McCovey Chronicles: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Around SBN: MLB Hot Stove: blogging the rumors, trades, signings Bar-right-arrows



Predictions

All things being equal:

Padres: 90-72
Dodgers: 89-73
Diamondbacks: 87-75
Giants: 79-83
Rockies: 79-83

Pick five of ten...

  1. Ray Durham repeats his '06 season.
  2. Barry Bonds plays more than 115 games with an OBP over .475.
  3. Barry Zito befuddles the NL in his first tour and gets a few Cy Young votes.
  4. Tim Lincecum pitches over 100 innings in the majors with an ERA under 3.50.
  5. Rich Aurilia and Ryan Klesko combine to give the Giants .280/.360/.490 production from first base.
  6. Pedro Feliz has an OBP of .300 or over, and his SLG is over .500.
  7. Armando Benitez converts saves at his career rate of 89%.
  8. Matt Cain has an entire season as good as his second half in '06.
  9. Two of the young bullpen arms post ERAs under 3.50, and strike out enough hitters to make you believe it's real.
  10. Noah Lowry gets his change and curve working at the same time and pairs them with improved command.
...to get this:

Giants: 93-69
Padres: 90-72
Diamondbacks: 86-76
Dodgers: 83-79
Rockies: 80-82

The Dodgers drop so far in the revised predictions because I wanted them to.

Five of ten: too many? Too few? Missing some major points?

Your season predictions, if you would....

0 recs | Comment 88 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Follow the (previous) leader
Pick 1 of 1...

1) Bruce Bochy continues the tradition of his immediate predecessors by posting triple-digit victories in his first season as Giants' skipper.

Giants: 101-61
Dodgers: 93-69
Padres: 86-76
Diamondbacks: 86-76
Rockies: 70-92

by Moggeee on Mar 30, 2007 10:20 AM PDT   0 recs

PECOTA Stuff
PECOTA has the Giants tied for last in the NL West with the Rockies. Both have a record of 79-83.

They've got the D-Backs taking the west with a record of 88-74. They actually compare the D-Backs to the 1994 Indians in terms of positional talent on the team. That Indians team was pretty good too. Full of young positional players, Thome and Ramirez started to come into their own that year.

Heres what I see for the NL West

  1. Padres
  2. D-Backs
  3. Dodgers
  4. Giants
  5. Rockies
I think that you can flip the Rockies and Giants and not be considered too crazy. The Rockies have a great lineup. I love the Padres rotation and pen. If the D-Backs get good efforts out of their young players, and Randy Johnson can stay healthy I like their chances too.

by xanthan on Mar 30, 2007 10:24 AM PDT   0 recs

Re: PECOTA Stuff
Whoops, forgot the records.
  1. Padres 88-74
  2. D-Backs 84-78
  3. Dodgers 82-80
  4. Giants 74-88
  5. Rockies 73-89

by xanthan on Mar 30, 2007 10:26 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: PECOTA Stuff
Who cares what Bill Pecota thinks?? Some lousy infielder that couldn't hit is going to influence your opinions?? Oh, it's not him?? I still don't care. Why don't they just stop playing the games and let the nerds with their pocket protectors who never picked up a baseball decide which teams are going to be in the World Series?? Did this Pecota thing pick the Cardinals and the Tigers to be in the World Series LAST year?? I didn't think so. Play the games!!
only 248 more shopping days to Armando's birthday

by rxmeister on Mar 30, 2007 10:56 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: PECOTA Stuff
Joe Morgan user account found.

by xanthan on Mar 30, 2007 10:57 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: PECOTA Stuff
YOU MUST READ THEM NOTHING MORE FROM THIS BOOK; IT IS TOO SOON
"Yep, I'm a Dodger hater" - Kevin Frandsen

by EliminateMe on Mar 30, 2007 11:30 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: PECOTA Stuff
Post Of The Day.
Steve Kline: He probably won't be terrible

by groug on Mar 30, 2007 2:52 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: PECOTA Stuff
Murray and the Curly-Haired-Boyfriend have a protege! (barring sarcasm)
DFA Everybody

by JakeS on Mar 30, 2007 11:40 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Predictions
I agree with you in that if five or six things go very, very right, the Giants could win 90+ games. However, how often do that many things go very, very right for a team in a season? It certainly hasn't for the Giants recently. So, I'll predict:
  1. D-Backs 87-75
  2. Padres 85-77
  3. Giants 79-83
  4. Dodgers 78-84
  5. Rockies 70-92
I originally picked the Giants to finish 4th, but I really just can't bring myself to put the Dodgers ahead of us. So... I won't. :)
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Mar 30, 2007 10:33 AM PDT   0 recs

Re: Predictions
Giants 93-69
Dodgers 81-81
Dbacks  80-82
Padres  76-86
Rockies 50-80  (they disband on Sept 1)

Bochy starts resting the regulars for the playoffs on June 1.  

only 248 more shopping days to Armando's birthday

by rxmeister on Mar 30, 2007 11:00 AM PDT   0 recs

Re: Predictions
The Giants aren't likely to win 93 games -- let alone 101 (although I like your knowledge of Dusty's 103 wins and Felipe's 100 in their first years).

I thought the most likely of your ten points was probably Tim Lincecum's 100 innings and ERA of 3.50 or less -- and many of your points were fairly reasonable (although perhaps not enough to attain the desired 93 wins).

I would say Pedro Feliz's .300+ OBP and .500+ SLG would be least likely, although hopefully the hard work he did over the winter to change his approach at the plate will pay dividends.  This spring he has hit encouragingly well -- although the last time I looked he had drawn nary a walk.

A couple of points:

First, Armando's career save percentage isn't 89%.  Since save opportunities were kept at mlb.com beginning in 1999 it IS a very respectable 85.3%, however.  Yes, it would help if he could at least equal that percentage.  

But often overlooked in save percentage is the average DIFFICULTY of the saves.  Did you know for instance that teams score two runs or fewer in over 93% of all innings?  That would indicate that if a closer had all three-run, one-inning saves in which he entered at the beginning of the ninth inning, Armando's 85.3% save percentage would be about 8% below what one might expect from an average pitcher?

Teams score one run or fewer in over 86% of their games, so if all of Armando's saves were two-run, one inning saves, he would still be about 1% below an average pitcher.  In one-run situations, the one-inning save would happen from an average pitcher only 71% of the time.  

It is those one-run saves where today's closer earns his money.  With a lead of two or three runs entering the ninth inning, an average pitcher should be able to convert at about the same rate -- actually a little better -- as Armando has converted since the beginning of the 1999 season.

Second, with Barry Bonds apparently now batting third rather than cleanup, it is possible that a .475 OBP from Barry won't be as meaningful as with him batting cleanup.  To illustrate this, let's use Barry's first at bat of the game.

Batting third, it is likely that about 42% of Barry's first plate appearance in games will come with two outs and no one on.  If he starts 130 games, that will be about 55 plate appearances during which the opposition can walk him with relative impunity, since a runner on first base with two outs scores only about 13% of the time -- and Barry's lack of speed on the bases might drop even that percentage.

Let's suppose that Barry gets 500 plate appearances and that he reaches base 238 times (.476). Normally I would agree with you that his being able to do so would indicate a season in which he did quite well.  Last season his OBP was "only" .454.  But let's suppose that the opposition is smart enough to walk Barry in 28 of those 55 plate appearances in which he bats with two outs and no one on in the first inning.  That would mean that in the other 472 plate appearances, Barry would have reached base "only" 210 times, for an OBP when it matters more of "just" .445.

I think if Barry bats third, he will perhaps need to post a .500 or higher OBP to have the effect you desire.  That would mean that he had an OBP of .473 or higher when it matters more, much closer to your .475 target.

Batting Barry third likely isn't the best move Bruce Bochy will make this year.

by sharksrog on Mar 30, 2007 11:01 AM PDT   0 recs

Re: Predictions
I'm not sure that walking Bonds with no one on and two out is smart.  You've got a better than even chance of ending the inning if you pitch to him, maybe a 10% chance of giving up a solo homer, and roughly a 1-in-3 chance of getting him on base otherwise, thereby setting up a two-out rally.

If you walk Barry, you're setting up the two-out rally 100% of the time, just to prevent a solo homer.  Does not compute.

by Skaldheim on Mar 30, 2007 11:45 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Predictions
Oh, so you're saying that the Giants would LEAST like to have Barry batting with two outs and no one on -- a circumstance that is likely to happen over 50 times in the first inning alone if Barry is healthy and batting third?  That was my primary point.

