How closely matched are the Giants and Dodgers?

[Rog]

ISportsWeb asks and attempts to answer how closely the Giants' and Dodgers' position players are matched.  They give catcher, first base and right field to the Giants, with second base, third base and center field going to the Dodgers.  They ranked shortstop and left field as too close to call.

I myself would say that right field depends on health, but that when healthy, Hunter Pence does get the nod over Yasiel Puig.  I would though call second base too close to call, but give shortstop to the Dodgers.

How do the rest of us compare the good guys and the bad guys at the everyday positions?

[klaiggeb]

Puig, I don't care how talented he is, would never, ever play on a team I owned or coached.

He is a documented whiner and club house cancer, so even with all of his talent, of which he has more than Pence, I'll take an aging Pence.

Also, they sound like they're writing off Panik way too soon.

IF...IF he comes back from that beaning...he's a darned good player, with much more range than Logan whats-his-name, the new Dodger 2bman.

boly

[Rog]

I have gone on record that I expect a solid to strong bounce back season from Joe. My primary reason for doing so is that despite his struggles with results, he made more contact last season than ever before. Also encouraging was that while after his return from the beaning there were concerns about his tracking the ball, he was his old self in the postseason. Finally, I don't think if he were having serious issues from the beaning, he would have been able to win his first Gold Glove. Nor would he have been one of the Giants' best base runners.

[Rog]

I have gone on record that I expect a solid to strong bounce back season from Joe. My primary reason for doing so is that despite his struggles with results, he made more contact last season than ever before. Also encouraging was that while after his return from the beaning there were concerns about his tracking the ball, he was his old self in the postseason. Finally, I don't think if he were having serious issues from the beaning, he would have been able to win his first Gold Glove. Nor would he have been one of the Giants' best base runners.

[sfgdood]

It's absolute garbage that SS is not a clear Giants victory. That little prick Collins screwed Crawford and now more stats geeks are too. It's despicable

[Rog]

It's absolute garbage that SS is not a clear Giants victory. That little prick Collins screwed Crawford and now more stats geeks are too. It's despicable


Rog -- Brandon Crawford is an excellent shortstop. But Corey Seager is a career .312 hitter with a career .892 OPS. In Corey's one full season in the big leagues, he won the Rookie of the Year Award and finished third in the MVP voting. That's why most would consider it "absolute garbage" that SS is not a clear DODGERS' victory.

If he plays another dozen years, Corey Seager can fall off a fair amount and still make the Hall of Fame. He may be coming off the greatest rookie season of any shortstop ever.

Most consider Seager to be the best shortstop in baseball, so it would be kind of hard for another shortstop to hold the advantage over him. Part of this is based on age differential, but if Chris Shaw were ready to take over first base, the Giants would likely trade both Brandon's for Seager. Corey is that good.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3713/closely-matched-giants-dodgers#ixzz4XX1YYoH6

[sfgdood]

That is the trouble with stats geeks. They assume Segar's one season equals a whole career. You even said so by quoting his "career" stats, as if he's been at it for years. You would be a fool to say Segar can play better defense than Crawford. And Craw has lots of hardware Segar has yet to achieve in his "career."

That's why the choice is clear

[Rog]

Good point about Seager's very short career to date. But what a career it has been. I've been a Giants fan for over 60 years, and I can't remember any shortstop who has gotten off to the start Seager has. Can anyone else here?

He was projected as the #1 prospect last season by the three major prospect ratings services, and he didn't disappoint. The previous season at age 20 he was rated between #5 and #7. In other words, he has had extremely high expectations even at a very young age, and he has thus far reached them. His major league numbers are almost identical to his minor league figures. He will still be 22 years old when this season starts.

Seager is considered one of the most tradable players in the major leagues. As I mentioned before, it would be shocking if the Giants weren't willing to trade BOTH Brandons to get him.

One good point is that Seager will never have Crawford's glove. Few players in history have. But at the age of 22, Seager's OPS was .877 in an extreme pitchers' park. At the age of 24 Crawford's rookie OPS was .584, or nearly 300 points lower, also in an extreme pitchers' park.

Seager is 22 and still hasn't reached his prime years. Crawford is 30 and will soon be leaving his. Most baseball experts think Seager has a very good chance to make the Hall of Fame, conceivably even becoming the best-hitting shortstop in major league history. Most baseball experts think Crawford has one of the very best shortstop gloves in the game, a bat that is well above average for the position, and a chance to stay on the Hall of Fame ballot beyond his first year.

Player ratings are subjective. But there are very, very few -- even Giants fans -- who believe Brandon Crawford is better than the #3 MVP at the age of 22. It should be noted that Crawford himself received MVP votes for the first time, last season at the age of 29. Crawford finished 12th, beating fellow teammate and likely future Hall of Famer Buster Posey by two spots. Seager received 57% of the possible vote, finishing 1% behind Daniel Murphy for 2nd place. Crawford received 4% of the possible vote.

Crawford has by far the longer track record. It's just that his track is several layers below Seager's.

Is there anyone else here who would rather have Brandon Crawford as the Giants' shortstop this season than Corey Seager? And this is a Giants board. Take 100 educated GIANTS fans, and one might find 10 who would choose Brandon over Seager.

I'm a big fan of Brandon's. In some ways I like him better than any other Giant. But if the Giants could trade him for Seager, I'd do that in a San Francisco second. I'd be willing to throw a lot more in to make the deal.

So would 29 of the other 30 teams in baseball. The Dodgers wouldn't look at the deal so highly.

[Rog]

Sorry to nitpick, but if one is going to say "the choice is clear" that Crawford is the better shortstop than Seager, wouldn't it be wise to spell both their names correctly? As Randy might say, just sayin'.

One final point. No one assumes Seager's one year is his career. But one can name the shortstops who got off to a better first season on one hand -- and perhaps no hands at all.

[Islandboagie]

Did you expect Rog to not blow sunshine up another Dodgers player's ass?

[Islandboagie]

Is there anyone else here who would rather have Brandon Crawford as the Giants' shortstop this season than Corey Seager? And this is a Giants board. Take 100 educated GIANTS fans, and one might find 10 who would choose Brandon over Seager.


Boagie- I would. I prefer defense at defensive positions, and Brandon is a more well rounded player.

[Rog]

Did you expect Rog to not blow sunshine up another Dodgers player's ass?



Rog -- That was a totally uncalled-for comment. I'm disappointed in you. Or maybe you were simply joking.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3713/closely-matched-giants-dodgers#ixzz4XYx6zxqg

[klaiggeb]

No question as to Seager's upside...

But right NOW?

I'll take Crawford.

I want to re evaluate Seager AFTER he's gone around the league a few times.

Can he adjust as the pitchers adjust?

We'll see.

boly

[Rog]

I understand your point regarding shortstop as a defensive position, Boagie. Of all the positions on the field aside from catcher, it seems the most important defensively. In fact, his defensive prowess brought Brandon reasonably close with Seager in WAR, 4.5 to 6.1. And one could make an argument that as an above-average hitter and stellar defender, Crawford is the more rounded player. Seager is closer to average defensively and one of the best in the game offensively.

When a guy finishes third in the MVP voting as a shortstop, there aren't likely to be many shortstops better than he. With Seager, the question seems to be whether he's #1 (the consensus), #2 or perhaps #3 among shortstops. Some look at Crawford as being the best of the rest (and the MLB Network ranked him #5 behind only the top three and Trea Turner), but most agree that the top three are Seager, Francisco Lindor and Carlos Correa. For most, it is simply how to rank the top three, and Seager is the consensus.

There is a fair chance the top three will each reach the Hall of Fame. For Seager and Lindor, it is probably more likely than not. Remember, these guys were at the top of their craft at the age of 22. Crawford wasn't particularly thought of at shorstop until he turned 28.

If we made up a list of the 25 active players most likely to become Hall of Famers, I suspect both Seager and Lindor would make the list. Seager would for sure. If Crawford made the list at all, it would be near the very bottom. I think the key question with Seager and the Hall of Fame is whwther he will make it. For Crawford, the key question is whether he'll stay on the ballot for a second year. Staying on the ballot required 5% of the possible vote.

OPS+ compares a player's hitting to league average and factors in park effects. Brandon's best was 113 in 2015, and his career mark is 99 (just below league average). Seager's rookie season was 137, and his career level is 142.

Ernie Banks' career OPS+ was 122, although he wound up playing slightly more first base than shortstop. Cal Ripken's was 112. Derek Jeter weighed in at 115. Those are the best-hitting shortstops of my lifetime. At just 22 years of age, Seager has fared far better than any of the trio.

