Does Extra-Innings Success Translate to Post-Season Succcess?

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
41,946
As most of you know, I'm not a stathead, and almost never post on the main board, but I heard this discussion come up today, and figured it might be a good topic that someone could run with and do the research. The Red Sox are an absolutely ridiculous 15-3 in extra inning games this year. I'm sure it says a lot about how resilient they are, or how "clutch" they are, or whatever, but that's not really what this is about.

The radio guys that brought this up had done a little research, and apparently, in 7 of the last 8 years, the World Series has been won by a team that was in the top 10 in extra Innings winning % during the regular season. Needless to say, the Sox are #1 right now by a wide margin, and IIRC, the Cubs were #1 last year. On it's face, it sounded like there may be something to it, and there may be a correlation between the two. Other teams in the top 10 right now if I heard them correctly include the Nationals, Astros and Dodgers.

So, I look to you good folks of SoSH. If someone has the time/energy to research this, I know I'd be curious to hear the results.
 

NoXInNixon

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
5,296
Without crunching any numbers, it seems to me that extra inning success would be strongly correlated with having a good bullpen, and bullpens have extra importance in the playoffs.
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
10,229
Without crunching any numbers, and conceding that a good bullpen probably has something to do with it, I would guess that extra innings success would also be strongly correlated with luck and therefore not very predictive.
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
8,401
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
Historically, (IIRC via Bill James) the two main playoff success drivers were big time stud power pitchers and power.

The power being necessary to counter the other team's big time stud power pitchers (which, presumably, make long sequence offense unlikely).

I think there's a recency bias due to teams like KC, the Cubs and last year's Tribe which featured great bullpens.
 

garlan5

Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2009
2,684
Virginia
The 2013 had a lot of late game comebacks. I remember a lot of walk offs. Not sure how many are extra inning games but I remember thinking no way their luck will carry them through the playoffs
 

troparra

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 3, 2007
1,921
Michigan
Just looking at the Red Sox, here is their record in extra inning games in the WS-winning seasons:
2013: 10-6
2007: 2-5
2004: 6-6

I don't think you can get a more random distribution.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,482
According to this article from 2011, the three basic pillars for postseason success were (i) effective closer; (ii) pitching staff K rate; and (iii) fielding.

Doesn't say anything about extra-innings, though winning extra-inning games probably has something to do with fielding and K rate.

For those who despair because of the current state of the offense, apparently the BP study that looked at this found no correlation between offensive strength and playoff success.

FWIW
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
Historically, (IIRC via Bill James) the two main playoff success drivers were big time stud power pitchers and power.

The power being necessary to counter the other team's big time stud power pitchers (which, presumably, make long sequence offense unlikely).

I think there's a recency bias due to teams like KC, the Cubs and last year's Tribe which featured great bullpens.
From 1980 through 2016 (remembering there was no World Series in 1994), the team with the most doubles in the regular season was the winner of the World Series 20 times while losing 16 times. When you compare home runs between the two opponents, you find the champion had a slight edge, 18-17, with a tie one year. If you look at the overall totals for the two opponents during this period, you will find that the losing teams have a slight edge in home runs while the winning teams have a slight one in doubles.

In days when each team played its opponents the same number of games, this may have had some meaning but inter-league and uneven divisional play present biases that are a bit harder to figure out.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,372
According to this article from 2011, the three basic pillars for postseason success were (i) effective closer; (ii) pitching staff K rate; and (iii) fielding.

Doesn't say anything about extra-innings, though winning extra-inning games probably has something to do with fielding and K rate.

For those who despair because of the current state of the offense, apparently the BP study that looked at this found no correlation between offensive strength and playoff success.

FWIW
The game has changed since 2011 but based on these three factors...

1. Effective closer: Well, Kimbrel is having a phenomenal season and is clearly one of the (if not THE) best closers in baseball.

2. Pitching K rate: Right now they've struck out the 3rd most hitters in MLB. Obviously helps having Kimbrel and Sale but still...this staff strikes out a ton of guys.

3. Fielding: Sox are 26th in fielding percentage, so that's not good. BUT looking at b-ref's team fielding page, they are 7th in Total Zone Fielding Runs Above Average, and 3rd in Defensive Runs Saved. So I think what these numbers mean is that the Sox make a lot of fielding mistakes, but cover a ton of ground and get to a ton of balls that other teams wouldn't, and so on the whole, their defense saves a lot of runs. Conclusion: on the whole, they're a very good defensive team.

Therefore, based on these three factors, the Red Sox could be a very tough out in October.
 

Cuzittt

Bouncing with Anger
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 20, 2001
20,301
Sinister Funkhouse #17
Regarding the initial question... one has to go back to 2011 (Cardinals) to find a team that won the World Series with an under .500 record in extra inning games (8-13).

However... that doesn't necessarily mean anything predictive.

2012... Giants, 8-5 in extras.
Best team in extra (percentage and wins) - Baltimore Orioles 16-2.

13 - Red Sox 10-6 in extras.
Best % - Cleveland 10-2
Most wins - Arizona 17-8.

14 - Giants 9-4
Best% and Wins - Baltimore 14-6.

15 Kansas City - 10-6
Best% Washington 9-2
Most Wins Chicago (AL) - 13-5

16 Cubs - 9-4
Best% Baltimore 6-2
Most wins Atlanta 11-11 and San Francisco 11-7.

Based on the current run of things... I would not want to be Colorado, Milwaukee, Houston, Minnesota, or New York... who all have records at or below .500. But... by in large, I don't think it means much with the possible exception of the Brewers who are 4-9 in extras which may indicate a lack of depth.

The radio guys may be right. I don't think it means much. (And by %, Baltimore was ahead of the Sox entering the just ended series).
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,673
Maine
3. Fielding: Sox are 26th in fielding percentage, so that's not good. BUT looking at b-ref's team fielding page, they are 7th in Total Zone Fielding Runs Above Average, and 3rd in Defensive Runs Saved. So I think what these numbers mean is that the Sox make a lot of fielding mistakes, but cover a ton of ground and get to a ton of balls that other teams wouldn't, and so on the whole, their defense saves a lot of runs. Conclusion: on the whole, they're a very good defensive team.

Therefore, based on these three factors, the Red Sox could be a very tough out in October.
Regarding the fielding percentage rank...if you remove just Pablo Sandoval, Rafael Devers and Xander Bogaerts from the mix, team fielding percentage jumps by nearly six points, putting them in the top 10 in the league. Those three account for 35% of the team's errors (35 of 101 total).

Essentially, they're weak defensively at two spots. It's arguable that they've got Gold Glove caliber D regularly manning the other 6 spots. Judging by fielding percentage doesn't give a good view of the full picture.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,372
Regarding the fielding percentage rank...if you remove just Pablo Sandoval, Rafael Devers and Xander Bogaerts from the mix, team fielding percentage jumps by nearly six points, putting them in the top 10 in the league. Those three account for 35% of the team's errors (35 of 101 total).

Essentially, they're weak defensively at two spots. It's arguable that they've got Gold Glove caliber D regularly manning the other 6 spots. Judging by fielding percentage doesn't give a good view of the full picture.
Yep, great point. Unfortunately, 3b and SS are two positions that field a ton of balls.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,885
Alexandria, VA
Regarding the fielding percentage rank...if you remove just Pablo Sandoval, Rafael Devers and Xander Bogaerts from the mix, team fielding percentage jumps by nearly six points, putting them in the top 10 in the league. Those three account for 35% of the team's errors (35 of 101 total).
  1. Fielding percentage only jumps about ~4.5 points (from .9819 to .9865), assuming you remove them from both the numerator and denominator.
  2. It's kind of meaningless, because if you do the same for a lot of other teams other teams you get the same results. Andrus, Odor, and Gallo account for 50.5% of the Ranger's errors. They're in the next spot ahead of us in reality, and they jump ~4.1 points and remain just ahead of us if you strike the 3 worst offenders. Frazier, Anderson, and Garcia are 39% of the White Sox's errors; strike them and the White Sox jump ~5.3 points in fielding..
 

koufax37

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
2,472
I have really enjoyed the extra inning success, although I think it has been fueled by two things:

1) A very good bullpen, putting zeros on the board when putting a 1 on the board would be a disaster. This is a terrific and wonderful thing to have in the regular season, and in the post season.

2) A lot of random distribution of luck that is not predictive at all. Winning an extra inning game involves winning an inning first in a game where you were even through nine. Being completely even through 9 or 12 or 15 and then thinking your lineup and defensive construction has much to do with your ability to create an uneven inning in your favor more likely than previously seems pretty flawed logic. The one variable that changes as we go from the tied portion of the game to the untied portion is the ability of relievers to put up zeros covered in #1. I don't think our offense or defense is a large contributor in practice or in a logical abstract.

So the tremendous job by our deep bullpen that isn't closer heavy (even if our closer is wonderful) has bought our struggling offense another inning and another inning to come through on many occasions, and I think that same bullpen is very useful in the post season with one big exception:

Our fifteen inning type extra inning success has been fueled by some great work by many relievers in a deep bullpen. With off days and Aces on the hill instead of 4th and 5th starters, post season bullpens tend to be shallower, and the guys pitching the 13th and 14th innings are likely to not factor in to 9 inning games at all. So that serves to undermine slightly #1 above. Unless we are playing extra inning post season games, the deep bullpen capable of avoiding an Aaron Boone moment from the 9th to the 18th is very rarely a factor in the post season, and the guys who get you 6th to 9th are a slightly different animal and what tends to matter more in the post season.

And flipping back momentarily to the mostly irrelevant offensive aspect, it is discouraging to know how many times our offense has been up knowing that we really need a single run in a tough situation and instead scored zero...while our pitchers have given the team more opportunities to win, and lead to wins, the % of extra innings we have been scoreless in is very discouraging for our expectations of scoring in a similar high leverage situation of a 6th or 7th or 8th inning between a team's top three starter and their closer. A lot of our extra inning wins are the product of irrelevant bullpen depth that lasted long enough to get an opposing pitcher matchup you would be unlikely see in the post season covering up for our offenses repeated failure to get a run when we needed a run.

So I have really enjoyed our bullpen, and I have really enjoyed our exiting yet stressful extra inning success, but I see very little logical or statistical reason why we would expect it to correlate to post season performance.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
Being in the "top 10 of extra inning teams" is a low enough threshold to say that it probably correlates nicely with just being above average in any inning, which the World Series winner almost always is. Speier's piece the other day also found that teams that were FAR above the rest (as the Sox are) in extra inning games also won the World Series a number of times, but those examples were, again, teams that were so dominant that of course they were also really good in extra innings.

What we have here, by contrast, is a team that is unreal in extra innings, but not exactly dominant in any other respect and is a nice but not memorable 73-60 in 9-inning games. So what's that about? Well, their run differential is -30 to HOU, -50 to NYY, -110 to CLE. So the fact that we are ahead in the division is a statistical anomaly that is traceable to those extra inning games. And we all have to hope that either the team gets better or the clock doesn't strike midnight until November.
 

WheresDewey

New Member
Nov 18, 2007
131
Taiwan
It could be mostly selection bias. A better record in extra inning games correlates to a better record (a win is a win) . Only teams with the best records get to the playoffs.

Hence...
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
From 2000 through 2016 the home team won 54.1009% of the games that did not exceed nine innings while they only won 52.5688% of extra-inning games (from Retrosheet Game Logs).

I'd take that as an indication there was more "luck" involved with extra-inning games. Luck could be things like a pitcher making a bad pitch, a batter guessing right, the losing team running out of bullpen help, etc. What did surprise me, at least for the years I checked (2010-16), was home runs were hit at a slightly lower rate from the 10th inning, on. I'll have to take a closer look at the other stats when I get some time.