Talkin' Baseball wrote: ↑06 May 2025 12:01 pm
Those who enjoyed the Matt Adams experience should also enjoy Burleson.
I’ve been saying that for a while, and it’s mostly about a low walk rate.
You can have a low walk rate, but to be successful, you gotta hit for a high average and/or have really good SLUG.
A .280 BA won’t do it. Has to be over .305.
Just curious, what kind of BAs do Walker and Gorman need to have in order to satisfy the standards you and other critics have for Burleson?
Why are you always injecting Walker & Gorman into the argument when he clearly made the correct point that Bumbles .280 BA (built mostly on singles) won't do it?
Because there seems to be different standards for Burleson compared to quite a few other players including Gorman and Walker. And the bad defense thing is hogwash. Burleson is a really good defensive 1B.
please, give proof of the Burleson being a "Really Good Defensive 1B". We need to see stats on this.
I'll say, he isn't the worst, he probably grades out as average, but we really must see this proof from you. Thanks. I know you've recently mastered the "Link" capability, so this won't be an issue.
You are really reaching, if you haven't been able to grasp Burleson being a very good 1B, you aren't quite the guru that you feel you are.
"reaching"....by asking you to back up your Claim?
and now you're calling me names again
why do you do this when you're pressed to defend a far fetched claim? You pontificated on OregonRedbirds post about name calling that it was beneath you to call people names, but you do it all the time.
Just talk baseball.
Give the LINK to back your claim....that Burleson is a "Really Good Defensive 1B". We need to see the Defensive Metrics.
I've conceded he's probably average...nothing wrong with that. Because there's really bad 1B out there.
If you are actually an astute talent evaluator, you should be able to grasp how good of a defensive 1B is without stats. And I still recall the liberty you have taken regarding name calling. Not cool on a anonymous message board.
And "GangBanger", "Malcontent", "Nitwit", "Court Reporter", "Guru" are "cool on an anonymous message board"....I love the nicknames you call me and others...they don't bother me.
But you can't play victim on any type of name calling....the Hypocrisy is too thick.
Now....Talk Baseball....I eagerly await the Defensive Metric link you have to back up your latest claim concerning Young Burleson.
You can do it, Shady (that's your moniker/handle...it's not an insult)
Talkin' Baseball wrote: ↑06 May 2025 12:01 pm
Those who enjoyed the Matt Adams experience should also enjoy Burleson.
I’ve been saying that for a while, and it’s mostly about a low walk rate.
You can have a low walk rate, but to be successful, you gotta hit for a high average and/or have really good SLUG.
A .280 BA won’t do it. Has to be over .305.
Just curious, what kind of BAs do Walker and Gorman need to have in order to satisfy the standards you and other critics have for Burleson?
Why are you always injecting Walker & Gorman into the argument when he clearly made the correct point that Bumbles .280 BA (built mostly on singles) won't do it?
Because there seems to be different standards for Burleson compared to quite a few other players including Gorman and Walker. If it's because Gorman and Walker are considered more of the power hitter types than Burleson. Check the current HR stats. And the bad defense thing is hogwash. Burleson is a really good defensive 1B.
No there's really not a different standard.
A lot of posts have been made about Gorman & Walker not living up to their hype.
They were also #1 draft picks and are only 22 (Jordan 23 in a few weeks) & 24 (Norman 25 in a couple days).
Bumbles was a 2nd round pick and is in his age 26 season. He does play a solid 1st base (+2 DRS) but is slow on the base paths.
Now who do you think has more upside?
The platoon player (Bumbles) or the two former #1 draft picks who are younger?
(And I'm starting to question if either will reach their hoped for potential here as well)
Talkin' Baseball wrote: ↑06 May 2025 12:01 pm
Those who enjoyed the Matt Adams experience should also enjoy Burleson.
I’ve been saying that for a while, and it’s mostly about a low walk rate.
You can have a low walk rate, but to be successful, you gotta hit for a high average and/or have really good SLUG.
A .280 BA won’t do it. Has to be over .305.
Just curious, what kind of BAs do Walker and Gorman need to have in order to satisfy the standards you and other critics have for Burleson?
Why are you always injecting Walker & Gorman into the argument when he clearly made the correct point that Bumbles .280 BA (built mostly on singles) won't do it?
.280? He's hitting .255 this season and .256 for his career!
Talkin' Baseball wrote: ↑06 May 2025 12:01 pm
Those who enjoyed the Matt Adams experience should also enjoy Burleson.
I’ve been saying that for a while, and it’s mostly about a low walk rate.
You can have a low walk rate, but to be successful, you gotta hit for a high average and/or have really good SLUG.
A .280 BA won’t do it. Has to be over .305.
Just curious, what kind of BAs do Walker and Gorman need to have in order to satisfy the standards you and other critics have for Burleson?
Why are you always injecting Walker & Gorman into the argument when he clearly made the correct point that Bumbles .280 BA (built mostly on singles) won't do it?
Because there seems to be different standards for Burleson compared to quite a few other players including Gorman and Walker. And the bad defense thing is hogwash. Burleson is a really good defensive 1B.
please, give proof of the Burleson being a "Really Good Defensive 1B". We need to see stats on this.
I'll say, he isn't the worst, he probably grades out as average, but we really must see this proof from you. Thanks. I know you've recently mastered the "Link" capability, so this won't be an issue.
Oh, it will be an issue! I asked the same thing about a week ago and he went silent...no data, facts, or stats. Just his opinion!
Talkin' Baseball wrote: ↑06 May 2025 12:01 pm
Those who enjoyed the Matt Adams experience should also enjoy Burleson.
I’ve been saying that for a while, and it’s mostly about a low walk rate.
You can have a low walk rate, but to be successful, you gotta hit for a high average and/or have really good SLUG.
A .280 BA won’t do it. Has to be over .305.
Just curious, what kind of BAs do Walker and Gorman need to have in order to satisfy the standards you and other critics have for Burleson?
Why are you always injecting Walker & Gorman into the argument when he clearly made the correct point that Bumbles .280 BA (built mostly on singles) won't do it?
Because there seems to be different standards for Burleson compared to quite a few other players including Gorman and Walker. And the bad defense thing is hogwash. Burleson is a really good defensive 1B.
please, give proof of the Burleson being a "Really Good Defensive 1B". We need to see stats on this.
I'll say, he isn't the worst, he probably grades out as average, but we really must see this proof from you. Thanks. I know you've recently mastered the "Link" capability, so this won't be an issue.
Oh, it will be an issue! I asked the same thing about a week ago and he went silent...no data, facts, or stats. Just his opinion!
He always disappears when asked to provide stats/ facts/proof/evidence.
Talkin' Baseball wrote: ↑06 May 2025 12:01 pm
Those who enjoyed the Matt Adams experience should also enjoy Burleson.
I’ve been saying that for a while, and it’s mostly about a low walk rate.
You can have a low walk rate, but to be successful, you gotta hit for a high average and/or have really good SLUG.
A .280 BA won’t do it. Has to be over .305.
Just curious, what kind of BAs do Walker and Gorman need to have in order to satisfy the standards you and other critics have for Burleson?
Why are you always injecting Walker & Gorman into the argument when he clearly made the correct point that Bumbles .280 BA (built mostly on singles) won't do it?
Because there seems to be different standards for Burleson compared to quite a few other players including Gorman and Walker. And the bad defense thing is hogwash. Burleson is a really good defensive 1B.
please, give proof of the Burleson being a "Really Good Defensive 1B". We need to see stats on this.
I'll say, he isn't the worst, he probably grades out as average, but we really must see this proof from you. Thanks. I know you've recently mastered the "Link" capability, so this won't be an issue.
Oh, it will be an issue! I asked the same thing about a week ago and he went silent...no data, facts, or stats. Just his opinion!
He always disappears when asked to provide stats/ facts/proof/evidence.
I have better thing to do than search for defensive stats for a 1B. If anybody can't see that Burleson has been a fine defensive 1B that's their problem.
Talkin' Baseball wrote: ↑06 May 2025 12:01 pm
Those who enjoyed the Matt Adams experience should also enjoy Burleson.
I’ve been saying that for a while, and it’s mostly about a low walk rate.
You can have a low walk rate, but to be successful, you gotta hit for a high average and/or have really good SLUG.
A .280 BA won’t do it. Has to be over .305.
