Could Nathan Church be a better hitter than Scott?

Welcome to STLtoday.com's forum for fans of the St. Louis Cardinals.

Moderators: STLtoday Forum Moderators, Cards Talk Moderators

JDW
Forum User
Posts: 823
Joined: 23 May 2024 13:42 pm

Re: Could Nathan Church be a better hitter than Scott?

Post by JDW »

Shane Robinson comes to mind when reading about Church.
That wouldn't be a bad guy to have on the bench IF he turns out to be similar.
Cranny
Forum User
Posts: 3994
Joined: 24 May 2024 09:26 am

Re: Could Nathan Church be a better hitter than Scott?

Post by Cranny »

JDW wrote: 08 Jun 2025 07:14 am Shane Robinson comes to mind when reading about Church.
That wouldn't be a bad guy to have on the bench IF he turns out to be similar.
He’ll be passed by Davis and Baez, who have much higher ceilings.
hdhntr148
Forum User
Posts: 263
Joined: 29 May 2024 04:57 am

Re: Could Nathan Church be a better hitter than Scott?

Post by hdhntr148 »

it's a discussion board and he simply made an interesting post about a player I've never heard of. He used to post nothing but negative and racist things on MU board but this? Seems like a reasonable post to me. Hey dudes get off your high horse simply don't respond. someone who doesn't get responses will stop posting but attacking him only encourages one.

Always like info on Cardinal prospects.
sikeston bulldog2
Forum User
Posts: 11876
Joined: 11 Aug 2023 16:20 pm

Re: Could Nathan Church be a better hitter than Scott?

Post by sikeston bulldog2 »

hdhntr148 wrote: 08 Jun 2025 07:51 am it's a discussion board and he simply made an interesting post about a player I've never heard of. He used to post nothing but negative and racist things on MU board but this? Seems like a reasonable post to me. Hey dudes get off your high horse simply don't respond. someone who doesn't get responses will stop posting but attacking him only encourages one.

Always like info on Cardinal prospects.
You’d think after all the Joel threads this stuff should be a breeze. Fella.
Cranny
Forum User
Posts: 3994
Joined: 24 May 2024 09:26 am

Re: Could Nathan Church be a better hitter than Scott?

Post by Cranny »

hdhntr148 wrote: 08 Jun 2025 07:51 am it's a discussion board and he simply made an interesting post about a player I've never heard of. He used to post nothing but negative and racist things on MU board but this? Seems like a reasonable post to me. Hey dudes get off your high horse simply don't respond. someone who doesn't get responses will stop posting but attacking him only encourages one.

Always like info on Cardinal prospects.
He’s overbearing, hd. That’s the issue. Starts way too many treads.
sikeston bulldog2
Forum User
Posts: 11876
Joined: 11 Aug 2023 16:20 pm

Re: Could Nathan Church be a better hitter than Scott?

Post by sikeston bulldog2 »

Cranny wrote: 07 Jun 2025 19:32 pm
ecleme22 wrote: 07 Jun 2025 19:20 pm
Shady wrote: 07 Jun 2025 18:56 pm
craviduce wrote: 07 Jun 2025 18:15 pm
AZ_Cardsfan wrote: 07 Jun 2025 18:11 pm Funny stuff. The .364 AAA average is in ELEVEN ABS. Meaningless. Instead why don't people pull up the scouting reports and see if he is a serious prospect.

Scouting grades: Hit: 45 | Power: 40 | Run: 70 | Arm: 60 | Field: 60 | Overall: 40

Church was Paul Skenes’ high-school teammate at El Toro High School in Lake Forest, California, and headed to UC Irvine from there. He set the Anteaters’ single-season record with 100 hits in 2021, returned for a solid season in 2022 and went in the 11th round to the Cardinals that summer, signing for $125,000. He was an average performer for High-A Peoria in 2023 and climbed to Double-A with solid results (.263/.331/.373, nine homers, 24 steals) last season. Church rounded out his second full season in the Arizona Fall League, where he hit .364/.397/.418 in 15 games.


In short while he has tools in 3 of the measurable skills that matter, his hit and hot for power are his weakest. These are the hardest ones to find and most critical to a players success. You can hid slow weak throwing poor fielding guys who hit and hit for power. You can not hide a guy who simply can't hit.

Maybe he has found something and is a better hitter than that scouting report. For his sake and the Cardinals sake I'd love to see it happen. But taking his 11 ABs in Memphis out of context is either duplicitous to get attention,or stupidity. Had he known or mentioned he hit 364 in 2024 AZFL in 55 ABs that is a larger more interesting sample. Still,,,, whatever.

Pretty sure no one here has seen him play. I do go to AZFL games and do not recall seeing him.
in person? No, I haven't seen Church play. On MiLB for 2 seasons, yes, I've seen him play plenty. I've only been to Palm Beach games the last 2 seasons when they visit Lakeland, and once at Bradenton.

