BtB Power Rankings: Week 8
"On Paper" Playoff Leaders (based on rankings above)
American League: E=Yankees, C=Twins, W=Rangers, WC=Rays
National League: E=Phillies, C=Cardinals, W=Padres, WC=Diamondbacks*
This Week's Feature: The Arizona Diamondbacks
The Diamondbacks had a nice week, winning 4 of 6 and scoring 8+ runs on four consecutive nights, starting with a 13-1 crushing last Wednesday. This vaulted them into the on-paper wild card slot, taking over the slot previously held by the victim of their 13-1 victory, the Giants. It also propelled them just ahead of the Cincinnati Reds, who also had a good week and now are suddenly ranked 12th overall in the power rankings.
This may seems surprising, because going into play tonight, the Diamondbacks are 20-26 (.435 W%), last in the NL West. And their Pythagenpat winning % is almost exactly the same (.432 pW%). And yet our component winning percentage, which feeds into the Team Performance Index that determines the ranking, estimates their expected winning percentage at .559! Obviously an enormous difference.
What's going on? The component-based estimated runs scored is pretty similar to reality, 228 actual vs. 220 expected (after park adjustments). If anything, maybe the offense has overachieved, if only slightly. What is driving the difference is a massive, huge, enormous difference in expected runs allowed: 262 actual vs. just 195 estimated!
The Diamondbacks pitchers collectively have an awful 5.71 ERA. This is despite playing in front of what our fielding statistics tell us is the third-best set of gloves in the National League (+16 runs). Their FIP is better at 5.16--but still not good. But their tERA (via statcorner.com) is 4.66. And their xFIP is just 4.45. That's not world-beating, but it's respectable--and a 1.26 run per 9 game better than their ERA. The biggest factor in all of this appears to be their team home runs per fly ball, which is currently a ridiculous 14.9%. There is such thing as HR/F skill, but it's typically masked by volatility...and at the team level, and just can't imagine that this is indicating anything other than a lot of bad luck with the long ball.
Staff ace Dan Haren more or less typifies the Diamondback staff. He has a 4.79 ERA, but a 4.06 FIP and a miniscule 3.18 xFIP right now. Haren's problems have been high BABIP (0.346) and a 16.9% HR/FB ratio, but probably not anything to do with how he's actually throwing the ball.
None of this is to say that the Diamondbacks are going to play like a 0.556 team over the rest of the season. But my guess is that they are likely to play better than they have.
Converting Runs to Wins
| Team | G | RS | eRS | RA | eRA | W% | pW% | cW% | xtW | LgAdj | TPI |
| ARI | 46 | 228 | 220 | 262 | 195 | 0.435 | 0.432 | 0.559 | 85 | -6 | 0.532 |
| ATL | 45 | 208 | 203 | 188 | 199 | 0.511 | 0.548 | 0.508 | 82 | -6 | 0.482 |
| BAL | 46 | 166 | 179 | 224 | 237 | 0.326 | 0.365 | 0.373 | 58 | 6 | 0.397 |
| BOS | 47 | 234 | 239 | 224 | 216 | 0.553 | 0.520 | 0.549 | 89 | 6 | 0.574 |
| CHW | 45 | 182 | 177 | 208 | 200 | 0.422 | 0.438 | 0.442 | 71 | 6 | 0.470 |
| CHC | 46 | 198 | 204 | 200 | 188 | 0.478 | 0.496 | 0.536 | 84 | -6 | 0.509 |
| CIN | 46 | 216 | 223 | 211 | 202 | 0.565 | 0.513 | 0.548 | 90 | -6 | 0.523 |
| CLE | 44 | 172 | 181 | 220 | 219 | 0.386 | 0.387 | 0.412 | 66 | 5 | 0.437 |
| COL | 45 | 194 | 198 | 173 | 205 | 0.511 | 0.551 | 0.486 | 80 | -6 | 0.460 |
| DET | 45 | 200 | 218 | 196 | 201 | 0.556 | 0.509 | 0.538 | 88 | 6 | 0.562 |
| FLA | 46 | 218 | 214 | 194 | 195 | 0.522 | 0.555 | 0.542 | 87 | -6 | 0.516 |
| HOU | 45 | 134 | 111 | 213 | 197 | 0.333 | 0.304 | 0.263 | 46 | -6 | 0.237 |
| KCR | 46 | 196 | 206 | 230 | 250 | 0.391 | 0.425 | 0.409 | 66 | 6 | 0.433 |
| LAD | 45 | 231 | 228 | 221 | 226 | 0.556 | 0.522 | 0.504 | 84 | -6 | 0.480 |
| LAA | 48 | 210 | 187 | 247 | 239 | 0.458 | 0.422 | 0.386 | 66 | 6 | 0.412 |
| MIL | 45 | 236 | 251 | 261 | 237 | 0.400 | 0.452 | 0.527 | 80 | -6 | 0.505 |
| MIN | 45 | 220 | 234 | 178 | 181 | 0.578 | 0.598 | 0.616 | 99 | 6 | 0.640 |
| NYY | 45 | 248 | 257 | 183 | 182 | 0.578 | 0.643 | 0.659 | 104 | 6 | 0.681 |
| NYM | 46 | 209 | 204 | 191 | 214 | 0.500 | 0.543 | 0.478 | 78 | -6 | 0.452 |
| OAK | 46 | 179 | 175 | 195 | 200 | 0.500 | 0.460 | 0.439 | 74 | 6 | 0.467 |
| PHI | 44 | 220 | 216 | 171 | 184 | 0.591 | 0.617 | 0.574 | 94 | -5 | 0.549 |
| PIT | 46 | 158 | 167 | 269 | 234 | 0.435 | 0.267 | 0.345 | 60 | -6 | 0.320 |
| SDP | 45 | 208 | 199 | 158 | 160 | 0.600 | 0.622 | 0.599 | 97 | -6 | 0.571 |
| SEA | 45 | 161 | 154 | 189 | 192 | 0.378 | 0.429 | 0.402 | 64 | 6 | 0.431 |
| SFG | 44 | 179 | 186 | 154 | 177 | 0.523 | 0.567 | 0.522 | 85 | -5 | 0.495 |
| STL | 46 | 202 | 205 | 171 | 177 | 0.565 | 0.575 | 0.566 | 92 | -6 | 0.539 |
| TBR | 46 | 243 | 226 | 147 | 182 | 0.696 | 0.716 | 0.599 | 101 | 6 | 0.624 |
| TEX | 46 | 221 | 220 | 205 | 211 | 0.565 | 0.535 | 0.518 | 86 | 6 | 0.543 |
| TOR | 48 | 250 | 229 | 214 | 208 | 0.563 | 0.574 | 0.544 | 89 | 6 | 0.570 |
| WSN | 46 | 194 | 202 | 216 | 216 | 0.500 | 0.450 | 0.468 | 77 | -6 | 0.442 |
G=Games
RS = Actual Runs Scored, after a park adjustment
eRS = Estimated Runs Scored, after park adjustment (see "Offense" table below)
RA = Actual Runs Allowed, after a park adjustment
eRA = Estimated Runs Allowed, after park adjustments (see "Defense" table below)
W% = Actual Winning Percentage
pW% = PythagenPat Winning Percentage, based on actual runs scored and run allowed totals
cW% = Component Winning Percentage, using estimated runs scored and estimated runs allowed totals. If you don't like the league adjustment, click in the header and sort by this column.
LgAdj = League adjustment, based on differences in league quality (justification here and here).
TPI = Team Performance Index, a hypothetical winning % based on component estimates of runs scored and runs allowed after the league adjustment.
Team Offenses and Defenses
| Team | RS | eRS | wOBA | OBP | SLG | wRC | EqBRR | Clutch | RA | eRA | ERA | FIP | xFIP | xFIPrns | Field | Catch | BABIP |
| ARI | 228 | 220 | 0.338 | 0.339 | 0.448 | 224 | -3 | 5 | 262 | 195 | 5.71 | 5.16 | 4.45 | 210 | 16 | -1 | 0.320 |
| ATL | 208 | 203 | 0.327 | 0.340 | 0.385 | 203 | 0 | -4 | 188 | 199 | 3.99 | 4.04 | 4.17 | 191 | -6 | 0 | 0.292 |
| BAL | 166 | 179 | 0.312 | 0.316 | 0.385 | 180 | -1 | -5 | 224 | 237 | 4.51 | 4.61 | 4.73 | 222 | -23 | 1 | 0.313 |
| BOS | 234 | 239 | 0.343 | 0.343 | 0.446 | 242 | -2 | 5 | 224 | 216 | 4.48 | 4.33 | 4.47 | 222 | 3 | 0 | 0.289 |
| CHW | 182 | 177 | 0.315 | 0.318 | 0.394 | 180 | -3 | -4 | 208 | 200 | 4.53 | 4.08 | 4.21 | 196 | 0 | 0 | 0.305 |
| CHC | 198 | 204 | 0.326 | 0.332 | 0.411 | 206 | -2 | -25 | 200 | 188 | 4.13 | 3.87 | 4.00 | 187 | -8 | 2 | 0.305 |
| CIN | 216 | 223 | 0.336 | 0.338 | 0.439 | 219 | 4 | 17 | 211 | 202 | 4.61 | 4.26 | 4.24 | 203 | 5 | -1 | 0.309 |
| CLE | 172 | 181 | 0.317 | 0.329 | 0.363 | 183 | -1 | 3 | 220 | 219 | 4.45 | 4.73 | 4.80 | 218 | 6 | -1 | 0.304 |
| COL | 194 | 198 | 0.321 | 0.336 | 0.415 | 195 | 3 | -15 | 173 | 205 | 3.86 | 3.82 | 4.24 | 199 | -2 | -1 | 0.301 |
| DET | 200 | 218 | 0.336 | 0.344 | 0.412 | 219 | -1 | 24 | 196 | 201 | 4.11 | 4.00 | 4.47 | 206 | 2 | -1 | 0.300 |
| FLA | 218 | 214 | 0.327 | 0.329 | 0.404 | 208 | 5 | -7 | 194 | 195 | 3.87 | 3.72 | 4.19 | 199 | 5 | 1 | 0.300 |
| HOU | 134 | 111 | 0.272 | 0.274 | 0.322 | 110 | 1 | 13 | 213 | 197 | 4.20 | 3.86 | 4.12 | 189 | -4 | 1 | 0.323 |
| KCR | 196 | 206 | 0.329 | 0.337 | 0.415 | 210 | -4 | -6 | 230 | 250 | 4.84 | 4.74 | 4.88 | 233 | -24 | 0 | 0.306 |
| LAD | 231 | 228 | 0.339 | 0.343 | 0.420 | 224 | 4 | 17 | 221 | 226 | 4.26 | 3.89 | 4.25 | 198 | -28 | 0 | 0.306 |
| LAA | 210 | 187 | 0.315 | 0.312 | 0.394 | 190 | -3 | -3 | 247 | 239 | 4.73 | 4.64 | 4.53 | 223 | -8 | -2 | 0.313 |
| MIL | 236 | 251 | 0.352 | 0.346 | 0.448 | 253 | -2 | -28 | 261 | 237 | 5.36 | 4.61 | 4.57 | 213 | -30 | -1 | 0.341 |
| MIN | 220 | 234 | 0.346 | 0.357 | 0.419 | 236 | -2 | -6 | 178 | 181 | 3.91 | 3.87 | 4.12 | 191 | 7 | 2 | 0.308 |
| NYY | 248 | 257 | 0.359 | 0.363 | 0.442 | 256 | 2 | -6 | 183 | 182 | 3.88 | 4.30 | 4.27 | 192 | 10 | 0 | 0.285 |
| NYM | 209 | 204 | 0.322 | 0.323 | 0.389 | 199 | 5 | -10 | 191 | 214 | 3.80 | 4.22 | 4.48 | 216 | -4 | 1 | 0.314 |
| OAK | 179 | 175 | 0.310 | 0.316 | 0.360 | 174 | 1 | 6 | 195 | 200 | 3.93 | 4.13 | 4.28 | 203 | 7 | 0 | 0.283 |
| PHI | 220 | 216 | 0.339 | 0.341 | 0.444 | 219 | -3 | 13 | 171 | 184 | 3.80 | 4.17 | 4.15 | 189 | 5 | 2 | 0.292 |
| PIT | 158 | 167 | 0.305 | 0.310 | 0.360 | 170 | -3 | 13 | 269 | 234 | 5.37 | 4.73 | 4.59 | 217 | -15 | 0 | 0.319 |
| SDP | 208 | 199 | 0.323 | 0.323 | 0.363 | 197 | 2 | -8 | 158 | 160 | 2.96 | 3.53 | 3.81 | 181 | 18 | 2 | 0.278 |
| SEA | 161 | 154 | 0.302 | 0.310 | 0.347 | 158 | -4 | 0 | 189 | 192 | 3.79 | 3.93 | 4.37 | 203 | 20 | -2 | 0.293 |
| SFG | 179 | 186 | 0.317 | 0.323 | 0.390 | 182 | 4 | -2 | 154 | 177 | 3.37 | 3.78 | 4.31 | 199 | 26 | -1 | 0.273 |
| STL | 202 | 205 | 0.327 | 0.334 | 0.399 | 207 | -2 | 5 | 171 | 177 | 3.03 | 3.60 | 3.89 | 187 | 6 | 3 | 0.289 |
| TBR | 243 | 226 | 0.334 | 0.334 | 0.409 | 220 | 6 | 4 | 147 | 182 | 2.92 | 3.79 | 4.07 | 198 | 18 | 1 | 0.271 |
| TEX | 221 | 220 | 0.329 | 0.337 | 0.413 | 212 | 8 | 6 | 205 | 211 | 4.10 | 4.44 | 4.50 | 219 | 3 | 1 | 0.293 |
| TOR | 250 | 229 | 0.337 | 0.309 | 0.466 | 230 | -1 | 26 | 214 | 208 | 4.33 | 3.80 | 4.07 | 202 | -5 | -2 | 0.305 |
| WSN | 194 | 202 | 0.330 | 0.336 | 0.415 | 209 | -7 | -2 | 216 | 216 | 4.51 | 4.69 | 4.78 | 227 | 11 | 2 | 0.292 |
RS = Actual Runs Scored
eRS = Estimated Runs Scored: wRC + EqBRR
wOBA = The Book's statistic, but park adjusted, and using data from both wRC and EqBRR
OBP = On Base Percentage (Times on Base / Plate Appearances)
SLG = Slugging Percentage (Total Bases / At Bats)
wRC = From FanGraphs, with baserunning removed, after park adjustments
EqBRR = Dan Fox's composite baserunning statistics from Baseball Prospectus, minus stolen bases since they are included in wRC.
Clutch = "Clutchiness" measure from fangraphs; difference between actual WPA and expected WPA based on component statistics. We report this in runs.
RA = Actual Runs Allowed, after park adjustment
eRA = Estimated Runs Allowed: tRuns - Field - Catch
ERA = Straight-up Earned Run Average
FIP = Fielding-Independent Runs, based strictly on K-, BB-, and HR-rates.
xFIP = Experimental Fielding-Independent Runs from FanGraphs. Like FIP, but with HR/Outfield Fly Ball rates regressed completely to league average. xFIP is as predictive as any other DIPS-like stat.
xFIPrns = Pitching Runs Allowed, based on xFIP
Field = The average of team UZR and team DRS (minus rSB since I calculate catcher fielding separately).
Catch = Catcher Fielding Runs, based on SB's, CS's, WP's, PB's, E's, and this year catcher interference. The methods are essentially those described here. But I'm using B-Ref data this year, and so there are slight tweaks to the methodology, generally in ways that should lead to greater precision.
BABIP = Batting Average on Balls In Play. Fluctuates at the team level with fielding, although chance events can have effects as well.
14 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Padres back in the top 5!
After ripping the Cardinals’ hearts out two days in a row. Can’t get much better than that.
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains."
