Because Bruce Bochy was playing matchups, that’s why

A note in Baggs' blog today made me sick to my stomach, and in the spirit of misanthropy, had to share:

Why Eugenio Velez and not Nate Schierholtz in Sunday’s lineup? Because Bruce Bochy was playing matchups, that’s why.

Who cares who's the better player? It's all about matchups. Who cares that Velez is quite simply terrible, only blessed with a marginal amount of hand-eye coordination and reflexes that enables him to have gotten lucky on the occasional pitch, and only then because he swings so damn much? Who cares that Nate clearly has some actual talent in him, and still has a chance to be a good player for quite some time? Matchups, baby, matchups.

This is not the way to manage during a rebuilding year.

almost 3 years ago Gaahl 25 comments 1 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Seems like Boch needs to learn that he shouldn’t be playing to matchups, but playing to win.

Proud parent of future rookie of the year, Gerald Posey!

by GiantsFanInExile on Apr 12, 2009 8:12 PM PDT reply actions

.265/.296/.412
.278/.311/.397

The first one is Velez’s career line against righties, the second is Nate’s. I looked up this stat expecting to be more outraged, however Nate is the slightly better hitter against righties, and he has more potential, and he is a much better fielder.

For what its worth, Velez is 4/7 against Young, and Nate is 0/8. Huh. I’m much less pissed off than I was before… still… Nate should have started.

by MonkeyChow on Apr 12, 2009 8:14 PM PDT reply actions

8 ABs

Totally legit sample size. WTG Boulderskull

Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl

by Viliphied on Apr 12, 2009 8:18 PM PDT up reply actions

The thing is, Nate is in his age 25 season. Velez is 27. For all (non-official) intents and purposes, they are both still rookies.

Historically, players who break out at 27 tend to completely wash out after that.

Players who bloom at 25 or younger have a significantly higher probability of maintaining a high level of play.

Nate has a potential future. Dude has done well at every level so far, including OPSing well over 900 the last two seasons at AAA.

Eugenio “Really Bad Baseball Player” Velez does not have a potential future beyond possible supersub.

just a sambple of carbon-based wastage

by Gaahl on Apr 12, 2009 8:43 PM PDT up reply actions

do you have a link for that?

I don’t think that’s the best reason for explaining why Velez shouldn’t have started over Schierholtz. I think a simple “Velez sucks balls, while Schierholtz does not” would have worked fine. Schierholtz is better than Velez because he can hit and kinda field, while Velez is only good at running and breathing.

Semi-proud adoptive father of Scott Barnes.

by boonitez on Apr 12, 2009 9:02 PM PDT up reply actions

You know, I don’t have a link about the chances of success downgrading the older they are when they make their debut or have a breakout season. I read about it about 17 years ago in “Baseball Cards” magazine (way better than Beckett), the one that had the Constant Rater as a monthly columnist. They had all sorts of statistics and examples backing them up. It was the year that Jerome Walton and Dwight Smith were a big deal for the Cubs. They essentially discounted Smith because he was 26 or 27, and and predicted longterm success for Walton, who was maybe 23.

But then again, Walton never went on to do much. I think he got injured or something. At any rate, if I had more ready access to a proper database full of historical baseball stats by season, including ages and awards, it would make a very interesting exercise in research.

Actually, that would be sweet. If anyone reads this and knows where I can get a set of loadfiles with the kind of stats bb-ref carries, please let me know. I’ve done a good deal of database development in my day, so I could build that database at home. I’d be happy to run queries if the McCoven had random questions about stats and whatnot, and be happy to pay for the initial data files. SELECT * FROM RANDOM WHERE LOCATION = ‘THIS PARAGRAPH’

And yeah, you’re right. Schierholtz rule, Velez drools gets the point across. There is beauty in conciseness.

just a sambple of carbon-based wastage

by Gaahl on Apr 13, 2009 8:42 PM PDT up reply actions

Nevermind

Just found http://www.baseball1.com/. Wow.

just a sambple of carbon-based wastage

by Gaahl on Apr 13, 2009 9:41 PM PDT up reply actions

I hadn’t thought about this in a while, but I’m wishing we’d hired Bud Black instead.

"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 Apr 12, 2009 8:16 PM PDT reply actions

Manny Acta.

"One percent of ballplayers are leaders of men. The other ninety-nine percent are followers of women."-John McGraw, NY Giants Baseball Club

My adopted son Matt Downs . Ranked as the 24th best prospect in the Giants farm system by Baseball America !!

by nvsfg on Apr 13, 2009 8:23 AM PDT up reply actions

It’s what the smart managers do to win ballgames!

GROUGTHINK ALERT
Chatterbalks dot com: Still with jokes. Now with updates.

by groug on Apr 12, 2009 8:24 PM PDT reply actions

and what the dumb ones do to lose them!

Baseball is a lot like life. The line drives are caught, the squibbles go for base hits. It's an unfair game. -Rod Kanehl. Adopted brother of Jason Jarvis

by j14 on Apr 12, 2009 8:43 PM PDT up reply actions

Damn you groug!

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Apr 12, 2009 10:05 PM PDT up reply actions

I didn't mind that Velez got a start...

My main problem was that he was playing Center Field. Horrible, horrible decision that is inexcusable.

But yeh… I understand the preference for Nate… It’s one of the reasons why I think Velez doesn’t serve much of a purpose on the ML team, especially when his clone with a better glove (Torres) is more useful.

by AmorVincitOmnia on Apr 12, 2009 8:46 PM PDT reply actions

This. But if Bochey had put him in the corners, I don’t think he could have justified sitting Scheir. In his head, speed=defence, so Velez is the better CF option than Nate!

by MonkeyChow on Apr 13, 2009 6:10 AM PDT up reply actions

Hear! Hear!!

It’s one of the reasons why I think Velez doesn’t serve much of a purpose on the ML team

Unless nate is too hurt to be playing any contest for spare playing time between those 2 Nate should be winning.

Where is my beer & chili dog?

by daveinexile on Apr 13, 2009 7:15 AM PDT up reply actions

Play Herbie!

He plays bad, but because he’s reeeeeeeeeeally fast he can make bonehead plays at thrice the rate of mere mortals.

Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti. "I treat Timmy differently from most pitchers: I leave him alone."

by natteringnabob on Apr 12, 2009 9:25 PM PDT reply actions

Really?

Cause this is the quote that pissed me off:

I asked Bochy about the tradeoff between getting the ideal matchups vs. putting the best defensive team behind Lincecum. Bochy went on to explain that he really felt Velez looked comfortable in center field this spring.

When did he ever look comfortable out there? What does that even mean? Was he out there saying “Man, I love these shoes, they are so comfy.”?

by scout6 on Apr 12, 2009 10:06 PM PDT reply actions

Gelling like Magellan.

VAE PVTO DEVS FIO

by Bhaakon on Apr 12, 2009 10:11 PM PDT up reply actions

Did Velez get picked off?

VICTORY!

FIRE BRIAN SABEAN... UNLESS HE KEEPS DRAFTING WELL. .. AND SIGNS UNDERRATED PLAYERS LIKE AFFELDT OR PHELPS. .. OR ALRIGHT WHO'S PLAYING WITH THE ALIEN MIND-SWITCHING RAY?
-------
PARPG- Indy post-apocalyptic roleplaying game currently in early planning stages.

by zenbitz on Apr 12, 2009 10:24 PM PDT reply actions

So, why did we keep Torres again?

at least he can play CF, right?

Bonds stands alone.

Proud adopted parent of future big league slugger Thomas Neal
Official Sponsor of the 1997 San Francisco Giants

by nostocksjustbonds on Apr 12, 2009 11:28 PM PDT reply actions

It’s not looking good for Schierholtz, is it? I mean, unless Bochy gets fired sometime this season (highly unlikely), he’s just decided Nate can’t play, for whatever reason (certainly not large sample size evidence), and won’t play the kid regularly enough for him to get in a comfortable rhythm. It’s really frustrating.

My plans for 2009: getting married and attending Tim Lincecum Bobblehead Day.

by Kitspool on Apr 13, 2009 9:11 AM PDT reply actions

Yeah. I think you hit the nail on he head, here.

co-dad of IshikaBOOM w/AfDC.
Ishikawa, let the boy hit against lefties.

by kennv on Apr 13, 2009 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions

Seriously, at least play him often enough to prove us wrong.

by Merope on Apr 13, 2009 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions

Agreed

We’ve all seen this movie before. Maybe Niekro, Bowker, Linden, etc. weren’t the greatest talaents of our generation, but I never felt like any of those guys got a fair shot. Not enough consistent, consecutive playing time for any of them. You need to give rookies a chance to play through slumps, to take their lumps, and learn what it takes to be a ballplayer. Look at what most teams who have successfully rebuilt over the last decade or two have done (Rays, Indians, to a lesser extent Texas and Florida). They suck it up, admit to losing for a year or two, and let those guys learn how to win together.

That hasn’t seemed to happen for the Giants. This is the first year I’ve felt some sense of hope about our direction with regard to youth. Ishikawa, Sandoval, Burriss, and Lewis being in the starting lineup on most days is freaking fantastic. Throw in all the young pitchers and reserves, and even though we lose, it’s a hell of a lot of fun to watch these guys out there. And conversely, I die a little bit inside every time I see Aurillia or Velez, or any of the other handful of no-future players get a start without good reason of the kids.

just a sambple of carbon-based wastage

by Gaahl on Apr 13, 2009 8:57 PM PDT up reply actions