As opposed to arguing that K, K is somehow less "disastrous" than 1B, DP?

The really retarded part of the BL/dahs argument is that you know there are 4 "stations" on the field. Moving to the next one is a plus. You have 3 opportunities to do this. Blowing an opportunity is a negative. But, even if you make it to stations 1-2-3, or help someone else do it, and fail to reach 4, you still contributed.

Teaching baseball to BL/dahs is like teaching Candyland to a 5 y/o.

The other point they continue to miss is that any OUT is a negative, but an out that moves a runner is better than a strikeout. They keep arguing "BUT THE OUT WAS A NEGATIVE!" ignoring that not all negatives are the same.

I would be mildly interested in seeing the net-net of a GIDP with a runner scoring. That can happen in two ways:

• Bases loaded, no outs,GIDP - We've gone from POTENTIAL RUNS to one "certain" run, and we still have a runner on third with two outs. Remember, BL/Dahs, based loaded, no outs, is NOT a guarantee of scoring (expected runs don't count in the real world). --- Compare this to a bases loaded, one out situation (which you would get if the batter struck out). You still have POTENTIAL runs, but you might also get bageled.
• 1st and 3rd, no outs, GIDP - We've gone from POTENTIAL RUNS to one "certain" run, and nobody on base with two outs.- A strikeout leaves 1st and 3rd, but with one out and you might get shut out in the inning... whereas a "disastrous" GIDP guarantees a run.

But in this case you don't end up with a guy at "station 1." You wind up with everyone out.

If you leave a batter on first, then it was a somewhat more productive inning. But if you go 3-up/3-down, that's it. Everybody's out. Period.

Posted by toddcommish on 6/23/2016 5:13:00 PM (view original):
The other point they continue to miss is that any OUT is a negative, but an out that moves a runner is better than a strikeout. They keep arguing "BUT THE OUT WAS A NEGATIVE!" ignoring that not all negatives are the same.

I would be mildly interested in seeing the net-net of a GIDP with a runner scoring. That can happen in two ways:

• Bases loaded, no outs,GIDP - We've gone from POTENTIAL RUNS to one "certain" run, and we still have a runner on third with two outs. Remember, BL/Dahs, based loaded, no outs, is NOT a guarantee of scoring (expected runs don't count in the real world). --- Compare this to a bases loaded, one out situation (which you would get if the batter struck out). You still have POTENTIAL runs, but you might also get bageled.
• 1st and 3rd, no outs, GIDP - We've gone from POTENTIAL RUNS to one "certain" run, and nobody on base with two outs.- A strikeout leaves 1st and 3rd, but with one out and you might get shut out in the inning... whereas a "disastrous" GIDP guarantees a run.

This is probably the only time I'm going to respond to you, because you're level of understanding here is juvenile and getting into a slapfight with a moron is a huge waste of time.

If you asked a Major League manager if he would consider 1 run a good result from an inning that started with first and third and nobody out, what do you think he would say?

What if you asked him about bases loaded with no outs and winding up with 1 run?

Obviously expected runs are not the same as runs. But they're statistical averages. If you have the bases loaded with no out, on average you score over 2 runs in that inning. If you have a GIDP, you raise the minimum from 0 to 1. But you lower the average to below 1.3. That's a huge hit to your expected value for that inning. A K is actually very similar in this scenario, though. They both lower your average run output for the inning into the same range.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/23/2016 4:41:00 PM (view original):
As opposed to arguing that K, K is somehow less "disastrous" than 1B, DP?

My argument is that outs are outs.

One thing I forgot to mention in my response to toddcommish is that any such analysis assumes a WIS-esque vacuum. In reality if you have bases loaded and no outs or first and third with no outs there is a very good chance that whoever's on the mound is not pitching his best. That would suggest that in the real world you would expect to score more runs than the "statistical average." That would make the DP much more costly in the real world than in statsland.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/23/2016 4:50:00 PM (view original):
The really retarded part of the BL/dahs argument is that you know there are 4 "stations" on the field. Moving to the next one is a plus. You have 3 opportunities to do this. Blowing an opportunity is a negative. But, even if you make it to stations 1-2-3, or help someone else do it, and fail to reach 4, you still contributed.

Teaching baseball to BL/dahs is like teaching Candyland to a 5 y/o.

Tell us more about how singles are better than strikeouts.

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/23/2016 5:22:00 PM (view original):
One thing I forgot to mention in my response to toddcommish is that any such analysis assumes a WIS-esque vacuum. In reality if you have bases loaded and no outs or first and third with no outs there is a very good chance that whoever's on the mound is not pitching his best. That would suggest that in the real world you would expect to score more runs than the "statistical average." That would make the DP much more costly in the real world than in statsland.

This is true in a vacuum too, sorta. As league runs per game go up, individual events become more beneficial or costly.

If league average is 2 runs per game, a single (for example), is worth about a third of a run. But if league average is 5 runs per game, a single is worth about half a run. Outs are about 40% less costly at 2 RPG than at 5 RPG.

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/23/2016 3:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/23/2016 3:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/23/2016 2:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 2:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 2:47:00 PM (view original):
Not really. The vast majority of outs aren't "productive" and even the "productive" ones are just slightly less bad than normal outs. And since you take the good with the bad (guys who make a lot of outs in play do so in all situations), double plays more than wipe away any benefit of "productive" outs.

Which inning is preferable, i.e. had more potential to score runs?

A: single, fly out, GIDP

or

B: strikeout, strikeout, strikeout

I love it when you guys are so stupid that you make BLs point for him and you don't even realize it.

Of course A had more potential to score runs. A guy got on base. But they didn't score any runs, and the inning was just as short, in large part because of the massive negative impact of the GIDP.

All of the Ks in your scenario B occurred with the bases empty. An out in play in any of those PA would have had 0 chance of being "productive." You're illustrating clearly why GIDP are so much more harmful than Ks - most Ks come in scenarios where they are no different from outs in play, and DPs are crushing.

I think you need to provide some numbers. You keep talking about GIDP cancelling/balancing out productive outs. I can almost guarantee the average hitter has far less GIDP in a season than productive outs (sacrifices or outs that move a runner up).

Absolutely a K is better than a DP with a runner on first. But you're acting like every ball put in play in that situation will be a DP. Take Alcides Escobar for example - leading the league in outs made and sacrifice hits, yet not even top 20 in GIDP. Clearly double plays don't happen as often as you seem to think.

I did that a day or 2 ago in a response to Mike.

I think Dahs feels left out. Someone should give him a reach around. I am not volunteering.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 2:47:00 PM (view original):
Not really. The vast majority of outs aren't "productive" and even the "productive" ones are just slightly less bad than normal outs. And since you take the good with the bad (guys who make a lot of outs in play do so in all situations), double plays more than wipe away any benefit of "productive" outs.

"Outs are Outs" But here you admit they are not equal. Yet then you go back into the whole "Over the long run" argument. Inconsistent.

Funny how Dahs says I'm juvenile when I'm asking contextual questions to heighten (everyone's) understanding of the situations.

Statheads love their "expected" runs, completely ignoring the reality of the situation, the pitchers involved, where you are in the batting order, the stadium you're playing in, home vs. road, and all the little details that make baseball worth WATCHING. Context MATTERS. A run in Colorado isn't the same as a run in the Kingdome/Astrodome (or whatever counts as the most pitcher-friendly park right now). A run in a game with Kershaw facing Bumgarner isn't the same as a run with Jose Lima facing Mike Hampton.

Even so, I'd like to see the situation-independent expected runs for an average team in an average ballpark for
- Bases loaded, no outs

- Bases loaded, one out (strikeout OR forceout at the plate)
- Runner on third, two outs (GIDP, with a run scoring)
- 1st and 2nd, one out (SacFly)
- 1st and 3rd, one out (SacFly deep enough for runner on 2nd to move up)
- 2nd and 3rd, two outs (nuclear option, after a 1-2-3 GIDP)

Posted by sjpoker on 6/23/2016 5:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 2:47:00 PM (view original):
Not really. The vast majority of outs aren't "productive" and even the "productive" ones are just slightly less bad than normal outs. And since you take the good with the bad (guys who make a lot of outs in play do so in all situations), double plays more than wipe away any benefit of "productive" outs.

"Outs are Outs" But here you admit they are not equal. Yet then you go back into the whole "Over the long run" argument. Inconsistent.

Outs are outs in the context of "did player A strike out too much?"

Assuming his out rate is good, how he made his outs doesn't matter.

Posted by toddcommish on 6/23/2016 5:53:00 PM (view original):
Funny how Dahs says I'm juvenile when I'm asking contextual questions to heighten (everyone's) understanding of the situations.

Statheads love their "expected" runs, completely ignoring the reality of the situation, the pitchers involved, where you are in the batting order, the stadium you're playing in, home vs. road, and all the little details that make baseball worth WATCHING. Context MATTERS. A run in Colorado isn't the same as a run in the Kingdome/Astrodome (or whatever counts as the most pitcher-friendly park right now). A run in a game with Kershaw facing Bumgarner isn't the same as a run with Jose Lima facing Mike Hampton.

Even so, I'd like to see the situation-independent expected runs for an average team in an average ballpark for
- Bases loaded, no outs

- Bases loaded, one out (strikeout OR forceout at the plate)
- Runner on third, two outs (GIDP, with a run scoring)
- 1st and 2nd, one out (SacFly)
- 1st and 3rd, one out (SacFly deep enough for runner on 2nd to move up)
- 2nd and 3rd, two outs (nuclear option, after a 1-2-3 GIDP)

Runners	0 Outs	1 Out	2 Outs
Empty	0.461	0.243	0.095
1 _ _	0.831	0.489	0.214
_ 2 _	1.068	0.644	0.305
1 2 _	1.373	0.908	0.343
_ _ 3	1.426	0.865	0.413
1 _ 3	1.798	1.140	0.471
_ 2 3	1.920	1.352	0.570
1 2 3	2.282	1.520	0.736

That's set to the current(ish) run scoring environment of about 4 runs per game.