................

Q.  What are starting pitcher rankings?

A.  Tennis, golf, and chess have objective "rankings." These are based on points for successes -- more points for bigger successes -- and the formulas are very well-considered.  

In most rating systems, there is a chance to gain ground in head-to-head matchups; for example, Nick Faldo at one time had won three major tournaments in two years but still ranked very slightly behind Greg Norman, because Norman had finished ahead of Faldo in H2H, 19 times out of 30.

In chess, these rankings or "ratings" are cherished, and chessplayers have extreme confidence in the ratings.  If you are rated 2100 and your opponent is rated 2200, you feel quite intimidated.

Right now, the tennis #1 is Novak Djokovic, the #2 Roger Federer.  That quite reliably implies that, other things being equal, Djokovic is the player you'd least like to face this weekend.

The golf #1 is Luke Donald.  The world chess #1 is Magnus Carlson of Norway; the champion Viswanathan Anand is the world's #4 ranked player.

Justin Verlander is the world's #1 ranked starting pitcher, with Roy Halladay #2.  This quite reliably implies that, other things being equal, there's nobody you'd less like to face than Justin Verlander.

...............

"Starting Pitcher Rankings" are James' invention, of course, but as you can see from the webcam pic above, Dr. D was quick to take delight in the concept.  We expect to base a lot of pre-series DOV scans on the Starting Pitcher Rankings.

.

Q.  Hold it.  Anand is the champion, but Carlson's the #1 ranked player?  What does that mean?

A.  Being "champion" means that you were a gladiator who stepped into an important arena and won the battle.  Last year, the St. Louis Cardinals stepped into several very important arenas and won all the battles.  That is not to be taken lightly; they are the team that overpowered everybody else in that set matchup.  But it's not quite the same thing as saying, "You'd rather play anybody other than the Cardinals this weekend."

.

Q.  Why worry about starting pitcher rankings?  Why not just use xFIP to evaluate pitchers?

A.  For one thing:  are you talking about 2011 xFIP?  Or 2009-11 weighted xFIP?  Or what?

Michael Pineda had a better xFIP than Josh Beckett last year.  Does that prove that Michael Pineda's 2012 should "correctly" be projected as superior to Beckett's?  Of course not.  James likes to consider starting pitchers over a period of years, not just over a period of one year.

Also, "rankings" weight very recent performances more heavily than do single-season metrics like xFIP.  So using 2011 xFIP weights April and May of 2011 more heavily; starting pitcher rankings weight August-September 2011, and 2010, more heavily.

"Starting pitcher rankings" are much more time-dynamic.  It's the way that chess ratings are done, and I like it.  I'm considering joining a roto league, just to see what happens if you draft starting pitchers per James' leaderboards.  I'll bet you'd have something really interesting.

.............

As an almost minor issue here:  "Rankings" help to tell you who'd you'd least like to face, NOW.  This weekend.

.

Q.  James plays chess?

A.  No, he has what he calls "tennis envy" and he liked the storylines this system would create.  If the #1 goes against the #2, that's a rich subtext to a baseball game.  If the #143 upsets the #2, that's a story.  James just flat enjoys the game of baseball.

As a chessplayer, I see the potential for this to be an important sabermetric advancement.  It factors in the temporal dynamic in a better way than anything else has before.

Again:  if you're facing a top-10 chessplayer, you know what you're up against.  Or, if you are facing a Brandon McCarthy or a Michael Pineda, who had one great year but who are still way down the leaderboards, you know that it's not quite the same thing as facing CC Sabathia.  And you know why:  there's an element of sustainability to consider.  "McCarthy had the #1 xFIP last year, but he's still only climbed to #80 in the rankings at this point."

.

Q.  How does he calculate this?

A.  See his site.  It's based on his Game Score system, in which a pitcher scores (say) 30-100 points for worse and better performances.  Rest assured that he put tons of thought into it.

.

Q.  Why have these rankings in tennis, chess, and golf?

A.  Who gets invited to the U.S. Open?  And how do you set the brackets?

You don't see a lot of complaining about the rankings.  There's a little, but players accept the ratings very well.  You draw the #3 player in the world, you're not real happy about it.

.

Q.  Who are the leaders?

A.  In chess, there are 13 "supergrandmasters" who are rated 2750+.  Magnus Carlson is rated 2835.  For comparison, 1300-1400 represents the 50th percentile of all hardcore tournament players.  2200 represents the lower bound of Master, 2400 Senior Master, 2500 International Master, 2600 Grandmaster.  About 200 points represent a standard deviation.

In starting pitchers right now, there are 11 "supergrandmasters" who are over 500 points in the James system.  For comparison, the lower bound is 300 points and there are 160 starting pitchers over 300.  The #81 starting pitcher, the 50th percentile, is John Lackey at 392 points.

1	Verlander, Det	571
2	Halladay, Phi	570
3	Lee, Phi	550
4	Kershaw, LAD	544
5	Hamels, Phi	530
6	Weaver, LAA	522
7	Sabathia, NYY	518
8	Felix	513
9	Lincecum, SF	507
10	Lester, Bos	506
11	Cain, SF	504

Right off, it's a fun revelation that Matt Cain's $112.5M went to him just as he hit the "supergrandmaster" echelon (as Dr. D, not as James, would describe a super-GM).

Verlander and Halladay "consolidated their hold on the 1-2 spots" with their opening performances.  It would be an interesting historical question:  which teams have had 3 of the world's top 5 SP's, like the Phillies do now?

C.J. Wilson is the world's #12 ranked starting pitcher, so it's worth noting that the rodent Angels now have the #6, #12, and #14.  To a chessplayer who is conditioned to believe in ratings, this condenses the feeling that the Angels just added an aircraft carrier to their rotation.

Michael Pineda had climbed up to #78 of 160 starting pitchers for the offseason, very good for a 5-month run out of nowhere, and that's despite slowly ticking down the ladder as he was inactive in September.  And the #78 ranking put into perspective the possibility that Zduriencik wasn't giving up quite as much for Jesus Montero as people thought he was.  

I'm totally down with ratings for SP's.  Wonder if I should go crush some random "public" Yahoo league with them.  :- )

Cheers,

Dr D