Earlier today I went off scanning The Book Blog, as I am wont to do on occasion. Seventeen hours later, while reading a thread about the CHONE team projections, I stumbled upon this comment, which used the team forecasts to come up with strength of schedule figures for every team in baseball. The number reported is the ratio of projected wins with a neutral schedule to projected wins with the actual schedule. A team with an easier schedule would get a number below 1. A team with a harder schedule would get a number above 1. The Mariners came in at 1.05, third highest in baseball.
Here's how ESPN would handle this:
Mariners Face Most Difficult Schedule In Division
The Seattle Mariners, considered by many to be the favorites in the AL West, don't only have to deal with the Rangers, Angels, and Athletics. They also have to deal with the hardest schedule of the group. A mathematical forecast identifies the Mariners' schedule as being the most challenging in their division, with assignments including three games in St. Louis, six in New York, and six in Tampa Bay. If the Mariners are to fulfill their preseason promise, they will have to do so while navigating a minefield of intense competition. Texas, meanwhile, has the easiest schedule in the West, opening the door for Ryan's Rangers to arrive on the big stage perhaps a year sooner than expected.
Here's how I would handle this:
One Projection System Says Mariners Face Incrementally Steeper Climb Than Competition
So CHONE has the Mariners as facing something like a 3% more difficult schedule than the Rangers, which is interesting. Doesn't come as much of a surprise; Texas faces Chicago, Pittsburgh, Florida, Milwaukee, and Houston(x2) in interleague play, while Seattle faces St. Louis, Cincinnati, Chicago, Milwaukee, and San Diego(x2). St. Louis, San Diego and Cincinnati make for a tougher twelve games than Pittsburgh, Houston and Florida. That's the bulk of the difference, as the rest probably evens out. Though Seattle faces what looks like a slightly greater challenge, however, given the timing of events and the unpredictability of deviation from what's expected, we can't take this to mean very much, as actual strength of schedule depends entirely on the active rosters on any given day. And in the end, this is all much ado about very little, as the difference we're looking at here over the span of a 162-game season is quite small.
I'll never run with the big dogs.
0 recs | 49 comments
I thought that second series in Tampa was a bit odd that late in September.
Seems unusual to play out of division on the opposite coast one week before the end of the season.
hcoguy - March 11, 2010
True enough, but still
I have to say, when I first looked at the 2010 schedule my immediate reaction was “The intraleague rival division this year is the NL Central, and somehow the M’s miss out on both the Astros and the Pirates?” On top of that, the M’s get ten games against each of the Yankees and Red Sox (instead of the usual nine), and only five against this year’s dead man of the AL East, the Jays. One extra home game facing NY and BOS might be good for the gate, but it could be bad for a tight division race. Who was the guy in Anaheim who made up these schedules, anyway?
The only good aspect to that NL Central schedule is that the M’s face the Cubs at Safeco. I would not want to be the team taking Milton Bradley back to Wrigley.
wandergeist - March 11, 2010
I hope we get to see Silva so bad.
I Lick Squirrels - March 11, 2010
Like he'll still be pitching then.
SethGrandpa - March 12, 2010
Lou will have taken to the field in a longboat
To harpoon him, flense him, and render him for oil.
All that’ll be left of Silva will be in a little lamp burning in Lou’s office. And various bits of scrimshaw scattered around the clubhouse.
wandergeist - March 12, 2010
Rec'd for vocabulary
appleshampoo - March 12, 2010
Look at it another way.
The Mariners get to face Texas 18 times, while they have to play Seattle. Who’s got the easy schedule now?
AnotherAaron - March 11, 2010
If we're better than Texas, it's not by much.
Teej - March 11, 2010
Say, around 3% better?
killer_ewok18 - March 11, 2010
'Wont to do' is the new 'At the end of the day'
lemonverbena - March 11, 2010
I was in a meeting at work and my GM said 'at the end of the day' three times.
It made me feel like I work for the M’s for a brief moment.
hcoguy - March 11, 2010
It better not be, because I say that all the time and have for years.
Faux - March 12, 2010
For the curious
This excel file shows the difference in schedules between the Mariners and the rest of the AL West once you subtract out the common games.
http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/312071/alwest_sched.xlsx
M’s/Rangers have 37 different games. M’s/A’s have 37 different games. M’s/Angels have 34 different games.
Jeff Sullivan - March 11, 2010
This projection discounts the fact that the Padres can't possibly beat us
lemonverbena - March 12, 2010
This comment may come back to haunt you.
Fin - March 12, 2010
I root for teams from Seattle and San Diego. I can't be more haunted.
lemonverbena - March 12, 2010
You could root for teams from Seattle and San Francisco.
InSpokane - March 12, 2010
SF has shiny trophies
lemonverbena - March 12, 2010
If the difference in schedule strength is quantified at ~3%
Is there a way to contextualise that compared to strength of line-up / pitchers faced?
