Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Strength of schedule

Strength of schedule () is a in that quantifies the relative difficulty of a team's opponents over the course of a season, typically derived from the collective winning percentages or ratings of those opponents. This measure adjusts for disparities in competition levels, ensuring that a team's record is contextualized against the quality of opposition faced, rather than treated in isolation. In professional and collegiate sports, SOS plays a critical role in evaluations for rankings, playoff seeding, and tie-breaking procedures. For instance, in the (), it is defined as the combined won-lost-tied percentage of a team's opponents and serves as a key after factors like head-to-head results and conference records, helping determine division standings and wild-card berths. Similarly, in the (), SOS ratings are expressed in points above or below league average (with zero indicating average difficulty) and inform power rankings and postseason considerations by accounting for schedule variance. In , the NCAA uses SOS—ranked among all Division I teams based on opponents' win percentages—to assess tournament eligibility for March Madness, where teams with excessively weak schedules may face scrutiny despite strong records. Calculations of SOS vary by league but generally involve aggregating opponent data, often iteratively to include opponents' opponents for deeper context. A positive SOS value indicates a tougher schedule than average, while a negative value suggests an easier one; for example, in NCAA men's from 2010 to 2018, teams with the top-five strongest schedules rarely advanced far in the , highlighting that balanced difficulty often correlates with success. This metric's importance extends to , where it helps forecast remaining season performance and evaluates coaching or roster effectiveness independent of luck in draw.

Overview

Definition

Strength of schedule (SOS) is a statistical metric employed in competitive sports to quantify the relative difficulty of a team's or player's opponents, determined by evaluating the performance records of those opponents. This measure provides context for a team's results by for the quality of faced, helping to differentiate between strong performances against tough schedules and potentially inflated records against weaker ones. Key components of SOS typically include the win-loss records of all opponents encountered, though variations may incorporate point differentials between teams or broader performance ratings such as those derived from metrics or historical data. In leagues like the , it is calculated as the combined of every opponent faced, regardless of the outcome of those games. SOS is distinct from strength of victory (SOV), which focuses exclusively on the winning percentages of opponents that a team has actually defeated, emphasizing the quality of wins rather than the overall schedule rigor. For instance, a with many losses to weak opponents would have a high SOS (indicating an easy schedule) but a low SOV, whereas the reverse holds for a that loses to strong teams but beats few. A basic formulation of SOS is the average winning percentage of all opponents faced, often expressed as a decimal or ranked relative to the league average. To illustrate, consider a simple four-team league (A, B, C, D) in a single format, with final records: A (3-0, .750 ), B (2-1, .667), C (1-2, .333), and D (0-3, .000). For Team A, opponents were B (.667), C (.333), and D (.000), yielding an SOS of (.667 + .333 + .000) / 3 ≈ .333, indicating a relatively easy schedule compared to the league average of .500.

Historical Context

The concept of strength of schedule emerged in the early as a means to evaluate team performance beyond simple win-loss records, with its first prominent application in rankings during . The Dickinson System, developed by University of economics professor Frank G. Dickinson in 1926 and widely used through the 1940s, was one of the earliest formalized methods to incorporate opponent quality into rankings. This system divided teams into divisions based on winning percentages and awarded points for wins, losses, and ties that adjusted for the strength of opponents, such as 30 points for a win against a top-division team versus 20 for a lower-division one, thereby emphasizing tougher schedules in final ratings. Although the launched its inaugural poll in 1936—a human-voted that implicitly considered schedule difficulty through voter judgment—the Dickinson System remained influential in for providing a mathematical basis that explicitly factored in strength of schedule to determine . By the , strength of schedule gained traction in professional football as the expanded and sought to balance competition through scheduling practices. Amid league growth from 26 to 28 teams between 1967 and 1976, the implemented scheduling formulas aimed at equalizing opponent difficulty, using prior-season records to construct more equitable slates and address debates over uneven schedules. This marked a key milestone in applying the metric to pro football operations, including as a for playoff seeding starting in 2002. The metric expanded to basketball in the 1980s and 1990s, particularly through the (RPI) in tournaments. Introduced in and developed by the NCAA Men's Basketball Committee around 1980, the RPI combined a team's (25% weight) with its opponents' (50%) and opponents' opponents' (25%), providing a direct adjustment for strength to aid in selection and . Widely adopted by the NCAA from until its replacement in 2018, it became a for evaluating teams in a with diverse schedules. In 2018, the NCAA replaced RPI with the (Number, Efficiency, Team) metric, which refines strength evaluation by incorporating adjusted efficiency margins and quality of wins/losses. Analysts like Jeff Sagarin played a pivotal role in popularizing strength of schedule via computer-based ratings starting in the . A 1970 MIT mathematics graduate, Sagarin began publishing his predictive models in 1972 through , leveraging early computing to generate rankings that inherently accounted for opponent quality by iteratively adjusting team ratings against their schedules. His systems, later featured in from 1985 and incorporated into BCS computer polls from 1998 to 2013, helped mainstream quantitative approaches to SOS across multiple sports. In the post-2000s era, strength of schedule evolved with the rise of advanced analytics, integrating granular data beyond win percentages. Sports analytics firms like Pro Football Focus, founded in 2007, began incorporating SOS into sophisticated metrics such as player grades and team efficiency ratings, using play-by-play data to refine opponent adjustments and provide deeper performance insights. This shift aligned with broader trends in sports data science, enhancing the metric's precision in evaluating true competitive contexts.

Computation Methods

Basic Formulas

The basic method for computing strength of schedule () in sports uses the average of a 's opponents, providing a simple gauge of schedule difficulty based on opponents' overall success. This approach treats each opponent's record as a proxy for their strength, assuming stronger opponents have higher winning percentages. To derive the SOS, first compute the (WP) for each opponent as their number of wins divided by total games played; then sum these WPs and divide by the number of games the team has played. The formula is: \text{SOS} = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \text{WP}_i where n is the number of games and \text{WP}_i is the of the i-th opponent. For example, consider a team that plays three opponents with winning percentages of 0.600, 0.400, and 0.500. The is 1.500, and dividing by 3 yields an SOS of 0.500. This value indicates an average schedule difficulty, as it matches the league's typical winning percentage. Basic formulas like this do not account for home-field advantage or other contextual factors, treating all games equally regardless of location. They also do not incorporate margins of victory, focusing solely on win-loss outcomes. Despite their simplicity, these basic formulas have limitations, as they undervalue wins against high-quality opponents by relying only on binary win-loss outcomes without accounting for margins of or game context.

Advanced Models

Advanced models for strength of schedule (SOS) extend beyond simple averages by integrating dynamic rating systems, outcome-based weights, statistical regressions, and simulation techniques to account for complexities like margins of , interdependencies among teams, and schedule imbalances. These approaches aim to produce more precise and context-aware measures, often iteratively refining estimates across an entire or . Integration with rating systems like or methods allows SOS to be embedded within broader team strength evaluations. In the system, adapted from chess for team sports, ratings update after each game based on the expected outcome derived from rating differences, with the probability of team A beating team B given by P(A > B) = \frac{1}{1 + 10^{(r_B - r_A)/400}}, where r_A and r_B are ratings; this inherently incorporates SOS as the average rating of opponents faced, since victories over stronger teams yield larger rating gains. For instance, FiveThirtyEight's Elo model computes SOS by averaging opponents' Elo ratings, adjusting for home-field advantage and recent performance to reflect schedule difficulty dynamically. Similarly, can refine SOS by estimating opponents' true strength from point differentials via \text{Expected Win\%} = \frac{\text{RS}^k}{\text{RS}^k + \text{RA}^k}, where RS is runs/points scored, RA allowed, and k ≈ 1.83 for or 2 for , then weighting opponent ratings accordingly to adjust for margin-influenced performance. Weighted SOS formulas further enhance accuracy by factoring in game results and margins, rather than treating all opponents equally. A representative method, as in the Simple Rating System (), defines a team's overall as SRS = (average point differential) + SOS, where SOS is the iteratively computed average of opponents' SRS values; point differentials incorporate margins, effectively weighting stronger performances against tough schedules more heavily. In practice, this yields SOS values that rise for teams facing high-SRS opponents, with margins capped (e.g., at ±24 points in ) to prevent outliers from skewing results. Another variant weights opponent contributions by outcome, such as assigning full credit to losses against strong teams (weight 1.0) and partial to wins (weight 0.5), in the form SOS = \sum (opponent\ \times weight), emphasizing the difficulty of unfavorable results. Regression-based approaches, particularly methods, model through linear equations that predict margins while solving for team s and schedule effects simultaneously. Massey's seminal framework posits that the margin in game y_{ij} between teams i and j follows y_{ij} = r_i - r_j + \epsilon, where r_i is team i's ; solving the normal equations X^T X \mathbf{r} = X^T \mathbf{y} (with X as the of games) yields s where each r_i = average margin + average opponent (), iteratively adjusting for league-wide interdependencies. Extensions include variables like opponent win percentage and average margin in a _i = \beta_0 + \beta_1 \times \text{OppWin%} + \beta_2 \times \text{Margin} + \epsilon, enabling predictions that balance schedule strength, conference play, and outcome variability; for example, Massey's method has been applied to , producing s that correlate strongly with postseason success. To handle imbalances in schedules, such as unequal fixtures in international soccer where teams play 6–10 qualifiers of varying difficulty, simulations generate thousands of "what-if" scenarios by randomly sampling outcomes based on current ratings and remaining opponents, estimating adjusted and final standings probabilistically. This approach, detailed in models for concluding interrupted leagues, simulates full schedules to normalize differences, revealing, for instance, that a team with fewer but tougher games may have an equivalent to one with more balanced but easier fixtures after 10,000 iterations. In soccer contexts like qualification, such simulations complement Elo-based rankings by quantifying uncertainty from uneven match counts.

Applications

In Rankings and Seeding

Strength of schedule (SOS) plays a crucial role in power rankings by adjusting raw win-loss records to account for the relative difficulty of a team's opponents, ensuring that accomplishments are contextualized fairly. In men's basketball, the NCAA Evaluation Tool () incorporates SOS as a key component within its adjusted net efficiency metric, which evaluates a team's performance against the expected efficiency based on opponent strength and game location (home, away, or neutral). This adjustment rewards teams for strong showings against tougher schedules, influencing overall team ratings used by the selection committee for tournament and at-large bids. In playoff seeding, SOS is frequently employed to resolve ties and determine postseason positions. The () has utilized as a tiebreaker since the 1970 merger, calculating it as the combined winning percentage of all opponents' regular-season records; it serves as the sixth step in divisional ties (after head-to-head, division record, common games, conference record, and strength of victory) and the fifth step in wild-card scenarios involving teams from different divisions. During the (BCS) era from 1998 to 2013, significantly influenced at-large bowl bids and selection, initially as a standalone component weighted at one-third of the formula alongside polls and computers (from 2002 to 2010) and later embedded within computer rankings that comprised one-third of the total standings; this helped prioritize teams with challenging schedules for the 10-12 spots in BCS bowls. In the current era (as of 2024), the selection committee qualitatively considers in evaluating teams for seeding and inclusion, though without a fixed formula. In European soccer, UEFA's club coefficients rank teams based on performance in prior European competitions to determine in the , aggregating points from wins, draws, and progression bonuses over five seasons, with the higher of the club's total or 20% of its association's coefficient used; this performance-based system indirectly rewards sustained success against strong opponents by assigning favorable pots, affecting draw restrictions and matchups. The incorporation of SOS enhances fairness in rankings by preventing teams from being penalized for tough schedules or rewarded for weak ones, as illustrated in the 2004-05 Big East Conference men's basketball season. There, Boston College finished 13-3 in conference play (tied for first) but benefited from a strong overall SOS, elevating its NCAA Tournament seeding (No. 5 seed) over teams like Pittsburgh (26-5 overall but 10-6 in conference with a weaker schedule), highlighting how SOS adjusted for schedule difficulty to promote equitable postseason access.

