PDA

View Full Version : Did I hear that right?



Aceking
06-19-2006, 10:50 PM
Did Chris Welsh call Beltran's HR with nobody on and nobody out in the bottom of the ninth a rally killer?

What Rally?

I find it hard to believe that Arroyo would rather give up a homer than a single in that situation.

Am I crazy?

Tornon
06-19-2006, 10:53 PM
Just kind of referring to the fact that the run does not matter at all, a single and a homer there are the same thing gamewise and with the homerun Arroyo still gets to pitch out of the windup

CTA513
06-19-2006, 10:53 PM
Did Chris Welsh call Beltran's HR with nobody on and nobody out in the bottom of the ninth a rally killer?

What Rally?

I find it hard to believe that Arroyo would rather give up a homer than a single in that situation.

Am I crazy?

He threw him a meatball.
If it was a 2-1 game he wouldnt have thrown that pitch to Beltran.

jimbo
06-19-2006, 10:55 PM
Give up a single and then a home run.....suddenly it's a one run game. The Mets needed runners, a solo home run doesn't quite mean as much.

TeamBoone
06-19-2006, 11:02 PM
Welsh: "Sometimes a solo homerun can be a rally killer". I took it to mean that sometimes that can't get a rally going after a solo homerun.

I do find it weird that Welsh has seemed to dwell on this philosophy this season, especially since I don't ever remember him say it in previous seasons.

OSUredsFAN
06-19-2006, 11:24 PM
I remember Welch saying that in the past, and in a way I agree with that.

IslandRed
06-19-2006, 11:24 PM
That's one of the dumber things I've heard a baseball announcer say. Let's see, you can have no one on, no one out and be down 4-1, or the same situation and down 4-2. I know which one I would take 100% of the time.

The only possible argument is that the homer somehow makes the following hitters less likely to do anything, but that's pretty flimsy. Maybe in the case of a guy who struggles pitching from the stretch.

CrackerJack
06-19-2006, 11:28 PM
It's always nice to avoid an out and get on base, but i'm never going to complain about a solo HR in any situation.

Falls City Beer
06-19-2006, 11:28 PM
It's a nonsense, indefensible "theory" posited by Welsch. You only trade runs for outs, in the worst of circumstances.

jimbo
06-19-2006, 11:32 PM
The Arizona Diamondback manager consider solo home runs "rally killers." I'm not going to go so far as the categorize all solo homers as such, but when I'm down by 3 runs in the 9th inning.....I want baserunners.

IslandRed
06-19-2006, 11:36 PM
OK, I'm going to share this little tidbit of information, and it surprised me. Maybe there's something to the "make him pitch out of the stretch" argument. I looked at the Win Expectancy finder over at www.walkoffbalk.com and plugged in tonight's situations. (Keep in mind this is based on the sum of all such situations that occurred in MLB from 2000-2004. It does not adjust for the specific players, teams or park involved.)

Home team down 4-1, bottom 9, none on, none out (i.e. before Beltran's plate appearance). Chance of Mets winning: 3.3%

Home team down 4-2, bottom 9, none on, none out (after Beltran's homer). Chance of Mets winning: 8.2%

Home team down 4-1, bottom 9, runner on first, none out (if Beltran had walked or singled instead). Chance of Mets winning: 9.6%

It doesn't make intuitive sense, and it's not much of a difference, but there it is.

MaineRed
06-20-2006, 12:12 AM
I've heard Welsch use that line in the past as well. I don't think he was saying he would rather be down 4-2 than 4-1.

His point is simply a question. How often does a 3 run rally start with a solo HR. Think of all the 3 run comebacks you have witness in the 9th inning. How many of those began by the team hitting a solo jack?

Now think of all those 3 run comebacks you have seen. How many started off with a seeing eye single, or a Texas leaguer? Then what came next? Chances are, one of two things. Either the pitcher made a mistake due to his attention being taken up by the baserunner or the hitter stroked one thru the infield, right where the first basemen would of been if not for the guy on first base. Then you get the 3 run homer. I've seen countless comebacks like that.

So I don't think Welsch is being crazy and I think some of you are taking his philosophy a little too far. He is always careful to say, "SOMETIMES," when talking about it and I think he is dead on. Of course, if asked, you'd rather take the runner on first instead of the HR but when you think about it, as Welsch explains, it makes some sense.

One thing should be made clear and I am sure Chris would say the same thing, the best rally killer is getting the first 3 guys who come to the plate, out. Its just that when you look back and think of all those rallies, more start with singles than they do with homers which makes it a darn good observation by the crafty lefthander.

George Grande
06-20-2006, 12:18 AM
My partner knows the game well. Its the truth if you think about. That run means nothing and to get the inning going they needed baserunners.

indyred
06-20-2006, 12:24 AM
What's up George....

Johnny Footstool
06-20-2006, 12:27 AM
Nonsense. You need RUNS. Baserunners help you get runs, but you still have to work for them; homers are much more efficient.

TeamBoone
06-20-2006, 01:08 AM
Why is it not logical to think a rally can begin after the HR?

The situation is the same: no runners on, same number of outs... only now you need one less run.

tripleaaaron
06-20-2006, 01:14 AM
It puts a run on the board that you didn't have, and a HR can ispire other players as well. Better than a single that ends up being canceled by a double play.

KronoRed
06-20-2006, 01:31 AM
All home runs are rally killers.

Triples thought are great ;)

saboforthird
06-20-2006, 02:00 AM
If I'm a pitcher, I'd MUCH rather give up three consecutive solo shots (not that Narron would be that patient), than to allow a couple of guys to get on base. Considering the present, the potential is there for only ONE run, that potential goes up if there are runners on board.

Reds Freak
06-20-2006, 02:03 AM
I don't think Chris put this much thought or research into his statement...Just an old saying...

Ron Madden
06-20-2006, 02:19 AM
If I'm a pitcher, I'd MUCH rather give up three consecutive solo shots (not that Narron would be that patient), than to allow a couple of guys to get on base. Considering the present, the potential is there for only ONE run, that potential goes up if there are runners on board.

If you were a pitcher, your job is to record three outs while allowing the least amount of base runners and runs scored as possible.

The hitters job is not to make outs and to aquire as many bases as possible in order to score as many runs as possible.

It Aint That Hard To Understand.

SteelSD
06-20-2006, 02:42 AM
If I'm a pitcher, I'd MUCH rather give up three consecutive solo shots (not that Narron would be that patient), than to allow a couple of guys to get on base. Considering the present, the potential is there for only ONE run, that potential goes up if there are runners on board.

Maybe you didn't realize it, but you just stated that you'd prefer a nebulous number of potential Runs that would occur by having two runners on base rather than three guaranteed Runs via back-to-back-to-back dingers.

Methinks you haven't thought that through because three guaranteed Runs are 100% of the time better than what you'd prefer.

WVRedsFan
06-20-2006, 02:58 AM
A run is a run. Period. Instant offense. In the Reds case, that might be true (no offense--just the facts as I see them), but to most teams it's getting a run with no outs and a chance to start a rally.

For instance, say the leadoff guy hits a HR and the next guy doubles. that puts the tying run at the plate. Of course, the next guy has to hit that double.

MaineRed
06-20-2006, 07:51 AM
Why is it logical to think the rally can not begin after the HR?

The situation is the same: no runners on, same number of outs... only now you need one less run.

The rally CAN begin after the HR. Chris is simply saying, from what he has viewed that it usually doesn't. But how often have you seen a comeback begin with a simple single?

Also, Chris is not saying a HR is the same as an out. He is pointing out that sometimes it seems a HR is better than a single. The pitcher can concentrate on the plate and doesn't have to change his delivery. The runner doesn't need to be held on. The infielders can play at normal depth. A single can really get something (a rally) started. A HR in that situation adds a run, yes but from a rally standpoint the lead-off HR doesn't appear to be what the doctor ordered for the trailing team.

How often have the Reds blown a late lead because a reliever comes in and walks the first guy? That is usually what starts the Reds downfall in 9th inning losses. Not lead-off HRs.

Nobody is cheering for the other team to hit HRs. We all want outs made but I think Chris has a great point. Its not a stategy he wants the Reds to use, just something over time that he has observed in his time in baseball. Its not as if Chris is sitting there saying, "it would be good if the Mets hit a HR here to kill the rally before it starts." But that is what some are making him out to have said.

The guy sat thru the Danny Graves era. He knows what an opposing teams rally looks like. Look at it as an observation and not a proposed strategy and I think you all would feel better.

Aceking
06-20-2006, 12:29 PM
I think I just had trouble getting past the idea of their being a rally to kill, with noone on and noone out. Who was rallying?

TeamBoone
06-20-2006, 12:36 PM
I think I just had trouble getting past the idea of their being a rally to kill, with noone on and noone out. Who was rallying?

No one was rallying; he talking about the possibility of starting a rally. He's saying a single would have a better chance of starting a rally than a solo HR would.

westofyou
06-20-2006, 12:39 PM
I think I just had trouble getting past the idea of their being a rally to kill, with noone on and noone out. Who was rallying?
No one, it's a Red Herring.. it assumes that a single would create a buzz and another hit a heightened buzz... therefore through osmosis the whole team will get psyched which equals better, which equals rally time.

It's a football point of view of baseball IMO, it's an attempt to create a team mindset approach in a game that is fraught with individual matchups that are awash in micro situations.

To that I say... good luck.

Danny Serafini
06-20-2006, 12:47 PM
A HR is just a baserunner who didn't stop running until he made it home, if that makes those who want baserunners feel better.

smith288
06-20-2006, 02:06 PM
If a homer is a rally killer then if we gave up a single, why not just throw the ball to centerfield and let the guy have a inside the parker to nip that "rally" in the bud?

MaineRed
06-20-2006, 02:20 PM
I think I just had trouble getting past the idea of their being a rally to kill, with noone on and noone out. Who was rallying?

The Mets.

So a team scoring a run with no outs and nobody on is not the start of a rally? But if someone was on base and there was an out in the inning it would have been a rally even if no run had scored?

Funny because to me that is EXACTLY what Chris Welsch said (the thing your having trouble getting past). A guy leads off an inning with a HR to make it a 2 run game, no big deal. But if guys are on base all of a sudden a rally has started. That is what Chris said.

dabvu2498
06-20-2006, 02:28 PM
I don't get why no one in this debate has commented on IslandRed's findings. I guess it's just easier to beat Welsh into the ground. (It is pretty easy, isn't it?)

OK, I'm going to share this little tidbit of information, and it surprised me. Maybe there's something to the "make him pitch out of the stretch" argument. I looked at the Win Expectancy finder over at www.walkoffbalk.com and plugged in tonight's situations. (Keep in mind this is based on the sum of all such situations that occurred in MLB from 2000-2004. It does not adjust for the specific players, teams or park involved.)

Home team down 4-1, bottom 9, none on, none out (i.e. before Beltran's plate appearance). Chance of Mets winning: 3.3%

Home team down 4-2, bottom 9, none on, none out (after Beltran's homer). Chance of Mets winning: 8.2%

Home team down 4-1, bottom 9, runner on first, none out (if Beltran had walked or singled instead). Chance of Mets winning: 9.6%

It doesn't make intuitive sense, and it's not much of a difference, but there it is.

gonelong
06-20-2006, 04:36 PM
I don't get why no one in this debate has commented on IslandRed's findings. I guess it's just easier to beat Welsh into the ground. (It is pretty easy, isn't it?)

For 1 it looks like the site is still working out bugs with their numbers.

For 2, I have no real way to verify their numbers for myself so I have to trust their numbers. (see #1).

For 3 the sample sizes being measured for the scenario of 9th inning, 0 outs, runner on 1st, down by 3 are pretty small IMO (1236 games from 1979-2004) to make an absolute statement one way or another.

For 4, I fiddled with their WEF and couldn't find another situation where the numbers would show the HR as a "rally killer". (I didn't get them all, but I tried a 5 or 6 other scenarios in various innings.)

For 5, combine #4, #3, #2, and #1 and I am not sold that there is any kind of evidence that even in this one specific case that a HR is a "rally killer", especially when in the other cases I tested it was absolutely shown not to be a detriment to winning the game.


Take that same scenario, Home Team, 9th inning, 0 outs, runner on 1st, down by 3.

Now, steal the guy to 2nd. Home Team, 9th inning, 0 outs, runner on 2nd, down by 3.

Winning %tage drops from 8.8% to 7.4%. Now successful SBs are "rally killers" too. Now have him swipe 3B and your Win Expectancy is down to 5.9%.

GL

IslandRed
06-20-2006, 04:46 PM
For what it's worth, since you brought it up... I did a little more playing around with the Win Expectancy finder, and that seems to be an aberration. I found a few more instances where the WE is slightly higher with the leadoff walk/single as opposed to a leadoff homer, but mostly involving the home team, large deficits and late innings. In no case was it a significant advantage... I guess it makes sense. If a team needs several runs to win or push the game into extra innings and only has a few outs to work with, the WE is going to be very low regardless until the team cuts the deficit to a certain point. Until then, it makes little difference in what order the run-scoring events occur.

