Would you move the O's to the NL if you could?

[davearm]

This RPI rating has the Rays, Jays, and Sox as the top three teams in baseball, and the Yankees 8th. A few weeks ago they had the Yanks higher, and the O's 10th (they're now 14th). Tom Tango, who's a heck of a lot smarter than me, cited this as a good way to do a SOS ranking.

The ESPN power/SOS ranking has the AL East with four of the top seven teams in baseball.

And by BP's adjusted standings and 3rd-order SOS-adjusted winning percentage the overall MLB standings would be Red Sox, Rays, Blue Jays, Cubs, Yankees...

If you took my comment as meaning the AL East has the top four teams in baseball, I wasn't clear enough. I meant that the division has four of the best teams in MLB, and the top three overall.

Do we ever reach the point where how good a team is, is measured by actual, on the the field wins and losses?

Or do we always have to look at computer printouts and third-order approximations of what should have happened?

Because if we're not there yet, with 90% of the season played, I'm not too hopeful we'll ever get there.

[DrungoHazewood]

Well if you think it, then I guess that's that.

Nevermind that Toronto had a losing record in interleague play (8-10), and that the Yankees were only slightly better (10-8).

And nevermind that the Yankees are .500 against the AL Central (18-18). Toronto does well against those guys, though (24-12). Of course the Jays are only 17-19 against the AL West, a division with only one above-average team.

You'd think at some point, being a top team in baseball would be reflected in the win column. I'm looking high and low, but I can't find much evidence of it.

You mustn't be looking very hard, since I've presented it a couple times in the last few posts.

[DrungoHazewood]

Do we ever reach the point where how good a team is, is measured by actual, on the the field wins and losses?

Or do we always have to look at computer printouts and third-order approximations of what should have happened?

Because if we're not there yet, with 90% of the season played, I'm not too hopeful we'll ever get there.

Did you see post #79? You're looking for wins and losses. Well, this year, in the real world, every other division is reduced to a 70-92 record when playing the AL East.

In baseball you're always reduced to some kind of SOS analysis because there are 30 different schedules. I'll take your point when MLB plays a 30-team, one-division, one-league balanced schedule.

[davearm]

Here's the other side of your coin, dave... all of the other divisions in baseball have losing records against the AL East. All of them.

AL Central  68-99AL West   79-94NL East  11-16NL Central  26-30NL West  1-5

When any other team plays the AL East, they're reduced to a 70-win team. An average team in the AL East, when playing anyone else, is a 92-win team. Even the pathetic Orioles have a winning record against teams not in their division.

This still doesn't support the notion that 4 teams in the ALE would win 3 other divisions in baseball, since as I've shown, it's really BOS (.628) and TB (.622) that have been doing the butt-kicking outside the division.

Meanwhile TOR and NYY have been OK-to-good in every W-L comparison I can think to look at. That doesn't make me think they'd stomp all over the NLE or the ALE. NLW, sure -- there are lots of teams that would smoke the chump teams out there.

[Mad Mark]

I voted to stay in the AL East.

Having said that, I am all in favor of Jon's idea of a 16-team AL playing a balanced schedule, with the top four teams reaching the playoffs.

I am also in favor of further measures to even out the revenue disparities between teams.

If you and I have access to (roughly) equal resources, and you beat me all the time, that's nobody's fault but mine. If I have access to half your resources, and you beat me all the time, is that me, you or the money talking?

[DrungoHazewood]

This still doesn't support the notion that 4 teams in the ALE would win 3 other divisions in baseball, since as I've shown, it's really BOS (.628) and TB (.622) that have been doing the butt-kicking outside the division.

Meanwhile TOR and NYY have been OK-to-good in every W-L comparison I can think to look at. That doesn't make me think they'd stomp all over the NLE or the ALE. NLW, sure -- there are lots of teams that would smoke the chump teams out there.

Ok, sure, whatever dave. Sorry, I have to go now. You shouldn't feel too bad - the Cubs would probably be a 4th-place team in the AL East. That's not an insult, that's a compliment.

[davearm]

You mustn't be looking very hard, since I've presented it a couple times in the last few posts.

As I pointed out just above, looking at cumulative ALE records does nothing but distort the issue. BOS and TB are responsible for the lion's share of the imbalance you're illustrating.

[davearm]

Ok, sure, whatever dave. Sorry, I have to go now. You shouldn't feel too bad - the Cubs would probably be a 4th-place team in the AL East. That's not an insult, that's a compliment.

OK sure whatever I've gotta go, followed by a Cubs cheapshot? LOL, OK Jon.

Look the Jays and Yanks are each playing like .530-.540ish ball outside of the ALE.

That's neither impressive, nor does it lend much support to the notion that they'd be winning any other division outside of the NLW, nor does it cast them as amongst the top teams in baseball.

[Scrat1]

Heeeeeeeeeellls no.

