|
summary
Apr 26, 2019 18:57:50 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by klaiggeb on Apr 26, 2019 18:57:50 GMT -5
You have the wrong person. I am not the one that submitted the post about a kid socialist becoming president.
|
|
|
summary
Apr 26, 2019 19:00:07 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by klaiggeb on Apr 26, 2019 19:00:07 GMT -5
Rodger, I don't mind the numbers, but I want a baseball guy with baseball experience being the guy that using the numbers to make decisions. Our general manager does not have that baseball experience.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
summary
Apr 26, 2019 20:41:52 GMT -5
Post by rog on Apr 26, 2019 20:41:52 GMT -5
Sorry I got the wrong guy, Boly. I should have known it was Randy, but when I saw school kids, you popped into mind. My mistake. As for Randy, it's no surprise you never seem to know what I think. You and I think very differently. I know you feel that is a good thing, so I'll leave you with that good thought and not interrupt your evening!
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
summary
Apr 26, 2019 21:17:13 GMT -5
Post by rog on Apr 26, 2019 21:17:13 GMT -5
Let me ask you this question, Boly: Why is it that baseball insiders -- many of whom know more than you and I combined -- think so highly of Farhan?
I agree with you that one has to look pretty closely to see a lot from what Farhan has done thus far with the Giants, but with both the A's and Dodgers, he impressed a lot of people. He may have the sharpest mind in baseball, although as you correctly point out, that doesn't guarantee he's a great BASEBALL mind. It highly suggests it though.
I have to come back and ask the question, why is it that many very bright guys -- one of the most successful of whom has been Farhan -- sacrifice real or potential six- and seven-figure salaries to go to work for major league teams for a pittance? It seems pretty clear to me that it's because they love the game. And where one pursues a mental endeavor that he loves, he is usually successful at it -- in part because to him it isn't work.
Farhan beat out somewhere around 1000 applicants for his first baseball job with the A's. That's impressive.
One of his responsibilities with the Dodgers was amateur scouting, an endeavor where analytics are much less valuable than at the major league level. Yet he was considered exceptional at his job, even though as you point out, he didn't play baseball himself beyond high school -- unlike the first George Bush, who also went on to own a team.
Let's not forget though that Brian Sabean never played Division 1 baseball, although he did play -- and coach -- Division 2 ball. If one rolls with the assumption you have made that a person can't understand baseball at a high level unless he's played beyond high school, one would assume that a person who hasn't played Division 1 would have less understanding than one who has played at that level. And that a person who has played in the minors would know more than a D-1 player. And that a player who played in the high minors would know more than a player who played only in the low minors. And that a major leaguer would know more than any of them.
Based on that thinking, there is a LOT of baseball no one on this board knows.
While you were gone, Boly, I spoke with a young man who pitched two years of D-1 ball, plus two years in the minors, plus two more seasons of independent ball. He coached at the D-1 level for three years before entering private business. I asked him what a person such as himself could know that someone as I who hadn't played beyond high school couldn't know.
His first response was that there probably were things and that since baseball was a subject he was passionate about and he was calling me from work, could he call me back. When he called me back at night, he couldn't really come up with anything.
Naturally he felt the coaching was better, although he cited a high school coach in Reno who is the brother of the UCLA coach and he said got his team tremendously prepared with scouting and statistics among other things. (I should note that he said he isn't a fan of sabremetrics.) He said the game was more intense above the high school level.
Those things were pretty obvious, of course, although I was surprised that he really couldn't come up with ANYTHING. When I get some more time, I'll call him back and ask again. I'll also try to get ahold of my ex-wife's cousin, who pitched four years for St. Mary's College. Maybe he's got some ideas. (As an aside, he was also a high school basetball star who played with the two coaching Van Gundy brothers.)
