|
Post by Rog on Feb 18, 2017 10:44:46 GMT -5
The Giants need outfield help, and they need it now. We have already discussed where it might come from.
Likewise the Giants could have no proven outfielder on their roster after the 2018 season. But help may be on the way.
Rotoworld has outfielder Brian Reynolds listed as the Giants' #2 prospect. Reynolds is a center fielder who was the Giants' #59 overall pick in this year's draft. It is unusual for a pick to reach #2 in the organization that quickly, although the competition is a tiny bit weak. He was ranked above Tyler Beede, a pretty decent prospect himself. Reynolds hit .312 at short season Salem Keizer and .317 at Low A Augusta. Nothing remarkable in his performance, but he is a center fielder who apparently is well-rounded.
Steven Duggar and Heath Quinn were other outfielders who made the top 10.
Duggar was the #186 pick in 2015 and has move up nicely. He finished last season at AA Richmond, hitting .321 after opening with .284 at High A San Jose. Duggar has fine speed, but plays mostly right field and has been only 21 for 38 in steal tries. (Scouting report, Randy?)
Quinn was the Giants' #95 overall pick this past season. He has shown both average and power, batting .344 with 9 homers in 227 at bats between Scottsdale in the Arizona Rookie League, short season Salem-Keizer and High A San Jose. He played mostly at Salem-Keizer, where he hit .337 with his 9 home runs in 205 at bats. He compiled a .997 OPS. Quinn had only 17 at bats in San Jose, but did you get to see him, Randy?
Maybe Randy can help us evaluate just how good some of these guys could be, but at least there are some guys who appear capable of helping out in two or three seasons, when the Giants may still need outfield aid.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 18, 2017 11:41:17 GMT -5
I agree we need help in the OF, Rog...but I don't agree with "now."
With the money we've already spent, I like what they appear to be doing; Giving Mac and Parker a chance.
It's my opinion that 7 of our starting 8 are solid.
LF right now, is the question.
You're worried about Span and I am not.
On the one hand, you're right, we haven't a back up CF, but on the other... with Nunez speed, he could likely spell Span out there.
So could Pence for that matter.
Neither would be ideal, but I'll roll the dice WITH EITHER, rather than watch Gorkys pop the ball up, or hit a weak ground ball somewhere.
Heck, I'd rather include Parker in that list than Hernandez!
But we all, and that means Giant management, too, need to see what Parker and Mac can do.
IF both Titantic, we make a deal at the deadline.
No reason to act much sooner than that because I like our top 7.
And because of our top 7 IF BOCHY PULLS HIS HEAD OUT OF HIS FANNY and finally STOPS HITTING CAPTAIN BASE CLOGGER 3rd (Posey), we can score even more runs!
I've said this a hundred times; Posey does not have the wheels to hit 3rd! He clogs the bases!
I'd much rather have Crawford or Pence, or, God forbid, Belt 3rd in front of Posey.
For me, Buster hits no higher than 4th.
boly
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 20, 2017 2:02:33 GMT -5
LF right now, is the question. You're worried about Span and I am not. Rog -- The whole outfield is the question: LF -- No clear starter. Likely ranks in the bottom five among the 30 teams. I haven't looked at it, but it might be the worst of all the teams. CF -- Not ranked in the to 20. It's not that I'm so worried about Denard. I thought he improved as last season went no, particularly in the field. It's just that three out of the past four years he's been a platoon player. Some here don't think Denard is good enough to lead off. I'm fine with him leading off against right-handed pitching. Against lefties, he should bat no higher than 8th (ninth when Madison pitches) and should really be on the bench so someone who can hit southpaws can play. Look at Denard season by season. His first two seasons he was really good against lefties. But he began to decline against southpaws and three out of the past four years hasn't come close to being acceptable. What do I mean by unacceptable? The average center fielder last season had a .745 OPS. Denard hasn't hit that well against lefties since 2010. Three out of the past four seasons he hasn't come within 178 points of that. The other season he fell 51 points short. Has he been anywhere close to being acceptable against southpaws over the past four seasons? Clearly he hasn't been. So center field is perhaps average against right-handers -- and a disaster in waiting against southpaws. RF -- Hunter Pence was just chosen as the #8 right fielder by the MLB Network (although he didn't make their top 100 players list). He's an above-average right fielder -- when he plays. He's played only about half the past two seasons, so right field is a question mark as well. If we looked at all the outfields in the majors, I think we would have a hard time putting them in the top 25 without knowing Hunter's health. Especially if we consider the uncertainties with Denard's health. Prior to the Giants signing him, he suffered three injuries within a year. Perhaps if both Hunter and Denard are healthy, the Giants outfield would rank in the top 20. Even that wouldn't be very good, but it's higher than one should realistically rank them right now. In left field they have two unproven "rookies," one of whom hit .236 last season and the other of whom has a .222 career average. In center they have a guy who has missed a third of the past two seasons. And in right, they have a player who has missed half the past two seasons. The Giants' outfield consists of three outfielders who combine to have been healthy and productive 40% of the past two seasons. And only Hunter Pence and his half of the past two seasons have been above average. I can't remember the last time the Giants' outfield was this shaky entering Spring Training. The Giants need at least one proven outfielder NOW. And two would be nice. Starting pitching? Among the best in baseball. Bullpen? With Melancon, should be above average. Infield and catcher? Might be baseball's best and should be if Joe Panik rebounds as he should. Outfield? Now we know how Achilles felt. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3743/intermediate-term-optimism#ixzz4ZCmzOOYI
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 20, 2017 2:07:14 GMT -5
IF both Titantic, we make a deal at the deadline. No reason to act much sooner than that because I like our top 7. Rog -- I'd make a move as soon as one came available. The Giants are hoping they won't have to make one at all, and are hoping that worst case they can hold on until the deadline. Would someone here please tell me what it is that you see that makes you believe Williamson or Parker will be a good starting left fielder? How we should feel comfortable that both Pence and Span will stay healthy? How we should think Span will be acceptable against southpaws? The only place I've seen more question marks than are on the Giants' outfield is on the shirt of The Quizzler. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3743/intermediate-term-optimism?page=1#ixzz4ZCs3T3YJ
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 20, 2017 2:33:25 GMT -5
I've said this a hundred times; Posey does not have the wheels to hit 3rd! He clogs the bases! I'd much rather have Crawford or Pence, or, God forbid, Belt 3rd in front of Posey. Rog -- This is absurd IMO. Crawford ahead of Buster? No. Crawford is a very nice 7th-place hitter, and he could even bat sixth on occasion. Fifth in a pinch. But third? That's where the team's best hitter is supposed to hit. At BEST, Brandon is the Giants' fourth-best hitter. At best. Pence? Not bad. Belt? Certainly. Last season he was the Giants' best hitter. He has a career .815 OPS hitting third. Pence's .823 is about the same. We're complaining about Belt's lack of ability to drive in runs. So now we're going to bat him fifth, where he'll likely have more runners to drive in than any spot except cleanup? We like Pence's ability to drive them in. Why not have him bat fifth? I just don't see why you don't want Belt to hit third, Boly. He's probably the Giants' second-best hitter, and last year he was their best. Even if he's third third-best, that's probably OK to hit third -- or second. If he bat third, no one will be on base more for Posey and Pence. Now, as for the myth that Posey can't bat third because he isn't fast enough, certainly his speed isn't ideal. But we don't have any problem with Rizzo's batting third for the Cubs, do we? Yet Buster was a net 8 bases BETTER as a base runner than Rizzo was last season. To help put this difference in perspective, Eduardo Nunez was 14 net bases better than Buster. We didn't hear anyone saying that Rizzo shouldn't hit third, did we? Yes, Buster doesn't go from first to third well. But he did so 11 out of 40 times compared to Rizzo's 5 of 26. Advantage Buster. Score from second on a single? Only 8 of 22 times for Buster compared to 11 of 18 for Rizzo. Advantage Rizzo. Score from first on a double? 4 of 11 times for Buster compared to NEVER in 10 chances for Rizzo. Advantage Buster. Rizzo was thrown out on the bases six times to Buster's four. Advantage Buster. Buster stole six bases in seven attempts. Rizzo stole three bases in eight attempts. Advantage Buster. Their difference would have been even greater had not Buster hit into 18 double plays compared to Rizzo's 13. Buster's base running as a third-place hitter is far from ideal. But if it's a deal breaker for him, Rizzo DEFINITELY shouldn't have been hitting third for the Cubs. We need to look at what is really HAPPENING out there, not merely our own preconceptions. The obvious guy to hit third is one Brandon. It certainly is NOT the other. Pence? OK, but probably fits better at cleanup or fifth. Buster? Probably better to hit cleanup or possibly fifth, but third is far from out of the question. Panik? Not out of the question if he bounces back and continues his power surge. But he seems better place at #2 if he is hitting and #7 or lower if he isn't. Crawford? Sixth or seventh seems natural. Eighth or fifth is a possibility. Second might not be outlandish if Panik doesn't hit. But Belt is the obvious choice. Not as good a base runner as we'd like, but not a bad one either. Gets on base better than anyone on the team. (The team's best OBP) Hits with decent power. (The team's top SLG) Pence would be OK. Buster would be the third choice. Panik might grow into the job. Everyone else appears to be a real stretch. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3743/intermediate-term-optimism?page=1#ixzz4ZCtD2enm
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 20, 2017 2:39:16 GMT -5
The top two teams in base running last season were the Padres and the Diamondbacks. They finished 10th and 20th in the majors in runs scored.
Get your best hitters in the right places, and you'll likely score as many runs as your team is capable of.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 20, 2017 2:44:24 GMT -5
Want to know the team with REALLY bad base running? The Angels tied with the A's for worst with minus 57 net bases. What makes the Angels REALLY bad is that Mike Trout led the majors in net bases (as usual) with +58. In other words, the REST of the Angels team was a minus 115, or just over twice as bad as any other major league team.
The Giants finished 14th with +23 net bases. Angel Pagan had +24, and the rest of the team combined for minus 1.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 20, 2017 11:20:39 GMT -5
***boly says***I've said this a hundred times; Posey does not have the wheels to hit 3rd! He clogs the bases!
I'd much rather have Crawford or Pence, or, God forbid, Belt 3rd in front of Posey.
Rog -- This is absurd IMO. Crawford ahead of Buster? No. Crawford is a very nice 7th-place hitter, and he could even bat sixth on occasion. Fifth in a pinch. But third? That's where the team's best hitter is supposed to hit. At BEST, Brandon is the Giants' fourth-best hitter. At best.
Pence? Not bad. Belt? Certainly. Last season he was the Giants' best hitter. He has a career .815 OPS hitting third. Pence's .823 is about the same. We're complaining about Belt's lack of ability to drive in runs. So now we're going to bat him fifth, where he'll likely have more runners to drive in than any spot except cleanup? We like Pence's ability to drive them in. Why not have him bat fifth?
I just don't see why you don't want Belt to hit third, Boly. He's probably the Giants' second-best hitter, and last year he was their best. Even if he's third third-best, that's probably OK to hit third -- or second. If he bat third, no one will be on base more for Posey and Pence.
***boly says II******
Roger, this is a perfect example of why Randy and I get so distressed with comments given by people who've never played the game at an elevated level: And by that I mean, baseball AFTER Little/Pony league.
You say, "Crawford ahead of Posey is absurd."
I say, he's hitting ahead of Posey because he runs better than Posey, Drives in as 80+ runs, has hit 32 HRs in the last 2 years, as compared to Belt's 35, and has continually demonstrated what a clutch hitter he is.
Yes, Posey's a better hitter, but I cannot and will not put a base clogger in the 3 hole.
Name more than a handful of base clogging guys in the last 30 years in baseball who hit 3 hole.
Hope you can, because I can't.
You have continually urged me to look at line ups a new way, not happy with my concept of the 2nd place hitter citing Kris Bryant hitting 2 hole with the Cubs, and wanting Belt 2 hole for us.
Well, now I AM looking at something from a different persepctive... and you're distressed.
You continue to see Crawford as a 7 hole guy, seemingly not willing to play by your own 'numbers' rules, and admit that he's a much better hitter than you want to believe his is.
But the numbers support my position, not yours.
In the last 2 years....consider this and tell me Belt's the better hitter
1-Posey has 184 RBIs, 95 and 80
2-Crawford has 168 RBIs, 84, and 84
3-Belt has 150 RBIs, 68 & 82
Crawford is NOT, REPEAT, NOT my first choice to hit in the 3 spot.
But I'll take him over Posey in a heartbeat for the reasons cited above.
And your love for Belt is truly confounds me, Rog, and I say that respectfully.
You don't 'see' with baseball eyes, you see with 'accountant' eyes."
I look at Beltr; his penchant for the stupid, his prolonged slumps when he couldn't hit air with his bat and say, I don't want that guy being at a pivotal place in the line up.
You look at the statistics and say, "he's a 3 hole guy."
My position on Belt is very clear.
I've posted this before, and I'll post it again.
IF... and I say IF... we get the Belt of the 1st half of 2016, he can hit 3 hole.
But by the end of the season... it was just more of the same old... same old.
And I can't tolerate that, nor live with that, nor in any way support that for the 3 hole.
Baseball eyes vs accountant eyes.
They are very different.
boly
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 21, 2017 9:59:32 GMT -5
You say, "Crawford ahead of Posey is absurd." I say, he's hitting ahead of Posey because he runs better than Posey, Drives in as 80+ runs, has hit 32 HRs in the last 2 years, as compared to Belt's 35, and has continually demonstrated what a clutch hitter he is. Yes, Posey's a better hitter, but I cannot and will not put a base clogger in the 3 hole. Rog -- Last season Joey Votto was a base clogger. Anthony Rizzo was a base clogger. Any problem batting them third? Teams traditionally have batted their best hitter third. It's why Babe Ruth hit third and wore #3. It's why they call it "batting third," not "running third." Brandon Crawford runs plenty well enough to hit third. He just doesn't hit enough. He doesn't get on base often enough for the middle of the order to have enough chances to drive him in. We want out third-place hitter to get on base so that the four through seven hitters can drive him in. You cite Belt and Posey as base cloggers, yet they lead the Giants in scoring the past two seasons with 150 and 156 runs scored. Speed is important in scoring runs, but you yourself admit getting on base is even more important. The two best Giants at getting on base? Belt and Posey. The two who scored the most runs? Belt and Posey. That Belt scored as many runs as he did was particularly impressive, since he usually batted fifth or lower. Base cloggers or not, both Belt and Posey scored a lot more runs than Crawford. The primary reason? Belt and Posey drove themselves in or gave their teammates a chance to do so 456 and 458 times. Crawford did so only 393 times. Running once you get there is important, but there is no more important offensive act in baseball than getting on base. It provides a base runner, and it avoids making an out. In baseball you want to get on base while avoiding making outs. Belt and Posey are simply a lot better at that than Crawford. That's why they should be batting ahead of him. You are right that Crawford is a clutch RBI man. That's why he should be batting behind the guys who get on base. One can make an argument for his batting as high as fifth or sixth. One can't make a valid argument for him to hit third. Several other Giants are better qualified for that spot than he. Two of them happen to be Belt and Posey. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3743/intermediate-term-optimism#ixzz4ZKWpyVW0
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 21, 2017 10:04:52 GMT -5
IF... and I say IF... we get the Belt of the 1st half of 2016, he can hit 3 hole. But by the end of the season... it was just more of the same old... same old. Rog -- You don't want Belt to hit third because he tailed off in the second half. You would rather Crawford hit there. Yet in the second half Belt scored 31 runs to Crawford's 30. He drove in 35 to Crawford's 23. He reached base 110 times to Crawford's 91. By the end of the season it was more of the same old, same old for Belt. It's simply that his same old, same old is better than Crawford's same old, same old. And that is why Brandon Belt would make a much better #3 hitter than Brandon Crawford. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3743/intermediate-term-optimism?page=1#ixzz4ZKeeWqJf
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 21, 2017 10:06:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 21, 2017 10:15:56 GMT -5
Rather than talk about how Belt and Crawford would compare as #3 hitters, why don't we compare how they HAVE compared when hitting there.
Crawford has a .080 batting average while hitting third. His OPS is .195. He's scored a run every 12.5 at bats. He's never driven in a run there. Yes, he's had only 25 at bats while hitting third. He's simply not a good enough hitter to bat third.
Belt has a .276 average with a .815 OPS. He's scored a run every 7.0 at bats and driven one in every 7.2 trips. Belt is a good enough hitter to bat third in the Giants' lineup.
Here is an irony. Batting seventh or lower, Belt has been only about as good as Crawford. Batting sixth or higher, he has been much better. Brandon Belt belongs no lower in the order than #5. #3 is clearly a good spot, with #2, #4 and #5 being next best. Brandon Crawford belongs no HIGHER in the order than #5. # 6 and #7 are his best spots.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 21, 2017 10:22:17 GMT -5
Which first baseman had the best breakout season in 2016? It would be nice if it were Brandon Belt, wouldn't it? Yes, Brandon did have his best season, but the true breakout star was Freddie Freeman. Freddie hit .302 with 34 homers and over the last 95 games of the season was the best hitter in baseball.
But here is the irony. Not counting themselves, Brandon Belt drove in 65 runners, while Freeman drove in only 57. Much of that is because Brandon had more runners on base and in scoring position, which is why simply COUNTING RBI's isn't a wise choice.
