What part of "I'm certainly not having this discussion again, it's in the thread...." confused you?

The part where you still made an argument after saying that.

The Argue Monkey thinks that's an argument? It wasn't. It was a brief clarification so those among us who are "slow" might be able to comprehend the difference between "walked too much" and "prefer he swing the bat rather than walk back to dugout with bat in tow."

"I don't want to discuss it. Also, here's what I think: ..."

Posted by d_rock97 on 9/14/2016 1:54:00 PM (view original):
Welp. "Walked too much". Seems like that's going on with Votto this year. "Walked too much". Even though he has over a .500 OBP with RISP

A lot of people use this as a knock on Votto. A walk with a runner on second really doesn't do much if the guy behind you gets out. Many people hold Mike's view that a guy in his position should swing the bat more, especially since he's no slouch at the plate and his team is not known for it's offensive prowess. I don't necessarily hold that view, but it's a legit argument.

More like "I'm not discussing this again but here's a clarification because somebody has gotten it wrong for 2 1/2 years."

And your clarification is bullshit. You're saying he didn't swing the bat enough when he clearly did, since he slugged .515.

Posted by bad_luck on 9/14/2016 5:06:00 PM (view original):
And your clarification is bullshit. You're saying he didn't swing the bat enough when he clearly did, since he slugged .515.

You realize this proves nothing, right? You're Mr. Data...you should know slugging % is only an an AVERAGE. It has zero to do with how often he swung the bat. Nice strawman though.

In reality, you're playing into Mike's hands. If Edgar slugged .515 in 7,200 ABs, how much better off would his teams have been if he'd slugged .515 in 7,500 ABs, and drawn fewer walks or struck out looking less often?

Don't do it, jtpops.

BL's life is so pathetic that he'll argue the same thing over and over for years and years if someone will engage. If he has a friend, I bet they've argued who was more dominant in his peak, Ruth or Bonds, every week since 2010.

Posted by Jtpsops on 9/14/2016 5:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 9/14/2016 5:06:00 PM (view original):
And your clarification is bullshit. You're saying he didn't swing the bat enough when he clearly did, since he slugged .515.

You realize this proves nothing, right? You're Mr. Data...you should know slugging % is only an an AVERAGE. It has zero to do with how often he swung the bat. Nice strawman though.

In reality, you're playing into Mike's hands. If Edgar slugged .515 in 7,200 ABs, how much better off would his teams have been if he'd slugged .515 in 7,500 ABs, and drawn fewer walks or struck out looking less often?

My point is that he slugged .515 over 8600+ plate appearances. If someone is going to argue that he didn't swing enough, they're going to need to provide some evidence. Because the overall stats don't back that up.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/14/2016 5:10:00 PM (view original):
Don't do it, jtpops.

BL's life is so pathetic that he'll argue the same thing over and over for years and years if someone will engage. If he has a friend, I bet they've argued who was more dominant in his peak, Ruth or Bonds, every week since 2010.

Oh, I'm aware. I just think it's funny that he's all about the numbers, yet he uses an average to make a point about how often something happened. As if a guy hitting .300 in 400 PA is as good as a guy hitting .300 in 600 PA.

See? I guarantee that was said a dozen times in the other thread. 2 1/2 years ago.

Posted by Jtpsops on 9/14/2016 5:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/14/2016 5:10:00 PM (view original):
Don't do it, jtpops.

BL's life is so pathetic that he'll argue the same thing over and over for years and years if someone will engage. If he has a friend, I bet they've argued who was more dominant in his peak, Ruth or Bonds, every week since 2010.

Oh, I'm aware. I just think it's funny that he's all about the numbers, yet he uses an average to make a point about how often something happened. As if a guy hitting .300 in 400 PA is as good as a guy hitting .300 in 600 PA.

I understand that. But is there any reason to believe that he didn't swing the bat???

Posted by bad_luck on 9/14/2016 4:06:00 PM (view original):
"He walked a great deal. Bad."

What other interpretation could there be, miketrump23?

Not saying I agree or disagree, but I think this is what Mike meant. Martinez was a middle of the lineup hitter. His job, as such, is to drive in runs. I may be wrong, but I think you drive in more runs with hits than with walks. I'm guessing Mike is saying he would like his 3 - 4 - 5 hitters to take a chance on hitting the ball instead of walking more often.

Posted by wylie715 on 9/14/2016 6:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 9/14/2016 4:06:00 PM (view original):
"He walked a great deal. Bad."

What other interpretation could there be, miketrump23?

Not saying I agree or disagree, but I think this is what Mike meant. Martinez was a middle of the lineup hitter. His job, as such, is to drive in runs. I may be wrong, but I think you drive in more runs with hits than with walks. I'm guessing Mike is saying he would like his 3 - 4 - 5 hitters to take a chance on hitting the ball instead of walking more often.

And I would agree if Martinez only walked and never got a hit. If he had batted .210/.340/.380, mike would have a point.

But almost all great hitters have relatively high walk rates. It can't be a knock on Martinez if it's a feature of almost every other great hitter.

Bring up your favorite stat site. Sort by SLG or wRC+ or OPS+ or HR or RBI. With a couple exceptions (Ty Cobb, Cap Anson, Honus Wagner, no hitter in the top 10-15 of any of those lists will have a walk rate under 10%.

Babe Ruth walked 19%. Ted Williams 21%. Gehrig 16%. Stan Musial 13%. Mickey Mantle 18%.