<< <i> 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. >>
The data exists that disproves your theory - a team with a runner on first scores just 25% of the time. And if your theory were indeed correct (a baserunner is more advantageous than a run), then why wouldn't, as hoop suggested, that runner just be allowed to score from first?
It's because its lunacy to suggest that a potential run is more valuable than an actual run.
SteveK, the data is there on that specific question. I just don't have it on hand without having to do some painstaking tabulating. You most certainly can find it if you want to comb the game logs. Yikes, that isn't fun!
I already know the results for the start of an inning, and your team has a greater chance to score three runs if you start the inning off with a HR, as opposed to a single.
That is not to say that a rally could not happen the way you are talking about.
But like I started my post off, if one really felt that it was better to give up the HR, then next time the guy leads off the ninth with a single, just let him waltz home.
I wouldn't discount the extremely rare situation or instance of a pitcher who is bad, and then is extremely bad from the stretch, coupled with some left handed pull hitters who are advantaged with the first baseman holding a runner on...and the outfield playing deep, where a single could propel the situation worse than a lead off HR. But my gosh, it would be so rare that, why bother?
<< <i>SteveK, no this study did not look at the ninth inning only.
lol then what good is it? Stevek WAS talking about the 9th inning only.
Skip sorry did not mean to get testy......with you.
Steve >>
Well Steve - that's Axtell for ya - He or anyone can disagree with my point and that's fine, but I've clearly stated the stipulations of my point and he keeps ignoring the stipulations...oh well, that's Axtell. LOL
<< <i>It's because its lunacy to suggest that a potential run is more valuable than an actual run.
What's lunacy is you continue to claim that he said it was more valuable.
That is not how I took it when he first posted. YOU brought that into the mix.
Steve >>
How can you possibly take it any other way? He has said from the beginning that he has personally witnessed many, many times a team down by 3 in the 9th get a leadoff homerun then watch the team lose, and then said he's watched a team down by 3 get a single then win, suggesting that the 'rally ability' of a single is more important than hitting a home run.
He has said from the beginning that he'd rather his team get a single to lead off the 9th than a home run. That somehow, a pitcher is going to 'buckle down' and 'pitch better' after giving up a home run, more so than he would with a runner on first.
<< <i>It's because its lunacy to suggest that a potential run is more valuable than an actual run.
What's lunacy is you continue to claim that he said it was more valuable.
That is not how I took it when he first posted. YOU brought that into the mix.
Steve >>
How can you possibly take it any other way? He has said from the beginning that he has personally witnessed many, many times a team down by 3 in the 9th get a leadoff homerun then watch the team lose, and then said he's watched a team down by 3 get a single then win, suggesting that the 'rally ability' of a single is more important than hitting a home run.
He has said from the beginning that he'd rather his team get a single to lead off the 9th than a home run. That somehow, a pitcher is going to 'buckle down' and 'pitch better' after giving up a home run, more so than he would with a runner on first. >>
And I stand by those statements because again, AGAIN, I've witnessed this phenomenon far too many times. It goes vice-versa as well...if the Phillies are the road team in the same situation, and the opponent 's leadoff batter in the bottom of the 9th inning hits a homerun, yes, that bothers me less than the leadoff batter reaching 1st base. Yes, a homerun isn't good - it cuts the lead, but a leadoff runner at 1st base is worse for reaching the goal of my team winning the ballgame - i stand behind that.
When I coached LL I'd not get upset if my pitcher allowed a HR in the last inning of a game we were up by 3 runs because it meant he was throwing strikes. Now if he walked the leadoff batter then I knew I was in for some fun. And you being a LL coach know what I mean.
Getting back to MLB and this situation I wonder how many times a season a batter leads off the 9th inning with a homerun as opposed to a batter leading it off with a walk/single or double? I would think the latter happens more often and that is one of the reasons Stevek made his post.
<< <i> And I stand by those statements because again, AGAIN, I've witnessed this phenomenon far too many times. It goes vice-versa as well...if the Phillies are the road team in the same situation, and the opponent 's leadoff batter in the bottom of the 9th inning hits a homerun, yes, that bothers me less than the leadoff batter reaching 1st base. Yes, a homerun isn't good - it cuts the lead, but a leadoff runner at 1st base is worse for reaching the goal of my team winning the ballgame - i stand behind that. >>
You'd be wrong.
If that were the case, if a runner on first were indeed 'worse for reaching the goal', then why wouldn't every team just allow that runner on first to waltz home?
I am cutting onions, and I just thought of a possible situation...
A pitcher is on the cusp of 'losing' it, and the manager is deciding whether or not to pull him. A leadoff HR, and that is probably good night.
A soft single may mask his 'losing it' a bit, therefore prompting a manager to stay with him for more batters. Next is another single, and so on, until the threat and actual run expectancy are eclipsing the lead off HR.
Possible. It just isn't something I would use to make a difference in a player evaluation. But I can't discount it entirely from happening.
<< <i> And I stand by those statements because again, AGAIN, I've witnessed this phenomenon far too many times. It goes vice-versa as well...if the Phillies are the road team in the same situation, and the opponent 's leadoff batter in the bottom of the 9th inning hits a homerun, yes, that bothers me less than the leadoff batter reaching 1st base. Yes, a homerun isn't good - it cuts the lead, but a leadoff runner at 1st base is worse for reaching the goal of my team winning the ballgame - i stand behind that. >>
You'd be wrong.
