Archive for baseball savant

Expected weighted on-base average (xwOBA) is one of Statcast’s most important additions to the Sabermetric sphere. It’s a simple premise — estimate a hitter’s deserved production based, simply, on his combinations of exit velocity (EV) and launch angle (LA) — with robust implications and applications. It’s remarkable how powerful the metric is with just two inputs.

However, the metric is not without its faults (or complaints from those who use it). Its simplicity is beautiful but inherently and knowingly lacking, accounting minimally or not at all for:

1. spray (lateral) angle (touched upon here),
2. a player’s foot speed (discussed more thoroughly here),
3. park factors, and
4. opposing defense.

None of this necessarily serves as an indictment of xwOBA. The number of inputs you include affects the purpose you want it to serve. That is, do you want it to be descriptive or predictive? How about both? Maybe defense shouldn’t be included, then, if we can’t reasonably expect a hitter to face the same caliber of defense each year, something that is out of his control.

Read the rest of this entry »

The longer we have Statcast data at our disposal, the more ways we find novel uses for them. What follows is my proposal to use the difference between expected and actual value segmented by batted ball type and venue to determine park factors (and potentially evaluate defensive value, as described in the footnote). Unfortunately, someone smarter than me was already way ahead of me. I’ll get to that in a second.

A typical park factors grid, such as those produced by ESPN or FanGraphs, commonly relies on outcomes — outcomes of plate appearances (ESPN), batted ball categories, or both (FanGraphs). They describe what actually occurred, the way wOBA describes a hitter’s actual production. Conversely, expected wOBA (xwOBA) describes what should have occurred based on a batted ball’s exit velocity (EV) and launch angle (LA). It strips away everything else, holding constant all other environmental factors in order to deliver an otherwise-context-neutral EV/LA-based value.

The difference between wOBA and xwOBA (“wOBA minus xwOBA,” or wOBA—xwOBA for short), therefore, effectively captures all value amassed or lost by other variables. In other words, if wOBA explains what actually happened in a non-neutral environment, and xwOBA explains what should’ve happened in a neutral environment, then the difference between them characterizes the effect of the environment — the ballpark itself.

Unfortunately for me (but fortunately for everyone else), Tony Blengino already did this (which is why he’s a former MLB executive and I’m not). In 2017, he used Statcast data to calculate park factors on the basis of expected outcomes relative to actual league-average production. For all intents and purposes, it’s the same idea.

Consider this post a refresher on the topic.

Let me call your attention back to a simpler time. If you search “Miguel Cabrera xwOBA” on Twitter, you’ll find, well, not a multitude, but at least a sampling, of Tweets from the summer of 2017 lamenting Cabrera’s (and his teammate’s) bad luck by measure of wOBA—xwOBA:

Read the rest of this entry »

Yesterday, I wrote about how sprint speed relates to wOBA minus expected wOBA (wOBA–xwOBA). Today, I summarize my investigation into what factors most readily affect a player’s stolen base success rate (SB%).

This invitation from BatFlip Crazy, embedded in this lengthy Twitter exchange, served as the catalyst for the research. In hindsight, I’m not sure I totally answered the question. Manipulating data from multiple different sources (in this case, Baseball Reference and Baseball Savant) can be exhausting.

I used my final Frankenstein data set, which contained statistics for all players from 2016-18 with at least 100 stolen base opportunities (SBOs) in a given season, to investigate relationships among the following various stolen base metrics:

Read the rest of this entry »

Fantasy analysts and enthusiasts alike are still searching for ways to use Statcast’s expected wOBA (xwOBA) metric meaningfully to gain an edge. Unfortunately, beyond leveraging the difference between xwOBA and actual wOBA (what I, and probably countless others, refer to as the “wOBA minus xwOBA differential”), I don’t know yet how else you can use xwOBA effectively. Given already-widespread use of the metric, the minimal edge you can glean will come from interpretation.

I discussed the interpretation of xwOBA multiple times in 2018. In May, I highlighted hitters on whom to buy low because of their extreme/outlier wOBA–xwOBA differentials. In July, I called out xwOBA’s inability to account for what appeared to be the ball becoming un-juiced, thereby overestimating xwOBA across the league. In September, I investigated the predictiveness of xwOBA in-season (that is, the predictiveness of first-half xwOBA on second-half wOBA).

I discussed all of these topics during my presentation at BaseballHQ’s annual First Pitch Arizona forum, especially the former-most. Basically all of the hitters I tabbed as buy-lows outgained their prior performance by substantial margins — all of them, that is, except for Victor Martinez. Could he be considered a miss? Sure, except he was different from the rest of his fellow underachievers: he perennially underperforms his xwOBA. Perhaps the better question, then, is: Why was he a miss?

Read the rest of this entry »

I use xwOBA as a leading indicator of good or bad things to come mid-season, for better or for worse. It’d be good to know if such reliance is truly warranted. I further talked myself into the idea when I wrote about several underperforming hitters in early June. Many of the names therein went on some serious heaters afterward, too. It wasn’t as prescient as it was playing the odds: the hitters underperforming xwOBA most extremely through two months always, always (in the Statcast Era^TM) bounce back to some degree.

It’s “predictive,” but not universally so, and only by virtue of common sense, in the same way a pitcher who allows a sub-.200 batting average on balls in play (BABIP) through two months could not reasonably sustain this high level of contact management. (There’s a discussion to be had here about the gambler’s fallacy, but I don’t think it necessarily applies to baseball. For another day.)

In terms of prior work, it’s all Baseball Prospectus‘ Jonathan Judge (only a slight exaggeration): he compared xwOBA to BP’s DRA metric as well as FIP (fielding independent pitching), a much simpler ERA estimator, and showed xwOBA is hardly superior to the field, at least for pitching. However, the article only covered year-to-year, not in-season, correlations.

After our dear and departed (but not dead) Eno Sarris asked Judge if he had looked at in-season correlations specifically, and after our dear and departed (and also not dead) Mike Petriello reinforced the notion that xwOBA could serve as an in-season predictor of regression under certain circumstances, I figured it’s high time I just tackle the question.

So: How predictive is xwOBA of wOBA in-season? For hitters and for pitchers?

Read the rest of this entry »

There are, like, a dozen articles of this nature written daily — that is, “buy-low” candidates using some kind of xMetric, likely derived from Statcast. That’s fine. I’m not hating on it. This was my modus operandi when I first started writing at RotoGraphs, and it’s how I really started to understand the cyclicality of player performance and the differences between descriptive and predictive metrics.

Speaking of which, I have no desire to rehash the “what xwOBA should really represent” discussion that consumed the sabermetric sphere a week or two ago. (Although, for reference, I’ll link you to Baseball Prospectus, MLBAM’s Tom Tango, and FanGraphs’ Craig Edwards.) Primarily, I want to provide some facts about xwOBA followed by some non-facts about how I use xwOBA to keep my biases in check.

There are two important tenets to xwOBAism. At the player level, wOBA does not always converge on xwOBA…

1. in a given season.
2. over the course of a career.

Read the rest of this entry »