BtB Power Rankings: Through Tuesday, June 2nd, 2009
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. Asterisks indicate park-adjusted data. A legend is below the table, followed by commentary about five teams: Blue Jays, Yankees, Phillies, Rockies, and the Mariners
Beyond the Box Score Power Rankings
| Rank | Prev | Team | wOBA* | eRS* | tRA* | tRns* | Fld | eRA* | eW%lg | LgAdj | eW% |
| 1 | 3 | TB | 0.360 | 311 | 5.05 | 267 | 7.7 | 259 | 0.589 | 7.5 | 0.614 |
| 2 | 2 | TOR | 0.345 | 284 | 4.66 | 251 | 10.6 | 240 | 0.581 | 7.5 | 0.608 |
| 3 | 1 | LAN | 0.349 | 296 | 4.19 | 225 | 2.6 | 222 | 0.634 | -7.5 | 0.607 |
| 4 | 8 | NYA | 0.368 | 319 | 5.33 | 278 | 6.5 | 271 | 0.581 | 7.2 | 0.605 |
| 5 | 4 | DET | 0.335 | 235 | 4.66 | 228 | 15.9 | 212 | 0.547 | 6.9 | 0.576 |
| 6 | 5 | BOS | 0.348 | 276 | 4.60 | 236 | -15.2 | 251 | 0.546 | 7.2 | 0.572 |
| 7 | 6 | TEX | 0.351 | 269 | 5.33 | 269 | 23.8 | 245 | 0.544 | 7.1 | 0.571 |
| 8 | 9 | NYN | 0.341 | 259 | 4.25 | 215 | -13.4 | 228 | 0.560 | -7.1 | 0.533 |
| 9 | 7 | KC | 0.322 | 216 | 3.93 | 196 | -19.6 | 216 | 0.500 | 7.1 | 0.530 |
| 10 | 10 | CLE | 0.345 | 284 | 5.17 | 273 | -14.2 | 287 | 0.495 | 7.5 | 0.521 |
| 11 | 16 | PHI | 0.357 | 282 | 5.37 | 267 | 7.2 | 260 | 0.541 | -6.9 | 0.515 |
| 12 | 12 | MIN | 0.343 | 268 | 5.30 | 276 | -3.3 | 279 | 0.480 | 7.4 | 0.507 |
| 13 | 13 | STL | 0.331 | 239 | 4.30 | 221 | -0.2 | 221 | 0.535 | -7.2 | 0.506 |
| 14 | 11 | LAA | 0.331 | 232 | 4.97 | 245 | -1.0 | 246 | 0.474 | 6.9 | 0.501 |
| 15 | 19 | CHA | 0.312 | 202 | 4.16 | 206 | -10.3 | 217 | 0.468 | 7.1 | 0.499 |
| 16 | 15 | MIL | 0.330 | 240 | 4.90 | 249 | 20.8 | 229 | 0.523 | -7.2 | 0.494 |
| 17 | 14 | ATL | 0.321 | 223 | 4.04 | 205 | -7.4 | 213 | 0.522 | -7.1 | 0.492 |
| 18 | 18 | CHN | 0.319 | 213 | 4.26 | 207 | 2.3 | 205 | 0.517 | -6.9 | 0.486 |
| 19 | 20 | PIT | 0.326 | 230 | 5.07 | 254 | 21.0 | 233 | 0.493 | -7.2 | 0.464 |
| 20 | 22 | BAL | 0.332 | 246 | 5.13 | 266 | -15.7 | 282 | 0.434 | 7.4 | 0.461 |
| 21 | 21 | CIN | 0.321 | 224 | 4.80 | 247 | 16.2 | 231 | 0.485 | -7.1 | 0.456 |
| 22 | 17 | COL | 0.316 | 212 | 4.20 | 208 | -11.0 | 219 | 0.484 | -7.1 | 0.454 |
| 23 | 28 | SEA | 0.312 | 209 | 4.87 | 259 | 6.6 | 252 | 0.414 | 7.4 | 0.444 |
| 24 | 26 | ARI | 0.307 | 208 | 4.39 | 235 | 5.9 | 229 | 0.456 | -7.4 | 0.425 |
| 25 | 25 | SD | 0.326 | 232 | 4.98 | 257 | 0.3 | 256 | 0.452 | -7.2 | 0.424 |
| 26 | 23 | WAS | 0.343 | 267 | 5.57 | 278 | -20.5 | 298 | 0.445 | -6.9 | 0.421 |
| 27 | 24 | OAK | 0.304 | 192 | 4.77 | 242 | -3.8 | 246 | 0.388 | 6.9 | 0.416 |
| 28 | 27 | HOU | 0.327 | 230 | 5.09 | 257 | -3.7 | 260 | 0.442 | -6.9 | 0.415 |
| 29 | 29 | FLA | 0.318 | 230 | 5.10 | 273 | -8.1 | 281 | 0.405 | -7.4 | 0.378 |
| 30 | 30 | SF | 0.303 | 183 | 4.53 | 225 | -1.4 | 227 | 0.404 | -6.9 | 0.375 |
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, Rangers
Pitching (tRA): Royals, White Sox, Red Sox*
Fielding (Fld): Rangers, Tigers, Blue Jays
National League
Offense (wOBA): Phillies*, Dodgers, Nationals
Pitching (tRA): Braves, Dodgers, Rockies*
Fielding (Fld): Pirates*, Brewers, Reds
