Chicago Fanatics Message Board :: View topic

I remember last year when he was a Kris Bryant type "can't miss". They were jizzing all over him in Boston. It's easy to be great when you've never played. When you bat against big league pitchers you get revealed. Pay no attention to that 88 OPS+ shortstop behind the curtain.

The point is, right now he's a disappointment. Most of you don't seem to expect Bryant's first season to look something like: .258/.320/.480, which I think is a reasonable expectation. Even for a guy you think is going to have multiple All-Star games in his future.

Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:

I cant even tell what your saying here.

Id be fine with an 800 OPS. So would most Cub fans. And I still hope he hits 50 homers with a 1.5 OPS and that's....ok

Seriously, what is the endgame here? Id never figure you for a guy that would actively try to make following baseball less fun but that's kinda the road you're on.

rogers park bryan wrote:

Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:

Why do you think Cub prospects are so much better than any other prospects? Because Epstein selected them and is real smart? Because I guarantee you if Epstein had selected Davidson he would be more highly rated by "experts" than he is.

Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:

rogers park bryan wrote:

Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:

Is this a bit?

I DONT think that. No one does except the Cub fans in your head.

When the Cubs system was terrible, I thought the guys ranked near the top of BA and BP were going to be good. Now there are some Cubs ranked high, I think they have a good chance.

Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:

Oh no, Cubs prospects could be overrated. How will I sleep at night?

You put a lot of faith in BP and BA. Are they consistently correct?

Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:

You put a lot of faith in BP and BA. Are they consistently correct?

They are pretty good with the top guys. Ive not done any studies though.

Its not that big of a deal. If they're wrong, they're wrong. Life goes on.

I thought Angel Guzman was going to be great. He didnt work out. Its ok.

rogers park bryan wrote:

Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:

You put a lot of faith in BP and BA. Are they consistently correct?

He got hurt. That's just one of many things that can get a player off track.

But BP and BA are really just table talk like what we're doing right now. Sure, they should be more educated on the subject. It's what they do. But they definitely have built-in biases.

rogers park bryan wrote:

Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:

You put a lot of faith in BP and BA. Are they consistently correct?

that last sentence seems more bias/opinion than fact.

City of Fools wrote:

that last sentence seems more bias/opinion than fact.

Just like a lot of the subjective stuff at BA and BP!

The major difference is that they get paid better the more accuracy they project.

City of Fools wrote:

The major difference is that they get paid better the more accuracy they project.

No.

Xander Bogaerts is 21. This thread is pointless.

It should be hoped for, but not expected.

Whether you come out of the great strong or not, the end result is what is important. We both know this.

Damnit. Gate**

I think you're on to something. But PED era or not, I'd never judge future performance based off of performance as a 21 year old. Sure, that slow start and adjustment period will hurt his Hall of Fame shot, but I hope, as a 21 year old kid, he isn't thinking about his Hall of Fame chances right now.

Do your best, help your team win, and improve as you go.

Author:	Rod [ Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:29 am ]
Post subject:	Xander Bogaerts
I remember last year when he was a Kris Bryant type "can't miss". They were jizzing all over him in Boston. It's easy to be great when you've never played. When you bat against big league pitchers you get revealed. Pay no attention to that 88 OPS+ shortstop behind the curtain.

Author:	rogers park bryan [ Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:32 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Xander Bogaerts
Not like Kris Bryant. More like Castro. Every report on him inculded "the power will come eventually" And Bogearts is fine. He's 21 and holding his own at the MLB level.

Author:	spanky [ Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:33 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Xander Bogaerts
goldendomer vibe

Author:	denisdman [ Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:35 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Xander Bogaerts
JORR is onto something. The Cubs should release all their prospects because Booger isn't playing well. Then they should go onto spend $250M per year to build a winner of 30+ year old veterans who have proved they can hit major league pitching. Give them all 10 year contracts to make sure we corner the market on major league hitters.

Author:	Hatchetman [ Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:35 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Xander Bogaerts
He's 21 and already hits like Alexei Ramirez, give him a break. his .304 weighted OBA is pretty much in line with his preseason projections. http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?pl ... tion=3B/SS

Chicago Fanatics Message Board https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/

Xander Bogaerts https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=92&t=87795	Page 1 of 3

Author:	Rod [ Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:47 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Xander Bogaerts
The point is, right now he's a disappointment. Most of you don't seem to expect Bryant's first season to look something like: .258/.320/.480, which I think is a reasonable expectation. Even for a guy you think is going to have multiple All-Star games in his future.

Author:	Curious Hair [ Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:48 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Xander Bogaerts
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote: I remember last year when he was a Kris Bryant type "can't miss". They were jizzing all over him in Boston. It's easy to be great when you've never played. When you bat against big league pitchers you get revealed. Pay no attention to that 88 OPS+ shortstop behind the curtain. Lars Anderson and Jed Lowrie got some Northian facials from the Nation as well.

Author:	Rod [ Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:51 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Xander Bogaerts
rogers park bryan wrote: Joe Orr Road Rod wrote: The point is, right now he's a disappointment. Most of you don't seem to expect Bryant's first season to look something like: .258/.320/.480, which I think is a reasonable expectation. Even for a guy you think is going to have multiple All-Star games in his future. I cant even tell what your saying here. Id be fine with an 800 OPS. So would most Cub fans. And I still hope he hits 50 homers with a 1.5 OPS and that's....ok Seriously, what is the endgame here? Id never figure you for a guy that would actively try to make following baseball less fun but that's kinda the road you're on. Why do you think Cub prospects are so much better than any other prospects? Because Epstein selected them and is real smart? Because I guarantee you if Epstein had selected Davidson he would be more highly rated by "experts" than he is.

Author:	SomeGuy [ Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:53 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Xander Bogaerts
He will be in 10 AS games and win a few MVP's before all is said and done.

Author:	Rod [ Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:55 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Xander Bogaerts
rogers park bryan wrote: Joe Orr Road Rod wrote: rogers park bryan wrote: Joe Orr Road Rod wrote: The point is, right now he's a disappointment. Most of you don't seem to expect Bryant's first season to look something like: .258/.320/.480, which I think is a reasonable expectation. Even for a guy you think is going to have multiple All-Star games in his future. I cant even tell what your saying here. Id be fine with an 800 OPS. So would most Cub fans. And I still hope he hits 50 homers with a 1.5 OPS and that's....ok Seriously, what is the endgame here? Id never figure you for a guy that would actively try to make following baseball less fun but that's kinda the road you're on. Why do you think Cub prospects are so much better than any other prospects? Because Epstein selected them and is real smart? Because I guarantee you if Epstein had selected Davidson he would be more highly rated by "experts" than he is. Is this a bit? I DONT think that. No one does except the Cub fans in your head. When the Cubs system was terrible, I thought the guys ranked near the top of BA and BP were going to be good. Now there are some Cubs ranked high, I think they have a good chance. You put a lot of faith in BP and BA. Are they consistently correct?

Author:	KDdidit [ Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:56 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Xander Bogaerts
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote: Why do you think Cub prospects are so much better than any other prospects? Because Epstein selected them and is real smart? Because I guarantee you if Epstein had selected Davidson he would be more highly rated by "experts" than he is. Oh no, Cubs prospects could be overrated. How will I sleep at night?

Author:	denisdman [ Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:57 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Xander Bogaerts
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote: The point is, right now he's a disappointment. Most of you don't seem to expect Bryant's first season to look something like: .258/.320/.480, which I think is a reasonable expectation. Even for a guy you think is going to have multiple All-Star games in his future. My excitement over Bryant is as follows: 1) He is not a high school prospect, meaning we have more high level statistics to judge him by, 2) Three great years of college ball ending his junior season by leading the nation with 31 HR's, 3) MVP of Arizona Fall league after being drafted by Cubs, 4) Then dominated Boise, Daytona, Tennessee, and now Iowa. You're absolutely correct that he could be decidedly average when he comes up. But I'd much rather have this history and experience of a prospect before coming to the majors. Great players have to come from somewhere, and he sure looks like a great player.

Author:	SomeGuy [ Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:57 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Xander Bogaerts
KDdidit wrote: Joe Orr Road Rod wrote: Why do you think Cub prospects are so much better than any other prospects? Because Epstein selected them and is real smart? Because I guarantee you if Epstein had selected Davidson he would be more highly rated by "experts" than he is. Oh no, Cubs prospects could be overrated. How will I sleep at night? In a pool of your own tears and disappointment.

