White Sox Now First in AL in Pitching WAR

[OmarComing25]

After yesterday, the White Sox are now first in the AL in pitching WAR (thanks to my man Jose Quintana), 0.4 WAR ahead of the Yankees. After all the articles about historically bad our position players have been, it's nice to see us be the best at something (though we're 5th in baseball due to all those horrific NL offenses).

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=...=&players=0

Edited July 25, 2015 by OmarComing25

[Heads22]

This includes a BABIP thats a chunk higher than everyone else thanks to us not playing defense the first third of the year.

[LDF]

 

this is on me,

 

but to me, it proves that team had the makeup to do something good. it also proves that the fans were right in seeing it as well.

[Jake]

This includes a BABIP thats a chunk higher than everyone else thanks to us not playing defense the first third of the year.

 

This is because BABIP has no role in FanGraphs' WAR calculation. It's based on FIP, a stat whose strength is ignoring bad BABIP luck/bad BABIP from bad fielding.

[LDF]

 

this team is soooo freaking bi-polar it drives me nuts.

[OmarComing25]

And our pitching staff doesn't even get to face our offense 19 times a season like our division rivals do. They've handicapped themselves and still lead the league.

[Balta1701]

this team is soooo freaking bi-polar it drives me nuts.

They're the exact opposite of bi-polar. They're uni-polar.

 

They have great starting pitching and nothing else. That's 1 pole.

 

The problem is that there's more to the game than starting pitching. Some degree of balance is necessary.

[OmarComing25]

They're the exact opposite of bi-polar. They're uni-polar.

 

They have great starting pitching and nothing else. That's 1 pole.

 

The problem is that there's more to the game than starting pitching. Some degree of balance is necessary.

Yep, look at the Royals. League's worst starting pitching yet they still are well ahead of everyone else (though I still think the lack of innings from that rotation bites them in the ass at the end of the season).

[Balta1701]

Yep, look at the Royals. League's worst starting pitching yet they still are well ahead of everyone else (though I still think the lack of innings from that rotation bites them in the ass at the end of the season).

They're strong in the field, ridiculously strong in the bullpen, average to above average on offense, weak on power but get on base a lot. Their starting rotation will absolutely hurt them if they do nothing about it, but "one weakness" is something you can strengthen at the trade deadline.

[Balta1701]

This is because BABIP has no role in FanGraphs' WAR calculation. It's based on FIP, a stat whose strength is ignoring bad BABIP luck/bad BABIP from bad fielding.

Which is odd though because if they're not factoring in BABIP it's hard to figure out how they come to the White Sox having such strong starters when our starters have given up 50 more earned runs than the A's. Fangraphs weights strikeouts a lot, they weight innings pitched a lot, so our guys do deserve to be up there, but man we're really, really outperforming our ERA on fWAR by a lot.

[Chicago White Sox]

Which is odd though because if they're not factoring in BABIP it's hard to figure out how they come to the White Sox having such strong starters when our starters have given up 50 more earned runs than the A's. Fangraphs weights strikeouts a lot, they weight innings pitched a lot, so our guys do deserve to be up there, but man we're really, really outperforming our ERA on fWAR by a lot.

Maybe I'm confused by your post here, but he's simpy saying our pitching staff is #1 in the AL because our poor fielding (and as a result high BABIP) is excluded from the fWAR calculation. Makes perfect sense to me.

[Jose Abreu]

Hard to believe that a staff with a struggling Rodon and John Danks (granted, he's on a good stretch) is 1st in AL pitching WAR.

[2nd_city_saint787]

Which is odd though because if they're not factoring in BABIP it's hard to figure out how they come to the White Sox having such strong starters when our starters have given up 50 more earned runs than the A's. Fangraphs weights strikeouts a lot, they weight innings pitched a lot, so our guys do deserve to be up there, but man we're really, really outperforming our ERA on fWAR by a lot.

 

Is WAR park adjusted?

 

Sox starting pitching is why I think they shouldn't be going into any sort of rebuild. When trading Shark, they absolutely should be looking for a near ML ready piece.

 

If they could actually hit on a couple good bats next year, they could be in good shape.

[Balta1701]

Is WAR park adjusted?

 

Sox starting pitching is why I think they shouldn't be going into any sort of rebuild. When trading Shark, they absolutely should be looking for a near ML ready piece.

 

If they could actually hit on a couple good bats next year, they could be in good shape.

Yes, WAR takes into account the fact that the Sox Park plays better for hitters than the A's park. I'm not sure, honestly, how well it would do if the Sox Park was actually playing "bigger" this year.

[Jake]

Which is odd though because if they're not factoring in BABIP it's hard to figure out how they come to the White Sox having such strong starters when our starters have given up 50 more earned runs than the A's. Fangraphs weights strikeouts a lot, they weight innings pitched a lot, so our guys do deserve to be up there, but man we're really, really outperforming our ERA on fWAR by a lot.

 

The actual runs allowed aren't factored in. FIP is calculated solely from IP, BB, HBP, K, and HR allowed. The WAR calculation is a bit more complex. First of all, they have recently added ballpark adjustments since not every place a pitcher plays is equally easy to hit home runs in. And to convert FIP runs value (which is divorced from actual runs allowed) to wins, "run environment" is considered. That is, giving up X runs per Y innings is how likely to generate a win? In this sense, being an elite pitcher makes it easier to accumulate WAR because you require less run support to win, which is something included in the WAR calculation.

