Patooey!

[sharksrog]

Actually, the name's Puig, but he makes me want to go "patooey."

Last year the Dodgers signed Cuban outfielder Yasiel Puig to a $42 million contract. The signing didn't receive nearly the publicity as the Dodgers' multi-player, multi-million dollar trade with the Red Sox, but it might pay similar dividends.

Puig put up a .442 average last summer, but that was only in rookie ball and the California League. Then he batted only .238 with a .333 SLG in Puerto Rico this winter. So far, no big deal.


But Puig's average this spring with the Dodgers is .500. That's FIVE HUNDRED, with a .804 SLG. And it's not like he's five-for-10.

After coming within a little hustle of hitting for the cycle yesterday, he's now 23 for 46.

With Carl Crawford just returning to health this week and hitting .300 (3 for 10), there wouldn't seem to be much room for Puig to join All-Stars Matt Kemp and Andre Ethier in the outfield. Dodger manager Don Mattingly has said that Puig will open the season in the minors.

But at 23 for 46, how do the Dodgers send him down? And if they send him down, how long will he stay there?

It is said the Giants could use a left fielder. You don't suppose the Giants could trade Gary Brown for him? Didn't think so.

Puig came within a double of hitting for the cycle yesterday. He also stole a base. And on his second single, he should have had an easy double on a ball that fell in front of fellow Cuban Yoenis Cespedes, but he jogged out of the box and was thrown out at second by the diving A's left fielder.

I was figuring Crawford wouldn't be back until later in the season and wondered how effective he could be. I figured Puig was at least a year away.

At 23 for 46 this spring, unless he's Randy Elliott, it looks like his chances are as good for the 2013 Rookie of the Year as his being a year away.

All I can say is, "Patooey!:

[sharksrog]

This Puig thing doesn't get better. Just heard Larry Krueger say on KNBR that Puig is one of the most athletic players he has seen. He spoke about Puig's defense, saying that Puig made a play where he dived like Gregor Blanco, and FROM HIS STOMACH threw a "seed" to second base to double the runner off.

Thank goodness when co-host Gary Radnich asked him if he was better than Willie Mays, he kept his emotions in check enough to answer no.

Even though Andrew Baggarly said on the show that Yoenis Cespedes said that Puig this year is ahead of Cespedes himself a year ago, Baggarly said Puig was expected to open the season in the minors.

This past winter we discussed that the Dodger threat wasn't so much the Red Sox players they traded for and the money spent thereon, but rather the Dodgers' greatly increased commitment to drafting and development, especially internationally.

Puig may be the beginning of what would be a very unfortunate trend for the Giants. Given that it usually takes young players a while to develop though, the Giants' window should remain open for at least two or three years. And there is nothing to say that the Dodgers will truly capitalize on their trend toward developing young players.

But, ironically, growing your young guys is the way to succeed without going overboard on payroll. The Dodgers look at their sudden surge of spending this past summer as only a temporary way to build their team quickly. Their long-term goal is the young guys.

Just another thing to say "patooey" about: Krueger said that Puig's skills made Matt Kemp look ordinary.

[sfgdood]

except for the power, you could have been talking about Emmanuel Burriss' spring numbers of a couple years back. I'm not worried just yet.

~Dood

[sfgdood]

and there you go looking to dump Gary Brown again...It seems like everytime the Giants get a good prospect you want to dump him either for used fungoes or for any flash in the pan that has a good week. Brown had several weeks like 23 for 46 and you kept saying it was no big deal. But then when a scrap heap guy like Cole Gillespie comes along all of a sudden he's WAY better than Brown or any other prospect we have. You make me want to puke!

~Dood

[sharksrog]

Randy -- except for the power, you could have been talking about Emmanuel Burriss' spring numbers of a couple years back. I'm not worried just yet.

Rog -- I'm not a guy to overvalue spring training, but I do think this guy Puig is going to be pretty darn good. How soon, I don't know. But I'm thinking sooner rather than later.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1614&page=1#9643#ixzz2O6skkp3K

[sharksrog]

Randy -- and there you go looking to dump Gary Brown again...

Rog -- Not really. If Gary were an infielder and Joe Panik an outfielder, I would have used Joe in my example.

Are you going to tell me that you wouldn't trade Brown for Puig? I'd trade BOTH of them for him. That was the point of my comment.

Randy -- It seems like everytime the Giants get a good prospect you want to dump him either for used fungoes or for any flash in the pan that has a good week.

