Let’s say that the away team scores 6 runs in the top of the 10th, please clarify the reasons for your claim that it’s clear that the home team has an advantage in the middle of the 10th?
The home team has an advantage at the middle of the tenth if they’ve already held the visitors scoreless in the top. This is a true statement, but no more insightful than the statement that a team has an advantage if they’re up by six runs. Yes, they have the advantage if that is the case. But it isn’t always.
It’s nothing more simple than this: the home team may have that slight advantage, but only because the visitors had the advantage in the top of the first.
Or, as Thomas Boswell once put it, “Visitors bat first for courtesy, home team bats last for drama.”
Right, but it is never a scenario that the visiting team can have. The home team can hold the visitors scoreless and have the advantage. If the visiting team holds the home team scoreless, then it only gets back to even. It never has an advantage.
They obviously have an advantage if the game is tied at that point, but why assume that the game would be tied? The visiting team has had a chance to score already and they might have got some runs.
According to this blog from Baseball-Reference.com, home team win percentage in extra inning games is .531. This study was over eight seasons from 2000 through 2007. RealityChuck gives a win percentage of .537 back in post #2. If both these figures are correct, it shows no extra advantage to the home team.
Your daughter may have a bright future ahead of her as a statistical analyst. Just keep her out of sports bars.
Right. The first thing to consider is that home teams have an advantage before the game starts. For a game to get to extra innings, the visitors have already overcome a measure of this advantage. Really the home team is, on average, though still favored to win the game, actually worse off in the tenth inning than they were in the first.
septimus’s link above (seriously, did nobody read it or see it?) has an even much larger sample size:
It was perhaps not particularly insightful, but I do believe that the six runs in the top of the tenth scenario is useful as a specific counterexample to the claim presented: that the home team always has the advantage in the middle of the tenth.
Even after the above, UltraVires is still maintaining that no scenario exists where the visiting team has the advantage at that time. I’m not sure how to be more clear than to say that if the visiting team is winning by six runs in the middle of the tenth inning, then the visiting team has the advantage in the game. I don’t think statistics are needed to demonstrate this.
Moderator Action
Moving thread from General Questions to the Game Room.
I agree that if the visiting team scores six runs in the top of the tenth, then it has a clear advantage. Although I didn’t state it as well as I should have, my position is that in the middle of the 9th or subsequent inning, with the game tied, the home team has an advantage.
Some may say that this is a “no shit, sherlock” proposition, but it is an advantage that only the home team can have. I am surprised that home teams have only won 52% of extra inning games, and that does give me pause to rethink the common wisdom. Maybe it is merely psychological, but the advantage swings at different points the in the game. The teams, in the middle of an inning, need the following to win:
Home Team: 1 run
Visiting Team: 6 outs and 1 run.
This is the most advantageous position that the home team can achieve. The most advantageous position the visiting team can achieve is the start of a new inning with everything back to even.
Well, but that’s not really the relevant thing to consider. There are plenty of specific situations in which one team has an advantage. If the home team has scored twelve runs, they have an advantage. If they’ve loaded the bases, they have an advantage.
Considering the game as a whole, though, each team has to do the same thing to win: score more runs than the other team, after both teams have had an equal number of half-innings. You could say that the home team has a disadvantage: they sometimes get to play fewer half-innings (offensively) than the visiting team. But that only happens in situations where it wouldn’t have affected who won if they had played the same number of half-innings.
If you’re still not convinced, though, consider this: how would you change things so that the home team didn’t have the advantage you think they have? How would you make it “fair”?
The most advantageous position for either team is to score thousands more runs than the other team anytime in the game. There is no batting last advantage. It’s baseball, there’s no clock, each team has to play the same number of innings. Each team gets the same number of chances to win. Any time one team has more runs than the other they have an advantage that has nothing to do with batting last.
ETA: basically what Thudlow just said.
Being the visiting team up six runs the middle of the tenth is a much more advantageous position than that of being the home team after a scoreless top of the tenth.
This is an advantage only the visiting team can have. If we ignore all the other possible outcomes of the top of the tenth and focus only on this one, it becomes very clear that the visiting team has a huge advantage over the home team.
Is it rational to only consider this one particular scenario when evaluating who has the advantage? No, we should also consider other cases including those where they score no runs in the top of the tenth as well as where they score six. Similarly, your favorite scenario in which the visiting team does not score in the tenth should also not be the only thing you consider when you evaluate who has the advantage at that time. Otherwise you’re just selecting the outcome via your own input assumptions.
This is what I came in to say.
There is an advantage to the home team in that they can play their bottom of the extra inning differently based on the mountain they face to climb. If they are tied, they can play for one run to win, which puts bunting into play, and all of that “small ball” strategy to squeeze across that one run.
If they are down a run, they play differently. If there is a runner on 3rd with one out, the batter can try to drive the ball as far as possible, and if he doesn’t hit a home run, so what? If he hits it deep enough, the runner from third tags and scores. That ties the game again.
If they are down by 2, the sacrifice fly will score a run, but costs the home team an out. And they would remain behind. Big difference, and it changes the mentatilty of both the batter and the manager.
Again, I think the defense gets a bigger advantage from this than the offense does. There are simply a lot more defensive decisions (and they matter at least as much) compared to offensive decisions. For emotionless robots, batting last would be a disadvantage.
While there are scenarios that help the defense, i can’t think of any that would help a defense if the score was tied.
Can you explain what you are thinking? Because I don’t see what you do.
I read your original post in the thread. I am referring to the situation where the visitors don’t score in the top half.
I think the point was with bases loaded and no outs, in a tied game you play in. with a one run lead you may play at double play depth. In a two-run game definitely double-play depth or maybe even deep infield.
The offensive team pretty much has one strategy - hit it in the air deep. Maybe a second strategy of hit to right field if down by multiple runs.
[Bottom of 9th or later] Man on second, one out, decent batter coming up. If the away team is up by three runs, they’ll pitch to him. If it’s a tie game, they’ll probably walk him (intentionally or semi-intentionally), figuring it’s better to try and get a double-play with the next batter.
Or, man on third, one out. The outfield will come way in, knowing that a deep fly ball would score the runner even if caught, so they’ll play to catch liners/bloops or get to grounders soon enough to possibly get the runner at home.
The point, is the defense has a lot of decisions they can make that significantly affect the outcome of the play. The offense doesn’t really. It’s not like a batter can just choose to hit a long ball versus eking out an infield hit, not against a pitcher who cares. Sure you can try to hit a sacrifice fly, but if you can consistently succeed at intentionally hitting a long fly ball against major league pitching, then you’re peak Barry Bonds and are better off just hitting it out of the park anyway.
I just don’t agree. The defensive game is, basically, throwing strikes and making plays. Defensive strategies start coming into play* largely once the defense is already in serious trouble.*
Only if the game is tied… and, see, here you’re already in serious trouble. This is not really a “strategy.” “Strategy” implies decisions and choices between viable options. With a tie game and the automatic winning run on third, the outfielders MUST play within throwing range of the catcher. There is no other choice.
Having said all that, it is objectively the case that **home teams do not have a significant edge in extra innings. ** The home team advantage in extra inning games is LESS than it is in regular games.