Credit Where It's Due, Midseason 2010
by delorean on Jul 7, 2010 8:51 AM PDT
Email
Print
So far in 2010, teh Ginatz Brazzsz have made some moves that have *gasp* actually been remarkably successful. I reckon it's time we give Brian and Co. his props for due diligence done and good moves made.
- Audrey Hoof. Oh, great -- Sabean signs yet another MLB journeyman with a mediocre track record. Except Huff has been out of his goddamned mind so far this season, having a career year. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes, and Giants fans deserve an unexpected breakout performance after years of Pierzynskis and Ledees and Hillenbrands.
- Gerald Motherf*cking Posey. I was among the McCoven majority who was against his callup -- why start his arb clock ticking during a lost season? Well, dude came north and made an immediate impact with the bat. Of course, he's returned to earth here of late, but his approach still looks spectacular; he's seeing a ton of pitches and driving the ball well. Oh, and that swing! /swoons. And the callup looks even better in light of the next great move...
- Trading Bengie Molina. This is the best Sabean move since dealing Matt Morris. Not only did the Giants add by subtracting, they actually got two viable arms in return! A shockingly good trade that frees up playing time for Buster. Of course, this move was only necessary because Sabean signed Bengie in the first place, but that's for another
DiaryFanshot. - Madison Bumgarner. All the usual SSS disclaimers apply, but forgive me -- I'm still giddy over MadBum's incredible performance last night. Dude is 20 years old and is three-hitting imposing MLB teams. I don't know about you, but I could barely dress myself at 20, and this kid is decimating major league lineups without the benefit of fantastic stuff. Plus he's got the additional handicap of throwing to a rookie catcher with almost no big-league experience... It's still way early, but this has all the earmarks of another solid move.
So, in short, Sabean's shit seems to be working lately. If Pablo gets right and Torres stays hot and Timmy works out the kinks, this could be a playoff team. Of course there's still the small matter of leapfrogging the 3 teams ahead of them in the NL West, but these moves have at least made that possible.
One serving of crow over here, please.
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.
441 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Sabean improved the offense
But I’m nervous about the deadline. If he can make it through the all star break without making a terrible move, this will undoubtedly be one of his better years as our GM.
My Son. Dude hits inside the parkers and takes walks.
My rule for the 2010 Giants: Everyone with an OPS over .800 gets a pass.
I am a Bochy hater and a Sabean apologist.
My bar is higher.
He was doing well last season to tell teh Last 2 weeks of July. I don’t think I need to say any more.
Threat level that the 2010 Pads finish with more wins than the 2010 Giants is currently at: 61%
Spoiler: Grumpy older Giants fan is Grumpy.
4 letter word time
fuck
shit
damn
crap
golf
taxi
burrito
Back on the market.
by positiveuphemism on Jul 7, 2010 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions
Huff is a four letter word
"I never think I’m a good player or a bad player. This is what I’m thinking: I can play. And I want to play." - Juan Uribe
...so is glue.
You can't solve your problems with the same level of thinking that created the problems - Albert Einstein to Brian Sabean
Taco
Adopted Son:Matt Downs MLB , Now with More STATZ goodness !Matt Downs Fangraphs The Juan Uribe of 2011 !
Posey
Sabean deserves zero credit for this because while some McCoven may have been calling for him to stay in Fresno, I believe there were more people screaming for him to start the season as the starting catcher. Where would the Giants be right now without Bengie Molina? I’d say at least 2 games better.
As far as the other stuff: MadBum he gets 50% credit for because he called the guy out after his sister died and he got married, for not working hard enough, wonder if that’ll cost them his first year of free agency? Huff, also 50% because he backed in to Huff after Johnson and LaRoche shot him down.
All of that credit is however negated due to the signing of one Aaron Rowand and one Bruce Bochy. Suck it Sabes!
HE MADE THAT MISTAKE THAT ONE TIME
ALL FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS ARE NULLIFIED.
Obviously any links in the above post are probably NSFW
The baseball gods do not always punish the wicked but they will not just allow people to spit in their faces -- Joe Posnanski
I wish I would stop cheating. fuck. this is jctgamer's fault -- jponry
I LIKE TYPING IN ALL CAPS
WHEN THAT ONE MISTAKE YOU REFER TO IS THE SIGNING OF AARON ROWAND, BARRY ZITO, ARMANDO BENITEZ, EDGARDO ALFONZO, MARK DEROSA, DAVE ROBERTS, EDGAR RENTERIA AND BRUCE BOCHY, THEN YES ALL FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS ARE NULLIFIED, UNLESS YOU WIN A WORLD SERIES.
by Giant Torture on Jul 7, 2010 9:47 AM PDT up reply actions
Want me to list all of Billy's mistakes?
I guess all his future considerations needs to be nullfied as well
Obviously any links in the above post are probably NSFW
The baseball gods do not always punish the wicked but they will not just allow people to spit in their faces -- Joe Posnanski
I wish I would stop cheating. fuck. this is jctgamer's fault -- jponry
If you're referring to Billy Beane.....
It should be noted that the payroll he works with is about half of Sabean’s, but it’s not about mistakes, everyone makes mistakes it’s the pattern of ineptness. Also as someone else pointed out, he didn’t want to use MadBum, but only went to him after there were no other viable 5th starters.
by Giant Torture on Jul 7, 2010 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions
like trading away two All Star caliber outfielders (while signing Coco Crisp) for players far less talented?
This site needs some sort of shift-A key that will allow me to hide any and all arguments about the merits of Billy Beane.
by Evan on Jul 7, 2010 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
That whole Holliday thing is looking worse and worse all the time.
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.
Subject Line
F@ck the A’s, who cares. Don’t lie I know some of you own those ridiculous half A’s, half Giants hats from the ’89 series.
I wasn’t arguing that Beane is a genius, just that Sabean is an idiot. Beane puts a decent team on the field with half the payroll that Sabean does and yet the A’s are only slightly worse than the Giants, the point is that given a 100 million dollar payroll most semi-knowledgable people could put together a better team than Sabean.
by Giant Torture on Jul 7, 2010 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions
Is Sabean an idiot? Probably
God knows I want him gone from his current post. That doesn’t mean I make irrational judgements based on personal bias.
When a deal is good, you state the deal is good. You don’t just negate all credits because of a couple of previous blunders. When you work 14 years as the GM, you are bound to make mistakes. You are bound to make some good trades. Each one has to be taken and measured individually.
Obviously any links in the above post are probably NSFW
The baseball gods do not always punish the wicked but they will not just allow people to spit in their faces -- Joe Posnanski
I wish I would stop cheating. fuck. this is jctgamer's fault -- jponry
by jctGamer on Jul 7, 2010 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Which trades were good?
And don’t say Jeff Kent, Sabean was trading for Tavares and got lucky.
by Giant Torture on Jul 7, 2010 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions
Schmidt, Winn
"I never think I’m a good player or a bad player. This is what I’m thinking: I can play. And I want to play." - Juan Uribe
Okay
Those were a couple of good trades, but in 14 years you’d expect more good trades/signings then he’s made and with every tick of the clock the amount of time since Sabean made a good trade gets more distant.
by Giant Torture on Jul 7, 2010 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions
Reggie Sanders too.
You can't solve your problems with the same level of thinking that created the problems - Albert Einstein to Brian Sabean
I thought he was and his .779 OPS with the Giants was meh.
by Giant Torture on Jul 7, 2010 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions
This
You really have to look at it in context as compared to his peers.
Obviously any links in the above post are probably NSFW
The baseball gods do not always punish the wicked but they will not just allow people to spit in their faces -- Joe Posnanski
I wish I would stop cheating. fuck. this is jctgamer's fault -- jponry
I love me some Reggie Sanders.
Matt Graham is an anagram for .... why don't you ask the scrabble expert!
by say hey nation on Jul 7, 2010 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions
EVERY OTHER YEAR
Obviously any links in the above post are probably NSFW
The baseball gods do not always punish the wicked but they will not just allow people to spit in their faces -- Joe Posnanski
I wish I would stop cheating. fuck. this is jctgamer's fault -- jponry
Dude had a great smile! He also seemed so smooth in he field.
Matt Graham is an anagram for .... why don't you ask the scrabble expert!
by say hey nation on Jul 7, 2010 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions
It was
But that was 1998 and Winn was 6 years ago.
by Giant Torture on Jul 7, 2010 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions
Santaigo, Matheny and Molina were all good signings
Proudly adopted Aubrey Huff. You can't beat that!
Matheny was NOT a good signing.
Jonathan Sanchez: Often maddening to watch, but capable of perfection on a moment's notice---just like his adoptive father.
He actually had a career best year with the bat in 2005!
Good lord, though, the man had a career 64 OPS+. If anybody has ever made a career based on nothing but defense, it was Matheny.
"I just struck out looking three times, but in any other ballpark those would have been home runs." - Aubrey Huff
by howtheyscored on Jul 7, 2010 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions
The Jeff Kent trade ended up good because we got one of the best second basemen in the game out of it. He also displayed some power and a good bat prior to the trade, and had an OPS+ of over 100.
Robb Nen, Hamilton, Stoops, and Brester for Ellis Burks, Grilli and Bump for Livo, Desi Relaford for David Bell, Felix Diaz and Ryan Meaux for Kenny Lofton, moving Matt Morris…
He’s had good trades, and they can’t be ignored to confirm personal bias. You CAN say he did a good job on a few trades, it doesn’t have to nullify all the reasons you might want to see him leave.
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
by JRPhillips on Jul 7, 2010 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
who was the best closer on the market at the time. Benitez was never a great pitcher, but his stuff was good enough to fool a lot of hitters over the years.
Seriously
You’re defending the signing of Armando Benitez? I’m speechless.
by Giant Torture on Jul 7, 2010 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions
hindsight is 20/20
historical context is everything.
"The BB's are out. The BB's are being arseholes to me." - Brian Wilson.
Hindsight
Said that Benitez, when the Giants signed him, had blown some very big saves with the Mets and the Giants overpaid for him.
by Giant Torture on Jul 7, 2010 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions
you’re right, he had. Including one HR to J.T. Snow, who was acquired in a trade by Brian Sabean for Allen Watsen, I believe. Plus, I don’t know how much of Benetiz’s huge crash and burn was due to that ripped hamstring. that was an ugly injury.
tell them!
Obviously any links in the above post are probably NSFW
The baseball gods do not always punish the wicked but they will not just allow people to spit in their faces -- Joe Posnanski
I wish I would stop cheating. fuck. this is jctgamer's fault -- jponry
really? we’re using clutch now?
Obviously any links in the above post are probably NSFW
The baseball gods do not always punish the wicked but they will not just allow people to spit in their faces -- Joe Posnanski
I wish I would stop cheating. fuck. this is jctgamer's fault -- jponry
In the case of closers
Yes, blowing or converting saves is I believe the measure of success and the bigger the game the more important. That’s what makes the 9th inning tougher than the other 8, lots of good set-up guys have failed as closers.
by Giant Torture on Jul 7, 2010 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions
But when you call it individual blown saves
You’re shriking the sample size to almost nothing
Proudly adopted Aubrey Huff. You can't beat that!
have you considered talking to your doctor about that?
Obviously any links in the above post are probably NSFW
The baseball gods do not always punish the wicked but they will not just allow people to spit in their faces -- Joe Posnanski
I wish I would stop cheating. fuck. this is jctgamer's fault -- jponry
Seriously
How much credit does he get for turning lemons into lemonade when he was the one who invested heavily in lemons? I mean, sure, he gets some, but how about just not make stupid moves in the first place that need to be salvaged?
Juan "Doesn't Cheat The Game" Perez, please keep hitting.
by marcello on Jul 7, 2010 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Wrecked
You can’t give the guy credit for Huff. Nobody in their right mind would have predicted his resurgence. Now, if Sabes know he was a goofball, that goes a long way and he should get mad props for that.
/auto-defenestrates
by Uribe nee Gonzalez on Jul 7, 2010 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions
that’s just silly. by that logic, if we can’t give him credit for Huff, we can’t ding him for Pierzynski. Pierzynski should have been great!
Billy Hayes: His job is better than yours.
Adopting Denny Bautista until someone tells me he's already spoken for.
I'm not one for conventional wisdom
But when assessing the value of a free agent, and thus the expectations put on said player, we should look at the contract the player signed for.
Conventional wisdom was that Huff was likely washed up at age 32 after having a terrible season. I’m not saying that I agree with this, or that it was a correct judgement, but I think this is true. One only has to look at the one-year deal for $3 million dollars that the Giants gave him, after having targeted two other firstbasemen whom they were will to throw more money and/or years at.
