Last week, we talked about measuring teams' ability in the clutch and how that affects their record and SPI ranking. After all of that, I still maintained that luck played a large enough factor in the clutch that I didn't want to factor it into the SPI, saying that over time, it would take care of itself.
Lo and behold, it's done exactly that. The Angels and Braves were only separated by 0.381 points when I wrote last week's article, but their performance in the clutch was vastly different. Over the last week, each team has played differently enough that they are separated by nearly a point and a half. The Angels have won eight of their last ten, while the Braves have won just three and lost five straight. Each team is playing up (or down!) to their expectations. You can see that in the new SPI rankings - the Angels are now fifth, the highest they've been this season, while the Braves have fallen steadily to 17th.
Also of note: the Boston Red Sox, largely due to playing the Angels in six of their last 12 games (and losing them all), have lost their stranglehold on the #2 spot and fallen to third, giving the Chicago teams the top two spots. If they don't turn things around soon, they could find themselves below Philadelphia and even out of the list of contenders.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Understanding Clutch
We've gone over how the SPI is calculated. I've also explained that you can take a team's SPI rating and extrapolate how many games you would expect them to win or lose. Sometimes, however, you find a team who is either winning or losing far more games than the numbers would lead you to expect. How can we account for this?
Ballplayers and fans typically explain this with something called "clutch." Teams that have clutch are those who can pull out close wins late in games. They usually win by small margins and in dramatic fashion. Those without clutch tend to fold in big games or at the end of close games. So how does one measure clutch? It's difficult, since clutch is more of a feeling than anything concretely measurable, but there are some statistics one can use. Let's compare an overachieving team and an underachieving team as an example. Our overachievers are the Los Angeles Angels (actual win-loss of 61-39, with an expected win-loss of 54-46), and our underachievers are the Atlanta Braves (actual win-loss of 47-53, with an expected win-loss of 52-48). They're off by an average of six games, which is enough to dramatically change a pennant race. If Atlanta were playing six games better, they'd be contending for the NL East title. If Los Angeles were playing six games worse, they'd still be in the AL West lead, but with a much smaller margin.
To start, I looked at each team's record in one-run games. If a team consistently does well in close games, it's likely that they're a team that's good in the clutch. (They could also just be lucky. More on that later.) The Angels are 19-13 in one-run games this year, while the Braves are an abysmal 6-22. Ouch. Those are games that could have swung either way, but they tend to consistently swing toward the Angels and away from the Braves. But not all close games are decided by one run. I looked for two-run games to see if we could see the same trends. In both cases, the team's records improved, but the difference is still clear. After factoring in two-run games, the Braves land at 13-24 while the Angels rise to a staggering 39-18. That's pretty significant.
Except none of this accounts for defense. It's one thing to see a team's offense narrowly outscoring another, but it's something else to see a team's defense protect a slight lead. That's a little trickier to manage, since the defense is part good pitching and part good fielding, but there's a statistic that will do the job. Pitchers can earn what is called a "save" if they enter the game with a lead of at most three runs, pitch at least an inning, and preserve the lead. Pitchers (and teams) with lots of saves tend to be involved in close games, since no one is credited with a save for preserving a lead of four runs or more. Team pitching stats are just as revealing as their close game records. The Angels have 43 team saves, 41 of which belong to Francisco "K-Rod" Rodriguez. The Braves, by comparison, have just 15. That could be partially due to poor pitching, but it could also be due to poor fielding. (A look at play-by-play transcripts show a dearth of late-game errors, so it's more likely poor relief pitching.) A high number of blown saves is a good explanation for a team's poor record in close games.
So why, then, is clutch not factored into the SPI? Because while I feel that there is some measure of skill involved in clutch, most of it has to do with luck. A close game can be decided by something as small as the way a ball bounces. A good team will be able to pull through in a close game most of the time, but they won't be able to consistently beat the odds. Sooner or later, luck is bound to catch up with them (for better or for worse) and bring them back toward the center. And then there's the simple fact that I trust a high-scoring team more than a low one. If you had to put money on a team to win one game, would you bet on the one who consistently won by a high margin or the one who tended to narrowly pull out games? Personally, I'd feel safer betting on the higher-scoring team, but maybe that's just me.
