Game Thread: 4.27.17 Dodgers @ Giants

[Stokes1931]

3 GIDP today, two by Posey.

 

[stanford the manford]

kelby keepin' us alive

 

[stanford the manford]

3 GIDP today, two by Posey.

we used to lead the league in gidp's circa late 2000s iirc.

 

[1phlapdown]

Let's pin a loss on Jansen...

 

[1phlapdown]

Oh boy, a bit of the ol' torture...


edit witnessing the hit parade...

 

[calsnowskier]

Yogurt looking like moldy milk tonight

 

[calsnowskier]

Complete fucking meltdown

 

[1phlapdown]

Strickland inherited 3, and they scored. And he still has a 0.00 era.

 

[calsnowskier]

Strickland inherited 3, and they scored. And he still has a 0.00 era.

May be true, but yogurt was fucking gross tonight. Strick inherited bases juiced, no outs. Required herculean effort to not look like the goat there.

 

[calsnowskier]

4, 2, 4

vs

2





All the streaks the Giants have had this year.

New year, just as the old year.

 

[LHG]

May be true, but yogurt was fucking gross tonight. Strick inherited bases juiced, no outs. Required herculean effort to not look like the goat there.

Gearrin gets saddled with the loss, but while he didn't do his job, it was just one batter. Okert and Strickland should both had been better. A shut down reliever gets through that jam and/or doesn't create that jam. Okert was looking so good too. Maybe he pulls out quickly.

 

[Stokes1931]

Gearrin gets saddled with the loss, but while he didn't do his job, it was just one batter. Okert and Strickland should both had been better. A shut down reliever gets through that jam and/or doesn't create that jam. Okert was looking so good too. Maybe he pulls out quickly.

I really don't like that we have one left handed reliever now that Blach is a starter. I am not sure what the options are. Osich has been worse than awful at Sacramento. But Okert being the only LHRP is severely limiting. Yes, Smith going down was a huge loss. But I think something may need to be done about this, especially the way Noggin mixes and matches his bullpens. One LHRP = very limited options.

I suppose Reynolds makes sense, as he has MLB experience, or Sitton, who has none. Ricky Romero anyone? Maybe Affeldt could come out of retirement?

 

[LHG]

I really don't like that we have one left handed reliever now that Blach is a starter. I am not sure what the options are. Osich has been worse than awful at Sacramento. But Okert being the only LHRP is severely limiting. Yes, Smith going down was a huge loss. But I think something may need to be done about this, especially the way Noggin mixes and matches his bullpens. One LHRP = very limited options.

I suppose Reynolds makes sense, as he has MLB experience, or Sitton, who has none. Ricky Romero anyone? Maybe Affeldt could come out of retirement?

There are 5 lefties on the pitching staff at Sacramento:
Josh Osich - 8.64 ERA, 1.80 WHIP, 7.56 K/9
Matt Reynolds - 1.93 ERA, 1.07 WHIP, 4.82 K/9
Ricky Romero - 6.75 ERA, 2.18 WHIP, 8.16 K/9
Michael Roth - 4.26 ERA, 1.97 WHIP, 4.38 K/9
Kraig Sitton - 0.79 ERA, 1.06 WHIP, 6.35 K/9

Osich looked good in 4 of his 5 relief appearances but has been awful in his last three. Yet, he is the easiest to call up since he is the only one in this group already on the 40 man. However, I agree that Reynolds and Sitton are the most deserving. Romero is much too wild. He gives up a lot of hits and a lot of walks (but Ks a lot of batters too). It would be interesting to move him to the bullpen and give Chase Johnson a chance to start once he comes off the dl.

So if Sitton or Reynolds gets called, moving Bumgarner to the 60 day is the easy part. The hard part is who goes. Do you release Neil Ramirez? Option Stratton back down (he is the easiest since he hasn't been used but once since coming up and the only other two with options are Law and Okert. Law is looking better and Okert going down would defeat the purpose of calling up a 2nd lefty).

 

[Stokes1931]

The Giants aren’t walking as much as they did last year

Bingo!

By my count, the Giants are 0-6 when getting one walk or less. They are 1-2 when getting 2 walks. So 1-8 with 2 walks or less. (7-7 with 3 walks or more) Where the hell is the plate discipline?

It could be that they are just being dominated by strike throwers, and maybe the 1 walk or less losses are caused by other factors than the walking. But it really stands out in the stats.

 

[Stokes1931]

Great outing by MM today, though. Want to see more of this MM and not the other one.

 

[SFGRTB]

The Giants aren’t walking as much as they did last year

Bingo!

By my count, the Giants are 0-6 when getting one walk or less. They are 1-2 when getting 2 walks. So 1-8 with 2 walks or less. (7-7 with 3 walks or more) Where the hell is the plate discipline?

It could be that they are just being dominated by strike throwers, and maybe the 1 walk or less losses are caused by other factors than the walking. But it really stands out in the stats.

I'm not attacking you here Stokes, but this is what is frustrating about the Belt haters. They cry out for more power and homers, and then cry out for more walks. Belt is our best power hitter and by far our best OBP guy. I don't understand why people want to trade him for something better, you're not like to find one.

 

[LHG]

I'm not attacking you here Stokes, but this is what is frustrating about the Belt haters. They cry out for more power and homers, and then cry out for more walks. Belt is our best power hitter and by far our best OBP guy. I don't understand why people want to trade him for something better, you're not like to find one.

 

[calsnowskier]

I'm not attacking you here Stokes, but this is what is frustrating about the Belt haters. They cry out for more power and homers, and then cry out for more walks. Belt is our best power hitter and by far our best OBP guy. I don't understand why people want to trade him for something better, you're not like to find one.

I am not a Belt hater, but I probably qualify as one fir the purposes of this discussion.

I look at belt and see a good, but not great player. I see a guy who plays a position that has a LOT of good plaers, and probably more "great" players (bats) than any other position. So basically, BECAUSE he is a 1st baseman, just being good is not enough. And now that he has his contract, he needs to start being a player that is able to carry the team for a week at a time, and I just see him doing that. If he were a 2B or 3B, I would be much more accepting f the player that he is.

And just because he is the best hitter on this craptastic-hitting team does not equate to him being a legit "best bat".

 

[SFGRTB]

I am not a Belt hater, but I probably qualify as one fir the purposes of this discussion.

I look at belt and see a good, but not great player. I see a guy who plays a position that has a LOT of good plaers, and probably more "great" players (bats) than any other position. So basically, BECAUSE he is a 1st baseman, just being good is not enough. And now that he has his contract, he needs to start being a player that is able to carry the team for a week at a time, and I just see him doing that. If he were a 2B or 3B, I would be much more accepting f the player that he is.

And just because he is the best hitter on this craptastic-hitting team does not equate to him being a legit "best bat".

Why do you see a good not great player, may I ask? I see Belt as a great player at a position that doesn't have as many great players as you think.

I look at Belt and I see a great 1st baseman. Not the very top, upper echelon 1st basemen (perennial MVP candidates Votto, Goldy, Rizzo, Cabrera), but he's in the tier right below them with guys like Carpenter, Encarnacion, Freeman, Santana. And he much higher than the next group with guys like Myers, Abreu, Hanley Ramirez, AGon, Davis, and Hosmer.

Belt is ALWAYS punished for having a bad lineup around him. It's not a compliment that he's the best hitter in a soft lineup. He's a great hitter for any lineup. His crap-tastic lineup around him doesn't equate to more runs or RBI, his home ballpark doesn't equate to more homeruns and this is always going to punish Belt.

I don't consider positions to mean much anymore, personally, in regards to bats. No longer do players get thrown at 1B because they can't field.

And as for Belt's contract, he's getting paid 20th highest this year, 9th (out of 18) next year, and 9th (out of 17th) over the life of the AAV left on his contract. He's actually quite the bargain. He's the 9th highest paid player on the team this year, and the 7th highest AAV.

 

[stanford the manford]

I am not a Belt hater, but I probably qualify as one fir the purposes of this discussion.

I look at belt and see a good, but not great player. I see a guy who plays a position that has a LOT of good plaers, and probably more "great" players (bats) than any other position. So basically, BECAUSE he is a 1st baseman, just being good is not enough. And now that he has his contract, he needs to start being a player that is able to carry the team for a week at a time, and I just see him doing that. If he were a 2B or 3B, I would be much more accepting f the player that he is.

And just because he is the best hitter on this craptastic-hitting team does not equate to him being a legit "best bat".

for me his glove is the difference. i'd love to see him more consistent at the plate, even if it meant less (if possible) power. more line drives and less pop-ups. but that's not going to happen. at this point wysiwyg.

i don't see him as a 2 hitter, but that's on bochy and not belt. i'd love to see bonds as his personal hitting coach.

so until someone better comes along, he's our guy