Mike Trout Topic

OK then.  So why did you revive this thread after it had died over the weekend, when you had NOTHING NEW TO ADD TO IT?

Troll.
3/2/2015 10:12 PM
I think I added to it this afternoon when you admitted that an out is an out.
3/2/2015 10:15 PM
And here's what I think. If you had "pulled the numbers" and they clearly showed no correlation, you would have been all over posting them here with an "in your FACE" comment.

Shockingly, that hasn't happened. Which can only mean that you're delaying while trying to figure out how to spin the story to prevent you from looking like the baseball-ignorant idiot that you are.

So post them, or don't post them. I don't really care.
3/2/2015 10:21 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 3/2/2015 10:15:00 PM (view original):
I think I added to it this afternoon when you admitted that an out is an out.
When did I do that?
3/2/2015 10:22 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 10:21:00 PM (view original):
And here's what I think. If you had "pulled the numbers" and they clearly showed no correlation, you would have been all over posting them here with an "in your FACE" comment.

Shockingly, that hasn't happened. Which can only mean that you're delaying while trying to figure out how to spin the story to prevent you from looking like the baseball-ignorant idiot that you are.

So post them, or don't post them. I don't really care.
I haven't looked yet. I'm guessing there isn't a correlation but who knows, it might surprise me with a -0.75 or something (it needs to be lower than -0.5 to conclude that there's a correlation). But you won't accept it no matter what so there isn't a point in going though it. Evidence doesn't matter to you. All you'll accept is what you already "know."
3/2/2015 10:30 PM
LOL. "I haven't looked yet".

You're full of ****.
3/2/2015 11:03 PM
Believe whatever you want. The database is on my work network. I left the office just before 5 pacific. I couldn't look it up tonight if I wanted to.
3/2/2015 11:06 PM
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...
I'm a history teacher...baseball wasn't invented by the Paleolithic Era, so no caveman would have said that...nor spoke English. So it also seems out of line to criticize his grammar as well, not knowing what language was being spoken.
3/2/2015 11:15 PM
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.
I assume you are talking about the value of the out. An out that scores a run is more valuable than an out that does not. An out that advances a runner is more valuable than an out that does not. An out that results in only a single out is more valuable than an out that results in two or three outs.



3/2/2015 11:19 PM
Posted by dahsdebater on 3/2/2015 7:47:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/2/2015 7:33:00 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.
Do you understand how SLG percentage works?     Don't you think HR hitters would have a higher one?
Probably.  The easiest reason to say, all else being equal, you want the 30-HR guy.  Of course, all else isn't equal.  As it turns out, in most cases, the 30-HR hitters also hit for a better AVG and walk more, and hit more doubles.
Good hitters tend to get more AB.   So, in most cases, they should have some of these:  Better AVG, more walks, more doubles, more homers. 

You seldom see a .210 hitter get 110 walks, 30 homers, 41 doubles.
3/3/2015 8:51 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 3/2/2015 10:30:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 10:21:00 PM (view original):
And here's what I think. If you had "pulled the numbers" and they clearly showed no correlation, you would have been all over posting them here with an "in your FACE" comment.

Shockingly, that hasn't happened. Which can only mean that you're delaying while trying to figure out how to spin the story to prevent you from looking like the baseball-ignorant idiot that you are.

So post them, or don't post them. I don't really care.
I haven't looked yet. I'm guessing there isn't a correlation but who knows, it might surprise me with a -0.75 or something (it needs to be lower than -0.5 to conclude that there's a correlation). But you won't accept it no matter what so there isn't a point in going though it. Evidence doesn't matter to you. All you'll accept is what you already "know."
So, I was wrong. 

The correlation between runs scored and strikeouts doesn't go back to the END of the steroid era (around 2005).  it goes back to the START of the steroid era (around 1993 / 1994) and is pretty steady and consistent since then.

Perhaps if I went back further (I went back 25 seasons, to 1990), I would find that it goes back even further.

3/3/2015 9:00 AM
Posted by dahsdebater on 3/2/2015 4:45:00 PM (view original):
If we want to make arguments that are at best marginally relevant but sound like they mean something, here you go:

Take the top 30 seasons in history in total K:

25 of them have a wRC+ above 100
they average over 34 HR
they average a .345 OBP; only 2013 Pedro Alvarez OBPs under .300
they average a .488 SLG; only 2011 Drew Stubbs slugs under .400

So the worst hitters in history, per strikeouts, average an .833 OPS.  That's a lot better than average.
This was the post I was referring to earlier today.

You don't get to strike out a lot if you're not doing something valuable when you're not whiffing.     It's sort of like pitcher losses.   If you're not doing something right, you're not getting the opportunity to lose 20.   

Here are some players who struck out more than once every 3 AB since 2000(min 200 PA):
Kelly Shoppach  2012
Brad Eldred 2005
Brett Wallace 2013
Juan Francisco  A couple of times
Jason Dubois  2005

Pretty solid list of All-Stars, isn't it?
3/3/2015 9:55 AM
I think what tec is saying is that Ks as a whole have been steadily increasing, while runs decrease. Which is probably right, but it's interesting that when you look at particular players or teams, you don't see much of a correlation at all. 
3/3/2015 9:59 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 3/3/2015 9:00:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 3/2/2015 10:30:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 10:21:00 PM (view original):
And here's what I think. If you had "pulled the numbers" and they clearly showed no correlation, you would have been all over posting them here with an "in your FACE" comment.

Shockingly, that hasn't happened. Which can only mean that you're delaying while trying to figure out how to spin the story to prevent you from looking like the baseball-ignorant idiot that you are.

So post them, or don't post them. I don't really care.
I haven't looked yet. I'm guessing there isn't a correlation but who knows, it might surprise me with a -0.75 or something (it needs to be lower than -0.5 to conclude that there's a correlation). But you won't accept it no matter what so there isn't a point in going though it. Evidence doesn't matter to you. All you'll accept is what you already "know."
So, I was wrong. 

The correlation between runs scored and strikeouts doesn't go back to the END of the steroid era (around 2005).  it goes back to the START of the steroid era (around 1993 / 1994) and is pretty steady and consistent since then.

Perhaps if I went back further (I went back 25 seasons, to 1990), I would find that it goes back even further.

Interesting. What coefficient?

I have a hard time believing that when the entire history of baseball shows zero correlation (it's actually a hair positive, but so slight it becomes zero). Why would it suddenly change at a time when power was more prevelant than ever?
3/3/2015 10:00 AM
Posted by burnsy483 on 3/3/2015 9:59:00 AM (view original):
I think what tec is saying is that Ks as a whole have been steadily increasing, while runs decrease. Which is probably right, but it's interesting that when you look at particular players or teams, you don't see much of a correlation at all. 
K's have been increasing but it's along with the out rate in general. More outs=less runs. How many of those outs are strikeouts really doesn't matter.
3/3/2015 10:02 AM
◂ Prev 1...24|25|26|27|28...65 Next ▸
Mike Trout Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.