16 minutes ago, bmags said:

Not totally true. 

If the claim is that Nick Madrigal will be able to support a higher BABIP (and therefore average since nearly all of his balls are in play), this article states the following in support:

- Harder contact does not correlate with BABIP

- RH pull hitters have higher babip (Nick Madrigal 46% pull% // 44% league wide in upper levels of minors)

- BABIP goes up as higher GB% goes up (Nick Madrigal 52% GB% // 43% league wide in upper levels of minors)

- BABIP goes down as FB% goes up (Nick Madrigal 24% fB% // 37% FB% league wide in upper levels of minors)

The following does not support it:

- Speed of player does not correlate with BABIP

Unknown

- Low Line drives correlate with higher BABIP

HOWEVER:

None of these are VERY strong correlations, but multiple together may indicate a higher BABIP.

Nick Madrigals AA BABIP is .400. League wide is .315. How much do the + correlations mean for elevating his BABIP? We will see. 

And the bolded is my point. All of the correlations are very weak and that's why my conclusion was that you have to look at each player individually.

 

13 minutes ago, bmags said:

I had very much thought that Moncada would be able to maintain a higher BABIP due to speed and his hard hit % so it is wild to me that this is not true.

As for this, are you saying that he won't be able to maintain a higher BABIP? I feel like players like Baez, Moncada, and Judge may not necessarily align with the article's claims completely, but they still routinely produce high BABIPs 

2 minutes ago, Jose Abreu said:

And the bolded is my point. All of the correlations are very weak and that's why my conclusion was that you have to look at each player individually.

 

As for this, are you saying that he won't be able to maintain a higher BABIP? I feel like players like Baez, Moncada, and Judge may not necessarily align with the article's claims completely, but they still routinely produce high BABIPs 

No I think he will mainly because he has, but the reasons he is able to did not line up to the reasons I thought caused it. There may be a switch hitter aspect to this, I don't know.

2 hours ago, bmags said:

No I think he will mainly because he has, but the reasons he is able to did not line up to the reasons I thought caused it. There may be a switch hitter aspect to this, I don't know.

Correlation is not causation, so while the things you listed may not correlate as youd think it does not mean that it doesnt cause certain players to have higher babips.

For example, speed on it's own may not correlate but speed combined with higher exit velocities and higher line drive rates may be a cause higher babips. Individually the correlation may not exist because the majority of speed guys may not hit the ball with authority and the majority of guys who do make hard contact consistently might be power guys who dont have the speed to maximize their outputs.

Typically if you combined speed, with quality contact and all field approach you get a higher BABIP.

5 hours ago, SoxBlanco said:

When you strike out so infrequently, isn’t your quality of contact going to be lower?

Not necessarily, no. Why would quality of contact need to go down for K rate to go down?

2 hours ago, thxfrthmmrs said:

This helps explain BABIP from a quality of contact perspective. Hard hit data is not available in MILB, but I think soft GB and FB are the most common occurrence for Madrigal right now. If he becomes more a line drive hitter, even making soft to medium contact would help boost his BABIP tremendously

https://www.fantraxhq.com/sabermetrics-quality-contact-babip/

 

Yes, this is the outstanding question in Madrigal's development that will determine his career path. He needs to develop more of a line drive contact profile. If he does that, the sky is the limit.

I would trust that a guy with an 80 hit tool will find a bat path to maximize that contact skill. I have no concerns about Madrigal. 

5 minutes ago, Dam8610 said:

Not necessarily, no. Why would quality of contact need to go down for K rate to go down?

I don’t think it needs to, and I’m certainty not an expert on BABIP, but I’m just picturing a guy protecting with two strikes and never striking out. Most likely, those balls are not going to be hit hard. 

But I admittedly was not thinking about the high ground ball rate that could cause a high BABIP. 

I just didn’t understand how you were claiming that a low K rate would cause a high BABIP. Seems like a low K rate would cause a higher batting average, but not a higher BABIP.

8 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

I would trust that a guy with an 80 hit tool will find a bat path to maximize that contact skill. I have no concerns about Madrigal. 

Completely agree. I’m very confident in Madrigal. 

2 hours ago, SoxBlanco said:

I don’t think it needs to, and I’m certainty not an expert on BABIP, but I’m just picturing a guy protecting with two strikes and never striking out. Most likely, those balls are not going to be hit hard. 

But I admittedly was not thinking about the high ground ball rate that could cause a high BABIP. 

I just didn’t understand how you were claiming that a low K rate would cause a high BABIP. Seems like a low K rate would cause a higher batting average, but not a higher BABIP.

K rate does nothing to BABIP. A low K rate will correlate to a higher BA because BABIP x (1-K%) will approximate BA, especially for players with low HR totals. A player who hit 0 HR, 0 SF, 0 Sac Bunts, and struck out 0 times would have BABIP = BA.

EDIT: Went back and read my post, I see why you asked. I was referring to not striking out as opposed to low K rate. A strikeout has a .000 BA. The BABIP of any contact is higher, as seen in the article shared by thxfrthmmrs.

Edited July 10, 20196 yr by Dam8610

1. Robert
2. Kopech
3. Cease
4. Vaughn
5. Madrigal
6. Dunning
7. Walker
8. Stiever
9. Dalquist
10. Collins

Little different than the OP.

Edited July 10, 20196 yr by CWSpalehoseCWS

6 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Correlation is not causation, so while the things you listed may not correlate as youd think it does not mean that it doesnt cause certain players to have higher babips.

For example, speed on it's own may not correlate but speed combined with higher exit velocities and higher line drive rates may be a cause higher babips. Individually the correlation may not exist because the majority of speed guys may not hit the ball with authority and the majority of guys who do make hard contact consistently might be power guys who dont have the speed to maximize their outputs.

Typically if you combined speed, with quality contact and all field approach you get a higher BABIP.

I used a couple free calculators from Fangraphs this morning on Moncada.  Some are a little dated I think I used the 2017 calc on moncada for babib and it had him at an expected babip of 365 which completely matches the eye test on that one.  Moncada is fast and hits the shit out of the ball that seems an obvious high babip guy but other guys like madrigal that don't really smoke it (ichiro maybe is the prime example) but can hit a lot of well placed line drives and really bust it to 1st can also have a very high babip without looking much at all like Moncada's batted ball profile.  

Speed is critical tho.  Look at Avi, he's fast to 1st and it gets him about 10 hits a year.  If you hit a lot of ground balls and you're fast you can make it work even in today's game.  It helps Madrigal will have a spot at 2B because while I do think he'll hit for average he won't have any power.  It's just not happening.  Maybe he tops out at .120 iso.  Oh well that's what the other guys are for.  Madrigal just needs to be a solid regular in the grand scheme.

30 minutes ago, CWSpalehoseCWS said:

1. Robert
2. Kopech
3. Cease
4. Vaughn
5. Madrigal
6. Dunning
7. Walker
8. Stiever
9. Dalquist
10. Collins

Little different than the OP.

Steiver would definitely be in the 11 to 15 range for me.  I’m torn on where I’d place Dalquist & Thompson.  They’d be in the mix as well, but not sure I could put them ahead of Pilkington, Adolfo, & Rutherford at the moment and there are a couple other guys in that range I could make a strong argument they should be below as well (Gonzalez, Burger, & Lambert).

4 minutes ago, chitownsportsfan said:

I used a couple free calculators from Fangraphs this morning on Moncada.  Some are a little dated I think I used the 2017 calc on moncada for babib and it had him at an expected babip of 365 which completely matches the eye test on that one.  Moncada is fast and hits the shit out of the ball that seems an obvious high babip guy but other guys like madrigal that don't really smoke it (ichiro maybe is the prime example) but can hit a lot of well placed line drives and really bust it to 1st can also have a very high babip without looking much at all like Moncada's batted ball profile.  

Speed is critical tho.  Look at Avi, he's fast to 1st and it gets him about 10 hits a year.  If you hit a lot of ground balls and you're fast you can make it work even in today's game.  It helps Madrigal will have a spot at 2B because while I do think he'll hit for average he won't have any power.  It's just not happening.  Maybe he tops out at .120 iso.  Oh well that's what the other guys are for.  Madrigal just needs to be a solid regular in the grand scheme.

I see him slotted in the 9 hole.  If the dude can hit .280-.300 with around a .350ish OBP and good defense he's worth it.  We are going to have a shit load of power in the lineup already.

2 minutes ago, BackDoorBreach said:

I see him slotted in the 9 hole.  If the dude can hit .280-.300 with around a .350ish OBP and good defense he's worth it.  We are going to have a shit load of power in the lineup already.

Yea all I want is 10 run plus (so near gold glove but he should be able to do it if any of the damn reports are accurate) defense at 2B and a 350 OBP with 30-35 steals.  That's 3 WAR or maybe 4 if he's an iron man 160 game guy.  

It's exciting to see him succeeding with such a crazy profile I am a doubter but I'm coming around.  he handles the bat well which I worried about it's not so much that he's overmatched it's just he doesn't really approach hitting like anybody else in today's game.

Edited July 10, 20196 yr by chitownsportsfan

28 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Steiver would definitely be in the 11 to 15 range for me.  I’m torn on where I’d place Dalquist & Thompson.  They’d be in the mix as well, but not sure I could put them ahead of Pilkington, Adolfo, & Rutherford at the moment and there are a couple other guys in that range I could make a strong argument they should be below as well (Gonzalez, Burger, & Lambert).

Oh man Dalquist and Thompson are no doubters ahead of pilkington for me and absolutely above burger. I'm not sure dalquist is behind any pitcher after dunning.

30 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Steiver would definitely be in the 11 to 15 range for me.  I’m torn on where I’d place Dalquist & Thompson.  They’d be in the mix as well, but not sure I could put them ahead of Pilkington, Adolfo, & Rutherford at the moment and there are a couple other guys in that range I could make a strong argument they should be below as well (Gonzalez, Burger, & Lambert).

I could totally see that, I just think some guys really needed to show more than they have so far this season. I really wish we would have seen more out of Gonzalez and Rutherford in the first half. Adolfo, Burger, and Lambert being hurt lowers them considerably for me. I can't think of a guy who failed to have a single AB for over 2 years actually turn around and become a legitimate contributor. Not trying to Burger bash - I actually really like the guy - I'm just not sure how he can really be considered anywhere higher than 15 at the moment.  

7 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Correlation is not causation, so while the things you listed may not correlate as youd think it does not mean that it doesnt cause certain players to have higher babips.

For example, speed on it's own may not correlate but speed combined with higher exit velocities and higher line drive rates may be a cause higher babips. Individually the correlation may not exist because the majority of speed guys may not hit the ball with authority and the majority of guys who do make hard contact consistently might be power guys who dont have the speed to maximize their outputs.

Typically if you combined speed, with quality contact and all field approach you get a higher BABIP.

Instead of running   correlation stats run a multiple stepwise regression. It will give you the predictive value of each variable when built upon the other.

44 minutes ago, bmags said:

Oh man Dalquist and Thompson are no doubters ahead of pilkington for me and absolutely above burger. I'm not sure dalquist is behind any pitcher after dunning.

Yeah, I’m probably overthinking it with Pilkington.  I’d still probably put Stiever ahead of them for the moment.  His mix of stuff & results is good enough IMO to warrant next best pitching prospect after Dunning.

9 hours ago, ptatc said:

Instead of running   correlation stats run a multiple stepwise regression. It will give you the predictive value of each variable when built upon the other.

