Let's compare some current batting averages

[Monsieur De Treville]

Burly has been taking some deserved heat for poor production at DH. But aren't RF and 1B production just as vital? Rather than moan so much, maybe we should just start pulling for Burleson, Walker and Contreras to hit to their potential.

Who says we don't?

[Quincy Varnish]

Happy to, NY. But I wouldn’t exactly call it “dumbing down” the conversation. That’s a bit condescending. Let’s just say some of us see the human element being as important as the statistical element. But please carry on your xwOBA comparisons with great glee.

I'm curious...what "Human Element" does Burleson carry that makes him more attractive than the more career productive Contreras? Because he lags behind in EVERY single metric that baseball teams use.

With all due respect, Cranny...I believe you're being a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian. Give a bit of that Grace you're always preaching.

He finds Burleson the more attractive human. Burly has a certain allure for some folks.

[Cranny]

Saggese at .455, Burleson at .263, Walker at .239 and Contreras a whopping .139.

Setting aside the inanity of comparing batting averages (or pretty much anything else) over such small samples, last year you (erroneously) claimed that Burleson's batting average was suppressed by bad luck because he allegedly was hitting "rockets" right at people. Well, let's take a look at the statcast xBAs so far this season (obligatory SSS warning):

Player/PAs/BA/xBA/Difference
Saggese: 23/.455/.382/+.073
Contreras: 78/.139/.212/-.073
Burleson: 61/.263/.208/+.055
Walker: 73/.239/.201/+.038

Why aren't you similarly talking about all the low EV, low xBA hits Burleson has gotten so far this season with his 0.0% barrel rate?

Furthermore,

Player/PAs/wOBA/xwOBA/Difference
Saggese: 23/.457/.426/+.031
Contreras: 78/.192/.290/-.098
Burleson: 61/.277/.236/+.041
Walker: 73/.291/.258/+.033

Wow. That xwOBA finally gets to the core of the matter.

It's an insight/perspective on quality of contact that is provided by all that "sophisticated tracking equipment" that you've done a complete 180 on over the last few months . . .

I’ve done no 180. I’ve complimented the Cardinals for bringing in more sophisticated equipment and the younger guys who know how to teach with it. And for increasing the number of roving instructors.
Plus, said that it’s overdue because of internal loyalties.

But, fortunately or unfortunately, the average fan just wants to watch a game for the enjoyment and for the recreation. And cheer for the Cardinals to win. They leave things like xwOBA to the coaches or other guys who like to display how cool and statistically sophisticated they are.

If you acknowledge the relevance and importance of such technology and analytics, why would you then turn around and arrogantly, cavalierly, and dismissively mock them when posters use such metrics in discussions on this forum?

If you don't understand them or don't want to talk about them, you are perfectly free to keep it moving and not participate in the discussion. The rest of us aren't obligated to dumb-down the discussion to suit your preferences.

Happy to, NY. But I wouldn’t exactly call it “dumbing down” the conversation. That’s a bit condescending. Let’s just say some of us see the human element being as important as the statistical element. But please carry on your xwOBA comparisons with great glee.

I'm curious...what "Human Element" does Burleson carry that makes him more attractive than the more career productive Contreras? Because he lags behind in EVERY single metric that baseball teams use.

With all due respect, Cranny...I believe you're being a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian. Give a bit of that Grace you're always preaching.

Thanks for the good advice, craviduce. Have a great time with your family and grandkids this weekend, and
Happy Easter!