BtB Power Rankings: Week 21 -- Entering the stretch run
"On Paper" Playoff Rankings:
American League: E=Rays, C=Twins, W=Rangers, WC=Yankees
National League: E=Braves, C=Cardinals, W=Padres, WC=Rockies*
This Week's Breakdown: The Cincinnati Reds
Sorry for the late update this week. With the first week of classes, I'm suddenly behind on everything.
As a Reds fan, I want to point out that there is exactly one team at the top of their division in the real standings, with 90+ extrapolated wins, but ranked in the bottom half of these rankings. That's my team, the Reds. I love that I've been accused have having "some sort of weird bias," and yet my rankings consistently seem to beat up on my team as much as any other! :)
From the standpoint of hitting, the Reds expected runs scored are in almost exact agreement with actual runs scored. This is good to see: to the surprise of everyone, the Reds' offense has been a real strength of the team. They rank second in the NL in park-adjusted runs scored (to the Padres) and second in estimated runs scored and wOBA (to the Brewers). This was a below-average offensive squad last year, so it's taken some pretty remarkable performances to get this kind of offense out of the team this year. Votto has obviously been outstanding and is in the MVP discussion. But we've also seen better than projected seasons from Rolen, Phillips, and the catcher tandem of Hernandez and Hanigan. The bench has also been huge: Miguel Cairo and Chris Heisey, in particular, have hit far better than expected in their roles as super-subs. The result has been a very capable offensive squad. Given that almost everyone is playing over projection, you have to wonder if they can keep it up...but so far, across most of the season, they have.
Fielding-wise, this is also a very good team. With the exceptions of Jonny Gomes and possibly Orlando Cabrera, everyone on this team can "go get it." There's pretty good agreement across the board, too, among UZR (+37 runs), DRS (+22 runs), and a stat based on base runs and FIP (+34 runs). Even the catching has been very good (+5 runs). The result is what we're estimating as the second-best fielding team in the National League, behind only the Padres.
So, if there's an Achilles' heal to this team, it's the pitching staff. Park-adjusted FIP (4.18) ranks only the Brewers, Pirates, and Diamondbacks as having poorer pitching performances thus far. xFIP (4.44) ranks the Reds as also behind the Brewers, 3rd to last in the National League. As a fan, this is surprising to me: we have 7 guys who seem like legitimately major league starters available for the rotation: Arroyo, Bailey, Cueto, Harang, Leake, Volquez, and Wood. I can't remember a time where such depth existed in the rotation. The truth is, though, that several of those pitchers seem to have pitched a bit over their heads so far this year. Arroyo always seems to beat his peripherals every year, but his xFIP is currently a full run higher than his ERA. Cueto is similar: 3.49 ERA vs 4.35 xFIP. Leake's stat line also looked similar, until his shelling over the past two weeks led to a DL stint. It is these kinds of disparities that are the reason that the model predicts that the Reds should have allowed 22 more runs than they actually have.
The good news for the Reds is that, while I think the pitching has gotten a bit lucky thus far, there is talent coming back that an can help. Edinson Volquez has been wild as all heck in his first batch of starts, but if he can get his control issues ironed out during this (hopefully brief) stint in the bullpen, he can still become a top-flight starter for the playoff push. Aaron Harang is also due back soon. While Harang isn't the pitcher he used to be, he is someone who seemingly has gotten pretty unlucky: 5.02 ERA this season vs. a 4.51 FIP and a 4.33 xFIP. This is a staff that may lack excellence at the top, but it is a deep rotation: I think almost everyone, #1 through #5, can be counted on to post somewhere around a 4.30 ERA over the rest of the season.
The Reds already have a lot of wins in the bank; if the offense can keep it up, and the pitching doesn't completely implode, we very well could see Cincinnati baseball in October. Last time I could say that, I was in high school. And once you're in...who knows what will happen?