In Performance Analysis

Strength of schedule (SOS) plays a key role in retrospective performance analysis by normalizing raw statistics to account for the relative difficulty of opponents faced, enabling fairer comparisons across teams or players. In the NFL, for instance, expected points added (EPA) per play is often adjusted by dividing the raw EPA by an SOS factor derived from opponents' defensive efficiencies, which isolates a team's true offensive or defensive performance from schedule variance. This adjustment reveals underlying talent more accurately; a 2020 analysis demonstrated that opponent-adjusted offensive EPA better predicted future season success than unadjusted metrics. Similarly, yards per game can be normalized using SOS multipliers based on opponent run or pass defense rankings, highlighting whether strong stats resulted from talent or an easy slate. In predictive modeling, SOS is incorporated to forecast future outcomes by projecting schedule difficulty into player or team projections, particularly in fantasy sports and betting applications. Analysts use linear regression models where historical performance is weighted by past SOS and future opponents' projected strengths, adjusting expected fantasy points for position-specific matchups like quarterback versus pass defenses. For example, platforms rank remaining schedules by averaging opponents' points allowed to wide receivers, with a favorable SOS (ranked 1-8) potentially boosting projections by 10-20% over neutral slates in simulations. This approach enhances accuracy in weekly start/sit decisions and season-long drafts, as evidenced by backtested models showing 5-8% better prediction rates for player totals when SOS is factored in. Across other sports, SOS adjustments refine individual performance metrics in advanced models for MLB and the NBA. In baseball, some proposed models adjust components of (), such as scaling strikeouts and home runs for opponent quality, to prevent inflation from weaker lineups; a study applied this to FIP-based WAR, altering seasonal values by 0.5-1.0 wins for select pitchers, though standard WAR does not include such opponent-specific adjustments. In , advanced efficiency metrics like Regularized Adjusted Plus-Minus (RAPM) normalize player contributions against opponent defensive strength, estimating points per 100 possessions added relative to average defenses encountered. These adjustments, which account for lineup-specific opponent ratings, have shown to correlate 20-30% higher with playoff performance than raw plus-minus stats. The granularity of SOS analysis has advanced since the 2010s, relying on comprehensive play-by-play datasets that enable situation-specific adjustments, such as offensive EPA against run versus pass . Public repositories like nflfastR provide play-by-play records from 1999 onward, updated nightly, allowing analysts to compute per-play opponent strengths for over 50,000 events per season. This data foundation supports hyper-detailed SOS factors, like a team's difficulty by red-zone run (e.g., yards per carry allowed), improving adjustment precision in both retrospective and predictive contexts.

Criticisms and Alternatives

Limitations

One significant limitation of strength of schedule (SOS) metrics arises from schedule imbalances, particularly the difficulty in quantifying elements of luck in opponent draws and the fixed nature of intra-league matchups. In the , for instance, each team plays six divisional games that remain unaffected by prior-year finishes, which limits overall schedule variability and can create inherent advantages or disadvantages based on divisional strength rather than merit. Teams in stronger divisions, such as the 2014 (38-25-1 record), face tougher paths compared to those in weaker ones like the (22-41-1), yet SOS calculations struggle to fully isolate this "luck" factor from team quality, as only a small portion of games (32 out of 256) adjusts based on previous standings. SOS metrics often exhibit a backward-looking , relying heavily on opponents' records from prior seasons, which fails to capture mid-season performance shifts and leads to inaccuracies in dynamic leagues like soccer. In the SOS based on the previous year's win-loss records explains only 5.7% of actual in-season SOS variance since , with even lower (3.9% R²) in recent years, highlighting how roster changes, injuries, and momentum are overlooked. Similarly, in soccer leagues such as the , unbalanced schedules exacerbate this by creating biases in win ratios due to unequal matchups, distorting competitive balance assessments. Another challenge is the overemphasis on average opponent strength, which neglects the timing of tough games—such as clustering strong opponents early versus late in the season—and can introduce substantial variance in evaluations. In NCAA football, traditional SOS methods using prior-year records fail to account for current-season improvements in opponents, leading to misrated schedules; for example, in 2014, teams like and dramatically outperformed their previous records (from 4-8 and 3-9 to 12-1 and 10-3), yet SOS credited schedules based on outdated data, contributing to flawed playoff considerations. Studies from the , including analyses of BCS metrics, reveal reduced variance in rankings (infrequent changes despite schedule differences), underscoring how timing unaddressed can alter perceived difficulty. Data quality issues further undermine SOS reliability, especially when relying on incomplete historical records or pre-2000s statistics lacking advanced tracking. In , self-referential computations like the RPI in propagate inconsistencies from incomplete opponent data, while historical MLB examples before show near-identical SOS totals across leagues despite differing opponent qualities due to isolated records. Internationally, soccer's fragmented historical databases often omit detailed match contexts, amplifying errors in cross-league comparisons and reducing the metric's precision for long-term analysis.

