Is the Color of Gary's Future Brown?

[sharksrog]

Very nice article on Gary Brown in Baseball Prospectus. This is probably copyrighted, but my usual advice is that you should really subscribe to the publication.

A few of my own comments on facts and opinions regarding Brown:

. After a slow start, Gary is hitting an impressive .339 in the Arizona Fall League. But he has only five walks, two doubles and one triple in 59 at bats, striking out 13 times. He is only 2 for 5 in steal attempts.

The .339 is encouraging, but it has been fashioned with an unsustainable .435 Batting Average on Balls In Play. He has added only 46 points to his OBP with walks and 78 points to his SLG.

If we add that to the .270 average mentioned in the article, we get only a .316 OBP (ouch for a leadoff man) and .348 SLG. That would be a .664 OPS, which wouldn't come close to cutting it.

I'm in the camp of "just don't know" about Gary, but unfortunately I'm leaning seriously toward the negative. On the other hand, Randy has seen Gary play, which I haven't had the pleasure of doing, and he's very positive about Brown.

Maybe Gary's future isn't black, nor gray, nor even brown. Randy would have us believe it is a clear and bright white. We all hope so.

November 8, 2012

Prospect Profile

Gary Brown

by Hudson Belinsky

Fifteen months ago Gary Brown was viewed by many as an elite prospect, destined to lose Gold Gloves to inferior defenders and lead the Giants to the Promised Land. People were amazed that 23 players were selected before Brown in the 2010 draft. When teams would inquire on Brown, the Giants would show reluctance to part with him to shore up their club in the short term. Many expected him to make it to the majors quickly and become the team’s center fielder of both the present and future.




Ken Rosenthal✔
@ken_Rosenthal

#Mets had asked #SFGiants for RHP Wheeler or OF Brown. Not getting Wheeler. We'll see on Brown. #tradedeadline #MLB

27 Jul 11 Reply
Retweet
Favorite



Now, it looks like Brown is going to forever be remembered as the guy the Giants kept instead of Zack Wheeler, even though it’s unclear how exactly the Mets’ and Giants’negotiations went in the Carlos Beltran trade. After two years of professional baseball, Brown has become yet another “if he can hit…” prospect. What was once viewed as a special talent is now a mysterious talent. There are various opinions out there on the Cal State Fullerton product. If you believe in the hit tool, you think he’s going to be a great player. If you don’t, you think he’s a fourth outfielder. If you’re not certain, you’re in the majority.

****

“As he grew up in our program, he became more and more of a game changer,” said Dave Serrano, who coached at Cal State Fullerton from 2008-2011. Brown opted for an education after the A’s took him in the 12th round of the 2007 draft and arrived at Fullerton in need of some muscle. He proceeded to add some meat to his bones and became an excellent college baseball player. Late in Brown’s college career, he suffered a broken finger that sidelined him for a few weeks leading up to the draft. Teams weren’t able to get their final looks at Brown, which probably led a few teams to shy away from him. Questions about Brown’s hit tool wouldn’t have been answered in those few weeks, but teams had just a tiny bit less information on him. San Francisco ultimately nabbed him with the 24th overall pick, but his late signing prevented him from playing in games until 2011.

Brown’s first professional season went well. Extremely well, actually. He hit .333/.418/.427 in April and followed it up with a .397/.453/.612 slash in May. Even though he was in the California League, his numbers were impressive. It looked like Brown would fly through the Giants’ system. Some foresaw a possible midseason promotion to Double-A in 2011 with a chance to earn a big-league spot in 2012 camp. Instead, San Francisco kept Brown in High-A all season.

In 2012, Brown was promoted to a much more pitcher-friendly Eastern League. He struggled to make contact in the first few months of the season, but after a strong June/July push ended up with a .279/.347/.385 line. Serious doubts about his hit tool resurfaced, and his approach hadn’t seen significant improvements.

Its easy to see what scouts love about Brown. He’s an elite runner and a superb defender in center field. There’s also a smidge of power, but it isn’t an impact tool. In order to provide value as a big leaguer, Brown probably won’t need more than an average hit tool. Unfortunately, that’s the mystery around him, and sources offer varying opinions on him.

Some scouts think he’ll turn into a pesky up-the-middle-player who hits in the .270 neighborhood while bothering pitchers on the bases. Others see him as a fourth outfielder whose hit tool just won’t play well enough to give him a career as a solid regular. Personally, I see Brown’s hit tool as a 50 at maturity. He can square up prime-time velocity, and the swing is short enough for me to be comfortable with an average grade. It will be fun to see how his speed impacts his offensive output. With routine groundouts turning into hits and singles turning into doubles, Brown’s offensive deficiencies could be somewhat shielded by that speed.

This coming season is going to be a big one for Brown. Many believe that he won’t be ready to contribute in the majors, but a strong year in the PCL could put Brown in consideration for the job in center for the next several seasons.

[rxmeister]

Kinda sounds like if you made a 1-10 scale, where Angel Pagan is a 10 and Gregor Blanco is a 1, Gary Brown will kind of be a 5. I can see the Giants walking away from Pagan if the price gets too high, and taking their chances with Blanco in CF for a year till Brown is ready. On another interesting note, Cody Ross tweeted that he was on his way to San Francisco today. Didn't say if it was business or just a visit. A Ross, Pagan, Pence outfield, with Blanco backing them up wouldn't be too bad.

[sharksrog]

Mark -- Kinda sounds like if you made a 1-10 scale, where Angel Pagan is a 10 and Gregor Blanco is a 1, Gary Brown will kind of be a 5. I can see the Giants walking away from Pagan if the price gets too high, and taking their chances with Blanco in CF for a year till Brown is ready. On another interesting note, Cody Ross tweeted that he was on his way to San Francisco today. Didn't say if it was business or just a visit. A Ross, Pagan, Pence outfield, with Blanco backing them up wouldn't be too bad.

Rog -- Nice comments all around. If the Giants were to sign Cody again, I would go a strict platoon until Gregor went into a slump, in which case I would play Cody more. Cody is very good against southpaws (.928 career OPS) but mediocre against righties (.727 OPS).

Gregor's .698 OPS against righties isn't quite as high as Cody's, but given the advantages Gregor has in the field, on the bases and in making fewer outs (.358 OBP compared to Cody's .312 against righthanders), I would much rather have Gregor than Cody in left against righties.

And of course if we were talking about center, it would be even less close IMO. Cody is just such a limited hitter. Against southpaws he's an All-Star. Against righties, he's a fourth outfielder.

If the league were made up primarily of southpaws, Cody would have a lot more value.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1304#ixzz2BhBT7Pne

[sharksrog]

By the way, on that 1-10 scale with Angel at 10 and Gregor at 1, the range on what Gary could be ranges from a 0 to a 15.

Because Gregor can get on base, while Gary has shown little ability to do so, I think it is possible Gregor could actually be the better of the two. Brown has a chance to become an outstanding defensive player, but I think Gregor is even better. Gregor will likely be the better base runner, although Brown has even more speed.

Down the line, a platoon of the two in center wouldn't be the end of the world -- just as a platoon of Gregor and Cody in left wouldn't be horrible right now.

I mentioned at the time that had Ross's price come down to $2 million for 2012, I think the Giants would have bitten. Maybe this year they will bite at something like $5 million. IMO it's tough for him to be worth that much, since his value is against southpaws, and he can't play enough against them to realize that high a price.

Would I rather have Melky at $8 million or Cody at $5 million? Not even close.

[Islandboagie]

Knowing what we know now, and if you were Brian Sabean...besides completely backing out of the deal which is what they should have done, who would you give up, Wheeler or Brown?

I would have chosen to keep Wheeler.

#1 that would enable the Giants to sign Pagan to a 4+ year deal without any regrets

#2 with Lincecum and Zito likely becoming free agents after 2013 it would be nice to have a guy in our system to fill one of those spots.

#3 Brown has been solid thus far, he fell off some in Richmond, but in retrospect almost all of them do. Brown had a very nice year in San Jose in 2011, but Brandon Crawford actually had a higher ops than Brown did in San Jose. In recent years players who make it to the major league level normally tear it up in San Jose.

Brown has certainly proven to be our most likely candidate for coming up and sticking at the major league level within the next 2 years, but to what extent? He's been good, but I havent gotten the sense that he was a man amongst boys like I did with the murder's row in 2009, or Lincecum and Bumgarner. Some of the murder's row have fallen off infact.

I'm not even sure where Thomas Neal is now, I think in the Cleveland system somewhere?

Villalona killed someone.

Kieschnick has had up and down years since, still strikes out a ton.

Gillespie can't catch a baseball, and doesn't hit enough to make up for it.

Honestly, the only one of that group who hasn't made it yet, and still has a chance to develop into a viable major leaguer is Nick Noonan.

So..I like Gary Brown, he has amazing speed and could be a good leadoff hitter in the future, but right now I just don't see him at the level of the guys who've succeeded before him. I don't see him overwhelmingly prove that he belongs at a level higher like I did with Posey, Sandoval, Belt, Lincecum, Bumgarner and Crawford.

I'm not ready to pencil this guy in to the lineup in 2014, therefor I don't think the decision to sign or not to sign Pagan should be affected by that.

Like you said, Rog, This year is his big year to prove something, thus far he really hasn't done so.

[sharksrog]

The 2008 San Jose Giants had such good hitters (at that level) that Thomas Neal batted ninth to open the season. Within a month, he was batting cleanup.

Despite what a group of hitters that lineup was (Brandon Crawford hit .371 before quickly being promoted to AA), but I didn't like any of them as hitters. Neal seemed the best of the group, but he struggled in AA the next season.

Thomas pulled it together this past season though, hitting .314 with a .867 OPS in AAA. It earned him 23 at bats with the Indians, although he hit only .217.

K/BB ratio isn't perfect, but it usually helps evaluate a hitter. Neal was about the only guy at San Jose that year who had a good K/BB ratio for his power level. That's why I wasn't sold on Crawford and other players who otherwise hit well at San Jose.

[rxmeister]

Wheeler was definitely the one to keep over Brown, but I think the 2011 SF Giants were so putrid offensively it clouded Brian Sabean's judgement. It was basically a no brainer to him to keep his number one hitting prospect over his number one pitching prospect when he looked at his good pitching lousy hitting team. Now it's obvious he made a mistake. I think he can re-sign Angel Pagan with no worries though, as the Giants still have room for Gary Brown because of the hole Melky left in the OF combined with the fact that Pence is in the last year of his deal.

[sharksrog]

Mark -- Wheeler was definitely the one to keep over Brown, but I think the 2011 SF Giants were so putrid offensively it clouded Brian Sabean's judgement.

Rog -- Because I worry about Gary's poor K/BB rate for a leadoff man, I would have traded him instead of Wheeler. But the mistake was in making the deal at all. Not because Carlos was a failure after the deal. (IMO that was far from the case, although I can see how some view it that way.)

The problem was giving up a top prospect (Wheeler among pitchers; Brown among position players) for a rent-a-player. Brian had previously said he wouldn't do that, and I'm sure he now wishes he hadn't. The trade was criticized by multiple posters at the time it was made.

Mark -- It was basically a no brainer to him to keep his number one hitting prospect over his number one pitching prospect when he looked at his good pitching lousy hitting team. Now it's obvious he made a mistake.

Rog -- IMO you keep the better prospect. If he plays a loaded position (especially starting pitcher), he can later be traded for a position of need.

Mark -- I think he can re-sign Angel Pagan with no worries though, as the Giants still have room for Gary Brown because of the hole Melky left in the OF combined with the fact that Pence is in the last year of his deal.

Rog -- The Giants aren't going to be counting on Gary Brown in 2013, although they would certainly like him to be their everyday center fielder in 2014. Angel could wind up being as expensive as 4/$50, but I do think he wants to remain a Giant.

If the Giants could indeed re-sign Angel, signing Melky to a one-year pact would give them a possible four outfielder for three positions in 2014. That would give the Giants protection should Brown not become what they are hoping for -- as well as giving them Pagan and Brown under contract so that they could pick and choose between Pence and Melky -- or re-sign both and execute a trade with the odd man out. Or simply give Brown more time to develop.

I'm almost positive the Giants are happy with Gary's .339 AFL average. I still have concerns though about his having only three extra bases and five walks in 59 at bats, his having 13 strikeouts, and his being only 2 for 5 in steal attempts.

Here is what I see with Gary:

Postitives:

. Has hit for good average.

. Has shown good pop for a leadoff hitter.

. Has tremendous speed and a good arm defensively. A very nice combination for AT&T Park.

Negatives:

. Doesn't walk enough for a leadoff man. Likely won't get on base enough unless he hits for a high average.

. Strikes out too much for a leadoff hitter. Could be in trouble if he takes pitches in order for his teammates to "see the pitcher's pitches" in the first inning.

. Doesn't steal base well, despite all his speed. He can steal them, but he gets thrown out too often for base stealing to be a positive weapon.

. I've heard some questions about his routes to the ball, but I can't honestly say if that is a problem or not, since I haven't seen him play. He does possess 80 speed on a scouting scale of 20 to 80, so he can outrun many of his mistakes.

If I were the Giants, I wouldn't count on Brown for more than a dark beige. Hopefully he'll turn out to be at least a deep tan.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1304&page=1#7431#ixzz2C24838nd

[Islandboagie]

Rog- I've heard some questions about his routes to the ball, but I can't honestly say if that is a problem or not, since I haven't seen him play. He does possess 80 speed on a scouting scale of 20 to 80, so he can outrun many of his mistakes.

Boagie- If I had to pick who was a better centerfielder last spring training, Brown or Pagan, I'd have easily picked Brown.

[sharksrog]

Rog- I've heard some questions about his routes to the ball, but I can't honestly say if that is a problem or not, since I haven't seen him play. He does possess 80 speed on a scouting scale of 20 to 80, so he can outrun many of his mistakes.

Boagie- If I had to pick who was a better centerfielder last spring training, Brown or Pagan, I'd have easily picked Brown.

Rog -- Very good point. Two things may mitigate it though. First, you likely didn't see much of either player, especially Gary. Second, Angel's defense early in the season WASN'T very good, although he corrected the situation as the season went on.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1304&page=1#7444#ixzz2C34arHyX

[Islandboagie]

Rog -- Very good point. Two things may mitigate it though. First, you likely didn't see much of either player, especially Gary. Second, Angel's defense early in the season WASN'T very good, although he corrected the situation as the season went on.

Boagie- Pagan's season still surprises me. I've never seen a player at his age improve defensively to that extent.

You're right about Brown. I havent seen him enough to give you a guaranteed scouting report on his defense, but from what I saw for the week I was in Scottsdale, Brown never misjudged a ball that ended up falling in. Whereas I recall seeing that a few times during spring training and at the begining of the year from Pagan. At that point it was fairly clear that Brown was likely the better fielder.

Now? I'm not sure. Pagan turned into a pretty decent centerfielder.

[sharksrog]

Boagie -- Now? I'm not sure. Pagan turned into a pretty decent centerfielder.

Rog -- Back in 2009, Pagan and Pence were considered among the very best at their respective positions. Both have declined since, although as you point out, Angel made a very strong comeback as this season went on.

By the way, I got a chance today to read what John Dewan had to say a year ago about Cody Ross's defense. Dewan mentioned that earlier in his career Cody was competent in center field but that in 2011 he was below average at each of the three outfield positions.

He surmised that Cody's best position was left field, where his arm wouldn't be as exposed.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1304&page=1#7449#ixzz2C4kX7XvB

[Islandboagie]

By the way, I got a chance today to read what John Dewan had to say a year ago about Cody Ross's defense. Dewan mentioned that earlier in his career Cody was competent in center field but that in 2011 he was below average at each of the three outfield positions.

He surmised that Cody's best position was left field, where his arm wouldn't be as exposed.

Boagie- John Dewan, another guy who has no understanding of baseball outside of the stats he dreams up. Another math and science guy who still believe there's a definite number for everything in life. It's like they're still working on a thesis paper that will never be finished because they keep leaving out the biggest factor to sports, the human factor.

I saw Cody Ross play the outfield in 2011 and he was a good corner outfielder and an adaquate centerfielder. Cody may have fallen off since then, but in 2011 he was good, so John Dewan's little book is wrong.

I have nothing wrong with researching numbers, but the stats geeks often think they know more than everyone else. In their mind the numbers tell the whole story.

This was evident today when Brian Kenny said his choice for the MVP was Ryan Braun over Posey.

[rxmeister]

Picking Braun over Posey ignores some baseball tenets, but it's certainly a valid pick. Number one, Posey led the Giants to a division title (award not based on post season) while the Brewers were bad most of the season before a late surge to respectability. Number two, Posey plays a position of far greater value than Braun, and he plays it a lot better than Braun plays his. And number three, Braun tested positive for PED's, but got away with it on a technicality. I would be shocked if he got enough votes to be even close to Posey. In fact, when he loses, I would suggest he be gracious about it.

[Islandboagie]

Braun would be a valid pick if Posey wasn't in the mix.

You listed enough reasons that would make it nearly impossible for a good baseball analyst to pick anyone other than Posey. One thing you didn't mention was the fact that Posey plays half his games at AT&T, while Braun plays half his in a hitter friendly park. Infact when you consider the whole NL central division, all the teams play in hitter friendly parks. So Braun has a big advantage in a large percentage of the games he plays in. Buster is at a large disadvantage playing a high percentage of his games in pitcher friendly parks.

It just goes to show you Brian Kenny ONLY considers the numbers while other good analysts consider the whole picture. IMO if you don't consider the whole picture you're not a very good analyst.

[sharksrog]

Boagie -- Braun would be a valid pick if Posey wasn't in the mix.

Rog -- Ryan did indeed have a very good season, although the steroid issue could put him behind Yadier Molina and/or Andrew McCutchen.


You listed enough reasons that would make it nearly impossible for a good baseball analyst to pick anyone other than Posey. One thing you didn't mention was the fact that Posey plays half his games at AT&T, while Braun plays half his in a hitter friendly park.

Rog -- Those factors contributed to Buster's 172 OPS+ vs. Ryan's 159. Buster's mark was higher even than Braun's MVP 166 OPS last season. Even more impressive, only Mike Piazza among catchers has had a higher one.

Boagie -- Infact when you consider the whole NL central division, all the teams play in hitter friendly parks. So Braun has a big advantage in a large percentage of the games he plays in. Buster is at a large disadvantage playing a high percentage of his games in pitcher friendly parks.

Rog -- That is why OPS+ is meaningful.

It just goes to show you Brian Kenny ONLY considers the numbers while other good analysts consider the whole picture. IMO if you don't consider the whole picture you're not a very good analyst.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1304&page=1#7529#ixzz2CGJUM7iD

[sharksrog]

Boagie -- It just goes to show you Brian Kenny ONLY considers the numbers while other good analysts consider the whole picture. IMO if you don't consider the whole picture you're not a very good analyst.

Rog -- Sorry, Boagie, but your premise is wrong IMO. I have seen a lot of Kenny, and he definitely considers more than numbers -- usually presenting both sides of a story (something that is often lacking here).

Boagie -- IMO if you don't consider the whole picture you're not a very good analyst.

Rog -- I agree with you completely here. And part of that whole picture is examing the facts -- which usually come in the form of statistics.

And just as an important part of scouting is evaluating what you see (or at least think you see) is analyzing what you see, analyzing the statistics is an important part evaluating using them.

More and more baseball execs are realizing that scouting AND analytics are important.

While stats guys usually aren't as good at scouting as most scouts are, it is an entire misconception that they don't know the games. Believe me, most of them know the game as well as most here.

I would admonish you, Boagie, to indeed look at the whole picture. I think Brian Kenny makes a serious effort to do so.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1304&page=1#ixzz2CGPGycks


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1304&page=1#ixzz2CGOjCLh0

[Islandboagie]

Rog -- Sorry, Boagie, but your premise is wrong IMO. I have seen a lot of Kenny, and he definitely considers more than numbers -- usually presenting both sides of a story (something that is often lacking here).

Boagie- I've seen alot of Kenny too, and I disgaree. I think Brian Kenny focuses on Sabermetrics period. His show however tells both sides of the story because Kenny usually has at least one guest that has the opposite point of view. So his show does present both sides, but Kenny himself usually focuses on the numbers. He usually comes out with the numbers, someone comes back at him with some human factors, then Kenny responds with.. "But the numbers are right here, do you want to see them again?"

As I've always said, Brian Kenny's point of view should always be considered. The advancement of statistical analysis is an important part of the game, but it's not the main part of the game like Kenny and others seem to believe.

The problem with Kenny, and you, is that you often state those numbers as facts. Yes, it is true that someone's WAR might be 9.4 or something, I guess you could say that the actual number itself is a fact, but you and Kenny claim it factually proves that one player is better than another player, which it doesn't. WAR is far to flawed for me to take that number into consideration as proof that one player is better than another.

Brian Kenny will also make a point and use WAR to make his point, then when other analysts point out the flaws of WAR he agrees and backs off of using it for the time being. Later on he will insert WAR into another topic. If you know WAR is flawed, but yet you're still using it to prove a point, then you've already lost the argument.

OPS+...again, another number that is flawed. I guess you COULD use it in an argument, but you likely wouldn't prove anything. There's far too many variables to consider. OPS is a fact, that is what that player's on base percentage + slugging percentage is, there's no disregarding that stat. There's no other variables involved with that, there's nobody adding a stat that represents what that player had for breakfast and how it affected his hitting.

OPS+ is OPS plus alot of variables that one person felt was in play..that's not really a fact, that's a number resulting from someones hypothisis based on facts, opinions and could greatly be affected random occurances.

For example, Ryan Braun could be playing a weekend series in Chicago against the Cubs. Wrigley is a fairly easy park to hit homeruns in, but lets say the wind is blowing in. As we know..if the winds at Wrigley are blowing in it's actually very tough to hit a homerun there. Let's say Ryan hits 2 homeruns while the wind is blowing in.

That same night Buster Posey is in San Francisco playing the Astros and also hits two homeruns that barely clear the wall with the wind blowing out against a pitcher who shouldn't even be at the major league level.

At the same time, both drew one walk. Braun grinded out a 10 pitch at-bat and drew a walk, and buster got walked on 4 pitches.

I'm glad that Buster hit two homeruns no matter what the condition is, but the fact is, Buster's OPS+ would be higher than Braun's for that day. But yet, if you consider all the variables, Ryan Braun was much more likely to have been the better hitter that night.

That's ONE game that has already made OPS+ a flawed number, Rog. Just one game, and there's 161 more games in a season that could fudge those numbers even more.

That's my whole point, Rog. I don't think there's a clear cut number to judge a player. But the stat geeks are still trying to come up with one. I think the research going into baseball is great, and I'm glad it's continuing to be explored. But, constantly second guessing what we know of the game is a little arrogant. Especially when you're using numbers that have as much to do with one person's opinion as it does with facts.

Which brings me to this AL MVP discussion that's a big topic now on the MLB Network. Getting the triple crown in baseball has historic significance that trumps whatever Mike Trout did this season. No question Mike Trout had a very nice season, but Miguel Cabrera led his team to the playoffs, won the triple crown and showed a great attitude about having to switch positions. Those factors together in my mind make Cabrera the MVP.

