Well, I could have used beer in my example if I had chosen to.

If I have a keg, I can throw a party because one single beer isn't that important. I'll get my fill either way.
If I have a single beer, each sip is important.

To transfer to hits/runs, sip of beer = positive offensive impact, run = 1 beer.

IOW, if I have a lot of runs, a single POI isn't that big of deal. But, when I have a shortage of runs, I need every out to count(sac fly is a big deal).

You know BL's going to come back and tell you that your analogy is wrong.

You know that, correct?

Yeah, but unless somebody quotes it, I can pretend he says "Oh, I see. I get it now. You're right. I've been wrong for the last 33 pages."

The thing I don't quite understand is that everybody knows each team only gets 27 outs in a full 9 inning game. In a low scoring game, those outs are a precious commodity. You need each one of them to count. While that won't happen, you need to make the most out of as many as you can. Therefore you need "productive" outs. If you're scoring 13 runs, you can go "Phhhtttt. So I struck out. Next guy will probably hit a homer. We're good!!!!"

It's really just common sense.

Right. But you can throw common sense out the window when dealing with BL. That's a foreign concept to him.

He has his "theories" about baseball that derive from his interpretation of what he thinks the stats are telling him, but he's unable to apply a common sense filter to help determine if what he's saying actually makes any sense, or is just batshit crazy. Most everybody else here can do that. BL can't.

This really isn't that complicated.

When the run scoring environment is higher, each event is worth more runs, positive or negative.

When the run scoring environment is lower, each event is worth less runs.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2016 11:26:00 AM (view original):
This really isn't that complicated.

When the run scoring environment is higher, each event is worth more runs, positive or negative.

When the run scoring environment is lower, each event is worth less runs.

Explain to us how a hit or a sac fly is worth less when you're scoring 3 runs than it is when you're scoring 10 runs.

Apparently it is complicated for you. The more of something you have, the less valuable it is. Not sure why you can't seem to grasp that.

It's worth less *runs*. A single drives in fewer runners and is less likely to end up scoring in a low scoring environment.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2016 11:43:00 PM (view original):
You haven't even said what was wrong about the analogy.

You're having a hard time, aren't you?

If you can't pick up what the hell was so obviously wrong with that, then I can't explain it to you. I'd have to teach you a class.

Its you who is struggling.

JT - Don't bother. He can't understand it. Its over his head. Dan Szymborski would be rolling his eyes right now.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/28/2016 11:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2016 11:26:00 AM (view original):
This really isn't that complicated.

When the run scoring environment is higher, each event is worth more runs, positive or negative.

When the run scoring environment is lower, each event is worth less runs.

Explain to us how a hit or a sac fly is worth less when you're scoring 3 runs than it is when you're scoring 10 runs.

Apparently it is complicated for you. The more of something you have, the less valuable it is. Not sure why you can't seem to grasp that.

I think this whole economic analogy is what's confusing everybody. Let's change the paradigm. Maybe this will help:

Think of "runs" as elephants.

In a low scoring environment, "hits" are puppies.
In a high scoring environment, "hits" are giraffes.

Better?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2016 11:47:00 AM (view original):
It's worth less *runs*. A single drives in fewer runners and is less likely to end up scoring in a low scoring environment.

I think you win arguments by making people want to gouge their own eyes out.

We are talking about the value of individual events (your words). The value of a run or a hit or a sac fly goes down the more offense you have, because there will likely be more there to replace it if you miss out on an opportunity.

Sure, a single in a low-scoring environment is less likely to score (or, worth fewer runs, in your words), but "worth fewer runs" does NOT = "less valuable." That's where your confusion lies. A single in a low-scoring environment may be less likely to score, but that's precisely what makes that baserunner worth far more than it would be in a high-scoring environment.

You're argument is flawed.

To use Mike's example:

If you have $100,000, a quarter isn't that valuable to you. If you only have $1, a quarter is very valuable to you.

But you're standing there saying "Actually, if you have $1, that quarter is worth less because you probably can't buy anything with it." Which is dumb.

This is less than ten pages away from entering LH 2B territory...

WE CAN DO EEEEET!!