|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 18, 2017 9:37:51 GMT -5
The Giants' outfield remains shall we say a gray hole.
The good news is that Jarrett Parker has shown well so far for the open left field spot. An additional favorable fact is that both Hunter Pence and Denard Span are healthy. But there is still a LOT to worry about.
Despite his good spring, it still appears Parker is more likely not to properly fill left field than to fill it well. We're talking about a guy who is showing improved plate control this spring, but who has struck out more than once every three at bats in both the majors and the minors. He has struggled against southpaws in particular.
The last is something that has afflicted Denard Span three of the past four seasons. Health has been an issue here, although he was much healthier last season.
Health has been Pence's problem too the past two seasons. After being the league's iron man, he's missed about half the past two seasons combined.
In other words, the Giants don't have a single outfield spot that has recently shown the ability to play consistently well.
Which brings up the lack of depth. Randy thought Justin Ruggiano could play center field, and let's hope he still can -- and that he makes the team in order to do so. otherwise, it's only Gorkys Hernandez to back up there. Once a fairly high prospect, Gorky hasn't shown an ability to hit. And he's hitting only .129 this spring. That's better though than Span's pathetic .083 mark.
The Giants need Ruggiano to be good enough to platoon in center. At an .865 OPS, he's pounded southpaws, but despite that, he doesn't have even 1500 plate appearances in the 10 years since he first played in the majors in 2007. He's about to turn 35, and that is the age when center fielders usually begin to lose a lot of range. Hernandez is a fine fielder, but he has only a .723 OPS even in the minor leagues. He did hit .302 with an .803 OPS in the hitter-happy Pacific Coast League last season. In 235 career major league plate appearances, he's hit just .205 with a .604 OPS.
Can Michael Morse play left field? Perhaps in a pinch, which is also the type of hitting he's now most capable of. Mac Williamson might improve at Sacramento and be a later option. Right now, Hernandez is expected to be the fourth outfielder, which would be fine if he didn't have to hit.
So the starting outfield has two big problems:
. They haven't been able to stay healthy.
. Two of the three seem likely platoon candidates, with perhaps one outfielder available to complement them.
The bench has a few itself:
. Hernandez hasn't shown he can hit.
. Morse hasn't shown recently that he can field.
. Ruggiano is a player whose whole might not equal the sum of his parts, and whose ability to play center field comes into question as he ages.
. Williamson hasn't yet shown he can handle left field well, with his bat still in question, as well as his ability to field ground balls in the outfield.
When your starting outfield is filled with questions, and your depth there is thin, things will need to go really right for the outfield not to be a significant hole. On the whole, that's what it is -- a hole. A right fielder who has missed half the past two seasons, and center and left fielders who seem to need platoon complements, with only Span proven among the two.
Rotation -- one of the best. Bullpen -- solid now. Catcher -- the best in the business. Infield -- excellent defensively and looking fairly solid offensively. (I'm even more confident of a rebound by Joe Panik.) Outfield -- sorry you asked.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Mar 18, 2017 10:06:37 GMT -5
A couple of interesting insights on your points, Rog.
1-You continue to down play Paker's improvement in each and every post you make about our outfield. All of this in the face of how I'VE SEEN him hammer LHP in the few games I've seen, AND his 10 RBIs.
2-You continue to play UP Ruggiano in spite of the fact that he's done nothing to little this spring to merit that praise. why is he our only "viable" option?
At the end of spring, lot's of other players with equal or more ability might be available.
3-Your continual slamming of Span I believe, is misplaced. He's a proven major leaguer with a .284 life time average, OBP of .350, who's only 33, AND who's coming off a year in which even HE admits he wasn't 100%!
You're willing to give others the benefit of the doubt, but not Span? To me, that's inconsistent.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 18, 2017 11:12:09 GMT -5
You might have a point, Boly. But yet Span had a bad season and has been awful this spring. Even if he contributes some offensively, his arm in CF is a big weakness to our defense. I do believe he deserves a chance to prove he can be what we expected from him a year ago, but right now it doesn't look good.
