Spring Training 2012

[SFGRTB]

You didn't really just dis Susac, did you? I've maimed for less....

Go Ducks

 

[filosofy29]

On Nate, his swing looks as bad as I've ever seen it. He's one guy I'd like to see open up a definitive hole, give something for pitchers to attack so he can get some predictable pitch sequences. I think he may be trying to cover too much of the plate.

Good call. That's been a thorn in my side as well. Assuming I'm understanding what you're saying correctly.

That's what I don't get about guys who have a hole in their swing. I know a lot of these guys watch a ton of video on their swing/at-bats. Schierholtz, Velez (backfoot sliders), and Rowand (low and away slider) were the 3 recently who really drove me nuts. If you know you're susceptible to certain pitches/locations (in certain counts), shouldn't your weakness become better? I'm not saying that a "hole" would ever become a strength, but if you know the breaking ball low and away is coming when the count is 0-2 or 1-2, shouldn't you be able to lay off of it (and get a better hitters count) or anticipate the pitch and drive the ball the other way every once in awhile? At least give the pitcher something to think about.

 

[Heathbar012]

Belt's an outfielder now too. This is the trickle down of Posey playing a lot of first base. So, I'd say 10% that Nate is outright released, but maybe 60% he starts on the DL. That's the only way both Pill and Chez3 make this team, I think (I'm assuming Belt is in). And the Giants seem to want those two guys to make the roster. You might recall the Giants did something similar to Fred Lewis in 2010.

On Nate, his swing looks as bad as I've ever seen it. He's one guy I'd like to see open up a definitive hole, give something for pitchers to attack so he can get some predictable pitch sequences. I think he may be trying to cover too much of the plate.

Belt is an OF, but I don't feel comfortable with him or Melky patrolling that big right field too often. That is another reason to favor some Fresno time for Brandon. Either way, if he makes the team, that sucks for Pill or Chez3 (it seems you're saying that one of them would make the team over Nate). If he doesn't, he'll get a lot more ABs. I don't see releasing Nate as a viable option, and I don't think the FO would further weaken the team's biggest weakness (outside of offensive prowess in the middle infield, which doesn't worry me as much as the importance of solid hitting and great defense in the out field).

If his bat continues to look as bad as it has this spring, he might be waived by the All-Star Break, but that would assume that Belt is playing exceptionally well both offensively and defensively, Huff is hitting well and/or Buster can only catch two to three teams per week. I expect Belt to struggle (or be in Fresno), Huff to be average and Buster to catch four games a week with one game at first (and a true off-day). Nate still has value, and if everyone but him exceeds expectations he can be a great throw-in to a deadline deal. Either way, this team needs a true 4th OF (not Huff), for the beginning of the season. If he makes the team, that can be Belt. I'm willing to watch an OF of Belt-Pagan-Melky a couple of times a week... if Nate is around as a late-game defensive replacement. I'd rather see Burriss in left than Huff, and the only time any of them (Belt and Pill included) should sniff RF should be for deep pop-ups from their infield positions.

 

[SFGRTB]

I think if Belt makes it, he plays everyday. None of that yo-yoing they did last year.

 

[msgkings322]

I think if Belt makes it, he plays everyday. None of that yo-yoing they did last year.

This.

On the radio Schulman said they may be leaning to Belt starting at 1B, Huff in left, as Huff is probably a better LF of the two. Another reason in so that Belt can just focus on hitting while playing a position he can do with his eyes closed. If he's worrying about playing LF maybe it distracts from his hitting focus.

With the entire punditocracy ripping the Giants for shooting themselves in the foot by not having Belt in the lineup every day, maybe they are listening...

 

[SFGRTB]

This.

On the radio Schulman said they may be leaning to Belt starting at 1B, Huff in left, as Huff is probably a better LF of the two.

With the entire punditocracy ripping the Giants for shooting themselves in the foot by not having Belt in the lineup every day, maybe they are listening...