My good friend asked a girl who is the trainer for a minor league club, and she said that the minor league players could see the spin of the pitch. That wasn't anything new. My friend asked Eddie Bressoud, and Eddie (who will turn a very spry 87 next Thursday) pointed out that the game was so much faster at the major league level. Also pretty obvious.
Now, I'm sure there are some things you guys know that I don't. But I have to ask myself, how important are those things when you thought Austin Slater was a good hitter, Boly, and Randy thought Alen Hanson was a good player (Boly didn't)? How important are those things when I can see the significant different in the excellent defense of Brandon Crawford and the exceptional defense of Andrelton Simmons?
How important is it when I say that having Javier Baez bunt with two strikes MIGHT not have been the wrong thing to do and give detailed reasons why it may not have been -- only to have no one here come up with reasons that it WAS wrong beyond that it simply isn't done (which isn't quite true) because a foul bunt with two strikes results in a strikeout by rule. It was as if some here thought I -- a former umpire for crying out loud -- didn't now that.
There are things I would like to learn. I certainly don't know it all. But I keep getting simplistic responses such as "It just isn't done," or "You wouldn't understand because you haven't played high-level baseball." I can't learn from that.
Students go so far as getting Doctorates of Philosophy in accounting, but I can teach a semi-intelligent, logical person with common sense the basics of accounting in just a few minutes. What in the world is so complex about the game of baseball that I -- or more importantly Farhan -- can't understand it?
Farhan knows more about baseball than all of us here put together. If we believe otherwise, we each should have applied for the Giants job.
Maybe five years from now if Farhan doesn't get re-hired.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
summary
Apr 26, 2019 21:50:39 GMT -5
Post by sfgdood on Apr 26, 2019 21:50:39 GMT -5
When baseball insiders are all stats geeks, they will always worship other stats geeks and disrespect baseball men
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
summary
Apr 27, 2019 9:39:08 GMT -5
Post by rog on Apr 27, 2019 9:39:08 GMT -5
When baseball insiders are all stats geeks, they will always worship other stats geeks and disrespect baseball men Rog -- Without bothering to ask why it is that "baseball insiders are all stats geeks," your statement is false, Randy. Apparently you fail to pay attention when it is frequently brought to your attention that absolute statements almost always are. Logic is taught in classes such as English, philosophy and math. Did you not pay attention? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5248/summary?page=2#ixzz5mJ3sRcCc
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
summary
Apr 27, 2019 9:41:00 GMT -5
Post by rog on Apr 27, 2019 9:41:00 GMT -5
How much have you seen written anywhere aside from this board, Randy, that indicates that Farhan isn't a good baseball man, Randy? What validation have you come across that supports your opinion?
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
summary
Apr 27, 2019 10:02:37 GMT -5
Post by rog on Apr 27, 2019 10:02:37 GMT -5
Let me ask again, guys: What moves should Farhan have made that he hasn't? What moves has he made that he shouldn't have? If you don't have specific answers for those questions, isn't any criticism of him hollow at best?
I'm not saying that Farhan has made any significant moves that were brilliant. He's made some decent moves, but little of great significance. On the other hand, he's gotten the team a little younger, arguably a little better, and he's done it without significantly impacting future salaries.
Which moves should he have made that he hasn't? In other words, just what would we have done better?
A guy like Randy is likely to say that it isn't his job to know the moves the Giants should have made. So, what, it's your job to criticize without knowledge?
We've seen things like, "If he has a plan, I haven't seen it." OK, what plan SHOULD he have had, and what are the moves he should have made to execute it?
Let's be honest: We don't always pick up on stuff. Years ago when the Dodgers' ownership changed, we complained about all the money they were spending, when in reality the thing we should have been worried about was their announced plan to build from within. The Dodgers aren't spending any more money than the Giants now, but they've certainly developed better young talent, haven't they?
The Dodgers -- in part because of Farhan -- have done a good job in recent years of staying strong while getting rid of salary. No doubt that is part of Farhan's plan here as well, but his job is complicated by injuries, lack of performance and no-trade contracts.
