|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 21, 2017 12:27:50 GMT -5
Again, Roger, YOU see the numbers, I see the player, and I HEARD what his own announcers said about him.
I don't give a rat's patootie what a non-baseball announcer says, but I DO care what the color guy, an ex major leaguer says.
And they called him not very selective and very susceptible to EVERY first pitch.
Which Kruk and Kuip echoed.
boly
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 21, 2017 14:43:35 GMT -5
He doesn't even back down when you tell him he doesn't back down.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 21, 2017 15:34:02 GMT -5
Which is why I'm frustrated, boagie.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 21, 2017 15:57:16 GMT -5
I didn't say I changed my mind a lot, but I did say I change it. Just in the last 24 hours, I've changed my mind about the Longoria trade.
Regarding Franco as a hacker, I think I may see where Boly and I differ.
For me, a hacker is aggressive and lacks discernment between balls and strikes. Franco certainly meets the former requirement, but to me he leans toward but doesn't meet the latter.
Boly made reference to Roberto Clemente, one of the best bad ball hitters ever. But here is something that is amazing. For a power hitter in his time, Roberto struck out a fair amount. Twice he exceeded 100, which was pretty high back then.
Last season Maikel was only 155th in strikeouts in the majors. He was 91st in plate appearances. That's really good contact for a slugger. I picked 1962 for Clemente because his 73 strikeouts seemed about average for his career. That season he finished 74th in strikeouts and 57th in plate appearances. For his time, Franco strikes out less than Clemente did.
By coincidence, Roberto struck out exactly the number of times Hank Aaron did in 1962, although Hank had quite a few more plate appearances. Who knew that Roberto struck out more than Hank?
Clemente is certainly a hacker for me (based on what I remember and what I can find). Maikel is at the very least less of one.
Maikel finished 36th in strikeout percentage last season. Joe Panik was #1. We mentioned that Evan Longoria cut his strikeout percentage significantly last season. He finished 46th.
Finishing that high in strikeout percentage doesn't seem like a hacker to me. Roberto wasn't among the leaders in avoiding strikeouts.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 21, 2017 18:23:12 GMT -5
That's not what I'm talking about, Rog.
I'm talking about when you're involved in a discussion.
You continue to push YOUR point regardless.
For me, what I need to hear is, "You know. Good point! You've influenced me to change my mind."
But you don't do that.
You make it sound like the only reason you changed your mind is based upon YOUR reasoning and logic; you never, ever admit to being influenced by anyone.
And that's not fair, Rog.
boly
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 21, 2017 22:26:17 GMT -5
I have been influenced by others here. I'll try to do a better job of noting it.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 21, 2017 22:46:02 GMT -5
That would be nice, Rog, because too often you come across as aloof; smarter than the rest of us because you understand the numbers.
I know you, and I know that's not you; you're not aloof.
There is no weakness in acknowledging one was influenced by someone else.
boly
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 22, 2017 0:32:49 GMT -5
Rog changed his mind on the Longoria trade soon after Grant Brisbee decided he liked it.
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Dec 22, 2017 8:40:34 GMT -5
I’m still against the trade, moreso for the length of the contract than anything else. Five more years for a 32 year old seems excessive. People are whining about 3 or 4 years for 30 year old Jay Bruce but are fine with five years for a 32 year old?
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 22, 2017 10:38:33 GMT -5
My problem with Bruce is not the contract length, Mark. It's two fold;
1-He's whack or whiff. I like his power but not the fact that it comes with a less than .250 batting average.
2-But more importantly is his declining range in RF. In our park we need a guy who can go get 'em, and that's not Jay.
boly
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 22, 2017 12:59:48 GMT -5
The Giants need a guy who can go get 'em and who can hit 'em (homers). AT&T works against Jay on both counts. Has anyone else looked at his spray chart? It's a bit discouraging.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 22, 2017 13:09:38 GMT -5
When I changed my mind on Evan Longoria, Randy or someone here had an impact. I'm still waffling on the trade, especially after Mark disagreed with it. I'm confident Evan will earn his reduced contract, but will he also add enough wins to cover losing Arroyo? And even the two pitchers could contribute something.
The Giants have said they wanted to compete in 2018 but also keep an eye to the future. Longoria should figure in their hopes earlier in the contract more than later, whereas Arroyo might have fit in later. Bobby Evans I believe it was also said that the Giants were going to add power without taking their eye off speed and defense. The trade for Longoria satisfies the defense part of that equation.
So while we've been complaining about being lied to, the Longoria trade helped fulfill two different promises.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 22, 2017 14:15:28 GMT -5
Again, Roger, YOU see the numbers, I see the player, and I HEARD what his own announcers said about him. I don't give a rat's patootie what a non-baseball announcer says, but I DO care what the color guy, an ex major leaguer says. And they called him not very selective and very susceptible to EVERY first pitch. Rog -- Here's the thing: Announcers can be wrong. How many times has Mike Krukow insisted that Tim Lincecum didn't add his change up until 2008? If that were the case, I'm not sure how he threw it 13% of the time that season. I'm not sure how when I discussed Tim's use of the change up in Tim's first start at Fresno with his father, Chris replied that Tim had told him he threw almost all fastballs and change ups. So while I would expect the announcers to be right, there is no guarantee that they are. On the other hand, when we see that Franco swung at just under one out of every three pitches outside the strike zone and swung at close to three out of four pitches in the zone, we see not a patient hitter, but an aggressive one. But also one with a bit of discernment. Maikel's very low strikeout rate (36th lowest in the majors) suggests that too. Pretty hard to strike out less than once every six plate appearances when you're swinging at everything but the kitchen sink. As for being very susceptible to every first pitch, we know for sure that Franco laid off 36% of the 628 first pitches he faced in 2017. We know that for sure because the count went to 1-0 in 227 of his plate appearances. So he swung at less than two out of every three first pitches for sure. So what about the other 401 first pitches he faced? I won't go into the details, but he likely swung at something like 336 of the other 401 pitches he faced. That's over 80% of the pitches that we don't know whether they were in the strike zone or not. That's a pretty high percentage; it might be even less, but I think it is in the ballpark, so to speak. What that would mean then is that Franco swing at about 54% of the first pitches he faced. That's a little higher than the 50% of pitches he swung at overall, but it appears to be reasonable. That wouldn't make Franco a hacker, would it? Even on the first pitch? Now, let's look at the logic of this argument. That Franco swung at no more than 64% of all first pitches is a fact, based on the 227 times the count went to 1-0. So how many of the other pitches did he swing at? My estimate was he swung at all but 10% of the 64% of pitches unaccounted for. Seems pretty reasonable, but it's not a fact. What we wind up with though is a pretty reasonable conclusion based on fact and logic. Pardon me if I disagree with the announcers on this one. One more point. I think we all agree that Joe Panik is a disciplined hitter, and Pablo Sandoval is a hacker. Joe has swung at 43$ of the pitches he's faced. Pablo has swung at 57% of the pitches he's faced. Franco and Nick Hundley are right in the middle at 50%. Logically, that seems to indicate Makiel and Nick are toward the middle -- in between the disciplined guys and the hackers. No question Franco is aggressive. I'll be he's looked pretty bad on some of the first pitches he's swung at too. I'll bet that has stuck out more in the memories of the Phillies announcers than the strikes he's swung at or the balls he's taken. The pieces are in place for the announcers to be wrong in this case. Aside from what the announcers said and you observed in 8-12 games, the pieces aren't in place for me to be wrong on this one. Could I be wrong? Of course. But just about every test of reasonableness I subject my conclusion to says the conclusion is reasonable. Please check out these two articles. They're the first two that came up when I entered "Maikel Franco hacker" into my browser. www.nj.com/phillies/index.ssf/2017/08/are_maikel_francos_phillies_days_numbered.htmlwww.philly.com/philly/sports/phillies/20160731_Franco_s_aggressive_approach_doesn_t_bother_Phillies__Mackanin.htmlThe first article talks about four reasons Franco's stint with the Phillies may be nearing an end. Sounds like this one should agree with the announcers, doesn't it? Except that it doesn't. Nary a one of the four reasons for Franco's likely demise with the Phillies is that he's a hacker. Low production? Yes. Hacking? No. The second one is likely more definitive than the first article or the announcers. The source? His Manager. Let me set the stage. It came against the Giants. Franco did something very unusual. He swung at four (first) pitches, and made four outs. Phillies manager Pete Mackanin had every right to be furious, right? If you were the manager, you likely would have been, Boly. But, no, Mackanin said he was fine with it. Three of the pitchers were strikes (Remember, Franco swung at three out of very four strikes last season), and the fourth was borderline. This is according to my definition, but apparently it fits Mackanin's as well: Franco was being aggressive, but not a hacker. So what we now have is logic based on fact, and ratified by the Phillies manager. See now why I disagree with the Phillies' announcers? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4204/official-giants-thrown-towel?page=2#ixzz520yOEP8U
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 22, 2017 14:50:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 22, 2017 15:11:41 GMT -5
Rog -- Here's the thing: Announcers can be wrong.
***boly says***
Anyone can be wrong, obviously.
But 2 things: 1, I'm talking about the COLOR guy, NOT the play by play guy.
The color guy PLAYED MLB.
2-They see him play EVERY DAY!
I think I'll take their opinion.
boly
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 22, 2017 15:48:45 GMT -5
I think I'll take their opinion.
Rog -- Over Franco's manager apparently.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 22, 2017 18:01:35 GMT -5
I never heard Franco's manager comment on him as a hitter.
If I had, I most certainly WOULD take the manager's opinion first.
But since I haven't, I can't.
And THAT wasn't the issue nor the perspective from which we were debating this point.
IF you say you heard the manager comment about him NOT being a hacker, heck, I'm all in!
I'm behind you 100%.
But until I hear that, I have to go with the best resource I can find.
In this case, the color commentator, the ex MLB player.
Compared to him, neither my, nor your opinion really hold much weight.
We don't see him every day.
boly
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 23, 2017 0:50:15 GMT -5
I never heard Franco's manager comment on him as a hitter.
If I had, I most certainly WOULD take the manager's opinion first.
But since I haven't, I can't.
And THAT wasn't the issue nor the perspective from which we were debating this point.
Rog -- One thing I try to do when I disagree with someone. If I haven't done so already, I will do so at that point. You are absolutely correct that the manager wasn't involved when we started our discussion.
I first went back and tried to come up with a good estimate of how often Franco swung at the pitch last season. What I found was that he likely swung at a few more pitches than he did overall. That shows aggressiveness, but not not necessarily indiscretion, the two facets I feel are necessary for a hacker.
Maikel swings at about a third of the pitches outside the strike zone while swinging at about three-fours in the zone. That's pretty aggressive, but it's not Joe Panik, and it's not Pablo Sandoval. It's pretty close to halfway in between.
I explained that, but I have a feeling you felt the color guy had said Maikel was a hacker, so it didn't really matter what I said or how well it was reasoned out, nor how many facts were involved. If I was off base on that, I apologize for not giving you enough credit.
Anyway, as I posted earlier, when I put "Miakel Franco hacker" into my browser, the first article that came up was an article that showed why Franco might be leaving the Phillies. The article gave four reasons, but none of them was that he was a hacker.
The second one that came up had his manager saying that even though he made four outs while seeing just four pitches in a game against the Giants (perhaps you remember it), the manager was fine with it, since he swung at three strikes and a marginal one. The second of the two links I posted quoted was the one that quoted the Phillies manager.
After reading more on the subject, here's what I think:
. Maikel goes after and looks really bad against a lot of curve balls.
. Those horrible swings are what the color man would naturally remember, and they override the fact that overall, Franco has let's say average (or at close to it) strike zone judgment and discipline. (Kind of like Nick Hundley over Nick's career.)
. It's possible too that the comment you heard was made earlier in Franco's career. He has improved somewhat, and in fact bounced back some at the plate in in July and after.
I too hate that we disagree, but when it happens, why not study the matter further to try to arrive at the truth? That's what I try to do. Also, please give me credit for understanding the game and making points logically. If we both look at the subject objectively and in depth, perhaps we can find ground where we can meet. Too often I feel that you look at the on-field side, assume I don't know all that much aside from number and then either don't see, don't understand or ignore the numbers (facts) and logic I present.
You and Boagie seem to take the position that all I understand is the numbers, and that just isn't true. Boagie showed his bias when he implied that I changed my opinion on the Longoria trade after I read Grant Brisbee's article. I value Grant's opinion a lot, and believe he is the most knowledgeable poster that I know has posted here, but I hadn't even thought to read what Grant wrote.
I've since read it, and he made some fine points, but to be honest, I still don't know for sure where I stand. As I plan to post at some point, it depends on how one views the window the Giants have, and one can argue that they're not ready for it yet and will be too old by the time it finally arrives. There is likely truth to both points, but we can hope that somewhere in the middle there is enough of a window to truly matter.
Hey, I know what I write is often (usually?) quite lengthy. If you're interested in the point or think possibly you should be, ask me to summarize. But I would ask that you not ignore it altogether.
I realize you and Boagie showed my ignorance when I posted that a player can burn on the inside without showing it on the outside. If we're going to pick just one, let's go with Hank Aaron. It's not that I don't understand; it's that I see another side to the issue.
Anyway, let's try to find common ground. If you go to the second link as I originally suggested, you will see precisely what Franco's manager said (although I should also add that Pete Mackanin has since been fired!). You said that if the manager said it, you would rake the manager's opinion first. That tells me you didn't look at the link. And that you didn't even read when I wrote about it "The second one is likely more definitive than the first article or the announcers. The source? His Manager."
If you had posted to me that there was an article on the subject that quoted his manager, I would have been all over it. That's why I sometimes think you're less than objective. If I'm wrong, I want to LEARN why I'm wrong. If we disagree, I want to check out your side of the story.
Here's the thing about Franco: He swings at just over half the pitches he faces, which to me indicates that he's not a hacker, especially in the sense that "he swings at anything." He swings at just a third of pitches outside the strike zone. Meanwhile, he swings at three-quarters of the pitches IN the strike zone. What that means that his action is the correct one at least 70% of the time. Compare that to a REAL hacker in Pablo Sandoval, who takes the wrong action nearly half the time.
Check this out; Franco is actually "right" about a higher percentage of pitches than Joe is, assuming a hitter should swing at all stikes and not swing at all balls. The former isn't necessarily the case.
But based on swinging at strikes and not swinging at balls, Joe is better on the balls. He swings at only one out of four, while Maikel swings at one out of three bad ones. But while Maikel swings at three out of four strikes, Joe swings at only four out of nine. Overall, Maikel is "right" more often than Joe, but because Maikel is more aggressive (and likely chases farther out of the zone), Joe appears far from a hacker, and to the announcer at least -- although apparently not Maikel's manager -- Maikel appears to be a hacker.
What I wrote above isn't really right. Some strikes a batter SHOULDN'T swing at, especially when he has the bat control that Joe has. Joe struck out the least of any player in the majors, in part because of good strike zone judgment and in part because he's actually pretty passive at the plate. But Maikel, who is far more aggressive, but whose ratio of of "right" to "wrong" actions is actually better than Joe's, finished #36 despite being far more powerful and aggressive than Joe.
As I pointed out before, for today's game, Maikel may strike out less per plate appearance than Roberto Clemente did in his day. I wonder if Roberto had the #36 lowest strike out in the majors very often, even though there were fewer players. The season I chose as an example because Roberto struck out about an average number of times for his career, Roberto struck out exactly as often as Hank Aaron, and we know which of them had more power.
Clearly Maikel isn't making the LEVEL of contact Roberto made. Maikel contact rate isn't bad, but he needs to hit the ball harder. Kind of the same problem Christian Arroyo is having, although they are far different hitters.
Maikel's problems are that he doesn't get on base enough, and he's a lousy fielder. He needs to hit for a higher average, and he should hit with even more power than he does. He's fallen well short of expectations.
I suspect the curve ball has a lot to do with that. Looking it up though, Franco hasn't been particularly good against just about ANY pitch, and has been particularly weak against secondary pitches. I think Franco has a decent chance to rebound though.
For one thing, despite all his difficulties, he doesn't strike out much. And his strike zone judgment appears to be better than he's given credit for.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 23, 2017 1:38:37 GMT -5
I think my definition of "hacker" is different than both of yours. I don't believe it matters if he swings at the first pitch or not. A lot of smart hitters take a cut at the first pitch. The first pitch is sometimes the best pitch hitters see in the whole at-bat. So just because someone swings at the first pitch a lot of the time doesn't necessarily make that hitter a "hacker."
To me a hacker is someone who comes out of their shoes swinging for the fences no matter the situation. For example, 1-1 tie in the 8th inning, runner on second and no outs, the hitter tries to yank every pitch over the fence rather than trying to hit the ball to the right side advancing the runner. That's a hacker, and if Franco is that type of player..no thanks!
Of course we already traded for Longoria, so discussing Franco is kind of moot point, isn't it?
