sturg33
I
And Heyward had a career .849 OPS when he was 20. Things change.
Boston writer advocating acquiring Jason Heyward in the off season
- Thread starter tvsportscaster
- Start date
And Heyward had a career .849 OPS when he was 20. Things change.
So Heyward didn't live up to his rookie year so no one will.
sturg33
I
Heyward and Harper are producing similarly awful age 21 seasons
Which you cried that it was because Heyward had an injured wrist. Harper broke his thumb, are you going to use the same excuse?
sturg33
I
sturg33
I
The exact quote was:
Of course you backtracked and made the whole "aggregate" claim... but that didn't make any sense because taking an aggregate of the whole offense would be below average - which includes Freeman and Upton.
And was explained that the other 6 are so bad in aggregate. Nice try though.
If I said this team sucks, does that mean I'm saying Freddie Freeman sucks?
I guess in your eyes.
ok. Bryce Harper broke his thumb
The offense is so bad. True or not? I feel comfortable making that statement.
I must be saying Freeman is so bad.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
You should see Harper's tee ball stats. He hit 1.000 with a .000 batting average on balls in play.
He won't be as good as Trout bc Trout has more of an all around game, but Harper will be a great player.
When did defense become obsolete? There is a reason Willie Mays is considered by some to be the best player in baseball history. Defense matters and most people understand this. Heywards defense is that good that just being an above average hitter makes him one of the best players in the game.
If Harper was even an average player this year imagine how good the Nats would be
Since when has defense become properly quantifiable? What we do know, is that players have a much bigger affect on a game offensively than defensively (at least RFers do anyhow). So yeah, calling him one of the best players in the game while being a not so great hitter is silly. Especially when he isn't even the best player on his team currently.
Just because it's quantification doesn't line up with your world view of defense doesn't make it incorrect. Historical quantification of defense got it right so why wouldn't it now? Is it 100% accurate? No. But no stat is. I just think it's a lot closer then those who don't think defensive WAR works. Outfielders that cover a lot of ground do save a lot of runs. Whether that's in center or in the corners.
But exactly how many runs do they really cover more than the average RFer? Is it really 15 runs he has saved so far? Could it be significantly less? How do we know for sure?
Every time Heyward "saves a run" you are making an assumption based on a theoretical scenario (that the average player can't make that play). But the average player never had a chance to make that play, so it's impossible to know.
All balls in play are charted and they know on average how often the play is made. It's not really that complicated.