Who are the truly valuable trade chips on the Giants' roster?
by DanielSmith on Jun 16, 2011 11:13 AM PDT
Email
PrintLet's see if I can keep this from devolving into a ramble. It doesn't look good, honestly, but I am going to give it a try.
So, the Giants have needs, as do we all. I need to find a new apartment sometime in the next couple of months, and I also need quesadillas once a week for my sanity.
Actually, that's erroneous. I need quesadillas twice a week, and the Giants don't have needs, they have a need. Singular.
Offense.
The way the roster is currently constructed -- if by constructed, I mean by Sabean simply hanging on to every player he could from the 2010 World Series run -- it leaves very few ways to acquire this mystical "offense" (my grandpappy used to tell me stories 'bout offense). The only clear-cut position to acquire a position player is shortstop. The rest...are muddled.
Corner outfielder? Well, yes, if the Giants can get a good one, they should try -- but only if he's legitimately good. Once acquired, though, what does Brian Sabean do with all of his other outfielders? While if you combined all five of Nate Schierholtz, Cody Ross, Andres Torres, Aaron Rowand, and Pat Burrell, I'm pretty sure they could form Voltron (...well, okay, at least Devastator), the reality is that Torres and Ross are really the only two legitimate starting OF. So...somebody would have to go, and it will be someone that, emotionally, at least, it will hurt to part ways with.
(so maybe not with Rowand, but I'm sure eating the rest of his contract would produce a tear or three)
Second base...is probably best left alone. If Freddy Sanchez needs surgery, um, hate to be obvious, but "ouch". They'll just have to make do with Bill Hall and Mike Fontenot, methinks. I'm actually hopeful that could end up working out okay, because I believe Hall still is capable of hitting very well for 200-300 plate appearances.
Catcher is very odd, because the Giants are obviously looking for a rental, here, and a good one. Or a decent one. Or one that can hit.
So, who can the Giants trade to get one or more of these things?
- Ryan Vogelsong - depending on which team is knocking at Sabean's door, he could be the most valuable chip on the team right now. A team that's looking to 2012 and beyond probably won't be asking much about Voggy, but a team looking to make a run at the postseason in 2011 and is in need of a starter definitely will. He's cheap, he isn't old quite yet, and...by golly, he's been very good this year. Giants should really only listen if it's a legitimately good offer, otherwise they may as well keep Vogelsong and just not look Barry Zito in the eye.
- Jonathan Sanchez - I think this is the reverse of Vogelsong. A team looking for help in 2011 is probably going to be scared off by 50 walks in 80 innings. But a team looking to 2012-2013 could very well be interested, and the Giants, again, should listen if it's a legitimately good offer. Otherwise, they may as well keep Sanchez and just not look Barry Zito in the eye.
- Sergio Romo - yeah. You don't want Romo traded, and the Giants don't want Romo traded, but there's bound to be a few teams in need of bullpen help badly that will really want Romo...and, furthermore, will want to call him "closer" and give him nice things. Oh, and I don't want Romo traded, either. But they might have to in order to acquire that bat.
- Brandon Crawford - I only bring him up because I'm sure people dream of Jose Reyes, and convince themselves that giving the Mets miscellaneous stuff along with Crawford will serve in bringing Reyes here. I'm not saying it won't, but Crawford can't be viewed as a particularly valuable chip. To be a valuable chip, he'd have to hit, and if he was hitting, the Giants wouldn't care about Jose Reyes, would they?
Anyone else on the roster I generally view as either untouchable (like Matt Cain, Brian Wilson), unmovable (Rowand, Zito), or not valuable enough to be a chip on their own (Burrell, Fontenot, other members of the bullpen, etc.).
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.
88 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The most valuable chip - hands down -
is Zach Wheeler. Though he isn’t on the 25-man.
by betterthanbochy on Jun 16, 2011 12:36 PM PDT reply actions
Lopez, RamRamirez
I didn’t look up salaries and all. But lots of teams with weak bullpens would be interested in these guys. Less valuable than the others you mention but could get us a second tier catcher or infielder.
Sergio Romo still has flaws: not that consistent; not good against lefties. Doesn’t act confident enough either—some mental coaching might help. Between him and RamRam and Santiago Casilla, kind of a tossup to me. Castilla sure got used in key leverage situations a lot in the stretch run.
Wheeler is likely considered untouchable by the team, but he’s still at a low level, so there’s no guarantee.
Marvin Barrios, come on I'll show you your bedroom. Don't stay on the phone too long to Panama, please.
A few obvious things that are still worth saying:
a contending team that is really living and dying on the strength of an incredibly deep bullpen isn’t terribly likely to break that group up. As crazy as it seems, Zack Wheeler is almost certainly more touchable than Javier Lopez for the 2011 team because Lopez gives them value right now in their efforts to repeat and Wheeler doesn’t.
