THE BOOK cover
The Unwritten Book is Finally Written!
An in-depth analysis of: The sacrifice bunt, batter/pitcher matchups, the intentional base on balls, optimizing a batting lineup, hot and cold streaks, clutch performance, platooning strategies, and much more.
Read Excerpts & Customer Reviews
If you are a media member and would like a review copy of The Book, please contact Kevin Cuddihy of Potomac Books.

Buy The Book from Amazon

MOST RECENT ARTICLES
MAIL : You ask | We say

Advanced


THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

<< Back to main

Monday, July 24, 2006

62 to go

By Tangotiger, 02:51 PM

Would you prefer to be a worse team, but by good luck be ahead in the standings, or a better team, but by bad luck be behind in the standings?


Let’s start off with a simple simulation, where 100 games have already been played, and there is 62 to go.  We have a four-team division, and all four teams are equals, and are currently at .500.  Running 10,000 simulations, our four totally equal teams won or tied for the lead this often:
Team1 Team2 Team3 Team4
28.6% 28.4% 28.9% 28.1%

As you can see, even with 10,000 simulations, things don’t even out.  But, the results are pretty close.

Now, let’s have some fun.  Let’s make each team a true .500 team, but by good and bad luck, the current standings show:
Team 1 --
Team 2 -1
Team 3 -2
Team 4 -3

It’s a tight group.  How badly off is team 4?  3 behind the lead, 62 games to go, but two other teams in the way.

Team1 Team2 Team3 Team4
42.9% 31.7% 22.8% 15.7%

Quite a difference!  Essentially, each team has 70% the chance of the team above it.  All because of a single game.

So far, we’ve assumed that all four teams are in fact equals in talent, and the standings were just a matter of a break here and there.  Let’s take the flip-side: let’s make all four teams tied in the standings after 100 games, but make them unequals in talent.  What kind of talent level does each team have to have to match the above percentages?

If I give the four teams this true talent level:
Team1 Team2 Team3 Team4
0.545 0.530 0.515 0.500

And start them all at .500, this is how often they’ll win or tie for the division lead:

Team1 Team2 Team3 Team4
42.0% 31.7% 23.3% 16.3%

And finally, let’s merge the two.  Let’s have these true talent teams, with the following games behind the leader:

Team1 Team2 Team3 Team4
0.550 0.533 0.517 0.500
-3.......-2.......-1.......0

Team1 Team2 Team3 Team4
28.2% 28.8% 28.4% 28.8%

What this shows is that a really good team (.550 compared to a .500), but who find themselves three games behind that lucky team, has an even shot at the title.  This is kind of like when you run against your big brother, and he gives you a 10-metre head start.

#1    Dave      (see all posts) 2006/07/24 (Mon) @ 15:40

Thanks for doing this Tango.  Good to see my hypothesis that the M’s real playoff odds are better than the BP odds report show isn’t based on strict fanboyism - 4 games just isn’t that much to overcome with 62 to go.


#2    MGL      (see all posts) 2006/07/24 (Mon) @ 20:07

"Thanks for doing this Tango.  Good to see my hypothesis that the M’s real playoff odds are better than the BP odds report show isn’t based on strict fanboyism - 4 games just isn’t that much to overcome with 62 to go.”

Well, it depends on how good the M’s are as compared to those other teams.  I have not done a formal analysis, but I am pretty sure that the A’s are better and that Tex and ANA might be better as well.  If that is true, then the M’s chances of winning the division are not very good.

BP’s analysis taking into consideration the projections of all the players to determine the true strength of the teams (which is the correct way to do it) is very good so I would trust their playoff odds report assuming that is the way they do it.


#3    Dave      (see all posts) 2006/07/25 (Tue) @ 07:58

In my opinion, there’s almost no way to rationally believe the A’s are a better team than the Mariners, especially when you consider that the team’s glaring hole is designated hitter, the easiest position in baseball to upgrade. 

This whole discussion started in a thread on USSM where I suggested that, when the M’s replace Everett with a major league hitter, they’re true W3% going forward will be close to .540-.550, in my opinion.  I’m pretty darn sure the A’s aren’t a .540-.550 team.


#4    tangotiger      (see all posts) 2006/07/25 (Tue) @ 08:20

There is of course an uncertainty level to all estimates, for each player.  For example, Dave’s estimate of Ichiro may be +4 wins per 162 GP, while someone else may be +2 wins, with the difference being baserunning and fielding. (All numbers solely for illustration.)

And as the season goes on, you have more data, so you are constantly revising your estimate as to the true talent of the player.  Furthermore, a player may be hurt, or otherwise may have changed drastically.  Not knowing anything about J.J. Putz:
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/7205/career

Coming into 2006, maybe most people would have said “he’s league average”.  But, scouting and Dave may have said then, and perhaps even more now “this guy is pitching differently, enough that I believe that he’s one of the best relievers in baseball”.  Of course, such a statement would be better made without looking at his stats, but rather his mechanics and approach.

Anyway, so let’s say that the uncertaintly level, on average is around one standard deviation = 1 win per 162 GP (or 162 IP).  This would make our team uncertaintly level at around 4 wins per 162 GP, 68% of the time, and 8 to 9 wins 95% of the time.  8 or 9 wins per 162 GP is .050 wins.  So, if you have a true .500 team, you are really saying “I’m 95% sure they are between .450 and .550”.

(Unless of course your original uncertainty level is only 0.5 wins per 162 GP.  Suddenly, you would say “I’m 95% sure they are between .475 and .525”.)

As I’ve shown, to have an even shot at a team that is leading the division, and you are in the bottom, and you are down by 3 wins, you simply need a team to be a true +.050 wins better than the leading team.

With the uncertainty level existing in all forecasts, you can make such a plausible assertion (every now and then).


#5    Chris Miller      (see all posts) 2006/07/26 (Wed) @ 11:20

Everett DFA’d, Snelling up, should add SOMETHING to the Wins column, if Snelling stays healthy of course.  The M’s can hit.  Oh, and if Felix pitches as expected, and if Meche continues to outperform projections, even with some regression, I think Dave’s right about the M’s being better than the A’s.


Page 1 of 1 pages


Name (required)
E-Mail (optional)
Website (optional)

<< Back to main


Latest...

COMMENTS

Dec 05 04:40
Sabermetric Moves of the 2009 Pre-Season

Dec 05 05:33
Avery being Avery

Dec 05 05:06
NYC’s 3 1/2 year mandatory jail time sentence for carrying a loaded weapon

Dec 04 23:42
Poll: Would you vote Raines for the Hall?

Dec 04 23:07
How to calculate the area of a baseball field

Dec 04 22:48
Complete Run Expectancy, Retrosheet Years

Dec 04 22:03
Raines for the Hall

Dec 04 15:55
Mailbags on Parade

Dec 04 14:01
What would happen if the shootout period was 10 minutes, not 5?

Dec 04 11:49
Estimating BABIP