BABIP, Homerun Rate, and Evaluating Luck
One of common themes you'll hear around here is, "Player Y has gotten lucky/unlucky so far this season and here's why..." I know when I first started reading here and at other statistically inclined sites, this concept struck me as totally bonkers. Luck in baseball? If a player isn't performing well, that's because he's in a slump. They're pressing too hard or they need to fix their mechanics...or something like that. Luck doesn't have any play in baseball - it's all about talent.
As it turns out, I wasn't asking that all important question (Why?) and doing the necessary research. So this player is in a slump - why is that? What can his numbers show us? You can tell if a batter is pressing by if he's changing his plate approach: swinging at more pitches, expanding his zone, striking out more, etc. You can also get an idea of if a player's mechanics are off by his batted ball types: is he hitting more groundballs or flyballs and less line drives? Obviously this isn't a perfect method, but unless you're a professional swing mechanic, that's the best we can do by looking at the statistics. If either of these things is off, you can begin to answer that question by saying, for example, "Player Y is slumping and look, he's swinging at more pitches outside of the zone and he's hitting a ton more groundballs. He needs to change his approach to get out of this."
But sometimes there's nothing to see in a player's batted ball profile or plate approach statistics. Sometimes a player looks like the exact same hitter that they were a month ago - still swinging at the same amount of pitches, still walking the same amount, still hitting the same number of line drives - and yet their batting average has plummeted by 50 points. What gives? If this is the case, you need to start thinking about luck.
Contrary to popular belief, luck play a large role in baseball. Primarily, this is because hitters can't control exactly where they hit the ball. That's not to say batters have no control over where the ball is going; we've all seen hitters purposefully hit sacrifice flies or hit a groundball to second base to move a runner over to third. To an extent, you can control where you hit a ball by the angle of your bat and your swing plane, and major league hitters are professionals that have an incredible amount of bat control. But then again, if batters could place a ball where they wanted every time at the plate, nobody would ever get out, right? Pitches are coming in at 90-ish miles per hour with spin and curve, and the difference between hitting a screaming line drive and a weak pop-up can be a couple millimeters one direction or the other. With such a small margin for error, batters simply can't say, "Oh, I want to put the ball directly in that hole at shortstop" and succeed every time doing it; that's a monumental task. And so, sometimes a player may make solid contact, but hit the ball directly at defensive players time and time again. Are they doing anything wrong? Have they changed their approach? No, it's just they've gotten unlucky.
And that's not even taking the quality of the defending team into account. Imagine that Evan Longoria hits a deep flyball to left centerfield. If it's Curtis Granderson out there - a fast, above-average defender - he may run it down and catch it. But if it's a player like Vernon Wells out there - a slower, below-average defender - he may miss the ball and Longoria would have a double. Oh, and what about the park he's playing in? If Longoria hit that exact same flyball in Fenway Park, with the short left field fence, he may have a homerun instead of a double. That's quite a range in possible outcomes - out, double, or homerun - from a single flyball, and Longoria can't do anything to influence those outcomes. He can only hit the ball and hope.
If you want to measure a player's "luck" on balls in play, there are a couple places you can look. The golden standard is Batting Average on Balls In Play (BABIP) and it's exactly what it sounds like: a player's batting average on balls that he hits in play. The league-average is around .300, but speedy players normally have higher BABIPs and slow hitters normally have lower. If you want to tell if a player has gotten lucky or unlucky recently, look at their career BABIP number and compare it to how they're performing at the moment. If their career number is higher, they've likely gotten unlucky to an extent; if their career number is lower, then the player has gotten lucky.
Another place to look for luck is a player's homerun per flyball rate (HR/FB). Power hitters normally hit homeruns on around 13-20% of their flyballs, while contact hitters typically have a HR/FB rate in the single digits. If you see that a player like Reid Brignac is hitting homeruns on 15% of their flyballs, you can probably safely assume that his power surge is not going to continue. He may or not be getting "lucky" per se - it may just be an incredible hot streak - but it's not how he's likely to perform in the future.
