Stats vs. Scouts: Comparing Conor Gillaspie and Chris Dominguez

As I lead up to the OTF Top-30, I am going to do a brief series where I look at two players who share the same position in the Giants system. The key part of this analysis is that they are contrasting players in the way scouts and stat-guys look at them. One guy will be more valuable according to scouting reports, while the other player may not be as highly heralded by scouts, but will have better numbers than the player he is being compared to.

The first two players that popped into my mind were a pair of third basemen: Conor Gillaspie and Chris Dominguez.

I hope to make this an on-going series, but with things a changing all the time, who knows how long this will go. Hopefully, I can get four or five comparisons for Giants fans and fellow writers to chew on before I start my rankings.


Why the Stats Guys like Gillaspie



Gillaspie was pretty heralded coming out of Wichita State in the 2008 Rule 4 draft. He was a first round supplemental pick who went in the Giants' slot at No. 37 and though he didn't hit for a ton of power for the Shockers, many analysts liked him as a "Bill Mueller-esque" player who could hit for high average and get on-base well despite missing that power tool set for a corner infielder.

Amazingly, Gillaspie was put on the 40-man roster in his first year of professional ball in 2008 and actually had a cup of coffee for the Giants where he had seven plate appearances at the Big League level. Gillaspie wasn't overly impressive in his short 18 game stint in Salem Keizer in 2008 (he posted a .338 wOBA with a .268/.350/.674 slash line), but he showed good contact skills and a solid eye at the plate in his professional debut, as he sported a 0.69 BB/K ratio with the Volcanoes. Many believed that due to his status as a prospect (he was a high draft pick out of college) and his plate patience and contact skills, Gillaspie would be fast tracked to the Major League level, perhaps seeing a longer callup in 2009 and competing for a job in 2010.

Unfortunately, some things hurt Gillaspie in 2009. For starters, Pablo Sandoval, formerly a catching prospect in the Giants system, came on with authority in 2009 at third base, pretty much serving as a road block for Gillaspie getting called up. Additionally, Gillaspie didn't set the world on fire in the hitter-friendly California League, as he posted a slash line of .286/.364/.750 in 530 plate appearances for San Jose, good for a a .341 wOBA. Gillaspie didn't show much power at all, as evidenced by only having 37 extra base hits (including only four home runs) and the reports on his defense weren't stellar at all. Dr. B of When the Giants Come to Town said this about Gillaspie in his scouting report for the 2010 prospect list, where he actually saw Gillaspie in person (he ranked Gillaspie no. 18 in his Top-50 in 2010).

"The most worrisome part of his game is on defense. He looks quite awkward at 3B and appears to struggle to make routine throws. The 3'rd time I saw him, he made several routine plays without incident and looked a bit more confident. He reportedly voluntarily went to Arizona Instructionals in the fall to work on his defense, so maybe it will come around."

Scouts have said many of the same things: that he doesn't have a great arm, that his range is nothing special, and that he just isn't a natural fielder or athlete. This makes Gillaspie's status as a prospect difficult to handle because it doesn't seem like he's the kind of player that the Giants brass could move around the field. He probably could play third and maybe first, but even if you're moving him to first, you're sacrificing a lot power for the position, and there are a lot better options to play at first before Gillaspie (Brandon Belt being the main one).

In Double-A in 2010, Gillaspie did bounce back a little from his disappointing Cal League campaign, holding his own in the pitcher-friendly confines of the Eastern League. Amazingly, he did show more power in Richmond than he did in San Jose, as his ISO went up from .100 in the CL to .132 in 540 plate appearances in the EL, but his slash line (.287/.335/.754) still remained underwhelming for a former first round pick (though he was a supplemental round pick to be fair).

