No player on the Dodgers has been the center of drama and controversy this season as much as Matt Kemp has. After hitting .297/.352/.490 in his first full season last year as the Dodgers' starting center fielder, many had high hopes that the 25 year old Kemp would increase his ascension into super stardom in 2010. This season, however, Kemp has been anything but stellar. Currently he is hitting .257/.314/.443 and has watched his wOBA drop by over 40 points. Fans, the media, coaches, and even manager Joe Torre have attributed Kemp's regression to everything from a lack of hustle, to "bone-headedness", to  even his new girlfriend Rihanna. Yet one factor in Kemp's hitting that has been largely ignored is his Batting Average on Balls Batted In Play (BABIP). As you may well know, BABIP is often used to determine how "lucky" or "unlucky" a hitter is. This year Kemp's BABIP is .308, much lower than last season's .341 and his career BABIP of .350. Clearly Kemp is having poor luck this year, but how much is it affecting his production compared to years prior?

One such idea I came up with is to use a "three-year average." What I like to do is to take the average BABIP of a player's previous 3 years and see what a player would hit in the current season if his BABIP were that average instead. This is very much similar (in fact it's how I got the idea) to how economists factor out prices when comparing "nominal" to "real" GDP. This is often used to factor out the volatility inflation can have on production in an economy. Similarly, I use a three-year average to factor out the volatility a player's BABIP has on run-production at any given time. The reason I use a three-year average instead of "base years" (as most economists do) is for the sake of simplicity. And the reason why I don't use a player's career BABIP is due to large and small sample and the failure to capture trends (as hitters do tend to have "some" control over BABIP). Lets use an example:

Currently Mark Teixeira is hitting a line of .256/.362/.495. These numbers are far below his career line of .287/.377/.540, leading many people to wonder whether or not he's "declining." Yet his 2010 BABIP is currently .262, lower than any of the three seasons prior, and much lower than his career BABIP of .304. To figure out Tex's three-year average I take his BABIP of 2007, 2008,  and 2009 (.339, .316, .302) and get a "real" BABIP of .319. Clearly this is well above his "nominal" BABIP of .262. Now how do we find the production Tex would have if his current production reflected his the "real" BABIP? First, I need to find out Tex's batting average. I take the number of at-bats (454) and subtract the number of HR (23) and SO (69) to figure out how many balls Tex has hit into play (342). I then multiply this number by his "real" BABIP to figure out how many "non-HR" hits Tex would have, and add this number to the amount of HR he has to get the total number of hits (136). I then take this number and divide by the total number of at-bats he has had to get his "real" batting average. To figure out his "real" OBP, I take the number of hits I've previously calculated and add his BB (69) and HBP (8) together and divide that number by the amount of PA (536) Tex has. To record  his "real" SLG is even more simpler. I assume that Tex's ISO (.239) would stay constant and simply add that number to his "real" batting average, which I had calculated before. Thus Tex's 2010 "real" batting line looks something like this:

.298/.398/.537

This is what Teixeira's 2010 line would be if his BABIP were similar to that of the previous 3 years. This line is actually much better than his stated career line of .287/.377/.540, and is not too far off from his 2009 performance of .292/.383/.565. Therefore "luck" or lack thereof has had a lot to do with Mark Teixeira's performance in 2010.

Let's take another example. Currently Adrian Beltre is having one hell of a year for the Boston Red Sox. His 2010 "nominal" line of .328/.366/.568 is his highest since 2004, and is well above his career line of .274/.328/.461. However, Beltre's 2010 BABIP is a robust .344; well above his career BABIP of .294 and his three-year average of .290. So what's Beltre's real production line for 2010? Using the procedures described above we get this:

.282/.322/.522

These numbers are still better than his career or 2009 numbers, but they suggest that luck has also had a lot to do with his recent production surge.

