Would you trade a home run for two doubles?

[Dojji]

Think of this as just a speculative exercuse, but if it turns into a discussion of some of our less HR-tastic, but nonetheless consistent hitters, I won't mind that much.

 

It's an interesting question to me because of run expectancy. The maximum run expectancy of a homer is 4. The maximum run expectancy of two doubles, assuming no errors or bases advanced on the throw, is 6, and at the end of each double, you have a RISP. By the same token, the MINIMUM run expectancy of two doubles is zero. A homer? One. So if you're in a situation where you need to score a lot of runs you actually want the two doubles. But if it's close and late you probably want the guaranteed minimum one run.

 

I guess the reason this comes up is the Gonzo thread. I think his average and consistency going up in Boston is far more important than his home run power. He's got good oppo power, but I don't care if that results in more homers or more doubles. Also we have a number of hitters up and down the lineup, most notably Pedroia, Lowrie and Youkilis, who have a history of thriving on doubles power and they're an underrated factor in our offensive consistency. Let the Yankees live by the homer and die by the homer.

[a700hitter]

I'll take the Homer. As you point out, the minimum runs scored on the Homer is 1. For a double to score runs, you have to assume there are base runners before the double or hit(s) after the double. I am not quite sure about the purpose of this thread. The choice between 2 doubles or a Homer never presents itself. If I had my druthers, I'd take 2 Homers.

[iortiz]

There's no room to point a tendency or a rule on this, but just as an exercise as well, i will take last 3 games as a sample. Since Game #1 of the doubleheader against Detroit, the Red Sox have scored 7 Rs, 4 of the them were HRs (57%) with ZERO extra-RBIs (besides those 4 RBIs by HRs), resulting in a Win (with a HR in the last Inning) and 2 losses (One of them scoreless), in fact, this offense have not had those amounts of ROBs/RISPs than previous games.

 

Applying your logic and exchanging those HRs for 8 doubles, the maximum Rs expectancy would be 24. If we are close to be a .300 BA team in May, the expectancy of Rs might be at least 7, instead of 4. Now, if you sum those 7 Rs to those 3 Rs which were not produced by HRs in the last 3 games , we were talking about 10 Rs produced, that might be traduced in at least another victory.

 

As you can see, if a team produce more by singles, doubles, triples, smallball game, moving the ROBs, etc. than pure power as last 3 games, in the long term you will have more chances to be a up .500 team.

[redsoxfreak91]

There's no room to point a tendency or a rule on this, but just as an exercise as well, i will take last 3 games as a sample. Since Game #1 of the doubleheader against Detroit, the Red Sox have scored 7 Rs, 4 of the them were HRs (57%) with ZERO extra-RBIs (besides those 4 RBIs by HRs), resulting in a Win (with a HR in the last Inning) and 2 losses (One of them scoreless), in fact, this offense have not had those amounts of ROBs/RISPs than previous games.

 

Applying your logic and exchanging those HRs for 8 doubles, the maximum Rs expectancy would be 24. If we are close to be a .300 BA team in May, the expectancy of Rs might be at least 7, instead of 4. Now, if you sum those 7 Rs to those 3 Rs which were not produced by HRs in the last 3 games , we were talking about 10 Rs produced, that might be traduced in at least another victory.

 

As you can see, if a team produce more by singles, doubles, triples, smallball game, move the ROBs, etc. than pure power as last 3 games, in the long term you will have more chances to be a up .500 team.

 

impressive.......most impressive

[yeszir]

Pretty sure that came out of Google translate

[iortiz]

No google at all, yeszir, right? is it understandable or not?, cause i'm not pretty sure what you meant posting "Pretty sure that came out of Google translate".

[jacksonianmarch]

The appropriate trade would be a 1-2 with a HR or a 2-2 with 2 doubles. In that setting, I take the two doubles every time. But if it is a 1-1 with a HR or a 2-2 with 2 doubles, I take the HR

[iortiz]

The appropriate trade would be a 1-2 with a HR or a 2-2 with 2 doubles. In that setting' date=' I take the two doubles every time. But if it is a 1-1 with a HR or a 2-2 with 2 doubles, I take the HR[/quote']

 

sorry what you mean with 1-2, 2-2, etc.?

