Joe Sheehan at Baseball Prospectus on Tim the Enchanter

by da5id on Apr 26, 2008 11:57 AM PDT Comment 104 comments

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=7429

April 26, 2008

Prospectus Today

Lincecum and Lefty

by Joe Sheehan

Remember the 1972 Phillies? I don’t, either. I was a year old, and unlike Rany Jazayerli, I was not already in third grade at that age. The '72 Phils, however, get talked about quite a bit because of one very special pitcher. Left-hander Steve Carlton joined the team near the end of February, traded away from the Cardinals to resolve a contract dispute. The tall southpaw had been a good, but not great pitcher in his career to date, making three All-Star teams and winning 20 games in 1971, but struggling enough with his command—207 walks in two seasons—to keep his ERAs in '70 and '71 relatively high.

(Sheehan ties this all in to Tim Lincecum here.)

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

0 recs | Comment 104 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Bob Brenly?

Since when did he start coaching our team?

by ACgiant97 on Apr 26, 2008 12:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Who?

Who else was in that Phillies rotation? Did they have Cain or Sanchez comps as well?

When he knows his subject, Joe writes really well. Unfortunately, that doesn’t include baseball west of the Mississippi.

by Lars The Wanderer on Apr 26, 2008 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

So it wasn't Bochy...

I’ve been unjustly bashing the guy all along!

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Apr 26, 2008 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m actually surprised this hasn’t happened before. Two B.B. catchers from the mid-eighties.

you can't block the Bocock

by oldjacket on Apr 26, 2008 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

At least...

...he didn’t call him Bob Boone.

Your 2011 SF Giants: the 2008 Augusta Greenjackets!

by Lyle on Apr 26, 2008 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Matt Cain a deuce?

Screw this guy!

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Apr 26, 2008 12:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

BP actually doesn't like Cain that much

I think it has to do with his K/BB ratio not being that great.

Only 948 games until the end of Zito's contract

by thehavenot on Apr 26, 2008 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

At this point

At this point Matt Cain is indeed a deuce. And when you’re a deuce behind Tim Lincecum, that’s not too bad.

Entering play tonight (and at present Matt has a shutout) Matt’s ERA over the last year (May through April) is 4.26. On May 6th (two more starts) Tim will celebrate his first year in the majors. His ERA to date is 3.54. In other words, in the last year since Tim came into the league, he has been nearly three-quarters of a run better than Matt.

The reasons to like Matt are that he is a threat to throw a no-hitter each time, given his very low Batting Average on Balls In Play. The reasons not to like him are that he has been highly inconsistent and that he walks too many. Also that he isn’t quite as dominant as one would like an ace to be.

Tim’s only issue is control.

by sharksrog on Apr 28, 2008 9:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cain doesn’t really show any particular BABIP gift. He was at .284 last year, .300 so far this year. Those figures are both around average, I reckon, given the quality of the fielders behind him.

by Evan on Apr 29, 2008 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

this guy is an asshat

I get that we may have outperformed our run differential. Thanks buddy. It might have been relevant to discuss how UNLUCKY (based on his prognosis) we were in one run games last year. Furthermore it may be useful to mention the Dbacks and their negative run differential from a year ago.
Lastly, to not even discuss the beast that is matt cain and the pitcher Sanchez SEEMS to be developing into is crazy. I honestly think that all of those “worst team ever” projections from guys like him were based on a lineup inclusive of all the declining veterans and without regard to our young, deep bullpen.
If the Giants do not have the worst offense ever or do not turn out to be the worst team ever are any of those “writers” going to do a mea culpa? Doubt it.
I like the line in Major League “hey these guys aint so fucking bad”

Someone get Damon Minor's agent on the phone stat!

by fanofvanlandingham on Apr 26, 2008 12:19 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

+1

For a guy who just left a performance of Small Sample Size Theater, Sheehan’s making an awful lot of grandiose statements about this team’s expected offensive and defensive ineptitude. Look, we get it, they’re probably playing above their level at the moment. Last year they played way below their level in one-run games. Things even out—anyone here could tell you that, and we’re not being paid to be baseball “experts.” (Also, we know that Bob Brenly is not the manager of the team.)

