Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2016 12:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/21/2016 12:14:00 PM (view original):
Look BL, lets say you have two players that over 10 consecutive ABs with runners on base.

Player 1 strikes out 10 times.

Player 2 records 10 outs without a strikeout.

While it is possible for them to both be equally unproductive, Player 1's 10 K's are guaranteed to be unproductive. Sure, there could be a steal attempt or
Player 1 could be the recipient of a dropped called strike 3 and reached first. But none of those events are under his control.

Player 2's 10 outs would all be based on contact of some sort. Throwing out bunts with 2 strikes and a few other situations, a flyout (fair or foul) can bring a run home from third. A groundout can bring a run home. A hard groundout can cause an error. A ball in play can - potentially - score a run, where in almost all cases a K does not.

Based just on that, a batted ball out can be better than K. So based on that, the statement 'all outs are the same' is bullshit.

What if player 2 grounded into 10 double plays. Would that still be better?

Very good. That is one result where it - could - be worse than 10 Ks.

But if those 10 outs included the following -

2 GIDP
3 sacrifice flies
1 error that allowed the batter to get to first.
2 runners advanced on deep fly balls
2 outs with no consequence to baserunners.

Would those results be better than 10 Ks?

Please answer that.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2016 12:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 6/21/2016 12:36:00 PM (view original):
So waitaminnit... "An out is an out", unless....
- hitter reaches on an error (and possibly advances a runner)
- hitter reaches on a strikeout that the catcher doesn't catch
- hits a grounder that advances a runner
- hits a flyball that advances a runner
- hits into a double-play (worse than a plain old out)

And we have ROE data since the 70's which makes all sorts of historical significance.... aside from the first 90 years of the game.

Do we need to go back to the start just for you?

Roll back however many pages to the start of this and see where I said:

1) My argument is that when you look at X player's stats, how he made his outs doesn't matter. How often he made them is what matters.

2) You seem to be arguing that there are situations where a certain type of out would be preferable to another type. Example deep fly ball to score a runner vs pop up. I've never denied that these situations exist but they just don't matter much in the big picture. Teams that strikeout less don't score more runs. Teams that make all outs less frequently do score more runs.

Or maybe you'll believe it from MikeT23:

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/16/2016 1:35:00 PM (view original):
For ****'s sake. This has been done time and time again.

By and large, the type of out is irrelevant. For every advanced runner or sacrifice fly to score a run, there is a double play grounder.

By and large, the type of out is irrelevant to what?

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2016 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2016 2:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2016 2:03:00 PM (view original):
Do you think you have to watch every play of every game to evaluate players?

Or do you use stats?

?

I'll answer this and put you back on block because, not surprisingly, this went exactly the same as it did two years ago when I decided to block you.

I only "evaluate" players in two situations. Mostly because who really gives a **** how I, or you, evaluate a player? Kenny Lofton and family do not give a rat's *** that you think he should be in the HOF and I think he should have to buy a ticket to view the monuments of the greats. Nor does anyone else unless it's tec and that's only because he likes to make fun of you.

1. This forum.
2. At a bar.

Both instances require blowhards who think they know more than the other guy. At a bar, it's usually a drunk just looking to argue. Here, it's just you looking to argue. At a bar, it's alcohol-fueled. Here, it's boredom and free time. But, at both, it's a HUGE waste of time because the other guy isn't changing his mind. For me, it's pointless discussion because I have nothing else to do. For others, it means something.

Anyway, I watch the CWS. I'm not evaluating Jimmy Doolittle, C-TCU. I'm watching the game. If Jimmy does something well, I might say "He hit behind the runner. Good on him." If he strikes out, I might say "He's gotta hit behind the runner if he hopes to play past this level." Then, on the odd chance I'm discussing Jimmy later, I might say "******* Joe Dowhat, the catcher for TCU, struck out with a runner on 2nd with 0 outs. If he just puts that ball in play, TCU might have won." And I never mention Jimmy/Joe or that AB again. But I ENJOYED watching the game. It wasn't about "evaluating" anyone. Scouts and drunks do that. I'm just trying to enjoy a baseball game.

So you don't use stats? Odd. I could have sworn you were involved in a discussion regarding Edgar Martinez walking too much to be a Hall of Famer.

Hmmm.

Maybe I'm mistaken.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2016 1:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2016 1:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2016 12:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2016 12:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2016 11:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2016 11:47:00 AM (view original):
So, if I didn't watch the game because the stats would tell me who was productive, how would I know who reached on an error and who, you know, helped his team score runs?

What?

If you want to know what happened in an individual game, you should watch it.

If you want to know who was good over a span of time, you need stats.

Do you not care who helped their team win?

Yes, I do care. Are we taking about the storyline of one game or determining who helped their team win more games over the course of a season?

I've already answered this.

We could be talking about one game, one week, one month, one season or an entire career. You only seem to care about season/career. Is that because you don't like to watch games?

If your goal is to evaluate a major league player, one game doesn't tell you anything. Or do think 4 PAs is all you need to see?

If your goal is to know what happened in a certain game, watch the game and don't worry about this stuff.

Which is your BIGGEST flaw. Status alone cannot be used to evaluate a players worth. And next, you will tell me you know that. But what I will argue is that stats are a LOT farther off from evaluating a players worth than you think.

Posted by sjpoker on 6/21/2016 2:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2016 12:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/21/2016 12:14:00 PM (view original):
Look BL, lets say you have two players that over 10 consecutive ABs with runners on base.

Player 1 strikes out 10 times.

Player 2 records 10 outs without a strikeout.

While it is possible for them to both be equally unproductive, Player 1's 10 K's are guaranteed to be unproductive. Sure, there could be a steal attempt or
Player 1 could be the recipient of a dropped called strike 3 and reached first. But none of those events are under his control.

Player 2's 10 outs would all be based on contact of some sort. Throwing out bunts with 2 strikes and a few other situations, a flyout (fair or foul) can bring a run home from third. A groundout can bring a run home. A hard groundout can cause an error. A ball in play can - potentially - score a run, where in almost all cases a K does not.

Based just on that, a batted ball out can be better than K. So based on that, the statement 'all outs are the same' is bullshit.

What if player 2 grounded into 10 double plays. Would that still be better?

Very good. That is one result where it - could - be worse than 10 Ks.

But if those 10 outs included the following -

2 GIDP
3 sacrifice flies
1 error that allowed the batter to get to first.
2 runners advanced on deep fly balls
2 outs with no consequence to baserunners.

Would those results be better than 10 Ks?

Please answer that.

I genuinely don't know. If we throw out the ROE, since it isn't actually an out, I'd guess that the run values of both 10PA stretches are similar. GIDP are devastating, while "productive" outs are only slightly better than common outs.

Posted by sjpoker on 6/21/2016 2:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2016 1:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2016 1:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2016 12:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2016 12:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2016 11:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2016 11:47:00 AM (view original):
So, if I didn't watch the game because the stats would tell me who was productive, how would I know who reached on an error and who, you know, helped his team score runs?

What?

If you want to know what happened in an individual game, you should watch it.

If you want to know who was good over a span of time, you need stats.

Do you not care who helped their team win?

Yes, I do care. Are we taking about the storyline of one game or determining who helped their team win more games over the course of a season?

I've already answered this.

We could be talking about one game, one week, one month, one season or an entire career. You only seem to care about season/career. Is that because you don't like to watch games?

If your goal is to evaluate a major league player, one game doesn't tell you anything. Or do think 4 PAs is all you need to see?

If your goal is to know what happened in a certain game, watch the game and don't worry about this stuff.

Which is your BIGGEST flaw. Status alone cannot be used to evaluate a players worth. And next, you will tell me you know that. But what I will argue is that stats are a LOT farther off from evaluating a players worth than you think.

You mean stats (as opposed to status)?

Stats are all we really have. How else would you compare two players?

Posted by sjpoker on 6/21/2016 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2016 12:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 6/21/2016 12:36:00 PM (view original):
So waitaminnit... "An out is an out", unless....
- hitter reaches on an error (and possibly advances a runner)
- hitter reaches on a strikeout that the catcher doesn't catch
- hits a grounder that advances a runner
- hits a flyball that advances a runner
- hits into a double-play (worse than a plain old out)

And we have ROE data since the 70's which makes all sorts of historical significance.... aside from the first 90 years of the game.

Do we need to go back to the start just for you?

Roll back however many pages to the start of this and see where I said:

1) My argument is that when you look at X player's stats, how he made his outs doesn't matter. How often he made them is what matters.

2) You seem to be arguing that there are situations where a certain type of out would be preferable to another type. Example deep fly ball to score a runner vs pop up. I've never denied that these situations exist but they just don't matter much in the big picture. Teams that strikeout less don't score more runs. Teams that make all outs less frequently do score more runs.

Or maybe you'll believe it from MikeT23:

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/16/2016 1:35:00 PM (view original):
For ****'s sake. This has been done time and time again.

By and large, the type of out is irrelevant. For every advanced runner or sacrifice fly to score a run, there is a double play grounder.

By and large, the type of out is irrelevant to what?

Over the course of a season/career, the type of out made is irrelevant. It could be a groundout, flyout or strikeout. If a guy made 7000 outs, odds are he advanced a runner about as often as he hit into a double play when he got out.

See? We agree.

Posted by sjpoker on 6/21/2016 2:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2016 1:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2016 1:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2016 12:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2016 12:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2016 11:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2016 11:47:00 AM (view original):
So, if I didn't watch the game because the stats would tell me who was productive, how would I know who reached on an error and who, you know, helped his team score runs?

What?

If you want to know what happened in an individual game, you should watch it.

If you want to know who was good over a span of time, you need stats.

Do you not care who helped their team win?

Yes, I do care. Are we taking about the storyline of one game or determining who helped their team win more games over the course of a season?

I've already answered this.

We could be talking about one game, one week, one month, one season or an entire career. You only seem to care about season/career. Is that because you don't like to watch games?

If your goal is to evaluate a major league player, one game doesn't tell you anything. Or do think 4 PAs is all you need to see?

If your goal is to know what happened in a certain game, watch the game and don't worry about this stuff.

Which is your BIGGEST flaw. Status alone cannot be used to evaluate a players worth. And next, you will tell me you know that. But what I will argue is that stats are a LOT farther off from evaluating a players worth than you think.

Based on the contracts that players get, I would argue that you're incredibly wrong. Overwhelmingly, the players with the best stats get the biggest contracts. You can fairly accurately predict contracts without knowing anything about the players involved - in fact, MLBTradeRumors has an algorithm that does this, and does a pretty good job. Sometimes there are perception-based adjustments. Samardzija is a reasonable example of a guy who people saw a lot of upside in whose stats didn't necessarily justify the contract the Giants gave him, and so far that decision has been working out fairly well (still very early going in the contract, but early returns are positive). But in general, the purely stats-based algorithm is within a few percentage points of AAV, and it gets more contract lengths right than any human evaluator I've seen. In the end, the computer can process more data, more historical comparisons, than any person. And that makes it more accurate.

Pretty strong evidence that stats absolutely do play the overwhelmingly dominant role in the evaluation of a player's worth. At least to Major League front offices, which I will tend to trust over a guy posting on the WIS forums who, frankly, has been abjectly wrong about a lot of stuff.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2016 2:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/21/2016 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2016 12:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 6/21/2016 12:36:00 PM (view original):
So waitaminnit... "An out is an out", unless....
- hitter reaches on an error (and possibly advances a runner)
- hitter reaches on a strikeout that the catcher doesn't catch
- hits a grounder that advances a runner
- hits a flyball that advances a runner
- hits into a double-play (worse than a plain old out)

And we have ROE data since the 70's which makes all sorts of historical significance.... aside from the first 90 years of the game.

Do we need to go back to the start just for you?

Roll back however many pages to the start of this and see where I said:

1) My argument is that when you look at X player's stats, how he made his outs doesn't matter. How often he made them is what matters.

2) You seem to be arguing that there are situations where a certain type of out would be preferable to another type. Example deep fly ball to score a runner vs pop up. I've never denied that these situations exist but they just don't matter much in the big picture. Teams that strikeout less don't score more runs. Teams that make all outs less frequently do score more runs.

Or maybe you'll believe it from MikeT23:

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/16/2016 1:35:00 PM (view original):
For ****'s sake. This has been done time and time again.

By and large, the type of out is irrelevant. For every advanced runner or sacrifice fly to score a run, there is a double play grounder.

By and large, the type of out is irrelevant to what?

Over the course of a season/career, the type of out made is irrelevant. It could be a groundout, flyout or strikeout. If a guy made 7000 outs, odds are he advanced a runner about as often as he hit into a double play when he got out.

This isn't technically correct. It's not the numbers that even out, it's the value. If you assume that about 80% of all errors put a guy who should have been out on base (I don't know anywhere that differentiates between errors which put a runner on and errors which give up extra bases, but I've seen 80% as a decent estimate), then since 1990 the average teams hits into about 37.5 more DPs than it makes errors. Assuming a fairly random distribution of errors, that means an average team has -37.5 total 'extra outs' on outs in play. Over the same time frame, the average team has ~99 SH + SF. So they get 99 intentional free bases, plus some additional unintentional sacrifice groundballs. Outs are definitely more costly than free bases are valuable.

I'd say "You know what I meant" but I don't care if you do.

You give me 3 guys with 7000 outs and the same number of total bases, I'm not really going to care if one hit a lot grounders, the other flew out and the third swung and misses a lot.

And, if you come back with "Yeah but what if one batted 10000 times and the other......", you're being ignorant.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2016 3:58:00 PM (view original):
I'd say "You know what I meant" but I don't care if you do.

You give me 3 guys with 7000 outs and the same number of total bases, I'm not really going to care if one hit a lot grounders, the other flew out and the third swung and misses a lot.

This is basically exactly what BL has been saying the whole time. Which I'm pretty sure you're aware of. Are you just trying to explain it to the slower guys in the room?

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/21/2016 4:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2016 3:58:00 PM (view original):
I'd say "You know what I meant" but I don't care if you do.

You give me 3 guys with 7000 outs and the same number of total bases, I'm not really going to care if one hit a lot grounders, the other flew out and the third swung and misses a lot.

This is basically exactly what BL has been saying the whole time. Which I'm pretty sure you're aware of. Are you just trying to explain it to the slower guys in the room?

Evidently, you've been too busy writing long-winded responses to follow along.

BL and I are in agreement that, over the course of a season/career, an out is just an out. What everyone else is arguing is specific situations, games or series. I'm not even sure BL has disagreed but his "I don't need to watch games, I have stats" mantra is destroyed by trying to apply his "whiffs aren't bad outs" theory to specific situations. Hence, the 0-1 batting line. Was that 0 an out or a ROE? You don't know just by looking at a box score. Thus, if you want to know if a player was productive, i.e. helped his team score, you need more.

Really, this has become "What's the dumbest claim BL has made?" thread.