Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 1:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 1:13:00 PM (view original):
So, what you're saying is, we have to know the circumstances of every event in order to know if it was positive or negative?

Of course. I'll go back to my example of managing my baseball team this spring.

It's two outs in the bottom of the 7th inning (7 inning game), and the potential tying run is on third. We're down to possibly our last out.

If my #9 hitter is up and he draws a walk, then I'm around to the top of the batting order with my best hitters coming up. The #9 hitter drawing a walk is HUGE for me.

If my #6 hitter is up and he draws a walk, now I'm getting into the weakest part of my batting order. My #6 guy might have been the last good hitter in my lineup until it wraps around to the top again. My 7/8/9 guys suck. My #6 guy walking is not so great because I wanted him to put the ball in play to try to tie the game. Now I'm looking for miracles from my three nearly automatic outs in my lineup.

In your simple mind, a batter drawing a walk there is a positive. It's exactly the same positive no matter who the hitter was, and who is following him in the batting order. There is NO context.

However, in reality (because that's where baseball games are played), the difference between the two scenarios is huge.

LOL at tec arguing that a walk is a bad thing.

Like I said, the fact that BL talks about baseball like he does indicates he never played.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 1:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 1:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 1:13:00 PM (view original):
So, what you're saying is, we have to know the circumstances of every event in order to know if it was positive or negative?

Of course. I'll go back to my example of managing my baseball team this spring.

It's two outs in the bottom of the 7th inning (7 inning game), and the potential tying run is on third. We're down to possibly our last out.

If my #9 hitter is up and he draws a walk, then I'm around to the top of the batting order with my best hitters coming up. The #9 hitter drawing a walk is HUGE for me.

If my #6 hitter is up and he draws a walk, now I'm getting into the weakest part of my batting order. My #6 guy might have been the last good hitter in my lineup until it wraps around to the top again. My 7/8/9 guys suck. My #6 guy walking is not so great because I wanted him to put the ball in play to try to tie the game. Now I'm looking for miracles from my three nearly automatic outs in my lineup.

In your simple mind, a batter drawing a walk there is a positive. It's exactly the same positive no matter who the hitter was, and who is following him in the batting order. There is NO context.

However, in reality (because that's where baseball games are played), the difference between the two scenarios is huge.

LOL at tec arguing that a walk is a bad thing.

Kind of like you arguing a run-scoring event is a negative value event?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 1:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 1:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 1:13:00 PM (view original):
So, what you're saying is, we have to know the circumstances of every event in order to know if it was positive or negative?

Of course. I'll go back to my example of managing my baseball team this spring.

It's two outs in the bottom of the 7th inning (7 inning game), and the potential tying run is on third. We're down to possibly our last out.

If my #9 hitter is up and he draws a walk, then I'm around to the top of the batting order with my best hitters coming up. The #9 hitter drawing a walk is HUGE for me.

If my #6 hitter is up and he draws a walk, now I'm getting into the weakest part of my batting order. My #6 guy might have been the last good hitter in my lineup until it wraps around to the top again. My 7/8/9 guys suck. My #6 guy walking is not so great because I wanted him to put the ball in play to try to tie the game. Now I'm looking for miracles from my three nearly automatic outs in my lineup.

In your simple mind, a batter drawing a walk there is a positive. It's exactly the same positive no matter who the hitter was, and who is following him in the batting order. There is NO context.

However, in reality (because that's where baseball games are played), the difference between the two scenarios is huge.

LOL at tec arguing that a walk is a bad thing.

So the impact of the walks in both scenarios are identical in your opinion?

My position is that a walk is always positive.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 1:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/30/2016 1:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 1:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/30/2016 1:19:00 PM (view original):
In that context, yes. 3 K's with the bases empty have the same value as 3 ground outs with the bases empty. But the ground balls themselves were more valuable because they could have led to baserunners. A strikeout cannot, unless the catcher misses the third strike.

Sidebar- No one has ever argued that balls in play were the same as outs.

Back to relative value, would you agree that the vast majority of outs, something like 90%, are in the same relative value bucket as my example above? (Bases empty, third out, couldn't have moved a runner anyway, etc)

I don't know that it's 90%, but sure. If the outs occur with the bases empty and all factors are equal, obviously they would have the same relative value.

Ok, and if you had to guess without knowing the specific situations, would you guess that, in general, productive outs were somewhat more valuable that the 90% of outs that are all the same?

Are you going to answer this, jt?

No I'm not going to answer it. I have no idea what the percentages are.

If you compare two scenarios and all factors are equal, the outs have the same value. If the factors aren't equal, then you use common sense to determine which situation the event was most valuable in.

Why do you feel this obsession to put a finite number on everything? Do you feel your world will collapse in on itself if everything isn't assigned a tidy numerical value?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 1:57:00 PM (view original):
My position is that a walk is always positive.

A walk is always positive. But, just like outs, not all walks are created equal.

It's like in Mike's earlier example. He doubled with two outs, next guy ended the inning. Doubles are always good but in that context it may have been better for the team if Mike was to get out and the better hitter led off the next inning.

Context always matters.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 1:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 1:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 1:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 1:13:00 PM (view original):
So, what you're saying is, we have to know the circumstances of every event in order to know if it was positive or negative?

Of course. I'll go back to my example of managing my baseball team this spring.

It's two outs in the bottom of the 7th inning (7 inning game), and the potential tying run is on third. We're down to possibly our last out.

If my #9 hitter is up and he draws a walk, then I'm around to the top of the batting order with my best hitters coming up. The #9 hitter drawing a walk is HUGE for me.

If my #6 hitter is up and he draws a walk, now I'm getting into the weakest part of my batting order. My #6 guy might have been the last good hitter in my lineup until it wraps around to the top again. My 7/8/9 guys suck. My #6 guy walking is not so great because I wanted him to put the ball in play to try to tie the game. Now I'm looking for miracles from my three nearly automatic outs in my lineup.

In your simple mind, a batter drawing a walk there is a positive. It's exactly the same positive no matter who the hitter was, and who is following him in the batting order. There is NO context.

However, in reality (because that's where baseball games are played), the difference between the two scenarios is huge.

LOL at tec arguing that a walk is a bad thing.

So the impact of the walks in both scenarios are identical in your opinion?

Practical application of facts and common sense do not register with BL.

There's a reason teams often give up an out with a pitcher at the plate and a runner on. It's because of the situation. Or why teams issue INTENTIONAL walks.

****, he's a baseball retard.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/30/2016 2:01:00 PM (view original):
No I'm not going to answer it. I have no idea what the percentages are.

If you compare two scenarios and all factors are equal, the outs have the same value. If the factors aren't equal, then you use common sense to determine which situation the event was most valuable in.

Why do you feel this obsession to put a finite number on everything? Do you feel your world will collapse in on itself if everything isn't assigned a tidy numerical value?

I'm not asking for a finite number. I'm just asking for your opinion on whether or not something, in general, is better than something else.

If you can't answer, then there's no way that you can argue, for example, that player A would have had a better season if he had made more outs in play.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/30/2016 2:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 1:57:00 PM (view original):
My position is that a walk is always positive.

A walk is always positive. But, just like outs, not all walks are created equal.

It's like in Mike's earlier example. He doubled with two outs, next guy ended the inning. Doubles are always good but in that context it may have been better for the team if Mike was to get out and the better hitter led off the next inning.

Context always matters.

Lol at jt and Mike arguing that an out is better than a double.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/30/2016 2:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 1:57:00 PM (view original):
My position is that a walk is always positive.

A walk is always positive. But, just like outs, not all walks are created equal.

It's like in Mike's earlier example. He doubled with two outs, next guy ended the inning. Doubles are always good but in that context it may have been better for the team if Mike was to get out and the better hitter led off the next inning.

Context always matters.

I assume BL means a walk is always positive for the offense.

Why do teams issue INTENTIONAL walks? Do they like to make it harder on their defense?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 2:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/30/2016 2:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 1:57:00 PM (view original):
My position is that a walk is always positive.

A walk is always positive. But, just like outs, not all walks are created equal.

It's like in Mike's earlier example. He doubled with two outs, next guy ended the inning. Doubles are always good but in that context it may have been better for the team if Mike was to get out and the better hitter led off the next inning.

Context always matters.

Lol at jt and Mike arguing that an out is better than a double.

Kind of like you arguing for outs after the fact. Once the second guy ends the inning, we know the double was wasted, even though the double itself was positive.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 2:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/30/2016 2:01:00 PM (view original):
No I'm not going to answer it. I have no idea what the percentages are.

If you compare two scenarios and all factors are equal, the outs have the same value. If the factors aren't equal, then you use common sense to determine which situation the event was most valuable in.

Why do you feel this obsession to put a finite number on everything? Do you feel your world will collapse in on itself if everything isn't assigned a tidy numerical value?

I'm not asking for a finite number. I'm just asking for your opinion on whether or not something, in general, is better than something else.

If you can't answer, then there's no way that you can argue, for example, that player A would have had a better season if he had made more outs in play.

"Would you guess that, in general, productive outs were somewhat more valuable that the 90% of outs that are all the same?"

I'm not even sure this question is in English.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 1:57:00 PM (view original):
My position is that a walk is always positive.

They are always positive.

My question was: were the impacts of the walks in both scenarios identical?

Let me ask in another way, with a hypothetical roster/batting order:

Bottom of the ninth, two outs, tying run on third.

a) Mike Trout draws a walk, Mario Mendoza coming up to the plate
b) Mario Mendoza draws a walk, Mike Trout coming up to the plate

Exactly the same?