Beyond words

[klaiggeb]

Just when you think it can't get any worse... it does.

From where I sit, it is now official; This Giants team is THE most embarrassing team in baseball.

Why?

Others, like the Padres, were never expected to compete, much less win.

We were expected to, and should have been winning.


Tell me I'm wrong, argue with me, disagree, I really don't care.

Last night was a 1/2 assed effort where what I saw was all but one or two players simply going through the motions.

There is NO reason this team should be shut out so often.

None.

There is NO reason our extra base hits, including the HR should have dried up the way they have.

There is NO reason we can't and aren't scoring runs.



I've said it before, I'll say it again because we all SAW it again last night; hitter after hitter after hitter after hitter fooled and/or badly jammed at the plate.

It's like they're all trying to hit with a blindfold over one eye, and that INCLUDES Mr. Posey.


And if all that isn't bad enough, the team has gotten a gallactic case of the "Stupids."

Posey on that bounced strike 3... not looking Gordon back.

Bumgarner picking off McCutchen last night... and throwing late.

Crawford almost booting ANOTHER relatively routine, for a SS, groundball

I keep preaching about baseball 101, and I'm here to tell you...IF I was still coaching high school baseball, and MY teams made those kind of INEXCUSEABLE, NONE thinking erros, I'd have been all over them like ugly on Rosanne Bar!


No excuse for that crap.

None.


So, to summerize;

Assinine at bats

Off balance at bats

Idicoy in the field

= 5 losses in a row.

I don't care if Pagan and Belt are coming back.

It'll be too little too late because this team looks once again, like a whopped puppy.

In fact, I'll take it one step further; they look like they've given up.

boly

[Rog]

They didn't look like they've given up to me.

Remember our old axiom:

When things are going great, they're usually not as good as they appear (the first 63 games of the season).

When things are going horribly, they usually not as bad as they appear (likely now).

One thing I'm 99% sure of: The Giants haven't given up. They may look like they have, but looks are often deceiving.

[Rog]

Boly --There is NO reason our extra base hits, including the HR should have dried up the way they have.

There is NO reason we can't and aren't scoring runs.

Rog -- The only reasons I can think of are that they have yet to solve their second-base problem, they have two of their top hitters out of the lineup, and those who remain in the lineup are mostly in a slump.

Possibly they're hitting in bad luck, but I'm not sure about that one.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2388/words?page=1&scrollTo=21554#ixzz38s01G9tF

[islandboagie]

hey didn't look like they've given up to me.

Remember our old axiom:

When things are going great, they're usually not as good as they appear (the first 63 games of the season).

Boagie- Funny how you never apply this to the Dodgers when they're doing good.

[rxmeister]

I agree with your sentiment, Boly. If you're a young team or a bad team, you're happy with any little thing you see, but when you're supposed to be a contender and at one point look like the best team in baseball and then play this bad for an extended period of time, it's just too depressing. You know they are now below .500 at home? Sold out AT&T, the big home field advantage, a joke. I don't agree that they've given up though. We're just a week from those spirited comebacks against the Phillies. I think Sabean made two mistakes this off season which of course the FO who give him a payroll number share in. Number one, he forgot he's in a big ballpark and wins at home with pitching and defense. He needs an elite rotation, one in which even the fourth and fifth starters are number ones and twos on other teams, and he failed to assemble it. The injury to Cain is just icing on the cake. His defense is a sieve. Michael Morse and Dan Uggla's defense can only be tolerated if they're hitting .300 with 30 home runs. Morse was on pace once, but is absolutely horrendous offensively for almost two months now. Crawford is overrated defensively and has stopped hitting as well. His second mistake was that he built his team as if you can go 162 games without people getting hurt. The drop offs from Pagan to Blanco, from Scutaro to Hicks-Adrianza-Uggla from Belt to Sanchez-Morse-Duvall, and from Cain to Petit, is so monumental that it is wrecking the season. You need strong players on the bench and a strong farm system to provide injury replacements. The Giants have failed miserably here. Like Boly said, this is the most disappointing of seasons.

[klaiggeb]

I can't figure Morse out, Mark, I just can't. 44 games and ONE HR?

If he's healthy, that's absurd!

I agree about them not having given up.

That was just anger.

What I should have said is that they look lethargic; the old "waiting for the other shoe to drop," syndrome.

You called it correctly when you spoke about how they built, or rather, FAILED to build the team this year.

My GUESS is that they knew they were weak on the bench but felt they COULD get by until the trade deadlin when they'd pick someone(s) up.

NO ONE could have forseen THIS monumental CRASH AND BURN.

I know I sure didn't.

The injuries are bad enough, but the LACK of run production is inexcuseable.


Once again, the loss of Pagan, or at least a suitable lead off guy dominoed right on down the line up.


With 2 days to go, let's see what Sabean does.

My money is on nothing significant. Another "Uggla" kind of move.

If he makes any splash at all, I'll be stunned.

boly

[islandboagie]

Chris Haft reported that the Giants are still very much interested in Zobrist.

[rxmeister]

The Rays are back in the race in the weak AL east. I don't see them moving Zobrist. I think it will be a minor pickup like a Josh Willingham (having a terrible year) or a Chris Denorfia. They could pick up a second baseman like a Astrubal Cabrera (never realized his promise) type. Everyone else is over their budget.

[Rog]

Rog -- Remember our old axiom:

When things are going great, they're usually not as good as they appear (the first 63 games of the season).

Boagie- Funny how you never apply this to the Dodgers when they're doing good.

Rog -- Same thing applies no matter what the team. Even when the Giants were 9 1/2 games ahead, I thought the Dodgers were the better of the two teams -- although I was beginning to wonder.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2388/words#ixzz38utVSEbP

[Rog]

I think the Giants did fine with their pitching staff -- except that the rotation in particular lacks depth. We knew going into the season that the Giants lacked depth. Thus, a position like second base or the outfield seemed like a serious spot to be filled at the deadline.

The Giants are said to still be in the running for Ben Zobrist, although the Rays may not be quite as willing to trade with their recent hot streak. The Giants are also believed to be in on a few lesser lights.

No way to know what will happen. About all we know is that the trade market is thin, and the Giants' trading pieces have been devalued as the season has gone on.

I'm usually surprised when Brian DOESN'T do something. The Jake Peavy trade was one that has a decent chance of helping shore up the rotation without costing an arm and a leg. Actually, all it cost was two arms.

Another positive of signing Peavy is that the signing didn't deplete the budget to where the Giants can't make another move or two.

[klaiggeb]

Rog, you're a lot more upbeat, a lot more positive than I am.

I see the signs, and they don't look good.

At this time of the year, when a team is GOING to win, it's mostly healthy, players start to heat up and "things" go their way.

Like the Dodgers vs Atlanta last night.

Like the 2 popfly, routine flyballs that went for 312 foot HRs.

That DOESN'T happen if you're going to win.

It DOES if you are.


No. The signs don't look good.

We hit it hard... right at someone.

boly

[Rog]

Hey, I'm not overly optimistic now either. But there are potential positives out there, including the hoped-for returns of Angel Pagan and Brandon Belt. I'm also hopeful the Giants will still be able to come up with a right-handed hitter or two.

My point is that the Giants are neither as good as they were through 63 games, nor as bad as they have been since.

As for the signs, I agree they don't look good. But over the first 63 games, they looked fabulous -- and look how quickly that turned around?

I'm upbeat because why the heck go through one's life with his head down? Like the players themselves should, I try not to get too high or two low.

With the exception of June, the Giants' pitching has been very good. What they need to do is score more runs. As they did early in the season, even with some injuries and with essentially no second baseman. Let's suppose Pagan and Belt return healthy and productive and the Giants add someone like Alex Rios or Ben Zobrist. You don't think they would be capable of scoring runs?

You like how they were strong 1 through 7 early in the season? Add in Zobrist and get Crawford hitting like he was hitting back then, and they could be strong 1 through 8.

I don't think you and I see things all that differently. I just tend not to go up and down so much, and I apparently tend toward the positive more.

When the Giants were scoring like heck, some of us said it was very unlikely to continue. If the Giants were unlikely back then to score as much as they were, aren't they likely now to score more than at present?

The Giants are a good team, not a great one. They're not as good as they appeared the first 63 games -- but they're certainly not as bad as they have appeared in the 44 games since.

[klaiggeb]

Rog, all I see are what I call the "signs."

Those signs are:

1-Prolonged, inexplicable slump(s)

2-Injuries, injuries, injuries

3-No lead off guy. I know everyone is figuring (I'm not), on Pagan coming back and making a huge impact.

He's had a back injury. Those things just dont' 'GO AWAY.'

They don't.

Now the question is, is 1/2 to 3/4 a Pagan better than a healthy Blanco?

Heck yes!

Then again, so would you, or I or Mark, or Boagie or anyone on this board! (I'm being faceateous, but THAT'S how disgusted with Blanco I've become. For ME, he's this year's Andres Torres.)

4-Belt's return. Like I said after that Broken Thumb; 10 15 at bats WOULDN'T BE ENOUGH.

And it wasn't.

Just when he started to get ABs.... whack! He gets hurt again.

BEST CASE SCENARIO for Pagan and Belt-Two weeks, MINIMUM, for either to get back in ANY KIND of groove.

And even THAT is asking a lot.

5-Second Base. Uggla is a problem. He MUST GO, and I mean NOW! That guy has been a waste of space for over 2 years now. I reiterate:

NO RANGE
VISION PROBLEMS

6-Continually sloppy, inexcuseable mistakes on defense.

Winning teams DON'T play stupid. They don't.

Again, I'll reference Posey's NOT looking Gordon back.

Crawford's lately, frequent bobbles in the field.

There are others, but that's enough for now.

So I WISH I shared your optimism.

I'd LOVE to be proven wrong. I really would.

I HATE the Dodgers being healthy and worse, getting HOT, AND likely picking up a Hammels, Lester, or a Price.


This season since June, has been like a slow, deliberate, painstaking plunging knife to the heart that just keeps twisting, causing more and more pain, and going deeper and deeper.


I take these things personally because I DID play at a high level.

I know the pressures, I understand the anxiety, and worse, like many (most?) fans, given the talent they have in my (our) heart(s) I know I (we) could do better.

I'm a controlling personality, and here, I have no control, and it's killing me.

It's that complicated, and it's that simple.

boly

[Rog]

Boly -- Now the question is, is 1/2 to 3/4 a Pagan better than a healthy Blanco?

Heck yes!

Rog -- We've asked the hypothetical question before as to when a player should play through an injury and when the team would be better off with his replacement. I suppose it comes down to semantics, but I'd certainly take a healthy Blanco over Pagan at 50%. Not to mention that I would be allowing Angel time to get to OVER 50%.

Blanco is having a very tough season (in the field and on the bases too), but I think he's a better player than you give him credit for. This season he's been poor, but over his entire Giants career of three seasons, he hasn't been bad. Since he's a very streaky hitter, he might well have something to bounce out of his slump with.

Meanwhile, Pagan was having a marvelous season when he was hurt, but he was already coming back down to earth. I worry about the healthy of Pagan and also Mike Morse, which is why I would like to see the Giants pick up another outfielder.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2388/words#ixzz38ygmLy4U

[klaiggeb]

Rog, it's not symantics. I think that little of Blanco as a STARTER.

And that's the key word.

As a 4th outfielder I like him a lot.

But you can't run him out there every day, and that's what we're stuck with.

boly

[Rog]

Boly -- Rog, it's not symantics. I think that little of Blanco as a STARTER.

And that's the key word.

As a 4th outfielder I like him a lot.

Rog -- Despite his three hits today, Gregor hasn't played well this season even for a 4th outfielder. But I would rather have him at 100% than Pagan at 50%. As I mentioned, perhaps it depends on what we mean by 50% (thus, the semantics), but I'd almost always rather have a backup at 100% than even a star at 50%.

What does 50% mean? That a .300 hitter is going to hit .150? I don't think it's that bad, but I see a .300 hitter hitting somewhere between .200 and .250 at 50%. I'd rather play the backup and get the .300 hitter another day's rest toward approaching 100%.

Matt Cain was at, what, 75% this year? How well did that work out? The Giants might have been better off going with Petit or trading for another starter while giving Matt a chance to return at closer to 100%.

One might argue that in his last few games with the Giants this season, Pagan was somewhere around 50% to 75%. And in those games, his offense and defense were worse than Blanco was likely to provide. Remember how lousy Angel looked in the outfield? While he went 4 for 23 at the plate.

The Giants would have been far better off resting Angel, who perhaps would then have come back well before August.

I say it's semantics because of where 50% and 75% are, and how well a player is able to play at those percentages. But I don't think a player is likely to play very well at 50%. If a guy can truly play pretty decently at 50%, then he's not getting much out of the extra 50% when he's fully healthy, is he?

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2388/words#ixzz38zwfjTJT

[klaiggeb]

Rog: I say it's semantics because of where 50% and 75% are, and how well a player is able to play at those percentages. But I don't think a player is likely to play very well at 50%. If a guy can truly play pretty decently at 50%, then he's not getting much out of the extra 50% when he's fully healthy, is he?

--boly says--Okay.Semantics. Actually, really more hyperbole from me. I just can't stand to see him in the starting lineup every day.

boly

[Rog]

Last night at 8:12, Henry Schulman of the Chronicle tweeted that it doesn't appear the Giants will acquire Emilio Bonafacio from the Cubs. I believe Bonafacio is a middle infielder who could also play center field.

As far as I know, nothing has been ruled out on Chris Denorfia, Alex Rios or Ben Zobrist. Less than three hours left, and Brian Sabean often goes down to the final five minutes. In addition, trades sometimes aren't announced until 15 minutes or even half an hour after the deadline, even though they were completed for MLB approval prior to the deadline.

[Rog]

I doubt that after today Gregor will be in the lineup every day. The tough thing though is that the Giants will likely need to acquire another center fielder for that to happen prior to the return of Angel Pagan, which seems likely to be at LEAST a week away.

Regarding Uggla, he was a lightning in a bottle type of pickup who was forced out of his minor league tuneup stint by the almost simultaneous injuries to Joe Panik, Marco Scutaro and Ehire Adrianza. Uggla likely wouldn't have made a difference under the best of circumstances, but clearly he had almost no chance with the early call up.

If Dan had been even decent, he could have found himself in a platoon with Panik through the rest of the season.

Looking at today's possible trade(s), the Giants have almost nothing at the major league level to trade with the exception of Panik and Adrianza. Susac, the recent call up, although it appears they Giants may foresee a broader role for him in the future. Romo if someone wanted to take a flyer.

They don't appear to have all that much in the minors either, although Sabean continues to say the Giants are deep in minor league pitching even after trading Edwin Escobar and Heath Hembree. Sabean said the Giants ahead of both prospects, which is why he felt comfortable in trading them.

I'll have to go back and look again at Escobar's record prior to this season, but I recall being a little surprised that the Giants were so high on him. One thing about him is that he is still young and made a seamless transition from San Jose to Richmond during the 2013 season.

Kyle Crick flashes very high potential when he can consistently get the ball over the plate, which isn't yet often enough. Derek Law has a nice fastball and a killer curve, but that combination killed his arm for this season. Hopefully he will return strong next season, but his surgery may have been severe enough to keep him from returning to full strength until 2016.

[rxmeister]

The Giants remain high on Chris Stratton, although he has mostly disappointing numbers so far. He pitched pretty well in his first start at Richmond the other night. They also think Tyler Beede will move quickly through the minors with all his college experience. He actually made his debut last night in Scottsdale with one scoreless inning although he walked two. Also struck out two. They'll baby him the rest of this year with all the innings he threw this year, then turn him loose next year. We could be looking at Stratton, Crick, Blackburn, Mejia, and Beede all being ready by 2016. By then only Bumgarner and Cain will be under contract, and there's a chance that Cain might be a sunk cost by then due to his sudden run of injury problems.

[Rog]

I don't get excited when I look at the fivesome you mention as possibly forming a significant chunk of the Giants' rotation in 2016.

Crick has electric stuff, but sometimes he turns on the outside lights when he is attempting to put them on inside.

Blackburn is a guy with champagne control but beer stuff.

Stratton has been hittable, yielding precisely a hit per inning over his career. He got a fine result in the start you mentioned, but he gave up 7 hits in 5 innings while striking out only 3.

Mejia has a 4.11 career minor league ERA and has given up more than a hit per inning with unexciting strikeout numbers. He does have good control.

Beede had champagne stuff in college but beer control. He is considered to be advanced, but I don't think his ceiling is particularly high.

I like Madison Bumgarner alone nearly as well as I like all five of those guys put together. The good thing of course is that the quintet is young, which gives them time to put things together.

The Giants' window seems to be shortening though. With a lot of money committed to future salaries, they really need some of these guys to show up strongly.

Another dilemma at the trade deadline for Brian Sabean was that the Giants have so much money committed for next season (and with so many potential holes to fill with both Sandoval and Morse eligible for free agency) that the Giants were (and remain) caught between the rental player rock and the 2015 and beyond salary hard place.

[rxmeister]

I agree, Rog. Saying they'll be ready doesn't mean that any of them will be star major league pitchers. A couple could be sent to the bullpen or be traded. I think the Giants anticipate at least a couple to stick and succeed though. Certainly Kyle Crick is the cream of that group, and Tyler Beede was the number one pick. Keith Law remains high on Stratton, although I don't see the numbers backing him up. He was promoted to Richmond though, and his first start was pretty good.

[klaiggeb]

Rog--Blackburn is a guy with champagne control but beer stuff.


---boly says---Couldn't this description have been applied to Kirk Rueter when he first came up, Rog?

I'm thinking, yes; it does.

Kirk was never a #1 or #2 guy, but in his prime was a very dependable guy to roll out there every 5th day.

Be nice if Blackburn, or even Stratton could manage to approach that consistancy.



You follow the minors more closely than I do, Rog, so I acquiese to your knowledge here.

But as I've said so many, many times, I just don't get excited about minor league numbers until I see the player(s)perform on the field.

Again, I reference Jerome Williams and Jesse Foppert. Jesse of the 90+ fame on the radar gun... that when he got to the show, never, ever showed he could throw that hard.

These guys were touted as 'big prospects,' but never really panned out.

And if you go back further, there was Solomen Torres. Another "can't miss" guy who... well, missed.


I prefer a "wait and see," or a "show me," attitude.

Duffy hit in the minors. So did Joey the "P."

Let's see them due it with the big club, which we would all appreciate!

boly

[Rog]

Rog--Blackburn is a guy with champagne control but beer stuff.


---boly says---Couldn't this description have been applied to Kirk Rueter when he first came up, Rog?

I'm thinking, yes; it does.

Kirk was never a #1 or #2 guy, but in his prime was a very dependable guy to roll out there every 5th day.

Be nice if Blackburn, or even Stratton could manage to approach that consistancy.

Rog -- I consider Kirk to be highly overrated, but he was at least an average starter. I would be delighted if either Blackburn or Stratton were able to perform at his level. One thing about Kirk -- he posted a 2.48 career minor league ERA.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2388/words#ixzz39G9ajP5p

[Rog]

Boly -- But as I've said so many, many times, I just don't get excited about minor league numbers until I see the player(s)perform on the field.

Again, I reference Jerome Williams and Jesse Foppert. Jesse of the 90+ fame on the radar gun... that when he got to the show, never, ever showed he could throw that hard.

These guys were touted as 'big prospects,' but never really panned out.

And if you go back further, there was Solomen Torres. Another "can't miss" guy who... well, missed.

Rog -- Let's look at those three guys -- good examples -- one by one.

Prior to the 2003 season, Foppert was picked as the #5 prospect IN THE MAJOR LEAGUES. That's a tremendously high rating and was based on his 109 strikeouts in just 79 innings in 2002. Sadly, Jesse hurt his arm and was able to pitch only 8 innings in 2003. He was never again a ranked prospect, and indeed his career was disarmed by injury.

Williams was ranked as high as #19 overall (two times), but I'm not sure why. He was ranked #19 after the 2000 season in which he had a good but not great 2.94 ERA with 115 strikeouts and 48 walks in 126 innings. That's kind of a Kyle Crick lite. In 2001, he cut the walks to just 34 in 130 frames, but he struck out just 84 strikeouts (a clear sign he wasn't blowing hitters away), and his ERA soared to 3.95.

I think we were high on Jerome because of glowing reports from Marc, but Marc may not have been getting the right information. Looking backward, it's easy to see Jerome was highly overrated. His career was hurt too by the death of his father.

The Torres story isn't as clear-cut, but perhaps the yellow flag was raised in 1992 (the year before he joined the Giants during the stretch run) when he posted a 4.21 ERA in AA ball, allowing slightly more hits than innings pitched. His problem once he reached the majors was getting the ball over the plate.

One thing I hadn't realized about Salomon's failures near the end of the 1993 season (including the final game) was that he pitched his final three starts on just three days rest. He was put in a pretty tough position by Dusty Baker.

The first of those three starts, his position wasn't as bad as it sounds. He had been rocked (for the first time in his brief career) in his previous start, throwing only 36 pitches. He came back strongly four days later, throwing an 8-inning, 3-hit shutout. The one alarm that might have gone off there was his six walks.

But after throwing 118 pitches in that game, he gave up 4 earned runs in just 2.2 innings when he again started on three days' rest. Brought back again four days later, he yielded 3 runs in 3.1 innings.

Torres' 4.03 ERA in 1993 wasn't bad, but a precursor that his troubles would continue was shown by his 27 walks against just 23 strikeouts.

I think there are three primary reasons we sometimes get fooled by "hot" prospects:

. Sometimes the information we received is flawed.

. Sometimes we look at the simple statistics rather than the deeper, more revealing ones.

. Due to injury and other factors, players don't always turn out as we would expect.

Regarding the call up of Jarrett Parker, Jarrett is something of a Tyler Colvin in a faster body. When I tell you that Parker has struck out more than once every three at bats, leading to well over two strikeouts per at bat, do you get much confidence in him? His career minor league batting average is just .254 (strikeouts will do that). He does have two nice "skills." He has gotten hit by 25 pitches over this season and last, and he has walked once every 7 at bats.

If he could serious cut down on his strikeouts he'd have something of a chance. Brian Sabean has described Jarrett as being close to a five-tool player, and he's right about that. Jarrett HAS improved this season, hitting a career-high .275 and cutting his strikeouts to "just" one every 3.5 at bats.

Parker is 25 though, so he's running out of time to put things together. Parker was the Giants' 2nd pick in the 2010 draft, behind only Gary Brown.

If Parker becomes a starting-caliber major league player, color me very wrong. Nice tools. It's too bad his sharpener is blunted by all those strikeouts.

His best skill has been getting on base, so if he does play well, he could take over the lead off spot. But if we're going to get our hopes up, it should be regarding another player.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2388/words?page=1&scrollTo=21656#ixzz39GBd5adP

[Rog]

Probably is was due to a combination of over-excitement and over-caution, but surprisingly, Matt Duffy swung at 4 of the 6 pitches thrown him outside the strike zone (one of them hit him and the other he took) while pulling the trigger on only 1 of the 3 pitches thrown over the plate. With just 9 pitches in his 5 plate appearances, very short at bats too. And quick, with just 17.3 second per pitch. That's about four or five seconds below average.

[islandboagie]

Williams was ranked as high as #19 overall (two times), but I'm not sure why. He was ranked #19 after the 2000 season in which he had a good but not great 2.94 ERA with 115 strikeouts and 48 walks in 126 innings.


Boagie- He was only 18 years old that season, that's probably a big reason why he was ranked #19, makes sense to me. Probably why Marc was also high on him, and rightfully so.

High School players who do well early on usually see a spike in their ranking. That doesn't mean Marc or the ranking was wrong. Things change, Thats why the rankings are constantly being updated and us fans change our opinions. Weren't you pretty high on Gary Brown a few seasons ago?

[donk33]

at least Jerome is still around.....

[Rog]

Williams was ranked as high as #19 overall (two times), but I'm not sure why. He was ranked #19 after the 2000 season in which he had a good but not great 2.94 ERA with 115 strikeouts and 48 walks in 126 innings.


Boagie- He was only 18 years old that season, that's probably a big reason why he was ranked #19, makes sense to me. Probably why Marc was also high on him, and rightfully so.

Rog -- You make a good point here. Playing at San Jose at age 18 is indeed impressive. And he gave up just 89 hits in 126 innings, to boot. There were some warning signs though. The 115 strikeouts was very good but not spectacular. Not a big issue though. But the combination of 48 walks, 10 HBP and 9 wild pitches could have been a bit of a warning.

Still, you're right. #19 might have been a little high, but not by much at that time. Jerome was still ranked #19 after the following season though, even though he struck out only 84 in 130 innings, yielded 14 home runs, and posted a 3.95 ERA.

As I mentioned too, Jerome's father died somewhere in there, which may have strongly contributed to Jerome's decline.

Boagie -- High School players who do well early on usually see a spike in their ranking.

Rog -- That depends in part on how high a level they play at. And to Jerome's credit, High A at age 18 is impressive.

Boagie -- That doesn't mean Marc or the ranking was wrong. Things change, Thats why the rankings are constantly being updated and us fans change our opinions. Weren't you pretty high on Gary Brown a few seasons ago?

Rog -- It does indeed become tough to remember everyone's stance on various issues, but since I'm a big K/BB guy, what do you think? It was Randy. I was down on Gary, and Gary fell back on the old "I know what I saw" defense.

I actually was just thinking about this a couple of days ago. I can understand what Randy saw. Gary has burning speed, a very nice glove, at least an average arm, and he won the Cal League MVP with an impressive hitting season that included very nice power for a lead off man. But what Randy didn't know or overlooked was that the scouting report on Brown was that he had far too much trouble making contact and didn't know how to take a walk.

Brown still isn't good at those two skills, which is a shame, since if he could just hit the ball consistently, he could be close to a five-tool player for a lead off man.

I realize we all get excited by the old "I know what I saw" ego trip. We've all fallen prey to it. The problem is that even the scouts don't know for sure what they saw. That's why I like to combine scouting with analytics.

Let's say we've got a lead off candidate who in three years of high-level college ball draws just 41 walks, including just 9 in his draft year. Meanwhile he strikes out 70 times. Those numbers don't sound too bad, but for a college lead off hitter, they aren't very good.

Now in his first full season of minor league ball, he draws 46 walks and strikes out 77 times. Again, that's not horrible, and I probably should have been a bit more excited about Gary than I was. But I couldn't stop remembering the scouting reports that he couldn't control the strike zone well. I combined analytics with the scouting reports and came away with what turned out to be a pretty good judgment on Brown. Had I relied on analytics alone, I wouldn't have been as high on Brown as Randy was, but I would have thought more of Gary than I actually did.

Combining analytics and scouting (I had to use the scouting reports of others, since I hadn't seen Brown play) gave me what has thus far been an accurate evaluation. Brown fell off badly at AA Richmond and even worse at AAA Fresno. This year he's bouncing back a bit, but he has been badly outhit by Juan Perez. In two months, Brown will be 26, and he is sliding from prospect to suspect.

Once the Giants' top prospect (after 2011, when Randy and I disagreed so much on him), he has fallen so far that he's not in anybody's top 10 that I know of. Some don't have him in their top 20 now.

As I have often mentioned, no one gets it right all the time. But teams now agree that combining scouting and analytics gives a better result than either one of them alone. Randy was going with the scouting of a good baseball fan (himself), but not a professional scout. I was going with the evaluations of some of the professional scouts and with my own analytics. I'm not sharper than Randy, but I had better tools with which to work.

Incidentally, there was a very wide variance in what scouts thought of Brown as he advanced. Some thought he still had a chance to be a star, while others worried that he might never be better than a 4th outfielder. At this point, some must be wondering if he will even make the majors for any length of time.

In a season in which Brown would have been thought a few years back to be the top candidate for the Giants' center field job, he has been passed up for promotion by Jarrett Parker, the player drafted BEHIND Gary in 2010. Parker was called up from AA, while Brown still languishes in AAA. Parker has an OPS that is 120 points higher than Gary.

Here is a brief scouting report I would give on Brown now:

Still struggling to make consistent contact, putting a low ceiling on his average. His lack of plate control has also prevented him from getting on base often enough for a lead off man. His tremendous speed has translated in the field, but he has stolen bases at only a 67% success rate, one that has declined each of the past three seasons.

Once a player who looked like a potential star, his ceiling may have fallen all the way to fourth outfielder. Brown is approaching age 26, and he must put his not insubstantial skills into play at a significantly higher level. Once considered a top prospect, he has slipped to a banana peel away from being a suspect.

Gary needs to get his fruit salad together quickly. He's on the verge of becoming overripe.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2388/words#ixzz39JVx1Ddm

[klaiggeb]

Rog-Still struggling to make consistent contact, putting a low ceiling on his average. His lack of plate control has also prevented him from getting on base often enough for a lead off man. His tremendous speed has translated in the field, but he has stolen bases at only a 67% success rate, one that has declined each of the past three seasons.

---boly says---

No one commented on my hitting post a couple days ago, when I spoke of the "indescribeable" talent some kids havein their hands which allows them to get the fat of the bat head to the ball.

I would submit Gary does not have this ability. That, like many, he simply got to the point where he was as good as he was going to get, and others passed him by.

We've all seen it before.

boly