Posted by sjpoker on 6/27/2016 7:56:00 PM (view original):
Like I said. You are completely off, and wrong. And you look stupid.

And for someone who thinks they know stats, its obvious you do - not - know economics.

How so?

Posted by sjpoker on 6/27/2016 7:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2016 5:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/27/2016 5:34:00 PM (view original):
I get what BL is saying. I simply disagree. When there's more of something, the parts of it are less valuable.

I have $1 to my name. A quarter is pretty important to me.
I have $100,000 to my name. I drop a quarter and don't even bother to pick it up.

What changed the value of that quarter? The abundance of them.

Now convert that to positive impact actions and runs scored.

In this case dollars are runs, not hits. We're measuring the value of the events in terms of runs.

When there are a lot of dollars circulating in the economy, an hour of labor costs more than when there are few dollars circulating in the economy. That hour of labor is more valuable, in terms of dollars, when there are a lot of dollars.

Jesus you are so far off here, so completely wrong I don't even know where to start.

You are making the argument that labor costs more because more 'dollars' are needed to pay for it, while completely ignoring the value of those dollar themselves.

This makes you look like a complete idiot because you champion WAR all the time - a stat that is supposed to normalize between eras and different scoring/pitching/etc.

I think the only reason all of us are still participating in this ridiculous thread is we are all so incredulous that you are still defending your stupid theories.

Actually hits are the quarters and runs are the dollars.

Nope. Runs are money. Hits are things you do to get money.

Or the whole money comparison is just a really bad one for what we're talking about.

My analogy, fuckstick.

I have $1 to my name. A quarter is pretty important to me.
I have $100,000 to my name. I drop a quarter and don't even bother to pick it up.

What changed the value of that quarter? The abundance of them.

Now convert that to positive impact actions and runs scored.

===============================================

I have 1 run. A hit is pretty important to me.
I have 10 runs. I lose a hit and don't even worry about it.

What changed the value of that hit? The abundance of them.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2016 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2016 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2016 2:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2016 2:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2016 1:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2016 1:51:00 PM (view original):
Rather than "counterintuitive", I'd go with "stupid".

I was trying to give you a chance to redeem yourself with something intelligent to back up your statement. Shockingly, you failed.

If something is in less abundance, such as hits or runs , then each one that you get is more valuable.

Runs are more valuable. But we aren't measuring the value of runs. We're measuring the value of events and runs are the measurement we use.

Maybe try acting like an adult when you disagree with someone. It might get you a little further in life.

Baseball games are won and lost by the number of runs scored and allowed. Not by the cumulative statistical value of events.

"I don't have to watch the games. I have tables on the statistical values of events."

But we aren't measuring runs in this case. We're measuring the value of each event in terms of runs.

Oh. Well, you and your little friends just keep going along and doing that.

Please let me know when MLB starts crediting team wins and losses on the statistical values of events, and no longer on runs.

Runs are currency.

Think of it like the economy. When there are fewer dollars, things that earn you dollars like an hour of labor or a commodity, cost less. When there are more dollars, those things cost more.

Actually, it's my analogy.

Why even bother going down the rathole with him on this?

He's so completely clueless about what he thinks he's talking about, and what he thinks he's saying.

Isn't about 50 pages of this you/him asking one another the same question over and over?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2016 8:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/27/2016 7:56:00 PM (view original):
Like I said. You are completely off, and wrong. And you look stupid.

And for someone who thinks they know stats, its obvious you do - not - know economics.

How so?

Give it a break BL. Its ok, you don't understand. You can read up on some Macro-economic theories so you can figure out just how ridiculous your statement is. Or you can take a class with Paul Krugman. Not sure.

Either way, give it up. You can see even Dahs is steering clear of this one.

You haven't even said what was wrong about the analogy.

You're having a hard time, aren't you?

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/27/2016 10:55:00 PM (view original):
Isn't about 50 pages of this you/him asking one another the same question over and over?

Pretty much. But at least that was a legitimate baseball argument.

This is freakin' bizarre.

You find a week-long "discussion" with BL "bizarre"?

I call that same old, same old.

No, I'm calling his new "baseball = economics" thing bizarre.

You find BL twisting a discussion in another direction when he knows, or should know, he's wrong "bizarre"?

I call that business as usual.

No, his twisting a discussion into something else is definitely normal. It's his defense mechanism for "Hmm, this isn't going well for me. Time for something different".

The particular direction that this discussion has turned to is bizarre.