THE BOOK cover
The Unwritten Book is Finally Written!
An in-depth analysis of: The sacrifice bunt, batter/pitcher matchups, the intentional base on balls, optimizing a batting lineup, hot and cold streaks, clutch performance, platooning strategies, and much more.
Read Excerpts & Customer Reviews

Buy The Book from Amazon


SABR101 required reading if you enter this site. Check out the Sabermetric Wiki. And interesting baseball books.
MOST RECENT ARTICLES
MAIL : You ask | We say

Advanced


THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

<< Back to main

Wednesday, April 02, 2008

Getting to Know wOBA

By Tangotiger, 11:21 AM

With a hat tip to David at Fangraphs for the idea…

What the f is wOBA anyway?  If a guy’s walks and extra base hits, relative to each other, are similar to the league average, then a player’s wOBA is simply his OBP.  Let’s look at some cases:


I’m taking the 2008 Marcels, if you want to play at home.  I don’t have the reached on error numbers, and I’m including IBB for ease.  So, this is what the league average is:
OBP: .338
SLG: .426
wOBA: .335

I’m going to add .0025 to all the wOBA for each player, to get them aligned for my purposes here.

There are 0.847 extrabase hit per walks+hitbatters.  If I select all players who have between .837 and .857 extrabase hits per walk+hitbatters, I get this:
106 players, .338 OBP, .424 SLG, .337 wOBA

Now, what if add an additional filter to the above list: wOBA of at least .340.  In this case, I get 23 players, .355 OBP, .450 SLG, .355 wOBA, with XBH to walk+hitter ratio of .848.

You see, as long as the “profile” of the player remains fairly constant, his wOBA will match his OBP.

Here’s 10 of those 23 players:
PA wOBA mOBP mSLG xbh_to_walk nameLast nameFirst
552 0.364 0.361 0.464 0.85 Tulowitzki Troy
548 0.406 0.396 0.544 0.85 Jones Chipper
539 0.348 0.357 0.425 0.85 Renteria Edgar
500 0.359 0.369 0.437 0.85 Pedroia Dustin
488 0.348 0.342 0.449 0.85 Jenkins Geoff
477 0.364 0.364 0.462 0.85 Hermida Jeremy
463 0.357 0.359 0.451 0.84 Kotchman Casey
438 0.348 0.353 0.433 0.84 Catalanotto Frank
383 0.348 0.341 0.453 0.85 Betemit Wilson
369 0.349 0.348 0.448 0.85 Spilborghs Ryan

You will note that in the case of Chipper, his wOBA is higher than his OBP.  In this case, our XBH per walk selection criteria didn’t do a good enough job in terms of getting an average “profile”, since Chipper has a disproportionate number of HR.

Now, what if we select guys with lots of XBH per walk?  If we set the selection criteria as at least 1.2 XBH per walk, and at least a .340 wOBA, we get 17 players: .347 OBP, .491 SLG, .363 wOBA, 1.34 XBH per walk.  See, in this case, the OBP is not a good way to measure these guys, since they have alot of value in their SLG that OBP simply doesn’t reflect.  wOBA however captures this.

If I had selected guys with a wOBA and OBP of between .358 and .368, I get this: 22 players, .363 OBP, .464 SLG, .363 wOBA.

These last two groups are similar.  A .363 OBP with a .464 SLG is the exact same thing as .347 OBP and .491 SLG.  They are both .363 wOBA.  The 16 points of OBP on one side is balanced by the 27 points of SLG on the other side (i.e., a 1.7 to 1 tradeoff).

The bottom line is this: if you see a guy with a .360 OBP and a .360 wOBA, then you know he’s got a “normal” profile of extrabase hits and walks.  If you see a guy with a .340 OBP and .360 wOBA, then you know there’s alot of power that his OBP is not capturing.  If you see a guy with a .380 OBP and .360 wOBA, then you know he’s not a power hitter.  That’s why I like wOBA.

On top of which, by casting it as a rate-like stat, the binomial theory is opened up for us.  While normally, you’d figure SD = SQRT(OBP*(1-OBP)/PA), in the case of wOBA, you change the “1’ to “1.1”.  It’s a good shorthand, when you work with groups of players of “average profiles”.

#1    Tom Meagher      (see all posts) 2008/04/02 (Wed) @ 14:46

Tango,

I’m surprised you went the whole post without using the terms “run” or “linear weights”, although I see the latter is in the post tag. Using the +1 method, wOBA has these linear weights values (correct me if I’m wrong):
bb: 0.32
1b: 0.48
2b: 0.78
3b: 1.05
hr: 1.39
out: -0.30


#2    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2008/04/02 (Wed) @ 16:05

That would be about right.  If you add +.30 to each of those numbers, and then multiply by 1.15, you get:

bb: 0.71
1b: 0.90
2b: 1.24
3b: 1.55
hr: 1.94
out: 0.00

As you can see, those are the same weights I have (likely rounding issues).

***

You are right though, that I should have also said that if you subtract the league average OBP from wOBA, and divide by 1.15, you get the player’s runs above average, per PA.


#3    Tom Meagher      (see all posts) 2008/04/02 (Wed) @ 17:11

How’d I miss that? Yes, if you don’t round the values from the +1, adding the out value and multiplying by 1.15 gets the original wOBA weights.


#4    Tom Meagher      (see all posts) 2008/04/02 (Wed) @ 17:15

The out value is -0.302594810379231, so you can generate the rest from that.


#5    dave smyth      (see all posts) 2008/04/02 (Wed) @ 19:14

I like wOBA very much, but it has nothing to do with the comparison between the wOBA and OBA of a player. It’s easy enough for me to just look at OBA and SLG to see what Tango is talking about--whether a guy is relatively heavy on XB hits, etc. And the scaling to OBA by multiplying by 1.15 doesn’t excite me at all.

I like wOBA because of the advantages of basing it on PAs instead of outs, and starting at zero instead of having negative results.


#6    tangotiger      (see all posts) 2008/04/02 (Wed) @ 19:24

Yes, I forgot about the “non-negative”.  wOBA is essentially Linear Weights.  But, now I don’t have to explain what minus 12 runs means.

And, yes, another good point is the “per PA”.  Linear Weights (runs above average), is perfectly suited to be as per PA.  That is, either you put things as runs above average, per PA, or runs created per out.

Runs created per out has its share of problems, while runs above average per PA is alot more useful, especially since it’s additive.

I also have Linear Weights Ratio:
http://tangotiger.net/lwr.html

Since both LWR and wOBA measure the same thing, but one is per out, and the other is per PA, I use wOBA almost exclusively.  And, I think wOBA divided by 1-wOBA probably aligns itself to LWR (after multiplying by a constant).


#7          (see all posts) 2009/02/08 (Sun) @ 18:55

Why do we subtract the value of the out?  I simply don’t understand why.


#8    terpsfan101      (see all posts) 2009/02/09 (Mon) @ 15:57

Samg,

I’m not quite sure what you are asking. In wOBA the value of the out is set to zero, and the rest of the events are scaled proportionally to the value of the out.


#9    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2009/02/09 (Mon) @ 16:38

Just like OBP has the value of the out set to zero.


#10          (see all posts) 2009/02/09 (Mon) @ 18:00

Thanks, Tango.  However, when you have an OBP of 1.000 why doesn’t wOBA reflect the fact that you will score an infinite amount of runs, or at least as many as a player’s PAs?


#11    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2009/02/09 (Mon) @ 18:14

Samg: wOBA is not OBP.  It looks like it, but it’s not going to adhere to the same constraints.

You might enjoy this thread:
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/article/the_history_of_the_woba_part_1/


Page 1 of 1 pages


Name (required)
E-Mail (optional; WILL be published)
Website (optional)

<< Back to main


Latest...

COMMENTS

Feb 12 01:20
Who is Jeremy Lin?

Feb 12 00:40
Clutch analogy

Feb 12 00:38
Reader Mail of the Day: Why do we need X years of fielding data?  And what about outliers?

Feb 11 20:11
Fighting leads to goals?

Feb 11 19:55
Why do players get crappy caps?

Feb 11 19:12
Hero of the month: Brittney Baxter

Feb 11 17:59
MGL: Today on Clubhouse Confidential

Feb 11 10:29
Dwight Evans

Feb 11 02:12
Performance through the ages

Feb 10 23:01
For Your Soul