Is Kris Bryant Top Five in MLB?

[TC in Mississippi]

Given his age, No one thought Harper's year was an outlier. They thought he finally came into his own which is why you saw all that money being talked about.

I agree with you on Harper. No one thought last year was an outlier, it's only in hindsight that it looks like one. Harper was baseball's great underachiever and most of it was explained away by his age that fact that he came up at 19 years old. This year showed some holes in his game, particularly in how he adjusts to what the league throws at him. The Cubs series where he was walked an inordinate amount of times was a turning point in his season. His tools are such though that it wouldn't surprise me at all to see him come all the way back and then some next year, when he'll be the age that Kris Bryant is now. I think we forget how young Harper is.

 

[brett05]

Take a moment and realize we are debating the best of the best and there are a Cubs or two in the discussion. That's pretty darn special. Makes me sick, but still special.

 

[fatbeard]

I fully expect changeups to be at the top of Bryant's "to do" list this offseason:

http://wrigleyville.locals.baseball.../with-bryant-the-proof-is-in-the-swing-plane/

 

[SilenceS]

I think you aren't reading things properly. I stated the numbers of Braynt and Rizzo against teams over .500 this year. There is a .200 point difference in OPS. I thought Bryant was close, but he's really not close at all to Rizzo. That takes nothing away from Bryant but shows how great Rizzo really is.

And after the break he's been White Sox good. Bryant that is. Here's his first 17 games with his stellar 718 OPS

http://www.baseball-reference.com/p...=2016&share=3.97#238-254-sum:batting_gamelogs

You do know teams go above and below .500 regularly and it makes absolutely no difference. This is the dumbest argument you have ever made. You keep sayng he did his damage against lesser teams. He has crushed the Reds. Thats it. You said he did most of his damage in Coors. He had 1 home run this year. He has hit more at Petco.

Also, what are you talking about after all star break? He has a higher OPS after the all star break than before. If you are talking teams over .500. That is dumb again. You would have more of a leg to stand on digging into the pitchers they faced.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

You do know teams go above and below .500 regularly and it makes absolutely no difference. This is the dumbest argument you have ever made. You keep sayng he did his damage against lesser teams. He has crushed the Reds. Thats it. You said he did most of his damage in Coors. He had 1 home run this year. He has hit more at Petco.

Also, what are you talking about after all star break? He has a higher OPS after the all star break than before. If you are talking teams over .500. That is dumb again. You would have more of a leg to stand on digging into the pitchers they faced.

Yes, but even that argument is rather spurious in light of everything else we know. To me the whole discussion has gotten pointless.

 

[brett05]

You do know teams go above and below .500 regularly and it makes absolutely no difference. This is the dumbest argument you have ever made. You keep sayng he did his damage against lesser teams. He has crushed the Reds. Thats it. You said he did most of his damage in Coors. He had 1 home run this year. He has hit more at Petco.

Also, what are you talking about after all star break? He has a higher OPS after the all star break than before. If you are talking teams over .500. That is dumb again. You would have more of a leg to stand on digging into the pitchers they faced.

The pitchers they faced are basically the same. That's been addressed already.

Did you even see the link that shows Braynt with a 718 OPS after the break's first 17 games?

It absolutely makes a difference on how you do against teams. You want to wash it under the rug because the fact spoils your subjective narrative. You aren't going to see the Reds or Brewers cross over to the above .500. Nor the Dodgers, Giants, Nats to be under .500. This late it's a pretty fair sample size and there won't be a lot of movement one way or the other.

 

[SilenceS]

Did you even see the link that shows Braynt with a 718 OPS after the break's first 17 games?

It absolutely makes a difference. you want to wash it under the rug because the fact spoils your subjective narrative. You aren't going to see the Reds or Brewers cross over to the above .500. Nor the Dodgers, Giants, Nats to be under .500. This late it's a pretty fair sample size and there won't be a lot of movement one way or the other.

I honestly am shocked this is the argument you are presenting. I guess when you are that good. People are going to come with the most illogical things.

 

[DanTown]

If you were building a team tomorrow from scratch and had to only select position players, to me Kris Bryant is in a virtual dead heat with Manny Machado as the 2nd player you'd take. While I know Harper is tantalizing to select, but you cannot argue that he's had anywhere close to the sustained success that Machado and now Bryant have had. Obviously Harper's crazy low babip (.253) is killing his numbers but even without that, Byrant is the most versatile defender of the elite players in the league and Machado plays SS with an OPS above 900 and a K rate well below 20.

One thing to remember about WAR is that it's measuring players at their position and becomes hard to measure two different positions against each other. Part of the reason Trout has such a high WAR is the lack of other good CF to compare him to (which does not discredit anything he does because he's clearly #1). There are only 6 CF with a WAR above 3 and your 6th - 10th CF are Ozuna, Pillar, Hamilton, Cespedes, and Rajai Davis. If you look at 3B, 12 guys have a WAR above 3 and 6th - 10th are K. Seager, Arenado, Beltre, Rondon, Ramirez.

 

[brett05]

I honestly am shocked this is the argument you are presenting. I guess when you are that good. People are going to come with the most illogical things.

That's your evidence?

Do you have anything of substance? Buehler?

 

[DanTown]

The pitchers they faced are basically the same. That's been addressed already.

Did you even see the link that shows Braynt with a 718 OPS after the break's first 17 games?

It absolutely makes a difference on how you do against teams. You want to wash it under the rug because the fact spoils your subjective narrative. You aren't going to see the Reds or Brewers cross over to the above .500. Nor the Dodgers, Giants, Nats to be under .500. This late it's a pretty fair sample size and there won't be a lot of movement one way or the other.

How could you possibly know the value of a pitcher based on the teams W/L record? As an example of this, if you were to use the White Sox, they are "below .500" but they have obviously different pitchers in terms of skill with Chris Sale and Jose Quintana at one end and James Shields and Mat Latos at the other.

 

[brett05]

If you were building a team tomorrow from scratch and had to only select position players, to me Kris Bryant is in a virtual dead heat with Manny Machado as the 2nd player you'd take. While I know Harper is tantalizing to select, but you cannot argue that he's had anywhere close to the sustained success that Machado and now Bryant have had. Obviously Harper's crazy low babip (.253) is killing his numbers but even without that, Byrant is the most versatile defender of the elite players in the league and Machado plays SS with an OPS above 900 and a K rate well below 20.

One thing to remember about WAR is that it's measuring players at their position and becomes hard to measure two different positions against each other. Part of the reason Trout has such a high WAR is the lack of other good CF to compare him to (which does not discredit anything he does because he's clearly #1). There are only 6 CF with a WAR above 3 and your 6th - 10th CF are Ozuna, Pillar, Hamilton, Cespedes, and Rajai Davis. If you look at 3B, 12 guys have a WAR above 3 and 6th - 10th are K. Seager, Arenado, Beltre, Rondon, Ramirez.

If I were building a team tomorrow:

Trout, machado Seager, Altuve, Correa, Rizzo, Bryant That's probably where I have it excluding the pitchers.

 

[brett05]

How could you possibly know the value of a pitcher based on the teams W/L record? As an example of this, if you were to use the White Sox, they are "below .500" but they have obviously different pitchers in terms of skill with Chris Sale and Jose Quintana at one end and James Shields and Mat Latos at the other.

And yet whomever the team is, Rizzo and Bryant hit 90+ percent of the time against the same pitcher whether it be Shields or Sale.

 

[ijustposthere]

I think Bryant's numbers are slightly inflated because he seems to pile on. He's prone to massive, massive games (like his 5-for-5 outing the other day) that slightly skew his overall numbers.

LOL, So fucking what? He has 0-5 games too. That's like saying Barry Sanders sucked because most of his yards came on big gains.

 

[DanTown]

If I were building a team tomorrow:

Trout, machado Seager, Altuve, Correa, Rizzo, Bryant That's probably where I have it excluding the pitchers.

It's laughable that you'd take Altuve (a minus defender at 2B) over a player who can play three positions (including 3B) at a high level defensively (Bryant).

Correra is simply a joke because he's no where close to the offensive player Bryant is nor the defensive player as other guys. Same with Seager.

At this point, it feels like trolling to take Altuve AND Correra over Bryant because whatever reason you have for either one being ahead of Bryant, Bryant is better than the other guy for that same reason. At the very least it would be logically consistent to say Correra, Bryant, Altuve and say positional scarcity/defense matters or it would be logical to rate them Altuve/Bryant/Correra for their offensive contributions while not caring as much about the defense. But to but BOTH ahead of them is completely biased.

 

[brett05]

It's laughable that you'd take Altuve (a minus defender at 2B) over a player who can play three positions (including 3B) at a high level defensively (Bryant).

Correra is simply a joke because he's no where close to the offensive player Bryant is nor the defensive player as other guys. Same with Seager.

At this point, it feels like trolling to take Altuve AND Correra over Bryant because whatever reason you have for either one being ahead of Bryant, Bryant is better than the other guy for that same reason. At the very least it would be logically consistent to say Correra, Bryant, Altuve and say positional scarcity/defense matters or it would be logical to rate them Altuve/Bryant/Correra for their offensive contributions while not caring as much about the defense. But to but BOTH ahead of them is completely biased.

They are younger are premium positions and are better defensively for me as well as at least one other Cub fan I know of in my walk. That doesn't mean that Bryant won't be a beast which is what you are insinuating.

EDIT: I'm wrong. Altuve is older. I'd take Bryant to start my franchise over Altuve

 

[DanTown]

And yet whomever the team is, Rizzo and Bryant hit 90+ percent of the time against the same pitcher whether it be Shields or Sale.

No one measures a hitter based on the team they're facing. It gives you zero context to how good the pitcher is.

Also, this is objectively not true when you think of late inning relievers and leverage. Of the top 20 relievers in baseball according to fWAR, only three are left handed (Miller, Chapman, and Britton) meaning that Rizzo never faces a top 20 reliever who throws left handed since Chapman is on his team and the other two lefties play in the AL. Bryant on the other hand faces 8 of the top 20 in the NL and two of which are in his division (Oh, Thornburng).

Finally, the difference in their numbers is explained by two huge outliers for Rizzo: the Pirates and the Marlins. Against Pittsburgh he's 25-47 and against the Marlins he's 8-17. Those 33 hits are literally almost half his hits against 500+ teams in only a third of his PA.

Rizzo against the Pirates/Marlins:
33 for 64. 14 2B / 2 3B / 5 HR / 14 RBI
.516/.594/1.062

Rizzo against every other 500+ team:
25 for 149. 8 2B / 1 3B / 9 HR / 27 RBI
.234/.319/.369

Essentially your "Rizzo dominates good teams argument" is actually "Rizzo dominated the Pirates to such an extent that I'm going to over credit Rizzo over Bryant". Your argument that Rizzo does well against good teams (as in many teams) is wrong; the actual thing Rizzo does is dominate ONE or two teams and then is quite terrible against the rest.

Bryant's top two (Pittsburgh and Seattle)
19 for 54. 3 2B / 5 HR / 8 RBI
.352/.469/.698

Bryant's rest
42 for 189. 9 2B / 1 3B / 7 HR
.247/.319/.435

 

[brett05]

No one measures a hitter based on the team they're facing. It gives you zero context to how good the pitcher is.

Also, this is objectively not true when you think of late inning relievers and leverage. Of the top 20 relievers in baseball according to fWAR, only three are left handed (Miller, Chapman, and Britton) meaning that Rizzo never faces a top 20 reliever who throws left handed since Chapman is on his team and the other two lefties play in the AL. Bryant on the other hand faces 8 of the top 20 in the NL and two of which are in his division (Oh, Thornburng).

Finally, the difference in their numbers is explained by two huge outliers for Rizzo: the Pirates and the Marlins. Against Pittsburgh he's 25-47 and against the Marlins he's 8-17. Those 33 hits are literally almost half his hits against 500+ teams in only a third of his PA.

Rizzo against the Pirates/Marlins:
33 for 64. 14 2B / 2 3B / 5 HR / 14 RBI
.516/.594/1.062

Rizzo against every other 500+ team:
25 for 149. 8 2B / 1 3B / 9 HR / 27 RBI
.234/.319/.369

Essentially your "Rizzo dominates good teams argument" is actually "Rizzo dominated the Pirates to such an extent that I'm going to over credit Rizzo over Bryant". Your argument that Rizzo does well against good teams (as in many teams) is wrong; the actual thing Rizzo does is dominate ONE or two teams and then is quite terrible against the rest.

It absolutely gives you context. Both hit the same guys at the same time. I'm not arguing this anymore.

As for who Rizzo does well against, you got the Pirates, Marlins, Dodgers, Mets, Nationals. Five of his top seven teams which are playoff teams.
Bryant for this top 7 only three playoff teams: Giants, Pirates, Marines.

I don't know why you don't see this but there you have it and clearly I can't get you to see it.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

That's just using WAR which is subjective to it's formulation.

So basically who do you want on your team? Bryant or Trout? Bryant or Rizzo? Bryant or Machado? Bryant or Altuve? Bryant or Donaldson? Bryant or Areando? Bryant or Harper? Bryant or Betts? Bryant or Seager?

For me he's top 10. Just not sure he's top 5. I have Rizzo ahead of him.

I would say Bryant is better than all those guys outside Altuve and Trout. Bryant can play multiple positions, so it is like going from a 25 man roster to a 28 man roster. That is immensely valuable to a manager.

 

[DJMoore_is_fat]

If you were building a team tomorrow from scratch and had to only select position players, to me Kris Bryant is in a virtual dead heat with Manny Machado as the 2nd player you'd take. While I know Harper is tantalizing to select, but you cannot argue that he's had anywhere close to the sustained success that Machado and now Bryant have had. Obviously Harper's crazy low babip (.253) is killing his numbers but even without that, Byrant is the most versatile defender of the elite players in the league and Machado plays SS with an OPS above 900 and a K rate well below 20.

One thing to remember about WAR is that it's measuring players at their position and becomes hard to measure two different positions against each other. Part of the reason Trout has such a high WAR is the lack of other good CF to compare him to (which does not discredit anything he does because he's clearly #1). There are only 6 CF with a WAR above 3 and your 6th - 10th CF are Ozuna, Pillar, Hamilton, Cespedes, and Rajai Davis. If you look at 3B, 12 guys have a WAR above 3 and 6th - 10th are K. Seager, Arenado, Beltre, Rondon, Ramirez.

Machado is a STUD. Still can't believe posters here said that Bryant> Trout. That was seriously the most homer-istic thing I've ever read on the internet.

 

[brett05]

I would say Bryant is better than all those guys outside Altuve and Trout. Bryant can play multiple positions, so it is like going from a 25 man roster to a 28 man roster. That is immensely valuable to a manager.

But he plays all those positions at a below average level. So it's not so valuable. I would argue it hurts him some.