Grow or Go

[klaiggeb]

The General Manager of any team is a difficult job.

There are going to be players you like, people that you like, that work their fannies off, give you everything they've got... but whom you have to let go.

I wouldn't want to be a GM. It would hurt too much to have to move and/or release some players.

Like Matt Duffy, for instance, or Tim Lincecum.

These guys WERE great GIANTS.

But the GM's job is his job, and they have to do what they have to do.


Thus if I were the GM, my mantra would be, "Grow or Go."

And by that I mean, I expect you to get better each and every year.

Doesn't have to mean going from a .220 hitter to a .300 hitter, but I MUST see my player growing and adjusting as the league adjusts to him.


With that in mind, if I'm Bobby Evans, at the end of the season, I'm moving Brandon Belt.

He's controllable by whomever takes him, he's a solid defender, and, in the right ball park, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, etc. he'll likely hit 25 +HRs.

But for ME, he can't be a Giant anymore.

We don't play in a band box.

We are a team that doesn't focus on the superstar, but rather, seeks players who understand the "we" concept, and who can depended upon year in and year out to work at their craft and get better.

Brandon Crawford would be an outstanding example of that.

NO ONE expect Crawford to ever hit much more than .230... but look where he is now.

They knew he could flat out pick 'em in the field... but at the plate... well, he's a SS. You take the good with the bad.

But look at where he is now.

An 8 hole hitter... to the 4/5 hole.

That's growth!

That's getting better at your craft!

That's adapting while the league adapts to you.


Belt? For all of his promise and upside... he's not a good fit for us.


Who replaces him?

Don't know, and honestly, don't really care.

Evans can and would find someone.

If we hadn't foolishly traded away Susac, I WOULD have moved Posey to 1B.

But that is no longer an option.

Is Shaw Ready?

Don't know.

But as I said, Evans can and will fill the hole.

Now, all he has to do is have the guts to admit his mistake in signing Belt for so much money...(as Randy has said so many times), and pull the trigger.

He won't, but that's what he should do.

boly

[Rog]

I understand the concept here, but if the Giants traded all their players who weren't growing, there would be precious few left. Heck, Willie Mays would have been traded after 1956 when he dipped below .300, and he would never have played at home in San Francisco. Willie McCovey would have been traded early in the sixties because he hadn't grown into hitting left-handed pitching. I think we get the idea.

As for Belt, he didn't reach an .800 OPS in three of his first four season, but he did so last year and is well on his way to repeating this year.

As for the myth that Brandon signed "for so much money," really? Don't we understand that he signed for 6/$69 and that if he were a free agent today, he would probably break $100 million?

We place so much of our opinion on "how did he do lately?" and Brandon has certainly struggled since the All-Star break. But he's also having his best hitting season and is on pace to easily reach a new career high in RBI's.

As for whether Chris Shaw is ready to replace him -- probably not. Shaw had essentially the same season in AA that Brandon is having in the majors and is nowhere near the fielder Brandon is. Shaw isn't exactly a burner. His career total of steals is zero, nill, none, nyet, zilch, still completely on the schneid. As for Susac, I still think he'll hit, but he hit all of .083 after he was traded -- in AAA.

The Giants should make their decision on whether or not to trade Brandon on what they can get for him -- not simply because, like almost every player around him and on other teams, he's stopped growing.

Hopefully they will look at his full body of work and not just how he has hit since the All-Star break.

"Have the guts to admit his mistake?" Wouldn't it be better for Bobby Evans to have the patience to make an informed decision and not overreact to Brandon's tough second half?

Let's be honest here. If Brandon traded his halves and had his excellent first half in the second, wouldn't we fell a lot different about this? Evans gets paid to maintain his perspective.

Perhaps the Giants SHOULD trade Brandon. Certainly he has value. But just as he has value to other teams, he also has value for the Giants. Isn't he the best first baseman they've had since J.T. Snow?

Brandon is 28 and his having a much better season at 28 than Snow did. Wouldn't the Angels have regretted it if they had traded Snow then? Well, actually they did -- and they did. They traded him to the Giants for Fausto Macey and Allen Watson. Remember them? No? All Snow did was become the Giants' best first baseman since Will Clark -- and at least until ... Brandon Belt.

Don't know and don't care who will replace Brandon? If we care about the Giants, we care very much what the answer to that question is. If we're going to recommend trading Brandon, we need to have something in mind about what we would trade Brandon for and how we would replace him.

It's easy to point out perceived problems. It's much tougher to solve them. Trading Brandon is at best a partial solution. We can't afford for the Giants to stop at partial solutions -- even if we profess not to care.

[klaiggeb]

Rog, McCovey DID grow.

The problem was where to play him.

Then add Alvin Dark to the equation. His problems with blacks and Latinos are well documented, problems for which he later apologized

For every 5 steps Belt takes forward, he turns around and takes a 3 steps backward.

JT's problem was different. He couldn't hit worth a darn from the right side and he DIDN'T start having big seasons until he gave up switch hitting.

so I disagree with your assessment.

boly

[klaiggeb]

I didn't explain myself very well, Rog.

It's not that Brandon hasn't show improvement. He has.

But as a 5 year veteran, in so many aspects of his hitting, he's just running in place.

These massive mechanical problems that he has SHOULD HAVE BEEN, at least to some extent, resolved.

They haven't been.

He's still doing the same dumb things he did as a rookie.

And that's why I'm for moving him.

boly

[Rog]

Rog, McCovey DID grow.

The problem was where to play him.


Rog -- It depends on how one looks at Willie. My point was that he went from hitting .354/1.085 to win the Rookie of the Year in just 52 games (which I believe is a record) to being sent back down to the minors and then returning only to play against right-handed pitchers. Later on he did indeed grow -- just as Brandon has grown from a .718 OPS as a rookie to a career-high .841 this season and .834 or better three of the past four seasons.

After being ROY in 1959, he became a serious factor again in the World Series year of 1962, but he batted only 12 times against southpaws the entire season. In retrospect, perhaps the Yankees should have pulled Ralph Terry with two outs in the ninth inning of the seventh game of that year's World Series. The Giants would almost certainly have pinch hit for McCovey, who had already tripled against Terry in the seventh inning and had also homered against him in game two.

After pounding both righties and lefties in 1959, McCovey hit just .129 against them in 1960 and didn't again play regularly against southpaws until Orlando Cepeda's injury season of 1963.

One could look at McCovey as growing from 1960 to 1963 -- or one could say Willie's best season was actually his Rookie of the Year season. At any rate, he declined from 1959 all the way through 1962. In fact, Willie hit something like Brandon in those seasons, even though his stats were inflated by hitting so seldom against southpaws.

One could make an argument that after Belt's rookie season, he has been a better hitter than McCovey in 1960, 1961 and 1962. Thus my comment that McCovey didn't grow (from 1960 through 1962).



Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3471/grow#ixzz4JWdKEKtd

[Rog]

JT's problem was different. He couldn't hit worth a darn from the right side and he DIDN'T start having big seasons until he gave up switch hitting.


Rog -- J.T. did of course have trouble hitting southpaws and eventually batted left-handed against them in the latter portion of his career. But before being traded to the Giants, he hit .267/.755 against southpaws in 1995, which was considerably better against lefties than two years later with the Giants when he put up hit career season of .281/.898 but batted just .188/.559 against southpaws.

Incidentally, with regard to both McCovey and Snow, see how our memories can fail us looking back on players? In that regard, I know you maintain that Sandy Koufax is the best pitcher you have seen, but it is amazing how close Sandy's 1961-1966 numbers are to Clayton Kershaw's stats from his second season through now.

Sadly for the Giants, Kershaw returns to the Dodgers' rotation Friday and will likely face Madison Bumgarner on both the 19th and the 30th. It is amazing both how well Kershaw pitches against the Giants and how often he and Madison have matched up. The guy who seems to hit Clayton best is Bumgarner himself!



Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3471/grow#ixzz4JWkj4gqz

[donk33]

Sept 6, 2016 20:20:32 GMT -5 Rog said:

JT's problem was different. He couldn't hit worth a darn from the right side and he DIDN'T start having big seasons until he gave up switch hitting.


Rog -- J.T. did of course have trouble hitting southpaws and eventually batted left-handed against them in the latter portion of his career. But before being traded to the Giants, he hit .267/.755 against southpaws in 1995, which was considerably better against lefties than two years later with the Giants when he put up hit career season of .281/.898 but batted just .188/.559 against southpaws.

Incidentally, with regard to both McCovey and Snow, see how our memories can fail us looking back on players? In that regard, I know you maintain that Sandy Koufax is the best pitcher you have seen, but it is amazing how close Sandy's 1961-1966 numbers are to Clayton Kershaw's stats from his second season through now.

Sadly for the Giants, Kershaw returns to the Dodgers' rotation Friday and will likely face Madison Bumgarner on both the 19th and the 30th. It is amazing both how well Kershaw pitches against the Giants and how often he and Madison have matched up. The guy who seems to hit Clayton best is Bumgarner himself!

dk...talk about someone keeping up the tirade against a ball player...wow, you do a great job of digging up apples and oranges to compare to play down Koufax...why start in 1961...the last year he had to pitch in the pathetic ball park...oh, he gave up more runs than in Dodger Stadium so you had to sneak that in.....the one thing you didn't compare was that Koufax had a career 137 complete games and 40 shutouts compared to Kershaw's career 24 and 15....the fact that Kershaw pitched 236 innings tops in one  year and compare it to Koufax's 4 years where he pitched over 300 innings...how about Koufax pitching with 3 days rest to 4 for Kershaw....I could just see a well rested Koufax throwing new stats that would quiet even Rog.....  I don't have the stats, but I remember JT being a fair LH hitter until they moved into the phone booth...he started to over swing trying to get it over the wall....
Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3471/grow#ixzz4JWkj4gqz

[Rog]

.wow, you do a great job of digging up apples and oranges to compare to play down Koufax...why start in 1961...the last year he had to pitch in the pathetic ball park...oh, he gave up more runs than in Dodger Stadium so you had to sneak that in..


Rog -- I included 1961 because it was in the comparison I came across, making things a lot easier for me. As for Sandy's giving up fewer runs in Dodger Stadium, that has been my point all along -- that Sandy was indeed great, but was made to look even greater because of the huge Dodger Stadium advantage. Kershaw also benefits from the Dodger Stadium bump, but it isn't as great as in Koufax's time because the fences are 10 feet closer all around.

By the way, I hope you also remember that I said that Sandy was BETTER prior to 1962 than his record indicated, since as you mention here, he pitched in HITTERS' parks. Overall, Sandy's career was helped a bit more by Dodger Stadium than it was hurt by Ebbetts Field and the Coliseum, since Sandy pitched more innings in five years in Dodger Stadium than he pitched in his seven campaigns in the other two.

I think I've taken a rather fair look at Sandy, but all you seem to see from me is the Dodger Stadium part. Don't forget, either, that the WORST thing I have said about Sandy is that he was great.

[Rog]

the one thing you didn't compare was that Koufax had a career 137 complete games and 40 shutouts compared to Kershaw's career 24 and 15....the fact that Kershaw pitched 236 innings tops in one year and compare it to Koufax's 4 years where he pitched over 300 innings...how about Koufax pitching with 3 days rest to 4 for Kershaw.


Rog -- How many times do we need to discuss that pitching has evolved? Comparing Koufax's best of 336 innings with Kershaw's 236 is like comparing Hall of Famer John Clarkson's top of 623 innings to Koufax's best of 336 frames.

One thing I haven't mentioned lately is that if we look at ERA+ -- which takes into consideration home park advantage -- we see that Sandy's ERA+ in his Dodger Stadium years was an impressive (100 is average) 143, 159, 186, 160 and 190. But even that isn't as good as Kershaw's 143, 133, 161, 150, 194, 197 and 171 in his full seasons. Pretty close though. Sandy led the league in ERA+ twice, with Kershaw winning three times. Clayton also leads this year, but after missing over two months to injury, he won't accumulate enough innings to qualify.

I don't think many here fully appreciate the brilliance of Kershaw. I just wish he were a Giant instead of a Dodger. By the way, from what I've read, both are true gentlemen as well -- especially Sandy, for whom I have huge respect.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3471/grow#ixzz4Jl6cPlQo

[Islandboagie]

Rog- I don't think many here fully appreciate the brilliance of Kershaw.

Boagie- I recognize it, but I don't appreciate it because I'm not a Dodger fan.

[donk33]

Sept 9, 2016 6:51:19 GMT -5 Rog said:

.wow, you do a great job of digging up apples and oranges to compare to play down Koufax...why start in 1961...the last year he had to pitch in the pathetic ball park...oh, he gave up more runs than in Dodger Stadium so you had to sneak that in..


Rog -- I included 1961 because it was in the comparison I came across, making things a lot easier for me. As for Sandy's giving up fewer runs in Dodger Stadium, that has been my point all along -- that Sandy was indeed great, but was made to look even greater because of the huge Dodger Stadium advantage. Kershaw also benefits from the Dodger Stadium bump, but it isn't as great as in Koufax's time because the fences are 10 feet closer all around.

By the way, I hope you also remember that I said that Sandy was BETTER prior to 1962 than his record indicated, since as you mention here, he pitched in HITTERS' parks. Overall, Sandy's career was helped a bit more by Dodger Stadium than it was hurt by Ebbetts Field and the Coliseum, since Sandy pitched more innings in five years in Dodger Stadium than he pitched in his seven campaigns in the other two.

I think I've taken a rather fair look at Sandy, but all you seem to see from me is the Dodger Stadium part. Don't forget, either, that the WORST thing I have said about Sandy is that he was great.

dk...and you continue to overlook the fact that Sandy came into the bigs without any minor league experience and almost no high school or college experience as a pitcher...or even a baseball player....so please give a little leeway to his career in the beginning as he was trying to match Kerk.'s experience in high school, college and the minor leagues...

[Rog]

you continue to overlook the fact that Sandy came into the bigs without any minor league experience and almost no high school or college experience as a pitcher...or even a baseball player....so please give a little leeway to his career in the beginning as he was trying to match Kerk.'s experience in high school, college and the minor leagues..


Rog -- I know Sandy's history pretty well. He went to Cincinnati University primarily as a basketball player. I'm not so sure you know Kershaw's history as well, since Clayton never pitched in college, signing right out of high school.

More importantly, Sandy reached the big leagues at the age of 19 years, six months. Clayton joined the Dodgers at 20 years, two months, just slightly older than Sandy had been.

Little question that Sandy's being a bonus baby and under the rules of baseball at that time having to go directly to the major leagues could have and very likely did curtail his development. The Giants' Mike McCormick was in the same situation, except that he signed straight out of high school at the age of 17 and essentially began his career at 18 years, six months. By the time he was 21, Mike posted a 2.70 ERA and won 15 games, but his career was uneven even though he won the Cy Young Award in 1967 at the age of 28.

Sandy took a little longer to develop than McCormick and wasn't highly effective until age 26, pitching in Dodger Stadium. Once he was highly effective though, he was great. Kershaw was more like McCormick in that he became highly effective at the same age (21) as McCormick. The difference is that Clayton quickly became like the prime years Koufax and has maintained that level ever since. Clayton is now just two years older than when it kicked in for Sandy, and Clayton is in his eighth straight excellent season.

When he reached the big leagues, Clayton had the advantage of being eight months older than Sandy had been when he reached the bigs. Not a big advantage time-wise, but at that young age, a clear advantage nonetheless. And Clayton has made the most of it.

I mentioned that Sandy became highly effective at age 26. Prior to that highly effective season his Wins Above Replacement were 12. Clayton's were 32 at the same age.

Sandy retired at the age of 30 with 53 WAR. Clayton is 28 and has 52 WAR, even though he has pitched 600 fewer innings than Sandy.

Here's an intriguing fact. For Clayton to equal Sandy's career 2.76 ERA in the same number of innings pitched, he would need to post only a 3.83 ERA over his next 600 or so innings. Clayton's ERA after all is just 2.39. That's the lowest of any starting pitcher with over 1000 innings who didn't pitch in the dead ball era.

Sandy had it tough with the bonus baby rule forcing him into the big leagues before he was ready. But Kershaw was only 8 months older when he reached the majors, and he was pretty close to becoming one of the best pitchers in baseball at that time.

Kershaw isn't getting nearly the attention Sandy got, but if Clayton stays healthy, he'll likely get as much or more before he retires. In that case, he will have had a much longer career than Sandy and will have had a much deeper prime.

The thing that is sad from the Giants' perspective is that it may not be long before Kershaw (28), Julio Urias (20)and Jose De Leon (24) form one of the best and youngest rotation trios in the league -- and could be very highly rated for years to come. Add in Kenta Maeda, Scott Kazmir and Alex Wood, and the Dodgers have fabulous rotation depth. This season the Dodgers rank #5 in the NL in ERA even tough both Urias and De Leon are very inexperienced and have pitched just 74 major league innings between them. Kershaw has been limited to just 121 frames of work this year by a back injury that has kept him out over two months, and Wood has pitched just 56 fames. Kershaw returns tonight to face Jose Fernandez and the Marlins.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3471/grow#ixzz4JncGfajj

[Rog]

As an aside, does it truly matter how many home runs Brandon has if he drives in 80 runs? If he hits 20 home runs and drives in 80 is that truly better than if he hits 15 homers and drives in 85? The total of the two categories is 100 in each case, but wouldn't we rather have the 15 + 85?

[Rog]

Rog- I don't think many here fully appreciate the brilliance of Kershaw.

Boagie- I recognize it, but I don't appreciate it because I'm not a Dodger fan.


Rog -- VERY nice play on words, Boagie!




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3471/grow#ixzz4JnwoXeTa