IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/japsta/v26y1999i1p69-80.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Paired comparison models applied to the design of the Major League baseball play-offs

Author

Listed:
  • Donald Martin

Abstract

This paper presents an analysis of the eff ect of various baseball play-off configurations on the probability of advancing to the World Series. Play-off games are assumed to be independent. Several paired comparisons models are considered for modeling the probability of a home team winning a single game as a function of the winning percentages of the contestants over the course of the season. The uniform and logistic regression models are both adequate, whereas the Bradley-Terry model (modified for within-pair order eff ects, i.e. the home field advantage) is not. The single-game probabilities are then used to compute the probability of winning the play-off s under various structures. The extra round of play-off s, instituted in 1994, significantly lowers the probability of the team with the best record advancing to the World Series, whereas home field advantage and the diff erent possible play-offdraws have a minimal eff ect.

Suggested Citation

  • Donald Martin, 1999. "Paired comparison models applied to the design of the Major League baseball play-offs," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1), pages 69-80.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:japsta:v:26:y:1999:i:1:p:69-80
    DOI: 10.1080/02664769922665
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02664769922665
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/02664769922665?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gottfried Noether, 1960. "Remarks about a paired comparison model," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 25(4), pages 357-367, December.
    2. Frederick Mosteller, 1951. "Remarks on the method of paired comparisons: II. The effect of an aberrant standard deviation when equal standard deviations and equal correlations are assumed," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 16(2), pages 203-206, June.
    3. Jeff Horen & Raymond Riezman, 1985. "Comparing Draws for Single Elimination Tournaments," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(2), pages 249-262, April.
    4. Frederick Mosteller, 1951. "Remarks on the method of paired comparisons: I. The least squares solution assuming equal standard deviations and equal correlations," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 16(1), pages 3-9, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. James Monks & Jared Husch, 2009. "The Impact of Seeding, Home Continent, and Hosting on FIFA World Cup Results," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 10(4), pages 391-408, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lendie Follett & Heath Henderson, 2022. "A hybrid approach to targeting social assistance," Papers 2201.01356, arXiv.org.
    2. Centola, Damon & van de Rijt, Arnout, 2015. "Choosing your network: Social preferences in an online health community," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 19-31.
    3. Csató, László, 2013. "Rangsorolás páros összehasonlításokkal. Kiegészítések a felvételizői preferencia-sorrendek módszertanához [Paired comparisons ranking. A supplement to the methodology of application-based preferenc," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(12), pages 1333-1353.
    4. Osei, Prince P. & Davidov, Ori, 2022. "Bayesian linear models for cardinal paired comparison data," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    5. Éva Orbán-Mihálykó & Csaba Mihálykó & László Koltay, 2019. "Incomplete paired comparisons in case of multiple choice and general log-concave probability density functions," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 27(2), pages 515-532, June.
    6. Mukhtar Ali, 1998. "Probability models on horse-race outcomes," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(2), pages 221-229.
    7. László Csató, 2015. "A graph interpretation of the least squares ranking method," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 44(1), pages 51-69, January.
    8. Éva Orbán-Mihálykó & Csaba Mihálykó & László Koltay, 2019. "A generalization of the Thurstone method for multiple choice and incomplete paired comparisons," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 27(1), pages 133-159, March.
    9. Kwan, Ying Keung & Ip, Wai Cheung & Kwan, Patrick, 2000. "A crime index with Thurstone's scaling of crime severity," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 237-244.
    10. Elliott, Michael A., 2010. "Selecting numerical scales for pairwise comparisons," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(7), pages 750-763.
    11. Jose Pina-Sánchez & John Paul Gosling, 2020. "Tackling selection bias in sentencing data analysis: a new approach based on a scale of severity," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 54(3), pages 1047-1073, June.
    12. Julio González-Díaz & Ruud Hendrickx & Edwin Lohmann, 2014. "Paired comparisons analysis: an axiomatic approach to ranking methods," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(1), pages 139-169, January.
    13. Dennie van Dolder & Vincent Buskens, 2014. "Individual Choices in Dynamic Networks: An Experiment on Social Preferences," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-16, April.
    14. Harman, Wyatte L. & Eidman, Vernon R. & Hatch, Roy E. & Claypool, P. L., 1972. "Relating Farm and Operator Characteristics to Multiple Goals," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(1), pages 215-220, July.
    15. Araki, Kenji & Hirose, Yoshihiro & Komaki, Fumiyasu, 2019. "Paired comparison models with age effects modeled as piecewise quadratic splines," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 733-740.
    16. Vincent Buskens & Jeroen Weesie, 2000. "An Experiment On The Effects Of Embeddedness In Trust Situations," Rationality and Society, , vol. 12(2), pages 227-253, May.
    17. Sahand Negahban & Sewoong Oh & Devavrat Shah, 2017. "Rank Centrality: Ranking from Pairwise Comparisons," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 65(1), pages 266-287, February.
    18. Mark Glickman, 2001. "Dynamic paired comparison models with stochastic variances," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(6), pages 673-689.
    19. Jayanti Gupta & Paul Damien, 2002. "Conjugacy class prior distributions on metric‐based ranking models," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 64(3), pages 433-445, August.
    20. Sahand Negahban & Sewoong Oh & Devavrat Shah, 2017. "Rank Centrality: Ranking from Pairwise Comparisons," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 65(1), pages 266-287, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:japsta:v:26:y:1999:i:1:p:69-80. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CJAS20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.