Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2016 4:47:00 PM (view original):

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.

My argument is outs are outs.**

In one extreme hypothetical, that wouldn't happen in real life, where you picked one and only one type of out between strikeouts and ground outs, I picked strikeouts. Because the worst strikeout is still not anywhere near as bad as the worst ground out. And the best ground out is just slightly less bad than a strikeout.

**in general. Obviously individual scenarios vary.

Groundouts can be good. Strikeouts can't be.

Once again, by your logic, any hitter up with less than two outs and a runner on first should just strike out intentionally to spare their team that potential DP.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/24/2016 4:49:00 PM (view original):
Groundouts can be good. Strikeouts can't be.

Once again, by your logic, any hitter up with less than two outs and a runner on first should just strike out intentionally to spare their team that potential DP.

Only if you KNOW IN ADVANCE that your ball in play will be a GIDP.

Because that's how baseball works.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/24/2016 4:49:00 PM (view original):
Groundouts can be good. Strikeouts can't be.

Once again, by your logic, any hitter up with less than two outs and a runner on first should just strike out intentionally to spare their team that potential DP.

Can we stop and make sure we have a couple things straight?

You understand that a ground ball and a ground out are not the same thing right? Physically, they are the same but we're discussing them at two different points in time. Does that make sense?

A ground ball is a live play, hasn't been fielded, no one is out.
A ground out is a dead play. It's been fielded. The batter is out.

Please let me know you understand this concept before we move on.

Says the guy who continues to argue in circles.

You agree with dahs that it's better to have a guy who strikes out than a guy who grounds out. Then you turn around and agree it's stupid to want a guy who K's over a guy who puts the ball in play.

I know this may be hard for you to grasp, but - the guy who grounds out more puts the ball in play more. When you strike out, you can't put the ball in play.

Please let me know you understand this concept before we move on.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/24/2016 4:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/24/2016 4:49:00 PM (view original):
Groundouts can be good. Strikeouts can't be.

Once again, by your logic, any hitter up with less than two outs and a runner on first should just strike out intentionally to spare their team that potential DP.

Can we stop and make sure we have a couple things straight?

You understand that a ground ball and a ground out are not the same thing right? Physically, they are the same but we're discussing them at two different points in time. Does that make sense?

A ground ball is a live play, hasn't been fielded, no one is out.
A ground out is a dead play. It's been fielded. The batter is out.

Please let me know you understand this concept before we move on.

I need you to confirm that you understand this before we move on.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/24/2016 4:54:00 PM (view original):
Says the guy who continues to argue in circles.

You agree with dahs that it's better to have a guy who strikes out than a guy who grounds out. Then you turn around and agree it's stupid to want a guy who K's over a guy who puts the ball in play.

I know this may be hard for you to grasp, but - the guy who grounds out more puts the ball in play more. When you strike out, you can't put the ball in play.

Please let me know you understand this concept before we move on.

I need you to confirm you understand this before we move on.

**** me, I'm in an argument with a three year old.

Tec, he's doing that self-assessment thing again

Tec is mostly just being an argumentative douche.

JTP is actually as stupid as he seems. If I were he, I would probably shut up. Every time he posts he illustrates that he doesn't even understand the concept of the discussion.

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/24/2016 1:57:00 PM (view original):
I'd rather have a player with all Ks than all groundouts.

What a retarded statement.

Posted by sjpoker on 6/24/2016 5:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/24/2016 1:57:00 PM (view original):
I'd rather have a player with all Ks than all groundouts.

What a retarded statement.

What's retarded about it?

a ground out can sometimes help the team by advancing a runner or even scoring a runner. A ground out can also sometimes be a double play. A strike out can only be a strike out (or a strike them out, throw them out double play) so it can never benefit the team.

Posted by wylie715 on 6/24/2016 5:45:00 PM (view original):
a ground out can sometimes help the team by advancing a runner or even scoring a runner. A ground out can also sometimes be a double play. A strike out can only be a strike out (or a strike them out, throw them out double play) so it can never benefit the team.

If you ground out with no one on base, was it better, worse, or the same as a strikeout?

Lets ask this of BL -

BL's theory - all outs are essentially the same. This can be a strikeout, a Fly out, or a Ground out. When discussing FO or GOs we are not talking about Balls in Play. We are talking specifically about "balls in play that resulted in outs."

If you use the example before -

Player A hits .300/.400/.500 over a season (600 PAs) with 185 strikeouts.
Player B hits .300/.400/.500 over a season (600 PAs) with 65 strikeouts.

Player B put 120 more balls in play that resulted in an out. We can assume that some of those are sacrifices. Some of those moved runners along without resulting in a run. I also acknowledge that some of those balls in play were GIDPs.

BL said we can ignore Sacrifice Flys over the long run because GIDP will even them out statistically. (I really don't know where that came from). \

So first, lets look at a hypothetical.

What if a player had 10 sacrifice flys? So the end result is 10 outs and 10 runs batted in.

That player also had 5 GIDP. All 5 GIDP occurred with a single runner on base. All ended the inning. So the end result is 10 outs.

Are the cumulative effects of the sacrifice flys equal to the cumulative effects of the GIDP? Is one better than another? Lets start there.

And BL I'll continue down this line of analysis without being insulting to you. As long as you play ball.