I don't fault them for not having data. I fault them for their sneering fake superiority and arrogant belief that there is nothing they could possibly learn from listening to a guy who caught 21 big league seasons.

They listened enough to test it, didn't they? Are they supposed to treat everything that comes from the mouth of a big leaguer as gospel and not question it? Don't you question McCarver's own wisdom when you deride my points by calling them "McCarverism"? Pick a lane, dude.

When the batter goes to the plate looking to take the first pitch he is killing what is often his best opportunity.

You're like Hawk, spouting truisms you just know to be true, but are fundamentally incorrect.

Well define "often" then, because the AVG's and ISO's from 2008-2017 for batters swinging on the first pitch (.343/.209) pale in comparison to the AVG/ISO of hitters in 3-0 (.374/.375) and 3-1 (.352/.281). Even batters in a 2-1 (.338/.211) or 2-0 (.327/.205) count fared comparably to first-pitch-swingers (hey buddy).

Even in a different baseball era (1980-88), the AVG/ISO of the league on the first pitch (.314/.153) was beat out by the league's performance in later counts like 3-0 (.290/.242), 3-1 (.318/.214), and comparable to the league's performance in 2-0 (.327/.205) and 2-1 (.304/.159) counts.

You're like Hawk, spouting truisms you just know to be true, but are fundamentally incorrect.

Of course, there's going to be a better average on a positive count. But you have to get to it. The massive strikeout rates in today's game aren't caused by guys getting to 3-0 all the time.

You're like a pull-toy that spouts conventional wisdom. The Poster That Reads And Then Regurgitates Fangraphs and Baseball Prospectus.

From 1980-1988, games averaged 2 instances of plate appearances ending at 3-0 or 3-1.

From 2008-2017, games average 3 instances of plate appearances ending at 3-0 or 3-1.

The "fetishization of walks", as you put it, has resulted in more players getting deep into counts.

So not only are you wrong about the first pitch being a hitter's best opportunity to hit, you're wrong about how often they actually get to those opportunities in the modern game.

I'm not wrong. Here's where you state the obvious. Of course the fetishization of the walk has resulted in longer counts...

...and thus more opportunities for batters to see pitches they can hit, as demonstrated to you by the differences in performance later in counts vs. swinging on the first pitch.

You said the first pitch was "often their best opportunity", and that is not the case, not in quality of opportunity, nor in frequency.

Of course, there's going to be a better average on a positive count. But you have to get to it. The massive strikeout rates in today's game aren't caused by guys getting to 3-0 all the time.

You're like a pull-toy that spouts conventional wisdom. The Poster That Reads And Then Regurgitates Fangraphs and Baseball Prospectus.

Except it is because taking that first pitch results in a guy getting into a bad count more often than him getting to 3-0 or 3-1.

JLN getting beat like he stole something. Rough to watch.

Always thought it'd be fun to pop into a thread where one guy is completely getting his ass handed to him and be like "wow, long time guy is dominating this argument."

JLN getting beat like he stole something. Rough to watch.

2008-2017 per game rate of PA's ending with the batter ahead: 13.04
2008-2017 per game rate of PA's ending with the pitcher ahead: 12.26

That totals 3 the number of ways you've been demonstrably wrong about this entire thing. Will he hit the superfecta?

That isn't true in the slightest.

Obviously with batters striking out more than ever, more counts are ending with the batter behind than the historical average. If you stopped just regurgitating stats for a minute and actually thought about it, you'd see that I'm correct.

It sort of is, because you respond to my factual statements with non sequiturs.

And I suspect for purposes of the stat you posted above the batter is "ahead" on a 3-2 count which isn't actually the case. That would mean a strikeout is an even count.

No, it is the standing of the count when the PA-ending pitch is delivered. The "even count" split shows only 11K strikeouts, not the 30K you mentioned for last year.

Genuinely curious: what are your guys' thoughts on the value of win-loss records?

Better question for this discussion: Do you consider the batter ahead on a 3-2 count?

Better question for this discussion: Do you consider the batter ahead on a 3-2 count?

Please think for a minute instead of just reading stats.

So that's a 2-2 count.

There were exactly 38,982 strikeouts last season. The way you're trying to spin it, when the strikeout occurred off a 3-2 count the at-bat ended with the batter ahead. That's a dumb way to put it.

That's the way the game is counted.

1980-88 per game rate of PA's ending with the pitcher ahead: 10.83
1980-88 per game rate of PA's ending with the batter ahead: 13.53

It is? I've never heard anyone say the batter was ahead on a full count except you in this thread.

The point is, you're now trying to use semantics to distract from the obvious fact that a strikeout on a full count is a negative for the batter.