Is Belt the Left Handed bat they need?
by lexluth7 on Jul 30, 2010 8:40 AM PDT
Email
Print
I assume that the Giants are not going to pick up a bat. Dunn is the only reported name worth pursuing and the cost will be too high.
Right now, I have no confidence that Pablo will turn things around. Forget his BA. Bad as it is, the real issue is his Slg PCT. Dismal. Around .270 for his last 65 games. That's Johnnie Lemaster territory. I'm not about to give up on a 24 year old that hit .330 over a season. But THIS YEAR looks lost for Pablo. This offseason will be key. Either he decides to lose weight and work on his craft or he will be a one year wonder.
He has to sit if he doesn't turn things around quickly. That opens up things for Uribe at third. First base now would be Ishi against right handers. But I don't anticipate that he will continue his success.
That brings me finally to the question I led with. Is Brandon Belt ready now? I know its been a short time in the minors. But he's ripping it up. He has always been a contact guy and now he's a contact guy with power. I haven't seen him. I know some have.
If Pablo continues to struggle, Ishi falters and the Giants don't get Dunn - three real possibilities- then perhaps Belt gets the call.
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.
132 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I'm in this line
Roll the dice. Inexpensively.
"Row(and) will come out of this. You stay with your guys and he is one of our guys." - Bruce Bochy 05-31-10
"...and with Titanic's transverse bulkheads and watertight doors, it renders this vessel practically unsinkable." - "Shipbuilder" magazine, 1912
I'm Dubious
I’d be worried about rushing a promising prospect up as a “let’s hope this works” solution to needing a hitter. I’m really happy he’s doing so well in the minors right now, because I do believe it’s a clear indicator that he’ll be able to progress to being productive in the majors.
But the thought of throwing him right into the pressure cooker that is a major-league playoff race worries me. I’m not usually one that advocates tossing someone into a lake to find out if they can swim, and putting Belt in SF this early would kind of equate to that, to me.
I came, I saw, I told bad jokes and left.
Sorry....
2011, maybe 2012. He still seems to struggle with the inside fastball and his K rate is up at AA. Bowker is a better option for a left-handed bat.
Giants best trade option: Bowker for Rowand
He's also not walking as much in AA, which concerns me a bit as well.
Not to say that his walk rate is bad, but it’s a lot more ‘normal’…
by AmorVincitOmnia on Jul 30, 2010 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions
Bowker is mort.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
I think Belt played in LF last night
Kinda weird that they moved him out there a day before the trade deadline. Maybe they wanted to showcase him?
Either this means he’s a poor defender at first or there is a plan to put someone else at first when he’seventually brought up. Maybe there is a plan for a trade this season or the next. Huff won’t be moved to first because doing so would still leave a hole in the outfield unless you think Rowand can fill it. Maybe it’s just for the purpose of seeing if he can be used like Huff to move around according to Bochy’s desire on any given day. This does seem like more than a coincidence if they plan on bringing him up this year. If a trade isn’t made, I hope he is brought up because he’s tearing it up right now in the minors.
And the plot thickens…
Either this means he’s a poor defender at first or there is a plan to put someone else at first when he’seventually brought up. Maybe there is a plan for a trade this season or the next. Huff won’t be moved to first because doing so would still leave a hole in the outfield unless you think Rowand can fill it.
Belt in LF again tonight. The awesome player that took 1B for Richmond and pushed Belt to LF was the awesome once light hitting SS, now .200 hitting 1B, Scharlon Schoop.
Clearly this is a case of Belt getting a tryout in LF for whatever reason, not a player pushing him out of his spot. And from all reports Belt is an all-world defender at 1B. Looks like they are either showing him to another org, or are testing him in LF to see if he could be used there by either Fresno or SF.
Q: Did you ever make an offer for Vladimir Guerrero?
Sabean: In a word: No. If we had signed Guerrero or [Gary] Sheffield, we would have been without [Long list of replacement level vets]—obviously not being able to field a competitive team, especially from an experience standpoint, given our level of spending.
by Cody_ransom on Jul 30, 2010 11:30 PM PDT up reply actions
or are testing him in LF to see if he could be used there by either Fresno or SF.
It could be that, according to Baggs:
From what I understand, it’s not necessarily a showcase move. I think the Giants are assessing whether Belt could help on the major league roster in the near future. In either case, people are intrigued in the former Texas Longhorn. He’s made himself into a top prospect in Sandovallian time.
by most accounts, Belt is a very good defensive player at 1b.
Neal before Zod!
Official Sponsor of the 1997 San Francisco Giants
by nostocksjustbonds on Jul 31, 2010 12:15 AM PDT up reply actions
Best in the org
which is saying something because Pill is also very good with the glove
Proud father of Mike Krukow (who is more than 3 times my age)
Grab Some Pine, Meat
Still cheering for Kevin Frandsen
John Bowker: One of the 3 best OF's on the Giants roster
I think they may have just needed OF help
Richmond only has 3 healthy OFs on the roster at the moment (Neal, Ford Timpner). Boyer, Lormand, and even Sharlon Schoop have all spent some time in the outfield this last week.
"I don’t think I’ve ever heard a louder chorus of boos than when the Dodgers made the third out of the ninth. It was awesome.." - Aubrey Huff
maybe
but I don’t think they’d want to risk one of their better prospects to fill a void.
Neal before Zod!
Official Sponsor of the 1997 San Francisco Giants
by nostocksjustbonds on Jul 31, 2010 12:16 AM PDT up reply actions
FTFY
Is Belt theLeft Handed batOn Base Machine they need?
Yes. I wouldn’t mind seeing the cyborg version of, uhhhhh, JT Snow
Tommy Joseph is the Dingerzball Wizard
No
2012 at the earliest, imo. But then I prefer bringing along prospects a little too slowly.
Belt’s MLE for 2010 is .275/.341/.444, which is pretty darned good for a hitter in his first pro season.
Bowker’s MLE for 2010 is .283/.346/.497, for 2009, .288/.376/.466 — both better.
I could see 2011. I don’t see the point right now. I don’t expect Ishikawa to hit as well as he has so far this year, but I don’t think Belt’s MLE suggests he’ll be a meaningful upgrade over Ishikawa.
Bad as it is, the real issue is his Slg PCT. Dismal. Around .270 for his last 65 games. That’s Johnnie Lemaster territory. I’m not about to give up on a 24 year old that hit .330 over a season. But THIS YEAR looks lost for Pablo.
Yes, I think your observation of the past is accurate (though ISO is better than SLG as a measure of power). The next step is figuring out what that past performance tells us about the future, though. “He hasn’t hit this year so he won’t hit” isn’t really that meaningful – you have to figure out why he hasn’t hit, and whether or not that tells us much about what to expect in the future. Zips thinks he’ll rebound for a .361 wOBA and .174 ISO (compared to .226 last year and .118 so far this year) over the rest of the season. I think it’s reasonable to conclude he should get some power back – I don’t see any reason to think is just completely disappeared out of nowhere in a 23 year old, though it does seem reasonable to think it should be worse than last year. His plate discipline numbers seem fairly close to last year, he’s not being pitched differently, his batted ball profile is essentially the same (other than HR/FB, indicating his power is way down like we already know)….I don’t see a reason to think his lost power is permanent….
by Missing Barry on Jul 30, 2010 9:22 AM PDT up reply actions
I know Zips has predicted that he will rebound, but so far that is not happening. I don’t think his down season means he will never hit well again, but it is concerning. Who knows? Maybe the power we saw last years is not indicative of Pablo’s true power level.
by Squire_Boone on Jul 30, 2010 9:29 AM PDT up reply actions
so far that is not happening
And that happens, and it should revise the future projection down to some degree, but it’s not all that unexpected. Basically, that it hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean it won’t happen – it’s like flipping a coin and getting heads 5 times in a row, eventually you expect to get tails, even if it hasn’t happened yet.
Maybe the power we saw last years is not indicative of Pablo’s true power level.
Now this is something I agree on. I think we have to think less of him than we did at this time last year – that’s how sampling works. That said, just like this year makes us think less of him than if we just had last years data, last years data means we should think more of him than if we just had this years data. He’s probably somewhere in between.
by Missing Barry on Jul 30, 2010 9:39 AM PDT up reply actions
(though ISO is better than SLG as a measure of power)
and PF is better than ISO. (I REALLY don’t like that ISO is BA dependent)
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
What’s PF and how’s it calculated? I remember reading something about how ISO is BA dependent, but I forget how, and it seemed minor to me. That’s my issue with SLG, since BA is such a big part of it.
by Missing Barry on Jul 30, 2010 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions
power factor
TB / H.
Here’s how ISO is BA dependent: Imagine 2 players who, every time they get a hit, hit home runs with the exact same true distance. You’d say they both have the same amount of raw power, right? Now imagine player A has a BA of .500, and player B has a BA of .250. A would have a SLG of 2.000, and thus an ISO of 1.500, while B would have a SLG of 1.000 and thus an ISO of .750.
Obviously that situation would never actually happen, but it does make players with good power and contact skills look more powerful than players with good power and bad contact skills.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
PF does make sense. As for iso, I’m getting the same sense I had before – that realistically, that problem is going to be small. Can you come up with a scenario using realistic inputs where it still seems like a problem?
For SLG, it’s easy – .315 hitter with .456 SLG v .250 hitter with .472 SLG (Derek Jeter v Pat Burrell), but ISO we’re talking about .140 v .219 – obviously a big difference in power…..
I was going to give the PF for each, but it doesn’t appear to be on Fangraphs or BB-Ref, so honestly, I’m probably not going to adopt it for that reason….
by Missing Barry on Jul 30, 2010 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions
it's pretty easy to calc. on BBRef, but fangraphs doesn't have TB #s for some reason
you’re right, in most cases that the difference is going to be small. The bigger problem mostly comes from comparing a player to themselves, rather than comparing two players. If a player has a fluky high BA season (we’ve all seen those), judging their power just by ISO could lead you to conclude that they had an actual jump in power that season, whether or not that’s actually the case.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
What I don’t get regarding any calculation using TB is an issue of triples. Triples are often a situation that’s dependent less on power and more on speed. For a lot of guys, a triple is the result of a double they can stretch, or hitting essentially a double to just the right spot, or a double that’s misplayed. A triple rarely is the result of more power. So is it just figured that triples are such a low total comparative to other hits that it’s essentially irrelevant?
Just curious what the general thinking is on this. If I’m just being dumb, feel free to say it.
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
well, you can say the same thing about doubles too
how many times did we watch Molina stretch a double into a single over the last 2 years? Actual “power” power (IE Not just HR power) is dependent both on how hard a player can hit the ball, how fast they are, and how well they run the bases.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
For me, I’m just concerned about how many bases they’re taking. Whether it’s by hitting the ball hard/far (what you’re calling power), or because it’s in the gap and they’re fast, doesn’t really matter. On a triple, all runs are going to score, so it’s not like one type of triple is better than another or anything – 3 bases is 3 bases regardless. On a double it might make a slight difference – a Bengie Molina double should score the guy from first every day whereas a Carl Crawford/Andrew McCutcheon/Andres Torres double might not, but I’m thinking it’s pretty negligible.
Anyways, back to the point – what’s important is the number of bases you take, however that comes about.
by Missing Barry on Jul 30, 2010 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions
I believe the current thinking is that doubles and triples should be treated as the same thing, powerwise. The difference between them is almost entirely one of speed and park layout.
I’m not sure what you mean by treated the same? They definitely don’t result in the same run value….
by Missing Barry on Jul 30, 2010 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions
A player who has 26 doubles and 13 triples should not be considered to have more “power” than a player who has 38 doubles and 1 triple.
why not?
as I stated above, speed is certainly a component of power.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
So is batting average, but you seem to be trying to extract that. Personally, I’d forget about total bases and just look at home run rate if I want to measure a player’s power.
no it's not
but then again, to me, the definition of power is essentially PF.
In determining offensive value, I basically would ask 3 questions:
1) How often do you get a hit? (Contact ability)
2) When you get a hit, how many bases do you get? (Power)
3) When you don’t get a hit, how often do you get on base anyways via walks? (Patience)
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
Another way to look at that:
Walks rate signifies ability to select pitches to swing at.
Hits rate signifies ability to make good contact with pitches selected for swinging at.
Power factor signifes ability to drive balls with which good contact has been made.
I think that’s closer to the natural progression of abilities: select, hit, drive.
Professional baseball analyst since 1980.
I don’t see why not, either. All I’m really interested in is the number of bases they’re getting. The output is what wins games, what Evan is talking about is the input, which is only important in the outcomes it produces…
by Missing Barry on Jul 30, 2010 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions
I guess it’s a difference in definition of power. Most tend to think of Slugging (or PF, or perhaps even ISO) as a measure of power hitting ability – which seems to be kind of implied in the name – but you and Viliphied are suggesting it’s more a measure of a player’s full game.
What you’re suggesting definitely makes sense, and it puts it into better perspective, I think. Thanks for the insight!
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
I like contact ISO
But it’s a bigger pain to calculate than PF and probably not worth the hassle (though I should probably make a cISO spreadsheet)
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
McFAQ for all you newcomers out there.
Bowker or Guzman would be better options.
Fathaigh go mbuaimid!
I AM PAT BURRELLZ'Z DADDY! (wait, that doesn't sound right)
by bigboneded on Jul 30, 2010 9:05 AM PDT via mobile reply actions
Yeah
I’d rather see a Bowker/Burrell platoon in LF
Proudly adopted Aubrey Huff. You can't beat that!
it just seems so obvious.
Neal before Zod!
Official Sponsor of the 1997 San Francisco Giants
by nostocksjustbonds on Jul 30, 2010 9:42 AM PDT up reply actions
For a manager who seems so entranced by lefty/righty matchup concerns, Bochy seems strangely reluctant to set up any official (or even semiofficial) platoons.
obvious and Bork don’t mix.
Neal before Zod!
Official Sponsor of the 1997 San Francisco Giants
by nostocksjustbonds on Jul 31, 2010 12:18 AM PDT up reply actions
FORGET BOWKER
People keep screaming Bowker Bowker Bowker. We can scream until we are more than blue in the face. All that matters is that the current Giants brass does not believe in the guy. We can do and will disagree with their assessment. But Bowker is not happening here. Whether its a big mistake or not will be determined later. If the Giants do make any trade I hope (partly for his sake) that he’s part of it.
He has put up huge numbers for quite a while in the Minors. He had a monster spring. Yet he isn’t in their plans.
I don’t know why. I suspect they feel he has too many holes in his swing. It’s obvious they consider him AAAA.
Bottom line – I assume Bowker is not part of any equation. Cause that is the decision that has been made and we can’t change it.
Thus I look for different scenarios.
I agree, but....
If we all stopped bitching about stupid things the Giants’ brass does, we’d have considerably less to talk about. Also, sometimes when we bitch about things for long enough they wind up happening (See: Gerald D. Posey), probably not because of said bitching, but you never know. I wouldn’t be surprised in the least to learn that Sabes, or Bobby Evans or someone else in the FO trolls here regularly.
Giants best trade option: Bowker for Rowand
by Giant Torture on Jul 30, 2010 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions
No.
I will bitch about the team not making the right decisions. I am not just gonna say “Oh well” and move on.If we keep screaming, there is a chance something might happen (albeit a small one)
Proud Adoptive Parent of Jesus Guzman, RHP. 2010 Line: 0 H, 2 BB, 0.00 ERA. CALL HIM UP!
Bochy: What’s this fancy stat here?
IT Guy: That’s how often they get on base. I do not know why you keep asking me, I am here to fix your server.
I have to say, as someone who generally leads the “burn Sabean/Bochy at the stake” charge, I’m very happy with how we’re playing, where we are right now, and our chances to make the playoffs. Content to the point where I can overlook a bad decision here or there and overall I think most decisions in the present are good…..
by Missing Barry on Jul 30, 2010 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions
I saw you say this the other day in another thread
…and felt like going into a major Sabean/Bochy rant just to provide balance in the universe
Proudly adopted Aubrey Huff. You can't beat that!
Bitch all you want
I certainly do. My point is that Bowker is not part of the Giants equation so I’m throwing out other ones.
No
Just because the Giants refuse to see a solution staring them in the face doesn’t mean I will ignore it as well. Anytime anyone asks “What should the Giants do?”/“How can we get a left-handed bat with pop?” I will mention Bowker. Because they should promote him, and they should play him. It’s not about getting them to pay attention (I seriously doubt they care), it’s about giving the right answer to a question; when someone asks you what two plus two equals, you say four, and if they say no, give me another answer, you stick to your guns, because you’re right.
Ain't no Posey like a Buster Posey cause a Buster Posey don't stop...hitting.
Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to do that (TM)
Counter-point
Offensively, I think the team has decided to sit tight unless a significant opportunity to upgrade comes along.
If the team’s search for a “left-handed bat with pop” means they’ve been looking at trying to land a DeJesus, Dunn or Fielder, then I think it means they’re looking for a major offensive upgrade. Like him or not, does anyone really think he’s in the same conversation as those guys?
If they’d dealt for Podsednik, then I think you’ve got a legitimate complaint.
Proudly adopted Aubrey Huff. You can't beat that!
They're going in hard on Bautista
Who hits right-handed, but the focus seems to be on power, not on an all-around good hitter, which DeJesus, Dunn, and Fielder are. Bowker certainly has power, and he hits left-handed, so he seems an even better fit than Bautista, considering the reports I’m hearing keep saying that the Giants think they need (or would prefer) another lefty bat, and the reason they’re going after Bautista, even though he hits right-handed, is because he’s a power hitter. Now the question becomes, do we think that John Bowker is a better hitter than Jose Bautista, and I absolutely believe that he is. I don’t think he’s going to hit as many home runs as Bautista will this year, but I don’t think that Bautista will hit as many home runs as he has this year ever again. And this is before considering the fact that Bowker’s true upgrade is Bowker+whomever we keep as a result of not trading for Bautista.
I think they would (have) like(d) to land DeJesus, Dunn, or Fielder, but the first is hurt, the second is too expensive, and the third is apparently off the market. If they are looking at Bautista as an offensive upgrade, then I argue that Bowker is a better option, though I will concede that I’d rather have the bat of any of those other three, if not Dunn’s defense.
Ain't no Posey like a Buster Posey cause a Buster Posey don't stop...hitting.
Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to do that (TM)
They may not believe in Bowker...
…but if they decide they need help from the minors this year, I would bet a lot of money on Bowker getting called up before Belt.
"I don’t think I’ve ever heard a louder chorus of boos than when the Dodgers made the third out of the ninth. It was awesome.." - Aubrey Huff
by EliminateMe on Jul 30, 2010 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions
I think mid 2011
Not because I would promote Belt at that time, but because I know that if Belt continues to hit well and show progress early in 2011, he’ll probably be called up at a similar point in the season as Posey.
2012 seems too late for me, especially if Belt continues to hit well.
I think mid 2011
Not because I would promote Belt at that time, but because I know that if Belt continues to hit well and show progress early in 2011, he’ll probably be called up at a similar point in the season as Posey.
2012 seems too late for me, especially if Belt continues to hit well.
if he keeps hitting this well for the rest of this year and in early 2011, then he’ll force the issue and get a callup.
Neal before Zod!
Official Sponsor of the 1997 San Francisco Giants
by nostocksjustbonds on Jul 30, 2010 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions
I’m not sure that’s true. 1B hitting is expected to be substantially better than C hitting, and ‘this well’ is not substantially better than Posey’s hitting was at callup. Assuming the team is consistent, he would have to be hitting better than this at a higher level in 2011 to force a callup.
Isn’t Belt also thought of as a good defensive 1B?
by Missing Barry on Jul 30, 2010 10:03 AM PDT up reply actions
Isn’t Pill supposed to be really good defensively, too (even if he’s not much of a hitter)?
by Missing Barry on Jul 30, 2010 10:12 AM PDT up reply actions
yeah
I remember people saying last year Pill = RH Ishi
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
Irrelevant
The issue is not how one stacks up against the position in the rest of the league. it is how one stacks up against competition in the organization. Right now, Belt is obviously the top 1B prospect in the org. I’m not saying he’s Prince Fielder. I just think he’s probably a significantly better prospect than Travis Ishikawa.
He’s a better prospect than Travis Ishikawa long term, but if you’re saying he’d “probably” be “significantly” more productive than Ishikawa in the final 8 weeks of this season I’d have to disagree. There’s no good reason to expect that.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
You very well may be right
I hope Ishi keeps hitting. I just think he’s likely to drop off quite a bit. History and all that.
Yes, I think you’re right, but I think the point is even when Ishi drops off much closer to his career line he’s still going to provide a very similar amount of value as what we should expect out of Belt, given how little time is left in the season.
by Missing Barry on Jul 30, 2010 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions
I posted this in the Minor Lines, but I’ll repeat myself here. Upon moving up from A+ to AA Belt’s BB rate has declined from 21% to 8%, and his BB/K from 112% to 40%. In other words, though his transition to the upper minors has been extremely successful, it hasn’t been entirely without some growing pains and he’s much better off staying in AA and working on his game then suddenly being yanked into a major league pennant race and being asked to contribute significantly against major league pitching.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
I think so, too. Pretty much anytime a guy has less than ~1.5 seasons in the upper minors, unless he’s truly a special talent, I believe he has PLENTY he can work on to keep his development going at a high rate.
by Missing Barry on Jul 30, 2010 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Belt is hitting at a very high level. Sure, he probably can’t sustain .670 slugging for the remainder of the year and the first part of next year in AAA, but if he’s getting on base and hitting or a high avg w/ good pop (even if it’s “doubles power”) I don’t see why the Giants wouldn’t bring him up unless they’ve filled 1b with a real serious offensive threat or if Travis ever figures it out. Otherwise, its not like he’s really being blocked at this point.
Neal before Zod!
Official Sponsor of the 1997 San Francisco Giants
by nostocksjustbonds on Jul 31, 2010 12:27 AM PDT up reply actions
September callup
I wouldn’t mind seeing him get a september callup, but typically, those guys don’t play much in the midst of a pennant race.
Neal before Zod!
Official Sponsor of the 1997 San Francisco Giants
by nostocksjustbonds on Jul 30, 2010 9:44 AM PDT reply actions
Brandon Belt Played Left Field last night.
If he learning to play the outfield, it might portend to him being called up. Gives him more versatility.
B
O
W
K
E
R
Proud Adoptive Parent of Jesus Guzman, RHP. 2010 Line: 0 H, 2 BB, 0.00 ERA. CALL HIM UP!
Bochy: What’s this fancy stat here?
IT Guy: That’s how often they get on base. I do not know why you keep asking me, I am here to fix your server.
What’s with all the love for Uribe, but disgust for Panda?
Uribe’s July:
.231/.274.385, 2 HR
Uribe’s June/July:
.237.296/.435, 7 HR
Uribe’s May through July:
.245/.310/.443, 12 HR
Pablo’s been not great this season, and he’s been really pretty bad the last few months, but it’s not exactly like Uribe has been playing like the solution we should all be pining for. A hot start, and a very not hot rest of the season doesn’t inspire me to think he’s going to outperform Sandoval enough the rest of the way. Heck, Uribe’s only had 6 XBH in July, Sandoval had 5.
I’d rather Pablo continue to get playing time this year. You never know, maybe he’ll be embarrassed enough and have so little job security that next year’s Camp Panda will actually be successful. My personal opinion on it is there’s probably more to gain long term by having Sandoval get most of the playing time at third this year than there is having Uribe take at bats from him.
Sorry, I know I’m making this point with no regard for the rest of your post… just wanted to point out that the difference between Pablo and Uribe this year really isn’t all THAT favorable for Uribe.
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
Pablo hitting for NO power at all.
None. .270 slugging over his last 65 games. I believe he has something like 6 extra base hits over than span.
I love Pablo. No one is rooting harder. Something is wrong. Eyes? Weight? Holes? Or perhaps he’s got a lot on his mind and its affecting his play. These guys are human beings.
I have no great love for Uribe. He’s streaky beyond belief and he’s got some pop. But he’s basically a grip and rip guy and those drive me nuts. (OT a bit – I REALLY don’t like it when Bochy has Uribe and Sandoval following each other in the order. Way too possible that there is a two pitch two out scenario)
I’m not giving up on Pablo. But I’m getting close to thinking this is a lost season for him. It happens. I have no reason to doubt his ability to rebound. He hit .340 for a season and a half. You don’t do that as a fluke.
he broke up that no-hitter one time...
We don't have to improve our ability to get people on base to improve our offense. If we sign FAs with decent RBI totals they will bring those RBIs with them. Its science. Or magic. We aren't exactly sure. The IT department hasn't responded to our telegram. --Sabean's offseason master plan
Pablo isn’t hitting with any power and that is the most disturbing thing about his current slump. lexluth7 your not the only one who is pissed seeing Pablo and Uribe hit back to back in the lineup. Up untill recently Uribe had been struggling. So essentially Bochy was batting two automatic outs back to back. I hope Uribe can continue to stay hot because the team really needs his bat. I’m fine with having one free swinger in the lineup but two is very damaging to the teams chances of winning.
Uribe hit well last year
But nothing like what Pablo did, and in less playing time. Sandoval is the anchor of the Giants’ offense (or was, before Huff and Torres); Uribe is good for quite a few dingers from a utility guy, but he won’t get on base much and he won’t hit for average. Pablo does (did) those things with the power.
Ain't no Posey like a Buster Posey cause a Buster Posey don't stop...hitting.
Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to do that (TM)
If you'd told me before the season started that Pablo would be the 4th best hitter on the team and the Giants would be in the thick of the post-season chase
I’d have said you’re nuts
Proudly adopted Aubrey Huff. You can't beat that!
JRPhillips are you advocating Pablo continue to play even if he doesn’t improve?
PLEASE REMEMBER that the goal is to win. They should, if they can, get someone in there who can improve their chances of winning this season.
I’m sure Pablo is already embarrassed to the point of being willing to do what it takes to improve. I read an article that quoted Bochy as saying that Pablo has been working his butt off to improve his game. Something is fundamentally wrong with him. We just aren’t privy to that information.
Yes, you play Pablo even if he doesn’t improve. You know why?
They should, if they can, get someone in there who can improve their chances of winning this season.
Exactly. Not being able to know the future, we have to make our best guess as to what’s going to happen. The best bet, which is made to “improve their chances of winning this season”, is on Pablo.
by Missing Barry on Jul 30, 2010 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions
I didn’t say they should stop playing Pablo. I asked whether JRPhillips thinks he should keep playing even if his performance doesn’t improve this season because that seemed to be what he was advocating in his post.
I want Pablo to return to form like everyone else but it seems like some people are forgetting that winning is the most important thing.
And as I commented below, the choice is essentially more playing time for Sandoval, or more playing time for Ishikawa, Uribe, Rowand, or Schierholtz. Sandoval still gives us a better chance to win than any of them do.
So if winning is still the most important thing, then Sandoval gets most of the PT over those guys. And I agree with Missing Barry’ assessment of lineup matches below too. So there you go.
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
Yes, he should keep playing.
"I just struck out looking three times, but in any other ballpark those would have been home runs." - Aubrey Huff
by howtheyscored on Jul 30, 2010 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions
I vote with Missing Barry and Howtheyscored. Yes, keep playing him. He can get days off, but I’d give him the majority of playing time.
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
The oddest thing about the notion of replacing Sandoval is that even if you replace him at third, he’s a better option to play first. Ishikawa has been productive since he began getting regular playing time back in early July, but since his average was at its highest point on July 11th, Ishikawa’s been a .200/.250/.233 hitter. Small sample size applies, but I don’t think anyone expects Ishikawa to be a .300 hitter for the remainder of the season, probably not even Bochy.
So if Uribe starts playing at third, Sandoval will just get more at bats at first. If Uribe takes over at third and Huff moves back to first, we’re looking at an outfield rotation of Torres/Rowand/Burrell/Schierholtz. Are ANY of these options better?
And if the Giants acquire a third baseman (not likely), they’ll probably move Pablo to first. If they acquire a first baseman, they’ll likely leave Pablo at third, or just platoon him with Uribe, who has also been bad after a hot start.
Pretty much, anything the Giants do to improve the team this year, we’re probably still going to see Pablo on the field because he’s a better option – both short term and long term – than Ishikawa, Uribe, Rowand, or Schierholtz. And probably even Burrell.
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
Just an off the top of my head thought – our best lineup might be:
Rowand in CF against LHP, Torres CF against RHP.
Torres RF against LHP, Schierholtz RF against RHP.
Burrell LF against LHP, Huff LF against RHP.
Huff 1B against LHP, Ishikawa 1B against RHP.
Then Sanchez, Rent, and Uribe rotating at MIF, and Pablo at 3B with someone filling in for him against LHP if he ever needs a rest.
Effectively it’s a Schierholtz/Rowand platoon and Ishikawa/Burrell platoon. On the road v LHP, Rowand can play RF and Torres CF, but at home I really don’t mind seeing Torres playing RF instead of CF.
by Missing Barry on Jul 30, 2010 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions
I actually like what Bochy has been doing with Burrell and Huff
The offense/defense platoon makes more sense than a lefty/righty platoon.
Burrell still has a 118 OPS+ for the Giants. He should be in there more than against just LHP.
I would have said this prior to Saturday’s HR, btw
Proudly adopted Aubrey Huff. You can't beat that!
Uribe is clutch
He gets the big hit usually when it means we are shooting for the tie or the lead. Hopefully Pablo will heat up the rest of the way through the stretch drive.
I'm a fan of getting prospects up to the majors early.
I’m not sure what the stats are, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see that players who were called up early usually work out better than the players who ‘came along slowly’ in the minor leagues.
Or that could just be that my view is messed up because of Nate Schierholtz, Todd Linden, and John Bowker spending so much time in the minors and ending up being duds… Whereas all the biggest young players the Giants have had came up right in the midst of 1) a tear in the minor leagues (Pablo Sandoval) or 2) they just simply didn’t spend much time in the minor leagues at all (Will Clark, Tim Lincecum, Buster Posey)
Also.. I just don’t see how it actually ‘hurts’ a player, as long as it is done correctly… For instance, you don’t bork the player. If he struggles, you stick with him through thick and thin. You don’t send him down or bench him after 90 sparse rough AB’s. You give him the Justin Smoak treatment.
The best stuff and most valuable stuff to learn is at the major league level. And keeping a guy in the minor leagues for an extended period of time runs the risk of having that player acquiring bad habits.
Also.. I just don’t see how it actually ‘hurts’ a player, as long as it is done correctly… For instance, you don’t bork the player. If he struggles, you stick with him through thick and thin. You don’t send him down or bench him after 90 sparse rough AB’s. You give him the Justin Smoak treatment.
The best stuff and most valuable stuff to learn is at the major league level. And keeping a guy in the minor leagues for an extended period of time runs the risk of having that player acquiring bad habits.With that said, I still wouldn’t agree with sending up Brandon Belt this season. I think he needs some time in AAA. If he keeps up this pace, or something similar, I’d be down with seeing him by mid-2011.
by AmorVincitOmnia on Jul 30, 2010 11:52 AM PDT reply actions
uh
Or that could just be that my view is messed up because of Nate Schierholtz, Todd Linden, and John Bowker spending so much time in the minors and ending up being duds…
You don’t send him down or bench him after 90 sparse rough AB’s.
You are contradicting yourself.
Proud Adoptive Parent of Jesus Guzman, RHP. 2010 Line: 0 H, 2 BB, 0.00 ERA. CALL HIM UP!
Bochy: What’s this fancy stat here?
IT Guy: That’s how often they get on base. I do not know why you keep asking me, I am here to fix your server.
John Bowker
sent down this year after 90 sparse rough ABs
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
I know.
How did I contradict myself?
by AmorVincitOmnia on Jul 30, 2010 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Your calling those guys duds
When they had sparse ABs
by Artimus Clyde on Jul 30, 2010 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions
He's been a dud.
Doesn’t mean that he has no upside. And I certainly didn’t claim that much.
by AmorVincitOmnia on Jul 30, 2010 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions
I’m not sure what the stats are, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see that players who were called up early usually work out better than the players who ‘came along slowly’ in the minor leagues.
Well, you have to figure the cause and effect here. yes, the players who are called up early usually work out better, you’re completely right. The reason for that is simply that the more talented players get called up earlier because, well, they’re more talented. A guy like Cabrera was in his third season by age 23 posting a 151 OPS+….because he’s really, really talented. Hanley Ramirez, Jason Heyward, etc. On the other hand, guys like Schierholtz, Bowker, Linden….they just aren’t the same class of talents.
The problem is, I’m not sure that sheds any light on what the best strategy for an individual of talent level X is. Here are some of my thoughts:
1. There is some stuff that you just can’t improve all that much until you get to a higher level – for example, the minors just aren’t filled with MLB caliber pitching (because all MLB caliber pitching is in MLB), so eventually you need to work against that level of competition.
2. Being rushed can hurt a players development – if he’s overmatched, he may be forming bad habits just trying to compensate for being overmatched. Example – a guy makes it to MLB but is striking out a lot because of how good the pitching is. His adjustment will be to try to start making contact, but that might mean he’s not working on his plate discipline, or his swing gets messed up and he loses his power because he’s just trying so hard to hit the ball, etc.
3. A guy can always improve by playing in the minors – repetitions are repetitions, there are always skills to work on. If he’s ready for another level but there isn’t a spot for him, maybe he won’t improve AS MUCH at the lower level as he would the higher level, but he should still improve to some degree.
4. Money matters. Teams should try to maximize their return on investment, which, in some cases, might mean letting a guy linger too long in the minors so you get as much production as possible during his cost controlled years at the MLB level. If you bring him up too early, you risk losing years of cost/team control without getting as much production as in another scenario.
This isn’t a comprehensive list, there are lots of variables at play, and it’s impossible to know all of them. Each individual is also, well, an individual, so a plan that works for one might not work for another. When talking about Belt, he has all of 73 AB’s above Single-A. He’s still 22. I don’t see a need to rush him. If he hits for the next two months the way he has been so far at AA, move him to AAA next year. Eventually, we bring him up when we feel he really gives us an upgrade – could be next year if he continues tearing up the minors and basically forces his way onto the team, or it could wait until the following year (probably with a Sep callup in ‘11), depending on how he’s doing and how 1B at the MLB level is performing. I think a guy who, after this year will have a bit less than half a season above A level, can definitely improve substantially with more time in the minors. I don’t see a need to move him to the MLB level for development purposes in the near future at all.
by Missing Barry on Jul 30, 2010 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions
One more thought I’d like to add:
The best place for a pitcher who needs to work on his offspeed stuff is the minors. At the MLB level, he needs to be using his arsenal optimally because there’s pressure to try to win – and if he needs to work on a pitch or two, that probably means he shouldn’t be throwing them all that often if winning is the goal. The minors don’t have that same pressure to win – if you want to throw that changeup you’ve been working on in a 3-2 count, even though it probably means walking the guy, there’s no reason not to.
by Missing Barry on Jul 30, 2010 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't necessarily disagree... Specifically with your final points...
But you’d think that because of the possible problems you stated in 1-3… That organizations would be more cautious with their top prospects. Guys like Buster Posey and Justin Smoak… But they aren’t. They send them up after very little time in the minor leagues. So my guess is that teams really don’t view those things as very likely problems, or certainly not something that’s nearly as big of a deal as common wisdom suggests.
It would only make sense to me to see organizations be MORE cautious with their big prospects, rather than less cautious, because a lot is riding on the success of these guys. We couldn’t afford Posey to be overmatched and acquire bad habits at the major league level.
My guess is that their thinking was similar to mine: “It’s probably best for him to learn stuff at the major league level.”
I just extend that idea to other prospects. Some may say ‘lesser’ prospects, but IMO, a player like Brandon Belt who has been one of the best minor league players in the game at the age of 22, I wouldn’t say he’s a ‘lesser’ prospect. I’d argue he should be treated similarly to guys like Justin Smoak. Especially considering how he’s accomplished more than Smoak at a higher level.
As for #4, you’re probably right on how it’s dealt with… I just don’t think it’s good to let players linger in the minor leagues.
by AmorVincitOmnia on Jul 30, 2010 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, with Belt I’m just not ready to say he’s that good of a prospect yet for simple sample size reasons. I just don’t think I could get on board with 73 AB’s above Single-A meaning a guy has been one of the best minor league players. If he continues to do what he’s been doing, eventually I’ll come around to agree.
Personally I think most teams haven’t put nearly as much thought into the development process as they should, and I have a whole lot of reasons why I think that…..
by Missing Barry on Jul 30, 2010 2:59 PM PDT up reply actions
I prefer to wait until guys are ready to contribute before bringing them up
Grooming them in the majors while their service clock is ticking doesn’t make a lot of sense
Proudly adopted Aubrey Huff. You can't beat that!
Amen brother
“For instance, you don’t bork the player. If he struggles, you stick with him through thick and thin. You don’t send him down or bench him after 90 sparse rough AB’s. "
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Can't add much to what's already been said
I like Belt a lot, and he exceeded my expectations this year. However, bringing him up now would be rushing him and there’s really no need to do it. Maybe if the Giants had a black hole of offense at first, but somehow the Huff/Sandoval/occasional re-animated Ishikawa thing is working for them.
Supporting San Francisco Dugout since 2005 and Manny Burriss since 2006. Bringing you all your California League and New York-Penn League needs since 2009.
by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Jul 30, 2010 1:51 PM PDT reply actions
In the long run the weight can be a problem, but in the short run that is not Pablo's problem.
Pablo will indeed, get the magic back.
Belt really needs a full season in AA
He’s only 22.
Don’t rush him.
Belt talked up in today's Chron
No speculation on whether he gets called up this season, though
Proudly adopted Aubrey Huff. You can't beat that!
No confidence in Pablo.....
but a guy with 4 months mostly in the low minors might be the answer? This is one of the less patient recommendations I’ve seen.
No
Brandon Belt is not ready. He was drafted 13 and 1/2 months ago. Let’s have this conversation again a year from now.
In the end, America will be remembered for three things: the Bill of Rights, jazz, and baseball.
You get the feeling that guys like Bonds, Lincecum, and Posey really warp our thinking? Everyone can be major league ready after 13 months! Everyone ages gracefully after age 35! Everyone hits at their true talent level immediately, and we can only expect amazingness or uselessness!
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
Agreed
Don’t start his arb clock and have him sit on the bench. He doesn’t need to be in SF in 2010
Proud father of Mike Krukow (who is more than 3 times my age)
Grab Some Pine, Meat
Still cheering for Kevin Frandsen
John Bowker: One of the 3 best OF's on the Giants roster
Would a September call up start his arb clock?
I always get confused on that stuff
Proudly adopted Aubrey Huff. You can't beat that!
Yes
I believe every day of service time counts (I could be wrong though). It would also take away a spot on the 40 man roster, which could be valuable come winter time.
Proud father of Mike Krukow (who is more than 3 times my age)
Grab Some Pine, Meat
Still cheering for Kevin Frandsen
John Bowker: One of the 3 best OF's on the Giants roster
Sit on this idea until he gets a little older
Then we will have our everyday 1b.
Ishikawa and Nate mostly sit because Bork has no confidence in their hitting against good pitchers. Rather, he plays Rowand, Burrell [who is looking like a hitter recently, a designated hitter I should say]
If Belt continues to dominate AA, I could see bringing him in during August so he would be post-season eligible. Ya gotta go all out if this is a playoff season. More likely they don’t bring up Belt until Sept., if at all.
proud, yes I said proud, adoptive papa of "Geno" Eugenio Velez--
more game changing bunts than Buster Posey!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
