STLtoday.com Forums
https://interact.stltoday.com/forums/
https://interact.stltoday.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1511941
I’ve been saying that for a while, and it’s mostly about a low walk rate.Talkin' Baseball wrote: ↑06 May 2025 12:01 pm Those who enjoyed the Matt Adams experience should also enjoy Burleson.
I'm willing to be impressed. I hope it happens.Monsieur De Treville wrote: ↑06 May 2025 13:11 pmA lot of horrible big leaguers will be in the lineup tonight for their respective teams.
I'm not sure that proves anything other than the Cards remain a sub-500 team?
How much longer is Mo going to leave I. Hererra (.429 .429 .714 1.143) in Memphis?Monsieur De Treville wrote: ↑06 May 2025 13:11 pmA lot of horrible big leaguers will be in the lineup tonight for their respective teams.
I'm not sure that proves anything other than the Cards remain a sub-500 team?
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?ecleme22 wrote: ↑06 May 2025 12:55 pmI’ve been saying that for a while, and it’s mostly about a low walk rate.Talkin' Baseball wrote: ↑06 May 2025 12:01 pm Those who enjoyed the Matt Adams experience should also enjoy Burleson.
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.
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?Shady wrote: ↑06 May 2025 13:21 pmJust 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?ecleme22 wrote: ↑06 May 2025 12:55 pmI’ve been saying that for a while, and it’s mostly about a low walk rate.Talkin' Baseball wrote: ↑06 May 2025 12:01 pm Those who enjoyed the Matt Adams experience should also enjoy Burleson.
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.
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.rockondlouie wrote: ↑06 May 2025 13:23 pmWhy 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?Shady wrote: ↑06 May 2025 13:21 pmJust 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?ecleme22 wrote: ↑06 May 2025 12:55 pmI’ve been saying that for a while, and it’s mostly about a low walk rate.Talkin' Baseball wrote: ↑06 May 2025 12:01 pm Those who enjoyed the Matt Adams experience should also enjoy Burleson.
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.
What kind of OPS do you want out of your starting 1B man?Shady wrote: ↑06 May 2025 13:26 pmBecause 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.rockondlouie wrote: ↑06 May 2025 13:23 pmWhy 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?Shady wrote: ↑06 May 2025 13:21 pmJust 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?ecleme22 wrote: ↑06 May 2025 12:55 pmI’ve been saying that for a while, and it’s mostly about a low walk rate.Talkin' Baseball wrote: ↑06 May 2025 12:01 pm Those who enjoyed the Matt Adams experience should also enjoy Burleson.
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.
please, give proof of the Burleson being a "Really Good Defensive 1B". We need to see stats on this.Shady wrote: ↑06 May 2025 13:26 pmBecause 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.rockondlouie wrote: ↑06 May 2025 13:23 pmWhy 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?Shady wrote: ↑06 May 2025 13:21 pmJust 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?ecleme22 wrote: ↑06 May 2025 12:55 pmI’ve been saying that for a while, and it’s mostly about a low walk rate.Talkin' Baseball wrote: ↑06 May 2025 12:01 pm Those who enjoyed the Matt Adams experience should also enjoy Burleson.
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.
Shady wrote: ↑06 May 2025 13:26 pmBecause 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.rockondlouie wrote: ↑06 May 2025 13:23 pmWhy 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?Shady wrote: ↑06 May 2025 13:21 pmJust 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?ecleme22 wrote: ↑06 May 2025 12:55 pmI’ve been saying that for a while, and it’s mostly about a low walk rate.Talkin' Baseball wrote: ↑06 May 2025 12:01 pm Those who enjoyed the Matt Adams experience should also enjoy Burleson.
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.
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.craviduce wrote: ↑06 May 2025 13:31 pmplease, give proof of the Burleson being a "Really Good Defensive 1B". We need to see stats on this.Shady wrote: ↑06 May 2025 13:26 pmBecause 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.rockondlouie wrote: ↑06 May 2025 13:23 pmWhy 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?Shady wrote: ↑06 May 2025 13:21 pmJust 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?ecleme22 wrote: ↑06 May 2025 12:55 pmI’ve been saying that for a while, and it’s mostly about a low walk rate.Talkin' Baseball wrote: ↑06 May 2025 12:01 pm Those who enjoyed the Matt Adams experience should also enjoy Burleson.
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.
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.
"reaching"....by asking you to back up your Claim?Shady wrote: ↑06 May 2025 13:35 pmYou 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.craviduce wrote: ↑06 May 2025 13:31 pmplease, give proof of the Burleson being a "Really Good Defensive 1B". We need to see stats on this.Shady wrote: ↑06 May 2025 13:26 pmBecause 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.rockondlouie wrote: ↑06 May 2025 13:23 pmWhy 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?Shady wrote: ↑06 May 2025 13:21 pmJust 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?ecleme22 wrote: ↑06 May 2025 12:55 pmI’ve been saying that for a while, and it’s mostly about a low walk rate.Talkin' Baseball wrote: ↑06 May 2025 12:01 pm Those who enjoyed the Matt Adams experience should also enjoy Burleson.
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.
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’re absolutely right, Shady. For example, you’ve called for Walker and Gorman to be demoted multiple times over the past two years, but you’ve never once demanded the same treatment for Burleson, even though he has a lower OPS+ and wRC+ than either of them and is entirely one-dimensional.
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.craviduce wrote: ↑06 May 2025 13:38 pm"reaching"....by asking you to back up your Claim?Shady wrote: ↑06 May 2025 13:35 pmYou 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.craviduce wrote: ↑06 May 2025 13:31 pmplease, give proof of the Burleson being a "Really Good Defensive 1B". We need to see stats on this.Shady wrote: ↑06 May 2025 13:26 pmBecause 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.rockondlouie wrote: ↑06 May 2025 13:23 pmWhy 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?Shady wrote: ↑06 May 2025 13:21 pmJust 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?ecleme22 wrote: ↑06 May 2025 12:55 pmI’ve been saying that for a while, and it’s mostly about a low walk rate.Talkin' Baseball wrote: ↑06 May 2025 12:01 pm Those who enjoyed the Matt Adams experience should also enjoy Burleson.
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.
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.
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.