Small sample can kill the hardiest sabermetrician this time of year. But it's interesting to look at overall divisions, where the samples are now getting sizable.

The Weak, er, West divisions both look wide open. No team in either division has better than a +10 run diff. Most of the teams are bobbing around breakeven or slightly below. Looks like just about any team could win, though Oakland (-20) has to be the biggest disappointment so far.

Much as I hate to agree on this, the Yanks seem like the class of the AL East. The Red Sox are riding their luck in close contests (+7 run diff, 5-1 in one-run games) but can it last?

Detroit (+22) is a semi-surprise in the AL Central. They could run the White Sox a decent race. The Mets (+29) are playing well and nobody in their division looks all that hot. Unsurprisingly, St. Louis (+16) and Houston (+20) are emerging as the frontrunners in the NL Central.

Now that I mention small sample, it looks like the super-robust offense of the season's first few days is cooling off. After a modest weekend of run scoring, the average is now down to 10.2 runs per game. Sprightly but not that far out of line with other recent Aprils. So much for all those theories, including mine.

Agree with what you said in the beginning of the first post, in which you note that small sample size can kill the hardiest sabermetrician...and yet you continue by knocking the Red Sox for their 5-1 one-run game record and poor run differential, while praising the Yanks for their hardy differential. Kind of a contradiction, isn't it? At this point it's almost entirely luck, with bullpen strength playing a major role as well. Boston's 3.54 bullpen ERA has to factor in here somewhere; I would imagine that based on individual statistic's, New York's is far weaker beyond one or two of their key arms. In the long run, though, these numbers mean very little because the Yankee run differential will probably remain similar throughout the season; while I expect their team ERA to rise well above 3.8, their runs scored will increase as well. As for Boston, aside from playing better teams up to this point...well, their offensive struggles don't really need an explanation, everyone knows about Manny, Trot (briefly) and Crisp. Also, I would point out that while they have given up only 62 ER in 147 innings, only the Angels, Orioles, Rays, and Royals have allowed more unearned runs then the Yankees' nine, while Boston has allowed only 6 in 2 extra games.

My point here is that it's too soon to make win-loss projections based on current numbers, especially in terms of run differential. Think about it this way: At this point in the season, a single laugher will completely skew the numbers. If Boston goes out and beats Cleveland 11-2 tomorrow, their differential suddenly jumps to +16, and things look a whole lot different in the AL East. By the same token, if Tampa Bay somehow beat the Yankees 11-2...well, you see my point. I think based on individual performances and age/injury considerations, both Boston and NY are still too close to call, and the same goes for virtually every other division. Detroit's differential is skewed in large part by that ridiculous Chris Shelton run, and Chicago's by Jim Thome's runs-scored streak. Again, point well made about limited sample size killing sabermetrics...but remember to keep that in mind when looking at things like differential.

Josh, I agree with your whole post except for this:

"As for Boston, aside from playing better teams up to this point..."

Really?! The Yanks have played Oakland, the Angels, Twins and Toronto on the road. The Sox have had an easier schedule. Even, the most die-hard of Sox fans acknowledge this. Maybe I'm misunderstanding that part of your post?

Last year at this stage of the season the White Sox were already 8-1 in one-run games (and 14-4 overall). They are getting it done differently this year.

OK hear me out here...this might be sort of a stretch. When I said Boston had the tougher schedule...well I'm not sure what I was thinking. In terms of what we expect the rankings to look like at the end of the year...New York certainly had the harder start. BUT, if you look at what teams have been doing over the month of April...things get a little cloudy, and I think this is why I made that original statement. In terms of total offense, Boston has actually had the more difficult schedule, as hard as it may be to believe. Tampa, Texas, Toronto, (Who Boston played 4 more times then NY had to)...all have scored more runs then Minnesota, Oakland, Anaheim, and Kansas City. Seattle, too, has put up better numbers then KC, Oakland, and Minnesota. Now again, I'm sort of running into the small sample size issue...but based on runs scored, Boston has faced a tougher offensive schedule according to team statistics through April 23.

As for their opponents' pitching staffs, things are a little less clear-cut. Both teams got 3 games at home against the 2 worst staffs in the AL, KC and Tampa, so that's sort of a wash. The Twins' staff has been absolutely abysmal, and its ERA is 6.10...compared to KC's 6.19. Both faced Baltimore 3 times (though Boston faced them away), so we can sort of ignore that. This leaves 5 teams who've faced Boston or NY, not counting KC or TB because they are both pretty much equally awful: Texas (Arlington) and Seattle (Fenway) faced Boston, Minnesota (Minn.) Oakland (Oak) and Anaheim have faced NY. So far, Texas and Seattle have both been (considerably) better then Minny, by over a full 1 ER/9, and are above Oakland by .23 and .43 respectively. Meanwhile Anaheim is ranked just above Seattle, with 4.58 ERA compared to Seattle's 4.78. I also didn't forget about Toronto, I'm just not entirely sure how to discuss it, given that they've played NY only twice compared to 6 vs Boston. For what it's worth, though, their ERA is 5.19

So again, I don't know what I was thinking when I said NY had the tougher schedule...although I do feel that there's something to be said about the two extra off-days they've had so far. On the surface it was sort of a stupid thing to suggest. But having looked into it...well, the way clubs are playing, I wasn't that far off. Now please keep in mind that I'm not arguing that Texas's staff is better than Oakland or Minnesota's...but regardless of the W/L record, this has been the case thus far. Of course, the small sample size brings up tons of questions. For example, did NY take advantage of a truly awful KC staff, or does Kansas City look worse because of the incredible NY offense? I don't feel like going THAT far into this...but I do feel like these numbers are worth considering. Again, Oakland and the Angels will be among the better teams, both in terms of record and statistics, by the end of the season. But right now, the way every team has performed so far...Yeah, I guess I do sort of think Boston's had it tougher. Plus lets not forget the Nemesis Factor: Last season Toronto gave Boston fits, and they've already met 6 times. The Yanks haven't had to deal with the D-Rays quite yet. :)

Sure, the sample sizes are still small, but they're not tiny any more. Over ten percent of the season is in the books. The fact that the Red Sox have managed a barely positive run diff is not insignificant, though there's obviously plenty of time to turn things around. The fact that the Yankees have managed a very good run diff is also not insignificant, though there's plenty of time for the team to (I hope) crash and burn.