Divisional Balance

By Andrew Lipsett
With the Sox’ blistering tear through the NL East – bookended by now 5 straight losses to AL clubs – there has understandably been a great deal of discussion of the idea of league balance; how much worse, for example, the National League is than the American League. I want to throw a few numbers at you that represent a bit of a different way of looking at this.
The biggest problem with judging teams by their W-L records in modern ball is that even within one of the two specific leagues, each team plays a radically different set of teams than its rivals in other league divisions; that is to say that while the Tigers feast on the Royals 19 times per season, we get them 6, and vice versa for the Orioles. There’s no really good way to equalize that, of course, but one way of trying to is by looking at divisional records outside the division – that is, seeing how teams in any given division do when playing all other teams. This is obviously imperfect, especially in balancing NL and AL clubs, but it’s better than nothing. So, here are the ‘standings’ by division, in terms of W-L records. I have a few things to say about it, but I’ll leave it for afters.

So, of course, all that exercise is doing is removing a certain number of games, at a .500 winning clip, from the records of each division. It doesn’t change the numbers tremendously, but it helps put everything into context a bit.
Here’s the interesting part: when you look at specific teams, interesting facts start to emerge. For example, the team that benefits most from its division – that is the team whose non-division W% is lowest when compared to its actual – is the Chicago Cubs (a difference of nearly .010). Of course, it hasn’t done them much good in the overall scheme… but one team that the division has helped go from a losing record to a winning record is the Cincinnati Reds, who have just a .462 W% outside their division. Other teams that fit this criteria are the Oakland A’s (.530 total, .483 outside the division), the Texas Rangers (.500 total, .484 outside) the Houston Astros (.500/.444) and the Dodgers (.518/.491).
But how about those teams hurt by their division? There are a few teams that would have winning records if they never played within their respective regions: These are the Baltimore Orioles (.459/.511), the Devil Rays (.440/.511), the Mariners (.494/.552), and the Brewers (.494/.500). If the AL East never played itself, every team in it would be over .500, and the Red Sox would hold a very commanding lead. The real surprise, though, is in the AL Central, which has been a year-long dogfight between the defending champion White Sox and the upstart Detroit Tigers. If none of the AL Central clubs played each other, the team leading the Central would be… the Minnesota Twins, who would jump from a .561 W% to a .685.
Other interesting facts that emerge here: the ENTIRE NL East has been helped by its division. Every single club in it loses W% points when divisional play is removed, and the division-leading Mets suddenly look very mortal. This is tough but doable, mathematically.
Also, the AL has far far fewer teams that have been helped dramatically by their divisions. 6 of the AL’s 14 teams have better W% in total than they do outside the division, while a stunning 11 NL teams have the same. Most of this is likely due to interleague play, and it’s no surprise then that the entire NL West has a drop outside the division while the entire AL East gets a W% boon from it.
The teams that have the least shift in W% are the Royals (.341/.347), the Angels (.470/.475), the Brewers (.494/.500), and the Giants (.512/.519).
What does all this mean? It’s very tough to say anything at this point, with only half the season gone. There are still teams that some clubs have never played, and a full picture can only be gleaned when we look at a full season. So, check back Saturday to see exactly that, using the 2005 standings. Comparing what we have now to what we see then could give us a better idea of what all these numbers really mean.