Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: The Most Dangerous Division in Sports

The Weak AL Central Isn't Weak, It's Average

A persistent meme is that the American League Central is a weak division, an easy place to win, a friendly environment to compete, etc. This point of view transcends the blogger/mainstream and stathead/traditional divides. On balance, however, the weakness of the AL Central is overstated. Our division isn't weak, she's average.

We frequently see evidence of the assumption that all you need to do is get to 85 wins (or less) in the AL Central and you're a contender. I'm quite guilty of this myself. However, this has only rarely been the case.

Here are the win totals first place AL Central teams in recent years:

  • 2011: 95
  • 2010: 94
  • 2009: 86 (earned a one-game playoff)
  • 2008: 88 (earned a one-game playoff)
  • 2007: 96
  • 2006: 96

Prior to this season, just like every other one in the AL Central's history, we all perceived it to be a weak division. And look, the Tigers took the division title with only 95 wins. Haha, what a joke!

Star-divide

Now granted, the AL Central has rarely had two very good or even great teams, competing for a title. But this is really only regularly the case in the AL East. The weird thing about that 2008-09 collapse is that it came just after one of the strongest periods in division history. In 2006, the Tigers (90 wins), White Sox (95 wins) and Twins (96 wins) were all strong teams.

2008 and 2009 happened, and to be sure, the division was relatively weak then. Was the AL West given the scarlet label of weak when the Rangers won the division with 90 wins in 2010? Now, to be fair, that was just one year. And, to be even more fair, I'd admit that the AL West is usually a tick better than the AL Central. But the West is much closer to the Central than the AL East. I'd also argue the AL Central is comparable, if not better, to the NL West and NL Central. Does it kill you to be in the AL Central? No. Is it a free ride to the playoffs? No. You usually need a win total in the mid-1990s. It is, broadly speaking, an average place to be.

I'm a big AL pride guy, and I enjoy making over-the-top NL-OMG-sucks jokes. Increasingly however, I think there's the AL East and then another set of five divisions, which are comparable.

Perhaps the perception of the division is tied to the idea that the AL Central should be easy. Nobody, whether it's stat heads or mainstream guys ever get excited about Detroit or Chicago, but both franchises have had some very strong seasons. The Tigers and White Sox have been two of the more unique teams in the game in the last decade, they're two of the last teams that seem to exist in a time warp, operating in a way that was once typical: they gamble big on free agents/waiver guys, have been reluctant to tear down (perhaps to the point that it has become a competitive advantage), and don't seem really concerned with what Baseball America says about them. No one ever is very excited about them, but they've both produced high win totals. Of course, they've also had some very mediocre seasons.

Then you have the Twins, who in a period of about a year have gone from being one of the most consistent teams of the 2000s, to a team with a weird roster and a huge range of possible outcomes. They're joined by the Indians, who briefly got very good, but randomly were also inconsistent (from 2005 to 2007) they went 93 wins-78 wins-96 wins for no apparent reason. And oh yea, the Royals were always bad, but you knew that.

Speaking of bad teams, an underrated factor here is that the bad teams in the division have been getting better. In the early part of the decade the Royals and Tigers and Indians put up some horrible records, and that was with them playing each other all the time. However, the Central hasn't had a 100-loss team since 2006. That matters.

Four teams have won the division in the last five years. But unpredictable doesn't equal bad.

And so now, as we head to 2012, the Royals are supposed to be primed to dominate, because the AL Central is weak. For the 6th consecutive year, the White Sox and Tigers are seemingly trending downward. No one knows about the Indians and no one is excited about the Twins. 85 wins should get this thing done. Totally.

Comment 102 comments  |  3 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

That should read total wins to win the division.

I don’t know if your proposition of correct, but your analysis doesn’t support your proposition very well.

by WURoyal on Dec 8, 2011 8:31 PM EST via mobile up reply actions  

My thought exactly

IIRC, there was some year where the Twins won 90 some games, but they just dominated the Central, and went under .500 against the AL East and West (I think they dominated interleague too).

