A Look at Jered Weaver

Jered Weaver may have hit his career highs (ERA in 2011, Ks in 2010), but he's still a great pitcher and should remain at the top of his game for a few years. This article's a nice breakdown of why.

4 months ago varrys 4 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Master of the Obvious

I’m not biting, clickwhore.

by yeswecan on Jan 18, 2012 11:47 AM PST reply actions 3 recs

I used to hate the new google search thing, but it does come in handy.

You can look at a site before ~~they collect money~~ you click on the link

"We are the JeDi, the ultimate power in the universe. We will do as we choose. And we will destroy any who dare stand in our way."

by ladybug on Jan 18, 2012 5:40 PM PST up reply actions

I don't fully buy the "luck" argument with a stat like BABIP.

Luck may be a small part of it, whether from a hitter’ or pitcher’s perspective, but there’s more to that stat.

For example, I’ve seen several people write about how Vernon Wells’ low BABIP relative to his career average was due to bad luck. Let me just say, if you watched Vernon Wells last year, you know that’s not true. The reality was that he was making worse contact than normal. He was hitting a dinker ground ball or his infamous infield pop-up. When you make good contact, good things happen. That’s when you force the defense to make a play, and sometimes you get lucky with a defensive mistake. Vernon hit the ball like a girl last year, which is why he had an awful BABIP.

Same deal for pitchers. Weav had a great opposing BABIP because he was fooling hitters. When you pitch well, as Weaver did last year, hitters are less likely to make good contact. If they make bad contact, like Vernon Wells, they will have an awful BABIP. Simple as that.

More than anything, this stat is best used to see what kind of contact a hitter makes, not how “lucky” he is.

by moralesforpresident on Jan 18, 2012 2:56 PM PST reply actions

BABIP is an indicator to look for other things

Obviously not every player regresses to the .300 average of all MLB. Each player has his own career average, and like you said, it can be used to indicate how good or bad someone’s game is. When a player has a large change in BABIP, I look at the factors that could explain why.

The last two years, Weaver has been able to get hitters to swing at more pitches out of the zone. His O-Swing% jumped from the mid to low 20s in his first years to 33% and 32% in the last two years. That coupled with IFFB% does seem to indicate hitters are making bad contact, which will allow his BABIP to remain lower than the MLB average, and perhaps even his own career average. I believe he can remain in the .270s, maybe even the .260s. But still, it’s hard to assume he can repeat and maintain a .250 BABIP going forward.

The way I see it, if there’s a change in BABIP, it’s a reason to look for other underlying reasons why. One year of change doesn’t mean a new, permanent level, unless you can find data to support it. I’ll assume two consecutive years of consistent changes means he’s found a new level.

Big leaps in BABIP improvements aren’t usually sustainable, which is where luck has to play a factor. Look at the lowest BABIP pitchers from 2010 and then from 2011. Ted Lilly was #3 in 2010, and he was #14 in 2011, but there was still a large difference between the two, and after a very low BABIP in 2010 he returned to his previous levels in 2011. Cain (#6, #13), Kennedy (#10, #26), and Kershaw (#30, #22) were the only other SP to stay in the top-30 in BABIP for both years.

If Weaver has hit a new level at .250 and repeats in 2012, I’ll buy into it more. But overall, it he’ll likely regress a bit. He’d need a lot of variables to repeat in order to maintain the .250 BABIP, but if he can do it, it’s more clearly an increase in skill.

by varrys on Jan 18, 2012 7:35 PM PST up reply actions