Under the Hood
Converting Runs to Wins
| Team | G | RS | eRS | RA | eRA | W% | pW% | cW% | SoS | cW%s | xtW | LgQ | TPI |
| ARI | 129 | 548 | 545 | 658 | 619 | 0.395 | 0.414 | 0.440 | 0.524 | 0.464 | 66 | 0.482 | 0.446 |
| ATL | 128 | 602 | 597 | 495 | 496 | 0.570 | 0.590 | 0.584 | 0.503 | 0.587 | 93 | 0.482 | 0.570 |
| BAL | 129 | 476 | 512 | 666 | 668 | 0.357 | 0.348 | 0.378 | 0.511 | 0.388 | 59 | 0.518 | 0.405 |
| BOS | 129 | 634 | 648 | 568 | 583 | 0.574 | 0.552 | 0.551 | 0.502 | 0.552 | 92 | 0.518 | 0.570 |
| CHW | 128 | 588 | 566 | 517 | 541 | 0.547 | 0.560 | 0.521 | 0.479 | 0.500 | 87 | 0.518 | 0.518 |
| CHC | 129 | 527 | 540 | 614 | 583 | 0.419 | 0.429 | 0.464 | 0.490 | 0.454 | 69 | 0.482 | 0.436 |
| CIN | 128 | 616 | 615 | 534 | 556 | 0.578 | 0.567 | 0.548 | 0.479 | 0.527 | 92 | 0.482 | 0.509 |
| CLE | 128 | 527 | 533 | 635 | 618 | 0.406 | 0.413 | 0.430 | 0.503 | 0.433 | 67 | 0.518 | 0.451 |
| COL | 127 | 546 | 556 | 515 | 513 | 0.520 | 0.527 | 0.537 | 0.506 | 0.543 | 85 | 0.482 | 0.525 |
| DET | 129 | 569 | 591 | 587 | 589 | 0.496 | 0.486 | 0.501 | 0.492 | 0.493 | 80 | 0.518 | 0.510 |
| FLA | 127 | 581 | 571 | 545 | 547 | 0.512 | 0.529 | 0.520 | 0.513 | 0.533 | 83 | 0.482 | 0.515 |
| HOU | 128 | 489 | 479 | 598 | 567 | 0.453 | 0.408 | 0.423 | 0.505 | 0.427 | 72 | 0.482 | 0.410 |
| KCR | 128 | 508 | 518 | 660 | 670 | 0.422 | 0.379 | 0.381 | 0.503 | 0.384 | 67 | 0.518 | 0.401 |
| LAD | 129 | 580 | 570 | 564 | 544 | 0.519 | 0.513 | 0.521 | 0.509 | 0.530 | 84 | 0.482 | 0.512 |
| LAA | 129 | 580 | 545 | 602 | 613 | 0.488 | 0.482 | 0.445 | 0.501 | 0.446 | 78 | 0.518 | 0.463 |
| MIL | 128 | 610 | 637 | 687 | 634 | 0.469 | 0.443 | 0.502 | 0.492 | 0.495 | 77 | 0.482 | 0.477 |
| MIN | 129 | 627 | 628 | 526 | 526 | 0.574 | 0.582 | 0.582 | 0.488 | 0.570 | 93 | 0.518 | 0.587 |
| NYY | 128 | 690 | 661 | 529 | 565 | 0.609 | 0.624 | 0.575 | 0.492 | 0.567 | 97 | 0.518 | 0.584 |
| NYM | 128 | 528 | 538 | 512 | 555 | 0.500 | 0.513 | 0.486 | 0.514 | 0.500 | 81 | 0.482 | 0.482 |
| OAK | 127 | 520 | 522 | 497 | 510 | 0.496 | 0.521 | 0.511 | 0.489 | 0.500 | 81 | 0.518 | 0.517 |
| PHI | 128 | 572 | 561 | 510 | 535 | 0.555 | 0.553 | 0.522 | 0.511 | 0.533 | 89 | 0.482 | 0.515 |
| PIT | 128 | 434 | 462 | 688 | 662 | 0.336 | 0.298 | 0.338 | 0.506 | 0.343 | 55 | 0.482 | 0.327 |
| SDP | 127 | 623 | 583 | 484 | 487 | 0.598 | 0.616 | 0.584 | 0.498 | 0.582 | 96 | 0.482 | 0.564 |
| SEA | 128 | 430 | 447 | 568 | 561 | 0.391 | 0.376 | 0.399 | 0.501 | 0.400 | 64 | 0.518 | 0.417 |
| SFG | 129 | 573 | 570 | 501 | 542 | 0.550 | 0.561 | 0.523 | 0.508 | 0.531 | 88 | 0.482 | 0.513 |
| STL | 126 | 604 | 598 | 495 | 520 | 0.548 | 0.592 | 0.565 | 0.489 | 0.554 | 89 | 0.482 | 0.536 |
| TBR | 128 | 644 | 615 | 501 | 520 | 0.609 | 0.616 | 0.578 | 0.502 | 0.580 | 98 | 0.518 | 0.597 |
| TEX | 128 | 616 | 604 | 523 | 558 | 0.570 | 0.576 | 0.537 | 0.482 | 0.519 | 91 | 0.518 | 0.537 |
| TOR | 128 | 595 | 609 | 558 | 534 | 0.523 | 0.530 | 0.561 | 0.504 | 0.565 | 86 | 0.518 | 0.583 |
