Thu Nov 19, 2009 1:23 pm EST
The world of advanced baseball statistics can be an intimidating place for those of us who slept our way through advanced algebra or haven't been a follower of the Bill James revolution from the beginning.
But that still doesn't mean that we should feel left out when it comes to another way of understanding and appreciating the game we all love. With that in mind, BLS stat doctor Alex Remington will explore a new advanced statistic each week during the offseason, providing a simple primer for the uninitiated.
Today's statistic: BABIP
What it stands for: Batting Average on Balls In Play
How you calculate BABIP:

What BABIP is good for: You often hear BABIP being brought up by stats-minded folks, but what does it actually mean? Simply put, BABIP tells us how many hits a player is getting — or a pitcher is giving up — when the ball is put in play. (In this case, "put in play" means the ball stays fair and in the ballpark, rather than the play resulting in a strikeout, walk, home run, hit by pitch or error.)
If the batter's line drive rate remains constant, BABIP can be a good indictator of "luck" or random chance, which tends to even out over the course of a long season. If a lot of hits are falling when put into play, a hitter is usually due for a dry spell or a pitcher is usuall due for a break. If very few hits are falling, a hitter may be nearing a hot streak, while a hot pitcher may be due for an upcoming reality check.
Why BABIP works: A well-known sabermetrician named Voros McCracken has demonstrated that pitchers have relatively high control over strikeouts, homers, and walks, but have relatively little control over balls in play. If a ball stays in play, the only things determining whether it will fall for a hit or turn into an out are the defense and random chance. This implies that the "pitching to contact" approach is either a myth or a byproduct of a stellar defense.
How BABIP works for pitchers: For pitchers, BABIP tends to converge around .290 or .300. A pitcher whose BABIP is significantly higher than .300 will either wash out of the league or see it come down. Meanwhile, a pitcher whose BABIP is significantly lower than .300 will see it rise. There's generally not that much variance: Greg Maddux's(notes) career BABIP against was .286 while Jose Lima's(notes) was .301.
A strikeout/flyout pitcher will generally have a higher BABIP than a groundball pitcher (Curt Schilling(notes), .297; Kevin Brown, .293), but the differences tend to be extremely minor.
Knuckleballers tend to have an abnormally low BABIP: Tim Wakefield's(notes) is .275, and Phil Niekro's was .273. Nolan Ryan's career BABIP is an absurdly low .269, but he is an extreme case because he was both so dominating and wild that he didn't put the ball in play very often. Ryan is the all-time leader in both strikeouts and walks, eighth all-time in beanballs, and 35th all-time in home runs allowed.
There is actually an ongoing dispute in the stat community as to whether a pitcher is capable of consciously affecting his BABIP. Brian Bannister(notes) of the Royals, perhaps the most stat-savvy player in the majors, gave an interview last year in which he revealed his efforts to improve his BABIP by throwing more strikes and getting into pitchers' counts.
How BABIP works for hitters: For hitters there is more variance in BABIP, though the mean is obviously the same. Extremely speedy hitters tend to have a higher BABIP, because they are capable of beating out infield hits, like Ichiro Suzuki(notes) and his career BABIP of .357. Hitters less fleet of foot tend to have lower BABIPs. Free swingers like Vladimir Guerrero(notes) and Matt Diaz(notes), who manage to sustain high batting averages despite a cheerful disregard for the strike zone, have sustained accordingly high BABIPs — .319 for Guerrero and .362 for Diaz.
Jimmy Rollins'(notes) awful 2009 was accompanied by a .245 BABIP, far off of his career .295 mark and the .303 BABIP he enjoyed during his 2007 MVP campaign.
What accounted for the decline?
For one thing, Rollins had fewer infield hits than ever before, just 10 in 2009 compared to 15 the previous year.
For another, he had the fewest walks in any full season in his career — and tied for the second-fewest HBP — which meant that most every time he strode to the plate, he was putting himself into a position to make more outs. Had Rollins drawn more walks, leaned into a few more pitches and dragged a few more infield singles, he would have had more hits in fewer at-bats and his average would have been closer to the .277 he hit in 2006 and 2008.
Rollins was unlucky in 2009, but he was also lucky in 2007, when he set personal bests in PA, AB, runs, hits, triples, homers, RBI, batting average, slugging, and OPS, en route to winning the MVP. Luck breaks both ways. BABIP isn't the reason he did poorly; it's just merely a measure of how poorly he did.
When BABIP doesn't work: As I just said, BABIP is not a determinant of success, it's only a measure of what's going on. It's only a byproduct of all the things that batters and pitchers have no control over — the little bounces and breaks and streaks that sometimes even out over the course of a season and sometimes can carry a guy to a career high or a career low.
Random chance isn't the only reason a player might fail. Persistently low hitter BABIPs or high pitcher BABIPs might be an indication of poor mechanics, injury, or insufficient skill or talent. There's wild BABIP variance in the minor leagues, where the talent spread is a lot wider.
Why we care about BABIP: Once you know how it works, it's very easy to eyeball and predict whether someone is likely to do better or worse. BABIP-based predictions certainly aren't perfect — and one should guard against attributing all the variation in a player's BABIP to "luck" — but it is quick and easy and it is very useful if you keep that warning in mind. I use it constantly when writing my Slumpbot and Streaking columns, because I know that BABIP should be around .300, and if a player's BABIP is too high or too low, then I can make a prediction for whether his streak or slump is likely to end in the near future.
Next week's lesson: OPS+
Big League Stew is an MLB blog edited by Kevin Kaduk. Email him, and follow him on Twitter.

Posted Feb 7 2010
Fantasy Baseball: First Round Firepower
Posted Feb 8 2010
Fantasy Baseball: Players On The Rise
Posted Feb 8 2010
Edited by MJD
Edited by 'Duk
Edited by J.E. Skeets
Edited by Greg Wyshynski
Edited by Matt Hinton
Edited by Chris Chase
Edited by Jay Busbee
Edited by Jay Busbee
Edited by Steve Cofield
Edited by Chris Chase
Edited by Chris Chase
Edited by Brooks Peck
Edited by Andy Behrens
19 Comments
1 - 19 of 19
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Kidding aside, good explanation oft his metric. Look forward to more.
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
One argument, though. On the Rollins example, beating out more infield hits would have certainly increased his BABIP, and therefore his batting average. But drawing more walks and getting hit by more pitches would have decreased both his AB and his hits, and therefore it seems that it would not affect his BABIB and AVG, though it would have improved his OBP.
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Its just a meaningless number. There are plenty of stats and figures that can tell us what BABIP tries to.
BABIP is just a new tool for Boras and the likes to make strikeout hitters like Jack Cust and Brandon Inge appear to be better than they are.
According to this nonsense, Mark Reynolds is as productive as Albert Pujols (both have 2009 BABIP around .303) and both are mediocre compared to Jack Cust (.323).
On the pitcher end, it masks pitchers with low strikeout and high HR totals and makes them look better.
Pitchers like Braden Looper and Bronson Arroyo have significantly lower BABIP compared to their Opp avg (they allowed 39HR/ 100K, and 31HR/ 127K respectively).
At the same time, pitchers like Tim Lincecum and Zach Greinke will be handicapped (on paper) when comparing their low Opp avg to their BABIP (they allowed about 10 HR while striking out 240+).
Anyone with an ounce of brain will tell you that they will rather give up a hit or two on the field than to give up a long ball. HRs are guaranteed runs... good pitchers can work out of situations with runners on base.
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
@ Darien — the LD% + 120 estimate has been discredited substantially by more recent studies. It assumes that LD% remains constant and is reflective of a consistent skill level. That assumption falls apart upon close examination.
@ A! — You seem to be rushing to judgment, without really taking the time to understand what BIP metrics really can tell you. As Alex says, BABIP isn't a measure of production, it's more of a look behind the raw numbers to see how they added up that way. Anyone who knows what BABIP and FIP are should agree with you that suppressing home runs is absolutely critical.
We've all seen pitchers give up runs through a succession of unlucky plays — seeing-eye grounder, defensive miscue, fluke infield hit, and the bloop single to drive in two runs. Any pitcher, good or bad, will fall prey to innings like that. BABIP is one way we can estimate how lucky or unlucky a pitcher may have been, but you're right, there are still good pitchers and bad pitchers.
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
And you wouldn't want to do that regardless of whether or not you knew of the existence of BABIP?
1 - 19 of 19