Author Topic: So about our Minor League First Basemen....  (Read 2008 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37068
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Nothing funny about it.  Kearns looks like Guzman a la 2005 this season.  Church should be an all-star.

Well that's fine - but Church's 8 HR would not have won more than 1-2 games at the very most. Plus he's afraid of walls :lol:

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 30110
    • http://www.wnff.net
Imagine though if by magic wand we could have had Church in RF this year instead of Kearns.  YTD, Church is the 3rd most productive RF, Kearns dead last at 43rd.  We'd be right around .500 or so and talking about possible wild card run.

1) You're assuming the same playing time for Church this year regardless of locale.  You and I both know Kearns would be in RF and Church would be platooning with Pena/Dukes in LF/CF and almost definitely not batting 2nd (where most of his production this year with the Mets has come from, I believe?).

2) You're assuming Church would get anywhere near as many pitches to hit batting in our lineup, and I think his patience would suffer accordingly, leading to the same kind of career numbers he put up when he WAS here.

3) DC was in Church's head, I'm convinced of it.  The only thing that was going to get him playing like he is for the Mets was for him to be playing most of his games NOT in DC.  Everyone talked big talk about how RFK was in our players heads, the new stadium would increase everyone's production, blah blah blah...  well we've seen what a joke that turned out to be.

4) 3 extra wins in 42 games from one RF'er?  Really?  Maybe if it was Lance Berkmann or Chipper Jones, but I just don't see Ryan Church making that kind of difference here with our anemic team .OBP, and even if he did, I'm still convinced he will fall back to his career numbers soon.

Besides, if we were even 3-6 against the marlins instead of 1-8, that would also put us "right around" .500.  4-5 would put us AT .500, but apparently winning a series at home against 5/6/7 ERA pitchers is too much to ask.

I'll grant you Church is playing well (for now) and that he'd be an improvement over Kearns either way, but the problem is he wouldn't be replacing Kearns if he were still here, and he wouldn't be playing every day.  There's just no way you'll convince me that Church alone could've made us a contender this year.

Offline daveb32

  • Posts: 1860
1) You're assuming the same playing time for Church this year regardless of locale.  You and I both know Kearns would be in RF and Church would be platooning with Pena/Dukes in LF/CF and almost definitely not batting 2nd (where most of his production this year with the Mets has come from, I believe?).

2) You're assuming Church would get anywhere near as many pitches to hit batting in our lineup, and I think his patience would suffer accordingly, leading to the same kind of career numbers he put up when he WAS here.

3) DC was in Church's head, I'm convinced of it.  The only thing that was going to get him playing like he is for the Mets was for him to be playing most of his games NOT in DC.  Everyone talked big talk about how RFK was in our players heads, the new stadium would increase everyone's production, blah blah blah...  well we've seen what a joke that turned out to be.

4) 3 extra wins in 42 games from one RF'er?  Really?  Maybe if it was Lance Berkmann or Chipper Jones, but I just don't see Ryan Church making that kind of difference here with our anemic team .OBP, and even if he did, I'm still convinced he will fall back to his career numbers soon.

Besides, if we were even 3-6 against the marlins instead of 1-8, that would also put us "right around" .500.  4-5 would put us AT .500, but apparently winning a series at home against 5/6/7 ERA pitchers is too much to ask.

I'll grant you Church is playing well (for now) and that he'd be an improvement over Kearns either way, but the problem is he wouldn't be replacing Kearns if he were still here, and he wouldn't be playing every day.  There's just no way you'll convince me that Church alone could've made us a contender this year.

I don't think he's trying to say that if we had Church in our lineup instead of Kearns we'd be in much better striking distance, merely that if Kearns had Church's numbers, AND played the defence that Church is playing this year, we'd have at least 4 more wins than we do now.

But again that is all speculation and you could say the same thing about a lot of people, especially WMP. If WMP continued ripping home runs like it was nobody's business like last year, you could argue that we'd have another 2 or 3 wins under our belt.

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 30110
    • http://www.wnff.net
I don't think he's trying to say that if we had Church in our lineup instead of Kearns we'd be in much better striking distance, merely that if Kearns had Church's numbers, AND played the defence that Church is playing this year, we'd have at least 4 more wins than we do now.

But again that is all speculation and you could say the same thing about a lot of people, especially WMP. If WMP continued ripping home runs like it was nobody's business like last year, you could argue that we'd have another 2 or 3 wins under our belt.

Sadly true.  The reality of what we have not living up to expectations is much more disappointing than the reality of what we HAD.