Giants prepare for off-season changes

by sfgreg on Oct 1, 2007 10:16 PM PDT Comment 111 comments

Here are some tidbits from an article from the official site. I know Sabean isn't going to tip his hand, but it's hard to get excited about the off-season after reading it.

Without being critical of departed home run king Barry Bonds, Bochy said Monday that he wants to "change the culture in the clubhouse" by urging the Giants to play more aggressively.

Not sure I quite understand this, but OK.

Sabean said that Rajai Davis will receive a chance to claim center field, with Dave Roberts moving to left, and spoke highly of shortstop Omar Vizquel and third baseman Pedro Feliz -- hinting that both potential free agents on the left side of the infield could be re-signed.

So Rajai, Roberts, and Vizquel won't combine to hit 10 homeruns, but remember speed, pitching and defense wins in our division. We're set!

Although management demonstrated its desire to field a younger team by announcing on Sept. 21 that Bonds would not be re-signed, Sabean indicated that the Giants still would try to build a contender even while nurturing less-experienced players.

More vets on the way.

Although the Giants ranked next-to-last in the NL in scoring, Sabean echoed Bochy in saying that these collapses could be attributed more to pitching than hitting: "In some ways, we scored enough runs," said Sabean, who noted that he'll try to add at least one proven reliever to the bullpen.

Second to last in runs and getting rid of our best hitter with no viable replacement. When in doubt, blame bullpen!

Sabean likened the challenge he faces this offseason to the predicament he confronted after the 1996 campaign, which happened to mark the last time the Giants lost more than 90 games (68-94) and finished last in the West. Although few realized it at the time, Sabean turned the Giants into winners largely on the strength of one trade: The deal that sent Matt Williams and Trenidad Hubbard to Cleveland for Jeff Kent, Joe Roa, Julian Tavarez and Jose Vizcaino. Kent formed an outstanding hitting tandem with Bonds for six years, while Tavarez and Vizcaino contributed significantly to the '97 team, which won the division.

What have you done for us lately?? That was 10 years ago.

The Giants have identified about six teams with position-player depth who could be pitching-hungry, although no talks are current.

Maybe the most interesting quote, that is if you have faith in Sabean's trading ability.

There is more, some of Sabean's other quotes are worth reading:

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071001&content_id=2244648&vkey=news_sf&fext=.j sp&c_id=sf

This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.

0 recs | Comment 111 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

I don't take that gasbag Sabean seriously anymore.

by Moggeee on Oct 1, 2007 10:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

Just two more years and he's gone. It'll be tough. There'll be lots of drinking. Your liver will hate you. But we'll get through it. Hopefully he'll take some of our "coaching and development" staff with him.

Adopted Giant: Randy Winn. Can't wait for Zito to start Opening Day '08 so I can get a leg up on my drinking.

by Punch Rockgroin on Oct 1, 2007 10:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

They can all leave together by boarding Cap'n Sabean's hydrogen-filled durigible, The Gas Daddy.

by Moggeee on Oct 1, 2007 11:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

"In some ways, we scored enough runs" goes right alongside Sabes' "In a way, we did win it [in 2002]" comment from the press conference with Magowan announcing Bonds wouldn't be back.

I'll give SabeanSpeak a try: In some ways, the 2008 Giants are going to bad. In other ways, they'll be really bad.

Lon Simmons' adopted dad.

by Kitspool on Oct 1, 2007 11:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

It's like he was right here with me!

Dave Righetti: You don't know him. / Read My Blog, Because I Write It

by howtheyscored on Oct 1, 2007 11:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

In a way.

Steve Kline: Pretty okay, but only on a whole season basis and not based on what he's doing now.

by groug on Oct 2, 2007 12:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

"But at the end of the day, we can be pretty sure that they won't be any good."

The Maharajai steals at will (plus he's not Matt Morris).

by Mike Benjamin Hit King on Oct 2, 2007 12:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

But we're not entirely positive that they won't be neither all that not good nor not all that good, not.

Dave Righetti: You don't know him. / Read My Blog, Because I Write It

by howtheyscored on Oct 2, 2007 12:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

There will definitely be players. And while they may not be players of winning caliber , the wins won't come because they didn't play on a major - league variety playing field with plenty of opportunity. Just none that were taken advantage of.

But in a way , we will have lost.

And if that way doesn't prove consistent with our goals...we'll find another.

All is said and done , so... Let's Go Mets! (Kiss my heinie , Wil!)

by victor frankenstein on Oct 2, 2007 4:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

Well done, Vic!

The SF Giants: agressively promoting young talent since 2008.

by Lyle on Oct 2, 2007 5:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

A little less inflection, though. Otherwise, "woot woot" (said with no emotion to provide example).

My son (Kevin Correia) is an honors student at Righetti Prep

by VidaWantsYourCar on Oct 2, 2007 5:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

I can't believe they can go up there and honestly say "In some ways we did score enough runs."

For the love of God. This team is going to be the laughingstock of baseball as long as Sabean is in charge.

Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Oct 2, 2007 12:54 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

They were only second-worst in the majors! So, if you're comparing the Giants to the Nationals, they totally scored enough runs.

Steve Kline: Pretty okay, but only on a whole season basis and not based on what he's doing now.

by groug on Oct 2, 2007 1:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

A winning team need only score more runs than they allow.

Is it a good recipe to be in the Top 10 in scoring? Sure, it doesn't hurt. But ask the 17th ranked 2003 Marlins if scoring runs is the end-all.

The team has a lot of things to fix, but they don't need to be the best in every category.

SFDugout.com - Returning Offseason 2007

by BruteSentiment on Oct 2, 2007 2:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

BTW, in case you didn't notice, this year's winner of the NL West was 26th in run scoring in the majors. Of the 9 teams who got to play extra games, here are their ranks in run scoring:

NY Yankees: 1st
Philadelphia: 2nd
Boston: 4th
Colorado: 5th
Los Angeles: 6th
Cleveland: 8th
Chicago: 18th
San Diego: 20th
Arizona: 26th

As for the NL West, everyone ranked 20th or lower except for the obvious: Colorado.