Edskin
06-20-2006, 06:42 PM
I can admit that it's based MUCH more on superstition than fact, but I actually agree with Welsh. I would rather Beltran hit a HR there than anything else-- especially a walk. IMO, it's just a different mindset. I think the HR in that situation sort of "deflates" things for the offense, I really do. Arroyo was able to regroup, bases empty, and try to protect a 2 run lead instead of a 3 run lead. I think if a guy walks to start the inning, the noose tightens a bit more, the crowd gets pumped, etc.. and the "rally" begins. Yeah, I agree with Welsh :(

OldXOhio
06-20-2006, 06:44 PM
Why is it logical to think the rally can not begin after the HR?

The situation is the same: no runners on, same number of outs... only now you need one less run.

Who said anything about logic? To imply that the pitcher can breathe easier because, despite the narrowed lead, he still has no one on base to incorporate a rally is hillarious.

MaineRed
06-20-2006, 07:01 PM
None of it is about believing it CAN'T happen. Its about what HAS happened. Welsch is going off what he has witnessed.

If you asked me what gave a team a better shot to come back from 3 down in the 9th, a lead-off HR or a walk, I would say the walk. Not because it makes logical sense but because my memory tells me I have seen more comebacks begin that way than with a solo HR.

I have no idea the reason for it, and neither does Welsch. Its just an observation, not a superstition. I don't get why so many are upset about the belief that most big innings don't start with solo HRs.

To me it is one of those things where you just say, well now that you mention it

doesn't make a lot of sense on the surface but I still haven't seen anyone recalling a 3 run comeback in the 9th that began with a solo HR. We all know we have seen countless 3 run comebacks that begin with a guy somehow reaching first base.

Raisor
06-20-2006, 08:07 PM
This is crazy talk.

Seriously. Crazy.

Runs good. Any time is the right time for a homerun.

TeamBoone
06-20-2006, 08:09 PM
Who said anything about logic? To imply that the pitcher can breathe easier because, despite the narrowed lead, he still has no one on base to incorporate a rally is hillarious.

Hmmm, actually I should have said "why isn't it logical"... I'm going to correct that.

I get what you're saying, BTW.

MaineRed
06-20-2006, 08:36 PM
All Welsch and the people who agree with him have said is their opinion. I realize the people disagreeing are also giving their opinion but there seems to be this attitude that their opinion is correct simply because what Welsch said doesn't make sense on the surface.

If this IS crazy talk, it should be pretty easy to prove. Can anyone actually do that?

saboforthird
06-20-2006, 08:49 PM
If you were a pitcher, your job is to record three outs while allowing the least amount of base runners and runs scored as possible.

The hitters job is not to make outs and to aquire as many bases as possible in order to score as many runs as possible.

It Aint That Hard To Understand.

No need to be condescending. I think we're all capable, here, of understanding the fundamentals of offense and defense in baseball. ;)

saboforthird
06-20-2006, 08:51 PM
I can admit that it's based MUCH more on superstition than fact, but I actually agree with Welsh. I would rather Beltran hit a HR there than anything else-- especially a walk. IMO, it's just a different mindset. I think the HR in that situation sort of "deflates" things for the offense, I really do. Arroyo was able to regroup, bases empty, and try to protect a 2 run lead instead of a 3 run lead. I think if a guy walks to start the inning, the noose tightens a bit more, the crowd gets pumped, etc.. and the "rally" begins. Yeah, I agree with Welsh :(

I concur, Edskin. :)

SteelSD
06-20-2006, 10:28 PM
All Welsch and the people who agree with him have said is their opinion. I realize the people disagreeing are also giving their opinion but there seems to be this attitude that their opinion is correct simply because what Welsch said doesn't make sense on the surface.

If this IS crazy talk, it should be pretty easy to prove. Can anyone actually do that?

Sure I can. And I can do so using one simple question:

Would you rather begin an Inning with zero Outs and one more Run or one fewer Run?

There's a right answer and a wrong answer to that question.

Chris Welsh appears to have glommed onto this ridiculous concept of "rally killing Home Runs" during the Arizona series and is now just parroting something that makes absolutely zero sense. On the plus side, listening to Welsh is still more enjoyable than listening to the Mets announcers (who are furiously ignorant). But he needs to drop this rally-killing nonsense posthaste.

MaineRed
06-20-2006, 11:14 PM
Sure I can. And I can do so using one simple question:

Would you rather begin an Inning with zero Outs and one more Run or one fewer Run?

Would you rather end the inning up 4-2 or down 5-4?

The only numbers that have been posted in this thread show that Welsch not only is in the ballpark with his statement but perhaps dead on.

I don't care about logic or what I would rather have. This is baseball. Logic says one team shouldn't outspend the Reds by 150 million dollars, but they do. Logic says a lot of things in baseball but reality says something different.

IslandRed
06-20-2006, 11:31 PM
Would you rather end the inning up 4-2 or down 5-4?

The only numbers that have been posted in this thread show that Welsch not only is in the ballpark with his statement but perhaps dead on.

I don't care about logic or what I would rather have. This is baseball. Logic says one team shouldn't outspend the Reds by 150 million dollars, but they do. Logic says a lot of things in baseball but reality says something different.

As the person who posted the numbers, what the numbers suggest is not really that Welsh is "dead on." There are instances where the Win Expectancy data gives an edge to hitting a leadoff single instead of a leadoff homer. But those instances are sufficiently few (pretty much confined to home team, late innings, a deficit in the 3-4 run range) and the "edge" is sufficiently small (gives you maybe a 1% additional chance to win, in a situation where your chances are only 10-15% or so for starters) that it can't really be argued that a leadoff homer in any situation is a rally-killer in any meaningful way.

What's indisputable is that if you have to make up multiple runs and you're down to three outs, the only truly important thing is that the leadoff hitter doesn't make an out. What kind of non-out he makes is largely immaterial.

SteelSD
06-21-2006, 12:06 AM
Would you rather end the inning up 4-2 or down 5-4?

The only numbers that have been posted in this thread show that Welsch not only is in the ballpark with his statement but perhaps dead on.

I don't care about logic or what I would rather have. This is baseball. Logic says one team shouldn't outspend the Reds by 150 million dollars, but they do. Logic says a lot of things in baseball but reality says something different.

You better care about logic because in this case logic tells us what's real and what's a Chris Welsh delusion:

Run Expectancy Matrix:

http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902.html

Bases Empty- 0 Out: 0.555 Runs
Runner on 1st- 0 Out: 0.953 Runs
Bases Empty- 0 Out post solo HR: 1.555 Runs

Now, you want a shot at more Runs or fewer Runs in an Inning? Smacking a solo dinger adds one Run to the team's total that Inning and then resets the board to where we have a 0.555 RE + the 1.00 Run that's already scored. That's a significant Run Expectancy INCREASE for that Inning. A Single with none on and none Out doesn't produce that effect. Nor does a leadoff Double (1.189 RE) or a leadoff Triple (1.482). There isn't an offensive event that produces Runs as efficiently as a Home Run and there's no question that said solo Home Run produces a significantly higher Run Expectancy at any point in an Inning versus any other single non-Out event.

What Welsh keeps saying doesn't make sense on the surface and it doesn't make sense below the surface, around the surface, or above the surface. And it doesn't make sense because it's nonsense.

Patrick Bateman
06-21-2006, 12:18 AM
You better care about logic because in this case logic tells us what's real and what's a Chris Welsh delusion:

Run Expectancy Matrix:

http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902.html

Bases Empty- 0 Out: 0.555 Runs
Runner on 1st- 0 Out: 0.953 Runs
Bases Empty- 0 Out post solo HR: 1.555 Runs

Now, you want a shot at more Runs or fewer Runs in an Inning? Smacking a solo dinger adds one Run to the team's total that Inning and then resets the board to where we have a 0.555 RE + the 1.00 Run that's already scored. That's a significant Run Expectancy INCREASE for that Inning. A Single with none on and none Out doesn't produce that effect. Nor does a leadoff Double (1.189 RE) or a leadoff Triple (1.482). There isn't an offensive event that produces Runs as efficiently as a Home Run and there's no question that said solo Home Run produces a significantly higher Run Expectancy at any point in an Inning versus any other single non-Out event.

What Welsh keeps saying doesn't make sense on the surface and it doesn't make sense below the surface, around the surface, or above the surface. And it doesn't make sense because it's nonsense.

There are situations such as say bottom of the 9th with no one on base by down 5 where a HR is pretty much equal to a BB, single, double, or the triple (excepting the chance for DP and ability to get force outs at other bases).

