Well, OK, then.

Nady takes a backseat to Swisher in 2006, and slightly backseat to Swisher in 2007, and Swisher is not even in the car in 2008.

Evan3457 wrote:

Your main premise is that Nady outperformed Swisher in important(high-leverage) situations over the last 3 seasons.

No. My premise is that Nady has done fine in these spots – and that I have no issue with him batting in there. Did I not write(?) -

“I’m not here to knock Nick Swisher. More so, these numbers tell us, in important game situations, Xavier Nady does not take a back-seat to Swisher in any shape or form.”

Oh, one last thing, which actually was the first thing I noticed. You’re not really playing fair there, Steve. Your main premise is that Nady outperformed Swisher in important(high-leverage) situations over the last 3 seasons.

But that’s rather distorted, isn’t it?

Swisher clearly outperformed Nady in those circumstances in 2006, he slightly outperformed him in 2007. Nady overwhelmed Swisher in 2008, and on that basis, comes out ahead over the 3 seasons.

Well, that makes it a debate, doesn’t it? Let me clarify. Suppose you had one hitter who went .270-25-80 for 2 seasons, and .210-10-45 in the 3rd, and another hitter who went .250-15-60 in two seasons, and .300-35-100.

The 2nd hitter would be better on average, in all 3 categories. But the 1st hitter would’ve been significantly better in 2 of them. So, would you rather have a 2/3 chance of a solid player, and a 1/3 chance of a bust, or a 1/3 chance of a borderline MVP candidate, and a 2/3 chance of a mediocrity.

There is no “correct” answer; it really depends on the rest of your team. If your team is solid, you might want the 1st player. If he busts, you can bench him by June and replace him, especially if you have the 2nd player waiting on the bench. If you have a weak team, and need some big breaks to contend, then you might want the 2nd player, and pray to get lucky.

Note that last well: the 2nd player is the one whose performance is more likely be fluky.
=================================
OK, maybe Swisher tanked last year because he can’t handle high expectations, or because he’s lost it. But I’m going to want to see that again before I draw that conclusion.

And I’m done bloviating. For now.

Hmmm… I said something that doesn’t quite mean what I meant to say…

When I said a player’s BABIP (or BAVG) is not under his control, that’s just plain wrong. Obviously, the better hitter a player is, the higher both will be. The general overall level of batting performance is not only largely within the player’s control, it largely defines him.

What I meant to was that the gap between BABIP and BAVG is what is largely not within the player’s control. They bounce up and down together, for pretty much every player.

Not exactly in unison, and there are exceptions from season-to-season, but for the vast majority of players and pitchers, BABIP (or BABIP against for pitchers) makes a huge difference in the performance record, and it can vary enough due to luck to make a player’s record look considerably worse or better than it “really” was.

A classic example: the “improvement” in last year’s Rays pitching staff compared to the improvement in their overall team defense, especially up the middle. This improvement dropped the Rays’ opposition BABIP, and was obviously linked to their dramatically improved pitching, and thus to their meteoric rise in the standings.

Steve Lombardi wrote:

OTOH, those in favor of Swisher point to his low BABIP and offer that he just hit in bad luck last season.
“Bad luck” is a “reasonable argument”? Really? Sounds more like a theory, to me…

It’s not really a “theory” Steve; the general plexiglass principle applies here.

Players whose performance is far from the norm, especially due to random chance, are extremely likely to rebound in the other direction. Swisher, unless he’s lost bat speed that nobody has detected is VERY likely to be considerably improved this season, for the same reason that Joe Saunders, the Angels’ pitcher is very likely to have be considerably worse.

I can find many batters who had a low BABIP and who did not rebound to have a nice season the following year.

This is quite true, but primarily because there are a lot of players. The fact that you can find 20, or even 50, regular hitters who don’t rebound in a given doesn’t negate the fact that the probability of a marked improvement in Swisher’s hitting line is quite high, especially given the fact that his line drive rate actually went UP last season from 2007.