Yes but wouldn't the double declining balance approach yield better outputs? (kidding...I flunked math)

10 hours ago, bmags said:

Oh man Dalquist and Thompson are no doubters ahead of pilkington for me and absolutely above burger. I'm not sure dalquist is behind any pitcher after dunning.

You say this before Dalquist throws his first pro pitch.  I sense that you know something about him that most of us here do not know.  Why are you so high on Dalquist?  I had not even heard of him before the draft, not that that is an acid test or anything.  Just wondering.

13 minutes ago, oldsox said:

You say this before Dalquist throws his first pro pitch.  I sense that you know something about him that most of us here do not know.  Why are you so high on Dalquist?  I had not even heard of him before the draft, not that that is an acid test or anything.  Just wondering.

Not really, people are just severely undercounting them because they are prep pitchers moreso than if they were college outfielders.

By the same token, why are we rating Vaughn so high when he has barely played a game?

I will take the profile of prep pitcher with advanced strike throwing ability, low to mid 90s fastball, and good physique over a high 80s throwing college pitcher who has a 5.5 ERA in A+. Yes, part of this is because Dalquist hasn't failed yet, but he is already more valuable because of what he offers.

Thompson is a bit more of a variable but he has much higher upside of being a starter, versus pilkington who I just can't believe will be more than depth.

I think the Sox are in for a pretty serious fall in the farm ratings;  they haven't kept up with the drafting, international signings, etc.

That said, I do get the feeling that prospects 11-30 are much more interesting than they have been in a while, so they may bounce back up or at least stabilize in the 15-20 rank, which I think is the best they can do in normal times with the current farm and FO investment and infrastructure.

1 minute ago, GreenSox said:

I think the Sox are in for a pretty serious fall in the farm ratings;  they haven't kept up with the drafting, international signings, etc.

That said, I do get the feeling that prospects 11-30 are much more interesting than they have been in a while, so they may bounce back up or at least stabilize in the 15-20 rank, which I think is the best they can do in normal times with the current farm and FO investment and infrastructure.

I actually am not even sure if its the group in 11-30 as much as a bit after, but there is actually some very promising youth which I feel like has the possibility of blossoming into top ten prospects versus a few years ago where as soon as they entered the system it seemed like they would be what they were, an 11-30 guy (like Sheets, pilkington, etc).

Even while several are struggling in assignments where they are very young, they are holding their own, improving at points, and hold out hope that they can put it together. That's great. 

But yes, due to graduations alone it will be a big drop, I'm not sure this is guaranteed top 15 due to the drop in depth.

I don't see anyone other than Cease graduate that's currently a prospect before next year's lists. The year after you'd lose Robert, Madrigal, Kopech, and probably Vaughn as well. By that time we could see some guys jump up into the top 100 on a few of the lists, but it's okay for your system to be in the bottom half of baseball if you are loaded with good young players all over your roster.

12 minutes ago, TomPickle said:

but it's okay for your system to be in the bottom half of baseball if you are loaded with good young players all over your roster.

Or you can be in the top half and have a loaded major league roster like the Braves, Yankees, Dodgers, Rays, Astros, Twins,  etc.

The Rays are particularly annoying.  They won 68 in 2016 and had the #19 Farm in January 2017.   They'll make the playoffs this year and have a top 10 farm (maybe top 5).  The Sox won't make the playoffs and have a bottom half farm.

12 minutes ago, GreenSox said:

Or you can be in the top half and have a loaded major league roster like the Braves, Yankees, Dodgers, Rays, Astros, Twins,  etc.

The Rays are particularly annoying.  They won 68 in 2016 and had the #19 Farm in January 2017.   They'll make the playoffs this year and have a top 10 farm (maybe top 5).  The Sox won't make the playoffs and have a bottom half farm.

Almost all of their current depth that bumped them up was added in 2014-2015 in international or draft. Robert being a top 5 pick is absolutely worth it, but that is where not having signed a super class in intl hurts a bit in depth.