McCovey Chronicles: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: Larry Johnson's Future in Kansas City Bar-right-arrows

Serious prospect chatter

Tiny by klemente on

Though the super-quick "haverecords" posted the link to Andrew Baggarly's most recent blog entry several hours ago, deep down in the bowels of the oft-forgotten FanShots section, I feel it deserving of a full FanPost. Interesting stuff that is definitely worthy of more traffic.

Baggarly-- who, as you all know, doubles as a Baseball America correspondent-- offers a lot of information concerning several of the club's top prospects. His source: farm director Fred Stanley. The plan to fast-track Nick Noonan is, I believe, the most surprising piece of information.

A sampling of quotes...

According to Baggarly,

SANDOVAL: He’s ready for the big leagues now. Crushing balls from both sides of the plate, though he’s obviously getting more at-bats from the left side. Energizing that whole Double-A club since his midseason promotion from San Jose. No longer taking ground balls at third base; that experiment is over. Very competent at first base, though, and has some skills behind the plate. A very strong arm, too. (There’s an anecdote about his ambidextrous throwing ability that you’ll see in tomorrow’s Giants notebook.)

ISHIKAWA: Really turned it up a notch this season. Playing with more confidence and appears driven. The organization didn’t need to challenge him; he did it himself. He was indecisive last year and let pitches get too deep on him while trying to figure out if they were strikes. Thus, he whiffed or fouled off hittable pitches. This year, he’s driving them out of the park. Most of his shots are going to right-center, though he hit a ball out to left-center at Round Rock last week

NICK NOONAN: Sorry, I know this will crush some of you San Jose Giants season ticket holders, but Stanley said it’s conceivable that Noonan could head straight to Double-A next season and be within one full year of the big leagues. He already has the best strike zone discipline of any hitter in the system. They expected him to maybe hit .250 in his first pro season, considering that it’s sweltering in Augusta and they play in a pitcher’s park where the wind blows in. Noonan is doing much better than that, hitting .283. He also has 26 stolen bases in 29 attempts. It’s easy to steal bases in the minors, much harder to steal a bunch while posting a success rate of 89.6 percent.

Quote to note: “It’s a tough grind to play in Low A. So you can imagine what it’s like for a kid who’s never played pro baseball grinding it for 144 games.”

 

 

 

This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.

0 recs | Comment 92 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Whats a fanshot?

Angel Villalona: Rush Fan? Probably.

by AngelintheInfield on Aug 12, 2008 1:13 PM PDT   0 recs

You should really cut this down to short excerpts.

Copying a whole article is generally considered a violation of netiquette (not to mention copyright law).

The All-Father is now a Giant!

by EliminateMe on Aug 12, 2008 1:19 PM PDT   0 recs

Especially when...

It was posted as a link in a fanshot earier…

Angel Villalona: Rush Fan? Probably.

by AngelintheInfield on Aug 12, 2008 1:20 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I agree

Odd mistake on my part. I’ll blame it on my very recent loss of blogging virginity. Though I know little about netiquette, my career demands a solid knowledge of copyright laws. I actually thought I had only quoted Baggarly’s comments on Sandoval, Ishikawa and Noonan. Still a long quote, obviously, but not overly exaggerated. Please see the Baggarly entry to read what he says about Sandoval.

by klemente on Aug 12, 2008 2:07 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

If you want, you can still edit the FanPost to make it read the way you intend.

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Aug 12, 2008 2:27 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Thank you

I just figured it out.

by klemente on Aug 12, 2008 4:06 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Noonan … already has the best strike zone discipline of any hitter in the system.

Fail.

by Evan on Aug 12, 2008 1:23 PM PDT   0 recs

Yeah, this makes absolutely zero sense. Doesn’t our farm director at least glance at the stats?

Neglectful father of David Quinowski

by marcello on Aug 12, 2008 1:28 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

strike zone discipline

I’m under the impression that this means knowledge of the strike zone, telling a strike from a ball. Now, if he has good strike zone discipline, you would expect better bb/k ratio than he has. However, I don’t think it’s exactly the same as plate approach, or having a plan at the plate. So if he goes up and feels he can hit most strikes and swings at the first one he sees, he won’t walk a lot.

