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.