Machine Learning-Based Classification of Team Playoff Advancement Using Pitching Performance Metrics in Korean Professional Baseball
Source abstract
Abstract
This study develops and evaluates machine learning models for classifying Korean Baseball Organization (KBO) playoff advancement using pitching metrics from 2015 to 2024 (N = 100 team-seasons), focusing specifically on pitching’s contribution to playoff qualification to address the ERA-FIP paradox at the team level. Five algorithms were compared: Random Forest, Support Vector Machines, Logistic Regression, Neural Networks, and Decision Trees. Independent variables included ten pitching statistics: Earned Run Average (ERA), Walks and Hits per Inning Pitched (WHIP), Fielding Independent Pitching (FIP), Strikeouts per 9 Innings (K/9), Walks per 9 Innings (BB/9), Strikeout-to-Walk Ratio (K/BB), Home Runs per 9 Innings (HR/9), batting average against (BAA), and opponent On-Base Percentage (OBP) and On-Base Plus Slugging (OPS). Logistic Regression achieved the highest classification performance with an Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC) of 0.804 and classification accuracy of 73.0%, followed by Neural Network (AUC = 0.799, CA = 72.0). Feature importance analysis showed ERA and WHIP, both defense-dependent metrics, as the dominant predictors of postseason qualification, collectively accounting for 33.7% of information gain, while FIP ranks fifth, indicating that defense-dependent metrics are more informative for team success than defense-independent measures. The findings highlight the strategic importance of pitching–defense synergy, demonstrate the applicability of machine learning-based playoff classification beyond Major League Baseball, and provide empirical evidence that defense-dependent metrics (ERA, WHIP) exhibit superior discriminatory power compared to defense-independent metrics (FIP) for team playoff qualification. Findings reflect pitching’s contribution to playoff success; comprehensive models integrating hitting, defense, and managerial factors would provide more complete classification frameworks.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Sports Analytics and Performance · Reliability and Agreement in Measurement · Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
College of KU Glocal Innovation, Konkuk University Glocal Campus, Chungju-si 27478, Republic of Korea
Lee Shau Kee School of Business and Administration, Hong Kong Metropolitan University, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China
References (37)
Show source-provided references
1. Bill, J. (1985). Bill James’ Baseball Abstract, Ballantine Books.
2. Zhao, W., Akella, V.S., Yang, S., and Luo, X. (2025). Machine learning in baseball analytics: Sabermetrics and beyond. Information, 16.10.3390/info16050361 ↗
3. The application of machine learning techniques for predicting match results in team sport: A review10.1613/jair.1.13509 ↗
4. A machine learning framework for sport result prediction10.1016/j.aci.2017.09.005 ↗
5. Lo, T.-C., Lee, C.-Y., Chen, C.-L., Hsieh, T.-Y., Chen, C.-H., and Lin, Y.-K. (2025). Application of machine learning models for baseball outcome prediction. Appl. Sci., 15.10.3390/app15137081 ↗
6. Constantinou, A.C., and Fenton, N.E. (2012). Solving the problem of inadequate scoring rules for assessing probabilistic football forecast models. J. Quant. Anal. Sports, 8.10.1515/1559-0410.1418 ↗
7. Machine learning applications in baseball: A systematic literature review10.1080/08839514.2018.1442991 ↗
8. Introducing Grid WAR: Rethinking WAR for starting pitchers10.1515/jqas-2023-0095 ↗
9. Huang, M.-L., and Li, Y.-Z. (2021). Use of machine learning and deep learning to predict the outcomes of Major League Baseball Matches. Appl. Sci., 11.10.3390/app11104499 ↗
10. Li, S.F., Huang, M.L., and Li, Y.Z. (2022). Exploring and selecting features to predict the next outcomes of MLB games. Entropy, 24.10.3390/e24020288 ↗
11. Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., and Friedman, J. (2013). The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction, Springer.
12. Multimodal machine learning for major league baseball playoff prediction10.31449/inf.v46i6.3864 ↗
13. Bae, J.-S., Chiu, W., and Nam, S.-B. (2021). Sport fans’ price Sensitivity based on loyalty levels: A case of Korean Professional Baseball League. Sustainability, 13.10.3390/su13063361 ↗
14. Korea Baseball Organization (2025). KBO League Regulations, KBO Publishing.
15. Fielding before and after baseball’s great transformation
16. McCracken, V. (2024, December 25). Pitchers and Defense: How Much Control Do Hurlers Have?. Available online: https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/878/pitching-and-defense-how-much-control-do-hurlers-have/.
17. Tango, T.M., Lichtman, M.G., and Dolphin, A.E. (2007). The Book: Playing the Percentages in Baseball, Potomac Books, Inc.
18. The many flavors of DIPS: A history and an overview
19. Albert, J., Glickman, M.E., Swartz, T.B., and Koning, R.H. (2017). Using publicly available baseball data to measure and evaluate pitching performance. Handbook of Statistical Methods and Analyses in Sports, Chapman and Hall/CRC.10.1201/9781315166070 ↗
20. Cui, A.Y. (2020). Forecasting Outcomes of Major League Baseball Games Using Machine Learning. [Bachelor’s Thesis, University of Pennsylvania].
21. Pitch sequence complexity and long-term pitcher performance10.3390/sports3010040 ↗
22. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python
23. Thorn, J., Palmer, P., and Reuther, D. (2015). The Hidden Game of Baseball: A Revolutionary Approach to Baseball and Its Statistics, University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226276830.001.0001 ↗
24. The regression analysis of binary sequences10.1111/j.2517-6161.1958.tb00292.x ↗
25. Hosmer, D.W., Lemeshow, S., and Sturdivant, R.X. (2013). Applied Logistic Regression, John Wiley & Sons.10.1002/9781118548387 ↗
26. James, G., Witten, D., Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., and Taylor, J. (2023). Statistical Learning. An Introduction to Statistical Learning: With Applications in Python, Springer International Publishing.10.1007/978-3-031-38747-0 ↗
27. Top 10 algorithms in data mining10.1007/s10115-007-0114-2 ↗
28. Random Forests10.1023/A:1010933404324 ↗
29. Support-vector networks10.1023/A:1022627411411 ↗
30. Wang, S.-C. (2003). Artificial Neural Network. Interdisciplinary Computing in Java Programming, Springer.10.1007/978-1-4615-0377-4 ↗
31. Rainio, O., Teuho, J., and Klén, R. (2024). Evaluation metrics and statistical tests for machine learning. Sci. Rep., 14.10.1038/s41598-024-56706-x ↗
32. Kohavi, R. A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation and model selection. IJCAI’95: Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Montreal, QC, Canada, 20–25 August 1995, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
33. A Caution Regarding Rules of Thumb for Variance Inflation Factors10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6 ↗
34. Strobl, C., Boulesteix, A.-L., Zeileis, A., and Hothorn, T. (2007). Bias in random forest variable importance measures: Illustrations, sources and a solution. BMC Bioinform., 8.10.1186/1471-2105-8-25 ↗
35. Induction of decision trees10.1023/A:1022643204877 ↗
36. Gopal, V., Kondakindi, K., Lohia, N., and Williams, M. (2024). Baseball Decision-Making: Optimizing At-bat Simulations. SMU Data Sci. Rev., 8.
37. Tabular data: Deep learning is not all you need10.1016/j.inffus.2021.11.011 ↗