|
Post by Rog on Feb 3, 2017 15:50:43 GMT -5
Some late-season comments regarding Corey Seager:
"Dodgers Hyped Rookie Corey Seager is Even Better Than Advertised."
"Dodgers shortstop Corey Seager is every bit as good as advertised."
"Corey Seager's first full season went even BETTER than could have been expected."
"Corey Seager having historic season."
"There were no doubts about Corey Seager's ability to hit major league pitching."
"Dodgers shortstop Corey Seager has unlimited potential."
"Corey has great command of the strike zone and exudes the confidence of a ten-year veteran."
"The most impressive thing about Corey Seager's hot zones is his ability to make solid contact on pitches down and away." (Note: The chart also showed Seager hitting .500 on pitches up and in.)
"While some hitters spend their entire careers struggling to hit the ball to all fields, this is something that Corey Seager excels at as one of the youngest players in the league."
"One final thing that stands out from Corey Seager’s first full season in the league is his ability to handle the slider. He is batting .425 against the pitch this season."
"He also has 11 infield hits, which puts him among the best in the league when it comes to legging out ground balls. At the ripe old age of 22, Corey Seager is one of the fully complete players in the league."
No player is slump-proof. But I think the above comments illustrate why Seager is likely to continue to be a very good hitter.
|
|
klaiggeb
Long time member
Posts: 47
Member is Online
|
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 3, 2017 16:17:11 GMT -5
I can't argue with any of those statements.
But mine stands.
Do it again.
Continue to improve
Don't pull a Bernie Carbo.
boly
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 3, 2017 18:40:08 GMT -5
Bernie was as special case. In his own words, "I was addicted to anything you could possibly be addicted to. I threw away my career."
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 3, 2017 18:47:31 GMT -5
I thought Joe Carboneau might be a better example of your point, but it turns out that after a fine rookie season in 1980, he injured his back on a headfirst slide and was never the same, hitting just .208 in 1981. Joe was also more than a bit of a flake, although I don't know if that affected his performance. Joe also didn't make the bigs until he was nearly 25.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 3, 2017 18:48:49 GMT -5
There have indeed been quite a few one-hit wonders in the big leagues, but I wonder if there might not be a story behind many of them.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 3, 2017 18:55:49 GMT -5
The thread I created about Lorenzo Alexander is sort of the opposite of the situation we're talking about here. I have to admit, I was simply hoping he had found a job this season.
Lorenzo has at this point been something of a one-hit wonder himself. But his one season came a decade into his career, meaning he has a chance to expand his work.
That he worked hard to put himself into position is shown by his going from an undersized defensive tackle to an outside linebacker by losing 50 pounds. He made it into the NFL as a special teams player (a nice feat at nearly 300 pounds), then turned into a Swiss Army Knife type of player on both offense and defense with the Redskins under Joe Gibbs. He never got the chance to become a regular until this season, and it was mostly because up to this point he simply wasn't good enough.
I guess the moral to the story is to work hard and never give up. Also that nice guys don't always finish last -- in Lorenzo's case even if he started that way.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 3, 2017 19:05:53 GMT -5
In Corey's case, it also runs in the family. His brother kyle has been an All-Star with the Mariners. Kyle is a similar type of player to his brother, except that he hasn't been quite as good.
This isn't quite the perfect analogy, but in a way Kyle has been to his brother as Brandon Crawford has been to Corey. Both Brandon and Kyle are fine players, but Corey truly has a shot at becoming a Hall of Famer. When a player becomes a #1 prospect, he's got a shot.
Thus far Corey has more than justified his #1 prospect ranking. You say do it again, and he likely will. Again and again and again.
Like Brandon, Kyle is a top 10 player at his position. Unlike Brandon who finished 5th though, Kyle came in at #7. The previous year Brandon has finished #4 and Kyle #9. Like Brandon, Kyle has won a Gold Glove -- only one though. It's tough to win a Gold Glove when you're competing with Adrian Beltre, one of the best defensive third basemen in history.
|
|
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 Feb 4, 2017 1:31:02 GMT -5
It's very simple...check the trophy cases and especially the jewelry (ring) safes...done and done
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Feb 4, 2017 2:37:15 GMT -5
There's no question Seagar is the better hitter. But there's also no question Crawford is the better fielder.
But let's focus on the hitting first.
Last year Seagar had a better average, OBP and OPS.
Dodger stadium isn't a hitters park, but AT&T is the worst hitters park in baseball. How many of Crawford's triples and long fly outs would have turned into homeruns or extra bases in Dodger stadium? It's reasonable to think the offensive gap would have been narrowed.
