Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2016 10:26:00 AM (view original):
Is it interesting? I'm pretty sure I've said, multiple times, that trading strikeouts for non-outs is a good thing.

Well it's interesting because you've claimed, through your in-depth historical statistical analysis, that there is no correlation between strikeouts and run scoring.

Yet you've asserted that a smaller strike zone would result in (a) more runs and (b) fewer strikeouts.

Even though one thing is not directly leading to the other, they are indirectly related in that they both spawn from the same circumstance.

Perhaps the foundation of your claim that "strikeouts are the same as all other outs" is just a massive pile of ****?

Posted by tecwrg on 6/25/2016 11:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2016 10:26:00 AM (view original):
Is it interesting? I'm pretty sure I've said, multiple times, that trading strikeouts for non-outs is a good thing.

Well it's interesting because you've claimed, through your in-depth historical statistical analysis, that there is no correlation between strikeouts and run scoring.

Yet you've asserted that a smaller strike zone would result in (a) more runs and (b) fewer strikeouts.

Even though one thing is not directly leading to the other, they are indirectly related in that they both spawn from the same circumstance.

Perhaps the foundation of your claim that "strikeouts are the same as all other outs" is just a massive pile of ****?

Historically, strikeouts don't correlate to run scoring.

But out rates correlate very, very strongly to run scoring. If teams reduce the frequency of all outs, they score more runs.

Oh, look who's missing the point again.

"If teams reduce the frequency of all outs, they score more runs."

Except in the game of baseball, you can't reduce the number of outs you make. It's finite. As tec said, there are 3 outs per inning and 27 outs in a 9-inning game. No matter how big or small the zone is, that doesn't change. If you make the strike zone smaller, you reduce Ks, but there are still 27 outs. So that means more ground outs/fly outs.

And if fewer strikeouts and more ground outs/fly outs = more offense, that would seem to imply that reducing strikeouts leads to more runs and run scoring opportunities for offenses.

So to claim that there is zero correlation between strikeouts and runs, and then turn around and claim a smaller zone and fewer Ks would = more runs is contradictory to say the least.

Please confirm you understand before we continue.

That's brilliant analysis.

Do you also have any analysis that concludes that water is wet?

But that aside . . . a smaller strike zone would lead to more runs and less strikeouts. That's according to you. But there's no correlation between more runs and fewer strikeouts?

Posted by tecwrg on 6/25/2016 12:28:00 PM (view original):
That's brilliant analysis.

Do you also have any analysis that concludes that water is wet?

But that aside . . . a smaller strike zone would lead to more runs and less strikeouts. That's according to you. But there's no correlation between more runs and fewer strikeouts?

No. Because apparently a smaller zone and fewer Ks means the team is making fewer outs overall. Duh.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/25/2016 12:28:00 PM (view original):
Oh, look who's missing the point again.

"If teams reduce the frequency of all outs, they score more runs."

Except in the game of baseball, you can't reduce the number of outs you make. It's finite. As tec said, there are 3 outs per inning and 27 outs in a 9-inning game. No matter how big or small the zone is, that doesn't change. If you make the strike zone smaller, you reduce Ks, but there are still 27 outs. So that means more ground outs/fly outs.

And if fewer strikeouts and more ground outs/fly outs = more offense, that would seem to imply that reducing strikeouts leads to more runs and run scoring opportunities for offenses.

So to claim that there is zero correlation between strikeouts and runs, and then turn around and claim a smaller zone and fewer Ks would = more runs is contradictory to say the least.

Please confirm you understand before we continue.

He's all over the place. He doesn't understand what he's saying.

Watch. He'll make a slight change to the argument and try to take it in a different, less uncomfortable (for him) direction.

"If teams are striking out less, they're putting the ball in play more, and balls in play aren't outs in play so they're making fewer outs per game. DUH!"

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/25/2016 12:28:00 PM (view original):
Oh, look who's missing the point again.

"If teams reduce the frequency of all outs, they score more runs."

Except in the game of baseball, you can't reduce the number of outs you make. It's finite. As tec said, there are 3 outs per inning and 27 outs in a 9-inning game. No matter how big or small the zone is, that doesn't change. If you make the strike zone smaller, you reduce Ks, but there are still 27 outs. So that means more ground outs/fly outs.

And if fewer strikeouts and more ground outs/fly outs = more offense, that would seem to imply that reducing strikeouts leads to more runs and run scoring opportunities for offenses.

So to claim that there is zero correlation between strikeouts and runs, and then turn around and claim a smaller zone and fewer Ks would = more runs is contradictory to say the least.

Please confirm you understand before we continue.

Do you understand what frequency means?

Posted by tecwrg on 6/25/2016 12:28:00 PM (view original):
That's brilliant analysis.

Do you also have any analysis that concludes that water is wet?

But that aside . . . a smaller strike zone would lead to more runs and less strikeouts. That's according to you. But there's no correlation between more runs and fewer strikeouts?

Smaller strike zone = less frequent outs. Do you disagree?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2016 1:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/25/2016 12:28:00 PM (view original):
That's brilliant analysis.

Do you also have any analysis that concludes that water is wet?

But that aside . . . a smaller strike zone would lead to more runs and less strikeouts. That's according to you. But there's no correlation between more runs and fewer strikeouts?

Smaller strike zone = less frequent outs. Do you disagree?

What the hell does that have to do with the types of outs that are made?

A smaller strike zone = fewer strikeouts.

Fewer strikeouts = more ground outs/fly outs.

And according to you, a smaller strike zone = more scoring

Therefore, fewer strikeouts = more scoring.

You are a colossal moron.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/25/2016 1:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2016 1:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/25/2016 12:28:00 PM (view original):
That's brilliant analysis.

Do you also have any analysis that concludes that water is wet?

But that aside . . . a smaller strike zone would lead to more runs and less strikeouts. That's according to you. But there's no correlation between more runs and fewer strikeouts?

Smaller strike zone = less frequent outs. Do you disagree?

What the hell does that have to do with the types of outs that are made?

A smaller strike zone = fewer strikeouts.

Fewer strikeouts = more ground outs/fly outs.

And according to you, a smaller strike zone = more scoring

Therefore, fewer strikeouts = more scoring.

You are a colossal moron.

What the hell does that have to do with the types of outs that are made? - my point exactly


A smaller strike zone = fewer strikeouts - yep


Fewer strikeouts = more ground outs/fly outs. - probably. But there will also be more walks and hits (less outs) which is why scoring would increase.

No, scoring would increase because more balls would be put in play.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/25/2016 1:49:00 PM (view original):
No, scoring would increase because more balls would be put in play.

Yep (and more walks)

Once again, jtpsops proves that he's an idiot.

Hey tec, this is the guy that agrees with you.

Do you really think talking in circles distracts people from what a moron you are?