PDA

View Full Version : Strength of schedule



SpiritofStLouis
05-15-2013, 10:27 PM
There has been a lot of speculation about how difficult the schedules have been for various teams so far, so here's a graph that shows the schedule strength for all 30 teams.



http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/rpi/_/sort/sos

krm1580
05-15-2013, 10:38 PM
Can you explain the value of "strength of schedule" 1.5 months into the season?

757690
05-16-2013, 12:01 AM
Can you explain the value of "strength of schedule" 1.5 months into the season?

Exactly.

Last year at this point, the Reds were at .500. They finished with 97 wins.

A teams win-lost record on May 15th does not tell us how talented that team is, nor how many wins they will have at season's end.

Those stats tells us nothing of value.

Salukifan2
05-16-2013, 12:09 AM
Many people have been talking SOS on the redszone in multiple contexts. He is just being courteous and giving a link so everyone can see what the SOS of teams around the league are

Falcon7
05-16-2013, 12:18 AM
Almost a 1/4 of the season already, it certainly means something...

RedTeamGo!
05-16-2013, 12:21 AM
Hooray! The cardinals are number 1!

Give me a break, like he didn't post this because the cardinals are number 1 in "SOS." I was born at night, but not last night.

This graph is the definition of meaningless.

SpiritofStLouis
05-16-2013, 12:23 AM
Can you explain the value of "strength of schedule" 1.5 months into the season?

I believe that it means that up to this point of the season, based on the records of their opponents, how difficult a team's schedule has been.

Or, in layman's terms, those that have opined that the Reds have played a more difficult schedule than the Cardinals (up to now) have been wrong.

Just trying to help out, so such mistakes (claiming that the Reds have played a tougher schedule) won't be made in the future.

I never said it was important.

RedTeamGo!
05-16-2013, 12:32 AM
I believe that it means that up to this point of the season, based on the records of their opponents, how difficult a team's schedule has been.

Or, in layman's terms, those that have opined that the Reds have played a more difficult schedule than the Cardinals (up to now) have been wrong.

Just trying to help out, so such mistakes (claiming that the Reds have played a tougher schedule) won't be made in the future.

I never said it was important.

The first part is layman's terms. The second part you say are layman's terms is just you trolling for a reaction from reds fans.

Thanks for your help, really appreciate you giving our fanbase a helping hand by pointing out some were wrong so they don't make future mistakes when talking about the magnificent St. Louis cardinals.

I for one am not falling for this subtle trolling many seem to be ok with here.

SpiritofStLouis
05-16-2013, 12:49 AM
The first part is layman's terms. The second part you say are layman's terms is just you trolling for a reaction from reds fans.

Thanks for your help, really appreciate you giving our fanbase a helping hand by pointing out some were wrong so they don't make future mistakes when talking about the magnificent St. Louis cardinals.

I for one am not falling for this subtle trolling many seem to be ok with here.

I meant no such thing.

FWIW, I picked the Reds to win the division and the Cardinals to miss the playoffs.

JayStubbs
05-16-2013, 01:46 AM
I believe that it means that up to this point of the season, based on the records of their opponents, how difficult a team's schedule has been.

Or, in layman's terms, those that have opined that the Reds have played a more difficult schedule than the Cardinals (up to now) have been wrong.

Just trying to help out, so such mistakes (claiming that the Reds have played a tougher schedule) won't be made in the future.

I never said it was important.

Actually, those that have argued that the Reds have played a more difficult schedule were correct.

The stat that is on the ESPN website is worthless. It does not actually measure the strength of the schedule that a team played, despite the name that they give it.

