I like tec's strategy here:

First, that's not what I was doing.
Second, I don't want to talk about what I was doing.

Poor, dumb BL.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/30/2016 12:26:00 PM (view original):
I kind of want BL to weigh in on the LH 2B debate.

Bob: "Can a LH 2B work in MLB? Discuss."
Dave: "A LH 2B can never work, because X."
Joe: "I disagree. A LH 2B could work because Y."
BL: "Everyone knows LH pitchers are better. You're dumb."
Bob: "Umm, the discussion is about about 2B."
BL: "No, WE are discussing pitchers. Just because your'e too dumb to understand something as complex as FIP."
Joe: "No, we're definitely talking about 2B."
BL: "See? You're dumb. I WIN!!!!!!!!"

Except that's exactly what you did.

There was an argument about whether, in general, an out is an out.

SJ didn't think that GIDP are bad enough to wipe out the difference in value between a productive out and a non-productive out.

Him and I started arguing about event run values because of that.

You came in screaming about RELATIVE VALUE and refused to even consider the fact that relative value is beside the point.

Then why is it SJ, Mike, tec, etc. have ALL claimed that you are arguing something different from what they are arguing?

Usually when you're the only who's "right"...it means you're wrong.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/30/2016 12:34:00 PM (view original):
Then why is it SJ, Mike, tec, etc. have ALL claimed that you are arguing something different from what they are arguing?

Usually when you're the only who's "right"...it means you're wrong.

Fine.

You tell me what you are arguing.

Wow, this started out as a discussion about the unwritten laws of baseball, morphed into an argument about the value of outs, and is now an adolescent "I know you are, but what am I" ******* match.

And TBF, this hasn't reached the idiocy of LH2B because I don't think BL ever claimed to be on a spaceship, nor has he promised to deliver a video...

Yet.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 12:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/30/2016 12:34:00 PM (view original):
Then why is it SJ, Mike, tec, etc. have ALL claimed that you are arguing something different from what they are arguing?

Usually when you're the only who's "right"...it means you're wrong.

Fine.

You tell me what you are arguing.

Oh man, you're too much. I love how you push everything to the breaking point and then move right back to the beginning to try and start all over again. That's at least the tenth time in this thread you've said "Fine, you tell me what you are arguing." You're just so desperate for attention and relevance that you'll go around in circles ad nauseum to keep things going.

I'll repeat, for at least the tenth time, go back to page one and start reading. Everything that needs to be said has already been said a dozen times in this thread. Maybe it'll eventually sink in.

Actually, it was page 14 or so where the topic shifted to "outs"

Ya, but if he starts at page 1, it'll at least keep him occupied longer.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/30/2016 12:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 12:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/30/2016 12:34:00 PM (view original):
Then why is it SJ, Mike, tec, etc. have ALL claimed that you are arguing something different from what they are arguing?

Usually when you're the only who's "right"...it means you're wrong.

Fine.

You tell me what you are arguing.

Oh man, you're too much. I love how you push everything to the breaking point and then move right back to the beginning to try and start all over again. That's at least the tenth time in this thread you've said "Fine, you tell me what you are arguing." You're just so desperate for attention and relevance that you'll go around in circles ad nauseum to keep things going.

I'll repeat, for at least the tenth time, go back to page one and start reading. Everything that needs to be said has already been said a dozen times in this thread. Maybe it'll eventually sink in.

See, this is where you lose it. You can't even clearly state what your point is. We've been talking about outs , in general, for 60+ pages.

I've clearly stated my point many times. Including just last night, when you again said "fine, tell me what your arguing then!"

So go back and read. I'm not gonna repeat myself when you haven't even bothered to pay attention to what's already been posted. Nice try.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/29/2016 11:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/28/2016 1:18:00 PM (view original):
No, you are. You're the only one focused on that. Everyone else is debating the value of those events relative to the scoring environment and you keep babbling about how many runs each event is worth.

Once again:

Scenario A: RPG = 10. Team misses a chance to score 2 runs.
Scenario B: RPG = 3. Team misses a chance to score 1 run.

Which team's missed opportunity is more costly? (hint: It has nothing to do with the number of runs)

You're still welcome to answer this.

If you want to use your financial example, I'll give you one more:

Guy A has $5 million, goes to Vegas and loses $100,000. Guy B has $100,000, goes to Vegas and loses $20,000.

Guy A lost more dollars. Guy B took a bigger financial hit. That $20,000 was more VALUABLE to Guy B than the $100,000 was to Guy A.

Relative value. No one gives a damn how many runs each event is worth - you are the ONLY ONE who keeps harping on this. It's about relative value. A sac fly, or failure to score with the bases loaded are far more costly in a low scoring environment than in a high scoring environment.

And no, it's not just about blowouts. You missed Mike's point (again). He could have said 13-10 and it would still apply. The sac fly for a team that wins 2-1 is more valuable than the sac fly for a team that wins 13-10. That ONE RUN is 50% of the first team's output. It's only 8% of the second team's output.

RELATIVE. VALUE.

So this is your point?

RELATIVE VALUE!

Should I quote my post 20 pages ago where I said runs themselves are more valuable in low scoring environments?

Yes you should. Because that would further prove that you've just been being a contrarian dumbass the last 20 pages by arguing with anyone who shares that point of view.

Posted by toddcommish on 6/30/2016 12:39:00 PM (view original):
Wow, this started out as a discussion about the unwritten laws of baseball, morphed into an argument about the value of outs, and is now an adolescent "I know you are, but what am I" ******* match.

And TBF, this hasn't reached the idiocy of LH2B because I don't think BL ever claimed to be on a spaceship, nor has he promised to deliver a video...

Yet.

It has reached a different level of idiocy, far beyond anything BL has ever argued before. So I think it's fair to elevate it to "Lefty 2B" status.

And also TBF, BL coming from a spaceship would probably make more sense than what he's been arguing for the last 70 pages or so.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2016 1:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2016 1:51:00 PM (view original):
Rather than "counterintuitive", I'd go with "stupid".

I was trying to give you a chance to redeem yourself with something intelligent to back up your statement. Shockingly, you failed.

If something is in less abundance, such as hits or runs , then each one that you get is more valuable.

Runs are more valuable. But we aren't measuring the value of runs. We're measuring the value of events and runs are the measurement we use.

Maybe try acting like an adult when you disagree with someone. It might get you a little further in life.

This.