Bold Prediction: Mike Stanton will hit 50 homers in 2011

[Adamsince1981]

It isnt a good idea to use small sample sizes, especially when comparing rookie seasons, when discussing baseball. That was my point.

It got weird when you said you didn't compare Stanton to a veteran and didn't make a projection. I should have let it go....curiosity killed the cat I suppose.

You compared their rookie seasons because Fielder hit 50 HRs in his second full season.

You then went on to make a personal estimate of something in the future(the possibility of Stanton hitting 50 hrs), based on present data(Stanton's 396 AB's). That's called a projection.

No big deal, you just used a small sample size to make a flawed comparison and a realistic projection of Stanton's future.

How is comparing two power hitters' rookie seasons "flawed". lol I didn't say that Stanton would have the same career as Fielder, I simply pointed out the FACT that he hits more HRs per-PA at age 20 than Fielder did at age 22. The fact that it was in less PAs is meaningless. It just means that Stanton COULD have had more HRs in the same amount of PAs. If you really think pointing out that a player hits HRs at a faster pace than another player is meaningless, then more power to you. You seem like you just want to argue. You can't argue against facts. But be my guest to keep trying. ~It makes you seem very smart~

 

[Adamsince1981]

I'll spell it out for Adamsince1995.

Player A rookie season did "this" at age 22
Player B rookie season did "this" a little better at age 20

Pointing out these facts is just what it is, pointing out facts. No one said that player B would have a better career than player A. It just shows that player B has the POTENTIAL to outperform player A at "this". Can this be any clearer? Do I need to explain further? No projections here, just showing statistics that help form an opinion.

A flawed opinion.

Fielders rookie stats and veteran season totals have 0 impact on the projection of Stanton's career or the possibility of him hitting 50 HRs in a season.

 

[Brett Keith]

I don't really have a "projection" for Stanton, but I think he is one of the real freak prospects we've seen. I mean, people were down on him a bit after he ended the 2009 season so bad at AA, but then he came back in 2010 and dismantled AA. People didn't think he was close to being ready for the bigs, yet he comes up and is pretty damn impressive, despite his home park really keeping his numbers down. The reason for the doubt, I believe, is that people just lean on lazy comparisons and some numbers without really looking into the player. If you read any in depth scouting report or story on Stanton and you will almost undoubtedly read about his work ethic, not only physically, but mentally. He's got superstar natural talent and athleticism, but he puts in the work of a grinder, or someone who is afraid of being released. It doesn't stop in the gym or on the field though. His studying and mental preparation has garnered a Greg Maddux name drop. This all shows in his rapid ascension and ability to make adjustments.

 

[rico08]

I think people need to stop using the word "jack" in relation to home runs.

That said, let's see what Jose Bautista thinks about Stanton hitting 50.

Option B.

 

[sportscardtheory]

I'll spell it out for Adamsince1995.

Player A rookie season did "this" at age 22
Player B rookie season did "this" a little better at age 20

Pointing out these facts is just what it is, pointing out facts. No one said that player B would have a better career than player A. It just shows that player B has the POTENTIAL to outperform player A at "this". Can this be any clearer? Do I need to explain further? No projections here, just showing statistics that help form an opinion.

A flawed opinion.

Fielders rookie stats and veteran season totals have 0 impact on the projection of Stanton's career or the possibility of him hitting 50 HRs in a season.

You really just don't get it... and that's okay.

 

[hive17]

I'll spell it out for Adamsince1995.

Player A rookie season did "this" at age 22
Player B rookie season did "this" a little better at age 20

Pointing out these facts is just what it is, pointing out facts. No one said that player B would have a better career than player A. It just shows that player B has the POTENTIAL to outperform player A at "this". Can this be any clearer? Do I need to explain further? No projections here, just showing statistics that help form an opinion.

A flawed opinion.

Fielders rookie stats and veteran season totals have 0 impact on the projection of Stanton's career or the possibility of him hitting 50 HRs in a season.

You really just don't get it... and that's okay.

I think Adam's point about small sample size is fair. If you want to take a small sample size, just use the end of that 50-HR season and use the last 180 ABs of Fielder's. If you do that, Prince was hitting a HR every 9 ABs, compared to Stanton's 15 at the end of last year.

Give me 150+ games over an April-September season to compare two guys, or give me roughly the exact same seasonal sampling (Like I did using Braun). Otherwise, it's just manuvering statistics.

 

[reljac]

Mike Stanton should get to 50.....






































.....strikeouts in the first month of the season

 

[hofautos]

stanton>howard>ruth

$10,000 for his base is a bargain.

 

[hoopster3977]

50 Hr's this season? No

He won't hit over 40 until the Marlins move into their new home, but I'm hoping!

