Posted by bad_luck on 10/16/2017 1:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by d_rock97 on 10/16/2017 1:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/16/2017 12:59:00 PM (view original):
6 tied. Down by a run 3 times.

At that point, it gets a little ridiculous to be critical. Judge was a monster this year. To be concerned about a handful of plate appearances is dumb. Baseball players make outs. That's part of life. The pitchers get paid for a reason.

For comparison, Derek Jeter's best offensive season was 1999. He wasn't a guy anyone would ever say "struck out too much." He K'd 116 times that season. Of those 116, 14 were with less than two outs and runners on 2nd and/or 3rd. So, a WHOPPING six less than Judge.

This entire argument is so ******* retarded only tec could be responsible for it.

Still that’s 9 games affected by that one AB. Most other outs would’ve brought the runner home and changed the outcome

But ALL hitters are going to fail sometimes. Expecting Judge or Jeter or whoever to NEVER strike out in a big situation is a ridiculous standard.

True, it’s just that you say, over the full season, how you make your outs doesn’t really matter. Well there’s 9 games where it did. I’m just tryna get you to say that strikeouts are worse than all other types of outs

Posted by d_rock97 on 10/16/2017 1:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/16/2017 1:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by d_rock97 on 10/16/2017 1:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/16/2017 12:59:00 PM (view original):
6 tied. Down by a run 3 times.

At that point, it gets a little ridiculous to be critical. Judge was a monster this year. To be concerned about a handful of plate appearances is dumb. Baseball players make outs. That's part of life. The pitchers get paid for a reason.

For comparison, Derek Jeter's best offensive season was 1999. He wasn't a guy anyone would ever say "struck out too much." He K'd 116 times that season. Of those 116, 14 were with less than two outs and runners on 2nd and/or 3rd. So, a WHOPPING six less than Judge.

This entire argument is so ******* retarded only tec could be responsible for it.

Still that’s 9 games affected by that one AB. Most other outs would’ve brought the runner home and changed the outcome

But ALL hitters are going to fail sometimes. Expecting Judge or Jeter or whoever to NEVER strike out in a big situation is a ridiculous standard.

True, it’s just that you say, over the full season, how you make your outs doesn’t really matter. Well there’s 9 games where it did. I’m just tryna get you to say that strikeouts are worse than all other types of outs

Is a strike out worse than a pop-out?

Posted by bad_luck on 10/16/2017 1:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/16/2017 1:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/16/2017 12:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/16/2017 12:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/13/2017 9:28:00 PM (view original):
Hey, PSBL! You watching the Yankees/Astros game tonight?

Did you hear Smoltz talking about how the Astros offense is so much more improved this year because they cut down on strikeouts?

"Productive outs instead of swings and misses" were his exact words.

Will you be contacting him to tell him he's wrong?

Here's the post that started this thread, as a reminder.

Yeah, that's a dumb argument. The Astros weren't good because of how they made their outs. They were good because they made outs less frequently than every other team in the league.

So Smoltz was dumb for saying that?

Or, in other words, you're smarter about baseball than a guy who played in the major leagues for 22 years at a Hall of Fame level.

Please just come out and say that.

"I know more about baseball than experienced Major League ballplayers".

Just say it, and we'll be done here.

So, appeal to authority is all you have left?

Another attempt to deflect.

Are you smarter than experienced Major League ballplayers? In particular, John Smoltz.

It's a yes/no question.

Please answer.

I'm not deflecting. I'm addressing what you are doing, head-on. You're out of arguments so all you have left is a weak appeal to authority. It's your go-to.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/16/2017 1:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 10/16/2017 1:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/16/2017 1:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 10/16/2017 1:22:00 PM (view original):
In 2016, Francisco Lindor has 15 sacrifice flies. Are you telling us that if those 15 sacrifice flies vs 15 strikeouts is the same thing? Because you did say it doesn't matter how the outs were made.

He's also grounded into 18 double plays. Are you telling us that if those 18 double plays were strikeouts, it would be worse?

You're defecting. I am asking you specifically whether converting the 15 SF to Ks would matter. We can address the GDP after we get past that point.

No, it's part of the point. No one ever tries to ground out to second base. Sometimes, you ground out to second and there's a runner on second or third and it's considered a "productive out." Sometimes, you ground out to second with a runner on first and it's a double play. Hitters that make a lot of their outs in play tend to do both. Hitters that make a lot of their outs via strikeout tend to do less of both.

You are saying that Ks are the same as strikeouts over the course of a season. That there is no difference.

I am showing you a player that led the league in SFs. He did - not - GDP - in those ABs. He had an out in each of those ABs, but the team got a run in each. If he K'd in each of those ABs, his team - possibly - loses 15 runs (depending on the events that come after the K).

So, again, bring it back to those specific events. Those 15 ABs. Were the 15 SFs the same as Ks? Or were those SFs more productive? We already know what John McGraw thinks. What does BL think?

Posted by sjpoker on 10/16/2017 1:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/16/2017 1:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 10/16/2017 1:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/16/2017 1:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 10/16/2017 1:22:00 PM (view original):
In 2016, Francisco Lindor has 15 sacrifice flies. Are you telling us that if those 15 sacrifice flies vs 15 strikeouts is the same thing? Because you did say it doesn't matter how the outs were made.

He's also grounded into 18 double plays. Are you telling us that if those 18 double plays were strikeouts, it would be worse?

You're defecting. I am asking you specifically whether converting the 15 SF to Ks would matter. We can address the GDP after we get past that point.

No, it's part of the point. No one ever tries to ground out to second base. Sometimes, you ground out to second and there's a runner on second or third and it's considered a "productive out." Sometimes, you ground out to second with a runner on first and it's a double play. Hitters that make a lot of their outs in play tend to do both. Hitters that make a lot of their outs via strikeout tend to do less of both.

You are saying that Ks are the same as strikeouts over the course of a season. That there is no difference.

I am showing you a player that led the league in SFs. He did - not - GDP - in those ABs. He had an out in each of those ABs, but the team got a run in each. If he K'd in each of those ABs, his team - possibly - loses 15 runs (depending on the events that come after the K).

So, again, bring it back to those specific events. Those 15 ABs. Were the 15 SFs the same as Ks? Or were those SFs more productive? We already know what John McGraw thinks. What does BL think?

Well, yeah, K's and strikeouts are the same thing.

In 2006, the St. Louis Cardinals had a run differential of 60. They had 40 SFs. Their record was 83-78. They made the playoffs by 1.5 games They won the World Series.

Since BL is deflecting, I open it up to everyone.

Without digging into when those actual SFs happened and the actual game situations, if those 40 SFs were Ks instead, is it reasonable to think that The 2006 St. Louis Cardinals would have missed the playoffs? And if so, there would have been a different WS champion in 2006?

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

Posted by sjpoker on 10/16/2017 1:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/16/2017 1:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 10/16/2017 1:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/16/2017 1:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 10/16/2017 1:22:00 PM (view original):
In 2016, Francisco Lindor has 15 sacrifice flies. Are you telling us that if those 15 sacrifice flies vs 15 strikeouts is the same thing? Because you did say it doesn't matter how the outs were made.

He's also grounded into 18 double plays. Are you telling us that if those 18 double plays were strikeouts, it would be worse?

You're defecting. I am asking you specifically whether converting the 15 SF to Ks would matter. We can address the GDP after we get past that point.

No, it's part of the point. No one ever tries to ground out to second base. Sometimes, you ground out to second and there's a runner on second or third and it's considered a "productive out." Sometimes, you ground out to second with a runner on first and it's a double play. Hitters that make a lot of their outs in play tend to do both. Hitters that make a lot of their outs via strikeout tend to do less of both.

You are saying that Ks are the same as strikeouts over the course of a season. That there is no difference.

I am showing you a player that led the league in SFs. He did - not - GDP - in those ABs. He had an out in each of those ABs, but the team got a run in each. If he K'd in each of those ABs, his team - possibly - loses 15 runs (depending on the events that come after the K).

So, again, bring it back to those specific events. Those 15 ABs. Were the 15 SFs the same as Ks? Or were those SFs more productive? We already know what John McGraw thinks. What does BL think?

Well, yeah, K's and strikeouts are the same thing.

Aw. I'm sorry. I mis-typed. Let me try this again -

You are saying that Ks are the same as SFs over the course of a season. That there is no difference.

I am showing you a player that led the league in SFs. He did - not - GDP - in those ABs. He had an out in each of those ABs, but the team got a run in each. If he K'd in each of those ABs, his team - possibly - loses 15 runs (depending on the events that come after the K).

So, again, bring it back to those specific events. Those 15 ABs. Were the 15 SFs the same as Ks? Or were those SFs more productive? We already know what John McGraw thinks. What does BL think?

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.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/16/2017 1:56:00 PM (view original):
I'm not deflecting. I'm addressing what you are doing, head-on. You're out of arguments so all you have left is a weak appeal to authority. It's your go-to.

Good ******* Lord.

YOU ARE DEFLECTING by refusing to answer the question.

One can only reasonably assume it's because you realize that you will look like an idiot either way you answer.

Which is how these threads always go when your idiocy has been exposed. As it always is.

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.

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.

LOL.

"It's just not very honest" . . . coming from the most dishonest person here, with respect to your complete inability to argue in good faith.

You're a clown. Are you wearing oversized shoes?

Posted by tecwrg 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.

LOL.

"It's just not very honest" . . . coming from the most dishonest person here, with respect to your complete inability to argue in good faith.

You're a clown. Are you wearing oversized shoes?

Tec -

I think this argument is over. Its pretty obvious that the 15 SFs that Lindor had and the 40 SFs that the '06 Cardinals had meant a lot. Again, BL is focused on stats and not the texture of the game. Its why he's not really a fan.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/16/2017 12:15:00 PM (view original):
LOL. PSBL just can't say "Yes, how an out is made can matter during AB, innings or games." The SOB just can't say it. Sad and funny as hell.

This.

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.