Kris Bryant overrated?... too soon for they hype?
 

I lean more prewar, but I have kept up with the modern as well.

This last year I hear a lot about Kris Bryant and see the prices of his cards flying past other players. I can't help but feel it is too soon to think he is great and maybe even overrated.

In his first season he already ranks 8th in most strikeouts in a single season with 199. His SLG didn't break 500 (.488).

If you look at Ryan Howard, another person that ties for 8th in single season strikeouts (not in his rookie year), his overall rookie season stats are better.

Ryan Howard didn't have a full season until his 3rd season in. So the only advantage Bryant has over Howard is youth.

Howard's first three season splits:
.304/.399/.624 with OPS 1.024 - OPS+155

Bryant's splits
.275/.369/.488 with OPS .858 - OPS+ 133

I know it may be easy to compare him to Harper's rookie season, but Harper never had the SO ratio Bryant had while still putting up a similar slash line. Even then Harper is still younger than Bryant with 4 seasons under his belt before his 23rd birthday.

It seems to me that it is very presumptuous that Bryant is going to be a top 5 player, or that he already is. With a stirkeout ratio like his he would need a better Slugging percentage. The real problem is I don't see SO going down while his Slugging goes up. Pitchers know he uses an uppercut swing so they will pitch to him with that knowledge and he will follow the path of other strikeout kings like Ryan Howard and Adam Dunn.

I could be wrong and missing something if you see something in his playing worth the praise/value he gets among collectors let me know. Or if you just don't think 199 SO in a rookie season is a big deal let me know that too.

Don't know what the future holds for Bryant but everyone hyped Puig. The guy had 66 K's vs 72 hits last year and looked awful. Then again, Trout strikes out a ton too.

My humble opinion: Bryant ends up a good player, never great. He will surpass Strasburg's lame duck career but neither will live up to the price of their rookie cards.

I don't think that Bryant will crash and burn, but I just don't see him as a top tier player. His card prices just don't reflect the uncertainty that he left on the table with 199 SO (with 77BB) in 650 PA.

No, he's not overrated. The strikeouts are an issue that he'll have to rectify, but I project him as a superstar for the next decade plus. Look at his stat lines from Low A to the majors, that kind of quick movement from class to class with little to no regression or struggle just doesn't happen. As for the strikeouts, he will spend the next 4-5 years in the lineup surrounded by Rizzo, Hayward, Schwarber, and Soler (who I would gamble could be the best of the bunch) which will mean plenty of pitches to hit. The bust talk was all the rage with Harper last off season and he only turned out an MVP season. Give the kid some time.

Again, Harper isn't even 23 yet. It makes sense to give him time to adjust. Harper's BABIP is still lower than Brant's. (Bryant .378 vs Harper's.369). Bryant's going to have to keep his BABIP very high to compensate for his high SO. Bryant didn't just have a high Strike Out year. He now holds the record for most SO by a rookie. So unless he can manage to put the ball in play more as his BABIP starts to average out as he gets older than he will be just another Ryan Howard.

Think about it this way of the Top 30 BABIP in 2015 he ranks 5th, but his BA of .275 is second lowest to Anthony Gose's .254 and his BABIP was only .352 with a 27.1% SO% (compared to Bryant's 30.6%). With such a high BABIP his average should reflect it, but it doesn't. I really think the most comparable rookie year of the last 15 years would be Mark Reynold's 2007 season.

Mark Reynold's:
Games:111 PA:414 HR:17 R:62 RBI:62 SB:0 BB%:8.9% K%31.2 % BABIP:.378 AVG:.279 OBP:.349 SLG:.495

Kris Bryant:
Games:151 PA:650 HR:26 R:87 RBI:99 SB:13 BB%11.8 % K%30.6 % BABIP:.378 AVG:.275 OBP:.369 SLG:.488

He ranks 23rd of all rookies since 2000 in the highest K%, but 6th with players with more than 100 games in their RY. There is only one with more games and that is Michael Taylor.

The only stat that seems to make him look great is that he Ranks 3rd in WAR for Rookies since 2000.

I just can't fathom putting so many eggs in that basket with just one season under his belt and with so many negatives in his batting.

Bryant had more strikeouts than hits last year and still managed to hit .275. But that will not happen consistently and we've seen what a stable BABIP did to Austin Jackson, who has floundered, though he isn't the hitter Bryant is.

If Bryant can manage to still hit above 270 he'll be a super star. But if he can't, he'll probably drop down to the 230 / 240 range and be a Mark Reynolds.

I was not impressed by what I seen out of Bryant . I was much more impressed by joc pederson . You never really know what a player will be . To many variables .

Look over the history of young guns in baseball. So many fizzle out fast .

Pederson really struggled the second half of the season. But he does have a defensive upside that makes him valuable. I hope he rebounds, but I don't think he'll ever hit for average.

This is the great thing about baseball. There is almost no such thing as a can't miss superstar. The commons bins are full of players most people expected to be superstars, but bombed. By contrast, everyone knew KOBE Bryant was going to be great as a teenager. Same with Gretzky. Same with all sorts of other guys. Sure, there are flops, but I am willing to bet it's a much smaller percentage. And, in baseball, even after five or ten great years guys can fall off a cliff. Maybe there are very sporadic examples in other sports, but not nearly as many as in baseball.

I think football gives baseball a run for its money in terms of potential busts. But you're right about basketball and hockey. No one questioned Lebron when he came in. Or Sydney Crosby.

In hockey "they" (whoever they is) seem to know sometimes about a guy at a ridiculously young age, like early teens. That was true of Orr, and Gretzky, and Lemieux, and maybe Crosby.

Right, so I don't understand why people invest so strongly in rookies.

Especially one with such a major flaw such as strikeouts. I would keep a Bryant if pulled from a pack if I didn't think his prices were so over inflated right now.

Instead the players I think worth investing/collecting are players like Trout, Goldschmidt, Cabrera, Ichiro, Cano, Beltre, Votto. These players have established careers or solid career starts and most of their cards are found for so much less than Bryant's (major exception is Trout).

I understand the upside for Cabrera, he could set records and be among the very top few players ever statistically, but other than Trout who is still quite young, what's the big upside for those other guys who are midway or most of the way through their career already?

Ichiro I think will get incredibly difficult after his career is over. I bought a signed rookie this year and I expect it to get very pricey as soon as he retires. Of course that's assuming he moves to Japan.

Well since this is more a thread on Bryant I will summarize. They are all on what could be HOF tracks with low cost cards in comparison to each years new "it" rookie(s). Basically I find them to be closer to a "sure thing" than Bryant.

Cano - 11 years in and already HOFm 123. He has the 3rd highest SLG for 2nd basemen with at least 1500 games behind Hornsby and Kent. Yet non like Kent his defensive skills are top notch ranking 1st among active players in PO and Assists at 2B.

Goldschmidt - Only 5 years in but has an OPS+ of 151. 3 All star games, 2 gold gloves, 2 silver sluggers, and came in 2nd for MVP twice. He has lead twice in PO (for all positions), and twice was top 5 in home runs.

Beltre - with 18 seasons under his belt he ranks 3rd in WAR behind Pujols and ARod. While still not tapering off yet like the other two having put up a 7.0 and 5.8 the last two seasons and not getting below 5 since 2009. He has a top 5 AVG 5 times, top 5 SLG% 4 times while accumulating the top defensive WAR for active players.

Votto - 9 Seasons in he is ranked 6th in Active Slugging .534, and 5th in Active Average .311. He has lead in BB and OBP 4 times each. He also boasts a OPS+ of 156 (2nd behind Pujols, also good enough for 19th career). His 43.4 WAR ranks highest for players with less than 10 years.

I agree all very strong players (I had not realized Goldschmit was that young actually) but as they already established commodities I don't see why their cards would increase in value if they keep doing the same thing unless like Cabera they approach records or all time great status. I wholly agree with you on Bryant though, for every guy like him who busts out and becomes a superstar there are probably several who don't, so it's just speculation.

I wasnt saying to invest because they would go up in value, I was saying now that they aren't "hot" rookies their card prices have settled down and have less chance of going down now. The biggest chance of them going up would be if they do get inducted or break some records, but if I am going to put money towards modern cards I would put it towards established players. I have no way of knowing if cards will go up in value, but I believe those players' cards are a better value.

+1

Also, baseball over hypes prospects more than any other sport IMO. I would put my money in other sports.

I think any player with less than 3-4 years experience is over-hyped. Just too soon to know. Also, any time a Cubs, Red Sox or Yankees player has even a decent year, he's the next greatest thing (ESPECIALLY the Cubs). Anyone remember Shawon Dunston, Kerry Wood, Mark Prior, Starlin Castro or the hundreds of other prospects that never lived up to the hype? Not saying Bryant will or won't, you just have to be very careful as it seems 99% of the next greatest player never is.

To be fair, Starlin Castro is a 3 X All Star before the age of 25. That's pretty good.

Phil Plantier and Kevin Maas come immediately to mind. Corey Patterson for the Cubs as well.

Don't forget Gary Scott and Todd Benzinger

I'm with you guys on the skepticism but we're not talking about the same thing. Bryant won ROY. Phil Plantier, Kevin Maas, et all, they never had comparable success at the major league level. It's not really an apples to apples comparison.

Instead I'd parade the cautionary tales of guys like Geovany Soto, and Angel Berroa, and Bob Hamlin.

I would go with someone with raw ability and lower age to gauge future ability.

Carlos Correa is the gem from last year's rookie crop in my opinion. He is so young and his play is at a higher level. I might also add that Miguel Sano also has an amazing amount of pop in his bat (more than Bryant) but he too struck out quite a bit.
That being said, Bryant did destroy minor league pitching but he struck out about 1 in every 3 at bats despite hitting over .320.

Being a Mets fan, I rave about Michael Conforto. He hit the second hardest ball (by exit velocity) last season and the ball I saw him hit in Atlanta (a line drive HR that was the hardest hit ball I'd ever seen). Plus his strikeouts/BB ratio wasn't outrageous.

I don't buy into the Bryant hype, and I think the strikeouts are a big problem with him. I kind of feel that will keep him from a lofty batting average. I expect him to have decent power, but never reach the potential people expect from him. At some point, the strikeouts are just going to get in his way.

When he's not asleep in the field. If he's a 3X All Star that doesn't say much for NL shortstops. Joe Maddon could only take 1 year of his pathetic attitude before he had him shipped out.

Sure but you can't call the guy a bust. He's still only 26.

Overrated? Bryant was 5th in the NL in win probability added, and only twelve hitters in the NL had a higher slugging pct than Bryant did in his rookie season. He tied Andrew McCutchen at .488, and McCutchen was 5th in the NL MVP vote. A 5.9 WAR as a rookie is outstanding. And while he needs to bring his strikeouts down, he walked 77 times. Only nine guys in the NL walked more. For a guy with his power potential to put up a .369 OBP as a rookie is a real positive sign.

There's no way I could say that Kris Bryant is overrated. He more than held his own at the Major League level. We'll see where he goes from here.

Yes but how do you feel about how lucky he got last season? His BABIP was 378. He struck out more times than he got a hit and hit 270 with a 378 BABIP. If that BABIP comes down to normal levels, without improvement he will hit in the 230 to 240 range.

Good article on comps to Bryant's rookie year:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/compi...rookie-season/

Spoiler: his comps don't exactly jump off the page (but he's young, so its ok).

In terms of the cards, it amazes me how much people spend on rookie cards of these guys, and not just in baseball. I don't know how many hold their initial value over time, but my guess would be around 5% or less. I think only a couple of guys in a given era will truly live up to the hype, and the 10-50k people are spending on these 1/1s and superfractor type cards.

Kris Bryant is a freaking stud. Add to that he plays in Chicago. His cards are never going to cool off. Same with Trouty, Harper, and Correa. The Mount Rushmore of the new era

he's probably overhyped, but i don't know if he's overrated. yes his babip is very high, and with someone like trout with his speed you say that could be sustainable...but i just checked and bryant line drive rate and hard hit ball rate is nothing to write home about, so i'd say he was extremely lucky last year. not saying he's not already a productive player, but he'd have to change his approach to reach that superstardom level.

and he's nowhere the level of trout/harper/correa presently. those guys are generational players who've put up multiple all stars/mvp seasons by them time they're at bryant's age...and correa just beasted thru the league at his age 20 season. if lindor can show his offense is not a mirage i'd take him over bryant also.

as for prospecting these guys my one rule is when in doubt, go with the white guy in the big market. so load up on your giolitos over urias.

edit: just read over the thread. at no point was harper considered a bust, he was injury-prone and missed games but always productive while he was in the lineup. mixing babip with strikeout rate is not good...since the modern game kind of digs the 3 true outcome guys. if you want to know if babip is sustainable just look at their line drive rate and exit ball velocity...which bryant ranked near the 200s of all players, while his babip was 5th (so big red flag).

And Cubs fans may still have their huge stacks of 89 UD Jerome Walton and Dwight Smith high numbers!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

Great minds think alike. At this point, I think he has a better chance of being Dave Kingman than an elongated Harmon Killebrew. Way too many strikeouts for me, and that goes for Trout too (the fastball 5-6 inches above the waist is Trout's weakness, followed by a slider breaking low and away, into the dirt. He likes them low, and after getting a strike he can't handle, will leave the zone for the slider. Mantle used to hit that very same fastball 450-500 feet). Rick Reichardt was once the new Mantle too, in 1966--Gee, guess how that worked out! Plus, a lot of things can happen in the next decade or so. Pete Reiser was a sure-fire HOF'er, until he proved beyond doubt his affinity for banging himself senseless into the concrete outfield walls of the time. Cesar Cedeno was going to be the next Clemente in the '60's, until...who knows what happened--the talent certainly ran out. Also, even Bill James, when asked early in the decade to predict the player who would hit the most homeruns in the '90's, chose Phil Plantier--Phil who???

Patience, guys. The phenoms' cards will still be there ten to 15 years from now, and it isn't at all unlikely that the cost for them will be less. Take it from a collector who was there throughout the speculative years of the early to mid '90's!

May collecting bring you joy,

Larry

I know it is early in the season, but the Kris Bryant stats we are seeing thus far are what I was expecting to see. Sure he could just be in a slump, but the main thing is that he actually is hitting the same stats as last year except his BABIP has fallen to what is considered the average.

With 6 games under his belt he had a similar BB%, but his K% had dropped by 10%, that means if he had the same luck as last year his AVG should have been higher... but he isn't seeing the same luck and his BABIP dropped to .300 from last year's staggering .378. When his BABIP his average dropped with it bringing him to .231. If he hits more home runs through the season the lower batting average can be forgiven, but that only goes so far, ask Adam Dunn. Kris Bryant has very similar stats to Adam Dunn with the exception of a very high BABIP in 2015.



An interesting article from Feb that goes more into what I was trying to explain.
http://www.cubsinsider.com/kris-brya...te-lucky-2015/

Your sophistication with the numbers is appreciated but it seems meaningless to me to say anything at all about someone's season after 6 games. He could have one good game tonight and the numbers would look dramatically different.

Oh I know. I almost didn't post it because I knew that could be the argument. I am not saying that this season is going to be all lost and this is proof. My point was only that if his BABIP stays in the "normal" area as it has in the past 7 games, yet he doesn't improve his K% than this is the type of stats you will see from him more than not.

I believe he will be hitting home runs but I really don't see his future being any more productive than Adam Dunn's. Adam Dunn's 2010 season may be a comparable to the best we can expect from Bryant from here on out. That wasn't a horrible season, but it benefited from a .329 BABIP. That isn't a bad number and is manageable for a career, but highly unlikely for a home run hitter.

It doesn't matter how good you are, no one can survive in the league or experience prolonged success striking out more times than they get a hit.

Reggie Jackson had more strikeouts than hits.

If you aspire to be Reggie Jackson, best of luck to you, Kris. He wasn't exactly the second coming of anything.

Jim Thome too.

Would you drop $500 on a signed Thome or Reggie Jackson rookie card?

But he does disprove your statement about survival and prolonged success.

No but I do own a Reggie rookie.

2 guys in the history of baseball struck out more times than they got a hit and managed to sustain long careers as power hitters. I wouldn't call that the norm and I'd still argue that you're in bad company. Also these players (Jackson) missed the specialized metrics completely or finished their career at the beginning of them (Thome).

Canseco and Kingman and Fielder too. And Ryan Howard.

You're just grasping at straws now. Bryant is being looked at as a special player and people are paying big bucks to invest in him. The question is why they think he can be that player given his high K rate and being lucky during his rookie season. Comparing him to Cecil Fielder or Dave Kingman is absurd if you're trying to make your point.

My only point was to respond to your overstatement that someone with more Ks than hits cannot possibly survive. I am not a huge fan of Bryant and would not pay a dime for one of his cards.

All of those players retired before advanced metrics and shifts and Howard is not someone I would say has sustained success. He had a few peak seasons and has been terrible for the same period of time.

Hall Of Fame StatisticsPlayer rank in (·)


Black Ink Batting - 35 (46), Average HOFer ≈ 27

Gray Ink Batting - 175 (60), Average HOFer ≈ 144

Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 170 (65), Likely HOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 54 (70), Average HOFer ≈ 50

JAWS Right Field (8th), 73.8 career WAR/46.8 7yr-peak WAR/60.3 JAWS
Reggie does OK on the metrics.