The Case For Pessimism (Or, Why I Hate This Offseason)
by GiantPain on Jan 17, 2012 8:22 AM PST
Email
PrintPessimism, as I've come to comprehend, isn't a particularly popular sentiment. Especially in sports, which we rely on to provide us with optimism, hope, and entertainment, it isn't very fulfilling to believe that our beloved team might not be very good.
This is how I feel. I shall attempt to enumerate the reasoning behind that sentiment.
The Offense
The commonly acknowledged problem. But I would argue that the traditional reasons for doubting our offensive output - the awful shortstop, the questionable first baseman, etc - miss the broader point.
The Giants opening day lineup will look something like this:
Pagan CF/Sanchez 2B/Sandoval 3B/Posey C/Cabrera RF/Belt LF (Or, alternatively, Cabrera in LF and Schierholtz in RF)/Huff 1B/Crawford SS
Now, consider:
The number of players in that lineup who have amassed two full above-average seasons in a row recently is 0. Zero.
If consistency is the holy grail of roster construction, the Giants proposed lineup looks like a sippy cup in comparison. The simple fact is that none of the players that the Giants are counting on to provide offensive upgrades have shown that they can be counted on. But, hey, we'll go ahead and count on them anyway.
I'll delve further into the two most-discussed players in the Giants offseason - Buster Posey and Freddy Sanchez.
Posey is the wild card, but rather than treat him like a wild card, the Giants are choosing to bank on him returning as a major offensive upgrade. He is the "free agent" that the Giants didn't sign. The Giants are counting on Posey to return the cleanup-hitting catcher they've seen for the past year.
In searching for a recent Posey comparison, I decided the example of Jason Kendall made sense. Kendall was an offensive standout at catcher who suffered an ankle injury that took him out for almost a full season in 1999. Of course, Kendall's injury wasn't quite as bad as Posey's, but it fits the general idea.
In his career leading up to his injury, Kendall was a .312/.399/.451 hitter - phenomenal for a catcher. Now, the year he came back from his injury, Kendall was actually still quite good, putting up a .320/.412/.470 line. But after that 2000 season, Kendall put up poorer numbers. In the three years after his injury, Kendall managed a .298/.366/.395 line, which, while good, pales in comparison to his earlier work.
None of this is to say that Posey will follow Kendall's path exactly. He could be better, or he could be worse. But the aging curve for catchers in general peaks much earlier than other position players - whereas an infielder or outfielder would tend to peak at around age 27, consensus is that peak catcher age is somewhere a few years earlier, perhaps 24 or 25. Kendall was injured when he was 25, and he was never again as good as he was. Posey was injured when he was 24. Will he ever again be as good as he was?
Maybe. Maybe not. It's a foolish thing to count on. But, then again, the Giants are counting on so many inconsistent players, what could one more hurt?
Sanchez I'll spend less time on, because the idea of Freddy Sanchez being some sort of offensive savior now that he's not injured is ludicrous on its face. Mostly, of course, because Freddy Sanchez wasn't an offensive savior even before he got injured. Over the past three years, Sanchez has been the epitome of average - posting exactly a 100 OPS+. Going in to 2012, he's a year older, a year further into his decline, and coming off a major injury. Sanchez shouldn't even be counted on to be an average hitter or play 100 games, but the Giants are hoping like hell he'll do both.
The Pitching
This is the aspect people fall back on. "Sure", they'll say, "the offense might not be great. But the pitching will carry us!"
It may, however, be time to consider whether or not the pitching can be counted on.
First of all, the elephant in the room: injuries. When was the last time the Giants endured a pitching injury that substantially hurt the team. One could argue Jonathan Sanchez last year, perhaps, but Sanchez wasn't pitching that well even before he was injured. Reality is, the Giants have suffered almost no significant injuries to their starting pitching staff, despite the fact that pitchers on the whole spend more time on the DL than any other player.
Now, of course, this does not mean that the Giants are any more likely to experience a pitcher injury than they ever were. That is the gambler's fallacy. But it's still something that might happen, and the Giants, whose starting pitching depth in the minor consists of Eric Surkamp, are ill prepared to deal with it.
The second point to consider is whether the pitching can be counted on to be as good. Research indicates that pitchers generally peak around 26-27 and decline from there. In the words of Tom Tango:
So, it’s clear enough: age 27 IS the peak age for pitchers.
Cain will be that peak age this year. Lincecum will be past his peak age, and his year-to-year FIPs (2.34-->3.15-->3.17) paint the picture of a pitcher already declining, albeit slowly and from a high peak.
The only pitcher one could reasonably hope to take a significant step forward is Bumgarner, whose unique combination of talent and youth makes him a true gem and treasure of this team.
Vogelsong has a decade of data indicating he's mediocre at best and awful at worst. At another year older, the contract he received solely on the strength of one incredible outlier of a season seems an unnecessary risk.
Need more be said about Zito?
And, a quick note on the bullpen: Assuming the bullpen will look something like: Wilson, Romo, Affeldt, Lopez, Mota, Casilla, (Runzler or Hembree?), the only players below peak age would be Romo, who has significant elbow concerns, and Runzler or Hembree, who would likely be among the last men out of the bullpen. Everyone else in the bullpen will be a year older and thus subjected to the requisite age-related decline. Counting on the bullpen to be as good as it was even a year ago is silly.
The Response
The most frustrating thing, for me at least, has been the Giants response to the problems laid out in front of it. When faced with an offense that needs upgrading and pitchers likely to soon enter their decline phase, the Giants chose to fail to upgrade the offense and focus instead on locking up the declining pitchers long term. This Bass-Ackwards strategy has left them banking on two injured players - one who plays a position where early peaks are frequent and injuries a constant concern and the other who was never really that good to begin with - to provide a significant upgrade to an offense that was so bad that they were outscored by the Padres (and likely will be again).
The Reasons For Optimism
Not all is terrible. The reason that this is so frustrating is because the Giants are an OK team, and would need very little in the way of upgrades to be considered favorites for their division. They're already OK. I just don't think they're good.