Speaking of Longoria, I believe we got the opposite of a hacker with Longoria. He seems to be a gap to gap power guy with enough pop to get one over the fence from time to time. Another thing that nobody has mentioned yet, Longoria led baseball in sac flies. I know, not exactly the sexiest stat to lead baseball in, but it does show he might be a good situational hitter.
Nothing I seem to find much value in is very sexy, but it wins games.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 23, 2017 10:19:38 GMT -5
You're right; It comes down to definition.
To me a hacker is a guy who just won't work the count; is unwilling to talk a BB.
For example, it has long been said that the vast majority of Dominican players are hackers.
In the words of many, "You don't walk off the island. You hit your way off."
I expand the definition to players who don't know, or simply won't learn the strike zone.
They constantly chase marginal pitches because they'd rather hit than walk.
Franco fits that category.
Just look at his constantly declining OBP
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 23, 2017 12:34:08 GMT -5
I agree with you about working the count, it's a lost art with a lot of today's players. But working the count is beneficial because then you can swing to make it hurt. Burrell was very good at this, as was Ellis Burks, they both loved the 3-1 pitch. I hope the new hitting coach adopts this strategy.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 23, 2017 16:57:06 GMT -5
Amen to that, boagie!
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 23, 2017 22:39:13 GMT -5
I expand the definition to players who don't know, or simply won't learn the strike zone. Rog -- And that definition simply doesn't fit Franco. Of all the pitches he faces, he gets it right (swinging on a strike or talking on a ball) about 70% of the time. Franco is aggressive (swinging at about half the pitches he faces), but he swings at a lot more strikes than balls. Didn't you talk, Boly, about a hacker as swinging no matter where the pitch was (kind of like Pablo)? Franco takes a high percentage of balls and swings at an even higher percentage of strikes. With regard to Boagie's definition of a hacker as a guy who comes out of his shoes swinging for the fences no matter what the situation, I don't think Franco meets that definition either. He struck out only 15.2% of the time last season, 36th-best in the majors. I agree that Franco rarely walks. Under that definition, he's a hacker. But then so is Christian Arroyo and many other players we wouldn't consider to be hackers. Last season Christian swung at more balls than Franco did, and he took more strikes. Based on how they reacted, Franco knows the strike zone better than Christian. I wouldn't call Franco the most disciplined of hitters, but he's no hacker in that regard. And his 15% strikeout rate indicates he doesn't try to hit the ball out of the park every swing. The only definition I've seen where Franco fits the hacker mode is not walking much. Even then, among the players he walked more often than were Dee Gordon, Brandon Phillips, Adam Jones, Josh Harrison, Kevin Pillar, Melky Cabrera, Corey Dickerson, Trey Manciin, Mike Moustakas, Adam Duvall, Tommy Joseph, Carlos Beltran and J.T. Realmuto. Do those guys sound like hackers? Everywhere I look and every definition I see (except for the few walks), Franco simply doesn't appear to be a hacker. His strike zone judgment appears to be better than average. Combining all these definitions, I would say Franco ranks in the 2nd quartile of hackers. And not very far above the third quartile. IMO he's "hackerish," but not a hacker. Joe Panik swings at fewer balls than Franco, but Franco swings at more strikes. If we take the ratio of strikes to balls swung at, Joe is better than Franco, but if we subtract the percentage of balls swung at from the percentage of strikes swung at, Franco fares better. Franco is more of a hacker than Joe Panik, but Joe might be the most disciplined hitter in the game. A hacker is almost sure to strike out a lot, and Maikel just doesn't do that. Franco strikes out less than most of the hitters we can think of. There were 144 batting qualifiers last season. Franco was the 36th hardest to strike out, meaning he was at the very top of the first quartile in strikeout rate. He wasn't just a little better than average ; he was far better than average. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4204/official-giants-thrown-towel?page=2#ixzz5290MDkpu
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Dec 23, 2017 22:47:01 GMT -5
I think today's hitters work the count better than their predecessors. Part of the reason for that is there are more swing throughs, which contribute to more pitches.
As far as getting pitchers to throw pitches, Franco was almost identical to Nick Hundley, who isn't considered a hacker here.
Early on in this discussion I stated that hacker or no hacker may simply have come down to definition. But as I see your definitions, I think less and less that Franco is a hacker. He doesn't take many walks. That's about it.
If I told you that last season one of the two of Hundley and Franco walked 60% more and struck out 40% less, which player would you think was the higher walker and lower strikeout guy? And which one would you consider to be the hacker?
|
|