Why Brandon?

[Rog]

Why are we blaming Brandon Belt so much for this second-half slump.  When my friend asked me, I told him it was (almost) everyone.  The facts bear that out.

Six of the Giants' eight everyday starters have second-half OPS between .716 and .750.  That's not horrible, but it isn't what we're looking for either.  Eduardo Nunez has lagged even further, with just a .629 OPS.  Because of his recent surge, Hunter Pence is up to .793, which is about the only good number here.

But Hunter lags with just 13 second-half RBI's.  Nunez is actually the leader, tied with Belt with 25.  Of course, only 18 came for Nunez with the Giants.

So the Giants' second-half leader in RBI's is ... Belt.  In fact, Belt is within five of Brandon Crawford and Pence combined.  For that, we're ridiculing Belt?  Yes, he's been inconsistent, but he may have been the Giants' best hitter with runners on base and in scoring position over the second half.  And hadn't that been our previous gripe against him -- not good enough in RBI situations?

The board can single out Belt as the culprit, but my answer of everyone was more accurate.  It's probably neither nice nor accurate to single out Brandon.

[klaiggeb]

Why are we blaming Brandon Belt alone?

I'm NOT.

And I've said so.

This colossal implosion is primarily traced to 3 or 4 players in particular.

And IN THIS ORDER, IMHO.

As I've posted before and I've explained why;

1-Belt- FAR FAR away in #1. He went from hitting .300+, hitting HRs, driving in runs and everything... to hitting around .200, barely driving in runs, and, in general, teaming WITH POSEY to basically kill rally, after rally, after rally.

2-Posey-12 HRs? 66 RBIs?

And that's our 3 HOLE GUY? Are you freaking serious?

3-Samardizja. Throw, WHACK, HR. Throw, WHACK, HR.

His Titanic imitation solidified what Posey and Belt were helping to continue.

4-Casilla-Can't have that many saves BLOWN over the course of the year, number 1, but so many BLOWN when the club needed him the most.

boly

[Rog]

barely driving in runs, and, in general, teaming WITH POSEY to basically kill rally, after rally, after rally.


Rog -- How many times do I have to post that Belt has hit well with runners on base and in scoring position in the second half and that he leads the team in second-half RBI's for us to realize the above statement isn't true. Do we understand this?




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3490/why-brandon#ixzz4KDNrWtPb

[klaiggeb]

Because the statement IS true, Rog.

I lost count of the number of times CONSECUTIVE TIMES that Belt killed rallies after the break by STRIKING OUT with RISP.

Your numbers look good on paper... for the season, but in the 2nd half?

No way.

How long was he stuck with 60ish RBIS?

Longer than Posey

[Rog]

Your numbers look good on paper... for the season, but in the 2nd half?


Rog -- If you look back to some recent posts on other Belt-related threads, you'll see that I wrote down just what Brandon had done in the second half with RISP. I also recently wrote that while more or less everyone was failing in the second half with runners on and in scoring position, Brandon was continuing at about the same pace as in the first half, which was pretty good.

It gets frustrating when things are stated multiple times and it appears from continued reactions that they either aren't being read, aren't being understood or just aren't being believed. Probably the first, since the statements and facts are pretty straightforward.

As an example, two treads above I wrote "So the Giants' second-half leader in RBI's is ... Belt. In fact, Belt is within five of Brandon Crawford and Pence combined. For that, we're ridiculing Belt? Yes, he's been inconsistent, but he may have been the Giants' best hitter with runners on base and in scoring position over the second half."

And if you look at at least one other post, you'll see that I researched his second half -- at bat by at bat. I'm sorry to get so frustrated, but it's as if I'm posting in the middle of a forest and can't tell if the tree made any noise when it fell.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3490/why-brandon#ixzz4KH567fCg



Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3490/why-brandon#ixzz4KH4B8x1S

[Rog]

How long was he stuck with 60ish RBIS?


Rog -- I've answered this question before too, but since it's pretty easy to find, I'll look it up again.

Brandon got his 60th RBI on August 25th in his 123rd game played. He got his 70th RBI last Saturday in his 141st game. So it took him 18 games to get 10 RBI's. That's a 90 home run pace over a 162-game season. Because he went seven straight games without an RBI, it SEEMED to take forever, but in reality, sort of like some of us baby boomers, he sailed through the 60's pretty smoothly. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say our memories aren't always accurate.

Oh, as for whether Belt was stuck in the 60's in RBI's for longer than Buster Posey, we don't know yet. Buster is stuck at 64 RBI's. As for Crawford, he sailed through his 60's even faster than Belt. But he's been stuck in the 70's now for 31 games -- and still is at 78, need two more RBI's go get out of the disco decade. If things continue at their second half pace, one Brandon might pass the other for the team RBI lead.

Not too much has been said about the Giants' leader in RBI's, Brandon Crawford, suddenly not being able to drive in runs in the second half. To begin the second half, Brandon went nine games without an RBI, and he has followed that up with two streaks of five game, one of eight, and another of nine.

Yet it is the other Brandon -- Belt -- that we pick on unjustly. Belt leads the Giants in second-half RBI's, for crying out loud. When I last looked, he was within five of Hunter Pence and Crawford COMBINED -- as I posted at the time. This stuff isn't hard to follow, so I'm guessing we're simply not paying attention.

Randy has been biased against Belt for quite a while now. But while Brandon is certainly frustrating at times, I'm shocked that others here have gone along with what is a very unsound judgment of Belt IMO.

Incidentally, Brandon had two embarrassing strikeouts today, and that is mostly what we'll remember from the game -- especially since he didn't have any RBI's. But once again he contributed to a Giants run despite not getting an RBI. Their only run wouldn't have scored today without his single. Brandon has done a lot of that this season. In fact, I'm going to guess he leads the team in that category.

Why is it that we applaud a batter who comes up with no outs and gets the runner over to second, yet don't give much credit when a batter gets a hit with that same runner on second but doesn't score him? Or when he hits a single or double with a runner on first and advances the runners to second or third base -- but doesn't get an RBI? Or even if a batter draws a walk to advance a runner to second or two runners to second and third?

It's been a while, but I've done a study or two of how many bases the so-called guys "who can handle the bat" advance runners compared to the bases batters who strike out more often advance them. It's the guys who strike out but hit for power and get base hits instead of ground balls to second base who drive in more runs.

I don't have the time to do it, but I'll be a study of how many bases Joey Votto advanced runners last season would show that it was a very large amount -- even though he drove in only 45 runners besides himself. Brandon Crawford had an excellent RBI season and actually drove in more runs than Votto, including driving home 63 runners aside from himself. But unless Votto had far fewer at bats with runners on base, I'll bet you he advanced runners many more BASES than did Crawford. In other words, Crawford advanced more runners to home, but Votto advanced more runners to second and third.

Shouldn't we start rethinking this whole dynamic?



Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3490/why-brandon?page=1#ixzz4KH69crCS

[klaiggeb]

Roger, I can't argue with the numbers... but it doesn't change my mind.

But here's the thing; based upon where he was at the break...what he's done since is simply not enough.

Not even close.

Too many failures in TOO MANY key at bats in the 2nd half.

Too many.

boly

[Rog]

Roger, I can't argue with the numbers... but it doesn't change my mind.

But here's the thing; based upon where he was at the break...what he's done since is simply not enough.

Not even close.

Too many failures in TOO MANY key at bats in the 2nd half.

Too many.


Rog -- If we define key at bats as at bats with runners on base and in scoring position, Brandon may have done better in the second half than any of his teammates.

First you argue that Brandon's RISP and on base numbers are indeed good, but not in the second half. When I post that he has done just about as well in the second half, you simply say you can't argue with the numbers but they don't change your mind.

I honestly don't understand here.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3490/why-brandon#ixzz4KLedQ2rH

[klaiggeb]

Roger, 1-I don't care that he did better than his teammates. The whole team has stunk in the 2nd half.

2-He has NOT done well enough in the 2nd half based upon the voluminous opportunities he's had.

3-I conceded the point to your numbers in another post.

[Rog]

2-He has NOT done well enough in the 2nd half based upon the voluminous opportunities he's had.


Rog -- I keep showing how well Brandon has done with runners on base and in scoring position in the second half. He's been LOUSY with the bases empty. Here is how he's done in each situation:

Bases empty -- .146 with a .244 SLG. Horrible. Awful. Worthy of scorn.

