I actually disputed EVERYTHING you said by pointing out that NOBODY agrees with you.

This thread is still a thing?

Posted by bad_luck on 10/20/2017 1:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/20/2017 1:17:00 PM (view original):
Arguing that a player striking out over 200 times in a season is just fine and dandy is an utterly retarded argument.

Would it have been better if those outs had been in play?

Or are you saying he made outs too often?

So which is it?

Posted by tecwrg on 10/20/2017 1:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/20/2017 1:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/20/2017 1:17:00 PM (view original):
Arguing that a player striking out over 200 times in a season is just fine and dandy is an utterly retarded argument.

Would it have been better if those outs had been in play?

Or are you saying he made outs too often?

Asked and answered multiple times over the previous 35 pages, Rain Man.

Reading retention is challenging to you.

Um, this?

If you don't restate your position 100 times, how does BL keep the mindless circular argument going?

Posted by tecwrg on 10/20/2017 2:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/20/2017 1:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/20/2017 1:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/20/2017 1:17:00 PM (view original):
Arguing that a player striking out over 200 times in a season is just fine and dandy is an utterly retarded argument.

Would it have been better if those outs had been in play?

Or are you saying he made outs too often?

Asked and answered multiple times over the previous 35 pages, Rain Man.

Reading retention is challenging to you.

Um, this?

It's one or the other, *****.

You either think Judge should have made different types of outs or you think he made outs too frequently.

I think Judge should have struck out less times. Strikeouts have zero offensive value.

Everyone but you knows and acknowledges this.

You're all alone.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/20/2017 3:07:00 PM (view original):
I think Judge should have struck out less times. Strikeouts have zero offensive value.

Everyone but you knows and acknowledges this.

You're all alone.

They actually have negative offensive value. Like all other outs.

To varying degrees.

Cool. So you’re arguing that Judge would have delivered less negative value by replacing K’s with other types of outs.

Why are you doing this to yourself?

What? That’s your argument.

It's been established and agreed to by everyone but you that productive outs are better than strikeouts.

It's also been established and agreed to by everyone but you that hitters cutting down on strikeouts is a good thing.

Thanks for participating. Your objections to the above have been duly noted and dismissed by the group.

LOL this retard thinks he speaks on behalf of other people.

You think strikeouts are worse than other outs. That certainly hasn’t been “established.”