There have been other points and arguments made by a few different people. I didn't realize you were simply arguing "Ks have gone up and scoring has gone down." I figured you were arguing something less obvious.

Seems to me the "other points and arguments" were nothing more than "Your stewpid" and "irrelevant sample size".     Did I miss something?

The thread was dead for about 60 hours before BL re-opened it.   What new "point and argument" has been made since then?

We learned that you and tec are VERY uncomfortable making decisions where the information you have is limited.

We talked about reasons why Ks have gone up with runs going down. Lack of steroids, possibly better pitchers, more efficient use of pitchers, etc.

Tec argued that his analysis of data was better than BLs, even though his analysis showed that the correlation of Ks to runs scored was as strong as OBP to runs scored. You agreed that his analysis was better than BLs.

People laughed.

You keep making a point of K/HR which I don't understand the point of.

I make an analogy and you compared that to me thinking fruit are smart, which I also don't understand.

Uncomfortable, yes. Crazy, maybe. "Between this and this, only knowing this, what would you choose if..." "GAHHHH I CANT DO IT!"

Those are points. "Pitchers can throw harder, knowing they aren't expected to go 9." That's a point.

When the league-wide analysis provides laughable results, I wouldn't prefer that.

Hahahahahaha.

OK.

The argument/analogy had nothing to do with scoring runs, it had to do with analyzing data.

It's not that I can't, I choose not to.   It's not like me and my family starve if I don't make a choice about a fictional baseball player on the internet.

Salient point.   Unheard before it was made in this thread(sarcastic laughing is heard).

The results are simple, like you.   Whiffs up/scoring down.

OK.

Glad you agree.

As did my fruit analogy.   Neither of which had anything to do with the discussion at hand.

To put it another way, if you were to gamble an amount of money that's meaningful to you, would you want as much info as possible?   And, if you couldn't get more info than "Team A or Team B", and not betting was an option, would you still bet?

OK. I started typing something again but got tired of it. You win.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2015 11:36:00 AM (view original):
To put it another way, if you were to gamble an amount of money that's meaningful to you, would you want as much info as possible?   And, if you couldn't get more info than "Team A or Team B", and not betting was an option, would you still bet?

Yes. No. But I gave more information that put the odds in one direction.

Can you play poker without getting angry? That's all about making educated guesses.

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/4/2015 11:37:00 AM (view original):
OK. I started typing something again but got tired of it. You win.

Very hollow victory.   Not sure why BL tries so hard to win these things.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2015 10:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2015 9:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/4/2015 9:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2015 9:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/4/2015 7:39:00 AM (view original):
When you're dealing with large volumes of discrete data points, you sometimes have to group and summarize the data in order to look for trends, trends that you would not be able to easily see (or see at all) when looking at the discrete data points.

When BL looks at his 600 data points, he sees nothing.  Yet there is a trend that's seen when the data is grouped and summarized, not just by the eyeball test (looking at the numbers themselves), but by statistical correlation.

Or are you denying that over the recent past that strikeouts have been steadily going up while scoring has been steadily going down?

No, grouping it together doesn't help you see a trend. Each team's Ks and run scoring are independent of other teams Ks and run scoring. By grouping them together, you miss that.

For example, if you looked at the team by team numbers for a two team league you might see this:

2014 Team A - 700 runs, 900 strikeouts
2013 Team A - 800 runs, 900 strikeouts
2012 Team A - 850 runs, 900 strikeouts

2014 Team B - 750 runs, 1200 strikeouts
2013 Team B - 750 runs, 1000 strikeouts
2012 Team B - 750 runs, 900 strikeouts

Grouping those teams together would give the appearance of a strong correlation when there clearly isn't one. If strikeout totals impact run scoring, we'd HAVE to see it in a team level. Otherwise, it isn't happening.

You're NOT going to see it at a team level because all teams do NOT have the same level of player talent.

If you had 30 teams that were virtual clones of each other with respect to talent level, offensive approaches (power versus speed, etc), then you can do that.

Really, you DON'T comprehend this?

So, just so I'm clear, how many times a team strikes out doesn't matter. All that matters is how good their hitters are?

Tec?

You're an impatient little *****, aren't you?  Do you require notes from the people running the meetings I've been in for the past two hours to excuse my absence from your dumbassery?

At a low level, such as the team level, the talent of the hitters has more of an impact on run scoring than does team strikeouts.

At a high level, when all the team specific variations are removed from the equation, there is a strong correlation between strikeouts and runs scored.

How do you explain a correlation coefficient of -0.86?  Random coincidence?

It seems that you love your statistics.  Except when they go against what you "know".  Then, they should be disregarded.

That about right?

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2015 11:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/4/2015 11:37:00 AM (view original):
OK. I started typing something again but got tired of it. You win.

Very hollow victory.   Not sure why BL tries so hard to win these things.

Says the guy who's been here every step of the way for 39 pages.

lol