And this is the reason I believe that he will play everyday if he's here. Giants took a lot of criticism for they way they treated him last year (by fans, scouts alike).

Sorry Nate, but it's probably the best thing.

 

[gp956]

Good call. That's been a thorn in my side as well. Assuming I'm understanding what you're saying correctly.

That's what I don't get about guys who have a hole in their swing. I know a lot of these guys watch a ton of video on their swing/at-bats. Schierholtz, Velez (backfoot sliders), and Rowand (low and away slider) were the 3 recently who really drove me nuts. If you know you're susceptible to certain pitches/locations (in certain counts), shouldn't your weakness become better? I'm not saying that a "hole" would ever become a strength, but if you know the breaking ball low and away is coming when the count is 0-2 or 1-2, shouldn't you be able to lay off of it (and get a better hitters count) or anticipate the pitch and drive the ball the other way every once in awhile? At least give the pitcher something to think about.

I think we're on the same track. Although I hesitate to use the word "hole" for Nate's problem with the back foot slider, because those aren't strikes. Maybe it's just semantics; obviously, if you can reliable get a guy out by throwing pitches out of the zone it's a hole, but when I think of a "hole" in a swing it's a hole in the zone.

If Nate did not swing at balls, where would you pitch him to get him out? It's not obvious to me where to attack him in the zone. It's kind of a dumb thing to say, because it probably would not last more than a week, but if Nate opened up a hole in the zone, i.e. gave the appearance of a hole, pitchers might come in there in out counts. At least he'd get more pitches in the zone (until the league adjusted). I guess this little excursion into game theory really illuminates Nate's biggest problem - he swings at too many balls.

 

[Heathbar012]

I think we're on the same track. Although I hesitate to use the word "hole" for Nate's problem with the back foot slider, because those aren't strikes. Maybe it's just semantics; obviously, if you can reliable get a guy out by throwing pitches out of the zone it's a hole, but when I think of a "hole" in a swing it's a hole in the zone.

If Nate did not swing at balls, where would you pitch him to get him out? It's not obvious to me where to attack him in the zone. It's kind of a dumb thing to say, because it probably would not last more than a week, but if Nate opened up a hole in the zone, i.e. gave the appearance of a hole, pitchers might come in there in out counts. At least he'd get more pitches in the zone (until the league adjusted). I guess this little excursion into game theory really illuminates Nate's biggest problem - he swings at too many balls.

I'm always amazed when that is a problem for a hitter that isn't expected to put up big power numbers. Get your money's worth up there, Nate!

 

[ColinCoby]

This.

On the radio Schulman said they may be leaning to Belt starting at 1B, Huff in left, as Huff is probably a better LF of the two. Another reason in so that Belt can just focus on hitting while playing a position he can do with his eyes closed. If he's worrying about playing LF maybe it distracts from his hitting focus.

With the entire punditocracy ripping the Giants for shooting themselves in the foot by not having Belt in the lineup every day, maybe they are listening...

And Kruk was saying on the radio today that Huff would essentially be a 6 inning player (assuming the Giants are ahead), and that the bench players would be playing a hell of a lot.

Looks like another year of bloops falling in front of Huff, followed by someone posting, "I wonder if _________ gets to that ball?"

 

[gp956]

Belt is an OF, but I don't feel comfortable with him or Melky patrolling that big right field too often. That is another reason to favor some Fresno time for Brandon. Either way, if he makes the team, that sucks for Pill or Chez3 (it seems you're saying that one of them would make the team over Nate). If he doesn't, he'll get a lot more ABs. I don't see releasing Nate as a viable option, and I don't think the FO would further weaken the team's biggest weakness (outside of offensive prowess in the middle infield, which doesn't worry me as much as the importance of solid hitting and great defense in the out field).

If his bat continues to look as bad as it has this spring, he might be waived by the All-Star Break, but that would assume that Belt is playing exceptionally well both offensively and defensively, Huff is hitting well and/or Buster can only catch two to three teams per week. I expect Belt to struggle (or be in Fresno), Huff to be average and Buster to catch four games a week with one game at first (and a true off-day). Nate still has value, and if everyone but him exceeds expectations he can be a great throw-in to a deadline deal. Either way, this team needs a true 4th OF (not Huff), for the beginning of the season. If he makes the team, that can be Belt. I'm willing to watch an OF of Belt-Pagan-Melky a couple of times a week... if Nate is around as a late-game defensive replacement. I'd rather see Burriss in left than Huff, and the only time any of them (Belt and Pill included) should sniff RF should be for deep pop-ups from their infield positions.

Good post. Although, I don't think Belt will struggle, if by struggle you mean fight through extended slumps.

 

[SFGRTB]

And Kruk was saying on the radio today that Huff would essentially be a 6 inning player (assuming the Giants are ahead), and that the bench players would be playing a hell of a lot.

Looks like another year of bloops falling in front of Huff, followed by someone posting, "I wonder if _________ gets to that ball?"

 

[ColinCoby]

Ugh. I owe you rep. :arg:

 

[gp956]

I'm always amazed when that is a problem for a hitter that isn't expected to put up big power numbers. Get your money's worth up there, Nate!

Nate was probably one of those kids who could square up pitches over his head and in the dirt. Never had to learn the strikezone to be "great" at low levels.

 

[SFGRTB]

Ugh. I owe you rep. :arg:

That was a rough series for Huff...

 

[SFGRTB]

Boch will address reporters at 11:30, presumably about the roster. Decisions to be made about Belt, Nate, Blanco, Arias, Chez3, Burriss, Pill...

 

[Heathbar012]

Good post. Although, I don't think Belt will struggle, if by struggle you mean fight through extended slumps.

Well, since it will be a SSS up to the All-Star Break (which I think would be a better time to evaluate Nate's worth to the org vs. Belt's major league development), I wouldn't think extended slumps. I'm thinking more along the lines of an awful May or below average June. Of course, if he is in Fresno up until that point, all bets are off. I like the idea of letting Belt and Sanchez gain some more confidence in Fresno.

The other important aspect of this is that Huff will not be on the team next year. Nate becomes much more valuable in that scenario. Granted, I would never advocate holding onto Nate if I thought getting rid of him would help the Giants win. I might feel that way at the ASB or near the trade deadline, but I don't feel that way now. All in all, this is a good "problem" to have, and I certainly understand the possible benefits to waiving Schierholtz. I just think the potential negatives (and inevitable injuries) outweigh those benefits, for now. I can't wait to see the final rosters.

In other news, Emmanuel Burriss has not impressed me enough to completely understand waiving Fontenot, but I'm keeping an open mind (mostly because I have always wanted Burriss to be a consistent major leaguer).

 

[Heathbar012]

Nate was probably one of those kids who could square up pitches over his head and in the dirt. Never had to learn the strikezone to be "great" at low levels.

That makes sense. Obviously, I never had that luxury growing up. A walk is as good as a hit! (The mantra of the less-talented) If the FO decides that Blanco is a better hitter than Nate, I would be fine with waiving Schierholtz, but I don't think that is the case.

 

[Heathbar012]

Boch will address reporters at 11:30, presumably about the roster. Decisions to be made about Belt, Nate, Blanco, Arias, Chez3, Burriss, Pill...

The anticipation is killing me!

 

[gp956]

I wouldn't think extended slumps. I'm thinking more along the lines of an awful May or below average June.

I'd call that an extended slump, if June is mostly awful with one hot streak in there.

I like the idea of letting Belt and Sanchez gain some more confidence in Fresno.

Disagree with Belt. The major leagues is where he needs to be to take the final step in his development. And if he fails, that's info we need - keeping him is Fresno will not change his chances of success at this point, imo. Chez3 could use more seasoning (although I still want him on my big league club).

 

[SFGRTB]

Hector Sanchez is getting congratulated by coaches.... Can't remember the last time someone was congratulated for going to Fresno sooooo....