They weren't replaced with another type of out so your scenario is not realistic.

Posted by wylie715 on 10/16/2017 7:32:00 PM (view original):
They weren't replaced with another type of out so your scenario is not realistic.

jesusfuckingchrist

Posted by bad_luck on 10/16/2017 7:27:00 PM (view original):

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.

I believe you're the one focusing on the wrong thing.

Productive outs are ALWAYS better than strikeouts.

ALWAYS.

To argue against that shows a fundamental lack of understanding of baseball. Or a monumental level of stupidity.

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?

This is your extreme example skills at work again. Judge struck out 121 times with the bases empty - out of 208. Hypothetically, if he had 100 fewer strikeouts, they wouldn't all come out of the "bases empty" bank. Let's say 70 of those new in-play outs come with the bases empty. Even if only 30 of those new outs come with runners on, they still provide the Yankees with more value than 100 Ks.

God BL is really struggling with this.

Lindor. 15 sacrifice flies. 15 runs. Bird in the hand. If they were strikeouts, that - probably - eliminates most if not all of those runs. So they were a positive. A productive out.

BL wants us to know if you lump all outs together, that they have relatively the same value. So he can make a blanket statement that 'All outs are the same'.

But those 40 SFs the '06 Cardinals had sure the **** meant something to the 2006 MLB season. 40 productive outs out of prob 120,000 outs in the regular season.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/16/2017 8:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/16/2017 7:27:00 PM (view original):

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.

I believe you're the one focusing on the wrong thing.

Productive outs are ALWAYS better than strikeouts.

ALWAYS.

To argue against that shows a fundamental lack of understanding of baseball. Or a monumental level of stupidity.

So to answer your question two posts above, probably not, since most of those strikeouts came with two outs or in a situation where an out in play could turn into a double play.

To address your post directly above, I’ve said, probably 700 times now that, yes, there are times when you prefer a productive out (ground ball that moves the runner over etc) to an unproductive out (pop-out, K, etc). There are also times when a certain out in play is much worse than a different type of out.

From the start, my only point has been, when you evaluate a season from a hitter or a team, what kind of outs they made doesn’t really matter. The rate that they made outs is what’s important.

You are the person that constantly brings this topic up.

I "constantly" bring it up because it amuses me to see you argue in circles, specifically avoiding the point being made, and trying to take the discussion in a different direction.

You have such a fundamental lack of understanding of the game, yet you believe that you have some sort of special insight that nobody else here has.

I start threads like this to poke you, to make fun of you. And like Pavlov's dog, you come running every time to expose yourself your stupidity to the world.

Good job.

"From the start, my only point has been, when you evaluate a season from a hitter or a team, what kind of outs they made doesn’t really matter."

The 40 SFs that the Cardinals made mattered. It helped determine who won the World Series.

You're wrong.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/16/2017 9:45:00 PM (view original):
I "constantly" bring it up because it amuses me to see you argue in circles, specifically avoiding the point being made, and trying to take the discussion in a different direction.

You have such a fundamental lack of understanding of the game, yet you believe that you have some sort of special insight that nobody else here has.

I start threads like this to poke you, to make fun of you. And like Pavlov's dog, you come running every time to expose yourself your stupidity to the world.

Good job.

Just to be clear, I don’t think my insight is special, having more insight than you doesn’t qualify as special insight.

No, you're special. You're very special, indeed.

Posted by sjpoker on 10/16/2017 9:47:00 PM (view original):
"From the start, my only point has been, when you evaluate a season from a hitter or a team, what kind of outs they made doesn’t really matter."

The 40 SFs that the Cardinals made mattered. It helped determine who won the World Series.

You're wrong.

Come on, man... This thread has been my entertainment for the evening. How's he not going to attempt to sidetrack this post.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/16/2017 7:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 10/16/2017 7:32:00 PM (view original):
They weren't replaced with another type of out so your scenario is not realistic.

jesusfuckingchrist

your scenario is just as realistic as me saying if I taped wings on a pig it would be a bird. His 100+ strikeouts with no one 0n base ere not replaced with other types of outs, so how is that realistic?

Posted by bad_luck on 10/16/2017 7:02:00 PM (view original):

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

sure, sure...I'm quite content with the knowledge that you have no idea just what you are arguing at this point anyhow


you however continue to try to control the narrative with primitive specifics....of course 'all outs are the same' when you can predetermine that everyone of the outs that isn't a strikeout is an infield popup to third....but obviously that isn't what would happen 100 times you put it in play rather than strikeout

however, unlike Mike and tec, I do not need for you to understand what a fool you are, so please continue being you

Posted by sjpoker on 10/16/2017 9:22:00 PM (view original):
God BL is really struggling with this.

Lindor. 15 sacrifice flies. 15 runs. Bird in the hand. If they were strikeouts, that - probably - eliminates most if not all of those runs. So they were a positive. A productive out.

BL wants us to know if you lump all outs together, that they have relatively the same value. So he can make a blanket statement that 'All outs are the same'.

But those 40 SFs the '06 Cardinals had sure the **** meant something to the 2006 MLB season. 40 productive outs out of prob 120,000 outs in the regular season.

******* thank you. All these retards are annoying me. Stick to the point! He’s not arguin balls in play, he thinks how you make your outs don’t matter. They do cuz other types of outs bring in runs. Simple as that.

Just because DPs happen more often than RBI groundouts, or sac flies, doesn’t mean the DPs negate them. Those runs still count too.

Posted by d_rock97 on 10/17/2017 1:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 10/16/2017 9:22:00 PM (view original):
God BL is really struggling with this.

Lindor. 15 sacrifice flies. 15 runs. Bird in the hand. If they were strikeouts, that - probably - eliminates most if not all of those runs. So they were a positive. A productive out.

BL wants us to know if you lump all outs together, that they have relatively the same value. So he can make a blanket statement that 'All outs are the same'.

But those 40 SFs the '06 Cardinals had sure the **** meant something to the 2006 MLB season. 40 productive outs out of prob 120,000 outs in the regular season.

******* thank you. All these retards are annoying me. Stick to the point! He’s not arguin balls in play, he thinks how you make your outs don’t matter. They do cuz other types of outs bring in runs. Simple as that.

Just because DPs happen more often than RBI groundouts, or sac flies, doesn’t mean the DPs negate them. Those runs still count too.

I mean right there pretty much spells it out. Cardinals had a run differential of 60. 40 SFs. Barely make the playoffs. Win the World Series. Those outs mean't something. Much more than all the other outs in baseball.