If you recall, a lower VOL value is better in the sense that it indicates a hitter has been more consistent offensively. However, both good and bad hitters can be consistent, so a lower VOL always needs to be viewed in the proper context. The other thing to keep in my mind is that (as a reader pointed out) there is a strong correlation between VOL and PA/G, as we can see by looking at VOL and batting order position (for 2013):
< ? ??
Batting Order
PA/G
VOL
1
4.4
0.449
2
4.2
0.488
3
4.1
0.488
4
4.0
0.491
5
3.8
0.517
6
3.6
0.532
7
3.5
0.549
8
3.4
0.544
9
2.1
0.775
Now, that isn’t the worst problem, since we see similar relationships between PA/G and overall wOBA and wRC+. Also, one nice feature is that as the average PA/G increases the correlation with VOL gets weaker. What I’ve done in this iteration is to limit the calculation of VOL to just those games where the hitter logged at least three Plate Appearances. When this is done the correlation between PA/G and VOL drops to -.25 — for now, I can live with that.
Here is the VOL leader board through June 16th (min 200 PA):
VOL+ is simple a player’s VOL relative to league average ([VOL/lgVOL] * 100).
Evan Longoria (4.3 PA/G) is currently your most consistent hitter, sitting at 28% better than league average. That’s great news for the Rays considering he has a 154 wRC+ so far in 2013. Not only is producing at an extremely high level offensively, but his performance has been quite consistent, game-to-game.
You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.
Contrast that to the Marlins’ Placido Polanco. Polanco (4.2 PA/G) has the sixth-best VOL so far this year, but he’s hitting 41% worse than league average. That means the Marlins are getting a steady dose of bad from their third baseman on pretty much a daily basis.
Sorting the leader board by wOBA also gives us a few interesting comparisons. One is Josh Donaldson and Ryan Braun.
Both players have averaged 4.2 PA/G this season and have logged relatively similar wOBAs (.378 and .376, respectively). However, Ryan Braun’s VOL is 28% better than league average while Donaldson’s is 7% worse — a 35% difference. So while Donaldson has been marginally better in terms of creating runs, Braun has done almost equally as well with a greater day-to-day consistency than Donaldson.
For those interested, I also ran team-level VOL (sorted by least to greatest VOL):
Team
R/G
PA/G
VOL
wOBA
Royals
4.1
38
0.491
0.295
Tigers
5.0
40
0.505
0.340
Rays
4.8
38
0.507
0.324
Orioles
4.9
39
0.507
0.330
Rangers
4.4
39
0.511
0.325
Mariners
3.5
38
0.517
0.297
Indians
4.8
39
0.520
0.323
Blue Jays
4.6
39
0.522
0.312
White Sox
3.6
37
0.523
0.288
Red Sox
5.3
40
0.526
0.343
Athletics
4.6
39
0.528
0.306
Angels
4.5
39
0.529
0.321
Twins
4.2
40
0.537
0.297
Yankees
4.0
38
0.540
0.300
Astros
3.8
37
0.542
0.298
Marlins
3.2
38
0.551
0.265
Giants
4.4
39
0.552
0.303
Cardinals
5.1
39
0.563
0.307
Brewers
4.1
38
0.564
0.295
Reds
4.6
39
0.567
0.313
Pirates
3.8
37
0.572
0.277
Diamondbacks
4.4
39
0.573
0.302
Dodgers
3.6
38
0.575
0.293
Phillies
3.7
37
0.587
0.308
Padres
4.2
38
0.588
0.295
Rockies
5.2
40
0.588
0.319
Nationals
3.5
37
0.603
0.280
Mets
3.9
39
0.611
0.274
Cubs
4.0
38
0.613
0.300
Braves
4.4
38
0.621
0.310
Tigers’ fans should be happy to see their team at number two on the list, as they have the second-highest team wOBA and do the second best job of replicating that performance on a game-to-game basis. Combine a consistently great offense with that rotation and it’s easy to see why Detroit should make another deep run this post-season.
The Braves offense turns out to be the most inconsistent — slightly better than average, but inconsistent. Now, given their pitching this may not be as big of an issue were they more of an average- to below-average run prevention team. However, it makes you wonder how they will perform in the different context of the postseason.
That’s all for now. Like the velocity loss leader boards, I will be updating VOL throughout the season, hopefully on a monthly basis.
————–
For a more complete list of hitters in 2013, see here.
Bill leads Predictive Modeling and Data Science consulting at Gallup. In his free time, he writes for The Hardball Times, speaks about baseball research and analytics, has consulted for a Major League Baseball team, and has appeared on MLB Network's Clubhouse Confidential as well as several MLB-produced documentaries. He is also the creator of the baseballr package for the R programming language. Along with Jeff Zimmerman, he won the 2013 SABR Analytics Research Award for Contemporary Analysis. Follow him on Twitter @BillPetti.
15 Comments
Oldest
NewestMost Voted
olethros
13 years ago
What’s the relationship between VOL and K rate, especially on the team level? Seems like it would be pretty high.
VOL doesn’t mean the results are good or bad, just that they’re consistent.
Mac
13 years ago
Fascinating topic.
One question raised in the article from last year (follow the first link above) was regarding the value of consistency. Thinking of it purely in BA, is it better to go 1/3 every day, or 0/3,0/3,3/3?
I can come up with reasoning either way, but have no strong gut guess either way at this point.
That is indeed the big question. Trying to reason it out would be fruitless. I need to see what, if any, correlation there is to winning before I could care about it.
A very rough eyeball comparison to winning and volatility in the team chart above doesn’t encourage me to think this is worthwhile.
On a team level, the answer would obviously be 1/3 every day. Obviously 1/3 is high, but even if we took 1/4. Basically the team is losing 3 out of 4, and then winning a blowout. 1/4 from everyone every day, and some days the other pitcher might dodge that and only give up 0-2 runs, but that is a better result than the 0-fers.
On an individual level, it just comes down to situation. One probably isn’t that much “better” than the other, as long as the hits come when they are beneficial.
mjmetro
13 years ago
Sorry if this is known, but why are we assuming lower volatility is better for an offense? Wouldn’t it be better to have a team that scores 4 runs in half of its games and 0 in the other half than a team that scores 2 runs in every game (assuming an average pitching staff)?
Maybe this is an oversimplification but I think you can look at it like this. Two basic aspects to the game. Pitching and hitting. Both can be considered poor, average or good. Both can be considered inconsistent, somewhat consistent or very consistent.
All told you have 18 different “terms” (ex. consistent average hitting). I think you then have to see how they matchup with each other to see what is best option for one aspect of the game, given the other. For example, if you have consistent poor pitching and an average offence, than you want that offence to be volatile to have any hope of winning more than you lose.
rahi321
13 years ago
Is there any way to measure pitcher volatility?
frivoflava29
13 years ago
Starling Marte at 81+ jumps out to me. If a player has been remarkably consistent at one point or another, will a prolonged slump not really affect the metric?
Peter
13 years ago
Interesting that there’s a total separation between AL and NL on the leaderboard
primi timpano
13 years ago
Day to day comparisons will accentuate volatility. I would think a larger sample set, e.g., rolling 10, 20, plate appearances, etc. would give a better measure.
Dan
13 years ago
As a Braves fan, this is not at all surprising.
Josh
13 years ago
I find this very interesting and have always wondered whether there is a way to take a measurement like this and use it better construct a lineup using the basic concept of diversification from portfolio theory. The thought stems from the idea that it seems that teams, rather than just players, are often inherently streaky and volatile. A ideal team therefore would want to minimize its volatility with the highest expected run output not have a bunch of low volatility players but have all highly volatile players, whose performance is lowly or negatively correlated to the other players (likely through other factors such as time of season, home/away etc)
I’m very much a newbie at this stuff so I’m sure this concept has been well thought-out. I guess a very basic example of this occurs with right/left hand platoon splits but I’ve never seen any analysis that attempts to identify other factors that create volatility and could be used on a team-wide basis.
What’s the relationship between VOL and K rate, especially on the team level? Seems like it would be pretty high.
VOL doesn’t mean the results are good or bad, just that they’re consistent.
Fascinating topic.
One question raised in the article from last year (follow the first link above) was regarding the value of consistency. Thinking of it purely in BA, is it better to go 1/3 every day, or 0/3,0/3,3/3?
I can come up with reasoning either way, but have no strong gut guess either way at this point.
That is indeed the big question. Trying to reason it out would be fruitless. I need to see what, if any, correlation there is to winning before I could care about it.
A very rough eyeball comparison to winning and volatility in the team chart above doesn’t encourage me to think this is worthwhile.
Here’s an earlier look, but there’s certainly more work to be done http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/offensive-volatility-and-beating-win-expectancy/
Nice, I actually remember this now. This is actually what I was going to suggest looking at 🙂
On a team level, the answer would obviously be 1/3 every day. Obviously 1/3 is high, but even if we took 1/4. Basically the team is losing 3 out of 4, and then winning a blowout. 1/4 from everyone every day, and some days the other pitcher might dodge that and only give up 0-2 runs, but that is a better result than the 0-fers.
On an individual level, it just comes down to situation. One probably isn’t that much “better” than the other, as long as the hits come when they are beneficial.
Sorry if this is known, but why are we assuming lower volatility is better for an offense? Wouldn’t it be better to have a team that scores 4 runs in half of its games and 0 in the other half than a team that scores 2 runs in every game (assuming an average pitching staff)?
As a follow-up, isn’t it sort of a known that if two pitchers have equal ERA, the one with the higher volatility will be more effective?
Maybe this is an oversimplification but I think you can look at it like this. Two basic aspects to the game. Pitching and hitting. Both can be considered poor, average or good. Both can be considered inconsistent, somewhat consistent or very consistent.
All told you have 18 different “terms” (ex. consistent average hitting). I think you then have to see how they matchup with each other to see what is best option for one aspect of the game, given the other. For example, if you have consistent poor pitching and an average offence, than you want that offence to be volatile to have any hope of winning more than you lose.
Is there any way to measure pitcher volatility?
Starling Marte at 81+ jumps out to me. If a player has been remarkably consistent at one point or another, will a prolonged slump not really affect the metric?
Interesting that there’s a total separation between AL and NL on the leaderboard
Day to day comparisons will accentuate volatility. I would think a larger sample set, e.g., rolling 10, 20, plate appearances, etc. would give a better measure.
As a Braves fan, this is not at all surprising.
I find this very interesting and have always wondered whether there is a way to take a measurement like this and use it better construct a lineup using the basic concept of diversification from portfolio theory. The thought stems from the idea that it seems that teams, rather than just players, are often inherently streaky and volatile. A ideal team therefore would want to minimize its volatility with the highest expected run output not have a bunch of low volatility players but have all highly volatile players, whose performance is lowly or negatively correlated to the other players (likely through other factors such as time of season, home/away etc)
I’m very much a newbie at this stuff so I’m sure this concept has been well thought-out. I guess a very basic example of this occurs with right/left hand platoon splits but I’ve never seen any analysis that attempts to identify other factors that create volatility and could be used on a team-wide basis.