Posted by bad_luck on 7/6/2016 9:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/6/2016 8:45:00 AM (view original):
Yes, baseball has always worked the same way.

Remember when Home Run Baker was leading the league with 10-12 homers? Same thing today.
Remember the offensive explosion in the 60s that led to MLB lowering to curtail hitting? Makes perfect sense.
Remember when the AL decided pitchers were hitting too well so they created the DH? Had to be done.
Remember when virtually all the players blew up and looked like they lived in the gym? Still couldn't surpass ol' Home Run Baker.

Ok, but there's still three outs in an inning, three bases and home. 27 outs in a game.

The players have changed. Some rules have changed. Overall run scoring has varied very little since 1920.

Baseball is still baseball.

The lowest R/G during the period of 1993-2009, which would cover the steroid era and the next couple of years beyond, was 4.59 R/G (2005).

With the exception of 1987 (4.72), you would have to go back to 1953 (4.61) to find the previous season where R/G exceeded the low point of the steroid era.

It's disingenuous to try to imply that there was no significant variation in scoring during the steroid era.

You're acting desperate in trying to salvage your lost argument. Just give it up.

Posted by tecwrg on 7/6/2016 9:27:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/6/2016 9:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/6/2016 8:45:00 AM (view original):
Yes, baseball has always worked the same way.

Remember when Home Run Baker was leading the league with 10-12 homers? Same thing today.
Remember the offensive explosion in the 60s that led to MLB lowering to curtail hitting? Makes perfect sense.
Remember when the AL decided pitchers were hitting too well so they created the DH? Had to be done.
Remember when virtually all the players blew up and looked like they lived in the gym? Still couldn't surpass ol' Home Run Baker.

Ok, but there's still three outs in an inning, three bases and home. 27 outs in a game.

The players have changed. Some rules have changed. Overall run scoring has varied very little since 1920.

Baseball is still baseball.

The lowest R/G during the period of 1993-2009, which would cover the steroid era and the next couple of years beyond, was 4.59 R/G (2005).

With the exception of 1987 (4.72), you would have to go back to 1953 (4.61) to find the previous season where R/G exceeded the low point of the steroid era.

It's disingenuous to try to imply that there was no significant variation in scoring during the steroid era.

You're acting desperate in trying to salvage your lost argument. Just give it up.

Not desperate. Run scoring varies. Always has and always will.

I'm saying there's no reason why we can't look at those years together.

The basic rules of baseball haven't changed. But a lot of things have. I detailed a few. It's ridiculous to compare today's player to the player in 1923. Babe Ruth was big man back in his day. Carlos Correa is bigger and plays SS today. The players, and game, have evolved.

I don't know where you draw the line as far as eras but you can't compare numbers from 1968 to 1998, say "Baseball is still baseball" and have a legit discussion.

And what about that precludes us from looking at the correlation (or lack thereof) of team strikeouts to runs?

I hate myself when I hit "Show". I keep hoping for something different but it's always same old badluck.

We did about 40 pages on it. In low scoring games(or eras), each "event" carries more importance. It can be a positive or a negative. So a home run or a strikeout in low scoring 1968 had more relative value than it did in high scoring 1998. I know you disagree, hence the 40 pages, but you're just not wearing your thinking cap.

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/6/2016 10:42:00 AM (view original):
I hate myself when I hit "Show". I keep hoping for something different but it's always same old badluck.

We did about 40 pages on it. In low scoring games(or eras), each "event" carries more importance. It can be a positive or a negative. So a home run or a strikeout in low scoring 1968 had more relative value than it did in high scoring 1998. I know you disagree, hence the 40 pages, but you're just not wearing your thinking cap.

Even if we disagree on the direction that run values move, we agree they move.

And they all move.

If a single is worth more in year A than year B, an out is more costly in year A than year B.

And, since run scoring hasn't ever really dramatically changed, the values haven't dramatically changed.

During the steroid era, we saw RPG averages around 4.8. Now, it's at something like 4.3.

That's half a run, but that only shifts the value of an out from something like -0.33 runs to -0.31 runs.

Two posts I'm not going to read.

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.

8 y/o BL:

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/6/2016 10:57:00 AM (view original):
Two posts I'm not going to read.

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.

Mikespeak for, "I got nothin."

Another bad faith BL argument.

Baseball was exactly the same in 1916 as it is in 2016. "Three outs in an inning, three bases and home. 27 outs in a game."

Posted by tecwrg on 7/6/2016 11:13:00 AM (view original):
Another bad faith BL argument.

Baseball was exactly the same in 1916 as it is in 2016. "Three outs in an inning, three bases and home. 27 outs in a game."

I never said it was exactly the same.

I didn't even imply it.

If anyone is arguing in bad faith, it's you.

Posted by tecwrg on 7/6/2016 11:13:00 AM (view original):
Another bad faith BL argument.

Baseball was exactly the same in 1916 as it is in 2016. "Three outs in an inning, three bases and home. 27 outs in a game."

Unless of course we shrink the strike zone. Then there would be fewer outs in a game.

Posted by Jtpsops on 7/6/2016 11:22:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/6/2016 11:13:00 AM (view original):
Another bad faith BL argument.

Baseball was exactly the same in 1916 as it is in 2016. "Three outs in an inning, three bases and home. 27 outs in a game."

Unless of course we shrink the strike zone. Then there would be fewer outs in a game.

Shrinking the strike zone would reduce out frequency.