Hanley Ramirez 2012: He Gone

[Erick]

So he's been unlucky in a John Buck kind of way?

Lol
--------------------

This board sucks for plenty of reasons. That might be one of them, but not because of that one. It's because everyone has done it before, including (and I'm almost certain of this) you, Swift.
--------------------
One thing to consider is that he is clearly no longer as fast as he was, which is going to known his BABIP down in some indeterminate way.

One way it would clearly manifest itself is on infield hits; he has six infield hits on 118 GB, for a 5.1% IFH rate. His career rate is 8.9% and it was higher at his peak, so we could say he has probably lost between 4-5 hits. That may not seem like much, but it's the difference between his current BABIP and a .290-.295 mark.

Of course, it's still a small enough sample size that this could all be the result of noise, and it will even out. Just saying, there are other factors beyond simply luck to consider.

I said this once and you basically shrugged it off.

[Omar]

Can someone try and reexplain this BABIP to me? Someone tried once before, but I just still don't understand it. Thanksss

It's a batter's average only on at bats when he puts the ball in play. So, in essence, remove ABs where he struck out.

Batting Average on Balls In Play

[Erick]

It's a batter's average only on at bats when he puts the ball in play. So, in essence, remove ABs where he struck out.

Batting Average on Balls In Play

And HR's as well.

[Mainge]

Can someone try and reexplain this BABIP to me? Someone tried once before, but I just still don't understand it. Thanksss

Stands for Batting Average on Balls In Play. Basically, it's the percentage of time the player gets a hit when the ball is put in play.

In Hanley's case, as Swift said, he's never had a BABIP nearly this low and he's hitting roughly the same or a slightly higher line drive percentage so he's hitting the ball decently well.

It suggests he's been very unlucky.

BABIP generally normalizes over the course of the year. You can go to fangraphs and type in random players names and generally see how lucky or unlucky someones been.

[Miamarlin21]

So do I take away strikeouts and homeruns and just calculate his average from there?

[Mainge]

Basically. Fangraphs does it for you though.
--------------------
And don't think of it as an end all be all. It's just one of many tools you can use to help give you an idea of what's happening out there.

[Miamarlin21]

So Buck's average "jumps" from .176 to .211 with BABIP? That isn't too encouraging. Maybe I am missing something.

[Mainge]

I think it would be .220.

[Miamarlin21]

Still, no bueno.

[Mainge]

But if you've learned anything from us, it's that batting average in a vacuum is very unimportant.

He'd have a a .350 OBP. Very good.
--------------------
MM21, which player is more useful to the team? Player A that bats .280 and has a .320 on base percentage? Or Player B who bats .220 and has a .350 on base percentage?

[Bobbob1313]

I said this once and you basically shrugged it off.

Kind of. You said it with regards to his overall production, not BABIP. The effect was negligible then, whereas it has sustained itself over a somewhat larger sample size now.

[nny]

With a .280 BABIP, his slash line would be

.220/.340/.362/.702

Which would be 16 out of 24 catchers with at least 200 PA. League average NL C is .720 OPS

Still would be a position you would want to upgrade.

It was a bad signing at the time that's been made worse because he's regressed off his career norms.

Other C's with career OPS+ near John Buck's that signed that off season and their production since

Rod Barajas (1/3.2m signed 2011, 7.2m made past 2 years), 94 OPS+
Yorivt Torreable (2/6.2m), 76 OPS+
Miguel Olivo (2/7m), 74 OPS+

And then there's John Buck's 3/18m contract. The past two years (12m), he's made almost twice as much as the three above, and has a 81 OPS+ to show for it.

John Buck really isn't so much a "problem" because finding good C's are hard. There's a reason he (And the above) are still starting C. It's a position of need, yes, but it's also something where there isn't much that could be done about it.

The problem is we payed him twice as much than what the going rate was for a guy of his caliber and we are stuck with that for another year.

[Miamarlin21]

But if you've learned anything from us, it's that batting average in a vacuum is very unimportant.

He'd have a a .350 OBP. Very good.
--------------------
MM21, which player is more useful to the team? Player A that bats .280 and has a .320 on base percentage? Or Player B who bats .220 and has a .350 on base percentage?

The latter OBP you listed is better, but only by 30 points. And that is the only thing Buck is giving. Everything else is down and I don't think him having a good OBP justifies or gives him a pass for doing horrible at everything else. I'd rather have a well-balanced player who maybe doesn't have as high OBP but gives more than one dimension. I understand you need to get on base to score runs but I don't know if that outweighs all of his badness.

[Bobbob1313]

Imperfect players can still be valuable, though.

[Miamarlin21]

Is he providing good defense and game calling? That could make up for some of his faults, but if he's not than I really think he isn't valuable at all. Even if he gets on base, no one is bringing him in right now (which obviously isn't his fault, but still.)