Banks was a rookie at age 23, posting an OPS+ of 94. Ripken was 21, posting a 115 OPS+. Jeter was 22 and earned a 101 OPS+. Can we imagine how well Seager might wind up hitting if like Banks and Jeter, he winds up IMPROVING his hitting after being a rookie?

I don't think Seager can hold a candle to Brandon defensively. But Seager might wind up his career as the best-hitting shortstop behind only Honus Wagner. Honus's career OPS+ was 151.

When one compares a likely Hall of Famer to almost anyone, it is difficult for the other guy to come out on top. Seager is just 22, and yet he already seems a likely Hall of Famer.

Wagner is considered by most to be the greatest shortstop ever, and Honus wasn't even in the big leagues at 22. At age 24, Honus played his first full season in the majors, and still didn't play as well as Seager did last season. By age 25, Honus was as good as Corey.

Honus was one of the best of all time, regardless of position. Many rank him third, behind only Ruth and Mays. I don't think Seager will catch Honus. But I think Corey could be as good as or better than any other shortstop in history.

Brandon has played five full seasons thus far compared to Seager's one. I think it would be fair based on that to state that Brandon's floor might be as high as Corey's. But when it comes to ceiling, Seager's is about three stories high. Let's put it this way: I would hate to have to change the light bulbs in Seager's ceiling.

If anyone is going to rate Brandon above Seager, it is going to be we Giants fans. But that's because we're usually less than objective toward the Giants' players.

Here's a question: Assuming they meet the 10-year requirement, which active major leaguers have already done enough to make the Hall?

Albert Pujols and Miguel Cabrera already have their 10 years in, and they've already done more than enough. Clayton Kershaw just needs to get his 10 years in. Same with Mike Trout. Buster Posey's improvement on defense has come close to sealing the deal for him.

Adrian Beltre likely has it made, along with Robinson Cano. Ichiro is already there. Joey Votto is close. There are a bunch of young studs, many of whom will make it.

It's tough for pitchers in today's game, since starters don't pitch nearly as many innings as in the past. Kershaw is in, and there are several others with a shot. But I don't see anyone aside from Kershaw as a definite. Madison Bumgarner is right up there with just about anyone else, although CC Sabatthia, Felix Hernandez and Justin Verlander have seniority. If I had to pick the guy aside from Kershaw who is the closest, it would likely be Verlander, who has finished in the top three in the Cy Young voting four times. Bumgarner's great postseason record may make him the next closest.

It will be intriguing to see how the necessary requirements for pitchers evolve.

[Rog]

One thing that may be overlooked here is that by saying the Giants match up well with the Dodgers at the eight everyday positions, the Giants' pitching could put them on top of the Dodgers. As mentioned elsewhere, the Dodgers have tremendous rotational depth, but it is a struggle for them to put five healthy starters in their rotation.

[sfgdood]

Did you expect Rog to not blow sunshine up another Dodgers player's ass?

Dood - yeah, Rog taking the Dodger side of an argument is truly a rarity

[Rog]

The closer I look at Carlos Beltran, the closer he looks to being a future Hall of Famer. His numbers are very similar to Hall of Famer Andre Dawson's, except that Beltran has drawn about twice as many walks and therefore has easily the higher OPS. He has a slight edge in slugging percentage too, but just a slight one.

[sfgdood]

Did you expect Rog to not blow sunshine up another Dodgers player's ass?



Rog -- That was a totally uncalled-for comment. I'm disappointed in you. Or maybe you were simply joking.

Dood - funny...when Boagie threw an attack like this at me, your reaction was yucks and giggles...but now you're whining like a crybaby liberal Berkeley student still butt hurt over the election.

[Rog]

No question as to Seager's upside...

But right NOW?

I'll take Crawford.

I want to re evaluate Seager AFTER he's gone around the league a few times.

Can he adjust as the pitchers adjust?


Rog -- I understand your point here. Virtually no one outside this board is concerned though. And why is that?

Well, he simply looks like a professional hitter. He easily passes the eye test. But there is something more important. He has hit the ball hard 41% of the time. He has hit it softly only 13% of the time. That's better than a 3/1 ratio, which is phenomenal.

You have posted about how hard Joe Panik hits the ball and that he has been unlucky. I agree to an extent. Joe has hit the ball hard 27% of the time and hit it softly 21%. That's a 4/3 ratio, which pales in comparison to Seager. Corey has hit 24% line drives compared to Joe's 21%.

