mbawavefan12 wrote:Profoundwizard wrote:RobertM320 wrote:To look at it in the very simplest of viewpoints, name one POSITIVE that comes from a strikeout.
I can think of several positives that can come from a groundout or fly out.
There are situations where you need to put the ball in play.
When there's a runner on 3rd w/ less than 2 out, I'm all for putting the ball in play and trying to get the run in. Most of the time, the groundout or flyout isn't productive.
One positive about the strikeout is that it's not a double play
To insinuate that a K is ok cause it is not a double play is the most intellectually disgusting argument. To point out a home run by rogers as justification for our numerous K's is equally gross.
Sure some teams trade more k's for power, obviously. You asked how many k's were too many, I point out that in losses we struck out at a much higher rate, ur response is a singular Roger's HR. How's this captain caveman: "Strikeout bad, HR good." Again, the goddam HC says the K rate is bad, but hey Rogers hit a home run so who cares.
You may well be a wizard but you r far from profound.
Wheww... I don't even know where to start with this. You've done a lot of stuff in this post. Misrepresented my argument, all out lied about responses I made and insinuated that everything the Head Coach says is automatically a fact. The head coach can be wrong.
For instance, in the pregame show after one of the San Diego games in which Hunter Hope hit into an inning ending double play with the bases loaded, he made an argument similar to the one I made. He said that's a time where he'd have been much happier with a strikeout. So if it's a terrible argument IYO, when I made it, consider that the HC agrees with me when you take his word as gospel when he says the K's are out of hand.
I point out the Rogers HR and any other 2 strike HR as a reason the strikeouts are more acceptable. Those HRs don't happen with the conventional wisdom of the 2 strike approach where you shorten up the swing and just try to play pepper with it.
My response to your post about our strikeouts in the last 3 losses had nothing to do with Rogers. That was to someone else. This was my response to you "Strikeouts come with the territory when you have a team that's around the top 30 in the country in HRs."
Jake Rogers singular HR isn't the justification for all of our strikeouts, but us being one of the best teams in the country at hitting HR's the last two seasons goes a long way in justifying them.
You pointed out a 3 game sample size where we lost and struck out more. Small sample size and correlation does not imply causation.
Again, the goddamn HC isn't always right. Every belief he has about this game isn't going to be correct.