Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2016 4:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/21/2016 4:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2016 3:58:00 PM (view original):
I'd say "You know what I meant" but I don't care if you do.

You give me 3 guys with 7000 outs and the same number of total bases, I'm not really going to care if one hit a lot grounders, the other flew out and the third swung and misses a lot.

This is basically exactly what BL has been saying the whole time. Which I'm pretty sure you're aware of. Are you just trying to explain it to the slower guys in the room?

Evidently, you've been too busy writing long-winded responses to follow along.

BL and I are in agreement that, over the course of a season/career, an out is just an out. What everyone else is arguing is specific situations, games or series. I'm not even sure BL has disagreed but his "I don't need to watch games, I have stats" mantra is destroyed by trying to apply his "whiffs aren't bad outs" theory to specific situations. Hence, the 0-1 batting line. Was that 0 an out or a ROE? You don't know just by looking at a box score. Thus, if you want to know if a player was productive, i.e. helped his team score, you need more.

Except I never said that about this. You're taking something out of context and acting like I'm saying it now.

I know credibility isn't really your thing, but this is ridiculous.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2016 2:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/21/2016 2:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2016 12:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/21/2016 12:14:00 PM (view original):
Look BL, lets say you have two players that over 10 consecutive ABs with runners on base.

Player 1 strikes out 10 times.

Player 2 records 10 outs without a strikeout.

While it is possible for them to both be equally unproductive, Player 1's 10 K's are guaranteed to be unproductive. Sure, there could be a steal attempt or
Player 1 could be the recipient of a dropped called strike 3 and reached first. But none of those events are under his control.

Player 2's 10 outs would all be based on contact of some sort. Throwing out bunts with 2 strikes and a few other situations, a flyout (fair or foul) can bring a run home from third. A groundout can bring a run home. A hard groundout can cause an error. A ball in play can - potentially - score a run, where in almost all cases a K does not.

Based just on that, a batted ball out can be better than K. So based on that, the statement 'all outs are the same' is bullshit.

What if player 2 grounded into 10 double plays. Would that still be better?

Very good. That is one result where it - could - be worse than 10 Ks.

But if those 10 outs included the following -

2 GIDP
3 sacrifice flies
1 error that allowed the batter to get to first.
2 runners advanced on deep fly balls
2 outs with no consequence to baserunners.

Would those results be better than 10 Ks?

Please answer that.

I genuinely don't know. If we throw out the ROE, since it isn't actually an out, I'd guess that the run values of both 10PA stretches are similar. GIDP are devastating, while "productive" outs are only slightly better than common outs.

" I'd guess that the run values of both 10PA stretches are similar" Wrong. the strikeouts resulted in 10 outs. The non-K list produced - another 10 outs. Difference was, the second list also produced 3 runs and 2 extra bases. Therefore I don' think they are similar at all. The second set demonstrates better production. Therefore, "productive outs" are better. Therefore it - does - matter what kind of out it is, as all outs are - not - the same.

Ugh. This is dumb.

All situations are not the same...but:

- the vast majority, something like 90%, of all outs are just regular bad outs. We can call them common or neutral outs. They have a run value that's something like -0.30. These outs include strikeouts, pop-ups, any out with the bases empty, any third out, any out leading off an inning, most shallow fly balls, most line outs, etc.

- next you have "productive" outs. These are still bad (negative run value), but not as bad as the group above. These are your sac flies and ground balls that move a runner. The run values range from -0.10 to -0.20.

- lastly you have double plays. These are a disaster, around -1.00 in run value.

For comparison, a walk is worth roughly 0.30 and a single is worth roughly 0.50. So it takes 2-3 walks or singles to make up for one double play and the difference between a common out and a productive out is dwarfed by the GIDP.

So, using your example above (and turning the ROE into a productive out), the second player actually hurt his team more with the two GIDP (and eight other outs) than the first guy did with his 10 common outs.

Obviously, if the sac fly brought home the winning run in game 7, no one gives a ****. But if one of those GIDP came in the 9th inning of game seven, he probably torpedo'd the season.

"So, using your example above, the second player actually hurt his team more with the two GIDP (and eight other outs) than the first guy did with his 10 common outs."

We never talked about a hypothetical situation like 'bottom of the 9th in game 7' because you'd get murdered on that. We talked about these two models in the abstract. Player 2 accounted for 12 outs vs Player 1's 10 outs, but Player 2 also accounted for 3 runs and 2 extra bases. He created both runs and moved runners along. How did he 'hurt his team more'? I'm actually curious to see what your reasoning is here.

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/21/2016 3:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/21/2016 2:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2016 1:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2016 1:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2016 12:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2016 12:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2016 11:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2016 11:47:00 AM (view original):
So, if I didn't watch the game because the stats would tell me who was productive, how would I know who reached on an error and who, you know, helped his team score runs?

What?

If you want to know what happened in an individual game, you should watch it.

If you want to know who was good over a span of time, you need stats.

Do you not care who helped their team win?

Yes, I do care. Are we taking about the storyline of one game or determining who helped their team win more games over the course of a season?

I've already answered this.

We could be talking about one game, one week, one month, one season or an entire career. You only seem to care about season/career. Is that because you don't like to watch games?

If your goal is to evaluate a major league player, one game doesn't tell you anything. Or do think 4 PAs is all you need to see?

If your goal is to know what happened in a certain game, watch the game and don't worry about this stuff.

Which is your BIGGEST flaw. Status alone cannot be used to evaluate a players worth. And next, you will tell me you know that. But what I will argue is that stats are a LOT farther off from evaluating a players worth than you think.

Based on the contracts that players get, I would argue that you're incredibly wrong. Overwhelmingly, the players with the best stats get the biggest contracts. You can fairly accurately predict contracts without knowing anything about the players involved - in fact, MLBTradeRumors has an algorithm that does this, and does a pretty good job. Sometimes there are perception-based adjustments. Samardzija is a reasonable example of a guy who people saw a lot of upside in whose stats didn't necessarily justify the contract the Giants gave him, and so far that decision has been working out fairly well (still very early going in the contract, but early returns are positive). But in general, the purely stats-based algorithm is within a few percentage points of AAV, and it gets more contract lengths right than any human evaluator I've seen. In the end, the computer can process more data, more historical comparisons, than any person. And that makes it more accurate.

Pretty strong evidence that stats absolutely do play the overwhelmingly dominant role in the evaluation of a player's worth. At least to Major League front offices, which I will tend to trust over a guy posting on the WIS forums who, frankly, has been abjectly wrong about a lot of stuff.

When were we talking about player evaluation in terms of contract negotiation? You took a left turn there. And 'best stats' is completely subjective. In different eras different stats meant different things to the ones handing out the paychecks. I'm not going to argue that ridiculousness.

As to your Major League Front office vs SJ comment I'm sure I don't need to tell you that IDGAFF.

Posted by sjpoker on 6/21/2016 6:57:00 PM (view original):
"So, using your example above, the second player actually hurt his team more with the two GIDP (and eight other outs) than the first guy did with his 10 common outs."

We never talked about a hypothetical situation like 'bottom of the 9th in game 7' because you'd get murdered on that. We talked about these two models in the abstract. Player 2 accounted for 12 outs vs Player 1's 10 outs, but Player 2 also accounted for 3 runs and 2 extra bases. He created both runs and moved runners along. How did he 'hurt his team more'? I'm actually curious to see what your reasoning is here.

Player 2 didn't actually account for 3 runs. He flew out. The guy that got to third gets the credit there.

And, when he GIDP, he's adding two outs and completely erasing the positive run value produced by the guy who had been on first.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2016 7:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/21/2016 6:57:00 PM (view original):
"So, using your example above, the second player actually hurt his team more with the two GIDP (and eight other outs) than the first guy did with his 10 common outs."

We never talked about a hypothetical situation like 'bottom of the 9th in game 7' because you'd get murdered on that. We talked about these two models in the abstract. Player 2 accounted for 12 outs vs Player 1's 10 outs, but Player 2 also accounted for 3 runs and 2 extra bases. He created both runs and moved runners along. How did he 'hurt his team more'? I'm actually curious to see what your reasoning is here.

Player 2 didn't actually account for 3 runs. He flew out. The guy that got to third gets the credit there.

Hmmm. Player 2 initiated the action by hitting a fly ball to the outfield allowing the runner to trot home. That's called a sacrifice fly. Its credited to the batter as an RBI. It also does not count against the player's batting average, but is in fact an out.

So thats 3 runs, and while the run is credited to the run, the player is credited with batting him in. So yeah, he accounts for creating 3 runs there.

You should buy one of these - https://amzn.com/1629372110

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2016 7:19:00 PM (view original):
And, when he GIDP, he's adding two outs and completely erasing the positive run value produced by the guy who had been on first.

Erasing the - potential - of a run being scored. The run is not guaranteed if there isn't a GIDP.

Posted by sjpoker on 6/21/2016 8:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2016 7:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/21/2016 6:57:00 PM (view original):
"So, using your example above, the second player actually hurt his team more with the two GIDP (and eight other outs) than the first guy did with his 10 common outs."

We never talked about a hypothetical situation like 'bottom of the 9th in game 7' because you'd get murdered on that. We talked about these two models in the abstract. Player 2 accounted for 12 outs vs Player 1's 10 outs, but Player 2 also accounted for 3 runs and 2 extra bases. He created both runs and moved runners along. How did he 'hurt his team more'? I'm actually curious to see what your reasoning is here.

Player 2 didn't actually account for 3 runs. He flew out. The guy that got to third gets the credit there.

Hmmm. Player 2 initiated the action by hitting a fly ball to the outfield allowing the runner to trot home. That's called a sacrifice fly. Its credited to the batter as an RBI. It also does not count against the player's batting average, but is in fact an out.

So thats 3 runs, and while the run is credited to the run, the player is credited with batting him in. So yeah, he accounts for creating 3 runs there.

You should buy one of these - https://amzn.com/1629372110

Christ.

Guy hits a triple.

Next guy guy hits a routine fly ball out.

1 run scores.

Which player is primarily responsible for the run scoring?

I feel like there was a time at which sjpoker actually had valuable things to say. At this point he's a raging ignoramus. Did the account get transferred or am I just misremembering?

Posted by tecwrg on 6/17/2016 7:38:00 AM (view original):
This might be my favorite BL folly of all time, even more than his love of WAR, his claim that Kenny Lofton should be in the HOF, or his defense of why rioting can be a good thing.

His head is stuck so far up his *** with his blind adherence to what he thinks the stats tell him, that he has absolutely no clue about how fundamentally stupid his argument is.

This.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2016 8:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/21/2016 8:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2016 7:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/21/2016 6:57:00 PM (view original):
"So, using your example above, the second player actually hurt his team more with the two GIDP (and eight other outs) than the first guy did with his 10 common outs."

We never talked about a hypothetical situation like 'bottom of the 9th in game 7' because you'd get murdered on that. We talked about these two models in the abstract. Player 2 accounted for 12 outs vs Player 1's 10 outs, but Player 2 also accounted for 3 runs and 2 extra bases. He created both runs and moved runners along. How did he 'hurt his team more'? I'm actually curious to see what your reasoning is here.

Player 2 didn't actually account for 3 runs. He flew out. The guy that got to third gets the credit there.

Hmmm. Player 2 initiated the action by hitting a fly ball to the outfield allowing the runner to trot home. That's called a sacrifice fly. Its credited to the batter as an RBI. It also does not count against the player's batting average, but is in fact an out.

So thats 3 runs, and while the run is credited to the run, the player is credited with batting him in. So yeah, he accounts for creating 3 runs there.

You should buy one of these - https://amzn.com/1629372110

Christ.

Guy hits a triple.

Next guy guy hits a routine fly ball out.

1 run scores.

Which player is primarily responsible for the run scoring?

It's an RBI. The batter gets credit for that. Why are you denying that?

I'm not denying that it's an RBI. I'm asking you, stats aside, which player contributed more towards that run?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2016 10:25:00 PM (view original):
I'm not denying that it's an RBI. I'm asking you, stats aside, which player contributed more towards that run?

There isn't any consideration here for 'who is more responsible'. The rules say the batter is credited with an RBI. If the batter does not initiate contact with the ball and hit the sacrifice fly, then the event does not occur. If a strikeout occurs, then there isn't a run scored. The sacrifice fly causes a run to be scored. Therefore a sacrifice fly is better than a strikeout. Therefore all outs are not equal and your broad statement that "an out is an out" or "all outs are the same" or whatever your quote was is false.