 

[sportscardtheory]

I'll spell it out for Adamsince1995.

Player A rookie season did "this" at age 22
Player B rookie season did "this" a little better at age 20

Pointing out these facts is just what it is, pointing out facts. No one said that player B would have a better career than player A. It just shows that player B has the POTENTIAL to outperform player A at "this". Can this be any clearer? Do I need to explain further? No projections here, just showing statistics that help form an opinion.

A flawed opinion.

Fielders rookie stats and veteran season totals have 0 impact on the projection of Stanton's career or the possibility of him hitting 50 HRs in a season.

You really just don't get it... and that's okay.

I think Adam's point about small sample size is fair. If you want to take a small sample size, just use the end of that 50-HR season and use the last 180 ABs of Fielder's. If you do that, Prince was hitting a HR every 9 ABs, compared to Stanton's 15 at the end of last year.

Give me 150+ games over an April-September season to compare two guys, or give me roughly the exact same seasonal sampling (Like I did using Braun). Otherwise, it's just manuvering statistics.

I simply pointed out that Stanton hit more HRs per-PA at 20 than Fielder did at 22, their rookie seasons. I don't get the disconnect with you guys with the point I'm making. I never said Stanton would hit 50 HRs, I said it is very possible. Not much more to say on the subject.

 

[Adamsince1981]

"This shows us that Stanton is already a more prolific HR hitter at age 20 than Fielder was at age 22. Prince Fielder hit 50 HRs in his second season at age 23. I think it is fair to say that Mike Stanton could certainly hit 50+ HRs in a season by age 22."

"...shows us he's already more prolific...."
"...fair to say he could certainly..."

EDIT: you edited out May for Very Possible.

It wasn't that big of a deal, I just don't think it's smart to use the comparisson you did to come up with your opinion on how likely it is that Stanton hits 50 and when.

I'll spell it out for Adamsince1995.

Player A rookie season did "this" at age 22
Player B rookie season did "this" a little better at age 20

Pointing out these facts is just what it is, pointing out facts. No one said that player B would have a better career than player A. It just shows that player B has the POTENTIAL to outperform player A at "this". Can this be any clearer? Do I need to explain further? No projections here, just showing statistics that help form an opinion.

A flawed opinion.

Fielders rookie stats and veteran season totals have 0 impact on the projection of Stanton's career or the possibility of him hitting 50 HRs in a season.

You really just don't get it... and that's okay.

I think Adam's point about small sample size is fair. If you want to take a small sample size, just use the end of that 50-HR season and use the last 180 ABs of Fielder's. If you do that, Prince was hitting a HR every 9 ABs, compared to Stanton's 15 at the end of last year.

Give me 150+ games over an April-September season to compare two guys, or give me roughly the exact same seasonal sampling (Like I did using Braun). Otherwise, it's just manuvering statistics.

I simply pointed out that Stanton hit more HRs per-PA at 20 than Fielder did at 22, their rookie seasons. I don't get the disconnect with you guys with the point I'm making. I never said Stanton would hit 50 HRs, I said it is very possible. Not much more to say on the subject.

 

[sportscardtheory]

"This shows us that Stanton is already a more prolific HR hitter at age 20 than Fielder was at age 22. Prince Fielder hit 50 HRs in his second season at age 23. I think it is fair to say that Mike Stanton could certainly hit 50+ HRs in a season by age 22."

"...shows us he's already more prolific...."
"...fair to say he could certainly..."

[quote="sportscardtheory":3a06yfxu]I'll spell it out for Adamsince1995.

Player A rookie season did "this" at age 22
Player B rookie season did "this" a little better at age 20

Pointing out these facts is just what it is, pointing out facts. No one said that player B would have a better career than player A. It just shows that player B has the POTENTIAL to outperform player A at "this". Can this be any clearer? Do I need to explain further? No projections here, just showing statistics that help form an opinion.

A flawed opinion.

Fielders rookie stats and veteran season totals have 0 impact on the projection of Stanton's career or the possibility of him hitting 50 HRs in a season.

You really just don't get it... and that's okay.

I think Adam's point about small sample size is fair. If you want to take a small sample size, just use the end of that 50-HR season and use the last 180 ABs of Fielder's. If you do that, Prince was hitting a HR every 9 ABs, compared to Stanton's 15 at the end of last year.

Give me 150+ games over an April-September season to compare two guys, or give me roughly the exact same seasonal sampling (Like I did using Braun). Otherwise, it's just manuvering statistics.

I simply pointed out that Stanton hit more HRs per-PA at 20 than Fielder did at 22, their rookie seasons. I don't get the disconnect with you guys with the point I'm making. I never said Stanton would hit 50 HRs, I said it is very possible. Not much more to say on the subject.

[/quote:3a06yfxu]

Did he not hit more HRs per-PA in his rookie season. And I said he COULD hit 50 HRs. What is your point???

 

[Adamsince1981]

You know my point. I won't type it again.

"This shows us that Stanton is already a more prolific HR hitter at age 20 than Fielder was at age 22. Prince Fielder hit 50 HRs in his second season at age 23. I think it is fair to say that Mike Stanton could certainly hit 50+ HRs in a season by age 22."

"...shows us he's already more prolific...."
"...fair to say he could certainly..."

[quote="Adamsince1981":37dxz83j][quote="sportscardtheory":37dxz83j]I'll spell it out for Adamsince1995.

Player A rookie season did "this" at age 22
Player B rookie season did "this" a little better at age 20

Pointing out these facts is just what it is, pointing out facts. No one said that player B would have a better career than player A. It just shows that player B has the POTENTIAL to outperform player A at "this". Can this be any clearer? Do I need to explain further? No projections here, just showing statistics that help form an opinion.

A flawed opinion.

Fielders rookie stats and veteran season totals have 0 impact on the projection of Stanton's career or the possibility of him hitting 50 HRs in a season.

You really just don't get it... and that's okay.

I think Adam's point about small sample size is fair. If you want to take a small sample size, just use the end of that 50-HR season and use the last 180 ABs of Fielder's. If you do that, Prince was hitting a HR every 9 ABs, compared to Stanton's 15 at the end of last year.

Give me 150+ games over an April-September season to compare two guys, or give me roughly the exact same seasonal sampling (Like I did using Braun). Otherwise, it's just manuvering statistics.

I simply pointed out that Stanton hit more HRs per-PA at 20 than Fielder did at 22, their rookie seasons. I don't get the disconnect with you guys with the point I'm making. I never said Stanton would hit 50 HRs, I said it is very possible. Not much more to say on the subject.

[/quote:37dxz83j]

Did he not hit more HRs per-PA in his rookie season. And I said he COULD hit 50 HRs. What is your point???[/quote:37dxz83j]

 

[sportscardtheory]

You know my point. I won't type it again.

Good, because you keep posting pointless argumentative nonsense.

 

[Adamsince1981]

You know my point. I won't type it again.

Good, because you keep posting pointless argumentative nonsense.

You are right, I am wrong.

 

[hive17]

I simply pointed out that Stanton hit more HRs per-PA at 20 than Fielder did at 22, their rookie seasons. I don't get the disconnect with you guys with the point I'm making. I never said Stanton would hit 50 HRs, I said it is very possible. Not much more to say on the subject.

And what will your point be when Stanton DOESN'T hit 50 HRs in his second year in the league, which will be the case?

Yes, you typing out "Stanton hit more HRs per-PA at 20 than Fielder did at 22, their rookie seasons." is indeed you typing facts. But they are historical data and mean NOTHING when it comes to the original question/Bold Prediction. SO, if you want them to mean something, then you have to use them to look forward, predict, estimate potential, whatever you're trying to do.

We don't understand YOUR point, other than I think you want to waffle between saying "who knows" to "It's very possible." And the reason you seem to do that, is because you're not using the stats for anything than the arguement that they exist; once you try to apply them and use them as a diagnosis of Stanton's potential, you tell us we're lost.

 

[sportscardtheory]

I simply pointed out that Stanton hit more HRs per-PA at 20 than Fielder did at 22, their rookie seasons. I don't get the disconnect with you guys with the point I'm making. I never said Stanton would hit 50 HRs, I said it is very possible. Not much more to say on the subject.

And what will your point be when Stanton DOESN'T hit 50 HRs in his second year in the league, which will be the case?

Yes, you typing out "Stanton hit more HRs per-PA at 20 than Fielder did at 22, their rookie seasons." is indeed you typing facts. But they are historical data and mean NOTHING when it comes to the original question/Bold Prediction. SO, if you want them to mean something, then you have to use them to look forward, predict, estimate potential, whatever you're trying to do.

We don't understand YOUR point, other than I think you want to waffle between saying "who knows" to "It's very possible." And the reason you seem to do that, is because you're not using the stats for anything than the arguement that they exist; once you try to apply them and use them as a diagnosis of Stanton's potential, you tell us we're lost.

I'm going to make this as clear as possible for you. My point is that Stanton hit more HRs per-PA in his rookie season at age 20 than Fielder did in his rookie season at age 22. Fielder then hit 50 HRs in his second season, thus proving that it is POSSIBLE for a second year player to hit 50 HRs. I said that Stanton COULD hit 50 in a season by age 22, meaning within the next two seasons he COULD hit 50 HRs. As for "And what will your point be when Stanton DOESN'T hit 50 HRs in his second year in the league, which will be the case?", who gives a shat. I never said he WOULD hit 50 in a season.

 

[Adamsince1981]

I simply pointed out that Stanton hit more HRs per-PA at 20 than Fielder did at 22, their rookie seasons. I don't get the disconnect with you guys with the point I'm making. I never said Stanton would hit 50 HRs, I said it is very possible. Not much more to say on the subject.

And what will your point be when Stanton DOESN'T hit 50 HRs in his second year in the league, which will be the case?

Yes, you typing out "Stanton hit more HRs per-PA at 20 than Fielder did at 22, their rookie seasons." is indeed you typing facts. But they are historical data and mean NOTHING when it comes to the original question/Bold Prediction. SO, if you want them to mean something, then you have to use them to look forward, predict, estimate potential, whatever you're trying to do.

We don't understand YOUR point, other than I think you want to waffle between saying "who knows" to "It's very possible." And the reason you seem to do that, is because you're not using the stats for anything than the arguement that they exist; once you try to apply them and use them as a diagnosis of Stanton's potential, you tell us we're lost.

I'm going to make this as clear as possible for you. My point is that Stanton hit more HRs per-PA in his rookie season at age 20 than Fielder did in his rookie season at age 22. Fielder then hit 50 HRs in his second season, thus proving that it is POSSIBLE for a second year player to hit 50 HRs. I said that Stanton COULD hit 50 in a season by age 22, meaning within the next two seasons he COULD hit 50 HRs. As for "And what will your point be when Stanton DOESN'T hit 50 HRs in his second year in the league, which will be the case?", who gives a shat. I never said he WOULD hit 50 in a season.

A-Hole Mode On: Your point is utterly worthless and off-topic ("50 homers in 2011"). We can't connect to your worthless "point" because it is invalid and really states nothing as you just demonstrated in your post above. The opinion that you typed out was based on flawed reasoning, hence the comments and questions from concerned members.

I haven't had to edit any of my posts due to contradicting myself either. You?

A-Hole Mode off: I'm sorry I disagree with your reasoning and decided to comment and question your thinking. Your reaction and subsequent posts have been noted. I'll tread more lightly in the future. Regards.

 

[sportscardtheory]

I simply pointed out that Stanton hit more HRs per-PA at 20 than Fielder did at 22, their rookie seasons. I don't get the disconnect with you guys with the point I'm making. I never said Stanton would hit 50 HRs, I said it is very possible. Not much more to say on the subject.

And what will your point be when Stanton DOESN'T hit 50 HRs in his second year in the league, which will be the case?

Yes, you typing out "Stanton hit more HRs per-PA at 20 than Fielder did at 22, their rookie seasons." is indeed you typing facts. But they are historical data and mean NOTHING when it comes to the original question/Bold Prediction. SO, if you want them to mean something, then you have to use them to look forward, predict, estimate potential, whatever you're trying to do.

We don't understand YOUR point, other than I think you want to waffle between saying "who knows" to "It's very possible." And the reason you seem to do that, is because you're not using the stats for anything than the arguement that they exist; once you try to apply them and use them as a diagnosis of Stanton's potential, you tell us we're lost.

I'm going to make this as clear as possible for you. My point is that Stanton hit more HRs per-PA in his rookie season at age 20 than Fielder did in his rookie season at age 22. Fielder then hit 50 HRs in his second season, thus proving that it is POSSIBLE for a second year player to hit 50 HRs. I said that Stanton COULD hit 50 in a season by age 22, meaning within the next two seasons he COULD hit 50 HRs. As for "And what will your point be when Stanton DOESN'T hit 50 HRs in his second year in the league, which will be the case?", who gives a shat. I never said he WOULD hit 50 in a season.

A-Hole Mode On: Your point is utterly worthless and off-topic ("50 homers in 2011"). We can't connect to your worthless "point" because it is invalid and really states nothing as you just demonstrated in your post above. The opinion that you typed out was based on flawed reasoning, hence the comments and questions from concerned members. I made an observation, moron. That is all. I picked option 2 in the poll.

I haven't had to edit any of my posts due to contradicting myself either. You? Absolutely not. Nice absolute FAIL on your part. Keep making yourself look like a moronic troll.

A-Hole Mode off: I'm sorry I disagree with your reasoning and decided to comment and question your thinking. Your reaction and subsequent posts have been noted. I'll tread more lightly in the future. Regards. Get bent. You clearly have awful AWFUL comprehension skills and are an antagonistic ****** of epic proportion. You took a simple observation and made yourself look like a complete a-hole over it. Congratulations.

 

[sportscardtheory]

P.S., Adamsince1998. Your "A-Hole Mode" is on perpetually.