It still sounds a little suspect, although part of it is probably what Baron says below. But who knows, maybe he can improve the walks and cut down on the k’s.

Less arm, more talk. Raisingcain is a GAMER.
Adopted Giant: Henry Sosa

by raisingcain on Aug 12, 2008 1:46 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Well, he’s got 15 walks and 82 strikeouts in 428 at-bats. If he really is using good plate discipline, that can only mean that pitchers are throwing him one pitch after another right down the middle and he’s missing an awful lot of them.

More likely this reflects what they’re working on with Noonan. It’s where they hope to get him to, not where he is. But there are a few other howlers in that piece (Alderson as a ground-ball pitcher, Sandoval hitting well from both sides, “Scott Downs”), so it’s hard to know what to think.

by Evan on Aug 12, 2008 2:00 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Earlier in the blog entry, he refers correctly to Matt Downs.

by klemente on Aug 12, 2008 2:34 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I did a double take when I read that.

Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Aug 12, 2008 1:57 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Y’know for all the ballyhooing about Noonan being named top strike zone discipline, maybe it’s not the fault of the scouts. Maybe it’s just that Noonan is the best of a weak crop? Does anyone else in the org have numbers or evidence that screams GREAT OBP?

"While conservatives tell you 'leave things alone and no one will lose,' and liberals tell you 'interfere a lot and no one will lose,' baseball says 'someone will lose.' Not only says it - but insists upon it! ... Democracy is lovely, but baseball's more mature." BVCE supports SF Dugout and Manny Burriss.

by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Aug 12, 2008 1:39 PM PDT   0 recs

Well players with IsoOBP over .100 include Thomas Neal (.101), Antoan Richardson (.110), and Travis Denker (.165). EME is close with .093.

My boy ain't fat, he's just big boned. Big bat, too.

by Roger on Aug 12, 2008 1:49 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I don’t follow advanced stats. IsoOBP is…?

"While conservatives tell you 'leave things alone and no one will lose,' and liberals tell you 'interfere a lot and no one will lose,' baseball says 'someone will lose.' Not only says it - but insists upon it! ... Democracy is lovely, but baseball's more mature." BVCE supports SF Dugout and Manny Burriss.

by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Aug 12, 2008 1:54 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Isolated OBP… basically OBP – BA.

Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Aug 12, 2008 1:57 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Then it’s just walk rate plus HBP and the random times interference or a dropped third strike allows the guy to reach? Or are the dropped third strike calls not counted in either figure?

"While conservatives tell you 'leave things alone and no one will lose,' and liberals tell you 'interfere a lot and no one will lose,' baseball says 'someone will lose.' Not only says it - but insists upon it! ... Democracy is lovely, but baseball's more mature." BVCE supports SF Dugout and Manny Burriss.

by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Aug 12, 2008 2:12 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I’d imagine dropped third strike calls would be counted, since the person reaches base without an out being recorded, but I could be wrong on that. Interesting question, I don’t know if they even record that

by theghostofjasonellison on Aug 12, 2008 2:25 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I read a good book (given to me by the Mayor) called The New Ballgame. It lays out stats and stuff, not necessarily SABR stuff, but gives a good overview of statkeeping. There was a section on OBP and I don’t recall off the top of my head if things like interference and dropped third strike calls would be counted.

Anyway IsoBP sort of seems like a silly stat to keep seperately from OBP if it’s just walk rate and HPB.

"While conservatives tell you 'leave things alone and no one will lose,' and liberals tell you 'interfere a lot and no one will lose,' baseball says 'someone will lose.' Not only says it - but insists upon it! ... Democracy is lovely, but baseball's more mature." BVCE supports SF Dugout and Manny Burriss.

by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Aug 12, 2008 2:32 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Well, it’s useful to see how much a player’s OBP is inflated by their batting average. A player with a .350 OBP and a .100 isoD and a player with a .350 OBP and a .025 isoD are quite different players. Of course, that might seem like common sense, but it’s useful to have a number to use for comparison.

Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Aug 12, 2008 2:34 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Is walk rate kept as an official stat?

