MLB Power Rankings 5-25

by thegodfather on May 25, 2009 11:58 AM EDT Comment 25 comments

It's been about a week and a half since the last rankings, so here's round two. Same thing as last time. The power rankings are established using 50% current record, 25% strength of schedule (from ESPN), 15% run differential, and 10% recent performance.

SOS is used because even though it may not matter very much, those numbers cluster closely around .500 for every team. This brings all of the power rankings closer to .500.

Recent performance (last 10 games) is used because it's a power ranking. Power rankings are based partly on recent performance. It's only 10% though. This will gauge how a team has been doing lately which may indicate how they'll do in the immediate future. A team's recent performance may also reflect changes due to the addition or loss of a player due to injury.

Current record is used for obvious reasons. It's the simplest way to rank all 30 teams.

Pythagorean winning percentage is used because it's a good way to take run dfferential into account.

Team	Power	Wins	LW	Change
LAD	0.626	101	98.4	2.6
TEX	0.58	93.9	92.1	1.8
PHI	0.57	92.4	83	9.4
DET	0.57	92.3	87.2	5.1
STL	0.565	91.5	87.3	4.2
MIL	0.564	91.4	94.4	-3
NYY	0.564	91.4	73.4	18
BOS	0.555	89.9	93.4	-3.5
TOR	0.54	87.5	98.1	-10.6
ATL	0.535	86.6	81.1	5.5
SD	0.53	85.8	64.3	21.5
TB	0.529	85.7	79.2	6.6
NYM	0.527	85.3	92.4	-7.1
LAA	0.524	84.8	87.3	-2.5
CIN	0.509	82.5	91.6	-9.1
PIT	0.489	79.4	69.3	10.1
MIN	0.489	79.2	79.1	0.1
KC	0.489	79.2	85.7	-6.5
CHC	0.481	78	90.8	-12.8
SEA	0.471	76.3	72.8	3.5
ARI	0.463	75.1	63.7	11.4
COL	0.46	74.5	73.3	1.2
HOU	0.447	72.4	76.7	-4.3
SF	0.447	72.3	86.9	-14.6
CHW	0.444	72	73.6	-1.6
FLA	0.437	70.7	77.9	-7.2
BAL	0.431	69.8	73.4	-3.6
CLE	0.427	69.2	67.1	2.1
OAK	0.418	67.8	72.3	-4.5
WAS	0.351	56.8	65.7	-8.9

In case you're wondering, the total number of wins for all 30 teams was 1.5 too high last time, and it is 4.7 too high this time (2434.7 instead of 2430). The difference is negligible.

Luckily, the Cards pull a #5 ranking just ahead of the Brew Crew. Let's hope they can take at least 2/3 in Milwaukee after that ugly sweep. The Cubs are ranked somewhat low, but based on winning percentage they are only on pace for 83 wins. In case you're wondering, the Dodgers and Nationals are on pace for 110 and 46 wins each, respectively, based on WPCT. The Cards would be on pace for 98. As you can see, the rankings above paint a more accurate picture of what the end of the season may look like than simply WPCT*162.

0 recs | Comment 25 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Apparently they didn't notice

that we can’t hit.

Seriously, our pitching has been outstanding, but sadly it’s been out of necessity. These past couple weeks remind me of 2007.

On with the (good) youth movement!

by aet15 on May 25, 2009 7:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

So?

Yeah, there is no offense right now. Do you think I should just drop them a few extra spots arbitrarily since they can’t hit without their 2,4, and 5 hitters? They are currently 18th in runs scored and tied for 2nd in runs allowed. That’s good for the 7th best pyth. record in the majors. ESPN ranks the Cards 4th, ESPN RPI ranks them 3rd, and Foxsports ranks them 3rd. I don’t think 5th is too unreasonable, especially considering the numbers I used don’t include today’s.

The Godfather himself has decided to grace us with his presence. This is his damn house. He sleeps 20 feet away.

by thegodfather on May 25, 2009 8:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So how many consecutive wins over the Cards do the Brewers need...

… to be ranked ahead of the birds when the two teams have identical records?

Kind of moot after today, but dude. Seriously.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on May 25, 2009 8:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dude, seriously...

They are ranked nearly identically above. After today, the Brewers would be ranked higher. If you read the post, you would realize that the rankings are 100% data based. I made a spreadsheet and plugged in numbers. If you have any quibbles with my method, let me know because I’m all ears, but please don’t get pissy because I ranked your Brewers 1/10 of a win behind the Cardinals when their records were identical. The numbers show that the Cardinals have hung in there even though they’ve dealt with many more injuries than the Brewers, so I don’t see any problem with the rankings.

