So how about Daniel Nava?

[User Name]

Striking out lowers your AVG without creating a ball in play. Therefore it raises your BABIP.. or more correctly' date=' it doesn't lower it. So if you strike out more and have the same average, you have a higher BABIP. This Nava has a higher BABIP than, say, Dustin Pedoia who almost never strikes out.[/quote']

 

That's not how BABIP works at all. Strikeouts are factored into the formula so that they don't affect the outcome in exactly the way you're presenting.

[ORS]

That's not how BABIP works at all. Strikeouts are factored into the formula so that they don't affect the outcome in exactly the way you're presenting.

No, he's right. Here's how BABIP is determined.

 

BABIP = (H - HR) / (AB - K - HR + SF)

 

It measures the success rate on only batted balls hit into the field of play. All other things being equal (BA, HR, SF), the player with more K's will have a higher BABIP since it is in the denominator.

[Bellhorn04]

Correct me I'm wrong, but strikeouts simply have no effect at all on BABIP, they are a complete non-factor, the same way walks have no effect on batting avg.

[mvp 78]

Correct me I'm wrong' date=' but strikeouts simply have no effect at all on BABIP, they are a complete non-factor, the same way walks have no effect on batting avg.[/quote']

 

Dojji logic: false if 2 hitters have the same # of trips to the dish and hits, the one with more walks would have a higher average. Mind = blown

[User Name]

Correct me I'm wrong' date=' but strikeouts simply have no effect at all on BABIP, they are a complete non-factor, the same way walks have no effect on batting avg.[/quote']

 

That's what i thought. What strikeouts do, according to what i interpret from the formula, is only manipulating the size of the sample because you subtract them from the number of AB's.

 

But walks do have an indirect effect on batting average. The more walks you take, the higher average you can have with less hits or lower average with more outs, because you use AB's and not PA's to calculate Avg.

 

I guess the same indirect effect could be created by K's on BABIP, but that's not a direct effect on the outcome.

[User Name]

Dojji logic: false if 2 hitters have the same # of trips to the dish and hits' date=' the one with more walks would have a higher average. Mind = blown[/quote']

 

But he's not talking about pure batting average, but rather Batting Average on Balls in Play, which is calculated in a much different manner.

[Bellhorn04]

But walks do have an indirect effect on batting average. The more walks you take, the higher average you can have with less hits or lower average with more outs, because you use AB's and not PA's to calculate Avg.

 

I guess the same indirect effect could be created by K's on BABIP, but that's not a direct effect on the outcome.

 

Isn't 'indirect effect' kind of muddying the waters here? Russell Martin is hitting .194 with an OBP of .342 this year. Are the high number of walks having any effect at all on his batting avg? Did the high number of walks have any effect on J D Drew's batting avg.?

[User Name]

Isn't 'indirect effect' kind of muddying the waters here? Russell Martin is hitting .194 with an OBP of .342 this year. Are the high number of walks having any effect at all on his batting avg? Did the high number of walks have any effect on J D Drew's batting avg.?

 

Well that's kinda my point. There is an effect, but no direct, and not on the outcome itself.

[mvp 78]

Striking out lowers your AVG without creating a ball in play. Therefore it raises your BABIP.. or more correctly' date=' it doesn't lower it. So if you strike out more and have the same average, you have a higher BABIP. This Nava has a higher BABIP than, say, Dustin Pedoia who is a similar hitter in some respects but almost never strikes out.[/quote']

 

He says: 2 guys with same average (not BABIP), the guy with more K's will have a higher BABIP

 

That's what I'm gathering from the above statement.

[User Name]

He says: 2 guys with same average (not BABIP), the guy with more K's will have a higher BABIP

 

That's what I'm gathering from the above statement.

 

Oh i see what you mean now, and he's incorrect. A strikeout doesn't directly affect BABIP, it just makes the sample (AB's) smaller, therefore helping affect how much the outcome can vary (smaller sample, higher variability) but not the outcome itself.

[ORS]

Oh i see what you mean now' date=' and he's incorrect. A strikeout doesn't directly affect BABIP, it just makes the sample (AB's) smaller, therefore helping affect how much the outcome can vary (smaller sample, higher variability) but not the outcome itself.[/quote']

It absolutely affects BABIP because of what BABIP measures. Strikeouts are removed from from the overall chances because they do not result in a ball-in-play. Same thing with HR being subtracted from the overall chances because you can't make a play on a ball over the fence (out of play), and SF being added which are balls in play that are fielded for outs.

