PDA

View Full Version : Run Scoring Efficiency Redux



BernieCarbo
09-19-2014, 10:31 AM
I found one particular thread in the main forum pretty interesting (Would you move Lorenzen to the bullpen), and since I have a wealth of information in a database and a method of extracting it quite easily, I thought Iíd build on it and clear up some misconceptions with real data. I wonít mention specific posters and I donít care about who said what and I donít care who won an argument. I am in the data analysis business, and I just like to take raw data and let it tell the story.

Although my data encompasses every major league game (long story, but it includes all the retrosheet data as well as from other sources, but the structure was massaged quite a bit to make it easier to extract data), for this exercise I used only games from 1920-2013 ( for a total of 161,000 games), and excluded tied, rain-shortened, forfeited, and extra-inning games. Of course these games have some meaning and I also made an analysis that included them separately, but it barely changed the percentages, and it didnít make sense to compare the number of runs scored in the 1st with the runs in the 9th if the 9th didnít even exist. Extra inning games are special cases as well, and there were some oddities I didnít expect when I ran some numbers against them (a discussion for another time).

Anyway, here are some numbers from a much larger sample set. If someone wants me to run the numbers differently or use specific circumstances, I could do that.



What I can give you is a very rough estimate of what the odds are of a team winning that scores 1-4 runs in the first vs. the odds of a team winning that scores 1-4 runs in the 9th.

Teams that score 1-4 runs in the Top of 1 win 75.1% of their games.
Teams that score 1-4 runs in the Top of 9 win 87.6% of their games.

These are very rough, based on just one week of data, which really isn't enough to get the right frequencies of each situation. But it's the best that I can do.


Actually, this shows the danger of a small sample size. I donít know if other qualifiers were used in this example, but taken literally as it is stated, the records turn out nearly identical:

Teams that score 1-4 runs in the Top of 1 win 59.1% of their games (23823-16485).
Teams that score 1-4 runs in the Top of 9 win 59.6% of their games (21472-14529).

Iíd kind of expect the number of games where a team scores in the first exceeds the games scored in the 9th due to the fact that the best hitters always come up in the 1st (unless there is a manager predisposed to putting a scrappy little fireplug banjo hitter in the two hole year after year), but still the percentages are quite similar.

Later in the thread, there were these stats presented:



Here is a quick summation of each run scored in those situations up to 4 runs. The numbers are rough, because I only used a few examples to make the averages, but you'll see, that there's not much room for adjustments with more data.

Teams that score one run in the Top of 1 win 63 % of their games.
Teams that score 2 runs in the Top of 1 win 77% of their games.
Teams that score 3 runs in the Top of 1 win 88% of their games.
Teams that score 4 runs in the Top of 1 win 92% of their games.

Teams that score one run in the Top of 9 win 81% of their games.
Teams that score 2 runs in the Top of 9 win 89% of their games.
Teams that score 3 runs in the Top of 9 win 94% of their games.
Teams that score 4 runs in the Top of 9 win 97% of their games.

As teams score more runs, the closer the numbers get, but with just one and two runs scoring, there is big difference. I can't do an average since I don't know how many times each one occurred in the history of MLB, but we can safely assume that as the numbers of runs get larger, the frequency diminishes, which means the difference between the 1 run games will have a stronger force on the average than the bigger number games. Meaning, even as we add more an more runs scored examples, the average isn't going to change much for the difference between the 1 run games.


Here are the actual numbers:

Teams that score one run in the Top of 1 win 51.8 % of their games.
Teams that score 2 runs in the Top of 1 win 62.8% of their games.
Teams that score 3 runs in the Top of 1 win 71.5% of their games.
Teams that score 4 runs in the Top of 1 win 82.1% of their games.

Teams that score one run in the Top of 9 win 53.0% of their games.
Teams that score 2 runs in the Top of 9 win 63.2% of their games.
Teams that score 3 runs in the Top of 9 win 73.6% of their games.
Teams that score 4 runs in the Top of 9 win 82.5% of their games.

There is a very marginal difference when scoring in the 9th, but that has other factors as well.

Someone else asked a very specific question that I was curious about myself:



Teams that score in the Top of 1 win ___% of their games.

Teams that score in the Top of 9 win ___% of their games.


The results:
Teams that score in the Top of 1 win _59__% of their games.
Teams that score in the Top of 9 win _59__% of their games.

There really isnít a difference at all, since scoring is always a good thing no matter when you do it.

But this prompted another question. What about teams that score in the top of the 1st and never again, and teams that score for the first time in the top of the 9th? Here we go:

Teams that score in the Top of 1 and never again win 16% of their games.
Teams that score in the Top of 9 for the first time win 18% of their games.

Again, a marginal difference, but this situation happens pretty rarely (2.2% of the time) and the sample size is small, but itís still an indicator that a team really just needs to score as often as possible. Who knew? :)


Anyway, I just wanted to throw this stuff out there since I canít post on the main board. But if anyone wants me to run the numbers a different way, I can certainly do that. Also, one caveat: I may have made a mistake somewhere because I regularly recreate the raw database when new or updated data is available and I could have flubbed up something, but I'm pretty sure this is accurate. If something jumps out at you, let me know and I'll check.

757690
09-19-2014, 11:50 AM
I know you trust your database, but this runs counter to what the Wins Expectancy charts says. That's what I based my numbers on, which Fangraphs uses on a daily basis. So either you or Fangraphs are wrong on this. The sample size shouldn't matter that much.

757690
09-19-2014, 12:54 PM
Here is a chart by Tango that shows that as the game progresses, the leverage of each situation increases:

http://www.insidethebook.com/li.shtml

757690
09-19-2014, 02:19 PM
I want to point to a specific stat of yours that contradicts what Fangraphs says about the win expectancy of a situation.

You say that your numbers say that a team who scores one run in the top of the first wins 51.8% of the time.

Fangraphs says that a team that scores a run in the top of the first wins 55.1% of the time. Here is a link to a game in which a team scores a run in the first. It shows that at the end of that first inning, where they scored one run, they won 55.1% of the time.

http://www.fangraphs.com/plays.aspx?date=2014-09-16&team=Orioles&dh=0&season=2014

Another example:

You say that your numbers say that a team who scores two runs in the top of the first wins 62.8% of the time.

Fangraphs says that a team that scores two runs in the top of the first wins 70.6% of the time. Here is a link to a game in which a team scores a run in the first. It shows that at the end of that first inning, where they scored two runs, they won 70.6% of the time.

http://www.fangraphs.com/plays.aspx?date=2014-09-18&team=Cubs&dh=0&season=2014

Clearly, your numbers are wrong, or Fangraphs numbers are wrong.

RedlegJake
09-20-2014, 09:57 AM
LOL...even when someone shows you in black and white you just can't accept it. Just agree that you disagree and move on.

Herzeleid
09-20-2014, 10:27 AM
I found one particular thread in the main forum pretty interesting (Would you move Lorenzen to the bullpen), and since I have a wealth of information in a database and a method of extracting it quite easily, I thought I’d build on it and clear up some misconceptions with real data. I won’t mention specific posters and I don’t care about who said what and I don’t care who won an argument. I am in the data analysis business, and I just like to take raw data and let it tell the story.

Although my data encompasses every major league game (long story, but it includes all the retrosheet data as well as from other sources, but the structure was massaged quite a bit to make it easier to extract data), for this exercise I used only games from 1920-2013 ( for a total of 161,000 games), and excluded tied, rain-shortened, forfeited, and extra-inning games. Of course these games have some meaning and I also made an analysis that included them separately, but it barely changed the percentages, and it didn’t make sense to compare the number of runs scored in the 1st with the runs in the 9th if the 9th didn’t even exist. Extra inning games are special cases as well, and there were some oddities I didn’t expect when I ran some numbers against them (a discussion for another time).

Anyway, here are some numbers from a much larger sample set. If someone wants me to run the numbers differently or use specific circumstances, I could do that.



Actually, this shows the danger of a small sample size. I don’t know if other qualifiers were used in this example, but taken literally as it is stated, the records turn out nearly identical:

Teams that score 1-4 runs in the Top of 1 win 59.1% of their games (23823-16485).
Teams that score 1-4 runs in the Top of 9 win 59.6% of their games (21472-14529).

