Big inning.. leadoff HR or BB?

[Kapono]

Not generally a Blue Jays related question but kind of a baseball philosophy one instead.

What is more likely to lead to a big inning (of 3 or more runs) a lead off walk or a lead off home run?

A lead off walk means that the opposing pitcher has to deal with the runner at first base.

A lead off home run means you only need two more runs to classify the inning as “big”.

[SharoneWright]

Same likelihood of a 3 run inning... provided your baserunner doesn't get picked off or doubled up. So, I guess the HR gives you a slightly better chance.

[rarefind]

Definitely the homer, the pitcher does have to deal with a lead off runner but can simply induce a ground ball and erase that mistake. Generally a bad omen is when a pitcher can't locate and walks the lead off guy though.

[distracted]

I said BB.

If every at bat were perfectly independent, then it would be a HR. I think it's a BB because the pitcher has to pitch from the stretch, and because I think a BB is, on average, more indicative of a struggling pitcher than a HR.

[DonYon]

It's kind of like asking if you take a guaranteed $1000 or go for $5000 at the risk of getting nothing. I'd the take the guaranteed run every time.

[torontoaces04]

You always take the run.

[Lateral Quicks]

I'd guess that the leadoff walk has a higher probability of starting a big inning than a home run, but I'd also guess that innings started by a home run have a higher average of runs scored than those that start with a leadoff walk. If my guesses are right, it makes sense to take the leadoff home run every time.

[Skin Blues]

Somebody should look at every instance of an inning starting with a HR, and every instance of an inning starting with a walk, and find the % of each that turn into 3+ run innings. I'm almost 100% certain that a higher percentage of big innings happen after a HR rather than a walk. Walks turn into GIDP's at a pretty significant rate. Doesn't make for a good narrative though. Strangely enough, home runs are boring. They're just too easy.

[Hendrix]

I would say a HR on average leads to a higher average runs/inning.

For the higher probability of a big inning. I think it might be pretty close.

On the BB side, you get the pitcher pitching out of the stretch, but that is pretty much negated by the potential double play.

With the HR you don't have the pitcher pitching out of the stretch, or the double play. But, the HR might get the pitcher rattled a bit too.

Meh, I'd say it's about even.

[Hoopstarr]

The run probability matrix says a team getting the leadoff hitter on first averages 0.953 runs per inning. The home run guarantees a run so you take it. Any talk about rattling the pitcher and pitching out of the stretch is superfluous.

[Hendrix]

The run probability matrix says a team getting the leadoff hitter on first averages 0.953 runs per inning. The home run guarantees a run so you take it. Any talk about rattling the pitcher and pitching out of the stretch is superfluous.

The probability matrix has averages of 0.953 vs. 1.544 here. But, this doesn't answer the OP's question as he isn't asking about what the average is.

He's asking which is more likely to yield a big inning (3+ runs). This is a complete different question as this question assumes that there is a significant amount of action happening after the first batter. Atleast 2 more batters are crossing home plate in addition to the leadoff batter. So, with that assumption a high probability of the time (1 - leadoff batter getting thrown out) the leadoff batter will also cross the plate as well.

You are correct that if we had quantitative evidence then we we would not have to consider qualitative info such as pitching out of the stretch, or rattling the pitcher. However, we do not have the quantiative evidence (what you posted isn't it), so all we can really do is take quantiative & qualitative info and try and form some sort of opinion.

We could figure it out with the use of excel & the probability matrix, but I really don't have the time to do that.

[Parataxis]

There's a reason the fielding team deals with the baserunner, instead of balking him home - you take a run when you can get it.

[dennistokyo]

The lead off homer just means that your leadoff walk scores for sure. A walk could eat up a lot of pitches though.

[5DOM]

http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902score.html

13.8% chance of scoring 3+ with a leadoff homer
12.9% chance of scoring 3+ with a leadoff BB

[distracted]

http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902score.html

13.8% chance of scoring 3+ with a leadoff homer
12.9% chance of scoring 3+ with a leadoff BB

That doesn't show what you're trying to imply, as it assumes complete independence of all situations. It also assumes a leadoff walk and a leadoff single produce identical expectations.

