Hank is right ... kind of (or almost?)

I just got done reading Hank's thoughts in the most recent edition of The Sporting News. I don't disagree with his idea that the top 4 teams from each league should go to the playoffs. However, I do disagree that it's as simple as sending the teams with the four best records from each league to the playoffs. That doesn't solve the problem.

This season, the Yankees went 21-19 in 40 games against teams from the AL Central, 18-14 in 32 games against teams from the AL West, 10-8 in interleague games and are 38-31 (with 3 games left against the Red Sox) against the AL East. At the end of the season, the Yankees will have played 72 (of 162) games against their AL East brethren. That's 4 out of every 9 (or 44.4%, and, yes, the 4's keep repeating) against 4 of the 29 other MLB teams. They are averaging 18 games against teams in their division and just 8 against the other AL teams.

Baltimore is 21-49 against the other teams in the AL East. The Orioles are 46-43 against everyone else. The two top teams in the AL Central have identical 45-45 records against teams outside of their divisions. Detroit is the only AL Central team with a winning record outside the division (Cleveland also has a 45-45 mark). The Angels have winning records against the East, Central, West and NL.

The Angels, Rays, Red Sox and Yankees are the four AL teams with winning records against each division in the AL and against the NL. The Twins and White Sox have been handled by the AL East and the Cleveland Indians are .500 in their division and 6 games under in interleague play (how'd that happen?).

Based on record, the Yankees would be right in it this year. What if we got rid of interleague play (especially of the unbalanced variety) and balanced out the schedule? I'm going to throw out interleague play because the competition isn't readily comparable. I'm going to compute the win % for each team against the AL East, Central and West. Then, I'm going to add the three numbers together and divide the sum by 3.

Rays: .591
Red Sox: .607
Yankees: .546
Twins: .486
White Sox: .514
Indians: .528
Angels: .629

Interestingly, the Angels have been slightly better against the AL East than the AL West this year (emphasis on slightly ... and I'm not saying that it means the AL West is stronger than the AL East!). The Angels are good. The Red Sox and Rays are right behind them. Did you see who's leading the AL Central? The Indians (although, I threw out the interleague games and the difference in those games is the same as the separation between the Twins/White Sox and the Indians). But, based on this, maybe the AL East should have three teams in the playoffs?!?

Obviously, it's not "fair" to make adjustments like this when determining playoff teams. And, I didn't take into account that there are 4 AL West teams and 5 in each the Central and East. And, because no one is actually going to use this for anything, I won't take the time (maybe Roy will once he's finished with his PhD?). But, the point is, the number of games you have against each team does matter - and I don't think anyone would debate that.

So, if you want to have a postseason with the four most deserving teams from each league (I won't say "best" because injuries throughout the year can derail the "best" team and keep them from posting the best record), you need to balance the schedule (at least within the constraints of scheduling) and take the four teams with the best records. However, if you don't balance the schedule, taking the teams with the four best records doesn't guarantee you get the teams that play the best throughout the season. The Twins might end up with 1 more win than the Yankee this year, but Minnesota did that by torching the AL Central. They had a losing record against both the AL East and the AL West. I have nothing against the Twins, but they aren't going to be playing anyone from the AL Central in the playoffs!