Worst Division in Baseball?
For most of the season, I've heard it time and time again. I've heard it from Dick Bremer, I've heard it from various ESPN analysts, and I've heard it from Twinkie Town commenters. "The AL Central is the worst division in baseball." "The Twins might be able to pull out of the weak AL Central."
The AL Central is not a great division. The AL Central win percentage, 47%, ranks last in all 6 divisions. The top team in the divison, Detroit, is only 9 games above .500. How could I argue that this isn't the worst division in baseball?
The answer is simple... you have to account for the difference between leagues. I'll start by doing a very simplified version, based on interleague records, and also show you a very complex version, done by someone much smarter than me. Below are the interleague records for the last 5 years.
| Year | AL Wins | NL Wins |
| 2005 | 136 | 116 |
| 2006 | 154 | 98 |
| 2007 | 137 | 115 |
| 2008 | 149 | 102 |
| 2009 | 137 | 114 |
| Totals | 713 | 545 |
As you can see, and as you probably all ready know, the American League has dominated the National League. The AL win percentage has been 56.7% over the last 5 years. Not an insignificant amount. I've heard people say that the DH rule is the main reason for the difference. Thinking that the difference in rule accounts for any significant portion of the AL's domination is really silly - it's only one person, most NL teams have a pinch hitter that can be used, the AL doesn't get to use the DH in half the games! Us as Twins fans know how much of a boost we've gotten from interleague play, and this is the first year we've had a DH to talk about. To be safe, I'd be willing to drop it down to 55%, so a 5% boost. Below is the table of winning percentages for each division over the course of the season this year. I then added 5% to each division in the AL, and took away 5% from each division in the NL.
| DIV. | Win % | Lg adj. | new Win % |
| AL East | 52.7% | 5.0% | 57.7% |
| AL West | 52.8% | 5.0% | 57.8% |
| AL Central | 47.0% | 5.0% | 52.0% |
| NL West | 51.5% | -5.0% | 46.5% |
| NL East | 48.5% | -5.0% | 43.5% |
| NL Central | 53.9% | -5.0% | 48.9% |
As you can see, the AL Central now has a healthy lead on any division in the NL. You might say that this isn't the proper way to do things, just adding the 5% to the AL and taking it away from the NL, and you'd be partially right. It isn't the greatest way to do things; you aren't taking into account the fact that some of the games being counted were interleague games. But adding just 3%. less than half of the actual advantage the AL has over the NL, the ALC still comes out just behind the NL Central and ahead of the other two NL divisions.
Yes, that was an overly simplistic way of doing things, but that doesn't mean my conclusions are wrong. I primarily did that because I feel that some people are going to ignore the more complex statistical method shown below. Like I said above, I will show another method, this using numbers from someone much smarter than me. Beyond the Box Score is an extremely useful website, showing a primarily statistical view on baseball analysis. Each week, they do their power rankings. These power ranking are similar to Baseball Prospectus' third order wins, which use wOBA, tRA, and other statistics to calculate an expected winning percentage, instead of just using actual winning percentage and adjusting for strength of schedule. They also use a league adjustment, but this one is much better than the crude one I used. It is calculated by using interleague records, players that have switched leagues, and other information. The expected win% column is a measure of how many wins a given team would expect to win if all teams were in one big league and played eachother equally.
I took an average rank, and an average expected win % for each division, and my results are below.
| DIV. | Avg. rank | BTB's eW% |
| AL East | 7 | 57.0% |
| AL West | 11.25 | 51.9% |
| AL Central | 14 | 50.3% |
| NL West | 15.2 | 49.4% |
| NL East | 21 | 45.5% |
| NL Central | 21.86 | 44.4% |
As you can see, the AL Central edges out all 3 NL divisions once again. Because it is adjusting for strength of schedule, the AL East gets a big boost, and the NL Central takes a big hit. The others stay about the same, only with a small % change for league adjustment.
I hope that one of the two methods shown has gotten through and that people will start to understand that while we aren't in an elite division, it is still an average or slightly better than average division. If we manage to shake off this last horrible loss and come back to win the division, we should be proud. We may have gotten to play the Royals quite a bit, but noone in the NL has to play teams as good as the Red Sox, Rays, and Yankees.
1 recs |
26 comments
Comments
Phillies >>>>>>>Twins
stats are nice. objectivity is nice. But anything that ranks the Phils below the Twins obviously needs to be looked at. Specifically the league adjustments. If the Twins were in the NL, they wouldn’t have a shot at any of the divisions. They would be close to the Rockies, Giants, and Braves though. Unless you want to say they would have ran away with the NL Central before the Cards got Holliday. But currently the Cardinals are much better than the Twins as well.
by Milt on Tilt on Sep 2, 2009 6:04 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Only problem with that logic
Twins did really well in interleague play this year. Ask the Cardinals. Twins>Cards

"Don't take life for granted, because tomorrow isn't promised to any one of us." -Kirby Puckett
No, you don't understand It’s a metaphor for A SERIES SWEEP!!!!!!! -natethejinx
by less cowbell, more 'neau on Sep 2, 2009 6:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think he's trying to say the Phillies are better than the Twins
only that the AL Central, as a whole, is better than the NL East, as a whole. The NL East might have the Phillies, true, but they also have the Mets and the Nationals to bring the division down.
by what_would_gil_thorp_do on Sep 2, 2009 6:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
I guess I’m gauging strength right by the best team in each division. If the Twins were placed in any of the NL divisions, do you believe they would be near a division title? And the only one argument I can hear is the NL Central.
by Milt on Tilt on Sep 2, 2009 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think they'd have a shot.
The bad teams that they’d play on a consistent basis are much worse than the Royals. The good teams that they’d play wouldn’t be close to as good as the three headed monster in the AL East.
