Washington Nationals And WPA: What do those crazy post-game graphs mean?
I post one after almost every game, with a few selected examples: the Win-Probability Added (WPA) graphs. What the heck do those things mean, anyway? In my opinion, WPA is one of the more interesting applications of statistical analysis to baseball. Instead of being a measure of player talent, WPA is a statistic that tells a story about the game. WPA charts are a map of how exciting a game was--they allow you to pick out the crucial plays and measure them mathematically. That's nuts.
Anyhow, I've got a discussion of what WPA is and how you can have some fun reading WPA graphs (whether you're a number-head or not) after the jump!
What is WPA?Something I didn't appreciate about baseball until I started getting into the numbers side is just how much of it there is. There are about 2,400 games during the regular season alone, every year. Baseball is also a game that is always in a one of a limited number of well-defined states: the home team is ahead or behind by so many runs, it's a certain inning, there are so many outs, and there are runners on certain bases. Now it seems like that's a lot of combinations--just looking at configurations of baserunners, outs, and innings there are over 400 states the game can be in at the start of an at-bat. However, there's so much historical data to go on, that it's possible to calculate what the odds are of one team scoring so many runs more or less than the other team between the current AB and the end of the game. Combine that with the current score, and you can figure out the probability of winning of game from any starting point.
Now, what we've just discussed is Win Probability (WP), not Win Probability Added (WPA). At any point in the game, the home team has a certain probability of winning--the WP. Each play, the win probability will go up or down. Make an out, and the WP goes down. Get on base without making an out, and the WP goes up. The amount the WP changes on each play is the WPA for that play. Since WP can go down, WPA can be negative.
What are some examples of WP and WPA?
Every game starts with each team having a 50% chance of winning. As one team's WP goes up, the other team's WP goes down, so it always adds up to 100%. For instance, at the top of the 3rd inning in Saturday's game, the Nats had a 61.9% chance of winning, meaning the Braves had a 38.1% chance of winning. The winning team's WP goes to 100% after the last play of the game, and the losing team's WP goes to 0% (but only after the last play--it ain't over 'til it's over).
The same play has different WPA depending on the game situation
Stat-heads traditionally focus on numbers that illustrate player talent independent of what's going on in the game. WPA, however, depends on the game situation. The same play will be worth different WPA depending on the state of the game. A nice example is in the Nats-Brewers game on 7/27/09 when Josh Willingham hit two grand slams. Here's the WPA graph for it.
The game was tied in the top of the 5th when the Hammer came to bat. The base were loaded, so the Nats' WP was 52.9% (tie game = 50% chance to win, but bases loaded means the team has a good chance to score at least one run and go ahead). After Josh hit the granny, the Nats' WP jumped up to 88.0%--a 4-run lead in the 5th gives you a pretty good chance of winning. Willingham picked up +35.1% WPA on the hit. One inning later, the Hammer came to bat with the bases loaded again, with the Nats still having a 4-run lead and now a WP of 94.8%. After grand slam #2, the WP increased to 99.1%, for +4.7% WPA. The second grand slam was worth less than a fifth the WPA of the first--it doesn't even warrant a caption on the graph. Why? Breaking a tie helps your chance of winning more than increasing a 4-run lead to an 8-run lead.
In junk time, no one can hear your WPA
You see the little bar chart on the bottom of the WPA graph? That's leverage, which you can think of as a measure of how important the game situation is. The higher the leverage, the more likely the play can cause a dramatic shift in WP. Once a team gets a big lead, tacking on or even coming back by a few runs will only make small changes in WP. If Willingham had hit a third grand slam in that game, it would have been worth less than +0.9% WPA (since the WP was already 99+%, and it only can get up to 100%).
Walkoffs are the biggest WPA plays
The game-winning walkoff is not only the most dramatic thing to see as a fan, it's the biggest WPA play. A team that's losing will always have less than 50% WP, and the walkoff hit takes them from less than 50% to 100% in one go. Remember Justin Maxwell's walkoff granny on the home closer in 2009? Here's the WPA graph.