I’d kind of expect the number of games where a team scores in the first exceeds the games scored in the 9th due to the fact that the best hitters always come up in the 1st (unless there is a manager predisposed to putting a scrappy little fireplug banjo hitter in the two hole year after year), but still the percentages are quite similar.

Later in the thread, there were these stats presented:




Here are the actual numbers:

Teams that score one run in the Top of 1 win 51.8 % of their games.
Teams that score 2 runs in the Top of 1 win 62.8% of their games.
Teams that score 3 runs in the Top of 1 win 71.5% of their games.
Teams that score 4 runs in the Top of 1 win 82.1% of their games.

Teams that score one run in the Top of 9 win 53.0% of their games.
Teams that score 2 runs in the Top of 9 win 63.2% of their games.
Teams that score 3 runs in the Top of 9 win 73.6% of their games.
Teams that score 4 runs in the Top of 9 win 82.5% of their games.

There is a very marginal difference when scoring in the 9th, but that has other factors as well.

Someone else asked a very specific question that I was curious about myself:



The results:
Teams that score in the Top of 1 win _59__% of their games.
Teams that score in the Top of 9 win _59__% of their games.

There really isn’t a difference at all, since scoring is always a good thing no matter when you do it.

But this prompted another question. What about teams that score in the top of the 1st and never again, and teams that score for the first time in the top of the 9th? Here we go:

Teams that score in the Top of 1 and never again win 16% of their games.
Teams that score in the Top of 9 for the first time win 18% of their games.

Again, a marginal difference, but this situation happens pretty rarely (2.2% of the time) and the sample size is small, but it’s still an indicator that a team really just needs to score as often as possible. Who knew? :)


Anyway, I just wanted to throw this stuff out there since I can’t post on the main board. But if anyone wants me to run the numbers a different way, I can certainly do that. Also, one caveat: I may have made a mistake somewhere because I regularly recreate the raw database when new or updated data is available and I could have flubbed up something, but I'm pretty sure this is accurate. If something jumps out at you, let me know and I'll check.
Nice work! :thumbup:

757690
09-20-2014, 11:24 AM
LOL...even when someone shows you in black and white you just can't accept it. Just agree that you disagree and move on.

I clearly showed in black and white that his work is wrong. That his numbers contradict the numbers that are in black and white on Fangraphs and Tom Tango, the two leading experts on sabermetrics, He is contradicting the stats provided by the two leading experts on this subject. And yet, you believe him over me. Wow.

This guy shows up our if nowhere. and says that he personally had kept track of every MLB game and has the ability to sort out how each team did after every scoring event in the history baseball since the 1930's. Who has that? And why does his personal numbers contradict the numbers that Fangrpahs and Tom Tango put up?

It really is amazing and befuddling, that anyone would believe this guy, with almost no history here on Redszone, who is presenting numbers with no link, nothing to back them up, that he claims he has personally kept for decades, and not believe me, when I provide links to the stats that I used, links to Fangraphs and Tom Tango that 100% back up my claim.

I am going to ask you and everyone else, why do you believe this guy, who has provided zero proof of his numbers, and not believe me, who has provided proof of my numbers?

757690
09-20-2014, 11:37 AM
Nice work! :thumbup:

Too bad it's wrong, and likely made up.

BernieCarbo
09-20-2014, 11:57 AM
Too bad it's wrong, and likely made up.

It's not made up, and I'm not sure why you would say that. I'm running some verifications of the data to make sure I didn't flub up something in my parser to the database. It looks good so far, although I found a couple of very minor discrepancies in earlier years between Retrosheets and Baseball Reference. This is expected as each one admits that some game data is built from various newspaper accounts, and even today some things like RBI totals are modified (see Hack Wilson). I'll run some more cross checks before I post further data.

757690
09-20-2014, 12:03 PM
It's not made up, and I'm not sure why you would say that. I'm running some verifications of the data to make sure I didn't flub up something in my parser to the database. It looks good so far, although I found a couple of very minor discrepancies in earlier years between Retrosheets and Baseball Reference. This is expected as each one admits that some game data is built from various newspaper accounts, and even today some things like RBI totals are modified (see Hack Wilson). I'll run some more cross checks before I post further data.

I said your numbers are likely made up because they contradict the numbers that Fangraphs and Tom Tango have presented.

Please explain why your numbers contradict the numbers on Fangraphs.

Lol, I can say that I have a magic database, and present any kind of numbers I want from them. Anyone can.

I have presented numbers taken directly from Fangraphs, with links to Fangraphs, and also presented a link to a chart from Tom Tango that also backs up my stats.

Before anyone can believe you, you have to explain why your numbers contradict Fangraphs and Tom Tango.

BernieCarbo
09-20-2014, 12:05 PM
This guy shows up our if nowhere. and says that he personally had kept track of every MLB game and has the ability to sort out how each team did after every scoring event in the history baseball since the 1930's. Who has that? And why does his personal numbers contradict the numbers that Fangrpahs and Tom Tango put up?

It really is amazing and befuddling, that anyone would believe this guy, with almost no history here on Redszone, who is presenting numbers with no link, nothing to back them up, that he claims he has personally kept for decades, and not believe me, when I provide links to the stats that I used, links to Fangraphs and Tom Tango that 100% back up my claim.

I am going to ask you and everyone else, why do you believe this guy, who has provided zero proof of his numbers, and not believe me, who has provided proof of my numbers?

I don't have a link because I created the numbers from actual data. The raw data is readily available on the net (every line score and most play by play data), and anyone with a basic understanding of programming can write a program that grabs these downloads and sticks them in a database. It isn't difficult. You could download SQLServer for free and even use excel to construct an import script. Personally, I'm amazed that you think having this data is a big deal.

I came out of nowhere because we all start from zero, right? I just found that particular topic interesting and wanted to offer some input. No worries.

757690
09-20-2014, 12:08 PM
I don't have a link because I created the numbers from actual data. The raw data is readily available on the net (every line score and most play by play data), and anyone with a basic understanding of programming can write a program that grabs these downloads and sticks them in a database. It isn't difficult. You could download SQLServer for free and even use excel to construct an import script. Personally, I'm amazed that you think having this data is a big deal.

I came out of nowhere because we all start from zero, right? I just found that particular topic interesting and wanted to offer some input. No worries.

You haven't answered my question. Why do your numbers contradict the numbers on Fangraohs?

BernieCarbo
09-20-2014, 04:34 PM
They are using different constraints. I only use the constraints I defined above (1920-present, complete nine inning games), and answered the questions as presented in the thread. If you know their constraints and qualifiers, I'll run the same algorithm and see how the numbers compare. But, they will be the same because I am sure we all use the same data. I don't make stuff up.

757690
09-20-2014, 05:10 PM
They are using different constraints. I only use the constraints I defined above (1920-present, complete nine inning games), and answered the questions as presented in the thread. If you know their constraints and qualifiers, I'll run the same algorithm and see how the numbers compare. But, they will be the same because I am sure we all use the same data. I don't make stuff up.

Nope, sorry. Same constraints and qualifiers.

I compared Fangraphs' numbers when a team scores a single run in the top of the first inning, and when a team scores exactly two runs in the top of the first inning. The numbers they have for this exact situation are different from the numbers you produced for the exact same situations. And by a significant margin.

You seem like a nice guy, so I stop saying you likely made them up. But if you didn't make them up, then you made a mistake in your calculations. Or Fangraphs did. This is not a debatable point. They are the numbers for the exact same situation, based on historical data. They have to be identical. If they are not, someone made a mistake.

BernieCarbo
09-20-2014, 05:26 PM
Can you tell me what Fangraphs says for say, 1954? What is the record for teams that score 2 runs in the top of the first? I'll compare it to mine and see where the mistake is.

757690
09-20-2014, 05:34 PM
Can you tell me what Fangraphs says for say, 1954? What is the record for teams that score 2 runs in the top of the first? I'll compare it to mine and see where the mistake is.

