Posted by burnsy483 on 3/2/2015 7:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 3/2/2015 6:49:00 PM (view original):
Maybe you don't understand the difference between probability and absolutes?

Assuming my math is right, the 127 player-seasons in history with 30 HR average a .287/.369/.523 triple slash with a 122 OPS+.  The 364 player-seasons in history with 20 HR average .275/.349/.465 with a 112 OPS+.  So yeah, if I have to gamble here, it's legitimate to take the 30-HR guy.  He's more likely to be the better player.

10J suited is going to beat pocket aces 20% of the time, 21.5% if one of the aces isn't in the 10J suit.  Doesn't mean I'm not going to gamble on the pocket aces every time in that matchup.  Sure, you're still missing a lot of information, IE the entire board.  But any good poker player is calling an all-in preflop every time with AA.  And that doesn't make him stupid.

Miketec must hate poker.

I NEED MORE INFO! THIS GAME IS RETARDED! (flips table, leaves)

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/2/2015 7:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/2/2015 7:23:00 PM (view original):
It is a silly scenario. Dahs explained my point to you though. The fact that any rational person (I give some people too much credit sometimes) would prefer the odds of the 30 HR player over the 20 HR player, yet picking the player in the K scenario is basically a coin flip, helps to show you how irrelevant Ks are to an offensive player.

No, any rational person would say "Need more info".    Homers don't necessarily tell you the value of a player.

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 7:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/2/2015 7:16:00 PM (view original):
There's absolutely a correlation between more outs and less runs.

But that isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about different kinds of outs.

If you look at the 2400+ team seasons since 1920, there is absolutely zero correlation between the amount of runs a team scores and the amount of times the team strikes out.

I ran the numbers this morning just to be sure.

The coefficient of OBP to R is 0.80. For strikeouts, the number is 0.06.

Since 1920.

Brilliant.

So you're mixing data from all sorts of different eras (pre-integration, WW2, post-integration, 5 different sets of expansion, mid-60's pitching era, the DH era, the steroid era, and the post-steroid era, etc.), and not getting a correlation.

Brilliant.

Posted by dahsdebater on 3/2/2015 7:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 7:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/2/2015 7:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/2/2015 7:23:00 PM (view original):
It is a silly scenario. Dahs explained my point to you though. The fact that any rational person (I give some people too much credit sometimes) would prefer the odds of the 30 HR player over the 20 HR player, yet picking the player in the K scenario is basically a coin flip, helps to show you how irrelevant Ks are to an offensive player.

No, any rational person would say "Need more info".    Homers don't necessarily tell you the value of a player.

But homers good.  More homers must be gooder.

Ironic that the one guy who thinks that strikeouts are worse than groundouts is trying to paint anyone else in caveman speech...

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 7:53:00 PM (view original):
I've already told you.  The current post-steroid era.  2005-2014.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/2/2015 8:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 7:53:00 PM (view original):
I've already told you.  The current post-steroid era.  2005-2014.

And if there still isn't a correlation, will you admit that an out is an out?

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 8:17:00 PM (view original):
An out is NOT an out.

If you actually watched baseball, you would understand that.

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/2/2015 8:19:00 PM (view original):
You think he's going to answer a direct yes/no question? Hahahahaha