Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 2:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 2:32:00 PM (view original):
So, you're saying that a ball in play is better than an out.


Hmmm, I wonder if someone else has said that repeatedly in this thread?

A ball in play is better than an out.

A ball in play is better than a strikeout.

An out in play is better than a strikeout.

Let me know if you disagree on any of those.

Disagree with the third one.

It doesn't matter if hitter A struck out 180 times and hitter B struck out 80 times if they made the same rate of outs.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 2:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 2:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 2:32:00 PM (view original):
So, you're saying that a ball in play is better than an out.


Hmmm, I wonder if someone else has said that repeatedly in this thread?

A ball in play is better than an out.

A ball in play is better than a strikeout.

An out in play is better than a strikeout.

Let me know if you disagree on any of those.

Disagree with the third one.

It doesn't matter if hitter A struck out 180 times and hitter B struck out 80 times if they made the same rate of outs.

And yes, I do understand that certain situations exist where one type of out would be preferred to other types of outs.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 2:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 1:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 1:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 1:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 1:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 1:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 11:36:00 AM (view original):
Or maybe I can talk this out.

Youre saying that non-strikeout outs can have value. So, for example*, if there's a guy on second and the batter grounds out, moving the runner to third, the batter added value to his team. Correct?


*This is just an example, I'm not saying it's the only or best example.

Is this correct?

Relative to the value of the batter striking out and leaving the runner on second, yes. He's added value to his team.

One out, runner on third, is better than one out, runner on second.

Do you not agree?

For the sake of the argument let's agree that the batter is actually adding value by grounding out and moving the guy from second to third.**

He added that value regardless of whether or not the run eventually scores from third, correct?


**creating an out there is technically negative value, but moving the runner makes it less negative than an out without moving the runner, so I agree.

It's not for the sake of argument. It's a cold, hard fact. He added value by advancing the runner rather than leaving him at the previous base.

Do you not agree?

I see this answer but I want to make sure we're clear that the value was added regardless of whether or not the guy eventually scores.

?

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 2:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 2:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 1:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 1:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 1:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 1:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 1:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 11:36:00 AM (view original):
Or maybe I can talk this out.

Youre saying that non-strikeout outs can have value. So, for example*, if there's a guy on second and the batter grounds out, moving the runner to third, the batter added value to his team. Correct?


*This is just an example, I'm not saying it's the only or best example.

Is this correct?

Relative to the value of the batter striking out and leaving the runner on second, yes. He's added value to his team.

One out, runner on third, is better than one out, runner on second.

Do you not agree?

For the sake of the argument let's agree that the batter is actually adding value by grounding out and moving the guy from second to third.**

He added that value regardless of whether or not the run eventually scores from third, correct?


**creating an out there is technically negative value, but moving the runner makes it less negative than an out without moving the runner, so I agree.

It's not for the sake of argument. It's a cold, hard fact. He added value by advancing the runner rather than leaving him at the previous base.

Do you not agree?

I see this answer but I want to make sure we're clear that the value was added regardless of whether or not the guy eventually scores.

?

?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 2:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 2:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 2:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 1:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 1:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 1:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 1:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 1:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 11:36:00 AM (view original):
Or maybe I can talk this out.

Youre saying that non-strikeout outs can have value. So, for example*, if there's a guy on second and the batter grounds out, moving the runner to third, the batter added value to his team. Correct?


*This is just an example, I'm not saying it's the only or best example.

Is this correct?

Relative to the value of the batter striking out and leaving the runner on second, yes. He's added value to his team.

One out, runner on third, is better than one out, runner on second.

Do you not agree?

For the sake of the argument let's agree that the batter is actually adding value by grounding out and moving the guy from second to third.**

He added that value regardless of whether or not the run eventually scores from third, correct?


**creating an out there is technically negative value, but moving the runner makes it less negative than an out without moving the runner, so I agree.

It's not for the sake of argument. It's a cold, hard fact. He added value by advancing the runner rather than leaving him at the previous base.

Do you not agree?

I see this answer but I want to make sure we're clear that the value was added regardless of whether or not the guy eventually scores.

?

?

Are we clear on that?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 2:47:00 PM (view original):
Not really. The vast majority of outs aren't "productive" and even the "productive" ones are just slightly less bad than normal outs. And since you take the good with the bad (guys who make a lot of outs in play do so in all situations), double plays more than wipe away any benefit of "productive" outs.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 2:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 2:47:00 PM (view original):
Not really. The vast majority of outs aren't "productive" and even the "productive" ones are just slightly less bad than normal outs. And since you take the good with the bad (guys who make a lot of outs in play do so in all situations), double plays more than wipe away any benefit of "productive" outs.

Which inning is preferable, i.e. had more potential to score runs?

A: single, fly out, GIDP

or

B: strikeout, strikeout, strikeout

Posted by tecwrg on 6/22/2016 2:36:00 PM (view original):
Which is the more disastrous inning?

A: single, fly out, GIDP

or

B: strikeout, strikeout, strikeout

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/23/2016 2:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 2:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 2:47:00 PM (view original):
Not really. The vast majority of outs aren't "productive" and even the "productive" ones are just slightly less bad than normal outs. And since you take the good with the bad (guys who make a lot of outs in play do so in all situations), double plays more than wipe away any benefit of "productive" outs.

Which inning is preferable, i.e. had more potential to score runs?

A: single, fly out, GIDP

or

B: strikeout, strikeout, strikeout

I love it when you guys are so stupid that you make BLs point for him and you don't even realize it.

Of course A had more potential to score runs. A guy got on base. But they didn't score any runs, and the inning was just as short, in large part because of the massive negative impact of the GIDP.

All of the Ks in your scenario B occurred with the bases empty. An out in play in any of those PA would have had 0 chance of being "productive." You're illustrating clearly why GIDP are so much more harmful than Ks - most Ks come in scenarios where they are no different from outs in play, and DPs are crushing.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 2:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/22/2016 2:36:00 PM (view original):
Which is the more disastrous inning?

A: single, fly out, GIDP

or

B: strikeout, strikeout, strikeout

Inning A was worse for the offense even though zero runs scored in both innings.

If you ordered the 6 events from good to bad, they'd go:

1. Single
t2. K's & fly out
3. GIDP

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/23/2016 2:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 2:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 2:47:00 PM (view original):
Not really. The vast majority of outs aren't "productive" and even the "productive" ones are just slightly less bad than normal outs. And since you take the good with the bad (guys who make a lot of outs in play do so in all situations), double plays more than wipe away any benefit of "productive" outs.

Which inning is preferable, i.e. had more potential to score runs?

A: single, fly out, GIDP

or

B: strikeout, strikeout, strikeout

I love it when you guys are so stupid that you make BLs point for him and you don't even realize it.

Of course A had more potential to score runs. A guy got on base. But they didn't score any runs, and the inning was just as short, in large part because of the massive negative impact of the GIDP.

All of the Ks in your scenario B occurred with the bases empty. An out in play in any of those PA would have had 0 chance of being "productive." You're illustrating clearly why GIDP are so much more harmful than Ks - most Ks come in scenarios where they are no different from outs in play, and DPs are crushing.

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/23/2016 2:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 2:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 2:47:00 PM (view original):
Not really. The vast majority of outs aren't "productive" and even the "productive" ones are just slightly less bad than normal outs. And since you take the good with the bad (guys who make a lot of outs in play do so in all situations), double plays more than wipe away any benefit of "productive" outs.

Which inning is preferable, i.e. had more potential to score runs?

A: single, fly out, GIDP

or

B: strikeout, strikeout, strikeout

I love it when you guys are so stupid that you make BLs point for him and you don't even realize it.

Of course A had more potential to score runs. A guy got on base. But they didn't score any runs, and the inning was just as short, in large part because of the massive negative impact of the GIDP.

All of the Ks in your scenario B occurred with the bases empty. An out in play in any of those PA would have had 0 chance of being "productive." You're illustrating clearly why GIDP are so much more harmful than Ks - most Ks come in scenarios where they are no different from outs in play, and DPs are crushing.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 3:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/23/2016 2:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 2:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 2:47:00 PM (view original):
Not really. The vast majority of outs aren't "productive" and even the "productive" ones are just slightly less bad than normal outs. And since you take the good with the bad (guys who make a lot of outs in play do so in all situations), double plays more than wipe away any benefit of "productive" outs.

Which inning is preferable, i.e. had more potential to score runs?

A: single, fly out, GIDP

or

B: strikeout, strikeout, strikeout

I love it when you guys are so stupid that you make BLs point for him and you don't even realize it.

Of course A had more potential to score runs. A guy got on base. But they didn't score any runs, and the inning was just as short, in large part because of the massive negative impact of the GIDP.

All of the Ks in your scenario B occurred with the bases empty. An out in play in any of those PA would have had 0 chance of being "productive." You're illustrating clearly why GIDP are so much more harmful than Ks - most Ks come in scenarios where they are no different from outs in play, and DPs are crushing.

So, in your expert opinion, three whiffs in an inning is no worse than any other inning which goes three up, three down, regardless of what happened?

Yeah, you're a ******* rocket surgeon too.