Home field advantage

[Kobeck]

yep, probably a bunch of little things

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Vinny P.

There is a psychological effect of "familiar surroundings," of playing where you practice.

Many interesting comparison studies have been done with students taking a test in the same classroom in which they learn, and students taking the same test in a different room altogether. Guess which group of students consistently score higher?

That makes sense as well. I'm beginning to think that feeling comfortable in the surroundings may be a significant factor in this.

[Kiko1313]

Originally Posted by Kobeck

First the talent of a well ran team should be customized for the home field giving the team a built in HFA and any visiting team would have to scramble to match those skill sets.

For instance a team with a huge LF would essentially need 2 CF types to patrol the OF, whereas a team like the Red Sox would be at a disadvantage going into that park. Of course there are numerous variables involved but any front office with any talent should get guys that could outperform in the park they play 81 games in.

Second the way I see the data it confirms the slight advantage the home team has from bottom of the 9th on - IMO. Those extra inning games are played by evenly matched teams or else they would no go that far all tied up. The home team consistently winning more than half of those 'sudden death' games shows that there is at least a slight advantage, at least too me.

From the Sports Illustrated article I mentioned early in this thread, based on their research, they concluded tailoring a team to the strengths of the park has no effect.

[Kiko1313]

Originally Posted by fhomess

Ok, since I'm the type of person who's happy to give a quick pass at some statistics, I went to Retrosheet and downloaded the game logs for the past 10 seasons (2001-2010).

Year  AWins  HWins    HFA   xAWins   xHWins   xHFA    Diff
2010   1072   1358   .559      104      116   .527   -.032
2009   1097   1333   .549       89      106   .544   -.005
2008   1077   1351   .556      100      108   .519   -.037
2007   1113   1318   .542      103      117   .532   -.010
2006   1102   1327   .546       80      105   .568    .021
2005   1124   1306   .537       85       97   .533   -.004
2004   1129   1299   .535      103      115   .528   -.007
2003   1094   1335   .550       89      108   .548   -.001
2002   1111   1314   .542       85      115   .575    .033
2001   1155   1273   .524      101       94   .482   -.042

Tot    5461   6687   .550      476      552   .537   -.013

x-Columns denote extra inning games

Fhomess - thank you very much for summarizing these games. I think this is pretty convincing that batting last isn't necessarily an advantage. By the way, your totals are only for 2006-2010, but the 2001-2010 percentages are very similar, so no big deal.

Henry - it looks like you may have finally found the error or your ways, but I will add this. I think the flaw in all of your thoughts throughout the thread was that you always talked about a tied or close game in the bottom of the 9th. If it's tied in the bottom of the 9th, of course at that particular point in the game they have an advantage because the visitors already used their 9th inning at bat. But if it's tied GOING INTO the 9th, that's a different story.

And with Fhomess's data, I would tend to conclude batting last is a disadvantage (very small of course, but clearly not an advantage).

[DrArbiter]

I must give full credit here. Most of the last-ups "discussions" I've seen go nowhere, with stubborn reassertions of incorrect arguments without any attempt to make recourse to the data. Full marks to everyone for actually looking at the data, and realising what it's telling us. Yes, it was reinventing the wheel - I haven't seen anything mentioned in thread that one couldn't have gotten by reading the literature cited at the top. Nevertheless, it is always instructive to reproduce the work oneself!

I went down this same road myself about 10 years ago. I was convinced batting last was an advantage -- until I was working on a project, and coming up with results that didn't make sense under that assumption. Eventually, I came to realise that I had never seen a single bit of empirical evidence to support a last-ups advantage. It's one of those things that's asserted without proof, and for the longest time, nobody seems to have even thought about putting it to the test. Again, after all, if it's so obvious that having the last ups is an advantage, the signature of that ought to be writ large in the data!

I have found the last-ups advantage to be an even more stubborn belief than cl**ch hi***ng. I think I'm starting to understand the cognitive psychology behind the cl**ch hi***ng debates, but I still don't have a handle on why there is such resistance to data-driven investigation of the last-ups advantage. If you're reading this and have found yourself to have learned something new from this thread, I'd be curious to learn what had to change in your thinking in order for you to reassess the belief in the last-ups advantage.

[Henry]

In retrospect, Kiko's comment about going into the bottom of the ninth TIED is what embellishes the last-at-bat theory. I think we can all agree that going into the bottom of the ninth TIED is an advantage for the home team because that is the true sudden death situation.

Having said that, and knowing the research above does not include the ninth inning data, it would be interesting to see if the home team has actually been able to take advantage of that scenario. Given the fact that the 54% HFA is mostly obtained in the first three innings, I suspect not - but ninth inning data was not included in either analysis due to its special rules situation.

If someone had the access and time to look at the win-loss record of tied games going into the bottom of the ninth, that would give us the complete picture.

[Kiko1313]

Originally Posted by Henry

If someone had the access and time to look at the win-loss record of tied games going into the bottom of the ninth, that would give us the complete picture.

What's the point of doing that? You're still using the flawed argument of tied in the bottom of the 9th. OF COURSE the home team has the advantage at that point. Even if the winning pct was 60%-65% in favor of the home team that proves nothing.

At that point in the game, for the rest of the game, the home team has 1 more turn at bat than the visiting team. I don't think anyone is going to argue against you that the home team has the advantage there, but it's only because they'll have more turns at bat, not because they're batting last.

If you're tied going into the top of the 9th or go to extra innings (which is essentially equivalent to tied going into the top of the 9th), both teams have equal number of turns at bat and I would therefore expect a the same winning percentage in that situation as the usual home winning percentage. But fhomess's data shows the percentage is lower than expected. And I really doubt including games tied in the 9th would alter the results.

