I was at last weekend’s
Angels series in Anaheim, and every time George Springer came to bat, his
numbers struck me as unreal. Not necessarily their greatness, although
some categories do impress, but their uniqueness.
George Springer does not
hit the ball in the field of play.
Of course, I knew his
HRs, Ks, and BBs, elsewhere known as the Three True Outcomes
(http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=724), exceeded the
norm. However, lit up on the scoreboard in giant typeface, I couldn’t
help notice how extreme Springer is.
Why does it matter?
If Batting Average on Balls in Play (BABIP) is considered mostly luck, as
has become pretty close to canon, an evaluator would seemingly get a more pure
assessment of a player’s skill by looking at the Three True Outcomes.
Springer’s small sample
size perhaps makes that more pure assessment moot. He is only a
rookie and has plenty of room for development. Further, a high rate of
the Three True Outcomes is not inherently a good thing if strikeouts cause most
of the phenomenon.
To the Three True
Outcomes, I added HBPs, as any Astros fan can tell you from watching Craig
Biggio that a certain amount of skill can create them. I also added
Sacrifice Flies to the Total ABs, reasoning that those balls, even though not
counted as an AB, were in fact hit in play in normal swing circumstances.
The stat, with my adjustments, I called Balls Not in Play (BNIP). The formula: (HR + SO + BB + HBP) / (AB + BB
+ HBP + SF).
Here are the top 20 all time in BNIP. These stats reflect
non pitchers with over 750 ABs. Also, because of the database used, this
year’s stats were not included.
|
Player
|
BNIP
|
totalAB
|
HR
|
SO
|
BB
|
HBP
|
SF
|
|
Jack Cust
|
0.5347
|
2581
|
105
|
819
|
444
|
12
|
18
|
|
Chris Carter
|
0.5222
|
969
|
48
|
336
|
118
|
4
|
9
|
|
Dave Nicholson
|
0.5190
|
1657
|
61
|
573
|
219
|
7
|
12
|
|
Russell Branyan
|
0.5141
|
3394
|
194
|
1118
|
403
|
30
|
27
|
|
Adam Dunn
|
0.5099
|
7815
|
440
|
2220
|
1246
|
79
|
36
|
|
Melvin Nieves
|
0.5025
|
1391
|
63
|
483
|
136
|
17
|
10
|
|
Mark Reynolds
|
0.5011
|
3945
|
202
|
1276
|
459
|
40
|
28
|
|
Rob Deer
|
0.4980
|
4510
|
230
|
1409
|
575
|
32
|
22
|
|
Kelly Shoppach
|
0.4935
|
1836
|
70
|
624
|
155
|
57
|
8
|
|
Frank Fernandez
|
0.4883
|
901
|
39
|
231
|
164
|
6
|
4
|
|
Jim Thome
|
0.4825
|
10312
|
612
|
2548
|
1747
|
69
|
74
|
|
Cody Ransom
|
0.4723
|
849
|
30
|
274
|
88
|
9
|
0
|
|
Carlos Pena
|
0.4704
|
5823
|
285
|
1566
|
813
|
75
|
45
|
|
Justin Maxwell
|
0.4691
|
874
|
34
|
275
|
93
|
8
|
5
|
|
Ryan Howard
|
0.4675
|
5018
|
311
|
1401
|
588
|
46
|
44
|
|
Mark McGwire
|
0.4664
|
7657
|
583
|
1596
|
1317
|
75
|
78
|
|
Mike Stanton
|
0.4660
|
2002
|
117
|
572
|
224
|
20
|
9
|
|
Mark Bellhorn
|
0.4655
|
2481
|
69
|
723
|
346
|
17
|
11
|
|
Bo Jackson
|
0.4558
|
2624
|
141
|
841
|
200
|
14
|
17
|
|
Juan Francisco
|
0.4540
|
771
|
32
|
259
|
54
|
5
|
3
|
As for Springer? He
did not disappoint. His .527 BNIP this year would rank him 2nd all time, just above teammate Chris Carter.
|
BNIP
|
total AB
|
HR
|
SO
|
BB
|
HBP
|
SF
|
|
|
Springer
|
0.527273
|
330
|
19
|
109
|
37
|
9
|
2
|
How about Jon Singleton, you might ask?
His .517 BNIP would project to 5th all time (with Springer included).
|
BNIP
|
total AB
|
HR
|
SO
|
BB
|
HBP
|
SF
|
|
|
Springer
|
0.527273
|
330
|
19
|
109
|
37
|
9
|
2
|
|
Singleton
|
0.517483
|
143
|
6
|
51
|
16
|
1
|
1
|
Three of the top five players in BNIP in history
in the same lineup!
As I wrote, not
inherently a good thing. Jeff Luhnow has said himself that it’s not an
ideal lineup construction, and Carter is the only player of the three he
acquired. Further, these stats might not surprise anyone who follows the
squad.
But, BNIP puts into
context how historically boom or bust this offense is.
