Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2016 9:17:00 PM (view original):
I know that balls in play can become:

• hits
• ROE
• productive outs
• non-productive outs
• double plays

I know that strikeouts can become:

• non-productive outs

Did I miss anything?

Ok, no disagreement here. But we're talking about after-the-fact analysis of outs in play. Outs in play can become:

• productive outs
• non-productive outs
• double plays
• errors

Once you take the hits out of the equation outs in play are only slightly better than Ks. Groundouts are slightly worse than Ks because the vast majority of double plays occur on these outs and a small majority of productive outs are made on flyballs in the modern baseball environment.

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that there is even a different between a groundball and a groundout makes this discussion kinda pointless, though. When you're looking back at a season's worth of stats, you know which groundballs turned into outs. They can be differentiated. It's not a black box. Not sure why you're having such a hard time understanding that.

Posted by sjpoker on 6/24/2016 9:48:00 PM (view original):
Mmmm. Yeah not sure about that methodology. If there's a strikeout, or the hitter walks, or even if there's a fielders choice or flyout, the previous runner did not score. The productive out definitively helped score a run.

And attributing the negative value of the GIDP only to the batter is a fallacy as well. Because that is implying that the runner did not make a mistake.

What percentage of GIDP exactly would you attribute to "the runner making a mistake?"

There's no way it's 1%. I'd say that's a pretty damn irrelevant line of thinking.

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/24/2016 9:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/24/2016 9:48:00 PM (view original):
Mmmm. Yeah not sure about that methodology. If there's a strikeout, or the hitter walks, or even if there's a fielders choice or flyout, the previous runner did not score. The productive out definitively helped score a run.

And attributing the negative value of the GIDP only to the batter is a fallacy as well. Because that is implying that the runner did not make a mistake.

What percentage of GIDP exactly would you attribute to "the runner making a mistake?"

There's no way it's 1%. I'd say that's a pretty damn irrelevant line of thinking.

BL is a big boy. He can answer. Why don't you go back to riding the short bus and 'looking smart'.

Posted by sjpoker on 6/24/2016 9:48:00 PM (view original):
Mmmm. Yeah not sure about that methodology. If there's a strikeout, or the hitter walks, or even if there's a fielders choice or flyout, the previous runner did not score. The productive out definitively helped score a run.

And attributing the negative value of the GIDP only to the batter is a fallacy as well. Because that is implying that the runner did not make a mistake.

You can get those values in 2 ways: Monte Carlo modeling using real-world event probabilities and regression fitting of inning-by-inning run outputs to events occurring within that inning. The results are very similar, which is what you would expect since the computational model is based on real-world probabilities fit to large amounts of data. The latter method is basically an exact measurement of the real run-scoring outcome of events and should be close to exactly correct to the average value assuming sufficient sample sizes. For rare events this may be a problem, but for relatively common events, like Ks, groundouts, and groundball double plays, they should be quite good.

Posted by sjpoker on 6/24/2016 10:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/24/2016 9:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/24/2016 9:48:00 PM (view original):
Mmmm. Yeah not sure about that methodology. If there's a strikeout, or the hitter walks, or even if there's a fielders choice or flyout, the previous runner did not score. The productive out definitively helped score a run.

And attributing the negative value of the GIDP only to the batter is a fallacy as well. Because that is implying that the runner did not make a mistake.

What percentage of GIDP exactly would you attribute to "the runner making a mistake?"

There's no way it's 1%. I'd say that's a pretty damn irrelevant line of thinking.

BL is a big boy. He can answer. Why don't you go back to riding the short bus and 'looking smart'.

Comes off real strong when the guy who doesn't even understand basic methods of statistical analysis starts insulting my intelligence.

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/24/2016 5:18:00 PM (view original):
Tec is mostly just being an argumentative douche.

JTP is actually as stupid as he seems. If I were he, I would probably shut up. Every time he posts he illustrates that he doesn't even understand the concept of the discussion.

Uh oh...we offended dahs's delicate sensibilities. I haven't said anything nearly as stupid as "I WANT GUYS WHO DON'T PUT THE BALL IN PLAY!!"

Posted by sjpoker on 6/24/2016 7:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/24/2016 5:18:00 PM (view original):
Tec is mostly just being an argumentative douche.

JTP is actually as stupid as he seems. If I were he, I would probably shut up. Every time he posts he illustrates that he doesn't even understand the concept of the discussion.

But you dahs? I can continue to be insulting to you. Every time one of these come up you deviate from the discussion trying to draw attention to yourself.

You're basically an idiot trying to look smart.

This basically sums up dahs in one sentence. Nice work, SJ.

Posted by sjpoker on 6/24/2016 9:48:00 PM (view original):
Mmmm. Yeah not sure about that methodology. If there's a strikeout, or the hitter walks, or even if there's a fielders choice or flyout, the previous runner did not score. The productive out definitively helped score a run.

And attributing the negative value of the GIDP only to the batter is a fallacy as well. Because that is implying that the runner did not make a mistake.

And what methodology did you use?

I want to know a percentage for a GIDP on a ground ball in play with a runner on first and less than two outs. When you factor in hits, errors, FC, etc., let's say the odds of a double play on a groundball are 25%.

So there`s a 75% chance of a hit, a productive out (only play is at first) or a neutral out (FC, lead runner out). So yes, I'll risk the DP to get a ball in play over a K.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/24/2016 9:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2016 9:17:00 PM (view original):
I know that balls in play can become:

• hits
• ROE
• productive outs
• non-productive outs
• double plays

I know that strikeouts can become:

• non-productive outs

Did I miss anything?

So you understand that, when we're comparing certain types of outs to other types of outs, they can't become anything, right?

They're outs.

Do you understand that, when looking at baseball events after they happened, they can't become anything other than what they were, right?

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/24/2016 10:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/24/2016 7:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/24/2016 5:18:00 PM (view original):
Tec is mostly just being an argumentative douche.

JTP is actually as stupid as he seems. If I were he, I would probably shut up. Every time he posts he illustrates that he doesn't even understand the concept of the discussion.

But you dahs? I can continue to be insulting to you. Every time one of these come up you deviate from the discussion trying to draw attention to yourself.

You're basically an idiot trying to look smart.

This basically sums up dahs in one sentence. Nice work, SJ.

He's a tourist. The only reason he says anything, is to impress the rest of us. He has no real conviction over anything he says. Bad luck is a guy who has conviction. Most guys would have quit this string a long time ago because their feelings would have gotten hurt. So I admire that.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/24/2016 4:54:00 PM (view original):
Says the guy who continues to argue in circles.

You agree with dahs that it's better to have a guy who strikes out than a guy who grounds out. Then you turn around and agree it's stupid to want a guy who K's over a guy who puts the ball in play.

I know this may be hard for you to grasp, but - the guy who grounds out more puts the ball in play more. When you strike out, you can't put the ball in play.

Please let me know you understand this concept before we move on.

Do you even recognize that the relationship between balls in play and outs in play is basically fixed for any given player, barring a substantial change in approach?

A guy generally hits the ball about as hard one season as the next unless he's way outside of his prime and is improving or declining rapidly. Over sample sizes on the order of a full season, he's not likely to have a whole lot more balls "find a hole" than he did the season before. If he made a certain number of outs one year, he'll probably make about the same number the next year. Luck plays a role, but it can go either way, right?

If player A is a soft hitter who doesn't K much, and player B crushes the ball but swings and misses a lot because of that big swing, it's not inconceivable that they could wind up hitting for the same average. This is the basic mechanism by which Chris Davis and Nori Aoki both hit .286 in 2013. Arguably Davis got a little bit lucky to hit for that average, but it's not way off from his career number. He's hit in that neighborhood in a number of seasons. It's because he hits the ball harder than Aoki when he makes contact. He will do that consistently every year. So yeah, he puts less balls in play, predictably. He also gets more hits on the balls he puts in play, predictably. So the Ks don't mean he's a lesser hitter. It's just a different approach/skillset.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2016 10:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/24/2016 9:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2016 9:17:00 PM (view original):
I know that balls in play can become:

• hits
• ROE
• productive outs
• non-productive outs
• double plays

I know that strikeouts can become:

• non-productive outs

Did I miss anything?

So you understand that, when we're comparing certain types of outs to other types of outs, they can't become anything, right?

They're outs.

Do you understand that, when looking at baseball events after they happened, they can't become anything other than what they were, right?

Yeah. That's my point.

It's why the fly out in your inning A was no better or worse than the K's in inning B.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/24/2016 10:27:00 PM (view original):
I want to know a percentage for a GIDP on a ground ball in play with a runner on first and less than two outs. When you factor in hits, errors, FC, etc., let's say the odds of a double play on a groundball are 25%.

So there`s a 75% chance of a hit, a productive out (only play is at first) or a neutral out (FC, lead runner out). So yes, I'll risk the DP to get a ball in play over a K.

I don't think anyone would prefer a K to a groundball.

I said I would take a K over a groundout.

Do you understand the difference?

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/24/2016 10:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/24/2016 10:27:00 PM (view original):
I want to know a percentage for a GIDP on a ground ball in play with a runner on first and less than two outs. When you factor in hits, errors, FC, etc., let's say the odds of a double play on a groundball are 25%.

So there`s a 75% chance of a hit, a productive out (only play is at first) or a neutral out (FC, lead runner out). So yes, I'll risk the DP to get a ball in play over a K.

I don't think anyone would prefer a K to a groundball.

I said I would take a K over a groundout.

Do you understand the difference?

He does not. Still.