Page 2 of 3

PostPosted: Sun Oct 10, 2004 1:13 am
by pomplona's finest
I would much rather have the 3 runs, anytime you can get a guaranteed score its better than risking it for an extra run, regardless of the pressure.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 10, 2004 1:16 am
by Bloody Nipples
Thats great Tavish, thanks. I still think there is an argument for both sides (I am not on either one right now), and it basically boils down to whether you believe in the sabremetrics or the intangibles. Having runners on base is a factor of momentum, for example.

I just think this is an interesting little theory to look at.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 10, 2004 2:36 am
by Tavish
Bloody Nipples wrote:Thats great Tavish, thanks. I still think there is an argument for both sides (I am not on either one right now), and it basically boils down to whether you believe in the sabremetrics or the intangibles. Having runners on base is a factor of momentum, for example.

I just think this is an interesting little theory to look at.


It is interesting, but there is just no statistical evidence behind it. Every way I've tried to look at it points to the opposite line of thinking. The league batting average is lower with RISP (.264 vs .266), the average number of runs scored is lower (from the run expectancy chart), and even the basic idea that it would take a rally to get the third run home all say that the commentator either needed something to fill time or just had a really bad idea.

There might be a few pitchers out there that don't handle runners on base very well or are not nearly as effective from the stretch, but I would wager 99% of the time you would much rather have the HR. I can't actually think of the 1% you wouldn't but I'm sure its probably out there somewhere. ;-D

PostPosted: Sun Oct 10, 2004 3:29 am
by Madison
I'd take the home run. Then it only takes one swing of the bat by any hitter the rest of the game to tie it up (provided the pitching staff doesn't give up any more). Take the runs when you can get them.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 10, 2004 2:53 pm
by Bloody Nipples
It seems like everyone has come to a general concensus about this: that Lyons (and I :-D ) were wrong. But just to play devil's advocate for a bit, what if your only shot was to score all those runs in that one inning, because it was the last inning of the game? Then might it not be better to keep the "momentum" (whatever that is) with players on base? Might it not be more likely that the 4 runs would score by way of a double or single and then a HR (like it happened), than by way of a HR and then either another HR or a couple hits in a row? So isnt it easier to get 2 hits than 3 or 4?

The key here is that the team HAS to score 4 runs in an inning. If they dont, the game is over. In this situation getting one run is the same as getting three.

Does this change anything in the stats, Tavish?

PostPosted: Sun Oct 10, 2004 6:11 pm
by Tavish
Bloody Nipples wrote:It seems like everyone has come to a general concensus about this: that Lyons (and I :-D ) were wrong. But just to play devil's advocate for a bit, what if your only shot was to score all those runs in that one inning, because it was the last inning of the game? Then might it not be better to keep the "momentum" (whatever that is) with players on base? Might it not be more likely that the 4 runs would score by way of a double or single and then a HR (like it happened), than by way of a HR and then either another HR or a couple hits in a row? So isnt it easier to get 2 hits than 3 or 4?

The key here is that the team HAS to score 4 runs in an inning. If they dont, the game is over. In this situation getting one run is the same as getting three.

Does this change anything in the stats, Tavish?


Maybe I'm not understanding the situation, but how would in your situation how would it take less hits? If you hit a three run homer the tying run comes to bat and must find a way to score. If you hit a two run double, the tying run comes to bat and him + the man on second must find a way to score. Assuming the guy on second isn't putout before scoring the situation becomes the exact same. The man at-bat is the tying run.

As I said before, the notion of momentum with runners on base is somewhat of a myth. Hitters historically hit worse with RISP. For every bonus that having a runner on grants you (distracting the pitcher, putting pressure on the defense) there is an additional drawback (runners being doubled-off, putout advancing bases, being stranded).

In your situation where the runner on second is not the tying run, the defense would most likely completely ignore him unless it was to their advantage, considering that the run is unimportant.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 10, 2004 8:05 pm
by Bloody Nipples
OK, I guess this theory is BS, then. :-D Steve Lyons, you are an idiot. :-D

PostPosted: Sun Oct 10, 2004 8:09 pm
by Lofunzo
Bloody Nipples wrote:OK, I guess this theory is BS, then. :-D Steve Lyons, you are an idiot. :-D


I could have told you that and we wouldn't have needed this thread. :-b

PostPosted: Sun Oct 10, 2004 8:13 pm
by Bloody Nipples
Lofunzo wrote:
Bloody Nipples wrote:OK, I guess this theory is BS, then. :-D Steve Lyons, you are an idiot. :-D


I could have told you that and we wouldn't have needed this thread. :-b


At least he was better than his partner. Man, that guy was awful! I think he knew he was bad, so he overcompensated with tons of movie references. And I think he said the word "cliche" about 10 times. :-t :-P

PostPosted: Sun Oct 10, 2004 10:38 pm
by Apollo
Just for another random question, how does the league OBP with RISP compare to the overall league OBP?

That would either substantiate or kill the "nervous, wild pitcher" theory.