But the issue isn't ball one. The issue is wedge trying to blame others for Ackley and the coaching staffs failures. The cheap shot didnt help either. No one, not old school baseball scout or new age sabermatrician, look at Dustin Ackley's approach and like what they see.
Ackley came up and had a great half season. He has regressed so badly the last 18 months that someone has to answer for that. Wedge apparently thinks the person/people who need to answer for it are found outside the organization. He needs to man up and lay blame where it deserves to go

Unless Ackley told Wedge something, I think it's laughable to think that he pays any attention at all to internet opinions.

For me ... my problem with the entire discussion from BOTH sides (Wedge or the SABR guys) is that there is a strong tendency to frame statements based on one (IMHO) very, very wrong assumption. That there is, in fact, one single "best" way to hit.
SABR guys look at the best hitters, drill down to look for the most common combo of micro stats and conclude that this is the "best" way to hit ... to aim for these stat levels.
"Old School" guys like Wedge, also have their own personal ideal of THE proper approach to hitting. It varies from manager to manager and coach to coach, but most people in charge do tend to have an trust that they do know best in most situations.
The problem here is that the "best" approach to hitting is dependent on a vast array of variables. There is almost certainly a "best" approach for Ackley. But it is almost certainly not anything remotely close to a "best" approach for Peguero or Olivo.
But what irks me most is the notion that ANYBODY knows what is in Dustin's head (other than Dustin). When someone says, "you cannot go up hoping for ball one", that is describing INTENT. That is projecting a rationale for an action ... (and saying the INTENT is wrong). But, in truth, it is not commenting on the action itself.
I'm a Braves fan. They went to the playoffs once in the first 20 years I watched them. But that one year, there was a MONTH, when I was watching the Braves every day, where it became obvious to me that THE ENTIRE LINEUP was under orders to take the first pitch from the starter. It got to be almost comical as my roomie and I groused about the bats staying on the shoulders for the entire team. And I am not exaggerating when I say this went on for a month.
Was the intent there "hoping for ball one"? Of course not. There were multiple intents, which were mentioned much later AFTER the club had taken the perpetual first strike take sign off. What was happening was a deliberate attempt by the team to make the opposing starting pitch work AND to train the Braves hitters to look for "tells" of the pitcher. The entire club was being told to "scout" the opposing pitcher for one pitch before moving forward. I've never seen this tactic employed since ... but it certainly worked that season.
That was an extremely young team (Chris Chambliss the only regular over 30). And it ultimately made the Braves offense much better for the exercise.
The thing is, they were not "hoping for ball one". They were hoping to learn something on that first pitch which they could then punish the pitcher on later either in that at bat - or later in the game.
For me ... having watched Ackley in college ... and seeing him once in the minors ... patience IS a positive trait for Ackley. No, you would not want Alfonso Soriano to use Ackley's approach any more than you would want Ackley to use Soriano's. But, for Ackley, the walks have always been (prior to this season), a by-product of his patience. He LIKES seeing lots of pitches. And yes, that means he lets some pitches go by that other hitters would attack.
But, when I look at the whole of Ackley's Major League regression, the story I see is (surprisingly enough to me), NOT about his approach, but about his swing plane.
In 2011, Ackley had a 22.3% LD rate, 39.8% GB% and 37.9% FB rate.
In 2012, Ackley had a 19.4% LD rate, 45.5% GB% and 35.1% FB rate.
In 2013, Ackley has a 18.5% LD rate, 55.6% GB% and 25.8% FB rate.
The Wedge interpretation (and the feeling echoed by many on this board), is Ackley is "too passive". But, if so, it certainly is not showing up in his K%. His actual strikeout rate has DROPPED steadily -- 21.0% in 2011, then 18.6% last season and down to 18.1% this year. Overall, he's whiffing less often. That would seem to be counter-intuitive to the notion that he is watching too many strikes go by.
Yes, his Z-swing has dropped from 57.6 to 56.8 to 52.4. But, his swinging strike % has also dropped from 6.2 to 5.4 to 4.5. One could easily make the argument that he is simply not swinging at pitches in the zone that he was missing anyway.
But, do you want to know what the BIGGEST plate discipline stat move has been in his 3 years?
O-Contact%
2011 - 73.6%
2012 - 78.1%
2013 - 80.2%
The BIG change for Ackley since his rookie season is not his 5% drop in swinging at pitches in the zone. It is the 7% spike in contact on pitches OUT of the zone. His overall contact rate has risen from 84.1% to 86.1% to 87.8%.
As his contact % has risen ... his overall production has gotten steadily worse.
I believe the paradox of Ackley is his production has tanked as a direct result of him IMPROVING a key core stat - contact rate.
On pitches he used to swing through, he's now making contact ... (evidenced by his decline in actual K rate as well as a drop in his Swinging Strike % from 6.2 to 5.4 to 4.5). But, when it's not a 3rd strike, he's grounding out weakly, where he was initially getting another pitch to hit.
Another counter to the "he's hoping for ball one", when you actually look at the First Strike % for Ackley ... we see 56.9% in 2011, followed y 57.3% and then 51.5% this year. The truth is, Ackley isn't getting a lot of first pitch strikes.
All that said, I would agree that Ackley's head is all messed up at this point. I have no first hand knowledge of why he changed his swing, (was it at the prompting of Seattle coaching - or his own idea?). But, in any case, the swing tweak was a dreadful mistake.
But, I also believe Wedge is naturally biased against hitters like Smoak and Ackley. I think Wedge would have judged Edgar as being too passive as well. Wedge's natural inclination is to support a hitter like Peguero and hope a little experience will ultimately shrink the zone a bit over time.
But, when you have two players whose primary "natural gift" is the ability to draw 100 walks a season, if you have an MLB manager who scoffs at the notion that OBP is actually important ... you have a pairing that is not likely to work well together.
One of my favorite quotes from Joe Torre, when the Yanks were winning year after year was when asked about getting Soriano to draw more walks .... to become more selective at the plate. Torre's response was along the lines of ... as he gets more experience, sure it would be nice to draw a few more walks. But I really don't want to do anything to mess up his aggressiveness." Torre understood that for THAT HITTER, his aggression was part and parcel to what made him effective. He was never going to be Ricky Henderson.
Torre understood Soriano needed to be aggressive.
But he also understood that somebody like Nick Johnson needed to be selective.
The club completely remade Mike Carp from a Nick Johnson type hitter into something closer to Dave Kingman. Carp was malleable enough to succeed in the transformation. But, most players don't have that kind of range.
My opinion on Ackley is -- he CANNOT succeed, unless he is drawing 80+ walks a year. He cannot be a star unless he is drawing 100. Same goes for Smoak.
I said before he got to Seattle that Ackley's development would probably go: first walks ... then average ... then power. The was pretty much what happened in the minors. But, when he got to Seattle, I think he started getting a steady diet of "you can't let THAT pitch go by".
I mean, seriously. Has Wedge been quoted as saying anything positive about any young hitter that did not include "aggressive" in their somewhere?

I also believe Wedge is naturally biased against hitters like Smoak and Ackley. I think Wedge would have judged Edgar as being too passive as well. Wedge's natural inclination is to support a hitter like Peguero and hope a little experience will ultimately shrink the zone a bit over time.
But, when you have two players whose primary "natural gift" is the ability to draw 100 walks a season, if you have an MLB manager who scoffs at the notion that OBP is actually important ... you have a pairing that is not likely to work well together.

I'll say it again: Wedge as a player was a .250/.350/.440 hitter.  He walked A TON.  His batting eye was great even though he struck out a fair bit (18% K rate).  He was patient waiting for his pitches and then slammed them into gaps (40+% XBH rate with his low average).  If he'd been in Oakland's system in the 2000s instead of Boston's in the early 90s, he would have had quite a decent ML career.
The idea that Wedge hates OBP when he was a .100 ISOW player is, to be blunt, ridiculous.  What Doc said earlier I agree with: you can't go to the plate hoping for ball one.  You go up there planning to get a hit and not swing at dumb pitches, and if you get a walk out of it you take it.
Wedge talked more about it tonight. 

"What you can't do is play this game with fear. You have to go out there and play and when you get your first good pitch to take a whack at, you have to take a whack at it. People stress so much getting deeper in counts and drawing walks, it's almost a backward way of looking at it."

Wedge is not against walks or OBP, he's against scared, passive ballplayers who refuse to punish pitchers for mistakes because they're hoping the pitcher makes even MORE mistakes to allow them on base. Wedge was a Nick-Swisher type of player.  Nick is an OBP and Moneyball/SABR-oriented player. Wedge is on the side of The Numbers (tm).
He's not on the side of players who won't control the zone and scare pitchers.  In his mind you get walks because the pitcher is terrified to leave one in the middle of the plate for you, not because he can't throw a rock in the ocean and you don't have to do anything to make him that way. And I'm sure Ackley, when he gets back, will remember to both walk AND crush doubles into the gap, and make both us and Wedge happy.
~G

Frankly, Wedge doesn't deserve the level of the vitriol that has been hurled at him since his comment about Dustin Ackley. People are pointing out Wedge's lack of understanding of SABRmetrics as if they have a clue how much he actually knows. I think it's a safe assumption that if there was a need for Eric Wedge to understand SABRmetrics, then Z would probably inform him. So it is generally assumed that Wedge is an idiot that does not even have a rudimentary knowledge of SABRmetrics, while some feel the need to defend themselves from an off hand and accurate comment. "I wasn't 9 when I quit playing baseball, I was 18!".....so what? Far worse was said about Eric Wedge by the authors of several SABR blogs well before his dastardly comment.
The point stands that most of us have not played baseball competitively in years, and almost no one that writes about SABRmetrics has played professionally, so until you know what it takes to hit a curveball or differentiate between a change and a fastball in the second that it takes to get to the plate and whether it will be hittable or not, then your advice about hitting IS probably irrelevant and distracting.
Dustin Ackley went to college, he's probably a reasonably smart guy, it is very possible he reads a lot of the stuff written about him on the internet and has tried to incorporate the advice as he's struggled, and maybe this is what it looks like. If he did take Matthew Carruth's advice and start gearing up to hit balls in the leftie strike zone, he might then be less prepared to hit balls in the strike zone, and especially inside, so he might then react more slowly to said pitches. And when he swung, having prepared himself to swing outside, he might be more likely to pull the ball because he had set himself to hit balls farther off the plate than his natural swing would normally allow.
We can't just dismiss the possibility that that is the truth and Eric Wedge isn't just an old man telling at the kids to get off his lawn. Maybe Wedge doesn't know what he's talking about, but maybe he does. It's reasonable to at least allow for the possibility.

I thought Wedge's first comment was weirdly off-key. It was mostly stupid.....the comment, not him. His subsequent comment is much better and goes far to clearling up his bobble. He's good by me on this now.

Wedge's shot at know-it-all SABR dweebs who quit playing ball at age 9 was, IMO, a tossed-off, tongue in cheek comment that aroused more reaction than he anticipated. (It was not the most astute of PR moves, certainly.) It definitely livened the commentary in a dreary (lost 10 of last 12 games) Marinerville for the last 2 days. More significant, IMO, was Wedge's adament view that Ackley had to fix his problems at the MLB level, that going down to AAA would not work. Wedge is an experienced baseball man -- it baffles me how he could hold that opinion since Ackley's hitting has been declining since Sept 2011.

I do not want to defend Eric Wedge, but so many of the criticisms make little to no sense to me.
While in Cleveland, the following list of players had their first successful big league seasons with Eric Wedge as the manager: Travis Hafner, Jhonny Peralta, Milton Bradley, Coco Crisp, Victor Martinez, Grady Sizemore, Asdrubal Cabrera, Shin-soo Choo. None of them, literally none of the them are hacks, and most of them derived much of their offensive value from their ability to take a walk (Hafner, Bradley, Martinez, Sizemore, and Choo).
During his seven year tenure, the Indians where 6th, 8th, 11th, 13th, 14th, 14th, and 26th (first year) in walk rate.  
Walk rate was integral to the Indians program -- GM Mark Shapiro (Princeton grad) and assistant GM Chris Antonetti (Georgetown grad) were sabr-darlings.  If Wedge were opposed to walks, how could he have survived in that environment?
For what it is worth, I suspect his snide comment about bloggers is more directed at his days in Cleveland, where the baseball power was wielded by people with limited playing experience, than at baseball bloggers. But that is just a guess. 
Eric Wedge is partially accountable for the poor performances by Ackley, Smoak, and Montero, but the notion that he isn't aware of the importance of walks and on-base percentage is laughable and has always been laughable. 
 
 

but ... when I read ...
"You have to go out there and play and when you get your first good pitch to take a whack at, you have to take a whack at it. People stress so much getting deeper in counts and drawing walks, it's almost a backward way of looking at it."
I see a guy who IS biased towards aggression ("first good pitch ... take a whack") ... and who is also biased against the general concept of " ... getting deeper in counts and drawing walks."
I see both of those comments as supporting my view of Wedge AS AN INSTRUCTOR.
The thing is, Wedge is speaking about HIS intent when he was a hitter. He went up looking for the "first good pitch". But, what Wedge judged as a good pitch and what Ackley judge as a good pitch do not necessarily coincide. Joe Morgan as a player had a great walk rate and stellar OBP. But he routinely noted that his philosophy was that "SOME HITTERS" needed to concentrate on OBP, while it would be a mistake for others to do so." Morgan, (like Torre), understood that there isn't a single "right" or "wrong" approach. You needed to look into the context of the individual player and his skill set.
Wedge specifically points out that in HIS opinion "getting deeper into counts and drawing walks ... is backward thinking". Even given that he "accepted" walks as a player and understands they are valuable, he has a fixed and unbending opinion that there is ONE WAY to approach hitting ... his way.
================
Ackley and Seager both played at UNC.
Statistically, they were eerily similar. In many aspects they hit the same ... but Dustin drew more walks and had a higher BA.
2007:
Ackley: 296-AB; 119-H; 20-2B; 3-3B; 10-HR; .402/.448/.591 - 30-BB; 21-K
Seager: 201-AB; 62-H; 10-2B; 1-3B; 2-HR; .308/.349/.398 - 11-BB; 22-K
2008:
Ackley: 278-AB; 116-H; 21-2B; 4-3B; 7-HR; .417/.503/.597 - 53-BB; 27-K
Seager: 268-AB; 93-H; 30-2B; 5-3B; 9-HR; .347/.421/.597 - 35-BB; 32-K
As Sophs, despite a 70 point edge in BA, Ackley and Seager had IDENTICAL slugging percentages in 2008.
2009:
Ackley: 255-AB; 105-H; 17-2B; 4-3B; 22-HR; .412/.511/.769 - 50-BB; 33-K
Seager: 253-AB; 99-H; 25-2B; 4-3B; 5-HR; .391/.485/.581 - 43-BB; 37-K
==========
Clearly, Ackley as a Freshman was not "looking to walk". He actually only had 46 points of patience that year. But, because his contact skill was so high, and he did have a naturally gifted eye, he initially became more successful when he actually dialed his aggression BACK as a sophomore. His patience basically doubles, with no negative impact on BA or ISO. Then, in his third season, his ISO jumps from 190 to 350.
The key point here is Seager added patience as his final development at UNC ... whereas Ackley added power as his final development phase. The thing is, Seager actually LOST a little ISO while adding the patience. Ackley added power without losing patience or contact.
==========
Characterizing Wedge as disliking walks is probably going too far on my part. Guilty as charged. I'm sure Wedge would be as happy as anyone to have any hitter, (Ackley, Smoak, Morales), hitting .300/.400/.500. But, he definitely (based on HIS quotes - including those supplied by you), IMHO, convinced there is only one route to that final outcome. He is convinced if you do not START your approach with aggression, your approach is wrong. Doesn't mean he wants swings at bad pitches. But, it does seem to me that he is far more tolerent of high-K, low-walk hitters (Olivo, Peguero), than he is of the patient ones.
I'm not in Seattle, so I don't get to see all the interviews. But, my sense from the "public" critiques of hitters over the past couple of seasons is that the patient ones get criticized publically, while the aggressive ones are more apt to get public support.and encouragement.
If that is what is happening publically, what is being said in the clubhouse in daily off hand remarks?
This is not to say he is wrong about everything. I think at this point Ackley is scared or confused at the plate. Sending him down is certainly the right call at this time.
But, I still contend that different players CAN have different routes to the same optimal outcome. As we speak, I think Smoak's recovery has been largely driven by a return to him getting his Walk rate up, (was 13.8% as a rookie in Texas), dropped to 11.3 in 2011 and 9.2 last season. Today, it's back up to 13.9%.
Clearly, Smoak's increased walk rate has NOT been a result of him scaring pitchers, as his ISO is at an all time low (.104). But, *I* believe now that Smoak has found "his" proper mindset in regards to patience, I fully expect the power WILL follow. I fully expect Smoak's ISO to jump back up into the 150 range, maybe as high as 200.
I agree with the Wedge assessment that you cannot approach the plate in fear. I think hitters need to be COMFORTABLE at the plate. Clearly Ackley has not been comfy for a long time. And Smoak has had similar spells of appearing unsettled up there. But, IMO, for a player to GET comfortable at the plate, that should START with whatever his most natural gifts and apptitudes he has. You start there - and then try to make improvements - hopefully without losing the aspects that bring the player comfort.
But getting Peguero comfy and getting Ackley comfy are two drastically different tasks. I've never gotten a sense from Wedge that he gets that.