I think the theory is usually used here when maybe you would rather get a single than a HR to put "pressure" on the pitcher. I have heard it a lot in this kind of situation when a guy hits a lead off HR and it is deemed rally killing because there is no pressure on the pitcher (saying a BB or single would be better). I doubt that getting a HR as opposed to a single in that situation really matters that greatly (it probably decreases your chances of winning becasue of the DP factor), but I think that is where the so "called rally killing HR" theory is often used.

Chip R
06-21-2006, 12:18 AM
If a homer is a rally killer then if we gave up a single, why not just throw the ball to centerfield and let the guy have a inside the parker to nip that "rally" in the bud?

Now that's logic. :thumbup: The very idea that a home run - even a solo home run - is a rally killer is absurd.

TOBTTReds
06-21-2006, 12:34 AM
Here is my question, and it is based off of english more than baseball:

How can a solo homerun kill a rally? Isn't a rally, in baseball, when you have something going, like runners on base? How can you kill a rally that doesn't exist? There is already no one on base, so you aren't killing a rally!!! I could understand more that a two-run homer is a rally killer if you need 6 runs, but you can't kill a rally if no one is on base! Think of it this way, you can't kill someone who is already dead.

jimbo
06-21-2006, 12:36 AM
Maybe the words "rally killer" isn't the proper way of describing what some are saying. Call it whatever, but if I'm down by 3 runs in the 9th inning I want baserunners, not solo home runs.

SteelSD
06-21-2006, 01:38 AM
There are situations such as say bottom of the 9th with no one on base by down 5 where a HR is pretty much equal to a BB, single, double, or the triple (excepting the chance for DP and ability to get force outs at other bases).

I think the theory is usually used here when maybe you would rather get a single than a HR to put "pressure" on the pitcher. I have heard it a lot in this kind of situation when a guy hits a lead off HR and it is deemed rally killing because there is no pressure on the pitcher (saying a BB or single would be better). I doubt that getting a HR as opposed to a single in that situation really matters that greatly (it probably decreases your chances of winning becasue of the DP factor), but I think that is where the so "called rally killing HR" theory is often used.

Oh, I know why folks try to call them "rally-killers". The problem is they're only looking at potential positive outcomes (i.e. other non-Out events) rather than properly identifying that we can't just choose "HR or other non-Out event". And smith did a great job a page back identifying that if those HR were really "rally-killers", then opposing defenses could do a fine job of just allowing a single to turn into a HR. At no time would any rational person do that.

And I did go to the link posted by IslandRed and I entered the situations he was talking about into the matrix at the top of the page. Here's what I found:

Situation 1: Bottom of 9th, -3 Runs, 0 On, 0 Out

Total Games: 4,961
Win Expectancy: 3.5%

Situation 2: Bottom of 9th, -3 Runs, Runner on 1st, 0 Out

Total Games: 1,236
Win Expectancy: 8.8%

Situation 3: Bottom of 9th, -3 Runs, Runner on 1st, 1 Out

Total Games: 1,580
Win Expectancy: 3.2%

Situation 4: Bottom of 9th, -2 Runs, 0 On, 0 Out

Total Games: 6,215
Win Expectancy: 7.8%

Situation 5: Bottom of 9th, -2 Runs, Runner on 1st, 0 Out

Total Games: 1,614
Win Expectancy: 15.1%

Situation 6: Bottom of 9th, -2 Runs, Runner on 1st, 1 Out

Total Games: 1,888
Win Expectancy: 9.5%

Now, let's take a look at what we can most reasonably expect. First, we cannot just change a HR into a Runner on 1st even if we wanted to. There's no "HR or Single (or BB)" scenario that can exist without factoring in potential Out events that suppress Win Expectancy. And, as stated very aptly in this thread by others (TeamBoone?) a solo Home Run does not prevent the next hitter from reaching base. There's no "rally" to kill because there's no "rally" to begin with.

But even if we could, take a look at the Win Expectancy for Situations 5 and 6 and compare them with Situations 2 and 3. That's telling and it's telling because the true "rally-killing" events are OUTS.

Teams from 1979-1990, 1991-1999, and 2000-2004 have produced winning percentages per Scenario that match up like this:

Situation 1: .035
Situation 4: .078

Situation 2: .088
Situation 5: .151

Situation 3: .032
Situation 6: .095

Those are the real matchups and they're demonstrably in favor of a team starting an Inning one Run closer. While Situation 2 appears to have an advantage versus Situation 5, that advantage is immediately crushed by starting the 9th one Run closer to the opposition and our Win Probability for Situation 4 (the leadoff HR) holds longer through a first Out event. Here's the kicker...