And I gave these grades earlier in this thread.

and that's classic Shady....box score hunt a player. It's new for him to claim to have seen him play...he hasn't.
GURU, why are you SO defensive regarding my posts? You often make a decent baseball comment. But it's intertwined with dismissive remarks regarding me. You are the GURU of CT. You don't have to even acknowledge me, Your Highness. Even negatively. While you are at it. Why not answer the question in the OP?
He’s right.

I’m sure you wrote this OP 15 minutes after uncovering Church’s good production in AA through 30 games….
Just another knee jerk thread from Shady, trying to be a conversation starter.
All our threads are knee jerk thoughts. They either stick or they don’t.
JDW
Forum User
Posts: 823
Joined: 23 May 2024 13:42 pm

Re: Could Nathan Church be a better hitter than Scott?

Post by JDW »

Cranny wrote: 08 Jun 2025 07:48 am
JDW wrote: 08 Jun 2025 07:14 am Shane Robinson comes to mind when reading about Church.
That wouldn't be a bad guy to have on the bench IF he turns out to be similar.
He’ll be passed by Davis and Baez, who have much higher ceilings.
Hopefully, but who knows? Not you for sure.
Btw, S. Robinson was a 5th OF and bench piece.
Cranny
Forum User
Posts: 3994
Joined: 24 May 2024 09:26 am

Re: Could Nathan Church be a better hitter than Scott?

Post by Cranny »

JDW wrote: 08 Jun 2025 08:07 am
Cranny wrote: 08 Jun 2025 07:48 am
JDW wrote: 08 Jun 2025 07:14 am Shane Robinson comes to mind when reading about Church.
That wouldn't be a bad guy to have on the bench IF he turns out to be similar.
He’ll be passed by Davis and Baez, who have much higher ceilings.
Hopefully, but who knows? Not you for sure.
Btw, S. Robinson was a 5th OF and bench piece.

Obviously no one knows. But if you want a comparison, look at Mike Antico. Who’s very similar, and performing well at Memphis.
WLTFE
Forum User
Posts: 1577
Joined: 23 May 2024 14:49 pm

Re: Could Nathan Church be a better hitter than Scott?

Post by WLTFE »

hdhntr148 wrote: 08 Jun 2025 07:51 am it's a discussion board and he simply made an interesting post about a player I've never heard of. He used to post nothing but negative and racist things on MU board but this? Seems like a reasonable post to me. Hey dudes get off your high horse simply don't respond. someone who doesn't get responses will stop posting but attacking him only encourages one.

Always like info on Cardinal prospects.
+1...apparently some posters now believe they are moderators and can tell people how many threads they can start...if they had any self control they would ignore threads that they have no interest in...very self righteous and arrogant.
JDW
Forum User
Posts: 823
Joined: 23 May 2024 13:42 pm

Re: Could Nathan Church be a better hitter than Scott?

Post by JDW »

Cranny wrote: 08 Jun 2025 08:10 am
JDW wrote: 08 Jun 2025 08:07 am
Cranny wrote: 08 Jun 2025 07:48 am
JDW wrote: 08 Jun 2025 07:14 am Shane Robinson comes to mind when reading about Church.
That wouldn't be a bad guy to have on the bench IF he turns out to be similar.
He’ll be passed by Davis and Baez, who have much higher ceilings.
Hopefully, but who knows? Not you for sure.
Btw, S. Robinson was a 5th OF and bench piece.

Obviously no one knows. But if you want a comparison, look at Mike Antico. Who’s very similar, and performing well at Memphis.
Yep, good to see Antico doing well. Hope he gets an opportunity soon.
At 27 yrs. old he needs one sooner than later to stay relevant.
Shady
Forum User
Posts: 5107
Joined: 26 Nov 2022 15:39 pm

Re: Could Nathan Church be a better hitter than Scott?

Post by Shady »

hdhntr148 wrote: 08 Jun 2025 07:51 am it's a discussion board and he simply made an interesting post about a player I've never heard of. He used to post nothing but negative and racist things on MU board but this? Seems like a reasonable post to me. Hey dudes get off your high horse simply don't respond. someone who doesn't get responses will stop posting but attacking him only encourages one.

Always like info on Cardinal prospects.
I, too, enjoy information and discussion on Cardinals' prospects. In regard to the MU board. The only thing that I posted that could, possibly, be construed as racist was my, occasionally, criticizing Gates. Ex. his team's poor box out, etc. Gates being black had nothing to do with that.
Mort Gage
Forum User
Posts: 1801
Joined: 31 May 2023 13:27 pm

Re: Could Nathan Church be a better hitter than Scott?

Post by Mort Gage »

Shady wrote: 08 Jun 2025 11:32 am
hdhntr148 wrote: 08 Jun 2025 07:51 am it's a discussion board and he simply made an interesting post about a player I've never heard of. He used to post nothing but negative and racist things on MU board but this? Seems like a reasonable post to me. Hey dudes get off your high horse simply don't respond. someone who doesn't get responses will stop posting but attacking him only encourages one.

Always like info on Cardinal prospects.
I, too, enjoy information and discussion on Cardinals' prospects. In regard to the MU board. The only thing that I posted that could, possibly, be construed as racist was my, occasionally, criticizing Gates. Ex. his team's poor box out, etc. Gates being black had nothing to do with that.
Don't forget the racist sock handles you created to agree with yourself on this board. Wally Butterworth and Robert M. Shelton, I believe.
Shady
Forum User
Posts: 5107
Joined: 26 Nov 2022 15:39 pm

Re: Could Nathan Church be a better hitter than Scott?

Post by Shady »

Mort Gage wrote: 08 Jun 2025 11:41 am
Shady wrote: 08 Jun 2025 11:32 am
hdhntr148 wrote: 08 Jun 2025 07:51 am it's a discussion board and he simply made an interesting post about a player I've never heard of. He used to post nothing but negative and racist things on MU board but this? Seems like a reasonable post to me. Hey dudes get off your high horse simply don't respond. someone who doesn't get responses will stop posting but attacking him only encourages one.

Always like info on Cardinal prospects.
I, too, enjoy information and discussion on Cardinals' prospects. In regard to the MU board. The only thing that I posted that could, possibly, be construed as racist was my, occasionally, criticizing Gates. Ex. his team's poor box out, etc. Gates being black had nothing to do with that.
Don't forget the racist sock handles you created to agree with yourself on this board. Wally Butterworth and Robert M. Shelton, I believe.
That is positively bogus. Just because those handles happened to, quite often, agree with me, didn't mean they were my racist socks, Wake up to reality.
Mort Gage
Forum User
Posts: 1801
Joined: 31 May 2023 13:27 pm

Re: Could Nathan Church be a better hitter than Scott?

Post by Mort Gage »

Shady wrote: 08 Jun 2025 11:43 am
Mort Gage wrote: 08 Jun 2025 11:41 am
Shady wrote: 08 Jun 2025 11:32 am
hdhntr148 wrote: 08 Jun 2025 07:51 am it's a discussion board and he simply made an interesting post about a player I've never heard of. He used to post nothing but negative and racist things on MU board but this? Seems like a reasonable post to me. Hey dudes get off your high horse simply don't respond. someone who doesn't get responses will stop posting but attacking him only encourages one.

Always like info on Cardinal prospects.
I, too, enjoy information and discussion on Cardinals' prospects. In regard to the MU board. The only thing that I posted that could, possibly, be construed as racist was my, occasionally, criticizing Gates. Ex. his team's poor box out, etc. Gates being black had nothing to do with that.
Don't forget the racist sock handles you created to agree with yourself on this board. Wally Butterworth and Robert M. Shelton, I believe.
That is positively bogus. Just because those handles happened to agree with me, didn't mean they were my racist socks, Wake up to reality.
Yeah. They were coincidentally around right after you posted, and you even slipped up responding using your regular handle instead of your racist one the post was directed toward.
Shady
Forum User
Posts: 5107
Joined: 26 Nov 2022 15:39 pm

Re: Could Nathan Church be a better hitter than Scott?

Post by Shady »

Mort Gage wrote: 08 Jun 2025 11:46 am
Shady wrote: 08 Jun 2025 11:43 am
Mort Gage wrote: 08 Jun 2025 11:41 am
Shady wrote: 08 Jun 2025 11:32 am
hdhntr148 wrote: 08 Jun 2025 07:51 am it's a discussion board and he simply made an interesting post about a player I've never heard of. He used to post nothing but negative and racist things on MU board but this? Seems like a reasonable post to me. Hey dudes get off your high horse simply don't respond. someone who doesn't get responses will stop posting but attacking him only encourages one.

Always like info on Cardinal prospects.
I, too, enjoy information and discussion on Cardinals' prospects. In regard to the MU board. The only thing that I posted that could, possibly, be construed as racist was my, occasionally, criticizing Gates. Ex. his team's poor box out, etc. Gates being black had nothing to do with that.
Don't forget the racist sock handles you created to agree with yourself on this board. Wally Butterworth and Robert M. Shelton, I believe.
That is positively bogus. Just because those handles happened to agree with me, didn't mean they were my racist socks, Wake up to reality.
Yeah. They were coincidentally around right after you posted, and you even slipped up responding using your regular handle instead of your racist one the post was directed toward.
Be a fantasizing meathead if you choose be. But that's totally bogus. It just didn't happen because they weren't my socks.
Post Reply