Check out this tweet from Buster Olney

[Can_of_corn]

Thanks, I understand significant, I think there would be a significant change if we played a balanced schedule. Not playoff significant, but many more wins every year. But thanks for questioning the old vocabulary.

I question "many" more wins. I think a much more likely outcome is a "few" or a "couple". A balanced schedule isn't going to propel the O's from 69 wins to 79 wins.

You realize that the difference between Adam Jones and a replacement level player is about the same three win difference? Incremental improvements, my friend.

Incremental is great but incremental is not significant.

[EagleOriole]

I question "many" more wins. I think a much more likely outcome is a "few" or a "couple". A balanced schedule isn't going to propel the O's from 69 wins to 79 wins.



Incremental is great but incremental is not significant.

I think a jump from 69 to 79 wins is improbable for last year's team, but not impossible. Hard to imagine the confidence from getting to play the Twins, A's, Mariners, Indians 5-6 more times a year and playing the Yanks, Sox, Jays, and Rays 8 less times each year.

[fansince1988]

Right; really this has always been the case and I've never understood the concept of the unbalanced schedule as a result. But adding the 2nd WC team really magnifies it.

Clearly the unbalanced schedule was designed for the NY/BOS matchup to be seen over and over again. By now that isn't even a newsworthy event anymore though, because it's so common.

I couldn't agree more, it's absurd to think that the Yankees have made the playoffs 16 out of the last 17 seasons. The entire product seems to be based on the success of a handful of large market teams. When they win, everyone makes more money.

[DrungoHazewood]

Thanks, I understand significant, I think there would be a significant change if we played a balanced schedule. Not playoff significant, but many more wins every year. But thanks for questioning the old vocabulary.

You're right, if by "many" you mean one or two. For the Orioles the balanced schedule takes 15 games against .550 teams and shifts them to .490 teams. On average that'll mean winning 6 or 7 of those games instead of 5 or 6.

[Lucky Jim]

You're right, if by "many" you mean one or two. For the Orioles the balanced schedule takes 15 games against .550 teams and shifts them to .490 teams. On average that'll mean winning 6 or 7 of those games instead of 5 or 6.

I think this is probably right. On the other hand, we certainly can't measure the difference with a rote substitution of a win probability against lesser teams. The fact is, a long season built of repeated games against very good teams creates stressors and externalities that extend well beyond the outcome of those games. The effects, in that sense, are "global," not merely local.

[DrungoHazewood]

I think this is probably right. On the other hand, we certainly can't measure the difference with a rote substitution of a win probability against lesser teams. The fact is, a long season built of repeated games against very good teams creates stressors and externalities that extend well beyond the outcome of those games. The effects, in that sense, are "global," not merely local.

Ok, but even in a balanced schedule the Orioles will be playing 50 games a year against the Sox, Rays, Yanks, and Jays, plus more games than now against the Tigers, Angels, Rangers. You're only shifting a handful of games a year from excellent teams to so-so teams. I have my doubts about the global, synergistic effect of something that small.

[Lucky Jim]

Ok, but even in a balanced schedule the Orioles will be playing 50 games a year against the Sox, Rays, Yanks, and Jays, plus more games than now against the Tigers, Angels, Rangers. You're only shifting a handful of games a year from excellent teams to so-so teams. I have my doubts about the global, synergistic effect of something that small.

Perhaps it will be insignificant. Or small-but-significant. Or not-small. My point is only that you need to take it into account.

[SilentJames]

Ok, but even in a balanced schedule the Orioles will be playing 50 games a year against the Sox, Rays, Yanks, and Jays, plus more games than now against the Tigers, Angels, Rangers. You're only shifting a handful of games a year from excellent teams to so-so teams. I have my doubts about the global, synergistic effect of something that small.

Yes, but the Tigers Angels and Rangers are also playing more games against the Rays, Jays and Yanks. It was stated earlier how the Tigers simply easted on the AL Central at the end of last season and ran away with the division. Zach Grenkie won the Cy Young and never pitched against the Yankees and only once against the Sox (meanwhile 1/3 of Matusz
starts that year were either against the Yanks of Sox).

As the other powers have to play one another more they spread the finite number of wins around more evenly, therefore there is more compression in the standings. Division winning teams will have fewer wins carrying them because their competition has increased as well, which in turn actually makes the mountain the bottom teams have to climb a bit smaller.

[avdeuph]

Of course no one could say how many "extra" wins a balanced schedule would invoke, but I do think we are missing an important factor...

Baseball is a games of numbers and statistics but it doesn't always work out that way, because it is played by humans and not computers. What about the momentum/team morale/motivation factor that might be boosted with a few extra wins early on in the season? If a balanced schedule brought the O's within lesser games of .500 earlier on in the season and continued to spark competition and general team unity for a longer time in, it would certainly be reasonable to say that the O's might then perform better against the ABOVE .500 teams as well.

I'm on the side of a balanced schedule adding 10 or so wins for that reason alone.

[El Gordo]

sig?nif?i?cant
   [sig-nif-i-kuhnt] Show IPA

adjective
1.
important; of consequence.

2.
having or expressing a meaning; indicative; suggestive: a significant wink.

3.
Statistics . of or pertaining to observations that are unlikely to occur by chance and that therefore indicate a systematic cause.
In terms of a balanced schedule, probably not in the case of 1) and most likely yes, in the case of 3).

[Can_of_corn]

Of course no one could say how many "extra" wins a balanced schedule would invoke, but I do think we are missing an important factor...

Baseball is a games of numbers and statistics but it doesn't always work out that way, because it is played by humans and not computers. What about the momentum/team morale/motivation factor that might be boosted with a few extra wins early on in the season? If a balanced schedule brought the O's within lesser games of .500 earlier on in the season and continued to spark competition and general team unity for a longer time in, it would certainly be reasonable to say that the O's might then perform better against the ABOVE .500 teams as well.

I'm on the side of a balanced schedule adding 10 or so wins for that reason alone.

The same "momentum/team morale/motivation factor" that the O's had in spades after finishing strong when Buck took over in 2010? How did 2011 work out for them?

Talent is really important.

[oriole]

A point to consider is what the FO would have done differently given a better chance at the playoffs. Right now its almost a given the Orioles will not even sniff a playoff race. If the possibility was there maybe there'd be better offers to Teixeira or Fielder or any other FA that passed on lesser offers by a bad team. This team would be constructed differently if it wasn't stuck in a hopeless situation which would have had even more of an effect on the W-L record. This thought is moreso philisophical than statistical so I can't really make any cool graphs. Interesting to think about though.

[Can_of_corn]

A point to consider is what the FO would have done differently given a better chance at the playoffs. Right now its almost a given the Orioles will not even sniff a playoff race. If the possibility was there maybe there'd be better offers to Teixeira or Fielder or any other FA that passed on lesser offers by a bad team. This team would be constructed differently if it wasn't stuck in a hopeless situation which would have had even more of an effect on the W-L record. This thought is moreso philisophical than statistical so I can't really make any cool graphs. Interesting to think about though.

How many of the "big name" free agent deals of the past decade do you think were wins for the signing team? In hindsight the O's signing Tex for what the Yankees gave him would have been a terrible idea given his decline. Do you think the Tigers got a good deal with the Fielder signing?

[Lucky Jim]

sig?nif?i?cant
   [sig-nif-i-kuhnt] Show IPA

adjective
1.
important; of consequence.

2.
having or expressing a meaning; indicative; suggestive: a significant wink.

3.
Statistics . of or pertaining to observations that are unlikely to occur by chance and that therefore indicate a systematic cause.
In terms of a balanced schedule, probably not in the case of 1) and most likely yes, in the case of 3).

Three is the way that I'm using it.

[EagleOriole]

You're right, if by "many" you mean one or two. For the Orioles the balanced schedule takes 15 games against .550 teams and shifts them to .490 teams. On average that'll mean winning 6 or 7 of those games instead of 5 or 6.

You are probably right, but there is always the possibility that the team could win more than the average and end up with 6-10 more wins instead of 2-3. I mean I know that statistically this is not probable, but it is possible right?