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.

He meant "overall" in the sense of "not just Ks," not "total per game." Again, obvious to a reasonably intelligent human being.

I didn't quit the team. I stopped debating and went to Student Congress and then speech events. I was pretty good at debating, actually. But even better at Congress. Like good on the national level. But you can believe what you want.

Once again, do you understand the difference between "overall" and "rate"?

I don't know how they taught you to debate, but when someone says something, it's not my job to attribute something else to them because they're too stupid to know the meanings of the words they're using.

Overall was referring to types of outs. Please refer to the context of the sentence--outs in play vs outs overall.

I feel like you're the one trying to distract now. Obviously I wasn't arguing that a team would get less than 27 outs in a 9 inning game. That wouldn't make any sense at all.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2016 12:28:00 AM (view original):
Overall was referring to types of outs. Please refer to the context of the sentence--outs in play vs outs overall.

I feel like you're the one trying to distract now. Obviously I wasn't arguing that a team would get less than 27 outs in a 9 inning game. That wouldn't make any sense at all.

Obviously?

98% of what you've said in this thread hasn't made any sense. And that's probably being generous.

Ok, well I told you 3 or 4 pages ago that I was referring to out frequency. You even quoted it.

Did you forget?

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/26/2016 12:25:00 AM (view original):
Once again, do you understand the difference between "overall" and "rate"?

I don't know how they taught you to debate, but when someone says something, it's not my job to attribute something else to them because they're too stupid to know the meanings of the words they're using.

Utterly ignoring context doesn't make you sound smart, it makes you sound like an idiot. Yet again.

You know, one of the reasons I quit was that you couldn't drop any point as you went through a round no matter how unimportant it got. You had to address every point every time.

You still haven't addressed the fact that it's a mathematical fact that strikeouts didn't have any impact on run scoring during the steroid era.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2016 10:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/25/2016 8:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/25/2016 11:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/24/2016 11:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/24/2016 10:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/24/2016 10:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/24/2016 9:48:00 PM (view original):
Mmmm. Yeah not sure about that methodology. If there's a strikeout, or the hitter walks, or even if there's a fielders choice or flyout, the previous runner did not score. The productive out definitively helped score a run.

And attributing the negative value of the GIDP only to the batter is a fallacy as well. Because that is implying that the runner did not make a mistake.

And what methodology did you use?

Nope. You are trying to redirect. It's not about my opinion. I said we'd listen to you. And that's what I am doing.

The models I presented are not active events. They are history. The plays are over. We are evaluating them after the fact.

We know the fly outs resulted in runs. The GIDPs wound up wiping out - potential - runs. Those are unrealized events. So evaluating a potential event that will not occur against something positive that definitively occurred.

Think about it for a second. Between the two models ,there were the same number outs. But one resulted in 10 runs. The other resulted in zero runs.

Still waiting BL.

BL how could wiping out the 'positive contribution' of the GIDP runner be LARGER than scoring a run?

BL is ducking me. Oh well wasn't something he could answer anyway.

I'm not ducking you, I'm ignoring you. You don't even understand just the basic things like a sac fly is not actually worth a run, even if it drives in a run and I'm tired of trying to explain the same thing to you over and over again.

You're obstinate. And a retard.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/26/2016 12:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2016 12:28:00 AM (view original):
Overall was referring to types of outs. Please refer to the context of the sentence--outs in play vs outs overall.

I feel like you're the one trying to distract now. Obviously I wasn't arguing that a team would get less than 27 outs in a 9 inning game. That wouldn't make any sense at all.

Obviously?

98% of what you've said in this thread hasn't made any sense. And that's probably being generous.

This thread is dead. BL doesn't know the game.

"Sac Fly isn't worth a run." Runs win games. If a hit can't get a player home, then why is a sac fly worthless? This dude never played the game.

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/26/2016 12:18:00 AM (view original):

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.

He meant "overall" in the sense of "not just Ks," not "total per game." Again, obvious to a reasonably intelligent human being.

I didn't quit the team. I stopped debating and went to Student Congress and then speech events. I was pretty good at debating, actually. But even better at Congress. Like good on the national level. But you can believe what you want.

I'M A COWBOY!!!!!

AND AN ASTRONAUT!!!!!

I ONLY DATE SWIMSUIT MODELS!!!!!

AND I HAVE A HUGE ****!!!!!

So did I miss anything other than dahs explaining how great he was in HS?

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2016 7:55:00 AM (view original):
So did I miss anything other than dahs explaining how great he was in HS?

Yes. Both duhs and BL have admitted that there is a statistical correlation between strikeouts and run scoring.

But they're still arguing anyways.

I don't know why.

Of course, since he's telling us late on a Saturday night, I think we know why he's longing for those great HS days.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2016 8:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2016 7:55:00 AM (view original):
So did I miss anything other than dahs explaining how great he was in HS?

Yes. Both duhs and BL have admitted that there is a statistical correlation between strikeouts and run scoring.

But they're still arguing anyways.

I don't know why.

Well, if you said "Water is wet", BL would disagree.

And dahs was getting juiced up thinking about high school.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2016 8:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2016 7:55:00 AM (view original):
So did I miss anything other than dahs explaining how great he was in HS?

Yes. Both duhs and BL have admitted that there is a statistical correlation between strikeouts and run scoring.

But they're still arguing anyways.

I don't know why.

There isn't a meaningful correlation.

Posted by sjpoker on 6/26/2016 7:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/26/2016 12:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2016 12:28:00 AM (view original):
Overall was referring to types of outs. Please refer to the context of the sentence--outs in play vs outs overall.

I feel like you're the one trying to distract now. Obviously I wasn't arguing that a team would get less than 27 outs in a 9 inning game. That wouldn't make any sense at all.

Obviously?

98% of what you've said in this thread hasn't made any sense. And that's probably being generous.

This thread is dead. BL doesn't know the game.

"Sac Fly isn't worth a run." Runs win games. If a hit can't get a player home, then why is a sac fly worthless? This dude never played the game.

A sac fly is actually a negative value event. It's just slightly negative, but it's negative.

You get one run (sometimes), but the primary credit for that run goes to the guy who actually got to third, not the guy that made an out.

And the goal isn't to score one run, the goal is to score as many as possible.