I think you can conclude the meme that it only takes 85 wins to take the Central is false, but I don’t think you can necessarily conclude that the Central isn’t weak. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. I think the Sox are definitely rebuilding, and the Tigers will probably be pretty good, but its hard to peg how good the Tribe, Twins and Royals will be.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Dec 8, 2011 9:39 PM EST up reply actions  

I agree with you in some ideal sense

but a) I dont have time to do a massive in-depth study and b) the “division is weak” argument is usually made wrt what it takes to make the playoffs. and in that regard, I think the win totals of the 1st place team is relevant

by Freneau on Dec 8, 2011 8:37 PM EST up reply actions  

AL central is a lady

And a princess at that! Only fitting the the Royals win her over repeatedly giving her.. Dare I say it.. The Royal treatment. For many years to come…

"Stay Classy Kansas City"

by Mas Cervezas on Dec 8, 2011 8:44 PM EST via mobile reply actions  

I'm not sure why you're confused

Are you saying that you don’t understand how a team can win 0.4 games? Obviously that’s true, so the “average” win total is 76. But things do not always divide out cleanly like that, and it’s more accurate when you provide additional information, especially with margins of only 8-9 wins between the strongest and weakest divisions.

I think the difference in talent from the AL East to the NL Central is actually huge, but baseball has always been a sport where the bell curve of good to bad teams is relatively small and concentrated.

by sumajestad on Dec 8, 2011 11:56 PM EST up reply actions  

I gotcha

Im not sure how relevant the #s are since division opponents play eachother so often, but interesting and thanks for posting it.

by Bronzillo on Dec 9, 2011 7:49 AM EST up reply actions  

This is precisely the problem that sumajestad just addressed.

Exactly one team wins every game played (and the other team loses). So, every in-division game adds exactly 0.5 wins to the average divisional win total. The unbalanced schedule evens out the number of intra-divisional match-ups across the league at about 72 games per team per season . So, roughly 36 of the wins in the divisional average are the result of games within the division—without regard to how strong or weak the division is. Since that number is a constant, the average win total calculated above can only go up or down by winning or losing the 90 games that each team plays outside of the division each year.

Since a “strong” division will win more of those games and a “weak” division will lose more, sumajestad’s method gives a pretty good look at the relative strength of each division.

by kcemigre on Dec 9, 2011 8:55 AM EST up reply actions  

So,

the avg AL Central team record outside the division in ’11 (assuming you round up 77.6 to 78) was 42-48 then…

I agree that is an interesting way to compare teams and divisions within each league. Although, I’m not sure i see the point in the 3 yr weighted avg for each division. Too much turnover per team. Just more info i guess.

by Bronzillo on Dec 9, 2011 10:53 AM EST up reply actions  

That would be great if everything were equal, but

The NL Central has 6 teams, while the AL West has four. So, inherently, it should be harder to compete in the NL Central, and easier in the AL West.

by fightwookies on Dec 9, 2011 3:54 PM EST up reply actions  

I maintain that if you put 90 wins on the board, you'll win the AL Central 80% of the time.

I can now say this with a straight face, and it will be accurate: Tim Tebow is a better QB than Matt Cassel.

by ProbablyYoungerThanAllOfYou on Dec 8, 2011 9:44 PM EST reply actions  

How many teams put 90 wins on the board and didn’t win the AL Central?

by kcdc1 on Dec 8, 2011 11:29 PM EST up reply actions  

Answer:

Only 2 years in the last 10 did a team win 90 games and not win the AL Central. That’s a lot like 80% of the time.

by kcdc1 on Dec 8, 2011 11:32 PM EST up reply actions  

Fair Enough.

But I was thinking from the Royals perspective… I mean I guess to add wins you have to subtract wins.

