Divide and Conquer, NL Central

Slightly off topic, but I want to apologize to the readers for using the Indians logo. I love the Indians as a team and an organization and think very highly of many who play and work there, but that mascot is an ugly relic of the past and has to go.

This article sums up why interleague play is held in low regard by at least some baseball fans. One of the great things about the "traditional" baseball schedule was that teams in the same league or division always played the same opponents and played them the same number of games each season. At least as much as was possible before expansion created too many opponents for this to be really feasible. Now, thanks to interleague play and the requirement that "traditional rivals" play every season, this is no longer the case. In a sport that plays nearly every day for six months and often finds pennant races decided by a game or two, this uneven scheduling is inherently unfair. To refer back to the article, the Reds will play their 18 interleague games against opponents with a projected winning percentage of .557 while the Brewers opponents for the same group of games has a projected percentage of .486. This is a huge difference for the Reds to have to make up over the remainder of the schedule (yes, I understand that it really isn't as simple as this example).

'but if that were its only drawback, the criticisms wouldn't have much traction (much like those directed toward the wild card'

How is this different than the wild card? Aren't the AL east teams 'forced' to play their 'natural rivals' in the division 18 times, so Tor gets 54 games against NYY/Bos/TB while Tex gets 54 against the A's/Sea/LAAOC. Or to bring it back to the NL Central. For the last couple years Stl/Cin have got to play extra games against Hou/Pit while the Marlins and Mets have got extra games against Atl/Phi. Why no outcry on this? The divisions are no less unbalanced with regard to scheduling than interleague which when you take out the effectively equivalent middle teams boils down to 6 or so games against tougher or weaker competition. 3.7% of the schedule.

And why does the sport with the longest schedule in professional sports always seem to have more whinning about unbalanced scheduling? 162 games would seem to give 'superior' teams a far better chance to separate from their competitors than say 81 or 16? In the NFL the first place teams play two extra games against other 1st place teams, intentionally giving them a harder schedule. This is 12.5% of the schedule. I never hear any complaining about this.

If people don't like interleague I can understand that. Just admit you dont like it because you are a traditionalist. Don't give me bogus arguments that it 'skews' competitive balance. If people were truly concerned about a balanced schedule these same people would push for every team in the league to play approx the same number against everyone. When we all know they don't and you rarely hear anyone complain about that.

Didn't Houston play in Toronto just this past weekend?

I understand your criticism with the strength of schedule, but I would like to point out that a lot of people came out to watch the Reds / Indians series. Yes, the "battle for Ohio" is an artificial way to bring people out to a game, but getting people excited about seeing a good young team is good for baseball.

Is winning percentage the best way to define strength of schedule? The Reds are #1 on your list, but had the fortune of playing the Indians when their two best hitters are on the DL. Also, they were lucky enough to not face the Indian's opening day starter (Carmona) and the team ace (Masterson). St. Louis is #2 on your list because the Royals had a fluke April? Would the Brewers trade a Minnesota series (when the Twins should be more healthy) for a KC series?

How does the trade deadline affect strength of schedule (relative to interleague play)? September callups? Injuries? I am not saying that, since it is impossible to make things fair we shouldn't try to make things more fair, but if natural rivals bring more people to the ballpark, then it might not be so bad.

BTW, I a firm believer that the natural rivalry cost the Reds the 1999 Wild Card.

Well said Nater, 162 games is more than enough time to determine who is best.

Mistake: the Cardinals don't play @ Boston, but they do play @ Baltimore. I'd say that's just a small difference since Baltimore's lineup is equally as stacked.

I've long that that interleague is a side-show, but does have a place in the game. I would, however, limit it to two series per year. One against a designated natural rival and one random. Two NL clubs would have to forego the random, but it seems to me that 6 series are a bit much.

I think the point of the article in the general sense is true, but I believe the actual numbers are a bit misleading. While some teams may be better than expected, and some worse, I don’t think using teams’ current records are good for this analysis. The two teams whose real-life record differ the most from their BP rest-of-season record are Cleveland (real: .659, ros: .479) and Minnesota (real: .333, ros: .517). Cleveland’s great, and unexpected, record makes Cincinnati’s schedule look tougher than it is, while Minnesota’s poor play makes Milwaukee’s schedule look easier than it is.

I combined the real-life records of each team with their rest-of-season records here at BP and ran those numbers. Those opponents’ winning percentages are:

CHN .524
MIL .522
CIN .518
HOU .516
PIT .502
STL .486

To me, that feels more right than leaving the Cleveland and Minnesota anomalies in there. That being said, I think strength of schedule is extremely hard to figure out with certainty. There are so many variables; who’s on the DL during the series, roster moves, etc. And of course momentum is the next day’s starting pitcher.

I tend to agree with the comments of Nater1177 and ostrowj1. I understand the imbalance of the schedule. I know Joe Sheenan rallied against it as well. I guess I just don't see it as that big of an issue.

For one, all schedules are imbalanced. As Nater1177 pointed out, AL East teams face a much more difficult schedule by virtue of the divison than an AL West team. Yet they both compete for the same wild card.

And sure, the imbalance in the divisions only affects the wild card. It does not affect the internal divsion champ. That's where a few interleague games could make the difference. But as ostrowj1 pointed out, not all games against the same team are equal. Playing Seattle may seem easy since it generally sucks as a team. But if the opposing pitcher is Felix Hernandez, the level of difficulty goes way up. Texas and Oakland may face Seattle the same number of times, but its entirely possible Felix pitches against Texas 5 times and Oakland once in the course of a season. The pitching rotations, line-ups, injuries, and streaks of the various players will all change day to day and week to week. So even playing the same team is not always the same.

Finally, when talking about baseball, were're talking about thin margins between success and failure. Play .400 ball puts you on pace for nearly 100 losses and to be among the worst teams in baseball. Playing .600 ball puts you on pace for 100 wins and possibly being the best team in baseball. Most teams are somewhere in the middle. The difference between Cincinnati's schedule and Milwuakee is expected to be what, 1 game out of 20? It might make a difference, but it's small are hard to quantify. As ostrowj1 pointed out, Cincinnati may have played Cleveland, but did so without some of Cleveland's best players (and also avoiding its # 1 starter)

Call me crazy, but this is how I would solve the AL/NL tomfoolery:

Step 1: One team moves from the AL to the NL and goes into the AL West. We'll say the Rockies for the sake of discussion, but the DBacks would work as well. Then the Astros go into the NL West and there are now five teams in every division.

Step 2: I'm fine with keeping interleague, but each team in a division should play the same teams. For example, the NL Central is matched up with the AL East. Each team in the NLC plays one series a piece with every team in the ALE. No more of the 'natural' rivalry nonsense. That's only for when the divisions are matched up or both teams in question make the world series.

Step 3: Use the DH in both leagues. I hate watching the pitcher hit. He usually sucks at it, and when he isn't pitching he should be in the dugout resting and not running the bases. The difference in rules is just silly.

Boom. Problem solved. I'm off! /flies away