Runners on -- .283 with a .465 SLG. Good. Worthy of notice.

RISP -- .297 with a .516 SLG. Very good. Worthy of praise.


Your comment when Brandon has come to bat with the bases empty is right on the money. But with runners on base, it has been quite wrong. And when Brandon has come to the plate with runners in scoring position, he's done very, very well, meaning your comment is so far off base the pitcher doesn't know whether to throw to first base or second to pick them off.

See what I mean about our memories playing tricks on us? We have indeed seen Brandon struggle in the second half (.221/.357/.365/.722). The only thing he's done well overall is get on base, but certainly not HIT. And since our memories aren't that accurate and don't discriminate well, we've been conned into thinking he's been a big disappointment with runners on base and in scoring position. Our memories in those cases are flat-out wrong.

Didn't we read when I first posted on how well Brandon had done with runners on and in scoring position that I myself was SURPRISED at how well he had done? Apparently we didn't read or understand. So we've come up with a very false sense of how well Brandon has done when he's had the greatest chance to make a difference.

We're doing two things wrong:

First, we're giving Brandon a disproportionate portion of the blame.

Second, we're not recognizing how much better he has hit in the second half with runners on and in scoring position compared to how he has hit with the bases empty. What Brandon has done in the second half is continue to hit well with runners in scoring position and very well with runners on base. His failings have come with the bases empty. He's continued to be good with runners on and in scoring position. That's why even though the Giants have had far fewer runners on base in the second half, his at bats per RBI have increased only from 6.5 per RBI in the first half to 7.2 in the second.


We've been very unfair to Brandon, perhaps in great part because we just haven't understood that as poorly as he has done with the bases empty in the second half, he's arguably done even BETTER with runners on and in scoring position in the second half than the first. We criticize Brandon primarily because we don't understand.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3490/why-brandon#ixzz4KMATjgQM

[klaiggeb]

Then Roger, the numbers are squewed in a manner that I can't explain.

and I say that because since the 2nd half began... at bat, after at bat, after at bat... he came to the plate w/RISP and flat out looked awful, and failed miserably.

K after K after K for the longest time.

But at this point, Rog, it's all moot to me.

These clowns have stuck a knife so deeply into my heart, broken that same heart so many times, enraged me so many times...that forgiving them for what they did is going to be, for me, close to impossible.

To me, as paranoid as it sounds, it's an absolute feeling of betrayal; of being stabbed in the back.

Sort of like coming home and finding your wife in bed with the slimy plumber from down the street.



You can't go from the BEST record in baseball, to the absolute worst.

Atlanta, Minnesota and other sorry teams have a better record, and there is simply no excuse.


So, with that in mind, and knowing in MY heart that I'm not usually a FINGER POINTER, I'm breaking my pattern and pointing a stern, sharp, ticked off finger at Belt, Posey and Casilla in particular.

Not absolving the others, but those three...those 3...those 3 are lynch pins.

I am less angry at Pence, and Panik, and Crawford and others, but I'm more tolerant.


They simply cannot be allowed to do what they have done.

No one, and I mean NO ONE in management, at least from what I've read, is holding them accountable.

They'll all get raises when they ask for them.

They fans will give them slack, and they'll all have short memories.

I will not.

I can not.

boly

[Rog]

Then Roger, the numbers are squewed in a manner that I can't explain.

and I say that because since the 2nd half began... at bat, after at bat, after at bat... he came to the plate w/RISP and flat out looked awful, and failed miserably.

K after K after K for the longest time.

But at this point, Rog, it's all moot to me.

These clowns have stuck a knife so deeply into my heart, broken that same heart so many times, enraged me so many times...that forgiving them for what they did is going to be, for me, close to impossible.


Rog -- It just struck me yesterday that my friend gave me the reason we are so hard on Brandon. And you just hit it here. He strikes out a lot, and those strikeouts usually aren't very pretty. He takes a lot of called third strikes, which don't hurt any more than any other strikeout and don't hurt more than most outs, but simply don't look good and thus make a bigger negative impression that if he just, for instance, popped up or grounded out.

Add to that that Brandon isn't the most graceful of athletes, and he earns nicknames like "The Big Oaf." Even when the nicknames aren't hurtful, they are "The Baby Giraffe" instead of "The Italian Stallion." That he wears size 15's or whatever they are make it just about as unlikely he'll earn the last nickname as his not coming from the country that is shaped like a boot.

Thus, some would like to give him the boot. And they even come up with comments such as "the numbers must be skewed." Skewed means biased or distorted.

Numbers certainly aren't biased. They add up for one player just like the other. Nor are they distorted, since they record what actually happened.

And now I think I've found a big part of the answer. It's just what you said. "K after K after K." You're right on the money. And those K's have a big impact on us. We forget that in addition to his 19 hits in 65 at bats, he also lined out six times. We forget because of his 29 strikeouts. Gosh, he struck out nine of his first 10 at bats with RISP after the All-Star for crying out loud.

Now that's a LOT of strikeouts -- almost one every two at bats. That's why we think of him as being so unsuccessful with runners in scoring position this second half when in reality he's had a lot of hits. In fact, he's had a hit or hit a line drive 25 times in 65 at bats. That's also a lot.

In fact, in 54 of Brandon's 65 at bats, he's either gotten a hit, lined out -- or struck out. And it's the strikeouts we remember.

Do the 29 strikeouts skew the numbers? No. He has indeed struck out 29 times, as odd and even damning as that seems. Do the six line drives skew the numbers? Only in that they might have been hits. They were still outs, just like the strikeouts were. Did the 19 hits skew the numbers? No, they were actually hits.

What is weird and likely almost unprecedented is that essentially five out of six times since the All-Star break, with runners in scoring position, Brandon has done one of three specific things. And since over half those specific things were strikeouts, we tend to forget the 19 hits.

If we want to only at the strikeouts, Brandon has been a horrible failure. Not only that, he's also grounded into two of his six double plays in those specific situations.

If we to look only at the line outs, Brandon may have been unlucky.

If we look only at the hits, Brandon has been quite successful. A batting average near .300. A slugging percentage over .500. Now THAT'S hitting -- in important situations.

The huge number of strikeouts have caused us to miss out on his getting 19 hits in 65 at bats with RISP since the All-Star game. It's not the numbers that are skewed, it's we that have skewed them. Brandon's 29 strikeouts have made him LOOK like a failure with RISP. But he still has the 19 hits, which when coupled with their having averaged nearly one and three-quarters bases per hit are actually rather impressive.

Brandon hasn't been failure with runners in scoring position since the All-Star game. He's simply LOOKED like one. The numbers aren't skewed. It's just that we have skewed them.

Numbers don't lie. They're not skewed. But we sometimes misinterpret them, causing them to seem skewed.

We don't skew them intentionally. It's just that sometimes we have bias. It's just that sometimes we don't dig deeply enough. It's just that sometimes we simply don't fully understand.

This is one of those cases. And it has caused us to wrong Brandon Belt. We've figuratively cinched the Belt right around his neck. With all his strikeouts, he hasn't helped. But we're cinching the Belt on the one guy who has gotten as many hits and bases with RISP as he got before the break.

Does Brandon deserve some of the blame? You bet. He hasn't hit a LICK with the bases empty since the break (although he's drawn a lot of walks, which aren't all bad either). But he doesn't deserve the blame to the extent we've given it to him.

If we're going to choose a guy who hit great with RISP before the break and has since fallen on his face, that guy is indeed Brandon -- Crawford. That Brandon had 61 RBI's before the break and has just 18 since. I haven't examined Crawford's at bats closely. Perhaps he has been short on chances.

But it is a fact that in 302 at bats before the break, he had 61 RBI's. That's a tiny bit better than one RBI every five at bats, and that is terrific. But since the break, he's had an RBI less than once every 11 at bats, which is Johnny LeMaster-like.

But it's tough to be too hard on Crawford. He has played the best defense on the team and even as a shortstop, he leads them in RBI's on the season. Do we want to concentrate on his second half and say he's been a failure or is inconsistent? Or do we want to realize that while he's had a tough second half, he's still had a relatively good season?




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3490/why-brandon#ixzz4KQVVMFEQ

[Rog]

As for not forgiving the Giants, let's not forget that they had a similar horrible streak in 2014. And yet they did for the third time in five years what teams on average accomplish only once every 30 years. For the average team, the Giants got nearly a century of World Championships in just five years.

[Rog]

You can't go from the BEST record in baseball, to the absolute worst.


Rog -- The Giants are living proof that a team CAN. But I understand what you're saying.

That said in 2014 they went from the best to nearly the worst to the best again. Let's hope that as unrealistic as that seems, it will happen again. It was unrealistic in 2014 too -- but it happened.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3490/why-brandon?page=1#ixzz4KQmegvXr

[Rog]

They'll all get raises when they ask for them.

They fans will give them slack, and they'll all have short memories.


Rog -- Not all the players will get raises. But most of them will because of three factors:

. Because the salary structure rewards players more and more as they have played more seasons.

. Because some of the players have played well enough to deserve raises. That happens when a team is 10 games over .500 instead of being 30 games below it.

. Because some of the players already have raises built into their contracts.


As for the fans, many of them will have memories longer than ours. Their memories will go back to at least 2010 and be thrilled with what the Giants have accomplished in that time -- regardless of how this year turns out.





Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3490/why-brandon?page=1#ixzz4KQnS4rJM

[klaiggeb]

Roger, I'm the one that said the numbers are skewed, and here's what I mean.

I agree with you, that the numbers don't lie, but...

Taken as a "whole" lump, they tell one story, but not the whole story.

They are skewed if we look at the season totals, and NOT either 2nd half or recent totals.



I don't just remember his humongous number of K's... but I also remember that gallactically high number of times that HE'S come to the plate in the 2nd half... and just flat out imploded.

Time after time after time.

And Posey isn't much better.

Last night, perfect example: 4 hits... NO RBIs.

None.

Now maybe he wasn't up with there were RISP, but 64 RBI's at THIS time of year? For the 3/4 hole hitter.

THAT is flat out failure.

THAT cannot be allowed to happen.

Thus, my displeasure with Bochy, too.

Why is Posey still hitting 3 or 4?

He shouldn't be.

he can't run, hits into a ton of DPs and ISN'T driving in runs?


Me?

I make line up changes long before he does.

A month ago I would have moved Crawford into the 3 hole.

Now, I'd go like this:

3-Crawford
4-Pence
5-Posey
6-Nunez
7-Belt
8-Span

But that's just me.

If it's broken, I don't wait for parts on back order.

I take action to rectify the situation.

Bochy has NOT!

he's usually gone with the status quo far, far faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar tooooooooooooooooooooooo long.

And his IN action, has hurt the team.

boly

boly

[sfgdood]

The #1 person I blame is Bobby Evans, followed closely by Bruce Bochy. Evans stupidly gave Belt that huge contract that he never came close to earning. That effectively took away the choice of moving Posey to first base, which is the one thing that might have saved the offense after the rash of injuries.

THEN, Evans passes up on all the quality closers that were available at the trade deadline, instead opting to give away the farm for POS Will Smith. And Bochy gets blame because he obviously still had trust in Casilla, which has proven to be disastrous.

I don't really blame Belt because this second half has simply been a microcosm of his entire underachieving career. Why would we expect any more as fans than what he's shown before? The better question is why did Bobby?

[Rog]

Brandon Belt will average $13 million per season over his contract. At the average cost of $7 million per WAR on the free agent market, he'll need to average 2 WAR per season to earn his contract. This season he's at 3.8 WAR, which means he's essentially doubled the production necessary to earn his pact.

The later years on Brandon's contract will likely show a decline, but he's already earned over a quarter of his contract -- with five seasons to go.

As for trading for closers, the consensus is that the cost in prospects was astronomical. Look at what the Giants paid for Will Smith, who may have closer potential but has been limited this season by a knee injury. Smith has three remaining seasons in Giants control, meaning they strengthened themselves for the intermediate term, and it may have escaped our notice that Will hasn't given up a run in the past month, allowing only two hits during that time.

Back to Belt: When a guy is playing stellar defense and posting a .851 OPS is under performing, he's probably pretty good -- even as an under performer. Just think if he should ever reach his potential.

Casilla has been a great disappointment, but Bochy hasn't had many alternatives. The shame is that Derek Law got injured. If he hadn't, he likely would already be the Giants' closer. And unlike most Giants relievers, Derek has had a very fine season. Age, injury and inexperience have played havoc with the pen this season.