Posted by dahsdebater on 6/24/2016 10:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/24/2016 10:27:00 PM (view original):
I want to know a percentage for a GIDP on a ground ball in play with a runner on first and less than two outs. When you factor in hits, errors, FC, etc., let's say the odds of a double play on a groundball are 25%.

So there`s a 75% chance of a hit, a productive out (only play is at first) or a neutral out (FC, lead runner out). So yes, I'll risk the DP to get a ball in play over a K.

I don't think anyone would prefer a K to a groundball.

I said I would take a K over a groundout.

Do you understand the difference?

He does not. Still.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/24/2016 10:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/24/2016 9:48:00 PM (view original):
Mmmm. Yeah not sure about that methodology. If there's a strikeout, or the hitter walks, or even if there's a fielders choice or flyout, the previous runner did not score. The productive out definitively helped score a run.

And attributing the negative value of the GIDP only to the batter is a fallacy as well. Because that is implying that the runner did not make a mistake.

And what methodology did you use?

Nope. You are trying to redirect. It's not about my opinion. I said we'd listen to you. And that's what I am doing.

The models I presented are not active events. They are history. The plays are over. We are evaluating them after the fact.

We know the fly outs resulted in runs. The GIDPs wound up wiping out - potential - runs. Those are unrealized events. So evaluating a potential event that will not occur against something positive that definitively occurred.

Think about it for a second. Between the two models ,there were the same number outs. But one resulted in 10 runs. The other resulted in zero runs.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/24/2016 10:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/24/2016 10:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/24/2016 10:27:00 PM (view original):
I want to know a percentage for a GIDP on a ground ball in play with a runner on first and less than two outs. When you factor in hits, errors, FC, etc., let's say the odds of a double play on a groundball are 25%.

So there`s a 75% chance of a hit, a productive out (only play is at first) or a neutral out (FC, lead runner out). So yes, I'll risk the DP to get a ball in play over a K.

I don't think anyone would prefer a K to a groundball.

I said I would take a K over a groundout.

Do you understand the difference?

I do. But apparently you don't understand what's being argued.

You're making a statement, in a vacuum, that a K is better than a groundout. Bases loaded, no outs, which is better? I'll take the run-scoring groundout or DP. K does nothing.

I guarantee you any team would take the risk of a DP to have a groundball over a K. No team is saying to their hitters "now, either hit a flyball or strike out. Don't you dare put that ball in play on the ground!!"

John McGraw would whip dahs' *** for suggesting such things.

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/24/2016 9:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2016 9:17:00 PM (view original):
I know that balls in play can become:

• hits
• ROE
• productive outs
• non-productive outs
• double plays

I know that strikeouts can become:

• non-productive outs

Did I miss anything?

Ok, no disagreement here. But we're talking about after-the-fact analysis of outs in play. Outs in play can become:

• productive outs
• non-productive outs
• double plays
• errors

Once you take the hits out of the equation outs in play are only slightly better than Ks. Groundouts are slightly worse than Ks because the vast majority of double plays occur on these outs and a small majority of productive outs are made on flyballs in the modern baseball environment.

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that there is even a different between a groundball and a groundout makes this discussion kinda pointless, though. When you're looking back at a season's worth of stats, you know which groundballs turned into outs. They can be differentiated. It's not a black box. Not sure why you're having such a hard time understanding that.

Of course a groundball and a groundout are two different things. The latter is one possible result of the former.

What's pointless is trying to intelligently discuss anything with a person who has such a fundamental lack of baseball understanding that they believe that, in general, strikeouts are the equal, if not better, than all other outs.

Going back to my Edgar Martinez example, you and BL are basically saying that if you converted all of EM's non-strikeout outs to strikeout outs, he would essentially be the same, if not a slightly better, player.

.312/.418/.515 with 1,202 career strikeouts

versus

.312/.418/.515 with 4,966 career strikeouts

Because, according to the two of you, when looking at season wide, or even career numbers, all outs are basically the same.

That's really, really, really, really, really dumb.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2016 10:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/24/2016 9:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2016 9:17:00 PM (view original):
I know that balls in play can become:

• hits
• ROE
• productive outs
• non-productive outs
• double plays

I know that strikeouts can become:

• non-productive outs

Did I miss anything?

Ok, no disagreement here. But we're talking about after-the-fact analysis of outs in play. Outs in play can become:

• productive outs
• non-productive outs
• double plays
• errors

Once you take the hits out of the equation outs in play are only slightly better than Ks. Groundouts are slightly worse than Ks because the vast majority of double plays occur on these outs and a small majority of productive outs are made on flyballs in the modern baseball environment.

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that there is even a different between a groundball and a groundout makes this discussion kinda pointless, though. When you're looking back at a season's worth of stats, you know which groundballs turned into outs. They can be differentiated. It's not a black box. Not sure why you're having such a hard time understanding that.

Of course a groundball and a groundout are two different things. The latter is one possible result of the former.

What's pointless is trying to intelligently discuss anything with a person who has such a fundamental lack of baseball understanding that they believe that, in general, strikeouts are the equal, if not better, than all other outs.

Going back to my Edgar Martinez example, you and BL are basically saying that if you converted all of EM's non-strikeout outs to strikeout outs, he would essentially be the same, if not a slightly better, player.

.312/.418/.515 with 1,202 career strikeouts

versus

.312/.418/.515 with 4,966 career strikeouts

Because, according to the two of you, when looking at season wide, or even career numbers, all outs are basically the same.

That's really, really, really, really, really dumb.

Bill James is out there somewhere laughing at the absurdity of Dahs' argument. Like I said. Tourist. Trying to look 'clever'. Isn't really invested in his opinions.

dahs is a contrarian. He'll side against the popular position/opinion no matter what, to try and make himself look superior and enlightened. He saw BL as a little pet project but has now made himself look doubly stupid in the process.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/24/2016 11:05:00 PM (view original):
dahs is a contrarian. He'll side against the popular position/opinion no matter what, to try and make himself look superior and enlightened. He saw BL as a little pet project but has now made himself look doubly stupid in the process.

I won't judge if he's not part of the majority, but most dudes do not appreciate when another dude tries to cram his hand up his *** to try and work his mouth. BL doesn't need dahs' "support".

Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2016 10:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/24/2016 9:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2016 9:17:00 PM (view original):
I know that balls in play can become:

• hits
• ROE
• productive outs
• non-productive outs
• double plays

I know that strikeouts can become:

• non-productive outs

Did I miss anything?

Ok, no disagreement here. But we're talking about after-the-fact analysis of outs in play. Outs in play can become:

• productive outs
• non-productive outs
• double plays
• errors

Once you take the hits out of the equation outs in play are only slightly better than Ks. Groundouts are slightly worse than Ks because the vast majority of double plays occur on these outs and a small majority of productive outs are made on flyballs in the modern baseball environment.

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that there is even a different between a groundball and a groundout makes this discussion kinda pointless, though. When you're looking back at a season's worth of stats, you know which groundballs turned into outs. They can be differentiated. It's not a black box. Not sure why you're having such a hard time understanding that.

Of course a groundball and a groundout are two different things. The latter is one possible result of the former.

What's pointless is trying to intelligently discuss anything with a person who has such a fundamental lack of baseball understanding that they believe that, in general, strikeouts are the equal, if not better, than all other outs.

Going back to my Edgar Martinez example, you and BL are basically saying that if you converted all of EM's non-strikeout outs to strikeout outs, he would essentially be the same, if not a slightly better, player.

.312/.418/.515 with 1,202 career strikeouts

versus

.312/.418/.515 with 4,966 career strikeouts

Because, according to the two of you, when looking at season wide, or even career numbers, all outs are basically the same.

That's really, really, really, really, really dumb.

What difference does it make how he made his outs?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/24/2016 11:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2016 10:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/24/2016 9:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2016 9:17:00 PM (view original):
I know that balls in play can become:

• hits
• ROE
• productive outs
• non-productive outs
• double plays

I know that strikeouts can become:

• non-productive outs

Did I miss anything?

Ok, no disagreement here. But we're talking about after-the-fact analysis of outs in play. Outs in play can become:

• productive outs
• non-productive outs
• double plays
• errors

Once you take the hits out of the equation outs in play are only slightly better than Ks. Groundouts are slightly worse than Ks because the vast majority of double plays occur on these outs and a small majority of productive outs are made on flyballs in the modern baseball environment.

