When Did It All Go Right?

by MattS on Dec 3, 2008 11:30 PM EST

At the beginning of the season, the Phillies' odds of winning the World Series looked to be around 4%. When Eric Hinske swung and missed at a Brad Lidge slider and Carlos Ruiz squeezed his catcher's mitt around it, those odds peaked at 100%. I decided to pose the question...when did it all go right? I used fangraphs.com reports of Win Percentage Added play by play, and assuming that each game had a 50% chance of going right, I calculated the Top 10 biggest increases in the Phillies' odds of becoming World Champions. Since I assumed that each game had a 50% chance of going right, the odds of winning the World Series were 12.5% (1/8) when we made the playoffs, 25% when we made the NLCS, 50% when we made the World Series. So, for instance, when we won game 1 of the World Series, our odds of winning the World Series went up from 50% to 65.625%. Had we lost, our odds would have been 34.375%. Therefore, when Chase Utley hit a homerun in the 1st inning of Game 1, our odds of winning that game 1 went up from 50.2% to 67.3%. Therefore, our odds of becoming World Series Champions went up from 50.1% to 55.4%. Using that logic, I present the top 10 plays.

10. Shane Victorino's first inning bases loaded, two out, two-run single in the 5th Game of the World Series. Afterwards, the Phillies led the game five 2-0, on their way to winning the World Series 4 games to 1.

Odds of winning Game 5 before: 57.1%

Odds of winning Game 5 after: 72.8%

Odds of winning World Series before: 89.3%

Odds of winning World Series after: 93.2%

Net Change: 3.93%

9. Chase Utley's sixth inning solo homerun in Game 3 of the World Series. Afterwards, the Phillies led the game 3-1, on thier way to taking a 2-1 lead in the series.

Odds of winning Game 3 before: 74.0%

Odds of winning Game 3 after: 84.%

Odds of winning World Serires before: 59.0%

Odds of winning World Series after: 62.9%

Net Change: 3.94%

8. Carlos Ruiz's second solo homerun in Game 3 of the World Series. Afterwards, the Phillies led 2-1, on their way to taking a series lead of 2 games to 1.

Odds of winning Game 3 before: 51.2%

Odds of winning Game 3 after: 62.2%

Odds of winning World Series before: 50.5%

Odds of winning World Series after: 54.6%

Net Change: 4.13%

7. B.J. Upton's eighth inning double play groundout in World Series Game 5, with a man on 1st and nobody out, against J.C. Romero. Afterwards, the Phillies still led 4-3, on their way to winning the World Series 4 games to 1.

Odds of winning Game 5 before: 65.7%

Odds of winning Game 5 after: 83.9%

Odds of winning World Series before: 91.4%

Odds of winning World Series after: 96.0%

Net Change: 4.55%

6. Chase Utley's first inning one-out, two-run homerun of World Series Game 1. Afterwards, the Phillies led 2-0, on their way to taking a 1-0 series lead.

Odds of winning Game 1 before: 50.3%

Odds of winning Game 1 after: 67.3%

Odds of winning World Series before: 50.1%

Odds of winning World Series after: 55.4%

Net Change: 5.31%

5. B.J. Upton's third inning double play groundout with one out and the bases loaded in World Series Game 1. Afterwards, the Phillies still led the game 2-0, on their way to taking a 1-0 series lead.

Odds of winning Game 1 before: 55.6%

Odds of winning Game 1after: 73.4%

Odds of winning World Series before: 51.8%

Odds of winning World Series after: 57.3%

Net Change: 5.56%

4. Shane Victorino's eighth inning two-run homerun in Game 4 of the NLCS, with one out and a man on first. Afterwards, the Phillies had tied the game up at 5-5, on their way to taking a 3-1 NLCS series lead.

Odds of winning Game 4 before: 12.5%

Odds of winning Game 4 after: 45.6%

Odds of winning NLCS before: 54.7%

Odds of winning NLCS after: 67.1%

Odds of winning World Series before: 27.3%

Odds of winning World Series after: 33.6%

Net Change: 6.21%

3. Ryan Howard's fourth inning three-run homerun in World Series Game 4, with men on first and second and one out. Afterwards, the Phillies led the game 5-1, on their way to take a 3-1 series lead.

Odds of winning Game 4 before: 72.0%

Odds of winning Game 4 after: 90.5%

Odds of winning World Series before: 77.0%

Odds of winning World Series after: 83.9%

Net Change: 6.94%

2. Matt Stairs' eighth inning two-run homerun in NLCS Game 4, with a man on first and two out. Afterwards, the Phillies led the game 7-5, on their way to taking a 3-1 NLCS lead.

Odds of winning NLCS Game 4 before: 44.9%

Odds of winning NLCS Game 4 after: 86.7%

Odds of winning NLCS before: 66.8%

Odds of winning NLCS after: 82.5%

Odds of winning World Series before: 33.4%

Odds of winning World Series after: 41.3%

Net Change: 7.84%

1. Eric Bruntlett ninth inning advancement to second on a wild pitch, and subsequent advance to third on a throwing error, with no outs in a tie game in the bottom of the 9th of World Series Game 3.

Odds of winning World Series Game 3 before: 71.4%

Odds of winning World Series Game 3 after: 93.4%

Odds of winning World Series before: 58.0%

Odds of winning World Series after: 66.3%

Net Change: 8.25%

What do people think? Does this jive with reality? Does this seem like the correct order of when it all went right?

0 recs | Comment 10 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Very interesting.

At first blush, my only issue with this methodology is that (if I’m understanding it correctly, always a question) it can’t weigh counterfactuals. I’m thinking specifically of Utley’s play on the Iwamura infield single in Game 5, top of the 7th. If he doesn’t throw home to get Bruntlett, or the throw goes awry and Bruntlett scores, that’s a pretty enormous swing. Recording the out brought the Phils’ win percentage for that game from 52.7% yo 58.9%, which is fairly hefty but less than the double Jenkins hit a half-inning earlier, or Burrell right afterward. Of course, both guys scored. But that wasn’t preordained either, as anyone who watched the first three games and the Phils’ struggle to hit with RISP knew.

Not sure what my point is. Maybe this boils down, yet again, to an I-watch-the-games argument where “when Utley got Bartlett at the plate, you knew, just knew, the Phils would be hoisting that trophy.”

Which is silly. Unless it isn’t.

by dajafi on Dec 4, 2008 12:31 AM EST 0 recs

Yes, the issue basically comes down to what should be defined as “the play”. Utley’s throw home was treated as a play that started before the pitch was thrown and ended when the runner was tagged out at home. Clearly our odds had decreased from the time the pitch was thrown to the time that Utley was clearly unable to throw to first and the runner was going to be safe. Then they rose dramatically from the time that Utley turned to throw home to the time that Ruiz made the tag.

This was also an issue I faced with the Bruntlett play. Fangraphs recorded two plays— advanced to second base on wild pitch, advanced to third on catcher throwing error. Doing them separately but them as 4th and 11th or something like that, but I felt that was the same play, and added the two WPAs together.

by MattS on Dec 4, 2008 9:32 PM EST up 0 recs

It is interesting, though I think that the assumption that each team has a 50% chance to win a game at the beginning is a big one.

Cool stuff, though. You think you can run the numbers and find out the odds that Eric Bruntlett and Matt Stairs are at the center of our two biggest post-season plays?

by char6587 on Dec 4, 2008 12:48 AM EST 0 recs

I would say those numbers would have been about zero to start! Hahaha. Sure enough, though, General Bruntlett prevailed!

The 50% thing is a fair criticism which is why I laid it out. I’m not really sure that would change too much. Many of the biggest plays were in the Game 4’s of the NLCS and WS. If anything, the fact that Hamels was pitching the following days made wins in those games even more important, I think.

by MattS on Dec 4, 2008 9:34 PM EST up 0 recs

Interesting stuff. The Stairs home run seems obvious, both from a statistical point of view and an emotional one—that all but ended the Dodgers series right there. Easy to forget about game 3 against the Rays, though, with everything that happened after, but at that point the Series was still very much even. Bruntlett’s run was sort of scratched out, and not nearly as memorable or heroic as a 450-foot home run, but it counts the same on the scoreboard.

by Carlos del Vaca on Dec 4, 2008 9:23 AM EST 0 recs

It all still gives me chills…

by chrismchaines on Dec 4, 2008 1:17 PM EST 0 recs

Wait, we won the World Series? The last memory I have of this season is the big double play against the Nationals…must have blacked out from the stress around then. I kid, I kid.

by FuquaManuel on Dec 4, 2008 5:55 PM EST 0 recs

I’m with Carlos on this one. While the methodology may be debatable, the results are pretty interesting and certainly challenged my perception. Emotionally I still cling to Stairs’ bomb deep to right ~~- it is still fun for me to go back to read the game chatter on that one. Evenso, an argument could be made that Victorino’s shot was bigger, but it doesn’t “feel” that way~~-in game, it felt like the tie would be undone again. But once Stairs went deep, I felt—here is the team that will just not die, as opposed to Manny, the player who would not die.

The Bruntlett baserunning in game 3 of the WS was nearly forgotten by me. But CdV is right, a run is a run.

by Wet Luzinski on Dec 4, 2008 10:56 PM EST 0 recs

Yeah, the Victorino homerun was definitely not as big. A tie game going into the bottom of the 8th is won by the road team only about 36% of the time. It certainly moved us out of the realm of impossibility but Stairs homerun had a WPA of +.418. That’s ridiculously high.

The Bruntlett baserunning in Game 3 really actually did feel significant to me and so the emotions did line up with the numbers for me. A leadoff baserunner on 1st is nice, but a runner on 3rd with no one out almost always scores, and winning game 3 definitely left little room for error for the Rays. With Cole looming over the Rays’ heads just two days later, that really felt like the moment that the Rays were real underdogs.

I actually would have guessed that the 3-run bomb by Howard was the big moment, though. That seemed like the time that we went from slight favorites to almost definitely going to lead a series in a way that was almost definitely impossible to overcome. I think that the frequency with wich teams win games where they already have two guys on with one out and a lead in the fourth inning made the number not as high as the Bruntlett and Stairs plays.

I actually was surprised Burrell’s game 5 double didn’t make the cut. It wasn’t far off, but it really felt like that was the moment that we had trapped the Rays in a do or die situation.

by MattS on Dec 4, 2008 11:55 PM EST up 0 recs