clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

A New Twist to Olympic "Baseball"

New, comments

In case you hadn't seen this yet, let me provide you with a summary of how innings beyond the 11th will play out in the upcoming Olympics: each team gets runners on first and second and can choose the point in their batting order to start the inning. That's not a joke, but let's analyze what it means.

Obviously the IOC wants games to get over with and not extend into the 12th, 15th, or 22nd innings. Nobody likes those crazy games and there's certainly nothing rewarding as that rollercoaster ride where every at-bat could be the deciding one. So the solution is to place two on and give the teams a choice of who they want up. This is supposed to end games quicker, but will it even do that?

Using Tom Tango's run expectancy matrix we can compare the none on, none out and two on, none out situations.

0/0: 0.555 runs expected

1-2/0: 1.573 runs expected

So yes, run expectancy is raised, but doesn't this seem a bit unfair if one team has Matt LaPorta up and the other has, well, not Matt LaPorta? I suppose this is a way of mimicking a hockey shootout, but baseball isn't supposed to be like this, it's an untimed game, forcing situations to end a game is ridiculous.

After all, didn't we just experience one of the greatest all-star games in recent times, largely because of the mystery that piled up as the game went deep into the night?