 

Our staff is 2nd to last in the league in BIP-Wins, which is a fielding dependent metric that puts a value on how much BABIP has helped/hurt the pitcher. Some of this will be influenced by the pitcher but my opinion is that it has much more to do with the defense except in extreme cases. You can argue that ~33% of our pitching value over replacement is negated by the defense/BABIP. Interestingly, we are one of the best at LOB-Wins, which quantifies how much your pitchers benefit from stranding runners compared to average. This is another one that could be susceptible to luck, but other causes include holding runners on, catching basestealers, pitching better out of the stretch than others, and good use of relief pitchers.

 

In the span of a season, FIP and its derived metrics are usually better predictors than ERA and its derived metrics. In the longer run, ERA-derived metrics are better descriptors of what happened in the past, though the Sox would be a case where it's going to be a bad measure no matter what because the terrible defense is held constant through the whole season.

[Balta1701]

Here's an interesting note.

 

Out of the top 5 teams in the AL in starting pitching fWAR, 3 are well under .500 and #4 is .500. The White Sox, A's, and Indians are 1, 2, and 4, the Rays are .500 and #5.

 

The only team in the top five in starting pitching fWAR in the AL actually having a good season is the Astros.

 

I posited yesterday in a different thread that maybe starting pitching doesn't have the value it did a decade ago since pitching is so much better now, this trend does not hold up in the NL where the Cardinals, Pirates, Cubs, and Nats are all playoff teams, but at the very least it's intriguing. In the AL, if you're loaded in starting pitching, you're not anywhere close to guaranteed to be a good team.

 

OTOH, 4 of the top 5 teams in relievers fWAR are currently playoff teams in the AL, and the only team in the top 5 in position player fWAR that is not currently .500 or better is the Tigers.

 

Maybe loading up on starting pitching really isn't the path to the playoffs any more.

[OmarComing25]

Yes, WAR takes into account the fact that the Sox Park plays better for hitters than the A's park. I'm not sure, honestly, how well it would do if the Sox Park was actually playing "bigger" this year.

Actually, adjusting for park would hurt our pitching WAR, not help it. The Cell is 28th in park factor this year (Wrigley is 30th). The A's park is actually 18th. The Cell has played pretty big this year, our offense scores a lot more on the road than at home, and our pitchers give up a lot more runs on the road than at our ballpark.

[Balta1701]

Actually, adjusting for park would hurt our pitching WAR, not help it. The Cell is 28th in park factor this year (Wrigley is 30th). The A's park is actually 18th. The Cell has played pretty big this year, our offense scores a lot more on the road than at home, and our pitchers give up a lot more runs on the road than at our ballpark.

That's assuming their adjustments only look at this year rather than the long term trend though, right?

[OmarComing25]

That's assuming their adjustments only look at this year rather than the long term trend though, right?

That's correct, the Cell was 7th last year (though the A's park was 10th) and 14th two years ago. I don't know exactly how they factor that in to calculate fWAR.

[GGajewski18]

Maybe loading up on starting pitching really isn't the path to the playoffs any more.

 

But in the playoffs, pitching is what wins you championships.

[OmarComing25]

But in the playoffs, pitching is what wins you championships.

When was the last team to win the World Series without at least one lockdown starting pitcher (like this year's Royals lack)? Usually you need at least two (Bumgarner last year pretty much counted as two by himself).

[Balta1701]

When was the last team to win the World Series without at least one lockdown starting pitcher (like this year's Royals lack)? Usually you need at least two (Bumgarner last year pretty much counted as two by himself).

The 2014 Red Sox had 1 guy with an ERA under 3.6.

[Jerksticks]

Wouldn't the Sox' horrible offense contribute to the Cell playing "bigger" this year. I mean half of the total ABs in our park come from our putrid offense. Seems almost like a completely meaningless statistic when you look at it that way.

[OmarComing25]

Wouldn't the Sox' horrible offense contribute to the Cell playing "bigger" this year. I mean half of the total ABs in our park come from our putrid offense. Seems almost like a completely meaningless statistic when you look at it that way.

That's not how park factor works. It compares how offenses do in our park versus how they do in other parks. Our offense is horrible, but it scores 3.15 runs at home (funnily enough, exactly the same as the Cubs do at Wrigley) and 3.72 runs on the road. Meanwhile, our pitching has a 4.47 ERA on the road and a 3.21 ERA at home.

 

Our offense could theoretically score 1 run per game, and if we got shut out every game on the road but scored 2 runs per game at home then the Cell would likely rate as one of the top hitter parks due to the difference. The ineptness of our offense is controlled for through this stat, we're comparing the offense to itself, not to other offenses.

Edited July 25, 2015 by OmarComing25

[Balta1701]

That's not how park factor works. It compares how offenses do in our park versus how they do in other parks. Our offense is horrible, but it scores 3.15 runs at home (funnily enough, exactly the same as the Cubs do at Wrigley) and 3.72 runs on the road. Meanwhile, our pitching has a 4.47 ERA on the road and a 3.21 ERA at home.

 

Our offense could theoretically score 1 run per game, and if we got shut out every game on the road but scored 2 runs per game at home then the Cell would likely rate as one of the top hitter parks due to the difference. The ineptness of our offense is controlled for through this stat, we're comparing the offense to itself, not to other offenses.

One problem though is that other things could influence the "park factor" if, for example, you had hitters who were struggling in front of the home crowd because of all the booing or something like that. Any way you do it, that's a tricky calculation.