Jason Heyward Crystal Ball
by John Sickels on Sep 21, 2010 10:30 PM EDT
Email
Print
250 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
+1
I almost want to bite and believe it, but I just can’t do it. Its really that 2020 season that puts it over the top, though I’d probably say its a tad optimistic anyway. 2020 is basically a .316 / .450 / .700 batting line and .465 wOBA (the 119/79 BB/K is startling also, though I understand the assumption is a lot of those walks would be intentional). I wouldn’t say its impossible that he peaks that well, but I don’t think there’s a player in the world that I could assume with a median range projection to have a season quite that good. It obviously happens from time to time, it would only rank about 45th all time for single season OPS (with about half of the seasons ahead of it being held by Babe Ruth, Barry Bonds, Lou Gehrig, and Ted Williams), but accepting it as within the realm of possibility and expecting it from a player who is still just 20 years old are two different things.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Sep 21, 2010 11:03 PM EDT up reply actions
I wouldn't put that kind of walks total past him at all
We’re talking about a guy who in his 20 year old season after skipping AAA has a .400 OBP, A couple years down the road when he peaks and is getting far more intentional passes I could see that kind of a walk total and OBP. Not sure about the .700 SLG but we can hope.
R.I.P Jazz #6
That's kind of where I fall
I think the BB totals in general all weaker than what I expect, while some of the other numbers are better. In total, I really wouldn’t be surprised if this were a decent guess at the value he’ll provide throughout his career.
Its not so much the walks specifically, I actually can buy that number
But just as much the strikeouts, especially with that many walks. Guys who walk as much as they strike out are uncommon. Guys who walk substantially more than they strike out are rare. Guys who walk 100 times a year AND walk more than they strike out AND perenially hit more than 35 HR are once-in-a-generation, which I’m not saying Heyward can’t/won’t be, I just can’t feel comfortable making it a mid-level prediction right now. The only players since 2004 to finish a single season with at least 100 walks and less than 100 strikeouts are Albert Pujols, Barry Bonds, Todd Helton, and Brian Giles (Nick Johnson also did it but he had 99 Ks, so not sure that really counts). Of that group, only Pujols and Bonds had 35+ HR seasons over that stretch. None have hit 50 HR without “help”. Helton hit 49 HR one year, but he also struck out 104 times (and more times than he walked) in that season. His only other 40 HR season he hit 42, and did have 100+ walks and many fewer Ks. Giles’ power topped out in the high 30s. And Bonds* obviously gets an asterisk. Pujols is the only one to do it perennially with this kind of power. If there’s any player in baseball likely to have a Pujols-esque career right now, I would take Heyward, but that still doesn’t make it a good mid-level projection. A Helton-esque career seems equally as plausible, just to use an example already touched on (yes, I know Helton didn’t come up when he was 20, still though).
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Sep 21, 2010 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions
this isn't a mid-level projection
It’s just a possible career path, certainly at the higher end of the spectrum
R.I.P Jazz #6
While John doesn't intend them to be exactly that
The question he’s asking us to vote on is certainly what range we think its in – optimistic, pessimistic, or just right. IMO, this would be optimistic for anyone, that’s all I’m saying. Maybe he thinks the same thing, that he was giving a high end projection of Heyward. Maybe he thinks this one is dead right. I definitely lean towards optimistic.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Sep 21, 2010 11:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Maybe this is part of what John was thinking when he did them
But especially in contrast to the Stanton CB, this seems way optimistic (and Stanton way pessimistic). Stanton tops out at 31 HR in his. I’m not saying the league won’t adjust to Stanton, or that his K% won’t always make him less valuable overall, but that’s a huge disparity in power. These two are the same age, Stanton has the much better power track record in the minors, and already has more this year in the majors with only about 60% of Heyward’s PAs. I’m not saying Heyward won’t wind up with more career homers, that’s certainly possible just because he seems likely to have his career last longer, but if I had to take one or the other as more likely to ever hit 50 HR, I’d take Stanton.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Sep 22, 2010 12:01 AM EDT up reply actions
Exactly
Stanton’s projection is more of a “floor” projection — i.e. what his career will look like if he doesn’t really develop that much from where he is now. Whereas Heyward’s is a “ceiling” projection — what his career will look like if he develops to the absolute top of his potential.
Really, aside from batting average — Stanton, because of the strikeouts, won’t be a big BA guy even if he hits his ceiling — you can swap the two projections and you’d have a pretty decent idea of Stanton’s ceiling and Heyward’s floor. I doubt Stanton would get to 3000 hits, but 600 homers is certainly more than possible.
The 2020 season is certainly his single season ceiling
As a career, I think this is far from the absolute top of his potential. I mean purely in terms of HR it may be, but I certainly think Heyward could post a considerably better slash line than .295/.400/.545 for his career.
I think it is a ceiling projection. He has the potential but 3000/600 is optimistic for almost anyone.
Not at all
The point is that though this CB is extremely aggressive in terms of hits and home runs, it is actually somewhat conservative in other aspects.
50hr?
i can see him hitting a bit better in term of avg, but will he reach 50hr, i’m not sure.
i guess it is possible ( see bautista)
My only problem
I think he will peak at 45 but other than that this is pretty good
…they should send down Huntington & Nutting, because they aren’t ready, either. - royshowell
by Marinerfanjake on Sep 21, 2010 10:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, I think the HR peaks are high
Maybe in the early 2000s, we could expect a few 45-50 HR seasons, but I’m skeptical in this era.
http://bullpenbanter.com/
At the same time things may change by 2019-2020
I think the current offensive downturn is at least as much due to an increase in pitching talent as it is to PED testing.
Possibly
And while I have no problem with PED use, I prefer this more sober run environment.
http://bullpenbanter.com/
Obviously its aggressive, but I like it as a possible outcome
Personally I see fewer HR at his peak and more BB throughout his career. He just strikes me as a guy who is going to 100 BB just about every year. As a Braves fan, I’d certainly be ecstatic with this outcome, I just see him getting his value in a slightly different manner.
agree 100%
I think he’ll be nicked up more often then what John has here. Minor injuries seem to follow him
Come check out Bullpen Banter!
Follow Bullpen Banter on Twitter
Follow me on Twitter
Remember: baseball guys... baseball...
There are very few prospects that will ever come along with a "Crystal Ball" this good. But Jason Heyward is one of those guys.
Historically one of the top ten 20 year olds ever.
by Kenneth Arthur on Sep 21, 2010 11:28 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Yup.
Its 90th+ (99th?) percentile for Heyward… but completely impossible for the vast majority of good young players.
For example, completely impossible, unthinkable to imagine Starlin Castro having this kind of career IMO, and yet he’s also one of the better young players in the game. Heyward is just that great.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
Possibly
Though I am not sure it places him ahead of Spahn.
by King Billy Royal on Sep 21, 2010 11:37 PM EDT up reply actions
It'd definitely be close
I don’t think this CB has Heyward with a slash line that’s really any better than Chipper’s
Uh, wow
1st, as a Braves’ fan, I’d definitely take that for the next 20+ years.
As far as the CB, there are a few things that I find a little odd:
-The fact that the power comes on real quick is interesting. The HR #‘s go 23, an injury marred 12, then 39. Maybe that’s typical as someone reaches their mid-20’s, I dunno, but it does seem odd.
-Next is the injuries. I don’t think he’s yet to play a full season. I’m sure that some of that is the Braves brass simply wanting to ensure his health since his curve has been so high, and he did have this year under Bobby who’s has the everyday attitude… But still – only 1 year where he misses more than 27 games over the next 12 seasons is very optimistic. I was thinking he’d be more in the 140 range as his median with a few seasons in the 120’s… and that’s without any major injuries.
- The power to average ratio listed is interesting. I also figured he’d be more likely to hit .330 than challenge 50 HRs. It’s early and could go either way, but yeah, as a Braves’ fan, I’ll definitely take it.
