When to rest Buster

[Rog]

Any idea how many games Buster Posey played in last season?  I was a little surprised to find it was 150.  Despite the bumps and bruises of being a catcher, Buster missed only a dozen games.

He didn't catch all 150 of them, of course.  Not even close.  He started 103 behind the plate, 37 at first base, 3 as designated hitter, and entered seven games late in the game.

So how should the Giants approach resting Buster next season?

To begin, let's see their present trend with him.  He started 111 games behind the plate in 2012, 119 in 2013, 109 in 2014, and 103 last season.  They're gradually bringing down his workload behind the plate.  It's come down 14% over the past two seasons.  So we might expect him to start 100 or fewer games behind the plate.

That means a lot of time at first base, where his starts are already rising.  So what does that mean for Brandon Belt, who is another of the Giants' best hitters?  With the addition of Denard Span, it doesn't appear Brandon will be seeing a lot of time in left field.  He hasn't seen much anyway, and with Blanco and likely Blanks, they should be pretty well covered at the position, likely starting with Angel Pagan.

The answer appears to be two-fold.  Give Buster more total days off -- allowing him to catch a few more games -- and catch Susac pretty much every time a southpaw faces the Giants.  Injuries should take care of the rest (no pun intended).

With inter league games, there are 344 available starts between Posey, Belt and Susac.  If there were no injuries, I would like to see Buster start 145 or more of those, Brandon 150 or more, and Andrew about 50.

Let Buster start 112 games behind the plate, 23 at first base, and 10 as designated hitter.  Let Brandon start 139 games at first and 10 as designated hitter.  That would leave 50 starts for Susac, most of them against southpaws.

There will be a lot of competition between Posey, Belt and Susac for playing time.  The key will be to get Andrew in the lineup enough to rest Buster and still get almost all the starts for Brandon.

If all remain healthy, there will be lots of competition for playing time in the outfield, as well.  Remember, Blanco has had at least 372 plate appearances in each of his seasons with the Giants, and would have had more than the 372 last season if he had remained fully healthy.  It appears the Giants' "problem" won't be in finding enough players for the playing time, but enough playing time for the players.  That's what improved depth does.

[klaiggeb]

It's a good question, Roger.

Personally, I think him starting 100 games behind the plate is MORE than enough.

I like Susac a LOT!

He's a good defender, throws well, blocks the ball well, and is a FAR better hitter than Sanchez.

We don't lose much, like we did with Sanchez, when he's behind the plate.

Rating Susac over all vs Sanchez... in my eyes, isn't even close.

boly

[Rog]

I didn't include him in my comparison of the opening day 2014 and 2015 rosters because Andrew began the 2015 season injured, but he was another reason the 2015 roster was better. I have liked Andrew since I saw him two years ago on TV in the Arizona Fall League, although I warned a year ago that he would need to cut down on his strikeouts in order to approach his 2014 average. He still strikes out too much, but his K/BB ratio at Richmond and Fresno was good.

When he was drafted in the 2nd round in 2012 in part because of his defense, and Andrew was advanced enough to begin his minor league career at San Jose. (Even Tim Lincecum pitched four innings at Salem-Keizer, striking out 10 IIRC). I think Andrew is good enough that he could start for some teams, although I don't think he'll hit for quite as high an average as I had hoped.

The key with Andrew is that he hits southpaws very well, and the Giants could do worse than start him every time they face a left-hander (which would put him in the lineup a lot against the Dodgers). Facing Clayton Kershaw might be an exception.

[klaiggeb]

I agree with you, Rog, totally about Susac.

I also think that Belt can play LF and play it fairly well.

I am predicting that THIS SEASON will be Brandon's long awaited, break out, power season.

I expect no less than 20 HRs from him, with the possibility for as many as 25.

Thus, we need his bat in the line up as much as possible.

boly

[sfgdood]

The fact that we even have to have this discussion explains why Belt should have been traded

[klaiggeb]

I'm hoping for the best, Randy, and THIS year would be a good time for that BIG YEAR, to happen.

boly

[Islandboagie]

If there were other good first basemen available this off season I would agree with you, Randy. Chris Davis is too expensive for what he offers, and I didn't see much else out there.

[Rog]

I agree with you, Rog, totally about Susac.

I also think that Belt can play LF and play it fairly well.

I am predicting that THIS SEASON will be Brandon's long awaited, break out, power season.

I expect no less than 20 HRs from him, with the possibility for as many as 25.

Thus, we need his bat in the line up as much as possible.


Rog -- You make a good point here. The top four Giants outfielders missed a total of 287 games last season, so there likely will be opportunities for Belt to play left field. That would provide a very simply solution to the "problem" of games for Belt, Posey and Susac.

If everyone stays healthy though, it will be tough with four good outfielders and three good catchers/first basemen. Unless the Giants have as good luck with injuries as they had bad last season though, the issue should be a simple one. And if everyone stays healthy, what a nice "problem" that would be.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3188/when-rest-buster#ixzz3xjGeZO44

[Rog]

The fact that we even have to have this discussion explains why Belt should have been traded


Rog -- Tough call. Probably not the time to trade Brandon, with his coming off concussion issues. In addition, who would play first base if he were traded? The Giants just aren't going to play Buster full-time there yet, and there are no other bona fide candidates.

In addition, Brandon is indeed due for a breakout season, and he's under team control for two more seasons.

Meanwhile, the Giants are said to be pursuing a long-term extension with Belt, which likely is a good idea. If Brandon does indeed break out in one of the next two seasons, a Chris Davis-like contract is easily foreseeable, although it might be a little light in that case.

Speaking of Davis, what a brilliant job by Scott Boras. Nothing unethical that I know of, and Davis got a fabulous contract despite the need to give up a draft choice to sign him in what has been a surprisingly soft market for sluggers.

Davis just HAD a great season, yet his numbers aren't much better than Belt's:

BA -- Davis .255, Belt .271

OBP -- Davis .330, Belt .347

SLG -- Davis .506, Belt .456

OPS -- Davis .835, Belt .803


Belt doesn't have the power potential of Davis, but in every other way he's already better than Davis. If Brandon does indeed get off his plateau in the next two seasons, he will be a very top free agent if he becomes eligible. IMO it's time to lock him up. If not, perhaps look to trade him after the season, when a breakout season in 2016 would make him a very hot trade commodity. If he's healthy, he'd be a hot one already.

Remember too that he's put up very good numbers despite playing in AT&T Stadium, not exactly a boon for a left-handed power hitter. He's also been far more consistent than the contact-challenged Davis. That said, Davis has been excellent to outstanding in two of the past three seasons, while Belt has been merely very good over that period.

Brandon will almost certainly do most of his hitting between the 3rd and 6th spots in the order in 2016. That's usually indicative of a pretty good hitter.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3188/when-rest-buster?page=1#ixzz3xjHou1xW

[klaiggeb]

For Brandon to earn his keep this year, and the years to come, hitting less than 20 HRs, and driving in less than 85 runs is unacceptable.

That's my opinion.

boly

[Rog]

For Brandon to earn his keep this year, and the years to come, hitting less than 20 HRs, and driving in less than 85 runs is unacceptable.


Rog -- If healthy, there is almost no question Brandon will earn his keep this season. He has offered to sign in arbitration for $7.5 million, with the Giants countering at $5.3 million. If they split the difference (and the result will almost certainly be fairly close to that point), he would make $6.4 million. He's projected for $6.2 million.

Remember Alejandro DeAza? Neither of those figures are all that much higher than the $5.75 million Alejandro will be playing for this summer. De Aza has a lower batting average and on-base percentage than Belt and has hit 45 homers in his 8-year major league career. If healthy, Brandon would have to have a pretty poor season not to earn his keep. Even if he reverts to his rookie level, he would be pretty close.

If Brandon hits 20 homers and drives in 85, he'll almost certainly be playing at a very high level. Even though he has a career high of 68 RBI's, his OPS+ is an impressive 126, he is a plus base runner, and he is considered to be a top five fielder at first base. If he goes 20/85, that will likely indicate he's able to play a full season for the first time in his career, and if he stays healthy, 20/85 certainly isn't out of the question.

Before we pick on Brandon for having "only" 68 RBI's last season, let's consider that he hit .285/.446 with RISP and .282/.459 with runners on. Those aren't bad numbers. Clearly he did a better job than the 68 RBI's would indicate. When Hunter Pence drove home 104 runs (over 50% more) in 2012, he hit .251/.443 and .273/.470. In other words, he hit a lot like Brandon did in 2015.

Hunter simply got a lot more opportunities.

If we're going to set counting stats goals for Brandon -- or any other player -- we need to make reasonable assumptions as to the opportunities they will receive. It would be possible -- not likely -- for Brandon to go 20/85 and not do all that well (as would have been the case with Pence in 2012). It would also be possible for him not to go 20/85 and have had a pretty good year.

Here we are in danger of overestimating what it takes to earn one's keep at around $6.4 million, and of setting counting goals without having a count of the opportunities to do so.

We'd all love to see Brandon go 20/85, but there are likely more accurate measures of success that we could use.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3188/when-rest-buster#ixzz3xjzIWe4Q

[Islandboagie]

Rog- We'd all love to see Brandon go 20/85, but there are likely more accurate measures of success that we could use.

Boagie- And what would that be?

[sfgdood]

If your 1st baseman can't get 20 dongs and/or at least 85 ribbies, then you're better off putting Buster there and saving his body from unnecessary punishment.

[Rog]

Rog- We'd all love to see Brandon go 20/85, but there are likely more accurate measures of success that we could use.

Boagie- And what would that be?


Rog -- That's a very nice question. I would use OPS. If Brandon can stay healthy and get his OPS up in the .850 area or higher, I would call that a successful season for him. That would put him at or above Buster Posey's level and might make him the best hitter on the team. There's a pretty good chance he'd go 20/85 if he did that, but there is no guarantee. With regard to RBI's, opportunities would likely have something to do with it. Another opportunity stat is runs scored, and that would be important too, especially if Brandon bats third, which is likely a good spot for him.

Brandon has been a good player three out of the past four seasons. In 2014 he was on pace for over 35 home runs when his season became an injury-riddled process. His concussion problems began when Marco Scutaro hit him with a pre-game throw that Brandon wasn't expecting, since he was catching another throw at the time.

The past four seasons Baseball-Reference has had Brandon at 12 wins, or an average of three per season. He's played roughly three-quarters of the time, which puts him on pace for four wins per season if playing full time. That's pretty good. In fact, even though Hunter Pence has played more during that time, Brandon is two and a half wins ahead of Hunter.

Now, part of Hunter's value is in the clubhouse, and the reason Brandon is ahead of him isn't his bat, but his glove, but we do see that Brandon has been pretty good. The Giants had a wonderful defensive infield last season, and think how many errors Brandon saved them on errant throws.

In short, when fully healthy, Brandon has been a good to very good player. He hasn't yet played at an All-Star level, but he's likely been at least average. MLB comes out with its first baseman rankings tomorrow. It will be intriguing to see how Brandon fares. I don't expect him to crack the top 10, but I'll be surprised if he doesn't make honorable mention.

If the Giants can extend Brandon via a team-friendly contract as they did Brandon Crawford, I would do so. The one thing they gave Crawford though that they can't afford to give Belt is a no-trade pact. If they lock Belt up for the same six seasons, they need to be able to trade him somewhere during that contract when they allow Buster Posey to more or less take over first base. If Brandon is questionable as an outfielder now, he'll likely be even more of one as he begins to slow down.

Brandon will turn 28 soon after the start of the season.

Here's a though to help lend perspective. We're hoping that Jarrett Parker will play well enough to become the Giants' left field by the 2017 season when the Giants have only two experienced outfielders under contract. When the Giants open the 2017 season, Parker will be the same age Brandon is today -- almost to the very day.

In other words, the Giants are hoping that Jarrett will be ready for their starting lineup at the same age Brandon has already played five seasons with a 126 OPS+ and near Gold Glove defense. Put Brandon in a strong left-handed hitters' park, and he might already be considered a star.

We'd all like to see Brandon hit more homers, right? On the road, he's homered once every 22 at bats (which is close to a 30-homer pace over a full season). That compares with Freddie Freeman's 26 at bats per road home run. Freddie will make just under $20 million per season over the next six seasons, and had a 2015 season that was very similar to Brandon's year.

The bottom line is that even though Brandon hasn't yet reached the potential we see for him, he's been a pretty good player. With 25 players the level of Belt, one could win a World Series. When that is true, a player is pretty much average at least.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3188/when-rest-buster#ixzz3xnMJHjAg

[Rog]

If your 1st baseman can't get 20 dongs and/or at least 85 ribbies, then you're better off putting Buster there and saving his body from unnecessary punishment.