Counting stats are important, but rate stats are more so.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 21, 2017 10:25:05 GMT -5
I look at Beltr; his penchant for the stupid, his prolonged slumps when he couldn't hit air with his bat and say, I don't want that guy being at a pivotal place in the line up. Rog -- We agree here. If Belt gets in a prolonged slump, drop him down in the order until he breaks out. Heck, if Crawford is hot, switch the two Brandon's in the order. But bat Brandon third unless he's in a slump. He's better equipped there than perhaps any other Giant. Pence and Posey are the only two others who even compete with him. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3743/intermediate-term-optimism?page=1#ixzz4ZKkMyoU9
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 21, 2017 10:27:24 GMT -5
Of course, that strategy might not have worked in the second half of 2016. Brandon Belt had a tough second half, but Brandon Crawford was worse. That's part of the reason Belt drove in a so-so 35 runs, while Crawford fell flat on his face with only 23.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 21, 2017 10:59:45 GMT -5
I believe I see Brandon Belt much as others see him, Boly. I think the opinion you and Randy have is a minority opinion.
The MLB Network rated Brandon as the #8 first baseman, with votes coming in from #6 to #11. In other words, he was bottom first quartile or top second quartile -- just where I have put him since this discussion started.
For a first baseman, Brandon is a bit above average offensively and far above average defensively. Sounds like a low first quartile or high second quartile player.
How do you see him as lower than that? At the very worst, don't you see him as above average?
Let's take a look at how Brandon rated among first basemen last season.
Defensively he was ranked #2 overall in Bill James' Annual, and Don cited a source that ranked him #3 in the National League.
Here is what we have offensively:
Runs -- #12
Hits -- #11
2B -- #3
3B -- #1
HR -- #21
RBI's -- #14
Extra base hits -- #5
Total bases -- #14
Walks -- #3
Batting Average -- #9
OBP -- #4
SLG -- #9
OPS -- #6
Reached base -- #5
If we average out those offensive ratings, Brandon ranks an average of 8.4.
If he ranks an average of 8.4 on offense and is in the top half dozen defensively at the very worst, doesn't that appear to be low first quartile or at worst, high second quartile?
Brandon Belt isn't a great first baseman, but very clearly he is above average. What is it that you and Randy are seeing that the rest of the world is missing?
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 21, 2017 11:22:58 GMT -5
I'm sorry. I was going to get off of Brandon Belt, and clearly I didn't. I just think Randy and Boly see Brandon as far worse than he is.
I have an idea: Why don't each of us rank Brandon among first basemen and see how it turns out?
I'll go first. Here are my top 11:
1. Paul Goldschmidt
2. Miguel Cabrera
3. Anthony Rizzo
4. Joey Votto
5. Freddie Freeman
6. Edwin Encarnacion
7. Chris Davis
8. Brandon Belt
9. Jose Abreu
10. Will Myers
11. Hanley Ramirez
12. Eric Hosmer
Tier-wise, I see #1 through #5 as the top tier; #6 and #7 as the second tier; and #8 through #12 as the third tier. I could make an argument for any of the guys on this list as being ahead of Belt, but I just can't see anyone else ranking there.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 21, 2017 11:44:40 GMT -5
I added a player. That was my top 12, not my top 11. I think those dozen guys are a cut above any of the rest.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 21, 2017 12:00:07 GMT -5
Let's say the Giants were able to acquire Miguel Cabrera? Anyone have objections to his batting third? How about Joey Votto? Could he hit third for the Giants? How about Jose Abreu? Nolan Arenado? Edwin Encarnacion? Anthony Rizzo?
These are guys who bat third for their teams. You know what else they have in common? Over the past three seasons, they have clogged the bases a lot more than Brandon Belt or even Buster Posey.
Cabrera as a base runner? Minus 58 net bases over the past three seasons. Can't bat him third, now can we? Joey Votto? Minus 28 bases. He can't bat third. Jose Abreu? Minus 23 bases. Move him down in the order.
Nolan Arenado? Minus 20 bases. Drop him down. Edwin Encarnacion? Minus 16 bases. Let's lower the boom. Anthony Rizzo? Are you kidding? He's minus 13 bases. Still not good enough.
So how about Buster Posey? Minus one base. Pretty close to average and not a true base clogger. Brandon Belt? Clearly he can hit third. He's a +7.
If we're going to use base clogging to eliminate guys from the #3 hole, we're going to lose out on a lot of good #3 hitters. But surprisingly, we wouldn't lose out on Buster Posey or Brandon Belt. They're not great base runners, but they're not true base cloggers either.
Certainly not when compared to Cabrera, Votto, Abreu, Arenado, Encarnacion and Rizzo. Not that we'd want any of those guys to bat third for the Giants.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 21, 2017 17:27:34 GMT -5
What I see as "upside" for Mac, Rog, is his quick bat through the zone.
When he was healthy, when he was getting regular playing time, I saw nice, steady growth from his at bats.
Parker... I don't know what to think.
On the one hand, I see that outstanding power.
On the other... all that movement in the box which, I believe, causes his eye line to 'bob' and thus causes a lot of those swings and misses.
I think both deserve a month or so of playing regularly to see if ONE of them steps up their game.
boly
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 21, 2017 18:22:13 GMT -5
Mac's quick bat is doing something wrong. Even in college, he hit just .279, .273 and .286 in his three collegiate seasons. Last season was his second in AAA, and despite hitting in the hitter-happy Pacific Coast League, he hit just .269. He has shown a little power, but nothing exceptional. He walks a little, but nothing exceptional.
I simply can't find much reason for optimism. I know the Giants like him, but I'm not seeing it. He kind of has the look of a Four A player. Possibly a fifth or even fourth outfielder. If he became even a league-average starter, I would be surprised.
I like him defensively a little better than you do (although I don't really know enough about it to offer a very informed opinion), but offensively I'm just not seeing it. Each of his past two seasons at Sacramento have featured an identical .809 OPS. Not bad, but not at all special for the Pacific Coast League.
Maybe this will be the year Mac breaks out, but I see nothing to indicate it.
As you say, Jarrett Parker is a true mystery. He actually has hit well in his brief major league career, even hitting southpaws. But just about everything we can see indicates he simply strikes out too much, and he hasn't really hit southpaws with consistency. If he could be a platoon player, that wouldn't be bad. But I'm not sure I've ever seen a player who strikes out as much as he does go on to succeed.
I'm hopeful for the duo, but it's really nothing more than hope. I'm a little more optimistic about Mac. He strikes out plenty, but not an inordinate amount. After San Jose though, he hasn't done anything of note. And we've been fooled before by players who hit well in the California League.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 22, 2017 11:10:29 GMT -5
You're not allowing any margin at all, Rog, for major league coaching, and growth.
Who's that left handed pitcher SD acquired, and then traded to Boston last year?
HE was a dude of a 1st round pick, and then suddenly, found it.
Same could be said of Rich Hill.
And Brandon Crawford.
NO ONE saw what he's doing coming.
You of little faith.
Stop being like Trump's detractors.
Give him a chance, and let's see what and IF Mac has learned.
boly
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 22, 2017 15:43:15 GMT -5
There is no question that Mac could improve. I've heard he's a great guy, and I'm certainly rooting for him.
What I'm saying is that the odds aren't in his favor -- or the Giants' or ours as fans. No one can see things with certainty, not even the best of scouts or analysts. When I speak of Mac or of the likelihood that Denard Span won't hit southpaws, I'm talking probabilities.
It would be marvelous if Mac had a great season and Denard suddenly regained what once was a very fine ability to hit southpaws. But let me break down Denard's career against southpaws to show you why I think the odds are against him. He has had two distinctly different periods against southpaws in his career, and they illustrate clearly why we should at the very least temper our hopes for him.
Good period: 2008 -- .283/.873 2009 -- .330/.877
Transition period: 2010 -- .279/.696 2011 -- .240/.657 2012 -- ,301/.739
Now: 2013 -- .223/.539 2014 -- .269/.694 2015 -- .197/.532 2016 -- .217/.566
Denard had more or less his usual season from the right side last season, batting .289 with a .781 OPS. That was slightly better than his career .292/.763 against righties. In other words, Denard was back against right-handers. But he has a new norm against southpaws.
That's why I'm fine with his batting lead off against right-handers. His .353 OPS against right-handers last season was fine for a lead off man. And that's why I now view him as a player who should sit against southpaws.
At the beginning of his career, Denard was a very good hitter against southpaws. Now he's horrible. Maybe you can pick it up mechanically, but something has changed against lefties.
The above, by the way, is seeing the game through what are the passionate eyes of a baseball fan and the more objective eyes of an accountant and umpire. When we evaluate a player, we want to analyze him with everything we see with our eyes and our mind. It's tough as a baseball fan, but the more dispassionate we can remain, the better our judgment.
