|
Post by Rog on Oct 19, 2016 2:55:55 GMT -5
Looking at major league first basemen, I came up with the following tiers among the 19 qualifying first basemen as identified by mlb.com:
Top tier -- Paul Goldschmidt, Joey Votto, Miguel Cabrera
Second tier -- Anthony Rizzo, Freddie Freeman, Chris Davis, Jose Abreu
Third tier -- Hanley Ramirez, Adrian Gonzalez, Brandon Belt
Fourth tier -- Eric Hosmer, Will Myers
Fifth tier -- Chris Carter, Mike Napoli
Sixth tier -- Mitch Moreland, Joe Mauer, Brad Miller
Seventh tier -- Marwin Gonzalez, Yonder Alonso
What are your thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Oct 19, 2016 9:45:33 GMT -5
If you're ranking 1B by tier as to how they hit, I have no problem with your rankings.
But Hanley Ramirez is an average, at best, fielding 1Bman.
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 Oct 19, 2016 11:21:41 GMT -5
if mental toughness and focus were factored in, Belt would be 6th tier
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Oct 19, 2016 13:01:45 GMT -5
If you're ranking 1B by tier as to how they hit, I have no problem with your rankings. But Hanley Ramirez is an average, at best, fielding 1Bman. Rog -- I was going by the overall. I'm not sure Jose Abreu is a great fielder either. As for Ramirez, I haven't seen at first base enough to know, but I would guess your judgment of his is right given that he is new to the position. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3555/looking-major-league-first-basemen#ixzz4NYTtOqFZ
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Oct 19, 2016 13:07:40 GMT -5
My point here is that if Brandon is good enough to pierce the third tier:
. How is he being overpaid?
. Why should he be traded for the sake of being traded?
Here's a question: When is the last time the Giants had a second-place hitter of Brandon's caliber? He gets on base, has very good power for a #2 hitter, hits into very few double plays, with the shift can bunt for a hit if the leadoff man gets on, and is criticized for pulling the ball too much, which would give runners a better chance to go to third on a hit.
As an aside, who would we say is the best #2 hitter in the game?
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Oct 19, 2016 13:20:35 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure Boagie watches the MLB Network's rating of players by position. I would think the rest of us here would enjoy it as well. Where do you think the MLB Network will rank Brandon in its top 10? IIRC last season he was ranked near the bottom of the top or just below it, depending on the evaluator.
My guess would be that he will be rated somewhere between 8 and 12, based on how each evaluator sees it. I don't think he's top quartile first baseman, but top tercile might not be overstating his value. Those guys don't grow on trees, so indiscriminately trading him would seem foolish at best.
Brandon earned $8.8 million last season (and will earn $16 million going forward). Gonzalez earns $22 million, while Ramirez surpasses him slightly at $23 million. How is it that Belt is overpaid? It doesn't take an economics major to see that he isn't.
I'm all for differences of opinion. I'm not for ignoring the facts.
|
|
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 Oct 19, 2016 13:24:51 GMT -5
Obviously you weren't paying attention to my posts. It wasn't JUST that Belt is an underachieving gutless pussy who is prone to bouts of severe lack of focus...I ALSO want to protect Posey by putting HIM at first base, thereby maximizing Buster's production back to his MVP levels before he gets too old, too hurt and we're still paying him MVP money.
As to Belt's being overpaid, I explained why I think his salary is too high...several times.
1. He doesn't knock in enough runs 2. He doesn't hit enough homers 3. Minor injuries get him out of games 4. He brain farts at critical times way too often for my liking...in the field and on the bases.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Oct 19, 2016 16:04:18 GMT -5
.I ALSO want to protect Posey by putting HIM at first base, Rog -- I don't totally disagree with this, but both he and Giants want him to catch as long as is reasonable. So the obstacles to taking this direction are: . Posey is consider by some to be the top defensive catcher in the game. Whom will the Giants get to replace that? . Buster hits very well for a catcher, but for a first baseman, he isn't much more than average. He has hit better as a first baseman, but part of that may be due to hitting more against left-handed pitcher, which he favors significantly. This past season he actually hit slightly better while catching than while playing first base. Those are the two primary issues. Perhaps the Giants could trade Brandon Belt for a replacement catcher or could acquire one in another way. Matt Weiters is the top potential free agent catcher, but it seems unlikely his salary will be much less than Belt's. He was paid just $200,000 this season less than Belt will make next season. In addition, Wieters doesn't hit nearly as well as Belt or catch nearly as well as Buster. I do like the idea of protecting Buster's health. But in addition to going against Buster's wishes, the Giants would lose defense at two positions and a lot of hitting at one. In other words, assuming the Giants could trade Brandon for a good closer and instead focus their free agent sights on Wieters, the Giants would lose both hitting and defense from their lineup. That doesn't seem like a good recipe. Here is the way I would approach the situation: . Leave things as they are. . Monitor Buster's health very closely. . Be prepared to move Buster to first or even third if he becomes a serious concussion risk (as in another concussion would be likely to cause retirement, as it did with Mike Matheny). That would mean having the best backup catcher that is feasible or having a trade lined up that would trade a first baseman or third baseman for a good catcher. The advantages to this approach (which the Giants may already be taking) would be: . No immediate loss of hitting. . No immediate loss of fielding. . Continuity for the Giants' pitching staff. . Being prepared knowing that Buster's situation, while it is not likely, could change in an instant. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3555/looking-major-league-first-basemen#ixzz4NZAPP3eV
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Oct 19, 2016 17:22:05 GMT -5
1. He doesn't knock in enough runs Rog -- Brandon hit .293 with a .484 SLG with RISP. That's acceptable. He hit .319 with a .531 SLG with runners on base. That's far more than acceptable. Some complain that he walks too much, but with him batting immediately before Buster Posey and Hunter Pence means that if he walks, the Giants still have two of their three best hitters (Brandon being the other) coming up. A walk doesn't hurt the situation; it improves it. If Brandon walks, he gets fewer RBI's, but Posey and Pence get more. This really shouldn't be an issue. 2. He doesn't hit enough homers Rog - This is a valid criticism -- as far as it goes. He ranked only 21st among all first basemen in home runs, although he likely would have placed a bit higher if he played in a more neutral home park. And while he didn't homer a lot, doubles and triples are a measure of power as well. Brandon placed third among all first basemen in doubles and first in triples. Certainly his .531 SLG with runners on was impressive. That ranked sixth among qualifying first basemen. Power isn't as big an issue here as we make it out to be. 3. Minor injuries get him out of games Rog -- Brandon played in 156 games last season. That was only four fewer than the leading first baseman in games played. Among others, Belt played more games than Anthony Rizzo. Not really an issue. 4. He brain farts at critical times way too often for my liking...in the field and on the bases. Rog -- This too may be overstated, but even if it isn't, Brandon is still an acceptable base runner (better than some of the more ponderous first basemen and certainly better than most catchers who in the proposed scenario would replace him) and a very good fielder. Not really that big an issue, and if a catcher "replaces" him, hurting the Giants' defense at two positions, replacing Brandon would actually hurt the Giants in both departments. If this is an issue, it augurs for keeping Brandon rather than moving Buster to first. If we look at the objections raised above, we see that they aren't all that important. And if we compare Brandon to a catcher who would "replace" him, replacing Brandon would merely hurt in the areas of objection. When one stops and thinks about driving in runs, hitting homers, playing in games, playing defense, and running the bases, replacing Brandon with a catcher would almost certainy HURT the Giants in those areas. To the extent these areas are important, they augur on behalf of KEEPING Brandon. The only argument for moving Buster to first base is to protect his health. Right now both Buster and the Giants are fine with assuming that risk. If the risk becomes significantly higher, I suspect Brandon or a third baseman will quickly go in favor of a replacement catcher. It's kind of funny that the objections raised above actually FAVOR the Giants' keeping Brandon, not trading him. The objections actually go AGAINST the points above that the poster is trying to raise. Brandon's OPS, OBP, bases per hit and games played were higher last season than ANY catcher. It is unlikely that a Buster/new catcher scenario will outperform a Buster/Brandon scenario in a single one of the above areas of concern. Instead, they would likely decline in multiple areas with the notable exception of reducing Buster's health risk, which neither he (a bright guy) nor the Giants seem to think is high. I agree with the Giants' approach. Let him catch as long as he is productive and healthy. But get him the heck out of there if a future event significantly changes the risk/reward ratio. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3555/looking-major-league-first-basemen?page=1#ixzz4NZEnjBEi
|
|
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 Oct 19, 2016 17:47:15 GMT -5
Brandon earned $8.8 million last season (and will earn $16 million going forward). Gonzalez earns $22 million, while Ramirez surpasses him slightly at $23 million. How is it that Belt is overpaid? It doesn't take an economics major to see that he isn't.
Dood - When you consider that both Ramirez and Gonzalez produced real (not stats geeked out) numbers for years to earn those big salaries whereas Belt did next to nothing, it becomes clear exactly why the rankings used here, and yours, are flawed. Belt's best year is about on par with Gonzalez' worst.
|
|
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 Oct 19, 2016 17:56:37 GMT -5
Rog -- Brandon hit .293 with a .484 SLG with RISP. That's acceptable. He hit .319 with a .531 SLG with runners on base. That's far more than acceptable. Some complain that he walks too much, but with him batting immediately before Buster Posey and Hunter Pence
Dood - most of the year he wasn't hitting in FRONT of those two, which is why the walk first mentality was flawed. You need to be MORE, not less, aggressive when you do not have proven RBI guys behind you. I'll take a hit off the OBP numbers in order to drive in more runs every time.
If we look at the objections raised above, we see that they aren't all that important. And if we compare Brandon to a catcher who would "replace" him, replacing Brandon would merely hurt in the areas of objection.
Dood - the way you NEED to be looking at it is what would healthy, protected Posey at first plus Brown every day behind the plate be producing collectively, compared to the 2016 Belt and Posey numbers, which STUNK relative to their combined salaries.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Oct 20, 2016 0:13:07 GMT -5
Belt's best year is about on par with Gonzalez' worst. Rog -- That's not quite true. The last time Adrian had an OPS as high as Brandon's .868 this season (or his .834 in 2015 or his .841 in 2013) was back in 2011. Adrian at his best was FAR better than Brandon at his best. But Adrian is on the way down, while Brandon is still in his prime. Your statement isn't true, and even if it were, Brandon's best year and Adrian's worst have one thing in common. They happened this past season. That's why Brandon is comfortably in the same tier as Adrian. The only way to put Adrian on a higher tier than Brandon is to look at the past -- either with regard to Adrian's career or with how players are now viewed. If you want to be stuck in the past, I'll not join you. You've complained that Brandon doesn't hit enough home runs, Randy. And Brandon, playing in perhaps the toughest park for a left-handed power hitter, hit just 17. But Adrian, also playing in a pitchers' park but not one that is as hard on lefty power hitters as AT&T, hit 18. But what's really important is that Brandon averaged 1.72 bases per hit compared to Adrian's 1.52. Despite playing in arguably the worst park in baseball for a left-hand hitting power hitter, Brandon was clearly more powerful than Adrian this past season. Once again, your own argument actually works against your point of view. Perhaps this season Adrian can summon up his distant past and surpass Brandon. But he'll be 35, so he'd better hurry. At age 28, Adrian was better than Brandon was last season. At age 34 last season, he wasn't. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3555/looking-major-league-first-basemen#ixzz4Nb8nekBi
|
|
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 Oct 20, 2016 1:22:38 GMT -5
The reason I brought up the past is because in most cases you earn your salary by putting up real numbers, not lame stats geek numbers. Ramirez and Gonzo have had careers that Belt can only dream about having. He certainly did NOTHING to earn what we awarded to him last offseason. Gonzo put up real numbers (HRs and RBI) in a tough pitchers park in SD. Ramirez hit 30 bombs with 111 RBI THIS YEAR. Belt puts up paltry numbers and his apologists blame it on the park or invent lame designer stats. That's what losers do. I want winners not whiners.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Oct 20, 2016 12:53:15 GMT -5
Belt puts up paltry numbers and his apologists blame it on the park or invent lame designer stats. Rog -- I've tried to help you here, Randy, but it's clear you're simply biased against Brandon. Belt may put up paltry (counting) numbers, but he was right there with Adrian this season. Any difference seems to be that runners didn't advance as well for Brandon. The two hit about the same with RISP. Adrian hit .297 and slugged .469. Brandon hit .293 and slugged .489. Slight advantage to Brandon, but not much. With runners on, Brandon hit much better. Adrian posted .284/.453, while Brandon went .319/.531. Adrian was the better hitter with the bases empty, but Brandon was better with men on. You don't seem to want to face reality, but here it is: In the past, Adrian has been a FAR better hitter than Brandon. But beginnning with 2012, the two have hit about the same. And Brandon was clearly the better hitter this past season. I can bring you to water, but I can't make you drink. If you wish to be caught in the past, go for it. See ya in the reruns. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3555/looking-major-league-first-basemen#ixzz4NeAiM8ba
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Oct 20, 2016 12:53:57 GMT -5
Belt puts up paltry numbers and his apologists blame it on the park or invent lame designer stats. Rog -- I've tried to help you here, Randy, but it's clear you're simply biased against Brandon. Belt may put up paltry (counting) numbers, but he was right there with Adrian this season. Any difference seems to be that runners didn't advance as well for Brandon. The two hit about the same with RISP. Adrian hit .297 and slugged .469. Brandon hit .293 and slugged .489. Slight advantage to Brandon, but not much. With runners on, Brandon hit much better. Adrian posted .284/.453, while Brandon went .319/.531. Adrian was the better hitter with the bases empty, but Brandon was better with men on. You don't seem to want to face reality, but here it is: In the past, Adrian has been a FAR better hitter than Brandon. But beginnning with 2012, the two have hit about the same. And Brandon was clearly the better hitter this past season. I can bring you to water, but I can't make you drink. If you wish to be caught in the past, go for it. See ya in the reruns. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3555/looking-major-league-first-basemen#ixzz4NeAiM8ba
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Oct 20, 2016 13:43:03 GMT -5
You're just now figuring out Randy won't back down from his stance on Belt? He might change his opinion someday, but it will only be under his terms.
I remember him being just as stubborn about Belt but from the opposite side when I suggested we give chances to Ishikawa, Pill and Duvall to steal the first base job from Belt. Back then he was one of Belt's biggest supporters, so him changing his mind again isn't out of the question.
You're accurate when you say Gonzalez and Belt are very similar in their production, but let's not forget Belt should be hitting his prime now, where Gonzalez is on the back end of his career. Gonzalez has been the much better player throughout his career. During his time with San Diego he was one of the best left handed power hitters in the game.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Oct 20, 2016 14:02:29 GMT -5
It's not that I don't understand the point you're making, Rog...I do... but IMHO, your focus is too narrow, and your only selecting numbers that make your point.
You acknowledged that Adrian has been far superior in the past... but just look at the facts.
1-Belt has never hit 20+ HRs... Adrian has exceeded the 20 HR barrier 9 times.
2-Belt has never driven in 100 runs, Adrian has exceeded 100 RBIs 7 times.
With those numbers facing us... does it really matter WHO hits better with RISP?
I say, no, it doesn't, and honestly, just looking at the HRs and the RBIs...well, it's not even close between the two of them.
Let's take it one step further, which better addresses your point, and, IMHO, disproves your point.
In his first SIX FULL seasons, Gonzalez hit 20+ HRs... well... 6 times.
He drove in 100+ runs, 4 times.
Belt has NEVER played 6 full seasons, so let's just compare his four (4) FULL seasons: (I threw out 2014 because he only played in 61 games)
HRs-7-17-18-17
RBIs-56-67-68-82
The numbers prove without any doubt what-so-ever that over their first 4/6 years, Gonzalez wasn't just better at the plate, he was far superior.
Which, to some extent, is Randy's point. He's NEVER lived up to what he should be/could be doing at the plate to justify that money.
Now, has Belt improved?
And I would argue, yes! Most decidedly, adding 14 RBIs to last year's total.
One could argue that we don't play in an HR friendly park... but neither did Adrian when he was with San Diego 24-30-36-40-31 HRs...
So again I ask the question, Does it really matter WHO hit better with RISP?
And my answer hasn't changed.
No.
Now, to your question specifically:
Has Brandon been better since 2012?
My gawd... NO!!
Gonzalez 18 HR 108 22 100 27 116 28 90 18 90
And Adrian did all that as a player who is 6 years older than Belt!
Again, your focus is far too narrow, Rog. You're picking and choosing the stats you want to prove your point.
But in baseball, hitting w/RISP becomes moot a point when compared to a guy consistently hitting 20+ HRs, and 100+ RBIs.
boly
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Oct 20, 2016 14:30:47 GMT -5
So again I ask the question, Does it really matter WHO hit better with RISP? Rog -- Of COURSE it does. Unless we'd rather have the guy who didn't hit as well. There are MANY factors that go into RBI's, including the runners on base for the hitter. Brandon didn't always have the best runners on base (such as Posey), and the Giants' third base coach has been fired. I want the guy who is the better hitter with men on and RISP? If the sample gets large enough to equalize some of the other variables, he'll very likely drive in the more runs. Doesn't it make sense that the guy who hits better with men on and RISP will drive in more runs? The only exception would be the guy who hits enough more home runs to make up for being the worse hitter with men on and in scoring position. Last season Adrian Gonzalez actually hit FEWER home runs with men on and in scoring position than Brandon did (although the difference was only a couple of homers). Brandon was the better hitter with runners on base and in scoring position. If that continues next season, he's the guy I would prefer. All other things being equal, he's the guy who will drive in more runs. Doesn't that make sense? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3555/looking-major-league-first-basemen#ixzz4NegCO9v8
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Oct 20, 2016 14:56:08 GMT -5
Rog... honestly, you'd rather have a better RISP hitter than a guy with 20+ HRs and 100+ RBIs?
Not me.
I'll take the RBI production every day.
boly
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Oct 20, 2016 15:24:50 GMT -5
Again, your focus is far too narrow, Rog. You're picking and choosing the stats you want to prove your point. Rog -- I agree the temptation is to pick only the stats that support one's point. But what I try to do is pick the ones that matter most. In this example, I pointed out that at his best, Adrian was clearly a better hitter than Brandon EVER has been. I don't think there is any question about that, even though it does nothing to support my argument. But Adrian's last dominant season was 2011 -- five seasons ago. If I'm evaluating both players based on their CAREERS, I'm going to pick Adrian -- EASILY. But I'm looking at them now, and the two aren't all that far apart. Brandon was better last season (big drop off in homers by Adrian), and he's improving, while Adrian is headed the other way. If I were to pick which player would perform better next year, I would say it's close. Actually, I'm not sure that it is all that close, so I'm going to change my position. While Adrian certainly COULD be the better (if he approaches his pre-2012 form), Brandon is improving while the older Gonzalez is declining. Adrian's OPS last season didn't even reach .800. Brandon was 84 points better, which is almost TWICE the career difference between Willie Mays and Matt Holliday. I put Brandon and Adrian in the same tier based on the past as well as last season. If we're looking forward, Brandon looks like the better bet. Especially since he's making only about 70% as much as Adrian. Randy's claim that Brandon isn't worth the money is ridiculous. Going forward, he's far more likely to be worth the money than the higher-paid and recently lower-performing Adrian. RBI's are based on opportunity. Brandon's career high 82 RBI's last season are FAR less than Hunter Pence's 104 in 2012, the season he came to the Giants. The primary difference is that Hunter had FAR more opportunities. You know what Hunter hit that season? .219. Two-nineteen! But he had a ton of RBI opportunities and drove in 45 runs in 59 games. That's a pace of more than 120 over a full season. From a .219 hitter with 7 home runs in 219 at bats. To Hunter's credit, he took nice advantage of his opportunities that season, but his SLG was 90 points lower than Brandon's last season. Hunter's SLG was only .384, yet he had 45 RBI's in 59 games? You don't think it was because he had far more opportunities? The old-fashioned way to evaluate hitters is counting stats. But rate stats are much more meaningful. If counting stats were better, Ted Williams -- who never ONCE reached 200 hits -- wouldn't be nearly as good a hitter as Pete Rose, who did so 10 times. I'm not considering power here, simply the ability to get a hit when one gets an at bat. Pete was excellent. Ted was among the very best ever. And a RATE stat tells us that. Pete had 4256 career hits, or more than 1600 above Ted. Ted's .344 rate average compared to Pete's .303 rate average tells the story far more accurately. It's not that counting stats aren't important. But they don't tell the full story. I'd rather have Brandon driving in essentially a run every two games as he did last season THE WAY HE DID IT than Hunter driving in essentially three runs every four games back in 2012. Hunter simply had far more opportunities. Otherwise, how is a guy who slugs only .384 going to drive in half again as many runs as a guy with a .474 SLG -- especially when the latter did even better than that with runners on and in scoring position. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3555/looking-major-league-first-basemen?page=1#ixzz4NehqEb3r
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Oct 20, 2016 15:37:05 GMT -5
Ramirez and Gonzo have had careers that Belt can only dream about having. Rog -- Agreed. The problem is that Ramirez and Gonzalez's excellent years are in their past, and we're not judging their careers -- but how good they are now. If we're judging their careers, Ramirez and Gonzalez are FAR ahead of Brandon. And when all three have retired, they almost certainly will STILL be way ahead. But as they stand RIGHT NOW, Brandon is right there with them. Brandon isn't a superstar, as those guys once were. But right now he's just about as good as they are. And he's becoming slightly better, while they're on the decline. In Ramirez's case, Hanley bounced back with a very nice season in 2016. He's only 32, so perhaps next season he'll be as good or better than Brandon. But as Boly pointed out, Brandon is by far the better fielder. Because of that, Brandon's WAR of 4.2 last season was 50% higher than Hanley's. I'm not saying that Brandon is 50% better than Hanley. What I am saying is that Brandon is pretty much right there with Ramirez AND Gonzalez. And Brandon is on an upward trend, while the other two aren't as good as they once were. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3555/looking-major-league-first-basemen?page=1#ixzz4NevPNXsm
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Oct 20, 2016 15:40:52 GMT -5
Rog... honestly, you'd rather have a better RISP hitter than a guy with 20+ HRs and 100+ RBIs? Not me. I'll take the RBI production every day. Rog -- If a guy hits better with runners in scoring position but the other guy has more RBI's, wouldn't it seem likely that the one guy either hit considerably more homers or simply had more and perhaps better RBI chances? If he didn't have more chances, didn't hit more homers, and didn't hit as well with runners on and in scoring position, how did he manage to have more RBI's? Those things just don't fit, do they? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3555/looking-major-league-first-basemen?page=1#ixzz4NeyUdBZr
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Oct 20, 2016 15:43:03 GMT -5
RBI production is only part of the story. Runs scored is equally important. But BOTH are team-dependent.
If we look at RBI's (or runs scored) only, we don't consider how many OUTS a player took to create those runs. A guy who makes 27 more outs than another guy costs his team a full game LESS opportunity to score. That isn't highly important?
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Oct 21, 2016 9:44:27 GMT -5
Rog, why do you continue to bang your head against the wall? Boly and Randy don't like Brandon Belt, and plenty of Giants fans agree. You and I both like Brandon Belt and plenty of Giants fans agree with us too. But you know what? Giants' management agrees with us. They value him and signed him long term. We win, let's talk about something else. You're never going to change their minds.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Oct 21, 2016 10:37:39 GMT -5
Well said, Mark!
I agree.
And just for the record, I don't dislike Belt.
I'm sick up and fed with his prolonged slumps, nothing else.
Defensively, he's very good.
In fact, Strat-O-Matic, for 2015, rated him BETTER defensively than Paul Goldschmidt... which surprised me.
boly
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Oct 21, 2016 13:52:44 GMT -5
You're no doubt right here, Mark. One general thing I'm hoping though is that Boly, who has advanced some with regard to stats, and Randy, who hasn't, will both expand their statistical analysis of players in general. Boly has changed a bit in that regard and seems to augur against Brandon primarily because of his inconsistency, but, sadly, Randy is just plain biased against the guy (and any kind of advanced statistics).
I should probably just give up with Randy, but Boly is a sharp guy is willing to begrudgingly expand his focus. I don't know exactly how to evaluate Brandon's inconsistency. We all realize he is inconsistent, but based on longest streak of at bats without a hit, Brandon was about equal to the Giants' other top two hitters, Posey and Pence. I consider Brandon Crawford to be a more consistent hitter, and his longest streak without a hit was 12 at bats, or about two-thirds as long as Belt, Posey and Pence.
One thing I liked about Belt last season was his consistency with runners on and in scoring position. As did just about every Giant in the second half, Belt slumped. But his slump came with the bases empty, and at least he did manage to get on base a bit with the bases empty, even in the second half. I'm thinking last season Brandon may have been slightly LESS streaky than Posey or Pence because of his consistency in RBI situations.
One thing about Brandon though. He strikes out a lot, and his droughts can SEEM longer because they involve so many strikeouts, many of which can be ugly.
If we go month by month with Brandon, he had three months where his OPS was in the .900's and one in the .800's. He had two in the .700's, but only July's .714 was bad. On a monthly basis, Buster was actually pretty consistent. He never reached the .900 mark in any month, but only his .680 in September was poor. Injured in June and July, Pence was in the .800's in three months, suffering only a very poor .623 in August. Based on their monthly numbers, Buster was the most consistent, with Belt and Pence lagging (although not as inconsistent as one might expect -- on a MONTHLY basis).
Then there is the question of how important consistency truly is. Would we rather have a guy who leads his team at times and flounders at others, or a guy who is more consistently in the middle? I'm not sure how much difference it makes. Willie Mays was a notorious streak hitter, and yet he somehow managed to carve out a decent career.
With Willie, 1956 was the first year I went to. His OPS ranged from .623 in April to 1.086 in September. On a monthly basis at least, that's a HUGE variance. In terms of consecutive at bats without a hit though, Willie was even more consistent than Crawford was this season. I took a look at his consecutive at bats without a hit 10 years later, and again he didn't have long hitless streaks. I think Willie may have been more consistent than his reputation.
Which I guess brings us back to Posey and Pence. That pair, particularly Pence, wasn't overly consistent either last season. My take on Belt last season is that he was pretty consistent with runners on and in scoring postion, but highly irregular with no one on. If he was consistent with runners on and in scoring position, that should count for something.
I wish I could go more deeply into this, but thus far my conclusion would be that Buster and Hunter are both more consistent than Brandon. In Hunter's case though, I'm not sure it is by a lot.
But let's go with inconsistency as a black mark against Brandon. Just about everything else last season seemed to go very well for him though.
I WOULD trade Brandon -- or any other Giant -- if I could get enough to help the team. But I certainly wouldn't trade him just to trade him. Trading your best hitter from the previous season is far from unprecedented though. The biggest example I can recall is after the 1959 season when the Indians traded the home run leader (Rocky Colavito) to the Tigers for the batting leader (Harvey Kuenn). BOTH those guys had better years than Brandon did last season.
1959 was Old Harv's career year, and 1958 had been Rocky's. Here's something we wouldn't have expected. In 1959 Rocky hit a career high 42 homers, yet his OPS was slightly lower than Brandon's was last season. The funny thing is that while Rocky had a career .359 OBP, that season he was limited to just .337. And while his league-leading 42 homers dwarfed Brandon's 17 last season, the two each had the same 66 extra base hits.
On factor I think we do misjudge Brandon on is the area of power. Certainly he's not the greatest power hitter out there, but his homers are limited by his home park, and last season he DID rake out a lot of extra base hits. Brandon had a third more extra base hits than Buster.
One way to judge a hitters' power is bases per hit. Brandon's 1.72 bases per hit were clearly better than his 17 homers would lead one to believe. For instance, Mookie Betts hit 31 homers and had a major league leading 359 total bases, yet his bases per hit were only 1.68. Most would look at Mookie as a power hitter (31 homers and 78 extra base hits), yet Brandon hit for more bases per hit than Mookie. Even though Mookie played in a pronounced hitters' park.
We seem to be underestimating Brandon by a bit as a power hitter.
In summary, I think a valid knock on Brandon is his inconsistency, even though it wasn't much more than Buster's and Hunter's this past season. But in most other areas, he may not be appreciated enough.
The Mookie thing surprised me. Especially given their respective home parks, who would have thought that Brandon would have been slightly more powerful per hit than Mookie.
Speaking of Mookie and once again a non-Giant, having just turned 24, he's off to an excellent start to his career. He's hit .304/.355/.500/.855 with 54 steals in 67 attempts. He's not Mike Trout, but I'm not sure any San Francisco Giants outfielders aside from Willie Mays and Barry Bonds have been better than Mookie. Perhaps Barry's dad.
Mookie led a fine Red Sox team this season with 9.6 WAR. To put that into perspective, the top three Giants -- Posey, Crawford and Belt, each of whom picked up significant fielding points -- combined for 13.5 WAR. Betts is an excellent player at bat, in the field and on the bases.
Here is a question: Among players who were in their 25-year-old or younger seasons in 2016, which is the best player by position? Certainly Betts would be there, as would Kris Bryant. Guys like Corey Seager, Francisco Lindor, Manny Machado, Trout, and Nolan Arenado come to mind, although Seager and Lindor are shortstops, and Bryant, Machado and Arenado are primarily third basemen. Bryant also plays first base and the outfield, so perhaps if we put him at one of those two positions and use a DH, we can include all three third-sackers.
Give it a go, and let's see what we can come up with.
|
|
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 Oct 21, 2016 14:37:10 GMT -5
We're not paying Belt to get on base. He's not fast enough with those size 19 clown feet to steal bases like a high OBP guy should. He should be driving balls over the fence, not taking walks. It's a wasted spot when your first baseman can't drive in more than 80ish runs over a full season at his pay rate
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Oct 21, 2016 17:19:53 GMT -5
We're not paying Belt to get on base. Rog -- You and I aren't paying him anything. And the Giants are paying him for much MORE than getting on base. But reaching base and not making an out is one of the most important things a player can do. Remember, any team that avoids making out will still be batting. There is no LIMIT to the runs that can score as long as a team avoids making an out. It is OUTS that limit scoring. Pitching is getting outs. Hitting is avoiding making them. So yeah, while the Giants are certainly paying Brandon for more than getting on base, they're paying him to get on base. In fact, if he could do so every time, he would be worth three or four times as much as he's making. Just as, on the other side of the field, a pitcher who gets everyone out would be worth many times more than he now makes. Pitchers = Outs = Good Batters = Outs = Bad Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3555/looking-major-league-first-basemen#ixzz4NlDZftBE
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Oct 21, 2016 17:23:48 GMT -5
What is the Giants' (and many teams') mantra? Keeping the line moving. And what does that mean? It means avoiding making outs.
Studies have shown that an added point of OBP is worth more than a point and a half increase in SLG. It would certainly be nice if the Giants had more power. It would be even nicer if they had guys who got on base more. A combination of EACH would be marvelous!
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Oct 21, 2016 17:27:32 GMT -5
A pitcher often gets an out all by himself (a strikeout), but a batter rarely scores a run by himself (a home run).
In one of the greatest offensive seasons of all time (2003), Barry Bonds had only 90 RBI's. If a player can have an all-time great season with that few RBI's, clearly a player's RBI's aren't as important as we're making them out to be.
|
|