Last year though, being mostly written off by most Giants Top Prospect lists, Gillaspie had a bit of a renaissance at the plate, as he really came on strong in the Pacific Coast League with the Grizzlies. He hit 11 home runs and posted a .157 ISO in 503 plate appearances, both Minor League career highs (that's not counting the .292 ISO he posted in the Arizona Fall league, but considering he only had 80 plate appearances and he was mostly facing rookies and second year guys, I don't take that sample very seriously). He finished his 2011 campaign with the Grizzlies with a slash line of .297/.389/.842 and his solid performance in Fresno earned him a callup to the Giants where he garnered 21 plate appearances (he hit .263 and had an inside the park home run; the best part of his callup was his ability to make contact and show a good eye at the plate, as he drew two walks and only struck out once).

I think why a lot of stat guys would be high on Gillaspie is due to his strong contact abilities, as evidenced by his consistently strong BB/K ratios in the minors. In his extended stints in San Jose, Richmond and Fresno, Gillaspie posted ratios of 0.81, 0.55 and 0.84, respectively, and he's never had a strikeout rate over 16.3 percent (his first year in pro ball in Salem Keizer). Coupled with a bit of a power renaissance in Richmond and especially Fresno, Gillaspie is a "stats" darling of sorts, as many envision him as poor man's Bill Mueller who could consistently be a .280-300 hitter and .340-380 OBP guy in the Majors if given ample playing time.

However, a lot of scouts simply just aren't all that into Gillaspie. He doesn't have a standout tool other than his ability to make contact. He doesn't hit for much power (though that has been getting more developed since his Cal League campaign), he has never hit for incredibly high average, and his defensive tools are rated average at best. With Sandoval beating him in upside in almost every imaginable tool category possible, Gillaspie just seems like a bench player to a lot of scouts, and even if he wasn't blocked Pablo, he maybe would be a utility infielder at best in their eyes. Other than the OBP and BB/K ratios, nothing really jumps out with Gillaspie to most scouts.

So where do I stand on Gillaspie? I love his contact skills and I think his ability to get on base will serve him well at the Major League level. It's not like he's hitting .240 with a .360 OBP and putting up egregious strikeout numbers. Furthermore, he's gotten better at the plate as he's moved up the system, so that has to count for something.

Yet there are a couple of problems with Gillaspie. First off, if you had to say what Gillaspie's plus tool was, it would be difficult to be say, and you could argue that he might not have any. It's obviously not his speed, power, defense or base-running, so the only possible plus tool he could have has a prospect is hitting for average. But that's the thing: though the wOBA and OBP stats are nice, Gillaspie has not really hit for high average at any stop in the minors, with the highest batting average he has posted being .297 (last year with the Grizzlies). Can you really say a guy has plus "hitting for average" tool if he's never hit for .300 at all from High-A to Triple-A? To me, that concerns me, because even the guy he's constantly compared to (Bill Mueller) hit for average in the minors (career batting average of .306 in the minors in comparison to Gillaspie's .288) and it's hard to imagine a guy who hasn't hit over .300 in the minors suddenly be able to do so in the Majors. I'm not saying it's impossible (you never know with how much BABIP fluctuates and the scarcity of batted ball rate information in the minors), just that it's very unlikely.

Another challenge for Gillaspie reaching the Majors may just be out of his hands, as Sandoval is simply just a mainstay at the position and you can't put Gillaspie (or even Sandoval for that measure) anywhere else due to his lack of athleticism and mediocre defense. At this point, Gillaspie's future with the Giants, despite his good numbers, may be as a utility infielder or trade fodder (though I could see him producing good value on a team that may give him an extended shot).


Why the Scouts like Dominguez



Dominguez is an older prospect of sorts. The highest level he has played at is Double-A, and he's already 25 years old, so the time span for Dominguez as a prospect is ticking away quickly (much like Gillaspie). Dominguez also was moved along slowly in the Giants system (he spent his first full professional season in Single-A, Augusta, which is not typical for most higher profile prospects out of college, as they usually start in San Jose), so that didn't do him any favors as well.

Nonetheless, despite the slow progression up the Giants minor league ladder, scouts have had some affinity with Dominguez for two reasons: his power and his arm. As a prospect, Dominguez has two plus tool sets which many scouts believe can transition to the Major League level. Additionally, with his size (six-foot, three inches, and 215 pounds), he has all the characteristics of a big league player, especially a corner infielder.

