THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

This putting guys on to start extra innings is similar to the way college football does overtime, which I prefer to the professional way. (Each team gets one possession at the 25 yard line. If they both score, and both go for the same points after, then they go to a second overtime, with first possession alternating. If still tied, from the third overtime on, each team has to go for a 2 point conversion.) There can never be a tie, unlike in the NFL.

I love this because it causes excitement with every possession, the chance to get a really really high score, and some strategy as to whether a team should go for two points after for the win.

Speaking of, I am a Boise State fan and was lucky enough to head down to the Fiesta Bowl two years ago, and that was probably the greatest game I’ve ever seen (as far as excitement, tenseness, score/momentum swings, etc.) in any sport, tv or live. (But of course being there helped.)

Andy: that means then that there is no turnover at the spot of the ball, on a failed 4th down, but that it gets brought back to the 25?

In terms of “bastardizing”, I suppose it’s just a little more than what the NHL does with 4-on-4 OT.  And, you get a pretty good payoff on that kind of change.

I like it.

***

In baseball, putting a guy on 2B with 0 outs means that there will be a scoreless full inning (two half innings) about 10-15% of the time.  So, after 2 innings, that means no run scores 2% of the time.  Seems to me that it’s reasonable.

Also, if a 16-inning (regular season) games are so great, how come 90% of the fans vote by walking out on the game? 

I mean really.... it is soooo great, that people would choose to leave, but would be incenced that had the players themselves chosen to leave?  But, tell them that you’re putting a guy on 2B with 0 outs, and all of a sudden, they’ll stay. Why?  Because they want to know the winner of the game, and they want to know that it’ll happen soon, however that were to happen.

These marathon games are great for people who are NOT there, but for those who are there, the ones you know, actually experiencing the game, if it’s the last thing they want to do, why are the non-practitioners preferring a rule that says to play the same way to the end?

The more I think about it, the more I hate the idea of extra innings (for regular season games).  People have come to accept how little meaning the regular season has.  So, you have to have different OT rules for that.

The NHL went for a 4-on-4 OT for 5-minutes, followed by the shootout.  NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE leaves an NHL building in that kind of OT setting.  If it’s so horrible, why would no one leave?  And if MLB XI is so great, why are they beating themselves down to get out of there?

http://www.hbo.com/larrydavid/episode/

Larry insists he finishes things he starts, such as a 500-page book. He even has friends he hasn’t been able to stand for 25 years because he’s the kind of guy who goes down with the ship. “I’m not even the captain,” Larry explains. “I’m a guy who keeps the captain company.”

This is the whole idea about finishing what you started, no matter how bad the idea is.  Do you really read the entire book if it starts to get sucky, or do you jump ahead, maybe even all the way to the end (ala When Harry Met Sally)?  Do you walk out of bad movies, or marathon movie night?

Sometimes, a game deserves to be put out of its misery.  If it becomes a chore to sit there to watch the game, that’s when it’s time to think about some new rules (for the regular season).

I’m not going to be friends with someone for 25 years like Larry David if it’s a chore to be their friend. 

It seems that we hold the institution of baseball in higher regards than marriage and friendship.  Is seeing the pitcher bat in the 17th inning really all that it’s cracked up to be?

Maybe baseball could have a home-run derby / shoot out.  Each team pitches to their own batters and the only thing that counts is home runs.  Alternate PAs between teams.  Work your way through the players until one team scores and the other doesn’t.

Another alternative is to set up a tiebreaker system so that if the game is tied after 9 innings you just look at HR to break the tie.  If still tied look at SO or SB or any other stat.  This might affect in-game strategy.

Tango: Yes, in college football, if there is a failed fourth down in overtime, then the other team gets it at the 25. Since I wasn’t clear, let me clarify that the ball is placed on the 25 yard line on the opponent’s end, so the likelihood of scoring is very high. Likewise, with a turnover, the play is dead; you can’t return it for a touchdown. There is an advantage to going second because if the first team fails to score, you can win on a field goal. The system is great because it is fast (each possession lasts only a few minutes at most), there is strategy (should we go for it on fourth or kick the field goal if we’re going first; should we end the game by trying a 2-point conversion if we’re going second?), and it is tense the entire time (every possession is a potential last possession (if the first team fails to score, it’s basically over since a field goal is almost guaranteed).

Marathon games are a chore. The problem with baseball is that as the game goes longer, the probability of scoring goes down. (Is this actually true? Has this been studied? It makes sense that players are more tired and less able to make offensive plays. But you can alawys bring in a fresh pitcher.) So you get these marathon games that are increasingly tedious, lacking in inspired play, and less exciting, on top of the fact that you’ve been watching forever already. At least on TV, you can wander around and do something else while waiting for it to get exciting.

It really only gets exciting when you have someone on, and, ironically, it is really only exciting because you want the game to end. The only reason people want a really long 18-inning game is to be able to tell others they say an 18-inning game once.

Putting someone on increases the likelihood of ending a game sooner, and ratchets up the intensity right away. I think this is a really good idea. We want to have as much high leverage, big WPA moments in the game as possible. This does it.

Can I ask, why change anything?  The day MLB does something like this is the day I give up on baseball.  I’ve already given up on the other major sports and something like this would make it very easy to give up.

bsball/4: I’m offering reasonable suggestions.  If you find them unreasonable, that’s fine.  Disagree with thoughtful remarks. You don’t have to make mocking/sarcastic remarks that does nothing to move the discussion forward.  And in fact, just serves to try to bring it down or to an end.

***

Andy: Oh, I thought they’d have to travel 75 yards.  In your case then, it’s simply 4 downs, right?  There’s no trying to go for a first down, and so, it becomes mostly a passing contest?  If that’s the case, 20 yard line would have made it a bit better in terms of getting some running play.

David: I asked many questions.  Can you answer a few?  Why do so many people leave a game in extra innings, but don’t in an NHL OT game?  How many fans are left after 15 innings?

Answering those questions will answer your question.

Our coed softball league starts extra innings with a runner on second, at least in tournaments. It’s seems trivial for slow pitch because it’s so easy to score, but it would be a good move for lower scoring leagues (baseball, fast pitch). I don’t have a problem with baseball’s system because most extra inning games get decided pretty quickly. How often do you see a game last past the 12th? Baseball’s natural dynamics means that worse and worse pitchers are going to be brought into the game the longer it drags on which increases the odds of scoring. If I were to make any change, it would be use the runner on second rule, but starting in the 12th.

I don’t like college football’s new system because it is pretty much a shootout. And like all shootouts, it only superficially ramps up the drama because while the scoring increases, it greatly cheapens those points precisely because it’s so easy to score.

I prefer the NFL’s way of settling ties. People complain about the possibility one team doesn’t get a chance to score, but that doesn’t happen very often. My big beef is that field goals count the same as touchdowns. I can’t stand watching a team get inside the 30 and then start calling dinky running plays that are simply intended to set up the field goal. That just drags the game out and kills the excitement since the outcome isn’t in doubt. I think “Would you hurry up and end it already?!” If anything needs to be changed (beside guaranteeing both sides one possession), it would be to remove the sudden death attribute for field goals. If a team gets a FG in overtime, then they kickoff like normal and give their opponent another possession to try to equalize or win. That way teams play like they do in regulation, always striving for a touchdown and only settling for a FG when necessary.

Tango, in college football, you can get a first down in overtime, even though you only have 25 yards to go.

Aaron, yes, it does superficially ramp up the drama. But I guess I’ve never felt that it cheapens it. I don’t find that after watching many overtime college games, I get sick of it the next week, or that while watching the game, I no longer find it tense and exciting. I agree with your qualms on the NFL side; though giving the other team an extra possession after a fg seems unfair in that one team gets one more possession than the other.

Hockey is so much more fluid, with “possessions” that that can last ten seconds, that the overtime works great with the game. It increases the chance of scoring, and while you think that cheapens it, I think that’s what people want to see. Except for maybe a great defensive play, scoring is the most exciting play in sports. Games are usually great when you have more scoring and you have an exciting way to score. The only problem I foresee with starting an inning with someone on second is that a dinky single scores the run, and that would be the winning play. Maybe if you start the 10th inning with a runner on first rather than second. And then after two innings, if it’s still tied, then start with someone second and first.

Aaron: waiting until some future inning, like the 12th, is ok, since that’s similar in spirit to what the NHL does with the 4-on-4 OT before going to the shootout.

When you get down to the dregs of your team deciding the win or loss, I don’t see how that’s necessarily good.  In all the other sports, the guys involved are still the best players.  In baseball, when it gets to a long game, it’s crazy players, and starting pitchers coming in to relieve.

Like I said, most fans leave a game if it lasts too long.  How can this be a good thing?  I’m still waiting on an answer.

I like the rule that you have to score at least 6 points to win an NFL OT game.  This way, you need either 2 FG or 1 TD.

What’s so terrible about having ties in baseball? Play, say, 2 extra innings according to the usual rules. After that, it’s a tie.

Actually, I have no problem with 9 inning ties in the reg season. Save the advanced discussion for the postseason.

"When you get down to the dregs of your team deciding the win or loss, I don’t see how that’s necessarily good.  In all the other sports, the guys involved are still the best players.  In baseball, when it gets to a long game, it’s crazy players, and starting pitchers coming in to relieve.”

Part of the charm of baseball, at least for me, is seeing how managers utilize the players available to them. The tactical chess game of deciding how to maximize your odds in the current situation while still leaving options available for future innings is fun in its own right.

“Like I said, most fans leave a game if it lasts too long.  How can this be a good thing?  I’m still waiting on an answer.”

My response would be that I doubt many fans leave a tie ballgame in the 10th or 11th, and if you make a rule change (runner starts on second) in the 12th, that will hold peoples attention for at least two more innings. So that gets us through the 13th. I don’t know the stats, but I’m sure the large majority of extra innings games get decided in that time frame and it would be even greater with the rule change. That leaves us with a tiny handful of the over two thousand MLB games played every year that go too long to be enjoyable for those in attendance. I can live with that.

“I like the rule that you have to score at least 6 points to win an NFL OT game.  This way, you need either 2 FG or 1 TD.”

That would work, too, although a safety could never end the game. That probably isn’t an issue for most people but it would bug me.

In the older days of NFL overtime, the team that lost the toss kicked off from a certain yardline (don’t recall what). The overtime w/l was about 50/50 for each team. Then at some point, they moved the kickoff back (5 yards, IIRC, and that’s all kickoffs, not just OT), and since then the receiving team has been the winner significantly more than the kicking team in OT, due to the greater initial field position.

If it’s not gonna be called a tie after regulation, then I favor a system which 1) gets it finished as quick as possible, and 2) is fair to both teams.

Number of major league games that lasted X innings, in the 2007 and 2008 seasons (through June 15, 2008):

5: 2
6: 2
7: 1
8: 1
9: 3,191
10: 147
11: 77
12: 48
13: 25
14: 12
15: 5
16: 1
17: 2
18: 1
22: 1

Thanks, Mike. Those are exactly the stats I’ve been looking for. So in almost 3600 games, only 22 lasted past the 13th.

And why bother forcing the issue in those 47 games past the 12th inning, if it’s only 47.

Sure 22 lasted past the 13th, but 13 innings is a lot. Games usually last either 8.5 or 9 innings. Baseball games start around 7:15pm, and lasts about 3 hours. So let’s say every inning is twenty minutes. (Though I would guess that because of pitching changes, the game is slower in the second half). I think that’s a long time. A regular 9 (or 8.5) inning game has people heading home at 10:15, and with traffic they’re getting home pretty late. Each additional inning is going to be another 20 minutes. It is no wonder people don’t stay around till the end. Baseball plays most of its games on weeknights and people have to work!

Basketball games last about 2.5 hours, and each overtime lasts maybe 15 minutes. So a double overtime basketball game is only the length of an average baseball game. Football games are usually in the afternoon on sundays; and people are more willing to watch since there’s only one game a week, plus football is a more popular sport.

Although we are all big fans of baseball, I think baseball has, compared to some of the other sports, a larger number of casual fans. (I might be biased because I live in Seattle, and the Mariners certainly sell a casual brand of baseball). I think baseball fans are much less likely to stick around till the end. If you want to keep them around, then you have to quicken it up, and/or make it more exciting.

On the other hand, if baseball does have more casual fans, they don’t really care if they stay or leave. Maybe even a more exciting game wouldn’t make a difference. The hardcore fans will stay regardless. And baseball and the teams don’t care cos they’re still making the same amount of money either way.

“I asked many questions.  Can you answer a few?  Why do so many people leave a game in extra innings, but don’t in an NHL OT game?  How many fans are left after 15 innings?”

According to the numbers posted by Mike Fast in number 16, only 9.07% of all games go into extra innings.  Only 4.89% go longer than 10.  That’s 6.77 per 162 games.  Or 3-4 at each team’s home park that go longer than 10 innings.

Is there any data about how many people leave and at what point they leave?  Why do they leave?  Because they don’t want to stick around and watch it or because they have had enough or because they have some place to be?  I don’t believe we know any of that so I don’t think we can say that fans are going to stick around longer if we change the way extra innings are played. 

It seems hard to believe, at least to me, that a person who stuck around all 9 innings in the first place is going to get up and leave as the 10th begins unless that person has to leave in which case he or she would leave even if we did it differently. 

Only 2.7% of the games go longer than 11 innings, or about 4 games per 162 so 2 games per season per park. 

If there were a lot of games lasting longer than 12 innings I might be persuaded, but only 1.3% of the games go longer than 12 innings.

I have no idea, but based on the games I’ve seen, it appears to me that attendance is at least 60% of what it was at game time in the 11th or 12th inning.  Do we have numbers? 

Baseball has also always been one of those games where fans go in a bit late and leave a bit early so if we really want to keep the fans interested, should we continue to do things to please a small percentage of fans and in this extra innings case, a small percentage of the games? 

I have rarely read about people complaining about the length of a baseball game when it comes to innings.  I’ve read a lot more about the overall time of the game in which case MLB is trying to speed up and good for them, but there doesn’t even seem to be an issue here as far as how to play once extra innings happen. 

The average baseball fan just doesn’t care about the daily results of baseball because they play so many games and each days of games have such little impact on who is going to win the division (at least until late in the year anyway). 

I just don’t see why we have to change the entire way the game is played because 5-8% of the games may be too long for 30 or 40% of the fans to sit through.  How many people would really be thrilled to hear about his new rule?  Would we even please 1% of the fans?  1% of the time?

If MLB games were clocking in at under two-and-a-half hours (for nine innings), I don’t think we would even be discussing this issue. When I watch a game, I always get the stopwatch to time the pitchers. It is a huge difference in down time between a Joba or Betancourt (25-35 seconds between pitches when I was watching) and another throwing at 15-17 seconds. Some relievers are in there under 10 seconds if the batter can get his butt in box without a practice swing and batting glove adjusting. The catchers also need to get their signs down quicker to the pitcher. Last, no mound conferences until the pitcher is being pulled!

My suggestion is to either call it a draw after 11 or 12, or enact new rules starting in the 12th or 13th.

Regular-season only.

If you do that, fans will more likely stay.

How about MLB just cut the time in between half innings by 1 minute?  It surely doesn’t take a team 2 minutes and 5 seconds to get ready.  Or 2 minutes and 25 seconds for nationally televised games.  In 1985 they added another commercial to each half inning, which extended the game about 10 minutes. 

The speed of the game could easily be increased since all we’ve seen for 20 plus years is the slowing down of it.  Enforce the 12-second between pitches rule.  Enforce the actual strike zone.  Allow a manager to only make one mound trip each half inning that doesn’t include a pitching change.  Force the manager to call for his reliever as soon as he walks out of the dugout.  30 to 45 seconds fewer on all breaks between innings. 

You’d reduce the average time of the game by 15-20 minutes easily if they did this and a few other things to speed up the game. 

I guess I don’t see it as an issue of extra innings, but one that has to do with the overall time of the game.  I think we can fix that without changing how extra innings are played.

i’d rather just call a tie after 12 innings than start innings with runners on base. 

Just my opinion.

Maybe it’s just the european in me but I agree with Dave Smyth, why even bother with extra innings in a 162 game regular season.

Just call it a draw.

But I guess that there is something in the american psyche that must have a clear desicion every time?

If the issue is fan satisfaction, then I don’t see how a tie is an option since no one is happy with that. The only good reason to end any game in a tie is to keep the players from being overworked. That’s not a serious issue in baseball because position players don’t have to exert themselves very much and pitchers are replaced regularly. It’s sports like football and soccer that need to have a meaningful limit.

Bjorn, when you say “european” do you really mean “soccer fan”? Are there other sports popular in Europe that regularly end in ties?

#25

Cricket, rugby, and chess can all end in a tie (or draw).  It’s common in cricket and chess.  Not so much in rugby.

In cricket there is a subtle difference between a tie and a draw.  A tie is where the game ends with the same score for each team.  That’s pretty rare.  A draw is where no one wins because one side is not all out when the game ends (due to running out of time).

David/23: as I said, there was a time when doubleheaders were something we looked forward to.  Now, no way.  Not a chance.

Whatever it takes to get back to that pace, I’m all for it.  But, if the league decides against that (because they prefer money to fan satisfaction), and if the fans are walking out in extra innings, then clearly, there’s a problem.  The problem may be just one or two games a year, but why have a problem at all?

Like I said, no one leaves a hockey building in OT.  Why can’t baseball do that?

In Japan, they call a tie game after 12 innings. It is the second worst aspect of watching Japanese baseball. The worst is that they cut off the broadcast at 9pm to show something nobody wants to watch anyway.

The reason it is so miserable to cut it out after 12 innings is that it feels like a waste. I didn’t go to a baseball game to watch 3+ hours of ballgame, tons of player changes in the last 3 innings slowing it down further (because an inning limit removes the incentive to keep some players back rather than going all in), only to have it end with no winner, no hero, no nothing.

Think of it as a WPA graph. You see it raising up for your team, you get excited. You see it dropping down, you get distraught. When a game ends in a tie, you end with 0% WE for both teams. How does that help anyone?

#1 rule to making extra innings more fun: beer

Stop cutting beer off in the 7th inning you puritans (if this isn’t all stadiums, please tell me where it isn’t the case).

#2 rule to making extra innings more fun: cheaper beer (c’mon, you’ve been charging us through the nose all night, at least let us pass out drunk in the 14th at a discount).

All else is icing on the cake.

Sal: if the fans are going to leave after 12 in droves otherwise, why have the game?  For the 5000 hardcore fans who will stay to the end?  If that’s the target audience,then why have all the between inning promotion crap?

It’s clear that the objectives have not been determined.

As for tie games, the NHL used to have those all the time before they introduced the shootout.  It doesn’t make sense for game 54 to go to sudden death where it may go into the 2nd OT period.  It’s a tie game, it’s a tie game.

They introduced the 4-on-4 to reduce ties, and the shootouts to eliminate them.

But, I think the other poster had it right: it might be an American mindset of “winning is the only thing”.  Hockey has survived and thrived decades with ties for regular season games.

***

Someone at BTF said that in arena football, when the lead team has the ball and it’s a minute to go, the clock stops unless there’s forward gain.  So, none of this kneeling crap (minus a few yards) to run out the clock. I like this rule.

What’s the harm in having fans walk out of a long game? 

I guess the team loses because they have to pay more wages because of longer hours/overtime.  The few remaining fans don’t offset these costs through concessions. 

But how different is this scenario from a blowout where fans leave after the 6th inning?  Very little of a baseball team’s costs or revenue is tied to the length of games or the number of butts in the seats.

I also suspect that the television ratings for the 13-15th innings are higher than those for the 7-9th innings of a 15-2 blowout.

In what other sport do fans walk out on the game when the score is tied?

I’m not talking about the revenue loss to MLB.  I’m simply talking about the game.

To play a regular season game to its win/loss conclusion “just because” is a horrible reason.  If a tree fell in the forest…