Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2016 12:05:00 PM (view original):

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?

I've already answered this.

We could be talking about one game, one week, one month, one season or an entire career. You only seem to care about season/career. Is that because you don't like to watch games?

Posted by tecwrg on 6/21/2016 1:06:00 PM (view original):
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.

Individual situations vary. Since hitters don't get to decide when they make their outs in play, guys that make a lot of outs in play do so both when it helps the team and when it hurts the team (relative a common out).

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2016 1:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2016 12:05:00 PM (view original):

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?

I've already answered this.

We could be talking about one game, one week, one month, one season or an entire career. You only seem to care about season/career. Is that because you don't like to watch games?

If your goal is to evaluate a major league player, one game doesn't tell you anything. Or do think 4 PAs is all you need to see?

If your goal is to know what happened in a certain game, watch the game and don't worry about this stuff.

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.

The difference is you cannot do anything positive with a whiff. Teams don't make errors on whiffs and runners don't advance.

That's why it's different for a pitcher to get a strikeout. He's removed the possibility of advancing runners/making errors. A win for the pitcher.
A hitter striking out has removed the possibility of contributing or, in the case of a double play, doing more damage. A wash for the hitter.

My argument has always been a ball in play is better than a strikeout. Because the idea of hitting is to do something positive not avoid doing something negative. A batter can't go to the plate thinking "****, I can't hit the ball because it might be a double play." He's thinking "The big *** brunette in Section C, Seat 2 is gonna blow me after I knock in the game winner!!!"

This.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2016 1:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2016 1:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2016 12:05:00 PM (view original):

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?

I've already answered this.

We could be talking about one game, one week, one month, one season or an entire career. You only seem to care about season/career. Is that because you don't like to watch games?

If your goal is to evaluate a major league player, one game doesn't tell you anything. Or do think 4 PAs is all you need to see?

If your goal is to know what happened in a certain game, watch the game and don't worry about this stuff.

My goal is to be able to figure out who helped a team win. Could be a game, a week, a month, a season or a career. In an individual game or week, I'm not sure a box score or a slash line tells me. But, for you, you don't need to watch the games because "stats tell me who was productive".

Isn't that your contention?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2016 1:17:00 PM (view original):

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.

The difference is you cannot do anything positive with a whiff. Teams don't make errors on whiffs and runners don't advance.

That's why it's different for a pitcher to get a strikeout. He's removed the possibility of advancing runners/making errors. A win for the pitcher.
A hitter striking out has removed the possibility of contributing or, in the case of a double play, doing more damage. A wash for the hitter.

My argument has always been a ball in play is better than a strikeout. Because the idea of hitting is to do something positive not avoid doing something negative. A batter can't go to the plate thinking "****, I can't hit the ball because it might be a double play." He's thinking "The big *** brunette in Section C, Seat 2 is gonna blow me after I knock in the game winner!!!"

This.

This is correct.

But nowhere in there do you find "I don't need to watch games to tell me who was productive, I have stats."

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2016 1:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2016 1:17:00 PM (view original):

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.

The difference is you cannot do anything positive with a whiff. Teams don't make errors on whiffs and runners don't advance.

That's why it's different for a pitcher to get a strikeout. He's removed the possibility of advancing runners/making errors. A win for the pitcher.
A hitter striking out has removed the possibility of contributing or, in the case of a double play, doing more damage. A wash for the hitter.

My argument has always been a ball in play is better than a strikeout. Because the idea of hitting is to do something positive not avoid doing something negative. A batter can't go to the plate thinking "****, I can't hit the ball because it might be a double play." He's thinking "The big *** brunette in Section C, Seat 2 is gonna blow me after I knock in the game winner!!!"

This.

This is correct.

But nowhere in there do you find "I don't need to watch games to tell me who was productive, I have stats."

Watching games is fun but you literally can't watch all of the games in one day, let alone all of the games in a season. You HAVE to have the stats to know anything meaningful.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2016 1:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2016 1:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2016 1:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2016 12:05:00 PM (view original):

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?

I've already answered this.

We could be talking about one game, one week, one month, one season or an entire career. You only seem to care about season/career. Is that because you don't like to watch games?

If your goal is to evaluate a major league player, one game doesn't tell you anything. Or do think 4 PAs is all you need to see?

If your goal is to know what happened in a certain game, watch the game and don't worry about this stuff.

My goal is to be able to figure out who helped a team win. Could be a game, a week, a month, a season or a career. In an individual game or week, I'm not sure a box score or a slash line tells me. But, for you, you don't need to watch the games because "stats tell me who was productive".

Isn't that your contention?

So who helped his team win more, Ron Gant or Eric Davis?

Please answer without using stats, just your memory of the games you saw them play.

Thanks.

This is a classic MikeT twist. He actually agrees with me on the original argument (an out is an out) but he wants to argue sooooo bad that he unblocked me and changed the subject of the argument.

Sad.

No, the original argument is "I don't need to watch games, I have stats."

It's the secondary argument that I agree about with regards to the course of a season/career. I could go back and find where I pointed out, in individual games/situations, "an out is an out" is stupid. Because, in specific instances, it's just not true. I'm pretty sure, in that post, I pointed out that you're arguing season/career while no one else is.

And, in a more recent post, I noted that you only care if a player's WAR makes him HOF-worthy. That individual games do not matter to you. I think, for the rest of us, we're far more invested in a game, series or even a season than you are. So you firmly believe you're right. And, to an extent, you are because you're making a different argument. I doubt, over the course of a career, that a guy who strikes out every 14 AB is going to have a much higher ROE rate than a guy who strikes out every 4.5 AB. But, in a game or series, he might reach base twice on error while the other guy just totes his bat to the dugout after another whiff.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/19/2016 8:45:00 PM (view original):
This whole argument can probably be summarized with...............How you make an out doesn't matter. Until it does.

This.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2016 1:43:00 PM (view original):
No, the original argument is "I don't need to watch games, I have stats."

It's the secondary argument that I agree about with regards to the course of a season/career. I could go back and find where I pointed out, in individual games/situations, "an out is an out" is stupid. Because, in specific instances, it's just not true. I'm pretty sure, in that post, I pointed out that you're arguing season/career while no one else is.

And, in a more recent post, I noted that you only care if a player's WAR makes him HOF-worthy. That individual games do not matter to you. I think, for the rest of us, we're far more invested in a game, series or even a season than you are. So you firmly believe you're right. And, to an extent, you are because you're making a different argument. I doubt, over the course of a career, that a guy who strikes out every 14 AB is going to have a much higher ROE rate than a guy who strikes out every 4.5 AB. But, in a game or series, he might reach base twice on error while the other guy just totes his bat to the dugout after another whiff.

Please quote where I said that anywhere in this thread.

Please deny that you said it.