NFBC Message Boards

We need a debate to get us through this day. Preferably, one that has nothing to do with PEDs.

It is better to have a double to lead off a game than a home run or triple. A pitcher can forget a home run like it was his last warm-up pitch. A pitcher doesn't have to hold the runner on third and can still pitch from the windup if he chooses.

A double forces he pitcher to pitch out of the stretch and to watch the runner. This in turn can make the pitcher easier to hit, and more likely to lead to a big inning to start the game. Matt Cain has proven this year that even aces can have trouble pitching from the stretch.

I don't know how to quantify 'getting into a pitchers head'.

I do know that a runner on second with no outs will score approx 63% of the time. A batter that hits a leadoff HR scores 100% of the time. To use a football adage, Don't take points off the board.

I know you know this, and you are just throwing out a topic for discussion, but I can't imagine many people going for the double over the HR, at least not in this group of bean counters

It wouldn't have been very sportsmanlike, if I had taken the HR side of the argument. However, that leaves me with the thinking side.

I'll cede the 63% vs. 100% scoring advantage to HRs on a random sampling, but in the first inning, it is theoretically your best base runner starting on second base followed by the #2 hitter, who should in most cases be able to control the direction of his hit. After the table-setters come your #3 & #4 hitters. I don't have statistics on this, but I bet in this scenario the runner would score closer to 80-85% of the time.

Were that true, the question then remains, how much does having a base runner on base affect the pitcher's focus/psychology?
Would that focus on the runner aid in other batters getting on base? Would the situation then feed upon itself to help create a big inning? It just feels like the game changes when there are runners on base.

knuckleheads wrote:It wouldn't have been very sportsmanlike, if I had taken the HR side of the argument. However, that leaves me with the thinking side.

I'll cede the 63% vs. 100% scoring advantage to HRs on a random sampling, but in the first inning, it is theoretically your best base runner starting on second base followed by the #2 hitter, who should in most cases be able to control the direction of his hit. After the table-setters come your #3 & #4 hitters. I don't have statistics on this, but I bet in this scenario the runner would score closer to 80-85% of the time.

The short answer is No.

Longer answer is....the guy on second will score 63% of the time. It could be because the number 2 hitter bunted him over and he then scored on a wild pitch, or the runner stole third and scored on a sac fly, or the number two hitter grounded out "4-3", Joey Votto walked and then Brandon Phillips hit a HR, or or or or or. Still aprox 63%

Your scenario reminds me of playing 'third base" at the blackjack table. Everyone always remembers that one time you took the dealers bust card (or in this case, the one time that the pitcher was clearly frustrated by an early base runner and went on tilt), but I'll still take the house odds (HR) every time.

Navel Lint wrote:

knuckleheads wrote:It wouldn't have been very sportsmanlike, if I had taken the HR side of the argument. However, that leaves me with the thinking side.

I'll cede the 63% vs. 100% scoring advantage to HRs on a random sampling, but in the first inning, it is theoretically your best base runner starting on second base followed by the #2 hitter, who should in most cases be able to control the direction of his hit. After the table-setters come your #3 & #4 hitters. I don't have statistics on this, but I bet in this scenario the runner would score closer to 80-85% of the time.

The short answer is No.

Longer answer is....the guy on second will score 63% of the time. It could be because the number 2 hitter bunted him over and he then scored on a wild pitch, or the runner stole third and scored on a sac fly, or the number two hitter grounded out "4-3", Joey Votto walked and then Brandon Phillips hit a HR, or or or or or. Still aprox 63%

Your scenario reminds me of playing 'third base" at the blackjack table. Everyone always remembers that one time you took the dealers bust card (or in this case, the one time that the pitcher was clearly frustrated by an early base runner and went on tilt), but I'll still take the house odds (HR) every time.

I would like to amend my remarks some in your favor. A leadoff hitter in ANY inning that gets on second with no outs will score 63% of the time. Those odds may be higher in the FIRST inning because of the batting order being at 1-2-3-4. I don't know that stat.

However, even if it is as high as 85%, as you suggest, I will still take the HR

This reminds me of an argument my football tailgate group has had every season with one of the guys.

He insists he'd rather have the ball 1st and ten on the eleven since if you get a first down, it's first and goal from inside the one as opposed to first and goal on the nine.

We could have been drafting in the Don Mathis mid season league if 12 more guys had signed up.

judydon wrote:We could have been drafting in the Don Mathis mid season league if 12 more guys had signed up.

Count me in for next year if the midseason draft is the Thursday following the All-Star break. Yesterday was awful.

ToddZ wrote:This reminds me of an argument my football tailgate group has had every season with one of the guys.

He insists he'd rather have the ball 1st and ten on the eleven since if you get a first down, it's first and goal from inside the one as opposed to first and goal on the nine.

Todd and Russell, the given part of the debate is that a leadoff HR will produce more 1-run first innings than leadoff doubles. I am trying to get at this, is a leadoff double to start the game more likely to start a rally (multiple runs) than a leadoff HR? And if it is, does that difference make it a preferable start (despite the HR advantage in 1-run innings) to a leadoff HR.

Let's say my hypothesis is correct and a double from the 1-spot starts more rallies than HRs. The question then would be, does a rarer, 2-run or greater first inning lead to more wins than a more frequently occurring 1-run first inning?

I'll admit, probably not...but I am thinking it might close the gap some.

FWIW, you're not the only one that feels that way as this is a running joke on Twitter. Several years ago Steve Lyons said home runs are rally killers and the line has been repeated over the years - including by George Brett when he was named the hitting coach of the Royals. There are blogs named after it and some called the event earlier in the week the rally killing derby.

Google home runs are rally killers and you'll have some entertainment.

knuckleheads wrote:

judydon wrote:We could have been drafting in the Don Mathis mid season league if 12 more guys had signed up.

Count me in for next year if the midseason draft is the Thursday following the All-Star break. Yesterday was awful.

Yeah, I think we should just get those on Registration early in the year and set in stone with draft dates and events ready to go. I thought Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday were brutal. Don't ask Tom which one it was, but I think he was so bored last night he watched a reality show for the first time and couldn't believe what he was watching. We should have had baseball drafts for him to monitor instead!!

Anyway, this is on us to set up Mid-Season games by May and I have a feeling next year we'll fill several of them. Sound good?

ToddZ wrote:FWIW, you're not the only one that feels that way as this is a running joke on Twitter. Several years ago Steve Lyons said home runs are rally killers and the line has been repeated over the years - including by George Brett when he was named the hitting coach of the Royals. There are blogs named after it and some called the event earlier in the week the rally killing derby.

Google home runs are rally killers and you'll have some entertainment.

Sounds like fodder for a team name next year.

Greg Ambrosius wrote:
Anyway, this is on us to set up Mid-Season games by May and I have a feeling next year we'll fill several of them. Sound good?

Perfect. Thanks.

ToddZ wrote:This reminds me of an argument my football tailgate group has had every season with one of the guys.

He insists he'd rather have the ball 1st and ten on the eleven since if you get a first down, it's first and goal from inside the one as opposed to first and goal on the nine.

He is right!