| WSN | 129 | 508 | 520 | 595 | 570 | 0.419 | 0.427 | 0.458 | 0.508 | 0.465 | 69 | 0.482 | 0.448 |
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. A good introduction to the topic is this post). 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 | 548 | 545 | 0.320 | 0.327 | 0.419 | 553 | -8 | 658 | 619 | 5.03 | 4.73 | 4.55 | 606 | 7 | 0.310 | |
| ATL | 602 | 597 | 0.332 | 0.340 | 0.404 | 596 | 0 | 495 | 496 | 3.54 | 3.71 | 3.92 | 514 | 17 | 0.295 | |
| BAL | 476 | 512 | 0.312 | 0.314 | 0.389 | 518 | -6 | 666 | 668 | 4.89 | 4.49 | 4.76 | 631 | -46 | 0.313 | |
| BOS | 634 | 648 | 0.343 | 0.341 | 0.456 | 651 | -3 | 568 | 583 | 4.15 | 4.23 | 4.35 | 587 | 7 | 0.297 | |
| CHW | 588 | 566 | 0.324 | 0.332 | 0.428 | 569 | -3 | 517 | 541 | 3.95 | 3.66 | 4.12 | 545 | -14 | 0.305 | |
| CHC | 527 | 540 | 0.318 | 0.322 | 0.410 | 544 | -4 | 614 | 583 | 4.45 | 4.11 | 4.26 | 564 | -18 | 0.316 | |
| CIN | 616 | 615 | 0.336 | 0.337 | 0.436 | 614 | 1 | 534 | 556 | 4.13 | 4.18 | 4.44 | 593 | 30 | 0.295 | |
| CLE | 527 | 533 | 0.317 | 0.322 | 0.380 | 532 | 1 | 635 | 618 | 4.51 | 4.67 | 4.73 | 617 | 3 | 0.305 | |
| COL | 546 | 556 | 0.322 | 0.335 | 0.421 | 551 | 6 | 515 | 513 | 4.10 | 3.64 | 4.01 | 524 | 0 | 0.306 | |
| DET | 569 | 591 | 0.330 | 0.339 | 0.415 | 590 | 0 | 587 | 589 | 4.35 | 4.23 | 4.57 | 608 | 5 | 0.302 | |
| FLA | 581 | 571 | 0.326 | 0.322 | 0.405 | 562 | 9 | 545 | 547 | 3.92 | 3.77 | 4.16 | 544 | -17 | 0.308 | |
| HOU | 489 | 479 | 0.303 | 0.302 | 0.361 | 474 | 4 | 598 | 567 | 4.18 | 3.76 | 4.14 | 546 | -33 | 0.319 | |
| KCR | 508 | 518 | 0.313 | 0.329 | 0.394 | 526 | -8 | 660 | 670 | 5.09 | 4.90 | 4.65 | 614 | -33 | 0.316 | |
| LAD | 580 | 570 | 0.325 | 0.329 | 0.388 | 568 | 2 | 564 | 544 | 3.95 | 3.70 | 4.05 | 539 | -16 | 0.300 | |
| LAA | 580 | 545 | 0.319 | 0.318 | 0.402 | 557 | -13 | 602 | 613 | 4.36 | 4.33 | 4.47 | 590 | -22 | 0.306 | |
| MIL | 610 | 637 | 0.341 | 0.336 | 0.431 | 635 | 1 | 687 | 634 | 4.91 | 4.25 | 4.33 | 571 | -58 | 0.328 | |
| MIN | 627 | 628 | 0.339 | 0.348 | 0.433 | 631 | -3 | 526 | 526 | 3.94 | 3.90 | 4.11 | 547 | 18 | 0.306 | |
| NYY | 690 | 661 | 0.346 | 0.349 | 0.439 | 661 | 1 | 529 | 565 | 3.90 | 4.11 | 4.30 | 565 | -2 | 0.286 | |
| NYM | 528 | 538 | 0.318 | 0.314 | 0.379 | 526 | 12 | 512 | 555 | 3.69 | 3.93 | 4.26 | 567 | 2 | 0.307 | |
| OAK | 520 | 522 | 0.314 | 0.320 | 0.373 | 513 | 9 | 497 | 510 | 3.53 | 4.14 | 4.18 | 544 | 42 | 0.281 | |
| PHI | 572 | 561 | 0.323 | 0.326 | 0.407 | 561 | 0 | 510 | 535 | 3.84 | 4.04 | 3.95 | 527 | 10 | 0.299 | |
| PIT | 434 | 462 | 0.299 | 0.301 | 0.364 | 467 | -5 | 688 | 662 | 5.07 | 4.72 | 4.62 | 597 | -50 | 0.317 | |
| SDP | 623 | 583 | 0.328 | 0.324 | 0.379 | 579 | 4 | 484 | 487 | 3.30 | 3.94 | 3.82 | 507 | 40 | 0.289 | |
| SEA | 430 | 447 | 0.296 | 0.302 | 0.343 | 451 | -4 | 568 | 561 | 3.95 | 4.13 | 4.38 | 577 | 10 | 0.294 | |
