Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2016 9:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 6/28/2016 9:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2016 12:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/28/2016 12:11:00 PM (view original):

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.

I understand what you're saying. You're talking about the scarcity of hits making each one more valuable.

But I'm talking about the value of hits (or other events) in terms of runs. When there are a lot of runs being scored, each event produces more (or costs you more) runs.

It's why I used the money/labor analogy.

In 1970 there was relatively little money circulating in the economy, so the average cost of an hour of labor was something like $3.

In 2005, there was a lot more money circulating in the economy, so the average cost of an hour of labor was something like $16.

In 1970, run scoring in MLB was lower, so one single created less runs than one single in 2005, when run scoring was higher.

In 1970, one single run and one single dollar were worth more than one single run or one single dollar in 2005. But the cost of things in terms of dollars (or runs) were higher in 2005.

Jesus, please STOP!!! Dude, you have no idea what you are talking about. Please abandon economics.

Feel free to tell me where I'm wrong.

Just stop. You obviously have no understanding of relative value in economics. You just need to abandon it and go back to what you are good at. Well, maybe not, because you are obviously horrible about baseball theory as well.

Anybody else think that BL was hitting the refresh button on his browser for the past eight hours, waiting for somebody to respond to him?

Kind of a ***** move to call names but not back it up.

If I'm so clearly wrong, you should be able to say why in a couple concise sentences.

Think of "runs" as a 30-pack of Budweiser.

In a low scoring environment, "hits" would be a turtle.
In a high scoring environment, "hits" would be the Sunday edition of the NY Times.

Snapping turtle or ninja turtle?

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/28/2016 10:13:00 PM (view original):
Snapping turtle or ninja turtle?

Yes!!!

Now BL is calling people '*******'.

Posted by sjpoker on 6/29/2016 5:43:00 AM (view original):
Now BL is calling people '*******'.

Tell him why that's wrong, in a few concise sentences.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/28/2016 1:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2016 1:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/28/2016 1:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/28/2016 11:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/28/2016 11:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/28/2016 11:26:00 AM (view original):
This really isn't that complicated.

When the run scoring environment is higher, each event is worth more runs, positive or negative.

When the run scoring environment is lower, each event is worth less runs.

Explain to us how a hit or a sac fly is worth less when you're scoring 3 runs than it is when you're scoring 10 runs.

Apparently it is complicated for you. The more of something you have, the less valuable it is. Not sure why you can't seem to grasp that.

I think this whole economic analogy is what's confusing everybody. Let's change the paradigm. Maybe this will help:

Think of "runs" as elephants.

In a low scoring environment, "hits" are puppies.
In a high scoring environment, "hits" are giraffes.

Better?

BL, you dumb ****, when you score 1 run, how valuable is 1 run?
BL, you dumb ****, when you score 11 runs, how valuable is 1 run?

Please, you dumb ****, answer this.

You're very angry.

We aren't talking about the value of a run. We are talking about how many runs each event is worth.

No, you dumb ************, you're talking about one thing. Everyone else is talking about the value of a productive out. Which, stupid, is more important(valuable) in a low scoring situation. Please stop being a retard. I beg of you.

Was this concise enough? He didn't bother to answer.

Yes, that was clear and concise.

At the end of the day, I think BL knows, on the field, a walk, a single and a sac fly that produces a run is far more valuable when you score one run as opposed to 10 but, because that doesn't fit his argument, he continues to argue.

Because that's what he does.

Or maybe practical application of his precious stats isn't a strength for him.

But, most likely, he just likes to argue.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/29/2016 8:36:00 AM (view original):
Or maybe practical application of his precious stats isn't a strength for him.

But, most likely, he just likes to argue.

He knows he's being a dumbass but is in so deep he'd rather go down with the ship than abandon it. Which is why he couldn't answer a simple question about which was more significant: 2 runs out of 10 or 1 run out of 3. He'd rather focus on what "we" (ie: himself) has been arguing this whole time, despite the fact that everyone else is talking about something completely different.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/29/2016 7:23:00 AM (view original):
At the end of the day, I think BL knows, on the field, a walk, a single and a sac fly that produces a run is far more valuable when you score one run as opposed to 10 but, because that doesn't fit his argument, he continues to argue.

Because that's what he does.

But we're talking about the value in terms of runs. When there are more runs being scored, each event is worth more runs.

No, you dumb ************, you're talking about one thing. Everyone else is talking about the value of a productive out. Which, stupid, is more important(valuable) in a low scoring situation. Please stop being a retard. I beg of you.




Had to unblock you because I knew you were still being stupid. Back to block.