August call ups

Did you ever notice that this never happens in threads he starts???

What never happens Robert? There's only a debate and discussion going on, although I'm sure Dave went on an unstable, contentious rant. You, however, trolled two of my threads earlier this week, and it looks like you're trolling for conflict again. If you want to prove otherwise, I suggest you talk SOM or baseball and stop stirring up conflict.

There are certainly others here that would love to see the "pink bar" put on individuals so they cannot post to a thread. How cool would that be?

ATG board

No silliness happening there anymore!

bump

Oh, boy, a Bellevuedave pink bar. Unlike Bombers, Dave and his consistently hostile, erratic, and irrational posts are on permanent ignore. I'm never going near that lad's bizarre "thoughts" again...

Please show me any hostility? Irrational posts? You need how to read l.douchy. bizarre thoughts? Lol

I knew l.douchy could not end this thread like he said he would.

What does it mean if the HBP total is high??? LOL

The pitcher is not throwing hard enough.

To be clear I am merely here conversating with everyone and not attempting to debunk anyone.
I am not going to bother doing mental battle with those who only want to nitpick and argue. Mostly because I consider it to be dishonorable to do battle with an unarmed person.

Just because a post follows the post of another does not mean they were speaking directly to that individual. Just as I am not trying to debunk anyone in particular I am also not going to get drawn in to a preschool debate about who I was or was not talking to. I will simply state for the record I consider this a public forum and speak to anyone and everyone who is interested in a civil discussion. If your goal is to try and prove yourself superior or just put everyone down just ignore me completely. I will not participate. And that as the great Forest Gump said is all I have to say about that.

That's funny, Valen. You make this big noise about not wanting to nitpick, argue, and start a "preschool debate," then you proceed to do so...poorly. That definitely confirms the "unarmed" person to be you. Of course, we already knew that...

And your post didn't just follow mine; it directly answered it by saying you "bit" at my challenge about strikeout rates of the top ten strikeout leaders. I posted this:

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.

You directly responded with a post starting with this:

I bit on the top 10 career strikeout leaders...

So, you can childishly play coy and pretend you weren't responding to me, but it just makes the obvious fact you were even lamer. So, please do yourself a favor and stop. The only person who has made this personal is you. Considering how poor your arguments have been, I'm not surprised...

And just to show how poorly un-armed you have been, here is my last post countering and/or disproving your erroneous arguments about Baez and/or strikeouts:

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.

You have failed to counter or even address this. Considering you can't, that's the smartest thing you've done on this thread...

Typical response, only addresses what he wants, but when he cannot win he quits.

Lakeview and Steve, you have failed to debunk the counterpoint to the assumption of the premise that the implied rationale has been either dis-proven or substantiated by consensus of the quorum to attain the appropriate levels of compliance.

THEREFORE, the sky is NOT blue.

Wait...what???? LOL