Brian Kenny seems to be on the side of Trout winning because Trout was the more complete player. He disregards the historic significance, the leadership and the fact that one team made it to the playoffs and one didn't. Those factors NEED to be considered or the analysis isn't objective. Nobody questions that Trout is a great all around player, but yet Kenny feels that the triple crown is overrated. His response to the Tigers winning the division is that the Angels won 1 more game. I don't even think he acknowledges the fact that Cabrera switched positions because there's no stat for it.

To sum it up, I don't really care who wins the AL MVP. The point is, Brian Kenny acts as if nobody is smart enough to understand what a good player Mike Trout is, when it's clear everyone recognizes how good he is. They just realize the historic significance of what Cabrera did, Kenny doesn't.

In Brian's defense, I think he was hired by MLB Network to push sabermetrics and to kind of be "in your face" about it. So, I think he's just doing his job. I get that. But at the same time I think it would also be smart for him to back off of it at times to maybe let the opposite view have the last word. He tends to laugh off anyone who doesn't consider sabermetrics as factual as he does, but yet the person who thinks that way considers statistical analysis a crucial part of analyzing the game. There's not a balance of respect there, and Kenny's side is the side that's lacking.

[sharksrog]

Boagie -- The problem with Kenny, and you, is that you often state those numbers as facts.

Rog -- The reason we state statistics as facts is because they are. That is the only reason.

Boagie -- Yes, it is true that someone's WAR might be 9.4 or something, I guess you could say that the actual number itself is a fact, but you and Kenny claim it factually proves that one player is better than another player, which it doesn't. WAR is far to flawed for me to take that number into consideration as proof that one player is better than another.

Rog -- I'm not a huge fan of WAR, and today I heard Kenny say that it wasn't all that accurate either. One thing, though. If a guy's WAR is WAY better than another player, he likely was the better of the two players.

My personal way of evaluating hitters is bases earned (total bases plus walks plus hit by pitches plus sacrifices plus sacrifice flies) divided by outs made (at bats minus hits plus sacrifice flies plus sacrifice hits plus double plays). I also like to look at bases runners are advanced, although that does depend on part in the runners involved.

What I don't think you understand fully is that Wins Above Replacement, Runs Above Replacement, weighted On Base Average, etc. are objective evaluations, but not absolutes.

I think the reason you and others don't like statistical evaluation is that you don't have anywhere near a full understanding of it.

By the way, my bases earned per out made probably is used by others somewhere, but it just happens to be something I personally think is a darn good evaluation. The object of a hitter is to get on base, advance runners and (with the exception of sacrifices and sacrifice flies and occasional other outs) avoid making outs.

You know how the Giants talk about keeping the line moving? That's getting on base and avoiding making outs. The Giants didn't have much power this season, but they did do a decent job of keeping the line moving.

Here might be another way of looking at things. A guy who "scouts" the game and uses analytics can come up with more reasons for -- and against -- a player than a guy who uses only one or the other. He can often understand both sides of an argument better.

By the way, yesterday you criticized Brian Kenny for using only stats (which I don't think is true). Did you notice that on his show today he felt Ryan Braun should have been the MVP, but had several other guys on his show who each felt that Buster should have won? I have to give Kenny credit or trying to get both sides of an argument on his show.

It's something like I -- on a much smaller scale -- try to get both sides of an argument out here on the board. There is a lot that I evaluate before forming most of my opinions. And I am willing to change my opinion when someone makes a good case -- or I myself uncover more information.

An example happened just today. Before watching Clubhouse Confidential, I would have voted for Miguel Cabrera as the AL MVP. Four points changed me to Mike Trout:

. Mike was fabulous on the bases, while Miguel was just adequate.

. Mike played a more premium position.

. Mike was the better defender by far.

. Mike hit into 21 fewer double plays. (That's a lot of outs and lost runners. We sometimes focus on a hitter's strikeouts, since they are frustrating and involve no direct possibility of advancing a runner. But double plays are KILLERS.)

On behalf of Cabrera, one of my favorite players for many years now, he did move to third base so that Prince Fielder could play first. He did win the first Triple Crown in 45 years. He was excellent in September, while Trout was just OK.

One thing that helped Miguel win the award was that the Tigers made the postseason, while the Angels did not. But as Kenny pointed out on Clubhouse Confidential, that was because the White Sox fell apart to benefit the Tigers, while the A's got blistering hot to kill off the Angels.

The Angels actually won one more game than the Tigers. While there was no question that Cabrera was better than Trout down the stretch, the Angels played FAR better with Trout than they had played without him. Either the Angels got more lucky and/or Trout served as something of a catalyst.

The Angels didn't make the postseason because of two things beyond Trout's control. As mentioned, at the end of the season the A's got red hot. And at the beginning of the season, prior to Trout joining the Angels, Anaheim dug itself a big hole.

By the way, I thought Kenny made a nice case for Ryan Braun. Ryan WAS the best all-around player in the NL and led in OPS, homers and RBI's. But Buster gets my easy nod because he played a much more premium position.

Ryan had a very, very nice season for a left fielder. Buster had an all-time season, particularly when one considers the difficulty of hitting at AT&T this season, or a catcher.

IMO Kenny forgot about the importance of playing the more premium position. Something stats guys rarely do, since they were pretty much the first guys to properly recognize it.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1304&page=1#7534#ixzz2CL7pCBlm

[sharksrog]

Boagie- John Dewan, another guy who has no understanding of baseball outside of the stats he dreams up. Another math and science guy who still believe there's a definite number for everything in life.

Rog -- I think you really have a horrible idea of what Dewan is all about, Boagie. Dewan watches EVERY play by EVERY player all season long. How can he do that and have no understanding of baseball?

You have a pretty good understanding of the game, but did you take the time to watch every play made by every player before forming your own defensive opinions.

And you don't realize that while Dewan puts out multiple stats to help us better understand how guys field, he frequently goes against the stats with his own choices.

I think it is time you do more research before making statements you don't really know all that much about. I think you have a lack of total understanding (which is diffferent from a total lack of understanding, which I don't think you have), but at least you aren't derogatory as one other poster here is.

Boagie, there is no one here who has more broad experience with baseball than I. There are some -- such as Boly, who knows the mechanics of the game better than I or Don, who knows the older history better than I -- who have better knowledge in specific areas. But I have played the game, coached it, umpired it, studied it in both on-field and statistical regards. I do know a tiny bit about it -- from a lot of perspectives.

I'm not saying I know MORE than anyone else. But I do think it's accurate to say that no one here knows more than I.

In specific areas, absolutely. Overall, I find it hard to believe -- since I look at more areas than anyone else (and likely spend more time studying the game, as well).

I love it when guys argue with me. Often I learn from it. But I do find it discouraging when others seem very unwilling to consider all the facts and/or to change their opinions.

I often get things right -- because I learn not only from my own research, but from the ideas of others here.

If someone learns more from me than I do from them, they're probably going to know more than I. I try not to allow that to happen.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1304&page=1#ixzz2CLFyw4ut

[sharksrog]

Boagie -- I saw Cody Ross play the outfield in 2011 and he was a good corner outfielder and an adaquate centerfielder. Cody may have fallen off since then, but in 2011 he was good, so John Dewan's little book is wrong.

Rog -- Some here consider me to be arrogant. But I don't think I have EVER been as arrogant as you are being here.

John Dewan saw all of Cody's plays. Did you? Perhaps. Dewan saw all the plays made by every other outfielder, so he could compare them with the plays Cody made. Did you?

Yet you have the temerity to say that Dewan is wrong, that you are right. Once in a while I will value my opinion over Dewan's -- but very rarely. I'm not that arrogant.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1304&page=1#ixzz2CLJLY18H

[sharksrog]

Boagie -- I have nothing wrong with researching numbers, but the stats geeks often think they know more than everyone else.

Rog -- They often do, since they often know as much about the game in the traditional sense as you or I, but almost always know more about the statistical side.

It would be kind of like you knowing the height of every player in the league but not their weight and then saying you know more about the size of the players than someone who knows both their height AND their weight.

Boagie -- In their mind the numbers tell the whole story.

Rog -- If they truly did, I would agree much more with your point of view. But that just isn't the case. Like way too many who criticize so-called stats geeks, you make assumptions about their thinking that are often wrong.

One advantage I may enjoy is that I study more broadly than many. Another advantage is that I don't -- contrary to what some would think -- believe I know it all. When I have fully researched something from every angle I, or anyone I come in contact with, can think of, yeah, I think I have a pretty good idea about something.

But to an extent, it comes down to personal opinion. WasWillie Mays better than Barry Bonds? I have seen both play -- a lot -- and would say, yes. But others could make a good argument for Bonds, as well.

By the way, the numbers say BONDS was better. How is it that I believe the opposite -- since all I look at is stats?


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1304&page=1#ixzz2CLKSlBWs

[sharksrog]

Boagie- I've seen alot of Kenny too, and I disgaree. I think Brian Kenny focuses on Sabermetrics period. His show however tells both sides of the story because Kenny usually has at least one guest that has the opposite point of view.

Rog -- Which a guy who focuses solely on analytics would hesitate to do. I have seen Kenny show what the analytics say and then express his own differing opinion.

IMO you think that "stats geeks" are far more rigid than they are.

I'll give you a personal example. When you first suggested Cody Ross, I disagreed. But I later agreed with you to some extent, since Cody does have versatility and hits the heck out of left-handed pitching. He could make a good complement to a lefty hitter such as Gregor Blanco.

I did mention though that I believed Cody would be trying to get starters' money and that he almost certainly wouldn't be worth it. It is now said that he wants 3/$25 million. I just don't think he's close to being worth that much.

Last winter it took a long time or Cody to sign. I mentioned that I felt if they could get him for $2 million, the Giants themselves would sign him. He wound up getting $3 million from the BoSox, and more than earned his money -- because he just CRUSHED southpaw pitching. He still didn't hit right-handed pitching well though.

Cody has only a .324 OBP, which means he makes a lot of outs. He has power, but not a ton of it. That means he accumulates too few bases compared to the outs he makes.

Over his career, Cody has accumulated 1638 bases while making 2237 outs. That's .732 bases per out. Buster Posey was the NL MVP this season, a year in which he accumulated .976 bases per hit.

In other words, Cody has hit OK, but not particularly well. Defensively I would say he's a good left fielder, a so-so right fielder and a not-too-good center fielder. He does have the advantage of being able to play all three spots.

I don't really know how Cody is as a base runner. I would guess because of his decent speed, he's slightly above average. He has stolen only 30 bases over his career, but has been thrown out only 11 times, so at least his base stealing has been a slight positive.

If a team has Cody and Gregor Blanco as its 4th and 5th outfielders, I'd say that is a pretty good combination. Platooning the two would be far from a disaster to handle the left field position, but I would consider it to be well below average, even with the platoon leveraging.

I think Cody can fill a valuable role. I just don't think it is as a starter. At the right price, I would love to see him back. If used properly, he can be an asset. I just don't see him being available at anything approaching the right price.

I think he was a bargain at $3 million last season. I just think he isn't a good value at twice or three times that amount.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1304&page=1#ixzz2CLN4tmFL

[Islandboagie]

Rog -- Which a guy who focuses solely on analytics would hesitate to do. I have seen Kenny show what the analytics say and then express his own differing opinion.

IMO you think that "stats geeks" are far more rigid than they are.


Boagie- Brian Kenny is rigid. He's stated a few times during this little MVP debate that his side is the intellectual side. I find that insulting because I've followed the game of baseball longer than Brian Kenny has.

Yesterday when he had Keith Olberman and some other guy who both agreed with Brian Kenny's opinions on what's important when voting for the MVP, Kenny said that he couldn't get over the amount of logical thinking in the room. Basically saying anyone who doesn't believe the same way he does is illogical.

Brian Kenny clearly thinks he's smarter than anyone who doesn't follow the same philosophy as he does. If Brian Kenny (who has barely followed the game of baseball during his career) truely believes he understands the game better than someone who played the game or has followed the game longer than he has, then yes, I find that very rigid and very arrogant.

I believe sabermetrics does have a place in evaluating baseball. I think it's expanded the thinking of what players bring to a ballclub. But when someone who puts all the importance into sabermetrics claims that my opinion is not intellectual or that I'm being illogical, I tend to not want to listen to their side as much.

If Kenny wants to study stats and percentages, how about studying the percentage of baseball writers and analysts that agree with me, and not him. Those numbers have proven to be staggering.

[sharksrog]

Boagie -- Kenny said that he couldn't get over the amount of logical thinking in the room. Basically saying anyone who doesn't believe the same way he does is illogical.

Rog -- Really? So if I compliment you for your logical thinking, I'm saying that anyone who doesn't believe the same we we do is illogical? That isn't necessarily true.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1304&page=1#7550#ixzz2CQaqASv9

[sharksrog]

Boagie -- But when someone who puts all the importance into sabermetrics claims that my opinion is not intellectual or that I'm being illogical, I tend to not want to listen to their side as much.

If Kenny wants to study stats and percentages, how about studying the percentage of baseball writers and analysts that agree with me, and not him. Those numbers have proven to be staggering.

Rog -- Two things:

First, I think there are plenty of writers who agree with Kenny on many points.

Second, if writers disagree with him, that doesn't mean he's wrong any more than it means he's right when they agree with him.

I don't always agree with Kenny (such as on the NL MVP), but I like that he makes logical arguments -- and more often than not, I agree with him. A fair number of times he's made good points that have had me change or challenge my opinions.

He didn't sell me on Ryan Braun over Buster Posey, but he did sell me on Mike Trout over Miguel Cabrera. The only thing I didn't like about his Braun argument is that IMO he forgot the importance of playing a premium position while hitting at a high level. I also think he didn't give enough credence to park effect.

But those are clearly areas he understands. He and I simply saw it differently. I respect his analytical abilities whether we agree or disagree. I don't have to agree with someone in order to respect his logic and analysis.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1304&page=1#ixzz2CQbMSEHv