Silence, dahsfife.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/26/2015 9:34:00 PM (view original):
If I haven't made an argument (according to you), then what am I not grasping (according to you)?

Well, to start, Trout's goal to strike out less is not contrary to the fact that an out is an out. He's trying to make less outs, not other types of outs.

Tell me you understand that.

Top 10 K's Bottom 10 K's


2014:75.9 2014:84.4
2013 80.7 2013:86.7
2012 85.6 2012:83.2
2011:77.5 2011:84.2
2010:76.2 2010:82.5
2009:78.2 2009:81.5
2008:82.2 2008:81.4
2007:81.5 2007:83.9
2006:78.4 2006:80.9
2005:77.9 2005:83.9
2004:81.6 2004:83.3
2003:71.7 2003:88.5
2002 75.5 85.3
2001 74.4 82.4
2000 79.3 80.0
1999 80.4 81.0
1998 76.6 84.0
1997 78.4 82.4
1996 75.0 83.1
1995 73.3 74.5 (Strike Year)


Looking at those stats for the last 20 years....would you rather strike out more or less?

Obviously everyone would rather strike out less. But, once you're out, how you made the out doesn't matter.

3 times in 20 years teams with the top 10 worst strikeout rates won 100 games. 13 times in 20 years, team with the best strikeout rates won 100 games.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/26/2015 11:24:00 PM (view original):
Obviously everyone would rather strike out less. But, once you're out, how you made the out doesn't matter.

Of course they want to strike out less...they have a better chance of winning games.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/26/2015 11:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/26/2015 11:43:00 AM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 2/26/2015 12:02:00 AM (view original):
Want to bet that less strikeouts equals out to more wins? 100 bucks.

Still want to make that bet?

First, here is an example of a stat with a strong correlation. This is team OBP to team runs scored per game:


I used every team season since 1920. Just over 2000 team seasons.

Did you not see these?

Posted by bad_luck on 2/26/2015 11:53:00 AM (view original):
This is a stat with zero correlation (ignore the zeros at the bottom, the stat wasn't kept for years).

And this

Posted by bad_luck on 2/26/2015 11:55:00 AM (view original):
And here is k per game to wins. No correlation at all.

And this

The top 10 teams with the least amount of strikeouts have finished with an average winning % over .500 18 of 20 times, 13 times they've won over 100 games.10 times those teams have won the WS.


The bottom 10 teams, with the most strikeouts have finished with an average winning % over .500, 4 of 20 times, 3 times they've won over 100 games. 3 times those teams have won the WS(one of those times was the strike year in 95),


Twice in 20 years, 10 percent of the time, teams in the top 10 of K's have averaged more wins than teams in the bottom 10 of K's. Twice.



One thing I see in the last graph, which is the only pertinent graph really, is that the higher numbers seem to be to the left while the lower numbers are to the right. Everything else is just a ******* blob that really doesn't show jack ****.

And instead of using some ****** graph that shows no real numbers, how about showing some numbers....like I did.

It's a blob because there isn't a correlation between team strikeout totals and team wins. If there was a correlation, the dots would look like they do in the OBP graph.

Looking at those numbers, would you rather be in the top 10 in strikeouts, or the bottom 10 in strikeouts?

There's only 30 teams. Are you telling me that you think the team with the 9th most k's will win less games than the team with the 21st most k's BECAUSE they struck out a little more?

Posted by The Taint on 2/26/2015 11:47:00 PM (view original):
And instead of using some ****** graph that shows no real numbers, how about showing some numbers....like I did.

Was this meant to be ironic?  You gave a few dozen numbers, BL gave thousands of the exact same type of number, and you somehow think your tiny sample size is more relevant?