Comparing pitchers to hitters
ByFor all the number wonks out there, SG at RLYW has quite the post, in which he compares hitters to pitchers using wOBA. There’s a conversion process which attempts to keep everyone on the same scale, and to some extent it’s a success. Atop the list are names you’d expect: Zack Greinke, Joe Mauer, Edwin Jackson, Roy Halladay, Victor Martinez. However, when you get further down the list things get a bit dicey. Phil Coke is ranked ahead of Jon Papelbon (as is fellow Sick Justin Masterson). There are a few other things which make the list seem skewed, but it’s an interesting take on comparisons. The best part, by far, is that David Ortiz is ranked below Jose Veras. Also, the bottom two slots belong to, surprise surprise, Chien-Ming Wang and Daisuke Matsuzaka. Wang takes that contest by .003.
12 Comments»
RAB Info
The Founders
Mike Axisa, Ben Kabak, Joe Pawlikowski
Editor-In-Chief
Mike Axisa Archives | Email
Managing Editors
Ben Kabak Archives | E-mail
Joe Pawlikowski Archives | E-mail
Contributing Editors
Larry Koestler (Archives)
Moshe Mandel (Archives)
Stephen Rhoads (Archives)
Weekend Writers
Hannah Ehrlich (Archives)
Matthew Warden (Archives)
Special Contributor
J.R. O'Grady (Archives)
Technical Consultant
Jay Gordon
Subscribe to RAB by RSS and Twitter
Follow @RiverAveBlues Search RAB
Banner Design By
The Mason Williams Watch
So Dice-K has been worse than Wangy huh?
What do the letters in the acronyms WOBA stand for?
I believe it’s Weighted On Base Average.
As much as I’d like to believe that Coke has been more valuable than Papelbon, I have a hard time buying it.
yeah i wonder how they came up with that. some stats are kinda stupid. some things you cant quantify with stats
wOBA is all about people getting on base, so, you’d figure the pitcher with the higher WHIP (Jonathan Papelbon at 1.38) would be less valuable than the pitcher with the lower one (Phil Coke at 1.02) if you sort them using this metric.
Makes sense. Can’t think that’s a great measure of a pitcher’s performance though, if doesn’t consider the defense behind them, how many XBH hits they give up, K/BB, etc. WHIP is useful, but limited.
Pretty sure the “weghted” bit means it’s weighted by xbh and such. It may ignore leverage, though.
Right, it weighs each of the following components:
1B (.9 runs)
2B (1.24 runs0
3B (1.56 runs)
HR (1.93 runs)
BB (.72 runs)
HBP (.75 runs)
Add those up and divide by PAs to get wOBA.
If you’re familiar with linear weights, it’s just a rate version of that scaled to OBP.
It does not look at leverage, it does not adjust for position. It ignores defense for both position players and for pitchers. A pitcher whose defense has helped him out will look better than the same pitcher with a worse defense would.
It essentially assumes all performance is in a neutral context, which we know is not true. So realistically, we know that Papelbon has been better than Coke, but in this method, Coke has been more effective on a batter by batter basis.
Got it (sort of), thanks for dropping some knowledge!
but big papi is so clutch!
I just located your website, I actually saved it and i am looking at the particular posts. I undoubtedly like it. Intriguing subject no matter what you actually look on it. I come from the perspective that notice responses as akin of listening.