[Station 13]

sorry what you mean with 1-2' date=' 2-2, etc.?[/quote']

 

2AB, 1-2 (HR) or 2-2 (2-2B)

[italstallianion]

The appropriate trade would be a 1-2 with a HR or a 2-2 with 2 doubles. In that setting' date=' I take the two doubles every time. But if it is a 1-1 with a HR or a 2-2 with 2 doubles, I take the HR[/quote']

 

 

I agree with this. Especially if I'm being asked as a player rather than a fan.

[RedSoxFaithful]

I would make my decision based on what our teams tendency is hitting with RISP. if we are hitting with RISP as we are in may i'll take the 2 doubles but if it was April I would take the HR since it is a minimum of 1 and the doubles would have to score with a hit with RISP to net at least 1.

 

Jacko also brings up a great point that it would have to be 1-2 with a HR or 2-2 with 2 doubles. Take game one of the doubleheader vs. the Tigers, Ortiz was 1-1 with a HR would I trade that HR for a double and a double in the 11th or 12th, well no not a chance. I still think more often then not I would take the homerun.

 

Seems like a good brain teaser with no real answer. Seems like it depends on the situation and many external factors.

[iortiz]

2AB' date=' 1-2 (HR) or 2-2 (2-2B)[/quote']

 

ahhhh oks, got it. Thanks.

[Youk Of The Nation]

This is an interesting question. 2B or not 2B.

[Dojji]

Can always count on YOTN for the penetrating insights.

[TedWilliams101]

Really guys? Really? 1-2 with a HR will always give you better expectations than 2-2 with 2 doubles. Just assuming a team that gets on base at a .300 clip, the runs expectations will still be lower with a 2 double performance than a single HR performance. Sure, there are times when a player might have 2 bases-clearing doubles while another player has a solo HR, but expectation is a study of LONG TERM RESULTS. In the long term, 1 for 2 with a HR will give you a higher run scored expectation than 2 doubles.

 

Just a logic test: for a double to score a run or more, it requires at least one player to reach base. It also requires at least one player in scoring position the majority of the time. Now you are looking at 10% territory (and that's a generous number). A small percentage of the time, a double will score a run. A TINY percentage of the time a double will score more than one run. The stars have to align to reach the maximum run potential (6 runs). For the HR, 100% of the time you score at least 1 run. Assuming 30% on base, 30% of the time it's 2+ runs. With that assumption, 9% of the time it's 3+ runs, 2.7% 4 runs. That would be an overall expectation of 1.44 runs (0.7x1,0.027x4,0.09x3,0.183x2).

 

With a double: 9% it's 1 run, 2.7% 2 runs, 2.7% 3 runs. 85.6% it doesn't score a run, but adds a base runner. That added runner is then factored into the next hitter. Assuming a .300 average, 30% of the time that runner will score. That comes out to: 0.525 expected runs (expectations of runs scoring from the double + expectation of the subject then scoring). Double that to get the expectations for a 2-2 double performance and you have 1.05 expected runs.

 

I know there's a lot of estimations in there, but I did use the same percentages for both player A and B and based the scoring position odds on percentage of the time an Ellsbury or Pedroia plate appearance results with them in scoring position. Also, I probably should have used the 0.340 OBP of the Sox right now, but the results will be more or less than same: HR has the higher expection.

[ORS]

1/2 with HR is an OPS of 2.500 (.500 OBP/2.000 SLG)

 

2/2 with 2 2B is an OPS of 3.000 (1.000 OBP/2.000 SLG)

 

If those are the choices, seems pretty simple to me. All the stuff about who is on base is context dependent...variables not controlled by the choices.

[yeszir]

I don't disagree with what you're saying but I'm not sure if I agree with you that only 14.4% of doubles result in an RBI. I wasn't able to find any stats on the % of doubles that drove in at least one run. I think you'd also have to consider the fact that a double leaves a man in scoring position for the next batter, which has positive run value as well.