Bowker
by AndOnTheDrums... on Aug 6, 2008 1:31 PM PDT
60 comments
I don't want to be a pessimist, but here's Bowker's line over the last month:
BA: .176
R: 4
RBI: 3
HR: 0
His OBP is currently .298, with a .403 SLG% and .707 OPS.
I want the kids to play as bad as anyone else, so can someone please give me a legitimate reason that he should continue to log significant innings at 1st base or RF this season? I know we don't have any other great prospects behind him, but it seems like they could throw Ishikawa a bone for the season he's having, or bring up Sandoval sooner than later (maybe not a great idea). I've had this conversation with people, and they always say "he'll figure it out". I would whole-heartedly agree if he were a blue chip prospect like Longoria or Alex Gordon. Hell, if he was Kevin Kouzmanoff! But I'm not sure his minor league track record suggests he'll turn it around. Thoughts?
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 |
60 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Bowker has been hitting the ball very well in spite of his .176 batting average. A lot of stuff he has been hitting have been line drives, but just straight to people. Also, I’d say give the guy some ‘slack’ because he’s also learning a new position. Hence a lot of errors at 1st ;)
by SFGAmsterdam on Aug 6, 2008 1:34 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
His OPS is just barely over .700 and his PrOPS is like .780-ish. Not great, but he’s been a little unlucky.
His plate discipline isn’t that good but he’s making decent contact.
by xanthan on Aug 6, 2008 1:44 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It’s a fair point - we have no offense to save, here - but Bowker’s behind Lewis, Rowand, Aurilia, Winn and Molina. He’s a bad day away from being below the much-maligned Castillo. He’s having a textbook Pedro Feliz season, except that instead of being an excellent defensive 3B, he’s an adequate defensive 1B, and he can only hit Felizishly against righties. I know his line drive percentage suggests somewhat better things… still, that’s a pretty rough portfolio overall.
It has absolutely been a successful season for Bowker. To kind of hold his own at the big-league level against righties is a fine achievement this early in his career, and there’s more to be excited about here than there was a year ago. But the guy isn’t hitting, his approach isn’t improving, and as the OP pointed out, he’s not the level of prospect where it makes sense to let him work his way out of it. I don’t see any reason why we wouldn’t send him down to focus on a couple things and take a gander at Ishikawa, instead.
by onlxn on Aug 6, 2008 4:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What level of prospect is he?
Bowker was in the BA top 10 for this season, #14 in SFDugout’s top 50, and around the same range in Steve S’s “future forty” from last fall. Ishikawa has been hot but was in the lower end of the larger lists before this season.
The All-Father is now a Giant!
by EliminateMe on Aug 6, 2008 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
a couple of optimistic notes
he was not a blue chip prospect, but he does have some prospect pedigree, he was a 3rd round pick and a good college player at Long Beach St., and he had a very good season (considering the ballpark) in Connecticut last year.
and keep in mind he pretty much skipped AAA, he had only 27 ABs there, so expecting him to be a full time major leaguer this year is a bit aggressive.
by FluLikeSymptoms on Aug 6, 2008 1:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
His track record includes some pretty horrific slumps, and he’s turned those around.
He’s got some discipline problems and is a bit pull happy by my eye. I’d like to see him take the fastball away up the middle.
But ultimately, wouldn’t you rather him try to figure it out this year, when the only other viable option is Rich Aurillia? The season is lost. Next year it could be the choice of a slumping Bowker or a slumping Ishikawa or slumping Sandoval. Letting the kids play means dealing with this type of thing. Players who can adjust stay in the league longer than players who can’t.
"Don't trust anyone under the age of 30" - Brian Sabean
by Smotheredinhugs on Aug 6, 2008 1:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Get him off 1b and let him hack away in the OF.
by wilriv21 on Aug 6, 2008 2:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If you bring up Ishikawa...
...the odds are good that he’s going to have a cold streak at some point too. That’s part of playing the young guys.
The All-Father is now a Giant!
by EliminateMe on Aug 6, 2008 2:11 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
this
either way, I just want someone to make up their freaking mind and commit to a plan.
Castillo+Aurilia in the lineup is only hindering development for someone at any given time.
by ExcuseMeSwing on Aug 6, 2008 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t agree. Playing Aurilia against lefties is no big deal, and there’s no solution at third base right now anyway. They’re trying though. They looked at Blalock at the trade deadline, and they just signed Gillaspie. Castillo may be wasting time right now, but at least we know he won’t be the third baseman next year.
Brian Sabean's new dad: Firm believer in corporal punishment
by rxmeister on Aug 6, 2008 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Playing Aurilia against lefties
Takes AB’s away from Bowker.
You don’t learn to hit Lefties sitting on the bench.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on Aug 6, 2008 3:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually
if I didn’t just imagine Durham’s 2007 (or for that matter Randy Winn’s scintillating.525 OPS in July), that’s part of playing the old guys, too.
My boy ain't fat, he's just big boned. Big bat, too.
by Roger on Aug 6, 2008 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Very true.
With the young guys, the question is “does he have it?” and with the old guys it’s “does he still have it?”
The All-Father is now a Giant!
by EliminateMe on Aug 6, 2008 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
His OPS in july
Was Bad, .525
His OPS in June was .958.
Which is the real John Bowker? Neither.
Players go hot and they go cold. If you give up on a rookie as soon as he goes cold, your never going to develop a player.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on Aug 6, 2008 2:38 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It's a deal!
Trent Kline: Decentish. Also, my website is called ChatterBalks Dot Com and on it I make jokes about things.
by groug on Aug 6, 2008 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
True. But by the same token, if you commit to a rookie no matter how cold he gets, you’re never going to get a chance to develop a possibly better player. By this logic, we should still be waiting for Bocock’s bat to come around.
Bowker’s not worth punting on like Bocock, but he’s not necessarily worth incredible patience, either… he was, and is, a borderline prospect. It would hardly be a tragedy if we sent him down.
by onlxn on Aug 6, 2008 4:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bocock never had a .958 month, or any other reason to lead us to beleive that he was better than his instantaneous numbers suggest.
TI is also a borderline prospect.
We could just as easily be having this discussion about TI w/ Bowker destroying AAA this season. What we really need to do is get a good enough look at both of them to be able to make a decision, and sending Bowker down now doesn’t help that at all.
I think the notion that a guy will somehow learn more hitting at the AAA level than the ML level (when he has already demonstrated that he can hit really well @ the ML level on occasion) is asinine.
Going down to hit crappy pitching doesn’t teach you anything. Hitting off good pitching does.
Sending Bowker down would be a mistake in my opinion. If he continues this slump for the rest of the season (which he won’t) then we may feel that he is not going to cut it. If we send him down now and pull up TI, we won’t know with either of them.
Having the possibility of knowing one thing is better than not having the possibility of knowing anything.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on Aug 6, 2008 4:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bocock never had a .958 month, or any other reason to lead us to beleive that he was better than his instantaneous numbers suggest.
True, but how significant is one .958 month? It’s a positive, but how indicative of real potential is it? Bowker’s June wasn’t nearly as good as Luke Scott’s, Aubrey Huff’s, Kurt Suzuki’s, Jeff Baker’s, Jason Kubel’s, Russell Branyan’s, or Marcus Thames’s… point is, not-great guys have great months. .900 OPS months, especially BA-heavy ones like Bowker’s, don’t necessarily mean the guy’s not gonna be overmatched long-term.
I’m not saying it doesn’t count. It’s a positive for Bowker. But it’d be very easy to let that month get us more excited about him than we should be. He’s had one great month, one subpar month and two frightful months… the overall performance, for a platooning player at a hitters’ position, has been quite poor.
TI is also a borderline prospect.
