Signal of a Break from Tradition?

[rog]

The Giants have signed free agent catcher Cameron Rupp to a minor league contract.  He could simply have been added for depth, although it is also possible he'll be expected to battle with Aramis Garcia for the backup catcher slot.  If so, that would seemingly indicate the Giants are planning to part ways with Nick Hundley.

Nick doesn't go back to the glory days, but he did carve out an important niche by winning the Willie Mac Award in 2017.  Clearly he was considered a positive clubhouse presence.  And those are the types of players the Giants generally reward with their loyalty.

The signing of Rupp could be another indicator of how things are changing in the organization.

After five seasons in the majors, Rupp spent last season in AAA, so perhaps he is simply a depth piece and his signing is full of fury and signifies nothing.  Or it could be significant.

Between 2016 and 2017, Rupp hit 30 homers for the Phillies in 684 at bats.  That's more power from the backstop position than even Buster Posey's MVP season, although Rupp had a much more favorable park to hit in.

A Fan Graphs article in October of 16 asked if Rupp were sneaking his way into the top 10 catchers in baseball.  Clearly that hasn't happened, but the 6-foot-2, 260 pounder has, well, pounded the ball and may be a better hitter than his pure numbers indicate.

I know you guys are tired of hearing about Andrelton Simmons, but as announcers have said, "He's everywhere." Not literally of course, either on the field or in the highlights, but there is a play where Rupp raps a ball down the left field line.  Clear double, obviously.  No way the left fielder can get to the ball anywhere nearly in time to throw him out at second.  In fact, the left fielder never comes within 50 feet of doing so.

But Simmons tears from his shortstop position out to the left-field line (He really hustles his tush off.), in a slide fields the ball off the side wall, and still sliding, throws a strong one-hopper to second base.  Rupp does what so many players do, sliding in with his front foot bouncing, and sure enough, he comes right down on Dan Uggla's glove, and is called out on review.  Bad slide by Rupp, great play by Simmons.  With any other shortstop, Rupp would likely have one more double on his career record.

And THAT'S baseball!

[rog]

Went back and looked at the play again. Simmons DIDN'T slide on the play (although he did on a similar play that is Terry Pendleton's favorite), but I've never seen a shortstop make that play from that spot. Rupp is a slow runner, which helped Simmons make the play, but when the ball goes by third base, the fan isn't even THINKING of the shortstop. It appears that Simmons travels easily over 100 feet to field the ball, leaving him with perhaps a 140 foot throw and his weight going completely away from the play.

This is a concept that might seem ironic to Randy. I read an article which rued the fact that if and when Simmons is considered for the Hall of Fame as an Ozzie Smith-type candidate, he might not get in because the metrics might not be able to properly account for the exceptionally instinctive plays Andrelton often makes. Simmons makes so many great plays because of his glove, his legs, his arm, his heart and his mind. Oh, and his impeccable timming, whichever part of the body that particular trait comes from.

Another point of irony is that while Simmons beat out Brandon Crawford in almost all the fielding metrics in 2015, it was one of the few (and possibly the only one) that he didn't beat out Brandon that was used as part of the Gold Glove determination. Crawford barely won the defensive metric, and it was possibly the only one he won, but it appears to have been a metric -- not the eyeball test which I swear shows the keen baseball eye that Simmons makes plays that others can -- that cost Simmons the Gold Glove.

The extreme irony is that while Simmons didn't win the Gold Glove for NL shortstop, he won the Wilson Award for the best defensive player at ANY position. Voted the best defensive player regardless of position in one award and finished second among National League shortstops in the Gold Glove voting. Surprising.

Many do consider Simmons to have been the best defensive player in baseball this decade -- regardless of position. In fact, another irony is that more baseball afficianados seem to think Simmons is the best at ANY position than think that Crawford is the best at shortstop only.

And yet another irony is that while I can halfway understand that because minds think differently -- not necessarily better or worse, but just differently -- some here don't think much of analytics. But I simply can't see how someone can look at plays Simmons has made -- the distance he covers, the place on the field he makes the play from, the amazing strength of arm from seemingly every angle including from a seated position -- and not see that there are plays Simmons has made that Crawford almost certainly can't make and certainly hasn't.

Boly says Simmons is shakier on routine plays, but the professionals who have seen every play made by every player say that Crawford is more than half again as likely as Simmons to boot a routine play. While fielding percentage is far from the best overall measure of a defender's performance, it does give an indication of how well a player fields ROUTINE plays -- those that would create an error if not made successfully. Again, many fewer fielding errors by Simmons and despite his many off-balance (including leaping) throws, about the same frequency of throwing errors as Crawford.

