Leadoff Walks

[EdgarDiazRocks]

My Father-In-law in reasearching his new book wrote Retrosheet's Dan Smith to see if he had done any study of leadoff walks.

 

The response was quite entertaining and interesting . . . .

Quote:

---

Enclosed is an analysis of the consequences of starting an inning with a walk. There are three tables of data which address the basic topic in different ways.

 

The immediate impetus for this study was Tim McCarver who said on an LCS broadcast in 2002 to the effect that "there are more multirun innings that begin with a walk".

 

McCarver asserted that "the one thing I would tell a young pitcher is 'never walk the leadoff man, he *always* scores; he *always* scores'" (repetition and emphasis in the original).

 

I examined the second of these two quotes in 1998 at the request of the San Diego Padres, although for the life of me I do not recall what use, if any, they made of what I gave them. I have expanded my data set since that 1998 study and for the present report I checked every game from 1974 through 2002. This 29 year period covered 61365 games and 1,101,019 half innings. There were over 4.5 million plate appearances in these games.

 

 

Table 1. For all methods for leadoff batter to reach base, number of times each event occurred, the number of times that batter scored and the frequency of each. Note that the "E" category includes all times the leadoff batter reached on an error, which includes those cases when he went past first. The frequency for batters with leadoff walks scoring is insignificantly different from the frequency for leadoff singles; both are a tiny bit lower than the value for reaching via a hit by pitch. CONCLUSION: A leadoff batter who walks does NOT "always score"; the walk has the same effect as the other ways to reach first base.

 

 

 

Reach Score Freq

 

1B 183468 72841 .397

2B 48364 30961 .640

3B 6573 5753 .875

HR 27205 27205 1.000

BB 82637 33002 .399

HP 6217 2543 .409

INT 81 22 .272

E 12105 5298 .438

 

Table 2. For all possible outcomes for leadoff batters (the 8 categories from Table 1 plus making out), the number of time the indicated number of runs were scored. For example, batters led off an inning with a single 183468 times and in 104074 of those innings, his team did not score. One run was scored 35868 times, two runs on 22726 occasions, etc, with all innings of six or more runs combined. These raw totals are not easy to compare, especially since the various outcomes occur with very different frequencies. Therefore, I created Table 3.

 

Total 0 1 2 3 4 5 >5

 

1B 183468 104074 35868 22726 11329 5375 2415 1681

2B 48364 17671 17657 6772 3427 1632 683 522

3B 6573 984 3696 1019 467 228 101 78

HR 27205 0 19690 4130 1816 871 386 312

BB 82637 46794 15837 10481 5167 2503 1100 755

HP 6217 3453 1209 776 427 203 93 56

INT 81 56 9 7 6 1 0 2

E 12105 6427 2726 1580 744 355 159 114

OUT 734369 616379 70656 28839 11379 4441 1679 996

Total 1101019 795838 167348 76330 34762 15609 6616 4516

 

Table 3. Data from Table 2 normalized per number of occurrences of each outcome. For example, a leadoff single led to no runs with a frequency of .567 (56.7%), one run was scored after the leadoff single with a frequency of .196, etc.

 

 

CONCLUSION: The values for leadoff singles and leadoff walks are virtually indistinguishable. The hit by pitch data are only slightly lower in the "no runs" category.

 

 

 

0 1 2 3 4 5 >5

 

1B .567 .196 .124 .061 .029 .013 .009

2B .365 .365 .140 .070 .033 .014 .010

3B .150 .562 .155 .071 .034 .015 .011

HR 0 .724 .152 .066 .032 .014 .011

BB .566 .192 .127 .062 .030 .013 .009

HP .555 .194 .125 .068 .032 .014 .009

INT .691 .111 .086 .074 .012 0 .024

E .531 .225 .131 .061 .029 .013 .009

OUT .839 .096 .039 .015 .006 .002 .001

 

 

 

OVERALL CONCLUSION: Both of McCarver's assertions are clearly contradicted by this huge body of evidence. Having the leadoff batter reach base is certainly an advantage for the offense

(compare the values for the "OUT" row in Table 3). The data for

reaching on interference are far too limited to be useful. When

the leadoff man collects an extra base hit or reaches on an error

(with the occasional cases of going past first on the error

included), it is even better than reaching first, as expected. However, if we just look at those instances when the leadoff batter reaches first, then IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW HE GOT THERE.

 

SUMMARY and personal views: Even if we allow Tim some poetic license for his hyperbole; it is his job after all, we do not need to accept his opinion as authoritative. I have great respect for anyone who played in the Major Leagues for 22 years, as McCarver did. However, anecdotal observations and gut feelings are just that and have no inherent credibility, no matter what the source. Since we can now check these opinions with evidence, and McCarver definitely has at his disposal the talents of people who can do such checking, then we should expect him and other announcers to get it right. Hunches and feelings may be fine places to start an investigation, but they are very poor substitutes for the substantiated conclusions that come from careful analysis based on appropriate evidence.

---

 

One thing that does really stand out is getting the leadoff hitter out results in a scoreless inning a whopping 84% of the time.

 

That's amazing.

[dadofandrew]

84% does seem high, I would have thought 65-70%.

 

EDIT: Misread graph, I guess.

[rluzinski]

I've always heard that the leadoff walk scores 70% of the time, and according to the chart, a run scores 55.5% of the time in that scenario, so that's pretty close.

 

Actually, per Table 1 of the above, the leadoff batter who walks scores 40% of the time. According to table 3, ZERO runs are score 56.6% of the time after a leadoff walk, which means that 1 or more runs is scored 43.4% of the time. Either number isn't very close to 70%.

 

Table 3 agrees with Tangotider's run frequency table I pasted into the "SABR FAQ" thread that's pinned (page 2). It includes all the base/out states (0 outs, runners at 1, 0 outs, runners at 1 and 2, etc...). I find that thing absolutely invaluable. For instance, much has been made of the Brewers inability to:

 

1. Score a lead off double.

2. Score a runenr at third with 1 out.

 

Looking at tango's run frequency table (again, table 3 above has about the same values) you can see that a leadoff double results in atleast 1 run 73% of the time (average of 1.1 runs are scored). A runner at third and 1 out results in atleast 1 run 66% of the time (average of .9 runs).

 

While both are high, 1 in 4 leadoff doubles don't score and 1 in three runners at third w/1 out don't score.

 

It's interesting to compare how often a a leadoff runner who singles/walks scores himself vs. how often that situation results in a 1 run. The lead off batter himself scores 40% of the time, while 1 or more runs is scored about 43% of the time overall. 3% of the time where an inning starts with a runner at 1st and 0 outs, atleast 1 run is scored, but not by the runner at first. I would assume 2.9% of the time the leadoff runner is forced out by the next batter, who eventually scores himself.

 

Nice thread.

[EdgarDiazRocks]

Table 3 agrees with Tangotider's run frequency table I pasted into the "SABR FAQ" thread that's pinned (page 2).

 

yes, but isn't it intersting that a HBP scores 1% more than a single or walk?

 

And Table 3 is ment to show how often things lead to "A big inning" and other than the FIRST run HBP is exactly the same. Where does that 1% jump come from?

[rluzinski]

yes, but isn't it intersting that a HBP scores 1% more than a single or walk?

 

It certainly is. If I had to guess, it might be because a pitcher who was so wild as to hit the leadoff batter isn't pitching well. Walking a guy could be seen as wildness, but not nearly as much so. 1% isn't very much of a difference though.

[Jacob008]

If I had to guess, it might be because a pitcher who was so wild as to hit the leadoff batter isn't pitching well.

 

Not only that, but how many times does that pitcher, after beaning somone, then get ejected only to be replaced by a less talented pitcher who has no ownership over that run at first. That's gotta account for at least 1/4 of the 1%. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

 

4.5 million plate appearances. That's an awesome sample size.

[brettac1]

My Father-In-law in reasearching his new book

 

First and foremost, that's a great post. Second, what is the book your father-in-law is writing?

[EdgarDiazRocks]

He writes little independent baseball books that nobody reads.

 

www.amazon.com/exec/obido...72-7147823

 

He is a newspaper columnist in Mason City, Iowa, just had his 40 year anniversary in the newspaper biz and this is his "hobby" 'tho once he sold enough for a second printing.

 

His next book is a bio of Iowa native and Hall of Famer, Dazzy Vance.

 

retrosheet.org/boxesetc/Pvancd101.htm

 

Vance allowed a lot of baserunners but didn't let a lot of them score, mainly due to gaudy K Totals. Of course that was adifferent era, the guy threw 30 CG one year and logged 308 innings.

 

Here is something he sent me recently about him after he confirmed the story via retrosheet . . .

Quote:

---

In the book I?m doing on Dodger pitcher Dazzy Vance, I found a newspaper clipping where he is interviewed toward the end of his career. He recalls a game against the Cardinals when the pennant was on the line. The score was 0-0 in the ninth inning and the Cardinals had a runner on third. As Vance was going into his windup, the runner broke for the plate. Vance said he saw the guy out of the corner of his eye and knew he was going to steal home. He couldn?t stop his delivery ? so he hit the batter in the ribs with the pitch. Result ? dead ball. Batter goes to first, Runner returns to third. He retired the next two guys to end the inning.

---

[wisportswriter]

My dad coached HS baseball for 30+ years and also preached never walking the leadoff hitter. I am now very sad.

 

This thread is a perfect example of what has led to my new signature.

 

(I'm going to cut off the shouting before it starts. My sig is tongue-in-cheek. While I have no interest at all in having an OPS vs. OXS vs. BA discussion, I very much respect those who do and also am not so ignorant as to acknowledge that there are obviously some numbers out there that can very clearly tell the story and often times debunk gut feelings and classic baseball theories.)

[DHonks]

Simply put, there is a reason I would suggest a leadoff walk is worse than a leadoff hit. It's because the pitcher likely exhibited some lack of command. You hate to see a pitcher come out of the dugout and walk the first guy on only 4 or 5 pitches.

Think about it this way. When pitching to Barry Bonds, he gets himself out around 65-70% of the time. If more teams pitched to him, it's likely that would shrink to around 68-70% of the time. However, by throwing balls not near the plate, it's likely that the hitter will get themselves out at only a fraction of the rate.

With a hit, a batter is earning his way on. It's important to pitch without worrying about walks, but excessively nibbling and missing leads to Obermueller-like statistics.

 

just my thoughts as someone caught in the middle of the traditional vs SABR approaches

[ja002h]

Great stats.

 

I think I look at the "leadoff walks always score" statement in a slightly different way. I would imagine even McCarver would readily admit that he's not trying to say that 100% of leadoff walks score; no one's that stupid. Rather, perhaps the point is just (as has been noted here) that the difference between a leadoff runner and a leadoff out is SO dramatic, that to *give* the runner the base rather than making him earn it through a hit, is of the utmost foolishness.

[istanbultaye]

My take on this is that, as a pitcher, if you make the batter put the ball in play, you at least have a chance for an out. Now the results AFTER that batter may be the same no matter how he gets on, but, if you keep from walking him, you most likely have a 70% chance or so of getting him out then. So, it's either the BB guarranteeing the batter the base, or, against a .300 type hitter making them swing, only a 30% chance at 1b. (of course, then you run into the other possibilities of giving up more than just 1b too... but, i'd want to go for outs with the risk of giving up a bigger hit)(of course, most pitchers don't just walk leadoff batters for giggles either)

[backup catchers]

The only problem with walking anyone over giving up a basehit is it likely took more pitches to put him on. Seems to me the pitch count might not show up in that inning but could lead to more runs as the game goes on. Assuming it isn't the Houston bullpen whioch would lead to less runs scored.http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/roll.gif

[rluzinski]

Quote:

---

However, anecdotal observations and gut feelings are just that and have no inherent credibility, no matter what the source. Since we can now check these opinions with evidence, and McCarver definitely has at his disposal the talents of people who can do such checking, then we should expect him and other announcers to get it right. Hunches and feelings may be fine places to start an investigation, but they are very poor substitutes for the substantiated conclusions that come from careful analysis based on appropriate evidence.

---

 

Your Father-In-Law is my hero http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[RightFieldCoder]

About HBP leading to slightly more runs. Not only is the pitcher wild, but now he's pressing even more. I know this has no meaning in this subforum, but a pitcher will act a little differently if he nibbles and misses four times than missing big with one pitch.

 

Ok, time to get out of here before I'm lynched.

[rluzinski]

I know this has no meaning in this subforum, but a pitcher will act a little differently if he nibbles and misses four times than missing big with one pitch.

 

It's certainly a logical theory but there's certainly no proff of that. Professional athletes' abilites are not nearly as dependant on emotion as fans think.