Absolutely true, and I’ll admit that I may be guilty of a little “grass is greener”itis in wanting to see him up instead. But Ishikawa is currently having an excellent year, with huge power and moderate patience - it’s at a completely different level than anything Bowker’s done in the minors, and these guys are the same age. I’d personally rather see what Ishikawa can do right now.
I think the notion that a guy will somehow learn more hitting at the AAA level than the ML level (when he has already demonstrated that he can hit really well @ the ML level on occasion) is asinine.
That’s debatable… I don’t entirely disagree that seasoning time in the high minors can be overrated. What I do disagree with is the idea that Bowker “has already demonstrated that he can hit really well @ the ML level on occasion”. He had one good month while platooning, in which he hit for a high average and had doubles power… since then, as pitchers have gotten a scouting report on him, he’s hit the wall.
Having the possibility of knowing one thing is better than not having the possibility of knowing anything.
It’s an interesting point, but I don’t think we’re going to know anything more about Bowker simply from keeping him up another six weeks. He’s got a sweet swing, he’s got moderate power at best, and he doesn’t walk enough… does anyone think any of those things will stop being true just by virtue of staying in the bigs through September? They’re not making any adjustments with him, and he’s striking out more than ever… I’m not seeing why he’d turn things around here.
I’m not suggesting we give up on Bowker. We’d be well-served to see what the guy can give us in ‘09. But in the interim, wouldn’t it be more instructive, and at least more interesting, to get a look at Ishikawa, a guy whose upside is higher both statistically and anecdotally?
by onlxn on Aug 6, 2008 4:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stealing from THN:
Bowker meanwhile hit 307/363/527 in Connecticut.
That, coupled with the > .900 OPS month and a solid swing / quick bat and his ability to adapt the first time (to the breaking pitch) is what earns him the extended look.
Right now, Bowker has done more to earn that than TI. (A couple hot month’s in AAA preceded by years of suck is not worth a huge amount).
Sending Bowker down tomorrow means we start next year knowing pretty much exactly what we know about him today. (Good power, Needs to walk more)
Letting him play out the rest of the season will tell us
a.) Can he adjust to the scouting report (Like he did the first time, resulting in his huge June) and become productive again
or
b.) He can’t, and he’s just not that great of a player. (or needs to go back to AAA for a more major overhaul)
If it’s A, I feel good about him going into next year. If it’s B, I hope he figures it out in AAA next year.
Bringing up TI, even if he absolutely obliterates the ball for the rest of the season, tells us very little about him.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on Aug 6, 2008 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where we disagree
Sending Bowker down tomorrow means we start next year knowing pretty much exactly what we know about him today. (Good power, Needs to walk more)
Bowker’s had just about exactly a half-season’s worth of at-bats. Doubling his numbers, you get 22 doubles, 6 triples and 18 homers over a full season. That isn’t good power. That’s mediocre power, and downright bad power for a 1B (or a corner outfielder, while we’re at it). He showed great power in Connecticut last year - those were truly impressive numbers in that park - but he never showed plus power before that, and he hasn’t shown it this year.
Ishikawa has outhomered Bowker every year except for last year, and even last year he would’ve probably matched him if given the at-bats to do so. These guys aren’t young enough to project doubles power as home run power… their home run numbers are the most revealing of their power potential. I think Ishikawa rates comfortably ahead by that standard, and it’s the main reason why I’d rather see him in the bigs.
by onlxn on Aug 6, 2008 5:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
“bad power for a 1B??” Have you seen the Giants’ first basemen the last few years??Bowker’s the most powerful one we’ve had in awhile, and that’s a kid who’s only going to get better. I love the way Travis has hit this year, but he’s also had his share of struggles in the minors. I’m sure TI will get his shot next year in spring training, but for now John Bowker has not done anything to show he should be sent to the minors. And as for saying he hasn’t shown his power this year, I don’t agree with that either. He’s a kid who basically skipped AAA ball, and he’s playing in a stadium that’s death for lefthanded hitters. I don’t think TI will hit many homeruns at ATT either.