Any optimism for me rests in a belief that "OK" may be "Good Enough". The NL West is not particularly stacked (though I expect the Dodgers and Diamondbacks will both be running alongside the Giants), and there is a possibility for a low-win team to escape with the division. With the potential of two wild-cards, the waters get muddled further. I'm certainly not saying the Giants couldn't make the playoffs. I just think their odds could be higher.
So what would you have done, dummy?
Complaints without solutions are not fun to read, and since I know that a thought among many who read this will be "what would you have done instead?", I'll try to lay out a few ideas.
If the payroll really and truly must be 130 million, there were ways to save money. Declining to bring back Lopez and Affeldt and replacing them instead with lefty relievers like Verdugo and Runzler could have saved us significant coin. Non-tendering Jonathan Sanchez instead of trading him for a major league player (or trading him for a minor leaguer) could have saved money too. Even if you're uncomfortable going without Lopez or Affeldt, you need only pick one of the two, non-tender the fungible Santiago Casilla, and non-tender Sanchez instead of paying Cabrera, and you would have the roughly 13 million dollars that it would take to get Carlos Beltran, whose bat would have been mighty welcome.
There are other potential avenues for upgrades - trades, in particular, which I am uncomfortable holding the front office accountable for, since I have no idea who is and isn't available, etc. I'll say one thing: Sabean could redeem his entire offseason by swinging a trade for Alexei Ramirez.
THE TOO LONG, DIDN'T READ VERSION:
Offense might be good, but every player in it is extremely inconsistent. Giants depending on offensive upgrades from two injured players who can't be depended one.
Pitching might be good, but silly to think it will still be as good and uninjured as it's always been, as players get older.
Front office plan focused on wrong priorities, failed to upgrade terrible offense.
Still hope - division not great, 2 wild cards mean things can still happen.
Still, if you made me bet whether the Giants would reach the playoffs this year, I'd say no.
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.
332 comments
|
10 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
LOL
The title of this fanpost alone is worth a rec!
"There ain’t much to being a ballplayer, if you’re a ballplayer." - Honus Wagner
What’s really pissing me off right now is that Melky and Pagan will almost certainly sign with other teams when they become free agents this offseason – and the Giants will receive no comp draft picks for them. Nobody is admitting this yet, but Melky and Pagan are both 1 year rentals. Why didn’t Sabes go for minor league prospects or major leaguers with less than 5 years service time instead of relatively expensive 1 year rentals who are unlikely to put up above-average offensive numbers?
"There ain’t much to being a ballplayer, if you’re a ballplayer." - Honus Wagner
Well
Obviously Melky and Angel will put up career best numbers, and thus will qualify for compensation.
The most delightful ecumenical contradiction in nomenclature.
Dursh nerf darsh narf. Poop.
I think the Giants make no illusions about being a one-year rental.
Gary Brown.
"I see these guys walking around with rings on, and I want one. That's what it's all about." -Ryan Vogelsong
about Pagan*
"I see these guys walking around with rings on, and I want one. That's what it's all about." -Ryan Vogelsong
Nobody is admitting this yet, but Melky and Pagan are both 1 year rentals.
I’m admitting it. :) But weren’t Sanchez and Torres in their final year of control as well, so it was a trade of rentals for rentals?
While getting guys under longer control would have been nice, I think the hall they would have collcted would have been worse players than Melky and Pagan, so it’s a trade off.
Bold Prediction: Pablo Sandoval finishes 1st or 2nd in 2012 NL MVP voting. I'm Twittering now (well maybe not literally now): @GoofusMcP
Torres won’t be eligible for FA until the end of 2013 season. Sabes has consistently stated that he doesn’t do short-term rentals. Even when he stepped out of character and traded for Beltran he went out of his way to explain that was a special circumstance.
My main points were this:
1. Due to the new CBA, the high probability that both Melky and Pagan will be 1 year rentals with no comp picks makes those 2 trades look worse than advertised.
2. Since the 1 year rental can only be justified if you assume that Sabes was taking a “win now” stance, then the money he’s spending on Melky and Pagan this year ($10.85M) would have been better spent on somebody that would likely have much more of an impact (Beltran, Rollins, Kuroda, …). Trading Torres and Sanchez for multiple minor leaguers would have freed up at least $10.5M in the 2011 payroll; allow them to go after a big bat, a decent SS, or a good pitcher in FA; and they would still have those minor leaguers in their system when the 2013 season starts. The only legit reason that Sabes needed to make those quick trades for Melky and Pagan, and to give those quick extensions to Affleldt and Lopez, was if he had a quick opportunity to sign Cain or Timmy to a long-term extension. If he had had some patience he could have gotten in on the Beltran, Rollins, or Kuroda negotiations when their demands started to slide.
"There ain’t much to being a ballplayer, if you’re a ballplayer." - Honus Wagner
I'm not as perturbed by this.
There are a lot of very good FA outfielders in the 2013 class. Given Melky’s, Pagan’s, and Rowand’s money, the Giants could address Bumgarner’s arbitration and still probably pursue one of the better FA outfielders.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - SLC
Would they though? Sabean’s default position for years (post-Zito, although also pre-Zito!) when asked if he’s going to pursue an elite FA has been to get angry about the notion. They constantly seem to be engaged in a PR battle preventing the fanbase from getting excited about impact acquisitions. Seems if there’s a big payroll surplus, it’s much more likely that he’ll do what the Dodgers did this winter, spread it around on a massive amount of Nick Punto types.
It’s more likely that Sabean just doesn’t like to be pestered by media types, re being asked about FA pursuit. I find it unlikely that, given financial resources and a player who fits an obvious need for the team, management would arbitrarily rule out pursuing that player.
I’m assuming that the team has been lacking said financial resources since Zito/Rowand, so don’t say “BUT BUT BELTRAN,” please. Arguments have already been made that things could have been done differently to free up Beltran money. But those things had not been not done when Beltran finally signed.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - SLC
If he doesn’t want to be pestered by media types then he’s bad at his job, as PR is a huge element of a GM’s role.
by Roger on Jan 18, 2012 10:59 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Lots of people in public positions react poorly to publicity.
