Posted by MikeT23 on 6/27/2016 4:55:00 PM (view original):
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.

Not in terms of runs. A hit (for example) has a higher run value in a high scoring environment than it does in a low scoring environment.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2016 5:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/27/2016 4:55:00 PM (view original):
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.

Not in terms of runs. A hit (for example) has a higher run value in a high scoring environment than it does in a low scoring environment.

How do you figure? If it's a high scoring environment, that means there will be more hits. So each individual hit has a lower value.

1 hit in a 10-hit game is worth less than 1 hit in a 5-hit game.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/27/2016 5:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2016 5:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/27/2016 4:55:00 PM (view original):
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.

Not in terms of runs. A hit (for example) has a higher run value in a high scoring environment than it does in a low scoring environment.

How do you figure? If it's a high scoring environment, that means there will be more hits. So each individual hit has a lower value.

1 hit in a 10-hit game is worth less than 1 hit in a 5-hit game.

In a high run scoring environment, there are more likely to be other players on base. It's also more likely that other hits will follow.

The run values are calculated empirically. They are based on actual scoring.

Ya, but to use your earlier example...let's say you load the bases, get a run-scoring DP then a fly out.

In a high-scoring environment, it's likely you're going to get a lot more scoring opportunities that game. That scenario would be far more devastating in a low-scoring environment when each run is more valuable and you may not get more chances.

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

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?

No problem. I'm just curious. It just doesn't seem normal for somebody to keep making such ludicrous statements as you do, and then have a pathological need to "win" the ensuing arguments to the point that you will argue for days or weeks at a time. Often spiraling down with even more ludicrous statements.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2016 5:25:00 PM (view original):

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

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?

No problem. I'm just curious. It just doesn't seem normal for somebody to keep making such ludicrous statements as you do, and then have a pathological need to "win" the ensuing arguments to the point that you will argue for days or weeks at a time. Often spiraling down with even more ludicrous statements.

What did I say that you think is ridiculous?

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/27/2016 5:24:00 PM (view original):
Ya, but to use your earlier example...let's say you load the bases, get a run-scoring DP then a fly out.

In a high-scoring environment, it's likely you're going to get a lot more scoring opportunities that game. That scenario would be far more devastating in a low-scoring environment when each run is more valuable and you may not get more chances.

Probably, but you're already behind the eight ball by only scoring one run in the first. You need to average more than one an inning.

In an extreme low scoring environment, that run might be enough to win the game.

I get what BL is saying. I simply disagree. When there's more of something, the parts of it are less valuable.

I have $1 to my name. A quarter is pretty important to me.
I have $100,000 to my name. I drop a quarter and don't even bother to pick it up.

What changed the value of that quarter? The abundance of them.

Now convert that to positive impact actions and runs scored.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2016 5:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/27/2016 5:24:00 PM (view original):
Ya, but to use your earlier example...let's say you load the bases, get a run-scoring DP then a fly out.

In a high-scoring environment, it's likely you're going to get a lot more scoring opportunities that game. That scenario would be far more devastating in a low-scoring environment when each run is more valuable and you may not get more chances.

Probably, but you're already behind the eight ball by only scoring one run in the first. You need to average more than one an inning.

In an extreme low scoring environment, that run might be enough to win the game.

Yes, but we're also talking about the failure to maximize on that opportunity and score more runs. Failure to capitalize on a good run-scoring opportunity will hurt you more in a low-scoring environment, when it's far less likely you can get those runs back later.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/27/2016 5:34:00 PM (view original):
I get what BL is saying. I simply disagree. When there's more of something, the parts of it are less valuable.

I have $1 to my name. A quarter is pretty important to me.
I have $100,000 to my name. I drop a quarter and don't even bother to pick it up.

What changed the value of that quarter? The abundance of them.

Now convert that to positive impact actions and runs scored.

In this case dollars are runs, not hits. We're measuring the value of the events in terms of runs.

When there are a lot of dollars circulating in the economy, an hour of labor costs more than when there are few dollars circulating in the economy. That hour of labor is more valuable, in terms of dollars, when there are a lot of dollars.

73 pages of this crap. Hard to believe

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2016 5:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/27/2016 5:34:00 PM (view original):
I get what BL is saying. I simply disagree. When there's more of something, the parts of it are less valuable.

I have $1 to my name. A quarter is pretty important to me.
I have $100,000 to my name. I drop a quarter and don't even bother to pick it up.

What changed the value of that quarter? The abundance of them.

Now convert that to positive impact actions and runs scored.

In this case dollars are runs, not hits. We're measuring the value of the events in terms of runs.

When there are a lot of dollars circulating in the economy, an hour of labor costs more than when there are few dollars circulating in the economy. That hour of labor is more valuable, in terms of dollars, when there are a lot of dollars.

Jesus you are so far off here, so completely wrong I don't even know where to start.

You are making the argument that labor costs more because more 'dollars' are needed to pay for it, while completely ignoring the value of those dollar themselves.

This makes you look like a complete idiot because you champion WAR all the time - a stat that is supposed to normalize between eras and different scoring/pitching/etc.

I think the only reason all of us are still participating in this ridiculous thread is we are all so incredulous that you are still defending your stupid theories.

Well, in this analogy dollars = runs, and we're specifically dealing with the idea that run scoring is inflated at 10 runs per game. So, no, I'm not "ignoring the value of those dollars."

In this analogy, labor is worth more dollars than it was when there was less money circulating.

Similarly, when there are more runs being scored, events like hits are worth more runs than when there were less runs being scored.

Posted by sjpoker on 6/27/2016 7:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/27/2016 5:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/27/2016 5:34:00 PM (view original):
I get what BL is saying. I simply disagree. When there's more of something, the parts of it are less valuable.

I have $1 to my name. A quarter is pretty important to me.
I have $100,000 to my name. I drop a quarter and don't even bother to pick it up.

What changed the value of that quarter? The abundance of them.

Now convert that to positive impact actions and runs scored.

In this case dollars are runs, not hits. We're measuring the value of the events in terms of runs.

When there are a lot of dollars circulating in the economy, an hour of labor costs more than when there are few dollars circulating in the economy. That hour of labor is more valuable, in terms of dollars, when there are a lot of dollars.

Jesus you are so far off here, so completely wrong I don't even know where to start.

You are making the argument that labor costs more because more 'dollars' are needed to pay for it, while completely ignoring the value of those dollar themselves.

This makes you look like a complete idiot because you champion WAR all the time - a stat that is supposed to normalize between eras and different scoring/pitching/etc.

I think the only reason all of us are still participating in this ridiculous thread is we are all so incredulous that you are still defending your stupid theories.

BL is so far over the cliff here that, if it were anybody else, you'd have to be convinced that he's just trolling.

But, in this case, it IS BL, and he really believes in what he's saying.

Mind. Blown.

Like I said. You are completely off, and wrong. And you look stupid.

And for someone who thinks they know stats, its obvious you do - not - know economics.