We both fan's eyes. You have the advantage in coach's eyes, and I may benefit from account's and umpire's eyes. You have better inside knowledge. I may have a more objective view.
Here is my thinking regarding Denard and southpaws. We can see the above chart. It doesn't indicate the underlying problem Denard is having against southpaws, but to a very high degree of probability, it indicates there is a significant problem. If we are able to identify the cause of the problem and feel comfortable that Denard and the Giants will be able to fix it, we can reasonably increase the probability he will bounce back.
If we aren't confident the problem will be successfully addressed -- and let's not forget that Denard has been deteriorating against southpaws since at least the end of the 2009 season -- we shouldn't be confident that Denard will bounce back. As I have mentioned before, over the past four seasons Denard has hit so poorly against southpaws that if he had also hit that badly against right-handers, he would no longer be in the league.
If we look back to last winter we can see why the Giants might have felt that Denard would indeed bounce back against southpaws. He had done so in 2014, and 2015 was only a partial season, one in which his performance might have been affected by injury. If they had looked at the trend though, they would have seen significant decline since 2009.
Perhaps their scouts and hitting coaches thought they had identified Denard's problems against southpaws and could fix them. If so, they were unable to do so in his first season with the team. Denard's OPS against southpaws the past two seasons have been two of his three worst. And the worst came just four seasons back.
I have to ask you, Boly. Do you see what it is that is causing Denard problems against southpaws? Most lefty hitters have a big platoon split. Not only are same-handed pitchers usually harder to hit, a lefty hitter has the further disadvantage of not facing them often. In Denard's case, he was initially an exception. Then in his transition phase, he became more of a normal non-exception. But now over the past four seasons he has had the worst platoon splits I can remember with the exception of Pablo Sandoval.
Most of us here realized re-signing Pablo would be a mistake. If Pablo were facing only right-handed pitching, I would still have considered him a risk, but a more tolerable risk. But it was clear that while Pablo posted a fabulous 1.028 OPS against southpaws in his first full season of 2009 (coincidentally also Denard's last good season against southpaws), he had lost the ability to hit southpaws.
Not only were there the health risks almost everyone saw, there was the added and not insignificant risk that he had become a platoon player. I'm pretty sure the Giants were listening to the more traditional side of their advice team when they decided they were willing to re-sign Pablo at close to $100 million than they were to the analytical side of their house.
The only way the Giants should have even CONSIDERED offering that kind of money to Pablo was if they were convinced they had solved his problems against southpaws. His miserable .563 OPS against southpaws in his last season with the Giants appeared to be strong evidence that they hadn't done so.
A wise team listens both to its scouting arm and to its analytics arm. Neither side has all the answers, but between them they are able to come up with better answers more often.
Incidentally, there is a correlation between amount of platooning and what are considered the top managers. The first manager I remember doing a lot of platooning was Casey Stengel. His Yankees were champs, but his Mets were chumps and chimps.
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Feb 22, 2017 15:58:25 GMT -5
I look at Beltr; his penchant for the stupid, his prolonged slumps when he couldn't hit air with his bat and say, I don't want that guy being at a pivotal place in the line up. Rog -- We agree here. If Belt gets in a prolonged slump, drop him down in the order until he breaks out. Heck, if Crawford is hot, switch the two Brandon's in the order. But bat Brandon third unless he's in a slump. He's better equipped there than perhaps any other Giant. Pence and Posey are the only two others who even compete with him. dk...and drop Posey in the order when he goes into a prolong power outage. . Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3743/intermediate-term-optimism?page=1#ixzz4ZKkMyoU9
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Feb 22, 2017 16:08:10 GMT -5
What I see as "upside" for Mac, Rog, is his quick bat through the zone. When he was healthy, when he was getting regular playing time, I saw nice, steady growth from his at bats. Parker... I don't know what to think. On the one hand, I see that outstanding power. On the other... all that movement in the box which, I believe, causes his eye line to 'bob' and thus causes a lot of those swings and misses. I think both deserve a month or so of playing regularly to see if ONE of them steps up their game. boly dk...who moves more in the batter's box than Ichiro. It used to be common for hitters to move in the box when the pitch was being delivered...maybe it cut down some on the power but the strikeouts were fewer and the averages were higher...
