Posted by burnsy483 on 3/4/2015 9:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2015 9:58:00 AM (view original):
You're bad at examples.

Yes, I recognize that examples that go against your point are "retarded" in your view.

No, you just suck at them.    Don't feel bad.   You can't be good at everything.

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/4/2015 9:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2015 9:51:00 AM (view original):
I'm not arguing that.   Would you like to point out where I did?

The point tec is making is that "Ks are up, scoring is down."    That is factually correct.    Which is why I said it's pretty pointless to argue against it.   Arguing "OBP is down, scoring is down" is a better counter than "Whiffs don't matter" because you can't really prove that they don't.

If you're arguing that tec's analysis of the data is correct, that's what you're saying.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2015 10:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/4/2015 9:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2015 9:51:00 AM (view original):
I'm not arguing that.   Would you like to point out where I did?

The point tec is making is that "Ks are up, scoring is down."    That is factually correct.    Which is why I said it's pretty pointless to argue against it.   Arguing "OBP is down, scoring is down" is a better counter than "Whiffs don't matter" because you can't really prove that they don't.

If you're arguing that tec's analysis of the data is correct, that's what you're saying.

Are you arguing that whiffs aren't up and/or scoring is not down?

Because, if you are, you don't understand numbers let alone stats.

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/4/2015 10:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2015 10:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/4/2015 9:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2015 9:51:00 AM (view original):
I'm not arguing that.   Would you like to point out where I did?

The point tec is making is that "Ks are up, scoring is down."    That is factually correct.    Which is why I said it's pretty pointless to argue against it.   Arguing "OBP is down, scoring is down" is a better counter than "Whiffs don't matter" because you can't really prove that they don't.

If you're arguing that tec's analysis of the data is correct, that's what you're saying.

Are you arguing that whiffs aren't up and/or scoring is not down?

Because, if you are, you don't understand numbers let alone stats.

Oh, there's a correlation. It's not the strongest one, but it's there. We talked about the reasons.

To argue it's as strong as OBP to runs is hysterical. In making a point (and you and tec did! good job!) you went too far and made yourselves look silly again.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2015 10:09:00 AM (view original):
I don't think I'm making an argument.   League-wide, whiffs are up, scoring is down.    It's just a fact. 

Dunn, Wallace, Reynolds have similar K/HR rates.   They do not provide the same value.    The team using Dunn gets more value than the team using Reynolds who gets move value than the team using Wallace. 

K/HR rates don't provide a full picture.

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/4/2015 10:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2015 10:09:00 AM (view original):
I don't think I'm making an argument.   League-wide, whiffs are up, scoring is down.    It's just a fact. 

Dunn, Wallace, Reynolds have similar K/HR rates.   They do not provide the same value.    The team using Dunn gets more value than the team using Reynolds who gets move value than the team using Wallace. 

K/HR rates don't provide a full picture.

You're not making an argument? What are you doing?

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2015 9:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/4/2015 9:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/4/2015 9:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/4/2015 7:39:00 AM (view original):
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?

No, grouping it together doesn't help you see a trend. Each team's Ks and run scoring are independent of other teams Ks and run scoring. By grouping them together, you miss that.

For example, if you looked at the team by team numbers for a two team league you might see this:

2014 Team A - 700 runs, 900 strikeouts
2013 Team A - 800 runs, 900 strikeouts
2012 Team A - 850 runs, 900 strikeouts

2014 Team B - 750 runs, 1200 strikeouts
2013 Team B - 750 runs, 1000 strikeouts
2012 Team B - 750 runs, 900 strikeouts

Grouping those teams together would give the appearance of a strong correlation when there clearly isn't one. If strikeout totals impact run scoring, we'd HAVE to see it in a team level. Otherwise, it isn't happening.

You're NOT going to see it at a team level because all teams do NOT have the same level of player talent.

If you had 30 teams that were virtual clones of each other with respect to talent level, offensive approaches (power versus speed, etc), then you can do that.

Really, you DON'T comprehend this?

So, just so I'm clear, how many times a team strikes out doesn't matter. All that matters is how good their hitters are?

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2015 10:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/4/2015 10:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2015 10:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/4/2015 9:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2015 9:51:00 AM (view original):
I'm not arguing that.   Would you like to point out where I did?

The point tec is making is that "Ks are up, scoring is down."    That is factually correct.    Which is why I said it's pretty pointless to argue against it.   Arguing "OBP is down, scoring is down" is a better counter than "Whiffs don't matter" because you can't really prove that they don't.

If you're arguing that tec's analysis of the data is correct, that's what you're saying.

Are you arguing that whiffs aren't up and/or scoring is not down?

Because, if you are, you don't understand numbers let alone stats.

Oh, there's a correlation. It's not the strongest one, but it's there. We talked about the reasons.

To argue it's as strong as OBP to runs is hysterical. In making a point (and you and tec did! good job!) you went too far and made yourselves look silly again.

Sorry, I've not argued that OBP and K rates have an equal effect on scoring.   Would you like to quote that post so I can stand corrected?

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/4/2015 10:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2015 10:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/4/2015 10:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2015 10:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/4/2015 9:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2015 9:51:00 AM (view original):
I'm not arguing that.   Would you like to point out where I did?

The point tec is making is that "Ks are up, scoring is down."    That is factually correct.    Which is why I said it's pretty pointless to argue against it.   Arguing "OBP is down, scoring is down" is a better counter than "Whiffs don't matter" because you can't really prove that they don't.

If you're arguing that tec's analysis of the data is correct, that's what you're saying.

Are you arguing that whiffs aren't up and/or scoring is not down?

Because, if you are, you don't understand numbers let alone stats.

Oh, there's a correlation. It's not the strongest one, but it's there. We talked about the reasons.

To argue it's as strong as OBP to runs is hysterical. In making a point (and you and tec did! good job!) you went too far and made yourselves look silly again.

Sorry, I've not argued that OBP and K rates have an equal effect on scoring.   Would you like to quote that post so I can stand corrected?

You're making an argument (or are you?) that tec's analysis of data is better than BLs. To do that, you're saying that the correlation is just as strong as OBP to run scoring.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2015 10:23:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/4/2015 10:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2015 10:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/4/2015 10:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2015 10:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/4/2015 9:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2015 9:51:00 AM (view original):
I'm not arguing that.   Would you like to point out where I did?

The point tec is making is that "Ks are up, scoring is down."    That is factually correct.    Which is why I said it's pretty pointless to argue against it.   Arguing "OBP is down, scoring is down" is a better counter than "Whiffs don't matter" because you can't really prove that they don't.

If you're arguing that tec's analysis of the data is correct, that's what you're saying.

Are you arguing that whiffs aren't up and/or scoring is not down?

Because, if you are, you don't understand numbers let alone stats.

Oh, there's a correlation. It's not the strongest one, but it's there. We talked about the reasons.

To argue it's as strong as OBP to runs is hysterical. In making a point (and you and tec did! good job!) you went too far and made yourselves look silly again.

Sorry, I've not argued that OBP and K rates have an equal effect on scoring.   Would you like to quote that post so I can stand corrected?

You're making an argument (or are you?) that tec's analysis of data is better than BLs. To do that, you're saying that the correlation is just as strong as OBP to run scoring.

I'm making the argument that "league-wide, whiffs are up, scoring is down."

Would you like to quote the post where I'm making a different argument?

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/4/2015 10:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2015 10:23:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/4/2015 10:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2015 10:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/4/2015 10:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2015 10:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/4/2015 9:59:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/4/2015 9:51:00 AM (view original):
I'm not arguing that.   Would you like to point out where I did?

The point tec is making is that "Ks are up, scoring is down."    That is factually correct.    Which is why I said it's pretty pointless to argue against it.   Arguing "OBP is down, scoring is down" is a better counter than "Whiffs don't matter" because you can't really prove that they don't.

If you're arguing that tec's analysis of the data is correct, that's what you're saying.

Are you arguing that whiffs aren't up and/or scoring is not down?

Because, if you are, you don't understand numbers let alone stats.

Oh, there's a correlation. It's not the strongest one, but it's there. We talked about the reasons.

To argue it's as strong as OBP to runs is hysterical. In making a point (and you and tec did! good job!) you went too far and made yourselves look silly again.

Sorry, I've not argued that OBP and K rates have an equal effect on scoring.   Would you like to quote that post so I can stand corrected?

You're making an argument (or are you?) that tec's analysis of data is better than BLs. To do that, you're saying that the correlation is just as strong as OBP to run scoring.

I'm making the argument that "league-wide, whiffs are up, scoring is down."

Would you like to quote the post where I'm making a different argument?

If that's ALL you're saying, then yes, obviously, that's right. Seems like you were saying something else then. Guess it was just a lot of words.