I heard Vin Scully say it one time but I just looked it up and he is wrong.
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
Thats the % of that run scoring in each situation.
http://www.diamond-mind.com/newsletter/en021213.htm
Leadoff walks
In response to comments by Tim McCarver during two postseason telecasts, Dave Smith of Retrosheet (www.retrosheet.org) posted some very interesting analysis to SABR's online forum. Dave was gracious enough to give us permission to share the following with our newsletter subscribers . . .
Here is the analysis that I mentioned on SABR-L yesterday concerning the consequences of starting an inning with a walk. I have three tables of data which address the basic topic in different ways.
Recall that the immediate impetus was [another SABR member's] quote of Tim McCarver who said on Sunday night's broadcast to the effect that "there are more multirun innings that begin with a walk".
Last week, during one of the LCS games, 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 a leadoff batter to reach base, this table shows the 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 </PRE>Table 2. For all possible outcomes for leadoff batters (the 8 categories from Table 1 plus making an out), this shows the number of times the indicated number of runs were scored. For example, batters led off an inning with a single 183,468 times and in 104,074 of those innings, his team did not score. One run was scored 35,868 times, two runs on 22,726 occasions, and so on, with all innings of six or more runs combined.
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 </PRE>These raw totals are not easy to compare, especially since the various outcomes occur with very different frequencies. Therefore, I created Table 3.
Table 3 takes the data from Table 2 and normalizes it 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 .000 .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 </PRE>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
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
Thats the % of that run scoring in each situation.
http://www.diamond-mind.com/newsletter/en021213.htm
Leadoff walks
In response to comments by Tim McCarver during two postseason telecasts, Dave Smith of Retrosheet (www.retrosheet.org) posted some very interesting analysis to SABR's online forum. Dave was gracious enough to give us permission to share the following with our newsletter subscribers . . .
Here is the analysis that I mentioned on SABR-L yesterday concerning the consequences of starting an inning with a walk. I have three tables of data which address the basic topic in different ways.
Recall that the immediate impetus was [another SABR member's] quote of Tim McCarver who said on Sunday night's broadcast to the effect that "there are more multirun innings that begin with a walk".
Last week, during one of the LCS games, 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 a leadoff batter to reach base, this table shows the 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 </PRE>Table 2. For all possible outcomes for leadoff batters (the 8 categories from Table 1 plus making an out), this shows the number of times the indicated number of runs were scored. For example, batters led off an inning with a single 183,468 times and in 104,074 of those innings, his team did not score. One run was scored 35,868 times, two runs on 22,726 occasions, and so on, with all innings of six or more runs combined.
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 </PRE>These raw totals are not easy to compare, especially since the various outcomes occur with very different frequencies. Therefore, I created Table 3.
Table 3 takes the data from Table 2 and normalizes it 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 .000 .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 </PRE>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
