It's a simple question. I know it's hard for you.

Friend: "Do you want me to splurge and buy you an expensive beer? Or just a cheap one?"
Me: "Oh, nice! The expensive one. Thanks!"

Friend: "Do you want me to splurge and buy you an expensive beer? Or just a cheap one?"
Tec/Mike: "I NEED MORE INFO! THAT'S A RETARDED QUESTION!"

Posted by bad_luck on 3/2/2015 4:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 4:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/2/2015 3:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 3:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/2/2015 3:30:00 PM (view original):
Overall, an out is an out.

If you told me, "wow it was really ****** for Trout to strike out with a runner on third and one out," I'd agree.

If you told me that Trout would have been better in 2014 if he had made more outs in play, I'd disagree.

So you're just rehashing last week's argument again, with nothing new to add?

Good job.  Thanks for wasting my time.

Says the guy who started the thread.

Yes, that's my main argument. An out is an out. Do you agree or disagree with this statement:

Trout would have been better in 2014 if he had made more outs in play

I'll make this statement:

Trout will be a better player in 2015 if he can cut down on his strikeouts.

And I'll also make this statement:

Outs in play are going to be better than strikeouts over the course of a season.

If you want to connect those two statements somehow, be my guest.  But I'm not interested in your putting words in my mouth.

"Outs in play are going to be better than strikeouts over the course of a season."

If this is true we should see a K's to run scored correlation, right?

And, why do you have such a hard time answering a simple agree/disagree question. You started the thread about Trout and his strikeouts. It seems like it wouldn't be a big deal to say either, yes, I agree Trout would have been better in 2014 if he had made more outs in play. Or no, I disagree, how Trout made his outs really doesn't matter.

Tec, did you disappear?

Yeah, but how many times did Ruth move a runner to third by hitting a soft groundout to second? That's what's really important.

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/2/2015 4:51:00 PM (view original):
Friend: "Do you want me to splurge and buy you an expensive beer? Or just a cheap one?"
Me: "Oh, nice! The expensive one. Thanks!"

Friend: "Do you want me to splurge and buy you an expensive beer? Or just a cheap one?"
Tec/Mike: "I NEED MORE INFO! THAT'S A RETARDED QUESTION!"

Do you think the expensive beer is always the better tasting one?


Because, if you do, that's retarded.

Because I think it's retarded to offer one tidbit of info on a player and then ask someone to pick the better player?

Posted by bad_luck on 3/2/2015 4:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/2/2015 4:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 4:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/2/2015 3:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/2/2015 3:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/2/2015 3:30:00 PM (view original):
Overall, an out is an out.

If you told me, "wow it was really ****** for Trout to strike out with a runner on third and one out," I'd agree.

If you told me that Trout would have been better in 2014 if he had made more outs in play, I'd disagree.

So you're just rehashing last week's argument again, with nothing new to add?

Good job.  Thanks for wasting my time.

Says the guy who started the thread.

Yes, that's my main argument. An out is an out. Do you agree or disagree with this statement:

Trout would have been better in 2014 if he had made more outs in play

I'll make this statement:

Trout will be a better player in 2015 if he can cut down on his strikeouts.

And I'll also make this statement:

Outs in play are going to be better than strikeouts over the course of a season.

If you want to connect those two statements somehow, be my guest.  But I'm not interested in your putting words in my mouth.

"Outs in play are going to be better than strikeouts over the course of a season."

If this is true we should see a K's to run scored correlation, right?

And, why do you have such a hard time answering a simple agree/disagree question. You started the thread about Trout and his strikeouts. It seems like it wouldn't be a big deal to say either, yes, I agree Trout would have been better in 2014 if he had made more outs in play. Or no, I disagree, how Trout made his outs really doesn't matter.

Tec, did you disappear?

No.  My work day ended, I went home, ran an errand, and shoveled snow.

Thanks for checking up on me, though.

Under these two plates I have something you can eat.   PICK ONE!!!!!

Oh, sorry, that one has a **** sandwich.   ENJOY!!!!

Posted by dahsdebater on 3/2/2015 6:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/2/2015 5:58:00 PM (view original):
Because I think it's retarded to offer one tidbit of info on a player and then ask someone to pick the better player?

Because, as much as I've called you dumb my fair share of times, you're not a ******* moron.

I'm sure you understand on some level the difference between probabilities and absolutes.

Obviously it's not guaranteed that the high-HR player, or the expensive beer, is better.  But it's certainly more likely.

I don't think it's more likely that a lower-K player is a better player.  I also think this was a fairly silly hypothetical situation for burnsy to have come up with, but it has a point.  You're not stupid enough to miss the point.  Not sure about tec...

I agree that comparing strikeout rates isn't very likely to produce the best player.   After all, the player this centers around struck out a lot and he's pretty good.

But asking to pick the 20 homer or 30 homer player with no other info is just plain *** dumb.    As I pointed out with Gwynn/Carew(neither hit 20 in a season) over Kingman/Deer(whiffers of much renown in their era), the MUCH better player may not hit very many homers.

Posted by dahsdebater on 3/2/2015 6:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/2/2015 5:58:00 PM (view original):
Because I think it's retarded to offer one tidbit of info on a player and then ask someone to pick the better player?

Because, as much as I've called you dumb my fair share of times, you're not a ******* moron.

I'm sure you understand on some level the difference between probabilities and absolutes.

Obviously it's not guaranteed that the high-HR player, or the expensive beer, is better.  But it's certainly more likely.

I don't think it's more likely that a lower-K player is a better player.  I also think this was a fairly silly hypothetical situation for burnsy to have come up with, but it has a point.  You're not stupid enough to miss the point.  Not sure about tec...

I agree that comparing strikeout rates isn't very likely to produce the best player.   After all, the player this centers around struck out a lot and he's pretty good.

But asking to pick the 20 homer or 30 homer player with no other info is just plain *** dumb.    As I pointed out with Gwynn/Carew(neither hit 20 in a season) over Kingman/Deer(whiffers of much renown in their era), the MUCH better player may not hit very many homers.