We can also measure rate of balls in play. I'd much rather have a guy that puts 600 balls in play over a season than one who puts 400 in play.

For some reason, you and dahs would not.

I'm not saying that I'd rather have less balls in play.

Let that soak in.

Got it?

I agreed with dahs that it would probably be better to make all of your outs striking out than it would be to make all of your outs with ground outs.

But it that doesn't really matter because no one only makes one kind of out.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/24/2016 3:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2016 3:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/24/2016 2:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2016 2:40:00 PM (view original):
Yes, it would have.

What would have been different?

Strikeouts add no value to an offense. They are wasted plate appearances.

Flyouts are balls in play. They had potential to drop in as base hits. Or be dropped as errors. Balls in play are generally a good thing.

This is all basic stuff. Did your parents not sign you up for T-ball as a child?

Jesus ******* Christ you reeeaaallly don't understand the difference between looking at a completed play (an out) and an incomplete play (ball in play), do you? This isn't a bit, is it?

The fly out in this hypothetical is an out. It didn't fall in for a hit. It was exactly the same as a strikeout.

Good Lord.

You seem to think that there is no connection between a ball in play and an out in play. Do you not understand that outs in play start as balls in play? That there is a direct lineage from the latter to the former? That you cannot separate the two, even after the fact?

Is it your belief that MLB hitters, after hitting into an out in play, even your "disastrous" GIDP, should think "****. That was bad. I should have just struck out."? Is that the mentality you want MLB hitters to have?

With almost anybody else (except for dahs, who's apparently fallen into the BL-zone and can't find his way out), I'd be willing to think that you're acting intentionally stupid. But you've proven over and over that your stupidity is not intentional. It's your natural state of mind.

You seriously are the stupidest person in these forums. If you had the slightest bit of self-awareness of your own stupidity, you would stop posting.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/24/2016 4:30:00 PM (view original):
I'm not saying that I'd rather have less balls in play.

Let that soak in.

Got it?

I agreed with dahs that it would probably be better to make all of your outs striking out than it would be to make all of your outs with ground outs.

But it that doesn't really matter because no one only makes one kind of out.

But you are saying that. That's what you don't get. When you guys say "I'd rather have a guy who strikes out 450 times than a guy who grounds out 450 times", what you're saying is "I want a guy who puts the ball in play 450 times less."

And it's colossally stupid to want a hitter who puts the ball in play less, since the whole objective of baseball is to put the damn ball in play. You really need to start paying attention to what your statements are inferring.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/24/2016 4:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/24/2016 4:30:00 PM (view original):
I'm not saying that I'd rather have less balls in play.

Let that soak in.

Got it?

I agreed with dahs that it would probably be better to make all of your outs striking out than it would be to make all of your outs with ground outs.

But it that doesn't really matter because no one only makes one kind of out.

But you are saying that. That's what you don't get. When you guys say "I'd rather have a guy who strikes out 450 times than a guy who grounds out 450 times", what you're saying is "I want a guy who puts the ball in play 450 times less."

And it's colossally stupid to want a hitter who puts the ball in play less, since the whole objective of baseball is to put the damn ball in play. You really need to start paying attention to what your statements are inferring.

Imagine how much better Edgar Martinez would have been had he only struck out 3,764 more times.

Because that's pretty much BL's new argument. Strikeouts are now better than other kinds of outs.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2016 4:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/24/2016 3:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2016 3:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/24/2016 2:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2016 2:40:00 PM (view original):
Yes, it would have.

What would have been different?

Strikeouts add no value to an offense. They are wasted plate appearances.

Flyouts are balls in play. They had potential to drop in as base hits. Or be dropped as errors. Balls in play are generally a good thing.

This is all basic stuff. Did your parents not sign you up for T-ball as a child?

Jesus ******* Christ you reeeaaallly don't understand the difference between looking at a completed play (an out) and an incomplete play (ball in play), do you? This isn't a bit, is it?

