Posted by Jtpsops on 6/25/2016 1:51:00 PM (view original):
Do you really think talking in circles distracts people from what a moron you are?

Only you think I'm taking in circles. Everyone else understands the difference between a pre-out ball in play and an out.

Well, maybe not tec.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2016 1:13:00 PM (view original):

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?

You didn't answer this.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2016 1:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/25/2016 1:51:00 PM (view original):
Do you really think talking in circles distracts people from what a moron you are?

Only you think I'm taking in circles. Everyone else understands the difference between a pre-out ball in play and an out.

Well, maybe not tec.

Actually, everyone but dahs thinks you're talking in circles. Hard to believe this has been going on for almost 60 pages and you still don't grasp that you and dahs are the only ones defending a failed position.

But keep at it, chief.

What exactly do you think my failed position is?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2016 2:09:00 PM (view original):
What exactly do you think my failed position is?

Ah, nice try. I'm not going to start the merry-go-round again.

Go back and read the last 60 pages. It'll dawn on you eventually.

If you don't want to argue, fine.

But im not going to try and convince you that I'm not talking about balls in play when I say an out is an out.

Go back and read the last 60 pages. It'll dawn on you eventually.

No thanks.

I don't blame you. It'd be painful on your part.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2016 2:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2016 1:13:00 PM (view original):

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?

You didn't answer this.

?

Jonathan Schoop must be reading this thread. Just swung at two balls at his eyes for the K with one out and the bases loaded. He wanted to make sure he avoided that disastrous double play.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/25/2016 2:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2016 2:09:00 PM (view original):
What exactly do you think my failed position is?

Ah, nice try. I'm not going to start the merry-go-round again.

Go back and read the last 60 pages. It'll dawn on you eventually.

No, it won't.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/24/2016 11:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2016 10:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/24/2016 9:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2016 9:17:00 PM (view original):
I know that balls in play can become:

• hits
• ROE
• productive outs
• non-productive outs
• double plays

I know that strikeouts can become:

• non-productive outs

Did I miss anything?

Ok, no disagreement here. But we're talking about after-the-fact analysis of outs in play. Outs in play can become:

• productive outs
• non-productive outs
• double plays
• errors

Once you take the hits out of the equation outs in play are only slightly better than Ks. Groundouts are slightly worse than Ks because the vast majority of double plays occur on these outs and a small majority of productive outs are made on flyballs in the modern baseball environment.

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that there is even a different between a groundball and a groundout makes this discussion kinda pointless, though. When you're looking back at a season's worth of stats, you know which groundballs turned into outs. They can be differentiated. It's not a black box. Not sure why you're having such a hard time understanding that.

Of course a groundball and a groundout are two different things. The latter is one possible result of the former.

What's pointless is trying to intelligently discuss anything with a person who has such a fundamental lack of baseball understanding that they believe that, in general, strikeouts are the equal, if not better, than all other outs.

Going back to my Edgar Martinez example, you and BL are basically saying that if you converted all of EM's non-strikeout outs to strikeout outs, he would essentially be the same, if not a slightly better, player.

.312/.418/.515 with 1,202 career strikeouts

versus

.312/.418/.515 with 4,966 career strikeouts

Because, according to the two of you, when looking at season wide, or even career numbers, all outs are basically the same.

That's really, really, really, really, really dumb.

What difference does it make how he made his outs?

So 1,202 K Edgar is basically the same hitter as 4,966 K Edgar?

Edgar grounded into 190 DPs in his career. He had 77 SF and 10 SH. So, as long as 103 of those 3,764 outs in play moved a runner over, then clearly non-strikeout outs are better over the course of a career than strikeouts.

And I'll bet very good money that way more than 103 of those 3,764 outs were productive.

For further context - Cal Ripken was the all-time leader with 350 GIDP. He had 127 SF and 10 SH. Which means he needed 213 more productive outs to balance out the DPs.

He had 7,062 ABs in his career that did not result in a hit or a strikeout. I think it's very safe to say more than 213 of those were productive. And even if you wanted to argue it would take two productive outs to cancel out a DP, that's 426. It's still more than likely he surpassed that in his career.

This notion that double plays cancel out productive outs is so unbelievably foolish.