No we weren't.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
John Buck 2012: Hey, He's OK
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Originally posted by Bobbob1313 View PostJohn Buck had a .280 BABIP in his career prior to the Toronto season.
He has a .252 BABIP over the last two years.
You don't get to wave off Hanley's BABIP related struggles and then shit on Buck for a similar degree of flukiness regarding hits on balls in play. That's not the way to be intellectually honest.
Basically the only one of his "advanced" numbers that is down significantly over the last two seasons is XBH%, however that can obviously be seen as a result of the decrease in hits on balls in play.
John Buck is bad. A career .304 OBP, .405 SLG.
At his "best" (2009, 2010) he had a BABIP of .306 and .335, every other year he's been below .300 (.281 career average). Last year he was at .268, this year, .220. He's walking at a rate he's never done before in his career (15%, 7.8% career). If he starts "getting luckier" that has to even out. His OBP won't rise considerably since, logically, he's significantly overachieving in the walk department (arguably a result of hitting 8th, so it's not even clear cut "improved eye"). Moreover, he is hitting, almost perfectly, his career OBP (.304 career, .305 this year). His LD% is above his career average, (17.8%, career 17.1%) and his 25% K rate this year is right there where he's always been (23.7% career).
So, instead of wringing your hands and disagreeing since it's me, why don't you at least understand how clearly distinguishable what's happening with Hanley (everything adding up to "elite" Hanley years but his BABIP, which is a perfect mirror of "bad" Hanley 2011 despite everything going to shit in 2011 for him) and what's happening with John Buck (being a shitty baseball player with a bad BABIP but everything else looking like a John Buck kind of year).Last edited by Swifty; 07-21-2012, 02:55 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Swifty View PostHis LD% is above his career average, (17.8%, career 17.1%) and his 25% K rate this year is right there where he's always been (23.7% career).
Comment
-
Originally posted by jay576 View PostPlease explain how it is necessary to state his LD% is above his career average at a .7% difference and the say his K rate is career average with a 1.3% difference.
Comment
-
I don't think the math works out on that. Can you explain it?
Because 17.1 is 96.1 percent of 17.8, whereas the K% is 94.8 percent. So, I just don't see how it is a greater fluctuation.Last edited by Bobbob1313; 07-22-2012, 05:12 PM.poop
Comment
-
Comment