Rog -- Are the Giants a better team with Buster catching and Brandon at first base or with Susac catching and Buster at first base? Both offensively and defensively, they're better with the former.

Since Andrew has hit southpaws for an .824 OPS, one could make an argument that the Giants might be as good against left-handed pitching in the latter situation, but Brandon's .802 OPS against lefties last season makes even that questionable.

Buster is improving at first base, but he's not yet Brandon. Andrew is good behind the plate, but he's not yet Buster. Obviously Brandon is a better base runner than Andrew. Even against southpaws, the Giants are likely better off with Brandon and Buster, although that one's much closer.

Against right-handers, Andrew's career OPS is more than 200 points below Brandon. In Andrew, the Giants have a very nice backup catcher. I think he could start for quite a few teams. But don't be fooled into thinking the Giants are a better team with Andrew and Buster than they are with Brandon and Buster. Against right-handers, it isn't even close.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3188/when-rest-buster?page=1#ixzz3xnZ55RuF

[Islandboagie]

Rog- We'd all love to see Brandon go 20/85, but there are likely more accurate measures of success that we could use.

Boagie- And what would that be?


Rog -- That's a very nice question. I would use OPS. If Brandon can stay healthy and get his OPS up in the .850 area or higher, I would call that a successful season for him.

Boagie- That would seem to be successful, but more accurate than Boly's? It seems to me "staying healthy" isn't a measure or more accurate. I don't necessarily agree with Boly that anything less would be unacceptable. Brandon could hit 17/83 and I'd still be content. The fact is, Boly put out a few numbers that would suggest Belt was healthy, produced and got a lot of playing time. In this instance Boly's numbers are more accurate in proving success.
OPS doesn't mean much to me on the surface. Belt could start the opener, have a great game, then decide he wants to retire and be a Tibetan monk. His OPS in 2016 would still be a success to you.

If you add runs to your OPS like you did later in your post, you get closer to an accurate measure, but no more accurate than Boly. We know Belt can get on base and put up a good OPS, he's done it before. What Boly, Randy and myself want to see is Belt knock in more runs and hit with more consistent power, his numbers would suggest to me he accomplished that in 2016. Your numbers look good, but nothing much different than we've seen him put up before.

I would consider Belt's success based on Buster's playing time at first base. I would like to see a situation where Bochy can rest Posey without moving him to first base. If Belt is producing at a high level Bochy wouldn't need to keep Buster in the lineup on his "days off." Boly's numbers would put Bochy in a situation to allow that to happen, your numbers wouldn't.

Disagreeing with Boly's statement is just another example of you disagreeing just to disagree.

[Rog]

Rog -- That's a very nice question. I would use OPS. If Brandon can stay healthy and get his OPS up in the .850 area or higher, I would call that a successful season for him.

Boagie- That would seem to be successful, but more accurate than Boly's? It seems to me "staying healthy" isn't a measure or more accurate. I don't necessarily agree with Boly that anything less would be unacceptable. Brandon could hit 17/83 and I'd still be content. The fact is, Boly put out a few numbers that would suggest Belt was healthy, produced and got a lot of playing time. In this instance Boly's numbers are more accurate in proving success.
OPS doesn't mean much to me on the surface. Belt could start the opener, have a great game, then decide he wants to retire and be a Tibetan monk. His OPS in 2016 would still be a success to you.

If you add runs to your OPS like you did later in your post, you get closer to an accurate measure, but no more accurate than Boly. We know Belt can get on base and put up a good OPS, he's done it before. What Boly, Randy and myself want to see is Belt knock in more runs and hit with more consistent power, his numbers would suggest to me he accomplished that in 2016. Your numbers look good, but nothing much different than we've seen him put up before.

I would consider Belt's success based on Buster's playing time at first base. I would like to see a situation where Bochy can rest Posey without moving him to first base. If Belt is producing at a high level Bochy wouldn't need to keep Buster in the lineup on his "days off." Boly's numbers would put Bochy in a situation to allow that to happen, your numbers wouldn't.

Disagreeing with Boly's statement is just another example of you disagreeing just to disagree.


Rog -- You yourself disagreed with Boly when you said that 17/83 would be acceptable, Boagie. I personally think OPS is a good measure for Brandon (or pretty much any other player). And while it wouldn't necessarily be his fault, he won't be able to miss a ton of games and have us be happy.

Let's assume that Brandon stays healthy in both these examples.

First, let's suppose he hit 20 homers and drives in 85 runs while hitting .240/.310/.440/.750. If given enough RBI opportunities, that could happen. I wouldn't consider that to be a good season for Brandon, even though it would easily represent a career high in RBI's and be his 2nd-highest home run total.

On the other hand, if he goes (to use your example) 17/83 while hitting .280/.370/.480/.850, I would consider that to be successful.

I'm not disagreeing simply to disagree. I'm trying to make the point that if we evaluate Brandon by just his homers and RBI's, we likely aren't using the best evaluative tools.

I will say this: If Brandon goes 20/85, I suspect we'll be reasonably satisfied. But not if he does it in the manner I mentioned above. But if he hits as you and I combined to form (the second example), I see little reason not to be satisfied.

Here's a point that may be a little contradictory. We're saying on one hand that Brandon shouldn't bat 3rd because he doesn't drive in enough runs, but it seems at least as likely he would go 20/85 while batting say 5th as while batting 3rd.

Let's use Buster Posey as a reason why Brandon should bat 3rd. We have had complaints here (such as Brandon's high OPS is built on OBP) that imply Brandon doesn't drive in runs well enough but walks plenty. If he bats ahead of Buster, he puts more runners on base for the Giants' best hitter. If he bats after Buster and pitchers aren't afraid that Brandon will make them pay, his walks mean less and his presumed lack of RBI ability hurts more.

If we don't think Brandon drives in runs well enough, an argument can be made for him to bat 6th, of course. But I would usually want my best hitters to hit 2nd through 5th or at least 1st through 5th. It's pretty hard to make an argument that Brandon isn't at least the Giants' 4th-best hitter, which likely means he should be hitting no lower than 5th.

The one hitter we could argue in addition to Buster, Hunter and Joe is a better hitter than Belt is Brandon Crawford, who hit the heck out of the ball last season with runners on base and RISP. But Brandon also hit just .256 with a sub-.800 OPS in what might turn out to be his career season.

One might make an argument for Matt Duffy, and if Matt continues to grow, it could turn out to be true. But Matt's .762 OPS wasn't much above the team's non-pitcher average of .747.

Belt is likely to get on base more often for Buster than either Duffy or Crawford would. He's likely to hit more home runs than either. He's likely to hit for a higher average than Crawford.

IMO Brandon should bat 3rd -- at least against right-handers. Some argue for Duffy, and if he continues to improve, perhaps he will get there. But right now Belt has easily the higher OBP and SLG. That's a pretty good indication he should bat third over Matt.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3188/when-rest-buster#ixzz3xoF4Mmoo

[Islandboagie]

I'm not going to get into a statistic battle with you, because it's pointless. The point is Boly put up numbers that he thinks would be a successful turning point in Belt's production, I tend to roughly agree with his numbers. You're just repeating the same statistics he's had before, which hasn't led to Belt being as productive to those who watch the games would like to see. So in my estimation Boly's numbers are a better indication of Belt being more successful at producing than he has been in the past. More accurate, a better measure..whatever you'd like to call it. And yes you are just disagreeing to disagree. Either that or you just don't understand the value of statistics. Maybe it's a little of both.

[klaiggeb]

Thank you, Boagie. You got my point precisely.

I merely posted numbers I would expect of my starting 1Bman if I were the GM

Belt has the talent to reach them, but IMHO, to date, has under achieved badly.

boly

[Rog]

Thank you, Boagie. You got my point precisely.

I merely posted numbers I would expect of my starting 1Bman if I were the GM

Belt has the talent to reach them, but IMHO, to date, has under achieved badly.


Rog -- I expected more from Brandon, including last season the breakout season you're predicting for him this season, but I have a hard time being overly disappointed in a good-fielding first baseman who has about an .815 OPS. I see some similarities between Brandon and J.T. Snow. That's less than I was hoping for, but it's nothing to sneeze at.

As for Brandon's talent to reach 20/85, I suspect he has even more talent than that. I will say this. I know of no greater enigma on the Giants than Brandon other than Jeff Samardzija.

Back to Brandon's RBI's again. He hit .285 with a .446 SLG with RISP and .282/.459 with runners on base. That's not bad. I agree though that we can certainly hope for more going forward. As I mentioned before, those numbers are similar to Hunter Pence's in 2012, when because of far more opportunities, Hunter drove in 104 runs.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3188/when-rest-buster#ixzz3xpdvjMF4

[Rog]

One thing to remember about Giants hitters -- and I sometimes forget -- is that playing at AT&T generally hurts hitters' numbers.

With regard to Belt, one thing I'm not happy about is that he can be very successfully overshifted. Wouldn't it be great to see him increase his contact, power and ability to hit the other way? If he does those three things, he should approach the season we thought he would have when he first came up. That's a lot of things to improve though.

[klaiggeb]

It would be a great thing, Rog, I agree.

But he seems stubborn at times, and THAT is foolish.

He has good power the other way. Why not use it?

boly

[klaiggeb]

Rog. If Belt played in Cincinnati or Milwaukee, I'd expect 25 to 30 HRs from him.

I have adjusted my expectations down because of our park.

boly

[sfgdood]

If your 1st baseman can't get 20 dongs and/or at least 85 ribbies, then you're better off putting Buster there and saving his body from unnecessary punishment.


Rog -- Are the Giants a better team with Buster catching and Brandon at first base or with Susac catching and Buster at first base? Both offensively and defensively, they're better with the former.

Dood - you couldn't be more wrong, at least offensively...and that doesn't even take into account the risk factor of keeping Buster behind the dish, susceptible to all manner of injury possibilities.

[Rog]

He has good power the other way. Why not use it?


Rog -- One single skill that would help Brandon a lot would be to learn to hit the ball the other way ON THE GROUND (or on a line). That would enable him to thwart the overshift.

Brandon did OK when he hit the ball to left field, including a home run every 20 at bats. That's the same rate he hit homers when he pulled the ball. And about the same as when he hit the ball to center field (once every 18 at bats). What cost Brandon the most on his season was hitting only .188 on ground balls. Some of that was due to the overshift.

By contrast, Buster Posey hit .268 on ground balls. If Brandon had hit that well on ground balls, he would have raised his average to nearly .300. And if he had done so by hitting more ground balls and line drives to left, his line drive average would likely have risen enough to put him over .300.

If he had done that and played the full season, he would have hit over .300, reached 20 home runs and driven in perhaps 80 or even 85 runs, which is pretty good for a guy who walks as much as Brandon does.

What would help Brandon the most would be to hit GROUND BALLS the other way. Boly is right in that hitting most any type of ball to left would help. Ground balls and line drives in particular.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3188/when-rest-buster#ixzz3xtqzGOqq

[donk33]

Jan 21, 2016 12:25:17 GMT -5 Rog said:

He has good power the other way. Why not use it?


Rog -- One single skill that would help Brandon a lot would be to learn to hit the ball the other way ON THE GROUND (or on a line). That would enable him to thwart the overshift.

Brandon did OK when he hit the ball to left field, including a home run every 20 at bats. That's the same rate he hit homers when he pulled the ball. And about the same as when he hit the ball to center field (once every 18 at bats). What cost Brandon the most on his season was hitting only .188 on ground balls. Some of that was due to the overshift.

By contrast, Buster Posey hit .268 on ground balls. If Brandon had hit that well on ground balls, he would have raised his average to nearly .300. And if he had done so by hitting more ground balls and line drives to left, his line drive average would likely have risen enough to put him over .300.

If he had done that and played the full season, he would have hit over .300, reached 20 home runs and driven in perhaps 80 or even 85 runs, which is pretty good for a guy who walks as much as Brandon does.

What would help Brandon the most would be to hit GROUND BALLS the other way. Boly is right in that hitting most any type of ball to left would help. Ground balls and line drives in particular.

dk..except, if he started to hit ground balls to LF the shift would go off...could be good....or bad.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3188/when-rest-buster#ixzz3xtqzGOqq

[Rog]

Incidentally, in order for Belt to drive in 85 runs, one or more of these things are going to need to happen:

. More at bats with runners on base.

. A very big hitting season with runners on.

. Clearly more than 20 homers.

More on the first instance coming up.

[Islandboagie]

Rog- Incidentally, in order for Belt to drive in 85 runs, one or more of these things are going to need to happen:

. More at bats with runners on base.

. A very big hitting season with runners on.

. Clearly more than 20 homers.

More on the first instance coming up.

Boagie- You act as if Belt not driving in more runs is partly the fault of the Giants batting ahead of him. Brandon Crawford drove in 84 runs batting primarily in the 6th spot in the lineup, Belt drove in 68 batting primarily 5th. Both had roughly the same amount of at bats with runners on, and runners in scoring position.

[Rog]

The flaw in setting a minimum for success that involves RBI's is that it doesn't consider runners on base and in scoring position -- in other words, opportunities.

I fully understand 20/85. If I were using only counting stats and ignoring opportunities, I might set the numbers even higher. But the flaw is that opportunities are left out of the equation.

I posted this earlier, but I'll break it down in more detail to show the flaw in the 20/85 thing.

Under the 20/85 criteria, we'd take Hunter Pence's 2012 season in a heartbeat, right? He hit 24 homers and drove in 104 runs. A very nice season in those regards, and easily above the 20/85 threshold.

Well, Brandon's 69 RBI's last season were barely 2/3rds as many as Hunter in 2012 BECAUSE HE HAD FAR FEWER OPPORTUNITIES.

Brandon hit .285 and slugged .446 with Runners In Scoring Position. Hunter hit .251 and slugged .443. Slight advantage Brandon.

Brandon hit .282 and slugged .459 with runners on base. Hunter hit .273 and slugged .470. Very slight advantage Hunter.

Overall: Call it a draw. Brandon had easily the higher batting average; Hunter had slightly the higher slugging percentage.

But Hunter hit 24 homers, while Brandon hit only 18. Once again, it was mostly opportunity. Brandon hit a homer every 27 at bats; Hunter hit one every 26 at bats.

Brandon actually hit with a bit more overall power, averaging 1.70 bases per hit to Hunter's 1.68. And he accumulated far more bases per at bat overall, slugging .478 to Hunter's .425.

So how did Hunter get so many RBI's than Brandon? Primarily because he had far more opportunities.

The problem with using the counting number of RBI's as a criterion is that it ignores opportunities. Hunter Pence in 2012 had 104 RBI's, far above the 85 homer threshold. Brandon Belt had 69 RBI's last season, far BELOW the threshold. Yet the two were very close in their hitting. Well, except that Brandon probably had a bit of an advantage, the biggest being a .478 SLG compared to Hunter's .425.

That last one is a SIGNIFICANT advantage. That 53 point difference in SLG was more than the difference between Matt Duffy and Nori Aoki last season.

But Hunter had at bats with a third more runners on first base, a third more runners on third base, and 57% more runners on second. That's the primary reason why he had half again as many RBI's in 2012 than Brandon did last season.

Yet despite hitting BETTER than Hunter, Brandon didn't come close to Boly's threshold, while Hunter easily surpassed it. The primary difference? Opportunity. That's the flaw in using the counting number of RBI's.

20/85 sounds good. But saying that Hunter's 104 was great, while Brandon's 69 was lousy is like saying that Brandon is faster than Hunter because Brandon ran 120 yards, while Hunter ran only 90, ignoring that we gave Brandon 15 seconds to run while we gave Hunter only 10.

Using counting stats can be a good measure -- but it can also be very, very dangerous. If we're going to count the yards Brandon Belt and Hunter Pence run, shouldn't we give them the same time to do it in?

20/85 ignores opportunity. Does anyone understand this?

[klaiggeb]

RogerThe flaw in setting a minimum for success that involves RBI's is that it doesn't consider runners on base and in scoring position -- in other words, opportunities.
***boly says***

Rog, I understand your point, and to a point, it's true.

But I don't agree with it.

IF a hitter is hitting 3-4-5-6, they WILL get more than ample opportunities to drive in a TON of runs.

Of course it depends upon people getting on, but do you really think that Span, Panik, Pence, and Posey will NOT be getting on base that often?

Since we know their history, that makes your statement argumentative. Seriously.

How can one argue what good hitters those 4 are, and then make the comment I pasted above?

And as to setting a standard, each standard I set is TOTALLY based upon the hitter, the team, and the park in which the hitter plays.

Facts

1-Belt has power to all fields.

2-Span, Panik, Posey and Pence will all be getting on base a LOT

3-The 3-4-5 hitters don't always succeed, but if Belt is hitting 6th, or 3rd or 4th or 5th, the opportunities will be there in bunches.

4-If Belt CAN'T drive in 85 runs, then HE'S not hitting well with RISP.

Rog, you are my friend, but statements like you made are argumentative and needless.

boly