Posted by dahsdebater on 3/2/2015 6:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/2/2015 5:58:00 PM (view original):
Because I think it's retarded to offer one tidbit of info on a player and then ask someone to pick the better player?

Because, as much as I've called you dumb my fair share of times, you're not a ******* moron.

I'm sure you understand on some level the difference between probabilities and absolutes.

Obviously it's not guaranteed that the high-HR player, or the expensive beer, is better.  But it's certainly more likely.

I don't think it's more likely that a lower-K player is a better player.  I also think this was a fairly silly hypothetical situation for burnsy to have come up with, but it has a point.  You're not stupid enough to miss the point.  Not sure about tec...

Since you were the person who last week yammered on about (a) "you can't compare strikeouts after the season to strikeouts before the season", and then (b) something about strikeouts and OBP, neither or which remotely had anything to do with what I was talking about, I think it's safe to say that you're stupid enough to miss the point.

But thanks for your contributions to this thread.  

Dumbass.

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 6:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/2/2015 4:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/2/2015 4:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 4:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/2/2015 3:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 3:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/2/2015 3:30:00 PM (view original):
Overall, an out is an out.

If you told me, "wow it was really ****** for Trout to strike out with a runner on third and one out," I'd agree.

If you told me that Trout would have been better in 2014 if he had made more outs in play, I'd disagree.

So you're just rehashing last week's argument again, with nothing new to add?

Good job.  Thanks for wasting my time.

Says the guy who started the thread.

Yes, that's my main argument. An out is an out. Do you agree or disagree with this statement:

Trout would have been better in 2014 if he had made more outs in play

I'll make this statement:

Trout will be a better player in 2015 if he can cut down on his strikeouts.

And I'll also make this statement:

Outs in play are going to be better than strikeouts over the course of a season.

If you want to connect those two statements somehow, be my guest.  But I'm not interested in your putting words in my mouth.

"Outs in play are going to be better than strikeouts over the course of a season."

If this is true we should see a K's to run scored correlation, right?

And, why do you have such a hard time answering a simple agree/disagree question. You started the thread about Trout and his strikeouts. It seems like it wouldn't be a big deal to say either, yes, I agree Trout would have been better in 2014 if he had made more outs in play. Or no, I disagree, how Trout made his outs really doesn't matter.

Tec, did you disappear?

No.  My work day ended, I went home, ran an errand, and shoveled snow.

Thanks for checking up on me, though.

So what's your answer?

And shouldn't we see a correlation if outs in play are better over the course of a season?

Speaking of probabilities, wouldn't it be safe to assume that Trout whiffing 150 times instead of 180 times would produce better numbers?    The probabilities suggest he'd get another dozen hits on those thirty struck balls.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/2/2015 6:30:00 PM (view original):
Speaking of probabilities, wouldn't it be safe to assume that Trout whiffing 150 times instead of 180 times would produce better numbers?    The probabilities suggest he'd get another dozen hits on those thirty struck balls.

Sure. But no one has ever argued that K's were no worse than a ball in play.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/2/2015 6:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 6:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/2/2015 4:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/2/2015 4:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 4:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/2/2015 3:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 3:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/2/2015 3:30:00 PM (view original):
Overall, an out is an out.

If you told me, "wow it was really ****** for Trout to strike out with a runner on third and one out," I'd agree.

If you told me that Trout would have been better in 2014 if he had made more outs in play, I'd disagree.

So you're just rehashing last week's argument again, with nothing new to add?

Good job.  Thanks for wasting my time.

Says the guy who started the thread.

Yes, that's my main argument. An out is an out. Do you agree or disagree with this statement:

Trout would have been better in 2014 if he had made more outs in play

I'll make this statement:

Trout will be a better player in 2015 if he can cut down on his strikeouts.

And I'll also make this statement:

Outs in play are going to be better than strikeouts over the course of a season.

If you want to connect those two statements somehow, be my guest.  But I'm not interested in your putting words in my mouth.

"Outs in play are going to be better than strikeouts over the course of a season."

If this is true we should see a K's to run scored correlation, right?

And, why do you have such a hard time answering a simple agree/disagree question. You started the thread about Trout and his strikeouts. It seems like it wouldn't be a big deal to say either, yes, I agree Trout would have been better in 2014 if he had made more outs in play. Or no, I disagree, how Trout made his outs really doesn't matter.

Tec, did you disappear?

No.  My work day ended, I went home, ran an errand, and shoveled snow.

Thanks for checking up on me, though.

So what's your answer?

And shouldn't we see a correlation if outs in play are better over the course of a season?

Over the past 10 seasons (roughly since the end of the steroid era), strikeouts per 9 innings has been gradually growing, while runs per 9 innings has been gradually decreasing.

Are you sure there's no correlation?

There's absolutely a correlation between more outs and less runs.

But that isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about different kinds of outs.

If you look at the 2400+ team seasons since 1920, there is absolutely zero correlation between the amount of runs a team scores and the amount of times the team strikes out.

I ran the numbers this morning just to be sure.

The coefficient of OBP to R is 0.80. For strikeouts, the number is 0.06.

Posted by dahsdebater on 3/2/2015 6:49:00 PM (view original):
Maybe you don't understand the difference between probability and absolutes?

Assuming my math is right, the 127 player-seasons in history with 30 HR average a .287/.369/.523 triple slash with a 122 OPS+.  The 364 player-seasons in history with 20 HR average .275/.349/.465 with a 112 OPS+.  So yeah, if I have to gamble here, it's legitimate to take the 30-HR guy.  He's more likely to be the better player.

10J suited is going to beat pocket aces 20% of the time, 21.5% if one of the aces isn't in the 10J suit.  Doesn't mean I'm not going to gamble on the pocket aces every time in that matchup.  Sure, you're still missing a lot of information, IE the entire board.  But any good poker player is calling an all-in preflop every time with AA.  And that doesn't make him stupid.

Miketec must hate poker.

I NEED MORE INFO! THIS GAME IS RETARDED! (flips table, leaves)

It is a silly scenario. Dahs explained my point to you though. The fact that any rational person (I give some people too much credit sometimes) would prefer the odds of the 30 HR player over the 20 HR player, yet picking the player in the K scenario is basically a coin flip, helps to show you how irrelevant Ks are to an offensive player.

Tec's refusal to answer the question is an admittance that he agrees that an out is an out. Even if he won't actually say so.

Posted by dahsdebater on 3/2/2015 6:49:00 PM (view original):
Maybe you don't understand the difference between probability and absolutes?

Assuming my math is right, the 127 player-seasons in history with 30 HR average a .287/.369/.523 triple slash with a 122 OPS+.  The 364 player-seasons in history with 20 HR average .275/.349/.465 with a 112 OPS+.  So yeah, if I have to gamble here, it's legitimate to take the 30-HR guy.  He's more likely to be the better player.

10J suited is going to beat pocket aces 20% of the time, 21.5% if one of the aces isn't in the 10J suit.  Doesn't mean I'm not going to gamble on the pocket aces every time in that matchup.  Sure, you're still missing a lot of information, IE the entire board.  But any good poker player is calling an all-in preflop every time with AA.  And that doesn't make him stupid.

Do you understand how SLG percentage works?     Don't you think HR hitters would have a higher one?

Posted by bad_luck on 3/2/2015 7:16:00 PM (view original):
There's absolutely a correlation between more outs and less runs.

But that isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about different kinds of outs.

If you look at the 2400+ team seasons since 1920, there is absolutely zero correlation between the amount of runs a team scores and the amount of times the team strikes out.

I ran the numbers this morning just to be sure.

The coefficient of OBP to R is 0.80. For strikeouts, the number is 0.06.

Since 1920.

Brilliant.

So you're mixing data from all sorts of different eras (pre-integration, WW2, post-integration, 5 different sets of expansion, mid-60's pitching era, the DH era, the steroid era, and the post-steroid era, etc.), and not getting a correlation.

Brilliant.

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/2/2015 7:23:00 PM (view original):
It is a silly scenario. Dahs explained my point to you though. The fact that any rational person (I give some people too much credit sometimes) would prefer the odds of the 30 HR player over the 20 HR player, yet picking the player in the K scenario is basically a coin flip, helps to show you how irrelevant Ks are to an offensive player.

No, any rational person would say "Need more info".    Homers don't necessarily tell you the value of a player.