Meanwhile, the Giants were 9th in the league in ERA (4.19). They scored 683 runs....but allowed just 677 earned runs. It was the 43 unearned runs that killed them. Anyone want to argue defense doesn't matter?

The Giants need to rebuild in a lot of areas, obviously. But as bad as they were, they scored more runs than their pitchers allowed. That's where these comments about 'some ways' of offense come from.

SFDugout.com - Returning Offseason 2007

by BruteSentiment on Oct 2, 2007 3:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

So you're producing a list showing that the 8 post-season teams include the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th best offensive teams in the majors as proof that offense ISN'T important? Call me crazy, but I'd say your evidence isn't overwhelmingly aligned to make your point.

My boy ain't fat, he's just big boned. Big bat, too.

by Roger on Oct 2, 2007 5:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

6 of 9 teams were top 10 in runs scored... so it would seem to me that scoring runs is, in fact, rather important in a winning team.

Preventing runs is obviously very important and the Giants do have an advantage in that they're already a good team at doing so. However, building a team that is not only below average at scoring runs, but downright poor at scoring runs (as the Giants are and probably will be for the next few years) is not really a recipe for success. From what I've heard from Sabean so far (and from what I see as possible for him to accomplish this offseason), I am not confident in his ability or opportunity to improve the offense beyond the extremely poor one it was this year and I would actually expect the offense to regress significantly.

And I don't think using the Diamondbacks this year as a model is a good idea... chances are, in another year, with their luck going a different way, they would have been down in the cellar with us.

Unearned runs still count as runs allowed...no team is going to allow zero earned runs, no matter how good defensively they are. And 43 unearned runs isn't that bad. The average NL team allowed 60 unearned runs. In fact, the only teams in the majors who allowed fewer unearned runs than the Giants were the Red Sox, Indians and Padres, if my calculations are correct. So I don't think it's fair to say that they had a positive run differential by completely counting out the unearned runs, when the Giants actually did an excellent job of limiting unearned runs (and did have a very good defensive team this year.)

The Giants offense was not anywhere near adequate this year and I don't see how it possibly can improve next year, given what Sabean is saying, what his track record the past few years has been and what opportunities are out there this offseason. I would love to be pleasantly surprised by the team's moves this year, but I'm really not going to get my hopes up. If you want to believe that a team built around "speed, pitching and defense" (as opposed to the horrible speed (4th in SB this year), pitching (9th in ERA) and defense (8th in defensive efficiency) we had this year!) is a recipe for success, feel free. But I will remain skeptical and yeah, I'll probably be bitching a lot this offseason. I'm not happy with the way this team is being run.

Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Oct 2, 2007 5:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

+1 for both Roger and Jenny.

The SF Giants: agressively promoting young talent since 2008.

by Lyle on Oct 2, 2007 6:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

just a quick clarification... I meant to say "5th in ERA", since I was going NL only. Also for defense, they were 4th in fielding percentage and Feliz, Vizquel, Klesko, Winn, Davis, Lewis and Roberts all had solid to amazing individual years.

Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Oct 2, 2007 7:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wow. Jponry, very well done. Thanks.

Angels fly because they take Brian Sabean lightly.

by Mayor of 311 on Oct 2, 2007 8:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

Of course scoring runs is one way to get to the playoffs; my question is, why are you ignoring the other ways that a third of the playoff teams did do it?

The Giants did an excellent job of limiting unearned runs...when compared against others. But what it really comes down to is how they do when it comes to themselves. If the unearned runs were the difference between 10 wins and 10 losses, then they were too many.

Then, how about runs that went unearned (like, say, extra bases grabbed when Bonds' limited range was in left)? That is something that clearly better defense can be realistically acquired and will obviously improve, but they don't factor in errors.

On a different note....Where did you get your stats from? By ESPN, the Giants were 8th in SB in the majors, and I have no idea what you mean by defensive efficiency.

Also, Fielding percentage has never been a good way to measure defense. Hell, there aren't any stats that really do that. The Giants were actually TIED for 4th with three other teams, and were only .002 points above the major league average. 1 more error, and they're tied for seventh. The loss of .003 of a percentage, and the Giants are in the bottom half. Not exactly an overwhelming difference.

Look, I don't disagree that the Giants need more offense, and it's going to be hard to find more of it. But Sabean's not wrong to want to fix the bullpen. The bullpen led the NL, and was 3rd in the majors, in relief losses....does that not need fixing?

And in speed, stolen bases are a nice total, but that can easily be skewed with just a couple of good runners. A true team built around speed should have good speed up and down the lineup, and frankly, you didn't see Aurilia, Bonds, Klesko or Durham stretching many singles into doubles, or doubles into triples, did you?

I do believe in the ideas of speed, pitching and defense winning games. They've been building on that basis, quietly, the last two years, around Bonds. Now, that's not a team for winning Bonds, but it's a team ready the post-Bonds era. But they can still go further in those directions while helping the offense. It's not an either-or situation.

SFDugout.com - Returning Offseason 2007

by BruteSentiment on Oct 2, 2007 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

I was just going by NL only (I corrected my ERA mistake later)... and defensive efficiency is a Baseball Prospectus stat (measures how good a team is at converting balls in play into outs). 8th in the NL doesn't seem great, but they were closer to the 3rd/4th place team than they were to the 9th place team.

Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Oct 2, 2007 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

Well one-third's overstating your case. San Diego didn't make the playoffs. So it's only one-fourth. And those two teams made it by a) being in the worst division in baseball (Cubs) and b) having a historically fluky year (DBacks). Neither of those provides a particularly good blueprint for going forward I'd say.

My boy ain't fat, he's just big boned. Big bat, too.

by Roger on Oct 2, 2007 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

I never said playoffs, I just said 'extra games'...it may be picky, but San Diego was in it...if they'd won, then it's be nearly half the playoff teams would've been in the bottom half of scoring.

And I never said that Arizona was a blueprint to follow. I wouldn't ever suppose that. Arizona does not have nearly the young pitching the Giants have to build off of. Hernandez is gone after this season, and Randy is ever teetering on the edge of his career. Owings, Gonzalez and Petit don't have the same upside. What Arizona does have is plenty of young hitters who will continue to get better, so I doubt even Arizona plans to play by the same 'blueprint' next season.

What the point is not that aiming for being in the bottom third is the way to win, but is that you don't have to be in the top 5 or top 10 to win. If all that matters is winning championships, then I don't care how the winning is done.

I don't think it's arguable that the Giants' strength is the pitching. Building a lineup that puts as much emphasis on defense as slugging, if not more, makes sense...they should play to their strengths, and good defense helps/improves good pitching.

SFDugout.com - Returning Offseason 2007

by BruteSentiment on Oct 2, 2007 6:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

Just to be picky, San Diego plays in Bizarro Coors Field. Their offense scored over 5 runs per game away from PETCO, and their OPS+ (though, IIRC, still using 2006 park factors) was a very average 99.

Even as the official "worst offense to play more than 162 official games," their 4.55 Run per game was a third of a run better than the Giants' offense, a gap poised to widen as the Giants lose their best hitter. A team may not need an elite offense to make the playoffs, but they need AN offense, and the Giants don't have one.

Fool me seven times, shame on you. Fool me eight or more times, shame on me.

by Bhaakon on Oct 3, 2007 12:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

I'd also say that, on the run prevention side of the ball, the biggest issue was not defense, but the base on balls. One could argue that pitchers nibble because of a lack of confidence in their defense, but, given the average or better D and the virtually non-existant hitting, I'd say that they nibbled out of fear of falling even a single run behind (or maybe they just have crappy command, which would kind of put a kink in that whole "we have a good pitching staff" thing).

Fool me seven times, shame on you. Fool me eight or more times, shame on me.

by Bhaakon on Oct 3, 2007 12:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Giants were 12th in Defensive

Efficiency in MLB. Teams ahead of the Giants by rank: Toronto, Boston, Cubs, Mets, Padres, Nationals, Braves, Rockies, DBacks, Cardinals, Tigers.

The DBacks were outscored over the season. Are you saying that the Giants should try to emulate their plan? Assuming you know that their plan is.

by rfloh on Oct 2, 2007 8:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

And how many of the Giants 683 runs were scored but not "earned" by opposing pitchers. Throw those 60-75 runs out and you're back to square one.

Sharlon Schoop: "It's only stealing if you get caught...more than 54% of the time"

by Woody Wins on Oct 2, 2007 9:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

It is run differential that counts, Brute. And as the Diamondbacks demonstrated this year with their fine short relief and horrendous long relief, how you build that run differential.

Notice that the top pitching team in the majors -- the Padres -- didn't make the post-season? Even the best pitching in the majors and outscoring the Giants by 58 runs wasn't enough.

by sharksrog on Oct 6, 2007 4:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

LALALALA

I CAN'T HEAR YOU

Nattowear | comics | Durham? I hardly know 'im!

by Natto on Oct 2, 2007 12:56 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

in 97, sabean still had bonds

i tell you one thing...if sabean and bochy stick to their plan, this team will not lose 91 games...they will lose 100

and cain will go on record as being the best pitcher ever to have lost 20 games in a season

hes going after another arm for the pen???

when the fuck was the last time sabean got a quality arm for the pen

oh i remember, his name was nenn

fuck this team

by bacci40 on Oct 2, 2007 1:06 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree

And Bacci takes it to the next level.

(Yesterday, it was only "Eff this team.")

by Moggeee on Oct 2, 2007 8:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

Man,

I'm actually scared for the future of this team. With Sabean in charge we could lose 100. Timmeh and Cain will leave for the Yankees or Red Sox after putting their 4 years here - and we're gonna turn into Tampa/KC.

This is all worst case scenario...but it could happen.

by Kestrel on Oct 2, 2007 1:10 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

I doubt we'll become Tampa or KC. Our payroll is too big for that to happen. I see us as much more like the Baltimore of the West Coast.

The Maharajai steals at will (plus he's not Matt Morris).

by Mike Benjamin Hit King on Oct 2, 2007 1:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

Oh, that makes me feel so much better.

SJ Giants, 2007 Cal League champs! Couldn't have done it without the All-Father.

by EliminateMe on Oct 2, 2007 8:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

Does that mean we get Billy Rowell retroactively? That part would be cool. The bitterness and constant losing, not so much.

The SF Giants: agressively promoting young talent since 2008.

by Lyle on Oct 2, 2007 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

Let's pray it doesn't mean we're gonna spend $30 million this offseason on middle relievers who'll collectively hemmorage runs on a consistent basis all season long.

My boy ain't fat, he's just big boned. Big bat, too.

by Roger on Oct 2, 2007 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting Fact!

Another reason the Giants don't feel they need to "replace" Bonds: They actually scored more runs when he didn't play.

Hard to believe, but the Giants averaged 4.03 runs in the 116 games Bonds was in the lineup; in 46 games without him, they averaged 4.67 runs.

http://www.mercurynews.com/giants/ci_7059945

by giantsrainman on Oct 2, 2007 2:23 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Like Oil and Water

Could it be that Magowan and Sabean -- like modern management teams -- actually used statistics to help make their decision to release Bonds???

Preposterous Thought!

by Moggeee on Oct 2, 2007 8:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Critical thinking

Do you honestly think the Giants offense is better without Bonds in the lineup? HONESTLY? Just say that you do so we can all know for sure that you know nothing about baseball.

The only thing that is interesting about that fact is how fluky it is.

Adoptive father of David Quinowski: Fuck it, dude, let's go bowling

by marcello on Oct 2, 2007 8:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Critical thinking

Worst part of that article:

"Second baseman Kevin Frandsen hit .427 in September and opened eyes to the point that Ray Durham will have to compete to win back his job next spring, Manager Bruce Bochy said. Sabean added that salary won't determine playing time, but he conceded that Durham ($7.5 million in '08) and Rich Aurilia ($4.5 million) would be "given a chance to rebound, because it's not like we're going to eat those salaries"

So we are looking at some combination of Aurilia, Franny, and Durham at 2nd and 3rd with Richie getting some time at first.

Adopted Giant Brian Wilson: Welcome Back!

by sfgreg on Oct 2, 2007 9:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Critical thinking

At the very least, it makes you wonder what's behind those numbers. Perhaps it's fluky, but maybe there's more.

If you're going to look at stats to prove your point, you have to be willing to look at stats that refute what you believe is true.

My initial take on this particualr stat is that it's encouraging to seee that the team might not be totally incapable of improving without Bonds as they try to re-tool.

Attention all cars: Be on the look-out for Ryan Klesko's missing power.

by Goofus on Oct 2, 2007 9:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Critical thinking

No, I don't think the Giants offense was better without Barry. Only a fool would think that IMO.

by sharksrog on Oct 6, 2007 4:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Interesting Fact!

Demonstrating neatly that Molina and the rest of the m are a bunch of slackers.

Obviously, with BB in the lineup they just mailed it in thinking he would win the game for them. When he was out, they buckled down and played up to their potential.

Or, sample size.

by zenbitz on Oct 2, 2007 9:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Interesting Fact!

That really is interesting and flies in the face of everything we think we know about Bonds' production and how it helped the team. Is that a big enough sample size to not have to question the ERAs of opposing pitchers in the games where Bonds did/didn't play?

Maybe it was the high OBP guy "clogging up the bases" as Dusty would say.

But seriously, I think there might be a little truth to the theory that when Bonds is in the lineup, people wait around for him to do something and when he's out, they feel the need to do something. To my eye, it seemed like the team was more agressive and flying around the bases and less "station to station" with Bonds not in the lineup.

Attention all cars: Be on the look-out for Ryan Klesko's missing power.

by Goofus on Oct 2, 2007 9:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Interesting Fact!

Cause: When Barry was in the lineup it was more likely that there was runner on first so that [insert Giant] could GIDP. Doy.

Sharlon Schoop: "It's only stealing if you get caught...more than 54% of the time"

by Woody Wins on Oct 2, 2007 9:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Interesting Fact!

Statistically, there are too many variables to make this a meaningful anomaly. But I think what Goofus and others are saying is that basically it's possible to score the same number of runs or better without Bonds, i.e., there are others ways to manufacture runs than having a Bonds-type player in the middle of your lineup. Sure, Bonds gets on base, but if your 5, 6 hitters (Durham, Molina, Feliz) cannot hit homeruns, it does little good since even a double cannot usually plate Bonds. And since people batting in front of Bonds are not getting on base consistently, Bonds hits a lot of solo homeruns, thus his low RBIs despite his homeruns. Essentially, what most on this board knows, and what Sabean seems either to overlook or is "playing it close to the vest" is that teams have figured out how to pitch around Bonds so effectively that they have taken his offensive force out of the game. It's like having a Lawrence Taylor against a team who throws only short and screen passes. Might as well have a scrub out there if that's the case and the defense has a chance to have better stats. The fact is, there are holes up and down the lineup no matter how you parse it. That's why in order to fix this lineup without Bonds, we need at least 3 upgrades in the 3,4,5,6th holes in the lineup. Let's say Winn can be an adequate 3rd hitter. That leaves 4, 5, 6. Molina should be a 7th hitter at best but in our pitiful lineup, he is a 4,5,6 hitter. Say for instance, we acquire Nick Johnson to bat 4, sign Mike Lowell to bat 5th, and Nate Schierholtz has a good year batting 6th and they perform to their capabilities. Can this lineup outperform the 2007 lineup with Bonds?

CF Rajai Davis
2B Kevin Frandsen
LF Randy Winn
1B Nick Johnson
3B Mike Lowell
RF Nate Schierholtz
C Benji Molina
SS Omar Vizquel

Sure, it's definitely possible. All this is to make my simple point that TWO good 4th, 5th hitters are better than ONE cleanup masher. So for instance, even if we get AROD, it's useless unless we get a Lowell to bat behind him as well.

Uribe to Thompson to Clark: Don't tinker ever with chance

by tellusfrank on Oct 2, 2007 5:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Interesting Fact!

First of all, I disagree that Lowell deserves the contract that he will likely get this offseason as his '07 numbers were simply a product of Fenway. It has been discussed at length on this site that Lowell doesn't belong on the Giants.

Secondly, you can get by with just one "masher" (see: 2007 Angels). They have Vlad as their only power hitter but he's surrounded by hitters who get on base and have good speed as well.

The Giants had the 3rd worst OBP in the Majors...Angels 5th best. The Giants hit 131 homers this season...Angels 123.

You sort-of touched on this in your post when you talked about Barry's lack of impact because the bases were empty when he stepped to the plate, but then you reverted back to your A-Rod and Lowell argument again in conclusion.

Sharlon Schoop: "It's only stealing if you get caught...more than 54% of the time"

by Woody Wins on Oct 2, 2007 6:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Interesting Fact!

Maybe I got a bit off topic, but my overall point was trying to explain the statistical anomaly, not necessarily that we should get Lowell, although I do believe that Lowell is a huge upgrade over Durham in the 5th hole.

And the Angels analogy doesn't work because they've got far more talented offensively than the Giants, not only before Guerrero, but after as well. My point is that I think the Giants need upgrades everywhere, but if I were to choose between 1-2 or 5-6, I would focus on the latter.

Uribe to Thompson to Clark: Don't tinker ever with chance

by tellusfrank on Oct 2, 2007 10:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Interesting Fact!

It wasn't really an analogy. It was a comparison. I was pointing out that the Giants actually had more power than the Angels but scored fewer runs by far.

Sharlon Schoop: "It's only stealing if you get caught...more than 54% of the time"

by Woody Wins on Oct 3, 2007 8:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Interesting Fact!

Not to be picky, but an analogy is a comparison. It's just a stylistic comparison when you're thinking in terms of simile and metaphor.

Dave Righetti: You don't know him. / Read My Blog, Because I Write It

by howtheyscored on Oct 3, 2007 8:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Interesting Fact!

I guess it is not wise to argue such matters with a writer, but an analogy is only used to compare likeness between two things. My point was to show the dissimilarity between the Angels and Giants OBP, so while an analogy is a certain type of comparison, it is not the type I was using. No?

Sharlon Schoop: "It's only stealing if you get caught...more than 54% of the time"

by Woody Wins on Oct 3, 2007 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Interesting Fact!

Well, to get perfectly technical, you weren't drawing a strict comparison at all. The comparison started and ended with "one masher in the lineup." The rest deals in contrast.