Alternative Metrics

One alternative to traditional strength of schedule (SOS) metrics is strength of victory (SOV), which exclusively evaluates the quality of a team's wins by averaging the winning percentages of the opponents it has defeated, rather than considering all games played. This approach, formalized as \text{SOV} = \frac{\sum \text{winning percentage of defeated opponents}}{\text{number of wins}}, highlights the relative strength of victories while ignoring losses, providing a more focused measure of offensive or competitive prowess compared to SOS's holistic inclusion of schedule difficulty. SOV is particularly useful in tiebreaking scenarios, such as in the , where it prioritizes teams that have beaten stronger opponents. Systems incorporating margin of victory (MoV) adjustments offer another complementary metric, refining rankings by accounting for the scale of wins and losses to penalize excessive blowouts and reward competitive performances. For instance, Colley's method derives team ratings through a least-squares approach that starts with a basic form r = \frac{w - l}{g + c}, where w is wins, l is losses, g is games played, and c is a constant (often 2) to reduce home-field bias and schedule effects, though it primarily uses win-loss data without direct MoV. Extensions and similar systems, like Massey's least-squares ratings, explicitly integrate MoV by translating score differences into a probability scale (0 to 1) via a game outcome function, which applies to large margins—effectively penalizing blowouts by limiting additional credit beyond a certain , such as treating a 30-point win similarly to a closer victory in . This adjustment promotes fairness by discouraging "running up the score" while still capturing intensity relative to opponents. Holistic rating systems provide broader alternatives where SOS serves as one component among multiple factors, enabling more comprehensive evaluations. The Massey system, for example, simultaneously computes ratings and strength using a that balances , , and opponent quality, yielding an integrated SOS value as the average adjusted opponent rating. Similarly, Microsoft's employs to update skill estimates after each match, modeling player or performance as Gaussian distributions and incorporating opponent strength through probabilistic comparisons of expected versus actual outcomes, which implicitly adjusts for difficulty via iterative posterior updates without isolating SOS. These methods excel in dynamic environments like or multi- by handling and partial results, such as draws. In the 2020s, emerging -based alternatives have advanced schedule difficulty assessments by leveraging neural networks to analyze game logs for non-linear patterns, surpassing linear SOS models in predictive accuracy. For example, frameworks applied to data use convolutional neural networks and transformers to forecast win percentages, integrating historical performance, opponent interactions, and schedule variables to generate contextual difficulty scores that adapt to complex interactions like fatigue or matchup specifics. For instance, a 2025 study on win prediction found models incorporating schedule variables outperformed traditional approaches like . These models offer advantages in scalability for large datasets but require substantial computational resources.

