Has anyone even done an honest to goodness study on this? Taken one hitter, looked at all their at-bats, and determined whether "luck" balances out?... the good luck and bad luck balance out over a season
Has anyone even done an honest to goodness study on this? Taken one hitter, looked at all their at-bats, and determined whether "luck" balances out?... the good luck and bad luck balance out over a season
What does it mean to balance out?Has anyone even done an honest to goodness study on this? Taken one hitter, looked at all their at-bats, and determined whether "luck" balances out?
One pop fly that the Mariners turned into a hit; one ground ball that squirted through the drawn-in infield and one legitimate oppo single (I can imagine that the coaches have been begging him to go that way).Slump busted? 3 for 4 with 5 RBI today.
Isn't that basically the idea behind BABIP? Some players (e.g. Ichiro, Dunn) lie on the extreme edges of that scale but mostly batted ball outcomes tend to even out.Has anyone even done an honest to goodness study on this? Taken one hitter, looked at all their at-bats, and determined whether "luck" balances out?
Are we really nitpicking a 3 for 4, 5 RBI game because the hits weren't all rockets? All it takes to bust a slump sometimes is getting a seeing eye single or a bloop falling in. If we even really should consider four hitless games as anything more than a blip in a long season, even for a rookie who except for those four games hasn't really experienced much adversity so far.One pop fly that the Mariners turned into a hit; one ground ball that squirted through the drawn-in infield and one legitimate oppo single (I can imagine that the coaches have been begging him to go that way).
I’m just saying that Sunday’s game doesn’t prove he’s out of the slump or that pitchers aren’t developing an effective approach to keep him neutralized.Are we really nitpicking a 3 for 4, 5 RBI game because the hits weren't all rockets? All it takes to bust a slump sometimes is getting a seeing eye single or a bloop falling in. If we even really should consider four hitless games as anything more than a blip in a long season, even for a rookie who except for those four games hasn't really experienced much adversity so far.
A good poker player is more likely to take a bad beat than a bad poker player. I'd guess baseball and other sports aren't much different in that regard.Has anyone even done an honest to goodness study on this? Taken one hitter, looked at all their at-bats, and determined whether "luck" balances out?
I suppose, but not in the sense that it was being used that I responded to... which is, actual at bats that turn on a player sticking glove out to catch a liner vs a bloop that falls in. BABIP looks at everything as a whole; I was wondering whether, if you studied one batter's season, would "lucky" and "unlucky" at bats even outIsn't that basically the idea behind BABIP? Some players (e.g. Ichiro, Dunn) lie on the extreme edges of that scale but mostly batted ball outcomes tend to even out.
How do you tell lucky from unlucky without watching each play? And if you cannot do this for all players, how do you know it should "even out?"I was wondering whether, if you studied one batter's season, would "lucky" and "unlucky" at bats even out
I was thinking about this - rather than just looking at BABIP, which doesn't distinguish between different batted ball profiles, you could compare the batting average for Player X on each type of batted ball (FB, GB and LD) and compare it to the league average BA on each of these types. That would at least give you a comparison against league average, and would let you see whether the "bad luck" on line drives hit right at somebody is offset by the bloopers that fall in or the bleeders that get through.How do you tell lucky from unlucky without watching each play? And if you cannot do this for all players, how do you know it should "even out?"
Exactly my question.How do you tell lucky from unlucky without watching each play? And if you cannot do this for all players, how do you know it should "even out?"
What you want is xBABIP, you can find it here:I was thinking about this - rather than just looking at BABIP, which doesn't distinguish between different batted ball profiles, you could compare the batting average for Player X on each type of batted ball (FB, GB and LD) and compare it to the league average BA on each of these types. That would at least give you a comparison against league average, and would let you see whether the "bad luck" on line drives hit right at somebody is offset by the bloopers that fall in or the bleeders that get through.
I took a quick look at fangraphs but didn't see the data broken down this way, but may try to look more in-depth later.
Thanks - I didn't know this site existed. From the description, it looks like they use a different, but similar comparison of actual versus expected results than what I imagined, by using Statcast data on launch angle and exit velocity of each batted ball to determine the xBABIP (based on a comparison of results to other batted balls with the same launch angle/exit velocity profile).What you want is xBABIP, you can find it here:
https://www.xstats.org/
The biggest difference between xBABIP and BABIP would give you your luckiest and unluckiest batters. Not perfectly, but it's a start.
https://fantasy.fangraphs.com/the-in-season-predictiveness-of-xwoba/ looks at this question and says:Doesn’t the difference between baseball savant’s xwOBA and wOBA capture what we want here?
This is beginning to remind me of a physics problem. Assume a spherical Chavis...Thanks - I didn't know this site existed. From the description, it looks like they use a different, but similar comparison of actual versus expected results than what I imagined, by using Statcast data on launch angle and exit velocity of each batted ball to determine the xBABIP (based on a comparison of results to other batted balls with the same launch angle/exit velocity profile).
Unfortunately, this site does not appear to have any data reported for 2019. So we cannot solve the equation for when X = Chavis.
A couple more confounding factors: slow players always appear, as a group, "unluckier" than fast players, as do players who can be shifted on successfully.But that aside, suppose there is a group of players who are pronounced ground ball hitters and another group who are pronounced fly ball hitters. Do you expect luck/non-luck to be the same for both groups? What about home fields? A right-handed pull hitter in Fenway or a left-hander with a propensity for hitting to left (Wade Boggs) will get hits on balls that would be outs as opposed to the Giants' park, which has a right-handed park factor of 96 for doubles and 88 for home runs. Ground ball hitters stand to get more "luck" when facing teams with poorer fielding infielders (a matter of schedule). Finally, StatCast doesn't take official scorers into consideration: an error may be called a hit or vice versa.