Just curious, what kind of BAs do Walker and Gorman need to have in order to satisfy the standards you and other critics have for Burleson?
Gorman can probably live with a .260 BA since his BB% is 10%.
Walker probably around .275 - .285. Maybe .290.
And don't be so sensitive. Burleson's career walk rate is 6.3%. He probably needs to AT LEAST have an .800 OPS to be considered a starter. So do the math: Between BA / OBP / OPS, how does one achieve a .800 OPS w a 6.3% walk rate?
Shady wrote: ↑06 May 2025 13:26 pm
Because there seems to be different standards for Burleson compared to quite a few other players including Gorman and Walker. And the bad defense thing is hogwash. Burleson is a really good defensive 1B.
please, give proof of the Burleson being a "Really Good Defensive 1B". We need to see stats on this.
I'll say, he isn't the worst, he probably grades out as average, but we really must see this proof from you. Thanks. I know you've recently mastered the "Link" capability, so this won't be an issue.
You are really reaching, if you haven't been able to grasp Burleson being a very good 1B, you aren't quite the guru that you feel you are.
"reaching"....by asking you to back up your Claim?
and now you're calling me names again
why do you do this when you're pressed to defend a far fetched claim? You pontificated on OregonRedbirds post about name calling that it was beneath you to call people names, but you do it all the time.
Just talk baseball.
Give the LINK to back your claim....that Burleson is a "Really Good Defensive 1B". We need to see the Defensive Metrics.
I've conceded he's probably average...nothing wrong with that. Because there's really bad 1B out there.
If you are actually an astute talent evaluator, you should be able to grasp how good of a defensive 1B is without stats. And I still recall the liberty you have taken regarding name calling. Not cool on a anonymous message board.
Serious question: What are your credentials as “an astute talent evaluator”? Are you a professional baseball scout? Perhaps you’re one of those “professional baseball evaluators” you often reference? I thought you recently said you’re “just an enthusiastic Cardinals fan”—are you now reverting to your old shtick of pretending to be some sort of super-scout who “sees things others don’t”? (Your exact words)
I mean, aren’t you the same “astute talent evaluator” who previously assured us that Burleson was a “fine defensive outfielder” with “good speed” who was “the next Tony Gwynn”? Aren’t you the same “super-scout” who comped Nolan Gorman to “Eddie Mathews,” Jordan Walker to “Frank Robinson,” and Juan Yepez to “a prime-Pujols”?
Talkin' Baseball wrote: ↑06 May 2025 12:01 pm
Those who enjoyed the Matt Adams experience should also enjoy Burleson.
I’ve been saying that for a while, and it’s mostly about a low walk rate.
You can have a low walk rate, but to be successful, you gotta hit for a high average and/or have really good SLUG.
A .280 BA won’t do it. Has to be over .305.
Just curious, what kind of BAs do Walker and Gorman need to have in order to satisfy the standards you and other critics have for Burleson?
Why are you always injecting Walker & Gorman into the argument when he clearly made the correct point that Bumbles .280 BA (built mostly on singles) won't do it?
Because there seems to be different standards for Burleson compared to quite a few other players including Gorman and Walker. If it's because Gorman and Walker are considered more of the power hitter types than Burleson. Check the current HR stats. And the bad defense thing is hogwash. Burleson is a really good defensive 1B.
Well the fact burleson is a 1b vs outfielder or 3b/2b is very relevant. 1b on average hit.much bettsr thanany other position so you need to hit very well to be more than a replacable player.
But the bigger thing with gorman and walker is prospect status. While burleson was very hyped by you, organizationally and by scouts(not that guy who claimed to have a scout cousin) burleson was never as highly regarded or as top notch of a prospect as walker and gorman. Especially walker. Walker was rated as a top 4 prospect in all of baseball. So people think there might be more there than what has been shown. And gorman in 2023 had a year much better than burlesons best year. So that is the reason i believe those 2 have greater potential and are more patient with them in this rebuilding year. I dont think theres any denying that both of them have actually hit worse than burly this year.
Talkin' Baseball wrote: ↑06 May 2025 12:01 pm
Those who enjoyed the Matt Adams experience should also enjoy Burleson.
I’ve been saying that for a while, and it’s mostly about a low walk rate.
You can have a low walk rate, but to be successful, you gotta hit for a high average and/or have really good SLUG.
A .280 BA won’t do it. Has to be over .305.
Just curious, what kind of BAs do Walker and Gorman need to have in order to satisfy the standards you and other critics have for Burleson?
Why are you always injecting Walker & Gorman into the argument when he clearly made the correct point that Bumbles .280 BA (built mostly on singles) won't do it?
Because there seems to be different standards for Burleson compared to quite a few other players including Gorman and Walker. And the bad defense thing is hogwash. Burleson is a really good defensive 1B.
please, give proof of the Burleson being a "Really Good Defensive 1B". We need to see stats on this.
I'll say, he isn't the worst, he probably grades out as average, but we really must see this proof from you. Thanks. I know you've recently mastered the "Link" capability, so this won't be an issue.
You are really reaching, if you haven't been able to grasp Burleson being a very good 1B, you aren't quite the guru that you feel you are.
"reaching"....by asking you to back up your Claim?
and now you're calling me names again
why do you do this when you're pressed to defend a far fetched claim? You pontificated on OregonRedbirds post about name calling that it was beneath you to call people names, but you do it all the time.
Just talk baseball.
Give the LINK to back your claim....that Burleson is a "Really Good Defensive 1B". We need to see the Defensive Metrics.
I've conceded he's probably average...nothing wrong with that. Because there's really bad 1B out there.
Since i know shady wont post it i will actually do hisnwork here and say according to fangraphs burly is +2 defensive runs saved this year and +4 for his career in 349.1 innings. While i think thats likely to come back to earth over larger sample size cuz i dont think burlys gold glover. It does appear he could be an above average fielder at 1b. He does look fine to me there as well. Uzr/150 also has him at +4 for his career.
Talkin' Baseball wrote: ↑06 May 2025 12:01 pm
Those who enjoyed the Matt Adams experience should also enjoy Burleson.
I’ve been saying that for a while, and it’s mostly about a low walk rate.
You can have a low walk rate, but to be successful, you gotta hit for a high average and/or have really good SLUG.
A .280 BA won’t do it. Has to be over .305.
Just curious, what kind of BAs do Walker and Gorman need to have in order to satisfy the standards you and other critics have for Burleson?
Why are you always injecting Walker & Gorman into the argument when he clearly made the correct point that Bumbles .280 BA (built mostly on singles) won't do it?
Because there seems to be different standards for Burleson compared to quite a few other players including Gorman and Walker. And the bad defense thing is hogwash. Burleson is a really good defensive 1B.
please, give proof of the Burleson being a "Really Good Defensive 1B". We need to see stats on this.
I'll say, he isn't the worst, he probably grades out as average, but we really must see this proof from you. Thanks. I know you've recently mastered the "Link" capability, so this won't be an issue.
You are really reaching, if you haven't been able to grasp Burleson being a very good 1B, you aren't quite the guru that you feel you are.
"reaching"....by asking you to back up your Claim?
and now you're calling me names again
why do you do this when you're pressed to defend a far fetched claim? You pontificated on OregonRedbirds post about name calling that it was beneath you to call people names, but you do it all the time.
Just talk baseball.
Give the LINK to back your claim....that Burleson is a "Really Good Defensive 1B". We need to see the Defensive Metrics.
I've conceded he's probably average...nothing wrong with that. Because there's really bad 1B out there.
Since i know shady wont post it i will actually do hisnwork here and say according to fangraphs burly is +2 defensive runs saved this year and +4 for his career in 349.1 innings. While i think thats likely to come back to earth over larger sample size cuz i dont think burlys gold glover. It does appear he could be an above average fielder at 1b. He does look fine to me there as well. Uzr/150 also has him at +4 for his career.
Thanks for covering for me. Now maybe craviduce can relax. LOL
Talkin' Baseball wrote: ↑06 May 2025 12:01 pm
Those who enjoyed the Matt Adams experience should also enjoy Burleson.
I’ve been saying that for a while, and it’s mostly about a low walk rate.
You can have a low walk rate, but to be successful, you gotta hit for a high average and/or have really good SLUG.
A .280 BA won’t do it. Has to be over .305.
Just curious, what kind of BAs do Walker and Gorman need to have in order to satisfy the standards you and other critics have for Burleson?
Why are you always injecting Walker & Gorman into the argument when he clearly made the correct point that Bumbles .280 BA (built mostly on singles) won't do it?
Because there seems to be different standards for Burleson compared to quite a few other players including Gorman and Walker. And the bad defense thing is hogwash. Burleson is a really good defensive 1B.
please, give proof of the Burleson being a "Really Good Defensive 1B". We need to see stats on this.
I'll say, he isn't the worst, he probably grades out as average, but we really must see this proof from you. Thanks. I know you've recently mastered the "Link" capability, so this won't be an issue.
Oh, it will be an issue! I asked the same thing about a week ago and he went silent...no data, facts, or stats. Just his opinion!
He always disappears when asked to provide stats/ facts/proof/evidence.
I have better thing to do than search for defensive stats for a 1B. If anybody can't see that Burleson has been a fine defensive 1B that's their problem.
So let me see if I understand....
1. You have time to write, and then edit, multiple posts a day but you do not have time enough to provide any data to back your assertions?
2. Stats don't matter...if Shady thinks it, it must be true?
3. If one doesn't agree with Ole Shady, one has a problem (not Ole Shady)?
Talkin' Baseball wrote: ↑06 May 2025 12:01 pm
Those who enjoyed the Matt Adams experience should also enjoy Burleson.
I’ve been saying that for a while, and it’s mostly about a low walk rate.
You can have a low walk rate, but to be successful, you gotta hit for a high average and/or have really good SLUG.
A .280 BA won’t do it. Has to be over .305.
Just curious, what kind of BAs do Walker and Gorman need to have in order to satisfy the standards you and other critics have for Burleson?
Why are you always injecting Walker & Gorman into the argument when he clearly made the correct point that Bumbles .280 BA (built mostly on singles) won't do it?
Because there seems to be different standards for Burleson compared to quite a few other players including Gorman and Walker. And the bad defense thing is hogwash. Burleson is a really good defensive 1B.
please, give proof of the Burleson being a "Really Good Defensive 1B". We need to see stats on this.
I'll say, he isn't the worst, he probably grades out as average, but we really must see this proof from you. Thanks. I know you've recently mastered the "Link" capability, so this won't be an issue.
You are really reaching, if you haven't been able to grasp Burleson being a very good 1B, you aren't quite the guru that you feel you are.
"reaching"....by asking you to back up your Claim?
and now you're calling me names again
why do you do this when you're pressed to defend a far fetched claim? You pontificated on OregonRedbirds post about name calling that it was beneath you to call people names, but you do it all the time.
Just talk baseball.
Give the LINK to back your claim....that Burleson is a "Really Good Defensive 1B". We need to see the Defensive Metrics.
I've conceded he's probably average...nothing wrong with that. Because there's really bad 1B out there.
Since i know shady wont post it i will actually do hisnwork here and say according to fangraphs burly is +2 defensive runs saved this year and +4 for his career in 349.1 innings. While i think thats likely to come back to earth over larger sample size cuz i dont think burlys gold glover. It does appear he could be an above average fielder at 1b. He does look fine to me there as well. Uzr/150 also has him at +4 for his career.
Meh. I wouldn’t use an extrapolated stat like UZR/150 on such a small sample, it just amplifies statistical noise. But suffice it to say in a grand total of 349.1 innings at 1B, Burleson has a:
+4 DRS
+0.9 UZR
-1 OAA; and
-1 FRV.
So it’s really a mixed bag in a VERY small sample. It doesn’t really tell us much of anything one way or another at this point; there isn’t enough evidence to conclude he’s particularly good or bad at 1B.
And remember, the burden of proof is on Shady: he is the one making the claim that Burleson is “a really good defensive 1B,” (emphasis added) which he contends any “astute talent evaluator” would clearly grasp.
Shady wrote: ↑06 May 2025 16:47 pm
Some of you stray cats are too much. LOL Get a fricken' life.
Talk about irony...
Ole ShadyMarshall starts yet another Burly thread...one of dozens he's started over the years...and he's asking other posters opinion of his beloved Burly.
But....
When he finds out yet again that many posters are not quite as enamored with his boy as he is....he tells those posters to "get a fricken' life".
If you didn't want everyone's opinion, you should not have asked Marshall!
