reiser wrote:ocmusicjunkie wrote:Very good read. Again, I think this proves what many of us already believe. And again, I bet some people are going to disagree and offer illogical reasoning for doing so. I'm afraid it's too complex for some of the non-believers to read.
that's a strikingly ignorant statement.
I think Tom Tippett pretty much opened and shut the "pitcher cannot control BABIP" argument pretty well.
Here's what the author of the original article (at the top of the thread) had to say about Tippett's article when I asked him.
Thanks for reading the article, and I'm glad you enjoyed it.
Yes, I have read the Tippett article. . In fact, I discuss it briefly at the end of the article. I think Tom's article is quite interesting, and it fits perfectly with my findings. We both find that pitchers have some consistent impact over balls in play over time. However, I go a little bit further to show that much of that control is captured in the DIPS metrics. I think many people view Tom's article as an argument against DIPS. I've read it several times, and I seem to have the opposite impression. He clearly believes in a weak-form DIPS as does McCracken. The question is, why do we observe pitchers having some control over balls in play over their careers AND see no correlation in BABIP after including DIPS components in the analysis? Well, I think my study answers that.