Dominguez burst on the scene in his debut season in 2009 after being drafted by the Giants in the third round. After signing quickly, he was able to play in 47 games in Salem Keizer and in 198 plate appearances he posted a slash line of .254/.298/.740 and a wOBA of .343 (he also had a wOBA of .415 in a stint in the Arizona Rookie League, but that was only a nine game, 40 plate appearance sample). While the averages and walk numbers (4.5 walk percentage, 0.16 BB/K ratio) were concerning, Dominguez displayed impressive power in the Northwest League, as he hit nine home runs and sported an ISO of .188.

Because he still had a lot to work on as a hitter after his Volcano campaign, the Giants brass opted to move him up to only Augusta rather than San Jose in 2010 in hope that he would develop more as a hitter. He spent the whole year with the Green Jackets in the Sally and did improve in many ways. His slash line in 608 plate appearances improved to .272/.326/.782 and his BB/K ratio and wOBA both rose to 0.26 and .351, respectively. While the improvements weren't dramatic, his numbers, especially his power ones (.184 ISO, .456 slugging and 21 home runs) did give some Giants fans some hope. However, his older age in the league did put some analysts back and prevent them from ranking him as a higher prospect, as Mike Newman remarked on a post he wrote for "Scouting the Sally."

"After watching him play, I referred back to a scouting report on Dominguez by Frankie Piliere back in 2008 to find little had changed in the two years since that report was written. Dominguez seemed like the same player he was as a junior in college which leaves me questioning his ability to adjust at a more advanced age than the average “Sally” prospect...

...At 19, I wouldn’t be concerned about his progress or lack thereof yet. But at 24, Dominguez needs to mash his way through High-A and finish the season doing the like in Double-A for me to really take him seriously as a prospect. Unfortunately for Dominguez, I suspect he will hit a buzzsaw in Bridgeport against pitchers who can spin a breaking pitch with any consistency whatsoever, dooming him to organizational status."

Last year, the Giants moved a little quicker on Dominguez as he played half the year in San Jose, and the second half in Richmond in the Eastern League. While he didn't go HAM with his power like some Giants fans would have hoped (the California League tends to be a launching pad for hitters), he still hit 11 home runs and posted a .174 ISO, .802 OPS and .355 wOBA in 279 plate appearances.

The strong showing in San Jose earned Dominguez a call up to Richmond and though he got off to a hot start (he had two home runs and eight doubles in his first 12 games with the Flying Squirrels), he tailed off and look overwhelmed at the end of the year in the Eastern League, as he finished the Double-A campaign with a .244/.272/.675 slash line. While Double-A is usually hard on hitters, Dominguez's plate approach did garner him many fans, as he posted a BB/K ratio of 0.12, highlighted by a 2.8 percent walk rate.

The age is a concern for Dominguez and though his 2011 campaign in Richmond wasn't terrible by any sorts, he certainly needs to improve next year at the plate if he wants to continue to be seen as a prospect with some high ceiling tools (remember, according to Piliere's scouting report, Dominguez's power and arm were both graded a 70 on a 20-80 scale). Yet there is some optimism with Dominguez, as Jonathan Mayo ranked him No. 8 in his Giants Top 10 prospect list this year (though to be fair, he hasn't included recent draftees, so it's likely he would tumble out of the top 10 if he included guys like Joe Panik, Kyle Crick and Andrew Susac), so it is entirely possible that Dominguez is capable of having a breakout year or at least something similar to what he did in Augusta in 2010 or San Jose in 2011.

I have never really been too high on Dominguez as a prospect in comparison to other Giants fans and writers. For starters, I think he's pretty old and he doesn't have much room to develop. From what I hear, have read and have seen on tape, he seems to be pretty much what he is: a big, athletic guy with some raw power and a great arm, but not much else. I could see him being able to dominate in the Minors after so many seasons there, but my gut instinct tells me that I don't see him doing much at the Major League level, if anything at all simply because I think his low-walk, high strikeout approach simply won't cut it at the Major League level, and it hasn't improved much, if at all, as he's moved up the system.

And then I read things like this...(hat tip to Dr. B of When the Giants Come to Town).

"My lasting recollection of Chris Dominguez from the SJ Giants game I saw early last year in Lake Elsinore is not so much the 2 HR's he hit in the game, but his physical presence. Chris is a big man, but he looks even bigger on the field. I mean, he really did look like a man playing with a bunch of boys out there. Chris Dominguez is a bit of an enigma in the making. I don't think anyone in the GIants system has more raw power, including Tommy Joseph. The big question is whether Chris will ever make enough contact to harness that power."

As a baseball fan (and I'm sure most scouts feel the same way), one can never write off a guy with a plus tool, especially power. For every Mike Jacobs out there (plus power tool guy who flopped), there is a Mark Reynolds whose plus tool carves them out a decent Major League career and one big season. Dominguez does not just have one, but  TWO plus tools. Sure, his other tool sets (speed, fielding, hitting for average) may be below average or below average at best, but when you have two tool sets rated a 70 by scouts, well...you just can't shrug that off. It means that the potential is there, and Dominguez has certainly flashed his power potential throughout his minor league career. He just hasn't put it together on a consistent basis.

Will he put it together to the point where he could be a serviceable Major League player? Right now, I, (and I think most scouts and analysts would agree) that he has a lot going against him. But, if he does put it together...

Well, let's just say a lot of scouts, analysts (and even myself) won't be all that surprised if he finds some Big League success.

Minor League Park Factors, League Run Environments, and Evaluating Giants Players' Stats Part II: Richmond and the EL

I looked at Part I last week where I looked at Fresno. This post, I'm going to look at Richmond and the Eastern League.

(For the record, I got the statistical information from Baseball Think Factory and The Hardball Times.)

Weighted Park Factors for The Diamond: 0.97 run factor, 1.00 hit factor, 0.96 doubles factor, 0.91 home run factor, 0.99 walk factor), 1.01 strikeout factor.

Run Environments for the Eastern League: 4.5 R/G, 4.5 BsR/G, 2.0 HR percentage, 8.7 walk percentage, 8.0 SBA percentage.

I only looked at one year mainly because the Giants' Double-A affiliate has only been in Richmond for one season. That being said, a lot of the same trends from Connecticut proved to be the same: the ball park favors the pitchers more so than the hitters. While Richmond is not as much as a pitcher's park as Richmond (the run factor was 0.91 in Connecticut), it's safe to say that you're going to see a regression in home run numbers for hitters who make the transition from the California League. (Though Richmond is not as bad on hitters when it comes to home runs, as Connecticut had a home run factor of 0.81).

The Diamond's dimensions are pretty normal by Minor League parks standards. It's 330 in right and left and 402 in center. Hence, while it isn't exactly too cavernous, there aren't any short porches or deep alleys that hitters can take advantage of.

In terms of the league, the Eastern League is a notorious pitcher's league. From 2007-2009, the league average batting average was .261 and the league average OPS was .727. While you could factor in the parks and environments of the teams in the Eastern League, the biggest key to the numbers favoring pitcher's is just the fact that the pitcher's are just a lot better than what you see in High Single-A or Triple-A. Most high end prospects make some kind of jump from Single A to Double A, so for the most part hitters face the best pitchers organizations have to offer and not retreads who are repeating levels (though you do see this sometimes as Osiris Matos is currently pitching in Double A).


What does this mean for Flying Squirrels Players?

I think the biggest sign of how a prospect will develop and turn out is how well they do in Double A. You see a lot hitters have great years in the California League, only to dramatically have down years in the Eastern League. Granted, you have to take their "down" years with a grain of salt. I think guys like Conor Gillaspie, Brandon Crawford and Darren Ford, players who had down seasons in Richmond in 2010 after good years in San Jose in 2009, are players who still performed well enough to maintain their status as "good" prospects. However, guys like Roger Kieschnick and Nick Noonan put their statuses in jeopardy in Richmond because they looked massively overwhelmed by the pitching (as evidenced by high strikeout rates and low walk rates and OPS numbers).

When you see hitters show power in the Eastern League, it usually turns out to be a pretty good sign. Brandon Belt for example put up incredible slugging numbers in Richmond (.623 slugging percentage in 201 plate appearances), which just goes to show you that he's a legitimate prospect with legitimate power. He wasn't benefiting from hitter's parks and he was facing the best pitchers organizations had to offer. Belt's stats in Richmond to me are confirmation that he will find success eventually at the Major League level despite his slow start with the Giants this year.

As for pitchers, the numbers are going to favor them, just because of the parks and environments. Much like any pitcher at any level, you want to see how he's walking guys and how well he's striking guys out. Furthermore, the Eastern League and Double A in general seems to be a prime point in evaluating a pitcher's development. Is he developing his secondary pitchers? Is his fastball continuing to have as much life as it did when he broke into Rookie League? How is his command faring and developing? Guys in Double A usually have one to a few years of professional experience when they arrive to the Eastern League, so it's a nice forum to see how they have improved or regressed since they first broke into the league.

To use an example, Madison Bumgarner's strikeout rates went down when he went to Connecticut, but he developed as a pitcher mainly because he minimized his walks (2.5 BB/9), hits (6.7 H/9) and took advantage of the park environments and defense around him (.236 BABIP). Tim Alderson on the other hand (the other Giants pitcher who was taken in the first round in 2007), has struggled because he has been extremely hittable (9.9 H/9 in 3 seasons in the Eastern League) and he doesn't have the stuff to blow guys away like he did in the California League (5.7 K/9 in three seasons in Double-A). It just goes to show you how the Eastern League can be a good indicator of which pitchers are ready to make the jump to the Show (e.g. Bumgarner) and ones who still have a lot more developing to do (e.g. Alderson).

Overall, you have to keep two things in mind when evaluating players in Richmond:

1.) Don't get discouraged too much if players aren't hitting well in the Eastern League (like I said, pitchers will have the advantage and the ones that do succeed are usually "elite" prospects anyways that are going to succeed at any level). They still can be good prospects and develop into good Major League players, they just need a little more time and that's okay as long as the numbers aren't too bad. That is why Crawford, Gillaspie and Ford earned promotions to Fresno even though their numbers were down in comparison to what they did in San Jose in 2009.

2.) Double A is a good indicator of which pitchers are going to develop into studs and which ones are going to struggle. And unlike hitters, multiple years in Double A for pitchers usually isn't a good thing, especially if they don't show improvement in multiple years.

Minor League Park Factors, League Run Environments and Evaluating Giants Players' Stats Part I: Fresno and the PCL

When it comes to evaluating the stats of minor league players, that can be a heated and touchy debate. Many people like to use numbers to project a players' chances of success at the Major League level, and there isn't anything wrong with doing that as long as you know which stats are important and ones that should be taken with a grain of salt. For example, John Bowker absolutely tore it up in the Pacific Coast League. However, as any Giants fan will tell you, Bowker's minor league success never really translated to the Major League level.

So what should Giants fans do in terms of determining whether Giants minor league player stats are for real or not? Well, two things should be kept in mind:

1.) Which leagues and levels tend to favor the hitters and which ones tend to favor pitchers?
2.) Which parks are hitter's parks and which ones are pitcher's parks?

Therefore, I wanted to take a look at each level and each park and see the park factors of each ballpark and run environments of each league in the Giants system. Of course, these numbers aren't sure fire. You still have to keep in consideration the plate approach of certain players (hitters with good BB/K ratios and pitchers with good K/BB ratios can overcome certain parks for example). That being said, I think looking at the park factors and run environments can be a telling sign of which players are having true success that can translate to the Major League level and which ones may struggle as they advance through the system or in the Majors.

Because of the length of this post, I decided to split it up into multiple parts. In this first part, I'm going to look at the Fresno Grizzlies, Chukchansi Park and the Pacific Coast League (and how it stacks against the International League), and what we should be looking for when it comes to evaluating Grizzlies players' numbers.

(For the record, I got the statistical information from Baseball Think Factory and The Hardball Times.)


Three-year weighted Park factors for Chukchnasi Park: 0.97 Run factor, 0.98 Hit factor, 0.93 Double factor, 1.13 Home Run factor, 0.98 Walk factor, 0.98 Strikeout factor.

Run environments for the Pacific Coast League (2007-2009): 5.1 runs per game, 5.0 base runs per game (base runs = baserunners * basesrunner scoring rate * home runs), 2.5 home run percentage, 8.5 walk percentage, 2.1 error percentage, 7.9 stolen base attempt rate (SBA/OPP).

Surprisingly, the run factor is actually below average at Chukchansi Park, which would suggest it's a pitcher's park. However, the home run factor at 1.13 is one of the highest factors in Triple-A. How is this so? Well, just judging by the dimensions of Chukchansi Park, it's not exactly a cavernous yard. So, while home runs may go out easier than most "average" Triple-A parks, other extra base hits are going to be harder to come by because of the smaller dimensions (hence the 0.95 double factor, which is below the 1.00 average).

In terms of the run environments of the Pacific Coast League, this really shouldn't be too much of a surprise. Since it's the last step for a player before he hits the Majors, the numbers are closer to what you would see in the National and American League rather than other leagues (mainly because players are more skilled, with most having some Major League experience). However, the PCL is a bit more of a hitter's league than it's counterpart, the International League, which tends to be more of a pitcher's league and favors "small ball."

To compare, the R/G average in the PCL was 5.1 and the BsR/G was 5.0, and the HR percentage was 2.5 and the stolen base attempt rate 7.9 from 2007-2009. In the International League, R/G and BsR/G was 4.4 and the HR percentage was a lot lower at 2.1. The biggest upgrade though came in stolen bases, as the SBA percentage was 9.5 percent, a 1.6 difference from the PCL.

There are a variety of factors in the differences between the International League and the PCL. Probably the biggest factor to the difference is the fact that the PCL is mostly situated in the West Coast and western part of the Midwest, where the weather is a lot drier. Weather and humidity factors aren't going to keep the ball in the park like in some parks in the Southeartern or Northeastern parts of the United States (where most clubs in the IL are located). Another big factor is the fact that the clubs with affiliates in the Pacific Coast League simply have more talent in Triple-A than the International League (the IL is lower than PCL in batting average, on-base percentage and slugging). It makes sense though, as most International League teams spend a ton of money on free agents to make up their roster and have most of their talent in the lower minors (like the Mets, Yankees and Red Sox) . There are some exceptions to the rules (Tampa Bay, Minnesota and Atlanta for example), but the PCL has more teams that rely on their own talent to stock their Major League rosters, and hence, there is going to be deeper talent at Triple-A (because guys are going to go up and down all the time).


What Does this Mean for Grizzlies Players?

I think you have to take a couple of things into consideration when evaluating talent on the Fresno roster: age is huge and hitting stats have to be taken with a grain of salt. In terms of the first point, it's one thing for a guy to dominate in Fresno, but guys in their late 20's or early thirties really are more four-A players rather than legitimate prospects. If you play long enough in the minors or the PCL, you're going to do well. That's a given. But can they do well at the Major League level? If they have been in the minors long enough, then there is probably some serious flaws in their game that prevents them from sticking to the 25-man roster, which just goes to show that stats can't be the sole component to evaluating a Grizzlies player.

In terms of point two, hitter's are going to have an advantage in the PCL because of the park factors and the fact that most pitchers in Triple-A are of the "four-A" mold. Just look at the Grizzlies rotation and you'll see that none of those guys are "elite" prospects by any measure. Most "elite" pitching prospects tend to bypass Triple-A all together and make the jump from Double-A to the Majors, so while the pitching in Triple-A isn't terrible, it isn't exactly stellar either. With these factors favoring hitters, offensive stats for Grizzlies (and most PCL) players are going to be inflated by some measure.