[LookinUp]

I voted to stay in the AL East.

Having said that, I am all in favor of Jon's idea of a 16-team AL playing a balanced schedule, with the top four teams reaching the playoffs.

I am also in favor of further measures to even out the revenue disparities between teams.

If you and I have access to (roughly) equal resources, and you beat me all the time, that's nobody's fault but mine. If I have access to half your resources, and you beat me all the time, is that me, you or the money talking?

Mad Mark is right. You guys can have your pi$$ing match about who's better all day for all I care - BTW, it's clearly the AL East. However, the poll provides a false choice. It really comes down to setting equal rules for all teams. If there was any significant sort of resource parity in baseball then it wouldn't matter what division anyone was in. Baseball would be a meritocracy and nobody could complain about anything but how they do business. Unfortunately, we'll probably never have that choice either.

[blueberryale77]

I just don't like DHs.

[Stotle]

Mad Mark is right. You guys can have your pi$$ing match about who's better all day for all I care - BTW, it's clearly the AL East. However, the poll provides a false choice. It really comes down to setting equal rules for all teams. If there was any significant sort of resource parity in baseball then it wouldn't matter what division anyone was in. Baseball would be a meritocracy and nobody could complain about anything but how they do business. Unfortunately, we'll probably never have that choice either.

I fully agree with this. However, I'll continue to have a hard time getting too fired up on this issue until I see BAL fully utilizing its resources. I have yet to see a well-run BAL team fail to compete because of a lack of parity. If BAL is willing to sign some combo of Teix/Burnett/Sheets, make some tactical trades (Hardy, Wood, Hodges, Donald, whoever), and spend $8mio year-in-year-out in the draft (all well within BALs power) and then still has trouble competing, I'll gladly join in.

I consider myself pretty darn conservative when it comes to gauging potential moves, and relying on younger players (even kids I really like). This offseason is the first time I can remember where it seems like BAL could make a few fairly obvious moves and become a real major league baseball team.

[Fairfax Bird]

I'm not denying that the NL has great teams. But are you prepared to argue that the NL teams you've mentioned will have the level of talent that teams like BOS and NYY will have (not just this year but many years down the road)?

I don't know I am not psychic. I didn't direct my post to you at all. In fact only read the OP and was being serious. The NL isn't that bad, but it certainly doesn't have the powerhouse teams the AL does. Otherwise the teams at the top would stay there for longer stretches. That said, I would prefer we stay right here.

[health55]

The American League East has been stellar this season only two years after easily ranking as the league's weakest division (measured by its woeful record outside the division and the early postseason exit of a champion that won the division by 10 games in 2006).

This season the Orioles may well have been better off in the NL East, but this year might represent an aberration.

If my math is correct, the Baltimore Orioles have posted a 59-81 record (.417) against NL East teams since the inception of interleague play in 1997.

Over the same period, the Orioles have posted a 327-450 record (.421) against AL East teams.

In other words, over the past 12 seasons, the Orioles have fared slightly better against AL East teams than they have against their NL East counterparts.

My math can be shaky, so everyone is invited to double-check my numbers.

[Icterus galbula]

I tried posting this earlier, but my power and cable went out shortly before I could hit the submit button.

No you wouldn't.

If the premise is that Yanks and Jays are amongst the best teams in baseball, but are being held back by playing in the ALE with the Rays and Sox, then a natural way to test that premise is to observe how they perform against teams outside of the division.

Turns out their winning pct. hardly changes at all. It's still good, but hardly great.

Well I sure hope you aren't a scientist with methods like that. You chose to look at the beating up on each other factor and saw that the winning percentages don't change a whole lot. Thats fine, but you can't then just plug those numbers into other divisions that you haven't done the same for. Give a treatment to one group and you have to do it to the other.

As I said earlier, if you play a whole bunch of bad teams you are bound to have a higher winning percentage. You have to look at the "beating up on each other" factor in the AL East as well as the "eating up divisional foes" in the other divisions. Otherwise you bias the results, which may have been your point, considering your stance in the debate.

Anway, here are the division leaders and their winning percentages if you take away their divisional games.

Chi Sox- .511

Angels -.615

Mets- .546

Cubs- .618

Dodgers- .476

Three out of the five teams benefit from playing their divisional adversaries. (That is, they have lower winning percentages outside the division.)

Final results:

The Rays would be leading every other division with the .622 number you gave.

Same with the Red Sox and their .628.

The Blue Jays (.544) would be leading the AL Central, NL West, and be effectively deadlocked with the Mets.

The Yanks (.535) would be leading the AL Central and NL West.

I didn't have any preconceived notions coming into this and didn't take a stand one way or the other in the debate you were having with Drungo and

others.

After looking at this though, the fact that culmulatively the Jays and Yankees would be division leaders in half the other divisions in baseball does suggest that yes, they are among the best (ie top 5-7) teams in baseball.