Randy has told us that the Giants would be better off to just get rid of Belt and Panik. Addition by subtraction, he says. But he hasn't been able to to tell us which players should replace them. He hasn't been able to tell us which players they should have been dealt for. Randy has an idea, but he has no plan.
Randy likely would have replaced Panik with Alen Hanson. Hanson is hitting a robust .167 and can't hit southpaws. He's not an everyday player. One could argue that Pablo Sandoval could take Belt's place. Pablo has had a good year. But it is likely that Pablo's age and health prevent him from being an everyday player either. And if he were playing first base every day, who would they have to pinch hit?
Here is my point, guys: Criticize if you must, but be ready to point the moves that SHOULD have been made that weren't.
By the way, one move I do like a little was acquiring Tyler Austin. I have a question though that perhaps someone can answer better than I: Why not play him in left field and leave Belt at first base? Brandon is an excellent first baseman but a poor left fielder, and Austin actually has far more outfield experience than Brandon.
|
|
|
summary
Apr 27, 2019 10:30:45 GMT -5
Post by klaiggeb on Apr 27, 2019 10:30:45 GMT -5
One sentence, Roger, one sentence; and it's the same sentence Randy and I have been saying all off season:
Blow it up and start all over.
That's what they should have done.
But they didn't.
Now you are free to tell us both that they couldn't have gotten fair value, our players aren't worth much and blah, blah, blah.
We, clearly, disagree.
I would rather have watched a bunch of kids play out the season then watch these guys struggle to catch up to fastballs (Crawford and Longoria), swing and miss at pitches right down the heart of the plate, fail to drive in runners, not move runners along, have the worst BB rate in the league, have a high strike out total, and completely fair to hit for any kind of average.
Crawford, Panik, Longoria, Pillar, and Parra have all been worse than pathetic.
It's still early, so maybe all that will change, but it doesn't take away from what Randy and I wanted to do; blow it up and start from scratch.
Meanwhile, you continue to ignore my complaint about Zaidi; he never played the game.
You like numbers, great!
I want a numbers guy who ALSO played the game so he knows what it's like to have been a player.
We don't agree, we won't ever agree, so let it go, please.
|
|
|
summary
Apr 27, 2019 11:07:49 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Islandboagie on Apr 27, 2019 11:07:49 GMT -5
You dont need to respond to this neverending question, Boly, because it will never stop. Rog will now require specifics on how you would like to "blow it up." Theres no answer to this question unless you're in Zaidi's position, and Rog knows that. Thus making him appear like he is on the right side of the argument. Rog isn't interested in having a fair conversation, he just wants to protect his fellow stat geek at all cost.
If you talk trades, he'll ask for who. Again, unless you're in Zaidi's position theres no way to know.
If you talk free agent pickups, he'll ask with what money, knowing again that there's no way for us to know how much money was available to spend.
There's no way to legitimately answer any if these questions when you have someone using the defensive liberal tactics that Rog has continued to abuse.
So, really the only reasonable way to respond to Rog's question is to not respond at all. If you want to discuss baseball in a friendly and fair way, there's always Randy, Mordy, Mark or I.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
summary
Apr 27, 2019 12:03:26 GMT -5
Post by sfgdood on Apr 27, 2019 12:03:26 GMT -5
How much have you seen written anywhere aside from this board, Randy, that indicates that Farhan isn't a good baseball man, Randy?
Dood - I have no idea if he's a good man...I have no reason to believe he is not. But he is definitely not a baseball man, to my definition. He learned the game by studying numbers...not by playing, sweating, getting dirty and bleeding.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
summary
Apr 27, 2019 12:14:13 GMT -5
Post by sfgdood on Apr 27, 2019 12:14:13 GMT -5
A guy like Randy is likely to say that it isn't his job to know the moves the Giants should have made. So, what, it's your job to criticize without knowledge?
Dood - It's not my job...it's my RIGHT to criticize and I don't particularly care even a little bit what you or anyone else thinks of my opinions. I don't believe you have much real baseball knowledge.You don't know what it's like to feel your elbow barking in the final inning knowing that nobody is going to come in from the bullpen to save you. You have never felt metal spikes dig into your shin or ankle from a sliding player. You've never tried to leg out an infield single with a sore groin or hammy to keep a rally going. So you telling me I have no knowledge is pretty comical.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
summary
Apr 27, 2019 12:31:43 GMT -5
Post by sfgdood on Apr 27, 2019 12:31:43 GMT -5
Randy has told us that the Giants would be better off to just get rid of Belt and Panik. Addition by subtraction, he says. But he hasn't been able to to tell us which players should replace them. He hasn't been able to tell us which players they should have been dealt for. Randy has an idea, but he has no plan.
Dood - Fake news, stats geek. I have said repeatedly I want prospects...it doesn't matter which prospects or even what positions they play...we just need more young talented prospects.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
summary
Apr 27, 2019 12:55:11 GMT -5
Post by sfgdood on Apr 27, 2019 12:55:11 GMT -5
Randy likely would have replaced Panik with Alen Hanson. Hanson is hitting a robust .167 and can't hit southpaws.
Dood - Joe is hitting 186 in a lot more ABs...what's your point?
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
summary
Apr 28, 2019 10:50:13 GMT -5
Post by rog on Apr 28, 2019 10:50:13 GMT -5
Dood - Fake news, stats geek. I have said repeatedly I want prospects...it doesn't matter which prospects or even what positions they play...we just need more young talented prospects. Rog -- This is where you shoot yourself in the foot, Randy. It DOES matter which prospects the Giants acquire and to a lesser extent, which positions they play. When building a case, one shouldn't make false statements, which you clearly did when you posted "it doesn't matter which prospects or even what positions they play." You're criticizing what you deam to be a lack of plan, but you're doing it with a lack of plan yourself. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5248/summary?page=2#ixzz5mPCX4ceg
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
summary
Apr 28, 2019 10:54:18 GMT -5
Post by rog on Apr 28, 2019 10:54:18 GMT -5
Randy likely would have replaced Panik with Alen Hanson. Hanson is hitting a robust .167 and can't hit southpaws. Dood - Joe is hitting 186 in a lot more ABs...what's your point? Rog -- Joe has hit in bad luck. Alen simply isn't a good hitter. If we look at career averages, Joe's is .263; Alen's is .234. And Joe is only two years older than Alen. Joe is a much better fielder than Alen. Alen enjoys the clear advantage in base running, and he's more versatile, in great case because he's had to be to have a shot at playing in the majors at all. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5248/summary?page=2#ixzz5mPDijDPH
|
|
|
summary
Apr 28, 2019 11:37:24 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Islandboagie on Apr 28, 2019 11:37:24 GMT -5
Regardless of numbers, Alen Hansen did things to impact games the Giants won last year. You might not be impressed with the numbers, but those who watched the games regularly witnessed his value first hand.
|
|
|
summary
Apr 28, 2019 12:31:13 GMT -5
Post by klaiggeb on Apr 28, 2019 12:31:13 GMT -5
Boagie, though it is true that Hanson did a number of good things...the fact is, from the right side, he can't hit, and from the left side, he has more holes than be counted.
If one can't get on base, his speed is useless...and since he doesn't walk, and what I've pointed out above, I don't see him as a viable option for us.
Now, add to that his poor hands, and what you have is a combination of two players, one of whom I've mentioned before:
1-Jake Wood-Who was lightning quick, but couldn't play defense
2-Larry Burright-who couldn't hit but was very fast.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
summary
Apr 28, 2019 12:34:06 GMT -5
Post by rog on Apr 28, 2019 12:34:06 GMT -5
Joe is basically a obe- or two-win player, whereas Alen is basically a replacement player. On average, a team is likely to win one or two more games with Joe playing than Alen. That's why the Giants got nothing for Alen but can likely get a prospect or two in return for Joe -- depending on how he bounces back this season.
Two seasons ago Statcast said Joe was lucky to have had a good season. That is when the Giants should have traded him. Now they need to see if he can rebuild his value, either to keep or to trade. Alen never had much true value. That's why the Giants got him for virtually nothing and gave him up for virtually the same.
|
|
|
summary
Apr 28, 2019 12:48:13 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Islandboagie on Apr 28, 2019 12:48:13 GMT -5
Boly- Boagie, though it is true that Hanson did a number of good things...the fact is, from the right side, he can't hit, and from the left side, he has more holes than be counted.
Boagie- None of our guys can hit from any side of the plate, Boly, except Pablo, whom was also considered awful from the right side, yet he's hitting better from the right side than most of our lineup. From the left side he's he's hitting better than everyone in the lineup, by far.
Fact is, Hanson did things to help us win, which very few people are doing now, especially Fargeek's project players that we had to release because they were so awful. Where are they now? Selling insurance somewhere?
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
summary
Apr 28, 2019 13:22:16 GMT -5
Post by sfgdood on Apr 28, 2019 13:22:16 GMT -5
Save your breath Boagie...stats geeks will never get it because they can't see past their excell spreadsheets
|
|
|
summary
Apr 28, 2019 16:24:53 GMT -5
Post by klaiggeb on Apr 28, 2019 16:24:53 GMT -5
No question that I agree with you about Zaidi's "Look at how smart I am," take a flyer-players.
He has no clue how lucky he got with Muncey and Taylor.
No clue.
No one wanted either, really, and now, at least it seems to me, that he thinks HE can do it again because, well... after all, he is, "The Zaidi!"
The next diamond in the rough is just a 'tear drop' away, to coin Fairy Godmother in Shrek, and of course HE is the only one smart enough to find him.
Sheesh.
|
|
|
summary
Apr 28, 2019 16:29:43 GMT -5
Post by klaiggeb on Apr 28, 2019 16:29:43 GMT -5
But back to Hanson, boagie, and your sort of comparison from the right side with Pablo.
When Pablo first came up he did hit well from the right side.
The same cannot be said of Hanson.
I would have loved to have kept him in the hopes that they could reign in his wild, crazy, go-for-the-downers-on-every-swing from the left side.
But players are reluctant to change what got them to where they are, and I'm betting he's no different.
Plus, he won't walk.
Again, his speed is useless if he can't get on.
He reminds me of so many speedy Giants.
Burris, Ford, that that speedy CF we had... Gary something or other, who couldn't hit, and wouldn't adjust.
I love speed.
For years I've been preaching that in our park, that's what we need.
But speed has to get on, and Hanson doesn't do that enough.
Sorry.
|
|
|
summary
Apr 28, 2019 16:33:57 GMT -5
Post by klaiggeb on Apr 28, 2019 16:33:57 GMT -5
Two seasons ago Statcast said Joe was lucky to have had a good season.
Roger, on a scale of 1 to a million, I disagree with you a zillion.
Lucky to have had a good year?
Are you serious?
Joe's problems started with the bean ball to the head.
He's never been the same since.
He has a smooth, short, quick, compact swing that lends itself to high average hitting.
But when players get hit in the head, so often, they are never the same.
Best example I ever saw was one I've spoken of frequently; Don Wert-3Bman for the Tigers in the mid 60's.
A solid .250-.260 hitter, once he got plunked, he was never, ever the same.
For me, and I love Joe, this would be my last go around with him.
I'd play him 2 out of every 3 games, and if he can't find it again, he's one I move... and me saying that hurts.
But lucky, Rog?
No way!
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
summary
Apr 28, 2019 23:40:39 GMT -5
Post by rog on Apr 28, 2019 23:40:39 GMT -5
Meanwhile, you continue to ignore my complaint about Zaidi; he never played the game. Rog -- Baseball insiders who know a lot more about it than we do aren't worried about that. They laud his brilliant mind, his hard work, his ability to get along with everyone from the players to the coaches to the front office. Shouldn't we be criticizing the guy for the mistakes he's made -- not what his qualifications are? That seems especally pertinent since baseball insiders aren't concerned by your complaint. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5248/summary?page=2#ixzz5mSKtRq4G
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
summary
Apr 28, 2019 23:55:14 GMT -5
Post by rog on Apr 28, 2019 23:55:14 GMT -5
You don't know what it's like to feel your elbow barking in the final inning knowing that nobody is going to come in from the bullpen to save you. Rog -- What true difference does that make, Randy? I can imagine, and the way I imagine it may be worse even than it truly is. I DO know what it's like to pitch with a sore arm. I had to be told not to do so. But when it comes to things such as players and baseball strategy, I don't think knowing whether the elbow's bark is worse than its bite is critical. And the minor league pitcher I talked to certainly didn't bring it up, although I'm virtually certain his arm hurt a lot of times. On the other hand, I AM interested in when a player should sit because at 80% or whatever he is that day, he isn't as good for the team as the completely healthy guy at 100%. I think a true team player tells his manager when that's the case, but I don't think it happens very often because the player wants to be viewed as a gamer, and he doesn't want to risk being Wally Pipp-ed. I also would be interested in you or Boly or Don or anyone else telling us about how a pitcher differentiates between an arm that is merely sore and one that is in danger of being further injured. Now you're getting into the type of stuff I would LOVE to learn from you guys, but no one seems to want to post about it. One question I would like to ask too is this: The last time I seriously hurt my shoulder came not when pitching but when making outfield throws in the first practice of the spring. My arm felt so loose that I was extremely happy. But when I went out to throw the next time, I thought if I threw hard, I was going to tear my shoulder to pieces. I should have had the shoulder looked at, but I just played my way through it by playing first base. The thing I have long wondered is how I could hurt my shoulder so badly without feeling the tiniest bit of pain at the time -- or any time until I went out to throw next. Thank goodness I was usually careful about warming up slowly. I'm pretty sure the "tearing" worry I had came from significant inflamation, but I don't understand how my shoulder could get so inflamed without any warning to me at the time of the injury or any other time until I began to throw again. I'm thinking you guys probably have some ideas. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5248/summary?page=2#ixzz5mSLrYApN
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
summary
Apr 29, 2019 0:12:34 GMT -5
Post by rog on Apr 29, 2019 0:12:34 GMT -5
Regardless of numbers, Alen Hansen did things to impact games the Giants won last year. You might not be impressed with the numbers, but those who watched the games regularly witnessed his value first hand. Rog -- I agree with you, Boagie, that Alen did a LOT of things to help win games last season. He had good timing, and he got enough results. The basic numbers weren't unkind to him. He basically had a Brandon Crawford year at the plate, hitting .252 with a .699 OPS, although more of his OPS came from power than Brandon's has, and less from OBP, since he doesn't seem to have any idea how to take a walk. Even WAR was fairly kind to Alen. He was rated a half-win (not half-wit!) player, which isn't at all bad for a bench player. But while I felt Alen's results or output were pretty decent, it was his process or input that I doubted. He was darn lucky to hit .252 IMO. Statcast felt that based on how he hit the ball, he should have hit about .218 rather than .252. Worse, it believed that he should have hit for a SLG of about .315 instead of .425. Alen's results were good enough to indicate he could indeed help, particularly with his versatility. But he process appeared to be weak, and that's the way his results are looking this season -- which I don't think should be unexpected given Statcast's results. This season Alen's results and Statcast's estimates of what his results are similar. He has hit .176, and Statcast would predict .182 based on how he's hit the ball. His SLG is .176, and Statcast has him pegged there at .204. Keep in mind that this is in a very small sample. Alen has come to the plate only 44 times, and he's hit the ball in only 25 of those appearances. But this season Alen's results are close to the way he's hit the ball, and the results haven't been pretty. Joe, on the other hand, has hit the ball well enough to be predicted for a .243 average and a .393 SLG. Those aren't great either, but they're decent -- as opposed to Alen's, which have been awful, whether actual or predicted. I agree with you, Boagie, that Alen contributed last season. I just didn't feel he was likely to do so again. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5248/summary?page=2#ixzz5mSPYU2cZ
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
summary
Apr 29, 2019 0:34:38 GMT -5
Post by rog on Apr 29, 2019 0:34:38 GMT -5
Two seasons ago Statcast said Joe was lucky to have had a good season. Roger, on a scale of 1 to a million, I disagree with you a zillion. Lucky to have had a good year? Are you serious? Joe's problems started with the bean ball to the head. Rog -- I'm not sure what you're saying here is true, Boly. Remember, in his first two seasons, Joe hit .305 and .312. That second season his OPS was .833. When he was beaned in the Giants' 78th game of 2016, he was hitting only .256 with an OPS of .728. That's a drop of over 50 points of average and 100 points of OPS from 2015. He was no longer the fine hitter he had been. His fielding had dropped off as well. He came back a month and a day later, on July 28th. In the month of August, he hit .276 with an .862 OPS. For that one month, he was close to the hitter he had been in 2014 and 2015. It was in September that he fell apart, hitting just .167 with a .492 OPS. In 2017, he bounced back with a .288 average and a .768 OPS, although Statcast said a lot of that came with good luck. In terms of results, one could argue that his first full month of return in 2016 and over the full season of 2017, he got results that were better than he was getting in 2016 when he was beaned nearly halfway through the season. Joe's hitting problems had actually begun in 2016 well BEFORE he was beaned. This season he's been much better in the field again. His defense is back. And he really hasn't been hitting the ball poorly. His 36% hard-hit rate is the highest of his career. His 24% line drive percentage is also a career high. As Randy points out, the results Joe has gotten at the plate this year haven't been all that much better than Alen Hanson's. But it appears Joe's results have been held down by poor hitting luck, whereas Alen appears to have deserved his low numbers. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5248/summary?page=2#ixzz5mSUAOHV2
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
summary
Apr 29, 2019 0:41:35 GMT -5
Post by rog on Apr 29, 2019 0:41:35 GMT -5
But when players get hit in the head, so often, they are never the same. Best example I ever saw was one I've spoken of frequently; Don Wert-3Bman for the Tigers in the mid 60's. A solid .250-.260 hitter, once he got plunked, he was never, ever the same. Rog -- I believe Don got beaned on August 17, 1967. He was hitting .252 with a .648 OPS, as you say, pretty close to the eay he had hit over his career at that point. Don returned when he came off the 15 day disabled list, and he hit .286 with a .728 OPS. Perhaps in both Don's and Joe's cases it was something of a delayed reaction, but both his OK the month after they returned. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5248/summary?page=2#ixzz5mSZx7BQE
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
summary
Apr 29, 2019 0:46:23 GMT -5
Post by rog on Apr 29, 2019 0:46:23 GMT -5
But lucky, Rog?
No way!
Rog -- Actually, my saying that Joe was lucky in 2017 when he hit .288 with a .768 OPS fits right in with your statement that he hasn't been the same hitter since the beaning. His OPS in 2017 was about as good or a little better than his career OPS when he was beaned.
Either Joe hasn't been a completely different hitter since the beaning, or he was lucky to post such good numbers in 2017. One could make a strong argument that Joe has never been the same hitter after his first two seasons, and that while in 2017 his averages made it appear he was a different hitter, that was mostly because he hit in good luck that season.
|
|