Baseball hitting and measurement Class 1
Hoopster
Posts: 1,169
in Sports Talk
It amazes me how many people make references or decisions based on their 'gut' or feel, when the information of what really happened already tells us the reality. The play by play data of every play in MLB is accounted for since 1959(save a handful of missing at bats).
But people are afraid of this information and data, because they either don't understand it, or they don't want to understand it. They may simply like to view things the way they do. That is there right, but it would seem pretty foolish to continue that view when better and more accurate info is available. Well, foolish if they chose to then debate from the weak viewpoint.
People talk about baseball 101. I would like to start with baseball 1.
There are seven ways for a batter to reach 1st base.
I.
1. fielding error
2. fielders choice
3. a Hit
4. a walk
5. catchers inteference
6. dropped third strike
7. hit by pitch
I will go out on a limb and say that the categories in section I will go without debate. If you wish to debate it, please refer to it from section I.
II. Hitting events.
A walk gets the hitter to 1B
A single gets the hitter to 1B
A double gets the hitter to 2B
A triple gets the hitter to 3B
A HR gets the hitter to Home
An out gets the team 1/3 of the way to ending the inning.
Pretty straightforward stuff.
III.
A team that scores more runs than the other team will win the game. The team with the most wins, wins their division. Not rocket science.
IV. Lets get crazy here...
A HR is more beneficial to a team than a double. A double more beneficial than a single. A single more beneficial than a walk. Again, pretty straighforward stuff, but surprisingly, this is where it starts to unravel for many fans....
But people are afraid of this information and data, because they either don't understand it, or they don't want to understand it. They may simply like to view things the way they do. That is there right, but it would seem pretty foolish to continue that view when better and more accurate info is available. Well, foolish if they chose to then debate from the weak viewpoint.
People talk about baseball 101. I would like to start with baseball 1.
There are seven ways for a batter to reach 1st base.
I.
1. fielding error
2. fielders choice
3. a Hit
4. a walk
5. catchers inteference
6. dropped third strike
7. hit by pitch
I will go out on a limb and say that the categories in section I will go without debate. If you wish to debate it, please refer to it from section I.
II. Hitting events.
A walk gets the hitter to 1B
A single gets the hitter to 1B
A double gets the hitter to 2B
A triple gets the hitter to 3B
A HR gets the hitter to Home
An out gets the team 1/3 of the way to ending the inning.
Pretty straightforward stuff.
III.
A team that scores more runs than the other team will win the game. The team with the most wins, wins their division. Not rocket science.
IV. Lets get crazy here...
A HR is more beneficial to a team than a double. A double more beneficial than a single. A single more beneficial than a walk. Again, pretty straighforward stuff, but surprisingly, this is where it starts to unravel for many fans....
0
Comments
Sorry this happened to me
JS
I think a new thing happened in the study of baseball... the biggest mope/moron on the board was able to understand and not get lost in the most elementary portion of the study of baseball.
I do caution myself to attempt further steps.
My ban of ignoring the moron/liar/welcher is officially back on.
JS
Dave
Yes, but others besides a catcher can interfere with a runner going to 1st base, such as a pitcher or 1st baseman blocking the runner.
The new faces that are putting together successful teams understand that batting average, home runs and the like are not good measures of a hitter's worth. Perfect example are the red sox who embrace Bill James and his theories about hitters.
The people who think that BA, HR, and RBI are the most important stats for a hitter will never, ever be swayed into thinking differently, no matter how much anecdotal evidence is put in front of them proving otherwise. This is unfortunate, because the more educated people are about baseball, the more intelligent the discussions can be about who is good and who is not.
<< <i><<People are impossible to change, and people want to think they know baseball by looking at some cursory, 'comfortable' numbers like batting average, home runs, etc. because they are easy to look at and think they can understand baseball. These are the same people running wildly unsuccessful baseball franchises.>>
Yet another ridiculous comment. While BA or HR, in and of themselves might not tell the whole story, when combining the two, it's highly unlikely or practically impossible to think that a player isn't going to be rated highly using "good measures". Find me the player who was consistently in the Top 20 in both BA and HR and wasn't a great player. >>
What does 'consistently' mean? And sure, if you want to combine the 2, if you have a player who is high in both, they are likely to be a very good player. But you can't look at just BA or HR and say it's a valuable stat. Impossible. Also, which would you rather look at and get a picture of a player, BA or OBP?
I think the point is taken. BA is a terrible, terrible measure of a player's hitting ability.