A secondary point would be that if I were pitching to Barry in that situation, I wouldn't worry much about walking him and thus would pick, pick, pick at the corners. There are some situations in which it is hard to corner pitch once you get behind to Barry and hard to pick a corner or miss off the plate if you get ahead, because of the damage putting Barry on base can do.  But the bases empty and two outs is the time when it is LEAST costly to walk Barry.

Just by comparison, if you walk Barry with no outs and no one on (as usually would be the situation if he came up with no one on and no outs the first time he batted in a game while batting cleanup), the cost of walking him would be about .43 runs.  The cost of walking him with two outs and nobody on is about .13 runs, or approximately 30% as high.  If you were going to "buy" a walk to Barry, wouldn't you rather do your purchasing when there is a 70% off sale?

Batting Barry is not a smart move.  And if opposing managers are wise enough to understand this (Questionable, I realize.) and manipulate it in their favor, the Giants are likely to pay a price for batting Barry third.  I think Bruce Bochy will make moves that are at least as good as the average manager.  But I don't think batting Barry third is one of them.

by sharksrog on Mar 30, 2007 1:37 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Predictions
Walking Barry "costs" less with two out and none on, true -- but so does pitching to him.  In all the situations where Barry can hit, he can do the least damage with two out and none on.  The most he can do is create one run, with a solo homer.  Any other result would be pretty much the same as walking him, or better, if you're the other team.

I wouldn't ever walk Barry in that situation.  Make him earn that base -- put wear on those knees!  So he hits a few more solo homers.  Big deal.

This is why it's so very important to have good OBP in the spots ahead of Barry if you're going to bat him third.  I agree with you -- I'd rather see him stay in the fourth spot, all things considered.  If Barry's 'protection' produces a .400 OBP for Omar, though, I'll take it.

by Skaldheim on Mar 30, 2007 2:10 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Predictions
Why would Barry's "protection" provide a .400 OBP for Omar?  If anything, opposing pitchers would work hard to keep Omar off the bases immediately ahead of Barry.

by sharksrog on Mar 30, 2007 4:50 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Where Should Barry Bat?
Thanks for one of the better posts in awhile.

 If  Barry bats 4'th, there is about a 75% chance he will bat in the first inning with at least 1 runner on base.  If he doesn't bat in the first inning, what's so bad about him leading off the 2'nd?  

If Barry bats 3'rd, there is a 40% chance he will bat with 2 outs and nobody on.

It's not a no-brainer, but I believe Barry should bat 4'th.

by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 30, 2007 4:10 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Where Should Barry Bat?
Thank goodness you two chimed in; I thought it was a mistake to bat Barry 3rd, for the reasons you've pointed out above, but nobody else seemed to question it.
Proud papa to Sergio Romo; and looking forward to adopting Josh Vitters!

by Lyle on Mar 31, 2007 9:35 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Where Should Barry Bat?
There are legitimate arguments to be made for Barry batting 3'rd.  If he played every game, he'd get about 20 more PA's over the course of the season.  Those extra AB's could conceivably win a couple more games than otherwise.  My numbers don't count GIDP's which are less likely to be a factor if he's batting 3'rd.  Once you get past the first inning, You seldom leadoff an inning with the leadoff batter, so the extra RBI opportunities only hold true for the first time through the lineup.

Still, the first time through the lineup often sets the tone for the game.  IMO, there's a clearcut advantage to batting Barry 4'th that first time through.  I think he should bat 4'th.

by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 31, 2007 10:10 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Where Should Barry Bat?
I think, when you combine OBP, increasing ABs, having your best hitter influence the 1st inning, Barry should bat 2nd.  The next most productive spot for him is 4th, with 3rd in the line up less desireable.  I also think Bochy will move him back to 4th.
  In his defense, I think Bochy is not just doing stats.  I think he is thinking, with high OBP guys like Roberts and Omar, he is looking for a way to influence the first inning, both mentally and statistically.  When you factor in the frequent lack of sharpness the starter brings to the first inning, if he gives up a leadoff walk he now is in immediate trouble.  Still, if the OBP of R & O is no there, I think Boch moves Barry back to 4th.

by allfrank on Mar 31, 2007 11:00 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Where Should Barry Bat?
You seem to have the right prescription here, Dr., but I did want to make one comment.  We don't know for sure just how many extra plate appearances Barry will get by batting third instead of fourth, but it likely isn't 20.

First, if Barry starts 135 games -- probably a top end for him -- the third-place hitter would likely make the Giants last out in about 1/9th of those games -- or 15.

Second, in some games, Barry will come out after say his fourth at bat.  So while he may have to stay in the game for an extra inning of defense in order to get that extra at bat, in say five of the 15 games, Barry would get the same number of plate appearances.  That puts him down to perhaps 10 extra plate appearancs.  Keep in mind that if the guy batting third has an OBP of .350, if the third-place spot comes up in, say, the eighth inning of a game the Giants lead, 35% of the time Barry will get to bat that inning whether he is batting third or fourth.

Third, batting Barry third likely gives him about 55 plate appearances his first time up where he will hit with two outs and no one on.  Since that would seem the cheapest time to walk him, he might actually LOSE more than the 10 extra at bats he otherwise would have had.  It is possible that by batting third Barry will actually wind up with FEWER at bats.

I would actually rather see Barry bat leadoff than third.  That way he WOULD get a considerable number of extra plate appearances -- and would always come to the plate with no outs his first time up.  And with the Giants best hitters following him to the plate, any walks he gets would have a better chance to be costly.  Plus, a pitcher would need to be at his best right at the start of the game, since he would immediately be facing the Giants best hitter.

No, Barry wouldn't have as many runners on batting first as batting third.  But if it is truly runners on base you want for Barry, leave him batting cleanup, where his chances for baserunners are the highest.  Why trade that for perhaps 10 more plate appearances and possibly no additional at bats?

by sharksrog on Mar 31, 2007 2:49 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Predictions
I think 1, 2, 3, 8, and 10 are the most likely to happen. Maybe 4.

I don't get why people are saying the Dodgers are going to be worth a damn. My burning hatred for them aside, I just don't see how they can get by with that pitching staff. Jason Schmidt left on the downside and that's fine with me. Lowe and Penny are overrated. Is Billingsley starting? Their bullpen should be solid. Juan Pierre as a star acquisition? Sure. Right.

Anyway I see the Padres winning the division and the Giants finishing behind them in a close race with an improved Arizona club. Colorado will also improve with their good young players. All in all I see the division as a big clusterfuck; no clear runaway winner, nobody truly dismal. Just a lot of mediocrity and the one who sucks less wins.

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

by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Mar 30, 2007 11:37 AM PDT   0 recs

Re: Predictions
I don't know for sure whether the Dodgers will be good or not -- but I like their chances at least as well as the Giants.  Don't forget, they won 12 more games than the Giants last season.

As for their starting pitching, in Schmidt, Lowe, Penny and Wolf, they have four guys who may not do it this year, but have demonstrated in the past that they can do so.  Chad Billingsley was considered a year ago to be a better prospect than Matt Cain, then went on to post a better ERA in 2006 than did Matt.  Yet Billingsley hasn't even been able to crack the Dodgers rotation, although I think it's merely a matter of time.

Why is it that so many Giants fans find it so easy to find all the Dodgers flaws but so hard to locate those of the Giants?

by sharksrog on Mar 30, 2007 1:42 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Predictions
Billinsley barely had a better ERA, but he had 58 BB and 59 K in 90 IP. Way lower ratios than Cain, plus he is a Dodger and an idiot. That last part was just an opinion. Unfortunately I don't have statistical data to back it up.
I adopted Barry Bonds

by BondsApologist on Mar 30, 2007 3:04 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Predictions
I like Matt better than I like Chad.  And I meant to add that it was Baseball America who ranked Chad above Matt a year ago.  That wasn't my own opinion -- although I thought the two were closer together than most thought.

But despite the ERA, you are absolutely right that Matt outpitched Chad last season.  Chad was extremely lucky not to have an ERA that was clearly higher.

by sharksrog on Mar 30, 2007 4:53 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Predictions
Thank you, I completely forgot Wolf ended up in LA. Sad, cos I used to like him.

As for lacking the ability to see Giants flaws but jumping all over Dodger flaws, I'm gonna go with blind devotion. Fortunately I hate just about everything and I calls em as I sees em, and often the Giants get me angry enough to say I hate them too. Usually has to do with the bullpen, Pedro Feliz, Matt Morris, or the fact that Bengie Molina is the starting catcher.

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

by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Mar 30, 2007 4:57 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Predictions
I think you will like Benjie as the catcher.  I heard on SD radio last night former major league pitcher Todd Jones pick the Giants to win it.  
  I think the teams are just too close to really allow for an intelligent prediction.  Oh, I know it is fun and all,  but it comes down to health and players at least meeting reasonable expectations + plus the break out type of seasons/events (the subject of this diary, BTW.

by allfrank on Mar 31, 2007 11:05 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Predictions
Bengie was one of the very best defensive catchers as recently as three seasons ago.  He won the Gold Glove in both 2002 and 2003.  But his defense has been dropping off steadily since, and last season he may have been one of the WORST catchers in the majors.  He reached double digits in passed balls, and was the third-worst regular catcher in throwing out stealing base runners.

Bengie hit lefties tremendously well last season, but he was mediocre against righthanded pitchers.  We will probably like Bengie better the more he does his resting against righties.

The good news is that Eliezer Alfonzo hit righthanders slightly better than southpaws last season.  But we probably shouldn't expect too much from Eliezer, who likely will start at least 40 games.  While his hot start after being called up last season was highly surprising for what had been essentially a career minor leaguer, it became clear that the pitchers figured him out as the season went along.

Last season Alfonzo wasn't a bad starting catcher.  This season I think he'll be no better than an average BACKUP catcher.

by sharksrog on Mar 31, 2007 2:54 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Predictions
First, the disclaimer:  I didn't see Benjie that often last year.  I think he is still an above avg catcher, albeit with a rather high number of PBs.  I think he has an about avg arm at this point in his career.  But we will see.

by allfrank on Mar 31, 2007 8:52 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Predictions
Bengie split time behind the dish with Gregg Zaun last season.  I like Gregg as a hitter and wanted the Giants to sign him instead of Mike Matheny, since the switch-hitting Gregg would have made a very nice complement to Yorvit Torrealba (or any other of the many righthanded-hitting catchers, including Molina and anyone else the Giants have had for several years).  But Gregg is an average defensive catcher at best.  Yet Gregg threw out a slightly higher percentage of runners last season than did Bengie.

Gregg also had only three passed balls, I presume catching essentially the same pitchers as did Bengie.  Molina had the third-highest number of passed balls among major-league catchers last season.  That third-worst also described his caught stealing percentage among all regular catchers.

by sharksrog on Apr 2, 2007 12:36 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Predictions
...nobody truly dismal. Just a lot of mediocrity and the one who sucks less wins.

----------------------------------------------

What I've been thinking. Dodgers, Pads, Giants, Backs. I put them each at about 4 to 1 to win the division.  Mebbee the Pads 7 to 2 and the Giants 9 to 2, but all pretty even.

Save Matt Morris. Save The Pitchers. Save The World.

by E Ticket on Mar 30, 2007 7:55 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Predictions
What I wanna know is how come, in Grant's revised predictions, when the Giants get better the Rockies do too?

Giants 84-78
Padres 82-80
D-backs 79-83
Dodgers 77-85
Rockies 73-89

G-men pull a Cardinal, barely squeaking into the playoffs, yet somehow managing to beat a couple of superior teams in the playoffs and win the Series.

"Yep, I'm a Dodger hater" - Kevin Frandsen

by EliminateMe on Mar 30, 2007 11:37 AM PDT   0 recs

Re: Predictions
I was wondering the exact same thing and figured that the Dodgers get so dejected from getting pounded by the Giants that they lose a couple of extra games at Coors.
you can't handle the truth or Ryan Klesko!

by Goofus on Mar 30, 2007 12:16 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Predictions
I could see 5 of 10 happening. I could also see 0 of 10 happening.

Diamondbacks: 93-69
Padres: 88-74
Giants: 85-77
Dodgers: 80-82
Rockies: 76-86

Diamondbacks win the pennant.

by tomzilla on Mar 30, 2007 11:39 AM PDT   0 recs

Re: Predictions
I can't see the Dbacks being that good. Too young and inexperienced in their starting lineup. I bet half of those young guys aren't ready, and the other half won't do well in a pennant race. And their pitching is awful. Why anyone would expect a not fully healthy Randy Johnson to make a comeback pitching in that launching pad is beyond me. Outside of Brandon Webb their pitching will be putrid.
only 248 more shopping days to Armando's birthday

by rxmeister on Mar 30, 2007 12:00 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Predictions
TZ, just your regular bell shaped curve - 4-6 of ten the most likely, 2 of 10 as likely as 8 of ten, 0 of 10 very unlikely.
  I think the Gs are far too improved to be predicting 4th place.  All things being equal, they probably finish 2nd, with either the Dodgers or Pads finishing 1st.  Good health and players producing up to reasonable expectations = pennant

by allfrank on Mar 31, 2007 11:12 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Predictions
I think a lot of you guys are overrating the Giants, excusable given the site, but a lot of you are overrating the Dodgers as well, which is inexcusable. I have them as one game better than the Giants, which should be good for third or fourth place, tops. They are in better shape than the Giants only in terms of talent available, they are squandering a lot of it with who they are putting out on the field.
DFA Everybody

by JakeS on Mar 30, 2007 11:42 AM PDT   0 recs

I reserve the right to change my numbers April 4
I'm about as solid in my opinion (Giants win 101, Dodgers, 93) as a quivering mold of multi-colored jello.

by Moggeee on Mar 30, 2007 12:06 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: I reserve the right to change my numbers April
so were talking about mando for dessert again?
Save Matt Morris. Save The Pitchers. Save The World.

by E Ticket on Mar 30, 2007 7:58 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Predictions
I'm glad someone agrees with my assesment of the Dodgers.
Strikeouts are boring. Besides that, they're fascist. Not boring: Emmanuel Burriss. Not fascist: SF Dugout

by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Mar 30, 2007 12:39 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Predictions
This reminds me, don't you still owe us three head-to-head roster analyses? (And by "don't you still owe us," I mean "I hope you haven't come to your senses and decided it would take too damn long to do.")

by Evan on Mar 30, 2007 12:42 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Predictions
Very nice observation, Jake!

by sharksrog on Mar 31, 2007 2:55 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Predictions
I can easily see five of these ten happening, but the Giants still wouldn't get 93 wins.  I think that the Giants need about 8 of those 10 to happen to win over 90 games.

Heck, I think #9 (Two of the young bullpen arms post ERAs under 3.50, and strike out enough hitters to make you believe it's real) MUST happen for the Giants to have any chance at contending this year.

by Skaldheim on Mar 30, 2007 11:48 AM PDT   0 recs

Re: Predictions
Well since is the year where the Giants finally cleaned house and went young, I'd say that it will be fun just watching the future players develop as the year goes on.

by Rusty the Mechanical Man on Mar 30, 2007 11:53 AM PDT   0 recs

Re: Predictions
The ball of hair agrees.
"Personally, I think we got hosed on that call." -Harry Doyle; Minor Izzy

by hairball on Mar 30, 2007 1:12 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Predictions
Enjoy your time in Fresno.  Lucky for you, when the Grizzlies season ends and some of their guys are brought up, you won't miss the Gs take the pennant in late Sept.

by allfrank on Mar 31, 2007 11:16 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Predictions
I'll sign on for 1, 2, 6, and 9, with 4 and 8 as near misses. A good team, but the Padres will be a lot better.

Padres 99-63
Giants 88-74
D'backs 87-75
Rockies 79-83
Dodgers 74-88

The Dodgers are going to have the players they need to stay healthy (Schmidt, Furcal) get hurt and the players they need to get hurt (Pierre, Gonzalez, Betemit) stay healthy.

88 wins could make the playoffs, right?

by Evan on Mar 30, 2007 11:55 AM PDT   0 recs

Re: Predictions
No way the Pads run away with the division.  What possibly makes them 11 games better?

by allfrank on Mar 31, 2007 11:17 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Predictions
I have to quibble with #4 (Lincecum pitching 100 innings with a sub 3.50 ERA.)

For Tim to pitch 100 innings on the big team, I would presume that another started had to have stunk up the joint.  If Lincecum did, in fact, pitch well, wouldn't he just be balancing out the stinky numbers that the deposed member of the rotation put forth up until that point?

you can't handle the truth or Ryan Klesko!

by Goofus on Mar 30, 2007 12:20 PM PDT   0 recs

Re: Predictions
Having Ortiz and Morris in the rotation pretty much guarantees the stinking up of the joint, no? If they had brain one in their heads they'd keep Ortiz on a short leash--congrats on winning the fifth starter role buddy, but the moment you start messing up you're done. I know Morris is too expensive to bench or banish to the bullpen but another year of maddeningly poor pitching from here may incite a riot.
Strikeouts are boring. Besides that, they're fascist. Not boring: Emmanuel Burriss. Not fascist: SF Dugout

by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Mar 30, 2007 1:19 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Predictions
*from him. My post-lunch delirium has set in.
Strikeouts are boring. Besides that, they're fascist. Not boring: Emmanuel Burriss. Not fascist: SF Dugout

by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Mar 30, 2007 1:22 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Predictions
I really hate Morris. Before he got here. Worse than Blowmeatiz. At least with Mando, we know he's a mess. His problems are caused as much by culture and language differences as anything. (see Pedro and Manny and even Marichal and Cepeda -- Americanized English is a tough language and an easy one to give the wrong impression in)  

I hate watching Morris pitche simply because he pitches more innings and therefore has more face time to piss me off. And he all pretends like he's a team guy. Bullshit...this guy is so off to St. Louis the second his contract is up it makes me puke. He's as much a Giant as Willie McCovey was a San Diego Padre or Juan Marichal was a Dodger.

Save Matt Morris. Save The Pitchers. Save The World.

by E Ticket on Mar 30, 2007 8:04 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Predictions
Thank God I am not one of your children.  The way you treat your adopted child is child abuse plan and simple.

by giantsrainman on Mar 30, 2007 9:19 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Predictions
Matt Morris has been a Giant for well over a year now and will remain one until he is traded, released or retires.

by sharksrog on Mar 30, 2007 11:57 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Predictions
No one is too expensive to bench.  The Giants have to pay him whether he plays or not.  If Morris stinks up the joint, sit his ass down and put someone better in.  It won't save the Giants money, either way.

by Skaldheim on Mar 30, 2007 2:12 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Predictions
I want you to manage the ballclub.
Strikeouts are boring. Besides that, they're fascist. Not boring: Emmanuel Burriss. Not fascist: SF Dugout

by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Mar 30, 2007 4:58 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Predictions
Skaldheim? His head's waaaaay too small for that.
"Yep, I'm a Dodger hater" - Kevin Frandsen

by EliminateMe on Mar 30, 2007 5:23 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Predictions
Since E is not sticking up for his young 'un, let me do so. Matt Morris was brought in here last year to be a number one starter and leader of this staff. They knew they didn't want the declining, injury prone Jason Schmidt after his contract expired and they envisioned Morris leading a staff of young pitchers starting in 2007. Morris proved he was not up to the task. However, this year things are different. Barry Zito is now here in that role, and Matt Cain has arrived. Matt is a secure number three starter, and you can make the case that Lowry and Ortiz are at least as good as him. The pressure is off, he is now accustomed to no longer being in St. Louis, and he will rebound with a good year. Not a great year that a number one starter will have, but Matt Morris will be better than most of the third starters in this league. You have my word on this.
Armando Benitez: The True Dominican Dandy

by rxmeister on Mar 31, 2007 8:21 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Barnyard analogies
A word in the hand is worth more than a chicken in the pot, or a turkey on the mound.

by Moggeee on Mar 31, 2007 9:12 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Predictions
I think you are right about Matt being better than the average third starter, alhough he wasn't last season -- at least not by much.

On the other hand, by the end of the season Cain, Zito and Lincecum should be the Giants top three starters, and Matt likely will be pretty darn good for a #4 or #5.

by sharksrog on Mar 31, 2007 2:58 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Predictions
but Matt Morris will be better than most of the third starters in this league. You have my word on this.

--------------------------------------------

I'd say Matt Morris is about to make a pathological liar out of you.

He could not even get out of the 4th inning yesterday, in his last appearance before the season starts.  Its not like he had only a couple of days to get ready. Its been since Feb 15. A freaking Month and a Half.  Pathetic.

The guy is in his 30s, gets paid millions, and gives up 8 hits, 4 runs faces 19 batters in his "final tune-up" for the regular season after stinking up the joint last year?  Thats over 5 batters per inning! That is the kind of pitching that wears down defenses as well as your pen. They won't have the benefit of bringing in fodder like Kim, and Munter once the regular season starts though. And since the Giants have only two off days between now and May 14th, he is single handedly going to be in a position to be a one man demolition crew on the Giants bullpen. I did not see all of his pitches, but the first and second innings were enough, and seemed little different than what I saw last year.

Say what you want about Matt, but if you're a Giant reliever, you know that you will be getting lots of playing time when he's scheduled to start. Rest assured that the bullpen shuffle between SFO and FNO will be in high gear almost immediately, barring some unforeseen miracle in Matt Morris and Armando Benitez' respective careers.

I'm not sure where the bigger waste of millions is: Morris, Blowmeatiz, or the new flashing billboard which will be used to pound fans with ever more spectacularly obnoxious advertisements. I have creepy visions of the KNBR skank asking male fans if they want to experience explosive sex without a prescription. If so, I think that would about do it for establishing new lows in ballpark pimping.  Frankly I would have preferred that 3 million going to pay for a lifetime prescription of viagra for Morris and Blowmeatiz' pitching arms.

Save Matt Morris. Save The Pitchers. Save The World.

by E Ticket on Apr 1, 2007 10:13 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

The Awful Truth
In baseball, I prefer a world-weary cynicism to enthusiasm based on fluffy, passing clouds.

But your take on Morris is neither; It is a simple exposition of overwhelming evidence provided by the defendant himself.

Despite the published Order of Battle, Ortiz is the Giants No. 3, and Morris is our No. 5, ready to be bumped to the curb.

by Moggeee on Apr 1, 2007 11:26 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Predictions
I was thinking the same thing....unless Lowry or Morris pull an oblique or something.

by bisquik on Mar 30, 2007 1:34 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Predictions
Good point here -- but only part of the possible picture.  Yes, Tim could be replacing a festering pitcher, but he could also be replacing either an injured or traded one.

My sense is that even if all five starters pitch well (and I certainly hope they do), Tim will show enough at Fresno that the Giants will find a way to make room for him no later than July.

Tim will be making his final preseason start tomorrow.

by sharksrog on Mar 30, 2007 3:49 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Predictions
The starters are not the problem (it is the pen) and, thus, Lincecum comes up in Sep with the rest of the call ups.  We get performances of a #1, a #2, and three (count 'em) #3s.

by allfrank on Mar 31, 2007 11:25 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Predictions
My mistake about Tim throwing his last spring game today.  The games are over in Arizona, and he will instead be throwing a bullpen.  Also, Tim will make his first start for Fresno not in their opener Thursday night, but rather in their third game a week from today.

by sharksrog on Mar 31, 2007 2:59 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Predictions
Oh boy, back-of-the envelope math!
  1. Durham 2006 > 2005 = 2 wins
  2. as opposed to what?  .450?  If he hits like 2004 instead of 2006, then this could be worth 8 wins
  3. I'm gonna say +3 wins
  4. +1 win, tops (100 innings!)
  5. This is probably 2 wins over 2006 production
  6. I would say this is 1 win
  7. maybe 1 win.  You don't have to pitch that well to get 85%.  Plus, how many opps?
  8. 2 wins
  9. 2 wins
  10. 2 wins.
So all 10, call it 22 wins.  With a base line of 79, the need like 6-7 depending on which.

by zenbitz on Mar 30, 2007 12:24 PM PDT   0 recs

Re: Predictions
This approach seems logical to me. If everything went right, the Giants could win 101. Still pre-season. Still incredibly optimistic.

In reality, a "complete turn-around" in my book would mean going from 85 losses last year to 85 wins in 2007. Whether that is enough to win the division, who knows. Any team in this division could win 85. In the NL "Worst", every team might finish above .500. My guess:

Dodgers- 87-75
Giants- 85-77 *Wild Card
Padres- 84-78
D-Bax- 84-78
Rockies- 79-83

Defender of Noah Lowry.

by Kid Fresh on Mar 30, 2007 3:09 PM PDT to parent up