The quest for a league average offense - How small changes can have a large effect
by GiantFan on Oct 8, 2009 4:01 AM PDT
173 comments
As this site has seemed a little downbeat recently i thought I'd introduce a fanpost to remind people that whilst our offense is awful, there is hope for change. Firstly, it's easy to forget at a specific moment in time but things change very quickly in baseball. For example, there's a good chance that only one of the starters on opening day last year (Rowand) will be back on our team next year. So, whilst our offense is poor now there's no guarantee it will be that way forever (cue snarky Sabean comment).
Before i get on to the main part of this post, a disclaimer. This is NOT in any way a projection of what will happen, it is merely a demonstration of how changing around a poor offense isn't a lost cause. As a point of reference the Giants scored 657 runs last season, with the average in the NL being 718. That means, we needed to have scored another 61 runs in order for us to have been league average on offense. The calculations below use the offensive runs above average from Fangraphs and are only very rough & approximate. Below is a number of hypothetical changes to the roster and the effect they would have had on the offense last season.
The "Big Bats"
- Prince Fielder / Adrian Gonzalez. I've seen reference a few times to the fact that we're not one bat away from a competent offense and I'd like to point out that that's not necessarily true. Fielder and Gonzalez were last season around 75 runs better on offense than our Ishikawa/Aurilia/Garko combination. So adding one "big bat" could very easily have the effect of bringing our offense up to standard. Of course players of that caliber are almost impossible to acquire, but we're talking in hypotheticals here. Difference: 75 runs.
- Matt Holliday / Jason Bay. These are obviously possible targets as they're available in free agency this year. Holliday / Bay were pretty close offensively last season and would have been approximately 50 runs better offensively than Winn was last year. That wouldn't have been enough to bring us up to league average but it would have gone a long way. Difference: 50 runs.
See what effect younger players (Bowker/Posey) could have had as well as the effect our trade targets (Sanchez/Garko) could have had after the jump.
The Young Guns
- John Bowker. It's difficult to determine the effect Bowker would have had on the lineup as he spent most of the year in the minors, but I'm going to use his Fresno MLE (which corresponds to an OPS of 842). There's no guarantee he would have performed like that in the majors but it's an interesting test. Doing a very rough calculation (i'm not sure where you can find MLE wOBA's) Bowker comes out at around 30 runs better offensively than Winn if he'd had the same amount of at-bats. Difference: 30 runs.
- Buster Posey. This one is even harder as he played at multiple levels, but i'm going to use his Fresno MLE (which corresponds to an OPS of 761). Again there's no guarantees that he's have performed that way, especially due to SSS but it's an interesting question nonetheless. A rough calculation says that corresponds to around 15 runs better than Molina over the same amount of at-bats. Difference: 15 runs.
The New Acquisitions
- Freddy Sanchez. I've seen mention a few times that Sanchez wasn't that big an upgrade (and he obviously wasn't due to injury, etc) but if we'd had Sanchez all year (including, injuries, poor performance and all) we'd have been much better. Taking Sanchez's performance over the whole year (including any missed time) he would have been an upgrade of approaching 20 runs offensively over the Burriss, Downs, Sanchez, Uribe combination. Obviously Sanchez cost a lot to obtain and this isn't a discussion about the trade and it's validity merely a demonstration of relative performances. Difference: 20 runs.
- Ryan Garko. Again, Garko's often been said to be of negligible value as he's a platoon player but he would have had a decent effect on our offense last season. I'm going to ignore at-bats against RHP and deal solely on this potential upgrade against LHP. If Garko had hit his career average against LHP (and OPS of 887) then he'd have been worth roughly (depending on the number of at-bats) 15 runs better than the Garko/Aurilia combination we had last season. Difference: 15 runs.
Defense
This discussion was mainly just meant as an illustration of the possibilities of offensive changes, but it's probably worth mentioning defense as an aside.
- Prince Fielder / Adrian Gonzalez. Adding in defensive contributions decreases their total value by around 10 runs to around 65 runs total.
- Matt Holliday / Jason Bay. Adding in defensive contributions brings Holliday's value down around 10 runs to around 40 runs total. Adding in defensive contributions brings Bay's value down around 30 runs to around 20 runs total.
- John Bowker. Using a single season of UZR is too small in of itself, but Bowker's UZR is too small a sample size. Taking him to be roughly league average brings his value down 15-20 runs to 12 runs total.
- Buster Posey. Measuring catchers defense is a tricky subject so I'll make no adjustment.
- Freddy Sanchez. Adding in defense his value goes up by around 5 runs to 25 runs total.
- Ryan Garko. Adding in defense his value goes down a couple of runs so his total value stays around the same.
Conclusions
One interesting result from these calculations is that if you ignore any of the possible big bats and just add up the effect of the smaller changes you get a offensive increase of around 80 runs which would have made us a better than average offense. Now I'm not claiming that we would have scored that many more runs if we'd made those changes at the start of the year. And I'm not claiming that making those changes next season will make us a better than average offense. It's merely a demonstration that it's amazing how such seemingly small changes can have such a major effect on the offense.
And that's the general point that i'm making with this post. It's not meant to be rose-tinted projection of what will happen (or would have happened) there's lot of other things to consider (such as variation in individual performance, variations in the total runs the team scores, defensive implications, etc) and a negative set of conditions could be outlined in the same way. It's just a positive post to demonstrate that we look towards the ridge of offensive competence, that the size of the task isn't what it seems from down here in the gaping chasm of our offensive futility.
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.
4 recs |
173 comments
Email
Print
Comments
And yet, somehow, I prefer the gaping chasm.
"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 8, 2009 7:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I generally agree
Except I’m still puzzled as to how AGon’s defense lowers his value. My wife is a Padres fan, so I watch a lot of their games, and the guy seems to be pretty money with the glove.
"The BB's are out. The BB's are being arseholes to me." - Brian Wilson.
by hairball on Oct 8, 2009 9:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Same goes for Holliday. He is generally recognized as a plus defender in LF.
Why isn't Sabean held accountable for leading the Giants into many years of mediocrity???
by oldrips on Oct 8, 2009 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, according to the Fielding Bible II
A-Gon was a -5 runs in 2007 and -4 runs in 2008. Perhaps he’s money with the glove but his range is lacking? He ranked 27 in 2007 and 26 in 2008.
Holliday, on the other hand, was +2 in 2007 and +5 in 2008, 13th and 5th, so he’s about average to above average there, defensively, it seems. He was a -7 runs in 2006, though (32nd) but +7 in 2005 (6th), so he has been above average at times, but needs to focus on it, apparently.
Neukom: sign up Sabean for another two years!
Adoptive parental unit of Ehire Adrianza.
Godfather of Travis Ishikawa.
by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Oct 8, 2009 3:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I could be way off as this is coming straight from my nether-regions, but my view is that outfielders don’t get enough chances in a single season for +/- or UZR or whatever to tell you much of anything, at least anything more than “close to average,” “better than average,” or “worse than average.”
Shortstops get a ton of non-routine chances, so I tend to trust a single season’s worth of stats for them a bit more.
by taliesin on Oct 8, 2009 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
First Basemen
Don’t get enough chances either. You’re looking at around 300 chances over a full season for a first baseman and about 350 for corner outfielders as compared to 500+ for middle infielders. So you’ll probably see a bit more fluctuation in terms of a first baseman’s “defense” on a single-season basis according to Plus/Minus or UZR.
