Posted by burnsy483 on 2/27/2015 7:55:00 AM (view original):
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"?

for tec

Posted by bad_luck on 3/2/2015 1:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 1:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/2/2015 12:58:00 PM (view original):
But not strikeouts, right?

Because how a hitter makes his outs really doesn't matter.

What do strikeouts have to do with OBP and slugging?

Another desperate "I need to be in an internet argument to get attention" ploy on your part?

You don't think outs and OBP are related?

Outs and OBP are related.  But the kinds of outs are not relevant to OBP.

You don't understand that?

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

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/27/2015 7:55:00 AM (view original):
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"?

for tec

Of course not.  There's not enough information provided to make anything close to an informed decision.

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 3:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/2/2015 1:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 1:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/2/2015 12:58:00 PM (view original):
But not strikeouts, right?

Because how a hitter makes his outs really doesn't matter.

What do strikeouts have to do with OBP and slugging?

Another desperate "I need to be in an internet argument to get attention" ploy on your part?

You don't think outs and OBP are related?

Outs and OBP are related.  But the kinds of outs are not relevant to OBP.

You don't understand that?

You're right, how you make outs doesn't impact OBP. How you make outs also doesn't impact player value, because an out is an out.

OK - If I offered you someone who hit 30 homers, or someone who hit 20 homers, in 600 atbats, are you taking the guy who hit 30 homers?

Posted by bad_luck on 3/2/2015 3:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 3:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/2/2015 1:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 1:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/2/2015 12:58:00 PM (view original):
But not strikeouts, right?

Because how a hitter makes his outs really doesn't matter.

What do strikeouts have to do with OBP and slugging?

Another desperate "I need to be in an internet argument to get attention" ploy on your part?

You don't think outs and OBP are related?

Outs and OBP are related.  But the kinds of outs are not relevant to OBP.

You don't understand that?

You're right, how you make outs doesn't impact OBP. How you make outs also doesn't impact player value, because an out is an out.

How you make outs may affect how an inning plays out with respect to advancing runners from one base to the next.

Sure.

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/2/2015 3:23:00 PM (view original):
OK - If I offered you someone who hit 30 homers, or someone who hit 20 homers, in 600 atbats, are you taking the guy who hit 30 homers?

Again, too little context.

You interview two guys for a job.  Do you hire the one wearing the blue tie or the one wearing the green tie?

Posted by bad_luck on 3/2/2015 3:27:00 PM (view original):
Sure.

Cool.

We done here?

Overall, an out is an out.

If you told me, "wow it was really ****** for Trout to strike out with a runner on third and one out," I'd agree.

If you told me that Trout would have been better in 2014 if he had made more outs in play, I'd disagree.

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 3:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/2/2015 3:23:00 PM (view original):
OK - If I offered you someone who hit 30 homers, or someone who hit 20 homers, in 600 atbats, are you taking the guy who hit 30 homers?

Again, too little context.

You interview two guys for a job.  Do you hire the one wearing the blue tie or the one wearing the green tie?

Oh I have no idea. Tie color has nothing to do with future job performance. If one graduated from Harvard, and another from SUNY Buffalo, knowing nothing else, I'd take the guy from Harvard.

I'd certainly take the guy with 30 homers over the guy with 20 homers. The odds likely aren't much different over who's better, but I'd think the 30-homer guy would likely be. You wouldn't take him? 

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/2/2015 3:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 3:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/2/2015 3:23:00 PM (view original):
OK - If I offered you someone who hit 30 homers, or someone who hit 20 homers, in 600 atbats, are you taking the guy who hit 30 homers?

Again, too little context.

You interview two guys for a job.  Do you hire the one wearing the blue tie or the one wearing the green tie?

Oh I have no idea. Tie color has nothing to do with future job performance. If one graduated from Harvard, and another from SUNY Buffalo, knowing nothing else, I'd take the guy from Harvard.

I'd certainly take the guy with 30 homers over the guy with 20 homers. The odds likely aren't much different over who's better, but I'd think the 30-homer guy would likely be. You wouldn't take him? 

I guess by that logic, you would have taken Steve Finley (28 HRs in 560 ABs) over Tony Gwynn (17 HRs in 592 ABs) in 1997.

Good job.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/2/2015 3:30:00 PM (view original):
Overall, an out is an out.

If you told me, "wow it was really ****** for Trout to strike out with a runner on third and one out," I'd agree.

If you told me that Trout would have been better in 2014 if he had made more outs in play, I'd disagree.

So you're just rehashing last week's argument again, with nothing new to add?

Good job.  Thanks for wasting my time.

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 3:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/2/2015 3:30:00 PM (view original):
Overall, an out is an out.

If you told me, "wow it was really ****** for Trout to strike out with a runner on third and one out," I'd agree.

If you told me that Trout would have been better in 2014 if he had made more outs in play, I'd disagree.

So you're just rehashing last week's argument again, with nothing new to add?

Good job.  Thanks for wasting my time.

Says the guy who started the thread.

Yes, that's my main argument. An out is an out. Do you agree or disagree with this statement:

Trout would have been better in 2014 if he had made more outs in play

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 3:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/2/2015 3:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 3:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/2/2015 3:23:00 PM (view original):
OK - If I offered you someone who hit 30 homers, or someone who hit 20 homers, in 600 atbats, are you taking the guy who hit 30 homers?

Again, too little context.

You interview two guys for a job.  Do you hire the one wearing the blue tie or the one wearing the green tie?

Oh I have no idea. Tie color has nothing to do with future job performance. If one graduated from Harvard, and another from SUNY Buffalo, knowing nothing else, I'd take the guy from Harvard.

I'd certainly take the guy with 30 homers over the guy with 20 homers. The odds likely aren't much different over who's better, but I'd think the 30-homer guy would likely be. You wouldn't take him? 

I guess by that logic, you would have taken Steve Finley (28 HRs in 560 ABs) over Tony Gwynn (17 HRs in 592 ABs) in 1997.

Good job.

If you actually used the logic I gave, you wouldn't have said that. But that's not surprising. 

The fact that you don't agree that the guy who hits 30 homers is likely better than the guy who hits 20 homers shows what you know about baseball. (using an argument you've used!)