John Buck 2012: Hey, He's OK

[Bobbob1313]

No we weren't.

[Beef]

Festa, when you ban MH please also see to it that Daft gets suspended for thinging.

[Swifty]

John 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.

You're changing the issue. The issue isn't what is and isn't lucky, the issue is what is put in versus what is coming out.

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).

[Bobbob1313]

So, instead of wringing your hands and disagreeing since it's me

Awesome.

[Jay]

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).

Please 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.

[Swifty]

Please 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.

Because that 1% in LD% represents a greater fluctuation (relatively speaking) than the K% rate. All % are not "equal."

[Bobbob1313]

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.

[Jay]

Because that 1% in LD% represents a greater fluctuation (relatively speaking) than the K% rate. All % are not "equal."

Can you expand? I'm not trying to do a "thing"; I'm just trying to understand this now.

[HUGG]

[emkayseven]

that's what he thinks about Rob Brantly