Odds of Cubs losing an 11-run lead (October 11, 2003)
I posted this on Clutch...
--posted by TangoTiger at 12:32 PM EDT
Posted 7:12 p.m.,
October 11, 2003
(#1) -
David Smyth
Do those odds of the Cubs blowing the 11 run lead take into account the Alfonseca factor, or the Veres factor, or the Cruz factor? :) I would be interested in knowing the odds of blowing, if you assume a FAT pitcher until the end of the game.
Posted 9:50 p.m.,
October 11, 2003
(#2) -
tangotiger
I can't imagine it being much worse than 1%.
A pitcher that gives up 6 RPG will allow at least 11 runs over 9 innings almost 11% of the time. A pitcher that allows 4.5 RPG will allow at least 11 runs over 9 IP less than 4% of the time.
Not that this helps us any, but if one pitcher is at .14% of blowing it, I have to believe that the other pitcher would be under 1%.
Posted 11:31 a.m.,
October 12, 2003
(#3) -
David Smyth
I think Dusty probably knew that it was quite unlikely that the relievers would blow the game. A factor in all experienced managers' moves is the desire to cover their butts. If he leaves Prior in, the Cubs win. If he takes him out after the 5th say, and the game gets interesting (say ending at 11-7), he will still be criticised. And if Prior is less effective in the next start and the Cubs lose, then it's Prior's fault. However, Dusty said he was "surprised" for being taken to task by the media/public for leaving Prior in. He will start to realize that people now have greater sophistication about the workloads, and so if the same thing happens next year, he'll probably pull Prior after 7 innings instead of 8. :)
Posted 3:56 p.m.,
October 13, 2003
(#4) -
tangotiger
I agree, it's a CYA (cover your a.s.s) move. Managers in baseball, as well as in the business world, do the exact same thing.
I do remember the Expos leading the Cubs 15-2 one game, and when I got home, I learned that Jeff Reardon got the save (final score: 17-15).
Posted 10:18 p.m.,
October 13, 2003
(#5) -
RossCW
I do remember the Expos leading the Cubs 15-2 one game, and when I got home, I learned that Jeff Reardon got the save (final score: 17-15).
Which may mean it has nothing to do with CYA. Baker has watched a lot of baseball and no doubt seen a lot of unlikely things happen. Was the Marlins scoring 11 runs any less likely than the Cubs taking an 11 run lead to begin with?
Posted 9:03 a.m.,
October 14, 2003
(#6) -
Tangotiger
Of course it means nothing. It was just a silly little anecdote that I remembered when I was a teenager.
Posted 12:51 p.m.,
October 14, 2003
(#7) -
RossCW
Of course it means nothing. It was just a silly little anecdote that I remembered when I was a teenager.
That may be. BUt I'm trying to figure out why, immediately after watching the Cubs jump off to an 11 run lead in the first three innings, people are so quick to jump to the conclusion that it was virtually impossible that Florida would do the same thing over the next six.
Posted 1:14 p.m.,
October 14, 2003
(#8) -
tangotiger
Because it was virtually impossible for the Cubs to have done that to begin with. And like I said, it would have been virtually impossible for Florida to do the same, irregardless of the Cubs doing that, UNLESS, the wind was blowing out so much that the run environment was completely changed (and of course, changed for BOTH teams).
Phil Birnbaum published the empirical data, and I posted a link to that page on Primate Studies. Feel free to publish the results here.
Posted 10:11 p.m.,
October 14, 2003
(#9) -
RossCW
it would have been virtually impossible for Florida to do the same
Florida scored 11 or more runs nine times during the regular season.
Posted 10:16 p.m.,
October 14, 2003
(#10) -
RossCW
And the Cubs opponents also did it nine times - which might be more important to Baker.
Posted 12:40 a.m.,
October 15, 2003
(#11) -
Tangotiger
The key are the following:
1 - Remove Prior after 5, and therefore, only have 4 innings remaining for the opposition
2 - The Cubs also having 4 innings to score
Therefore, how often does a team OUTscore its opponents by 11 runs over a span of 4 innings? My math model says .14% of the time, or 1 in 700. MGL's sim showed 1 in 500. What does Phil Birnbaum's empirical data show?
Posted 2:44 a.m.,
October 15, 2003
(#12) -
RossCW
how often does a team OUTscore its opponents by 11 runs over a span of 4 innings?
Arizona did it to the Cubs on August 23rd. From the 3rd-6th they scored 13 runs, the Cubs scored 2. And the White Sox did it to the Cubs in the first four innings on June 20th. So the Cubs had it happen twice just this year. And there were at least a couple other "close calls" in Cubs games where it took a team five innings to score 11 more or they only scored 10 more in four.
Perhaps the "average" team is dfferent but I can't find Phil Birnbaum's data on the topic anyway. In any case, Baker had first hand knowledge that is wasn't impossible.
Posted 11:08 a.m.,
October 15, 2003
(#13) -
tangotiger
(homepage)
Putting "Birnbaum" in the search box below yeilded the above link. If you click on that link, you will be directed to
http://www.philbirnbaum.com/winprobs.txt
Accoring to this record
"V0601-6",1851,24
which reads
"when the visiting team is batting in the 6th inning, with 0 outs and bases empty and down by 6, they won 24 of 1851 games".
That's 1.3%. I think it's easy to see that when they are down by 11 that it would fall pretty low don't you think?
Posted 11:17 a.m.,
October 15, 2003
(#14) -
tangotiger
FWIW, my math model, for the above situation reads 2.2%. Here's the chance of the home team losing the game, entering the 6th, if leading by 1 all the way to leading by 11.
33.3% 1
21.0% 2
12.7% 3
7.3% 4
4.1% 5
2.2% 6
1.2% 7
0.6% 8
0.3% 9
0.2% 10
0.1% 11
Posted 11:58 a.m.,
October 15, 2003
(#15) -
tangotiger
Oh, and I didn't say "impossible", but "virtually impossible". And, I also provided a concrete number (1 in 700) to define what "virtually impossible" means. So, you can quibble about my use of "virtually", but there no reason to drop it from my statement, and to ignore the rather clear odds statement I made.
Posted 12:28 p.m.,
October 15, 2003
(#16) -
RossCW
you can quibble about my use of "virtually"
Actually you are quibbling about your use of the term "virtually". I didn't attribute "impossible", virtual or otherwise, to you, I simply used it in a sentence about what Baker was thinking.
The fact is Baker watched his team give up that many runs in that short a period twice this year and had a couple other occasions where they came close. It was perfectly reasonable for him not to take any chances on it happening again in the playoffs.
Posted 12:33 p.m.,
October 15, 2003
(#17) -
tangotiger
Sorry about that Ross.... natural reaction.
Posted 12:57 p.m.,
October 15, 2003
(#18) -
tangotiger
As for the absolutely most stunning inning I've ever seen (even my baseball-hating wife was intrigued by what was unfolding), the "Win Probability Added" to that fan is -.014 wins.
Cubs chance of winning was .970 if Alou catches, and .956 with the fan getting in the way.
Posted 4:38 p.m.,
October 15, 2003
(#19) -
Craig B
Was the Marlins scoring 11 runs any less likely than the Cubs taking an 11 run lead to begin with?
Since we are talking about a situation where the Cubs already had an 11 run lead, yes. About 100% less likely.
It was perfectly reasonable for him not to take any chances on it happening again in the playoffs.
No, it was not perfectly reasonable. It was perfectly unreasonable for him to leave a young pitcher who had already been worked hard in the playoffs, and who has pitched much more than he ever has before in a year this year, to pitch two utterly meaningless innings when it would have left him fresh for a Game 6.
In the end, Prior tired badly at the end of Game 6, started leaving pitches up, and gave up five runs (with the help of some bad luck), leaving him and the Cubs with the loss.
Posted 4:46 p.m.,
October 15, 2003
(#20) -
tangotiger
Excellent point there. The number of hard hit balls, rather than the number of hits I think is more telling. Prior was getting creamed, and who knows if the extra rest in game 2 would have helped. The presumption is that it certainly wouldn't have hurt, and the .0014 wins that the Cubs gained in game 2 was just not worth it.
Posted 10:28 p.m.,
October 15, 2003
(#21) -
RossCW
It was perfectly unreasonable for him to leave a young pitcher who had already been worked hard in the playoffs, and who has pitched much more than he ever has before in a year this year, to pitch two utterly meaningless innings when it would have left him fresh for a Game 6.
There is exactly zero evidence that pitching seven innings instead of five has any predictable impact on pitching performance five days later. That is a lot less than the evidence that a team can score eleven runs in four innings against the Cubs pitching since two teams did it this season.
Posted 12:11 p.m.,
October 16, 2003
(#22) -
Craig B
RossCW, the next time you talk to a pitcher, I suggest you ask him. Just ask him about the difference between throwing 85 or so and throwing 120.
Some guys love it. There is a class of pitchers who thrive on the workload, and in particular guys who like short rest and heavy workloads, because it keeps them sharp. Roy Halladay is one who likes longer outings when he can, and prefers short rest (never five days) because he feels sharper and more in control.
Breaking pitches in particular are notoriously affected by the wrong amount of time off or feeling tired - something I remember well from when I pitched myself in youth baseball. At the end of a session, one loses velocity but even more, loses the ability to make a good mechanical delivery. That affects the breaking pitches much more because the release point is even more crucial there.
Other guys, I think more of them, like the extra rest, and would (all other things being equal) prefer to throw 100 pitches or less in a start, or take an extra day, what have you, so that their arm is better rested, and throw side sessions at 50% or 75% to keep themselves sharp.
Prior, in his last few batters of Game 6, looked like a tired pitcher. His breaking pitches were all up, the sure sign of a lazy arm slot, and his velocity was down, the sure sign of tired legs. He was leaving the ball in the hitting zones and the Marlins were hitting rockets off him (anecdotally... I'd have to go back to the game summary to refresh my memory exactly).
Was that caused by the extra work at the end of Game 2? We'll never know... the supposed cause isn't proximate enough for us to judge. Maybe he was too excited and couldn't sleep well the night before, affecting his recovery time. Maybe he couldn't get properly loose on a cool night (a frequent culprit of short outings).
But heavy workload in a previous start, both anecdotally (for certain) and in some preliminary study (I *think*... I can't recall though so I may be wrong) is certainly a frequent cause of early breakdown the next time out. Managers and coaches will tell you that if you've been worked hard the last time out, most pitchers won't respond as well in their next start.
It's anecdotal, sure, and we don't know how Prior is affected by tough workloads (he sure as heck did fine with them this year, he had a very good September when he was being given a crushing workload by Dusty Baker). But I do know this... when Prior threw 106 pitches or less in a start this year, he was simply awesome in his subsequent starts. Only once in those eight starts did he give up more than one earned run.
Posted 2:49 a.m.,
October 17, 2003
(#23) -
RossCW
Managers and coaches will tell you that if you've been worked hard the last time out, most pitchers won't respond as well in their next start.
I didn't see Dusty Baker say that about Mark Prior and he's the manager with the most experience with Prior.
Prior pitched 9,9,7,8,8 innings from August 10th through September 1st. He gave up 3 runs. That does not look to me like a pitcher who has a hard time coming back after five days.
Frankly there is no evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, to support a claim that Prior suffered from being overworked in game 2. Its just speculation.
The fact is that if you play the odds no one should run out pop flys or ground balls. They should save their energy for when it is likely to count.