They don't have that. What they have is the record of all teams in that situation, all time. That's what Wins Expectancy is. That's what I am using.

BernieCarbo
09-20-2014, 05:43 PM
What they have is the record of all teams in that situation, all time

All time, meaning since 1870 or so? Every year and every game? They don't have the ability to break it down by decade or era?

757690
09-20-2014, 05:51 PM
By the way, I think I found one problem with trying to answer this question at hand.

The top of the first inning is not like any other half inning in the game. The top of the first always starts out tied 0-0. It's the only inning that is guaranteed to start out tied. All other innings can start out with a variety of scores:1-0, 0-3, 8-5, 3-15, etc. That means that the odds of winning a game after you score a run in the top of the first, will always be higher than 50%. That is not true for any other inning. For instance, the odds of winning a game after scoring a run in the 5th inning of a 3-1 game you are losing is only 17.1%. The odds of winning a game after scoring a run in the 9th inning of a 3-1 game you are losing is only 9.4%, all according to Fangraphs. We don't even have that situation in the top of the first, since a team can't be losing in the top of the first.

Therefore, by using the top of the first inning to compare to the top of the ninth, we aren't making a fair comparison. We need to compare the top of the 9th to the top of any other inning to have a fair comparison, because both sets of data need to include games in which the team is losing. That can't happen when one is using the top of the first inning.

I'm currently trying to get the numbers to compare the top of the 9th to the top of the 5th, as that will be a fair and meaningful comparison. It will take some time, however. BernieCarbo, if you could run those numbers with your system, it will be interesting to compare my results with your results.

757690
09-20-2014, 05:52 PM
All time, meaning since 1870 or so? Every year and every game? They don't have the ability to break it down by decade or era?

I believe WE starts in 1954. WE probably does have it broken down by decade, year, etc. But Fangraphs does not.

BernieCarbo
09-20-2014, 06:00 PM
Fwiw, here is a script output from my database for every year since 1920. It is very simple: The winning percentage of teams who score two runs in the top of the first, and two runs in the top of the ninth. There are no other conditions other than I only consider complete nine inning games. The number in parentheses is the total number of games in each condition. I am not throwing any rules at this data and I'm not conditioning it. It is pulled from raw data as the games were actually played.

If you look at the numbers, they also make sense. For instance, in 1968 when there was an offensive drought, you would expect that it wouldn't take as many runs to win a game, and sure enough it was far more common that those two runs in the first held the lead as compared to the years after expansion. There is also a trend where it is obvious that the increase of specialist closers has made a difference. Also, the numbers are a little more random than I would have thought, but it is what it is and makes a case for why a small sample size matters. Actually, I wrote a little program where I could just input any number of runs I wanted, and found that no team has ever lost a game when they scored at least 8 runs in the top of the 1st or 9th. Sounds like a solid strategy for Price. :)



Season First Inning Ninth Inning
1920 (89) 65% (72) 61%
1921 (94) 68% (87) 62%
1922 (79) 67% (83) 65%
1923 (93) 56% (81) 59%
1924 (88) 63% (75) 60%
1925 (82) 48% (73) 64%
1926 (84) 65% (85) 67%
1927 (103) 56% (69) 52%
1928 (85) 60% (86) 53%
1929 (92) 63% (98) 61%
1930 (96) 61% (89) 57%
1931 (91) 53% (66) 48%
1932 (101) 53% (60) 60%
1933 (80) 67% (64) 71%
1934 (96) 60% (77) 66%
1935 (90) 57% (82) 68%
1936 (84) 60% (88) 64%
1937 (76) 61% (94) 63%
1938 (62) 61% (89) 50%
1939 (101) 63% (78) 53%
1940 (75) 49% (77) 64%
1941 (97) 60% (74) 64%
1942 (67) 61% (58) 67%
1943 (75) 65% (74) 64%
1944 (85) 61% (66) 63%
1945 (65) 55% (70) 55%
1946 (72) 56% (71) 64%
1947 (96) 61% (81) 54%
1948 (89) 75% (73) 64%
1949 (84) 69% (66) 65%
1950 (83) 55% (81) 65%
1951 (80) 62% (66) 66%
1952 (83) 71% (69) 60%
1953 (93) 59% (77) 66%
1954 (100) 71% (84) 71%
1955 (79) 56% (69) 56%
1956 (88) 61% (72) 68%
1957 (60) 73% (74) 67%
1958 (75) 64% (74) 68%
1959 (90) 64% (76) 61%
1960 (69) 49% (61) 65%
1961 (91) 72% (102) 53%
1962 (123) 59% (86) 54%
1963 (85) 70% (95) 53%
1964 (118) 55% (95) 71%
1965 (96) 61% (89) 68%
1966 (98) 62% (78) 57%
1967 (93) 60% (86) 56%
1968 (78) 73% (82) 65%
1969 (125) 58% (79) 70%
1970 (136) 59% (112) 66%
1971 (119) 64% (112) 69%
1972 (113) 76% (99) 59%
1973 (132) 71% (109) 58%
1974 (125) 64% (113) 73%
1975 (115) 71% (106) 59%
1976 (117) 59% (89) 71%
1977 (158) 60% (140) 57%
1978 (127) 66% (120) 58%
1979 (122) 59% (134) 64%
1980 (136) 55% (112) 55%
1981 (87) 72% (72) 72%
1982 (137) 64% (113) 72%
1983 (141) 63% (123) 60%
1984 (137) 64% (110) 57%
1985 (137) 58% (102) 71%
1986 (118) 62% (125) 60%
1987 (156) 63% (139) 66%
1988 (140) 63% (111) 63%
1989 (143) 63% (119) 56%
1990 (130) 66% (125) 68%
1991 (142) 65% (105) 64%
1992 (141) 72% (95) 62%
1993 (158) 65% (136) 65%
1994 (117) 61% (112) 61%
1995 (146) 56% (128) 72%
1996 (162) 66% (120) 58%
1997 (165) 56% (140) 63%
1998 (171) 66% (137) 65%
1999 (183) 66% (162) 69%
2000 (202) 54% (149) 62%
2001 (178) 62% (164) 67%
2002 (155) 68% (138) 65%
2003 (181) 63% (158) 63%
2004 (170) 55% (154) 61%
2005 (173) 69% (141) 57%
2006 (173) 63% (124) 61%
2007 (164) 63% (145) 62%
2008 (176) 60% (138) 57%
2009 (153) 66% (133) 56%
2010 (154) 56% (150) 63%
2011 (161) 62% (140) 76%
2012 (151) 66% (152) 65%
2013 (147) 59% (136) 70%

757690
09-20-2014, 06:35 PM
Thanks for showing your work, but it still doesn't explain why your numbers differ so greatly from Fangraphs' numbers. You claim all those numbers average out to teams winning 62% of the time when they score 2 runs in the top of the first, but Fangraphs says that they win 70% of the time.

The exact number is 66.9% according to fangraphs. Here is the link

http://www.fangraphs.com/plays.aspx?date=2013-09-16&team=Athletics&dh=0&season=2013

It shows that after the Angels scored 2 runs in the top of the first, the odds of them winning the game, based on historical data, the same data you used, was 66.9%.

Something is amiss here.

BernieCarbo
09-20-2014, 06:49 PM
How many years of data are they using?

And where do you see 66.9 on that link?

757690
09-20-2014, 06:57 PM
How many years of data are they using?

And where do you see 66.9 on that link?

It says that the A's had a 33.1 chance of wining at the end of that inning. Which means that the Angels had a 66.9 chance of winning.

I don't know how many years it's based on. But it should have such a big swing as that, unless it was based only one year.

Anyway, as I posted above, the top of the first is not an accurate half inning to use to compare to the top of the ninth, since it always starts out tied. There is no data in there for times when a team scored, that was losing, since no team is ever losing in the top,of the first. That throws off all the dats for the top of the first, making the winning percentages artificially higher than any other half inning.

I appreciate all your work on this, but could I ask to run one more set of numbers, for the top of the 5th inning? That would be a fair inning to compare to the top of the 9th. No problem if you don't have the time.