The strength of a team's scheduled cannot, nor should it ever be measured by the early season records of their opponents. Those records do not reveal how good or how strong a team is. Here is why:

2012 mid may records vs. final records:

Giants 18-19 finished 94-68
Reds 18-17 finished 97-65
Brewers 16-24 finished 83-79
Miami 20-17 finished 69-73
Mets 20-16 finished 74-88
Cards 20-11 finished 88-74
Astros 15-17 finished 55-107
D-Backs 16-21 finished 81-81
Dodgers 24-12 finished 86-76

Salukifan2
05-16-2013, 03:53 AM
SOS in baseball is stupid. Why is it being discussed? It is used by fans of all teams to try and make themselves feel better about their current position, or the position of a rival team. Frankly for the last week and a half it seems like both teams have only played the Cubs, Marlins, and Brewers and they all suck.

SpiritofStLouis
05-16-2013, 03:55 AM
Actually, those that have argued that the Reds have played a more difficult schedule were correct.

The stat that is on the ESPN website is worthless. It does not actually measure the strength of the schedule that a team played, despite the name that they give it.

The strength of a team's scheduled cannot, nor should it ever be measured by the early season records of their opponents. Those records do not reveal how good or how strong a team is. Here is why:

2012 mid may records vs. final records:

Giants 18-19 finished 94-68
Reds 18-17 finished 97-65
Brewers 16-24 finished 83-79
Miami 20-17 finished 69-73
Mets 20-16 finished 74-88
Cards 20-11 finished 88-74
Astros 15-17 finished 55-107
D-Backs 16-21 finished 81-81
Dodgers 24-12 finished 86-76

I understand your premise, but I believe your logic is flawed. Strength of Schedule calculates how a team is playing when you play them, not how they will eventually end up.

I'll give you an example.

The Pirates are 25-15, the Mariners are 15-25. Their SOSs are what they are. Pittsburgh plays Seattle in a 3 game series and sweeps them. Both teams SOSs are adjusted accordingly.

The 2 teams play again in July, and during the period of time between the series, the Pirates lose McCutcheon, Marte, Alvarez, Burnett and Grille to season ending injuries.

Seattle takes 2 out of 3 in July. At this point, their SOSs are what they are (which is irrelevant)

Obviously, Pittsburgh is not the same team.

The point is that Seattle's strength of schedule after the 1st series was calculated by Pittsburgh's record at the time, before the injuries.

Pittsburgh goes on to win 65 games. You can't calculate Seattle's strength of schedule after that 1st series on Pittsburgh's final record because obviously the team the Pirates had during that 1st series was different than the team that finished the season .

Strength of schedule is calculated on the team's record when you played them, not how they finished.

I bet the Red's record would be better if they had Luddy and Cueto the whole season. You just can't assume it because it didn't happen. Their record is what it is and their roster is what it is.

You can't measure strength of schedule on projections. You can only use a team's record at the time the SOS is calculated.

The math is solid. Now how much credence you put in it is up to you, kinda like sabremetrics. Some people dismiss sabre entirely, but that's not because the numbers are wrong, it's because people tend to assign their own degrees of relevance.

For the record, ESPN isn't the only publication that uses the SOS formula. Every site that publishes it uses the very same premise.

JayStubbs
05-16-2013, 05:12 AM
I understand your premise, but I believe your logic is flawed. Strength of Schedule calculates how a team is playing when you play them, not how they will eventually end up.

I'll give you an example.

The Pirates are 25-15, the Mariners are 15-25. Their SOSs are what they are. Pittsburgh plays Seattle in a 3 game series and sweeps them. Both teams SOSs are adjusted accordingly.

The 2 teams play again in July, and during the period of time between the series, the Pirates lose McCutcheon, Marte, Alvarez, Burnett and Grille to season ending injuries.

Seattle takes 2 out of 3 in July. At this point, their SOSs are what they are (which is irrelevant)

Obviously, Pittsburgh is not the same team.

The point is that Seattle's strength of schedule after the 1st series was calculated by Pittsburgh's record at the time, before the injuries.

Pittsburgh goes on to win 65 games. You can't calculate Seattle's strength of schedule after that 1st series on Pittsburgh's final record because obviously the team the Pirates had during that 1st series was different than the team that finished the season .

Strength of schedule is calculated on the team's record when you played them, not how they finished.

I bet the Red's record would be better if they had Luddy and Cueto the whole season. You just can't assume it because it didn't happen. Their record is what it is and their roster is what it is.

You can't measure strength of schedule on projections. You can only use a team's record at the time the SOS is calculated.

The math is solid. Now how much credence you put in it is up to you, kinda like sabremetrics. Some people dismiss sabre entirely, but that's not because the numbers are wrong, it's because people tend to assign their own degrees of relevance.

For the record, ESPN isn't the only publication that uses the SOS formula. Every site that publishes it uses the very same premise.

You're actually making my point for me.

Like you said, and others have said, it's not who you play, but when you play them. A team's record at any one time, especially early on the season, doesn't reflect how difficult it will be to beat them.

I already provided empirical evidence that at the time of the year last season, nine out of the sixteen teams had records that didn't reflect their talent level. And your example of a team suffering injuries only makes the point even clearer.

I can take a similar example to prove my point.

Lets say the Cards lose Wainwright, Holliday, Molina and Beltran for a week. They all get the flu. The Padres play them and sweep them. The SOS show that the Padres faced a tough opponent, with the bet record in the league. But the Cards were hurt, and not the same team that accumulated that record. So really, the Padres a pretty weak opponent.

The point is, that a teams's record, especially early in the season, is a terrible and very inaccurate way to measure how good they are, or how difficult an opponent they are.

SpiritofStLouis
05-16-2013, 07:57 AM
You're actually making my point for me.

Like you said, and others have said, it's not who you play, but when you play them. A team's record at any one time, especially early on the season, doesn't reflect how difficult it will be to beat them.

I already provided empirical evidence that at the time of the year last season, nine out of the sixteen teams had records that didn't reflect their talent level. And your example of a team suffering injuries only makes the point even clearer.

I can take a similar example to prove my point.

Lets say the Cards lose Wainwright, Holliday, Molina and Beltran for a week. They all get the flu. The Padres play them and sweep them. The SOS show that the Padres faced a tough opponent, with the bet record in the league. But the Cards were hurt, and not the same team that accumulated that record. So really, the Padres a pretty weak opponent.

The point is, that a teams's record, especially early in the season, is a terrible and very inaccurate way to measure how good they are, or how difficult an opponent they are.

I see your point, but the fact that the Cardinals weren't at 100% when they got swept by San Diego doesn't matter when calculating either team's strength of schedule after the sweep. Those games were actually played.

The Cardinals sat Yadi last night, so you can argue that they were weakened, and you'd be right. But the game was played and recorded as a win for St.Louis and a loss by the Mets. That's fact, it happened.

You can't dismiss it just because the 2 teams records will be different at the end of the season, that's not what the stat is designed for.

I didn't create the stat, and put whatever relevance to it as you care to, but the fact is that the SOS stat exists, that's how it's calculated, and the numbers are what they are.

The NFL uses a SOS calculation as a tie breaker to determine the playoffs. Granted, the season is over, but the SOS is determined on games that have been played. It's not determined on how many wins Vegas predicted them to win at the beginning of the season.

I don't know what else to tell you, if you want to say the Reds have played a tougher schedule than the Cardinals to this point, feel free. The numbers don't back you up, though.

Beltway
05-16-2013, 07:57 AM
Actually, those that have argued that the Reds have played a more difficult schedule were correct.

The stat that is on the ESPN website is worthless. It does not actually measure the strength of the schedule that a team played, despite the name that they give it.

The strength of a team's scheduled cannot, nor should it ever be measured by the early season records of their opponents. Those records do not reveal how good or how strong a team is. Here is why:

2012 mid may records vs. final records:

Giants 18-19 finished 94-68
Reds 18-17 finished 97-65
Brewers 16-24 finished 83-79
Miami 20-17 finished 69-73
Mets 20-16 finished 74-88
Cards 20-11 finished 88-74
Astros 15-17 finished 55-107
D-Backs 16-21 finished 81-81
Dodgers 24-12 finished 86-76
If you know what the final records for every team will be in 2013, please let me know. I'd like to make some money.

