Posted by Jtpsops on 6/25/2016 12:37:00 AM (view original):
No, you're not understanding as you keep illustrating.

You've clearly said you'd take a guy who K's over a guy who grounds out. Yet any moron knows it's better to put the ball in play - that's the objective of baseball. And a guy who makes a higher percentage of his outs on the ground clearly puts the ball in play more and is more likely to have those ground balls help his team in the future, whether they are productive outs, or whether they lead to another outcome (FC, error, hit, etc.).

You and BL are still applying retroactive logic to present scenarios.

No, you're not understanding.

This whole discussion came up with respect to retroactive analysis of batting lines. The statement "an out is an out" is meaningful exclusively in the context of retroactively analyzing batting lines. You and Tec are trying to redefine the problem. You don't even understand what BL was talking about in the first place. That's exactly what makes you sound so dumb. Hindsight lets you know, with certainty, which ground balls were outs.

And what makes you think that a guy who put the ball on the ground is is more likely to have those ground balls help his team in the future?" Are the other teams gonna stop shifting on him next season? Is he gonna hit those groundballs harder? As much as it appeals to people who don't like to think deeply, this statement is ultimately deeply stupid. There is no reason to believe that a guy who hit .340 on groundballs last year is suddenly going to hit .400 on groundballs next year. He'll probably hit about .340.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/24/2016 7:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 6/24/2016 7:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/24/2016 5:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 6/24/2016 5:45:00 PM (view original):
a ground out can sometimes help the team by advancing a runner or even scoring a runner. A ground out can also sometimes be a double play. A strike out can only be a strike out (or a strike them out, throw them out double play) so it can never benefit the team.

If you ground out with no one on base, was it better, worse, or the same as a strikeout?

if you ground out with no one on base, it is no worse or better than striking out with no one on base. However, if there is a runner or runners on base, a strike out is of no benefit to the team. A ground out can be of benefit to the team.

Correct.

Any out, even an out that moves a base runner is bad, agree?

By bad, I mean the team is worse off than it was prior to the PA, relative to the team's attempt to score as many runs as possible. The team is better off, for example, with a guy on second and no out than it is with a guy on third and one out.

Of course an out is not a good thing, but a groundout that advances a runner is better than a strike out which does nothing except give the team 1 less out left in that inning. I don't think anyone is saying they prefer an out to a hit. What I am saying is if a player is going to make an out, I'd rather have an out that at least has a chance to help the team than an out that has no chance of helping the team.

Ok, here's a quick 3-minute Excel analysis of impact of team stats on run scoring done without writing any special macros. Unfortunately LINEST doesn't output statistical weights for multivariate analyses, but it gives the contribution of each variable along with the associated standard error. Here are the numbers for the steroid era, which I've given as 1994-2005:

AVG	OBP	SLG	K%
498.9127	1936.828	2815.681	-412.566
289.6629	239.1281	510.2548	741.7796

You'll note that for K rate, the error associated with the impact on run-scoring is considerably larger than the value itself. Thus, 0 impact on run scoring is firmly within the confidence interval, as well as a number of positive values. In other words, K rate has basically no impact on run scoring independent of other things it might influence like AVG and OBP.

Here are the numbers for 2007-present:

AVG	OBP	SLG	K%
-153.153	1836.141	2540.96	-480.846
93.44375	96.98936	212.8566	271.6744

Now the K rate is decidedly a negative factor. It's still extremely small relative to OBP and SLG, but it's clearly contributing an additional negative value in and of itself. So in the post-steroid era, Ks do matter, just not a lot.

During the steroid era, they didn't matter. It's a statistical fact. Teams that struck out more did not score less. No way to argue around that. It's just the way it was. You can outline any set of scenarios you want. It's inherently foolhardy to argue with empiricism. You can't win that argument.

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/25/2016 12:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/25/2016 12:37:00 AM (view original):
No, you're not understanding as you keep illustrating.

You've clearly said you'd take a guy who K's over a guy who grounds out. Yet any moron knows it's better to put the ball in play - that's the objective of baseball. And a guy who makes a higher percentage of his outs on the ground clearly puts the ball in play more and is more likely to have those ground balls help his team in the future, whether they are productive outs, or whether they lead to another outcome (FC, error, hit, etc.).

You and BL are still applying retroactive logic to present scenarios.

No, you're not understanding.

This whole discussion came up with respect to retroactive analysis of batting lines. The statement "an out is an out" is meaningful exclusively in the context of retroactively analyzing batting lines. You and Tec are trying to redefine the problem. You don't even understand what BL was talking about in the first place. That's exactly what makes you sound so dumb. Hindsight lets you know, with certainty, which ground balls were outs.

And what makes you think that a guy who put the ball on the ground is is more likely to have those ground balls help his team in the future?" Are the other teams gonna stop shifting on him next season? Is he gonna hit those groundballs harder? As much as it appeals to people who don't like to think deeply, this statement is ultimately deeply stupid. There is no reason to believe that a guy who hit .340 on groundballs last year is suddenly going to hit .400 on groundballs next year. He'll probably hit about .340.

Actually, the origin of BL's (and now yours) tomfoolery about "all outs are the same" started around two years ago in a discussion about how MLB offense was going down as a whole, while strikeout rate as a whole was going up.

I can't find the original thread in which that was discussed, but I did find a spin off thread that BL started "solving the lack of offense", in which he suggested that "a smaller strike zone would probably do the trick".

The ironic part about that is that that statement in itself is implying that fewer strikeouts would lead to more offense. Something which he is now vehemently denying ("there is no correlation between strikeouts and scoring").

It came up again in my troll thread about Mike Trout's comments that he wanted to cut down on his strikeouts.

And then again in this thread, where he completely fell off the cliff, and you happily followed.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/25/2016 8:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/25/2016 12:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/25/2016 12:37:00 AM (view original):
No, you're not understanding as you keep illustrating.

You've clearly said you'd take a guy who K's over a guy who grounds out. Yet any moron knows it's better to put the ball in play - that's the objective of baseball. And a guy who makes a higher percentage of his outs on the ground clearly puts the ball in play more and is more likely to have those ground balls help his team in the future, whether they are productive outs, or whether they lead to another outcome (FC, error, hit, etc.).

You and BL are still applying retroactive logic to present scenarios.

No, you're not understanding.

This whole discussion came up with respect to retroactive analysis of batting lines. The statement "an out is an out" is meaningful exclusively in the context of retroactively analyzing batting lines. You and Tec are trying to redefine the problem. You don't even understand what BL was talking about in the first place. That's exactly what makes you sound so dumb. Hindsight lets you know, with certainty, which ground balls were outs.

And what makes you think that a guy who put the ball on the ground is is more likely to have those ground balls help his team in the future?" Are the other teams gonna stop shifting on him next season? Is he gonna hit those groundballs harder? As much as it appeals to people who don't like to think deeply, this statement is ultimately deeply stupid. There is no reason to believe that a guy who hit .340 on groundballs last year is suddenly going to hit .400 on groundballs next year. He'll probably hit about .340.

Actually, the origin of BL's (and now yours) tomfoolery about "all outs are the same" started around two years ago in a discussion about how MLB offense was going down as a whole, while strikeout rate as a whole was going up.

I can't find the original thread in which that was discussed, but I did find a spin off thread that BL started "solving the lack of offense", in which he suggested that "a smaller strike zone would probably do the trick".

The ironic part about that is that that statement in itself is implying that fewer strikeouts would lead to more offense. Something which he is now vehemently denying ("there is no correlation between strikeouts and scoring").

It came up again in my troll thread about Mike Trout's comments that he wanted to cut down on his strikeouts.

And then again in this thread, where he completely fell off the cliff, and you happily followed.

Yeah a smaller strike zone so hitters would make LESS outs, not different types of outs.


You have to be the dumbest person on earth.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2016 9:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/25/2016 8:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/25/2016 12:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/25/2016 12:37:00 AM (view original):
No, you're not understanding as you keep illustrating.

You've clearly said you'd take a guy who K's over a guy who grounds out. Yet any moron knows it's better to put the ball in play - that's the objective of baseball. And a guy who makes a higher percentage of his outs on the ground clearly puts the ball in play more and is more likely to have those ground balls help his team in the future, whether they are productive outs, or whether they lead to another outcome (FC, error, hit, etc.).

You and BL are still applying retroactive logic to present scenarios.

No, you're not understanding.

This whole discussion came up with respect to retroactive analysis of batting lines. The statement "an out is an out" is meaningful exclusively in the context of retroactively analyzing batting lines. You and Tec are trying to redefine the problem. You don't even understand what BL was talking about in the first place. That's exactly what makes you sound so dumb. Hindsight lets you know, with certainty, which ground balls were outs.

And what makes you think that a guy who put the ball on the ground is is more likely to have those ground balls help his team in the future?" Are the other teams gonna stop shifting on him next season? Is he gonna hit those groundballs harder? As much as it appeals to people who don't like to think deeply, this statement is ultimately deeply stupid. There is no reason to believe that a guy who hit .340 on groundballs last year is suddenly going to hit .400 on groundballs next year. He'll probably hit about .340.

Actually, the origin of BL's (and now yours) tomfoolery about "all outs are the same" started around two years ago in a discussion about how MLB offense was going down as a whole, while strikeout rate as a whole was going up.

I can't find the original thread in which that was discussed, but I did find a spin off thread that BL started "solving the lack of offense", in which he suggested that "a smaller strike zone would probably do the trick".

The ironic part about that is that that statement in itself is implying that fewer strikeouts would lead to more offense. Something which he is now vehemently denying ("there is no correlation between strikeouts and scoring").

It came up again in my troll thread about Mike Trout's comments that he wanted to cut down on his strikeouts.

And then again in this thread, where he completely fell off the cliff, and you happily followed.

Yeah a smaller strike zone so hitters would make LESS outs, not different types of outs.


You have to be the dumbest person on earth.

No, you've got that title locked up for eternity.

Teams would still be making 27 outs per game, and roughly 4,374 outs per season.

You're the "big numbers over an entire season" guy.

Do you think a smaller strike zone, in addition to leading to more offense, would also result in (a) more, (b) the same, or (c) fewer strikeouts by teams over an entire season?

Holy ******* ****. Outs less frequently, dumbass.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2016 12:09:00 AM (view original):
Is there a question there?

No response to what I said?

This is dahs -

Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2016 9:42:00 AM (view original):
Holy ******* ****. Outs less frequently, dumbass.

Shockingly, you're again avoiding answering a simple and direct question.

Do you think a smaller strike zone, in addition to leading to more offense, would also result in (a) more, (b) the same, or (c) fewer strikeouts by teams over an entire season?

Fewer strikeouts.

Well, that's interesting now, isn't it?

Fewer strikeouts, more other kids of outs, and offense improves.

Thanks for clarifying.

Is it interesting? I'm pretty sure I've said, multiple times, that trading strikeouts for non-outs is a good thing.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/25/2016 9:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/25/2016 9:42:00 AM (view original):
Holy ******* ****. Outs less frequently, dumbass.

Shockingly, you're again avoiding answering a simple and direct question.

Do you think a smaller strike zone, in addition to leading to more offense, would also result in (a) more, (b) the same, or (c) fewer strikeouts by teams over an entire season?

Less strikeouts, more walks which equals more runners on base which equals more offense.

Posted by sjpoker on 6/24/2016 11:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/24/2016 10:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/24/2016 10:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/24/2016 9:48:00 PM (view original):
Mmmm. Yeah not sure about that methodology. If there's a strikeout, or the hitter walks, or even if there's a fielders choice or flyout, the previous runner did not score. The productive out definitively helped score a run.

And attributing the negative value of the GIDP only to the batter is a fallacy as well. Because that is implying that the runner did not make a mistake.

And what methodology did you use?

Nope. You are trying to redirect. It's not about my opinion. I said we'd listen to you. And that's what I am doing.

The models I presented are not active events. They are history. The plays are over. We are evaluating them after the fact.

We know the fly outs resulted in runs. The GIDPs wound up wiping out - potential - runs. Those are unrealized events. So evaluating a potential event that will not occur against something positive that definitively occurred.

Think about it for a second. Between the two models ,there were the same number outs. But one resulted in 10 runs. The other resulted in zero runs.

Still waiting BL.

BL how could wiping out the 'positive contribution' of the GIDP runner be LARGER than scoring a run?