Maybe it's just me, but I'm really not all that impressed with most of the "elite" teams in college football this year. We hear a lot about high-flying offenses like those of Missouri and Oklahoma, and tend to accept them as being solid teams without really questioning them. But is it really that impressive if you're pounding on #221 Alcorn State? Let's examine the highest scoring offenses so far this year, limiting ourselves to the teams with an average scoring differential over 30 points:
1. (#24) Florida State, 54
2. (#2) Oklahoma, 40.7
3. Troy, 39.5
4. (#1) USC, 38.5
5. (#5) Missouri, 37
6. (#7) Texas, 35.5
7. (#4) Florida, 34.5
8. TCU, 33.3
9. (#6) LSU, 33
10. Iowa, 31
11. Indiana, 30
With the exception of a few surprises, that's pretty much the AP top ten list. But what happens if you calculate each team's strength of schedule? Just for laughs, I calculated each of these 11 teams' opponents' average RPI ranking (essentially a composite ranking of every NCAA team, taken from realtimerpi.com) and came up with the following:
1. USC, 39.5
2. Florida, 81
3. Oklahoma, 109.3
4. Missouri, 111.3
5. Iowa, 113.7
6. Texas, 116.5
7. LSU, 121.5
8. TCU, 123
9. Troy, 142
10. Indiana, 148.5
11. Florida State, 187
Through two or three games for ten of these teams, they haven't even been remotely tested. It's really easy to put up gaudy numbers against teams rated below #100. Florida State's case is particularly reprehensible, feasting on #192 Western Carolina and #182 Chattanooga. Not too hard to average wins by 54 points against competition like that. Now that conference play is starting, and these teams will be required to play against their peers, I predict some of those ridiculous scoring margins will decrease, and we'll see a different lineup of scoring leaders in a few weeks.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Thursday, September 4, 2008
The Times They Are A-Changing
Don't look now, but the teams that looked like complete locks to make the playoffs are nearly all mired in losing streaks. The way I figure it, only four teams are playing well enough to even merit consideration as contenders. Without looking, can you guess which they are?
The two obvious ones, of course, are the Cubs and the Red Sox, but the only other two teams on the short list are surprises - the Mets and the Brewers. (The Rays just barely missed the cut.)
What's going on here? It seems like all of the playoff teams have been falling apart lately, while some of the also-rans and cellar dwellers (like the Indians, the Astros, and of all teams, the Nationals) are on hot streaks. It may be that everyone is just regressing toward the mean this week.
It's still strange to look at the SPI standings and see someone other than the Cubs on top, though. My guess is that the Cubs will get things turned around soon and be back to their winning ways, but really, anything could happen with a month to go.
The two obvious ones, of course, are the Cubs and the Red Sox, but the only other two teams on the short list are surprises - the Mets and the Brewers. (The Rays just barely missed the cut.)
What's going on here? It seems like all of the playoff teams have been falling apart lately, while some of the also-rans and cellar dwellers (like the Indians, the Astros, and of all teams, the Nationals) are on hot streaks. It may be that everyone is just regressing toward the mean this week.
It's still strange to look at the SPI standings and see someone other than the Cubs on top, though. My guess is that the Cubs will get things turned around soon and be back to their winning ways, but really, anything could happen with a month to go.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
The Playoff Push
A couple of months ago, I listed my playoff predictions, with the caveat that things might change between then and October. Boy, did they ever change. I had the Oakland A's winning the AL West over the L.A. Angels, who now are leading the A's by 20 1/2 games. Oakland currently holds the 23 spot in the SPI standings. Pretty embarassing.
So do I dare issue another set of playoff predictions? Of course I will, but once again, I'll issue some caveats. First: anything could happen between now and October. The Rockies, despite being ranked 19th, could conceivably make another miracle run. They have the schedule and talent to do it. Still, I'm not about to plan on them winning the NL West with the data I have right now. Second: I'm not using the adjusted SPI standings that I post in the sidebar every day. It doesn't make sense to predict a month into the future with data that more heavily weights recent performance. Just because Milwaukee is on a hot streak right now doesn't mean that will continue through September.
That said, here are the picks, with their expected win-loss records:
AL East: Boston Red Sox (99-63)
AL Central: Chicago White Sox (93-69)
AL West: Los Angeles Angels (89-73)
AL wild card: Tampa Bay Rays (94-68)
NL East: Philadelphia Phillies (92-70)
NL Central: Chicago Cubs (105-57)
NL West: Arizona Diamondbacks (85-77)
NL wild card: Milwaukee Brewers (92-70)
Red Sox def. Angels
Rays def. White Sox
Cubs def. D-backs
Brewers def. Phillies
Red Sox def. Rays
Cubs def. Brewers
Cubs def. Red Sox
The Cubs currently have a 64% chance of victory in the World Series over the Red Sox, even with the recent losing streak they've had. Also, congratulations are in order to the Washington Nationals, who finally got out of the basement with a seven-game winning streak. The Pittsburgh Pirates have replaced them, though the category is still named for the Nationals. Such futility must not go unrecognized and unhonored.
So do I dare issue another set of playoff predictions? Of course I will, but once again, I'll issue some caveats. First: anything could happen between now and October. The Rockies, despite being ranked 19th, could conceivably make another miracle run. They have the schedule and talent to do it. Still, I'm not about to plan on them winning the NL West with the data I have right now. Second: I'm not using the adjusted SPI standings that I post in the sidebar every day. It doesn't make sense to predict a month into the future with data that more heavily weights recent performance. Just because Milwaukee is on a hot streak right now doesn't mean that will continue through September.
