dahs, it's pretty obvious all you want to do is debate, because you keep holding BL's hand and jumping in to tell everyone else what he really means and what he's actually arguing. It couldn't possibly be that he's just dumb.

If a guy triples and the next guy hits a sac fly, of course the guy who tripled was "more productive". But if the next three guys strike out, that triple means jack. So clearly the guy who hits a sac fly has contributed to the production of that run. Only BL is dumb enough to continue denying that.

I'm not denying that the sac fly drove in the run. I'm saying that the sac fly has relatively little value.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2016 9:01:00 AM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/26/2016 7:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/26/2016 12:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2016 12:28:00 AM (view original):
Overall was referring to types of outs. Please refer to the context of the sentence--outs in play vs outs overall.

I feel like you're the one trying to distract now. Obviously I wasn't arguing that a team would get less than 27 outs in a 9 inning game. That wouldn't make any sense at all.

Obviously?

98% of what you've said in this thread hasn't made any sense. And that's probably being generous.

This thread is dead. BL doesn't know the game.

"Sac Fly isn't worth a run." Runs win games. If a hit can't get a player home, then why is a sac fly worthless? This dude never played the game.

A sac fly is actually a negative value event. It's just slightly negative, but it's negative.

You get one run (sometimes), but the primary credit for that run goes to the guy who actually got to third, not the guy that made an out.

And the goal isn't to score one run, the goal is to score as many as possible.

I'm surprised more didn't jump on this completely stupid statement "A sac fly is actually a negative value event"

A RUN SCORED, AND THIS ******* IDIOT CONSIDERS IT A NEGATIVE VALUE EVENT.

He prefers "potential" or "expected" runs more than actual runs. This encapsulates his flawed perspective.

Anyone want to take his side on this one?

You're not just playing for one run. You're playing for many runs.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2016 1:08:00 PM (view original):
You're not just playing for one run. You're playing for many runs.

YOU PLAY. TO WIN. THE GAME.

You don't play to maximize your "expected runs".

YOU PLAY. TO WIN. THE GAME.

Scoring many runs helps you win more games.

Posted by toddcommish on 6/26/2016 1:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2016 9:01:00 AM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/26/2016 7:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/26/2016 12:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2016 12:28:00 AM (view original):
Overall was referring to types of outs. Please refer to the context of the sentence--outs in play vs outs overall.

I feel like you're the one trying to distract now. Obviously I wasn't arguing that a team would get less than 27 outs in a 9 inning game. That wouldn't make any sense at all.

Obviously?

98% of what you've said in this thread hasn't made any sense. And that's probably being generous.

This thread is dead. BL doesn't know the game.

"Sac Fly isn't worth a run." Runs win games. If a hit can't get a player home, then why is a sac fly worthless? This dude never played the game.

A sac fly is actually a negative value event. It's just slightly negative, but it's negative.

You get one run (sometimes), but the primary credit for that run goes to the guy who actually got to third, not the guy that made an out.

And the goal isn't to score one run, the goal is to score as many as possible.

I'm surprised more didn't jump on this completely stupid statement "A sac fly is actually a negative value event"

A RUN SCORED, AND THIS ******* IDIOT CONSIDERS IT A NEGATIVE VALUE EVENT.

He prefers "potential" or "expected" runs more than actual runs. This encapsulates his flawed perspective.

Anyone want to take his side on this one?

This is BL looking at tables for run expectancy and either misinterpreting what he's seeing (because he's dumb), or intentionally distorting what he's seeing (because he's stubborn).

Here's what Fangraphs has for run expectancy:

Runners	0 Outs	1 Out	2 Outs
Empty	0.461	0.243	0.095
1 _ _	0.831	0.489	0.214
_ 2 _	1.068	0.644	0.305
1 2 _	1.373	0.908	0.343
_ _ 3	1.426	0.865	0.413
1 _ 3	1.798	1.140	0.471
_ 2 3	1.920	1.352	0.570
1 2 3	2.282	1.520	0.736

BL looks at runner on third, no outs, as a run expectancy for the remainder of the inning as 1.426 runs. If you actually SCORE the run with a sac fly, the run expectancy for bases empty and one out is now 0.243 runs. He looks at that and says "bad", while conveniently ignoring that a run ACTUALLY scored. It gets worse (for him) when it's runner on third and one out (0.865 runs) scoring on a sac fly and then becoming bases empty and two outs (0.095), because actually scoring the run is better that the expected runs scored before the sac fly in that situation.

BL and duhs have their heads stuck so far up their ***** with their love of stats and charts, they forget that baseball is a game that's actually played on a field with actual people, and real things actually happen during those games.

What's better with a guy on third and no out, a single or a sac fly?

edit: this really doesn't have anything to do with the expectancy table. We're looking at events in a vacuum.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2016 1:33:00 PM (view original):
What's better with a guy on third and no out, a single or a sac fly?

This is you twisting the argument again.

The more appropriate question is, what's better with a guy on third and no out: a K or a sac fly?

You and dahs say K. Everyone else in the world says sac fly. Because they're not stupid.

Nope, a sac fly is better than a K in that situation.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2016 1:42:00 PM (view original):
Nope, a sac fly is better than a K in that situation.

Which is funny, because whether you realize it or not, this is what you've been arguing against this whole time.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/26/2016 1:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2016 1:42:00 PM (view original):
Nope, a sac fly is better than a K in that situation.

Which is funny, because whether you realize it or not, this is what you've been arguing against this whole time.

Which way is the wind blowing?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/16/2016 8:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 6/16/2016 7:23:00 PM (view original):
Yes, I know. But you can't make an out in play unless you hit the damn ball in play. You can't hit the ball in play if you strike out.
Do you not agree that in some cases a fly ball out is better than a strike out? If so, then all outs are not equal.

Let's make sure we have this straight. All hitters are trying to hit the ball. Hitting the ball is a necessary part of playing baseball.

No one is arguing that a ball in play is the same as an out (strikeout or otherwise). But, once that ball in play becomes an out, it makes no difference how it was made.

Regarding your example, yes, there are times when an out in play is preferred and there are times when it's a disaster. Over the course of a season or a career, those outs even out.

We know strikeouts are just another out because there is zero correlation between team strikeouts and team run scoring.

No, you just can't read.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 2:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/22/2016 2:36:00 PM (view original):
Which is the more disastrous inning?

A: single, fly out, GIDP

or

B: strikeout, strikeout, strikeout

Inning A was worse for the offense even though zero runs scored in both innings.

If you ordered the 6 events from good to bad, they'd go:

1. Single
t2. K's & fly out
3. GIDP

Here's where you said that a K and a fly out were equally bad.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2016 1:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2016 2:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/22/2016 2:36:00 PM (view original):
Which is the more disastrous inning?

A: single, fly out, GIDP

or

B: strikeout, strikeout, strikeout

Inning A was worse for the offense even though zero runs scored in both innings.

If you ordered the 6 events from good to bad, they'd go:

1. Single
t2. K's & fly out
3. GIDP

Here's where you said that a K and a fly out were equally bad.

In that situation they are, do you disagree?