Your 2010 Royals Review Fantasy Football Keeper League Champion
Since 2005: Royals win% = .4100, Chiefs win% = .4095

by averagegatsby on Dec 8, 2011 11:43 PM EST up reply actions  

well, every team with at least 89 wins has won the division since 2007, 9 times in 11 years

the second place win totals this century:
80
88
86
66
66
95
93
83
86
81
85

So, 80% of the time wasn’t too far off.

by 9il on Dec 9, 2011 1:23 PM EST up reply actions  

Here you go

2011
95 (1st)
80 (2nd)

2010
94
88

2009
87
86

2008
89
88

2007
96
88

2006
96
95 (Wild Card)
90

2005
99
93

2004
92
83

2003
90
86

2002
94
81

2001
91
85

2000
95
90

Second place has averaged 87 wins since 2000.

by Gopherballs on Dec 9, 2011 3:05 PM EST up reply actions  

At this point

I don’t think the Royals are a 90 win team. So this is a problem.

by Yodazilla on Dec 9, 2011 2:18 PM EST up reply actions  

Ukraine is game to you?!

I come from Ukraine. You not say Ukraine weak.

by BeauJackson on Dec 8, 2011 10:38 PM EST reply actions  

For those who think that the Royals have a decent shot at the playoffs in 2012

You have to figure a way that the Royals get to 90 wins. That’s a tall order for a team with this kind of talent. And adding one 3 WAR player probably doesn’t get you anywhere close.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Dec 9, 2011 12:54 AM EST reply actions  

To be sure, it's no cakewalk

But I know you’re a stat guy, Scott. So here are the pythag records (based on mlb.com’s X_WL) for 2011:

Det- 88-74
KC- 78-84
CLE- 75-87
CHI- 75-87
MIN- 62-100

That’s close enough for me to believe we’re within striking distance, and also not be totally delusional.

by sumajestad on Dec 9, 2011 1:05 AM EST up reply actions   1 recs

This

A big chunk of that gap will be closed by a year of player development/aging without any acquisitions at all.

by kcdc1 on Dec 9, 2011 9:55 AM EST up reply actions  

And again, this involves setting the 2011 pythag as the team's true talent level

That’s a mistake. I believe that thinking that a 12 win improvement is reasonably possible is also a mistake.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Dec 9, 2011 10:10 AM EST up reply actions  

Why?

What is the reason that you are throwing that record out in a projection for next year? I know you like stats—there’s one that shows that the Royals were unlucky this year. I don’t understand why you don’t think it’s legitimate. Is it because it is optimistic? Or is it because of another reason?

by Yodazilla on Dec 9, 2011 12:01 PM EST up reply actions  

The pythag does give you a more accurate picture of the team’s performance in 2011 than the actual W/L record of team. But my point here is that the performance of a team (or its individual players) for one year does not set the team (or players’) true talent level. In order to determine the true talent level of a team (as best as we can determine it), you have to look at the TTL of the various players as determined by (in the very least) a weighted average of multiple recent seasons.

And, of course, the 2012 Royals will not be comprised of the exact same players as the 2011 Royals. Key contributors like Melky and Francis, for instance, are gone. So there are multiple reasons why setting the Royals 2011 pythag as the baseline from which we should project to next season is a mistake.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Dec 9, 2011 12:16 PM EST up reply actions  

So what is the team's true talent level?

For this young a team, its true talent level has a wide range of possibilities. Key young players could either step up or down to varying degrees.

It just seems more accurate to take the pythag as a better indicator of future performance rather than the murky possibilities of the team’s true talent level. If this were a different (and older) team I would tend to agree with you, but 4 out of the 9 starters have less than a year of ML experience and their fate could drastically change the outcome of the 2012 team.

I guess what I’m saying is that I hear you, but until someone brings in another statistic as a place from which to start that is close to as accurate as pythag, we might as well use it as such.

by Yodazilla on Dec 9, 2011 2:15 PM EST up reply actions  

So what is the team’s true talent level?

When some of the best projection systems (ZiPS, PECOTA) come out, we’ll be able to apply reasonable playing time estimates and get a much better idea.

For this young a team, its true talent level has a wide range of possibilities. Key young players could either step up or down to varying degrees.

That’s certainly true.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Dec 9, 2011 2:21 PM EST up reply actions  

Agreed

The team actually outscored its opponent’s post-ASB when more of the young guys were in place and Davies was mostly out of the picture.

by kcdc1 on Dec 9, 2011 2:22 PM EST up reply actions  

In a nutshell

Scott thinks the Royals were unlucky in converting their run differential to wins, but he thinks they were lucky converting their talent into run differential since several players out-performed their likely true talent.

I agree on the first count. And I agree somewhat on the second count, but I think Scott and like-minded others tend to focus too much on the luck-aided seasons from Gordon, Melky and Frenchy. Meanwhile, they fail to account for the bad luck the team had from players like Francis, Duffy, Hochevar, Davies, Mazzaro and Moustakas. I did a back-of-the-napkin calculation a several weeks ago and found that the total good luck was probably greater than the total bad luck, but it’s pretty close.

by kcdc1 on Dec 9, 2011 2:20 PM EST up reply actions  

I believe that thinking that a 12 win improvement is reasonably possible is also a mistake.

In general or just for this team? Teams make 12 win improvements with some regularity.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Dec 9, 2011 8:15 PM EST up reply actions  

This team

Including expected regression from certain players that overperformed, is it likely that natural player development is going to lead to anywhere near a 12 win improvement? No, I don’t think that is reasonably possible. I think when the ZiPS and PECOTA projections come out and the team numbers are crunched, it isn’t going to be anywhere near 90. I think it will be south of 80. Now, could everything come together with a bunch of players blossoming at the same time and some other players have aberrational seasons to get the Royals up to 90? Sure. And I think that is about as likely as the bottom falling out and everything going wrong and the Royals winning only about 64 games.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Dec 9, 2011 11:50 PM EST up reply actions  

This is fascinating to me

KC being #2 in the division in pythag. Closer than we think? Maybe.

by Yodazilla on Dec 9, 2011 11:57 AM EST up reply actions  

I will predict that...

chen will make another 12+win season
Gordon will make another miracle
Hosmer is our god, you don’t question what he does. You just take it with a smile
We fire hochever for the first half and hire him for the second half
sanchez looks good
duffy is a lost cause..like collins
if jefferies can stop smoking pot/learn to aim better, we have a new starter
soria…he needs to become a starter. Crow can handle clean up

francis(is still around) and Paulino (if around) will once again suck. Good potential, no idea how to use it. Maybe they’ll train with chen on his mountain and learn the ancient art of throwing pitches

by Chiefshero on Dec 9, 2011 12:48 PM EST up reply actions  

I see all of that happening

except Jefferies quitting pot. Why would he do that?

by Rufus R. Jones on Dec 9, 2011 1:09 PM EST up reply actions  

if he wants to play in the majors, he'll need to stop smoking pot

If I was his coach
“remember jefferies, it’s you vs. 1 batter. Those other 2 guys aren’t real.”

by Chiefshero on Dec 9, 2011 1:21 PM EST up reply actions  

he wont have to stop smoking pot...

he’s on the 40 man…they dont test…he’s in the clear

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Dec 9, 2011 10:43 PM EST up reply actions  

critical spirit

"Things could always be worse." - Buddy Bell

by buddyball on Dec 9, 2011 11:10 AM EST up reply actions  

I honestly believe

The Royals are at least TRYING. Even if they come nowhere near winning the division. I’d love for us to win the Central, but I really just don’t see that happening. A 2nd place finish confirms that Dayton’s plan is at least doing SOMETHING. I’m okay with that. Problem is, most sports fans don’t understand that you need a lot of patience before something actually happens.

"what is age anyway? what's old? what's young?" - Frank White

by AlexGordonHRmagnet on Dec 9, 2011 1:19 AM EST reply actions  

Patience

Anyone that is a Royals fan (which can be assumed of readers of a blog about the Royals) knows about patience. If they didn’t have patience they would have given up long ago and become Cards fans.

by spamiam79 on Dec 9, 2011 7:19 AM EST via mobile up reply actions  

Patience was one of GnR's most boring songs.

"There is nothing shrewd about running a red light and later finding out it kept you from being hit by an asteroid." - philofthenorth

by KeepItCopacetic on Dec 9, 2011 8:46 AM EST up reply actions  

What was the final straw?

"There is nothing shrewd about running a red light and later finding out it kept you from being hit by an asteroid." - philofthenorth

by KeepItCopacetic on Dec 9, 2011 8:52 AM EST up reply actions  

Back then, they were still assembling the series of tubes.

"There is nothing shrewd about running a red light and later finding out it kept you from being hit by an asteroid." - philofthenorth

by KeepItCopacetic on Dec 9, 2011 10:56 AM EST up reply actions  

The Late, Great

Ted Stevens finished the job circa 2000.

I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.

by philofthenorth on Dec 10, 2011 1:10 AM EST up reply actions  

Repeated absences, smoking, selling drugs

I think he hit a teacher and that was what put him over the edge

BFIB

by tiquanunderwear on Dec 9, 2011 9:01 AM EST up reply actions  

I just read through his Wikipedia article

Seems like a nice guy

"There is nothing shrewd about running a red light and later finding out it kept you from being hit by an asteroid." - philofthenorth

by KeepItCopacetic on Dec 9, 2011 9:26 AM EST up reply actions  

Aren't all grandpas?

Doubting Thomas, the patron saint of sabermetrics

by Jeff Zimmerman on Dec 9, 2011 9:28 AM EST up reply actions  

Axl Rose

Pride of Laffayate Jefferson High school

BFIB

by tiquanunderwear on Dec 9, 2011 9:40 AM EST up reply actions  

Pride and joy of my high school:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Dare

"There is nothing shrewd about running a red light and later finding out it kept you from being hit by an asteroid." - philofthenorth

by KeepItCopacetic on Dec 9, 2011 11:19 AM EST up reply actions  

Q.E.D.

"Things could always be worse." - Buddy Bell

by buddyball on Dec 9, 2011 11:12 AM EST up reply actions  

Tiquan

Did they mention your gramps in “Get in the Ring?”

Is your dad Mick Wall? Bob Guccione, Jr.?

by Rufus R. Jones on Dec 9, 2011 1:17 PM EST up reply actions  

First of all it is tiquan

There shall be no capitals. My dad is not Mick Wall, my dad is Alex Gordon

BFIB

by tiquanunderwear on Dec 9, 2011 2:37 PM EST up reply actions  

He's dead now

maybe he could go in posthumously

BFIB

by tiquanunderwear on Dec 9, 2011 12:53 PM EST up reply actions  

AL inter divisional records from 2007 to 2011

East
vs East
0.500
vs Central
0.567
vs West
0.520

Central
vs East
0.433
vs Central
0.500
vs West
0.498

West
vs East
0.480
vs Central
0.502
vs West
0.500

Basically the East is the best will the West the next best with the Central just behind them

Doubting Thomas, the patron saint of sabermetrics

by Jeff Zimmerman on Dec 9, 2011 8:59 AM EST reply actions  

HUGUENOT! There is a Huguenot on our board!

I despise the Huguenots, they are the lowest of the low. I demand that we excommunicate him posthaste!

talk to me, Johnny...

by johnny4 on Dec 9, 2011 11:23 AM EST up reply actions  

Royals overall winning percentage 2006-2011 = .420

Maybe you should have titled this article “The Rest of The Weak AL Central Isn’t Weak, It’s Average.”

by Gopherballs on Dec 9, 2011 11:36 AM EST up reply actions  

3rd out of 3 isn't very average

Jeff didn’t post numbers for the NL

by kcdc1 on Dec 9, 2011 2:26 PM EST up reply actions  

David Glass knows how to get the most out of $50,000
“It is not unusual for a single Wal-Mart buyer earning $50,000 a year to handle $1 billion worth of business, which helps to explain why around 200 major suppliers have built their own offices in Bentonville…”

-excerpt from “100 Great Businesses and the Minds Behind Them,” p.266.

by Rufus R. Jones on Dec 9, 2011 2:31 PM EST reply actions  

No Glass just figures his "Business" *wink wink*

Is worth $1billion.
So we are going to pay someone $50,000 to hold it for him while he pees

"We don’t have guys with a long history of being effective in the seventh and eighth innings."
~Trey Hillman, master of understatements.

by RoyalPug on Dec 9, 2011 5:04 PM EST up reply actions  

I've seen their operation in Bentonville

Well, the outside of it anyway. Wal-Mart facilities sprawl all across town. There are strip malls and office buildings everywhere with signs for every kind of brand name you can think of, but none of it is retail. It’s all offices for the $50,000 buyers, who have to be located in Bentonville if their company expects to sell to Wal-Mart. Weird deal.

by Tito42 on Dec 9, 2011 10:21 PM EST up reply actions  

This post comes off more as a fanpost than something written by a site manager.

It’s such a weak division. Sure, the Tigers won 95 games in 2011, which is awesome, but using that to claim the division is not weak is misleading. The Tigers only NEEDED to win 81 games to win the division. Woof. No other team won even 50% of their games. That’s a pretty weak showing.

Going by 2nd place +1W would be a better showing of how tough a division is because it shows how many games are actually needed to win it. Like with any of these numbers games, there’s flaws, but I think this makes more sense than looking at just the best teams’ wins. 2nd best shows competition within the division.

ALE – 92
ALC – 81
ALW – 87
NLE – 90
NLC – 91
NLW – 87

That was just 2011, but for the 3 seasons prior to that, the Royals are not the worst but are still in the bottom half of 6 divisions in each of those seasons when looking at 2nd place +1W.

Am I the only one flagging this guy?
Seriously, do we have to wait for the money shot or a "F*** THE SOXXXXXX!" before we ban him? Doubleteapot… BAN HIM!!

by AlohaSox on Sep 28, 2011 10:20 PM CDT

by SandalsNoPants on Dec 11, 2011 12:22 PM EST reply actions  

Sorry if this was mentioned earlier in the thread

but I think two issues might be getting confused here: a) the relative “strength” (the quality of its teams relative to the other divisions in the AL) of the AL Central; and b) how many wins it takes to win the division.

Making watching baseball as fun as doing your taxes.
My Twitter feed.
Before getting tweaked, read up on regression.

by Matt Klaassen on Dec 11, 2011 8:05 PM EST reply actions  

From My Understanding,

The new alignment and more balanced schedule will make this easier to evaluate.

I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.

by philofthenorth on Dec 11, 2011 9:14 PM EST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Kansas City Royals.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Royalsretro_small
Would Royals Review Make Better Decisions Than Dayton Moore?
Funny-tattoos-hey-look-they-found-a-royals-fan_small
Mitch On the Bench
Royalsretro_small
Happy Mother's Day From Royals Review

Recent FanPosts

Dignan_small
Friday Game 43 Open Thread
Funny-tattoos-hey-look-they-found-a-royals-fan_small
MORE Mitch on the Bench
Sexy-beast-original_small
OT Friday: The generic boilerplate template desert island gambit
Tumblr_lwfiy4qkgv1r204zxo1_500_small
RR Poetry Contest
Small
Extrapolating the First 43 Games over the Full Season
Small
Is Dave Eiland doing ... anything?
Small
Alcides Escobar's Bat
Download_small
Was Dayton Moore Right on Bruce Chen?
Chalmers2_small
2012 Royals vs 2012 Ex-Royals

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Yahoo_full_count

Managers

Cimg0036_small Freneau

Editors

Dayton_small Jeff Zimmerman

Authors

Royalsretro_small RoyalsRetro

Headshot_small Old Man Duggan