MLB Strength of Schedule Estimates through 27 July

Sorry Lou--your team has had the weakest schedule in baseball. And you're still 46-56.

One of the things I've long planned to include in the power rankings is a strength of schedule adjustment.  There's a big difference between playing in the AL East than...well...any other division.  Baltimore may not be a good team, but they probably look worse than they are because they play so many games against elite teams like the Yankees, Rays, and Red Sox.

Well, I finally have it going, and thought I'd give a preview of it here before posting the power rankings tomorrow.

First, the methods.  You can skip this and click "more" below if you just want to see the results!

 The approach is pretty straightforward.  First, I calculate the weighted average component winning percentage of each team's opponents.  This is basically the strength of schedule adjustment.  Face more tough teams, you'll have a higher opponent component winning percentage.  We can then use the log5 method (solving for W%(A)) to apply this adjustment to a team's raw component winning percentage and calculate an adjusted component winning percentage.  This adjusted component winning percentage should be a better estimate of a team's true performance, because it accounts for the fact that some teams have faced tougher competition than others.

There's one additional wrinkle.  As @cwyers pointed out to me on twitter, it is then possible--and desirable--to use this adjusted component winning percentage to re-calculate strength of schedule adjustments.  That way, your strength of schedule measures are based on a better measure of team performance than raw component winning percentages.  And, of course, once you get this new strength of schedule adjustment, you would want to generate new adjusted component winning percentages for teams...and you can repeat this cycle indefinitely.  I'm finding that after three iterations, you don't get much change, so that's what I'm doing.

...Ok, one last thing.  It is the case that a given team has a say in the performance of his opponents, though this effect on any one team should be small in most cases.  Nevertheless, because I'm pulling data from baseball-reference team schedule tables, I don't have the ability to account for this game by game.  So I opted to "regress" 10% back toward 0.500, reasoning that few teams have accounted for more than 10% of another's games played, and thus shouldn't drive more than 10% of the strength of schedule adjustment.  It's an imperfect solution to this problem, but it's the best I can do.

Make sense?  That's the methodology.  And now, at long last, here are strength of schedule (SoS) adjustments through 27 July--these are essentially measures of opponent winning percentage, as measured by the methods used in the power rankings:

Team SoS
Orioles 0.529
Diamondbacks 0.523
Mets 0.517
Indians 0.515
Marlins 0.514
Phillies 0.513
Royals 0.511
Mariners 0.506
Rockies 0.506
Blue Jays 0.504
Red Sox 0.504
Astros 0.503
Nationals 0.503
Angels 0.502
Rays 0.501
Braves 0.500
Dodgers 0.498
Pirates 0.498
Giants 0.495
Padres 0.495
White Sox 0.493
Twins 0.493
Tigers 0.490
Yankees 0.490
Cardinals 0.489
Brewers 0.487
Athletics 0.487
Reds 0.481
Rangers 0.478
Cubs 0.477

So the Orioles take the cake as having the worst schedule in baseball (big surprise!).  Other teams with tough schedules, at least thus far, include the Diamondbacks, Mets, Indians, and Marlins--all teams that have arguably underperformed at times this season.

On the other side of the coin are teams with particularly weak schedules.  These include the Cubs (no excuses!), Rangers, Reds, A's, Brewers, Cardinals, and Yankees.  As you can see, while the pattern is not absolute, a number of the "surprise" teams (Rangers and Reds first and foremost) have had fairly easy schedules thus far.  You can also see that the NL Central seems to be a good place to play--four of the six easiest schedules belong to teams from that division...because there are a lot of bad teams in that division, and no really outstanding ones!  I haven't looked closely, but I doubt the Reds' and Cardinals' schedules will be much worse moving forward.  The Yankees were a surprise here, but while they do play the Red Sox and Rays a lot, they have otherwise had a fairly light schedule...including 12 games vs. Baltimore, their most common foe thus far.

Finally, if you look closely, there's an interesting pattern here where many of the best teams in the standings have tended to have weaker strength of schedules.  An obvious reason for this is that they don't have to face themselves!  The correlation isn't huge (r = -0.32), but it's there.  This is one reason the iterations are an important addition--without the iterations, the correlation was closer to 0.6.  But, of course, another possibility remains--that part of their success is just the good fortune to have an easy schedule.  We'll see what happens over the rest of the season.

Anyway, hope you like this!  I'll show how these values are incorporated into the power rankings tomorrow.

X
Log In Sign Up

forgot?
Log In Sign Up

Forgot password?

We'll email you a reset link.

If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.

Forgot password?

Try another email?

Almost done,

Join Beyond the Box Score

You must be a member of Beyond the Box Score to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Beyond the Box Score. You should read them.

Join Beyond the Box Score

You must be a member of Beyond the Box Score to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Beyond the Box Score. You should read them.

Spinner.vc97ec6e

Authenticating

Great!

Choose an available username to complete sign up.

In order to provide our users with a better overall experience, we ask for more information from Facebook when using it to login so that we can learn more about our audience and provide you with the best possible experience. We do not store specific user data and the sharing of it is not required to login with Facebook.

tracking_pixel_9351_tracker