 

If it's in the formula, it has a direct effect.

[SoxSport]

BABIP--just for batted balls in play. Everything else is factored out. I would assume errors as well.

[Bellhorn04]

It absolutely affects BABIP because of what BABIP measures. Strikeouts are removed from from the overall chances because they do not result in a ball-in-play. Same thing with HR being subtracted from the overall chances because you can't make a play on a ball over the fence (out of play), and SF being added which are balls in play that are fielded for outs.

 

If it's in the formula, it has a direct effect.

 

But ORS, the formula is just a mechanism to convert from total AB's into the actual data you're measuring. You could get the data differently, by actually counting each at bat that the ball was put in play. If you did that you would obviously not count strikeouts. But since you already have the AB's and K's being measured the formula is just a shortcut.

 

I have to agree with User Name, strikeouts have no effect on BABIP. They just reduce the sample size.

[Dojji]

No you couldn't, because BABIP doesn't measure at bats. It measures balls in play.

 

Your BABIP is how many times a ball put in play results in a hit.

 

And one of the ways it controls for things that are not balls in play, is by subtracting them from the denominator. This includes but is not limited to the "true outcomes." Walks, homers, and strikeouts.

 

Two ways you can make a fractionary number such as batting average go up -- one is to increase the numerator, the other is to reduce the denominator. In BABIP calculations a player who strikes out more over the same number of at bats has a smaller denominator because those strikeouts are subtracted from the total number of PA before the number is calculated, leaving a smaller number of at bats to divide the total number of hits among. Result? A higher number.

 

In this case we're comparing Daniel Nava and Dustin Pedroia. Nava and Pedroia have similar averages, but Nava strikes out a little more (Pedroia strikes out once in 10 at bats, Nava strikes out twice as often), which is why he has a higher BABIP.

[Dojji]

I have to agree with User Name, strikeouts have no effect on BABIP. They just reduce the sample size.

 

How the hell can strikeouts have no effect on BABIP when ORS just established that strikeouts are a direct part of the BABIP calculation?

 

Come up with a BABIP calculation that doesn't have strikeouts in the denominator, and then post it here and we'll talk.

 

Baseball fans, of all sports fans, have the least right to be behind on their math like this. The idea I put forward should have been common freaking sense .

[Bellhorn04]

How the hell can strikeouts have no effect on BABIP when ORS just established that strikeouts are a direct part of the BABIP calculation?

 

I would turn that around and ask how the hell strikeouts can have any effect on BABIP when BABIP only measures batting average on balls put in play? The whole point of that formula is to remove strikeouts from the equation.

[Dojji]

The only reason anyone would make that argument is if they forgot fourth grade math.

 

Someone who strikes out infrequently puts more balls in play per plate appearance. That raises the denominator. and as 4th grade math should have told you, when you raise the denominator, the final value shrinks. 3/4 > 3/5

 

Someone who strikes out frequently, but has the same batting average as Player A, divides the same relative number of hits, over a smaller sample of balls in play. The result is a larger end number.

 

This is elementary school math people.

[Bellhorn04]

The only reason anyone would make that argument is if they forgot fourth grade math.

 

Someone who strikes out infrequently puts more balls in play per plate appearance. That raises the denominator. and as 4th grade math should have told you, when you raise the denominator, the final value shrinks. 3/4 > 3/5

 

Someone who strikes out frequently, but has the same batting average as Player A, divides the same relative number of hits, over a smaller sample of balls in play. The result is a larger end number.

 

This is elementary school math people.

 

Look Dojji, I completely understand the math. But I think you may be misinterpreting what BABIP is intended to measure. I read a fair amount about it in relation to Buchholz's 2010 season. He had a very low BABIP that year, an unsustainable BABIP, which indicated that he was very likely to regress the following season. It was all about the number of balls that got put in play against him and how relatively few of them ended up as hits. That is the percentage it measures.

[ORS]

Look Dojji' date=' I completely understand the math. But I think you may be misinterpreting what BABIP is intended to measure. I read a fair amount about it in relation to Buchholz's 2010 season. He had a very low BABIP that year, an unsustainable BABIP, which indicated that he was very likely to regress the following season. It was all about the number of balls that got put in play against him and how relatively few of them ended up as hits. That is the percentage it measures.[/quote']

Abstractly, you are right, strikeouts do not impact BABIP because they aren't necessary to determine the measure of performance.........big caveat here........IF THE DATA NEEDED FOR THIS DETERMINATION IS COUNTED. It is not. The number of times a player puts the ball into the field of play is not accounted for by the traditional counting statistics.