In the bottom of the 9th, the Mets were ahead 4-3. When J-Max came to bat with the bases loaded and two outs, the Nats had a 28.2% WP. Take a look at the leverage bar chart on bottom--the red bars mean the leverage is off the charts, and a big-WPA play was imminent. The walkoff grand slam took the Nats to 100% WP instantly, for +71.8% WPA. (By the way, Charlie & Dave's call of that AB is an electrifying classic of baseball play-by-play. Listen here. It's 7 1/2 minutes and well worth it.)
WPA has limitations
WPA is fun to play with for telling the story of the game. You can add up the WPA for each player over the whole game to see who had the biggest impact (or is the most "clutch"--which doesn't exist). Of course, the circumstance of the game has as much or more to do with WPA as the talent of the player making the play. Also, keep in mind that every time one team gains WPA, the other team loses the same amount. The player at bat (or the baserunner for steals and pickoffs) gets the credit/blame for the offense, while the pitcher takes the corresponding blame/credit for every play that takes place while he's pitching. This means that the pitcher gets credit for things like people being thrown out stealing, but he also gets the blame for fielding errors and passed balls.
Where can you find more WPA?
I always pull the graphs from the invaluable fangraphs.com. They have an excellent WPA primer with a capsule description and a bunch of links. And, of course, you can find it here after most games. I put up the graph and pick out a few players and plays with most WPA (good or bad). If you have more questions about WPA, put 'em in the comments, and maybe I can talk about it in a future post.
56 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
remember this gem?

question about WP though, does the historical calculation take into effect the actual player about to hit, on deck, in hole, etc? for example, tying run is on 1st, one out, if the player on deck has a high slugging %, is the WP higher than if he has a low slugging %?
Wins til .500: 80
That's another limitation of WPA
It doesn’t account for the strength or weakness of particular teams, the current pitcher, or the current lineup. The WP assumes an “average” team/pitcher/hitter. We used to joke last year that the Nats needed to get 110% WP before they could win a game…
"And everybody lived happily ever after. Except the Phillies and the Mets. The End." --Sasskuash
Friend of Dukes and Desmond #3
150% for the bullpens of ‘08-’09?
Wins til .500: 80
by TJL on Apr 4, 2011 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions
I find the best use of WPA is to determine when to head to the bar
My WPA guidelines – your mileage may vary
Nats -10 WPA – get beer man’s attention and keep your head in the game
Nats -20 WPA – OK to go to the beer stand but keep an eye on the monitor
Nats -30 WPA – head up to the Red Porch quick before they close the taps
Nats -40 WPA – immediately head to the the cab stand and direct your driver to the Tune Inn
"I'm going to run. You can't stop me. I'm going to run even if I don't get a single vote!." Willie Stark, All The King's Men
by kingfishfarms on Apr 4, 2011 11:34 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
+1
Now that’s some funny junk.
Souldrummer twitters at @souldrummer25
"Derek Norris walks." - Gameday. 'Nuff said. Souldrummer is all in for Derek Norris. Friend of Nationalsprospects.com
Top of the order
The Nats’ #1 and #2 hitters were miserable this weekend, hitting .174 with 0 RBIs—that’s why the weekend was so terrible. Gotta get better production from the top of the order:
http://sportstatistics.blogspot.com/2011/04/leadoff-rankings-week-1-way-too-early.html
MLB-worst… ouch.
Werth batting .400/.500/.600
I think we can safely say that the Nats got plenty good production from the #2 slot :)
RBI's?
Just asking.
"And I will execute great vengeance upon them with furious rebukes; and they shall know that I am the LORD, when I shall lay my vengeance upon them."
Ezekial 25:17
i'm confused
are you trying to blame werth for his lack of RBIs?
i had a pretty good weekend, sorry yours was terrible
saw some flashy defense for the most part and got to watch a team that may not contend but is showing improvement without bankrupting their future…ouch
Wins til .500: 80
by TJL on Apr 4, 2011 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Desmond blew it
Yea but no production from Ian Desmond. 0-13 with 3 K’s this weekend. It’s a ranking of #1 and #2 in the order, and the #1 guy was downright terrible. That’s why the ranking comes down. Desmond was the worst leadoff guy in baseball this weekend. He’ll definitely get better, but not a good start.
