Post Links To Your WAR Spreadsheets Here
by Sky Kalkman on Jan 9, 2009 12:53 PM EST
56 comments
There will be a community project eventually, but for now, feel free to link to your WAR spreadsheet or its related blog post in the comments below. Make sure to note your website and team.
If a few people could rec this FanPost so it's held at the top, that'd be great.
Note: To get the "win probabilities" numbers:
Use the BINOMDIST function in your graphing program. The formula is:
100* BINOMDIST(wins/2,81,win%,1)
From there subtract that number from 100.
10 recs |
56 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Rec'd
although I’m not sure if I’m going to do a publicly posted spreadsheet
FanGraphs posted CHONE today, but I wish they’d give us a lgwOBA and lgERA for each system. It’s easy enough to get oneself, but in CHONE’s case, it’s tough to get from the download, because using Tango’s suggested 420 batters with the most projected PAs, then SUM/SUM, you get all those minor leaguers with their MLEs (or whatever) who have lots of projected PAs in there… and the lgwOBA ends up being too low.
At least CHONE has their wRAA’s postedin the individual player pages. Too bad it’s just calibrated to the projected PAs… would be since if they did wRAA/700 (I have a whole ‘nother mini-rant about why that’s better than their preferred 600, but no biggie)
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by devil_fingers on Jan 9, 2009 1:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Get the Royals crew to do one, at least.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Jan 9, 2009 1:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I changed my mind
now that we have Wilie Bloomquist, I’m eager to recalculate
Flags fly forever, after all
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by devil_fingers on Jan 9, 2009 2:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Brewers...
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pxSSR5Xmla-WEIANykxJvfQ
I’m a little unsure on the replacement level I set for pitchers. Currently, I’m working on a version where I use Tango’s win% version, but I don’t know what to set the replacement levels at. What I have right now is what the win% would be at 1.28*lgFIP and 1.07*lgFIP for starters and relievers respectively (that’s 5.56 and 4.64), and I get something that’s within 1 WAR. Should I use that instead?
---
Juuuust a bit outside!!
http://www.rightfieldbleachers.com
by Jack Moore on Jan 9, 2009 2:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
bad link
---
Juuuust a bit outside!!
http://www.rightfieldbleachers.com
by Jack Moore on Jan 9, 2009 2:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
win% rep levels
That’s what I use in my spreadsheet. .370 and .390 for relievers, .460 and .480 for starters, the lower number for NL pitchers.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Jan 9, 2009 2:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
OK, that's pretty close to what I had
I had .382 and .468, but I’ll change them and then I’ll switch my spreadsheet to those.
---
Juuuust a bit outside!!
http://www.rightfieldbleachers.com
by Jack Moore on Jan 9, 2009 2:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I honestly can't tell you where those numbers are from.
Well, they’re from Tango, which is why I use them blindly.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Jan 9, 2009 2:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It would be interesting to compare them to the rep-level ERA method, though.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Jan 9, 2009 2:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I was wondering if those numbers were "still good"
but that post is from Feb 2008 so I’d imagine they’re close enough.
---
Juuuust a bit outside!!
http://www.rightfieldbleachers.com
by Jack Moore on Jan 9, 2009 3:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sky
I assume that this all assumes in good faith that we’ve chosen as projection system and tweaked where we need to to make it “fit” (e.g., playing time, reliever usage reconciling Chone’s projections with UZR or whatever, etc.)
I want to be as objective as possible, but a bit of what some might call “homerism” can’t help but sneak in. To pick the most obvious example for me:
CHONE has Alex Gordon projected as -9/150 defensively. However. bUZR has him +2.5/150 for his career. sUZR had him above average in 2007, as did Justin and Dewan’s. The Fans Scouting report had him as an excellent defender in 2007, and average in 2008.. taking all that together, and given that we only have two years of data, I feel like it’s OK to “regress” him to average for 2009…
Does this disqualify me?
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by devil_fingers on Jan 9, 2009 2:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Oh for now, there's no vetting process.
Just thought it would be interesting to get all these links in one place.
Eventually, we could do one of these with everyone using CHONE (although Sean Smith will likely do that anyways.) Or we could get 30 of them that us community estimates. Or 30 from “team experts”. Or whatever. For now, whatever.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Jan 9, 2009 2:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
OH, I'm definitely a team expert
it came to me in a dream
some examples:
Mike Jacobs:
2 offense (he hit 30 HRs playing in FLA last year!!111), -.2 defense (OK, he’s slighlty below average), -1. defensive adjustment (fills in at catcher sometimes) +2.5 AL replacement level adjusted for playing time = 4 WAR
Jose Guillen +2.5 offense (bounceback), -.75 for LF/RF, -.5 for range, but +1 for great arm reputation ( © Joe Sheehan), +2.5 AL replacement levels, plays full season ‘cause he’s so freaking tough = 4.75 WAR player.
That’s some bad ass science there, peeps
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by devil_fingers on Jan 9, 2009 2:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Minnesota Twins are here
2009 AL Central Win Projections
I’m slowly building a spreadsheet of all teams starting with the AL Central…fnished Baltimore this morning (need to post that…).
by Adam Peterson on Jan 9, 2009 2:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Cardinals
Came out to be more wins then I thought
I'll be the one overrating these Faberge' eggs, thank you very much!
Future Redbirds / PAH9
by erik on Jan 9, 2009 8:32 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Nationals
You have it already in the fanshots but here you go.
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pwejHLXyjUaPnZe-PXcJuSQ
by FireJimBowden on Jan 10, 2009 12:01 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
OK
I did a preliminary one. Then I did a couple more. Read my usual lengthy digression about my adventures here.
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by devil_fingers on Jan 10, 2009 12:56 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Rays, I'm assuming...
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Jan 10, 2009 5:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Requesting a proofread
this doesn’t look right
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=p0f4isoUgbTjEDqA-uDr0KQ
King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president
by Sam Page on Jan 10, 2009 1:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Wrong link
King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president
by Sam Page on Jan 10, 2009 1:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Just a quick glance, your Pos Adj is definitely wrong
David Wright shouldn’t get the same adjustment as Jose Reyes.
Can't get enough of the Oakland A's? Visit Oaktown Awesomer's
by iamawesomer on Jan 10, 2009 3:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yea, woops
King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president
by Sam Page on Jan 11, 2009 12:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
PA estimates are too high. 760 for Reyes?
Be conservative. IP for starters, too. Even if you think Santana will throw 230 IP nine out of ten years with the other year at 0 becaue of injury, that’s an expected average of 207 IP. Rarely should anyone be over 180 IP. Santana’s one of those guys, but don’t go crazy.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Jan 10, 2009 5:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I understand
but in my defense, Jose Reyes will probably get 760 PA.
King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president
by Sam Page on Jan 11, 2009 12:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Would you like to make a bet?
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Jan 11, 2009 5:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president
by Sam Page on Jan 11, 2009 7:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't bet money or material goods.
Avatar bet? FanPost ode to the other person’s point of view bet? Some other kind of bet?
Simply going O/U 759.5 PAs for Reyes, with you taking the over?
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Jan 11, 2009 7:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Fanpost ode doesn't make sense
since I think you’re being reasonable and it wouldn’t be hard for me to write your point of view. Avatar is good. What did you have in mind?
Yes on the terms.
King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president
by Sam Page on Jan 11, 2009 8:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
now we're cooking with gas
this is the stuff saberblogging was made for
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by devil_fingers on Jan 11, 2009 8:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
ok updated
King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president
by Sam Page on Jan 11, 2009 10:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
With the exception of the Orioles, I did the rest of the ALE
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pAPYgBwn4o__4aHzBa42feA
The Yanks/Sox are basically 100 win teams. Unless I made some major mess up in playing time or data entry. Of course this is assuming everyone is healthy, and that’s usually never the case.
by R.J. Anderson on Jan 10, 2009 9:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
i'm not sure Wieters is going to be that good/get that much playing time
next year. Not that he’s not an outstanding prospect, but I’m not sure he’ll hit for that high of an wOBA in his firs tyear
"I'm on hold for now"- Bobby Crosby
by DyeLongJustice on Jan 31, 2009 1:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Here are the Astros
The WAR for each individual hitter renders weird, but Lance has 5.6 WAR, Carlos Lee has a 2 in from of his decimal, Miguel Tejada a 1, and Hunter Pence a 2 (I believe).
When I get home to a computer, I’m going to add the binomial distribution so, check it tomorrow for all the possibilities.
The Crawfishboxes
A good friend of mine used to say, "This is a very simple game. You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains." Think about that for a while.
by DyingQuail on Jan 10, 2009 11:59 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Oakland
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=p3Qxlw5XtNczDX1kERhXtMw&hl=en
Using almost exclusively CHONE projections (I bumped Sweeney and Denorfia up just a tad since I’m assuming they platoon in CF).
Also: Decided to neglect BR, and assume that Joe Dillon returns safely from his trip through waivers.
by CapgrasDelusion on Jan 11, 2009 12:50 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
This is probably the right place to ask. . .
Using a replacement level similar to Fangraphs, how many games would a team of entirely replacement-level players be expected to win?
(And if you can make me understand what your’e saying, even better.)
by philkid3 on Jan 11, 2009 5:59 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
For Sky's apreadsheet , I'm looking
I’d guess 52 for the NL, 45 for the AL
I’m not sure for FGs, since they do 20 wins/600 as replacement level for all Pos. Players, where as Sky (rightly, in my worthless opinion) used 2.5 wins/700 for the AL, and 2/700 for the NL…
Not sure how I’d convert it.
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by devil_fingers on Jan 11, 2009 6:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A .300 winning percentage is 48 wins.
That can be accepted by most folks and is what Tom Tango advocates. It also assumes 2.25 WAR per 700 PAs for position players. Some think the gap is more like 2 WAR between average and replacement, making 50 wins the team baseline. It’s somewhere in there.
I realize that does nothing to convince you of WHY that’s right, but that’s what the baseline is.
In my spreadsheet, I’m currently using a higher number for NL teams and a lower number for AL teams. That’s because NL teams have less overall talent, but are still winning, on average, about 81 games (because they compete against each other). AL teams are better, but have to compete against themselves and still “only” average about 81 wins. If you’re answering a talent question, use 48 (or 50). If you’re answering a how many games will they win question (or what’s their talent level in relation to other teams in their league) use 45 and 51 games for the AL and NL respectively. There’s also the DH issue to take into account, which will give AL teams high WAR totals.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Jan 11, 2009 7:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I did CHONE projections, with a few adjustments. Everything seems to check out, but the win projection is really high— probably a result of me expecting too many innings from Parra and Gallardo.
Scored three times and detonated an indisputable in four visits to the batting box.
by Jordan M on Jan 11, 2009 9:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Is there any plans to combine the numbers?
I was just wondering if predicted W/L numbers actually add to a .500 winning percentage.
by Jeff Zimmerman (TucsonRoyal) on Jan 12, 2009 12:27 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Yes, once we launch some sort of official community collaboration, I'll do some cross-team analysis.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Jan 12, 2009 4:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
For the binomial distribution
As we finally figured out in the discussion on my original fanshot, it’s actuall 1-BINOMDIST, because it’s summing all the probabilities.
I don’t know why I forgot that, but there it is
---
Juuuust a bit outside!!
http://www.rightfieldbleachers.com
by Jack Moore on Jan 12, 2009 1:27 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I'm sure my stupidness contributed a lot to that discussion
Bringing you more-or-less replacement level analysis and commentary since sometime in 2008.
by devil_fingers on Jan 12, 2009 3:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
also my laziness
you should see all the .csv and .ods and .ods_1.ods_2.ods (from not recovering files, lol) sitting in My Documents and I just didn’t bother to actually look at the sheet I had it in
---
Juuuust a bit outside!!
http://www.rightfieldbleachers.com
by Jack Moore on Jan 12, 2009 3:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
FWIW
someone at Red Reporter pointed out the problem of dividing by 2 and using 81 games. The example they gave was that if you took a .500 team and figured out the probability of winning 3 of 5 games or 6 of 10, you would get slightly different values for each. When those trials are even larger, the difference gets even bigger. So, winning 81 games in 162 trials gives you a probability (for a .500 team) of 47% . Winning 40.5 of 81 games gives you 50% . Or in the example that we were discussing there, the probability of an 83-win team winning 87 games is 24% (in 162 trials) vs. 32% (in 81 trials).
So, if you can make it run 162 trials instead of 81, I’d suggest that you do that.
We’’re in process of trying to a guy with a trade record of working with pitches
by Slyde on Jan 12, 2009 4:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I don't know what was wrong with it.
I tried it and it worked out. I can post new data if anybody wants, but what’s important is that everbody knows that it should be
1-BINOMDIST
---
Juuuust a bit outside!!
http://www.rightfieldbleachers.com
by Jack Moore on Jan 12, 2009 5:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
god sbnation has terrible autoformatting
1-BINOMDIST[wins, 162, win%, 1]
---
Juuuust a bit outside!!
http://www.rightfieldbleachers.com
by Jack Moore on Jan 12, 2009 6:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Pirates
Here’s my spreadsheet for the Pirates. Here’s my post over at Pittsburgh Lumber Co.
Any input is appreciated. Thanks.
Pittsburgh Lumber Co.
http://mvn.com/pittsburghlumberco
by MBandi on Jan 13, 2009 1:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Orioles
The Orioles one can be found here.
by KakesForROY on Jan 15, 2009 6:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Cubs
Not the official one and still preliminary. Not very confident on defensive #’s.
http://www.editgrid.com/user/themard22/Chicago_Cubs_2009_Projections
churchofbaseball.com
by MJMars on Jan 22, 2009 6:41 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
CHONE seems to project WAY too much playing time for every player.
I don’t really understand how that works. Someone want to tell me how, if I’m wrong or right, and offer a good suggestion as to how to fix it?
by philkid3 on Jan 25, 2009 1:54 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I believe both systems, at first, don't care about playing time or roster construction.
No algorithm can be very accurate with that, anyway.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Jan 25, 2009 1:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Beyond the Box Score
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
BtB on Facebook
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
