Posted by bad_luck on 6/24/2016 9:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2016 7:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 2:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/22/2016 2:36:00 PM (view original):
Which is the more disastrous inning?

A: single, fly out, GIDP

or

B: strikeout, strikeout, strikeout

Inning A was worse for the offense even though zero runs scored in both innings.

If you ordered the 6 events from good to bad, they'd go:

1. Single
t2. K's & fly out
3. GIDP

How can anything BL says today possibly top this?

You're right tec. You did such a good job proving that an out is an out.

You do realize that you claimed yesterday afternoon in your post that an inning where everybody struck out was better offensively than an inning where everybody put the ball in play?

I don't know what's worse . . . saying that, or agreeing with that (as dahs did).

Is this the "Groundhog Day" thread?

Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2016 9:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/24/2016 9:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2016 7:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 2:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/22/2016 2:36:00 PM (view original):
Which is the more disastrous inning?

A: single, fly out, GIDP

or

B: strikeout, strikeout, strikeout

Inning A was worse for the offense even though zero runs scored in both innings.

If you ordered the 6 events from good to bad, they'd go:

1. Single
t2. K's & fly out
3. GIDP

How can anything BL says today possibly top this?

You're right tec. You did such a good job proving that an out is an out.

You do realize that you claimed yesterday afternoon in your post that an inning where everybody struck out was better offensively than an inning where everybody put the ball in play?

I don't know what's worse . . . saying that, or agreeing with that (as dahs did).

You're right, both innings were exactly the same.

My bad.

You definitely proved that an out is an out.

You don't even see the circle you're arguing in, do you?

"An out is an out...but any idiot knows there are some circumstances where an out in play is better than a strikeout...but an out is an out."

I'm talking about outs in general. As in, Player A hit .300/.400/.500 last season. How he made his outs does not matter.

Obviously there are specific situations where a fly ball is better than a strikeout or where a strikeout is better than a ground out, but if someone were to say Player A struck out too much, they aren't saying that he should trade strikeouts for other outs.

And that's the point I've made multiple times. You're arguing for evaluation purposes - and I agree with that. When looking back after the fact, it doesn't really matter how a guy made his outs.

But then you wander over into discussions about specific game situations and you keep talking about how an out is an out. And in that context, not all outs are created equal.

When someone is saying "Player A needs to strikeout less", they're saying he needs to put the ball in play more. And in a sense, they are arguing that he should trade his K's for a different kind of out. A player who has 300 flyouts, 200 groundouts and 100 Ks likely had his outs produce more value for his team than a guy with 200 flyouts, 150 groundouts and 250 Ks.

When evaluating a player after the season, I don't really care how a guy made his outs. But if I had the opportunity to choose before the season, I'd take Player A's 600 outs over Player B's 600 outs.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/24/2016 1:37:00 PM (view original):
And that's the point I've made multiple times. You're arguing for evaluation purposes - and I agree with that. When looking back after the fact, it doesn't really matter how a guy made his outs.

But then you wander over into discussions about specific game situations and you keep talking about how an out is an out. And in that context, not all outs are created equal.

When someone is saying "Player A needs to strikeout less", they're saying he needs to put the ball in play more. And in a sense, they are arguing that he should trade his K's for a different kind of out. A player who has 300 flyouts, 200 groundouts and 100 Ks likely had his outs produce more value for his team than a guy with 200 flyouts, 150 groundouts and 250 Ks.

When evaluating a player after the season, I don't really care how a guy made his outs. But if I had the opportunity to choose before the season, I'd take Player A's 600 outs over Player B's 600 outs.

Fist of all, anyone who makes 600 outs in one season needs to be released.

Aside from that, Player A's outs aren't any more valuable than Player B's outs.

Thomas Paine weighs in on BL:

Posted by bad_luck on 6/24/2016 1:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/24/2016 1:37:00 PM (view original):
And that's the point I've made multiple times. You're arguing for evaluation purposes - and I agree with that. When looking back after the fact, it doesn't really matter how a guy made his outs.

But then you wander over into discussions about specific game situations and you keep talking about how an out is an out. And in that context, not all outs are created equal.

When someone is saying "Player A needs to strikeout less", they're saying he needs to put the ball in play more. And in a sense, they are arguing that he should trade his K's for a different kind of out. A player who has 300 flyouts, 200 groundouts and 100 Ks likely had his outs produce more value for his team than a guy with 200 flyouts, 150 groundouts and 250 Ks.

When evaluating a player after the season, I don't really care how a guy made his outs. But if I had the opportunity to choose before the season, I'd take Player A's 600 outs over Player B's 600 outs.

Fist of all, anyone who makes 600 outs in one season needs to be released.

Aside from that, Player A's outs aren't any more valuable than Player B's outs.

I just picked an arbitrary number.

But once again, you totally miss the point (I'm not shocked). If you can choose before the fact how a player is going to make his outs in the coming season, you'd be a fool to include any strikeouts in your breakdown. I can almost guarantee you that a player with 300 flyouts, 100 groundouts and 50 Ks (450 outs, just for you) will have outs that are more valuable to his team than a player with 100 flyouts, 100 groundouts and 250 Ks.

If you think both of those players will produce similar value with those 450 outs, you're a fool. But then again, we already knew that.

I'd rather have a player with all Ks than all groundouts.

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/24/2016 1:57:00 PM (view original):
I'd rather have a player with all Ks than all groundouts.

Congratulations.

You're as big of a dumbass as BL.

You'd also rather your lead-off not bother to get on if he's not going to score. So there's that.

But you don't get to pick how and when a player makes outs. That's key to understanding why player A hitting .300/.400/.500 with 150 K's wasn't any worse than Player B hitting .300/.400/.500 with 50 K's.

Because you don't know when and how the outs come, guys who make a lot of outs in play do so in good times and bad times.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2016 1:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/24/2016 1:57:00 PM (view original):
I'd rather have a player with all Ks than all groundouts.

Congratulations.

You're as big of a dumbass as BL.

dahs is right. A ground out with runners on is more than likely worse than a K and a ground out with empty bases is no better than a K.

BL and dahs, hooking up at the SABR convention: