Out of the Past

Your position is that Lowell put up bad numbers in '05 because he had bad luck and that his '06 numbers improved because his luck improved. I disagree. Looking back at his '05 season I think his numbers declined because his power went down the tubes. His line drives and flyballs that used to go out or bang against the wall were getting caught at the warning track. His '05 BABIP was .253. Assume that in '05 he had his normal power year and hit 25 HRs rather than only 8. That's 17 extra outs in the BABIP denominator. Now assume that a few, say 8, of his flyballs and line drives that in a normal year would bang against the wall ended up getting caught. That's 8 extra hits in the BABIP foumula. Recalculate the .253 with these two changes (adding 8 hits & subtratting 17 balls in play) and his BABIP jumps up about 30 points. It has very little to do with luck. I think you're completely misunderstanding how BABIP works and what exactly we mean by "luck". You basically just described him having an "unlucky" season in the part I bolded, yet say that it wasn't an unlucky season. As far as his BABIP goes... So taking away 17 outs and adding 17 HRs, his BABIP goes up to .258 (.010 increase...his babip was .248, not .253). Adding 8 hits, his babip goes up to .277. His career BABIP is .281. With his new-found babip, his numbers for the 2005 season: .286 BAA, .342 OBP, .462 SLG His career numbers: .275 BAA, .340 OBP, .465 SLG By adding what you said to add, his BABIP is .004 within his career BABIP, and his numbers are nearly identical to his career numbers. I guess we'll never agree on this because if I understand you correctly your position is that Lowell's '05 power decline was due to bad luck and I don't think luck has anything to do with a player's yearly fluctuations in power. Thanks for crunching all the numbers. I guess if in '05 Lowell had his normal power year then his overall production would have been similar to his career average or in other words he had a bad year because his power went down the tubes and not because of bad luck.

Hammer should be hitting 4th.

Call me the new guy, call me slow, even call me stupid, but what the f*** is a BABIP?! Batting average of balls in play Wow, I like statistics and all, and baseball is a game of numbers, but that's just an idiotic stat. It says more about defenses than the player. It'd be more meaningful to keep track of the percentage of times a player gets the ball in play when at bat. I also like stats and think this is a useful one but the problem people misuse it.

Actually, speedy guys are able to influence their BABIP a bit more than most. And as for how hard you hit the ball, no that doesn't really matter at all. If you hit more line drives you have a better chance of sustaining a high BABIP, but for the most part, a player has very little control of whether he gets a hit or an out once it's put in play. This is shown by the numerous amount of balls that are just stung but right at someone or the defender makes a bad play, whereas a guy can hit a little bloop that drops and he'll get a hit. I completely disagree. See, when I see guys like Miguel or Utley with really high BABIPs and then I see guys like Alex Gonzalez or Jack Wilson with low BABIPs to me what that tells me is that Miguel and Utley hit the crap out of the ball while Alex and Jack are pretty crappy hitters but based on what you've written according to you Miguel and Utley are not better hitters than Alex and Jack, they are just luckier hitters. Actually, you are right. I apologize. Obviously there are players who are simply better than others. Where the luck comes in is when a player like Gonzalez has an uncharacteristically high average or Cabrera's is low. You can't really use BABIP to judge different players since they are all different, but you can use it for judging whether one player is having a flukey season or an unlucky season. Although home runs and strikeouts will significantly affect your BABIP, which is a partial explanation for why Cabrera's is so high. I think it's nuts to assume luck is the reason for players yearly fluctuations in BABIP. Is luck also the reason for their yearly fluctuations in Ks and HRs? Also, HRs and Ks are removed when calculating BABIP so why would HRs and Ks impact a guy's BABIP? So what would you say is the culprit behind yearly fluctuations? Why does Ichiro Suzuki hit .372 one year with 49 walks and 66 k's and then hit .303 the next with 48 walks and 63 k's? Why does Mike Lowell hit one year .234 and .284 the next while having only a 1 walk and 3 k difference? More precisely, what I meant to say was HR and K's will show a bigger discrepency between your actual average and your BABIP. Also, HR's and K's generally don't fluctuate year to year as much as average does. You already agreed that how hard a player hits the ball will impact his BABIP. Given that, don't you think fluctuations from year to year can be attributed to a player hitting the ball harder one year compared to the other year? These guys aren't robots. Your position is that Lowell put up bad numbers in '05 because he had bad luck and that his '06 numbers improved because his luck improved. I disagree. Looking back at his '05 season I think his numbers declined because his power went down the tubes. His line drives and flyballs that used to go out or bang against the wall were getting caught at the warning track. His '05 BABIP was .253. Assume that in '05 he had his normal power year and hit 25 HRs rather than only 8. That's 17 extra outs in the BABIP denominator. Now assume that a few, say 8, of his flyballs and line drives that in a normal year would bang against the wall ended up getting caught. That's 8 extra hits in the BABIP foumula. Recalculate the .253 with these two changes (adding 8 hits & subtratting 17 balls in play) and his BABIP jumps up about 30 points. It has very little to do with luck.

Actually, speedy guys are able to influence their BABIP a bit more than most. And as for how hard you hit the ball, no that doesn't really matter at all. If you hit more line drives you have a better chance of sustaining a high BABIP, but for the most part, a player has very little control of whether he gets a hit or an out once it's put in play. This is shown by the numerous amount of balls that are just stung but right at someone or the defender makes a bad play, whereas a guy can hit a little bloop that drops and he'll get a hit. I completely disagree. See, when I see guys like Miguel or Utley with really high BABIPs and then I see guys like Alex Gonzalez or Jack Wilson with low BABIPs to me what that tells me is that Miguel and Utley hit the crap out of the ball while Alex and Jack are pretty crappy hitters but based on what you've written according to you Miguel and Utley are not better hitters than Alex and Jack, they are just luckier hitters. Actually, you are right. I apologize. Obviously there are players who are simply better than others. Where the luck comes in is when a player like Gonzalez has an uncharacteristically high average or Cabrera's is low. You can't really use BABIP to judge different players since they are all different, but you can use it for judging whether one player is having a flukey season or an unlucky season. Although home runs and strikeouts will significantly affect your BABIP, which is a partial explanation for why Cabrera's is so high. I think it's nuts to assume luck is the reason for players yearly fluctuations in BABIP. Is luck also the reason for their yearly fluctuations in Ks and HRs? Also, HRs and Ks are removed when calculating BABIP so why would HRs and Ks impact a guy's BABIP?

Actually, speedy guys are able to influence their BABIP a bit more than most. And as for how hard you hit the ball, no that doesn't really matter at all. If you hit more line drives you have a better chance of sustaining a high BABIP, but for the most part, a player has very little control of whether he gets a hit or an out once it's put in play. This is shown by the numerous amount of balls that are just stung but right at someone or the defender makes a bad play, whereas a guy can hit a little bloop that drops and he'll get a hit. I completely disagree. See, when I see guys like Miguel or Utley with really high BABIPs and then I see guys like Alex Gonzalez or Jack Wilson with low BABIPs to me what that tells me is that Miguel and Utley hit the crap out of the ball while Alex and Jack are pretty crappy hitters but based on what you've written according to you Miguel and Utley are not better hitters than Alex and Jack, they are just luckier hitters.

Just to make sure I understand this BABIP thing... so it doesn't really matter how hard the hitter hits the ball or how fast he gets down the first base line because in the end it all comes down to luck, right?

Petit's been good, but the Marlins certainly got the better end of the deal. We need more bullpen arms, not starting pitching. :blink:

5.1 IP, 5H, 1ER and a win... 2.19 ERA in 2 starts.

personally...i think its useless to defend anyone hitting .220...but whatever...i dont worship at the altar of OPS Well OPS is a lot more important than AVG but Hermida is also stinking it up in the OPS department. I guess if you compare Hermida's OPS with samples that include pitchers and catchers, like his apologist like to do, then he almost looks okay, but still below average, but those are retarded comparisons. You compare him to the rest of the league, just like you do every single other player in the league. He's a corner OF and he should be compared with his peers.. other corner OFs. If you want to compare his hitting abilities with pitchers and catchers that's fine with me. It's retarded but you're entitled to do it. I understand your point, and he's been below average for a corner outfielder. But he's also been extremely unlucky thus far this year as ensam showed which is due to catch up. I'm not sure what Esam said but I think it had something to do with his balls in play AVG. If that's it once again I disagree. If his balls in play AVG improves I don't think luck will have much to do with it. If it improves I think it'll improve primarily because he'll start hitting more line drives and fewer lazy flyballs and fewer soft grounders.

personally...i think its useless to defend anyone hitting .220...but whatever...i dont worship at the altar of OPS Well OPS is a lot more important than AVG but Hermida is also stinking it up in the OPS department. I guess if you compare Hermida's OPS with samples that include pitchers and catchers, like his apologist like to do, then he almost looks okay, but still below average, but those are retarded comparisons. You compare him to the rest of the league, just like you do every single other player in the league. He's a corner OF and he should be compared with his peers.. other corner OFs. If you want to compare his hitting abilities with pitchers and catchers that's fine with me. It's retarded but you're entitled to do it.

personally...i think its useless to defend anyone hitting .220...but whatever...i dont worship at the altar of OPS Well OPS is a lot more important than AVG but Hermida is also stinking it up in the OPS department. I guess if you compare Hermida's OPS with samples that include pitchers and catchers, like his apologist like to do, then he almost looks okay, but still below average, but those are retarded comparisons.

andino's glove would be a huge benefit for us I don't know about that. He leads all Triple A in errors.

I wouldn't call him a flop, but nor would I be as optimistic as many of you seem to be. To date, which is a decent sample size, he's been injury-prone, below average in the field, less powerful than you would hope for from a corner outfielder, and patient to a fault. It's obviously too early to say he's a flop, but he hasn't shown a lot to be excited about thus far...and in most cases that doesn't bode well for the future. except for the fact that even while struggling, he is posting (just about) league average OPS Why don't you compare him to other corner OFs? I mean that's the position he plays. The comparisons to league averages that include pitchers, catchers and middle infielders are meaningless and stupid.