Brian Sabean's new dad: Firm believer in corporal punishment
by rxmeister on Aug 6, 2008 9:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great thing about TI is that he has HR power to ALL fields and has mashed quite a few to LF this season.
by wilriv21 on Aug 6, 2008 9:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we ever want to be a respectable team again, we’re going to have our 1B sights a lot higher than “better than recent Giants first basemen.” In half a season’s worth of platoon at-bats, Bowker has nine home runs. An 18-home run pace is significantly below-average power for a 2008 first baseman. He’s only on pace for 28 doubles and triples, too, so not much to see there, either.
Yes, we play in a pitcher’s park. It’s not an excuse for extremely poor power production. Bonds, Kent, Burks, peak Aurilia, even Durham in ‘06… good hitters can hit for power in this park. Bowker hasn’t.
by onlxn on Aug 6, 2008 10:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
T
Hector Sanchez: really getting tired of playing baseball in foreign countries...
by tedfordfan on Aug 7, 2008 6:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Two comments
1) All those hitters, except for Bonds, were righties, or predominantly hitting right handed. AT&T kills lefty power.
2) Bowkers numbers in the minor were exclusively accumulated in extreme pitchers parks, and never had the benefit of hitting in the PCL like Travis has for several years. Remember that when evaluating Bowker’s power.
Hector Sanchez: really getting tired of playing baseball in foreign countries...
by tedfordfan on Aug 7, 2008 6:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
1) Yes, I agree… it’s a hard park to hit home runs in if you’re a lefty. But Adrian Gonzalez has 26 homers for the Padres… is Petco really significantly easier on lefty power than SBC? Fred Lewis has shown successful gap power in SBC, playing productively without hitting homers… Bowker hasn’t. The park is a factor for Bowker, but it is not the story for Bowker. The story is that he doesn’t have enough power, in any park, to compensate for his inability to walk. Major league pitchers can control guys like that.
2) This is Ishikawa’s first year in the PCL, is it not? Bowker has spent a slightly higher percentage of his time in the minors at Dodd, but slightly. And if you compare them year by year from age 20 on, Ishikawa has spent more time at Dodd than Bowker. Park factors are not the story here. Travis Ishikawa has shown more power potential than John Bowker, throughout their careers.
by onlxn on Aug 7, 2008 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you when you say “enough”. I disagree with you if you think the difference between Bowker and Ish is sufficient to back off Bowker and throw Ish in there.
You’re completely right about #2. I mistakenly thought that Ish had another season in the PCL and didn’t fact check myself.
It’s a small difference and I can’t get excited about it either way. Best case scenario I think we can all agree on: Winn to the bench, Bowker to the OF and Ish to 1B.
Hector Sanchez: really getting tired of playing baseball in foreign countries...
by tedfordfan on Aug 7, 2008 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, we play in a pitcher’s park.
We play home games in a neutural park. Show me data that proves the whole park is otherwise.
Yes ,Right field tends to be closed. But a lesser field in a ball park is nothing special and has been part of the game forever. Might as well bitch about the pitcher having to bat.
Yes, this is not a band box but all that means is the offensive numbers can be trusted here more then say ( randomly grabbed team ) White Sox.
Ivan Ochoa - Heir to the legacy of Rob Andrews & Rikkert Faneyte!
by daveinexile on Aug 7, 2008 9:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I haven’t given up on him, but that said I don’t think it wold be a bad thing if he were to be playing in Fresno next season. Both because he could probably benefit from the work and that would mean that we’d acquired a real first baseman.
Idolizing Robb Nen since 2002...
by Smoke on the Water on Aug 6, 2008 2:54 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Or that we’d re-signed Aurilia for one more year.
The All-Father is now a Giant!
by EliminateMe on Aug 6, 2008 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If he takes Nate’s spot, there’s something wrong. Nate seems to have a higher ceiling, and Bowker came from AA, while Nate is still toiling in AAA. See what Nate does before we replace him.
by giants9107 on Aug 6, 2008 3:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
does Nate really have a spot for somebody to take? I don’t think Bowker is going to be manning RF in Fresno.
by FluLikeSymptoms on Aug 6, 2008 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He should have a spot
He’s one of the few who’ve come up and hit well in the majors(last year) and has shown power in AAA and a little flash in MLB. And he’s only 24.
by giants9107 on Aug 6, 2008 7:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nate is busy for the next couple weeks so its a moot point until after the olympics
by m34josh on Aug 6, 2008 3:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Giants finally start sticking with a young position player through some struggles and some of us want to send him back down. Personally, I am revelling in the fact that the Giants are actually playing Bowker despite his horrible July.
Now if only they play him verses lefties every so often…
Only 864 games until the end of Zito's contract
by thehavenot on Aug 6, 2008 3:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I’m just posing some questions for you guys to comment on. I love that they are playing some kids, I’m just a bit worried about them constantly pulling guys up from A and AA, and I wonder if they’re ready to learn on the job in the bigs.
by AndOnTheDrums... on Aug 6, 2008 4:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
and to borrow a line from groug...
HE CAN”T PLAY RIGHT FIELD!!!
Thanks, I think I’m done now.
Your 2011 SF Giants: the 2008 Augusta Greenjackets!
by Lyle on Aug 6, 2008 4:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s nice that Bowker hasn’t been completely overmatched in the majors, but what exactly is so exciting about a non-touted platooning 25-year-old 1B with a .707 OPS? Does anybody actually think that we should plan on this guy as a fixture at any position in the future? He’s more intriguing than he was a year ago, but it’s still a long way between here and “solution”, especially since he can only hang at the three lowest positions on the defensive spectrum.
I’d rather see Ishikawa right now. Ishikawa’s raking at a level that Bowker never has, he’s walking more than Bowker ever has, and lest we forget, he’s several months younger. We should be sifting for good players, not semi-adequate stopgaps. Let Bowker work on his plate discipline in the minors again, and we can see him again next year if he seems worth the fuss.
by onlxn on Aug 6, 2008 4:12 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
TI
Just started hitting this season. He was a left-for dead used to be prospect this time last year.
I’m not saying TI shouldn’t get a look, but it shouldn’t come at the expense of Bowker.
With the way this organization has treated Velez/Denker/Buriss (until just recently) and Ortmeier, The fact that they are sticking w/ Bowker for an extended period and riding the highs and lows is a breath of fresh air.
I just wish that they would have done that with the other guys this season.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on Aug 6, 2008 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This whole argument is bizarre
You rail on Bowker for not being much of a prospect and then hold up Travis Ishikawa as a beacon of hope. This is the height of being reactionary. Travis Ishikawa has gotten hot the last couple of months and Bowker has been cold the last month and suddenly Ishikawa’s a much better prospect? Does the entire season last year mean nothing? Ishikawa was a guy who hit 243/319/431 last year in San Jose and Conn. Bowker meanwhile hit 307/363/527 in Connecticut.
I am intrigued by Ishikawa’s resurgence but let’s not treat these last couple of months like they are the be all and end all.
Also, several months younger = two months younger. Do you really think that two months is significant?
Only 863 games until the end of Zito's contract
by thehavenot on Aug 6, 2008 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You rail on Bowker for not being much of a prospect and then hold up Travis Ishikawa as a beacon of hope.
I’d rather see Ishikawa up right now, but I certainly don’t see him as a beacon of hope. The sad truth is that probably neither of these guys will ever be starting-calibre players. But Bowker’s skill - hitting line drives for good batting averages, with decent power and below-average plate discipline - don’t project well to the majors (this is also why no non-Giants fans see any potential in Nate). Ishikawa’s skills - more power, more patience - project better. Ishikawa was also the more highly touted, and is the same age. I just don’t see why we’d feel married to seeing more of Bowker, other than the fact that we just plain like him (which I do).