The Twins were 12-6 in interleague play this year! Granted, small sample, but they’ve been doing it year after year. The Twins certainly wouldn’t be a dominant team in the NL, but they’d be better than they are, and it doesn’t take much to go from the 83 wins they’d get here to the 89 or so they’d need to make the playoffs.
by lookatthosetwins on Sep 2, 2009 8:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
true
but 89 wins wouldn’t win a division. maybe the wild card, but thats to do with the strength of the league, not the divisions. The NL is very top heavy. The Dodger, Phils, and Cards are all better than the Twins.
by Milt on Tilt on Sep 2, 2009 8:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and I think
you really overrate the Royals. Aside from Grienke, bad offense, bad pitching, bad defense. Not a good combination.
by Milt on Tilt on Sep 2, 2009 8:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
“stats are nice. objectivity is nice. But anything that goes against my personal, subjective opinion needs to be looked at.”
/fixed
And FWIW, the most recent rankings from the site list the Phillies ahead of the Twins; Cardinals are behind the Twins.
by Mike I on Sep 2, 2009 6:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I can understand
how the cards are behind the twins right now since they really were very mediocre until they got DeRosa and Holliday. But currently, as it stands, the Cardinals are the better team.
by Milt on Tilt on Sep 2, 2009 6:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK (deep breath)
I am a fan of the “objectivity” that stats CAN bring to the argument, and frankly, I am a little bit horrified by Milt on Tilt’s goofy rantings. Nonetheless, statistics, especially ones that attempt to encapsulate as complicated as this argument appears to be (best vs. worst across not just teams, or divisions but across the entire set of divisions in the league) can be notorious failures.
I won’t get into “real world” examples that are likely to inflame accusations of politics, so let’s simply look at defensive metrics. They suck. Well, they might look and sound nice but they do a pretty poor job of telling anyone who the “best” defensive player is at his position.
The more complicated the real world example the less likely it is to be accurately definable by a simple mathematical model. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying it can’t be done (and I will readily admit I am a math/stat boob), but I am saying that these types of attempts to nail down complex issues through simple equations often fail. So when “it doesn’t look right” and “doesn’t smell right” and “doesn’t scream when you jab it with a hot poker” I think a little skepticism is duly warranted.
The Royals suck, the Indians suck, the White Sox Twins and Tigers suck just a little less. That sounds to me like a bad division…maybe the worst.
by montanatwinsfan on Sep 2, 2009 8:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I just think most people decide who sucks based on their records,
and don’t take into account the strength of schedule. And if you look at the numbers with absolutely no adjustment, we’re only 1.5% behind the NL East. How you can think that the fact that we’re playing in a much harder league baffles me.
As far as using simple procedures, when most people think about how good a given team is, they look at their record. That’s why people think the AL Central is so horrible. The top teams have the worst records of any top teams so they must be the worst division. All I did is what most people would do to decide who is the best division only adding an adjustment for league. If you think 5% is too large, then go 3%. We end up as a .500 division overall. Not horrible, merely average.
by lookatthosetwins on Sep 2, 2009 8:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the NL East
does look a whole lot worse now than at the beginning since the Mets have had perhaps the most unfortunate season ever. At the start of the season they were a good club with the Braves being a Twins equivalent. Two pennant capable squads plus the Braves was better than the AL Central. But they did, so the overall strength of the division is weak. But they do have the best team in the NL.
by Milt on Tilt on Sep 2, 2009 8:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If wer'e talking about "most' people here I would refer you back up the post to more 'neau's picture,
then again most people don’t truly take into account the strength of schedule because it is quite difficult to accurately account for.
by montanatwinsfan on Sep 2, 2009 8:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
hee hee
horrified. I like the description of my comments as goofy rantings cause that’s all they are.
by Milt on Tilt on Sep 2, 2009 8:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
During today's game, or over the past few posts it seemed to be painfully obvious
you were spreading on the sarcastic hyperbole, on top of a dash of truth (well not a dash, maybe just a smidgeon). And yet you had people apparently pulling their hair out at you. Funny.
A little trollish – mind you.
by montanatwinsfan on Sep 2, 2009 8:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ah
I’m going to take this at absolute face value and assume there is no sarcasm involved.
And Detroit is up 3-1 already. F***
by Milt on Tilt on Sep 2, 2009 8:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
already
being in the 7th inning apparently.
by Milt on Tilt on Sep 2, 2009 8:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Give me all the math and science you want, I do not believe the Twins would be any closer to a playoff berth in any other division. Maybe closer to a wildcard, but that is it.
by dakotajim on Sep 3, 2009 6:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, cause what have math and science ever taught us?
by lookatthosetwins on Sep 3, 2009 6:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ignorance is bliss...
Yeah, cause what have math and science ever taught us?
math taught me to ignore subjects that are boring/I don’t understand.
by montanatwinsfan on Sep 3, 2009 6:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
HA! That's funny!
I hate math, but I actually agree with you.
I hope that one of the two methods shown has gotten through and that people will start to understand that while we aren’t in an elite division, it is still an average or slightly better than average division. If we manage to shake off this last horrible loss and come back to win the division, we should be proud.
But I still say math sucks!
"Don't take life for granted, because tomorrow isn't promised to any one of us." -Kirby Puckett
"No, you don't understand It’s a metaphor for A SERIES SWEEP!!!!!!!" -natethejinx
by less cowbell, more 'neau on Sep 3, 2009 8:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Some of the latest sports math/science has the Vikings as the 6th best team in the NFL.
Like I said, that stuff is not real accurate.
by dakotajim on Sep 8, 2009 8:28 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
i know
It’s a joke. They’re AT LEAST top two.
by Milt on Tilt on Sep 8, 2009 9:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 















