An Early Look at wOBA Differential
The season is still only three weeks old, and basically anything can happen over the course of 20 baseball games. The Brewers aren’t the best team in baseball, the D’Backs aren’t the worst, and Jesse Chavez isn’t going to win the Cy Young Award. But, at the same time, the most recent data is also the most informative data, and there are some numbers that can have meaning quicker than others. While you shouldn’t care too much about a team’s Win-Loss record on April 21st, we can boil down early season team performance into numbers that a bit more heavily represented by skill rather than randomness.
One of my favorite ways to look at team performance is wOBA differential. It’s basically the same concept as run differential, but strips away the heavy factor that sequencing can have on runs scored and runs allowed. The order of events matters in the outcome of past results, but holds little predictive value, and by looking at non-sequenced results, we can get a better idea of how a team has performed than if we also introduce the timing of those events into the mix.
wOBA differential isn’t perfect, of course; it doesn’t include baserunning, for one, and teams can move the needle a little bit by how often their baserunners advance, but that portion of the game is fairly small relative to everything else. By and large, wOBA differential gives you a pretty good idea of how teams have played thus far. So, let’s get to the numbers.
| Team | wOBA (Offense) | wOBA (Defense) | wOBA Differential | Run Differential | Winning % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Athletics | 0.337 | 0.264 | 0.073 | 32 | 0.722 |
| Braves | 0.318 | 0.264 | 0.054 | 23 | 0.667 |
| Brewers | 0.323 | 0.281 | 0.042 | 18 | 0.737 |
| Rockies | 0.353 | 0.316 | 0.037 | 13 | 0.500 |
| Rays | 0.317 | 0.292 | 0.025 | 1 | 0.474 |
| Dodgers | 0.314 | 0.290 | 0.024 | 15 | 0.632 |
| Reds | 0.325 | 0.305 | 0.020 | 12 | 0.444 |
| Marlins | 0.335 | 0.315 | 0.020 | 13 | 0.474 |
| Padres | 0.285 | 0.266 | 0.019 | -7 | 0.474 |
| Cardinals | 0.302 | 0.287 | 0.015 | 11 | 0.579 |
| Nationals | 0.328 | 0.314 | 0.014 | 5 | 0.579 |
| Angels | 0.327 | 0.319 | 0.008 | 13 | 0.444 |
| Rangers | 0.327 | 0.320 | 0.007 | -6 | 0.579 |
| Tigers | 0.318 | 0.311 | 0.007 | 1 | 0.600 |
| Royals | 0.297 | 0.291 | 0.006 | -5 | 0.529 |
| Yankees | 0.323 | 0.322 | 0.001 | -9 | 0.579 |
| Twins | 0.332 | 0.334 | -0.002 | 7 | 0.500 |
| White Sox | 0.334 | 0.337 | -0.003 | 0 | 0.474 |
| Giants | 0.303 | 0.313 | -0.010 | 9 | 0.579 |
| Red Sox | 0.303 | 0.316 | -0.013 | -5 | 0.474 |
| Pirates | 0.306 | 0.320 | -0.014 | 1 | 0.421 |
| Blue Jays | 0.308 | 0.323 | -0.015 | 4 | 0.526 |
| Indians | 0.312 | 0.327 | -0.015 | -7 | 0.444 |
| Mariners | 0.285 | 0.305 | -0.020 | -1 | 0.389 |
| Cubs | 0.293 | 0.316 | -0.023 | -18 | 0.294 |
| Orioles | 0.310 | 0.339 | -0.029 | 0 | 0.471 |
| Phillies | 0.313 | 0.354 | -0.041 | -21 | 0.444 |
| Mets | 0.280 | 0.330 | -0.050 | -7 | 0.500 |
| Diamondbacks | 0.294 | 0.347 | -0.053 | -51 | 0.238 |
| Astros | 0.271 | 0.334 | -0.063 | -41 | 0.263 |
The A’s might be a half game behind the Brewers for best record in baseball, but no other team in baseball is dominating quite like Oakland. Now, quality of competition has to be considered, as the A’s have already finished sweeps of both the Astros and Twins, and have played another six against a mediocre Mariners team. But, this is what you’re supposed to do to weak opponents; bludgeon them. The A’s are tied with the Braves for the lowest wOBA allowed in baseball and are second in MLB in offensive wOBA, behind only the team that plays at altitude in Colorado. The A’s no-stars-no-scrubs approach to roster construction has left them with a very balanced, deep roster that continues to be remarkably underrated, even as they win year in and year out. If they keep playing like they have, we’ll eventually have to admit that the A’s are really, really good.
Also on the encouraging side of the ledger, Tampa Bay should find some solace here; they might be off to a slow start from a run differential or winning percentage perspective, but their 25 point wOBA advantage is fifth best in baseball. Taking sequencing out of the picture, the Rays have been essentially as good as the Dodgers, and no one sees them as an early disappointment. Even without Matt Moore and Jeremy Hellickson, the Rays run prevention has still been elite, and their overall performance should have produced a winning percentage closer to .575 than .475.
On the other end of the spectrum, this methodology offers little hope for the D’Backs; they really have been atrocious, though wOBA differential puts them ahead of Houston, at least. But the relative placement of the D’Backs and Mets is a nice reminder of how much of a role sequencing can play, especially over small samples. The omission of baserunning is a bit of a factor here, as the Mets have been three runs better on the bases than the D’Backs, but a 50 point negative wOBA differential shouldn’t result in a .500 record. The D’Backs look like a dumpster fire because they’ve been both lousy and a little unlucky; the Mets have been maybe more of a contained garbage fire, but there’s still plenty of potential for disaster laying ahead.
But no team in baseball has won more by doing less so far than the San Francisco Giants. By results, they are 11-8 and have outscored their opponents by half a run per game, but they are 21st in wOBA and and only 12th in wOBA allowed, and it’s not because wOBA is underrating their baserunning, as they’ve been below average at that too. Their success has essentially come due to timely pitching; they’ve allowed a .334 wOBA with the bases empty but only a .283 wOBA with men on base; put runners in scoring position, and it goes down to a ridiculous .250. Basically, the Giants have spent the last three weeks pitching themselves into and then out of trouble. If they want to keep wining, they’ll have to stop allowing so many scoring opportunities, because you can’t go an entire season stranding as many runners as they have so far.
These numbers are still just three week samples, of course, and small samples of wOBA have to be regressed too; these numbers are still measuring what has happened over 20 games, not predicting what will happen over the next 140. But, by taking the sequencing aspects out of run and win differential, this does give us a better look at which teams have actually outplayed their opponents over the first few weeks of the season.
And while we have to adjust downwards for an easy opening schedule, the early results suggest that the A’s are a force to be reckoned with.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
So as a Diamondbacks fan you are just confirming how awful we are. Well thank you.
At least we’re better than the Astros…
Now.
A’s juggernaut.
What adjustment is required to account for Jed Lowrie being a bitch?
-0 runs, cause if you don’t want to be bunted on, don’t shift.
Sarcasm 1
Yan G. 0
Downvote more, humourless FG neophytes.
So satisfying.
Still waiting for the humor…
Please don’t feed the tr0ll.
Thank you!
Back to /r/baseball with you.
I sure hope all these downvotes are coming from Jed Lowire’s oversensitive and uncommonly large family, and not fellow A’s fans. That would be insufferable.
These should be tracked somewhere.
Brewers are good at baseball.
Plus 16 of the Brewers first 19 games have been against 90+ win playoff teams from last year. An A’s/Brewers world series is a real possibility.
The Brewers are only for real if Jesse Chavez wins a Cy Young. Come o, now.
“An A’s/Brewers world series is a real possibility.”
Conceivably, but I think the Dodgers, Cards, Nats, and Braves all would be expected to be there ahead of the Brew Crew.
As much as I would love that, it’s a little early.
On the road…
If wOBA differential has predictive power, what are the results of correlating / regressing it against run differential and/or Pythagorean record across an entire season? It’s a very intuitive approach, but we also have a lot more data to inform us whether this holds up in the long run.