Sheehan’s tone is really snide. He’s missing the real story, which is that while Tim the Enchanter is definitely the best player on the team right now, the rest of the team is playing with much more enthusiasm and energy than last year. Who knows why, who knows how long it’ll last. But it’s definitely making a difference with the results.

Eagerly awaiting Crazy Crab Bobblehead Night on 7/18.

by Kitspool on Apr 26, 2008 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1 back

That Bob Brenly comment totally undermines the guy’s credibility to write about the team. As a result, the rest of the article reads like an article written by a guy who has only seen Tim Lincecum’s games, likely not all of them, and made gross generalizations of the team based on them. Not mentioning the fact that he is tied with his teammate for the league lead in strikeouts was a missed layup.
I have been patiently waiting for a feel good story about Lincecum and the Giants pitching staff on ESPN.COM. If Timmy continues to dominate and Cain and Sanchez follow suit, look out for a cool ESPN the Mag piece centered around him but discussing them. That would be cool. I think if the Giants as a team continue to compete the way they have and outperform expectations with a young, fast team centered around fantastic young pitching from the rotation to the bullpen, we may get some fluff pieces from guys claiming “I never thought they would be as bad as everyone else.”

Someone get Damon Minor's agent on the phone stat!

by fanofvanlandingham on Apr 26, 2008 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Harang actually is leading the NL with 37 Ks. Lincecum and Sanchez each have 36. But your larger point holds true.

Eagerly awaiting Crazy Crab Bobblehead Night on 7/18.

by Kitspool on Apr 26, 2008 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I made this same mistake...

However, to be fair, Harang has an extra start on both Sanchez and Lincecum (actually 2 on Timmy, but only because of that weird “relief” appearance in LA).

"I been waitin' a long time for this! I been waitin' since the f**kin' amateurs!" --WILL "THE THRILL" CLARK

by Josh from Hollywood on Apr 26, 2008 1:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I count it as Lincecum and Sanchez in the lead

Harang has 2 more starts than Lincecum, though it’s technically only 1 because Lince had that relief appearance. And that’s just because he’s the #1 starter for the Reds.

by boonitez on Apr 26, 2008 1:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

there’s no accountability with guys like Sheehan. They can say the Giants will be the worst team in baseball all they want, and if they’re eventually proven wrong, they will simply talk about something else they predicted that actually did turn out to be right. It’s not like they’re graded. It’s a much easier job than the one the players and managements that they’re knocking have. Those guys actually have to perform to keep their jobs. Can you imagine BP going to Sheehan at the end of the year and saying, “you’re fired, because all of the predictions you made in pre-season were ridiculously wrong.” Nice job to have.

Brian Sabean's new dad: Firm believer in corporal punishment

by rxmeister on Apr 26, 2008 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

there’s no accountability with guys like Sheehan.

You mean people who predict things? Because that’s just kinda how it works, in sports or politics or business or anything.

If you like things that are funny, perhaps you will enjoy ChatterBalks Dot Com?

by groug on Apr 26, 2008 10:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sheehan doesn't

care about enthusiasm and energy. Not only Sheehan, you’re not going to find any stathead analyst he is going to praise a team for enthusiasm and energy.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Apr 26, 2008 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why should he talk

about the Dbacks pythag last year? Or the Giants pythag last year?

He should indeed talk about Sanchez. But, Cain has hardly been a beast this year. Would you have preferred that he point out Cain’s 77 ERA+, 5.27 ERA and 26 K / 18 BBs?

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Apr 26, 2008 1:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Realistically, Cain has had one bad start, one medoicre start, and two excellent starts. I believe the oft used “Small Sample Size” moniker is supposed to be put into play here.

by tyrannoman on Apr 26, 2008 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Everything at this point of the season

is SSZ. If you’re going to dissect Cain’s performances and claim SSZ and cherry pick, do the same for Sanchez. Discount Sanchez’ good performances and overemphasise his bad performances.

Or a better solution, look at the overall records.

My point is that if Sheehan is going to talk about Cain, it’s not going to be about Cain being a “beast”.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Apr 26, 2008 1:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You’re right. My point was that Cain has more good starts than bad, and early in the season the ERA can shoot out of control due to one bad bouting.

by tyrannoman on Apr 26, 2008 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cain's actually been pretty good...

he just had a couple crap starts that set his stats back.

by boonitez on Apr 26, 2008 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I know, I watched the games

I’ve been beating the sign “Cain to a long term contract” drum for some time.

Nonetheless, a couple crap starts out of 5 totals starts is about half of his starts.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Apr 27, 2008 4:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cain is already signed thorough 2010 with a club option for 2011. Would you extend him past that?

by tyrannoman on Apr 27, 2008 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think it’s less “would you extend him pas that” than “would he want an extension past that.” The only thing a young player gets out of an early extension is guaranteed money in case of injury, but Cain already has that from his first extension. Unless the Giants offer him open-market salary (ie: Zito money) Cain has no motivation to sign another extension.

VAE PVTO DEVS FIO

by Bhaakon on Apr 27, 2008 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The motivation is that he's a pitcher

Yes, he now has guaranteed millions in the bank; including his signing bonus he will have a guranteed $9.7M before taxes.

But a guaranteed $40M / 3, say, ontop of that, would be much nicer.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Apr 28, 2008 5:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes

After 2011, Cain will have collected 6 years of service time. So the contract does not actually give the Giants any more control, than if they did not sign the contract.

I laid out the deal I would offer Cain, about a week or so ago. Basically, I’d offer Cain the contract that the RS gave Beckett in 2006, adjusted for inflation, without the club option tacked on at the end as an additional enticement , added to the end of his current contract. Ie about $35M / 3. If he wants more, I’d go up to about $45M / 3.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Apr 28, 2008 5:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Josh Beckett

Josh Beckett is a better pitcher than Matt Cain. Can you imagine how much money the Giants are likely to have to pay Tim Lincecum? I suggested a year ago - before Tim had thrown a single major league pitch - that they lock him up for a decade. Now it is more likely to be year-by-year thing and far more costly to them.

by sharksrog on Apr 28, 2008 9:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Beckett’s better, but he was closer to free agency when that deal was signed than Cain is now.

If Cain or Lincecum turn down offers that guarantee them $10 or $12 million a season four years from now, they’re insane. Most pitchers, even the very good ones, deteriorate dramatically over that much time.

by Evan on Apr 29, 2008 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes

The Giants HAVE been lucky this season—and unlucky last. What makes you think that Joe Sheehan would deny any part of that? He wouldn’t.

by sharksrog on Apr 28, 2008 9:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I love how everybody says “Take away Lincecum and they’ve sucked” (6-13), but nobody outside of this site ever seems to say “Take away Zito, and they’ve been good” (11-8). I know the run-differential says they’re overachieving, and I’m sure they are, but that doesn’t mean Lincecum - as AMAZING as he’s been - is the only reason. The other starters have to pitch with the same pathetic offense and defense supporting them, no? Nevermind that the team is 4-1 in Sanchez’s starts, or that he’s tied with Lincecum for the league lead in K’s—those stats just ruin the whole point of the article!

"I been waitin' a long time for this! I been waitin' since the f**kin' amateurs!" --WILL "THE THRILL" CLARK

by Josh from Hollywood on Apr 26, 2008 12:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I just wrote Sheehan complaining of that same thing.

Zito starts account for -22 of our -32 run differential.

you can't block the Bocock

by oldjacket on Apr 26, 2008 12:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Great

So Barry accounts for -22 of the Giants’ -32 run differential, you say. That still means they are being outscored by half a run per game in their other 20 games. That would translate to about 73 wins over the full season. Isn’t that wonderful? :)

by sharksrog on Apr 28, 2008 9:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

well

Yes. Considering.

you can't block the Bocock

by oldjacket on Apr 29, 2008 12:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was just thinking that Zito thing.