| SFG | 573 | 570 | 0.325 | 0.327 | 0.409 | 570 | -1 | 501 | 542 | 3.64 | 3.93 | 4.29 | 579 | 25 | 0.299 | |
| STL | 604 | 598 | 0.332 | 0.336 | 0.414 | 601 | -3 | 495 | 520 | 3.42 | 4.07 | 4.02 | 528 | 23 | 0.296 | |
| TBR | 644 | 615 | 0.336 | 0.337 | 0.402 | 601 | 14 | 501 | 520 | 3.66 | 3.95 | 4.15 | 552 | 30 | 0.285 | |
| TEX | 616 | 604 | 0.333 | 0.339 | 0.423 | 598 | 6 | 523 | 558 | 3.88 | 4.25 | 4.35 | 580 | 26 | 0.289 | |
| TOR | 595 | 609 | 0.335 | 0.314 | 0.453 | 611 | -2 | 558 | 534 | 4.12 | 3.96 | 4.18 | 551 | 13 | 0.299 | |
| WSN | 508 | 520 | 0.314 | 0.320 | 0.394 | 528 | -8 | 595 | 570 | 4.18 | 4.11 | 4.37 | 577 | 1 | 0.309 |
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.
32 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
God this pisses me off
Cardinals cW%s * 162 = 89.7 wins
Reds cW%s * 162 = 85.4 wins
Cardinals are on pace for 88.7 wins
Reds are on pace for 93.6 wins.
by vivaelpujols on Aug 28, 2010 11:27 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I believe I’ve read somewhere that the Red’s have had the easiest schedual of everyone in the MLB. Makes you wish they would terminate the divisions and have a balanced sched.
As a Jays fan who has seen the team good enough to make the playoffs of few times over the years only to fail because of the Yanks and Red Sox, I can feel your pain.
There She Gooooooes!
by Rugged Rock on Aug 28, 2010 11:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Look at the SoS column
The Reds and White Sox are tied for the easiest schedule so far.
And that's without any league adjustments
Which means yes, Reds have had the easiest schedule thus far.
-j
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
Isn't the difference between the Reds' and Cardinals schedule at this point that they play each other?
The Cardinals are only 11 games over .500 and the Reds are 19 games over. Interleague schedules were different too. But they’re in the same division, how different could the schedules be?
Yeah, okay - to follow up.
The Reds SoS is .479 and the Cardinals is .489. That’s a whopping 1% difference in winning percentage, and that’s probably in large part because the Reds have won so much more than the Cardinals against bad teams this year and they play each other.
well that is one way to look at it, with logic
"@#$%$#@% you joey Votto. gutshot. urgh"-tehzachatak, Viva El Birdo
by justin007000 on Aug 29, 2010 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions
But logic is overrated.
Obviously the Reds are just lucky. They can’t keep up this pace. There’s no way.
/wearingblinders’d
"People don't kill people. Burning oreo packages kill people."
As I said a few times...
I think the reds have gotten a bit lucky. But those wins are in the bank, and there’s not THAT much difference between the Cards and the Reds. If we assume that their schedule-adjusted component winning percentage (cW%s) is what they’ll do the rest of the way, they should win the division by several games.
