BtB Power Rankings: Week 20

by JinAZ on Aug 20, 2010 9:40 PM EDT in Power Rankings

"On Paper" Playoff Standings

American League: E=Rays, C=Twins, W=Rangers, WC=Yankees
National League: E=Braves, C=Cardinals, W=Padres, WC=Phillies*

This Week's Feature: The Philadelphia Phillies

The Phillies have surged of late, getting back into the playoff picture in the East and, this week, pulling ahead of the Rockies into the lead for the NL wild card.

When you think of a Phillies team over the past several years, most of us tend to think offense. This year's squad is certainly a good offensive team, but they rank "just" 6th in the league in park-adjusted wOBA (0.326), with comparable OBP and SLG ranks, and average baserunning. Of course, they might rank better, were it not for a number of key injuries: each of their star infielders have been on the DL at some point this season.

Fielding-wise, we rate the Phillies as above-average. There is disagreement among the metrics on this. UZR has them at -9 runs this season, whereas DRS has them at +6 runs and our in-house team stat based on FIP and base runs has them as outstanding at +28 runs. Combining these statistics, along with the excellent catching of Carlos Ruiz (who is having a fabulous season, both at bat and behind the dish) and company gives us an estimate of 12 runs above average: 6th in the league. This seems in keeping with their reputation, so I'm confident that this number is reasonably close.

Their pitching received a significant boost this season with the addition of the perennially-superb Roy Halladay. The result of his efforts, as well as quietly very good performance by Cole Hamels and the supporting cast of Joe Blanton and the recently-arrived Roy Oswalt, is the 3rd-best team xFIP in the National League. It's worth noting that their team FIP (4.11), while close to their xFIP (3.99), ranks them substantially lower (12th) despite a correction for the permissiveness of Citizen Bank Park to home runs in the FIP calculation. As we use both FIP and xFIP to estimate pitcher performance, the Phillies don't look as good in our rankings as they might have earlier this season when we only used xFIP.

Overall, this looks like a team that is pretty good at everything--they hit well, they field well, and they pitch well. They may not be the best at anything, but this is a well-rounded team that can beat you in multiple ways. And remember, they've had significant injuries for almost the entire year: ignoring catchers, they've had their starting position players all in the lineup at the same time just four times since April 14th. With Utley back, and Howard due back soon, this could be the team to beat for the NL wild card--and they might well challenge the Braves for the East.