Joe hits a nice .256 on ground balls. That's pretty close to Corey's .266. On line drives, Joe has hit only .588, which is where the bad luck may come in. Corey hits a more normal .707. But it is on fly balls where the big difference comes. Joe has hit a paltry .143 on fly balls compared to Corey's .239, nearly 100 points higher. Why? Because Corey hits the ball harder and has far more power.

Joe's Batting Average on Balls In Play was .316 in the minors. It has fallen back to a normal .298 in the majors. The pitching is better, and so are the fielders. This is a normal regression.

Seager had a marvelous .347 BABIP in the minors, and has improved it to .358 in the majors. Why? Because he hits the ball hard two out of five times, which not many batter are able to accomplish.

There is no guarantee that Seager will continue to hit as he has. But because he backs up his averages with very hard hitting, what he has done doesn't appear to be at all fluky. In addition, the guy has never hit a pitch above the age of 22. He could still be in his prime a decade from now.

I can understand taking Brandon based on his greater longevity. Brandon has had a B/B+ career over close to six full seasons. Seager has put in only a little over a year. But Corey has been an A/A+ player thus far. He can fall off a fair amount and still be as good as Brandon.

Brandon gets a lot of Wins Above Replacement credit for his glove. It helped him to 4.5 WAR this past season. At the age of 22, Seager put up 6.1 WAR, most of it with his bat alone. Seager had more WAR with is bat than Brandon had with his bat, glove and legs combined.

Crawford is an exceptional fielder. Seager is an exceptional hitter. Even at shortstop, great hitting is usually even more important than great fielding.

Is Crawford going to the Hall of Fame? Even his mother doesn't believe he will. But Seager has a true shot.

Crawford is about as good as Corey's brother Kyle. Kyle came to the majors about the same time as Brandon and has put up 24 WAR. Brandon has put up 18. Corey has put up 8 in just seven months of play.

We're each entitled to his opinion, but very few would take Brandon over Seager. Maybe not Kyle, and certainly not Corey.

We may be guilty of overrating one Brandon and underrating the other.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3713/closely-matched-giants-dodgers#ixzz4XapJ1FY4

[sfgdood]

If Trevor Story was a Dodger, Rog would be putting him in the HOF after 3 games

[Rog]

I think Brandon Crawford is even better than Brandon Belt. But neither of them has compared thus far to Corey Seager. Seager has only one full season on the books, but he's been an excellent fastball hitter, and he's been a plus hitter against every other pitch except the split finger. He's been a plus hitter even against the knuckle ball.

By comparison, Crawford has been positive only against the fastball and curve, and he's been poor against sliders and change ups. That's not to say he never hits either of those two pitches. But he's been well below average.

To Brandon's credit, he made a big improvement against the curve ball this past season, and he returned to being a positive cutter hitter.

Brandon is a very good shortstop. He has been ranked 4th and 5th the past two seasons by the MLB Network. Seager wasn't ranked a year ago, but he is ranked #1 now. Very few rank him below #3, and he is the consensus #1 based on everything I have heard and read.

You've seen Corey hit, Boly. He looks darn good, doesn't he? He looks like a professional hitter -- with power. He has a long, long way to go, but he has a shot at becoming the best-hitting shortstop save Honus Wagner. And Honus hasn't played in a century. Honus was an amazing player though. Most consider him to be the greatest shortstop of all time.

[Rog]

For anyone who thinks I feel too highly about the Dodgers, I only speak well of their players who are good. But man, in Kershaw, Seager and Jansen, they've got some truly great players. And Kershaw and Jansen have done it for a fair amount of time.

It's not inconceivable that Kershaw could go down as the best southpaw in history, Jansen could be the best reliever of his generation, and Seager could be the best shortstop in a century. I'm not predicting those things will happen. Kershaw still has a lot of doing to pass Lefty Grove and Randy Johnson. Jansen can make a good argument, but he too has a long way to go. Seager has just begun his journey. But his first step was a huge one.

Do we know of any other shortstop who finished #3 in the MVP voting in his rookie season -- at the age of 22? Aside from Mel Ott, I'm not sure the Giants have ever had a player at age 22 who put up a better season than Seager. There haven't been scores of players in history who have put up a rookie season at age 22 that was as good as Seager's.

[rxmeister]

I'd like to weigh in on the Crawford-Seager thing. Are you guys crazy? I love Crawford, but Corey Seager is so much better and it's not even close. Plus he'll improve even more, he's just a kid. If you want to dismiss it as one year, go ahead, but that's just silly. The kid was rated the number one prospect in all of baseball before the year, so it's only Giants fans with their fingers crossed who think he still has to prove himself. Most objective baseball fans weren't the least bit surprised by what he did. When some unknown comes out of nowhere with a big year you want to see him do it again, but that's clearly not the case here. The kid's going to be a superstar and we'll have to deal with it. I will give second base to Panik though. He's a better player than Forsythe and he'll bounce back. I was very happy they failed to land Dozier from Minnesota.

[klaiggeb]

Mark, it's not that I disagree. Great upside.

But UNTIL he proves to MLB that he can and will adjust, he's just another Bernie Carbo; a flash in the pan.


Everyone seems to forget just how "mental" baseball is.

Heck, professional sports, for that matter.


Seager LOOKS like the real deal.

So does Trevor Story.

Do it again, get better and continue to improve, then I'm backing that player.

Until then... he's just a great looking youngster.

boly

[Rog]

If Trevor Story was a Dodger, Rog would be putting him in the HOF after 3 games


Rog -- If you're going to make such a ridiculous statement, Randy, at least do so in the subjective tense. Thanks.

One more favor. Please give us some substance instead of ridiculous statements.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3713/closely-matched-giants-dodgers#ixzz4XdfkThEj

[Rog]

In response to Mark's being glad the Dodgers didn't get Dozier from Minnesota, I wish they HAD. Not, of course, if the cost were reasonable. But the Dodgers got what is IMO an underrated player and were saved from acquiring an overrated one.

Does that mean I feel Forsythe is better than Dozier? No, I don't. But I don't think Dozier is so much better than Dozier that the Dodgers would have been smart to give up as much as the Twins apparently wanted.

I would have been HAPPY if the Dodgers had hurt their farm system by overspending for Dozier. On the other hand, their farm system is strong and deep, and perhaps they could have afforded to do so. But I LIKE to see the competition make bad deals, and I think Dozier would have been one.

The Dodgers hit just .211 against southpaw pitching, and the past couple of seasons Forsythe has been nearly as good against lefties as Dozier has. I think Brian could hit 30 homers again, but I think his 42 knocks were unrepeatable. They were based on an unsustainable 18% home run per fly ball ratio. If one takes a look, last season was the only particularly good one Dozier has enjoyed. His previous career high OPS was .762.

I too would probably take Panik over Forsythe. But I don't think it is overly one-sided either. I would take Dozier over Panik, but I think that one is fairly close as well. Probably not as close as Panik and Forsythe, but not totally one-sided either IMO.

WAR isn't a be-all, end-all, but over the past two seasons, Forsythe's WAR is 8.4, or slightly less than Dozier's 8.9. Dozier was far ahead of Forsythe in previous seasons.

The Dodgers didn't help themselves as much with Forsythe as they would have with Dozier IMO, but I don't think the difference is big enough to have warranted a bad deal for Dozier. In other words, the target of Forsythe instead of Dozier hurts the Giants a bit in the short run, but, comparitively, it helps them in the longer run IMO. By not giving up Bellinger, the Dodgers still have their replacement for Adrian Gonzalez.

[Rog]

As for Seager and Story, Boly, it appears Seager is the real deal, while Trevor is another Story.

Corey is a professional hitter with power. That's a rare commodity. Story is a wild swinger who makes contact from time to time. You're our resident expert on mechanics. Look at the two, and you'll see what I'm talking about here. Trevor strikes out a lot and doesn't walk much. That's not a good combination.

Here is something else to consider. Seager's offense was curtailed by his playing in an extreme pitchers' park. Story on the other hand had an OPS that was more than 300 points higher in Coors Field than on the road. Seager is a BETTER hitter than his numbers make it appear; Story is worse than his numbers.

Based on numbers, one could say that Story hit even better last season than Seager. But the MLB Network rated Seager well ahead of Crawford, while rating Story behind him. The reasons? Seager has few flaws as a hitter; Story has plenty. Seager's numbers were hurt considerably by his home park; Story's were helped tremendously.

Seager is the real deal; Story MIGHT be. Corey came to the majors with a .307 minor league average and as the #1 prospect. Story came with a .263 average and the reputation as a good but not great prospect. Maybe Story broke out last seaosn. This season watch Story's numbers on the road to get a better idea of the type of hitter he truly is.

Remember, statistics don't lie -- but they can be misinterpreted. I don't think we're interpreting them too high with Seager, but I think we may be doing so with Story.

It is unlikely that Seager is a fluke. Story just might be. As Paul Harvey used to say, "Now, here is the rest of the Story."

[klaiggeb]

That may be true about Story, Rog... but he EXPLODED on the scene.

Lots of big sluggers in history with LOTS of K's... who had pretty good careers.

Story could be one of those, so he can't be written off just because of the K's

[Rog]

I just caught up with the MLB Now show from Monday. Discussing sophomore slumps, it was quite timely to our discussion.

Former Rockies GM Dan Duquette was one of the panelists. He said that he had been closely involved in the development of Story and that he felt Trevor was better equipped to deal with the mental aspect of adjusting to a severe slump because Trevor had previously failed in the minor leagues. Looking it up, Trevor hit just .233 with a .700 OPS in 2013 in the California League, a hitters' league. When he was first promoted to AA, he hit just .200/.683 in 237 plate appearances.

That inconsistency is no doubt part of what kept Story from being rated a top prospect. But did it make him more "slump-proof" in the majors? I guess we'll find out.

You mentioned that there have been some good high-strikeout hitters in the past. A couple of things.

First, those guys have to hit the ball very hard when they hit it. Trevor did that this past season. But those guys usually also have a lot of walks, showing they are better able to control the strike zone. Last season Trevor struck out 3.7 times as often as he walked.

When he hit the ball last season, Trevor batted .418. When Ted Williams hit .406 in 1942, Ted batted .431 when he hit the ball. When he hits the ball, is Trevor as good a hitter as Ted was when he fashioned the major leagues' last .400 season?

My point is that Trevor's batting average is almost certain to drop. And it might drop by a lot. Fly balls that last season made it out of the park nearly one in four times are sometimes going to fall just short. Balls that fell in or squeaked through are going to be caught. Trevor probably isn't going to hit the ball quite as hard.

Trevor will still have the advantage of hitting in Coors Field, but the more he strikes out, the less advantage that will be. Pitchers are going to learn to be more aggressive with him on the first pitch. Trevor hit .400 on the first pitch, but he hit it only 25 times in 415 plate appearances. He batted .484 when he had no strikes, including a cool .600 on the 1-0 count.

Here is the thing that surprised me. With THREE BALLS, Trevor hit only .175 -- primarily because he hit only .148 with the count full. Not surprisingly given his many strikeouts, he hit just .168 with two strikes.

I don't think Trevor is a sound enough hitter to adjust when pitchers figure him out. And there seems little question that a guy who hit only .233 in A Ball just three seasons before his rookie year can be figured out.

Maybe Trevor has figured it out at the big league level. I doubt it. In the minors he hit a homer every 29 at bats. His BEST season was a homer every 26. His first season in the majors he homered once every 14 at bats, or nearly twice as often as he had ever achieved in the minors. Part of that was hitting in Coors. Part of it was hitting a home run on nearly one of every four fly balls. That just isn't going to continue.

Trevor is going to hit in a little tougher luck and he's going to find that his fly balls won't go out at such a fabulous rate. Dan Duquette feels (or at least saya) he is equipped to fight off the sophomore slump. I disagree.

Then again, Mark may say that I'm just mad at Trevor because I traded him in our fantasy league to Mark's son Bryan!

One final comment regarding Trevor. Last season he hit his homers in bunches. In his first six major league games he hit seven homers. Later on he hit six homers in six games. Every one of those 13 homers came in Colorado or Arizona. He's very streaky, and that indicates he will be able to be pitched to. I can see him turning into something like Chris Carter -- especially if he's ever traded from Coors Field. Despite hitting 41 homers last season, Carter is having a hard time finding a job in the big leagues and is said to be considering playing in Japan.

One final question: Whom are you going to believe -- Dan Duquette or me? I've never been fired from a general manager's job!

[Rog]

Now, Corey Seager may be better than Brandon Crawford, and he may not be. Same with Trevor Story. But the one statement here that was truly ridiculous was the one that said the choice between Crawford (yes) and Seager (no) was clear. One can argue one way or the other, but the choice very definitely is NOT clear. Anyone who said Crawford is CLEARLY better than Seager either doesn't understand baseball clearly and/or is biased. If Crawford truly IS better than Seager, it's pretty close.

Just ask those who do understand the game well.