WPA: Cubs v. Cardinals, 4/9/06
Wow!
Our second game of the week was ESPN's second Sunday Night Baseball broadcast. I'm going to try to use ESPN games for these, but I'd also like to cover every team, if possible.
Anyway, this was a fantastic, back-and-forth game. The graph shows it, but we can also learn a lot about the dynamics of baseball through some of the things that happened in this game.
Here's the graph.
Credits: I stole the code, originally, from Eric Simon at Amazin' Avenue (that's to do the enlarged image in the link), and Dave Studeman from The Hardball Times made the spreadsheet.
The blue line is the win probability; the pink line represents "P," which is a measure of criticality.
| PLAYER | Off | Pitch | Field | WPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| J. Jones | .281 | .000 | .001 | .282 |
| M. Barrett | .261 | .000 | .008 | .269 |
| A. Pujols | .215 | .000 | .000 | .215 |
| S. Rolen | .198 | .000 | .013 | .211 |
| A. Ramirez | .124 | .000 | .009 | .133 |
| T. Walker | .113 | .000 | .012 | .124 |
| H. Luna | .108 | .000 | .004 | .113 |
| R. Cedeno | .129 | .000 | -.023 | .106 |
| J. Williams | .000 | .102 | .000 | .102 |
| S. Taguchi | .097 | .000 | .001 | .098 |
| A. Wainwright | .000 | .087 | .000 | .087 |
| J. Mabry | .055 | .000 | .000 | .055 |
| S. Williamson | .000 | .048 | .000 | .048 |
| D. Eckstein | .016 | .000 | .000 | .016 |
| R. Dempster | .000 | .014 | .000 | .015 |
| R. Rincon | .000 | .013 | .000 | .013 |
| S. Schumaker | -.001 | .000 | .000 | -.001 |
| S. Spiezio | -.004 | .000 | .000 | -.004 |
| A. Pagan | -.004 | .000 | .000 | -.004 |
| J. Hancock | .000 | -.007 | .000 | -.007 |
| A. Miles | -.010 | .000 | .000 | -.010 |
| F. Bynum | -.049 | .000 | .000 | -.049 |
| M. Wuertz | .000 | -.070 | .000 | -.070 |
| M. Murton | -.078 | .000 | .001 | -.077 |
| J. Rodriguez | -.095 | .000 | .000 | -.095 |
| J. Edmonds | -.118 | .000 | .007 | -.110 |
| Y. Molina | -.074 | .000 | -.041 | -.115 |
| D. Lee | -.124 | .000 | .009 | -.115 |
| S. Ponson | -.062 | -.111 | .000 | -.173 |
| J. Pierre | -.196 | .000 | .001 | -.195 |
| J. Encarnacion | -.208 | .000 | .004 | -.204 |
| S. Marshall | -.040 | -.181 | .004 | -.216 |
| J. Isringhausen | .000 | -.532 | .000 | -.532 |
I saw three different things that I felt were worth mentioning.
- The impact of double plays v. strikeouts: they're huge.
- Baserunners v. power
- Leverage
Skipping ahead to the 8th inning, if you look back at the graph, you'll notice that the Cubs' Win Expectancy had already topped 70% before Barrett had hit the home run. It's a good idea to look at WPA in conjunction with a run expectancy table, like that of statistician Carl Morris. His table uses Markov chains, and the expected runs scored in that situation (bases loaded, 0 outs) is close to 2.4. The thing is, from a standpoint of Win Expectancy, the odds are certainly in favor of the Cubs taking the lead. If you think that 2 runs is the most probable outcome there, the Cards will be down by 1 going into the 9th inning. (Actually, according to Prospectus' 2005 Inning Scoring probabilities, one run is most likely there, but there's an 85.6% chance of scoring 1 or more runs.) Hence why the numbers change so much. It's one of the beautiful things about Win Expectancy; you look at things entirely through a standpoint of what is most likely to happen and how likely it is to happen, rather than through the fan's perspective of "we need a clutch hit from Michael Barrett here." Nothing wrong with the fan's perspective, but it's an interesting challenge to it.
Finally, going back to the fifth inning, it is necessary to applaud Dusty Baker's move to bring in Michael Wuertz in the fifth, rather than doing something more traditional or expected and going right to a guy like Jerome Williams. Look back at the P-line in the graph. That is a VERY high value for the fifth inning, and, in most games, you'll rarely see a P-value that high at ANY point in the game. Essentially, you can look at it like the game is on the line there. Wuertz, who struck out 90 batters in 75 innings last year, is one of the Cubs' best relievers. Kudos to Baker for bringing him in so early in the game, even if it didn't quite work. If Pujols' ball was three feet to the right of where it was hit, Baker looks like a genius. He deserves a lot of credit for going to a big gun out there so early.
Jacque Jones was the game's MVP because of his crucial (but not decisive) home run early in the ballgame. He beat out Michael Barrett by a few points, but both were exceptionally important.
The LVP, though, was certainly Jason Isringhausen, who just didn't "have it" tonight. Certainly, you'll see a lot of closers who blow saves getting the lowest total WPA, and, undoubtedly, this reflects why fans get so annoyed when closers blow saves. Victory is so close, and it's easy to get the closer when he changes the course of the entire game.
Onto the Top 5 plays:
- Aramis Ramirez BB, 8th inning (+.163) - Ramirez' walk was Izzy's second and loaded the bases for Michael Barrett. This was a huge play and pushed the Cubs' Win Expectancy north of 70%. The go-ahead run was pushed to second base here, and the Cubs, who have been maligned for their inattentiveness to OBP, actually used it to their advantage here.
- Scott Rolen HR, 1st inning (-.181) - Rolen's homer got the ball rolling for the Cards and was the only strike against the rookie Sean Marshall in the early going. The early returns this season from Scott Rolen are good. Through 6 games, he's hitting .375/.423/.667, and, while that's an incredibly small sample to make a judgment on, it seems that he's healthy.
- Albert Pujols 2-run single, 5th inning (-.234): Pujols single just barely got past the outstretched glove of Ronny Cedeno, but it was good enough for two runs. Wuertz looked very good in this inning, but Pujols got the best of him here and propelled the Cardinals back into the lead, at 4-3. This was Pujols' first hit of the series, according to the broadcasters.
- Michael Barrett Grand Slam, 8th inning (+.266) - Barrett's grand slam is the obvious "turning point of the game," if there were a contest, but the whole "turning point" concept is a difficult one to quantify in general. What should constitute a turning point, as per a framework of Win Expectancy? Arbitrarily, I'm thinking that the play that drives your Win Expectancy north of 60% for good would be the turning point, and, in that case, it would be the Aramis Ramirez walk. But Barrett crushed one, the crowd exploded, and the Cubs locked it up at this point (the Win Expectancy was 97.2%).
- Jacque Jones HR, 4th inning (+.338) - Jacque Jones finally got some hits today, and his first one couldn't have been bigger. Capping off a 2-out rally, Ponson left a pitch RIGHT down the middle, and Jones mashed it. His home run went to dead center on a virtual line, taking what seemed like less than 4 seconds to arrive in the grass in center. Ponson certainly made a mistake with this pitch, but Jones capitalized. I don't think he realized that he was supposed to take a curtain call, though.
Amazing stuff, and we haven't even reached Tax Day yet.
0 recs |
17 comments
Comments
Jacque Jones
Jacque obviously didnt know about curtain calls at Wrigley. That's forgiveable...but no one in the dugout told him? That's hard to believe. Maybe he just didn't want to come out? Maybe he's not a True Cub! (whatever that means. why do we only debate who's a True Yankee but never who's a True Astro or Devil Ray?)
In an unrelated note...don't think any sportsblogs RSS feeds are operational...I havent gotten any updates in days...
by cephyn on Apr 10, 2006 12:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This stuff is great
This WPA stuff is awesome. I'd love to have access to this real time during the game .. I guess I should just learn the numbers
by John Beamer on Apr 10, 2006 12:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Mitchell
I typed it into the pitcher box in a hurry and there I went... thanks for the correction!!
by Dan Scotto on Apr 10, 2006 3:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: season WPA
by Marc Normandin on Apr 10, 2006 5:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Wouldn't you basically just do what Dan does...
by Richard Wade on Apr 10, 2006 5:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Could it put to rest
by cephyn on Apr 10, 2006 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually....
Anyway, to answer a few questions, I refer you to required reading about WPA from Studes:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-one-about-win-probability/
To really have fun with this system, you can take it one step further and track something Drinen calls "Win Probability Added" (WPA).
Once again, the concept is simple. Let's say our batter in the bottom of the ninth hits a single to put runners on first and third with no outs. This increases the Win Probability from 71% to 87%, for a gain of 16%. So, in a WPA system you credit the batter +.16 and debit the pitcher/fielder -.16. If you add up every positive and negative event from the beginning to the end of a game, you wind up with a total for the winning team of 1, and a total for the losing team of -1. And the player with the most points will have contributed the most to his team's win.
By the way, that 87% with runners on first and third in the bottom of the ninth is on the low side for reasons I'll discuss in a minute.
If you were to track an entire season in this manner, you would have a Win Contribution metric that is more accurate than Win Shares, because it is based on how much each event actually contributed to the team's wins. In a way, WPA is the ultimate baseball statistic. And in a way, it is not.
Like Win Shares, WPA is not a good predictive statistic because it's not necessarily a good representation of a player's true talent. If a player hits a home run in the ninth inning of a 1-0 game, he is credited with more WPA points than if he hits a home run in the first inning of a 1-0 game. The talent is the ability to hit the home run; when it happens in a game is something that is pretty random. When you are thinking of acquiring a player for your fantasy team, you should rely more on the traditional sabermetric stats, like Linear Weights, Runs Created, DIPS, etc. etc.
Also, WPA measures the impact of an event while the game is in progress, not after the game is over. After the game is over, the score is 1-0, and it doesn't matter when the batter hit the home run. But during the game, it matters a lot. Good managerial strategies, for instance, are based on an implicit understanding of Win Probabilities. And if there is such a thing as clutch performance, WPA might unearth it.
If you were to track every single game, with some sort of standardized way of accounting for defensive contributions (I usually attribute 10% to a fielder, but it's largely subjective based on the location of the batted ball and the caliber of the play), you could, theoretically, have a true stat about "player value."
Also, for a more in-depth look at the concept of "P," go here.
To calculate P, you simply take the difference between the current Win Probability and what the Win Probability will be if the pitcher retires the side with no more runs scoring.
by Dan Scotto on Apr 10, 2006 8:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's an idea I've thrown around
The basic idea is to regress WinExp to OBP/SLG (or OBP/ISO, or EqA, or whatever) and adjust for playing time. The residuals (WinExp(predicted) - WinExp(actualy)) could be credited to players as "clutch." You could even do year-to-year analyses or regression to the mean analyses to see if it is a repeatable skill.
by salb918 on Apr 10, 2006 10:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What you really need
by salb918 on Apr 10, 2006 10:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hehe
by Marc Normandin on Apr 11, 2006 12:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not to be glib
by jeffbcb on Apr 11, 2006 9:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good Stuff
by Mike Pindelski on Apr 10, 2006 5:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Thanks!
I enjoy doing them, though. Thanks for your support!
by Dan Scotto on Apr 10, 2006 8:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
For some reason
Congratulations, you've just invented WXRL!
In part, anyway. Regardless, this is very close to what Nate Silver (I think it's him) does in BBTN to discuss clutch. I don't think he's the first, either.
I happen to think that the next breakthrough in WPA-based stats is not taking opposition into account. If we're trying to measure impact a player's contribution, surely doing something off Brad Lidge is more impressive (certainly it is so intuitively) than doing the same thing off Danny Graves.
[I had that thought as well, and I think I know just the programmer to do it.]
I'll bet you think you do.
It actually wouldn't be very hard, depending on the method in use. I admit that I don't completely understand the interaction involved among all the tables the Tango, et. al. spreadsheet we're all using, but I could probably figure it out. It's a bit trickier when factoring in run environment.
Lucky for you I was already considering it; I was thinking about doing something like WXRL for minor leaguers.
by jeffbcb on Apr 11, 2006 9:16 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Sweet!
I haven't read BBTN yet - still working on The Book - but as you say, the residuals idea isn't terribly original, Silver just seems like the one who got off his ass and actually did it.
by salb918 on Apr 11, 2006 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
if all goes well
by jeffbcb on Apr 11, 2006 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

by Dan Scotto on 









BtB on Facebook

