Ballplayers and fans typically explain this with something called "clutch." Teams that have clutch are those who can pull out close wins late in games. They usually win by small margins and in dramatic fashion. Those without clutch tend to fold in big games or at the end of close games. So how does one measure clutch? It's difficult, since clutch is more of a feeling than anything concretely measurable, but there are some statistics one can use. Let's compare an overachieving team and an underachieving team as an example. Our overachievers are the Los Angeles Angels (actual win-loss of 61-39, with an expected win-loss of 54-46), and our underachievers are the Atlanta Braves (actual win-loss of 47-53, with an expected win-loss of 52-48). They're off by an average of six games, which is enough to dramatically change a pennant race. If Atlanta were playing six games better, they'd be contending for the NL East title. If Los Angeles were playing six games worse, they'd still be in the AL West lead, but with a much smaller margin.
To start, I looked at each team's record in one-run games. If a team consistently does well in close games, it's likely that they're a team that's good in the clutch. (They could also just be lucky. More on that later.) The Angels are 19-13 in one-run games this year, while the Braves are an abysmal 6-22. Ouch. Those are games that could have swung either way, but they tend to consistently swing toward the Angels and away from the Braves. But not all close games are decided by one run. I looked for two-run games to see if we could see the same trends. In both cases, the team's records improved, but the difference is still clear. After factoring in two-run games, the Braves land at 13-24 while the Angels rise to a staggering 39-18. That's pretty significant.
Except none of this accounts for defense. It's one thing to see a team's offense narrowly outscoring another, but it's something else to see a team's defense protect a slight lead. That's a little trickier to manage, since the defense is part good pitching and part good fielding, but there's a statistic that will do the job. Pitchers can earn what is called a "save" if they enter the game with a lead of at most three runs, pitch at least an inning, and preserve the lead. Pitchers (and teams) with lots of saves tend to be involved in close games, since no one is credited with a save for preserving a lead of four runs or more. Team pitching stats are just as revealing as their close game records. The Angels have 43 team saves, 41 of which belong to Francisco "K-Rod" Rodriguez. The Braves, by comparison, have just 15. That could be partially due to poor pitching, but it could also be due to poor fielding. (A look at play-by-play transcripts show a dearth of late-game errors, so it's more likely poor relief pitching.) A high number of blown saves is a good explanation for a team's poor record in close games.
So why, then, is clutch not factored into the SPI? Because while I feel that there is some measure of skill involved in clutch, most of it has to do with luck. A close game can be decided by something as small as the way a ball bounces. A good team will be able to pull through in a close game most of the time, but they won't be able to consistently beat the odds. Sooner or later, luck is bound to catch up with them (for better or for worse) and bring them back toward the center. And then there's the simple fact that I trust a high-scoring team more than a low one. If you had to put money on a team to win one game, would you bet on the one who consistently won by a high margin or the one who tended to narrowly pull out games? Personally, I'd feel safer betting on the higher-scoring team, but maybe that's just me.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
All-Star Break Predictions
The All-Star Break starts tomorrow, friends, and since it comes at about the halfway point of the season, it's time to offer up some predictions for the second half.
A quick glance at the SPI standings will show you that six teams are head and shoulders above the rest of the league, but looking even more closely will show that of those six teams, three of them are even more outstanding. Much was made of the Chicago Cubs before the start of this season. Several pundits said that this year - the hundredth since they last won a World Series - would be their year to win it all. So far, they look to be right on the money. The Cubs are easily the league's best team, although they haven't been able to distance themselves from everyone else quite yet. There's always been someone nipping at their heels. A couple of weeks ago it was the Tampa Bay Rays. Now that the Rays have lost six straight and dropped over 30 runs from their scoring differential, the Boston Red Sox and Chicago White Sox are making a move. A lot can happen between now and the start of the playoffs in October, but I'd be surprised if one of these three teams wasn't on top of the standings at the end of the year.
Meanwhile, some other teams that were supposed to make a lot of noise this year have faltered. The Cleveland Indians have disappointed, going from a tremendous season in 2007 to a 40-53 record at the half. Yikes. The Tigers were also supposed to be great this year with a powerful offensive lineup. Instead, the Tigers have struggled to post a winning record, earning them an SPI that has hovered around 5.5. Many are saying that the Tigers have started to turn things around and that they could be dangerous come October. I'm not so sure - in order to be a legitimate championship threat, I feel a team needs to have an SPI rating of at least 8, and preferably higher. (Last year's champions, the Red Sox, posted a staggering 10.256 SPI rating, completely obliterating the competition.) Sure, the Tigers might turn things around, but at this rate, don't look for them to make the playoffs.
