A post in which I make a meat analogy

Creepy Melky.

He actually didn't, not that that would be compliment, even for a shortstop.

my bad. "made outs a lower clip than Aubrey Huff".

>>Why is everyone flipping out about the Bloomquist offer? $4.6 M

Reasoning? Based on his excellent defense, I assume? I don't mean to come off as harsh on Crawford as I did in this post, but scouts have never liked his swing and I just don't know how much of a chance he has to be competent with the bat.

Interestingly, Crawford's offense has a shot. He was hampered by a 14% LD rate (51% ground-ball rate!) leading to a .228 babip. However his iso was rather low and perhaps weak-hitting is his style. It's worth noting that the iso and babip are low compared to his minor league numbers ( he also managed to an unusually low K rate). Last year I kept waiting for him to stop grounding out and it never happened--but then again I kept waiting for Huff to stop grounding out as well. Point is, I like his 10% BB's and if learns how to replace 5% groundballs with 5% LD's he wouldn't be such a hole at the plate.

A quick use of of an xbabip calc. (http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/11/10/1124792/a-new-xbabip-calculator) shows we'd expect him to hit .3 babip. The calculator is probably 'biased towards the mean' and perhaps underestimates his lack power (or at any rate misrepresents what happens at the fringes). For a player comp Martin Prado had an similar batted ball profile and put up a .26 babip and casey mcghee had a similar line and a .25 babip. The question I'm trying to answer is: IF Crawford hits the same batted ball profile (or within a couple percent) can we expect his babip to go up? The xbabip suggests yes, but his IFH% doesn't have that much room to go up (and I certainly wouldn't count on it 'regressing' upwards). That leaves hitting the ball out of the infield more often (on the ground or not). We can only hope that he was unlucky with his GB placement.

Definitely largely because of his defense. Even with a subpar bat, he's a decent player.

I sometimes wonder how much of giants' fans' perception of Crawford (.204/.288/.296, 66 OPS+ in '11) has been shaped by that debut grand slam in Milwaukee. Ill admit I thought Crawford's debut dinger was a sign of his potential. Until, you know, his other at-bats. And for someone hailed as a defensive plus at SS, I seem to remember a fair number of throws pulling Huff off the bag, even if they didn't all go for errors (to be fair, Huff's stretching ability is limited, maybe those first few weeks in left really spent what was left of his legs). Want a call up who actually impressed me last year? Brett Pill anyone?

I think his defense will be fine. He passed the eye-test during his brief time in the majors, and it seemed to back up every scouting report I've ever read on him (very good range, really strong arm, good hands).

It is interesting that he 'has very good range' as he is not particularly fast. He must have quick feet and good instincts. Is his arm 'really strong'? Not Furcal strong, but strong enough to make the throw from the whole. He's an interesting shortstop; I don't feel particularly 'wowed' by his athleticism. The glove itself is ++, everything else probably hovers around + or avg. The bat is another story. It still doesn't seem fair to feed him to the wolves when he has a limited number of AB's above class A. Let's hope his learning curve has been as steep as it appears in the AFL.

In last year's writeup, BA pretty much said that Crawford has plus-range, but also noted that his "awareness" and "smart positioning" help his overall defensive package. So, you're right in the sense that he has good instincts. He's probably the best defender (non-Omar category) that the Giants have had at SS in quite some time.

i believe he is in the Tulo/Furcal category in terms of arm. And i'd make comparisons to Tulo with regards to overall D. He takes excellent angles to the ball, positions himself well, has his feet in the best positions to make a solid throw, and can throw from virtually any position his body might be in. Ask any manager, build your defense up the middle. Defense first is a must at shortstop, and any offense that comes along is gravy. The FO would be making a mistake to not let him have the keys to the position. People forget SS is not supposed to be a heavy offensive spot.. if he plays the D that he does, he'll figure out how to hit up in the bigs and deserves the spot.

If Brett Pill played SS, I would be in favor.

Yes.

Barmes can play 2nd as well, which will be needed at some point in the season, no matter how well Freddy Sanchez rebounds. Check out his last 3 years compared to Rollins, its closer than you would expect. Rollins is getting more than 3/30 also. Barmes stats are fueled by his DWAR, (baseball ref) but look at this: Rollins: 3.7, 2.0, 1.0 for a total of 6.7 WAR Barmes: 2.9, 1.3, 2.0 for a total of 6.2 WAR DWAR: Rollins 0.7, 0.5, -0.5 for 0.7 DWAR Barmes: 1.5, 1.3, 1.4 for 4.2 DWAR Still, Barmes L/R splits are terrible, but I would definitely take him over Keppinger, and maybe the Hobbit as well due to the superior D.

100 percent agreement from me for what Otis has said here. Just a series of dispiriting moves (and attempted moves, thank god) by the FO.

That boat has sailed. They kept their relievers last offseason and went for Tejada at $6.5MM instead--worked out swell.