The Sophomore Jinx was a common trope when I was growing up, and back then we didn't know to look for signs like a high BABIP that might not be sustainable. Nowadays we spot these things in advance, and guys like Danny Santana don't catch us by surprise as often. This is what has people looking skeptically at Cave this year - though he might still defy this sign (his bat is better than Santana's). Think about how good rookie seasons occur. If a young guy does poorly in April, he may get sent down to AAA before his rookie status is expired, rather than let him see whether the breaks might even out for him over the course of the full season. They also don't suffer the nagging injuries that can torpedo a season. Only the guys doing well stay up long enough to qualify for Rookie of the Year discussion. So there's a bit of a statistical bias built in, where there's more to lose than to gain in the following season, if luck happens to even out in the other direction. Tampa's relatively unheralded Joey Wendle got RoY votes, and his BABIP was .353 - guess who I'd put money on suffering some kind of mild Sophomore Jinx? I don't have the database chops to do it, but I bet if you went back to the era before sabrmetrics took hold, you could take the guys with good rookie seasons and find a strong (negative) correlation between BABIP and how well they did the next season. The same study done on more modern players might not show as strong a correlation because front offices are paying attention to that, putting a different kind of bias into the data. Anyway. Jake Cave. Yeah.