<< <i>First you write "BA, HR, and RBI" and now you're just merely writing BA "or" HR. You're still the same back-peddling, hypocritical poster you've always been. >>
I'm waiting for you to tell me consistently means in relation to your 'argument'. Also, what I meant is these stats, taken by themselves, are worthless by themselves (BA because it's an awful statistic, and RBI especially because they come from the team play as much as the individual).
Can you please answer the question?
<< <i>What difference does it make what "consistently" means???
Call it a year, 5 or 10. The comparisons of whoever you wanted to judge would be compared over the same period of time so what is the point of the question to begin with? >>
Answer me this: what is a better measure of a batter, batting average or on base percentage?
<< <i>The people who think that BA, HR, and RBI are the most important stats for a hitter will never, ever be swayed into thinking differently, no matter how much anecdotal evidence is put in front of them proving otherwise. >>
Anecdote: a short account of a particular incident or event of an interesting or amusing nature, often biographical. "Anecdotal evidence" is the very thing Skinpinch is saying people shouldn't rely on.
Anyway, I don't have exact stats on this, but anecdotally speaking this seems like the 100th thread on this topic.
<< <i> <<Answer me this: what is a better measure of a batter, batting average or on base percentage? >>
There is no definitive answer to that question. That you would ask, tells me how little you understand. >>
Of course there is a definitive answer: it's OBP and it's not even close. BA doesn't take into account a player getting a walk to get on base, OBP does. Therefore, OBP gives more information about a hitter's worth than BA does.
That you fail to realize this tells all of us here how little you understand about baseball.
<< <i>Definitive implies that one is always better than the other. You see, a HR is DEFINITELY better than a double. A person could easily have a lower OBP compared to the league and still be a great player. Same for BA. You just don't get the obvious. >>
Your attempt to veer the conversation away from the core will not work. I don't understand how you can sit there and honestly say that BA gives a better overall picture of a batter when it excludes data? OBP factors in walks, which is a potential run. BA does not do this. So how can BA possibly be a more telling statistic?
Which gives you more data: OBP or BA?
Answer please, with no extraneous 'facts'.
<< <i>Because, you're too dense to realize that I've answered it already, I'll say it again, there is no right answer. >>
Then you'd be wrong. I'll say it again: OBP takes into account a batter getting on base via walk, BA does not. Therefore, OBP is a superior statistic.
This discussion is over.
<< <i>First off, BA is about 80% of the OBP, so there is a pretty heavy correlation to begin with. Secondly a player could easily have a higher OBP relative to the league and have a much lower OPS or Slugging Percentage.
OBP or BA means nothing when you don't put parameters around what you are comparing. According to your logic, BA means nothing but as I've said, it is 80% of the OBP. Furthermore, one would ALWAYS want the BA to be a higher composition of the OBP. I don't think you get that. In fact, it's all too obvious that you don't. >>
Well obviously BA is a huge portion of OBP. What you fail to realize (or at least admit) is that BA leaves out a significant amount of data. Your assertion that I don't understand that OBP is comprised of BA + walks is insulting, frankly, but couldn't be more wrong. The point of hitting is to score runs. The more times you're on base the more chance you'll have at scoring runs. The best way to determine those chances is to know the total number of times a batter reaches base. Leaving out walks for no other reason than 'that's the way it's always been!' is ludicrous.
OBP is a much more telling statistic than BA. Your refusal to admit this shows that you don't understand the most basic and fundamental principles of baseball.
Why anyone would choose to not have as complete a story as possible in determining a hitter's value is just moronic and just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
<< <i>It's obvious that YOU are the one failing to look at the complete picture. Having an OBP of .330 (for example), with a BA of .310 is not necessarily better than an OBP of .320 with a BA of .300. So once again, I'll say it again, it depends on who and what your are trying to analyze. >>
Sure it is. It means the batter wit the .330 OBP got on base more than the guy who had the OBP of .320.
Perfect example: Christian Guzman batted .316 this year. Impressive right? Oh wait, what? He had an OBP of just .345? That's pretty sucky. Are you seeing yet how incomplete a picture BA paints? Carlos Quentin batted .288. That must mean, according to your flawed logic, that Guzman had a better year. Wait! Quentin's OBP was .394! Now do you see why BA fails? Adam Dunn batted just .236, but had an OBP of .386. Between Dunn and Guzman do you think Guzman had the better year?
If you stick by your assertion that BA is a more telling statistic than OBP, then you will say Guzman had a better year than either Quentin or Dunn. But someone who actually cares about statistics and applying them to baseball wants to look beyond a ridiculously incomplete number like batting average.
If you're content with your 1950s-era batting average, have at it. I'll be content in knowing I know more about baseball analysis than you.
Good luck with that!
<< <i>Another 2 minutes lost....don't you have some basketball to talk about?
JS >>
Don't you have a wall to beat your head against?
HOF SIGNED FOOTBALL RCS
does OBP or BA tell you more about a hitter and his ability to score runs? Please stop spinning, please stop going off topic. Please answer the question.
If you refuse to do so will tell me you admit defeat and have accepted OBP as a superior stat to BA.
Thank you for your time.
<< <i>First you talk about the "measure of a batter" and now you totally divert your point to a player's "ability to score runs"??? You're obviously the one that can stay on YOUR very own point. >>
Your refusal to answer a very basic question (i.e. 'which stat tells you more, BA or OBP') tells me you are either so blind to your own fanatical beliefs ("BA RULEZZ!") or are more interested in a fight than a discussion. And, given your nonstop attempt at insults, I'm willing to go with the latter.
I'm done. You refuse to engage in a productive discussion instead attempt to veer and swerve all over the place. I have better things to do than have discussions of this nature.
Enjoy your blissful ignorance.
There is an argument about OBP vs. Batting Average going on.
OBP is the better of the two measures if you are looking only at one measure. But OBP fails as a measurement by itself, and it is only when it is coupled with SLG% where you get an accurate measurement(one that shows no need for looking at total HR or final batting average anymore).
OB% and SLG% used only by themselves are as about as good as having only one leg is for a human being.
When put together, they are as strong a foundation is as a two legged person.
Baseball is right in saying that the batting average component is of more importance than the walk component in OBP. A single is of more worth than a walk because of its ability to move baserunners along more efficiently.
A player who goes 10 for 10 with ten singles is worth more tha a player who goes 0 for 0 with ten walks. They have the same OB%, but it is only when SLG% is added when their value becomes defined.
I'd like to add an addendum to this as well because I have watched way too many games in my lifetime and I know better. I have seen this situation too many times...say it's the bottom of the 9th and the Phillies are down by say 3 runs. I hate it when the lead off batter hits a home run...virtually every time in almost every game I've ever watched, the visiting team winds up winning in this situation. Might be because the pitcher gets a shot of adrenaline after the home run and pitches better, might be because the manager after the homer decides to change pitchers, might be because the pitcher can continue to pitch from a windup instead of the stretch, can be other factors as well. In that situation, I would always, ALWAYS, rather see the lead off batter get a walk, single or double, and definitely not a home run - so in my view in this particular situation, a home run is not better than a single in order to attain the goal of winning the game.
<< <i>
OBP is the better of the two measures if you are looking only at one measure. But OBP fails as a measurement by itself, and it is only when it is coupled with SLG% where you get an accurate measurement(one that shows no need for looking at total HR or final batting average anymore). >>
I wasn't trying to use OBP by itself, I was trying to show that batting average, as a statistic, is worthless and should be instead replaced by OBP as it gives a much more complete vision of what's happening in a player's at bats, and that people who insist on using BA are just stuck in old ways of viewing baseball and it's statistics.
<< <i>I'd like to add an addendum to this as well because I have watched way too many games in my lifetime and I know better. I have seen this situation too many times...say it's the bottom of the 9th and the Phillies are down by say 3 runs. I hate it when the lead off batter hits a home run...virtually every time in almost every game I've ever watched, the visiting team winds up winning in this situation. Might be because the pitcher gets a shot of adrenaline after the home run and pitches better, might be because the manager after the homer decides to change pitchers, might be because the pitcher can continue to pitch from a windup instead of the stretch, can be other factors as well. In that situation, I would always, ALWAYS, rather see the lead off batter get a walk, single or double, and definitely not a home run - so in my view in this particular situation, a home run is not better than a single in order to attain the goal of winning the game. >>
Ahh, the whole 'we need a rally!' argument. No, the best possible hit in any at bat is a home run. In your scenario, the Phillies are down by 3, lead off guy gets a home run, so now they're only down by 2. That's....bad....how? The pitcher can somehow 'pitch to the moment', again, using your words, and pitches 'better'? There's no way that's happening, ever.
A home run is the best hit in 100% of possible scenarios.
Steve
<< <i>Steinman you missed Stevek's point.
Steve >>
No I understood his point. He thinks that getting a leadoff baserunner (instead of a run) is somehow better. No, its not. No, a pitcher can't decide to pitch 'better' because he wants to. I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way.
