Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2016 11:47:00 AM (view original):
It's worth less *runs*. A single drives in fewer runners and is less likely to end up scoring in a low scoring environment.
I think you win arguments by making people want to gouge their own eyes out.
We are talking about the value of individual events (your words). The value of a run or a hit or a sac fly goes down the more offense you have, because there will likely be more there to replace it if you miss out on an opportunity.
Sure, a single in a low-scoring environment is less likely to score (or, worth fewer runs, in your words), but "worth fewer runs" does NOT = "less valuable." That's where your confusion lies. A single in a low-scoring environment may be less likely to score, but that's precisely what makes that baserunner worth far more than it would be in a high-scoring environment.
You're argument is flawed.
To use Mike's example:
If you have $100,000, a quarter isn't that valuable to you. If you only have $1, a quarter is very valuable to you.
But you're standing there saying "Actually, if you have $1, that quarter is worth less because you probably can't buy anything with it." Which is dumb.