Yeah, I’m still stunned that others would see him as this. I know that he can do it, but after sitting through Francoeur, I’ve held back my enthusiasm a little…
Finally got the other part that kind of struck me as odd: the SB/CS
If Heyward’s path tends this way, I don’t think we’d let him run too much – especially if he was getting thrown out at a 50% clip for 2 years in a row. But I do think he’s got enough baseball acumen to pick his spots a little better than that…
What does that have to do with Heyward?
by King Billy Royal on Sep 21, 2010 11:45 PM EDT up reply actions
I looked at a few of the Crystal ball from the past
Gordon was projected to be a 1st ballot HOFer with better numbers than Braun and Hanley Ramirez
He could be talking about when the CBs were made
Obviously I can’t speak for him though
in 4 years
Gordon has not done anything close to Heywards rookie season. He is still only 26, but his career thus far has been an epic failure.
ok i never said he has had a season as good as heyward's
but, he has had a few good seasons. that’s all i said.
R.I.P. cwhitman412, Frederick0220, & Mets2k9
What I meant was
If you made CB’s after each players rookie year, Heywards should look much better since he had a much better rookie season and Alex Gordons was a dissapointment. I hope this makes sense, I’m having a hard time trying to say what I want to say by typing it, lol
Agreed.
The crystal ball for Gordon was done based on one full season of minor league data, an impressive pedigree, and very strong scouting reports.
With Heyward, we have all of those things, but we have something else, too: a full season of historically good MLB data.
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Sep 22, 2010 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions
CB
This is why I stopped doing these for a long time.
THE CB IS NOT A PROJECTION. Can’t people get that straight? It is intended to start a discussion.
by John Sickels on Sep 22, 2010 12:07 AM EDT up reply actions
Most of us get it
But you have some that don’t and never will!
I really enjoy it
Thanks for putting the time in John. It’s very easy for someone to be critical, but I do think it’s a fun discussion. Thanks for this!
CB
Doesnt a projection also start a discussion? Why not just make it a projection? The community can then discuss whether your projection was optimistic, pstimistic or just right. Plus we get the benifit of getting some insight on what you think the player’s career might be instead of guessing whether you believe one thing but purposefully made it better or worse.
It would be a prediction, there would be more meaning behind the numbers. I mean, it’s called the Christal Ball, the implication is that someone looked into a CB and saw the future. Don’t worry, I think people can understand that you dont actually have a CB.. So instead of getting upset that " people can’t get it straight," why not just make this a prediction of a guy’s career and projected numbers?
No, apparently, they can't
It’s an interesting CB. Gut feeling, John (or anyone), what do you think the percentage that Heyward gets to this crystal ball? My gut says 25-35% which is great considering the CB follows Griffey Jr’s path and he’s probably the best all around baseball player of my lifetime.
by thehitonecafe on Sep 22, 2010 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, this is a 85th or 90th percentile projection or something
But the fact of the matter is that it’s absolutely possible, which is impressive in its own right.
But regardless of who we’re talking about, 600 homers and 3000 hits isn’t likely.
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Sep 22, 2010 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions
exactly
exactly on impressive in it’s own right. Like the 10-15% by you and mrkupe have agreed on. As a Mets fan I should’ve been much more pessimistic. It’s in my blood you know…..
by thehitonecafe on Sep 22, 2010 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Too optimistic
Though as a father of a 2.5 year old and a four month old, I certainly hope the American economy and infrastructure (not to mention the environment) will be functioning well enough in 2030 for there to be major league baseball.
I do think its a reasonable CB for Heyward, though so many things can go wrong (thinking of everyone from Dave Parker to Don Mattingly to Grady Sizemore) to make that long of a productive career a long, long shot.
mmm
what i found the most interesting is that Heyward’s batting avg for the first 12yrs is very consistent.
.300 +/- .010 aside from the 50hr year.
i think his batting average will fluctuate a bit more. maybe a year at .330, but mostly in the .290-.315 range.
Who are the people
That said this was too pessimistic? This is most likely a top 20 all time career. I remember seeing the list of 21 year olds who put up OPS’s above 850 and other than Tony Conigliaro who got his career cut short by an eye injury all the players were HOFers or borderline HOFers so that speaks very well for Heyward’s future
Brandon Jacobs of Lowell > Brandon Jacobs of NYG
Too Optimistic on Both Accounts
But fun to see the optimism. You can tell John definitely sensed this as he moved the “Too Optimistic” options to the top of the poll rather than to the bottom where they normally are. To project a career like this for Heyward and to project Stanton to hit a career high year of around 30 HRs is a travesty to Stanton.
PLEASE
Stanton can’t touch Heyward’s jock strap except when it comes to power. He won’t come close to Heyward’s walk totals, hit totals, batting average, OBP, defense, etc. Stanton will hit for a lot of power, and he wil likely have a few 40+ HR seasons if he stays healthy, but he’s much more of a flame out risk than Heyward is.
by phoenixscienter on Sep 22, 2010 9:31 AM EDT up reply actions
"Stanton can’t touch Heyward’s jock strap except when it comes to power"
You are either a homer or a complete idiot
Please explain
I’d love to hear how you honestly think Stanton is even in the same stratosphere as Heyward when it comes to all 5-tools. They’re not close, and you won’t find one scout, GM or coach in all of MLB that would take Stanton over Heyward. Not one. And I doubt anyone outside of Stanton’s mother would think he’s close to Heyward as a complete player.
Not. even. close. Except for one tool— that being power.
by phoenixscienter on Sep 22, 2010 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions
It's not historic. Not even close.
.286/.401/.475 with 18 HRs for a 20 yr old is not historic.
I immediately think of Arod’s age 20 season which was .358/.413/.631 with 36 hrs. Mantle’s age 20 season was better too. There’s a lot of examples. These are just the obvious ones. It’s not even close.
That being said, you’re obviously a huge Heyward fan, and I agree with you that the sky’s the limit with him and he’s a once-a-generation talent. Then again, there’s many players who get the “once-a-generation” label every few years. Only, say, once a dcade does that guy actually pans out.
He has the second best OBP+ for someone his age since integration
I’d call that pretty historic.
Is this sarcasm?
Mel Ott – .449
Ted Williams – .436
Al Kaline – .421
Jimmie Foxx – .416
Alex Rodriguez – .414
Jason Heyward – .401
Mel Ott – .397
Mickey Mantle – .392
Ty Cobb – .380
Frank Robinson – .379
Arky Vaughn – .375
How does this not put him in a historic group? I suppose it’s not historic if your basis is batting average, homers and RBI.
If you’re looking at things that actually matter, like his OBP and BB/K, not to mention his wOBA, he’s clearly in a historic group.
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Sep 22, 2010 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions
"Best OBP"..."20 year old"...
I think some (including myself) are focusing more on the overall historic season part, rather than the “Best OBP + 20 years old = historic season”, which I don’t really think is all that impressive.
For example, just off the top of my head, I think Justin Upton’s 900 OPS as a 21 year old is more impressive/historic/whatever over Heyward’s 20 year old season. I think there are a handful of other seasons by players in 21 or 22 year old seasons that I think are more impressive than what Heyward has done in his high OBP 20 year old season.
Heyward's wRC+ is currently 143 to Upton's 134 last season
You realize Upton plays in one of the most hitter friendly parks in baseball right? I would hope his OPS would look prettier than Heyward’s. Plus, you know, Heyward has a huge advantage in the OBP department, which is significantly more important than SLG.
which I don’t really think is all that impressive.
Excuse me, but what the fuck is wrong with you?
"The WAR folks like yunel apparently. i know this, bobby cox hated going to war with this guy." - Jon Heyman
Beyond the Box Score / Capitol Avenue Club / shwitter: @CapitolAvenue
I'd throw in ARod's 20 year old season and AJones' 21 year old season
Both had monster offensive years and Gold Glove defense at a premium position.
I wouldn't call Andruw's 120 wRC+ monster
He did however post a monster WAR because of his historically good defense.
More Than Just the Bat
That defense happened. When evaluating a historically great season, defense ought to be considered. I hope you don’t group me in with the Murray Chass crowd for saying this, but there’s a lot more to the game than just OBP and advanced metrics, particularly when you seem to prioritize statistics which neglect defensive contributions. Heyward is a terrific, outstanding, amazing prospect, but his age 20 season is not in the same league as Alex Rodriguez’s. Or Mickey Mantle’s. Or Al Kaline’s. Or Frank Robinson’s. One might even argue that he’s inferior to Willie Mays, when you account for baserunning and defense. So, no, it’s not historically great.
Heyward may well turn out to be a Hall of Famer, and perhaps even a better player than any of the aforementioned ballplayers, but until he does, or at least posts a truly historically great season (figure something like 335/445/600 as a 21 year old), then I think it’s purely irrational exuberance to argue that Heyward is that sort of talent.
Re. the Crystal Ball, my inclination is to say that Heyward is more likely to be a 330 hitter than a 50 HR guy, or at minimum, I think he’ll hit for a bit more average than the crystal ball suggests. This is obviously a ceiling projection, and a first ballot Hall of Fame career, and I hope he has it.
But don't you get the line of thinking here?
Look at the guys you just listed: A-Rod. Mantle. Kaline. Robinson. Mays.
Those are the guys that had better debuts at age 20 than Heyward.
If a guy does something that’s only been done a few times, and those few times were by historically great players, doesn’t that make what the player did historic on many levels?
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Sep 22, 2010 7:41 PM EDT up reply actions
No, it doesn't!
It means that Heyward’s NOT in the league of those players. It means he’s a tier below them. Still good, but not quite so great. Those seasons are the truly rare, historic ones. Heyward simply didn’t have a year like any of those players. He’s not in their league.
Totally disagree with your logic.
He’s among them, not behind them.
He’s on pace to put up the 10th-best WAR ever for a player 20 or younger. That’s only worse than A-Rod, Kaline, Mantle, Cobb, Ott, Williams, Pinson, Robinson, Hornsby, and Sherry McGee.
That’s better than Ken Griffey Jr., Johnny Bench, Jimmie Foxx, Roberto Alomar, Arky Vaughn, Willie Mays, Orlando Cepeda, Hank Aaron and Alan Trammel. That’s better than every player ever except for the nine players listed above.
What’s the justification for firmly putting him behind those guys, rather than among them?
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Sep 22, 2010 7:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Heyward's OBP
Some posters are too caught on Stanton’s OBP. May it simply be the product that ATL has no other bats protecting him?
ATL’s most frequent lineup has Chipper protecting Heyward. Chipper has been victimized throughout the year. I also do not think Prado strikes fear in many MLB pitchers despite his solid season.
Yes, Heyward has been very good, better than most expected, but withhold “historical” comparisons to a more meaningful indicator.
Right because Stanton clearly gets more protection in FLA
That’s one of the most ridiculous attempts I’ve ever heard to put down an amazing season. Heyward only gets walked so much because he has had guys like Prado and Chipper hitting behind him (with McCann batting 4th a good bit, meaning you’d like to limit base runners before he comes up).
by nixa37 on Sep 22, 2010 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think others have summarized my position sufficiently
IT IS HISTORIC on many levels — going beyond OBP even.
Look at his numbers when his hand was injured— he had absurdly low OPS totals those 2 months— clearly an outlier when looking at the rest of his body of work in 2010 at the major league level. He’s essentially a .900+ OPS player at the ages of 20-21 in the majors. HOW IN THE HECK IS THAT NOT HISTORIC?
We’ll see how he pans out, but I suspect the pessimists here will be eating crow in 5 years.
by phoenixscienter on Sep 22, 2010 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions
My idea of historic isn't based on nuanced esoteric stats
..when you say something like calling a season to be historic, I expect it to be clearly and obviously historic. It’s something anyone who might not even know baseball could appreciate. If you have to parse the argument with esoteric qualifications to call it “historic”, you might be technically right, but it’s not in the same spirit of the initial statement. It’s not like, say, as mentioned before, Arod’s age 20 season where you don’t have to know much baseball, or splice the numbers favorably, or add parenthetical arguments about an injury that suppressed what could have been, to understand that it’s a season for the ages.
I’m not a naysayer on Heyward. I’ve just seen 30+ years of baseball and have seen a ton of these guys per decade come up and break your heart by not reaching their promise, for one reason or another. I’m not saying Heyward can’t be a great player. I’m just saying there’s 99% or so of his career to go, and predicting this outcome is like predicting the marathon winner based on how the first 10 feet went.
What part of a top 10 OBP all time for a 20 year old isn't historic?
You have to completely ignore that category to argue his season isn’t historic for someone his age. Simply put, the only people who do what Heyward is currently doing are surefire Hall of Famers. Joining that sort of elite company certainly strikes me as doing something historic.
...
There’s much, much more to the game than OBP, even if it is an extremely important statistic. Heyward’s posted a great OBP, sure, but that’s a single part of his season, and thus, an expansive definition of “historic.” I don’t mean to argue semantics, but I think most people would define a “historic” age-20 season as an MVP-caliber campaign, and Heyward pretty clearly isn’t at that level.
Just off the top of my head...
…top first full seasons might be Vida Blue, Teddy Williams, Fred Lynn, Ichiro, Fernando Valenzuela, Arod, Braun, Pujols. Some of those were easily deserving of the MVP as rookies.
I’m just saying that we know Heyward is having a special season, but it’s based on examining the peripherals, taking into account his age, and evaluating on a curve that projects what’s to come. If he were to repeat this year’s totals identically for the next 10 or so years, I think most of his fans would be disappointed. With some of the guys I just mentioned, if they repeated their rookie campaigns over the span of their career, it would be an immense success.
Like it or not, none of Heyward’s specialness is expressed yet in the traditional glamour stats in gaudy ways yet. There is nothing like, say, 50 hrs. He’s still striking out way above 100, which isn’t a bad thing when you look at his walks, but if you have to argue relatively esoteric stats like K/BB or OBP to argue a “historic season”, then it’s not as historic as you are rationalizing to yourself that it is. Perhaps this view upsets sabremetricians here, but for it to be an obviously historic season (and many it technically is), people in the future have to be able to have that conversation about the all-time OBP seasons leader? Who argues that?
he didn't ask about top debuts
he asked about top seasons by a 20 year old. There is a big difference, most even really good prospects don’t make their debut for a couple more years.
R.I.P Jazz #6
You do realize only two of those actually qualify right?
The only seasons there by 20 year olds in the last 70 years are A-Rod and Valenzuela. Valenzuela’s actually isn’t much better than Heyward’s current season, but you still consider it historic.
I don’t think its particularly fair to compare Heyward to guys like Lynn and Braun who were 3 years older when they made their debuts (plus I hope you see the hypocrisy in putting Andruw over Heyward for defense while not holding it against Braun), let alone Ichiro. And seriously Ted Williams made his debut in 1939. If you’re going back that far for better examples, the point about Heyward’s season being historic has already been made.
Semantics
I took the post to mean “a historically great rookie season is an MVP-caliber season.”
I have made this extremely clear. A historically great age-20 season is also an MVP-caliber season. I have also made this very clearly. I say this because that represents the upper bound of performance by a player that age. Heyward does not satisfy this clause. I cannot be clearer.
So there have been less than 10 historic 20 year old seasons by position players since about 1900?
Because Heyward’s season ranks among the 10 best ever for someone his age. Yeah, it might not be in the discussion for the very best ever, but the fact that we’ve only seen one or two players this good at this age in the past 50 years certainly makes this season historic, at least in most people’s opinion.
Historic
This is definitional: by what measure do you call this a top-10 season? WAR? I <3 AROM/Sean Smith, but I think TZ is fallible as we move further back in time. OBP is just one statistic, and Heyward plays RF, which makes it a bit harder than say, a shortstop (for example, which I don’t mean to be limited to.)
I suppose that yes, I do place a higher bar for this measure than you do. As you might have guessed, I am a small Hall guy.
Without Researching
Off the top of my head, A-Rod and Griffey both spring to mind. Those are both in the past 25. I’m certain there are more.
MLB is 140 years old, and being truly great means having to be better than a whole lot of other players. It’s a pretty high bar to clear. Why are you limiting it to the last 50? Post-expansion?
The really “modern” game of baseball has only existed since 1973 (lowered mound/DH/PED’s/most of expansion) and one might argue 2003/4 (PED testing.)
You shouldn't be so sure
A-Rod and Griffey are the two I was talking about earlier. Try and find another 20 year old position player in the past 50 years at Heyward’s level. Its not very easy, which puts things in context.
I’m looking at the past 50 years because I feel like. Its a nice round number and it puts into perspective how rare this sort of season is from a 20 year old. A-Rod’s is the only clearly better season, while Griffey might have a slight edge. When those are the only two seasons that come to mind in half a century, I think its fair to say that what we’re seeing is historic.
