How Unfair Is The Unbalanced Schedule?
by Daniel Moroz on Mar 11, 2010 10:00 AM EST
70 comments
I've seen a few things around the tubes lately - like this post from Rob Neyer - regarding realignment or changing the schedule around, specifically focused on the AL East. The idea is that it's unfair to the Orioles and Blue Jays to have to be stuck in a division with the Yankees and Red Sox, and then have to play them more than other teams do on top of it. The biggest problem for me is that a club like the Rays can be the third best baseball team in the majors and still be left out of the playoffs. Making the schedule balanced isn't going to do anything about that, but how much would it really improve the standing of the lesser AL East teams?
First, some assumptions (they may be a bit messy, but I think the point still stands):
(1) The AL East each year has a 95 win team, a 92 win team, an 87 win team, a 76 win team, and a 70 win team. That's an average of 84 wins for the division, which is where it's been (on average) for the last few seasons.
(2) The rest of the AL plays like a 79-80 win team, so that the average AL is at about 81 wins. You'd expect an AL East team to then beat another AL team about 53% of the time. Actual AL East winning percentage against the Central and West the last three years: 53%.
(3) The NL plays like a 73 win team, so that the average AL team beats the average NL team about 55% of the time (which also corresponds pretty well with recent history).
So based on the unbalanced schedule, an AL East team will play each other East team 18 times, the NL 18 times in interleague play, and the rest of the AL 72 times. Using the log5 method for calculating winning percentages for games, here's how many victories the 70 win AL East team is currently expected to have versus the:
95 win team: .349 winning % for 6.3 wins
92 win team: .367 W% for 6.6 wins
87 win team: .390 W% for 7.1 wins
76 win team: .469 W% for 8.7 wins
Rest of the AL: .432 W% for 31.9 wins
NL: .475 W% for 8.6 wins
For a total record of almost 69-93. The team would be penalized a little over 1 win for playing the tougher schedule. The 76 win team would be knocked down by about half a win. That's certainly not the end of the world.
So for each game that the 70 win team plays against another AL opponent instead of the 95 win team, they gain about .083 wins (.432 minus .349). For AL over the 92 win team it's .065 wins; over the 87 win team it's .042 wins; and over the 76 win team it goes the other way by .037 wins. So on net, each game moved from the AL East to the rest of the AL would expect to add about .038 wins to the 70 win team's tally.
If we balance the AL schedule out by making it 11 games against each team (with one extra against, say, the 95 win AL East team) - a difference of 27 games from in the division to out of it - then the 70 win club would be expected to go about 70-92. The 76 win club would actually pick up half a win, and expect to go 76.5 and 85.5.
My understanding is that one of the reasons that the balanced schedule doesn't work out well is interleague play, so if we get rid of that and do 13 games against each of the AL East opponents and 12-13 against everyone else in the AL (totaling 110), then the 70 win team is back down to 69-93 and the 76 win team is back to about 75.5 wins. Since the AL average is 81 wins, that means the teams the 70 win team is playing are slightly better than that, knocking down their record. So perhaps "fixing" things would actually be worse*, since the team would still be in the same place but having lost revenue from hosting the Yankees, Red Sox, and NL teams less.
* I briefly considered titling this post "How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Unbalanced Schedule".
So in conclusion, we* might want to stop complaining about how unfair the schedule is. If your team is bad currently, then they would probably be bad anyway (if a little less so).
* And that certainly includes me.
0 recs |
70 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
This is blasphemy, but this could be really simple:
1. Salary Cap: $150M
2. Salary Floor: $120M
3. Every division needs 5 teams (move Houston to the ALW)
4. Rotating schedule like the NFL.
DONE.
Check out Two Out Rally, the new BASEBALL MMORPG, coming soon!
twooutrally.com | Two Out Rally on facebook | Twitter: @2OutRally
You'd need interleague every day
But if you go with an NFL like schedule, that’s probably not an issue.
There’s no chance the owners would agree to a $120M salary floor though.
by Dan Turkenkopf on Mar 11, 2010 10:51 AM EST up reply actions
If this were based in reality,
oh, nevermind.
Check out Two Out Rally, the new BASEBALL MMORPG, coming soon!
twooutrally.com | Two Out Rally on facebook | Twitter: @2OutRally
by Justin Bopp on Mar 11, 2010 10:51 AM EST up reply actions
I like that idea, actually.
15 teams in each league. Instead of huddling around the interleague fire for two weeks straight, why not have a perpetual rotating interleague series?
Taken down with hearts alive, our hearts alive.
This. Interleague everyday.
Interleague draws. And this is really about revenue. The unbalanced division schedule stinks. I hate seeing the Red Sox, Yankees, Jays and Orioles here (Tampa Bay) 8-9 times a season. I think that if you played EVERY NL team four times a year (two home, two away), more games will sell out. Being around Major League Baseball every day, I get a chance to talk to the fans and most seem to think similarly . Not 100%- but similar.
Here in Tampa Bay, the Red Sox are here so much that I hear all of the time-
"Oh, I’m not going to this series. I’ll wait ‘til the week end series." That makes sense to me. However if they limited the times that they are here to around 7 (that’s still about 14 games total against that opponent), those fans will be "forced" to go and the game will most likely sell it out. Add the Cubs, Cards Reds, Dodgers, ect for two games here instead of Toronto (which NEVER sells out), it only adds to the revenue. Lord knows that we need to add some here. Fans want to see more teams. I mean, we see Baltimore here nine times here this year. Nine…..
I understand that baseball is unique and I used to consider myself a "purist" however this is one issue that I’d like to see MLB get with the times on this one. Actually, think that I swayed a little less purist since I went to work for the Rays. It CAN be done. I understand that this post missed the point of the article however the topic itself is pretty much in need of discussion for what ever reason..
"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives."
Jackie Robinson
"People ask me what I do in the winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring."
—Rogers Hornsby
I love the unbalanced schedule.
I love having so many games against the division, so many rivalries and so much leverage directly against the teams competing with each other for the playoffs. Plus, it makes the non-divisional games a little more special, a little more rarified.
This is a lot of why I’m a huge college sports fan. I love that the Cougars basketball season revolves around the Pac-10 games, with the occasional exciting major non-conference match up. Good times.
by philkid3 on Mar 11, 2010 10:18 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I don't need to see the Yankees and Red Sox 19 freakin' times a year every year
Six or eight would be plenty.
"The moment you stop thinking you're the best, it's time for you to get out the game." -'King' Mo Lawal
And an added bonus for me:
Since I live nowhere near my team but very close to one of their divisional rivals, I have a good chance of getting to see them 5-10 times a year.
Data aren't so good on interleague draw
At least once you get past a few of the main rivalries (New Yorks, Chicagos, Ohios, etc). I saw a study on this last year but I have no idea where it was posted.
-j
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
"Interleague draws. And this is really about revenue. "
Kind of a minor issue here, but technically interleague doesn’t draw anything. I did some analysis last year and came up with nearly all of the 11% attendance “improvement” coming from purposely placing those games at particular times of the year and particular days of the week… The ‘real’ improvement in attendance is around 0.4%.
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/7/2/935648/interleague-attendance-nonsense
by erosen on Mar 12, 2010 10:39 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Data vs Human
I guess what I am talking about is the human element. Not every team is treated the same. I mean really….who wants to go see the Rays play the Jays on Aug 30-Sep1 for the 9th time? How about replace that series with the Cubs or Dodgers.
"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives."
Jackie Robinson
Follow me with the Rays grounds crew at-
https://twitter.com/TripleCrown59
www.facebook.com/TripleCrown59
If you're going to do that
How about we look at the comparison between the Yankees coming to town and the Pirates?