Brewers team FIP: 4.74
Cardinals team FIP: 3.76

Brewers team wOBA: .338
Cardinals team wOBA: .330

The Godfather himself has decided to grace us with his presence. This is his damn house. He sleeps 20 feet away.

by thegodfather on May 25, 2009 9:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I read your post and knew it was numbers based...

… rather than subjective. It’s the fact that you don’t have a problem with the outcome that I have a problem with. And based on the comments, it’s not just Brewer fans that thought so. But hey, it’s your system, and if you want to run it that way, knock yourself out. I just reserve the right to mock you for it when you get it wrong.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on May 25, 2009 9:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

"wrong"?

what’s more likely to be illusory — FIP and wOBA or a W-L percentage?

the truth can't hurt you, it's just like the dark/ it scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark -- macmanus

by tom s. on May 26, 2009 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

RBI's

St. Louis Cardinals... defying win expectancy since 2008

by vivaelpujols on May 26, 2009 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

heh

Patiently awaiting the day Colby Rasmus does this: .275/.381/.551/.932, 29HR, in St. Louis...and I'm wanting an Allen Craig call-up!

by RunninRedbird on May 26, 2009 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Point taken...

… yet the playoff spots are still determined by W/L record. I have tremendous respect for the Cardinals and the fact that they were tied for the division despite the positional injuries they’re dealing with. My problem with the rankings as they were listed (regardless of how they were calculated). It’s my contention that any ranking system, whether numbers based or purely subjective, is flawed if puts one team ahead of another despite a lopsided head-to-head record in favor of the lower ranked team. It’s not that w/l percentage is or isnt illusory, it’s that the Brewers have (thus far) repeatedly demonstrated their superiority to the Cardinals on the field, and thus any ranking system that puts the Cardinals on top is wrong.

It’s also ironic to me that the author defends the ranking first by saying their objective, and THEN by pointing out that the Cards are doing what their doing despite the injuries, which doesn’t factor into the numbers he’s using at all. (At least not that I can see, if I’m wrong on that, please point it out.) Funny, I thought the rankings weren’t subjective.

Anyhoo… I’d much rather have a 1 game lead than the edge in the rankings of a Cardinal fan. They’re his rankings, not mine, and he can run them the way he sees fit.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on May 26, 2009 6:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

well, they're objective in the sense that he's a) giving you the formula

and you’re welcome to check it if you like and b) he set these up ahead of time, so it’s not like he jerry-rigged the rankings to favor the cardinals.

the reason injuries are omitted is precisely to avoid this kind of “you’re a cardinals homer” criticism, i imagine. if he were tweaking the numbers to factor in injured players, that would be a place where subjectivity (or accusations thereof) could sneak in.

if for you power rankings = standings, then by all means enjoy the standings.

the truth can't hurt you, it's just like the dark/ it scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark -- macmanus

by tom s. on May 26, 2009 6:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice straw man...

… but I didn’t say power rankings = standings. I said that when two teams have equal records and one team has dominated another on the field, then the formula should be crafted to take that into account. By no means am I suggesting that if one team is significantly better in the w/l record than another yet the lesser team has a better head to head record that the head to head record should trump.

If injuries are omitted to avoid the “homer” criticism, then you (and he) should bloody well stop bringing them to defend the rankings. And you don’t have to be a homer to be wrong.

But hey, anytime you want to distort my argument instead of respond to it, feel free.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on May 26, 2009 7:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

if what's really bugging you is this "head-to-head" issue,

then you already got a very good answer to your question from RunninRedbird below. four games is not enough to draw any conclusions from. it’s much better to rely on raw stats like wOBA and FIP than to try to introduce a head-to-head component.

i can certainly think of lots of teams we had difficulty beating who were not nearly as good as we were. i’m sure you can say the same. lots of playoff teams end up winning playoff series against better teams. four games doesn’t mean very much, relative to pitching and batting stats developed over a larger sample size.

the truth can't hurt you, it's just like the dark/ it scares you witless, but in time you see things clear and stark -- macmanus

by tom s. on May 26, 2009 7:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah.

As I said below, that is a pretty good answer. And you’re right, there are plenty of bad teams that somehow manage to dominate superior ones. (The Pirates owned the Brewers as recently as 2007, if memory serves.) That’s why I only suggested that it should be taken into account when the teams are roughly equal otherwise (like the Brewers and the Cards.)

How does one do that? Beats the hell out of me. I’m not a math guy. It might be impossible, but I’m not the one trying to create (and subsequently defend) a mathematical power ranking system.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on May 26, 2009 7:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know what your problem is.

How did I get it wrong? It doesn’t matter that at the time of this posting the Cards had lost 3/3 games against the Brewers. Woohoo! Your Brewers had taken all of three games against a Cardinals team decimated by injuries. Obviously my rankings based on aggregate measures of performance and results are less accurate than one three game series. Maybe that means I should rank the Twins ahead of the Brewers. Makes perfect sense.

At the time of the posting, the Cards and Brewers were tied with the 3rd best record in the majors. They had both won 6/10. The Cardinals had a slightly better run differential. Therefore, they are ranked .1 win ahead of the Brewers. I don’t think a #5 ranking is too outrageous when I’m trying to make the rankings more realistic for the long term.

People don’t get on Vivaelbirdos to mock others with differing opinions. That’s not the point. If you have a reasonable suggestion as to what I can do differently to make the formula more accurate, please tell me because I would really like to know. I’ve considered BABIP adjustments and using different weights for the current categories but it seems like the way I have it now is pretty good. I don’t appreciate your pompous, derisive attitude and I doubt others do either.

The Godfather himself has decided to grace us with his presence. This is his damn house. He sleeps 20 feet away.

by thegodfather on May 26, 2009 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

But your formula doesn't account for the injuries, does it?

And if not, why do you keep mentioning them? If they should be considered and your formula doesn’t account for them, then you yourself are admitting that your system is flawed (and the outcome is wrong).

“I don’t think a #5 ranking is too outrageous when I’m trying to make the rankings more realistic for the long term.”

How are you doing that? The formula, as you presented it and as I understand it, relies on past performance only rather than projected future performance. Am I missing something?

As for a reasonable suggestion on improving the formula, I’m not sure I am one. I don’t fall into the category of baseball fans that invents clever statistics or analytical tools that evaluate the performance of individual players or teams, let alone predicts future performance. The way you described your ranking system made only an offhand reference towards predicting future performance through reliance on the last 10 games (which may indicate how they’ll do in the immediate future). If there’s more to it than that and you’ve found a way to objectively quantify the production the Cardinals are missing through their injuries and the production they’ll get when those players return, then I misunderstood your work and I may have less of a problem with the outcome.

The point is that if the rankings were intended to reflect performance to date or very recent performance, then it seems fair to me that the formula should somehow be crafted to give an edge between otherwise equally situated teams (like the Brewers and Cards 24 hours ago) to the squad that has a marked advantage in head to head competition. Does that really seem that ridiculous to you? If so, then I doubt you (or your method) are as objective as you claim.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on May 26, 2009 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's rather difficult

To have a good discussion with someone who is clearly a Brewers homer. Some of these arguments are just ridiculous.

… the Brewers have (thus far) repeatedly demonstrated their superiority to the Cardinals on the field, and thus any ranking system that puts the Cardinals on top is wrong.

It’s also ironic to me that the author defends the ranking first by saying their objective, and THEN by pointing out that the Cards are doing what their doing despite the injuries, which doesn’t factor into the numbers he’s using at all. (At least not that I can see, if I’m wrong on that, please point it out.) Funny, I thought the rankings weren’t subjective.

If injuries are omitted to avoid the "homer" criticism, then you (and he) should bloody well stop bringing them to defend the rankings.

If so, then I doubt you (or your method) are as objective as you claim.

First off, I don’t take injuries into account. You have my formula, you could calculate these rankings yourself if you wanted. If you don’t think I’m being objective, check the damn math yourself. It’s not that complicated. For you to get on here and insinuate that I’m adjusting the rankings to favor my team is insulting.

The only reason I mention the injuries is because you are fixated on the three games that the Cardinals lost to the Brewers. Three games do not make or break a team. “[The Brewers have] repeatedly demonstrated their superiority,” oh please. Seriously, your argument is that since the Cards lost 3/3 to the Brewers, the Brewers are a better team going forward. As I pointed out, the wOBAs are nearly identical and the Cardinals team FIP is nearly a point better. They lost those three games because of injuries and random chance, not because the Brewers are the better team in the long run. I don’t take injuries into account though, I’m just pointing them out to you so you can quit going on about how the Brewers are a vastly superior team because of three games that the Cardinals were playing with half of Memphis on the field.

Their records were identical and the Cardinals had the better run differential when I made these. The records and the run differentials take the 3 game series that the Brewers swept into account, but the Cards still come out on top. That’s why the Cards were ranked higher. If you want to call the Brewers the better team because of one 3 game set, go right ahead and do that. I’ll stick to analysis of long term trends rather than 3 games out of a 162 game season.

Finally, you say that these rankings don’t do anything to predict long term results because they are based on past performance rather than projected performance. What should I use to predict future performance if not past performance? Should I find a lamp to rub and get a genie to tell me? Past performance is what you use to estimate future performance and I’ve already explained why I’ve chosen the formula I have. Again, I can change it if there are new ideas.

The Godfather himself has decided to grace us with his presence. This is his damn house. He sleeps 20 feet away.

by thegodfather on May 27, 2009 1:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yawn.

More mischaracterizations of my opinion. I asked you how you factored in the loss of injury production since you kept bringing it up. I asked you how it was that your rankings predicted future performance because you kept talking about the Cards injuries and why they meant your rankings made sense. I thought there was something I was missing. Apparently not. If you want to argue in circles, you’re more than welcome to. This conversation has outlasted its usefulness, if it ever had any in the first place. Keep cranking out your little rankings, and I won’t bother to point out why they’re laughable anymore. Deal?

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on May 27, 2009 1:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Based

on the metrics, the Cards look like the better team. The end.

"If I prepare myself, my stuff is good and I'm going to get outs. That is a fact." - Chris Carpenter

by spants on May 27, 2009 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't bother anymore tgf

He obviously can’t comprehend how your system works. And he’s already stated how he has no capability of creating an objective, mathmatically based formula himself. He’d rather pointlessly argue that you try to create a system based off of factors that don’t accurately measure potential performance in the future, and are rather worthless. If he’s unhappy about 1/10th of a point difference in the rankings then that’s his own problem. Let him go piss and moan about it somewhere else.

By the way, I’m curious, after last night’s game which team is ahead in the rankings between the two?

Patiently awaiting the day Colby Rasmus does this: .275/.381/.551/.932, 29HR, in St. Louis...and I'm wanting an Allen Craig call-up!

by RunninRedbird on May 27, 2009 9:04 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Good call.

I answered all of his questions already but apparently he doesn’t understand the simple explanations. I’m done.

After yesterday’s game:

Cards: 91.6 wins
Brewers: 89.3 wins

The run differential is clearly in the Cards favor after that beatdown. Let’s hope for another good game today. Hopefully Welley keeps the walks to a minimum.

The Godfather himself has decided to grace us with his presence. This is his damn house. He sleeps 20 feet away.

by thegodfather on May 27, 2009 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why is it "wrong"?

Because the Brewers have beaten the Cards in all four games they’ve played this season? Is four games really that telling?

The Brewers and Cardinals have faced each other while the Cards have had Ankiel, Ludwick, and Glaus all on the DL. And two of your wins were 1-0. It’s not like you guys are routing us. And you can reserve the right to get off this blog if you feel justified in mocking the people who put actual research and work into what they are writing.

Patiently awaiting the day Colby Rasmus does this: .275/.381/.551/.932, 29HR, in St. Louis...and I'm wanting an Allen Craig call-up!

by RunninRedbird on May 26, 2009 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Now that's a better response.

4 games is a small sample size. The injuries, however, shouldn’t matter in a purely objective system, which is what TGF says he’s running here, so I’m not sure why anyone’s bringing them up. If it is subjective, then the injuries are a good response to my criticism. My point is that I think the formula he’s using produced an inaccurate result given the on-field outcomes of the head to head matchups. Could 4 wins be anomalous, with the series about to “regress to the mean” through a series of Cardinal wins? Maybe, and if so, I’ll cede the point. Right now, though, the on field performance of these teams makes it clear that the Brewers are the superior team at this moment. Whether they will be in October, of course, remains to be seen.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on May 26, 2009 6:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Um,

you’re conflating completely separate issues. 4 games is a tiny sample size, and the injuries are useful in explaining that area of performance.

The system didn’t predict anything about those games specifically (a fact you seem to be unable to understand) and the system does not factor injuries or specific games themselves into the equation.

Space.

It's a problem we face.

So we never go anywhere.

We just stay in one place.

by hazel on May 28, 2009 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

oh, no, I'm not blaming you.

I just think if I were making a list of the most powerful teams in baseball, I would not have us at number 5 RIGHT NOW. Until Ludwick and Glaus come back healthy, I think we belong back around 8 or 9.

I’m more blaming the publications — “they” — then you. Considering most of their power rankings ARE arbitrary, I’d expect MIL to be ahead of us.

On with the (good) youth movement!

by aet15 on May 25, 2009 8:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I understand you now

Thanks for the explanation. If it did it subjectively, I’d rank them lower NOW too. However, I think they are much better than they’re playing when looking at the long term.

The Godfather himself has decided to grace us with his presence. This is his damn house. He sleeps 20 feet away.

by thegodfather on May 25, 2009 9:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs