i can't believe you honestly believe that. hunter has tons of AB's over the course of his career and has proven himself to be a good hitter. scott has one and a half seasons in and has proven himself to be streaky...and leaves most of wondering what we really have in him.
Absolutely not. The problem is, would I rather Scott over the $10 to $15 million per season it would take to land Hunter or Rowand? I probably would. The latter two are slightly better overall players, but unless McLane's willing to further expand his budget, I question whether it's worth the investment it would take when there are a number of other holes.
I honestly believe that. Scott's a career .280/.366/.534 minor league hitter and a career. 273/.366/.516 over 500 PA in the majors. "Streaky" Scott was our most consistent hitter over the last 4 months last season despite being yanked in and out of the lineup. Is that streaky? Even if he is streaky, who cares? Is there any evidence that streakiness leads to less production overall? Less wins? in contrast hunter's a 271/.324 /.469 career hitter, who at 32 is coming off the best year of his career. he has a career ops of 104 or basically what an average major league hitter would put up. Scott's career ops+ is 125. Last year he was at 119. Hunter's will be 33 next year while Scott will be 30. Yes Scott is a better hitter. Hunter may be on more commercials and espn highlights, but unfortunately for him and whoever signs him, that's not what wins baseball games.
Yeah, Torii Hunter doesn't win baseball games. He meant nothing to the success the Twins had. Luke Scott clearly showed that he wins baseball games in 2007.
yes torri hunter is a good player. he's an average major league hitter who is an above average, but declining, fielder. Yes Luke scott is a good player. He's an average major league fielder who is an above average hitter. is hunter's advantage is fielding enough to offset's the Scott's offense? Probably. Is it worth 100 million over 6-7 years. considering his age and other factors related to the team I can't imagine an argument that it is. So yes Hunter is more popular than scott, yes he is in more commercials, yes he has a better haircut, but no, signing hunter to a 80-100 million dollar contract is not better for the team's chance's than retaining scott.
Is this Luke??? Seriously. Ask any major league expert, or hell any amateur baseball fan who is a better ballplayer: Scott or Hunter? 99 times out of 100 you are going to hear Hunter. The other one would be yourself.
well definitely can't argue with that! Do you even read posts before you reply? Has anyone said that scott is a better player than hunter? anyone? just one post you can cite? To help your reading comprehension let me lay it out for you easy. The argument is that this signing would be bad based on a number of factors inlcuding the size of the contract, the length of the contract, hunter's age, his declining fielding, more addressing needs on the team, and yes hunter overall production vs. scott's production relative to their potential contracts. That doesn't mean that I, or anyone, think that scott is a better player than hunter overall. Scott has been a better hitter over the course of their career. 100 out of a 100 people that can read and understand the back of a baseball card would agree with that, but hunter is a better player, based largely on his defense and his hitting in a rare position. But of course that doesn't mean they should spend 80-100 million on a 6-7 year deal on him.
OK, but it's not that simple. The Astros have a relatively average budget, and a ton of holes -- SP, MR, 2B to name a few. Given that, ask your major league experts whether it's worth $15 extra million per season for Hunter... and the opinion would be split, at best. Also, ask any "amateur baseball fan"? Are you kidding? It's the "amateur baseball fans" who think Derek Jeter is a wizard defensively at SS. I think we need to confine our answers to people who actually understand the game, and don't judge by a few Web gems on ESPN.
Yes, I like to sit here and analyze posts to no end. Dude, you said that Scott was a better hitter than Hunter - he isn't.
There has to be someone on the Astros every year who the SABR crowd has a hard on for. With Ensberg gone and Burke hitting like Rafael Landestoy looks like its Luke Scott's year.
Quoted For Truth. Still, Hunter and Rowand will be looking for big money and they're improvement over Scott offensively won't be worth it IMHO if it hampers our ability to improve the rotation, the bullpen, and 2B.
So, since you're so all knowing, mind to make a comparison of Scott to Ensberg? As I remember, the primary argument against Ensberg was that so many of his numbers were put up early in the season, and that his last four months told the real tale. On the other hand, Scott finished each of the last four months with a .900 or higher OPS... he was remarkably consistent to finish the season, unlike Ensberg. So can you please explain the similarity in some detail? Thanks.
Not just why you think that... but can you explain why you think that without referring to what you think these mythical "baseball experts" and "amateur fans" would say?
I don't understand why people keep talking about Scott like he's some young rookie. He's 3 years younger than Hunter. He's 29 already and turning 30 during next season. He hasn't proven much of anything yet, other than a propensity to get injured. Can anyone name any really good hitters who did not put together a single fully productive season before the age of 30?
Over his last 580 at-bats, he has an OPS above .900 with an OBP around .380. That's not a full season, so yes, it's subject to question. But the sample is reasonable. I don't think people are expecting him to develop. I think people are talking about the production he's actually given. And for a team with a limited budget and a number of holes, it's questionable to waste a ton of money replacing that kind of production.
Sure...like Ensberg his Slugging and OBP both declined from his admittedly fabulous partial season. If Luke can maintain his current level of Extra Base Hit production...then he is gonna be pretty good...even by corner outfielder standards. If it continues to drop off, then like Ensberg his eye is gonna lose some of its value cause people are gonna challenge him. Personally I hope you guys are right about Luke AND Burke, but I don't think its irrational of me to have my doubts.
