Adam Dunn would chase bad pitches though... something Springer surprisingly doesn't do. When he swings and misses, its usually a pitch pretty close to the zone. Its a "better" problem as far as when you have a player swinging/missing a lot because when he does swing and make contact, its usually a very hittable ball that he has the ability to drive. And his "weaknesses" should dictate pitchers trying to throw him more strikes.... which is all a hitter can ask for. Again, truly unique.
Sure... and I don't know how much the extra year+ in the minors really was going to fix that, or whether or not he'll likely improve some of that at the MLB level anyways. Also, they couldn't admit to stashing him without repercussions. I think part of the decision science team's job was to come up with a new "excuse" each month he wasn't up (went from discussing the K's, to not wanting to have to yo-yo him, to needing minor league playoff experience, to "we're just not going to call him up right now."... right about the time he was rejecting the extension). But anyways, we've already discussed all this... along with how Berkman was an MVP candidate starting in the full season after the half-season "debut" year.... which would be a nice bench-mark for Springer to achieve!
Ironically, one of the best MLB comparison for the type of hitter Bryant projects... George Springer. Bryant project to be better, but they both have that combination of laying off pitches outside the zone, but swing through a lot of pitches inside the zone to get their Ks. I think this is becoming more of a trend as power has declined throughout the majors. Selling out contact rate for power is likely a really good tradeoff these days. Certainly Ludnow believes in this given how many high power/high Ks players he's brought in.
I expect much vitriol aimed at the Cubs. Equally shocking was the blurb this spring that said the Cubs had the draft ranked Appel/Bryant/Grey, just like Houston did.
I prefer a Cy Young over an MVP position player. Right now Bryant has more momentum. But Appel had guts turning down 3.5 million to go number 1 in the next draft. And I think he is going to be a perennial CY Young candidate. It shows Appel has the mental toughness to excel. Even last year the baseball people said Appel was throwing good stuff, but was being hit a lot. Who knows how much the hernia affected his timing. Because his stuff was still supposed to be crisp. Bryant has the hype now. But in baseball Pitchers, short stops, and Center fielders have the most value per position.
Could not agree more. If Appel puts it all together in the majors, he is a perennial CY Young candidate and more valuable than Bryant would be if he puts it all together (even though that would be a perennial MVP candidate)
To use the extreme example...(just a discussion question, not casting doubts on your thoughts), in any given year, would you rather have Clayton Kershaw on your team or Mike Trout?
I know the "right" answer is Kershaw, but I'd take Trout every day. As good as Kershaw is, he can only help you in a maximum of 20% of the games. And if he has one bad playoff outing (as he has in recent years), he may not even get a 2nd opportunity. Everyday players can make an impact in so many more ways.
In the regular season the position player is usually more valuable, so typically that is the right answer. But in the postseason the pitchers value goes up because they go from playing 20% of the games to starting 25-33% of the games in the playoffs. Given the disproportionally high impact pitchers have in the games they play, those extra starts make them easily more valuable in the postseason.
I'm with you. My preference would be to have the everyday best position player in the league over the best pitcher. That being said, if Bryant were to approach Trout and Appel were to approach Kershaw, anyone would be hard pressed to say the Astros made a mistake selecting Appel over Bryant.
LMAO i laughed a tweet saying Bryant has k'ed 3 times and some cubs fan tweets me springer's stats. they mad
