Posted by dahsdebater on 11/3/2017 2:34:00 PM (view original):
Are you seriously going to go back to the example of a guy who was just among the top 3 A) rookies of all time and B) hitters in the American League this year to try to make the point that striking out too much is bad? Because that's a really, really tough argument to defend.
Maybe Aaron Judge can improve if he makes more contact. But maybe not. Are you asking him to shorten his swing with 2 strikes? 'Cause here's the thing - Judge hit 20 home runs this year with 2 strikes. Is it worth it to put more balls in play weakly and give up 10 or 15 homers? That's going to depend a lot on how many more balls he can really put in play. The guy's going to strike out a lot. His strike zone is enormous. It's the downside of being outrageously tall for the sport. The upside is that his frame generates a ton of torque and he can hit the ball really, really hard. I think in this case you maybe just need to take the bad with the good. Again, you're talking about a guy who's going to challenge for the MVP as a rookie.
I understand if you don't agree with everyone/everything in this thread, but I'm not sure why you jump in to defend BL so much. Are you related to him? Do you just feel sorry for him?
Surely you do not agree that a strikeout is the same as every other kind of out. A groundout to the right side with a runner on second and fewer than two outs is not the same as a strikeout. It's much better for the team.
Even if you come back and argue that a groundball can, at times, result in a double play, you are agreeing that not all outs are equal. If your stance is sometimes a strikeout is worse than an out in play, sometimes it's better - you are arguing that a strikeout is not the same as every other out. So why back BL in a foolish argument?