60
Let’s expand it to 60. Oh, wow! Suddenly, Kaline, Mantle, Robinson and Mays all appear! Within a 5 year span! It’s a 140 year old sport. Heyward’s a rarity, but he’s not the Maltese Falcon.
So now we're up to 5 or 6 in 60 years
Since an argument can be made for Heyward over Mays. To me something that is happening on average less than once a decade is pretty darn historic and is pretty much only being done by top tier hall of famers (I guess not Kaline, but it was also arguably the best season of his career).
Anyways, I think the fact that you have to go back 60 years (you know, pretty far back in the history of the game) to get a decent number of examples points to this being historic. We’re talking about guys who were playing in a 16 team MLB. Since we got went above 16, we have like 2 examples. If that isn’t historic, then I guess A-Rod’s is the only one since those 5 that is (since Heyward and Griffey are pretty close).
When Arod's season was happening...
…everyone (and I mean everyone! Hall of famers, experts, analysts, etc) were talking about his season as historic on an everyday basis. Heyward has had a good season and will be a good player, but to say it’s a “season fir the ages” is just being biased
You're the only one who brought up "season for the ages"
Its historic because he’s having the best season we’ve seen for someone his age in awhile. We’ve seen two seasons like in the past few decades. To most of us, that is certainly historic.
Maybe that's just it then...
…for those of us who followed baseball for a loooong time (Sorry. Don’t mean to play the “old” card ;) Haha. ), it has to jump past a lot of other precedents and other super-hyped first seasons to standout. For 20 or so yr olds today, Heyward’s first season might be like their version of Vida Blue, Arod, Valenzuela, Prior, etc..
+1
This is precisely the point that we’ve been making. We’re just taking a longer view. Heyward is really, really good! But baseball is really, really, really old, and because of that, you have to be a whole lot better than Heyward to be one of the best 20 year olds to ever play.
A-Rod, Robinson, Mantle, Kaline, and a few others reaching back have performed at an MVP level as 20 year olds. Jason Heyward has not. It’s a pretty glitzy list, but that’s the standard that we’re applying.
Think MVP. 20 year olds have done it before, and they will do it again (Bryce Harper?) Jason Heyward simply does not pass that test on the record at hand.
You just named 2 actual 20 year olds
One of which made his debut 29 years ago. Prior was 22 when he had his huge year. Blue was 21, but that was 39 years ago.
Yes
In short: I think that if you’re not in the discussion for “very best ever” then, no, you’re not historic in terms of overall performance. Heyward’s OBP is very notable.
So I guess your list of historically good players is basically Ruth and Bonds?
Just as another example, Gehrig’s 1928 line of .374/.468/.648 isn’t historic because its not even in the discussion of the greatest seasons of all time. Heck it probably doesn’t even crack the top 50.
So you agree then
That it’s not the best ever. Otherwise how can a season be “not the best ever” and still be historic? Doesn’t historic mean that it challenges and betters earlier precedents? Who celebrates great second-place finishers?
Your argument that our use of historic comps is in itself a kind of evidence of Heyward’s rookie season as historic is absolutely ridiculous. We are using those examples as examples of truly great historic seasons, and Heyward’s doesn’t come close. Not close at all. For you to prove Heyward’s season as historic you have to split hairs and find a angle in the argument that favors OBP and BB. I’ve been saying that any such “historic” season would not need any kind of laborious convincing argument attached to it. A truly historic season smells historic, walks historic, and looks historic. No help needed period.
None of this necessarily means that Heyward is or isn’t eventually a historic player though. Many great players started off relatively modestly. I think you’re confusing a great young player being graded on a curve, an auspicious sign of things to come, with an actual great historic season. Either that or you just have a baseball man crush on a great young player ;)
He's one of the top 10 players his age in WAR of all time
That’s not splitting hairs or anything of the sort. That’s putting everything into proper context and then ranking people based on it. When we do that, Heyward’s season is the sort of thing we only see from someone his age every decade or so. To most people, that is historic.
Using your logic, I guess a guy like Pujols has never had a historic season. Even hid best season doesn’t put him in the top 60 seasons of all time.
What are you talking about?
Pujols has many measures that put him in a historic class. At last count I think he’s the youngest to reach certain HR, hits, rbis, etc plateaus.
Frame the argument however you want to comfort yourself.
I said historic seasons, not historic numbers
None of Pujols’ seasons are in the discussion for best ever, so by your own definition, none of them are historic.
I just don't understand why you brought up Pujols here
To make your point?
He is a great player who has had great seasons. Are they historic? Well, not necessarily so, no. Taken together in the same career, yes. Who says a a great player needs to have a season a la Bonds HR Champ year to be called a historic player? For that matter, Aaron who never enjoyed a truly isolated “historic” season fits that category too. Again, you are paring down the data into a slice that favors your opinion.
You are conflating a lot of random assumptions that make no sense. The notion that Heyward’s rookie season not being “historic” has no bearing on him perhaps becoming a historic player.
Rarity
Heyward’s season is a rare bird indeed, but the real rarity is when someone who can barely shave walks into Major League Baseball and establishes himself, on day one, as one of the absolute best in the game. Jason Heyward has not done that. This is a definitional argument. :/
We're not talking about whether he pans out. We're talking about this season.
The only way this season hasn’t been special for Heyward is in terms of counting statistics: 29 doubles, 4 triples, 18 homers, 138 hits and 9 steals. Big deal, right?
But he’s going to be top-10 all-time in OBP, OPS and WAR for players 20 and under. This is special stuff, people.
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Sep 22, 2010 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions
You realize you've compared him to Arod, Mantle
and other greats, right?
The fact you’ve only listed inner circle HOFers as examples of better 20 year old debuts speaks volumes.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
+1
Yeah, this isn’t exactly a damning statement: “Yeah, but A-Rod, Mantle, Williams, Ott and Kaline have had better debuts at age 20!”
If those are the only guys that have beat Heyward’s debut, isn’t that an indication that he’s having a pretty historically significant season?
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Sep 22, 2010 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions
+1
This is precisely it. It’s not that Heyward hasn’t had a terrific rookie season, or that he isn’t in terrific company. People take issue with the assertion that he stands among, rather than behind, those giants of the game at this early juncture.
Oh
Then those people have completely lost perspective of what a crystal ball is.
There are two things going on here:
1) John made a crystal ball with a damn optimistic scenario for anyone.
2) A few people laughed and said, “you know what? If anyone can pull this off, Heyward can. Heck, he’s had a historically good season for a 20 year old – one of the 10 best seasons by a 20 year old ever”
This caused a select group of people around here to freak out and draw some strange conclusions and complain that Heyward isn’t Mantle, ARod, etc… Why? I have no idea. Seems like this last group takes themselves a little too seriously and is missing the point.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
+1
It’s not that Heyward is already set on being an all-time great.
It’s that his first season, at age 20, has been so spectacular that it’s not unfair to say that he’s absolutely capable of joining those all-time greats.
And the fact of the matter is that with most players you can say with certainty that they don’t stand a chance of becoming an all-time great. Just getting to the point where people can think of you and believe that it’s possible is tough enough, and the idea here is that Heyward’s 2010 has squarely put him in that position.
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Sep 23, 2010 10:14 AM EDT up reply actions
...
The response isn’t targeted towards the Crystal Ball in the least. The response, as it has been described several times now, articulates the following point of view: taking into account only that production which has actually occurred, and limiting our sample to players debuting at age-20, Jason Heyward still does not make the first string.
The argument is about whether or not his rookie year is “good” or if it is “historic.” It is emphatically not historic because it is not an MVP-caliber campaign. That is the test. “Does the 20 year old rookie have statistics resembling those which may reasonably be argued to be of a caliber associated with the winner of a Most Valuable Player award in any given season?” The answer is very obviously no. The problem comes not with the assessment that Heyward has been very successful, but with the irrational exuberance over the caliber of his rookie campaign.
I feel like some cross between Murray Chass and Antonin Scalia. I’m 24.
The response, as it has been described several times now, articulates the following point of view: taking into account only that production which has actually occurred, and limiting our sample to players debuting at age-20, Jason Heyward still does not make the first string.
Disagree. I think you’re only looking at the offensive line. Very few 20 year olds have put up >4.5 win seasons. I think you’re ignoring the fact he put up that offensive line while being the best defensive RFer in the game.