What hasn't really been discussed is the fact that Seagar had many more at-bats than Crawford which enabled him to accumulate more gaudy stats than Crawford, but Crawford still had more RBIs and more walks, and a better walk to strikeout ratio.
If you take all that into consideration, you could make the argument that Crawford is perhaps the smarter hitter, despite Seagar being the better hitter.
Then when you turn to defense, Crawford is likely better defensively than Seagar is offensively better than Crawford. In 633 chances, Crawford made 11 errors, Seagar had 569 chances and made 18 errors.
Base running?
As we've heard from Tim Flannery, Crawford was the best baserunner during his time coaching.
last year Crawford was 7-0 in stolen bases, Seagar was 3-3.
If you take hitting away, Crawford is easily the more complete player.
|
|
klaiggeb
Long time member
Posts: 47
Member is Online
|
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 4, 2017 11:04:21 GMT -5
Carboneau!!!!!!!
That was the guy I meant!!!!
Doggone old age!!!!!!!
Thank you for helping me remember, Rog!!!!!!
boly
|
|
klaiggeb
Long time member
Posts: 47
Member is Online
|
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 4, 2017 11:05:35 GMT -5
Boagie:
Wow!!!! What a great analysis!
boly
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 4, 2017 21:39:46 GMT -5
It's very simple...check the trophy cases and especially the jewelry (ring) safes.. Rog - Why then are you all over Brandon Belt, who has two of those things and was an instrumental player in both. If he were couple of years older, he very likely would have three ring. Where is the logic in your comment? If rings were the criterion, Satch Sanders would be the second-best player ever to have played basketball. As it stands, do you even know who Satch Sanders IS? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3713/closely-matched-giants-dodgers?page=2#ixzz4Xm5KdHnE
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 5, 2017 0:31:35 GMT -5
Dodger stadium isn't a hitters park, but AT&T is the worst hitters park in baseball.
Rog -- It wasn't last season, Boagie. Dodger Stadium was clearly worse (by 10%). We don't really notice it from season to season, but while AT&T generally plays as an extreme pitchers' park, some seasons it's closer to neutral, and a few seasons it even been a slight hitters' park.
Last season was one in which AT&T was a slight hitters' park. It was seriously 10% more a hitters' park than Dodger Stadium last year. Want to know what is REALLY amazing? Last season Coors Field played as more of a hitters' park than usual. Believe it or not, it was 25% more a hitters' park than Dodger Stadium. TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT!
Now, there is a bit of an equalizing factor. Both Brandon and Seager hit left-handed, and the park factor is different for right-handed hitters than it is for lefties. We know, for instance, that AT&T is harder on lefty hitters than on righties. The ball carries better to the left side, and the dimensions in the power alleys are shorter as well.
The AT&T factor for average for left-handed hitters was 104%, but the home run factor was only 63%. In Dodger Stadium, the hit factor was only 96%, but the home run factor was 118%. In general, AT&T favored right-handed hitters more (as is usually the case), while Dodger Stadium favored right-handed hitters. What that means is that Crawford's hit factor favored him but the home run factor killed him, while Seager's hits were depressed but his home runs were aided.
Overall, the advantage may have gone to Seager, but it was pretty close between the two parks for lefty hitters. So while Dodger Stadium was depressed for hitting, it was far more so for righty hitters than lefty hitters. AT&T played a little above average, but the advantage was all to the right-handed hitters.
I could see in most seasons that AT&T would hurt a lefty hitter more than Dodger Stadium would. But last season it was pretty close. This is somewhat intriguing too, since just as Boagie mentioned AT&T's hurting Crawford (which was the case slightly), Seager's 26 home runs were spoken of as being very impressive given the difficulty in hitting them in Dodger Stadium. That probably is normally the case, but it wasn't last year.
For left-handed hitters, both Dodger Stadium and AT&T Park played fairly levelly. AT&T favored average; Dodger Stadium was a big help in home runs compared to AT&T.
What we see from the home run factor for lefties at AT&T is how hard the park makes it for lefties to hit it out. That could have something to do with Brandon Belt's having hit twice as many homers on the road during his career than at AT&T Park.
I realize there is great disagreement here, but once again the facts show how much AT&T hinders lefty power hitters like the two Brandon's. AT&T may have HELPED their average a bit, but it flat-out KILLED their home runs. Our criticism of Brandon Belt for not hitting home runs at AT&T is once again shown to be unfair. And as the article I cited stated, Belt should be APPLAUDED for overcoming his park to post a higher OPS at home than on the road. For Buster Posey, for instance, it is FAR the other way.
