Posted by bad_luck on 10/16/2017 9:52:00 AM (view original):
I mean, it’s like I said this within the posts you quoted:

“Obviously, there are situations where a ground out or fly out is better than a strikeout. And there are others where a ground out is worse than a strikeout.”

MIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIKKKKKKKKKEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

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 from the SFs are a completely different situations from the double plays. Overall they may balance each other out but in those SPECIFIC situations, a SF is much better than a K.

Posted by wylie715 on 10/16/2017 2:47:00 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 from the SFs are a completely different situations from the double plays. Overall they may balance each other out but in those SPECIFIC situations, a SF is much better than a K.

Yeah. And in other SPECIFIC situations, an out in play is much, much worse than a K.

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 15 SFs were better than 15 Ks. You agree. All outs are - not - the same. That's what we have all been arguing.

Thanks for playing.

Posted by sjpoker on 10/16/2017 2:51:00 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 15 SFs were better than 15 Ks. You agree. All outs are - not - the same. That's what we have all been arguing.

Thanks for playing.

Are you retarded? Did you miss all the times I wrote something like:

"Obviously, there are certain situations where you prefer one type of out to another."

Posted by bad_luck on 10/16/2017 2:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 10/16/2017 2:51:00 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 15 SFs were better than 15 Ks. You agree. All outs are - not - the same. That's what we have all been arguing.

Thanks for playing.

Are you retarded? Did you miss all the times I wrote something like:

"Obviously, there are certain situations where you prefer one type of out to another."

Good. We agree then. All outs are not the same. Thanks for finally admitting you were wrong. Words cannot express how grateful we all are that this thread is finally dead. I'm sure John Smoltz is happy too.

And I'm sure you also agree that, when looking back at a hitter's entire season, how he made his outs doesn't matter.

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.

Mike this man deserves a participation trophy/gift. Do you have a company t-shirt or coffee cup you can mail him? I think I have a Raytheon tote bag from last year's DoDIIS. I can send that too.

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.

He did strike out too much. It's very reasonable to believe he could've had an even better statistical season if he only struck out 100 times and put 100 more balls in play. Not sure why you're too stupid to comprehend this.

BL's response: "Nuh uh! He could've hit into 100 more DPs!"

FWIW, Aaron Judge struck out 208 times. 37 of those came with a man on first and fewer than two outs. Which means, excluding the possibility of a rare line drive DP, he struck out 171 times when putting the ball in play would've been a preferred result for his team.

Posted by Jtpsops on 10/16/2017 3:46:00 PM (view original):
FWIW, Aaron Judge struck out 208 times. 37 of those came with a man on first and fewer than two outs. Which means, excluding the possibility of a rare line drive DP, he struck out 171 times when putting the ball in play would've been a preferred result for his team.

jtp back with the "hits are better than strikeouts" argument.

Nice.

So you translate "putting the ball in play" to "getting a hit"? I believe it was you who asked previously, "do all balls in play become hits?" Apparently you think so, because my post doesn't say or insinuate that.

But let's say if Judge puts 100 of those balls in play instead of striking out, he still makes 94 outs, gets 4 more hits and reaches twice on an error. That's six more times reaching base than if he had struck out. Plus some of those balls likely moved runners over or drove them in. So if putting the ball in play is the preferred result, striking out 100 times is much better than striking out 200 times. Therefore, he struck out too much.

Posted by Jtpsops on 10/16/2017 3:58:00 PM (view original):
So you translate "putting the ball in play" to "getting a hit"? I believe it was you who asked previously, "do all balls in play become hits?" Apparently you think so, because my post doesn't say or insinuate that.

But let's say if Judge puts 100 of those balls in play instead of striking out, he still makes 94 outs, gets 4 more hits and reaches twice on an error. That's six more times reaching base than if he had struck out. Plus some of those balls likely moved runners over or drove them in. So if putting the ball in play is the preferred result, striking out 100 times is much better than striking out 200 times. Therefore, he struck out too much.

No, I'm not translating "balls in play" into hits. I'm assuming your argument is that, had Judge put more balls in play, he would have had more hits.

Again, no one is arguing or has ever argued that a not-yet-an-out ball in play is the same as a strikeout.

If you think Judge made too many outs this season...well...ok, but he was second in the AL in OBP at .422, so I don't know how much better you expect him to get.

Is 100 strikeouts better than 200 strikeouts over the course of a season?

Hint: The answer is yes. Therefore, Judge struck out too much.