How the Rangers Have Gained on the Astros

In a very short while, the Rangers and the Astros will kick off a crucial four-game series, with the AL West up for grabs. There will be three more meetings between the teams after this series is complete, so any mistakes can be made up for, but this race is coming down to the wire. It’s currently the closest race of the divisions, and while the Rangers are already close at 1.5 games back, they were literally inches away from an even smaller deficit before the Astros rallied past the Angels on Sunday. The Astros know they can lose their position. The Rangers know it’s theirs for the taking.

In a lot of ways, this isn’t what people expected. Even just several weeks ago, by which point we’d come to believe in the Astros, the Rangers didn’t look like a threat. After the games on July 31, the Astros were up two games on the Angels, and seven games on the Rangers. The Rangers’ odds of winning the division were a hair below 2%. Now they’re a little above 22%, gaining about a game on the Astros a week. Since the beginning of August, the Rangers have gone 25-15, second-best in the AL. Since the same point, the Astros have gone 19-20, sandwiched between the Yankees and the Rays. What’s happened to cause the Astros to lose much of their advantage?

In the interest of honesty, I should say that, on July 31, the Rangers gained another game on the Astros. So if I had my way, I’d pull data going back to July 31, but it’s much easier on FanGraphs to just isolate August and September, and one day won’t make much of a difference. Just a little thing to keep in mind going forward. Where might we see the greatest recent differences between the teams? I prepared the following table, of team August/September WAR.

August + September WAR
Team Position Players Starters Relievers Total
Astros 5.6 4.5 1.5 11.6
Rangers 4.4 2.9 1.9 9.2

See, that’s weird. We’re looking at numbers from a span of time where the second team gained 5.5 games on the first team. However, by these numbers, the first team has had slightly superior position players. It’s had slightly superior starting pitchers. And the bullpens have been very similar, leading to a total WAR difference of more than two wins in the opposite direction from what one would expect. Based on the standings, you’d say the Rangers have out-played the Astros. Based on these numbers, you’d say the Astros have out-played the Rangers.

Some of you might not love WAR, though. Especially over a month and a half. And that’s not an unreasonable position. So here’s some more basic stuff.

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. In case you didn't read all that, here's the short version. Membership includes:
✓Ad-free browsing
✓Unlimited FanGraphs & RotoGraphs articles
✓Historical & platoon projections
✓Leaderboard & player-page stat heatmaps
✓One-click data exports
✓Customizable player-page dashboards
✓Dark & Classic site modes
✓Weekly Members-only mailbag
✓FanGraphs Walk-Off, your year in review
✓Optional homepage photo removal
✓Gift articles to non-Members
✓Full postseason coverage

August + September OPS

Astros: .732
Rangers: .732

August + September OPS allowed

Astros: .655
Rangers: .707

Offensively speaking, the two teams have been roughly equivalent. On the run-prevention side, the Astros look much stronger. Maybe we didn’t even need to get this complicated. Since the start of August, the Rangers have a run differential of +14. The Astros have a run differential of +29. And, hey, here’s an easy chance to take things back one extra day. Since July 31, the run differentials are +17 and +27, respectively. The Rangers have gained 6.5 games.

The explanation can be found here:

August + September Clutch
Team Position Players Starters Relievers Total
Astros -2.8 -0.3 -2.2 -5.3
Rangers 0.7 0.8 1.8 3.2

This is the FanGraphs Library Clutch page. It is, basically, a measure of timing. A team with a positive Clutch score has had good timing. A team with a negative Clutch score has had bad timing. Teams with good timing tend to over-achieve, and the opposite is obviously also true. Over August and September, the Astros rank 9th in baseball in WAR, and the Rangers rank 14th. However, the Rangers rank 4th in baseball in Clutch, and the Astros rank 29th. Some people say that timing is everything. Timing isn’t everything, but it’s a huge, huge factor, and it’s a factor that’s more or less unpredictable from the outside. Because the Rangers have recently had much better timing than the Astros — Sunday in Anaheim aside — they’ve more than made up for the fact that the Astros have quite probably played better. The Rangers have put more of their hits together. They’ve prevented the opposition from doing the same. There’s been a big difference in high-leverage situations.

This gets right to what Dave wrote about earlier. From the analyst perspective, the Astros have out-played the Rangers, even despite losing ground. There’s never been any good evidence shown that Clutch is a real team skill. Rather, what seems to be the case is that some teams get clutch performance and some teams don’t, and there’s no real rhyme or reason for that, and it can make a big difference even if it didn’t come out of anything. Based on the research, the last six weeks of clutch performance are meaningless. In that, there’s no reason to think it’ll keep up. The effect is already behind us.

But that’s either the neat thing, or the infuriating thing. Based on some of the numbers, you’d assume that, by now, the Astros would have buried the Rangers. They had a big lead six weeks ago, and they’ve been the better team since. But by the only numbers that actually count, the Rangers have overcome that, and as a consequence we have this hugely important four-game series about to start, that could make or break the whole race. And while there’s still great reason to figure the Astros are better than the Rangers, that hardly matters now. All that matters are the games ahead, and the Rangers could play better in them. Or, they could play worse, and still end up with more wins. Randomness has been partially responsible for this position, but it doesn’t just even out overnight. In the version of baseball that’s played on the field, the Rangers are two wins away from taking first place. So what if they’re the inferior team?

This is baseball. Over just Sunday afternoon, the Astros were greatly fortunate. Over the past six weeks, the Rangers have been greatly fortunate. We want to have some idea of what to expect, but we never want to be able to actually predict the results. The game is right there in that sweet spot. Always has been, and always will be.





Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.

16 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
SgtSchmidt11
11 years ago

Better to be lucky then good?

Mike Matheny
11 years ago
Reply to  SgtSchmidt11

It’s even better to be both.

rfs1962
11 years ago

The Astros have outscored their opponents on the road 305-278 and gone 29-42 while doing so. By my count they’re 6-17 in one-run road games.

Andy
11 years ago

Oh you need timin’ a tick a tick a tick a
Good timin’ a tock a tock a tock a tock a
Timin’ is the thing it’s true
Good timin’ brings a pennant to you

If old Jed Lowrie hadn’t grabbed that bat
Lyin’ there on the ground
The big bad Angels might’ve stomped on his team
Instead of the other way round
But he had

Timin’ a tick a tick a tick a
Good timin’ a tock a tock a tock a tock a
Timin’ is the thing it’s true
Good timin’ brings a pennant to you

Who in the world would’ve ever known
What Carlos Correa could do
If Santa Isabella hadn’t played charity games
In two thousand oh two
But they had

Timin’ a tick a tick a tick a
Good timin’ a tock a tock a tock a tock a
Timin’ is the thing it’s true
Good timin’ brings a pennant to you

What would’ve happened if ball and bat
Hadn’t just happened to meet
We might’ve spent the rest of our lives
Mowed down by Huston L. Street
But we had

Timin’ a tick a tick a tick a
Good timin’ a tock a tock a tock a tock a
Timin’ is the thing it’s true
Good timin’ brings a pennant to you

Yeah we had timin’
Woah, woah, woah good timin’
Yay,yay,yay,yay timin’ is the thing it’s true
Good timin’ brings a pennant to you

Andy
11 years ago
Reply to  Andy

This hasn’t gotten nearly enough upvotes. Well done, sir. (No, I’m not the same Andy.)

Andy
11 years ago
Reply to  Andy

Thanks. Not sure how many here know that song, it’s from back in the 50s or 60s. I’d guess most of the crowd here wasn’t born at that time.

Joe Don
11 years ago

Jeff, you should have insisted that Cameron write this piece. He’s the one who needs his nose rubbed in it, not you.

Not Jeff
11 years ago
Reply to  Joe Don

This article does exactly what the title suggests it will do. The Astros have been playing slightly better than the Rangers recently but clutch, a real but totally unpredictable thing, has resulted in the Rangers having a far better record.

