Originally posted by

**Matthew C.**View PostI follow his logic and it's clever, I have to admit. The only flaw is that it misses the point regarding the 22.5% of the games decided by 1 run (and coversely the 68% which aren't), and thus the importance of 10 runs.

The more teams score on average, the less likely that games will be decided by 1 run margins. This can be shown casually by just looking at the 1-run stats in base-ref by league by season comparing high scoring to low scoring environments.

However, simple logic will do the same: in an extremely low scoring environment (think soccer), where teams often don't score at all, the most typical wins will be 1-run differences. Typical scores would be 1-0, 1-1, or 2-0, since each score would by itself be rare.

In extremely high scoring environments, (think junior high baseball), scoring would occur often and in bunches. The odds of a game being decided by 1-run are drastically reduced the more runs that are being scored. Scores like 15-14, 13-12, 18-17, would be flukes, not common.

What the writer of the article said is true, only to the extent that runs already approximate to 10 runs per game (they actually average slightly below that in the 1990's, which is the period he chose.)

The other issue of course is that there's an underlying assumption that teams act the same way when they are ahead by 10 runs, tied or behind by 10 runs. Since this is pretty much not true (teams do play differently), one can't completely use the scoring stats to determine the 'real' value of 10 runs. This isn't to say that players 'play' differently, although to some extent, stats will tell us that some do. For certain, however, managers do 'manage' differently in how they use the bullpen, the starters, what calls they make and what choices they exhibit.

## Leave a comment: