My bad. I was thinking about San Francisco and typing about San Diego.
I agree, interleague play is neither really very interesting nor fair, especially with the unbalanced schedule and Wild Card races, both of which I otherwise like.
The Phillies have been the beneficiary of this disparity in the past though so they really can’t complain. They are notable for winning the NL East three years in a row, making it to the World Series in back to back years in 2008 and 2009 and winning it all in 2008. But, without interleague disparity, this could have played out very differently for them.
In 2007 they won the division by just one game over the Mets, and while a lot of that had to do with the Mets’ bullpen collapses in September of that year, the interleague schedule way back in May/June was pretty stark as well. The Mets and Phils both went 8-7 over 15 interleague games that year, but the Mets played 9 at home and 6 away while the Phils played 12 at home and only 3 away, and against very different caliber opponents:
2007 Mets - 8-7 over 15 Interleague Games (9 home, 6 away)
5/18-20: 2-1 vs. the Yankees (home) [.462]
6/08-10: 1-2 vs. the Tigers (away) [.576]
6/15-17: 1-2 vs. the Yankees (away) [.516]
6/18-20: 1-2 vs. the Twins (home) [.507]
6/22-24: 3-0 vs. the A’s (home) [.549]
** Average winning percentage of interleague opponents: .522
**
2007 Phillies - 8-7 over 15 Interleague Games (12 home, 3 away)
5/18-20: 2-1 vs. the Blue Jays (home) [.450]
6/08-10: 1-2 vs. the Royals (away) [.361]
6/11-13: 3-0 vs. the White Sox (home) [.458]
6/15-17: 1-2 vs. the Tigers (home) [.569]
6/18-20: 1-2 vs. the Indians (home) [.588]
Average winning percentage of interleague opponents: .485
The percentages in brackets was the win/loss ratio of the opposing team going into the series at the time it was played (easily done thanks to this page from MLB.com where you can see team standings as of any date since 2003). The Phillies not only played many more home games that year for interleague play, but far inferior teams.
Then, in 2008 when the Phillies again overtook the Mets to win the NL East in the final two weeks, the interleague comparisons looked like this:
2008 Mets - 9-6 over 15 Interleague Games (12 home, 3 away)
5/17-18: 2-0 vs. the Yankees (away) [.476]
6/13-15: 2-1 vs. the Rangers (home) [.500]
6/16-18: 2-1 vs. the Angels (home) [.600]
6/23-25: 1-2 vs. the Mariners (home) [.347]
6/27-29: 2-2 vs. the Yankees (1 away, 3 home) [.538]
Weighted average winning percentage of opponents (counting the .538 Yankees of June twice as much as the .476 Yankees of May): .496
[It was unlucky for the Mets that the sweep game against the struggling Yanks of May got rained out and replayed after they bounced back strong in June - though they DID win the make-up game at Yankee Stadium, technically sweeping 3 in the Bronx that year]
** 2008 Phillies - 9-6 over 15 Interleague Games** (9 home, 6 away)
5/18-20: 2-1 vs. the Blue Jays (home) [.489]
6/08-10: 1-2 vs. the Royals (away) [.387]
6/11-13: 3-0 vs. the White Sox (home) [.569]
6/15-17: 1-2 vs. the Tigers (home) [.456]
6/18-20: 2-1 vs. the Indians (away) [.465]
** Average winning percentage of opponents: .473**
There’s far less of a case for the 2008 season because the Phillies won by three and not just one game in the end, and the AL teams’ win/loss records were only slightly disparate, and the Mets played more interleague games at home than the Phillies as well.
Note: while I am a Mets fan (and season ticket holder), I am not bringing up these painful memories to excuse the Mets or to put down what the Phillies accomplished in those two years; it’s to illustrate what a total shame it is that close September divisional races should be marred by any such inequities in the first place.
In rereading my post I see I totally got this wrong due to a cut-and-paste error along the way; the 2008 Phillies actually looked like this for Interleague play:
2008 Phillies - 7-8 over 15 Interleague Games (9 home, 6 away)
5/16-18: 1-2 vs. the Blue Jays (home) [.488]
6/16-18: 1-2 vs. the Red Sox (home) [.611]
6/20-22: 3-0 vs. the Angels (home) [.589]
6/24-26: 1-2 vs. the A’s (away) [.547]
6/27-29: 1-2 vs. the Rangers (away) [.500]
Average winning percentage of opponents: .547
So the Phillies actually had a MUCH harder interleague schedule than the Mets in 2008 and should have arguably won by even more than 3 games – that the Mets’ pulling up to, and slightly ahead of them in early September was the mirage.
I love interleague play, and cannot understand why people detest it so much or otherwise try to paint it as unfair. We’re talking about a handful of games here out of the 162 played…teams play their divisional opponents quite often enough.
And if you are a fan of a generally sucky team that’s actually having a decent season like I am (the Reds), then interleague play is a nice measuring stick to see how your team stacks up against teams they never get to play.
Its also fun to see AL teams have their pitchers hit in NL parks, etc. Shakes things up just a bit.
I think it’s fun, but I still think it should be more balanced. As an example, the Dodgers this season are playing the Tigers (.540), Angels (.529), Red Sox (.576) and Yankees (.641). They are half a game behind the Padres, who are playing the Mariners (.369), Blue Jays (.530), Orioles (.277) and Rays (.641). Meanwhile, the Giants are playing the As (.500), Orioles (.277), Blue Jays (.530) and Red Sox (.576). Seems to me like that could make a difference in the final standings.
I understand that sentiment, but isn’t that just a random scheduling bugaboo? Or is there a tendency for traditionally good or big market teams like the LA Dodgers to get a tougher interleague schedule than a traditionally bad team like Seattle?
Well, it IS “unfair” so long as divisional peers play different interleague opponents. Whether or not it’s a LOT or a little unfair is certainly up for debate, as is whether or not that amount of unfairness is worth sacrificing for the novelty of seeing your team play non-traditional opponents. At least then go with the format like the first time they tried it in 1997 and 1998, where every team in the NL East/Central/West played every team in the AL East/Central/West and then again the next year in the other team’s home park. That makes sense and is fair.
In my book though, the novelty of interleague play has long ago worn off. Maybe it’s because I live in a two-team city, but if I wanted to see the Tigers or the Indians in particular I’d just go to Yankee Stadium. There’s not a lot of luster in seeing them play the Mets to me, there’s zero history between the two teams, and it only comes at the expense of going head-to-head with teams that are directly competing with them for either the division or the NL Wild Card.
There are only three AL teams I would be really interested in seeing the Mets play, for historical reasons: the Red Sox, the Orioles and the Yankees. (Maybe the A’s.) And I’d be more than happy for those matchups to be pre-season or exhibition games and leave the playing of interleague games That Really Count for the World Series.
Boston is currently tied with Minnesota in the standings and could be competing with them for the wild card.
Yet Boston is going to play the Phillies more times than Minnesota this year.
I don’t have a problem with interleague play in principle, but I do have a problem with overall unbalanced schedules and games missing between teams actually competing in the same league for a playoff spot.
Like I said, if you win your division by 1 game, and there were 20+ opponents you didn’t have in common with the 2nd place team, what does that really tell you?
Personally I don’t mind the disparity too much. In most cases it hinders big markets and helps small market teams. Yeah, the Padres generally will have easier mathcups than the Dodgers. The discrepency is much less than the advantage of playing in LA or NY or Chicago…
Interesting analysis Robardin, but it’s problematic to use an opponent’s winning percentage on the day of the game as opposed to their final winning percentage. Small sample size and all that.
Looks like your hypothesis holds up though-the Phils interleague opponents in '07-08 had a year end W% of around .500; the Mets opponent’s were around .522.
But frankly, I’m kind of with Hawkeyeop here-given the funding discrepancies across the MLB, hearing the contenders take issue with unbalanced schedules reminds me of an F. Scott Fitzgerald novel-rich kids whining about their terrible luck.
Yeah, there’s this aspect too.
All right I’ve held off as long as I could, but jinx or no i gotta say it.
Is Ubaldo gonna have one of the greatest years ever, considering the offensive era now, and his home freakin ballpark? The kid is just on another planet, 28 wins is looking seriously possible. If he played in New York or Boston ESPN would already have a daily countdown show for him. He could drop off considerably in the second half and still have a spectacular yer.
Keep it up man is all I can say.
He’s one of three pitchers in the last 80 years to win 13 of his first 14 starts (Roger Clemens 13-0 1986 and Lefty Gomez 13-1 1932.) He’s 13-1 in 14 starts - no no decisions. He’s beaten Roy Oswalt, Tim Lincecum and Francisco Liriano, and last outing beat the Blue Jays in a driving rain.
He is amazing.
I just can’t get on board with the love for Ubaldo. He’s certainly delivering a great year, but it isn’t the runaway once-in-generation type year people are blowing it up to be.
Consider that fangraphs has him fifth in Wins Above Replacement (behind Cliff Lee, who has less than 75% as many IP). I don’t know all the nuts and bolts of WAR, but I trust it enough to think Ubaldo’s been pretty damn lucky insofar as ERA and Wins are concerned.
And a quick look at the peripherals confirms it-Ubaldo’s batting average on balls in play (BABIP) is about 50 points off his career average; his left on base percentage is a staggering 91%, about 17-18% higher than a historic average. Basically everything hit off him is being caught, and his relatively high walk rate hasn’t hurt him yet because of it.
I’d be willing to give him some credit for those discrepancies, but the lion’s share is definitely luck, not skill.
That very well may be, but performance is performance.
The reverse would be a player who’s getting a lot of hits drop and consequently is batting .385. You’d have to conclude .385 is not a sustainable batting average - after all, there are no career .385 hitters - but if the guy has that many hits, he has that mays hits, and his team has benefitted accordingly.
Jiminez IS getting lucky. I didn’t even need to know his BABIP to guess that; you can just tell by his strikeout rate that he cannot possibly be the next Walter Johnson. But the absolute fact of the matter is that up to this point, he’s been getting men out and not allowing runs. Jiminez has allowed half as many runs as Cliff Lee in more innings; any system that claims Lee has been more valuable is broken in some way. Jiminez’s defense can’t be that good.
I didn’t say his defense is that good, I said he’d been getting lucky, and he has.
How about the fact that his Line Drive % is 28% in high leverage situations (here’s a hideously long chart, but it’s about what you’d expect-high leverage situations are basically men on in close games) but his BABIP in the same situations is-get this-0, despite the fact that historically linedrives are hits north of 70% of the time.
We could expect a BABIP of at least .196 in those situations, without even looking at his flyballs and groundballs, and Ubaldo is sitting at .000.
Hell, look at how he’s pitching in his split stats-his K rate and BB rate are way down with men on, i.e. he’s relying on his defense more.
As for the Lee thing-Lee’s K/rate is only slightly lower than Ubaldo’s, and he’s giving out nearly 3 fewer walks per game. The difference in their ERA’s is due to the fact Lee is actually having bad luck with men on where Ubaldo is having insanely good luck with men on.
I don’t think Lee’s been more valuable per se, just that the comparison has some validity and can’t be hand waved away.
Look, I’m not trying to explain away Ubaldo being awesome-he has absolutely been awesome this year, but top 3-4 in the league awesome, not season for the ages awesome.
But all your numbers don’t take into account home ballpark
Ubaldo worst pitching park.
Cliff lee best pitching park.
http://www.hhsl.org/stadiums_best_bat.htm
You are counting numbers that suggest things should be harder, and ignoring numbers that say things really are harder. Season for the ages, we will have to see. but he has had the best half season for the ages in 50 years, and among the very best half seasons for all times. Perfect games all all that not withstanding. This is a season to watch.
50 years? Greinke’s numbers, minus win/loses, were similar at this time last year and wasn’t nearly as lucky.
Double Post
I think it’s worth remembering that if it was not for a 7-inning, 2-hit, 1-earned-run effort against the Dodgers on May 9, in which Kershaw struck out 9 Rockies in eight innings in a 2-0 L.A. victory, Ubaldo would be 14-0 (and most likely getting much more national attention because of the win streak).