Big inning.. leadoff HR or BB?

[flatjacket1]

You are doing it wrong.

Read the thread.

No, you are doing it wrong.

If an average of 1.555 runs score on a leadoff home run, and if an average of 0.953 runs score on a runner on first, which is more likely for a big inning? Obviously more runs score on a lead off home run, therefor making a big inning more likely.

[Hendrix]

No, you are doing it wrong.

If an average of 1.555 runs score on a leadoff home run, and if an average of 0.953 runs score on a runner on first, which is more likely for a big inning? Obviously more runs score on a lead off home run, therefor making a big inning more likely.

Maybe you should read the question the OP is asking agian, and try and understand why what you are doing is incorrect. Or, you could read the thread like I suggested instead of throwing out defensive comebacks and regurgitating the same incorrect thing a second time.

[satyr9]

The thing is neither is actually a meaningful indicator of a 3+ run inning and that's why this thread is a little weird (JMO and interesting, but still weird). The HR wins, because a 2 run inning is more common than a 3 run inning, but neither is a good enough indication, especially in relation to the other - they're both good signs for your offense - that a big inning is coming. I think a 2-3 batter sequence is a better discussion: like HR, FB, 1B vs. BB, 2B, sac, but the single AB, the differing outcomes pale in comparison to the specifics of the instance. Who's the pitcher? Who'd they walk/give up a HR to, what's the inning/score, etc...

While there may be ways to "tango" it out (BTW isn't .555 run expectancy for every opening of an inning high?), I cannot believe it would be an overly meaningful number as to which event is a better indicator of future events. Either one could be a symptom of a struggle beginning or just one bad pitch or even just an semi-intentional work around. I'm a stat guy almost as much as the next guy (well in a baseball or polling number context), but I think this is the point where we piss off the purist old-schoolers. Ask yourself, at what point do you feel a big inning coming on? I've felt it after a lead-off HR and a lead-off walk, but they're both so contextually contingent. It's not that my superstitions are more accurate than whatever probability matrix, but we're in it's 65% right 14 times out of 19, which is another way of saying coin meet flip.

But please remember, my maths ended quite some time ago, so if anyone wants to outmath my feelings, I'd actually be quite pleased.

[distracted]

(BTW isn't .555 run expectancy for every opening of an inning high?)

It may seem high, but it's not that much higher than what happened last year.

Last year there were 21,017 runs scored over 2,430 games played. With 18 half innings per game that works out to .480 runs per half inning. Half innings per game will be a little different, but I'm assuming home team not hitting offsets extra inning games (it may more than offset in the end)

In 2000 there were 24,971 runs scored over 2,429 games played. With 18 half innings per game that works out to .571 runs per half inning.

It depends on what period the statistics are based on.

[satyr9]

(BTW isn't .555 run expectancy for every opening of an inning high?)

It may seem high, but it's not that much higher than what happened last year.

Last year there were 21,017 runs scored over 2,430 games played. With 18 half innings per game that works out to .480 runs per half inning. Half innings per game will be a little different, but I'm assuming home team not hitting offsets extra inning games (it may more than offset in the end)

In 2000 there were 24,971 runs scored over 2,429 games played. With 18 half innings per game that works out to .571 runs per half inning.

It depends on what period the statistics are based on.

Thanks, I FG'ed it and it's actually about 17.84IP/gm (so extras doesn't cover home team bottom of the 9th), making it .485. I will say .485 is a long way off .555, but scoring's down the last 2 years. Last 20 years total is .530, so in historical context .555 seems more reasonable. Even so, expecting 5 runs a full game per side just feels high. I'm not arguing against the number, but I can't help it.