Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Hugh Douglas Admits To Stealing From Jaguars

Our lineup calls for aid!

174246766_ea2fd78204_tiny by Grant Brisbee on in News

It's worth pointing out that we don't really know what $12M means in a baseball context anymore. With MLB Advanced Media, boffo regional cable deals, record attendance, and illicit mascot sex rings*, it's a bigger surprise that salaries haven't gone up more. We're basing our judgment of the Rowand deal on salaries from the not-too-distant past, and maybe a $12M player isn't that big of a deal anymore. Maybe. I don't know.

Maybe signing an expensive free agent -- any expensive free agent -- is a sound public relations move for a team in the Giants' position. Perhaps entering the season without doing anything at all would have cost the team millions in profits. Maybe. I don't know.

Maybe Rowand is one of those players who defies the standard aging pattern. There are exceptions to the rule that players who have career seasons can't repeat their performance. Luis Gonzalez held the gains from his age-31 season Clear into his mid-30s. Sometimes these late-bloomers stick around. Maybe. I don't know.

So I'm just going to fold my arms and wait. Because this looks like an obscenely priced contract for a player who plays a position the Giants didn't need to fill, blocks whatever interesting young talent the Giants do have, and put up a career year in a hitter's park. Probably. I'm pretty sure I know. But I'll give it time. I'll wait until this masterpiece is finished. I'll save my howling for when the roster is complete.

I'll wait because I'm still goofy enough to think an average offense could make the Giants competitive. Looking at the 2007 National League, the template would seem to be the Padres, who had a team OPS+ of 101, but just one player with a slugging percentage over .500. Sabean is fond of this example, and he drops it a lot in his KNBR interviews. It's a seductive example for a mostly hopeless team with a strong rotation. I'll give him that. If Rowand hits up to his 2007 road numbers (.299/.368/.475), he'll be a big asset to this lineup.

The Giants need to find a third baseman, they need to find a first baseman, and they could use a reliever or two. I have no confidence that they will fill these open positions with players who will improve the team for the present or future. The team needs to take chances on players who had down years in 2007, as the safe-'n'-good bets in the MLB universe are already accounted for. Richie Sexson hadn't had a slugging percentage lower than .499 in his career until last season. Two years ago, Morgan Ensberg hit 36 home runs and finished fourth in the MVP voting. Neither one would be a long-term commitment, and they certainly wouldn't be blocking any prospects. Both, however, field like a manatee trying to ride a Big Wheel; therefore, Sabean will sign Pedro Feliz and Sean Casey.

Wait, wait, wait. That's unfair. I promised to wait until the roster is done to complain.

Wow me, Sabes. Shut me the hell up. Take some risks when looking for your corner infielders, and try and hit the jackpot. Make a huge trade for an unproven player like Joey Votto. Try and catch some Mike Lowell magic with Morgan Ensberg. Make 2008 interesting.

Please?

*According to some highly paid MLB lawyers, MLB is not running a for-profit illicit mascot sex ring. Non-profit? They weren't clear on that point, but they were very clear on the for-profit thing.

Comment 258 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
I like the Ensberg pickup, but unless Sabes can unload Durham for Sexson, I am not a big fan of Sexson.  I can deal with Orty, Aurilia, and maybe even Schierholtz at first, but I am not sure if Sabes needs that as a power spot if he can do something at third.  If he gets Encarnacion from the Reds that would be a great pickup.  I will even take Rolen.  Good job Grant on the mention of relievers too, wasnt the challenge this offseason to build up the pen, where did that go?

by Big Daddy J on Dec 13, 2007 1:01 AM PST reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Edwin Encarnacion would be awesome - that guy seems like he's on the verge of putting it all together offensively and he's young/cost controlled (his D is a little on the 'ugh' side but I'd take the stick even if it meant an eventual move to LF). Not sure the Reds are done with him yet, though.

by GiantFanInExile on Dec 13, 2007 9:07 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
you hit the nail on the head; neither one of those is headed our way since they dont play d or run well.  sabean appears to be serious with this speed and defense thing even if it means a winn, molina, rowand 3-4-5.  i trust this wont be the opening day roster but its tough to envision exactly what sabean has in mind.  if it turns out he actually does have a vision and pulls off a deal for a corner infielder with promise ill be more than happy to cast aside my logic for the spring and first 30 games and convince myself they can actually contend.  but at this point im skeptical sabean can pull off that small miracle.

by sam23 on Dec 13, 2007 1:08 AM PST reply actions  

Things we used to complain about
$12 million per year for Rowand means that Matt Morris ($9m/yr) was a fine piece of Sabean negotiating, and Randy Winn ($8M/yr) was picked up on Bonus Bucks Day at the Dollar Tree.

by Moggeee on Dec 13, 2007 1:09 AM PST reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
This is just something to throw out so leave opinions.  What about sending one of our young outfielders across the bay for Bubba Crosby.  He is still young, has some ceiling, but due to injuries has never lived up to much.  If the A's do end up rebuilding, does anyone think this might make 'buy-low' sense?
Maybe this year we can knock the Dodgers out of the playoffs

by Bring Back the Thrill on Dec 13, 2007 1:37 AM PST reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Didn't Bubba play for the Yanks?

Beane generally doesn't sell low and we already have omar at SS. if we could, I'd roll the dice though

Frandsen for 3B (til July 08)

by NeifiChicken on Dec 13, 2007 1:39 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Ooops, wrote Bubba instead of Bobby
Maybe this year we can knock the Dodgers out of the playoffs

by Bring Back the Thrill on Dec 13, 2007 1:41 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Grant is the voice of reason as usual. Pretty much sums up the numerous opinion of every Rowand post in the last 12 hours.

Sabean couldn't afford to NOT add one proven quasi-name everyday player. All things considered, Rowand isn't that bad a choice, although I do think we'll be lucky to get 3 .800+ OPS years out of his deal.

We'll see some great web gems every once in awhile though, but Rajai gave some of those anyway (not to say Rajai is comparabel to Rowand's defense)

Low-risk/high-reward is the answer as Grant said, mainly because we can afford to. A contending team can't take a huge chance at 3B, they need a certain level of production. For us, we can afford to.

This is a good list of guys for Sabes to take a chance on, combined with some crafty trades for prospects:

Ensberg, Sexson, Prior, Marte, Nick Johnson, Wilkerson, McPherson, Ryan Shealy, Chad Tracy, Tony Clark (stretching it), etc.

I almost want Adam Everett too, just to see firsthand if his defense is truly worth as much as some metrics say. Too bad we have the sexier, older version.

Frandsen for 3B (til July 08)

by NeifiChicken on Dec 13, 2007 1:38 AM PST reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
wouldnt mind seeing any of those guys on the giants. including everett-his d is that good, ironically he would have numerous gold gloves if he could hit a little.  anyone know about this cabrera guy who plays 1B and is coming back from a few years over in japan? he's 36 but apparently he was flat out mashing over there.  if we dont land anyone else by trade why not take a flier?  maybe he'll be our very own carlos pena.  (speaking of pena isnt he evidence enough that we should take a shot at mcpherson and/or cantu?)

by sam23 on Dec 13, 2007 1:53 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Cantu had actually popped in my mind as well.  I did a bit of checking and found that his OBP was in the .280-.290 range in recent years.  Even during his best year his OBP was never high.  I have a feeling that the Rays tried their hardest to get him be more disciplined at the plate but eventually had to cut him because they had no luck.
Here's to Kemp, Loney, LaRoche, Hu, and Kershaw not panning out.

by Woody Wins on Dec 13, 2007 2:59 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
pena wasnt exactly a hitting machine before last year.  like pena both cantu and mcpherson (andy marte as well) were highly touted young players who thus far havent lived up to projections.  its not likely they break out like pena, but isnt it worth a shot on this team?

by sam23 on Dec 13, 2007 3:42 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
yep, esp. mcpherson.
Here's to Kemp, Loney, LaRoche, Hu, and Kershaw not panning out.

by Woody Wins on Dec 13, 2007 3:44 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
I just listened to Sabes on KNBR from earlier, and he did not mention looking for a 1B.  But he mentioned the pen and 3B, and those two areas need the most amount of work.  McPherson looks good along with Ensberg.  I like Prior too.  Or Wood, if he is available.  Maybe Donneley.

by Big Daddy J on Dec 13, 2007 1:46 AM PST reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Sorry, Wood signed when I was out of town a few weeks ago.

by Big Daddy J on Dec 13, 2007 1:49 AM PST up reply actions  

3rd base
Marte, or Mcpherson would be an inexpensive high reward move. DO IT!

by barblechuck on Dec 13, 2007 2:28 AM PST reply actions  

Re: 3rd base
Well, it sounds so easy, yeah, just sign this guy, and this guy, and these three guys.  Most of them want a guaranteed 25 man roster spot.  Even if you can sign them to a minor league contract, you can't play them (once the season starts) until you put them on both the 25 man and 40 man roster.  That means, usually, you have to get rid of other prospects - prospects who have already earned their way onto the 40 man roster.

by allfrank on Dec 13, 2007 1:49 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Good write-up by Grant -- a pleasure to read, as always.  But I'm convinced that this signing, while not a particularly useful one, isn't at all bad for the G's.
  1. Teams are always going to spend to their level, and the Giants were $15-20 million below theirs.  You'd be hard-pressed to find a team that dipped way below their budget one year for the hell of it... for a variety of fairly good reasons, it just doesn't happen.  The Giants felt the need to get a name last year, they felt the need this year, and they'll feel the need next year.  It's not the end of the world... they have the money.
  2. There are many worse free agent fish than Aaron Rowand.  Aaron Rowand at his best is a very, very good player -- he was one of the thirty or so most valuable players in baseball in '07, around that in '04.  I tire of scrappy whiteboy rhetoric as much as anyone, but Eckstein this guy ain't... when he's good, he's very good.
  3. I'm just not convinced that our young outfield talent qualifies as "interesting".  Guys like Fred Lewis and Nate Schierholtz don't really register on prospect radars besides ours... they're not likely to become good major-league ballplayers.  The odds of any of them ever being as good as even an aging Aaron Rowand are pretty long.  If we have the money to get a Rowand, why would we stick with these not-that-promising youngsters?  Because we're hoping they'll get really good all of a sudden, against all evidence?  Isn't that just Sabeanistic thinking, with the age fetish reversed?
  4. There's an argument that goes, "Forget about next year, because we're not going to contend anyway.  If signing Aaron Rowand hypothetically takes us from 72-90 and last place to 75-87 and fourth place, do you care?"  Well, I absolutely do.  Life is short... we all only have so many years on earth to follow this goddamned franchise.  Aaron Rowand is a fun player to watch, and he makes it slightly less likely that we'll finish last.  I'm a Giants fan... both those things matter to me.  Fuck a boring team, and fuck finishing last.  Fuck them both.
  5. For the sake of perspective, the Angels, a successful and respected franchise, signed an arguably lesser player at the same position for 50% more... they didn't have much more need for a center fielder than we did.  An even better comparison would be the $70 million Boston gave to J.D. Drew last year.  Drew's probably a little better, but he was a year older then than Rowand is now, and his injury history isn't any better.  Is Theo Epstein an idiot, or is he, like Sabean, a guy with extra money to throw around?
My point is that the "this is typical Sabean" reaction is wrong-headed.  This isn't "typical Sabean"... it's "typical 2007 GM".  Everybody's signing people.  The Angels don't need Hunter, the Cubs don't need Fukudome.  The Reds spent $46 million on a closer... the friggin' Royals spent $36 million on Jose Guillen.  That's not even mentioning the contracts teams committed to last year (God forbid we mention that, for obvious reasons).  There's a laughable amount of money in the game right now.  

Our guy could've sat the winter out, but he went and got a pretty good player who doesn't particularly address our needs.  It's a little silly, but it's not the end of the world, and I don't think it would even make the top twenty of Sabean's Biggest Mistakes.  

We got a good baseball player, and we didn't have to give away any other good baseball players to do it.  It's really not the end of the world.

by onlxn on Dec 13, 2007 3:25 AM PST reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
No, it's typical Sabean.  The Cubs DID need Fukudome - they got rid of other outfielders and were intent on getting a left-handed-hitting OF. The Angels had room in the OF and wanted another hitter (we Giant fans can only imagine that perspective).  The Reds, well, they're the Reds - my point is made with the Cubs and Angels.
The SF Giants: agressively promoting young talent since 2008.

by Lyle @ McCovey Chronicles on Dec 13, 2007 6:51 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Great post... especially #3 where I am guilty.  I'd love to see a Giants "prospect" defy the odds.

by achiappanza on Dec 13, 2007 8:12 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
I call a foul on number 3.  You can just assert that a kid in AA doesn't have the goods, but you need to show some analysis to assert a derogatory conclusion for a kid who at age 23 has a .304 average or an OPS in the 800 nieghborhood at 27 in the show.  

by prospecthound on Dec 13, 2007 9:19 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
I think you did a good job of summing up my thoughts. And let me add, that if we can PLEASE trade Dave Roberts (to anyone, but probably Atlanta), and we can get another .280/24/85 guy for RF, then Randy can move to left, with Raj the fourth guy. I am not in love with Encarnacion or Votto, but beggars cannot be. . . and Noah+ is certainly a fair trade. Whatever positions they are, we need two more bats, cause Aaron looks good at the five spot, but not without a 3-, 4- in front of him. Randy and Bengie do NOT fill tyhe bill.
Don't believe everything you think.

by wcovington on Dec 13, 2007 4:42 PM PST up reply actions  

Encarnacion and Votto
I know these two names have been brought up over and over.  I just don't see Cincy trading either one, let alone both, and not for Lowry in any event.

by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 14, 2007 7:31 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
I don't understand why people call this an obscenely priced contract, despite the obvious negatives of the signing.

Compared to other similar deals (Age, OPS+, total value):

Hunter:       Age:  32, OPS+: 104, $90M  
Pierre:       Age:  29, OPS+: 84,  $45M
Matthews JR:  Age:  32, OPS+: 96,  $50M
Fukudome:     Age:  30, OPS+: ?,   $48M(4 years)
Rowand:       Age:  30, OPS+: 106, $60M

Rowands deal is actually not bad. Even Winn earnt $8M a year, with worse offence & defence, when he signed a couple of seasons ago.

Now obviously, comparing any deal to the horrible deals given out recently, makes them look good, and i'm not arguing that it's a great deal, but in todays market it's actually a decent deal (which obviously is an indication of the poor market)

by GiantFan on Dec 13, 2007 5:47 AM PST reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
the rowand signing is good for another huge reason...clubhouse rapport, everyone who has played with rowand has said his competitive nature and work ethic is tremendous. based the temperment of the clubhouse last year he will be a welcome addition. He also happen to be a great centerfielder, though he might not put up great numbers, they will be solid. If davis was the answer you would have seen enough of him to be sure already. Rowand is and will always be a better player than davis...would rowand ever be traded for an aging pitcher like morris?

moving forward..I find it odd that the reds would not want lowery for Encarnacion.. would be a nice move for us.

the outfield is set for now letting lewis and nate
get some more time to show their skills.

davis looks like the same player as calvin murray was.

   

by dynamics24 on Dec 13, 2007 6:32 AM PST reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
where will Nate and Fred show off their skills.  Bubble gum chewing contest on the bench?

by kennv on Dec 13, 2007 8:11 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
who's playing left? even if roberts stays with the team he is alway hurt and split time with the others.  

by dynamics24 on Dec 13, 2007 9:55 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Honest question for those in the know - who had more appearances in LF when Roberts wasn't playing in 2007: Davis, Lewis or Schierholz? I remember seeing Davis more often than not - admittedly anecdotal, but I worry that it's an indicator that he'll get the PT over the homegrown guys.

by GiantFanInExile on Dec 13, 2007 10:21 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
According to the fine folks at Baseball Reference, Lewis got the most starts in LF of those three - a mere 9 games. Ortmeier started 8, Davis 1, and Schierholtz none.

I'd forgotten what a dog's breakfast LF was for us last year when Bonds was out of the lineup. Also getting starts there were Feliz, Frandsen, Klesko, Sweeney, and Linden.

All your signature are belong to us.

by EliminateMe on Dec 13, 2007 10:56 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Thanks EM (and shouldn't have been so lazy - of course B-Ref rules). I remember seeing Davis as a late-inning replacement for Bonds a few times in SD, so guess I just thought that he had the most appearances (nice that Lewis had the starts though). Let's hope the starts is the trend, not my admittedly-fuzzy memory!

by GiantFanInExile on Dec 13, 2007 2:26 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
I still believe that the Laws of Physics(tm) prevent Randy Winn and Aaron Rowand from being on the same team at the same time.

So how do we see the lineup shaping up, assuming no other moves?

Maybe:
LF-Winn
3B-Frandsen
CF-Rowand
 C-Molina
RF-Schierholtz
2B-Durham
1B-Ortmeier
SS-Vizquel

The SF Giants: agressively promoting young talent since 2008.

by Lyle @ McCovey Chronicles on Dec 13, 2007 7:11 AM PST reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Assuming the team stays exactly as it is now? 1. Roberts LF 2. Vizquel SS 3. Winn RF 4. Molina C 5. Rowand CF 6. Durham 2B 7. Ortmeier 1B 8. Frandsen 3B 600 runs
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Dec 13, 2007 7:16 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
AAAAH FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, SELF, PAY ATTENTION TO YOUR FORMATTING. >:(
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Dec 13, 2007 7:16 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
I agree, as we stand at the moment, that's the lineup that we'd start the season with.

Personally, if Vizquel bats anywhere other than 8th, it'll be disappointing :(

by GiantFan on Dec 13, 2007 8:20 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Magowan better consider drastic action -  Cheep beer night(s).  Sabean just could not leave the scab alone. Now the he has to move one of Winn or Roberts so he will not. That line up is extremely under aspiring and  all but one of those eight are very unlikely to be markedly better then  they already are. Oh boy we are the Orioles of the national league or what?  Just why do I want to invest time and money on this squad when Cain & Lincecum are not on the mound again?

by daveinexile on Dec 13, 2007 9:30 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
And Zito will be the opening day starter.
"natto is just weird and gross in smell, texture, and taste" - BVCE

by SF Pete on Dec 14, 2007 4:35 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
I'm a Molina fan, but if he's our cleanup hitter by the time Opening Day rolls by, I'll get physically ill.
Nattowear | comics | Durham? I hardly know 'im!

by Natto on Dec 13, 2007 8:10 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Will the concession stands be selling Dramamine this year?
The SF Giants: agressively promoting young talent since 2008.

by Lyle @ McCovey Chronicles on Dec 13, 2007 9:02 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Why would you project this lineup?  Bochy and Sabean have already said, barring any further trades, it would be Winn. Molina, Rowand, 3,4,5.

by allfrank on Dec 13, 2007 2:02 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
It's awful, and what's more, with Bengie in the  4-spot, Rowand will have no ability to run the bases -- none!
Don't believe everything you think.

by wcovington on Dec 13, 2007 4:49 PM PST up reply actions  

Clogging the Bases
Since Bengie hardly ever gets on base, I don't think him batting in front of Rowand will inhibit Rowand's running too much.

by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 14, 2007 7:29 AM PST up reply actions  

I'll be the Lone Gunman
I thought the end of Sabean's interview on KNBR yesterday was hilarious...and encouraging.  Ralph jokingly (?) suggested he go ahead now and deal Lincecum for Rios and Sabean replied "Yeah, and then I'll get shot crossing the street to my condo."

At least he's listening to the public.  

by KCE on Dec 13, 2007 7:22 AM PST reply actions  

Re: I'll be the Lone Gunman
Its not worth the 90 days house arrest for that particular homicide.

by E Ticket on Dec 13, 2007 7:40 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: I'll be the Lone Gunman
No jury in the world would convict you.
Steve Kline: How okay is he, really? I would say he is pretty okay.

by groug on Dec 13, 2007 2:21 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: I'll be the Lone Gunman
Maybe Dodger fans.
Steve Kline: How okay is he, really? I would say he is pretty okay.

by groug on Dec 13, 2007 2:21 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: I'll be the Lone Gunman
I don't think it was a ruse. I think it's been his plan all along. I don't say this because I like Sabean, or think he's doing a good job...I think it's his style.

by BB on Dec 13, 2007 7:41 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: I'll be the Lone Gunman
No one, and I mean no one, would truly trade Lincecum for Rios. Seriously. No one. It doesn't make sense on any level as much as people try to rationalize it.
Sabean might not be the greatest GM in the world, but he's not a dummy. He's up to something. Rios to SF is a lie. Nothing more.

by BB on Dec 13, 2007 7:44 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Okay, here's a thought for 1B. The White Sox are apparently thinking of offering up Paul Konerko for an outfielder. And um, well maybe not, he makes $12M a year for the next three years and only hit .259/.351/.490 last year and he's 32 next year and is pretty much the epitome of an old players skills player.

But uh... it's out there, anyway.

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

by jponry on Dec 13, 2007 7:23 AM PST reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Rolen and Sexson, not Ensberg and Sexson. With Rolen at third and Frandsen at second this is a very good fielding team with a respectable - San Diego like - offense. A good enough team to compete for the next two years while the Giants' prospects and acquisition of prospects develops for the longer term.

by Sayhey on Dec 13, 2007 7:25 AM PST reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Two players I do not want to see on the 08 Giants:
Sexson and Feliz. (Oh, and throw in Dave Roberts).
Don't believe everything you think.

by wcovington on Dec 13, 2007 4:55 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
I don't have a problem with Dave Roberts, if we get the Roberts of the second half of '07 and he plays left. Considering he was injured in the first half of last year that's not an outrageous expectation. I would also like others payers (Davis, Lewis, Schierholtz) to have an opportunity to win the position instead of Roberts, but I understand that is what Sabean is saying anyway, at least at this point.

I didn't mention Feliz because I don't think he is coming back, but if I have to choose between having Feliz return for another year and Frandsen play second OR having Frandsen play third and Durham play second, then I'm going with the former. Realistically, I think another team gives Pedro more than the Giants want to offer him and he is gone.

I think Sexson is far from the ideal choice for first, but he is a gamble I'd take (and the Giants need to gamble) for two reasons. Given a reasonable bounce back year, he gives the Giants the only legit clean up hitter in a possible 2008 lineup, and it also is contingent on a projected trade that gets rid of Durham. Ray is a nice guy, but Ray is done.

If I was convinced Ortmeier is ready for prime time at first, I'd forego a trade for Sexson, but Dan is still an outfielder playing out of position and a very questionable bat. Better to have him as a back up while he shows he can play.

by Sayhey on Dec 13, 2007 8:11 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Oh also, ROGER CLEMENS!!!111!11 OMG ROGER CLEMENS! took steroids. :D
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Dec 13, 2007 7:25 AM PST reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
If Curt Schilling is on the list, my life will be complete.

by KCE on Dec 13, 2007 7:32 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
THAT would be my drug of choice!
Don't believe everything you think.

by wcovington on Dec 13, 2007 4:56 PM PST up reply actions  

I am SHOCKED
I'm tearing down my Roger Clemens posters now.
Nattowear | comics | Durham? I hardly know 'im!

by Natto on Dec 13, 2007 8:08 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
I totally understand the concern that this was an overpriced contract, but in looking at the other deals already done for questionable-skilled players and hearing Rowand on KNBR last night, I am now convinced that this was a good deal both on and off the field.  Sabean's business plan seems to be based on acquiring at least one younger quality FA to fill a hole long-term each year over the next 3 years while they see if any of the kids can fill in other spots.  They obviously didn't think they had other strong CF options in-house over the next three years, and had rightly decided they weren't going to give up Lincecum to fill that spot with Rios, so to Sabean this move fit the plan.

The question as we have all said, is what happens next.  His comments yesterday were clear that he won't trade anyone to fill another OF spot, so the Matsui deal is off the table and the Yankees dithered too much and have lost Sanchez.  So unless he trades Roberts or Winn to fill the 1B/3B hole, then the kids will sit the bench this year behind a Roberts/Rowand/Winn outfield at least until July 31.

That means Sabean will take a hard look at the nontendereds to see what he can do for the corner infielders, as well as using pieces from the 40-man roster to fill those holes and the middle relief needs.  And for now, I'm OK with that, because there also is the chance that other teams will contact the Giants to fill their needs as well, and Sabean might luck out with something that isn't even on our radar screens yet.

by Buck Henry on Dec 13, 2007 7:35 AM PST reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
I'm kinda holding out for Sabean to package Winn in a deal to the Indians for Marte and for Roberts to get kidnapped and dropped off at the Braves' Front Office. If those happen, we might actually have a starting OF of: LF Rajai Davis/ Fred Lewis; CF Aaron Rowand; RF Nate Schierholtz. That would be good at this point, given that as bad as our offense might be, picking up old crusty veterans to improve it isn't the way to go. We're better off developing some of the little talent we have.
Praying nightly that the annual Giants horrid FA pickup is avoided this time around.

by Speedforthewin on Dec 13, 2007 8:03 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Davis/Lewis is indeed a useful platoon, with adequate hitting and slick defense.

In center field.

Which is why acquiring Rowand is such a head-scratcher.  His bat isn't that great, unless you're of the small-ballparks-mean-more-iron school of analysis, but his defense is good.  Lewis and especially Davis's bats aren't that great, even platooned, but their defense is good.

But hey, why spend league minimum and keep your draft pick when you can spend $60m and lose your draft pick to fill one of the few positions on the field for which you don't need anyone?

Up is down.  Black is white.  It's Sabeanworld.

by wcw on Dec 13, 2007 8:20 AM PST up reply actions  

meanwhile, in the real world..
..the Rangers acquire an actual 1B who fills an actual need for them (coincidentally, also an actual need for the Giants) for somewhat less than $60m and a draft pick.

In fact, said 1B costs them league minimum, zero draft picks and one 24-year-old minor-league infielder who's deep down their depth chart.

It's not a good trade for the Rangers, since Broussard sucks.  But it does show pretty unequivocally how bad Sabean is.

When the Rangers can't make you look good, you're *really* bad.

by wcw on Dec 13, 2007 8:33 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!

Does this make Coletti "Straight as a corkscrew... Mr. Insideoutski... like some goddamn BOLSHIVIK takin' his orders from Yegg central..."

by zenbitz on Dec 13, 2007 11:29 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Yes, it is a horrid signing, but if Winn is traded, then Bochy might salvage the situation by playing our young outfielders (Davis, Lewis, Schierholtz). Now there is NO excuse for Sabean not acquiring a decent 3B or 1B replacement. He has the pieces, DO IT.
Praying nightly that the annual Giants horrid FA pickup is avoided this time around.

by Speedforthewin on Dec 13, 2007 12:18 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Fred Lewis may be many things, but a slick-fielding CF is not (currently) one of them.
I have set Dave Roberts free; if he comes back, it was meant to be.

by hometownboy on Dec 13, 2007 10:09 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
do not see how a davis/lewis platoon is better than rowand fulltime. what have those two done that makes you confident they can produce in the majors on a regular basis. davis was traded by a team looking for young players for an aging starter. if he was such a great talent they would have kept him or gotten more back. very fast and good fielder, but no way better than rowand.

lewis has never put up great stats anywhere and has  not shown he is a great centerfielder. look they need to start getting some proven positon players in the lineup.

why not platoon in left and right and see if anyone steps up as opposed to waiting to see if these marginal prospects become stars... at least we will have a solid player in rowand on board should one come out and be a player.    

by dynamics24 on Dec 14, 2007 9:13 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
I am mostly talking about Lewis, who is both the better hitter and shows a huge platoon split.  Counting his performance at all levels the last three years, his vs RHP OPS is almost 150 points higher than vs LHP.  Platooning him turns him into an average hitter with good defense.  Davis is a poor hitter with stellar defense, so when Lewis turns into a poor hitter himself, he's the right starter for the defensive upgrade.

Rowand is definitely better.  Then again, Rowand costs the #55 draft pick in 2008 (Schierholtz was picked lower, as was Clayton Tanner) and, of course, $60m over the next half-decade.  Lewis/Davis cost zero picks and are essentially free.  Moreover, Rowand isn't a lot better, but a little: a little better on defense than Lewis, a little better with the bat vs RHP and a lot better vs LHP.

I'd rather spend $300m on a star like A-Rod or Pujols than spend $60m on slight upgrades like this.  Zito + Rowand == 2/3rds of A-Rod.  The team can afford a real star.  It doesn't have one because it wastes money on contracts like these to non-star slight upgrades.

by wcw on Dec 14, 2007 12:32 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
I like this. Now PLEASE let's keep Kevin at 2B. We'll f@#!! him up at third, where he'll try to do too much and screw up his mechanics. This is not a powerr guy.
Don't believe everything you think.

by wcovington on Dec 13, 2007 4:59 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
This is probably inappropriately placed, and it might have already been posted, but I'm too lazy to look for it...

From the Henry Schulman article in the Chronicle:

"Dave Roberts will move to left field, with Nate Schierholtz, Rajai Davis and Fred Lewis destined to compete for backup roles if they are not traded. The Giants also could seek a taker for Roberts, although Sabean values his experience as a leadoff hitter."

That's it.  I officially hate baseball.  Not JUST the Giants.  I hate it all.  In fact, with that quote, I now hate all sports.  I think I'm going to take up heavy boozing instead.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Dec 13, 2007 8:28 AM PST reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
well who else do we have to be a true ~*~*leadoff hitter*~*~?
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Dec 13, 2007 8:33 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
I just love how hard up Sabean is for some savvy veterans that we're actually looking at an outfield with Dave Roberts, Randy Winn, and Aaron Rowand, with the youngsters who could be pretty good AND the future of the team sitting on the fucking bench.

Pardon my french.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Dec 13, 2007 8:37 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Well, I don't think any of the youngsters could be 'pretty good' with the possible exception of Schierholtz.  But I do think a Roberts/Davis/Lewis CF will perform as well as Rowand, and maybe you can flip Roberts at the deadline.

by wcw on Dec 13, 2007 8:51 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Ultimately, what I want to see is Schierholtz getting starting time in the outfield, not being the fourth outfielder.  Here's my nightmare scenario:

Starting outfield is Roberts/Winn/Rowand.  Backups are Rajai Davis and Nate Schierholtz.

Pedro Feliz gets himself a two year deal.

Whenever one of the starting outfielders needs a day off, Feliz is moved to left, the other outfielders are adjusted accordingly, and Rich Aurilia gets the start at third.  Late in the game, Rajai is used as a pinch runner almost exclusively.  Nate Schierholtz rarely gets starting time, but just enough that he can't ever get into a groove and ultimately gets sent back down to the minors, is labeled a bust, and never sees the major leagues again.

I feel like I've seen this exact template for success before...  I just can't remember where.

And for the record, I think Lewis COULD still make something of himself.  He might not be the second coming of Bonds, but I think he's got a higher ceiling than what Dave Roberts is.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Dec 13, 2007 8:58 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Nah, but I think I can see straight into his enormous noggin.  I mean seriously, I really think this exact plan is going to be put into play, and it's going to keep the Giants off my television all season.

It's too bad, too, because I got high def, and I was really hoping to see white heads and hokey blows vividly.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Dec 13, 2007 9:50 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
 I have to agree with you though. I lived through Spec I'll live through Sabean.  Sabean has now forced me to seriously consider spending a weekend  evening  a week watching archieved Cain & Tim starts and ignore ( possibly box scores )  the rest.  

by daveinexile on Dec 13, 2007 10:23 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
You call this livin'???  =)
"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Dec 13, 2007 10:28 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Defensively, Dave Roberts is Marvin Barnard without the steroids.
Don't believe everything you think.

by wcovington on Dec 13, 2007 5:03 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Although he doesn't really deserve it, I'll continue to give Sabean the benefit of the doubt for now when he talks about how he plans to start Roberts in LF to take advantage of his awesome leadoff skills.

I do that because, if he's really trying to trade Roberts, it's better that he's talking him up than admitting that he's a mediocre player and signing him was a huge mistake. Hope springs eternal.

All your signature are belong to us.

by EliminateMe on Dec 13, 2007 11:02 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
At what point during the commission of a homicide on the installment plan, do you cease to give the perpetrator the benefit of the doubt?

by E Ticket on Dec 14, 2007 6:48 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
could it be the sabean dangled a 5 year deal to rowand early, rowand wanted 90 mill, so he floated the rios for lincecum rumor to drive his price down? would that be giving him too much credit? and then when that didnt drive down rowands asking price enough, he dangled the matsui deal too?
i think i know the answer to the question, but im interested to hear the repercussions of the suggestion
thank god the patriots dont have the giants' first round pick too

by son of riles on Dec 13, 2007 8:32 AM PST reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Well, if we are going to blow off the kids and go same old, same old, here's what I think are the obvious last two pieces of the puzzle:

1B:  Mike Lamb.  .289/.366/. 458.  He's terrible defensively at 3B, but should be adequate at 1B.  

3B:  Pedro Feliz.  Not saying I want him here, but who else is it going to be?  Plus, it goes all the way with the defense first theory.

Lineup:

LF:  Roberts/Davis
RF:  Winn
CF: Rowand
1B: Lamb
C :  Molina
2B: Durham
3B: Feliz
SS: Vizquel

Nate gets sent back to Fresno.  Fred Lewis is the 5'th OF.  Frandsen and Aurilia are the utility IF.  GRod or Notgardo are the backup C's.

by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 13, 2007 9:02 AM PST reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
"Nate gets sent back to Fresno"

NO, pleeeze.

desertdave

by desertdave on Dec 13, 2007 9:13 AM PST up reply actions  

Remember?
Hi Dave,  

Good to hear from you. Not saying this is what I want, but it's what I think will happen, or something close to it.  Remember how Todd Linden was handled?  Do you think Sabean sees Nate in any different light?  Can you point to any evidence that Sabean has changed one bit?

by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 13, 2007 9:19 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Remember?
How often do snakes shed their skin?

by E Ticket on Dec 14, 2007 6:49 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Dude, I SO hope you're wrong, but this looks exactly like what's going to happen!

Course, we need to hold on...  There's still plenty of time.  Let's see how the rest of the offseason shakes out.  Maybe Roberts or Winn gets moved...  SOMETHING more has to happen.  It can't be as bad as we're thinking.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Dec 13, 2007 9:15 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
You know, the more I think about it, the more that the Rowand signing looks idiotic, at ANY price! This guy is not going to add anything substantial, and fuck that "gamer" shit- I don't even see any P.R. value here. Just B.S. that will keep the kids from playing.

I'm with all the people that want to see the kids play.

Which means, I guess, I'm not really that big a fan of the 2008 Giants. I'm happy they'll still have Cain and Lincecum, but boy do I feel sorry for those boys.

***

Succumb to the Enchanted t-shirt! Adopted dad of Minor Izzy

by hairball on Dec 13, 2007 10:16 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
yeah these kids are all great talent..so great that that the bucs traded one for matt morris and all the other teams in the majors are knocking down our door for a fast outfielder with questionable fielding skills that can't hit leftys. how old is lewis anyway? you would think by now it would be clear if he was going to a coveted outfielder.

these guys have never been ranked high by baseball amercia for a reason!  Nate on the other hand has shown great shown great stats, and if he proves he can hit not like linden then I am sure he will play.  if you are good in the majors teams like to play you.

how many times have you seen giant outfield propects come along with hype and never make it. linden/murray come to mind right away. if these guys were that good they would either be playing full-time or traded to a third baseman/first baseman.

let's be real here they are just ok..nate could be the real deal.  

by dynamics24 on Dec 14, 2007 9:27 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Can't say I disagree, except with the implication that Rowand's bat is much better.  It's better, sure, but only a little.  Mostly, his stats are better, because he's played in bandboxes instead of fair parks.

by wcw on Dec 14, 2007 12:51 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
I'm with Grant, here.

And when I say I'm with him, I mean that I agree.

Let's see what the entire body of work is first.  

That said, 35 year old Rowand's not going to be a good use of 12 million dollars.  And, it is apparently physically painful for Sabean to actually give legitimate shots to the semi-prospects.  

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

by thehavenot on Dec 13, 2007 9:41 AM PST reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
35-year-old Rowand probably won't be all that good, but with the way  contracts are inflating, $12 million won't even make him one of the ten highest-paid CFs in 2012.  I doubt this contract will look like a monster at that point.

by onlxn on Dec 14, 2007 3:54 AM PST up reply actions  

Let's see what the entire body of work is first.
I believe its called "Bride of Frankenstein"

by E Ticket on Dec 14, 2007 6:53 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
I apologize if this has been posted already, but here is the break down of Rowand's contract.
Rowand gets an $8 million signing bonus, with $4 million to be paid in 2008 and $4 million in '09. He gets salaries of $8 million in '08, $8 million in '09 and $12 million in each of the final three years of the contract. The deal includes a full no-trade provision in '08; Rowand has partial no-trade protection over the final four years.

http://www.mercurynews.com/sports/ci_7708969?nclick_check=1

Adopted Giant Brian Wilson: Welcome Back!

by sfgreg on Dec 13, 2007 9:47 AM PST reply actions  

God help me...
"...Sabean will continue to pursue a contract with free-agent third baseman Pedro Feliz, not for three years, but perhaps for two. The Giants are not talking to Detroit about available third baseman Brandon Inge."

From today's Schulman article (about 6 or so paragraphs in):

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/13/SP4ETSURO.DTL

by Widget on Dec 13, 2007 9:48 AM PST reply actions  

Re: God help me...
Rinse your mouth out (re Feliz) and Praise the Lord (re Inge).
Don't believe everything you think.

by wcovington on Dec 13, 2007 5:06 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: God help me...
God doesn't like you. That's why Sabean is the GM

by E Ticket on Dec 14, 2007 6:54 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
My first post.

With that established I have to say that the hysteria about the Rowand signing has me completely baffled. Yes it did not address an area of need, but the areas of need are thin at best in the FA market. I am no Sabean fan but I like this signing. He signed the best available player that he could get. 12M a year is the going rate for a Rowand-type player and in 2 years he will be a bargain. People complain about how bad our outfielders are, then they complain about an upgrade in the outfield. White Sox fans are ready to give up on 2008 because they didn't get him.

Please, no more talk about Morgan Ensberg. Many of you don't like Rowand's numbers because of the home park, but you like Ensberg? Baseball-reference park adjusted numbers for Ensberg: 271/343/436. Park adjusted numbers for Pedro Feliz 270/340/434. Morgan Ensberg IS Pedro Feliz with a few more walks and a lot less D.

