What's your U/O on the 2010 season?
There's some disagreement as to how good the Giants were this year. For evidence, see any discussion about BtB's Power Rankings, which had the Giants in the bottom third of MLB. BtB saw San Francisco as a 76 win team in terms of talent level, while the team actually won 88 games -- that's the largest disagreement between rankings and actual results for any team.
Over at BtB, I recently offered to have an avatar bet on the Giants 2010 win total, suggesting I'd take the under against most numbers. So, my question to you all is, what's your best guess as to how many games the Giants will win in 2010, ignoring any potential huge moves. How good is this team going to be? Thanks for your input.
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 |
107 comments
| Add comment
Comments
Pulling a number from jcb9’s ass….
80-ish wins?
With superstar veteran Jermaine Dye you can knock that down to 78 wins.
by xanthan on Oct 23, 2009 8:40 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It’s difficult to say at this point as I’m sure there are going to be some moves which could boost or reduce the total a bit. If i were to guess at this point I’d probably say around 82 wins. I think we’re a better team than the 76 win team suggested by BtB but not as good as the 88 wins we actually won. 82 wins seems sensible based on the fangraphs WAR values and by looking at the pre-season projections.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
by GiantFan on Oct 23, 2009 8:46 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If we do nothing but re-sign Uribe, keep Sanchez and do a better job of playing the right guys, I’d say 88 again.
I don’t think we were an 88 win team, but think we could be there by platooning Torres/Velez, Garko/Ishikawa, Lewis/Juggernate, playing Posey and getting a full and hopefully healthy season out of Sanchez.
If we re-signed Penny, I’d raise it to 90.
If we signed Holliday, I’d bump it up to 93.
"We're in this thing!" My adopted Giant: "Raptor Jesus" Guzman, "Sweet Jesus" Guzman and Jesus H. Guzman.
by Goofus on Oct 23, 2009 8:52 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Why do you think we should platoon Lewis/Schierholtz? Schierholtz splits (looked at his minor league numbers) don’t seem nearly as extreme as Lewis’ (looked at his career MLB), but Lewis is a much better offensive player – enough so that it’s a wash at best for Nate. If you think Nate is good enough to get PT, I think the best thing to do is play Lewis full-time and play Nate instead of Velez.
by Missing Barry on Oct 23, 2009 9:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough. Od course Bowker might be better to start than any of ’em.
"We're in this thing!" My adopted Giant: "Raptor Jesus" Guzman, "Sweet Jesus" Guzman and Jesus H. Guzman.
by Goofus on Oct 23, 2009 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sigh. Sabean really is an idiot. I personally don’t believe Bowker is good enough to start at the MLB level, but his MLE’s at least give someone a good argument for giving him a shot. The last two years of not making the playoffs have been the perfect time to give our various youngish semi-prospects a chance to sink or swim, but have we done it? No. So we’re still sitting here trying to figure out who’s in/out of the plans and who may/may not be a real MLB player….yet at this point, we should already know that if our GM was competent and actually had a long term plan…
by Missing Barry on Oct 23, 2009 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So you’re saying that we should have been using the last 2 years to evaluate the rising talent from our minor league teams, in order to make better decisions now on what we have and what we need going forward? Hmm. Do you realize that several of our gamers would have received significantly less playing time in such a scenario, thereby undermining the entire Sabean Veteran Philosophy?
"The part of the roster where most of the money is spent, though, is on free agents and guys acquired through trade — guys Sabean did play a big role in acquiring. And they are not good. When you get 2/5 of a pitching rotation for free, you would think you could do better with $76 million than to field the league’s worst offense."
-Taliesin September, 2009
by Lyle on Oct 27, 2009 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
His arms are too short. Seriously. They border on the “what is wrong with this picture?” short.
by E Ticket on Oct 23, 2009 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
True, yet the little kid in me wants to root for a T Rex more than a speedy Mantis!
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 24, 2009 9:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Better than too long.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
by Bhaakon on Oct 24, 2009 9:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know what Lars’ answer will be:
79 80 wins.
This is a little different than the original proposition. Next year’s team will be hard pressed to get the lack of offensive production that we got from RF, SS and 2B that we got last year. We will likely give back some runs on OF defense without Winn. Teh clutchiness and bullpen performances will be tough to repeat, too.
I reckon that Sabean will do what he does best: pay too much for not enough improvement.
O/U at 81.5 wins
Please hit better, Randy Winn.
by oldjacket on Oct 23, 2009 8:52 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I was about to blast whoever posted this for getting way too ahead of themselves…but I guess this is relevant (since I have been taking part in some of these discussions with BtB, after all)….
I think I agree with GiantFan, I think 82 is a fair number based on how things stand right now (assuming we resign Sanchez and make no other big moves). Just curious Sky, what kind of standard deviation did you guys get between your predictions and actual results? Other methods of estimating talent level seem to think the Giants expected record given how they performed this year should have been around .500.
Curious as to a bet like this for next year, health would be a big factor in the bet – if something to happened to Lincecum for instance (please God keep Lincecum safe forever!), our expected record would drop substantially, which is kind of irrelevant to the debate on how accurate BtB was this year (since Lincecum was healthy).
Anyways, back to the original point…yeah I think the Giants talent level is pretty much .500.
by Missing Barry on Oct 23, 2009 8:55 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Soemthing happens to Tim ( or Matt) and we will look a lot like a cross between the ’09 Nationls and ’09 Dbacks.
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 23, 2009 10:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
honestly, maybe like 80 to 82 wins? And if they do what I think they’re going to do this offseason, I might take the under on that. :(
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
"AT LAST I AM A PARENTS." - Buster
by jponry on Oct 23, 2009 9:04 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Bringing Bengie back is worth at least 10 wins, though! It might not ever show up in the boxscore (like really, never), but trust me, you can’t quantify how many wins Bengie brings to the table!
by Missing Barry on Oct 23, 2009 9:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
what’s the nightmare scenario? Dye, Bengie and maybe Hank Blalock to play first base?
Please hit better, Randy Winn.
by oldjacket on Oct 23, 2009 9:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
non-tender Garko and sign Blalock to a 2 year, 16 million deal.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
"AT LAST I AM A PARENTS." - Buster
by jponry on Oct 23, 2009 9:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Garko getting non-tendered would be hilarious.
by xanthan on Oct 23, 2009 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Only if you hate the Giants!
:-(
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
McFAQ for all you newcomers out there.
GET THAT VORP AND WHIP SH!T OUTTA HERE!!!
by baetown415 on Oct 23, 2009 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I love the Giants, but I’m also in it for the laughs.
Please hit better, Randy Winn.
by oldjacket on Oct 23, 2009 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
IT WOULDNT MATTER BECAUSE BARNES WASNT EVEN A VERY GOOD PROSPECT!
by xanthan on Oct 23, 2009 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
when people say things like that, it makes me want to introduce compulsory financial economics education into high schools.
Please hit better, Randy Winn.
by oldjacket on Oct 23, 2009 10:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was just re-reading a BP post on what we could get for an Alderson trade. Bad idea, now I’m pissed off at what Sabes did all over again.
by esseffgeez on Oct 23, 2009 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am a masochist
Can you give me a link?
Merkin Valdez? Manuel Mateo? A rose by any other name...
by rotorueter on Oct 23, 2009 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Premium content but the gist was you should be able to get two good players out of dealing Alderson.
by esseffgeez on Oct 23, 2009 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have a subscription. Can you give me a link?
Merkin Valdez? Manuel Mateo? A rose by any other name...
by rotorueter on Oct 23, 2009 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thx. Though, I can’t say I’d be thrilled with Dunn and Johnson.
Merkin Valdez? Manuel Mateo? A rose by any other name...
by rotorueter on Oct 23, 2009 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We’d have gotten more production out of them this season than we did with Sanchez.
by esseffgeez on Oct 23, 2009 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even if that were true, it doesn’t make them very productive.
Merkin Valdez? Manuel Mateo? A rose by any other name...
by rotorueter on Oct 23, 2009 7:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
NOOO PLEASE NOOO
high school is hard enough
by sfoakbay on Oct 24, 2009 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't worry
As a Giants fan, you’d have a leg up on everyone else. For every question, just ask yourself, “What Would the Giants Do?” Then write down the opposite.