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 23, 2017 4:41:36 GMT -5
I cannot and will not put a base clogger in the 3 hole. Rog -- So we wouldn't bat Votto, Abreu, Rizzo, Miguel Cabrera, Encarnacion or Arenado third? Aren't those guys considered to be among the best #3 hitters in the game? Pablo Sandoval batted in the #3 hole more than any other position in the Giants' order. He was a base clogger. Willie McCovey batted third more than any other spot aside from cleanup and often batted third with Willie Mays fourth. Not a base clogger? Harmon Killebrew batted third a fair amount. Not a base clogger? David Ortiz? Mark Teixeira? Albert Pujols? Ted Williams? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3743/intermediate-term-optimism#ixzz4ZUv0ANnN
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Feb 23, 2017 10:40:27 GMT -5
I was talking about our team, Rog. WE have options.
NO, I would not hit Rizzo, Cabrera or Encarnacion third if they are base cloggers.
But I don't know enough about those teams to make that statement.
Each team is different.
WE have options, though you may not care for them
boly
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Feb 23, 2017 10:44:49 GMT -5
Rog- Pablo Sandoval batted in the #3 hole more than any other position in the Giants' order. He was a base clogger.
Boagie- Pablo was fat, but he could still move pretty well. I certainly wouldn't consider him as a base clogger.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 24, 2017 9:48:50 GMT -5
I was talking about our team, Rog. WE have options. NO, I would not hit Rizzo, Cabrera or Encarnacion third if they are base cloggers. Rog -- Who are the Giants other than Belt, Posey or possibly Pence that we would rather have bat third than Rizzo, Cabrera or Encarnacion? Put Rizzo, Cabrera or Encarnacion on the Giants, force them to bat that player third, and the Giants could well be favorites to win the NL West. I said I would remain silent on Belt, but there is no logical way he can be an average hitter at best among first basemen. That means he would rank 16th or below. The only area in which he was ranked below 14th was home runs, an area reduced by his home park. If he ranks between 1st and 14th in 13 categories and 21st in only one, there is simply no way he can be a below average hitter. We both agree he's an above-average fielder. Hence he is an above-average first baseman. That much is logic-proven. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3743/intermediate-term-optimism#ixzz4Zc6xnBPk
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Feb 24, 2017 10:19:14 GMT -5
Pablo was fat, but he could still move pretty well. I certainly wouldn't consider him as a base clogger. Rog -- When his weight was down, Pablo could move fairly well. Probably about the speed of Dick Groat, whom Boly mentioned as one of the best base runners he has seen in his half century plus of watching baseball. Being a base clogger isn't determined entirely by how fast a guy is; it is determined by how good an overall base runner he is. And Pablo is a very poor base runner indeed. When he plays his second game this season, Pablo will reach 1000 games, which is a nice milestone. As of the end of last season, there were only 100 (exactly) player who had played that many or more. In his career, Pablo is a net minus 77 bases as a base runner. Only Billy Butler, Miguel Cabrera, Yunel Escobar, Prince Fielder, Victor Martinez, Brian McCann, Yadier Molina, Miguel Montero, Kendrys Morales, David Ortiz, Jhonny Peralta and A.J. Pierzynski have been worse. Over his career, Pablo has been in the bottom 15% of base runners. Isn't that pretty much the definition of a base clogger? The only way a player gets a rating as low as Pablo is to fail to take the extra base, or worse, to get thrown out. Pablo has been far more a base clogger than ANY Giant. Just one more reason Pablo saved the Giants from themselves when he moved on before they could re-sign him. Despite his base clogging, Pablo was a good bet to bat third for the Giants until his later years with the team. He was one of the best hitters. Through the 2011 season he was probably their BEST hitter. He got on base well. He was a very poor runner, but he did get on base. Mark made a very good point here that was mostly ignored. In order to clog the bases, a hitter has to get ON base. What would we rather have -- a slow base runner who gets on base or a fast runner who doesn't? Buster Posey and Brandon Belt are a bit below average as base runners. Posey is slow, but he runs the bases well. Belt has average speed and is a so-so base runner. They are FAR better base runners than the guys mentioned above. Posey and Belt may not be Dick Groat, but they're closer to Dick than they are to the base cloggers above. Incidentally, one thing that is far from uncommon among the base cloggers listed above. It is far from uncommon that they bat third -- even though they, far more so than Posey and Belt, are base cloggers. Once again, logic shows that Posey and Belt aren't true base cloggers. Below average base runners, yes. True base cloggers, no. And facts show that some of the biggest base cloggers still bat third. Logic dictates there is no reason Belt or Posey shouldn't bat third based solely on their base running. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3743/intermediate-term-optimism?page=1#ixzz4Zc9bCITn
|
|