Plus, Werth didn’t get a single RBI—7 years $126 million?
its for 7 years, not for 3 games
this lineup could not be determined by looking at where each player fit best since half of the position players would bat either 5th or 7th. desmond is not a lead off hitter but someone has to go first. criticizing his production at a spot he doesn’t belong only 3 games in is completely meaningless. that list has the pirates near the top, i better go load up my fantasy team
Wins til .500: 80
by TJL on Apr 4, 2011 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions
The lack of RBI's
can probably be traced to the lack of baserunners, yes? Not Werth’s fault, completely. He COULD have hit some homers…
Rob
-- Thank you for using real words!
Ah, the concept of a batting order
Batters, in a tactical order, for a reason – one produces runs, and Ws; our entire raison d’etre (that there is French).
"And I will execute great vengeance upon them with furious rebukes; and they shall know that I am the LORD, when I shall lay my vengeance upon them."
Ezekial 25:17
There's been a fair amount of bad luck involved too
Desmond is not REALLY a 0.000 OBP guy.
Rob
-- Thank you for using real words!
You realize when you point out that Desmond is 0-13 and then critisize Werth for not having and RBI
you are making absolutely no sense.
Aim for the head baby Jesus
Ouch.
That’s some tough love for a man who has made all of two comments.
@Andrew Leff
RBI depends on who is on base in front of you. Werth can’t be held responsible for not driving people on base when he’s got Desmond’s oh-fer and the pitcher’s spot as the immediate places in front of him in the batting order. Some will argue that Werth should be hitting further back in the order since he’s not getting RBI. I like his OBP early because in the long run he should be scoring runs when Zimmerman gets going.
The problem with our lineup right now is that we have Desmond FAIL in the leadoff spot and not enough production from 4 and 5 when Werth and Zimmerman get on.
Werth has been real solid to me so far. As advertised with the patience. Hopefully the power comes later on, but I could deal with a ridiculous OBP, solid defense, and runs when the big boys bats come alive just fine even if he only hits 15-20HR and gets 70-85RBI. Nice to have a patient bat in the no. 2 spot for the first time in a long time.
Souldrummer twitters at @souldrummer25
"Derek Norris walks." - Gameday. 'Nuff said. Souldrummer is all in for Derek Norris. Friend of Nationalsprospects.com
Barely any production at all from the 4 spot
and Morse has not lived up to his status as a sleeper coup on my fantasy team just yet.
Rob
-- Thank you for using real words!
LaRoche and Morse have had some hard hit balls
including ones that will go out in warmer weather, they will be fine.
Aim for the head baby Jesus
But you're right
LaRoche absolutely HAS to get at least a sac fly in the 1st inning opening day.
Aim for the head baby Jesus
Speaking of small sample sizes...
…the best hitter on the Nats right now among players with more than one PA is John Lannan, whose 50% walk rate and 1.000 OBP is a big part of his 361 wRC+.
(Lannan has never had a season with a wRC+ greater than 0 in the bigs. Career his wRC+ is -28. 100 is league average.)
"And everybody lived happily ever after. Except the Phillies and the Mets. The End." --Sasskuash
Friend of Dukes and Desmond #3
OT But:
@ChrisMottram: RT @Haudricourt: PA announcer forgets Nyjer Morgan as players are introduced before Brewers home opener. Welcome to Milwaukee, Nyjer!
@AdamKilgoreWP: RT @Haudricourt: Morgan runs out to wild applause from teammates after being forgotten during introductions.
Vivian Jaffe: "Have you ever transcended space and time?"
Albert Markovski: "Yes. No. Uh, time, not space... No, I don't know what you're talking about."
by Patrick Reddington on Apr 4, 2011 2:04 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
Nyjer just received a big ovation for moving Betancourt over from second to third with a bunt
Small ball appreciated in Milwaukee
"I'm going to run. You can't stop me. I'm going to run even if I don't get a single vote!." Willie Stark, All The King's Men
by kingfishfarms on Apr 4, 2011 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions
I can't help rooting for Nyjer to make it
even if I thought trading him was the right decision
One thing about WP and WPA
Your statement that at the start of the game each team has a 50% chance to win is wrong. Historically, the home team has a very substantial 8 to 10 percent actual WP advantage, i.e. since the beginning of time (baseball’s modern era, that is) home teams have won 54% of the time. Of course, this is a failing of the WP algorithm, not of Doghouse’s assumptions.
Rob
-- Thank you for using real words!
so youre saying its wrong to assume the win expectancy at tip off of a wizards away game is 50%?
Wins til .500: 80
by TJL on Apr 4, 2011 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions
I believe the wizards disappear the moment they walk on to an away court.
Although haven’t they won two in a row away from the phone booth? Progress!
That said, I feel ashamed to have polluted this thread with the foul smell of Wizards basketball.
Souldrummer twitters at @souldrummer25
"Derek Norris walks." - Gameday. 'Nuff said. Souldrummer is all in for Derek Norris. Friend of Nationalsprospects.com
Quite true, and another limitation of the WP model.
The advantage the home team gets by batting last isn’t figured in—WP is always 50% in a tie game at the start of a half-inning. Really it should be slightly higher if it’s tied at the start of a home half.
"And everybody lived happily ever after. Except the Phillies and the Mets. The End." --Sasskuash
Friend of Dukes and Desmond #3
Based on what?
I understand that you might want to account for the 54% home-field advantage. But entering the 7th, 8th or 9th inning of a game, hasn’t that advantage played itself out?
Even if you factor in that 54% at the end, though, I’m not convinced the home team has a mathemtically better chance of scoring more runs with the same 3 outs as the away team. There may be a psychological advantage (knowing you’ll have one last chance), and there are maybe strategic advantages. But until I see evidence, I’m not buying that the home team has a higher Win Probability in game tied after 6th inning.
How about a season's worth of data?
BBP did a summary of 2004 games and showed what the win probability was for all the game situations that occurred that year (up to a ten-run differential). For visitors coming to bat in a tied game, the win-percentage went from .465 in the first to .482 in the fourth to .457 in the seventh to .467 in the eighth to .494 in the ninth to .478 in extra innings. The .494 was probably an outlier, because all the other innings were between .455 and .485.
For home teams the advantage is easily mathematically provable: the home team has three more outs than the visitors at this point. In this case, the advantage for the home team grows from .579 in the first to .598 in the sixth to .617 in the eighth to .649 in the ninth to .662 in extras.
Note: the link provided is for BBP subscribers only — sorry.
Rob
-- Thank you for using real words!
There are definite strategic advantages
A visiting team’s strategy should involve a balance of optimizing their chance of scoring at least one run with optimizing their total expected runs. The home team merely has to focus on optimizing their chance to score (either to take the lead or to go for the tie if necessary).
Rob
-- Thank you for using real words!
by RobBobS on Apr 4, 2011 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yep. Good point.
Souldrummer twitters at @souldrummer25
"Derek Norris walks." - Gameday. 'Nuff said. Souldrummer is all in for Derek Norris. Friend of Nationalsprospects.com
Sort of NPUT
I put up an OT thread for anybody looking to enjoy baseball during the off day.
Souldrummer twitters at @souldrummer25
"Derek Norris walks." - Gameday. 'Nuff said. Souldrummer is all in for Derek Norris. Friend of Nationalsprospects.com
This is a great article and makes for wonderful debating
DOGHOUSE – First and foremost, thank you so much for taking the time to craft such a lucid position / description of WPA. I literally loathe stats. As wonderful as stats can be for telling the past occurrences and providing evidence of what’s most likely to happen, stats in and of themselves can be unmercifully and subjectively manipulated. One might ask: “How can anything regarding numbers be subjective or manipulated?” Believe me, they can.
O.K. Here I go.
I’m going to caveat this with: Unfortunately, I see things linearly. I truly love to be open-minded and ‘lateral’ but when I hear a position (or argument) for something that doesn’t make sense, then it’s extremely difficult to get my head thinking any other way.
I just found out (by a WIKI searth) that probability is a way of expressing knowledge or belief that an event will occur or has occurred. “…HAS OCCURRED????” Root word being ‘probable’ I thought that probability would only attempt to explain what’s likely to happen. Not, what ‘did’ happen. W/that said, your article seemed to be very well founded. …BUT! I take issue w/something. Why is it that (w/the Willingham example) there is such a spike in WPA because of the first Grand Slam? Let me debate.
W/the game tied, Willingham put the Nats in a position to win the game however, only by 4 runs. His 2nd grand slam put them in a GREATER position to win the game; 8 runs. Logically, it doesn’t make sense to say that the first slam gave them a greater chance at winning than the second slam. The first slam puts the Nats up by 4 runs. The second slam puts them up by 8. It is more difficult for a team to come back against 8 runs than it would be 4. So, it seems to stand to reason that the 2nd slam was more detrimental to the Brewers (more beneficial to the Nats) than the 1st slam. WPA should recognize, NOT what moment altered the closeness of the game but rather WHAT moment contributed to putting an opposing team ‘further’ ahead of the other team. 8 runs dramatically increases the probability of the Nats winning more than 4 runs does. So, the WPA should spike higher for the 2nd, not the first granny.
Next, does the fan graph take into account the point in time of the game? i.e. what inning it is. As the game progresses, there are fewer opportunities to influence WPA. I don’t know what kind of algorithm fan graphs works off of but I hope it takes into account the point in the game (7th inning vs. 1st) and assigns a higher WPA to a player/situation due to the fact that there are fewer chances for the losing player/team to overcome the situation.
Thanks again for great article. I look forward to hearing like-minded and opposing opinions*.
*Except from Soul Drummer. ;)
UP IN DIS HIZZLE, WE PITCH TO CONTACT!
by LOUtheMETandNATSfan on Apr 4, 2011 8:43 PM EDT reply actions
Forgive my lisp. I meant wiki "search"
UP IN DIS HIZZLE, WE PITCH TO CONTACT!
by LOUtheMETandNATSfan on Apr 4, 2011 8:44 PM EDT up reply actions
A couple of things
First, on your question: yes, the algorithm rewards a later lead more than an earlier one.
Second, even for the Nats, at some point scoring more runs won’t really help their chances to win much. You are correct that it helps, but it doesn’t help nearly as much as it helps to score the runs that gave them the lead.
Third, the discussion of attributing probability to an event which has already occurred is often a point of contention even among the experts. I don’t mind it so much, but some theorists refuse to accept that concept. Fortunately, this sort of thing doesn’t happen a lot in sports statistics. However, one can talk about, for example, one’s “confidence” in one’s estimate of a probability of an event made in the past based upon observations.
While I agree that some people will try to twist statistics to suit their desired conclusion, but that’s the fault of improperly using statistics, not the fault of “statistics”. For example, time and again you will see people pore through statistics to find interesting items, and then draw conclusions about their observations using improper statistical tests (or NO statistical tests) to determine whether they likely have observed a fluke or solid evidence of something real.
Rob
-- Thank you for using real words!
Lies, damned lies, and statistics...
…as the old saying goes. It is quite difficult to “prove” anything with statistics, and RBS’ point about “improper” or “NO” statistical tests is an important one. You certainly see newspaper articles (or blog posts…) saying, “the statistics show X” when what they should say is, “the statistics show there is a 50% chance that X is not due to random chance” or “the statistics don’t really say anything conclusive, but X is my favorite pet theory.”
"And everybody lived happily ever after. Except the Phillies and the Mets. The End." --Sasskuash
Friend of Dukes and Desmond #3
And there's always the outlier
Buttercup: “We’ll never get out alive …”
Wesley: “You’re only saying that because no one ever has.”
And indeed, they do escape alive. Just because it never has happened doesn’t mean that it never will happen. Never Give Up!
by d_c_guy on Apr 4, 2011 10:32 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
We cannot rec The Princess Bride enough
Of course, it is one of the few movies I’ve seen so I have to embrace it with my full heart.
