GG MLB Power Rankings

Goal: MLB power rankings developed by websites like ESPN, CBS, and Fox tend to result in rankings by win-loss record with little variations. I wanted to develop a power ranking methodology that represents which teams are playing the best currently by incorporating statistics that measure past, present, and future performance.

Outcome: After working through multiple drafts, a power rankings methodology materialized that determines the teams a fan would want their team to play or not play in the near future.

Justification (formula file):
The GG MLB Power Rankings are calculated through the following seven factors:

Three Main Factors (20% x 3 = 60%):

• Overall: takes into account overall play for year through season win percentage.
  
• Future: uses the pythagorean theorem to give a prediction of the future through use of runs scored and runs against thus far.
• Recent: rewards 1% per win in the last 10 games to give credit for recent success.

Three Secondary Factors (13.3% x 3 = 40%):

• Fielding: gives half of a team's fielding percentage value
  
• Pitching: uses an adjusted ERA formula to give half the value for a team's low ERA
  
• Batting: breaks down a team's runs scored per game to a percentage of one and gives half the value
  

One Bonus Factor (+/- 10% Max):

• Current: gives a 1% increase for each straight win, or decrease by 1% for each straight loss, in a current steak.

Results

• Blue signifies a team that is not playing well.

• Green signifies a team that is playing at an average level.

• Red signifies a team that is playing very well.

How to Use the Results

Example:

Your Team:

Baltimore Orioles

Upcoming Opponent:

Boston Red Sox

Output from GG Value:

Baltimore Orioles = 67.3 (60-80 category)

Boston Red Sox = 77.4 (60-80 category)

Result: Equal

• Neither team has a decided advantage over the other currently
• Game or series could go either way
• Red Sox are playing slightly better by the #'s, but not at a level that is significantly better than the O's.

This is my first attempt at a power rankings formula, so please do not hesitate to use the comments section to voice concerns/flaws on my methodology.

Road Rage #1 - Deceleration Lane

Pictured to the left is an illustration of a typical road with a deceleration lane.

The process of decelerating off a road seems to be quite challenging for many drivers. In many situations, people use deceleration lanes in a manner that results in precarious traffic situations for the drivers around them - braking early, no turn signal, stopping on the road, etc.





How to Use the Deceleration Lane (My ABC Technique):
- please refer to the illustration below for reference points -

A - You are driving and want to exit in 100 feet. Turn on your right turn signal, but keep driving (let off gas slightly if necessary).

DO NOT HIT THE BRAKES

B - You have started exiting onto the deceleration lane. Resist the urge to hit the brakes or the accelerator. Keep the right turn signal on.

C - You are now completely in the deceleration lane. You may start hitting the brakes and decelerate down to an acceptable speed for the exit/ramp.

Note - I understand that this process is not valid for all situations, but most of the time, you should be using my simple ABC technique if you want to be a safe driver that prevents (not creates) accidents.

There are a multitude of details and scenarios that could be presented when discussing deceleration lanes, but I felt the need to keep this fairly simple by focusing on the braking and turn signal aspects. It's comical to me that posts like this are necessary, but hopefully even the good drivers out there can take note from this illustration and see where other drivers are endangering their lives by not using the deceleration lane properly.

- Obeying the rules of the road and using deceleration lanes correctly is one way to reduce accidents, but the use of defensive driving techniques by all drivers would make the roads exponentially safer for drivers and passengers alike. -

Project #1, Part B - Impact of Fielding Errors

Disclaimer: I am not a statistics professional. Statistics and such statements about those statistics that are published on this blog are not to be considered perfect. If you are looking for accurate research statistics based on absolute science, it is unlikely you will find those here. The ultimate goal of these posts is to see where a common person can use simplified data to find basic statistical trends in sports.

Every basketball and football season, sports analysts from major networks continue to preach the age old adage - "defense wins championships"- when discussing which teams can win it all, but in the baseball, the classic thought is that "pitching wins championships." It is rare to hear people discuss "defense" as a deciding factor for whether a team can win the World Series. My assumption would be that this comes from pitching being misconstrued as "defense" in the baseball world. I agree that on some level pitching is a form of defense, but lets take a closer look at fielding numbers (errors) and see if "defense wins championships", or in MLB terms, the World Series.

The Question:
Is defense (fielding errors) a better predictor of postseason success in Major League Baseball than pitching (ERA)?

New File - Errors and ERA with breakdown tab (images below)

Data Tab

Breakdown Tab

Current MLB Playoff Trends from 2005-2008

Definite Trends (occurs most of the time)

1. World Series teams tend to have an average to great defense.
2. Playoff teams tend to have an average to great ERA.
3. World Series teams tend to have an average to great ERA.
   

Common Trends (occurs over 50% of the time)

1. Playoff teams tend to have an average to great defense.
2. World Series teams tend to have a great ERA.
   

Interesting Trend

1. The best defensive teams only represent 6% of all playoff teams, but tend to have a better chance of making the World Series than teams with an average to bad defense.

My Novice Answer

Poor defensive teams have a marginal chance at making the playoffs and will rarely make the World Series. Teams with a high ERA will rarely make the playoffs, let alone the World Series. Based on the data from Part A and B, I would say that pitching (represented by ERA in this project) is a better predictor of playoff qualification and success than fielding (errors). Great defense may not win a World Series, but it is highly unlikely a team will have success in the playoffs without an average to great defense.

Coming soon: Part C - adding offensive statistics (batting average) to the equation...

Shaq and LeTravel on the same team!?!?

First Reaction: The idea of Shaq and LeTravel on the same team should bother me a lot, but I don't see them co-existing on the court very well. They already have a pretty decent post-up player with a good mid-range shot in Iqauskas (FYI - Shaq does not have a mid-range shot). I guess Shaq does provide the Cavs with better matchup against Dwight Howard. So they'll match up better with the Magic, but who else does Shaq help them beat on a nightly basis? The Cavs still lack the quality wing player and 3-point shooter that LeTravel has constantly requested over the past three years.

Second Reaction: This trade is complete garbage: Shaq for a retiring Ben Wallace, Crappy Sasha (only good year was a result of LeTravel's help), and a late first round pick in a weak draft. I understand it's a salary dump, which the Suns needed badly, but shouldn't they get some decent talent back for one of the best centers ever?

Final Reaction: Ultimately, there is nothing technically wrong with this trade from a rules standpoint. I just don't like trades where salary is the main concern and fair/equal value is thrown out the window. The Wizards should hurry and find some more front-court players before Shaq starts to abuse them. Haywood is going to be seeing a lot of Shaq again, and I don't think an extraordinary effort by Haywood (contract year) will be enough to handle Shaq come playoff time.

I had to throw this picture in here for good measure:
(all the credit goes to TruthAboutIt for this image)

LeTravel

Wizards' Move #1

I named this post "Wizards' Move #1" because there has to be another move coming before the start of the season, if not before tomorrow's draft. I see the possibility for another trade soon for another front-court player with Stevenson, DMac, or James as the main piece. There's also a chance that the much improved Vladimir Veremeenko from Europe (PF, 2006 2nd round pick) is going to be signed this year to add more front-court depth.

Current Depth Chart

Starters (loosely projected):

PG - Arenas
SG - Stevenson
SF - Butler
PF - Jamison
C - Haywood

Second Unit (too many guards):

1. Miller (SF)
2. Foye (PG/SG)
3. Young (SG)
4. Blatche (PF)
5. DMac (SG, SF, or PF)
6. McGee (C)
7. Crittenton (PG)
8. Mike James (PG)

Anybody got any other thoughts? This is a good trade in my estimation, but there is still work to be done. Lots of average players on that second unit. I'm hoping to see a tight rotation of 8 players playing 30 minutes each next year (Flip mentioned this in the past).

Simple Concept:

> 40 minutes of court time each game per player (Gil, CB3, AJ especially) = Injuries

***Acknowledging this trend will likely result in less injuries next year.