How long do they go with Church?

[ClassicO]

I’ll say it again:
Church is a better all-around player than VSII.
So the question should be:
How long they should they go with Scott?

Um… watching any games this year yet?

Based on this season I don’t get how he thinks Church is better.

I don't base anything on 6 games. That seems foolish.
I watched Church a lot on MiLB-TV the last few years and he's a better hitter than VSII (which isn't saying much).
I've watched the 18 ABs he's had this year, and he's been struggling. He did last year in a limited time as well. Career = 74 ABs.
Still, he has 2 runs and 2 RBI vs. Scott's 3 runs and 0 RBI.

Scott has played in 197 games in MLB with .211/.285/.297/.582. Yes, that .297 slugging % isn't a typo. He's had 560+ more PAs than Church at MLB level and has established the hitter that he is - and will be.

Looking back at their careers before MLB is helpful as well:

Scott
AAA - .210/.294/.303/.597 in 362 PAs. Range Factor vs League = 2.72 vs. 2.62
College - .254/.368/.419/.787

Church
AAA - .332/.396/.500/.896 in 213 PAs. Range Factor vs League = 2.70 vs. 2.53
College - .341/.405/.515/.920

Only a moron would compare runs and RBIs the way you did.

Ha, I was just following up on the post, "based on this season." And the RBI thing for Scott is a career weakness because of his style of hitting.

[ecleme22]

I’ll say it again:
Church is a better all-around player than VSII.
So the question should be:
How long they should they go with Scott?

Um… watching any games this year yet?

Based on this season I don’t get how he thinks Church is better.

I don't base anything on 6 games. That seems foolish.
I watched Church a lot on MiLB-TV the last few years and he's a better hitter than VSII (which isn't saying much).
I've watched the 18 ABs he's had this year, and he's been struggling. He did last year in a limited time as well. Career = 74 ABs.
Still, he has 2 runs and 2 RBI vs. Scott's 3 runs and 0 RBI.

Scott has played in 197 games in MLB with .211/.285/.297/.582. Yes, that .297 slugging % isn't a typo. He's had 560+ more PAs than Church at MLB level and has established the hitter that he is - and will be.

Looking back at their careers before MLB is helpful as well:

Scott
AAA - .210/.294/.303/.597 in 362 PAs. Range Factor vs League = 2.72 vs. 2.62
College - .254/.368/.419/.787

Church
AAA - .332/.396/.500/.896 in 213 PAs. Range Factor vs League = 2.70 vs. 2.53
College - .341/.405/.515/.920

Only a moron would compare runs and RBIs the way you did.

Ha, I was just following up on the post, "based on this season." And the RBI thing for Scott is a career weakness because of his style of hitting.

You: Still, Church has 2 runs and 2 RBI vs. Scott's 3 runs and 0 RBI.

That's stupid. Both stats require either someone to be on base or someone to drive you in.

Church has 3 hits
Scott has 3 multi hit games.

I wish Church well, but maybe pump the brakes on the fanboying.

[renostl]

I’ll say it again:
Church is a better all-around player than VSII.
So the question should be:
How long they should they go with Scott?

I think that they are seeing in real time
if your assessment is true or if either is a starter
vs being a defensive replacement.
Any could have some roster value with
their other tools.

Neither should be a starter. That's why Baez's development this year - as a CF - is pivotal.

Then you are arguing about a role player at best.
What is the reasoning of claiming with certainty that one
is a better player, why all of the statistics relayed
here.
You can be right but why not let it play out on the field.

[ClassicO]

I’ll say it again:
Church is a better all-around player than VSII.
So the question should be:
How long they should they go with Scott?

I think that they are seeing in real time
if your assessment is true or if either is a starter
vs being a defensive replacement.
Any could have some roster value with
their other tools.

Neither should be a starter. That's why Baez's development this year - as a CF - is pivotal.

Then you are arguing about a role player at best.
What is the reasoning of claiming with certainty that one
is a better player, why all of the statistics relayed
here.
You can be right but why not let it play out on the field.

Good point. It needs to play out.
FWIW - the main reason I stressed the longer-term stats was the OP's assertion that Church was on a short leash when Scott should be on a shorter leash.

[ClassicO]

I’ll say it again:
Church is a better all-around player than VSII.
So the question should be:
How long they should they go with Scott?

Um… watching any games this year yet?

Based on this season I don’t get how he thinks Church is better.

I don't base anything on 6 games. That seems foolish.
I watched Church a lot on MiLB-TV the last few years and he's a better hitter than VSII (which isn't saying much).
I've watched the 18 ABs he's had this year, and he's been struggling. He did last year in a limited time as well. Career = 74 ABs.
Still, he has 2 runs and 2 RBI vs. Scott's 3 runs and 0 RBI.

Scott has played in 197 games in MLB with .211/.285/.297/.582. Yes, that .297 slugging % isn't a typo. He's had 560+ more PAs than Church at MLB level and has established the hitter that he is - and will be.

Looking back at their careers before MLB is helpful as well:

Scott
AAA - .210/.294/.303/.597 in 362 PAs. Range Factor vs League = 2.72 vs. 2.62
College - .254/.368/.419/.787

Church
AAA - .332/.396/.500/.896 in 213 PAs. Range Factor vs League = 2.70 vs. 2.53
College - .341/.405/.515/.920

Only a moron would compare runs and RBIs the way you did.

Ha, I was just following up on the post, "based on this season." And the RBI thing for Scott is a career weakness because of his style of hitting.

You: Still, Church has 2 runs and 2 RBI vs. Scott's 3 runs and 0 RBI.

That's stupid. Both stats require either someone to be on base or someone to drive you in.

Church has 3 hits
Scott has 3 multi hit games.

I wish Church well, but maybe pump the brakes on the fanboying.

How many RBI can a player get when his slugging % was .303 at AAA and .297 in the big leagues? Hint: not many.