Under the Hood

Converting Runs to Wins

Team	G	RS	eRS	RA	eRA	W%	pW%	cW%	SoS	cW%s	xtW	LgQ	TPI
ARI	122	523	520	636	590	0.385	0.408	0.439	0.520	0.459	65	0.482	0.442
ATL	121	560	559	453	462	0.587	0.596	0.586	0.502	0.588	95	0.482	0.571
BAL	122	452	490	634	633	0.352	0.347	0.382	0.514	0.396	59	0.518	0.413
BOS	122	607	623	538	552	0.566	0.557	0.557	0.504	0.561	91	0.518	0.579
CHW	121	550	533	489	513	0.545	0.554	0.518	0.483	0.501	87	0.518	0.519
CHC	122	496	509	579	553	0.410	0.429	0.461	0.486	0.447	68	0.482	0.430
CIN	121	579	578	486	518	0.579	0.581	0.551	0.476	0.526	92	0.482	0.508
CLE	121	504	510	598	581	0.413	0.420	0.439	0.505	0.444	68	0.518	0.462
COL	120	519	524	488	487	0.517	0.529	0.534	0.503	0.537	84	0.482	0.519
DET	121	518	540	572	563	0.479	0.453	0.480	0.496	0.477	78	0.518	0.495
FLA	120	536	532	525	517	0.500	0.510	0.513	0.514	0.528	82	0.482	0.510
HOU	120	468	455	573	532	0.442	0.407	0.428	0.502	0.429	71	0.482	0.412
KCR	121	482	489	609	628	0.421	0.392	0.385	0.505	0.389	67	0.518	0.406
LAD	122	545	534	540	522	0.508	0.504	0.511	0.507	0.518	83	0.482	0.500
LAA	122	549	512	568	580	0.500	0.485	0.442	0.497	0.439	79	0.518	0.457
MIL	121	576	603	649	602	0.471	0.442	0.500	0.489	0.489	77	0.482	0.471
MIN	121	595	599	496	494	0.579	0.585	0.589	0.490	0.579	94	0.518	0.596
NYY	121	651	626	495	529	0.620	0.627	0.580	0.494	0.574	99	0.518	0.592
NYM	121	498	507	485	531	0.496	0.512	0.479	0.519	0.497	80	0.482	0.479
OAK	120	493	492	473	484	0.500	0.518	0.507	0.488	0.495	81	0.518	0.513
PHI	120	554	537	485	501	0.567	0.561	0.532	0.513	0.545	91	0.482	0.527
PIT	121	416	439	653	624	0.331	0.301	0.341	0.506	0.346	54	0.482	0.330
SDP	120	580	546	444	448	0.608	0.621	0.590	0.496	0.586	98	0.482	0.569
SEA	121	405	417	530	529	0.397	0.382	0.394	0.498	0.392	64	0.518	0.410
SFG	122	528	526	459	502	0.557	0.563	0.522	0.506	0.527	89	0.482	0.509
STL	118	557	552	463	486	0.551	0.585	0.559	0.490	0.549	89	0.482	0.531
TBR	121	614	584	469	486	0.612	0.624	0.585	0.505	0.590	98	0.518	0.608
TEX	120	579	572	496	529	0.558	0.572	0.536	0.481	0.518	89	0.518	0.536
TOR	120	557	569	521	493	0.525	0.531	0.567	0.505	0.571	87	0.518	0.589
WSN	121	482	491	555	539	0.430	0.435	0.457	0.507	0.464	71	0.482	0.446

G=Games
RS = Actual Runs Scored, after a park adjustment
eRS = Estimated Runs Scored, after park adjustment (see table below)
RA = Actual Runs Allowed, after a park adjustment
eRA = Estimated Runs Allowed, after park adjustments (see 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 adjustments or strength of schedule adjustments, click in the header and sort by this column to get an "unsullied" ranking.
SoS = Strength of Schedule. This is an iterative weighted average of the component-based winning percentages of a team's opponents. Described in this post.
cW%s = Schedule-adjusted Component Winning Percentage. Calculated by applying SoS to cW% with the log5 method, as described in this post.
xTW = Extrapolated wins. Based on current real wins to date, and extrapolated wins over the rest of the season. Extrapolations are based on an average of cW% and cW%s, as justified in this post.
LgQ = League Quality. The AL has superior talent to the NL (justification here and here, and modified most recently here). The number shown is an estimated true talent level (in winning percentage) of the two leagues were they to be able to play one other for a large number of games. It's based on the last two years of interleague, with a small adjustment toward 0.500 to account for the fact that the leagues do play one another and thus have already had a small effect on one another's performance.
TPI = Team Performance Index, a hypothetical winning % based on cW%s, after adjustment for league quality. Think of this as the W% we'd expect teams to have if they were all in one big league and were allowed to play 10,000 games vs. every team.

