Is Jesus Guzman the Second-Coming of John Bowker?

If anything, there was probably one guy who didn't like the Giants winning the World Series this year. I'm not saying he wasn't happy for the guys or the organization, but rather, he was probably disappointed because their win probably put the lid in terms of him playing next year with the Giants.

That person was Jesus Guzman.

Could Guzman be a good player? I don't know. His minor league numbers (.885 and .886 OPS; 16 home runs and 18 home runs in 2009 and 2010 in Fresno) aren't extremely impressive, but they're solid and he did show improvement from 2009 to 2010 in the Pacific Coast League (his K/9 rate dropped from 18.3 to 15.1 percent and his BB/K ratio improved from 0.45 to 0.56). Of course, Guzman has no Major League numbers to fall back on (.250 average, .500 OPS in 20 plate appearances) and his defense isn't exactly heralded (he played five different positions last year, and the best one for him was DH). Despite this, Guzman still remains an interesting player who is still young enough (he's 26 years old) to have some kind of career at the big league level.

But then again, we said the same thing about John Bowker and Todd Linden.

The comparison between Bowker and Guzman is very interesting. Granted, Guzman broke into professional ball earlier than Bowker (Bowker played college ball at Long Beach State; while Guzman was playing ball in Venezuela at 17 years old), but they are pretty similar career-wise in terms of minor league numbers.

Both had big seasons in Double-A ball (Bowker posted an .886 OPS in Connecticut in 2007; Guzman had a .948 OPS in 2008 for Midland, the A's Double-A affiliate). Both had down initial campaigns in Triple-A (Bowker struggled in his brief time in Fresno in 2008, though that was probably affected by the fact that he played most of the year in the Big Leagues; Guzman struggled down the stretch in 2008 with Sacramento, posting only a .649 OPS in 65 plate appearances). And both rebounded to have solid seasons in Triple-A the following year (Bowker had a ridiculous 1.047 OPS, while Guzman posted a very commendable .885 OPS).

So is Guzman on that Bowker track? (e.g. a prolonged stint in the minors without ever having a solid chance to prove himself at the Major League level?) Most likely. When your team wins the World Series, you don't rebuild and take a waiver on guys like Guzman. You re-load with free agents or stick with the guys who got you there (and the latter is a very strong possibility if I know Brian Sabean).

That being said, I think Guzman has a bit more upside than Bowker simply because he has had a better history in terms of plate patience. Guzman has only posted a BB/K ratio under 0.45 once in his career (his 2008 in Sacramento). As for Bowker, sans his ridiculous 1.16 BB/K ratio in 2009, plate patience was always an issue for him (he never had a BB/K ratio above 0.40 at any level prior to 2009). Yes, Bowker showed more power in the minors (only 11 less home runs than Guzman in almost 1000 fewer at-bats), but I'll take a guy with better plate discipline any day. Don't get me wrong. I liked Bowker. I rooted for him to succeed with the Giants hard. But, unlike Bowker, I think a decent Major League career isn't a stretch for Guzman.

It just won't be with the Giants.

Which Giants Players Were Losers from Fall and Winter League?

The "Winners Post" got long, so I decided to split it up.

Like I said before, just because these players are "Losers" of Fall/Winter League doesn't mean that they buried themselves for next season. It was just something I noticed, plain and simple, and I just think numbers, regardless of the level, should be recognized. Do I think guys who were winners can tank in Spring Training? Yes. Do I think guys who were losers are capable of doing much better come March? Of course.

That being said, I also think vice versa as well, for I am an avid believer that some players are capable of transitioning solid Fall/Winter seasons into solid Springs and hopefully, regular seasons. You can't ignore numbers. I learned that in Business school. When you ignore numbers, you get a situation like Enron (the baseball equivalent would be Lance Niekro).

Now, onto the losers. I'll try to be gentle (and you'll want me to especially when you see who I put on the list).


Losers

Buster Posey:
Yikes! I blasphemed, right? No, not really. Posey had a really underwhelming 2009 campaign in Arizona Fall League. In 19 games and 71 AB, Posey posted a .225 batting average, a .683 OPS and hit only two home runs. That is not what Giants fans expected from Posey in Fall League, especially not after his incredible rise through the Giants farm system last season which saw him go from San Jose to San Francisco within the course of a 162 game season. Thus, after posting rather pedestrian numbers for Scottsdale, one can understand why Sabean may have balked at giving Posey the starting job and decided to re-sign Bengie Molina for one more season.

Of course, Posey didn't completely tank. He still posted a .345 OBP (thanks to his 13 walks drawn) and drove in 13 RBI. So, Posey didn't take a complete turn for the worse. That being said, Posey probably needed a strong showing this Fall to prove to Sabean he is ready for the starting catcher's position, and unfortunately, it just didn't happen for him in Scottsdale. Hopefully, he can pick it up in Spring Training and convince Giants brass that he is worth having up at the Major League level as a backup for the time being over Eli Whiteside.

Eugenio Velez:
Velez needs to prove this Spring Training that he is not just a "one month player" and that he can put up solid numbers over the full course of a season. Unfortunately, his performance in DWL play certainly didn't convince anybody that he can play a 162 game season for the Giants.

In 161 AB, Velez posted a .261 batting average, a .313 OBP and a .679 OPS. Furthermore, he only hit two home runs, drew 10 walks and managed to strike out 25 times. Basically, Velez proved to be the same player he has always been, only this is worse because this is Dominican Winter League and not the Major Leagues.

On the bright side, he did show some speed and a better propensity for stealing bases this Winter. He managed to snag 11 bases and was only caught twice. However, in order to be a contributor for the Giants, he needs to improve his abysmal plate patience, and this Winter showed that little progress is being made in the category.

Thankfully, Giants fans can rest nicely knowing that Mark Derosa will be starting in left field on Opening Day (barring injury of course) rather than Velez.

Jesus Guzman:
I know Guzman's gone, but I think his Winter League stats may explain why Sabean was willing to pull the hook on him to clear space for Molina. Sure, Guzman's stats aren't bad: eight home runs, a .290 batting average, a .851 OPS, eight home runs and 37 RBI. Those numbers should be pretty promising, right?

Well, I think you have to only look at two numbers to understand why Guzman was sent packing: 22 BB, 37 SO.

While those numbers aren't atrocious, they aren't comforting for an organization that is looking to upgrade over Travis Ishikawa (though I think Ishikawa can actually be a good option if you look at what he did in the second-half last season). Basically, Guzman's BB/K numbers from Winter League solidify the common-held thought by Giants fans: he's basically a right-handed Ishikawa, but without the glove.

Guzman may find a career with another team. He may find a career as a designated hitter, saving teams of his mediocre defense. However, after looking at his Winter numbers in VWL play, the Giants might have done the right thing by letting him go, especially after Pill's solid season in the VWL.

Osiris Matos:
Matos isn't gone? He's still on the roster? Well...he could make the Giants roster by Opening day, even though it's more likely Shannon Doherty will have a resurgence on television. Why? The guy simply struggles wherever he seems to pitch at.

In DWL play, Matos got shellacked, as evidenced by the 10 hits he allowed in six innings pitched. He also had a god awful WHIP of 2.33 and an ERA of 6.00 in his seven appearances in the Dominican Republic.

Let's face it, in order to make the team, Matos really needs to do something to wow the Giants. After a dismal Winter, I don't think he's capable of doing that.

Denny Bautista:
He's Pedro Martinez's cousin, right? So he must be good, right?

Well, he's going to be 30 in August, and he has bounced around the Majors, unable to live up to the hype that came after the Orioles traded him to Kansas City for Jason Grimsely (the Royals supposedly came up with a steal in that trade when they got Bautista at the time).

In many way, Bautista is just a roll of the dice for the Giants. Is he going to be good? Most likely not. However, the Giants have gotten lucky with these kinds of deals before. Keichii Yabu wasn't terrible, and Justin Miller proved to be decent for half the season in 2009. Could Batista be one of those guys. He could. He has a powerful arm.

That being said, a 1.96 WHIP and nine walks in 7.2 IP isn't going to help put him on that road to "surprise success" anytime soon.

Joe Martinez:
I know this is one more than the "Winners," but I couldn't ignore Martinez. Martinez is a class act, and his recovery from injury really is a great story. Nonetheless, the guy may not have that much of a future with the Giants unless he is really able to turn it around in Spring Training.

This Fall in Scottsdale, Martinez continued to struggle. He finished with a 6.08 ERA and a 1.65 WHIP in 23.2 IP. While he put up decent strikeout numbers (26) and low walk totals (8), he simply just gives up too many hits (31 hits) and too many runs (19).

The worst part of this mediocre AFL campaign is that these numbers came in Fall League against Rookies breaking into the league and guys with little big league experience. Martinez actually started a few games for the Giants last season.

Ishikawa? Garko? Or Guzman? Who Belongs at first for the Giants?

From Bleacher Report

Let's face it. The San Francisco Giants have not had decent production from first base since JT Snow left the team after the 2005 season.

Mark Sweeney? Meh.

Shea Hillenbrand? Not one of Brian Sabean's finest Trade Deadline deals.

Lance Niekro? Let's just say Giants fans and management overestimated that guy because of his family history.

Ryan Klesko? (What? The Giants had Ryan Klesko? And they had him play first base? Apparently so).

John Bowker and Rich Aurilia? They probably belong at other positions (and that's putting it nicely).

Thus, as you can see, in the Post-Snow era, the first baseman have been pretty meager for the Giants.

There is some hope though, and it comes in the form of three guys, potentially.

Travis Ishikawa, Ryan Garko and Jesus Guzman.

First off, I'm a fan of Ishikawa. Am I the crazy, "don't trade him for anything" kind of fan? Not really. He's good, but he's not untouchable.

That being said Ishikawa does offer a unique skill set: he's great defensively and he is a patient hitter.

That is something that can't necessarily be said out of many of the players on the Giants roster.

However, while I do fantasize of a day where Ishikawa may turn into the next Carlos Pena, I do worry about one thing: high strikeout percentages, low walk percentages and a lack of power (even though he turned it on at times during 2009, his .387 slugging percentage in 2009 left much to be desired).

In 2009, Ishikawa had a walk percentage of 8.4 percent and a strikeout percentage of 27.3. That resulted in 0.34 walk-to-strikeout ratio (e.g. awful).

To make matters worse, Ishikawa has not been a high walk percentage guy at any point in his career. While he is patient at the plate, he has only had a walk percentage higher than 10 percent only twice: both times in Double-A in 2006 and 2008.

And that isn't bad enough, his strikeout ratios have been alarming. In his four years of professional baseball, Ishikawa has had a strikeout percentage under 20 percent only once (in Double-A in 2008).

Granted, that isn't necessarily a bad thing, but usually you need a double digit walk percentage at the very least to back up those kinds of strikeout percentages, and unfortunately Ishikawa doesn't have that luxury.

That being said, Giants fans shouldn't give up on Ishikawa just yet. To justify my Carlos Pena comparison, Pena struggled with many of the same problems Ishikawa has experienced so far. In his first six years of Major League ball, he had only a walk-to-strikeout ratio above 0.50 once (his rookie year, a 22 game stint in Texas).

It wasn't until 2007, when he finally started to put up respectable walk-to-strikeout and walk percentage numbers (0.73 and 17.4 percent respectively).

Thus, it is important to be patient, and take Ishikawa's first full year into perspective, even though most "impatient" Giants fans may refuse to go that route.

Just look though at Ishikawa's and Pena's first full seasons according to Fangraphs, and you can see that Ishikawa is fully capable of budding into the long-ball threat that plays first in Tampa Bay.

As for the other two, they too offer some intriguing scenarios, though one is significantly more attractive than the other.

If you look at Garko, he is a very tough guy to solve. While his numbers over his career aren't bad, it's hard to make a good judgment on him simply because until this late July when he was traded for Scott Barnes, he pretty much played his whole career in Cleveland in a very hitter-friendly ballpark.

Sure, he can hit left-handed hitters, and he won't strike out nearly as much as Ishikawa (as evidenced by his 14.1 strikeout percentage and 0.58 walk-to-strikeout ratio).

As far as proving that he can be a good hitter at AT&T Park, however, is yet to be determined. If anything, his disappointing short stint where he hit only two home runs (and both in the same game at Coors Field) didn't exactly prove he was the missing offensive link the Giants needed.

Therefore, Garko can still turn out to be a decent offensive player, much like he was in Cleveland when he platooned at first base with Travis Hafner. However, after watching his three month stint in San Francisco, Garko seems to be expendable, and doesn't seem to fare well in AT&T Park's big dimensions.

The most interesting case, even more interesting than Ishikawa perhaps is Jesus Guzman.

Now, if you look at him strictly statistically, he is very similar to Ishikawa. In fact, if you judge him by his strikeout and walk percentages, he is practically a right-handed Ishikawa.

His strikeout percentages may be a little smaller, but for the most part, he is practically Ishikawa in the sense that he is patient, but patient in the way that he will strike out more than walk.

However, if there is anything that separates the two, it is one thing: power.

Ishikawa has only had an OPS over .850 twice in his career (2008 in Fresno and 2007 in Single-A).

Guzman has had an OPS over .850 four times, including this year in Fresno where it was .885 thanks to the 16 home runs he hit for the Grizzlies.

Therefore, Guzman is an attractive choice at first base just based on his potential at the plate, and should be considered for the first base job in 2010 when Spring Training starts. His power numbers and potential cannot be ignored despite his lack of big-league experience.

So in my mind it comes down to two players in terms of whom the Giants should play at first base. Ishikawa and Guzman both offer significant upside at the position, even if they haven't proven too much at the Major League level so far. As for Garko, he's a nice bench player, but he doesn't seem to have the skill-set to be a permanent starter.

It will be interesting to see what manager Bruce Bochy and Sabean do concerning the position. One popular sentiment seems to be sticking Pablo Sandoval at first and making Juan Uribe the starting third baseman.

As tempting as that sounds, I think Giants fans should really consider Ishikawa and Guzman a heck of a lot more.

They will bring a lot more to the table at first in the future than Uribe at third