August call ups

Putting a ball in play does not always result is a better outcome than just striking out, especially for slow power hitters like Chris Davis. You could roll a groundball (a) or even a lomax. Those would be much worse. You could also roll a groundball (b) replacing a AA base stealer with your slow slugger. That would also be worse.

Putting a ball in play does not always result is a better outcome than just striking out, especially for slow power hitters like Chris Davis. You could roll a groundball (a) or even a lomax. Those would be much worse. You could also roll a groundball (b) replacing a AA base stealer with your slow slugger. That would also be worse.

I never said putting a ball in play always results in a better outcome than just striking out. So, your argument is a straw-man. I said this:

Actually, an out isn't just an out, as statistical/sabrmetrical analysts--like Paul Podesta with Billy Beane--have well shown. The significant problem with a strikeout is it doesn't put the ball in play. Putting the ball in play can advance a runner and/or force the defense into making an error or a costly error in judgment helping the offensive team. A strikeout fails to do any of those things.

And, as DePodesta pointed out in Moneyball, and other sabrmetricians agree, putting a ball in play to enable these results is usually optimal to a strikeout. The fact it can occasionally be worse doesn't change that.

So, strike-zone judgment--and avoiding Reynolds/Kingman/Deer strikeout numbers--is still important. Do you want to contest it isn't?

Putting a ball in play does not always result is a better outcome than just striking out, especially for slow power hitters like Chris Davis. You could roll a groundball (a) or even a lomax. Those would be much worse. You could also roll a groundball (b) replacing a AA base stealer with your slow slugger. That would also be worse.

I never said putting a ball in play always results in a better outcome than just striking out. So, your argument is a straw-man. I said this:

Actually, an out isn't just an out, as statistical/sabrmetrical analysts--like Paul Podesta with Billy Beane--have well shown. The significant problem with a strikeout is it doesn't put the ball in play. Putting the ball in play can advance a runner and/or force the defense into making an error or a costly error in judgment helping the offensive team. A strikeout fails to do any of those things.

And, as DePodesta pointed out in Moneyball, and other sabrmetricians agree, putting a ball in play to enable these results is usually optimal to a strikeout. The fact it can occasionally be worse doesn't change that.

So, strike-zone judgment--and avoiding Reynolds/Kingman/Deer strikeout numbers--is still important. Do you want to contest it isn't?

I will on contest it, Deer's strikeout rate is 30% greater than Kingman's. Nice when people ASSUME things

2013 Chris Davis had 199 K's so apparently had no idea of the strike zone. He also had a .370 OBP, batted .286, 42 doubles, 53 HR and 138 RBI. I don't think the O's were complaining too much about his K rate in 2013,

The top 10 all-time most K's in MLB history include players such as ARod, Reggie Jackson, Mike Schmidt, Willie Stargell, Jim Thome, Sosa and Canseco. I know longevity adds to this list but my point is that K's are not bad as long as you are also contributing in other ways like the above players did.

Using this to get back to Baez.....I think his 900+ OPS way overshadows his high K rate. If he continues to rake the K's are forgotten.

It is not as simple an equation as a strikeout does not provide the opportunity to capitalize on a possible error or infield single or whatever. Much of the modern thinking is that cutting back on your swing reduces chances of getting that big HR that is much more productive than any ground ball or weak fly ball that might come from a reduced swing to cut down on strikeouts. Or to put another way 40 HRs with 200 Ks is considered better than 30 HRs with 100 Ks. Like it or not that is what is being coached. I have heard many hitters and batting coaches saying they consider choking up on the bat or cutting back on your aggressiveness when you swing to reduce Ks is undesirable.

It is not unlike the argument of whether a hitter with say 30 HR potential should alter their swing to go the other way for a single when facing a shift. Almost everyone these days says let the guy have a single if he wants if it reduces the odds of hitting a HR. Accepting increased Ks in exchange for the additional extra base hits is considered a favorable tradeoff by most saber oriented regimes. The mantra is simple. Recognize the pitch and if unhittable let it go but if hittable take a max swing. Max swings are going to have a higher swing and miss ration and thus lead to more Ks. No rocket science there. High K rates do not necessarily mean poor plate discipline, especially if the hitter is willing to take a walk when the pitcher gives it to them. And I would say an OBP above .350 is an indication the hitter is doing that no matter how many Ks the hitter has.

If teams were not teaching this way and were not ok with the high K rates of these prospects they would not be promoting them from one level to the next.

It is not as simple an equation as a strikeout does not provide the opportunity to capitalize on a possible error or infield single or whatever. Much of the modern thinking is that cutting back on your swing reduces chances of getting that big HR that is much more productive than any ground ball or weak fly ball that might come from a reduced swing to cut down on strikeouts. Or to put another way 40 HRs with 200 Ks is considered better than 30 HRs with 100 Ks. Like it or not that is what is being coached.

I never said anything about "cutting back on one's swing," nor did I present not striking out as a "simple equation." Please address what I actually said and don't construct straw-men saying what I didn't. I simply correctly corrected your incorrect statement that "an out is an out" and that one didn't have to work on strike-zone judgment that would prevent strikeouts. Nothing you say above counters that.

As to professional batting coaches coaching that 40 hrs and 200 Ks is better than 30 hrs and 100 Ks, you'll have to provide evidence to support that dubious claim...like it or not.

