
I agree and disagree.  John is saying that the batters efforts will result
in 4 more wins then losses.  While you are probably correct that 400%
does not mean 4 more wins then losses, it means something.  I would
rather have a player who increased my teams chances of winning by 1% in
each of 400 PAs then I would a player who increased my chances of winning
by .5% in each of 400 PAs.  Thus, there appears to me to be an obvious
positive association between John's statistic and winning games.  Thus,
before you disregard this stat, it appears to me that further study must
go into what sort of relationship there is.


The only problem here is an insistance that these number mean exactly
how many wins the team has.  First, we are using averages over many
seasons and applying them to one game.  Second, remember some players
performance take away from the chance of you winning.  That is a
player who gets an out gets a "negative probability" in most cases.
Thus, I'm not sure in any given game when you add up all the numbers
for a team who won that they will add up to 1 in that game.  Sometimes,
they will add up to more then one sometime, less than one.  Also,
the pitchers' bad performances (giving up 6 runs) may have given
them a large negative percentage for that game.  Also, any batter that
pulled an 0-4 night would give large negatives.  




No, but really only because you have a smaller sample size.  I would
think however, that the number of runs you score in the first inning
would be just as good as a prediction as how many runs you score 
in the last inning.  And, realize something else a closer usually
comes in in a close situation, not a blow out.  It is hard to argue
that any runs that a closer gives up in a game have equal importance
to those given up in the first inning.  Look, a closer giving up runs
often means a team will lose many games.  On, the other hand a starter
who gives up runs often still leaves his team a chance to win.  The
offence has many more outs to do something about.  But, I am not
saying all late inning situations are equally important either.  If
I am down 8 runs in the ninth, it really does not matter how many
runs my pitcher gives up in the ninth.       



No, but why would you assume that the teams probability of winning would
be 0 before the possesion in which the free throws were made.  Look,
if you are down 1 point with 5 seconds left, there is a fairly high
probability that you will win the game if you are in possesion of the
ball.  And, do not forget that somebody elses missed shots, turnovers,
fouls, bad defense, etc. caused a "negative chance" that the team
would win.
 
From reading all of the discussion on this statistic, I feel that those
who critisize it to a certain extent are doing so out of an agenda.
At first look this statistic valadates clutchness.  But, it really
does not.  Cluthness revolves around the idea that certain players
in crucial situation elevate their performance and others performance
goes down.  I've never seen convincing proof that this really happens.
So, if you assume there is no clutchness, then that means that except
for a lot of noice, this statistic has a positive association to
player performance.  There is a way to get rid of the noice if you
do not believe in clutchness.  Certainly, we could find out what
the average value of a home run is for example.  We may find for
instance, that a home run increases your chance of winning by 15%
on average while a strikeout decreases your chance of winning by 5%.
I bet if this were done we would find that this statistic was just
as good as other statistics we have for predicting wins and losses.

How do we evaluate relief pitchers?  Say John and Sam have the
exact same pitching statistics (runs, earned runs, K's, BB's,
etc.)  Both had exceptional numbers.  John, however only pitched
in closer situations, while Sam was a Mop up man.  Who was more
valuble to their team?  Probably John.  Who was the better 
pitcher?  They were probably about the same.