Anyone seen this movie?
I like the tagline: Before There Was Law, There Were The Rangers
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Thursday: New Post to Come Soon
I have arrived in Surprise, AZ today! I have been unable to write the past two days because of my preparation for the trip: I've had to cram 5 days of work into the three days that I was in Norman this week.
New post to come soon . . . .
John Paul
New post to come soon . . . .
John Paul
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Wednesday: Royals Blogger Lashes Out Against BABIP
Published around the same time as my look at the Rangers BABIP for both pitchers and hitters, Sam Mellinger, on his Royals blog, wrote a post entitled "Take Your BABIP and Shove It."
An attention grabbing title, for sure. His main point is this:
The more BABIP I see, the more I see it as an indication of skill, not luck.
He continues his rant by citing specific examples of great hitters with consistently great BABIPs, and crappy pitchers with consistently crappy BABIPs:
These guys ain't just lucky. They're good.
The funny thing is, I don't think anyone familiar with the statistic is going to argue with him. I don't think anyone sees Albert Pujols' .346 BABIP in 2008 and thinks, "Wow, what a fluke." I don't think anyone sees Jake Peavy's BABIP of .285 in 2008 and concludes that it is the result of pure luck. Why? Because we know that these guys are good. They are consistently good. They dominate year in and year out. Their career totals and yearly averages are terrific. They have shown an ability to consistently replicate their high level of play. Pujols' career BABIP is .322 over 5382 total plate appearances. Peavy's career BABIP is .295 over 1261 IP. Thus, when they turn in stellar BABIPs like they did in 2008, it is expected.
BABIP in and of itself does not measure luck. Sure, the league averages are around .300 from year to year, but a high BABIP for hitters does not imply that the hitter was lucky, and a low BABIP for pitchers does not imply that the pitcher was lucky. It can, however, and it takes a little bit more stat-crawling to reach this conclusion.
He goes on to add:
BABIP's predictive uses are limited.
I agree, and I would think that most familar with BABIP would agree, with this statement. In my mind, here is where BABIP can be useful in predicting future performance:
**when a veteran player's BABIP significantly deviates from their career average
**when a young player has a BABIP that significantly deviates from the league average
Perhaps there are a few more, but those are the only instances that draw my attention in terms of BABIP. And Mellinger is right, the uses are "limited". But within these "limited" occurences, BABIP can be an extremely useful tool.
I am left to wonder who's analysis he is reading that is glorifying BABIP in a manner that makes him take such a strong stance against it. Who is out there proclaiming that BABIP is always applicable in predicting future success? It's as if he feels many people in his audience are of this mindset, and for all we know, they might be. It seems that he feels he is really "putting his foot down" about this "issue," when really there is no need for it.
As I came towards the end of the article, I was able to overlook his argumentative stance and recognize that his primary message was mostly correct: that BABIP is not always useful, and for good players BABIP is more of a result of skill than it is luck. Sounds good, right? And then I read this:
So, in conclusion, lets all make a pact that BABIP has no place on this blog.
Sigh. I guess we should all just take our BABIP and shove it.
An attention grabbing title, for sure. His main point is this:
The more BABIP I see, the more I see it as an indication of skill, not luck.
He continues his rant by citing specific examples of great hitters with consistently great BABIPs, and crappy pitchers with consistently crappy BABIPs:
These guys ain't just lucky. They're good.
The funny thing is, I don't think anyone familiar with the statistic is going to argue with him. I don't think anyone sees Albert Pujols' .346 BABIP in 2008 and thinks, "Wow, what a fluke." I don't think anyone sees Jake Peavy's BABIP of .285 in 2008 and concludes that it is the result of pure luck. Why? Because we know that these guys are good. They are consistently good. They dominate year in and year out. Their career totals and yearly averages are terrific. They have shown an ability to consistently replicate their high level of play. Pujols' career BABIP is .322 over 5382 total plate appearances. Peavy's career BABIP is .295 over 1261 IP. Thus, when they turn in stellar BABIPs like they did in 2008, it is expected.
BABIP in and of itself does not measure luck. Sure, the league averages are around .300 from year to year, but a high BABIP for hitters does not imply that the hitter was lucky, and a low BABIP for pitchers does not imply that the pitcher was lucky. It can, however, and it takes a little bit more stat-crawling to reach this conclusion.
He goes on to add:
BABIP's predictive uses are limited.
I agree, and I would think that most familar with BABIP would agree, with this statement. In my mind, here is where BABIP can be useful in predicting future performance:
**when a veteran player's BABIP significantly deviates from their career average
**when a young player has a BABIP that significantly deviates from the league average
Perhaps there are a few more, but those are the only instances that draw my attention in terms of BABIP. And Mellinger is right, the uses are "limited". But within these "limited" occurences, BABIP can be an extremely useful tool.
I am left to wonder who's analysis he is reading that is glorifying BABIP in a manner that makes him take such a strong stance against it. Who is out there proclaiming that BABIP is always applicable in predicting future success? It's as if he feels many people in his audience are of this mindset, and for all we know, they might be. It seems that he feels he is really "putting his foot down" about this "issue," when really there is no need for it.
As I came towards the end of the article, I was able to overlook his argumentative stance and recognize that his primary message was mostly correct: that BABIP is not always useful, and for good players BABIP is more of a result of skill than it is luck. Sounds good, right? And then I read this:
So, in conclusion, lets all make a pact that BABIP has no place on this blog.
Sigh. I guess we should all just take our BABIP and shove it.
Monday, March 02, 2009
Tuesday Trivia
Which former Rangers pitcher set a Major League record with 55 starts at the beginning of his career without a complete game?
UPDATE: The answer is Bobby Witt, who between 1986 and 1987 logged 55 starts without a complete game. Thanks for playing!
UPDATE: The answer is Bobby Witt, who between 1986 and 1987 logged 55 starts without a complete game. Thanks for playing!
Tuesday: Home/Road Splits (Hitters)
It is well known that Rangers Ballpark in Arlington is a "hitter's park." I was curious as to which Ranger hitters benefited the most from the Ballpark in 2008:
Those who benefited the most were Milton Bradley, Josh Hamilton, and Hank Blalock. What do all of these guys have in common? They are all sluggers who log most of their ABs hitting left-handed:
**Milton Bradley ripped a .358/.466/.679 line at home, but still hit a solid .290/.410/.462 on the road.
**Josh Hamilton punished visiting pitchers at a .345/.408/.611 mark, but was a much meeker .263/.331/.448 on the road.
**Hank Blalock did his best Hamilton impression of .343/.415/.610 at home, but hit an abysmal .248/.282/.438 away from the right field jet stream.
Michael Young also enjoyed a moderate advantage, but not much to brag about. In the same line of thought as above, Young is a right handed hitter who pushes the ball consistently to right field. In fact, Young put the ball into play 228 times to right field, 178 to center, and 136 to left (according to billjamesonline.com):
**Young looked like his old self at home, logging a .305/.362/.441 line; his splits away from the Ballpark are an uninspiring .264/.317/.364.
Using this trend, i.e. that left-handed power hitters on the Rangers in 2008 seem to have reaped the benefits of the Ballpark more than anyone else, I figured that Chris Davis would surely have joined in the fun. It turns out that Davis was mostly the same hitter no matter where he played: he hit .293/.333/.541 in Arlington and .275/.329/.558 elsewhere. He actually slugged more on the road . . .
There were only two (regular, or semi-regular) players who turned in notably better performances outside Arlington:
Gerald Laird turned in a .258/.322/.379 at home but improved to a more respectable .299/.337/.422 on the road.
Frank Catalanotto mustered a weak .254/.319/.365 in the Texas heat, but was a productive .295/.365/.434 in more mild climates.
Those who benefited the most were Milton Bradley, Josh Hamilton, and Hank Blalock. What do all of these guys have in common? They are all sluggers who log most of their ABs hitting left-handed:
**Milton Bradley ripped a .358/.466/.679 line at home, but still hit a solid .290/.410/.462 on the road.
**Josh Hamilton punished visiting pitchers at a .345/.408/.611 mark, but was a much meeker .263/.331/.448 on the road.
**Hank Blalock did his best Hamilton impression of .343/.415/.610 at home, but hit an abysmal .248/.282/.438 away from the right field jet stream.
Michael Young also enjoyed a moderate advantage, but not much to brag about. In the same line of thought as above, Young is a right handed hitter who pushes the ball consistently to right field. In fact, Young put the ball into play 228 times to right field, 178 to center, and 136 to left (according to billjamesonline.com):
**Young looked like his old self at home, logging a .305/.362/.441 line; his splits away from the Ballpark are an uninspiring .264/.317/.364.
Using this trend, i.e. that left-handed power hitters on the Rangers in 2008 seem to have reaped the benefits of the Ballpark more than anyone else, I figured that Chris Davis would surely have joined in the fun. It turns out that Davis was mostly the same hitter no matter where he played: he hit .293/.333/.541 in Arlington and .275/.329/.558 elsewhere. He actually slugged more on the road . . .