And yeah OBP is inflated by AVG, though I didn’t think of IsoOBP as showing that. Then again I didn’t know what IsoOBP was 20 minutes ago so :)

I agree that SABR and that does help us to look at the game at different angles but a lot of the time it just seems like numbers for the hell of it to me. And that’s not just my aversion to maths! I got a B in stats! So I actually understand it.

"While conservatives tell you 'leave things alone and no one will lose,' and liberals tell you 'interfere a lot and no one will lose,' baseball says 'someone will lose.' Not only says it - but insists upon it! ... Democracy is lovely, but baseball's more mature." BVCE supports SF Dugout and Manny Burriss.

by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Aug 12, 2008 2:37 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

As the product of an old-school baseball clan—Tom Trebelhorn being our greatest export-, I find the number-crunching to represent an extremely refreshing approach to the game and, especially, to both talent evaluation and development. I wish I would have known something about it before I left the profession. Though initial evaluation still needs to be based on the ability to recognize talent visually and quickly- basing the original evaluation on a “small sample size” of eye-witness reports—, slowly chewing on the numbers offers a new perspective that can only be beneficial. You still have to know what needs to be tossed, but more information and multiple points-of-view are never negatives.

by klemente on Aug 12, 2008 2:55 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I’m more or less with you on this, but I do think many of the number crunchers have a tendency to substitute the statistics for the visual analysis, as if a stat wholly signified a skill. Though the better advocates of the hybrid stats don’t fall into this, many do.

by haverecords on Aug 12, 2008 2:58 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I love stats, but I love the visual sort of things too. It’s important to remember, though, that you can be fooled by both statistics (small sample sizes?) and your eyes.

I really love all the new mechanical analysis that’s going on lately. I’m still bummed that ChadBradfordWannabe/Carlos Gomez can’t do any of it anymore (even though I’m very happy for him getting such a sweet job out of it.)

Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Aug 12, 2008 3:03 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

You pretty much said what I wanted to say, but better.

w00t.

Bay City Ball

by xanthan on Aug 12, 2008 3:05 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Yep, we need both, and in conjunction.

You’re right about the neo-mechanical analysis, as it is the goods for the most part (in part because you have to know what you talking about to even broach the subject half convincingly).

by haverecords on Aug 12, 2008 3:17 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I totally agree and appreciate the use of “neo” in front of “mechanical analysis.” Visual interpretation has always been mechanics-oriented. The current sofistication of analysis goes far beyond what was the norm years ago, but the idea is the same. The human body is a machine that, when fine tuned, can reach certain levels of production within a baseball context. Bat or arm velocity, etc. Plus a plethora of other concepts that are definitely teachable. This represents, I believe, the advantage of mechanical/visual analysis: many of the elements can be taught to individual ballplayers. The problem is, few have a true ability to teach mechanics effectively, especially from an early age. It isn’t the same to say “you need to hit more line drives,” for example, as it is to say “this is how you hit more line drives.” The same can be said for OBP, etc. Pedagogical intelligence is needed in our schools as well as our ballyards.

by klemente on Aug 12, 2008 3:56 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I agree all the way.

Though pedagogical intelligence seems to have reached oxymoron status, as far as higher education goes.

It is telling how quickly some of the neo-mech analysts have been picked up by MLB teams, as this is probably the area of greatest need within most organizations.

by haverecords on Aug 12, 2008 4:27 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Another disillusioned academic? I share your pain. In fact, I think we can safely say that “higher education” is but another oxymoron.

Much like education in general, baseball needs solid teachers and a system designed to develope greatness rather than mediocrity. From ground zero, of course.

by klemente on Aug 12, 2008 5:16 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

That we can. And sadly, as it is, baseball is doing far better than the academy (on down) in doing this; and we all know how often failure happens in baseball.

by haverecords on Aug 12, 2008 10:03 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

That’s exactly why I refrain from making concrete statements on a certain guy’s talent. I don’t get to see many of them actually play. What’s on the webpage about walk rates or OBP or this or that only say so much.

I was especially amused by stats when we went into things like confidence intervals. You can never be assured that whatever your numbers say are going to be 100% correct. You have to assume some margin of error. I know that some concepts in classic stats don’t have much to do with baseball stats, but that still amused me.

"While conservatives tell you 'leave things alone and no one will lose,' and liberals tell you 'interfere a lot and no one will lose,' baseball says 'someone will lose.' Not only says it - but insists upon it! ... Democracy is lovely, but baseball's more mature." BVCE supports SF Dugout and Manny Burriss.

by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Aug 12, 2008 3:04 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

The funny thing is

I’m not particularly a stats guy, but much more of a scouting guy. I like to watch players play to get an idea of them. And back a million years ago when I played, I learned from guys who were as old school as dirt (in fact, Pete Beiden for whom Beiden Field in Fresno was named was once a coach of mine).

My appreciation for SABR stats is almost entirely based on how much of the time they seem to reinforce the rules of winning baseball as I was taught them. They really show how smart people like Branch Rickey and Earl Weaver were.

My boy ain't fat, he's just big boned. Big bat, too.

by Roger on Aug 12, 2008 5:08 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Amen. Baseball smarts “is” baseball smarts, with or without the numbers. Recognize talent and develope it. Stats are extremely helpful, but you still have to know how to turn theory into practice. Villalona is a great example: his numbers don’t reflect his potential.

by klemente on Aug 12, 2008 5:27 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

For what it’s worth, I’ve never heard any stat cruncher ever totally disregard scouting. I’ve seen a movement towards the opposite, about using statistics and scouting together in a smart and beneficial way.

But, our eyes can lie to us pretty easily and sometimes scouts see what they want to see instead of looking at statistics. If it’s anyone that’s stuck in their ways, I’d say it’s the “old men” of baseball, the scouts.

Bay City Ball

by xanthan on Aug 12, 2008 3:04 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I’ve heard plenty a stat cruncher effectively disregard scouting, if not explicitly, many a time—insofar as conclusions are made which backgrounded the scouting (if it really acknowledged it).

But you are quite right about how our eyes can lie to us, as difference between a good scout and an average one, is not only recognizing what could be, and what is—but what is likely. And those distinctions can be easily blurred without knowing it.

by haverecords on Aug 12, 2008 3:14 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Eyes can lie, but so can numbers, especially if we approach this dilemma from an interdisciplinary, hermeneutic perspective. In other words, it isn’t the eye or the number that lies, but rather the “horizon of expectation,” the individual preconceptions that limit the effectiveness of interpretation.

by klemente on Aug 12, 2008 3:16 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

don't leave out my main man adam witter

leading the way with a .117 isoOBP. Not sure about the rest of you, but I have high hopes for him, I think he just needs to get out of the tundras of Connecticut and into the nice California sun (do I mean Fresno? SF? Who knows? And no, I don’t mean SJ…)

by theghostofjasonellison on Aug 12, 2008 2:17 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I don't like looking at IsoOBP

because it isn’t linear like ISO is. i.e. if a player was 1 for 9 with a walk (walk rate of 10%) his avg would be .111 with an obp of .200 so an IsoOBP of .089. But if someone was 3 for 9 with a walk (walk rate also of 10%) his avg would be .333 with an obp of .400 so an IsoOBP of only .067. Would you say the first player had better plate discipline because he had a higher IsoOBP? No. BB% is a MUCH better stat to use.

proud father of the newly acquired Brandon Crawford..

by Azmanz on Aug 13, 2008 12:14 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Nobody answered my question about walk rate being kept as a seperate stat.

"While conservatives tell you 'leave things alone and no one will lose,' and liberals tell you 'interfere a lot and no one will lose,' baseball says 'someone will lose.' Not only says it - but insists upon it! ... Democracy is lovely, but baseball's more mature." BVCE supports SF Dugout and Manny Burriss.

by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Aug 13, 2008 12:47 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Quite true Azmanz. So then looking at it from a BB% standpoint, many of the same characters show up: Denker and EME are at 15%, Richardson at 14%, Neal and Ishikawa at 13%, with Fairley, Rohlinger, Copeland, Jackson Williams, McBryde, and (OMG!) even Eugenio Velez all above 10%. Noonan lags pretty far down the list at 3%.

Another good thing to look at of course is BB/K, where sadly (and annually) only EME has a better than 1:1 ratio, with a 1.56 thus far in ‘08.