The fly out in this hypothetical is an out. It didn't fall in for a hit. It was exactly the same as a strikeout.

Good Lord.

You seem to think that there is no connection between a ball in play and an out in play. Do you not understand that outs in play start as balls in play? That there is a direct lineage from the latter to the former? That you cannot separate the two, even after the fact?

Is it your belief that MLB hitters, after hitting into an out in play, even your "disastrous" GIDP, should think "****. That was bad. I should have just struck out."? Is that the mentality you want MLB hitters to have?

With almost anybody else (except for dahs, who's apparently fallen into the BL-zone and can't find his way out), I'd be willing to think that you're acting intentionally stupid. But you've proven over and over that your stupidity is not intentional. It's your natural state of mind.

You seriously are the stupidest person in these forums. If you had the slightest bit of self-awareness of your own stupidity, you would stop posting.

Of course there is a connection between a ball in play and an out in play. The goal is to hit the ball. But, once that ball in play becomes an out, it was no better than a strikeout.

Please refer to your hypothetical inning A/B. The fly out was no better than a strikeout. It didn't fall in for a hit. It wasn't dropped for an error. The batter was out. Just like if he had stood there and watched three strikes go bye.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/24/2016 4:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/24/2016 4:30:00 PM (view original):
I'm not saying that I'd rather have less balls in play.

Let that soak in.

Got it?

I agreed with dahs that it would probably be better to make all of your outs striking out than it would be to make all of your outs with ground outs.

But it that doesn't really matter because no one only makes one kind of out.

But you are saying that. That's what you don't get. When you guys say "I'd rather have a guy who strikes out 450 times than a guy who grounds out 450 times", what you're saying is "I want a guy who puts the ball in play 450 times less."

And it's colossally stupid to want a hitter who puts the ball in play less, since the whole objective of baseball is to put the damn ball in play. You really need to start paying attention to what your statements are inferring.

If you know ahead of time that the ball in play is going to be an out, then it doesn't matter.

The value in a ball in play is that it could be a hit. Ground outs are not hits.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2016 4:39:00 PM (view original):
Because that's pretty much BL's new argument. Strikeouts are now better than other kinds of outs.

No, that's not and has never been my argument.

but until they turn in to outs, they could turn in to a hit. A strikeout can not turn in to a hit.

Posted by wylie715 on 6/24/2016 4:42:00 PM (view original):
but until they turn in to outs, they could turn in to a hit. A strikeout can not turn in to a hit.

Right.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/24/2016 4:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 6/24/2016 4:42:00 PM (view original):
but until they turn in to outs, they could turn in to a hit. A strikeout can not turn in to a hit.

Right.

Which means putting the ball in play is better than striking out.

Which means wanting a guy who K's over a guy who hits a ton of ground balls is stupid.

Which you and dahs are.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/24/2016 4:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2016 4:39:00 PM (view original):
Because that's pretty much BL's new argument. Strikeouts are now better than other kinds of outs.

No, that's not and has never been my argument.

Sure it is.

According to your "math":

strikeouts = flyouts
strikeouts > ground outs

Therefore, strikeouts > (flyouts and ground outs).

Jesus Christ. You said it. You own it.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/24/2016 4:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/24/2016 4:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 6/24/2016 4:42:00 PM (view original):
but until they turn in to outs, they could turn in to a hit. A strikeout can not turn in to a hit.

Right.

Which means putting the ball in play is better than striking out.

Which means wanting a guy who K's over a guy who hits a ton of ground balls is stupid.

Which you and dahs are.

Which means putting the ball in play is better than striking out. - yes

Which means wanting a guy who K's over a guy who hits a ton of ground balls is stupid. - probably needs some qualification, but sure

Which you and dahs are. - Nope. I guess it didn't soak in.

Oh, it's soaked in alright. 52 pages is plenty of sample size to illustrate how dumb you are.