A slate of lesser rookies

[Rog]

We have talked here about how Austin Slater might make a good outfielder -- and he might.  Most likely though he is a fourth outfielder unless he can learn to play center field.

Let's make a comparison:

We discussed that Brys Hoskins had a very nice chance to succeed at the major league level.  Not only did he hit 39 homers in AAA this season, he did so while walking nearly as many times as he struck out.  In other words, not only does he have power, he controls the plate well. 

Did we notice when he played the Giants how often he went to two strikes and then was still effective?  He has a .952 OPS WITH TWO STRIKES.  There are eight qualifying major league hitters who have an OPS that high -- including plate appearances with no strikes and one strike as well.

He has a 1.028 OPS when the pitcher is ahead.  Only two qualifiers have an OPS that high even when including plate appearances when the count is even or the batter is ahead.

Hoskins has a good enough control of the plate that he's averaged 4.54 pitches per plate appearance.  The major league leader in walks, Joey Votto, has seen only 3.87 per plate appearance.  The closest player I can find is Aaron Judge at 4.40 pitcher per PA.

Coincidentally, Hoskins and Slater have about the same number of hits.  With 30 hits, Slater is only two behind.  They are also very close in at bats, with Hoskins' 104 trailing Slater by only four.  Hence, they are reasonably close in average, with Hoskins hitting an excellent .308 and Slater hitting an acceptable .278.  

So, yeah, Slater's batting average is a little lower, but he makes up for it with power, right?  Well, not exactly.  Austin's three homers trail Hoskins by 11.

But Slater is a lead off type hitter, so he walks more, right?  Well, no, his 6 walks pale in comparison to Hoskins' 21.

But Slater is a contact type hitter who doesn't strike out as often, right?  Well, sorry Austin, your 25 strikeouts exceed Hoskins by two.

No sweat.  Slater is very fast and steals a lot more bases than the more ponderous Hoskins.  Well, no, Austin hasn't stolen a base while Hoskins has stolen three.

My point is that the Giants have a few prospects who might turn out to be decent.  You know, the guys we're criticizing them for not playing.  Mostly fourth outfielder types, with some possible second division starters, fifth outfielder type and Four A types.

We asked why the Giants weren't starting Carlos (Sidney) Moncrief.  The next day he was designated for assignment.  Even though Carlos was usually at or above the age of his league in the minors, he hit only .255/.768 and struck out more than twice as often as he walked.

Moncrief certainly has a major league arm.  It is the rest of his body that lags.

In another thread, we are criticizing sabermetrics.   But they are the primary reason I mentioned Hoskins here when he was called up.  When a guy hits with power and shows plate control with his walks and strikeouts, he's likely to hit at the major league level.  As compared, for instance, to a strikeout maestro like Jarrett Parker.

Here's a way to look at Hoskins and Parker.  I mentioned how well Hoskins has hit with two strikes or when he's behind in the count.  Rhys has hit better in those situations this season than Parker has hit when Jarrett has been AHEAD in the count.

I'm hoping the Giants and Parker get the first overall draft pick instead of the Phillies and Hoskins.  Right now the Phillies' near-term future is likely better than the Giants'.  The Phillies' average age is 26.6.  Even with all the young guys they've played this season, the Giants' average age is 29.1.  Which team seems likely to have the better chance to improve in the short run?

As good as Hoskins has been (He isn't that good, really.  No one is.), move him to the Giants, and the Phillies' might still have more short-term upside.

A possible positive I just came across.  I thought the Giants held only their $9 million option on Matt Moore for the 2018 season.  They also hold an inexpensive $10 million option for 2019.  If Matt can show something the rest of the season, the Giants might be able to get something of value for him. Usually one wouldn't trade a player after a bad season, but the Giants would likely lose Matt in two years anyway, and it looks to me like it will take them at least that long to be good again.

No, I don't believe the Giants are as bad as their record indicates.  But I don't think they're still a good team either.  And they lack money and trading material to turn things around quickly.  If Bobby Evans can turn them around for next season, he's better than even I give him credit for.

We talked a day or two about how little money and tradeable talent the Giants had to improve with.  Aside from the extra year the Giants have to offer with Moore, I don't see much we missed.

My sense, by the way, is that the Giants couldn't trade their top five prospects for Hoskins.  Not even Austin Slater would get the job done.

[Rog]

How's this for irony? Hoskins' .750 slugging percentage is 15 points higher than Austin's slugging percentage PLUS on-base percentage. And then there's Hoskins' .308 batting average being within 20 points of Slater's on-base percentage. And Hoskins' .433 on-base percentage being 26 points higher than Slater's slugging percentage.

No, Hoskins isn't THAT much better than Slater. But do you see that while I like him, I don't get all that excited by Austin? Slater hit a nice .308/.814 in the minors, but he homered only once every 40 trips and struck out more than twice as often as he walked.

I mentioned in another thread that Eliezer Alvarez, the player the Phillies picked up for a waiver acquiree, had hit .323/.879 with 36 steals in high A ball. I don't believe Alvarez is considered a top prospect, but his numbers were quite good for a middle infielder.

Before this season, Viva El Birdos rated Alvarez as the Cardinals' #24 prospect. It might be noted though that PRIOR to Alvarez's fine 2016 season, prospect evaluator John Sickels rated Alvarez as a sleeper, citing his fine speed (although stating that Alvarez needed to learn to steal bases better, which he did with 35), his gap power (36 doubles in 2016), a comfortably low strikeout rate with usually hard contact (he struck out a little under once every five plate appearances in 2016) and a nice glove for second base despite mediocre metrics (the metrics stayed low in 2017).

Even though he was a year older, Slater hit just .292/.717 when he played High A ball.

I do like Slater more as a prospect, in part because Alvarez has seemingly had a hard time staying healthy. And while Slater himself is something of a sleeper, IMO Alvarez remains so.

Which is why I wish the Giants had been able to acquire him instead of the Phillies. Likely not a big deal either way, but any young talent the Giants can acquire is a step in the right direction. And as explained in the other thread, the Phillies got Alvarez for essentially nothing from their point of view.