Posted by dahsdebater on 6/21/2016 9:17:00 PM (view original):
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?

Ooops. Looks like I got to you. Rarely see you respond like that. Don't worry. It happens.

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?

Now you're just talking in circles to protect yourself. By saying "which player contributed more", you're acknowledging that the batter who hit the fly ball contributed in some way.

The argument isn't "Is the fly ball more valuable than the triple?". It's "Was the fly ball more valuable than a K would have been?". And the answer is yes. Stop changing the focus of the argument to hide the fact that you're wrong.

Simple yes or no question - no rambling needed on your part: Guy triples, next three guys strike out. Is that better than one of those three hitting a sacrifice fly?

And FWIW - as an O's fan, Monday night in Texas this argument was on display in full force. O's had the bases loaded with no outs at one point - Hardy strikes out, next batter grounds into a double play, O's get nothing. If Hardy puts the ball in play, O's likely get a run - and they lost the game 4-3.

Again in the 9th, runners on the corners, one out, down by one - Wieters strikes out, Schoop grounds out. If Wieters puts the ball in play, game is likely tied.

Posted by sjpoker on 6/22/2016 4:54:00 AM (view original):

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.

Um...what?

Plain English, your opinion, which player is more responsible for that run scoring, the guy who hit the triple or the guy who flew out?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/22/2016 10:30:00 AM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/22/2016 4:54:00 AM (view original):

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.

Um...what?

Plain English, your opinion, which player is more responsible for that run scoring, the guy who hit the triple or the guy who flew out?

Once again...

Now you're just talking in circles to protect yourself. By saying "which player contributed more", you're acknowledging that the batter who hit the fly ball contributed in some way. The argument isn't "Is the fly ball more valuable than the triple?". It's "Was the fly ball more valuable than a K would have been?". And the answer is yes. Stop changing the focus of the argument to hide the fact that you're wrong.

It doesn't matter who is "more responsible" for the run. That's not what is being argued. SJ didn't say the guy who hit the triple was less responsible. The argument is whether or not the fly ball was more valuable than a strikeout. Period.

Maybe BL was right all along.

In my kids game last night, we scored two runs on a strikeout.

BL the soothsayer!

Oh wait, never mind. There was a dropped third strike/passed ball followed by a throwing error on the play.

So BL's argument is still without merit.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/22/2016 11:26:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/22/2016 10:30:00 AM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/22/2016 4:54:00 AM (view original):

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.

Um...what?

Plain English, your opinion, which player is more responsible for that run scoring, the guy who hit the triple or the guy who flew out?

Once again...

Now you're just talking in circles to protect yourself. By saying "which player contributed more", you're acknowledging that the batter who hit the fly ball contributed in some way. The argument isn't "Is the fly ball more valuable than the triple?". It's "Was the fly ball more valuable than a K would have been?". And the answer is yes. Stop changing the focus of the argument to hide the fact that you're wrong.

It doesn't matter who is "more responsible" for the run. That's not what is being argued. SJ didn't say the guy who hit the triple was less responsible. The argument is whether or not the fly ball was more valuable than a strikeout. Period.

I'm not asking you, I'm asking SJ.

And, yes, I agree that in that situation, a fly ball was better than a strikeout or pop out.

See my my post regarding types of outs below.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2016 6:56:00 PM (view original):
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.

Here

Then stop obsessing over something irrelevant. Who is more responsible for getting that run in is of no consequence to this discussion. The flyball was better than a strikeout. Period.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/22/2016 11:34:00 AM (view original):
Oh wait, never mind. There was a dropped third strike/passed ball followed by a throwing error on the play.

So BL's argument is still without merit.

That's a Little League double! I was in charge of the scorebook for many years, and had to deal with kids (and ignorant parents) who would lobby for "hits" on routine grounders to shortstop that were booted, or force-outs where the batter reached first. Since BL-Junior got on 1B, he and his parents thought it should be scored a "HIT" (part of the parenting mentality where "we must encourage the losers so they don't feel like losers" which led us to the millennial entitlement generation).

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/22/2016 11:54:00 AM (view original):
Then stop obsessing over something irrelevant. Who is more responsible for getting that run in is of no consequence to this discussion. The flyball was better than a strikeout. Period.

SJ asked, who helped his team more, a guy who struck out 10 times or a guy who hit into 2 double plays and then had a couple sac flies.

I answered him and he didn't like my answer. Establishing that the guy that hits the sac fly isn't really very valuable is a key part of answering the question that he asked.

So you can **** off if you don't like it.

Again, BL is ignoring game situations. If the sac fly is hit by the #8 hitter, it's probably a big deal, given that he's gonna be followed by the pitcher. If Mike Schmidt or Manny Ramirez hits a sac fly with the bases loaded, it's probably a wasted opportunity. Context is EVERYTHING in good statistical analysis, and BL seems to think this all evens out over a year or a career.

This is like saying a team that goes 95-67 followed by 67-95 evens out. Well, it DOESN'T, since the 95 win team makes the playoffs, and could win the WS. A hitter that strikes out with the bases loaded in a 12-0 blowout, and hits a sac fly the next time with the bases loaded in a 2-1 game DOESN'T EVEN OUT.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/22/2016 12:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/22/2016 11:54:00 AM (view original):
Then stop obsessing over something irrelevant. Who is more responsible for getting that run in is of no consequence to this discussion. The flyball was better than a strikeout. Period.

SJ asked, who helped his team more, a guy who struck out 10 times or a guy who hit into 2 double plays and then had a couple sac flies.

I answered him and he didn't like my answer. Establishing that the guy that hits the sac fly isn't really very valuable is a key part of answering the question that he asked.

So you can **** off if you don't like it.

No, you responded by bringing up the guy on third and his value in creating that run. The runner on third is of zero relevance when debating which of the two hitters was more productive. The guy hitting the sac fly is bringing more value to his team than the guy striking out in the same situation.

Maybe if you hadn't conveniently ignored my question above, you'd get it. If a guy leads off with a triple and the next three guys strike out, does that carry the same value as if one of those hitters had hit a sac fly? Yes or no. None of your babble is required.

I suggest you take a little time and go back and read your own posts. Then maybe you'll understand why everyone thinks you're an idiot.