I'm asking tec.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/20/2016 10:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/20/2016 10:20:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/20/2016 10:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/20/2016 10:05:00 AM (view original):
Let's take it back to the original argument. You said Trout should strike out less, correct?

I believe it was Trout who said he wanted to strike out less

That's true.

But BL knows more about hitting than Mike Trout, so he's insisting that Mike Trout should just keep whiffing because POWER!!!

Do you agree that he should strikeout less?

Yes.

In fact, I think all ML players should work on reducing their strikeout rate. Strikeouts provide zero value to offense.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/20/2016 12:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/20/2016 10:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/20/2016 10:20:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/20/2016 10:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/20/2016 10:05:00 AM (view original):
Let's take it back to the original argument. You said Trout should strike out less, correct?

I believe it was Trout who said he wanted to strike out less

That's true.

But BL knows more about hitting than Mike Trout, so he's insisting that Mike Trout should just keep whiffing because POWER!!!

Do you agree that he should strikeout less?

Yes.

In fact, I think all ML players should work on reducing their strikeout rate. Strikeouts provide zero value to offense.

Great, and if Trout does try to strikeout less, is he trying to make different kinds of outs or is he trying to make less outs?

He's trying to cut down on non-productive plate appearances.

But, big picture, he's trying to make less outs, right?

He's not hoping for more ground out and pop ups.

Of course. Nobody steps up to the plate with the intention of making an out. Unless they're going to lay down a sac bunt.

Is this going anywhere?

bad_luck is arguing two somewhat unrelated points simultaneously.

1) When evaluating a players performance after the fact, how he made his outs doesn't matter.

2) An out is an out, regardless of how it's made.

The first point is mostly true. You can debate whether a guy who strikes out 200 times could have had better stats, but for the most part, no one really looks at how outs were made when evaluating how good a player's season was.

However, this only applies in hindsight, and BL is trying to apply it in the present. You can only know if two outs were equal after they've occurred. If a guy pops out to first in foul territory, that's equal to a K. It doesn't change anything. But while he's still at the plate, putting the ball in play creates a lot more opportunities for getting on base or advancing runners than a strikeout does.

He's doing that because he's too goddamned stubborn to realize the he said something incredibly stupid (again), has painted himself into a corner (again), and refuses to back down (again).

Poor, dumb BL. Destined to repeat the same failed strategy over and over and over again.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/20/2016 12:54:00 PM (view original):
Of course. Nobody steps up to the plate with the intention of making an out. Unless they're going to lay down a sac bunt.

Is this going anywhere?

You act like when I say, "an out is an out," that I'm saying that there aren't certain situations where one type of out is worse than another.

It's like you're purposely misunderstanding the point.

I think you're misunderstanding English.

"An out is an out" = "every out in every situation is equal"

As in my point above, I think in your head you're talking about evaluating players retroactively, but in discussions, you make it sound like there's no advantage to putting the ball in play over striking out.

Obviously there's an advantage to putting the ball in play. No one has argued otherwise.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/20/2016 3:24:00 PM (view original):
Obviously there's an advantage to putting the ball in play. No one has argued otherwise.

Actually, you have.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/20/2016 3:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/20/2016 3:24:00 PM (view original):
Obviously there's an advantage to putting the ball in play. No one has argued otherwise.

Actually, you have.

A ball in play is not the same as an out in play.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/20/2016 3:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/20/2016 3:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/20/2016 3:24:00 PM (view original):
Obviously there's an advantage to putting the ball in play. No one has argued otherwise.

Actually, you have.

A ball in play is not the same as an out in play.

A strikeout is an out 100% of the time. A ball in play is an out far less than that. It's always better to put the ball in play.

Even an out in play can be beneficial to the team. Strikeouts cannot.

Which is why no one is arguing that a ball in play (before it becomes an out) is the same as a K.