I haven't taken the time to go back further than 2015, but in 2015 the AT&T homer factor was just 50%. That means lefty homers were hit twice as often on the road as at home. Somewhat but far from completely, that is exactly the way the percentage has worked out for Belt over his career.
Brandon Belt flat-out has more homer power than his numbers show. He's still not a GREAT power hitter, but if he played elsewhere, he almost certainly would have had multiple 20-home run seasons. And if he played in Coors Field, he might have had some 25-homer seasons.
That means too that Crawford would likely have more homers. When we consider him as an all-around shortstop, we should factor in that AT&T HAS hurt him over his career. But not so much that most would consider him a better shortstop than Seager, who is considered one of the best-hitting shortstops ever -- so far. Will he be able to maintain it? My guess is what we've seen is pretty close to what we're going to get. If anything, his 23-year-old and later seasons could show improvement.
Whether it be the numbers or the eye test, Seager passes with honors.
|
|
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 Feb 5, 2017 1:29:56 GMT -5
It's very simple...check the trophy cases and especially the jewelry (ring) safes..
Rog - Why then are you all over Brandon Belt, who has two of those things and was an instrumental player in both. If he were couple of years older, he very likely would have three ring.
Dood - Belt has no Gold Gloves or Silver Slugger awards. His one All Star appearance was a lucky undeserved internet vote...He stole Brandon Crawford's spot. PLUS he's a mental midget and a crying wussy whenever he gets a small boo boo.
That's why
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Feb 5, 2017 11:23:49 GMT -5
Brandon Belt plays a position where the first qualification is offense while Crawford plays a defensive one. Some of the best hitters in baseball are first basemen, while some of the worst hitters in baseball are shortstops. Belt won't win a silver slugger because of what I previously said and because he's in the worst possible ballpark for lefthanded hitters. As for Gold Gloves, that too is a popularity contest where offense shouldn't play a role, but does. And I love Crawford and I hate to say it, but there's so many good young shortstops coming along that are passing him by. There's not only Seager, but there's Carlos Correa, Xander Bogaerts, Francisco Lindor, Jonathan Villar, Trevor Story, Addison Russell, Dansby Swanson and other top prospects as well. There's a good chance Crawford will be a middle of the pack SS this year. I don't see why you have to pit the Brandons against each other, but if you have to pick one, I'm on Team Belt!
|
|
klaiggeb
Long time member
Posts: 47
Member is Online
|
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 5, 2017 13:53:58 GMT -5
Mark, I totally disagree with you about Crawford.
I've watched the others play; Story, Lindor et. al.
Offensively they likely have or will pass him offensively.
But NOT on defense.
No siree.
Outside of Vizquel and Ozzie Smith I've not seen ANYONE consistently make the routine play better and with less errors.
And that, TO ME, is the real measure of a SS.
IMHO, outside of the pitcher, NO ONE is more important to the defense than the SS.
Lots of guys make the super star play.
Lots of guys can go into the hole and come up with a moment few could pull off.
But the bane of the SS is to make the routine play all the time; or damned near all the time.
When a routine simply HAS TO BE made, Crawford has few equals.
boly
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Feb 5, 2017 14:00:20 GMT -5
Your post is a bit contradictory, Mark. First you say offense is a strong consideration in the gold glove award, then you go on to list a number of good offensive shortstops that are "passing by" Crawford. Yet Crawford won the gold glove over the past two seasons despite not accumulating the best offensive stats.
I'm not arguing that Crawford is the best hitter, he clearly isn't, but he is among the better ones.
Where Crawford excels above the other shortstops you mentioned is defensively. I believe he's likely better defensively than the rest of the pack than anyone is better than him offensively. Add the hardware (rings, silver sluggers, gold gloves) plus smart base running, and that is how I have come to my conclusion that at least for now he is the best.
I think in more offensive positions your theory on the gold glove voting might still be somewhat true, but for more defensive positions the sabremetric numbers are examined thoroughly.
Obviously Rog is going to look at Crawford with a very minimal amount of fairness because he predicted Crawford to not stick around. Crawford delivered Rog a big hit to his inflated ego and he's still fighting the reality of the situation. But I expect a little more objectiveness from you, Mark.
