Posted by tecwrg on 2/27/2015 12:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/27/2015 11:06:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/27/2015 10:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/27/2015 10:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/27/2015 9:35:00 AM (view original):
Way to avoid the question.

Why do pitchers bunt instead of swinging away with less than two outs and runners on base?

What burns said. The pitcher bunts for the same reason that Trout doesn't: Possible upside of the at bat.

But all outs are equal, aren't they?  How can there be "possible upside"?

Are you retarded?

The upside (or, in the case of the pitchers, lack of upside) of the at bat.

I'm not retarded, but you seem to be because you're making two opposing arguments at the same time.

On the one hand, you're saying that an out made from a ball in play is no different than a strikeout, while on the other hand you're arguing that certain kinds of outs (sac bunts) made by pitchers have more "upside" than strikeouts.

Pick one.  Which is it?

Yeah, you are retarded.

"On the one hand, you're saying that an out made from a ball in play is no different than a strikeout,"

Correct.

"on the other hand you're arguing that certain kinds of outs (sac bunts) made by pitchers have more "upside" than strikeouts."

Not what I said.

Mike Trout never sac bunts, right? We all know why. It would be an incredible waste of an opportunity. The upside of his plate appearance is very, very high. That upside is worth the small risk that he might grenade the inning by hitting into a double play. That upside is also worth the fairly large probability that he might make an out without moving the runners over.

Pitchers, on the other hand, have almost no upside to their plate appearance. If you let them swing away, the chance at a disaster (double play) is high. The chance that they will deliver an extra base hit is almost zero. A strikeout/pop out/shallow flyout is no big deal but, because there's no benefit and only downside to swinging away, it's usually better to have them bunt.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2015 12:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/27/2015 12:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2015 11:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/27/2015 11:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2015 11:29:00 AM (view original):
"So there were 18 times where there was a chance a different kind of out might have been better than a strikeout, and 6 times where a strikeout would have been MUCH better than the out in play"

Is my math bad?    And that's assuming all 18 of those are still outs.   Hell, at least one has to fall in for a hit.

First of all - Outs in play. Outs in play. Outs in play.

But I think I understand. A strikeout is so much better than a double play. It's half the outs, and also leaves a runner on base. Double plays are really bad.

18 times when a different kind of may may have been better. It MIGHT move a runner to 3rd base, or a runner from 1st to 2nd, or score a run! It might have been better. And even if it does move a runner from 2nd to 3rd, there's really no guarantee that that actually helps the team. When the next guy gets out to end the inning, the groundout accomplished no more than the strikeout did.

I'm talking about balls in play.   18 more times in a season.    Sure, most will just be another out.  Maybe it's a productive out, maybe it's a double play.   But, I'm sure you'll agree, some of them will fall in for a hit. 

Ok. I'm not talking about balls in play. I was comparing outs to outs.

What are the other options to a strikeout?  

"might have been better than a strikeout"

If you quoted the rest of the sentence instead of just part of it, you had your answer.

I think, at this point, mike is just ******* with you burns. He knows you're not talking about balls in play, he's playing dumb.

tec on the other hand...

Posted by bad_luck on 2/27/2015 12:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/27/2015 12:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/27/2015 11:06:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/27/2015 10:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/27/2015 10:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/27/2015 9:35:00 AM (view original):
Way to avoid the question.

Why do pitchers bunt instead of swinging away with less than two outs and runners on base?

What burns said. The pitcher bunts for the same reason that Trout doesn't: Possible upside of the at bat.

But all outs are equal, aren't they?  How can there be "possible upside"?

Are you retarded?

The upside (or, in the case of the pitchers, lack of upside) of the at bat.

I'm not retarded, but you seem to be because you're making two opposing arguments at the same time.

On the one hand, you're saying that an out made from a ball in play is no different than a strikeout, while on the other hand you're arguing that certain kinds of outs (sac bunts) made by pitchers have more "upside" than strikeouts.

Pick one.  Which is it?

Yeah, you are retarded.

"On the one hand, you're saying that an out made from a ball in play is no different than a strikeout,"

Correct.

"on the other hand you're arguing that certain kinds of outs (sac bunts) made by pitchers have more "upside" than strikeouts."

Not what I said.

Mike Trout never sac bunts, right? We all know why. It would be an incredible waste of an opportunity. The upside of his plate appearance is very, very high. That upside is worth the small risk that he might grenade the inning by hitting into a double play. That upside is also worth the fairly large probability that he might make an out without moving the runners over.

Pitchers, on the other hand, have almost no upside to their plate appearance. If you let them swing away, the chance at a disaster (double play) is high. The chance that they will deliver an extra base hit is almost zero. A strikeout/pop out/shallow flyout is no big deal but, because there's no benefit and only downside to swinging away, it's usually better to have them bunt.

I like how you say "that's not what I said", and then you "clarify" by saying exactly that.

That takes a special talent.

The difference between a bunt and a K in that situation is small. But, yes, there is a small benefit to moving that runner over. I've never denied that.

BL, tec is trying to get you to say that not all outs are equal, that a sac bunt is better than your average out because it moves the runner.

You're right, tec, not all outs are equal. Some are better than strikeouts, some are worse than strikeouts. The vast majority are equal to strikeouts. In the grand scheme of things, however, it evens itself out over the course of a season, to the point where strikeouts come across as just another out.

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/27/2015 1:21:00 PM (view original):
BL, tec is trying to get you to say that not all outs are equal, that a sac bunt is better than your average out because it moves the runner.

You're right, tec, not all outs are equal. Some are better than strikeouts, some are worse than strikeouts. The vast majority are equal to strikeouts. In the grand scheme of things, however, it evens itself out over the course of a season, to the point where strikeouts come across as just another out.

This.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/26/2015 4:26:00 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.

You're vastly overestimating the value of an out advancing a runner.

Here's how it works.

Most outs are equally ******. All outs leading off an inning, all third outs, all strikeouts, all pop ups, all shallow flies, all comebackers, all infield lineouts, all outs with no one on base.

Some outs are slightly less worse. You've listed some.

Some outs are catastrophically worse than the ones listed in the first group: double plays.

The reason that K's don't correlate to runs scored is that those three groups (specifically 2 and 3) tend to balance out over the course of the year. Any small benefit gained from making several less ****** outs is wiped out by a double play or two.

Pretty sure that means tec agrees with this:

Most outs are equally ******. All outs leading off an inning, all third outs, all strikeouts, all pop ups, all shallow flies, all comebackers, all infield lineouts, all outs with no one on base.

Some outs are slightly less worse. You've listed some.

Some outs are catastrophically worse than the ones listed in the first group: double plays.

Tec is also conveniently ignoring the fact that, as far as the stat line is concerned, sac bunts aren't technically outs.  They don't count against your stat line.  Sac flies and sac bunts are very intentional, far above average outs achieved by design.  They're a lot different from a random out in play, which in some cases might have the same value but in many cases doesn't.  Assuming the pitcher is a good bunter of the ball, the risk of a GIDP, for example, is extremely minimal.

Also worth pointing out that pitchers actually only recorded sac bunts a little over 10% of their PAs last year.  In the other almost 90% of plate appearances, their managers determined that even the worst hitters on the team were more valuable swinging the bat than giving themselves up.

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/27/2015 1:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2015 12:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/27/2015 12:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2015 11:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/27/2015 11:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2015 11:29:00 AM (view original):
"So there were 18 times where there was a chance a different kind of out might have been better than a strikeout, and 6 times where a strikeout would have been MUCH better than the out in play"

Is my math bad?    And that's assuming all 18 of those are still outs.   Hell, at least one has to fall in for a hit.

First of all - Outs in play. Outs in play. Outs in play.

But I think I understand. A strikeout is so much better than a double play. It's half the outs, and also leaves a runner on base. Double plays are really bad.

18 times when a different kind of may may have been better. It MIGHT move a runner to 3rd base, or a runner from 1st to 2nd, or score a run! It might have been better. And even if it does move a runner from 2nd to 3rd, there's really no guarantee that that actually helps the team. When the next guy gets out to end the inning, the groundout accomplished no more than the strikeout did.

I'm talking about balls in play.   18 more times in a season.    Sure, most will just be another out.  Maybe it's a productive out, maybe it's a double play.   But, I'm sure you'll agree, some of them will fall in for a hit. 

Ok. I'm not talking about balls in play. I was comparing outs to outs.

What are the other options to a strikeout?  

"might have been better than a strikeout"

If you quoted the rest of the sentence instead of just part of it, you had your answer.

A ball in play?   Yeah, sometimes those are hits.   Strikeouts are never hits.  
 
Kinda been my point.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2015 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/27/2015 1:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2015 12:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/27/2015 12:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2015 11:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/27/2015 11:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2015 11:29:00 AM (view original):
"So there were 18 times where there was a chance a different kind of out might have been better than a strikeout, and 6 times where a strikeout would have been MUCH better than the out in play"

Is my math bad?    And that's assuming all 18 of those are still outs.   Hell, at least one has to fall in for a hit.

