RealGM

Projected total - 50 in 126 games.

Courtesy ESPN

126 games? where did that come from? is that the projected amount of time they think he's going to miss?

evilRyu wrote:126 games? where did that come from? is that the projected amount of time they think he's going to miss?

That's just extrapolating out from what he has played. In reality, he probably won't have too many more children born during the season...or at least ones whose birth he'll bother to witness.

Every dude is jealous of this guy because he can blast it long and hard.

evilRyu wrote:126 games? where did that come from? is that the projected amount of time they think he's going to miss?

Based on the % of team games he has missed already, they continue that % for the rest of the season.

Jose makes this team worth watching.

Macho wrote:Jose makes this team worth watching.

+1

A WAR watch thread might be more applicable. He's completely dominating the major leagues in that
category despite missing 8 games.

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?p ... 2011&ind=0\

Randle McMurphy wrote:A WAR watch thread might be more applicable. He's completely dominating the major leagues in that
category despite missing 8 games.

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?p ... 2011&ind=0\

I still find it funny that there are two different WAR's, with baseball-reference having their own (where he also leads with a 2.9; Votto leads the NL at 2.2).

According to ESPN now, he is on pace for 51 HR and only 90 RBI. Pathetic by the guys in front of him.

Randle McMurphy wrote:A WAR watch thread might be more applicable. He's completely dominating the major leagues in that
category despite missing 8 games.

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?p ... 2011&ind=0\

Or OPS+ if we're just looking at his offensive dominance. I mentioned that he was trending toward the non-Bonds all-time mark (that'd be 259), but another yardstick sits at an OPS+ of 216...that's the mark for the best season of any player not named Barry Bonds in the past half-century. He's currently a good 50 points above it.

OldNo7 wrote:According to ESPN now, he is on pace for 51 HR and only 90 RBI. Pathetic by the guys in front of him.

ouch.. 90 RBI? that is just.. I don't even know what to say.

I figured Bautista would stop being this locked in at some point, but it hasn't happened yet. Will it? And if it doesn't, what the hell is this leading to? A Barry Bonds season? Seriously?

A long way to go, but I don't think anybody is going to doubt anything this guy does anymore.

How much longer will he have to keep this up before people start to give him his due as the best player in baseball?

vaff87 wrote:How much longer will he have to keep this up before people start to give him his due as the best player in baseball?

everyone should know this now. those who don't are just simply in denial.

I think it is safe to say he is for real. I had my doubts about him being able to repeat his 2010 season, but he has actually surpassed it (so far). The man is a monster.

Michael Bradley wrote:I think it is safe to say he is for real. I had my doubts about him being able to repeat his 2010 season, but he has actually surpassed it (so far). The man is a monster.

yeh it's unreal.. almost everyone expected some sort of regression. I don't think anyone thought he'd exceeded his amazing 2010 season.

Michael Bradley wrote:I think it is safe to say he is for real. I had my doubts about him being able to repeat his 2010 season, but he has actually surpassed it (so far). The man is a monster.

Yeah, I expected some drop-off...it sure as hell isn't looking that way.


Here's a question, extremely unlikely to happen but it could be an interesting discussion piece. Let's say that Bautista somehow maintains a pace similar to this, leads the league in WAR by a sizable margin, hits 50 HRs and puts up an OPS+ of 230 or thereabouts, and wins the AL MVP (one of the best seasons a hitter has ever produced, basically, destroying every modern-era bat save Bonds). He follows it up by posting another three seasons thereafter that are a shade below that of his 2010 campaign, followed by a normal but somewhat steep decline curve as his bat speed wanes. Does such a player receive Hall of Fame consideration? Should he? Because of his late start, he'd fall well short of all the traditional benchmarks...probably no more than 400 HRs and very-good-but-not-spectacular peripherals, but his five-year peak would rank among the best players of all-time.

I'm guessing that the answers are no and yes, respectively; the Hall skews dramatically toward those with long-term success. However, that he had been better than many in the Hall during his peak (and untarnished by steroid accusations) would be undeniable. Think of it as a corollary of the Smoky Joe Wood Syndrome, where a player whose Hall-worthy talent is inarguable but whose career is cut short by injury: the player good enough to hang with the greats, but whose early career was tarnished by mishandling and an underdeveloped approach.

Schadenfreude wrote:

Michael Bradley wrote:I think it is safe to say he is for real. I had my doubts about him being able to repeat his 2010 season, but he has actually surpassed it (so far). The man is a monster.

Yeah, I expected some drop-off...it sure as hell isn't looking that way.


Here's a question, extremely unlikely to happen but it could be an interesting discussion piece. Let's say that Bautista somehow maintains a pace similar to this, leads the league in WAR by a sizable margin, hits 50 HRs and puts up an OPS+ of 230 or thereabouts, and wins the AL MVP (one of the best seasons a hitter has ever produced, basically, destroying every modern-era bat save Bonds). He follows it up by posting another three seasons thereafter that are a shade below that of his 2010 campaign, followed by a normal but somewhat steep decline curve as his bat speed wanes. Does such a player receive Hall of Fame consideration? Should he? Because of his late start, he'd fall well short of all the traditional benchmarks...probably no more than 400 HRs and very-good-but-not-spectacular peripherals, but his five-year peak would rank among the best players of all-time.

I'm guessing that the answers are no and yes, respectively; the Hall skews dramatically toward those with long-term success. However, that he had been better than many in the Hall during his peak (and untarnished by steroid accusations) would be undeniable. Think of it as a corollary of the Smoky Joe Wood Syndrome, where a player whose Hall-worthy talent is inarguable but whose career is cut short by injury: the player good enough to hang with the greats, but whose early career was tarnished by mishandling and an underdeveloped approach.

Isn't that somewhat similar to Sandy Koufax's career? Where the first five or six years were rather mediocre, then he went on one of the greatest 5-6 year runs of any pitcher ever, then he retired. Would that be a reasonable comparison of what you're talking about?