Team Offenses and Defenses

Team	RS	eRS	wOBA	OBP	SLG	HitRns	EqBRR	RA	eRA	ERA	FIP*	xFIP	PitRns	Field	BABIP
ARI	523	520	0.321	0.329	0.421	528	-8	636	590	5.15	4.77	4.55	573	4	0.312
ATL	560	559	0.331	0.340	0.400	558	0	453	462	3.42	3.65	3.91	486	21	0.290
BAL	452	490	0.314	0.317	0.390	497	-6	634	633	4.91	4.49	4.76	598	-44	0.313
BOS	607	623	0.346	0.343	0.461	626	-3	538	552	4.17	4.24	4.36	556	6	0.297
CHW	550	533	0.325	0.330	0.428	534	-1	489	513	3.97	3.65	4.13	515	-17	0.307
CHC	496	509	0.318	0.322	0.408	513	-4	579	553	4.43	4.08	4.27	535	-19	0.319
CIN	579	578	0.336	0.338	0.436	577	1	486	518	3.96	4.15	4.46	563	35	0.290
CLE	504	510	0.319	0.324	0.383	509	1	598	581	4.46	4.69	4.70	581	6	0.302
COL	519	524	0.322	0.335	0.421	519	6	488	487	4.10	3.65	4.03	498	-1	0.305
DET	518	540	0.326	0.336	0.411	540	0	572	563	4.54	4.28	4.61	573	-2	0.306
FLA	536	532	0.324	0.321	0.399	522	9	525	517	4.00	3.74	4.11	507	-21	0.311
HOU	468	455	0.304	0.303	0.363	450	4	573	532	4.30	3.77	4.13	509	-34	0.321
KCR	482	489	0.314	0.330	0.394	497	-8	609	628	4.96	4.95	4.63	575	-26	0.312
LAD	545	534	0.325	0.328	0.384	530	4	540	522	4.00	3.73	4.08	514	-19	0.301
LAA	549	512	0.319	0.318	0.402	525	-13	568	580	4.34	4.30	4.44	555	-25	0.307
MIL	576	603	0.341	0.336	0.431	602	1	649	602	4.89	4.23	4.33	539	-60	0.328
MIN	595	599	0.341	0.350	0.438	601	-2	496	494	3.95	3.90	4.11	514	18	0.306
NYY	651	626	0.347	0.349	0.439	626	0	495	529	3.84	4.05	4.26	530	-1	0.285
NYM	498	507	0.318	0.311	0.379	493	14	485	531	3.69	3.96	4.28	541	0	0.306
OAK	493	492	0.314	0.322	0.374	486	6	473	484	3.56	4.17	4.20	517	41	0.280
PHI	554	537	0.326	0.329	0.414	536	1	485	501	3.92	4.11	3.99	495	12	0.298
PIT	416	439	0.300	0.302	0.363	443	-4	653	624	5.05	4.73	4.59	563	-45	0.315
SDP	580	546	0.328	0.324	0.378	544	2	444	448	3.20	3.89	3.76	471	43	0.285
SEA	405	417	0.295	0.302	0.342	422	-5	530	529	3.92	4.13	4.39	549	13	0.293
SFG	528	526	0.323	0.325	0.405	529	-3	459	502	3.53	3.86	4.25	543	27	0.297
STL	557	552	0.329	0.335	0.413	555	-3	463	486	3.42	4.07	4.02	495	22	0.294
TBR	614	584	0.337	0.338	0.404	573	12	469	486	3.62	3.97	4.13	520	34	0.281
TEX	579	572	0.334	0.340	0.422	563	9	496	529	3.92	4.25	4.38	549	21	0.292
TOR	557	569	0.334	0.313	0.454	572	-3	521	493	4.12	3.91	4.16	513	15	0.297
WSN	482	491	0.314	0.320	0.399	499	-8	555	539	4.16	4.09	4.37	540	-6	0.311

RS = Actual Runs Scored
eRS = Estimated Runs Scored: HitRns + EqBRR
wOBA = The Book's statistic, but park adjusted, and using data from both HitRns and EqBRR
OBP = On Base Percentage (Times on Base / Plate Appearances)
SLG = Slugging Percentage (Total Bases / At Bats)
HitRns = Base Runs-estimated runs scored, ignoring all base running, using the equation in this post.
EqBRR = Dan Fox's composite baserunning statistics from Baseball Prospectus, minus stolen bases since they are included in wRC.

RA = Actual Runs Allowed, after park adjustment
eRA = Estimated Runs Allowed: PitRns - Field
ERA = Straight-up Earned Run Average
FIP* = Fielding-Independent Runs, based strictly on K-, BB-, and HR-rates. HR/FB rates are park adjusted using these park factors.
xFIP = Expected 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.
PitRns = Pitching Runs Allowed, the expected runs allowed based on the average of FIP and xFIP. Described in this post.
Field = Described in this post. It is essentially an average of team UZR, DRS (minus rSB since I calculate catcher fielding separately), and BsRFld. BsRFld is just difference between FIP-based runs allowed and park-adjusted Base Runs, and is a less direct approach of measuring fielding. The fielding number also includes a catcher fielding statistic, based on SB's, CS's, WP's, PB's, E's, and this year catcher interference. The catching 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 accuracy. If you want to know, feel free to ask!
BABIP = Batting Average on Balls In Play. Fluctuates at the team level with fielding, although park effects and chance events can have effects as well.

Tweet Comment 17 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

As a Cardinals fan

It’s awesome to see them gain two spots. But then it’s incredibly frustrating to see what their position in actual baseball looks like at the moment while this ranking says they’ve played like the third best team in the National League.

Albert Pujols does not have "down" years. He has "~6 WAR" years.

by mattybobo on Aug 21, 2010 10:46 AM EDT reply actions

Hey, that's why I don't read these rankings so regularly anymore!

The Cardinals are 47-46 since getting off to an excellent start to the season. Yet, in these rankings, they’re still pretty high up there because, well, I’m not really sure why.

by jsl413 on Aug 21, 2010 10:49 AM EDT up reply actions

Well, when you look at the inputs they've played just fine

I think the idea is that, context-neutrally speaking they’ve played just as well if not a little “better” than the Reds, but the game-by-game breaks have put them behind.

Albert Pujols does not have "down" years. He has "~6 WAR" years.

by mattybobo on Aug 21, 2010 10:51 AM EDT up reply actions

I think you know exactly why

Justin has spent the better part of 2 years explaining that.

by vivaelpujols on Aug 21, 2010 7:14 PM EDT up reply actions

As a Reds fan...

…I’ll just say that I think it’s obvious that the Cardinals’ rank is complete crap, and that they clearly should be ranked 4.5 games of tpi behind the Reds.
-j

I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds

by JinAZ on Aug 21, 2010 8:40 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions

That's must be the Aaron Miles factor

by vivaelpujols on Aug 22, 2010 1:23 AM EDT up reply actions

Just imagine...

…what it would feel like if you were a Jays fan like me.

by Simon M on Aug 22, 2010 5:42 AM EDT up reply actions

Heh

It’s so totally unfair that the Cardinals have to compete with another good team in their division, right?

Albert Pujols does not have "down" years. He has "~6 WAR" years.

by mattybobo on Aug 22, 2010 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions

The Rockies are 7 games back in the Wild Card. I think you meant the Giants.

"Just another ahahahaha... laugher."
Free AnVil!

by capnk on Aug 21, 2010 5:40 PM EDT reply actions

Rockies were the "on paper" leaders prior to this week

I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds

by JinAZ on Aug 21, 2010 7:36 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions

Should say

You’re right that this was incredibly unclear.

I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds

by JinAZ on Aug 21, 2010 7:37 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions

Problem with AL East domination

First, I am a Padres fan… so full disclosure regarding that point. Second, I am not a mathematician or a statistician.

We (the Padres) have lost a rank in the standings since last week, which would be August 13th.
Since then, we have taken two of three from the Giants, swept the Cubs (four games), and we lost one to the Brewers on the 20th (not sure if this is included).

We beat the second best NL west team and swept a weak central team… and we gained a mighty +.002

The Braves meanwhile had a similar week, although their opponents were the Dodgers (weaker NL west team) and the Nationals (weakest NL east team). They gained a mighty +.004

Yet despite the best efforts of the two best NL teams, they are still .01 behind the 4th ranked AL east team. And I think the Phillies/Cardinals/Reds could argue that there should be a three-way tie for best team in the NL (although I think they are all currently weaker than the Braves/Padres, but that could change).

It is hard for me to follow every last stat that you use to determine the power rankings, but I feel like I have a grasp on most of them. I have been trying to read this column on a regular basis this season, but I must confess that I think the rankings have been pretty out of whack since early August (when you changed some of the component calculations).

In general, I dislike (trying to quantify) strength of schedule, and here’s one example:

Take the Blue Jays… based on the power rankings of the various AL divisions and the Blue Jays “strength of schedule”, they should fair most poorly against AL east teams, while performing better against everyone else.
Winning % against AL east: .5625 (48 games)
against AL central: .5152 (33 games)
against AL west: .5417 (24 games)
and against NL teams: .3889 (18 games)
**They played a number of good NL teams, but based on power rankings all of the teams were worse (or much worse) than them.

Yes, these are small sample sizes… but these are the samples that you are also using. I don’t know what manipulations/calculations you perform involving expected vs. actual win % with regards to strength of schedule, but I think it needs to be altered. The Blue Jays have done well against teams in their division, good for them. But could we really expect them to have done much better if they were to have played fewer games within their division and more games outside? All of the evidence for this year (~75 games) says no. Their winning % outside the AL east is (if I did the math correctly) .4933. That’s not a top 5 team.
Here’s a question… Is a team’s overall ability/quality more closely linked to how it plays inside of its division, outside of its division, or do the two numbers tend to converge?
Also, for your rankings, if a team does more poorly than expected in a series of games (playing against weaker opponents), does a team get punished?

It’s not clear to me how the Blue Jays deserve to be ranked so highly, but there are other teams that seem quite off to me as well. The Padres/Braves/Reds should be higher, for example. Any chance that you will reevaluate some of your criteria for determining standings?

I ask because based on your settings, I think that it would be incredibly difficult for an NL team to crack the top 5, let alone the top 3. I’m not sure how what % of games the Braves/Padres would need to win to finish the year in the top 3, but I am pretty sure that it can only happen IF the teams in the AL east lose a lot [placement is more dependent on the results of teams in the AL east than in any other division since their strength of schedules is so much stronger].
In other words, what winning % or (component %) would a good NL team need to surpass an AL east team? The Padres are working at something like a 0.045 disadvantage against the Blue Jays, Rays, and Red Sox because of league placement (and the teams each plays against). SOS also appears to be why the Yankees are so much lower than the Rays.

I also have a problem with the .036 league differential since this refers to the average team, and it is hard to extrapolate this value to the best/worst teams in each league. The very best/worst are far more likely to be much more similar to one another (or potentially much more dissimilar) than the average. This is like comparing the wealth of the average American to the wealth of the average person living in Mexico and then taking those numbers and using them to compare the wealthiest Americans to the wealthiest persons in Mexico. The wealthiest person in the world is now Carlos Slim Helu of Mexico, according to Forbes, but this has nothing to do with comparing the average wealth in Mexico to the average wealth in the USA. Nor does it have anything to do with comparing the wealth of the richest individuals in each country relative to the wealth of the average individuals of each country.
****This being said, I realize that the AL/NL differences are very difficult to deal with and to put into numerical terms, and I think the number you chose is fine. I just don’t know if its application should be the same blanket value for each team. It may need to be weighted for each team… but that is even more difficult.

Anyways,
Thanks for reading my comments. I don’t know if you have already addressed some of my points, but I would like to read this column and feel like it has a certain amount of insight beyond what I might think on my own. I feel that used to be the case, but the most recent editions don’t really generate any insights for me. Now, they just make me mad at the AL east.

Also, why does the Padres eRS go down by 34 relative to RS?? Should not our park adjustment help us, or at least not cause us to lose 34 runs scored

-Zen Blade

by Zen Blade on Aug 23, 2010 9:24 AM EDT reply actions

I'll try to respond to some of this

If there are other things that you want to address, write back.

1. There’s error bars around each team’s placement (even just measuring performance, not talent), so please try to not get too upset about a few TPI or a rank here or there. The top four teams, for example, should probably be treated as more or less equivalent…and that’s probably an optimistic read on things.

2. The Padres do rank #1 in cW% prior to strength of schedule and league adjustment. If that’s the number you prefer to look at, I’d recommend just looking at that. Click on the header to sort by cW%. That said, 4 of the top 8 teams are all in the AL East…so you can certainly expect them to be at or near the top of the ranking.

3. Strength of schedule is asking how difficult a team’s overall schedule is compared to other teams. How they fared against those teams is, to me, a different question. The reason it is there is that I think a team should get extra credit for putting up big numbers against a schedule that includes lots of top teams. Similarly, if teams play lots of easy teams, they don’t deserve as much credit. I love my Reds, but they get to play the Pirates and Astros a lot, and therefore probably wouldn’t have put up numbers that are quite as good as they have if they didn’t get to play those teams.

Even if they had a losing record against the Pirates, for example, this still applies—poor performances against a bad team would likely mean even worse performances against a better team.

4. Regarding small movements of teams: at this point in the season, rankings really don’t change very much. There’s a lot of “inertia” in these standings now.

5. Regarding league differences being based on average performances: The split in interleague records is remarkably stark across the two leagues from 2005-2009 (when AL was dominating interleague).
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2010/5/21/1480299/interleague-begins-today-al-teams
It’s not the case that what we’re seeing is the effect of a few teams struggling or dominating in interleague.

Worth noting that I’m assuming a league disparity that is substantially smaller than what I used a last year and this year prior to the interleague difference. I honestly hope it continues to get smaller, but that will depend on how our markers of league differences (easiest is interleague, but we also look at players switching leagues) go over the coming year or two. I still think the leagues do differ in quality, and I’m pretty comfortable with the size of the difference I’m assuming here.

6. (I think you know this, but)…wins, losses, and runs scored and allowed do not go into the calculations here. Everything is calculated from components. I think this is a strength of the rankings…others don’t like it. To each his own.

7. Re: Blue Jays. I talked about them a few weeks ago. I’m surprised that they rank so high too. But that said, if you look at B-Ref’s Simple rating System, they have them right there with the Red Sox…and that’s based strictly on run differential plus strength of schedule. By Pythag at Baseball-reference, they’re a 66-win team, not a 64-win team. I think most indicators suggest that they’re a bit better than they have shown.

8. Finally… I’m just going to say that there’s a sense in which you can argue that the power rankings are overrating the Padres, at least in terms of true talent. Preseason rankings based on projections typically had the Padres finishing last or second to last in their division. At this point in the season, if we’re trying to estimate team true talent, I think we should probably give 50% weighting to preseason projections (i.e. more than one year of data), and 50% to a ranking like these things. This would pull the Padres down a fair bit. I’m not saying they’re not a good team, I’m just not sure that they’re quite as good as they’ve played.

Sorry, can’t do more, gotta run to class.
-j

I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds

by JinAZ on Aug 23, 2010 10:47 AM EDT up reply actions

I ask because based on your settings, I think that it would be incredibly difficult for an NL team to crack the top 5, let alone the top 3.

I’ll just chime in to say that what this is telling us is the 3 AL East teams are the 3 best teams in baseball. That they beat up on each other while NL teams get to play easier schedules doesn’t make the NL teams better……

by Missing Barry on Aug 23, 2010 4:46 PM EDT reply actions

'scuse me sir.

You’ve got a Mr. Joe Mauer holding on line 2.

cough

But, your basic point is still correct.

Go Twins!

by Patrick42 on Aug 23, 2010 10:33 PM EDT up reply actions

To be honest

I’m quite surprised they rank that high. I assumed that SoS would kill the Twins here.

by Hillstop on Aug 26, 2010 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions

It does a little bit

Without SoS, the twins have the best component W% in the american league (click the cW% column to sort if you like). But strength of schedule generally doesn’t make that much difference. There are just too many games played to get shoved too far in one direction or another.
-j

I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds

by JinAZ on Aug 27, 2010 8:25 AM EDT up reply actions