Posted by wylie715 on 10/22/2017 7:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/22/2017 9:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 10/22/2017 1:02:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/20/2017 7:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 10/20/2017 7:16:00 PM (view original):
what does that even mean? Yes, it would have been better if on some of those 200+ strikeouts he put the ball in play. Many of them may have been turned into outs anyway, but surely some of them would not. Like you've said many times a hit is better than an out.

So your argument is that he made outs too frequently?

So you're arguing that you wouldn't want him to make outs less frequently?

Well, I’m certainly not complaining about his OBP. My point is that “he should have made less outs,” is a different argument than “the types of outs he made mattered.”

I'm not complaining about his OBP either. If he even took a quarter of those 200+ strikeouts and made contact instead of striking out he likely have an even better OBP. Even if they were all a different kind of out, the odds are at least a few of them would have been productive outs (moving a runner, or even scoring a runner).

A) if he changes his approach during the 200 PAs where he struck out, he’d also have to change his approach in the rest of his PAs where he didn’t strike out. There’s a chance that has a negative impact on his entire line.

B) We’ve already gone through every single one of his K’s. Almost all were in situations where the type of out didn’t matter. ~20 were in productive out situations. Another ~30 were in GIDP situations.

In most cases, I believe, an out would be registered as an out accordingly, and thus so would mean, in the event that there are still fewer than 3 outs, assuming that the aforementioned out had just been made, there would be a reduced chance to move the runner anyway vis-a-vis the productive out, which, as was covered earlier in this discussion is still an out, so when you look at the outs made during a game or season or over a player's career or even in the history of the franchise, you really shouldn't believe that a hitter changing his approach would factor into anything resembling a differntiating outcome of an out not being an out whereas the fielding team did not allow the hitter to reach base, especially with a popup to 3rd or an intentional groundout to 2nd on purpose. So the argument remains that if Judge had hit ahead of Gardner in the lineup, he would hit a double that would score everyone, but if he struck out that would be ok because he still has his power swing to rely on in the event that would be his next at bat, though I don't think he could improve on his OBP, so Gardner's intentional groundout would be even less productive but still better than a DP and/or a K in specific random sometime situations where the occasional need for a sacrifice is expected unless a K would be less detrimental to runs scored even with the knowledge that, when it's parsed down to statistic season totals, doesn't really matter how they were scored.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/22/2017 7:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/22/2017 6:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/22/2017 4:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/22/2017 4:22:00 PM (view original):
"But those situations are, in the context of all outs, rare."

Proving that you don't watch baseball.

What is your definition of "rare"? Because I would guess if you actually watched baseball games, you would have noticed that there are probably 8 to 10 instances (or more) per game where a productive out would leave a team in a better scoring position than a non productive out (i.e. strikeout).

There aren’t 8-10 of those situations in an average game. Unless you’re counting runner on 1st, less than two outs, which are the most common of the “certain type of out really hurts here” situations. And in that case, it’s not the K that hurts you.

BL?

???

You quoted my response, idiot.

I'm pretty sure you're the idiot here, as I clearly showed that there were indeed "8-10 of those situations in an average game". Actually, there were 11 in the random game I picked out as an example.

You conveniently ignored that.

I wonder why?

Posted by tecwrg on 10/22/2017 5:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/22/2017 4:31:00 PM (view original):
Like, a team doesn’t get a runner to second or third with less than two outs at an average rate of 1 per inning (8-10 a game). That would be insane.

Both teams, dumbass.

I picked a game from this season completely at random. Phillies @ Rangers, May 16.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/TEX/TEX201705160.shtml

I counted 11 instances where a productive out (advancing a runner) would have put the hitting team in a better offensive position than the non-productive out that actually took place. Those non-productive outs cost each team a run. Granted, only a handful of those non-productive outs were K's. But it shows that the 8-10 number I just guessed at is certainly reasonable.

I grabbed a team at random, the Brewers. In 2017 they had 6135 PAs. Of those, 420 were with a runner on 2nd or 3rd with less than 2 outs and nobody on first. So about 7% or less than 2 a game.

On the other hand, they had a runner on first and less than two out 17% of the time or 4.5 a game.

The Rays had an even lower percentage of PAs <2 out and runners on 2nd and/or 3rd: 5.5% or about 1.5 a game.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/22/2017 10:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/22/2017 5:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/22/2017 4:31:00 PM (view original):
Like, a team doesn’t get a runner to second or third with less than two outs at an average rate of 1 per inning (8-10 a game). That would be insane.

Both teams, dumbass.

I picked a game from this season completely at random. Phillies @ Rangers, May 16.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/TEX/TEX201705160.shtml

I counted 11 instances where a productive out (advancing a runner) would have put the hitting team in a better offensive position than the non-productive out that actually took place. Those non-productive outs cost each team a run. Granted, only a handful of those non-productive outs were K's. But it shows that the 8-10 number I just guessed at is certainly reasonable.

I grabbed a team at random, the Brewers. In 2017 they had 6135 PAs. Of those, 420 were with a runner on 2nd or 3rd with less than 2 outs and nobody on first. So about 7% or less than 2 a game.

On the other hand, they had a runner on first and less than two out 17% of the time or 4.5 a game.

So that's around 6.5 times a game that a productive out could have improved their chances of scoring over an unproductive out.

Times two, since there are two teams playing in each game, that's 13 opportunities per game where productive outs would be beneficial over unproductive outs.

Thanks for making my point, Research Monkey.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/22/2017 10:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/22/2017 10:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/22/2017 5:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/22/2017 4:31:00 PM (view original):
Like, a team doesn’t get a runner to second or third with less than two outs at an average rate of 1 per inning (8-10 a game). That would be insane.

Both teams, dumbass.

I picked a game from this season completely at random. Phillies @ Rangers, May 16.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/TEX/TEX201705160.shtml

I counted 11 instances where a productive out (advancing a runner) would have put the hitting team in a better offensive position than the non-productive out that actually took place. Those non-productive outs cost each team a run. Granted, only a handful of those non-productive outs were K's. But it shows that the 8-10 number I just guessed at is certainly reasonable.

I grabbed a team at random, the Brewers. In 2017 they had 6135 PAs. Of those, 420 were with a runner on 2nd or 3rd with less than 2 outs and nobody on first. So about 7% or less than 2 a game.

On the other hand, they had a runner on first and less than two out 17% of the time or 4.5 a game.

So that's around 6.5 times a game that a productive out could have improved their chances of scoring over an unproductive out.

Times two, since there are two teams playing in each game, that's 13 opportunities per game where productive outs would be beneficial over unproductive outs.

Thanks for making my point, Research Monkey.

Jesus Christ. With a runner on first, an out in play is FAR more likely to erase the runner than move him to second.

How stupid are you?

I'm talking about PRODUCTIVE outs. Do you know what the term productive out means?

Is a double play a productive out?

How stupid are you?

Posted by bad_luck on 10/22/2017 7:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 10/22/2017 7:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/22/2017 9:40:00 AM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 10/22/2017 1:02:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/20/2017 7:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 10/20/2017 7:16:00 PM (view original):
what does that even mean? Yes, it would have been better if on some of those 200+ strikeouts he put the ball in play. Many of them may have been turned into outs anyway, but surely some of them would not. Like you've said many times a hit is better than an out.

So your argument is that he made outs too frequently?

So you're arguing that you wouldn't want him to make outs less frequently?

Well, I’m certainly not complaining about his OBP. My point is that “he should have made less outs,” is a different argument than “the types of outs he made mattered.”

I'm not complaining about his OBP either. If he even took a quarter of those 200+ strikeouts and made contact instead of striking out he likely have an even better OBP. Even if they were all a different kind of out, the odds are at least a few of them would have been productive outs (moving a runner, or even scoring a runner).

A) if he changes his approach during the 200 PAs where he struck out, he’d also have to change his approach in the rest of his PAs where he didn’t strike out. There’s a chance that has a negative impact on his entire line.

B) We’ve already gone through every single one of his K’s. Almost all were in situations where the type of out didn’t matter. ~20 were in productive out situations. Another ~30 were in GIDP situations.

A) You do know every player gets 3 strikes, right?

I don't think he does. His baseball IQ is incredibly low.

Bravo!

Posted by tecwrg on 10/23/2017 5:54:00 AM (view original):
How stupid are you?

I'm talking about PRODUCTIVE outs. Do you know what the term productive out means?

Is a double play a productive out?

How stupid are you?

You can’t consider the relative positive of a productive out without also considering the negative of a double play.

For each team, there are 2-3 situations a game where the certain outs in play provide some value relative other types of outs. At the same time, there are 4-5 situations a game where certain outs in play produce significant negative value relative other types of outs.

Runner on 1st, no outs. If the hitter strikes out, that team now has a 27.6 chance of scoring the runner from first. If the out moves that runner to second, it increases to a 41.4% chance.

If the hitter leaves that man on first with a strikeout, he still won't score 3/4 of the time. Even if a DP is more likely than a productive out, putting the ball in play is still worth the risk.

How do you get 40+ pages out of this nonsense?

Posted by edsortails on 10/23/2017 10:29:00 AM (view original):
How do you get 40+ pages out of this nonsense?

BL likes to argue.

He could have just agreed that strikeouts are counterproductive to run scoring.