Article written by

9 comments
DyehardFan
DyehardFan

I truly love this website, and I appreciate all the insight. I think Sanchez is an even better player than this piece makes him out to be. Note the grammar errors in this piece though (comma in second paragraph, period after "that", "without" in last paragraph).

Larry_A
Larry_A

Don't think I've ever seen these two words together before: goddamn godsend. Anyway, maybe they can now concentrate on a catcher.

@paapfly
@paapfly

Nice piece, Mr. Anderson. It is nice to be rid of the horror show that was Hall/Burriss.

Curtis
Curtis

I just hope they never play Keppinger against righties, ever... but the platoon with Fontenot is nice. Offensively, the platoon is actually a nice upgrade over Freddy Sanchez. Career totals vs. righties, Fontenot has a .754 OPS with only 14 GDP in 1177 plate appearances for his career. Sanchez has a .707 OPS with 47 GDP in 2750 plate appearances. Versus lefties, Keppinger has an .883 OPS with 19 GDPs (he really is a DP machine, wow) in 607 plate appearances. Sanchez has an .872 OPS with 20 GDPs in 936 plate appearances. Not sure about defense, I'd say they are all about the same. But the age factor is in favor of Fontenot and Keppinger. Even if Sanchez comes back, the Giants are better off platooning Font/Kepp than playing Sanchez. Not to mention they are much cheaper.

Johnny Disaster
Johnny Disaster

Yep, I really enjoyed watching the man play such a professional second base. Watching the Crawford/Sanchez keystone for the brief moment it lasted had me fantasizing about all the sweet double plays I was going to see. Sigh.

Kramer
Kramer

You do have to remember that Hall and Burris are responsible for at least one win each while playing. Hall had that single against the Diamond Backs to put them on top and Burris had that single against San Diego which enabled him to get squeezed home by Stewart. Yes, they are not adequate as a starting second basbeman but they were able to compete when it counted the most. The Giants should be happy they got that out them.

Liem
Liem

Attributing "one win" to Burris and Hall by pointing to one specific instance in which they contributed is a little misleading. Your methodology does not account for the fact that a replacement level player put into that very same situation would have been just likely, if not more likely, to contribute. Also, you're failing to account for how costly the lack of production in every other instance was to the team. Again, a replacement level player would have produced more and, therefore, been more valuable. I agree that Burriss has some value on the 25-man roster because of his speed, but starting him (even in a platoon capacity) is a horrible waste of ~3.5 PAs/game.

oldjacket
oldjacket

I don't mind having Burriss around as the 25th man on the roster. I don't know whether it's good idea to keep Hall around to see if he could still play SS or not but I wouldn't regard it as completely nuts. They were ten runs below average with the bat for that stretch, though. Ten extra runs in month to Giants offense is worth at least a win, and would probably have also saved the bullpen another load of extra innings.