Super Early 2009 record predictions
by homerdrew415 on Jan 7, 2009 6:20 PM PST
Email
PrintThere's no way I'm going to get cerebral or mathematical for this post, so with that being said, what's your predictions for the 2009 Gigantes? For this post, let's assume the roster isn't going to change. Put a gun to my head and I'd probably say a record of 80-82. For what it's worth, 80-82 would probably be good enough for 2nd place. So amaze me people.
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.
295 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
With all our gamers, that’s very possible. (Laughs in the background)
Just say NO to free agents, they take your draft picks.
I Have Actually Already Taken A Shot At This At Only Baseball Matters And I Predicted 83 Wins
Here is what I said at OBM.
The Following is based on performance and playing time projections from Bill James as found at Fangraphs and defensive projections from Chone Smith.
2009 Giants Rotation Games Innings FIP FipRuns
Tim Lincecum 34 240 2.86 76
Randy Johnson 28 170 3.51 66
Matt Cain 32 213 3.87 92
Barry Zito 31 197 4.56 100
Jonathan Sanchez 24 132 3.63 53
Pat Misch 13 34 4.19 16
Total 162 986 3.68 403
2009 Giants Bullpen Innings FIP FipRuns
Brian Wilson 63 3.70 26
Bob Howry 63 3.99 28
Jeremy Affeldt 77 4.39 38
Sergio Romo 42 3.84 18
Keiichi Yabu 66 4.07 30
Jack Taschner 41 3.93 18
Alex Hinshaw 45 4.35 22
Billy Sadler 53 4.22 25
Merkin Valdez 22 4.39 11
Total 472 4.12 216
Before the effects of defense is added the above Giants pitching staff gives up 619 Runs in 1458 innings.
Please note that for Romo, Hinshaw and Valdez Marcel Data was used because there was no Bill James Data.
In addition for Valdez his projected innings was reduced from 35 to 22 to make the total innings pitched 9×162=1458.
We will get to the Giants defense last to add (or subtract) their effect on the total runs the Giants allow. But first let’s look at the Giants offense as predicted by Bill James.
2009 Giants Lineup PAs wOBA wRC
Randy Winn 648 .339 73.5
Edgar Renteria 626 .333 68.2
Pablo Sandoval 566 .365 76.6
Bengie Molina 559 .320 54.7
Fred Lewis 559 .342 65.3
Aaron Rowand 639 .341 73.9
Travis Ishikawa 565 .354 71.3
Emmanual Burriss 621 .302 51.6
2009 Giants Bench PAs wOBA wRC
Steve Holm 131 .337 14.5
Kevin Frandsen 230 .316 24.5
Eugenio Velez 261 .324 26.4
Nate Schierholtz 190 .354 23.8
Dave Roberts 314 .308 27.6
Pitchers 341 Zero Zero
Total 6250 NC 652
Please Note that I swaped the PAs Bill James predicted for Travis Ishikawa (190) and Nate Schierholtz (565) since they both have the same projected wOBA (.354) and according to Bruce Bochy Travis Ishikawa is projected to be the Giants starting 1B while Nate Schierholtz is projected to be a backup outfielder. In addition please note that I used Marcel’s PA projections for Kevin Frandsen because they showed him in a reserve role and I went with Burriss as the starter to be conservative since he is projected by Bill James to be worse offensively then the other two potential 2B starters (Frandsen and Velez). I also did this so that the total Giants PAs would be 6250 which is a good estimate for an NL team accross 162 games. Finally note that again to be conservative I assumed the Giants pitchers will be totally useless on offense and contribute a Zero wOBA and thus Zero wRCs in the 341 PAs I projected for them (they had 334 PAs last year and did not contribute Zero).
Before defense is accounted for Bill James projects the 2009 Giants to score 33 more runs then they give up. 652 runs scored while giving up just 619 runs. No let’s see how many runs the Giants defense is projected to save or add to the runs the Giants pitchers are projected to give up independent of defense.
To simplify things I am going to use the RS/150 number for all 8 starters and 1/3 of the RS/150 number (RS/50 if you will) for all 5 bench players. Please note that Kevin Frandsen is the only one of these that does not have a defensive projection but I am going to assume the worst for him and use Valez’s projection.
Starting Player RS/150
Bengie Molina -1
Travis Ishikawa 0
Emmanual Burriss 4
Pablo Sadoval -3
Edgar Renteria -6
Fred Lewis 1
Aaron Rowand 0
Randy Winn 7
Bench Player RS/50
Steve Holm -3
Kevin Frandsen -4
Eugenio Valez -4
Nate Schierholtz 1
Dave Roberts 2
Total -6
Therefore being conservative (and almost exclusively because of most likely incorrectly assuming Kevin Frandsen will be as bad on defense as Eugenio Valez) the Giants Defense above is projected to give up an additionl 6 runs on top what the Giants Pitchers are projected to give up. This increases the runs the Giants are projected to allow in 2009 from 619 to 625.
Net of all this projecting is that Bill James’ Offense and Pitching Projections combined with Chone Smith’s Defensive Projections predict the 2009 Giants will score 652 Runs while giving up 625. This 17 Run advantage should project to an 83 Win season for our beloved Giants. With a little luck they could do better and thus actually compete for the NL West Title.
by giantsrainman on Jan 7, 2009 7:36 PM PST up reply actions
I’m wondering why you used to BJ projections? I think of all the projection systems, they are the least trust worthy.
/is rather fond of BJ projections
We don't really have that much pitching depth. We don't really have that much pitching depth. FOR GOD SAKE, VERUCA, DON'T GO FAKE TRADING JONATHAN SANCHEZ. We don't really have that much pitching depth
Can You Provide Data To Suport This?
I am not aware of any data that says Bill James’ projections are noticabley less accurate then any of the other systems available. My perception is that Bill James has been better at predicting the Giants Offense in the past then the other systems available. I have no data to support this but it is what has seemed to me as an observer to be the case.
This however is not why I used Bill James. I used Bill James because John at OBM had used Marcels from Fangraphs and I wanted to compare what his methodology came up with using Marcels with what my methodology came up with using the other projection system currently found at Fangraphs. I didn’t use ZIPS or Chrone because I did not what to bother to calculate wOBA and wRC which they do not provide.
by giantsrainman on Jan 7, 2009 8:26 PM PST up reply actions
Both ZIPS and Chone Do Not Provide FIP Either
by giantsrainman on Jan 7, 2009 8:39 PM PST up reply actions
You can use the components
and make your own FIP.
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
I Know That But I Didn't Want To Any More Then I Wanted To Calculate wOBA Or wRC
If you want to do this with ZIPS, Chone, or both be my guest.
by giantsrainman on Jan 7, 2009 8:55 PM PST up reply actions
I’m working on trying to put together a pessimistic projection using the least favorable projections from Marcel, CHONE, Oliver, and ZiPS. I hope to get this together by….. spring training. Ha. Between (not) working on grad school applications, (not) taking care of loan stuff, and starting a job on Monday, I don’t know if I’ll be able to. We’ll see.
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
Might I Suggest You Just Use Chone?
He is the only one with defensive projections . If you just use Chone you would be being conservative as Chone seems to be one of ones that thinks the least of the Giants offensively.
by giantsrainman on Jan 7, 2009 9:10 PM PST up reply actions
I’m just going to use CHONES for defense, mainly because I haven’t seen any other ones for defense.
ZiPS actually have been the most pessimistic for most of the players, mostly the ones with either little MLB experience and guys named Dave Roberts.
Though it would be easier to just do a CHONE projection….
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
Wil...
…please inform the audience of the SoCal interpretation for the word chones.
Who has the fun?
Is it always the man with the gun?
- The Stranglers
by victor frankenstein on Jan 8, 2009 8:29 PM PST up reply actions
He’s about 4’11"
Giant Dirtbags: Brian Anderson, Todd Jennings, Steve Hammond, John Bowker
Jeremy Affeldt Ready To Make His Father Proud
by Giant among Angels on Jan 8, 2009 11:17 PM PST up reply actions
Talk about pulling projections out of your ass…
by Lars The Wanderer on Jan 9, 2009 5:41 AM PST up reply actions
Although since you didn’t want to calculate wOBA, I guess you wouldn’t wanna calculate FIP.
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
I don't have data to back it up
But I’ve read that James’s batting and pitching projections don’t match up, and they overrate league offense by a fairly significant margin (and, therefore, overrate all hitters). I didn’t buy his book though, and I’m way too lazy to do any legwork.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
James' Projections...
… tend to be rosy on offensive statistics; however, because James’ projections are rosy on everyone, and W/L projections should be based on a team’s total value above an “average player” or “replacement player,” the fact that James’ projections are rosier than others should matter when projecting overall team value above replacement (i.e., if the level of the ocean rises, every will float higher, but no one will gain substantially on anyone else).
Dave Cameron just posted a good analysis of the various projections systems over on www.fangraphs.com this morning. You can also find CHONE and Bill James projections over there.
by Uncle Charlie on Jan 9, 2009 10:48 AM PST up reply actions
Oops...
… there should be a “not” between should and matter in there: “the fact that James’ projections are rosier than others should NOT matter when projecting overall team value above replacement.”
by Uncle Charlie on Jan 9, 2009 10:54 AM PST up reply actions
There’s some good discussion here on the projection systems
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-projections/#comments
It appears that the Bill James projections are inflated by assuming that the league averages are much higher than they are in reality. Meaning, that players in the system are going to have better lines than in reality.
Yeah, I Saw This.
But he didn’t back it up with any actual data. Seems to me he was making the same gut feel comment many of you have been making. Frankly you have not sold me on this and neither have Dave Cameron. For example there is just no way I find the so called “more accurate” projections for Sandoval or for that matter Randy Winn to be believeable.
by giantsrainman on Jan 9, 2009 11:47 AM PST up reply actions
I Have Now Looked At These Too (Very Interesting!). I Await Bill James Reply To Tom Tango.
One point I found very enlightning was that Bill James’ MLB AVG wOBA might be higher then the others because he includes less players and in particular excluding many of the scrubs that would drive MLB AVG wOBA down.
David Appelman says:
January 9, 2009 at 1:08 pm
I personally don’t think Bill James is giving all his players a .015 bonus to wOBA and it’s really just leaving off the bottom some percent of all players.
by giantsrainman on Jan 9, 2009 12:46 PM PST up reply actions
By The Way
I asked these below but nobody has answered. Does The Hardball Times have their own propiatary (not free) projection system? I can find Marcels data on THT is this what is considered their projection system?
by giantsrainman on Jan 9, 2009 1:03 PM PST up reply actions
THT Projection
Are only available in the The Hardball Times Season Preview book.
..so allow me to present Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain as two sweet, sweet bottles of warming hooch.
From Tango's site
He compared various forecast systems, plus random people from BBTF, in 2003.
He’s also doing it again for the 2009 season, but using more people’s projections.
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
Opps - The Giants Run Advantage Predicted (652-625) Is 27 Not 17 So I Should Have Predicted 84 Wins Not 83
by giantsrainman on Jan 7, 2009 8:32 PM PST up reply actions
Actually
652 + 625 = 1277
652 ÷ 1277 = 0.51057165231010180109631949882537
0.5105… X 162 (games) = 82.7.
That’s 82-83 wins.
..so allow me to present Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain as two sweet, sweet bottles of warming hooch.
Fair Enough
I just estimated that every 10 runs was worth about a win. 27 Run advantage then worth almost three extra wins thus increasing wins from 81 to 84.
by giantsrainman on Jan 8, 2009 11:55 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah
That’s one way to do it, but
RS/(RS+RA) X 162Always made the most sense to me. Though that’s not the formula most sites use…I’m not sure why.
..so allow me to present Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain as two sweet, sweet bottles of warming hooch.
I think it’s because there’s a stronger correlation if you throw in the 1.6 (or whatever) exponent.
GROUGTHINK ALERT
But why?
..so allow me to present Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain as two sweet, sweet bottles of warming hooch.
I mean
If a team scored twice as many runs as it allowed, should we not expect it to win twice as many games as it will lose?
..so allow me to present Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain as two sweet, sweet bottles of warming hooch.
no..
statistically they’d probably win close to all of them..
I only have a signature because I recognize everyone else by their sigs, not their usernames..
Pythagenpat says that GRM’s RS-RA makes the Giants an 83.5 win team.
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
Does not Pythagorean start to get a bit wonky with low scoring 1 run games? Just asking because , well, this should a team with a lot of those.
Ivan Ochoa - Heir to the legacy of Rob Andrews & Rikkert Faneyte!
Here comes Captain Obvious wearing his Atomic Wedgie!
only if there is some repeatable skill
in winning 1 run games.
FIRE BRIAN SABEAN... UNLESS HE KEEPS DRAFTING WELL. .. AND SIGNS UNDERRATED PLAYERS LIKE AFFELDT OR PHELPS. .. OR ALRIGHT WHO'S PLAYING WITH THE ALIEN MIND-SWITCHING RAY?
I.e. Bullpen or infield "d" that is in either extreme from the league mean of that season. Or even the Division mean with unbalanced schedules? Or would you disagree with that?
I would prefer to James’s White Whale (Statically demonstrating if Clutch exists or not) out of it.
Ivan Ochoa - Heir to the legacy of Rob Andrews & Rikkert Faneyte!
Here comes Captain Obvious wearing his Atomic Wedgie!
well, I am being circumspect.
The question is – which is more accurate? The pythogorian W/L or actual W/L? I suppose you could compare year-to-year correlation (or maybe even 1st half/2nd half) across many teams but that would be a little suspect too.
Predicting W/L from RS/RA assumes that these runs are randomly distributed across games (the null hypothesis). So, saying “pythag w/l does not work well for teams that play allot of 1 run games” is ONLY true if the runs are not randomly distributed.
IMHO, runs ARE more ore less randomly distributed over a 162 game season, and there is NO demonstratable, repeatable skill of winning the close one. In fact, it’s never even been demonstrated that having a better than average bullpen or closer results in a systematic overperformance over pythag.
There are lots of reasons to explain why a team might over or underperform their pythags… but it has not (to my knowledge) been demonstrated that an explaination is needed. If it was truely random, then teams would typically over and under perform by chance (i.e., luck)
FIRE BRIAN SABEAN... UNLESS HE KEEPS DRAFTING WELL. .. AND SIGNS UNDERRATED PLAYERS LIKE AFFELDT OR PHELPS. .. OR ALRIGHT WHO'S PLAYING WITH THE ALIEN MIND-SWITCHING RAY?
run distribution
Thanks for the run down. I am not trying to knock the measurement (as you guessed). I am just trying to see if I accurately understand its limits.
Presuming runs are scattered across the games of the season does not mean runs are randomly scattered amongst innings of all games. No? I mean depending on a given team their construction could makes runs more likely at certain times then other times. And if team can be "built" to make something more likely to happen then the inverse also exists.
Ivan Ochoa - Heir to the legacy of Rob Andrews & Rikkert Faneyte!
Here comes Captain Obvious wearing his Atomic Wedgie!
that is a nice theory
but no evidence to back it up. Sure it’s conceivable, heck GMs and coaches might even think it’s possible, but that don’t make it so.
FIRE BRIAN SABEAN... UNLESS HE KEEPS DRAFTING WELL. .. AND SIGNS UNDERRATED PLAYERS LIKE AFFELDT OR PHELPS. .. OR ALRIGHT WHO'S PLAYING WITH THE ALIEN MIND-SWITCHING RAY?
I look at the Pythagorean more as a group measurement. Kind of like figuring where electron cloud is in a given compound. We can know were they should be but it does not mean we know were to exactly find a given electron when. At least I’ve never seen a proof at elevates the Pythagorean Run theory into that kind of a specific measurement. Am I mistaken here?
Ivan Ochoa - Heir to the legacy of Rob Andrews & Rikkert Faneyte!
Here comes Captain Obvious wearing his Atomic Wedgie!
Correct. Runs are not evenly scattered across all innings, though.
We know that relievers, on the whole, are significantly better at preventing runs than starters; relievers notched a 4.09 ERA last season to starters’ 4.46. Wish I could find some inning by inning breakdowns, but, IIRC, run scoring peaks in the first inning, when teams can stack their lineups, and again in the 5/6, when starters tire and/or middle relievers are exposed. I’m not exactly sure how a team could be “built” to override these normal patterns, unless you were planning on something rather extreme (like eliminating the rotation model and essentially making every “start” a bullpen game, or trying a low-minors like tandem rotation where you have two “starters” each throwing 3-4 innings).
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
Nope...
Increasing the Giants record from 81-81 to 84-78 based on a 27-run differential between projected runs scored and projected runs allowed is incorrect. You’ve essentially projected a six-game swing, rather than a three-game swing (which is closer to the 27-run difference you’ve projected).
Anyway, Cookyman has the Pythag formula right… based on your projections, you’re talking about an 82-80 or 83-79 team, not an 84-78 team… Not that it matters much. Even the best projection system is only about 65-70% accurate for hitters and 50% accurate for pitchers. So, while it’s the best we’ve got, it’s very rough. Based on your projections, a record anywhere from 75-87 to 89-73 wouldn’t be all that surprising.
by Uncle Charlie on Jan 9, 2009 10:52 AM PST up reply actions
I Don't Think You Are Correct.
The 10 run rule I am using is used to add wins above replacement level which I have seem as estimated to be anywhere from 47 to 50 wins in a 162 game season. Every 10 runs is shown to be an extra win above this level. I do not see why this would change in reference to average which is obviously 81 wins in a 162 game season.
by giantsrainman on Jan 9, 2009 11:12 AM PST up reply actions
Rainman
You are correct. 10 runs equals one more win, or an extra two games above .500 as Charlie is explaining. So don’t cry Uncle.
The Gaints are going with a 28 man roster in 2009?
Why isn't Sabean held accountable for leading the Giants into many years of mediocrity???
Who knows
I don’t know about the Gaints, but the Giants could use a 53-man roster and not get to 84 wins this year.
Tim Lincecum will win 1 Cy Young, and 11 Tim Lincecums. He's already got his one.
rog makes a great point at the bottom of the thread. FIP runs = earned runs. You forgot to include unearned runs. I know you included defense, but that’s not enough, since defensive numbers are compared to average, and an average defense will still have some unearned runs.
..so allow me to present Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain as two sweet, sweet bottles of warming hooch.
Any defense will have unearned runs
since error totals don’t correlated very well with defensive value.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
Why Would FIP Not Include Unearned Runs?
I thought the whole idea was to adjust to an average defense and an average defense makes errors. If you are correct (and you probably are as I am by no means an expert on FIP) then the Giants allowed 58 unearned runs last year while the Dodgers allowed 57. An NL average team last year allowed 59.5625 unearned runs. This should mean that we should add about 60 runs to the RA number for both the Giants and the Dodgers which would me that the Dodgers would have a -5 Run Differential while the Giants would have a -33 Run Differential. This should project the Dodgers to win 80 games while projecting the Giants to win just 78.
AT LAST! AN NL WEST CHAMP WITH AN UNDER .500 RECORD!
by giantsrainman on Jan 8, 2009 2:25 PM PST up reply actions
The whole division will go 78-84. Too many games to play to decide a champion, so the Giants are awarded the division because Champ Summers was so fuckin’ fresh.
You probably know it as MYANMAR, but it will always be BURMA to me!
78 wins, please Giants, Please prove me wrong
Giant Dirtbags: Brian Anderson, Todd Jennings, Steve Hammond, John Bowker
Jeremy Affeldt Ready To Make His Father Proud
by Giant among Angels on Jan 7, 2009 6:45 PM PST reply actions
76-86
offense is still putrid.
Proud adopted parent of future big league slugger Thomas Neal
by nostocksjustbonds on Jan 7, 2009 6:45 PM PST reply actions
Gimme 80 wins and a couple bottles of Maker’s Mark.
We don't really have that much pitching depth. We don't really have that much pitching depth. FOR GOD SAKE, VERUCA, DON'T GO FAKE TRADING JONATHAN SANCHEZ. We don't really have that much pitching depth
Hmnm, Makers.
/derail
I got a nice bottle of Glenfiddich for Christmas. I don’t know if we have scotch drinkers in the house. I’ve also got a really nice bottle of scotch called ‘The Peat Monster’ which I haven’t had a good excuse to open yet.
If you’re a bourbon fan, Eagle Rare Whiskey is very nice.
love the Scotch and the Bourbon
Is Eagle Rare costly?
We don't really have that much pitching depth. We don't really have that much pitching depth. FOR GOD SAKE, VERUCA, DON'T GO FAKE TRADING JONATHAN SANCHEZ. We don't really have that much pitching depth
I’ve already designated some space in the liqour cabinet for it.
We don't really have that much pitching depth. We don't really have that much pitching depth. FOR GOD SAKE, VERUCA, DON'T GO FAKE TRADING JONATHAN SANCHEZ. We don't really have that much pitching depth
Yes.
Good scotch, that.
We don't really have that much pitching depth. We don't really have that much pitching depth. FOR GOD SAKE, VERUCA, DON'T GO FAKE TRADING JONATHAN SANCHEZ. We don't really have that much pitching depth
I had it in vegas and I developed a taste for it instantly. We should have a scotch and giants game this year somewhere. We can smoke cigars and drink scotch and talk about our investments on the pacific rim colonies.
Ha!
My investments consist of paying off debt.
Who’s your plutocratic-looking avatar?
I’m all about the Giants and Scotch McCoven part idea.
We don't really have that much pitching depth. We don't really have that much pitching depth. FOR GOD SAKE, VERUCA, DON'T GO FAKE TRADING JONATHAN SANCHEZ. We don't really have that much pitching depth
paying off debt you say?
ripping good laugh, old bean.
I say, we should set up a scotch and Giants party this year then.
Ewwww… I hate umpires!
Giant Dirtbags: Brian Anderson, Todd Jennings, Steve Hammond, John Bowker
Jeremy Affeldt Ready To Make His Father Proud
by Giant among Angels on Jan 8, 2009 6:19 PM PST up reply actions
You’re gonna like the Peat Monster. And it lasts a long long time — you can spend two hours just smelling the glass before you even have to take a sip.
Get the hell out the way Bengie, Pablito's hit the show!
more so than
Laphroiag? (10 year – the 15 year is kind of disappointingly smoove)
FIRE BRIAN SABEAN... UNLESS HE KEEPS DRAFTING WELL. .. AND SIGNS UNDERRATED PLAYERS LIKE AFFELDT OR PHELPS. .. OR ALRIGHT WHO'S PLAYING WITH THE ALIEN MIND-SWITCHING RAY?
10 year Laphroig is too much peat, kinda harsh.
We don't really have that much pitching depth. We don't really have that much pitching depth. FOR GOD SAKE, VERUCA, DON'T GO FAKE TRADING JONATHAN SANCHEZ. We don't really have that much pitching depth
no. Go have a glass of milk.
FIRE BRIAN SABEAN... UNLESS HE KEEPS DRAFTING WELL. .. AND SIGNS UNDERRATED PLAYERS LIKE AFFELDT OR PHELPS. .. OR ALRIGHT WHO'S PLAYING WITH THE ALIEN MIND-SWITCHING RAY?
Go stick your face in some decaying vegetable matter
We don't really have that much pitching depth. We don't really have that much pitching depth. FOR GOD SAKE, VERUCA, DON'T GO FAKE TRADING JONATHAN SANCHEZ. We don't really have that much pitching depth
OT to OT: I loved that show.
OT to OT to OT: I went to go see Frank Black play at a run down place in Petaluma when he was touring as Frank Black and the Catholics. I was completely shocked to see a bunch of 11-13 year old kids there. Then the Catholics announced that they were also the warm-up act and, apparently the band responsible for the theme song to Pete and Pete. They launched into it, and the kids and I were delighted.
We don't really have that much pitching depth. We don't really have that much pitching depth. FOR GOD SAKE, VERUCA, DON'T GO FAKE TRADING JONATHAN SANCHEZ. We don't really have that much pitching depth
The Peat Monster sounds very untraditional. I’m still a big Lagavulin 16 fan.
They say some players get out of bed hitting; Pablo Sandoval doesn't wait that long
The naming is a bit sensational—quite unScots-like. After posting I did a little research (no I didnt slam a glass or two—though it is cold here in my office). It seems Compass Box is the producer and run by an American, so that could ’splain it.
Most of the reviews speak to it not being a monster, but really well balanced. I think The Elixer at 16th & Guerrero has it. I’ll have to give it a try next time I’m in.
They say some players get out of bed hitting; Pablo Sandoval doesn't wait that long
I’ve had my eye on Lagavulin, but the price is making me balk. I’ve been going with Glenlivet, although I had a nice Highland Park 12 recently.
Basil Hayden's bourbon. Glen Moray scotch. (Not together, mind you)
I also love the Eagle Rare, Four Roses, and I got a magnificent bottle of special Woodford Reserve sweet mash bourbon, which is magnificent. Pretty much all the premium bourbons are delicious.
I'm adopting a true Giant and an awe-inspring gamer: tk. "Atta babe."
but . . . but . . . but . . .
The Glenlivet trickles down the gullet like a magical rainbow.
Mischievously implosive purple pitching staff.
by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on Jan 9, 2009 12:53 AM PST up reply actions
I’m pretty basic and go for the blends, which seem smoother to me than the single malts. I keep Dewar’s at home and also like Johnnie Walker.
My adopted Giant: "Raptor Jesus" Guzman
I'll tell you what
you can practically walk to Nats stadium from my house. Come over when the Giants are in town in June and I might break out a bottle of the blue (though come to think of it, I’m not a big Scotch drinker in the summertime).
Get the hell out the way Bengie, Pablito's hit the show!
Sounds like a plan. I’ve been meaning to get into DC to check out the new Nats stadium. I think I’ve asked you this before, but have you been yet?
I’ve been a couple of times. It’s nice. It’s no Pac Bell, no Camden Yards, and I’m not sure if there’s another stadium in America that has eyesores on the order of the parking garage outside CF and whatever the hell that industrial yard is behind the home plate side. But that said it’s very walkable, it’s got great sight lines, the cheapest seats in the stadium have a gorgeous view of the Capital building (amusingly the seating in the IF box area is actually priced according to their relationship to the stadium cameras — visibility means $$$ in this town).
The best thing about it — and really this is another DC touch, in the town where power lunches were really created — is the huge outdoor bar and restaurant that sit above the left center field wall. You can (if you get a set) spend the entire game at the bar and have one of the best views in the house, and the restaurant actually comes with it’s own section of seats which really are the best view in the house. It’s great for company outings to the game.
The sad thing is, of course, the housing market’s shut down this year brought a lot of development in the area to a screeching halt, and I worry that by the time the recession is over and things loosen up again, the moment will have passed, the cache of developing near the new stadium will be gone, and the opportunity for revitalizing that part of the city (the way the Verizon Center completely redeveloped what used to be the red-light district) will be lost.
Get the hell out the way Bengie, Pablito's hit the show!
Awesome.
It sounds pretty nice, even if it might be a little on the drab side. I remember seeing the design and thinking it looked nice but a little unremarkable. Isn’t it essentially a huge ‘bowl’ on the lower level? I think I heard that almost half of the seats in the stadium you actually have to go down a flight of stairs to get to.
We should work something out this season when the Giants are in DC, meet up and catch a game. I promise, I’m pretty normal for a person off the internet.
Roger: Hey honey! Some guy I met on the internet’s coming over. That’s ok, isn’t it?
Wife: I am not amused, Roger!
Get the hell out the way Bengie, Pablito's hit the show!
also he's a computer
We don't really have that much pitching depth. We don't really have that much pitching depth. FOR GOD SAKE, VERUCA, DON'T GO FAKE TRADING JONATHAN SANCHEZ. We don't really have that much pitching depth
Hey Roger
We’ll be arriving in DC a week from today for the inauguration. You cracking open any Scotch then?
My adopted Giant: "Raptor Jesus" Guzman
DC is gonna be a madhouse in the coming weeks. You should’ve seen it on election night- the entire city was dancing in the streets and migrating to the White House.
Wall-E for Best Picture 2008
by Useful_Idiot on Jan 9, 2009 12:45 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, I know but it should be fun. We’re staying with my best friend (who lives near the capital) and want to see history. My wife and I worked pretty hard on the campaign, so we’re awfully pleased about how it all played out.
My adopted Giant: "Raptor Jesus" Guzman
It was a great night. On the way back from the white house, some guy parked near the sidewalk, opened his windows and turned the radio up so everyone could hear Obama’s victory speech in Chicago. Naturally I couldn’t hear a word of it, but it was still cool to see.
In response to Roger and his $4000/night proposal, the school is posting police officers outside each dorm to prevent people from renting out their rooms. It’s nuts
Wall-E for Best Picture 2008
by Useful_Idiot on Jan 9, 2009 12:57 PM PST up reply actions
Awesome, another DC Giants fan
I thought I was the only one, although I go to GWU, so I’m not exactly a full time resident. I’ve been meaning to check out the new stadium but unfortunately for me, the Giants are always in DC during the summer months, when I’m not there.
Wall-E for Best Picture 2008
by Useful_Idiot on Jan 9, 2009 12:43 PM PST up reply actions
I think Andy in DC moved back to SF didn’t he?
I probably will crack open some scotch for the inauguration after standing out in the freezing mall from 7:00 a.m. on. Too bad I didn’t know you were coming, I could have offered you our home for a mere $4000 a night like everybody else on the DC Craiglist site has.
Get the hell out the way Bengie, Pablito's hit the show!
We’re good to go with accomodations (best friend lives there) but I’ll take a pour of your Scotch!
My adopted Giant: "Raptor Jesus" Guzman
I qualify as a DC resident
but only in the New Jersey sort of way. I go to George Mason.
Mischievously implosive purple pitching staff.
by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on Jan 9, 2009 10:48 PM PST up reply actions
I didn’t know anybody at George Mason came from further away than Loudon County. Are you breaking their all time “came the furthest to be here today” record by about 2800 miles?
Get the hell out the way Bengie, Pablito's hit the show!
har har
actually my roommate is from Syria. But yeah, I know two other people from CA and the majority of kids live under 2 hours from campus.
Mischievously implosive purple pitching staff.
by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on Jan 10, 2009 3:30 PM PST up reply actions
I went to a Matchbox 20 concert at GMU last year. Your area is friggin’ massive
Wall-E for Best Picture 2008
by Useful_Idiot on Jan 11, 2009 8:10 AM PST up reply actions
Couldn’t say no to the girlfriend. The worst part was that Alanis Morisette opened
Wall-E for Best Picture 2008
by Useful_Idiot on Jan 13, 2009 9:46 AM PST up reply actions
ya
we play ze basketballs perdy gud.
Mischievously implosive purple pitching staff.
by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on Jan 12, 2009 1:52 AM PST up reply actions
I did have some of the best Jack Daniels ever
last weekend. Of course, it was 75 years old.
FIRE BRIAN SABEAN... UNLESS HE KEEPS DRAFTING WELL. .. AND SIGNS UNDERRATED PLAYERS LIKE AFFELDT OR PHELPS. .. OR ALRIGHT WHO'S PLAYING WITH THE ALIEN MIND-SWITCHING RAY?
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and prayed for forgiveness. - Emo Philips
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
EXCEPT FOR THE WEBSITE
(kidding, of course)
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
Before I opened the topic, I said “80-82” in my head.
You are a smart man, homerdrew.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
PABLO SANDOVAL AM STEAL DEATH, DESTROYER OF WORLDS.
Hopefully the program doesn’t descend into chaos
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
PABLO SANDOVAL AM STEAL DEATH, DESTROYER OF WORLDS.
It shouldn’t. They said they wanted a coach who would be around for awhile and he said he would. They said do not interview or we kick you to the curb. He goes to NY and now it at the curb. Bet they hire from within.
Hire somebody who could win a freaking conference championship wouldn’t the the worst idea ever.
Get the hell out the way Bengie, Pablito's hit the show!
BC is doomed to forever just miss out on doing something really cool every season, sorry to say.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
PABLO SANDOVAL AM STEAL DEATH, DESTROYER OF WORLDS.
I has a sad
Sergio Romo will gladly hand you a bench to sit on / GIANTSPACE™ / Adopted brother of the AnVil
by SoFa King Mike on Jan 8, 2009 7:03 AM PST up reply actions
But I was there in ’84 when we did something so much cooler than just win a championship
/goes back into the cave of his mind and dines on a nourishing meal of nostalgia
Get the hell out the way Bengie, Pablito's hit the show!
yeah, me too
getting beat by Harvard is an excellent move
by FluLikeSymptoms on Jan 7, 2009 10:48 PM PST up reply actions
Gee whiz
4 wins? Is Matt Cain going to pitch every game? (we all know how much the Giants hate Cain…)
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
I know we all know this, but I’m still a masochist at heart and need to bring it up:
Zito has won more games than Cain each of the past two years.
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and prayed for forgiveness. - Emo Philips
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
Cain FIrst Joined The Giants In 2005 And They Have Not Had A Winning Season Since
It is looking like it all might be his fault. Perhaps this is why the Giants so clearly hate him.
by giantsrainman on Jan 7, 2009 10:36 PM PST up reply actions
Agreed
Someone should come up with a proposal to trade him
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and prayed for forgiveness. - Emo Philips
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
A very original idea
Giant Dirtbags: Brian Anderson, Todd Jennings, Steve Hammond, John Bowker
Jeremy Affeldt Ready To Make His Father Proud
by Giant among Angels on Jan 7, 2009 10:38 PM PST up reply actions
My Boy Marvin
Another interesting fact. Marvin Benard last played for the Giants in 2003. The Giants have not made the playoffs since 2003. Benard > Cain.
by ThePassionOfTheNeifi on Jan 7, 2009 11:21 PM PST up reply actions
This is why
You should evaluate a pitcher on his win-loss record.
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
He won two by himself
He ran the dingers program before hitting play on Notting Hill
Sergio Romo will gladly hand you a bench to sit on / GIANTSPACE™ / Adopted brother of the AnVil
by SoFa King Mike on Jan 8, 2009 7:06 AM PST up reply actions
hmm
Most recent projections I’ve seen project the Giants at around 83 wins, which sounds reasonable at first. But when I think about it, I’m not ready right now to predict an over-500 season. Actually, about .500 sounds right. Put me down for 81-81.
Less arm, more talk. Raisingcain is a GAMER.
Adopted Giant: Henry Sosa
Am I the only optimistic one about our team?
85 wins. I think if Johnson stays healthy, our rotation and our bullpen would almost compensate for our miserable offense. And also, if you replace Omar and Joe Castle’s offensive numbers this year with Renteria and Pablo, our offense looks miles ahead of last year. That’s two new productive hitters in spaces where there used to be free out slots in the lineup.
I agree.
I’ll go 86 wins and make you look like a pessimist.
There, I said it: 86-76
My adopted Giant: "Raptor Jesus" Guzman
Pessimist.
I say 87 wins! 87, do you hear!
Adoptive father to the All-Father. Does that make me the All-Grandfather?
163-0; there will be a one game playoff between us and the Dbacks and we'll win that too.
I AM THE KING OF OPTIMISM
164-0
You just got trumped.
Catcher are base running. Hitters are offense.
Only [hella] games left until the end of Zito's contract.
Just to be safe
Since one would presume the Giants will play no more than 162 regular season games, I’m going to predict they will go 324 and (minus 162), putting them 162 games over .500.
Just wondering
How will both SF and Arizona win 162 games?
..so allow me to present Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain as two sweet, sweet bottles of warming hooch.
I’d guess 80 wins.
Wait no I predict that the Dodgers, D-Backs, Rockies, and Giants all tie for the NL West title with 76 wins and there has to be a tiebreaker bracket that looks like this (the *s are filler, damn formatting):
Giants************Rockies
|————————-|
D-Backs**********Dodgers
The Giants and Dodgers win their games and meet in a final tiebreaker, where Tim Lincecum throws 9 innings, gives up one run in the ninth, and the GIants respond with back-to-back HRs by Pablo Sandoval and Aaron Rowand to win.
The Giants face the Brewers in the NLDS and lose the series 3-2.
Barry Zito - Mildly half-OK! Sometimes.
fixed
…and the Giants respond with back-to-back HRs by Pablo Sandoval andScott RowandMatt Cain to win.
Sergio Romo will gladly hand you a bench to sit on / GIANTSPACE™ / Adopted brother of the AnVil
by SoFa King Mike on Jan 8, 2009 7:13 AM PST up reply actions
What do you mean?
Matt only hits cleanup
Sergio Romo will gladly hand you a bench to sit on / GIANTSPACE™ / Adopted brother of the AnVil
by SoFa King Mike on Jan 8, 2009 8:44 AM PST up reply actions
Pinch Hitter
for Scott who made a diving catch to end the top of the ninth, and broke his wrist.
The clock doesn't matter in baseball. Time stands still or moves backwards. Theoretically, one game could go on forever. Some seem to.-Herb Caen
My adopted son Matt Downs . Utility Infielder with a Bat !
Aaron Rowand, while trying to avoid losing the tomato from his sandwich, broke his wrist in a dive to save it. Matt Cain informed him of the 3 second rule while at the hospital.
You mean we can haves "seconds" 3 times? It doesn’t change to thirds or fourths?
Ivan Ochoa - Heir to the legacy of Rob Andrews & Rikkert Faneyte!
Here comes Captain Obvious wearing his Atomic Wedgie!
82-80
Mostly because it’s the only value between 76 and 86 wins that hasn’t been picked yet (xanthans prediction of 82.63 rounds to 83 of course) and I wanna be righter than everyone else. I haven’t had enough of the kool aid to predict 87 wins, and though I almost chose 75 I’m not quite that pessimistic/masochistic considering all this optimism and stats for .500 ball. That or I’m giving into grougthink.
by lincypoo i wuv u on Jan 8, 2009 2:05 AM PST reply actions
realistically tho
Im thinking 77-85
by lincypoo i wuv u on Jan 10, 2009 6:30 PM PST up reply actions
I say 80
but it will go up or down by 5 wins depending on what we do at the trade deadline. If we’re behind and sell off pieces like Benji and Randi, or Bobbi Howri, then we’ll only win around 75. If (God forbid) we’re “contenders” and try to upgrade, we might scratch out 85 wins.
Hector Sanchez: really getting tired of playing baseball in foreign countries...
That’s when we sign CC
Sergio Romo will gladly hand you a bench to sit on / GIANTSPACE™ / Adopted brother of the AnVil
by SoFa King Mike on Jan 8, 2009 9:13 AM PST up reply actions
Right now I’ll go 78 wins.
If the Renteria "d" is declining less quickly then I think or his bat recovers quicker or …..
If Frandsen plays and shows he is as healthy as 2007 or …
If Rock Head and resist the urge to play Roberts in front of Nate or …
If Rock Head can rest Molinia more then 1 day a week.
Those are all variables that a few weeks of playing time should answer. If any of them prove well then I’ll bounce my estimate upwards.
Ivan Ochoa - Heir to the legacy of Rob Andrews & Rikkert Faneyte!
Here comes Captain Obvious wearing his Atomic Wedgie!
Pfft!
Chicken-bllep answer. I’m sticking with my 86 win prediction until they lose their 77th game.
My adopted Giant: "Raptor Jesus" Guzman
What kind of namby pambby ( all hail Da Shat) optimist reply is this? Were is the 16-10 210 IP 3.65 ERA for Zito? Now that would impress me with your fearless optimism. Tell you can live in the same poop part of the coup as me.
Ivan Ochoa - Heir to the legacy of Rob Andrews & Rikkert Faneyte!
Here comes Captain Obvious wearing his Atomic Wedgie!
85 wins
I’m bullish on the ought9 G’s.
They say some players get out of bed hitting; Pablo Sandoval doesn't wait that long
80-81
That’s right: I’m predicting at least one rainout won’t be made up by the end of the season.
My plans for 2009: getting married and attending Tim Lincecum Bobblehead Day.
if that’s the record, then the rainout should be madeup because 81 wins takes the division.
Proud adopted parent of future big league slugger Thomas Neal
by nostocksjustbonds on Jan 8, 2009 2:43 PM PST up reply actions
I like 80-82
but I’d prefer to do it without Richie (I don’t think I can take another year of his wife’s CD for sale at the dugout).
Forgot to make a pick with the smart-a** comments above.
With absolutely no calculations involved……/holds card to forehead/…..82-80. I think the G’s target for a successful season will be to finish at .500 or better.
"Just take the ball and throw it where you want to. Throw strikes. Home plate don't move."-Leroy "Satchel" Paige
My adopted son Matt Downs . Utility Infielder with a Bat !
Wow
The guy that made this post :
I agree. I’ll go 86 wins and make you look like a pessimist. There, I said it: 86-76
asks me if I pulled my projection from my butt :-)
"Just take the ball and throw it where you want to. Throw strikes. Home plate don't move."-Leroy "Satchel" Paige
My adopted son Matt Downs . Utility Infielder with a Bat !
To be fair, nvsfg also has a pretty smelly forehead.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Jan 8, 2009 2:51 PM PST up reply actions
Ouch !
"Just take the ball and throw it where you want to. Throw strikes. Home plate don't move."-Leroy "Satchel" Paige
My adopted son Matt Downs . Utility Infielder with a Bat !
The Magnificent NVSFG
Answer: Catch-22
Question: What do the Los Angeles Dodgers do with 100 pop flies?
(an oldie but goodie)
Sergio Romo: striking out professional hitters since 2005.
Lyle....
/hat tip !
"Just take the ball and throw it where you want to. Throw strikes. Home plate don't move."-Leroy "Satchel" Paige
My adopted son Matt Downs . Utility Infielder with a Bat !
Let's Now Take A BillJames/ChoneSmith Look At Those Evil Dodgers
2009 Dodgers Rotation Starts Innings FIP FipRuns
Chad Billingsley 30 193 3.66 78
Hiriki Kuroda 31 192 4.38 93
Clayton Kershaw 22 112 4.03 50
Claudio Vargas 15 82 4.57 42
Eric Stults 14 71 4.48 35
Jason Schmidt 12 63 4.29 30
Who Knows 33 169 4.30 81
2009 Dodgers Bullpen Innings FIP FipRuns
Jonathan Broxton 70 2.63 20
Hong-Chin Huo 69 2.90 22
Cory Wade 61 3.93 27
Romon Troncoso 44 3.81 19
Scott Elbert 28 4.17 13
Who Knows 276 3.99 122
Total 162 1458 3.94 638
Notes:
1 – Data for Kershaw, Vargas, Stults, McDonald, Wade, Troncoso, and Elbert from Marcel (no BillJames Data).
2 – Who Knows under Rotation is the remaining 33 Starts at the Average Innings and FIP of Kershaw, Vargas, Stults, Schmidt, and McDonald.
3 – Who Knows under Bullpen is the remaining 276 Innings at the Average FIP of Wade, Troncoso, and Elbert.
2009 Dodgers Lineup PAs wOBA wRC RS/150
Rafale Furcal 539 .341 62.4 2
Russell Martin 626 .370 86.9 3
Andre Either 601 .377 86.5 0
Matt Kemp 610 .375 87.5 -10
James Loney 599 .348 72.2 1
Casey Blake 381 .337 42.4 -8
Blake DeWitt 416 .324 42.0 5
Juan Pierre 432 .316 40.5 9
2009 Dodgers Bench PAs wOBA wRC RS/50
Danny Ardoin 227 .290 19.0 0
Mark Loretta 277 .327 28.7 -2
Chin-Lung Hu 493 .299 39.6 7
Delwyn Young 275 .329 32.4 -2
Tony Abreu 218 333 26.4 -2
Jason Repko 210 .324 23.8 0
Pitchers 346 Zero Zero Zero
Total 6250 NC 690 3
Notes:
1 – Data for Ardoin, Young, Abreu, and Repko from Marcel (no BillJames Data).
2 – Used Hu’s RS/150 because of the large amount of playing time predicted by Bill James (493 PAs).
Bottom Line Is that the above Data predicted the 2009 Dodgers as currently configured to score 690 runs while giving up 635 (Defense Saves 3 Runs). This is a 55 Run Differential and by my formula of 1 win above .500 by every 10 runs would predict the Dodgers to win 86 to 87 games.
Opps - Left James McDonald's Stats Out Of Details But They Are Included In the Total
Marcel projects McDonald to make 5 Starts, pitch 28 Innings with a 4.20 FIP thus giving up 13 FipRuns.
I also failed to include Schmidt as on of the starters who’s data was included in the average for the ’Who Knows" starter.
by giantsrainman on Jan 8, 2009 1:13 PM PST up reply actions
detour
Is it just me or does Claudio Vargas sound like the perfect name for a bad lounge singer?
Ivan Ochoa - Heir to the legacy of Rob Andrews & Rikkert Faneyte!
Here comes Captain Obvious wearing his Atomic Wedgie!
FIP or RA?
I really like the analysis here, but it is truly likely the Giants will cut their runs allowed from 759 to just 625? I don’t think so. The least number of runs allowed last season in the NL was 648 by the Dodgers. Only four teams yielded fewer than 700 runs.
If the Giants reduced their runs allowed by half a run per game, they would allow 678 runs, which would have ranked them fourth in the NL last year. Wouldn’t that seem something akin to a best-case scenario? It isn’t as if the Giants’ pitching stunk last season.
As for the number of runs scored, 652 seems reasonable — although I would also like to add that it was based on 6250 plate appearances, while the 2008 Giants had only 6145 appearances. If one prorates those 652 runs by 6145 plate appearances divided by 6250 plate appearances, one winds up at 641 runs, or an improvement of one run.
Personally I think it might be reasonable to expect the Giants to score somewhere around 640 runs and to yield something like 690 tallies. That would project out to a record of 76-86. That sounds about right to me, unless the Giants can add another hitter or two.
Is it realistic to expect the Giants to allow 134 fewer runs next season, as the 625-run prediction would indicate? I think it’s possible — but not likely. I would expect a reduction of perhaps half that many.
76-86. I wish it were better, but without more hitting, I’m not at all sure it will be.
Is it likely...
that the Giants will only improve by one run on offense given that they are replacing Jose Castillo with Pablo Sandoval Bowker/Aurilia with Phelps/TI and Vizquel/Bocock/Burriss with Renteria? I don’t know about the numbers, but intuitively that doesn’t seem right to me..
I only have a signature because I recognize everyone else by their sigs, not their usernames..
You're right
But you’re also forgetting something. It is unlikely that Frandsen/Velez/Burriss will be able to match Durham/Velez/Burriss — and Bengie Molina and the entire outfield might have a hard time matching what for all but Aaron Rowand, who might possibly have peaked in 2007, were pretty good seasons compared to expectations.
The Problem Was That You Expectations For Them In 2008 Was Too Low As They Are Again In 2009
by giantsrainman on Jan 8, 2009 11:22 PM PST up reply actions
Cool
Show me which players I am projecting too low. That’s not realistic, of course, so show us how you calculate the extra wins for a team that won 72 games last season and had a Pythagorean record of 68-84. Or perhaps you can show us the details of how a team which scored 640 runs last season while giving up 759 — a gap of 119 runs — will suddenly be able to score more runs that it gives up.
I would like — love, actually — to see the 2009 Giants do that, but from where I sit, that appears rather unlikely. I don’t see anything that would make me think that the Giants would improve their run-scoring by more than 5% (if that), which means that the pitching would need to lower its ERA by more than half a run. Isn’t that a bit of a stretch?
By the way, I believe I predicted between 65 and 67 wins for the Giants last season, settling on 66 games, since it was right in the middle. That was pretty close to their Pythagorean record, which is probably a better indication of how good a team is than their actual record.
This Was Not An Overall Team Comment By Me But Rather In Reference To Molina And The Entire Outfield
I find it unreasonalbe to expect any noticable decline in 2009 performance from any of these players compared to 2008 especially as a group. Winn, Lewis, and Molina did not in my judgement overperform in 2008 they just overperformed your expectations. If any thing Rowand did underperform and I think it is reasonable to expect a bounce back from him.
by giantsrainman on Jan 9, 2009 12:29 PM PST up reply actions
Molina didn’t overperform last year? As a 33-year old catcher, he outperformed his career BA by .015, his career OBP by .012, his career slugging by .030 (in each case posting the second best mark of his career); he outperformed his career OPS+ by 10 and he posted the highest TB count of his career. Overall, you’d have to say that last season was the second best of his career (after 2005), all at an age when most catchers are in serious decline. Why should anybody expect this from a 33-year old catcher?
Get the hell out the way Bengie, Pablito's hit the show!
I would like to respectably disagree
I would like to respectably disagree with you on the Giants’ outfield and catcher likely not declining in 2009.
Bengie Molina had a career year in RBI’s; one he doesn’t seem likely to repeat. Randy Winn had one of his better seasons, and also would seem likely to decline a bit (although not precipitously). Fred Lewis’ .367 BABIP seems unsustainable, meaning a decline from him is far from unlikely. And while Rowand appears to be the most likely to improve, his BABIP was above his career average, making him also an unlikely candidate for improvement and perhaps a candidate to continue to decline.
Having Pablo Sandoval as the backup catcher would help, but the Giants seem to want to go with three catchers — perhaps in part because they know that if they move Pablo behind the plate, they will likely suffer in his regular position.
Nate Schierholtz should provide outfield help and might wind up replacing a traded outfielder or perhaps Lewis if Fred suffers what in essence would be a sophomore slump.
Guess What? Hitters Can And Do Control Their BABIPs!
I think there is way too much sudo science being used in many of these assumptions you are buying into. Tell you what, how about a friendly bet to buy the other a beer or two (or three) at the end of the year. I win if the combined wOBA of Winn, Lewis, Rowand, and Molina increases and you win if it decreases. Doesn’t matter how much it goes up or down. Any amount up or down and we have a winner.
by giantsrainman on Jan 9, 2009 6:04 PM PST up reply actions
There's no doubt that batter can and do control their BABIP
But they do it via their line drive rate. Lewis’s 18.4% LD rate suggests a BABIP around .304, not .367.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
A Major Overstatement And A Buying Into One Of Those Sudo Science Theroies I Refered To.
Speed can convert more ground balls into hits and power can convert more flyballs into hits.
by giantsrainman on Jan 9, 2009 6:38 PM PST up reply actions
Brian Cartwright Of Fangraphs Agrees With Me
by giantsrainman on Jan 9, 2009 6:47 PM PST up reply actions
interesting
But Lewis doesn’t have that much power, and he’d have to be alot faster than I think he is to explain that big of a gap.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
I Guess You Didn't Notice That I Gave The Pitching PAs A Zero wOBA And Thus Zero wRC
For the Giants this was 341 PAs and for the Doders this was 346 PAs which should more then compenstate for what ever discrepencies their are in the actual total PAs either team gets. With this both offensive projections are as I see it being lowballed.
by giantsrainman on Jan 8, 2009 2:08 PM PST up reply actions
I Have Thoght Some More About Your Point WIth Regards To The Giants Only Having 6145 PAs Last Year
The Giants also only pitched 1442 innings last year. If you adjust for these innings (14) on defense as well as these PAs (105) on offense the net effect is very little. 105 less PAs reduces the runs scored by 11 while 14 less innings pitched reduces the runs allowed by 7. The net effect is just 4 runs. Therefore, I fell very comfortable basing these projections on 6250 PAs and 1458 Innings.
by giantsrainman on Jan 10, 2009 7:01 PM PST up reply actions
Usually
Usually the more wins a team has, the more its opponent’s innings batted exceeds its own innings of batting. The better a team is, the more opportunities its opponent has to outscore it.
Now, the other side is that if the Giants actually HIT better, they should HAVE more plate appearances — except to the extent that their plate appearances are limited by leading after 8 1/2 innngs at home.
Having Barry Bonds on the Giants increased their plate appearances by a great deal. When he missed almost the entire season in 2005, the Giants’ plate appearances dropped from 6466 in 2004 to 6077 in 2005. Last season the Giants’ plate appearances dropped from 6213 in 2007 to 6145 in 2008. Barry wasn’t the only difference in either case, of course, but his presence or lack thereof was indeed a large difference.
This is really a good exercise in separating the geeks from the dorks.
Some people are going through elaborate calculations and others are of us totally winging it.
I’m a dork
My adopted Giant: "Raptor Jesus" Guzman
more <a href=“http://icanhascheezburger.com”
STEVE HOLM! refuses to be the odd man out.
by UnleashTheGore on Jan 8, 2009 3:26 PM PST up reply actions
What Difference Would Manny Make?
Bill James projects Manny to have 654 PAs in 2009 with a wOBA of .413 and thus a wRC of 114.1. Chone Smith projects Manny to be worth -15 runs defensively in LF.
For the Giants let us assume that Manny replaces Dave Roberts. Now Dave is only projected to have 314 PAs with a .308 wOBA and thus a wRC of 27.6. So which Giants are going to loss the other 340 PAs Manny is going to get? I am going to assume that all 340 of these PAs come from Fred Lewis. The result of this is that Fred is now projected to have his PAs reduced from 559 to 219 thus having his wRC reduced by 29.7 from 65.3 to 25.6 while maintaining his .342 wOBA.
The net of all this is that Manny is projected to replace 654 Fred Lewis and Dave Roberts PAs that are projected to produced a combined wRC of 57.3 with his 114.1 wRC thus increasing the runs the Giants score by 57 from 652 to 709. On Defense the Giants are projected to lose the 3 runs saved by Fred Lewis and Dave Roberts and loss the 15 runs that Manny gives away all by himself for a Net total defensive loss of 18 runs. Adding in these 18 runs and 60 runs for unearned runs adjustment that seems to be required and the Giants should then be projected to allow 703 runs.
With Manny the Giants are projected to score 6 more runs then they allow while without Manny they are projected to allow 33 more runs then they score. This means that Manny is worth 39 runs or 4 Wins to the Giants. These 4 wins would increase the Giants projected win total from 78 to 82.
Now let’s look at what difference Manny would make to the Dodgers. For the Dodgers let us assume that Manny replaces both Jason Repko’s and Delwyn Young’s combined 485 PAs, 56.2 wRC, and -2 RS. In addition Manny will reduce Juan Pierre’s PAs by 169 from 432 to 263 thus reducing his wRC by 16 from 40.5 to 24.5 and his RS from 9 to 5. All told Manny will replace 654 Young, Repko, and Pierre PAs that produced 72.2 wRC and 2 RS with his 654 PAs that produce 114.1 wRC and -15 RS. Net the Dodgers gain 42 runs on offense increasing their projected total from 690 to 732 while lossing 17 runs on defense increasing their projected total from 695 to 712.
With Manny the Dodgers are projected to score 20 more runs then they allow while without Manny the Dodgers are projected to allow 5 more runs then they score. This means that Manny is worth just 25 runs or 3 wins to the Dodgers. These 3 wins would increase the Dodgers projected win total from 80 to 83.
So the question remains, should the Giants spend $20+/yr for 2+ Years to sign Manny and get this net 7 wins (4 more Giants wins and 3 less Dodgers wins)? If the Giants do so they would then be projected to beat out the Dodgers for the NL West Title by 2 games with 82 wins compared to the Dodgers 80.
I'll be VERY surprised if even gets close to 340 PA's
What with Lewis and Shierholtz being lefties, Winn a switch hitter, and Rowand paid way too much to platoon.
What his methodology on predicting playing time?
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
Both The Playing Time Projections and The Performance Projections Are From Bill James As Found On Fangraphs
When I use another source I indictate so in the notes. Some players were not projected by Bill James and in these cases I used Marcel. In the about “What Difference Would Manny Make?” post I explain all adjustments I am making to playing time. So, I am not really sure what you are asking.
The Giants outfield PAs without Manny are projected by Bill James to be Randy Winn – 648, Aaron Rowand – 639, Fred Lewis – 559, Dave Roberts – 314, Nate Schierholtz – 190. The Giants outfield PAs with Manny are projected by Bill James or in Fred Lewis’ case adjusted by me to be Manny Ramirez – 654, Randy Winn – 648, Aaron Rowand – 639, Fred Lewis – 219, Nate Schierholtz -190 with Dave Roberts traded or released.
by giantsrainman on Jan 8, 2009 6:06 PM PST up reply actions
The "about" Before "What Difference Would Manny Make?" Should Have Been An "above".
In case your confusion has to do with the Dodgers outfield PA’s let me clarify them here. The Dodgers outfield PAs without Manny are projected by Bill James to be Matt Kemp – 610, Andre Either – 601, Juan Pierre – 432, Delwyn Young – 275, Jason Repko – 210. The Dodgers outfield PAs with Manny are projected by Bill James or in Juan Pierre’s case adjusted by me to be Manny Ramirez – 654, Matt Kemp – 610, Andre Either – 601, Juan Pierre – 263 with both Delwyn Young and Jason Repko optioned to AAA.
I hope this clears this up for you.
by giantsrainman on Jan 8, 2009 6:35 PM PST up reply actions
I didn’t realize there were so many available PAs. That means if we get rid of roberts somehow, schierholtz could get 500 PAs? Or am I interpreting this wrong?
Less arm, more talk. Raisingcain is a GAMER.
Adopted Giant: Henry Sosa
Last Year Giants Outfielders Accounted For 2229 Of The Team's 6145 PAs
These projections from Bill James slightly modified by me have the 2009 Giants outfield accounting for 2350 of the Team’s 6250 projected PAs (which is league average). Yes, I am sure this is off a little but I don’t think Bill James is trying to be this percise and I know I am not.
2008 Giants Outfielders PAs were Randy Winn – 667, Aaron Rowand – 611, Fred Lewis – 521, Dave Roberts – 130, Nate Schierholtz – 81, John Bowker – 62 (of 350 total), Eugenio Velez – 49 (of 292 total), Dan Ortmeier – 45 (of 73 total), Brian Horwitz – 42, Rajai Davis – 19, Clay Timpner – 2.
by giantsrainman on Jan 8, 2009 8:05 PM PST up reply actions
I'm asking how James decided on playing time
Because it seems to be rather poorly predicted. Honestly, though, I pretty much ignore PT in player projections (and, to a certain extent, counting stats) simply because it not a particularly useful thing to project (with the exception of injury prone-ness, which is a rather subjective evaluation).
Also, the average MLB team only produced 2114 PA in the outfield last season. James’ projections in your post come out to 2350 PA. Obviously, PH and DH time could explain the discrepancy, but then I think that some OF PA’s will end up going to other players not listed above. For instance, Rajai Davis, Brian Horwitz, John Bowker, and a few others racked up 167 ABs [not PAs] in the outfield last season.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
I have No Idea What James Did To Project Playing Time
But the projections seemed reasonable enough to me that I used them with the sole exception of Kevin Frandsen who I reduced to the lower number projected by Marcel.
by giantsrainman on Jan 8, 2009 8:09 PM PST up reply actions
Conclusion:
Despite many different styles of analysis, most of us think the Giants are basically a .500 team, and a lot of us are giving serious thought to what kind of Whiskey is going to help us get through the 2009 season.
We don't really have that much pitching depth. We don't really have that much pitching depth. FOR GOD SAKE, VERUCA, DON'T GO FAKE TRADING JONATHAN SANCHEZ. We don't really have that much pitching depth
by oldjacket on Jan 9, 2009 9:04 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
May have to spring for the Gentlemen's Jack this year...
STEVE HOLM! refuses to be the odd man out.
by UnleashTheGore on Jan 9, 2009 9:20 AM PST up reply actions
Whisky?
Like a bottle per game and another one after a loss?
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
Here Is Some Data From 100 Runs Of A Simulator That Uses Hardball Times Projections
http://www.replacementlevel.com/index.php/RLYW/direct/extremely_early_projected_standings#When:15:20:00Z
Couple of intersting points and then a question. Point One, look at how bad the projected the Dodgers to be. Point Two, look at how good they project the Rockies to be. Question, the only projections I have ever seen at hardball times are Marcel’s, Do they have a propiatary projection system that is not free or is Marcel their projection system?
I think they have another one.
Also, LA is predicted WITHOUT Manny Ramierez or replacement. I have none idea why colorado got so good.
FIRE BRIAN SABEAN... UNLESS HE KEEPS DRAFTING WELL. .. AND SIGNS UNDERRATED PLAYERS LIKE AFFELDT OR PHELPS. .. OR ALRIGHT WHO'S PLAYING WITH THE ALIEN MIND-SWITCHING RAY?
I have a guess on this Rockies projection
1) they use the chone projections from: http://baseballprojection.com/ (only projects THT talks about)
2) Rockies have above average 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th starters (each getting 84+ IP). That’s some depth! On the flip side, Lincecum, RJ, and Sanchez are projected to pitch 384 innings. Combined.
FIRE BRIAN SABEAN... UNLESS HE KEEPS DRAFTING WELL. .. AND SIGNS UNDERRATED PLAYERS LIKE AFFELDT OR PHELPS. .. OR ALRIGHT WHO'S PLAYING WITH THE ALIEN MIND-SWITCHING RAY?
THT uses it's own proprietary projection system...
Which you unwashed masses may see by ordering their 2009 Preview book. They did e-mail a copy of the projections to all the of us ordained and super-special authors for the different team sections, so I’m assuming that’s how SG got his copy. It’s actually a lot more bullish on the IP for your starters, a total of 491 for those three. 145 for Sanchez, 163 for RJ, and 184 for Lincecum.
The Rockies pitching gets overlooked because our team defense was so bad last season (@ 50 runs/5 wins below average) a lot of our pitchers wound up looking worse in the stats than they really were. It’s essentially the same staff that broke the franchise record for RA (in a good way) in 2007, if not a little better with maturity and better complementary parts (Marquis >—→ Fogg) and since the THT projection didn’t include a defensive adjustment, it’s not too surprising we came out so well. The defense should be better in 2009 with a healthy Tulo and regression to the mean, how much better will be a big part in determining where the team finishes.
Chone And Nothing But Chone Projects Your 2009 San Francisco Giants
PositionPlayers———PlateAppearances———wOBA———wRC———RS/150
RandyWinn—————————623——————-.336———78.2————-(7)
EdgarRenteria————————591——————.335———74.2————(-6)
AaronRowand————————578——————.335———72.9————-(0)
FredLewis—————————-506——————-.335———63.9————-(1)
PabloSandoval———————-504——————-.324———58.5————(-3)
BengieMolina————————484——————-.327———57.5————(-1)
TravisIshikawa———————-480——————-.331———58.8————-(0)
EugenioVelez————————444——————-.313———47.8————(-12)
KevinFrandsen———————-417——————-,334———52.1————-(4)
EmmanualBurriss——————401——————-.308———41.5————(4)
NateSchierholtz———————-360——————.348———-49.1————(4)
DaveRoberts————————-269——————-.319———-30.1————(4)
SteveHolm—————————-249——————-.331———-29.8————(-8)
Pitchers——————————-344——————-ZERO——-ZERO———ZERO
Total————————————6250——————-NC———-714————-(-6)
RunsScored——————————————————————714
Pitchers——————————-Starts—————Innings———FIP———FIPruns
MattCain———————————30——————-189———-3.91————-82
BarryZito———————————30——————-176———-4.88————-95
TimLincecum—————————25——————-154———-3.12————-53
JonathanSanchez———————26——————-120———-4.09————-55
RandyJohnson————————-25——————-110———-4.11————-50
NoahLowry——————————18——————-106———-4.90————-58
PatMisch———————————15———————69———-3.90————-30
JeromyAffeldt—————————————————-79———-3.77————-33
BrianWilson——————————————————65———-3.78————-27
BobHowry———————————————————63———-3.69————-26
BillSadler———————————————————62———-4.26————-29
SergioRomo—————————————————-59———-3.84————-25
JackTaschner—————————————————59———-4.27————-28
AlexHinshaw—————————————————-55———-3.98————-24
OsirisMatos——————————————————54———-4.42————-27
KeiichiYabu——————————————————38———-4.41————-19
Total————————————-162——————1458———4.08————661
UnearnedRunsAdjustment—————————————————————-(60)
DefenseAdjustment—————————————————————————(6)
RunsAllowed———————————————————————————-727
Chone projects the 2009 San Francisco Giants to score 714 Runs while allowing 727 runs. This negative 13 run differential should convert to 80 wins and 82 loses.
Flying on a 727
727 runs sounds about right for the Giants to give up next season, but 714 is the number of homers Babe Ruth hit. And since the Giants likely won’t come within 600 of that total next season, I can’t see how they are at all likely to score 714 runs with their present players.
In order for the Giants to score 714 runs, they likely would need to increase their team OPS by about 50 points, and I just don’t see that as being very likely to happen with their present players. Keep in mind that in 2006 when the Giants had Barry Bonds and Moises Alou, they didn’t exceed 714 runs by a WHOLE lot.
To be honest, I would jump all OVER an 80-82 record with the Giants’ present players. I think the division would need to be even worse than it is likely to be for the Giants to finish within two games of .500 with their present players.
So, Tell Me Then Just Which Bats You Think Chone Over Projected?
Only Schierhlotz with his .348 wOBA is projected above league average (wOBA .332). Winn, Renteria, Rowand, Lewis, Frandsen, Ishikawa, Holm, Molina, and Sandoval are all projected to be right around league average while Roberts, Velez, and Burriss are projected to be below average. Only two of these to my way of thinking appear to be questionable and I think they balance each other out. I think Sandoval is likely to do better and Frandsen is likely to do worse.
If you really don’t have an issue with any of the players that do not balance out then are you saying that you don’t believe wRC as calculated by fangraphs? Surely your whole arguement isn’t based on “not enough homeruns”.
by giantsrainman on Jan 10, 2009 4:14 AM PST up reply actions
Good Grief. The Giants would have 7 position players with around a league average wOBA? I am stunned – in a good way.
Ivan Ochoa - Heir to the legacy of Rob Andrews & Rikkert Faneyte!
Here comes Captain Obvious wearing his Atomic Wedgie!
Yes, but ...
Don’t forget though that the league average wOBA would include pitchers.
I Don't Think This Is The Case
League Average wOBA is used as a baseline to calculate wRAA (runs above average). The average they are trying to get to here is the average of the non pitchers their would be no point in finding out how many runs above average a non pitcher was of an average that included pitchers.
by giantsrainman on Jan 11, 2009 10:35 AM PST up reply actions
All stats that are compared to the league average
Include pitchers, unless they are position adjusted, which is not the case with wOBA.
..so allow me to present Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain as two sweet, sweet bottles of warming hooch.
Then A League Average Position Player Hitter Is Not Really League Average At Hitting?
His hitting is not that of an average position player but rather that of all hitters including pitchers? This makes no sense to me. What is the point of knowing how a positon player’s hitting stacks up with this average. I think you are wrong here.
by giantsrainman on Jan 11, 2009 12:10 PM PST up reply actions
I’m not.
..so allow me to present Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain as two sweet, sweet bottles of warming hooch.
Also
What is the point of knowing how a position player’s hitting stacks up with this average.
Who said that wOBA is only meant to evaluate position players? It’s a hitting stats, and therefore is meant to evaluate hitters. Pitchers also hit.
..so allow me to present Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain as two sweet, sweet bottles of warming hooch.
Yeah, After Reading Somemore On Fangraphs I Have Come To This Conclusion As Well
This however does mean that for the NL position players rated as average hitters by wOBA and wRAA are actually below average position player hitters relative to the average of just their fellow position players.
by giantsrainman on Jan 11, 2009 2:11 PM PST up reply actions
Sure
Another thing to remember is that the league average includes bench players, so an average regular should be an above average hitter. A lineup of 8 league average hitters is, as weird as it sounds, a below average one.
..so allow me to present Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain as two sweet, sweet bottles of warming hooch.
Starter average
Good point about starters. In order to be a good starting-caliber player, a player should hit clearly above average for his position, since the average for his position does include reserves.
That likely means that as fine a player as he is, Pablo Sandoval will never be an average hitter for a starting first baseman.
Positioning
I would presume that a shortstop or catcher who has a league-average wOBA is a pretty good hitter for his position, while most of the other positions — with the likely exception of center field — would require a wOBA anywhere from clearly above average to well above average to be average for the position.
I could easily be wrong here, but I think any methodology that shows the present Giants as likely to score more than 700 runs next season is quite possibly flawed.
By The Way Last Year's Giants Combined For A wRC Of 642 And Actually Scored 640.
Sure looks like at least for the 2008 Giants wRC was right on.
by giantsrainman on Jan 13, 2009 11:40 PM PST up reply actions
More things that I don't understand
There are probably more things that I don’t understand here than that I do. But I do know that the league average OBP of .331 last season included pitchers. And I also know that pitchers contribute offensive runs.
So, yeah, I guess I would say that the runs created by a player are overestimated by the methodology.
It appears to me that players’ run contributions are being estimated based on how they compare to ALL batters rather than how they compare to non-pitchers. As you say, a guy with a .332 wOBA would be a league-average hitter. But the league-average NON-PITCHER should surely have a wOBA ABOVE .332.
As I say, there is more than I DON’T know here (including the actual formula for wOBA) than that I do. But what is it that I’m missing or misinterpreting that causes me to believe the formula OVERESTIMATES runs created?
I guess
I guess what I’m saying is that the average position player should have a wOBA of about 10 points HIGHER than .332 if average wOBA is truly comparable to average OBP for position players.
Then again, last season the Giants’ lineup WITHOUT pitchers would likely have been about equal to an average lineup WITH pitchers. :)
Runs Created
Is an “absolute” stat – it simply estimates how many runs a player, or a team, is worth, without comparing to the league average, bench or replacement level (that’s why one can never have negative RC). While it’s true that a league-average non-pitcher should have a wOBA above .332, it’s simply not relevant in this case.
..so allow me to present Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain as two sweet, sweet bottles of warming hooch.
Perhaps it's not relevant
I see what you mean about the average wOBA for position players not being relevant, but then again I don’t think it is. If the league average is ten points higher, that means the Giants — not including pitchers — are projected to score over 700 runs next season even though few of their players are league-average position hitters. And likely even fewer would be league-average position STARTING hitters.
How is it that a team with no hitters who would rate even as very good and many who would be below average for a starting player for their position are going to even APPROACH the average number of runs scored by NL teams? I think the average NL team scored about 740 runs last season, and I think that number will likely be slightly lower this year.
I don’t know enough about this to point out the flaw, but the result seems unlikely to me, which leads me to believe there is one (or more).
League Average wOBA Is Not The Same As League Average OBA
League Average wOBA is a number that measures overall offensive value on an OBA scale.
by giantsrainman on Jan 11, 2009 10:37 AM PST up reply actions
Yes
And there seems little way the Giants have an average overall offense.
Only Bill James' wRCs Agree. The wRCs From Chone And Marcel Say The Giants Will Score Over 100 Runs.
by giantsrainman on Jan 13, 2009 11:38 PM PST up reply actions
Opps - Typo - Over 700 Runs Not Over 100 Runs
I am sure even you will agree that they will score over 100 runs. :-)
by giantsrainman on Jan 13, 2009 11:41 PM PST up reply actions
I See I Did Mess Up On The Number Of Starts For A Few Of The Starting Pitchers.
Jonathan Sanchez and Randy Johnson should be at 23 (not 26 and 25 respectively) and Pat Misch should be at 13 (not 15). The Innings, FIP and FIPruns though are correct and as projected by Chone and shown on Fangraphs. With these corrections the Starts do actually add up to 162 (without them they added up to 169).
by giantsrainman on Jan 10, 2009 1:32 PM PST up reply actions
Just To Wrap Things All Up, The Monkey With A Defensive Assist From Chone Projects Your 2009 Giants
I have shown you Bill James and Chone Smith now it is time to see what Tom Tango (otherwise known as Marcel the Monkey) has to say with his Marcel Projections.
PositionPlayers———PlateAppearances———wOBA———wRC———RS/150
RandyWinn—————————599——————-.329———70.6————-(7)
EdgarRenteria————————528——————.336———65.4————(-6)
AaronRowand————————574——————.338———72.1————-(0)
FredLewis—————————-478——————-.341———61.3————-(1)
PabloSandoval———————-277——————-.355———38.9————(-3)
BengieMolina————————502——————-.318———58.0————(-1)
TravisIshikawa———————-252——————-.339———31.9————-(0)
EugenioVelez————————347——————-.319———37.3————(-12)
KevinFrandsen———————-230——————-,316———24.5————-(4)
EmmanualBurriss——————337——————-.334———41.2————(4)
NateSchierholtz———————-252——————.346———-33.4————(4)
DaveRoberts————————-309——————-.311———-31.6————(4)
SteveHolm—————————-249——————-.331———-29.8————(-8)
JohnBowker————————-375———————.325———42.9————(-1)
JoshPhelps—————————236——————-.346———31.3————(-1)
BrianBocock————————-246———————.311———25.1————-(1)
RyanRohlinger———————-116———————.313———12.0————(-3)
Pitchers——————-————-343——————-ZERO——-ZERO———ZERO
Total————————————6250——————-NC———-707————(-10)
RunsScored——————————————————————707
Pitchers——————————-Starts—————Innings———FIP———FIPruns
MattCain———————————31——————-189———-3.79————79.6
BarryZito———————————29——————-169———-4.65————-87.3
TimLincecum—————————30——————-187———-3.10-———-64.4
JonathanSanchez———————21——————-128———-4.03————57.3
RandyJohnson————————-26——————-158———-4.11————72.2
NoahLowry——————————13———————76———-4.71————39.8
PatMisch———————————12———————68———-4.50————34.0
JeromyAffeldt—————————————————-71———-4.14————32.7
BrianWilson——————————————————59———-3.98————26.1
BobHowry———————————————————68———-4.49————33.9
BillSadler———————————————————47———-4.75————24.8
SergioRomo—————————————————-42———-3.84————17.9
JackTaschner—————————————————54———-4.41————26.5
AlexHinshaw—————————————————-45———-4.35————21.8
OsirisMatos——————————————————38———-4.30————18.2
KeiichiYabu——————————————————59———-4.33————28.4
Total————————————-162——————1458———4.08————665
UnearnedRunsAdjustment—————————————————————-(60)
DefenseAdjustment————————————————————————-(10)
RunsAllowed———————————————————————————-735
707 Runs Scored Vs 735 Runs Allowed (A -28 Differential) Converts To 78 Wins And 84 Loses.
Bottom line, Bill James’ and Tom Tango’s projection systems see the Giants with 78 wins while Chone Smith’s projection system sees 80 wins. It is actually pretty amazing to me how close these three are.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
