No. If the value of a run increases due to low scoring, then the value of the sacrifice fly that scores that run also increases.

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/27/2016 1:55:00 PM (view original):
You're both right...

In terms of run value, when other hits are less likely to occur, each hit is less valuable. But in terms of game (win) value, its more valuable.

This.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/27/2016 4:07:00 PM (view original):
No. If the value of a run increases due to low scoring, then the value of the sacrifice fly that scores that run also increases.

Let's look at an example. Can we do this and be reasonable?

Let's say pitching in MLB goes to ****. League average run scoring is 10 per game. That means that a team, on average, will score ten runs in any given game.

Your team loads the bases in the top of the first with no out. The fourth hitter grounds into a double play. 1 run scores. The next guy flies out. You total 1 run that inning.

jt - if your theory is correct, then the double play in that instance was less costly than a double play in the same scenario but in a different year with league average run scoring of 2 per game.

I don't think that is correct. To win the game, you're probably going to need to sore 10 runs. That's what the other team will score, on average. So you need to average more than one run per inning. And now you're in a hole.

That double play was more costly, in terms of runs, than a double play in a league with scoring at 2 RPG.

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/27/2016 4:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/27/2016 1:55:00 PM (view original):
You're both right...

In terms of run value, when other hits are less likely to occur, each hit is less valuable. But in terms of game (win) value, its more valuable.

This.

Yep. Or this:

Quote post by bad_luck on 6/27/2016 1:56:00 PM:

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.

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/27/2016 1:56:00 PM (view original):
The reality is that the big reason why Ks become more important in low-run scoring environments is that the value of productive outs relative to standard outs changes much more slowly with the overall offensive environment than the cost of losing an out. So double plays become a lot less important when nobody's scoring.

Also still this. It becomes even more obviously true when you take it to extremes.

At this point all I play is beer-league softball. And not just any beer league softball. Nerd beer league softball (Berkeley College of Chemistry league). There is a LOT of bad fielding. It's not uncommon to see double-digit runs in innings. "Productive outs" don't make that big of a difference on that kind of scale. It's one extra run if it does drive somebody in, and far more often than not the next person up was gonna get a hit anyway. Double plays, on the other hand, are devastating. Last week my team looked like we were going to get caught up in the last inning after taking a big early lead but wound up turning a double play to end the game and win by 1. Right before that happened just about anybody on the field would have been able to tell you that it was growing massively likely that we would lose. They had first and third with one out and a 1-run deficit and people hit like .600 or .700 in this league.

On the other hand, if you envision a league in which every pitcher has a 0.5 WHIP and the parks are huge, 1 run likely wins most games. In that case, since a runner on 1st is usually not going to score anyway, a double play barely hurt you. But any productive out, even just one giving you some kind of reasonable chance to score, is huge. Moving a guy from 1st to 2nd maybe not massive. But from 2nd to 3rd or 3rd to home is a game changer.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2016 4:05:00 PM (view original):

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?

Serious question:

Have you ever been professionally diagnosed with some sort of psychological issue?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2016 4:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/27/2016 4:07:00 PM (view original):
No. If the value of a run increases due to low scoring, then the value of the sacrifice fly that scores that run also increases.

Let's look at an example. Can we do this and be reasonable?

Let's say pitching in MLB goes to ****. League average run scoring is 10 per game. That means that a team, on average, will score ten runs in any given game.

Your team loads the bases in the top of the first with no out. The fourth hitter grounds into a double play. 1 run scores. The next guy flies out. You total 1 run that inning.

jt - if your theory is correct, then the double play in that instance was less costly than a double play in the same scenario but in a different year with league average run scoring of 2 per game.

I don't think that is correct. To win the game, you're probably going to need to sore 10 runs. That's what the other team will score, on average. So you need to average more than one run per inning. And now you're in a hole.

That double play was more costly, in terms of runs, than a double play in a league with scoring at 2 RPG.

You really need to start paying attention to what's being argued. You never seem to respond with anything applicable to what is being discussed.

We're talking about scoring going down. The lower scoring is, the greater the value of a run. And if the value of a run is greater, the value of individual events that lead to that run is greater.

In today's game, runs are at more of a premium than they were in the steroid ERA. Pitching is a lot tougher. So runs (and individual events, like sac flies) are more valuable than they were back then.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2016 4:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2016 4:05:00 PM (view original):

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?

Serious question:

Have you ever been professionally diagnosed with some sort of psychological issue?

Nope.

What's your problem?

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/27/2016 4:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2016 4:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/27/2016 4:07:00 PM (view original):
No. If the value of a run increases due to low scoring, then the value of the sacrifice fly that scores that run also increases.

Let's look at an example. Can we do this and be reasonable?

Let's say pitching in MLB goes to ****. League average run scoring is 10 per game. That means that a team, on average, will score ten runs in any given game.

Your team loads the bases in the top of the first with no out. The fourth hitter grounds into a double play. 1 run scores. The next guy flies out. You total 1 run that inning.

jt - if your theory is correct, then the double play in that instance was less costly than a double play in the same scenario but in a different year with league average run scoring of 2 per game.

I don't think that is correct. To win the game, you're probably going to need to sore 10 runs. That's what the other team will score, on average. So you need to average more than one run per inning. And now you're in a hole.

That double play was more costly, in terms of runs, than a double play in a league with scoring at 2 RPG.

You really need to start paying attention to what's being argued. You never seem to respond with anything applicable to what is being discussed.

We're talking about scoring going down. The lower scoring is, the greater the value of a run. And if the value of a run is greater, the value of individual events that lead to that run is greater.

In today's game, runs are at more of a premium than they were in the steroid ERA. Pitching is a lot tougher. So runs (and individual events, like sac flies) are more valuable than they were back then.

I get what you're saying. You're saying that runs are more rare, and therefore hits are more rare. It must follow that the hit is more valuable.

But that's not quite right. A player who gets a lot of hits in this environment is more valuable, but the actual hits are less valuable because they will produce less runs. Even if he is hitting home runs, there will be less people on base than in a higher run scoring environment.

Just because you play the "let's be civil" card, doesn't mean I'm going to pretend you're not being a dumbass.

We are clearly talking about the concept of playing for one run, and how one run is more valuable today than it was 20 years ago due to lower scoring. And you bring up a hypothetical talking about scoring 10 runs/game.

Maybe if you actually paid attention to things, people would take you more seriously. You've talked in so many circles even you can't keep track anymore.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2016 4:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/27/2016 4:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2016 4:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/27/2016 4:07:00 PM (view original):
No. If the value of a run increases due to low scoring, then the value of the sacrifice fly that scores that run also increases.

Let's look at an example. Can we do this and be reasonable?

Let's say pitching in MLB goes to ****. League average run scoring is 10 per game. That means that a team, on average, will score ten runs in any given game.

Your team loads the bases in the top of the first with no out. The fourth hitter grounds into a double play. 1 run scores. The next guy flies out. You total 1 run that inning.

jt - if your theory is correct, then the double play in that instance was less costly than a double play in the same scenario but in a different year with league average run scoring of 2 per game.

I don't think that is correct. To win the game, you're probably going to need to sore 10 runs. That's what the other team will score, on average. So you need to average more than one run per inning. And now you're in a hole.

That double play was more costly, in terms of runs, than a double play in a league with scoring at 2 RPG.

You really need to start paying attention to what's being argued. You never seem to respond with anything applicable to what is being discussed.

We're talking about scoring going down. The lower scoring is, the greater the value of a run. And if the value of a run is greater, the value of individual events that lead to that run is greater.

In today's game, runs are at more of a premium than they were in the steroid ERA. Pitching is a lot tougher. So runs (and individual events, like sac flies) are more valuable than they were back then.

I get what you're saying. You're saying that runs are more rare, and therefore hits are more rare. It must follow that the hit is more valuable.

But that's not quite right. A player who gets a lot of hits in this environment is more valuable, but the actual hits are less valuable because they will produce less runs. Even if he is hitting home runs, there will be less people on base than in a higher run scoring environment.

Since we're talking about value in terms of runs, less runs scoring overall = less value.

You're talking about hits there - that proves you're not paying attention.

I'm talking about the value of productive outs. In a low scoring environment, moving a runner over or scoring a run on a sac fly becomes more valuable. Even dahs stated that earlier.

Truth is, any positive impact on offense is greater in a low scoring scenario. What BL should be arguing is his contention that a sac fly that scores a run is a negative. Which is kind of stupid but he's chosen that path.

The only argument anyone could have for a run-scoring event being a negative is a DP that scores a run. Trading two outs for one run isn't really a good trade-off.

Trading one out for a run is a no-brainer. There are very few situations where a manager won't happily trade an out for a run.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/27/2016 4:54:00 PM (view original):
You're talking about hits there - that proves you're not paying attention.

I'm talking about the value of productive outs. In a low scoring environment, moving a runner over or scoring a run on a sac fly becomes more valuable. Even dahs stated that earlier.

I'm just using a hit as an example. It could literally be any event, the point is the same.