Obviously the highest chance for the Yankees to win the series would have been Game 4 just prior to the Roberts steal. They would have had the probability of winning that game PLUS the chance of winning any of the 3 subsequent games.

However, in Game 5, just after the Manny DP they had a 90% chance of winning that game (which would have clinched a series win), PLUS a chance to win any of the subsequent 2 games.

In other words, in elimination playoff series there should be a leverage index for the GAME as a whole, not just individual plays. Games 4, 5, 6, 7 were all elimination games and should have a higher LI. Game 7 was a double-elimination game. The axis for game 7 should stretch all the way from the bottom to the top of the chart since the Yankees chance of winning the series as a whole was identical to their chance of winning Game 7. Similarly, the chance of the Red Sox winning the series as a whole was identical to their chance of winning Game 7.

Just a thought. I’d be happy to talk more over email about it, or even help you to develop graphs for this post-season on the topic if you’re interested.

Sincerely,

David C Thompson

Y ’02, SLS ’07, Red Sox for life

Is there anywhere one can go to find an accounting of these situational probabilities based on inning, score, and baserunners? I find myself wondering what the probabilities say about relative values of the game situation versus the score. In other words, is it ever possible, say, that a team could be in spot where they’d have a greater probability of winning even though the score was less favorable?

For example, does a team have a better chance of winning if they are down 4-3 with the bases loaded and one out in the 5th inning than if they are tied 4-4 with 2 outs and no one on in the fifth inning?

]]>I think it was much bigger than 10% if you believe in momentum. When you look back, that was the point where the momentum turned. It’s a bit of revisionist history since the Red Sox still had less than 50% chance of winning the game, let alone the series, let alone the championship. However w/every win, the steal became bigger and bigger.

It’s kind of like the Bartman incident w/my Cubs on ’03. It was a foul ball, in the stands, they were still up 3 runs at home w/5 outs left. However w/every losing season it gets bigger and bigger.

It’s human nature to dumb things down to a simple cause and effect. Roberts steal and Bartman’s reach didn’t cause the subsequent events.

…or did they?

]]>Love this site.

]]>