 

Back to the relevance of this tangential discussion. Dojji said that two players, all else being equal, will vary in BABIP based on frequently they strikeout relative to each other. UN disagreed. Dojii is right because it is necessary to combine several types of traditional counting stats to arrive at the intended measure.

[Dojji]

Look Dojji' date=' I completely understand the math. But I think you may be misinterpreting what BABIP is intended to measure. I read a fair amount about it in relation to Buchholz's 2010 season. He had a very low BABIP that year, an unsustainable BABIP, which indicated that he was very likely to regress the following season. It was all about the number of balls that got put in play against him and how relatively few of them ended up as hits. That is the percentage it measures.[/quote']

 

I'm honestly not even sure what your point is. Pitcher's BABIP and hitters' BABIP are different numbers. There's a reason xFIP is a better number to use when analyzing pitching stats than pure BABIP.

[Bellhorn04]

Abstractly, you are right, strikeouts do not impact BABIP because they aren't necessary to determine the measure of performance.........big caveat here........IF THE DATA NEEDED FOR THIS DETERMINATION IS COUNTED. It is not. The number of times a player puts the ball into the field of play is not accounted for by the traditional counting statistics.

 

Back to the relevance of this tangential discussion. Dojji said that two players, all else being equal, will vary in BABIP based on frequently they strikeout relative to each other. UN disagreed. Dojii is right because it is necessary to combine several types of traditional counting stats to arrive at the intended measure.

 

Personally I think the correct statement is this: 'the batting averages of two players who have identical BABIP's will vary based on how frequently they strikeout relative to each other'. The strikeouts affect the batting averages, not the BABIP's.

[Bellhorn04]

Having gone back and re-read all the posts on BABIP, my understanding is that what Dojji is saying is that Nava fits the profile of someone with a higher-than-normal BABIP because he swings hard and hits a lot of line drives. A side result of the swinging hard is more strikeouts. Thus, in Nava's case, a relationship between strikeouts and BABIP.

 

But that's a hypothetical, isn't it? Is it something that's borne out by comparing the stats for a lot of hitters with similar profiles?

[ORS]

Personally I think the correct statement is this: 'the batting averages of two players who have identical BABIP's will vary based on how frequently they strikeout relative to each other'. The strikeouts affect the batting averages' date=' not the BABIP's.[/quote']

Potato, potahto. You can explain the inverse relationship backwards or forwards. Either way, K's play a role in getting from A to B.

[Bellhorn04]

Potato' date=' potahto. You can explain the inverse relationship backwards or forwards. Either way, K's play a role in getting from A to B.[/quote']

 

So do home runs, right?

[ORS]

So do home runs' date=' right?[/quote']

Yes, and sacrafice flies do too. However, the discussion was about the role strikeouts play in the comparison, with one stating they had no impact, and the other stating, correctly, that they do.

[Bellhorn04]

Yes' date=' and sacrafice flies do too. However, the discussion was about the role strikeouts play in the comparison, with one stating they had no impact, and the other stating, correctly, that they do.[/quote']

 

OK, I get what you're saying. I think the confusion revolves around Dojji's statement that 'striking out raises your BABIP'. If you place that statement next to the fact that your BABIP doesn't change when you strike out, you have a certain contradiction, especially for folks who aren't totally familiar with all these stats.

[Dojji]

Going to the plate and striking out doesn't raise your BABIP. But it also doesn't lower it. Which is why players who strike out more, with all other rate stats equal, will result in a higher BABIP.

 

You do have my main point correct. Nava swings hard -- and swings well. As a result he creates a lot of high quality contact such as line drives. But he doesn't quite have Pedroia's elite bat control that allows him, Pedroia, to swing hard AND not strike out a bit.

 

Nava's contact rates superficially resemble 06 Youkilis a fair bit in the sense of high quality line drive contact and quite a few walks and strikeouts. I doubt that means much in projecting the future but either way, Youk was consistently in the .330 range in BABIP, which is right about where Nava is. That suggests (which is the sole point I was making to begin with) that there's some evidence towards an argument that Nava's numbers aren't all that flukey.

[Bellhorn04]

The Nava man is contributing again tonight.

[Dojji]

In case people haven't been able to tell, I've been having the time of my life over this.

[Bellhorn04]

Nava has been a lot of fun to watch. And his OBP is still at the sick level.