References

  1. [1]
    Explaining college basketball's strength of schedule - NCAA.com
    Jan 16, 2019 · Strength of schedule measures the difficulty of a team's schedule, based on the win percentage of that team's opponents.
  2. [2]
    Glossary | Basketball-Reference.com
    SOS - Strength of Schedule; a rating of strength of schedule. The rating is denominated in points above/below average, where zero is average. A positive ...
  3. [3]
    NFL Tie-breaking Procedures | NFL Football Operations
    Strength of schedule; Best combined ranking among conference teams in points ... sport for future generations of fans, players, coaches, teams and officials.
  4. [4]
    Calculating Strength of Schedule - DRatings
    Aug 31, 2021 · This system takes the sum of the team's opponent's records and multiplies by two. It then adds that number to the team's opponent's opponent's record and ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  5. [5]
    NFL Football Power Index 2025 - ESPN
    The Football Power Index (FPI) is a measure of team strength that is meant to be the best predictor of a team's performance going forward for the rest of the ...
  6. [6]
    Strength Of Schedule (SOS) Explained - NBAstuffer
    Strength Of Schedule (SOS) represents a team's average schedule difficulty faced by each team in the games that it's played so far or for all season.Missing: definition - | Show results with:definition -
  7. [7]
    What is strength of victory in the NFL? Exploring the method used to ...
    May 31, 2024 · The strength of victory is effectively the composite record of teams defeated by a franchise. It is calculated by combining the winning percentage of the ...
  8. [8]
    Strength of Victory vs. Strength of Schedule: What's the Difference?
    Strength of Schedule measures how tough a team's opponents were over the course of the season. It's calculated using the combined record of all opponents a team ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
  9. [9]
    Before the AP poll, the Dickinson System ruled college football ...
    Nov 8, 2020 · The Dickinson System came out 10 years before the AP poll. Dickinson's formula was one of the first accepted ways for college football to find out who its best ...
  10. [10]
    The Dickinson System: How an Econ Prof determined the National ...
    Jul 15, 2011 · The strength of your opponent was a huge factor in the Dickinson system. A loss against a 'first division' team earned you 15 points, while a ...
  11. [11]
    1970-75, 76-94, 95-98 & 99-2001 formulas...
    Nov 18, 2008 · For years the NFL had been seeking a more easily understood and balanced schedule that would provide both competitive equality and a variety of ...
  12. [12]
    The NCAA Is Modernizing The Way It Picks March Madness Teams
    Feb 15, 2017 · Developed in 1980 by statistician Jim Van Valkenburg, the RPI was originally intended to adjust a team's record for its strength of schedule, a ...
  13. [13]
    BCS computer poll creators look back: Sagarin, Colley and more
    Jul 11, 2018 · When Pro Football Weekly bought the right to publish Sagarin's ratings in 1972 on the path to the mainstream, a trail had been blazed for many ...
  14. [14]
    [PDF] Statistical Models Applied to the Rating of Sports Teams
    The combination of consistency, precision, and speed makes fixed point iteration the method of choice for this rating model application. Change of Variables.
  15. [15]
    Introducing NFL Elo Ratings | FiveThirtyEight - Politics News
    Sep 4, 2014 · You'll find our initial Elo ratings for all 32 NFL teams (at this point, the ratings are based on a team's standing at the end of last season, discounted ...
  16. [16]
    SRS Calculation Details - Sports-Reference.com
    Mar 3, 2015 · The important thing to know is that SRS is a rating that takes into account average point differential and strength of schedule. ... It weights ...
  17. [17]
    How to Conclude a Suspended Sports League? - PubsOnLine
    Jun 18, 2024 · Next, in Section 6, we use Monte Carlo simulation to evaluate our models. We show that not only do the shortened seasons produced by our ...
  18. [18]
    College basketball's NET rankings, explained | NCAA.com
    May 6, 2025 · The Ratings Power Index (RPI) was made up of three components: ... The strength of schedule is based on rating every game on a team's schedule ...
  19. [19]
    NFL Tiebreaking Procedures | NFL.com
    Strength of victory in all games. Strength of schedule in all games; Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed in all ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
  20. [20]
    Untying the standings: the history of the NFL playoff tiebreaker systems
    Dec 27, 2018 · Initially, NFL tiebreakers used head-to-head games, then one-game playoffs. Later, multiple methods were used, including head-to-head, division ...
  21. [21]
    [PDF] BCS HISTORICAL RECORDS GUIDE 2014-15 EDITION - Amazon S3
    Oct 16, 2017 · strength of schedule, a fifth component, “quality wins,” was added to the standings formula. Teams with regular-season victories over ...
  22. [22]
    How club coefficients are calculated | UEFA rankings - UEFA.com
    UEFA calculates the coefficient of each club each season based on the clubs' results in the UEFA Champions League, UEFA Europa League and UEFA Conference League ...
  23. [23]
    2004-05 Men's Big East Conference Season Summary
    2004-05 Men's Big East Conference Season Summary ; Record: 224-143, .610 W-L% (3rd of 32) (Records do not reflect forfeits and vacated games) ; SRS: 11.42 (3rd of ...
  24. [24]
    Adjusting EPA for Strength of Opponent - Open Source Football
    Aug 19, 2020 · This article shows how to adjust a team's EPA per play for the strength of their opponent. The benefits of adjusted EPA will be demonstrated as well!
  25. [25]
    https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/conferences/big-east/men/2005.html
  26. [26]
    Fantasy Football Strength of Schedule (SOS) - FantasyPros
    What is fantasy Strength of Schedule? Each team's Strength of Schedule (SOS) displays the relative ease or difficulty of their matchups for the season.
  27. [27]
    Adjusting components for pitcher opposition - Beyond the Box Score
    Nov 8, 2013 · In a sense, we'll look at adjusting the events that a pitcher can control: walks, hit batters, home runs, and strikeouts. It happens that these ...
  28. [28]
    nbarapm.com - an NBA stats website
    These impact metrics attempt to measure how a player impacts the game in points per 100 relative to an average player. RAPM is rubberband adjusted by quarter, ...
  29. [29]
    nflfastR: Functions to Efficiently Access NFL Play by Play Data
    These data sets include play-by-play data of complete seasons going back to 1999 and are updated nightly during the season. The files contain both regular ...
  30. [30]
    Detailed NFL Play-by-Play Data 2009-2018 - Kaggle
    nflscrapR generated NFL dataset wiith expected points and win probability.
  31. [31]
    Limitations of strength of schedule for predicting NFL teams' success
    Sep 7, 2015 · Strength of schedule has become a go-to tool for predicting an NFL team's chances at making the postseason, but it has its own flaws and ...
  32. [32]
    Ignore Virtually All Offseason NFL Strength of Schedule Information
    Feb 13, 2018 · If we define strength of schedule as opponent's combined W/L rate (the traditional method), only 5.7% of a team's actual strength of ...<|separator|>
  33. [33]
    Unbalanced schedules and the estimation of competitive balance in ...
    Aug 6, 2025 · This paper applies a simple log-probability rule to calculate a set of adjusted win ratios correcting for this inherent bias. Such an adjustment ...
  34. [34]
    https://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/analysis/ignore-virtually-all-offseason-nfl-strength-of-schedule-information/
  35. [35]
    Improving strength of schedule metrics in sports scheduling
    Aug 22, 2025 · We identify limitations of the widely used Bowl Championship Series (BCS) SoS metric, including infrequent rank changes and reduced variance, ...
  36. [36]
    How to Measure and Compute Strength of Schedule - The Data Jocks
    Dec 3, 2022 · “A harder strength of schedule means that my opponents won more games in total than your opponents did.” This definition doesn't work because ...
  37. [37]
    [PDF] Colley's Bias Free College Football Ranking Method
    The scheme adjusts effectively for strength of schedule, in a way that is free of bias toward conference, tradition, or region. Comparison of rankings produced ...Missing: sports | Show results with:sports
  38. [38]
    Massey Ratings Description
    The difficulty of each team's schedule is measured in the Sched column. It depends on the quality of each opponent, adjusted for the homefield advantage. More ...
  39. [39]
    https://www.colleyrankings.com/matrate.pdf
  40. [40]
    None
    ### Summary of TrueSkill: Description, Bayesian Updates, and Relation to Opponent Strength