When looking at a Grizzlies offensive players, I would put less weight in stats like slugging and average and more salt into numbers like OBP and BB/K ratio. Because of the nature of Chukchansi, home runs are going to fly easier for hitters than they would at AT&T Park (simply because of the dimensions and weather factors), so to think power is going to "absolutely" translate from the PCL to the MLB level is usually unlikely (though the good hitters will translate it, but they also hit at other levels as well; guys who don't show power or consistency with their power until Triple-A are usually the ones you throw red flags at).

As for plate approach though, that is something that translates a little better. Do guys work the count and get on-base or are they wild swingers who don't walk much? And how much do they strike out? If they are striking out a lot in the PCL, how is that going to translate to the National League? It probably won't turn out good for that player when they get to the Giants roster. (Unless they are high walk guys as well, but even then, that's not a guarantee as some, like Bowker, didn't transition their impressive walk numbers to the Giants, but still flashed the same strikeout problems.)

When it comes to looking at Grizzlies players, yes the home runs and RBI and batting average numbers can be tempting, but it's important to not get too fooled by that. Like I said, while it could be a sign of a guy continuing to showcase power as they transition level to level, guys who suddenly have power outbursts in the PCL after not showing such skills in Double-A and lower are probably benefiting more from the League and Park rather than actually developing skills.

As for pitchers, most of the pitchers in Triple-A don't have much ceiling simply because most good pitching prospects spend little to no time in Triple-A (unless they are working some things out). If you are going to look at a pitcher, looking at strikeouts and K/BB ratio is probably the most important indicator of how they will perform at the Major League level. For the most part, guys who strike out a lot of batters, minimize balls in play and minimize their walks are the ones that succeed the most in the PCL (mainly because it's such a hitter's league and most BABIP numbers for pitchers are higher than the .300 average). Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of Grizzlies pitchers (or PCL pitchers in general) who sport these qualities, and the ones that do don't seem to stay in the PCL very long.

The reason? They are good pitchers and good pitchers make it to the Majors. They don't stick in Triple-A.

Welcome to Optioned to Fresno (Yes...another blog)

When it comes to blogs, I am a series of failed ideas. I have had basketball blogs, general sports blogs, Bay Area-emphasis blogs, college basketball blogs,  fantasy sports blogs, and so on and so on and so on.

The only really blog of longevity that I had was "Remember 51", my old San Francisco Giants blog which got killed after I lost time and internet access due to a variety of jobs.

Now that I have internet access and time again, I'm trying to start a new blog. Why a new blog? Mainly for two reasons.

1.) "Remember 51" captured a certain point in my writing that doesn't capture how I am now. When I started "R51" I wasn't totally into Sabermetrics, I was more interested in self-promoting my blog than writing actual pieces, and I was into forcing movie references and humor that never quite fit. Yes, I am happy with what I did with "R51." But at the same time, to just continue where I left off (especially with so many Giants blogs now up), I just feel like it wouldn't feel right. Thus, I need to go in a new direction, while still trying to capture what made "R51" so fun to work on.

2.) When it comes to baseball, I love making projections. That's mainly why I love Sabermetrics: I love looking at the complete picture and seeing what players are good and will be good, and which ones are getting lucky and outplaying their potential. I like to see which guys are overpaid, and which ones are not. Thus, it makes sense why I have developed an interest in minor league baseball. I love to see which players are going to pan out, and which ones won't. I like to see which guys are getting buried unnecessarily, and which guys probably are just Four-A players. So, I wanted to write about minor league players, and write about specifically the minor league players in the Giants organization.

We'll see how this blog turns out. For posting and content sake, I'm going to import all Minor league affiliated posts from "R51" to this blog just to show where the seeds of this blog started. How long will it last? Who knows, but at least I'll try to hit something that isn't being hit on out on the Giants blogosphere.

(Word of caution: there will also be some rando stuff, from movie reviews to noir fiction stuff...just some notice.)