Here's John:
Using retrosheet data from 2000-2006 and a couple of quickie programs (written in ten minutes) to parse the data, we see the following result (best viewed in fixed font). This is for all of MLB combined; I didn't bother to separate out AL and NL:
2000:
1139 Leadoff HR => 294 2+ run innings, 25.81%
2705 Leadoff BB => 622 2+ run innings, 22.99%
2001:
1026 Leadoff HR => 247 2+ run innings, 24.07%
2238 Leadoff BB => 473 2+ run innings, 21.13%
2002:
1015 Leadoff HR => 229 2+ run innings, 22.56%
2296 Leadoff BB => 508 2+ run innings, 22.12%
2003:
1051 Leadoff HR => 252 2+ run innings, 23.97%
2261 Leadoff BB => 479 2+ run innings, 21.18%
2004:
1071 Leadoff HR => 246 2+ run innings, 22.96%
2321 Leadoff BB => 443 2+ run innings, 19.08%
2005:
979 Leadoff HR => 210 2+ run innings, 21.45%
2135 Leadoff BB => 462 2+ run innings, 21.63%
2006:
1069 Leadoff HR => 260 2+ run innings, 24.32%
2154 Leadoff BB => 490 2+ run innings, 22.75%
(Obviously, "2+ run innings" means innings in which 2 or more runs were scored).
Assuming that the retrosheet data is correct and that I don't suck at programming (iffy), this would seem to support what your correspondents are writing. Also note that Top Analyst Timmy (tm) would have been right in 2005 by the slimmest of margins.
And this from Joel:
Took a stab at the question with the data that I have in my database. It's just Cincinnati Reds games from 2001 to 2006, but it's still 973 games for reference and I checked both the Reds and their opponents in those games.
There were 1179 innings that had a lead-off walk. In those 1179 innings, at least one run score 515 times. At least 2 runs scored 328 times (27.8%). And there was a total of 1132 runs scored in those innings.
There were 589 inning with a lead-off home run. Obviously every inning had a run scored. There were 188 multi-run innings (31.9%) and a total of 956 runs scored in those innings.
I'm pretty sure my queries were right, but I only spot checked them. I'm sure you'll get a plethora of data dumps from nerds like myself. Hopefully we can draw some sort of a conclusion from it.
More analysis welcome, of course. I like to make jokes about dicks and poop and poop-covered dicks and dick-covered poop, but it's also nice to actually be right about something now and then. I think we're nearing a weird through the looking glass point where maybe Timmy wasn't so crazy to be surprised about the study he cited. Nah, still crazy.
Labels: tim mccarver