That, and no system rates a first baseman’s “Scooping” ability, which would add about +/- 4 or 5 runs to the player’s defensive value. So guys like Casey Kotchman and Todd Helton are getting slightly underrated.
by Anticon23 on Oct 8, 2009 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought UZR did “scoops”? I also thought that “scoops” didn’t add much back to player’s value? I remember reading a MGL post on the topic. If I can find it, I’ll link it.
by xanthan on Oct 8, 2009 7:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Unfortunately, UZR doesn’t handle “scoops”- in fact, no system does (Context-Adjusted Defense tried, but I don’t consider it reliable). BIS’ “Good Plays/Defensive Misplays” statistics carry the ingredients to quantify a first baseman’s ability to handle poor throws, but it’s a purely subjective measurement. Tango suggested a zone rating type of system for first basemen around the bag. That sounds ideal to me.
MGL’s article on FanGraphs implements a WOWY method to evaluate scoops, which is probably the most accurate way of going about it for now, aside from the proprietary BIS stuff. Sean Smith did a similar study and had very similar results- you’re looking at a grand total of +/- 5 runs over the course of a full season.
by Anticon23 on Oct 8, 2009 10:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I learned today an easy way to tell how many chances a player is getting. Apparently UZR/150’s denominator isn’t games – rather it’s the expected number of plays over the course of 150 games. If you compare a players UZR/150 to their UZR, you can get a feel for how many chances they’re getting. Franklin Guittierez, for instance, had a UZR/150 of 19.2 this season. He played 153 games. His total UZR was 28.7 – which tells you he got WAY more chances per game than you’d expect. He got more about 1.5 times the number of chances you’d expect in 150 games. I will note I’m not sure if the number of outs per 150 games is different for different positions or not.
by Missing Barry on Oct 8, 2009 8:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
When i was commenting on the defensive value, i was calculating it relative to who they’d be replacing. Gonzalez and Holliday were were above average last year by UZR but neither would as good as the players they’d be replacing (Ishikawa and Winn). That’s why their contribution is negative.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
by GiantFan on Oct 9, 2009 2:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yikes! Pablo’s not coming back next year???? Abandon all hope!
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
by Roger on Oct 8, 2009 4:58 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
On the other hand — Edgar’s not coming back next year???? Break out the champagne!
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
by Roger on Oct 8, 2009 5:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Unless I’m soon to be plummeting to earth at a rapid rate, neither Pablo or Edgar started on opening day last year (2008)
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
by GiantFan on Oct 8, 2009 5:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah! I’d already flipped the mental calendar once the regular season ended. Last year is 2009 in my mind, I’m living in the now of 2010!
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
by Roger on Oct 8, 2009 6:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Roger, you might want to join me in flipping the calendar ahead to 2013. It’ll save a lot of anguish.
"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 8, 2009 7:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah but my way, I get to enjoy three more seasons of Timmy. Yours, I’m showing up just in time for the inevitable trading deadline rumors to start up.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
by Roger on Oct 8, 2009 8:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And...
it would skip right past that that whole pesky 2012 issue.
My adopted son Matt Downs . Ranked as the 24th best prospect in the Giants farm system by Baseball America !!
by nvsfg on Oct 8, 2009 8:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Would the Giants winning a Championship count as an apocalyptic event? If so — I’m in!
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
by Roger on Oct 8, 2009 8:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good Point !
My adopted son Matt Downs . Ranked as the 24th best prospect in the Giants farm system by Baseball America !!
by nvsfg on Oct 8, 2009 9:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mayans were Giants fans?
BLING BLING
by cybermaldonado on Oct 8, 2009 2:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess Dodger’s fans makes more sense.
BLING BLING
by cybermaldonado on Oct 8, 2009 2:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Off topic, I know
But you what I find hilarious about the whole 2012 thing? The fact that, if the Mayans were still around, all that would happen in 2012 would be…they’d make a new calendar.
The baseball Satanist
by thehavenot on Oct 8, 2009 8:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or, you know, just proceed on to 2013.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
by Roger on Oct 9, 2009 7:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting post, but I’d like to see it fleshed out even more with defensive numbers (and other numbers), too. For example, the difference between Molina and Posey, offensively speaking, is 15 runs. But, if you include baserunning numbers (calling Posey an average runner) you could probably tack on another 3-5 runs in Posey’s favor.
by xanthan on Oct 8, 2009 7:38 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
True, it wasn’t meant to be a detailed post about player value, simply a comment about potential offensive changes. As it’s simple enough to calculate I’ve added a few notes detailing the effect of defense. Of course it’s simply detailing one years production as opposed to a projection going forward so the sample sizes are small on defense.
Adding base-running would be another useful addition, but I’d probably want to do a more thorough analysis before it’s really worth including those effects.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
by GiantFan on Oct 8, 2009 8:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I definitely there are smart, small moves to be made
But, I don’t have confidence in Brian Sabean to make them. Milton Bradley and Kelly Johnson are slowly becoming my white whales of the offseason because of their ability to, you know, actually get on base with a walk or a hit.
Personally, from what I have seen of Sabean, he still hasn’t learned from his past mistakes. He mentioned OBP once in his recent end of the season letter, yet he seems content to have Velez be the starting LF or 2B. In my mind, Velez is doing now what Ortmeier did a few years ago, and, we’re gonna pay for it.
If I were in charge (which I ain’t), I’d target solid OBP guys in the offseason. I’d maybe even look internally for some of those guys, though the pickings are slim. It would have been nice if Bowker had been given an actual shot this year so we wouldn’t, once again, have a question mark surrounding a young player.
To be honest, that is my biggest gripe. The Giants never fully resolve the “Can this young player contribute?” question. It would make the offseason a lot easier if we already knew that Bowker’s AAA walking skills won’t translate to the majors. But yet, because he was never really given a shot, a lot of us are left wondering if his 2009 turnaround was legit or not.
by Squire_Boone on Oct 8, 2009 9:13 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I am in agreement with your theory
The problem is, you are assuming the players mentioned above would be allowed to play. If we have learned nothing from this past year, it is that there is probably .000001% chance that Bowker, Posey, & Garko will be regular starters at the same time.
STEVE HOLM! refuses to be the odd man out.
by UnleashTheGore on Oct 8, 2009 9:19 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Good post
One thing you didn’t take into account, though, is that while the Giants did score 657 runs, they were “really” a 625-run team, according to BP’s eqR calculation. So the necessary improvement is about 30 runs more than your 61, putting it in line with my general belief that the Giants need to field a team 8-10 wins better than this one to have a good shot at the playoffs.
Another thing missing from this analysis is a breakdown of spots where the Giants stand to lose runs. The most obvious is using Velez rather than Lewis in left, but it wouldn’t surprise me if Rowand is worse — and don’t think that will get him benched. Also, Sandoval was awesome this year and I think most of us expect him to improve, since his plate discipline noticeably improved (approaching league average BB%!) as the year went along. However, there’s no guarantee that he won’t come back to earth somewhat; he did have a seemingly unsustainable .353 BABIP (I say seemingly, since he had similar ridiculous BABIP in the minors).
by taliesin on Oct 8, 2009 10:22 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
dude is kind of a line drive machine
cheering for Adam Witter, who will hit bigleague dingers some day.
Still yelling "Go, Antoan"
by foothillsfan on Oct 8, 2009 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nah, Pablo's a bit more round than a line drive machine
STEVE HOLM! refuses to be the odd man out.
by UnleashTheGore on Oct 8, 2009 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I played that game at the Musee Mechanique on the wharf.
Merkin Valdez? Manuel Mateo? A rose by any other name...
by rotorueter on Oct 9, 2009 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And he hits everything hard. His grounders seem to get through holes very quickly.
"We're in this thing!" My adopted Giant: "Raptor Jesus" Guzman, "Sweet Jesus" Guzman and Jesus H. Guzman.
by Goofus on Oct 8, 2009 3:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
His performance here combined with the minor league track record makes me think he can keep it up. Keith Law just said in his chat today BABIP for a batter (talking about Kemp) is not the same as for a pitcher. I guess the only concern is that the total PAs isn’t a big enough sample size.
by AngelWillSaveUs on Oct 8, 2009 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
.353 is high
But it is not unsustainable, just highly unlikely for the vast majority of young players to keep up.
Still, as noted, Pablo did have very high BABIP in the minors, which bode well for him continuing it. That is because each hitter’s BABIP is individual and over his career it will stabilize at his talent level. So far, 2008 and 2009 he has been able to keep it up to his minor’s standards. Also, it is acknowledged that his ability to square up the ball and hit it, almost no matter where it is thrown, is unique, as the frequent comparison for him is Vlad Guererro.
I would posit that he can further improve in 2010 if he is able to sustain his production to a full year. People forget, but he hit “only” .301/.341/.457/.797 with 3 HR in 173 AB to the first game on June 4th, but from from the 2nd game to the end of the season, he hit .343/.406/.599/1.005 with 22 HR in 399 AB. That, over the same number of AB brings him to low 30 HR total (31.5 average) plus the great OBP.
That’s not much different from his overall numbers, but that is two further months of Panda goodness, an additionl 7 HR in the first two months of this season should have delivered at least 3-4 more wins (and he hit HR in 2 wins for every HR in a loss, so maybe 5 wins).
Neukom: sign up Sabean for another two years!
Adoptive parental unit of Ehire Adrianza.
Godfather of Travis Ishikawa.
by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Oct 8, 2009 3:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just a point you didn’t note – minor league BABIP’s are expected to be higher than at the MLB level simply because the defense just isn’t as good at the lower levels.
by Missing Barry on Oct 8, 2009 8:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is VERY high though. By way of comparison, Ted Williams only had 4 full seasons over .350 BABIP on the way to posting a career mark of .328.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
by Roger on Oct 9, 2009 7:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s certainly high, but you’re making it sound like it’s some historical precedent. I don’t know if it’ sustainable or not, but just to find some stuff out, I went to Fangraphs and sorted every player this year who qualified by BABIP. The first 4 were David Wright, Ichiro, Hanley and Mauer. David Wright put up a .400 BABIP this season. For his career he’s at .350. Ichiro – .384 this year, .359 career. Hanley – .384 this year, .354 career. Mauer .377 this year, .349 career. So…is Pablo’s really unsustainable? It might be, but Pablo looks to me like he really might be in those guys class as a hitter, so it very well might be close to his “true talent level”.
by Missing Barry on Oct 9, 2009 8:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The man is a line drive machine…
Utter frustration and futility.
by Johnny Disaster on Oct 9, 2009 8:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know how valid some of those projections for how many runs we should have scored and should have let up are for the Giants. Based on BP’s and BeyondtheBoxScore’s methods, it looks to me like their might be some issues there like the assumption of linearity breaking down at the extremes (which the Giants were certainly at).
by Missing Barry on Oct 8, 2009 8:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, it was purely a look at individual cases and the differences to run scoring that those change make . If it was a team wide prediction then I’d obviously have to include things like over-performance as a team, variation in individual performance, etc, but i wasn’t aiming to complete a detailed study of how we’ll perform next season (although i probably should have done)
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
by GiantFan on Oct 9, 2009 2:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you haven’t already, I’d recommend translating the player’s component statistics into AT&T. Fielder, for example, played in a park that has increased HR production by around 7% over the last three years. In a “neutral” setting he’d be expected to have 43 (instead of 46) so in AT&T (which suppresses HR by about 10%) he’d be expected to hit 39 big flies. I’ve got Prince as being a +128 LWTS hitter using his raw stats (don’t know how FanGraphs derives their LWTS; I get mine via the “plus-1” method), +124 LWTS in a neutral setting, and +118 in AT&T. So I guess using FanGraphs’ wRC he’d be around +130.
I’m uncertain as to how large of a difference the park factors would make in your overall calculations, and it’s important to keep in mind that park factors are definitely imperfect. But I think they’d be a useful tool for an approach that’s theoretical to begin with! :)
Another thing to keep in mind is that while UZR is a very good tool for evaluating player defense, it’s not ideal for theoretical situations. No two first basemen will have the same opportunities in the same buckets, especially with all of the adjustments that UZR makes in terms of batted ball speed and the base-out state. You might be better suited to use RZR and OOZ as a plus/minus rate. In this case, the LESS detailed the ZR is, the better.
Overall, very nice analysis. Thanks for taking the time to put this post together!
by Anticon23 on Oct 8, 2009 12:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Players only play half their games at home. Fielder hit exactly half his homers at home, so he would be expected to hit 21 (for 44 total) rather than 23 in a neutral park, and 19 (for 42 total) at AT&T. (That’s assuming that road games are on average neutral.)
(That’s unless you were already dividing your HR park factors by two, in which case never mind.)
by taliesin on Oct 8, 2009 3:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s worth noting that Miller Park boosts home runs for right-handers, but not for left-handers. Fielder’s splits reflect this.
Of course he’d still take a big hit moving to AT&T.
by Evan on Oct 8, 2009 4:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well i believe fangraphs makes an adjustment for park factors so park factors shouldn’t have too big an effect. For example Fielder will lose runs coming here, but then so did Ishikawa. It’ll have an effect when changing from a RH to a LH hitter or visa versa though and different players may be effected more.
With regards to defense it was simply a quick addition as initially the post was simply a comment on the offensive contribution. You raise an interesting point though.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
by GiantFan on Oct 9, 2009 2:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fagraphs doesn’t adjust for parks.
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 9, 2009 7:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wasn’t sure but according to the glossary and the following post it is:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/win-values-explained-part-one
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
by GiantFan on Oct 9, 2009 7:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
wOBA isn’t park adjusted, but the batting runs they use in their WAR calculations are.
by Missing Barry on Oct 9, 2009 8:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s weird.
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 9, 2009 9:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
For Runs Above Average in their WAR section, yes, the numbers are park-adjusted. But (as far as I’m aware) those are based on an overall PF; not components. I’d be interested to see how much of a difference there would be between applied component park factors and overall park factors.
And you’re right that different players will be effected differently. If I had LH/RH splits for each park I’d be able to make a better estimate (if anyone knows where to find them, please tell me!), but that’ll have to do for now.
by Anticon23 on Oct 9, 2009 8:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In the Bill James Handbook. This is out of date but free.
by Evan on Oct 9, 2009 8:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, component based park factors would be more effective, especially for RH/LH splits where in some parks (ours and Seattle to name two) that makes a large difference.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
by GiantFan on Oct 9, 2009 8:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you’re just trying to determine value, an overall adjustment is better than one based on components. Adjusting for components only makes sense if you want to estimate how a hitter would hit in a different environment, but that’s not what WAR is for.
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 9, 2009 9:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm excited about having freddy around for a full year.
And garko has proven that he can be an above average hitter. I hope he gets a chance next year.
Why do San Francisco teams insist on having terrible offenses? Frank Gore and Pablo Sandoval can't do it all.
by GiantPain on Oct 8, 2009 1:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It makes me sad that you’re excited for Freddy Sanchez. Are we really at the point where a 32 year old with a career .334 OBP, who’s put up OBP’s of .298 and .326 the last two years is viewed as a good thing? Sigh, that should be grounds for riots until Sabean’s fired…
by Missing Barry on Oct 8, 2009 8:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Better than hurtburris/downs/granny/epicgenio
Why do San Francisco teams insist on having terrible offenses? Frank Gore and Pablo Sandoval can't do it all.
by GiantPain on Oct 8, 2009 8:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and by granny, of course, i mean franny.
Why do San Francisco teams insist on having terrible offenses? Frank Gore and Pablo Sandoval can't do it all.
by GiantPain on Oct 8, 2009 8:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can just see there being 8-10 situations over the next year where the lack of Alderson precludes our being a trade candidate for a hitter.
sigh
by dregarx on Oct 8, 2009 8:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
hitters who have much higher upside than 31-32 yr old Sanchez
by dregarx on Oct 8, 2009 8:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So that’s what we set the bar at these days? Man things are bad. Like I said, riots until Sabean’s fired…
by Missing Barry on Oct 9, 2009 7:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who thinks Garko will be on the roster next year?
Matt Cain: throwing complete game shutouts since 06'. No big deal.
by cain1rstballothof on Oct 9, 2009 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would use some real projections rather than 2009 numbers. I do think that your projections are a bit optimistic, in the sense of a best case scenario.
in particular, I don’t think swapping Winn for Bowker is likely to net us 3 wins.
You also left out playing Lewis full time, since he actually gets on base.
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?
-------
PARPG- Indy post-apocalyptic roleplaying game currently in early planning stages.
by zenbitz on Oct 8, 2009 1:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Hmmm, some points to the contrary
Winn hit .262/.318/.363/.671 with 2 HR in 528 AB.
Giants LF hit .267/.332/.411/.743 with 11 HR in 625 AB.
Lewis hit .258/.348/.390/.738 with 4 HR in 295 AB, BUT
he hit .360/.484/.480/.964 with 0 HR in 50 AB to April 24 and
he hit .237/.318/.371/.689 with 4 HR in 245 AB the rest of the season.
The talk on Lewis the prior two seasons was that he would not be able to sustain his high BABIP, and this season shows evidence that this might be true.
Schierholtz hit .267/.302/.400/.702 with 5 HR in 285 AB
Schierholtz MLE for prior seaons were roughly .800, so maybe he can do that if he started regularly.
Bowker’s 2009 MLE was .288/.376/.466/.842 with 15 HR in 386 AB.
Between the two of them, they should be more than able to beat Winn offensively in RF, easily, and there is little drop between Schierholtz and Winn defensively, Schierholtz career UZR/150 is 14.7 and Winn over the past three seasons was roughly 14.4. Throw in some relative decline for Schierholtz being lucky, perhaps, and he’s maybe around 10 (8.8 in 2009). And personally I would rather start Bowker in LF and Schierholtz in RF, over having them battle over RF and starting Velez/Torres in LF.
And FYI, sabermetrics usually count each 10 run difference to be equal to 1 win, so the 12 runs attributed to Bowker in the original post only amounts to a net 1.2 wins, roughly, not 3 wins.
Neukom: sign up Sabean for another two years!
Adoptive parental unit of Ehire Adrianza.
Godfather of Travis Ishikawa.
by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Oct 8, 2009 4:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, and why I don't like Velez
Once he returned to the MLB roster, Velez hit:
.277/.321/.426/.747 with 5 HR in 249 AB and 10 SB but 5 CS.
That is not a leadoff hitter’s resume. That’s a 7th or 8th place hitter’s resume.
I would rather platoon Lewis and Torres (as Goofus noted below) before having Velez semi-start in LF.
But ideally I would start Bowker in LF and Schierholtz in RF, with Torres taking AB against LHP from either Bowker or Schierholtz, plus Lewis in regularly to get significant ABs, being ready to start should Bowker or Schierholtz falters.
Plus, I’m tired of “gamers” who play despite the pain. That just costs the team wins. If Rowand, or Renteria, or Roberts would have just sat themselves down, maybe we could have win more games in 2008 and 2009, instead of losing all those games while they are struggling with their injuries or whatever physical problems they were having. Bonds at 80% is better than anyone else’s 100%, but that does not go for more ordinary players when we have young players who need reps in the majors to show what they can (and cannot) do.
Neukom: sign up Sabean for another two years!
Adoptive parental unit of Ehire Adrianza.
Godfather of Travis Ishikawa.
by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Oct 8, 2009 5:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bowker and Schierholtz over Lewis….that makes me sad. Are we not seeing his .355 career OBP? Fred Lewis is hands down a better player than Bowker or Schierholtz. I mean, unless you want to arbitrarily pick points to throw out in his case to make your argument stronger…
by Missing Barry on Oct 8, 2009 8:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lewis is hands down better than Schierholtz right now (I still hold out hope that Nate can improve), for sure, but Bowker? I’d have to say the jury’s out on that one. Bowker’s Fresno MLE is better than Fred’s achieved in the majors. Obviously, I know, it’s only an MLE, but… I guess we’ll find out, I hope.
by taliesin on Oct 8, 2009 11:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just see such huge holes in Bowker’s swing that get exposed every time he plays at the MLB level I can’t take his MLE’s as seriously as I would for someone like Posey. I would take Fred’s proven production at the MLB level over Bowker without even thinking twice, though I do understand your argument.
“One thing I do know, and I don’t want to say you can get fooled, but I’m learning faster and faster that the statistics in the Pacific Coast League that anybody puts up is somewhat of a misnomer or jaded. It’s a big jump to the big leagues.”
-Brian Sabean, Oct. 5 2009
How long ago were MLE’s invented? Like 20-30 years ago? Sabean is just learning this…?
by Missing Barry on Oct 9, 2009 7:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the statistics … is somewhat of a misnomer or jaded
wtf?
by Evan on Oct 9, 2009 7:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it’s difficult to say whether Lewis is better than Bowker at the moment. I’d certainly take both over Schierholtz and Velez at the moment.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
by GiantFan on Oct 9, 2009 2:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You are cherry picking here
Not badly, but a little.
You are taking Bowker’s 2009 MLE. That’s not correct. You need to take his 2010 projection. I am not sure that Bowker can put up a .840 OPS. Maybe, but I have to think that’s the high end of the projection, plus his defense is much worse than Winn’s.
For Schierholtz, on the other hand – you throw out his terrible 2009 and “hope” that he will reach .800 OPS… the reality is that a full time Schierholtz is probably not much better than resigning Winn (which is a terrible idea). Winn was projected to have a .330-.340 wOBA this year as well. He’s old, true, but he has a pretty long track record.
Your last point … I was looking at the bold print which says “30 runs”. 12 runs actually seems reasonble… 30 not so much.
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?
-------
PARPG- Indy post-apocalyptic roleplaying game currently in early planning stages.
by zenbitz on Oct 8, 2009 9:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Old guy with a ‘track record’… Brian, is that you? Sorry, that’s just mean…
If I’m asking myself who has a better chance to improve, the answer ain’t gonna be Winn.
Utter frustration and futility.
by Johnny Disaster on Oct 9, 2009 8:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He also left out Zombie Mel Ott, who has as much chance of playing full time as Lewis.
by Evan on Oct 8, 2009 4:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, projections would be a much better way to go and it would be nice to do a more detailed study that way including other factors. By the nature of the post it’s going to be overly-optimistic as i chose areas of possible improvement (rather than regression), ignored defense and didn’t use projections (which I’m sure is harsher on Bowker for example).
I was going to include Lewis as an example but ended up going for Bowker as the effect would be much larger (due to more playing time and a better offensive numbers). Playing Lewis full time would certainly be another candidate for increase.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
by GiantFan on Oct 9, 2009 2:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good post
I keep wondering more and more about a Lewis/Torres platoon leading off.
"We're in this thing!" My adopted Giant: "Raptor Jesus" Guzman, "Sweet Jesus" Guzman and Jesus H. Guzman.
by Goofus on Oct 8, 2009 3:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Lewis?
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Oct 8, 2009 3:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I don’t know who that guy is either. Somebody in Augusta maybe?
by taliesin on Oct 8, 2009 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’d be a lot better than Velez and Torres.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
"AT LAST I AM A PARENTS." - Buster
by jponry on Oct 8, 2009 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like Torres, but he needs to be at the bottom of the order. OBP is the weakest part of his game.
by Evan on Oct 8, 2009 4:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How about Lewis leading off and Schierholtz/Torres platooning somewhere else…?
by Missing Barry on Oct 8, 2009 8:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I appreciate the optimism, but this line of thought is sort of what I’m worried about for the off-season. I can easily see Sabes et al. saying to themselves, “It doesn’t matter if Freddy Sanchez isn’t what he used to be — just look at the scrubs he’s replacing! Sure Ryan Garko is mediocre, but we had horrible production at first base last year, so he’s guaranteed to be a step up! Velez and Torres don’t need to be superstars, they just need to be better than Randy Winn!” Etc.
Getting the offense from terrible to mediocre isn’t going to bring us a championship. We need to bring in some actually good players if we’re going to avoid squandering the Lincecum/Cain window.
by Evan on Oct 8, 2009 4:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If the Giants had a mediocre offense.
Is there any doubt that we’d at least be in the playoffs?
Why do San Francisco teams insist on having terrible offenses? Frank Gore and Pablo Sandoval can't do it all.
by GiantPain on Oct 8, 2009 5:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No doubt, not this year, but it would be luck. If you figure the trip to mediocre gets you 50 more runs, that would be 5 wins, enough of an improvement on the 88 the Giants won to get them in the playoffs. But the offense actually over-performed by about 3 wins, so the extra five wins wouldn’t be quite enough without the luck (er, “clutch hitting”).
by taliesin on Oct 8, 2009 5:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess I mean that aiming for a mediocre offense isn’t going to be enough. I worry that management will see things exactly this way — “All we have to do is get the offense up to not-terrible and we’ll be going to the playoffs!”
by Evan on Oct 9, 2009 7:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I agree with this. Understanding that the Yankees live in different circumstances than the rest of us, I still like their concept of a championship profile for player acquisition — not “is this guy better than what we have currently” but “does this guy help us win a championship (and through production, not grittertudiness).” I think it’s easy to get into a kind of treadmill mentality the other way. Of course we have a problem that we’re getting average production out of some our big ticket items, where you really need to be getting league average production out of your freebies, and impact production from the big money players. That certainly puts us behind it when trying to move forward.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
by Roger on Oct 9, 2009 8:10 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
You’re right in that we’re held back by getting league average production out of big ticket items, although that’s slightly balanced by the fact that we’ve got some impact production out of our freebies. The issue is going to come from the other half and that’s where this off-season is going to be a big test for the front office.
In the past, due to our poor farm, we’ve had very little freebies producing league average production and so have had to waste money on getting this kind of production for high prices. Now we have a few freebies who should be able to get some production from (Lewis, Posey, Bokwer, Schierholtz, Ishikawa, etc) The question is can we use our resources (which are still tight) to make the upgrades we need or are we going to fall back into old habits and waste resources on players who provide minimal upgrades.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
by GiantFan on Oct 9, 2009 8:27 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I have to say I’m somewhat skeptical that we’ll be able to get league average production from any of those non-Posey freebies (Lewis because he won’t be allowed, the others because I’m not sure they got it in them). But if Posey can join Pablo as super productive freebies it will certainly help even out the books. Sadly, Timmy will be moving across to the other side of the ledger, though.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
by Roger on Oct 9, 2009 8:41 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well, Lewis isn’t going to due, but he could get close if he was given the opportunity. And Bowker’s a hard one to peg. But you’re right, I wouldn’t expect league average from them, so much as useful contributions above replacement level. The important thing (and what I’m worried about) is not to use our resource to swap them for league average players. To be successful they’re going to have to be balanced by above average players and that’s what we need to use our resources on.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
by GiantFan on Oct 9, 2009 8:49 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
This entire branch is like the running commentary in head for the Giants since the 2nd week of August.
That’s it! Katie bar the door for this 79 win team is star crossed! And I am loving it.
by daveinexile on Oct 9, 2009 8:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
by Roger on Oct 9, 2009 9:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In the past, due to our poor farm, we’ve had very little freebies producing league average production and so have had to waste money on getting this kind of production for high prices.
And who’s to blame for that? The same guy that keeps signing declining veterans to play for this team.
Why isn't Sabean held accountable for leading the Giants into many years of mediocrity???
by oldrips on Oct 9, 2009 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As with all information, it’s effectiveness is in how you use it. If you use it to believe that we don’t need upgrades and our offense is going to be league average next year without any changes then it’s being used wrong. The purpose of the post is in no way meant to suggest that.
It’s merely meant to demonstrate that having an ok offense isn’t a lost cause. With some good additions or good decisions it’s possible to make some of the gains we need to make. It means that we don’t need to bring in 6-7 new players to turn our offense around and that things can change quickly. In order to do it though, the right decisions have to be made and the right upgrades have to be brought in. Whether we’re capable of making those decisions is the problem.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
by GiantFan on Oct 9, 2009 3:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I agree with that.
The team is in awkward spot. They were so uniformly bad that easy improvement is possible at any position other than 3B, so they have a lot of options as to which way to go. On the other hand, that 35-run difference between expected and actual runs disguises how much help they need. I’m afraid management will aim too low.
by Evan on Oct 9, 2009 7:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was under the impression Adrian Gonzalez was actually a very good 1B. Is his D really that bad?
The very bad man traded my son...So now I'd like you all to meet my new son, Ryan "Aaron" Garko...Dammit it's just not the same!
by boonitez on Oct 8, 2009 6:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
As i mentioned above, it was a relative calculation and so whilst Gonzalez was above average he wasn’t as good as Ishikawa. Of course we’re talking SSS here so it’s best not to treat that too seriously. Also, the defensive effect isn’t as large as i imply for Gonzalez, but he was worth a bit less offensively so the overall totals are around correct.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
by GiantFan on Oct 9, 2009 3:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I keep thinking about this exact sort of thing, especially when I hear that the team needs to get the proverbial “big bat.” They don’t need to get a masher (though it’d be nice), and won’t w/ their budget. What they need to do is populate the lineup with guys who are just above average offensively and aren’t low OBP guys. I often think of the 1996 Yankees, a team w/o a lot of star power (though some big names and Jeter was a rookie) or a “big bat” but with a lot of solid guys w/ decent to great OBPs. They can start w/ some of the guys in the org, but they’d need to commit more to not acquiring players who don’t fit that mold.
Their pitching staff is no where near where the Giants is, and the Giants obviously can’t just get a bunch of players like that, but they should at least try to do so. This isn’t really breaking new ground here and I guess I’m just dreaming b/c Sabes, et al won’t do that, but it sure would be nice.
Neal before Zod!
Official Sponsor of the 1997 San Francisco Giants
by nostocksjustbonds on Oct 8, 2009 7:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Defense of Adrian Gonzalez
I thought that he was a very solid defender, so I do not see the drop off he he played first defensively. If one looks at our team stats and home/away splits, we were above league average at home, and way below league average on the road. Our walks were down on every axis. Just taking more walks, and not giving away outs would be a big thing, but many think discipline cannot be taught. Of course it can, just ask a bunch of behavioral mod guys. They can tell Bochy how. Winn was very good as a lefty but showed no power. He completely sucked fromt he right side. A Winn/Torres Platoon in CF would be better than Rowand and cheaper. Rowand sucked at home, and he sucked post allstar game. Not a guy u want to tie up 12 million on.
by bradleybear on Oct 8, 2009 8:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you sure you and rxmeister aren’t brothers or something?
by taliesin on Oct 8, 2009 11:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"the 1996 Yankees, a team w/o a lot of star power"?
Not all of them were in their prime, but just look at the names on the bench:
Tim Raines (7x AS)
Ruben Sierra (4x AS)
Darryl Strawberry (8x AS)
Cecil Fielder (3x AS)
Also, Wade Boggs at 3B made his 12th consecutive All-Star team in 1996.
by hokysmksbw on Oct 9, 2009 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
not to mention rookie Derek Jeter and Bernie Williams just entering his prime (and Bernie in his prime was a hell of player), plus Dwight Gooden, Andy Pettite, Jimmy Key and David Cone in the starting rotation. Personally I’d be ok with this lack of star power on my team.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
by Roger on Oct 10, 2009 8:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
really, I was just referring to the offense.
I did mention Jeter and yes, Bernie Williams was really good – basically, the only 2 guys (you could include Gerald Williams, too – so, 3) who were everyday regulars for the Yankees who actually came up through their system.
Neal before Zod!
Official Sponsor of the 1997 San Francisco Giants
by nostocksjustbonds on Oct 10, 2009 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your point about their offensive strength is dead on, and interestingly, I’d say it’s connected to their “lack of star power.” As in, why wasn’t Bernie Wiliams a star? In 1994 he’d put up a .384 OBP — it would be a decade before he had another season with an OBP that low. But he wasn’t a star, because even in New York I guess, the baseball world didn’t understand how to appreciate that ability.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
by Roger on Oct 10, 2009 7:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stars vs. Big names: a semantic difference
I said
I often think of the 1996 Yankees, a team w/o a lot of star power (though some big names and Jeter was a rookie)…
I did specifically mention that they had big names and though Boggs was also a big name and all-star that year (voted in by the Fans), he was clearly not as productive as he had been in his HOF career had been up to that point, and he was the only starter among that group you cited. Sure, they were former studs and all-stars, but weren’t in their primes and weren’t even everyday players (except Boggs) at that point. Sure, they contributed, but were primarily expensive role players by that point.
Neal before Zod!
Official Sponsor of the 1997 San Francisco Giants
by nostocksjustbonds on Oct 10, 2009 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But we are stuck with Rowand ...
If Rowand plays decent defense and continues to hit about the same, we may as well play him. I would take the chance and trade him for Bradley, but that is no sure thing either. I agree that Winn and Torres in CF would be a decent option if a Rowand-Bradley trade was made. What I don’t understand is why Bochy didn’t use that platoon earier in 2009 in RF. I am not in love with Torres – he is not youn and his success was in limited at-bats. On the other hand, if he can really hit from the left-side then he has some platoon value and he does play good defense.
One option I’ve wondered about – would getting Chone Figgins to play 3B and moving Sandoval to 1B be worthwhile, or would it be better to go with a Garko/Ishikawa platoon at 1B and leave Sandoval at 3B, and spend money elsewhere?
by ErodCal on Oct 8, 2009 9:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I would prefer the latter option, for several reasons.
1) I think there’s value to be had out of a Garko/Ishikawa platoon.
2) I’d like to keep Sandoval at 3B, where he has more value, as long as possible
3) I feel that Figgins is a prime suspect for a serious overpayment in money and years: contract year a bit above average, 32 years old next year with decline imminent, no true position.
by dregarx on Oct 8, 2009 9:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
3) I feel that Figgins is a prime suspect for a serious overpayment in money and years: contract year a bit above average, 32 years old next year with decline imminent, no true position.
With Brian Sabean at the helm, the thought of this scares the crap out of me. No to Figgins.
by Missing Barry on Oct 9, 2009 7:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree on Figgins, he jumps out to me as one of the players I’d want to avoid. I think whoever signs him is going to seriously end up regretting it.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
by GiantFan on Oct 9, 2009 7:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why? He has been solid for years.
I’ll be pretty happy if they sign him. He strikes me as the most plausible combination of what Brian Sabean likes (speed and defense) with what the team needs (OBP).
by Evan on Oct 9, 2009 7:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well one is that he’s been nearly twice as good this year than his next best year. Another is that both his offensive and defensive contributions have had a lot of variation over the years. Another is that whilst he’s a valuable player I’m not sure I’d want to pay big money to a player who isn’t going to make a big difference to our offense (although that’s a Giants specific thing). There’s also. I’m not claiming that my reason is entirely logical, he just strikes me as someone who’s a prime candidate for falling off the cliff.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
by GiantFan on Oct 9, 2009 8:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Giants-specific, I see those OBPs of .393 and .367 and .395 and I start drooling.
Question for statheads: Does Fangraphs’ WAR include baserunning? It doesn’t look like it does.
by Evan on Oct 9, 2009 8:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As far as I’m aware wOBA includes SB’s and CS’s but there’s not an actual baserunning adjustment.
by Missing Barry on Oct 9, 2009 8:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're right
BP’s Equivalent Baserunning Runs is the only site that carries a comprehensive baserunning metric (aside from Bill James’, but I don’t know how reliable his are) as far as I know.
by Anticon23 on Oct 9, 2009 10:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, those OBP look great especially on a Giants team that depresses it so much due to its lack of OBP. I guess one line that worries me is his offensive production per year.
He’s put up -5.8, 17.7, -3.6 and 18.2 runs above average over the last four years (or OPS of 712, 825, 685, 789). Now if he’s worth 17-18 runs above average offensively then he’ll be a very valuable player to us. I just can’t help but worry about him ending up being the sub-average offensive version after joining us and being another large contract for minimal production. I think Rowand’s a good comparable, not that it’d necessarily end up the same way, but that it’s a good example of how it could go wrong.
And i think Missing Barry had it correct in that it includes SB/CS but doesn’t include base-running aside from that.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
by GiantFan on Oct 9, 2009 8:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Figgins scares me – we could certainly use him, his production would improve our team dramatically. It’s the fact that he’s old, just had by far the best year of his career (is it for real?), and is probably going to be overpaid because of how he performed in a contract year. Basically it’s not the thought of Figgins as a player I’m scared of (though as I said, I have concerns about how real his production this year was), it’s the thought of the contract he’s going to get. I’m seeing visions of Aaron Rowand all over again.
by Missing Barry on Oct 9, 2009 8:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
His 2007 was just as good as his 2009. Career .339 wOBA, good (and flexible) defense, solid health record, great line-drive rates, superb baserunner . . . there’s a lot to like. Of course any free-agent deal can go bad, most do, but he seems like a safer bet than most.
It depends on the salary, of course. He’s unusual, so it’s hard to predict. Maybe the disastrous contracts for Juan Pierre and Gary Matthews will sour GMs on this type of player.
by Evan on Oct 9, 2009 8:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I kind of agree with Evan here.
To me it comes down to what the management will pay/offer Sanchez. If we are looking at 2 years /$10MM-12MM or higher then I would just as soon they take a shot Figgens for 2 years $19-24MM. The potential for improvement is much greater with Figgens.
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 9, 2009 9:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Figgins will cost more than that and will end up getting more like 3/30 or 4/40. Also, a question is, how much better is Figgins than Sanchez? Over the last 5 years they’ve had almost identical value (14.6 to 15.1) and they’re almost identical age-wise. Obviously Sanchez is more of an injury question mark and Figgins has put up a better year recently but i don’t think the difference is as large as you’d think. Certainly not a large enough one where i’d be happy to pay Figgins $12M a year but wouldn’t pay Sanchez $5M a year.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
by GiantFan on Oct 9, 2009 9:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
First if one team is offering say 2/$24 and another 3 but not much more then $30MM i would not be too sure he turns it down.
Second Figgens game is different than Sanchez’s. Sanchez has swung at more pitches then he takes (higher than 50% sing rate) for the last 4 years. Figgen’s has never swung at more than 42% of the pitches offered. So that right there tells me Figgens has more plate discipline and ability to work a pitcher then Sanchez. Those 2 things are also skills sorely lacking in the ’09 Giants. It also tells me even when injured Figgens might still be able to do something offensively he does tend to have higher walk rate. With Sanchez everything starts & ends with the ball in ball.
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 9, 2009 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Speedy guys and plate discipline guys tend to age better than their counterparts, too, and Figgins has both of those (and Sanchez not as much)…
by Missing Barry on Oct 9, 2009 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Possibly not, we’ll have to see what contract he ends up signing. As much as I’d love to see some different style of players (high OBP and power especially) ultimately what we need are better players and so the style of play doesn’t really matter a whole deal. You could argue that the style of play ages better but how much effect that has i’m not sure and both would hopefully be on short term contracts (and that’s an issue with Figgins as he may require longer).
Also, the issue comes down to resources. Lets say we have $23M to spend (as per other calculations). If we’re spending $11M on Figgins that only leaves us with $12M which rules us out of a major signing. If you’re spending $5M on Sanchez you’ve still got $18M with which to spend and so it’s still possible to make a deal for a major player (Holliday for example)
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
by GiantFan on Oct 9, 2009 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is not if the play in question is better. It is does that player cost very little (say ~$4MM and under) or If he cost more the ~$4MM /year does he dramatic improve the ’09 Squad in more than 1 way. I really think this off season is Go big, Go cheap but don’t try and split the freaking difference.
Sanchez I really only see improve this franchise in 1 way, defense at 2nd. He might be healthy enough for his hachaolic way help us some with the bat. This is a text book case of trying to split the difference and being set up for over all failure. If he can’t stay healthy enough to hit the team is out what even they paid and still need to replace the “hole”.
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 9, 2009 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not sure why you’re drawing an arbitrary line at $4M as the extra million that Sanchez would cost isn’t a huge issue. Also, Sanchez doesn’t just help us on defence he helps us a lot on offense as well. He’s not a great offensive player but he’s decent and much better than any internal options we have. I generally agree with the philosophy but i’d be willing to make a large upgrade at 2B if the price is right.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
by GiantFan on Oct 10, 2009 3:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How you conclude Sanchez helping on offense is a Given compared to the half dozen names that will be on the market? ( Burriss/Bocock, Velez etc is not on the table for the moment). His track record for health is questionable. The stats show if he does not put the ball in play he does nothing offensively. When he is banged up in the health department his ball in play result get less favorable. Show me something that supports your faith here and counter acts my read that is a hack-o-lic one trick batter? I would love to believe and be wrong on this.
As for ~$4MM base that is kind of an arbitrary number ( thus the "~"). It was what Adam Kenedy was being paid when the Cards cut him. That was the base Orlando Cabrera signed for last off season as well. Uribe signed for well under that as well as Russell "The Musell" Branyan , Ceaser Iztus , Ty Wigginton etc.
These are all useful players but they are also flawed. They usually can be counted on to help their team in 1 way and might, if the stars aline properly, could – or could not – help in 1-2 other departments in given season.
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 10, 2009 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hope management factors into their calculations the position he’ll play. I’m worried about him playing 3B and displacing Sandoval+Ishikawa+Garko all at the same time.
If he goes into the outfield I’d probably be fine with it, more so if they can get Rowand off their hands and put Lewis/Figgins in center.
by dregarx on Oct 9, 2009 3:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
?
Matt Cain: throwing complete game shutouts since 06'. No big deal.
by cain1rstballothof on Oct 9, 2009 4:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry if I was unclear.
The idea is that Sandoval is not as good relative to position at 1B, so that’s a negative result of signing Figgins and moving Sandoval. The other side is that Ishikawa, who I think has some upside, is pretty much done with the Giants. All these results need to be factored in when the Giants make the call on Figgins.
Figgins can play the outfield as well, so hopefully if he is acquired, that will be his position. I would be much more inclined to do it if we could somehow dump Rowand’s contract. If not, he will block either Ishikawa/Garko or Fred Lewis. Seeing as those are the two (well, actually three players, but two lineup spots) most selective hitters in our lineup, the money would probably be better spent where a player would be a larger improvement in OBP than the players displaced, if better OBP is what we are looking for.
by dregarx on Oct 9, 2009 6:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Figgins can also play 2B.
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 10, 2009 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Newsletter?
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 10, 2009 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
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 10, 2009 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh NOSS!!
Da Man has shut you down!!
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 10, 2009 4:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And I agree with you, it depends on what the market is offering him. I’m not opposed to figuring out what he’s worth to us and making him that offer and if it’s not even a competitive offer, fine, we let him go. I’m just having visions of Brian Sabean running out after a career year and throwing 4/40 at him or something else ridiculous like that, similar to Rowand…
by Missing Barry on Oct 9, 2009 9:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
From the right side, I think you mean; Torres has only proved he can hit as a RHH (in the majors at least).
As for Figgins, it depends on what he ends up going for: 3/20, hell yes; 4/40, which is more like what I think he’ll get, no, even though it would be a pretty significant upgrade for the first year or two.
by taliesin on Oct 8, 2009 11:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Holliday
Will the Jose Cruz Jr effect mean he is out of St Louis next year?
co-dad of IshikaBOOM w/AfDC.
FIRE BOCHY FIRE MOLINA
by kennv on Oct 8, 2009 10:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You know, I didn’t watch the game, but that was actually the first thing I thought of when I read the recap. God I hope so.
by taliesin on Oct 8, 2009 11:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't mind Holliday
so long as he isn’t too expensive and stops trying to catch balls with his penis.
by Tim LinCyYoung on Oct 9, 2009 12:58 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
/ cues up King Missle song…
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 9, 2009 9:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
His penis almost had it too. I think going all in for Holliday is the best thing the Giants could do.
Matt Cain: throwing complete game shutouts since 06'. No big deal.
by cain1rstballothof on Oct 9, 2009 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He really shafted that one.
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 10, 2009 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
he went for the breadbasket catch
only to discover the breadbasket is not literally a basket
by hokysmksbw on Oct 9, 2009 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can someone explain this whole money situation to me
Last year we were rumored to be able to throw enough money at CC or Manny to get them here. Now, was this before we dropped that cash on Renteria? Obviously we dropped more on F Sanchez mid season, but how would we have afforded those guys last year?
YOU EAT YOUR DAMN EGGROLL
by heimy25 on Oct 9, 2009 10:16 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
My interpretation: The team has a fixed budget, but the owners collectively have an ungodly crapload of riches that they’d prefer to hang on to but might be willing to spend on special occasions.
by Evan on Oct 9, 2009 10:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
haha makes you wonder how special the occasion would need to be. Guys like Holliday won’t come along very often. Neukom on KNBR yesterday didnt sound like he was ready to really open up the checkbook anytime soon
YOU EAT YOUR DAMN EGGROLL
by heimy25 on Oct 9, 2009 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They’re no way of knowing that but it could well mean they may consider it for a “impact” player like Sabathia or Holliday but won’t for a lesser player. It could also be a case that they’d want to be confident the player coming in would increase revenue as well. It may also be a case of being convinced that the move needs a budget increase rather than being fit in among other things.
For example at the moment we can afford Holliday and any available players and so there’s no need to open the checkbook. If Sabean chose to use our money to sign Uribe, Molina and Dye and then go begging for a bigger budget to sign Holliday i’m sure the owners would be less interested.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
by GiantFan on Oct 9, 2009 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for your thoughts. We’ll see how it all pans out. Should be interesting to see what happens with the team this offseason.
YOU EAT YOUR DAMN EGGROLL
by heimy25 on Oct 9, 2009 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If by ‘interesting’ you mean ‘horribly, bitterly disappointing’, then yes, it should be interesting.
Utter frustration and futility.
by Johnny Disaster on Oct 9, 2009 1:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ownership keeps all that stuff pretty private. We can all speculate, but the truth is we don’t know any more about it than you.
by Missing Barry on Oct 9, 2009 10:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know how legit those rumors were. Sabean, in particular got pretty irritated with the idea that we were in on Sabbathia.
Please hit better, Randy Winn.
by oldjacket on Oct 9, 2009 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah hard to tell though if Sabean wanted to save face by saying we had no chance or what really happened. I forgot about that whole thing where he blew up at bloggers and beat writers and the like.
YOU EAT YOUR DAMN EGGROLL
by heimy25 on Oct 9, 2009 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well basically because we don’t have a fixed budget, just a rough one. If there’s potential deals out there then they’ve been pretty explicit that they’d be willing to listen. Also, things you can do creatively such as backloading deals, deferring payments, reducing funds to other areas, etc. Of course you’re never quite sure how true those rumours are and whether we’d have seriously considered paying the money needed.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
by GiantFan on Oct 9, 2009 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is there a “stat” that would calculate how much our runs would increase if we’d fine players, say, $1000 each time they failed to get down a bunt, struck out or failed to hit it to the right side when there is a runner on 2nd and less than 2 out? How about increasing the fine to $2000 when zero out?
by allfrank on Oct 10, 2009 1:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
http://www.mccoveychronicles.com/2009/9/4/1015064/whats-wrong-with-the-giants (third table).
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 10, 2009 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
0 runs gained
I’d imagine that the MLBPA grievance would be quite costly, however.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
by Bhaakon on Oct 10, 2009 10:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it really wouldn’t increase that much. The Giants were just fine at productive outs last year.
/exhale
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
"AT LAST I AM A PARENTS." - Buster
by jponry on Oct 12, 2009 12:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and jesus fucking christ
not even the most productive of productive out making players is going to be able to hit it to the right side EVERY time he comes up. that’s ridiculous.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
"AT LAST I AM A PARENTS." - Buster
by jponry on Oct 12, 2009 12:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just don’t see why it’s that hard to find a .000 hitter who grounds out to 2B in every single AB. I mean that would be a really legitimately productive professional major league hitter. .000/.050/.000. I’d take that hitter every day for my lineup.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
by Roger on Oct 12, 2009 5:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That would rule.
Matt Cain: throwing complete game shutouts since 06'. No big deal.
by cain1rstballothof on Oct 12, 2009 9:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Playeda The GAme And I KNOW Your Ignorance Makes You Blind to REalize That With An Inside OUt Swing, You Can Do This REpeatble Skil Whenver You Want
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 12, 2009 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not against Lincecum.
Matt Cain: throwing complete game shutouts since 06'. No big deal.
by cain1rstballothof on Oct 12, 2009 2:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
nah, just playin.
Matt Cain: throwing complete game shutouts since 06'. No big deal.
by cain1rstballothof on Oct 12, 2009 2:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Freddy Sanchez
Can we decline the option, offer arb, and take the Class B compensation?
by dregarx on Oct 12, 2009 10:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
What if he doesn’t?
Matt Cain: throwing complete game shutouts since 06'. No big deal.
by cain1rstballothof on Oct 13, 2009 8:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just to Clarify
I’ve been told if you decline the option on Sanchez, you can’t then offer arbitration.
So is the answer that you can offer arbitration, or that you can’t?
by dregarx on Oct 13, 2009 5:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The most like way I see that being the case is if it is specifically written in his contract that way. Again I could be wrong. I am just a guy with a supply of rotten fruit, tar & feathers while staring HHIIIEEADD and Sabean.
/ shrugs
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Oct 14, 2009 7:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great job, Giantfan!
If we were to sign Vladimir Guererro and he were to play at his 08 level, how many runs would that ad to the team?
by Wonderful Terrific Monds on Oct 13, 2009 10:03 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Thanks.
Around 36 runs offensively. Unfortunately he’d work out around 26 runs worse defensively which would reduce the impact.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
by GiantFan on Oct 16, 2009 6:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How many runs would Barry Bonds add to the team :)
Panda 4 Prez
by KingChronic on Oct 18, 2009 1:19 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 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.
