No, we've always been discussing the value of individual events. Welcome to the party.

Jtpsops- they don't get it. Let's let this thread die. Then Dahs can get back to watching his '300 games a year' on his XBox, BL can get back to reading box scores (and NOT watching any games), and the rest of us can escape this surreal, stupid conversation.

Mostly PC, actually. And occasionally PS3, which is pretty much all I have the PS3 for at this point. But Orioles games are usually at 4 PM Pacific, and I'm still at work.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/26/2016 9:36:00 PM (view original):
No, we've always been discussing the value of individual events. Welcome to the party.

Sure but we've moved past strikeouts.

duhs doesn't have much of a life if he has time to watch 300 games a season.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2016 6:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/26/2016 4:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2016 1:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 6/26/2016 1:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2016 9:01:00 AM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/26/2016 7:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/26/2016 12:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2016 12:28:00 AM (view original):
Overall was referring to types of outs. Please refer to the context of the sentence--outs in play vs outs overall.

I feel like you're the one trying to distract now. Obviously I wasn't arguing that a team would get less than 27 outs in a 9 inning game. That wouldn't make any sense at all.

Obviously?

98% of what you've said in this thread hasn't made any sense. And that's probably being generous.

This thread is dead. BL doesn't know the game.

"Sac Fly isn't worth a run." Runs win games. If a hit can't get a player home, then why is a sac fly worthless? This dude never played the game.

A sac fly is actually a negative value event. It's just slightly negative, but it's negative.

You get one run (sometimes), but the primary credit for that run goes to the guy who actually got to third, not the guy that made an out.

And the goal isn't to score one run, the goal is to score as many as possible.

I'm surprised more didn't jump on this completely stupid statement "A sac fly is actually a negative value event"

A RUN SCORED, AND THIS ******* IDIOT CONSIDERS IT A NEGATIVE VALUE EVENT.

He prefers "potential" or "expected" runs more than actual runs. This encapsulates his flawed perspective.

Anyone want to take his side on this one?

This is BL looking at tables for run expectancy and either misinterpreting what he's seeing (because he's dumb), or intentionally distorting what he's seeing (because he's stubborn).

Here's what Fangraphs has for run expectancy:

Runners	0 Outs	1 Out	2 Outs
Empty	0.461	0.243	0.095
1 _ _	0.831	0.489	0.214
_ 2 _	1.068	0.644	0.305
1 2 _	1.373	0.908	0.343
_ _ 3	1.426	0.865	0.413
1 _ 3	1.798	1.140	0.471
_ 2 3	1.920	1.352	0.570
1 2 3	2.282	1.520	0.736

BL looks at runner on third, no outs, as a run expectancy for the remainder of the inning as 1.426 runs. If you actually SCORE the run with a sac fly, the run expectancy for bases empty and one out is now 0.243 runs. He looks at that and says "bad", while conveniently ignoring that a run ACTUALLY scored. It gets worse (for him) when it's runner on third and one out (0.865 runs) scoring on a sac fly and then becoming bases empty and two outs (0.095), because actually scoring the run is better that the expected runs scored before the sac fly in that situation.

BL and duhs have their heads stuck so far up their ***** with their love of stats and charts, they forget that baseball is a game that's actually played on a field with actual people, and real things actually happen during those games.

How stupid are you, tec? You post the run expectancy chart and then just conveniently ignore it?

Those numbers are based on historical average results. You know, the average of the "real things" that "actually happen during those game."

When you have a runner on 3rd and no outs, in a real game that's actually played on a field with actual people, you on average score 1.426 runs. That's not some number they pulled out of their *****. That's how many runs actual Major League baseball teams score in those situations. After a sac fly you score an average of 1.243 runs. Again, real baseball games, real results. That's a negative result. What is so complicated about that for you?

A sac fly is still better than an unproductive out. By far. I never suggested that it wasn't. But it's still a below-average result, largely because league OBPs with a runner on 3rd tend to run around .330 or so, so basically you had a 1 in 3 chance of going to 2 on, no out, or score a run and have a runner on base still and no out. Those skew the averages pretty dramatically because of how overwhelmingly much better any non-out is than any out.

Yeah, you're really, really, really dumb.

Do you even know how to read the charts? Because something you posted here indicates that you don't.

I'll give you some free advice. If you want to look less stupid when talking about baseball . . . stop talking about baseball.

Anyways, as with BL, I'm not arguing with you any further about this. Like BL, you agreed that there is a correlation between run scoring and strikeout rate. So there's no need to continue here. Your "research" validated what I was saying all along. So, thanks for that.

So you agree that from 1920 to around 2006, teams that struck out more scored more runs? Because that slight positive correlation also exists.

Unlike you, I'm not going to hammer that because I know the correlation is too small to mean anything.

Or you're not going to hammer it because it proves you wrong.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/26/2016 10:34:00 PM (view original):
Or you're not going to hammer it because it proves you wrong.

Did you even read what I wrote?

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/26/2016 10:34:00 PM (view original):
Or you're not going to hammer it because it proves you wrong.

Poor, dumb BL.

He's so desperate to try to win an argument that he's already lost.

So sad.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/15/2016 11:40:00 PM (view original):
For a hitter, an out is an out.

For a pitcher, how he gets outs matters.

Is that hard to understand?

This is where it started JTP. You don't get to define the parameters of the discussion when you show up a week in, no matter how badly you want to do so. It was initially about FIP, which is an aggregate stat. Not about individual events. A lot of very stupid/ignorant people wanted to redefine it in terms of individual events because that's the only way they have much of an argument.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2016 10:21:00 PM (view original):
duhs doesn't have much of a life if he has time to watch 300 games a season.

You've got me there.

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/26/2016 11:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/15/2016 11:40:00 PM (view original):
For a hitter, an out is an out.

For a pitcher, how he gets outs matters.

Is that hard to understand?

This is where it started JTP. You don't get to define the parameters of the discussion when you show up a week in, no matter how badly you want to do so. It was initially about FIP, which is an aggregate stat. Not about individual events. A lot of very stupid/ignorant people wanted to redefine it in terms of individual events because that's the only way they have much of an argument.

When I showed up, BL was shouting his "AN OUT IS AN OUT" mantra from the roof tops and that is what reignited this current line of debate.

It's right there in the first line of the post you quoted. As we've established repeatedly, for hitters, an out is not an out. Outs in play have the potential to be far more productive than K's. And no, DPs do not occur often enough to cancel out the benefit of all the productive outs.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/26/2016 11:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/26/2016 11:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/15/2016 11:40:00 PM (view original):
For a hitter, an out is an out.

For a pitcher, how he gets outs matters.

Is that hard to understand?

This is where it started JTP. You don't get to define the parameters of the discussion when you show up a week in, no matter how badly you want to do so. It was initially about FIP, which is an aggregate stat. Not about individual events. A lot of very stupid/ignorant people wanted to redefine it in terms of individual events because that's the only way they have much of an argument.

When I showed up, BL was shouting his "AN OUT IS AN OUT" mantra from the roof tops and that is what reignited this current line of debate.

It's right there in the first line of the post you quoted. As we've established repeatedly, for hitters, an out is not an out. Outs in play have the potential to be far more productive than K's. And no, DPs do not occur often enough to cancel out the benefit of all the productive outs.

Yes they do, since the negative value of a double play is 5-10 times as bad as a "productive" out.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/26/2016 11:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/26/2016 11:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/15/2016 11:40:00 PM (view original):
For a hitter, an out is an out.

For a pitcher, how he gets outs matters.

Is that hard to understand?

This is where it started JTP. You don't get to define the parameters of the discussion when you show up a week in, no matter how badly you want to do so. It was initially about FIP, which is an aggregate stat. Not about individual events. A lot of very stupid/ignorant people wanted to redefine it in terms of individual events because that's the only way they have much of an argument.

When I showed up, BL was shouting his "AN OUT IS AN OUT" mantra from the roof tops and that is what reignited this current line of debate.

It's right there in the first line of the post you quoted. As we've established repeatedly, for hitters, an out is not an out. Outs in play have the potential to be far more productive than K's. And no, DPs do not occur often enough to cancel out the benefit of all the productive outs.

Then why did team strikeouts have no mathematic impact on run scoring during the steroid era? If they can't possibly cancel, that doesn't make any sense.

So you're wondering why stats don't line up nice and neat for you during an era when both hitting and pitching stats were skewed by steroids?

Do you also wonder why it gets dark at night?