"On Paper" Playoff Leaders (asterisks indicate new leaders):
American League: E=Rays*, C=Tigers, W=Rangers, WC = Blue Jays
National League: E=Mets, C=Cardinals, W=Dodgers, WC = Phillies*
Commentary below the jump!
A few teams of note:
The Blue Jays have had an amazing first two months. Their offense has been solid if not very good, driven so far by career performances from their middle infielders (Marco Scutaro? Seriously?) that has helped make up for the poor production by Wells and Rios. Their fielding is well above-average, and their pitching has been very deep behind the immortal Roy Halladay. Despite their hot start, they have to be considered the underdogs in the 4-team AL East race, and are up against some incredible teams. This week saw the Yankees push past them in the standings, and the Rays push past them in these rankings. Can they battle back?
The Yankees have been as hot as hot can be, with only four losses in their last 19 games, and have taken first place in their division. On top of that, they set a new MLB record for most consecutive innings without an error. While we unfortunately were not tracking prior to their errorless streak, we currently estimate their overall fielding as being worth +7 runs above average, up five runs from last week. Quality fielding hasn't been something the Yankees have been known for in recent years, but this year they're combining plus defense with the best offense in baseball. They're up four spots to 4th place in our rankings. If they could get some pitching, the rest of the East would be in real trouble...but as it is, they rank 3rd in their ridiculous division.
The Phillies have been almost as hot as the Yankees, winning 13 of their last 17. Compared to last week, the Phillies have had a major uptick in their offense--0.357 vs. 0.347 wOBA, best in the National League. They've averaged 5.8 runs per game in that time. In the process, they've bypassed the Braves as the "on paper" leader for the wild card, and have risen to 11th in our power ranking--that's the third best performance for an NL team.
It's been a tough week for the Rockies on the field, losing six of their last eight, and losing their manager in the process. The team didn't suffer any dramatic falloffs in their numbers this past week--it's more that other teams are just passing them by--down from 17 (using tRA, which I instituted after posting last week's ranking) to 22 this week. ... I still have lingering man-crush feelings toward Troy Tulowitski from 2007, but if he doesn't start hitting soon, we might be headed for an ugly breakup. At least get your UZR above average, Troy!
The Mariners haven't exactly been tearing it up, but after a long drought, they've finally been playing close to 0.500 ball over the past few weeks. We've seen their offense take a step forward (is Russell Branyon for real? I doubt it, but three true outcome players are fun), scoring 5 or more runs in four of their last six games and this is largely responsible for the surge in their ranking. We're not talking playoffs here, but perhaps they're on track for respectability.
