Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 1:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 1:30:00 PM (view original):
No, this has taken an interesting and unexpected turn.

Are you saying that outs in play, because they once had the potential to become hits, actually add value?

Yes.

Let me make an analogy.

Let's say you buy a $2 lottery ticket every week. The lottery has a grand prize of $1,000,000. You're a lucky guy, thought you never hit the jackpot, but on average, you win $10 every five weeks or so. Over the long run, you break exactly even. Exactly the same as if you never bought lottery tickets at all.

Are you better off still continuing to buy lottery tickets, or should you stop?

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 1:14:00 PM (view original):

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 1:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 1:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 12:27:00 PM (view original):
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?

Please answer this.

Please answer this.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 1:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 1:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 1:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 1:25:00 PM (view original):
If his outs are still outs, what value did he add?

Were all of his "outs" really outs?

You can't tell from his triple slash because ROE looks like outs. One can assume that over a full season, he's reaching base occasionally via ROE.

Also, it's safe to assume that he was advancing runners on some outs in play, putting his team in better offensive position than he would have via strikeouts.

They keep ROE stats, so feel free to add those to both guy's BA/OBP if you want.

Regarding advancing runners, if the hitter grounds out and advances a runner, he added value regardless of whether or not the runner eventually scores, right?

Already asked and answered.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/23/2016 1:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 1:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 1:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 1:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 1:25:00 PM (view original):
If his outs are still outs, what value did he add?

Were all of his "outs" really outs?

You can't tell from his triple slash because ROE looks like outs. One can assume that over a full season, he's reaching base occasionally via ROE.

Also, it's safe to assume that he was advancing runners on some outs in play, putting his team in better offensive position than he would have via strikeouts.

They keep ROE stats, so feel free to add those to both guy's BA/OBP if you want.

Regarding advancing runners, if the hitter grounds out and advances a runner, he added value regardless of whether or not the runner eventually scores, right?

Already asked and answered.

Holy ****.

If a guy hits a triple and watches the next three whiff on 3 pitches, did he add value?

I bet your precious WAR says he did.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 1:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 1:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 1:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 12:27:00 PM (view original):
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?

Please answer this.

Please answer this.

Please answer this.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 1:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 1:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 1:30:00 PM (view original):
No, this has taken an interesting and unexpected turn.

Are you saying that outs in play, because they once had the potential to become hits, actually add value?

Yes.

Let me make an analogy.

Let's say you buy a $2 lottery ticket every week. The lottery has a grand prize of $1,000,000. You're a lucky guy, thought you never hit the jackpot, but on average, you win $10 every five weeks or so. Over the long run, you break exactly even. Exactly the same as if you never bought lottery tickets at all.

Are you better off still continuing to buy lottery tickets, or should you stop?

So you're saying hitters should go up to the plate trying to get a hit?

Yeah.

No ****.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 2:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 1:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 1:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 1:30:00 PM (view original):
No, this has taken an interesting and unexpected turn.

Are you saying that outs in play, because they once had the potential to become hits, actually add value?

Yes.

Let me make an analogy.

Let's say you buy a $2 lottery ticket every week. The lottery has a grand prize of $1,000,000. You're a lucky guy, thought you never hit the jackpot, but on average, you win $10 every five weeks or so. Over the long run, you break exactly even. Exactly the same as if you never bought lottery tickets at all.

Are you better off still continuing to buy lottery tickets, or should you stop?

So you're saying hitters should go up to the plate trying to get a hit?

Yeah.

No ****.

Following up on this, if we get to count the hitter's "potential" as positive value even though he made an out, when does that start?

Like, is he adding value when he comes to the plate? Or is just being listed on the lineup card enough to add "potential" value?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 1:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 1:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 1:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 1:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 12:27:00 PM (view original):
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?

Please answer this.

Please answer this.

Please answer this.

I'm not the one with the stick up my ***. I don't have a problem with outs in play (other than the fact that all outs suck for the offense).

Posted by bad_luck on 6/16/2016 1:45:00 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!!!"

No **** a ball in play is better than a K for the hitter. Someone get this guy a Nobel prize.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 2:32:00 PM (view original):
So, you're saying that a ball in play is better than an out.


Hmmm, I wonder if someone else has said that repeatedly in this thread?

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 2:32:00 PM (view original):
So, you're saying that a ball in play is better than an out.


Hmmm, I wonder if someone else has said that repeatedly in this thread?

A ball in play is better than an out.

A ball in play is better than a strikeout.

An out in play is better than a strikeout.

Let me know if you disagree on any of those.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 2:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 1:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 1:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 1:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 1:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 12:27:00 PM (view original):
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?

Please answer this.

Please answer this.

Please answer this.

I'm not the one with the stick up my ***. I don't have a problem with outs in play (other than the fact that all outs suck for the offense).

So you're not afraid of double plays?

Did you not refer to them as "a disaster" multiple times?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 1:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 1:14:00 PM (view original):

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?

I see this answer but I want to make sure we're clear that the value was added regardless of whether or not the guy eventually scores.