1.

relative worth, merit, or importance:

the value of a college education; the value of a queen in chess.

2.

monetary or material worth, as in commerce or trade:

This piece of land has greatly increased in value.

3.

the worth of something in terms of the amount of other things for which it can be exchanged or in terms of some medium of exchange.

4.

equivalent worth or return in money, material, services, etc.:

to give value for value received.

5.

estimated or assigned worth; valuation:

a painting with a current value of $500,000.

6.

denomination, as of a monetary issue or a postage stamp.

Oh look, value can mean the worth of something in terms of, e.g., dollars. Or runs. It doesn't have to be relative. Not sure why the hell everybody felt the need to sidetrack this already ridiculous discussion to engage BL in a semantic debate over whether something could be more "valuable" in terms of runs. Hint: almost everybody is wrong. You can ABSOLUTELY compute "value" in terms of runs. The dictionary says so.

Everybody but BL is stuck on definition #1. But the next 5 are all basically the sense in which BL was using the word. He's not wrong. Doesn't make him right, either. But he's clearly not wrong. The "value" in runs of baseball events is clearly lower in a low-scoring environment. The "value" in terms of wins is higher. Like I said several pages ago. Twice. What is so difficult about this meaningless concept? Stupidest semantic debate ever.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/28/2016 1:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/28/2016 11:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/28/2016 11:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2016 11:26:00 AM (view original):
This really isn't that complicated.

When the run scoring environment is higher, each event is worth more runs, positive or negative.

When the run scoring environment is lower, each event is worth less runs.

Explain to us how a hit or a sac fly is worth less when you're scoring 3 runs than it is when you're scoring 10 runs.

Apparently it is complicated for you. The more of something you have, the less valuable it is. Not sure why you can't seem to grasp that.

I think this whole economic analogy is what's confusing everybody. Let's change the paradigm. Maybe this will help:

Think of "runs" as elephants.

In a low scoring environment, "hits" are puppies.
In a high scoring environment, "hits" are giraffes.

Better?

BL, you dumb ****, when you score 1 run, how valuable is 1 run?
BL, you dumb ****, when you score 11 runs, how valuable is 1 run?

Please, you dumb ****, answer this.

You're very angry.

We aren't talking about the value of a run. We are talking about how many runs each event is worth.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2016 1:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/28/2016 1:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/28/2016 11:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/28/2016 11:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2016 11:26:00 AM (view original):
This really isn't that complicated.

When the run scoring environment is higher, each event is worth more runs, positive or negative.

When the run scoring environment is lower, each event is worth less runs.

Explain to us how a hit or a sac fly is worth less when you're scoring 3 runs than it is when you're scoring 10 runs.

Apparently it is complicated for you. The more of something you have, the less valuable it is. Not sure why you can't seem to grasp that.

I think this whole economic analogy is what's confusing everybody. Let's change the paradigm. Maybe this will help:

Think of "runs" as elephants.

In a low scoring environment, "hits" are puppies.
In a high scoring environment, "hits" are giraffes.

Better?

BL, you dumb ****, when you score 1 run, how valuable is 1 run?
BL, you dumb ****, when you score 11 runs, how valuable is 1 run?

Please, you dumb ****, answer this.

You're very angry.

We aren't talking about the value of a run. We are talking about how many runs each event is worth.

No, you dumb ************, you're talking about one thing. Everyone else is talking about the value of a productive out. Which, stupid, is more important(valuable) in a low scoring situation. Please stop being a retard. I beg of you.

I'm convinced that BL is dahs's mentally challenged little brother.

"Dahs!"
"Ya mom?"
"Your brother is saying foolish things on the internet again. Go help him, please."

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/28/2016 1:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2016 1:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/28/2016 1:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/28/2016 11:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/28/2016 11:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2016 11:26:00 AM (view original):
This really isn't that complicated.

When the run scoring environment is higher, each event is worth more runs, positive or negative.

When the run scoring environment is lower, each event is worth less runs.

Explain to us how a hit or a sac fly is worth less when you're scoring 3 runs than it is when you're scoring 10 runs.

Apparently it is complicated for you. The more of something you have, the less valuable it is. Not sure why you can't seem to grasp that.

I think this whole economic analogy is what's confusing everybody. Let's change the paradigm. Maybe this will help:

Think of "runs" as elephants.

In a low scoring environment, "hits" are puppies.
In a high scoring environment, "hits" are giraffes.

Better?

BL, you dumb ****, when you score 1 run, how valuable is 1 run?
BL, you dumb ****, when you score 11 runs, how valuable is 1 run?

Please, you dumb ****, answer this.

You're very angry.

We aren't talking about the value of a run. We are talking about how many runs each event is worth.

No, you dumb ************, you're talking about one thing. Everyone else is talking about the value of a productive out. Which, stupid, is more important(valuable) in a low scoring situation. Please stop being a retard. I beg of you.

Last I checked, an out (productive or not) is an event. We're discussing how many runs that event is worth.

No, you are. You're the only one focused on that. Everyone else is debating the value of those events relative to the scoring environment and you keep babbling about how many runs each event is worth.

Once again:

Scenario A: RPG = 10. Team misses a chance to score 2 runs.
Scenario B: RPG = 3. Team misses a chance to score 1 run.

Which team's missed opportunity is more costly? (hint: It has nothing to do with the number of runs)

I put him back on block. This time it took about 6 minutes.

I'd recommend everyone do it. Because his mere presence makes everyone dumber.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2016 9:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/27/2016 9:47:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2016 12:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/26/2016 11:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/26/2016 11:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/15/2016 11:40:00 PM (view original):
For a hitter, an out is an out.

For a pitcher, how he gets outs matters.

Is that hard to understand?

This is where it started JTP. You don't get to define the parameters of the discussion when you show up a week in, no matter how badly you want to do so. It was initially about FIP, which is an aggregate stat. Not about individual events. A lot of very stupid/ignorant people wanted to redefine it in terms of individual events because that's the only way they have much of an argument.

When I showed up, BL was shouting his "AN OUT IS AN OUT" mantra from the roof tops and that is what reignited this current line of debate.

It's right there in the first line of the post you quoted. As we've established repeatedly, for hitters, an out is not an out. Outs in play have the potential to be far more productive than K's. And no, DPs do not occur often enough to cancel out the benefit of all the productive outs.

Yes they do, since the negative value of a double play is 5-10 times as bad as a "productive" out.

This is such bullshit. You will never convince me (or most people with half a brain) that a DP is ten times worse than an out that moves a runner over or brings a runner in. If you want to argue that it takes 2 productive outs to cancel out a DP, I may concede that, but 5-10 is garbage.

And once again, I'll point out that the most prolific DP hitter in history (Ripken - 350) grounded into one every 9-10 games. And that's the absolute worst. Which means hitters don't ground into DPs nearly as frequently as you and dahs seem to think they do.

And this is why we spent so much time on the value of individual events.

The value of a non-productive out (any out with bases empty, any third out, strikeouts, pop-outs, most shallow fly outs, etc) is about -0.30 runs.

The value of a productive out varies between -0.08 and -0.20 runs.

The value of a double play is around -1.00 runs.

I mean, this is kinda where we started down this path, jt. Talking about the value, in terms of runs, of each event.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/28/2016 11:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/28/2016 11:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2016 11:26:00 AM (view original):
This really isn't that complicated.

When the run scoring environment is higher, each event is worth more runs, positive or negative.

When the run scoring environment is lower, each event is worth less runs.

Explain to us how a hit or a sac fly is worth less when you're scoring 3 runs than it is when you're scoring 10 runs.

Apparently it is complicated for you. The more of something you have, the less valuable it is. Not sure why you can't seem to grasp that.

I think this whole economic analogy is what's confusing everybody. Let's change the paradigm. Maybe this will help:

Think of "runs" as elephants.

In a low scoring environment, "hits" are puppies.
In a high scoring environment, "hits" are giraffes.

Better?

I guess the animal paradigm didn't help. Let's try something else.

Think of "runs" as hot Italian sausage.

In a low scoring environment, "hits" are broccoli.
In a high scoring environment, "hits" are jars of mayonaisse.

Better?

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/28/2016 1:18:00 PM (view original):
No, you are. You're the only one focused on that. Everyone else is debating the value of those events relative to the scoring environment and you keep babbling about how many runs each event is worth.

Once again:

Scenario A: RPG = 10. Team misses a chance to score 2 runs.
Scenario B: RPG = 3. Team misses a chance to score 1 run.

Which team's missed opportunity is more costly? (hint: It has nothing to do with the number of runs)

I'm not saying another word to you until you respond to this question.

Which team's missed opportunity is more costly?

And there is only one correct answer.

"I'm not saying another word to you until you respond to this question."

Is that a promise?

Like I said before, we're discussing "how many runs is X worth?"

Since the figures are determined by actual run scoring, less runs total means each event is worth less.

Posted by toddcommish on 6/28/2016 12:22:00 PM (view original):
This is less than ten pages away from entering LH 2B territory...

Only if BL promises to produce a video of high and low value events and fails to come through.

The video part wouldn't shock me, but we already know he has no concept of the value of events.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/28/2016 1:31:00 PM (view original):
The video part wouldn't shock me, but we already know he has no concept of the value of events.

Seriously? Going back on your word already? You didn't make it 5 minutes.