First of all - Outs in play. Outs in play. Outs in play.

But I think I understand. A strikeout is so much better than a double play. It's half the outs, and also leaves a runner on base. Double plays are really bad.

18 times when a different kind of may may have been better. It MIGHT move a runner to 3rd base, or a runner from 1st to 2nd, or score a run! It might have been better. And even if it does move a runner from 2nd to 3rd, there's really no guarantee that that actually helps the team. When the next guy gets out to end the inning, the groundout accomplished no more than the strikeout did.

I'm talking about balls in play.   18 more times in a season.    Sure, most will just be another out.  Maybe it's a productive out, maybe it's a double play.   But, I'm sure you'll agree, some of them will fall in for a hit. 

Ok. I'm not talking about balls in play. I was comparing outs to outs.

What are the other options to a strikeout?  

"might have been better than a strikeout"

If you quoted the rest of the sentence instead of just part of it, you had your answer.

A ball in play?   Yeah, sometimes those are hits.   Strikeouts are never hits.  
 
Kinda been my point.

No one is arguing against your point. Everyone else is talking about outs in play vs strikeouts.

Try to keep up.

Posted by dahsdebater on 2/27/2015 1:50:00 PM (view original):
Tec is also conveniently ignoring the fact that, as far as the stat line is concerned, sac bunts aren't technically outs.  They don't count against your stat line.  Sac flies and sac bunts are very intentional, far above average outs achieved by design.  They're a lot different from a random out in play, which in some cases might have the same value but in many cases doesn't.  Assuming the pitcher is a good bunter of the ball, the risk of a GIDP, for example, is extremely minimal.

Also worth pointing out that pitchers actually only recorded sac bunts a little over 10% of their PAs last year.  In the other almost 90% of plate appearances, their managers determined that even the worst hitters on the team were more valuable swinging the bat than giving themselves up.

Who's talking about stat lines?  How do stat lines factor into this discussion at all?

Do you have a clue about what's being discussed here?

Way to ignore the meaningful content of what I posted.

Do you have a clue about what's being discussed here?  You're totally grasping at straws.  Using sac bunts as an attempt to justify preferring outs in play to Ks, when

A) even pitchers only sac bunt a little over 10% of the time, reinforcing our constant point that the overwhelming majority of the time Ks are NOT different from any other out
B) the whole point of my first paragraph, which you conveniently ignored, is that sac bunts are not average outs in play; the whole reason they aren't counted against AVG is because it's recognized how above average they are for outs in play; the average non-K out is far less valuable than a sac bunt, pitchers are successful in their sacrifice attempts well over 50% of the time, whereas not nearly 50% of random outs in play are "productive"

Pitchers accumulated just under 5500 plate appearances last season.  The combined to record 558 sac bunts.

Respond.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2015 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/27/2015 1:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2015 12:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/27/2015 12:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2015 11:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/27/2015 11:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2015 11:29:00 AM (view original):
"So there were 18 times where there was a chance a different kind of out might have been better than a strikeout, and 6 times where a strikeout would have been MUCH better than the out in play"

Is my math bad?    And that's assuming all 18 of those are still outs.   Hell, at least one has to fall in for a hit.

First of all - Outs in play. Outs in play. Outs in play.

But I think I understand. A strikeout is so much better than a double play. It's half the outs, and also leaves a runner on base. Double plays are really bad.

18 times when a different kind of may may have been better. It MIGHT move a runner to 3rd base, or a runner from 1st to 2nd, or score a run! It might have been better. And even if it does move a runner from 2nd to 3rd, there's really no guarantee that that actually helps the team. When the next guy gets out to end the inning, the groundout accomplished no more than the strikeout did.

I'm talking about balls in play.   18 more times in a season.    Sure, most will just be another out.  Maybe it's a productive out, maybe it's a double play.   But, I'm sure you'll agree, some of them will fall in for a hit. 

Ok. I'm not talking about balls in play. I was comparing outs to outs.

What are the other options to a strikeout?  

"might have been better than a strikeout"

If you quoted the rest of the sentence instead of just part of it, you had your answer.

A ball in play?   Yeah, sometimes those are hits.   Strikeouts are never hits.  
 
Kinda been my point.

Maybe you're looking at a different quote from what I'm looking at. I don't know what you're quoting. I'm not talking about balls in play. You're trying to have a conversation with yourself right now, I think.

"where there was a chance a different kind of out might have been better than a strikeout"