Posted by Jtpsops on 6/30/2016 2:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 2:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/30/2016 2:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 1:57:00 PM (view original):
My position is that a walk is always positive.

A walk is always positive. But, just like outs, not all walks are created equal.

It's like in Mike's earlier example. He doubled with two outs, next guy ended the inning. Doubles are always good but in that context it may have been better for the team if Mike was to get out and the better hitter led off the next inning.

Context always matters.

Lol at jt and Mike arguing that an out is better than a double.

Kind of like you arguing for outs after the fact. Once the second guy ends the inning, we know the double was wasted, even though the double itself was positive.

I'm not quite sure BL understands.

Every hitter wants the hit. The double gives the team a chance at another run. The #2 batter doesn't suck but, admittedly, the #3 is a better hitter. But, at the end of the inning, no run. And one player deeper into the weaker part of the line-up. The double was a non-contributor to scoring. And moved the best hitter to last batter for the near future.

After the fact, it would have been better for #2 to make the out. And your love of stats is always after the fact. There are no pre-stats.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/30/2016 2:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 2:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/30/2016 2:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 1:57:00 PM (view original):
My position is that a walk is always positive.

A walk is always positive. But, just like outs, not all walks are created equal.

It's like in Mike's earlier example. He doubled with two outs, next guy ended the inning. Doubles are always good but in that context it may have been better for the team if Mike was to get out and the better hitter led off the next inning.

Context always matters.

Lol at jt and Mike arguing that an out is better than a double.

Kind of like you arguing for outs after the fact. Once the second guy ends the inning, we know the double was wasted, even though the double itself was positive.

What?

When did I ever argue FOR outs.

At least he isn't talking about economics. That was a massive fail.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 2:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 1:57:00 PM (view original):
My position is that a walk is always positive.

They are always positive.

My question was: were the impacts of the walks in both scenarios identical?

Let me ask in another way, with a hypothetical roster/batting order:

Bottom of the ninth, two outs, tying run on third.

a) Mike Trout draws a walk, Mario Mendoza coming up to the plate
b) Mario Mendoza draws a walk, Mike Trout coming up to the plate

Exactly the same?

Nope, but thanks for confirming that walks are always good. You may want to let Mike know so he doesn't argue that Martinez walked too much.

You look at everything retroactively.

"Once the outs have occurred, there is no difference."

Well, other people can play the retroactive game too.

Posted by sjpoker on 6/30/2016 2:17:00 PM (view original):
At least he isn't talking about economics. That was a massive fail.

Give him time. He always circles back. Could be months, maybe even years, but he'll come back to it.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/30/2016 2:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 2:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/30/2016 2:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 1:57:00 PM (view original):
My position is that a walk is always positive.

A walk is always positive. But, just like outs, not all walks are created equal.

It's like in Mike's earlier example. He doubled with two outs, next guy ended the inning. Doubles are always good but in that context it may have been better for the team if Mike was to get out and the better hitter led off the next inning.

Context always matters.

Lol at jt and Mike arguing that an out is better than a double.

Kind of like you arguing for outs after the fact. Once the second guy ends the inning, we know the double was wasted, even though the double itself was positive.

How do you know the double itself was positive?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 2:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 2:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 1:57:00 PM (view original):
My position is that a walk is always positive.

They are always positive.

My question was: were the impacts of the walks in both scenarios identical?

Let me ask in another way, with a hypothetical roster/batting order:

Bottom of the ninth, two outs, tying run on third.

a) Mike Trout draws a walk, Mario Mendoza coming up to the plate
b) Mario Mendoza draws a walk, Mike Trout coming up to the plate

Exactly the same?

Nope, but thanks for confirming that walks are always good. You may want to let Mike know so he doesn't argue that Martinez walked too much.

Why aren't they the same? Please explain.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 2:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 2:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 1:57:00 PM (view original):
My position is that a walk is always positive.

They are always positive.

My question was: were the impacts of the walks in both scenarios identical?

Let me ask in another way, with a hypothetical roster/batting order:

Bottom of the ninth, two outs, tying run on third.

a) Mike Trout draws a walk, Mario Mendoza coming up to the plate
b) Mario Mendoza draws a walk, Mike Trout coming up to the plate

Exactly the same?

Nope, but thanks for confirming that walks are always good. You may want to let Mike know so he doesn't argue that Martinez walked too much.

Why aren't they the same? Please explain.

You want me to explain why, in two identical scenarios, you'd rather have your best hitter up instead of your worst hitter?

****, it doesn't need to be bottom of the 9th, two out. It could be 10-0 in the third. That answer never changes.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 2:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/30/2016 2:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 2:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/30/2016 2:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 1:57:00 PM (view original):
My position is that a walk is always positive.

A walk is always positive. But, just like outs, not all walks are created equal.

It's like in Mike's earlier example. He doubled with two outs, next guy ended the inning. Doubles are always good but in that context it may have been better for the team if Mike was to get out and the better hitter led off the next inning.

Context always matters.

Lol at jt and Mike arguing that an out is better than a double.

Kind of like you arguing for outs after the fact. Once the second guy ends the inning, we know the double was wasted, even though the double itself was positive.

How do you know the double itself was positive?

So you believe a walk is always positive, but now you're claiming there are situations when a double is a negative?

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/30/2016 2:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 2:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/30/2016 2:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 2:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/30/2016 2:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 1:57:00 PM (view original):
My position is that a walk is always positive.

A walk is always positive. But, just like outs, not all walks are created equal.

It's like in Mike's earlier example. He doubled with two outs, next guy ended the inning. Doubles are always good but in that context it may have been better for the team if Mike was to get out and the better hitter led off the next inning.

Context always matters.

Lol at jt and Mike arguing that an out is better than a double.

Kind of like you arguing for outs after the fact. Once the second guy ends the inning, we know the double was wasted, even though the double itself was positive.

How do you know the double itself was positive?

So you believe a walk is always positive, but now you're claiming there are situations when a double is a negative?

No, I'm asking you, how do YOU know that it's always positive?

You're such an argumentative ********.

You believe a double is always positive, but you demand someone else give reasoning for how they know it's positive? If it's ALWAYS positive, that's how I know it was positive.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 2:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 2:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 2:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 1:57:00 PM (view original):
My position is that a walk is always positive.

They are always positive.

My question was: were the impacts of the walks in both scenarios identical?

Let me ask in another way, with a hypothetical roster/batting order:

Bottom of the ninth, two outs, tying run on third.

a) Mike Trout draws a walk, Mario Mendoza coming up to the plate
b) Mario Mendoza draws a walk, Mike Trout coming up to the plate

Exactly the same?

Nope, but thanks for confirming that walks are always good. You may want to let Mike know so he doesn't argue that Martinez walked too much.

Why aren't they the same? Please explain.

You want me to explain why, in two identical scenarios, you'd rather have your best hitter up instead of your worst hitter?

****, it doesn't need to be bottom of the 9th, two out. It could be 10-0 in the third. That answer never changes.

So your precious "value of events" charts fail to take context or relative value into account?

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/30/2016 2:41:00 PM (view original):
You're such an argumentative ********.

You believe a double is always positive, but you demand someone else give reasoning for how they know it's positive? If it's ALWAYS positive, that's how I know it was positive.

You said you couldn't answer if a productive out was always better because you don't have the percentages. Do you have the percentages for all doubles?

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 2:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 2:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 2:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 2:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 1:57:00 PM (view original):
My position is that a walk is always positive.

They are always positive.

My question was: were the impacts of the walks in both scenarios identical?

Let me ask in another way, with a hypothetical roster/batting order:

Bottom of the ninth, two outs, tying run on third.

a) Mike Trout draws a walk, Mario Mendoza coming up to the plate
b) Mario Mendoza draws a walk, Mike Trout coming up to the plate

Exactly the same?

Nope, but thanks for confirming that walks are always good. You may want to let Mike know so he doesn't argue that Martinez walked too much.

Why aren't they the same? Please explain.

You want me to explain why, in two identical scenarios, you'd rather have your best hitter up instead of your worst hitter?

****, it doesn't need to be bottom of the 9th, two out. It could be 10-0 in the third. That answer never changes.

So your precious "value of events" charts fail to take context or relative value into account?

What event? You have a guy on first (and third, in this case) with either your best or your worst hitter coming up. You always choose best.