I wouldn't call him a flop, but nor would I be as optimistic as many of you seem to be. To date, which is a decent sample size, he's been injury-prone, below average in the field, less powerful than you would hope for from a corner outfielder, and patient to a fault. It's obviously too early to say he's a flop, but he hasn't shown a lot to be excited about thus far...and in most cases that doesn't bode well for the future. Perfect sum up of Hermida.

No, you're the one who is more than content drawing conclusions based on 30 AB's. If you want to argue with me why don't you argue over something I actually said? Picking arguments with someone over something he didn't say is pretty stupid, I think. Back to Carroll. I haven't drawn conclusions on him. In fact I said he should be given a couple of weeks to show what he can do. With that said, the fact is when has has played he has played like crap.

Carroll wasn't given a fair shake and I can't say I was disappointed or underwhelmed by anything I saw from him...then again, my expectations were in check, I guess if you don't do a Miggy 2003 debut, you're a failure. That's ridiculous and that's not my position but the fact is when he played he played like crap but if you're into the kool aid and are willing to swallow the nonsense that he played well go ahead and swallow it. The quality of his play was somewhere between Reggie and Reed. Good lord. 30 AB's and you're ready to call him crap. You, good sir, are what makes me a self-loathing Marlins fan. It's impossible to constructively discuss this team. If you're not hitting .400 and slugging .900, you're garbage. Obviously your reading comprehension skills are lacking. I didn't call him crap. I said he played like crap. There's a difference.

Carroll wasn't given a fair shake and I can't say I was disappointed or underwhelmed by anything I saw from him...then again, my expectations were in check, I guess if you don't do a Miggy 2003 debut, you're a failure. That's ridiculous and that's not my position but the fact is when he played he played like crap but if you're into the kool aid and are willing to swallow the nonsense that he played well go ahead and swallow it. The quality of his play was somewhere between Reggie and Reed.

Reading this thread one would think Carroll played well. That's nonsense. He couldn't hit, he misplayed a few balls and had a baserunning blunder one of the times he came in to PR. Let's get real. I guess maybe he gets bonus points for staring down the opposing closer after he K'd to make the last out? If there's one thing he didn't do, he didn't misplay any balls. He's a totally capable 8-hole hitter on a terrible defensive team. I'd let him start, but then again, I don't like Amezaga as an outfielder, or a starter. He didn't get good jumps a few times, he Reggied a throw, he kicked a ball and he misplayed a double into a triple. In his limited playing time he stunk but with that said I would like to see him play every day for a couple of weeks to see what, if anything, he can do.

Reading this thread one would think Carroll played well. That's nonsense. He couldn't hit, he misplayed a few balls and had a baserunning blunder one of the times he came in to PR. Let's get real. I guess maybe he gets bonus points for staring down the opposing closer after he K'd to make the last out?

It all starts with the Selection Show, which will start at 4 p.m. ET -- or if the 1 p.m. game on TBS between the Braves and Marlins runs long, then immediately following the game mlb.com.... about the AS selection show. On the radio rain delay show one of them said Chip Carey told him that TBS would cut away from the game at 4:00 PM to air the all-star show because the sponsor had bought that time slot. I have a feeling we'll get screwed and the cable companies will not show it here in So Fla.

Does it really matter what Hermida's current OPS is? The Hermida apologists keep saying Hermida is putting league average numbers and that's simply not true. As I said before the ones who are 100% certain that Hermida will be a beast are just as ridiculous as the ones who call him a bust.

He's still posting a league average OPS. Hermida? What's the league average OPS and what's his OPS? In the league average are you including pitchers? .726 Hermida .739 League (pitchers excluded) After today's game Jeremy's OPS is .707. I don't know how to get the OPS excluding pitchers but per ESPN the AL OPS is .757 and the NL OPS is .736. The AL OPS includes pitchers hitting in the NL park games and the NL OPS includes pitchers hitting in all games except the AL park games. I think the MLB OPS excluding pitchers is probably around .765 which puts Jeremy about 60 points below the league average. Do you have a link to the .739 (excluding pitchers)? Baseball-reference.com I think you're imagining this .739 number. I looked in baseball-reference and for OFs the average OPS so far this season is .767 which puts Jeremy 60 points below the average OF. The average for IFs is .754. http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/bspli...T&year=2007

He's still posting a league average OPS. Hermida? What's the league average OPS and what's his OPS? In the league average are you including pitchers? .726 Hermida .739 League (pitchers excluded) After today's game Jeremy's OPS is .707. I don't know how to get the OPS excluding pitchers but per ESPN the AL OPS is .757 and the NL OPS is .736. The AL OPS includes pitchers hitting in the NL park games and the NL OPS includes pitchers hitting in all games except the AL park games. I think the MLB OPS excluding pitchers is probably around .765 which puts Jeremy about 60 points below the league average. Do you have a link to the .739 (excluding pitchers)?

He's still posting a league average OPS. Hermida? What's the league average OPS and what's his OPS? In the league average are you including pitchers?