BtB Power Rankings Season Review: AL Central
by JinAZ on Oct 13, 2009 9:30 AM EDT
in Power Rankings
21 comments
We continue our series of team-by-team reviews through the lens of the BtB Power Rankings with the American League Central. Below, W% = true winning percentage, pW% = pythagenpat winning percentage, and cW% = component W% (the basis of these rankings). All of the data I reference can be found in the final Power Rankings post of 2009.
10. Chicago White Sox. TQI = 0.529
The ChiSox beat out both the Twins and Tigers in our on-paper rankings, though what had been a sizeable lead became very close by the end of the season. We're really not rating them much higher than their true winning percentage: 0.502 cW% vs. 0.488 W%. The issue is that the power rankings see the Twins and Tigers as "overachieving." As a team, the White Sox were pretty similar to the Cubs if perhaps a bit more extreme: they had excellent pitching, but a weak offense. They also weren't very impressive in the field (-27 runs overall).
See commentary on the other teams below the jump!
12. Minnesota Twins. TQI = 0.524
We're within the margin of error here, but the Power Rankings think that, given a choice between the Tigers and Twins, the right team won game 163. Nevertheless, we have the Twins' cW% at an even 0.500, which is a fair bit shy of their actual and pythagorean marks of 0.534 & 0.532. Estimates of offense are dead on with reality. Defensively, though, we estimate that a typical team with the Twins' stats will allow 50 more runs than the Twins actually did. It's hard to say why exactly, but you'd expect a team with below-average fielding like the Twins have a disparity between ERA and fielding-independent measures of pitching. Instead, here are the Twins ERA, FIP, and tERA, respectively: 4.50, 4.51, & 4.50. So they got "lucky," whatever that means.
13. Detroit Tigers. TQI = 0.515
The Tigers lost a heartbreaking game 163 last week, but the power rankings don't even think they should have been there: cW% was 0.490, compared to a 0.499 pW% and a 0.528 true W%. The Tigers were a good fielding team--and they justifiably got a nice boost to their numbers when I started including catcher defense--but their offense was just average and pitching was below-average. Cabrera and Verlander are legitimate stars, but the Tigers needed more than those players' contributions to get themselves back to the playoffs. I want my 2007 anderson" class="sbn-auto-link">Curtis Granderson back.
18. Cleveland Indians. TQI = 0.481
The Indians were ranked well above their actual W% for the entire season, and at one point even looked like they might contend for the on-paper AL Central division lead. The thing is, cW% closely matches straight-up Pythagorean w%: 0.457 vs. 0.446. I'm not usually one to blame the manager for such things, but during Eric Wedge's tenure, the team consistently underperformed Pythagoras. Via Baseball Reference, they've fallen short six of his seven years with the Tribe, totalling 27 wins below their Pythagorean record--that's almost 4 wins per season. I'm sure someone has talked about that before, but my goodness that seems like a lot.
22. Kansas City Royals. TQI = 0.445
What a bizarre team. They had Greinke, obviously. And he, plus a few others, including a resurgent Brian "I used pitchf/x to make you my bitch" Bannister, made for a slightly above-average pitching staff (they started the season far better than that). But aren't you supposed to have position players too? The Royals had the worst wOBA in the American League at 0.318, as well as the worst fielding--by far--of any team in baseball at an estimated -75 runs. I mean, how impressive is Greinke given who was playing behind the guy?!? All three of their shortstops, plus their DH and RF, posted sub-replacement level performances. At least Billy Butler finally started to hit a bit...
BtB Power Rankings 2009 End of Season Data
Team by Team reviews: AL East | AL Central | AL West | NL East | NL Central | NL West
BtB Power Rankings 2009 End of Season Data
Team by Team reviews: AL East | AL Central | AL West | NL East | NL Central | NL West
BtB Power Rankings 2009 End of Season Data
Team by Team reviews: AL East | AL Central | AL West | NL East | NL Central | NL West
1 recs |
21 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
So the Royals are better than the Giants?
;)
See Data Differently.
beyondtheboxscore.com | Twitter: @ justinbopp
by Justin Bopp on Oct 13, 2009 11:18 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
If anything, they're the same.
I wrote about that comp here: http://www.royalsreview.com/2009/10/12/1081386/btb-power-rankings-or-were-no-22#22712012
by JinAZ on Oct 13, 2009 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Going by most metrics
The Royals pitching couldn’t hold a candle to the Giants, and if that’s all the Royals got, well, then I’m not sure how you can justify your assertion that “they’re the same”.
Put another way, the Royals were, as you said, a team with “slightly above average pitching” and no offense. The Giants, on the other hand, had a similar offense and ridonkulous pitching. The only way these things are equal is if a blanket statement is made that the AL is stronger than the NL, which I posit is false: the rule difference between the leagues makes it VERY hard to accurately gauge the quality disparity between the two leagues, which is why most attempts end up having huge outliers.
"The BB's are out. The BB's are being arseholes to me." - Brian Wilson.
by hairball on Oct 13, 2009 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Giants offense was worser than the Royals offense
More than the Royals pitching was worse than Giants pitching.
by vivaelpujols on Oct 13, 2009 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is so not true
The Giants and Royals are very close by most offensive metrics. For the sake of argument, I’m willing to give the Royals an advantage there, but it’s not huge.
On the other hand, the Giants pitching was miles ahead of the Royals pitching. 120 ERA+ compared to something like 90. Even adjusting for a pretty liberal league difference (which is a strategy frought with missplaced generalities), there’s no way to say that is a closer differential than the offenses.
"The BB's are out. The BB's are being arseholes to me." - Brian Wilson.
by hairball on Oct 13, 2009 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, it is true
http://www.royalsreview.com/2009/10/12/1081386/btb-power-rankings-or-were-no-22#22743078
Using tRA and wOBA, which I assume you don’t have a problem with, the Royals hitting advantage is greater than the Giants pitching advantage.
by vivaelpujols on Oct 13, 2009 5:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Offense
KC: .318 wOBA, 667 runs
SF: .308 wOBA, 610 runs
Pitching:
KC: 4.20 tERA, 719 runs allowed
SF: 4.00 tERA, 693 runs allowed
So you’re saying that the .20 difference in pitching is smaller than the .10 difference in hitting? Or are you going by RS/RA?
"The BB's are out. The BB's are being arseholes to me." - Brian Wilson.
by hairball on Oct 13, 2009 6:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
wOBA is on a different scale than tRA, so the differences aren't comparable in terms of estimated runs scored and runs allowed
The RS/RA are estimated RS/RA based off of wOBA and tRA. It clearly shows that the Royals have a bigger advantage on offense than the Giants do on pitching.
by vivaelpujols on Oct 13, 2009 7:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But the Royals hitting, and pitching would have been better in a neutral schedule than in the AL.
and the giants hitting and pitching would be worse in a neutral schedule than in the NL.
by lookatthosetwins on Oct 13, 2009 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not on board with those generalizations
Are you one of those people who thinks that Tim Lincecum couldn’t cut it against the AL?
Seriously, what reason do you have to suggest that a “neutral league” would magically worsen the Giants’ pitching THAT MUCH?
"The BB's are out. The BB's are being arseholes to me." - Brian Wilson.
by hairball on Oct 13, 2009 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It doesn't affect it THAT MUCH
The league adjustment is only about 20 runs per team on each side. That means that it would raise Lincecum’s ERA by, oh, .1 point if he moved to the AL. Does that sound so unreasonable?
by vivaelpujols on Oct 13, 2009 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That doesn't
But that is not the point. The point is, the Giants are, according to the data you are espousing, much better than the Royals until you do the adjustment.
"The BB's are out. The BB's are being arseholes to me." - Brian Wilson.
by hairball on Oct 13, 2009 6:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
.470/.414 vs .441/.445
in terms of win/loss percentage, that’s huge, much bigger than a .1 ERA difference, so please don’t cherry-pick
"The BB's are out. The BB's are being arseholes to me." - Brian Wilson.
by hairball on Oct 13, 2009 6:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thats about a 4.5 win swing for each team
Which is about 45 runs over 162 games. Assuming that the league adjustment effects offense and defense equally, it’s about 23 extra runs pitching wise over 1458 innings. Lincecum has pitched 225 innings this year, so that’s an extra 3.5 runs for Lincecum. That would bring his ERA up from 2.48 to 2.60. So sorry, .12 ERA difference, my bad.
by vivaelpujols on Oct 13, 2009 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"couldn't cut it"
No. Would post an ERA significantly higher? Yes. NL pitchers get to face another pitcher every time through the lineup. AL pitchers face a DH. That’s going to bump ERAs up somewhere between .4 and .7 runs (can’t remember off the top of my head what it is, on average.)
Beyond the Boxscore Not a member? Sign up.
by Sky Kalkman on Oct 14, 2009 9:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And on top of that
He’ll be facing a higher level of competition, and so his runs allowed above average in that league will be higher as well. Not but a lot (as vivaelpujols showed), but by a bit.
-j
by JinAZ on Oct 14, 2009 10:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was under the impression that AL and NL hitters are comparable, on average..
Am I remembering that wrong?
Beyond the Boxscore Not a member? Sign up.
by Sky Kalkman on Oct 14, 2009 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe
I think you’re right that the general consensus is that the big difference between the AL & NL is pitching talent. I’m not convinced that there isn’t a hitting disparity either, though it certainly is the case that there’s a lot of elite hitting talent in the NL that beats the crap out of the inferior NL pitching. So, maybe you’re right that FIP & ERA would only change by the ~0.3 run per game difference due to the different run environments.
RAA would still be different, though, due to the higher quality of fellow pitchers in the AL.
-j
by JinAZ on Oct 14, 2009 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again, the issue is competitive environment
The Royals play in the AL, and thus face tougher competition than the Giants. If the exact same Royals team played in the NL this year, their numbers would look better than they do this year. So you can’t just look at their wOBA’s or tRA’s or FIP’s or whatever and make an apples-to-apples comparison.
If the Nationals played all AAA teams, their players’ numbers would look awesome. Context matters.
-j
by JinAZ on Oct 13, 2009 9:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
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.
