|
Post by Rog on Feb 10, 2014 10:41:17 GMT -5
Just to wake you up this morning if your coffee doesn't, fill in the blank.
___________ is already a polished four pitch pitcher with excellent athletic ability. He threw an effortless 90-92 mph with a sharp, deep slider, a power curveball and an effective fading change up. He’s one of the very top pitchers in the 2005 class. We've seen him up as high as 94 mph with very good command.
If you haven't gotten it yet, scroll below for another clue:
At the top college in the country he is a top player immediately. It will be interesting to see if MLB clubs will draft him early as a pitcher. He's got one of the very best arms in the country.
Still not there? Scroll again:
He's also a highest level SS with his great arm, good hands and nice actions.
Not quite there yet? Scroll:
He shows big time hitting ability also with surprising power.
I know you've got it by now. Matt Cain. No, Brandon Crawford. No, Brandon Belt. No -- well I know you've got it now.
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Feb 13, 2014 22:01:54 GMT -5
Is it Russell Wilson, Seahawk QB?
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Feb 13, 2014 23:09:14 GMT -5
Top college in the country is highly subjective. Cain didn't go to college.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 14, 2014 23:27:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Feb 15, 2014 2:18:56 GMT -5
Phil Simms?
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Feb 15, 2014 2:21:01 GMT -5
Who is Kyle Kaepernick?
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 15, 2014 5:17:45 GMT -5
Remember, this is a Giants' board.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Feb 15, 2014 8:58:02 GMT -5
Thus my guess of Simms. I still don't know who Kyle Kaepernick is though. If you're speaking of Colin Kaepernick, thdn I would certainly question your choice of Nevada-Reno as the top school in ghe land.
|
|
|
Post by islandboagie on Feb 15, 2014 12:05:04 GMT -5
Buster Posey. His primary positions were pitcher and shortstop before he became a catcher. What do I win?
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Feb 15, 2014 14:17:50 GMT -5
Florida State is the top college in the country?
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Feb 15, 2014 17:02:44 GMT -5
Hmmm, Giants board. Andre The Giant?
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 15, 2014 23:15:15 GMT -5
We have a winner, Boagie. As for Allen's questioning whether Florida State is the top college in the country, the scout should have written a top college. But, hey, the guy's a scout. What do you expect? Congratulations to Baagie for getting the right answer. I tried to figure out if I would have gotten it. I think I would have, but it did involve knowing that Buster was originally a shortstop (which almost all of us do), that he had been a pitcher (and in fact was Florida State's closer, which I had mentioned here previously), and that he was still in high school (likely a senior) in 2005, which most of us could have imputed. Not an easy question, and congratulations to Boagie for getting it. I figured it would be Don.
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Feb 16, 2014 2:26:52 GMT -5
We have a winner, Boagie. As for Allen's questioning whether Florida State is the top college in the country, the scout should have written a top college. But, hey, the guy's a scout. What do you expect? Congratulations to Baagie for getting the right answer. I tried to figure out if I would have gotten it. I think I would have, but it did involve knowing that Buster was originally a shortstop (which almost all of us do), that he had been a pitcher (and in fact was Florida State's closer, which I had mentioned here previously), and that he was still in high school (likely a senior) in 2005, which most of us could have imputed. Not an easy question, and congratulations to Boagie for getting it. I figured it would be Don. dk...I didn't answer because I thought you were joking...your fondness for Posey and the comments made it obvious to me...and by the way, didn't Florida St. win the college World Series the year Posey played for them??? So the scout was probably correct....
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 17, 2014 11:01:54 GMT -5
dk...I didn't answer because I thought you were joking... Rog -- I went to a lot of work for it to be a joke, didn't it? Four or five clues? Don -- your fondness for Posey and the comments made it obvious to me... Rog -- Next time, just answer, if that's what you'd like to do. But don't jump in after the fact with comments like these. Don -- and by the way, didn't Florida St. win the college World Series the year Posey played for them??? Rog -- I didn't think they did win, although I'm far from certain. Meanwhile, why not stop trying to start your anti-Buster bandwagon? I think the guy has been discussed pretty objectively here. Pretty much everyone here agrees your comments come from a biased point of view. As an example, as a guy who has no doubt studied math far higher than is required to realize what a foolish statement you made, why say that Buster shouldn't be ranked a consensus 7th among catchers because only two or three or whatever it is of the ten voters voted him 7th or higher? A high school kid knows that in a consensus with a high number of contenders, the votes are going to be spread around a lot. Very few guys are voted into the Hall of Fame, for crying out loud, even though only 75% of the vote is required and the voters can each vote for up to 10 players? I know you're plenty smart enough and plenty educated enough not to make such a foolish argument, yet you continue to do so. Look around the board. Almost everyone seem to have their whipping boy or boys. For Allen, it's Barry Bonds (and others). For Boagie, it's Carlos Beltran. For Randy, it's Brandon Crawford. Randy would say that for Mark and me, it's Gary Brown. You would probably say that for me it's Sandy Koufax. (God help me that I called Sandy great.) Why not try to balance things out? Allen says he thinks Barry Bonds was a fine player, yet he talks about Barry in the context of steroids at least 90% of the time. No matter that positive after positive is brought up, Boagie won't give positive recognition to Beltran. He has gone as far as trying to put Carlos down for visiting a children's hospital and for winning a humanitarian award. Your anti-Poseyness is legendary. Randy says Mark and I are anti-Gary Brown, but the fact is that we're pretty objective about him, pointing out his positives (fabulous speed and a fine glove)along with his flaws (primarily that some scouts have been questioning since he was drafted whether Gary would hit, which he has yet to do since San Jose). Randy says we've given up on Gary, but why would we do that? Rather, we realize the past two years his stock has dropped rapidly. And yeah, Don, you seem to believe I am as horrible as anti-Semitic because I called Sandy Koufax great and pointed out his greatness was far higher in Dodger Stadium than all the other places he pitched. I have also pointed out that from 1962-1966 he was the best pitcher in the game, probably by a pretty good margin. Yet those points seem to make me anti-Semitic. (Not to mention that being born in Indiana makes me a card-carrying member of the Ku Klux Klan. That I hate the organization makes no difference, based on where I was born -- and lived the first 10 years of my life.) And of course Allen believes I support the refs and umpires too much because I say they shouldn't have missed a call and then point out what might have happened (including laxness on their part) to help them to miss it. And perhaps the very best of all is Randy, who would have us believe that even though I understood the game quite well before I got into sabrmetrics, I have now forgotten eveything I knew because I became a "stats geek." Maybe we should all -- me included -- take a step back and try to become more objective. And when we admit mistakes -- which we all do -- own up to them instead of becoming defensive. It's certainly not bad to disagree. I have learned far more here when people have disagreed with me than when they agree. Disagreement forces me to challenge my point of view, to do more research. When we disagree, let's look to finding facts rather than simply being defensive. And let's use those facts to support our discussions more than simply calling each other names. It's probably not a good idea to have derisive comments along with our picture in our identification. It would seem that opinions -- especially unsubstantiated ones -- are better expressed in one's posts than in a place where they become redundant, become redundant, become redundant. Hey, it's a new season! Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2187/fill-blank#ixzz2tapWa7i6
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Feb 17, 2014 12:27:39 GMT -5
Or perhaps you could stop trying to guide the discussion, telling people what to discuss and how to discuss it. People don't need to be objective, they don't need to do massive amounts of research,and they certainly don't need to agree with you. If one of us doesn't like Carlos Beltran, they have every right to say so, again and again and again if they wish You're a pretty knowledgeable guy, but you don't know nearly as much as you think you do, and you think your opinion is fact. Take our recent argument about basketball. You said two of the refs were blocked. How could you know that unless you had talked to them or were them. Yet you acted as if it were indisputable fact. In the same vein, you said I needed to ref 5000 games before I could venture an opinion on officiating. Two things here. I don't need to do something 5000 times to recognize when it's being done poorly,. Two, the next time you critique a pitcher, should I tell you to pitch 5000 games before you venture an opinion? In short (I know, too late) it's an opinion board. People don't need to have volumes of research backing up everything they say. As long as they're civil, just enjoy the discussion, no matter where it leads.
|
|
|
Post by islandboagie on Feb 17, 2014 13:51:46 GMT -5
No matter that positive after positive is brought up, Boagie won't give positive recognition to Beltran. He has gone as far as trying to put Carlos down for visiting a children's hospital and for winning a humanitarian award.
Boagie- I've said it before and I'll say it again. It's not about Beltran's humanitarian award or him going to hospitals. It's about his time with the Giants. His extended stay on the DL by choice while the Giants slipped in the standings. As a rental player he was a dissapointment and I believe it was his choice to pick his free agent value above winning. Therefore I don't like him. No amount of visits to hospitals for some photo ops will change that.
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Feb 17, 2014 14:54:24 GMT -5
dk...I didn't answer because I thought you were joking... Rog -- I went to a lot of work for it to be a joke, didn't it? Four or five clues? Don -- your fondness for Posey and the comments made it obvious to me... Rog -- Next time, just answer, if that's what you'd like to do. But don't jump in after the fact with comments like these. dk...I thought you were disappointed that I didn't answer...as I said, I thought it was a joke...as well as some of the answere... Don -- and by the way, didn't Florida St. win the college World Series the year Posey played for them??? Rog -- I didn't think they did win, although I'm far from certain. dk...my mistake, Fresno won that year and FSU went 0 for 2...Posey hit 5 for 9, one double, one RBI...I remembered they talked a lot about Buster... Meanwhile, why not stop trying to start your anti-Buster bandwagon? I think the guy has been discussed pretty objectively here. Pretty much everyone here agrees your comments come from a biased point of view. As an example, as a guy who has no doubt studied math far higher than is required to realize what a foolish statement you made, why say that Buster shouldn't be ranked a consensus 7th among catchers because only two or three or whatever it is of the ten voters voted him 7th or higher? A high school kid knows that in a consensus with a high number of contenders, the votes are going to be spread around a lot. Very few guys are voted into the Hall of Fame, for crying out loud, even though only 75% of the vote is required and the voters can each vote for up to 10 players? I know you're plenty smart enough and plenty educated enough not to make such a foolish argument, yet you continue to do so. dk..I really don't get example...I don't think the guy rates so high as you write him up, and apparently he wasn't rated that high by your experts...I tried to point out that you said James voted 1 or 2 on TV, but not that high in his own book...I don't dislike the guy, I only think he is not a HOF catcher and that he would be better off playing !B with Belt going to the outfield, especially since we were short of bats in the outfield...if Morse works out to be a good signing, I'll hold back on my suggestion..although, I still think his mechanics are bad..ie. jumping up in the air for a pitch in the dirt will always look to me that he just doesn't want to get hit with the ball...when he catches a ball that way, I say it is the luck factor that you talked about...and not his soft hands...most guys look like they have soft hands, but it is mostly the new gloves... Look around the board. Almost everyone seem to have their whipping boy or boys. For Allen, it's Barry Bonds (and others). dk..I didn't like Bonds even before the steroids entered in the discussion...I didn't like guys who didn't hustle except when he was going for some record...in fact, from what I read about Bonds it seems like all his friends growing up and team mates all had lots of negatives to say about the guy... For Boagie, it's Carlos Beltran. dk..I got dissed for saying I thought it was bad that Beltran didn't report right after the trade as he was reported to be home shopping with his wife when the Giants needed him...turned out that Sabean bought a wounded player..... For Randy, it's Brandon Crawford. dk...I was Crawford's biggest fan, but I think he let the Giants down in the second half...if he was injured, he shouldn't have played, but I am afraid it was more than that. He seemed to have gained a little weight and was slowed down in the field...and he stopped being selective at the plate...I hope he snaps out of it.... Randy would say that for Mark and me, it's Gary Brown. You would probably say that for me it's Sandy Koufax. (God help me that I called Sandy great.) Why not try to balance things out? Allen says he thinks Barry Bonds was a fine player, yet he talks about Barry in the context of steroids at least 90% of the time. No matter that positive after positive is brought up, Boagie won't give positive recognition to Beltran. He has gone as far as trying to put Carlos down for visiting a children's hospital and for winning a humanitarian award. Your anti-Poseyness is legendary. dk..again I say..I am not anti Posey...just think he is over rated as a catcher... I said that pitchers shake him off too much...and the Giants admitted they are not on the same page...I said his body wasn't strong enough to be a top catcher...and he now has decided to train a little harder...I thought he had some weak spots with the bat...and the pitchers really hit those spots during the whole second half of 2013...aren't you a little concerned about his low BA and lack of power from that time...was it a glitch or what.... Randy says Mark and I are anti-Gary Brown, but the fact is that we're pretty objective about him, pointing out his positives (fabulous speed and a fine glove)along with his flaws (primarily that some scouts have been questioning since he was drafted whether Gary would hit, which he has yet to do since San Jose). Randy says we've given up on Gary, but why would we do that? Rather, we realize the past two years his stock has dropped rapidly dk..I questioned Brown over Perez because Perez was putting up better numbers before I saw either of them play...just as I seriously doubted the abuse Ellison received from the Giants...never giving him a look after putting up great numbers at AAA and in spring training....and second guessing me continuously over how he performed off the bench...just like Barry Bonds....you seem to feel I shouldn't speak out about Posey's catching...even when I quoted other broadcaster saying they never saw some of the things Posey did to protect himself instead of blocking a pitch.... And yeah, Don, you seem to believe I am as horrible as anti-Semitic because I called Sandy Koufax great and pointed out his greatness was far higher in Dodger Stadium than all the other places he pitched. I have also pointed out that from 1962-1966 he was the best pitcher in the game, probably by a pretty good margin. Yet those points seem to make me anti-Semitic. (Not to mention that being born in Indiana makes me a card-carrying member of the Ku Klux Klan. That I hate the organization makes no difference, based on where I was born -- and lived the first 10 years of my life.) dk...I suggested that there had to be a reason for you to bring up Koufax so many times trying to belittle his record......and I didn't remember you saying he was great until almost everone on the board said he was one of the best they ever saw...I'll still take Hubbell....but I am biased...and I'll admit it...... And of course Allen believes I support the refs and umpires too much because I say they shouldn't have missed a call and then point out what might have happened (including laxness on their part) to help them to miss it. And perhaps the very best of all is Randy, who would have us believe that even though I understood the game quite well before I got into sabrmetrics, I have now forgotten eveything I knew because I became a "stats geek." Maybe we should all -- me included -- take a step back and try to become more objective. And when we admit mistakes -- which we all do -- own up to them instead of becoming defensive. It's certainly not bad to disagree. I have learned far more here when people have disagreed with me than when they agree. Disagreement forces me to challenge my point of view, to do more research. When we disagree, let's look to finding facts rather than simply being defensive. And let's use those facts to support our discussions more than simply calling each other names. It's probably not a good idea to have derisive comments along with our picture in our identification. It would seem that opinions -- especially unsubstantiated ones -- are better expressed in one's posts than in a place where they become redundant, become redundant, become redundant. Hey, it's a new season! dk..I question your use of certain stats because you know they don't always tell the whole story...when a pitcher doesn't get a lot of run support over a season, you can't blame his lack of wins on that...if you win when you pitch great and lose when you give way too many runs than your team, I don't think you can blame lack of run support...when a batter tears up the pitchers in a few blowout games of a world series, I don't give him the same credit as a guy who actually wins the games with his bat in close games...etc... I will continue to praise when it is earned and debate the stats when presented in what I would consider a half truth...play ball... Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2187/fill-blank#ixzz2tapWa7i6
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 17, 2014 21:54:34 GMT -5
Allen -- Or perhaps you could stop trying to guide the discussion, telling people what to discuss and how to discuss it. People don't need to be objective Rog -- Of course they don't. But if they want their opinion to mean anything, they should. And if they don't care if their opinion means anything, why express it? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2187/fill-blank##ixzz2tddqyR5L
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 17, 2014 22:10:59 GMT -5
Allen -- You said two of the refs were blocked. How could you know that unless you had talked to them or were them. Rog -- Before I saw the game tape, I didn't know for sure -- although I suspected it. When I saw the game tape, it was quite easy to tell. If you have a body between you and the play, you are going to be blocked. And that was the case with two of the three refs. If you don't believe me, put Warriors vs. Heat into your VCR menu and tape the game when it comes up again. I have looked at game tapes with guys who have refereed the Final Four Championship Game. I've reffed a ton of games myself. It's kind of like asking how I could know a guy swung and missed without talking to him or being him. If you look at the tape and can see that I am wrong, let me know. Otherwise, why not simply assume that someone who knows quite a bit more about it than you is right? As I say, look at the tape. I welcome it. But you will see that all but the lead official had bodies between them and the foul. And you will understand that they were blocked -- without talking to them or being them. For me, it's kind of been there, done that. I've mentioned here many times that angle is much more important than distance. If you are standing five feet in front of me with a guy a foot behind you, I can't see him hit you in the back. If I'm 50 feet away from you and standing SIDEWAYS to the contact, I can see it rather clearly. I really can't fault any of the three officials for their positioning on that play. With even 3 instead of 2 guys watching 10, it just isn't humanly possible to see everything. Believe me, I've missed thousands of calls -- probably in five figures. Hopefully not six. I've missed some of them because I was out of position. I have missed some of them because I was incorrect in my technique. And I have missed plenty of them because it just isn't possible to see everything. Think about all the replays you have seen in which the camera was blocked. Then here comes one from the right angle, and suddenly the play becomes simple (or at least judgeable). As an official, we learn to anticipate the action but not the call. The better we are able to anticipate the action, the more often we are in the best position to make a call. But there is no way to predict with certainty what players will do. So there is no way to be in perfect position all the time -- even if one is as fast as the players. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2187/fill-blank?page=1#scrollTo=18907#ixzz2tdeZE382
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 17, 2014 22:20:43 GMT -5
dk..I really don't get example...I don't think the guy rates so high as you write him up, and apparently he wasn't rated that high by your experts...I tried to point out that you said James voted 1 or 2 on TV, but not that high in his own book. Rog -- I think you are confusing the Bill James Annual, in which DEFENSE is rated by position by a group of ten "experts" with his opinion in the MLB Network, which was for his total play as a catcher. I posted that Bill personally voted Buster #5 defensively in his book, while the consensus was #7. As for Buster's not being rated as highly as I believe him to be, you should perhaps pay closer attention. I said that as an overall catcher, I rated Buster #2 behind Yadier Molina. On the MLB Network, I believe Buster received two votes for first, two for second and one for third. It is possible he received three votes for first and one for second. As for his defense, I told Boly that I rated him in the range of the bottom part of the top quartile to the top part of the 2nd quartile. That's pretty much where the consensus in Bill James' Annual put him (#7). So I believe your comment "I don't think the guy rates so high as you write him up," is incorrect. Sounds to me as if -- at least based on the MLB Network and Bill James' Annual, both pretty well informed sources, that I am pretty much right on the money. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2187/fill-blank?page=1#scrollTo=18908#ixzz2tdiyQor5
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 17, 2014 22:34:54 GMT -5
Don -- I don't dislike the guy, I only think he is not a HOF catcher Rog -- I don't either. I do think though that he is off to a Hall of Fame start. Let's put it this way, Don. If Buster plays another dozen years at his present level primarily as a catcher, he'll be a first ballot Hall of Famer. Don -- and that he would be better off playing !B with Belt going to the outfield, especially since we were short of bats in the outfield Rog -- In the long run we will almost certainly see Buster play one or more other positions. Right now it wouldn't seem to make sense to hurt the team at three defensive positions to get Hector Sanchez's bat in the lineup. Buster is considered a much better defensive catcher than Sanchez. Belt is considered a much better defensive first baseman than Buster. And while Brandon would be an improvement over Morse in left field, he's certainly WELL behind Gregor Blanco or Juan Perez. You're entitled to your opinion, but it is a tough one to defend, and I personally don't know of anyone who agrees with it. The only decent argument I have seen to move Buster from behind the plate is to avoid injury and, as you correctly point out, likely lengthen his career. But Buster believes very strongly he is a catcher. It's the position from which the Giants believe he can show the most leadership. Why would they move Buster from the position he believes he belongs at as long as moving wouldn't clearly help the team and as long as he is playing well at the position he wants to play and is playing? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2187/fill-blank?page=1#scrollTo=18909#ixzz2tdmVEX9E
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 17, 2014 22:41:38 GMT -5
dk..I got dissed for saying I thought it was bad that Beltran didn't report right after the trade as he was reported to be home shopping with his wife when the Giants needed him... Rog -- Carlos followed the rules on reporting. I'm not sure, but he might have even been able to take another day. Don -- turned out that Sabean bought a wounded player..... Rog -- I'm not sure whether they did or not. Certainly Carlos was just a year off recovery from devastating knee problems, but I believe at the time of the trade he was also leading the Mets in games played. Whatever his health was when the Giants got him, he became or already was injured before they had him too long. It is quite possible he was trying to play through an injury which eventually became too bad to play through in a manner that would help his team. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2187/fill-blank?page=1#scrollTo=18910#ixzz2tdpB6x9A
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 17, 2014 22:57:07 GMT -5
Rog -- No matter that positive after positive is brought up, Boagie won't give positive recognition to Beltran. He has gone as far as trying to put Carlos down for visiting a children's hospital and for winning a humanitarian award. Boagie- I've said it before and I'll say it again. It's not about Beltran's humanitarian award or him going to hospitals. Rog -- Apparently you did think it was in part about that. You foolishly tried to make Beltran's hospital visit into a selfish act, and you indicated Carlos wouldn't have won the Roberto Clemente Award if he weren't Hispanic. Boagie -- It's about his time with the Giants. His extended stay on the DL by choice while the Giants slipped in the standings. Rog -- How do you know that the decision was entirely his? How do you know that he wasn't hurting the team by playing hurt? How do you know that the decision he and the Giants made wasn't a prudent one? Boagie -- As a rental player he was a dissapointment and I believe it was his choice to pick his free agent value above winning. Rog -- But you have little evidence to back you up. Most would consider a guy who hit .323/.369/.551/.920 to have been reasonably successful. On the other hand, as you correctly point out, he didn't hit well in the clutch and he didn't hit well before going on the disabled list. Most would attribute that to the small sample size. Boagie -- Therefore I don't like him. No amount of visits to hospitals for some photo ops will change that. Rog -- You actually tried to put Carlos down and diminish his off-field accomplishments. You have ignored evidence that he overcame very devastating injuries. You have ignored that he was expecting an offer from the Giants and therefore would have helped his value to them the most by providing as much value as he could in 2011. You have ignored and/or tried to put down FAR too much to appear at all objective here. And if you're not objective, it is quite possible your opinion is off base. Although the guy who knows the best about Carlos -- Mark -- and I didn't agree completely with your points about Carlos' contribution level to the Giants, I thought you made a couple of good points. But I thought you destroyed your credibility when you kept downgrading almost everything about Carlos both on and off the field. If you had stuck only to your main points (played poorly before the injury and hit poorly in the clutch), you would have seemed more credible than pretty much trying to destroy the guy no matter what he did. Aside from your two good points, you seem to ignore everything positive that is brought up about him. If you're not biased here, Boagie, you're doing a doing a good job of fooling me. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2187/fill-blank?page=1#scrollTo=18911#ixzz2tdqPlpWf
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 17, 2014 23:11:36 GMT -5
dk..again I say..I am not anti Posey...just think he is over rated as a catcher... I said that pitchers shake him off too much...and the Giants admitted they are not on the same page...I said his body wasn't strong enough to be a top catcher...and he now has decided to train a little harder... Rog -- Even before this past winter, Buster had put on quite a bit of good weight since coming up. Baseball-Reference lists him at 6-foot-1, 220 pounds. That's nt exactly puny. And that is LAST year's weight. Don -- I thought he had some weak spots with the bat... Rog -- Every hitter does. Buster's strengh has been his ability to fight off pitches that are his weakness until he gets a pitch to hit. Don -- and the pitchers really hit those spots during the whole second half of 2013...aren't you a little concerned about his low BA and lack of power from that time...was it a glitch or what.... Rog -- Any time a player slumps, it is a concern. But I'm not too worried. Buster's career marks for the first half are just about the same as his stats in the 2nd half. His worst month has been May -- not September. His combined record in the 9th and extra innings is better than in any other inning except the 3rd. To be honest, I don't know of anyone aside from you who doesn't think Buster has played at a Hall of Fame level thus far. You criticize him as a cleanup hitter, and he certainly isn't a prototypical one, but he has hit much better with runners on base and in scoring position than he has hit with the bases empty. I think you have been overly concerned about Buster even before 2010. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2187/fill-blank?page=1##ixzz2tduVC3UD
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 17, 2014 23:17:28 GMT -5
Don -- you seem to feel I shouldn't speak out about Posey's catching...even when I quoted other broadcaster saying they never saw some of the things Posey did to protect himself instead of blocking a pitch.... Rog -- Regardless of what Buster does or how he does it, he's playing at a historic level when it comes to avoiding passed balls, and he's putting up very good wild pitch numbers as well. If you want to say that numbers don't tell the whole story, show us WHY they don't. You keep saying that Buster calls for the high fastball. Well guess what? So does Hector Sanchez. So do a lot of catchers. Where are your stats that show that Buster calls for so many fewer low pitches that it would completely explain his one wild pitch allowed for approximately every two by the other Giants catchers? That would explain how his wild pitches are lower than a high percentage of other catchers. If you are going to make such points, give us facts to support them -- not simply more of your own opinions. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2187/fill-blank?page=1#scrollTo=18913#ixzz2tdy1VoJs
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 17, 2014 23:36:42 GMT -5
dk...I suggested that there had to be a reason for you to bring up Koufax so many times trying to belittle his record...... Rog -- You're fairly close on this one. I have brought up Sandy's record not to belittle his record (remember, I have also said he pitched BETTER in his Ebbetts Field and LA Coliseum days than his record indicated and have never called him less than great), but to help clarify it. And indeed there IS a reason for my doing so. The huge difference between Sandy's numbers in other parks and his record in Dodger Stadium is so different that fans should recognize it and try to understand it. I know of no other pitcher in baseball who seems to have benefited so much from one park. I also know of no other pitcher who has taken such great advantage of the benefits. No question Sandy was great between 1962 and 1966. What IS in question though is why he was so MUCH greater in Dodger Stadium than on the road. I don't really know the answer here, but I think Sandy should receive credit for taking better advantage of it than any other pitcher -- while recognizing that the other Dodgers and Angels pitchers, as well as pitchers on visiting teams, enjoyed a big advantage there too. My own opinion is that Sandy was the best pitcher in the majors from 1962 through 1966 -- but not by quite as much as most believe. Let's just say that Sandy was A+ on the road during those years -- and A+++ in Dodger Stadium. Is there any pitcher in history who has benefitted (and to his credit, taken advantage) of his home park to the extent Sandy did? Sandy's Dodger Stadium ERA from 1962 through 1966 was about a run lowerthan his road ERA during that time. That's hard to explain completely. Perhaps you can give it a try, Don. Saying Sandy was great even on the road is a non-answer. To the best of my knowledge, you've never really given one. Nor have you shown anything to discredit how much advantage all the other pitchers as a group enjoyed there -- especially those for whom it was their home park. If you're going to call me ant-Semitic, in the sense of fairness, you really need to come up with a GREAT answer to these questions. And I don't believe there is one. Incidentally, you don't really have a CLUE as to whether I'm anti-Semitic or not. I do. I told you to see the most pro-Jewish movie I have ever seen. It's entitled Life Is Beautiful and stars Roberto Begnini. It's now 15 years old, but it's still one of the very best movies I have seen in my life. If you can't find it, let me know, and I'll send it to you. You'll laugh, and you'll cry -- and you'll have tremendous admiration. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2187/fill-blank?page=1#scrollTo=18914#ixzz2tdzQ9G5z
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Feb 17, 2014 23:41:26 GMT -5
It's a transition play. The position of everyone on the floor was changing throughout. With the ball being thrown out of bounds from nearly half court, and never even being close to being touched or deflected. It's hard to believe these refs were blocked for the entirety of the play. Not if they can move their head, neck, and eyes.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 17, 2014 23:41:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Feb 17, 2014 23:46:04 GMT -5
Allen -- Or perhaps you could stop trying to guide the discussion, telling people what to discuss and how to discuss it. People don't need to be objective Rog -- Of course they don't. But if they want their opinion to mean anything, they should. And if they don't care if their opinion means anything, why express it? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2187/fill-blank##ixzz2tddqyR5L
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Feb 17, 2014 23:48:07 GMT -5
That's up to them, now isn't it? I don't think they really need your guidance.
|
|