Posey for ROY: A Closer Look

Yeaaaah, I'm gonna have to go ahead and ask baseball writers to... yeah... come in on Saturday... and do a little research. Yeaaaah. Thanks!

Well. You heard Lumberg. It's time for the absurdly biased sports media to pay attention not only to the Giants and the NL West race, but to Buster Posey and his incredible season.

I know he doesn't look like Dwight Howard in a baseball uniform or play in the Eastern Time Zone. I know he doesn't act like Kenny Powers, and he doesn't have sideburns like Joe Mauer. But Good Lord, if we're talking about the rookie of the year race and whether or not Buster Posey is a future perennial all-star, there's no argument to the contrary.

Since the moment the Giants drafted this guy, we've been salivating over his skill set and potential. Rightfully so apparently. His polished approach at the plate and soft hands behind it put him in such elite company already--- in his first year--- that you'd be hard-pressed to find more than a handful of catchers or young players that you'd rather have instead of Posey.

Let's just throw out a quick list, just for fun, of the top catchers in the world.

Joe Mauer
Brian McCann
Victor Martinez
Kurt Suzuki
Jorge Posada
Mike Napoli
Yadier Molina
Carlos Ruiz
Matt Wieters
Miguel Montero
Geovany Soto

That's it. Seriously. That is the list of desirable catchers in the entire league. Is that ridiculous or what?

--Mauer and McCann are in a class of their own. They are truly the two best in baseball right now.

--Suzuki of the A's is a great player, but certainly not in the class of the first two, and is closer to Yadier Molina in ability.

--Napoli, Martinez, and Posada can hit, but can't throw anyone out to save their lives.

--Wieters and Soto are slow to develop and are inconsistent despite their talent.

Honestly? I put Posey on that list at number 3. Right here, right now, as a rookie, Buster is only behind MVP Joe Mauer and all-star Brian McCann. Simply awe inspiring.

As for Buster's rookie of the year competition, it really comes down to one guy: Jason Heyward.

I'm as big a Heyward fan as any. Like Posey, he too is a Georgia boy, a fan favorite, and has drool-inducing physical skills and talent. There is no doubt that Heyward will be very good for a very long time. He respects history and has a high baseball IQ, plays the game the right way, isn't cocky or flashy, and is generally the prototype for a baseball player.

He garnered 10 times the hype Buster did. Perhaps it's because the Braves have a higher profile than the Giants (for some unknown reason). Perhaps it's because the Braves are always on TV, or that they are in the Eastern Time Zone. Perhaps it's because he started the year with the club and hit a monstrous home run in his first game. Or maybe it is all those things PLUS the fact that from far away, it really does look like Dwight Howard in a baseball uniform.

It's time to look at some stats. I put effort into this, so read AND digest them! I'll even include some Saberjerk Fangraph stats for you nerds/fruitcakes that hate RBIs.

Heyward leads in all cumulative categories... as he should. The guy has over 100 more AB's than Posey. The argument to be made, other than Posey's defensive abilities and exponentially more important position, is that Posey has done more in less time.

But what about Buster's rates and percentages? They're higher/better than Heyward's, What if they had the same amount of AB's?

To demonstrate this argument, I have adjusted Heyward's stats to what they would look like in the amount of AB's that Buster has taken. So basically, Buster has 77% of the AB's that Heyward's had, and this is what Heyward's stats would look like in the same amount of AB's. Not perfect, but it helps illustrate how incredible Posey has been, and shows his production rate.


Very intriguing indeed.

The other argument in favor of Posey is his position. I mean come on. There really is no argument. To produce at Posey's clip while catching one of the most prolific pitching staffs in the world, and throwing out would be base stealers left and right is truly impressive. Not only that, but the physical demands of getting down in a Saigon Squat for 9 innings a day, taking foul balls to the mask and getting bruised up on the regular basis makes the argument even stronger for Posey.

Heyward has played a good right field, and he's got a great arm, but the sheer rigors and demands of playing catcher full time are in a whole 'nother stratosphere. In addition, we forget that Buster has also played a flawless first base from time to time, a new position.

There have been a ton of good rookies this year, particularly in the National League. Jaime Garcia, Stephen Strasburg, Michael Stanton, Madison Bumgarner and others have definitely impressed, but when it comes down to what Buster Posey means to the Giants, it is no contest. He single handedly beat the Cubs the other day, and has meant more to the Giants than any other hitter. While Heyward's bat and presence in RF could be replaced, Posey's could not.