I don't feel confident that Wedge knows what the problem is regarding Ackley. He seems to want to mold Ackley into his mindset. And Wedge is a forceful guy, and boss. So, when Ackley comes to the plate he's torn between doing things his way, and doing things Wedge's way. My guess is, he'll go to AAA, listen to nobody but himself, and learn to trust what it was that got him where he is. He'll return to the club, and learn to tune out the distractions (Wedge) and go after the pitches he wants to go after, when he wants to go after them. And, because he's learned to tune out the distractions (Wedge), he'll attack them with confidence and a single minded purpose. The whole idea that Eric Wedge is going to explain hitting to Ackley scares me. There are players who will indeed thrive on Wedge's advice, because they need an approach and so will successfully buy into it wholeheartedly. Dustin Ackley is not one of those players. Ackley didn't come to the major leagues needing guidance from Eric Wedge on how to hit. If he needed guidance, he probably needed it, or could have used it anyway, from an Ichiro of 2-3 years earlier. Or a Figgins of 2-3 years earlier. Players with similar skillsets and approaches he could observe on a daily basis, brains he could pick with confidence.
By no means do I see my observations as describing a fireable offense. I would prefer everyone learn from this and move on. Z, Wedge, Ackley, and those to come. These are all very competent people who need to learn and move forward.

Which is why maintaining a diamond-hard OBP skill may be tough.  Scouting reports on him were that he'd get himself out, so that's how he (and Ackley) have been approached this year.
Smoak has stopped swinging at the things that would have killed him before.  That's great.  But those free walks will be coming to an end soon because of the .104 Iso. The # of 6'4 hitters with huge numbers of walks and no power is preeeetty small.  If a mistake only ends up as a single, same as a walk, then pitchers will stop walking him and make him beat them.  So in stage two he should get more pitches in the zone.  If he fails to punish them his OBP and such will recede.
So step two would be just what you said: now that pitchers are forced back into the zone, make them pay.  Then when they run away from the zone again your walks go up (or stay up) but the power is back.  That's what's supposed to happen.  That's what Wedge thinks should happen too, it seems.
Wedge thinks walks are related to hitter intent.  Edgar was not "passive" - he was a coiled serpent waiting to strike.  Not moving is different than not being prepared to move.
Ackley has not been prepared to strike, for too many times recently.  As he remembers that he has fangs, that should change, and both his OBP and his average should climb.  It's entirely possible that you're correct that Wedge is a "one size fits all" manager but I don't think his diagnosis of Ackley is wrong.
Ackley's ISO in college jumped because he fixed and finally healed from his blown UCL, btw.  I wouldn't credit it to plate progress so much as health progress.  No more pepper swing to protect the arm.
But Wedge does seem to feel that it's the hitter's job to pressure the pitcher, not react to him.  "I am ready and able to hit anything you throw into this box, so be warned." Ackley and Smoak haven't been doing that.  Favorable or unfavorable counts, they don't make pitchers sweat.  Edgar standing at the plate like an immovable statue made pitchers sweat.  So I agree that he is classifying that as aggression... but when aggression can be either swinging or having the THREAT of swinging, then I don't see how I can argue with his definition.  Letting pitchers pipe straight, hittable pitches into the zone without ever punishing them seems like a bad way to hit. Or "work at-bats" or however it's termed.
-----------------------
On a related topic, though, Wedge - the guy in the locker room with these guys for hours a day - doesn't like the passiveness displayed.  And that, I fear, might be accentuated by their demeanors.
Seager cusses like a sailor whenever he lets a single hittable pitch get by him, whether he's swinging or not.
Ackley could watch a 76 car pileup without ever showing a ripple of distress on that placid poker face of his.  Ackley and Smoak are quiet guys off the field and on it.  They're not exactly ragers.  While I agree with Wedge's definition of plate aggression I wonder if he feels like Ackley and Smoak aren't aggressive personalities so he has to try to "awaken" it in them more than he does with Seager and Saunders.
He may get along better with the latter, and might have struggled with Olerud and Edgar's still-water approach to struggle in the same way he struggles with Ackley and Smoak.  Wedge has to rein back Ryan's self-grinding, but he fought to keep Ackley ON the big-league club, so maybe he can't see the signs of grinding in Dustin the same way.  Again, I don't think Wedge is doing everything right, and yes he might have trouble reaching the quieter hitters (in the same way Lou Pinella used to struggle with any hitters who didn't see the game his way or with pitchers of ANY stripe).
Wakamatsu might have done better with Ackley and Smoak, as he was that sort.  We could always hire him back...
~G
 

Wedge has a political position. Do you take Obama or Bush at their word, or do you wait to see what they do? While Wedge's talking points raise many fans ire, if you look at his full major league career, he helped launch the career of many players where patience was a key attribute to their performance. Why would Wedge be such a problem for Justin Smoak, when he stayed out of Travis Hafner's way? The blue chip M's recruits have failed to date for Wedge, as did Brandon Phillips in Cleveland -- but the list of successes is much longer and listed above.
As best as I can tell, Wedge and the staff he has assembled are mediocre coaches, Wedge greatly values fixed roles over situational substitution so he looks like a poor strategist, but I really think he manages the team's effort, focus, and attitude well. That is what a manager's first job is, to get the best effort and commitment out of his players and coaches.
At the end of the year, the M's will have to think long and hard about whether or not they replace both Wedge and Jack Z. But I see no reason to make a move now.

The other thing I wonder with many of the complaints levied at Wedge is whether or not people understand how little control Eric Wedge has. I manage a team of six aspiring and junior research scientists -- totally small potatoes and low profile compared to Eric Wedge, but I face some similar challenges to Eric Wedge. The people I manage are the same age as the people Eric Wedge manages -- basically 22 to 32 -- so I spend a lot of time helping people learn how to be grown-ups. My line of business also requires full buy-in from the personnel for us to be success -- 24 hour shifts, low pay, work on weekends, and the ability to achieve a rare focus. Lastly, research doesn't have right answers generally, the majority of experiments fail at least on a small scale, and often on a large scale. Some of the large scale failures consume years of effort, without any reward. Remember, you can't get a Ph.D. based on service time. A bit like Eric Wedge we make our hires from the minor leagues -- undergraduates -- and select them based on their success in that environment. Unfortunately, a gift for solving problems, even extremely difficult problems, with a known answer is not what research is about. So to sum up, we both work with young, often immature, adults with lots of talent, ambition, and many prior successes that are then pushed to their limits, immersed in failure, and left largely unrewarded for many years.
My job and Eric Wedge's job is to find success in that environment. Find success that requires the coordinated and collaborative effort of people that have many reasons to quit, point fingers, or complain. And no matter how brilliant I think my ideas and suggestions might be, my effort and commitment are merely a necessary, but insufficient, component to our success.
What this environment has taught me is that my main tasks are to manage expectations, maintain high standards, fight for good morale, be honest about the challenges and the commitment required, and maintain the belief that focused, committed, creativity leads to success. When I am doing my job well, people want to come to work on Saturday nights because they absolutely want to know the answer, because they want to succeed, because they want confirmation. I think that is Eric Wedge's primary job too. Frankly, even more so than mine given how many direct reports he has.