If we account for Heyward’s defensive contributions his season still stand behind ARod, Frank Robinson, Teddy Ballgame… but its still in rare company. Would you consider Longoria’s rookie season historic (5.3 WAR as a 22 yo)? I would.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
Quoting Myself
That defense happened. When evaluating a historically great season, defense ought to be considered. I hope you don’t group me in with the Murray Chass crowd for saying this, but there’s a lot more to the game than just OBP and advanced metrics, particularly when you seem to prioritize statistics which neglect defensive contributions. Heyward is a terrific, outstanding, amazing prospect, but his age 20 season is not in the same league as Alex Rodriguez’s. Or Mickey Mantle’s. Or Al Kaline’s. Or Frank Robinson’s. One might even argue that he’s inferior to Willie Mays, when you account for baserunning and defense. So, no, it’s not historically great.
Ctd.
Weird. My post cut off after I used quotations?
Anyway, I think I do consider defense. :P
Re. Longoria, I don’t think he had a historically great rookie season. IIRC The top end for rookie seasons seems to be something like 6-7 WAR and there are a fair number of players bunched up around there. Longoria pretty clearly missed that marker.
You're using an extremely strict definition of "historical" that I can't agree with.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
Sure
Nothing antagonistic here. Just saying that a definition is the source of the disagreement.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
He said above that it has to be in the debate of best ever to be historic
Basically, no one but Ruth and Bonds have ever had truly historic offensive seasons by his definition. I guess it is what it is.
I’m arguing in good faith, and I don’t mean to be boorish. However, I think that is a mischaracterization of my opinion. I just don’t think Heyward is the cream of the 20 year old crop. You do. Why can’t you accept that I take a longer view of the game than you do?
Because you listed like 8 guys who were better than Heyward
And every single one of them is a legend now, basically.
When you do something, and the only other people to ever do it were unequivocally among the very best ever, isn’t that a sign that you’re probably special?
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Sep 23, 2010 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Special
I have tried to express this a few different ways, so perhaps this one will be best: unless you’re grading on a curve, you have to score above a 90 to get an A.
We might adjust statistics of seasons against the competition in one instance, but it’s only so we can compare in absolute terms across eras. Jason Heyward, by most measures, falls considerably behind the people in front of him.
It’s not that he didn’t get a good grade; I’m just saying he’s not in the running for best in class.
Because that's not accurate?
Jason Heyward, by most measures, falls considerably behind the people in front of him.
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Sep 26, 2010 5:51 PM EDT up reply actions
I said specifically what you did
Its a ridiculous definition of the word historic. Using your definition, there could be one historic season ever in a sport if it was dominate enough. I just find it hard to accept a definition of historic that excludes someone doing something that has only been bested one or two times over the course of multiple decades.
+1
Although I think that we both already knew that I agreed with you, as I often do.
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Sep 23, 2010 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions
+1
Plus, if you ascribe to the theory that the quality of the game continues to improve with time its pretty telling that this hasn’t been done much the last 30-40 years.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
You guys have a pretty subjective definition of
..“historic.” You seem to want to frame our view of it as a strict interpretation but it’s not. It’s pretty simple actually. We’re just requiring some parameters to evaluate things in a reasonable way. If we evaluate based on offensive stats in a rookie season, that’s one way to do it. But, you guys are insisting on narrowing the field by inserting qualifying conditions (e.g. Age 20 seasons only, obp, walks, great defense, etc..), that seem to favor Heyward. Well, we can all create a series of qualifying conditions that frame our favorite players as being really great ones, right? Baseball is great at doing that. Though here we are debating a big daddy type of concept, that is, a truly great “historic” season. I’m just arguing that, if you want to discuss giving that mantle to Heyward, then by definition, that kind of category can’t be spliced by a litany of qualifiers.
If we used skyscrapers as an analogy, the title of “Tallest Building in the World” is a parameter that frames the argument. There’s no subjectivity to it. Your building is either the tallest or it isn’t. Though as soon as we start inserting addendums of “Worlds tallest antennae-less bldg” or “worlds’ tallest building in a non-urban area” or etc etc, it might be technically right, but it sullied the whole notion of the spirit of what a “historical” gesture it really is.
I hope you guys get what I mean on this...
…I don’t disagree that Heyward has had a great first season, which evaluated on a curve is a huge sign of great things to come, but it sounds like we have different ideas of what “historic” means. I think it breaks up into two camps here.
The only qualifying condition we're inserting is age
That’s essentially the same thing as inserting service time (i.e. rookie season). He’s having one of the top 10 seasons ever in terms of WAR for a 20 year old position player. Two guys (A-Rod and Griffey) in the past 50 years have been this good at this age. This is something we rarely ever see, thus why we think its historic.
You are inserting...
…both WAR and age. That’s narrows the field quite a bit.
You are inserting...
…both WAR and age as qualifiers. That narrows the field quite a bit.
Seriously how is WAR a qualifier?
If its an qualifier than any statistic is a qualifier, but since its one all encompassing statistic I guess its at least fewer of them. The only people its excluding is the ones who weren’t as good as Heyward. Of course its going to narrow the field quite a bit. That’s the point. In an objective measure of performance, very few players were this good at this age.
It is a qualifier in the sense that..
..it is the sole stat you use to make your argument.
A truly great season is great because it is great, not because it hits the right esoteric stat in the right way, and it is sabremetrically great. Now I do believe in WAR as a legit stat, but it’s disingenuous to think that a truly historic season would only be expressed in WAR alone and nothing else. For you guys to make this argument, you have to isolate all qualifying majorleguers who played as 20 yr olds, the evaluate them based on WAR alone. Well, that rightnthere already thins the pool quite a bit.
Again. Remember this. I am not saying he is not good. He is a beast who will likely become a great player. I just don’t believe he’s having a “historic” season. Maybe based on the way you qualify your assertions, he is technically having a great season, but it’s not in the spirit of that statement. A “historic” season needs no qualification whatsoever.
Its an all encompassing stat
There isn’t a need to look at his other stats because WAR already puts them into the proper context. Who cares exactly what his AVG was or how many HR he hit, the WAR calculation is properly valuing them. Using other stats to thin the pool would be using qualifiers. Using an all encompassing stat that puts every player on the same footing and then properly values everything they do (with the caveat that TZ isn’t perfect) isn’t thinning the pull other than taking people who weren’t as good out of the discussion.
I’m just going to leave this alone now. Clearly this conversation isn’t going anywhere and I’m ready to head out and watch some football. Take it easy.
A colloquial test of historicity is...
…if it stands out after, say, 10 years from now…
For instance, it’s now 10+ yrs from Arod’s historic first season and many commentors here have independently been able to cite that as a benchmark to compare against. I just don’t think in 2020+ you’re going to have people commonly remark, “Remember Heyward’s first year when he posted that huge WAR?!”
Maybe you use WAR as a stat (and it is a good contextual one to use which I like too), but it is inherently an esoteric sabremetric one most baseball fans won’t be familiar with. To me, if you need to learn a new stat just to make the argument, it says something. A truly “historic” season needs no such special qualifiers.
We're "inserting" how good he is & how young he is.
I really can’t even tell if you’re still serious or not, truthfully. I’d say its 50% you’re breaking b**** at this point.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
Again
I am not disagreeing with you that he is very good. And great because he’s young.
Some posters here have said that they think his season is a historic season. I’m saying that they might be technically right, but it’s only because they brought down the rung fir him to qualify.
We brought down the rung for him to qualify
We looked at people his age (because what he’s doing is historic for someone his age) and compared players using the most fair stat out there to compare between generations. Honestly, WAR doesn’t do Heyward a ton of favors as he gets penalized for playing a COF. If we were to solely look at offensive numbers he might rank a spot or two higher.
Look.
I get what you are saying. You are right that he ranks very highly for his age group AND WAR (which I agree is a great measure to take as many contributions, or there lack of, into account) against of list of great comps. You keep making the same pot over and over again, and none of which I am disputing.
I am just making the case that, the spirit behind the grand statement of a “historic season” requires it to stand out in more ways than technicalities. What if I told you that, my car model is a “historic car” because it is the first car to have a V12 engine and colored bright yellow? Let’s assume that those things technically make it a “historic car.” I am arguing that the spirit of that “historic” statement can only really be applied if, say, that car were the first electric car brought to mass market that kills the gas engine (the “Model-T” of it’s day). That’s what Arod’s season essentially was. It’s more than just the technicality based on pure numbers. History is based in its cultural effects and context.
The original post I was responding to was to a Braves Dan who...
…was saying it was a “historic 20 yr old season”. That’s why I raised comps of much better 20 yr old campaigns that could be easily be called “historic.”
I’m not suggesting Heyward isn’t having a very strong rookie season. He obviously is. No one is taking that away from him. I’m just toning down the hyperbole. Let’s fast forward a few years from now, and look at this season in retrospect. Is it better than Pujols’ rookie season? Is it better than Arod’s 20 yr old season? No, on both counts. Those were easily “historic” campaigns, and you don’t have to hedge the stats in any such way to see that. They were historic along several different categories, seen from every which way. By saying this, am I any less a Heyward fan? Or, do I think he’s not a great young player? No. He’s obviously a very special talent. I just don’t look at these things within an extrapolation based on assumed linear progression. In baseball it’s very often not the case.
I am so glad you get what I'm saying...
…everyone in this thread keeps bringing it up Heyward’s stats when I’m making the Winfield comment. Maybe Strawberry was a stretch because he was more of the tall wiry-strong lanky type. But, in my physical comparison of Heyward to Winfield, hearing peoples’ defense of Heyward makes it sound like they think it’s a slight to Heyward. To me that says any such fans who thinks so are probably too young to have seen Winfield play. That player was a once-a-generation force. Being compared to Winfield is a compliment.
I think you misunderstand
I was not saying Stanton is better than Heyward, rather, I was simply pointing to a top projection of 31 HRs for Stanton versus 50! for Heyward. I think that does huge injustice to Stanton. Yes, Heyward may have better tools than Stanton, however, no one can argue with Stanton’s 80 power.
Heyward: 18 HRs in 564 PAs (discounting HBPs), .475 SLG
Stanton: 20 HRs in 345 PAs (discounting HBPs), .505 SLG
I think it is hard to argue against Stanton’s superior 20-year-old power to Heyward. Yes, Heyward currently has a more polished approach, but to say Stanton is so far inferior to Heyward in terms of power is to be blind to current MLB samples.
slams head in wall
This is exactly why I stopped doing this. I was NOT saying that I thought Heyward would hit 50 homers and that Stanton would only hit 31.
by John Sickels on Sep 22, 2010 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions
I am not criticizing you John
I am just refuting what others are saying about Heyward being the next coming. More specifically, phoenix’s statement, “Stanton can’t touch Heyward’s jock strap except when it comes to power.” Some posters are too caught on Stanton’s OBP. May it simply be the product that ATL has no other bats protecting him?
John, I really enjoy your CBs. They generate a lot of discussion and are always an entertaining read. Additionally, if you don’t want “critiques,” I’d suggest removing the poll in the thread.
Stanton is a good looking young player and everything
Maybe his ultimate ceiling is even higher than Heyward because of his HR power. Right now though, Heyward is on a completely different level. Stanton has a long, long way to go to catch up to Heyward.
Also, wouldn’t a lack of protection help Stanton a lot more than Heyward when it came to getting BBs?
Stanton does not have well rounded enough of a game to catch Heyward, period.
barring injuries.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
I think you're probably worrying too much about these responses
Personally, I thought the Crystal Balls presented the range of possibilities for each player most effectively when you actually took the “3 in 1” approach, with high-end, low-end, and mid-range outcomes for a player. This is clearly Heyward’s upside here. I’d love to see the mid-range outcome.
No way
As good as Jason Heyward may be, this is projecting him to be one of the best players in baseball history. At this point, you can’t say that he’s gonna be that good.
I think you can say that since he's putting up one of the best seasons in baseball history for a 20 year old.. after all, CBs are just a projection. What else is John supposed to do?
by phoenixscienter on Sep 22, 2010 9:34 AM EDT up reply actions
Best season in history?
I wouldn’t say that hitting .286 with 18 HR is the best season ever for a 20 year old. There is no doubt that he is good, but just because he is a number one prospect doesn’t mean he’s going to be among the best players ever.
http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/6618/jason-heywards-chase-for-400
Of the top ten OBP’s all time by a player who is 20 years old or younger, 8 are in the HOF (Mel Ott did it twice) and the ninth is A-Rod. Heyward, right now would slide into number six between A-Rod and Ott. Yes, if you don’t purely look at HR’s and batting average, he is having one of the best seasons for a 20 year old ever.
R.I.P Jazz #6
Yes that's impressive
But it’s too much to say he is going to be one of the best players in baseball history. Is it a possibility? Sure, but I just don’t think he will be a 600 HR guy. Also, his K rate concerns me quite a bit. This season, he has a K-rate of .204. Compared to the players he is being compared to with this CB, that is quite a bit. Unless Heyward brings down the Ks, I don’t think he has a shot at these sort of career numbers
Yes, it is enough.. for a CB
No one here is saying Heyward will definitely hit 600 HRs with 3000+ hits over his career. No one can predict 20 years from now much less tomorrow. BUT you are denying facts if you truly believe Heyward is not having a HISTORIC year for a 20 year old, because, well, he is. Thus, when you’re projecting his career path, and you’re looking at his comps for reference, you’re going to have a HOF type career path as your best case scenario if he stays healthy.
by phoenixscienter on Sep 22, 2010 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions
A 20.4% K rate isn't that bad
And it’s something that he should be able to improve over time.
If a guy is having a historically good year for someone his age, and the biggest red flag on him is a 20.4% K rate, then I don’t think there’s very much to get caught up with there.
If Heyward is healthy, I don’t see what prevents him from being an elite player for a very long time.
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Sep 22, 2010 12:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Very solid point.
April-June K rate: 22.4%
July-Sept. K rate: 18.1%
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Sep 22, 2010 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Huh?
It’s a nice season, no doubt, but saying it’s one of the best seasons ever by a 20 year old is a little over the top.
Read the link above from ESPN
Heyward’s having a historically good year for someone of his age.
Heyward has a .401 OBP at AGE 20.
Look at the best OBP marks by anyone 20 or younger in MLB history:
Mel Ott – .449
Ted Williams – .436
Al Kaline – .421
Jimmie Foxx – .416
Alex Rodriguez – .414
Jason Heyward – .401
Mel Ott – .397
Mickey Mantle – .392
Ty Cobb – .380
Frank Robinson – .379
Arky Vaughn – .375
That’s such an incredibly strong group of players that I don’t know how you can view Heyward as anything but one of the best young players to ever grace a baseball field.
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Sep 22, 2010 10:01 AM EDT up reply actions
Possibly more impressive
Since integration, only Kaline’s .421 is better than Heyward’s in terms of OBP+, as Rodriguez put his season up in an environment where .350 was the league average OBP, compared to just .325 for Heyward.
is OBP the only stat that counts now?
Arods season absolutely crushes Heywards….without even taking into account the fact that he was doing it while playing a very good SS and stealing bases at a better clip.
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Sep 22, 2010 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Who said Heyward's season was better than A-Rod's?
A-Rod’s was certainly better (hell its arguably better than any season even he has had since), however given the offensive environments, Heyward’s OBP (and that’s all I was talking about in reference to Satch’s post) is more impressive than A-Rod’s that year.
Nobody said he was better than A-Rod. And yes, OBP is the most important offensive statistic, so..
The point is that his numbers put him in the same class as A-Rod and other similarly great players.
A-Rod was more impressive- but that’s the point. If we can only pick out a couple seasons that are better, and they’re from guys like A-Rod and Ted Williams, don’t you think that’s a sign that Heyward’s pretty damn special?
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Sep 22, 2010 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions
I think this is actually pessimistic
We are talking about one of the top 10 best seasons EVER for a 20 year old in the majors. I think he may end up with less HRs ultimately than this CB, but the other numbers look reasonable to me. The reason I think this short sells Heyward is because he has the potential to be much more than this— he could become A-Rod and aim for HR records in 20 years. He may not, of course, but he has that kind of ability.
by phoenixscienter on Sep 22, 2010 9:33 AM EDT reply actions
Only 3 players have ever recorded 3000 hits and 600 HRs.
This is pessimistic?
yes.. would you have thought 600 HRs for A-Rod as a 21 year old was optimistic?
by phoenixscienter on Sep 22, 2010 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions
Yes. For Arod that would have been a tall order too...
You can’t use after-the-fact examples to corroborate your argument. I can easily cite as many (or more) examples of similarly talented players who didnt quite reach their promise. For every Arod, there’s a Darryl Strawberry, Bo Jackson, and Junior (with all due respect to Griffey’s accomplishments, he still could have been better).
I have no problem agreeing with the degree of talent here (and with Arod). It’s just that, even forgetting the talent, predicting a 23 year career in itself is an extreme aberration nowadays. How many players have played that long in the last few decades? The answer is just a handful per generation. So, not only are we predicting an extreme degree of talent, we are also predicting an rare length of career here too. A lot if things can happen along the way. Just a fluky tweak here or there, and suddenly a huge career becomes merely above-average.
I just want to underscore how extreme this CB is. We are not just predicting an extremely good career. We are predicting one of the best players ever, potentially with Arod looking up at Heyward’s final numbers. There’s only 3 players ever to reach 3000 hits and 600 hrs (I.e. Aaron, Mays, Bonds).
Its extremely optimistic if it were a projection/50th percentile piece.
BUT its a crystal ball!
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
600HR is a tall order
what i do think he could/might do better is in terms of avg.
i just dont see his power been as good or better than Puyols’s career
I don't think it's fair to say his isn't
Heyward has a monster build with lots of power. I don’t have a problem with any of this CB and I like it as a possible outcome for a HOF career. You can’t just look at the power and say he won’t hit 50 or 49 or 45 homeruns because he could very well do that.
…they should send down Huntington & Nutting, because they aren’t ready, either. - royshowell
by Marinerfanjake on Sep 22, 2010 10:45 AM EDT up reply actions
Wow. THis is not just optimistic. It's historic.
This isn’t just a garden-variety Hall of Fame career (whatever that means). It would be one of a handful of the best careers ever. He’d not only enter a very elite club of 3000 hits/ 500 HRs (i.e. Aaron, Mays, Murray, Bonds), he’d surpass it by entering the 3000 hits/600 HRs club.
Aren't Bonds, Aaron and Mays in the 3000 H/600 HR club, too?
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Sep 22, 2010 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes.
That’s what I meant.
I meant that the 3000 and 500 club is the traditional marks that you hear about all the time. 3000 hits/500 hrs taken together are nice round numbers that is cited ften. But as you point out, the highest actual marks would be 3000 hits and 600 hrs.
Yeah, I think the 500 HR club is no longer a big deal
I think that the public’s perception of the 500 HR barrier has changed a lot in recent years. That’s what happens when you have 15 guys get into the club from 1871 until 1998, and then you add another 10 guys in the course of 11 years.
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Sep 22, 2010 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Fair point.
Though, we were talking about 3000 hits AND 500 HR club.
Future
I think, assuming offense really is coming back to historically “normal” levels, we might look back on players from the 90’s the way we see late 19th century hurlers. The wins list is littered with their names, but we understand that it was just a very different environment. What I mean to say is that if offense doesn’t go back up for the next 25 years, and some player comes along and hits 550HR, we’ll probably view him in a similar way to a player who played from, say, 1969-1994. Among the very best of his era.
Interesting point.
Good point.
I’m inclined to agree with this. Maybe there won’t ever be a formally recognized MLB asterisk (*) by names from the 90s, but maybe informally among fans and followers, a silent asterisk arises colloquially. Like for instance, the “pure” HR king is Hank Aaron, until those names from the 90s slowly get pushed down the lists?
Yeah, but there is more to baseball than just hits and home runs
While this CB may seem very optimistic in terms of those two particular stats, it is actually somewhat pessimistic in terms of something like walks. If Heyward’s career OBP is “only” ~.400 I won’t be disappointed, but I will be a little surprised. I think he’s going to rank among the greatest of all time in that particular category.
I voted "just right" and what that meant
I realize that an objective basis, this is an upper end projection for Heyward, and if I was forced to bet money on the proposition, I would take the under. What I meant by voting “just right” is that subjectively, I believe that Heyward will realize his immense potential. Cue the inspirational song of whatever generation you belong to.
by Mike Green on Sep 22, 2010 10:52 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Optimistic.
But he’ll have a great career.
Makeup
I think this has as much to do with John’s opinion of Heyward’s mental makeup as it does about his obviously fantastic physical skills. According to everything I’ve seen, his makeup is off the charts good.
My opinion… I think you’d have to say that this is an optimistic projection, but I think this is an extremely plausible outcome. He’s that good.
heyward
Yes.
Makeup+talent. If he stays healthy, I think he is quite capable of this.
by John Sickels on Sep 22, 2010 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions
When I see Heyward I think Winfield..
..or Strawberry, as far as big physical specimens with absurd natural ability.
If Heyward has “only” a Hall of Fame career the equivalent to Dave Winfield’s, then it would be a letdown compared to these CB numbers.
And?
Heyward is far, far ahead of where Winfield was at the same age. Heyward currently has a 143 wRC+ as a 20 year old. Winfield didn’t get that high until he was 26. I certainly wouldn’t be upset if Heyward “only” became Winfield, but there is plenty of reason to think he could be better than Winfield was.
I'm not basing my comment on stats...
…I’m basing it on the way they were seen when they first came up, what kind of physical specimens they were when they came up, and general abilities and tools. It might not be obvious if you didn’t see Winfield or Strawberry play, so if all you have to go by is stats, but for those of us who did, they’re in a special class of their own that is very obvious.
Well part of your problem is you're only looking at tools and if they were "physicaly specimens"
Heyward is certainly right there with both Stawberry and Winfield in those categories, while completely blowing them away in plate discipline when they first came up. Winfield never had a BB rate in his entire career as high as Heyward’s as a 20 year old.
I'm guessing your too young to have seen Winfield play...
…don’t take that the wrong way. I mean it in a friendly way.
Let me repeat what I said before. I am not making the comparison based on stats. If you want to debate statistically how they are different players, I will probably be on your side. I am just saying, when I was a boy, I saw a big scary badass baseball player come out of nowhere who was a monster of a man and usually the best athlete on the field, on any given night, in a league of athletes. That man was named Dave Winfield. It’s more than just saying he’s a physical specimen. He had some extra special “it” factor. Heyward literally looks like him sometimes, and has that same thing going for him. If you think that’s an insult to Heyward? Fine. It’s not, but if you think I have a problem by saying so, you can go with that.
Like I keep saying, I'm not taking it as an insult
I’m just saying that Heyward is clearly better than Winfield in terms of the most important baseball skill. Winfield is awesome, and in terms of being a physical specimen I see the similarities. I just see a decent chance that Heyward ends up being better because oh his plate discipline advantage.
I too place strike zone judgment above all...
…in identifying good young players, and, I think there’s a limit to how much better a player can get. It’s a skill that’s inborn, so I like Heyward’s chances on that alone. That being said, I’ve seen you posit that OBP I’d the right stat to evaluate tat and that doesn’t quite seem right to me. It’s tangentially related, and he does have a good one, but it’s an inaccurate measure taken alone.
When did I suggest that OBP was the right stat to evaluate strike zone judgment?
Clearly BB rate is better, though I’d also mix in some BB/K. Heyward’s BB rate is currently better than anything that Winfield did in his entire career. His current BB/K is basically equal to Winfield’s career number. Winfield wasn’t nearly this good in strike zone judgment at age 20.
That being said...
…based on heyward’s obp and k/bb I don’t think you can say that heyward’s a better player. He needs to come back next year and do it again. And after that repeat for a long time before we go there.
Nobody said he's a better player.
But he’s absolutely capable of it given what we’ve seen, and just getting to the point where you can claim that is tough enough.
The idea here is that Heyward Age 20 is a better baseball player than Winfield Age 20, which leads one to thinking that there’s a solid possibility that Heyward will end up being better going forward.
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Sep 23, 2010 10:16 AM EDT up reply actions
and that's the rub
you bring up one HoFer and one dude who could’ve but off the field stuff derailed his career. There is a million possibilities and the one John did above is a possible outcome. Another outcome- he could get injured and have say a Mike Cameron career. Neither is bad considering the possible outcomes when Heyward was drafted. For every Griffey Jr/ A-Rod, there’s a Todd Van Poppel/ Alex Gordon can’t miss prospect. And yes, I know we have a year of MLB recorded data on hand but I was one of those watching Pujols’ early career skeptically and seeing if he was going to keep it up or have an Alfonso Soriano type career. Could, say, in seven years, Heyward decide to bolt Atlanta via free agency and it screw with his head? Could a hundred million dollars make him complacent? Currently, yes, the dude is set up for great success but we, as humans, don’t have a great track record predicting future outcomes. Should be fun to though…..
by thehitonecafe on Sep 22, 2010 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions
I just have a suspicion that...
…most of the folks on this board who are arguing for “historic” season probably are not old enough to have seen Winfield play. I’m not holding that against them. I was just saying that Heyward just sometimes literally looks like Winfield. In the batters box. Or making strong throws. Or running bases or in the field. It’s eery.
That’s why just in this thread, we see someone throwing up a lot of statistical differences between the two.
Very very very good point.
Why?
Because one of a few known facts about Winnie is that the Pads promoted him directly to the majors. He didn’t play in the minors. So, in answer to your question, could he had played as a 20 yr old if he skipped college? Absolutely yes. Considering he hit the ground running straight into the majors, I don’t see why couldn’t have played as a 20 yr old.
Because one of a few known facts about Winnie…
Uh… what? Is he the Lock Ness Monster?
I actually knew this (Olerud is another) and see it cited fairly often.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
It seems like every post that doesn't anoint Heyward...
You take it as a insult to Heyward. To me, if saying he has a Winfield-esque career is a insult, I don’t know what you’re smoking. That’s a Hall of Famer. Heyward would be very glad to take that.
Read what I said another time
I specifically said I wouldn’t be upset if Heyward turned into Winfield, but there is plenty of reason to think that Heyward could be better. Heyward is way, way ahead of where Winfield was at the same age. Its honestly not even all that close.
What I find intersting is that the CB has Heyward playing for Atlanta his entire career. I do beleive it is possible that he could play his entire career for Atlanta. He would make a great the face of the franchise (if he isn’t that already). I wonder if he does play into his late 30s or early 40s if he goes to an AL team to become a DH to prolong his career.
Interesting point.
The Braves have shown a solid ability to keep their marquee players ever since Maddux, so this isn’t unreasonable. It would be a sweetheart of a story for Braves fans. I hope Heyward’s career is great and he gives Atlanta fans something to be proud of.
I like it.
Could happen.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Sep 22, 2010 1:51 PM EDT reply actions
It could happen
Heyward’s 2nd half
The .440 OB would be 2nd all time behind Ott if a full season. Also 42 walks in 227 AB’s and remember he’s playing with a thumb that isn’t even close to being healed. When that heals fully, watchout for amazing numbers next year.
.326 .440 .498 .938
If you asked me, "What kid is going to put a hall of fame career?''
I’d have to say this kid, is going to be the very cream of the crop. I think he can parallel some of the greats that proceeded him. That’s not to say he will, but if he does who on here would be that surprised. That being said, expecting results like John presented could be in the realm of what he provides. I just hope he does, cause I think he’s a good kid. And we should all enjoy following his career.
"The key to winning baseball games is pitching, fundamentals, and three run homers."
You defended Baker's usage of Mark Prior.
I grew up in Chicago. What he did to Prior was criminal. The pitch counts that Prior put up as a 22-year-old in his first full MLB season were mind-blowing, and it was irresponsible to push him so hard given how important his future was to the team. I don’t want to go into this anymore, and I’m certainly not saying that Baker is the only reason why Prior’s shoulder blew up, but the way that Baker used Prior down the stretch in 2003 was unacceptable.
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Sep 23, 2010 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Would you say it was "historically" bad management?
/kidding
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
> Heyward.
Vada Pinson. Jimmie Foxx. Tony Conigliaro. Mel Ott. Orlando Cepeda. Adrian Beltre.
I don’t mean to drudge this back up, but I promised that I’d look it up. Less than five minutes on BB-Ref showed me these players, all of whom were at least arguably as good as Jason Heyward in their age 20 seasons. This is to say nothing of other players who were perfectly cromulent as 20 year olds. Moral of the story ? Heyward’s age 20 season isn’t THAT special.
I don’t mean to drudge *this* back up, but you're still not accounting for defense.
Which is a BIG part of the equation and one of the biggest factors why people are calling Heyward’s season special/historic/great/whatever.
You’re just looking at slash lines and HR totals, etc… there is more to the game of baseball.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
Also!
I thought I had posted this above, but I pretty clearly weight defense really heavily. In fact, it was a big part of my “Upton has a higher potential peak than Heyward in a perfect world” argument!
Clearly, old coots like me (at 24) overemphasize defensive contribution. ;P
P.S. Defense actually wasn’t enough for me to throw Edgar Renteria in there. That might be who I was thinking of.
Defense
No, I accounted for defense. Across the board, all of those guys had really strong reps, and I actually remember knocking someone i forget who off for precisely that reason. In fact, the only reason Beltre is on there with his 105 OPS+ or whatever is his awesome glove at 3b. Heyward’s pretty great… for an RF.
Your mind’s eye assessments of players you never saw notwithstanding…
Vada Pinson. Jimmie Foxx. Tony Conigliaro. Mel Ott. Orlando Cepeda. Adrian Beltre.
WAR in Rookie Seasons
Pinson: 6.0
Heyward: 4.4 (and counting)
Cepeda: 4.0
Conigliaro: 2.7
Foxx: 1.0
Beltre: 0.3
Ott: 0.1
WAR in Age 20 Seasons
Ott: 8.9 (Probably incorrect due to unique dimensions of Polo Grounds. His Total Zone is coming out as +70 runs, and he was only worth ~2 runs with the bat. Polo Grounds is a unique problem.)
Pinson: 6.0
Foxx: 5.1
Heyward: 4.4 (and counting)
Cepeda: 4.0
Conigliaro: 4.0
Beltre: 3.7
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
Scouting reports?
Where were your scouting reports? Why does he need scouting reports to back up his argument when you didn’t need any to back up yours?
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Sep 29, 2010 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Point?
Jason Heyward’s performance as a 20 year old is emphatically NOT historic! Butch Wynegar, Robbie Alomar, Claudell Washington, Sherry Magee, Johnny Bench, Travis Jackson, and Arky Vaughn all also posted terrific age 20 seasons, and I’d wager that a few of them are also better than Heyward (especially Bench, Alomar, and Vaughn. I’ll look this up when I get a chance/get home.) Foxx, Ott, Tony C, and Beltre all debuted as teens (17 for Foxx and Ott, IIRC.) I don’t think it’s very fair to compare them with Heyward as rookies.
Re. WAR: I’m dubious of it as we go further back, both due to the change in ballparks, and the generally unreliable nature of defensive statistics – especially as they grow older and sketchier. Also, FWIW, contemporary reports claim that Ott was uniquely suited (perhaps moreso than any other player in history) for his ballpark.
You’re proving my point for me: Heyward is very, very good at 20. He’s not really among the elite for his age, but rather, a step behind them. The elite, those historic few, posted MVP-caliber seasons as 20 year olds. Heyward just hasn’t been that good. This is NOT an indictment of him moving forward, but quite a compliment: the only players better than him at his age have, for the most part, become Hall of Famers. Still, the fact stands that Heyward just hasn’t been as good, nor in the same class of “good”, as the best players at his age level.
You've been given loads of evidence that disproves your point and you keep saying it just proves your point.
Bottom line – Jason Heyward, as a 20 year old rookie, being the best defensive RFer in the game and putting up that offensive line = elite.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
Definitional
I think I have refuted you time and again, by citing a considerable number of players throughout the history of the game who have been at least as good, if not better than Heyward. There are a handful of seasons accomplished at age 20, from A-Rod to Mantle to Kaline to Robinson to Pinson to Ott, and a few others, which are clearly superior to Heyward’s. Our argument, as we’d agreed earlier, simply turns on a definition of what might be elite or historic. I take a narrow view, holding it to mean only those which are the very best, which coincidentally happens to be the rarified air of an MVP caliber season. By that definition, Jason Heyward simply hasn’t been a historically great 20 year old. Merely a Rookie of the Year caliber one who may well have the historically significant career posited in the Crystal Ball.
To John (if you should read this) – - I think this Crystal Ball has excelled in generating conversation. :P I should have asked where you stand on this in the AQA!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Minor League Ball
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