There were only two (regular, or semi-regular) players who turned in notably better performances outside Arlington:
Gerald Laird turned in a .258/.322/.379 at home but improved to a more respectable .299/.337/.422 on the road.
Frank Catalanotto mustered a weak .254/.319/.365 in the Texas heat, but was a productive .295/.365/.434 in more mild climates.
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Monday Movie: The Sandlot
Watching The Sandlot is a keystone in my own personal Spring Training to get pumped up for the baseball season. This is my favorite movie of all time because it encapsulates the true spirit of the game: having fun. Enjoy the most classic, timeless scene from this classic, timeless movie:
Monday: BB% and K%
Today we examine those who walked and struck out the most often on the 2008 Rangers:
Top 5: Highest BB%
Milton Bradley 16.2%
Jarrod Saltalamacchia 13.5%
Brandon Boggs 13.5%
Ramon Vazquez 11.2%
Marlon Byrd 10.2%
The list of highest BB% was encouraging to me, especially since it includes two young players: Saltalamacchia and Boggs. For all of the grief that Saltalamcchia endured last year in terms of power and batting average, he still ended the season with a .352 OBP, which shows his maturation in terms of understanding the strike zone. Now if he can learn to hit it once it's there . . .
Predictably, most of those who made the top 5 BB% list also made the K% list:
Top 5: Highest K%
Jarrod Saltalamacchia 37.4%
Brandon Boggs 32.9%
Chris Davis 29.8%
Milton Bradley 27.1%
Ramon Vazquez 22.0%
Despite the fact that I just said that it was encouraging that Saltalamacchia and Boggs were on the previous list, the fact that they are at the top of this one is somewhat troublesome. Why? In the case of Chris Davis, the number of strikeouts is still problematic, but he makes up for it by slugging .549. Same for Bradley, who also managed to hit .321 in addition to slugging .563. Saltalamacchia and Boggs slugged an underwhelming .364 and .399, respectively.
It stuck out to me that Marlon Byrd and Chris Davis are the only players not in both categories, which naturally led to . . .
Highest and Lowest BB/K ratio:
Marlon Byrd, the only player in the Top 5 BB% list not on the Top 5 K% list, was tops on the team in BB/K ratio with .74. This is a pretty remarkable feat, given how a high number of walks usually implies a high number of strikeouts. Marlon Byrd was arguably one of the most balanced hitters in the lineup in 2008.
Chris Davis, the only player in the Top 5 K% list not on the Top 5 BB% list, was lowest on the team in BB/K ratio with .23. While it is clear that Davis will continue to mash homeruns, the fact that he has such poor control of the strikezone is a bit worrisome. Unlike Byrd, there's no balance here.
Top 5: Highest BB%
Milton Bradley 16.2%
Jarrod Saltalamacchia 13.5%
Brandon Boggs 13.5%
Ramon Vazquez 11.2%
Marlon Byrd 10.2%
The list of highest BB% was encouraging to me, especially since it includes two young players: Saltalamacchia and Boggs. For all of the grief that Saltalamcchia endured last year in terms of power and batting average, he still ended the season with a .352 OBP, which shows his maturation in terms of understanding the strike zone. Now if he can learn to hit it once it's there . . .
Predictably, most of those who made the top 5 BB% list also made the K% list:
Top 5: Highest K%
Jarrod Saltalamacchia 37.4%
Brandon Boggs 32.9%
Chris Davis 29.8%
Milton Bradley 27.1%
Ramon Vazquez 22.0%
Despite the fact that I just said that it was encouraging that Saltalamacchia and Boggs were on the previous list, the fact that they are at the top of this one is somewhat troublesome. Why? In the case of Chris Davis, the number of strikeouts is still problematic, but he makes up for it by slugging .549. Same for Bradley, who also managed to hit .321 in addition to slugging .563. Saltalamacchia and Boggs slugged an underwhelming .364 and .399, respectively.
It stuck out to me that Marlon Byrd and Chris Davis are the only players not in both categories, which naturally led to . . .
Highest and Lowest BB/K ratio:
Marlon Byrd, the only player in the Top 5 BB% list not on the Top 5 K% list, was tops on the team in BB/K ratio with .74. This is a pretty remarkable feat, given how a high number of walks usually implies a high number of strikeouts. Marlon Byrd was arguably one of the most balanced hitters in the lineup in 2008.
Chris Davis, the only player in the Top 5 K% list not on the Top 5 BB% list, was lowest on the team in BB/K ratio with .23. While it is clear that Davis will continue to mash homeruns, the fact that he has such poor control of the strikezone is a bit worrisome. Unlike Byrd, there's no balance here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
