<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:rawvoice="http://www.rawvoice.com/rawvoiceRssModule/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Joy of wOBA</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-joy-of-woba/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-joy-of-woba/</link>
	<description>Daily baseball statistical analysis and commentary</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:52:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian</title>
		<link>http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-joy-of-woba/#comment-1344342</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2011 16:16:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=1391#comment-1344342</guid>
		<description>wOBA is only &#039;scaled&#039; to look like OBP. 

Thus, we grade wOBA the same way as OBP:
0.310 and below is under average
0.320 is marginally average
0.330 is average
0.340 is slightly above average
0.350 is good
.360 and above is very good

A player&#039;s wOBA may or may not be the same as their OBP.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>wOBA is only &#8216;scaled&#8217; to look like OBP. </p>
<p>Thus, we grade wOBA the same way as OBP:<br />
0.310 and below is under average<br />
0.320 is marginally average<br />
0.330 is average<br />
0.340 is slightly above average<br />
0.350 is good<br />
.360 and above is very good</p>
<p>A player&#8217;s wOBA may or may not be the same as their OBP.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: es0terik</title>
		<link>http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-joy-of-woba/#comment-753194</link>
		<dc:creator>es0terik</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 May 2011 06:00:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=1391#comment-753194</guid>
		<description>Something that doesn&#039;t make sense to me is that, if I understood correctly, wOBA has the same value has OBP? 

If that&#039;s the case, then why go through all this trouble. Why not just check OBP?!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Something that doesn&#8217;t make sense to me is that, if I understood correctly, wOBA has the same value has OBP? </p>
<p>If that&#8217;s the case, then why go through all this trouble. Why not just check OBP?!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe R</title>
		<link>http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-joy-of-woba/#comment-129782</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe R</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:32:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=1391#comment-129782</guid>
		<description>wOBA has its pros and cons, from what I can tell.

The pro is it makes perfect sense. It&#039;s based on linear weights to particular statistics. EqA is weirdly constructed.

The con is, it&#039;s weak in the points where EqA is strong: comparing across eras, and park adjustments.

Fortunately, fangraphs also now includes adjusted weighted runs created, or wRC+. You&#039;re probably familiar with OPS+. This is kind of the same thing, only a lot more detail and accurate (in that OPS+ overrates low OBP, big HR total sluggers like Gary Gaetti, and underrates guys who succeeded by maintaining a high OBP, or base stealers, like Tim Raines and Rickey Henderson).

To put it back to Williams for a second, his career wRC+ was 128. Essentially saying he was a 28% better than average hitter in his career. Which is good. But it&#039;s also the same wRC+ as Al Ferrara (.346 in a short career in a pitchers era) and Rick Monday (.358 wOBA). Also just one behind Hank Sauer (.380 wOBA in an extreme hitter&#039;s era).

But yeah, to sum up your original question, wOBA is everything contributed by a hitter, scaled into a number equivalent to the league average OBP for that season. Good number to see how much a player produced in a season, just not recommended as a 1:1 comparison for a Rockie and a Padre (use wRC+ for that). Good example is how Carlos Gonzalez edged Kyle Blanks in wOBA .378 to .372, but Blanks crushed CarGo in wRC+, 138 to 125.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>wOBA has its pros and cons, from what I can tell.</p>
<p>The pro is it makes perfect sense. It&#8217;s based on linear weights to particular statistics. EqA is weirdly constructed.</p>
<p>The con is, it&#8217;s weak in the points where EqA is strong: comparing across eras, and park adjustments.</p>
<p>Fortunately, fangraphs also now includes adjusted weighted runs created, or wRC+. You&#8217;re probably familiar with OPS+. This is kind of the same thing, only a lot more detail and accurate (in that OPS+ overrates low OBP, big HR total sluggers like Gary Gaetti, and underrates guys who succeeded by maintaining a high OBP, or base stealers, like Tim Raines and Rickey Henderson).</p>
<p>To put it back to Williams for a second, his career wRC+ was 128. Essentially saying he was a 28% better than average hitter in his career. Which is good. But it&#8217;s also the same wRC+ as Al Ferrara (.346 in a short career in a pitchers era) and Rick Monday (.358 wOBA). Also just one behind Hank Sauer (.380 wOBA in an extreme hitter&#8217;s era).</p>
<p>But yeah, to sum up your original question, wOBA is everything contributed by a hitter, scaled into a number equivalent to the league average OBP for that season. Good number to see how much a player produced in a season, just not recommended as a 1:1 comparison for a Rockie and a Padre (use wRC+ for that). Good example is how Carlos Gonzalez edged Kyle Blanks in wOBA .378 to .372, but Blanks crushed CarGo in wRC+, 138 to 125.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BomberBanter.com</title>
		<link>http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-joy-of-woba/#comment-129775</link>
		<dc:creator>BomberBanter.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:08:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=1391#comment-129775</guid>
		<description>Is there anywhere I can see a nice, simple definition of wOBA?  I&#039;m trying to trim this down to what would be in a baseball dictionary...

wOBA gives proper weight to all the things a hitter can do to produce value, and is a more accurate reflection of a hitter’s value. a home run is worth a little more than twice as much a single</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is there anywhere I can see a nice, simple definition of wOBA?  I&#8217;m trying to trim this down to what would be in a baseball dictionary&#8230;</p>
<p>wOBA gives proper weight to all the things a hitter can do to produce value, and is a more accurate reflection of a hitter’s value. a home run is worth a little more than twice as much a single</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BernieWilliamsDay.org</title>
		<link>http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-joy-of-woba/#comment-126484</link>
		<dc:creator>BernieWilliamsDay.org</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Jan 2010 19:07:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=1391#comment-126484</guid>
		<description>Bernie Williams had a career wOBA of .371 - this is historically above average?  still learning wOBA</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bernie Williams had a career wOBA of .371 &#8211; this is historically above average?  still learning wOBA</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt Klaassen</title>
		<link>http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-joy-of-woba/#comment-120342</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt Klaassen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Jan 2010 08:12:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=1391#comment-120342</guid>
		<description>OH, sorry... 

I skipped a step -- when calculating the wOBA rate stat, the linear weights values are already multiplied by a &quot;wOBA scale,&quot; (e.g, 1.15, 1.2, whatever) so when you convert to a runs scale, you need to divide it back.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OH, sorry&#8230; </p>
<p>I skipped a step &#8212; when calculating the wOBA rate stat, the linear weights values are already multiplied by a &#8220;wOBA scale,&#8221; (e.g, 1.15, 1.2, whatever) so when you convert to a runs scale, you need to divide it back.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt Klaassen</title>
		<link>http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-joy-of-woba/#comment-120341</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt Klaassen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Jan 2010 08:11:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=1391#comment-120341</guid>
		<description>Because they linear weights run values of the events (e.g, walk, home run, etc.) have been altered so that when they&#039;re added up and divded by plate appearances, the resulting number &quot;looks&quot; like on-base percentage, with an average of around .330-.340.

I believe (correct me if I&#039;m wrong) that FanGraphs uses a custom linear weights version of wOBA that 1) calculates the specific value of each event in a given year, and 2) alters the &quot;wOBA scale&quot; (the &quot;1.15&quot; in the original formula) so that league average wOBA = league average OBP. So the wOBA scale in recent years  has been more like 1.2.

Hope that helps.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Because they linear weights run values of the events (e.g, walk, home run, etc.) have been altered so that when they&#8217;re added up and divded by plate appearances, the resulting number &#8220;looks&#8221; like on-base percentage, with an average of around .330-.340.</p>
<p>I believe (correct me if I&#8217;m wrong) that FanGraphs uses a custom linear weights version of wOBA that 1) calculates the specific value of each event in a given year, and 2) alters the &#8220;wOBA scale&#8221; (the &#8220;1.15&#8243; in the original formula) so that league average wOBA = league average OBP. So the wOBA scale in recent years  has been more like 1.2.</p>
<p>Hope that helps.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Josh</title>
		<link>http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-joy-of-woba/#comment-120336</link>
		<dc:creator>Josh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Jan 2010 07:42:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=1391#comment-120336</guid>
		<description>Quick question- why divide by 1.15? I was following everything in this formula up until that. Is that just arbitrary to even it out to the OPS for the year?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Quick question- why divide by 1.15? I was following everything in this formula up until that. Is that just arbitrary to even it out to the OPS for the year?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt</title>
		<link>http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-joy-of-woba/#comment-61487</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2009 03:27:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=1391#comment-61487</guid>
		<description>Maybe a stupid question, but it sounds like wOBA is not adjusted for park and league effects?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Maybe a stupid question, but it sounds like wOBA is not adjusted for park and league effects?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JWay</title>
		<link>http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-joy-of-woba/#comment-53779</link>
		<dc:creator>JWay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2008 22:50:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=1391#comment-53779</guid>
		<description>I thought about that after I posted the 2nd time, and said duh, thanks!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I thought about that after I posted the 2nd time, and said duh, thanks!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