The unbalanced schedule doesn't bother me.
I like rivalries, and I like that you have to play teams in your division 20,000 times a year.
Trying to find ways to fix the unbalanced schedule is akin to treating the symptoms, not the problem. Sort of like whatever moron came up with the floating division alignment idea. If MLB chose to fix the core problem of competetive inbalance, as opposed to focusing on how unbalanced the schedule is or how one team in rebuilding mode could magically shift divisions, then they’d be on the right track.
by Jesse on Mar 11, 2010 10:36 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
Why hello there,
I believe we’re looking at a great point. (Or rather, the only important one).
Check out Two Out Rally, the new BASEBALL MMORPG, coming soon!
twooutrally.com | Two Out Rally on facebook | Twitter: @2OutRally
by Justin Bopp on Mar 11, 2010 10:51 AM EST up reply actions
I think you'd need to prove to me that there's a competitve imbalance problem
It’s not just that I’m a Yankees fan.
I do admit that there’s a tremendous advantage to the revenue / payroll of a team like the Yankees, but that’s sort of an “all else equal” statement.
There are always low revenue / payroll teams doing well and high revenue / payroll teams doing badly. The success cycles of the successful low revenue / payroll teams aren’t as extended as the successful high revenue / payroll teams, but they are able to compete.
Yes, there are individual teams on both ends that are consistent winners / losers, but I’m not convinced that’s a function of any sort of systemic imbalance rather than characteristics of those teams / management.
Wow that was a lot of slashes.
by Dan Turkenkopf on Mar 11, 2010 10:55 AM EST up reply actions
I don't think there's a big competitive imbalance problem either.
I’m really not in favor of a salary cap, since high payroll teams will still have money to spend and will just use it in different avenues. I think the best thing that could be done – and one of the simplest ideas – would be to just get rid of the divisions and go back to two leagues. The top four teams in each league get into the playoffs. Bam, done.
Of course, that’s also just me being in favor of a set-up that benefits the Rays, so….
I love Casey Fossum. Now try and take me seriously.
by Steve Slowinski on Mar 11, 2010 10:59 AM EST up reply actions
That's certainly part of it.
Some teams have been run horribly. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t competetive inbalance. When some teams have $X and others have $X^3 to spend, there’s imbalance. Organizational competence is going to balance some of that out, but not a lot of it. Good drafting, trading, scouting and developing will only take you so far for so long.
Theoretically, yes
But I’ve yet to see anyone demonstrate a real meaningful effect. I suppose part of it is figuring out what we’re measuring when we talk imbalance.
by Dan Turkenkopf on Mar 11, 2010 12:01 PM EST up reply actions
For me it's resources.
The real meaningful effect is that the Yankees are spending multiples the entire Pittsburgh organization on free agents. It’s easier to win games when you have more resources. I feel like it’s pretty simple.
Yeah, but then you have the rich teams that don't win
So is it really that cut and dry?
Probably the most noticeable effect of resources would be wins over a long period of time.
If it needs a long period of time to be truly noticeable, I’m not certain if it’s a problem.
by Dan Turkenkopf on Mar 11, 2010 12:47 PM EST up reply actions
I think
It’s still a problem. I’m not a fan of the 2010 Orioles – I’m a fan of the franchise. If I follow them (or the Rays might be a better example) for 40 years and I know that if things go well they can compete maybe 10 times – versus the Yankees, who are competing 35 times – then it’s discouraging over the long haul. And then if things don’t work out when you’re at the top of your game – like the Rays missing the playoffs despite being the third best team in baseball, for example – then you might feel a little screwed over whereas the Yankees can just reload for next year (every year). I’d agree that it isn’t the death of baseball, but I do think it’s an issue that should be addressed if a reasonable solution is workable.
Orioles blogging at Camden Crazies.
by Daniel Moroz on Mar 11, 2010 1:04 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
This.
I love Casey Fossum. Now try and take me seriously.
by Steve Slowinski on Mar 11, 2010 4:00 PM EST up reply actions
I think that the real problem is that as time has passed, big market franchises
have become even more adapt at spending at their money. Now, you have teams with $100M+ payrolls that have recognized how to fully take advantage of that, through player development and acquiring elite amateur talent, among other things.
Certainly, the Pirates and Royals aren’t bad because of money, it’s because they were (or are) being ran be incompetent people.
That being said, I think that Daniel’s point is right on: the biggest difference is that when the Yankees have lots of talent but a disappointing season, they can just reload and go at it next year, basically. But many small market teams only get one, two, maybe three seasons before their core becomes to expensive to keep, and very few organizations are capable of maintaining a steady flow of impact talent through their farm system.
I don’t think that the lack of balance in resources has destroyed the competitive balance of the game, but I think that it’s pretty clearly affecting the game.
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Mar 11, 2010 2:12 PM EST up reply actions
Oh definitely it affects the game
But not to the extent that we need to have divisions based on payroll size or whatever the idea was.
by Dan Turkenkopf on Mar 11, 2010 2:17 PM EST up reply actions
Totally agree.
The floating divisions idea has been slammed by a lot of smart people now.
I think that the biggest place where balance needs to be made is with the acquisition of amateur talent. Let the Yankees spend more on A-Rod and Tex. But the idea that the big-market teams can outspend the small-market teams when adding amateurs seems truly unfair.
Maybe not exactly this system, but I think that a system like the one that Dave Cameron proposed on FanGraphs a few months ago is a good idea. Simple explanation: abolish the draft, make every amateur a FA. There is X amount of money that all 30 MLB teams can spend on amateur talent, and that money is allocated based on previous performance, the better your record was the past couple years, the less money you get to spend on amateur talent during that period.
Probably will never happen, but it’s creative, and I like it a lot more than an International Draft or whatever.
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Mar 11, 2010 2:26 PM EST up reply actions
I think it's more likely you'll see true draft slotting
The players union will agree to that in return for roster spot 26 or something like that.
by Dan Turkenkopf on Mar 11, 2010 2:35 PM EST up reply actions
I think that's more likely, too.
I just don’t like how American athletes get totally screwed by that system, while foreign amateurs get the benefit of free agency. Then again, reason and fairness, for the lack of a better word, haven’t exactly been MLB’s defining characteristics.
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Mar 11, 2010 2:41 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
What about true slotting plus an international draft?
Not great for the prospects, but probably the most fair for the teams.
by Dan Turkenkopf on Mar 11, 2010 2:47 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, if we're kinda setting aside the fact that the prospects will be receiving a fraction of their open market value
then a hard-slot international draft would probably even things out some.
Amateur players would lose a ton of money in the long run though.
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Mar 11, 2010 4:07 PM EST up reply actions
Definitely
If there’s going to be a hard slotting system, I’d love to see an increase in the per-diem to livable conditions along with it.
by Dan Turkenkopf on Mar 11, 2010 4:21 PM EST up reply actions
Pretty shocking that they only get
$25 per day, and they’re expected to eat healthy. Regardless of whether they enact hard slotting, MLB should be putting more money into encouraging (and paying for) healthy eating habits, because at $25 one is pretty limited.
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Mar 11, 2010 4:29 PM EST up reply actions
Probably wouldn't cost much more to pay a team dietician/cook to prepare all the meals
Beyond the Boxscore Not a member? Sign up.
Which is kinda sad, because that's really what they should be doing
Alex Cora can still command $2M+, but teams haven’t recognized that it might be smart to invest in having your players NOT eat McDonald’s and BK like ten times a week.
There’s another place where teams can improve: spending money on the little things, like properly feeding their minor leaguers.
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Mar 11, 2010 4:45 PM EST up reply actions
I bet some teams do it, at least at certain levels.
Too much of an advantage not to.
Beyond the Boxscore Not a member? Sign up.
I've always said that low-payroll teams need to maximize their resources before complaining about payroll disparity.
But some are starting to do that, and I think the Rays are a great example of that. They’re just as well run as the Red Sox and could certainly catch them spending $75M more a year.
Teams should blame themselves first, and if they minimize how much that can be done, then blame the system. Which is pretty unfair.
Beyond the Boxscore Not a member? Sign up.
by Sky Kalkman on Mar 12, 2010 10:38 AM EST up reply actions
Not to make this political...
…but that’s not far from asking [insert stereotype] to “work a little harder” before giving them a fair shot at a job.
The Royals incompetence is irrelevant when it comes to payroll disparity, except it makes a nice crutch to point to when bad teams complain.
The better way of looking at it is, if all teams had the same front office, which would have a better chance—the team with $75M or the team with $150?
“Blame themselves first” is never an appropriate way to approach systematic inequity.
Check out Two Out Rally, the new BASEBALL MMORPG, coming soon!
twooutrally.com | Two Out Rally on facebook | Twitter: @2OutRally
by Justin Bopp on Mar 12, 2010 11:51 AM EST up reply actions
Agree with this
Just because their are other factors explaining why one team is good and one isn’t doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to address this one if possible.
Orioles blogging at Camden Crazies.
by Daniel Moroz on Mar 12, 2010 12:08 PM EST up reply actions
I think you’d need to prove to me that there’s a competitve imbalance problem
A couple of points. First, this. Pretty clear correlation between higher payroll and wins. Second, if you just think of it within the WAR framework – every ~$4M extra you spend should add one more win to your team, on average. The difference between a $60M and $80M payroll is 4-5 wins, and the difference between $80M and $100M is another 4-5 wins a year (assuming equal management in these cases), on average.
It may be that the single most important factor is how well management runs the team, but you can’t deny that there is a competitive disadvantage for teams the less revenue their franchise generates and/or their owner is willing to spend.
by Missing Barry on Mar 12, 2010 12:48 PM EST up reply actions
Except the causation arrow between payroll and wins tends to trend the other direction
That is, more wins drive higher payroll. I don’t have time to look for the research right now but I’ll try to find it later.
And I think there’s a huge difference between revenue discrepancies and owner’s willingness to spend.
by Dan Turkenkopf on Mar 12, 2010 1:44 PM EST up reply actions
more wins drive higher payroll
I don’t see how this could be the case in any meaningful way, other than having more talent drives payroll higher (because talent costs money) and drives wins higher. Either way, more money allows you to hold on to more talent.
And I think there’s a huge difference between revenue discrepancies and owner’s willingness to spend.
I believe so, too, which is why I phrased it revenue and/or willingness to spend.
by Missing Barry on Mar 12, 2010 2:23 PM EST up reply actions
I can't find the cite I'm thinking of right now
I’ll continue to look, but I believe the gist was that payroll tends to lag winning a little bit because a lot of good teams are built through pre-arb and arb eligible players rather than through free agency.
I believe so, too, which is why I phrased it revenue and/or willingness to spend.
My point on that was that I blame the team for the willingness to spend – so that’s not a competitive disadvantage. As far as the revenue goes, I agree with you to a point. There needs to be some sort of leveling for market potential, but a team like the Red Sox who have done a wonderful job expanding their market should still have the freedom to innovate.
by Dan Turkenkopf on Mar 12, 2010 8:37 PM EST up reply actions
Since, though, you mentioned the Rays
How would balancing the schedule affect a team in their position – that of around a 90 win team in the AL East? I’m guessing it would be the same difference (at most one win) but I’m just curious.
Also, one win may not be a big difference when you’re looking at a 70 win team. But Dave Cameron talks about the win curve and how a win for a team close to the playoffs is worth more than a win for a team hovering around .500. Should this be taken into account? Maybe that one win difference isn’t as insignificant as you would think.
Anyway, just playing devil’s advocate. Great read!
I love Casey Fossum. Now try and take me seriously.
by Steve Slowinski on Mar 11, 2010 10:55 AM EST reply actions
Nice job
This is comforting to me, as the one thing I don’t have included in the power ranking system I use is strength of schedule adjustments, beyond adjusting for the massive AL vs NL disparity. I may still try to put together something to account for that win difference you identified between AL East teams and other teams, but this makes me feel less urgent about it. :)
-j
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
It will matter more over shorter periods, though.
(Or will it?)
Beyond the Boxscore Not a member? Sign up.
by Sky Kalkman on Mar 11, 2010 11:30 AM EST up reply actions
Probably
If you start the season by playing nothing but AL East teams, you’re in worse shape than if you start the season playing the AL Central. At the season level, it will balance out.
Like I said, I’m not shelving it, but I’m also not going to kill myself over doing it before the first power rankings go online. Still might happen, but it’s not the end of the world. First few power rankings won’t mean anything anyway! :)
-j
I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore | Red Reporter | Basement-Dwellers.com | Twitter: @jinazreds
Quick question. . .
What’s the current disparity in the leagues, if I’m trying to adjust? Like, what percentage of the average AL player/team is the average NL player/team.
I think it's around 8 wins
With the interleague play disparity having the AL win about 55% of the time, that indicates that the average AL team is about 8 wins better than the average NL team (so like the 73 wins I used above, because an 81 win time would be expected to beat a 73 win team about 55% of the time).
Orioles blogging at Camden Crazies.
by Daniel Moroz on Mar 11, 2010 11:36 PM EST up reply actions
Okay, that's steep.
So would it stand to reason that, say, a 2 WAR season in the NL can probably be looked at as about a 1.8 WAR season in the NL?
That’s definitely more huge than I expected.
The rule of thumb I follow is 2 WAR for average NL hitters and 2.5 WAR for average AL hitters.
AL hitters are facing better pitching. (Pitching’s historically been the advantage the NL has over the AL.)
Beyond the Boxscore Not a member? Sign up.
Effect on better teams
It actually helps them! The 95 win team (let’s say the Yankees) gets to play the 70/76 win teams more instead of the rest of the AL. I think they ended up with 95.4 wins or something like that (so not a tremendous amount), but it’s not a straight minus 1 for being in the AL East thing.
Orioles blogging at www.CamdenCrazies.com.
Yeah, that makes sense.
Okay, so last question (I think). Competitive balance obviously has the most impact on Wild Card contending teams, since an 87 win team in the AL East would be at a bit of a disadvantage compared with an 87 win team in the AL Central. How much is that difference? If the schedules were balanced and all else being equal, 87 win teams in the East and Central should both end up with 87 wins, theoretically speaking. What would their records be like with an unbalanced schedule, though? How big is that spread?
I love Casey Fossum. Now try and take me seriously.
by Steve Slowinski on Mar 11, 2010 11:41 AM EST up reply actions
It depends
On the strength of the other teams in the Central. An 87 win team that isn’t the best in it’s division (so, with teams at 88 and, say, 78, 75, and 70) would win around 89 games with the unbalanced schedule, while the 87 win AL East team would win about 87.5. So that is a good point Steve. The 87 win AL East team is already behind the 92 win team though.
Looking at the 92 win team (93 in the AL East UnBSched) vs. a 92 win team in the Central (with 93, 72,71,70), the latter will have almost a 1.5 game edge at around 94.5 wins with the Unbalanced Schedule. So that’s a case where the AL East team would be at an unfair disadvantage.
And to correct my earlier comment, the 95 win team is actually looking at more like 96.5 victories due to playing the lesser AL East teams more. It makes a bigger difference as you move towards the extremes, but maxes out around 1.5 wins.
Orioles blogging at Camden Crazies.
by Daniel Moroz on Mar 11, 2010 12:07 PM EST up reply actions
Thanks for taking the time to run those
It’s obviously not very relevant today since there isn’t a team in the Central that is really competing for the Wild Card, but I think it’s interesting to consider at least. That seems to be the sort of situation where you’d have the most extreme difference and result from competitive imbalance, but it’s not terribly likely at least.
Thanks again…great stuff. Definitely given me lots of food for thought.
I love Casey Fossum. Now try and take me seriously.
by Steve Slowinski on Mar 11, 2010 12:21 PM EST up reply actions
Sure thing
It was a good point. I usually just hear about how tough it is for the Orioles and Jay, but in a close Wild Card race it could make the difference (as could 100 other little things.)
And just to clarify, I meant 1.5 wins at the extreme for a team in the AL East with everyone else being the same as in the example. A 60 win team in a division with four 95 win teams would still only lose around 3 extra games due to the unbalanced schedule. A 100 win team with four at 70 would pick up about 4 extra wins.
Orioles blogging at Camden Crazies.
by Daniel Moroz on Mar 11, 2010 12:33 PM EST up reply actions
Thanks Tommy
Much appreciated.
Orioles blogging at Camden Crazies.
by Daniel Moroz on Mar 11, 2010 6:19 PM EST up reply actions
Cycles
First of all, thanks for posting this it is an interesting topic and people always have some good (but not always realistic) ideas for improving upon the divisional alignment. First of all, I think you need to look at a larger sample size (years) for the distribution of wins per division. The talent levels of each division seems to ebb and flow every couple of years. One year the entire AL West is well below .500 and a few years later all four teams have a shot at all being above .500.
One reason that you may see one division or league do better is that there is less incentive for a team like the White Sox, Twins or Rangers to spend a lot of money on payroll as their true goal is just making the playoffs. The AL East has two of the richest teams (Yankees, Red Sox) in all of baseball. They both spend like crazy to out do each other, while teams in the other divisions don’t really have a $200M payroll team to compete against for a playoff birth. This situation will lead to teams in the AL and the AL East in general spending more money to become better to improve their playoff chances. It is a self fulfilling prophecy.
A team like the Dodgers (pre-divorce) probably has the resources to significantly raise their payroll, but why do so when they can still have a good chance of making the playoffs (crapshoot) with their current payroll. All teams need to do, is be good enough to give themselves an X% chance of making the playoffs (the X may be different for different teams). What may appear as an unequal distribution of talent between divisions and leagues may really be in equilibrium due to the reasons stated above.
vr, Xeifrank
True
That certainly seems accurate, but I was really looking more towards a specific current complaint – that the worst AL East teams are being hurt by the unbalanced schedule. I think the question being discussed some in the comments is whether MLB should change things such that a more seemingly balanced and fair equilibrium gets established.
Orioles blogging at Camden Crazies.
by Daniel Moroz on Mar 11, 2010 11:41 PM EST up reply actions
Unbalanced schedule
How do the numbers changed if the AL East teams are better than 95-92-87-76-70? For instance in 2008 the Jays had a 93 win pythag season, Rays were 92, Boston was 95 and NYY was 87. Even in 2009, the Rays & Jays should have both won 84-86 games based on pythag.
I’d have to think that the unbalanced schedule would have a bigger effect than one game. If you had 76 games vs the AL Central and 76 games vs the AL East I can’t see how the difference would come up to one game. I understand what you’re saying, but it doesn’t make sense logically. The effect should be more than one game.
From an above comment
" A 60 win team in a division with four 95 win teams would still only lose around 3 extra games due to the unbalanced schedule."
The thing you might be forgetting is that even if you balanced the schedule, you would still play teams in your division a whole lot. The marginal differences for one game, or even 5-7 games, going from playing a 95 win team to an 81 win team just aren’t that huge for the 70 win team. They’re still expected to lose more often than not in both cases.
Orioles blogging at Camden Crazies.
by Daniel Moroz on Mar 12, 2010 10:05 AM EST up reply actions
I'm not that good at math, but...
this confused the hell out of me:
Using the log5 method for calculating winning percentages for games, here’s how many victories the 70 win AL East team is currently expected to have versus the…
Wouldn’t a 70-win team be expected to have, um, 70 wins?
And here’s what I need explained. How is the elimination of around 10 games each with the Boston Red Sox and New York Yankees and Tampa Bay Rays NOT going to improve the Orioles and Blue Jays? Those games would be replaced with teams ranging in wins from 87 to 70 or so, rather than all being against 87+ win teams. Is it mathematically sound to assume the Jays and O’s would do as badly over 30+ games against the entire spectrum of the rest of the AL than they would the 3 best teams in the league?
"The moment you stop thinking you're the best, it's time for you to get out the game." -'King' Mo Lawal
Sorry for the confusion
I was using those marks as talent levels as opposed to actual win projections. So the 70 win team, if it played 162 games against average competition (81 win teams), would expect to win 70 games.
“So for each game that the 70 win team plays against another AL opponent instead of the 95 win team, they gain about .083 wins (.432 minus .349). For AL over the 92 win team it’s .065 wins; over the 87 win team it’s .042 wins; and over the 76 win team it goes the other way by .037 wins. So on net, each game moved from the AL East to the rest of the AL would expect to add about .038 wins to the 70 win team’s tally.”
If the 70 win team is expected to win 43% of the time against those other AL teams (on average) and 35% of the time against the 95 win team, then for every game that gets played against the lesser opponent the 70 win team is expected to pick up an extra .08 victories. Times the number of games that get moved (5-7, and not 10 – so it’s 15-20 games against the big three, and not 30) and that’s a pick-up of around a half a win. A little less of a pick-up with the 92 win team (since the 70 win team would be expected to do a little better against them as it is); less again for the 87 win team; and then it would go the other way with regards to the 76 win team (since that one is actually easier than the rest of the AL, on average). You can’t just eliminate games against the top three teams – you’r also eliminating some games against the lesser team too.
Orioles blogging at Camden Crazies.
by Daniel Moroz on Mar 12, 2010 9:59 AM EST up reply actions
In the case of the O's and Jays
you’re eliminating 50% fewer games against bad teams than you are eliminating against good teams, and add in the Rays, and it’s 33% as many games.
For every 1 game I’m eliminating against the Rays, Yanks and Red Sox, I’m eliminating 1 against the Jays. That’ a 3 for 1 trade. I’ll take that.
"The moment you stop thinking you're the best, it's time for you to get out the game." -'King' Mo Lawal
Great article, two counterpoints
Really great, insightful article. I do have two counterpoints though. I guess there’s a chance someone else has brought these up, but I couldn’t quite read all of these comments!
1) If you’re using team WAR values to determine which team is a 90-win team and which is a 70-win team and such, the issue is that, to my knowledge, those values aren’t adjusted for division difficulty. Players on the Orioles, for example, are going to have some worse statistics because of the amount they have to play against the powerhouses like the Yankees and Red Sox. This might just be a few wins in either direction, but it does have an affect.
2) This has probably been mentioned, but the balanced schedule does go with with the current playoff system, so a team like the Rays, that may be better than a division winner from the AL Central or West is disadvantaged.
Slightly OT
Since we penalize NL players in WAR calculations for playing in the weaker league, do we need to take things a step further and penalize players team-by-team based on their strength of schedule? Or would it be too much extra work for a possibly small increase in accuracy?
vr, Xei
I was thinking about that too
Seems at that if you’re going that far you might as well adjust for individual pitcher/batters faced as well. I don’t know if it’s really worth it.
Orioles blogging at Camden Crazies.
by Daniel Moroz on Mar 12, 2010 7:13 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
BtB on Facebook
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
