Comments on: The correlation between run-scoring and extra-inning games This and that about baseball stats. Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:01:55 +0000 hourly 1 By: Oskar Tue, 07 Sep 2010 12:53:58 +0000 Oops typo, I meant the runner is on first base

By: Oskar Tue, 07 Sep 2010 02:55:11 +0000 Extra inning games and stealing second base.
How many extra inning games have there been a situation where a manager has a runner on second base and has to decide whether to steal second? How many times was it successful, how many times was that the winning play? How about just games in the playoffs and world series?
Was just wondering whether this was a high risk strategy or not.

By: Extra innings games vs. runs scored » Baseball-Reference Blog » Blog Archive Thu, 02 Sep 2010 12:34:43 +0000 [...] is a follow-up to my earlier post about the correlation between run-scoring and extra-inning games. In that earlier piece, I made a [...]

By: Neil Wed, 01 Sep 2010 15:06:48 +0000 @25
Agreed about most of your first paragraph.

However, I can't see that the results would be improved a lot by taking into account 8 1/2 inning home team wins and X-inning games. The two effects cancel each other out a little don't they?

Although runs per inning might be a slightly better independent variable, RPG is still a good analysis and an interesting discussion starter.

@26 I'm suprised that the Yankees 1-run record is that good over the three-year period. The disparity isn't nearly as great as the '74 Padres or the '03 Tigers, but then it was a larger sample size.

By: Kahuna Tuna Wed, 01 Sep 2010 05:46:33 +0000 what was the '36-39 Yankees record in one-run games . . . compared to their overall record? If the "luck hypothesis" prevails, then significantly worse than the one-run record, even though they were great teams.

The "luck hypothesis" holds here. The 1936-39 Yankees were 83-67 (.553) in one-run games. Their overall record for the four-year period was 409-201 (.670).

By: joe baseball Wed, 01 Sep 2010 03:15:07 +0000 charts and graphs are fun to look at, but everthing is dependent on the assumptions used when collecting the data. Average runs per game may not be a very good stat for this model. Average runs per inning might be better. When the home team wins a game, they don't bat as many innings or complete innings as the losing team. Tie games will peak with a score at about the average runs per inning multiplied by 9.
0-0 scores with be above zero, 1-1 scores more frequent, up to the average and then dropping down to zero as the scores get large.
The scores of the games used should only use the score as it was at the end of 9 full innings.
This model should be quite accurate, especially if all the data from every year is used.

By: Andy Wed, 01 Sep 2010 01:30:52 +0000 On Thursday I will be posting a major follow-up to this post, looking at the same data parsed out by runs scored by the winning team, not by year.

By: Neil Wed, 01 Sep 2010 01:29:51 +0000 Sorry.... in 4th paragraph meant "...significantly worse than the overall record, ..."

By: Neil Wed, 01 Sep 2010 01:08:31 +0000 Tuna, we're agreeing on all counts, I think. The jumping-off point for this thread was @8 and @9, where Jeff mentioned the perception that the Cubs this year "can't win a close one" and the reply that it is not an indicator of clutch batting performance but rather of luck.

I totally agree that good one-run W-L records in a single season probably correlates better with poor overall team records than with good ones because the poor teams are offensively challenged. The '03 Tigers, although not as extreme an example, support this perception.

And it's a no-brainer that the good teams will have a better record in blowouts, however defined, than bad teams.

But looking at the other side of the coin.... what was the '36-39 Yankees record in one-run games (mentioned in @13) compared to their overall record? If the "luck hypothesis" prevails, then significantly worse than the one-run record, even though they were great teams.

Thx for answering the question about the '74 Padres and X-inning games that I was too lazy to research. But their record in X-inning games decided by two or more runs is bizarre for a team that bad. Maybe a six-month full moon in 1974 or something.

Jason, the first thing that caught my eye about Andy's graph was the two data points over 13%. Would be interesting to know know what years they were..... Does managerial strategy change in a low-run environment. You know the old adage about playing for one run.

By: Kahuna Tuna Tue, 31 Aug 2010 23:58:34 +0000 the '74 Padres . . . were still a bad pitching team and an overall "bad" team in the fifth year of their existence. . . . they exceeded their Pythagorean win % by 9 wins that year. Doesn't that also suggest an incredibly "lucky" season?

Possibly, Neal. The point I was making is that some (or, well, at least one) of the best single-season records in one-run games was posted by a team that finished last. In other words, success in winning one-run games need not imply some high degree of clutch performance; it might only imply that the team wasn't good enough to regularly win by larger margins. The 2003 Tigers also fit this pattern: 43-119 overall, 19-18 in one-run games. Conversely, the '03 Tigers had one of the worst records ever in two-run games — 7 wins, 30 losses. In my opinion, those Tigers were neither lucky nor unlucky — they just stank, because if the game turned into a rout they were bound to lose. The good teams win most of the blowouts.

And to bring the discussion full circle... how many of the Padres 47 one-run games that year were X-inning games?

Answer: Seven, of the fifteen extra-inning games they played. Which puts them in the fairly unusual category of teams who played more extra-inning games in a season that were decided by two runs or more than extra-inning games decided by exactly one run. The biggest disparity I've been able to find so far is the '87 Red Sox, 10 to 5.