That said, here are the picks, with their expected win-loss records:
AL East: Boston Red Sox (99-63)
AL Central: Chicago White Sox (93-69)
AL West: Los Angeles Angels (89-73)
AL wild card: Tampa Bay Rays (94-68)
NL East: Philadelphia Phillies (92-70)
NL Central: Chicago Cubs (105-57)
NL West: Arizona Diamondbacks (85-77)
NL wild card: Milwaukee Brewers (92-70)
Red Sox def. Angels
Rays def. White Sox
Cubs def. D-backs
Brewers def. Phillies
Red Sox def. Rays
Cubs def. Brewers
Cubs def. Red Sox
The Cubs currently have a 64% chance of victory in the World Series over the Red Sox, even with the recent losing streak they've had. Also, congratulations are in order to the Washington Nationals, who finally got out of the basement with a seven-game winning streak. The Pittsburgh Pirates have replaced them, though the category is still named for the Nationals. Such futility must not go unrecognized and unhonored.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Division comparisons
I decided to compare each of the six divisions to see which of them was the strongest. I expected the AL East to be the strongest, since it has the Rays, the Red Sox, and the Yankees, and I wasn't disappointed. The rest of the standings were a little surprising, however. Here's the graph I came up with:
As you can see, the AL East leads by a comfortable margin, but a couple of surprises come out. First, what is the NL East doing so far down? The Phillies and the Mets have been in the top ten for the last couple of months. Of course, the Nationals do a lot to bring the average down, but aren't the other teams enough to hold things up? Turns out they aren't - the Braves are currently in 21st while the Marlins are in 17th.
The other surprise, I thought, was that the NL West is only barely in last place. We've known for a long time that the NL West is a weak division (Arizona leads it with an anemic record of 68-65), but shouldn't the AL West be better than it is? Aren't the Angels one of the league's best teams? They have 81 wins! While that's all true, they're only ranked 12th in the SPI standings. (Not good for your division if your first place team is only in 12th.) The other three teams, Oakland, Texas, and Seattle, are ranked 20th, 23rd, and 27th respectively. That does a lot to drag down one really good team. Meanwhile, the recent success of the Colorado Rockies (woo!) has brought the NL West up, though it has come at the expense of some of the other teams in the division.
Long story short, sometimes looking at the numbers in a slightly different way changes the picture.
As you can see, the AL East leads by a comfortable margin, but a couple of surprises come out. First, what is the NL East doing so far down? The Phillies and the Mets have been in the top ten for the last couple of months. Of course, the Nationals do a lot to bring the average down, but aren't the other teams enough to hold things up? Turns out they aren't - the Braves are currently in 21st while the Marlins are in 17th.
The other surprise, I thought, was that the NL West is only barely in last place. We've known for a long time that the NL West is a weak division (Arizona leads it with an anemic record of 68-65), but shouldn't the AL West be better than it is? Aren't the Angels one of the league's best teams? They have 81 wins! While that's all true, they're only ranked 12th in the SPI standings. (Not good for your division if your first place team is only in 12th.) The other three teams, Oakland, Texas, and Seattle, are ranked 20th, 23rd, and 27th respectively. That does a lot to drag down one really good team. Meanwhile, the recent success of the Colorado Rockies (woo!) has brought the NL West up, though it has come at the expense of some of the other teams in the division.
Long story short, sometimes looking at the numbers in a slightly different way changes the picture.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Blind test answer
Time's up! Here are the answers to yesterday's graph question:
Team A was the Tampa Bay Rays, who haven't seen their SPI score drop below 6.500 since early June. Team B was the Milwaukee Brewers, who didn't see their SPI consistently above 6.000 until late July. Both teams have the same number of playoff appearances in the last 10 years (zero). Both teams are looking like they're headed to the playoffs. And yet, everyone seems convinced that the Rays will fold, while everyone seems sold on the Brewers. I don't know about you, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Sure, the Brewers are on the rise lately, but even when their SPI score was hovering around 5.5, people still talked about them like a playoff club. If I have to pick one of these two teams to go to the postseason, it's definitely the Rays. Some people may trust their gut instincts on things like this, but as for me, I'd prefer to stick with the numbers.
Side note: I changed the SPI standings to adjusted SPI standings, which weights the last ten games slightly more to account for recent performance. It changed the standings around a bit, but not nearly as much as I expected it to.
Team A was the Tampa Bay Rays, who haven't seen their SPI score drop below 6.500 since early June. Team B was the Milwaukee Brewers, who didn't see their SPI consistently above 6.000 until late July. Both teams have the same number of playoff appearances in the last 10 years (zero). Both teams are looking like they're headed to the playoffs. And yet, everyone seems convinced that the Rays will fold, while everyone seems sold on the Brewers. I don't know about you, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Sure, the Brewers are on the rise lately, but even when their SPI score was hovering around 5.5, people still talked about them like a playoff club. If I have to pick one of these two teams to go to the postseason, it's definitely the Rays. Some people may trust their gut instincts on things like this, but as for me, I'd prefer to stick with the numbers.
Side note: I changed the SPI standings to adjusted SPI standings, which weights the last ten games slightly more to account for recent performance. It changed the standings around a bit, but not nearly as much as I expected it to.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Blind test
Here's a fun test for you. This graph shows the SPI progression of two teams this season. Each entered the season with the same amount of playoff experience in the last 10 years and each is generating about the same amount of playoff buzz right now. Curiously, Team B is usually portrayed as more of a postseason threat than Team A, despite the gap in their SPI ratings.
Anyone care to hazard a guess as to who the two teams are?
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)