Swisher is actually fairly typical…his BABIP/Real BAVG numbers for his 4 full seasons:

2005: .266/.236 +33
2006: .287/.254 +33
2007: .308/.262 +46
2008: .251/.219 +32

In fact, Swisher’s Real BAVG lags his BABIP by about .030 (every season except 2007, when it was about .045); it’s fairly consistent across various levels of performance.
==================================
But hey, let’s take a better player, a more consistent player, a player for whom no one who claim his batting performance was lucky, or unlucky, or due to anything but his own skill, grit, determination, guts, and uh…marbles. Let’s try Derek Jeter, from 1996-2008:

1996: .368/.314 +52
1997: .347/.291 +56
1998: .377/.324 +53
1999: .400/.349 +51
2000: .388/.339 +49
2001: .344/.311 +33
2002: .338/.297 +41
2003: .380/.324 +56
2004: .317/.292 +25
2005: .353/.309 +44
2006: .394/.343 +51
2007: .368/.322 +44
2008: .336/.300 +36

It’s pretty obvious from Jeter’s record that BABIP is very closely tied to BAVG, and not under a player’s control very much, if at all (except for power; hit more HR and 2B out of the outfielder’s reach, and your BABIP and BAVG must go up). The gap between Jeter’s BABIP and his BAVG is reasonably consistent. For most of his career its about 45-50 points, gradually sliding as he grows older, probably due to diminishing power (fewer unplayable EBH) and diminishing speed (fewer infield hits).

Saying that a guy is due to do better because his BABIP was low sounds more like hope, actually, than a reasonable case…
Maybe Swisher had crappy numbers last year because he sucked and/or dogged it? That’s just as possible, no?

Possible, but not likely. Again, he hit more line drives, and fewer groundballs and flyballs, and his average went down. He did K at a higher rate, equivalent to about 20 extra K’s, and that should have cost him about 40 points in BAVG. But the improved line drive rate should’ve added back about 25-30 of those points. He should’ve hit about .250; instead, he hit .220.

No, it’s far more likely to be luck than it is to be a different level of performance.

In my opinion.

YankCrank – thanks. I’m actually pretty read up on the topic since DIPs first came out. And, I appreciate the thought. That said, I’m just saying, here, that sometimes, big feet just means big feet. And, all the Yankees fans out there who are hanging their hats on a good season from Swisher just may be surprised when he plays like a turkey this year. All the underlying stats and trends in the world can be misleading. And, we won’t know for sure, on Swisher, until we see him play, everyday, as a Yankee. I just hope, if he does stink in New York, that all those fans and experts who say he should start, etc., offer up that they were wrong…if that day comes. I know that I’ll be first in line to say I was wrong, if he turns out to be a good player in 2009.

Steve, if you’d really like to understand the babip argument in it’s fullest than i’d recommend referring to the fangraphs write up they did on the Nady/Swisher battle. It’s not as simple as an argument of one year of low babip and people saying he was unlucky. If that was the actual basis for argument, than i’d agree that it’s not anything to bank on. It’s just one reference of many stats that outline how Swisher is a better ballplayer. Check it out and let me know what you think. There’s also another good argument with the same stats by Driveline Mechanics. Both links below.

FanGraphs: http://tinyurl.com/azwben
Driveline: http://tinyurl.com/cvbyjo

YankCrank wrote:

If somebody presented a reasonable argument other than personal feelings than i’d listen but it hasn’t come out yet.

OTOH, those in favor of Swisher point to his low BABIP and offer that he just hit in bad luck last season.

“Bad luck” is a “reasonable argument”? Really? Sounds more like a theory, to me…

I can find many batters who had a low BABIP and who did not rebound to have a nice season the following year. Saying that a guy is due to do better because his BABIP was low sounds more like hope, actually, than a reasonable case…

Maybe Swisher had crappy numbers last year because he sucked and/or dogged it? That’s just as possible, no?

I don’t see anyone who has sensibly argued in favor of Nady over Swisher.
—-

Me neither MJ, all we get is a lot of “but he sucked last year” and “omg he only hit like .219!” It’s a bunch of crap. If somebody presented a reasonable argument other than personal feelings than i’d listen but it hasn’t come out yet.

Rob Neyer weighed in yesterday on the same issue. He reiterates Steven Goldman’s point (which I’ve linked to on here twice before) and agrees that Swisher should be starting over Nady. Other than Girardi reverting to the tired old instincts of every manager that has ever lived, I don’t see anyone who has sensibly argued in favor of Nady over Swisher.

To quote Neyer, “So, let’s see…younger, better against right-handed pitching, better fielder, better baserunner…gee, why would you want to give that guy a regular job?”

http://tinyurl.com/c8bcte