Posted by tecwrg on 10/15/2017 8:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/13/2017 9:28:00 PM (view original):
Hey, PSBL! You watching the Yankees/Astros game tonight?

Did you hear Smoltz talking about how the Astros offense is so much more improved this year because they cut down on strikeouts?

"Productive outs instead of swings and misses" were his exact words.

Will you be contacting him to tell him he's wrong?

Anyways, back to the post that started this thread.

Productive outs are better than strikeouts.

Anybody who understands baseball agrees that this is an obvious truth.

PSBL disagrees. All outs to him are the same.

Conclusion: PSBL does not understand baseball.

One day, he'll watch a game, see a batter move the runner to third on a grounder to 2B then see the runner score on a sac fly and think "Huh. That run would still be on second if both those guys struck out. Who knew?"

Maybe.

No. He would rationalize it as some sort of weird anomaly and stick to his retarded beliefs.

There's no hope for him.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/15/2017 12:37:00 AM (view original):
You can classify them by their relative value:

1) "good" outs (not actually good but relatively less bad)

2) neutral outs (again, bad, just not as bad as 3)

3) bad outs

Most outs fall into group 2. Strikeouts, every third out of every inning, pop ups, most line outs, all outs leading off an inning, some ground balls, some fly balls, etc.

Some outs fall into 1 - sac flies, "productive" outs, etc.

Some fall into 3, those are double plays.

When looked at on a team by team basis, 1 and 3 tend to balance out, the gain from 1 is wiped out by the bad from 3.

Please reference this. Thanks.

Doubling down on stupidity.

So sad.

Well, I'm not wrong so I'm not sure what your problem is.

"Well, I'm not wrong".

I'm reading a biography about John McGraw. I am fairly certain that if BL and John McGraw had a conversation about baseball, at some point John McGraw would get ****** off and beat the **** out of him. What is hard to determine, is how long that conversation would have to go for that to happen.

It depends on who does most of the early speaking. If McGraw speaks for the first two minutes and then BL begins his counter argument, I'd say 2 minutes, 18 seconds.

I don't think McGraw would have that much restraint when the first thing BL tells him is "You're wrong about everything you think you know."

lol........good stuff

Posted by tecwrg on 10/15/2017 12:24:00 PM (view original):
I don't think McGraw would have that much restraint when the first thing BL tells him is "You're wrong about everything you think you know."

Would you pay to watch BL explain Wins Above Replacement to John McGraw?

The real question is "How MUCH would you pay to watch BL explain Wins Above Replacement to John McGraw and the impending beating?"

"... but if he drives it to right field, the runner should reach third base, and, even if he hit to the first baseman, the chances are much better for the runner reaching second..."

- John McGraw

Gee this is strange. It's almost as if John McGraw isn't totally upset if the batter hits right to the first baseman. But isn't that an out?

Does McGraw have anything to say about Brad Radke?

Radke would’ve been Christy Mathewson 2.0 if he played in the early 1900s