The same can be said about the Milwaukee Brewers. After they traded for ace pitcher C. C. Sabathia recently, many sportswriters talked about the Brewers as a potential wild card threat in the National League. They might be better with Sabathia, but their SPI is still below 6, and until they can start bringing their run differential up, I'm not ready to take them seriously.
And now, my thoughts on the eight probable playoff teams. Each league has three divisions, and the winners of those are guaranteed playoff spots. The wild card spot goes to the team with the next highest record. Sometimes this means that very good teams are kept out at the expense of less-talented teams that won a weak division, so I can't just choose the top eight in the SPI. I'll extrapolate teams' records out to 162 games and give you my predictions on how it will turn out. Remember, though - these are just predictions. Any number of things could happen before October that would dramatically change things.
American League
AL East: Boston Red Sox (99-63)
AL Central: Chicago White Sox (97-65)
AL West: Oakland A's (94-68)
AL Wild Card: Tampa Bay Rays (91-71)
National League
NL East: Philadelphia Philles (95-67)
NL Central: Chicago Cubs (101-61)
NL West: Arizona Diamondbacks (82-80)
NL Wild Card: New York Mets (87-75)
Red Sox def. Rays
White Sox def. A's
Cubs def. Diamondbacks
Phillies def. Mets
Red Sox def. White Sox
Cubs def. Phillies
Cubs def. Red Sox
A quick glance at the SPI standings will show you that six teams are head and shoulders above the rest of the league, but looking even more closely will show that of those six teams, three of them are even more outstanding. Much was made of the Chicago Cubs before the start of this season. Several pundits said that this year - the hundredth since they last won a World Series - would be their year to win it all. So far, they look to be right on the money. The Cubs are easily the league's best team, although they haven't been able to distance themselves from everyone else quite yet. There's always been someone nipping at their heels. A couple of weeks ago it was the Tampa Bay Rays. Now that the Rays have lost six straight and dropped over 30 runs from their scoring differential, the Boston Red Sox and Chicago White Sox are making a move. A lot can happen between now and the start of the playoffs in October, but I'd be surprised if one of these three teams wasn't on top of the standings at the end of the year.
Meanwhile, some other teams that were supposed to make a lot of noise this year have faltered. The Cleveland Indians have disappointed, going from a tremendous season in 2007 to a 40-53 record at the half. Yikes. The Tigers were also supposed to be great this year with a powerful offensive lineup. Instead, the Tigers have struggled to post a winning record, earning them an SPI that has hovered around 5.5. Many are saying that the Tigers have started to turn things around and that they could be dangerous come October. I'm not so sure - in order to be a legitimate championship threat, I feel a team needs to have an SPI rating of at least 8, and preferably higher. (Last year's champions, the Red Sox, posted a staggering 10.256 SPI rating, completely obliterating the competition.) Sure, the Tigers might turn things around, but at this rate, don't look for them to make the playoffs.
The same can be said about the Milwaukee Brewers. After they traded for ace pitcher C. C. Sabathia recently, many sportswriters talked about the Brewers as a potential wild card threat in the National League. They might be better with Sabathia, but their SPI is still below 6, and until they can start bringing their run differential up, I'm not ready to take them seriously.
And now, my thoughts on the eight probable playoff teams. Each league has three divisions, and the winners of those are guaranteed playoff spots. The wild card spot goes to the team with the next highest record. Sometimes this means that very good teams are kept out at the expense of less-talented teams that won a weak division, so I can't just choose the top eight in the SPI. I'll extrapolate teams' records out to 162 games and give you my predictions on how it will turn out. Remember, though - these are just predictions. Any number of things could happen before October that would dramatically change things.
American League
AL East: Boston Red Sox (99-63)
AL Central: Chicago White Sox (97-65)
AL West: Oakland A's (94-68)
AL Wild Card: Tampa Bay Rays (91-71)
National League
NL East: Philadelphia Philles (95-67)
NL Central: Chicago Cubs (101-61)
NL West: Arizona Diamondbacks (82-80)
NL Wild Card: New York Mets (87-75)
Red Sox def. Rays
White Sox def. A's
Cubs def. Diamondbacks
Phillies def. Mets
Red Sox def. White Sox
Cubs def. Phillies
Cubs def. Red Sox
Friday, July 11, 2008
MLB SPI, 11 July
A more formal introduction will come later, once I have more time to write.
I've given a detailed explanation of how the SPI works elsewhere, so I'll forgo that. Just one quick note - I've changed the scale to assign each team a rating of 0-10. It's pretty intuitive. If a team has a rating close to 10, they're very good. A team with a rating around 5 is average. A team with a rating close to 0 is abominable. (29 of the 30 MLB teams currently have ratings higher than 2. No one should ever have a rating equal to or less than zero.) This should help to make the index more user-friendly, particulary for those without much sports or statistical experience.
Based on that, we see that six teams have ratings far above the rest. I've dubbed this group "the Contenders." You may hear that other teams are hot and dangerous, but unless something changes dramatically between now and October (and it certainly could), these are the six teams with a real chance to win the World Series. In order, they are: the Cubs, the Red Sox, the White Sox, the Phillies, the A's, and the Rays. If these teams keep up at their current pace (though there's no guarantee that they will), all six of them will make the playoffs and one of them will win the World Series (probably the Cubs).
I've broken the rest of the league down into informative groups. I'll list them below and post their SPI ratings on the sidebar, where I'll keep a running list going with fairly frequent updates.
The Contenders
1. Chicago Cubs
2. Boston Red Sox
3. Chicago White Sox
4. Philadelphia Phillies
5. Oakland A's
6. Tampa Bay Rays
The Sleepers
7. New York Yankees
8. New York Mets
9. Atlanta Braves
10. Los Angeles Angels
The Also-Rans
11. Milwaukee Brewers
12. Toronto Blue Jays
13. Minnesota Twins
14. St. Louis Cardinals
Barely Above Water
15. Detroit Tigers
16. Los Angeles Dodgers
17. Arizona Diamondbacks
18. Baltimore Orioles
19. Cleveland Indians
20. Texas Rangers
21. Florida Marlins
22. Houston Astros
Cellar Dwellers
23. Cincinnati Reds
24. Pittsburgh Pirates
25. San Francisco Giants
26. Seattle Mariners
27. Kansas City Royals
28. Colorado Rockies
29. San Diego Padres
The Washington Nationals
30. Washington Nationals
I've given a detailed explanation of how the SPI works elsewhere, so I'll forgo that. Just one quick note - I've changed the scale to assign each team a rating of 0-10. It's pretty intuitive. If a team has a rating close to 10, they're very good. A team with a rating around 5 is average. A team with a rating close to 0 is abominable. (29 of the 30 MLB teams currently have ratings higher than 2. No one should ever have a rating equal to or less than zero.) This should help to make the index more user-friendly, particulary for those without much sports or statistical experience.
Based on that, we see that six teams have ratings far above the rest. I've dubbed this group "the Contenders." You may hear that other teams are hot and dangerous, but unless something changes dramatically between now and October (and it certainly could), these are the six teams with a real chance to win the World Series. In order, they are: the Cubs, the Red Sox, the White Sox, the Phillies, the A's, and the Rays. If these teams keep up at their current pace (though there's no guarantee that they will), all six of them will make the playoffs and one of them will win the World Series (probably the Cubs).
I've broken the rest of the league down into informative groups. I'll list them below and post their SPI ratings on the sidebar, where I'll keep a running list going with fairly frequent updates.
The Contenders
1. Chicago Cubs
2. Boston Red Sox
3. Chicago White Sox
4. Philadelphia Phillies
5. Oakland A's
6. Tampa Bay Rays
The Sleepers
7. New York Yankees
8. New York Mets
9. Atlanta Braves
10. Los Angeles Angels
The Also-Rans
11. Milwaukee Brewers
12. Toronto Blue Jays
13. Minnesota Twins
14. St. Louis Cardinals
Barely Above Water
15. Detroit Tigers
16. Los Angeles Dodgers
17. Arizona Diamondbacks
18. Baltimore Orioles
19. Cleveland Indians
20. Texas Rangers
21. Florida Marlins
22. Houston Astros
Cellar Dwellers
23. Cincinnati Reds
24. Pittsburgh Pirates
25. San Francisco Giants
26. Seattle Mariners
27. Kansas City Royals
28. Colorado Rockies
29. San Diego Padres
The Washington Nationals
30. Washington Nationals
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)