|
|
#1
10-11-2005, 03:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Francoeur no rookie of the year
He came up on July 7 and through Aug. 9 was hitting .432 (35/81). Variance.
From Aug 10 to the end of the season he went 42/176 for a .238 average...right where a rookie usually is. Sure he ended up at .300, but look for him to hit about .260 next year. Nowhere near Taveras' .291 for a full season. He comes up... "sets the world on fire", does a stupid dance, and we all find out he's not worth much. Hit's .238 down the stretch. Nice. I mean, he's no Brian McCann. Francoeur needs many more AB's before we can tell if he's worth the award. Half a season doesn't show much. He had a monster month, then a very sub-par month-and-a-half... had he been up all year who knows where he would have ended up. 
|
|
#3
10-11-2005, 06:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Francoeur no rookie of the year
[ QUOTE ]
Sure he ended up at .300, but look for him to hit about .260 next year. [/ QUOTE ] I'm not going to defend Francoeur for ROY, but what does this have anything to do with anything? If whoever does win the ROY ends up hitting .210 next season, does that mean they were any less deserving of the 2005 award? GoT
|
|
#4
10-11-2005, 06:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Francoeur no rookie of the year
wait, so he gets hot and hits .360 and its variance. then he gets cold and hits 238 and that means he sucks and is definitive. you couldnt make this stuff up.
|
|
#5
10-11-2005, 06:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Francoeur no rookie of the year
My problem with Francoeur is that he has a hockey player's name, so I get all excited that we're talking hockey, but then it's really National League baseball.
|
|
#6
10-11-2005, 07:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Francoeur no rookie of the year
[ QUOTE ]
wait, so he gets hot and hits .360 and its variance. then he gets cold and hits 238 and that means he sucks and is definitive. you couldnt make this stuff up. [/ QUOTE ] No, he sux now because pitchers figured him out after 1 month. The first month was positive variance for him. Now he's just another Darryl Ward, but not as good a dancer.
|
|
#7
10-11-2005, 07:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Francoeur no rookie of the year
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Sure he ended up at .300, but look for him to hit about .260 next year. [/ QUOTE ] I'm not going to defend Francoeur for ROY, but what does this have anything to do with anything? If whoever does win the ROY ends up hitting .210 next season, does that mean they were any less deserving of the 2005 award? GoT [/ QUOTE ] It doesn't, but I'm trying to point out his hitting trend. I'd rather have a guy hover between .300 and .291 all year long than start off hot and hit .235 the last month-and-a-half plus. Francoeur is a joke. Hell, Jeromy Burnitz started off this year hitting a pantload of bombs for the Cubs... lol.
|
|
#8
10-11-2005, 07:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Francoeur no rookie of the year
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] wait, so he gets hot and hits .360 and its variance. then he gets cold and hits 238 and that means he sucks and is definitive. you couldnt make this stuff up. [/ QUOTE ] No, he sux now because pitchers figured him out after 1 month. The first month was positive variance for him. Now he's just another Darryl Ward, but not as good a dancer. [/ QUOTE ] 1. did you even respond to my point, at all? 2. rookies usually get better after a couple months/seasons. they get more experience, learn the game at the major league level.
|
|
#9
10-11-2005, 07:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Francoeur no rookie of the year
[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't, but I'm trying to point out his hitting trend. I'd rather have a guy hover between .300 and .291 all year long than start off hot and hit .235 the last month-and-a-half plus. Francoeur is a joke. [/ QUOTE ] Your arguments are over-the-top and so biased that they wouldn't be taken seriously even if they had merit. I agree that Francoeur might have lost the ROY by ending the season the way he did, but to say he's "a joke" is pretty silly. Hitting .300 for half a season is no easy accomplishment for any player, much less a rookie fresh out of AA. Not to mention decent power numbers, the outfield assists, etc. If you want some credence given to your arguments, you might want to vary them a little bit, instead of always saying houston_player_01 is so great because of _intangible_, _joe-morgan-quote_, and his _small sample size or otherwise misused stat_, and non_astro01 is a totally worthless pile of crap who shouldn't play in the majors.
|
|
#10
10-11-2005, 07:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Francoeur no rookie of the year
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] wait, so he gets hot and hits .360 and its variance. then he gets cold and hits 238 and that means he sucks and is definitive. you couldnt make this stuff up. [/ QUOTE ] No, he sux now because pitchers figured him out after 1 month. The first month was positive variance for him. Now he's just another Darryl Ward, but not as good a dancer. [/ QUOTE ] 1. did you even respond to my point, at all? 2. rookies usually get better after a couple months/seasons. they get more experience, learn the game at the major league level. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, he will improve on .360. Next year he will hit .400.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
