Strength of schedule

[SpiritofStLouis]

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]

Can you explain the value of "strength of schedule" 1.5 months into the season?

[757690]

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]

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]

Almost a 1/4 of the season already, it certainly means something...

[RedTeamGo!]

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]

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!]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.