Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange
Don''t forget though that 54% figure is a broad average. Sometimes individual teams will post home records that are significantly better, even lousy teams.
A few cases in point:
1909 Boston (NL)
Overall: 45-108 .294 ; Home: 27-47 .365 ; Away: 18-61 .228 ; +.137
1935 Boston (NL)
Overall: 38-115 .248 ; Home: 25-50 .333 ; Away: 13-65 .167 ; +.166
1963 New York (NL)
Overall: 51-111 .315 ; Home: 34-47 .420 ; Away: 17-64 .210 ; +.210
1973 Texas (AL)
Overall: 57-105 .352 ; Home: 35-46 .432 ; Away: 22-59 .272 ; +.160
1977 Atlanta (NL)
Overall: 61-101 .377 ; Home: 40-41 .494 ; Away: 21-60 .259 ; +.235
1978 Toronto (AL)
Overall: 59-102 .366 ; Home: 37-44 .457 : Away: 22-58 .275 ; +.182
1985 Pittsburgh (NL)
Overall: 57-104 .354 ; Home: 35-45 .438 : Away: 22-59 .272 ; +.166
And here's a really staggering example of the home field benefitting a team that had a poor record overall:
1945 Philadephia (AL)
Overall: 52-98 .347 ; Home: 39-35 .527 ; Away: 13-63 .171 ; +.356
|
I was using your numbers form the first page of this thread to indicate that the home field advantage works out to between 3-6 games difference (a .500 team that wins .54% at home wins 43.7 games at home rahter than 40.5, for example. That there is statistical variation in the numbers is expected.
Regardless, the numbers are the numbers.
I'm fine with Markus coding a home field advantage if it entails small changes in k, bb, triples, and defense. I'm against it if it entails coding an across-the-board decrease in capability. I take this position because the numbers we can measure support it.