Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Josh Hamilton Reportedly Seen Drinking In Dallas Bar

Finding The Lucky and Unlucky Teams So Far In 2009

via botit.botany.wisc.edu

We're about six weeks into the 2009 MLB season and, as usual, there are plenty of surprises.

  • The Blue Jays have the best record in the American League.
  • The Cubs are in a tie for third place with the Reds.
  • The Marlins are hanging around, just one win out of first place.
  • The Mariners and Rangers are in contention.
  • The Pirates are awful.  Wait, uh, nevermind, that makes sense.

The question everyone's asking is which teams are for real and which teams will rebound back towards pre-season expectations?  Well, in addition to reminding everyone that six weeks doesn't significantly change our expectations of player performance, we can look at which win totals are backed up by context-neutral performances and which are a result of some flukiness.

To do that, I'm going to look at Baseball Prospectus' third-order wins.  The third-order wins methodology uses EqA (think OPS or wOBA) to predict runs scored and runs allowed, adjusts them for strength of schedule (this is awesome), and converts to a win-loss record using Pythag.

American League

This first table compares each team's actual win total to their third-order win total, with a negative number representing a team that's won fewer games than third-order wins predicts they should have (aka "unlucky"):

Team Diff
Indians -5.3
Rays -3.3
Athletics -1.8
Royals -0.5
Yankees -0.1
Orioles 0.1
Twins 0.4
Rangers 0.7
Angels 0.7
Tigers 1.1
White_Sox 1.2
Blue_Jays 1.7
Mariners 2.2
Red_Sox 3.4

The Indians, Rays, and Athletics are the three main underachievers, with the Indians setting a pace that's hard to believe.  Should we be reading anything into the fact that these are three of the most saber-friendly organizations in the American League?

On the lucky side we see the Red Sox and Mariners more than two wins better than they've shown on the field.  Between the Rays and Red Sox, there's a 6.7 game shift.

Here are the American League teams sorted by third-order winning percentage, which is a good estimate of the production showcased by each team so far.  If you're into power rankings based on context-neutral on-field production, this is your thing:

Star-divide

 

Team 3Win%
Blue_Jays .597
Royals .578
Rays .553
Tigers .530
Rangers .524
Red_Sox .519
Angels .510
Indians .509
Yankees .487
Twins .456
Athletics .441
Mariners .433
White_Sox .427
Orioles .403

Looks like the Blue Jays and Royals deserve their spots at the top of their divisions.  The Tigers have come to play in 2009 (mostly thanks the rotation seeing gains from Justin Verlander, Edwin Jackson, and Rick Porcello) and the Rangers look like the more real team so far in the Texas-Seattle debate.  Baltimore's really bad.

National League

Here are the NL teams sorted from most unlucky to most lucky:

Team Diff
Nationals -4.2
Rockies -2.9
Pirates -2.8
Diamondbacks -2.0
Mets -1.2
Padres -1.2
Braves -0.9
Astros 0.4
Brewers 1.2
Reds 1.3
Phillies 1.4
Dodgers 1.6
Cubs 1.8
Marlins 2.0
Cardinals 2.1
Giants 2.8

Yowzers, Nationals.  I guess that's what happens when your bullpen turns a lot of leads into one-run losses.  On the good end of the NL East (everyone else), the Mets and Braves have been unlucky by about a win, while the Phillies and Marlins have been lucky by 1.5 and 2 wins, respectively.  Over in the NL West, those Giants might not be as competitive as they've appeared so far, while the Diamondbacks and Rockies should win more games the rest of the way.

Here are the overall power rankings:

Team 3Win%
Dodgers .618
Mets .607
Cardinals .559
Brewers .523
Braves .513
Reds .506
Rockies .497
Cubs .490
Nationals .490
Pirates .477
Phillies .469
Marlins .469
Diamondbacks .469
Padres .444
Giants .440
Astros .439

It's no surprise to see the Dodgers leading the field, but who would have expected to see the Mets right behind them, well ahead of the Cardinals.  If you think the Nationals will struggle to win 60 games this year, think again.  There are a lot more sub-par teams in the NL than in the AL, and the top NL teams could post some very high win totals against that weak competition.

Comment 27 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

More from Beyond the Box Score

The Best Baserunners of 2008

Feb 2009 by Sky Kalkman - 12 comments

Comments

Display:

Hmm...

Even with all the blowouts the Sox have been through, I would have assumed we were at least a little unlucky with all the pitching issues.

by bdalebs on May 11, 2009 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

I havent looked at the rest of the league, but I would think that the Brewers have been particularly lucky this year, especially during their 14-5 recent stretch.

I dont have numbers to back it up, but they are near the top of the league in BABIP for offense and near the top as well in BABIP against for pitching.

Thats an awful lot of lucky hits dropping in for the hitters and a lot of them being hit right at people for the pitchers. They have improved their defense so that helps on the defensive side. But I can count at least 2 games where HUGE BABIPers have fallen in to win a game and at least a couple of more where a bad strike zone helped them, and a couple more where an opposing pitcher has thrown an 0-2 meatball right down the middle to win them a game. I would consider that pretty lucky overall.

by backtocali on May 11, 2009 5:19 PM EDT reply actions  

Brewers offensive BABIP: .307, middle of the pack.

Brewers pitching BABIP: .280, second lowest in majors, best UZR in the NL

Maybe the pitching has been a tad lucky, but a .307 BABIP through such a sample is by no means outlandish, and the improved defense should lead to a low pitching BABIP.

Makes sense to me that their about a game lucky according to 3rd order wins, then.

---
Juuuust a bit outside!!
http://www.rightfieldbleachers.com

by Jack Moore on May 11, 2009 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

In comparative terms

The Brewers have the 4th highest BABIP in the NL and the 2nd lowest BABIP for pitchers so they have been more lucky that most of the teams in the NL. I agree that the 1.2 games worth of luck is about right. But they seem to have been inordinately lucky this year (last year as well, thank you New York Mets).

by backtocali on May 11, 2009 7:30 PM EDT up reply actions  

Haha, you'll do anything to talk smack about the Brewers

Give it up, man.

"I didn't realize his velocity was that high," said Macha, noting that radar readings aren't flashed during exhibition games.

by battlekow on May 11, 2009 5:50 PM EDT up reply actions  

Ignorant Question

Do these numbers even out over the course of a season?
That is, by the end of the year, are most teams within a reasonable range of their third order win total?

Or year to year, do you find “lucky” and “unlucky” teams over the course of a season?

by BigGreenMonster on May 11, 2009 6:16 PM EDT reply actions  

You find year-long lucky and unlucky teams.

The strength of schedule piece will even out eventually, though.

In recent memory, the 2007 Diamondbacks way outperformed their Pythag. Any other examples?

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on May 11, 2009 10:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

any idea what their algorithm is

for “strength of schedule”?

- "I went at it and didn’t slow down, so it kind of bounced off me." -Lil' Dunc

by SleepyCA on May 12, 2009 12:24 AM EDT up reply actions  

Nope.

Doing some reading, they actually adjust EqRS and EqRA by strength of opposing offense/defense, then convert to wins.

One could find the strength of schedule adjustments by comparing second-order and third-order wins directly. Hmm, I’ll try that. A positive number represents a tougher than average schedule through Sunday’s games:

SoS Team
1.8 Indians
1.3 Athletics
1.2 Giants
1.1 Orioles
0.9 White_Sox
0.9 Padres
0.7 Pirates
0.7 Nationals
0.6 Phillies
0.6 Astros
0.5 Marlins
0.5 Diamondbacks
0.1 Twins
0.1 Tigers
0.1 Reds
-0.1 Cubs
-0.2 Royals
-0.3 Yankees
-0.4 Angels
-0.4 Rockies
-0.4 Cardinals
-0.5 Mariners
-0.6 Red_Sox
-0.7 Mets
-0.7 Brewers
-0.7 Braves
-1 Rays
-1.2 Blue_Jays
-1.6 Rangers
-2.1 Dodgers

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on May 12, 2009 8:24 AM EDT up reply actions  

could sos

be adjusted for teams not having to play themselves? cuz the dodgers sos would suffer when teams play them if they are as good as their record suggests. vice versa for the indians

by kevinkinsler on May 12, 2009 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions  

Last year....

the Braves were -7

Actual W-L: 72-90
Pythagorean W-L: 79-83

by sddbaker on May 12, 2009 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions  

On the other end ...

The LA Angels were +12

Actual W-L: 100-62
Pythagorean W-L: 88-74

The Tampa Bay Rays were +5

Actual W-L: 97-65
Pythagorean W-L: 92-70

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on May 12, 2009 6:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'll save RJ the trouble of pointing out that the Rays' third-order Pythag was basically right in line with their actual wins.

Mostly strength of schedule. Now, yes, they got lucky winning as many games as they did, but they were unlucky to be given such a difficult schedule, one could argue.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on May 12, 2009 10:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

See 2008 Angels

Great post Sky

a ground rule double followed by three unproductive outs, sounds like my sex life - dayzd toe

by adragon on May 13, 2009 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

Hmm... an OTM user posted a FanPost a few hours ago about why Beckett is having issues.

In the comments, we came to realize that some of the pitching issues might have their roots in defensive troubles the Sox have been experiencing. Given that the Sox’ team UZR is -12.2, we’d be on pace for 96 wins this year with a replacement level defense for the rest year, correct?

by bdalebs on May 11, 2009 7:13 PM EDT reply actions  

The negative -12.3 projects out to about 6 (~-60 UZR/10 runs) additional lossses

.519 * 162 = 84 wins

84 wins plus 6 from better defense = 90 wins

I could be wrong, someone want to check my math.

by Jeff Zimmerman on May 11, 2009 7:33 PM EDT up reply actions  

Hmm...

So for every 6 UZR, it’s one run?

My math WAS 185 runs scored, and [I assumed that -12.3 UZR = -12 additional runs] 151 runs allowed. Pythag for games remaining + 20 wins =’d 96.

Instead I should have done 185 runs scored and 161 allowed, Pythag’d for games remaining + 20 wins = 93 wins?

I found a good 3rd Order Wins calculator: http://replacementlevel.com/stuff/sg/Calculators.html (First One)

by bdalebs on May 11, 2009 7:56 PM EDT up reply actions  

Depends.

If you’re trying to match performance with with and don’t care who each team played, second-order is more useful. If you’re trying to rate the teams, adjusting performance by quality of opponent, then they’re less useful than third-order wins.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on May 11, 2009 10:54 PM EDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

We use numbers and stuff.
Community Guidelines
Why be a member?

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Small
Free Agent Compensation
Img_0001_small
Value of Various Plate Approaches
Strike_three2_small
Effect of Foul Area on Strikeouts: AL 1954-68: Erratum
Small
Baseball on a stick
Small
Player Evaluating Statistic
Baseball_small
Rays Outfield: Cheap but Extremely Productive
Small
A new xBABIP
Small
Jack Morris "pitching to the score"
Strike_three2_small
Foul Area and Differences in SO: AL vs NL
Baseball_small
Is there a Kuroda and Oswalt Alternative?

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Follow us on Facebook!

Follow us on Twitter!

SaberGraphics

MLB Daily Dish

Get the latest MLB Trade Rumors, Transactions, and News at MLB Daily Dish!


Managing Editor:

Jbopp-kc_small Justin Bopp

Columnists:

Adam_small adarowski

Dme_small Satchel Price

Closeup4_small J-Doug

Carlosicon_small Julian Levine

Billy_and_daddy_4th_of_july_small Bill Petti

Featuring:

Dayton_small Jeff Zimmerman

12475953_small Jacob Peterson

Picture-6_small Chris St. John

Btbpro_small Dave Gershman

229331_10150183361996591_674441590_6760167_6637860_n3_small Lewie Pollis

Img_3830_small David Fung