Cody Bellinger was a fourth-round pick

[poldy]

In 2013.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cody_Bellinger

Apparently he had verbally committed to go to the Univ. of Oregon.
Maybe that's why he fell, because he was know for his family lineage
(father was a major league player) and he starred in the Little League
WS apparently.

Dodgers gave him a $700k bonus and apparently convinced him to forego
college.

Now, even before lighting it up, he was one of the top 10 prospects in
baseball.


So why have the Giants not had success with drafting and developing
talent? It's been a long time since they've had big hitter. Buster
Posey has been a clutch hitter but not a power hitter. Same with Will
Clark.

Maybe the last time they had one come up through their system was Dave
Kingman?


Ironic because supposedly in the '60s, it was the Giants who developed
power hitters while the Dodgers concentrated on pitching talent.

Dodgers still get big pitching prospects but now sluggers as well.

Are the Giants missing the right types of scouts and coaches to develop
position players who could hit with some power? DOn't have to hit a lot
of HRs, line drives into the power alleys of AT&T would help, though
since the stadium was built for Barry Bonds, you'd think they'd try to
target dead-pull sluggers who bat left-handed.

Unfortunately when they've tried developing sluggers, they had busts
like Dante Powell. Or you'd hear about some guys who had some good
power numbers in the minor leagues but none of them have come up.


Maybe the Giants have had enough success in this decade and the baseball
gods have determined they can wait awhile before they have a more
productive farm system again.

[benf8...@aol.com]

On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 4:00:26 PM UTC-7, poldy wrote:
>
> Maybe the last time they had one come up through their system was Dave
> Kingman?
>

Probably Jack Clark. But You are right. The development of outfielders from the Giants are horrible. Last decent one was maybe.....Chili Davis?

[Awesome Giants]

poldy <po...@kfu.com> wrote:

> In 2013.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cody_Bellinger
>
> Apparently he had verbally committed to go to the Univ. of Oregon.
> Maybe that's why he fell, because he was know for his family
> lineage (father was a major league player) and he starred in the
> Little League WS apparently.
>
> Dodgers gave him a $700k bonus and apparently convinced him to
> forego college.
>
> Now, even before lighting it up, he was one of the top 10
> prospects in baseball.

Since he's a 4th rounder, that means all the other 29 teams passed him
up 3-4 times, and the bums themselves passed him up 3 times. So either
the bums got really lucky, or their scouts or whomever did a really
great job of changing his mind to skip school, or both.

> So why have the Giants not had success with drafting and
> developing talent? It's been a long time since they've had big
> hitter. Buster Posey has been a clutch hitter but not a power
> hitter. Same with Will Clark.
>
> Maybe the last time they had one come up through their system was
> Dave Kingman?

How can you not remember Matt Williams? :-) And does Duvall count?
How about Pablo? Another guy I thought we let get away was Rob Deer.
The last guy I can think of not-named-Bonds who hit 30+ HR was Aurilia
(37), but that was a one-time fluke (he did have a couple of 20s). But
yeah, the Giants do seem pretty sad in that department. We know they
focus their high picks on pitchers, but still, through all these years,
you'd think just by dumb luck they should have a couple of sluggers.
After all, Piazza was drafted in the 30th round (hmm maybe the bums do
get more luck in draft picks than other teams).

Wait a minute... I know for sure I've read many years ago that Piazza
was drafted in the 30th round (I'm thinking it must have been either
the Examiner or Chronicle), but I just looked it up in baseball-
reference, and it says he was drafted in the (drum roll...) *62nd*
round! Holy crap! I didn't even know there are that many rounds in
the draft! Could that be an error?

In that case, the bums really hit the mother of all draftpicks jackpot!

And in basketball I've always felt that LA hit another crazy jackpot
with Kobe Bryant, a low 1st round pick. What's up with that?! (The
Lakers didn't draft him. Someone else did and the Lakers traded for
him right afterward.)

> Ironic because supposedly in the '60s, it was the Giants who
> developed power hitters while the Dodgers concentrated on pitching
> talent.