My boy ain't fat, he's just big boned. Big bat, too.

by Roger on Aug 13, 2008 1:27 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

So if your isoOBP gets lower as your average gets higher, wouldn’t that make the isoOBP of players with higher averages more valuable? In a crude sort of way.

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Aug 13, 2008 2:33 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

My question to Andy

is what does the org mean when they say “strike zone discipline”? I don’t think they use the term in the same way that it is understood by most of the people on this board.

I’ll let you know what he says.

Hector Sanchez: really getting tired of playing baseball in foreign countries...

by tedfordfan on Aug 12, 2008 1:47 PM PDT   0 recs

Thanks dude. I really want to know what he has to say.

"While conservatives tell you 'leave things alone and no one will lose,' and liberals tell you 'interfere a lot and no one will lose,' baseball says 'someone will lose.' Not only says it - but insists upon it! ... Democracy is lovely, but baseball's more mature." BVCE supports SF Dugout and Manny Burriss.

by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Aug 12, 2008 3:07 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Thanks indeed. I think we were all surprised by that statement, but they have to be going on something…

by haverecords on Aug 12, 2008 3:20 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Strike Zone Discipline is...

The ability to know which (and wait for) a pitch to hit.

As I have tried to say for years, it has little to nothing to do with walks.

But no, people keep saying that if you can’t see it on a stat sheet, it doesn’t exist.

SFDugout.com is BACK! See the Top 50 Giants Prospects!

by BruteSentiment on Aug 12, 2008 4:24 PM PDT   0 recs

I’m with you here.

The concern with Noonan, though, is that he strikes out a fair amount AND doesn’t draw much walks. This doesn’t mean he has poor zone discipline, but it is a ‘flag’—if only to give more intense visual analysis on that very point with the player.

I suppose by Strike Zone Discipline, the Giants also meant, more generically, ‘zone’ discipline—not just what are strikes, and what aren’t, but what he can hit, and how to do so. He does seem to do well in that regard.

by haverecords on Aug 12, 2008 4:31 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Exactly. Sounds like BruteSentiment and haverecords know a bit about baseball. Walks are, however, important. Getting on base, by walk or by hit, is what’s important: putting yourself in a position to score runs. Obviously, the disadvantage of walking is that it is not represent the best method for driving in runs.

by klemente on Aug 12, 2008 4:53 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

You keep saying that Brute

and you keep being wrong. And the key is soemthing you yourself say—it’s the ability, in fact the insistence, on waiting for hitters’ pitches (which you’re likely to hit hard) and refusing to swing at pitchers’ pitches (on which you’re likely to make outs). As pitchers are engaging in the exact opposite activity (trying to get batters to swing at pitchers pitches and not throwing hitters pitches), two things are likely to happen with increased plate discipline (key word here: discipline). 1) you’ll make fewer outs.
2) you’ll wait out a lot of pitchers who won’t (or in lower minors sometimes can’t) throw your pitch, resulting in walks. The correlation is very direct.

Looking at Noonan we see not only, as has been noted here quite a bit, a player with few walks and lots of Ks, a lowish BA, and lots of out making. None of those suggest particularly strong plate discipline.

My boy ain't fat, he's just big boned. Big bat, too.

by Roger on Aug 12, 2008 5:03 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

It could

However, he could just be lousy at hitting good pitches to hit. But I rather doubt it – I am fairly confident that it simply you typical case of a prospect who lacks patience. Plus, even if that were true, I suspect you would still see a lot more walks a la Antoan Richardson

Pedro Feliz would look great in Dodger Blue.

by irwin on Aug 12, 2008 5:22 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

The problem is...

...not swinging at pitcher’s pitches, such as pitches on the corners, is just as good a way to get out via the strikeout as getting on base.

Plate Discipline means different things at different points: if you have less than two strikes, sure, take it. But if the pitch is close with two strikes, SWING and don’t strike out looking.

The walk is the most overrated stat in baseball, because of people like you Roger who overrate it to mean things it doesn’t.

SFDugout.com is BACK! See the Top 50 Giants Prospects!

by BruteSentiment on Aug 12, 2008 8:10 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Your theories intrigue me...

Explain to me why the walk is the most overrated stat.

Bay City Ball

by xanthan on Aug 12, 2008 8:55 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I too

would like to know how you think the walk is the most ‘overrated’ stat. I suspect you might just be using hyperbole in this case, though..

