But they may be gaining something. if they swap a groundout that advances a runner for a strikeout, the team is gaining that extra base. If that extra base is third and there are less than 2 outs, it could lead to a run. That is a gain.

Posted by wylie715 on 11/5/2015 5:56:00 PM (view original):
But they may be gaining something. if they swap a groundout that advances a runner for a strikeout, the team is gaining that extra base. If that extra base is third and there are less than 2 outs, it could lead to a run. That is a gain.

If you want to argue that teams score more runs when they strike out less, be my guest.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/5/2015 5:50:00 PM (view original):

Like I've said 90,000 times already, if they are trading outs for hits, great. That is clearly better. It's also irrelevant to, "an out is an out."

If they are swapping strikeouts for other types of outs, then they are not gaining anything.

Do you have a point?
 

You still seem confused, as evidenced by your qualified answer (if . . . ).

Would it be in the best interests of MLB hitters to reduce their strikeouts and put more balls in play?

It really is a yes/no, or agree/disagree response.  The only "if" would be if you're unsure about the chances of balls in play becoming hits.  I would assume that another qualified answer from you would indicate that you're kind of clueless about balls in play.

What the **** are you even talking about?

Are you saying that the hitters are trading outs for hits in your hypothetical? Then yes. ****. YES. They are better off trading outs for hits.

I guess I am confused that you spent...****...4 pages on this.

NO ONE HAS EVER CLAIMED THAT STRIKEOUTS ARE THE SAME AS BALLS IN PLAY, YOU ******* RETARD.

I'm not making any assumptions about what the balls in play were.  BABIP says that around 30% of them will be hits. 

You're kind of big on advanced stats like BABIP.  What do you think the additional balls in play might be?  Do you think they might all be outs? 

Is that a reasonable enough possibility to you that you were unable to answer the question for the past four pages?

Who gives a fat ****?

Is your entire point that hitters should try not to strikeout and instead should try to hit the ball????

Holy ****. REVOLUTIONARY!

Someone hire this guy. He's wasting away at his computer jerking off to old pictures of Joe Dimaggio. If only MLB hitters knew that they could increase their hits by hitting the ball instead of swinging and missing.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/5/2015 5:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 11/5/2015 5:56:00 PM (view original):
But they may be gaining something. if they swap a groundout that advances a runner for a strikeout, the team is gaining that extra base. If that extra base is third and there are less than 2 outs, it could lead to a run. That is a gain.

If you want to argue that teams score more runs when they strike out less, be my guest.

I don't. I'm just saying all outs do not have the same value. That's why teams sacrifice bunt. Personally, I hate the sacrifice bunt, but there are times (such as a pitcher batting) where it makes some sense.

Posted by wylie715 on 11/5/2015 6:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/5/2015 5:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 11/5/2015 5:56:00 PM (view original):
But they may be gaining something. if they swap a groundout that advances a runner for a strikeout, the team is gaining that extra base. If that extra base is third and there are less than 2 outs, it could lead to a run. That is a gain.

If you want to argue that teams score more runs when they strike out less, be my guest.

I don't. I'm just saying all outs do not have the same value. That's why teams sacrifice bunt. Personally, I hate the sacrifice bunt, but there are times (such as a pitcher batting) where it makes some sense.

Most outs have the same value. There are a limited number of situations where certain outs are slightly better or worse than a normal out.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/5/2015 6:26:00 PM (view original):
Who gives a fat ****?

Is your entire point that hitters should try not to strikeout and instead should try to hit the ball????

Holy ****. REVOLUTIONARY!

Someone hire this guy. He's wasting away at his computer jerking off to old pictures of Joe Dimaggio. If only MLB hitters knew that they could increase their hits by hitting the ball instead of swinging and missing.

It seems like you were having trouble understanding this.  After all, it took you four or five pages to answer what most knowledgeable baseball people would consider a simple question.

Lol, retard. Please refer to page 1.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/25/2015 3:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/25/2015 3:16:00 PM (view original):
. . . . wants to cut down on his strikeouts.

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_/id/12381485/mike-trout-los-angeles-angels-ready-erase-bad-aftertaste-2014-playoff-disappointment

Perhaps BL needs to have a sit-down with MT and tell him how strikeouts for hitters are not so big deal.  Because, you know, an out is an out.

Outs are outs. Pretty sure Trout's goal isn't to trade those strikeouts for ground outs.

This.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/25/2015 7:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 2/25/2015 7:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/25/2015 7:15:00 PM (view original):
No one has ever said that a K was equal to a ball in play.

You did, if the ball in play became an out.

"Outs are outs".  Some nonsense like that.

Yeah, you're dumb. Ball in play is not the same thing as an out in play.

And this.

LOL.

Nice try, moron. 

You stumbled and bumbled for 5 pages avoiding answering a straightforward question, because you knew that answering it would make you look like an idiot.

Guess what . . . DOING THAT made you look like an idiot.

Well done.

Looking like an idiot is a birthright in the badluck family.

Posted by tecwrg on 11/5/2015 10:07:00 PM (view original):
LOL.

Nice try, moron. 

You stumbled and bumbled for 5 pages avoiding answering a straightforward question, because you knew that answering it would make you look like an idiot.

Guess what . . . DOING THAT made you look like an idiot.

Well done.

I answered your question 87 times.