Impossible to believe ... but yet it isn't.

[sharksrog]

The Hall of Fame has recently released some scouting reports that go well back in baseball. Perhaps the most fascinating -- and unbelievable if we didn't know him -- report is on Hunter Pence.

I swear this is true. I'm not pulling your leg. It's from a White Sox scout. I'm taking a lot of time to recreate this because it's so unbelievable -- except, of course, that it's Hunter Pence. Here are parts of the scouting report:

"Gangly. Runs like a rotary telephone thrown into a running clothes dryer. Throws like an effete Frenchman throwing a bookcase uphill. Swings like his elbows are stapled to his knees and his underwear is pulled over his head. Stares at you when you aren't looking."

"Puts whispers into your head, inviting you to become one with his people before the coming encroachment, breaking down your will and autonomy by replacing your thoughts with a one word mantra of 'JOIN JOIN JOIN' until you break down, sobbing, a shell of yourself looking to become wholly reborn within his protection. Takes the occasional bad break on fly balls."

"Please consider this my 30-day notice. I doubt my ability to do this job properly anymore. I doubt my ability to scout baseball players effectively. I doubt my ability to sleep when I close my eyes. I doubt my faith. I doubt. I doubt. Oh, god, how I doubt."

It is hard to believe a scout said this (although I have actually seen a printed copy of the report). But then again, it's Hunter Pence.

The scout does mention that Pence does everything well and should hit for both average and power, and cites 4.2 speed to first base.

I may go years before I again see something this strange in baseball. I don't doubt it. I don't doubt it. Oh, God, how I don't doubt it.

Have I yet spoken to you about the coming encroachment?

[donk]

I think it is clear that the guy thinks Pence is a visable wreck and he defies all the parameters that scouts look for in a player, but that he is a very good player...

[sharksrog]

I thnk more than that is clear!

[allenreed]

I think the guy who wrote the report is a wreck and needs to get professional help. I was with him up to the "puts whispers in your head" paragraph.
You have to give credit to the guys who signed Pence. Alot of scouts would see him play and just dismiss him. Obviously, someone did a good job scouting this guy.

[sharksrog]

Allen -- You have to give credit to the guys who signed Pence. Alot of scouts would see him play and just dismiss him. Obviously, someone did a good job scouting this guy.

Rog -- Hunter hit .347 with a .967 OPS and .395 with a 1.057 OPS in his two years of college. He was going to get drafted even if he were FDR.

Hunter was drafted #64 overall in the 2004 draft. He was rated the #38 overall prospect for 2007 and debuted April 28th of that year.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1713&page=1#10828#ixzz2TVVzkN3y

[allenreed]

I'm thinking of farther back than that. You've seen Pence, he can look awfully bad, both at the plate and in the field. If you showed up and watched him once, and he swung at alot of bad pitches, and looked like someone having a seizure as he chased a flyball, I could see someone watching him and just saying "forget it". Just watching him in the on deck circle can give you second thoughts.

[Islandboagie]

Speaking of Hunter Pence...Rog had previously talked about the Giants success in the post-season being in large part due to luck, eventhough no "lucky" or "unlucky" play was the difference between a win and a loss. The Giants won 9-0 in the final game in the NLCS, but in that game was the infamous hit by Hunter Pence which had a crazy spin on it.

After watching Crawford make the play on the ball in yesterday's game I wonder if Crawford would have had a better shot at making the play on the ball hit from Pence. There was a degree of difficulty on both plays, but perhaps more so for Crawford yesterday. Both balls had a crazy spin on it, but Crawford was at a disadvantage because he only had one play, first base. Kozma could have gone to 2nd, or 3rd as well. Crawford had only one option, barehand it and make a strong throw to first while on his heels. Which begs the question, could Crawford have made the play on Hunter's 3-hit ball? Or at very least could he have kept it on the infield?

I don't know if Crawford is the best shortstop in baseball, I think he's definitely among them, but one thing he is likely best at is his reactions. How many times have we seen balls hit off the pitcher that he's adjusted to and plays perfectly, this is the area where Crawford exceeds all other shortstops imo. If anyone COULD have made that play, I'd guess Crawford would top the list based on his ability to adjust during a play.

The play he made yesterday also speaks volumes to my point about "luck." Rog would have called that play "luck" if it had gone for a base hit, however, Crawford's play on that ball erased the luck factor and turned it into just a ground ball out in the box score. The best teams more often than other teams, erase those bad luck situations and take advantage of the good luck situations.

[sharksrog]

Regarding luck, Boagie, it is almost ALWAYS a factor at the highest levels in which team wins the tournament. For starters, it has to get hot at the right time, which if it were good enough to do on command, would lead to 120 or more regular season wins. For finishers, a fairly percentage of games hangs on which way two or three plays go. The line drive out with the bases loaded may have been hit much harder than the bloop that just falls in, but the reward is far different. In between are other factors including wind, sun and bounces.

If the best team always won, tournaments would be boring.

As for the play Crawford made, it was absolutely spectacular. I doubt there were many, if any, other shortstops who would have made it -- and I'm not sure Crawford himself would make it every time.

You are right about Crawford's having perhaps the best reactions of any player in the game. Possibly not even the fastest, but certainly the most effective.

As for the play in the World Series, I don't think there was any player in history who could have made it from the same position on the field. The shortstop actually broke the wrong WAY on the ball and missed it by a sizeable distance. I'm not sure any player could have read that particular play.

Now, it would be exciting to see if Brandon COULD make that play if given the opportunity, but I would bet that he couldn't. Russ Hodges said of Willie Mays' great catch off Vic Wertz in the 1954 World Series, the play "must have seemed like an optical illusion to a lot of people." I think the way the ball traveled on that particular triple hit WAS an optical illusion.

As for Crawford's ranking among the defensive shortstops in the game, it would seem he MUST be among the very best. He makes spectacular plays, and often makes them in a very smooth way. He has come a long way from a guy who two or three years ago wasn't even considered by many to be the best shorstop in the Giants' organization.

One particular scout said it quite well, I thought, when he said that Brandon was the best in the game on balls he could get to. In other words, other shortstops may have a bigger RANGE, but Brandon's effective range is right up there with the players who can cover more ground.

Remember that a year ago this time, Brandon was having a hard time with the routine play. He has improved greatly in that regard (He was simply in a slump) and now makes the routine play well and the great play even better. He has very sure hands, the reactions you mentioned, a rocket arm, and the agility to get off strong, accurate throws in Houdini-like fashion.

Perhaps some day we will hear that a shortstop made a play "with Brandon Crawford-like smoothness." On certain plays, Crawford appears stirred but not shaken.

[donk]

Crawford is an old time shortstop...he goes into the hole, plants his right foot, plays the ball off that foot and makes the strong throw to first ....most shortstops make the Caribbean play, catch the ball and keep running towards left field and makes a jumping, rainbow throw to first...where were all you Crawford believers when he was hitting below .200 and making errors and I said he would hit and his glove was worth keeping until his average came up??

[Islandboagie]

Dk- .where were all you Crawford believers when he was hitting below .200 and making errors and I said he would hit and his glove was worth keeping until his average came up??

Boagie- I've supported Crawford since day one. I absolutely hated Tejada and Orlando Cabrera and favored Crawford as our shortstop due to his fielding and timely hitting.

[allenreed]

I was willing to wait and see. Even the Giants doubted that Crawford would hit. I think he only got called up because someone got hurt. Then he hit the Grand Slam at Milwaukee and that bought him some time. He's worked hard and developed. Give him credit.

[klaiggeb]

Dk- .where were all you Crawford believers when he was hitting below .200 and making errors and I said he would hit and his glove was worth keeping until his average came up??

Boagie- I've supported Crawford since day one. I absolutely hated Tejada and Orlando Cabrera and favored Crawford as our shortstop due to his fielding and timely hitting.

---boly says---

As I recall, it was pretty much just the 3 of us that were backing Crawford as much then, as now.

Then again, you have to throw out my opinion because I was also a big Burriss backer and an Ishikawa backer, and a Bowker backer.

All of which should make my opinions irrelevant.



boly

[allenreed]

I was big on Damon Minor. So we all have our Jason Ellisons, not just Don.

[sharksrog]

Don -- Crawford is an old time shortstop...he goes into the hole, plants his right foot, plays the ball off that foot and makes the strong throw to first ....most shortstops make the Caribbean play, catch the ball and keep running towards left field and makes a jumping, rainbow throw to first...

Rog -- To me it seems that more and more shortstops are making more plays from in the hole. I am highly impressed by how many plays are made -- sometimes with a step or two to spare -- from deep in the hold and on the outfield grass.

Remember Davey Conception's skip throw off AstroTurf to first base? We no longer have AstroTurf, of course, but to me it seems there are more and more shortstops who can make that throw without having to bounce the ball.

In Crawford's case, he has great reactions as Bogie mentioned, he has outstanding body control, and he has a strong arm.

Don -- where were all you Crawford believers when he was hitting below .200 and making errors and I said he would hit and his glove was worth keeping until his average came up??

Rog -- I agreed on the glove, but I didn't think he would hit nearly as well as he has so far this season. A stat I just noticed about Brandon that really impressed me: He has hit as many line drives this season as he has hit fly balls. I'm not sure I've seen that before.

He is striking out about as often, but he isn't swinging and missing as often. He's not going outside the strike zone as often, and not contact as often when he does so (which is probably better than making contract MORE often on bad pitches).

He's hitting many more ground balls now, which should improve his average, but which would normally cut down on his power. The former has happened, but not the latter.

I don't think Brandon will hit as well the rest of the way as he has thus far this season. A lot of seeing-eye hits. But there is no reason he shouldn't improve significantly, just as he did from 2011 to 2012.

I have raised my sights on Brandon as a hitter. He's being more selective, allowing him to draw more walks and hit better pitches. I don't think he will continue at what is an excellent pace for a shortstop, but that doesn't mean he won't wind up with a nice season with the bat.

I didn't think Brandon would hit better than OK for a SHORTSTOP. It now appears he might hit OK. He's not a proven hitter yet, but his rate of improvement has been impressive.

If Brandon continues to hit close to this level, I will have been guilty of underestimating him as a hitter. He's nowhere near the hitter he was when I made my original call as he was hitting .371 at San Jose, but it didn't take a genius to see no one could keep THAT up.

For the last four months or so of actual play, Brandon has actually been a pretty good hitter. I hope he keeps it up.

Defensively, if he can get there, he's about as good as anyone in the business. Maybe THE best in those cases.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1713&page=1#10851#ixzz2TkxW3aBo

[sharksrog]

Allen -- I'm thinking of farther back than that. You've seen Pence, he can look awfully bad, both at the plate and in the field. If you showed up and watched him once, and he swung at alot of bad pitches, and looked like someone having a seizure as he chased a flyball, I could see someone watching him and just saying "forget it". Just watching him in the on deck circle can give you second thoughts.

Rog -- Let's not give the scouts TOO much credit for accurately scouting Hunter prior to college. Coming out of junior college, he was only a 40th-round pick. It appears to be his college performance that allowed him to become the 64th overall pick.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1713&page=1#10866#ixzz2Tl8PsURu

[sharksrog]

Boagie- I've supported Crawford since day one. I absolutely hated Tejada and Orlando Cabrera and favored Crawford as our shortstop due to his fielding and timely hitting.

Rog -- Brandon essentially beat out Miguel, leading to Tejada's being released with a month to go in the 2010 season. Cabrera was brought in to complement Crawford's lefty bat and to add experience.

Cabrera had a chance to take the job away from Brandon, but he was unable to do so for very long.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1713&page=1#ixzz2Tl97ZMzS

[sharksrog]

A guy I thought would become a nice reliever was Billy Sadler. He had control issues, but he had been Brian Wilson's set up man at LSU, and he could strike batters out about as well as Brian.

Billy wound up pitching all of 39 major league games with a 4.59 ERA. He wound up allowing less than a hit per inning and struck out more than a batter per, but he allowed 30 walks and 8 home runs in just 49 frames.

Among position players, I don't remember OVERrating much of anyone, but I definitely UNDERestimated Pablo Sandoval and now perhaps Brandon Crawford.

[donk]

The difference between Sandoval and Crawford compared to some of the rookies that never made it was that the Gianys were forced to give these guys extended trials because of need...other guys were never given the extended time to adjust to the "speed' of the bigs....with a great need for a right handed bat, the Giants gave Pill another chance after putting up great numbers in AAA...he finally got a chance to start a game...goes 2 for 5, 2 doubles, and is rewarded by a quick trip back to the minors..so now they are back to needing a right handed bat and they can't solve the quantity problem in pitching so they are going to try solving it with quantity....

[Islandboagie]

Dk- The difference between Sandoval and Crawford compared to some of the rookies that never made it was that the Gianys were forced to give these guys extended trials because of need...other guys were never given the extended time to adjust to the "speed' of the bigs..

Boagie- Sandoval didn't need an extended trial, he hit right off the bat, I'll agree with Crawford. Sandoval and Crawford were considered the future of the team, unlike the players you are comparing them to. Belt has received a longer trial period than about anyone else that I can remember, and his wasn't due to a need.

I like Pill, I think he compliments Belt well at first, and with Blanco or Torres in LF. However, right now we need more long relievers due to the fact that our starting pitchers are struggling to make it to the 5th inning. I get this move, but I think bringing up a starter and giving Vogey, Timmy, and Matt a day off would be the smartest move. Skip them all once over the next 3 rotations.

[donk]

ah, now you are suggesting what I proposed last year when some of the starters were in trouble...go to a six man rotation and see if more rest will help, but nothing is sure...Pablo had a good start, but he had all kinds of troubles in 2010....they threatened him if he didn't control his weight, etc.....and they keep going back to him.....I don't like broken threats, but his hitting is needed....but I fear for his health if he doesn't lose weight....

[sharksrog]

Don -- The difference between Sandoval and Crawford compared to some of the rookies that never made it was that the Gianys were forced to give these guys extended trials because of need.

Rog -- You make a good point here, but perhaps it is incomplete. Pablo and Brandon did indeed fill needs, but only Brandon was more or less left out there because there was no one else. And in Brandon's case, the Giants also kept a longer leash on him because they liked his Arizona Fall League performances.

So one could say that Pablo in particular and Brandon to a far lesser extent kept their positions in great part because they PERFORMED.

The Giants had needs for pretty much all the other guys you have mentioned who failed, as well as those who succeeded. Manny Burriss, Matt Downs, Kevin Frandsen, Nate Schierholtz, Jason Ellison. Those guys didn't grasp the chance.

In Nate's and Kevin's cases, they were hampered by injuries. For the most part, the other guys just didn't get the job done.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1713&page=1#10875#ixzz2TqapTdtf

[sharksrog]

Boagie -- Sandoval and Crawford were considered the future of the team, unlike the players you are comparing them to.

Rog -- I agree that Pablo and Crawford were considered better prospects than most of the other guys, but neither was truly rated a top prospect.

Boagie -- Belt has received a longer trial period than about anyone else that I can remember, and his wasn't due to a need.

Rog -- Brandon WAS considered to be a top prospect. While he is extremely streaky, he does have two advantages that help keep him in the lineup. He is a top defensive first baseman, and he gets on base.

Boagie -- I like Pill, I think he compliments Belt well at first, and with Blanco or Torres in LF.

Rog -- Brett seems rather limited. He isn't a good left fielder, he's not a top first baseman, he doesn't have good power for a first baseman, and he doesn't get on base.

Boagie -- However, right now we need more long relievers due to the fact that our starting pitchers are struggling to make it to the 5th inning. I get this move, but I think bringing up a starter and giving Vogey, Timmy, and Matt a day off would be the smartest move. Skip them all once over the next 3 rotations.

Rog -- Your idea is likely a good one. The problem is that the Giants don't have anyone good to move up. The top starter at Fresno has been the recently converted Shane Loux, and Loux 15 walks compared to 15 strikeouts is disturbing.

Richmond's top starter, Justin Fitzgerald, was promoted to Fresno, made one spotty start (9 hits and 2 walks in 5 innings), and hasn't pitched in 9 days, leading me to believe he may be injured.

Clayton Blackburn got off to an outstanding start at San Jose, but he has been racked in each of his four starts and has seen his ERA rise by about three runs to 4.39.

So while I like your idea, how do the Giants implement it -- unless they trade for another starter?

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1713&page=1#ixzz2TqcibZ1l

[sharksrog]

Don -- ah, now you are suggesting what I proposed last year when some of the starters were in trouble...go to a six man rotation and see if more rest will help


Rog -- The Giants had the same issue a year ago: Whom do you use as the 6th starter? Don't know how the Giants' starters will work out their problems this season, but last season I would say the results of staying with five starters were very good.
Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1713&page=1#ixzz2TqgiMrvm