You aren't very good at statistics.

From 2007 to 2015 there is a statistically significant relationship between Ks and run scoring, independent of the impact of Ks on the triple slash line. That's a fact. It doesn't matter that the correlation is weak. It's statistically significant. Ks aren't a big factor in run scoring. But they unambiguously matter, independent of their impact on the triple slash.

It's also a fact that from 1994-2005 there was no significant relationship between Ks and run scoring.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2016 11:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/25/2016 11:36:00 PM (view original):
more balls in play = more outs in play and more runs. Once again showing off your impeccable reading comprehension skills.

And you've said in the past you think a smaller zone would increase scoring.

Maybe more outs in play but definitely less outs overall. The less outs part is the important part.

"Less outs overall."

That's not talking about frequency. That's you being a dumbass. Again.

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/25/2016 4:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/25/2016 1:45:00 AM (view original):
Ok, here's a quick 3-minute Excel analysis of impact of team stats on run scoring done without writing any special macros. Unfortunately LINEST doesn't output statistical weights for multivariate analyses, but it gives the contribution of each variable along with the associated standard error. Here are the numbers for the steroid era, which I've given as 1994-2005:

AVG	OBP	SLG	K%
498.9127	1936.828	2815.681	-412.566
289.6629	239.1281	510.2548	741.7796

You'll note that for K rate, the error associated with the impact on run-scoring is considerably larger than the value itself. Thus, 0 impact on run scoring is firmly within the confidence interval, as well as a number of positive values. In other words, K rate has basically no impact on run scoring independent of other things it might influence like AVG and OBP.

Here are the numbers for 2007-present:

AVG	OBP	SLG	K%
-153.153	1836.141	2540.96	-480.846
93.44375	96.98936	212.8566	271.6744

Now the K rate is decidedly a negative factor. It's still extremely small relative to OBP and SLG, but it's clearly contributing an additional negative value in and of itself. So in the post-steroid era, Ks do matter, just not a lot.

During the steroid era, they didn't matter. It's a statistical fact. Teams that struck out more did not score less. No way to argue around that. It's just the way it was. You can outline any set of scenarios you want. It's inherently foolhardy to argue with empiricism. You can't win that argument.

I assume you guys are never going to respond to this because there is no way you can argue against statistical facts without looking stupid, right?

It's much more fun to point fingers and say "hey, look at the idiots over there with that ridiculous position" and ignore the mathematical proof that the 'ridiculous position' is unequivocally correct.

I can't help noticing that while you're all busy calling me "duh HS" you still haven't responded to this.

Ain't irrefutable facts a *****?

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/25/2016 11:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2016 11:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/25/2016 11:36:00 PM (view original):
more balls in play = more outs in play and more runs. Once again showing off your impeccable reading comprehension skills.

And you've said in the past you think a smaller zone would increase scoring.

Maybe more outs in play but definitely less outs overall. The less outs part is the important part.

"Less outs overall."

That's not talking about frequency. That's you being a dumbass. Again.

That is talking about frequency. Less outs per plate appearance. I knew exactly what he was talking about. You're just really stupid/ignorant.

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/25/2016 11:49:00 PM (view original):
You aren't very good at statistics.

From 2007 to 2015 there is a statistically significant relationship between Ks and run scoring, independent of the impact of Ks on the triple slash line. That's a fact. It doesn't matter that the correlation is weak. It's statistically significant. Ks aren't a big factor in run scoring. But they unambiguously matter, independent of their impact on the triple slash.

It's also a fact that from 1994-2005 there was no significant relationship between Ks and run scoring.

Statistical significance just means that it isn't a sample error, it doesn't mean that we should draw conclusions from a weak correlation.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/25/2016 11:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2016 11:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/25/2016 11:36:00 PM (view original):
more balls in play = more outs in play and more runs. Once again showing off your impeccable reading comprehension skills.

And you've said in the past you think a smaller zone would increase scoring.

Maybe more outs in play but definitely less outs overall. The less outs part is the important part.

"Less outs overall."

That's not talking about frequency. That's you being a dumbass. Again.

I've only said that I was talking about out frequency 37 times already. Why did I need to point it out again?

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/25/2016 11:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/25/2016 11:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2016 11:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/25/2016 11:36:00 PM (view original):
more balls in play = more outs in play and more runs. Once again showing off your impeccable reading comprehension skills.

And you've said in the past you think a smaller zone would increase scoring.

Maybe more outs in play but definitely less outs overall. The less outs part is the important part.

"Less outs overall."

That's not talking about frequency. That's you being a dumbass. Again.

That is talking about frequency. Less outs per plate appearance. I knew exactly what he was talking about. You're just really stupid/ignorant.

"Less outs overall" is referring to a total number. The overall number of outs would be the same.

Apparently in high school, they didn't teach you how to debate without being a total dumbass.

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?

jtpsops doesn't understand what frequency means.

I only debated for about a year, then quit because everything was too formalized. But they absolutely held you accountable for debating in good faith. That is, if a reasonably intelligent person could tell what your opponent was trying to say, you weren't supposed to try to twist their meaning.

Which is exactly what you're doing.

Any marginally intelligent human being could tell he was talking about outs as a rate, not a total number of outs per game. Everything relevant to this discussion, for the grown ups in the room, is about rate stats.

Jt - you literally quoted me saying "frequency" then went directly into a finite outs rant.

Do either of you understand what "overall" means?

A pitcher has an overall number of Ks and a K rate. Do you understand the difference?

Dahs, I guarantee you quit the debate team because you sucked at it. BL, you're just dumb.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2016 12:07:00 AM (view original):
Jt - you literally quoted me saying "frequency" then went directly into a finite outs rant.

Can you please address this?

I'll address it when you go back and address the 20+ other things people in this thread have said that you've completely ignored.

Start with letting me know you understand the difference between "overall" and "rate".

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2016 12:06:00 AM (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?

jtpsops doesn't understand what frequency means.

This

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/26/2016 12:08:00 AM (view original):
Do either of you understand what "overall" means?

A pitcher has an overall number of Ks and a K rate. Do you understand the difference?

Dahs, I guarantee you quit the debate team because you sucked at it. BL, you're just dumb.

Feel free to address this, while you're demanding people address things