Home team's chances, down a run, with two outs and no one on: .036
Home team's chances, down two runs, with two outs and a runner on second: .04

I don't see how those numbers are possible. How are those numbers possible?

I will put an email in to a guy who covers this topic a lot.

The home team is batting in the ninth with the bases loaded and down five. There is one out.

The Win Expectancy Finder spits out .037

Now, you clear the bases with a double and cut the deficit to two. The win expectancy is now .103

If you hit a grand slam and cut the deficit to one and there is still one out, the win expectancy is .104.

I think the differences are negligible and all of these chances of winning a game facing such a large deficit are pretty small.

7th inning, home team down five. Bases loaded. One out. Win expectancy: .133.

Clearing the bases with a double (now down two, one out, man on second): .243

Hitting a home run (now down one, one out, man on second): .308

Is .65 significant?

What happens if Jeff Kent hits the ball over the fence and decides to stop at second base? Just stands on the base and refuses to run any further. Is he out or is he allowed to stay there?

Win expectancy .096

Next batter hits a home run, bases empty, home team down by 1, no outs

Win expectancy .184

If that batter hits a double instead, runners on 2nd and 3rd, home team down by 3, no outs

Win expectancy .111

That's a pretty big difference, even though in both cases the tying run is coming to the plate. The home run is better.

That should be bases empty. Does that change the .308?

For example: my example -- 7th inning, home team at bat down five, bases loaded, one out -- has occurred 60 times since 1979. The WEF spits out .209, but that seems unreliable.

Persuasive logic, huh? Until you realize that Weaver has allowed 15 home runs this season, and they haven't exactly gotten him going every time.

================

OK ... I'm a stats geek, so I tracked down Weaver's performance in the completion of every inning in which he gave up a homer this season (figuring the homer would have the biggest "impact" in the next few batters only).

4/11: 1st HR) Single, Popout, Popout
2nd) Lineout
4/17: Popout
4/22: Single, Popout
4/28: Single, Flyout, Triple (relieved)
5/3: Triple, BB, Lineout, GIDP
5/8: Flyout, Single, HR, Groundout
5/14: 1st HR) Lineout, Groundout
2nd) Flyout, Lineout
3rd) Single, Groundout, K, HR (relieved)
5/24: BB, K/CS [DP], Popout
5/30: 1st HR) K
2nd) Groundout, Groundout, Single, Groundout

Summary:
1st batter after HR: 5-12 plus BB (.417 BA)
Till end of inning: 10-32 incl. 2 HR, plus 2 BBs (.313 BA)

Methinks Jeff is mistaken :-O

There are rules in place if you refuse to talk first on a walk or HBP or if you a runner on third refuses to touch home when forced to by a walk, balk, or HBP.

Perhaps the rulesmakers need to close the Steve Lyons loophole.

Those are interesting numbers the WEF is spitting out.

(b) When the winning run is scored in the last half-inning of a regulation game, or in the last half of an extra inning, as the result of a base on balls, hit batter or any other play with the bases full which forces the runner on third to advance, the umpire shall not declare the game ended until the runner forced to advance from third has touched home base and the batter-runner has touched first base.
Rule 4.09(b) Comment: An exception will be if fans rush onto the field and physically prevent the runner from touching home plate or the batter from touching first base. In such cases, the umpires shall award the runner the base because of the obstruction by the fans. PENALTY: If the runner on third refuses to advance to and touch home base in a reasonable time, the umpire shall disallow the run, call out the offending player and order the game resumed. If, with two out, the batter-runner refuses to advance to and touch first base, the umpire shall disallow the run, call out the offending player, and order the game resumed. If, before two are out, the batter-runner refuses to advance to and touch first base, the run shall count, but the offending player shall be called out.

Just who would refuse to walk across home with the winning run?

And it should theoretically diminish to zero if the losing team has only one out to give and the tying run is not yet at the plate.

Would it be too late for the manager to pinch run with Nippers or Ginger Nut instead?

http://insidethedodgers.mlblogs.com/my_weblog/2006/05/draft_day_comin.html

And it should theoretically diminish to zero if the losing team has only one out to give and the tying run is not yet at the plate.

Theoretically, yes. But the win expectancy numbers are not theoretical. They are empirical. And they show that with two outs in the ninth, with the tying run not yet at the plate, teams have won more often by getting a single than they have by getting a home run. (.041 to .036)

Which will be followed by a passionate disagreement.

And then there will be a third person who can't believe someone didn't know about some obscure play in an NA game in 1873.

One might suggest that the triple is better than the home run, but since the win expectancy numbers are blind to how the situation arose in the first place, I'd guess that the manner in which that runner got to third with two out is rarely a triple (more likely to be a ground out with a man on second or a 2-on, no out double play) and these particular scenarios may correlate with the effectiveness of the pitcher.

===================

"Statistics don't lie, people using statistics lie."

I don't know if that .005 difference is real or a statistical blip.

The difference between a 93-win season and a 94-win season is about .006. That one game may be a statistical blip, but it could be the difference between making the playoffs and not.

dianagramr

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. Certainly one game can make the difference in getting to the playoffs, and in the case where it does, we probably aren't 100% sure that the team that made the playoffs is the "better" team. My point is that .005 difference may not have any real predictive power. Is the team that hits the "rally-killing" home run more likely to lose than the team that hits the "rally-preserving" double? The stats suggest maybe - but if so, it looks like only once every 200 times you do it will it help.

ummm ... should I be happy or worried about this? :-)

Like most things, it depends on your perspective.

My point is that .005 difference may not have any real predictive power.

The .005 is misleading. When the difference is between, say .040 and .045, you're talking about a 12.5% difference. There's some real predictive power there.

I certainly don't want you to feel excluded, Andrew, but telling you the backstory would be like the scene in The Wizard of Oz where Dorothy finds out that the emperor is just some powerless little guy.

I care for you as a fellow Dodgers fan too much to force you into that level of disenchantment.