August call ups

exactly

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.

This does not address my last post or any of our discussions about Javier Baez and excessive strikeout rates. If it does, please show how by directly applying it to my posts to you. Considering you have failed to directly address my last two posts to you, you clearly can't.

As to your argument about comparing eras, there's a significant problem: The players on your and Bombers' list aren't from the early 20th century. All the players on your list were from the last 50 years, and many were in the last 20-30. Unless you can prove pitchers were throwing significantly less hard during the time of your batters listed--and you can't--their yearly strikeout rates are still relevant. As I showed in my last post, Bombers sure can't provide them.

And your going on about Guerrero and batters swings is still irrelevant. I pointed that out in my last post to you, and you (understandably) failed to counter it. Whether someone taught somebody is irrelevant to their having bad strike zone judgment. They still have bad strike zone judgment.

And what you said about reasons for striking out only applies to our original debate abut Baez if you can apply it to Baez. You haven't. Also, Baez has tremendous bat speed, so your using "poor bat speed" as an excuse won't work with Baez. So, you still have failed to support any of your previous arguments about Baez and strikeouts and, like Bombers, you have failed to provide the strikeout rates of those top ten players, and failed to show they, like Baez and Davis, had high yearly strikeout rates.

exactly

If that's your best response to my last post, we can definitely move on...


P.s. You might want to be more selective about posts to which you say "exactly," particularly the ones that get debunked.

Also, Valen, since you're failing to address my posts, as well as remembering our exact topic of debate, I'm posting my last post to you...which you failed to address:

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.

Feel free to address this one at any time, it expresses many of my views on the matter. As you can see, you mistakenly thought batters' swings was relevant here as well.

exactly

I agree

Agree with what, Robert? As I showed above, Valen made no argument relevant to our preceding arguments. If you can actually address the arguments being made, instead of just echoing "I agree," please do.

Apparently all strether has to do is to not accept anyone else's differing viewpoint so he can say he has won an argument. If that is what it takes more power to you! LMB signing off.

Apparently all strether has to do is to not accept anyone else's differing viewpoint so he can say he has won an argument. If that is what it takes more power to you! LMB signing off.

Actually, as I showed above and in my last post to you, I effectively countered and debunked your and Valen's erroneous viewpoints. You both clearly showed you were unable to counter that, and you show so again.

Have an excellent day...

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.

Perhaps I was addressing the general discussion and not just debating with you which would be a waste of time. Not Not going to play that game.
There are other people who exist here.

Philosophically speaking.....
If a high strikeout total proves poor plate discipline, does a high walk total prove good plate discipline?
And what does having high totals in both mean?