BtB Power Rankings: Through Tuesday, June 9th, 2009

by JinAZ on Jun 10, 2009 11:00 PM EDT in Stat-Colored Glasses Comment 16 comments

More photos » by Darren Calabrese - AP

Roy Halladay's Toronto Blue Jays seem to have righted the ship after a rough spell, and have risen to the top of the BtB Power Rankings. Can they get back in first place in the AL East while the Yankees and Red Sox beat up on each other this week? (AP Photo/The Canadian Press,Darren Calabrese)

Browse more photos »

Welcome to our weekly ranking of all the MLB teams! In this ranking, we use aggregate team statistics--not team wins, losses, runs scored, or runs allowed--to evaluate the performance of teams to date. You can think of the estimated winning percentage (eW%) below as how we'd expect teams to fall out if we threw teams with these aggregate statistics into one big league and let them battle it out for thousands of games.

The table is sortable if you click in the header. All data are park-adjusted when possible. A legend is below the table, followed commentary about five teams: Red Sox, Cubs, Rockies, Royals, and Cardinals. I have also added a table this week comparing actual vs. expected run scored and run allowed totals, as well as actual vs. expected winning percentages.

BtB Power Rankings

Rank	Chg	Team	wOBA	eRS	tRA	tRns	Fld	eRA	eW%lg	LgAdj	eW%
1	+1	TOR	0.346	322	4.53	275	12.1	263	0.595	8.5	0.622
2	-1	TB	0.356	338	4.97	291	12.8	278	0.594	8.3	0.619
3	+3	BOS	0.348	307	4.37	250	-14.2	264	0.571	8.1	0.598
4	0	NYA	0.364	343	5.25	305	5.8	299	0.568	8.1	0.593
5	-2	LAN	0.345	316	4.17	250	4.6	246	0.618	-8.3	0.590
6	-1	DET	0.327	256	4.70	265	17.7	247	0.517	7.9	0.546
7	0	TEX	0.343	291	5.31	304	23.3	280	0.518	8.1	0.545
8	+2	CLE	0.345	317	5.07	297	-16.5	313	0.506	8.3	0.532
9	+2	PHI	0.352	309	5.19	290	13.4	277	0.554	-7.8	0.528
10	-2	NYN	0.341	286	4.33	240	-16.4	256	0.552	-7.8	0.525
11	+1	MIN	0.340	301	5.11	300	-6.6	307	0.490	8.3	0.517
12	+2	LAA	0.330	261	4.86	267	-2.7	270	0.483	7.8	0.511
13	+5	CHN	0.320	240	4.14	226	5.6	220	0.541	-7.6	0.510
14	+8	COL	0.321	253	4.03	228	-6.7	235	0.535	-8.1	0.504
15	-6	KC	0.315	229	4.14	230	-18.5	248	0.463	7.9	0.494
16	+1	ATL	0.319	248	3.99	230	-5.8	236	0.523	-7.9	0.493
17	-1	MIL	0.328	264	4.78	271	18.8	252	0.521	-8.1	0.492
18	-3	CHA	0.310	226	4.20	239	-8.1	247	0.459	8.1	0.490
19	-6	STL	0.324	255	4.46	260	2.8	257	0.496	-8.2	0.467
20	+3	SEA	0.312	231	4.73	275	2.4	272	0.424	8.1	0.453
21	-1	BAL	0.326	256	5.04	284	-16.9	301	0.424	8.1	0.451
22	-3	PIT	0.324	255	5.05	285	16.9	268	0.477	-8.1	0.448
23	+4	OAK	0.306	221	4.58	264	-2.2	266	0.416	7.9	0.445
24	0	ARI	0.309	238	4.31	259	6.7	252	0.474	-8.2	0.443
25	-4	CIN	0.316	242	4.71	274	16.6	257	0.472	-7.9	0.443
26	+2	HOU	0.330	264	5.03	283	-7.4	291	0.453	-7.8	0.426
27	-1	WAS	0.337	284	5.37	299	-20.7	319	0.442	-7.8	0.417
28	-3	SD	0.322	254	5.05	295	-3.4	299	0.424	-8.1	0.397
29	0	FLA	0.317	257	4.89	296	-12.7	308	0.414	-8.3	0.387
30	0	SF	0.304	210	4.48	251	-1.4	252	0.417	-7.9	0.387

Offense = wOBA (park-corrected), eRS (estimated runs scored; wRC from FanGraphs, then park adjusted)
Pitching = tRA and tRns are a home-brew version of Graham MacAree's statistic.
Fielding = Fld: average of bUZR (from FanGraphs) and THT's batted balls statistic (converted to runs)
eRA (estimated runs allowed) = Pitching - Fielding
eW%lg = estimated winning percentage within the specific league (AL or NL)
LgAdj = league adjustment (bonus to AL teams, penalty to NL teams, because the AL has superior level of play)
eW% = estimated winning percentage if all teams were in one league (after league adjustment)
Methods provided in more detail in the first post in this series

Team Leaders (asterisks indicate teams improving in specific ranking):

American League
Offense (wOBA): Yankees, Rays, Red Sox*
Pitching (tRA): Royals, White Sox, Red Sox
Fielding (Fld): Rangers, Tigers, Rays*

National League
Offense (wOBA): Phillies, Dodgers, Mets*
Pitching (tRA): Braves, Rockies*, Cubs*
Fielding (Fld): Brewers*, Pirates, Reds

"On Paper" Playoff Leaders (asterisks indicate new leaders):

American League: E=Blue Jays*, C=Tigers, W=Rangers, WC = Rays
National League: E=Phillies*, C=Cubs*, W=Dodgers, WC =Mets

Commentary below the jump!

Some teams of note:

Boston Red Sox

Winning 6 of their last 8, the Red Sox surged up the power rankings this week thanks to the third-best pitching and now the third-best offense in the league. The only thing they haven't done well thus far is field (rank 25th of 30 teams). With the Red Sox' ascent, we now have the top four slots in our power rankings filled by AL East teams. There's just no getting around the fact that these are all exceptionally good teams, and they play in an absurdly competitive division...which, if anything, means they are probably better than these rankings indicate. As a Reds fan with deep-seeded prejudices against the rich teams of the AL East (I'm writing this while grudgingly watching yet another the Yankees/Red Sox game on ESPN), I can't tell you how upsetting this is to me.

Chicago Cubs

The Cubs are distancing themselves from a disastrous 8-game losing streak, and now are on an 8 for 12 streak and are back in the pack with the other competitive NL Central teams. Compared to last week, we see improvements in pitching and fielding, Many had the Cubs favored to win the division again this year, and it may be that they're starting to find themselves. Their hitting continues to be below-average, however, and they might need to find their offense before they can hope to take this division. Or maybe not: they are now our on-paper leaders in their division.

Colorado Rockies

The Rockies have had a tough time of things, but this week surged by eight spots in the ranking while posting an 6-game winning streak. The first three games in the streak were won by 7, 7, and 9 runs (in away games, no less!), which is a big part of the reason we saw improvements in offense, pitching, and fielding. Was it really Clint Hurdle keeping them down, or are they just a good team that has been playing badly? Well, their pitching, after park corrections, now rates as the second-best in the league, so there's that. And they have the second-best Pythagorean record in the NL West, four games better than their actual record. These rankings think they've underperformed as well, with an expected winning percentage in the NL of 0.535. But is it too late to compete for the wild card this year? The Dodgers don't appear catchable...

Kansas City Royals

On May 7th, the Royals were 18-11, leading their division by three games. In the 27 games since then, they are 6-21. This past week, despite a win to break the losing streak up, has been particularly brutal, with a pair of blowout losses and several other losses by at least four runs. While we don't base these rankings on runs scored and allowed, teams that lose as much and as badly as the Royals have of late do not tend to have good aggregate statistics either. The result is the Royals falling away from the leaders, where they previously had been holding strong despite their actual record. I know they're having a nice blowout win tonight, but they will really have to turn things around to get back in the AL Central race.

St. Louis Cardinals

Remember the Rockies' win streak mentioned above? Four of them (and two of the blow-outs) came at the expense of the Cardinals. This past week, we've seen drops in both their offense (Pujols' wOBA this past week is 0.276) and especially in their pitching, and those games are a big part of the reason why. The Cardinals always seem to be in the hunt, despite bleeding away talent every offseason. Their piching has some depth, but the offense begins and ends with Pujols this year. Pujols is a superstar among superstars, but is he good enough to carry an offense single-handedly?

Actual vs Expected Performances

Below are actual vs expected winning percentages, runs scored, and runs allowed. When a team's ranking deviates substantially from their actual performance (e.g. the Giants), this table will hopefully help you see why.

Rank	Team	eW%lg	TrueW%	TrueRS	ExpRS	TrueRA	ExpRA
1	TOR	0.595	0.557	306	322	266	263
2	TB	0.594	0.483	333	338	287	278
3	BOS	0.571	0.586	295	307	247	264
4	NYA	0.568	0.586	326	343	300	299
5	LAN	0.618	0.667	317	316	232	246
6	DET	0.517	0.544	284	256	252	247
7	TEX	0.518	0.569	290	291	275	280
8	CLE	0.506	0.433	316	317	321	313
9	PHI	0.554	0.589	301	309	264	277
10	NYN	0.552	0.554	263	286	243	256
11	MIN	0.490	0.483	295	301	286	307
12	LAA	0.483	0.518	267	261	274	270
13	CHN	0.541	0.527	235	240	221	220
14	COL	0.535	0.448	267	253	259	235
15	KC	0.463	0.421	226	229	272	248
16	ATL	0.523	0.509	247	248	255	236
17	MIL	0.521	0.569	270	264	249	252
18	CHA	0.459	0.466	231	226	258	247
19	STL	0.496	0.525	259	255	254	257
20	SEA	0.424	0.483	223	231	251	272
21	BAL	0.424	0.431	260	256	318	301
22	PIT	0.477	0.448	261	255	263	268
23	OAK	0.416	0.456	259	221	280	266
24	ARI	0.474	0.424	241	238	276	252
25	CIN	0.472	0.526	245	242	238	257
26	HOU	0.453	0.446	243	264	279	291
27	WAS	0.442	0.268	259	284	334	319
28	SD	0.424	0.466	251	254	304	299
29	FLA	0.414	0.483	280	257	303	308
30	SF	0.417	0.526	224	210	222	252

0 recs | Comment 16 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

So, top four teams are in the AL East, and that's not even adjusting for the fact that they beat up on each other.

(Well, it is a bit, with the AL/NL adjustment. And actually, the entire strength of the AL might be in the AL East, especially since the main reason for the disparity is payroll and the AL East has the Yankees and Bosox payrolls.)

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

by Sky Kalkman on Jun 10, 2009 11:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Pretty much

Even if the AL East is the reason for the disparity, the other divisions in the AL pull down the magnitude of the adjustment. So yes, it’s almost certainly true that with a proper SoS adjustment, we’d see those four teams even further ahead of the competition.

I will say that I don’t think it can be the Red Sox and Yankees alone that cause the disparity, because it’s not like those teams are posting a 0.700 winning percentage against the rest of the league. They’re a big part of the reason, but I still think the median team in the AL is better than the median team in the NL.
-j

My blog: Basement-Dwellers.com

by JinAZ on Jun 11, 2009 8:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe I'm thinking about this wrong, but...

Let’s say the Yankees and Red Sox were middle of the road payroll and talent teams. Then you give them a ton of cash to buy talent, making them near the top of the league. That means the median AL team is now two spots lower in a ranking of AL teams, right (or is it one spot?) Anyway, what’s the expected difference in winning percentage of that .500 team now that they play really good Yankee and Red Sox teams? Is it as large as your league adjustment? Half as much? An insignificant change?

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

by Sky Kalkman on Jun 11, 2009 9:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's a good point

And I’m not sure. I’m still working on getting my access database up and running, so I don’t think I’m going to work on this now.

Access is giving me fits, mostly because I’m clueless on how to use it. Thinking I’ll just go and use mysql like everyone else…
-j

My blog: Basement-Dwellers.com

by JinAZ on Jun 11, 2009 10:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pujols is a superstar among superstars, but is he good enough to carry an offense single-handedly?

Yes.

St. Louis relievers... defying win expectancy since 2008
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/

by vivaelpujols on Jun 12, 2009 1:03 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

All season long?

I know Matt Wieters could, just not sure about Pujols…
-j

My blog: Basement-Dwellers.com

by JinAZ on Jun 12, 2009 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think you could really get a good judgment about Wieters considering the Orioles lineup. The Cards have fairly terrible hitting, but the O’s have got Markakis, Huff, etc who protect Wieters to some extent. Given how well the Cards are doing, I’d say Pujols can do more than carry an offense. You stick a player that good into any lineup and it immediately makes every other hitter about ten times more dangerous.

by quincy0191 on Jun 15, 2009 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Divisional Power Rankings

Motivated by Dayn Perry’s article, I averaged out each team’s league-adjusted expected winning percentage from the power rankings for each division. The second number is the winning percentage translated into games won over 162:

ALE .577 93
ALC .516 84
ALW .489 79
NLE .470 76
NLC .464 75
NLW .464 75

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

by Sky Kalkman on Jun 12, 2009 8:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Way to go NL Central!

We didn’t finish last. :) But a ten-thousandth of a point or so…
-j

My blog: Basement-Dwellers.com

by JinAZ on Jun 12, 2009 8:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You could give them an ad-hoc adjustment next time around...

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

by Sky Kalkman on Jun 12, 2009 9:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I get that you guys have an irrational hate for the Giants

But this is starting to get crazy. They’re in sole control of the wild card lead right now, and to suggest that they’re THAT BAD and THAT LUCKY is kind of insane. Even the Accuscore guys had the Giants finishing second in the (admittedly weak) NL West, although most had them finishing third behind the DBacks (but considering how bad Arizona is right now, 2nd place isn’t unreasonable).

Far be it from me to suggest I know more about this stat stuff than you guys, but I have to wonder whether there is a serious flaw in your analysis. The Giants are worse than the 16-45 Nats? The same team that they’re 6-2 against? I don’t think so. Given how good the pitching has been, and how that will keep you in games that you would not win with an offense as bad as ours, I simply don’t buy the argument that they are anywhere near 30th on a legitimate set of power rankings.

I understand the concept of an outlier, and realize that assuming every team will play toward their projections is silly. But the Giants haven’t been just an outlier, they’ve been a total anomaly.

The biggest problem I can see is that stat-based analysis always assumes that every player will perform to their average all the time, which is kind of stupid. It’s not so much a matter of luck as it is growth and confidence; the more time you spend in the majors, the better you do (typically) because you make adjustments and figure things out. High-valued prospects frequently show up in the majors, do poorly for a while, then begin to understand the differences between Triple-A and the big leagues, and improve. Few players jump to the majors and start hitting or pitching like a veteran. Veterans, on the other hand, gradually deteriorate as they move off of their peak and lose strength, speed, and health.

I know you’re not going to change the rankings based on actual play, because that would introduce an unfair bias. But I seriously question whether this analysis produces an accurate picture of how the baseball standings should look, especially considering you’ve got Toronto at #1, the Dodgers at #5, and Cleveland at #8. And that’s just in the top 10.

by quincy0191 on Jun 16, 2009 3:59 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I don't understand how explaining what the numbers shows demonstrates an irrational hatred for anyone...

Yes the Giants are doing much, much better than their performance to date would indicate. And yes, that puts them among the playoff contenders, especially in a weak league.

But that doesn’t change the fact that simply according to their actual performance they would have been expected to score 14 fewer runs than they have, and allow 30 more (at the time of this analysis).

And the calculation for expected runs is not based on projection, but on the actual hitting and pitching lines from this season. Yes, it ignores the timing of events – which to date has been very favorable to the Giants. In general though, that has a way of evening out over a long season. Now it may not for the Giants, and they may continue to out-perform what we’d otherwise expect. But I would argue that the odds are against them.

The wins the Giants have count, whether they “earned” them or not (of course they have). The important question is whether this pace is sustainable. Based on the individual components of baseball – hitting, pitching, fielding – the numbers suggest it probably isn’t.

But that’s one of the things that makes baseball so interesting – it doesn’t always do what you’d expect.

We’re not like other organizations who don’t tell you how their Power Rankings are calculated – and who likely include a subjective component. We show you exactly how we came up with our numbers. You can argue with our methods – but you need to actually do that, not look at the outcomes and say we’re biased because they don’t agree with your notions.

And if we actually were biased, don’t you think we’d make Oakland look a lot better than they do?

by Dan Turkenkopf on Jun 16, 2009 7:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

We also don’t tailor our power rankings based on current record. If you want that, go check out any standings page. And we’re not trying to argue, at all, that wins should be taken off the board. We’re just trying to measure the how well each team has played so far, in a context-neutral sense.

One example I’ll pull out here is that the Giants have a .690 OPS overall on offense. With RISP, that’s .709. With the bases empty, it’s .663. With runners on base anywhere, it’s .722. That’s a great recipe for scoring more runs than your overall OPS would indicate, but it’s not much of a skill, just something that’s happened so far.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/split.cgi?t=b&team=SFG&year=2009#bases

Here’s another way of looking at that. Using RE24 from Fangraphs, which measures all the small changes in run expectancy given the runners on base and outs in the inning at each plate appearances, the Giants offense is 17 runs worse than average (not park adjusted, I believe). Using wRAA which is simply linear weights, which estimates runs scored as if all batting events took place at points in the inning with average importance (i.e. it ignores runners on base and number of outs), the Giants offense is 46 runs worse than average. So, they’ve been “clutch” (ignoring score an inning) to the tune of 30 runs, or about three wins. Why do we make that adjustment? Because while clutch hitting matters, it’s been shown not to be much of a repeatable skill.

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

by Sky Kalkman on Jun 16, 2009 8:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know if you're kidding, but there's zero bias against the Giants here...

Unless it’s impersonal bias against some style of play they have that people currently don’t recognize as demonstrating more repeatable skill.

Maybe there’s some bias against the NL, but Justin’s just using results from two studies that are most likely 100% objective, if not perfectly run: interleague results and players switching leagues.

This is not like Accuscore, since there’s no projecting going on. It’s simply an adjusted measure of how well these teams have played so far. One significant aspect that’s missing is strength of schedule, though.

The Nats run differential implies their talent is eight games better than their actual record so far, which is similar to the approach we use here. With the Giants being “lucky” by one game of Pythag, that closes the gap by nine games.

Also, the data quoted above includes the past week of games, which will likely move the Giants up and the Nationals down in the rankings when this week’s list is published tonight or tomorrow.

I’m happy to discuss any specific parts of the methodology Justin uses (and so is he), so feel free to run through any you question. (Full explanations are in the first article: http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/5/27/889905/btb-power-rankings-through-tuesday)

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

by Sky Kalkman on Jun 16, 2009 8:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think the others have covered it...

I’ll just say that I think that no matter who ends up last, I’m probably going to be accused of bias against that team. But the methods are as transparent as I can make them. Heck, with certain stipulations, I’ll even send over the excel spreadsheet I use to generate the rankings.

FWIW, as Sky alluded, the Giants have been playing well and are on the rise. I just ran the rankings (I’ll do so again after tonight’s games), and the Giants are now ranked….29th! :) With a commanding lead over the now-last place Padres.
-j

My blog: Basement-Dwellers.com

by JinAZ on Jun 16, 2009 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

By the way, I encourage people to challenge the methodology.

I’m sure it could be better and I’m sure there are things about baseball (parks, schedule, style of offense, etc.) we still aren’t accurate enough on. Even being a Giants fan and being pissed at their ranking could be the motivation to check into things deeper to see if we actually are missing something. Hating the ranking isn’t enough to call this B.S., though. Help us dig deeper.

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

by Sky Kalkman on Jun 17, 2009 7:11 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs