BP Comment Quick Links
| Home | Unfiltered | Articles | Newsletter | Statistics | Fantasy | Events | Radio | Glossary | Search |
![]() |
|
|
|
April 15, 2009 Prospectus Hit and RunStrength of Schedule
Through weeks of tweaking and touting our PECOTA-based projected standings, one fact has remained clear: the AL East is the majors' most stacked division, with three teams forecast to win at least 94 games, and the eventual runner-up likely to win the league's Wild Card. The NL East features three strong contenders as well, with the second-place club likely to be in the thick of the Wild Card hunt. Given that these contenders' interleague slates vary—the Mets play the Yankees six times due to their "natural rivalry," and likewise for the Braves and Red Sox, but the Phillies draw the considerably weaker Blue Jays, and the Rays face the Marlins—it's worth gauging the impact of the differing schedules. To evaluate this, we used the aforementioned projected records to calculate the opponents' winning percentages for all 30 teams, not only for the entire season, but also month by month and half by half so as to better appreciate the schedule's contours. Instead of using the raw projected winning percentages, we applied two adjustments based on data from the last three years, one to account for the home team winning 55 percent of the time, and the other for the AL winning 58 percent of interleague games. Using the log5 method similar to that used by Clay Davenport in the Postseason Odds report, this is a relatively simple task; a 25-point (.025) bonus or tax is applied based on whether the opponent is at home or on the road, and a 40-point (.040) one is applied for interleague play. Thus when the Yankees (.606) play the Mets (.565) at the new Yankee Stadium, the latter's adjusted winning percentage is recorded as .565 - .025 - .040 = .500. When they play at Citi Field, it's recorded as .565 + .025 - .040 = .550. From the Mets' point of view, the Yankees are a .671 team (.606 + .025 + .040) in the Bronx and a .621 (.606 - .025 + .040) team in Queens. Applying these adjustments uniformly is fairly crude, since it may be true that more extreme teams on either end of the spectrum have differing home/road or interleague splits, but for this exercise, it's what we're using. Below are the full season strength of schedule measurements: Team Opp W% Marlins .519 Orioles .514 Blue Jays .513 Nationals .512 Rockies .507 Padres .506 Pirates .506 Phillies .506 Braves .505 Mets .504 Red Sox .504 Giants .503 Astros .503 Yankees .501 Rangers .501 White Sox .500 Rays .500 Cardinals .498 Brewers .497 Reds .496 Royals .496 Mariners .494 Angels .493 Twins .493 Athletics .493 Dodgers .492 D'backs .492 Indians .491 Tigers .490 Cubs .488 As you marvel at the brutality facing the bottom two clubs in the two Easts, consider the following:
|
One thing that tends to exaggerate any inequality is the "not playing yourself" factor. The Cubs' schedule advantage in the NL Central has mostly to do with them being so much better than anyone else in the division. that's a feature, not a bug. One way to remove this would be to construct a 30 x 30 table that compares two teams' schedules excluding their head to head games.