If you like things that are funny, perhaps you will enjoy ChatterBalks Dot Com?

by groug on Apr 26, 2008 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

and 1-4 when cain pitches..

we are 10-4 when our #3, 4, and 5 starters pitch

by Azmanz on Apr 26, 2008 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

So....

Maybe this says more about our lineup, and less about our pitching? I.e., our lineup predictably sucks against good pitchers, but scores a couple runs against the back end of everyone else’s rotations.

I'm as tall as Mel - why can't I hit 500 home runs?

by Ott on Apr 26, 2008 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

it also says something

about the back end of our rotation being stronger than the back ends of most other organizations

by Viliphied on Apr 26, 2008 3:07 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

well last night

our #4 went against another teams #1.. its not always 1 v 1 or 5 v 5..

by Azmanz on Apr 26, 2008 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

Nobody says "take away Zito and they're good" because it's a lame argument.

It assumes that whoever replaces Zito would actually be a marked improvement. If teams could reliably produce league-average starters out of thin air, MLB wouldn’t average an ERA over 5 from the 4th and 5th spots. Zito may be a disaster, but that hardly means his replacement would do better. OTOH, it’s highly unlikely that any replacement could match Lincecum’s performance.

In short: Drop Lincecum and the team likely suffers, badly. Drop Zito and the team likely sees little or no change.

VAE PVTO DEVS FIO

by Bhaakon on Apr 27, 2008 12:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fair enough.

But I’m not arguing the team would be better without Zito. My point is that people can slant the stats to mean exactly what they want them to, but the team is what it is—you can’t take any one player away and call it something else (as someone else pointed out recently in another thread regarding Hennessey’s stats dragging the team’s down). I see it as a "If your aunt had balls, she be your uncle"-type situation.

Also, I was saying that Sanchez has been nearly as effective as Lincecum (the team is 4-1 in his starts as opposed to 5-0, and he’s been almost equally dominant statistically since the first start of the year, his only loss), yet the author wants to imply their only chance to win is when Lincecum starts.

"I been waitin' a long time for this! I been waitin' since the f**kin' amateurs!" --WILL "THE THRILL" CLARK

by Josh from Hollywood on Apr 27, 2008 2:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

While I'm on the subject...

I was too lazy to look up the stats before, and just assumed Lincecum’s numbers were at least a touch better than Sanchez’s across the board (because of Sanchez’s rough first start), but I was very surprised to see that Sanchez actually has better numbers than Lincecum in WHIP, BAA, H/9, K/9, and BB/9. Small sample size to be sure, but clear evidence Tim hasn’t been a one man gang like Carlton—at least, not yet.

"I been waitin' a long time for this! I been waitin' since the f**kin' amateurs!" --WILL "THE THRILL" CLARK

by Josh from Hollywood on Apr 27, 2008 3:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's SLG

Tim has been so successful because his SLG against is only .299. That’s Pedro Martinez territory. Even though teams have an exceptionally high BABIP against him (indicating some of their hits have been somewhat lucky), Tim has yet to yield a single homer or triple this season—and only five doubles, at least a couple of which have been bloops or squibs.

In his career Tim has yielded only two or three (I’m not positive which) home runs on his off-speed pitches despite throwing nearly 1000 of them. Despite having one of the best fastballs in the majors, Tim can be hit hard if he leaves the fastball up in the zone. But his off-speed stuff is VERY hard to square up.

by sharksrog on Apr 28, 2008 9:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That slugging percentage is pretty fluky, I think. Batters do hit Linceum hard, when they manage to make contact; his line-drive percentage is subpar.(Sanchez is better here too.) But he’s got a a pretty good groundball-rate, which should keep the xbh’s low.

by Evan on Apr 29, 2008 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think (and everyone is glad I don't!)

I don’t think Joe Sheehan was trying to say that the Giants’ only chance to win was when Tim Lincecum starts. I think he was saying the Giants are a poor team and that Tim could possibly become the closest thing to Steve Carlton in 1972 (nearly half his team’s wins) than anyone in recent years.

by sharksrog on Apr 28, 2008 9:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Barry Zito has been horrible, but ...

Barry Zito has been horrible, but the Giants’ problems extend far beyond Barry. The Giants are on pace to score even fewer runs than in 1985, the only season in franchise history in which they have lost 100 games. And this is a bigger-hitting era than 1985 was.

by sharksrog on Apr 28, 2008 9:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

MAN

yesterday just about every big sports news organization put up a story on how terrible the Giants are and how Lincecum is the only saving grace. BP, SI (their top MLB story), ESPN, Sporting News and I’m sure I could find more.

I can’t argue with those VORP numbers but it’s not like there isn’t other great things going on with this team. Fred Lewis is really emerging, Sanchez has looked downright dominant most of the time, and the team speed is truly creating some exciting plays.

I’m tired of reading about how “boring” the Giants are to watch on sites like ESPN. Have they even watched the games?

by fwoty oz on Apr 26, 2008 12:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

“Have they even watched the games?”

The answer to this is they haven’t. They have had these types of stories formulated even before the season started.

Also, to answer my question above, the ‘72 Phillies did not have anything close to Cain or Sanchez in their rotation.

Ken Reynolds ERA+ 84
Bill Champion ERA+ 71
Woodie Fryman ERA+ 82
Jim Nash ERA+ 57

To summarize: This article is complete trash. He wanted to write a “Lincecum v Carlton” article and ignored the fact that the data just wasn’t there to back up his preconception.

by Lars The Wanderer on Apr 26, 2008 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree and disagree

I agree that most media guys haven’t watch the Giants a lot. But I disagree that they have a “Lincecum is the new Steve Carlton” story formulated prior to the season.

The article was not only not COMPLETE trash, I wouldn’t even characterize it as being mostly trashy. I’m surprised you can read an article that boosts the one great player the Giants have and consider it to be complete trash.

After Tim’s last start, he had 40% of their wins and had pitched in fully 50% of their wins on the season. Tim’s first four starts of the season followed a combined 11 straight Giants’ losses. It has been a LONG time since the Giants have had such a stopper.

It bothers me when people criticize others—and don’t have their facts in order while doing so. Especially when they criticize an article highlighting a Giants player in a positive manner.

by sharksrog on Apr 28, 2008 9:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

One tidbit on your comment.

Truely, how “boring” the Giants are depends on who’s watching them. If you’re a Giants fan, weighing out the options between Aurilia and Bowker or Durham and Velez then Bowker and Velez will be the non boring choice. But to a general baseball fan, they would want to watch their own team, or watch the names of Aurilia and Durham that they’ve heard for years.

The Basil Fawlty Moderating Strategy:
"We could run a nice blog here if we didn't have all these members getting in the way."

by WalrusMan on Apr 26, 2008 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

true

but I’d watch any teams in a pitcher’s duel. That’s just fun baseball.

by fwoty oz on Apr 26, 2008 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

As much as I hate close games, I love close games.

by withclubsauce on Apr 26, 2008 7:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

They have modern drugs for your disorder

(Injected into a brat, and brewed into a beer)

by Moggeee on Apr 26, 2008 11:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not boring

The Giants certainly aren’t boring. Few circuses are. :)

But they aren’t very good, either. Freddie Lewis likely isn’t for real. Jonathan Sanchez and Merkin Valdez could be.

The Giants’ bullpen has been good, particularly after the first week or so of the season. Yes, there IS hope—but it is several years down the road IMO. By then the Giants could have the best pitching in baseball and some decent hitting to support it.

Meanwhile it takes Steve Carlton-type arguments for Tim Lincecum to get his props on a team that may have a hard time giving him a lot of wins the next few years. If Tim wins big in the next few years, he almost certainly will have really EARNED them.

by sharksrog on Apr 28, 2008 9:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just wondering

Does anyone here pay attention to BP’s RATE 2?

Proud adoptive parent of Tim Alderson.

by Anticon23 on Apr 26, 2008 12:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Not unless you

can’t find a better metric.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Apr 26, 2008 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I just pay

whatever it says on the pump

by Moggeee on Apr 26, 2008 11:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Very disappointing of BP

This is the epitome of looking at stats (even advanced metrics) and making bold statements without looking below the surface. Or perhaps looking at stats solely to support his preconceived notion.

I realize that everyone loves Lincecum, sabermetricians especially. But the disregard for the rest of the Giants pitching staff is a little aggravating.

Only 948 games until the end of Zito's contract

by thehavenot on Apr 26, 2008 12:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

aggravating, and not truthful. Everyone on this site knows how poorly Zito has pitched, the defense isn’t that bad with Bowker, Velez, Bocock, and Castillo. The point about Lewis emerging is so true. He is rapidly becoming my favorite Giant (non-pitcher division). I think Joe wrote this piece in late Feburary, plugged in the current numbers, and went to press without actually watching a single game.

by tyrannoman on Apr 26, 2008 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just because

the Giants are marketing pitching and D does not mean that te D has been good.

It’s pretty poor. Using defensive efficiency, ie percentage of balls in play converted into outs, the Giants are 27th in MLB, only ahead of the Dodgers, the Rangers and the Pirates.

Using a more sophisticated measure like plus minus, ie where HUMANS watch, yes HUMANS WATCHING ALL THE GAMES, and then comparing teams to the rest of the league, the Giants are already 20 runs BELOW average. The only team in MLB worse are the Pirates, 27 runs below average.

The Giants infield RZR, due to the wonder that is Ray Durham, is 714. Meaning that they have only converted 71% of the plays that is their responsibility. 2nd last are the Pirates, 740. The OF is better, 7th in the NL.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Apr 26, 2008 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Giants defensive efficiency

is 683. That means that 31.7% if balls in play are becoming hits.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Apr 26, 2008 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

typo

I realize that there’s a typo in your first line but I can’t figure out who ted is. :p

Only 948 games until the end of Zito's contract

by thehavenot on Apr 26, 2008 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

the D.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Apr 26, 2008 2:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I got that. I thought the :p would be sufficient to give away the joke...

Only 948 games until the end of Zito's contract

by thehavenot on Apr 26, 2008 2:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry, didn't see the :P

I’m jumping between things.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Apr 26, 2008 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

TeD Bad.

HaveNot Worse.

by Moggeee on Apr 26, 2008 11:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry not 20 runs below average

20 plays below average, which is about 14 runs.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Apr 26, 2008 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Velez is pretty bad at second, and the rest of them (even Bocock) aren’t anything special.

If you like things that are funny, perhaps you will enjoy ChatterBalks Dot Com?

by groug on Apr 26, 2008 10:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not truthful?

The Giants DO have good pitching aside from Tim Lincecum. But they have no everyday stars. Aaron Rowand comes the closest—and perhaps even qualifies, although certainly not as a superstar. The Giants’ defense isn’t great (although it’s certainly not horrible, either), and while Freddie Lewis’s “emergence” is exciting, it is likely transitory. Does anyone here truly believe his BABIP will even APPROACH .413? I would be shocked if Freddie hit even .300 on the season.

By the way, if he can shore up his defense a bit, he can be a good player at about .280. Freddie’s problem is that he isn’t a very good center fielder, and his bat is a center fielder’s bat. Arguably Freddie’s top attribute is drawing walks. His speed is very good, but he’s not a natural base runner or particularly a natural base stealer.

As a center fielder, I think Freddie has a chance to be an acceptable hitter. But his fielding has yet to be acceptable in center. Heck, two years ago he was moved OUT of center field in the MINORS. As a corner outfielder, Freddie doesn’t appear to have nearly enough power. And his high strikeout rate would seem to portends a mediocre-at-best average, as well.

I hope to be completely wrong about Freddie. But most likely I won’t be.

by sharksrog on Apr 28, 2008 9:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

guys...

please don’t post entire stories like this. It’s illegal and it pisses off the author.

Thanks,

kenshin

Flossing a dead horse

by kenshin1 on Apr 26, 2008 1:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Illegal, sure.

But I doubt many of us reading this cares about pissing off Joe Sheehan.

Only 948 games until the end of Zito's contract

by thehavenot on Apr 26, 2008 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's a bad reflection on Grant

who, like every good writer, knows how to steal covertly, and with class.

by Moggeee on Apr 26, 2008 11:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I do

I don’t think anyone should put down an author without understanding the author’s purpose. Joe wasn’t trying to put down the Giants. He was trying to show that Tim Lincecum was special.

by sharksrog on Apr 28, 2008 9:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Joe wasn’t trying to put down the Giants

Sure he was. It’s one of his favorite sports. Which is tiresome, but whatever—lord knows they give him reason enough.

He was trying to show that Tim Lincecum was special.

Yes, but you of all people can recognize how vapid his argument is. Does he tell his readers anything about Lincecum works, about what makes him successful, about why he’s different than everyone else? Does he tell them that they wouldn’t learn from looking at a basic stat sheet?

And a stathead analyst relying on won-loss record (after five starts!) to make his case is fundamentally dishonest. So is going on about how Lincecum is a one-man team while never even mentioning than Jonathan Sanchez has been nearly as good, maybe better.

by Evan on Apr 29, 2008 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ah yeah

Good point. The last thing we want is McCC to be cease and desisted. Or something.

The less trouble the better, anyway.

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Apr 26, 2008 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ehh, I suspect

that the only time Joe Sheehan gets read, is when people illegally post his articles.

He’s a horrible analyst; he’s totally completely unable to see beyond a manichean “new school” vs “old school” view of baseball.

Just look at some of the articles he has written in defence of Jon Daniels, If Jon Daniels were an old school GM, Sheehan would have been calling for his head long ago.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Apr 26, 2008 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

5 Bonus points...

...for using Manichean in a sentence. 10 for using it correctly. 20 for using it correctly in a baseball sentence!

Your 2011 SF Giants: the 2008 Augusta Greenjackets!

by Lyle on Apr 26, 2008 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, that's not so great

I’ve seen the Wizard of Oz, too.

I just didn’t want to show off.

by Moggeee on Apr 26, 2008 11:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No

I don’t think the only time Joe Sheehan gets read is when he is posted illegally. I frequently read him at BP. And I don’t think he is a horrible analyst. You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but if you want to show us that Joe is a “horrible” writer, you will need to bring up more than Jon Daniels. Even Jack Daniels won’t do it. :)

by sharksrog on Apr 28, 2008 9:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're nobody until you've been sued.

"I been waitin' a long time for this! I been waitin' since the f**kin' amateurs!" --WILL "THE THRILL" CLARK

by Josh from Hollywood on Apr 26, 2008 2:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You've nobody until you've been copied.

The Basil Fawlty Moderating Strategy:
"We could run a nice blog here if we didn't have all these members getting in the way."

by WalrusMan on Apr 26, 2008 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Eh..

Grant’s really a nobody unless he gets sued.

The Basil Fawlty Moderating Strategy:
"We could run a nice blog here if we didn't have all these members getting in the way."

by WalrusMan on Apr 26, 2008 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And even then it would still be in doubt.

by Lars The Wanderer on Apr 26, 2008 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The article wasn’t THAT bad, but he’s really letting small sample sizes just confirm what he already thought. The general point that Lincecum is great and the team sucks is fine, but I don’t think we’re looking at a historic situation here.

The author ignores that Cain is pretty damn talented, too, and Sanchez and Lewis are off to promising starts.

And BP has got to start fact checking its articles line by line. It’s a great site that needs better reporting and editing on the little things.

by Dan from NM on Apr 26, 2008 1:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Point Made?

With the late afternoon start for East Coast prime time and with Tim the Enchanter pitching from the sun drenched mound into the shade of home plate, the Manichean setting allowed him to set a Major League record for strikeouts in the first five innings of a game.

by esfads on Apr 26, 2008 9:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's Nothin

The Manichean Lincecum may get a lead role in the Lollipop Guild and get to sing to Dorothy and Toto.

by Moggeee on Apr 26, 2008 11:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Every publication

Every publication could benefit from better editing, but I don’t have a problem with BP.

by sharksrog on Apr 28, 2008 9:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I could see the Giants outperforming their pythag this year, if Valdez, Taschner and Walker continue to dominate in the late innings.

you can't block the Bocock

by oldjacket on Apr 26, 2008 1:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree

Another reason they’re out-performing their pythagorean totals is Brad Hennessey: they bring him only when they’re losing, and the loss quickly turns into a blowout.

by neurofarm on Apr 26, 2008 2:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bingo!

One of the reasons the Diamondbacks so outperformed their Pythagorean record last season was that their short relief was great and their long relief lousy. Hennessey has somewhat singlehandedly provided one side of that equation for the Giants.

Why didn’t the Giants trade Brad last year when his value would have seemingly been high? Did they truly believe he wasn’t overperforming—or did all the other teams realize it too?

by sharksrog on Apr 28, 2008 9:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

A bad premise

with nothing but cherry-picked stats to support it.

67% of the baseball fans in this household think it’s horseshit.

Billy Hayes: Nine more big-league plate appearances than you.

by delorean on Apr 26, 2008 2:34 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

chill

Yes, the article ignored the rest of the staff. No, this does not mean that BP writers “don’t watch games” as some on this thread have implied. I really, really despise the “statheads are nerds who never watch games” line. Its old, stupid, and wrong.

He shoulda talked about Cain and Sanchez but chill out everyone.

Merkin Valdez career SO/9: 10.0

by Poe on Apr 26, 2008 4:29 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Stats

The amazing thing is that statheads usually watch more baseball than the rest of us. Those who think that those who pay attention to stats don’t understand the game—well, don’t understand.

by sharksrog on Apr 28, 2008 9:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Point Made?

by esfads on Apr 26, 2008 9:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Shit hand more like it, riugth guys?!!? guys??

this is not a stat article. it’s a tenuous link between two teams separated by decades and context. he didn’t watch the games in ‘72. and probably hasn’t watched them in ‘08.

this was the last straw. Sheehan is on my don’t read list. not worth my time. not informative. not entertaining. slightly annoying. why bother?

Adopted papa of a bouncing new waiver wire 27 year old. Castillo hits doubles.

by kennv on Apr 26, 2008 10:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The guy's gotta produce something -- his bosses insist

Even if it’s carp, or tripe.

Nature of the business.

by Moggeee on Apr 26, 2008 11:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

doesn’t mean i need to read it.

Adopted papa of a bouncing new waiver wire 27 year old. Castillo hits doubles.

by kennv on Apr 27, 2008 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Your loss

Your loss, Kenn. I don’t always even enjoy reading Joe. But I often learn from him—and certainly others of his ilk.

by sharksrog on Apr 28, 2008 9:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You are smarter than the world

I got smacked down thrice from kenshin for posting this. Copyrighted material and all that, which makes sense to me. I only posted the full thing because I didn’t realize you could post the whole thing on fanshots & nobody would see it.

My bad. I promise not to post anything of importance to Giants fans. Ever.

by da5id on Apr 27, 2008 3:10 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Oh come on

Next time just copy/paste the important parts and summarize the rest. It’s a little extra work on your part, but it could potentially save the website, and Grant, some unnecessary trouble. Don’t take it personally that you’re being told not to do something that you shouldn’t be doing, anyway.

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Apr 27, 2008 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs