Just in case some of you were worried about Russell Branyan's July so far, I am here to soothe your fears like a cool aloe balm.
| April through June | Since July 1 | |
| Swing% | 46.8 | 47.9 |
| Contact% | 68.7 | 67.0 |
| GB% / FB% / LD% | 31.8 / 40.0 / 20.6 | 26.9 / 42.3 / 15.4 |
| BABIP | .358 | .174 |
| HR/BIA | 16.5 | 15.8 |
| SO% | 26.2 | 36.3 |
| BB% | 14.3 | 16.4 |
| ISO_Disc | .097 | .135 |
| ISO_Slg | .303 | .244 |
Russ is fine. His strikeouts and infield pop ups are up in July, but so are his walks. More importantly, he is swinging just as often, making contact just as often and hitting home runs just as often, even with the increased infield flies, as he has all season. The big difference is in the BABIP. That is flukey; do not worry over it. Russ is fine.
0 recs | 99 comments
Do you think you could include another table?
Jeff Sullivan - July 15, 2009
I do not know.
I am not certain that you could fit any more on the front page.
Eyebrows - July 15, 2009
Well,
Matthew - July 15, 2009
Typo
Jeff Sullivan - July 15, 2009
In my my defense, huh?
Jeff Sullivan - July 15, 2009
Go ahead and make fun of my stutter, mumbles mcghee
Matthew - July 15, 2009
H?
Jeff Sullivan - July 15, 2009
.
Kirsten Schlewitz - July 15, 2009
That's my pet name for Eddie Vedder
Poochie - July 15, 2009
I can't believe this got 20 recs
Robert - July 15, 2009
I used my 20 different accounts.
Don’t feel too special.
Slow Country - July 15, 2009
I'm just glad that you enjoyed my work
Robert - July 15, 2009
I tried rubbing aloe balm all over myself the last time I experienced sheer, utter terror.
It made my skin silky and moisturized, but I was still terrified.
Decatur - July 15, 2009
Also, how reliabled is the expected BABIP formula (Line drive rate + 11%)? Are there situations where this doesn't apply?
Decatur - July 15, 2009
When possible I would just regress a player's BABIP to his career (or recent year) average
Jeff Sullivan - July 15, 2009
I'm just imagining you saying "soothe your fears like a cool aloe balm" in a Barry White voice.
pdb - July 15, 2009
Now I'm doing it and attaching an awwwww yeahhhh at the end
It is soothing.
Jeff Sullivan - July 15, 2009
And a mmmm hmmmmmm
Bearskin Rugburn - July 15, 2009
Turn out the lights and light a candle
abender20 - July 15, 2009
Is the difference in BABIP luck, defensive alignment against him, or something else?
The only discussions I’ve ever seen about BABIP seem to end up with “don’t know what’s up, it’s just bad luck”.
Spoomeister - July 15, 2009
Let's just think of it as unsustainable
His early BABIP was too high, and his recent BABIP is too low. They will average out. There’s nothing wrong with him.
Jeff Sullivan - July 15, 2009
So it will regress backwards?
Poochie - July 15, 2009
It will sserger.
dbroncos31 - July 15, 2009
meme!
The Typical Idiot Fan - July 15, 2009
Should we be worried about the dipping LD rate?
seattlebruin - July 15, 2009
Meaninglessly small sample
no
Jeff Sullivan - July 15, 2009
How fast do batted ball rates tend to stabilize/what's a reasonable sample before we should worry about it?
seattlebruin - July 15, 2009
Heyo
linky
marc w - July 15, 2009
Confused now
seattlebruin - July 15, 2009
Branyan by month (Fangraphs numbers)
April: 14.6% LD
May: 25.4%
June: 17.5%
July: 23.1%
Jeff Sullivan - July 15, 2009
Well this shows quite the disparity
Jeff Sullivan - July 15, 2009
I think I'm even more confused now
since your evidence is showing that LD rate fluctuates rather wildly over a half-season sample, and the article Marc linked to says that it should stabilize in 40 PAs…
seattlebruin - July 15, 2009
I have a lot of trouble believing that LD really stabilizes that quickly considering I barely trust LD% to begin with
40 PAs? That’s absurd.
Jeff Sullivan - July 15, 2009
Yeah, that struck me as odd too
it would seem to indicate that an average batter should hit exactly 7-9 line drives for every 40 PAs and that can’t be right
seattlebruin - July 15, 2009
Yeah, that
marc w - July 15, 2009
is not quite what that means.
marc w - July 15, 2009
I think it's asserting that it stabilizes at 40 PAs that's confusing
seattlebruin - July 15, 2009
Or perhaps I'm reading into the way he defines stabilization wrong
which the more I think about it, I think I am, since he said he was going to use an r^2 of .5, which still allows a lot of variation
seattlebruin - July 15, 2009
But it's almost as if the article is more intended to show that BABIP won't stabilize over any single season sample
and thus is subject to much more fluctuation than LD rate (or GB rate for that matter)
seattlebruin - July 15, 2009
Yeah, that's it exactly. It's all about how you define stability.
I think r^2 of 0.5 is perfectly fine, esp. as he was up front about it, but that still means you could see a fairly high degree of variance.
But it also means Branyan’s quite unlikely to throw up two months of 6% LDs.
marc w - July 15, 2009
Yeah, I guess I just read "stabilizes" and completely ignored the r^2=.5 part
and assumed it was more like an r^2=.95 or something, which would make 40 PAs ridiculous
seattlebruin - July 15, 2009
The r^2 of 0.5 still allows for a great deal of variance.
PC’s using one definition of ‘stable’ – and it seems fine to me, but that doesn’t mean that once a batter hits 40 PAs that the numbers are going to be the same.
marc w - July 15, 2009
Yes. MLB's numbers
17.1%
23.6%
19.3%
15.4%
July really jumps out there, huh?
Matthew - July 15, 2009
Wha?
You should calculate the variance in tRA using MLBs versus Fangraphs data. These seem like fairly large discrepancies, and I bet it’d make a big difference in some pitchers tRAs.
marc w - July 15, 2009
Like hell I am manually doing that.
Batted ball types are subjective. We’ve all known this.
Matthew - July 15, 2009
Good heavens
I guess technically it’s only the difference between four and six line drives, but still.
Jeff Sullivan - July 15, 2009
Yes.
That’s important to note.
The difference is MLB saying four line drives and BIS saying six.
Matthew - July 15, 2009
Why do we (or should we) trust one over the other?
Robert Lintott - July 15, 2009
We don't; you shouldn't
Matthew - July 15, 2009
But don't you kind of have to for tRA and wOBA?
Robert Lintott - July 15, 2009
You have to use batted ball types from somewhere for tRA.
Not for wOBA.
Matthew - July 15, 2009
Further,
tRA relies on batted ball types, yes, and the classifications between BIS, MLB, Retrosheet, etc do not 100% agree with each other. And as far as I know, nobody has done a study of accuracy (how could you anyways, the desired answer would be subjective) to determine which if any, is the best.
However, the magnitude of differences are really very small and you assume any bias is system wide.
wOBA does not use batted ball types at all.
Matthew - July 15, 2009
Yeah, I realized that about wOBA
I was thinking of hit values or whatever it is they’re called. But the part about the magnitude of difference being so small makes a lot of sense.
Will HitFX standardize this at all?
Robert Lintott - July 15, 2009
Yes.
HitF/X ultimately will let us use continuous functions for batted balls rather than discrete types.
Matthew - July 15, 2009
Are there any offensive stats using batted ball profile?
Or would such a thing just overvalue power guys and undervalue, say, Ichiro?
Tube - July 15, 2009
I am unaware of any good stats that use it.
Matthew - July 15, 2009
Well I would say prOPS is okay
As long as you don’t over do it.
vivaelpujols - July 19, 2009
The sample needed for K rate to stabilize is ridiculously small
so if we’re going to worry about anything, it may be the K rate.
Which is why the swing/contact rate # is so soothing. Awwwww yeeeeaaaahhhh.
marc w - July 15, 2009
All the same...
From this data I think one can conclude that Branyan was unsustainably lucky in the first months (unsustainable BABIP and strikeout rate). So anyone who expects that going forward is going to be disappointed. He’ll likely be good, but not as good as he was in April and May.
b_rider - July 15, 2009
Absolutely right
Jeff Sullivan - July 15, 2009
Not absolutely.
Based on his 68.7% contact rate, Branyan’s expected K rate was 27.8%
Matthew - July 15, 2009
How close has Branyan's K% mirrored that equation in the past?
Jeff Sullivan - July 15, 2009
Last five years, 2008-4, negative values indicate lower than expected K rate
-0.6%
0.8%
0.6%
-1.5%
3.4%
Matthew - July 15, 2009
So, super close then
Good to know.
Jeff Sullivan - July 15, 2009
Remarkably, remarkably close.
Then again, the equation for all big league hitters has an R-value of around .77.
Matthew - July 15, 2009
R^2
I should clarify.
Matthew - July 15, 2009
0.77 is huge for an R^2
Matthew - July 15, 2009
People should be more amazed by this.
I am shocked how close a relationship there is between contact and strikeout rates.
Matthew - July 15, 2009
Yet more evidence that swinging strikes are awesome
Graham MacAree - July 15, 2009
I am now amazed.
by the way, what IS the equation with that gaudy r^2?
marc w - July 15, 2009
Alright, I'm waving the white flag here
What, in this context, is r^2 and how is it applied.
I’m used to r^2 being part of the area of a circle equation.
Robert Lintott - July 15, 2009
`
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_determination
Matthew - July 15, 2009
So just to make sure I got this
When the r^2 is near 1, we’ve got a good predictive model?
Robert Lintott - July 15, 2009
Absolute value of 1, yes.
Matthew - July 15, 2009
I guess the squaring takes care of that.
Used to dealing with R, not R^2.
Matthew - July 15, 2009
Thanks
I swear to God I learn more here every day than I do in grad school.
Robert Lintott - July 15, 2009
Bear with my statistical ineptitude but
I believe it is similar to correlational values? As in “A” is a good predictor of “B,” “A” being contact % and “B” being strikeout rate?
Slow Country - July 15, 2009
.84 - .84*(contact rate)
Rather easy to remember too.
Matthew - July 15, 2009
That's insane.
Jack Moore - July 15, 2009
And elegant!
contact rate = 1 —> .84 – .84 = K rate of 0
Matthew - July 15, 2009
Thanks!
marc w - July 15, 2009
This seems like a pretty straightforward relationship though. I'm not sure why we should be amazed.
Am I missing something? Why wouldn’t K rate correlate with contact rate?
Dewey N - July 15, 2009
Strikes looking
Graham MacAree - July 15, 2009
What is the r^2 between swinging strikes and K rate?
Dewey N - July 15, 2009
I am not amazed there is correlation.
I am amazed by how strong the correlation considering how simple the model is. For instance, would you not think that swing% should play a heavy role in determining strike out rate? Or %s of in and out of zone pitches? Or even things like slugging percentage?
Matthew - July 15, 2009
It's about 0.71 for pitchers
Jeff Sullivan - July 15, 2009
Well, that's good.
Thanks for the clarification.
b_rider - July 15, 2009
*swoon*
Yes, yes he is!
“O Russell
You’re so Fine
You’re so Fine
You Blow my Mind
Hey Russell!
Hey Russell!”
PositivePaul - July 15, 2009
Am I the only one somehwat taken aback by the 16% HR/FB rate?
I mean, he hits a lot of flies but… i thought he had POWER, you know?
Bearskin Rugburn - July 15, 2009
That's 16% Ball-In-Air, not 16% HR/FB
different things. StatCorner uses BIA.
Jeff Sullivan - July 15, 2009
One of the many ways that we, SC, try to mitigate against
batted ball type discrepancies.
Your welcome.
Matthew - July 15, 2009
You should call yourselves StatCorner
when you refer to yourselves as SC, I like you less
seattlebruin - July 15, 2009
I agree.
I think of John Kruk’s fat face when I see SC.
Craig Powers - July 15, 2009
BACK BACK BACK BACK BACK FAT
pdb - July 15, 2009
Oh fuck me, this is HR/BIA not HR/FB
Anyone know the HR/BIA league average?
Bearskin Rugburn - July 15, 2009
About 6.3%
Matthew - July 15, 2009
Thanks
Bearskin Rugburn - July 15, 2009
6.7% this season so far.
Matthew - July 15, 2009
I really do love this website.
Slow Country - July 15, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.