Since balls in play are random wouldn't the best teams be rewarded more fairly if all balls in play were simply recorded as outs? We could do away with fielders, increase the capacity of ballparks, and best of all, speed up the games.

Since balls in play are random wouldn't the best teams be rewarded more fairly if all balls in play were simply recorded as outs? We could do away with fielders, increase the capacity of ballparks, and best of all, speed up the games.

Everything is luck in baseball anyway. Might as well just turn all of the stadiums into beer gardens, and put 32 ping pong balls in a lottery machine and figure out who "wins" the World Series that way.

What about the NFL with the fact DB'S can't touch anyone downfield? Everything is a fricking jumpball. I think a few more defensive permissions should be added back in to the game. If I want Arena football,I'll go watch it on that weird CBS sports channel.

Don't get me wrong,I love my NFL but it has gone way too far with it's favoring the offense.

Everything is luck in baseball anyway. Might as well just turn all of the stadiums into beer gardens, and put 32 ping pong balls in a lottery machine and figure out who "wins" the World Series that way.

Since balls in play are random wouldn't the best teams be rewarded more fairly if all balls in play were simply recorded as outs? We could do away with fielders, increase the capacity of ballparks, and best of all, speed up the games.

Since balls in play are random wouldn't the best teams be rewarded more fairly if all balls in play were simply recorded as outs? We could do away with fielders, increase the capacity of ballparks, and best of all, speed up the games.

Have you ever argued with someone without at some point misrepresenting their argument to make it seem absurd? Balls in play aren't completely random, nobody has argued this.

Luck/randomness infused with every ball in play != balls in play are completely random

Well he didn't say completely random either.

When you say "they are human", do you mean to leave ambiguous the idea that "they" might not be completely human?

When you say "they are human", do you mean to leave ambiguous the idea that "they" might not be completely human?

I'm not the one arguing strict specifics.

Balls in play are considered random and therefore will meet right around the exact same bapip given enough time. Isn't that right?

Have you ever argued with someone without at some point misrepresenting their argument to make it seem absurd? Balls in play aren't completely random, nobody has argued this.

Luck/randomness infused with every ball in play != balls in play are completely random

It is mostly luck. That is irrefutable.

It was irrefutable until you wanted to refute yourself.

I think your position is absurd without any of my assistance.

Yeah, the majority (72%) of the explanation for a given BABIP is made up of things entirely out of the pitcher's control (luck, defense, park), with the largest component being actual random chance. That refutes nothing that I've said, contrary to your lame attempts at a "gotcha".

I don't think you really believe or have even actually thought about what you're saying with regard to this subject. It seems you're just reading numbers and conclusions drawn by others and spitting them back out as "facts".

No, I've read the proofs and....mostly understand the math behind them.

But they're not "proofs". There is way too much noise and too many assumptions being made.

Just since the time McCracken discovered that balls in play "normalized" around 30% I have read countless "yeah buts" and amendments.

Ok, so you don't know what a proof is. To what "noise" are you referring, specifically, and how has it not been accounted for in these non-proof proofs?

Do you guys ever wonder how many people who post here on the board are also on meth? I'd assume we'd get at least a few hits.

I'll wait for Juice to post a graph on it before I comment.