Pitchers’ wOBA Against, 2010
Batting Average Against is commonly cited in mainstream analysis as an indicator of how hard a pitcher has been hit. This is blatantly incorrect, of course, as batting average treats all hit types the same- so a pitcher that has allowed predominantly singles is seen as more or less the same as a pitcher who allows a standard distribution of singles, doubles, triples, and home runs. Furthermore, we’re also looking at a rather limited analysis- what about other baserunners allowed, via the walk? How about on-base percentage against?
Well, that’s a step up. But we’re still dealing with the issue of all hits being treated the same. So, we’re not all the way there. Slugging percentage accounts for hit types, but the weighting is rather awkward- if you’re relatively familiar with run expectancy, you’ll know that a home run isn’t worth two doubles. A double isn’t worth two singles. A triple isn’t worth three singles, and…well, you get the picture. So, adding both on-base percentage and slugging percentage- otherwise known as OPS- will give us a reasonable estimate, but not as thorough as we’d like. And that’s not even taking into consideration the fact that we’re adding two rates with different denominators, and…well, it’s pretty ugly. We can do better.
That “better,” of course, is Weighted on Base Average (wOBA). wOBA assigns the proper marginal value to each event (linear weight values) and transforms the coefficients to turn it into a rate that matches league on-base percentage. No more awkward weighting for hit types and walks, and we can sprinkle in other events such as reaching on an error, stolen bases/caught stealing, and strikeouts (which make for a tiny, almost insignificant difference). So, which pitchers have the best and worst wOBA against so far in 2010?
First, the National League (minimum 100 IP, league average = .330):
Name wOBA Mat Latos 0.247 Josh Johnson 0.251 Adam Wainwright 0.263 Ubaldo Jimenez 0.264 Tim Hudson 0.286 Roy Oswalt 0.287 Tim Lincecum 0.288 Clayton Kershaw 0.289 Johan Santana 0.289 Roy Halladay 0.294
The Pads’ Latos leads the National League with an extremely low .247 wOBA. The rest of this list is comprised of more or less the usual suspects. The worst? Oh, they’re bad:
Name wOBA Mike Leake 0.344 Ricky Nolasco 0.345 Dan Haren 0.349 Kyle Kendrick 0.352 Aaron Harang 0.356 Paul Maholm 0.357 Wandy Rodriguez 0.363 Randy Wolf 0.363 David Bush 0.367 Rodrigo Lopez 0.371
Haren’s the biggest surprise to me in this list, as he’s been one of the better pitchers in the National League the past couple of years. He didn’t have a very good first half, but here’s to hoping that he sees a turnaround in the second half. The rest of the list isn’t exactly filled with guys you’d shell humongous contracts to, but you knew that already.
Now, the American League (Minimum 100 IP, league average = .327):
Name wOBA Cliff Lee 0.256 Jon Lester 0.273 Trevor Cahill 0.278 John Danks 0.281 Felix Hernandez 0.284 Jered Weaver 0.286 Colby Lewis 0.287 CC Sabathia 0.291 Justin Verlander 0.291 Phil Hughes 0.292
Boy, the Rangers sure got themselves a bona fide ace in Lee. It’s nice to see a few surprises in this list, such as the Athletics’ Trevor Cahill– who’s having a solid season thus far, and the Rangers’ Colby Lewis, who has seemingly reinvented himself since his two-year stint in Japan.
The trailers:
Name wOBA Ben Sheets 0.352 Joe Saunders 0.354 Kevin Slowey 0.356 Tim Wakefield 0.358 John Lackey 0.361 A.J. Burnett 0.367 Brian Bannister 0.368 Scott Feldman 0.369 Kevin Millwood 0.373 Nick Blackburn 0.405
I don’t think the A’s are going to get a lot in return for Sheets, unless the team vying for his services believes he can pitch like he used to a few years ago. Two big names highlight this list from the Red Sox and Yankees, as expensive starters A.J. Burnett and John Lackey are getting knocked around quite a bit. Twins starter Nick Blackburn, in the meantime, has been hit as if every batter he’s faced is Hank Aaron.
One of the beauties of wOBA is that it can easily be disassembled back in to linear weights; expressed as runs above or below the average player. This is often referred to as “wRAA” (for Weighted Runs Above Average) on Fangraphs. I’ve park-adjusted the wOBA using Baseball-Reference’s 3-year park factors, and converted it back into LWTS. Your leaders:
Name LWTS Josh Johnson 33 Ubaldo Jimenez 31 Adam Wainwright 30 Jon Lester 27 Cliff Lee 22 Mat Latos 22 John Danks 20 Tim Lincecum 20 Roy Halladay 19 Felix Hernandez 18
This helps puts things into perspective a bit. While it is true that Lee has the lower wOBA against than the Sox’s Lester, Lester’s also accumulated about 27 more innings. The worst pitchers?
Name LWTS Scott Kazmir -18 Kevin Millwood -19 A.J. Burnett -19 David Huff -22 John Lannan -22 Charlie Morton -22 Brad Bergesen -23 Zach Duke -24 Nick Blackburn -30 Ryan Rowland-Smith -32
Of course, the typical caveats apply: this is by no means a perfect measurement of pitcher valuation; simply just another way of assessing a pitcher. All data for 2010 (through July 19th) can be found here. I’ve supplied the non park-adjusted wOBA, as I realize that some people will undoubtedly want to toy with it using other park factors of their choice.
I don’t understand the point of this. Pitcher’s wOBAs have more to do with luck, fielding, etc. than to do with them. Therefore they are pretty useless. Most of the guys at the top of the lists have there wOBAs inflated by lucky BABIPs, Strand Rates and HR/FB Rates. Just look at Dan Haren and Ubaldo Jimenez. Although Jimenez has a much lower wOBA, Haren is arguably as good or even better than Ubaldo and has a much better xFIP. Same goes Nolasco and others.
man, people like to whine about everything! “oh my god, your article is not perfect! wah wah”.
anyway, i thought the lists were interesting.
thanks!
People like to make bold comments that don’t mean anything without a reason. In what way did you think the lists were interesting? I simply don’t understand the point of the article. I know JT knows what I previously commented, that’s why I didn’t understand what the point of the article is. It isn’t an attack on anyone and I’m not saying anything about “his article” I just don’t understand the purpose of posting such a thing in light of knowing that most of these numbers are inflated/deflated by luck and probably have a small year to year correlation. The… Read more »
To observe objectively also means to broaden the scope of your observation, and wOBA against coupled with xFIp and other metrics give a more complete picture of why a pitcher is pitching the way he is.
No single number by itself is an answer. You need to calm down.
A more complete picture of what? Yes if you’re wondering why so and so’s ERA is x, then yes it’ll help if you’re wondering if so and so’s a good pitcher then not really! The numbers that’ll help you understand if a pitcher is good are Ks, BBs and GBs in any way or form (meaning rate stat or whatever). Therefore the stats that help you portray this information and strip most aspects of luck out are FIP, xFIP, tRA and now SIERA. Oh and by the way, I’m going to teach this to you now so you won’t get… Read more »
Where in the article did the author claim to be providing anything to help you determine if a pitcher is “good” or not? The number does exactly what you said it does, helps you figure out why a pitcher is having the season he is having. There is no magic number that tells you if a pitcher is “good”… lol… You are totally off base and just rambling at this point.
You should really calm down there internet tough guy. This is not 4chan, we act like adults here.
Thanks for teaching me how immature you are.
The guy writes for THT – of course he knows all about how BABIP and LOB% can affect this measurement. He simply wanted to have another way to evaluate a pitcher’s performance, which I think was really fun and easy to understand.
JT,
This is one of my favorite stats and one of the most underrated/underutilized. I think the only other person beside you who I can say for sure uses this was the writer Sam Walker in Fantasyland.
Brilliant post
He didn’t that’s exactly my question. What is the point of this? “The number does exactly what you said it does, helps you figure out why a pitcher is having the season he is having” I never said that! I said it helps you determine why so and so’s ERA is x. Which is actually saying the opposite. Take Mike Pelfrey for example. He’s had the exact same season three years in a row now yet he’s gotten luck/unlucky and therefore the NY media thinks he was good and is now under performing or vice versa. In reality he’s just… Read more »
“I said it helps you determine why so and so’s ERA is x.”
“The number does exactly what you said it does, helps you figure out why a pitcher is having the season he is having”
Those 2 sentences say the same exact thing… are you on drugs?
in answer to comment #4:
i found the list interesting simply because i thought it was interesting to see a list of the leaders and trailers in opposing wOBA. simple as that! as for your snotty comment “You obviously don’t understand anything about Sabermetrics if your comment was directed at Nick Steiner and if it was at me, well this was what I had to say” i think i’ll just say “whatever”.
Nick,
Personally, I prefer a rate that I can compare easily to hitters just for the heck of it. If we use BsR, we’re looking at a different rate.
Ari- Pedro pretty much summed it up, and it’s something I stated in the last paragraph: *it’s just another way of looking at a pitcher’s performance.* There’s no attempt to account for “luck,” although that could be done in the same fashion Graham MacAree does with his regressed wOBA.
It feels quite odd that I have to explain my reasoning for writing a post that gives an alternative view of things.
Obviously Ari wanted you to post the top 10 pitchers according to xFIP, so he could “understand the point of it.”
Now what the point of posting an article with a top 10 list that is extremely easy for everyone to access would be, only Ari knows.
Of course wOBA is a bit limited in itself. If you are going to component-ize a pitcher without regard for DIPS, you might as well just use BaseRuns.
Why is everyone complaining? The article was merely meant to show an interesting leaderboard, not show who the best pitchers have been. He even said that wOBAA is not an ultimate measure a pitchers like xFIP, FIP, SIERA ect.
Not as good as balls and much better than that dulux ad. I agree, maybe they should have stuck with bunnies thougohrut and the music is a touch obvious, but it’s great fun and makes me feel good in a gorilla drumming kind of way.
Hola Jesús, quisiera saber cómo hacer para medir luz cuando hay mucho contraste en exteriores dÃa nublado pero con mucho reflejo. Si el sujeto sale bien, el cielo sale muy sobreexpuesto.Saludos,
Tagging your images is good advice. Leaves some breadcrumbs for people using image searches to find their way to your page. YouTube videos can produce the same kind of results. Sometimes ranking a video ahead of other content is so much easier than trying to muscle your way past some ten year old pr 6 website.Charles Daniels recently posted..
That’s a good question, Pat- and something worth looking in to. I imagine that they would be virtually identical, though.
Why is BABIP primarily used instead of wOBABIP to determine “luck” for pitchers on balls in play? Do pitchers have more control over wOBABIP against than BABIP against?