Situation 7: Bottom of 9th, -3 Runs, Runner on 1st, 2 Out

Total Games: 1,573
Win Expectancy: 1.0%


Situation 8: Bottom of 9th, -2 Runs, Runner on 1st, 2 Out

Total Games: 1,856
Win Expectancy: 4.1%

There you go. It's actually more probable that at team, when down to it's last Out and two Runs down, will win a Game with a Runner on 1st than will a team that comes into the bottom of the 9th when down by 3 Runs. Let me say that again- coming into the bottom of the 9th Inning three Runs down will result in a lower Win Probability than if you've come into that Inning two Runs down and have produced a Runner on 1st with one Out left.

Those expectancy differentials are striking because baseball Innings are dynamic systems within a dynamic system. Over the course of that final Inning, a solo HR smooths out Win Probability which makes it more likely that a team can win the game before that all-important 27th Out. There's no scenario I've been able to locate that tells us that being one Run closer to the opponent offers a significantly lower probability of winning the ballgame during a static game state or during the dynamic system that is a MLB Inning. The data just isn't there. That's not a Chris Welsh thing. It's just a baseball thing.

SteelSD
06-21-2006, 01:41 AM
Maybe the words "rally killer" isn't the proper way of describing what some are saying. Call it whatever, but if I'm down by 3 runs in the 9th inning I want baserunners, not solo home runs.

No, you want solo Home Runs because solo Home Runs ARE baserunners who advance 360 feet. I want baserunners too. I just want them all to go as many feet as they can without being called out.

TeamBoone
06-21-2006, 02:19 AM
Maybe the words "rally killer" isn't the proper way of describing what some are saying. Call it whatever, but if I'm down by 3 runs in the 9th inning I want baserunners, not solo home runs.

The Reds have hit 3 back-to-back homers already this year.

jimbo
06-21-2006, 02:33 AM
The Reds have hit 3 back-to-back homers already this year.

True, but being 3 runs down, back-to-back home runs still leaves you down a run. I still would rather have baserunners in that situation, I don't want to rely on back-to-back-to-back home runs to get me back in the game. It's just about different philosophies.

In the past homestand, the Reds hit a total of 16 solo home runs which contributed to a 2-8 record.

Ron Madden
06-21-2006, 05:13 AM
True, but being 3 runs down, back-to-back home runs still leaves you down a run. I still would rather have baserunners in that situation, I don't want to rely on back-to-back-to-back home runs to get me back in the game. It's just about different philosophies.

In the past homestand, the Reds hit a total of 16 solo home runs which contributed to a 2-8 record.

If my team is down 3 runs and we only had 3 outs to catch up. I'd take as many runs as I could get as fast as I could get'em.

MaineRed
06-21-2006, 06:59 AM
Many of you are going off what you WANT to happen in that situation instead of what usually does happen which is what what Welsch was going on.

OldXOhio
06-21-2006, 09:20 AM
Many of you are going off what you WANT to happen in that situation .

Like more runs? Imagine that.


instead of what usually does happen which is what what Welsch was going on.

Therein lies the difference. Welsh is working off hypotheticals. Those of us who disagree with his notion are basing our opinion on facts.

RFS62
06-21-2006, 09:30 AM
The only support I can think of for Welsh's argument is the fact that baserunners put the defense in different alignments and the pitcher in a stretch. These factors probably improve the odds for the offense.

But not enough to make his proposition sensible, IMO.

westofyou
06-21-2006, 11:25 AM
Many of you are going off what you WANT to happen in that situation instead of what usually does happen which is what what Welsch was going on.

Let's say the score is 4-0

If a team is down 4 runs or more what "usually" happens in the ninth inning (99.5%) is a team loses. (that's data from 73 MLB seasons)

I'll take runs, over hits and over the "myth" of what the mood is in the dugout because of a said hit. simply because the reduction of runs is a greater hurdle than anything else.

TeamBoone
06-21-2006, 12:02 PM
True, but being 3 runs down, back-to-back home runs still leaves you down a run. I still would rather have baserunners in that situation, I don't want to rely on back-to-back-to-back home runs to get me back in the game. It's just about different philosophies.

In the past homestand, the Reds hit a total of 16 solo home runs which contributed to a 2-8 record.

In my mind, you take what you can get in that situation.