And there is NO way that Frandsen should be at 3rd. Frandsen needs to play every day at 2nd. Let Durham sit on the bench if we can't trade him. Frandsen can be a league average 2nd baseman, but he would be a below average 3rd baseman. Moving him to 3rd would stunt his ML development. He can be a nice player but moving him to 3rd dosen't help him get there.

by marklar on Dec 13, 2007 9:54 AM PST reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
I agree about Frandsen.  I think he should be the 2b, and either Durham needs to learn how to play a bunch of positions, or moved to 3b/1b.  But he most definitely shouldn't be the starting 2b, not when we have someone who's ready to take over the position.

That said, I expect Feliz to be resigned and continue as the 3b, with Aurilia being given the lion's share of starts at 1st.  And I expect I'm going to remain pissed about the way the team is built.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Dec 13, 2007 9:59 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
I think re-signing Feliz would be the one thing that would keep my TV turned off during Giants games.

by marklar on Dec 13, 2007 10:03 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Eh, his defense is stellar, and if he's cheap, I can handle the flailing at the plate.

by wcw on Dec 13, 2007 10:10 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Primarily judging by what I've read on this site, it seems that there are third base options out there that would be reclamation projects and wouldn't cost us what Feliz costs.  I've loved watching Feliz play defense, his laser throws from 3rd to 1st are absolutely gorgeous.  But seriously, isn't there SOME way Sabean could take a chance on a minor leaguer or a reclamation project?  That's all I ask.

That and to somehow turn Schierholtz into a starting outfielder, not the fourth or fifth guy who gets minimal play time before being sent back to Fresno to "work on his swing and get playing time" before he's proclaimed a bust.  I'm seriously going to be incredibly pissed if that happens.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Dec 13, 2007 10:26 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Even taking a chance on Marte or Betemit is preferable to another rally killed by Pedro.
Don't believe everything you think.

by wcovington on Dec 13, 2007 5:10 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
The only people I know who can stomach Feliz at the plate are people who cut across others front lawns, touch wet paint, and eat their own boogers

by E Ticket on Dec 14, 2007 6:57 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
I bet I know another group that can stomach Pedro at the plate:

Opposing pitchers.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Dec 14, 2007 8:29 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Uh, wait...

Ensberg's neutralized stat line is: .261/.361/.469 (.830)
Pedro's is: .249/.285/.426 (.711)

I think the numbers you're using there are the league average lines for AT&T/Minute Maid (and the fact that they are almost exactly the same seems to indicate that MM is actually not that big of a hitter's park.)

Ensberg is a much better hitter than Feliz.

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

by jponry on Dec 13, 2007 10:14 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
MM not that big a hitter's park? I give you Ensberg's splits.

Home: 275/386/520
Away: 255/345/431

The away numbers are Feliz-like.

Feliz: 252/288/433.

Ensberg's majority of road games are in the NL Central, all no worse or better hitting parks than AT&T. Yeah, Ensberg gets on base more, but the big drop off in defense would not make this a good signing.

by marklar on Dec 13, 2007 10:56 AM PST up reply actions  

You CANNOT
just throw out half the data and just use road stats. Alfonso Soriano should have taught people that throwing out half the data, ie home data, is unwise. Most players hit worse on the road.

What you do is apply a park factor adjustment. Which is what OPS+ from BBRef does.

Ensberg's career OPS+ is 116. League average is 100. That means over his career, Ensberg's park adjusted OPS has been 16 percent ABOVE the average NL hitter.

Feliz' career OPS+ is 84. That means that over his career, Feliz' park adjusted OPS has been 16 percent BELOW the average NL hitter.

That means that over their careers, there is a 32 percent difference between Ensberg's and Feliz' park adjusted OPS.

by rfloh on Dec 13, 2007 11:06 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: You CANNOT
Soriano has an .850 road OPS the last three years.  What's wrong with using that as a rough, rule-of-thumb guesstimate at his true skill level?

by wcw on Dec 13, 2007 11:16 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: You CANNOT
I think the point he was making was that right after the Soriano trade to Washington, everyone was saying "oh he only hit for a .639 OPS on the road this year... that's what he's going to hit in Washington and probably worse because it's a hitter's park!"

You can't do that. (Teixeira is another one who was supposed to actually suck outside of Texas, but has done pretty well so far as a Brave.)

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

by jponry on Dec 13, 2007 11:22 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: You CANNOT
um, *pitcher's park
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Dec 13, 2007 11:22 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: You CANNOT
Anything can happen in 100 AB, and almost anything can happen in half a year.  This is why I always use three years worth of splits before starting to think, and even three years might be too little.

Still, I am not a fan of park factor adjustments.  Park factors are deeply noisy creatures (mainly, I suspect, due to chance and weather).  Road stats are much less noisy: you add to the variance of pitching faced, and bias your sample by a little under 10% by completely subtracting out the home park.

I haven't done the lifting to determine which is more likely to be fair.  Dropping half your sample is bad, but adjusting half your sample by noisy and flawed means is also bad.  The use of road-only stats for large-enough sample is, I'd argue, defensible.

by wcw on Dec 13, 2007 11:32 AM PST up reply actions  

Why would you want to throw
away HALF your sample?

Yes, park factors aren't perfect, by throwing out HALF your sample is going to greatly increase the possibility of your sample being non-representative

The problem with using at least 3 years of road splits to get a representative sample is that that is still only the equivalent of one and a half years of home and road data. If you increase the duration to 5 years, to get 2 1/2 seasons worth of data yeah, in 5 years time, most players true talent levels have changed.

This is before taking into account the issue that home and road splits are affected by other factors beyond park effects.

by rfloh on Dec 13, 2007 11:42 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: You CANNOT
I'm not exactly a genius on this sort of thing, but most of what I've read goes against what you're saying here.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Dec 13, 2007 11:43 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: You CANNOT
I'd say the best approach is to use large-sample park factors. The three-year versions aren't hard to find.

by Evan on Dec 13, 2007 11:49 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: You CANNOT
It probably is the best approach.  Try to remember, my position is not that road stats are so grand, but that "[t]he use of road-only stats for large-enough sample is, I'd argue, defensible."

Entertainingly, this is close to the conclusion MGL reaches in the one link posted thus far supposedly refuting my position.  As he puts it, "[g]iven enough data, sure, road stats are a good estimate of a player's neutral performance, assuming you adjust for HFA..."

Me, I like reading tables.  Has anyone compared the methods in a systematic way?

by wcw on Dec 13, 2007 12:04 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: You CANNOT
Aha -- here we quantify Rowand: http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/sabermetric_moves
_of_the_2008_pre_season/#93

"+2.5 WAR in full-time play.

3/30, 4/36."

That doesn't look like 5/60 to me.

by wcw on Dec 13, 2007 12:54 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: You CANNOT
Funny thing is, if you scroll down in that thread, you find Tango arguing that the Rowand deal is a big overpay and MGL arguing that it's a huge bargain. Aieeee! Whom to believe????

by Evan on Dec 13, 2007 2:10 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: You CANNOT
I think it comes down to whether you believe in Rowand's bat, since most agree his defense is still pretty darned good.  I doubt it; others are more hopeful.

He's a Giant for the next half-decade, so here's hoping I'm wrong.

by wcw on Dec 13, 2007 2:57 PM PST up reply actions  

Compare
his road and home stats when he was in Texas.

People, including statheads who should have known better, were loudly declaring that he would suck once he left Texas.

He has not sucked once he left Texas.

Home stats are DATA. They happened also, just as much as road stats. You should NEVER throw data out. NEVER EVER. Make an adjustment, regress it, sure. But NEVER throw data out.

The problem with using road stats to assess true talent level for any player, is that a very large number of players hit worse on the road, for various factors, including factors that have nothing to do with park effects.

Park adjusted stats like OPS+, Batting Runs, Batting Runs above Average, Equivalent Runs, Equivalent Average all do a much better job than road stats for a park neutral assessment of a player's true talent level.

by rfloh on Dec 13, 2007 11:28 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Compare
Never ever?  Really?

Google 'sample matching,' or simply ask yourself why a practitioners waste their valuable time building R packages to perform matches, like http://sekhon.berkeley.edu/matching/ or http://gking.harvard.edu/matchit/

Feel free to answer the question I pose above, involving noise in park factors versus variance from smaller samples.  If someone has done the lifting to compare the inferential effects of the two in baseball, I'd love a link.  Alternately, if you know your stuff, go ahead and hit us with your own analysis.

by wcw on Dec 13, 2007 11:40 AM PST up reply actions  

In this case,
you are throwing out HALF the data. HALF.

Please explain to me how throwing out HALF the data is a good idea.

Please explain to me how using Soriano's home road splits when he was in Texas to assess his true talent level was a good idea.

See MGL's post here.

by rfloh on Dec 13, 2007 11:48 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: In this case,
Thanks for the link; I'll check it out.

And consider doing a little reading yourself.  I've seen sample matches that throw out two-thirds or more of the data.  I am not saying this is appropriate in baseball, as it almost certainly isn't.  What I am saying is that sometimes throwing out half or more of your data is better than the alternatives.

Having read Mr. Litchman's post, which I was predisposed to like, since I tend to like his thinking and approach, I remain unsatisfied.  He comes to the same conclusion you do, but his comment hardly quantifies it.  If you have a link where someone quantifies the conclusion, please post it.

by wcw on Dec 13, 2007 11:58 AM PST up reply actions  

Yes, I was exaggerating
about never throwing out data.

Also, with home road splits, you are assuming that their are no other factors involved other than simply park effects. You are throwing out half the data and adding more noise to your sample.

As for MGL, more of his posts on park factors. See especially, the start of post 14.

I suppose he could be lying out of his ass.

by rfloh on Dec 13, 2007 12:11 PM PST up reply actions  

Also,
post 29 from here.

He could be lying out of his ass, I guess.

by rfloh on Dec 13, 2007 12:16 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Yes, I was exaggerating
Have we all by now granted my simple assertion that using large-sample road splits is defensible?

On data, throwing data out never and nowhere adds noise.  It decreases sample size.  All else equal, decreased sample size increases variance.  Variance != noise.  That may seem pedantic, but it's an important distinction.

On MGL, as I noted before, I tend to like his thinking, and the two posts to which you have pointed me don't change my mind.  I am not sure with what that he's said I am supposed to disagree.  Jeepers, here he says very much what I've been saying: "Parks affect players' stats in strange, wonderous, and non-linear ways. It is not nearly so obvious which batters will be more or less affected by small parks, big parks, etc."

Think of the task of evaluating batter skill as a measurement you can only do with many different highly flawed instruments.  Each pitcher is different, throwing many different pitches in front of many different defenses in many different parks under many different weather conditions.  Any one pitch would be totally meaningless, even if batters were completely predictable machines, and not human beings.  Aggregate enough of these instruments, though, and you'll be able to say something about the true skill of the batter you're measuring.

The use of MGL-style adjustments, or the back-of-the-envelope use of large-sample road splits, recognizes that for purposes of comparison, you need to adjust for the fact that each batter has been measured in systematically skewed ways.  That's the only assumption you need make before you start weighting, adjusting, or even dropping data points.

Does MGL promulgate his own versions of adjusted stats?  I'd be curious how close his assessment comes to mine of this deal.

by wcw on Dec 13, 2007 12:45 PM PST up reply actions  

You're misunderstading my point
about noise. By noise, I mean that you are assuming that the ONLY factors involved in home road splits are park effects.

What MGL is saying in all the post that I've linked is that there are many factors OTHER than park effects that affect home road splits. And that these factors appear to vary for each different human being.

I'm not sure what your point in your 3rd 4th and 5th paragraphs are.

MGL has his Super Linear Weights which are adjusted every which way. They are not free.

by rfloh on Dec 13, 2007 1:04 PM PST up reply actions  

How "large" is your sample?
10 years? By which point a player's true talent level has probably changed several times?

by rfloh on Dec 13, 2007 1:18 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: In this case,
I wasn't throwing out half the data. Splits are separating the whole data on quantifiable terms. The data was for Ensberg's entire career so that anomalies of one season would not skew the data. Your argument is that home/road splits are useless. I don't believe they are.

Since you used Soriano as an example, his career home/road splits are almost identical:

Home 280/326/518
Road 284/328/516.

His home/road OPS is 814/814.

It looks like he might be a good player huh?

by marklar on Dec 13, 2007 1:32 PM PST up reply actions  

You are only using road splits for
Ensberg, yes? In other words, you are throwing out half the data.

What do home road splits add that a standard park adjustment doesn't?

Yes, over his career Soriano's home road splits are similar. How does this prove that home road splits actually have any utility?

by rfloh on Dec 13, 2007 1:47 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: You are only using road splits for
"How does this prove that home road splits actually have any utility?"

When there are large variances like Ensberg's splits it is revealing. Look at Randy Winn's career splits.

Home: 288/346/423
Road: 284/343/426

It tells us nothing.

I used Feliz's overall career stats to compare since those reveal the player we have (had). And I compared them to Ensberg's road splits because I believe, due to the large variance, it is closer to the player we would get. It is just a general guideline that this data gives us. None of this is exact.

by marklar on Dec 13, 2007 2:32 PM PST up reply actions  

Why do you believe
that Ensberg's road splits are indicative of his true talent level?

by rfloh on Dec 13, 2007 3:09 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: In this case,
The point about Soriano is that during his two years in Texas, he had a crazy-extreme home road split. At home he was one of the best hitters in baseball and on the road he was one of the worst; his stats were literally sub-Felizian.

So when he moved to Washington, which is a pitcher's park, lots of smart people predicted that his stats would plummet. They didn't, of course. The same thing happened with many players leaving Colorado (Galarraga, for example).

I suspect that hitters adjust to their home parks in ways that are hard to undo when they go on the road. When you play half your games in a park where breaking balls don't break or lazy fly balls turn into home runs or whatever, you can easily fall into habits that take advantage of those conditions, but that hurt you on the road.

by Evan on Dec 13, 2007 2:05 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: In this case,
Well that's my point. There was some odd split data that indicated Soriano might have problems, but that sample was too small. That is why I posted his career splits which more accurately reflect the player he is.

It is true that hitters adjust to parks. David Ortiz is the prime example. But you cannot count on that. Some players never adjust, and unfortunately the Giants have had more than their share of those. Edgar Alphonso and Steve Finley spring to mind. Those are not good thoughts. Thank you for making me think of things that make me feel nauseated.

by marklar on Dec 13, 2007 2:42 PM PST up reply actions  

The problem with something like
career splits is that players are not static.

Their talent levels change. By the time you get a large enough sample, the player's talent level might have changed several times.

Steve Finley was 41 years old when he came to San Fran. He was already in terminal decline: an OPS+ of 71 with the DBacks in the year before.

Edgardo Alfonzo had a big injury red flag when he came to the Giants: back problems.

You are putting way too much weight on park effects.

by rfloh on Dec 13, 2007 3:14 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: The problem with something like
Well, obviously you are an Ensberg fan and are offended in my opinion of him as a hitter and will concede nothing. I put more importance on park effect as a tool to reveal players that cannot make adjustments.

If, as you say, the talent level changes, and I am assumming you mean the talent improves for a player 32 years old since it should not be in noticable decline as yet, the splits should improve over that career. Ensberg's numbers do not. It is interesting that when he went to San Diego his split numbers reversed.

Home 2007: 183/280/310
Road 2007: 224/360/500

My point is that for a good hitter you will not find red flags in the home/road splits, but you will for hitters too dependent on a hitter's park without the ability to adjust.

by marklar on Dec 13, 2007 4:24 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: The problem with something like
We could use someone who can OPS 860
Steve Kline: How okay is he, really? I would say he is pretty okay.

by groug on Dec 13, 2007 9:53 PM PST up reply actions  

Em no
I'm not an Ensberg fan. I don't give a rat's behind about Ensberg.

I'm a fan of not misusing stats. I'm a fan of the proper use of stats.

Again, please answer this question: if a hitter who hits well at home changes his homepark, will he then hit well at his new homepark? Yes or no?

If no, you are then ascribing the difference between home road splits to park effects.

by rfloh on Dec 14, 2007 4:12 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Em no
There is no definitive answer to that question. Too many variables. Which hitter? Which home park? Which new park? What I believe the stats to show, that Ensberg's numbers will not be as good away from MM, applies to him and him alone.

by marklar on Dec 14, 2007 9:55 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Compare
I'm with you, but you have to watch out for handedness, especially when it comes to Minute Maid, which I think has the most extreme lefty/righty split in the majors. Right-handed hitters hit home runs at 135% of the average rate there, while lefties hit home runs at 87% of the average. (This are the Bill James/BIS numbers for 2005-07.)

I don't know which stats take this into account and which don't, but clearly it's a big red flag when appraising Ensberg.

by Evan on Dec 13, 2007 11:45 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Compare
Yeah, that is the one thing with Minute Maid. It is a very friendly park for RH pull hitters.

That said, I've never felt that AT&T was anywhere near as tough on RHH as it is on lefties.

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

by jponry on Dec 13, 2007 11:48 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Compare
And the numbers back you up on that.

I hate to say it, but this whole discussion should be in a diary of its own.

by Evan on Dec 13, 2007 12:03 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: You CANNOT
Those away numbers for Ensberg are for 1230 PAs/1064 ABs. That's more than a large enough sample to be relevant.

by marklar on Dec 13, 2007 12:42 PM PST up reply actions  

You are assuming that
the ONLY factor in home road splits is park effect. And that there are no other factors.

by rfloh on Dec 13, 2007 1:05 PM PST up reply actions  

I am not assuming that
I look at most home/road splits and infer nothing since almost all players hit better at home. It is only where there is a large variance as in Ensberg's splits that some insight can be gained. I think road numbers of 255/345/431 over an entire player's career which are -20/-41/-89 over his home numbers can tell you something about how that player will perform away from his home park.

by marklar on Dec 13, 2007 1:45 PM PST up reply actions  

Yes, the player performs
badly away from his home park.

What if he has a new home park? He will suck at his new home park? Yes or no, is that what you are saying?

If your answer is yes, then you are assuming that the only factor in home road splits is park effects.

by rfloh on Dec 13, 2007 1:49 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Yes, the player performs
Maybe Ensberg hits much better with eight hours of sleep in his own bed than he does with four hours of sleep in a hotel room after partying with road bunnies.

God knows that's the case with me if you replace "hits" with "writes" and "partying with road bunnies" with "playing Ghost Recon until 4:00 a.m."

by Grant Brisbee on Dec 13, 2007 2:47 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Yes, the player performs
I am only thinking probabilities. Seeing as how many hitters have had difficulting adjusting to AT&T Park and how Ensberg has had more difficulty hitting on the road than the average ML player, then I would say that he probably will be closer to Edgardo Alponso than he will be to David Bell.

by marklar on Dec 13, 2007 2:50 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: I am not assuming that
Here I think is your error.  You are assuming that because Ensberg has an (abnormally) bad Home/Road split that it means something.

That is not necessarily true.  If you take a bunch of players, and instead of home/road split it by, I don't know, something random like odd number days and even numbered days you will still get players who have an extreme odd- vs. even- split.  Even though we know the difference is totally fabricated.  Even over 1000 PAs.

The reason why park factors are so much better than a given players H/R splits is that it's average over a LARGE number of players, and an extremely large number of PAs.

by zenbitz on Dec 14, 2007 9:20 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: I am not assuming that
Actually I don't think that park factors is all that great a tool. There is implied symmetry in the numbers that don't reflect the actual conditions. Fenway has a .876 HR rate, but if you are a right-handed hitter with a little power, and an upper cut you will do quite well in Fenway. If you are a left-handed, line-drive hitter, with a little power, your HR rate will not be good there. The stats are an average; some hitters will do very, others not so much.

BTW I am not saying that home/road splits are great stats. Most of the time they tell you nothing. But occasionally, with a large variance, from a large sample over a multi-year career, with the player having played in one home park (mostly) over that time, can give some insight into how that player benefirs from his home park and how capable he is to adjusting his swing to a different parks.

by marklar on Dec 14, 2007 11:14 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: I am not assuming that
That's because you are using then wrong.
The purpose of park effects is not to predict how a given hitter will do - that is basically impossible (too many variables, not enough plate appearances).

Park effects just adjust the VALUE of runs (or component wise - the value of OBP/SLG/HR/etc.) in that park.

So, you can say that Rowand in PHL 2007 hit .309/.374/.515, OPS of .889.  This is an OPS+ of 123 - that is the "adjusted value" of his OPS.  

by zenbitz on Dec 14, 2007 9:13 PM PST up reply actions  

You misunderstand my post
We agree on this. I'm not using them wrong, because I am not using them at all. My initial assertion was that given Morgan Ensberg's large variance in his home/road splits, and the fact that it was a large sample that showed very little change over his entire career, that he would not be a good hitter away from MM. And he would be a terrible hitter at Mays Field. People other than me started talking about park effects, and I was responding as to why they weren't valid for the discussion on Ensberg.

by marklar on Dec 17, 2007 9:47 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Home/Road splits for individual players prove nothing as far as a park's overall hitters/pitchers park-ness. Minute Maid's multi-year park factor is 99 (above 100 is hitter's park, below 100 is pitcher's park) and last year it was 94. It's barely a hitter's park at all (which isn't surprising, considering how huge the park is outside of LF).

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/HOU/2007.shtml

I'm not saying Ensberg would be a great signing (though if he came cheap and without a 2-year  commitment, I would greatly prefer him to Feliz), I was just pointing out that you used the wrong numbers (the lgAVG, lgOBP and lgSLG). Ensberg still has a (park adjusted) career OPS+ of 116, vs Feliz's 84 and his neutralized numbers are a lot better as well.

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

by jponry on Dec 13, 2007 11:12 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
You're right, I did use the wrong numbers there. But MM is a RH hitters dream, and the sample size on the home/road splits is more than large enough to be of use. I will stick to my belief that Ensberg is only a slight upgrade over Feliz offensively and a downgrade defensively equalling no upgrade at all.

by marklar on Dec 13, 2007 1:11 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Must disagree on Rowand, though I agree on Frandsen/Ensberg.

Rowand's just not that good with the bat.  He's played in extreme hitter's yards.  Now, for some playing in a place like Colorado hides their true talent behind a veneer of inflated stats, but Rowand is no Ellis Burks.  His road stats over the last three years do not look much different from Dave Roberts or Randy Winn.

His defense is better, no question.  Unlike many, his gold glove is deserved.  Still, when the best player available is a negligible upgrade on offense and a small upgrade on defense, maybe you rethink and try something else.

by wcw on Dec 13, 2007 10:19 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
You might also consider how different the AT&T rightfield is from most other parks. It is much larger than most making it closer to a centerfield in the amount of ground that needs to be covered. Defensively you might consider using 2 centerfielders at AT&T, especially if you are building your team for speed and defense. The standard aproach to center vs corner outfielders doesn't work as well in our park as others.

by marklar on Dec 13, 2007 11:07 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
+1. I think Sabean is right about this.

by Evan on Dec 13, 2007 2:07 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
As evidenced by the Giants offensive prowess the last several years.

by E Ticket on Dec 14, 2007 6:59 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
I agree somewhat with what you say about Rowand. He isn't a power hitter and At&T won't help. But he is still the best outfielder we have now. He has a well-deserved gold glove and I love watching the guy play. He would be a welcome addition to almost any lineup in MLB. Our problem is most of the OTHER players we have on the roster. Sabean has done some very stupid things. IMO this isn't one of them.

by marklar on Dec 13, 2007 12:50 PM PST up reply actions  

You're using numbers from one year, yes?
Over the last 3 years, Ensberg OPS+: 144, 120, 88.

Feliz: 85, 79, 81.

The reason people want Ensberg is because there is a possibility that his struggles this year were due to injury, specifically a shoulder injury that completely messed up his swing.

by rfloh on Dec 13, 2007 10:59 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: You're using numbers from one year, yes?
No, the numbers I used for Ensberg were his career home/road splits.

by marklar on Dec 13, 2007 1:48 PM PST up reply actions  

And Philadelphia will answer!
(ahem, sorry I'm late...)
Bochy: grounded until he stops hitting and running with slow runners and crappy hitters

by Stuttering John Tamargo on Dec 13, 2007 10:14 AM PST reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
The only real issue here is how much do we value the $12 mil. I don't think anybody can argue that Rowand isn't a real upgrade over Winn, Roberts or Davis as a CF.  Upgrading CF was about 12th on my list of priorities of course, but this move doesn't really preclude any other moves.  We now seem to have a surfiet of CFs as Grant has pointed out, but as Sabean has already stated that he has trading plans in the works for several of them. So once again, it gets back to the money- is a 10% upgrade in CF over Davis worth locking in $12 mil?  I suspect the money isn't really relevant. Every team in baseball has seen a huge surge in revenues, and every team  except Tampa seems to be spending like drunk clipper hands.  There's nothing to spend it on, but the Giants payroll availabilty has doubtless bumped up to the 100-110 mil range as it is.  So I guess the money doesn't really bother me.

by prospecthound on Dec 13, 2007 10:21 AM PST reply actions  

Tampa's buddy Florida is a money hog too
Their payroll probably will be less then they receive from just MLB TV this year, which is both disheartening and hilarious.

by awesomer @ McCovey Chronicles on Dec 13, 2007 10:26 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
The Giants are still paying Bonds, due to all of the deferred salary and bonuses, etc. By my calculations, he will be paid these amounts:
  1. $10,800,000
  2. $ 5,000,000
  3. $ 5,000,000
  4. $ 5,000,000
Bonds stands alone.

by nostocksjustbonds on Dec 13, 2007 10:34 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
And he will still provide more offense than anybody on the active roster.

by E Ticket on Dec 14, 2007 7:03 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Yes, the money is an issue and might be irrelevant, but I think another issue has to be that Winn and Roberts are slated to play over a young guy like Schierholz and/or that even if we can successfully trade Winn and/or Roberts to open up an everyday spot for Schierholz, there's a chance that we eat a big chunk of the traded guy's salary (so it's really $12m plus). That bothers me more than the Rowand contract, to be honest (well, that and that Aaron Rowand is very Randy Winn).

by GiantFanInExile on Dec 13, 2007 10:38 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
+1.  

That is the main rub with Roland. We have a manager that would not sit a veteran in a full body cast to play a non veteran. Need an example? See the line up cards for second base in July & August of '07 then look at the splits for the second base men then.

by daveinexile on Dec 13, 2007 10:57 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
I'd rather have made a run at A-Rod.

He fills a positional need, and he's the best hitter in baseball.

$280m for A-Rod makes a lot more sense to me than $60m for Rowand.

by wcw on Dec 13, 2007 10:42 AM PST up reply actions  

On Nate...
Am I the only one that thinks Nate could use a little more seasoning at AAA?

He has shown some promise in his short stint in the Bigs, but his approach at the plate could definitely use some work.

My ideal scenario would see Nate start at AAA, learn about pitch selection some more, and then trade Winn to a desperado team and bring up Nate to play RF...

by aGIANTfan on Dec 13, 2007 10:33 AM PST reply actions  

Re: On Nate...
I don't disagree with you, but I'm sick to death of the whole "let's only use savvy vets" philosophy.  Playing Nate would just be that mild change that would make me happy.
"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Dec 13, 2007 10:56 AM PST up reply actions  

This was Nate's line
at AAA in 2007 at age 23: 333-365-560; this came in 439 PAs, so it wasn't some very small sample size fluke.

Yes, Nate needs to improve his approach. But, at some point, a player needs to play at MLB level to get better. You can't expect a player to be fully developed, completely grown, before you play him at MLB level. Not even a super rich team like the Yankees take that approach.

by rfloh on Dec 13, 2007 11:12 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: This was Nate's line
Yeah, I haven't mentioned it in a while, but I really wanted the kids (and Schierholtz especially) to start next season.  Upon realizing this would not happen, I moved on.  But when I realized that the kids wouldn't start, I didn't realize just how bad it would be.  

I'm guessing that next season will be August 07 all over again.  With no reason to play Durham/Aurilia/Roberts everyday and every reason to play Schierholtz/Lewis/Frandsen every day but the converse being what happened.

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

by thehavenot on Dec 13, 2007 11:47 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: This was Nate's line
I think Sabes will find someone to take a chnace on Durham, with us eating most ($4M+)of his contract. I just have to keep those affirmations coming. . .
Don't believe everything you think.

by wcovington on Dec 13, 2007 5:19 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: This was Nate's line
If Nate was an Oakland A (and I'm glad he's not) he would be in the opening day lineup, an all star in four years, and traded before his fifth...

Does anybody wish we let young players develop at the ML level? He did hit over three hundy last year

lincecum, cain, lowry, sanchez for jeff kent

by lincysgiants on Dec 13, 2007 9:48 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: This was Nate's line
But if you approach each year like you absolutely MUST have nothing but cagey veterans, there's no way on earth Nate gets playing time until he's fully developed.

That's the typical Giants approach, anyway.  And what's driving me absolutely crazy.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Dec 13, 2007 11:48 AM PST up reply actions  

The problem with that approach
is that athletes, whether baseball players or anything else, might need to compete against better competition as they improve to fully develope. Which means that a player might never fully develope if he is terrorizing lower levels of competition.

by rfloh on Dec 13, 2007 11:58 AM PST up reply actions  

Duh
I agree.  Don't assume I'm defending the position Sabean takes.  But I AM saying that IS the position Sabean tends to take.  Remember how long it took Rich Aurilia to finally get a starting job?  Or even Pedro Feliz?  It was ridiculous, if you ask me!  But that's Sabean's MO: Get cagey veterans to start, bring up occasional youngin's to get a few at bats in a limited capacity.  Trust previous major league experience, don't trust the kids.  This ain't new, baby.
"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Dec 13, 2007 12:33 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: This was Nate's line
I am all for sending Nate back to Fresno if and only if he returns to 3B.  The whole rationale for moving him to the outfield was that his bat was progressing faster than his glove- if he's going to return to a level where he has very little left to prove offensively, it makes no sense to see him go back to the very crowded outfield.

by prospecthound on Dec 13, 2007 11:49 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: This was Nate's line
That's not a bad idea. When the Giants moved him off of third, I assumed they knew what they were doing. But (a) haha, it's the Giants, stupid, of course they don't know what they're doing; and (b) the needs of the system have shifted so much that there's not much to lose by seeing if Nate has gotten any better in the infield.

by Evan on Dec 13, 2007 12:02 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: This was Nate's line
That's an excellent point. It makes you wonder why he was moved to the outfield when he could/should have been the successor to Feliz. Nate definitely needs playing time, and a legitimate shot at becoming an ML player.

by marklar on Dec 13, 2007 12:57 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
3 reasons we need to sign dallas mcpherson
  1. no jerry jones sightings
  2. no larry hagman sightings
  3. no pedro feliz sightings
that does it for me
thank god the patriots dont have the giants' first round pick too

by son of riles on Dec 13, 2007 10:44 AM PST reply actions  

Rowand and park effects
Aaron Rowand's new ballpark will have an effect on his statistics.  Let's take a look at what his 2007 stats would've looked like had he played half his games in SF (taking out things like HBP and CI etc...)

AB: 612
Hits would go from 189 to 200
Singles jump from 117 tp 132
Dpib;es go from 45 to 48
Triples stay at 0
Home runs plummet from 27 to 20
Walks stay the same at 47

His line goes from:
.309/.358/.515
to
.327/.375/.503

What you would tend to see is a jump in his OBP and a drop in his SLG.  The jump in OBP should offset the drop in SLG.

I used my park effect utility that I wrote to come up with these numbers.

vr, Xei

Sadaharu Oh - 868 HRs

by Xeifrank on Dec 13, 2007 11:16 AM PST reply actions  

Re: Rowand and park effects

Does your utility have LH/RH hitter splits?  I remember some old data that the park cut LH HRs in half, but left RH basically the same.

And I didn't know AT&T boosted batting average that much.  Do you use 1 year or 3 year average?

by zenbitz on Dec 13, 2007 11:33 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Rowand and park effects
Yeah, those number seem off. The SF park gooses batting average, but not as much as Phillie does. At least in the 2004-06 data.

That same data says that lefties hit HRs at 74% of normal in SF, as compared to 90% for righties.

by Evan on Dec 13, 2007 11:59 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Rowand and park effects
I used ESPN park factors which don't have splits.  If you have a link for split park factors please provide it and I can update this.  I only used one year averages.

vr, Xei

Sadaharu Oh - 868 HRs

by Xeifrank on Dec 13, 2007 12:04 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Rowand and park effects
Nothing online.  There is a annual STATS reference book that publishes numbers for each park (or at least, used to) but you'd have to type it in, or I guess, I pay STATS, inc.

I think it's this one:
Stats Major League Handbook (Stats Red Book)

But the scouting guide might have it too

by zenbitz on Dec 13, 2007 12:37 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Rowand and park effects
Ok, thanks.  I need something downloadable online.

vr, Xei

Sadaharu Oh - 868 HRs

by Xeifrank on Dec 13, 2007 12:42 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Rowand and park effects
Lucky for us, Bill James made a mistake with the tables on Park Factors (among a litany of other mistakes, last year was a total mess!):  http://www.actasports.com/detail.html?id=0879463112

Go to the URL above, scroll down to Park Factors, download the PDF and you got the numbers for SF for 2004-2006.

I compared Rowand's Hit Chart for Philly with SF's dimensions and it looks like his power will go down slightly but not drastically, as he has pull power and rarely homers to RF.  Plus, he has gap power to right-CF, so he might convert a number of doubles into triples in SF, counteracting some of the lost homers.  Based on the batted balls he had before, he should hit in SF close to what he did in Philly, barring any problems hitting next to the Bay affecting the ball, relative to Philly.

"I'm a Giant now... I like watching the ball get up there" - Wendell Fairley "I'm really proud to be on this team." - Nate Schierholtz

by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Dec 13, 2007 1:26 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Rowand and park effects
I hope you're right, but there are a lot of differences between hitting in one park and hitting in another besides just the dimensions. The Bill James park factors you're looking at indicate that RH hitters in Philly hit 120% as many homers as in a neutral park, while RH hitters in SF hit 90% as many. Which suggests that Xeifrank's adjustment from 27 to 20 is about right, but without the increase in singles and doubles.

I predict Rowand will manage at least one triple next year, however.

by Evan on Dec 13, 2007 1:56 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Rowand and park effects
Well you just can't run that hard and NOT get a triple!
Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Dec 13, 2007 2:27 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Rowand and park effects
And boy does Rowand run hard.  Did you know he once smashed his face into a wall?
Rajai Davis: fast.

by Mike Benjamin Hit King on Dec 13, 2007 4:42 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Rowand and park effects
Good find.  Thanks!
vr, Xei
Sadaharu Oh - 868 HRs

by Xeifrank on Dec 13, 2007 2:06 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Rowand and park effects
Ahhh, yes. See, even a stat lover agrees with my pro-Rowand arguments.

Yep, if what you say is correct, .327 and 20 HRs, with Gold Glove defense is worthevery penny of $12,000,000 per year.

Win the inning, boys, win the inning.

by GaryEdmundCarter on Dec 13, 2007 5:57 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Rowand and park effects
If he hits .327, he will be.

I just peg his 2008 AVG closer to .270 than .330.

by wcw on Dec 13, 2007 6:12 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Rowand and park effects
I can't believe I'm actually standing up for Xiefrank here, even in a strange sideways sort of way, but he NEVER said that Rowand will hit .327 with 20 HRs next year.

He said that based n park effects, Rowand's freak career season would have been this way had he been in SF last year. But you don't project player performance based on freak career years. Nobody does that.

Anyway, the point is that you are seriously misreading what he's trying to say. He's not saying anything about projectibility or Rowand in '08. The ONLY year he's even ineterested in dealing with in his comment is 2007 isolated. You, on the other hand, should be interested in at least the last five years and DEFINITELY the next 5.

Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Dec 13, 2007 6:39 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Rowand and park effects
Aaron Rowad ZiPS 2008 .277/.340/.427, 14 HR I'll be generous and give you 6 home runs (getting him to a round 20), but .327? For an entire season? That's 50 points increase over his projected batting average, 27 points over his career best and 41 points over his career average. No way his BA is .327 or better by the last game of the season. Not unless Lansford is a magician and the Phone Booth is a mystical vortex where regular bats become lucky sticks.

by GiantFanInExile on Dec 13, 2007 6:56 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Rowand and park effects
Nobody is projecting him to hit .327, just saying that his last year stats would have translated to that had he played in SF last year.

vr, Xei

Sadaharu Oh - 868 HRs

by Xeifrank on Dec 13, 2007 8:25 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Rowand and park effects
Oh trust me, I know that nobody (other than the very optimistic GaryEdmundCarter) thinks Rowand can reasonably hit .327 in 2008. I think anything in the .277-.286 is close to AR's likely 2008 BA.

by GiantFanInExile on Dec 13, 2007 8:55 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Rowand and park effects
That seems like a pretty big tumble.  Why not 285-295?

by allfrank on Dec 14, 2007 12:10 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Rowand and park effects
I think it's probably fair to start with the ZIPs projection and go from there. 30 points does seem like a lot, but his BA last year was about 40 points higher than the two years combined that came before it...

It's tough. Rowand is very very difficult to predict in 2008 because of his career year,his inconsistent career, his old park, his new park, and his tweener age (i.e. should be leaving his prime by most standards, but is at the age when a smaller faction of players do enter it)

Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Dec 14, 2007 12:18 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Rowand and park effects
I think the .277-.286 range is fair, considering it ranges from his ZiPS projection (.277) to his career average (.286). I would love it if he bested both by a wide margin and had another .300ish career year, but I don't know that that's possible, simply using career average plus park effects plus natural regression. If he does, we all win! howtheyscored has it absolutely right though - Rowand is very tough to predict, but I think predicting anything over his career average is pushing it without knowing how his bat will play with some legit Phone Booth sample size numbers to go off of.

by GiantFanInExile on Dec 14, 2007 10:09 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Rowand and park effects
These are excellent points.  I guess I see considerable predictive value in his road stats for '07:  299/368/475/843.  From this I conclude that while he definitely benefitted by playing in Minute Maid east, he still hit for avg and power away from the band box.  I do think playing in the bigger parks of the NL west would be expected to bring down his nimbers.  Except, ATT has less of a negative impact on his RH bat and R Winn, who is an eerily similar player, had a higher line at home than on the road.

by allfrank on Dec 14, 2007 11:56 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Rowand and park effects
Hey, I was just making a comment of xiefranks's comment. .327 and 20 taters would be lovely, though.

I've said is previous posts that I think Rowand will hit about .300 (maybe .290) and hit close to 20 HR's (maybe 18). Couple about .300 with about 20 HR's and Gold Glove defense and you get a great addition to any ball club.

by GaryEdmundCarter on Dec 14, 2007 1:19 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Rowand and park effects
Oo, projections are fun.  I enjoyed my Lincecum projection over on the Sickels blog, where I went with 9 K/9, 4 BB/9, 0.5 HR/9 and an ERA ~3.5 if the kid got a couple dozen starts.  He got exactly two dozen, and put up 9 K/9, 4 BB/9, 0.7 HR/9, ERA 4.0 -- no cigar, but not bad for a guesstimate.  I screwed up the homer rate by a lot, and that shuffled into the ERA.  Still.

Rowand playing half his games at Mays I'll guess puts up a .270/.330/.450 line, but with the slugging coming from a few extra triples at home, and maybe 15 HR total.  His value will mostly come from his defense and that that line is actually pretty good for a CF who has to hit in SF, SD and LA a lot.

I hope I'm wrong and he hits .300/.360/.500, but I'm not expecting it.

by wcw on Dec 14, 2007 1:36 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Rowand and park effects
Rowand is a career .287 (or so) hitter. Why would his average plummet by 17 points? Surely his HR total will fall by 7-10, but I don't see how his average will drop off significantly.

Long live Benito Santiago!

by GaryEdmundCarter on Dec 14, 2007 1:44 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Rowand and park effects
..because instead of hitting on the south side or in Philly's nifty, new bandbox, he'll be hitting in SF, SD and LA.

I hope I'm wrong, but I expect a good-size dropoff.

by wcw on Dec 14, 2007 4:43 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
so now will the centerfield bleachers be called the "riders of rowand"? or maybe they can call it helm's deep
thank god the patriots dont have the giants' first round pick too

by son of riles on Dec 13, 2007 11:19 AM PST reply actions  

I have to admit...
The voracious fantasy reader in me really digs this idea.  Then my inner baseball fan beat him up :(
And Boom Goes the Dynamite

by Andy from DC on Dec 13, 2007 1:53 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Just a side note - F.P. Santangelo is named in the Mitchell Report.

by GiantFanInExile on Dec 13, 2007 11:26 AM PST reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Lots of former G-men on the list.  Marvin Benard??  Wow.
"Clark hits it up the middle into centerfield; base hit..."

by brianando on Dec 13, 2007 1:51 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
How can F.P. weigh 140 lbs. and be roided?

Think he still works on the broadcast team next year?

lincecum, cain, lowry, sanchez for jeff kent

by lincysgiants on Dec 13, 2007 9:54 PM PST up reply actions  

Off - Topic - Gagne on Mitchell Report
OK. This is off topic, but Gagne is mentioned on page 217 of the Mitchell report. It says Lo Duca bought HGH for both of them. It shows a USPS delivery slip shipping HGH to Gagne at Dodger Stadium. I KNEW IT!!! I ALWAYS KNEW HE WAS A JUICER!!!!

by benson11 on Dec 13, 2007 11:45 AM PST reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Rowand is a solid addition to our ballclub.  He is proven, one of the best defensively, and will boost the morale in the clubhouse.  The only other current Giant I think we can say good things about for the future is Frandsen.  We also must not forget that we have a future slugger named Angel Villalona waiting for his chance in a couple years.  And that will be right about the time Cain and Lincecum will be the aces we're predicting them to be.  So I don't know why everyone is complaining about the Rowand signing.  In 3 years, 12 mil will seem very average or below average.  He's a signing with the future in mind.  No way the Giants will go anywhere this year.  But once we lose durham, feliz, and roberts, we can make more solid free agent signings and have a great ballclub by '09 or '10.  Just be patient!

by majicman on Dec 13, 2007 2:13 PM PST reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
I'm excited about Villalona, but if he's in the big leagues by 2011 it'll be remarkable. It's just not realistic to expect him to be contributing any earlier than that. 2012 would be more reasonable, and by then Matt Cain is a free agent and Rowand is in his contract year.

Rowand is not part of the Villalona era Giants; he's a bar snack to tide us over until that table is ready.

All your signature are belong to us.

by EliminateMe on Dec 13, 2007 2:27 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Signing a mediocre 30 year old center fielder to a five year contract thus ensuring that not one, not two but three young players will not get regular at-bats is a move with an eye toward the future?  
Only 972 games until the end of Zito's contract.

by thehavenot on Dec 14, 2007 9:45 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Villalona was 16 when the Giants signed him, more than a year ago.

He's 17 now.

Steve Kline: How okay is he, really? I would say he is pretty okay.

by groug on Dec 13, 2007 3:17 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
No. He's XVII.5

By the time he gets to MLB, he will make Prince Fielder look anorexic. Thats what happens when you pay a kid his bonus in Krispy Kreme coupons.

by E Ticket on Dec 14, 2007 7:07 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
why doesnt sabien remember freddies 374 obp?

by Azmanz on Dec 13, 2007 5:04 PM PST reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Oh he remembers it.  He just doesn't remember what obp stands for.
Only 972 games until the end of Zito's contract.

by thehavenot on Dec 14, 2007 9:41 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Sign Feliz and move Schierholtz to 1B. This is the recipe for success. A 3B can pick up 1B. It is written by Allah himself.

by GaryEdmundCarter on Dec 13, 2007 6:00 PM PST reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Yup, lets sign the second worst 3b in the league and then minimize the value of our only promising high level position prospect. That's how you win!

I just couldn't disagree with this thought more.

Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Dec 13, 2007 6:33 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Agreed.  They moved Schierholtz off of 3b for a reason - a very good reason.  He was brutal over there.  He may - may - have a future in RF.  Even moving him to LF is going to have its ugly moments.  He will not be moved to 1b - even if, when you look back on his history you find he played 3b in the past.
  They usually (not always) let a player start his pro career at his most recent position (see Noonan, Nick).  After watching for a while they move the player to the positon where they think he has the best - and quickest - chance to play in MLB.
  Schierholtz has NEVER been mentioned by the Giants as a possible 1b - even after Niekro, Hillenbrand, Klesko, Aurilia, Sweeney.  Who did they move there last year?  Ort.  Maybe you can play Nate at 1b in your Roto league, but he is so far down the list of potential Giants' 1b as to insure it will never happen.   Never.  MAYBE Ort gets a shot there next year.  Nate?  Never

by allfrank on Dec 13, 2007 8:17 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
The 2nd worst 3B in the league? Really? Do my stat geekey friends pay any attention at all to defense? Felix should have won the stinking Gold Glove!

As for Scheirholtz at first, I seem to remember reading in Baseball America that the 3B problems centered around throwing... so, uh, I think he could handle 1B. Besides, we want his bat in the lineup, right? So, why not at 1B and give Rajai Davis a shot in left?

by GaryEdmundCarter on Dec 14, 2007 1:32 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
I've heard these arguments before somewhere...

And I wasn't convinced then. Remember Niekro was moved to 1b from 3b, and he was a decent defender at 3b. He wasn't a very good defensive 3b because he couldn't adjust to the footwork and the range issues that came up from playing the opposite corner. You can't just plug guys into 1b. It's the biggest fallacy in all of baseball. There is no reason to believe that Nate could even remotely play 1b. It's amazing enough that Ort picked it up so quickly.

And yes, Feliz was the second word 3b in baseball. 3rd worst if you feel generous. Even considering defense. He is, in fact, that bad with the bat.

Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Dec 14, 2007 2:27 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
correction re: Niekro: I obviously meant "he wasn't a very good 1b"
Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Dec 14, 2007 2:28 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Unless Feliz only plays defense and someone else hits for him, his defensive value does not outweigh his offensive negatives. He is a great defender - I don't think anyone here would say otherwise - but he is a horrible, horrible hitter and the Giants need offense. This team can't carry a glove-only player and improve. It can stay the same as 2007, or it can get worse, but it can't get better, and no amount of GG hardware is going to change that, esp. as the GG contest you keep referencing is as much about offense and popularity as it is about actual fielding prowess (see Palmeiro, Rafael).

I like Feliz, I think he seems like a really nice guy but unless he's playing off-the-bench-super-utility man for the Giants in 2008 at a very low one-year salary I don't want him on the roster.

And as for Schierholtz, if he could play 1B, why haven't the Giants pursued that already? Just cramming whoever is the best player without a position isn't a recipe for success.

by GiantFanInExile on Dec 14, 2007 2:37 PM PST up reply actions  

Actually his defense DOES balance
his offense.

Batting Runs above average, last 3 years, from 2005: (-10), (-16), (-14). All in runs relative to average.

UZR arguably the best defensive metric from 2005-2007: 26, 14, 28.

Offense and defense, he was 16 runs above average in 2005, 2 below in 2006, 14 runs above average in 2007.

Feliz is the 3b version of Adam Everett. He and Everett are the opposite of players like Jeter and Miguel Cabrera.

Feliz is basically a league average or slightly above player worth about $10M a year, shocking though that might seem.

by rfloh on Dec 16, 2007 11:54 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Actually his defense DOES balance
rfloh -- does "Batting runs above average" refer to the average third baseman, or to the average of batters in the league?

I have Pedro as about 25 runs per year below the level of the average third baseman, rather than 10 to 16. Which means he's pretty bad even if his glove is as great as the stats indicate. Which is good, because my worldview may not be able to handle it if Pedro Feliz turns out to be an above-average player.

by Evan on Dec 16, 2007 1:18 PM PST up reply actions  

It's not position adjusted
it is from Baseball Prospecuts, basically equivalent runs, the EQA stuff, compared to average.

3b should not need a position adjustment, whether positive or negative anyways. 3b is basically 0. SS, 2b maybe CF should get positive adjustments; corners, 1b, DH should get negative adjustments.

Even if you use Batting Runs from BBRef, which does not include SBs and baserunning, unlike BRAA / equivalent runs, Feliz last 3 years: (-14.8), (-21.7), (-18.6).

From Tango, on his SABR moves thread:

His fielding is sensational, Gold-Glove caliber.  And I say this without ever having seen him (or noticing him).  I'm no expert, which is why I rely on Giants fans.  Fans call him +1.5 wins as a fielder.  John Dewan has him as the top 3B from 2005-2007 (+61 runs).  Clearly, he's fantastic with the glove.

His hitting on the other hand is at the -1.0 or -1.5 win level.

Overall, he's somewhere between a league average 3B to a somewhat above.  Add in the aging, and he's at league average, or a bit below.

That puts him right around a +2 WAR player.

I'd sign him for 2/16, or 3/21.

My guess is that good fielding, no-hitting 3B are undervalued.  Let's see who goes for him.

by rfloh on Dec 16, 2007 1:42 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: It's not position adjusted
I wonder if this value is wasted on the Giants, though. They have a terrible offense and a (mostly) strikeout/flyball staff. I don't doubt that Feliz would be a good #7 or 8 hitter in Milwaukee or Philly.

by Grant Brisbee on Dec 16, 2007 2:29 PM PST up reply actions  

He's a bad hitter
On that, I agree with everyone in this thread.

My point is that his defense is so good that it balances out his hitting.

Those metrics, UZR, plus minus, which have him averaging 20 runs above average per year defensively, are based on his play with the Giants; they aren't context free numbers. Those fans ratings are presumably voted on by Giants fans, including people from McC.

Guys like Everett, Feliz, Mark Ellis are consistently, every year basically, ranked at the top by pretty much every metric, consistently averaging 20 runs above average or better.

I understand that it is hard to accept that Feliz is an average player. Many As fans have a hard time accepting that Elllis is a star, one of the best 2bs in MLB, not counting Utley of course.

by rfloh on Dec 16, 2007 11:24 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: It's not position adjusted
Why doesn't 3b get an adjustment? If I am reading your post correctly, the up-the-middle guys (including C?) get positive adjustments, and the corner outfielders, 1b and DH get negative adjustments. Why isn't 3b given the same adjustment as the corners, 1b, DH?

by marklar on Dec 17, 2007 9:59 AM PST up reply actions  

Because it appears
that 3b is generally much more difficult to play than 1b or LF. Most teams hide their poor defenders at 1b or LF. Because even below average 3b often become very good at 1b when they are shifted to 1b.

Note, it isn't me who says this. 3b not getting any adjustment, and being set at zero, is basically fairly standard.

Also, I should have been clear: the adjustments for each position are not the same. It isn't simply up the middle positions versus corner positions.

DHs, for example, get the biggest adjustments. They are typically hit with a (-15) runs adjustment; (-15) runs since it is considered that anyone who DHs is so awful that he is replacement level defensively, even at 1b. Replacement level is generally (-20) runs. But, because players who DH tend to hit worse than players who play a position, they get a 5 run boost to (-15).

Even if you want to hit 3b with a negative adjustment, say (-5), it needs to be less than what you hit 1b, and especially a corner with.

by rfloh on Dec 17, 2007 1:15 PM PST up reply actions  

UGH, sentence construction all astray here
Last sentence should be: "Even if you want to hit 3b with a negative adjustment, say (-5), it needs to be less than what you hit a corner OF, and especially 1b with."

by rfloh on Dec 17, 2007 1:18 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
"Sign Feliz and move Schierholtz to 1B. This is the recipe for success."

In what universe is this a recipe for success?

by GiantFanInExile on Dec 13, 2007 8:59 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
The World According to Brian

by E Ticket on Dec 14, 2007 7:07 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Woulod you rather have Frandsen and Ortmeir?

by GaryEdmundCarter on Dec 14, 2007 1:34 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
If you mean, would I rather have Frandsen at 2B, Ort (or free agent/trade acq.) at 1B, Schierholtz in RF and Feliz in Philadelphia, yes, yes I would.

by GiantFanInExile on Dec 14, 2007 2:23 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Why do you hate Feliz so vehemently (other than the fact he has trouble staying back on breaking balls)? Did Pedro steal your wife? I'd be mad at him too if he did that... Oh wait, I'm going through a divorce, I guess he can have mine. Never mind.

Anyway, do you hate to Gold Glove caliber defense and, 20 HR's and 85 RBI's?

I know his OBP sucks, but how can you not love his defense and pop?

by GaryEdmundCarter on Dec 14, 2007 2:32 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
I don't hate Feliz - see post higher up on the page. I think he seems like a great guy and I've enjoyed watching him play 3B the last couple of years, but he's a horrible starting player. Great guy to have off the bench as a late inning defensive replacement. Horrible starting 3B. I'd tell you why in greater detail, but it might be too "stat geeky" for you and you seem hung up on the whole defense over offensive-black-hole bit anyway. To sum up - it's possible to prefer a poor player not sign with your team and not hate him. I hope he signs a big fat contract with Philly and is wins every GG for the rest of his playing days.

by GiantFanInExile on Dec 14, 2007 2:44 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
No, please, do tell. I love the stat geeky answers. Seriously, it will be a good stat learning experience for me.

I just don't see how, from a  baseball perspective, you can say a guy with his glove, range, arm, power, durability, and RBI totals could be considered a "horrible" starter? Granted, it would be nice if he'd lay off of sliders away, but I must say he did make some adjustments last season.  I'd really loke it is the Giants resigned him traded Durham, and started Frandsen at 2B, and moved Shierholtz to 1B (Rajai in LF too).

by GaryEdmundCarter on Dec 14, 2007 2:50 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
I think Feliz is a horrible player too, and I don't hate the guy. I think that because of the position he plays. Teams need offensive production from the corner positions. A good glove guy with a light bat is probably okay up the middle. My problem with Feliz is that he is totally clueless at the plate. He dosen't understand when to take and when to be agressive. I gave up on hoping he would improve when he seemed to learn absolutely nothing from Moises Alou. Here was a teammate and fellow countryman with an excellent approach at the plate. Alou was agressive but knew when to take. I hoped Feliz would learn something when Alou became a Giant. He is as clueless as ever. It is just too frustrating watching him bat.

I would rather, and it pains me to say this, have Ensberg or Inge, for 1 year rather than Feliz for 2.

by marklar on Dec 14, 2007 3:13 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
I think Inge has three years left on his contract, so while I'd rather have Inge than Feliz on a one-year deal, the correct answer is "no."

by Grant Brisbee on Dec 14, 2007 4:22 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Thanks. So I definitely don't want Inge either. And as much as I dislike the Ensberg idea, I guess I would prefer 1 year of him to 2 of Feliz.

by marklar on Dec 14, 2007 4:34 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
I'll let somebody else handle the question of defensive value, because I'll just much it up with too much noise, but I can make a few salient points about his RBI totals and his adjustments.

RBIs aren't a useless statistic when evaluating a player, but they aren't very useful on their own. Pedro Feliz batted in an RBI spot (5th and 6th) in the Giants lineup when on any other team he'd likely bat 7th or 8th most days. For the last two or three years he's been among the league leaders in at bats with runners in scoring position, and among the worst at RBI conversion rate. Essentially, he's had a lot of RBIs because he's had a ton of chances to get RBIs - something that is dependent not on him but on the batters in front of him. Having RBI opportunities isn't really a skill, but converting RBIs can be (studies differ on the subject).

I'll actually make a small retraction having looked at the stats more carefully: In 2007, Pedro was pretty good with RISP. According to yahoo! he hit over .300 with RISP and OPSed .915. I will say that is in a sample size of about 130 ABs, but it still impresses me quite a bit.

What doesn't impress me are his 2006 and 2005 numbers, in which he hit .262/.795 and .219/.664 respectively in about 320 total ABs. His career numbers with RISP of .251/.735 are almost identical to his total career averages (lending credence to the idea that "clutch" hitting doesn't exist. See Bengie Molina's career split stats for the counterpoint).

So this is cool. I'm learning something a little here. In 2007, Pedro was actually very valuable to the team in RBI situations (that surprises me), but over his career his RBI conversion stats look about as good (bad) as his career averages. I'm pretty inclined to side on the side of career averages (hence my pessimism), but you could make a vaguely convincing sample sized argument that 2007 represented a turn of the corner for Feliz. You'd have a lot of trouble convincing people over 130 at bats, but it is vaguely compelling.

I think you could take that argument and incorporate the idea of Pedro's adjustments in 2007. It would still be a very difficult sell, but you may not find it coincidental that the same year Pedro makes visible adjustments at the plate is the same year he improves his situational value.

On the topic of Pedro's adjustments, it's something that completely mystifies me. He really was a complete anomoly last year. You could see evidence of his adjustments last year based on his K rates (which he cut almost in half - extremely impressive), and his hitting charts (an improved opposite field approach). What mystifies me about Pedro is that he improved his k rates and his opposite field approach so very visibly, but his batting line didn't improve at all to go with it. Those two peripherals are things that you almost always see directly effect walk rates and batting average (and consequently, OBP, SLG, and OPS - the big 3!), but Pedro's walk rates and BA remained perfectly in line with his career averages, as did his OBP, SLG, and OPS. It mystifies me that Pedro could improve such significant peripherals and see no overall improvement in his batting line. I have no explanation for it. It's really remarkable.

Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Dec 14, 2007 3:23 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
That is very interesting. I am surprised as well. I think the sample size raises an eyebrow though. Another factor could be that last year he played a role that benefited more from Bonds in the lineup than other years when we had better hitters like Alou. I am not sure of this, and except for the Bonds injury year, it seems to me that Feliz batted lower in the lineup until last year. Anybody batting in front of, or behind Bonds benefits. The idea of a re-signed Feliz in the lineup without the Bonds advantage in 2008 scares me.

by marklar on Dec 14, 2007 3:40 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Thank you, that was a very good answer. I'd still much rather the Giants sign Feliz than trade for Inge though. Inge doesn't have the glove Feliz has.

I love defense. God bless Omar Visquel.

by GaryEdmundCarter on Dec 14, 2007 4:29 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
Well, these things happen. His BABIP was near its all-time low last year; in theory, you'd expect it to bounce back next year, and take his overall batting line with it.

But it stands to reason that when you focus on going the other way and putting the ball in play, as Pedro obviously did in 2007, you're not going to hit the ball with as much authority as you did when you didn't worry about striking out. So that probably has something to do with why his BABIP and home run rate were down last year.

Regardless, he's going to be 33 next year. Even if his approach at the plate continues to improve, his bat speed is going to slow, so he's probably fighting a losing battle.

by Evan on Dec 14, 2007 5:55 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
No, RBIs are a completely worthless stat for evaluating a player.  even RBI rate is essentially randomized for players given the same outcomes (1B/2B/3B/HR/BB/FO/GO/K).

Feliz is terrible at the single most important batting skill, getting on base.  His OBP is SO bad, that despite the rest of his game being OK, it makes him essentially a bad 3B.

If he played SS at the same level of defense - or even 2B - he would be kinda half decent, maybe even good.  But the bar is just too high at 3B.

by zenbitz on Dec 14, 2007 9:31 PM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
I just don't see how any stat can be completely worthless when taken in the proper context. What I tried to do was begin to explain a context in which RBIs can be worth looking at. Obviously, I didn't dig very far into it as I focused mainly on BA w/RISP (which is ONLY a bare bones start on the stattastic and sometimes ridiculous issue), but what's wrong with trying to give some context? I'm not saying RBIs are very useful, or even really worth the labor it's taking me to type this out, but there is some marginal value even in RBIs when they are viewed through the right and thorough lens.
Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Dec 15, 2007 12:24 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
No. Never.  Don't bother.  They are misleading.  If all you had was RBIs and Last name, you would be as good off ranking hitters by Last name (non pitchers) than RBIs.

OK, that's not really true.  RBIs are a better predictor of batting sucess than last name.

by zenbitz on Dec 17, 2007 9:30 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Our lineup calls for aid!
That's the whole point of "the proper context" though. I said "the proper context" for a reason. Not for some mysterious non-reason.

If all you had was RBIs and a last name, you'd have jack shit for context. Of course they are completely useless with nothing else for reference. I'm not talking about RBIs in a vaccuum. I'm talking about RBIs with a ton of useful reference points, the most basic of which include RBI opportunities, and BA w/RISP.

Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Dec 17, 2007 10:42 AM PST up reply actions  

Actually, as a rough
and easily accessible measure of past success, RBIs are pretty OK.

If you do a search on BBRef for for 100 RBI seasons, and then sort by OPS+, you will find that a large majority of 100 RBI or better seasons came in above 100 OPS+ years.

From 1901 onwards, there were 1576 100 RBI or better seasons. In at least 1442 of those 1576 season, 100 RBI or better seasons coincided with 100 OPS+ or better seasons: 91%.

by rfloh on Dec 17, 2007 1:35 PM PST up reply actions  

The stats disagree with you
Look at Feliz' UZR's or ZR's or RZR's or plus minus numbers.

Then look at his offense measured by a linear runs estimator like Batting Runs above average or Batting Runs or Base Runs or whatever.

Then add them together.

He comes out as AVERAGE or ABOVE AVERAGE.

by rfloh on Dec 16, 2007 11:59 AM PST up reply actions  

The stat geeky answer
is that Feliz is an average or above average player.

His defense does balance out his offense.

by rfloh on Dec 16, 2007 12:01 PM PST up reply actions  

Feliz is NOT a horrible
starter.

He is AVERAGE or ABOVE AVERAGE.

It might be too "stat geeky" for you to understand that though.

See the stats I posted in my response to you above.

by rfloh on Dec 16, 2007 11:57 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Feliz is NOT a horrible

What is truly sad about this is that it probably IS true and we will replace him with a worse 3B!

Should have moved him to SS a couple years ago.

by zenbitz on Dec 17, 2007 9:31 AM PST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed

Search

User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about San Francisco Giants.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Sp-giants21_ph_t_0501991449_part6_small
The McCovey Chronicles Fantasy League, For Money.

by GiantPain 3 days ago

40 comments | 3 recs

Calvin_and_hobbes_small
2012 Adoption Draft: Who's In?

by free f.p. #14 5 days ago

362 comments | 7 recs

Calvin_and_hobbes_small
2012 Adoption Draft: Rules Discussion

by free f.p. #14 8 days ago

148 comments | 4 recs

Honus_wagner4_small
Hector & Gregor's Excellent Adventure (In the VWL)

by Fla-Giant 8 days ago

31 comments | 3 recs

Recent FanPosts

T_36396_small
2012 MLB Draft Snapshot - Power Hitters

by shankbone about 5 hours ago

2 comments

T_36396_small
2012 MLB Draft Snapshot – College Left Handed Pitchers

by shankbone 2 days ago

18 comments

Img_0100_small
Cormac McCarthy novel The Road

by foothillsfan 3 days ago

13 comments

T_36396_small
2012 MLB Draft Snapshot – HS Left handed pitchers

by shankbone 4 days ago

16 comments | 1 recs

Small
Angel Villalona reported to have a work visa

by Gianni 5 days ago

11 comments

T_36396_small
2012 MLB Draft Snapshot – The Catchers

by shankbone 6 days ago

25 comments

Hidey-fern_small
Hiking on the 18th?

by Merope 6 days ago

5 comments | 1 recs

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Recent Posts

In Association With

Baseball Nation Recent Stories

Catcher Gary Carter of the New York Mets tags out Jim Rice of the Boston Red Sox during game 7 of the 1986 World Series at Shea Stadium in Flushing, New York. The Mets won the series 4-3. (Photo by T.G. Higgins/Getty Images) +9 updates

Hall Of Famer Gary Carter Dead At 57

DENVER, CO - Andre Ethier #16 of the Los Angeles Dodgers grounds out in the first inning against the Colorado Rockies at Coors Field. (Photo by Justin Edmonds/Getty Images)

Andre Ethier Decision Looming For Dodgers

Adam Wainwright of the St. Louis Cardinals throws during a rehab session before a game against the Pittsburgh Pirates at Busch Stadium in St. Louis, Missouri. (Photo by Jeff Curry/Getty Images)

Rehabbing Starters Could Make Big Differences

More from Baseball Nation >

Manager

174246766_ea2fd78204_small Grant Brisbee

Moderators

Minime_small Natto

Fawlty_small WalrusMan

Goofus_small Goofus

Howtheyscoredcat_small howtheyscored

Det_7193_small jponry

Authors

09_small JT Jordan

Small steve S