At the halfway point in the season, the difficulty of teams’ schedules were analyzed by looking at their Stage Strength of Schedule.

This measure divided each team’s strength of schedule by how each of their opponents fared in the stage they played that opponent. That means a team that played the Los Angeles Valiant in Stage 2 played a tougher opponent than a team that played the Los Angeles Valiant in Stage 1.

Therefore, at that time, the Valiant’s opponents either played a 0-7 team or a 3-4 team. They never played a 3-11 team.

Now that the season is over, it’s time to revisit the Stage Strength of Schedule. The same logic will apply as before. The Valiant’s opponents this season didn’t play a 12-16 team. They played a 0-7 team, a 3-4 team, a 5-2 team or a 4-3 team.

However, this time an extra facet will be added to get the most accurate measure of the difficulty of teams’ schedules as possible. The Stage Strength of Schedule as it was known before will now be the Raw Stage Strength of Schedule. It will be compared alongside the Adjusted Stage Strength of Schedule, in which teams’ matches against their opponents won’t count toward their opponents’ records. Everything else about the two measures will be the same.

The following lists will be ordered by the team with the hardest stage schedules this season. They will also include their opponents' combined record for each individual stage.

Raw Stage Strength of Schedule

Does not take into account stage playoff or postseason matches.

  • 1: Boston Uprising (.602), Stage 1: 27-22, Stage 2: 30-19, Stage 3: 27-22, Stage 4: 34-15
  • 2: Los Angeles Valiant (.581), Stage 1: 33-16, Stage 2: 28-21, Stage 3: 32-17, Stage 4: 21-28
  • T3: Florida Mayhem (.551), Stage 1: 23-26, Stage 2: 31-18, Stage 3: 33-16, Stage 4: 21-28
  • T3: Dallas Fuel (.551), Stage 1: 26-23, Stage 2: 17-32, Stage 3: 29-20, Stage 4: 36-13
  • T5: Seoul Dynasty (.536), Stage 1: 25-24, Stage 2: 33-16, Stage 3: 24-25, Stage 4: 23-26
  • T5: Toronto Defiant (.536), Stage 1: 24-25, Stage 2: 28-21, Stage 3: 28-21, Stage 4: 25-24
  • T7: Chengdu Hunters (.531), Stage 1: 27-22, Stage 2: 27-22, Stage 3: 27-22, Stage 4: 23-26
  • T7: Shanghai Dragons (.531), Stage 1: 28-21, Stage 2: 22-27, Stage 3: 28-21, Stage 4: 25-24
  • 9: Houston Outlaws (.520), Stage 1: 24-25, Stage 2: 30-19, Stage 3: 17-32, Stage 4: 31-18
  • 10: Washington Justice (.500), Stage 1: 27-22, Stage 2: 23-26, Stage 3: 27-22, Stage 4: 21-28
  • T11: Guangzhou Charge (.485), Stage 1: 25-24, Stage 2: 30-19, Stage 3: 23-26, Stage 4: 17-32
  • T11: Paris Eternal (.485), Stage 1: 27-22, Stage 2: 22-27, Stage 3: 20-29, Stage 4: 25-24
  • T11: Hangzhou Spark (.485), Stage 1: 21-28, Stage 2: 27-22, Stage 3: 22-27, Stage 4: 25-24
  • 14: Vancouver Titans (.475), Stage 1: 19-30, Stage 2: 21-28, Stage 3: 25-24, Stage 4, 28-21
  • 15: Atlanta Reign (.469), Stage 1: 23-26, Stage 2: 25-24, Stage 3: 26-23, Stage 4: 18-31
  • 16: San Francisco Shock (.459), Stage 1: 28-21, Stage 2: 21-28, Stage 3: 20-29, Stage 4: 21-28
  • 17: Los Angeles Gladiators (.444), Stage 1: 24-25, Stage 2: 18-31, Stage 3: 22-27, Stage 4: 23-26
  • 18: London Spitfire (.434), Stage 1: 22-27, Stage 2: 14-35, Stage 3: 25-24, Stage 4: 24-25
  • 19: Philadelphia Fusion (.424), Stage 1: 16-33, Stage 2: 25-24, Stage 3: 19-30, Stage 4: 23-26
  • 20: New York Excelsior (.401), Stage 1: 21-28, Stage 2: 17-32, Stage 3: 16-33, Stage 4: 26-23

Adjusted Stage Strength of Schedule

Does not take into account stage playoff or postseason matches.

  • 1: Los Angeles Valiant (.584), Stage 1: 26-16, Stage 2: 24-18, Stage 3: 29-11, Stage 4: 18-24
  • 2: Boston Uprising (.578), Stage 1: 24-18, Stage 2: 26-16, Stage 3: 19-21, Stage 4: 27-15
  • 3: Vancouver Titans (.549), Stage 1: 19-21, Stage 2: 21-19, Stage 3: 24-18, Stage 4, 26-16
  • 4: Seoul Dynasty (.542), Stage 1: 22-20, Stage 2: 27-13, Stage 3: 22-20, Stage 4: 19-23
  • 5: Dallas Fuel (.537), Stage 1: 23-17, Stage 2: 15-27, Stage 3: 21-19, Stage 4: 29-13
  • 6: Chengdu Hunters (.536), Stage 1: 23-19, Stage 2: 23-19, Stage 3: 23-17, Stage 4: 20-22
  • 7: Shanghai Dragons (.531), Stage 1: 22-18, Stage 2: 20-22, Stage 3: 24-14, Stage 4: 20-22
  • 8: Florida Mayhem (.518), Stage 1: 17-25, Stage 2: 24-18, Stage 3: 27-15, Stage 4: 18-22
  • 9: San Francisco Shock (.512), Stage 1: 25-17, Stage 2: 21-19, Stage 3: 18-24, Stage 4: 21-21
  • 10: Hangzhou Spark (.506), Stage 1: 17-25, Stage 2: 25-17, Stage 3: 21-21, Stage 4: 22-20
  • 11: Toronto Defiant (.500), Stage 1: 22-20, Stage 2: 23-19, Stage 3: 21-21, Stage 4: 17-23
  • 12: Houston Outlaws (.494), Stage 1: 20-22, Stage 2: 23-19, Stage 3: 15-27, Stage 4: 25-17
  • 13 Atlanta Reign (.482), Stage 1: 20-22, Stage 2: 21-19, Stage 3: 21-21, Stage 4: 18-24
  • 14: Guangzhou Charge (.475), Stage 1: 19-21, Stage 2: 23-17, Stage 3: 19-21, Stage 4: 16-26
  • T15: Paris Eternal (.464), Stage 1: 23-19, Stage 2: 18-24, Stage 3: 16-28, Stage 4: 21-21
  • T15: Washington Justice (.464), Stage 1: 21-21, Stage 2: 17-25, Stage 3: 20-22, Stage 4: 20-22
  • 17: Los Angeles Gladiators (.452), Stage 1: 20-22, Stage 2: 17-25, Stage 3: 19-23, Stage 4: 20-22
  • 18: New York Excelsior (.439), Stage 1: 21-21, Stage 2: 13-27, Stage 3: 16-24, Stage 4: 22-20
  • 19: London Spitfire (.428), Stage 1: 18-24, Stage 2: 13-29, Stage 3: 19-21, Stage 4: 21-21
  • 20: Philadelphia Fusion (.422), Stage 1: 14-28, Stage 2: 21-21, Stage 3: 16-24, Stage 4: 19-23

The most notable difference between RSSoS and ASSoS is the placing of the Vancouver Titans. In the Raw rating, their schedule only appears to be the 14th hardest. However, when their 25 wins over their opponents aren’t considered, their schedule is actually the third hardest.

This is in large part because of the second half of their season, which was the second hardest schedule over that period of time. The Fuel were the only team to have a harder second half of the season than the Titans. The Fuel fell apart with a 1-13 record over that time whereas the Titans stayed strong at 11-3 (the 12-2 Shock were the only team with a better record than the Titans over that time).

The ASSoS is also a validation of the difficulty of the Uprising’s schedule, proving the difficulty shown in their RSSoS isn’t just a byproduct of their 8-20 record. In fact, their Stage 4 was surprisingly brutal. Stage 4 was the best stage for five of their seven opponents and it was their best stage by multiple matches for four of their opponents (meaning it would have been those teams’ best stages regardless of what happened in the Uprising match).

However, that wasn’t the hardest stage of the season. The Valiant’s Stage 3 takes the cake in ASSoS difficulty. Their opponents were 29-11 independent of Valiant matches, making the Valiant’s 5-2 run that stage all the more impressive.

Not every team’s strength of schedule varied wildly when their own matches were taken out of the equation. This is mostly true for teams with records near .500. As a result, the Excelsior jumped out of the bottom spot on ASSoS and left the Fusion with the easiest schedule in the league. The Fusion’s placing their affirms the narrative that surrounded the Fusion all season, as their winning record was often dismissed due to the ease of their opponents.

The teams’ seasonal strength of schedules were not included. However, there likely would have been a trend in which Pacific teams generally had a harder schedule (the bottom five teams in overall record were all Atlantic Division teams). Additionally, the teams with better records would have had easier schedules than other teams in their division because they didn’t have to play themselves (this also works inversely for the teams with worse records). Since every team played each other and teams in the same division played the same teams the same amount of times, there wouldn’t be much variation in strength of schedule beyond what has already been stated.

Stage Strength of Schedule, especially Adjusted Stage Strength of Schedule, should add another layer in analyzing how teams fared in the 2019 Overwatch League regular season.

UPDATE: An earlier version of this article incorrectly calculated the ASSoS as a result of not considering scenarios where a team played the same opponent twice in one stage. The data has been updated to properly reflect these scenarios.