GatewayRedbirds.com

Richie Allen wrote:

InvincibleCakeEater wrote:

Richie Allen wrote:Just read where the Cardinals were considered a loser at the trade deadline. Can't say I disagree but I want to ask a question. I've heard this mentioned here and it was the point Passan was trying to make, "Because … rookie Jon Jay (and his .446 batting average on balls in play) is hitting well?" My question is what do you suppose a guy that's hitting a few points from .400, or was at the time, should have for a BABIP?

The year George Brett hit .390 he had a .368 BABIP. Ted Williams hit .406 with a .378 BABIP and .407.

The thing about Jay is that his BABIP is sky high, but his LD% is low. He's really not been hitting the ball particularly well, just somehow finding a hole 45% of the time he hits the ball.

I guess I was just wondering why Passan felt the need to bring up BABIP in Jay's situation. Everyone knows that he's not anywhere near a .400 hitter and he's likely to lose at least a hundred points off of his BA in the coming months. There couldn't possibly be a BABIP that would suggest that his current hitting is sustainable.

Because it's in vogue to razzle and dazzle you to explain the most obvious points of the game.

More likely, it's because the sports media is trying to impress us with how "with it" they are with the newer stats. Whether they actually *understand* them or not is another matter.

To the media, BAPIP is this year's version of Quality Starts.

Richie Allen wrote:

InvincibleCakeEater wrote:

Richie Allen wrote:Just read where the Cardinals were considered a loser at the trade deadline. Can't say I disagree but I want to ask a question. I've heard this mentioned here and it was the point Passan was trying to make, "Because … rookie Jon Jay (and his .446 batting average on balls in play) is hitting well?" My question is what do you suppose a guy that's hitting a few points from .400, or was at the time, should have for a BABIP?

The year George Brett hit .390 he had a .368 BABIP. Ted Williams hit .406 with a .378 BABIP and .407.

The thing about Jay is that his BABIP is sky high, but his LD% is low. He's really not been hitting the ball particularly well, just somehow finding a hole 45% of the time he hits the ball.

I guess I was just wondering why Passan felt the need to bring up BABIP in Jay's situation. Everyone knows that he's not anywhere near a .400 hitter and he's likely to lose at least a hundred points off of his BA in the coming months. There couldn't possibly be a BABIP that would suggest that his current hitting is sustainable.

He was probably just being more precise than "he's hitting over his head". Everyone knows that Jay isn't going to hit .400, and including the BABIP number gives you an indication of whether he's likely to trend down to .300 or all the way closer to .250.

Transmogrified Tiger wrote:

Richie Allen wrote:

InvincibleCakeEater wrote:

Richie Allen wrote:Just read where the Cardinals were considered a loser at the trade deadline. Can't say I disagree but I want to ask a question. I've heard this mentioned here and it was the point Passan was trying to make, "Because … rookie Jon Jay (and his .446 batting average on balls in play) is hitting well?" My question is what do you suppose a guy that's hitting a few points from .400, or was at the time, should have for a BABIP?

The year George Brett hit .390 he had a .368 BABIP. Ted Williams hit .406 with a .378 BABIP and .407.

The thing about Jay is that his BABIP is sky high, but his LD% is low. He's really not been hitting the ball particularly well, just somehow finding a hole 45% of the time he hits the ball.

I guess I was just wondering why Passan felt the need to bring up BABIP in Jay's situation. Everyone knows that he's not anywhere near a .400 hitter and he's likely to lose at least a hundred points off of his BA in the coming months. There couldn't possibly be a BABIP that would suggest that his current hitting is sustainable.

He was probably just being more precise than "he's hitting over his head". Everyone knows that Jay isn't going to hit .400, and including the BABIP number gives you an indication of whether he's likely to trend down to .300 or all the way closer to .250.

Yep. Bear in mind that his audience is not us, the stat nerds living in our mom's basement at 300 Stat Nerd Way, Statsylvania, Missouri.

as someone who played legion ball, i can tell you guys with most certainty that jay is in fact a .400 hitter

I didn't have time to chime in this weekend, but I'm not in favor of this deal. I was probably someone that wanted Westbrook more than most here, but the cost the Cards paid (in Ludwick) was too high.

That's my main problem with Mo. It seems he always pays too much. Holliday got paid too much, IMO. Loshe too much. Penny too much. Those deals to Lohse and Penny, and the holes both created by being on the DL, led to trading Ludwick for Westbrook.

Good post BW. It's not the player, it's the price.

BTW, I'm going to the Dodgers-Padres game tonight, I get to see Ludwick, my seats are on the right field foul line.

BW23 wrote:I didn't have time to chime in this weekend, but I'm not in favor of this deal. I was probably someone that wanted Westbrook more than most here, but the cost the Cards paid (in Ludwick) was too high.

That's my main problem with Mo. It seems he always pays too much. Holliday got paid too much, IMO. Loshe too much. Penny too much. Those deals to Lohse and Penny, and the holes both created by being on the DL, led to trading Ludwick for Westbrook.

Disagree with Holliday. It's not every day you get 31 year old LFers who are fairly consistently 5+ win players, and he got a good amount less than market value.

I think we have to see where Lohse is at for the next 2.5 years. Penny was a good deal at the time, he doesn't have a crystal ball. Lohse is on the DL with a freak injury.

What if he signed Carl Crawford to a 5/50M contract, and he tore his ACL next June, is that a bad signing because he got injured?

Trading Ludwick for Westbrook+Middling prospect is too much yes. Factor in money saved this year (WW deadline isn't past) and next year, I don't think this is a horrible horrible trade.

vinsanity wrote:Disagree with Holliday. It's not every day you get 31 year old LFers who are fairly consistently 5+ win players, and he got a good amount less than market value.

This makes no sense to me. Holliday was a free agent, thus was paid exactly what market value was.

I think we have to see where Lohse is at for the next 2.5 years. Penny was a good deal at the time, he doesn't have a crystal ball. Lohse is on the DL with a freak injury.

Lohse's deal was terrible when the pen hit the paper. We signed a guy during his career year and paid him like that was his norm. The DL stint just makes a bad deal worse. I had/have no qualms with the Penny deal.

What if he signed Carl Crawford to a 5/50M contract, and he tore his ACL next June, is that a bad signing because he got injured?

Trading Ludwick for Westbrook+Middling prospect is too much yes. Factor in money saved this year (WW deadline isn't past) and next year, I don't think this is a horrible horrible trade.

I think you should judge trades/signings based on when they happened, however, of the four deal's talked about here (Holliday, Lohse, Penny signings and Ludwick/Westbrook trade) I'd say two were neutral/slightly good and two were bad.