Posted by tecwrg on 3/3/2015 1:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/3/2015 1:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/3/2015 1:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/3/2015 1:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/3/2015 1:44:00 PM (view original):
It works the same for batters, though.

Same season, 1996.  Houston and Seattle batters both struck out at the same league wide rate of 6.5 K/G.  But Houston only scored 4.65 R/G, while Seattle scored 6.17 R/G.

Different hitters, different ballparks, different offensive production despite the same rate of K's by their hitters.

So you're saying the K rates don't track well to the runs scored rates?

Using your incorrect way of looking at the data, correct.  Because you're looking at very disparate levels of talent that are also impacted by potentially significant external factors.

That's why you have to aggregate the data and look at it at a higher summarized level.  Which is what I've done.

Ok, so, based on your awesome 20 data points, would you say that league-wide run scoring would increase if players turned some of their strikeouts into other types of outs?

Sure.  League wide run scoring would increase if players cut down on their strikeouts.

Don't you agree?

Not what I asked.

Would scoring increase if players turned some of their strikeouts into other types of outs?

Marginally, sure.  More sacrifice flies, more runners being moved into scoring position for the next guy to knock in.

I assume you know how to read a run expectancy chart.  Something that shows how a runner on second with one out has more chance of scoring than does a runner on first with one out, as an example.

Do you not agree?

Wouldn't reducing strikeouts mean more balls in play?    Don't some of those become hits?   Don't hits lead to runs?

Why does every new non-strikeout have to become a weak dribbler to the pitcher?

Posted by tecwrg on 3/3/2015 2:06:00 PM (view original):
Marginally, sure.  More sacrifice flies, more runners being moved into scoring position for the next guy to knock in.

I assume you know how to read a run expectancy chart.  Something that shows how a runner on second with one out has more chance of scoring than does a runner on first with one out, as an example.

Do you not agree?

Following your logic, if making more outs in play results in more runs scored, shouldn't teams that make more outs in play score more runs than teams that make less outs in play?

Absolutely agree that a runner on second with one out is better than a runner on first with one out.

Though, is a runner on first with one out still worse than no one on and two outs? Because that also happens more often when you make more outs in play.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/3/2015 2:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/3/2015 2:06:00 PM (view original):
Marginally, sure.  More sacrifice flies, more runners being moved into scoring position for the next guy to knock in.

I assume you know how to read a run expectancy chart.  Something that shows how a runner on second with one out has more chance of scoring than does a runner on first with one out, as an example.

Do you not agree?

Following your logic, if making more outs in play results in more runs scored, shouldn't teams that make more outs in play score more runs than teams that make less outs in play?

Absolutely agree that a runner on second with one out is better than a runner on first with one out.

Though, is a runner on first with one out still worse than no one on and two outs? Because that also happens more often when you make more outs in play.

Oh, you're still stuck on that "let's only look at team level stats" thing?

What part of my dismissal of that did you not understand?

And since you keep going back to the "changing strikeouts to outs in play" thing, do you think that hitters who want to cut down on their strikeout rates are going to now come to the plate trying to ground out to second base?

That is obviously Trout's stated intention.

Posted by tecwrg on 3/3/2015 2:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/3/2015 2:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/3/2015 2:06:00 PM (view original):
Marginally, sure.  More sacrifice flies, more runners being moved into scoring position for the next guy to knock in.

I assume you know how to read a run expectancy chart.  Something that shows how a runner on second with one out has more chance of scoring than does a runner on first with one out, as an example.

Do you not agree?

Following your logic, if making more outs in play results in more runs scored, shouldn't teams that make more outs in play score more runs than teams that make less outs in play?

Absolutely agree that a runner on second with one out is better than a runner on first with one out.

Though, is a runner on first with one out still worse than no one on and two outs? Because that also happens more often when you make more outs in play.

Oh, you're still stuck on that "let's only look at team level stats" thing?

What part of my dismissal of that did you not understand?

You can dismiss whatever you want, doesn't mean I'm wrong. If we're trying to find a correlation between strikeouts and runs scored, we need to look at it on a team level.

And I wonder how many MLB hitters really do come to the plate thinking "Hey, I hope I strikeout instead of hitting into a 6-4-3"?

Posted by tecwrg on 3/3/2015 2:18:00 PM (view original):
And since you keep going back to the "changing strikeouts to outs in play" thing, do you think that hitters who want to cut down on their strikeout rates are going to now come to the plate trying to ground out to second base?

Nope, I don't think that. Assuming that a hitter isn't completely selling out just to make contact, balls in play are generally preferred to strikeouts.

Outs in play, on the other hand, are no better or worse than strikeouts.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/3/2015 2:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/3/2015 2:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/3/2015 2:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/3/2015 2:06:00 PM (view original):
Marginally, sure.  More sacrifice flies, more runners being moved into scoring position for the next guy to knock in.

I assume you know how to read a run expectancy chart.  Something that shows how a runner on second with one out has more chance of scoring than does a runner on first with one out, as an example.

Do you not agree?

Following your logic, if making more outs in play results in more runs scored, shouldn't teams that make more outs in play score more runs than teams that make less outs in play?

Absolutely agree that a runner on second with one out is better than a runner on first with one out.

Though, is a runner on first with one out still worse than no one on and two outs? Because that also happens more often when you make more outs in play.

Oh, you're still stuck on that "let's only look at team level stats" thing?

What part of my dismissal of that did you not understand?

You can dismiss whatever you want, doesn't mean I'm wrong. If we're trying to find a correlation between strikeouts and runs scored, we need to look at it on a team level.

Well, alrighty then.

LOL.

BL "making the rules" again.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/3/2015 2:38:00 PM (view original):
Tec?

If making more outs in play results in more runs scored, shouldn't teams that make more outs in play score more runs than teams that make less outs in play?

BL?

Do you think I'm going to answer a question about teams when I've already dismissed the validity of the premise?

How stupid are you?