Posted by bad_luck on 3/3/2015 10:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/3/2015 9:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/2/2015 10:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 10:21:00 PM (view original):
And here's what I think. If you had "pulled the numbers" and they clearly showed no correlation, you would have been all over posting them here with an "in your FACE" comment.

Shockingly, that hasn't happened. Which can only mean that you're delaying while trying to figure out how to spin the story to prevent you from looking like the baseball-ignorant idiot that you are.

So post them, or don't post them. I don't really care.

I haven't looked yet. I'm guessing there isn't a correlation but who knows, it might surprise me with a -0.75 or something (it needs to be lower than -0.5 to conclude that there's a correlation). But you won't accept it no matter what so there isn't a point in going though it. Evidence doesn't matter to you. All you'll accept is what you already "know."

So, I was wrong. 

The correlation between runs scored and strikeouts doesn't go back to the END of the steroid era (around 2005).  it goes back to the START of the steroid era (around 1993 / 1994) and is pretty steady and consistent since then.

Perhaps if I went back further (I went back 25 seasons, to 1990), I would find that it goes back even further.

Interesting. What coefficient?

I have a hard time believing that when the entire history of baseball shows zero correlation (it's actually a hair positive, but so slight it becomes zero). Why would it suddenly change at a time when power was more prevelant than ever?

Posted by bad_luck on 3/3/2015 10:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/3/2015 9:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/2/2015 10:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 10:21:00 PM (view original):
And here's what I think. If you had "pulled the numbers" and they clearly showed no correlation, you would have been all over posting them here with an "in your FACE" comment.

Shockingly, that hasn't happened. Which can only mean that you're delaying while trying to figure out how to spin the story to prevent you from looking like the baseball-ignorant idiot that you are.

So post them, or don't post them. I don't really care.

I haven't looked yet. I'm guessing there isn't a correlation but who knows, it might surprise me with a -0.75 or something (it needs to be lower than -0.5 to conclude that there's a correlation). But you won't accept it no matter what so there isn't a point in going though it. Evidence doesn't matter to you. All you'll accept is what you already "know."

So, I was wrong. 

The correlation between runs scored and strikeouts doesn't go back to the END of the steroid era (around 2005).  it goes back to the START of the steroid era (around 1993 / 1994) and is pretty steady and consistent since then.

Perhaps if I went back further (I went back 25 seasons, to 1990), I would find that it goes back even further.

Interesting. What coefficient?

I have a hard time believing that when the entire history of baseball shows zero correlation (it's actually a hair positive, but so slight it becomes zero). Why would it suddenly change at a time when power was more prevelant than ever?

Posted by bad_luck on 3/3/2015 10:02:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/3/2015 9:59:00 AM (view original):
I think what tec is saying is that Ks as a whole have been steadily increasing, while runs decrease. Which is probably right, but it's interesting that when you look at particular players or teams, you don't see much of a correlation at all. 

K's have been increasing but it's along with the out rate in general. More outs=less runs. How many of those outs are strikeouts really doesn't matter.

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/3/2015 10:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/3/2015 10:02:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/3/2015 9:59:00 AM (view original):
I think what tec is saying is that Ks as a whole have been steadily increasing, while runs decrease. Which is probably right, but it's interesting that when you look at particular players or teams, you don't see much of a correlation at all. 

K's have been increasing but it's along with the out rate in general. More outs=less runs. How many of those outs are strikeouts really doesn't matter.

Right. But the argument becomes, is the out rate increasing because the K rate is increasing.

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/3/2015 10:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/3/2015 10:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/3/2015 9:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/2/2015 10:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 10:21:00 PM (view original):
And here's what I think. If you had "pulled the numbers" and they clearly showed no correlation, you would have been all over posting them here with an "in your FACE" comment.

Shockingly, that hasn't happened. Which can only mean that you're delaying while trying to figure out how to spin the story to prevent you from looking like the baseball-ignorant idiot that you are.

So post them, or don't post them. I don't really care.

I haven't looked yet. I'm guessing there isn't a correlation but who knows, it might surprise me with a -0.75 or something (it needs to be lower than -0.5 to conclude that there's a correlation). But you won't accept it no matter what so there isn't a point in going though it. Evidence doesn't matter to you. All you'll accept is what you already "know."

So, I was wrong. 

The correlation between runs scored and strikeouts doesn't go back to the END of the steroid era (around 2005).  it goes back to the START of the steroid era (around 1993 / 1994) and is pretty steady and consistent since then.

Perhaps if I went back further (I went back 25 seasons, to 1990), I would find that it goes back even further.

Interesting. What coefficient?

I have a hard time believing that when the entire history of baseball shows zero correlation (it's actually a hair positive, but so slight it becomes zero). Why would it suddenly change at a time when power was more prevelant than ever?

He's probably just looking back year to year. As in there was an average of 4.79 runs per game with 31,893 Ks in 1997, and 4.07 runs per game with 37,441 Ks in 2014. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/3/2015 10:05:00 AM (view original):
Strikeouts never become hits.   Struck balls can.

Posted by tecwrg on 3/3/2015 10:06:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/3/2015 10:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/3/2015 10:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/3/2015 9:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/2/2015 10:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 10:21:00 PM (view original):
And here's what I think. If you had "pulled the numbers" and they clearly showed no correlation, you would have been all over posting them here with an "in your FACE" comment.

Shockingly, that hasn't happened. Which can only mean that you're delaying while trying to figure out how to spin the story to prevent you from looking like the baseball-ignorant idiot that you are.

So post them, or don't post them. I don't really care.

I haven't looked yet. I'm guessing there isn't a correlation but who knows, it might surprise me with a -0.75 or something (it needs to be lower than -0.5 to conclude that there's a correlation). But you won't accept it no matter what so there isn't a point in going though it. Evidence doesn't matter to you. All you'll accept is what you already "know."

So, I was wrong. 

The correlation between runs scored and strikeouts doesn't go back to the END of the steroid era (around 2005).  it goes back to the START of the steroid era (around 1993 / 1994) and is pretty steady and consistent since then.

Perhaps if I went back further (I went back 25 seasons, to 1990), I would find that it goes back even further.

Interesting. What coefficient?

I have a hard time believing that when the entire history of baseball shows zero correlation (it's actually a hair positive, but so slight it becomes zero). Why would it suddenly change at a time when power was more prevelant than ever?

He's probably just looking back year to year. As in there was an average of 4.79 runs per game with 31,893 Ks in 1997, and 4.07 runs per game with 37,441 Ks in 2014. 

Nope.  I put the numbers in Excel (innings pitched, total runs scored, total strikeouts per season), calculated R/9 and K/9, and used the CORREL function in Excel.

A strong and consistent correlation for the past 21 seasons (1994 - 2014).

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/3/2015 10:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/3/2015 10:05:00 AM (view original):
Strikeouts never become hits.   Struck balls can.

OH REALLY? I DIDNT KNOW THAT.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/3/2015 10:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/3/2015 10:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/3/2015 10:05:00 AM (view original):
Strikeouts never become hits.   Struck balls can.

OH REALLY? I DIDNT KNOW THAT.

Now you do.

You're welcome.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/3/2015 10:09:00 AM (view original):
You have to do it for individual teams.