BtB Power Rankings: Through Wednesday, August 12th, 2009
Welcome to our weekly ranking of all the MLB teams! In this ranking, we use aggregate team hitting, pitching, and fielding 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 things 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. They don't replace your actual standings, but they give you something different to consider when thinking about teams to date. The table is sortable if you click in the header. All data are park-adjusted when possible. A legend is below the table, followed by commentary. There is also a table 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 | tERA | tRns | Fld | eRA | eW%lg | LgAdj | eW% |
| 1 | +1 | NYA | 0.363 | 676 | 4.45 | 548 | 3.2 | 544 | 0.606 | 14.2 | 0.628 |
| 2 | -1 | TB | 0.351 | 621 | 4.43 | 537 | 28.8 | 508 | 0.595 | 14.2 | 0.619 |
| 3 | 0 | BOS | 0.340 | 573 | 3.89 | 472 | -25.0 | 497 | 0.567 | 14.1 | 0.592 |
| 4 | 0 | LAN | 0.337 | 584 | 3.91 | 493 | 18.3 | 474 | 0.597 | -14.3 | 0.572 |
| 5 | 0 | TOR | 0.332 | 548 | 4.18 | 513 | 7.8 | 505 | 0.539 | 14.1 | 0.564 |
| 6 | +1 | COL | 0.328 | 519 | 3.57 | 432 | 2.7 | 430 | 0.586 | -14.2 | 0.559 |
| 7 | -1 | CHA | 0.324 | 505 | 3.81 | 465 | -10.0 | 475 | 0.528 | 14.3 | 0.555 |
| 8 | +1 | TEX | 0.331 | 515 | 4.37 | 523 | 32.1 | 491 | 0.522 | 13.9 | 0.548 |
| 9 | -1 | LAA | 0.351 | 604 | 4.85 | 580 | 3.4 | 577 | 0.522 | 13.9 | 0.545 |
| 10 | +5 | ARI | 0.323 | 519 | 3.83 | 478 | 12.5 | 465 | 0.551 | -14.3 | 0.524 |
| 11 | 0 | CLE | 0.341 | 580 | 4.70 | 566 | -18.4 | 584 | 0.496 | 14.1 | 0.520 |
| 12 | 0 | ATL | 0.327 | 525 | 3.82 | 469 | -10.6 | 480 | 0.542 | -14.2 | 0.516 |
| 13 | 0 | MIN | 0.336 | 557 | 4.53 | 547 | -22.9 | 570 | 0.489 | 14.1 | 0.513 |
| 14 | -4 | PHI | 0.338 | 562 | 4.44 | 537 | 14.4 | 523 | 0.534 | -13.8 | 0.510 |
| 15 | -1 | DET | 0.327 | 507 | 4.57 | 549 | 11.8 | 537 | 0.473 | 14.1 | 0.498 |
| 16 | +1 | OAK | 0.319 | 490 | 4.16 | 509 | -10.9 | 520 | 0.472 | 14.2 | 0.498 |
| 17 | -1 | CHN | 0.317 | 488 | 4.04 | 491 | 8.0 | 483 | 0.504 | -13.9 | 0.478 |
| 18 | +1 | STL | 0.325 | 513 | 4.12 | 509 | -6.8 | 516 | 0.498 | -14.4 | 0.471 |
| 19 | +1 | SEA | 0.317 | 478 | 4.72 | 580 | 41.3 | 538 | 0.445 | 14.2 | 0.471 |
| 20 | +1 | FLA | 0.330 | 537 | 4.39 | 539 | -12.7 | 551 | 0.487 | -14.2 | 0.462 |
| 21 | -3 | BAL | 0.324 | 506 | 4.63 | 558 | -24.6 | 583 | 0.433 | 14.2 | 0.458 |
| 22 | 0 | SF | 0.304 | 420 | 3.89 | 473 | 36.3 | 437 | 0.482 | -14.2 | 0.453 |
| 23 | 0 | KC | 0.314 | 457 | 4.13 | 493 | -42.9 | 535 | 0.427 | 14.1 | 0.453 |
| 24 | 0 | MIL | 0.331 | 534 | 4.87 | 581 | 9.7 | 571 | 0.468 | -14.1 | 0.444 |
| 25 | +3 | HOU | 0.324 | 506 | 4.41 | 540 | -18.1 | 558 | 0.454 | -14.2 | 0.429 |
| 26 | -1 | NYN | 0.323 | 502 | 4.39 | 530 | -25.2 | 556 | 0.452 | -14.2 | 0.427 |
| 27 | 0 | WAS | 0.334 | 550 | 4.94 | 591 | -22.3 | 614 | 0.447 | -14.2 | 0.424 |
| 28 | -2 | PIT | 0.316 | 467 | 4.59 | 547 | 17.8 | 530 | 0.442 | -14.1 | 0.416 |
| 29 | 0 | SD | 0.319 | 488 | 4.64 | 573 | -13.8 | 587 | 0.413 | -14.3 | 0.388 |
| 30 | 0 | CIN | 0.301 | 417 | 4.61 | 560 | 15.6 | 545 | 0.379 | -14.1 | 0.353 |
Offense = wOBA (park-corrected), eRS (estimated runs scored; wRC from FanGraphs, then park adjusted)
Pitching = tERA 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, Angels*, Rays
Pitching (tERA): White Sox*, Red Sox, Royals
Fielding (Fld): Mariners*, Rangers, Rays
National League
Offense (wOBA): Phillies*, Dodgers, Nationals
Pitching (tERA): Rockies, Braves, Diamondbacks
Fielding (Fld): Giants, Dodgers*, Pirates
"On Paper" Playoff Leaders (asterisks indicate new leaders):
American League: E=Yankees*, C=White Sox, W=Rangers*, WC=Rays
National League: E=Braves*, C=Cubs, W=Dodgers, WC=Rockies
This Week's Movers
The biggest story is that for the first time since our June 23rd update, we have a new leader in the NL East--at least on paper. The Phillies had a fairly tough week, losing 6 of their last 10. Meanwhile, the Braves won 7 of 8, and it's those underlying performances that helped the Braves pull ahead of the Phillies in eW%, 0.516 vs. 0.510. They make an interesting contrast. The Phillies have had the best offense in the National League thus far (by wOBA). The Braves, on the other hand, have had the second-best pitching (by tERA)--behind only the underrated Colorado Rockies staff. In reality, they're 4.5 games apart--a decent cushion for the Phillies, but I wouldn't be surprised to see that race go down to the wire.
Two other races are tight on paper--the Rays vs. the Yankees and the Angels vs. the Rangers. The Rays and Yankees have been flopping back and forth on the top of our rankings for about a month now. They are another interesting combination, in that their pitching is almost equally matched (4.45 vs. 4.43 tERAs). The Yankees have an edge in offense, while the Rays are the better fielding team. Unfortunately, the reality for the Rays is that they're a full 10 games back in real life, which makes most of this on-paper stuff kind of irrelevant. So let's not forget that the pitching-strong Red Sox are holding steady in the #3 slot. If the Red Sox can get another starter healthy, they could be right back in this.
As for the Angels and Rangers, they continue to bounce back and forth with every update on paper. Again, it's an interesting combination. The Rangers have been a pitching and especially defense kind of team, while the Angels have been much more of an offensive club than in recent years. In the real standings, the Angels have a five-game lead. If you believe that eW% is starting to get at a team's true talent level, then it may be hard for the Rangers to make up that kind of lead against such an equally-matched team.
The last team to mention, despite being apparently hopelessly out of it, are the Arizona Diamondbacks. They finally seem to be putting something together. Since July 4th, they have gone 20-14, and have slowly been inching up our rankings. This week marks the biggest improvement I can remember seeing from them, as they surged all the way to 10th in our ranking--one of just three NL teams in the top 10. Last week, we labeled them the opposites of the 2007 team, which probably overperformed to win its division title. I can't help but wonder what would have happened this year had Brandon Webb been healthy.
20 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Typo:
You have the Sox 3rd overall, not 4th.
I really hope the Sox can put some distance between themselves and the Rays – they scare the crud out of me. Of course, focusing on pulling back into the AL East race would help with that.
Any ideas as to why the Rays are underachieving?
@bs_uf15bosox9be The Original Gameday; Learn to use SB Nation
My guess would be the bullpen issues they've had for much of the year.
Bullpens tend to kill projections like Justin’s compared to the actual standings. Damn leverage.
Leverage, at least, is blamed
I still haven’t been blown away by a study demonstrating how much this matters.
I’m sure it matters to some degree. Just not sure about the effect size.
-j
My blog: Basement-Dwellers.com
Also: Beyond the Boxscore
No problem.
Semi – OCD will do that for ya.
@bs_uf15bosox9be The Original Gameday; Learn to use SB Nation
Wow.
The Reds suck. Sorry, Justin. I thought they’d be a 78 win team when the season started. I know they’ve had some injuries, but wow.
godfather of futureredbirds.net
yeah, no crap.
The Reds are currently pounding the heck out of the Nationals right now. I know that because of twitter. Usually, I’m a sucker for a good butt-whooping when it’s in the Reds’ favor. But I can’t bare to even look at this team right now.
-j
My blog: Basement-Dwellers.com
Also: Beyond the Boxscore
Angels: Black Swan of Sabermetrics
So have there been any extensive sabermetric analyses as to why the Angels very often outperform against these more speculative/descriptive evaluations? What do you suspect is the missing data here? Nobody’s luck is this persistent. Angels are 20-9 against the AL East, including recent sweeps against Tampa Bay and NYY, and not by a little.
I admit to following the Angels, but I’m no saber-skeptic. Honestly, what do you think are the blindspots here?
Bay's still not playing the Monster right (and UZR doesn't get Fenway yet)...
Ells is another UZR case, with some apparent issues with being more cautious (to me, at least).
Lowell is just old.
We’ve had Lugo at SS, and Green’s just starting to make an impact in his numbers, IIRC. Jed’s pretty good, but the wrist is holding him back.
Dusty’s been below normal this year, IIRC.
Youk’s in the same boat as Dusty, and he’s been playing a lot more 3B, which he’s probably below average at.
@bs_uf15bosox9be The Original Gameday; Learn to use SB Nation
Stupid luck
How much will the DBacks have to pay for 2007? I know we didn’t deserve to go to the playoffs then, but this is ridiculous. We’re the 3rd best team in the league using context neutral stats, and yet we’re 10 games below .500.
On the other hand, I’m hoping this balances out next year, and with a healthy Webb and Conor Jackson, we’ll … oh, who am I kidding :(
What wOBA are you using again?
I’ve got the Rockies at .341, not .328 as you do.
Eschew Obfuscation!
Right
I’m park-correcting the wOBA numbers from FanGraphs. I’m doing it with additive park factors instead of multiplicative park factors. Might not be the best possible way to do it, but it’s a lot easier.
Here’s a link to the additive park factors. Methods work, though Tango countered some of the arguments I was making about this approach being better. It’s actually not, but in practice it doesn’t make that much of a difference.
http://www.basement-dwellers.com/2009/04/player-value-series-part-7-how-should.html
-j
My blog: Basement-Dwellers.com
Also: Beyond the Boxscore
BtB Power Rankings
Why no discussion of the Marlins? They have a better record than the Braves (by a hair). Is it that they don’t conform to your model? Maybe the model is lacking. In any case the deviation should be worth mentioning. They are over-achieving relative to your model by a lot.
Make sure you're looking at eW%lg
If you’re comparing true W% to estimated winning percentages, you have to use the eW%lg column because otherwise teams are getting a penalty/bonus for their league difficulty.
-j
My blog: Basement-Dwellers.com
Also: Beyond the Boxscore
I've talked about the Marlins in the past
Just can’t talk about every team every time. :)
In the Marlins’ case, they come out as slightly “overperforming” on offense. wRC predicts 11 fewer runs scored than they actually have. In truth, though, my “model” has them very close to their straight-up PythagenPat model. Here’s what I have:
True W%: 0.526
Pyth W%: 0.493
eW% lg (without league modifier): 0.487
So what we have here is my rankings essentially agreeing with the straight-up Pythagorean rankings. They’ve been outscored 556 to 548 (after park adjustment) in reality. I just don’t think they’re a contender, at least not with a team like the Phillies.
In contrast, here are the Braves:
True W%: 0.526
Pyth W%: 0.546
eW%lg: 0.542
Very close agreement here.
Phillies:
True W%: 0.568
Pyth W%: 0.563
eW%lg: 0.534
So, if anything, the model is the most skeptical of the Phillies—at least relative to the straight-up PythagenPat. But the Phillies are a much better club these days now that they have Cliff Lee in their rotation.
Hope that helps.
-j
My blog: Basement-Dwellers.com
Also: Beyond the Boxscore



















