Author Topic: Luke Scott  (Read 3977 times)

WulawHorn

  • Should Have Quit 500 Posts Ago
  • Posts: 1484
    • View Profile
Luke Scott
« on: June 28, 2007, 11:51:29 am »
I think if you prorate over 600 AB's for the year (which is full time every day gig) his numbers would be about .250 with 20 dingers and 85 or 90 RBI's. Is this adequate production from RF- 6th spot in the lineup?

Last year he hit about 80 points higher- but is 250 ok with that level of power and rbi's.

Just a question for the board as everyone seems to be pondering where to upgrade in the future.

Can more be reasonably expected, and/or is what we see good enough if he doesn't produce higher, going forward into the future?


Noe

  • Guest
Re: Luke Scott
« Reply #1 on: June 28, 2007, 11:52:30 am »
I think if you prorate over 600 AB's for the year (which is full time every day gig) his numbers would be about .250 with 20 dingers and 85 or 90 RBI's. Is this adequate production from RF- 6th spot in the lineup?

Last year he hit about 80 points higher- but is 250 ok with that level of power and rbi's.

Just a question for the board as everyone seems to be pondering where to upgrade in the future.

Can more be reasonably expected, and/or is what we see good enough if he doesn't produce higher, going forward into the future?



He's been hurt all year.  Is this news to you?

pravata

  • Guest
Re: Luke Scott
« Reply #2 on: June 28, 2007, 11:53:27 am »
I think if you prorate over 600 AB's for the year (which is full time every day gig) his numbers would be about .250 with 20 dingers and 85 or 90 RBI's. Is this adequate production from RF- 6th spot in the lineup?

Last year he hit about 80 points higher- but is 250 ok with that level of power and rbi's.

Just a question for the board as everyone seems to be pondering where to upgrade in the future.

Can more be reasonably expected, and/or is what we see good enough if he doesn't produce higher, going forward into the future?



No, but prorating or projecting a streaky hitter like Scott isnt accurate.

WulawHorn

  • Should Have Quit 500 Posts Ago
  • Posts: 1484
    • View Profile
Re: Luke Scott
« Reply #3 on: June 28, 2007, 11:54:23 am »
He's been hurt all year.  Is this news to you?

No- I'm aware he's been dinged- that's why he hasn't played every day I assume.  That's where my question lay as would you expect better in the future moving forward?


Noe

  • Guest
Re: Luke Scott
« Reply #4 on: June 28, 2007, 11:55:07 am »
No- I'm aware he's been dinged- that's why he hasn't played every day I assume.  That's where my question lay as would you expect better in the future moving forward?

If you're aware he's hurt, why are you projecting anything?  Isn't that a wasted exercise?

WulawHorn

  • Should Have Quit 500 Posts Ago
  • Posts: 1484
    • View Profile
Re: Luke Scott
« Reply #5 on: June 28, 2007, 11:55:43 am »
No, but prorating or projecting a streaky hitter like Scott isnt accurate.

Understood the streaky nature.  Is the production ok- even if it comes in spurts and you have to ride a roller coaster to get there?  Or a place that needs to be upgraded (keeping in mind my response to NOE vis a vis do you expect better in the future?)


mihoba

  • Contributor
  • Pope
  • Posts: 6840
  • R.I.P. Mike. The boy inside you is now free.
    • View Profile
Re: Luke Scott
« Reply #6 on: June 28, 2007, 11:57:42 am »
No- I'm aware he's been dinged- that's why he hasn't played every day I assume.  That's where my question lay as would you expect better in the future moving forward?

Luke has shown us what he can do when he is on a hot streak. He has also shown us a very cold streak. Somewhere in the middle could be way up or down. He is not consistent.
"Baseball is simply a better game without the DH. "

WulawHorn

  • Should Have Quit 500 Posts Ago
  • Posts: 1484
    • View Profile
Re: Luke Scott
« Reply #7 on: June 28, 2007, 11:57:50 am »
If you're aware he's hurt, why are you projecting anything?  Isn't that a wasted exercise?

Was just looking at the numbers and thinking he needs to pick it up some from watching with the low BA and whatnot- but the numbers show in some ways he has been really helpful (I.E. his power and run production looks reasonable from a 6 type hitter in the NL).

Put anothe way- when the Astros were playing really good ball for a couple of weeks in late april, early may luke was a big part of that with his production.

Goes sorta toward streaks like pravat was talking about.


Arky Vaughan

  • Administrator
  • Pope
  • Posts: 6335
    • View Profile
Re: Luke Scott
« Reply #8 on: June 28, 2007, 12:02:27 pm »
I think if you prorate over 600 AB's for the year (which is full time every day gig) his numbers would be about .250 with 20 dingers and 85 or 90 RBI's. Is this adequate production from RF- 6th spot in the lineup?

Last year he hit about 80 points higher- but is 250 ok with that level of power and rbi's.

Just a question for the board as everyone seems to be pondering where to upgrade in the future.

Can more be reasonably expected, and/or is what we see good enough if he doesn't produce higher, going forward into the future?



The slugging average is pretty good. I'd like to see a little more OBP, like he put up last year.

WulawHorn

  • Should Have Quit 500 Posts Ago
  • Posts: 1484
    • View Profile
Re: Luke Scott
« Reply #9 on: June 28, 2007, 12:04:15 pm »
The slugging average is pretty good. I'd like to see a little more OBP, like he put up last year.

I don't think Luke will ever have a high OBP hitting 250 like a guy like Jason Giambi or Barry Bonds (or even ensberg last year) has- he ain't that type of hitter. If he hits near 300 his obp is gonna be fine b/c he walks some, but not a ridiculous amount and pitcher's aren't gonna put him on on purpose.


Noe

  • Guest
Re: Luke Scott
« Reply #10 on: June 28, 2007, 12:08:27 pm »
Put anothe way- when the Astros were playing really good ball for a couple of weeks in late april, early may luke was a big part of that with his production.

He was feeling better?

Astroholic

  • Key Member of the Conspiracy
  • Posts: 3807
    • View Profile
Re: Luke Scott
« Reply #11 on: June 28, 2007, 12:40:18 pm »
He was feeling better?

He was LukeWarm......badum bump!

legs_of_eggs

  • Prime Time Player
  • Posts: 620
    • View Profile
Re: Luke Scott
« Reply #12 on: June 28, 2007, 02:27:53 pm »
i think he projects a higher batting average than that....270-275 range

JimR

  • Contributor
  • High Order of the Ferret
  • *****
  • Posts: 29345
    • View Profile
    • McGinnis, Lochridge & Kilgore, LLP
Re: Luke Scott
« Reply #13 on: June 28, 2007, 03:09:03 pm »
i think he projects a higher batting average than that....270-275 range

my crystal ball is broken so i do not know what he projects.
Often wrong, but never in doubt.

WulawHorn

  • Should Have Quit 500 Posts Ago
  • Posts: 1484
    • View Profile
Re: Luke Scott
« Reply #14 on: June 28, 2007, 03:48:17 pm »
my crystal ball is broken so i do not know what he projects.

You are on record as saying you think he can be an everyday player and a part of a successful team in the future though- right coach?


WulawHorn

  • Should Have Quit 500 Posts Ago
  • Posts: 1484
    • View Profile
Re: Luke Scott
« Reply #15 on: June 28, 2007, 03:48:54 pm »
He was feeling better?

Or an a hot streak as he is prone to do per Pravata's above comments.


JimR

  • Contributor
  • High Order of the Ferret
  • *****
  • Posts: 29345
    • View Profile
    • McGinnis, Lochridge & Kilgore, LLP
Re: Luke Scott
« Reply #16 on: June 28, 2007, 03:50:22 pm »
You are on record as saying you think he can be an everyday player and a part of a successful team in the future though- right coach?



i like him as a player.
Often wrong, but never in doubt.

Astroholic

  • Key Member of the Conspiracy
  • Posts: 3807
    • View Profile
Re: Luke Scott
« Reply #17 on: June 28, 2007, 03:52:38 pm »
i like him as a player.

Second that.

JimR

  • Contributor
  • High Order of the Ferret
  • *****
  • Posts: 29345
    • View Profile
    • McGinnis, Lochridge & Kilgore, LLP
Re: Luke Scott
« Reply #18 on: June 28, 2007, 04:00:47 pm »
Second that.

he needs to sit back and drive the ball to LF more, but i hate to get rid of a LH power hitter unless we get something good back.
Often wrong, but never in doubt.

WulawHorn

  • Should Have Quit 500 Posts Ago
  • Posts: 1484
    • View Profile
Re: Luke Scott
« Reply #19 on: June 28, 2007, 04:02:53 pm »
he needs to sit back and drive the ball to LF more, but i hate to get rid of a LH power hitter unless we get something good back.


I wouldn't in any way advocate getting rid of Luke (not that it matters what the hell I say). If you wanna call it a place that can be upgraded I'd say that's possible, but I'd start looking at filling in holes elsewhere before I looked to RF.


Randy Watson

  • Veteran Role Player
  • Posts: 298
    • View Profile
Re: Luke Scott
« Reply #20 on: June 28, 2007, 05:19:15 pm »
Luke looks like a legit major league starter to me.  And he is cheap. 

I could easily see him be a guy that hits .280, with a .380 OBP, and slug around .500.  Say 25-30 homers and 90+ RBI's.  I really like Luke and hope he gets 100% healthy.  What he showed the second half last year was an even better pace than that.  I hope he gets a continued chance with the Astros. 

And, maybe it's just me, but he has also had a little bit of bad luck this year (notwithstanding his injuries).  He has smoked a few outs.