Posted by bad_luck on 2/26/2015 11:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/26/2015 9:34:00 PM (view original):
If I haven't made an argument (according to you), then what am I not grasping (according to you)?

Well, to start, Trout's goal to strike out less is not contrary to the fact that an out is an out. He's trying to make less outs, not other types of outs.

Tell me you understand that.

I understand that his intent is to make less outs.  My disagreement is about "an out is an out".  All outs are not the same.

Posted by dahsdebater on 2/27/2015 12:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 2/26/2015 11:47:00 PM (view original):
And instead of using some ****** graph that shows no real numbers, how about showing some numbers....like I did.

Was this meant to be ironic?  You gave a few dozen numbers, BL gave thousands of the exact same type of number, and you somehow think your tiny sample size is more relevant?

It's next to impossible for me to read on my iPhone. Part if it's my shirty eyesight, but all I see is a big blob Toss some numbers out instead of a crappy graphic.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/26/2015 11:55:00 PM (view original):
There's only 30 teams. Are you telling me that you think the team with the 9th most k's will win less games than the team with the 21st most k's BECAUSE they struck out a little more?

You didn't answer the question.


Looking at the numbers, I'd rather err on the side of caution and be 21st because teams that k less seem to average more wins.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/27/2015 5:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/26/2015 11:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/26/2015 9:34:00 PM (view original):
If I haven't made an argument (according to you), then what am I not grasping (according to you)?

Well, to start, Trout's goal to strike out less is not contrary to the fact that an out is an out. He's trying to make less outs, not other types of outs.

Tell me you understand that.

I understand that his intent is to make less outs.  My disagreement is about "an out is an out".  All outs are not the same.

And this is really what it all boils down to.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/26/2015 4:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/26/2015 4:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/26/2015 4:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/26/2015 3:54:00 PM (view original):
Does wanting to strike out less and convert those AB into hits only apply to Trout?

Nope and it also doesn't apply to, "an out is an out."

No one has ever argued that strikeouts are the same as balls in play or that players shouldn't try to get hits. Just that, once you're out, how you made that out doesn't matter.

And that's where your basic ignorance about baseball displays itself for all the world to see.

Is a ground out that advances a runner from second to third the same as a strikeout?

Is a fly out that scores a runner from third the same as a strikeout?

For God's sake, even a ground ball force-out that "replaces" a slow runner at first with a faster runner at first is a marginal improvement, and is better than a strikeout.

Why do National League pitchers bunt when there's runners on base and less than two outs?  Why don't their managers just have them swing away with the high likelihood that they'll whiff?  After all, all outs are the same, correct?

BL never answered this.

Posted by The Taint on 2/27/2015 5:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 2/27/2015 12:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 2/26/2015 11:47:00 PM (view original):
And instead of using some ****** graph that shows no real numbers, how about showing some numbers....like I did.

Was this meant to be ironic?  You gave a few dozen numbers, BL gave thousands of the exact same type of number, and you somehow think your tiny sample size is more relevant?

It's next to impossible for me to read on my iPhone. Part if it's my shirty eyesight, but all I see is a big blob Toss some numbers out instead of a crappy graphic.

LOL. It is numbers. It's many more numbers than you showed. 

Posted by The Taint on 2/27/2015 6:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/27/2015 5:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/26/2015 11:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/26/2015 9:34:00 PM (view original):
If I haven't made an argument (according to you), then what am I not grasping (according to you)?

Well, to start, Trout's goal to strike out less is not contrary to the fact that an out is an out. He's trying to make less outs, not other types of outs.

Tell me you understand that.

I understand that his intent is to make less outs.  My disagreement is about "an out is an out".  All outs are not the same.

And this is really what it all boils down to.

Correct. Some outs move runners along, and are better than strikeouts. Other outs are twice as bad as strikeouts. And that's where it evens out.

Man on 2nd and no outs, when the batter strikes out, I do get frustrated, because that was the worse case scenario (putting aside the line-out DP up the middle). That said, if you change the mindset of said batter so much that he isn't trying to drive the ball too much and is simply ensuring contact, he likely becomes a worse hitter.

For the "strikeouts are horrible" crowd - if I told you that you could have a player who strikes out 75 times in 600 atbats, or a player who strikes out 125 times in 600 atbats, are you automatically thinking "I would obviously prefer the guy who struck out 75 times"?

Why would anyone think that based on such limited information?

Mr.75Ks hits .212 with 2 homers.
Mr.125Ks hit .317 with 33 homers.

Would you AUTOMATICALLY take the guy with 75 Ks?

That's a retarded question to ask.   Do better or stop posting. 

It's a hypothetical, Mike. You know no other info but the strikeouts.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2015 8:21:00 AM (view original):
That's a retarded question to ask.   Do better or stop posting. 

This still holds true.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2015 8:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2015 8:21:00 AM (view original):
That's a retarded question to ask.   Do better or stop posting. 

This still holds true.

You hate hypotheticals. Fine. You're not so much a "I HATEZ STRIKEOUTS!" guy anyway, you just like to argue.

I'll help. A 6 WAR guy vs a 7 WAR guy, I'll take the 7 WAR guy, obviously. I may have made the wrong decision, but that would be the obvious response for me.

Is there an obvious response to the strikeout question?

No, it's a retarded question to ask.

One guy hits 4 homers, another hits 15.   Do you automatically take 15 homer guy?

Stop being retarded on Friday.