Is Nate Schierholtz That Great of an Outfield Option for the Giants in 2010?

(Photo by Doug Pensinger/Getty Images)

It seems that after—and, at times, during—the 2009 season, Giants fans came up with a common thought:

Manager Bruce Bochy did not play Nate Schierholtz enough.

It is true Bochy played Randy Winn way too much in right field. It is true Schierholtz had the best arm out of any of the outfielders. It is true he is a very likable player because he wears his socks high and no batting gloves (e.g. old-school).

Yet to argue the right field position should be handed to Schierholtz next season is a stretch. Sure, he had a decent year, and yes, I would rather have him patrolling right field than the aging, lame-duck-armed Winn.

That being said, did Schierholtz really have a better season than fellow outfielder Fred Lewis, whose 2009 season was much maligned by far too many Giants fans?

If you look at the stats, I don't think you can decisively say Schierholtz was better than Lewis without some argument. To say his 2009 year was head and shoulders above Lewis' is like saying Micheal Jackson was that much better a performer than Prince. (e.g. you can make the argument, and you probably in the end would be right, but it's not that black and white).

For instance, I think he gets the benefit of the doubt in two categories over Lewis:

1.) The team turned around their fortunes when he went on a hot streak of his own in mid-to-late June/early July.

2.) He strikes out a heck of a lot less than Lewis.

Here is the problem with the first argument: As my senior year Biology teacher in college told me, "Correlation does not necessarily mean causation."

Thus, just because Schierholtz went on a hot streak of his own doesn't mean he single-handily carried the Giants into the "winning zone."

Do I think his contribution at that time had an effect on the team? Of course. Was it that big, though? No, because somebody else had a hot streak that in my mind had more impact on the Giants.

Pablo Sandoval.

The Giants got off to a cold start out of the gate (which included a dreadful sweep at the hands of the Padres...yikes) because Sandoval didn't know the difference in the first month of the season between a bad, un-hittable pitch and a good one he could make contact with.

Case in point: On April 18th, Sandoval had a .195 batting average with a .250 OBP, zero home runs and only one RBI. The Giants' record on April 18th after a loss to the Diamondbacks that day was 3-8.

Once Sandoval became a better hitter, the team became better. Sans a stretch where they went 2-11 in May, once Sandoval got over the hump of that bad opening point of the season, he pretty much carried the Giants to their 88-74 record (at least on the offensive end) with his bat—evidenced by him leading the Giants in every offensive category of note.

If you want to say that with Schierholtz in the lineup the Giants wouldn't have had that 2-11 swoon, here's another argument I would put up. Lewis had nine hits in that 13-game stretch, and was still hitting .277 with a .377 OBP after the loss to Seattle on May 24.

The Giants had a lot of problems during that bad stretch of the year, but Lewis wasn't one of them.

My problem with the second argument mostly has to do with the fact with how overrated the strikeout is to measure how bad a player is. Mark Reynolds is the prime example of the faulty thinking of "experts" who think strikeouts are extremely detrimental to a player's development.

You're currently logged into Facebook

Do you want to share your Bleacher Report activity on Facebook?