Posted by edsortails on 10/16/2017 6:55:00 PM (view original):
It is not realistic to think 100 balls put in play would mean 100 outs were made.

hey

hey you....

yeah you...

shhhhhh

keep it down....

I'll let you in on a little secret...


















NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT A STRIKEOUT IS THE SAME AS A BALL IN PLAY

Posted by bad_luck on 10/16/2017 2:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 10/16/2017 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/16/2017 2:09:00 PM (view original):
LOL. You’re saying, “only look at the relative positive of certain outs in play. Ignore the giant negative of other outs in play. Tell me what’s better.”

Yeah, if you ignore the main reason that outs are generally a wash, it’s going to help your argument.

It’s just not very honest.

Again, deflecting.

You said - " The relative value of an out can vary up slightly or down a lot in a given situation but, when you’re talking about a full season from a hitter, it really doesn’t matter how he made his outs, again, assuming he reached base at a good rate."

So in this case, I'm asking you if in those 15 ABS which resulted in SFs over an entire season did matter rather than if they were Ks. You don't want to answer that. And I understand. Because it is a practical example of why you are wrong. The way Lindor made those outs DID matter.

Try and stay away from my 2006 St Louis Cardinals argument too.

I'm not avoiding answering it. The sac flies had a positive relative value. You're refusing to accept the fact that the gain in relative value from the sac flies was more than completely eliminated by the 18 double plays he grounded into.

" the gain in relative value from the sac flies was more than completely eliminated by the 18 double plays he grounded in

Not necessarily true. The 15 SF's were actual runs that scored. The 18 double plays negated potential runs which may or may not have scored.

Do you understand the difference between actual results and potential results?

Maybe you should check your precious expected run probability charts and report back to the group.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/16/2017 3:05:00 PM (view original):
Aaron Judge, for example, did not "strike out too much." We know this because only a tiny sliver of his almost 700 PAs ended in a strikeout when you would have preferred an out in play.

Aron Judge has struck out 227 times between the regular season and the post season, so far.

That's too much.

Only a retard would say otherwise.

Do you know anybody who says otherwise?

Posted by tecwrg on 10/16/2017 4:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/16/2017 12:13:00 PM (view original):
Let me put it another way, that maybe you'll understand.

Let's say 100 black people a year get unjustly killed by white racist police officers in the USA. In a country of 320 million people, on a planet of over 6 billion people, what happens to 100 people "really doesn't matter".

You good with that? Because that's pretty much EXACTLY what you're saying about strikeouts with your "season as a whole" context.

BL?

BL???

Posted by tecwrg on 10/16/2017 7:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/16/2017 2:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 10/16/2017 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/16/2017 2:09:00 PM (view original):
LOL. You’re saying, “only look at the relative positive of certain outs in play. Ignore the giant negative of other outs in play. Tell me what’s better.”

Yeah, if you ignore the main reason that outs are generally a wash, it’s going to help your argument.

It’s just not very honest.

Again, deflecting.

You said - " The relative value of an out can vary up slightly or down a lot in a given situation but, when you’re talking about a full season from a hitter, it really doesn’t matter how he made his outs, again, assuming he reached base at a good rate."

So in this case, I'm asking you if in those 15 ABS which resulted in SFs over an entire season did matter rather than if they were Ks. You don't want to answer that. And I understand. Because it is a practical example of why you are wrong. The way Lindor made those outs DID matter.

Try and stay away from my 2006 St Louis Cardinals argument too.

I'm not avoiding answering it. The sac flies had a positive relative value. You're refusing to accept the fact that the gain in relative value from the sac flies was more than completely eliminated by the 18 double plays he grounded into.

" the gain in relative value from the sac flies was more than completely eliminated by the 18 double plays he grounded in

Not necessarily true. The 15 SF's were actual runs that scored. The 18 double plays negated potential runs which may or may not have scored.

Do you understand the difference between actual results and potential results?

Maybe you should check your precious expected run probability charts and report back to the group.

Do you understand that the value of the run scored in the sacrifice fly was almost entirely created by the guy who got to third???

Posted by tecwrg on 10/16/2017 7:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/16/2017 3:05:00 PM (view original):
Aaron Judge, for example, did not "strike out too much." We know this because only a tiny sliver of his almost 700 PAs ended in a strikeout when you would have preferred an out in play.

Aron Judge has struck out 227 times between the regular season and the post season, so far.

That's too much.

Only a retard would say otherwise.

Do you know anybody who says otherwise?

I already asked jtp this, maybe you'd like to answer. If you took his 121 empty base regular season strikeouts and turned them into outs in play, would that make any difference at all?

Posted by bad_luck on 10/16/2017 7:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/16/2017 7:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/16/2017 2:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 10/16/2017 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/16/2017 2:09:00 PM (view original):
LOL. You’re saying, “only look at the relative positive of certain outs in play. Ignore the giant negative of other outs in play. Tell me what’s better.”

Yeah, if you ignore the main reason that outs are generally a wash, it’s going to help your argument.

It’s just not very honest.

Again, deflecting.

You said - " The relative value of an out can vary up slightly or down a lot in a given situation but, when you’re talking about a full season from a hitter, it really doesn’t matter how he made his outs, again, assuming he reached base at a good rate."

So in this case, I'm asking you if in those 15 ABS which resulted in SFs over an entire season did matter rather than if they were Ks. You don't want to answer that. And I understand. Because it is a practical example of why you are wrong. The way Lindor made those outs DID matter.

Try and stay away from my 2006 St Louis Cardinals argument too.

I'm not avoiding answering it. The sac flies had a positive relative value. You're refusing to accept the fact that the gain in relative value from the sac flies was more than completely eliminated by the 18 double plays he grounded into.

" the gain in relative value from the sac flies was more than completely eliminated by the 18 double plays he grounded in

Not necessarily true. The 15 SF's were actual runs that scored. The 18 double plays negated potential runs which may or may not have scored.

Do you understand the difference between actual results and potential results?

Maybe you should check your precious expected run probability charts and report back to the group.

Do you understand that the value of the run scored in the sacrifice fly was almost entirely created by the guy who got to third???

What value is realized if the guy who got to third is stranded because the next two guys who batted whiffed?

Posted by tecwrg on 10/16/2017 7:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/16/2017 7:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/16/2017 7:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/16/2017 2:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 10/16/2017 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/16/2017 2:09:00 PM (view original):
LOL. You’re saying, “only look at the relative positive of certain outs in play. Ignore the giant negative of other outs in play. Tell me what’s better.”

Yeah, if you ignore the main reason that outs are generally a wash, it’s going to help your argument.

It’s just not very honest.

Again, deflecting.

You said - " The relative value of an out can vary up slightly or down a lot in a given situation but, when you’re talking about a full season from a hitter, it really doesn’t matter how he made his outs, again, assuming he reached base at a good rate."

So in this case, I'm asking you if in those 15 ABS which resulted in SFs over an entire season did matter rather than if they were Ks. You don't want to answer that. And I understand. Because it is a practical example of why you are wrong. The way Lindor made those outs DID matter.

Try and stay away from my 2006 St Louis Cardinals argument too.

I'm not avoiding answering it. The sac flies had a positive relative value. You're refusing to accept the fact that the gain in relative value from the sac flies was more than completely eliminated by the 18 double plays he grounded into.

" the gain in relative value from the sac flies was more than completely eliminated by the 18 double plays he grounded in

Not necessarily true. The 15 SF's were actual runs that scored. The 18 double plays negated potential runs which may or may not have scored.

Do you understand the difference between actual results and potential results?

Maybe you should check your precious expected run probability charts and report back to the group.

Do you understand that the value of the run scored in the sacrifice fly was almost entirely created by the guy who got to third???

What value is realized if the guy who got to third is stranded because the next two guys who batted whiffed?

Nothing, a sac fly is one of the handful of situations where an out is relatively positive.

How many guys score if you wipe them off the bases? Because double plays do that. They destroy much more value than a sac fly creates.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/16/2017 7:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/16/2017 7:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/16/2017 3:05:00 PM (view original):
Aaron Judge, for example, did not "strike out too much." We know this because only a tiny sliver of his almost 700 PAs ended in a strikeout when you would have preferred an out in play.

Aron Judge has struck out 227 times between the regular season and the post season, so far.

That's too much.

Only a retard would say otherwise.

Do you know anybody who says otherwise?

I already asked jtp this, maybe you'd like to answer. If you took his 121 empty base regular season strikeouts and turned them into outs in play, would that make any difference at all?

It would not.

How about the other 87 strikeouts, or to put it another way, the other 42.8% of his strikeouts? Do you think if they were turned into outs in play, it would have made a difference?

Posted by bad_luck on 10/16/2017 7:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/16/2017 7:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/16/2017 7:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/16/2017 7:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/16/2017 2:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 10/16/2017 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/16/2017 2:09:00 PM (view original):
LOL. You’re saying, “only look at the relative positive of certain outs in play. Ignore the giant negative of other outs in play. Tell me what’s better.”

Yeah, if you ignore the main reason that outs are generally a wash, it’s going to help your argument.

It’s just not very honest.

Again, deflecting.

You said - " The relative value of an out can vary up slightly or down a lot in a given situation but, when you’re talking about a full season from a hitter, it really doesn’t matter how he made his outs, again, assuming he reached base at a good rate."

So in this case, I'm asking you if in those 15 ABS which resulted in SFs over an entire season did matter rather than if they were Ks. You don't want to answer that. And I understand. Because it is a practical example of why you are wrong. The way Lindor made those outs DID matter.

Try and stay away from my 2006 St Louis Cardinals argument too.

I'm not avoiding answering it. The sac flies had a positive relative value. You're refusing to accept the fact that the gain in relative value from the sac flies was more than completely eliminated by the 18 double plays he grounded into.

" the gain in relative value from the sac flies was more than completely eliminated by the 18 double plays he grounded in

Not necessarily true. The 15 SF's were actual runs that scored. The 18 double plays negated potential runs which may or may not have scored.

Do you understand the difference between actual results and potential results?

Maybe you should check your precious expected run probability charts and report back to the group.

Do you understand that the value of the run scored in the sacrifice fly was almost entirely created by the guy who got to third???

What value is realized if the guy who got to third is stranded because the next two guys who batted whiffed?

Nothing, a sac fly is one of the handful of situations where an out is relatively positive.

How many guys score if you wipe them off the bases? Because double plays do that. They destroy much more value than a sac fly creates.

BL's "go-to" straw man argument. Every out in play with runners on base become "disastrous" double plays.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/16/2017 6:41:00 PM (view original):
jtp asked for a realistic scenario. So I gave him one.

your scenario is no more realistic than mine.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/16/2017 7:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/16/2017 7:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/16/2017 7:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/16/2017 3:05:00 PM (view original):
Aaron Judge, for example, did not "strike out too much." We know this because only a tiny sliver of his almost 700 PAs ended in a strikeout when you would have preferred an out in play.

Aron Judge has struck out 227 times between the regular season and the post season, so far.

That's too much.

Only a retard would say otherwise.

Do you know anybody who says otherwise?

I already asked jtp this, maybe you'd like to answer. If you took his 121 empty base regular season strikeouts and turned them into outs in play, would that make any difference at all?

It would not.

How about the other 87 strikeouts, or to put it another way, the other 42.8% of his strikeouts? Do you think if they were turned into outs in play, it would have made a difference?

See my original answer here: https://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?topicID=504808&threadID=11283006#l_11283006

That leaves us with 87 where there was someone on base. Of those 87, there were 2 outs in 33, so how he made his out didn't matter in those 33. Now we're up to 154 out of 208 not mattering (in terms of how he got out).

Of the 54 K's with runners on and less than 2 out, 20 them were with a RISP and no runner on 1st. So there, that's 20 plate appearances where an out in play could have provided a little value assuming it wasn't a pop-out, a line-out, a come-backer to the pitcher, a hard grounder to third (or even short with a runner on 2nd), or a shallow fly ball. If it's any of those things, no difference between it and a K. If it's not one of those outs in play, but an out in play that moves the runner, there is a slight relative gain there, but it's still a negative play overall.

Also, of the 54 K's with runners on and less than 2 out, 34 of them were with a runner on first. Certain outs in play here (all fly outs, line outs, pop-outs) are the same as a K. But, if he grounds out, he not only doesn't add any value, he takes away much more with the double play.

Do you understand now?

You're focusing on the wrong thing.

Posted by wylie715 on 10/16/2017 7:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/16/2017 6:41:00 PM (view original):
jtp asked for a realistic scenario. So I gave him one.

your scenario is no more realistic than mine.

Well, no, mine is more realistic because it ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

You mean this scenario? this direct quote from you?

"Let's say that, of his 208 strikeouts, over 100 were with the bases empty.

Would replacing those 100+ strikeouts with another type of out be more productive?"

Wait? that happened? So, Judge only had 108 strikeouts during the season? Does anyone else besides you know this?

Posted by wylie715 on 10/16/2017 7:30:00 PM (view original):
Let's say that, of his 208 strikeouts, over 100 were with the bases empty.

Would replacing those 100+ strikeouts with another type of out be more productive?

Wait? that happened? So, Judge only had 108 strikeouts during the season? Does anyone else besides you know this?

?????

121 of his strikeouts were with the bases empty. That's what I'm referring to as realistic.