(and I do think the walk is generally overrated by the statistically inclined. At the same time, I do think it to be very important, and sometimes demonstrative.

by haverecords on Aug 12, 2008 9:56 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Simply because no other statistic is talked about and rallied about like it.

Not home runs. Not slugging. Not ERA, nor ERA+ or any of the seemingly hundreds of derivations of it. People want walks like it’ll score the runner from first every time, anytime.

I’m not saying walks are not important. However, comparative to how people look at it and shit their pants if its not there for any and every hitter, it’s the Anna Kournikova of baseball statistics.

SFDugout.com is BACK! See the Top 50 Giants Prospects!

by BruteSentiment on Aug 13, 2008 2:03 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Two more words about how overrated walks are:

Adam. Witter.

7th in the Eastern League in walks, despite having less plate appearances than any of the players ahead of him. In addition, he’s tied for 8th in home runs in the rough Eastern League, playing in the very tough Dodd Stadium.

He would appear to be the definition of a player who ‘waits for a pitch to drive’. And yet….I think some people here (including the walks are god crowd) are genuinely more excited about Jake Wald. If they do like or love the walk/power combo Witter (especially considering that as a catcher, he plays a position where offensive liabilities are less of an issue), they sure don’t talk about him. No one does.

If the ability to take a walk makes for such a great player, Witter should be better received. But….no.

SFDugout.com is BACK! See the Top 50 Giants Prospects!

by BruteSentiment on Aug 13, 2008 2:20 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

For the record, I’ve been a fan of Witter this year. I even wrote about him on my website. I like him as a backup catcher with some pop and patience.

I know other people like him, too.

Bay City Ball

by xanthan on Aug 13, 2008 5:10 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

So, you don’t like walks because other people like them a bunch? That seems kind of reactionary. Getting on base means you’re not making outs. It’s a good thing. OBP (and SLG) also correlate highly with being able to score runs.

I see what you’re saying, but I think you’re being a little reactionary about things. I’ve never seen anyone say that walks are everything other than a important slice of the pie.

Bay City Ball

by xanthan on Aug 13, 2008 5:09 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

But xanthan

You have to admit that the Greek chorus gets really revved up when Steve points out how a particular prospect now only has 11 walks in 208 plate appearances (or whatever). I won’t try to speak for Brute, but this lock-step reaction is, at first, amusing, and then somewhat mind-numbing. I agree with Roger that a batter should exhibit patience, and not swing at pitchers’ pitches; and that in doing so said batter increases his chances of actually getting a pitch he can hit solidly. But I just think it’s too far a step to say that, therefore, a high number of walks is direct evidence of a batter displaying this ability. There are too many other variables in the equation: pitchers’ skill in hitting the corners, the skill and experience of minor league umps in recognizing pitches/strike zones, the influence of hitting coaches telling hitters to concentrate on this or that.

Again, I agree that walks are very useful – especially as they are “not-outs.” Barry’s hitting genius was not that he hit so many home runs, but that he made so few outs. Turning over the batting order, and thus exhausting the other team’s pitching staff, is huge. And the Giants having a .400 OBP lead-off hitter is a thing devoutly to be wished. I just find the single-minded focus on walks as a statistic or percentage, absent lots of other information, to be coming to hasty conclusions. And perhaps Brute sees the same thing. Or not.

Your 2011 SF Giants: the 2008 Augusta Greenjackets!

by Lyle on Aug 13, 2008 8:37 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

It’s weird … I just don’t see this “single-minded focus on walks” that bothers people so much. Some people like the cheerlead the prospects; others like to pick them apart, figuring out their strengths and weaknesses. It’s just a temperamental difference. The Giants organization has a disproportionate (I think) number of players whose principal weakness is that they’re impatient at the plate and don’t get on base enough. This is reflected most clearly in their walk totals. So people comment on it.

by Evan on Aug 13, 2008 9:10 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I believe you’ve hit on the key: it must be a temperamental difference. Good deduction.

Your 2011 SF Giants: the 2008 Augusta Greenjackets!

by Lyle on Aug 13, 2008 9:49 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I don’t know if it’s germaine, but I’ll note that my own adopted son is himself a charter member of the Giants “Hack first and ask questions later” club. I note it with trepidation, but it doesn’t mean I don’t root for him and believe in him. (I just think it’s one of those “teenage” things that I wish he’d get over.)

My boy ain't fat, he's just big boned. Big bat, too.

by Roger on Aug 13, 2008 9:59 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Lyle,

I’m not seeing the Greek chorus but if you’re seeing it, I won’t deny it.

But as for this:

I just find the single-minded focus on walks as a statistic or percentage, absent lots of other information, to be coming to hasty conclusions.

I think you’re missing my point, or other peoples intentions. I don’t see it as a single-minded focus, but a slice of the pie like I said above. A part of the puzzle. A piece. A segment of what it takes to be a good ballplayer. That’s it.

And you’re right that looking at walks alone won’t tell us everything about plate discipline but then again, I didn’t see anyone make this claim. It’s a rough sketch. We don’t know other things such as how many times Noonan is swinging outside of the zone or what kind of contact he’s making outside of the zone, but until we do, we can supplement it in part with something we do know, how much he’s walking.

Bay City Ball

by xanthan on Aug 13, 2008 10:15 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

But like… I understand that not everything shows up in stats. But if Noonan really had such amazing strike zone judgment, wouldn’t it show up in some way? Like, even ignoring walks and strikeouts, a high batting average or a lot of extra base hits might indicate that he’s waiting for hittable pitches and not swinging at not hittable pitches… but he doesn’t have either of those. And if not, what good does his brand of plate discipline really do us if all it makes him is a .280 hitter who barely walks and has barely any power?

Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Aug 12, 2008 9:17 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Noonan probably doesn’t have ‘amazing’ strike zone judgment (hell, what minor leaguer does—and only a handful of MLB hitters could be considered ‘amazing’), but he may well have good judgment. One might well have his stats and have good judgment. It should also be noted that he may not remain as a .280 hitter, and in fact shows potential of being able to do more, and it would also be a mistake to say ‘barely any’ power. For his position, he’s shown pretty good power 22 2B/73B/7HR. You’ll find he compares well to the other 2B in the SAL for power, and he’s 2-3 years younger than those he is ranking with. Also, it would be good to keep in mind his age when you consider the power numbers, as that is often grown into (depending on a number of variables which may or may not be relevant with Noonan).

As I mentioned above, his highish k’s, and low BB makes for a flag-something to be investigated, and analyzed in person. His numbers-particularly considering the considerations above—are not irreconcilable with the skill in question. This just isn’t something can be sufficiently addressed by massaging numbers in abstraction.

by haverecords on Aug 12, 2008 9:48 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy with Noonan’s season and I think he’s a solid prospect and I’m glad we have him. I just don’t think more needs to be made of his season than is necessary. I understand of course that SAL is a big pitcher’s league and that Noonan is young for the league to begin with. But I can’t help but be a bit skeptical when the organization tries to tell us that a guy with, let’s be honest, a bit of an underwhelming overall batting line and a ridiculously poor walk rate (I think it’s improved lately, but at one point it was sub-Felizian) has the best strike zone judgment in the system and could skip high-A. It could just be irrational exuberance on Stanley’s part, but still, I think it’s fair to be a bit skeptical, isn’t it?

I’m really not trying to denigrate Noonan as a prospect. They probably know better than me if there’s more to Noonan’s batting line than you can see from just looking at it, I just think it’s more than fair to have a bit of a “Bzuh?” reaction when you read stuff like that.

Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Aug 12, 2008 11:00 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I understand, though I do think his line is more ‘good’ than underwhelming. In any case, I think we were all surprised that Stanley said that about Noonan, as what we didn’t see statistics that typically indicated a good sense of the strike zone. I was only making the point that his line could be reconciled with that assessment.

I still would be surprised if they ship to AA straight off, as it just seems risky. Dodd field is murderous in the spring, and he’d be jumping from low A to an AA assignment which would be challenging even if it wasn’t at Dodd. It seems to make more sense to start him at San Jose, and if he continues playing well, then promote him to AA. That said, if they do rush him, and he succeeds, it would be nice to have him that close to the MLB.

by haverecords on Aug 12, 2008 11:55 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs