Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 2:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 2:47:00 PM (view original):
Not really. The vast majority of outs aren't "productive" and even the "productive" ones are just slightly less bad than normal outs. And since you take the good with the bad (guys who make a lot of outs in play do so in all situations), double plays more than wipe away any benefit of "productive" outs.

Which inning is preferable, i.e. had more potential to score runs?

A: single, fly out, GIDP

or

B: strikeout, strikeout, strikeout

If the third batter in A struck out, would that have been better?

Look who's arguing that one out is better than two outs!

GROUNDBREAKING ANALYSIS!!

I mean, I wouldn't have thought I'd have to point that out...but it's you, so...I'll take that as a yes, the strikeout would have been better there.

Next question: would it have been any different if the second batter in A had struck out?

Yes, it would have.

But, I digress.

Please tell me more about how an inning with no baserunners and no balls in play is better than an inning with a leadoff base hit and two other balls in play.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2016 2:40:00 PM (view original):
Yes, it would have.

What would have been different?

Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2016 2:41:00 PM (view original):
But, I digress.

Please tell me more about how an inning with no baserunners and no balls in play is better than an inning with a leadoff base hit and two other balls in play.

Because the two balls in play were outs (one DP), both innings were equally bad.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/24/2016 2:06:00 PM (view original):
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.

So you can create phantom hypotheticals but no one else can?

You need to work on your reading comprehension. I already said when evaluating after the fact, it doesn't really matter how a guy made his outs. But in general, a guy who has 300 flyouts, 100 groundouts and 50 Ks will be of more benefit to his team with his outs than a guy with 100 flyouts, 100 groundouts and 250 Ks. That's not rocket science. And I'm still unsure how you fail to grasp that. Do you dress yourself in the mornings?

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.

So you'd rather have a player that puts the ball in play 200-300 times less? That's some solid baseball decision making.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/24/2016 2:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2016 2:40:00 PM (view original):
Yes, it would have.

What would have been different?

Strikeouts add no value to an offense. They are wasted plate appearances.

Flyouts are balls in play. They had potential to drop in as base hits. Or be dropped as errors. Balls in play are generally a good thing.

This is all basic stuff. Did your parents not sign you up for T-ball as a child?

Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2016 3:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/24/2016 2:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2016 2:40:00 PM (view original):
Yes, it would have.

What would have been different?

Strikeouts add no value to an offense. They are wasted plate appearances.

Flyouts are balls in play. They had potential to drop in as base hits. Or be dropped as errors. Balls in play are generally a good thing.

This is all basic stuff. Did your parents not sign you up for T-ball as a child?

Jesus ******* Christ you reeeaaallly don't understand the difference between looking at a completed play (an out) and an incomplete play (ball in play), do you? This isn't a bit, is it?

The fly out in this hypothetical is an out. It didn't fall in for a hit. It was exactly the same as a strikeout.

No, you don't understand the difference. You and dahs have said you'd both take K's over ground balls. By your logic, any hitter that comes to the plate with a runner on first and less than two outs should just intentionally strikeout in order to avoid potentially hitting into a "devastating" double play.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/24/2016 3:53:00 PM (view original):
No, you don't understand the difference. You and dahs have said you'd both take K's over ground balls. By your logic, any hitter that comes to the plate with a runner on first and less than two outs should just intentionally strikeout in order to avoid potentially hitting into a "devastating" double play.

You just did it again.

Ground balls are not the same as ground outs.

But you can use past performance to predict future performance. A player with more ground outs has a higher ground ball rate - thus he puts more balls in play. Which is better than someone who constantly strikes out.

Get it yet?

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/24/2016 4:03:00 PM (view original):
But you can use past performance to predict future performance. A player with more ground outs has a higher ground ball rate - thus he puts more balls in play. Which is better than someone who constantly strikes out.

Get it yet?

Sure, he might have more hits and make less outs.

I wish we had a couple stats that measured hit and out rates...

oh yeah, we do: BA & OBP.