Thanks for posting this, Chris. You're not crazy.

Yes he is.

Nice article, Studes.

One problem I have with this analysis is the conclusion..it's incomplete. Later season games are more critical only if you assume a certain performance by the team up to that point that MAKES them critical. But the team has the power to make later season games LESS critical, by winning more EARLY season games.

Yes, once you reach September and are down 3 games, OF COURSE the remaining month's games will be immensely critical. But teams don't magically arrive at Septmeber like this, they EARN there way there.

Therefore, I think an analysis like this, while acknowledging the mathematical fact that it's harder to make up X deficit with less games to go, puts the wrong "value" on these late season games by ignoring the value of the early season games in determining this late season predicament.

But this isn't evidence that I am.

I'm not really a big fan of leverage in a narrow sense. However, I do think ther is considerable to "having games to make up". THere's less luck when moving around in the league is a function of how five other teams are performing, rather than just in a game.

I would agree with Fridas, except it looks like the analysis is designed to explain a subjective situation - why games at the end of the year are viewed as more critical, and thus why players with stronger second half performances fare better when the hardware is dished out.

So, in that sense, the conclusion seems fairly straightforward.

This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of.

Right. I don't think that anyone would argue for an Angel as MVP based on a hot September.

I think an analysis like this, while acknowledging the mathematical fact that it's harder to make up X deficit with less games to go, puts the wrong "value" on these late season games by ignoring the value of the early season games in determining this late season predicament.

In a strict mathematical sense, that's true. But I think that leverage (both in-game and in-season) is all about "perceived value". The perception among casual fans and most people involved in the game is that September games in a pennant race ARE more important than April games - certainly decisions are made based on that perception - and it's good to see a study that attempts to acknowledge and quantify that.

-- MWE

I love the team that 'pulls an all nighter' instead of diligently studying throughout the season.

THere's less luck when moving around in the league is a function of how five other teams are performing, rather than just in a game.

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here, Chris, because as I read this, I would think that just the opposite is true. The problem with trying to do something parallel to in-game WPA with respect to a pennant race is that a team's position in a pennant race is a function of things that happen entirely outside of the control of the team - how well the other teams in their league perform in games against other teams. A good example of this is the 1954 Yankees - the only Yankee team from 1949 - 1958 to NOT win the pennant even though they won the most games of any of those Yankee teams, and they even split the season series with their chief rival. They lost the pennant because the Indians were crazy-good against the dregs of the AL. From the Yankees' perspective, how can that be viewed as anything other than "luck"?

The title to this article is all wrong. Isn't it supposed to be:

THT: Studes: Season 'Academy Award Winner Timothy Hutton stars in' Leverage Index

Sometimes bad September games make the best good September games.

But I think that leverage (both in-game and in-season) is all about "perceived value".

Exactly. I'm not saying this is the way to go -- I'm trying to find a way to quantify what everyone says is the way to go.

Thanks for the link, Chris.

I'm not saying this is the way to go -- I'm trying to find a way to quantify what everyone says is the way to go.

And that's useful for making arguments that acknowledge viewpoints held by other people, rather than dismissing them out-of-hand - it opens lines of communication rather than closing them off by pretending that only raw, empirical value is the only thing that matters.

-- MWE

I can understand why quantifying perceived value is interesting but why is it important? Should we do this for the gold golve awards too which are awarded in an even more haphazard manner?

What's the endgame here?

I can understand why quantifying perceived value is interesting but why is it important?

Because, as I said in #13, it opens a communications channel to others who think it's important. If all you're interested in doing is preaching to the converted, then it's not really very important.

-- MWE

What's the endgame here?

I'm interested in the question: if we take the extreme approach here, does Ryan Howard beat Albert Pujols?

Mike,

Because, as I said in #13, it opens a communications channel to others who think it's important. If all you're interested in doing is preaching to the converted, then it's not really very important.


So, after you arm your opponent with the information that September games are twice as important as August games and 4 times moreso than April, what's the next step in the conversation? Trying to talk over their "I told you so's"?

Studes,

I'm interested in the question: if we take the extreme approach here, does Ryan Howard beat Albert Pujols?


"Beat" him where? For the MVP award? For HOF discussions? For bar-room discussions of who's "better"?

Studes, what are your answers to these questions, in light of the math you present here?

For the MVP award, of course. That's what I talked about in the article. For the answer, keep reading THT.

Ooooh, a cliffhanger. studes is a showman!

Same sabr time, same sabr station.