When trying to analyze Crawford and Seager, I think a good analogy might be the comparison between Jeter and Arod. Jeter was the more complete player while winning rings, and Arod was an offensive superstar. Or perhaps Cal Ripken and Barry Larkin.
Or when the media is involved, we could look back through history and see players that receive more hype, while others competed at an equal or higher level but got shafted by the mainstream. Bob Gibson and Sandy Koufax vs. Juan Marichal and Warren Spahn might be a good example. Through some investigation and digging deep with statistical analysis I believe we've uncovered a lot of biases and righted some wrongs.
Sadly, many don't learn from history. Especially the mainstream elite that believe their opinion is the full story. We see it in general news, and we see it in sports news as well.
I believe that is what's happening today. If you're a liberal politician you are constantly getting fellatio by the mainstream media. And if you're a Dodger, Cub, Yankee or Redsox, Brian Kenny is batting his eyelashes on all fours presenting himself. It's disgusting, ridiculous, and void of any fairness or objectiveness. This is what 99% of ALL media has become.
Crawford and a number of other good players on non-large market teams have been unfortunate victims of this.
|
|
klaiggeb
Long time member
Posts: 47
Member is Online
|
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 5, 2017 17:16:25 GMT -5
boagie says-If you're a liberal politician you are constantly getting fellatio by the mainstream media.
***boly says***
What a great, great explanation, Boagie!
I know this isn't the political forum, but THAT summed up the media PERIOD!
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 Feb 5, 2017 19:40:53 GMT -5
Choosing Belt over Crawford is like the media giving Trump no chance to beat Crooked Hillary.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 6, 2017 4:16:40 GMT -5
What hasn't really been discussed is the fact that Seagar had many more at-bats than Crawford which enabled him to accumulate more gaudy stats than Crawford, but Crawford still had more RBIs and more walks, and a better walk to strikeout ratio. Rog -- Very nice points about the K/BB ratios. The two struck out at about the same rate, but Brandon had the higher walk rate. I'm more concerned with those numbers in evaluating minor league players, but that's not to say they don't matter in the big leagues. Here's the reason Seager is easily the better hitter: more hard-hit balls, more line drives, much more power on fly balls, fewer softly hit balls, and fewer infield pop ups. Seager simply makes stronger contact. Now, the RBI's. There is something important that you didn't mention. While Seager may become primarily a third-place hitter (he's plenty good enough for the spot -- but then so is Kris Bryant, who also bats mostly second), he bats one spot ahead of that. Brandon had 437 runners on base last season compared to Seager's 366. That's a a difference of 71 runners. Even worse for Seager, Brandon had 208 runners in scoring position compared to Seager's 156. Seager had exactly 75% as many runners in scoring position as Brandon had. I don't want to take anything away from Brandon. He's a fine hitter with runners on and in scoring position. But Seager is clearly better; Corey simply didn't have as many ducks on the pond. This stuff is important. On the surface, it looks like Brandon had the better RBI season. He DID drive in a dozen. But if we look at how many more opportunities he had, we see that Seager was actually the better run producer. Remember, figures don't lie -- but they can be misinterpreted. With Brandon having more RBI's than Seager, that is easy to do. But not productive when comparing the players. Here's what I think it boils down to. If we think fielding is more important for a shortstop, Crawford is our man. If we think hitting is, that strongly favors Seager. As important as fielding is at shortstop, hitting is even more so. Crawford, Lindor, Russell and Simmons rank reasonably closely in fielding. But they are ranked Lindor, Crawford, Russell and Simmons because of their HITTING. I don't want to put Brandon down in any way. I rank him #4 among all active Giants players. In some ways, he's my favorite player. But Seager is a potential superstar who played like one as a rookie at age 22 -- an age at which Crawford was still attending frat parties. Brandon is a player who at his best is an All-Star player. Seager at his best is a Hall of Famer. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3713/closely-matched-giants-dodgers?page=2#ixzz4XtSmpaUF
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 6, 2017 4:33:20 GMT -5
Brandon Belt plays a position where the first qualification is offense while Crawford plays a defensive one. Some of the best hitters in baseball are first basemen, while some of the worst hitters in baseball are shortstops. Belt won't win a silver slugger because of what I previously said and because he's in the worst possible ballpark for lefthanded hitters. As for Gold Gloves, that too is a popularity contest where offense shouldn't play a role, but does. And I love Crawford and I hate to say it, but there's so many good young shortstops coming along that are passing him by. There's not only Seager, but there's Carlos Correa, Xander Bogaerts, Francisco Lindor, Jonathan Villar, Trevor Story, Addison Russell, Dansby Swanson and other top prospects as well. There's a good chance Crawford will be a middle of the pack SS this year. I don't see why you have to pit the Brandons against each other, but if you have to pick one, I'm on Team Belt! Rog -- Nice job of explaining away the only two solid comments Randy made about Brandon Belt. The rest is simply his warped opinion. You and I see the two Brandon's pretty clearly I think. We both work hard to be objective and to stay sane among Randy's extremely subjective opinions. I do rank Crawford a bit ahead of Belt though, and here's why. Belt is easily the better hitter, but as you mentioned, he also plays a much more offensive position. If not for the young guys, Crawford might actually be viewed as a better hitter for his position. In 2015 he was better for his position. The young guys make it tougher for Brandon to be all that much above average at the plate for his position, but that is more a reflection of the growing greatness at shortstop than any failure on Crawford's part. Crawford is an elite fielder. He's not in a class by himself, but he's in very rare air. Belt too is a fine fielder who was ranked #2 in Bill James' 2017 Handbook. That's the same spot Crawford ranked, but Crawford was barely nosed out by Andrelton Simmons. Belt was beaten much more easily by Anthony Rizzo. Now, if Belt continues to walk at his 2016 rate and can improve his power by a bit while keeping his average up, he might move around Crawford IMO. I see it as close between the two. But for now, I give Crawford a slight edge based on his outstanding fielding and fine ability to drive in runs. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3713/closely-matched-giants-dodgers?page=2#ixzz4XtZ5j4m1
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 6, 2017 4:43:23 GMT -5
Obviously Rog is going to look at Crawford with a very minimal amount of fairness because he predicted Crawford to not stick around. Rog -- That's far from what I said, Boagie. if you can, go back and look it up. What I said was that in the context of a guy hitting .370 with an OPS above 1.000, he wasn't going to be a good hitter. Brandon's numbers at San Jose were better than Buster Posey's, but clearly Buster turned out to be the better hitter. But let's suppose that I had predicted that Brandon wouldn't stick around at all. Why does that mean I can't be objective with regard to him? I have stated that he might be the best-fielding shortstop around. I have admitted that the past two plus seasons he has hit better than I expected. His career numbers are pretty close to my expectations, but no question the past two-plus seasons he has exceeded what I was looking for. If you're going to accuse me of bias, wouldn't it make sense to have your facts straight? One last question: If I'm biased against Crawford, why did I just pick him over Brandon Belt, even though Mark sees it the other way, and Mark is very objective in his opinion. I suspect we both agree it's close between the two Brandon's. If we look at salaries, that measurement would say Belt is the better player by a bit, as Mark said. Salaries are based on many factors though. I will put it this way: Give me a team of all of EITHER of the two Brandon's, and that team will perform quite well. Crawford is the better fielder, and he plays a more fielding oriented-position. Belt is easily the better hitter, and he plays a more hitting-oriented spot. I'll take Posey, Bumgarner or Cueto over either of them, but I see it was being very close between the two Brandon's. Darn near as close as their first names. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3713/closely-matched-giants-dodgers?page=2#ixzz4XtcjoEzT
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 6, 2017 5:01:00 GMT -5
Bob Gibson and Sandy Koufax vs. Juan Marichal and Warren Spahn might be a good example. Rog -- I have posted at length about how I believe Sandy was underrated early in his career and overrated late in it. Not that he wasn't great in his Dodger Stadium year; simply that he wasn't nearly AS great on the road as when he pitched in pitcher-more-than-friendly Chavez Ravine. I also pointed out that while there is little question Bob Gibson's stellar 1968 season was fabulous, it may not have been the best season ever. I think I have mentioned that 11 of the 49 runs Bob gave up that season were unearned, and as we know, errors can be subjective. How a pitcher pitches out of them can make a difference too. As for Marichal, he was darn near as good on the road as Sandy was in Sandy's Dodger Stadium years. (I should add in fairness that Gibson put up a sub-3.00 ERA while pitching better on the road than at home, not getting the home park advantage Juan and especially Sandy benefited from). I also just read that in an evaluation of pitcher's season before the Cy Young Award came about, Spahnie would have won six Cy's, placing him one behind Christie Mathewson for the all-time lead, tied with Walter Johnson, Pete Alexander and Lefty Grove. That got my attention. I do think Gibson and Koufax got more attention because of their appearances in the World Series -- and the success of both there. I would h ave to really look at Gibson/Koufax vs. Marichal/Spahn. That would be intriguing and I suspect pretty close. One thing to keep in mind is that Gibson, Marichal and Spahn had quite a few great seasons. Koufax had five. Granted, those five were truly great. But I still have to ask why Sandy's five seasons were so much BETTER at home than on the road. WAY better. I come up with two reasons. First, Dodger Stadium was a fantastic park for both Dodgers' pitchers and Angels' pitchers. Second, to his credit, Sandy took better advantage of his blessing than any other pitcher did. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3713/closely-matched-giants-dodgers?page=2#ixzz4XtfMfTJj
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 6, 2017 5:05:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Feb 6, 2017 10:24:19 GMT -5
The shortstops I mentioned that have passed Crawford by are not better defensively and I didn't say they were, so I'm not contradicting myself. What they are however, are better all around players and as such, more desirable than Crawford to have on your team. I understand the first priority of a SS is defense, but it's not the overriding factor when choosing a SS when the others are so much better at every other facet of the game unless they were sieves defensively, and none of the players I mentioned are that, dumb political comparisons not withstanding. It's one thing to be partial to your own players, it's another to not have your opinions grounded in reality. I'm going to root for Crawford to succeed and Seager to fail because I'm a fan, but because I can see the forest for the trees, I can see that Seager is a far clearer bet going forward.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 6, 2017 10:34:46 GMT -5
It appears Boagie, Tim Flannery and I agree that Brandon Crawford is a good base runner. But when we're giving Crawford the edge over Corey Seager, don't we have to know how good Seager is too?
Well, last season he was nearly four times as good according to the Bill James Handbook. Crawford went from first to third only seven times in 35 opportunities. We don't like station-to-station guys, and Brandon was just that over 60% of the time. Not that that's horrible, but getting thrown out five times on the bases isn't very good. Crawford was rated +5 bases as a base runner and base stealer, primarily based on his excellent seven steals in seven attempts.
Meanwhile, Seager came in at +19 bases, which was better than any Giant except for Angel Pagan's +24. Seager was thrown out as a base runner only one time, when he was doubled off. He would have been even better except for his poor three steals in six attempts.
Now, perhaps Brandon suffered from not having Flannery as his base coach. But somehow Pagan got through it. So did Joe Panik who was a +11 bases in an injury-shortened season.
Brandon Crawford is a nice base runner. Fundamentally sound. But last season he wasn't nearly the base runner Seager was. Seager isn't much more than an average fielder, but he hasn't yet exhibited many weaknesses in his game. Last season he hit the fastball, cutter, slider and curve ball well.
From the minor leagues into the majors, Corey Seager has been an excellent player. He was baseball's #1 rated prospect entering last season, and he became a unanimous ROY who finished #3 in the MVP voting.
Here's a coincidence regarding Crawford's overall base running. He has been rated +5 bases each of the past two seasons. In 2017 he was rated -2 advancing on the bases and +7 in steals. The previous year, that was reversed, with a +7 on the bases and -2 in steals.
Not having Flannery may be making a difference. Brandon was a +16 in 2014. In 2014, he was about as good as Seager was last season.
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Feb 6, 2017 16:45:28 GMT -5
again we are given some false stats without any real investigation.....going from 1st to 3rd on a base hit is a product of many things ...who was the batter and were the outfielders playing him shallow or deep? Since Crawford hit lower in the order, he probably was facing outfielders who were shallow....where did the hits go....were there runners ahead of him on the bases??? How did the outfielders arms compare??? Was the run and hit or hit and run in place?? Was there 2 outs and no need to make sure the hit was going to drop safe??? Was the hit a ground ball or line drive??? Since Craw lead the league in triples it was a good indication that he could run the bases...
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 6, 2017 22:32:54 GMT -5
All good points, Don. The problem is that all that detailed information isn't readily available. So it makes sense to go with what is available, does it not? Otherwise we're just shooting blind.
I don't think the "I know what I saw" attitude is fair or objective. If I see something one way and you see it another, aren't I being a little arrogant when I make that statement? What I really want to do is balance the eye test with as many facts as I can find. The facts are facts; my eye test is my opinion, which may or may not agree with yours and may or may not be better than yours. If mine is more accurate than yours, it will usually show up in the facts; the same if yours is more accurate than mine.
You make some great points here, Don, and eventually we'll be able to see more breadth to the overall measurement. But for now, we know how often a guy advanced, and how often he was cut down.
Incidentally, I think Crawford and Seager are similar base runners in that they have speed that is a little above average and use it in a savvy manner.
|
|