Posted by MikeT23 on 6/28/2016 1:39:00 PM (view original):
That should be on a bumper sticker.

BL: Making everybody look smarter

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/28/2016 1:34:00 PM (view original):
I'm not sure he understands "event".

Hint: Something that happens.

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.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/28/2016 1:37:00 PM (view original):
Perhaps, but on the other hand, if he sticks around, I continue to look way smarter than I am.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/28/2016 1:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/28/2016 1:37:00 PM (view original):
Perhaps, but on the other hand, if he sticks around, I continue to look way smarter than I am.

Who'da thunk?

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/28/2016 1:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/28/2016 1:39:00 PM (view original):
That should be on a bumper sticker.

BL: Making everybody look smarter

So he's the intellectual equivalent of beer goggles?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2016 12:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/28/2016 12:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2016 11:47:00 AM (view original):
It's worth less *runs*. A single drives in fewer runners and is less likely to end up scoring in a low scoring environment.

I think you win arguments by making people want to gouge their own eyes out.

We are talking about the value of individual events (your words). The value of a run or a hit or a sac fly goes down the more offense you have, because there will likely be more there to replace it if you miss out on an opportunity.

Sure, a single in a low-scoring environment is less likely to score (or, worth fewer runs, in your words), but "worth fewer runs" does NOT = "less valuable." That's where your confusion lies. A single in a low-scoring environment may be less likely to score, but that's precisely what makes that baserunner worth far more than it would be in a high-scoring environment.

You're argument is flawed.

To use Mike's example:

If you have $100,000, a quarter isn't that valuable to you. If you only have $1, a quarter is very valuable to you.

But you're standing there saying "Actually, if you have $1, that quarter is worth less because you probably can't buy anything with it." Which is dumb.

I understand what you're saying. You're talking about the scarcity of hits making each one more valuable.

But I'm talking about the value of hits (or other events) in terms of runs. When there are a lot of runs being scored, each event produces more (or costs you more) runs.

It's why I used the money/labor analogy.

In 1970 there was relatively little money circulating in the economy, so the average cost of an hour of labor was something like $3.

In 2005, there was a lot more money circulating in the economy, so the average cost of an hour of labor was something like $16.

In 1970, run scoring in MLB was lower, so one single created less runs than one single in 2005, when run scoring was higher.

In 1970, one single run and one single dollar were worth more than one single run or one single dollar in 2005. But the cost of things in terms of dollars (or runs) were higher in 2005.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/28/2016 12:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2016 12:41:00 PM (view original):
**** it, never mind. I don't care if you understand this or not.

"**** it, never mind. I don't care if I understand this or not."

Fixed that for you.

Posted by sjpoker on 6/28/2016 9:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2016 12:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/28/2016 12:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2016 11:47:00 AM (view original):
It's worth less *runs*. A single drives in fewer runners and is less likely to end up scoring in a low scoring environment.

I think you win arguments by making people want to gouge their own eyes out.

We are talking about the value of individual events (your words). The value of a run or a hit or a sac fly goes down the more offense you have, because there will likely be more there to replace it if you miss out on an opportunity.

Sure, a single in a low-scoring environment is less likely to score (or, worth fewer runs, in your words), but "worth fewer runs" does NOT = "less valuable." That's where your confusion lies. A single in a low-scoring environment may be less likely to score, but that's precisely what makes that baserunner worth far more than it would be in a high-scoring environment.

You're argument is flawed.

To use Mike's example:

If you have $100,000, a quarter isn't that valuable to you. If you only have $1, a quarter is very valuable to you.

But you're standing there saying "Actually, if you have $1, that quarter is worth less because you probably can't buy anything with it." Which is dumb.

I understand what you're saying. You're talking about the scarcity of hits making each one more valuable.

But I'm talking about the value of hits (or other events) in terms of runs. When there are a lot of runs being scored, each event produces more (or costs you more) runs.

It's why I used the money/labor analogy.

In 1970 there was relatively little money circulating in the economy, so the average cost of an hour of labor was something like $3.

In 2005, there was a lot more money circulating in the economy, so the average cost of an hour of labor was something like $16.

In 1970, run scoring in MLB was lower, so one single created less runs than one single in 2005, when run scoring was higher.

In 1970, one single run and one single dollar were worth more than one single run or one single dollar in 2005. But the cost of things in terms of dollars (or runs) were higher in 2005.

Jesus, please STOP!!! Dude, you have no idea what you are talking about. Please abandon economics.