Forget Logan and Langerhans

"Bill Delmore" <bdelmore.RemoveThis@cox.net> wrote in message
news:kLrKi.62655$hP1.33149@newsfe13.lga...
> Play this kid Maxwell. He is not a washed up Brave(sorry Langerhans), not
> a washed up Red (sorry Wily Mo), and looks and plays like a ball player
> (sorry Logan). Where have they been hiding this kid?


Bill,

I'm not sure where Maxwell came from, but one game doesn't a superstar make.
Don't be sorry for Langerhans, he has had ample opportunity to make SOME
form of contribution and with the exception of 2 nights ago, he has been
successful in every effort to fail. Wily Mo may be washed up in the long
run, but for a club that had no power in their lineup whatsoever, he had a
fortnight where he was on a pace for a season long 60 homers. Considering
his fielding wasn't near as bad as I was given reason to believe, I give him
more than a passing grade this year.

Their farm system (at the beginning of last season the joke of the league)
has turned up several gems in the making. I have a lot of confidence that
they are going to be a wonderful team to have around in the next few years.

--
Brian J. Whiting
CompAid.RemoveThis@rcn.com
Brian_Whiting_2006.RemoveThis@yahoo.com
 >> Stay informed about: Forget Logan and Langerhans 

Brian Whiting wrote:
> "Bill Delmore" <bdelmore.DeleteThis@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:kLrKi.62655$hP1.33149@newsfe13.lga...
>
>>Play this kid Maxwell. He is not a washed up Brave(sorry Langerhans), not
>>a washed up Red (sorry Wily Mo), and looks and plays like a ball player
>>(sorry Logan). Where have they been hiding this kid?

>
> I'm not sure where Maxwell came from, but one game doesn't a superstar make.
> Don't be sorry for Langerhans, he has had ample opportunity to make SOME
> form of contribution and with the exception of 2 nights ago, he has been
> successful in every effort to fail. Wily Mo may be washed up in the long
> run, but for a club that had no power in their lineup whatsoever, he had a
> fortnight where he was on a pace for a season long 60 homers. Considering
> his fielding wasn't near as bad as I was given reason to believe, I give him
> more than a passing grade this year.
>
> Their farm system (at the beginning of last season the joke of the league)
> has turned up several gems in the making. I have a lot of confidence that
> they are going to be a wonderful team to have around in the next few years.
>

Pitchers have only seen Maxwell 1 time. He has some work to do before
he comes up to the Majors. Has everyone given up on Wily Mo already?
He's been doing some really great hitting lately and hitting to the
opposite field. When pitchers compensate for this, he'll knock them out
of the park. I see Pena as the starting LF next year.

I doubt Langerhans will be back.

CF is a problem. Church and Logan are both 4th outfielders. Church has
some power, but is bad with 2 outs or with RISP. He is also weaker
defensively (although he is improving). Logan has his speed, but needs
to learn to draw some walks. Do you platoon Church/Logan?

--
FSogol
 >> Stay informed about: Forget Logan and Langerhans 

"FSogol" <FSogol DeleteThis @nospamplease.org> wrote:

> I doubt Langerhans will be back.

Here's hoping!

> CF is a problem. Church and Logan are both 4th outfielders. Church
> has some power, but is bad with 2 outs or with RISP.

Among the regular position players, Church is second on the team in
OPS with RISP. Kearns is first with an OPS of .924; Church is second
at .889.

With RISP and two outs, Church is third. Kearns is first with .985;
Young is second at .861; Church is at .855.

On a good team with three superior OFs, Church would be a fourth OF.
On the Nats, he ought to be a regular starter. With the current
roster, the best outfield would be Pena in LF, Church in CF, and
Kearns in RF.

I ain't saying that Church is the second coming of Babe Ruth, but he's
definitely the target of a disproportionate amount of criticism. I
don't get it.

Jeanne
 >> Stay informed about: Forget Logan and Langerhans 

I realize that one game does not make a superstar. But this kid looks and
acts like he belongs. He looks comfortable in CF also. Wily Mo Pena is an
in and outer - and Nook Logan has a marginal arm for a MLB outfielder. He
goes back better than he goes in and every pitcher with a decent wrinkle
makes you wonder why someone didn't tell him it is time to get a real job.
Unlike the past, I believe that Church got a fair chance to win a job this
year and played below my expectations. Perhaps he and Pena can be made into
an effective platoon in LF next year. Ryan does not seem very tough between
the ears and can look pretty bad on pitches low and away. The concept of
taking that pitch the other way is yet to be learned.

"cat daddy" <furball@.myhouse.com> wrote in message
news:7_WdnWaY2u3OyGfbnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "Bill Delmore" <bdelmore DeleteThis @cox.net> wrote in message
> news:kLrKi.62655$hP1.33149@newsfe13.lga...
>> Play this kid Maxwell. He is not a washed up Brave(sorry Langerhans),
>> not
> a
>> washed up Red (sorry Wily Mo), and looks and plays like a ball player
> (sorry
>> Logan). Where have they been hiding this kid?
>
> I just saw Maxwell's homer, and he looked a little awkward. I'd say he
> has
> some raw talent, but needs some work. Same with WMP, who I'm shocked to
> see
> hitting singles, with far fewer strikeouts. The Nats' coaching cannot be
> underestimated in all this. And, I'd say Logan has improved greatly. Young
> kids don't come delivered as finished goods. Even Kearns numbers have
> vastly
> improved since accepting some coaching help.
>
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Forget Logan and Langerhans 

"Jeanne Fiander" <jfian.DeleteThis@gwu.edu> wrote in message
news:13fkokf33tg6j78@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "FSogol" <FSogol.DeleteThis@nospamplease.org> wrote:
>
>> I doubt Langerhans will be back.
>
> Here's hoping!
>
>> CF is a problem. Church and Logan are both 4th outfielders. Church has
>> some power, but is bad with 2 outs or with RISP.
>
> Among the regular position players, Church is second on the team in OPS
> with RISP. Kearns is first with an OPS of .924; Church is second at .889.
>
> With RISP and two outs, Church is third. Kearns is first with .985; Young
> is second at .861; Church is at .855.
>
> On a good team with three superior OFs, Church would be a fourth OF. On
> the Nats, he ought to be a regular starter. With the current roster, the
> best outfield would be Pena in LF, Church in CF, and Kearns in RF.
>
> I ain't saying that Church is the second coming of Babe Ruth, but he's
> definitely the target of a disproportionate amount of criticism. I don't
> get it.
>
> Jeanne
>

She's right, you know.
 >> Stay informed about: Forget Logan and Langerhans 

Hey look at my previous posts - I too am a Ryan Church fan. I like him
defensively - same smoothness as Fred Lynn and a good arm. He had a great
game last night too. My expectations though were that he is capable of
being a .285 - .300 hitter and about 25 HR. He has the ability. He just
needs a better short term memory and bounce back quicker before a bad night
turns into a 3-4 game slump.

"Bzl." <bzlrbi.RemoveThis@nelsoncable.com> wrote in message
news:ioqdnep0r7ueOWfbnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@trueband.net...
>
> "Jeanne Fiander" <jfian.RemoveThis@gwu.edu> wrote in message
> news:13fkokf33tg6j78@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "FSogol" <FSogol.RemoveThis@nospamplease.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I doubt Langerhans will be back.
>>
>> Here's hoping!
>>
>>> CF is a problem. Church and Logan are both 4th outfielders. Church has
>>> some power, but is bad with 2 outs or with RISP.
>>
>> Among the regular position players, Church is second on the team in OPS
>> with RISP. Kearns is first with an OPS of .924; Church is second at
>> .889.
>>
>> With RISP and two outs, Church is third. Kearns is first with .985;
>> Young is second at .861; Church is at .855.
>>
>> On a good team with three superior OFs, Church would be a fourth OF. On
>> the Nats, he ought to be a regular starter. With the current roster, the
>> best outfield would be Pena in LF, Church in CF, and Kearns in RF.
>>
>> I ain't saying that Church is the second coming of Babe Ruth, but he's
>> definitely the target of a disproportionate amount of criticism. I don't
>> get it.
>>
>> Jeanne
>>
>
> She's right, you know.
>
 >> Stay informed about: Forget Logan and Langerhans