MLB: a bag of a**holes. Topic

bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Yep
5/28/2014 9:35 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18996 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 154 32 129
Prospect
That should make you feel foolish.

If it doesn't, then you should feel foolish that it doesn't make you feel foolish.
5/28/2014 9:40 PM
bfkfraser
Posts: 1194 (0)
Hall of Famer
28 120 150
Prospect
Thanks for the comedy BL.  
5/28/2014 10:29 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 5/28/2014 9:40:00 PM (view original):
That should make you feel foolish.

If it doesn't, then you should feel foolish that it doesn't make you feel foolish.
If you don't get it by now, I can't help you.

I'll try one more time, but I think you may be a lost cause.

Individual outs can have different run values. But overall, an out is an out. If you take a team that has 1000 strikeouts in a season and replace 250 of those K's with outs in play, they aren't going to score more runs.
5/28/2014 11:47 PM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/28/2014 9:06:00 PM (view original):
I used it in an extreme argument turning 100 whiffs into 20 hits by reducing BABIP down to 20%.    burnsy doesn't understand the use of extremes to make a point.
I understand the argument perfectly.  I just think it's poor.
5/29/2014 9:31 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2014 7:52:00 AM (view original):
Posted by The Taint on 5/14/2014 11:15:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/14/2014 10:42:00 PM (view original):
FWIW, I don't think it's 25% of the time. 

There's less than 2% of a chance that your opponent will make an error.
I can't imagine a team having more than 1 sac fly/hit per game with any regularity. 
Add in 1-2 times where a runner is moved but a sac is not credited. 

Seems to me that a ball in play, at best, would be beneficial 3-4 times a game. 
Take at least one of those away for hitting into a DP(wouldn't happen with a whiff).

10-12% of the time it's better to put it in play and we really don't know how that affects a guy "taking something off his swing" all the time in order to make contact but, IMO, that has to be worth something.  5-7% of the time it's better to make contact?   Not insignificant but certainly not 13-14 combined outs.
I see strike em out, throw em out double plays with some regularity.
OK, let's put it at the bottom end.   5% of the time it would be more beneficial to put the ball in play.   1.35 times per game per team. 

Teams are averaging just over 4.2 runs per game.    .155 runs per out.   

So, essentially, a strikeout instead of putting the ball in play is costing teams .21 runs per game.   34 runs per year.   

How significant is that?
Did anyone ever dispute this?
5/29/2014 9:34 AM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
Putting the ball in play is better than striking out.  

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
5/29/2014 9:36 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by burnsy483 on 5/29/2014 9:31:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/28/2014 9:06:00 PM (view original):
I used it in an extreme argument turning 100 whiffs into 20 hits by reducing BABIP down to 20%.    burnsy doesn't understand the use of extremes to make a point.
I understand the argument perfectly.  I just think it's poor.

"Contact" swing with two strikes won't produce any hits?     Not even a blooper or 36 foot dribbler that can't be fielded in time to get the batter?

5/29/2014 9:36 AM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/29/2014 9:36:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 5/29/2014 9:31:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/28/2014 9:06:00 PM (view original):
I used it in an extreme argument turning 100 whiffs into 20 hits by reducing BABIP down to 20%.    burnsy doesn't understand the use of extremes to make a point.
I understand the argument perfectly.  I just think it's poor.

"Contact" swing with two strikes won't produce any hits?     Not even a blooper or 36 foot dribbler that can't be fielded in time to get the batter?

Sure it would. 
5/29/2014 9:37 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
OK, we're getting somewhere.    Out of 100 "contact" swings, how many do you think would fall for hits?
5/29/2014 9:38 AM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
You've been using 20, so run with it. I think it would be less if all you're doing is ensuring contact, but continue.
5/29/2014 9:40 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
OK, why wouldn't a player want to add 20 hits to his totals?

5/29/2014 9:42 AM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
Maybe you will, but you ensure that the player will also have about 0 extra base hits with 2 strikes.  Is that better?  And he'd probably lose hits on line drives he hit with 2 strikes that are now dribblers.  You have to account for the success the player actually had with 2 strikes.
5/29/2014 9:44 AM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Burns, even mike doesn't believe his own bs. He's trolling.
5/29/2014 9:45 AM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
5/29/2014 9:53 AM
◂ Prev 1...33|34|35|36|37...49 Next ▸
MLB: a bag of a**holes. Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.