If players could hit at will, they'd do it each and every time at the plate. It's not quite that easy.

jimbo
06-21-2006, 01:11 PM
Good discussion......we'll just have to agree to disagree. I just do not think that whole notion is as "absurd" and "insane" and some say. There are plenty of managers and coaches in the baseball world who will agree with that thinking.

smith288
06-21-2006, 01:12 PM
True, but being 3 runs down, back-to-back home runs still leaves you down a run. I still would rather have baserunners in that situation, I don't want to rely on back-to-back-to-back home runs to get me back in the game. It's just about different philosophies.

In the past homestand, the Reds hit a total of 16 solo home runs which contributed to a 2-8 record.
Hmmm. So in theory, a homerun isnt a baserunner to you?

I think this whole conversation is centered around an emotion the dugout feels when a guy gets a basehit in the 9th inning and only down 1 or 2 runs.

I will be the first to admit that the emotion is different with 2 singles and down by 3 than 1 homerun and down by 2.

But still... an argument based on a possible emotion in a dugout that may or may not effect the flow of the game? Meh.

RedLegsToday
06-21-2006, 01:44 PM
The only support I can think of for Welsh's argument is the fact that baserunners put the defense in different alignments and the pitcher in a stretch. These factors probably improve the odds for the offense.

In this situation though, would the pitcher even pitch from the stretch? Would the team try to hold the runner at 1st? Down 3, the runner on first doesn't matter. The defense would be at doubleplay depth though, so, that would have some small effect. I'd still rather have the run from the home run though.

dabvu2498
06-21-2006, 01:46 PM
In this situation though, would the pitcher even pitch from the stretch? Would the team try to hold the runner at 1st?
With 0 outs, yes.
With 1 outs, most likely.
With 2 outs, probably not.

MaineRed
06-21-2006, 04:30 PM
Like more runs? Imagine that.

Therein lies the difference. Welsh is working off hypotheticals. Those of us who disagree with his notion are basing our opinion on facts.

If I saw some hard core facts that showed Welsch is wrong, I'd stop disputing it.

The first set of facts posted in this thread showed Welsch is actually correct. But since many of you disagreed, you disregarded them. But if someone post numbers showing the opposite, that is the final word?

Love how that works. This is baseball OldX, there are quirks. A fat guy who loved to eat hot dogs is the games number one icon, not Albert Einstein.

IslandRed
06-21-2006, 06:16 PM
If I saw some hard core facts that showed Welsch is wrong, I'd stop disputing it.

The first set of facts posted in this thread showed Welsch is actually correct. But since many of you disagreed, you disregarded them. But if someone post numbers showing the opposite, that is the final word?


If Welsh had said "that homer was nice, but the Mets would be just as likely to come back if he'd hit a single instead," that's supportable. But implicit in the notion of a "rally-killing" home run is that the home run genuinely hurts the team's chances of winning. Like I said, the first set of facts I posted said that in that specific situation, hitting a single actually provided a slight Win Expectancy edge over homering. But it was a very slight edge, and it only applies to certain very specific longshot situations. I'm comfortable saying that having looked at many situations in the data, there is no circumstance under which I will object to a leadoff home run.

But here's the problem: if Welsh had brought up the homer-as-rallykiller thing just the once, and I dug up the data I did, I'd be impressed with his understanding of the situation. But he's brought it up more than once, in situations where he's not even close to right.

SteelSD
06-21-2006, 07:53 PM
If I saw some hard core facts that showed Welsch is wrong, I'd stop disputing it.

The first set of facts posted in this thread showed Welsch is actually correct. But since many of you disagreed, you disregarded them. But if someone post numbers showing the opposite, that is the final word?

Love how that works. This is baseball OldX, there are quirks. A fat guy who loved to eat hot dogs is the games number one icon, not Albert Einstein.

I already posted cold hard facts showing just how incorrect Welsh was. Twice.

Patrick Bateman
06-21-2006, 08:07 PM
A HR is the best case scenario for a batter no matter what. At times it may be just as helpful as another baserunner, but it still gets you 1 run closer which is as good as it gets in one single at-bat.

I don't see how a HR can kill a rally especially when you lead off an inning. There is no rally to begin with and you are in the same position except being 1 run closer with the same opportunity to start a rally.

I can see when you are trying to come back from a large deficit in the last inning where you could state that you would rather hypothetically get a true baserunner to put pressure on the pitcher, but in no way can a HR in that situation (or in any other) be considered a negative event.