Souldrummer twitters at @souldrummer25
"Derek Norris walks." - Gameday. 'Nuff said. Souldrummer is all in for Derek Norris. Friend of Nationalsprospects.com
Not to mention
you can take the same argument and damn all subjective analysis because of Murray Chass.
Lou, it's a new year! I'm going to try to be nicer to year and save my punches for the smack talk.
Plus, let’s face it, the Mets are on a train to nowhere land this year.
Souldrummer twitters at @souldrummer25
"Derek Norris walks." - Gameday. 'Nuff said. Souldrummer is all in for Derek Norris. Friend of Nationalsprospects.com
So based on the current W-L records of the Mets & Nats
The Nats can’t buy a ticket to Nats Town. I’ll see ya in Da League…CHUMP! :-)
UP IN DIS HIZZLE, WE PITCH TO CONTACT!
by LOUtheMETandNATSfan on Apr 5, 2011 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Thanks for the info Doghouse
How large is the data set for determining the probability? Also, does it discount data from the steroid era, where a 4 run lead meant a lot less than it does today?
"I was a victim of a series of accidents. As are we all."
---Malachi Constant
by The Herndon Kid on Apr 4, 2011 9:52 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
Thanks Doghouse.
It makes a lot sense even to a math-challenged individual like me.
However, I am also having trouble with the weight of Hammer’s 2nd Grand Slam. It just makes more sense that you have a greater probability of winning the game when you score 8 runs instead of 4.
Patiently waiting for "next year" since 1971.
You do have a greater probability of winning with an 8-run lead than a 4-run lead.
With an 8-run lead in the 6th, you have like a 95% chance of winning. With a 4-run lead in the 6th, it’s something like a 90% chance of winning. But if that game is tied, you have a 50% chance of winning. So by going from a tie game to a 4-run lead, you’re adding 40 points to your winning chance (50% → 90%). By going from a 4-run lead to an 8-run lead, you’re still adding 5 more points to your winning chance (90% → 95%), but you don’t add as a much to your chance of winning as you do by going from a tie to a 4-run lead.
"And everybody lived happily ever after. Except the Phillies and the Mets. The End." --Sasskuash
Friend of Dukes and Desmond #3
If I'm shot with 8 bullets...
aren’t the first 4 more likely to kill me than the second 4?
The second 4 help (probability wise), but they’re really just icing on the cake in terms of me dying.
I get it! That does make sense. Thanks Guys.
Wow it got really wild here in Georgia for about 45 minutes. The storms moved through really fast. Looks like the heavier stuff went North and South of me. My dogs went nuts, though.
Did you guys get any storms up in the DC area? The size of this storm system is massive.
Patiently waiting for "next year" since 1971.
by Princess Jazzy on Apr 4, 2011 11:59 PM EDT up reply actions
A disturbing (but effective) analogy...
"And everybody lived happily ever after. Except the Phillies and the Mets. The End." --Sasskuash
Friend of Dukes and Desmond #3
and i suspect the historical data backs that up (runs, not bullets)
likely showing that there was not much of a difference in game outcome between an earlier 4 run lead and a later 8 run lead.
btw, any of my pts that are shot more than twice rarely have a good outcome. someone should remind murderers down here that emptying their magazines does not significantly increase their homicide expectancy
Wins til .500: 80
by TJL on Apr 5, 2011 8:08 AM EDT up reply actions
If this year's Nats are shot by one bullet, they're are likely to keel over.
With our offense, we are trying to fight back with slingshots. We have to ambush them with our slingshot and then start dodging out of the way with our speed and agility. If we get hit by a bullet, we’ll explode like a man of glass.
Souldrummer twitters at @souldrummer25
"Derek Norris walks." - Gameday. 'Nuff said. Souldrummer is all in for Derek Norris. Friend of Nationalsprospects.com
burnett looked like he could play shortstop
Wins til .500: 80
by TJL on Apr 5, 2011 9:03 AM EDT up reply actions
Straighten that cap!
Souldrummer twitters at @souldrummer25
"Derek Norris walks." - Gameday. 'Nuff said. Souldrummer is all in for Derek Norris. Friend of Nationalsprospects.com

by 





























