Stats are slightly old now, but I thought the general point was worth highlighting.
At a ridiculously low .201, [Jose] Bautista has not had much success turning balls in play into hits… while a .381 wOBA is fine for anyone to hang his head on, Bautista has actually been held back this season.
It seems strange for someone to produce so effectively with such a low BABIP, which got me thinking: has anyone ever finished a season with a wOBA as strong as Bautista’s current .381 mark with as extremely suppressed a batting average on balls in play?
After perusing the historical records, it seems that Bautista could potentially finish the season in some rare company. Among players with at least 400 plate appearances in a season since 1900, there are only five batters with a .380+ wOBA and a .225- BABIP:
Roger Maris (1961): .424 wOBA, .209 BABIP
Ralph Kiner (1952): .409 wOBA, .221 BABIP
Roy Cullenbine (1947): .391 wOBA, .206 BABIP
Norm Cash (1962): .389 wOBA, .215 BABIP
Andy Pafko (1951): .381 wOBA, .222 BABIP
... One season that came close, but ultimately missed the cut, was Bautista’s 2010 campaign. Two years ago, he hit .260/.378/.617, with a .422 wOBA and a .233 BABIP. He bopped 54 home runs and had 56 singles.
Players have produced at an all-star level like this with substandard BABIP rates, but it’s incredibly rare throughout baseball history.
Similarly interesting is that Bautista entered this past weekend with a .197 BABIP. It wasn’t just low, it was below .200, which seems even rarer. Throughout history, only seven players with 400+ PA from 1900-now have finished a season with a sub-.200 BABIP. The highest wOBA was Gus Triandos‘s .336 back in 1959.
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.
1. Eric P. Posted: June 29, 2012 at 03:18 PM (#4169667)i am glad. but surprised
Someone who follows the team more closely can better comment on the details, but there's been a lot of accusations hurled at Bautista. I remember an interview where he responded to some of them. Seems to have died down in the past year or so, thankfully. He and EE are both having great seasons-- Encaracion's slash line is a bit better, but I expect by the end of the season, Bautista will come out pretty far ahead. They've got 48 HRs between them.
Over the last couple years, there have been a lot of "I'm not saying he's taking steroids, I'm just asking questions" articles about Bautista. He's taken a fair amount of guff from writers.
It's been very entertaining to follow. For the last month or so, it seems like every game of his has been 1 for 3 or 1 for 4 with a homer and a walk.
i was not counting that doofus toronto writer, griffin i think? i thought he was the only one to toss it out there
but if there are others then i am corrected
thanks
With that being said, Bautista certainly hasn't faced a ludicrous number of accusations and, as formerly dp notes, the frequency of these accusations have died down over the last year or so.
As for Konerko, I honestly can't remember an article accusing him of use, or even implying the possibility of use.
Paul Konerko is held in unbelievably high esteem by the Chicago media. I'm having trouble thinking of anybody whose reputation even approaches Paulie's here. I think Konerko also benefits from a view of the White Sox as being a particularly clean team that dates back to Frank Thomas being an early vocal critic of steroids and rumors that the White Sox tried to refuse to take steroid tests en masse in 2003 to ensure there were enough failed tests (refusing to take the test counted as a failed test) to trigger penalties the next year.
Right - it makes some sense as a way to evaluate defense, and a little less for pitchers, but it should be removed from the toolset for evaluating hitters.
We've secretly replaced Rogers Centre with Jersey Shore. Let's see if Ryan Jones can tell the difference...
Why? I've always found it quite valuable myself. Indeed I've found that separating out the individual components of a batting from one another to be quite valuable.
BB/AB+BB
SO/AB
HR/AB-SO
H-HR/AB-SO-HR
2B+3B/H-HR
3B/2B+3B
Always has worked quite well for me, and I believe Tango does something quite similar for the Marcels. By keeping the stats independent from another, you're able to a bit more with the numbers than you otherwise could.
vs RHP .249/.371/.605
vs LHP .205/.310/.397
Yeah I know, single year platoon splits carry basically no signal (never mind splits before the AS break). Voros' Law works both ways.
But to me it brings to mind Frank Thomas' first poorish season. He went from having numbers against LHP that Babe Ruth in his prime wouldn't have complained about to .226/.327/.365. In other words, the bulk of his decline was against LHP for no obvious reason.
.159/.280/.348 vs LHP
.281/.376/.507 vs RHP
This from a guy who has typically mashed lefties and hasn't hit righties as well throughout his career. The big surprise last year was that he had hit righties exceptionally well. That's continued somewhat, but his season has been a little down because his numbers against lefties have sucked.
But at the extreme, by removing home runs, sometimes a low BABIP can actually be because of GOOD luck. Look at Maris's 1961, for example, which is listed in the excerpt. In 1961, his BAWNSO was .304 but his BABIP was only .212. In 1962, his BAWNSO was very similar, .295, but his BABIP jumped up to .246. But this wasn't because he was LUCKIER in 1962; it's because 28 balls that were home runs in 1961 turned into 18 doubles and 10 fly outs in 1962.
Similarly, one reason why Jose Bautista's (and Adam Dunn's) BABIP are so low is because so many of the balls they hit leave the field of play. (EDIT: Joey Bautista's BABIP through 2009, .281; Bautista's BABIP since 2010, .253. He hasn't been "hitting in bad luck" since 2010; he's been hitting more balls out of the ballpark than he used to)
And yes, there's plenty of year to year fluctuation in all of these, and true talent level is probably both unknown (to any kind of precision that is) and changes over time.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main