I’m figuring that the series of pitchers a side faces is, for most purposes, random. You’re almost* as likely to face pitchers #3/#4/#5 out of a rotation as you are #1/#2/#3. But, for an average side, can we quantify the difference in a side’s chances according to that?
I presume there’d be a way of doing it approximately using Matthew’s Rotation Slots In Reality? It’s never going to be an exact science, but crudely the level of variation must throw in a certain amount of chance regarding a team’s success over the course of a season… I realise it ought to even out over the course of 162 games but wonder how often it actually does.
* of course, the #5 may get skipped where there are off days or at the ASB.
MarkE - March 12, 2010
Again, why the fuck is it acceptable to have one division of 4 and one of 6?
SethGrandpa - March 12, 2010
simple
Because every day of the season would then have to include two teams with an off day or an interleague game.
Calm down.
jchc027 - March 12, 2010
He's probably aware of that and doesn't think its a valid reason.
hcoguy - March 12, 2010
Yeah, interleague play would never fly during the regular season.
Mariner John - March 12, 2010
Yes, allowing interleague
Any time but in the ASG or the WS would destroy the integrity of the game, or at least the leagues. Well, ok, maybe during a couple of magic weeks around the ASG it won’t be a problem, but in the first or last two months of the season? That’s crazy talk!
wandergeist - March 12, 2010
I realize this. It's retarded.
Teams shouldn’t have a unfair advantage from the outset because divisions are unbalanced. No other professional league would stand for this.
SethGrandpa - March 12, 2010
The NBA had unbalanced divisions as recently as 2004.
The NHL in 2000.
marc w - March 12, 2010
NFL until 2002 as well.
Mariner John - March 12, 2010
Because the M's are in the division with 4?
25% base chance, best in baseball. May it never change.
Now, as an abstract question separate from my fandom? It’s fucking idiotic. (Though not as a crazy and problematic as the “floating realignment” idea — which has some interesting ideas embedded like meatballs in a spaghetti of insanity).
wandergeist - March 12, 2010
Floating re-alignment would be horrible
how would you feel to be the Royals and hey, all of a sudden the Yankees and Red Sox want to be in your division because hey, now we get to play the fucking Royals 19 times a year!
seattlebruin - March 12, 2010
Because Jerry Colangelo insisted that the D-backs be in the NL
lemonverbena - March 12, 2010
This does show how silly the scheduling is
Teams that are competing for the same prize should be playing the same schedule. At the very least, teams in the same division should have the same schedule. The traditional rivals bunk means that each team get 6 games against their “rival”, and makes it impossible to play all of the teams in an NL division. When interleague play started, each team in one division played every team in another division the same number of times.
New England Fan - March 12, 2010
The 'unbalanced schedule' is a bigger threat to fairness than the 'traditional rival' thing, I'd imagine.
But yes, your point is well taken. It’s just that the easy ways around it will never happen, as they’d entail the elimination of the divisions and interleague play.
marc w - March 12, 2010
I'd go back to two divisions and have two wild cards
Poochie - March 12, 2010
Yup
Aaron Campeau - March 12, 2010
Say it again brother!
Let’s face it MLB isn’t about competition. It’s about $$$$. Any league that encourages, aids and abets some teams fielding a bunch of All Stars while other teams put out what is essentially a AAA team doesn’t care much about competition.
I truly wish it were otherwise but the numbers speak for themselves.
With that in mind. The original post is really rather silly.
Fair scheduling? Fair Scheduling? We don’t need no ‘fair’ in our scheduling.
Bring on the $$$$.
quidveritas - March 12, 2010
What numbers?
There isn’t nearly as much parity in other sports as people want to believe.
Teej - March 12, 2010
Boy it would be thrilling if every team in baseball had a .500 true talent level
Graham MacAree - March 12, 2010
MLB Parity - it's like the NFL but with ten times more games!
seattlebruin - March 12, 2010
MLB Parity - it's like sports, but more like the lottery!
seattlebruin - March 12, 2010
MLB Parity - every player is exactly as talented as Jose Lopez!
seattlebruin - March 12, 2010
MLB Parity - feel the thrill of 162 consecutive coin flips!
seattlebruin - March 12, 2010
MLB Parity - each team now allowed one killer whale!
seattlebruin - March 12, 2010
.
lemonverbena - March 12, 2010
I think that's closer to MLB Parody
… of the Chicago Cubs.
thehemogoblin - March 12, 2010
MLB Parity - there's only one October!
seattlebruin - March 12, 2010
I think by "parity"
he meant in terms of available resources. No one wants total competitive parity, but I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable to reign in the spending of some of the giants in the league. That said, I have no suggestions as to how to implement such a plan.
THolt - March 12, 2010
A business that's all about the money?
Aaron Campeau - March 12, 2010
Silly Jeff, thinking that ESPN would write a
a piece on the Mariners. ; )
Coach Owens - March 12, 2010
I like that ESPN (and mainstream media generally) writes like that.
It’s a sort of barrier to entry for dumb people.
Llewdor - March 12, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.