I do something similar to this here: http://www.reddit.com/r/Sabermetrics/comments/23bk40/using_april_team_statistics_to_predict_may_win/
Given how early it is, I’m guessing that the game where they scored 16 runs against Dean Anna, an AAAA reliever and a starter with a partially torn UCL is driving the Rays wOBA upwards.
The fact that it wasn’t a close game is more relevant to wOBA differential though.
Not many games are close games when you score 16 runs.
This is a great piece and should be done regularly, perhaps after every 40 game segment throughout the year.
Calling the Mets at 9-9 a controlled dumpster fire is a little unfair. Fifteen of their 18 games have been against the Braves, Nats, Angels and Reds. That’s a pretty brutal schedule. They obviously haven’t hit well early but they’ve played pretty good ball as a whole since getting swept by the the Nats to open the year.
I feel like the Braves, despite having more well-known players than the A’s, are another example of a no-stars-no-scrubs team. They are definitely solid at a lot of positions, and they don’t seem to have a lot of weak spots, but up to this point they haven’t had any real MVP or Cy Young contenders. Last year, their best position player was 24th in the MLB with 4.7 WAR, while their best pitcher was 29th among starters with 3.4.
This could easily change though, as they have quite a few players that seem to have the potential to become stars. I’m thinking primarily of Heyward and Simmons.
Also, Teheran a potential dark-horse Cy Young contender. But overall, I agree; they have a lot of good players, but no established stars.
no-stars-no-scrubs at all costs
Actually, I just considered they do have star, in the sense that he is easily the best player among players who share his role, and that is Kimbrel. I tend to agree with the idea that a closer is inherently less valuable than a starter, but no one would say Mariano Rivera isn’t a star, and Kimbrel to this point has been better.
On the other hand, this just makes me scared of the Braves all the more since they were one of the better teams in baseball and their best players might have better seasons over the next couple years. On the flip side, Chris Johnson isn’t going to get any better than 2013.
I imagine so, since the Braves had two players around or below replacement level last season
An FG post last week showed that the Braves are the 2nd or 3rd youngest team in baseball. Maybe we have a lot of future stars; we’ll just have to see.
What I will say is that I believe the Braves and A’s both have two of the better front offices in baseball, which may explain the overachievements.
Wonder what would happen if we took wOBA differential and added opponents’ average wOBA differential. Might smooth out some of the SoS differences that inevitably occur this early. I might just try this out.
Be careful, though; a lot of teams have played one-third of their games to this point against a single opponent, so you’re going to get a lot of multicollinearity (if I’m using that term right).
The Dodgers have already played the Diamondback 8 times. As a Dodger fan, I like to think that the Diamondbacks look so bad because they’ve been playing the Dodgers so much…
They also got swept by the Mets though.
As a Giants fan, I like to think the Dodgers only look good because they’ve been playing the Diamondbacks so much.
Especially when he calls the Mariners a mediocre team.
Maybe he stopped watching them after the 3 game sweep of LAA to open the season?
Oops – not sure how this got here. Apologies.
This reminds me of the concept of “cluster luck” which Joe Peta covers in his book, which is a great read.
I would say that statistics probably show it’s more likely that Chavez wins the Cy Young than those other things.
Among the best starters in the league thus far? You bet. It’s quite a neat little story.
But likely to win the Cy? Naw.
The Mets should improve, they’ve been lucky to be 9-9 but their offense will get better. Travis d’Arnaud will turn around his .184 BABIP (this is despite solid 11% BB, 17% K, 21% LD rates), Chris Young has only played 4 games and Granderson will improve- mostly because he can’t be much worse than he has been. Slow starts for Wright/Murphy haven’t helped and Tejada will lose his job if he keeps up his current performance.
“The A’s no-stars-no-scrubs approach to roster construction has left them with a very balanced, deep roster that continues to be remarkably underrated, even as they win year in and year out.”
I don’t think having 2 successful seasons (2012 and 2013) after 5 pretty mediocre ones is exactly winning “year in and year out”. I agree that the A’s are currently winning and doing well. I question whether this method produces any long-term success, or is it merely a great crop of players that would win even without actively pursuing this method.
and eight winning ones before that…
The 1999-2006 teams had plenty of stars
wouldn’t it make more sense to use park-adjusted wRC+
wOBA is not adjusted, correct?
If you think about it, you’ll realize that everything is on an even playing field, literally. The team produces its wOBA in the same park that its pitching staff and defense allow the opponents’ wOBA. No need to park adjust when you’re using the differential.
Not quite. If a particular park inflates wOBA by, say, 10 percent, it’s also going to inflate wOBA differential by 10 percent. For instance, a team that would have had a .350 wOBA and allowed a .330 wOBA in a neutral park will have a .385 wOBA and a .363 wOBA in our hypothetical hitters’ park. That changes the differential from .020 to .022. The same goes for pitchers’ parks, as they’ll make the differential smaller.
So, park factors will make good teams look better and bad teams look worse in hitters’ parks, and they’ll make bad teams look better and good teams look worse in pitchers’ parks. It’s not a very large effect, but it’s not nothing.
Great point, and thank you for pointing out my error. I also wonder about the uneven distribution of home/road games right now. I think the Cardinals have had the most road-heavy schedule to this point. This is probably another very small effect, and one that will disappear quickly as the season progresses.
Is there anyway to find defensive wOBA on fg?
Didn’t FG tables used to be sortable?
Sequencing is not random because subsequent events in a baseball game are not completely independent of what happened before. Also, there are many layers of dependencies between adjacent events. Examples:
1) A runner on first changes the defensive positioning of the first baseman, opening up a hole on the right side of the infield.
2) The state of base runners changes pitch selection (e.g., bases loaded versus a runner on second with two outs).
3) The game score determines the choice of relief pitcher. Once the game is out of reach managers switch to a strategy of preserving arms and health for tomorrow’s game, rather than trying to prevent more runs during today’s game. Once the game is 12-1, scoring runs 13-16 becomes relatively easy because you are now facing someone like Dean Anna.
The extent of the dependence between events might even be increasing as managers take a more active role in the game. Several teams, including the Rays and Yankees change defensive alignment within at bats depending on pitch count, for example. That sort of thing used to be very rare or non-existent.
We might not know how to account for sequencing, but it is not all just random luck. For analysis purposes it is justified to ignore sequencing, but we should also acknowledge that random sequencing is just a simplified model that does not fully describe reality.
Acknowledged! Have you any obvious ways of building the non-randomness of sequencing into the standard methods of analysis (wOBA, WAR, FIP, etc.)?
It would be nearly impossible to really do. However, it might be interesting to weight batting outcomes by the opposing pitcher. For example, I think most people would acknowledge that batters benefit from hitting in a lineup that scores lots of runs, because they are more likely to get into the weaker parts of bullpens than teams that don’t score runs. A lot of players accumulate stats off weaker pitchers, yet the distribution of at bats against weak pitching is almost certainly not evenly distributed across players or across teams. If we want to evaluate skill rather than productivity, a home run off Dean Anna is not the same thing as a home run off Kershaw, yet we do currently treat them the same.
In any case, my objection is actually more visceral. To me as a baseball fan, the beauty of the game is actually in the sequencing and the subtle strategy shifts that occur on a batter by batter and pitch by pitch basis. I love that intricacy of the game, and it is sad to deny it by treating sequencing as if it is actually just random.
How useful is wOBA Against? Doesn’t that still assume BABIP Against is a skill either for the pitcher or the defense?
“Doesn’t that still assume BABIP Against is a skill either for the pitcher or the defense?”
yep. Just as “wOBA For” assumes that BABIP is a skill. Ahh, the BABIP wars.
Dave, I couldn’t find wOBA allowed for teams on the Fangraphs site. Where would I look for that?
The Brewers are the best team in baseball. Who does Dave suggest is better? Toughtest schedule and best record bitches.