Think of "runs" as BL coming to earth on a spaceship.

In a low scoring environment, "hits" would be a LH2B.
In a high scoring environment, "hits" would be BL arguing with himself for 70 pages.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 12:59:00 PM (view original):
Think of "runs" as BL coming to earth on a spaceship.

In a low scoring environment, "hits" would be a LH2B.
In a high scoring environment, "hits" would be BL arguing with himself for 70 pages.

and JuggaloSteve threatening to "cum on you guys"

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 12:58:00 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.

This.

"We're measuring the value of events and runs are the measurement we use."

Go back in this thread and quote a post where anyone other than you or dahs used runs to measure the value of events.

When you're comparing two scenarios - RELATIVE VALUE - things don't necessarily need a finite value. They're measured against each other to determine value. A sac fly doesn't need a finite numerical measurement attached to it when you're trying to determine if it's more valuable in a 1-1 game or a 4-1 game. The comparison of those two situations tells you all you need to know - it's more valuable in a 1-1 game.

So no, runs are not the measurement "we" use. Runs are the measurement YOU use.

BL is ridiculous.

I'm amazed he still doesn't realize there is no "we" in his argument. He's been alone for a good 40 pages or so, save for a few interjections by dahs.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/30/2016 1:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 12:58:00 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.

This.

"We're measuring the value of events and runs are the measurement we use."

Go back in this thread and quote a post where anyone other than you or dahs used runs to measure the value of events.

When you're comparing two scenarios - RELATIVE VALUE - things don't necessarily need a finite value. They're measured against each other to determine value. A sac fly doesn't need a finite numerical measurement attached to it when you're trying to determine if it's more valuable in a 1-1 game or a 4-1 game. The comparison of those two situations tells you all you need to know - it's more valuable in a 1-1 game.

So no, runs are not the measurement "we" use. Runs are the measurement YOU use.

There is no other way to objectively measure the value of an event in a baseball game.

Relative. Value.

So, what you're saying is, we have to know the circumstances of every event in order to know if it was positive or negative?

Relative. Value.

So you'd agree that player A's 3 strikeouts yesterday were no worse than any other out because all 3 came with the bases empty.

The relative value of the Ks was the same as a ground out.

In that context, yes. 3 K's with the bases empty have the same value as 3 ground outs with the bases empty. But the ground balls themselves were more valuable because they could have led to baserunners. A strikeout cannot, unless the catcher misses the third strike.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/30/2016 1:19:00 PM (view original):
In that context, yes. 3 K's with the bases empty have the same value as 3 ground outs with the bases empty. But the ground balls themselves were more valuable because they could have led to baserunners. A strikeout cannot, unless the catcher misses the third strike.

Sidebar- No one has ever argued that balls in play were the same as outs.

Back to relative value, would you agree that the vast majority of outs, something like 90%, are in the same relative value bucket as my example above? (Bases empty, third out, couldn't have moved a runner anyway, etc)

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 1:13:00 PM (view original):
So, what you're saying is, we have to know the circumstances of every event in order to know if it was positive or negative?

Of course. I'll go back to my example of managing my baseball team this spring.

It's two outs in the bottom of the 7th inning (7 inning game), and the potential tying run is on third. We're down to possibly our last out.

If my #9 hitter is up and he draws a walk, then I'm around to the top of the batting order with my best hitters coming up. The #9 hitter drawing a walk is HUGE for me.

If my #6 hitter is up and he draws a walk, now I'm getting into the weakest part of my batting order. My #6 guy might have been the last good hitter in my lineup until it wraps around to the top again. My 7/8/9 guys suck. My #6 guy walking is not so great because I wanted him to put the ball in play to try to tie the game. Now I'm looking for miracles from my three nearly automatic outs in my lineup.

In your simple mind, a batter drawing a walk there is a positive. It's exactly the same positive no matter who the hitter was, and who is following him in the batting order. There is NO context.

However, in reality (because that's where baseball games are played), the difference between the two scenarios is huge.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 1:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/30/2016 1:19:00 PM (view original):
In that context, yes. 3 K's with the bases empty have the same value as 3 ground outs with the bases empty. But the ground balls themselves were more valuable because they could have led to baserunners. A strikeout cannot, unless the catcher misses the third strike.

Sidebar- No one has ever argued that balls in play were the same as outs.

Back to relative value, would you agree that the vast majority of outs, something like 90%, are in the same relative value bucket as my example above? (Bases empty, third out, couldn't have moved a runner anyway, etc)

I don't know that it's 90%, but sure. If the outs occur with the bases empty and all factors are equal, obviously they would have the same relative value.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/30/2016 1:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/30/2016 1:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/30/2016 1:19:00 PM (view original):
In that context, yes. 3 K's with the bases empty have the same value as 3 ground outs with the bases empty. But the ground balls themselves were more valuable because they could have led to baserunners. A strikeout cannot, unless the catcher misses the third strike.

Sidebar- No one has ever argued that balls in play were the same as outs.

Back to relative value, would you agree that the vast majority of outs, something like 90%, are in the same relative value bucket as my example above? (Bases empty, third out, couldn't have moved a runner anyway, etc)

I don't know that it's 90%, but sure. If the outs occur with the bases empty and all factors are equal, obviously they would have the same relative value.

Ok, and if you had to guess without knowing the specific situations, would you guess that, in general, productive outs were somewhat more valuable that the 90% of outs that are all the same?