Lowe is a rookie so he is maybe the ROY frontrunner. Among pitchers, Kikuchi, Buttrey (sigh) and Means are ahead of Chavis in WAR, for now. But voters like narratives, and if Chavis keeps hitting tape-measure shots he'll get extra votes for being cool. [Of course, along those lines, if Vlad Jr. is anywhere close to Chavis, he wins out.]He's a legit Rookie of the Year candidate at this point with an outside shot at the All Star spot if you consider Altuve a lock via reputation. 2B is a very competitive position this year in the AL with LeMahieu, Schoop, Merrifield and Lowe all having impressive years so far.
http://mlb.mlb.com/stats/sortable.jsp#elem=[object+Object]&tab_level=child&click_text=Sortable+Player+hitting&game_type='R'&season=2019&season_type=ANY&league_code='AL'§ionType=sp&statType=hitting&page=1&ts=1557879396230&position='4'&sortColumn=ops&sortOrder='desc'&extended=0
You want him to hit for less power?If he hit a bunch of 380-ft. HRs, his chances to be a long-time regular will be greatly enhanced. No points for the extra 100 ft.
This is one of the few times one of our prospects wasn't overhyped prior to his arrival. Didn't seem like he was touted as a guy that comes up and hits tape measure homers as he has.Chavis has the 5 longest HRs hit by the Sox this year.
https://www.masslive.com/redsox/2019/05/michael-chavis-has-5-longest-boston-red-sox-home-runs-in-2019-traveling-combined-2230-feet.html
I have more concerns about his hitting: swing-miss at outside breaking balls and low stuff. His swing is too long for a sustained BA over .250. Pitchers will catch on - will he react and use right center more?He certainly looks very serviceable at second base especially given that he really has very limited game experience there.
He had a very nice play charging in and making a quick pickup and throw to first the other day.He certainly looks very serviceable at second base especially given that he really has very limited game experience there.
There was another Red Sox rookie second baseman who was criticized for having too long a swing a dozen or so years ago.I have more concerns about his hitting: swing-miss at outside breaking balls and low stuff. His swing is too long for a sustained BA over .250. Pitchers will catch on - will he react and use right center more?
You want him to hit for less power?
When Eck says "that Johnson's too long" I'll buy in. But until then, I'll take all the homers he's got.There was another Red Sox rookie second baseman who was criticized for having too long a swing a dozen or so years ago.
Isn't this the exact kind of logic that led to the Twins releasing a young David Arias?I have more concerns about his hitting: swing-miss at outside breaking balls and low stuff. His swing is too long for a sustained BA over .250. Pitchers will catch on - will he react and use right center more?
And they turned out to be spot on. The name David Arias faded into obscurity.Isn't this the exact kind of logic that led to the Twins releasing a young David Arias?
Well, no, because the young David Arias had more or less league-average K rates and, in his final season with the Twins (which also happens to be the first season for which these numbers are available), an Oppo% higher than any he ever achieved with the Red Sox. Whatever it was about Ortiz that had the Twins convinced he wasn't the ticket, I don't think it was being a pull-happy K machine, because he wasn't.Isn't this the exact kind of logic that led to the Twins releasing a young David Arias?
That's because the Twins kept trying to make him cut down his swing and hit oppo more for whatever Twinsy reasoning, which is why he never blossomed into what he was until he got here.Well, no, because the young David Arias had more or less league-average K rates and, in his final season with the Twins (which also happens to be the first season for which these numbers are available), an Oppo% higher than any he ever achieved with the Red Sox. Whatever it was about Ortiz that had the Twins convinced he wasn't the ticket, I don't think it was being a pull-happy K machine, because he wasn't.
Yeah but with his stubby frame Pedroia's bat did not follow a longer path, so it worked for him.There was another Red Sox rookie second baseman who was criticized for having too long a swing a dozen or so years ago.
I have to assume that Nunez will be the first on the block for a position player to go and when the second of Holt/Pedey(if) comes back they go down a pitcher.So it's becoming clearer every day that Chavis has to stay in the lineup every day when Pedey/Holt return. One option is to release WS hero Steve Pearce and have Chavis be the platoon partner for Mitch on days when Pedey can play 2B. In that scenario Holt would probably replace Nunez as the ultility IF, especially as a Xander replacement to give him a rest. Either way, they have to keep Chavis as an everyday option until he proves he's not.
Holt right now seems more like a superior bench option than someone to start over Chavis, a healthy Pedroia is another matter but I want to see him healthy before I start thinking about releasing Pearce.So it's becoming clearer every day that Chavis has to stay in the lineup every day when Pedey/Holt return. One option is to release WS hero Steve Pearce and have Chavis be the platoon partner for Mitch on days when Pedey can play 2B. In that scenario Holt would probably replace Nunez as the ultility IF, especially as a Xander replacement to give him a rest. Either way, they have to keep Chavis as an everyday option until he proves he's not.
What will it take to convince you Pedroia is healthy? I love the guy, but I don't see it. Since the ASB in 2017 he's played in 43 games and turns 36 in few months.Holt right now seems more like a superior bench option than someone to start over Chavis, a healthy Pedroia is another matter but I want to see him healthy before I start thinking about releasing Pearce.
Pearce is also still at least nominally an outfielder.Much rather would get rid of Nunez than Pearce.
Moreland is notoriously a quick starter that slows up as the season drags on, plus he's had a tendency to fall victim to nagging injuries that just seem to linger. There's plenty of emergency 2B options around, less so on the 1B side of things, and I'd rather not have Chavis playing 1B when we have a clear need for a long-term starter solution at 2B so I'd rather keep him there and see if he can handle it.