It is not unlike the argument of whether a hitter with say 30 HR potential should alter their swing to go the other way for a single when facing a shift. Almost everyone these days says let the guy have a single if he wants if it reduces the odds of hitting a HR. Accepting increased Ks in exchange for the additional extra base hits is considered a favorable tradeoff by most saber oriented regimes. The mantra is simple. Recognize the pitch and if unhittable let it go but if hittable take a max swing. Max swings are going to have a higher swing and miss ration and thus lead to more Ks. No rocket science there. High K rates do not necessarily mean poor plate discipline, especially if the hitter is willing to take a walk when the pitcher gives it to them. And I would say an OBP above .350 is an indication the hitter is doing that no matter how many Ks the hitter has.

Again, why are you going on about altering swings? I never said anything about altering swings. I talked about the importance of strike-zone judgment, that's what I addressed in my last post to you, and you're going off on another tangent about altering swings.

I also never said high k rates don't necessarily mean poor plate discipline; I correctly said very high k rates, like the one Baez had in Chicago, where he had a terrible OBP, are not a good thing. And just because he has a great OBP in AAA, it certainly doesn't mean he has the plate discipline to have great OBP in the majors. I'm truly surprised you mistakenly think otherwise.

If teams were not teaching this way and were not ok with the high K rates of these prospects they would not be promoting them from one level to the next.

That is faulty logic for many reasons:

1.Teams don't always promote prospects with high K rates. In fact, that often leads to the prevention of their promotions, as the players have not shown themselves to be ready for the next level.

2. The very reason Baez got demoted was because his strike-zone judgment and K rates was so bad. If they were ok with his ridiculously high strikeouts, they would have kept him.

3. Most importantly, how a team promotes hitters does not directly suggest how exactly they are teaching their batters to hit. Your assuming it is is pure unfounded supposition.

2013 Chris Davis had 199 K's so apparently had no idea of the strike zone. He also had a .370 OBP, batted .286, 42 doubles, 53 HR and 138 RBI. I don't think the O's were complaining too much about his K rate in 2013,

The top 10 all-time most K's in MLB history include players such as ARod, Reggie Jackson, Mike Schmidt, Willie Stargell, Jim Thome, Sosa and Canseco. I know longevity adds to this list but my point is that K's are not bad as long as you are also contributing in other ways like the above players did.

Using this to get back to Baez.....I think his 900+ OPS way overshadows his high K rate. If he continues to rake the K's are forgotten.

Firstly, you haven't contested the importance of strike-zone judgment. So, we'll agree that it is important. And your exceptions are proving the rule. For every Chris Davis, there are ten times as many hitters who either failed to make it in MLB or had poor careers in MLB for having excessive strikeout numbers. As to the Hall of Famers and other greats, go back and see how many of them struck out 190-200 times often. I would imagine most, if not all, of them didn't.

Secondly, I never said strikeouts were bad per se. I correctly sad they were usually less productive than other outs, and I correctly said having excessively high strikeout rates is not a good thing.

As to Baez, if you want to use AAA OPS as proof of Baez' cured strike zone judgment, go ahead. Apparently you haven't heard of the plethora of excellent AAA players who didn't come close to producing their AAA numbers in the bigs. I, myself, will temper my knowledge of Baez' impressive AAA year with awareness of his godawful strike-out rate and OBP in Chicago last year. Until he shows improved strike-zone judgment in the bigs, I'm not ready to see him as "ready to rake." So, we'll just agree to disagree on our assessments.

You very incorrectly quote me as saying Baez is "ready to rake" in MLB. I never said that because I do not know Baez.

You question his "strike zone judgement" based at least partially on his high K rate at AAA. Those very same AAA stats show a BA over .300 and an OBP of .370 or .380. As I "correctly" previously stated, those stats are a far cry from poor strike zone judgement.

As to suggesting research on those top 10 strikeout guys.......I'll leave that up to you.

You very incorrectly quote me as saying Baez is "ready to rake" in MLB. I never said that because I do not know Baez.

You question his "strike zone judgement" based at least partially on his high K rate at AAA. Those very same AAA stats show a BA over .300 and an OBP of .370 or .380. As I "correctly" previously stated, those stats are a far cry from poor strike zone judgement.

As to suggesting research on those top 10 strikeout guys.......I'll leave that up to you.

You directly implied he was ready to rake by saying his AAA stats were proof enough his strike-zone judgment problems are cured. You do it again here. I showed in my last post why that view is mistaken. And you misrepresented me since I clearly said in my last post it is his woeful strike-out rate and OBP in his stint in Chicago last year that makes me sensibly question whether his strike-zone judgment problems are cured.

As to your top ten strikeout leaders argument; it's your argument not mine. If you can't back it up with its needed evidence, you fail to support your claim. You're clearly fine with that, and so am I.

You directly implied he was ready to rake by saying his AAA stats were proof enough his strike-zone judgment problems are cured.

This is clearly an erroneous statement as I never said that at all. I previously stated above that he was raking in AAA and if he keeps that up then no one will care about his K rate. I also never agreed that he had strike zone judgement problems since he had a high BA and OBP. You did not read my statement clearly.

As to you questioning the hitting ability of the top ten all-time K leaders....that is your argument, not mine. Mine is clear enough with the quality of hitters that are represented there. I'm not going to research your speculative argument for you.

Apparently you have completely scrapped your claim of not reading my posts. I'm glad you enjoy them so much.