The only thing we actually KNOW is how well teams have performed up to this point. Nothing more.

JayStubbs
05-16-2013, 08:22 AM
I see your point, but the fact that the Cardinals weren't at 100% when they got swept by San Diego doesn't matter when calculating either team's strength of schedule after the sweep. Those games were actually played.

The Cardinals sat Yadi last night, so you can argue that they were weakened, and you'd be right. But the game was played and recorded as a win for St.Louis and a loss by the Mets. That's fact, it happened.

You can't dismiss it just because the 2 teams records will be different at the end of the season, that's not what the stat is designed for.

I didn't create the stat, and put whatever relevance to it as you care to, but the fact is that the SOS stat exists, that's how it's calculated, and the numbers are what they are.

The NFL uses a SOS calculation as a tie breaker to determine the playoffs. Granted, the season is over, but the SOS is determined on games that have been played. It's not determined on how many wins Vegas predicted them to win at the beginning of the season.

I don't know what else to tell you, if you want to say the Reds have played a tougher schedule than the Cardinals to this point, feel free. The numbers don't back you up, though.

You are completely missing the point. It's not that the numbers don't back up the claim that the Reds had a tougher schedule, it's that the numbers don't back anything up. They are useless.

Let's use a real example.

On April 8th, the Indians started a two game series with the Yankees. The Yankees were 2-4 at the time. The Indians SOS said that they were playing an easy team to beat. But they weren't. They were playing a Yankees team that now leads the division with a 25-15 record.

The SOS at that point was wrong, simply wrong. It gave us nothing, zero, absolutely no useful information to use in determining how tough this series would be for the Indians.

And more importantly, if we use opposing team's records to calculate SOS now, it would count that Yankee series as a tough one for the Indians. So the actual numbers used to determine a team's SOS change constantly as the opposing teams continue to play. There's a good chance that at the end of the season, the SOS will consider that first Yankee series as an easy one for the Indians, again.

The point is... again... that using the opposing teams's records to determine SOS is a lousy, meaningless way to calculate it. It simply tells us nothing about the true strength of a team's schedule.

Beltway
05-16-2013, 09:05 AM
You are completely missing the point. It's not that the numbers don't back up the claim that the Reds had a tougher schedule, it's that the numbers don't back anything up. They are useless.

Let's use a real example.

On April 8th, the Indians started a two game series with the Yankees. The Yankees were 2-4 at the time. The Indians SOS said that they were playing an easy team to beat. But they weren't. They were playing a Yankees team that now leads the division with a 25-15 record.

The SOS at that point was wrong, simply wrong. It gave us nothing, zero, absolutely no useful information to use in determining how tough this series would be for the Indians.

And more importantly, if we use opposing team's records to calculate SOS now, it would count that Yankee series as a tough one for the Indians. So the actual numbers used to determine a team's SOS change constantly as the opposing teams continue to play. There's a good chance that at the end of the season, the SOS will consider that first Yankee series as an easy one for the Indians, again.

The point is... again... that using the opposing teams's records to determine SOS is a lousy, meaningless way to calculate it. It simply tells us nothing about the true strength of a team's schedule.
Is using your gut better?

People keep repeating the mantra that the Reds have played a tough schedule despite the fact that the Reds have played 6 games against the Marlins (7 after tonight). It's as though 7 games against the Nationals don't just cancel out, but completely overwhelm those games against the Marlins. The Reds are 18-3 against teams below .500. Out of 40 games played, more than half of them have been against teams below .500.

People who say the Reds have played a tough schedule are falling victim to confirmation bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias). They look at the games against Washington and say "Look, we've played a tough schedule!!!", while either consciously or subconsciously ignoring all of the games against the Marlins and all of the other sub-500 teams the Reds have played.

SpiritofStLouis
05-16-2013, 09:12 AM
You are completely missing the point. It's not that the numbers don't back up the claim that the Reds had a tougher schedule, it's that the numbers don't back anything up. They are useless.

Let's use a real example.

On April 8th, the Indians started a two game series with the Yankees. The Yankees were 2-4 at the time. The Indians SOS said that they were playing an easy team to beat. But they weren't. They were playing a Yankees team that now leads the division with a 25-15 record.

The SOS at that point was wrong, simply wrong. It gave us nothing, zero, absolutely no useful information to use in determining how tough this series would be for the Indians.

And more importantly, if we use opposing team's records to calculate SOS now, it would count that Yankee series as a tough one for the Indians. So the actual numbers used to determine a team's SOS change constantly as the opposing teams continue to play. There's a good chance that at the end of the season, the SOS will consider that first Yankee series as an easy one for the Indians, again.

The point is... again... that using the opposing teams's records to determine SOS is a lousy, meaningless way to calculate it. It simply tells us nothing about the true strength of a team's schedule.

It doesn't matter that they were playing a team who was better than their record or not, their record was 2-4 and Cleveland's was 3-3. Their strength of schedules stats at that time were what they were, determined by however they calculate it.

You can argue that it isn't fair, that it isn't a true measure, or that you don't like it because you don't want to accept it, it doesn't matter.

The stat is what it is, determined by whomever came up with it, and it's obviously accepted in all baseball circles or they wouldn't use it.

I can argue that an inside the park home run shouldn't count as home run, and believe it with all my heart. But it doesn't matter, because the accepted stat is that it counts as a home run.

Look up strength of schedule on ANY baseball site, MLB, ESPN, Baseball Reference, Bill James, Fangraphs, Baseball Almanac, Yahoo, CBS Sports or any other one you can think of.

Look up Strength of Schedule, and you're going to get the same result.

Here, this is the definition of strength of schedule...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_of_schedule

JayStubbs
05-16-2013, 09:18 AM
Is using your gut better?

People keep repeating the mantra that the Reds have played a tough schedule despite the fact that the Reds have played 6 games against the Marlins (7 after tonight). It's as though 7 games against the Nationals don't just cancel out, but completely overwhelm those games against the Marlins. The Reds are 18-3 against teams below .500. Out of 40 games played, more than half of them have been against teams below .500.

People who say the Reds have played a tough schedule are falling victim to confirmation bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias). They look at the games against Washington and say "Look, we've played a tough schedule!!!", while either consciously or subconsciously ignoring all of the games against the Marlins and all of the other sub-500 teams the Reds have played.

I'm not arguing that the Reds had a tougher schedule. I am arguing that we shouldn't be using SOS at this point of the season to determine whether they did or didn't.

JayStubbs
05-16-2013, 09:25 AM
It doesn't matter that they were playing a team who was better than their record or not, their record was 2-4 and Cleveland's was 3-3. Their strength of schedules stats at that time were what they were, determined by however they calculate it.

You can argue that it isn't fair, that it isn't a true measure, or that you don't like it because you don't want to accept it, it doesn't matter.

The stat is what it is, determined by whomever came up with it, and it's obviously accepted in all baseball circles or they wouldn't use it.

I can argue that an inside the park home run shouldn't count as home run, and believe it with all my heart. But it doesn't matter, because the accepted stat is that it counts as a home run.

Look up strength of schedule on ANY baseball site, MLB, ESPN, Baseball Reference, Bill James, Fangraphs, Baseball Almanac, Yahoo, CBS Sports or any other one you can think of.

Look up Strength of Schedule, and you're going to get the same result.

Here, this is the definition of strength of schedule...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_of_schedule

In the eighties MLB came up with a stat called Game Winning RBI. Everyone used it, for years. Until they realized all of its flaws, and they got rid of it.

The save is a terribly flawed stat, and everyone uses it.

There is a long list of really terrible stats that people use all the time.

Anyway, I'm not saying SOS is useless. I'm saying its useless at determining who had a tougher schedule, this early in the season. I think I made my points clear, so I won't repeat them anymore. Have a great day :)

SpiritofStLouis
05-16-2013, 09:35 AM
I'm not arguing that the Reds had a tougher schedule. I am arguing that we shouldn't be using SOS at this point of the season to determine whether they did or didn't.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

First of all, Red fans brought it up in the first place, several times in fact. Cardinal fans disputed it. I offered a statistic that proved that the Cardinal fans were correct, that up until this point in the season the Cardinals have had the more difficult schedule.

That's all. I never offered that it was relevant, or important, or the end all to be all. Just that one side of the argument was right, and one side was wrong, as it pertained to the SOS debate.

You have every right to dismiss it entirely, decide it's not relevant until the 81st game, the all star game, the trade deadline, or September 1st. That's fine.

But we both know that wasn't your argument, don't we ? ;)

Beltway
05-16-2013, 09:41 AM
Here's an interesting statistic.

Reds:
vs sub-500 teams: 18-3
vs 500+ teams: 6-13

Cardinals:
vs sub-500 teams: 12-4
vs 500+ teams: 14-9

Neither team plays an opponent with a 500+ record until May 27. Both of these teams face relatively easy schedules for a while.

JayStubbs
05-16-2013, 09:44 AM
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

First of all, Red fans brought it up in the first place, several times in fact. Cardinal fans disputed it. I offered a statistic that proved that the Cardinal fans were correct, that up until this point in the season the Cardinals have had the more difficult schedule.

That's all. I never offered that it was relevant, or important, or the end all to be all. Just that one side of the argument was right, and one side was wrong, as it pertained to the SOS debate.

You have every right to dismiss it entirely, decide it's not relevant until the 81st game, the all star game, the trade deadline, or September 1st. That's fine.

But we both know that wasn't your argument, don't we ? ;)

I have used facts and logic to prove that you are wrong, that the stat you provided didn't show that one side was right and the other wrong. It is a flawed stat that cannot be used to determine at this point in time, who had a tougher schedule.

If you refuse to, or are unable to understand it, fine, but stop saying that you proved one side of the argument right or wrong. You simply did no such thing.

SpiritofStLouis
05-16-2013, 10:12 AM
I have used facts and logic to prove that you are wrong, that the stat you provided didn't show that one side was right and the other wrong. It is a flawed stat that cannot be used to determine at this point in time, who had a tougher schedule.

If you refuse to, or are unable to understand it, fine, but stop saying that you proved one side of the argument right or wrong. You simply did no such thing.

Two posts ago, you said this...

" I'm not arguing that the Reds had a tougher schedule. I am arguing that we shouldn't be using SOS at this point of the season to determine whether they did or didn't. "

At no point in that post did you state that the stat is flawed. Now you're saying it is.

Arguing that you believe that the stat is flawed is not fact, it's your opinion. And arguing that an accepted stat is flawed is not logical.

I can argue that 2 + 2 is not four, and that the method (addition) that determines it is flawed. That's my opinion, but it's neither factual or logical, because addition is an accepted method.

Strength of schedule is an accepted stat, and whether you agree or not is completely irrelevant. IT'S A FACT.

I understand perfectly.

You can't bring yourself to admit that you were wrong, and instead of just conceding the point, you are choosing to be obstinate.

I proved that my side of the argument was right, capiche ?

Let it go.

Beltway
05-16-2013, 10:17 AM
Two posts ago, you said this...

" I'm not arguing that the Reds had a tougher schedule. I am arguing that we shouldn't be using SOS at this point of the season to determine whether they did or didn't. "

At no point in that post did you state that the stat is flawed. Now you're saying it is.

Arguing that you believe that the stat is flawed is not fact, it's your opinion. And arguing that an accepted stat is flawed is not logical.

I can argue that 2 + 2 is not four, and that the method (addition) that determines it is flawed. That's my opinion, but it's neither factual or logical, because addition is an accepted method.

Strength of schedule is an accepted stat, and whether you agree or not is completely irrelevant. IT'S A FACT.

I understand perfectly.

You can't bring yourself to admit that you were wrong, and instead of just conceding the point, you are choosing to be obstinate.

I proved that my side of the argument was right, capiche ?

Let it go.
Huh? I thought he did a fairly good of refuting the use of SOS at the point in the season, not great, but fairly good. That said, your "side" isn't right. SOS is flawed, but it's the only objective measure we have to go on. It's superior to using your gut, which isn't saying much, but it's better than nothing.

757690
05-16-2013, 10:21 AM
Two posts ago, you said this...

" I'm not arguing that the Reds had a tougher schedule. I am arguing that we shouldn't be using SOS at this point of the season to determine whether they did or didn't. "

At no point in that post did you state that the stat is flawed. Now you're saying it is.

Arguing that you believe that the stat is flawed is not fact, it's your opinion. And arguing that an accepted stat is flawed is not logical.

I can argue that 2 + 2 is not four, and that the method (addition) that determines it is flawed. That's my opinion, but it's neither factual or logical, because addition is an accepted method.

Strength of schedule is an accepted stat, and whether you agree or not is completely irrelevant. IT'S A FACT.

I understand perfectly.

You can't bring yourself to admit that you were wrong, and instead of just conceding the point, you are choosing to be obstinate.

I proved that my side of the argument was right, capiche ?

Let it go.

Actually, Jay did show over and over again that the stat was flawed when used at an early point of the season. He might not have use the words "flawed" but he provided plenty of evidence that it is flawed, and clearly was trying to make that point. That in fact, was his entire point.

And you're right, according to the stat the Cards had a tougher schedule. And he's right that the stat is flawed and should not be used to determine who actually had a tougher schedule. And you did not prove your side of the argument, because you used a flawed stat as the basis for your argument.

SpiritofStLouis
05-16-2013, 10:29 AM
Here's an interesting statistic.

Reds:
vs sub-500 teams: 18-3
vs 500+ teams: 6-13

Cardinals:
vs sub-500 teams: 12-4
vs 500+ teams: 14-9

Neither team plays an opponent with a 500+ record until May 27. Both of these teams face relatively easy schedules for a while.

I saw that. What worries me as a Redbird fan is that the Reds have an easier schedule in September.

RedTeamGo!
05-16-2013, 10:31 AM
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

First of all, Red fans brought it up in the first place, several times in fact. Cardinal fans disputed it. I offered a statistic that proved that the Cardinal fans were correct, that up until this point in the season the Cardinals have had the more difficult schedule.

That's all. I never offered that it was relevant, or important, or the end all to be all. Just that one side of the argument was right, and one side was wrong, as it pertained to the SOS debate.

You have every right to dismiss it entirely, decide it's not relevant until the 81st game, the all star game, the trade deadline, or September 1st. That's fine.

But we both know that wasn't your argument, don't we ? ;)

Kind of how we all know you started this thread to get reactions from Reds fans.

RedTeamGo!
05-16-2013, 10:33 AM
Also, where are all of these examples of Reds fans saying the Cardinals are in first place because of SOS? I just see people saying the Mets suck. boo fricking hoo. The Marlins suck too. Part of being a good team is dominating the bad teams. The Reds and Cardinals are both doing this, that is why they are both where they are.

RedTeamGo!
05-16-2013, 10:37 AM
Here's an interesting statistic.

Reds:
vs sub-500 teams: 18-3
vs 500+ teams: 6-13

Cardinals:
vs sub-500 teams: 12-4
vs 500+ teams: 14-9

Neither team plays an opponent with a 500+ record until May 27. Both of these teams face relatively easy schedules for a while.

As Stubbs has said repeatedly, at this point of the season this means nothing. If you were comparing the Yankees and Red Sox I would say the same thing. At this point in the season many teams are 1 or 2 games above or below .500.

Do you really honestly think a team that is 19-18 is clearly better than a team that is 18-19? This thread is ridiculous.

to be clear: I AM NOT DEFENDING THE REDS. I AM SIMPLY STATING HOW AT THIS POINT IN THE SEASON COMPARING "STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE" IS BEYOND POINTLESS.

SpiritofStLouis
05-16-2013, 10:45 AM
Actually, Jay did show over and over again that the stat was flawed when used at an early point of the season. He might not have use the words "flawed" but he provided plenty of evidence that it is flawed, and clearly was trying to make that point. That in fact, was his entire point.

And you're right, according to the stat the Cards had a tougher schedule. And he's right that the stat is flawed and should not be used to determine who actually had a tougher schedule. And you did not prove your side of the argument, because you used a flawed stat as the basis for your argument.

The stat isn't flawed because it's an early point in the season. One could argue that it isn't relevant because it's an early point in the season.

He actually didn't show anything. He offered his opinion, and that's fine and you could very well argue the point that the stat is irrelevant at this point in the season. But that's not what he did.

The stat isn't flawed, it's widely accepted. The only reason I brought it up was to settle an argument on which team had a tougher schedule, up to this point.

As a means to that end, I offered the SOS stats for all 30 teams, up until this point of the season.

That was it.

If the same argument had arose after five games, the only way to decide it would be to use the SOS stat.

Factual, yes, relevant, no.

RedTeamGo!
05-16-2013, 11:44 AM
The stat isn't flawed because it's an early point in the season. One could argue that it isn't relevant because it's an early point in the season.

He actually didn't show anything. He offered his opinion, and that's fine and you could very well argue the point that the stat is irrelevant at this point in the season. But that's not what he did.

The stat isn't flawed, it's widely accepted. The only reason I brought it up was to settle an argument on which team had a tougher schedule, up to this point.

As a means to that end, I offered the SOS stats for all 30 teams, up until this point of the season.

That was it.

If the same argument had arose after five games, the only way to decide it would be to use the SOS stat.

Factual, yes, relevant, no.

"I proved a point by not proving a point"

SpiritofStLouis
05-16-2013, 11:52 AM
"I proved a point by not proving a point"

Not exactly, I personally think the stat is relevant, seeing as we're 25% into the season.

Even if I didn't, I didn't bring it up (on either side), I just offered a stat to show which side was correct. ;)

Beltway
05-16-2013, 01:26 PM
As Stubbs has said repeatedly, at this point of the season this means nothing. If you were comparing the Yankees and Red Sox I would say the same thing. At this point in the season many teams are 1 or 2 games above or below .500.

Do you really honestly think a team that is 19-18 is clearly better than a team that is 18-19? This thread is ridiculous.

to be clear: I AM NOT DEFENDING THE REDS. I AM SIMPLY STATING HOW AT THIS POINT IN THE SEASON COMPARING "STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE" IS BEYOND POINTLESS.
What? I wasn't making any sort of argument about strength of schedule. I was just showing that the Reds are repeating what they've done the last few seasons. They destroy the bad teams and struggle with the good teams. It seems like history is repeating itself.

RedTeamGo!
05-16-2013, 02:13 PM
What? I wasn't making any sort of argument about strength of schedule. I was just showing that the Reds are repeating what they've done the last few seasons. They destroy the bad teams and struggle with the good teams. It seems like history is repeating itself.

Yes, I know what you are saying...but as I said this statistic does not prove that to be true...yet. This split will not be meaningful until after the season.

oh yeah I just checked the strength of schedule today and after 1 day the Cardinals dropped to fourth. what a meaningful stat!