The extra inning runner on 2B rule

[jabba72]

My opinion is 12 inning games aren't needed, the runner on 2nd speeds things up dramatically. This was a good idea. 

[Yardball85]

13 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'd still rather they wait until the 11th to implement it.

I agree.  

[Aristotelian]

3 hours ago, Frobby said:

I’ve actually been meaning to look into the question of whether this rule has skewed things towards the home team.   

BB-ref play by play summaries show the probability of the home team winning at the end of each play in the game.   Per the summary of yesterday’s game, the O’s chances of winning were exactly 50% at the end of the 9th inning.   So, no advantage for the home team.   But as soon as Scott struck out the leadoff batter with the runner on 2B, the odds shot all the way to 61%.   After the Yankees failed to score, the odds of the O’s winning were 82%.    The Valaika bunt only increased those odd to 83%, but Mullins cashed it in. 
 

I wonder if Wade gets that bunt down if the Yankees chance to win goes up anywhere as much as they go down when he strikes out. Seems like low upside high downside, especially when he gets to two strikes and the chance of success goes way down.

[GuidoSarducci]

If the odds of either team winning after 9 innings are the same (i.e, no advantage for either team), I'm fine with it.  This isn't like the old coin toss in OT in NFL games and kicking a field goal. 

[Frobby]

4 minutes ago, GuidoSarducci said:

If the odds of either team winning after 9 innings are the same (i.e, no advantage for either team), I'm fine with it.  This isn't like the old coin toss in OT in NFL games and kicking a field goal. 

I’m going to look into this a little more this weekend.   Historically, the home team wins 53-54% of all games, and about the same percentage of extra inning games. I haven’t seen any data on what percentage of extra inning games have been won by the home team since the runner on 2B rule was adopted.    But it shouldn’t be hard to figure it out.    There have only been about 145 extra inning games played under the new rule.    Of course, that’s also a small enough sample where any deviation from the normal 53-54% won by the home team may not be statistically significant.   

[DrungoHazewood]

15 hours ago, Philip said:

Still stupid, But not the most stupid, which is the seven-inning doubleheader. Stupid.

All they have to do to get back to nine inning games in a doubleheader is find some way to have a game last two hours.  It's pretty common now to have a nine-inning game approach four hours, occasionally over four hours.  So 18 innings in a day with a break in between means at least nine hours at the park.  Who likes that?  Who wants that?  If I was going to go to a doubleheader at Camden Yards I'd have to leave at about 10:00 or 10:30 for a 1:00 first pitch, and it's likely I wouldn't get home until midnight.  I thought this was supposed to be fun.  This is the kind of thing you tell grandkids about, that day you spent 14 hours at Camden Yards and lived to tell about it.

[DrungoHazewood]

By the way, I'm fine with the runner on second rule.  But I'd also be good with just calling it a draw after 10 or 11.

[OFFNY]

19 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

 

By the way, I'm fine with the runner on second rule ...... but I'd also be good with just calling it a draw after 10 or 11.

 

o

 

 

o

[Natty]

We need a pinch runner who can steal third immediately. Richie Martin? 

[Moose Milligan]

39 minutes ago, Natty said:

We need a pinch runner who can steal third immediately. Richie Martin? 

I don't know where to look for attempted 3rd base steals, but I don't know if there's anyone out there outside of Buxton, Trea Turner and maybe a couple others that could be looked at as immediate stolen base threats.  I remember Richie Martin being relatively quick but not a burner.  I don't know if he's that guy.  

[Natty]

10 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I don't know where to look for attempted 3rd base steals, but I don't know if there's anyone out there outside of Buxton, Trea Turner and maybe a couple others that could be looked at as immediate stolen base threats.  I remember Richie Martin being relatively quick but not a burner.  I don't know if he's that guy.  

Richie Martin was faster than Mullins. He can fly. 

[Morgan423]

13 hours ago, Frobby said:

I’ve actually been meaning to look into the question of whether this rule has skewed things towards the home team.   

BB-ref play by play summaries show the probability of the home team winning at the end of each play in the game.   Per the summary of yesterday’s game, the O’s chances of winning were exactly 50% at the end of the 9th inning.   So, no advantage for the home team.   But as soon as Scott struck out the leadoff batter with the runner on 2B, the odds shot all the way to 61%.   After the Yankees failed to score, the odds of the O’s winning were 82%.    The Valaika bunt only increased those odd to 83%, but Mullins cashed it in. 
 

A site I look toward for answers on these types of questions is this win expectancy calculator I found online: https://gregstoll.com/~gregstoll/baseball/stats.html#V.0.1.0.1.0.0  .  It might be drawing from similar data as BB-ref, though I'm not sure.

You can set up scenarios, and it looks at the historic data for that situation for games between 1957 and 2020, and shows how those games broke down historically.

For the extra inning scenarios... First off, traditional rules.  With the visiting team hitting at the top of an extra inning, no outs, no one on base...  traditionally, this is a slightly weighted coin flip to the home team (52/48).  Fairly even.

But what about the new rules?  Well, in the visitor half of an extra inning under the new rules, traditional results break down, because historically, we have never had to account for the fact that the home team will get a free and guaranteed lead off double in their half of the inning when they come to bat.  In the traditional world, the lead off double gave the visitor a 66% win chance, but I suspect the home lead off double reduces this quite a bit.

BUT...  whatever their actual win expectation, the visiting team had BETTER score.  Because looking at the home half of the extra inning in a tied game historically, home teams that have had a dude on second with no one out have won an astounding 82% of the time, as you pointed out above.  So there is the strongest advantage for the home team in this scenario.

I suspect, if this rule isn't temporary, that we'll need more data to know how this will play out on average.  But as it stands, it feels pretty strongly weighted toward the home team, as is attested to by the stupidly strong home advantage when the visitor fails to score.

I'm still of the opinion that I'd rather have regular season ties if the game isn't wrapped by the end of the eleventh or so, or failing that, a couple of regular rules innings before starting to introduce the ghost runners. 

[OriolesMagic83]

8 hours ago, OFFNY said:

o

 

 

o

NHL standings.  3 points for a win, 1 for a tie.

[Moshagge3]

10 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

All they have to do to get back to nine inning games in a doubleheader is find some way to have a game last two hours.  It's pretty common now to have a nine-inning game approach four hours, occasionally over four hours.  So 18 innings in a day with a break in between means at least nine hours at the park.  Who likes that?  Who wants that?  If I was going to go to a doubleheader at Camden Yards I'd have to leave at about 10:00 or 10:30 for a 1:00 first pitch, and it's likely I wouldn't get home until midnight.  I thought this was supposed to be fun.  This is the kind of thing you tell grandkids about, that day you spent 14 hours at Camden Yards and lived to tell about it.

You're making it sound as if these are scheduled doubleheaders like it's 1955. Doubleheaders nowadays are contingency measures for rain and COVID outbreaks. Owners make them single admission only grudgingly, usually if it's a weekday, and ticketholders can make their own decisions. So I'm not sure who I'm supposed to feel sorry for in your scenario. I'll tell you what, though: if I can only come to one of the games because of work (because again, if it's single admission it's probably a weekday), I'd like it to be an actual MLB-length game.

Maybe it's tin foil hattery to say this, but it's going to raise some eyebrows when in a tight pennant race the Mudville nine, a team blessed with a good rotation and a shaky bullpen, decide that the radar is iffy and it's better to call off tonight's game and play two games with different rules than what their competitors are playing, rules that directly play to their advantage.    

[Beysbol]

I voted against it. Hate the runner on 2nd. If you're gonna put a runner on do it in the 12th or put the guy on first base. Hate this new rule.