And so, in the future, if you see a player that's slumping or on a hot streak, ask yourself "Why?" Dig into their statistics and try to determine if the player has changed their approach, or if they've had Lady Luck mess with their balls in play. Sometimes it's easy to tell - the player has a high BABIP and nothing else in their statistics screams "Anomaly!" Sometimes, though, the answer is a little of both - a player may have a high BABIP, but they're also hitting more line drives (the batted ball type that's most likely to fall for a hit). That player still will likely cool off once they stop hitting so many line drives, but what if they've made an adjustment to their swing and so they'll keep hitting an increased number of line drives? Maybe they'll cool off a little bit, but not as much as you'd first thought. Everything is interconnected and meaningful, so be sure to take a comprehensive look at a player's statistics before you scream "Luck!" or "This guy sucks!"
For more information on BABIP, homerun rates, and luck, please refer to The Sabermetric Library or ask questions below.
31 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
From a Stats n00b
Great explanation. Much appreciated.
So would you say that Sonny has been lucky or that he sold his soul to Satan to get where he is today?
And if one has a problem using stats to prove a point, then use your eyes.
2010 Trade Deadline Primer --> http://dockoftherays.com/2010/07/03/2010-trade-deadline-primer/
Sonny is throwing more balls and more people are swinging at them
If this is a trend that he can keep up, then I think we should expect better results from Andy than historically.
Go Gators!!
While I am obviously too smart to be helped by anything like this, I appreciate your quixotic effort to educate the rest of the mouth-breathers around here.
The caller said the boy, after removing the bulb from its socket, left the building and threw the bulb on the ground. When the bulb broke, the caller said the boy screamed "I am the cat and I am here to steal."
by Top Gun Numba 1 on Jul 13, 2010 9:57 AM EDT reply actions
Definitely
Also, a giant in the Tampa community. I wouldn’t have had middle school basketball if it weren’t for Georgie.
George is a great community guy
That should be his greatest legacy
Go Gators!!
He supplied a lot of sports equipment for the schools I attended. And HCPRD too.
http://www.baldwinsworld.com
Steve I understand what you are trying to accomplish
I just don’t think you need to dumb down the statistics by throwing out the L word all the time. Maybe if you jumped on Duemigs or the Sports Babe’s show it would make sense just to keep the conversation going. It just seems far too often people throw out the L word if one number is different than a baseline number. If it is higher then the player is lucky (unlucky) or lower then he is unlucky (lucky). Occassionally we go the second step to actually look at components, which you mentioned. But there are other steps. Variation is to be expected. But perhaps it is just semantics. I just can’t reconcile calling the variation that we would expect to see all the time and attribute it to luck. I guess in the most wide reaching use of the word it could be applied.
And besides even if the application were correct, how would you know if it is truly (un)luck considering sabermetrics is at best in the teenage portion of its lifecycle? There are a lot more advances to be made that could quite easily shed a lot of light onto why something is happening.
Besides that the only other paragraph that I think you miss the point is about hitters controlling where they can hit the ball. Nobody is saying that a hitter can just purposefully hit home runs or hit the ball within a couple feet of where they ‘want’ to. From that paragraph that appears to be what you are aiming at (pun!). The discussion is always about things such as going opposite field,hitting behind the runner, or hitting a sac fly. Outcomes and locations that consist of a giant range. A hitter can easily adjust their swing to produce more pop flies, go opposite field more, or pull the ball more. The question becomes whether it is worth it. And for many hitters it is simply not worth it to put the time in to learn another skill.
I do appreciate the focus on hr/fb, as that is something that is overlooked constantly in the mainstream. Also your desire to dig deeper is great to see and an inspiration.
Go Gators!!
Hmm..I understand what you mean, but I disagree.
I don’t think it’s “dumbing it down” by calling it luck, at least in the case of BABIP. Yes, we can also call it random variation, but I don’t think it’s incorrect or misleading to call it luck. Per wikipedia:
Luck or fortuity is good or bad fortune in life caused by accident or chance…which happens beyond a person’s control.That’s what happens when a basketball player goes on a hot streak, sinking basket after basket. That’s what happens when you flip a coin and it turns up heads 9 out of 10 times. That’s what happens when you play the slots and win multiple times in a row. That’s exactly what’s happening when someone repeatedly is hitting balls right at fielders, or when balls are dropping in at an abnormal rate. It’s random variation, but it can also be called luck. Maybe there are other factors in play as well – like I said, maybe their LD% has changed or something else has changed, and so it’s not just luck – but luck certainly has a hand in it. And if it helps more people to understand the concept by calling it luck, that’s what I’m going to call it.