So going back to our old friend Matt Kemp; how much has his "luck" hurt him this season? Well Kemp's BABIP the previous three years have been (.396, .361, .345) giving him a three-year average of .367. Using the procedures before we get this as Kemp's "real" 2010 line:

.291/.345/.478

This line suggests that Kemp's OPS is 19 points lower than 2009, indicating his performance has dropped off a little as his ISO has decreased a little while his SO have increased by over 21% from 2009. However, this line is still very much close to last year's numbers than his "nominal" line of .257/.314/.433, suggesting that Kemp really hasn't been as bad as his numbers would otherwise suggest. So perhaps Kemp's so-called "defenders" are right. Maybe Kemp isn't lazy or "bone-headed." Maybe he just needs to catch a break?

Edit:

Since people might ask for it, I'm going to post some "real" triple slash lines for several Dodger hitters:

Andre Ethier .318 "real" BABIP .293/.358/.502

Casey Blake .318 "real" BABIP .257/.329/.407

Rafael Furcal .325 "real" BABIP .293/.358/.469

James Loney .321 "real" BABIP .283/.333/.413

Russell Martin .338 "real" BABIP .258/.355/.343

Manny Ramirez .338 "real" BABIP .305/.399/.504

Scott Podsednik .326 "real" BABIP .283/.325/.368

via img.photobucket.com

As many of you know, today is Festivus, a day when all of us come together to express how each and everyone of us has disappointed each other in the past year. Since 2005, as a way of celebrating the holiday without offending anyone, each year I discuss how the Dodgers have disappointed me each year. And as Dodger fans, you all know they do a lot to disappoint us each year. So here I share for you the members of the Dodgers organization who have disappointed me in 2009/

Continue reading this post »

On BBTF, commenters tried to come make up with an All-Star team of Pirate players from 1993 to 2009 that would compete for the division title (since the Pirates haven't had winning season since 1992). On that note, I thought it would be interesting to come up with a "team" of Dodger players from 1989 to 2008 that would do the same. I went on BBref and selected players who either had a minimum of 400 plate appearances for position players, 120 innings for starting pitchers, and 40 appearances for relievers. There are no repeats, meaning if a starting pitcher or a reliever had more than one really good season  I selected the highest one and went on to the next pitcher. Also, if a position player or a pitcher has the same OPS+ in multiple seasons (as in the case of Brett Butler and Shawn Green), I went with the one that had the most plate appearances or innings/appearances. Here's my team:

Continue reading this post »

With the Giants losing 2-1 to the Phils today, the Dodgers' number to clinch a spot in the playoffs is now 20. With 28 games left in the season, any combination of 20 Dodger wins or Giants (or whoever is second in the wild-card) automatically gives them a playoff berth. As for the division, with Colorado's loss to the Mets today, the magic number to clinch the division is now 24. For more info on magic numbers click here.

Diamondbacks vs Dodgers coverage

Ever since their lead-off man, Juan Pierre, has gone on the Disabled List a few days ago, the Dodgers have since gone 4-1 over a 5-game span and now trail (as of this moment) the 1st-place D'Backs by a game in the NL West.  And while Pierre has been out of the lineup in that timespan, the much-maligned Dodgers offense has suddenly hit a resurrgance despite their "self-proclaimed" spark-plug spending that entire period on the DL. This begs a question of my own; how exactly has the offense faired with and without Juan Pierre? Here's what I found (courtesy of baseball-reference.com):

Games in which Pierre started: 3.806 R/G (67 games)
Games in which Pierre did not start: 5.421 (19 games)
Games in which Pierre played: 3.726 (73 games)
Games in which Pierre did play: 6.615 (13 games)
Games in which Pierre lead-off: 3.3 (50 games)
Games in which Pierre did not lead-off: 5.361 (36 games)

While the correlation of high-scoring games during Pierre's absence does not imply that he is the main cause of the Dodgers' offensive woes, the Dodgers are surely doing a better job without their "spark-plug."