http://gosu02.tripod.com/id11.html

Looking backwards, you can say how important a given situation was in determining the final outcome, just as you can say a 2-run double in the 9th inning of a 1-run game was more important than the same 2-run double in the 5th inning of a 12-3 blowout. I don't really see why this is controversial.

If player X and his teammates had won games 1-3, then his production in game 4 wouldn't be "worth" 1.3 times as much as game 1. Player X didn't know, while he was half @$$ing it in game 2, what the series scenario would be in game 4. How much weight do you give to production in a losing effort? The analysis might be statistically consistent, but I'll keep measuring production by weight of gold (rings). I understand the modern metrics explosion does yield some actionable intel for players, coaches, general managers, etc. It also gives fans something else to argue about... And it certainly sounds like a dumb cliche to say the most important game is the one right now, but there is a reason cliches become cliches...

Consider another sport - baseball, and how managers decide the starting rotations. Look at the specific example of the 1960 World Series. Run an analysis of weighted production on the players in that series. Now pretend it is the day of game 1 and you are Casey Stengel and have to decide who your starting pitcher should be in game 1. Does the after the fact analysis change anything about what Stengel should have done?

What kind of actionable intel does an analysis like the one above give you. Does it matter who had the best 'weighted production' after the fact? I'd argue that what matters is that a complete idiot would have sense enough to start Whitey Ford in game 1, if the only thing he understood about sports was the cliches.

I don't mean to discount the effort or the other ways in which this type of analysis can be used (looks like a great way to take money from your friends by betting on some combination of the outcome of a given game and the outcome of a series), or the value of different types of metrics in general, but the single most significant thing I see coming out of this approach is adding another way to make excuses for supposed 'big game' players that don't win because they don't understand the concept of teamwork. Lebron's entire career of performances "positively correlates" with being the new Wilt Chamberlain...

Taking future uncertainty out of the equation when considering the relative value of a player's contribution describes an impossible circumstance and makes analysis of a player's production less significant, not more... It tells you more about who the biggest ham is, rather than the best player. Take the average delta for every possible game scenario, on a per game basis, and only consider the games that have to be played (1-4)... now which game is the most important? I'll take the 5 players that have the best weighted production calculated on that basis.

I understand the analysis. I don't understand the application (outside of ways that it could be used in certain forms of wagering). What purpose does it serve?

If you are trailing 2-1, you better not lose, because it all but impossible to come back from down 3-1. You are done.

If you are ahead 2-1, you really want to win game 4 to go ahead 3-1, because it almost guarantees that you win the series. Moreover, you will likely win without having to play 7 games.

Game 4 has the potential to set you up for the coup de grace. I guess the reason the numbers don't quite reflect the importance of game 4 is because sometimes it isn't a kill shot, it is just a reset button. Tied 2-2, its back to a near 50/50 proposition.

But ask any player, which game they would most like to win, (besides the clincher) they would always choose game 4.

Game 4 is the most important because it is guaranteed to mean life and death (figuratively) for one of the teams.