Home field advantage

[Henry]

Originally Posted by DrArbiter

... but I regret I won't have further interest in responding to messages which unthinkingly parrot the same incorrect arguments.

Ouch, up to this point I thought this was a discussion, but in one sentence you managed to simply lay down the law that you are right and I am wrong - end of story.

If it's that important you be right, then I respectfully resign with my own opinions.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Henry

Ouch, up to this point I thought this was a discussion, but in one sentence you managed to simply lay down the law that you are right and I am wrong - end of story.

Now just how could you have been expected to know that you were having an online discussion with the Pope, Henry?

[DrArbiter]

Originally Posted by Henry

Ouch, up to this point I thought this was a discussion, but in one sentence you managed to simply lay down the law that you are right and I am wrong - end of story.

If it's that important you be right, then I respectfully resign with my own opinions.

I'm not claiming that I'm right.

I'm pointing out that this is a question on which there is an extensive existing literature (and which has been discussed N times previously on the OOTP forums). In these resources you'll find explanations about why the "standard" arguments for the last-ups advantage have been argued to be mathematically unsound. Anyone is certainly welcome to examine those arguments for themselves.

Simply blindly repeating the arguments without reference to those critiques is not interesting.

Remember this is not a question of "opinion." It's a fundamentally empirical question that can be answered by looking at actual data from actual baseball games.

[The Wolf]

Okay. Now can you enlighten me on my question a few posts back?

[Henry]

Just so we're on the same playing field, I'm not a rookie in terms of statistics or mathematics, having been in various forms of analysis across a 40 year period. I have read all, if not most of the same "conclusions" you have. My point is simply this...

In football, "sudden death" is definitely to the advantage of the team on offense (defense cannot win the game, they can only continue it). In baseball, however, the "sudden death" advantage is in sole possession of the home team - it never passes to the visitors.

No similar advantage is given the visiting team. It's ability to hold the home team in the bottom of the 9th is the same opportunity the home team had to hold the opponent in the top of the 9th.

"Sudden death" is shared in football, but owned by the home team in baseball - that's very difficult to explain away as "no advantage".

[The Wolf]

Henry, if both teams get until 27 outs (again, yes, the home club may only need 24) to score runs, and if the team that scores more runs in those outs than the other one does wins, then where is the advantage in batting first or last? When a team bats last, the other team has already HAD their inning.

Either I'm missing something or this is a very simple situation.

[fintach]

Because I have hope that this conversation will continue, I will point out a few things. I do this not to attack, nor to belittle, but to clarify a matter of perception.

Originally Posted by DrArbiter

I'm not claiming that I'm right.

It is good to know that this is your intention. However, I would like you to look again at something you previously wrote*:

Originally Posted by DrArbiter

I'm interested in educating on the correct way to think about this problem (but read the papers, most of them are quite accessible), but I regret I won't have further interest in responding to messages which unthinkingly parrot the same incorrect arguments.

Please now consider the parts that make up that quote:

Originally Posted by DrArbiter

I'm interested in educating on the correct way to think about this problem

This statement reads that there is exactly one correct way to consider this issue, and that other perspectives must be based in ignorance.

Originally Posted by DrArbiter

(but read the papers, most of them are quite accessible),

Encouraging others to read the papers is a good thing, and could have a positive effect on the discussion. However, the statement that most of them "are quite accessible" can come across as condescending, as though others on this board are less competent to read and understand the papers.

(Note: it may be true that not everyone who reads these boards could easily read and understand an academic paper, especially if the paper were written at a graduate or post-graduate level. However, I feel confident saying that there are those on this board who could.)

Originally Posted by DrArbiter

but I regret I won't have further interest in responding to messages which unthinkingly parrot the same incorrect arguments.

I considered dissecting this, but I think I'll let it stand on its own. Everything about this statement reads as dismissive.

I'm going to stop there because, once more, it is not my intention to attack, but to warn about phrasing in a message forum.

As for the idea that this one paper carries with it all the important information necessary for anyone who wishes to discuss the subject, well, I have not yet read it myself, so I cannot say.

However, I would like to point out that the game of baseball has been played professionally for over one hundred years and studied using many approaches. I would say that if anything has been proven in this time, it is that the game can be studied successfully from many angles.

To return for a moment to the original subject of the thread, there is an old baseball adage: "Play to tie on the road; play to win at home." I'm not saying that it's true or false, but old baseball adages influence the thinking of many managers, which may lead to different strategic decisions made by a home team and visiting team. Thus, I tend to think that psychology plays a factor in the question of home field advantage, for the managers as well as the players.

*It is true that this is only one text sample from multiple posts. I chose it because I believe it best encapsulates the issues at hand in the least amount of text.

[statfreak]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Henry, if both teams get until 27 outs (again, yes, the home club may only need 24) to score runs, and if the team that scores more runs in those outs than the other one does wins, then where is the advantage in batting first or last? When a team bats last, the other team has already HAD their inning.

Either I'm missing something or this is a very simple situation.

Once the game enters the bottom of the last inning everything else (other than the score) gets thrown out the window. The home team now decides the final game result. The advantage comes when the home team scores more runs than the visitor and thus immediately ends the game. Yes, both teams may have had an equal amount of outs to score runs; however, only the home team has the ability to end the game.

[The Wolf]

SF, the visitors have an equal chance to score runs in the top of the ninth. If the game isn't tied at the end of nine, then one of the teams scored more runs than the other and I do not see what innings they score them in making a bit of difference except for dramatic value.

If my team scores five runs over nine innings and yours scores four, your team loses no matter what inning either team scored them in - whether all or some of them were scored in the bottom of the ninth or not.

Each team gets the same number of outs to score runs in. Why is the ninth inning magical? Last minute drama?

[The Wolf]

@fintach: As a famous baseball manager once said, "It's what you learn after you know it all that counts."

[Henry]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Henry, if both teams get until 27 outs (again, yes, the home club may only need 24) to score runs, and if the team that scores more runs in those outs than the other one does wins, then where is the advantage in batting first or last? When a team bats last, the other team has already HAD their inning.

Either I'm missing something or this is a very simple situation.

Agreed - that on the surface it appears each team has the same opportunity - thus no advantage. Statfreak more-or-less explains the way I see it...

The ONLY time in the entire game that the specific amount of effort to win the game is known is in the bottom of the 9th or following innings - and the Home team is the only one that has its offense in play during that time. As a visiting team, you never know if what you just did (scored 1 or 20 runs) is enough - but as the Home team you know exactly what will end the game immediately.

In football, they not only trade the sudden death advantage, but they know what it takes to win the game and are in control of it at the time. In baseball, only the Home team has that option and only in their half of the final inning.

In that final inning, as the offensive scenario develops, the home team manager knows exactly what effort is needed to get the winning run across the plate and can fine-tune his complete repertoire to accomplish that specific challenge.

I personally believe that the .540 historical home team advantage is mostly due to that fact.

[The Wolf]

So what you are saying is that the manager will play big ball or little ball depending on how many runs are needed to win? That makes sense, but given that he only has three outs to work with I can't see that choice being the cause of the .040 advantage.

Has anyone studied what percentage of games are decided in the bottom of the ninth? I go to and simulate a lot of games and it doesn't seem to me that it's that common an event.

[The Wolf]

Thinking about it, I can see some value changes in events in the bottom of the ninth.

If the batting team is down by a number of runs, a leadoff walk is almost as good as anything else.

If the game is tied with a runner on second, then a single can be just as good as a double, triple or home run.

If the game is tied with a runner on third, then a fly ball can be just as good as a single, double, triple or home run.

I'm wondering what effects those value changes might have.

This is an interesting topic.

[fintach]

I mentioned this above, but it might have gotten lost in the ::cough::excessive::cough:: length of my previous post.

There may also be a psychological difference of approach, even in the managers. The old baseball adage is "Play to tie on the road; play to win at home." Considering the number of managers who buy in, at least a little, to conventional baseball wisdom, that may affect a manager's approach.

In other words, all other things being equal, they might manage just a little differently at home versus on the road, which might make a difference. I doubt it would be a .040 difference though.

On the other hand, we're talking about four games out of every one hundred. This could be a matter of a number of small factors, like jet lag, extra adrenaline, the number of rested pitchers on each team, and so forth, with psychology being just one more.

[Henry]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Thinking about it, I can see some value changes in events in the bottom of the ninth.