While I’d agree that Vogelsong and/or Sanchez are pretty good trade chips, there’s a pretty obvious supply and demand issue — teams that feel the need to acquire a starting pitcher for the stretch run, aren’t likely to be willing to give up a quality major league bat who they’d also need for the stretch run. They’re going to want to give up prospects. Which means that we’d more than likely need to arrange a three way of some sort.
Per Romo, foothillsfan, you should check the stats. Romo has no noticeable platoon split at all. In fact his career numbers against lefties (.197/.265/.285) are ever so slightly better than against righties (.191/.247/.325). As for not consistent enough, he’s faced 78 batters this year and retired 61 of them. He has twice as many Ks (33) as batters who have reached base in any way (17). If by not that consistent you mean that he hasn’t retired every batter he’s faced than I guess you’re right. If you mean anything short of that, you’re wrong.
MY DAD WAS WRONG!
MY BOY NEEDS TO THROW HARDER!
also per Romo:
Doesn’t act confident enough
Huh?
Disfrute Los Gigantes every day at www.leftymalo.com
Thus my point about which type of team would deal for which starter
Again, I seriously doubt a contending team would ask much after Sanchez — he’s just too unpredictable. Those team will want to see recent high-level performance, and if they are knocking the Giants door, I think they will be asking after Vogelsong.
A non-contending team, of course, will be looking at 2012 and beyond — they could inquire on Vogelsong, sure, but Sanchez does have the longer history of solid, if erratic, pitching. If I wanted a pitcher for 2012-2014, I would want definitely want Sanchez before Vogelsong.
And I don’t see why a team in need of a starter wouldn’t give up a bat if they’re scoring plenty already, and of course have a replacement in their farm system or on their roster that stands a reasonable chance at replacing most of the traded offensive production. Depends on what teams Sabean is dealing with.
You want optimism? My glass is half full of emptiness.
Sanchez isn’t under any teams control for 2012-2014. He hits FA after the 2012 season.
And while you’ll find the occassional team like last year’s Cards who traded Ludwick to get a pitcher, the reason teams won’t give up a bat to acquire a pitcher is you don’t create a hole in mid-season to fill another one. You move prospects to fill your needs — that’s one of the perfectly legitimate uses for prospects. Also: “as long as they’re scoring plenty already” suggests you haven’t been paying very close attention to MLB in 2011, where even Yankees fans complain about their offense.
MY DAD WAS WRONG!
MY BOY NEEDS TO THROW HARDER!
That wasn't the point at all about Sanchez
It was about looking at his immediate future…I wasn’t talking about contract status at all. Obviously, any team that trades for him and sees him as part of their future will attempt to sign him, and likely view as having him on their roster for a year and change as an advantage in signing him to a new deal. He’ll be in his thirties by the mid-2010’s, so who knows at that point?
And to your second point, yes, but that completely ignores what I said — of course it’d be a special sort of situation for a contending team to trade a bat, but it’s a possibility, isn’t it? We’re speaking in “what ifs”, anyway…my crystal ball is in the shop.
You want optimism? My glass is half full of emptiness.
But it’s not a likelihood. Teams that are in contention aren’t looking to divest themselves of valuable pieces. They’re looking to accumulate more valuable pieces. That’s the way pennant race trades work: teams out of contention send valuable parts to teams in contention for prospects. Teams don’t trade valuable bats, or really players that value of any nature, during a pennant race. I invite you to go back over the last 30 years or so of baseball history and find teams who were “buyers” who sent away valuable bats.
Maybe the “valuable” part is confusing us. Because to me, an Armando Rios, for instance, isn’t really of value to us, certainly not valuable enough to make it worth our while to move one of our starting rotation. Could we get another mediocre OF to add ot our list? I guess that’s possible, but what’s the point?
On the other hand, if say we got into the Jose Reyes sweepstakes, well the Mets aren’t going to want Ryan Vogelsong (Sergio Romo maybe). They’re going to want Zack Wheeler. It’s the nature of deadline deals.
As for Sanchez, you have to look at contract status. Contract status is the point, in all trades it’s one of, it not the, most important element of the deal. No GM could possibly make a trade without taking a players contract status into account. And in Sanchez case, the fact that Scott Boras is his agent wouldn’t make a trade and sign seem very likely.
MY DAD WAS WRONG!
MY BOY NEEDS TO THROW HARDER!
In that case, the Giants wouldn't trade Sanchez or Vogelsong, would they?
I mean…using your same logic, it would apply to valuable pieces such as setup men and starters, too, right?
But I digress…it’s simple. The teams shopping for players know who they are, they have an idea of what they want, and they know why. I’m not going to delve to deeply into that, because I’m just not going to know enough to do more than make wild guesses. Sure, trading away bats on a contending team might be a 1% chance vs. trading a pitcher, but this is totally and absolutely dependant on the team’s strengths and weaknesses. A team with a ton of offense and no pitching would be stupid to not trade away a bat, contending or not. And vice versa…which happens to be the situation of the Giants.
