Comments on: Recapping the Top Offensive Plays

By: Jim

Jim — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:55:19 +0000

Just an observation: The higher the score in those 3 situations, the lower the WPA. If runs have been scarce all game, maybe there’s a tiny discrepancy in how valuable a run is compared to when there’s say a 5-4 score?

By: 300ZXNA

300ZXNA — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 07:31:58 +0000

speaking of a GS down by 3, with two out, back in May or June of 1996, I remember that the Mariners were playing the Orioles at Camden and that very scenario happened. Chris Hoile or something like that hit the GS with two outs and 2 strikes even. It was a crazy, crazy game with A-Rod hitting a granny for the M’s, etc. I think the final score was like 14-13. Anyone know what the win expectancy shift was for that ending?

By: lookatthosetwins

lookatthosetwins — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 05:09:33 +0000

Wow, I really can’t believe that there wasn’t a three run homerun with a team down by two at the top of the list! All two run homeruns. Hopefully next year someone hits a GS down by 3 in the bottom of the 9th.

By: ujh734

ujh734 — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 04:41:44 +0000

I know; I’m just being a troll. :-\ In any given season, a great deal of the parks are right around where they should be and there are very few that skew the numbers on the individual level to any degree even worth giving the slightest mention. I don’t want you to go out of your way to fix something that isn’t broken on the account of my feeling the need to anonymously vent my anger on the internet, especially when the rest of the site is a veritable goldmine. For what it’s worth, you’re kind of my hero.

By: David Appelman

David Appelman — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 02:39:25 +0000

I’m looking into using different run environments this off season. The differnces in these particular situations is what, 0.004 wins? I’m not even sure if there is actually an issue with these specific parks. The run environments are for the most part not as problematic as you are making them out to be, but they will be improved.

By: LarryinLA

LarryinLA — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 00:51:16 +0000

Thanks. Didn’t realize each game gets its own run environment based on the location.

If that’s the case, though, shouldn’t it be called out in the recaps a bit more clearly? And noted in the game detail at the top maybe?

By: ujh734

ujh734 — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 00:37:48 +0000

Oh, I thought my other post was deleted because of Larry’s repost. I was following the Recent Comments and didn’t realize there was a recap of this series. Never mind.

By: ujh734

ujh734 — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 00:35:01 +0000

What, I can’t say Appelman sucks?

Unique ballpark run expectancies is the difference between the plays.

By: LarryinLA

LarryinLA — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 00:21:53 +0000

I’ll repost this here from the DeJesus post:

Fun series. That said, letâ€™s review the top 3 plays:

#1: 2-run, 2-out homer, runner on first, down 4-3: 90.36%
#2: 2-run, 2-out homer, runner on first, down 2-1: 90.05%
#3: 2-run, 2-out homer, runner on first, down 5-4: 89.95%
(#3 in the 10th inning, though my understanding is that WE doesn’t change in extras…)

Is there someway to explain why these have different WPA? Because they look identical to me. I could believe the number of runs scored might change the probabilities a little, as it might suggest weather conditions, pitcher usage, umpiring or some other factor. But, it would certainly make the game with the lowest total score the most difficult comeback, Iâ€™d think. The gap between #2 and #3 is awful small for that kind of effect. I think this is false precision of some sort, no?

Still fun.