Posted by sjpoker on 6/26/2016 8:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2016 7:39:00 PM (view original):
Even harder with 0-run innings.

Are you saying you'd rather take 1 guaranteed run over 1.53 'potential' runs?

Teams play for 1 run all the time. As I asked earlier, has any MLB team attempted a sacrifice bunt this season? No one bothered to answer but I think the BL average is something like 15 per team(NL more obviously). They were playing for that 1 run that dahs/BL despise.

MLB is not the NBA or NFL. A single score matters.

A number of those sac bunts were probably pitchers laying one down rather than striking out.

Poor, dumb pitchers. Not realizing that an out is an out, and that productive outs don't matter.

It was probably the managers' call. Stupid managers. BL would be a much better manager because he knows a hit is better than a sacrifice fly.

But has BL run a sufficient amount of regression analysis to confidently conclude that hits are better than sac flys?

And has his analysis included or excluded the steroid era? Duhs seems to be pointing out that stats are skewed during the steroid era.

duhs would definitely be his bench coach.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2016 7:06:00 AM (view original):
So you're wondering why stats don't line up nice and neat for you during an era when both hitting and pitching stats were skewed by steroids?

Do you also wonder why it gets dark at night?

It's not just the steroid era. It's 1920-on.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2016 12:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/26/2016 11:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/26/2016 11:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/15/2016 11:40:00 PM (view original):
For a hitter, an out is an out.

For a pitcher, how he gets outs matters.

Is that hard to understand?

This is where it started JTP. You don't get to define the parameters of the discussion when you show up a week in, no matter how badly you want to do so. It was initially about FIP, which is an aggregate stat. Not about individual events. A lot of very stupid/ignorant people wanted to redefine it in terms of individual events because that's the only way they have much of an argument.

When I showed up, BL was shouting his "AN OUT IS AN OUT" mantra from the roof tops and that is what reignited this current line of debate.

It's right there in the first line of the post you quoted. As we've established repeatedly, for hitters, an out is not an out. Outs in play have the potential to be far more productive than K's. And no, DPs do not occur often enough to cancel out the benefit of all the productive outs.

Yes they do, since the negative value of a double play is 5-10 times as bad as a "productive" out.

This is such bullshit. You will never convince me (or most people with half a brain) that a DP is ten times worse than an out that moves a runner over or brings a runner in. If you want to argue that it takes 2 productive outs to cancel out a DP, I may concede that, but 5-10 is garbage.

And once again, I'll point out that the most prolific DP hitter in history (Ripken - 350) grounded into one every 9-10 games. And that's the absolute worst. Which means hitters don't ground into DPs nearly as frequently as you and dahs seem to think they do.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/27/2016 9:47:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2016 12:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/26/2016 11:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/26/2016 11:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/15/2016 11:40:00 PM (view original):
For a hitter, an out is an out.

For a pitcher, how he gets outs matters.

Is that hard to understand?

This is where it started JTP. You don't get to define the parameters of the discussion when you show up a week in, no matter how badly you want to do so. It was initially about FIP, which is an aggregate stat. Not about individual events. A lot of very stupid/ignorant people wanted to redefine it in terms of individual events because that's the only way they have much of an argument.

When I showed up, BL was shouting his "AN OUT IS AN OUT" mantra from the roof tops and that is what reignited this current line of debate.

It's right there in the first line of the post you quoted. As we've established repeatedly, for hitters, an out is not an out. Outs in play have the potential to be far more productive than K's. And no, DPs do not occur often enough to cancel out the benefit of all the productive outs.

Yes they do, since the negative value of a double play is 5-10 times as bad as a "productive" out.

This is such bullshit. You will never convince me (or most people with half a brain) that a DP is ten times worse than an out that moves a runner over or brings a runner in. If you want to argue that it takes 2 productive outs to cancel out a DP, I may concede that, but 5-10 is garbage.

And once again, I'll point out that the most prolific DP hitter in history (Ripken - 350) grounded into one every 9-10 games. And that's the absolute worst. Which means hitters don't ground into DPs nearly as frequently as you and dahs seem to think they do.

And this is why we spent so much time on the value of individual events.

The value of a non-productive out (any out with bases empty, any third out, strikeouts, pop-outs, most shallow fly outs, etc) is about -0.30 runs.

The value of a productive out varies between -0.08 and -0.20 runs.

The value of a double play is around -1.00 runs.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2016 8:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2016 7:06:00 AM (view original):
So you're wondering why stats don't line up nice and neat for you during an era when both hitting and pitching stats were skewed by steroids?

Do you also wonder why it gets dark at night?

It's not just the steroid era. It's 1920-on.

Take it up with duhs. He's specifically talking about the steroid era.

Does anyone think 1 run is more important now than during the steroid era?

What about in the 60s?

Because, if scoring is greatly varied between eras, you can't look at MLB in it's entirety to determine value of whiffs, double plays, runs, etc, etc.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/27/2016 10:25:00 AM (view original):
Because, if scoring is greatly varied between eras, you can't look at MLB in it's entirety to determine value of whiffs, double plays, runs, etc, etc.

Of course, as league runs per game go up and down, the value of each event goes up and down.

For example, a single is worth about half a run at 5 RPG and only about a third of a run at 2 RPG.

And an out is worth about -0.30 at 5 RPG and only -0.12 at 2 RPG.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/27/2016 10:20:00 AM (view original):
Does anyone think 1 run is more important now than during the steroid era?

Obviously. Which is why, unlike BL, I think Ks matter now.

So, really, you can't say "It's not just the steroid era. It's 1920-on" and have a legit argument.