Find me any team in baseball that won't trade an out for a run. You're acting like a sac fly is bad because it "hurts" a teams ability to score multiple runs.

So I'll ask you - is 1 run better than 0 runs?

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

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?

I'm done arguing with you about this.

You're already agreed that there is a correlation between run scoring and strikeout rate.

Why would I continue to argue after you've admitted that what I've been saying all along is true?

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/26/2016 12:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/26/2016 9:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2016 7:55:00 AM (view original):
So did I miss anything other than dahs explaining how great he was in HS?

Dahs never played the game. And Dahs never really watches the game.

I played the game for quite a long time and I can virtually guarantee I watch more games than you. Probably 250-300 a season. But keep going. Tell me more about myself.

Wouldn't that potentially take away from YOUR HS stories?

The correlation is so weak it may as well be zero.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2016 3:40:00 PM (view original):
The correlation is so weak it may as well be zero.

So is your logic. Yet you argue anyways.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2016 10:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/26/2016 9:49:00 AM (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.

The goal is to score runs. And if a run is on the board it ain't coming off.

As for this credit thing, the batter gets credit for the RBI. Period. So he gets credit for the run. Why are you worried about who gets 'primary' credit? Why does that matter?

It relates to the value of each event.

Scoring one one run is good, but the goal is almost always to score multiple runs.

If you step into the batter's box with a guy on third and no out, the important event that is primarily responsible for that run eventually scoring has already happened. The hard part is getting to third, hitting a fly out isn't the hard part.

The sac fly isn't worth an entire run (it's actually worth a portion of a negative run because you created an out), a double isn't even worth an entire run.

Yeah but the triple is done. If the batter got him home then the batter did his job. Again, your comments indicate you have no knowledge of in game theory. Therefore you have no context for stats. You look at them in a vacuum. That tells me you never played the game.

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/26/2016 12:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/26/2016 9:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2016 7:55:00 AM (view original):
So did I miss anything other than dahs explaining how great he was in HS?

Dahs never played the game. And Dahs never really watches the game.

I played the game for quite a long time and I can virtually guarantee I watch more games than you. Probably 250-300 a season. But keep going. Tell me more about myself.

You ain't bullshitting us. You're only bullshitting yourself. And you never played. Because you'd never say half the idiotic things you do.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/26/2016 12:38:00 PM (view original):
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.

Like I said. Dahs' shoved his hand up BLs butt and is trying to work his mouth.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2016 12:39:00 PM (view original):
I'm not denying that the sac fly drove in the run. I'm saying that the sac fly has relatively little value.

IT SCORED A RUN!!! IDIOT!!! THE GOAL IS TO SCORE RUNS!!!

Saying it has no value is stupid.

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?

Every front office in Major League baseball takes his die on this. For starters.

God. I'm done. BL already has admitted he's wrong even if he didn't openly admit it. His statistical interpretations lack basic understanding in relation to the game.

What a moron.

Dahs' enjoy that mythical past of all those imaginary games you played in. And if you do actually watch 300 games a year enjoy that too. Just hope your parents keep paying the cable bill.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2016 1:28:00 PM (view original):

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.

How stupid are you, tec? You post the run expectancy chart and then just conveniently ignore it?

Those numbers are based on historical average results. You know, the average of the "real things" that "actually happen during those game."

When you have a runner on 3rd and no outs, in a real game that's actually played on a field with actual people, you on average score 1.426 runs. That's not some number they pulled out of their *****. That's how many runs actual Major League baseball teams score in those situations. After a sac fly you score an average of 1.243 runs. Again, real baseball games, real results. That's a negative result. What is so complicated about that for you?

A sac fly is still better than an unproductive out. By far. I never suggested that it wasn't. But it's still a below-average result, largely because league OBPs with a runner on 3rd tend to run around .330 or so, so basically you had a 1 in 3 chance of going to 2 on, no out, or score a run and have a runner on base still and no out. Those skew the averages pretty dramatically because of how overwhelmingly much better any non-out is than any out.

Anybody know how many team have attempted a sacrifice bunt this season? Are they playing for multiple runs when they do that? Assuming, of course, at least 1 team has tried it.

Situation: 1st inning (just now). Giants have the bases loaded, one out. Brandon Crawford chops a ball high into the air, the only play for the 2B is to throw him out at first. A run scores.

A ground ball, with the bases loaded. And it was a positive play. And it's REAL BASEBALL.

Go figure.

p.s. the next hitter hit a two-hopper to the shortstop, if that figures into your "analysis".

Posted by sjpoker on 6/26/2016 3:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2016 10:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/26/2016 9:49:00 AM (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.

The goal is to score runs. And if a run is on the board it ain't coming off.

As for this credit thing, the batter gets credit for the RBI. Period. So he gets credit for the run. Why are you worried about who gets 'primary' credit? Why does that matter?

It relates to the value of each event.

Scoring one one run is good, but the goal is almost always to score multiple runs.

If you step into the batter's box with a guy on third and no out, the important event that is primarily responsible for that run eventually scoring has already happened. The hard part is getting to third, hitting a fly out isn't the hard part.

The sac fly isn't worth an entire run (it's actually worth a portion of a negative run because you created an out), a double isn't even worth an entire run.

Yeah but the triple is done. If the batter got him home then the batter did his job. Again, your comments indicate you have no knowledge of in game theory. Therefore you have no context for stats. You look at them in a vacuum. That tells me you never played the game.

Your comments indicate an archaic level of baseball understanding. Just because everybody does something one way doesn't make it right. Your conception of "in game theory" has nothing to do with actual game theory because so much of old-school baseball strategy was horribly optimized for maximizing run scoring.

Some people have the intelligence, self-awareness, and flexibility to recognize that not everything anyone ever taught them - even authority figures - is inherently correct. Just because we always did things some way doesn't make it the best way. Players even a few decades ago would have said you were absurd to suggest putting 3 infielders on the same side of 2nd base. You could show them why it was statistically smart and they would say you had no clue, you clearly never played the game, players play where they play for a reason. The intelligent evolve. Those not smart enough to keep up make fun of them.