Author:	Rod [ Tue Jul 08, 2014 12:02 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Xander Bogaerts
rogers park bryan wrote: Joe Orr Road Rod wrote: You put a lot of faith in BP and BA. Are they consistently correct? They are pretty good with the top guys. Ive not done any studies though. Its not that big of a deal. If they're wrong, they're wrong. Life goes on. I thought Angel Guzman was going to be great. He didnt work out. Its ok. He got hurt. That's just one of many things that can get a player off track. But BP and BA are really just table talk like what we're doing right now. Sure, they should be more educated on the subject. It's what they do. But they definitely have built-in biases.

Page 1 of 3	All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	City of Fools [ Tue Jul 08, 2014 12:09 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Xander Bogaerts
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote: rogers park bryan wrote: Joe Orr Road Rod wrote: You put a lot of faith in BP and BA. Are they consistently correct? They are pretty good with the top guys. Ive not done any studies though. Its not that big of a deal. If they're wrong, they're wrong. Life goes on. I thought Angel Guzman was going to be great. He didnt work out. Its ok. He got hurt. That's just one of many things that can get a player off track. But BP and BA are really just table talk like what we're doing right now. Sure, they should be more educated on the subject. It's what they do. But they definitely have built-in biases. that last sentence seems more bias/opinion than fact.

Author:	Rod [ Tue Jul 08, 2014 12:10 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Xander Bogaerts
City of Fools wrote: that last sentence seems more bias/opinion than fact. Just like a lot of the subjective stuff at BA and BP!

Author:	Rod [ Tue Jul 08, 2014 12:14 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Xander Bogaerts
City of Fools wrote: The major difference is that they get paid better the more accuracy they project. No.

Author:	IMU [ Tue Jul 08, 2014 12:50 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Xander Bogaerts
Xander Bogaerts is 21. This thread is pointless.

Author:	Rod [ Tue Jul 08, 2014 12:55 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Xander Bogaerts
immessedup17 wrote: Xander Bogaerts is 21. This thread is pointless. Really? We shouldnt expect performance from 21 year old big leaguers? This isnt the Cubs we're talking about.

Author:	IMU [ Tue Jul 08, 2014 2:30 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Xander Bogaerts
It should be hoped for, but not expected. Whether you come out of the great strong or not, the end result is what is important. We both know this.

Author:	Rod [ Tue Jul 08, 2014 3:43 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Xander Bogaerts
immessedup17 wrote: It should be hoped for, but not expected. Whether you come out of the great strong or not, the end result is what is important. We both know this. Right, but we're back to a normal era of baseball. I don't think PEDs were particularly responsible for the huge numbers as much as other factors (the ball), but I definitely think they allowed guys to keep playing and compiling those numbers well past the time that they should normally have been able to do so. A normal big league career looks kind of like Frank Thomas or Albert Pujols. They hit about 30 and the numbers start dropping off. Mickey Mantle was all done at about 32 or 33. In that context, performance at an early age is much more important. The future Hall of Famers are likely to be guys that are All-Star caliber at 21 or 22. I'm not saying guys can't develop and Bogaerts probably will to some degree. But your career is going to be from 21 to 30 now. That's one thing I definitely think Epstein recognizes from stuff I've heard him say.

Author:	IMU [ Tue Jul 08, 2014 3:49 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Xander Bogaerts
Damnit. Gate** I think you're on to something. But PED era or not, I'd never judge future performance based off of performance as a 21 year old. Sure, that slow start and adjustment period will hurt his Hall of Fame shot, but I hope, as a 21 year old kid, he isn't thinking about his Hall of Fame chances right now. Do your best, help your team win, and improve as you go.

Author:	Rod [ Tue Jul 08, 2014 4:00 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Xander Bogaerts
immessedup17 wrote: Damnit. Gate** I think you're on to something. But PED era or not, I'd never judge future performance based off of performance as a 21 year old. Sure, that slow start and adjustment period will hurt his Hall of Fame shot, but I hope, as a 21 year old kid, he isn't thinking about his Hall of Fame chances right now. Do your best, help your team win, and improve as you go. Oh yeah. And there were always freaks, guys like Hank Aaron that didn't decline until about 40.