Using the same methodology:
14.1% chance of scoring 3+ with a leadoff double
15.8% chance of scoring 3+ with a leadoff triple

[Skin Blues]

It also doesn't take into account that a pitcher had already given up a homerun. It just looks at the odds of scoring 2+ runs from a bases empty state.

It would probably take somebody going through a few years' worth of play by play data.

[5DOM]

http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902score.html

13.8% chance of scoring 3+ with a leadoff homer
12.9% chance of scoring 3+ with a leadoff BB

That doesn't show what you're trying to imply, as it assumes complete independence of all situations. It also assumes a leadoff walk and a leadoff single produce identical expectations.

Using the same methodology:
14.1% chance of scoring 3+ with a leadoff double
15.8% chance of scoring 3+ with a leadoff triple

It's the best I could find

The probably of giving up 2+ runs just after giving up a leadoff HR is probably higher than in normal cases, but then maybe the pitcher makes adjustments and actually does better

Update: According to http://joyofsox.blogspot.ca/2010/11/do- ... -runs.html ,

Whether a leadoff batter singles or walks has no correlation with how many runs his team will eventually score in that inning.

It also doesn't take into account that a pitcher had already given up a homerun. It just looks at the odds of scoring 2+ runs from a bases empty state.

It would probably take somebody going through a few years' worth of play by play data.

Yes.

[flatjacket1]

It also doesn't take into account that a pitcher had already given up a homerun. It just looks at the odds of scoring 2+ runs from a bases empty state.

It would probably take somebody going through a few years' worth of play by play data.

It's been done, by a lovely statistician by the name of Tom Tango.

Run expectancy with a guy on 1st, 0 outs is 0.953, run expectancy with bases empty 0 outs is 0.555, run expectancy with a leadoff HR is (understandably) 1.555.

Makes sense too, if you understand all 3 numbers. Basically with bases empty, you are expected to run .555 runs. If you hit a home run, the bases are still empty, and you just gained a run. A runner on 1st has a run expectancy of 0.953. Basically a leadoff HR is worth around 33% more than a leadoff walk, mainly because you have similar odds to end up in the same situation (If you hit a HR and a guy walks, it's the same as if a guy just walks, just with an additional run).

[Hendrix]

http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902score.html

13.8% chance of scoring 3+ with a leadoff homer
12.9% chance of scoring 3+ with a leadoff BB

That doesn't show what you're trying to imply, as it assumes complete independence of all situations. It also assumes a leadoff walk and a leadoff single produce identical expectations.

Actually I would say it's a pretty good measure. At least it will measure 3+ runs accurately for the walk scenario.

It does have a problem with treating the Hr & 2+ runs as independent events; however, if anything the % would be even higher for the HR scenario if it were able to capture the actual scenario. Since the HR is already higher, I think we can safely say that the HR is more likely to produce a better chance at getting 3+ runs.

[Hendrix]

It also doesn't take into account that a pitcher had already given up a homerun. It just looks at the odds of scoring 2+ runs from a bases empty state.

It would probably take somebody going through a few years' worth of play by play data.

It's been done, by a lovely statistician by the name of Tom Tango.

Run expectancy with a guy on 1st, 0 outs is 0.953, run expectancy with bases empty 0 outs is 0.555, run expectancy with a leadoff HR is (understandably) 1.555.

Makes sense too, if you understand all 3 numbers. Basically with bases empty, you are expected to run .555 runs. If you hit a home run, the bases are still empty, and you just gained a run. A runner on 1st has a run expectancy of 0.953. Basically a leadoff HR is worth around 33% more than a leadoff walk, mainly because you have similar odds to end up in the same situation (If you hit a HR and a guy walks, it's the same as if a guy just walks, just with an additional run).

You are doing it wrong.

Read the thread.