BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: USA Today: Shandler: Chipper Jones’ .400 tear unlikely to last

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, May 07, 2008

USA Today: Shandler: Chipper Jones’ .400 tear unlikely to last

Out on a limb with Ron Shandler…

It’s May 7, and Chipper Jones is batting better than .400.

This is not an entirely unusual occurrence. Hitters often top .400 for short periods of time. We take notice when it happens at the beginning of the season, but there are many in-season .400 stretches that pass without a second thought. Did you know that Pat Burrell batted .435 last July?

...If we break down batting average into its component parts, perhaps we can uncover the truth.

A hit is constructed of two general events — a batter making contact with a pitch and the ball falling fair. A batter’s contact rate (at-bats minus strikeouts, divided by at-bats) is a skill we can track over time. An average batter will have a rate of about 80%; in other words, he will hit a ball into fair territory in 80% of his at-bats. The best contact hitters will have rates well in excess of 90% and are typically among baseball’s batting average leaders.

In 2007, Placido Polanco led the majors with a contact rate of 95% and batted .341. This year, Mike Sweeney leads the majors with a 99% contact rate (he has struck out once in 77 at-bats) and is batting .311.

Jones’ contact rate is 91%.

Repoz Posted: May 07, 2008 at 12:03 AM | 31 comment(s)
Related News: General, Sabermetrics, Projections, Atlanta

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 1 pages

1. BeanoCook Posted: May 07, 2008 at 12:50 AM (#2771799)

Chipper Jones is simply one of the best hitters in MLB history. Very underrated.

2. phoenixscienter Posted: May 07, 2008 at 01:51 AM (#2771879)

Agreed. Chipper has actually bested Chase Utley thus far in 2008 (in terms of OPS) and doesn't get nearly as much publicity because chicks dig the long ball (and Chase has been very good at that to date).

While I know it is unlikely that any hitter, including Chipper, sustains a .400 BA over the course of the season, if anyone can do it in 2008, its Chipper (barring injury, which is _almost_ akin to saying Hampton will pitch again this season barring injury). He's just zoned in and has been dating back to prior to the AS break last year...

A 1.220 OPS. Wow. Chipper went from the outside looking in to potential 1st ballot HOF with his play over the last 2 and 1/2 seasons.

3. bibigon Posted: May 07, 2008 at 01:54 AM (#2771881)

I love the shape of Chipper's career. A pretty normal incline in performance from 23-27, culminating a huge peak season, followed by a a very gradual decline, until at age 32 he starts to show his age... And then now improvement every year from 32-36.

4. T.J. Posted: May 07, 2008 at 05:31 PM (#2772665)

And post-steroids era, too. It will be interesting to see if he's painted with the same brush as The Usual Suspects are.

5. bunyon Posted: May 07, 2008 at 05:47 PM (#2772692)

I actually wonder if he's consciously changed something. Increased BA last year to a career-high and has increased it even more thus far this year. He actually draws walks pretty well. An injury might actually help him if the timing is right. If it comes as he's cooling off, it might give him a break and let him regroup. If he's still threatening .400 late and the Braves are out of it, might he make an effort at cutting down his swing and being more BA focused?

It almost certainly won't happen, but it's as good a chance as anyone's had in a while.

6. Le Samourai Posted: May 07, 2008 at 06:08 PM (#2772729)

Since 2003, anyway, when Pujols was standing at .394 on June 26th.

7. baseball chick Posted: May 07, 2008 at 06:13 PM (#2772735)

tj

won't nobody care that he got better AFTER the age that guys aren't allowed to UNLESS he breaks The Sacred Home Run Record of 60 set by The Sainted Sinless Babe Ruth

8. Kyle S at work Posted: May 07, 2008 at 06:28 PM (#2772749)

Of course, while Chipper has improved on a rate basis, he hasn't been able to stay healthy, which is supposedly one of the big benefits of steroid use. Also, his performance is right in line with the level he established earlier in his career - despite his good play of late, he hasn't had a season where his numbers exceeded (even on a rate basis) those of his MVP year.

(BTW - last year's MVP vote - Ryan Howard has a lower OPS than Chipper, plays in a better hitters park, has only 48 more PAs, and plays atrocious defense at an easier position. How does that add up to more MVP votes? Sigh).

9. 3Com Park Posted: May 07, 2008 at 06:33 PM (#2772757)

So somebody with a 91% contact rate would have to have a 44% hit rate on balls in play. A tall order. But somebody with a 100% contact rate would still have to have a 40% hit rate. Also a tall order.

What it would take is a miraculous outlier season for hit rate. Why not? In 1941 Ted Williams had a 94% contact rate and a 43.1% hit rate.

10. Walt Davis Posted: May 07, 2008 at 07:32 PM (#2772813)

Jones may be doing what Schmidt did. Jones has always had a lower K-rate and higher BA than Schmidt. But at ages 36-37, Schmidt posted his lowest two K-rates to date (nothing spectacular but about 1 per 6.5 AB) and the two highest BAs of his career. And he did it without a substantial drop in power. At 38, Schmidt cut his K-rate even more (1 per 9!) but by then the magic was gone (BA of 249 ... though still a pretty good season of a 112 OPS+).

I bring this out all the time, but Jones looks almost exactly like Brett (through age 35):

CJ 1895 g, 1296 R, 2117 H, 425 doubles, 386 HR, 1299 RBI, 307/403/546, 143 OPS+, 134/43 SB
GB 2013 g, 1233 R, 2399 H, 488 doubles, 255 HR, 1231 RBI, 312/378/505, 142 OPS+, 161/80 SB

The main difference (after adjusting for era) is the games played and that Brett had 1688 games at 3B, Jones 1436. Brett's last great season was at 37, then he was a DH with a 100 OPS+ for three years.

Best seasons (OPS+) by a 38 or older player with 400+ PA and 75% of games at 3B?

The list

Here's hoping Chipper is Graig Nettles ... or successfully transitions to 1B (or DH).

11. Chip Posted: May 07, 2008 at 07:49 PM (#2772823)

Of course, while Chipper has improved on a rate basis, he hasn't been able to stay healthy, which is supposedly one of the big benefits of steroid use.

Except constant breakdowns are also constantly cited as a sign of steroid use. Remember, all explanations fit as long as the guy has a negative image first.

Didn't Chipper get caught cheating on his wife? Because that too is apparently is a sign of PED use.

12. Aspiring One-Armed Economist (6 - 4 - 3) Posted: May 07, 2008 at 07:50 PM (#2772826)

I'm thinking that's a pretty big era adjustment... going by BBRef "AIR" index, Brett (97 career AIR) played in a run environment that was 3% below average while Jones (111 career AIR) that 11% above average.

Now AIR also adjusts for park factor, so just simply adjusting raw OPS (856 and 954) that translates to 881 for Brett and 849 for Jones.

13. Srul Itza Posted: May 07, 2008 at 08:14 PM (#2772851)

Chipper today -- 1 for 2 with a double, through 3 innings.

14. DCA Posted: May 07, 2008 at 08:31 PM (#2772874)

RE: #12

isn't OPS+ a reasonable park/era adjustment as well ... that has Chipper and Brett even, and the OBP/SLG balance appears roughly equivalent. I don't know about the propriety of your AIR adjustment, but it seems that the fact that it puts Brett higher than Chipper when Chipper out-OPS+'s Brett 144 to 135 and out-OWP's him .719 to .668 makes me thinks that what you did is not an appropriate adjustment to make.

15. Aspiring One-Armed Economist (6 - 4 - 3) Posted: May 07, 2008 at 08:39 PM (#2772887)

No, OPS+ only adjusts for park relative to a player's league--it does not adjust for era (run environment relative to historical norms).

Here's a pretty straight-forward methodological summary on OPS+ from the BBRef glossary:

This value is calculated differently from the Total Baseball PRO+ statistic. I chose OPS+ to make this difference more clear. PRO+ as best I can tell is

PRO+ = 100 * ( OBP/lgOBP + SLG/lgSLG - 1)/BPF

Where lgOBP and lgSLG are the slugging and on-base percentage of a league-average player, and BPF is the batting park factor. This takes into account the difference in runs scored in a team's home and road games, so it doesn't depend on how good an offense or defense a team has.

My method is slightly more complicated, but I think it is more correct. The BPF is set up for runs and the way it is implemented in PRO+ applies it to something other than runs.

1. My method Compute the runs created for the league with pitchers removed (basic form) RC = (H + BB + HBP)*(TB)/(AB + BB + HBP + SF)
2. Adjust this by the park factor RC' = RC*BPF
3. Assume that if hits increase in a park, that BB, HBP, TB increase at the some proportion.
4. Assume that Outs = AB - H (more or less) do not change at all as outs are finite.
5. Compute the number of H, BB, HBP, TB needed to produce RC', involves the quadratic formula. The idea for this came from the Willie Davis player comment in the Bill James New Historical Baseball Abstract. I think some others, including Clay Davenport have done some similar things.
6. Using these adjusted values compute what the league average player would have hit lgOBP*, lgSLG* in a park.
7. Take OPS+ = 100 * (OBP/lgOBP* + SLG/lgSLG* - 1)
8. Note, in my database, I don't store lgSLG, but store lgTB and similarly for lgOBP and lg(Times on Base), this makes calculation of career OPS+ much easier.

16. Srul Itza Posted: May 07, 2008 at 08:58 PM (#2772912)

No, OPS+ only adjusts for park relative to a player's league

I don't understand. *OPS+, by definition, compares how a person does relative to their league, adjusted for their park. So if the park is the same, the same raw OPS in a higher league run environment, will produce a lower OPS+, so long as OPS continues to correlate to run scoring in general.

17. Mets Fan Posted: May 07, 2008 at 09:01 PM (#2772920)

No, OPS+ only adjusts for park relative to a player's league--it does not adjust for era (run environment relative to historical norms).

Isn't that inherent in the statistic - percentage of average contemporary OPS?

18. DCA Posted: May 07, 2008 at 09:02 PM (#2772923)

There's no era adjustment needed for OPS+ ... the league average is 100 for all eras -- that is, essentially, a player with park-adjusted league average SLG and OBP will have an OPS of 100 in every era. Any era adjustment applied will change that.

There may be differences in league *quality* between eras that need to be adjusted for, but the run environment *is* controlled for in the OPS+ statistic by comparing each player's stats to what a league average player would have done in the same league and park (knowing league and park specifies run environment).

19. Srul Itza Posted: May 07, 2008 at 09:41 PM (#2772991)

Chipper's Line as of the close of play today:

.429/.481/.739/1.221

20. Misirlou in a Gleaming Alloy Air Car Posted: May 07, 2008 at 09:43 PM (#2772994)

There's no era adjustment needed for OPS+ ... the league average is 100 for all eras -- that is, essentially, a player with park-adjusted league average SLG and OBP will have an OPS of 100 in every era. Any era adjustment applied will change that.

Right. In 1968, in a park with a Batting PF of 108, Yaz had an OPS of .921 and an OPS+ of 170.

In 1984, in a park with a BPF of 105, Dwight Evans had an OPS of .920 and an OPS+ of 147.

No era adjustment is necessary.

21. Mike Hampton's #1 Fan Posted: May 07, 2008 at 09:47 PM (#2773006)

Chipper's just been unreal this year. It won't last, but man, it's fun to watch.

If I wanted to nitpick, I'd complain about his walk rate, but when you're putting up numbers like that you earn a reprieve from nitpicking.

22. Cowboy Popup Posted: May 07, 2008 at 09:54 PM (#2773016)

No era adjustment is necessary.

I have a question about this. It seems (And I'm not sure that it's true) like this era has a lot of high adjusted numbers compared to other eras. Do high scoring eras allow greater deviations in the numbers or is it a function of the size of the league or is it just that this era has a disproportionate number of great hitters and pitchers because of the expansion of the talent pool? All or some of the above or something I'm missing?

23. Duke, Duke, Duke, Duchscherer-er-er (Justin T) Posted: May 07, 2008 at 10:05 PM (#2773039)

I would imagine it is primarily the greater deviations in higher run scoring environments. I think of it like an investment with higher expected returns but a beta coefficient of 1.4.

The other things strike me as very minor or simply noise.

24. Srul Itza Posted: May 07, 2008 at 10:06 PM (#2773044)

Historically, Chipper has walked once every 7.1 PA

This year, it is once every 9.6 PA.

Given that Chipper is a lifetime .400 OBP guy, with 96 points of ISO OBP, I find it hard to believe that he would suddenly become less selective this late in his career.

Maybe it is just a function of how locked-in he is. Balls which, in the past, he would have hit foul or or missed so they went for strike or strike two -- lengthening the at bat and leading to more walks over time -- are now being hit hard and fair, ending the at bat earlier.

25. Ludwig the Indestructible Posted: May 07, 2008 at 10:53 PM (#2773174)

Maybe it is just a function of how locked-in he is. Balls which, in the past, he would have hit foul or or missed so they went for strike or strike two -- lengthening the at bat and leading to more walks over time -- are now being hit hard and fair, ending the at bat earlier.

He has said in an interview how he is being more aggresive this year, being aware that the pitchers are going to attack him with Tex behind him. Might change now though...

26. Kyle S Posted: May 07, 2008 at 10:53 PM (#2773176)

I think that's it, Srul. It's not like he's waiving at a lot of bad pitches. He's just hammering any good pitch he sees right now. I know it won't last (Ron, you don't think he'll end up at .430? Are you sure?), but it sure is fun to watch for now.

27. Blackadder Posted: May 07, 2008 at 11:18 PM (#2773249)

Re 22, you are exactly right about standard deviations in stats like OPS+ being higher in the 1990's and 2000's than in the 1970's and the 1980's. Empircically, it seems like higher run environments seem to have higher stdevs, although it is not immediately clear to me why that should be the case (maybe it has to do with the left censoring of run distributions, i.e. it is impossible to score 0 runs?) In any case, if you look up Dan Rosenheck's version of WARP (there is a long thread here on BBTF which you can find by searching), you will see that adjusting for league stdevs is a central component of his system, which leads to predictable consequences with respect to the comparative ranking of contemporary and 1970's players.

28. Srul Itza Posted: May 07, 2008 at 11:21 PM (#2773255)

The only reason Chipper isn't leading the league in OBP is because Pujols is getting the Barry Bonds treatment.

You would think that at some point, they would start avoiding Chipper as well, and take their chances with Teixeira.

29. Brian White Posted: May 08, 2008 at 12:30 AM (#2773302)

Balls which, in the past, he would have hit foul or or missed so they went for strike or strike two -- lengthening the at bat and leading to more walks over time -- are now being hit hard and fair, ending the at bat earlier.

Yeah, I think you got it. To bring in some numbers, he's put 44% of strikes into play - by far a career high for him (career strikes put into play: 35%). He's swung at 44% of all pitches thrown to him, which is a touch high for him (career: 42%), but nothing really out of line.

As a side note, I just love BRef's pitch data summary. It's like the greatest thing ever.

30. Walt Davis Posted: May 08, 2008 at 01:41 AM (#2773333)

I assume AIR is similar to neutralized stats. So ...

CJ neutered: 309/401/548
GB neutered: 311/375/496 ... but that includes his decline phase.

Weird, Chipper's stats barely change at all in the 715 run environment.

31. Srul Itza Posted: May 14, 2008 at 08:09 PM (#2781150)

Chipper sure is slowing down.

Following a homer and a double to start today's game:

.424/.482/.715/1.197

Page 1 of 1 pages

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Wednesday, May 07, 2008

USA Today: Shandler: Chipper Jones’ .400 tear unlikely to last

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

My Bookmarks

Hot Topics