And the bums ended up with all the championships while the Giants won
nothing. Now it's the opposite. :-)

> Dodgers still get big pitching prospects but now sluggers as well.
>
> Are the Giants missing the right types of scouts and coaches to
> develop position players who could hit with some power? DOn't
> have to hit a lot of HRs, line drives into the power alleys of
> AT&T would help, though since the stadium was built for Barry
> Bonds, you'd think they'd try to target dead-pull sluggers who bat
> left-handed.

If the park was built for Bonds, whoever designed it should get fired,
'cause as we've all found out, AT&T Park is a death trap for lefty
sluggers.

> Unfortunately when they've tried developing sluggers, they had
> busts like Dante Powell. Or you'd hear about some guys who had
> some good power numbers in the minor leagues but none of them have
> come up.

Parker and Williamson have plenty of power, just not good enough as
hitters. But I keep thinking if Parker gets to play everyday in a
shitty team with a hitters park, he might develop into another Duvall.

> Maybe the Giants have had enough success in this decade and the
> baseball gods have determined they can wait awhile before they
> have a more productive farm system again.

Maybe. Hope not. I think there are also a combination of many
factors. I think it's just not their belief to build around
outfielders. When was the last time they spent a 1st round pick on an
OF? Their philosophy seems to be pitching and defense first. When
they draft OF, they'd pick guys who can not just hit, but also nimble
enough with the glove, instead of picking just outright sluggers.
That's why we keep seeing Blanco, Mr. Defense, playing OF instead of
some young slugger. We chose a high BA Duffy (his 1st year at least)
with a good glove and traded away a low BA/high power Duvall with maybe
a questionable glove (not sure)? We know they drafted Crawford because
of his glove. His hitting came later and they considered it a bonus.
I suspect it was the same with Panik. Even Belt, a 1B, has a decent
glove. And he's totally getting screwed by the ballpark (as a slugger
and a lefty). In his *career* he's only hit 26 HR at home, but 58 on
the road, more than double his home total. Put him at Cincy and I
think he'd make Duvall look like a girl. :-D

Belt's career stats at Cincy: .368/.455/.737/.1.191 (was even better
before this weekend). So ballpark play a role.

Just guessing here, but doesn't it seem like they believe in developing
infielders and buying outfielders? We have an all-star home-grown
infield (counting Pablo at 3B) while mostly proven veterans from
elsewhere in the OF. That cannot be a coincidence.

[poldy]

On 5/8/17 2:58 AM, Awesome Giants wrote:
> Maybe. Hope not. I think there are also a combination of many
> factors. I think it's just not their belief to build around
> outfielders. When was the last time they spent a 1st round pick on an
> OF? Their philosophy seems to be pitching and defense first. When
> they draft OF, they'd pick guys who can not just hit, but also nimble
> enough with the glove, instead of picking just outright sluggers.
> That's why we keep seeing Blanco, Mr. Defense, playing OF instead of
> some young slugger. We chose a high BA Duffy (his 1st year at least)
> with a good glove and traded away a low BA/high power Duvall with maybe
> a questionable glove (not sure)? We know they drafted Crawford because
> of his glove. His hitting came later and they considered it a bonus.
> I suspect it was the same with Panik. Even Belt, a 1B, has a decent
> glove. And he's totally getting screwed by the ballpark (as a slugger
> and a lefty). In his *career* he's only hit 26 HR at home, but 58 on
> the road, more than double his home total. Put him at Cincy and I
> think he'd make Duvall look like a girl. :-D
>
> Belt's career stats at Cincy: .368/.455/.737/.1.191 (was even better
> before this weekend). So ballpark play a role.
>
> Just guessing here, but doesn't it seem like they believe in developing
> infielders and buying outfielders? We have an all-star home-grown
> infield (counting Pablo at 3B) while mostly proven veterans from
> elsewhere in the OF. That cannot be a coincidence.

A couple of years ago, in Duffy's rookie season, everyone hit and CSN
Sports Net was boasting about the best offense in the NL.

When you go back to the WS, the Giants had some pitchers (including
relievers) get hot at the right time as well as some utility guys
hitting HRs in clutch situations.

Guys like Uribe, Renteria, Morse and others hitting key HRs They were
playing with house money. Sandoval was hitting like an MVP that one year.

And then you see teams with a lot of power like the Rangers and Tigers,
who had their windows with enough pitching but couldn't get it done.

So maybe the approach isn't wrong.

But the Giants haven't been developing the stud pitchers in awhile either.

[Awesome Giants]

Really? I guess their offense has been so bad I don't remember when
they were that good.

> When you go back to the WS, the Giants had some pitchers
> (including relievers) get hot at the right time as well as some
> utility guys hitting HRs in clutch situations.

I think these Giants simply had the right attitude and demeaner for
playoff games. You can see some teams are so nervous in the
playoff, but the Giants were always so loose and confident. I think
they were led by Lincecum with his 2-time Cy Young arrogance and the
all-world rookie Posey who was tearing it up from day 1. After they
won their 1st one in 2010, their confidence grew even higher. In
2012 when Pence's speech brought them back from the dead to win the
whole thing, they must have felt invincible in the playoff. They
felt that if they get in, they can win it all. Even last year, when
the Giants were really struggling in the 2nd half (worst 2nd half
record in baseball?), the Cubs players and their fans were still
publicly saying they didn't want to play the Giants. I guess they
really did have the October magic for a couple of years. Had the
bullpen not have that historical collapse and the Giants came back
to beat the Cubs in 5, you have to wonder what would've happened.

> Guys like Uribe, Renteria, Morse and others hitting key HRs They
> were playing with house money. Sandoval was hitting like an MVP
> that one year.

That's really not that unusual. Like I said before, if you look
back each year in the playoff, you'll find a ton of "nobodies"
getting big hits in the playoff. It's a total misconception that
only the stars get big hits. This happens to every team, not just
the Giants.

I'd say Renteria was the only one with the surprise HR with the
names you mentioned above. Uribe was a good hitting SS and strong
enough to hit HRs. He was pretty good even after he went to LA.
Morse is literally the slugger on that team and having a good season
despite injuries. Pablo hit great in 2012 and 2014 WS. It should
be no surprise that he'd shine in the postseason because he's the
kind of carefree guy that loves the spotlight and doesn't care about
screwing up so he feels no pressure in the playoff. In 2012 he made
the all-star team so he had a good season. In 2014 it was his
contract year and he worked his butt off to lose weight, had the
best defensive year of his life. Actually even Renteria was once a
great player, so even though he wasn't his former self, he still had
enough experience to pick his spot and found a way to contribute in
the biggest AB(s) of his life.

For relievers, Affeldt didn't surprise me. For a couple of years he
was very dependable, and he can and did run some scoreless streaks
in the regular season, so why couldn't he do it in the postseason?
Romo is, like I said many times, *so* underrated because he wasn't
the typical closer, without a heater, but if you look at his career
stats, you have to be impressed. And of course Lincecum as a
reliever really saved them in 2012, and Bochy gets the credit for
using him the right way to perfection. Dusty probably would've
started him in Games 3 and 7 and lost. ;-)

The guys you probably should've mentioned were Cody Ross and Zito.
They really came out of nowhere and surprised everyone. Zito did
have a lucky streak going on prior to the playoff though. But
still, that Game 5 vs the Cards was unreal, and outdueling Verlander
in Game 1? What??? :-D

But I totally agree that we did have luck on our side, or as Giants
fans like to call it, "October Magic". :-)

Just like the Cubs totally had luck on their side last year. They
totally should not have won Game 4 against the Giants, and they
totally should've lost the WS when down 3 games to 1. I think they
were losing at the end of Game 7 too, weren't they?

> And then you see teams with a lot of power like the Rangers and
> Tigers, who had their windows with enough pitching but couldn't
> get it done.

I guess it's true that pitching wins championships. As you
mentioned, in the '60s the bums had the pitching and the Giants had
the hitting, and we know what happened. In the late '80s the A's
had the ultimate power hitting, albeit steroids induced, yet they
lost 2 out of 3 WS in a 3-year stretch. Unfortunately the only one
they won was against the Giants. We didn't have great pitching
though, and the earthquake didn't help.

> So maybe the approach isn't wrong.

That's an understatement. :-) The Giants are arguably the team of
this century, without spending Yankees/Sox/Dodgers level of money.
In the late '90s and early '00, the Giants had the great hitting
with Bonds, Kent, Burks or whoever, but they couldn't get it done,
in fact, kept losing in the 1st round except 2002. Those freakin
Marlins screwed us in '97, '02, and '03. I hate the freakin
Marlins!

> But the Giants haven't been developing the stud pitchers in awhile
> either.

Yeah. And the bullpen is in such bad shape. We just lost another
game with Strickland, supposedly one of our better reliever,
screwing up. He came in with 2 outs man on 1B! Even Law walked a
tightrope an inning earlier, loading the bases with only 1 out, but
got a double play.

[poldy]

On 5/9/17 12:21 AM, Awesome Giants wrote:
> The guys you probably should've mentioned were Cody Ross and Zito.
> They really came out of nowhere and surprised everyone. Zito did
> have a lucky streak going on prior to the playoff though. But
> still, that Game 5 vs the Cards was unreal, and outdueling Verlander
> in Game 1? What??? :-D
>
> But I totally agree that we did have luck on our side, or as Giants
> fans like to call it, "October Magic". :-)

Yeah luck is never a bad thing. I'd forgotten about Ross.

When the Giants lost to the Angels, I wasn't too heartbroken because to
even reach the WS at that point seemed like playing with house money.

But my recollection is that the Giants were beaten by nobodies getting
big hits too.


However, Sabean depended on a lot of these vets, picked off the scrap
heaps of other teams, to play key roles, at least getting to the
playoffs, not necessarily to get big hits in them.


Right now, it's the same strategy, lean on pitching and fill in the
lineup with whatever they can get.

It seems like they're strategy is to grind out a lot of close games,
because they don't have the consistent offense to win a lot of games
comfortably.

This worked for them in the past but I think last year they had a
horrible record in one-run games or blown saves or late-game losses.
And with games like last night, that trend seems to be continuing.

In the late '80s, in one of the last seasons for the 49ers under Bill
Walsh, they were upset by the NY Giants and Jeff Hostetler. 49ers had
been the consensus SB favorite.

Giants went on to win the SB and next year, as they defended, they
started to lose some close games. Walsh said that the Giants strategy
was to rely on their dominant defense and grind out 10-3 wins, because
their offense wasn't good. He said you just can't rely on winning many
games scoring only 1 or 2 TDs a game.

That's what the 2017 SF Giants seem to be built for, try to grind out
close wins with 3 or 4 runs a game at the most. But their pitching and
defense isn't good enough to hold teams under 3 runs.

[Awesome Giants]

poldy <po...@kfu.com> wrote:

> On 5/9/17 12:21 AM, Awesome Giants wrote:
>> The guys you probably should've mentioned were Cody Ross and
>> Zito. They really came out of nowhere and surprised everyone.
>> Zito did have a lucky streak going on prior to the playoff
>> though. But still, that Game 5 vs the Cards was unreal, and
>> outdueling Verlander in Game 1? What??? :-D
>>
>> But I totally agree that we did have luck on our side, or as
>> Giants fans like to call it, "October Magic". :-)
>
>
> Yeah luck is never a bad thing. I'd forgotten about Ross.
>
> When the Giants lost to the Angels, I wasn't too heartbroken
> because to even reach the WS at that point seemed like playing
> with house money.

But the Angels were also a WC team, so I guess both teams were
playing with house money. And of course, what was heartbreaking was
that the Giants had a 3 games to 2 lead in the WS, and had a 5-0
lead in Game 6. I think they were just 5 outs away from the title?
It was probably the worst bullpen collapse in franchise history
until last year. I found it impossible not to be heartbroken.

> But my recollection is that the Giants were beaten by nobodies
> getting big hits too.

Probably true. Like I said, it happens a lot more than you think.

> However, Sabean depended on a lot of these vets, picked off the
> scrap heaps of other teams, to play key roles, at least getting to
> the playoffs, not necessarily to get big hits in them.

Well, the entire pitching rotation besides Zito was home grown.
Plus Posey and Pablo in the infield. Freddy Sanchez was a batting
champ. Rowand was an AS and GG when we got him. Uribe had 24 HR
and 85 RBI. I don't think those guys came cheap. Huff had 26 HR
and 86 RBI. Torres hit 16 HR (does he count as half home grown? :-
D). Burrell hit 18 HR in 96 games and some huge hits against the
bums (he's had some good years so it's not a total surprise). I
think that team was known as one of the youngest teams in the league
for a couple of years, and I think you gave some of them too little
credit. And the strategy definitely worked. :-D

> Right now, it's the same strategy, lean on pitching and fill in
> the lineup with whatever they can get.

Seems like the power we have on this team is nowhere close to the
2010 team. We're not even scraping for vets now. We're relying on
homegrown rookies like Gorkys, Marrero, Arroyo... The only "vet" I
see in the lineup is Pence.

Before this year, we had Pagan, Span, and Pence in the OF, and none
of them came cheap. It's bad luck that Pagan became injury prone
and Span under-performed. Pence's been great for a couple of years,
instrumental in 2 championship runs, but he's definitely going
downhill, and injury prone.

I think this year, the main problem that is in their control is they
didn't address LF at all. Span we were stuck with; not much we can
do. And then the rest of the team were mostly the same team, but
they're just all under-performing. Besides Posey and maybe Panik,
everyone is hitting way below what it should be. Belt, Pence,
Nunez, they're all supposed to hit better and they're not going
anywhere (stuck on this team). Nothing we can do about them. They
just need to start hitting.

Crawford should help when he comes back, unless he under-performs
too.

The bullpen is still unreliable, though not as horrible as last
year. The rotation is in bad shape too and most of them are not
going anywhere (ie. not easily replaceable). Bumgarner was
unexpected. Samardzija looks more and more hopeless but has a
lengthy contract. Blach is off and on. Even Cueto is
underperforming. Cain was actually the surprise until the Cincy
game. Let's see which Cain shows up now.

> It seems like they're strategy is to grind out a lot of close
> games, because they don't have the consistent offense to win a lot
> of games comfortably.

Last year they were the best team in baseball for a half season, and
then the exact same team became the worst team in baseball in the
2nd half. So I'm not sure it's their strategy to grind out close
games. They already have a pretty high payroll, and most of them
are stuck here contract-wise. And they have nothing to trade. Not
much room to maneuver.

> This worked for them in the past but I think last year they had a
> horrible record in one-run games or blown saves or late-game
> losses. And with games like last night, that trend seems to be
> continuing.

Yep.

> In the late '80s, in one of the last seasons for the 49ers under
> Bill Walsh, they were upset by the NY Giants and Jeff Hostetler.
> 49ers had been the consensus SB favorite.

You must be talking about 1987 because Walsh won the SB in his final
year in 1988. I looked up 1987. We met the Giants in the 3rd game
of the season and we killed them 41-21. After that game the Giants
were 0-3, so they did pretty well to win the SB.

> Giants went on to win the SB and next year, as they defended, they
> started to lose some close games. Walsh said that the Giants
> strategy was to rely on their dominant defense and grind out 10-3
> wins, because their offense wasn't good. He said you just can't
> rely on winning many games scoring only 1 or 2 TDs a game.

Bill Walsh is always right! :-) Well, the Ravens did win with
defense only, but their defense was so good the defense was scoring
TDs. The QB (Trent Dilfer?) only needed to not throw INT.

> That's what the 2017 SF Giants seem to be built for, try to grind
> out close wins with 3 or 4 runs a game at the most. But their
> pitching and defense isn't good enough to hold teams under 3 runs.

Seems like too often they can't score 3 runs themselves. According
to wayne, their pitching is not dead last, but their offense is.

I think that's why most great teams besides the wealthy Yanks can
only sustain a great run for a few years tops. After a couple of
years, even your top players can get injured, decline, retired, get
traded, or lose to free agency. Teams just eventually fall apart.
You might have a few guys that stay good, but certainly not the
whole team.

And many teams win WS with some luck, and luck don't stay with you
forever.

[poldy]

On 5/10/17 1:00 AM, Awesome Giants wrote:
>> In the late '80s, in one of the last seasons for the 49ers under
>> Bill Walsh, they were upset by the NY Giants and Jeff Hostetler.
>> 49ers had been the consensus SB favorite.
> You must be talking about 1987 because Walsh won the SB in his final
> year in 1988. I looked up 1987. We met the Giants in the 3rd game
> of the season and we killed them 41-21. After that game the Giants
> were 0-3, so they did pretty well to win the SB.
>
>> Giants went on to win the SB and next year, as they defended, they
>> started to lose some close games. Walsh said that the Giants
>> strategy was to rely on their dominant defense and grind out 10-3
>> wins, because their offense wasn't good. He said you just can't
>> rely on winning many games scoring only 1 or 2 TDs a game.
> Bill Walsh is always right! :-) Well, the Ravens did win with
> defense only, but their defense was so good the defense was scoring
> TDs. The QB (Trent Dilfer?) only needed to not throw INT.

Actually it may have been the '89 49ers or one of Seifert's teams which
got upset in the NFC Championship game.

Then the Giants beat the Buffalo Bills when their kicker missed a FG.

>
>> That's what the 2017 SF Giants seem to be built for, try to grind
>> out close wins with 3 or 4 runs a game at the most. But their
>> pitching and defense isn't good enough to hold teams under 3 runs.
> Seems like too often they can't score 3 runs themselves. According
> to wayne, their pitching is not dead last, but their offense is.
>
> I think that's why most great teams besides the wealthy Yanks can
> only sustain a great run for a few years tops. After a couple of
> years, even your top players can get injured, decline, retired, get
> traded, or lose to free agency. Teams just eventually fall apart.
> You might have a few guys that stay good, but certainly not the
> whole team.
>
> And many teams win WS with some luck, and luck don't stay with you
> forever.

Oh well, at least the Warriors are doing well, for now.

49ers are going to be horrible for another couple of years but if they
can get a couple of good drafts going, they should improve because
parity won't hold down teams forever, unless they're really horribly
managed.

[Awesome Giants]

poldy <po...@kfu.com> wrote:

> Actually it may have been the '89 49ers or one of Seifert's teams
> which got upset in the NFC Championship game.

Oh, *that* game. Seifert's team won the SB in '89, so you're
talking about the 1990 NFC Championship game. I'm still pissed
about that game, 'cause we would've 3-peated if we didn't give that
game away. The 49ers were leading the whole way, the Giants
couldn't even move the ball on us. Somewhere in the 2nd half the
Giants had to punt on 4th down. I was like, "Watch out for the fake
punt!" Of course they did and got a long gain for the 1st down and
went on to score. Even I saw that play coming! Walsh would've seen
that coming from a mile away, but unfortunately Seifert didn't. And
late in the 4th quarter all Roger Craig had to do was protect the
ball, but he fumbled and cost us the game. I think he had 2 fumbles
in the 4th quarter, but will have to double check. The 49ers
*never* should've lost that game.

Actually there were some similarities to how Harbaugh's team lost to
the, guess who, the Giants in 2010? The 49ers were in control, the
Giants couldn't move the ball on us. But our dumbass punt returner
tried to be the hero and fumbled *2* punts and gave the game away.

> Then the Giants beat the Buffalo Bills when their kicker missed a
> FG.

That was the Bills' 1st of their 4 straight SB losses. The 49ers
would've beaten them in their sleep, even without Montana.

> Oh well, at least the Warriors are doing well, for now.

The Warriors!!! Never in a million years would I expect them to be
the dominant team in the NBA. Potentially they can win several more
in a row. Should've won last year if not for the Draymond
suspension (the shithead lebron baited Draymond into a technical by
walking over him while he was on the ground) and Bogut's injury
(dirty and dangerous slide by JR Smith IMO). That play pretty much
ended Bogut's career.

> 49ers are going to be horrible for another couple of years but if
> they can get a couple of good drafts going, they should improve
> because parity won't hold down teams forever, unless they're
> really horribly managed.

Well, the guy brought the Falcons to the SB, and really should've
won the SB but he tried to be macho and gave the game away. I'm
expecting him to do well here.

[Gary Rosen]

OT from baseball but ...

The 49ers were leading late in the 4th quarter when Montana was
knocked out of that game (1990 NFCCG vs. Giants).

> parity won't hold down teams forever, unless they're
> really horribly managed.

You mean like the 49ers under the Yorks? They were handed one
of the premier successful franchises in pro sports on a silver platter
and turned it into a laughingstock. They are the worst sports team owners
since Harry Frazee, who sold Babe Ruth from the Red Sox to the Yankees.

People think the owner is just a fat old guy who writes the checks and
likes to hang around with jocks but they make a huge difference. 49ers
before and after Eddie. Or the Warriors. They were an ongoing disaster
under Chris Cohan, nothing ever went right. As soon as he sold them to
people who knew WTF they were doing they started moving up and are
now close to where the 49ers were in the 80s.

"Awesome Giants" wrote in message
news:XnsA7723241E2CA8...@130.133.4.11...

[Awesome Giants]

"Gary Rosen" <garym...@comcast.net> wrote:

> OT from baseball but ...
>
> The 49ers were leading late in the 4th quarter when Montana was
> knocked out of that game (1990 NFCCG vs. Giants).

Yes, that's why I said even without Montana the 49ers still would've
beaten the Bills. And the 49ers still should've won that game against
the Giants regardless of Montana's injury.

>> parity won't hold down teams forever, unless they're
>> really horribly managed.
>
> You mean like the 49ers under the Yorks? They were handed one
> of the premier successful franchises in pro sports on a silver
> platter and turned it into a laughingstock. They are the worst
> sports team owners since Harry Frazee, who sold Babe Ruth from the
> Red Sox to the Yankees.
>
> People think the owner is just a fat old guy who writes the checks
> and likes to hang around with jocks but they make a huge
> difference. 49ers before and after Eddie. Or the Warriors. They
> were an ongoing disaster under Chris Cohan, nothing ever went
> right. As soon as he sold them to people who knew WTF they were
> doing they started moving up and are now close to where the 49ers
> were in the 80s.

Good points. :-)

[poldy]

Belliger leads the Dodgers in HRs. I guess he's kind of like a phenom,
not really expected to play for the MLB team this year.

When he was drafted, he was more of a line-drive hitter but apparently
switched things up in the minor leagues.

That might suggest Dodgers invested in good hitting coaches, who know
how to develop sluggers.

[benf8...@aol.com]

Bryon Morris...first round draft ick of the Dodgers

[Awesome Giants]

poldy <po...@kfu.com> wrote:

> Belliger leads the Dodgers in HRs. I guess he's kind of like a
> phenom, not really expected to play for the MLB team this year.
>
> When he was drafted, he was more of a line-drive hitter but
> apparently switched things up in the minor leagues.

Part of that probably has to do with him growing bigger. He was
drafted out of high school, probably a skinny kid back then. Most
American athletes are still growing from age 18-21, and usually start a
more serious weight training program than back in high school.

> That might suggest Dodgers invested in good hitting coaches, who
> know how to develop sluggers.

Could be. The hitters that the Giants developed seem to be more
contact hitters with good defense, not power.

Cain seems to own Bellinger today though. I think he struck him out
twice? He was 0 for 4.

[poldy]

Great to hear.

Puig seemed like the second coming of Vladimir Guerrero the first couple
of months and then tailed off. Still got a lot of athletic ability but
not a threat to be a perennial all-star.

[Awesome Giants]

Perhaps Bellinger and Seager will follow in Puig's path. :-D Don't
know what's up with Turner though, suddenly learned how to hit late in
his career? Maybe it's the water they drink down there? ;-)