Neato Torpedo wrote:Well yeah, but can a "good mindset" drive a career .300 BABIP to .370?
Sports psychology is not an exact science and still very young. But to answer your question heres what I think.
Can a good mindset make a carrier .300 BABIP hitter to hit .370 BABIP in a single season?
I beleive yes.
Havin a good mindset throughout the season is another thing though.
Can a bad mindset make a carrier .300 BABIP hitter to hit .250 BABIP in a single season?
I believe yes.
Can a "good mindset" drive a career .300 BABIP to a carrier BABIP.370 in a single season?
I don't think so. Obviously there are limits.
Neato Torpedo wrote:Right, but what I'm saying is you can look at the batted ball profiles, BABIP, etc and compare them to their MLB numbers. Of course they're going to be less reliable, but if someone has a .350 BABIP in 2,000 minor league AB against a .290 BABIP in their rookie year, we can safely predict an uptick in BABIP the following year to .320 or so.
Thats the point.
What Im sayin that you cant predict what happens at the next level. You can only guess. And thats not the same.
In your example you expect improvement based on minor league numbers compared to major league numbers. But its not the way it works.
You have to look at all the reasons in both seasons. Skill set, player's improvement, level of competition etc... And even after you have everything you need, you can end up with cases like Wieters, Lind etc...
As a coach myself this is one reason that I dont like predictions. I dont think any coach likes predictions. Coaches like work ethics, skill sets, etc...
Neato Torpedo wrote:UZR is indeed flawed, since fielding metrics are still in their infancy. UZR in 2010 is like OPS in 1993; it only measures a few factors, but it's the best we've got for now. There's some new mechanism that's supposed to be installed in every major league ballpark sometime in the next year or two that measures reaction, routes, shifts, speed of ball, etc. When the data from that starts going up, we'll be able to derive more accurate fielding stats.
Neato Torpedo wrote:However, I wouldn't expect the Mets' 2009 pitching staff to have "beaten" BABIP. Five regular starters with an ERA above 5.00, team ERA of 4.43 (FIP 4.50, xFIP 4.73). Would you expect them to have a lot of weak ground balls compared to the statistical mean?
Not really, but its possible. The speed of all those batted balls are crucial. And we got no such data to prove anything.
I might be wrong, but one thing I can think of, that probably could explane the high ERA and low BABIP is that the Mets pitchers had one of the highest contact rate, plus one of the highest walk rate and a low K/BB rate.
Maybe you can look that up, cause I have no idea how to find such data.