Monday, August 25, 2008

Mailbag

Time to answer some questions from my imaginary readers. Let's hit the mailbag!

Why do the SPI standings get shuffled around so much near the top and bottom? It seems like teams in the Also-Rans and the Cellar Dwellers can go up or down by as much as five spots from day to day. What gives?

Randy C., Tempe


Randy, that's a good question. If you take a look at the standings in those divisions, you'll notice that sometimes as many as five teams are separated by less than a tenth of a point. If one team has a particularly good game, they can leapfrog several teams in one go. It's similar to the Red Queen hypothesis: you have to run as fast as you can just to stay in place. If a team has an off night, they'll probably fall a few spots if they're in a tight race. Meanwhile, Boston can have an off weekend and still stay in third because of their comfortable lead (nearly a full point) over fourth place.

I don't get why you don't factor strength of schedule into the SPI. It seems like a 12-run win over the Nationals shouldn't count more than a one run win over the Cubs. Isn't beating the Cubs a higher accomplishment than beating the Nats?

Jerry, Kennewick WA

You know, I thought about adding a strength of schedule multiplier into the formula, but in the end, I decided against it. Here's why - the best teams are the one that win by the most runs. It shouldn't matter who they beat. If anything, you should expect a good team to destroy Washington this year. They're the worst team in baseball, right? If your team only beats the Nats by one run, aren't you wondering what went wrong there? Shouldn't you be destroying them every night?

If it helps, look at it this way. Suppose you have to bet your life on one team winning one game, and you only have two teams to choose. Team A usually wins by five or six runs a game. Team B usually wins, too, but they almost always need some late-game dramatics to pull it off. Which team are you going to bet your life on? If you're not lying or insane, you're picking Team A every time. Team A is more likely to win than Team B. Doesn't that make them a better team? Isn't that the definition of a good team? More likely to win than their opponent?

You keep talking about the Cubs like it's a foregone conclusion that they'll win the World Series this year. Isn't there a chance someone else will take it?

Ted, Long Island


There's absolutely a chance someone else will win it this year, Ted. It's just not a very good chance. Can you think of an NL team that can beat them in a series without home field advantage? Philadelphia? Milwaukee? The Mets? (I'm not even willing to consider an NL West team here.) I think you're pretty safe pencilling them in for a World Series berth this year, barring any huge upsets. The AL has three teams that could give them a run (the White Sox, Red Sox, and Rays), but even still, I don't see the Series going past six games. Right now, the calculator give the Cubs a 68% chance of winning the Series against their toughest possible opponent, the White Sox. This year, they're just that far ahead of the rest of the league. It's like the Red Sox were last year.

How about those wild card races? Any predictions?

Mike D., Brooklyn


You have to admit, they're a lot closer than they looked a month ago. Right now, I like both Boston and Milwaukee to hold on, but we could realistically see either Minnesota or St. Louis sneaking into the playoffs. They're both only a game back. One good or bad week could completely change our playoff outlook.

Got a sports question? Send in an email (theboardoptimistic@gmail.com) or leave a comment to hear Optimistic.'s take!

No comments: