Right Field

[Rog]

The MLB Network last night released its top 10 right fielders right now last night.  There were wide divergences (for instance, Jay Bruce was ranked #2 on one list and didn't make the top 10 on another), but three things struck me.

.  Hunter Pence was ranked pretty much from #5 through #9.  That seems a bit high IMO, although clearly Hunter is above average.

.  Former Giant Mark De Rosa picked former Giant Carlos Beltran as his #1 right fielder and spoke even more highly of Beltran than I do.  Mark is clearly a chemistry guy (both in terms of generating it, and of appreciating it), and he chose a guy who has been criticized here for a lack of chemistry ingredients.

.  A guy we were told a year ago we shouldn't be discussing here -- Yasiel Puig -- was chosen #1 by "The Shredder," the MLB Network's official list.

 Clearly there are big differences of opinion on these lists, but simply making even the "narrowly missed" category indicates one is likely above average.

A year ago Angel Pagan made the "narrowly missed" category in center field.  After an injury-plagued 2013 season, this time he didn't.  As mentioned, Pence made this year's last, being on the "narrowly missed" list a year ago IIRC.

Brandon Crawford didn't make the shortstop list or narrowly missed list either time, although I suspect he's not too far away now.  Brandon is well regarded for his fielding, but most don't rate him as highly as we do here.

I haven't seen the starting pitcher list yet, but I would think Madison Bumgarner would be there somewhere.  He might have made the "narrowly missed" list a year ago.  He would join Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain as Giants pitchers who have made the list in recent years.

I'm guessing Yadier Molina went around Buster Posey last season, and the guy I'm curious to see rated is Brandon Belt.  Sergio Romo has been ranked high among relievers, but my guess is that he drops some this year.  Pablo Sandoval will be an interesting case.

Mike Morse made one of the list a couple of years ago (maybe even last year), so hopefully he will build himself back up to that level with the Giants.   Marco Scutaro was on last year's list and will likely make at least the "narrowly missed" list this year. 

[rxmeister]

I really don't care what those guys think, to be honest with you. Speaking of Pablo Sandoval, has anyone seen him lately? If you haven't, your jaws are going to drop to the floor the day he reports to spring training. He's actually thin! I hope he hasn't lost his power, but if he has, he still might steal 50 bases!

[Rog]

I really enjoy the rankings.

First of all, I don't really know all the players like I once did. This helps me keep up a little better with most of the players who are above-average.

Second, I like to see how different sources differ and why.

Finally, I get to see Bill James, who is one of the most knowledgeable of baseball experts. From him and from analysts such as Mark DeRosa, I learn quite a bit.

Former two-time executive of the year John Hart provides a fair amount of insight, as well. I recently learned it was he who pioneered locking up players before they become too expensive.

Sometimes I can get a little tired of these player rankings and the show Clubhouse Confidential, but I certainly learn a lot from them.

Just about anyone who watches some of the stuff on the MLB Network can learn so much more than we used to know about the game, its players, and how GM's think.

[allenreed]

Love MLB. It's a great channel, and other than Intentional Talk, all of the shows are informing and entertaining. I enjoy hte ranking shows, but I don't get too spun up about them. Just another person's opinion. One problem is when they get a big story (it doesn't even have to be that big) they spend hour after hour on it. The ARod story is one of the latest examples, the Kershaw signing another.
Speaking of Kershaw, what in the world is someone going to do with $215 million? I read that they're planning on giving a goodly portion to charity. That's a good deal. I'd love to be able to find someone that's struggling, and buy them a house or pay off all their bills for them. To me that would be the best thing about having that much money.

[Rog]

Clayton is making up to $33 million per season with that contract. I thought Tim would be the one who would clear the $30 million barrior for pitchers, but it turned out to be the guy drafted three slots ahead of him.

The Dodgers are becoming something of a monster. If they sign Tanaka and he turns out to be the real deal, they're going to be almost impossible to handle if healthy. Might be pretty tough to handle even if they're not healthy.

I'm still intrigued by the chemistry issue, so perhaps someone can tell me how when it was supposed to be the Dodgers' lack of chemistry holding them back, when suddenly they got relatively healthy again, the lack of chemistry no longer held them back.

I'm not at all saying that chemistry doesn't exist. I just wish someone could explain it -- and its effect -- to me. I really do.

I keep hearing things such as "You know when it's there," but no one seems to be able to put its effect into wins and losses. Or even hits and outs.

It doesn't take much to confuse me, and I'm really lost on this one. Even though I've been studying it for close to 40 years now. Someone out there help me. Please.

[allenreed]

First you'll have to understand and trust in the fact that there are things in baseball, and almost every other endeavor, that can't be quantified numerically. You don't think the atmosphere on the Dodgers changed when Puig joined the club? Seriously?

[Rog]

In life, there is quality to go along with quantity. Clearly quality is important.

In baseball, all there is is quantity. There may be different qualities that provide that quantity, but in the end, it is the team with the more runs that wins the game -- not the only that looked the prettiest or provided the most drama or excitement. We may judge players in baseball, but it is their numerical contributions that make up the game.

As for whether the atmosphere in the Dodgers clubhouse changed, I don't know (although I agree with you that it must have). But one would look at Puig's "intangibles" and likely think he would have a NEGATIVE effect on chemistry.

So let's take a look at how the Dodgers responded to Puig's presence. They won only 7 of his first 17 games -- even though he was hitting .455 in those 17 games. In other words, the other Dodgers aside from Puig appear to have been playing worse, not better.

I'm not saying the Dodgers chemistry DIDN'T change. But I don' think too many chemistry guys would have thought the combination of Puig and Ramirez would have changed it for he BETTER. The play of the duo certainly went a long way though. They might have been as good a pair of position teammates as there was the rest of the way.

I can show you how many bases Puig and Ramirez accumulated compared to the number of outs they made. We can see how that correlates to more runs scored by the Dodgers. I can't show how improved chemistry -- if indeed it did improve around the time Puig, Ramirez and Greinke entered the lineups -- improved the team.

Can you? If you can't quantify it to some degree, you can't prove it. Thus you say I HAVE to accept that it exists. I'll go along with you that it does. I just can't tell how much difference it makes. And in nearly 40 years of study, I haven't come across anyone else who can, either.

Perhaps you can be the first.

And Hanley Ramirez -- supposedly another negative chemistry guy, and the guy who couldn't be bothered to chase down a ball he kicked into the left field corner, barely jogging after it -- came back in Puig's second game, batting over .400 for more than a month. Still the Dodgers didn't kick into gear right away.

Zack Greinke also returned from the disabled list right before Puig was called up. Did Puig, Ramirez and Greinke change the clubhouse chemistry -- or did they simply improve the Dodgers' lineup and rotation a lot?

[rxmeister]

Yeah, I think the numbers Puig put up caused them to win a lot more than his addition to team chemistry. Brandon Belt made a comment about their chemistry, and some Dodgers fans jumped all over him when they made the playoffs. He just tweeted them a picture of his 2012 ring and that quieted them down! By the way, I think the Yankees will sign Tanaka because they need him so much more. I expect the Dodgers to then grab one of the remaining starters like Brandon Arroyo.

[sfgdood]

A guy we were told a year ago we shouldn't be discussing here -- Yasiel Puig -- was chosen #1 by "The Shredder," the MLB Network's official list.

Dood - the only poster I can recall telling other posters what they couldnt or shouldnt be discussing here is you. I definitely didn't see the point of discussing non-Giants prospects but it is a free message board and if you want to discuss the Dodgers or basketball or politics, have at it.

[allenreed]

Also Don, and Mark.

[Rog]

Rog -- A guy we were told a year ago we shouldn't be discussing here -- Yasiel Puig -- was chosen #1 by "The Shredder," the MLB Network's official list.

Dood - the only poster I can recall telling other posters what they couldnt or shouldnt be discussing here is you.

Rog -- I do tire of the continual political bantering when Boagie was nice enough to set up a sub-board just for that subject.

Randy -- I definitely didn't see the point of discussing non-Giants prospects but it is a free message board and if you want to discuss the Dodgers or basketball or politics, have at it.

Rog -- I rarely comment on politics, although I occasionally venture into other sports. I'm pretty sure you said that we shouldn't be discussing Puig, and yet he became a significant story in relation to the Giants' 2013 season. I showed it wasn't entirely true, but it was said here that it was Puig's arrival that sparked what turned out to be an incredible Dodgers run in 2013.

Our bringing up Puig here turned out to be somewhat prescient.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2172/right-field#ixzz2rHeN8uWT