BernieCarbo
09-20-2014, 07:13 PM
It's no work. I just type it into the query:



Season First Inning Fifth Inning
1920 (89) 65% (62) 70%
1921 (94) 68% (72) 61%
1922 (79) 67% (66) 72%
1923 (93) 56% (70) 61%
1924 (88) 63% (66) 63%
1925 (82) 48% (79) 54%
1926 (84) 65% (78) 58%
1927 (103) 56% (61) 60%
1928 (85) 60% (76) 64%
1929 (92) 63% (79) 65%
1930 (96) 61% (82) 64%
1931 (91) 53% (70) 62%
1932 (101) 53% (69) 55%
1933 (80) 67% (61) 67%
1934 (96) 60% (67) 62%
1935 (90) 57% (71) 57%
1936 (84) 60% (70) 64%
1937 (76) 61% (79) 70%
1938 (62) 61% (76) 68%
1939 (101) 63% (81) 75%
1940 (75) 49% (96) 59%
1941 (97) 60% (68) 61%
1942 (67) 61% (53) 75%
1943 (75) 65% (48) 68%
1944 (85) 61% (50) 62%
1945 (65) 55% (58) 60%
1946 (72) 56% (60) 65%
1947 (96) 61% (71) 69%
1948 (89) 75% (83) 62%
1949 (84) 69% (79) 69%
1950 (83) 55% (75) 57%
1951 (80) 62% (76) 67%
1952 (83) 71% (63) 65%
1953 (93) 59% (70) 80%
1954 (100) 71% (81) 75%
1955 (79) 56% (73) 61%
1956 (88) 61% (77) 55%
1957 (60) 73% (62) 66%
1958 (75) 64% (70) 68%
1959 (90) 64% (77) 68%
1960 (69) 49% (72) 73%
1961 (91) 72% (70) 60%
1962 (123) 59% (85) 72%
1963 (85) 70% (90) 64%
1964 (118) 55% (108) 64%
1965 (96) 61% (84) 67%
1966 (98) 62% (71) 64%
1967 (93) 60% (78) 66%
1968 (78) 73% (81) 70%
1969 (125) 58% (106) 60%
1970 (136) 59% (104) 68%
1971 (119) 64% (108) 76%
1972 (113) 76% (83) 72%
1973 (132) 71% (103) 62%
1974 (125) 64% (111) 71%
1975 (115) 71% (136) 69%
1976 (117) 59% (92) 61%
1977 (158) 60% (153) 67%
1978 (127) 66% (108) 69%
1979 (122) 59% (119) 64%
1980 (136) 55% (114) 67%
1981 (87) 72% (82) 67%
1982 (137) 64% (120) 66%
1983 (141) 63% (100) 68%
1984 (137) 64% (122) 63%
1985 (137) 58% (118) 64%
1986 (118) 62% (130) 66%
1987 (156) 63% (136) 64%
1988 (140) 63% (135) 61%
1989 (143) 63% (140) 66%
1990 (130) 66% (141) 68%
1991 (142) 65% (135) 68%
1992 (141) 72% (125) 61%
1993 (158) 65% (133) 59%
1994 (117) 61% (103) 65%
1995 (146) 56% (134) 67%
1996 (162) 66% (180) 57%
1997 (165) 56% (157) 59%
1998 (171) 66% (179) 64%
1999 (183) 66% (196) 66%
2000 (202) 54% (171) 57%
2001 (178) 62% (172) 57%
2002 (155) 68% (174) 63%
2003 (181) 63% (134) 64%
2004 (170) 55% (146) 64%
2005 (173) 69% (152) 61%
2006 (173) 63% (178) 62%
2007 (164) 63% (185) 60%
2008 (176) 60% (164) 62%
2009 (153) 66% (126) 60%
2010 (154) 56% (161) 63%
2011 (161) 62% (142) 73%
2012 (151) 66% (142) 67%
2013 (147) 59% (131) 64%

757690
09-20-2014, 07:19 PM
Thanks. What is the overall average winning percentage according to your system for team that scores in the top of fifth inning? And the same question for scoring in the top of the ninth inning. If you can't so over all scoring, just do for scoring one run in the top if each inning. Thanks. I'm working on the Fangraphs version, but my results will look different than yours in form, but should be just as informative.

757690
09-20-2014, 08:56 PM
Here's the stats on scoring one run in the top of the 5th and the top of the ninth from Fangraphs. The average at the bottom is exactly that, the average, if all the various scores occur with the same frequency. We know that this is not the case, that the lower scoring games happen more often. If we were to weigh the average based on frequency, there would be an even bigger difference between the two averages, since as the scores get closer, the margin widens. But even doing a quick, non-wighted average, the run in the 9th inning is worth significantly more than the run in the 5th inning.


Top 5th Inning

tie 61.2
1 63
2 71.9
3 83.1
-1 43.4
-2 28.2
-3 17.1
Avg 52.5


Top 9th inning

tie 84.8
1 91.6
2 94.5
3 97.1
-1 49.1
-2 0
-3 0
Avg 59.6

BernieCarbo
09-20-2014, 11:27 PM
The original question as stated was as such:



Teams that score in the Top of 1 win ___% of their games.
Teams that score in the Top of 9 win ___% of their games.


This has an absolute answer based on actual events irrespective of "how they got there". Even in my business, I deliberately tell my customers that I present data as it is and keep myself emotionally detached and I refuse to interpret the meaning (that is their job, and I remain indifferent).

I don't know what Fangraph's algorithm is, and I'm sure whoever does it is very capable, but I don't know what their rules are. For instance, in one WE definition, it stated that it is assumed that the win expectancy for the two teams is even when the game starts. From a statistical point of view that is correct I suppose, but is it useful? I assume that someone would want to use a stat called "Win Expectancy" as a tool to help them find a better way to win, right? But if the game always starts at 50-50 when it is actually seldom the case, then what is the point? Put another way, let's say Hoover was going to start tonight's game, and Cueto tomorrow night's game; should the win expectancy be the same for both games even before the first pitch is thrown?

Regarding your other question, did you want the overall average for a team that scored in the fifth inning, or scored a certain amount of runs in the fifth inning? There is a big difference as you would expect:

One run in the fifth: 54%
Two runs in fifth: 65%
Three runs in fifth: 74%
One or more runs in fifth: 71%

Remember, my numbers don't predict anything. They represent what actually happened in the past.

BernieCarbo
09-22-2014, 09:48 AM
Here is the data for all nine innings, with the premise being "What is the winning percentage of teams that score any number of runs in any inning, grouped by inning". As always, this is pulled from complete 9 inning games only.

The home team stats in the 9th were interesting and surprised me a bit, but when you think about it, it makes sense. The home team would only bat if they were tied or behind, and their winning percentage obviously hinges on the deficit.

I separated the data between the visitor and home teams. This data could easily be copied into excel and manipulated a number of ways.

Visitors:


1920 (196) 61% (148) 61% (168) 62% (165) 62% (176) 63% (199) 63% (173) 65% (189) 63% (178) 59%
1921 (211) 57% (175) 61% (167) 63% (170) 55% (185) 60% (192) 62% (186) 60% (178) 60% (187) 58%
1922 (192) 57% (169) 58% (184) 62% (194) 61% (182) 64% (193) 59% (200) 62% (174) 59% (193) 59%
1923 (213) 61% (176) 61% (185) 65% (201) 60% (202) 65% (196) 63% (205) 67% (192) 59% (210) 61%
1924 (220) 60% (167) 58% (179) 67% (192) 61% (180) 61% (174) 59% (176) 64% (196) 60% (186) 57%
1925 (182) 53% (157) 52% (171) 59% (174) 53% (172) 58% (194) 55% (167) 52% (211) 57% (188) 56%
1926 (208) 61% (151) 54% (169) 59% (182) 61% (181) 59% (170) 58% (173) 59% (174) 55% (184) 59%
1927 (205) 60% (150) 53% (173) 60% (189) 58% (156) 59% (203) 60% (165) 55% (184) 60% (163) 53%
1928 (202) 63% (193) 67% (198) 65% (182) 61% (200) 66% (193) 61% (191) 62% (196) 60% (188) 56%
1929 (204) 60% (167) 58% (192) 60% (187) 54% (194) 59% (179) 56% (205) 63% (196) 60% (189) 55%
1930 (214) 57% (159) 54% (165) 59% (209) 58% (190) 57% (197) 54% (207) 57% (200) 54% (186) 51%
1931 (199) 55% (156) 58% (160) 54% (167) 53% (160) 58% (180) 54% (148) 55% (170) 59% (167) 54%
1932 (192) 55% (166) 58% (179) 59% (176) 55% (170) 56% (174) 55% (185) 60% (165) 51% (152) 52%
1933 (190) 59% (144) 56% (149) 62% (166) 61% (162) 60% (159) 55% (158) 59% (203) 62% (188) 61%
1934 (214) 61% (149) 59% (179) 57% (157) 56% (156) 57% (207) 59% (179) 58% (189) 59% (177) 57%
1935 (191) 60% (164) 56% (168) 59% (164) 55% (166) 57% (196) 64% (185) 61% (167) 54% (206) 59%
1936 (204) 58% (177) 61% (165) 57% (200) 62% (180) 58% (198) 59% (199) 57% (204) 59% (206) 59%
1937 (183) 57% (183) 58% (169) 60% (182) 58% (188) 61% (162) 56% (183) 57% (180) 55% (214) 65%
1938 (187) 62% (173) 60% (181) 60% (183) 60% (183) 63% (172) 56% (212) 66% (188) 57% (184) 57%
1939 (217) 62% (178) 58% (194) 63% (167) 57% (207) 65% (180) 58% (172) 57% (208) 59% (184) 59%
1940 (195) 60% (164) 57% (183) 63% (173) 58% (194) 62% (203) 64% (174) 61% (178) 59% (182) 61%
1941 (174) 57% (157) 55% (182) 64% (158) 51% (158) 62% (169) 59% (171) 59% (186) 59% (181) 59%
1942 (173) 62% (137) 59% (159) 64% (176) 59% (159) 65% (173) 62% (150) 59% (143) 57% (164) 60%
1943 (175) 60% (141) 62% (168) 68% (156) 58% (131) 62% (143) 60% (157) 61% (150) 60% (167) 63%
1944 (188) 58% (138) 59% (165) 66% (159) 54% (141) 63% (148) 55% (183) 60% (177) 59% (172) 62%
1945 (166) 57% (119) 50% (137) 55% (168) 59% (172) 63% (171) 58% (154) 58% (145) 56% (170) 62%
1946 (165) 55% (123) 57% (162) 58% (161) 60% (166) 65% (168) 61% (164) 60% (175) 63% (174) 63%
1947 (208) 61% (160) 59% (152) 55% (172) 63% (191) 67% (181) 61% (168) 56% (182) 58% (162) 56%
1948 (226) 69% (155) 58% (210) 69% (184) 63% (190) 63% (212) 62% (199) 63% (210) 63% (190) 65%
1949 (183) 59% (154) 59% (155) 58% (168) 54% (177) 59% (161) 56% (161) 58% (175) 60% (180) 64%
1950 (185) 57% (164) 59% (190) 60% (179) 58% (182) 60% (178) 57% (168) 58% (185) 58% (200) 61%
1951 (188) 61% (160) 62% (184) 63% (183) 63% (203) 66% (195) 61% (187) 64% (197) 64% (174) 61%
1952 (193) 64% (149) 62% (168) 65% (166) 61% (169) 61% (167) 62% (174) 61% (158) 62% (185) 64%
1953 (206) 61% (155) 61% (179) 62% (203) 60% (203) 66% (192) 62% (185) 63% (204) 63% (183) 62%
1954 (220) 65% (167) 62% (178) 67% (190) 64% (193) 66% (181) 58% (196) 65% (186) 61% (189) 67%
1955 (175) 59% (151) 59% (167) 58% (195) 59% (156) 60% (159) 51% (174) 57% (171) 59% (165) 61%
1956 (191) 60% (152) 57% (160) 61% (179) 57% (166) 60% (170) 58% (201) 60% (185) 65% (167) 64%
1957 (181) 65% (170) 63% (176) 65% (174) 60% (175) 64% (178) 63% (174) 62% (192) 65% (167) 60%
1958 (189) 59% (152) 58% (151) 56% (168) 59% (172) 62% (186) 59% (181) 61% (180) 62% (173) 60%
1959 (198) 60% (148) 57% (184) 61% (188) 60% (179) 62% (180) 59% (177) 62% (189) 60% (170) 61%
1960 (152) 52% (146) 58% (160) 59% (162) 58% (171) 59% (180) 58% (172) 58% (179) 61% (149) 57%
1961 (211) 62% (176) 61% (217) 61% (216) 58% (190) 59% (213) 58% (217) 60% (206) 59% (209) 56%
1962 (253) 61% (220) 57% (225) 62% (244) 59% (229) 64% (253) 59% (243) 61% (230) 60% (239) 60%
1963 (214) 62% (171) 55% (230) 63% (211) 61% (227) 65% (231) 63% (217) 60% (240) 65% (208) 58%
1964 (236) 60% (202) 62% (206) 60% (236) 60% (213) 63% (219) 60% (229) 61% (240) 61% (220) 65%
1965 (224) 59% (188) 62% (227) 65% (211) 62% (242) 65% (237) 62% (231) 58% (237) 65% (227) 61%
1966 (234) 61% (187) 58% (220) 64% (205) 56% (199) 62% (231) 60% (257) 63% (223) 64% (211) 60%
1967 (218) 58% (178) 57% (195) 60% (193) 59% (202) 61% (206) 58% (192) 58% (187) 54% (194) 60%
1968 (226) 68% (174) 62% (216) 67% (197) 63% (217) 67% (213) 64% (205) 66% (230) 67% (226) 64%
1969 (279) 58% (230) 58% (258) 65% (277) 59% (260) 61% (260) 58% (273) 62% (286) 61% (245) 63%
1970 (299) 60% (249) 60% (262) 61% (292) 60% (246) 61% (284) 60% (282) 60% (271) 59% (286) 61%
1971 (269) 61% (228) 62% (240) 59% (270) 62% (269) 66% (295) 65% (269) 64% (285) 67% (259) 62%
1972 (273) 64% (196) 62% (223) 62% (224) 61% (224) 67% (246) 61% (246) 62% (275) 64% (237) 60%
1973 (311) 63% (254) 62% (275) 62% (274) 60% (275) 61% (286) 61% (263) 60% (271) 59% (268) 59%
1974 (304) 61% (251) 62% (253) 61% (261) 60% (269) 62% (268) 62% (289) 62% (268) 61% (262) 63%
1975 (271) 61% (264) 62% (263) 60% (277) 60% (300) 63% (288) 64% (268) 58% (275) 63% (235) 59%
1976 (286) 59% (262) 64% (253) 65% (286) 63% (246) 63% (266) 62% (270) 60% (266) 61% (274) 66%
1977 (305) 57% (297) 60% (306) 61% (319) 60% (324) 59% (343) 63% (292) 57% (310) 61% (278) 57%
1978 (274) 58% (239) 55% (273) 59% (287) 54% (263) 60% (255) 54% (275) 57% (274) 59% (262) 60%
1979 (306) 56% (269) 59% (307) 59% (305) 58% (312) 60% (303) 56% (308) 60% (316) 59% (296) 61%
1980 (331) 59% (308) 60% (264) 57% (299) 59% (283) 60% (285) 55% (286) 57% (280) 57% (257) 59%
1981 (216) 66% (198) 66% (214) 65% (213) 64% (196) 65% (202) 63% (208) 63% (185) 61% (186) 63%
1982 (321) 60% (283) 58% (293) 59% (317) 60% (329) 62% (301) 57% (295) 59% (304) 61% (270) 60%
1983 (345) 61% (278) 62% (298) 61% (297) 57% (299) 61% (286) 58% (301) 59% (304) 59% (309) 63%
1984 (321) 60% (258) 59% (291) 60% (336) 62% (300) 64% (350) 63% (285) 58% (296) 59% (281) 58%
1985 (300) 57% (270) 57% (284) 58% (311) 60% (302) 62% (296) 58% (294) 59% (293) 57% (275) 60%
1986 (296) 58% (281) 60% (321) 63% (307) 59% (305) 63% (287) 57% (293) 57% (316) 61% (322) 61%
1987 (353) 58% (302) 60% (307) 60% (331) 60% (333) 61% (332) 59% (338) 60% (297) 58% (303) 61%
1988 (298) 58% (285) 64% (290) 59% (307) 60% (295) 61% (306) 61% (313) 63% (297) 64% (293) 63%
1989 (334) 60% (270) 60% (302) 62% (314) 59% (312) 60% (301) 59% (300) 63% (285) 62% (274) 60%
1990 (328) 60% (306) 61% (292) 60% (325) 62% (331) 65% (323) 63% (311) 59% (277) 62% (316) 64%
1991 (342) 61% (280) 59% (303) 63% (297) 57% (319) 62% (301) 60% (267) 58% (299) 59% (271) 60%
1992 (324) 61% (268) 57% (309) 61% (277) 58% (281) 57% (279) 55% (285) 61% (272) 59% (262) 59%
1993 (373) 60% (339) 60% (349) 61% (352) 57% (340) 60% (327) 55% (330) 58% (349) 61% (340) 62%
1994 (293) 63% (254) 62% (254) 62% (270) 60% (254) 60% (260) 58% (256) 60% (243) 60% (260) 63%
1995 (351) 60% (305) 62% (340) 64% (318) 58% (315) 62% (340) 59% (313) 60% (318) 63% (322) 63%
1996 (361) 56% (310) 58% (354) 56% (347) 56% (350) 57% (371) 60% (354) 60% (335) 59% (309) 57%
1997 (376) 58% (306) 60% (346) 59% (347) 58% (371) 59% (355) 59% (373) 59% (352) 61% (344) 60%
1998 (385) 58% (350) 59% (384) 61% (381) 57% (408) 60% (386) 57% (375) 58% (385) 63% (355) 63%
1999 (466) 63% (381) 61% (418) 60% (431) 60% (426) 61% (411) 59% (422) 62% (403) 61% (390) 63%
2000 (404) 58% (379) 57% (391) 60% (387) 56% (386) 59% (382) 54% (375) 55% (385) 60% (366) 59%
2001 (414) 62% (339) 60% (407) 64% (410) 60% (386) 60% (426) 61% (378) 59% (380) 61% (377) 61%
2002 (372) 58% (346) 61% (369) 63% (404) 60% (402) 61% (403) 61% (359) 59% (347) 60% (338) 61%
2003 (409) 59% (370) 60% (392) 61% (366) 55% (370) 58% (362) 56% (357) 59% (331) 55% (358) 58%
2004 (363) 58% (355) 59% (364) 59% (412) 60% (398) 62% (404) 60% (370) 59% (374) 62% (382) 63%
2005 (408) 61% (340) 58% (380) 61% (396) 59% (376) 60% (379) 59% (368) 60% (344) 57% (339) 59%
2006 (400) 57% (353) 58% (388) 61% (401) 61% (399) 61% (393) 57% (384) 61% (363) 58% (330) 59%
2007 (406) 58% (350) 56% (367) 58% (404) 64% (384) 59% (374) 56% (347) 58% (385) 64% (320) 60%
2008 (377) 57% (316) 55% (362) 60% (350) 57% (371) 60% (360) 56% (347) 59% (344) 60% (322) 59%
2009 (379) 59% (346) 60% (351) 60% (392) 60% (377) 60% (391) 57% (363) 60% (367) 63% (315) 57%
2010 (351) 58% (320) 57% (341) 61% (352) 56% (360) 61% (358) 59% (352) 58% (320) 58% (314) 57%
2011 (382) 62% (350) 66% (370) 65% (366) 59% (361) 62% (405) 63% (372) 63% (310) 60% (329) 62%
2012 (417) 63% (336) 60% (342) 60% (376) 59% (363) 65% (377) 61% (355) 59% (342) 62% (336) 61%
2013 (358) 60% (332) 61% (343) 62% (353) 59% (355) 63% (340) 58% (353) 62% (338) 61% (330) 63%


Home Team:


1920 (252) 67% (193) 71% (216) 72% (202) 66% (221) 75% (211) 71% (206) 67% (215) 66% (49) 31%
1921 (268) 69% (212) 69% (234) 71% (209) 63% (211) 66% (247) 69% (244) 71% (230) 69% (51) 31%
1922 (262) 68% (214) 69% (215) 68% (206) 65% (218) 67% (241) 67% (240) 70% (250) 67% (49) 28%
1923 (234) 60% (184) 66% (210) 66% (215) 67% (215) 68% (214) 66% (201) 62% (225) 63% (61) 30%
1924 (273) 67% (192) 66% (201) 66% (239) 68% (230) 67% (218) 67% (228) 67% (210) 67% (63) 32%
1925 (280) 70% (227) 71% (249) 67% (233) 70% (256) 69% (244) 69% (242) 72% (237) 69% (66) 33%
1926 (279) 70% (206) 70% (225) 68% (198) 67% (198) 69% (234) 70% (223) 71% (227) 70% (57) 34%
1927 (236) 68% (199) 65% (244) 69% (219) 69% (235) 68% (235) 67% (257) 68% (255) 70% (60) 33%
1928 (255) 64% (190) 63% (224) 67% (241) 69% (208) 66% (222) 64% (206) 61% (228) 65% (47) 30%
1929 (262) 67% (191) 68% (240) 71% (226) 65% (233) 68% (231) 68% (236) 65% (259) 70% (54) 27%
1930 (268) 67% (234) 68% (270) 71% (264) 68% (243) 69% (248) 66% (256) 69% (259) 67% (83) 40%
1931 (277) 69% (236) 75% (239) 71% (224) 69% (242) 71% (256) 69% (262) 74% (264) 72% (68) 40%
1932 (253) 66% (218) 70% (238) 73% (245) 69% (232) 73% (232) 66% (262) 75% (242) 69% (59) 33%
1933 (253) 72% (168) 64% (210) 68% (196) 65% (220) 71% (220) 69% (206) 69% (195) 67% (64) 41%
1934 (268) 69% (204) 71% (232) 68% (232) 69% (238) 67% (243) 66% (238) 69% (226) 69% (60) 37%
1935 (254) 69% (226) 71% (232) 68% (252) 69% (227) 72% (239) 65% (254) 72% (234) 70% (47) 32%
1936 (264) 65% (238) 71% (236) 68% (239) 66% (233) 70% (237) 67% (244) 71% (251) 66% (63) 33%
1937 (263) 68% (208) 67% (231) 70% (226) 66% (207) 68% (232) 69% (227) 67% (245) 70% (60) 35%
1938 (247) 67% (205) 66% (215) 68% (238) 66% (224) 71% (225) 66% (228) 67% (236) 69% (42) 27%
1939 (250) 69% (178) 60% (232) 67% (215) 68% (241) 72% (212) 64% (244) 69% (230) 69% (52) 31%
1940 (233) 68% (203) 67% (222) 69% (184) 62% (228) 73% (230) 67% (231) 70% (225) 68% (56) 38%
1941 (275) 70% (201) 67% (222) 70% (202) 64% (224) 71% (215) 69% (218) 67% (209) 69% (68) 41%
1942 (240) 68% (168) 65% (206) 71% (190) 67% (201) 73% (188) 69% (203) 70% (200) 70% (57) 42%
1943 (214) 69% (160) 70% (175) 67% (187) 67% (194) 73% (199) 69% (185) 70% (189) 69% (59) 41%
1944 (251) 71% (202) 70% (203) 71% (196) 70% (231) 75% (224) 71% (218) 69% (210) 70% (43) 32%
1945 (270) 73% (171) 68% (222) 78% (218) 72% (220) 75% (201) 69% (195) 70% (217) 70% (68) 47%
1946 (260) 73% (203) 70% (172) 70% (205) 69% (201) 69% (210) 75% (216) 70% (207) 70% (61) 44%
1947 (247) 73% (191) 68% (199) 71% (205) 70% (202) 70% (220) 68% (214) 69% (229) 69% (63) 40%
1948 (230) 64% (185) 66% (211) 64% (202) 62% (189) 66% (212) 66% (209) 67% (188) 63% (57) 34%
1949 (255) 71% (203) 71% (221) 70% (241) 70% (227) 74% (221) 70% (246) 74% (223) 71% (55) 37%
1950 (257) 67% (208) 72% (228) 67% (229) 65% (233) 67% (227) 68% (236) 67% (230) 65% (57) 34%
1951 (255) 69% (193) 65% (203) 67% (213) 64% (201) 64% (203) 65% (221) 68% (230) 71% (37) 26%
1952 (236) 67% (198) 70% (177) 69% (202) 69% (209) 71% (204) 67% (208) 66% (193) 66% (65) 43%
1953 (244) 65% (213) 68% (215) 71% (223) 67% (220) 70% (203) 62% (227) 67% (226) 68% (51) 34%
1954 (236) 66% (174) 72% (197) 64% (193) 66% (184) 63% (212) 66% (188) 67% (192) 66% (53) 36%
1955 (266) 71% (198) 68% (239) 71% (229) 71% (230) 74% (223) 71% (216) 69% (239) 73% (47) 35%
1956 (251) 68% (209) 69% (203) 68% (222) 66% (196) 69% (224) 68% (224) 70% (209) 68% (49) 31%
1957 (222) 68% (170) 61% (211) 69% (195) 61% (201) 67% (220) 70% (203) 67% (211) 70% (50) 31%
1958 (246) 71% (199) 67% (208) 70% (219) 66% (194) 67% (236) 71% (195) 70% (229) 71% (61) 36%
1959 (237) 67% (178) 67% (207) 69% (205) 66% (223) 69% (202) 66% (219) 68% (217) 66% (71) 41%
1960 (253) 74% (188) 67% (208) 71% (188) 63% (224) 71% (214) 67% (208) 67% (216) 65% (60) 38%
1961 (273) 68% (255) 68% (256) 69% (244) 64% (238) 68% (244) 66% (281) 69% (224) 67% (85) 41%
1962 (326) 68% (266) 63% (297) 72% (267) 65% (275) 65% (270) 65% (276) 66% (284) 67% (95) 38%
1963 (298) 71% (243) 71% (254) 72% (266) 67% (289) 70% (252) 69% (273) 70% (254) 66% (80) 42%
1964 (307) 68% (264) 65% (249) 66% (268) 69% (245) 68% (274) 68% (271) 70% (256) 67% (68) 35%
1965 (318) 68% (232) 69% (264) 64% (280) 70% (254) 70% (275) 69% (278) 70% (230) 64% (66) 38%
1966 (303) 69% (219) 69% (261) 71% (266) 64% (273) 69% (272) 69% (280) 68% (247) 69% (66) 34%
