Posted by toddcommish on 6/26/2016 4:27:00 PM (view original):
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".

Sooooo, they scored 1 run?

And the chart right here on this page tells you that historically a team in that position scores, on average, a little over 1.5 runs?

You want to sing the praises of the Giants for being on the bottom half of average?

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/26/2016 4:28:00 PM (view original):

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.

The game is well over 150 years old and plenty of what you call "old-school baseball strategy that is horribly optimized for maximizing run scoring." Still continues to win titles. Why? Because those methods are proven and timeless. Again, you guys use these stats without context. You lose the real goal - which is to score runs and win the game.

it is ridiculous to say it is better to have the potential of a run vs. already having a run in hand. Ridiculous. Almost Trump like reasoning.

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/26/2016 4:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 6/26/2016 4:27:00 PM (view original):
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".

Sooooo, they scored 1 run?

And the chart right here on this page tells you that historically a team in that position scores, on average, a little over 1.5 runs?

You want to sing the praises of the Giants for being on the bottom half of average?

YES. ******* IT YES!!! A run. They scored. A positive result the best result? No. A HR would have been best. But he got a run home. It's the Goal of every team. Score more than the other.

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/26/2016 4:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 6/26/2016 4:27:00 PM (view original):
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".

Sooooo, they scored 1 run?

And the chart right here on this page tells you that historically a team in that position scores, on average, a little over 1.5 runs?

You want to sing the praises of the Giants for being on the bottom half of average?

You're using probabilities where they'll NEVER be right. The Giants were never going to score 1.53 runs. They were going to score 0, 1, 2, 3, or more runs. If you did a scatter diagram, you'd notice that several times, they would score ZERO runs. As it was, they were down 1-0 at the time, and that ONE run changed the momentum.

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/26/2016 4:15:00 PM (view original):

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.

Yeah, you're really, really, really dumb.

Do you even know how to read the charts? Because something you posted here indicates that you don't.

I'll give you some free advice. If you want to look less stupid when talking about baseball . . . stop talking about baseball.

Anyways, as with BL, I'm not arguing with you any further about this. Like BL, you agreed that there is a correlation between run scoring and strikeout rate. So there's no need to continue here. Your "research" validated what I was saying all along. So, thanks for that.

Guess this thread is dead. Maybe BL and Dahs' can argue with each other.

Posted by sjpoker on 6/26/2016 5:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/26/2016 4:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 6/26/2016 4:27:00 PM (view original):
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".

Sooooo, they scored 1 run?

And the chart right here on this page tells you that historically a team in that position scores, on average, a little over 1.5 runs?

You want to sing the praises of the Giants for being on the bottom half of average?

YES. ******* IT YES!!! A run. They scored. A positive result the best result? No. A HR would have been best. But he got a run home. It's the Goal of every team. Score more than the other.

I don't disagree with this. One run is a positive result in that situation. Bases loaded no out it's kinda not great, but bases loaded with one out scoring 1 run is pretty acceptable. I would bet quite a bit that it's both the median and the mode in that scenario. But it's not a celebratory result.

It's hard to win a game with 1-run innings.

Even harder with 0-run innings.

I guess it's easier for the Giants to win with 1-run innings than most teams.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2016 7:39:00 PM (view original):
Even harder with 0-run innings.

Are you saying you'd rather take 1 guaranteed run over 1.53 'potential' runs?

Posted by sjpoker on 6/26/2016 8:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2016 7:39:00 PM (view original):
Even harder with 0-run innings.

Are you saying you'd rather take 1 guaranteed run over 1.53 'potential' runs?

You obviously want the run. But you'd rather have a hit or a walk in that situation because, ideally, you want more than one run.

Sometimes common sense needs to trump stats and percentages. This is why everyone hates the advanced metrics crowd. They swear by their numbers, even if actually watching a player perform and seeing actual in-game occurrences tells you those numbers are probably inaccurate for that player or situation.

You guys are actually arguing that a sac fly following a leadoff triple is a bad thing because it lessens the likelihood of scoring multiple runs. For anyone who has ever played the game of baseball, that's foolishness.

Every front office in baseball agrees with you, dahs? Bullshit. I guarantee 98% of managers and GMs (there are probably a couple stubborn stat geeks out there like you) would be pleased as a pig in the mud if their leadoff hitter tripled and the next guy got him in with a sac fly. That's a POSITIVE RESULT for the team.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2016 8:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/26/2016 8:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2016 7:39:00 PM (view original):
Even harder with 0-run innings.

Are you saying you'd rather take 1 guaranteed run over 1.53 'potential' runs?

You obviously want the run. But you'd rather have a hit or a walk in that situation because, ideally, you want more than one run.

And again, you twist the argument.

The argument is K's vs other outs. Strikeouts vs outs in play. Of course a hit is better than a sac fly (walk - no. Doesn't score the run).

The argument is, is that flyball more productive than a K. And the answer is YES. Which totally destroys your theory that all outs are equal. But rather than admit defeat, you just change the argument. "Uh, umm, well...IS A FLYBALL BETTER THAN A SINGLE??? Ya, that's what I thought!!"

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/26/2016 9:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2016 8:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/26/2016 8:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2016 7:39:00 PM (view original):
Even harder with 0-run innings.

Are you saying you'd rather take 1 guaranteed run over 1.53 'potential' runs?

You obviously want the run. But you'd rather have a hit or a walk in that situation because, ideally, you want more than one run.

And again, you twist the argument.

The argument is K's vs other outs. Strikeouts vs outs in play. Of course a hit is better than a sac fly (walk - no. Doesn't score the run).

The argument is, is that flyball more productive than a K. And the answer is YES. Which totally destroys your theory that all outs are equal. But rather than admit defeat, you just change the argument. "Uh, umm, well...IS A FLYBALL BETTER THAN A SINGLE??? Ya, that's what I thought!!"

Christ, you retard. I've said, a thousand of times, there are obviously situations where you prefer one type of out to another.

The he topic has changed, though. Now we're discussing the value of individual events.