No, I said I didn't know what percentage of outs were unproductive. A productive out is ALWAYS better than a non-productive out. I don't need stats to tell me that. By definition PRODUCTIVE is better than NON-PRODUCTIVE. That brings us back to common sense - something you severely lack.

As for doubles, they always end with a man on second (unless he gets thrown out at third). They're never a negative event.

Stop being such a douchebag and stirring the pot, which seems to be your sole purpose here. You're probably happily jerking off in your mom's basement at the fact you've gotten people to engage you for 80 pages.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 2:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 2:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 2:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 2:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 2:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 1:57:00 PM (view original):
My position is that a walk is always positive.

They are always positive.

My question was: were the impacts of the walks in both scenarios identical?

Let me ask in another way, with a hypothetical roster/batting order:

Bottom of the ninth, two outs, tying run on third.

a) Mike Trout draws a walk, Mario Mendoza coming up to the plate
b) Mario Mendoza draws a walk, Mike Trout coming up to the plate

Exactly the same?

Nope, but thanks for confirming that walks are always good. You may want to let Mike know so he doesn't argue that Martinez walked too much.

Why aren't they the same? Please explain.

You want me to explain why, in two identical scenarios, you'd rather have your best hitter up instead of your worst hitter?

****, it doesn't need to be bottom of the 9th, two out. It could be 10-0 in the third. That answer never changes.

So your precious "value of events" charts fail to take context or relative value into account?

What event? You have a guy on first (and third, in this case) with either your best or your worst hitter coming up. You always choose best.

Is context important?

Depends on whether or not it benefits BL's inane arguments.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 3:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 2:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 2:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 2:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 2:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 2:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 1:57:00 PM (view original):
My position is that a walk is always positive.

They are always positive.

My question was: were the impacts of the walks in both scenarios identical?

Let me ask in another way, with a hypothetical roster/batting order:

Bottom of the ninth, two outs, tying run on third.

a) Mike Trout draws a walk, Mario Mendoza coming up to the plate
b) Mario Mendoza draws a walk, Mike Trout coming up to the plate

Exactly the same?

Nope, but thanks for confirming that walks are always good. You may want to let Mike know so he doesn't argue that Martinez walked too much.

Why aren't they the same? Please explain.

You want me to explain why, in two identical scenarios, you'd rather have your best hitter up instead of your worst hitter?

****, it doesn't need to be bottom of the 9th, two out. It could be 10-0 in the third. That answer never changes.

So your precious "value of events" charts fail to take context or relative value into account?

What event? You have a guy on first (and third, in this case) with either your best or your worst hitter coming up. You always choose best.

Is context important?

Is there a situation where you wouldn't want your best hitter up?

By definition PRODUCTIVE is better than NON-PRODUCTIVE

Well, not necessarily. For example, a PRODUCTIVE homicidal maniac isn't better than a NON-PRODUCTIVE homicidal maniac.

CONTEXT always matters.

BL is autistic. Thats the only possibility.

Let's try this.

A double is always productive. It is not always valuable.
A fly out may or may not be productive. It can be valuable.
A strikeout is never productive. It is never valuable.

Hmmmmm......what's up with that?

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/30/2016 4:25:00 PM (view original):
Let's try this.

A double is always productive. It is not always valuable.
A fly out may or may not be productive. It can be valuable.
A strikeout is never productive. It is never valuable.

Hmmmmm......what's up with that?

Sure. But don't stop there. A ground out can be productive or it can be multiple times worse than other outs.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 4:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 3:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 2:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 2:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 2:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 2:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 2:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 1:57:00 PM (view original):
My position is that a walk is always positive.

They are always positive.

My question was: were the impacts of the walks in both scenarios identical?

Let me ask in another way, with a hypothetical roster/batting order:

Bottom of the ninth, two outs, tying run on third.

a) Mike Trout draws a walk, Mario Mendoza coming up to the plate
b) Mario Mendoza draws a walk, Mike Trout coming up to the plate

Exactly the same?

Nope, but thanks for confirming that walks are always good. You may want to let Mike know so he doesn't argue that Martinez walked too much.

Why aren't they the same? Please explain.

You want me to explain why, in two identical scenarios, you'd rather have your best hitter up instead of your worst hitter?

****, it doesn't need to be bottom of the 9th, two out. It could be 10-0 in the third. That answer never changes.

So your precious "value of events" charts fail to take context or relative value into account?

What event? You have a guy on first (and third, in this case) with either your best or your worst hitter coming up. You always choose best.

Is context important?

Is there a situation where you wouldn't want your best hitter up?

It depends. What do you want your best hitter to do when he's up?

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 4:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 4:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 3:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 2:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 2:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 2:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 2:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 2:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 1:57:00 PM (view original):
My position is that a walk is always positive.

They are always positive.

My question was: were the impacts of the walks in both scenarios identical?

Let me ask in another way, with a hypothetical roster/batting order:

Bottom of the ninth, two outs, tying run on third.

a) Mike Trout draws a walk, Mario Mendoza coming up to the plate
b) Mario Mendoza draws a walk, Mike Trout coming up to the plate

Exactly the same?

Nope, but thanks for confirming that walks are always good. You may want to let Mike know so he doesn't argue that Martinez walked too much.

Why aren't they the same? Please explain.

You want me to explain why, in two identical scenarios, you'd rather have your best hitter up instead of your worst hitter?

****, it doesn't need to be bottom of the 9th, two out. It could be 10-0 in the third. That answer never changes.

So your precious "value of events" charts fail to take context or relative value into account?

What event? You have a guy on first (and third, in this case) with either your best or your worst hitter coming up. You always choose best.

Is context important?

Is there a situation where you wouldn't want your best hitter up?

It depends. What do you want your best hitter to do when he's up?

Wait, what?

You're saying there are situations where you'd rather have Mendoza batting instead of Trout?

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 4:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 4:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 3:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 2:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 2:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 2:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 2:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 2:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 1:57:00 PM (view original):
My position is that a walk is always positive.

They are always positive.

My question was: were the impacts of the walks in both scenarios identical?

Let me ask in another way, with a hypothetical roster/batting order:

Bottom of the ninth, two outs, tying run on third.

a) Mike Trout draws a walk, Mario Mendoza coming up to the plate
b) Mario Mendoza draws a walk, Mike Trout coming up to the plate

Exactly the same?

Nope, but thanks for confirming that walks are always good. You may want to let Mike know so he doesn't argue that Martinez walked too much.

Why aren't they the same? Please explain.

You want me to explain why, in two identical scenarios, you'd rather have your best hitter up instead of your worst hitter?

****, it doesn't need to be bottom of the 9th, two out. It could be 10-0 in the third. That answer never changes.

So your precious "value of events" charts fail to take context or relative value into account?

What event? You have a guy on first (and third, in this case) with either your best or your worst hitter coming up. You always choose best.

Is context important?

Is there a situation where you wouldn't want your best hitter up?

It depends. What do you want your best hitter to do when he's up?

Wouldn't I want ALL my hitters to do the same thing?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 4:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 4:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 4:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 3:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 2:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 2:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 2:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 2:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 2:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 1:57:00 PM (view original):
My position is that a walk is always positive.

They are always positive.

My question was: were the impacts of the walks in both scenarios identical?

Let me ask in another way, with a hypothetical roster/batting order:

Bottom of the ninth, two outs, tying run on third.

a) Mike Trout draws a walk, Mario Mendoza coming up to the plate
b) Mario Mendoza draws a walk, Mike Trout coming up to the plate

Exactly the same?

Nope, but thanks for confirming that walks are always good. You may want to let Mike know so he doesn't argue that Martinez walked too much.

Why aren't they the same? Please explain.

You want me to explain why, in two identical scenarios, you'd rather have your best hitter up instead of your worst hitter?

****, it doesn't need to be bottom of the 9th, two out. It could be 10-0 in the third. That answer never changes.

So your precious "value of events" charts fail to take context or relative value into account?

What event? You have a guy on first (and third, in this case) with either your best or your worst hitter coming up. You always choose best.

Is context important?

Is there a situation where you wouldn't want your best hitter up?

It depends. What do you want your best hitter to do when he's up?

Wait, what?

You're saying there are situations where you'd rather have Mendoza batting instead of Trout?

Let's add some more context.

Bottom of the ninth, down by a run, two outs, runner on third.

a) Mike Trout at bat, Mario Mendoza on deck. Would you prefer to see Trout try to work a walk (a POSITIVE EVENT!!) and take your chances on Mendoza?

b) Mario Mendoza at bat, Mike Trout on deck. Would you prefer to see Mendoza try to work a walk (a POSITIVE EVENT!!) and take your chances on Trout?

tec has fallen victim to BL's relentless stupid question trap. Run tec, run away now. BL smells blood.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 4:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 4:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 4:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 4:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 3:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 2:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 2:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 2:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 2:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 2:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 1:57:00 PM (view original):
My position is that a walk is always positive.

They are always positive.

My question was: were the impacts of the walks in both scenarios identical?

Let me ask in another way, with a hypothetical roster/batting order:

Bottom of the ninth, two outs, tying run on third.

a) Mike Trout draws a walk, Mario Mendoza coming up to the plate
b) Mario Mendoza draws a walk, Mike Trout coming up to the plate

Exactly the same?

Nope, but thanks for confirming that walks are always good. You may want to let Mike know so he doesn't argue that Martinez walked too much.

Why aren't they the same? Please explain.

You want me to explain why, in two identical scenarios, you'd rather have your best hitter up instead of your worst hitter?

****, it doesn't need to be bottom of the 9th, two out. It could be 10-0 in the third. That answer never changes.

So your precious "value of events" charts fail to take context or relative value into account?

What event? You have a guy on first (and third, in this case) with either your best or your worst hitter coming up. You always choose best.

Is context important?

Is there a situation where you wouldn't want your best hitter up?

It depends. What do you want your best hitter to do when he's up?

Wait, what?

You're saying there are situations where you'd rather have Mendoza batting instead of Trout?

Let's add some more context.

Bottom of the ninth, down by a run, two outs, runner on third.

a) Mike Trout at bat, Mario Mendoza on deck. Would you prefer to see Trout try to work a walk (a POSITIVE EVENT!!) and take your chances on Mendoza?

b) Mario Mendoza at bat, Mike Trout on deck. Would you prefer to see Mendoza try to work a walk (a POSITIVE EVENT!!) and take your chances on Trout?

That's a completely different question than the one you asked. Why do you have such a hard time lining up your gotcha traps?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 4:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 4:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 4:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 4:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 4:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 3:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 2:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 2:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 2:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 2:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 2:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 1:57:00 PM (view original):
My position is that a walk is always positive.

They are always positive.

My question was: were the impacts of the walks in both scenarios identical?

Let me ask in another way, with a hypothetical roster/batting order:

Bottom of the ninth, two outs, tying run on third.

a) Mike Trout draws a walk, Mario Mendoza coming up to the plate
b) Mario Mendoza draws a walk, Mike Trout coming up to the plate

Exactly the same?

Nope, but thanks for confirming that walks are always good. You may want to let Mike know so he doesn't argue that Martinez walked too much.

Why aren't they the same? Please explain.

You want me to explain why, in two identical scenarios, you'd rather have your best hitter up instead of your worst hitter?

****, it doesn't need to be bottom of the 9th, two out. It could be 10-0 in the third. That answer never changes.

So your precious "value of events" charts fail to take context or relative value into account?

What event? You have a guy on first (and third, in this case) with either your best or your worst hitter coming up. You always choose best.

Is context important?

Is there a situation where you wouldn't want your best hitter up?

It depends. What do you want your best hitter to do when he's up?

Wait, what?

You're saying there are situations where you'd rather have Mendoza batting instead of Trout?

Let's add some more context.

Bottom of the ninth, down by a run, two outs, runner on third.

a) Mike Trout at bat, Mario Mendoza on deck. Would you prefer to see Trout try to work a walk (a POSITIVE EVENT!!) and take your chances on Mendoza?

b) Mario Mendoza at bat, Mike Trout on deck. Would you prefer to see Mendoza try to work a walk (a POSITIVE EVENT!!) and take your chances on Trout?

That's a completely different question than the one you asked. Why do you have such a hard time lining up your gotcha traps?

Answer the question, please.