[jdyi87]

Originally Posted by DrArbiter

I went down this same road myself about 10 years ago. I was convinced batting last was an advantage -- until I was working on a project, and coming up with results that didn't make sense under that assumption. Eventually, I came to realise that I had never seen a single bit of empirical evidence to support a last-ups advantage. It's one of those things that's asserted without proof, and for the longest time, nobody seems to have even thought about putting it to the test. Again, after all, if it's so obvious that having the last ups is an advantage, the signature of that ought to be writ large in the data!

I agree with you. Batting last is not an advantage, because two teams have same opportunity. The 9th opportunity (bottom of the 9th inning) is not needed to play when home team is winning. That's it.

Originally Posted by Henry

In retrospect, Kiko's comment about going into the bottom of the ninth TIED is what embellishes the last-at-bat theory. I think we can all agree that going into the bottom of the ninth TIED is an advantage for the home team because that is the true sudden death situation.

Henry, Sudden death situation has nothing to do with an advantage. Two teams have same opportunity. In your example, batting first team consumed 27-out, and batting last team scored more at 24, 25, or 26-out.

[Henry]

Sorry to upset everyone, I was simple trying to document a piece that was missing and try to tie up some lose ends - I'll drop it.

[Childress]

HFA has been talked to death in OOTP.
http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...tage-11-a.html
...and other threads going back many years.

Consensus: In game the home field edge currently runs at close to an accurate 54% when averaged over multiple seasons. The inacurracy in OOTP is that it fluctuates erratically from year to year, say from 48% to 58%. In MLB winning percentage for the home team tends to channel within a narrow range around 54. It's not clear how this can be fixed.

Historically, the implementation of a home field bias in OOTP was fiercely resisted by The Powers That Be (Markus was a non-participant, iirc) for ages before someone saw the light. It debuted in the 8th version (I think). Before then, both factions in the debate exchanged many angry, even downright bitter, posts. Denial, the first stage of grief, was rampant. It was as if the stats heads, the strictly rational types, were unable to fit the concept in their brains. I won't name names. But I could.

It's hard to see how HFA can have anything to do with batting last. Every quantifiable aspect of pitching, fielding and hitting improves at the home park. And ALL sports from girls' field hockey teams in high school to the NFL exhibit this phenomenon. In baseball the effect is actually rather mild compared to pro basketball, where the at home team converts a higher percentage of free throws, or hockey. No team 'bats last' in these sports and reconfiguring a basketball court to favour the local guys would seem a curious project. Denying the reality of home field advantage is like denying the heliocentric theory of the solar system.

[StyxNCa]

I think some of the HFA is man made, ie, GM's building teams with the kind of players that best suit the stadium.

I don't know how things are these days but it used to be the Red Sox preferred RH pitchers because of Fenway and the Yankees preferred LH pitchers because of Yankee Stadium and it's short RF.

[Kobeck]

Originally Posted by Kiko1313

From the Sports Illustrated article I mentioned early in this thread, based on their research, they concluded tailoring a team to the strengths of the park has no effect.

If SI states that GMs are unsuccessful at accomplishing that goal then fine ( I could argue but I'm not that concerned ), but if SI states that it makes no difference then SI is wrong.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

I think some of the HFA is man made, ie, GM's building teams with the kind of players that best suit the stadium.

Again, while this may explain part of the reason for home field advantage at the major league level, it doesn't explain it for the minor league level.

[Vinny P.]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Again, while this may explain part of the reason for home field advantage at the major league level, it doesn't explain it for the minor league level.

Or it's probably just as simple as playing half of your games in one place. There is a strong correlation of good performance in familiar places for a lot of other things outside of sports.

[endgame]

Help me out here. Was there somewhere earlier in the thread that provided data on how many games (%) of that ~5% ended without the home team having to bat in the ninth?

[dkgo]

Originally Posted by Henry

In retrospect, Kiko's comment about going into the bottom of the ninth TIED is what embellishes the last-at-bat theory. I think we can all agree that going into the bottom of the ninth TIED is an advantage for the home team because that is the true sudden death situation.

Its not an advantage because of some bs "sudden death", its an advantage because they have an extra 3 outs to use in order to score runs than the other team. If the game was tied going into the 9th there is no advantage.

Take two equal teams playing in an empty stadium in europe somewhere. It would be a 50/50 proposition. The "home" team doesnt matter.

Your main flaw is that you think the offense knowing exactly what it needs to do to win is an advantage, but you completely ignore the fact that the defense also knows exactly what it needs to do to win and can change their strategy by knowing that giving up one run will lose or that giving up one run doesnt matter, etc.

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by endgame

Help me out here. Was there somewhere earlier in the thread that provided data on how many games (%) of that ~5% ended without the home team having to bat in the ninth?

No, there was not. It was just mentioned that that information was not easily locatable.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Vinny P.

There is a strong correlation of good performance in familiar places for a lot of other things outside of sports.

That doesn't explain why the home field advantage in football and basketball, which have identical playing fields, is even higher than it is in baseball. It ought to be lower in those sports, but isn't.

[dkgo]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

That doesn't explain why the home field advantage in football and basketball, which have identical playing fields, is even higher than it is in baseball. It ought to be lower in those sports, but isn't.

1. travelling sucks and takes a toll on your body, and those are more physical sports.

2. those sports are more difficult to officiate with constant action and more subjective calls, and home field has an impact on referees

[fhomess]

Originally Posted by Curtis

No, there was not. It was just mentioned that that information was not easily locatable.

Actually, knowing how many games end without anyone batting in the bottom of the 9th is quite easy from the same data source as the data I posted above. It's also fairly easy to tell how many games were won in the bottom half of the 9th. I'm not sure what it tells you without also knowing how many games were won in the top of the 9th, though. That latter part is what's not easily discernible from my data source.