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

Buy The Book from Amazon


SABR101 required reading if you enter this site. Check out the Sabermetric Wiki. And interesting baseball books.
MOST RECENT ARTICLES
MAIL : You ask | We say

Advanced


THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

<< Back to main

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Why I can’t stand the “one run games” as a category

By Tangotiger, 09:26 AM

This has bothered me to no end.  I’ll try to explain why in my way, which won’t be any good.  And then I’ll link to a great explanation.  For one thing, the home team can get 0 to 3 less outs per game to score than the visiting team. Secondly, what is a close game all game can get undone by a never-ending ninth inning.  So, while the teams may have been strategizing as small-ball for 8 innings, makes it look like a blowout.  The “one-run game” is an AFTER-THE-FACT categorization of the game, but we use the category to describe it in real-time or before-the-fact scenarios.  A much better way to categorize a game as close is to use win expectancy and leverage index.  The closer the win expectancy is to .500 for one team, and the higher the LI, then the closer the game.  There.  That’s what we want.

Here’s Hawerchuk on the NHL:

In the last 90 seconds of a one- or two-goal hockey game, the trailing team gets much more value out of scoring a goal than they do out of preventing one.  Hence the strategy of pulling the goalie.  The net result is that lots of one-goal games become two-goal games, and lots of two-goal games become three-goal games.
...
We can remove the effects of pulling the goalie by looking at the score before the last two minutes of the third period:

Prior to 18:00 No ENG ENG
1-goal 33.3 32.5 24.3
2-goals 21.7 20.6 22.5
3-goals 12.2 11.9 17.9

ENG = empty net goals

It turns out to be a very minor difference.  But fundamentally, there are a lot more one-goal games and a lot fewer three-goal games than we’d think based on the score at the end of regulation.


#1          (see all posts) 2010/03/17 (Wed) @ 10:39

But the presumption is that how players or teams perform in one-run games is a measure of how they perform under pressure, and/or a measure of how lucky or tenacious they are. This means the player or team knows it’s a low-scoring, tied or one-run game and is reacting accordingly. A player or team can see the scoreboard and see it’s a one-run game. They’re not exactly going to be able to calculate WE in their heads in the bottom of the 7th… so don’t throw out calling them one-run games.

WE and LI are totally valid and correct for evaluating close games during the season in a larger context though.


#2    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2010/03/17 (Wed) @ 10:45

This is what I mean about not explaining myself.  You totally weren’t able to read my mind.

If you have a game that starts as a 4-0 or 6-1 game, and you start the 8th inning and it’s 7-2, and then the final score is 7-6, then is that the same thing as a game that seesaws back-and-forth on its way to 7-6?

Yet both count as a “1-run game”.  But, the strategies used in both games would be totally different.


#3          (see all posts) 2010/03/17 (Wed) @ 11:51

Oh ok, I see. Yes, that’s its own class of games and teams and players perform differently in those. And WE/LI is much better to lump _those_ in and evaluate them together.


#4          (see all posts) 2010/03/17 (Wed) @ 12:42

I’m guessing one-run games might be yet another holdover from the Dodgers organization in the 1960s.  If your offense levels are low enough, you’re rarely going to have a low-leverage game that becomes high-leverage.


#5    David Pinto      (see all posts) 2010/03/17 (Wed) @ 14:14

There’s an easier way to do this than LI:

http://www.baseballmusings.com/?p=48169


#6    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2010/03/17 (Wed) @ 15:04

David, very lovely.  I like it.  That is a way better way to do it than we have, and if it’s not better than what I’m proposing (it may be), it’s certainly far easier.

So, yeah, let’s do it this way.

Can you tell me what the average score difference using your system would be such that we get half the games below that level?  (There’s about 50% of the games that end up with a “real/traditional” score difference of 1 or 2 runs.  I’m trying to find the equivalency.)


#7    David Pinto      (see all posts) 2010/03/17 (Wed) @ 15:19

The median score was 1.8235.  The average score was 2.2311.


#8    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2010/03/17 (Wed) @ 15:37

Ok, so let’s just use 2.0 then.


#9    David Pinto      (see all posts) 2010/03/17 (Wed) @ 15:38

Sounds good to me.


Page 1 of 1 pages


Name (required)
E-Mail (optional; WILL be published)
Website (optional)

<< Back to main


Latest...

COMMENTS

Feb 12 05:18
Reader Mail of the Day: Why do we need X years of fielding data?  And what about outliers?

Feb 12 04:55
Who is Jeremy Lin?

Feb 12 03:15
New PECOTA

Feb 12 02:42
Whitney Houston

Feb 12 02:23
Psst… wanna intern in Canada?

Feb 12 00:40
Clutch analogy

Feb 11 20:11
Fighting leads to goals?

Feb 11 19:55
Why do players get crappy caps?

Feb 11 19:12
Hero of the month: Brittney Baxter

Feb 11 17:59
MGL: Today on Clubhouse Confidential