1967 (323) 72% (241) 72% (248) 75% (268) 72% (256) 76% (283) 68% (252) 70% (267) 68% (90) 46%
1968 (280) 68% (228) 72% (223) 74% (258) 66% (234) 71% (243) 68% (227) 71% (226) 65% (72) 42%
1969 (372) 65% (288) 70% (323) 72% (351) 71% (305) 69% (354) 72% (336) 69% (308) 68% (101) 42%
1970 (370) 64% (280) 65% (340) 70% (336) 67% (350) 70% (321) 65% (338) 67% (321) 67% (85) 34%
1971 (359) 67% (284) 68% (310) 70% (290) 66% (297) 68% (293) 64% (310) 67% (278) 67% (109) 42%
1972 (333) 68% (287) 71% (277) 68% (301) 71% (280) 71% (283) 68% (283) 68% (292) 70% (75) 36%
1973 (370) 67% (321) 69% (313) 70% (313) 68% (314) 66% (352) 68% (286) 66% (314) 65% (90) 36%
1974 (354) 65% (302) 70% (353) 73% (324) 66% (309) 69% (307) 68% (331) 67% (315) 68% (86) 36%
1975 (404) 69% (292) 67% (325) 70% (333) 70% (336) 68% (325) 68% (329) 68% (328) 70% (90) 38%
1976 (357) 68% (287) 70% (297) 68% (327) 68% (318) 68% (295) 63% (299) 66% (292) 65% (84) 36%
1977 (437) 68% (365) 69% (381) 72% (373) 66% (387) 68% (394) 70% (370) 68% (360) 66% (89) 37%
1978 (443) 71% (356) 70% (372) 71% (374) 73% (374) 71% (407) 71% (382) 70% (355) 68% (109) 41%
1979 (437) 70% (335) 65% (389) 69% (383) 67% (390) 70% (383) 69% (373) 69% (355) 67% (117) 43%
1980 (425) 69% (347) 69% (346) 69% (364) 68% (370) 71% (397) 70% (362) 68% (344) 68% (104) 39%
1981 (251) 66% (202) 67% (216) 69% (234) 69% (221) 68% (212) 66% (240) 70% (213) 69% (60) 39%
1982 (416) 70% (335) 68% (379) 66% (363) 65% (366) 68% (368) 69% (363) 68% (344) 68% (90) 38%
1983 (405) 67% (371) 68% (379) 69% (362) 67% (371) 71% (369) 67% (348) 66% (390) 67% (89) 36%
1984 (431) 68% (314) 68% (376) 68% (337) 64% (349) 67% (378) 67% (361) 67% (306) 63% (94) 41%
1985 (455) 71% (355) 72% (344) 68% (379) 67% (406) 69% (393) 71% (367) 69% (359) 70% (105) 42%
1986 (422) 67% (340) 68% (366) 70% (381) 67% (384) 68% (364) 65% (379) 69% (373) 68% (99) 41%
1987 (428) 68% (366) 68% (425) 69% (388) 67% (430) 70% (403) 65% (387) 69% (353) 66% (97) 36%
1988 (404) 67% (343) 66% (361) 68% (363) 69% (369) 72% (376) 66% (364) 70% (332) 67% (92) 36%
1989 (411) 65% (317) 69% (383) 69% (368) 67% (359) 71% (391) 72% (357) 71% (336) 67% (89) 39%
1990 (440) 69% (360) 66% (355) 68% (377) 67% (319) 65% (330) 62% (384) 68% (340) 66% (93) 35%
1991 (409) 67% (293) 66% (385) 70% (363) 67% (382) 67% (366) 71% (358) 70% (361) 69% (75) 30%
1992 (423) 70% (326) 69% (363) 69% (347) 67% (386) 73% (380) 71% (370) 69% (356) 69% (93) 43%
1993 (478) 66% (385) 67% (418) 68% (416) 65% (421) 68% (385) 62% (430) 69% (406) 66% (97) 36%
1994 (331) 67% (255) 61% (320) 66% (286) 66% (283) 66% (321) 64% (283) 62% (293) 66% (71) 34%
1995 (411) 64% (345) 65% (385) 68% (381) 66% (375) 66% (349) 64% (346) 66% (338) 65% (91) 33%
1996 (499) 69% (413) 68% (442) 65% (430) 69% (437) 67% (434) 67% (415) 66% (430) 67% (93) 32%
1997 (489) 68% (359) 65% (407) 65% (449) 70% (435) 65% (429) 67% (415) 64% (421) 68% (110) 37%
1998 (480) 65% (394) 65% (484) 69% (453) 65% (474) 69% (477) 67% (489) 69% (402) 66% (102) 35%
1999 (459) 60% (410) 64% (456) 63% (482) 64% (442) 63% (488) 66% (450) 64% (450) 65% (109) 34%
2000 (522) 65% (432) 70% (467) 66% (506) 69% (479) 66% (504) 65% (473) 68% (471) 66% (120) 35%
2001 (471) 66% (430) 66% (465) 68% (440) 63% (465) 66% (426) 62% (461) 69% (425) 67% (93) 31%
2002 (507) 69% (430) 65% (446) 68% (450) 69% (445) 67% (445) 67% (410) 66% (449) 70% (99) 32%
2003 (519) 69% (444) 70% (475) 69% (466) 68% (470) 69% (490) 70% (457) 66% (442) 68% (97) 33%
2004 (488) 67% (388) 65% (459) 67% (446) 63% (443) 66% (472) 66% (470) 68% (424) 70% (102) 34%
2005 (483) 65% (421) 67% (428) 67% (443) 64% (443) 67% (457) 68% (424) 67% (406) 68% (107) 36%
2006 (506) 67% (430) 67% (493) 72% (476) 67% (464) 65% (465) 63% (460) 65% (427) 66% (109) 36%
2007 (521) 68% (415) 66% (465) 69% (450) 66% (457) 68% (480) 66% (444) 68% (401) 64% (98) 33%
2008 (525) 69% (418) 67% (446) 68% (453) 67% (471) 70% (480) 69% (464) 70% (446) 71% (120) 39%
2009 (499) 67% (445) 68% (477) 71% (474) 70% (449) 68% (454) 68% (433) 69% (458) 71% (104) 33%
2010 (508) 72% (420) 73% (458) 73% (458) 72% (458) 70% (471) 68% (416) 68% (413) 71% (104) 36%
2011 (443) 67% (378) 67% (420) 65% (397) 64% (408) 68% (426) 66% (384) 65% (395) 66% (110) 35%
2012 (490) 65% (392) 67% (433) 68% (452) 68% (444) 67% (445) 66% (394) 67% (402) 67% (109) 39%
2013 (462) 71% (400) 69% (400) 67% (433) 68% (434) 72% (416) 67% (413) 70% (364) 67% (111) 39%

BernieCarbo
09-22-2014, 09:55 AM
And just for the fun of it, this is the same visitor data only for Reds teams since 1975. Familiarity helps to put things in context. It's too bad I don't have 2014 data yet, but look at the number of games the Reds scored in the 1st during 2013 with Votto and Choo in the lineup as compared to other years.

Sorry for the bad formatting, but the low number of games skewed the script output.



1975 (10) 62% (18) 94% (11) 57% (12) 85% (19) 79% (19) 82% (8) 50% (11) 57% (12) 60%
1976 (15) 65% (18) 94% (21) 77% (18) 94% (17) 85% (21) 70% (20) 68% (14) 77% (13) 76%
1977 (20) 64% (15) 68% (14) 60% (17) 62% (14) 60% (7) 58% (12) 75% (15) 65% (11) 52%
1978 (15) 71% (16) 76% (10) 71% (11) 61% (11) 68% (11) 64% (15) 71% (11) 64% (17) 85%
1979 (13) 56% (13) 68% (12) 80% (12) 70% (15) 68% (18) 58% (11) 61% (16) 64% (11) 61%
1980 (16) 69% (14) 66% (9) 60% (12) 60% (8) 61% (10) 52% (15) 71% (15) 68% (10) 83%
1981 (14) 87% (9) 81% (9) 90% (11) 78% (10) 71% (9) 69% (13) 76% (9) 64% (10) 66%
1982 (9) 42% (3) 23% (7) 53% (9) 56% (7) 53% (3) 25% (8) 57% (4) 25% (5) 41%
1983 (12) 54% (14) 70% (8) 61% (9) 42% (9) 60% (13) 65% (10) 58% (11) 73% (12) 52%
1984 (14) 56% (5) 31% (8) 50% (7) 63% (3) 33% (8) 42% (9) 56% (17) 62% (9) 64%
1985 (12) 75% (7) 50% (14) 73% (17) 70% (11) 73% (16) 76% (11) 68% (11) 68% (12) 66%
1986 (14) 60% (10) 55% (12) 60% (15) 75% (15) 78% (11) 64% (16) 80% (15) 75% (16) 61%
1987 (14) 58% (9) 56% (13) 86% (14) 73% (11) 57% (16) 66% (12) 66% (11) 61% (15) 57%
1988 (11) 68% (10) 76% (11) 64% (13) 72% (8) 66% (13) 72% (13) 81% (12) 70% (12) 70%
1989 (9) 56% (10) 76% (10) 66% (14) 63% (14) 87% (14) 70% (9) 52% (8) 57% (15) 65%
1990 (18) 75% (14) 63% (11) 57% (13) 76% (14) 70% (15) 75% (14) 70% (14) 70% (20) 76%
1991 (14) 77% (6) 42% (9) 60% (17) 77% (13) 59% (11) 55% (8) 44% (9) 47% (9) 60%
1992 (11) 73% (12) 50% (8) 57% (8) 38% (12) 70% (13) 48% (15) 71% (7) 50% (13) 72%
1993 (12) 52% (7) 41% (15) 65% (12) 63% (9) 40% (9) 52% (9) 50% (7) 46% (11) 68%
1994 (8) 61% (9) 69% (11) 78% (11) 64% (10) 66% (12) 92% (8) 61% (10) 52% (10) 55%
1995 (11) 52% (15) 65% (14) 66% (16) 76% (13) 72% (16) 69% (12) 60% (16) 69% (18) 64%
1996 (9) 56% (15) 68% (10) 58% (13) 61% (10) 47% (11) 61% (13) 68% (12) 52% (7) 41%
1997 (9) 50% (11) 73% (10) 66% (12) 57% (8) 34% (9) 40% (13) 65% (7) 70% (13) 65%
1998 (19) 65% (15) 68% (11) 68% (8) 57% (9) 50% (10) 55% (10) 50% (15) 68% (11) 61%
1999 (17) 60% (15) 75% (23) 71% (18) 66% (24) 85% (20) 66% (14) 93% (20) 83% (19) 73%
2000 (17) 62% (14) 66% (14) 66% (9) 60% (15) 62% (16) 72% (19) 59% (11) 52% (16) 72%
2001 (17) 68% (6) 33% (8) 42% (16) 69% (13) 61% (15) 68% (11) 45% (13) 68% (11) 84%
2002 (17) 70% (14) 70% (8) 61% (15) 62% (13) 68% (10) 52% (7) 77% (7) 46% (10) 47%
2003 (9) 69% (13) 54% (8) 44% (8) 38% (6) 42% (13) 46% (12) 46% (6) 33% (11) 61%
2004 (14) 50% (10) 47% (12) 52% (8) 33% (11) 64% (14) 58% (12) 70% (11) 55% (8) 47%
2005 (8) 42% (12) 48% (11) 57% (7) 31% (12) 54% (9) 50% (13) 54% (10) 47% (12) 57%
2006 (15) 68% (18) 75% (12) 92% (13) 61% (17) 73% (15) 75% (9) 56% (9) 64% (9) 60%
2007 (11) 55% (9) 39% (10) 66% (10) 55% (12) 57% (14) 63% (9) 56% (14) 66% (8) 50%
2008 (10) 62% (10) 50% (7) 46% (8) 44% (9) 56% (8) 40% (16) 66% (9) 52% (13) 52%
2009 (10) 55% (10) 52% (15) 75% (13) 54% (13) 65% (11) 61% (14) 82% (9) 50% (12) 57%
2010 (16) 69% (12) 70% (15) 71% (18) 66% (9) 56% (11) 68% (13) 65% (16) 64% (10) 71%
2011 (9) 45% (14) 77% (7) 46% (12) 50% (11) 55% (7) 43% (10) 45% (7) 53% (11) 52%
2012 (12) 66% (10) 76% (13) 72% (13) 81% (12) 63% (14) 93% (16) 72% (20) 74% (14) 82%
2013 (21) 75% (16) 59% (11) 73% (11) 55% (11) 55% (14) 60% (12) 66% (14) 70% (9) 56%

Herzeleid
09-22-2014, 10:39 AM
And just for the fun of it, this is the same visitor data only for Reds teams since 1975. Familiarity helps to put things in context. It's too bad I don't have 2014 data yet, but look at the number of games the Reds scored in the 1st during 2013 with Votto and Choo in the lineup as compared to other years.

Considering a very tough run-scoring environment in 2013, that's just astonishing.

Protoss
09-22-2014, 10:53 AM
First inning (2013)
Choo: .326/.435/.566/1.001
Votto: .374/.497/.488/.985