If the batting team is down by a number of runs, a leadoff walk is almost as good as anything else.

If the game is tied with a runner on second, then a single can be just as good as a double, triple or home run.

If the game is tied with a runner on third, then a fly ball can be just as good as a single, double, triple or home run.

Exactly. As the "on base-vs-out" situation develops, the manager actually gets more flexibility to get the run. The examples you pointed out above are good samples. It's most likely going to be an advantage mostly in close games of course.

I was thinking too, of another way to present this idea...

If the visitors were playing in Park A and the home team in Park B against a 9 inning defensive team - and they each played 9 offensive innings only not knowing what the other team was doing... at the end of the games, each would compare scores.

Lets say the visiting team scores 6 runs and the home team scored 5. Had the teams actually played each other and experienced the bottom of the 9th, I have to believe the advantages we're talking about here would change the outcome of the game more often than not - simply because the home team now knows exactly what it has to do to win.

[Henry]

Originally Posted by fintach

On the other hand, we're talking about four games out of every one hundred. This could be a matter of a number of small factors, like jet lag, extra adrenaline, the number of rested pitchers on each team, and so forth, with psychology being just one more.

.40 really isn't as big as it seems. Like you said, 4 out of a hundred games - but I can certainly believe the difference is cause more by this explanation that some vague familiarity of a ballpark you play in more often. If you know balls bounce weird on the 3rd base side of your home park, I can guarantee everyone else in the league knows that too.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by statfreak

The advantage comes when the home team scores more runs than the visitor and thus immediately ends the game. Yes, both teams may have had an equal amount of outs to score runs; however, only the home team has the ability to end the game.

Does that explain the historical 55% winning rate for home clubs? Is that extra 5% of games won at home entirely games won in the bottom of the 9th inning? I doubt it. But it ought to be possible to check using Retrosheet's data. Look for all games won in either the bottom of the 9th inning or extra inning, remove them from the list of games played, then tally up all the remaining games and see what the overall home winning percentage is. I'd wager it's still very close to 55%.

Over 80% of clubs finish the season with a better home record than road record. It may only be 30-51 compared to 25-56, but it's won more often at home than on the road.

Originally Posted by fintach

This could be a matter of a number of small factors, like jet lag, extra adrenaline, the number of rested pitchers on each team, and so forth, with psychology being just one more.

Road trips today in MLB are far shorter than they were in earlier years. These days, they rarely last more than 10 games. In the early 20th century some road trips lasted 28 games.

[fhomess]

Random thoughts as I haven’t read any of the articles on this topic in a very long time…

It would seem to me that knowing how many runs you need to win as the home team in the bottom of the 9th isn’t a particularly big advantage. The batting team has an inherent disadvantage in that the batting order is locked. They cannot simply bat their three best batters. They have to bat whoever comes up or a pinch hitter. Generally speaking, your best hitters are already in the lineup. In a tight game, it’s also likely that you’ve already used your better pinch hitters in the 7th or 8th inning. The defensive team, on the other hand, has the ability to bring in relievers and adjust their defense if they have good fielders available. Given that the visiting team has had 3 more outs than the home team by the time the bottom of the 9th rolls around, and the fact that the home team likely only uses their best relievers in the event of a lead, I would expect that they’re more likely to get there in the lead than tied. So the visiting team has the advantage because they have had more chances and a more predictable reliever usage pattern.

My logic is infallible, do not question me!

[Kobeck]

lol


I am currently reading Baseball Between the Numbers. This issue is discussed, indirectly, in a number of ways. Like all things in baseball there does seem to be a 'home advantage' - as descriped earlier in the thread, but it is not as big as is widely believed.

If the bottom third of the order was up and only 1 run was needed too win, those defensive specialists would probably be PH for, or not if one of them got on second with no outs then the one or two situations where the sacrafice is beneficial would be available. If that runner got to third with 1 out the visitors could IBB the bases full and play for the force at home, but then the fielders would be in a few steps and what otherwise would have been an out is tranformed into the game winning single ect...

Certainly without doubt the home team has an advantage in the bottom of the 9th and onward, but it is not a huge advantage.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by fhomess

My logic is infallible, do not question me!

Holy cow, two Popes in one thread!