With HR/FB rate, I’d be more hesitant to call it luck. If a player hits a homerun at Fenway that would have been an out at the Trop, I’ll call that good luck. But if, to carry on the example, Reid Brignac has a 15% HR/FB rate over 100 PAs and he’s hit deep homeruns in huge parks, then I wouldn’t call it luck; I’d call that random variation and also consider re-adjusting my opinion of his power slightly.
I love Casey Fossum. Now try and take me seriously.
by Steve Slowinski on Jul 13, 2010 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions
I think there is a difference between luck and a repeatable skill...
Jason Bartlett hit 14 HRs last year. I’m not sure if you can say he was lucky in doing so. We know he is capable of hitting a homerun, so there is some underlying skill involved. So was he lucky in hitting so many? Maybe. But he may also have taken a good swing at a good pitch more often than he had in the past. That doesn’t make it lucky. However, based on the component numbers and comparing to his historical rates, we can assume that his HR rates may not be a repeatable skill.
Same goes for your example of a batter hitting the ball through the hole between 3rd and SS. A player can go to bat and hit the ball in that hole ten times in a row for singles. Was he lucky? I wouldn’t consider it that way. He hit the ball exactly where he wanted to. Is that a skill he can repeat over time? Probably not.
Calling things lucky removes skill from the equation. There are plenty of things that are luck (a badly hit ball the falls in between fielders, a check swing double, etc) but there are also times when a player just does a lot of things right in a short period of time, thus driving up his stats. Based on history, we can say the player probably won’t continue that streak, but the fact he did what he did shouldn’t always be attributed to luck.
This is pretty much exactly what I was getting at
Re: The MVB example
I’d rather say that 2009 was an outlier and it was unlikely that he could closely repeat such a year than simply call it luck.
You also hit the nail on the head regarding the skill/repeatable skills and luck.
Go Gators!!
Outlier - "Outliers can occur by chance in any distribution"
Nobody here is dismissing Bartlett’s 2009 season as luck. I’d prefer to word it as such: he had a career year and played well, but parts of his performance were influenced by luck. More balls fell in for hits than would normally. More of his flyballs carried over the wall. He was a better player in 2009, but he was also lucky.
Just because you say someone is getting lucky, you’re not implying that there’s no skill involved and that they’re not a great player.
I love Casey Fossum. Now try and take me seriously.
by Steve Slowinski on Jul 13, 2010 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions
This. The word luck has the conotation that production derived from a "lucky" season is bad.
Outlier seems to provide more legitimacy to the production. A Lucky season, like an outlier season, are both (generally) successful seasons, just with a different way of describing the belief that their seasons will not be repeated.
"If their career number is higher, they've likely gotten unlucky to an extent; if their career number is lower, then the player has gotten lucky."
That just seems too dismissive.
Unlike a coin flip, a player won’t necessarily regress to an expected average overtime. They should, but a player’s “true talent level” is a guess that is continuously moving.
Another difficulty with pegging things to luck is it’s tough to assume what is or isn’t an outlier until after more data has been established.
BJ’s a perfect example. His 2007 season provided a sample of about 600 PAs and a HR/FB of 14.8%. He was still relatively young so we assumed that his true talent level has been raised significantly. It took about three more years of data to assume that the true outlier season was 2007 and not each season since.
Rob Neyer had a point about Darin Erstad in one of his books. After his ridiculous 2000, everyone assumed that he finally established his new talent level. Expectations were raised and everyone was disappointed every subsequent year. It took several years to determine that year was the outlier.
The difficulty is making the prediction at the time instead of afterwards. Was Ben Zobrist’s run in 08-09 a sign of a new talent level or was it an outlier? He jumped from a HR/FB rate of 2.9% over 300 PAs, to about 13.5% over 800 PAs, and back to 4% over about 400 PAs? What should we assume as a reasonable expectation?
If a player's true talent level is, say, a 5 out of 10 free-throw shooter
Then there’s very little difference. If a player has a career 50% free throw line, then I’d call a 10-for-10 streak good luck.
I love Casey Fossum. Now try and take me seriously.
by Steve Slowinski on Jul 13, 2010 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Your assumption here is that every single shot has the same probability
That isn’t the case even with free throws. It is even more pronounced in actual live game time. There are quite a few variables that influence that number up and down. Whereas flipping a coin is always 50%/50%
Go Gators!!
As a collective, if the guy over his X Year career has made exactly 50% of his free throws then I fail to see how
every-time he goes to the line he is expected to make 1/2. I see what you are trying to say, lets say this player makes 72% of his free throws if he makes #1, and only 18% of his free throws if he misses #1. In that case, you would say his second free throw has a different probability of going in than the first, which would be true, but Steve is analyzing the 10 free throw sample as a collective, not as individual events. Regardless if he goes 10-10 or 0-10, Steve saying that he will make 5 of the free throws is a correct statement, and something divergent from that is luck, because his “true talent level” as proven by his career FT%, is 50%.
And at what point do you consider it luck?
.001 above or below what they ‘should’ be at? 1 st dev away? 2? Or what?
I just think a bigger focus should be placed on the degree rather than whether a player is above or below a certain benchmark.
Go Gators!!
Question regarding LD%, FB% etc
What are the parameters for each category? Does someone watch the games and after each batted ball put it into said category? Is it more scientific where the measure the launch angle of the ball?
As you can always expect come from behind victory is when you least expect it.
I've always been curious as to what actually constitutes a LD/FB in stats as well
by firemangreg on Jul 13, 2010 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions
Don't have time to summarize right now, but check these out:
Great articles on batted ball classifications. In short, yes, someone watches every game and classifies it. I need to add these to the Library:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/is-seeing-believing/
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=10523
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/batted_balls_bis_v_mlbam/
I love Casey Fossum. Now try and take me seriously.
by Steve Slowinski on Jul 13, 2010 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions
forgot to mention pitching
the opposing pitching also has a lot to do with the so called “luck”
I think luck is overused.
Using Barlett’s home run production from last year as an example. You can argue that more of his fly balls went over the fence, and that it was just luck that they didn’t fall a few feet short of the fence. However, you can’t know that for sure. His swing path could be slightly different this year from last, giving him just a little bit more power on his flyballs.
All line drives or grounders aren’t equal. BABIP is a valuable stat, but it can still be greatly misleading. A batter out in front of a pitch, on the outer part of the plate, will hit relatively weak grounders to the pull side, while the same batter timing the pitch better will hit a harder ball to the appropriate side, causing a better BABIP. They may make contact equally as often with vastly different results. This scenario may be repeated by both the poor or better hitter.
Please don’t get me wrong. I like sabermetrics and find it an interesting part of learning more about baseball. I would like to see a little more discussion on this site about what the player is doing mechanically. You don’t have to be a professional batting coach to see a problem with a guy’s swing, or a pitching coach to see a problem with a delivery. That stuff is rarely mentioned on here, and when it is, it is usually sloughed off, not responded to, or not taken seriously. I am not sure why.
We speak about what we know about.
None of us are professional coaches, and I for one never made it past freshman year baseball in high school. I like to think I can spot if a player is off mechnically, but I’m at an utter loss to do anything with that information. How do they fix it? What impact would this be having on their swing/delivery? Would their issues likely be causing their recent slump, or are the two unrelated? I’ve heard some batting coaches talking before and there’s an art form to mechanics, something that I barely can scratch the surface of personally. I could speak out my ass and make stuff up if you’d like, but I prefer to only state things that I feel confident in.
That said, watch the site tomorrow AM.
I love Casey Fossum. Now try and take me seriously.
by Steve Slowinski on Jul 13, 2010 11:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Thanks for replying.
I have mentioned mechanics several times on this site, and nobody seems to pay any attention to it. I posted about Shields and Garza’s delivery issues before they were interviewed and said that they were working on exactly what I had posted. I have also posted about swing issues with various batters, then later the coaches or players mention that that vert swing issue is a problem. I understand that just like I am learning the sabermetric stat side of baseball, some guys on DRB don’t really know the mechanics side. For me it is the the all important why behind most of the stats.
I will check out the site tomorrow AM as I do every day. DRB is always an interesting read.





