If that were the case, if a runner on first were indeed 'worse for reaching the goal', then why wouldn't every team just allow that runner on first to waltz home? >>
Their not gonna let the player waltz home, but sometimes they'll allow an uncontested steal of 2nd base and sometimes even 3rd base, depending on the situation.
<< <i>I am cutting onions, and I just thought of a possible situation...
A pitcher is on the cusp of 'losing' it, and the manager is deciding whether or not to pull him. A leadoff HR, and that is probably good night.
A soft single may mask his 'losing it' a bit, therefore prompting a manager to stay with him for more batters. Next is another single, and so on, until the threat and actual run expectancy are eclipsing the lead off HR.
Possible. It just isn't something I would use to make a difference in a player evaluation. But I can't discount it entirely from happening. >>
The post we are talking about has nothing to do with player evaluation.
It was a very specific situation too. Last licks for a team, down by 3 or more runs. Leadoff homerun as opposed to a walk/single/double by leadoff batter.
Steinman.............You are kidding right? Well first of all a manager would not want the player on first to score and secondly he would like to keep the dbl play in order.
But I can't discount it entirely from happening. >>
And that is the 64 thousand dollar question.
What exactly happens and at what frequency does it happen within those scenarios
That was the original statement/comment.
In order for us to know we would need to know how often a batter leads off such an inning with a homerun and the end result as opposed to if a batter leads of said inning with a walk/single or double an d again what the end result is. Also keep in mind that no one claimed the same pitcher was used throughout this situation.
And I realize that a batter leading off the 9th inning with a homerun, with his team trailing by 3 or more runs isn't going to happen everyday, but whenever I've seen it happen, I honestly can't recall the time a team has wound up winning the game...for many, many years now. And I'm telling ya, it's also a strong system for the 8th inning as well when it happens, but obviously not as strong as in the 9th inning.
That was the whole point. Just to throw some numbers out there I'd think that a leadoff HR in such a scenario happens maybe 5 times out of 100 such at bats while a walk/single or double happens 15 times. Just by that occurring within those frequencys allows for more games to be won with the latter happenning rather then the former. I thought that was the point.
Now please I only used 5 and 15 off the top pf my head the actual occurrance could differ.
I think what is missing from this debate is a little context.
SteveK, you are probably correct in one sense - teams that lead off the ninth down 3 with a walk or a single probably come back to win more often than similar teams that lead off with a home run. But how many more times does a team get a walk or a single than a home run to lead off an inning? I'd guess about 10 times as often, but I won't quibble if you want to guess as low as 9 times as often. So if you see a team come back and win three times as often after a leadoff walk or single than after a HR, that means that the HR was 3 times better. In other words, if you saw 300 games where a team was down 3 entering the ninth, and 100 times the leadoff batter got a single or walk and came back to win 12 times (suceess rate: 12%) and 10 times the leadoff hitter got a HR and came back to win 4 times (success rate: 40%), that would reconcile what you are saying and what hoopster is saying.
So I get what you're saying, and I believe that you are seeing what you say you're seeing. I just don't believe that you are keeping track of how often these things happen, and I am quite certain that if you did you would find that a HR is a better way to start an inning (i.e., is more likely to lead to a win) than a walk or a single, even though it doesn't happen nearly as often.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
It goes without saying, I would think, that a leadoff homerun in such a scenario does not happen 'as often' as a leadoff walk/single or double does. And since it does not happen 'as often' the team that led off such innings with a walk/single or double won more games.
SteveK, you are probably correct in one sense - teams that lead off the ninth down 3 with a walk or a single probably come back to win more often than similar teams that lead off with a home run.
I will never doubt Dallas again. (until the next time)
<< <i>I honestly can't recall the time a team has wound up winning the game.
lol didn't matt stairs do that during the playoffs for the phillies?
hehe
Steve >>
Steve - Stairs homer definitely wasn't a leadoff the inning homer, and if I'm remembering right, I don't think the other homer in the inning was a leadoff homer,
Only Axtell could successfully align SteveK, Winpitcher, Dallas & Hoop on the same page, LOL!!
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Now that I know this is Axtell I understandably have lost a little confidence in my position, but I don't think we're all on the same page.
Yes, it is probably true that comebacks happen more often after leading off with a single or a walk than after a home run. But that's a trivial point, and it's true only because walks and singles happen so much more often.
But I think the point that was being made is that one would RATHER their team lead off with a single or a walk than a home run, and while we haven't seen any data that directly addresses that point, I very strongly disagree with that. It is ALWAYS better to hit a home run than a single; we'd need to see more data to prove that, but there is no limit to how much I would wager that it is correct.
Now if you want to talk about this statement:
<< <i>And I have seen engineers, the ones who know the towers inside and out, say that there is no possible way that structural damage such as the plane who hit it, could have caused the towers to fall. The fuel burns at approximately 1600 degrees, the steel used in the structure was tested to 4000 degrees. There is no way those towers fell due to the fires. >>
THAT'S a statement on which we can all come together and agree that Axtell is an idiot of staggering proportion.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>Now that I know this is Axtell I understandably have lost a little confidence in my position, but I don't think we're all on the same page.
Yes, it is probably true that comebacks happen more often after leading off with a single or a walk than after a home run. But that's a trivial point, and it's true only because walks and singles happen so much more often.
But I think the point that was being made is that one would RATHER their team lead off with a single or a walk than a home run, and while we haven't seen any data that directly addresses that point, I very strongly disagree with that. It is ALWAYS better to hit a home run than a single; we'd need to see more data to prove that, but there is no limit to how much I would wager that it is correct.
Now if you want to talk about this statement:
<< <i>And I have seen engineers, the ones who know the towers inside and out, say that there is no possible way that structural damage such as the plane who hit it, could have caused the towers to fall. The fuel burns at approximately 1600 degrees, the steel used in the structure was tested to 4000 degrees. There is no way those towers fell due to the fires. >>
THAT'S a statement on which we can all come together and agree that Axtell is an idiot of staggering proportion. >>
The "engineers" who Axtell says he knows, must have been sanitation engineers.
is probably true that comebacks happen more often after leading off with a single or a walk than after a home run. But that's a trivial point, and it's true only because walks and singles happen so much more often
lol but that was all we were saying! Axtell then had to mis interpret it and twist it only the ways he can.
It was basically simple statement that he chose to twist.
Back to the 'so much more often'. lol that is why we would rather have the inning lead off with a homer and not a walk or single, it happens more often and more often then not it leads to a loss! (when a walk or single /double starts the inning)
WHy is it that every time I cook, I have to drink?
I too believe that it happens far to infrequent to make a strong comparison. Heck, coming back from a three run lead in the ninth happens so infrequently just in itself.
What SteveK may tend to see is that when a pitcher starts an inning off with a walk, it may be an indication that he does not have his best stuff/command that night. What ends up happening is that there are more walks and hits that follow. That is usually the m/o of a reliever blowing a lead in a three run game. For a closer to blow a three run lead, he is most likely just off(or unlucky on some bloops).
Wheras a guy who may be coming at you in command(like a Schilling), may be actually on, but the first guy just guess right on a middle/in fastball...and there is the HR. But the next few guys aren't quite as lucky. So what if he hits a HR. The pitcher is on, and the odds of scoring two more runs are not very good anyway.
<< <i><<< 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.... >>>
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. >>
This was stevek's first post on this topic. I've added the bold for emphasis.
I haven't 'spun' anything, I haven't done anything than to point out how wrong the assertion that a walk, single, or double is more favorable in this (or any) circumstance than a home run. A home run is the single best outcome from any at bat, regardless of situation. The key to winning is scoring runs. A 100% probability of scoring a run (a home run) is better than a 25% probability (a runner on first).
Why people would try to use recollection or selective memory to make a baseball argument is beyond me.
No, a pitcher can't 'buckle down' and 'pitch better' at will. A pitcher at the major league level is already so focused that he's not going to be able to magically get better at it for giving up a basehit. And again, the question that's been posed numerous times (all without response) is: if a basehit were indeed better than a home run, if the runner at first were more imposing than a runner who had scored, why wouldn't he just be allowed to go from first to home?
That's because it's the most ridiculous thing to suggest. To think that a runner on first, a potential run, is somehow more valuable than a run in the dugout proves beyond a shadow of a doubt a absolute and fundamental lack of baseball knowledge, the likes of which I can't ever remember witnessing.
Please, stop, and read the things you're saying. You're suggesting that a potential run is more damaging than an actual run.
That doesn't strike you as total and complete lunacy?
Axtell - If you stopped spending all of your free time watching porn films of Jenna Jameson, and occasionally watched some baseball games, you'd maybe understand better what we're talking about.
<< <i>Axtell - If you stopped spending all of your free time watching porn films of Jenna Jameson, and occasionally watched some baseball games, you'd maybe understand better what we're talking about. >>
I know the argument. You think that in a late and close game, that a 'rally' is somehow killed by a player hitting a home run. Your theory is that a team is more likely to score 3 or more runs by stringing together hits.
What you fail to recognize is that (typically) a team's best reliever is on the mound in these very situations. That the likelihood of being able to string any sort of number of hits together against said reliever is difficult. You want to use your so-called 'recollection' of seeing it happen many times.
I'm sorry, but your memory has failed you.
There is no situation in which a player hitting a single, double, or walk is a more desirable outcome than hitting a home run. In fantasyland, sure, maybe (?) but in this place we call the real world, the home run wins.
Axtell what part of this comment did you not understand?
Even I understood it.
<<<<< Yes, it is probably true that comebacks happen more often after leading off with a single or a walk than after a home run. But that's a trivial point, and it's true only because walks and singles happen so much more often.>>>>>>
Okay, I'll admit that I skipped reading most of this thread (at least Axtell's posts) so I haven't followed this as closely as I should have but I wanted to throw this out there. This was Hoopster's data:
Here is a run expectancy chart based on MLB actual results.
So, if having the bases loaded with 0 outs yeilds the most runs per inning wouldn't it be better to get a walk, single, double or triple so that you have an opportunity to load the bases and then have a higher expectancy of scoring the 3 runs needed?
You have the same opportunity to load the bases after a lead off home run, as you do before the lead off home run. The difference with a lead off HR is that you now have a run scored, PLUS the same potential for the bases loaded situation you are seeking.
If you are saying it is better to get three walks in a row instead of a lead off HR, then heck yeah.
BUt if you are hoping that the lead off walk can lead to a bases loaded situation with no outs, INSTEAD of taking the HR already, then no way is it more beneficial.
Again, the run expectancy to start an inning is .555. The run exepctancy for the inning when there is a lead off HR is 1.558.
Why would you chose to have a lower run expectancy?
I'm just saying that if you get a leadoff guy on base you're already expected to score .953 runs per inning which is almost equal to the run you scored from the homer. Granted, if you get a leadoff homer you're automatically looking at the 1 run + the .555 expected runs.
I'm not saying that I wouldn't prefer the Homer to lead off the inning, but I found it intriguing that loading the bases with 0 outs led to so many expected runs. So to me that seems like the ideal situation in this scenario.
<< <i>So to me that seems like the ideal situation in this scenario. >>
But Von, that's an apples and oranges comparison - three batters to one. If you want to expand the meaning of "situation" to include what three batters do then the "ideal situation" is to have the first three batters hit home runs. No matter how long we think about this and no matter how many situations we concoct one thing will remain true - it is ALWAYS better to hit a home run than to do anything else.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
This Steinman guy has certainly amassed an impressive number of posts in a very short span.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I'll give this a go one more time....I'm not gonna repeat the whole scenario, and all the comments from others are fully understood including those of Dr. Axtell and his "psychological" analysis behind my thoughts - I'm sure Axtell has a doctorate degree in psychology from the University of Modesto...My answer is a flat out "Yes" "Si" "Oui" or whatever language anyone wants, that if my team is down by 3 runs or more beginning in the bottom of the 9th, I would rather see my leadoff batter get a walk or single, than hit a homerun. The object of the game, starting the inning, is to score 3 or more runs...just scoring 1 or 2 more runs does absolutely no good, zero, nada, whatsoever in achieving the goal of winning the game. The object of playing a MLB game is to win the game, not come within 2 runs of winning, not come within 1 run of winning....the object is to win the game.
I'm probably gonna blow the minds of a few people here, but I'll use a similar football analogy - If my team is a heavy underdog in a game, I would rather them not score a quick opening touchdown...I've observed this too many times as well, that opening touchdown seems to wakeup the opposing heavy favorite, and then the underdog winds up getting blown away almost always. I'd rather see the favorite have an opening score, and then my team score and keep the game close, and then outfight the opposing team in the latter part of the game.
I realize that baseball - football analogies aren't always correct, but we're talking about how sporting events really work, with ebbs and flows of the game, and it's usually due to adrenaline rushes or whatever anyone wants to call it, at the right times during the game...some refer to it as momentum. I understand this "momentum" factor having played much baseball and football, and having watched and observed much baseball and football. There are momentum boosters and momentum killers, and sometimes it's tough to judge which is which depending on the situation. Bottom line - I believe a leadoff homerun by my player is a momentum booster for the pitcher and the opposing team players, a wakeup call to step it up a notch, hunker down, focus better and try to win the ballgame, a call to alarm so to speak, while just a walk or single doesn't really fully wakeup the other team, doesn't give them a sense of urgency so to speak, keeps them somewhat lackadaisical or somewhat complacent as far as their adrenaline is concerned, and allows my team a better opportunity to win the game.
Again...I feel my presented viewpoint allows my team a better opportunity to win the game - I am convinced of it...if anyone else isn't convinced then that's okay, but just observe this occurrence over the next season and over the years when watching football and baseball and I believe it's possible you'll be watching the game and see the result and realize that lunatic stevek on Sports Talk was actually right about this, despite it not seeming logical from a statistical perspective.
I don't know why it is, all I know is that when I give up a solo home run late in the game it usually is the only run allowed, if I issue a walk and then allow a single I'm in trouble.
A team that gets the lead off man on 1B scores ZERO runs in that inning 56% of the time, and scores three runs in that inning 6% of the time. A team that gets the lead off man on 2B scores ZERO runs in that inning 36% of the time, and scores three runs in that inning 7% of the time. A team that gets the lead off man on 3B scores ZERO runs in that inning 13% of the time, and scores three runs in that inning 9% of the time.
You see how orderly that flows? Do you believe that all of a sudden the chances are going to be worse when the HR occurs?
I say it again, and it bears repeating, if you feel that momentum is held more at bay with a HR, then why on earth doesn't the manager let the leadoff man waltz home after he gets a single in the ninth? There is your HR.
I have a feeling that even when I locate the exact scenario you are looking for that you will still 'believe' what you want, despite what has actually occured in MLB. You are correct in one thing, there is absolutely no comparison to football in this stuff, none. Football is not as condusive to this research as MLB is.
I just wanted to say that I wish I knew all this before I wasted all my years of Little League Baseball....I could have been a much better player and maybe had a chance of making the bigs.
Stevek, I hear you and I understand exactly what you're saying. I am also 100% certain that you're wrong. This is a perfect example of why people should not trust their gut or what it is they think they remember seeing when there are statistics to show them what actually happened.
I don't watch enough baseball games to draw any meaningful conclusions about this situation. YOU don't watch enough baseball games to draw any meaningful conclusions about this situation - and I say that having no idea whatsoever how many baseball games you watch, I just know it is physically impossible for one person to see enough games that involve 3 run ninth inning leads in which only 5%-10% involve a subsequent lead change and only a fraction of those involve a leadoff HR. So your challenge to just watch and see for ourselves can't be met; some of us will see a leadoff single turn into a win and a leadoff HR fail, others will see the reverse, others will see a team come back after two opening strikeouts and some other team fail after two opening HRs. It's only by combining all of that information from every game over many years that we get anything meaningful.
Again, we haven't seen the specific stats for this situation yet but between what we have seen and common sense we really don't need to. It is ALWAYS better to hit a HR in any at bat than to do anything else.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Comments
<< <i>
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. >>
The data exists that disproves your theory - a team with a runner on first scores just 25% of the time. And if your theory were indeed correct (a baserunner is more advantageous than a run), then why wouldn't, as hoop suggested, that runner just be allowed to score from first?
It's because its lunacy to suggest that a potential run is more valuable than an actual run.
lol then what good is it? Stevek WAS talking about the 9th inning only.
Skip sorry did not mean to get testy......with you.
Steve
<< <i>
lol then what good is it? Stevek WAS talking about the 9th inning only.
>>
What difference does it make? 9th inning, first inning, a team down by 3 is a team down by 3.
SteveK, the data is there on that specific question. I just don't have it on hand without having to do some painstaking tabulating. You most certainly can find it if you want to comb the game logs. Yikes, that isn't fun!
I already know the results for the start of an inning, and your team has a greater chance to score three runs if you start the inning off with a HR, as opposed to a single.
That is not to say that a rally could not happen the way you are talking about.
But like I started my post off, if one really felt that it was better to give up the HR, then next time the guy leads off the ninth with a single, just let him waltz home.
I wouldn't discount the extremely rare situation or instance of a pitcher who is bad, and then is extremely bad from the stretch, coupled with some left handed pull hitters who are advantaged with the first baseman holding a runner on...and the outfield playing deep, where a single could propel the situation worse than a lead off HR. But my gosh, it would be so rare that, why bother?
<< <i>SteveK, no this study did not look at the ninth inning only.
lol then what good is it? Stevek WAS talking about the 9th inning only.
Skip sorry did not mean to get testy......with you.
Steve >>
Well Steve - that's Axtell for ya - He or anyone can disagree with my point and that's fine, but I've clearly stated the stipulations of my point and he keeps ignoring the stipulations...oh well, that's Axtell. LOL
It's because its lunacy to suggest that a potential run is more valuable than an actual run.
What's lunacy is you continue to claim that he said it was more valuable.
That is not how I took it when he first posted. YOU brought that into the mix.
Steve
It makes a world of difference if you take what he said in context.
He said the 9th inning NOt the 3rd or 5th or 7th,
That is the whole point that you seem to not get.
Steve
<< <i>It's because its lunacy to suggest that a potential run is more valuable than an actual run.
What's lunacy is you continue to claim that he said it was more valuable.
That is not how I took it when he first posted. YOU brought that into the mix.
Steve >>
How can you possibly take it any other way? He has said from the beginning that he has personally witnessed many, many times a team down by 3 in the 9th get a leadoff homerun then watch the team lose, and then said he's watched a team down by 3 get a single then win, suggesting that the 'rally ability' of a single is more important than hitting a home run.
He has said from the beginning that he'd rather his team get a single to lead off the 9th than a home run. That somehow, a pitcher is going to 'buckle down' and 'pitch better' after giving up a home run, more so than he would with a runner on first.
I have 'felt' that feeling myself, and I don't want to discount that. But sometimes there is nothing to fear but fear itself(quite original I know
I know I feel it more with the younger guys I coach...though sometimes the HR is worse because it demoralizes younger kids.
You always harp on us to think in context well I'm doing just that.
Don't get me wrong your data could be broken down by inning etc and you could be right.
My point is that I understand what Stevek was saying and that I too have seen it many times
Steinman twisted the original post.
Steve
<< <i>
<< <i>It's because its lunacy to suggest that a potential run is more valuable than an actual run.
What's lunacy is you continue to claim that he said it was more valuable.
That is not how I took it when he first posted. YOU brought that into the mix.
Steve >>
How can you possibly take it any other way? He has said from the beginning that he has personally witnessed many, many times a team down by 3 in the 9th get a leadoff homerun then watch the team lose, and then said he's watched a team down by 3 get a single then win, suggesting that the 'rally ability' of a single is more important than hitting a home run.
He has said from the beginning that he'd rather his team get a single to lead off the 9th than a home run. That somehow, a pitcher is going to 'buckle down' and 'pitch better' after giving up a home run, more so than he would with a runner on first. >>
And I stand by those statements because again, AGAIN, I've witnessed this phenomenon far too many times. It goes vice-versa as well...if the Phillies are the road team in the same situation, and the opponent 's leadoff batter in the bottom of the 9th inning hits a homerun, yes, that bothers me less than the leadoff batter reaching 1st base. Yes, a homerun isn't good - it cuts the lead, but a leadoff runner at 1st base is worse for reaching the goal of my team winning the ballgame - i stand behind that.
When I coached LL I'd not get upset if my pitcher allowed a HR in the last inning of a game we were up by
3 runs because it meant he was throwing strikes. Now if he walked the leadoff batter then I knew I was in for
some fun. And you being a LL coach know what I mean.
Getting back to MLB and this situation I wonder how many times a season a batter leads off the 9th inning with a homerun
as opposed to a batter leading it off with a walk/single or double? I would think the latter happens more often and that is one of
the reasons Stevek made his post.
Steve
<< <i>
And I stand by those statements because again, AGAIN, I've witnessed this phenomenon far too many times. It goes vice-versa as well...if the Phillies are the road team in the same situation, and the opponent 's leadoff batter in the bottom of the 9th inning hits a homerun, yes, that bothers me less than the leadoff batter reaching 1st base. Yes, a homerun isn't good - it cuts the lead, but a leadoff runner at 1st base is worse for reaching the goal of my team winning the ballgame - i stand behind that. >>
You'd be wrong.
If that were the case, if a runner on first were indeed 'worse for reaching the goal', then why wouldn't every team just allow that runner on first to waltz home?
A pitcher is on the cusp of 'losing' it, and the manager is deciding whether or not to pull him. A leadoff HR, and that is probably good night.
A soft single may mask his 'losing it' a bit, therefore prompting a manager to stay with him for more batters. Next is another single, and so on, until the threat and actual run expectancy are eclipsing the lead off HR.
Possible. It just isn't something I would use to make a difference in a player evaluation. But I can't discount it entirely from happening.
<< <i>
<< <i>
And I stand by those statements because again, AGAIN, I've witnessed this phenomenon far too many times. It goes vice-versa as well...if the Phillies are the road team in the same situation, and the opponent 's leadoff batter in the bottom of the 9th inning hits a homerun, yes, that bothers me less than the leadoff batter reaching 1st base. Yes, a homerun isn't good - it cuts the lead, but a leadoff runner at 1st base is worse for reaching the goal of my team winning the ballgame - i stand behind that. >>
You'd be wrong.
If that were the case, if a runner on first were indeed 'worse for reaching the goal', then why wouldn't every team just allow that runner on first to waltz home? >>
Their not gonna let the player waltz home, but sometimes they'll allow an uncontested steal of 2nd base and sometimes even 3rd base, depending on the situation.
<< <i>I am cutting onions, and I just thought of a possible situation...
A pitcher is on the cusp of 'losing' it, and the manager is deciding whether or not to pull him. A leadoff HR, and that is probably good night.
A soft single may mask his 'losing it' a bit, therefore prompting a manager to stay with him for more batters. Next is another single, and so on, until the threat and actual run expectancy are eclipsing the lead off HR.
Possible. It just isn't something I would use to make a difference in a player evaluation. But I can't discount it entirely from happening. >>
My thoughts exactly Hoop.
The post we are talking about has nothing to do with player evaluation.
It was a very specific situation too. Last licks for a team, down by 3 or more runs. Leadoff homerun as opposed to a walk/single/double by leadoff
batter.
Steinman.............You are kidding right? Well first of all a manager would not want the player on first to score and secondly
he would like to keep the dbl play in order.
Steve
And that is the 64 thousand dollar question.
What exactly happens and at what frequency does it happen within those scenarios
That was the original statement/comment.
In order for us to know we would need to know how often a batter leads off such an inning with a homerun and the end result as opposed to
if a batter leads of said inning with a walk/single or double an d again what the end result is. Also keep in mind that no one claimed the same pitcher was used
throughout this situation.
Steve
Steve
in such a scenario happens maybe 5 times out of 100 such at bats while a walk/single or double happens
15 times. Just by that occurring within those frequencys allows for more games to be won with the latter
happenning rather then the former. I thought that was the point.
Now please I only used 5 and 15 off the top pf my head the actual occurrance could differ.
Steve
lol didn't matt stairs do that during the playoffs for the phillies?
hehe
Steve
SteveK, you are probably correct in one sense - teams that lead off the ninth down 3 with a walk or a single probably come back to win more often than similar teams that lead off with a home run. But how many more times does a team get a walk or a single than a home run to lead off an inning? I'd guess about 10 times as often, but I won't quibble if you want to guess as low as 9 times as often. So if you see a team come back and win three times as often after a leadoff walk or single than after a HR, that means that the HR was 3 times better. In other words, if you saw 300 games where a team was down 3 entering the ninth, and 100 times the leadoff batter got a single or walk and came back to win 12 times (suceess rate: 12%) and 10 times the leadoff hitter got a HR and came back to win 4 times (success rate: 40%), that would reconcile what you are saying and what hoopster is saying.
So I get what you're saying, and I believe that you are seeing what you say you're seeing. I just don't believe that you are keeping track of how often these things happen, and I am quite certain that if you did you would find that a HR is a better way to start an inning (i.e., is more likely to lead to a win) than a walk or a single, even though it doesn't happen nearly as often.
Steve
It goes without saying, I would think, that a leadoff homerun in such a scenario does not happen 'as often'
as a leadoff walk/single or double does. And since it does not happen 'as often' the team that led off such innings with a walk/single or double won more games.
Is that basically it in a nutshell?
Steve
SteveK, you are probably correct in one sense - teams that lead off the ninth down 3 with a walk or a single probably come back to win more often than similar teams that lead off with a home run.
I will never doubt Dallas again. (until the next time)
Steve
<< <i>I honestly can't recall the time a team has wound up winning the game.
lol didn't matt stairs do that during the playoffs for the phillies?
hehe
Steve >>
Steve - Stairs homer definitely wasn't a leadoff the inning homer, and if I'm remembering right, I don't think the other homer in the inning was a leadoff homer,
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Yes, it is probably true that comebacks happen more often after leading off with a single or a walk than after a home run. But that's a trivial point, and it's true only because walks and singles happen so much more often.
But I think the point that was being made is that one would RATHER their team lead off with a single or a walk than a home run, and while we haven't seen any data that directly addresses that point, I very strongly disagree with that. It is ALWAYS better to hit a home run than a single; we'd need to see more data to prove that, but there is no limit to how much I would wager that it is correct.
Now if you want to talk about this statement:
<< <i>And I have seen engineers, the ones who know the towers inside and out, say that there is no possible way that structural damage such as the plane who hit it, could have caused the towers to fall. The fuel burns at approximately 1600 degrees, the steel used in the structure was tested to 4000 degrees. There is no way those towers fell due to the fires. >>
THAT'S a statement on which we can all come together and agree that Axtell is an idiot of staggering proportion.
<< <i>Now that I know this is Axtell I understandably have lost a little confidence in my position, but I don't think we're all on the same page.
Yes, it is probably true that comebacks happen more often after leading off with a single or a walk than after a home run. But that's a trivial point, and it's true only because walks and singles happen so much more often.
But I think the point that was being made is that one would RATHER their team lead off with a single or a walk than a home run, and while we haven't seen any data that directly addresses that point, I very strongly disagree with that. It is ALWAYS better to hit a home run than a single; we'd need to see more data to prove that, but there is no limit to how much I would wager that it is correct.
Now if you want to talk about this statement:
<< <i>And I have seen engineers, the ones who know the towers inside and out, say that there is no possible way that structural damage such as the plane who hit it, could have caused the towers to fall. The fuel burns at approximately 1600 degrees, the steel used in the structure was tested to 4000 degrees. There is no way those towers fell due to the fires. >>
THAT'S a statement on which we can all come together and agree that Axtell is an idiot of staggering proportion. >>
The "engineers" who Axtell says he knows, must have been sanitation engineers.
lol but that was all we were saying! Axtell then had to mis interpret it and twist it only the ways he can.
It was basically simple statement that he chose to twist.
Back to the 'so much more often'. lol that is why we would rather have the inning lead off with a homer and not a walk
or single, it happens more often and more often then not it leads to a loss! (when a walk or single /double starts the inning)
Which by the way is what we try to avoid!
Steve
I too believe that it happens far to infrequent to make a strong comparison. Heck, coming back from a three run lead in the ninth happens so infrequently just in itself.
What SteveK may tend to see is that when a pitcher starts an inning off with a walk, it may be an indication that he does not have his best stuff/command that night. What ends up happening is that there are more walks and hits that follow. That is usually the m/o of a reliever blowing a lead in a three run game. For a closer to blow a three run lead, he is most likely just off(or unlucky on some bloops).
Wheras a guy who may be coming at you in command(like a Schilling), may be actually on, but the first guy just guess right on a middle/in fastball...and there is the HR. But the next few guys aren't quite as lucky. So what if he hits a HR. The pitcher is on, and the odds of scoring two more runs are not very good anyway.
A leadoff walk always comes around to score, unless it doesn't.
Dave
The Seattle Mariners will lose 168 games in 2009
JS
<< <i><<< 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.... >>>
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. >>
This was stevek's first post on this topic. I've added the bold for emphasis.
I haven't 'spun' anything, I haven't done anything than to point out how wrong the assertion that a walk, single, or double is more favorable in this (or any) circumstance than a home run. A home run is the single best outcome from any at bat, regardless of situation. The key to winning is scoring runs. A 100% probability of scoring a run (a home run) is better than a 25% probability (a runner on first).
Why people would try to use recollection or selective memory to make a baseball argument is beyond me.
No, a pitcher can't 'buckle down' and 'pitch better' at will. A pitcher at the major league level is already so focused that he's not going to be able to magically get better at it for giving up a basehit. And again, the question that's been posed numerous times (all without response) is: if a basehit were indeed better than a home run, if the runner at first were more imposing than a runner who had scored, why wouldn't he just be allowed to go from first to home?
That's because it's the most ridiculous thing to suggest. To think that a runner on first, a potential run, is somehow more valuable than a run in the dugout proves beyond a shadow of a doubt a absolute and fundamental lack of baseball knowledge, the likes of which I can't ever remember witnessing.
Please, stop, and read the things you're saying. You're suggesting that a potential run is more damaging than an actual run.
That doesn't strike you as total and complete lunacy?
<< <i>Axtell - If you stopped spending all of your free time watching porn films of Jenna Jameson, and occasionally watched some baseball games, you'd maybe understand better what we're talking about. >>
I know the argument. You think that in a late and close game, that a 'rally' is somehow killed by a player hitting a home run. Your theory is that a team is more likely to score 3 or more runs by stringing together hits.
What you fail to recognize is that (typically) a team's best reliever is on the mound in these very situations. That the likelihood of being able to string any sort of number of hits together against said reliever is difficult. You want to use your so-called 'recollection' of seeing it happen many times.
I'm sorry, but your memory has failed you.
There is no situation in which a player hitting a single, double, or walk is a more desirable outcome than hitting a home run. In fantasyland, sure, maybe (?) but in this place we call the real world, the home run wins.
If you are still here and can read this NO ONE EVER SAID THAT.
Steve
Even I understood it.
<<<<<
Yes, it is probably true that comebacks happen more often after leading off with a single or a walk than after a home run. But that's a trivial point, and it's true only because walks and singles happen so much more often.>>>>>>
Steve
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, if having the bases loaded with 0 outs yeilds the most runs per inning wouldn't it be better to get a walk, single, double or triple so that you have an opportunity to load the bases and then have a higher expectancy of scoring the 3 runs needed?
You have the same opportunity to load the bases after a lead off home run, as you do before the lead off home run. The difference with a lead off HR is that you now have a run scored, PLUS the same potential for the bases loaded situation you are seeking.
If you are saying it is better to get three walks in a row instead of a lead off HR, then heck yeah.
BUt if you are hoping that the lead off walk can lead to a bases loaded situation with no outs, INSTEAD of taking the HR already, then no way is it more beneficial.
Again, the run expectancy to start an inning is .555. The run exepctancy for the inning when there is a lead off HR is 1.558.
Why would you chose to have a lower run expectancy?
I'm not saying that I wouldn't prefer the Homer to lead off the inning, but I found it intriguing that loading the bases with 0 outs led to so many expected runs. So to me that seems like the ideal situation in this scenario.
<< <i>So to me that seems like the ideal situation in this scenario. >>
But Von, that's an apples and oranges comparison - three batters to one. If you want to expand the meaning of "situation" to include what three batters do then the "ideal situation" is to have the first three batters hit home runs. No matter how long we think about this and no matter how many situations we concoct one thing will remain true - it is ALWAYS better to hit a home run than to do anything else.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I'm probably gonna blow the minds of a few people here, but I'll use a similar football analogy - If my team is a heavy underdog in a game, I would rather them not score a quick opening touchdown...I've observed this too many times as well, that opening touchdown seems to wakeup the opposing heavy favorite, and then the underdog winds up getting blown away almost always. I'd rather see the favorite have an opening score, and then my team score and keep the game close, and then outfight the opposing team in the latter part of the game.
I realize that baseball - football analogies aren't always correct, but we're talking about how sporting events really work, with ebbs and flows of the game, and it's usually due to adrenaline rushes or whatever anyone wants to call it, at the right times during the game...some refer to it as momentum. I understand this "momentum" factor having played much baseball and football, and having watched and observed much baseball and football. There are momentum boosters and momentum killers, and sometimes it's tough to judge which is which depending on the situation. Bottom line - I believe a leadoff homerun by my player is a momentum booster for the pitcher and the opposing team players, a wakeup call to step it up a notch, hunker down, focus better and try to win the ballgame, a call to alarm so to speak, while just a walk or single doesn't really fully wakeup the other team, doesn't give them a sense of urgency so to speak, keeps them somewhat lackadaisical or somewhat complacent as far as their adrenaline is concerned, and allows my team a better opportunity to win the game.
Again...I feel my presented viewpoint allows my team a better opportunity to win the game - I am convinced of it...if anyone else isn't convinced then that's okay, but just observe this occurrence over the next season and over the years when watching football and baseball and I believe it's possible you'll be watching the game and see the result and realize that lunatic stevek on Sports Talk was actually right about this, despite it not seeming logical from a statistical perspective.
it usually is the only run allowed, if I issue a walk and then allow a single I'm in trouble.
Steve
A team that gets the lead off man on 1B scores ZERO runs in that inning 56% of the time, and scores three runs in that inning 6% of the time.
A team that gets the lead off man on 2B scores ZERO runs in that inning 36% of the time, and scores three runs in that inning 7% of the time.
A team that gets the lead off man on 3B scores ZERO runs in that inning 13% of the time, and scores three runs in that inning 9% of the time.
You see how orderly that flows? Do you believe that all of a sudden the chances are going to be worse when the HR occurs?
I say it again, and it bears repeating, if you feel that momentum is held more at bay with a HR, then why on earth doesn't the manager let the leadoff man waltz home after he gets a single in the ninth? There is your HR.
I have a feeling that even when I locate the exact scenario you are looking for that you will still 'believe' what you want, despite what has actually occured in MLB. You are correct in one thing, there is absolutely no comparison to football in this stuff, none. Football is not as condusive to this research as MLB is.
brian
I don't watch enough baseball games to draw any meaningful conclusions about this situation. YOU don't watch enough baseball games to draw any meaningful conclusions about this situation - and I say that having no idea whatsoever how many baseball games you watch, I just know it is physically impossible for one person to see enough games that involve 3 run ninth inning leads in which only 5%-10% involve a subsequent lead change and only a fraction of those involve a leadoff HR. So your challenge to just watch and see for ourselves can't be met; some of us will see a leadoff single turn into a win and a leadoff HR fail, others will see the reverse, others will see a team come back after two opening strikeouts and some other team fail after two opening HRs. It's only by combining all of that information from every game over many years that we get anything meaningful.
Again, we haven't seen the specific stats for this situation yet but between what we have seen and common sense we really don't need to. It is ALWAYS better to hit a HR in any at bat than to do anything else.