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. >>
<<< then why on earth doesn't the manager let the leadoff man waltz home after he gets a single in the ninth? >>>
I'll tell you why because adrenaline can't be faked, it just can't. Me and a good friend of mine, used to play a lot of tennis together, and we were basically equal in our game - it was amazing over a number of years that he would beat me one day and the next time we played I would beat him because I was steamed over losing, and then next time we played he would beat me because he was steamed over losing and of course the smack that went along with it. It was rare when either one of us won two times in a row. Of course i knew this phenomenon existed and whenever I beat him, i would try to pump myself up, get the adrenaline going for next time we played, but i just couldn't do it - I needed him beating me to get ticked off and get the juices flowing so that next time i would kick his butt.
So a coach couldn't just "fake it" and allow the opposing player who hit a single to just run around the bases and score - that would obviously P.O. his players to the point whereby they wouldn't want to win. Adrenaline plays a major, and I do mean major part of sports, all sports, I don't care if it's only ping-pong, adrenaline plays a major part...that is if you're a competitive person in which most people are to a degree...and this factor is what I'm talking about. That opposing player HR gets that competitive adrenaline flowing whereby a measly walk or single does not....and the other reasons already illustrated come in as well such as the next batters consciously or unconsciously overswinging.
Yes, the "situation" doesn't happen often, but it does happen throughout a season, so check it out next time it happens...it's amazing how consistent this pattern is...and again those listed stats are meaningless compared to my specific example because it's combining stats from throughout the game, not for my specific example.
How often does a batter leadoff the 9th inning in a game his team is down by 3 runs and hits a home run?
How often does said team then go on and score 3 more runs in said inning and thus win said game?
How often do batters leadoff the 9th inning and string together enough hits/walk/reach on errors/etc to win said game?
If you can answer these questions then you have the correct answer.
(I think)
Steve >>
Good idea Steve, but your comment made me think of a better idea (I think)
1. Yes...do your "How often does a batter leadoff the 9th inning in a game his team is down by 3 runs and hits a home run? How often does said team then go on and score 3 more runs in said inning and thus win said game?"
2. but also do..."How often does a team start off the 9th inning down by 2 runs, and..." How often does said team then go on and score 3 more runs in said inning and thus win said game?
Of course in both scenarios, the team is or will be down by 2 runs with nobody on base....hence in theory starting equally.
My viewpoint is the #1 statement stats will show the team behind by the 2 runs after the homerun, loses more often, possibly much more often under that scenario, than under the statement #2 scenario.
I'm not sure if I agree with SteveK, but his argument is intriguing at least..and the adrenaline factor is certainly a part of athletic performance and one aspect that by nature is at odds with statistical data. Interesting..
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.
How often does a batter leadoff the 9th inning in a game his team is down by 3 runs and hits a home run?
How often does said team then go on and score 3 more runs in said inning and thus win said game?
How often do batters leadoff the 9th inning and string together enough hits/walk/reach on errors/etc to win said game?
If you can answer these questions then you have the correct answer.
(I think)
Steve >>
Good idea Steve, but your comment made me think of a better idea (I think)
1. Yes...do your "How often does a batter leadoff the 9th inning in a game his team is down by 3 runs and hits a home run? How often does said team then go on and score 3 more runs in said inning and thus win said game?"
2. but also do..."How often does a team start off the 9th inning down by 2 runs, and..." How often does said team then go on and score 3 more runs in said inning and thus win said game?
Of course in both scenarios, the team is or will be down by 2 runs with nobody on base....hence in theory starting equally.
My viewpoint is the #1 statement stats will show the team behind by the 2 runs after the homerun, loses more often, possibly much more often under that scenario, than under the statement #2 scenario. >>
While I am positive that any difference you would find would be miniscule, I would actually expect that the team down three that led off with a HR would come back to win slightly more often. The only difference between the scenarios that we know of is that the pitcher in scenario 1 just gave up a HR; not knowing anything else, we can assume that that same pitcher will be facing the next batter some of the time, and that he will be pulled the rest of the times. If he's pulled, then the situations really are identical (based on what we know), but if he's left in, he's probably a little more likely than a random pitcher to give up another hit to the next batter.
I'd bet everything I own that hitting a HR is always better than any other alternative; I'd bet $20 that scenario 1 teams are more likely to win than scenario 2 teams.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
How often does a batter leadoff the 9th inning in a game his team is down by 3 runs and hits a home run?
How often does said team then go on and score 3 more runs in said inning and thus win said game?
How often do batters leadoff the 9th inning and string together enough hits/walk/reach on errors/etc to win said game?
If you can answer these questions then you have the correct answer.
(I think)
Steve >>
Good idea Steve, but your comment made me think of a better idea (I think)
1. Yes...do your "How often does a batter leadoff the 9th inning in a game his team is down by 3 runs and hits a home run? How often does said team then go on and score 3 more runs in said inning and thus win said game?"
2. but also do..."How often does a team start off the 9th inning down by 2 runs, and..." How often does said team then go on and score 3 more runs in said inning and thus win said game?
Of course in both scenarios, the team is or will be down by 2 runs with nobody on base....hence in theory starting equally.
My viewpoint is the #1 statement stats will show the team behind by the 2 runs after the homerun, loses more often, possibly much more often under that scenario, than under the statement #2 scenario. >>
While I am positive that any difference you would find would be miniscule, I would actually expect that the team down three that led off with a HR would come back to win slightly more often. The only difference between the scenarios that we know of is that the pitcher in scenario 1 just gave up a HR; not knowing anything else, we can assume that that same pitcher will be facing the next batter some of the time, and that he will be pulled the rest of the times. If he's pulled, then the situations really are identical (based on what we know), but if he's left in, he's probably a little more likely than a random pitcher to give up another hit to the next batter.
I'd bet everything I own that hitting a HR is always better than any other alternative; I'd bet $20 that scenario 1 teams are more likely to win than scenario 2 teams. >>
I can barely afford my next meal and I use the computer from this homeless shelter to post here, so no betting for me...I'll try to keep track of it during next season when I'm watching the black & white 13" screen TV at the shelter, and see what the results are...if I can remember this thread...I need to look at my social security card whenever someone asks me my name.
I stopped there, because to get the next level would require combing the game logs.
SteveK has his answer. All he has to do is comb the game logs. The answer isn't really "we don't know." Well, at this moment we don't know officially because nobody has done the data work. THe data he is seeking is readily available, but which one of us wants to do it
Comments
<< <i>SteveK,
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. >>
<<< then why on earth doesn't the manager let the leadoff man waltz home after he gets a single in the ninth? >>>
I'll tell you why because adrenaline can't be faked, it just can't. Me and a good friend of mine, used to play a lot of tennis together, and we were basically equal in our game - it was amazing over a number of years that he would beat me one day and the next time we played I would beat him because I was steamed over losing, and then next time we played he would beat me because he was steamed over losing and of course the smack that went along with it. It was rare when either one of us won two times in a row. Of course i knew this phenomenon existed and whenever I beat him, i would try to pump myself up, get the adrenaline going for next time we played, but i just couldn't do it - I needed him beating me to get ticked off and get the juices flowing so that next time i would kick his butt.
So a coach couldn't just "fake it" and allow the opposing player who hit a single to just run around the bases and score - that would obviously P.O. his players to the point whereby they wouldn't want to win. Adrenaline plays a major, and I do mean major part of sports, all sports, I don't care if it's only ping-pong, adrenaline plays a major part...that is if you're a competitive person in which most people are to a degree...and this factor is what I'm talking about. That opposing player HR gets that competitive adrenaline flowing whereby a measly walk or single does not....and the other reasons already illustrated come in as well such as the next batters consciously or unconsciously overswinging.
Yes, the "situation" doesn't happen often, but it does happen throughout a season, so check it out next time it happens...it's amazing how consistent this pattern is...and again those listed stats are meaningless compared to my specific example because it's combining stats from throughout the game, not for my specific example.
How often does a batter leadoff the 9th inning in a game his team is down by 3 runs and hits a home run?
How often does said team then go on and score 3 more runs in said inning and thus win said game?
How often do batters leadoff the 9th inning and string together enough hits/walk/reach on errors/etc to win said game?
If you can answer these questions then you have the correct answer.
(I think)
Steve
Nope. Why would i do that?...that doesn't make sense.
If I see reliable stats from a reliable source, not just hearsay stuff off a blog, then I'll adjust my viewpoint accordingly.
you were able to tell us 3 of the 4 possibilities.
?
Steve
<< <i>my questions:
How often does a batter leadoff the 9th inning in a game his team is down by 3 runs and hits a home run?
How often does said team then go on and score 3 more runs in said inning and thus win said game?
How often do batters leadoff the 9th inning and string together enough hits/walk/reach on errors/etc to win said game?
If you can answer these questions then you have the correct answer.
(I think)
Steve >>
Good idea Steve, but your comment made me think of a better idea (I think)
1. Yes...do your "How often does a batter leadoff the 9th inning in a game his team is down by 3 runs and hits a home run? How often does said team then go on and score 3 more runs in said inning and thus win said game?"
2. but also do..."How often does a team start off the 9th inning down by 2 runs, and..." How often does said team then go on and score 3 more runs in said inning and thus win said game?
Of course in both scenarios, the team is or will be down by 2 runs with nobody on base....hence in theory starting equally.
My viewpoint is the #1 statement stats will show the team behind by the 2 runs after the homerun, loses more often, possibly much more often under that scenario, than under the statement #2 scenario.
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>
<< <i>my questions:
How often does a batter leadoff the 9th inning in a game his team is down by 3 runs and hits a home run?
How often does said team then go on and score 3 more runs in said inning and thus win said game?
How often do batters leadoff the 9th inning and string together enough hits/walk/reach on errors/etc to win said game?
If you can answer these questions then you have the correct answer.
(I think)
Steve >>
Good idea Steve, but your comment made me think of a better idea (I think)
1. Yes...do your "How often does a batter leadoff the 9th inning in a game his team is down by 3 runs and hits a home run? How often does said team then go on and score 3 more runs in said inning and thus win said game?"
2. but also do..."How often does a team start off the 9th inning down by 2 runs, and..." How often does said team then go on and score 3 more runs in said inning and thus win said game?
Of course in both scenarios, the team is or will be down by 2 runs with nobody on base....hence in theory starting equally.
My viewpoint is the #1 statement stats will show the team behind by the 2 runs after the homerun, loses more often, possibly much more often under that scenario, than under the statement #2 scenario. >>
While I am positive that any difference you would find would be miniscule, I would actually expect that the team down three that led off with a HR would come back to win slightly more often. The only difference between the scenarios that we know of is that the pitcher in scenario 1 just gave up a HR; not knowing anything else, we can assume that that same pitcher will be facing the next batter some of the time, and that he will be pulled the rest of the times. If he's pulled, then the situations really are identical (based on what we know), but if he's left in, he's probably a little more likely than a random pitcher to give up another hit to the next batter.
I'd bet everything I own that hitting a HR is always better than any other alternative; I'd bet $20 that scenario 1 teams are more likely to win than scenario 2 teams.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>my questions:
How often does a batter leadoff the 9th inning in a game his team is down by 3 runs and hits a home run?
How often does said team then go on and score 3 more runs in said inning and thus win said game?
How often do batters leadoff the 9th inning and string together enough hits/walk/reach on errors/etc to win said game?
If you can answer these questions then you have the correct answer.
(I think)
Steve >>
Good idea Steve, but your comment made me think of a better idea (I think)
1. Yes...do your "How often does a batter leadoff the 9th inning in a game his team is down by 3 runs and hits a home run? How often does said team then go on and score 3 more runs in said inning and thus win said game?"
2. but also do..."How often does a team start off the 9th inning down by 2 runs, and..." How often does said team then go on and score 3 more runs in said inning and thus win said game?
Of course in both scenarios, the team is or will be down by 2 runs with nobody on base....hence in theory starting equally.
My viewpoint is the #1 statement stats will show the team behind by the 2 runs after the homerun, loses more often, possibly much more often under that scenario, than under the statement #2 scenario. >>
While I am positive that any difference you would find would be miniscule, I would actually expect that the team down three that led off with a HR would come back to win slightly more often. The only difference between the scenarios that we know of is that the pitcher in scenario 1 just gave up a HR; not knowing anything else, we can assume that that same pitcher will be facing the next batter some of the time, and that he will be pulled the rest of the times. If he's pulled, then the situations really are identical (based on what we know), but if he's left in, he's probably a little more likely than a random pitcher to give up another hit to the next batter.
I'd bet everything I own that hitting a HR is always better than any other alternative; I'd bet $20 that scenario 1 teams are more likely to win than scenario 2 teams. >>
I can barely afford my next meal and I use the computer from this homeless shelter to post here, so no betting for me...I'll try to keep track of it during next season when I'm watching the black & white 13" screen TV at the shelter, and see what the results are...if I can remember this thread...I need to look at my social security card whenever someone asks me my name.
OK, no problem.
Steve
I stopped there, because to get the next level would require combing the game logs.
SteveK has his answer. All he has to do is comb the game logs. The answer isn't really "we don't know." Well, at this moment we don't know officially because nobody has done the data work. THe data he is seeking is readily available, but which one of us wants to do it
Link To Scanned 1952 Topps Cards Set is now 90% Complete Plus Slideshows of the 52 Set