But to take his situation, why can't the exact opposite be true? Team down 3 runs, leadoff batter gets a HR, now they're only down 2. The entire team is now more energized, seeing a 2 run gap instead of a 3-run, and sees the pitcher as vulnerable. Now they can hit 'better' because the lead is smaller and the pitcher is seen as vulnerable?
Because baseball players can't hit or pitch to the situation.
To sit there and honestly say you'd rather have a runner on first or second in a 3 run game rather than a run is curious at best.
<< <i>
<< <i>
OBP is the better of the two measures if you are looking only at one measure. But OBP fails as a measurement by itself, and it is only when it is coupled with SLG% where you get an accurate measurement(one that shows no need for looking at total HR or final batting average anymore). >>
I wasn't trying to use OBP by itself, I was trying to show that batting average, as a statistic, is worthless and should be instead replaced by OBP as it gives a much more complete vision of what's happening in a player's at bats, and that people who insist on using BA are just stuck in old ways of viewing baseball and it's statistics.
<< <i>I'd like to add an addendum to this as well because I have watched way too many games in my lifetime and I know better. I have seen this situation too many times...say it's the bottom of the 9th and the Phillies are down by say 3 runs. I hate it when the lead off batter hits a home run...virtually every time in almost every game I've ever watched, the visiting team winds up winning in this situation. Might be because the pitcher gets a shot of adrenaline after the home run and pitches better, might be because the manager after the homer decides to change pitchers, might be because the pitcher can continue to pitch from a windup instead of the stretch, can be other factors as well. In that situation, I would always, ALWAYS, rather see the lead off batter get a walk, single or double, and definitely not a home run - so in my view in this particular situation, a home run is not better than a single in order to attain the goal of winning the game. >>
Ahh, the whole 'we need a rally!' argument. No, the best possible hit in any at bat is a home run. In your scenario, the Phillies are down by 3, lead off guy gets a home run, so now they're only down by 2. That's....bad....how? The pitcher can somehow 'pitch to the moment', again, using your words, and pitches 'better'? There's no way that's happening, ever.
A home run is the best hit in 100% of possible scenarios. >>
For a guy who probably has watched less than five MLB games in his whole life, and who probably has never played the game other than an occasional game of whiffleball in his backyard, this "scenario" may be difficult to understand, but I have seen it happen far too many times and I know otherwise...and it's not just with the Phillies...I've seen it happen with all other teams as well.
<< <i>
For a guy who probably has watched less than five MLB games in his whole life, and who probably has never played the game other than an occasional game of whiffleball in his backyard, this "scenario" may be difficult to understand, but I have seen it happen far too many times and I know otherwise...and it's not just with the Phillies...I've seen it happen with all other teams as well. >>
You are making up stories with no factual evidence to back it up. To suggest that you'd rather have a runner on first or second rather than a run scored tells me you are the one with the limited baseball intellect. To suggest that a pitcher can somehow 'buckle down' and pitch 'better' after a run is scored is ludicrous.
The most desirable hit in 100% of scenarios is a home run. A run scored is 100% of the time better than a potential run.
<< <i>
<< <i>Steinman you missed Stevek's point.
Steve >>
No I understood his point. He thinks that getting a leadoff baserunner (instead of a run) is somehow better. No, its not. No, a pitcher can't decide to pitch 'better' because he wants to. I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way.
But to take his situation, why can't the exact opposite be true? Team down 3 runs, leadoff batter gets a HR, now they're only down 2. The entire team is now more energized, seeing a 2 run gap instead of a 3-run, and sees the pitcher as vulnerable. Now they can hit 'better' because the lead is smaller and the pitcher is seen as vulnerable?
Because baseball players can't hit or pitch to the situation.
To sit there and honestly say you'd rather have a runner on first or second in a 3 run game rather than a run is curious at best. >>
Wrong as usual - Because as far as winning the game is concerned, that one run is meaningless, two runs are meaningless...only in that example does 3 runs tie the game and 4 runs win the game...it's all about doing whatever is best in order to score 3 runs or more, and hitting a lead off home run, in the example given, is not the best way for the home team to win the game.
You are missing the point.
Steve
They most certainly can and do. Ever see a hitter go up and hit to the right side on purpose? Or lay down a bunt?
Or hit a deep fly to drive in a runner from 3rd?
Or work the count, etc etc etc.
Steve
walks the leadoff batter (or gives up a single) to start the last inning. A solo homerun is clean, after it is given up I have my fielders
throw the ball around. After a walk I worry that a big inning is at hand. 75% of the time that leadoff walk scores anyway.
Now if Steinman was talking about a 3 run homer I'd agree with him.
Leadoff walks suck. You can almost guarantee a big inning follows one.
That is Stevek's point.
Steve
And where Axtell is flat wrong, is his logic would presume that every hitter should go up to the plate and swing for the fences since a homerun is the best thing a hitter can do...and that of course would be very naive to think that hitters should always swing for the fences. Even most prolific homerun hitters often say that they don't "try" to hit homeruns, they only try to hit the ball hard.
I never said a player should go up and 'swing for the fences'. You are wrong and are continuing to insist on making things up to support your argument. If you assumed that's what I meant then that is on you, I never, ever said a player should go up and 'swing for the fences'.
I said the best possibly outcome from any at bat is a home run.
Since scoring runs is the name of the game, to say that a single or double is a better outcome than a home run is not only wrong, its amazingly ignorant.
<< <i>Wait wait wait.
I never said a player should go up and 'swing for the fences'. You are wrong and are continuing to insist on making things up to support your argument. If you assumed that's what I meant then that is on you, I never, ever said a player should go up and 'swing for the fences'.
I said the best possibly outcome from any at bat is a home run.
Since scoring runs is the name of the game, to say that a single or double is a better outcome than a home run is not only wrong, its amazingly ignorant. >>
Yes, you didn't say that, but instilling that thought in the back of the mind is a bad scenario for a batter to have, after he witnesses a leadoff home run - I have seen it happen too many times. I'm not saying every one of my " ideas" is correct for every circumstance, but the fact is that proportionally I know after witnessing this situation many, many times, that teams are better off NOT having their leadoff hitter hit a homerun versus just getting the runner on base instead, so there has got to be some reasons for that.
<< <i>WinPitcher made an interesting comment about the leadoff runner getting a walk - and I completely agree with him. Would be interesting to see if there has been a study done about teams winning ballgames in the bottom of the 9th when losing by 3 runs or more, and the leadoff batter gets on base with a non-homerun versus a homerun. >>
And realizing a homerun is a rarer event that just getting on base with all other ways combined, it would be interesting to see a study of the scenario presented, with the games lost or won by the batter starting the inning with a leadoff homerun versus games lost or won by the batter starting the inning with say a leadoff walk - I believe the results would surprise Axtell, but the resiults wouldn't surprise me.
<< <i>Either please cite specific examples of the countless times you've seen a hitter hit a lead off home run and then the team lose, or admit that you're making it up and have no real evidence to back your claim. >>
Axtell - you've never hardly been right on one single post on all the posts you've had on this forum, so if you want to prove yourself right then you prove it, I'm not going to waste my time trying to disprove your idea based on your track record.
<< <i> you've never hardly been right on one single post on all the posts you've had on this forum, so if you want to prove yourself right then you prove it, I'm not going to waste my time trying to disprove your idea based on your track record. >>
So you have nothing other than a flawed memory for the basis of your argument.
Hilarious.
And we're talking about slowpitch softball, and using that as a basis for an argument? LOL
I'm out...this discussion has devolved into mindless lunacy.
If you guys really want to know the answer, then the play by play data has it for you. Based on the millions of actual plays from MLB, each at bat has been recorded, with each situation.
The chance of a runner scoring from 1B with nobody out in MLB has been ....38%.
The chance of a runner scoring from 1B with one out in MLB has been.......... 21%
The chance of a runner scoring from 1B with two outs in MLB has been.........12%
The chance of a runner scoring from home on a Home Run in MLB has been 100%
There is a second query as to HOW MANY runs can be expected in the inning, and not just the first guy that gets on. Here it is, and this info is from 1999-2003, so these are the games that have been witnessed by all on here...
When a batter steps up to the plate with nobody on and nobody out that inning on averge yields -------.555 runs.
When a batter reaches first base with nobody out in the inning, that inning on average then yields----- .953 runs
When a batter hits a HR with nobody on and nobody out, that inning on average then yields------------ 1.958 runs.
That is on average, so those numbers change depending on the ability of the pitcher. They typically rise or fall in the same proportions depending on said pitcher. In the ninth inning only, those numbers actually all fall, due to it being a good pitcher typically pitching.
The reality is that these thoughts of rather giving up a HR than a single result from a guys gut feeling and level of comfort, and not what actually occurs in MLB. Or they may result from the time where a fan witnessed the event they are talking about, and it sticks much greater in their mind. But they tend to forget the typical example because they are 'immune' to it already. It isn't a memory shaker like the odd example is.
Here is a run expectancy chart based on MLB actual results.
RE 99-03---- 0------ 1------ 2 =======Number of outs in the inning
Empty ---- 0.555--- 0.297 --- 0.117
1st -------- 0.953 -- 0.573 ---- 0.251
2nd ------- 1.189--- 0.725---- 0.344
3rd ------- 1.482 ---- 0.983---- 0.387
1st_2nd - 1.573---- 0.971---- 0.466
1st_3rd-- 1.904---- 1.243---- 0.538
2nd_3rd-- 2.052--- 1.467 ----- 0.634
Loaded---- 2.417 ----- 1.65 ---- 0.815
So with the bases loaded and nobody out, 2.41 runs scored on average. With one out 1.65, and with two outs .815 runs score. If you notice the chart and how neatly the runs go up or down with the bases and outs, you can see how condusive baseball hitting is to measure scientifically.
<< <i>If you guys really felt that it was more beneficial to get a single or walk instead of a lead off Home Run when down by three, then if you were the manager of the team on the mound, why wouldn't you just let the guy on first base go all the way home? There is your home run. Now the bases are empty and everyone can relax and pitch from the wind up again.
If you guys really want to know the answer, then the play by play data has it for you. Based on the millions of actual plays from MLB, each at bat has been recorded, with each situation.
The chance of a runner scoring from 1B with nobody out in MLB has been ....38%.
The chance of a runner scoring from 1B with one out in MLB has been.......... 21%
The chance of a runner scoring from 1B with two outs in MLB has been.........12%
The chance of a runner scoring from home on a Home Run in MLB has been 100%
There is a second query as to HOW MANY runs can be expected in the inning, and not just the first guy that gets on. Here it is, and this info is from 1999-2003, so these are the games that have been witnessed by all on here...
When a batter steps up to the plate with nobody on and nobody out that inning on averge yields -------.555 runs.
When a batter reaches first base with nobody out in the inning, that inning on average then yields----- .953 runs
When a batter hits a HR with nobody on and nobody out, that inning on average then yields------------ 1.958 runs.
That is on average, so those numbers change depending on the ability of the pitcher. They typically rise or fall in the same proportions depending on said pitcher. In the ninth inning only, those numbers actually all fall, due to it being a good pitcher typically pitching.
The reality is that these thoughts of rather giving up a HR than a single result from a guys gut feeling and level of comfort, and not what actually occurs in MLB. Or they may result from the time where a fan witnessed the event they are talking about, and it sticks much greater in their mind. But they tend to forget the typical example because they are 'immune' to it already. It isn't a memory shaker like the odd example is.
Here is a run expectancy chart based on MLB actual results.
RE 99-03---- 0------ 1------ 2 =======Number of outs in the inning
Empty ---- 0.555--- 0.297 --- 0.117
1st -------- 0.953 -- 0.573 ---- 0.251
2nd ------- 1.189--- 0.725---- 0.344
3rd ------- 1.482 ---- 0.983---- 0.387
1st_2nd - 1.573---- 0.971---- 0.466
1st_3rd-- 1.904---- 1.243---- 0.538
2nd_3rd-- 2.052--- 1.467 ----- 0.634
Loaded---- 2.417 ----- 1.65 ---- 0.815
So with the bases loaded and nobody out, 2.41 runs scored on average. With one out 1.65, and with two outs .815 runs score. If you notice the chart and how neatly the runs go up or down with the bases and outs, you can see how condusive baseball hitting is to measure scientifically. >>
did this study address my "exact" scenario...the home team losing by 3 or more runs and beginning the bottom of the 9th, or did I miss it?
I'd like to know this...How many times did a team lose the game, when trailing by 3 runs in the bottom of the 9th, and their leadoff batter hits a homerun...versus losing the game, when their batter leads off with a single or a walk or somehow reached 1st base - that's specifically what I want to know, because in fact my "argument" is specific. "Everybody", including most first graders, already knows a homerun is better than just a player reaching 1st base in basically any other part of the game...but there might also be an exception even in the 8th inning, depending on the rest of the lineup, pitchers already used, etc...a lot goes into the valid idea of in very specific situations, a leadoff batter just reaching base is better than a leadoff homerun in order to achieve the desired result of winning the game.
<< <i>
If you guys really want to know the answer, then the play by play data has it for you. Based on the millions of actual plays from MLB, each at bat has been recorded, with each situation.
>>
This is actual data, unlike someone's flawed memory in which he claims to have seen it happen 'a lot'. Thanks for posting this.
<< <i>The reality is that these thoughts of rather giving up a HR than a single result from a guys gut feeling and level of comfort, and not what actually occurs in MLB. Or they may result from the time where a fan witnessed the event they are talking about, and it sticks much greater in their mind. But they tend to forget the typical example because they are 'immune' to it already. It isn't a memory shaker like the odd example is. >>
It's the whole 'clutch' argument - they remember the times it happened, but fail to remember the countless more times it didn't.
<< <i>did this study address my "exact" scenario...the home team losing by 3 or more runs and beginning the bottom of the 9th, or did I miss it? >>
Give me a break. It doesn't matter how many runs the team is trailing by. Your flawed argument has been shot down in flames, and now you want to say 'did it address my exact scenario'? Lame!
<< <i>I'd like to know this...How many times did a team lose the game, when trailing by 3 runs in the bottom of the 9th, and their leadoff batter hits a homerun...versus losing the game, when their batter leads off with a single or a walk or somehow reached 1st base - that's specifically what I want to know, because in fact my "argument" is specific. "Everybody", including most first graders, already knows a homerun is better than just a player reaching 1st base in basically any other part of the game...but there might also be an exception even in the 8th inning, depending on the rest of the lineup, pitchers already used, etc...a lot goes into the valid idea of in very specific situations, a leadoff batter just reaching base is better than a leadoff homerun in order to achieve the desired result of winning the game. >>
According to you, it happens all the time, so you shouldn't have any difficulty finding countless times it has happened.
There are no 'exceptions' to a single being more valuable than a home run - ever. Get over it. Admit you are wrong and move on.
There you go again making stuff as you go.
No one said anything about slow pitch softball.
My statement was regarding FASTPITCH softball and in case you were not aware the ball is live like in baseball
they bunt and steal like in baseball.
You still have not understood Stevek's point.
Also he never said that you said batters would then all try and hit a home run he said it was a possiblility.
But then again lets not let an facts stand in the way here.
First of all he never said he had proof of this only that it was an opinion that he had.
Steve
There are no 'exceptions' to a single being more valuable than a home run - ever. Get over it. Admit you are wrong and move on.
I did not take what Stevek saying that a Homerun is less valuable then a walk or a single.
What he said is simply this:
He would rather give up a leadoff solo homerun in the last inning of a game when up by 3 or more runs then give up a leadoff walk or single.
His point? it opens the flood gates.
Right or wrong what the hell is so hard to understand about that?
Who cares what has happened since 1959 or whatever?
It was just an opinion for god sakes.
Steve
did a batter hit a homerun and then the team went on to win as opposed to how many times a leadoff batter walked
or singled/doubled with the same outcome.
Steve
<< <i>First of all he never said he had proof of this only that it was an opinion that he had. >>
He said he's seen it happen countless times...he said he can't remember how many times he's seen a team down by 3 in the 9th, and the leadoff hitter hits a home run, then the team loses. This implies factual evidence suggesting that a single is more valuable than a home run in this situation. That's not suggesting an 'opinion'.
<< <i>
He would rather give up a leadoff solo homerun in the last inning of a game when up by 3 or more runs then give up a leadoff walk or single.
>>
A single. 100% of the time. Next question?
<< <i>His point? it opens the flood gates. >>
No it doesn't. It puts a runner on first, which, as hoop has broken down, results in a run approximately 25% of the time. A home run results in a run 100% of the time. Next?
<< <i>Right or wrong what the hell is so hard to understand about that? >>
Because its this type of thinking (which is wrong) that is perpetuated. A home run is always more valuable than a single. There is no time, place, or situation where a single is worth more. 9th inning, down by 3, now, with a home run, you're down by 2. A single, you're still down by 3.
<< <i>Who cares what has happened since 1959 or whatever? >>
It's called 'data'? Something that some people here like to use to back up their arguments, where some people want to use their recollections (which have been proven time and again to be faulty).
<< <i>It was just an opinion for god sakes. >>
No, it was stated quite clearly that a single is worth more in the 'down by 3' scenario than a home run. Data has been brought into play that proves otherwise.
Also, nobody ever, EVER said for a hitter to 'try and hit a home run', that was only said by those on the 'single is more valuable' side trying to shore up their weak argument. That was never said nor implied. What was said is a home run is the best possible outcome of any at bat in any situation.
The stuff I showed is what happened in MLB. There was a query as to how often it happened. Why did you get testy about it? Opinion really doesn't matter. We know what happened already, no guessing needed. I said from 1959 to show that it is based on a whole lot of games and instances.
I know that he is talking about the flood gates, but the fact is that it is less likely to score more often in the inning when you are starting off with a single, as opposed to starting off with a HR. The facts bear it out pretty clear.
SteveK, no this study did not look at the ninth inning only. You can see all those games on retrosheet if you wish. But I can save you a whole lot of time and effort and tell you that it isn't going to be any different in the ninth inning, as opposed to the fifth inning, or sixth.
There will be a slight difference in the ninth inning, but that difference is just going to be that the run expectancy in all situations are going to be a tad lower because the ninth inning is pitched by one of the teams better pitchers more often. But that does not even matter much.
I can tell you that against an excellent pitcher, it is harder to score runs by expecting to string singles and doubles together, because they just don't give up a lot of them. So I don't see how your scenario is going to pan out.
<< <i>
<< <i>First of all he never said he had proof of this only that it was an opinion that he had. >>
He said he's seen it happen countless times...he said he can't remember how many times he's seen a team down by 3 in the 9th, and the leadoff hitter hits a home run, then the team loses. This implies factual evidence suggesting that a single is more valuable than a home run in this situation. That's not suggesting an 'opinion'.
<< <i>
He would rather give up a leadoff solo homerun in the last inning of a game when up by 3 or more runs then give up a leadoff walk or single.
>>
A single. 100% of the time. Next question?
<< <i>His point? it opens the flood gates. >>
No it doesn't. It puts a runner on first, which, as hoop has broken down, results in a run approximately 25% of the time. A home run results in a run 100% of the time. Next?
<< <i>Right or wrong what the hell is so hard to understand about that? >>
Because its this type of thinking (which is wrong) that is perpetuated. A home run is always more valuable than a single. There is no time, place, or situation where a single is worth more. 9th inning, down by 3, now, with a home run, you're down by 2. A single, you're still down by 3.
<< <i>Who cares what has happened since 1959 or whatever? >>
It's called 'data'? Something that some people here like to use to back up their arguments, where some people want to use their recollections (which have been proven time and again to be faulty).
<< <i>It was just an opinion for god sakes. >>
No, it was stated quite clearly that a single is worth more in the 'down by 3' scenario than a home run. Data has been brought into play that proves otherwise.
Also, nobody ever, EVER said for a hitter to 'try and hit a home run', that was only said by those on the 'single is more valuable' side trying to shore up their weak argument. That was never said nor implied. What was said is a home run is the best possible outcome of any at bat in any situation. >>
Well, I could do the "Axtell twist" and keep going round and round with this point over and over again...All I'll say to wrap this up from my point of view is to take notice of games like this next season - I think you'll be surprised at how many times a team losing by 3 or more runs in the bottom of the 9th, their batter starts off with a leadoff homerun and still loses the game, compared to the number of times their leadoff batter starts off with a walk or single, and wins the game...You'll be surprised but not me because I've observed this phenomenon for many years.
<< <i>
Well, I could do the "Axtell twist" and keep going round and round with this point over and over again...All I'll say to wrap this up from my point of view is to take notice of games like this next season - I think you'll be surprised at how many times a team losing by 3 or more runs in the bottom of the 9th, their batter starts off with a leadoff homerun and still loses the game, compared to the number of times their leadoff batter starts off with a walk or single, and wins the game...You'll be surprised but not me because I've observed this phenomenon for many years. >>
You've seen it, then point to specific results, otherwise, I'll take the results of the hard data that has been presented (i.e. a runner on first only scoring about 25% of the time) as opposed to faulty recollection.
It just doesn't make sense to think that a team is worse off with a run on the board than with a runner on base. There is no logical reasoning in which this could ever bear out.
<< <i>
<< <i>
Well, I could do the "Axtell twist" and keep going round and round with this point over and over again...All I'll say to wrap this up from my point of view is to take notice of games like this next season - I think you'll be surprised at how many times a team losing by 3 or more runs in the bottom of the 9th, their batter starts off with a leadoff homerun and still loses the game, compared to the number of times their leadoff batter starts off with a walk or single, and wins the game...You'll be surprised but not me because I've observed this phenomenon for many years. >>
You've seen it, then point to specific results, otherwise, I'll take the results of the hard data that has been presented (i.e. a runner on first only scoring about 25% of the time) as opposed to faulty recollection.
It just doesn't make sense to think that a team is worse off with a run on the board than with a runner on base. There is no logical reasoning in which this could ever bear out. >>
The "data" must not exist or Hoopster would have likely presented it already, which is why I stated to just start observing this phenomenon next season - you'll be surprised.