Proud father of Juan Carlos Perez. Think Albert Pujols at a position to be determined.
by marcello on Oct 25, 2009 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That was a fun thread
Proud father of Juan Carlos Perez. Think Albert Pujols at a position to be determined.
by marcello on Oct 23, 2009 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
MARCELLO WUZ RITE
GROUGTHINK ALERT
The first Chester Arthur fanboy ever.
by groug on Oct 23, 2009 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
my nightmare scenario looks something like this
C Molina
1B either what we have now or a more expensive minor upgrade (or downgrade as it were)
2B F Sanchez
SS Renteria
3B Sandoval
LF Velez
CF Rowand
RF Dye
SP Lincecum
SP Cain
SP Zito
SP Sanchez
SP Martinez/Pucetas
similar bench/bullpen to this year
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
"AT LAST I AM A PARENTS." - Buster
by jponry on Oct 23, 2009 9:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
puke
We're all basically Pedro Feliz.
by SF Pete on Oct 23, 2009 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Velez is the starting LF I might quit this team.
by xanthan on Oct 23, 2009 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He’s a cornerstone of the team, bro.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
"AT LAST I AM A PARENTS." - Buster
by jponry on Oct 23, 2009 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
puke.
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 23, 2009 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If I may tweak this a bit, how about Jonathan Sanchez for Jorge Cantu? Making it:
1B Cantu
SP Lincecum
SP Cain
SP Zito
SP Martinez
SP Pucetas
Merkin Valdez? Manuel Mateo? A rose by any other name...
by rotorueter on Oct 23, 2009 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
....
Didn’t we go over this last offseason?
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
McFAQ for all you newcomers out there.
GET THAT VORP AND WHIP SH!T OUTTA HERE!!!
by baetown415 on Oct 23, 2009 11:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If the goal is to try to come up with the doomsday scenario, I think trading one of our pitchers for a mediocre hitter helps achieve that.
Merkin Valdez? Manuel Mateo? A rose by any other name...
by rotorueter on Oct 23, 2009 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whoops
My bad homie
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
McFAQ for all you newcomers out there.
GET THAT VORP AND WHIP SH!T OUTTA HERE!!!
by baetown415 on Oct 23, 2009 3:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If I may tweak this a bit, how about Tim Lincecum for Alex Rios? Making it:
RF Rios
SP Sanchez
SP Cain
SP Zito
SP Martinez
SP Pucetas
by Missing Barry on Oct 23, 2009 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
1B will be Panda and 3B will be Uribe.
You want to see a walk? Then go watch the mailman.
by SeeingStars on Oct 23, 2009 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i could see that as a possibility too, though i’m not sure we could afford Molina, Sanchez, Dye AND Uribe.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
"AT LAST I AM A PARENTS." - Buster
by jponry on Oct 23, 2009 12:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But if Neukom can just stretch his pocketbook a little to bring all those sluggers to the Bay, we’ll be in the Series for sure!
by taliesin on Oct 23, 2009 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This or something very, very close to this is extremely likely. (I agree with the poster who said it will be 1B Sandoval and 3B Uribe.)
Not good.
by taliesin on Oct 23, 2009 12:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
what Bengie brings to the table:
knife, fork, bib
by bobnothing on Oct 23, 2009 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The thought of Bengie in a bib just made me laugh out loud at the office. Awkward…
by Missing Barry on Oct 23, 2009 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Especially if you picture said bib covered in gravy, sauces and spittle
"We're in this thing!" My adopted Giant: "Raptor Jesus" Guzman, "Sweet Jesus" Guzman and Jesus H. Guzman.
by Goofus on Oct 23, 2009 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
78
HA HA HA LOOK AT ME I'M ALL HAPPY AND STUFF NO REALLY CAN WE STOP WITH THE COOKYMAN IS SAD JOKES?
:-) :-) :-)
by Cookyman on Oct 23, 2009 9:29 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
109 109 109 109 109 109109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109 109
Really though, i’m gonna go with 76.
"Snow woulda had it!!!"
Has decided to put all his "In this thing" energy to being in the Shark Tank and the Big House.
by beat_la_25 on Oct 23, 2009 9:30 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I have faith
I say we make it to 88 again.
Why do San Francisco teams insist on having terrible offenses? Frank Gore and Pablo Sandoval can't do it all.
by GiantPain on Oct 23, 2009 10:17 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Somewhere between 79 and 82 wins
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
McFAQ for all you newcomers out there.
GET THAT VORP AND WHIP SH!T OUTTA HERE!!!
by baetown415 on Oct 23, 2009 10:24 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Looks like 79 wins is the base line (again) to me.
As things sit the Giants have no healthy SS or 2nd baseman and I’ll presume a scrub part time veteran Cather to help care take the spot tell Posey is deemed ready to play. I would say the possible upside is much better going into 2010 if for no other reason the team now has 1 legit hart of the order bat and who’s glove doesn’t mandate changing positions yet.
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 23, 2009 10:36 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If they do what I think they'll do
Which is:
1. Let Benji walk
2. Sign Sanchez to a stupid deal something like 4/28
3. Sign a vet like Dye to masquerade as a clean up hitter for something like 2/20
4. Lose their arb cases to Lince, Sanchez and Wilson
5. Complain about how the fan’s expectations of actually improving the ball club are unrealistic
6. Re-sign Uribe to a stupid deal like 3/20
Then we’ll go 78-84 and Sabean will wonder what went wrong, and that he has warped back to 2004 and replaced MAlou, Alfonzo, and Durham with Dye, Uribe and Sanchez. We’re screwed.
Then I think they’ll
by Cody_ransom on Oct 23, 2009 10:46 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Good thing you spelled it Benji, because Bengie don’t walk.
GROUGTHINK ALERT
The first Chester Arthur fanboy ever.
by groug on Oct 23, 2009 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
At this point I can’t project anything other than a vague, there is no way they will be better next year because Sabean is still choosing the players and they overperformed last year.
But it’s possible our hitters will have career years and Buster is god and Sabes will grow a brain in the next week or two.
by positiveuphemism on Oct 23, 2009 10:48 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Note: I predicted 90 wins this year. In part I was just being positive but I really did think they’d be over .500.
by positiveuphemism on Oct 23, 2009 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought they’d be over .500 too, but didn’t really believe it.
"We're in this thing!" My adopted Giant: "Raptor Jesus" Guzman, "Sweet Jesus" Guzman and Jesus H. Guzman.
by Goofus on Oct 23, 2009 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And how they got there was much different than I expected. I thought the offense would be better with Renteria, expected Rowand to bouce back strong and thought Winn would be Winn.
"We're in this thing!" My adopted Giant: "Raptor Jesus" Guzman, "Sweet Jesus" Guzman and Jesus H. Guzman.
by Goofus on Oct 23, 2009 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I saw the BtB article
and it was incredibly painful to read because the author could not for the life him/her(it)self reconcile the Giants’ reality with the haphazardly constructed universe of stats that were used to rank the teams. Rather than admitting that the ranking formula was complete crap (or at the very least, incredibly flawed), they attributed the extra wins to “Luck”.
Luck? Are you kidding me? I can’t really make a good guess at how many wins they’ll pick up next year (because it obviously depends on other teams, injuries, rosters, schedule, travel, weather, and whatever the Raiders Pigeon decides to do after the NFL season), but I will say this:
as long as the BtB ranking formula cannot explain how an extreme Pitching/Defense dynamic wins games, I’ll take the OVER on just about any of their numbers. (and when the OVER wins, you can just call it luck)
by KrazyKrabMeat on Oct 23, 2009 10:52 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
So you think they were an 88 win team?
That was about a 58 win offense.
by Cody_ransom on Oct 23, 2009 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
(lol you just made me check the regular season standings again…)
Yes, I KNOW they were an 88 win team!
The team I watched this year won 88 games.
Whether or not the projections say they should have won less, or more, this team won 88 games.
by KrazyKrabMeat on Oct 23, 2009 7:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whoa, hold up.
These numbers are based on component statistics, which are far more likely to give you real current value and predictive value as well. Just because the Giants outperformed their predicted W-L record DOES NOT mean that was their talent level. If anything, it tells us that we’re likely to regress next year.
The one issue I have with the power rankings are the “league bonuses.” Aside from that, it’s done pretty much the way it should be.
by Anticon23 on Oct 23, 2009 11:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You could probably work on your tone if you want people to take you seriously, but I do think your bolded point is fair. I’m not sure the extreme’s of the Giants run prevention/run scoring fit BtB’s model very well…
by Missing Barry on Oct 23, 2009 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Saying the Giants are worse than the Royals is dickish no matter how many metrics justify it, and merits an impolite tone at least.
"he walked 18; new league record! Struck out 18, another new league record! He also hit the sportswriter, the PA announcer, the bull mascot twice..."
by i did my job on Oct 23, 2009 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, the whole Royals vs. Giants thing is largely based on the league adjustment. Their formula actually predicts the Giants to have a much higher winning % than the Royals if the season were played, on average; they just have the Royals ahead of the Giants in some makeshift makebelieve world where every team plays every other team an equal number of times, because their league adjustment is big.
by Missing Barry on Oct 23, 2009 12:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Doh… I didn’t mean to be (too much of) a schmuck about it. Sorry about that.
I just think that it’s chicken schiza, not to mention fallacious, to claim some stats as evidence when it supports a hypothesis, and then turn around and dismiss the same stats when it doesn’t.
Even the author admitted the deviation was off the chart… and rather than questioning the model (the one that he/she/(it) practically congratulate themselves on), the author shrugs shoulders and offers it as “Luck”.
That’s bullshit, but I do acknowledge that it’s the same kind of bullshit that a “one-size-fits-all” cap is not likely to fit Bochy’s head… which is fine, as long as Bochy’s head’s largess isn’t attributed to “Luck”… Someone has to break down, stop using the numbers as a crutch, and admit that the hat they designed is at best “one-size-probably-fits-MOST”.
by KrazyKrabMeat on Oct 23, 2009 6:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
“luck” isn’t a satisfying explanation, but plain random variation is going to create extreme outliers on occasion. Unless a pattern emerges around those outliers, or they appear in inexplicably large numbers, the occurrence of the occassional odd data point doesn’t necessarily disprove the evaluation. I’m not saying that the BtB ranking are gospel, but you’d need alot more than just the Giants’ funky 2009 season to refute them.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
by Bhaakon on Oct 24, 2009 9:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
One of my problems with this whole thing is BtB’s side hasn’t really taken the approach of questioning the fact that maybe something’s wrong with their model. They really haven’t even analyzed what caused the variations in any sort of detail whatsoever. Yet they’re very strong in their defense of the model. Kind of along KrazyKrab’s point, it seems like the least they can do is try to figure out where the discrepancies are coming from, instead of just throwing possible luck/chance out there as the explanation…
by Missing Barry on Oct 25, 2009 7:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe it’s because 90% of the posts about their model was of the “this model is shit” or “LOL THE AMERCIAN ISN’T BETTER” variety, and only 10% was actual constructive criticism. Maybe that’s too harsh. But still, from BtB’s point of view, most of what they saw was just fans being angry about their team being ranked poorly, which can be hard to take seriously. Think about it – when a Yankee fan gets pissed when you tell him that Jeter isn’t a better player than Rodriguez, do you stop to think if he has a point? Or do you just dismiss it as some fan being butt-hurt because you insulted his favorite player? Most people would go with the second option.
Also, here’s what you have to remember: we’re Giants fans, and we mostly care about the Giants’ ranking. So we hear about a new model, and we check it out, and we see that it claims the Giants’s offense got lucky by 45 runs, and that sounds absurd, because the odds of a team getting lucky by that much must be tiny. But that’s not how it works – the model wasn’t made for the Giants, it was made for 30 teams, and of those, only one supposedly got lucky by 45 runs. So it’s not the odds of a specific team getting 45 lucky runs, but rather the odds that, of 30 teams, at least one got lucky by 45 runs. And the odds of that are considerably higher. So, again, from our perspective it looks weird, but for someone who looks at the big picture, it doesn’t look too crazy – most teams were ranked about where you’d expect, with a few exceptions. That kinda makes sense.
BUT, I would like them them explain why their results are different from Fangraph’s WAR, like you pointed out, when, as far as I can tell, the two methods are extremely similar.
Also, I wanted to mention this before but forgot – a possible explanation for how we got lucky with the runs: someone made a FanPost a couple of weeks ago showing that the Giants had the highest percentage of unearned runs in the majors. Maybe we enjoyed a ton of crucial errors and wild pitches? It definitely sounds right – I remember that at one point during the season I felt (maybe even commented) like we had won something like 10 of our last 20 games because the other team screwed up. So, there’s that.
HA HA HA LOOK AT ME I'M ALL HAPPY AND STUFF NO REALLY CAN WE STOP WITH THE COOKYMAN IS SAD JOKES?
:-) :-) :-)
by Cookyman on Oct 26, 2009 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And it’s true to a point, though I think there has been some reasonable discussion over at their site at least, if not here, and I’m still wanting more in terms of explanation. I also think just in terms of their own methods they should be evaluating their model to see if they can improve upon it, and examining the Giants and figuring out the differences is only natural in that process, which is a process I think they should be doing regardless. Other than that I do agree with most of your post, though, so I don’t really have anything else to say…
by Missing Barry on Oct 26, 2009 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOL PREMATURE
Brian Sabean strongly encourages you to disregard the drudgery of your employment responsibilities and join him in the consumption of spirituous libations.
by satyricrash on Oct 23, 2009 11:18 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
TWSS
You can't solve your problems with the same level of thinking that created the problems - Albert Einstein to Brian Sabean
by bgunn on Oct 24, 2009 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
as of now
78 wins
Adopted brother of Jason Jarvis.
by j14 on Oct 23, 2009 11:36 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
84.
GROUGTHINK ALERT
The first Chester Arthur fanboy ever.
by groug on Oct 23, 2009 11:39 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
why don’t we predict the 2011 season record while we’re at it? In fact let’s make predictions all the way until the next century. C’mon, you can’t make predictions for next year before the team (and it’s opponents) make their offseason moves.
No Edgar, it's not your fault, it's the fault of the idiot that plays you
by rxmeister on Oct 23, 2009 11:53 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
These predictions are really just an extension of previous conversations, though, taking place at both McC and BtB…
by Missing Barry on Oct 23, 2009 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
82.5
I appear to be in the range of the majority. They were an 82-win team this year. With Sabean in charge I don’t expect any significant improvements to the offense, other than Sanchez at 2B, and the pitching will probably be a little worse than it was this season, so I expect them to be just about as “good” — slightly better on offense, slightly worse pitching/defense.
by taliesin on Oct 23, 2009 1:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
81? OK…. 81.694? NO WAY! You are just talkin’ crazy now.
Giant Dirtbags: John Bowker, Steve Hammond. MIA List: Todd Jennings, Brian Anderson
Jeremy Affeldt induces DP's
by Giant among Angels on Oct 23, 2009 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know, crazy, right? I was just going to post 81.695. Xei is just way too biased.
Adopted Giant: Henry Sosa
by raisingcain on Oct 23, 2009 8:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Worst team in baseball, imo
WHY IS BOCOCK?!
by Lars The Wanderer on Oct 23, 2009 3:11 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
And only marginally better than the 1899 Cleveland Spiders
20 W 134 L Runs Scored 534 Runs Against 1253
Seems they had a starting rotation of Barrymore von Zito, Clankwood Zeeto, Three-Thumbs, Zieto, and Matt Morris.
by E Ticket on Oct 23, 2009 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Way Too Early
83.14159265358979323846264338327950288
For Lars. Think about it
My adopted son Matt Downs . Ranked as the 24th best prospect in the Giants farm system by Baseball America !!
by nvsfg on Oct 23, 2009 6:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Way too early to call becasue we have too many "ifs"
Two years ago I would have bet O on the OU at Vegas… and I would have done so last year, too… but I don’t gamble AND 88 wins in 2009 exceeded my optimism. Can we do it again? Or better it?
I think starting pitching will be as good and I’m confident we’ll fill the bullpen holes. BUT… will Ishikawa learn to layoff the “down-n-’in”? Will he ever hit away from AT&T as well as he does at home? Will Aaron layoff the “down-n-out”? Will we bite the bullet with Renteria and play someone else? Will Uribe revert to the norm? (Let’s hope Garko does!) Will Posey fulfill his potential? Will Franchez come back? And so on.
I’m not as down on some guys as many folks are…e.g., I think Franchez still could turn out well and there’s room for Molina IMO… AND I don’t think we need an overhaul as long as the younger guys come through… but that’s too many “ifs” to be laying money down this early.
by karl m on Oct 24, 2009 12:02 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
/ tips hat
I admire, and slightly envy, your optimism. Good for you.
If they re-sign Molinia he will hit #4 the bulk of next year. We will be lucky to reach 500 in that case.
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 24, 2009 9:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure how people figure Bowker will not be any good.
He improved his minor league numbers dramatically. Also there have been plenty of good short armed hitters in the majors. He has some power and demonstrated his ability to take a walk. But he does seem like a guy who needs to play almost everyday as opposed to a guy who can rip it up right off the bench. The outfield should have Bowker in it.
by bradleybear on Oct 24, 2009 3:32 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Because he’ll never be given a reasonable opportunity to succeed with the Giants under the current regime, therefore, he will never be good.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
by Bhaakon on Oct 24, 2009 9:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Generally because fringy prospects have to do something to prove themselves. In every chance at the MLB level, Bowker has done the opposite – give us proof he doesn’t belong. You definitely have a point with his minor league numbers, if those were the rationale for giving him a half a season or more long shot at sticking I wouldn’t argue against it – his MLE’s from Fresno this year were a nice .286/.380/.476, after all, and he did dramatically increase his BB% while lowering his K% (which was his biggest problem)….so yeah, like I said, you have a point. MLE’s have a lot of room for error, though, and from what I’ve seen from Bowker at the MLB level, I’m just skeptical.
by Missing Barry on Oct 25, 2009 7:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and he did dramatically increase his BB% while lowering his K% (which was his biggest problem)
That, and only that, is why I still believe in Bowker. If he hit .330/.350/.550 with a 25/100 BB/K ratio, I’d think, great, a Schierholtz clone with more power. But his monster year came as a result of an improved approach. That’s just awesome.
And yet Velez/Torres is the favorite to start in a corner. Vrrrrroooom! VELEZ HAS IMPROVED SO, SO, SO MUCH, GUYS.
by Grant on Oct 25, 2009 10:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s just sad that Velez’s “hot stretch” in August is the root of all this, and in August he hit .273/.307/.405. I guess maybe you could throw in the .500/.571/.778 over 21 PA’s in July with that, but you get the point. Even when he was “hot”, he just wasn’t very good! I fear a “hot” stretch like that in spring training will mean 300+ PA’s for Velez before Sabean finally decides he sucks…
Like I said, I’m skeptical of Bowker, but I’d rather see Bowker than Velez in a corner. And I’m still assuming Fred Lewis is starting in the other corner, and refuse to believe anything differently until the season starts and a month goes by with no Fred Lewis starts. Even if he’s traded I’m going to pretend he’s still slated to start…
(I’m in denial)
by Missing Barry on Oct 26, 2009 7:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Put me down for 82 wins, subject to change when I’ve learned more about this off-season’s mistakes.
I’m not looking forward to this winter at all.
Brian Sabean figures that if he buys enough bottles, one of them is bound to have lightning in it.
by jasomack on Oct 26, 2009 12:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
O.T.
I’m not looking forward to this winter at all.
I am in this boat. The off season is kind of like 2 months of Xmass for me. I wait to see what types of gambles are the A’s taking with their limited recourse? What wackiness comes from the Bums? Which personally is in control the Braves front office now? Do the DBacks stay the course or do they start trading off some of their young MLB talent to get quality farmhands? Is this a year The Fish think they suspend their used car lot operations and go for a ring? Add to each winters particular acts and I usually am quite pleased for thetime I get sit down and read up on baseball items. This Winter I feel mostly dread because of my main team.
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 26, 2009 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 

