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that there is even a different between a groundball and a groundout makes this discussion kinda pointless, though. When you're looking back at a season's worth of stats, you know which groundballs turned into outs. They can be differentiated. It's not a black box. Not sure why you're having such a hard time understanding that.

Of course a groundball and a groundout are two different things. The latter is one possible result of the former.

What's pointless is trying to intelligently discuss anything with a person who has such a fundamental lack of baseball understanding that they believe that, in general, strikeouts are the equal, if not better, than all other outs.

Going back to my Edgar Martinez example, you and BL are basically saying that if you converted all of EM's non-strikeout outs to strikeout outs, he would essentially be the same, if not a slightly better, player.

.312/.418/.515 with 1,202 career strikeouts

versus

.312/.418/.515 with 4,966 career strikeouts

Because, according to the two of you, when looking at season wide, or even career numbers, all outs are basically the same.

That's really, really, really, really, really dumb.

What difference does it make how he made his outs?

So you wouldn't think nearly 5,000 strikeouts in 7200+ ABs was an issue so long as it was accompanied by .312/.418/.515?

It's extreme. I doubt anyone who had that much trouble making contact would ever hit .312, but since in this hypothetical he did, it doesn't matter.

Posted by sjpoker on 6/24/2016 10:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/24/2016 10:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/24/2016 9:48:00 PM (view original):
Mmmm. Yeah not sure about that methodology. If there's a strikeout, or the hitter walks, or even if there's a fielders choice or flyout, the previous runner did not score. The productive out definitively helped score a run.

And attributing the negative value of the GIDP only to the batter is a fallacy as well. Because that is implying that the runner did not make a mistake.

And what methodology did you use?

Nope. You are trying to redirect. It's not about my opinion. I said we'd listen to you. And that's what I am doing.

The models I presented are not active events. They are history. The plays are over. We are evaluating them after the fact.

We know the fly outs resulted in runs. The GIDPs wound up wiping out - potential - runs. Those are unrealized events. So evaluating a potential event that will not occur against something positive that definitively occurred.

Think about it for a second. Between the two models ,there were the same number outs. But one resulted in 10 runs. The other resulted in zero runs.

Still waiting BL.

Is there a question there?

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/24/2016 10:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/24/2016 10:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/24/2016 10:27:00 PM (view original):
I want to know a percentage for a GIDP on a ground ball in play with a runner on first and less than two outs. When you factor in hits, errors, FC, etc., let's say the odds of a double play on a groundball are 25%.

So there`s a 75% chance of a hit, a productive out (only play is at first) or a neutral out (FC, lead runner out). So yes, I'll risk the DP to get a ball in play over a K.

I don't think anyone would prefer a K to a groundball.

I said I would take a K over a groundout.

Do you understand the difference?

I do. But apparently you don't understand what's being argued.

You're making a statement, in a vacuum, that a K is better than a groundout. Bases loaded, no outs, which is better? I'll take the run-scoring groundout or DP. K does nothing.

I guarantee you any team would take the risk of a DP to have a groundball over a K. No team is saying to their hitters "now, either hit a flyball or strike out. Don't you dare put that ball in play on the ground!!"

See, you say you understand the difference between a groundball and a groundout, but then one short paragraph later you're back to groundball.

Not to mention you're back to trying to compartmentalize with unrealistic scenarios. First of all, bases loaded no out is a horrible time for a double play. It costs you massively in that scenario. But perhaps even more importantly, how many plate appearances in an entire season happen with the bases loaded and no out? I highly doubt it's 1%. So this is a serious edge case. When you're talking about a season's worth of outs, what happened in 4 or 5 of them is a fairly marginal factor.

No, you're not understanding as you keep illustrating.

You've clearly said you'd take a guy who K's over a guy who grounds out. Yet any moron knows it's better to put the ball in play - that's the objective of baseball. And a guy who makes a higher percentage of his outs on the ground clearly puts the ball in play more and is more likely to have those ground balls help his team in the future, whether they are productive outs, or whether they lead to another outcome (FC, error, hit, etc.).

You and BL are still applying retroactive logic to present scenarios.

Posted by sjpoker on 6/24/2016 10:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2016 10:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/24/2016 9:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2016 9:17:00 PM (view original):
I know that balls in play can become:

• hits
• ROE
• productive outs
• non-productive outs
• double plays

I know that strikeouts can become:

• non-productive outs

Did I miss anything?

Ok, no disagreement here. But we're talking about after-the-fact analysis of outs in play. Outs in play can become:

• productive outs
• non-productive outs
• double plays
• errors

Once you take the hits out of the equation outs in play are only slightly better than Ks. Groundouts are slightly worse than Ks because the vast majority of double plays occur on these outs and a small majority of productive outs are made on flyballs in the modern baseball environment.

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that there is even a different between a groundball and a groundout makes this discussion kinda pointless, though. When you're looking back at a season's worth of stats, you know which groundballs turned into outs. They can be differentiated. It's not a black box. Not sure why you're having such a hard time understanding that.

Of course a groundball and a groundout are two different things. The latter is one possible result of the former.

What's pointless is trying to intelligently discuss anything with a person who has such a fundamental lack of baseball understanding that they believe that, in general, strikeouts are the equal, if not better, than all other outs.

Going back to my Edgar Martinez example, you and BL are basically saying that if you converted all of EM's non-strikeout outs to strikeout outs, he would essentially be the same, if not a slightly better, player.

.312/.418/.515 with 1,202 career strikeouts

versus

.312/.418/.515 with 4,966 career strikeouts

Because, according to the two of you, when looking at season wide, or even career numbers, all outs are basically the same.

That's really, really, really, really, really dumb.

Bill James is out there somewhere laughing at the absurdity of Dahs' argument. Like I said. Tourist. Trying to look 'clever'. Isn't really invested in his opinions.

A) Bill James was one of the founders of "an out is an out" theory. Bill James would be laughing at you for invoking his name to suggest the exact opposite of the position he has embraced. Here's a popular quote of his:

Strikeout pitchers are more effective than pitchers who don’t get strikeouts, therefore teams are always looking for pitchers who can get more strikeouts, and also looking to deploy those pitchers they have in such a way that they will get the most strikeouts. This effect would be offset by the tendency of teams to look for hitters who don’t strike out, if hitters who did not strike out were also better hitters. However, hitters who strike out are generally not less effective than hitters who do not strike out... Thus, there is no pressure to find hitters who don’t strike out. This asymmetry pushes strikeout totals higher over time.

B) Not sure what you mean by "tourist." I've been on these boards since way before you joined the site. Granted, the last few months I haven't been around every single day to talk about baseball. I'm writing my dissertation. Sorry for that.

C) I've never seriously changed my opinion on this. I used to be where BL is now; that is, I thought Ks really didn't matter in end-of-season analysis. Since I just worked up the data and found that there is a statistically significant relationship between strikeouts and run scoring in the post-steroid era, I've changed stance. You'd have to do a much bigger analysis to actually prove anything. You'd need to do a multivariate regression to see if Ks actually impacted run scoring outside of their obvious impact on OBP and SLG. But given what I stated several days ago - that with runs down, the cost of outs has gone down, thus making DPs somewhat less costly than they used to be - I think it's very likely that the superficial data is correct. In past low-scoring periods Ks have been statistically linked to run scoring. It's not unheard of.

D) During the steroid era, Ks didn't impact scoring. That's a statistical fact. You and JTP and Tec can ignore that factual reality all you want and try to justify it by attempting to restate the problem in a situational light. But the reality is that during the period from 1994 to 2005 there is 0 statistical link between striking out and scoring runs once you do apply the multivariate analysis. That is not to say that strikeouts aren't harmful. But it does say that a guy who hits .300/.400/.500 with 100 strikeouts is contributing the same amount as a guy who hits .300/.400/.500 with 200 strikeouts. It can just be harder to hit for that kind of line when your K totals become to astronomically high. But as Bill James pointed out in the above quote, historically, the best hitters have struck out a lot. I bet if you made a list of the top 20 greatest hitters of the live ball era, at least 15 of them would have significantly above-average K rates for their eras (Ted Williams is a big exception here, but Babe Ruth led the league in Ks 5 times).