulling the ball into the shift. These are known quantities.

Now look for a correlation between exit velocity and BABIP. Here is a good one: https://www.fangraphs.com/community/is-exit-velocity-important/

"At first, I looked at the relationship between BABIP and exit velocity by performing a linear regression between the two. Here is the result:

No relationship, at all. R-squared of 0.03:"

Educate yourself, or continue spewing ignorance. Your choice.
 
Last edited:
From 2013-2017 the overall BABIP was 299

In that same time period there have been 120 players that had a at least a 105 WRC+ with at least 1500 plate appearances.

63 players had a 310 BABIP or higher, 33 players had a BABIP between 309 and 290, and 24 players had a BABIP 289 or lower.

The overall BABIP among that group is 312

Numbers could change with a larger sample but all of that seems right to me.
 
And just like that, the Braves BABIP has fallen to .310. As it regresses further, and other teams pick up the pace a bit, they will drop in those ranking, as well as drop in the runs scored rankings.

Poor Indians. They have hit into horrid luck...0.180 BABIP. They are still 5-5 and in 1st place. That's how good that team is.
 
BABIP down to .304, slipping down the runs leader board as a result. The Braves have lost 3 of their last 4.

Regression is a bitch.
 
We will finish April with the highest BABIP in the NL--.317. Just sayin.

Cubs are next highest at .309. Rockies bring up the rear in the NL at .275. Indians (even with the DH) at .257.

Somewhat shockingly, we are second in the NL in ISO (to the Diamondbacks). Thank ye Ozymandias, King of Kings.
 
Last edited:
nsacpi said:
We will finish April with the highest BABIP in the NL--.317. Just sayin.

Cubs are next highest at .309. Rockies bring up the rear in the NL at .275. Indians (even with the DH) at .257.

Somewhat shockingly, we are second in the NL in ISO (to the Diamondbacks). Thank ye Ozymandias, King of Kings.
Click to expand...

This has certainly been the "everything goes right" scenario in many ways.

The Braves BP also leads MLB in BB/9 by a HUGE margin at 6.26 (#2 are the Reds at 4.59). The difference between the Braves at #1 and the Reds at #2 is the same as the difference between the Reds and the DBacks at #26. It is insane how many walks they have given up.

Through the same magic that is bolstering the batters' BABIP, somehow all those walks have only resulted in a very average (#16) 3.94 ERA. Their xFIP of 4.68 is 3rd from the bottom, and is much more in line with what should be expected going forward if the walks aren't cleaned up.

Even if it isn't likely to continue, it's great watching players that are good and likely to get better vs the garbage of the last few years.
 
Last edited:
nsacpi said:
We will finish April with the highest BABIP in the NL--.317. Just sayin.

Cubs are next highest at .309. Rockies bring up the rear in the NL at .275. Indians (even with the DH) at .257.

Somewhat shockingly, we are second in the NL in ISO (to the Diamondbacks). Thank ye Ozymandias, King of Kings.
Click to expand...

Braves actually finished at .305 last year. .317 would have lead the non-Rockies MLB last year, but there is usually 2-5 teams in the .31x range.

For what it is worth (prolly not much) the Braves regulars with 100 PA that had BABIP under .305 last season were:

Matt Adams .294
Dansby .292
J. Peterson .279
Suzuki .268
A. Garcia .247
D. Santana .243
R. Ruiz .231

This year the guys who are dragging the average in the SSS are:

Markakis .304
Albies .298
Suzuki .262
Lane Adams .298
C. Steward .214
C. Perez .200
Culberson .188
Bourjous .167

.......

Nothing necessarily to draw from that except Suzuki is pretty consistent and the Braves better players seem to either have BABIP skill or continuing good fortune.
 
Enscheff said:
This has certainly been the "everything goes right" scenario in many ways.

The Braves BP also leads MLB in BB/9 by a HUGE margin at 6.26 (#2 are the Reds at 4.59). The difference between the Braves at #1 and the Reds at #2 is the same as the difference between the Reds and the DBacks at #26. It is insane how many walks they have given up.

Through the same magic that is bolstering the batters' BABIP, somehow all those walks have only resulted in a very average (#16) 3.94 ERA. Their xFIP of 4.68 is 3rd from the bottom, and is much more in line with what should be expected going forward if the walks aren't cleaned up.

Even if it isn't likely to continue, it's great watching players that are good and likely to get better vs the garbage of the last few years.
Click to expand...

Pitching has been real lucky. The walks, but also in that they've probably gotten about as good as could have been expected play out of Folty, Newcomb, McCarthy, Sanchez/Wisler. You might be able to argue on Teheran.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top