Nathan Church
Moderators: STLtoday Forum Moderators, Cards Talk Moderators
-
- Forum User
- Posts: 1252
- Joined: 23 May 2024 12:41 pm
Nathan Church
Any posters on here able to give an evaluation of Church’s defensive ability. Particularly in CF
Re: Nathan Church
He's good, defensively. He would probably be a better hitter than Scott, too. He seems to be making Nootbaar expendable.Basil Shabazz wrote: ↑27 Jul 2025 15:55 pm Any posters on here able to give an evaluation of Church’s defensive ability. Particularly in CF
-
- Forum User
- Posts: 1252
- Joined: 23 May 2024 12:41 pm
Re: Nathan Church
Do any real informative posters have a real observation on Church’s defense in centerfield?Shady wrote: ↑27 Jul 2025 16:24 pmHe's good, defensively. He would probably be a better hitter than Scott, too. He seems to be making Nootbaar expendable.Basil Shabazz wrote: ↑27 Jul 2025 15:55 pm Any posters on here able to give an evaluation of Church’s defensive ability. Particularly in CF
Re: Nathan Church
I have never seen him play much but an article i read from may said he was considered the cardinals best defensive outfielder in the minor leagues. He had 12 total assists in the outfield in bith 2023 and 2024 so he has a good arm. He is also a fast runner and scouting reports i saw rated him as a plus fielder. Takenit fornwhat its worth.Basil Shabazz wrote: ↑27 Jul 2025 15:55 pm Any posters on here able to give an evaluation of Church’s defensive ability. Particularly in CF
At the very least it seems promising enough that he wouldnt be bad defensively. Just whether he can hit when he gets up here and repeat this season in minors thats not been in line with the previous minor league seasons
Re: Nathan Church
I've seen Church in the outfield, probably, more than most here. And I'll re-iterate, "He's good, defensively". Do some research of your own and get some video if you need some evidence.Basil Shabazz wrote: ↑27 Jul 2025 16:48 pmDo any real informative posters have a real observation on Church’s defense in centerfield?Shady wrote: ↑27 Jul 2025 16:24 pmHe's good, defensively. He would probably be a better hitter than Scott, too. He seems to be making Nootbaar expendable.Basil Shabazz wrote: ↑27 Jul 2025 15:55 pm Any posters on here able to give an evaluation of Church’s defensive ability. Particularly in CF
Last edited by Shady on 27 Jul 2025 17:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Forum User
- Posts: 1252
- Joined: 23 May 2024 12:41 pm
Re: Nathan Church
Thanks Wattage.Wattage wrote: ↑27 Jul 2025 16:55 pmI have never seen him play much but an article i read from may said he was considered the cardinals best defensive outfielder in the minor leagues. He had 12 total assists in the outfield in bith 2023 and 2024 so he has a good arm. He is also a fast runner and scouting reports i saw rated him as a plus fielder. Takenit fornwhat its worth.Basil Shabazz wrote: ↑27 Jul 2025 15:55 pm Any posters on here able to give an evaluation of Church’s defensive ability. Particularly in CF
At the very least it seems promising enough that he wouldnt be bad defensively. Just whether he can hit when he gets up here and repeat this season in minors thats not been in line with the previous minor league seasons
With the way VS2 is hitting, and the focus on 2026 now, the team owes it to themselves to find out if he is a better overall center fielder than VS2.
-
- Forum User
- Posts: 1252
- Joined: 23 May 2024 12:41 pm
Re: Nathan Church
Shady, I usually don’t even respond to your post or reach your post, but take some advice, people do not view you as a serious poster. They view you has an attention whore clown. You have multiple personalities on here arguing with yourself. You really have some issues that you may need to get checked out. I wish you the best.
Re: Nathan Church
Buzz off, you superiority complex buffoon. I'm, basically, the ONLY CT poster that forecast Burleson's success as a MLB hitter. Maybe you and others need to rethink that "don't take serious" mumbojumbo. By the way, i don't give a ratsazz what you think.Basil Shabazz wrote: ↑27 Jul 2025 17:00 pm Shady, I usually don’t even respond to your post or reach your post, but take some advice, people do not view you as a serious poster. They view you has an attention whore clown. You have multiple personalities on here arguing with yourself. You really have some issues that you may need to get checked out. I wish you the best.
Last edited by Shady on 27 Jul 2025 17:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Forum User
- Posts: 7669
- Joined: 23 May 2024 14:43 pm
Re: Nathan Church
Fork eweShady wrote: ↑27 Jul 2025 16:58 pmI've seen Church in the outfield, probably, more than most here. And I'll re-iterate, "He's good, defensively". Do some research of your own and get some video if you need some evidence.Basil Shabazz wrote: ↑27 Jul 2025 16:48 pmDo any real informative posters have a real observation on Church’s defense in centerfield?Shady wrote: ↑27 Jul 2025 16:24 pmHe's good, defensively. He would probably be a better hitter than Scott, too. He seems to be making Nootbaar expendable.Basil Shabazz wrote: ↑27 Jul 2025 15:55 pm Any posters on here able to give an evaluation of Church’s defensive ability. Particularly in CF
Re: Nathan Church
You must be as stupid as a box of rocks.scoutyjones2 wrote: ↑27 Jul 2025 17:07 pmFork eweShady wrote: ↑27 Jul 2025 16:58 pmI've seen Church in the outfield, probably, more than most here. And I'll re-iterate, "He's good, defensively". Do some research of your own and get some video if you need some evidence.Basil Shabazz wrote: ↑27 Jul 2025 16:48 pmDo any real informative posters have a real observation on Church’s defense in centerfield?Shady wrote: ↑27 Jul 2025 16:24 pmHe's good, defensively. He would probably be a better hitter than Scott, too. He seems to be making Nootbaar expendable.Basil Shabazz wrote: ↑27 Jul 2025 15:55 pm Any posters on here able to give an evaluation of Church’s defensive ability. Particularly in CF
Last edited by Shady on 27 Jul 2025 17:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Forum User
- Posts: 7669
- Joined: 23 May 2024 14:43 pm
Re: Nathan Church
Fork eweShady wrote: ↑27 Jul 2025 17:11 pmYou must be as stupid as a box of rocks.scoutyjones2 wrote: ↑27 Jul 2025 17:07 pmFork eweShady wrote: ↑27 Jul 2025 16:58 pmI've seen Church in the outfield, probably, more than most here. And I'll re-iterate, "He's good, defensively". Do some research of your own and get some video if you need some evidence.Basil Shabazz wrote: ↑27 Jul 2025 16:48 pmDo any real informative posters have a real observation on Church’s defense in centerfield?Shady wrote: ↑27 Jul 2025 16:24 pmHe's good, defensively. He would probably be a better hitter than Scott, too. He seems to be making Nootbaar expendable.Basil Shabazz wrote: ↑27 Jul 2025 15:55 pm Any posters on here able to give an evaluation of Church’s defensive ability. Particularly in CF
Re: Nathan Church
The same ole stale chit with no results. Oh you are a really bright bulb. Wake up, chumper. You are irrelevant.scoutyjones2 wrote: ↑27 Jul 2025 17:12 pmFork eweShady wrote: ↑27 Jul 2025 17:11 pmYou must be as stupid as a box of rocks.scoutyjones2 wrote: ↑27 Jul 2025 17:07 pmFork eweShady wrote: ↑27 Jul 2025 16:58 pmI've seen Church in the outfield, probably, more than most here. And I'll re-iterate, "He's good, defensively". Do some research of your own and get some video if you need some evidence.Basil Shabazz wrote: ↑27 Jul 2025 16:48 pmDo any real informative posters have a real observation on Church’s defense in centerfield?Shady wrote: ↑27 Jul 2025 16:24 pmHe's good, defensively. He would probably be a better hitter than Scott, too. He seems to be making Nootbaar expendable.Basil Shabazz wrote: ↑27 Jul 2025 15:55 pm Any posters on here able to give an evaluation of Church’s defensive ability. Particularly in CF
Last edited by Shady on 27 Jul 2025 17:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Forum User
- Posts: 4090
- Joined: 05 May 2020 14:17 pm
Re: Nathan Church
I have to hand it to you, you were right about Burly! As far as the endless mudslinging of this place I would just laugh it off. It's a stupid message board that many people take waaaay too seriously. Then again, I don't post here as much as I do reddit, where if you breathe out of the wrong nostril you get downvoted.Shady wrote: ↑27 Jul 2025 17:03 pmBuzz off, you superiority complex buffoon. I'm, basically, the ONLY CT poster that forecast Burleson's success as a MLB hitter. Maybe you and others need to rethink that "don't take serious" mumbojumbo. By the way, i don't give a ratsazz what you think.Basil Shabazz wrote: ↑27 Jul 2025 17:00 pm Shady, I usually don’t even respond to your post or reach your post, but take some advice, people do not view you as a serious poster. They view you has an attention whore clown. You have multiple personalities on here arguing with yourself. You really have some issues that you may need to get checked out. I wish you the best.
Re: Nathan Church
Thanks for the Burleson acknowledgement. I'm just happy the Cardinals developed a hitter like him in their organization. Same with Donovan. Actually, I know how these dingbats operate. They are trying to be relevant, anonymously. Some amuse me by their futile attempts at superiority. On the other hand, I feel sorry for some of them. I would like to see Church get a chance with the Cardinals sometime in the near future.blackinkbiz wrote: ↑27 Jul 2025 17:15 pmI have to hand it to you, you were right about Burly! As far as the endless mudslinging of this place I would just laugh it off. It's a stupid message board that many people take waaaay too seriously. Then again, I don't post here as much as I do reddit, where if you breathe out of the wrong nostril you get downvoted.Shady wrote: ↑27 Jul 2025 17:03 pmBuzz off, you superiority complex buffoon. I'm, basically, the ONLY CT poster that forecast Burleson's success as a MLB hitter. Maybe you and others need to rethink that "don't take serious" mumbojumbo. By the way, i don't give a ratsazz what you think.Basil Shabazz wrote: ↑27 Jul 2025 17:00 pm Shady, I usually don’t even respond to your post or reach your post, but take some advice, people do not view you as a serious poster. They view you has an attention whore clown. You have multiple personalities on here arguing with yourself. You really have some issues that you may need to get checked out. I wish you the best.
Last edited by Shady on 27 Jul 2025 17:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Forum User
- Posts: 91
- Joined: 27 May 2024 21:50 pm
Re: Nathan Church
I dont think it will hurt anything to give him a chance. Dude is not vsII stealing bases but is very good defensively w a cannon of an arm. Not weak like VSII. Coukd be average offensivdly - gets good read on the balls hit in outfield.
-
- Forum User
- Posts: 1173
- Joined: 23 May 2024 13:52 pm
Re: Nathan Church
He said Burleson was “the next Tony Gwynn.” The many posters who predicted Burleson could be a good role player were much closer to “right” (and to reality) than Shady was.blackinkbiz wrote: ↑27 Jul 2025 17:15 pmI have to hand it to you, you were right about Burly! As far as the endless mudslinging of this place I would just laugh it off. It's a stupid message board that many people take waaaay too seriously. Then again, I don't post here as much as I do reddit, where if you breathe out of the wrong nostril you get downvoted.Shady wrote: ↑27 Jul 2025 17:03 pmBuzz off, you superiority complex buffoon. I'm, basically, the ONLY CT poster that forecast Burleson's success as a MLB hitter. Maybe you and others need to rethink that "don't take serious" mumbojumbo. By the way, i don't give a ratsazz what you think.Basil Shabazz wrote: ↑27 Jul 2025 17:00 pm Shady, I usually don’t even respond to your post or reach your post, but take some advice, people do not view you as a serious poster. They view you has an attention whore clown. You have multiple personalities on here arguing with yourself. You really have some issues that you may need to get checked out. I wish you the best.