One mistake I made here comparing Simmons to Crawford is that I at one time said that Simmons might have received more help from Freddie Freeman at first base than Crawford has received from Brandon Belt. As I've seen more plays made by each, it strongly appears that while Freeman (and now multiple Angels first basemen) certainly help Simmons with some throws, Belt helps Crawford out even more. A surprisingly high percentage of Crawford's highlight plays include his throw being dug out of the dirt by Belt.

All infielders get help from their first baseman. But I'm not sure any get quite as much help as Crawford.

As a side question, who was the player who had "Scoop" as one of his nicknames? Surprisingly, this guy played almost twice as many games in the outfield as he played at the initial hassock. He isn't at all likely to make the Hall of Fame, but he had 2743 hits and batted .303 in his 18-year career. Hint: He often played the outfield so Willie Stargell could play first base.

[Islandboagie]

I didnt used to hate Simmons, but I do now. You made me hate a player for no other reason than I'm just so tired of hearing about him.

[rog]

I get it, Boagie. Here's the thing though.

You guys have this foolish "haven't played the game about high school, can't understand it above a high school level" approach which is flat-out ridiculous. You guys keep up this mantra, and Randy even shows how foolish he is with his icon. Yet you guys can't show what it is that you understand that a guy like, for instead, Farhan doesn't.

You guys are deluding yourselves. If this elusive thing only you guys can see is so important, why is it that you can't even show what it is?

You guys talk about the imnportance of the eye test, yet you can't see how Simmons is clearly better than Brandon, as good as Brandon is defensively. Clearly. I can point out a score of plays I've seen Simmons makes that Crawford doesn't, and almost none that is vice versa. Look at where on the field the plays are made. Look at HOW they're made. Look at the incredible instincts Simmons shows. Crawford does almost all these things quite well too, but Simmons is clearly a level above.

Yet you guys for all your "experience" can't see it. We're not talking numbers here, we're talking about watching the game and understanding what we're seeing, down to the nuances.

And then Boly says Simmons doesn't handle the routine play as well, based no doubt on all of two or three plays. Those who have watched every play by each of them say Crawford boots three routine plays for every two Simmons muffs.

I think you guys put far too much weight on your skills of observation which when it comes to Simmons, are a bit lacking.

I've offered to go through a Simmons tape play by play, but no one has taken me up. Maybe it's not that important to you. I get that. But then just stop with this ridiculous stuff that you can see things someone who hasn't played beyond high school can't.

When you guys can't see what is in front of your face with Simmons, who is likely the best shortstop defensively since Ozzie. Some consider him to already be one of the three best defensive shortstops ever. And the other one isn't Brandon.

Open your eyes, guys, and use your heads too!

[Islandboagie]

That's the thing though, you haven't seen Simmons on an everyday basis. You only watch his highlight videos and can draw a conclusion that he's better than Crawford. That's fine. I don't think I've ever said Crawford is clearly better, I've merely said that I've seen Crawford a lot and it's hard to imagine that anyone is "on another level." Is Simmons slightly better? Perhaps, but if he is it's only slightly. But I honestly don't know, I'm only being truthful with myself. You should try that sometime.

I also never said you didnt know about baseball because you didnt play above the high school level. I only said that someone who played major league ball knows more about the game than someone who never did. This to me is basic logic.

[rog]

That's the thing though, you haven't seen Simmons on an everyday basis. You only watch his highlight videos and can draw a conclusion that he's better than Crawford.


Rog -- Boagie, you're not paying attention.

I know we agree that a shortstop isn't best judged by his fielding percentage. I believe we also agree that he isn't best judged by only his highlight plays. What we really want is the guy who makes the most plays OVERALL. If he makes tremendous plays but essentially gives them back and then some by booting more routine plays, he's not as valuable to us as the guy who doesn't make "n" spectacular plays, but doesn't miss "n + 1" routine plays.

We're looking primarily for outs recorded, and secondarily for bases eliminated.

So how do I judge Andrelton so surely that I can say almost without a doubt that he's better than Brandon (and I think Brandon himself is marvelous)? I use four different measures:

. Naturally I use the eye test. Andrelton made so many great plays in 2013 that he has a 25 minute highlight play for that season ALONE. I believe that's longer than all Brandon's highlight films combined. That gives me a clue, but it doesn't give me my eye test evaluation. I get that by having spent double digit hours studying Simmons highlights and what has been said and written about them. I've seen many plays Andrelton has made that I've never seen Brandon make, and if anyone will take the time, I can go over them one-by-one.

. For the other extreme -- the routine plays -- I use Inside Edge Fielding, which -- based on watching every play made by every player -- scores the percentage of routine plays made by every player. Their analysis of every play shows that even Brandon boots half again more routine plays than Simnons does.

Then I thought, how about looking at errors made? Fielding percentage is a poor measure of overall shortstop play, but it's a good indicator of performance on routine plays. Miss a routine play, get an error. Not 100% of the time, but a high percentage. The two players make throwing errors about as often, but Brandon makes twice as many fielding errors.

Boly believes Brandon is better on the routine play, but he's seen what 5% of Simmons' routine plays? It's not that Boly doesn't know what he's talking about, it's that he hasn't seen enough to make an informed judgment. That's why it's important to rely on the experts, those who watch every play made by every player.

. Then I go to the metrics, which show that Simmons has been two or three times as much above average as Brandon has.

. Then I look at what some of the experts say. I've seen experts like Ozzie Smith and Terry Pendeleton speak glowingly of Simmons, but not so much about Brandon.

. Then I go to what has been written. I found one article that posited that at one particular time (about halfway through the 2016 season, when Simmon had been injured) that Brandon was the best at that moment. Talk about Simmons being the best is all over the place, and he is talked about as one of the greatest ever, a discussion I've never seen Brandon mentioned.

So whether it's eye test on the toughest plays, routine plays, metrics, expert opinion or general opinion, Simmons comes out well on top of even Brandon.

(As an aside, while there are a LOT of really good defensive shortstops now, I think Adeiny Hechavarria may be second, although I haven't researched Hechavarria as much. But Jose Iglesias, Nick Ahmed, Addison Russell, Francisco Lindor and others are REALLY good defensively.

We're in a Golden Age of shortstops, and it's not solelyon the offensive side of the ball.



Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4952/signal-break-tradition#ixzz5Z9IBwYUp

[rog]

I also never said you didnt know about baseball because you didnt play above the high school level. I only said that someone who played major league ball knows more about the game than someone who never did. This to me is basic logic.


Rog -- You're right that it's really Randy and Boly who made what I consider to be an improper statement, and one they haven't been able to demonstrate yet. And your logic here is good.

That said, do you think say Matt Cain is more qualified to be the Giants' GM than Farhan, who clearly has never played major league baseball? I'm pretty sure you don't, but I'm pretty sure Randy does, and I think Boly might have to take a second look to realize otherwise.

There are different types of baseball knowledge. Farhan is being called a great baseball mind. I haven't heard that description used about Matt, even though Matt has pitched 2000 more innings.

I believe that in some ways Randy's and Boly's college (and in Boly's case, service ball) experience can occasionally get in the way. The game at the major league level is different than it was even 20 years ago, and it's FAR different from college or service ball three or four decades ago.

I think both Randy and Boly were good baseball soldiers who learned "the book," played by it, in Boly's case coached by it, and still stand by it. I think the book that provided them a solid base when they played has changed a bit as the level of play has improved and more ideas have been expressed.

Randy doesn't like it that sabermetricians have far more to do with the game than was the case even a decade or two ago, but it is part of what has made the game be played at a higher level.

The pitches Randy and Boly faced when they played aren't anything close to the pitches today's major league hitters face. They are more or less the same in that they're fastball, curve, slider and change up, but today's pitches are much faster, curvier, slipperier and better disguised than anything they have faced. The pitches are so different that the considerable amount Randy and Boly know from their playing days might actually get in the WAY of appreciating those pitches.

Batters are much better; fielders are far better; players are simply bigger, faster, better nutritioned and better prepared than what Randy and Boly are used to from their playing days. It's still the same game -- except that it's different.

I think you have made your point here, Boagie, that your viewpoint is likely more balanced.

I recently quoted part of a thread from a year ago when Boly said that I couldn't see past the numbers. Perhaps I was right, but I somehow saw the situation much more clearly than he did (in that case). There is this horrible misperception that once I discovered the numbers of baseball, I forgot what I had learned about it in the half century before. Say what?

I recently listened to Kevin Frandsen, who I guess because he is a former Giants second baseman reminds me of Brad Wellman. I recall very well talking at length talking with Brad in September, 1993 about Salomon Torres. We were both excited about Salomon and what he might mean for the Giants that season, right down to the season's final day.

I had no trouble speaking with Brad about Salomon or any other baseball player. But looking back I realize that if I had been studying sabermetrics, I would have been able to keep both our enthusiasms about Torres more under control.

Salomon played in the majors off and on from 1993 through 2008, so clearly he was a major league caliber pitcher. Toward the end of his career, he was a darn good reliever. Prior to joining the Giants, he was rated as high as the #22 prospect. But as I look at him from a sabermetric point of view, he wasn't really dominant enough to be rated that high. In 1992 in AA, he gave up more hits than innings pitched.

When Brad and I discussed Salomon, I knew pretty much about him as Brad did. If I had been into sabermetrics back then, I would have known MORE. That's not to say there isn't plenty of baseball stuff Brad knew that I didn't. His job after baseball was as a private instructor. He knew the mechanics of the game many times as well as I.

But when it came to discussing the 1993 Giants (Brad last played for the Giants in 1996 and retired from organized ball after the 1989 season), I could hold my own with Brad. If I had known then what I know now, I could have more than held my own, since I would have been a lot better prepared to judge how well Salomon would pitch.

I should add by the way that while Salomon gets the flack for that horrible season-ending game (in two ways) with the Dodgers, the Giants were still in the game until Dave Burba inflamed the situation relieving Torres.

The Giants put a lot of pressure on the 21-year-old in starting him that all-important game. And sure enough, Torres entered the game with a fine 3.70 ERA and had pitched an 8-inning, three-hit shutout two games before. But if the Giants (and I) had been more sabermetrically sophfisticated, we would have realized that he had walked as many (22) as he had struck out. Even in the 8-inning three-hitter, he had walked six.

The Giants were pretty darn strapped for pitching that day. But perhaps they would have been better served to find another starter, go with a bullpen game, or at least have put a very tight leash on Torres. Jim (Two Silhouettes on) DeShais would have seemed to be a good choice, but he had apparently been injured, although he finished the horribly disappointing game as the Giants' seventh pitcher of the day.

I remember discussing Torres with Wellman multiple times, including I believe in the morning of October 3, before the game. I think both Brad and I were fine with Torres being the starter. But if it had been a decade later and I had been more sophisticated in understanding sabermetrics, I would have felt differently.

Like Randy today, I didn't realize there was something I was missing. But there was. Because of his age (21), inexperience (just his third year in pro ball), inconsistency, and pitching on only three days' rest, Salomon was a controversial choice (more so after than game than before IIRC). But would you be willing to risk your season on a pitcher with as many walks as strikeouts? Even after the three runs Torres gave up in the game (in 3.1 innings), his final ERA was a decent 4.03. But his Fielding Independent Pitching was 5.29, a better indicator of how he actually pitched.

The Giants didn't have a lot of good options that day, but I don't think it helped them that they didn't seem to have any sabermetric sophistication. But like Randy today, they didn't know what they didn't know.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4952/signal-break-tradition?page=1#ixzz5Z9Z0hiVz

[Islandboagie]

Rog- That said, do you think say Matt Cain is more qualified to be the Giants' GM than Farhan, who clearly has never played major league baseball? 

Boagie- Not the way the system is set up, no. GMs are "yes men" to the owners. They need to have contact with all the agents, scouts, and everyone in the organization. They need to be good talkers and salesmen. I don't know if Cain could do that.

What I do know is Matt Cain would be a better Scout, Manager, Coach and Instructor. He would be better at everything that is closer to the actual game itself.

[rog]

GMs are "yes men" to the owners.


Rog -- Not so sure about that one. Today's GM's are far more analytical and creative in their thinking than previously. They are more managers because they have to be. Whereas a front office staff not all that long ago was only five people large, look for instance at the list of Red Sox front office employees. I was shocked a couple of months ago when I looked at how long it was. One of the teams with a new park is literally having a new wing built to house its expanding front office staff. Watch the "Business of Baseball" show on the MLB Network that I recommended.

Maybe read this:

www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/13717463/the-changing-face-role-mlb-general-manager

[rog]

What I do know is Matt Cain would be a better Scout, Manager, Coach and Instructor. He would be better at everything that is closer to the actual game itself.


Rog -- I would expect that. I'm not certain it would be the case every time, but I would certainly give him the advantage -- especially when it came to being pitching coach!!!!

As for manager, perhaps not. I believe the primary skill needed by a manager is the ability to motivate. I'm not sure that is a strength of Matt. The coaches work much more closely with the players on the actual techniques of the game. The manager also has to deal with the press both before and after games, although Matt certainly has experience with the press.

As for in-game strategy, given the same information the manager has, you and I could do as well as many of the managers. It's not rocket science.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4952/signal-break-tradition?page=1#ixzz5ZCHbXQew

[rog]

I know Omar Vizquel is a favorite defensive shortstop of yours, Boagie. He was very good at just about everything involved with the position except that he didn't have a strong throwing arm. What would you say he was very best at with regard to playing the position. Which function of the job would you say he was particularly exceptional at? (This isn't a trick question.)

[rog]

My point with regard to Farhan being far more qualified to be GM than Matt Cain is that one doesn't have to have played the game above the high school level to understand it.

Boly talked about that player not being able to know what it feels like to have a runner bearing down on you as you make the double play pivot as a middle infielder (especially as a second baseman). In reality a high school second baseman may know more about it than a major league outfielder does.

But someone who has never made a pivot in his life can have a decent idea of what it feels like to have a guy bearing down on you, often behind your back. Not a great feeling. A gunner on a football punting squad might have a better feel for it than an outfielder does. Or the outfielder may have a good feel for the play because he's been the runner and because he can imagine what having a freight train coming behind you back would be like.

The key to handling the play must be repetition. Make the catching of the ball, the transfer, the throw and the move to avoid the runner as automatic as possible, so that when the mind if moving ahead to the best pivot to use given the location of the throw, the momentum of the fielder's body, and the tendencies of the runner, the mechanics of the play will be something he could do almost in his sleep.

But someone doesn't have to have executed the pivot or even contemplated it in his mind to understand the game itself. I dothink having played the game at some level is helpful, although I'm not entirely sure that one has to have played the game at all to understand it.

I think that baseball is simple enough that a cripple, while he can't play the game, can understand it. I think he can easily learn the strategy of the game. I think he can even learn to UNDERSTAND the fundamentals, even if he can't execute them.

If one truly understands something, it isn't hard to help another halfway intelligent person to understand it. Hundreds of thousands of students have spent four years getting an accounting degree. Yet in 15 minutes I can teach almost anyone here the basics of being an accountantant. That's not to say you would immediately go out and become the CFO of a company. But you would understand what an accountant does, how he does it, and why.

Let's be honest. There are players who have instincts for the game, and there are players who don't. A player can be taught the techniques of the game, and he can be taught "the book." But some players (such as Andrelton Simmons and Brandon Crawford) simply have instincts for the game which are hard to teach.

And anyone can be taught how to hustle, but how many major leaguers do so all the time?

Playing baseball at the major league level is extremely hard. None of us here was ever good enough to do it. But any of us here can understand the game -- especially if one has spent tens of thousands of hours watching, studying and maybe even playing it.

And when someone says that someone "isn't looking past the numbers," it is quite possible that the person who "can't look past the numbers" is actually looking well past them but is fully understanding them and including them in his analysis. It may be that like major league front offices and now even major league dugouts, he can integrate his knowledge of the numbers into better decision making.

One seriously needs to ask himself, why are analytics being used scores of times more in the major leagues than they used to be? One needs to ask himself whether when he says that a person such as Farhan doesn't get it and never will, if he himself is failing to understand the bigger picture and because of his prejudices quite possibly never will.

A closed mind is a horrible thing to waste. Some would benefit from looking in the mirror and examining the question, "Is that closed mind mine?" If someone is saying in essence that many if not most of the general managers don't get it and never will, is it possible that person doesn't understand what the heck it is that he's criticizing?

When Randy whiffed so badly on Gary Brown, it wasn't because he didn't see a lot of really good things Gary was capable of. Heck, Gary was in the process of being the California League Player of the Year when Randy saw him. Randy's difficulty may have been that he relied too heavily on his own scouting report, that he hadn't looked up the reasons why some scouts doubted Brown despite his obvious talents.

Frankly, most fans would have made the same mistake Randy made. In fact, almost ALL fans would have. Many if not most of the scouts did as well. But there was another side to Gary's scouting report, and now we realize why.

By the way, if you want to get a better (and warmer) feel for Gary, I hope you read the article from a couple of years ago that I linked here. I can't find it now, but if I do come across it, I'll post it later.

Gary went back to college and now works as an intern for the Seattle Mariners. One might even say that he has discovered that life beyond baseball might be ... baseball.