What does that have to do with Dave’s nose? Baseball happened. That’s all.

John C
11 years ago

The Rangers have been lucky, period. They’ve sequenced runs at the right times to win a lot more games than they should. By run differential, even the Red Sox have played better than they have.

That’s baseball…

Ajax68
11 years ago
Reply to  John C

That probably says more about using run differential to judge teams than it says about the Rangers. If you play a 3-game series, win two 5-3 games, then lose 7-0 in the other, you have a negative run differential for the series. That’s how some Ranger series have gone in the second half.

Magoo
11 years ago

The Rangers have really sucked in some of their losses. I think that the run differential against the Rangers in a few games is having a large affect on the numbers.

Andy
11 years ago

Great article, Jeff, but I’m going to cherry-pick one little snippet to (only half-seriously) nitpick:

“We want to have some idea of what to expect, but we never want to be able to actually predict the results.”

I agree, except for the Cardinals. They’ve been outperforming themselves for years (except for 2013, when they were legitimately the best team in the NL by a lot). As I told a friend of mine Sunday evening, “the Astros pulled a Cardinals.”

Paul G.
11 years ago

Quick and dirty analysis of the Rangers.

1-run games: +5 wins
2-run games: +6
3-run games: +3
4-run games: +3

I tend to think 4 runs as reasonably close games as they can be tied up with one swing of the bat. In those games the Rangers are 15 games above 500.

The Rangers have played 40 games in the blowout level of 5 runs or more. In those games they are 8 games below 500.

So, yeah, pretty standard “do better in the close games, do badly in the blowouts.”

Jerry A
11 years ago

This is why analytics can only be a component of evaluating baseball (sports). Anyone who relies on just the numbers and ignores what they see with their eyes is going to be wrong as often as right. The warning past performance is not an indicator of future performance comes to mind with this year’s Rangers. Today’s game has literally nothing to do with 144 previous games, only about what is happening in this moment.

Luck? Hardly. Clutch? What is that? More about veterans calming presence, team mind set, and a collective confidence that everyone is going to contribute to make it happen, somehow. One team has that. The other, does not. Throw out the numbers and play ball.

C.J. Shull
11 years ago

I heard Dave on 1310 The Ticket explaining the stats, and interpreting the numbers. I had actually never spent much time on Fangraphs.com, but I decided to stop by after listening to the interview. I am a Statistician by trade, interestingly enough. And because of that, I spend a lot of time interpreting numbers, and more importantly, I spend time interacting with other Statisticians. This gives me a very unique perspective on listening to Dave’s thoughts and how he reacted being questioned about the Rangers (and more importantly, his data). During the interview, it became clear Ranger’s fans did not much care for him (which usually indicates his data was not favorable to Ranger’s fans). After listening to the interview, I can understand why that is. Dave has a personality type I see quite often, which relies blindly on numbers and interpretations, and forgets the human aspect drives those numbers. It’s a disconnect that many Statisticians have difficulty bridging. Being that the answer is always buried in the numbers, and any anomaly or variation is simply a fault or shortcoming of an algorithm. The truth is some things cannot be explained by numbers, and it would appear the Rangers are probably a good example of this. After reading all of the various interpretations and explanations of why Statisticians failed to accurate explain the surge (and they have failed, don’t mistake this for an anomaly)is because of the human factor inherent in all data. And I found Dave’s refusal to humble himself to the possibility of such a thing to be disappointing. I found his interview to have defensive and passive aggressive tone. He missed a great opportunity, and didn’t really do himself any favors.

Ben
11 years ago
Reply to  C.J. Shull

After tonight the run differentials “since August 1” are completely flipped in favor of the Rangers. Hopefully that makes the numbers crowd feel better about the results. I’m sure someone with the numbers will correct me but is seems to me that the run differentials over even 40 or 50 games is pretty meaningless (as shown by the reversal after one game tonight). As far as explaining the first half run differential this Ranger team with Hamels Holland and Perez and bullpen parts is a very different team.