Posted by tecwrg on 6/25/2016 10:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2016 5:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 6/25/2016 5:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2016 5:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 6/25/2016 5:18:00 PM (view original):
You're over-reaching with your statistical argument. Just because there is little correlation between strikeouts and runs scored, doesn't mean "an out is an out". And isolating the past 12 years (of 120 years of actual baseball history). Why not 20 or 30? Is your "unequivocally correct" idea only valid for those years?

The more history you use, the less strikeouts matter.

So you're saying they DO matter in the shorter term...? Actually, this supports what I said about this whole argument, which is over the span of a career, the type of out will lose significance, but in the context of a single game, it makes a big difference.

Not really. There's a very slight negative correlation if you only look at 2007 on (-0.16). The correlation is tiny and I'd guess it has more to do with the league wide dip in OBP. If you use more years, the correlation disappears.

So there's no correlation between run scoring and strikeout rate as long as you disregard the correlation between run scoring and strikeout rate.

Got it.

A) If you look at all seasons, even low run scoring environments in the past, the correlation goes away.

B) It's not a strong enough correlation to really mean anything. You'd have to run a regression controlling for other factors to be sure, but considering how strong the correlation is (and always has been) with OBP/SLG, I'm not going to. Out rates matter. Out types don't.

Posted by sjpoker on 6/25/2016 8:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/25/2016 11:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/24/2016 11:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/24/2016 10:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/24/2016 10:19:00 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.

And what methodology did you use?

Nope. You are trying to redirect. It's not about my opinion. I said we'd listen to you. And that's what I am doing.

The models I presented are not active events. They are history. The plays are over. We are evaluating them after the fact.

We know the fly outs resulted in runs. The GIDPs wound up wiping out - potential - runs. Those are unrealized events. So evaluating a potential event that will not occur against something positive that definitively occurred.

Think about it for a second. Between the two models ,there were the same number outs. But one resulted in 10 runs. The other resulted in zero runs.

Still waiting BL.

BL how could wiping out the 'positive contribution' of the GIDP runner be LARGER than scoring a run?

BL is ducking me. Oh well wasn't something he could answer anyway.

I'm not ducking you, I'm ignoring you. You don't even understand just the basic things like a sac fly is not actually worth a run, even if it drives in a run and I'm tired of trying to explain the same thing to you over and over again.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2016 10:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/25/2016 10:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2016 5:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 6/25/2016 5:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2016 5:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 6/25/2016 5:18:00 PM (view original):
You're over-reaching with your statistical argument. Just because there is little correlation between strikeouts and runs scored, doesn't mean "an out is an out". And isolating the past 12 years (of 120 years of actual baseball history). Why not 20 or 30? Is your "unequivocally correct" idea only valid for those years?

The more history you use, the less strikeouts matter.

So you're saying they DO matter in the shorter term...? Actually, this supports what I said about this whole argument, which is over the span of a career, the type of out will lose significance, but in the context of a single game, it makes a big difference.

Not really. There's a very slight negative correlation if you only look at 2007 on (-0.16). The correlation is tiny and I'd guess it has more to do with the league wide dip in OBP. If you use more years, the correlation disappears.

So there's no correlation between run scoring and strikeout rate as long as you disregard the correlation between run scoring and strikeout rate.

Got it.

A) If you look at all seasons, even low run scoring environments in the past, the correlation goes away.

B) It's not a strong enough correlation to really mean anything. You'd have to run a regression controlling for other factors to be sure, but considering how strong the correlation is (and always has been) with OBP/SLG, I'm not going to. Out rates matter. Out types don't.

So despite the fact that you're now admitting there's a correlation, you're just going to ignore it because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Got it.

Thanks. Have a nice evening.

If you limit your sample to 7 out of 100 years you get a tiny negative correlation. It's something like -0.16. That's not strong enough to draw any conclusions.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2016 10:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/25/2016 8:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/25/2016 11:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/24/2016 11:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/24/2016 10:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/24/2016 10:19:00 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.

And what methodology did you use?

Nope. You are trying to redirect. It's not about my opinion. I said we'd listen to you. And that's what I am doing.

The models I presented are not active events. They are history. The plays are over. We are evaluating them after the fact.

We know the fly outs resulted in runs. The GIDPs wound up wiping out - potential - runs. Those are unrealized events. So evaluating a potential event that will not occur against something positive that definitively occurred.

Think about it for a second. Between the two models ,there were the same number outs. But one resulted in 10 runs. The other resulted in zero runs.

Still waiting BL.

BL how could wiping out the 'positive contribution' of the GIDP runner be LARGER than scoring a run?

BL is ducking me. Oh well wasn't something he could answer anyway.

I'm not ducking you, I'm ignoring you. You don't even understand just the basic things like a sac fly is not actually worth a run, even if it drives in a run and I'm tired of trying to explain the same thing to you over and over again.

And yet you kept calling me out for ignoring you for the same reason. You don't understand that a game will still have 27 outs with a smaller strike zone and fewer Ks.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/25/2016 4:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/25/2016 3:39:00 PM (view original):
Edgar grounded into 190 DPs in his career. He had 77 SF and 10 SH. So, as long as 103 of those 3,764 outs in play moved a runner over, then clearly non-strikeout outs are better over the course of a career than strikeouts.

And I'll bet very good money that way more than 103 of those 3,764 outs were productive.

SF and SH are not counted as ABs, so they're not included in his 3,764 non strikeout ABs that I converted to strikeouts.

I know. But in theory, those are outs that would offset the DP outs, so with those 87 sac flies/hits, he'd need 103 of those additional 3,764 outs to be productive ones (on the premise that a productive out cancels the damage from a DP).

And the fact that the all-time leader in GIDP grounded into one once every 9-10 games for his career should tell dahs that productive outs happen far more frequently.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2016 5:19:00 PM (view original):
The fact that we're 40 pages into this and jtpsops is stil arguing that sometimes ground balls become hits should tell you all you need to know.

So you think this is untrue?

Thank you for verifying that you're an idiot.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/25/2016 10:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2016 10:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/25/2016 8:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/25/2016 11:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/24/2016 11:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/24/2016 10:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/24/2016 10:19:00 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.

And what methodology did you use?

Nope. You are trying to redirect. It's not about my opinion. I said we'd listen to you. And that's what I am doing.

The models I presented are not active events. They are history. The plays are over. We are evaluating them after the fact.

We know the fly outs resulted in runs. The GIDPs wound up wiping out - potential - runs. Those are unrealized events. So evaluating a potential event that will not occur against something positive that definitively occurred.

Think about it for a second. Between the two models ,there were the same number outs. But one resulted in 10 runs. The other resulted in zero runs.

Still waiting BL.

BL how could wiping out the 'positive contribution' of the GIDP runner be LARGER than scoring a run?

BL is ducking me. Oh well wasn't something he could answer anyway.

I'm not ducking you, I'm ignoring you. You don't even understand just the basic things like a sac fly is not actually worth a run, even if it drives in a run and I'm tired of trying to explain the same thing to you over and over again.

And yet you kept calling me out for ignoring you for the same reason. You don't understand that a game will still have 27 outs with a smaller strike zone and fewer Ks.

Dumb. ****.

A smaller strike zone reduces the frequency of outs.

You've turned to frequency as a distraction, to hide the fact that more balls in play = more outs in play and more runs. Thus fewer strikeouts leads to more scoring.

Dumbass.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/25/2016 11:25:00 PM (view original):
You've turned to frequency as a distraction, to hide the fact that more balls in play = more outs in play and more runs. Thus fewer strikeouts leads to more scoring.

Dumbass.

I didn't bring up the strike zone issue, that was tec.

Obviously balls in play are better than outs.

more balls in play = more outs in play and more runs. Once again showing off your impeccable reading comprehension skills.

And you've said in the past you think a smaller zone would increase scoring.

Posted by toddcommish on 6/25/2016 5:21:00 PM (view original):
And I admit to a BIG blind spot. I just realized your name is "dahsdebater" which is probably a reference to DA High School debate team, which means you like arguing for arguing's sake... and fiddling with statistical "facts" just to take a contrary position... or support a tenuous one.

"Duh HS debater" might be more accurate.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/25/2016 11:36:00 PM (view original):
more balls in play = more outs in play and more runs. Once again showing off your impeccable reading comprehension skills.

And you've said in the past you think a smaller zone would increase scoring.

Maybe more outs in play but definitely less outs overall. The less outs part is the important part.

There aren't less outs, moron.

27. TWENTY-SEVEN. Regardless of the size of the zone, there will be 27 outs in a game.

And you have the nerve to call others idiots. Wow.

I'm still talking about the frequency outs.