A comparison is drawing likeness between two things, whereas a contrast is drawing dissimilarity (not that it was necessary to describe that).

Philosophically speaking, I tend to think that the act of comparison automatically causes contrast so you never actually actively contrast two things (why would you look critically at two things that were completely disparate?). So contrast is part and parcel with comparison and I don't feel a hard-line distinction should even be made (which colloquially, it thankfully never is) because any time you compare two things you're unconsciously contrasting them at the same time. But unless you're just trying to prove a technical point, nobody would ever contrast two things for it's own sake.

Ah! Philosophically speaking, contrast is like a sub-genre of comparison! That covers it concisely.

But there is that technical distinction, if we want to get technical.

Dave Righetti: You don't know him. / Read My Blog, Because I Write It

by howtheyscored on Oct 3, 2007 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Interesting Fact!

To shade your technicality a mite, while it has become idiomatic in American English that "compare" is synonomous with "liken", it's Latin origins mean merely to set side by side (literally: to make equal), with no value judgements implied as to whether the comparison will lead similarities or dissimilarities.

Contrast is, as you suggest a subset of comparison, as is to liken, as both of them make comparisons but with a specific (positive or negative) intent.

And, by the way, there is a perfectly good reason to look critically at two completely disparate things. You might say for instance, that the Giants are a horribly run organization chocked full of mediocre talent. Ah, but Team B is a model of insight and efficiency with an admirable eye for talent. Why are these two organizations so disparate, you might say, and what we do to make our'n more like their'n? Why, let's contrast!

My boy ain't fat, he's just big boned. Big bat, too.

by Roger on Oct 3, 2007 1:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Interesting Fact!

See, this is why I need to study latin, or at least etymology.

Re: your second point, I think I was looking at this in somewhat broader terms, as I'm not sure I would have thought of two baseball teams as completely disparate (which is to say that the contrast is still coming out of a difference you see after noting that both are baseball teams in the same league), but that kind of broadening could easily spiral into the dangerous territory of "Well, both are in THE UNIVERSE, so they're not completely disparate," and might be better left unexplored. Still, I like the point a lot.

Dave Righetti: You don't know him. / Read My Blog, Because I Write It

by howtheyscored on Oct 3, 2007 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Interesting Fact!

I like where this is going -- I am learning a lot. I think what you are trying to say is that I was comparing the Angels and Giants in that, similarly, each team has one power hitter (Vlad, Barry), and that I was contrasting the two teams by showing the difference in where each team's OBP ranks. I feel that comparison and contrast, philisophically speaking, can exist as their own entities in that each one is used to emphasize similarities or differences and not simply to disclose them. Anyway, I still don't see how I used an "Angels analogy"...but I certainly claimed to have compared the two ball clubs while I most certainly contrasted them as well.

Sharlon Schoop: "It's only stealing if you get caught...more than 54% of the time"

by Woody Wins on Oct 3, 2007 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Interesting Fact!

that basically it's possible to score the same number of runs or better without Bonds, i.e., there are others ways to manufacture runs than having a Bonds-type player in the middle of your lineup

This is simply untrue, and testable. The only way you are going to replace a good hitter (one who gets on base and hits with power) with a worse one and score more runs is if the rest of the team hits better as a whole.

The lineup you suggest would ALWAYS score more runs, 100% of the time (given a significantly large sample of PAs/Games/whatever), if you take any player in it and replace that him with Bonds.

Failure to understand this is a basic failure to understand why runs score in baseball.

Hint: "Productive Outs" (of all types) don't really help.

All the "little things" are only a secondary effect on run scoring - this can be shown mathematically by linear regression of team batting lines.

You want to argue psychology and say that the team HITS (OBP, SLG) better without the "Bondisan Crutch" - fine. You're insane, but at least can't be proven wrong mathematically.

by zenbitz on Oct 3, 2007 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Interesting Fact!

If a team has players who rely on others to get the job done, shouldn't it motivate those players or get rid of them?

by sharksrog on Oct 6, 2007 4:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

I love the way people want to criticize Sabean for saying the bullpen needs upgrading as "proof" that he has no plans to work on the offense as well. Guess what? They both need work. (Just ask Matt Cain about the bullpen.)

I've heard him say on his show with Ralph and Tom that he's probably going to deal from his strength of starting pitching to get some hitting. Today's Chronicle has more on the subject of improving the offense: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2007/10/02/SPA8SHQ1C.DTL

Some quotes from the article:

Seemingly at greatest risk is batting coach Joe Lefebvre, who has held the job for five seasons and oversaw a team that scored the second-fewest runs (683) in the majors this season. This is a sticky wicket for Sabean. He and Lefebvre go back to their sandlot days in Concord, N.H., but a source said their friendship will not play into the decision on whether to retain Lefebvre.

Sabean seems resigned to trading a young starter to acquire an impact hitter because of a lackluster free-agent market. He has identified a half-dozen teams with a surplus of hitters that might need pitching. The two Florida teams come to mind, and the Devil Rays' Carl Crawford and Marlins' Miguel Cabrera would be attractive targets.

"The price of getting an established, up-and-coming position player is usually starting pitching-plus," Sabean said. "There obviously are going to be guys who we're absolutely not going to move."

When asked if he meant Matt Cain and Tim Lincecum, he said, "I would think so."

That leaves Noah Lowry as the likeliest trade bait. Although his season ended early with arm soreness, he appears healthy now and he won 14 games in 2007. That seemingly makes him the Giants' best hope to attract a hitter.

Attention all cars: Be on the look-out for Ryan Klesko's missing power.

by Goofus on Oct 2, 2007 8:53 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

I don't get the mass panic from the bullpen upgrade comments, either. Yes, the team does need to fix the bullpen because it sucked ass at key times. By key I mean most. Let's say Sabean chooses to fix the bullpen by acquiring one or two middle relievers, hanging onto the arms in the bullpen that aren't disasters and dumping the arms that are disasters, and giving Wilson the closer job. That's not such a far-out scenario, is it? Okay. How much do free agent middle relievers cost? More than they should, but it's not going to be an enormous amount of money. Maybe Sabean will trade for relief help. Either way, he would be addressing a serious concern for the team.

One upgrade doesn't mean the rest of the team is ignored. I know, I know, it's Brian Sabean and he does things that make us tear our hair out. I don't feel the need to get upset about his comments on fixing the bullpen, because it really needs to be done. Maybe he doesn't know what he's doing about hitting yet, and won't until after the Winter Meetings. Maybe he doesn't know what he's doing at all. I'm not psychic. I'll wait until he actually takes action before I villify him.

Strikeouts are boring. Besides that, they're fascist. Not boring: Emmanuel Burriss. Not facist: THE RETURN OF SF Dugout

by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Oct 2, 2007 9:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

I don't think anyone has a problem with making minor upgrades/tweaks to the bullpen. Improving the team is improving the team (careful, I'm going deep here...). However, I do think people are concerned that Sabean will spend a lot of money on the bullpen without actually improving it. However, if he makes some shrewd bullpen adds, I will be ecstatic.

Adoptive father of David Quinowski: Fuck it, dude, let's go bowling

by marcello on Oct 2, 2007 9:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

I don't personally have too big of a problem with wanting to upgrade the bullpen (the soft underbelly of the pen could certainly use some work.) The problem, in my opinion, is that everyone involved with the Giants seems to have identified it as the teams biggest problem last year, when it certainly was not.

And like I said before, I've been trying to give Sabean the benefit of the doubt since the extension, but nearly everything he's done and said since then (with the exception of the Morris trade... which still probably could have turned out better if he'd traded Matt earlier) has slowly chipped away at my already rather low level of patience with him. Maybe it's all one big campaign of misdirection and he really does understand just how big this team's offensive problems are and it'll all turn out awesome, but I just feel like my worst fears are being constantly confirmed and I'm a little unhappy about it.

Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Oct 2, 2007 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

This is Sabean's first year to build a team not around Bonds. I think it's too early to give up on him based simply on what he's saying. He always holds the cards close to the vest and every trade he's ever made has been one that no one called.

His recent history:

Morris for Davis (I can't presume there
Benitez for Messenger
Ellison for Blackley

I'm in favor of each one of those deals. I'll wait for the off-season to play out before I call him an idiot.

Attention all cars: Be on the look-out for Ryan Klesko's missing power.

by Goofus on Oct 2, 2007 9:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

I don't care. I'm not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt anymore. He has to earn my trust back at this point.

Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Oct 2, 2007 9:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

I'm not saying to give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm just saying that we should look at what he does far more than what he says.

Attention all cars: Be on the look-out for Ryan Klesko's missing power.

by Goofus on Oct 2, 2007 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

Well, I haven't really been all that happen with what he's done either. Those trades were okay, but they were all relatively minor deals and they were all basically getting him out of problems he created in the first place. Blackley and Messenger are not really very good players and the jury is still out on Davis.

Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Oct 2, 2007 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

What a fucking joke.

You might note that 2 of those trades were trading overpaid worthless nutsacks that should never have been signed in the first place.

And the third is just a whatever. Yay, he cleared Ellison out so we could get more speedy slap-hitting OFs!

by zenbitz on Oct 2, 2007 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

Actually, both signings made perfect sense at the time. Not that there weren't warning signs, but there are always warning signs. Most of the time when I encounter the opinion that those were awful signings it's complete hindsight. I could be wrong in your case, but I do believe they both made sense when they happened.

Dave Righetti: You don't know him. / Read My Blog, Because I Write It

by howtheyscored on Oct 2, 2007 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

I was pretty pissed with the Morris signing when it happened. Although I was a little excited about the Benitez signing, so I guess that's a wash.

Adoptive father of David Quinowski: Fuck it, dude, let's go bowling

by marcello on Oct 2, 2007 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

Morris, no - sorry he was very over paid for a very average SP stats on a team with a decent offense (hence good W/L)

Benitez... came off of a really spectacularly year in 2004 in Florida, and had some good seasons with the Mets (although was very erratic).

In any case - he was given way too much money, and was probably damaged goods. But I may be in the minority regarding paying guys who only pitch 70 innings/year.

by zenbitz on Oct 2, 2007 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

So you'd prefer he'd done none of the above-referenced deals?

While I wasn't crazy about them, the Morris and Benitez signings were defendable at the time. Did they turn out well? Obviously not. At least he was able to do deals that help the team move on.

I find discussions of what the team can do to improve far more interesting than just droaning on about mistakes of the past. If you enjoy being the guy at the office party who's still complaining that we they ran out of ice at last year's party, have your fun.

Attention all cars: Be on the look-out for Ryan Klesko's missing power.

by Goofus on Oct 2, 2007 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

The difference is, next year I can't bring my own ice.

by zenbitz on Oct 2, 2007 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

Old, veteran ice is more reliable.

The SF Giants: agressively promoting young talent since 2008.

by Lyle on Oct 2, 2007 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

Brian most definitely is NOT an idiot. But unfortunately, like most general managers, he doesn't do a great job, either.

Brian was exceptional through the end of the 2002 season. Since then he has been questionable at best. Overall he's been averagish -- and that just isn't good enough unless one has the money to spend endlessly.

by sharksrog on Oct 6, 2007 5:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

You're not villifying Brian for what he's done the past FIVE years? :)

by sharksrog on Oct 6, 2007 5:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

I think I've just been having bad listening luck, but it feels like the only things I've heard him talk about in anything but the vaguest terms have had to do with pitching.

Or maybe I've just had a serious case of selective listening. Either way, I should probably listen a little more closely.

Dave Righetti: You don't know him. / Read My Blog, Because I Write It

by howtheyscored on Oct 2, 2007 9:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

FIRE LEFEBVRE FFS!!

He's like Turtle on Entourage. Dump his ass already, he brings nothing to the table.

Can't w8 for '08!

by southcitysteve on Oct 2, 2007 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

Hey at least Turtle always has weed.

Your 2010 NL rookie of the year,... Andy D'alessio

by ramirez415 on Oct 2, 2007 2:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

This is true

Can't w8 for '08!

by southcitysteve on Oct 2, 2007 3:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

As I said in another thread, the problem is not that they shouldn't look for bullpen help, but the impression that Sabean and Bochy have both given that the bullpen is the #1 priority, the offense #2. (Insert joke about the offense definitely smelling like "number two" here.)

Ask Cain about the bullpen? Cain pitched 22 quality starts and 14 of them turned into Giants losses. Cain got handed the loss in 8 of the 14 which means the offense takes the blame. The other 6 were no-decisions for Cain, so nominally the bullpen's fault. But in four out of those six, the offense couldn't manage to score more than 3 runs. Three runs don't win that many games.

SJ Giants, 2007 Cal League champs! Couldn't have done it without the All-Father.

by EliminateMe on Oct 2, 2007 5:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Insert Joke Here

the offense smells like shit.

I guess that wasn't really a joke.

by The Balls of Summer on Oct 2, 2007 11:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's true...

that "in some ways, we did score enough runs"

It was just the distribution that was flawed. If we re-arranged the runs so that we won a bunch of 1-run games and lost a few blowouts, we'd be in first place!

We scored 683 and allowed 720.
So, we lose two blowouts 22-1 and 18-2.
That gives us 680 scored and 680 allowed.

We'll get shut out 10 times, and lose 5-0.
680-630.

Now, we'll win 100 games 5-4.
That leaves 180 scored and 230 allowed for the last 50, we should be able to go 20-30 even with bad luck.

Final record 120-42

So, you don't need to score more runs, if you just plan ahead!

by zenbitz on Oct 2, 2007 9:11 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: It's true...

Yea! The D-Backs figured out how to do it! So can we!

Sharlon Schoop: "It's only stealing if you get caught...more than 54% of the time"

by Woody Wins on Oct 2, 2007 9:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: It's true...

"in some ways, we did score enough runs"

I know you're being snarky, but it's easy to take out of context. I interpret it as, in an individual game, if you hand the team a 3-1 lead in the 8th, than you did score enough runs in that game."

It's frustrating as hell bullpen come in and make the team that the starter dominated make look like the '27 Yankees.

A good bullpen can shorten the game and make a team feel like it has to win in the first six innings. The Giants made team say, "Don't worry, we'll get to their bullpen soon."

Attention all cars: Be on the look-out for Ryan Klesko's missing power.

by Goofus on Oct 2, 2007 9:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, if you hand a team a 3-1 lead in

the 8th, you did score enough runs in that game.

However, and this is the problem, is the ability to control run distribution to some extent, a repeatable skill, of the players, the manager, the FO? Or to put it in other way, did how the DBacks leveraged their bullpen a significant reason why they are in the playoffs? Was their strategy of saving their best bullpen arms for meaningful games, and letting the crappy arms, including position players, pitch in blow outs, a significant reason why they are in the playoffs?

by rfloh on Oct 2, 2007 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Yes, if you hand a team a 3-1 lead in

No, you didn't.

You are not guarenteed a win if you lead 3-1 in the 8th, not with any closer/bullpen, ever.

The most you can say is that if you are leading 3-1 in the 8th, you are in better position (you have a better probability of winning) than 3-2 or 2-0 or whatever.

Giants went into the 9th this year leading by 1-3 runs 60 times. They prevailed 62% of the time, which is 3 times fewer than an average NL closer (67%) - assuming the difficulty was average.

by zenbitz on Oct 2, 2007 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Yes, if you hand a team a 3-1 lead in

Obviously, 3-1 is not significantly better than 2-0; I meant DOWN 0-2.

by zenbitz on Oct 2, 2007 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Yes, if you hand a team a 3-1 lead in

The Giants were also 6-15 in extra frames.

That one's at least as much on the offense as the pen, though.

Fool me seven times, shame on you. Fool me eight or more times, shame on me.

by Bhaakon on Oct 3, 2007 1:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: It's true...

This would be less of a problem if the lead was 5-1 instead of 3-1, now wouldn't it?

And last I checked games go 9 innings, so what the score is before the game is over doesn't really matter too much (weather permitting, of course)

SF Team ERA 4.19 1453 IP
SF ERA, as reliever 4.10 485 IP

Now, ERA isn't a great measure of pitching contribution, but it's not bad.

The reason the bullpen looks bad is because the offense doesn't help it.

Save % was a below average 62%, but NL average was only 67% - that's a difference of 3 games, given the 60 opportunities (very close to league average). HOWEVER, I cannot find stats on save difficulty and it's obvious that a 3-run save is easier than a 1-run save, and our offense would suggest our opps. were enriched in the latter.

bullpen WHIP was 1.41 compared to NL 1.37.

I am not saying the bullpen was a strength - but it was passable. It probably cost us < a few games more than an average one. Nothing resembling "31st of out 32nd" like certain other categories

by zenbitz on Oct 2, 2007 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: It's true...

You're talking as though anyone who says the bullpen could use improvement thinks that the offense doesn't need improving. They're not mutually exclusive.

I haven't heard anyone say the offense doesn't need improving. I think if you asked anyone on this site and Sabean himself, you'd hear that the offense is a priority. Today's Chron and the chat yesterday confirm that the Giants think that way too. All I've been talking about when thinking about improvements is what FAs and trades would help the offense and which of the young guys should be starting.

That said, I do agree that if pitching is your supposed strength and your bullpen is merely passable, an upgrade or two might be in order. I think they started to find a winning formula by dumping Benitez and going with Hennessey, Wilson and Walker. I aslo think Messenger is useful. The problem, as I saw it was lack of consistency from the others likeIf Chulk, Kline and Taschner. Sanchez and Correia were iffy in the bullpen too and look much better to me in starting jobs.

Attention all cars: Be on the look-out for Ryan Klesko's missing power.

by Goofus on Oct 2, 2007 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's right at the top of the page, dude..

<pre>Although the Giants ranked next-to-last in the NL in scoring, Sabean echoed Bochy in saying that these collapses could be attributed more to pitching than hitting: "In some ways, we scored enough runs," said Sabean, who noted that he'll try to add at least one proven reliever to the bullpen</pre>

by zenbitz on Oct 2, 2007 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: It's true...

The problem is that Sabean doesn't seem to understand that valuing things like "team speed" and "clutch hitting" will not help our offense.

We need to increase our team OBP and SLG. It's as simple as that.

Who dat is? That's just Ortmeier's daddy.

by rotorueter on Oct 2, 2007 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: It's true...

really, "team speed" and "clutch hitting" would definitely improve the offense right? I mean how many times all season did the giants strand runners in scoring position or fail to even move a runner over? I remember countless times they'd get someone all the way to 3rd with less than 2 outs only to leave me pulling my hair out when they couldn't hit a sac fly to save their lives. Some of our fastest guys cant get fundamental bunts down (lewis and Davis). Concerning the bullpen, we do at least have the beginnings to build some sort of dominant bullpen, and with 1 or 2 quality arms added, I could see us winning a much better # of those close games (just get rid of all the trash like Munter already!).

IDK, we do need to improve in all areas because we are def in shambles, I think mostly we're quibbling over the order of importance in rebuilding the offense, bullpen, defense, whatever. They all suck, Sabean knows it, but since he's the mouth for the FO he's gotta say that politcal type of jargon so that the average Giants fan will read and think, "I'll still buy tickets next year, we're not that bad, we might even contend"

by joeytothelimit on Oct 2, 2007 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: It's true...

Sorry, joey. You say all the right things, but we already have an assistant GM.

by zenbitz on Oct 2, 2007 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: It's true...

Clutch hitting usually isn't a repeatable skill. Speed is -- but speed also isn't nearly as important as hitting.

by sharksrog on Oct 6, 2007 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: It's true...

The Giants bullpen, perhaps out of sympathy to Armando Benitez, had rather poor timing this season.

by sharksrog on Oct 6, 2007 5:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: It's true...

"Pfffft...facts! Anybody can prove anything with facts." Homer J Simpson

"Have you come to stick a knife in my corpse?".

by Ghost11 on Oct 2, 2007 10:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: It's true...

Facts don't do what I want them to.

All is said and done , so... Let's Go Phillies!! (Kiss my heinie , Clint.)

by victor frankenstein on Oct 2, 2007 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

Trading for bullpen help is one of the most difficult things to do because most relievers are very inconsistent year to year. You have to get lucky. Better yet, trade for guys coming off bad years or who have a chance to blossom rather than trade for guys coming off career years which they will be unlikely to duplicate.

Take Heath Bell, for example. He was lights out for the Padres this year. A 2.02 ERA with a 3-1 K/BB ratio and a WHIp of 0.96.

The Padres picked him up from the Mets for a AAAA outfielder. The guy was 29 and, though he had good K/BB numbers, he was coming off two straight seasons with ERA's over 5.00 and WHIPs of 1.48 and 1.68.

Turns out the Padres got a total steal in Bell, assuming he follows up with more decent seasons.

And take Herges with Colorado. Anyone who saw Herges with the Giants would have sworn the guy was headed for a job at Home Depot. But he pitched great for Colorado and single-handedly kept them in the sudden-death game yesterday.

How much better would the Giants pen have been this year with Herges and Bell? A lot better. But who could have predicted that?

So I'm not in favor of trading for "name" relievers. The risk/reward isn't there. But I have no problem with picking up a few guys real cheap who might do a turnaround like Herges or Bell.

Friend to the aardvark community.

by leewhee on Oct 2, 2007 6:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

Good points. Sometimes the best way to build a bullpen staff is just aquire as many arms as inexpensively as possible and hope you catch lightning in a bottle. It's worked for the Ginats before with guys like Eyre, Brower, Herges, Hermanson and Worrell (version #1).

World Series prediction: Cleveland over Chicago in six games. (I guess I'm still Klesko's adoptive pop; they gypsies weren't interested.)

by Goofus on Oct 2, 2007 8:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

Who dat is? That's just Ortmeier's daddy.

by rotorueter on Oct 3, 2007 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

Yes, bullpens are easy to improve because of this. There is an element of luck, but you can stack the cards in your favor.

And Herges was good in 03. It was 04 that he was bad.

Only 972 games until the end of Zito's contract.

by thehavenot on Oct 2, 2007 9:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Heath Bell

had very good numbers in the minors. The Mets foolishly concluded that he was a "AAAA" type player, and pissed him away.

In 2006, in AAA, he had a 1.29 ERA, 56 K, 8 BBs, in 35 IP. In 2005, in AAA, 1.69, 29, 5, in 26.2 IP. All through his career, he's had very good K / BB numbers.

by rfloh on Oct 3, 2007 1:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

Reliever HEALTH is perhaps the biggest variable. With the caveat that a reliever will be healthy, I think we can usually do a decent job of predicting which relievers will fare well and which won't.

by sharksrog on Oct 6, 2007 5:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

I know there is no reason to trust Sabean, but maybe he is downplaying the team's offensive woes on purpose. If he is going to seriously try to trade for a young hitter(s) with Tampa Bay and others why would he give them leverage?

Think about it, if Sabean came out and said "We need good hitters big time or this team will suck next year" then he would sound desperate. If he is desperate (which this team is) then Tampa Bay is going to ask for much more than Lowry. If he downplays the need for offense and makes it seem like he is content without dealing for hitters, then trade partners will have less leverage.

However, I don't trust Sabean to think in these terms and this might not even make any sense.

by Bib12 on Oct 2, 2007 9:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

It'd be funny as hell if he said, "My plan this offseason is to find the dumbest GM in the game and screw him over with the most lopsided trade I can get away with."

That's pretty much the plan, by the way.

by Skaldheim on Oct 2, 2007 10:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Giants prepare for off-season changes

Insert "Sabean's going to screw himself?" joke here.

World Series prediction: Cleveland over Chicago in six games. (I guess I'm still Klesko's adoptive pop; they gypsies weren't interested.)

by Goofus on Oct 3, 2007 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I doubt rival GMs

pay much attention to what a GM of a particular team says publicly to the media and the fanbase.

by rfloh on Oct 3, 2007 1:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: I doubt rival GMs

To an extent, I think you're right. But if Sabean "promised" to get an impact bat and the off-season was coming to close, I think a rival GM would know that Sabean was desperate and exploit it.

World Series prediction: Cleveland over Chicago in six games. (I guess I'm still Klesko's adoptive pop; they gypsies weren't interested.)

by Goofus on Oct 3, 2007 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs