Honest questions: earlier in this thread you said BP's model showed 40 runs. Is that the "scaled back" number? If that's a scaled back estimate, why should I believe it's now correct, when the same claims would have been made last year, only with a larger number of runs saved? They had it wrong before, but now they have it right? As for what 2 strikes per game is worth, I don't know. Assuming 2 strikes per game is accurate, which is not in evidence by the way, I would say not a lot. Not 40 runs, for sure, IMO. That doesn't pass the smell test, for me at least. I've been wrong before, I could be wrong here. But something like this can't be proven, one way or the other, so I will just have to go with my sense of what's probable.