Isn't that the definition of value? Buster for ROY.

Giants make huge trade... for Mike Fontenot

No, we didn't get Adam Dunn or Jose Guillen. What we did get is a little dude by the name of Mike Fontenot that I believe can only help the Giants.

Is he a sexy name? No. He's also 5'8, from Louisiana and is funny looking. What he does bring to the table is defensive versatility, smart play, and fundamentals. Again, this is not game changer and is the furthest thing from a power hitter, but our bench has been perteptually thin -- especially now with Renteria injured, Uribe's tender hammy acting up, Sanchez slumping badly, and Manny Burriss as nothing more than a fast question mark.

Fontenot, played with fellow NL Westers Ryan Theriot and Brad Hawpe at LSU (Also Brian Wilson's alma mater). He was also hilariously and absurdly connected to Megan Fox romantically at one time, which makes me simultaneously chuckle and wish it was true. Here's a link:

http://www.thecubsbrickyard.com/2008/12/17/megan-fox-panties/

Theriot it a plus defender at 3 positions-- 2B, SS, and 3B. In split duty this year (in limited time), he has only made 6 errors and has a .984 career fielding percentage. Practically, he fits a need for a lefty off the bench and someone who can fill in for Panda, Uribe, or Sanchez at any time. Scrappy players like Fontenot are great assets to have-- not game changers by any means, but do not take anything away from you.

For you Sabermetric fruitcakes, his WAR is -0.1. Not that it effing matters. Go back to pleauring yourselves to Fangraphs if you want to know his ZXYO--SwingUZR¥$ Percentage.

In exchange for Fontenot, the Gyros traded A-Baller OF Evan Crawford to Chicago. Crawford's numbers are unimpressive, but he was a former 9th rounder for the Giants a couple years ago.

Fontenot made $1MM this season and is arbitration eligible for a few more years, so if desired, he could be an inexpensive backup infield option for years to come.

Since I am blogging on my Moto Droid out of the house right now (God Bless America), I can't add any fancy linked text. So you'll have to click on a long ass old-fashioned link for Fontenot's stat page. Sorry.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/f/fontemi01.shtml

Published with Blogger-droid v1.5.1

Fred Lewis & stat nerds, a match made in hell

There have been a lot of players over the years that have stirred up debates among fans and educated baseball minds alike. One camp believes a guy is capable and isn't getting a fair shake, while their counterpart wants him gone at all costs. In the ongoing battle between good and evil, there surely had to be one Giant that became such a heatseeker for debate. That Giant was Fred Lewis.

I cannot remember there ever being a player with so little consequence on the field being fought over (mainly in blogs and in message board forums) so fervently and for so many months. To one side, he was an extremely talented guy who couldn't put it together at the plate, and on top of it, was among the worst left fielders in the game. To the second side, he was a misunderstood, successful left fielder/leadoff guy, who apparently is a very good outfielder who is equivalent to an above average leadoff hitter-- a legitimate starter.

Once again, the bitter struggle in the blogosphere between good and evil (baseball people versus stat people), has come to a bloody confrontation.

For those of you who aren't in to the whole Sabermetric thing-- they concoct extreme statistics based on Lord-knows-what that try to explain the entire game. Some things, I am a huge fan of, such as contact percentage, percentage of balls swung at outside the strike zone, etc. Others, I am more skeptical of. My argument is that it is still very possible to suck with a high OBP%. I will show you what an argument between a "Joe Six Pack" lifer baseball fan and a new-age stat snob would look like:

Baseball Guy: I'm sorry, Fred Lewis seems like a great person, and he's got some real talent, but he never put it together. To top it off, he takes terrible routes to balls, and is the worst left fielder I've seen since Manny Ramirez. Plus, he strikes out too much and only gets aggressive when he's down in the count, which happens constantly, because all he does it take first pitch strikes. Also, someone with his speed should have stolen more bases. Where was that? I will say that I loved his mirrored orange sunglasses though. Those things were sick.

Jack Moore, Fangraphs:

"Lewis is pretty clearly a Major League quality player. In 1,048 plate appearances in the major leagues since 2006, Lewis has recorded a .277/.355/.420 line, showcasing good plate discipline and slightly below average power. His 109 wRC+ suggests an above average player. 2009 was a down year for Lewis, however, as his ISO dropped from .158 to .132. As a result, his wOBA and wRC dropped to .327 and 98 respectively, the first year in which he has been below average in either statistic. The projection systems see him as slightly above average this year, and ZiPS in particular expects a return to 2008 levels.

Defensively, both UZR and +/- are fans of Lewis, despite his poor reputation among Giants fans in Tom Tango’s Fan Scouting Report. Both systems have Lewis between +9 and +11 over his 326 game career, which would still make him a below average position-neutral defender over 150 games.


Overall, not only does that make Lewis an MLBer, but it makes him nearly an average player. There is no way that Lewis is only the 6th best outfielder on the Giants roster. Aaron Rowand is projected to have a similar or worse year. Nate Schierholtz has similar projections. Andres Torres is 32 and projected to be well below average at the plate by both CHONE and ZiPS – Marcel’s projection is only operating on 181 ML plate appearances since 2007...


...Hitters with a .355 career OBP and a walk rate over 10% don’t just grow on trees, and especially not those still drawing a pre-arbitration salary. Somebody must have at least had a grade B prospect they would have been willing to part with for Lewis, and if not, then there’s no reason to get rid of him when Torres and Velez are still on the team.

...The Jays have acquired a player who could potentially become an asset and a contributor for essentially no cost. The risk is minimal, and a potential reward is there. For the Blue Jays, this is a no-brainer, and for the Giants, it’s a head scratcher."

See original Fangraphs article by Jack Moore here.

Baseball Guy: Yeah. No. I'm not gonna do that...

Look, I'm not entirely sure what you just said, but I think I just had an aneurysm trying to translate it. Anywaaaay..... that's all fine and good, but here's the reason Fred Lewis isn't on the Giants, and more reasons why he's not that good. I will even use relevant stats from Fangraphs, which I believe to be an excellent site when used responsibly.


In 2008 and 2009, which were Lewis's longest stints with the club (255 games), he presented some ugly patterns.

Firstly, the man struck out 26.5% and 28.5% of the time respectively. You remember 7th grade fractions, don't you? That means that if Fred played a regular game and received 4 at bats, he'd strike out once a game. That means Fred Lewis would strike out 162 times per year (since you enjoy projections so much).

Not only that, but the guy crumples under any kind of pressure. In 118 ABs in 2009, he hit .203 with runners on. The numbers only go down with the situation becoming more dire. With runners in scoring position? .186. With runners in scoring position and two outs? .156.

The only situation that Fred does do well in, is when the pressure is totally off and there's no one on base where he managed a .294 average and a .365 on base percentage.

"But Dan The Baseball Guy, isn't that what a leadoff hitter faces most of the time?"

Yes and no. In the NL in particular, he's going to see a lot more empty bases in front of him, but the guy just doesn't put enough balls in play. Even in his best situation with no pressure, his K% actually increases slightly to 30%. On top of it, for a guy who took an incredible amount of first pitch strikes, he does horrible work when he's in the hole. In '09, when he had an 0-2 count, he hit a whopping .000 with 16 strikeouts in 24 AB's.

His defense is just not good, and I don't care how you want to spin it. He was a clueless wonder in left field last season, and although his replacement, Mark DeRosa isn't going to win any gold gloves out there, he hasn't made any mistakes yet.

So look, that's the argument. I'm not going to say that the Sabermetricians are totally off base with everything they say. What I will say is that stats do not always tell the entire story. Everyone knows you can lie with statistics. Companies sell products and politicians win campaigns while distorting facts that are, for all intents and purposes, true.

When applied to baseball, there are so many things that go into what makes a good player. Fred Lewis certainly has all the tools to be a good one, but I believe his bad habits to outweigh his good ones, and he thinks way too much out there. I wish him nothing but the best in Toronto, but I cannot say I'll miss him in San Francisco.

A Dodgerhater verdict: Bowker deserves right field

I've slept on it. I've analyzed it. I've prayed about it. Hell, I was crying about it most of yesterday. It's just. SO. EMOTIONAL.

I'm not talking about Hot Tub Time Machine, although such a magical film could bring about such reactions. I am of course referring to the great right field debate for the 2010 San Francisco Giants.

I suppose Nate Schierholtz is the incumbent, while Johnny Bowker is the challenger. While neither is perfect, and both are generally unproven, one thing I know for sure: John Bowker has rightfully won the RF job for the Giants.

There is simply no way around it. I tried and tried to find a reason to designate Nate the starter. I like the guy. He's a decent baseball player with a stroke at the plate that when right, is just pure sweetness. During a few stages last season, I was convinced that he was well on his way to contending for a batting title some day. Something about his sweet, effortless swing and the way his liners find grass-surfaced gaps in the outfield.

Then, something strange happened. He lost it-- just totally effing lost it. He began swinging wildly at pitches fixing to hit him in the ankle. Granted, this is a guy who was never too keen on eyeballing pitches with the bat on his shoulder, but it was worse than that. As the great Eddie Money would say, Nate had "No Control".

But he did beat up a Chinese National for his country in 2008...

The one constant of Schierholtz's play at all levels is his magnificent gatling gun of an arm. I swear he reminds me of friggin Vladimir Guerrero circa 2001 when he digs a ball out of the right field corner then fires it on a line 275 feet to the infield. Forget the hitting right now-- his arm is simply world class. I could seriously watch him fire the ball from the corner to all four bases for hours and hours, just like I could listen to Jon Miller describe an apricot orchard or a sidewalk bistro for hours and hours.

Alas, Nate seems to be a bit of a basket case, and is having severe difficulty putting anything substantial together. Last season, nearly every total and percentage he amassed were subpar. This means everything from his .302 OBP to his 5.2 BB% and propensity to swing at garbage 35% of the time. It's just unacceptable plate discipline, and its byproduct is poor production.

As most of you know, I'm not huge on all of these metrics. I respect them to a certain extent, and in some cases they can't be denied. The problem I have is when these Stat Snobs and Saberjerks use them to make asinine arguments for guys like Fred Lewis. In Nate's case, they just don't lie though. His contact percentage was below average, his contact on balls out the strike zone (which he swings at too much) is a full 10 percentage points below the league average, and that just doesn't cut it.

The reason I choose to look at the Sabermetrics in this case is because, at first glance, Nate's '09 numbers don't look horrid. A .267 average, .400 slugging percentage, and 19 doubles in 308 plate appearances just isn't vomit-inducing. It's just not good enough to warrant a starting gig at a power position.

Then of course there's the matter of Schierholtz's disturbing Spring Training production. Yes, there's a great deal of pressure to be dealt with and all that jazz, but in 60 spring AB's, he only hit .233 and struck out a scary 27% of the time. John Bowker on the other hand, is absolutely crushing.

Just as he did in his 2009 season down in Fresno, Bowker is currently enjoying great success. There is simply no denying right now that "Bowkermania" could be at an all-time high. The correlation between torrid AAA numbers and the big show is never a guarantee, but I believe that this is a case that cannot be denied.

As the PCL's MVP last season, Bowker put up: 21 HR, 83 RBI, and sported a filthy .342/.451/.596 line. That's like the triple crown of averages right there. A new approach at the plate and extensive work with new Giants hitting coach Bam Bam Meulens has translated into amazing non-big league success.

Take his scorching hot spring into account.

He led the team with 71 AB's this spring, and man did he take advantage of them. We're talking about 5 dingers, 20 RBI, and a .310/.375/.606 line. Plus he drew 8 walks versus only 11 strikeouts, and 10 out of his 22 hits were for extra bases. We're talking legit numbers here.

Of course, Bowker's limited time as a pro has been underwhelming, but the guy really hasn't gotten a chance.

If we look back to Johnny B's only extended time as a pro in 2008, it looked very similar to Schierholtz's 2009. Their contact percentage, percentage of swings outside the strike zone, BB%, and OBP were nearly identical. The differences between the two lie in Bowker's apparent defensive deficiencies and superior home run power.

Obviously both will make the roster, as they should, but at this point there is absolutely nothing that shows me that Schierholtz deserves the job over Bowker.

Furthermore, a timeshare would be extremely detrimental to both guys. While Schierholtz has at times excelled as a pinch hitter, Bowker seems to fair terribly when not getting regular at bats. While both are lefties, Bowker is weaker versus LHP's while Nate, in a bizarre stat, hits LHP's better than he does righties.

I just hope to the real God and the baseball gods that this doesn't give Bochy an excuse to platoon these two young men. It's just not beneficial to the team or to the development of each as a player.

John Bowker has won this job fair and square, and if he's not out there every day, Giants management is doing their 2010 campaign an extreme disservice.


------------------

Quick plug: If you've got room for another Giants blog in your reading stable, check out Remember '51. It's quickly becoming one of my faves.
------------------