Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2016 8:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2016 8:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2016 7:55:00 AM (view original):
So did I miss anything other than dahs explaining how great he was in HS?

Yes. Both duhs and BL have admitted that there is a statistical correlation between strikeouts and run scoring.

But they're still arguing anyways.

I don't know why.

There isn't a meaningful correlation.

This is the equivalent of arguing:

"Water IS wet. BUT IT'S NOT WET ENOUGH!!!"

Good job.

Well, no it isn't. The negative correlation for the last seven years is something like -0.16. If I remember right, the correlation for all years before that was just slightly positive (something like 0.08). Those are near zero coefficients. I wouldn't draw any conclusions from them.

I'll let you google that and decide if it's really the argument you want to make.

Here you go tec:

"Statistical significance does not equate to high correlation. For large enough sample sizes even very low r values (0.1, 0.01, etc) eventually become significant, but these do not equate to high correlation.

...

According to a Sloan Consulting article at ISIXSIGMA.COM site and quote (emphasis added)

“As a rule of thumb a strong correlation or relationship has an r-value range of between 0.85 to 1, or -0.85 to -1. In a moderate correlation, the r-value ranges from 0.75 to 0.85 or, -0.75 to -0.85. In a weak correlation, one that is not a very helpful predictor, r ranges from 0.60 to 0.74 or -0.60 to 0.74. Though an entirely random relationship equals, 0.00, any relationship that has a correlation r-value that is 0.59 and below is not considered to be a reliable predictor.”

According to this Intel Teach Program a correlation between 0 and 0.19 is a very weak one while one between 0.2 and 0.39 weak enough."

Tec: "Is there a correlation between strikeout rates and run scoring?"

BL: "Yes, there is."

Tec: "Thanks. I thought so. Anybody who understands baseball knows this."

BL: "But . . . but . . . but . . . I WANT TO KEEP ARGUING!!!!"

Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2016 9:39:00 AM (view original):
Tec: "Is there a correlation between strikeout rates and run scoring?"

BL: "Yes, there is."

Tec: "Thanks. I thought so. Anybody who understands baseball knows this."

BL: "But . . . but . . . but . . . I WANT TO KEEP ARGUING!!!!"

But the correlation was positive for several decades. Do you agree with that?

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2016 7:55:00 AM (view original):
So did I miss anything other than dahs explaining how great he was in HS?

Dahs never played the game. And Dahs never really watches the game.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2016 9:01:00 AM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/26/2016 7:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/26/2016 12:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2016 12:28:00 AM (view original):
Overall was referring to types of outs. Please refer to the context of the sentence--outs in play vs outs overall.

I feel like you're the one trying to distract now. Obviously I wasn't arguing that a team would get less than 27 outs in a 9 inning game. That wouldn't make any sense at all.

Obviously?

98% of what you've said in this thread hasn't made any sense. And that's probably being generous.

This thread is dead. BL doesn't know the game.

"Sac Fly isn't worth a run." Runs win games. If a hit can't get a player home, then why is a sac fly worthless? This dude never played the game.

A sac fly is actually a negative value event. It's just slightly negative, but it's negative.

You get one run (sometimes), but the primary credit for that run goes to the guy who actually got to third, not the guy that made an out.

And the goal isn't to score one run, the goal is to score as many as possible.

The goal is to score runs. And if a run is on the board it ain't coming off.

As for this credit thing, the batter gets credit for the RBI. Period. So he gets credit for the run. Why are you worried about who gets 'primary' credit? Why does that matter?

Posted by sjpoker on 6/26/2016 9:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2016 7:55:00 AM (view original):
So did I miss anything other than dahs explaining how great he was in HS?

Dahs never played the game. And Dahs never really watches the game.

BL also obviously never played or watched the game.

The "goal" is to score. You can't score two until you've scored one.

BL is arguing that a hit is better than a sac fly. With that sort of inside knowledge of the game, why doesn't he have a MLB managing job?

Posted by sjpoker on 6/26/2016 9:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2016 9:01:00 AM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/26/2016 7:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/26/2016 12:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2016 12:28:00 AM (view original):
Overall was referring to types of outs. Please refer to the context of the sentence--outs in play vs outs overall.

I feel like you're the one trying to distract now. Obviously I wasn't arguing that a team would get less than 27 outs in a 9 inning game. That wouldn't make any sense at all.

Obviously?

98% of what you've said in this thread hasn't made any sense. And that's probably being generous.

This thread is dead. BL doesn't know the game.

"Sac Fly isn't worth a run." Runs win games. If a hit can't get a player home, then why is a sac fly worthless? This dude never played the game.

A sac fly is actually a negative value event. It's just slightly negative, but it's negative.

You get one run (sometimes), but the primary credit for that run goes to the guy who actually got to third, not the guy that made an out.

And the goal isn't to score one run, the goal is to score as many as possible.

The goal is to score runs. And if a run is on the board it ain't coming off.

As for this credit thing, the batter gets credit for the RBI. Period. So he gets credit for the run. Why are you worried about who gets 'primary' credit? Why does that matter?

It relates to the value of each event.

Scoring one one run is good, but the goal is almost always to score multiple runs.

If you step into the batter's box with a guy on third and no out, the important event that is primarily responsible for that run eventually scoring has already happened. The hard part is getting to third, hitting a fly out isn't the hard part.

The sac fly isn't worth an entire run (it's actually worth a portion of a negative run because you created an out), a double isn't even worth an entire run.

So when is the goal not to score multiple runs?

The retarded in this thread is pretty amazing...even by WIS standards.

Tie ballgame, bottom of the 9th.

Ever catch a game?

Posted by sjpoker on 6/26/2016 9:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2016 7:55:00 AM (view original):
So did I miss anything other than dahs explaining how great he was in HS?

Dahs never played the game. And Dahs never really watches the game.

I played the game for quite a long time and I can virtually guarantee I watch more games than you. Probably 250-300 a season. But keep going. Tell me more about myself.