May 24, 2013

Indians’ Schedule Easiest in MLB Through April

April 30, 2012 by 28 Comments

First place is great, ain’t it?

Nonetheless, for those of you hoping to find a cloud in this silver lining, take note that the Indians have had the weakest strength of schedule so far this season.  I would imagine that playing the Royals twice–they of the 12-game losing streak–along with Oakland and Seattle might have a way of distorting that figure, but anyway, here’s the list sorted by strength of schedule:

TEAM SOS
New York Mets 0.544
Atlanta Braves 0.540
Seattle Mariners 0.538
Boston Red Sox 0.537
Chicago White Sox 0.536
Pittsburgh Pirates 0.535
Detroit Tigers 0.533
Texas Rangers 0.532
Milwaukee Brewers 0.522
San Diego Padres 0.522
Houston Astros 0.521
Toronto Blue Jays 0.510
New York Yankees 0.509
Tampa Bay Rays 0.509
Minnesota Twins 0.506
Baltimore Orioles 0.505
Cincinnati Reds 0.504
Los Angeles Dodgers 0.501
Chicago Cubs 0.500
Washington Nationals 0.494
San Francisco Giants 0.488
Miami Marlins 0.479
St. Louis Cardinals 0.478
Arizona Diamondbacks 0.474
Colorado Rockies 0.473
Los Angeles Angels 0.460
Philadelphia Phillies 0.452
Oakland Athletics 0.451
Kansas City Royals 0.437
Cleveland Indians 0.427

 

Through yesterday, the Indians have played only one team with a winning record–the Toronto Blue Jays. 

This situation will quickly change in May, as the Indians host the Texas Rangers (16-6) this weekend for a three game series.

Related Posts

Zemanta
Filed Under: Headlines Tagged With: ,
  • mgbode

    Yep.   It’s been obvious.   But, staying in 1st place is staying in 1st place :)

  • Max

    In First Place. Don’t care. Enjoying my delusion. :)

  • T.O. Tribe

    What about winning the series against the Angels? It’s the same as when they played Boston early last year and swept. Boston may have been playing poorly, but they were never a bad team just because they held a losing record.

  • Natedawg86

    Win is a win no matter who you are playing. The key thing here is that we have been winning series’ for the most part. 

  • Vindictive_Pat

    I was thinking the same thing… the Angels won’t be this bad for the whole season, so I love that we got to play them in April while they’re struggling.  Hopefully Detroit plays them when Pujols starts raking :)

  • mgrace74

    It can’t be that much of a smoke screen. If it were, how come the Tigers and White Sox can’t beat the teams we have beat, the Mariners and the A’s?

  • Garry_Owen

    I always find Strength of Schedule to be one of the most easily skewed and misinterpreted statistics, particulary in football or any other “short” schedule.  At this point, the Indians (and all of MLB) have had a short schedule.  The problem with SOS in a short schedule is that it factors in games that a team has won, with the small sample conclusion that the defeated teams are “weak” teams.  It may be true, but it isn’t necessarily so. 

    Part of what makes the Indians schedule so “weak” is the fact that they have beaten the teams that they have played more often than not.  As a result of those Indians’ wins, those teams have worse records, which ironically makes the Indians schedule look weak despite the Indians’ strength. 

    Yes, the Indians’ schedule has been weak, but the Indians have made it so.   

  • cmm13

    Let’s see, in first place and beating teams we should be…yeah, think I’m good.

    It’s not our fault that KC’s breakout year isn’t happening and the Angels offense relies on Torri Hunter HR’s right now.

  • mgbode

    part of the reason Detroit is so high on this list is they lost 8 of their last 10 games :)

  • mgbode

    I agree with the general premise of your post.  But, when the A’s and Royals are expected to be bad and they start the season bad, then it is pretty common that they are just bad teams.

    Teams like the Angels, however, could easily rebound and make this SOS much different a month from now.

  • Garry_Owen

    Yep, but the SOS statistic still doesn’t take into account how much the Indians have had a hand in dictating that the Royals and As got off to the terrible starts that they have.  How much did getting swept by the Indians very early on impact the Royals clubhouse?  The stat just doesn’t factor in the unfactorable, even if the unfactorable might be really influencial.   

  • WFNYJon

    Agree. But look at KC. You’d think by losing all those games their SOS would necessarily be higher.

    It’s not. They lost 12 in a row AGAINST TERRIBLE TEAMS.

  • Ralphie Boy

    Joining the chorus that points out what incredibly flawed logic this is. Ain’t hindsight grand? All off season I constantly read how much better the Royals and all their young players were gonna be. Then, most people thought the Angels would be clinching ’round about now since they signed Pujols. The ’95 Indians never had a west coast swing as successful as this team, and BECAUSE OF THAT SUCCESS, the strength of schedule in retrospect is weak?

    Please.

  • kjn

    Exactly– if a team wins, their sos looks weak. If they lose, their sos looks good.
    That said, we have had an easy schedule.

  • mgbode

    hey, some of those were against us!  
    :)

  • Yup

    Say what ya want but this team has scored 4 runs or less in more than half of their games. If you think an AL team can be a viable playoff contender while doing that, well…

  • Steve

    The Indians are 11-9, not quite worldbeaters. If they lost one more game, to get to .500, would you think the SoS shoots up?

    And I prefer to use bb-refs’s SoS, where yes, the Indians SoS is a low number.

  • Steve

    But it’s not a good omen going forward.  We don’t get to play KC and a Pujols-less Angels the rest of the year. When we see NY, Tampa, and Texas, things may get ugly.

  • Steve

     The SoS is weak because the teams we’ve played have lot a lot of other games. Come on people, this isn’t that hard.

    Take away the 20 games the Indians have played, their opponents average win pct (weighting for times played) is .434. They’re playing like 70 win teams after you take out the games against the Indians. Not impressive.

  • Steve

     *have lost a lot of other games*

  • Steve

     Oakland 11-12 including Indians games, 10-10 excluding them. You really want to argue that playing the Indians caused the A’s to get off to a terrible start?

  • Garry_Owen

    17 percent is 17 percent.

  • Steve

     I have no idea what you’re talking about, and I think you don’t either. The difference the Indians have made on their opponents schedule is negligible.

  • Garry_Owen

    Why are you so belligerent all of the time? What are you trying to prove?
    In terms of either wins or losses, by themselves, the Indians’ impact on the As was 17 percent. In terms of total overall record, 9 percent. It is what it is, and it can’t be dismissed.
    Sheesh. I have enough unpleasantness in the course of my day. I don’t think I’ll deal with you anymore.

  • mgbode

    I don’t think anyone disagrees with you but we are allowed to have our fun for now, no?  Just enjoy it :)

  • Steve

    Sorry that you can’t wrap your head around someone not thinking like you.

    Without the Indians games, the A’s are a .500 team, with them they are a .478 team, less than a 5% decline in win pct. Negligible.

    And of course, I demonstrate below that after you take out the games against the Indians, our opponents still look terrible.

  • Steve

     From the rest of the comments, I’m not so sure. Sure, I’ll enjoy any and every win, but it would have been nice to rack up an extra few wins against the patsies, and not just barely top .500 against them.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2LNPJGFBP7NF5FFSYZGEJV4UQQ Ryan Seacrestoothpaste

    meh..and your point is??