August call ups

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.

It wasn't an erroneous statement since I didn't say you "said" it. I said you implied it, since (as you note above) you see his strike zone judgment problems as cured, so you wouldn't see problems with his continuing raking...hence you see him as ready to rake. If you want to recant your seeing his strike-zone judgment as fixed, feel free to do so at any time. And your saying I said you "agreed he had strike zone judgment problems" is the real erroneous statement. I said this:

Firstly, you haven't contested the importance of strike-zone judgment. So, we'll agree that it is important.

That's a significant difference.

Also, I never questioned the hitting ability of the top ten all time K leaders. You used them to support your argument players could have excessively high strikeout rates and still be successful. I said it was unlikely most of them had 190-200 K's per season and challenged you to prove they did to back up your argument:

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.

You refused to do so, so you are the one who failed to back up your argument. You have still failed to do so.

As to my not reading your posts, you have a short memory. I told you in another thread that, while some are on permanent ignore, I will sometimes read your posts if I think a productive, grown-up discussion can be had. Up to your recent post, we have had one. If you continue to lie about my arguments and spew childish emoticons, however, our discussion will be over.

I bit on the top 10 career strikeout leaders.

http://mlb.mlb.com/stats/sortable.jsp#elem=%5Bobject+Object%5D&tab_level=child&click_text=Sortable+Player+hitting&sectionType=sp&statType=hitting&page=1&ts=1441128367681&split=&season=2015&game_type='R'&playerType=ALL&timeframe=&season_type=ALL&active_sw=&sortColumn=so&sortOrder='desc'&extended=0&league_code='MLB'

1 Jackson, R RF 2820 9864 1551 2584 463 49 563 1702 1375 2597 228 115 .262 .356 .490 .846
2 Thome, J 1B 2543 8422 1583 2328 451 26 612 1699 1747 2548 19 20 .276 .402 .554 .956
3 Dunn, A LF 2001 6883 1097 1631 334 10 462 1168 1317 2379 63 25 .237 .364 .490 .854
4 Sosa, S RF 2354 8813 1475 2408 379 45 609 1667 929 2306 234 107 .273 .344 .534 .878
5 * Rodriguez, A DH 2688 10243 1988 3048 537 31 680 2040 1309 2186 325 76 .298 .383 .555 .938
6 Galarraga, A 1B 2257 8096 1195 2333 444 32 399 1425 583 2003 128 81 .288 .347 .499 .846
7 Canseco, J RF 1887 7057 1186 1877 340 14 462 1407 906 1942 200 88 .266 .353 .515 .867
8 Stargell, W LF 2360 7927 1195 2232 423 55 475 1540 937 1936 17 16 .282 .360 .529 .889
9 Cameron, M CF 1955 6839 1064 1700 383 59 278 968 867 1901 297 83 .249 .338 .444 .782
10 Schmidt, M 3B 2404 8352 1506 2234 408 59 548 1595 1507 1883 174 92 .267 .380 .527 .908

Not a bad start to a great team.

By position: First the leader and then a backup selected from the top 10 for each position or top 40 overall
C Lance Parrish, Ivan Rodriguez
1st Jim Thome, Mark McGwire
2nd Craig Biggio, Ryne Sandberg
3rd Mike Schmidt, Eddie Mathews, Adrian Beltre (sentimental favorite)
SS Derek Jeter, Alex Rodriguez, Robin Yount
LF Adam Dunn, Willie Stargell, Rickey Henderson, Lou Brock (sentimental favorite), Barry Bonds
CF Mike Cameron, Ken Grifey Jr., Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays
RF Reggie Jackson, Sammy Sosa maybe a platoon? Bobby Bonds (Might as well get the dad)
Utility IFer Michael Young

Not a bad lineup. Many HOFers. Conclusion I draw is high strikeout rates do not translate to undesirable/unproductive player. It could mean a player who is over matched. But if the other production numbers are there, especially power, a team is going to find a spot for them.

That's all wonderful and irrelevant. You still didn't show any of those players had 190-200 K's per season as I asked. We were discussing exceedingly high strikeout rates a la Kingman/Deer/Reynolds/Davis and Baez in Chicago. We weren't just discussing high strikeout rates, period...and I never said high strikeout rates kept one from being a productive player. So, you completely forgot the original argument.

Nice chart, though.

Valen, I'm sure strether appreciates you doing the research for him. I am not sure what he wanted with this info but I'm sure it will be good!

It is funny how in the world that strether makes the statement that Baez has poor strike zone judgement which I refute and then I am charged with claiming that Baez has overcome his poor strike zone judgement. I never said he had such in the first place, strether did.

Valen, I'm sure strether appreciates you doing the research for him. I am not sure what he wanted with this info but I'm sure it will be good!

He didn't do the research I asked you to do to support your argument, research you failed to provide:

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.

Since neither he nor you provided that information/research, your argument still stands as completely unsupported.

That's all wonderful and irrelevant. You still didn't show any of those players had 190-200 K's per season as I asked. We were discussing exceedingly high strikeout rates a la Kingman/Deer/Reynolds/Davis and Baez in Chicago. We weren't just discussing high strikeout rates, period...and I never said high strikeout rates kept one from being a productive player. So, you completely forgot the original argument.

Nice chart, though.

And what qualifies as exceedingly high strikeout rate? Kingman and Deer are quite different from each other. Look it up sometime, Deer strikeout rate is 30% greater than Kingman's.

Today being September 1st, the first wave of call-ups have arrived. Since more will be arriving in the coming week--mostly due to minor league playoffs--I will amend this list as the week progresses. Here however are 6 significant call-ups who could be major factors for their teams in the near future:

1. Hector Olivera, 2b, Braves. The Braves gave up top prospect 2b Jose Peraza, sturdy Sp Alex Wood, and useful relievers Luis Avilan and Jim Johnson to get Olivera, so he won't be sitting. With 20 hr power potential, Olivera should immediately become the Braves 2b for years.

2. Miguel Castro, Rhp, Rockies. A key part of the Tulo trade, the fire-balling--regularly 95-99 mph fastball--Castro dominated in a short stint at Albuquerque and is clearly the Rockies closer of the future.

3. Richie Shaffer, 1b-3b, Rays. An All-American at Clemson, Shaffer struggled until this year, where he has flourished and shown his formidable power. After a brief cup-of-coffee earlier, he will compete for next year's 1b job.

4. Jose Pirela, 2b, Yankees. With the Yanks' 2nd base job up in the air, the scrappy, solid hitting Pirela--..325/.390/.433 at AAA--will have a chance to audition for the job.

5. Zack Davies, Rhp, Brewers. Acquired from BLT for David Peralta, Davies is a soft-tossing but crafty starter with a plus change-up. He'll audition for a spot in next year's rotation. Considering Jungman and Nelson are the only sure things there, he has a solid chance.

6. Christian Adames, Ss, Rockies. After falling out of organization favor, the smooth fielding and smooth-swinging rebounded this year. He will audition in competition with Trevor Story for Rockies SS of the (perhaps near) future.

Since neither he nor you provided that information/research, your argument still stands as completely unsupported.

This is getting tedious strether. What argument are you saying is unsupported? I would love to know. The argument that the top ten in career strikeouts for hitters are not good ball players? (3 are currently in the HOF) The fact that any high strikeout player could be a valuable MLB player? (There have been several 190+ strikeout hitters that were hugely valuable to their teams, 2013 Chris Davis is one example)

Your argument against either stance is completely and utterly unsubstantiated. Time to quit this line of discussion now before you bury yourself deeper.

Yes it is getting tedious...because your argument is still completely and utterly unsubstantiated and you have buried yourself deeper and deeper. You posted this, arguing that the success of the top 10 strikeout leaders showed excessive strikeouts could still be productive, as previously shown by Chris Davis:

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.

So, I, rightly believing most of those players didn't have 190-200 K's in a season like Chris Davis, asked you to provide proof they did:

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.

You have continually refused to and/or evaded providing that evidence as proof, just as you do so here. Again, if you fail to do so, the lifetime performances of the top ten strikeout hitters fails to support your argument above.

If you fail to do so again, you will have completely confirmed that, and our discussion is over.

Another factor in comparing players from different eras. Players in early 20th century did not have to contend with numerous hard throwing pitchers. Let's face it they didn't. Even when I was a kid Bob Gibson could be known as a fireballer while serving up 92 heat. Seaver ditto while reaching 94. The pitcher who reached 95 was rare. Vida Blue came along topping out at 98 and it was a revelation until Nolan Ryan hit 100. And then there was .... nobody else touching 100. Now almost every team either has a pitcher on staff who flirts with 100 or they have a few prospects that regularly light up the 3rd digit on the radar gun.

Then you have the Vlad type hitter. He would swing at anything. Yet did not accrue massive strikeout totals. He would swing at a pitch a foot outside and line it to RF. Uncanny how he could do that. The K rate alone would say he had good plate discipline. But anyone who watched him would tell you he had poor plate strike discipline. What set him apart was he was a great bad ball hitter. Why? The people who taught him to hit taught him the philosophy that what mattered is when you make the decision to swing do not half do it. Do not get cheated.

There is for sure the players who strike out a lot because they swing at pitchers that look like strikes but break out of strike zone. Maybe you could accuse them of poor plate discipline. There are others who's bat is just not quick enough to get through the zone on a 98+ heater unless they were guessing fast ball correctly. These will strike out a lot but not because they have poor plate discipline. As much as the sabre geeks would like to point to a single stat and say see, that proves bad plate discipline the real world simply does not work that way.