/auto-defenestrates
by Uribe nee Gonzalez on Jul 8, 2010 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions
Also,
Sabean overvalues catchers unless the catcher is a home-grown future All-Star. And he undervalued Nathan’s very strong 2003. Very few would have expected that Nathan would turn into a near-HOF candidate, but in turn, very few should have expected that AJ would be a great player or more than a small upgrade over who was it? Torrealba?
/auto-defenestrates
by Uribe nee Gonzalez on Jul 8, 2010 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions
"Nobody in their right mind would have predicted [Huff's] resurgence"
Geez, one bad year at 32 is not insurmountable. He’s got a career OPS+ of 114 and averages 25 HR and 93 RBI per 162 games.
"That sort of thing only happens to white people."
- Kirby Puckett joking about the fairy-tale nature of his friend, Cal Ripken Jr., homering in his final All-Star Game
I may have overstated my position,
but please see my above reply to delorean.
Also, as a hitter Huff was REALLY poor last year, excellent in 2008, and a little above average in 2006-2007 after being poor in 2005. So I’m not sure the track record is as good as you are claiming.
/auto-defenestrates
by Uribe nee Gonzalez on Jul 8, 2010 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions
So if I have this right, what I’m seeing here is, “You can’t give a GM credit for rolling the dice on a scrap heap signing.” Is that correct? At the very least, you can’t give a GM credit for a guy having a career year, though Huff’s had 3 or 4 comparable years in terms of OPS+.
I don’t know, the anti-Sabean chatter here just smacks of concern that if we don’t reduce the value of everything Sabean’s done, then management is twice as likely to keep him around after his contract expires. It IS okay to say he made a good signing or two, or a decent trade or two. It doesn’t invalidate the majority of his body of work since 2002.
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
You can give him credit for picking Huff as the 3rd player he wanted as opposed to some other guy. I’m not sure I would put that on my business card. If he said, “Look haters, I know that Huff is going to bounce back because of X, Y, and Z.” then I would have to give him credit, but Huff was a low risk move only made after missing on his first two targets. Yes you can say that these things will happen, you don’t alway get the player that you want. I agree. But to assume that Sabes thought he would get this level of production from Huff strikes me as naive. If you want to give credit to
Sabean for adapting to the situation after not getting his first two targets, then signing a player to a low-risk contract thinking that he might exceed said contract by a couple of million dollars – ok. But halfway through the season, Huff is valued at almost $12 million dollars. He has exceeded everyone’s expectations.
I’m not even putting Sabean down here, I am saying that the conventional wisdom (for better or worse) was that Huff wouldn’t sniff an wOBA of .350, much less .380. I think that is fair. If not, please direct me to a place where that wasn’t the case.
/auto-defenestrates
by Uribe nee Gonzalez on Jul 8, 2010 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions
Except Huff has been out of his goddamned mind so far this season, having a career year. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes, and Giants fans deserve an unexpected breakout performance after years of Pierzynskis and Ledees and Hillenbrands.
Unexpected, yes. Lucky for us, yes. Does that still justify, “SABEAN SUCKS, HE GETS NO CREDIT FOR THIS SIGNING, FUCK HIM!!!”? I don’t think so, but I’m apparently in the minority here. It was a low-risk alternative to two guys who Sabean half-heartedly negotiated with, and it worked out in our favor. Hooray! Can we be pleased, or does it just HAVE to come with caveats so Sabean can’t receive any praise ever?
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
This is what I said
If you want to give credit to
Sabean for adapting to the situation after not getting his first two targets, then signing a player to a low-risk contract thinking that he might exceed said contract by a couple of million dollars – ok.
And you will only get more from me by prying it out of my cold, dead brain.
/auto-defenestrates
by Uribe nee Gonzalez on Jul 8, 2010 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions
By the way
Can you imagine if Pablo was hitting like last year? Three players with a wOBA near .380. That would be amazing.
/auto-defenestrates
by Uribe nee Gonzalez on Jul 8, 2010 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions
Potentially 4 with Posey
/auto-defenestrates
by Uribe nee Gonzalez on Jul 8, 2010 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions
Only 3 teams in basball have 3 players with a wOBA over .380 as of today.
/auto-defenestrates
by Uribe nee Gonzalez on Jul 8, 2010 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions
Robb Nen for Joe Fontenot, Mick Pageler, and Mike Villano
Absolutely tremendous trade.
by Duelling Brandos on Jul 7, 2010 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions
I think all trades with the 1998/99 Marlins have to be put into their own separate sub-category, because that team quite probably moved more talent for less return in a quicker period of time than any other team in professional sports ever. It’s pretty clear looking back at that sequence of trades that they just weren’t trying to get a real return back.
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.
Good fucking heavens, now we have to qualify EVERY good trade? What the fuck?
It’s amazing to me that a thread trying to give Sabean credit for not screwing the pooch with every single move this offseason has fully devolved into a complete “FUCK SABEAN” thread instead!
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
Amazing?
Shirley, you jest: consider where we are.
New Yorkers used to be (and probably still are) said to be like this: always boasting that however bad something somewhere is, they’ve got it even badder. (Yes, I know, but it sounds more emphatic than “worse”.)
Professional baseball analyst since 1980.
Actually, I’m one of the one’s arguing that the process that led to signing Huff was strong and he does deserve credit for that, and I’ve argued elsewhere that I think his dumpster diving for Torres and Uribe (and Burrell and Mota) have been very deserving of praise.
However, I do think that the Nen trade is an example that needs to be contextualized a bit by the process that it was a part of. Yes it was great for us, but it was part of an extraordinary series of incredibly one-sided trades that that front office made within a couple months. I don’t see what’s wrong with context personally.
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.
Here is a fuller version. Again, I’m not saying it wasn’t a good trade, just that its worthwhile seeing it in its environment.
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.
Well, if they were just giving people away
Doesn’t Sabean deserve credit for being the one who received the free gifts? There were 30 other GMs who didn’t stick their hand out.
Proudly adopted Aubrey Huff. You can't beat that!
Outside the 90's?
Other than the Winn trade (who he subsequently gave an over-sized contract to based on SSS), has Sabean made a good trade in the last decade that wasn’t a dumping of a player that he shouldn’t have signed in the first place? Serious quesiton. I just can’t think of any good trades now. Maybe somebody can help me out.
/auto-defenestrates
by Uribe nee Gonzalez on Jul 7, 2010 4:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Schmidt
Here’s a list of all Sabean trades, free agent acquisitions, and draft picks.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2010/01/gm-trade-histories-nl-west.html
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
Yeah, that one turned out alright
There is mostly a whole lot of nothing on that list, except for… you know… that whole Boof Bonser deal.
There are a couple of good stopgags though: Galarraga, Witasick…
/auto-defenestrates
by Uribe nee Gonzalez on Jul 7, 2010 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Staples of a Brian Sabean offense
Stopgap solutions. That’s what drives me crazy in his roster construction.
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
Stopgaps
Yeah, he had a semi-plausable excuse when Bonds was around, but he should have shifted to a longer-run strategy during the 755 year.
"That sort of thing only happens to white people."
- Kirby Puckett joking about the fairy-tale nature of his friend, Cal Ripken Jr., homering in his final All-Star Game
Post-2002
I count 41 trades that Sabean has made since the end of the alleged 2002 World Series. Of those 41 trades, I would rate 2 of them as “good trades”: 1) Torrealba and Foppert for Randy Winn, and 2) J.T. Thomas for Dustan Mohr (this trade came a month after the AJ trade and I think may have partly been a case of Terry Ryan’s conscience getting the best of him). The latest trade of Bengie for Ray and Main I’d have to give an incomplete, although it does look very much as if it will prove to be another good trade.
Why couldn't McCovey have hit the ball just three feet higher?
The Matt Morris trade was good in an addition by subtraction way, though granted we didn’t get anything out of it long term other than to be out from under his contract which shouldn’t have been signed in the first place.
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.
USE A SUBJECT LINE!
Tommy Joseph is the Dingerzball Wizard
by SoFa King Mike on Jul 7, 2010 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions
pretty damn close. .295/.329/.493 @ age 24 (granted, he gets to play in a pinball machine, but still)
wut?
it’s very slightly below average.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
actually, i'm sorry
it’s very slightly ABOVE average.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
Not for a power-hitting dude with a .295 average
It’s a glaring weakness.
"The BB's are out. The BB's are being arseholes to me." - Brian Wilson.
not really
depending on BABIP/k rates/etc. OBP is OBP is OBP.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
By calling it a weakness
I meant that it’s an area where his game could vastly improve.
"The BB's are out. The BB's are being arseholes to me." - Brian Wilson.
ok
but that’s different from it being “bad”, which it isn’t.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
are you sure it's not OPP?
Obviously any links in the above post are probably NSFW
The baseball gods do not always punish the wicked but they will not just allow people to spit in their faces -- Joe Posnanski
I wish I would stop cheating. fuck. this is jctgamer's fault -- jponry
yes
it might be ODB though, i’m not 100%.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
pretty meh for Coors.
I think it’s fair to say that the jury is still out. He’s got crazy tools, and he’s shown flashes of goodness.
Mark DeRosa just got the damn surgery.
OPS + adjust for the park.
He has a 110 OPS+ no exactly earth shattering for a guy who plays the corner OF.
Matt Graham is an anagram for .... why don't you ask the scrabble expert!
by say hey nation on Jul 7, 2010 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions
accidental posting lulz
The point of the thread wasn’t to ignore all of Sabean’s past mistakes, but to credit him for what he’s done recently.
Fuck Armageddon, this is hell.
I think he is saying that the Posey one isn’t a positive as signing bengie didn’t keep Posey down long enough to have any real benefit.
Matt Graham is an anagram for .... why don't you ask the scrabble expert!
by say hey nation on Jul 7, 2010 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions
Posey’s performance doesn’t excuse the fact that his callup was mishandled. And I still kind of think Bumgarner didn’t need to come up this year, though he is pitching well so far.
Huff has been pretty awesome, and the Bengie trade was really a thing of beauty.
"I just struck out looking three times, but in any other ballpark those would have been home runs." - Aubrey Huff
by howtheyscored on Jul 7, 2010 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions
Posey
I don’t disagree that the callup was bungled, but it looks a lot better now that Bengie is gone. In the long term I don’t think anyone will be talking about his two months at 1B.
Billy Hayes: His job is better than yours.
Adopting Denny Bautista until someone tells me he's already spoken for.
I don't think there was a clear cut opinion
Sabean deserves zero credit for this because while some McCoven may have been calling for him to stay in Fresno, I believe there were more people screaming for him to start the season as the starting catcher.
It seems to me a great many people here were saying Posey should stay in Fresno. I think the most unfortunate thing was that when the Giants signed Molina, they still didn’t have a good idea whether Buster was ready. Knowing what he knows now, I think he would never have signed Molina, but hindsight is 20/20.
Proudly adopted Aubrey Huff. You can't beat that!
I can agree with that
There wasn’t a clear cut opinion, but the handling of Posey was still a total cluster duck. If Sabean wasn’t sure whether he was ready he should have said that instead of coming up with the lame excuse that he needed more time in AAA to learn how to catch major league pitchers. He bungled how Posey was handled.
by Giant Torture on Jul 7, 2010 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions
bungled!
Mr Bungle, awesome band. That is all.
Ask me about my blog.
by xanthan on Jul 7, 2010 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
one of my least favorite bands ever.
Billy Hayes: His job is better than yours.
Adopting Denny Bautista until someone tells me he's already spoken for.
and i hate a ton of stuff
so it’s a big deal to make that list
Billy Hayes: His job is better than yours.
Adopting Denny Bautista until someone tells me he's already spoken for.
Ooo la la.
"I just struck out looking three times, but in any other ballpark those would have been home runs." - Aubrey Huff
by howtheyscored on Jul 7, 2010 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions
I’m astounded that song was so popular, if only because it’s completely unlistenable by any human standards.
"I just struck out looking three times, but in any other ballpark those would have been home runs." - Aubrey Huff
by howtheyscored on Jul 7, 2010 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions
I tend to not enjoy anything Mike Patton is involved with.
Utter frustration and futility.
Adopted 'nephew' to the ever avuncular and always awesome Jon Miller
by Johnny Disaster on Jul 7, 2010 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions
this!
i’ve gone to see Fantomas a coupla times to see Lombardo and Buzz destroy shit, but Patton is SO FUCKING ANNOYING.
Billy Hayes: His job is better than yours.
Adopting Denny Bautista until someone tells me he's already spoken for.
I don’t think I’ll ever understand.
"I just struck out looking three times, but in any other ballpark those would have been home runs." - Aubrey Huff
by howtheyscored on Jul 7, 2010 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions
just because
you can’t read her, can’t read her, no you can’t read her poker face
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
he'd better stop calling
stop calling, she don’t wanna talk anymore
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
That was awesome.
If Lady Gaga had written that song and given it to FNM to record, it would not only be an International Superhit but it would be a favorite of metalheads instead of the joke that it is now.
These are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others. -Groucho Marx
I’ve held this back for a long time:
Rush > Mr Bungle
Mr Bungle is evil clown music.
Mark DeRosa just got the damn surgery.
backed, hard
fuck that circus music bullshit
Billy Hayes: His job is better than yours.
Adopting Denny Bautista until someone tells me he's already spoken for.
Mr Bunghole.
Utter frustration and futility.
Adopted 'nephew' to the ever avuncular and always awesome Jon Miller
by Johnny Disaster on Jul 7, 2010 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions
GMs are playing poker
They can’t just tell us what they’re thinking all the time. Otherwise, they don’t end up trading Molinas for Rays and Mains.
"The BB's are out. The BB's are being arseholes to me." - Brian Wilson.
one thing I do find amusing about this site is how many people think the Giants’ FO is full of liars. As though we expect them to lay out every strategy and nuance of their plans to the general public.
And if there's one thing we should all know by now
Sabean never ever ever shows his cards. His trades and most of his signings always come out of nowhere.
Yet people still think because they don’t hear any rumors, Sabean has nothing up his sleeve.
Proudly adopted Aubrey Huff. You can't beat that!
Yet people stillthinkhope because they don’t hear any rumors, Sabean has nothing up his sleeve.
FTFY
This
Also, because he doesn’t answer his phone, or at least according to other GM’s he doesn’t answer his phone. According to him, he doesn’t like talking to whipper-snappers and only deals with other grizzly gamer GM’s.
by Giant Torture on Jul 7, 2010 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions
That’s putting some words in Sabean’s mouth right there.
His last trade of 2009 was with Neal Huntington. It might be the only example of a younger generation GM I can come up with, but there’s evidence he talks with more than the old school guys.
Unless Huntington is an old school guy…
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
There are 30 teams. Some you don’t have anything in common with. Some are young guys cutting their teeth, chatterboxes throwing things against the wall to see what sticks
by Giant Torture on Jul 7, 2010 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions
Post fail...
Direct quote from Sabean, I don’t think I put anything in his mouth.
by Giant Torture on Jul 7, 2010 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions
That doesn't equal this:
According to him, he doesn’t like talking to whipper-snappers and only deals with other grizzly gamer GM’s.
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
Obviously...
There was some satire included, but yes I think that you could replace “young guys cutting their teeth, chatterboxes throwing things against the wall to see what sticks” with “whipper snappers” and if he doesn’t deal with young guys that only leaves old guys, as young GM’s are middle aged.
by Giant Torture on Jul 7, 2010 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions
I hate when I do this… Too often, I ignore the obvious comical point someone might be making, instead favoring arguing like a moron. Soooooooooooo… Sorry about that. I get your point.
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
No worries
Happens to me all the time and I do mean all the time.
by Giant Torture on Jul 7, 2010 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions
As we discussed many times here
The decision to start him in Fresno could have been arb-clock realted and perforamnce related.
Sabean couldn’t say “We think he’s ready, but we’re gonna keep him in AAA for a couple of months. We’re hoping by doing so, we might be able to avoid ‘Super 2’ status with the kid.” The player’s union would have crapped their pants and fans would have said the team cares more about money than winning.
In an ideal world, Bengie could have snapped back to his 2008 form and we wouldn’t have needed Buster this year. As it turned out, Bengie regressed and Buster improved in AAA.
Now, you may think the Giants screwed up playing Buster at 1st and continuing to start Molina at C, but we don’t know how much of that was to try to showcase Bengie. I’ll be honest, if I was join a Ginats Brazz meeting and was told they were showcasing him, I’d have flipped out and said “You’re joking right? You actually think there’s a market for Molina?! That’s just crazy talk, Brian!” and I would have been dead wrong as we all know now.
Proudly adopted Aubrey Huff. You can't beat that!
flat nuts wrong!
Billy Hayes: His job is better than yours.
Adopting Denny Bautista until someone tells me he's already spoken for.
Add on to that
The fact that we basically paid 4.5 million for Main and Ray, and that was a pretty good signing.
My Son. Dude hits inside the parkers and takes walks.
My rule for the 2010 Giants: Everyone with an OPS over .800 gets a pass.
I am a Bochy hater and a Sabean apologist.
This is negative
but true.
It was a nice illusory OP, though. then Giant Torture brings in the reality.
Back on the market.
by positiveuphemism on Jul 7, 2010 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions
I think Sabean’s best move over the past several seasons is not trading Matt Cain.
by Duelling Brandos on Jul 7, 2010 9:24 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
I can get down with that.
"I just struck out looking three times, but in any other ballpark those would have been home runs." - Aubrey Huff
by howtheyscored on Jul 7, 2010 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions
We haven’t left Milwaukee, yet…
Tommy Joseph is the Dingerzball Wizard
by SoFa King Mike on Jul 7, 2010 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions
Or Timmeh
And that has to have been discussed. Skinny guy, weird delivery, there had to have been some body of opinion after the first CY arguing that his trade value would never be higher, and he was an injury risk.
Fulfilling your Gus Benusa needs since 2009!
by Giantsfan4life on Jul 7, 2010 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions
And Sanchez
Proud father of Mike Krukow (who is more than 3 times my age)
Grab Some Pine, Meat
Still cheering for Kevin Frandsen
John Bowker: One of the 3 best OF's on the Giants roster
Parade Rainin'
Did anyone notice that Pablo’s SLG is now under .400? Or that his ISO is at .127?
:,(
Ask me about my blog.
Yes I did
But the polite thing to do would be not to call attention to it.
We’ll have BP for a while.
You can't solve your problems with the same level of thinking that created the problems - Albert Einstein to Brian Sabean
I blame the birds
If the birds weren’t hanging out in the water, they wouldn’t be covered in oil, and Pablo’s ISO and SLG would be much higher.
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
IT WILL GET BETTER
"I just struck out looking three times, but in any other ballpark those would have been home runs." - Aubrey Huff
by howtheyscored on Jul 7, 2010 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions
He seems to be exceptionally “in his head” right now, and it’s hard not to believe that it’s screwing him up. When you see things like last night where he was tracking his brother’s at bat and said out loud “Please don’t be like me” it’s hard to believe that he’s anything but mentally screwed up right now.
"I just struck out looking three times, but in any other ballpark those would have been home runs." - Aubrey Huff
by howtheyscored on Jul 7, 2010 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions
This
I think they tinkered with his approach too much and he’s questioning everything, but he does need to lose some weight.
by Giant Torture on Jul 7, 2010 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions
True
He still swings at everything in his zip code, but I don’t see him going after those pitches the way he did, his swings somehow seem more half-hearted, which would seem to me that they’re in his head.
by Giant Torture on Jul 7, 2010 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions
Half-hearted = slow bat speed? Maybe? He seems to be fouling off a lot of pitches. I should see if I can check that with PFX.
Ask me about my blog.
Have you seen the STATmobile? It’s kind of awesome.
"I just struck out looking three times, but in any other ballpark those would have been home runs." - Aubrey Huff
by howtheyscored on Jul 7, 2010 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions
STATarangs are deadly, too.
"I just struck out looking three times, but in any other ballpark those would have been home runs." - Aubrey Huff
by howtheyscored on Jul 7, 2010 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions
All of us chipping into buy xanthan a tricked-out van
loaded with computers, monitors, printers, charts and a big satelite dish on top would be so worth it.
Proudly adopted Aubrey Huff. You can't beat that!
STATmobile...beta version
Adopted Son:Matt Downs MLB , Now with More STATZ goodness !Matt Downs Fangraphs The Juan Uribe of 2011 !
Theory
fat on the brain!
Back on the market.
by positiveuphemism on Jul 7, 2010 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions
Aubrey Huff is the most delicious crow I’ve ever eaten.
Mark DeRosa just got the damn surgery.
by oldjacket on Jul 7, 2010 9:47 AM PDT reply actions 3 recs
this
sig material
Eugenio Velez: Really fast... at getting picked off. SICK BURN!!
also
needs more greens
Eugenio Velez: Really fast... at getting picked off. SICK BURN!!
/hangs head and raises hand
I like my beer cold ... my TV loud ... and my romosexuals flaming.--Homer Simpson
I wish we knew whether Bowker was a viable major leaguer. Then again, he’s only been on the fringe for
three seasons or so. It only took our org four seasons to figure out Linden was AAAA—and Bowker’s a way better hitter.
You can't solve your problems with the same level of thinking that created the problems - Albert Einstein to Brian Sabean
1 and 3, hell yeah. 2, hell no—they bungled the Buster Posey situation six ways to Sunday, though I’m happy things are finally on the right track. 4, too early to tell.
Also let’s give him some credit for picking Torres & Uribe off the scrap heap. The team would be miles below .500 without those two.
Uribe probably should've made my list
But with the current slump it just wasn’t that compelling. But this team would be profoundly fucked if not for Uribe. It almost makes up for signing Renteria!
Billy Hayes: His job is better than yours.
Adopting Denny Bautista until someone tells me he's already spoken for.
not really
Juan Uribe 2010 wOBA – .330
Edgar Renteria 2010 wOBA – .323.
Less than a 1.5 wRAA difference between them.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
+1 for Torres and Uribe
This
"That sort of thing only happens to white people."
- Kirby Puckett joking about the fairy-tale nature of his friend, Cal Ripken Jr., homering in his final All-Star Game
I only give him credit for Huff
At the time I thought it was a terrible signing, although I did admit back then that there was a possibility that they knew of or had seen something (an injury, an easily correctable mechanical flaw) that accounted for his crappy performance last year. It seemed exceedingly unlikely, but all signs now point to “They knew what they were doing.” Which is, um, unexpected.
Posey and Bengie? No points. Should just have gone with Posey in the first place. What did he learn by wailing on the PCL for six weeks? I suppose I should give Sabes credit for fleecing the Rangers, but all that does is undo his own mistake.
MadBum? Also no points. Essentially the org’s hand was forced when all the other 5th starter candidates failed. Fortunately, Madison’s been good so far, but it seems more like good fortune than good planning.
I think Sabean should still get credit for unloading Bengie
Yes he fucked up by re-signing him, but he recognized his mistake and not only dumped him but actually got something in return.
The alternative is that Bengie is still on the team.
Hey, if we’re gonna rip Sabean every time he fucks something up, we should also be willing to give him credit for good moves.
Billy Hayes: His job is better than yours.
Adopting Denny Bautista until someone tells me he's already spoken for.
I will say that it is very un-Sabean-like to essentially admit a mistake in that way. Is our GMs learning?
by taliesin on Jul 7, 2010 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
baby steps!
Billy Hayes: His job is better than yours.
Adopting Denny Bautista until someone tells me he's already spoken for.
Really? I think he’s been okay about that. Pierzynski and Garko leap to mind as acquisitions who got the heave-ho when they didn’t work out.
Garko
do you think he didn’t work out? dude never had a chance here. He was relegated to the bench after like a half-dozen ABs!
Billy Hayes: His job is better than yours.
Adopting Denny Bautista until someone tells me he's already spoken for.
Bochy used him horribly, yeah. But everything that’s happened to Garko since suggests that cutting him loose was the right call.
agreed
but i don’t think we can give Sabean credit in this instance. Also, I don’t think he had a chance about cutting AJ loose. He absolutely salted the earth here and more or less forced Sabean to unload him.
Billy Hayes: His job is better than yours.
Adopting Denny Bautista until someone tells me he's already spoken for.
What's Garko's deal, anyway?
I thought we were getting a servicable RHH. He was having a solid season in Cleveland when we got him. Yes, he didn’t get much of a chance here, but I keep thinking there’s more to the story than we know. His failures in Texas make you wonder even more what’s going on.
To fall out of grace with two teams like he has makes you wonder if he has some sort of substance abuse issue or something. Maybe it’s a conditioning thing. I remember seeing he was participating in “Camp Panda”.
Proudly adopted Aubrey Huff. You can't beat that!
His deal is that he’s not very good at baseball.
Juan "Doesn't Cheat The Game" Perez, please keep hitting.
Old player skills + not being terribly good to begin with
MARCELLO WUZ RITE
Mark DeRosa just got the damn surgery.
Scott Barnes
Horrible start but has been mostly ok since then.
Juan "Doesn't Cheat The Game" Perez, please keep hitting.
Barnes' peripherals are actually really good this year
and his FIP is like 2 points better than his ERA
Proud father of Mike Krukow (who is more than 3 times my age)
Grab Some Pine, Meat
Still cheering for Kevin Frandsen
John Bowker: One of the 3 best OF's on the Giants roster
BB Rate is improving-here's what John Sickels wrote about him on June 24
**Cleveland Indians southpaw pitching prospect Scott Barnes has some ugly-looking numbers at Double-A Akron: 3-6, 5.82, with a 67/30 K/BB in 60.1 innings, 58 hits allowed. However, the ERA overstates things…his FIP is much better at 3.82, and his excellent K/IP rate stands out as a positive. After running aground in April and early May, he’s taken the ship off the rocks in June, with a 2.91 ERA and a 28/7 K/BB in 22 innings, 16 hits allowed. The improvement in his K/BB ratio is very impressive. Barnes works with an 88-93 MPH fastball, with a very good changeup but an erratic, if promising, breaking ball. He has an unusual delivery which adds some deception, but is quite athletic and repeats it well. The Indians acquired him from the Giants last summer for Ryan Garko; San Francisco had drafted him in the eighth round out of St. John’s in ’08.
Proud father of Mike Krukow (who is more than 3 times my age)
Grab Some Pine, Meat
Still cheering for Kevin Frandsen
John Bowker: One of the 3 best OF's on the Giants roster
According to the Indians folks, it was a conditioning thing. Garko was a grinder who was losing bat speed, and wasn’t putting in a lot of effort to try to compensate. Sabean figured that out after he got him, which is why he was shelved and cut loose.
Jonathan Sanchez: Often maddening to watch, but capable of perfection on a moment's notice---just like his adoptive father.
The Posey call-up is still messed up. It made no sense. Barley helped the team, if at all (compared to letting him stay in the minors for couple more weeks), and cost quite a lot of money.
I was promised lasagna.
it's not my money
and i’ve certainly enjoyed watching him play. only time will tell if there are any long-term repercussions.
Billy Hayes: His job is better than yours.
Adopting Denny Bautista until someone tells me he's already spoken for.
I don't understand why people worry so much about the money
I too have loved watching him play.
"The BB's are out. The BB's are being arseholes to me." - Brian Wilson.
You do remember what happened with Lincecum this offseason, right?
It sure would be nice to have another $10 million to play with. If you don’t care about your teams financials, you’re doing it wrong.
Juan "Doesn't Cheat The Game" Perez, please keep hitting.
by marcello on Jul 7, 2010 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
No, more money is bad
For Sabean that is, he does much better shopping in the bargain aisle than he does with money.
by Giant Torture on Jul 7, 2010 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions
Why does everybody assume that Posey will suddenly make $10 million/year in arbitration???
Unless you think he’s the second coming of Joe Mauer or Ryan Howard (in arbitration awards, anyway), why are people losing their shit over a year that might not cost the Giants very much more than what they were already willing to pay for a starting catcher with plus offense? And who’s to say the Giants can’t/won’t buy out his arb years or sign him to a reasonable deal? And who’s to say that the whole Super Two issue won’t be dealt with in the next CBA and this could all be a moot point? Moot, I say!
because
it’s his last year of arbitration that is the extra $ we’re paying, not the first
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
And because it’s so typical of a team that seems unable to think long-term.
by Evan on Jul 7, 2010 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Everything you wrote here completely misunderstands the entire point
Juan "Doesn't Cheat The Game" Perez, please keep hitting.
Point: Will cost the team "too much" money in the long-term, "barely" [sic] helped the team short-term
Taking the money out of it, helping the team is helping the team. For crissakes we root for a team that will pay Barry Zito $20 MILLION come 2013. We’re “through the looking glass” or beyond the bitching about cost analysis when it comes to a top position player who will play every day. That’s what I think, anyway.
Do I give credit to Sabean for calling up Posey? No. The point I take from the original comment is that even if Sabean could be given credit for this, he shouldn’t because it was botched in so many ways.
I’m saying that Sabean deserves no credit for a no-brain decision and adding money as an issue is a silly point of contention when we’re talking about a Giants’ hitting prospect, truly a once in a generation event.
Is there any reason to believe that it will mean that, though, other then the fact that it “might”?
Also, would it apply to players already in the majors? That wouldn’t make sense. MLB players and teams are signing contracts based on the current rules.
I was promised lasagna.
How far into the future should a team look is sort of the bottom line in all this. Posey’s good and helpful to the team now. I understand the necessity in limiting costs, but at this point, the Giants really have entered into a WIN NOW! mode with the pitching and thinking about a fourth year of arbitration really something that we arm chair analysts have the luxury of dissecting to death.
but they didn't have to keep him down all year
only for another 2-3 weeks after they called him up. 2-3 weeks of production, even from a good player, isn’t worth $8M, even if you don’t have to pay it for 4 years
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
Another part of this seems to be that Posey didn’t help the team very much when he came up. So, in those 2-3 weeks, if Posey stayed down, the Giants lose a lot more games and are well out of it by now, and that’s okay because 4 years from now they don’t have to pay $8 million dollars to a guy already on their team and can instead use that money to collect a number of scrap heap free agents, Michael Tucker style?
ok
between when Buster was called up on May 29, but before Posey’s slump started June 11 (about when he would have been called up anyways), the Giants played 13 games, and won 7 of them. In 2 of those, his R+RBI = MOV. So, if Posey hadn’t been called up, the Giants would have lost 1 MAYBE 2 extra games (hell, maybe 0). That’s not worth 8 million goddamn dollars.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
Money saved is money earned
I’m in this line.
"That sort of thing only happens to white people."
- Kirby Puckett joking about the fairy-tale nature of his friend, Cal Ripken Jr., homering in his final All-Star Game
Quick facts
The difference between Albert Pujols and Travis Ishikawa, over a full season, is 7 wins at the most.
The difference between Albert Pujols and Travis Ishikawa over 2 weeks is, therefore, about half a win.
For the early call-up to be worth just half a win, the difference between Posey’s bat and Schierholtz’s bat (which is the one he actually replaced in the lineup) would have to be similar to the difference between Pujols’s bat and Ishikawa’s bat.
I was promised lasagna.
To be fair, not that I’m generally inclined to be when it comes to Sabean, they would have had to keep him down for a lot more than 2-3 more weeks. More like six weeks, thanks to last season’s pointless call-up. The point still stands though. Six weeks of Albert Pujols probably isn’t worth $8 million.
If Sabean had signed a 1B with a 110 OPS+ for 2 weeks, and payed him $8M, would you go “great move, and it’s not money anyway”? I wouldn’t. I would say that it’s a colossal waste of money, and that it’s not even clear that it helps the team at all.
I was promised lasagna.
this
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
ok
a 1B with a 110 OPS+ to play for us for 2 weeks for league min, but we’ll have to pay $8M 4 years from now.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
what?
a free agent when? For the 2 weeks buster was up this year?
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
4 years from now, which seems to be the crux of the criticism being lobbed at Sabean concerning the Posey call-up.
what?
super 2 doesn’t affect how long a player is under team control.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
/understands Super 2
The Giants are going to spend $8 million dollars no matter what, but if they have to do it on the Free Agent market, they will probably spend an additional $12 million to sign a single offensive player. The thought made sense in my head, anyway. Point is, we’re dealing with some big assumptions about payroll, Posey may not even be on the team in 3-4 years simply because of trade or injury, this organization has always been about “Win Now!”, the entire Super Two argument is moot because if a guy’s good you don’t worry about all that stuff, and using it as a criticism against Brian Sabean is laughable because there are so many other things to criticize him for, especially concerning payroll. We can use yours and Cookyman’s same argument for Tim Lincecum’s call-up.
"We can use yours and Cookyman’s same argument for Tim Lincecum’s call-up"
Some have. Not just here, Baggs has as well. If the Giants had waited just a month more, they would have $10M more this offseason. That is a crap load of money.
The difference, though, is that Lincecum was a huge improvement over the non existent 5th start the 2007 Giants had, while Buster, as a 1B, wasn’t a huge improvement.
I was promised lasagna.
As for the rest of your argument
Posey may not even be on the team in 3-4 years simply because of trade or injury
True, though very unlikely in my opinion. Sabean very rarely trades good players, and career threatening injuries for position players are pretty rare.
this organization has always been about "Win Now!"
That is a description of fact, not an argument.
the entire Super Two argument is moot because if a guy’s good you don’t worry about all that stuff
OK. Let’s raise Cain’s 2011 salary by $10M, just for the hell of it. He’s good, after all – no reason to worry!
and using it as a criticism against Brian Sabean is laughable because there are so many other things to criticize him for, especially concerning payroll
Why choose when you can have it all?
I don’t think it’s a disastrous move. It’s not even in the top-3 of bad moves that Sabean has made this season. But it just makes no sense. It’s similar to the Garko thing – the trade was not good, but understandable. The DFA was meh. But the trade, combined with the DFA, makes absolutely no sense.
I would understand it if Buster had started the year in the majors. I wouldn’t necessarily like it, but I would understand it. I would like it if they had called Buster up as catcher after the deadline – some wouldn’t like it, but would certainly understand the logic. But I cannot understand not starting with him in the majors, and then calling him up just before the deadline – and to play one of the few positions from which we were getting really good production. There is no logic that leads to that.
I was promised lasagna.
Agreed. It was all illogical, and I think it is important to think about the money four years down the road. It’s reasonable to expect it to be a lot of money, so the Giants should consider it. That seems like good management to me.
I feel prickishly demanding!
I couldn't be prouder of my recent adoptee - Tim Lincecum's dealer. He provides the secret fuel behind both Cy Youngs. Also, he taught Timmy the change-up.
by giantsfansince1981 on Jul 8, 2010 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions
i think you spelt that wrong
Billy Hayes: His job is better than yours.
Adopting Denny Bautista until someone tells me he's already spoken for.
There’s some grain of truth in that comment
Tommy Joseph is the Dingerzball Wizard
by SoFa King Mike on Jul 7, 2010 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions
You really oat to be ashamed of yourself for a pun like that.
"I never think I’m a good player or a bad player. This is what I’m thinking: I can play. And I want to play." - Juan Uribe
You can’t be ashamed when pun is your bread and butter.
by Giant Torture on Jul 7, 2010 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions
and getting more response at this point is just gravy
Obviously any links in the above post are probably NSFW
The baseball gods do not always punish the wicked but they will not just allow people to spit in their faces -- Joe Posnanski
I wish I would stop cheating. fuck. this is jctgamer's fault -- jponry
This is getting really corny
"The BB's are out. The BB's are being arseholes to me." - Brian Wilson.
I don’t know, I think it’s quinoa funny.
Utter frustration and futility.
Adopted 'nephew' to the ever avuncular and always awesome Jon Miller
by Johnny Disaster on Jul 7, 2010 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Millet ever end ?
Adopted Son:Matt Downs MLB , Now with More STATZ goodness !Matt Downs Fangraphs The Juan Uribe of 2011 !
I'm just amaized
"Row(and) will come out of this. You stay with your guys and he is one of our guys." - Bruce Bochy 05-31-10
"...and with Titanic's transverse bulkheads and watertight doors, it renders this vessel practically unsinkable." - "Shipbuilder" magazine, 1912
Now you're just trying to get a rice out of us.
"I never think I’m a good player or a bad player. This is what I’m thinking: I can play. And I want to play." - Juan Uribe
This conversation has floured into something oat of control
These are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others. -Groucho Marx
It's become very cerealistic.
"I never think I’m a good player or a bad player. This is what I’m thinking: I can play. And I want to play." - Juan Uribe
I think he Barley made Pablo fat.
Matt Graham is an anagram for .... why don't you ask the scrabble expert!
by say hey nation on Jul 7, 2010 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions
Pat Burrell
Still in SSS territory, but Burrell is looking like an excellent scrapheap signing so far. Despite his awful start in TB (68 OPS+) he’s now at 106 OPS+ for 2010.
"I never think I’m a good player or a bad player. This is what I’m thinking: I can play. And I want to play." - Juan Uribe
He has hit better than I expected, but with his defense, you really can’t think about starting him unless he’s in the 120-130 range.
Ask me about my blog.
Well, looking only at his stats as a Giant, he’s at a 147 OPS+
"I never think I’m a good player or a bad player. This is what I’m thinking: I can play. And I want to play." - Juan Uribe
This
I will actually give Sabean some credit for, the Burrell pickup has worked out nicely.
by Giant Torture on Jul 7, 2010 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions
It's become apparent
Sabean does much better shopping on the clearance rack than he does shopping at the fancy boutique stores. Maybe they should make him reduce the payroll and the Giants would get better.
by Giant Torture on Jul 7, 2010 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions
Plays right into Sabean's preferred shopping mode...
Pick up guys who WERE good and have the potential (if by no other reason than their name) to be nearly as good again.
I was gonna say this
…a 147 OPS+ in SF works for me.
More than that, his ABs are a thing of beauty. Sees a lot of pitches, controls the strike zone and has a plan. His success so far certainly doesn’t look flukey.
It looks more and more like Burrell’s issues in TB were between his ears. Whatever it was (league, team, contract, DHing, etc), he certainly seems to be at ease here. Playing with his old college teammate Huff probably is a lot of fun, too.
Proudly adopted Aubrey Huff. You can't beat that!
I really don’t buy the DH MADE ME SUCK thing, but there probably is a league component involved. Getting out the AL East has to be good for a player.
Ask me about my blog.
I think the pressure of living up to a big contract could have played a role
Along with playing for a new team after being with one team your whole career.
Proudly adopted Aubrey Huff. You can't beat that!
Burrell actually had a larger contract (per year) in his last 3 years with the Phillies, and it didn’t seem to bother him — .254/.385/.504, OPS .889, OPS+ 125
Year Team Salary Sources Notes 2001 Philadelphia Phillies $1,905,000 4/6/01 USA Today 2002 Philadelphia Phillies $1,905,000 4/3/02 AP 2003 Philadelphia Phillies $1,250,000 4/3/03 AP 2004 Philadelphia Phillies $4,250,000 4/7/04 AP 2005 Philadelphia Phillies $7,250,000 2006 Philadelphia Phillies $9,750,000 2007 Philadelphia Phillies $13,250,000 2008 Philadelphia Phillies $14,250,000 2009 Tampa Bay Rays $7,000,000 2010 Tampa Bay Rays $9,000,000
Ask me about my blog.
Good point, but I think it's a different story when it's a new team
A lot more to “proove”
Proudly adopted Aubrey Huff. You can't beat that!
or a lot less “roids”
Obviously any links in the above post are probably NSFW
The baseball gods do not always punish the wicked but they will not just allow people to spit in their faces -- Joe Posnanski
I wish I would stop cheating. fuck. this is jctgamer's fault -- jponry
Funny fact- People in Philly think that he didn’t live up to his contract here. Oh, the perils of having a awesome year when you are 25.
Matt Graham is an anagram for .... why don't you ask the scrabble expert!
by say hey nation on Jul 7, 2010 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions
*here=there
Matt Graham is an anagram for .... why don't you ask the scrabble expert!
by say hey nation on Jul 7, 2010 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions
Burrell is marginal defensively,
and that is more noticeable when you have Rowand in Center and Huff in right. “Where triples go to live.”
I like my beer cold ... my TV loud ... and my romosexuals flaming.--Homer Simpson
I think that’s skewed by the fact that players often have to DH more as they get older, which coincides with an overall decline in skills.
Jonathan Sanchez: Often maddening to watch, but capable of perfection on a moment's notice---just like his adoptive father.
Well, Thomas complained about DH’ing even when he was in his prime (he was never good defensively, so even when he was young he played DH sometimes), but I have no idea if statistically he hit worse when he didn’t play defense. He definitely thought he did though.
I don’t have it at my fingertips, but I do seem to remember Thomas losing about 100 points on his BA even when he was ungodly good as a DH
But, as I said above, the trouble with those stats is that he did a lot of his full-time DHing as an older player, when his bat wasn’t as strong.
Jonathan Sanchez: Often maddening to watch, but capable of perfection on a moment's notice---just like his adoptive father.
yeah, I didn't bother looking up all the individual years
but at the exact middle of his career, 1999
1B – .975
DH – .836
1998 and 2000 also have a .100+ difference in OPS between DH and 1B.
After a quick browse through some of the numbers, I’m guessing there’s a pretty solidy case for saying Thomas was a better hitter when he didn’t DH
Proudly adopted Aubrey Huff. You can't beat that!
This was mentioned once before in this thread, but I think it needs more emphasis: Remember that Huff was Sabean’s third choice for a 1B signing which he resorted to only after he couldn’t get one of his first two choices. So if Sabean somehow saw through all the indications that no one should expect much from Huff this season, then why didn’t he go after him earlier?
Sabean got lucky with Plan C. I’m happy it worked out that way because watching Huff play has been a blast. But to suggest as some have (not in this thread, necessarily, but certainly elsewhere) that Sabean’s great vision saw through all those damned statistics and brought the team a great player seems like quite a stretch, especially given the way the off-season quest for a first-baseman played out.
Sometimes being lucky is better than being good.
Billy Hayes: His job is better than yours.
Adopting Denny Bautista until someone tells me he's already spoken for.
Then he deserves credit for being lucky...
which means we shouldn’t be mad at the Padres and all their lucky hits.
In fairness, he wasn't anybody here's 1st choice either
And I’m guessing some of Sabean’s failures weren’t his first choice either.
If you start grading GMs based on whether they got their first, second or third choice, it’s going to be wildly inaccurate because we never know the whole story in any scenario with any GM.
Proudly adopted Aubrey Huff. You can't beat that!
by Goofus on Jul 7, 2010 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
But that's the job
It’s his job to have a 1st, 2nd and 3rd choice, so in retrospect I might give him a little more credit with Huff, but I don’t think it excuses his other awful signings.
by Giant Torture on Jul 7, 2010 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions
I don’t think anyone is saying that one good signing should excuse or negate the bad moves he’s made.
Billy Hayes: His job is better than yours.
Adopting Denny Bautista until someone tells me he's already spoken for.
I’ll admit that my extreme displeasure of Sabean clouds my judgement of good moves he may or may not have made, but I think that at the end of the day he should be judged on the overall final product, which is equal to zero World Series in 14 years.
by Giant Torture on Jul 7, 2010 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions
Yet you give a lot of credit to Beane
How many world series’ does he have? A GM constructs the team, but a lot of other factors lead to world championships. I would argue that both Billy Beane and Brian Sabean have constructed better teams than some of the ones that won world championships over the last 10-15 years.
"The BB's are out. The BB's are being arseholes to me." - Brian Wilson.
WTF
I don’t give a lot of credit to Beane, I was just using him as an example of someone producing the same results as Sabean with half the budget. For once and for all, fuck Billy fuckin Beane.
by Giant Torture on Jul 7, 2010 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions
You love Beane so much, you want to marry him! Well you can’t, not in California!!!
/jk
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
That's why
He and I are running away to Hawaii and our honeymoon we’re going to get Brian Sabean to trade us Buster Posey and Jonathan Sanchez for Kurt Suzuki.
by Giant Torture on Jul 7, 2010 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions
Which why you don’t judge GM’s in hindsight. Sabean lucked into Huff. There’s no way around that.
I was promised lasagna.
depends what you mean by "lucked into"
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
I mean that it’s clear that he didn’t think Huff will be anywhere as good as he has been. Unless he thought that Nick Johnson and Andy LaRoche are going to do even better.
It should get credit for what it was – a cheap pickup of a once pretty good player, who most thought is done. I don’t see any reason to think that Sabean liked him any more than he liked, say, Ryan Klesko, when he was signed. There is luck involved in every move.
I was promised lasagna.
He should get some credit for at least realizing that the difference between Huff and LaRoche was not going to be however many millions of dollars. He shouldn’t get any credit for predicting a breakout, because clearly he didn’t. I remember in interview going into the year, he said that the second best hitter on the team (after Sandoval) was Molina. Clearly, Sabean was not expecting Huff to even rebound to his career numbers.
Mark DeRosa just got the damn surgery.
This was the point I was going to make re: Huff. Us signing Huff was basically an accident.
Jonathan Sanchez: Often maddening to watch, but capable of perfection on a moment's notice---just like his adoptive father.
That's just not fair
Sabes could have targeted any number of guys. If you’re going to say that “the right one” was not his #1, then at least give him credit for him having him in his top 3.
True story: I once hired a guy who was my third choice, after the first two became unavailable. The #3 guy turned out to be completely awesome. I am very proud of that hiring.
"The BB's are out. The BB's are being arseholes to me." - Brian Wilson.
This
Plus, would any manager ever sign any player thinking—ah, he’ll surely suck, but we have money to burn, so. . .He signed Huff because he thought he’d be good. He also signed Rowand because he thought he’d be good too. Sort out credit and blame, but not all moves work out. For some reason, Sabean seems to do better getting guys off the scrap heap, free talent guys, like Burrell and Huff and Torres, then guys where there’s a competitive market, like Renteria and Rowand.
Fulfilling your Gus Benusa needs since 2009!
by Giantsfan4life on Jul 7, 2010 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions
Care to explain your reasoning?
If it’s that I “lucked” into the best of the applicants, I disagree. There were a lot of applicants. I picked him as one of my top choices. If we could know for a fact that choices 1 and 2 would have sucked, then yes, I was lucky, but we don’t know that, just as Sabean didn’t know that Huff would be the best of the three when he signed him.
"The BB's are out. The BB's are being arseholes to me." - Brian Wilson.
There were a lot of applicants
Well, then the analogy doesn’t work. There weren’t that many 1B out there.
I was promised lasagna.
Sabean also didn't HAVE to get a 1B
he could have gotten a 3B, or stuck with TI/Bowker (lol)
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
I was just worried that you felt vindicated with a guy who turned out to be great, but who you didn’t think was that great at first. So, instead of learning from a faulty process that led you to a bad result, that only ended up working out through luck, you’ve deemed the process sound and are doomed to repeat it. So, not only was it a mistake, but you learned nothing from it, compounding that mistake.
But, it sounds like maybe you really liked the guy out of a large group and maybe he was a close third, which changes it quite a bit. And also makes it irrelevant to Huff and Sabean.
Juan "Doesn't Cheat The Game" Perez, please keep hitting.
how do you know
how much Sabean liked Huff? We know he liked him enough to pay him about the salary of a 1 WAR player, and he turned out to be much better than that.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
My point was that 3rd out of 3 is a lot different than 3rd out of 20. One of these has to do with Huff, the other with hairball.
Juan "Doesn't Cheat The Game" Perez, please keep hitting.
Why do you say that like there were only 3 options for Sabean?
By my count, there were 26 options available at 1B/3B
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
not counting players who retired
and not counting trade options, and not counting signing Uribe to play 3rd
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
how do you know how many of Hairball's options were "reasonable"?
in any case, Sabes still had more than 3 options. Some of which I’m sure (at the time of Huff’s signing) people here would have preferred to Huff by a wide margin
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
I agree with hairball that you're not being fair
If you’re going to ding Sabean for Huff being choice #3, then there are a lot of other GMs you should ding for not singing Huff at all.
I think it’s not black or white with the choice rankings. I think a GM has to say things like “I’ll go as high as ($ amt/years) for player A, but if I can’t get that, I’ll go as high as ($ amt/years) for player B ,etc”
Huff might have been “choice #3” but only because Sabean might have only wanted Huff at a certain cheaper price and knew he’d need to wait for Huff’s value to come down. In the meantime, perhaps he thought he could “steal” Laroche or Johnson.
I’m not sure if I expressed this clearly or not.
Proudly adopted Aubrey Huff. You can't beat that!
Actually, signing Huff was a decision. Sabean clearly wasn’t going to bid up to any of the other options’ contract demands. Huff was the one who, as far as Sabes was concerned, had an upside equivalent to his contract request. So to say Sabean is somehow a failure for resorting to his third choice is like saying a car shopper is a failure for buying a Hyundai when your first choice was a Lexus.
My son is Madison Bumgarner, the Invisible Shark of pitching prospects. My other son is a Porsche.
by multiphasic on Jul 7, 2010 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Let's recap the offseason at 1B:
Sabean vaguely pursued Nick Johnson, didn’t offer him more than one year, and Nick signed with New York instead. Fans here pointed out that if Sabes offered him two years and a little more money, Johnson probably would be in SF today. But he didn’t., and Johnson is on the 60-day DL.
It’s rumored that Sabean pursued Adam LaRoche, who took less money not to come here. Then LaRoche tells the world that Sabean submitted an offer, LaRoche submitted a counter offer, was ignored, and the Giants signed Huff.
Basically, I’m not sure that saying Huff was Option C is entirely accurate. However, I have absolutely no idea what option this really makes him. Option Eh? As in, “Eh, the first base market is crap this year. We’ll offer a few guys a few bucks to play here, and if none of them take it, oh well.” Or was he Option 2, as in, “We’re KIND OF interested in Nick, and SORT OF interested in Adam… But not terribly much. We’re not willing to take either of them for much more than we can get Huff for.”
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
wait, I remember the Giants’ offereing 2 years 12 million to Johnson, and he turned it down to return to the Yankees.
I mostly remember hearing there wasn’t much hot pursuit of Johnson. And fans said, “Off him a couple million more!!!”
Either way, the rage was that he didn’t offer Johnson enough to entice him to SF, despite an injury history and questionable power numbers. Now he’s on the 60 day DL. I’ve got to think that not giving Nick all his attention makes the Huff signing look a little better.
I really don’t like it when I find myself defending a Sabean acquisition anymore.
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
But his plan A's and B's were pretty good too
He’s not having as good a season as Huff, but LaRoche is playing quite well.
And Nick Johnson would have been a good signing too.
The man had 3 good plans for 1B and you’re mad because two of them didn’t happen.
My Son. Dude hits inside the parkers and takes walks.
My rule for the 2010 Giants: Everyone with an OPS over .800 gets a pass.
I am a Bochy hater and a Sabean apologist.
Well, make your pick. You can’t say “Huff was a good signing because he’s good now, even though we didn’t expect him to be”, but also “Nick Johnson would have been a good signing because we expected him to be good, even though he hasn’t actually been good”.
I was promised lasagna.
both would have been part of a good process
both could be reasonably expected to provide value commiserate with what they’d be paid
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
It’s not what people are saying.
The Huff signing was decent at the time. Most people thought so back then too, I think. This is not Fanpost-worth point. People are talking about how much credit Sabean deserves for Huff just because he’s been fantastic. It has nothing to do with process. It’s completely results-based.
I was promised lasagna.
But a lot of constructing rosters is all about having to go to Plan C. Every GM in the business has to go plan C for something every year. This turned out to be a hell of a Plan C. Also, I think the whole process showed he was valuing Plans A and B fairly appropriately and didn’t panic and overpay for either of them.
In other words it was a pretty good process that got us to that Plan C.
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.
What I meant to say before I had a typing seizure is...
When BS resigned Bengie, I went from generally disliking him to outright hoping he would spend eternity in a cave with Urkel. I won’t rehash the many reasons why, but he did indeed manage to take a very bad thing and make it good.
1) He got something useful out of Bengie in terms of production.
2) He bought time to convince Bork the Bustey was ready
3) He managed to sell Bengie when he was still somehow worth something and got something useful out of it.
This makes me eat crow on the Bengie signing not because he planned any of this (I don’t think he did), but because it all worked out nearly perfectly).
For this and other reasons, I am able to tolerate BS now.
Adopted Nut: Paraparaumu, New Zealand native, Andy Skeels
But
Why should the GM have to “convince” the manager to play someone?
by Giant Torture on Jul 7, 2010 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions
Because the manager fills out the lineup card
Most managers have a say in the lineup. I know you’re going to think differently because Billy Beane thinks managers are just there to do his bidding, but around the rest of the league, managers are hired to manage the team on a daily basis.
Proudly adopted Aubrey Huff. You can't beat that!
True
Just in the same way we’re all hired to do a job, but if our boss comes to us and says that this is what you’re going to do, you either do it or lose your job. When push comes to shove your boss doesn’t need to convince you of anything. Not that I’m advocating dictatorial management styles, but at some point you have to be in charge.
by Giant Torture on Jul 7, 2010 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions
As I said above
It all might have been part of an agreed upon plan to showcase Molina. Since we don’t know either way, I would think it would be difficult to be so sure of your opinions.
For the record, I’m not at all sure of mine. I’m merely pointing out that there are other possible contributing factors when we don’t know the whole story.
Proudly adopted Aubrey Huff. You can't beat that!
So...
They were showcasing Molina for a month? That wouldn’t seem to make sense, a couple of games yes, but Posey has been up for over a month and Molina was not hitting all year.
by Giant Torture on Jul 7, 2010 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions
not totally true
His April Splits were good:
344/.403/.422
Adopted Nut: Paraparaumu, New Zealand native, Andy Skeels
The Nathan, Liriano, Bonser trade for A.J. poopinski negates at least 5 trades that worked out in his favor
Because he made a bunch of moves after that to try to fix the damage and most of those moves continued to add
fuel to the fire. Sabes is likely to make a bad move when he is upset with a player and how the negotiations or demands are going, and then he just jetisons them or trades them for a pile of poopinski. Giving away Lewis and Frandsen for a melena spotted fecal contaminate was not the best use of their trading potential. But heck, making moves in a fit of petulence because the player or player’s agent ticked him off, seems to be his mode. At least most of these guys are playing for contenders except Lewis.
I’m sorry, but this is crap. Yes, the deal sucks and I hate it. However, who really would’ve known Perzeickal;dfj would deal with being traded so badly? He even admitted as much. Secondly, good on the Twins for developing Liranio, but left handed guys with injury histories and high upsides seem the perfect trade bait to me.
This is incorrect
Hindsight is 20/20. At the time of the trade, we received an all star catcher with 3 years of team control for a oft injured minor leaguer, a middle reliever that was a short stop conversion, and a fringe prospect best known by the blog “waiting for boof”.
It could be argued that at the time of the trade, Boof was the centerpiece of the deal. I remember saying to myself when I heard about the trade “boy, it’s tough giving up Boof, but the other 2 guys aren’t that special”
If I was Sabean, I’d make that deal 100 out of 100 times too.
Obviously any links in the above post are probably NSFW
The baseball gods do not always punish the wicked but they will not just allow people to spit in their faces -- Joe Posnanski
I wish I would stop cheating. fuck. this is jctgamer's fault -- jponry
I would not. And I hated the trade at the time.
Trading three prospects to upgrade offense at the catching position is not sound decision-making. Somewhere in the Marquis Grissom/Michael Tucker zone there existed a better left-handed power hitter that could serve the Giants’ needs, either through trade or free agency. A.J. Pierzynski was a nice piece of a muddled puzzle (the 2004 lineup), but certainly not worth three solid prospects. This was Sabes’ “all-in.” I’m not focusing on the outcome, I’m focusing on the process. What a bad idea. Worse than Mueller for Worrell.
Yes, hindsight is 20/20
And most of us are great at using hindsight to evaluate trades and FA signings.
Much more difficult, though, is using insight and foresight to evaluate players, and make deals that prove successful. The best GM’s do this on a consistent basis. Since the end of 2002, Brian Sabean has not.
Regarding the AJ trade, I don’t think it matters if the trade made sense at the time, or if we as fans liked or agreed with the trade. Just about every trade can have some kind of rationale at the time it’s made. I liked the trade at the time. I thought it made sense. None of that matters. It still was a bad trade, made between two GM’s—one who who lacked the insight and foresight to see the value in Joe Nathan and Francisco Liriano and the problems associated with AJ Pierzynski, and another who saw Nathan and Liriano’s value, and was happy to let Pierzynski go. That’s just one trade, but over time, we’ve seen how Terry Ryan consistently was on the winning side of trades and signings, while Brian Sabean has been on the losing side.
That being said (in keeping with the theme of the thread), I will allow that Sabean has had a pretty decent year with some of his FA scrap heap signings. Good for him.
Why couldn't McCovey have hit the ball just three feet higher?
How about we skip the hyperbole and keep the discussion reasonable?
When you get all blustery, it looks like you’re just here to rant about the hate in your heart for Sabean. If that’s the case, fine, but I think most people here like to hear both sides of a discussion, pros/cons etc.
Giving away Lewis and Frandsen for a melena spotted fecal contaminate was not the best use of their trading potential.
Unless you’re part of the FO, how do you know what their trade potential was? For all we know, Sabean could have been shopping both guys for quite a while and had zero interest.
Proudly adopted Aubrey Huff. You can't beat that!
Here you go.
WEDNESDAY, 3:09pm: Schulman tweets that the Giants are “not trying to dump Lewis, but hope to deal him for an experienced backup middle infielder who can play shortstop and second base.” The D’Backs have one such available player in Augie Ojeda, but there’s no indication they’re looking to add an outfielder.
TUESDAY, 3:22pm: The Giants are shopping infielder Kevin Frandsen, reports Henry Schulman of the San Francisco Chronicle. Frandsen has a minor league option remaining, but he’s slipped on the Giants’ depth chart.
The most hilarious thing about that is, they were trying to dump Lewis for a near perfect description of Frandsen.
Juan "Doesn't Cheat The Game" Perez, please keep hitting.
End of story, end of thread. Seems about right.
"Row(and) will come out of this. You stay with your guys and he is one of our guys." - Bruce Bochy 05-31-10
"...and with Titanic's transverse bulkheads and watertight doors, it renders this vessel practically unsinkable." - "Shipbuilder" magazine, 1912
That's the big knock
Right there.
"The BB's are out. The BB's are being arseholes to me." - Brian Wilson.
I give Sabean credit...
…for putting together a team that has gone 1-290 against the Padres and their $37 million payroll this season.
Whatever Sabean thinks about the IQ of the average baseball fan, you just proved him right.
- ducks while waiting to get flamed by all the people suddenly jumping on the Sabean bandwagon despite the fact that the only team in the universe the Giants are ahead of in the standings are the laughable D-Backs and their GM just got his ass fired!
Whatever Sabean thinks about the IQ of the average baseball fan, you just proved him right.
by cybermaldonado on Jul 7, 2010 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm not on the "bandwagon", but I believe in a fair evaluation of his performance.
If the litmus test for a GM is suddenly the Padres, there are 25 other GMs in MLB who must suck too since currently only the Yankees and Rays have a better record than the Padres.
Their record against the Padres has been frustrating, but the two teams’ performances are pretty similar, stat-wise. The Padres offense has been a few OPS+ points higher than SF’s, but SF’s pitching has been a few ERA+ points above SD.
Proudly adopted Aubrey Huff. You can't beat that!
Wait….
Being able to beat the Padres isn’t a litmus test for other GMs anymore?
Whatever Sabean thinks about the IQ of the average baseball fan, you just proved him right.
by cybermaldonado on Jul 7, 2010 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions
this
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
I don't get this
So because delorean created a thread dedicated to giving Sabean credit for not screwing up every trade, free agent signing, and draft pick, instead collecting some players on this team that aren’t all maddening, we’re suddenly all on the Sabean bandwagon?
I’m looking forward to the post-Sabean era as much as anyone, but that doesn’t mean we have to dismiss every good move he’s made as luck, blind luck, dumb luck, and HE TRADED FOR PIERPOOPSKI SO HE CANT DO ANYTHING RIGHT AND I HATE HIM. We CAN applaud him for not wetting the bed once in a while, it’s okay.
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
by JRPhillips on Jul 7, 2010 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
well said.
Billy Hayes: His job is better than yours.
Adopting Denny Bautista until someone tells me he's already spoken for.
I'm sure somebody said this
But how can Sabean get credit for anything when he doesn’t use a phone? He’s just throwing whiskey-propelled darts at an list of free agents drawn into an Etcha Sketch (sp?).
“Susan! The red box is low on ink ribbon again! Bring me another glass of…” Then he drools and passes out.
/auto-defenestrates
by Uribe nee Gonzalez on Jul 7, 2010 4:01 PM PDT reply actions
Once again, though, the crux is this:
You don’t condemn a GM for how many bad deals he has made or praise him for how many good ones he has made: you evaluate him by the balance, and how that balance compares to what the other 29 GMs (plus others historically) have done. The worst GM plausibly imaginable will make a few good deals, and the best a few bad deals. Even a GM who makes 50% good and 50% bad is a poor GM because his team is just forever moving sideways and never improving.
The tale here is told by the fact that whenever anyone with any reputation makes a list of best and worst GMs, Brian Sabean is almost inevitably in the bottom 5 or even bottom 3. They can’t all be so very wrong.
Professional baseball analyst since 1980.
Good Post
There is no perfect GM. If one makes no mistakes one is not trying very hard. That being said, Sabean has made some serious errors. Some of the moves that he gets criticized for most enthusiastically however most likely were mandated by ownership, Zito most specifically. But the elephant in the room, from a baseball perspective, is the ’02 Bonds deal because it forced Kent, Burkes, and Aurillia out of town, and ushered in the FA strategy which never returned a championship, and contributed to the depletion of the farm. That deal was absolutely forced on him by ownership without a doubt. No matter who the one player is, losing three good ones for the sake of one is bad management. But Sabean haters will blame that one on him too, despite the obvious motive of selling season tickets.
At the time, the Nathan trade was a good one. It only became questionable when a: Nenn never came back from injury and the bullpen melted down, and b: when Tomko became a red ass because he was trying to push his incompetence off onto Pierzynski. If Brett had ever gotten over the blind obsession to blow every MLB hitter away, and worked on making quality off-speed pitches, he might have had a decent career. Despite Nathan’s in season successes, he remains a choker, like he was in SF. Liriano had one good year, and Bonser is now a Bean reclamation project.
Fact is, catcher, along with SS, 2B, and CF are all defensive positions. If you can find one who also hits very well, then one is doing well. The Giants cannot seem to find solid hitting in the corners, so when the middle acquisitions do not hit well they look like bad deals.
Because he was mentioned earlier in the thread, I would like to point out that Billy Bean deserves some credit for following Alderson’s advice, being able to read, and also for being able to make a deal. However, when discussing his ingeniousness, nobody ever discusses the fact that he had a historically good starting rotation when he was making his reputation, so he was able to put lipstick on the rest of the pig with marginal players. The system is not so effective without that rotation. Also, for all the fanfare, the A’s only won one playoff series during that period.
I know that there will be Saber-zealots lining up to hammer that comment. I would simply like to add that the fervor with which Saber-zealots attack alternate perspectives or even criticisms of those points of view is very similar to the closed minded fervor which Bean found distasteful in the “old school” scouts he confronted. So interestingly one closed minded perspective seems to be being replaced by an equally closed minded perspective.
Of all the successful teams of the past 40 years, only the Big Red Machine seemed to be able to make it to the post season regularly while having below average pitching and defense. I only say 40, because that is how far back I have looked. But those years are also littered with carcasses of terrible teams like the ’09 Nationals who had sick team OPS and scored runs in bunches. Maybe runs and OPS are not as important as the Saber-zealots would have one think.
All of that being said, in spite of the recent success in Milwaukee, I believe it is time for this organization to fire both Sabean and Bochy, take the loss and release Rowand and Renteria, trade Uribe, Huff, AND Sandovol ( I have absolutely no hope that Panda will regain his ‘09 form, or be able to sustain a career, but given the hype he has received he may return some value.) for prospects, and also TRY to make a deal for Zito like Molina’s, where we pay most of the contract in return for multiple mid-level prospects, or one very good prospect.
Nice.
Billy [Beane] deserves some credit for following Alderson’s advice, being able to read, and also for being able to make a deal.
A nice encapsulation.
Professional baseball analyst since 1980.
By far his biggest achievement was turning around an imbedded culture. That’s a staggering achievement in the context of baseball, and one I think Moneyball undersells.
Granted, that’s nothing really to do with baseball, but then management often isn’t about knowing what the right answer is, it’s about making sure everybody below you follows through on that answer when you aren’t watching over their shoulder. Anybody who has worked in the same place for years has probably seen a succession of managers come in with new ideas (that everybody agrees with on day 1), but which, over time, never get implemented – or they get implemented, but everybody ignores them. Changing working culture is really, really hard, and it takes a really good manager to do it.
by sarf_london_niner on Jul 9, 2010 4:04 AM PDT up reply actions
A couple of inaccuracies
But the elephant in the room, from a baseball perspective, is the ’02 Bonds deal because it forced Kent, Burkes, and Aurillia out of town, and ushered in the FA strategy which never returned a championship, and contributed to the depletion of the farm.
Burks left after the 2000 season. The farm had been depleted before 02 because of bad drafts and various trades. There’s no way that signing Bonds was a bad move.
At the time, the Nathan trade was a good one. It only became questionable when a: Nenn never came back from injury and the bullpen melted down, and b: when Tomko became a red ass because he was trying to push his incompetence off onto Pierzynski.
Nen missed the entire 2003 season. Nobody should have expected him to come back, much less come back in his old form. Trading Nathan, who was the only viable closer candidate for the 2004 Giants, because of the hope that Nen would be the closer does not make the move a good one. If that WAS the reasoning (which I highly doubt) then it would have been even worse decision making than it was. A) is like saying the deal would have been had Matt Herges pitched like 1990 Dennis Eckersley.
As for B) that’s revisionist history at its best. Blaming somebody else for one’s issues never works, even when it is somebody else doing it for you.
nobody ever discusses the fact that he had a historically good starting rotation when he was making his reputation, so he was able to put lipstick on the rest of the pig with marginal players
The A’s had some great players around their “big three” as well. They often had good bullpens. They had Giambi, Tejada, Chavez, and an assortment of useful players in the early 2000s.
*Please note that I am not really targeting your conclusions, though I disagree with some. I am just noting factual inaccuracies.
The baseball Satanist
I promise that my adopted Giant, one Zach Wheeler, will not shoot anybody.
"I told the family lovingly slide"
Given that they had so many budget issues after the Bonds deal, and were unable to keep the core of the team together because of it, (the Burkes inaccuracy aside) looking back one has to wonder that from a baseball perspective, was it a good deal? I think hindsight suggest that it may not have been given that after ’03 they really started to decline quickly. Given that they gave up first round picks for a few years in the early part of the decade due to FA acquisitions, the farm was not re-stocked as quickly as it could have been. I only said contributed, I did not say caused. There is no disputing that Sabean has been bad in the draft with regards to position players.
That is not revisionist history regarding Nathan, he self immolated at the end of ‘03 and Felipe had lost all confidence in him. Sabean was more or less forced to trade him. Last years playoff performance vs. the Yankees only further validates Felipe. I agree, pushing fault onto others is not good policy. Sabean didn’t offer Piersynski arbitration, which also was a mistake, given that I feel that Tomko was the real issue and not AJ. But I agree with you that they should have moved on from Nenn sooner than they did. Nathan was not going to be the guy however.
The A’s bullpen is where Beane deserves some serious credit actually. My point was that there seems to be obsession with offensive stats when it is historically provable that pitching and defense are more indicative of good teams. Great teams have that, and a potent offense as well.
Of course the Bonds deal was a good deal. Bonds 03 and 04 seasons were two of greatest seasons ever. Losing Kent was a blow, but it’s doubtful that Kent would have come back if the Giants were to match any offer he received from other teams. Kent just wanted to move on. Not only that, but the Giants then went out and acquired several free agents after the 02 season (Durham, Alfonzo, Cruz Jr. among others). They weren’t strapped because of Bonds.
I didn’t say that it was revisionist history about Nathan. I said that it was revisionist history about Pierzynski. I do question your conclusion about Nathan, though. His 2003 season was fantastic. It was clear then that he could have been a good closer. Nobody saw him being as good as he was, but plenty saw him being a good closer. And the kicker is that the Giants needed a closer heading into 2004. Two innings in last year’s post-season doesn’t change any of that.
The baseball Satanist
I promise that my adopted Giant, one Zach Wheeler, will not shoot anybody.
"I told the family lovingly slide"
I didn't read any of your text walls
But if you’re blaming Bonds or his contract for anything, you are completely wrong.
Juan "Doesn't Cheat The Game" Perez, please keep hitting.
They didn't really have budget issues though
Sabean chose to go in different directions. I really didn’t mind his stopgap strategy when Bonds was still DA BEAST but I prefer good stopgaps as opposed to other teams’ rejects.
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
McFAQ for all you newcomers out there.
My point was that there seems to be obsession with offensive stats when it is historically provable that pitching and defense are more indicative of good teams
Prove this to me, historically.
I was promised lasagna.
He will be unable to.
The only reason all the games-won equations, from the “Pythagorean” on, each work well is that runs scored are exactly equal in significance to winning to runs allowed. Exactly equal. Otherwise you would have the bizarre case of a games-won formula predicting one outcome for a given R/OR set and a different one if you reverse the teams.
All lies and jest / Still a man hears what he wants to hear / And disregards the rest.
— The Boxer, Simon & Garfunkel
Professional baseball analyst since 1980.
This isn't proving it historically, but
Imagine a team that scores 4.5/game, allows 4.5/game. Pythagorean says: 50% wins.
Imagine a team that scores an extra run per game: Pythagorean (I’m using a lazy R^2/(R^2+OR^2) here, but any exponent has the same result) says 60% wins.
Imagine a third team that scores 4.5/game, allows 3.5/game. Pythagorean says 62.3% wins.
The marginal effect of adding a small fraction of a run scored or subtracting the same fraction of a run allowed to a league average team is the same. That does not mean that that adding a large fraction has the same result.
Actually, now I think about it: pick you best Pythagorean formula, and check if the above holds (it will). The best Pythagorean formula will hold very well historically; therefore, I HAVE proven that a run of pitching is better than a run of batting, historically.
by sarf_london_niner on Jul 9, 2010 3:51 AM PDT up reply actions
You're shifting the playing field.
If Team A scores 5.5 R/G versus and Team B scores 4.5 R/G versus Team A, most games-won equations will give Team A a 60% games-won probability. If we simply reverse that, giving Team A’s results to Team B and vice-versa, Team A goes from 60% down to 40% win probability.
When you lower the number of runs scored in total by both teams, you have changed the playing field, so to speak, because in that lower-runs total playing environment, one run is more significant than it is in a high-runs playing environment. You are no longer comparing apples to apples.
The crux is the total runs scored by all the teams involved, which is what sets the significance of individual runs. Back when the DH was invented, run scoring was very low, so the significance of one run was higher than it is today. But it was equally significant whether scored or yielded. If A and B are in a 5 – 5 tie after 10 innings, it doesn’t matter to A whether they yield 1 run to B in the 11th or whether they score 1 run off B in the 11th; either way, the final score is 6 – 5.
In the first example given, the run environment was 10 R/G; in the second, it was only 8 R/G. That is why win percentages differ even with a constant diferential—it is the ratio of the differential to the norm that weights things.
That is clearer if, instead of “Pythagorean” complications, one uses a more natural formulation:
R - OR
W% = ─────── + 0.5
R + OR
The numerator is the run differential; the denominator is the run environment; and their ratio expresses the significance of the differential relative to the environment. (The 0.5 is because the ratio expresses the difference from average, so that average has to be added in to get the actual percentage.)
That equation is simple, natural, and obvious, but it is only an approximation valid over a linear portion of all possible R/OR ratios (when R > 3xOR, it predicts win percentages over 100%). But, used on real MLB data, in a typical season it will be within one team win of the more complex and less obvious improved “Pythagorean” (improved with an exponent not exactly 2, roughly 1.88). And it allows us to better see the actual mechanism.
To compare the significance of differentials, one needs to have the denominator remain constant. As in the 11-inning example above, one can only do that by considering the teams’ fortunes reversed: it doesn’t matter if A gave up 1 run to B or scored 1 run off B as to what the predicted win percentage is: it only affects which of the two teams has that percentage. But from Team A’s perspective (or team B’s), a run scored or a run given up have the eaxact same significance: a win or a loss.
Professional baseball analyst since 1980.
Not shifting it at all
When you lower the number of runs scored in total by both teams, you have changed the playing field, so to speak, because in that lower-runs total playing environment, one run is more significant than it is in a high-runs playing environment. You are no longer comparing apples to apples.
Right, that’s exactly why it works. Win% do differ by run environment, and that’s exactly why better pitching teams have an advantage – they consistently play in a lower run scoring environment than good hitting (given everything else is constant, obviously). But you said :
The only reason all the games-won equations, from the "Pythagorean" on, each work well is that runs scored are exactly equal in significance to winning to runs allowed. Exactly equal.
And they aren’t exactly equal. For exactly the reason in the first statement I quoted, one run per game scored is NOT the same as one run per game saved. Yes, a tiny fraction of a run scored is equal to a tiny run of a run saved (as per standard calculus), but as soon as you talk larger numbers, that falls down.
In the context of the original point, which was that good pitching is more important than good hitting (which implies a substantial difference), there would be a significant movement, and the run environment will change to favour the betting pitching team. I haven’t shifted the goalposts at all*. Hence, I agree with the statement:
it is historically provable that pitching and defense are more indicative of good teams.
(although I would have slipped a “marginally” in there as well – you can’t get too carried away with these things). It’s also provable though (a) maths and (b) simulations.
*Is the standard American phrase “shifting the playing field”? We don’t use that over here, using “shift the goalposts” instead. Surely shifting shifting the entire field rather than just the goalposts is far more effort than required? You guys have way too much time on your hands.
by sarf_london_niner on Jul 10, 2010 3:10 AM PDT up reply actions
Clearly we are arguing different points . . .
. . . which is why we come to slightly different conclusions.
I repeat in brief: in a tie ball game in the 9th (or a later) inning, giving up a run has the same effect as scoring a run—because the run given up is a run scored by the other team; in either case, the additional run creates a win, the difference being to which team it goes.
Look at it another way: the effect must be symmetrical, because however you reckon it, the games-won projection has to be the same if you reverse the teams. If A scores X runs and allows Y runs, B is allowing Y runs and scoring X runs. Changing one of those stats for one team necessarily changes its counterpart for the other. However many more games A wins or loses for any change, in either direction, in either stat, Team B’s won-loss stat changes, in the other direction, by that same differential.
Assume A and B each score and yield exactly the same number of runs. Now, if A adds some X runs to its scored total, B must be adding those same X runs to its surrendered total; A’s win percentage goes up by some amount, while B’s necessarily goes down by the very same amount, since the two must add to 1.000. So the addition of X runs to A’s scored has the same significance as the addition of X runs to B’s yielded total; since they started from dead parity, the symmetry is exact.
The difference in our views would seem to be the difference between adding X runs to scored or to yielded, as opposed to adding X runs to scored or subtracting X runs from yielded; the two approaches give different results.
Consider:
R OR W% diffStarting from the baseline, in the first pairing, we add 50 runs to the R then the OR, and the shift in W% is the same; in the second pair, we subtract 50 runs from each. Within the pairs, the change is the same, which was my argument; as between the pairs, the subtraction produces differing results from the addition, which was, I believe, your argument. Both are, for what they say, correct.
750 750 .500-—
.
800 750 .532 +.032
750 800 .468 -.032
.
700 750 .466 -.034
750 700 .534 +.034
Professional baseball analyst since 1980.
If you go to baseball reference and dig around you will find a stats page which lists runs / runs allowed for every season by team. They have even done a metric which is more or less a ratio of runs scored to runs allowed. Very consistently, the teams which are the stingiest in the league are near the top. In the post season, the best scoring teams tend to win out, but being a good scoring team does not always get a team to the post season, while being one of the top run preventing teams during the regular season much more consistently does get a team into the playoffs. All I’m saying.
This is the Atlanta Braves corollary.
Utter frustration and futility.
Adopted 'nephew' to the ever avuncular and always awesome Jon Miller
by Johnny Disaster on Jul 9, 2010 7:40 AM PDT up reply actions
Just to tie into my point below, how about this:
Let’s look at how far under/over league average teams are for runs scored and runs allowed. We’ll call a team a “hitting team” if their runs scored compares to the league average better than runs allowed – so if the league average is 700 runs, and a team scored 725/allowed 680, then then are a hitting team by 5 runs. This has nothing to do with how good a team is – a team who scores 500, allows 950 is also a “hitting team”.
Then we can look at win percentages by groupings (this is since 1953, since that is what I have in my database)
49.70% – Hitting by 1+/game
49.44% – Hitting by 0.5 – 1/game
49.88% – Hitting by 0 – 0.5/game
50.01% – Pitching by 0 – 0.5/game
50.27% – Pitching by 0.5 – 1/game
50.75% – Pitching by 1+/game
The more we weight towards pitching, the bigger the margin. Remember these are averages over all teams – good teams will get more benefit than poor teams. Incidentally, the gap has been MUCH bigger over the last 20 years (pitching teams by 1+/games win 52.3%, compared to 49.1% for hitting teams by 1+/game), which is probably caused by a combination of increased runs in general and sample size error – hard to say how much of each, but as we exit the steroids era it’s likely to reverse the effect of both in future.
Conversely, let’s look at it another way:
Of all teams with a losing record, 49.5% were pitching teams. Of teams with winning records, 51.7% were pitching teams. Of teams winning at least 56% of games (i.e. 90 games in a 162 season), 55.7% were pitching teams.
Now, there is a significant potential correlation/causation issue here: if the big payroll teams tend to overspend on pitching and underspend on hitting, then you would expect these results – the most expensive (and therefore, on average, the better) teams would tend to consist of great pitching and good hitting. However, as far as a I’m aware, the opposite has always been true – position players are overvalued “because they play every day” – and hence you would generally expect the opposite of these results. So in all likelihood, these’s results are even stronger than they look.
Does that count as proving it historically?
by sarf_london_niner on Jul 10, 2010 6:09 AM PDT up reply actions
Vaguely. I’m am aware of this argument, and have, in fact, made it myself in the past – but it does not explain statement like this:
there seems to be obsession with offensive stats when it is historically provable that pitching and defense are more indicative of good teams
There’s an “obsession” with hitting stats because hitting stats are really, really, important. Just because a run saved is worth slightly more, it doesn’t mean that teams should stop caring about offense.
I was promised lasagna.
I think he overstated it (I said in my other post that I would have inserted the word “marginally”) but I didn’t taking his use of “obsession” to mean that people shouldn’t care about hitting. Yes, there’s an “obsession” around hitting because it’s important, but then there should slightly more of an obsession about pitching.
His OP hints at it being easier to improve hitting too: you want your top 3 starters to pitch what, 40%+ of the total innings pitched at least? And the less they pitch, the more tired you bullpen gets. So a huge amount of your pitching success is based on those 3 guys. How many starting pitchers are there that can be a 1st/2nd/3rd starter in a top class rotation? 50 maybe?
By comparison, how many hitters can fit into a top class batting lineup? Quite a lot, actually, because you can spread the load a lot thinner. Not only only are there more positions to fill, you also have the ability to have a few below average ones and still be really good overall.
Add in that good hitters are generally overpriced relative to good pitchers, and that every successive additional run saved is worth more than the last, but every successive additional run scored is worth less, then you have a good argument that you should “obsess” about getting your starting pitchers in order first, and worry about hitting last.
In that sense, I don’t disagree with much he said, I just think he overstated it.
Or, to put it another way, of all the teams who are a little bit short of a genuine playoff team, I’d rather be in the position of having Lincecum/Cain/Sanchez/Zito than anywhere else.
by sarf_london_niner on Jul 10, 2010 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions
There's a selection problem there.
It necessarily includes only teams with successful pitching performances. The better question—and one much harder to answer, if an answer is possible at all with the data available—would be the success rates of teams that entered a given season with certain expectations (assuming them reasonably based on correctly evaluated prior histories) for their pitching and offense which were “pitching-weighted”. Were such teams overall more or less successful than teams that entered play with “offeense-weighted” squads?
All we know is that after the fact successful teams show a very slight skew to having had strong pitching. It is my feeling—not, to be sure, a study-based conclusion—that teams that build around pitching are more prone to failure because they are relying on both the continuing success and the continuing health of a very few men, perhaps three or four, for the bulk of their expected performance, whereas an offense-weighted team (if constructed as well as a good pitching team) relies on the joint contributions of eight or nine or more men, and is thus much less vulnerable to the failings, or injury losses, of some one or two men.
(There is also the point, different from but related to this discussion, that offense-oriented teams are generally easier to construct owing to the number of good hitters being greater than that of good pitchers; though such an assertion needs some definitions and numbers derived from them, a broad-brush look I took decades ago showed that almost any sane definitions of proportional “good” for batters and pitchers showed an overwhelming ratio of “useful” men for batting as compared to pitching.)
Professional baseball analyst since 1980.
First, we seem to have moved away from the “is it mathematically possible to show that runs scored and runs allowed have different values”, and moved onto a “how robost is the edge that pitching has?” argument.
The robustness isn’t the point in question. Remember the original point was that pitching is more indicative of "great" teams, so in that particular context is it really important how teams cope with the loss of key players? Any offence that had Barry Bonds in it was by definition relying “on both the continuing success and the continuing health of a very few men”. That doesn’t change the fact that, when there are no injuries, it worked better than any other option.
We’ve seen mathematically that one run of pitching (over the season) is better than one run of hitting, for exactly the reason you identified: the pitching team exists in a lower average run environment. We also see that historically teams with better pitching tend to outperform teams with better hitting (and that’s an average, remember: it includes bad teams with better pitching than hitting). We finally see that more of the winning teams, and significantly more of the 90+wins teams, are pitching teams, which is achieved despite the big spending teams historically overvaluing hitters (which would suggest that the weighting should be the other way).
This is decent evidence that the real world follows the theoretical one: if you manage to create a good pitching team, it’s going to be better than if you managed to create an “equivalent” (in a total WAR sense) hitting team. This is an separate point to how difficult it is to obtain/maintain such a team. In fact, I think there are broadly three entirely independent areas of discussion:
(1) What sort of team would you like to have an in ideal (injury free) world?
(2) What sort of team is best to build and maintain in the real world (which takes into account many factors, including whether pitchers/hitters are easier to replace if injured, how often they get injured, whether pitchers/hitters are overvalued by other teams, whether you are happy to accept high variance in your win totals, etc). Your point that it’s easier to obtain batters than pitchers (which I agree with) could also be taken as an argument for putting together a staff first & lineup later, because it should always be possible to put together a passable lineup on short notice, while the same can’t be said for the pitching.
(3) Come the playoffs, how do you match up? If a 4.5 runs per game (rpg) scored, 3.5 rpg allowed team come up against a 5.5 rpg scored, 4.5 rpg allowed team, which team is favourite? Baseball folklore says the pitching, but we all know how reliable that is. I assume this is a well researched area – it should be relatively easy to check – but I don’t know of any studies off hand.
My argument was concerned only with (1).
by sarf_london_niner on Jul 12, 2010 4:01 AM PDT up reply actions
But . . .
. . . point (1) is essentially a fantasy: the wordl is not ideal, and there are few if any injury-free team seasons.
My quibble in my last post was that the quotation of historical statistics concerning the relative success of pitching-dominated teams vs batting-dominated teams is likely to be tainted evidence owing to the self-selection factor.
Point (2) is, I feel, the important one, and my feeling has long been much in favor of relying on batting, for the various reasons already well described. Point (3) is almost immaterial in one sense, because the playoff scheduling means that teams will go with their best four, or sometimes even best three starters, which is not a reflection of their seasonal win capabilities; moreover, the span is so short that luck probably plays a bigger role than skill, saving occasional grotesque mismatches.
Professional baseball analyst since 1980.
My quibble in my last post was that the quotation of historical statistics concerning the relative success of pitching-dominated teams vs batting-dominated teams is likely to be tainted evidence owing to the self-selection factor.
“Likely” is a phrase that would be stronger with evidence. Given that the math says an edge should exist, and that edge appears in the results, you are going to have to show something.
I also don’t really understand what “self-selection” means here. Why aren’t as many good hitting teams “self selecting”? You are telling me that going for hitting is the better choice, that this is the best way to win games over the course of a long, hard season. Then why aren’t there more successful hitting biased teams? Logically, if hitting teams are the better option, the only way you will end up with more pitching teams with decent winnings records is if there are significantly more pitching teams in the first place (or more specifically, there are significantly more playoff contending pitching teams than hitting teams).
That sits wrong with me, given where the likes of the Yankees spend their money – I’d suggest the opposite is true, in fact – and I think such a claim requires some level of evidence.
by sarf_london_niner on Jul 12, 2010 6:45 PM PDT up reply actions
You raise good points.
I am not yet convinced, but the time it will take me to code some ad hoc scripts to check my database for some things that occur to me is longer than will lie between posts on a thread. I will try to bring the topic up again later when I have done some thinking and data checking.
Professional baseball analyst since 1980.
Bonds was the best value Free Agent signing in the history of baseball. That’s how good he was.
Jonathan Sanchez: Often maddening to watch, but capable of perfection on a moment's notice---just like his adoptive father.
The ’93 Bonds deal was, surely. But they overpaid for him in ’02. And I am not blaming Bonds for the decline, he was the best ball player I will ever see in my lifetime, and I took my son every chance I could to see him play, telling him that same thing. Controversy aside, I feel privileged to have seen him.
Barry got paid a lot in 2002-06, but by any coherent way of measuring things, he was worth more. A lot more. Even though he barely played at all in one of those years, the Giants came out way ahead over the lifespan of the deal.
The problem was not that Bonds locked Sabean into signing free agents—that’s not even true anyway—but rather that Sabean chose his free agents very poorly.
If you are basing this upon Sabean’s inability to draft quality position players early in his tenure then yes, you are correct. But since the Giants were without a healthy farm system, and could not afford Bonds AND to keep Kent (who is on the record as having wanted to stay in spite of the rift between he and Bonds) then there was not much else to do. From that perspective, the Bonds deal was not good strictly in terms of baseball quality.
Reminder:
OPS is not Runs. No metric is Runs unless Runs is what precisely what it sets out to calculate.
Professional baseball analyst since 1980.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on McCovey Chronicles
Related FanShots on McCovey Chronicles
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Get a grip: Reds’ Todd Frazier loses bat, still connects for home run (Video)
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
