Interesting article on milb.com, "Examining just how 'lucky' baseball's top players were in 2013."
http://www.milb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20140114&content_id=64606134&fext=.jsp&vkey=news_milb&sid=milb
The article says that using BABIP data to predict regression to the mean is more useful when evaluating pitchers than batters based on the average correlation coefficients. But given the magnitude of those coefficients, I would say there is a lot more to it than that. However, the article does discuss several Red Sox prospects: Cecchini and Barnes/Owens/Webster/Ranaudo. Cecchini is ranked 4th in the 5 (top 100) prospects with the highest BABIP. The author suggests that line drive hitters and speedier players fare better.
Barnes was ranked first in highest BABIP among the top 100 pitchers but that improvement might be expected in his performance by noting that if his BABIP were a more "normal" 300 instead of his .361, he would have given up 17% fewer hits.
On the other hand, Webster, Owens, and Ranaudo rounded out the top five in lowest BABIP. Noting that when fewer ball are put in play, combined with an already low hit rate, you would expect the ERA to be lower and there may be a problem with this at higher levels. He also noted that pitchers with low BABIPs who give up home runs may not be as damaged by them.
The article is completed by comparing the HR/9, BB/9, K/9, K/BB, and ERA for high and low BABIP pitching groups. The major difference is that the high BABIP group has a collective ERA over a run higher than the low BABIP group.
http://www.milb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20140114&content_id=64606134&fext=.jsp&vkey=news_milb&sid=milb
The article says that using BABIP data to predict regression to the mean is more useful when evaluating pitchers than batters based on the average correlation coefficients. But given the magnitude of those coefficients, I would say there is a lot more to it than that. However, the article does discuss several Red Sox prospects: Cecchini and Barnes/Owens/Webster/Ranaudo. Cecchini is ranked 4th in the 5 (top 100) prospects with the highest BABIP. The author suggests that line drive hitters and speedier players fare better.
Barnes was ranked first in highest BABIP among the top 100 pitchers but that improvement might be expected in his performance by noting that if his BABIP were a more "normal" 300 instead of his .361, he would have given up 17% fewer hits.
On the other hand, Webster, Owens, and Ranaudo rounded out the top five in lowest BABIP. Noting that when fewer ball are put in play, combined with an already low hit rate, you would expect the ERA to be lower and there may be a problem with this at higher levels. He also noted that pitchers with low BABIPs who give up home runs may not be as damaged by them.
The article is completed by comparing the HR/9, BB/9, K/9, K/BB, and ERA for high and low BABIP pitching groups. The major difference is that the high BABIP group has a collective ERA over a run higher than the low BABIP group.