0 recs |
48 comments
|
Comments
The Rays bias on this site continues
King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president
by Sam Page on Jun 4, 2009 1:42 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
They were actually seventh in the rankings, but I demanded Justin tweak things to put them first.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Jun 4, 2009 7:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If there's one thing I know about Justin
It’s that he’s a diehard Rays fan. It’s hard to get him to shut up about them. Seriously, Justin, there are other teams in baseball.
"It seems like we're not hitting because we're not getting hits." - Dusty being Dusty
by Slyde on Jun 4, 2009 10:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I heart Justin Upton
Go Devil Rays!
-j
My blog: Basement-Dwellers.com
by JinAZ on Jun 4, 2009 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Justin,
I bet my friend 50 bucks that the Angels would suck this year. Please change your rankings to validate that.
Thanks, Viva
St. Louis Cardinals... defying win expectancy since 2008
by vivaelpujols on Jun 4, 2009 1:53 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
0.500 isn't exactly world-beating
Quite a difference from recent years. If they get their horses back, though…. -j
My blog: Basement-Dwellers.com
by JinAZ on Jun 4, 2009 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh I read the team names wrong
I though the Angels were LAN. Stupid.
St. Louis Cardinals... defying win expectancy since 2008
by vivaelpujols on Jun 4, 2009 7:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Idea:
How about changing the “last week” column to “change since last week”. That would let people sort based on how much teams have moved.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Jun 4, 2009 8:31 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I should be able to do that, I think.
Might take some fiddling to get a + to show up on teams moving up, but surely there’s a way to get Excel to output that without me having to type it in there..
-j
My blog: Basement-Dwellers.com
by JinAZ on Jun 4, 2009 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You don't need the + if you have the - for negative numbers
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Jun 4, 2009 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
right, but it would be nicer and more clear
My blog: Basement-Dwellers.com
by JinAZ on Jun 4, 2009 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There might be an easier way but
you could use this: =IF(B1>A1,“+”&B1-A1,B1-A1)
by JBrew on Jun 4, 2009 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm curious if converting to text will make things sort correctly.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Jun 4, 2009 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In the above table I don't know
but Excel can handle it correctly.
by JBrew on Jun 4, 2009 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or..
Take present minus last weeks (i.e. B1-A1) then under format cells in Excel: Number – select Custom – type: +#,-#,0
by JBrew on Jun 4, 2009 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the help, JBrew
Both of those will work great! -j
My blog: Basement-Dwellers.com
by JinAZ on Jun 5, 2009 8:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just do: SQRT((a1-b1)^2)
St. Louis Cardinals... defying win expectancy since 2008
by vivaelpujols on Jun 4, 2009 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not disagreeing with your methodology, but having KC in the top 10 at this moment is pretty suspect.
If you were thinking, you wouldn't have thought that.
by Warden11 on Jun 4, 2009 9:48 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This is why I love rankings done from the ground up instead of based on traditional ways of ranking teams, like wins.
I don’t disagree with you, but let me point out WHY they’re ranked that high. They are first in the majors in tRA. First as in best. And they play in the American League, giving them a bump against all NL teams. Seems like the best pitching team could finish in the top ten overall, even with position players that are pretty suspect, no? And by adjusted winning percentage, they’re as close to 23rd as they are to first.
If you ignore the league adjustments (not that I think you should), they’re 14th, right at a .500 win%.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Jun 4, 2009 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right. Lots of teams near 0.500--those rankings will be volatile
Colorado’s a great example. They didn’t really change their performance much (slight drop in offense), but a few teams improved, which pushed them down.
If you don’t trust tRA, the Royals’ FIP is also extremely good right now (2nd overall behind Braves). If they weren’t a horrid fielding team, or if they could hit league-average, they’d be legit contenders. Grienke has been unreal, of course, but Meche has a 2.88 FIP, and their bullpen has been outstanding.
I’m sure they’ll slip back a bit as the season goes on, but maybe that will balance out with improvement in fielding or offense? Can’t help but root for them… -j
My blog: Basement-Dwellers.com
by JinAZ on Jun 4, 2009 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
FiP is fielding independent, right?
That’d be great, but the Royals defense is pretty bad (as you noted).
The bullpen still has good numbers? That also surprises me because they have been awful the last month. I guess I’m probably letting the last 25 games influence way too much of my memory.
If you were thinking, you wouldn't have thought that.
by Warden11 on Jun 4, 2009 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
tRA is fielding independent too
Both are indications of how the pitching has been, independent of fielding. tRA incorporates a lot more information than FIP, but focuses on batted ball stats (GB/LD/FB) and not outcomes (H vs. out). That’s why I’ve opted to go with instead of just FIP, which only looks at K, BB, and HR rates.
-j
My blog: Basement-Dwellers.com
by JinAZ on Jun 4, 2009 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
BELIEVE
in the Toronto Blue Jays!!!1
A Toronto sports blog, where unabashed homerism is alive and well...
PLAYOFFS!!!!1
by eyebleaf on Jun 4, 2009 11:18 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This is ridiculous
I mean, I respect stats, but as a very REALISTIC Giants fan, who is well aware of that absolute crap that is our offense, there is simply no way we are the worst in the league. We’ve played .500 ball with a tough schedule, and our pitching is incredible. I don’t think we’re a good team, or even an average team, but we are closer to average than rock-bottom. I’ve watched both the A’s and Nationals this year, and any rankings that put either of them above the Giants are, to me, suspect.
"The BB's are out. The BB's are being arseholes to me." - Brian Wilson.
by hairball on Jun 4, 2009 12:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
There's always the potential for error in this kind of thing.
Just in terms of methodology, the decisions we’ve made could be driving some of this:
Giants’ pitching has been good, but I wouldn’t call it incredible. By straight-FIP at FanGraphs, the staff ranks 6th (behind Braves, Cardinals, Dodgers, & Mets in the NL). If you start applying park factors to adjust home run rates, they dip to 7th. This version of tRA has them 10th. Which stat you choose to represent the pitching might affect the ranking. ’Course, we used FIP instead of tRA last week and still had the Giants ranked last.
Also, by bUZR, the Giants are a +5 fielding team. By THT’s fielding stat, they’re at -8 fielding team. I’m splitting the difference here, but if you go with bUZR exclusively you cut about 6 runs off of the estimated runs allowed. That’d probably get them above the Marlins.
Offense-wise…well…as you said, it’s not pretty.
The Giants are sort of the opposite of the Nationals. One is extreme offense, the other is extreme defense. But the Nationals’ offense is a tad better than the Giants’ pitching/fielding, at least in rank relative to other NL teams. I don’t think either team is particularly good, unfortunately.
And, at least within-division, the A’s do have a worse projected record than the Giants. But the A’s play in a tougher league, and therefore get a bonus to their performance in recognition of the superior competition they’re facing. They still look pretty awful.
-j
My blog: Basement-Dwellers.com
by JinAZ on Jun 4, 2009 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The run differential would seem to indicate that the Nats’ lack of pitching makes it much tougher for them to win games than the Giants’ lack of hitting.
Randy Winn is going to catch that. And he'll do it real classy-like too.
by oldjacket on Jun 4, 2009 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Somehow this does not translate into the stats that were used
Ergo, my “suspect” line.
"The BB's are out. The BB's are being arseholes to me." - Brian Wilson.
by hairball on Jun 4, 2009 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right, absolute runs were not used here.
Estimated runs were used based on how many runs you’d expect given all the events (singles, homers, outs, etc). This misses things like non-SB baserunning, but it also eliminates flukey factors such as clutch hitting.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Jun 4, 2009 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Giants estimated runs scored
Actual runs scored (after park adjustment): 197
Estimated runs scored (after park adj): 183
Actual runs allowed (after park adj): 204
Estimated runs allowed (after park adj): 227
So, these methods think that the Giants have been “lucky” on both offense and defense. This is one of the rare teams where this is the case.
-j
My blog: Basement-Dwellers.com
by JinAZ on Jun 4, 2009 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just to be clear, we're not actually going to take away any of the Giants actual wins from the standings, right?
And they’re free to try to improve the rest of the season? Yes? Ok, just making sure.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Jun 4, 2009 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No
I think that MLB should determine the playoffs based on my rankings. Please forward this to Mr. Selig if he’s not already watching. :)
My blog: Basement-Dwellers.com
by JinAZ on Jun 5, 2009 8:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
just saying that it doesn’t pass the smell test:
would you really put money on the Nationals in a seven game series with the Giants?
Randy Winn is going to catch that. And he'll do it real classy-like too.
by oldjacket on Jun 5, 2009 10:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Neither did the idea that the Earth orbits the Sun.
That something doesn’t match perceptions doesn’t mean it is incorrect. If you have suggestions for ways to improve the methodology, I’m all ears.
As for your second point…these aren’t projections. They are indications of how well teams have played to date, based on good estimates of offense, pitching, and fielding. History has some bearing on future performance, but if I’m putting money down I want to more than a year of data, regression to the mean, knowledge about playing time and injuries, etc. None of that is included here.
-j
My blog: Basement-Dwellers.com
by JinAZ on Jun 5, 2009 10:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was pointed out by a poster at McC
A +7 for American League across the board and -7 for National League seems pretty extreme.
Your comment about +5 vs -8 on fielding really gets at the arbitrary nature of this kind of analysis.
In the real world, the Giants are a .500 team that is (perhaps unbelievably) 3.5 games back from the wild card spot. Like I said, I don’t think they’re good, but if you’re trying to sell them as being the worst in the majors, well, good luck with that.
"The BB's are out. The BB's are being arseholes to me." - Brian Wilson.
by hairball on Jun 4, 2009 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just for some context...
7 runs is about 2/3 of a win. Over 55 games, that makes a difference of about .013 in win%, so the NL teams are losing .026 points relative to AL teams.
And hey, what do you know? That matches the differences in Justin’s chart, nice to see.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Jun 4, 2009 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Discussion about this
Can be found here. http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/5/31/890800/graph-of-the-day-interleague
As I said there, I’m open to alternative suggestions on how to estimate the league differential. But what I’m doing is consistent with two independent methods of estimating this differential. It looks large, but it’s probably about right—it’s just that most of us don’t realize that the discrepancy between leagues is so large.
-j
My blog: Basement-Dwellers.com
by JinAZ on Jun 4, 2009 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
also
I’d be glad to see a link to the other thread—I like to see what other folks are saying about this stuff, and I’m not sure what McC is.
-j
My blog: Basement-Dwellers.com
by JinAZ on Jun 4, 2009 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He’s talking about SB Nationa’s McCovey Chronicles, and this thread: http://www.mccoveychronicles.com/2009/6/3/898485/btb-power-rankings
Everybody loves money
by fwoty oz on Jun 4, 2009 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your rankings are going mainstream
"It seems like we're not hitting because we're not getting hits." - Dusty being Dusty
by Slyde on Jun 4, 2009 2:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
WARNING: Do not read the comments after that article. Your head will explode.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Jun 4, 2009 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
oh great
I hadn’t read the comments until you pointed that out. That’s like saying, “Don’t look down!”
They just jump right into the vitriol there, don’t they?
"It seems like we're not hitting because we're not getting hits." - Dusty being Dusty
by Slyde on Jun 4, 2009 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Amazing
St. Louis Cardinals... defying win expectancy since 2008
by vivaelpujols on Jun 4, 2009 7:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My favorite
Is the first one right now, who thinks that any contending NL Central team would be at the top of the AL East. I mean, I’m a Reds fan, and I’m all for homerism, but that’s just awesome. :) -j
My blog: Basement-Dwellers.com
by JinAZ on Jun 5, 2009 8:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pretty exciting
I’m glad to see them being well-received by someone in the mainstream media. :)
-j
My blog: Basement-Dwellers.com
by JinAZ on Jun 4, 2009 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If only his readers felt more like him
St. Louis Cardinals... defying win expectancy since 2008
by vivaelpujols on Jun 4, 2009 7:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know Justin's looking to make things harder on himself each week...
but your comment above made me want to see how your estimated RS and RA values compare to actuals. Maybe even the adjusted eRS and eRA compared to actual, so we can see which numbers are the most misleading.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Jun 5, 2009 7:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs












BtB on Facebook















