[BostonCard]

I wonder if the new system further advantages home teams compared to the old extra innings system because knowledge of how many runs you need to score is even more valuable.  It's a bit like the college football overtime rule, except that at least in college football, the team on offense first alternates in each OT.


BC

I had assumed that the new rule would make no difference, since knowledge of how many runs the home team needs would be equally valuable under the old rule and the new rule. However, there are various published analyses that argue that win expectancy for road teams is theoretically greater under the new rule, and this has been borne out so far. In the two years that the rule was tested in the minor leagues road teams won extra inning games at a greater rate than historical norms both years, and in last year's abbreviated MLB season and the start of this season that has also been the case.

I am pretty sure that seven inning games have a much more distortive effect. A weaker team has a significantly higher likelihood of upsetting a stronger team in a game that is only three quarters as long, not to mention that stronger teams usually have more pitching depth, and that advantage is obviously significantly mitigated in a seven inning game.

Thanks for setting me straight.  I figured that the value of the extra information is greater with a man on base than without.  Specifically, having a man on second with no outs would produce drastically different results depending on whether the game were tied or the home team were losing by more than one run.

But sometimes what seems intuitively right isn't so.

BC

[BostonCard]

I wonder if the new system further advantages home teams compared to the old extra innings system because knowledge of how many runs you need to score is even more valuable.  It's a bit like the college football overtime rule, except that at least in college football, the team on offense first alternates in each OT.


BC

I had assumed that the new rule would make no difference, since knowledge of how many runs the home team needs would be equally valuable under the old rule and the new rule. However, there are various published analyses that argue that win expectancy for road teams is theoretically greater under the new rule, and this has been borne out so far. In the two years that the rule was tested in the minor leagues road teams won extra inning games at a greater rate than historical norms both years, and in last year's abbreviated MLB season and the start of this season that has also been the case.

I am pretty sure that seven inning games have a much more distortive effect. A weaker team has a significantly higher likelihood of upsetting a stronger team in a game that is only three quarters as long, not to mention that stronger teams usually have more pitching depth, and that advantage is obviously significantly mitigated in a seven inning game.

Thanks for setting me straight.  I figured that the value of the extra information is greater with a man on base than without.  Specifically, having a man on second with no outs would produce drastically different results depending on whether the game were tied or the home team were losing by more than one run.

But sometimes what seems intuitively right isn't so.

BC