Posted by Jtpsops on 6/28/2016 12:11:00 PM (view original):

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.

I understand what you're saying. You're talking about the scarcity of hits making each one more valuable.

But I'm talking about the value of hits (or other events) in terms of runs. When there are a lot of runs being scored, each event produces more (or costs you more) runs.

It's why I used the money/labor analogy.

In 1970 there was relatively little money circulating in the economy, so the average cost of an hour of labor was something like $3.

In 2005, there was a lot more money circulating in the economy, so the average cost of an hour of labor was something like $16.

In 1970, run scoring in MLB was lower, so one single created less runs than one single in 2005, when run scoring was higher.

In 1970, one single run and one single dollar were worth more than one single run or one single dollar in 2005. But the cost of things in terms of dollars (or runs) were higher in 2005.

"But I'm talking about the value of hits (or other events) in terms of runs. When there are a lot of runs being scored, each event produces more (or costs you more) runs."

This is so unbelievably flawed. Using your previous example of the bases loaded with no outs and only scoring one run - failing to score multiple runs costs you WAY MORE in a low-scoring environment. When lots of runs are being scored, it's easy to brush off that missed opportunity because you know you're going to get a lot more opportunities to score runs.

You're going off the flawed premise that "in a high scoring environment, there will be runners on, so a single will drive in more runs, thus making it more valuable in that environment." You're ignoring the fact that in a high scoring environment, there will be lots of singles, and lots of runs - so you need a lot more of those events in order to be successful (ie: they are LESS VALUABLE on their own). Likewise, if you miss an opportunity, it's not as big a deal because you know more are coming (ie: it COSTS YOU LESS than missing that same opportunity in a low-scoring environment).

You are looking at everything totally backwards.

**** it, never mind. I don't care if you understand this or not.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2016 12:41:00 PM (view original):
**** it, never mind. I don't care if you understand this or not.

"**** it, never mind. I don't care if I understand this or not."

Fixed that for you.

BL needs to step away from his computer for a few weeks. I think he's having a breakdown.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/28/2016 12:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2016 12:41:00 PM (view original):
**** it, never mind. I don't care if you understand this or not.

"**** it, never mind. I don't care if I understand this or not."

Fixed that for you.

If you want to go there, let's do it.

You said this:

"Using your previous example of the bases loaded with no outs and only scoring one run - failing to score multiple runs costs you WAY MORE in a low-scoring environment."

Costs you WAY MORE what?

It costs you an opportunity to win the game. Lower-scoring environment = fewer run-scoring opportunities = each missed opportunity is more costly.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/28/2016 12:48:00 PM (view original):
It costs you an opportunity to win the game. Lower-scoring environment = fewer run-scoring opportunities = each missed opportunity is more costly.

Great. It costs you more wins.

Does it cost you more runs?

Edit for clarification:

This is probably easier highlighted in reverse, talking about production from positive events instead of the cost of negative events.

This is you misdirecting again. "Cost of runs" does not equal "value".

Scenario A: RPG = 10 and you pass up a chance to score 2 runs.
Scenario B: RPG = 3 and you pass up a chance to score 1 run.

Scenario A costs your team more runs. Scenario B costs your team more VALUE. You keep talking about statistical analysis but the concept of VALUE still eludes you. The more of something you have, the less value each individual unit holds. In Scenario A above, they missed a chance to score more runs, but they only missed out on 20% of their needed total. Scenario B, the team missed out on a chance to score fewer runs, but it cost their team 33% of their needed total. In a high-scoring environment, each run or offensive event has LESS VALUE. The inverse is true in a low-scoring environment.

So far in this thread you've proven you don't know the meaning of FREQUENCY or VALUE. Maybe you should go back to school for a bit, and then come back to these forums.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/28/2016 11:57:00 AM (view original):

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?

BL, you dumb ****, when you score 1 run, how valuable is 1 run?
BL, you dumb ****, when you score 11 runs, how valuable is 1 run?

Please, you dumb ****, answer this.

IT'S SIMPLE ******* 1ST GRADE MATH, YOU DUMB ****!!!!

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/28/2016 1:01:00 PM (view original):
This is you misdirecting again. "Cost of runs" does not equal "value".

Scenario A: RPG = 10 and you pass up a chance to score 2 runs.
Scenario B: RPG = 3 and you pass up a chance to score 1 run.

Scenario A costs your team more runs. Scenario B costs your team more VALUE. You keep talking about statistical analysis but the concept of VALUE still eludes you. The more of something you have, the less value each individual unit holds. In Scenario A above, they missed a chance to score more runs, but they only missed out on 20% of their needed total. Scenario B, the team missed out on a chance to score fewer runs, but it cost their team 33% of their needed total. In a high-scoring environment, each run or offensive event has LESS VALUE. The inverse is true in a low-scoring environment.

So far in this thread you've proven you don't know the meaning of FREQUENCY or VALUE. Maybe you should go back to school for a bit, and then come back to these forums.

I'm talking about the value of events IN TERMS OF RUNS

X event is worth Y runs.

In this case, the value of something is how many runs it is worth.

"I don't need to watch the games. I just calculate the delta between the sum of positive and negative events that occur, and adjust for high or low run scoring era"

The last 50 pages have been around the value of a productive out. In a low scoring situation, with a limit of 27 outs, each out is more important. Getting value from an out, or a positive offensive impact AB, is more important when scoring is low. Because the object is to win the game not end the season with the more runs scored. Dumb ****.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/28/2016 12:43:00 PM (view original):
BL needs to step away from his computer for a few weeks. I think he's having a breakdown.

I think he's just discovered a new level of retard.