dahs, when you ran your numbers did you run K/game or K/PA?

The reason I ask is because I don't think K/PA is the correct way to do it.

What is your thinking?

I actually used K/AB because the other stats I was weighing, aside from OBP, are all per AB (AVG and SLG). Ideally you'd put all your variables on the same scale, but I was too lazy to convert AVG to hits/PA. The ideal way to do it would be hits/PA, ISO/PA, and non-hit OBP (also per PA). And then factor in K/PA. As it is you're basically counting hits within 3 variable since on a leaguewide basis AVG dominates OBP and SLG. That makes everything a little messy, especially since you're mixing hits/AB and hits/PA.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2016 1:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2016 1:51:00 PM (view original):
Rather than "counterintuitive", I'd go with "stupid".

I was trying to give you a chance to redeem yourself with something intelligent to back up your statement. Shockingly, you failed.

If something is in less abundance, such as hits or runs , then each one that you get is more valuable.

Runs are more valuable. But we aren't measuring the value of runs. We're measuring the value of events and runs are the measurement we use.

Maybe try acting like an adult when you disagree with someone. It might get you a little further in life.

Further proving your an idiot.

Runs are more valuable but the events that cause them aren't? So the value of a run goes up, but the sac fly that brings it in is still a "negative value event"? Or simply playing for one run instead of multiple is bad game play/management, even though the value of a single run has increased? I don't even think you realize how contradictory your own statements are, which is scary.

If runs are more valuable, the events that cause them are also more valuable.

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/27/2016 12:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/27/2016 7:52:00 AM (view original):
It was probably the managers' call. Stupid managers. BL would be a much better manager because he knows a hit is better than a sacrifice fly.

A lot of sac bunts were, historically, bad decisions. Obviously the kind of pitcher who hits .160 with no walks is a much stronger bet to lay down a sac bunt than do anything else useful, so it's not always a bad decision. But sac bunts used to be way too common, and they've been dropping basically forever. Here's a chart of team sac hits over time:



Most of the data before the mid '20s is off this scale, but to see that it's actually been continuing to drop persistently since that time I needed to shrink the graph. It's pretty obvious that as strategy has evolved over time it's become increasingly obvious to actual baseball people that throwing away any of their 27 outs to move a guy 1 base isn't necessarily a smart strategy. Outs are your one limited offensive resource in this game. It's usually not a great idea to waste them.

While I'm somewhat in agreement about "throwing away an out", it does indicate that teams value single runs. Even moreso in college(now) because they just don't get instant offense from homers. And, of course, like crappy hitting pitchers, the situation matters.

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/27/2016 2:04:00 PM (view original):
What is your thinking?

I actually used K/AB because the other stats I was weighing, aside from OBP, are all per AB (AVG and SLG). Ideally you'd put all your variables on the same scale, but I was too lazy to convert AVG to hits/PA. The ideal way to do it would be hits/PA, ISO/PA, and non-hit OBP (also per PA). And then factor in K/PA. As it is you're basically counting hits within 3 variable since on a leaguewide basis AVG dominates OBP and SLG. That makes everything a little messy, especially since you're mixing hits/AB and hits/PA.

I don't know if I've fully hashed it out yet, but by scaling K's to PA or AB, your'e essentially just creating a subset of OBP or BA. Teams with more PA score more runs. It's almost as if you're (sort of) controlling for runs by doing it that way. And we obviously wouldn't want to control for runs at all.

Does that make any sense?

I haven't looked at the numbers and, again, I don't know if I'm really articulating this well, but that's where I'm at.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2016 1:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2016 1:51:00 PM (view original):
Rather than "counterintuitive", I'd go with "stupid".

I was trying to give you a chance to redeem yourself with something intelligent to back up your statement. Shockingly, you failed.

If something is in less abundance, such as hits or runs , then each one that you get is more valuable.

Runs are more valuable. But we aren't measuring the value of runs. We're measuring the value of events and runs are the measurement we use.

Maybe try acting like an adult when you disagree with someone. It might get you a little further in life.

Baseball games are won and lost by the number of runs scored and allowed. Not by the cumulative statistical value of events.

"I don't have to watch the games. I have tables on the statistical values of events."

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2016 2:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2016 1:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2016 1:51:00 PM (view original):
Rather than "counterintuitive", I'd go with "stupid".

I was trying to give you a chance to redeem yourself with something intelligent to back up your statement. Shockingly, you failed.

If something is in less abundance, such as hits or runs , then each one that you get is more valuable.

Runs are more valuable. But we aren't measuring the value of runs. We're measuring the value of events and runs are the measurement we use.

Maybe try acting like an adult when you disagree with someone. It might get you a little further in life.

Baseball games are won and lost by the number of runs scored and allowed. Not by the cumulative statistical value of events.

"I don't have to watch the games. I have tables on the statistical values of events."

But we aren't measuring runs in this case. We're measuring the value of each event in terms of runs.

And do you know why you're doing that? Because if you actually look at things in tandem, you'd realize how dumb you are.

The events that lead to runs are as valuable as the runs themselves. You can't say "a run has positive value, but the out that scores that run has no positive value." They're related. If the objective is to score a run, than any part of the process that leads to that run scoring (including the sac fly that you claim is worthless) has positive value. Period.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2016 2:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2016 2:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2016 1:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2016 1:51:00 PM (view original):
Rather than "counterintuitive", I'd go with "stupid".

I was trying to give you a chance to redeem yourself with something intelligent to back up your statement. Shockingly, you failed.

If something is in less abundance, such as hits or runs , then each one that you get is more valuable.

Runs are more valuable. But we aren't measuring the value of runs. We're measuring the value of events and runs are the measurement we use.

Maybe try acting like an adult when you disagree with someone. It might get you a little further in life.

Baseball games are won and lost by the number of runs scored and allowed. Not by the cumulative statistical value of events.

"I don't have to watch the games. I have tables on the statistical values of events."

But we aren't measuring runs in this case. We're measuring the value of each event in terms of runs.

Oh. Well, you and your little friends just keep going along and doing that.

Please let me know when MLB starts crediting team wins and losses on the statistical values of events, and no longer on runs.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2016 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2016 2:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2016 2:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2016 1:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2016 1:51:00 PM (view original):
Rather than "counterintuitive", I'd go with "stupid".

I was trying to give you a chance to redeem yourself with something intelligent to back up your statement. Shockingly, you failed.

If something is in less abundance, such as hits or runs , then each one that you get is more valuable.

Runs are more valuable. But we aren't measuring the value of runs. We're measuring the value of events and runs are the measurement we use.

Maybe try acting like an adult when you disagree with someone. It might get you a little further in life.

Baseball games are won and lost by the number of runs scored and allowed. Not by the cumulative statistical value of events.

"I don't have to watch the games. I have tables on the statistical values of events."

But we aren't measuring runs in this case. We're measuring the value of each event in terms of runs.

Oh. Well, you and your little friends just keep going along and doing that.

Please let me know when MLB starts crediting team wins and losses on the statistical values of events, and no longer on runs.

Runs are currency.

Think of it like the economy. When there are fewer dollars, things that earn you dollars like an hour of labor or a commodity, cost less. When there are more dollars, those things cost more.

What? That may be the dumbest thing you've said yet. That doesn't correlate at all.

Somewhere, Bill James is thinking of asking for his job back at the pork and beans factory after reading that.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2016 3:16:00 PM (view original):
Somewhere, Bill James is thinking of asking for his job back at the pork and beans factory after reading that.

Do you disagree?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2016 3:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2016 3:16:00 PM (view original):
Somewhere, Bill James is thinking of asking for his job back at the pork and beans factory after reading that.

Do you disagree?

No.

I agree that that may be the dumbest thing you've said yet.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2016 3:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2016 3:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2016 3:16:00 PM (view original):
Somewhere, Bill James is thinking of asking for his job back at the pork and beans factory after reading that.

Do you disagree?

No.

I agree that that may be the dumbest thing you've said yet.

Do you agree with my point, that, while yes, when run scoring is down, runs themselves are more valuable, the positive and negative values of the events that impact run scoring are reduced?