|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Aug 13, 2016 10:29:20 GMT -5
Boagie- If you really think some low quality video from one of his outings is enough to judge, then I have to question your expertise on the subject. Video usually doesn't show the movement of pitches and it doesn't show ALL his pitches.
And I agree with Randy, if not liking Tim Lincecum was considered your scouting success story, I'd hate to see one you consider yourself wrong on.
***boly says***
Really, boagie. That's your response?
That's it?
Low quality film?
1-I don't care WHAT the quality of the film is, mechanics CAN be evaluated and evaluate well by film.
2-Where in my response to Marc did I say I DIDN'T like Lincecum?
It's not there because I NEVER said that.
I was a huge Lincecum fan. Huge!
I only turned on Tim because he WOULDN'T make the adjustments needed to stay at, or near the top.
I was upset with Lincecum fans because THEY kept seeing what he used to be, NOT what he became.
Marc asked me to critique Tim's mechanics, which I did.
And I hit the bulls eye dead center!
Bingo!
I flat out nailed it!
Nothing I said in my evaluation of "poor quality film" was off the mark.
Nothing.
Roger summed it up quite well when he said that. Tim was arguably the BEST pitcher in baseball from 2008-2011.
4 outstanding years!
But after that, he was the WORST, and the facts bear that up.
No one in the media, NOT one giant fan, and I mean, NOT ONE saw his deterioration coming as quickly as it did.
But my original evaluation did.
In fact I used Arnold Palmer, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron and Pete Rose as examples.
Palmer and Mays both had complicated swings with multiple moving parts.
They were flat out GREAT!!!
But as they aged, BOTH of them soured and soured quickly BECAUSE they couldn't hold those mechanics together.
As opposed to Rose and Aaron who stayed at or near the top MUCH longer BECAUSE they had simple mechanics with less moving parts.
It comes down to being able, as Krukow always says, to being able to "repeat the stroke."
As muscle memory gets old, it can't repeat what it once did by instinct and THAT is what happened to Timmy.
How can you rip me a new one for 'missing' on Tim, and then turn around and IGNORE that AFTER those first 4 years, he became the WORST starter in the ML?
How can you do that?
How can you say I missed in my evaluation?
Talk about unfair!
Dude! Seriously!
His mechanics did his career in because he couldn't repeat that awkward motion as the innings on his arm increased.
He couldn't.
But you're going to argue that I never liked Tim. That no matter what he did I had it in for him.
Sheesh.
I just evaluate what I see.
I evaluated what I SAW.
And that's it.
Like/dislike had NOTHING to do with it.
nothing at all.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Aug 13, 2016 11:47:14 GMT -5
Boly- Marc asked me to critique Tim's mechanics, which I did.
And I hit the bulls eye dead center!
Bingo!
I flat out nailed it!
Boagie- You said what other scouts said. Complicated mechanics and small frame. They passed because of that, and that was a mistake.
I'd imagine most, if not all, the teams that passed on him would likely have taken him knowing what they know now.
If the Giants could see into a crystal ball and know that they'd get the same result from whoever the Giants are able to land in the next draft they would take him without hesitation.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Aug 13, 2016 11:57:58 GMT -5
Of course a Crystal Ball would have been nice, but honestly, had I BEEN the Giant scouts, I WOULD have still signed Lincecum.
His arm was too good, his stuff TOO good to pass up.
I, too, WOULD HAVE ROLLED
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Aug 13, 2016 11:59:58 GMT -5
Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhh ya!
Damned button!!!!
I TOO WOULD HAVE ROLLED THE DICE and Signed Tim, even though I would know, going in, that the kid might have a short career.
And honestly, boagie, when Marc sent me the stuff to evaluate, I had ZERO idea who Lincecum was.
None.
At that time I did NOT follow our minor league system at all.
So what he sent me, and what the scouts had said was all news to me as I had not ever seen any of it.
My evaluation was just mine, not influenced by anyone else.
boly
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member 
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Aug 13, 2016 12:50:10 GMT -5
Boy would Adam Duvall's bat be nice in our lineup these days or what? !st base, third base, OF, it doesn't matter where he plays or how badly he fields...we're getting ZERO offense right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Aug 13, 2016 15:23:57 GMT -5
Again... you make a nice point.
Belt's defense saves us so often... but his decided lack of production has become an embarrassment.
boly
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Aug 13, 2016 15:29:08 GMT -5
I personally feel Belt is overrated defensively. He's tall and long but that's not a skill. That's DNA. Plus he still has lapses in mental focus...AND he far too often ranges too far to his right, turning an easy play for Panik into a difficult throw to a running pitcher.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Aug 13, 2016 15:34:58 GMT -5
What Belt does do well, Randy, which I see as a MUST for a 1Bman... is pick the ball in the dirt.
He's far and away NOT the best I've ever seen, but he's good at it.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Aug 14, 2016 13:47:42 GMT -5
Belt has better footwork around the bag than any Giants first baseman I've seen. He also makes strong, accurate throws. He does the other things well, but his footwork and arm are what separates him from other first baseman.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Aug 15, 2016 15:13:07 GMT -5
All good points, boagie!
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Aug 16, 2016 12:57:09 GMT -5
Randy is right that Brandon sometimes ranges too far to his right. That's a flaw most first basemen with range exhibit, and Brandon is probably more guilty of it than the average player. But as Boly and Boagie point out, he's really good at digging the ball out of the dirt, has good footwork and has a former pitcher's arm. And as Randy mentioned, he presents a very big target because of his size.
In all, Brandon's pluses appear to greatly outweigh his minus, which is why he is considered a very good to excellent first baseman. He's a good to very good hitter and a very good to excellent defender. Those are what make him a good to very good player.
Unless one gets blinded by the warts.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Aug 16, 2016 13:58:32 GMT -5
continue to kiss his wimpy ass all you want. I've seen enough tee ball fastballs get by him to last me a lifetime
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Aug 16, 2016 15:00:13 GMT -5
Rog, I think the point is that Randy is angry and flat out frustrated with Belt... as I am with Belt and Posey.
In the past, Posey achieved... Brandon did not.
This year, both are under achieving, Posey... flat out OFF THE CHARTS under achieving.
Belt has no business hitting 3rd.
none.
He's shown me little, if any, concept of what makes up a 3 hole hitter... but then, Bochy really doesn't have many options.
Starting tonight, win, lose or draw, I change the lineup.
I move Pence to the 3 hole
Span
Pagan
Pence
Crawford
Posey(if he's even playing)
Belt
Panik
Nunez
I want that speed at the top and bottom of the line up.
+ I want a hacker in the 8 hole... if I have to have a hacker at all, because they'll expand the strike zone.
Not Panik.
Too disciplined.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Aug 18, 2016 12:55:05 GMT -5
In the past, Posey achieved... Brandon did not. Rog -- No question Buster performed clearly BETTER, but that doesn't mean that Brandon didn't perform. Buster's career OPS is .855 compared to Brandon's .817, but .817 itself is good. The knock on Brandon here is more than anything that he doesn't drive in runs. So let's take a look: With RISP, Brandon has hit .261/.358/.433/.791. That's good but not great. With runners on, he has hit .285/.371/.471/.842. That is very good. In late and close situations he has hit .289/.369/.438/.807. That is good. In high leverage situations he has hit .290/.377/.458/.835. That is very good. While not at the level of Buster, Brandon has achieved. Let's look at another few aspects of their games: Defensively Buster has gone around Brandon, but Brandon is very good defensively. Brandon is a better base runner. Brandon doesn't hit into NEARLY as many double plays. Buster will almost certainly become a Hall of Famer. He's a better player than Brandon. But Brandon is a good player, one who can help most teams. Saying Brandon hasn't achieved in the past just isn't correct. He hasn't played at an All-Star level, but he's clearly been an above average player. A good one, not a great one. Are we truly trying to say that Brandon hasn't been an above average player? That's just wrong. If we don't think he's above average, there are plenty of teams out there who do and would trade for him in a minute if they need a first baseman. Brandon isn't the type of player who wins championships by himself, but he is the type of player who is important to a championship team. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3417/great-smith#ixzz4HhtC4WpH |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Aug 18, 2016 13:08:57 GMT -5
Belt has no business hitting 3rd.
none.
Rog -- As you mentioned, Bruce doesn't have a lot of options here, just as he doesn't have a true cleanup hitter. But let's look at how well Brandon DOES fit into the three-hole.
First, let's remember from the last post that he has hit above-average in key situations, even if it may not seem so.
Second, let's remember that he gets on base better than anyone else on the team, and that is what you want before the cleanup man.
Third, he rarely hits into double plays, one again a fine thing right ahead of the cleanup guy.
Fourth, he has decent power, although it's more doubles power than home run power. Once again, that gives the cleanup hitter more runners to clean up.
Is Brandon the best #3 hitter in the game? Not even close. After all, the #3 guy is usually a team's best hitter, so the competition is fierce among #3 hitters. Buster Posey is the Giants' best hitter, but he doesn't get on base as well as Brandon (at least not this season) and is a base clogger. (He was likely out at the plate yesterday. He made a horrible slide into home plate, and he was tagged on the arm; one could see his undershirt move just above the elbow, and Buster himself said he was tagged there.)
Brandon isn't really all that good for a #3 hitter, and perhaps that is what is meant above. But he's the best the Giants have, and he isn't a bad #3 hitter either. I don't have figures for the average #3 hitter this season, but the first baseman on a team is often its best hitter. The average NL first baseman has hit .267/.349/.461/.810. Brandon stands at .280/.395/.482/.877. Brandon is clearly a better hitter than the average NL first baseman.
I can't believe how little respect Brandon gets here. He's not a great player, but frankly, he's been the Giants' best hitter so far this season. And a team's best hitter usually bats third.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Aug 18, 2016 13:14:21 GMT -5
I move Pence to the 3 hole
Rog -- Why? Hunter doesn't get on base as often, and we feel he drives in runs better. Why bat a guy who doesn't get on (as well) ahead of the cleanup guy but drives in runs third? Doesn't make sense, does it? Especially when Hunter hasn't been hitting. Hunter is hitting just .180/.231/.262/.493 in August. Do we truly want a guy in that much of a slump batting third?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Aug 18, 2016 13:15:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Aug 18, 2016 13:21:54 GMT -5
I want a hacker in the 8 hole... if I have to have a hacker at all, because they'll expand the strike zone. Rog -- Here's what I want there. A guy who is able to hit well at the boundaries of the strike zone (although if he could do that, he'd probably be batting much higher in the order). I also want a guy with a good eye who won't make the last out of the inning, forcing the pitcher to lead off the next inning. Of course, if a guy has a good eye, he's also likely batting higher in the order. But to the extent possible, I want both these characteristics. Not simply one of them. It's easy to say expand the strike zone so the pitcher doesn't have to drive in the runner. But very few hitters are able to expand the zone effectively. And if the pitcher has to lead off the next inning, it really dampens his team's chances of scoring. Maybe a way to look at it is this: If the situation is one that truly cries out for a run or runs to be driven in, pinch hit for the pitcher. Even the best 8th-place hitter has only a 25% chance of getting a hit when he expands the zone. That means far too often the pitcher leads off the next inning. Looking for the 8th-place hitter to expand the zone is often short-sighted. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3417/great-smith#ixzz4Hi2UlkMH |
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Aug 18, 2016 14:58:32 GMT -5
Rog, don't misunderstand.
IF we have a hacker, 8 is where I want him because a hacker will and can expand the strike zone and still hit.
Panik, when healthy is a terrible choice because he walks a lot.
Or did until he got hurt.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Aug 18, 2016 19:38:44 GMT -5
By the way, why is it that very few hitters are good with two strikes? Part of it of course is that if the hitter swings and misses, he's out. He has little leeway. And part of it is because he expands the zone.
Buster Posey is considered one of the game's best two-strike hitters, since has good bat control. But Buster has hit only .237 with two strikes. He's hit .333 with two strikes when he doesn't strike out, but that compares with .374 when he has hit without two strikes. When Buster swings more freely before two strikes, he hit 40 points higher when he makes contact. Take 40 points away from each contact figure, and we see that with two strikes would be about where he is hitting this disappointing season and before two strikes he would be about where he was in his MVP season.
In other words, even with a good two-strike hitter, expanding the strike zone makes a good hitter less so and a bad hitter worse.
What we see is that the value of expanding the strike zone -- even when it involves the 8th-place hitter -- is likely overrated at best and highly counter productive at worst.
The concept of expanding the strike zone in certain situations seems to make sense on the face of it, but when we look deeper, we see that it isn't nearly as good an idea as it seems at first. Yes, it's nice when the 8th-place hitter drives the runner home. But if he expands the strike zone, he's going to make an out a high percentage of the time. And then the pitcher is going to lead off the next inning, which has a definite cost to run-scoring.
Now, if it's the bottom of the ninth, that's a different story. If the game isn't tied or won in the bottom of the ninth, it will certainly be lost. But of course if the 8th-place hitter is walked, a pinch hitter will almost certainly be used, and the pinch hitter might be a better hitter than the 8th-place guy.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Aug 18, 2016 19:48:07 GMT -5
Krukow has pointed out on many, many occasions over the years, and has been supported by Kuiper's opinion, that the 8 hole hitter MUST be a guy who can expand the strike zone and still make decent contact BECAUSE the pitcher is up next.
That's why, IMHO, Nunez is a good 8 hole fit.
boly
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Aug 18, 2016 19:58:27 GMT -5
continue to kiss his wimpy ass all you want. I've seen enough tee ball fastballs get by him to last me a lifetime
Rog -- I'm sorry, Randy, but this is the talk of an emotional child.
Dood - usually you throw a bunch of numbers at me to counter my statements. But obviously this time you have NO stats to dispute it and instead have resorted to insults. The oaf can't hit high fastballs, which is why his production sucks. You know I'm right about this...everyone does.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Aug 18, 2016 20:33:53 GMT -5
continue to kiss his wimpy ass all you want. I've seen enough tee ball fastballs get by him to last me a lifetime Rog -- I'm sorry, Randy, but this is the talk of an emotional child. Dood - usually you throw a bunch of numbers at me to counter my statements. But obviously this time you have NO stats to dispute it and instead have resorted to insults. The oaf can't hit high fastballs, which is why his production sucks. You know I'm right about this...everyone does. Rog -- I no doubt should have stated it differently, but I didn't mean to insult you so much as to encourage you to use more mature language than "kiss his wimpy ass." Didn't most of us stop talking that way when we hit junior high or high school? Certainly by the time we were adults. I know Brandon often looks bad on high fastballs (In fact, he can look bad on pitches just about anywhere), but Fan Graphs says he is hitting well against fastballs in general. One thing I will say is that there are few players who can't hit high fastballs that are hitting as well overall as Brandon is. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3417/great-smith#ixzz4HjnPx9zS |
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Aug 19, 2016 11:34:50 GMT -5
Haven't been posting much lately, Boly, plus I was in China, believe it or not for almost two weeks. Great, historic place to visit. As for Smith, he continues to look bad, although he really made Giant killer Jay Bruce look overmatched last night. I'm optimistic about him going forward next year, but really can't see how Bochy can trust him right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Aug 19, 2016 13:19:18 GMT -5
Last night's graphic showed that Brandon Belt is hitting .314 against fastballs. It didn't specify what that average was against high fastballs.
Smith has really been struggling. I didn't like the trade because I felt the Giants gave up too much, but thus far Will hasn't performed. I wonder how much the knee is bothering him.
Smith did make Jay Bruce look bad, but Jay has hit very poorly since joining the Mets. Not a huge sample, but not a tiny one either (109 plate appearances), but Jay has hit just .167 in the Mets park over his career. Bruce struck out three times, and his single was simply hit to just the right place. He did line out, but it wasn't a really hard-hit liner, as he had fewer than two cheeks into the swing.
I've cut him from at least one of my fantasy teams (as well as he has hit right-handed pitching on the season) and might cut him from more as soon as tonight. Waiting to see if he shows life tonight.
Great to have you back, Mark. I was afraid you were stuck behind a Great Wall somewhere.
|
|
