And yes, BR includes ROE in their WAR calculation.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2016 12:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2016 11:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2016 11:47:00 AM (view original):
So, if I didn't watch the game because the stats would tell me who was productive, how would I know who reached on an error and who, you know, helped his team score runs?

What?

If you want to know what happened in an individual game, you should watch it.

If you want to know who was good over a span of time, you need stats.

Do you not care who helped their team win?

Yes, I do care. Are we taking about the storyline of one game or determining who helped their team win more games over the course of a season?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2016 11:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/21/2016 11:56:00 AM (view original):
Is strikeout rate and ROE factored into WAR or OPS+? Or do they both look like outs in either calculation?

Do you think hitters should get positive credit for ROE?

If you believe that a hitter's job is to get on base without making an out, then yes.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/21/2016 12:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2016 11:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/21/2016 11:56:00 AM (view original):
Is strikeout rate and ROE factored into WAR or OPS+? Or do they both look like outs in either calculation?

Do you think hitters should get positive credit for ROE?

If you believe that a hitter's job is to get on base without making an out, then yes.

No, I'm asking you. Do you think hitters should get positive credit for ROE?

Posted by tecwrg on 6/21/2016 12:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2016 11:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/21/2016 11:56:00 AM (view original):
Is strikeout rate and ROE factored into WAR or OPS+? Or do they both look like outs in either calculation?

Do you think hitters should get positive credit for ROE?

If you believe that a hitter's job is to get on base without making an out, then yes.

Unless the hitter is Edgar Martinez and he reached via walk, then **** that guy, right?

Look BL, lets say you have two players that over 10 consecutive ABs with runners on base.

Player 1 strikes out 10 times.

Player 2 records 10 outs without a strikeout.

While it is possible for them to both be equally unproductive, Player 1's 10 K's are guaranteed to be unproductive. Sure, there could be a steal attempt or
Player 1 could be the recipient of a dropped called strike 3 and reached first. But none of those events are under his control.

Player 2's 10 outs would all be based on contact of some sort. Throwing out bunts with 2 strikes and a few other situations, a flyout (fair or foul) can bring a run home from third. A groundout can bring a run home. A hard groundout can cause an error. A ball in play can - potentially - score a run, where in almost all cases a K does not.

Based just on that, a batted ball out can be better than K. So based on that, the statement 'all outs are the same' is bullshit.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2016 12:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/21/2016 12:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2016 11:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/21/2016 11:56:00 AM (view original):
Is strikeout rate and ROE factored into WAR or OPS+? Or do they both look like outs in either calculation?

Do you think hitters should get positive credit for ROE?

If you believe that a hitter's job is to get on base without making an out, then yes.

No, I'm asking you. Do you think hitters should get positive credit for ROE?

Seeing that hitters get credit for doing little more than just being in the batters box on intentional walks or reaching via HBP, then I'd say yes.

ROE is the result of doing something, i.e. putting the ball in play, as opposed to being on the receiving end of an intentional walk or a HBP where all you have to do is stand in the batters box and do nothing.

Do you not agree?

Just curious (because i haven't looked)... Does B-R track reached-on-error stats? Who, if anyone, tracks this historically?

Posted by sjpoker on 6/21/2016 12:14:00 PM (view original):
Look BL, lets say you have two players that over 10 consecutive ABs with runners on base.

Player 1 strikes out 10 times.

Player 2 records 10 outs without a strikeout.

While it is possible for them to both be equally unproductive, Player 1's 10 K's are guaranteed to be unproductive. Sure, there could be a steal attempt or
Player 1 could be the recipient of a dropped called strike 3 and reached first. But none of those events are under his control.

Player 2's 10 outs would all be based on contact of some sort. Throwing out bunts with 2 strikes and a few other situations, a flyout (fair or foul) can bring a run home from third. A groundout can bring a run home. A hard groundout can cause an error. A ball in play can - potentially - score a run, where in almost all cases a K does not.

Based just on that, a batted ball out can be better than K. So based on that, the statement 'all outs are the same' is bullshit.

What if player 2 grounded into 10 double plays. Would that still be better?

Posted by toddcommish on 6/21/2016 12:16:00 PM (view original):
Just curious (because i haven't looked)... Does B-R track reached-on-error stats? Who, if anyone, tracks this historically?

Yes. We have complete ROE back to the 1970s.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/21/2016 12:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2016 12:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/21/2016 12:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2016 11:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/21/2016 11:56:00 AM (view original):
Is strikeout rate and ROE factored into WAR or OPS+? Or do they both look like outs in either calculation?

Do you think hitters should get positive credit for ROE?

If you believe that a hitter's job is to get on base without making an out, then yes.

No, I'm asking you. Do you think hitters should get positive credit for ROE?

Seeing that hitters get credit for doing little more than just being in the batters box on intentional walks or reaching via HBP, then I'd say yes.

ROE is the result of doing something, i.e. putting the ball in play, as opposed to being on the receiving end of an intentional walk or a HBP where all you have to do is stand in the batters box and do nothing.

Do you not agree?

Actually, I don't think there's a wrong answer here. I think ROE shouldn't go against the hitters OBP, but it also shouldn't count as a hit. Treating it like an IBB is probably the best solution.

So waitaminnit... "An out is an out", unless....
- hitter reaches on an error (and possibly advances a runner)
- hitter reaches on a strikeout that the catcher doesn't catch
- hits a grounder that advances a runner
- hits a flyball that advances a runner
- hits into a double-play (worse than a plain old out)

And we have ROE data since the 70's which makes all sorts of historical significance.... aside from the first 90 years of the game.

Posted by toddcommish on 6/21/2016 12:36:00 PM (view original):
So waitaminnit... "An out is an out", unless....
- hitter reaches on an error (and possibly advances a runner)
- hitter reaches on a strikeout that the catcher doesn't catch
- hits a grounder that advances a runner
- hits a flyball that advances a runner
- hits into a double-play (worse than a plain old out)

And we have ROE data since the 70's which makes all sorts of historical significance.... aside from the first 90 years of the game.

Do we need to go back to the start just for you?

Roll back however many pages to the start of this and see where I said:

1) My argument is that when you look at X player's stats, how he made his outs doesn't matter. How often he made them is what matters.

2) You seem to be arguing that there are situations where a certain type of out would be preferable to another type. Example deep fly ball to score a runner vs pop up. I've never denied that these situations exist but they just don't matter much in the big picture. Teams that strikeout less don't score more runs. Teams that make all outs less frequently do score more runs.

Or maybe you'll believe it from MikeT23:

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/16/2016 1:35:00 PM (view original):
For ****'s sake. This has been done time and time again.

By and large, the type of out is irrelevant. For every advanced runner or sacrifice fly to score a run, there is a double play grounder.

To recap the latest retarded spin that the forum's resident retard is now putting forth:

How a player makes outs in individual ABs and games matters.
How a player makes outs over the course of an entire season doesn't matter.

Because, apparently, the fact that season starts are compilation of all the individual AB's and games is irrelevant.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2016 10:20:00 AM (view original):
The goal is to know who was productive, who helped his team win games. Could be a game, a week, a month, a season or a career.

Of course, most of us are ignoring the fact that you only care if his WAR makes him HOF-worthy.

And, yes, I unblocked you for that. Because you're ****** and I like to watch you squirm.

This.

BL doesn't care about individual games. About whether a team won or lost. He cares about "Hall of Fame or not?"