Return to Baseball Leftovers

Lyons' take on rallies

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Lyons' take on rallies

Postby Bloody Nipples » Sat Oct 09, 2004 9:00 pm

Watching the Yankees/Twins game today, I heard an interesting argument from commentator Jeffrey Lyons. The situation was this: runners on 1st and 3rd, no outs, Yanks down by 4. He said that it would be better for the hitter at bat (Sheff, I believe) to hit a double than a HR because a double would leave runners on base to extend the rally. After some thought, I agreed with him. Intuitively, having runners on base would put more pressure on the defense and the pitcher, increasing the probability that the next hitter would reach safely. Of course, it would be better to get three runs than no runs, but Lyons' point was that it would be easier to get 4 runs in one inning if Sheff just got a base hit than if he hit a 3 run HR.

I want to know others' opinions on this theory. Also, does anyone have any statistical backup for their arguments?
aka enderwiggin
Bloody Nipples
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 3741
(Past Year: -4)
Joined: 28 Feb 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: doing my laundry...

Re: Lyons' take on rallies

Postby DK » Sat Oct 09, 2004 9:45 pm

Bloody Nipples wrote:Watching the Yankees/Twins game today, I heard an interesting argument from commentator Jeffrey Lyons. The situation was this: runners on 1st and 3rd, no outs, Yanks down by 4. He said that it would be better for the hitter at bat (Sheff, I believe) to hit a double than a HR because a double would leave runners on base to extend the rally. After some thought, I agreed with him. Intuitively, having runners on base would put more pressure on the defense and the pitcher, increasing the probability that the next hitter would reach safely. Of course, it would be better to get three runs than no runs, but Lyons' point was that it would be easier to get 4 runs in one inning if Sheff just got a base hit than if he hit a 3 run HR.

I want to know others' opinions on this theory. Also, does anyone have any statistical backup for their arguments?


The stats say that I'd rather have someone who hits .500 with all HR's than .500 with all doubles. The same is true here. It's better for a hitter to get a home run because that's a guarantee of three runs right there. It's easier to get one run than four no matter what the situation.

Easier? How? Because of the "inner thoughts" of a pitcher? That's ridiculous. It's the clutch argument, and it doesn't exist.
DK
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle Eye
Posts: 9077
(Past Year: -456)
Joined: 22 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: on deck

Postby Lofunzo » Sat Oct 09, 2004 9:46 pm

It Steve Lyons and I tend to mute the TV when he speaks. ;-7 Actually, a case could be made for both sides of that argument. Runners on base certainly puts more pressure on the defense.
Image
Lofunzo
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerEagle EyeHockey ModPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 23082
(Past Year: -616)
Joined: 9 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Central Jersey

Postby Tavish » Sat Oct 09, 2004 9:54 pm

Its a nice theory, but you always take the homerun. Here are the 99-02 run expectancy numbers.


Runner on 2 with 0 outs 1.189
Bases empty with 0 outs 0.555


A homerun in that situation scored more runs on average than a double did (0.366 more runs).
Bury me a Royal.
Tavish
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterWeb Supporter
Posts: 10554
(Past Year: -510)
Joined: 3 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby so0perspam » Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:06 pm

Tavish wrote:Its a nice theory, but you always take the homerun. Here are the 99-02 run expectancy numbers.


Runner on 2 with 0 outs 1.189
Bases empty with 0 outs 0.555


A homerun in that situation scored more runs on average than a double did (0.366 more runs).


Way to come through Tavish, nice job. ;-D
ImageImage
so0perspam
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Mock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe Musketeer
Posts: 8578
(Past Year: -75)
Joined: 17 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Bay Area

Postby DK » Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:22 pm

Tavish wrote:Its a nice theory, but you always take the homerun. Here are the 99-02 run expectancy numbers.


Runner on 2 with 0 outs 1.189
Bases empty with 0 outs 0.555


A homerun in that situation scored more runs on average than a double did (0.366 more runs).


Damn it, Tavish, where do you get these numbers? ;-D
DK
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle Eye
Posts: 9077
(Past Year: -456)
Joined: 22 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: on deck

Postby Lofunzo » Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:31 pm

DK wrote:
Tavish wrote:Its a nice theory, but you always take the homerun. Here are the 99-02 run expectancy numbers.


Runner on 2 with 0 outs 1.189
Bases empty with 0 outs 0.555


A homerun in that situation scored more runs on average than a double did (0.366 more runs).


Damn it, Tavish, where do you get these numbers? ;-D


From Hootie. :-D J/K
Image
Lofunzo
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerEagle EyeHockey ModPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 23082
(Past Year: -616)
Joined: 9 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Central Jersey

Postby Tavish » Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:41 pm

Pretty much anytime you want to find something on run expectancy you can turn to Tangotiger. One of the brightest SABR minds out there right now.
Bury me a Royal.
Tavish
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterWeb Supporter
Posts: 10554
(Past Year: -510)
Joined: 3 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby SaintsOfTheDiamond » Sat Oct 09, 2004 11:02 pm

I'm glad I wasn't the only one confused about that. Runners on base would theoretically put more pressure on the defense like Lo said and distract the pitcher I guess, but runs are runs, I don't really care how you get them. :-?

Tavish wrote:Its a nice theory, but you always take the homerun. Here are the 99-02 run expectancy numbers.


Runner on 2 with 0 outs 1.189
Bases empty with 0 outs 0.555


A homerun in that situation scored more runs on average than a double did (0.366 more runs).


Great stuff as always Tav. ;-D BTW it's like magic, you're not supposed to give away how you come up with the numbers, it ruins the fun for the rest of us. :-D
Image
Member #4 of the Inaugural Yadier Molina Fan Club!!!
SaintsOfTheDiamond
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe Ranker
Posts: 6044
(Past Year: -436)
Joined: 6 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Swiping second

Postby Lofunzo » Sat Oct 09, 2004 11:04 pm

SaintsOfTheDiamond wrote:I'm glad I wasn't the only one confused about that. Runners on base would theoretically put more pressure on the defense like Lo said and distract the pitcher I guess, but runs are runs, I don't really care how you get them. :-?

Tavish wrote:Its a nice theory, but you always take the homerun. Here are the 99-02 run expectancy numbers.


Runner on 2 with 0 outs 1.189
Bases empty with 0 outs 0.555


A homerun in that situation scored more runs on average than a double did (0.366 more runs).


Great stuff as always Tav. ;-D BTW it's like magic, you're not supposed to give away how you come up with the numbers, it ruins the fun for the rest of us. :-D


I agree. I was pointing out that there are arguments for either side. I would always take the runs whenever possible.
Image
Lofunzo
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerEagle EyeHockey ModPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 23082
(Past Year: -616)
Joined: 9 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Central Jersey

Next

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron