Kris Bryant overrated?... too soon for they hype?

[packs]

2 guys in the history of baseball struck out more times than they got a hit and managed to sustain long careers as power hitters. I wouldn't call that the norm and I'd still argue that you're in bad company. Also these players (Jackson) missed the specialized metrics completely or finished their career at the beginning of them (Thome).

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

2 guys in the history of baseball struck out more times than they got a hit and managed to sustain long careers as power hitters. I wouldn't call that the norm and I'd still argue that you're in bad company. Also these players (Jackson) missed the specialized metrics completely or finished their career at the beginning of them (Thome).

Canseco and Kingman and Fielder too. And Ryan Howard.

[packs]

You're just grasping at straws now. Bryant is being looked at as a special player and people are paying big bucks to invest in him. The question is why they think he can be that player given his high K rate and being lucky during his rookie season. Comparing him to Cecil Fielder or Dave Kingman is absurd if you're trying to make your point.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

You're just grasping at straws now. Bryant is being looked at as a special player and people are paying big bucks to invest in him. The question is why they think he can be that player given his high K rate and being lucky during his rookie season. Comparing him to Cecil Fielder or Dave Kingman is absurd if you're trying to make your point.

My only point was to respond to your overstatement that someone with more Ks than hits cannot possibly survive. I am not a huge fan of Bryant and would not pay a dime for one of his cards.

[packs]

All of those players retired before advanced metrics and shifts and Howard is not someone I would say has sustained success. He had a few peak seasons and has been terrible for the same period of time.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

All of those players retired before advanced metrics and shifts and Howard is not someone I would say has sustained success. He had a few peak seasons and has been terrible for the same period of time.

Hall Of Fame StatisticsPlayer rank in (·)


Black Ink Batting - 35 (46), Average HOFer ≈ 27

Gray Ink Batting - 175 (60), Average HOFer ≈ 144

Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 170 (65), Likely HOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 54 (70), Average HOFer ≈ 50

JAWS Right Field (8th), 73.8 career WAR/46.8 7yr-peak WAR/60.3 JAWS
Reggie does OK on the metrics.

[packs]

Like I said, you're grasping at straws man. I thought it was obvious I was talking about the things that go into a shift and positioning your players on the field. Along with head to head ratios against specific pitchers on your roster. As well as all of the other "new" stats that get put into practice in real time on the field not in looking back at a completed career.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Canseco and Kingman and Fielder too. And Ryan Howard.

My original argument even compared Bryant to R.Howard. So even though it is possible to sustain a career with these types of numbers, most would agree that these aren't HOF careers. I know R.Jackson is a HOF, but he is usually on people's list of worst HOF members. Thome struck out, but he also had a great BB% . He ended his career 7th in career BB.

Also the spread between hits and strikeouts is a lot bigger with KB. KB gets a hit 78% as much as he SO. Thome-91% and R.Jackson 99%. Again obvsioulsy KB has just started out, but this isn't about whether he can have a long career but more about is it too early to consider him the next great player and I just feel he got a lot more hype than the numbers suggest.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

My original argument even compared Bryant to R.Howard. So even though it is possible to sustain a career with these types of numbers, most would agree that these aren't HOF careers. I know R.Jackson is a HOF, but he is usually on people's list of worst HOF members. Thome struck out, but he also had a great BB% . He ended his career 7th in career BB.

Also the spread between hits and strikeouts is a lot bigger with KB. KB gets a hit 78% as much as he SO. Thome-91% and R.Jackson 99%. Again obvsioulsy KB has just started out, but this isn't about whether he can have a long career but more about is it too early to consider him the next great player and I just feel he got a lot more hype than the numbers suggest.

Agreed, but probably most people with high expectations for Bryant believe he can substantially improve on his strikeouts. Trout did I think. Harper has. Why not him?

Actually Trout had more Ks than hits in his MVP season.

[KCRfan1]

I think the game has changed in how strikeouts are viewed. George Brett said when he played, a strikeout was viewed as a bad at bat. That's not true in today's game.

[packs]

Trout strikes out a lot, but it's because he's asked to hit more home runs. Also, he's a complete player in a way that Bryant isn't. Trout also won the MVP in his worst professional season. He is the player people want Bryant to be, but I don't see it in Bryant. Although I wouldn't have expected Harper to change his approach so drastically like he did last season, so anything is possible. Harper was able to cut his BB / K rate almost to 1:1. That's really impressive.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Trout strikes out a lot, but it's because he's asked to hit more home runs. Also, he's a complete player in a way that Bryant isn't. Trout also won the MVP in his worst professional season. He is the player people want Bryant to be, but I don't see it in Bryant. Although I wouldn't have expected Harper to change his approach so drastically like he did last season, so anything is possible. Harper was able to cut his BB / K rate almost to 1:1. That's really impressive.

I think Harper finally realized his raw talent was only going to take him so far. A hitter that good with serious discipline at the plate is a frightening prospect.