Author Topic: The Bryce Harper Compendium (2012-2013)  (Read 95029 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Clever

  • Posts: 1092
Re: The Bryce Harper Compendium
« Reply #1500: September 05, 2012, 08:52:44 PM »
The phenom is back!

Offline BH34Natural

  • Posts: 2512
Re: The Bryce Harper Compendium
« Reply #1501: September 05, 2012, 10:41:41 PM »
Boom and Boom. Has been killing it over the last 10 games.

Online Jordanz Meatballz

  • Posts: 3157
Re: The Bryce Harper Compendium
« Reply #1502: September 05, 2012, 10:42:46 PM »
Boom and Boom. Has been killing it over the last 10 games.

Back from your book tour?

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 33563
  • Lets go to work
Re: The Bryce Harper Compendium
« Reply #1503: September 05, 2012, 11:38:33 PM »
(Image removed from quote.)

Bryce Harper is not only the greatest 19 year-old rookie of all-time outright, he has passed Todd Frazier in fWAR.

It's time to campaign for him as ROTY.


Clearly Mel Ott was better. Or am I missing something?

Online Jordanz Meatballz

  • Posts: 3157
Re: The Bryce Harper Compendium
« Reply #1504: September 06, 2012, 12:45:58 AM »
Clearly Mel Ott was better. Or am I missing something?

Mel Ott wasn't a rookie in his age 19 season, nor was Cobb.  I believe Ott was a 17 year-old rookie, actually.

I still want to track whether Harper will pass Ott, but he just wasn't a rookie then.

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 33563
  • Lets go to work
Re: The Bryce Harper Compendium
« Reply #1505: September 06, 2012, 12:52:53 AM »
He had a total of 241 PA prior to his age 19 season.

So while he wasn't a rookie, he was essentially just that.

Offline cmdterps44

  • Posts: 15497
  • Future
Re: The Bryce Harper Compendium
« Reply #1506: September 06, 2012, 01:20:57 AM »

Online Jordanz Meatballz

  • Posts: 3157
Re: The Bryce Harper Compendium
« Reply #1507: September 06, 2012, 07:30:54 AM »
He had a total of 241 PA prior to his age 19 season.

So while he wasn't a rookie, he was essentially just that.


During those 241 PA, I'm sure he adjusted to Major League pitching, so it hardly seems fair to compare them.  I'm sure the rookie cutoff is there for a reason.

With 0.3 WAR earned yesterday, it looks more like Harper has a shot at Ott.


Offline Sharp

  • Posts: 3583
Re: The Bryce Harper Compendium
« Reply #1508: September 06, 2012, 07:44:17 AM »
During those 241 PA, I'm sure he adjusted to Major League pitching, so it hardly seems fair to compare them.  I'm sure the rookie cutoff is there for a reason.
It seems pretty arbitrary to me.  Flexible, too--didn't the Angels have to pull some strings to get Trout rookie consideration this year?

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 33563
  • Lets go to work
Re: The Bryce Harper Compendium
« Reply #1509: September 06, 2012, 07:47:26 AM »
Isn't 250 the rookie cutoff?

Offline Sharp

  • Posts: 3583
Re: The Bryce Harper Compendium
« Reply #1510: September 06, 2012, 07:50:25 AM »
Isn't 250 the rookie cutoff?
Quote from: MLB Rules and Regulations
Determining rookie status:
A player shall be considered a rookie unless, during a previous season or seasons, he has (a) exceeded 130 at-bats or 50 innings pitched in the Major Leagues; or (b) accumulated more than 45 days on the active roster of a Major League club or clubs during the period of 25-player limit (excluding time in the military service and time on the disabled list).
So, nope.  Note that Trout is not a rookie by these criteria :P

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 33563
  • Lets go to work
Re: The Bryce Harper Compendium
« Reply #1511: September 06, 2012, 07:52:38 AM »
I always thought Trout was out of eligibility. How did the Angels swing that?

Offline Sharp

  • Posts: 3583
Re: The Bryce Harper Compendium
« Reply #1512: September 06, 2012, 07:54:34 AM »
Not sure, I never really looked into it--just remember reading somewhere that Trout was granted special consideration for some reason or other, probably related to the fact that he is really freaking good.  Let me see if I can find out what the official reason is.

Edit: Oh, I see.  So the rookie eligibility rule (since it was constructed by people who I do not trust at all and who frequently make decisions that make no sense) use ABs, not PAs.  So Trout had only 123 ABs and is eligible from that perspective.  Apparently it came down to a technicality in terms of how many days he was on the roster:
Quote from:
In order to retain eligibility for the Rookie of the Year award, a player can’t have more than 130 at bats, or more than 45 days of service time on the active roster, excluding September. Mike Trout has 123 at bats. Mike Trout has something like 38 days of service time on the active roster. Mike Trout, though, is not eligible for next year’s Rookie of the Year award, Major League Baseball has told the Angels.
The reason for this is a little bit of a quirk in service time rules. When Trout was called up in July, he was added to the Angels’ 40-man roster for the first time. When he was sent down, then, he was what they call optioned. When you’re optioned, you aren’t on the active roster, and you don’t accumulate service time, EXCEPT you must be optioned for at least 20 days in the season for that option to count. (An option lasts all season, no matter how many times you are sent down.) Since Trout wasn’t on the 40-man roster before he was called up, he hadn’t previously been optioned, so his time in Double-A before that didn’t count. He was then called back up after only 17 days, and spent the rest of the year with the Angels, so his option didn’t technically happen. “The service time has to go somewhere,” says the Angels’ Tim Mead, which means it counts as major league service time. From the Collective Bargaining Agreement:

If a Player is optionally assigned for a total of less than 20 days in one
championship season, the Player shall be credited with Major League
service during the period of such optional assignment(s).
Mike Trout, then, actually is credited with 55 days on the active roster, not counting September.
So it's not as bad as it initially looks.  Still, most rookies wouldn't have received that special exception--I think the Angels pushed really hard for it.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 20292
  • Trade for Zobrist
Re: The Bryce Harper Compendium
« Reply #1513: September 06, 2012, 09:50:04 AM »
If he was on the active roster for 55 days, then he isn't eligible as a rookie

Offline GMUNat

  • Posts: 5192
Re: The Bryce Harper Compendium
« Reply #1514: September 06, 2012, 10:11:40 AM »
But he's got less than 500 in CF.

See, Bryce Harper in CF is one of the best in MLB according to the metrics. Bryce Harper in LF/RF is pretty awful. Its weird.

You think the GG voters are actually breaking down those innings by position? I doubt those GG voters could tell you what position Harper played the most this year.

Offline Fan037

  • Posts: 1693
Re: The Bryce Harper Compendium
« Reply #1515: September 06, 2012, 12:43:01 PM »
Thanks cmdterps44 for that embrace of Harper by Zimm!  Awesome to see the excitement.  Glad Harper's parents were there to see his success as well.

Offline Clever

  • Posts: 1092
Re: The Bryce Harper Compendium
« Reply #1516: September 06, 2012, 04:44:38 PM »
Wow, I thought Harper's BABIP would be higher than .295.

Offline Sharp

  • Posts: 3583
Re: The Bryce Harper Compendium
« Reply #1517: September 06, 2012, 05:35:00 PM »
If he was on the active roster for 55 days, then he isn't eligible as a rookie
Exactly--the Angels petitioned to have them discount some of those days, and their petition was granted.

Offline zimm_da_kid

  • Posts: 6167
Re: The Bryce Harper Compendium
« Reply #1518: September 06, 2012, 05:37:19 PM »
Wow, I thought Harper's BABIP would be higher than .295.

i was thinking the same thing.  To me he seems like the kind of guy who could sustain a .330+ babip.  With the incredibly hard contact he makes to go along with his blazing speed, I think he's been a little unlucky when it comes to his avg this year

Offline Clever

  • Posts: 1092
Re: The Bryce Harper Compendium
« Reply #1519: September 06, 2012, 05:54:31 PM »
I never expected a phenomenal year from Harper to begin with. We were just so bedazzled during his first two months.

Online Jordanz Meatballz

  • Posts: 3157
Re: The Bryce Harper Compendium
« Reply #1520: September 06, 2012, 06:02:37 PM »
i was thinking the same thing.  To me he seems like the kind of guy who could sustain a .330+ babip.  With the incredibly hard contact he makes to go along with his blazing speed, I think he's been a little unlucky when it comes to his avg this year

Well, a few weeks back he was hitting nothing but weak groundouts and shallow fly balls, but it looks like he's made the adjustment.

Full speed ahead from now on, I wager.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 20292
  • Trade for Zobrist
Re: The Bryce Harper Compendium
« Reply #1521: September 06, 2012, 06:50:06 PM »

Offline wpa2629

  • Posts: 15616
  • No Trade Clause
Re: The Bryce Harper Compendium
« Reply #1522: September 06, 2012, 06:51:54 PM »
lol

Offline wpa2629

  • Posts: 15616
  • No Trade Clause
Re: The Bryce Harper Compendium
« Reply #1523: September 06, 2012, 07:27:07 PM »
That first inning was ridiculous

Offline imref

  • Posts: 16512
  • Like my arm slot?
Re: The Bryce Harper Compendium
« Reply #1524: September 06, 2012, 11:42:31 PM »
so any chance he wins RoY?