90 players have more HRs than Burly, 72 have more RBIs, 200 have higher WAR

[Shady]

Burleson is a terrible RFer. So bad that even Oli won't play him there anymore. He is so-so in LF and 1B. But will get exposed in the field.

Only Chip, Brad, and Shady will say publicly that Burleson is a good fielder.

https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/savant-p ... elding-mlb

He has a plus bat against RHP. A good piece of a good team. But not the cornerstone to build around. He is peaking with his bat and very tradeable.

Many have said this on the multiple Burly threads a day/week. I only come to these for the comedy now. But,... yawn.

Football season is starting. Hockey and College basketball soon to follow.

"Only Chip, Brad, and Shady will say publicly that Burleson is a good fielder". What professional credentials make your evaluation more credible than Chip's and Brad's?

[CorneliusWolfe]

He's not a "bad" player, but he's no star. And he's not our problem. But we do have big a problem in that we don't have several players hitting better than him in our lineup. And he's really not the solution to that problem either.

You’ve got a lot of nerve Bub. Don’t you know Burly is better than Ohtani, has bionic calves, and conquered outer space? What does it take to impress you?

[dugoutrex]

And he has been propped up as a star. He is no star, just better than most on this incompetent roster.

NO ONE (other than a couple derps on this site) has ever 'propped up' Burly as a star

[ClassicO]

So 90 players have more HR's, divided by 30 teams, so on many teams one could extrapolate Burly would be about 4th in HR's for some teams, about the same with RBI's, and about 7th on many teams regarding WAR. Also on some of these other teams, he wouldn't be getting as much playing time, and possibly mainly in a platoon role.
He's an OK player overall, but not a star.
Another point could be with a more hitter friendly home ballpark, it's possible Burly's OPS could be over .800 much more frequently, which could be a tipping point into making him a nice complimentary piece for a team.

That’s all hitting.
What about defense and base running?

[Red7]

Burleson and Donovan are not the problem. The problem is they’re your best players. Kind of reminds of the 2003 Royals. Jeff Suppan was their Opening Day starter and #1. Now, Suppan was a solid SP, but if he’s your #1, you’re pretty much screwed.

[MIDMOBIRDTWO]

And he has been propped up as a star. He is no star, just better than most on this incompetent roster.

NO ONE (other than a couple derps on this site) has ever 'propped up' Burly as a star

Shady is the gravy to the big biscuit.

[ScotchMIrish]

He's not a "bad" player, but he's no star. And he's not our problem. But we do have big a problem in that we don't have several players hitting better than him in our lineup. And he's really not the solution to that problem either.

With better players around him he would have better numbers.

[Carp4Cy]

He's not a "bad" player, but he's no star. And he's not our problem. But we do have big a problem in that we don't have several players hitting better than him in our lineup. And he's really not the solution to that problem either.

With better players around him he would have better numbers.

better players don't have this problem. They produce WAR period.

[ClassicO]

Burleson is what he is...a good bat with no glove. He's a 6-hole DH and occasional LF\RF\1B who will give a team good at bats and won't embarrass himself at the plate.

Unfortunately, instead of being a valuable complimentary piece on a good team, he is an over-valued primary piece on a bad team.

I disagree on the "no glove". He's fine in LF and RF (with really strong and accurate throwing ability) and is really good at first base. "won't embarrass himself at the plate" is an understatement. Considering he's currently tied for 5th in the NL for batting average.

You’re hilarious. You’re also blind and don’t comprehend defensive statistics.

[ScotchMIrish]

He's not a "bad" player, but he's no star. And he's not our problem. But we do have big a problem in that we don't have several players hitting better than him in our lineup. And he's really not the solution to that problem either.

With better players around him he would have better numbers.

With runners at 2B He hits .333 with .997 OPS - the problem is only 33 at bats with runners at 2B. On a better team he would have more production.

[hullie]

Burleson is what he is...a good bat with no glove. He's a 6-hole DH and occasional LF\RF\1B who will give a team good at bats and won't embarrass himself at the plate.

Unfortunately, instead of being a valuable complimentary piece on a good team, he is an over-valued primary piece on a bad team.

I disagree on the "no glove". He's fine in LF and RF ( with really strong and accurate throwing ability) and is really good at first base.

Disagree all you like. Yes, he has a good arm. If he gets to the ball he generally catches it, but he doesn't get to enough balls. His poor range has been covered this season by exceptional CF play by Scott II. And he isn't as good at 1B as you would like to believe. If he doesn't have to move much, he'll catch the ball.

Good hitter. Seems to be a good guy and teammate (at least I've never heard otherwise). Decent, but slow, baserunner.

If you need a 6-hole DH and occasional OF\1B fill-in, he is valuable. If you need a star to build around, he isn't your guy.

I see Burleson's overall ability and value much differently than you do. No biggie. Opinions are like aholes.

Opinions are like shady?

[Banner29]

Growing up I got to see a lineup with the MV3 which included one of the best players that ever lived and that was just a sample of some of the lineups we threw out there. Still tho k about that 2004 lineup sometimes and think about how nobody will ever be able to assemble a lineup with that kind of depth and fire power ever again


Now we’re debating Alec Burleson……..Father Time really hits ya in a lot of ways……

[BrockFloodMaris]

Growing up I got to see a lineup with the MV3 which included one of the best players that ever lived and that was just a sample of some of the lineups we threw out there. Still tho k about that 2004 lineup sometimes and think about how nobody will ever be able to assemble a lineup with that kind of depth and fire power ever again


Now we’re debating Alec Burleson……..Father Time really hits ya in a lot of ways……

Exactly! The bar for what passes as good, much less great, keeps getting lower and lower. Burly is a plus hitter for average with limited skills otherwise. I'd be happy to have him hitting sixth on a team with a long, qualified MLB line-up in front of him. I'd try to limit his overexposure, especially defensively. He may one of the best hitters we have, and that is just sad.

[icon]

Growing up I got to see a lineup with the MV3 which included one of the best players that ever lived and that was just a sample of some of the lineups we threw out there. Still tho k about that 2004 lineup sometimes and think about how nobody will ever be able to assemble a lineup with that kind of depth and fire power ever again


Now we’re debating Alec Burleson……..Father Time really hits ya in a lot of ways……

Exactly! The bar for what passes as good, much less great, keeps getting lower and lower. Burly is a plus hitter for average with limited skills otherwise. I'd be happy to have him hitting sixth on a team with a long, qualified MLB line-up in front of him. I'd try to limit his overexposure, especially defensively. He may one of the best hitters we have, and that is just sad.

Yeah, standards have slipped dramatically when you get to the point where Burly is being talked about as a star.

[Braund241]

He's not a "bad" player, but he's no star. And he's not our problem. But we do have big a problem in that we don't have several players hitting better than him in our lineup. And he's really not the solution to that problem either.

Yes our #3. And #4 has 72 RBI. You would have to try to build a worse roster. And to think Mo probably made multiple millions to be so bad. Would love to know why that’s P[ositively] O[bnoxious] S[impleton] has had this job for the last 8 years.

[Melville]

He's not a "bad" player, but he's no star. And he's not our problem. But we do have big a problem in that we don't have several players hitting better than him in our lineup. And he's really not the solution to that problem either.

Fun facts.
101 have more PA's - meaning he is outperforming his PA ranking in both HR and RBI while handicapped by playing for a team which ranks 15th in runs, 15th in hits, 16th in OBP, and 20th in SB.
Only 14 hitters have a higher PA.
Only 55 have a higher OBP.
Only 52 have a higher OPS.
Good enough to be the best or 2nd best hitter on about half of MLB teams right now.