Regardless, I’m not going to be able to do more than make blind guesses anyway, so I’ll sit back and hope that Sabean can work a bit of magic. Each year there are surprise trades and GM’s that do silly things for various reasons, so I’ll drink to Sabean finding a sucker willing to part with something that will help.
You want optimism? My glass is half full of emptiness.
Value to the 2011 team
As crazy as it seems, Zack Wheeler is almost certainly more touchable than Javier Lopez for the 2011 team because Lopez gives them value right now in their efforts to repeat and Wheeler doesn’t.
Is it a given that the Giants are in a “Trade the future to win now” mode just because they’d be repeating? At this point, with all the injuries, I am just fine with prioritizing for the future.
Along those lines, since I bought into Vogelsong finishing strong this year several games ago, I’d be fine with a good offer for him. I don’t really care if he’s “for real” in the multi-year sense.
"The two worst things in football are: 1) They think that a 30-year old professional athlete has to be locked up in a hotel room, with a curfew, the night before a qame; and 2) They're right."
- Cowboy safety Cliff Harris
It's not that they're not valuable enough to trade on their own
But no member of the bullpen the Giants are willing to trade besides possibly Romo will bring back a bat that will help the Giants in any significant way. They’d have to be part of a package to do so.
Nobody is going to trade for just Lopez or just Casilla and give up a good offensive player for them.
You want optimism? My glass is half full of emptiness.
no
but if the Casilla for Yorvit thing was true, I’d be happily mistaken indeed.
Good to see you around, BTW.
May 29, 2010: Steven Revetria becomes Giants General Manager. The rest is history.
"118 elements, and still no stanfurdium"- carp, paraphrased
Bandwagons are fun- that's why people get on them in the first place.
by natteringnabob on Jun 16, 2011 6:08 PM PDT up reply actions
by which
I am not suggesting he’s a “good” offensive player, just compared to current atrocious options.
May 29, 2010: Steven Revetria becomes Giants General Manager. The rest is history.
"118 elements, and still no stanfurdium"- carp, paraphrased
Bandwagons are fun- that's why people get on them in the first place.
by natteringnabob on Jun 16, 2011 6:09 PM PDT up reply actions
That did surprise me
I have surprised egg on my face. Desperate times call for desperate measures, etc….but yes, that would be the exact kind of trade the Giants would need. Could hurt the bullpen a little, but possibly could not hurt at all, and it stands a decent chance of helping the offense a little. And only for a few million dollars…whatta bargain!
And thanks so much…glad to see folks like you are still around, making sense.
You want optimism? My glass is half full of emptiness.
eh
it didn’t actually HAPPEN of course, so your egging is premature.
May 29, 2010: Steven Revetria becomes Giants General Manager. The rest is history.
"118 elements, and still no stanfurdium"- carp, paraphrased
Bandwagons are fun- that's why people get on them in the first place.
by natteringnabob on Jun 16, 2011 8:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, that poll should be super obvious.
Gigante. Campeón. Pumpkin. Andrés Torres.
Dursh nerf darsh narf. Poop.
Actually, it isn't
It’s almost a trick question — it depends on what team is inquiring. Is it the Yankees? They’re going to want Romo before either of the other two with Joba injured. If we’re talking in general, then yes, it should be Sanchez.
You want optimism? My glass is half full of emptiness.
I want Hanley
Do we have any extra managers who can win more than 1 out of 15?
This
And we really should NOT make that deal
Fulfilling your Gus Benusa needs since 2009!
by Giantsfan4life on Jun 16, 2011 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions
I viewed him as untouchable
However, if he is in play, then yes — and from an absolutely wins/losses perspective, that would make some sense for the Giants if they believe Romo can take over the closer role and be as good as he is in the 7th/8th innings, and of course if they received a good player in return for Wilson.
But from a marketing/PR perspective, it’s borderline insanity. Brian Wilson not only does a very good job for the Giants on the field, but the man is generating a ton of revenue for them in many direct and indirect ways, which is why I think of him as untouchable.
But hey, it’s their team, not mine.
You want optimism? My glass is half full of emptiness.
I think it's insane
from the baseball management perspective too. Other than maybe the Moneyball-era A’s, nobody sells their closer. I dunno if I remember a team selling their closer the year after winning the WS.
May 29, 2010: Steven Revetria becomes Giants General Manager. The rest is history.
"118 elements, and still no stanfurdium"- carp, paraphrased
Bandwagons are fun- that's why people get on them in the first place.
by natteringnabob on Jun 16, 2011 6:10 PM PDT up reply actions
Only similar case I can think of is the Yankees letting John Wetteland leave as a FA and promoting Mariano Rivera. That was a decision that was met with some pretty loud cat calls from the press and fans (and as I recall, Mo blew two saves within the first couple of weeks to make things even worse), but it worked out ok.
MY DAD WAS WRONG!
MY BOY NEEDS TO THROW HARDER!
not re-signing an FA is different
I mean trading the closer while still in contention.
May 29, 2010: Steven Revetria becomes Giants General Manager. The rest is history.
"118 elements, and still no stanfurdium"- carp, paraphrased
Bandwagons are fun- that's why people get on them in the first place.
by natteringnabob on Jun 16, 2011 8:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Rob Nen. . .
. . .was traded to the Giants after the Marlins won the World Series. At the time of the deal the Marlins were 0-0 and in a five-way tie for first place in the NL East.
by betterthanbochy on Jun 16, 2011 10:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Yea, but Florida bought that championship in 97...
and knew they had to be sellers for the next few years. No way they could have kept that payroll going.
48 mil on the payroll for 97
35 mil on the payroll for 98
I'm surprised
You don’t remember the famous white flag trade, in which the White Sox traded closer Roberto Hernandez (among others) to the Giants on July 30 1997? The Sox were only 3.5 game back at the time. Worked out pretty well for them on a value for value basis (but trading two expiring contracts and a 41 year old will do that). The 2008 mariners traded JJ Putz after finishing second. Not WS teams, but definitely teams in contention for a playoff spot.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
Yes, exactly, I just can't see them doing it
Brian Wilson is, to the casual non-Giants fan, the face of the franchise, I believe. You want to create legions of paying fans for the next 30 years? Get an icon like that, let little kids see him and be fascinated with him and then, your team. Boom, instant Giants fan. It’s an effect that can’t be measured, but is real. The Giants don’t want to trade that unless his performance on-field isn’t measuring up.
You want optimism? My glass is half full of emptiness.
That whole movie they show while he warms up is really all the evidence you need.
May 29, 2010: Steven Revetria becomes Giants General Manager. The rest is history.
"118 elements, and still no stanfurdium"- carp, paraphrased
Bandwagons are fun- that's why people get on them in the first place.
by natteringnabob on Jun 16, 2011 8:04 PM PDT up reply actions
nevertheless
Hitching the franchise to a closer is not a move that tends to end well.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
Hey, I didn’t make the movie.
May 29, 2010: Steven Revetria becomes Giants General Manager. The rest is history.
"118 elements, and still no stanfurdium"- carp, paraphrased
Bandwagons are fun- that's why people get on them in the first place.
by natteringnabob on Jun 16, 2011 8:26 PM PDT up reply actions
Brian Wilson appeal
Brian Wilson rookie autographed cards are going for upwards of $40 on eBay. That is unheard of money for closers, who play the dogshit position in the card collector’s game.
"The two worst things in football are: 1) They think that a 30-year old professional athlete has to be locked up in a hotel room, with a curfew, the night before a qame; and 2) They're right."
- Cowboy safety Cliff Harris
First, no player is untouchable
I would trade Lincecum if I got more than I gave (though that would have to account for things like fan impact).
Second, trading closers at the height of their abilities is always an excellent idea. Premier relievers are the most-overpaid of any player; they have some of the least playing time yet command salaries up to $15M. I get that having a shutdown closer is important, but I’m not paying $15M for a three-win player.
Wilson is approaching that point. I’d really love to keep him around, and I shudder to think what would happen to the casual fan if we let him go or traded him, but I do not want to be paying Wilson $15M a season to throw 70 innings, even if they are high-leverage, especially when Romo’s got three cheap years left after this season. He’d recoup some of that value in merchandising and fan interesting, but tying up that much payroll even for someone as good as Wilson is not a good idea. Closers break (look at those idiots in LA if you want to see an example of “Wow, this guy is going to be the greatest closer ever” turn into a release in two seasons), and it’s just too hard to produce that much in 1/3 as many innings as a starter.
Seth Rosin can hit the side of a barn with a baseball. From space.
Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to WIN that (TM)
The fan part of the equation is important however, when you’re looking at the financial aspect because the casual fan in a winning atmosphere provides such a huge amount of the profit margin. Of course, they should have no impact when looking at the WAR aspect.
MY DAD WAS WRONG!
MY BOY NEEDS TO THROW HARDER!
It is important
But as has been said elsewhere, the most important thing is winning when it comes to attendance and revenue. Marketable stars provides a nice boost, but if letting Wilson go nets us a couple picks or a couple prospects and lets us keep Cain longer that’s gotta be a net positive.
Seth Rosin can hit the side of a barn with a baseball. From space.
Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to WIN that (TM)
No on Wilson AND Romo
To trade either, I’d need a flat out star in return. I mean a .310 35 110 guy with all the sabermetric stuff to go with it :) ::) :)
I don not want to weaken the bullpen. romo is more ‘expendable" as he hasn’t proven he can close (yes I know he also hasn’t had the chance). And, I think there is a legit question as to whether he is strong enough to handle the grind of a closer (particularly down the stretch).
Trade him, however and you weaken the rest of the pen.
Trade Wilson and you REALLY weaken the rest of the pen. Plus you have to hold you breath on Romo being able to do the job.
a .310 35 110 guy
That’s a category entirely made up by Albert Pujols and Miggy Cabrera, right?
MY DAD WAS WRONG!
MY BOY NEEDS TO THROW HARDER!
And perhaps Joey Votto and Jose Bautista
But I’m sure the Blue Jays would trade Bautista straight up for Wilson, right? That wouldn’t be stupid at all.
You want optimism? My glass is half full of emptiness.
Even Votto’s only done it once in his career (and he’s going to have to pick up his HR pace significantly to get there this year). Bautista’s never come close to being a .300 hitter prior to this year.
MY DAD WAS WRONG!
MY BOY NEEDS TO THROW HARDER!
Which is why I said "perhaps"
No need for counterargument. =)
You want optimism? My glass is half full of emptiness.
Sanchez is our best trade chip.
But I would not trade him. The giants are doing
well as they can throw out a good pitcher every
day. It has to be a bit disheartening for the
opposition.
Best Trade Chip - Tim Lincecum
I’ve been trying to write my own fanpost on the hypothetical, but lack the stamina, lol.
Just imagine if a team like Tampa was willing to pull a Herschel Walker like deal to add Tim to their rotation. How many of their top prospects could the Giants get in return? 5-6? maybe 3-4 can’t miss studs plus a bunch that would be atop the Giants farm anyways?
Would they give Lee, Beckham, Jennings, their top C, and then a top arm or two on top of that? Jennings, Lee, and the C would likely play right now, and the Giant rotation would still be Cain, MadBum, Sanchez and Vogelsong when they reach the post season.
I am not looking to trade Tim, but if a team were willing to practically stock the Giant’s farm for one player, I’d have to think about it.
"A new day will dawn for those who stand long." - Led Zeppelin
Not gonna happen
But certainly a no brainer, some fan’s refuse to hear logic such as that. I would take the deal in a heart-beat.
by Andrew Crispell on Jun 17, 2011 9:52 AM PDT up reply actions
Their "garbage"
would probably produce league average players in multiple positions…Remember we our currently fielding 4 worse hitting players at their positions.
I’m not saying it would happen* b/c it would put a team like Tampa behind by like a decade.
Yet I do believe any front office would take a good hard look at a Prospect heavy trade such as the one sort of proposed above.
by Andrew Crispell on Jun 17, 2011 10:46 AM PDT up reply actions
Well aside from the fact that Tampa would never do such a thing (they rely on inexpensive sources of talent, getting rid of all of their top tier talent for a player who’s expensive and about to get more so is the opposite of their standard model of business), from a business perspective, a white flag deal would be incredibly costly. The World Series championship has been a huge cash cow for the team and a repeat appearance in the post-season this year could really get a nice financial snowball effect going. And that added revenue is really as much of a boon for the team’s future as having a stable of good prospects is. Taking Lincecum out of the team would send a negative message to the team and the fans that could be far more impactful than the young players returned.
MY DAD WAS WRONG!
MY BOY NEEDS TO THROW HARDER!
"Just imagine..."
Well, yes…I can imagine lots of things. But Tim Lincecum isn’t the most valuable trade chip on the Giants, because to be that, there’d have to be a possibility of him being traded this year.
You want optimism? My glass is half full of emptiness.
by DanielSmith on Jun 17, 2011 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Herschel Walker deal
What are the MLB equivalents for that? I can’t think of any “Superstar for batch of prospects” deals that went well for the team getting the prospects.
"The two worst things in football are: 1) They think that a 30-year old professional athlete has to be locked up in a hotel room, with a curfew, the night before a qame; and 2) They're right."
- Cowboy safety Cliff Harris
The Pierzynski deal
/dodges lightning
Our Acrobatics & Tumbling team can beat up your Acrobatics & Tumbling team.
Addicted to Quack, where Matt Daddy can't fall asleep unless a grown man in drag sings "Daisy Bell" to him.
Teixiera to Atlanta
Worked out okay for Texas. Saltalamacchia and Beau Jones didn’t work out for the Rangers, but Andrus and Feliz certainly did. Even Matt Harrison has been alright this year. I’d say that’s a win. The point is, those trades do work out on occasion.
In the end, America will be remembered for three things: the Bill of Rights, jazz, and baseball.
Proud parent of Javier Lopez: southpaw, poltergeist, haunter of dreams.
That's a good one
I think my point is that it’s a minority occasion. I’m trying to size up how much of a minority.
"The two worst things in football are: 1) They think that a 30-year old professional athlete has to be locked up in a hotel room, with a curfew, the night before a qame; and 2) They're right."
- Cowboy safety Cliff Harris
by achiappanza on Jun 19, 2011 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Rizzo's looked great in the PCL
But he’s got huge platoon splits, it’s an incredibly hitter-friendly league, and Petco is very much not. The Pads need to be seriously concerned about him ending up as a platoon bat.
I’m not sold on Kelly either. He’s got a nice ceiling, but a lot of room to fail too. With how well Gonzalez has played so far, plus his pedigree, age, and the extension, there would have to be some damned impressive production from those two for the Padres to come out ahead. I suppose getting something more than comp picks means something, but it’s hard for me to see SD being particularly happy about how that worked out.
Seth Rosin can hit the side of a barn with a baseball. From space.
Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to WIN that (TM)
The Rotation
The Giant’s are probably fielding more trade offers for there middle-relievers then anyone else. 3-4 of our revilers could potentially be closer’s…
I’m in the camp of trying to get another outfielder*
I like B.J. Upton, probably not the offensive numbers people are looking for, but Vroom and excellent fielding.
by Andrew Crispell on Jun 17, 2011 9:56 AM PDT reply actions
B.J would play outfield
anywhere…he would be a ult. infielder
Pablo is our 3rd basemen – will occasionally play 1st
Pablo at catcher would only happen in a double switch, double header game in the 12 inning of the second game.
by Andrew Crispell on Jun 17, 2011 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions
In that case
I’ll pass on Upton. The team has a crowded outfield and more pressing needs at C & SS
The thong is, it happened.
I disagree...lots
In a sense, any pitcher a team choose to be a closer can be a closer…just pitch him in the 9th inning and call him closer.
But in a real sense, I think our perspective on that has be mostly agree with the other MLB teams’ perception on who could close — and I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt any other teams in the league are looking at any of the other Giants non-closing relievers besides Romo and thinking, “That guy could close!”
I would love an outfielder…sigh…but I think it’s the least possible acquisition. I think Sabean will just stand pat and hope that Bochy will push the right buttons on how to use Burrell, Schierholtz, and Rowand.
You want optimism? My glass is half full of emptiness.
by DanielSmith on Jun 17, 2011 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Closer mentality
You know, I’m pretty sure I’ve read a Bill James article in the past year or so where he said that some relievers were mentally suited to closing and some are not. It surprised me that he wasn’t advocating that you could stick almost any good short reliever in that role.
"The two worst things in football are: 1) They think that a 30-year old professional athlete has to be locked up in a hotel room, with a curfew, the night before a qame; and 2) They're right."
- Cowboy safety Cliff Harris
The numbers are fascinating.
DTM sometime on closing. If we take, as a convenient rounding off, that the league-average ERA is 4.25 and the corresponding “UERA” is about 0.25, then a league-average pitcher lets in 4.50 runs per 9 IP, or—on average—exactly one run every other inning. (Last year, which was an exceptionally good year for pitching, it was 4.35 R/9IP in the NL.)
Now if a pitcher averages 0.5 R/IP, then at the very worst possible, he must be pitching 50% of his innings scoreless. That assumes that he never lets in more than one run in any inning in which he is not scoreless; obviously, in the real world, there will be the occasional inning with 2 runs allowed, sometimes even 3, once in a while more than 3; but for every inning in which he allows more than one run, there must be yet another in which he allows none—that is, his percentage of scoreless innings will in the real world be over 50%, and probably (for an average pitcher, well over.
Thus, a league-average pitcher, ERA around 4.25, can be a closer and necessarily have a success rate well over 50%, probably at least in the 60% to 65% region. In fact, I dug this up somewhere:
From 1974-2009, across all pitchers with 100 or more innings in a season, the weighted average rate of scoreless innings is 75.1 percent.Think about that!
Moreover, as they say on TV, “But wait! There’s more!” That has assumed that a closer must be scoreless to save a game; in reality, in some nontrivial number of cases, a closer could let in a run, or even two runs, and still get the save. So our original estimate of a league-average pitcher saving 75% is too conservative; he would certainly save more than that.
For reference, the very best career save percentages in history are around 90%. No one is saying that a league-average pitcher would be as good a closer as, say, Mariano Rivera. What does seem likely is that any fairly decent reliever would make an at least satisfactory closer, meaning that—as many have long said—the role is seriously over-rated (largely as a consequence of the invention of the imbecile “Save” stat itself).
Professional baseball analyst since 1980.
Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehn.—Goethe
Isn't that circular logic?
Doesn’t your entire premise not only ASSERT that all innings are equal but ASSUME it in the first place?
"The two worst things in football are: 1) They think that a 30-year old professional athlete has to be locked up in a hotel room, with a curfew, the night before a qame; and 2) They're right."
- Cowboy safety Cliff Harris
by achiappanza on Jun 18, 2011 11:03 PM PDT up reply actions
If . . .
. . . you feel that some men perform better or worse than their norms in pressure situations, which is to say that “clutch performance” exists, and feel you can prove it, there are many journals that will welcome your paper on the topic.
Innings are not equal: but men are men, relievers are relievers.
Professional baseball analyst since 1980.
Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehn.—Goethe
It's not just about clutch performance
It’s about managers saving PH’s for the 9th, and probably some other things. It’s actually a different game at the end… making it about clutch performance is missing the point.
I’ll try to find that Bill James reference again.
Your logic is still circular.
"The two worst things in football are: 1) They think that a 30-year old professional athlete has to be locked up in a hotel room, with a curfew, the night before a qame; and 2) They're right."
- Cowboy safety Cliff Harris
by achiappanza on Jun 19, 2011 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions
I still do not understand what you are trying to say.
If you feel that the possible presence of pinch hitters makes the 9th a more difficult inning to pitch, you might look up pinch hitting in Tango’s book. It is not “a different game at the end”: the rules are unchanged. All that even could differ is psychological pressure, and there we’re back to “clutchiness”.
Professional baseball analyst since 1980.
Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehn.—Goethe
Just re-read
I started to re-write what I said, but I think my “Closer mentality” post is as unambiguous as it gets.
Do you not understand why I’m calling your logic circular?
"The two worst things in football are: 1) They think that a 30-year old professional athlete has to be locked up in a hotel room, with a curfew, the night before a qame; and 2) They're right."
- Cowboy safety Cliff Harris
by achiappanza on Jun 19, 2011 11:58 PM PDT up reply actions
No, I do not.
I am quite unclear about what you mean by innings being “equal” or “unequal”. It seems, I am guessing, that you think some innings are “harder to pitch” than others, but I am unclear on why that is, save your mention of pinch hitters, which I think was addressed.
Professional baseball analyst since 1980.
Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehn.—Goethe
Hello
It’s not my opinion, it’s something I’m trying to remember from a Bill James article. But I started looking for it and remembered better what it was he said. It wasn’t that “not anyone can close” but rather that there was a definite value to players knowing their role, and that a guy who expected to be used according to the save rule would not perform as well if suddenly brought in at the seventh inning to avert a crisis then. I found that surprising.
Your logic is circular because in response to the possibility that a reliever’s performance would change based on the inning he’s used, you project a bunch of stats based on assuming that wasn’t true. It’s not a counterpoint, it’s using your assumption as the proof.
"The two worst things in football are: 1) They think that a 30-year old professional athlete has to be locked up in a hotel room, with a curfew, the night before a qame; and 2) They're right."
- Cowboy safety Cliff Harris
I'm trying to understand your point.
As far as I can see, it comes down to an assertion that some men pitch better and some worse when there is more pressure on, as (supposedly) in the 9th inning, when closers do their thing. That is clutchiness, of which much has been said.
I never set out to prove that a reliever’s performance would (or would not) change depending on the inning he’s used, so there’s nothing “circular” about the matter. If I set out to examine rocketry and assume the law of gravity, that is not “circular” because I am not proposing to prove that objects tend to fall back to earth. In like manner, I assume that for most men the inning in which they pitch makes little or no difference, and know of no significant evidence to the contrary.
One can hypothesize that there might be some men who would be so daunted by the awesome difficulty of starting an inning and trying to not give up any runs in that one inning that they would wilt and faint, but not a lot of men so constituted make it to the big leagues.
Professional baseball analyst since 1980.
Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehn.—Goethe
Read please
If you reread my last post (that you responded to), you’ll see I had a clearer recollection of the James quote. You are still arguing against the old recollection.
Your original argument was to assert and assume that inning does not matter. If you wanted to make that argument non-circular, you would compare performances of the same pitcher in a save situation vs. a non-save situation. You didn’t. Instead, you assumed they would pitch the same in order to assert they’d pitch the same.
That argument is circular.
"The two worst things in football are: 1) They think that a 30-year old professional athlete has to be locked up in a hotel room, with a curfew, the night before a qame; and 2) They're right."
- Cowboy safety Cliff Harris
Huh?
I never set out to “prove” (or “assert”) that men would pitch the same. I did indeed assume it—and still do—but as part of proving something completely other, which is that men with fairly ordinary relief skills can make good, or even excellent, closers, because the role “closer” is defined by a wet dream of Jerome Holtzmann’s, not by the difficulty or importance of the game situation in which it is “earned”.
If you want to argue that that conclusion—that ordinarily decent relievers can close satisfactorily—on the ground that only some certain subset, presumably small, of all relievers can pitch a clean innning if it is the 9th instead of the 8th or the 7th or any other, let’s see your proofs.
Professional baseball analyst since 1980.
Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehn.—Goethe
That's not it
You seem to want to define my point for me and make it one you’re comfortable arguing against. I decline.
Here’s the point you can argue against: Bill James claimed that having defined roles in the bullpen helps relievers perform their best. When a guy is designated the closer, he prepares physically and mentally to enter the game in save situations. Deploying that very same guy unexpectedly, say the 7th inning in a jam, will not get the same performance out of him.
You can call it “clutchness” if you want, but I am quoting the conclusion. If you differ with it, I will not be the one to prove it to you. But you can find the quote yourself as I can assure you I read it somewhere on the web.
"The two worst things in football are: 1) They think that a 30-year old professional athlete has to be locked up in a hotel room, with a curfew, the night before a qame; and 2) They're right."
- Cowboy safety Cliff Harris
by achiappanza on Jun 20, 2011 11:33 PM PDT up reply actions
I may finally see what you are trying to say.
It seems to me that nothing I said had anything whatever to do with using any particular man in unpredictable ways. What I am saying is that if a team loses its “established closer”, it will almost always be able to take almost any other reasonably decent reliever and make him a roughly comparable “closer”, because to get “Saves” as narrowly defined by Jerome Holtzmann’s epitaph, the requirements are such that most decent relievers can meet them at success percentages comparable to the average for “closers”.
That is all totally unrelated to men not “having defined roles”. I would have to see what data was used how by James to reach the conclusion that men perform better with set roles (and to see exactly what he did or didn’t claim) to see if I do or don’t agree.
Professional baseball analyst since 1980.
Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehn.—Goethe
Would be interesting
The article I read didn’t have the data. Maybe he talks about it on his pay site.
"The two worst things in football are: 1) They think that a 30-year old professional athlete has to be locked up in a hotel room, with a curfew, the night before a qame; and 2) They're right."
- Cowboy safety Cliff Harris
I think there's a little more to it than this
For example, homer-prone relievers would be worse in these types of situations; I’d rather throw out a guy with a higher walk rate than a guy who gives up gopherballs, even if his other stats combine to make him average. Blowing a save is easier if your HR/FB is high.
And I think there would be some initial jitters for a lot of relievers; the first few outings, there’s probably some more adrenaline going and they might have command issues or something. But I imagine that would calm down pretty quick.
As far as the validity of the save stat, I think one has to realize its place. Saves were the first stat to really recognize good relievers, and that’s a noble quest, since a good bullpen is important. I would think something like WPA would be more relevant, but the dichotomy there is a bit like OPS vs. wOBA. The first overrates SLG a little, but it’s a step in the right direction. Perhaps in 2011 we ought not take saves as gospel, especially since they are situation-dependent like RBI, but I don’t think it’s a useless stat entirely.
Seth Rosin can hit the side of a barn with a baseball. From space.
Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to WIN that (TM)
Clarification:
Recall that the analysis is based on “closer”, not “fireman”. The difference is that a closer is almost invariably called in to start an inning “clean”, whereas it is a fireman who is called into situations when, usually, men are already be on base.
How a reliever gets to his ERA (or ERA-like metric) value is thus immaterial: for this purpose, innings are closed black boxes. The process is invisible—only the runs that come out of it are visible, or matter.
Granted, closers are sometimes called in mid-inning; but that is, as simple experience should show, uncommon. In any event, the argument was not that any schlepp can be an effective closer; it was that any decent reliever can be a good closer as far as the bottom line, Saves Percentage, goes, and that buyers ought not to put much value on getting an “established closer”. And most don’t, though some do.
Professional baseball analyst since 1980.
Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehn.—Goethe
A couple of things
First, on average, higher quality hitters bat in high leverage spots than they do in lower leverage spots. This isn’t a clutch point, it’s a quality of opposition point.
Second, you assume no change in tactics. When a team goes down by 1 or scores are tied, they play more small ball, where they are more likely to score a single run but less likely to put up a big innings (which would be useless). By contrast, in early innings teams are (or should be) mostly be trying to maximise run expectation.
If you moved, say, Jonathan Sanchez to the closer role, he wouldn’t maintain his scoreless inning % stat from his starts; those walks play into the hands of small ball.
by sarf_london_niner on Jun 19, 2011 8:49 AM PDT up reply actions
Sorry, the typo in the first sentence is confusing me.
I suspect there’s a word or two missing, and I’m not sure I can deduce it with certainty.
But keep in mind that the analysis was meant as a broad-brush indicator, not an exact one; my point was that closers are not unique among relievers, and that, as I put it, “any fairly decent reliever would make an at least satisfactory closer” (by generally accepted standards for percentage success). If potential trade partners place any premium on a man being an “already established closer”, that makes advantageous deals so much the easier.
Professional baseball analyst since 1980.
Wir sind gewohnt, daß die Menschen verhöhnen was sie nicht verstehn.—Goethe
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
