Care to explain?

Or maybe I can talk this out.

Youre saying that non-strikeout outs can have value. So, for example*, if there's a guy on second and the batter grounds out, moving the runner to third, the batter added value to his team. Correct?


*This is just an example, I'm not saying it's the only or best example.

Yeah, thanks, but I don't need for you to explain for me the things that you asked me to explain.

Whenever a hitter hits a non-foul ball (not necessarily a ball in play, since BIP inexplicably excludes home runs), it carries the potential (according to BABIP) to become a base hit around 30% of the time. A little more if you factored in the HR's that are excluded from BABIP.

So the other 70% or so become outs (though a small percentage of those may become ROE). Some of those outs in play advance runners. Some of those outs may become your "disastrous" GIDP. But before the final outcome is resolved, all fairly hit batted balls have at least 30% potential of being a base hit, with another percentage of them advancing runners, and another percentage becoming your disastrous GIDP.

Strikeouts carry 0% potential of becoming base hits. Strikeouts carry 0% potential of advancing runners. And yes, strikeouts also carry 0% potential of becoming your disastrous GIDP.

Would you, or would you not agree, that 30+% chance of something positive happening (base hits, HR or advancing runners), countered by a much smaller percentage of something negative happening (GIDP), is different than 0% chance or something positive (or "disastrous") happening?

And which would you prefer: 30+%, or 0%?

A) both guys in this example had the same amount of hits

B) BABIP doesn't include HR because HR aren't in play.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 12:20:00 PM (view original):
A) both guys in this example had the same amount of hits

B) BABIP doesn't include HR because HR aren't in play.

A) No ****.

B) No ****.

So which would you prefer: the 30+% chance of something positive happening (even if they all turn out to be outs in play), or the 0% chance of something positive happening?

Or maybe I can talk this out.

It seems that the ONLY stick up your *** about outs in play versus strikeouts is the potential for an out in play to turn into your "disastrous" GIDP.

Is that correct?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 10:26:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 10:20:00 AM (view original):
Good Lord.

Why do you think that I agree with you?

Player A hits .300/.400/.500 over a season (600 PAs) with 185 strikeouts.
Player B hits .300/.400/.500 over a season (600 PAs) with 65 strikeouts.

Are they virtually the same player?

Yes, they are virtually the same player it terms of value.

I don't see how you can make that argument. Somewhere Bill James is scratching his nuts.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 11:36:00 AM (view original):
Or maybe I can talk this out.

Youre saying that non-strikeout outs can have value. So, for example*, if there's a guy on second and the batter grounds out, moving the runner to third, the batter added value to his team. Correct?


*This is just an example, I'm not saying it's the only or best example.

Is this correct?

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 12:25:00 PM (view original):
So which would you prefer: the 30+% chance of something positive happening (even if they all turn out to be outs in play), or the 0% chance of something positive happening?

We aren't talking about the chance of a hit. We're talking about the value of plays that are already outs.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 1:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 11:36:00 AM (view original):
Or maybe I can talk this out.

Youre saying that non-strikeout outs can have value. So, for example*, if there's a guy on second and the batter grounds out, moving the runner to third, the batter added value to his team. Correct?


*This is just an example, I'm not saying it's the only or best example.

Is this correct?

Relative to the value of the batter striking out and leaving the runner on second, yes. He's added value to his team.

One out, runner on third, is better than one out, runner on second.

Do you not agree?

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 1:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 1:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 11:36:00 AM (view original):
Or maybe I can talk this out.

Youre saying that non-strikeout outs can have value. So, for example*, if there's a guy on second and the batter grounds out, moving the runner to third, the batter added value to his team. Correct?


*This is just an example, I'm not saying it's the only or best example.

Is this correct?

Relative to the value of the batter striking out and leaving the runner on second, yes. He's added value to his team.

One out, runner on third, is better than one out, runner on second.

Do you not agree?

For the sake of the argument let's agree that the batter is actually adding value by grounding out and moving the guy from second to third.**

He added that value regardless of whether or not the run eventually scores from third, correct?


**creating an out there is technically negative value, but moving the runner makes it less negative than an out without moving the runner, so I agree.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 1:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 12:25:00 PM (view original):
So which would you prefer: the 30+% chance of something positive happening (even if they all turn out to be outs in play), or the 0% chance of something positive happening?

We aren't talking about the chance of a hit. We're talking about the value of plays that are already outs.

A batted ball is not an out until it's an out. Before the out is made, it has a 30+% chance of being a hit, or an ROE.

Strikeouts have 0% chance of being a hit. Or an ROE.

People who understand baseball will understand this. Because it's pretty basic.

Do you need a picture or something to help you understand?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 1:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 1:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 1:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 11:36:00 AM (view original):
Or maybe I can talk this out.

Youre saying that non-strikeout outs can have value. So, for example*, if there's a guy on second and the batter grounds out, moving the runner to third, the batter added value to his team. Correct?


*This is just an example, I'm not saying it's the only or best example.

Is this correct?

Relative to the value of the batter striking out and leaving the runner on second, yes. He's added value to his team.

One out, runner on third, is better than one out, runner on second.

Do you not agree?

For the sake of the argument let's agree that the batter is actually adding value by grounding out and moving the guy from second to third.**

He added that value regardless of whether or not the run eventually scores from third, correct?


**creating an out there is technically negative value, but moving the runner makes it less negative than an out without moving the runner, so I agree.

It's not for the sake of argument. It's a cold, hard fact. He added value by advancing the runner rather than leaving him at the previous base.

Do you not agree?

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 1:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 1:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 12:25:00 PM (view original):
So which would you prefer: the 30+% chance of something positive happening (even if they all turn out to be outs in play), or the 0% chance of something positive happening?

We aren't talking about the chance of a hit. We're talking about the value of plays that are already outs.

A batted ball is not an out until it's an out. Before the out is made, it has a 30+% chance of being a hit, or an ROE.

Strikeouts have 0% chance of being a hit. Or an ROE.

People who understand baseball will understand this. Because it's pretty basic.

Do you need a picture or something to help you understand?

For the 6 millionth time, a ball in play that isn't yet an out is always better than an out. But we're comparing two complete seasons with identical hit/out rates, so the potential of a hit doesn't apply.