Jon Jay

[vinsanity]

BABIP is an interesting thing, I don't know how much it has to do with luck, and the old saying "hitting them where they ain't." Putting a ball in the gap is a skill. Not hitting can-o-corn fly balls is a skill; not grounding out feebly to short is a skill....and so on.

They say on average BABIP ends up around .300 when you average it for all players. But each player has their own for their career. It probably isn't realistic that Jay's BABIP will stay at .350, but that doesn't mean it will regress all the way back to .300 or below either. I think that's kind of what some people are saying in this thread.

Yup, certain things affect BABIP. Ichiro has a career BABIP of .350 because he legs out IF singles and more likely to hit a 'bloop' single over the IF but not a scorching liner to the OF. Or someone like Mark Reynolds or Adam Dunn whose BABIP is quite a bit higher than their average cause they K so much.

Jay's BA usually runs about 50 points lower than his BABIP, but right now it's 8 and his infield hit % is up a bit. It's possible he's the type of hitter who will maintain a BABIP of .330, but he's not the type of hitter who could maintain a .415 BABIP. He'll likely regress closer to a .350 average pretty quick, but after more than a season and a half, there's not a whole lotta reason to think his BABIP won't normalize around .330-.340 just cause of how he hits.

[wart57]

I think most big leaguers would tell you that the idea of guiding a 92 MPH fastball on the low outside corner into a 15 degree wedge no man's land between first and second base is an extraordinarily rare skill to possess even at that level.

Yet many can do it without thinking - Stan being one of them.

[Vidor]

I've grown to like him more and more. I didn't have a very high expectation from him in any regard, but he's exceeded what I thought he could already. I love having him in the lineup, and I'm not sure what I'd do once everyone is healthy.

?

Jay's going to play center field every day unless he gets hurt.

[ilstu24]

He's a very nice player to have around, while cost controlled. Not when you have to pay him big money.

[haltz]

I don't think he's a difference-maker, but for now he's a guy who helps you afford players that are and he's fine in an everyday role.

Part of the reason that people and projection systems are skeptical of his production, is that the list of career BABIPs over .350 is short and full of Hall of Famers. Same goes for Freese.

Ty Cobb .379
David Freese .368
Rogers Hornsby .366
Derek Jeter .361
Rod Carew .358
Ichiro Suzuki .357
Miguel Cabrera .354
Harry Heilmann .351
Joe Jackson .351
Tris Speaker .350
Jon Jay .350

But that's not to say that they can't still be good players if less hits start to fall.

BABIP is an interesting thing, I don't know how much it has to do with luck, and the old saying "hitting them where they ain't." Putting a ball in the gap is a skill. Not hitting can-o-corn fly balls is a skill; not grounding out feebly to short is a skill....and so on.

BABIP is a skill. Those are the top BABIPs of all time, and it's a who's who of great hitters and Hall of Famers. I'm saying that it's worth wondering if Freese and Jay might regress to the mean a little before ending up as skillful as the top ten of everyone who has ever played the game.

[lukethedrifter]

Or someone like Mark Reynolds or Adam Dunn whose BABIP is quite a bit higher than their average cause they K so much.

??

[Popeye_Card]

I've grown to like him more and more. I didn't have a very high expectation from him in any regard, but he's exceeded what I thought he could already. I love having him in the lineup, and I'm not sure what I'd do once everyone is healthy.

?

Jay's going to play center field every day unless he gets hurt.

Yeah, he's got the lock on CF because he's the only one on the roster who can still play it well. Offensively, the best 3 OF's we could trot out there would be Holliday, Beltran, Craig--but that's akin to playing an all-doubles defense.

[TAZ]

How does he compare to the 15 other NL starting CF'ers?

Better than humping a cantaloupe. Not as good as marrying Halle Berry.

This might make the most sense out of anything I've ever read on any topic ever.
And thanks for the numbers. That lines up with the eye-test.

[TAZ]

That's an interesting statement wart. I have always wondered how much control batters have over their ability to place a ball when they hit it.

For example, in the 10th inning of Game 6, did Berkman see how dep the outfield was and then handle the pitch well enough to keep it from going too deep; would have have been able to drive it into a gap had the OF been playing regularly; or did he simply try to hit the ball as hard as he could, that's all he could do, and we're all lucky that the Rangers had the 'no doubles' OF alignment?

In comparison, obviously Jay was lucky to get a little bloop land earlier that inning, and he had no control over that.

I can't remember who I heard it from, but it was someone pretty good at playing baseball... they said "Batters are hit producers, not hit directors."

But the ability to try to hit to certain fields is definitely a skill that is preached early on. I was watching highlights from the Nats I think and the infield was playing Werth (I think) with a really dramatic pull-shift. They showed 2 of his abs in a row and you could tell he was just trying to guide the ball in the hole between 1st and 2nd. Not hit hard at all but got singles both times, leading off an inning, trying to get on base.

So that's an example of what is being talked about with BABIP. I used to think that you'd be able to tell how much of a low BABIP was luck by only factoring LD%. Cause if all a guy does is hit weak little 6-3 grounders, he'll have a low BABIP but you can't say the usual "he's just been unlucky!" No, he's been getting beat.
On the flip side, if a guy has a knack for putting the ball in the general area he wants to, he'll have a higher BABIP, but you couldn't say "he's been lucky!" Well, maybe a little, but he's doing what he's trying.

It's almost like there needs to be a "success at doing what you're trying to do" stat. Hitting the ball to the right side to move a guy over. Hitting a flyball to the outfield for a sac fly. Hitting a line drive with no on or a guy on 2nd with 2 outs. Pushing a groundball to a vacated spot due to an infield shift. Does something like that exist?

[Jmodene]

It's almost like there needs to be a "success at doing what you're trying to do" stat. Hitting the ball to the right side to move a guy over. Hitting a flyball to the outfield for a sac fly. Hitting a line drive with no on or a guy on 2nd with 2 outs. Pushing a groundball to a vacated spot due to an infield shift. Does something like that exist?

I doubt such a stat exists, although perhaps you could extrapolate it by noting when a player hits the ball to an area where statistics show he doesn't usually hit it to, but that's definitive.

But there are ballplayers who do manage to cultivate an ability to control the bat sufficiently to hit the ball where they ain't, as the old Willie Keeler quote goes. Wasn't Rod Carew said to be a master of that? IIRC, Carew had a number of different batting stances, employing multiple stances even during a single game, in order to do this. And on a much, much, MUCH lower level, I can remember shifting my stance in an office softball game so I could hit the ball to right field instead of left, mainly because I wanted to see my boss have to chase after it.