Where can I write in Brad Radke?

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/5/2017 10:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 10/5/2017 10:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 11:28:00 PM (view original):
A two run homer is never more valuable than a grand slam.

I love how whenever you're trying to make a point, you look at things in a vacuum and think that you're fooling people.

Is a grand slam worth more runs than a two run homer? Absolutely it is. And no one is arguing otherwise.

The question on the table was, which is more valuable: a 2-run homer when you're down 2-1, or a grand slam when you're up 10-0? Given that SPECIFIC CONTEXT, the 2-run homer is more valuable.

I know you'll try to deflect and say "a grand slam is more valuable - 4 runs is more than 2 runs. DUH!!!" But for once, consider context in your argument. You might not look as inept if you do.

If only the word value was not, by definition, free from context. Again, try checking a dictionary. You might not look as inept if you do.

You are wrong. Value is relative.

Posted by toddcommish on 10/5/2017 1:18:00 PM (view original):
Where can I write in Brad Radke?

+1

Posted by toddcommish on 10/5/2017 1:18:00 PM (view original):
Where can I write in Brad Radke?

BWAHAHA!!!

Watching BL twist in the wind and talk himself in circles is one of the great joys in life!

Posted by sjpoker on 10/5/2017 1:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 10/5/2017 10:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 10/5/2017 10:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 11:28:00 PM (view original):
A two run homer is never more valuable than a grand slam.

I love how whenever you're trying to make a point, you look at things in a vacuum and think that you're fooling people.

Is a grand slam worth more runs than a two run homer? Absolutely it is. And no one is arguing otherwise.

The question on the table was, which is more valuable: a 2-run homer when you're down 2-1, or a grand slam when you're up 10-0? Given that SPECIFIC CONTEXT, the 2-run homer is more valuable.

I know you'll try to deflect and say "a grand slam is more valuable - 4 runs is more than 2 runs. DUH!!!" But for once, consider context in your argument. You might not look as inept if you do.

If only the word value was not, by definition, free from context. Again, try checking a dictionary. You might not look as inept if you do.

You are wrong. Value is relative.

If we were talking about ethics or morals, you'd be correct. But we aren't.

We're talking about assets. And while the term "relative value" exists in econ, it doesn't mean what you think it means.

EDIT:

Here's what relative value means when referencing MLB players:

Player A produces 50 offensive runs. Is that valuable? I don't know. The absolute value of his production is 50 runs. To know if that is good or not, we need to know what everyone else produces. That gives us the relative value of 50 runs.

So, if other players produce 100 runs offensively, we know the relative value of 50 is low. If other players produce 10 runs offensively, the relative value of 50 runs is high.

"Let's say a team is up 10-0 in the 9th inning of the penultimate game of the season and tied for a playoff spot. Player A hits a grand slam and they win 14-0. In the last game of the season, the team is up 3-2 and Player A is up in the 9th with a runner on second and two outs. He strikes out, and the team misses the playoffs.

Someone asks the manager "Bob, if you had the option of having Player A strikeout in the first game instead of hitting that grand slam, and then hitting his homer in the 9th inning of game 2 instead, would you do it?"

Do you think any manager in that situation would say "Hell no! Don't ask stupid questions. That grand slam was more valuable than the two-run homer"?"

Still waiting for a response to this scenario. I don't need you to twist it, or respond with a question or a totally different example. All that's required is a yes or a no. If you answer with more, it's obvious you are incapable giving a direct answer to a question.

Do you think any manager would refuse to trade the grand slam for the two-run homer?

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/5/2017 12:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/5/2017 12:24:00 PM (view original):
Now you're talking about leverage. We can talk about that, but the best players don't always have the highest leverage scores. You wouldn't argue that we should give the MVP to the 25th guy off the bench who gets a key pinch hit in the bottom of the 9th, would you?

I'm asking a simple question.

Which homer has more "marginal value"?
1. April homer for a team that finishes 61-101
2. September homer that clinches a playoff spot

BL?

I simply want to know if one homer has more value than the other.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/5/2017 1:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/5/2017 12:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/5/2017 12:24:00 PM (view original):
Now you're talking about leverage. We can talk about that, but the best players don't always have the highest leverage scores. You wouldn't argue that we should give the MVP to the 25th guy off the bench who gets a key pinch hit in the bottom of the 9th, would you?

I'm asking a simple question.

Which homer has more "marginal value"?
1. April homer for a team that finishes 61-101
2. September homer that clinches a playoff spot

BL?

I simply want to know if one homer has more value than the other.

Both homers have the same value.

Posted by Jtpsops on 10/5/2017 1:34:00 PM (view original):
"Let's say a team is up 10-0 in the 9th inning of the penultimate game of the season and tied for a playoff spot. Player A hits a grand slam and they win 14-0. In the last game of the season, the team is up 3-2 and Player A is up in the 9th with a runner on second and two outs. He strikes out, and the team misses the playoffs.

Someone asks the manager "Bob, if you had the option of having Player A strikeout in the first game instead of hitting that grand slam, and then hitting his homer in the 9th inning of game 2 instead, would you do it?"

Do you think any manager in that situation would say "Hell no! Don't ask stupid questions. That grand slam was more valuable than the two-run homer"?"

Still waiting for a response to this scenario. I don't need you to twist it, or respond with a question or a totally different example. All that's required is a yes or a no. If you answer with more, it's obvious you are incapable giving a direct answer to a question.

Do you think any manager would refuse to trade the grand slam for the two-run homer?

Still waiting

**** off jtp. You never answer the questions I ask you.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/5/2017 2:03:00 PM (view original):
**** off jtp. You never answer the questions I ask you.

Thanks for proving my point, Bad_Trump.

You constantly answer questions with questions or twisted examples and demand a response, yet you never seem to give straight responses yourself.

Everyone here knows you won't respond because it's obvious no manager (or hitter for that matter) would ever choose a grand slam in a blowout over a walkoff 2-run homer.

I've answered that question (or a version of it) for mike and tec three or four times already. The question isn't the problem. You are. You don't argue in good faith. If I answer your question and then ask you one, you will refuse to answer it. You've done it multiple times.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/5/2017 2:12:00 PM (view original):
I've answered that question (or a version of it) for mike and tec three or four times already. The question isn't the problem. You are. You don't argue in good faith. If I answer your question and then ask you one, you will refuse to answer it. You've done it multiple times.

You know why people don't answer your questions, BL? Because you don't give straight answers and try to twist the narrative. It'd go something like this:

Me: "A walkoff two-run homer is worth more than a grand slam when up 10-0. Do you agree?"
BL: "What's worth more runs - grand slam or two-run homer?"
Me: "That's not the question."
BL: "ANSWER ME!!"
Me: "Fine. A grand slam is worth more runs."
BL: "EXACTLY!!! A GRAND SLAM IS AND WILL ALWAYS BE MORE VALUABLE!! GLAD YOU AGREE!! HA!!!"

You try to shape the conversation so that a different argument is presented. No one in this convo ever said a grand slam and a two-run homer are equal in terms of runs they produce. Obviously the grand slam produces more runs and, in a vacuum, is more valuable.

The argument being presented that you continually choose to ignore because you're a little ***** is that there are specific situations when context dictates the two-run homer provides more value. Which is precisely why you won't answer my question above - you know no manager would ever take the grand slam over the two-run homer within the contexts presented.

Now stop being a ******* for once.