Baseball Nation - Bryce Harper: Flourishing Major League Baseball Player

Is Bryce Harper Good Enough To Play Every Day?

2012-08-23T19:30:02Z

Tuesday, Bryce Harper struck out four times. In a related note, here are the five Washington Nationals outfielders with at least 100 plate appearances, and their OPS+:

1. Jayson Werth (139)
2. Tyler Moore (117)
3. Roger Bernadina (113)
4. Mike Morse (108)
5. Bryce Harper (98)

Are the Nationals playing their best outfielders, game in and game out?

As our Grant Brisbee recently pointed out, we should expected a second-half slump from the Nationals' teenager ... and that's exactly what we've gotten: Since the 12th of June, Harper's been terrible, with a .211/.277/.322 batting line. And yet he continues to play almost every day.

Nobody's really squawked much about Harper's struggles, perhaps because the Nationals have just kept on winning. But they haven't been winning because of Harper. They've been winning because of Jayson Werth, Ryan Zimmerman, Adam LaRoche, and all that fantastic pitching (the Nationals lead the majors with a 3.23 staff ERA).

Eventually, though, shouldn't Davey Johnson's patience give out? It's nice that Harper was an All-Star and everything, but shouldn't Johnson go into the postseason with the best players he's got? They're already going to lose one of their best starting pitchers; should they also go with their fourth- or fifth-best outfielder in center field against the National League's best teams?

One thing I'm assuming here is that Roger Bernadina's and Tyler Moore's statistics this season are fair representations of their actual talents.

Moore is a 25-year-old rookie, essentially unknown before this season. Before this season, Baseball America rated Harper as the Nationals' No. 1 prospect (of course); Moore was No. 16 on that list. But beginning in 2010, Moore has done nothing but hit: Class A in '10, AA in '11, and AAA in '12 before the Nationals called him up. And he's still hitting. Turns out the guy is probably just a hitter.

Granted, Moore is not a center fielder, and not really an outfielder at all. He was almost exclusively a first baseman in the minors, and will probably be the Nationals' first baseman next year.

Roger Bernadina, on the other hand, is a center fielder. At 28, he's hardly a prospect. And he's doing much better this season than he's ever done before. In the majors, anyway. Bernadina's actually got little experience in Triple-A, but his .296/.373/.445 line at that level has always suggested he could play some in the majors.

Bernadina's probably not a particularly good center fielder, though. Harper's probably a little better than Bernadina with the glove, and probably a little better with the bat, too. Purely in terms of talent, at this exact moment.

Which doesn't mean Harper should be playing center field every day. I don't know a lot about it, but doesn't it seem possible that Harper's wearing down, between the physical and mental pressures of playing almost every day as a 19-year-old rookie? Harper bats left-handed. Bernadina bats left-handed. Wouldn't it make sense to bench Harper once or twice a week, in favor of a Bernadina? Or, with a left-hander on the mound, shift Werth to center field and get Tyler Moore into the lineup?

On balance, yes: Bryce Harper probably is one one of the Nationals' three best outfielders. Even with the fifth-best OPS+. But if the Nationals want Harper at his best in October, maybe a little more rest would help. They've got a big lead, and they've got the bodies. So why not?

The Bryce Harper We Should Have Expected

2012-08-14T12:30:03Z

The teenage hitter is a rare creature in major-league history. Since 1918, only 15 hitters have qualified for the batting title at age 19 or younger. If I had to hazard a guess why, it's because baseball is hard. What Bryce Harper is doing this season is amazing and rare, even if he has been slumping.

And, lo, he has been slumping. On June 12, Harper went 3-for-4 with a home run to bring his average/on-base/slugging up to .307/.390/.553, good for a .943 OPS. That would be otherworldly for a teenager in 2002, much less the pitcher-friendly 2012. He was a titan, a devourer of worlds, an instant All-Star. While the MVP was still something of a stretch, he pretty much had the Rookie of the Year locked up.

Since that game: .208/.281/.300, with three homers and 53 strikeouts in 207 at-bats.

The Rookie of the Year race? It's probably between Todd Frazier and Wade Miley, with Mike Fiers and Mike Trout having outside shots. I know Trout plays in the American League … but I'm pretty sure that'd be my vote, just to cover my bases. The Rookie of the Year award that was practically awarded to Harper in June is still very much in play.

This isn't exactly a surprise. There have been three kinds of teenaged hitters in major-league history.

The Strugglers

They don't last long, of course. It's rare for a 19-year-old to sniff the majors, so when one does and finds out the fumes are a mixture of bleach, ammonia, and pine tar, organizations don't continue the experiment. There may be good reasons to rush a teenaged prospect. There has never been a good reason to let the teenager grind through his struggles in the majors. Alex Rodriguez was a September call-up when he was 18, then got an early-season look when he was 19. The Mariners didn't let him go through an extended slump, sending him down to Triple-A at the first sign of struggles.

Mike Trout is something of a celestial event right now, but even he had a tough time when he was 19. Hall of Famers who didn't fare well at 19 include Robin Yount and Al Kaline.

Also of note: Jose Oquendo got 353 at-bats when he was 19, despite hitting .214/.298/.255 in Triple-A the season before. That was ... something.

The Head-Above-Waters/Pretty-Darn-Okayers

Mickey Mantle wasn't Mickey Mantle as a 19-year-old, but he did hit .267/.349/.443 with 13 homers in 341 at-bats. Ty Cobb and Cesar Cedeno had similarly good numbers, but they weren't instant sensations.

Most of the 19-year-olds who accumulated more than 300 plate appearances were acceptable. It's almost a self-selecting pool -- they're good enough to stick around, not bad enough to get demoted. Of the 26 teenagers to get 300 plate appearances before Harper, 12 of them had an OPS between .700 and .799.

The best comp might be a 19-year-old Ken Griffey, Jr., who started the season on fire, but hurt his hand and finished the year with a miserable .214/.277/.338 slump over his last 159 plate appearances. There were also questions about Griffey's maturity, too:

In an article headlined, "Young Griffey: Brat with Bat," Griffey was described as a "petulant, spoiled 19-year-old who had to be begged and cajoled into conducting one brief mass interview ... an interview in which he had nothing noteworthy to say."

Huh. But we don't remember that early introduction now, just the smilin', jovial Griffey with his hat turned around. Maybe in 20 years, we'll think similar things about Harper.

Mel Ott and Tony Conigliaro

In the hundred-plus years of professional baseball, those were the only two teenagers to demolish their league as soon as they were in the majors. Ott hit .322/.397/.524 with 18 home runs for the 1928 New York Giants over a full season, and Conigliaro hit .290/.354/.530 with 24 home runs for the '64 Red Sox, despite missing all of August.

For a while, Harper was in the last group.

It's hard to get a sense for how rare that is, but I'll try one more time. There have been 19,502 individual seasons in which a player accumulated more than 300 plate appearances. Of those, 27 were from a player younger than 20. Of those, two had an OPS over .800. Harper would have been the third.

It doesn't mean that much, of course. It doesn't bode ill or well for Harper's future that he's struggling. The best part is that his relative mortality came at a good time -- the Nationals have the best record in baseball and a decent lead in the National League East. They aren't sitting a player who is clearly better than Harper. All players go through struggles, and that's especially true for 19-year-olds. The Nationals can afford to be patient.

This is the Bryce Harper whom we should have expected, at least for this year. Harper has moved from incredible to just okay with his recent slump, but the gulf between 19 and 20 is huge, as we're seeing with Mike Trout. There's no shame in a perfectly acceptable age-19 season, even if we were teased for a couple of months by something more.

Angel Hernandez Is Bad, And Bryce Harper's Continued Maturity

2012-08-09T16:06:06Z

Angel Hernandez is a bad umpire.

There are controversial opinions among baseball fans. This is not one of them. Opening an article with that sentence is like proclaiming, "Baseballs … should not be oblong." There are more divisive stands to take.

We all have Angel Hernandez stories. The first time I noticed him was when he called Mark Lewis out on an appeal after scoring on a sacrifice fly. Lewis clearly waited for the ball to be caught before leaving third base. Who takes away a run when they aren't absolutely sure the appeal is legitimate? A bad umpire. I'm still mad about that, 15 years later.

What say you, Ron Washington? Do you have opinions on Angel Hernandez?

"Angel is just bad," Washington said. "That’s all there is to it."

Right, right. What about the Internet? Is there anyone out there who will defend Angel Hernandez?

Huh. And that one result is from a YouTube comment, which are often proof that there's Wi-Fi in the seventh circle of Hell. No, it seems we have a consensus here. No umpire biscuit for you, Angel: You are a bad umpire.

Bryce Harper is just a teenager, remember. He shouldn't know the sordid secrets of Hernandez just yet. It should be a surprise, a box of possum vomit under the Christmas tree. But Hernandez has been screwing games up since before Harper was born. His reputation has to precede him. Harper almost certainly had an idea of what Angel Hernandez was all about before Wednesday's game.

In Harper's third at-bat of Wednesday's game, he was rung up on this pitch:

It was a bad call, of course. To Hernandez's credit, he didn't toss Harper in the ensuing argument. Not that Harper deserved to be tossed, but he gave his opinion for a little longer than some umpires put up with. Harper eventually walked away, livid.

In Harper's fourth at-bat, he worked a 3-0 count with the bases loaded in a one-run game. The first strike was a great pitch -- a perfectly place strike, right on the outside corner. Here's the second strike of the at-bat:

Miserable. But Harper calmly walked back, picked up his bat, and went back to the plate. He was probably okay at this point, thinking that instead of one RBI, maybe he could have four.

Strike three. Rally over. No run for the Nationals. Welcome to Angel Hernandez Town -- population, awful. That call was closer than the previous one, but Harper was still right to think an at-bat was taken away.

Earlier in the season, we wrote about the surprising calm of Bryce Harper. We were expecting a whirling dervish of jackassery, and instead we got a calm, respectful player who never stopped hustling. In his college and minor league career, he had all sorts of flare ups. His college career ended with a two-game suspension after getting ejected from the National Junior College World Series. There is an angry young fire burning in him. The latent Palpatine of Angel Hernandez was the perfect way to nourish that anger and unleash it on the baseball world.

Instead, Harper just barked a little on his way back to the dugout. He wanted to chuck his bat into the stands. He wanted to explode. He was fuming, clearly. Incredibly upset. But he kept in control.

Bryce Harper passed the Angel Hernandez test. He would have been excused if he blew up because a) the game situation, and b) everyone agrees that Angel Hernandez is the worst. Instead, he stayed in the game and drew a walk in the eighth.

At some point we're going to stop being surprised by this. Harper is up much, much earlier than the typical prospect, but he's showing as much poise as a veteran. If you can survive Angel Hernandez without getting tossed, you have a good head on your shoulders.

Also of note: Angel Hernandez is not a particularly good umpire.

Bryce Harper Passes Another Test

2012-07-16T16:59:19Z

I was an idiot when I was a teenager. You were an idiot when you were a teenager. If you're still a teenager, well, you seem nice, and thanks for coming to the site, but you're about to do something really stupid. You should probably put down those car keys and sit on your hands for a couple of years.

So in retrospect it was more than a little silly we were focused on Bryce Harper's personality when he was a 17-year-old prospect. He wasn't doing things that should have led to an arrest; he was just being brash and excitable. Since he's come up, though, he's been the epitome of professionalism. A couple of weeks ago, Jeff Sullivan wondered where the insufferable jerkwad went. We were kind of looking forward to an insufferable jerkwad. They make writing fun and easy.

It was just a matter of time before Harper snapped and threw a helmet like Brett Lawrie, possibly with an opponent still wearing the helmet. Someone was going to do something -- an umpire, an opponent, a fan -- and Harper was going to unleash a stream of fury and teenaged testosterone on the world.

Then Cole Hamels threw at Bryce Harper for existing. Harper's response? Nothing. At least, nothing juicy. Harper had measured, veteran-like comments for Hamels and nothing more.

Now it's Ozzie Guillen as agent provocateur, trying to goad Harper into doing something stupid.

Guillen complained to umpires that Harper had applied pine tar above the label of his bat, the limit for how high the sticky substance can be spread...

In his next at-bat, Harper, who finished 0 for 4, used a new bat. But Guillen did not like something about how Harper walked to the plate. Guillen began yelling at Harper from the dugout, even grabbing a bat and shaking it in the direction of Harper

I'm not sure how I feel about Guillen plagiarizing the crazy of other managers. The pine-tar thing's been done. This is just a weak cover version by a band at the county fair. Guillen didn't just yell at Harper on the field, either. He had his typical deluge of post-game crazy too, saying that he was yelling at Harper to tell him "how cute he was" and that Harper was being "unprofessional."

On the Marlins' broadcast, the announcers said …

Yeah, I think that Bryce Harper did something getting into the box there that Ozzie Guillen didn't care for.

… then they cut to a replay of Harper getting into the box. A little silence, and then …

… tough to see from that.

The timing was perfect. And the cameras cut to Ozzie in the dugout, quiet and sullen, like someone drinking in the corner of a bar and watching someone hit on his ex-wife. On the Nationals' broadcast, they got a clear shot of Harper asking "For what?", presumably in response to someone telling him that Guillen was pissed off.

Guillen would later say that Harper did something with the bat as he approached the plate. You can't see it here, and whatever it was, it doesn't look like either broadcast caught it. Here's Guillen's reënactment of Harper's crime against baseball:

It was the perfect storm for Harper to go off. If he didn't do anything intentionally, it was a great chance to flip out and defend his integrity against the accusations of a crazy man. If he did troll Guillen on purpose -- which would be awesome -- this was a chance to finish what he started and provoke Guillen more.

Instead, Harper finished his at-bat, ran out a grounder, and went quietly to the dugout. After the game, Harper said this:

"He battles for his team, and that’s the type of manager Ozzie is," Harper said. "He’s a great manager to play for. He’s going to battle for you, no matter what. That’s a manager you want to play for."

I mean … is Harper running for Senate? We're just getting over the fact that he might not be a Barry Bonds-sized asshole, but now he's exhibiting the media savvy and restraint of a 15-year veteran?

What if … I mean, this is hard to type … but what if Harper is boring? Not on the field, of course. But where we were expecting a Bonds -- or even a Jeff Kent, Pete Rose type -- he might end up being a guy like David Wright, known only for what he does on the field. That's much better for Harper and the Nationals. But, aw man, I wanted a jerkwad.

Harper had another test on Sunday, and he passed it with top-of-the-class marks. Turns out he's at least a 60 on the 20-to-80 scale when it comes to keeping his emotions in check, maybe even a 70. Good for him. Bad for us. Because we've all been tired of Guillen's brand of crazy for a while. The sport needs some fresh crazy, and for a brief time, we were all sure it was going to come from Harper. Instead, he's been exactly what you wouldn't expect from a supremely talented, ahead-of-his-time teenager.

Congress: Where Memes Go To Die

2012-06-19T23:41:06Z

(That's Sen. Harry Reid from Nevada, home of noted clown-disparager Bryce Harper.)

Bryce Harper, Mike Trout, And Clown Hype

2012-06-13T16:13:42Z

You have probably heard or read the phrase "clown question, bro" 682 times already today. A reporter asked Bryce Harper if he was excited to try a beer because 19-year-olds can drink legally in Canada. Harper, a Mormon who abstains from drinking, didn't like the question and said "That's a clown question, bro." Then the interview continued as if nothing had happened.

But it's become a thing, a meme. It might not be up there with "talking about practice" or "playoffs?" in the soundbite hall of fame, but it'll do for the short term. I've watched it 15 times, and I can't figure out why people think it's interesting. I guess it's as simple as "clown question" terminology punctuated by a non-ironic "bro" = funny. Okay. And another day goes by where I'm ecstatic that no one recorded the things I said when I was 19 and solicited the world's opinions on them.

So on tap for today: Bryce Harper talk, Bryce Harper talk, Bryce Harper talk. Did you see? Did you hear? Clown question, bro. Lisa needs braces. Clown question, bro. Lisa needs braces. Clown question, bro. Lisa needs braces.

Not on tap for today: Mike Trout talk.

This sort of thing has become a bone of contention for Angels fans. Harper saying "clown question" is news. Mike Trout could have questioned the moon landing in his post-game interview, and no one would have noticed. Trout gets the articles with headlines like "Mike Trout Is Pretty Good, Too" because the unspoken assumption is that Bryce Harper will get the bulk of the phenom-related attention, and Trout can deal with what's left over.

I've seen this described as "East Coast bias", but I think that's way, way, way too simple of an explanation. It makes a difference that Mike Trout's home games end at 1:00 a.m. where a lot of writers live, yes. But not that much of a difference. Let's explore the real reasons Harper gets more hype, in chronological order. I'll try to jam them into one sentence:

Harper was in a video that went viral when he was 16, showing off power that teenagers should not have, and that video started an avalanche of hype that eventually led to him being on the cover of Sports Illustrated, where he hinted that he was going to take the unprecedented step of leaving high school two years early to get in the draft quicker, and he did just that, enrolling at a community college and obliterating pitchers who were several years older than him and winning the Golden Spikes as the best college player in the country before becoming the first overall pick in the draft, and as he was leaving a trail of broken pitchers from college to the minor leagues, he was getting suspended, painting himself like a member of a Norwegian black-metal group, blowing kisses to a pitcher after a home run, and getting drilled by All-Star pitchers because he made the grave sin of existing in the first place.

Mike Trout was drafted 25th overall, one pick after Randal Grichuk, and then he was really, really, really good in the minors at a young age, and now he's really, really, really good in the majors at a young age.

You can blame East Coast bias. But that's a weird thing to focus on -- it's like reviewing a restaurant based solely on the quality of butter they serve with the pre-meal bread. There's a lot more going on. Hype isn't just about talent; it's a cornucopia of different factors. And it doesn't mean that one player is better than the other.

Here's the important thing, though: The hype will fade. We'll slowly get used to Harper and Trout as amazing, electric talents, and instead of them being "19-year-old" this, or "20-year-old" that, they'll just be the best players in baseball. Harper gets the hype now, but as they progress together, they'll be thought of as a tandem. Like Mays and Mantle, Williams and DiMaggio, or Sabo and Gruber.

(The last pairing is to leave open the possibility that Trout and Harper won't be first-ballot Hall of Famers -- we should wait until they're 21, at least, before making that sort of prediction. But I'll err on the side of the first two pairings, and I don't care if it looks stupid in five years.)

This is the opening of a movie about two aliens who come to Earth, and play baseball as a way to position themselves for world domination. We're just living through the opening montage. Harper gets more hype now. But when the hype fades, it will be Harper vs. Trout, Trout vs. Harper, and it should be -- if baseball doesn't act like a jerk and ruin this -- one of the more enduring baseball debates to come around in a long time.

If they're as good (and for as long) as we think they'll be, no one will remember who got more hype in the first few months of their respective careers.

The Instant Fear Of Bryce Harper

2012-05-17T14:00:28Z

When Red Sox third baseman Kevin Youkilis went down with an injury, he was replaced by prospect Will Middlebrooks, who was getting his first-ever major-league experience. In Youkilis' absence, Middlebrooks has torn it up, and the offense hasn't missed a beat. Youkilis spoke about Middlebrooks' early success In the Providence Journal. From Tim Britton:

"It looks like he's developing into a pretty good hitter. Plate discipline's big at the major-league level because guys will throw a lot of junk, especially now going forward. I think a lot more offspeed's coming. That's the big thing. I don't think that's a problem he's going to have."

On average, about 63 percent of all pitches are fastballs. Middlebrooks, to date, has seen about 69 percent fastballs. Youkilis is probably right - an adjustment is probably coming. Eventually. Middlebrooks will be tested.

Before the 2011 season, Baseball America ranked its top-100 prospects in baseball, as it always does. You can check out the history of their lists here. Ranking number three was then-Yankees catcher prospect Jesus Montero. Ranking number two was Angels outfielder prospect Mike Trout. Ranking number one was Nationals outfielder prospect Bryce Harper.

Harper debuted in the majors weeks ago. Both Montero and Trout debuted last season. Montero came to the plate 69 times in a Yankees uniform. He hit the ball exceptionally well. He saw about 66 percent fastballs. One could say that pitchers wanted to see if he could take the heat before going to more offspeed stuff. I don't know if that would be true, but one could certainly say that.

Trout came to the plate 135 times in an Angels uniform. He struggled to produce, and he saw about 66 percent fastballs. At first, he batted 47 times in July, and he saw about 68 percent fastballs. You could say the same thing there that you could've said about Montero.

Harper is weeks into his big-league career. It feels like just yesterday he was oblivious to getting mooned in Dodger Stadium before his first-ever hit. It's all about firsts right now for Bryce Harper. First hit. First outfield assist. First intentional beanball. First home run. You might think that Harper would be treated similar to the way that Montero and Trout were treated when they were brand-new. That hasn't been the case.

So far, Harper has stood in for about 51 percent fastballs. I'll remind you here that the average is around 63 percent. There have been 321 batters in baseball who've come to the plate at least 50 times. Harper's fastball rate ranks sixth-lowest. It's not so much about the people he's between - that fastball rate ranks him between Alfonso Soriano and Scott Hairston. Hardly a remarkable sandwich. It's more about how Harper has been subjected to offspeed stuff right away.

And while we're here, I'll note that Harper has seen about 41 percent of pitches in the strike zone, according to PITCHfx. Out of that same 321-player pool, Harper's zone rate ranks eighth-lowest, between Matt Holliday and Daniel Murphy. Harper has gone after a fair number of those pitches out of the zone, but I wouldn't say that his discipline has been problematic. For a 19-year-old, it's been outstanding.

Bryce Harper arrived in the majors as a teenager on April 28. Since his arrival, Harper has seen a very low rate of fastballs, and he's seen a very low rate of pitches in the strike zone. I think the conventional wisdom, whether right or wrong, is this is the sort of thing pitchers do to young prospects after they get through the initial fastball phase. Harper never had an initial fastball phase. Harper's getting the kitchen sink.

In a situation like this, all I can do is speculate, because I'm not sourced, and even if I were sourced, that wouldn't guarantee honest explanations. Teams and players lie all the time. And since I'm free to speculate, what I'm going to speculate is that Harper's reputation preceded him. I hate that expression but it was the first thing that came to mind. It was impossible for anybody not to know about Bryce Harper. It was impossible for anybody in the game not to know about his prodigious power at such an impossibly young age. It's hype, of course, but it's hype based on the reality that is Bryce Harper, and against a guy like that, why pound him with fastballs or strikes? He could punish fastballs or strikes. Even if he's a rookie, he could be among the game's most dangerous bats.

As the headline declares, I think this is the instant fear of Bryce Harper. That makes the pitchers sound more like cowards than I'd like, but people know how much Harper can do. They've known about it since well before Harper was drafted. The scouts said Harper was a prospect unlike other prospects; in the early going, he's been treated like a prospect unlike other prospects. He's been shown respect, or at least he hasn't been shown disrespect. Except for that one time Cole Hamels hit him with a pitch on purpose. That was disrespectful. That pitch was also a fastball. It's one of relatively few fastballs Bryce Harper has seen.

Now that we know Harper's going to be around all year long, it's going to be fun to track his progress, and to track the way he's approached. It doesn't really matter where you look, or if you're even trying; somehow, some way, the Bryce Harper experience will pique your interest. As suggested by the evidence presented above, Harper's different. And Harper is great for the game.

Washington Post: Is There Anything Bryce Harper Can't Do?

2012-05-07T23:18:34Z

Bryce Harper had himself a skillset and a reputation. He came up to the majors at the age of 19, having posted just a .708 OPS over about a month in triple-A. With the Nationals so far, he's batted 8-for-26 with five doubles, five walks, a steal of home, and boundless energy at the plate and in the field. For the Washington Post, James Wagner wonders: is there anything Bryce Harper can't do?

Harper’s impact has not only added spark to the Nationals, especially at a time when the offense has been ravaged by injuries, it has shown that his game and style of play make him among the most electrifying and potent players in baseball.
[...]
"A lot of times, whether it’s coaches or media, you get caught up and you go, ‘Wow,’ " Porter said. "Is it ‘wow’ because he’s playing the game unlike other people? Or is he playing the game the way it’s supposed to be played? You ask me, he plays the way it’s supposed to be played. Not many guys have the ability he has."
[...]
"He’s been good," Werth said earlier this week. "He’s focused. I think he’s where he needs to be. Minor leagues is tough. Sometimes it’s tougher than people realize. I like him here with the right coaches, the right manager, the right teammates. I think that’s going to help his development than with him being anywhere else."

And so on. When Harper was first promoted, Nationals officials acknowledged that it was happening before they wanted it to, and there was reason to wonder whether Harper was ready to play at the highest level given his minor-league performances. Since Harper was promoted, he's answered all the questions, and though he doesn't yet have a home run, he's done just about everything else. To address Wagner's question, yes, there are things Bryce Harper can't do. The list of them is shorter than it is for most other baseball players.