-j
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
I'm pro divisions & pro-balanced schedule
It can be done. :)
-j
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
cut interleague play
and cut one series with each team in the division would allow 3 series against non-division teams, yet allows for more games within the division.
"@#$%$#@% you joey Votto. gutshot. urgh"-tehzachatak, Viva El Birdo
by justin007000 on Aug 30, 2010 11:03 AM EDT up reply actions
I sort of like interleague play
But I’d be ok with this if the result is more uniformity in schedules.
That said, generally speaking, strength of schedule doesn’t vary all that much. But a difference of 0.010 in W% is the equivalent of 1.6 wins, which is enough to effect someone who wins a division or (especially) the wild card.
-j
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
2006: 83 wins, 1 World Series.
Cards have had their share of good luck.
by RedsManRick on Aug 29, 2010 1:42 AM EDT reply actions 3 recs
Exactly.
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
Arroyo
Arroyo always seems to beat his peripherals every year, but his xFIP is currently a full run higher than his ERA.
Is Arroyo always lucky? Is there a certain type of pitcher that beats xFIP? Or is xFIP only usually more descriptive than ERA?
Arroyo has been a full-time starter since ‘04 – 7 seasons; in that time, he’s underperformed xFIP only once, and outperformed by less than half a run only one other time. The fact that he’s outperforming xFIP by .92 runs would seem to set off alarms if he wasn’t at .72 last year or .86 runs in ‘06. As you know, it can’t be defense because the Reds’ defense has been pretty suspect before this year.
"You never know how you look through other people's eyes"
I had this conversation with slyde a few weeks back on twitter.
I’ll buy that Arroyo can consistently beat his xFIP by a half run. I think that’s roughly his career average (for those years when xFIP is available). I don’t buy that he can do it by a whole run.
-j
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
Perhaps Harang is the Reds karma pitcher, since he constantly under performs his peripherals!
"@#$%$#@% you joey Votto. gutshot. urgh"-tehzachatak, Viva El Birdo
by justin007000 on Aug 30, 2010 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions
OK
So if Arroyo, for whatever reason has a “true talent” of +.5, is +.5 from that within spittin’ distance of what we’d expect or an outleir?
I ask because I don’t know.
"You never know how you look through other people's eyes"
Sure, I think so.
I’m not sure what the standard deviation of fielding-adjusted ERA is to xFIP, but I’m guessing that it’s around 0.3 or so. 0.5 is getting up there, but there are assuredly several pitchers who do this each year by luck alone.
-j
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
It's all thanks to one guy...
Arthur Rhodes.
I know you don’t believe me, and that it’s silly that one guy could have that much effect, but it’s true. It’s one man, and that one man is Arthur Rhodes.
See, the BtB uses runs scored and runs allowed to determine wins and losses. But not all runs are created equal. If you’re already down 10 runs in the bottom of the 8th and they score another 2, those runs aren’t as valuable as if it were a tie game and they scored 2. But BtB treats them the same (at least, the usual standard deviation method treats them the same).
Normally, these cancel out- everybody has about the same number of 1 run games and the same number of blowouts. But the Reds do much better than average in close games, and Rhodes is the reason. I know that it’s tough to remember after his last two outings, but Rhodes set MLB records this year for scoreless innings. Those kinds of stats skew the runs allowed vs. wins, because Rhodes only pitches in close games.
Kind of a shame, though, because Rhodes will never have another season like this again (how many pitchers have ever had a season like this one?). Next year, though, it may be Chapman who skews out stats in close games.
Half true.
Justin doesn’t use runs allowed; he estimates it from component stats.
But you’re correct that he doesn’t currently account for leverage. I hear it’s in the works.
Half true
A study investigating how much it really matters is in the works. Actually addressing it in the power rankings is pretty far off, if it ever happens. :)
-j
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
Rhodes
He’s absolutely a badass.
But he’s also a poster child for lucky pitching. I love him, he’s been a great reliever for us, and he definitely has good stuff. But he’s not Matt Thornton filthy. His BABIP is .240 vs. a career mark of .293 and a team mark of .295. His scoreless inning streak was a classic example of hitters not finding holes. Yes, it did occur in the midst of high leverage situations. But if it’s largely luck, I’m not interested in accounting for it in these rankings.
Now, on the other hand, if the bullpen has legitimate awesomeness out there, like we see with Bell, Gregerson, and Adams for the Padres, then it might be worth doing. As Sky said, it’s something I’m thinking about including, but it’s a ways off at this point.
Anyway, that all said, what you’re describing wouldn’t actually come into play in the “lucky” performance I was talking about. You’re talking about a translation of runs allowed into wins. The Reds do have a slightly better W% than pythagorean W%, (.578 vs. .567), and Rhodes’ leverage effect, if anywhere, is in that number. But the difference between pythag W% and component W%, which is a bigger gap (.567 vs. .548), is not effected by leverage (mostly), as it’s not a timing issue in the sense that you describe. That difference is the one I focused on in my write-up, and it’s driven by the 22-run gap between expected and actual runs allowed.
-j
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
“the Reds’ offense has been a real strength of the team. They rank second in the NL in park-adjusted runs scored (to the Padres)”
If the stat really says that, then there is no use in having it. You can’t have the Padres as the best offense in the NL even with their ballpark.
Ok.
Um. So do I just take your word for it?
-j
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
Ha. The old “it doesn’t agree with me so it has no use” argument. Interesting tactic….
(And by that I mean, you have to have an actual reason to dismiss it, rather than just not agreeing with what it says)
by Missing Barry on Sep 1, 2010 11:15 PM EDT up reply actions
I posted this at Redreporter, but it probably fits better here
The Cardinals are seriously underperforming their Pythagorean record.
While the Reds are a game better than theirs.
While some of that is luck, is the other part who the rotations are constructed.
The Reds have scored and allowed a sizable number more runs than the Cardinals.
The Reds have a much more balanced rotation, for most of the season the Cardinals had a dominant top 3 in Carpenter, Wainwright, and Garcia, but garbage for the 4th and 5th spots, and now they have an average Westbrook, and a tterrible Kyle Lohse for the 5th spot.
The Cardinals score an average of 4.6 runs a game, which is more than enough to win when their big three are pitching. But 4.6 runs does not support Lohse, P.J. Walters, Hawksworth, or the other replacement level or worse pitchers they used in the 4th and 5th spots of the rotation. So between the time the Penny went on the DL and Westbrook joined the Cardinals rotation that is almost two guaranteed loses out of 5.
The Reds score an average of 5 runs, which should be enough to support all of our starting pitchers. Plus the Reds strong bullpen locks down close games.
Is that an explanation as to why the Reds are slightly over performing their run differential, but the Cardinals are seriously underperforming theirs?
"@#$%$#@% you joey Votto. gutshot. urgh"-tehzachatak, Viva El Birdo
It might
It’s always had to test these kinds of explanations for any one team, as your sample size = 1.
There was some work by Gassko a while back showing that pitchers that are consistent performers are not as valuable as pitchers who have equal average performance, but are extremely inconsistent. That extend to the team level might play into your argument, though I think it predicts the opposite effect: the inconsistent (sharp?) Cardinals should do better than the consistent (smooth?) Reds.
-j
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
Very hard to prove.
But I think there’s reason to look there.
Lets say that there are two teams: Team A has 5 starters that all give them a 50% chance to win. Team B has 2 starters that give them a 60% chance, 1 starter with a 50% chance, and 2 starters with a 40% chance to win. That gives both teams an average of 2.5 wins every 5 games.
Their probability of winning X games is as follows:
X A B
0 .03125 .0288
1 .15625 .1968
2 .3125 .3608
3 .3125 .2312
4 .15625 .1536 .
5 .03125 .0288
Under that scenario, both teams would be expected to win the same number of games over a long trial; however, team A would be more likely to be above their expected wins than team B. Infact, based off of the mode for teams A and B, you could expect team B to be half a win under their expected due to variability.
Applying this to the Cardinals and Reds. If Cards Starters 1 – 3 are a 60% probability to win and 4-5 are a 35%, their variance is lower (.6*.4*3 + .35*.55*2) and so the range around their outcomes is lower than for the Reds with a 50% probability to win every game (5*.5*.5).
If the Reds rolled a uniform 0-100 die and the Cards rolled a uniform 0-100 die and both got a 60, the Reds would have more wins than the Cards even though they had the same expected win level.
If there’s anything I’d like to see more of in baseball analysis is analysis of the variance around the estimates and estimators.






