Does the entire season last year mean nothing? Ishikawa was a guy who hit 243/319/431 last year in San Jose and Conn. Bowker meanwhile hit 307/363/527 in Connecticut.
It absolutely means something. But again… Bowker’s calling card was his batting average. Ishikawa’s walk rate was significantly better and his power was comparable… this was Ishikawa’s worst professional season and Bowker’s best.
I am intrigued by Ishikawa’s resurgence but let’s not treat these last couple of months like they are the be all and end all.
You’re right… they’re not. And if the Giants don’t think it’s even worth the plane fare to switch the two, I won’t be surprised. But the argument for keeping Bowker up seems to be that he’s shown enough in the last several months to merit more MLB exposure. If we’re going by the last several months, I think Ishikawa’s shown more than Bowker, and I don’t think it’s particularly close.
Also, several months younger = two months younger. Do you really think that two months is significant?
Not at all. But I think a lot of fans pooh-pooh the idea of Ishikawa ever developing because they’ve heard about him for so long. Ishikawa is 25, which is just about too old to be a prospect… but so is Bowker. Seeing what Ishikawa can do is committing to our young ‘uns just as much as seeing what Bowker can do.
Look, both of these guys are borderline at best… they’re both flavors of the month, Bowker because he’s hung in in the bigs, Ishikawa because he’s raking underneath. It’s all well and good to prefer to see more of Bowker, but let’s not pretend that it’s important to the team’s future that we do so. If our team’s future depends on either of these guys, we’re probably screwed. Of the two of them, the one that strikes me as having more of a chance of being a credible big-leaguer is Ishikawa. He doesn’t have much of a chance, but he has more of one than Bowker.
by onlxn on Aug 6, 2008 5:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is entirely your opinion:
He doesn’t have much of a chance, but he has more of one than Bowker.
And I can think of many arguments to the contrary.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on Aug 6, 2008 5:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
All of which would also be opinions. We shall agree, I suppose, to disagree.
by onlxn on Aug 6, 2008 5:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The following is not opinion:
I’m not sure how .527 and .431 is comparable power. An OPS of .890 vs. .750 – that’s a big difference.
Bowker hits the ball more often, and harder, than TI. Bowker hit 22 HR in conn last year, which is one less than TI has managed to put together in all of his time there. TI is averaging a HR every 18 Ab’s between Connecticut and Fresno this season, while Bowker is hitting one every 30 Ab’s in the Majors. I find it hard to argue that TI hits for significantly more power (if at all) than Bowker.
TI’s career MiL OPS of .799 is lower than Bowkers Career MiL OPS of .816, and that includes TI’s INSANE and unsustainable OPS of 1.074 this season in fresno. (Doing the comparison now is analogous to doing the comparison a month ago, when Bowker had just come off a .958 OPS month in the ML and his #’s looked a lot better.)
Looking at those #’s, and given their similar age – I feel comfortable saying that Bowker has done at least as much, if not more, at the MiL level to “earn” an extended look.
I would love to give TI a look as well, but not at the expense of Bowker. If TI can perform well in September call up as well as ST next season, then I think he should be on the radar in 09, especially if Bowker continues to struggle.
But for right now, there is no compelling reason to switch them, and doing things for no reason is not a great way to manage a ML roster.
Eugeniooooooo!!!!
by FairweatherFan on Aug 6, 2008 5:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree—Bowker’s minor-league stats are as impressive as Ishikawa’s. Maybe even slightly more impressive. But there’s a difference between good stats and projectable stats. Home run power and patience project to the big leagues more reliably than doubles power and making contact.
Ishikawa’s career isolated power in the minors is .189… that’s including his teenage years, when he was a skinny little kid and couldn’t hit a homer to save his life. Bowker’s is .174. Not much of a difference, but Ishikawa rates ahead.
In his minor league career, Ishikawa has hit a home run in every 26.2 at-bats… obviously significantly better since he turned 20. Bowker has hit a home run in every 34.4 bats. That’s a somewhat significant difference.
Finally, Ishikawa has walked once for about every 7.5 at-bats in the minors. Bowker has walked once for about every 12.5 at-bats in the minors. That’s a HUGE difference.
Bowker’s big advantage is batting average, which is a stat that’s degraded quite easily by major league pitching. His recent struggles show why: when you hit a bunch of line drives, sometimes they’ll be caught, and then you’re just stuck. He can’t walk his way on base, and he doesn’t really punish pitchers when they miss, as his home run power is middling… it’s a struggle.
I’m not sure that Ishikawa would ever be able to hit .250 in the majors, and that’s a problem. But I see him as more likely to take a walk every once in a while and hit a homer every once in a while… tools you need to make it at a hitting position in the majors. Ishikawa doesn’t rate insanely well by either standard, but he does rate better than Bowker, no matter how you slice the data. I genuinely think he’d do better against major league pitching than Bowker right now… you can disagree, but the numbers cut both ways.
But for right now, there is no compelling reason to switch them, and doing things for no reason is not a great way to manage a ML roster.
I can see the argument for playing out the string with Bowker. But if we have him permanently slotted ahead of Ishikawa just because he’s sort of held his own in the majors (which is getting debatable at this point), in my opinion, we risk making a real mistake. For that reason, I’d like to see Ishikawa up as soon as possible.
by onlxn on Aug 6, 2008 5:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ishikawa
His walk rate has fallen at AAA this year. And I don’t think anyone should give much credence to a prospect’s stats in AA on his third go through.
by Change Up on Aug 6, 2008 6:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
His walk rate has fallen, yes, but is still as good as any walk rate Bowker has ever posted. Ishikawa’s an odd duck… he’s all over the map every year, which is part of the reason he’s not much of a prospect. But he always walks at least as much as Bowker, and he often walks much, much more.
Ishikawa had only played a season’s worth of games at AA before this season… more to the point, I don’t give much credence to the pooh-poohing of repeating at higher levels. It’s one thing when a guy has to repeat the Rookie League because he can’t wrap his head around the idea of a curveball… repeating AA and AAA are different matters. Has Nate’s stock dropped because he’s putting up the same numbers at the same level?
The fact that Ishikawa has been in AA three times is another indication of his up-and-down trajectory… it’s one of his many warts. But he has played well all season at high levels… that’s worth something.
by onlxn on Aug 6, 2008 7:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bowker
strikes out a LOT less than TI, and makes much, much more consistent contact. His low BA this year is a factor of bad luck. His expected OPS is just south of 800. He needs more patience, not less.
Hector Sanchez: really getting tired of playing baseball in foreign countries...
by tedfordfan on Aug 7, 2008 6:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is much more reasonable
I’m quite okay with everything you said here.
Except I do believe it is important for guys like Bowker (and Lewis and Schierholtz and Ishikawa and Denker and…) to get extended looks in the majors. None of them have great shots at being good. But even if one or two turn out to be average major leaguers for their positions for cheap, it will have been worth it. The situation dictates this. And there is a possibility that one or two of them could be Garret Anderson (Schierholtz) or Dan Uggla (Denker) or some other surprise.
I feel that this organization has had a far too quick trigger finger when it has come to giving their semi-prospects chances. It’s very refreshing to see them sticking with a couple of guys for a change. I also want others to get a chance as well. But it should come at the expense of Winn/Castillo/Aurilia/Vizquel, rather than Bowker.
Only 863 games until the end of Zito's contract
by thehavenot on Aug 6, 2008 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Totally agree. If we could somehow shed Aurilia and Winn and play Ishikawa at 1B and Bowker and RF, I’d be all for that, no matter how bearish I am on Bowker. I just don’t see that happening.
Sort of a tangent, but: am I the only Giants fan who’s sort of terrified by guys like Bowker and Nate? We just suffered through years of a third baseman who never walked, but didn’t strike out unaesthetically much; who Sabean credited with hitting 20 homers a year, even though that’s not good in full playing time; who was never projected to be good, and turned out to be… not good. Sabean liked that guy. He kept that guy more than once. Nate and Bowker project to be better than Feliz offensively, but as middling-power, low-walk guys, they’re not entirely different… it worries me. It especially worries me that Bowker’s the one young guy that Sabean’s willing to play… it’s almost like he misses Feliz’s “slap it all around, come what may” approach.
The worst-case scenario with these guys isn’t that they all wash out… if they do, fine. The worst-case scenario also isn’t that none of them ever get a shot… that’d be disappointing, and aesthetically unappealing, but none of them rate to the point where we shouldn’t consider getting better players at those positions, by whatever means.
The worst-case scenario is Sabean falling in love with another crappy player and starting him undeserved year after undeserved year. And I think that’s much more likely to happen with Bowker than Ishikawa. If Ishikawa doesn’t play well in the bigs, it’ll look ugly, and Sabean’ll dump him. But Bowker looks pretty when he doesn’t play well—his swing still looks gorgeous, he still looks like a player. I’m terrified of that. I’d rather see the less aesthetic player get a look, because succeeding is the only way he’d be allowed to stick.
by onlxn on Aug 6, 2008 7:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s funny because the guy who I think represents Schierholtz’s ceiling (Garrett Anderson) pretty much had this happen with him. And it worked out beautifully for the Angels. He kept playing despite sub 100 OPS+ seasons because of his pretty .300+ batting averages. And suddenly he develops power and becomes a valuable outfielder.
That is an unlikely career path to be sure. But it just shows that strange and surprising things happen in all situations. And it gives me hope for Nate.
It’s not a good way to run a ballclub, though. Of course, right now we can afford to trot out these guys. It’s a shame that the organization isn’t.
Only 863 games until the end of Zito's contract
by thehavenot on Aug 7, 2008 8:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let’s not give up on a young hitter with some power after 300 ML PA’s.
I suggest we give up on Castillo instead. He has 2000 ML PA’s, is 4th in the league in GDP, and first in the league in HAS (hacking at slop). He’s playing above his ML averages, but he’s still performing under league average for a CATCHER.
I’m tired of seeing Castillo swing and miss at two sliders an inch off the ground and then weakly kill a rally. He needs to have the “take” sign on every at-bat the rest of his career. If we can’t get anything for Aurilia, play him every day at third or call up Leone.
Bengie Molina: stretching doubles into singles since 1998.
by jasomack on Aug 6, 2008 4:35 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Bowker/Ishikawa
Ish tonight: double to right, home run to left in 4 ABs… no strikeouts. He is not the all-answer to Giant needs, but he is definitely more focused and producing with power. Bring him up … he gives us the best defense at first and the hope for power. Let Bowker compete with the rest of the mob in the outfield and still play some 1b. The two of them will sort out their own careers … but we need that to start happening now and continue in spring training.
by grizzled on Aug 6, 2008 10:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
TI
Let him actually play one good full season in the minors and then he can play with the big boys in September.
by Change Up on Aug 7, 2008 11:49 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It seems so simple, doesn’t it? But this is the San Francisco Giants. That’s not the way we do things around here.
by Evan on Aug 7, 2008 8:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well I thought the current program wa one bad season at “A” ball then a call up. My bad for missing the new memo.
Ivan Ochoa - Heir to the legacy of Rob Andrews & Rikkert Faneyte!
by daveinexile on Aug 8, 2008 7:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- How a Chicago guy learned to love Albert Pujols of St. Louis
- Bud's All-Star tie tops our non-steroid controversies of decade
- D12: Revisiting the Twins decision of Mauer over Prior (again)
- After locking up of AL MVP, it's time for Twins to lock up Mauer
- November means R&R for Raiders fan CC Sabathia and others
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