Rog -- Really? Other than a year ago suggesting it would be prudent to trade Tim Lincecum at that time, I don't recall wanting to trade any of the Giants' top prospects. Certainly I strongly opposed trading Zack Wheeler for Carlos Beltran. You might have opposed the trade too. If so, speak up. I'm almost positive Boagie did.

Randy -- Brown had several weeks like 23 for 46 and you kept saying it was no big deal.

Rog -- Gary never has had a week where he went 23 for 46 as a professional. In fact, it is likely he's never had a 23 for 46 streak in his career.

Randy -- But then when a scrap heap guy like Cole Gillespie comes along all of a sudden he's WAY better than Brown or any other prospect we have.

Rog -- Perhaps you could show me where I said that. I like Cole better FOR THIS SEASON, but I would trade Cole for Gary right now.

Randy -- You make me want to puke!

Rog -- Don't let me stand in your way.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1614&page=1#ixzz2O6tryYYj

[sfgdood]

It wouldnt shock me if Brown had weeks better than 23-for-46 in 2011 when he was the CAL League player of the year. He certainly had weeks comparable to that mark that I recall personally. Then the Dodgers get a guy as green as the Dublin countryside in early March and out of nowhere the words "small sample size" immediately leave your vocabulary. This guy kicked ass in Rookie League, in A Ball and in practice games in AZ...you're getting all excited over that? Whatever credibility you may have had just went out the window.

~Dood

[sharksrog]

Randy -- It wouldnt shock me if Brown had weeks better than 23-for-46 in 2011 when he was the CAL League player of the year. He certainly had weeks comparable to that mark that I recall personally.

Rog -- I would be surprised if Gary DIDN'T have at least one week in which he hit .500 or better, but he never once went 23 for 46 as you suggested.

Randy -- Then the Dodgers get a guy as green as the Dublin countryside in early March and out of nowhere the words "small sample size" immediately leave your vocabulary. This guy kicked ass in Rookie League, in A Ball and in practice games in AZ...you're getting all excited over that?

Rog -- Isn't it odd, given that I shouldn't be getting (negatively, as a Giants fan) excited over Puig (according to you) , and then a half hour later Puig is given huge praise on the GIANTS' radio station?

Randy -- Whatever credibility you may have had just went out the window.

Roger -- Let's revisit this in two or three years. Sadly, I don't think your comment will come true.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1614&page=1#9649#ixzz2O7D4yGcI

[sfgdood]

it doesnt matter what happens in the next 2, 3, 5 or even 10 years. Point is if the Giants have a hot prospect you wont ever praise him like you do this Dodger greenhorn after such a short amount of time. Roger the Dodger has re-emerged apparently. As for the morons on KNBR, their comments are less than worthless, no matter who they favor. They wanted Belt shitcanned just like you and now they hate Brown just like you. I guess they'll be buying Dodger jerseys with this mook's name on it, same as you.

~Dood

[sharksrog]

Randy -- it doesnt matter what happens in the next 2, 3, 5 or even 10 years. Point is if the Giants have a hot prospect you wont ever praise him like you do this Dodger greenhorn after such a short amount of time.

Rog -- Yep, you're right. It isn't as if I touted Tim Lincecum, Buster Posey, Madison Bumgarner and Brandon Belt. It isn't as if I saw more of Tim Lincecum's career than any other fan.

I'm hoping that at some point, Randy, you get real.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1614&page=1#9653#ixzz2O7XfyjYa

[sfgdood]

I'll give you Tim Lincecum ONLY because you know his dad personally and that is the only reason you praised him as early on as you are praising this Dodger newcomer. Those other guys you eventually liked but not that early. Matt Cain was in the big leagues for 5 years before you agreed he was "pretty good." Belt you were ready to kick to the curb last year for a used up retread

~Dood

[sharksrog]

Randy -- I'll give you Tim Lincecum ONLY because you know his dad personally and that is the only reason you praised him as early on as you are praising this Dodger newcomer. Those other guys you eventually liked but not that early. Matt Cain was in the big leagues for 5 years before you agreed he was "pretty good." Belt you were ready to kick to the curb last year for a used up retread

Rog -- Apparently you and I don't read the same, Randy.

If you will look or think back, you will find that I met Chris BECAUSE I followed Tim so closely. We actually met online through Richard Van Zandt of BaseballEvolution.com after Richard wrote this story:

baseballevolution.com/richard/lincecum.html

I came across this, really liked it, and responded to Richard after I myself had seen Tim pitch both in San Jose and Stockton. Rich had met Tim's dad at Tim's debut in San Jose. I had a previous commitment and had to miss that debut, but I saw Tim's very next start in San Jose. The last time I saw Tim pitch in San Jose was the San Jose opener of the Cal League playoffs.

Rich really liked my response and in fact posted it on the website and sent it on to Chris. Chris also liked it, and that his how we got introduced.

I get so tired of guys like you and Don misremembering, misquoting or misunderstanding what I post here. This is a HUGE example. I was posting about Tim from the very day he was drafted -- even though I had only even learned his name no more than a week before the draft.

If you had asked me about Tim the day before the draft, I might have been able to recognize his name -- but that would be about it. Within a day or two after he was drafted I knew more about him than almost anyone here did before he made the majors.

You've got to be kidding on this one, Randy. Seriously.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1614&page=1#9658#ixzz2O7qL0rTl

[sharksrog]

Randy -- Those other guys you eventually liked but not that early.

Rog -- You remember April 10, 2009, don't you? It was the day after Joey Martinez got hit in the head with a line drive so flush that the ball went all the way back to the screen behind home plate for a double.

That was the day Mad Bum made his San Jose debut. Three people watched all of Mad Bum's bullpen warmup pitching to Buster Posey. Two of the three were my son and I. Were you possibly the third?

I posted here that I wished the Giants were having Mad Bum throw more secondary pitches, but that his slider seemed OK and his fastball was very hard to pick up.

That wasn't the first time I had seen Buster play. That came in the San Jose debut of the 2009 Cal League playoffs when he caught Tim Alderson. I posted about both players and remember talking to the radar guy, who said Alderson hadn't thrown many pitches above 89 or 90 that season.

So, gosh Randy. Once again your memory has failed you. I don't think you are intentionally lying.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1614&page=1#9659#ixzz2O7whDWWQ

[sfgdood]

you prove my point...those posts werent nearly the glowing review you give this Dodger prospect.

~Dood

[sharksrog]

Randy -- Matt Cain was in the big leagues for 5 years before you agreed he was "pretty good."

Rog -- After Matt's first game as a Giant I said that I didn't think he would become a #1 -- more like a 1 1/2. I was a little off on that one. I would say that Matt has pitched like a #1 beginning with 2010 (and some would argue 2009).

If you want to know when I thought he was at least "pretty good," as you say, that would have been after that very first start.

You probably don't remember it, but if you look at the beginning of Matt's 2007 season, he was pitching PHENOMENALLY. I remember driving down to Fresno to watch Tim pitch and marveling at Matt's and one particular outing by Cole Hamels. Do you think I thought Matt was at least "pretty good?"

When Mark made one of his rare mistakes here, saying that Matt had blown a lot of late-inning leads, I looked it up and posted that in reality, Matt had very rarely done so. Was I perhaps defending him as at least being "pretty good?"

I did argue with Don that Matt was more than a bit lucky in the early part of 2009. His strand rate was somewhere around the mid-to-high 80%'s. That's just not sustainable. (Matt's career strand rate even now is 75.1%.)

Oh, and well before Matt was truly pitching at the level of a #1, I posted how unlucky he had been in run support. I have mentioned that if he had received proper run support, Matt would have a chance at the Hall of Fame.

So again, Randy, your memory has failed you. I think you remember only what you want to remember -- and even stretch that quite a bit.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1614&page=1#ixzz2O7yDEofu

[sharksrog]

Randy -- Belt you were ready to kick to the curb last year for a used up retread

Rog -- I think you have at least SOME truth here. I remember seeing a proposed trade of Belt for an older, more established first baseman. I mentioned it here and probably even said I might consider it. But I don't think I was ever truly serious about it.

Why would I be, when before Brandon had even seen the majors I said I saw him and Buster Posey as having about the same potential at the plate -- and that Brandon might even have more than Buster?

Boagie, and perhaps others here, were down on Belt -- who as an early rookie DID have the worst body language walking from the plate of any player I've seen since Johnny (Boo) LeMaster.

I said before the Cody Ross injury that brought Brandon to the majors that I thought he was ready to begin the season -- just as I had said the same about Buster a year before. Turns out I was probably wrong.

But I never gave up on Brandon -- and on at least one occasion predicted after he hit a home run, that he would hit a few more within a few days.

Randy, why do you remember things so differently than they were?
Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1614&page=1#ixzz2O80gbaj7

[Islandboagie]

Why would I be, when before Brandon had even seen the majors I said I saw him and Buster Posey as having about the same potential at the plate -- and that Brandon might even have more than Buster?

Boagie, and perhaps others here, were down on Belt -- who as an early rookie DID have the worst body language walking from the plate of any player I've seen since Johnny (Boo) LeMaster.

Boagie- I think you mistake my stance on the whole Belt situation, Rog. I disagreed with two things about Belt that were said here on this board.

Number one, I disagreed with your comparison of Belt and Posey. Posey would have been a number one pick overall if he didn't require a big signing bonus, Belt was a 5th round pick. There was really no doubt Posey was going to be a future All-Star. I didn't feel it was fair to put that much pressure on Belt to live up to Posey. I think it's easy to see the difference now.

Number two, I was never down on Belt, I was down on the way the Giants handled Belt from day one. Belt was on a good path to become a quality major leaguer, and him making the team in 2011 put his progress back about a year, imo. Then once he struggled I think they sent him down too early. I fully believe that if he's started the year in Fresno in 2011 that he'd have put up a better year for us in 2012. 2011 was a wasted year for Belt.

I love Belt. In my opinion he's the best defensive and speediest first baseman in baseball. If I were Bochy I'd probably have Belt bat 3rd, partly because Pablo is a fat pig and can't stay healthy for longer than a few months. But Belt also has a very good on base percentage, and I think batting infront of Posey would get him some good pitches to hit and his speed would be far more valuable ahead of Posey.

[sharksrog]

Boagie- I think you mistake my stance on the whole Belt situation, Rog. I disagreed with two things about Belt that were said here on this board.

Rog -- Thank you for clearing that up.

Your point about Brandon perhaps being a good #3 hitter this season reminds me of one more thing I said that is in complete opposition to Randy's rude and inaccurate depiction of my stance on Belt.

I said before Brandon had ever played for the Giants that I believed he would become their #3 hitter. I predicted he, Pablo and Buster would bat #3, #4, #5, although I believe I had Pablo batting cleanup.

Anyway, thanks for clearing up your stance on Belt. I remembered when you and Randy were comparing the two Brandons. I recall Randy being down on Crawford for all his errors, and I thought you were down on Belt.

Now that you also say you disagreed with me on my comparison of Buster and Belt, I guess that is another stake in Randy's ridiculous argument that I was down on Belt myself.

Admittedly we all misremember what others said on occasion (as I did here with you and Brandon Belt). But when it comes to me, Randy and Don pretty much seem to remember most things about the opposite of how I said it.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1614&page=1#9664#ixzz2O9DtXE11

[Islandboagie]

Rog- Anyway, thanks for clearing up your stance on Belt. I remembered when you and Randy were comparing the two Brandons. I recall Randy being down on Crawford for all his errors, and I thought you were down on Belt.

Boagie- I vaguely remember this conversation. But I can tell you the many differences of the two Brandons.

Belt was brought up not so much out of necessity, but more out of pressure from the media and fans to see Belt on the team. Crawford was brought up purely on necessity.

Crawford learned at the major league level and showed confidence, Belt regressed and showed fading confidence.

Crawford quickly proved to be our best option at shortstop, Belt proved that he needed more time at AAA to figure things out.

Crawford did have the defensive bump in the road, but he stayed on point even during that rough stretch and was actually showing success at the plate.

Belt has had many bumps in the road, and he continually still gets carved up by hard throwing relievers. As much as I like Belt, I can't say he's fully proven himself to be a solid major leaguer, whereas Crawford has.

I've told you about how much I like Belt's obp, speed, and defense, now here are some things I worry about with Belt...

People here like to mention that Belt had a very nice second half in 2012, but he did pretty well after coming back late in the season in 2011 too. He hit as many homeruns in Aug and Sept of 2011 than he hit in all of 2012. As far as power goes, he's yet again regressed. I honestly expected a full year of Belt would net 15-20 homeruns. I'm sorry, 7 homeruns as a first baseman just doesn't cut it when you're only batting .270. Overall he's made some progress hitting, but I would be lying if I said I was more optimistic after last season than I was after 2011, which tells me there hasn't been enough progress to this point.

Now this spring he's looking really good. Power to all fields, good average and ops. I'd like to see the strikeouts go down and the walks go up, but overall I've been impressed by his spring. As we know though, Belt has always had good spring trainings, so let's not get too excited just yet.

[sfgdood]

Boagie- I vaguely remember this conversation. But I can tell you the many differences of the two Brandons.

Belt was brought up not so much out of necessity, but more out of pressure from the media and fans to see Belt on the team. Crawford was brought up purely on necessity.

Dood - I disagree that the Giants allowed the media and fans influence ANY roster decision they made. Just because we as fans listen to those yahoos doesn't mean Bochy and Sabean do.




Crawford learned at the major league level and showed confidence, Belt regressed and showed fading confidence.

Dood - And yet never at any time did Crawford show better ability at the plate than Belt.



Dood - Crawford quickly proved to be our best option at shortstop, Belt proved that he needed more time at AAA to figure things out.

Dood - so what you're saying is that even though Crawford also needed more time in the minor leagues to "figure things out" he remained in SF because we didnt have any other options.



Crawford did have the defensive bump in the road, but he stayed on point even during that rough stretch and was actually showing success at the plate.

Dood - yep...enough success that he was losing starts against lefties to Arias.




Belt has had many bumps in the road, and he continually still gets carved up by hard throwing relievers. As much as I like Belt, I can't say he's fully proven himself to be a solid major leaguer, whereas Crawford has.

Dood - Solid (Crawford) career .235/.299/.632, with his best season average at .248. Unproven (Belt) .259/.344/.762 with his best season average at .275. Exsqueeze me? And speaking of bumps in the road, how would you characterize Crawford's 2011 average of .204?

~Dood

[sharksrog]

Boagie- I vaguely remember this conversation. But I can tell you the many differences of the two Brandons.

Belt was brought up not so much out of necessity, but more out of pressure from the media and fans to see Belt on the team. Crawford was brought up purely on necessity.

Rog -- A couple of things regarding Belt:

. Do you think the defending World Champions are going to let the fans and media influence their roster decision?

. Do you think Belt would have been brought up to open the season if not for the injury to Cody Ross?

In other words, I don't think the fans and media had anywhere nearly as much with the decision to start the 2011 season with Brandon as did necessity, at the very least perceived.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1614&page=1#9669#ixzz2OCueT1jO

[sharksrog]

Overall he's made some progress hitting, but I would be lying if I said I was more optimistic after last season than I was after 2011, which tells me there hasn't been enough progress to this point.

Rog -- I've always been at the very least reasonably confident in Brandon, and I'm definitely more confident now than a year ago.

Forget that he came on in the second half to do it, Belt's .781 OPS last season wasn't horrible. And as you point out, it is highly likely he will hit for more power in the future than he did in 2012.

Belt is hitting .396 with a 1.164 OPS this spring. It's only spring training, but it is his second straight outstanding spring.

Last season Brandon's K/BB ratio improved to a decent 106/54 compared to 2011's 57/20. Brandon walked more frequently and struck out less frequently.

While Brandon was HORRENDOUS in July of last season, he had an .881 OPS or better in three of his last four months. Brandon's OPS his final two month of 2011 were .704 and .788.

You mentioned that Brandon also finished 2011 strongly, but his averages the final two months were only .211 and .237. Last season they were .349 and .310.

Don't you see reasons to be more confident about Brandon now?


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1614&page=1#ixzz2OCvYFsng

[sharksrog]

Boagie -- As we know though, Belt has always had good spring trainings, so let's not get too excited just yet.

Rog -- Another reason to believe that the injury to Cody Ross was by far the primary reason Brandon began the 2011 season with the Giants. Brian Sabean said before spring training that it would take a great spring for him to make the opening day roster. I myself figured that meant high .300's or at LEAST well above .300.

Instead, Brandon hit .282 in spring training. He had an excellent spring in 2012, and this year he has been even better. He wasn't bad in 2011, but it may be important to recognize that he hit about as much in the 2012 regular season as he hit in the 2011 pre-season.

Yet another reason I am more confident. And remember, I certainly wasn't down on Brandon a year ago. I had lowered my targets for him a bit though. But those targets were extremely high to begin with.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1614&page=1#ixzz2OCz7IonG

[sharksrog]

Boagie -- Crawford did have the defensive bump in the road, but he stayed on point even during that rough stretch and was actually showing success at the plate.

Dood - yep...enough success that he was losing starts against lefties to Arias.




Boagie -- Belt has had many bumps in the road, and he continually still gets carved up by hard throwing relievers. As much as I like Belt, I can't say he's fully proven himself to be a solid major leaguer, whereas Crawford has.

Dood - Solid (Crawford) career .235/.299/.632, with his best season average at .248. Unproven (Belt) .259/.344/.762 with his best season average at .275. Exsqueeze me? And speaking of bumps in the road, how would you characterize Crawford's 2011 average of .204?

Rog -- Let's not forget that first base is far more a hitting position than shortstop is. That said, I would say Belt's grasp on his position is stronger than Crawford's. And I don't think either player is in danger of losing his job anytime soon.

Belt is beginning to show his offensive capabilities, and his defense is already top notch. Crawford's defense is top notch, and he's beginning to show his offensive capabilities. Notice I said ALMOST the same thing about each of them. But there are important differences.

Crawford has the advantage in that his position is a defensive one, and he has shown he's excellent in that regard. The only question is whether his offense will be good ENOUGH to keep his glove in the lineup.

Belt's defense is arguably in the same class, and his hitting last season wasn't all that bad for a first baseman.

BOTH players came on strongly the last couple of months of 2012. Belt's numbers were particularly impressive, and Crawford's were more than good enough, given his excellent glove.

Johnny Mathis once sang, "Never knowing my ... hat from my glove." In the case of Crawford, it is easy to tell his BAT from his glove. In Belt's case, it is harder to tell their quality apart.

I see Belt as the more established player, although have a fine chance to become fixtures over the next decade.

I'm sold on both their gloves. I'm pretty sold on Belt's hitting and have been for a long time (not that I never had any doubts). I'm ENCOURAGED by Crawford's hitting, whereas I have been down on it for a long time.

A big difference is that .300 would be good for Belt; just .250 would be good for Crawford.
Last season I liked Crawford's defense even better than I liked Belt's. Now I like BOTH of them a ton in the field.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1614&page=1#ixzz2OD0jBPlV

[Islandboagie]

Dood - I disagree that the Giants allowed the media and fans influence ANY roster decision they made. Just because we as fans listen to those yahoos doesn't mean Bochy and Sabean do.

Boagie- I don't think Bochy turns on KNBR to take advice on what to do day in and day out, but baseball is a business, they want to keep the customers happy. I know media hype isn't the driving force behind their decisions, but I do think it's considered. In Belt's case during the 2011 spring, the hype was overwhelming, and led to them doing something that had been uncharacteristic of their previous handling of young players. Of course the injury to Ross also figured in heavily.


Dood - And yet never at any time did Crawford show better ability at the plate than Belt.

Boagie- Crawford shows better ability to make contact. In more at-bats Crawford struck out less than Belt.

Dood - so what you're saying is that even though Crawford also needed more time in the minor leagues to "figure things out" he remained in SF because we didnt have any other options.

Boagie- We didn't have any better options, that's why Crawford was rushed up to the majors.


Crawford did have the defensive bump in the road, but he stayed on point even during that rough stretch and was actually showing success at the plate.

Dood - yep...enough success that he was losing starts against lefties to Arias.

Boagie- Arias had a good season, he earned time. I suspect he'll get some time at shortstop again this year. It should also be noted that Crawford had a better batting average against lefties than Belt did.

Dood - Solid (Crawford) career .235/.299/.632, with his best season average at .248. Unproven (Belt) .259/.344/.762 with his best season average at .275. Exsqueeze me? And speaking of bumps in the road, how would you characterize Crawford's 2011 average of .204?

Boagie- I would characterize Crawford and Belt's first season as two players who could have used more time in Fresno. Last year I felt they were in a much better position to succeed. However there are two big differences between these two players.

First and foremost, Crawford is a good defensive player in a defensive position. Belt is a good defensive player in an offensive position.

Secondly, Both of these guys held their own and proved they aren't overmatched at the major league level. But, I expect more out of Belt. Before last season, I was thinking Belt should be at about .270-.280 15-20 homeruns and 70+ rbis. Crawford, I was hoping for about .250-.260, 5-10 homeruns, and 50 rbis. Of these two, Crawford came closer to meeting those expectations.

[sfgdood]

Boagie- I don't think Bochy turns on KNBR to take advice on what to do day in and day out, but baseball is a business, they want to keep the customers happy. I know media hype isn't the driving force behind their decisions, but I do think it's considered. In Belt's case during the 2011 spring, the hype was overwhelming, and led to them doing something that had been uncharacteristic of their previous handling of young players. Of course the injury to Ross also figured in heavily.

Dood - I think the Giants figure in the fans and media when it comes to marketing but not in the baseball operations and especially not in on-field roster and lineup decisions.




Dood - And yet never at any time did Crawford show better ability at the plate than Belt.

Boagie- Crawford shows better ability to make contact. In more at-bats Crawford struck out less than Belt.

Dood - the OBP and K/BB ratio shows differently. Belt had a really rough time where it seemed he couldnt even foul tip a pitch if he tried. But overall, he makes way better contact than Crawford.




Dood - so what you're saying is that even though Crawford also needed more time in the minor leagues to "figure things out" he remained in SF because we didnt have any other options.

Boagie- We didn't have any better options, that's why Crawford was rushed up to the majors.

Dood - exactly...he was in SF more because of lack of options than his own play





First and foremost, Crawford is a good defensive player in a defensive position. Belt is a good defensive player in an offensive position.

Dood - True...but when the League gives out batting titles, they don't consider what position the players play and adjust up or back do to him being a SS or a 1st baseman. If you want to say a guy is a better or worse hitter than another guy, the positions they play shouldnt figure into it.



Secondly, Both of these guys held their own and proved they aren't overmatched at the major league level. But, I expect more out of Belt. Before last season, I was thinking Belt should be at about .270-.280 15-20 homeruns and 70+ rbis. Crawford, I was hoping for about .250-.260, 5-10 homeruns, and 50 rbis. Of these two, Crawford came closer to meeting those expectations.

Dood - I'd go along with that. My expectations for Belt will always be higher than for Crawford. But that doesn't factor into me evaluating which is a better hitter.

~Dood

[sharksrog]

Boagie- I don't think Bochy turns on KNBR to take advice on what to do day in and day out, but baseball is a business, they want to keep the customers happy. I know media hype isn't the driving force behind their decisions, but I do think it's considered. In Belt's case during the 2011 spring, the hype was overwhelming, and led to them doing something that had been uncharacteristic of their previous handling of young players. Of course the injury to Ross also figured in heavily.

Rog -- I like to look at similar situations and find the difference(s). If we look at Tim Lincecum and Buster Posey, they were at least as hyped as Brandon Belt. I could be wrong about this, but it seemed that the hype for Tim was the highest, followed by Buster and then Brandon. As you pointed out, both Tim (#10 overall) and Buster (#5) were very high picks, while Brandon was merely a 5th round pick (#147).

Tim and Buster were sent out, while Brandon was kept up. Why do we suppose that was?

In 2007, the Giants had five starters, the last of whom was Russ Ortiz. Not that it had anything to do with the Giants' decision, but Tim liked Russ. When Russ became injured, Tim was called up for the first time.

Apparently the injury was fairly serious, as Russ pitched just a little relief and spent much of his time on the disabled list. Russ himself returned to the roster to take Matt Morris' place when Matt was traded to the Pirates, before going back on the disabled list again.

In 2010, Buster too was sent down to open the season. He wasn't called up because of an injury, but more because the Giants had lost 6 of their last 7 games and were only one game above .500.

On May 27th of that year, Bengie was replaced in the starting lineup by Eli Whiteside, and the following day Buster became the primary starting catcher.

Belt was the only one of the three kept up out of spring training. It appeared the plans were to send him down to Fresno -- until Cody Ross became injured.

Was Belt kept up because he was the best of the three? Clearly not. Was he called up because of fan and media pressure? Probably not. The Giants, after all, were World Champs who already had a first baseman who finished high in the previous season's MVP voting. Did the Giants keep Belt up because of need (the injury to Ross)?

It strongly appears that was the primary reason.

Now, here are my thoughts on what may have happened.

The Giants said Belt would have to put up a great spring to stay up. Early on, he was at least close to doing so IIRC. Likely, sentiment began to develop to keep him up, so when he wound up at only .282, there was some disappointment.

Suddenly, here comes the injury to Ross. The Giants had an EXCUSE to keep Belt up. (Do you think if Bengie Molina had been unable to open the 2010 season, Buster might have been kept up? I suspect he would have been.) Given the excuse, the Giants did what their collective HEARTS -- not their heads -- wanted to do.

I'm just surmising here, but I don't see any facts that aren't consistent with the above speculation. I wasn't there, so I can't say for sure. But it certainly COULD have happened that way.

One thing we do know is that there were no pre-season injuries to "accomodate" either Lincecum or Posey on the opening day roster.

With all three players, an injury or perceived situation immediately preceded their arrival in the bigs. Only in the case of Belt did the injury occur right before the season started.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1614&page=1#9683#ixzz2OHjvzQzQ

[sharksrog]

Boagie- Crawford shows better ability to make contact. In more at-bats Crawford struck out less than Belt.

Rog -- I agree Crawford shows a better ability to make contact than Belt, but it's closer than one might think.

As you point out, Crawford struck out only 20% of the time, while Belt struck out 22.5%. Not as much difference as one might think -- especially since Belt does deeper into counts more often, drawing 2/3rds more walks than Crawford.

Crawford made contract on 76% of his swings, compared to 74% of Belt's swings. Again, not much of a difference.

On the other hand, Belt showed better plate judgment, swinging at only 31% of pitches outside the zone to Crawford's 35%, while swinging at 81% of the strikes he faced compared to Crawford's 69%.

Pitchers pitched Belt somewhat more carefully, throwing only 40% of their pitches to him over the plate, while throwing 44% over the dish to Crawford.

Crawford enjoys the advantage, but the advantage is just not as big as one would think -- as in, neither one is a great contact hitter. For their respective levels of power, one could argue that Belt makes BETTER contact compared to similar power hitters.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1614&page=1#ixzz2OIEW0Wfc

[Islandboagie]

Dood - the OBP and K/BB ratio shows differently. Belt had a really rough time where it seemed he couldnt even foul tip a pitch if he tried. But overall, he makes way better contact than Crawford.

Boagie- That just isn't true. OBP and K/BB ratio don't reflect how good a player is at putting the bat on the ball, in fact those numbers are effected positively by NOT making contact. Belt has a better eye, and can draw more walks, but he also strikes out more than Crawford. I think it's safe to say Crawford has been better at putting the bat on the ball, up to this point.

I like the way Belt handles himself at the plate, he's got good plate discipline. However I think Belt is sometimes too patient. I'd like to see him let it loose on good counts more often and stop trying to coax more pitches. Often times Belt will let the fat pitch go on 2-1, and swing through the pitchers out pitch on 3-2. Last season with the count 3-2, Belt is hitting .171, 30 walks, 10 strikeouts and only 6 hits. That tells me he's trying to work a walk more than swing the bat. By the way, Brandon Crawford hit .314 last year in 3-2 counts. It would seem Crawford has a little more confidence in 3-2 counts.


Dood - exactly...he was in SF more because of lack of options than his own play

Boagie- You like to say lack of options, I prefer saying he was the best option.

In fact, I remember how our first argument about Crawford started..You liked Tejada and Orlando Cabrera as our shortstops, I prefered Fontenot and Crawford. Now you say there were a lack of options when you actually supported two of them at the time. Were you wrong then, or are you wrong now?

Dood - True...but when the League gives out batting titles, they don't consider what position the players play and adjust up or back do to him being a SS or a 1st baseman. If you want to say a guy is a better or worse hitter than another guy, the positions they play shouldnt figure into it.

Boagie- When Belt wins a batting title I will overlook the lack of power. but .275, 7 hrs and 56 rbis doesn't quite cut it for a first baseman. Don't get me wrong, I think Belt is on the right path now, I just don't see him locking down that position with those numbers if they continue. Might I remind you about Travis Ishikawa's 2009 season, .261, 9 hrs, after that offseason they go and sign Aubrey Huff. Ishi was 25 in 2009, Belt will be 25 in a month.

Again, I'm not hating on Belt, I love the guy. I'm just merely pointing out the reality of what the Giants management tend to expect out of a first baseman. Crawford has less expectations and has come closer to what they want out of a shortstop. Crawford can have another season like he had last year and he'd still be our shortstop in 2014. Belt on the other hand might have a few guys breathing down his neck if he doesn't improve this season.

[sfgdood]

Boagie- You like to say lack of options, I prefer saying he was the best option.

In fact, I remember how our first argument about Crawford started..You liked Tejada and Orlando Cabrera as our shortstops, I prefered Fontenot and Crawford. Now you say there were a lack of options when you actually supported two of them at the time. Were you wrong then, or are you wrong now?

Dood - we both were right AND wrong as it were. None of the options turned out to be all that great. You were fighting for Crawford in 2011 and he spent much of that year below the Mendoza line and the other options werent much better. I liked Orlando and Miggy because they both had well-earned reputations for coming through in clutch situations, particularly in the postseason. Miggy had a great September in 2010 in that cavernous ballpark in SD. It turned out he never was able to do much for the Giants but there was more than adequate reason to believe he could...moreso than with Crawford at that time.





Boagie- When Belt wins a batting title I will overlook the lack of power. but .275, 7 hrs and 56 rbis doesn't quite cut it for a first baseman. Don't get me wrong, I think Belt is on the right path now, I just don't see him locking down that position with those numbers if they continue. Might I remind you about Travis Ishikawa's 2009 season, .261, 9 hrs, after that offseason they go and sign Aubrey Huff. Ishi was 25 in 2009, Belt will be 25 in a month.

Again, I'm not hating on Belt, I love the guy. I'm just merely pointing out the reality of what the Giants management tend to expect out of a first baseman. Crawford has less expectations and has come closer to what they want out of a shortstop. Crawford can have another season like he had last year and he'd still be our shortstop in 2014. Belt on the other hand might have a few guys breathing down his neck if he doesn't improve this season.

Dood - bottom line is this. If you want to compare Belt with other first basemen, feel free. But if you're going to compare his hitting with another player's, you can't give that other player a handicap because he plays a "defensive position." It's either Belt is better or Crawford is better. Positions dont matter if you compare the two.

Oh, and btw...wasnt Crawford selected higher than Belt in the draft? Why arent his expectations higher?

~Dood