Bryce Harper career home runs

[Ryno84MVP]

How many home runs will Bryce Harper hit in his career?

[Sour Masher]

I chose 600-649, and then I see that half of the people who have voted chose under 200. I know I was shooting for the high end, nd I figured most would choose in the 400s or 500s, but you are some pessimistic people.

[The Dane]

I chose 600-649, and then I see that half of the people who have voted chose under 200. I know I was shooting for the high end, nd I figured most would choose in the 400s or 500s, but you are some pessimistic people.

Not pessimistic. Realistic. Betting ANY player will get 600 homeruns in a career is insane. The odds are astronomical. So, you think he is in the top-ten ALL-TIME?

I won't be surprised if he has a great career, but so much can happen between now and 600.

[TS Garp]

Under 200 seems as unlikely as over 600 (well, not quite, but still). I went with 400-449. If I had to put a number on it, I'd say 415, but who the hell really knows.

[Controller Jacobs]

I went with 300-399, using a formula of Pat Burrell + 50.

[mjl]

Uh, what?

200 HR is 10 straight years of 20 HR seasons. It's "unlikely" that he falls short of that? Just as unlikely as him getting to be top 10 in HRs of all time?

You guys are crazy.

415, apparently a "conservative" estimate, would put Harper at 46th place all time for HRs.

well, yeah, but he clearly isn't an average player. Granted his major league time is a tiny sample right now, but he clearly has the skills to be in the league at 19, and if you look at the other players who've been semi-relevant in the majors at that age, the rest of the group is players like ARod, Andruw Jones, Beltre, Griffey Jr... and the average out of that group is somewhere in the 400s.

[cavebird]

well, yeah, but he clearly isn't an average player. Granted his major league time is a tiny sample right now, but he clearly has the skills to be in the league at 19, and if you look at the other players who've been semi-relevant in the majors at that age, the rest of the group is players like ARod, Andruw Jones, Beltre, Griffey Jr... and the average out of that group is somewhere in the 400s.

That's about half of the guys who were relevant at that age. Other guys relevant at that age were Tony Conigliaro, Freddie Lindstrom, Edgar Renteria, Cesar Cedeno, Ed Cranepool, and Phil Cavaretta, none of whom made it to 200 home runs (although Cedeno ended up with 199).

[TS Garp]

Uh, what?

200 HR is 10 straight years of 20 HR seasons. It's "unlikely" that he falls short of that? Just as unlikely as him getting to be top 10 in HRs of all time?

You guys are crazy.

415, apparently a "conservative" estimate, would put Harper at 46th place all time for HRs.

Like I said, it's not really as unlikely as 600 home runs. Obviously. There are many examples of top prospects who flamed out fast or never really got started, but I just don't see that in this case. I'd be very, very surprised -- even shocked -- if he hit less than 200 hr's, but that's just me. I didn't say 415 was conservative -- it's just what I would project if I had to put a number on it.

[TS Garp]

That's about half of the guys who were relevant at that age. Other guys relevant at that age were Tony Conigliaro, Freddie Lindstrom, Edgar Renteria, Cesar Cedeno, Ed Cranepool, and Phil Cavaretta, none of whom made it to 200 home runs (although Cedeno ended up with 199).

But Cedeno was a very different kind of player. He stole 550 bases and had an excellent career. Power wasn't his primary tool. Ditto for Lindstrom, but Lindstrom is a Hall of Famer (shouldn't be, but that's a different topic), so their inclusion here actually helps mjl's argument.

[wombat104]

Went with 400-449, also mark me down for him finding a cure for cancer and ending world hunger.

[Lucky]

He hasn't really become semi-relevant in the majors yet. I know the current plan is for him to stay up, but until he actually spends a few weeks and hits a few bombs, I don't think we can start the countdown to Cooperstown.

[mjl]

first off, absolutely, I am picking and choosing arbitrary indicators in everything I say here.

1) I don't think his numbers so far in the majors indicate that he's "semi-relevant", just that his skills look like someone who belongs in the majors now, which is obviously rare at 19. He doesn't look overmatched in any aspect of the game.

2) There's a big difference between being called up at 19 because you're a great prospect (the guys I mentioned plus Yount etc.) and being called up because you're on the 1963 Mets and somebody has to play.

3) of the guys cavebird listed, all of them were excellent players other than Kranepool (the 1963 Mets guy). Granted that Harper could get beaned and knocked out of baseball like Conigliaro, I think if he had as good a career as any of those guys it would be okay. Maybe a little disappointing, but okay.

4) I have to admit, I was taking the HR count as "he's going to be really good". I don't know if Harper is projected to hit 30-40 HR on a regular basis. But I don't think many people believe Cedeno or Renteria had disappointing careers overall even if they weren't power hitters.

[Sour Masher]

Not pessimistic. Realistic. Betting ANY player will get 600 homeruns in a career is insane. The odds are astronomical. So, you think he is in the top-ten ALL-TIME?

I won't be surprised if he has a great career, but so much can happen between now and 600.

I thought I was being clear, but what I meant to suggest is that those voting for under 200 are being pessimistic. I know my projection requires a lot of faith in his talent and luck on his part to stary healthy and focused for two decades. If I had to actually put money on a line, I would feel safe betting the over at 400 homers. Of course, so many things can make the under win--injuries, drug abuse, early accidental death, etc. so I can't argue too hard with those of you being pessimistic, but to compare this kid to the likes of Edgar Renteria is silly.

[cavebird]

first off, absolutely, I am picking and choosing arbitrary indicators in everything I say here.

1) I don't think his numbers so far in the majors indicate that he's "semi-relevant", just that his skills look like someone who belongs in the majors now, which is obviously rare at 19. He doesn't look overmatched in any aspect of the game.

2) There's a big difference between being called up at 19 because you're a great prospect (the guys I mentioned plus Yount etc.) and being called up because you're on the 1963 Mets and somebody has to play.

3) of the guys cavebird listed, all of them were excellent players other than Kranepool (the 1963 Mets guy). Granted that Harper could get beaned and knocked out of baseball like Conigliaro, I think if he had as good a career as any of those guys it would be okay. Maybe a little disappointing, but okay.

4) I have to admit, I was taking the HR count as "he's going to be really good". I don't know if Harper is projected to hit 30-40 HR on a regular basis. But I don't think many people believe Cedeno or Renteria had disappointing careers overall even if they weren't power hitters.

But the problem is Conigliaro and those like him. Not all were up at 19, but tons more were up at 20. Guys who had all the talent in the world but had large injuries or an accumulation of small injuries that ruined the potential and left them with possibly decent careers, but far less than what they could have been. Ben Grieve and Cliff Floyd come to mind, but here are some other #1 prospects from Baseball America who did not pan out: Delmon Young, Rick Ankiel, Brien Taylor, Todd Van Poppel, Steve Avery. Now, a lot of these guys were pitchers, so that is different, and a whole bunch panned out (including one many years later in Josh Hamilton). But there is a not insignificant chance that it does work out for whatever reason. Jason Heyward was the very young major league flavor in 2010, and injuries destroyed his 2011. Jury is obviously still out on him. My point would be that it is reasonable to project under 200 career home runs for him. Of the options available, there may be only a 30-40% chance that he hits less than 200 HR's, but that is almost certainly the option with the highest chance of any single option to be correct (because if he does pan out, there are several possible outcomes).

[cavebird]

I thought I was being clear, but what I meant to suggest is that those voting for under 200 are being pessimistic. I know my projection requires a lot of faith in his talent and luck on his part to stary healthy and focused for two decades. If I had to actually put money on a line, I would feel safe betting the over at 400 homers. Of course, so many things can make the under win--injuries, drug abuse, early accidental death, etc. so I can't argue too hard with those of you being pessimistic, but to compare this kid to the likes of Edgar Renteria is silly.

But if you had to bet even money on one and only one of the options above, the under 200 HR is obviously the right bet. There is no over/under on 400 available.