I think the dark horse in the outfield this season might be Steven Duggar if Span falters. He's been very consistent in his two professional seasons in the Giants system.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Mar 18, 2017 17:59:37 GMT -5
I don't know much about Duggar, boagie, all I'm saying is that it's too early to pull the curtain on Span.
He's only 33, has a good, solid history both with average and OBP, AND, a large, LARGE number of successful CF's didn't have good arms.
Last year he had a reason not to be very good, but in the 2nd half, if I recall, he had solid numbers, and much better than his first half.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 18, 2017 21:35:27 GMT -5
A couple of interesting insights on your points, Rog. 1-You continue to down play Paker's improvement in each and every post you make about our outfield. All of this in the face of how I'VE SEEN him hammer LHP in the few games I've seen, AND his 10 RBIs. 2-You continue to play UP Ruggiano in spite of the fact that he's done nothing to little this spring to merit that praise. why is he our only "viable" option? At the end of spring, lot's of other players with equal or more ability might be available. 3-Your continual slamming of Span I believe, is misplaced. He's a proven major leaguer with a .284 life time average, OBP of .350, who's only 33, AND who's coming off a year in which even HE admits he wasn't 100%! You're willing to give others the benefit of the doubt, but not Span? To me, that's inconsistent. Rog -- I can understand your points here, Boly. Allow me to address them one-by-one. And let me start by making the broad statement that I am rarely inconsistent -- because I work hard not to be. I sometimes cover all the sides of a subject I can find, which might make me appear inconsistent, but I'm merely trying to be as broad as possible in examining the topic. Regarding Parker, I was among the first to point out his improvement this spring. I cited it right before he went on his hot streak, which is what he has built his fine spring on. But this is still spring training, and Jarrett's history isn't very good. I'm encouraged, but I remain skeptical. Regarding Ruggiano, my point all along is that I see him as the only viable backup alternative in center field who can hit. I love Gorkys Hernandez. He's my kind of player. But he has never shown he can hit. Ruggiano has been excellent against southpaw pitchers, so my hope was that he could play a good enough center field to be the primary reserve there. I mentioned just yesterday IIRC that despite his hitting southpaws very well, Justin hasn't been able to accumulate even 1500 plate appearances in the 10 years since he first played in the majors. As for Span, I haven't slammed him at all. I pointed out (along with Boagie) that his defense seemed to improve as last season went on. I stated that not only would I start him against right-handed pitching, I would have him bat lead off. Where I "slammed" him is by pointing out that in three of the past four seasons he has been very unacceptable against southpaws. In the fourth season he was barely adequate. In other words, I stated the facts. As a balancing point, I agreed with you that Denard's career hitting against southpaws has been OK. But I also pointed out that he was VERY GOOD against them his first two seasons and has fairly consistently declined since. In other words, his good hitting against southpaws came seven or more years ago. I think it is important to read all the aspects I post about a subject. And I think it gives you a better picture of my viewpoint if you look at something that seems out of whack and examine how it might be at least part of the overall picture. Anyway, am I wrong that you have chosen primarily one side of my point of view in your points here? I can understand that, which is why I ask your indulgence to examine the entire picture I'm presenting. You would likely think I'm inconsistent (or simply wrong) about Brandon Belt, as well. But his performance speaks for itself. I've affirmed his mental gaffes. But despite them, he has been an above-average base runner for a first baseman, and his defense has been exemplary. His hitting has been good overall, and last season he was clearly the Giants' best hitter. He wasn't horrible even in the season's second half, in fact finishing a close second in RBI's (one of your favorite criticisms) during that time. Over the full season, only Brandon Crawford among the Giants had more RBI's than Belt, and in the season's second half, Belt had 35 RBI's to 23 for Crawford. You criticize Belt's second half "collapse," but his OPS was nearly .800, and he was second on the team in RBI's. To me, THAT'S inconsistent. Criticize Belt for his lack of RBI's, then criticize him for his second half in which he out-RBI'd the season's team leader, Crswford, 35 to 23? That doesn't seem right, does it? Now, to your credit, you have admitted that at times you are biased. I try as hard as I can not to be so. You remember what a huge supporter of Tim Lincecum I was early in his career. Yet I was the one who pointed out that in his All-Star start in 2009, he made no fewer than THREE mistakes in covering (or, not covering) first base. If anyone else here noticed it, they didn't mention the point. I try hard to be unbiased and consistent. I make mistakes on occasion, but I truly think you (and perhaps others) think I am inconsistent when in fact I'm merely pointing out as many sides of the story as I can see. Criticize Denard Span? Not really. I mentioned his improved fielding and stated that while others saw Eduardo Nunez as the team's possible lead off hitter, I chose Denard as the man -- but only against right-handers. I don't think he should be in the lineup against southpaws. I'm simply not impressed by his .539, .694, .542 and .566 OPS against southpaws the past four seasons. I doubt Denard himself is very impressed with it. Against right-handers, I'm fine with him. Against right-handers, he's a decent to good lead off man. He would be even better if he ran the bases more consistently, and perhaps improved health will help him in that regard. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3771/outfield-weak#ixzz4bjUxsLZ4 |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 18, 2017 21:56:24 GMT -5
I think the dark horse in the outfield this season might be Steven Duggar if Span falters. Rog -- Good call on Duggar, Baogie. He is one of several outfielders in the system who have a chance. Austin Slater is another player who might be close to being ready. I would say Duggar might be at least a platoon partner for Span, but Steven too bats left-handed. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3771/outfield-weak?page=1#ixzz4bjf98YED |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 18, 2017 23:08:04 GMT -5
I don't know much about Duggar, boagie, all I'm saying is that it's too early to pull the curtain on Span. Rog -- It is. I said originally that I would give him a month to show he can hit lefties though, and if not, I would platoon him -- assuming the Giants have a good candidate, which may not be the case. The thing that makes it tough is that I think Parker too could benefit from such a platoon. Since Jarrett will be tested against all pitching, I would give him a little more time regarding the platoon. He didn't hit southpaws in the minors, but he's done fine against them in a small sample in the majors. In fact, Jarrett has done pretty well overall in his brief time in the majors. I just don't expect it to continue. I hope it will, of course, and maybe he has made the necessary adjustments. Doing so at this age would be spectacular. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3771/outfield-weak?page=1#ixzz4bk1EZCyR |
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Mar 19, 2017 9:41:30 GMT -5
In the spring, I've seen Jarrett have 7 or 8 at bats vs LHP.
He hasn't done badly at all, most impressively is how is right, (lead) shoulder is NOT flying out/open.
He stays in and stays tight against them.
To me, in the 12 or 14 at bats I've seen, he looks like a man on a mission.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 19, 2017 12:29:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Mar 19, 2017 13:58:38 GMT -5
Of course they are all on a "mission," Rog, and once again, you're either failing, or refusing to see my point.
Your statement also belies my point and omits a number of relevant facts.
Ever see "Bull" on TV? If you haven't, you might not understand.
Bull is a Sociologist who "reads" people; their actions, facial expressions and what not, to help pick Juries.
My first degree is a BA in Sociology, and though I'm (no pun intended), no "Bull," no where near THAT GOOD, I, too, read people.
It's what I do teaching, and it's what I do, almost it seems, by instinct in life.
Over the years, companies have hired me to come out and teach communication skills to their employees.
And to do that, I have to teach THEM how to read people; or at least teach them the cursory basics.
Part of teaching, especially adults, requires 'reading' people.
Knowing the proper approach behavior, the right words to say at the right time. The right verbs to use depending upon whether a person is in a "visual, kinesthetic, or oral mode.
All of these guys in spring training WANT to make the team.
But WANT alone isn't enough.
Most/many won't because though the desire is there... the mental part is not, or the physical part is not yet ready.
What I see in Parker that I DON'T see in Mac and others is that mental mind set.
I see it in the way he carries himself, the way he goes about his 'business' each game.
There is a confidence in him I haven't seen in him before.
A confidence I don't see in Mac and many others.
To me, he 'looks' like a guy who knows he's ready. That he's paid his dues and has LEARNED what they've asked him to learn; what he NEEDS to learn to win a job.
I see it in his approach at the plate. They way he's NOW laying off of pitches he used to chase.
The way, when he gets his pitch, he drives it.
I see a guy how KNOWS he's now ready.
That's what I'm talking about.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 19, 2017 19:22:31 GMT -5
That's what I'm talking about.
Rog -- Well stated. That's pretty much what I thought you meant, but you explained it nicely. What clues do you use, by the way, to determine whether a person learns visually, kinesthetically or auditorily? I know a little about it, but I have a lot to learn in that area.
On a slightly different but related topic,since people are different from each other, I think it is possible to read body language much if not most of the time, but not all the time. The more people are like us, the easier it usually is to understand them.
I believe that if we have biases, they can get in the way. And I think measuring performance is different from reading people.
Anyway, a quick primer on the three learning methods (are they any more?) would be helpful.
And here's a question: I'm a visual learner, but I usually don't pay a lot of attention to my surroundings. And even though I'm visual, I learn things better when I "feel" them. Thoughts?
Regarding sports, I was told that Willie Mays was an auditory learner (hence the jump off the crack of the bat), and Wayne Gretzky was kinesthetic. How about spacial learning like a quarterback needs? How do we learn to analyze? How do we learn logic? How do we learn to overcome our biases?
Barbara says she needs to see it, hear it and do it. Does that make sense? Do all of us learn best by doing, or at least enhance our learning and/or retention by doing it in addition to learning it through our preferred method?
How about nature or nurture? Obviously I've asked a ton of questions, and I don't expect full, detailed answers. But I would be interested in learning the basics.
Make sure you relate them to sports, since this IS a Giants board!
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 19, 2017 19:24:03 GMT -5
I would be great at reading juries. People tell me all the time that I'm full of Bull!
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Mar 20, 2017 20:17:36 GMT -5
Rog, I'm not sure I can explain 'exactly' what I see or better, 'how' I see it.
It's like you. You developed a love for numbers.
You see things in statistics that I couldn't even dream of.
A lot of the way I 'do it' is instinctive, and I'm sure has a lot to do with my degree in Sociology.
I've always been a people watcher, but at a young age I realized I was "seeing things" that others did not.
I can tell you this, however, when I'm talking with someone, I 'listen' to their verbs.
For example; if someone says, "Do your hear me?" Meaning, "do you see what I mean?"
I would never say, "yeah, I see what you mean.":
"Hear" is an audial key that the person, at the moment, is in an audial mode.
By saying "See..." that's a visual verb to which, at the moment, that person can't relate.
The first words out of my mouth, IF I'm trying to influence that person in the audial mode, had better be audial, or at the sub conscious level, he's going to tune me out.
This is a subject, Rog, we should do in person. What I've covered isn't 1/10,000 of what's invovled.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 20, 2017 23:02:14 GMT -5
As I mentioned, I know a little about this, but not a lot. I did know about the verbs.
What the person wants to know is whether you understand his point. As you said, he may ask, "Do you see what I'm saying?" or "Do you hear me?" or even "Do you feel me?" or "Does that feel right to you?"
When someone asks if I hear them, at this point in my life, I'm usually reduced to asking them, "Come again?" Or if they ask if I see what they mean, I have to ask, "See what?" And of course, if they ask how I feel about something, I have to say, "Well, YOU'VE got a lot of nerve!"
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 20, 2017 23:27:27 GMT -5
Thanks for the compliment about the things I can see in numbers. To me, I don't see things; they're simply there. I suspect that's how you feel about body language cues.
Where it can get tricky with what the numbers mean -- as I suspect is occasionally the case with body language cues -- is when different numbers have different implications, making it tough to come to a conclusion. I guess that's where "reading" the numbers does come into play. Although what it really comes down to is simply weighing the impact of each fact -- and that can be tough.
It would be nice to have correlations specified, but that usually isn't the case. So interpretations become part science, part art. It's not only what you see or hear, but what you FEEL.
Like the way I tied that one in? Better to tie one in than to tie one on. I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.
|
|
