Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 1:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 1:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 1:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 1:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 11:36:00 AM (view original):
Or maybe I can talk this out.

Youre saying that non-strikeout outs can have value. So, for example*, if there's a guy on second and the batter grounds out, moving the runner to third, the batter added value to his team. Correct?


*This is just an example, I'm not saying it's the only or best example.

Is this correct?

Relative to the value of the batter striking out and leaving the runner on second, yes. He's added value to his team.

One out, runner on third, is better than one out, runner on second.

Do you not agree?

For the sake of the argument let's agree that the batter is actually adding value by grounding out and moving the guy from second to third.**

He added that value regardless of whether or not the run eventually scores from third, correct?


**creating an out there is technically negative value, but moving the runner makes it less negative than an out without moving the runner, so I agree.

It's not for the sake of argument. It's a cold, hard fact. He added value by advancing the runner rather than leaving him at the previous base.

Do you not agree?

Like I said, adding an out is technically negative value regardless of whether or not he moves the runner. It's just slightly less negative if he moves the runner. So sure, I agree.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 10:20:00 AM (view original):
Good Lord.

Why do you think that I agree with you?

Player A hits .300/.400/.500 over a season (600 PAs) with 185 strikeouts.
Player B hits .300/.400/.500 over a season (600 PAs) with 65 strikeouts.

Are they virtually the same player?

You're comparing two seasons after the fact here. That's what we're arguing about.

Not whether or not a ball in play is the same as an out.

Deleting posts now?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 1:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 1:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 1:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 12:25:00 PM (view original):
So which would you prefer: the 30+% chance of something positive happening (even if they all turn out to be outs in play), or the 0% chance of something positive happening?

We aren't talking about the chance of a hit. We're talking about the value of plays that are already outs.

A batted ball is not an out until it's an out. Before the out is made, it has a 30+% chance of being a hit, or an ROE.

Strikeouts have 0% chance of being a hit. Or an ROE.

People who understand baseball will understand this. Because it's pretty basic.

Do you need a picture or something to help you understand?

For the 6 millionth time, a ball in play that isn't yet an out is always better than an out. But we're comparing two complete seasons with identical hit/out rates, so the potential of a hit doesn't apply.

In my overall argument, I'm not comparing seasons. I'm talking about what happens on actual plays in actual games.

That's how baseball is played. On the field, with players doing things in games. Not on a summarized stat sheet at the end of the season.

The guy with 65 K's offered more value to his team than the guy with 185 K's. Because his additional 120 non-K outs offered offensive potential that the additional 120 K outs the other guy had did not offer.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 1:21:00 PM (view original):
Deleting posts now?

Quoting and clarifying, dumbass.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 1:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 10:20:00 AM (view original):
Good Lord.

Why do you think that I agree with you?

Player A hits .300/.400/.500 over a season (600 PAs) with 185 strikeouts.
Player B hits .300/.400/.500 over a season (600 PAs) with 65 strikeouts.

Are they virtually the same player?

You're comparing two seasons after the fact here. That's what we're arguing about.

Not whether or not a ball in play is the same as an out.

Right. In this example, I'm comparing seasons.

The guy with fewer strikeouts offered more value.

If his outs are still outs, what value did he add?

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 12:27:00 PM (view original):
Or maybe I can talk this out.

It seems that the ONLY stick up your *** about outs in play versus strikeouts is the potential for an out in play to turn into your "disastrous" GIDP.

Is that correct?

Please answer this.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 1:25:00 PM (view original):
If his outs are still outs, what value did he add?

Were all of his "outs" really outs?

You can't tell from his triple slash because ROE looks like outs. One can assume that over a full season, he's reaching base occasionally via ROE.

Also, it's safe to assume that he was advancing runners on some outs in play, putting his team in better offensive position than he would have via strikeouts.

No, this has taken an interesting and unexpected turn.

Are you saying that outs in play, because they once had the potential to become hits, actually add value?

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 1:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 1:25:00 PM (view original):
If his outs are still outs, what value did he add?

Were all of his "outs" really outs?

You can't tell from his triple slash because ROE looks like outs. One can assume that over a full season, he's reaching base occasionally via ROE.

Also, it's safe to assume that he was advancing runners on some outs in play, putting his team in better offensive position than he would have via strikeouts.

They keep ROE stats, so feel free to add those to both guy's BA/OBP if you want.

Regarding advancing runners, if the hitter grounds out and advances a runner, he added value regardless of whether or not the runner eventually scores, right?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 1:30:00 PM (view original):
No, this has taken an interesting and unexpected turn.

Are you saying that outs in play, because they once had the potential to become hits, actually add value?

Yes.

Let me make an analogy.

Let's say you buy a $2 lottery ticket every week. The lottery has a grand prize of $1,000,000. You're a lucky guy, thought you never hit the jackpot, but on average, you win $10 every five weeks or so. Over the long run, you break exactly even. Exactly the same as if you never bought lottery tickets at all.

Are you better off still continuing to buy lottery tickets, or should you stop?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 1:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 1:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 1:25:00 PM (view original):
If his outs are still outs, what value did he add?

Were all of his "outs" really outs?

You can't tell from his triple slash because ROE looks like outs. One can assume that over a full season, he's reaching base occasionally via ROE.

Also, it's safe to assume that he was advancing runners on some outs in play, putting his team in better offensive position than he would have via strikeouts.

They keep ROE stats, so feel free to add those to both guy's BA/OBP if you want.

Regarding advancing runners, if the hitter grounds out and advances a runner, he added value regardless of whether or not the runner eventually scores, right?

Already asked and answered.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 1:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 12:27:00 PM (view original):
Or maybe I can talk this out.

It seems that the ONLY stick up your *** about outs in play versus strikeouts is the potential for an out in play to turn into your "disastrous" GIDP.

Is that correct?

Please answer this.

Please answer this.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 1:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 1:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2016 1:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 1:25:00 PM (view original):
If his outs are still outs, what value did he add?

Were all of his "outs" really outs?

You can't tell from his triple slash because ROE looks like outs. One can assume that over a full season, he's reaching base occasionally via ROE.

Also, it's safe to assume that he was advancing runners on some outs in play, putting his team in better offensive position than he would have via strikeouts.

They keep ROE stats, so feel free to add those to both guy's BA/OBP if you want.

Regarding advancing runners, if the hitter grounds out and advances a runner, he added value regardless of whether or not the runner eventually scores, right?

Already asked and answered.

I don't see the answer anywhere.

It's a simple yes or no. Advancing the runner adds value even if he doesn't happen to score in that instance. Correct?