Stop being like Belt's detractors.
Give him a chance.
Better yet, step back and look at Brandon objectively. Clearly an above-average hitter, even for a first baseman. (His OPS last season was a team-leading .868. That far exceeded the average MLB first baseman, who posted a .259 batting average with a .794 OPS. We have criticized Belt for his lack of power, but even his .474 SLG easily cleared the first baseman average of .453.
We criticize Brandon for his lack of home runs, and here we do have a point. The average first baseman homered once every 22 at bats last season, and Brandon homered only once every 22 at bats. Much of that had to do with hitting at AT&T Park, where Brandon homered only once every 45 at bats. On the road, he homered once every 25 at bats, which was just below average.
We criticize him for not driving in enough runs, but despite AT&T, he drove in a run every 6.6 at bats compared to the average MLB first baseman's one RBI every 6.8 at bats.
In the two areas we criticize him, he is above-average in one and just below average on the road in the other. In fact, my guess is that FOR THE ROAD, his performance was average or above.
In every other important hitting stat, he was clearly above average. One stat I didn't mention because it is a negative contribution was grounding into double plays. The league average first baseman did so once every 32 at bats. Brandon GDP'd less than half that frequently, grounding into a double play only once every 77 at bats.
Outside this board there is almost no one who rates Brandon as a below-average first baseman. Even on this board that is the minority opinion.
All one needs to do is be halfway objective to see that Brandon is an above-average first baseman. The only true question is how MUCH above average he is. The consensus seems to be that he is in the bottom of the first quartile/top of the second quartile area.
When we say he's below average because he makes foolish mistakes, that's clearly not an objective opinion. How does that convert him from a player who otherwise is clearly above average -- despite those mistakes -- into one who is below average? Just isn't logical.
Despite his stupid mistakes on the bases, he is a FAR better runner than Pablo Sandoval, who over his career has been at least an average player. Despite his stupid mistakes in the field, he is considered one of the best-fielding first basemen in the game.
We talk about Brandon Crawford's greatness in the field, and he is truly deserving of our praise. But think how many errors Belt saved him on throws. I'll bet Crawford's error total could have more than doubled if not for Belt's efforts. (I should note that ALL shortstops are saved a lot of errors by their first baseman, not just Crawford. Few though saved more errors than Belt, who both presents a big target and is good at digging throws out of the dirt.
One big defensive attribute Belt has among first baseman is that as a former pitcher, his arm is very strong for the position. Indeed he finished sixth in first baseman assists. Although range factor is dependent on a lot of factors beyond the first baseman's control, he finished second among first baseman in range factor.
The evidence suggests that Belt is an above-average hitter among first basemen and that he is easily top quartile in fielding. How that translates into a below-average first baseman overall is a mystery to me and just about every other objective observer.
The question with Belt isn't whether he is above average. The question is how MUCH above average he is. I personally think he rates about halfway up the chart among above-average first basemen. That seems to be pretty close to the consensus. The MLB Network ranked Brandon as the #8 first baseman (halfway between the best and the average) and the #70 player overall.
I don't think I would rank Belt as high as the #70 player overall, but I think #8 among first baseman is right on course. Incidentally, I don't remember just where each player was ranked, but Melancon, Belt, Cueto, Crawford, Bumgarner and Posey made the top 100. Belt was #70, I think Melancon was around #82, Cueto was #47, Crawford might have been #42, and I believe both Bumgarner and Posey were in the top 20, but not in the top 10.
I thought Belt was overrated and that Cueto should have been rated higher than Crawford, but overall I thought the Giants' rankings were fairly reasonable.
Incidentally, we talk about the East Coast Bias, but the Network rated Joe Panik as the #3 second baseman a year ago. Even I didn't have him ranked that highly. Second base is now a very deep position, but I think Joe will make the top 10 again a year from now.
If Joe gets back to where he was, he's kind of at second base like Belt is at first base -- a clearly above-average hitter and a very good fielder. If you asked me whether I would rather have Joe or Brian Dozier as the Giants' second baseman, I might well choose Joe. A year ago I almost certainly would have done so.
The Giants' infield is strong ; their rotation is among the best; their catcher is rated the very best; their bullpen once again looks solid. Only their outfield is suspect.
Give him a chance.