Bolts From The Blue - Heavy with the facts, slightly less heavy with the opinions.
by Zach (maestro876) on May 27, 2010 2:32 AM EDT reply actions
I like looking at the extremes...
The top three are well above spots four and below, and the Yankees have a gap between them and the Twins.
The bottom two have an even larger gap between them and the field. The Astros at a 46-win talent level within the National League? Ouch!
That's 46 projected games
Based on wins to date, and the rest being at cW%. If you take TPI*162 = 38 games. Yikes.
-j
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
Ahh, I hadn't picked that up yet, thanks. I thought it was purely a rescaling of cW%
This week I think I favor your non-league-adjusted Wins, funny enough. Let’s me compare how the teams compare within their league.
It's a poor-man's end of season forecast
Basically exactly what Dan was doing for a while last year. I thought it’d be nice to add it in.
I was thinking about ditching the “on paper” playoff rankings for an “extrapolated” division rankings using those numbers…if for no other reason than I think this has my Reds winning the wild card! ;)
-j
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
What do people think of the D-backs?
I just can’t get over how big the gap is between expected and actual runs allowed, even if I think I see where it’s coming from.
-j
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
Could it be pitching with runners on (aka sequencing)?
Pure guess, but that’s the first thing I think of.
Marlin Maniac, a Florida Marlins blog
Writer, Beyond the Box Score
Writer, Baseball Propsectus Fantasy Beat
Writer, Heater Magazine
Not buying the Diamondbacks ranking this week
even with your description of why.
7 spots ahead of LA? Formula breaks down on this one.
vr, Xei
What don't you like?
I can definitely understand preferring other definitions of “power rankings”.
by Sky Kalkman on May 27, 2010 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions
These kinds of statements always leave me cold.
Most because they simply state that something is “broken” but then propose no suggestion for what could be going on.
D-backs have scored roughly the same number of runs as the Dodgers. Their fielding has been above-average, while the Dodgers’ fielding has been terrible (-28 runs). And their xFIP has been just slightly worse than the Dodgers’ (advantage is more than negated by the fielding difference).
So which numbers do you think are off?
-j
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
I think the Dodgers pre-season true talent level was higher than the Diamondbacks. So from the “get go” they are ranked higher than the Diamondbacks. Then the Dodgers have 6 extra wins that are already “in the bank” than the Diamondbacks. And yet they are somehow ranked 7 places below. From a logic standpoint it does not compute with me. Perhaps some of the difference is that we have differing views on what should make up a power ranking. On the flip side it should of course not just be a list from 1 to 30 of teams with the best record. Many of the stats you are quoting are based off of small sample sizes (not regressed, ie – Dodgers team defense).
I am leaning towards chalking this up to disagreeing on how heavily to weight the different components in power ranking. It is my opinion that your formula breaks down by ranking the DIamondbacks 11th and seven spots ahead of a team like the Dodgers.
Two responses.
1. These power rankings look only at performance (defined here as component stats that are known to be repeatable), and are not really trying to estimate true talent levels, per se. If we were to try to do that, we’d be trying to do in-season projections. You’re absolutely right to give more weight to pre-season projections than these power rankings at this point in the season if you’re trying to extract team true talent levels. That’s just not what we’re trying to do. These rankings are primarily historical. That said, because they are based on things we know to be repeatable, they probably are better predictors of end-of-season performance than actual W% (or even pythag w%).
2. As for weighting components….I’m not sure what to say here. We estimate runs scored and allowed with linear weights (or some variant thereof) and use established methods (pythagenpat) to estimate a winning percentage (TPI). The rankings aren’t just a weighted average of hitting, baserunning, fielding, and pitching ranks.
Also, I think it’s unwise to get caught up in “spots” in the rankings. Lots of teams are clumped near 0.500 (naturally). The number to look at is TPI, which is a hypothetical winning percentage based on component stats, after adjusting for league quality. There is a sizable gap (0.050) between the D-backs and Dodgers in TPI, but I wanted to point out that it can be the case that small changes in TPI can result in large changes in ranking if you’re near the middle of the rankings.
-j
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
































