Posted by seamar_116 on 3/3/2015 9:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/3/2015 6:25:00 PM (view original):
I'm positive all teams would take more balls in play (assuming the same BABIP/power/etc).

Over the course of a season, the balls in play that become outs are no better than strikeouts.

False....BIP that became outs that score or advance runners ARE better than Ks

They are slightly better. And in-play outs that cause double plays are significantly worse. The point is, over the course of a season, the small benefits of productive outs are wiped out by the giant negatives of double plays.

My "small samples" are aggregations of 2,400 MLB games per season.

How is that "absurdly, hilariously" tiny?

Posted by tecwrg on 3/3/2015 10:43:00 PM (view original):
My "small samples" are aggregations of 2,400 MLB games per season.

How is that "absurdly, hilariously" tiny?

Yikes

When you're dealing with large volumes of discrete data points, you sometimes have to group and summarize the data in order to look for trends, trends that you would not be able to easily see (or see at all) when looking at the discrete data points.

When BL looks at his 600 data points, he sees nothing.  Yet there is a trend that's seen when the data is grouped and summarized, not just by the eyeball test (looking at the numbers themselves), but by statistical correlation.

Or are you denying that over the recent past that strikeouts have been steadily going up while scoring has been steadily going down?

I'm not sure why tec chose 1994(perhaps it displays his point best) but baseball goes thru rule/approach changes.      Mound was lowered in '69, DH was introduced in '73 and, at some point, PED was a major player for hitters.   That was late 80s/early 90s.

And I'll repeat this:   Some teams are better at identifying players who do something well when they're not striking out.  That's why the data for teams doesn't correlate with what the league data shows. 

Rather than argue against tec's claim that strikeouts are lowering run scoring, why not argue "Well, there are a lot less homers now.   Maybe that's a bigger reason for the lack of runs than excessive strikeouts."    Because that's a pretty legit point.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2015 8:33:00 AM (view original):
I'm not sure why tec chose 1994(perhaps it displays his point best) but baseball goes thru rule/approach changes.      Mound was lowered in '69, DH was introduced in '73 and, at some point, PED was a major player for hitters.   That was late 80s/early 90s.

And I'll repeat this:   Some teams are better at identifying players who do something well when they're not striking out.  That's why the data for teams doesn't correlate with what the league data shows. 

Rather than argue against tec's claim that strikeouts are lowering run scoring, why not argue "Well, there are a lot less homers now.   Maybe that's a bigger reason for the lack of runs than excessive strikeouts."    Because that's a pretty legit point.

I didn't "choose" 1994.  It chose itself. 

I went back 25 seasons (nice, round number), which went back to 1990.  The correlation was weak in '90, a little better in '91, even better in '92, and then became strong in '93.  It "locked in" at very strong in '94 and stayed at an almost constant level since.

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/3/2015 4:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/3/2015 3:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/3/2015 3:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/3/2015 10:07:00 AM (view original):

Season	IP	Runs	Ks	R/9	K/9	Corr - 2014
1990	37,563.7	17,919	23,853	4.29	5.72	-0.20
1991	37,769.7	18,127	24,390	4.32	5.81	-0.31
1992	37,829.7	17,341	23,538	4.13	5.60	-0.43
1993	40,507.0	20,864	26,310	4.64	5.85	-0.75
1994	28,586.3	15,752	19,766	4.96	6.22	-0.86
1995	36,032.0	19,554	25,425	4.88	6.35	-0.86
1996	40,560.7	22,831	29,308	5.07	6.50	-0.86
1997	40,454.0	21,604	29,937	4.81	6.66	-0.85
1998	43,434.7	23,297	31,893	4.83	6.61	-0.85
1999	43,211.3	24,691	31,119	5.14	6.48	-0.85
2000	43,244.3	24,971	31,356	5.20	6.53	-0.85
2001	43,287.3	23,199	32,404	4.82	6.74	-0.88
2002	43,269.0	22,408	31,394	4.66	6.53	-0.89
2003	43,335.3	22,978	30,801	4.77	6.40	-0.89
2004	43,394.0	23,376	31,828	4.85	6.60	-0.89
2005	43,232.3	22,325	30,644	4.65	6.38	-0.88
2006	43,258.0	23,599	31,655	4.91	6.59	-0.94
2007	43,425.7	23,322	32,189	4.83	6.67	-0.92
2008	43,357.7	22,585	32,884	4.69	6.83	-0.89
2008	43,272.0	22,419	33,591	4.66	6.99	-0.83
2010	43,305.3	21,308	34,306	4.43	7.13	-0.74
2011	43,527.3	20,808	34,488	4.30	7.13	-0.58
2012	43,355.3	21,017	36,426	4.36	7.56	-0.79
2013	43,653.3	20,255	36,710	4.18	7.57	-1.00
2014	43,613.7	19,761	37,441	4.08	7.73

This.

What are the coefficients from 1994 and later?

Are they also "beyond weak"?

Think about what your data is saying about your sample size. If you use 20 data points the coefficient is -0.86. if you use 24, the coefficient is -0.20. What a giant swing.

And 0.86 is incredibly strong, stronger than the correlation between team OBP and team RS for every season going back to 1920. That's a huge red flag that your sample size is way too small.

Unless you think strikeout totals impact run scoring more than OBP?

You won't admit it, of course. You'll just keep posting the same tiny sample of league wide numbers that me/dahs/burnsy have already dismissed.

If strikeouts matter, teams that strikeout more would see their run scoring impacted. Those teams don't see that happen, though, because an out is an out.

It's a fair point. According to the data you're insisting on, strikeouts impact run scoring just as much as OBP does. When you look at individual teams during that time period, that's obviously not true. Do you really think it is? If you don't, then thinking this way is incorrect.

There IS a small correlation, for reasons we mentioned earlier.

This

So tec believes OBP and Ks are correlate equally to run scoring. Hahahaha

The funny thing is, his point has been made! If he looks at the data properly, you can easily argue that there's a correlation. But he's insisting on seeing the data in his way, and he's looking silly because of it.

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/4/2015 9:11:00 AM (view original):
So tec believes OBP and Ks are correlate equally to run scoring. Hahahaha

Uh . . . where did I EVER say that?

Posted by tecwrg on 3/4/2015 9:13:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/4/2015 9:11:00 AM (view original):
So tec believes OBP and Ks are correlate equally to run scoring. Hahahaha

Uh . . . where did I EVER say that?

When you insisted on analyzing the data the way youre seeing it.

Regardless . . . so here we are again.

BL has his "data" that "proves" his point.  I believe his data is flawed and irrelevant, so nothing is "proven" to me.

I have my data and correlation which BL and dumbassdebater reject for their own reasons.

Seems fairly pointless to continue the discussion because nobody's mind is going to change.

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/4/2015 9:14:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/4/2015 9:13:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/4/2015 9:11:00 AM (view original):
So tec believes OBP and Ks are correlate equally to run scoring. Hahahaha

Uh . . . where did I EVER say that?

When you insisted on analyzing the data the way youre seeing it.

I'm not looking at OBP.