This does not make them bad at their job. Just bad at managing PR.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - SLC
My interpretation of this offseason has been
that Sabes and the front office are just trying to wait out and clear the team of bad contracts to free the payroll space to keep their own stars. After all, the team has five guys all capable of five-win-or-better seasons, and two of them are really close to free agency. I’m in accord with this idea; I would rather keep our own stars that we love than pay big to get guys to come to SF.
I also like that in two years, most of the projected rotation and lineup will be under 30. I think they’re going young, and I like to think that’s a good idea.
I think that’s a good idea, too though I will say that I probably couldn’t name a projected lineup for 2014 and get it half right. And also that at this point their projected rotation in two years will be 23, ?,?,?, ? With a lot of room in there for getting older.
I think you can pencil in Surkamp at least as a #5...
23, , , , 26
If they can hold onto one of Cain/Lincecum, then it’ll be:
30/32, 23, , , 26
That 2014 season really makes the Wheeler-Beltran trade look horrible, doesn’t it?
5 guys?
Tim, Cain, MadBum, Posey, Panda, I presume…
Most people would put Belt on that list, too.
Huff and Pagan have also had 5 win seasons within the past 2 years.
Melky had 4.2 wins last year.
So that ups the number of players “capable” of five wins or better as 8-9 players, 5 of whom could leave after this season.
Huff comes off the books, too
Bold Prediction: Pablo Sandoval finishes 1st or 2nd in 2012 NL MVP voting. I'm Twittering now (well maybe not literally now): @GoofusMcP
who are all these very good FA outfielders in the 2013 class?
Never in doubt.
by TimLincecumIsGod on Jan 18, 2012 1:44 PM PST up reply actions
Bourn, B.J. Upton, Victorino, possibly Sizemore, Ethier, and Swisher all look fairly appealing.
Seth Rosin can hit the side of a barn with a baseball. From space.
Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to WIN that (TM)
Those first two especially.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - SLC
Will Bourn even be better than Gary Brown? Brown might not be ready by Opening Day 2013, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he was ready to go by June of 2013.
Not to mention Peguero will likely be knocking on the door as well by that time. I’m not a big Peguero fan, but OF depth is one of the pluses of this minor league system.
by free f.p. #14 on Jan 18, 2012 4:41 PM PST up reply actions
At Mays Field
It’s not ridiculous to grab two true CFs and stick one in RF. Perhaps overkill if they’re both as good defensively as Brown and Bourn, but given the flyball-nature of the staff and amount of ground to cover I don’t hate the idea.
Seth Rosin can hit the side of a barn with a baseball. From space.
Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to WIN that (TM)
flyball nature of the staff?
Are you sure we’re talking about the same staff?
Yes...
With Sanchez gone there are fewer fly balls, but this is generally a flyball-oriented staff IMO. Weirdly, they were near the bottom last year and had the second-highest rate in 2010, but Cain and Zito have been a pretty heavy flyball guys. Vogelsong remains to be seen (though he did induce a lot of grounders last year) and Timmy’s been reasonably good at getting grounders, but he’s the only one. Bumgarner was quite high in 2010 but very low in 2011 (with a troubling LD%). Wilson’s been similarly inconsistent but Romo induces a huge amount of flies (50% for his career).
I’d say Tim and Affeldt are the only true groundball-inducing pitchers – Bumgarner traded flies for line drives, which isn’t really good, and Wilson’s been all over the place. Everyone else seems to be about average or above (or unknown). But with the spacious OF and Magical Dave Righetti, they should be inducing flies.
Seth Rosin can hit the side of a barn with a baseball. From space.
Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to WIN that (TM)
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=all&qual=0&type=8&season=2011&month=0&season1=2011&ind=0&team=0,ts&rost=0&players=0&sort=12,d
2011 Giants had the 4th highest GB% in the league.
Lopez, Affeldt, Wilson, Casilla, RamRam posted over 288 innings of GB%>50%. Add in Edlefson and Joaquin and it’s over 300 innings. Runzler, Lincecum, Vogelsong, Bumgarner are all above league average, as well, another 627 innings.
JoSa, Cain, Zito, Surkamp, Mota, Romo were all above average in FB%, but JoSa is now traded, so it’s Cain and Surkamp/Zito, 2 of the 5 starters who were FB heavy, 1 of the 5 is very GB heavy: Lincecum, and Vogie and Bum are slightly GB heavy. 2/3rds of the bullpen is very GB heavy, whereas only 1/6th is very FB heavy, and 1/6th is somewhat FB heavy.
Yeah
I said they were near the bottom of GB% last year, but they were the second-highest FB% in 2010. Guess I’m still stuck in 2010-mode. But I don’t see it as impossible that they post a high FB% if Zito’s getting more starts and considering Bumgarner has been inconsistent and Vogelsong’s (and Surkamp, if he’s in the mix) a bit of an unknown.
Over the last two years they’re about average with each season being a bit of an extreme. Particularly given the inconsistency of guys like Bumgarner and Wilson I’m not comfortable calling them a GB-heavy staff, but I shouldn’t be as eager to call them FB-heavy.
Seth Rosin can hit the side of a barn with a baseball. From space.
Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to WIN that (TM)
That’s a much fairer way of putting it. I would lean towards more GB-heavy than FB-heavy, but I could see them being a very middling GB/FB staff, too.
I think one of the keys is that their bullpen is definitely GB-heavy, so good late-game defensive IF replacements is important. It also makes me happy that both Crawford and Panda are awesome defensive players. Can’t wait to have Panik manning 2B with his SS-lite skills and have a smothering IF defense.
Take it easy with the smothering IF defense talk… I’m getting all tingly inside.
2010 World Series Champions!
Adopted 'nephew' to the ever avuncular and always awesome Jon Miller
by Johnny Disaster on Jan 21, 2012 4:35 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
oooh... do share!
I love those tingly feelings!
Bourn has been worth around 4 WAR per season since his second season, and he is only 30. I’m optimistic about Brown, but 4 war per season is damn good, and Bourn is most definitely not going to pull 20mil per year. One of them will learn to play right field.
I’d prefer Upton, but Bourn would be a good addition.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - SLC
As Torres showed this year, you can hit pretty terribly and still put up between 2-3 WAR. I’ll take the 1-2 WAR difference if it allows the brass to extend Cain.
by free f.p. #14 on Jan 18, 2012 9:57 PM PST up reply actions
I guess it depends on what you mean by knocking on the door, right? I mean, he’ll probably be in AAA by then, but I guess I’d be a little surprised if his wRC+ was over 110 in AAA.
Adopted father of Chris Lincecum, without whom (quite literally) Timmy would not exist.
Because Pegs isn’t ripping it up?
Adopted father of Chris Lincecum, without whom (quite literally) Timmy would not exist.
it is not unheard of for well thought of prospects to either skip AAA or put in only a little time there on their first time to Bigs.
Just trying to gruntle my Giants baseball Jones in the least destructive way available.
2010 was just a dream.can I have another please?
by daveinexile on Jan 19, 2012 12:44 PM PST up reply actions
I would like to say
Shane Victorino has never and will never look “fairly appealing.”
check
pie >>>>>> cake >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rectum face.
Just trying to gruntle my Giants baseball Jones in the least destructive way available.
2010 was just a dream.can I have another please?
by daveinexile on Jan 20, 2012 10:41 AM PST up reply actions
I don't want him from an emotional perspective
But he’s a good outfielder. If nothing else, he’ll be another candidate to bid for that will drive down the prices of other outfielders we’d actually feel good about signing.
Seth Rosin can hit the side of a barn with a baseball. From space.
Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to WIN that (TM)
And all those guys
will probably cost a lot more money than they’re worth. I’d like BJ Upton because of his defense and power, and since he hasn’t really strung together a bunch of superstar seasons, he could possibly be had for 3 years at $10m or less.
The others… especially Sizemore, Ethier, and Swisher… do not want.
If they have standout years the Gints could offer the 1/12-13 against another team’s longterm contract and possibly peal off draft picks out of the deal. It might be a longshot. If Johny Sanchez has a great year he could be worth picks for the royals. I’d give about even odds on Melky-Sanchez, maybe favoring Dirty.
Torres has one more year of control, I think RamRam has one more to go as well, but they wouldn’t be getting back draft picks.
Sabes & Co. never take those types of chances when offerring arb to potential free agents. Even if Melky or Pagan have monster years I don’t see how the Giants can offer them a $13M+ salary for 2013. The only way that I see us keeping either of them is if they have mediocre seasons and no other team really wants them.
"There ain’t much to being a ballplayer, if you’re a ballplayer." - Honus Wagner
If Melky repeats another 3 WAR year, isn't he worth the risk?
I would say that it would make the case much better that his conditioning and approach are for real
Bold Prediction: Pablo Sandoval finishes 1st or 2nd in 2012 NL MVP voting. I'm Twittering now (well maybe not literally now): @GoofusMcP
He would have to put up a much better season than that (say 4+ WAR), and even then I don’t see Sabes coughing up a $13M+ offer. The budget is just too tight next year, unless Cain is gone – and if that’s the case then Sabes is going to be chasing pitching in FA, not playing chicken with Melky.
"There ain’t much to being a ballplayer, if you’re a ballplayer." - Honus Wagner
I don’t think its as far fetched as that. He’s being paid 6MM this year, expectations for a 1-2 WAR player. If he bounces to 3-4 WAR, a double his salary for one year risk isn’t that out of hand. Huff and Rowand are gone. Cain/Timmy fill that out for the most part, but Freddy Sanchez could help out. Its not that outlandish a risk if he repeats this career year.
If he puts up another 3-4 WAR season
There’s virtually zero risk in an arb offer. As a 28 year old coming off two strong seasons with a good background of “he was always supposed to be this good and finally figured it out” he’ll get a multi-year deal and everyone would know it.
Seth Rosin can hit the side of a barn with a baseball. From space.
Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to WIN that (TM)
I don’t think that Sabes will take the risk that Melky might accept the 1 year qualifying offer. $13-14M for Milky is just not something many teams are even going to consider even with a great year from him. Which players got a contract at that level this year? Not Beltran, not Willingham, not Rollins, not Cuddyer, not Brandon Phillips. Only true superstars are getting contracts like that.
"There ain’t much to being a ballplayer, if you’re a ballplayer." - Honus Wagner
As a one-year deal
He wouldn’t get that much. But over a longer contract he would, and I’d bet he’ll take the higher total payout given his career inconsistency.
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 budget is too tight next year? More than 20mil is coming off the books.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - SLC
Cain’s pay rase, Timmy’s pay raise, Pablo’s pay raise, Vogie’s pay raise, plus Posey and MadBum being Super 2 arb-eligible will eat up most, if not all, of the $20M. As I stated, unless Cain walks as a free agent, we’re not going to have money to offer Pagan or Melky a pay raise.
"There ain’t much to being a ballplayer, if you’re a ballplayer." - Honus Wagner
Sigh...
Cain makes 15mil this year and won’t get more than the 19 Tim is likely to receive. Tim’s pay raise in arb figures to be less than 5mil, assuming he does not sign a long term contract. Pablo’s pay raise is all of 2.5mil. Vogelsong’s is 2mil. Posey is eligible for arb, but Bumgarner is not.
Since 2008 the Giants payroll has increased from between 6mil to 14mil. The increase from 2011 to 2012 figures to be 12mil. Just about all of the various pay raises you cited figure to be covered by the standard annual payroll increase. Now, consider that Huff, Wilson, Cabrera, Sanchez, Affeldt, Pagan, and Rowand (plus assorted other small amounts) are all coming off the books, to the tune of about 70mil. My original figure of 20mil turned out to be absurdly inaccurate, but not in the way that you claim.
The Giants will have money for 2013. That’s the bottom line, here.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - SLC
I agree. They’ll have money, and if Pagan/Melky play at a high level that isn’t that outrageous to risk a couple extra million overpay versus getting 2 draft picks. Best of all, its one year. If they accept, you have a player coming off a high level season still in the prime. Sounds like win win to me.
Bumgarner might well be eligible for arb after this year as well. Remember they siginificantly increased the Super 2 levels.
Count on it.
Under the new CBA I don’t see how he won’t be a Super 2.
"There ain’t much to being a ballplayer, if you’re a ballplayer." - Honus Wagner
Humph...
MadBum will be Super 2 arb eligible at the end of the season, count on it. He’ll have 2 years and 127 days of service time and under the new CBA rules that will almost certainly qualify for Super 2. In addition,
Brian Wilson will be in his final year of arb
Sergio Romo will be in his 2nd year of arb
Nate will be in his 2nd year of arb
Casilla will be in his 3rd year of arb
Let’s not do this piecemeal, let’s do the 2013 payroll for real.
The Giants currently have only 4 players signed to guaranteed contracts for 2013:
Zito = $20M, Javier Lopez = $4.25M, Pandaval = $5.7M, Vogelsong = $5M
They also have to pay Huff a $2M buyout –
making a total of $36.95M in guaranteed money – let’s round it up to $37M.
Let’s do a little bit of crystal-ballin’ now. I’m going to assume that Cain signs an extension sometime in the next 3 months for $100M over 5 years with a 6th year team option for $22M. The contract breaks down as follows:
2013=$18M, 2014=$20M, 2015=$22M, 2016=$22M, 2017=$18M, 2018=$22M (team option with a $2M buyout clause)
That brings the running total to $55M.
I’m also going to predict that Franchez, Affeldt, and Fontenot leave as free agents, and that the Giants will pay a total of $30M to the following 6 arb-eligible players:
Brian Wilson=$10.5M
Casilla=$4M
Buster (Super 2)=$4.5M
MadBum (Super 2)=$4.5M
Romo=$4M
Nate=$2.5M
They will also have to pay $6M to the following 7 team-controlled players:
Belt=$.7M
Crawford=$.7M
Pill=$.6M
Surkamp=$.5M
Correa=$.5M
Hector Sanchez=$.5M
Hembree=$.5M
That brings us to a grand total of $91M for 18 players, and leaves about $39M for:
Timmy and 6 more players (1 starting 2B, 2 starting OF’s, 1 utility IF, and 2 backup OF’s).
Let’s budget $24M for Timmy, and $2M for the 3 non-starters – leaving us with:
$13M to pay for 1 starting 2B + 2 starting OF’s
Let’s go out on a limb and assume that Gary Brown or Frankie Pegs will be ready to start in CF.
That would only cost $500K.
That would leave Sabes $12.5M to pay for a starting 2B and a starting LF.
Now, it’s your contention that Sabes will feel comfortable offering around $113.5M to Melky, putting him $1M over budget and still leaving him to find a starting 2B? I just don’t see it, but maybe he will totally change his stripes in the next 10 months.
"There ain’t much to being a ballplayer, if you’re a ballplayer." - Honus Wagner
Oops
offering around $113.5M $13.5M to Melky
"There ain’t much to being a ballplayer, if you’re a ballplayer." - Honus Wagner
The easiest way to free up some money would be to trade Wilson, but I don’t see that happening unless Wilson has a down year, in which case how much could Sabes expect to get in a trade?
"There ain’t much to being a ballplayer, if you’re a ballplayer." - Honus Wagner
The pen looks expensive. While I sometimes go overboard advocating for the lefties, I don’t think I could stomach 4MM for Casilla. RH’s are a bit easier to replace. I’d expect a trade or 2.
If pressed, I’d say Sabean will try and lock down WIlson on a 3/30MM or something along those lines. Depending on Hembree’s performance and comealong, that would determine whether a middling trade of Wilson if he didn’t agree to such terms. I agree they wouldn’t get much for Brian, but they might want to dump salary at that point if Hembree is ready.
I’d also think that if Melky performs well Sabean’s first instinct would be to re-sign, not go for draft picks.
If you cut off 4MM on a Casilla trade from the estimate I really could see them doing a 1/13.5MM offer though. The worst case is you’ve overpaid a bit on a one- year deal, buying yourself some more development time for the farm. While I agree with you Sabean hasn’t done much in regards to getting picks recently, he has from time to time peeled a couple off (list above). I see this being a win-win situation of maintaining a short contract or getting something. But I also agree its not a typical Sabean move. But I do think its possible in this case.
I see what your saying, but I can’t agree with you on the $4M for Casilla. This is a GM that just handed out $4.25M and $5M to Lopez and Affeldt – 2 guys that haven’t pitched as much or as effectively as Casilla. Don’t forget that I have Affeldt walking away after this season. Knowing how much Sabes loves veteran relievers right now, you know that he’s not going to think twice about giving Casilla $4M unless Casillla has a horrible 2012 season – in which case Sabes will just go out and find a free agent vetran reliever to spend $4-$5M on..
I do agree with you that Sabes will likely try to sign Melky to an extension at the end of the season, and Pagan too, unless they both jsut totally lay an egg during the 2012 season. However, once again we come to the issue of do those guys want to remain with the Giants under reasonable terms? In both cases, I think it’s likely they’ll both want to move on unless the Giants are clearly the high bidders for their services.
"There ain’t much to being a ballplayer, if you’re a ballplayer." - Honus Wagner
So they tried out Joaquin and Edlefsen for the back end RH RP role last year, they didn’t stick. Look at the arms we have: Hembree, Bochy, Correa, Harrold. Just drafted Marlowe and Black. Otero. Your boy Arnold. Jake Dunning. Rosin and Dunnington if they don’t start. Cody Hall as a sleeper. There are a lot of potential guys in the system, not to mention how the G’s found Casilla. Yes they are in various degrees of non-readiness.
I’m not going to argue Sabean doesn’t like his consistent vet bullpen, you’re right. But he may have to break up several pieces next year, starting with Affeldt obviously and maybe moving to Casilla or even Wilson.
4MM for the RH guy, even one who can spot save like Casilla, might get too much. I can see Sabes being a little more picky with the cash on a RH unlike the bonanza on the lefties this offseason. But point well taken, the man likes his pen. It might depend on the Romo deal if he’s already locked in, which seems likely.
For the new fast athletic switch hitting OFS?!? Well, what are reasonable terms? The DeRosa special? 2/12? That is my point. They have good years they might want 3/27 or more. I think its a reasonable risk to offer up a big one year chasing short term services or draft picks. Maybe somebody on the Giants will pick up on that.
Bold Prediction: just thought of this. Sabey Sabes will decide Casilla is too expensive, trade him away. However, he’ll look around at the Lefties, decide he wants Affeldt back again and go for another 2/10MM. That would be classic. He’d be in his 34/35 years, that’s nothing for a lefty.
That would get back to your budget scenario of trying to fill in 2B and LF with limited funds. I’ll agree with you it’d be tight. Again, I said it was a longshot, it gets interesting if they put up good numbers though, and other teams have a need. A quick game of chicken gets a short term fix or a bit of development.
Not often, but the G’s have got comp for these guys: Doug Henry, Roberto Hernandez, Wilson Alvarez, Jose Mesa, Ellis Burks, Jeff Kent, Scott Eyre, Jason Schmidt, Moises Alou, Mike Stanton, Pedro Feliz, Juan Uribe.
And a murderers row of bad Sabean, gave up comp for these guys: Ray Durham, Michael Tucker, Armando Benitez, Mike Matheny, Omar Visquel, Matt Morris, Tim Worrell, Barry Zito, Rich Aurilia, Aaron Rowand,
I think it depends on production and market demand. I did say longshot. I don’t think Torres or Ramirez would have brought good prospects, but Sanchez might have.
I agree with the general idea that Sabes & Co don’t go looking for draft picks. But that might have to change.
But it’s too late, now. The rules have changed. You have to offer a player an absurd amount of money and arb them in order to obtain a draft pick if they leave. Someone was saying that yesterday, I think.
by Every6thDay on Jan 18, 2012 12:51 PM PST up reply actions
You would have to offer a 1 year deal for the top 25% of payroll, around 12 to 13MM. If Melky has a 3-4WAR season and is looking at a 3/27-33MM type of deal, it may be worth the risk. I agree Sabes and Co don’t usually do this, but they have (as the list above shows) on occasion been bothered to pick up a couple draft picks here and there. They definitely value “proven” major leaguers more.
Here’s the list of CFs (yes, Melky might not belong on that)
Alfredo Amezaga (35)
Michael Bourn (30)
Marlon Byrd (35)
Melky Cabrera (28)
Mike Cameron (40)
Curtis Granderson (32) – $13MM club option with a $2MM buyout
Scott Hairston (33)
Angel Pagan (31)
Aaron Rowand (35)
Grady Sizemore (30)
B.J. Upton (28)
Shane Victorino (32)
Who knows what the demand will be, I’m just saying that there is a chance with good years the Giants could offer up that one year minimum against some team bidding 3 years to get a pick. More likely if they have good years, Sabey Sabes will get to negotiatin’ hisself.
I’d say the difference between Melky and Dirty is Melky realized he could flail out of baseball and did something about it. You may have to live in a world of Melky being a 4 win player. I would not mind. He’s most likely a tweener in LF, but he’s also been very talented and very drunk for most his career.
he’s also been very talented and very drunk for most his career.
TWSS ?
Just trying to gruntle my Giants baseball Jones in the least destructive way available.
2010 was just a dream.can I have another please?
by daveinexile on Jan 19, 2012 12:56 PM PST up reply actions
And just what about that scenario is so world shattering for you?
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - SLC
Melky Cabrera is a young player with considerable upside. Carlos Beltran is old, injury-prone and coming off his only good season in the last 3 years.
That seems fairly reasonable to me.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - SLC
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
by Every6thDay on Jan 18, 2012 4:51 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Well reasoned.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - SLC
No?
Is your opinion so ironclad that only a fool would attempt to make a sally against it?
Cabrera was worth .5 fewer WAR than Beltran last year. A pittance. Cabrera is also 7 years younger (he will be 28 this season, right around his peak, putting Beltran in obvious decline years). The scenario posited is that if Cabrera has another similar season, he will be worth the same money as Beltran. And you think this is such folly that you don’t even want to be associated with the same planet as it?
I am fast running out of patience for banal retorts that pass for argument.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - SLC
1. Beltran has been better than Cabrera in each of the last three years
2. Beltran is on another level of hitting than Melky Cabrera. He is not Bonds, but he’s the next best thing.
3. I tried to think up a comp to Melky’s situation, and if he made some incredible jump in performance how his salary might advance. I thought of Robinson Cano. He went 3MM-6MM-9MM during those last few arb years and then signed an extension. I think he might be a decent comp and I think the fact that Cano plays MI might just prove that Melky’s salary isn’t likely to balloon to the number that’s been suggested.
But to top it all off, the suggestion originally was that given a big enough year of performance, the Giants would off up 12-14MM for him thinking that he might leave them and they’d get draft pick compensation. I just don’t see the market being that crazy for an average — at best — corner outfielder who’s not going to slug 40 HR a year (he might — might — increase his HR total to 25 this year from 18 last year, but that’s been really optimistic) and I think it’d be utter insanity if the Giants tried to play the draft pick compensation using him as their pawn.
The only thing I can add is look at what Barry Bonds was paid versus the next group of players after him. It doesn’t always line up. Salaries continue to rise. Its a factor of what else is on the market. Look at that list up above. Not out of the world at all that Melky could make that with another good season.
RE: #1 & 2 a team is not buying the ’09-11 version of either player.
I would have preferred they run out the same contract Beltran signed with the Cards but that ship sailed with the mistimed Rowand contract.
RE: #3 We don’t know he could be Jeff Lenard like or Glen Alen Hill like. We will not know tell its July or August. But he is the correct age to expect 3 out of 4 seasons to better 100 ops+ while fieldeing while for over 1200+ innings.
Just trying to gruntle my Giants baseball Jones in the least destructive way available.
2010 was just a dream.can I have another please?
Cabrera was worth .5 fewer WAR than Beltran last year.
Cabrera racked up a lot of value by batting in the top of the lineup last year. He had over 700 PAs. Saying that he’s young seems a bit of a mischaracterization to me—he’s 27, which is certainly not old, but probably not young, either.
Adopted father of Chris Lincecum, without whom (quite literally) Timmy would not exist.
Considerable upside?
o_0
Don't think he can cut it in the bigs? Brock Bond will be the bigger man and walk walk walk away.
Sorry, inaccurate fact
About the way comp works. From BA:
Now the only free agents subject to compensation will be those who are offered contracts equal to the average salary of the 125 highest-paid players in the game as they enter the free-agent process. Players also have to be with a team for an entire season to be subject to compensation, so pending free agents who are traded at midseason will not generate extra picks for the teams that acquire them.
A team that signs one of those free agents will give up its first-round pick. Unlike before, when the top 15 overall picks were protected, now only the top 10 are protected. In those cases, the team will lose its second-highest selection (not necessarily its second-round pick, as before).
(Don’t know from the BA article if losing team gets signing teams pick but I don’t think so, I think the pick will be a supplemental after the first round. Also, there’s a lottery among small salary teams for extra supplemental picks as well)
If you offer your pending FA a qualifying 1 year contract then you get the same comp package that you would have gotten under the old rules for a Type A free agent. That is, the team that loses their free agent gets the signing team’s #1 pick AND a 1-S comp pick. The only difference on that front (as BA correctly stated) is that only the bottom 10 teams have their 1st round pick protected under the new CBA)
And, just to be clear, the average salary of the top 125 contracts is likely to be well above $14M for the 2012 offseason.
"There ain’t much to being a ballplayer, if you’re a ballplayer." - Honus Wagner
Are you positive the same comp package is still in place? I can’t find clearly laid out language on that issue. The MLB link says “C. A Club that signs a player subject to compensation will forfeit its first round selection, unless it selects in the top 10, in which case it will forfeit its second highest selection in the draft.” but does not say “forfeit its first round selection to the Player’s former club”. MLBTR says “It appears possible that teams will still obtain two picks for losing free agents”.
Couldn’t find anything on it in BA. Any linkage or light to shed?
Yes, the forfeited pick does go to the team that loses a qualifying free agent – the pick doesn’t just vanish into free air. There are some that still question if a team will also get a 1-S comp pick, but from the stuff I’ve read regarding the 6 comp picks being handed out to teams under the “Competitive Balance Lottery” it seems clear to me that they aren’t doing away with the 1-S comp picks for free agency. Here’s a good synopsis of the pertinent rules:
http://www.perfectgame.org/Articles/View.aspx?article=6410
Starting in the 2012-13 offseason, free agents will no longer be classified by type nor will they be ranked by the Elias Sports Bureau. Compensation picks for the 2013 draft will be given to teams that offer, and subsequently lose a player to free agency, a one-year contract that is equivalent to the top 125 players in the game.
"There ain’t much to being a ballplayer, if you’re a ballplayer." - Honus Wagner
Thanks for the link. That lottery looks hilariously confusing. For example, when the ten lowest revenues and 10 smallest markets overlap, do those teams get 2 picks? Then the reverse winning percentage from the previous year will… Yeah, Instant headache. Billy Beane will be all over this new market inefficiency.
Because LOL Sabes
Why didn’t Sabes go for minor league prospects or major leaguers with less than 5 years service time instead of relatively expensive 1 year rentals who are unlikely to put up above-average offensive numbers?
Thank you Edgar Renteria, for hitting the ball three feet higher.
The other part of the optimism-pessimism struggle is that optimism is fueled by emotion and irrationality.
I might sound irrational when I crap all over the Giants’ decisions and, further, their chances in the 2012 season, but at least I (like you, GP) have numbers and facts to support it. The optimists tend to skip the numbers when they don’t work out in hope’s favor.
I wouldn’t discount the role that emotion and irrationality play in pessimism as well (as a lifelong pessimist who’s the son of a Pessimist HOFer I can say this). But skepticism, which I think may be a better word for what GP’s trying to express (though I understand he’s making use of a label that has been placed upon him), is I think the best intellectual stance, though not necessarily the most enjoyable way to follow a sports team.
Why most Optimists don't speak up on MCC
Cause of the above statement. We are ridiculed cause we don’t have “facts” to back up our point of view which is just an opinion anyway. Call me irrational or “fueled by emotion” all you want. If I want to have a postive outlook I freaking will, and if you need to call me emotional and irrational go ahead, if it makes you feel better.
Being an optimist doesn’t mean I run around thinking everything is peachy and rosy, but rather that I choose to try to see the good in the situation, instead of ALWAYS looking for the bad in a situation. Cause with statistics you can do both. I can’t think of who originally said it, but Mark Twain quoted it often, “There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics”
My two favorite teams are the Giants, and whomever is playing the Dodgers!
by World Series or Bust on Jan 17, 2012 9:36 AM PST up reply actions
I feel like there are enough optimists around here to at least balance things out if not tip the scales, but I don’t pretend that some voices aren’t louder than others. I think what gets me is not that you’re trying to see the good in the situation, it’s those whose default, entrenched stance is that every roster move is a great one and that everything the Giants do is great. That’s just blind fanaticism, and I think some fanatics think they’re optimists.
And despite all my misgivings and negative opinions and thoughts based on whatever facts are available to me I hope like hell the Giants win and prove me wrong. Every goddamn year. Sure, I don’t like that their poor decisions (IMO) would be rewarded and they’d just keep doing more of the same, BUT, the Giants would win. In that way, I am torn on the matter. But I swear I’m not negative about the team just for negativity’s sake (I save that for the view of my own life).
I see your point, and actually agree, but that does go both ways. I seen my share of the pessimism for pessimism sake as well.
My two favorite teams are the Giants, and whomever is playing the Dodgers!
by World Series or Bust on Jan 17, 2012 10:29 AM PST up reply actions
it’s those whose default, entrenched stance is that every roster move is a great one and that everything the Giants do is great.
Who is this?
@legaleagle88
I'm not crazy. My mother had me tested.
No, I am literally asking. Are you talking about posters at MCC or people elsewhere like, I don’t know, SF Gate commenters? I only really pay attention to what’s said here, and I think here the pessimists outweigh the optimists by like 100 to 1. I guess perception is reality, but I feel the opposite of you and GP. I am scared to say anything positive around here, lest I get made fun of for the rest of my life.
@legaleagle88
I'm not crazy. My mother had me tested.
Here, there and everywhere. On this blog, there is certainly a strong voice or two that bends and twists to explain away criticized decision-making. Some of those on Twitter are just big fans of the team and love every player because they wear a Giants’ uniform and I, perhaps unfairly, paint them with the same brush as the bend & twisters.
Certainly, I don’t mean to make fun of you if you (or anyone) think Brandon Crawford’s going to have a helluva season (and I’m not saying that’s what you’re saying or even thinking), but I’m sure my outrage that he’s the Giants’ only option at SS will sound louder and meaner towards your hope or cheer and make it seem like that’s exactly what I’m doing. I’m sorry for that.
I don’t think you’re understanding me, and that’s probably my fault for not being clear.
I wasn’t looking for apologies. The last sentence of my comment was probably the least important. It wasn’t my main point. It was to try to describe the discrepancy between what I perceive and what you perceive as the “conventional wisdom” (for lack of a better term) among the McCoven. I clearly did a poor job, which appears to have made me sound like a crybaby.
That being said, I have my answer. It was in your second sentence. Thanks.
@legaleagle88
I'm not crazy. My mother had me tested.
Personally
I don’t think everything the FO does is beyond criticism, but I do think the conviction with which people criticize is sometimes unfair. There’s usually more to the story and I merely try to bring up possible explanations. I never say “I’m sure this is what happened.”
An example: The FO was criticized for giving up Bowker after such a small sample size. I pointed out that maybe, just maybe, they’d watched every MiLB PA, every BP session and realized his inability to identify or hit breaking balls meant he was never going be an MLB hitter. This was met with serious scoffing. I contend that this is (or something similar) likely what happened. Nothing in Bowker’s subsequent career has disuaded be from this or convinced me that the FO were buffoons for giving up on him.
I work in an industry that faces a lot of public critcism and see that the criticism is often based on some truth, but often based on complete lack of understanding of circumstances or the whole story. Things are rarely as black and white as people often seem to believe.
Bold Prediction: Pablo Sandoval finishes 1st or 2nd in 2012 NL MVP voting. I'm Twittering now (well maybe not literally now): @GoofusMcP
That’s fair. I’m completely unfair with them because they’ve been here for so long. I have no pity for management when it failed for so long to identify and develop young, cheap talent in its farm system. I give them no leeway and don’t trust their judgment. Yeah, sure, they’re doing things now with some players and they’ve certainly hit on some draft picks, but that’s mostly a function of being bad at it for so long that it was finally detrimental to the big league club to the point that they were able to draft as close to can’t-miss as you can get with a “prospect.” And that’s just in the case of someone like John Bowker.
Of course I don’t know the whole story. I wish I did, because what I do know and learn usually pisses me right the hell off.
by Every6thDay on Jan 18, 2012 11:27 AM PST up reply actions
At the risk of sounding like I'm beinding and twisting
I have no pity for management when it failed for so long to identify and develop young, cheap talent in its farm system.
Might this be a failure of a directive from Magowan rather than Sabean? It’s certainly not a stretch to say they have a pretty good track record of developing young talent in more recent years.
Bold Prediction: Pablo Sandoval finishes 1st or 2nd in 2012 NL MVP voting. I'm Twittering now (well maybe not literally now): @GoofusMcP
Well, we really don't know for sure, do we? Either of us.
You can choose to give Sabean the benefit of the doubt, I can choose to blame him for not being creative enough to work within the constraints placed on him.
So, as a separate question, the directive, theoretically, was, “No unknown or low service-time players around Bonds at any point, Brian. I’d rather you spend the money on major league-caliber, proven veteran talent at all times. But I also need you to stay within your budget, because we are not going to break the bank on any one player or any series of players, for that matter. We have every confidence you can do that. Oh, and by the way, from time to time I will be dumping a player on the salary that will completely negate what I’ve directed you to avoid, but I can do that because I’m the managing general partner. Got it?” Am I tracking that right?
As silly as it sounds, that's the image that has emerged of Magowan
I think tt’s pretty clear that, other than the ballpark, he thought very short-term and was treating the roster and budget like a baseball card collection; most likely because he was convinced that people were like him and more likely to spend their money on a team of players they’d heard of. “Zito? He’s already famous in the Bay Area. Let’s get him!”
In that mindest, the minors are an extra item on the expense side of the P&L and a place to trim to meet that year’s budget.
Bold Prediction: Pablo Sandoval finishes 1st or 2nd in 2012 NL MVP voting. I'm Twittering now (well maybe not literally now): @GoofusMcP
I actually think that’s illogical, Goofus. I mean, I think you could make that argument if, under Magowan, they had seriously cut their scouting budget, fired old scouts, limited their work in the Dominican, etc. But they didn’t really do that. They were scouting amateurs and making picks. They were signing and developing teenagers in the DSL. They had a full alotment of minor league teams.
Unless you suggest that Magowan was directing the scouting and player development department to actively be bad at their jobs then I think there’s a leap of logic there.
I think you can say that Magowan didn’t demand enough results and accountability from this group during his tenure, but as long as he had people filling those roles, then they have to shoulder a lot of blame for the failure. It’s funny reading through all the old BA Prospect Handbooks, because quite literally all the way back to the beginning (2001) you’ve got writeups that say “GM Brian Sabean knows the team must get younger and begin to develop it’s own talent.”
I’d sure like to know who directed the punt a draft pick strategy of the Michael Tucker and Benitez et al signings for the 2004/2005 drafts.
I think one way Peter the Pink might have influenced strategy is just by limiting the budget. No big time overdraft signings. No international signings.
The Gints seemed to limit themselves to pitching prospects for an awful long time due to comfort/familiarity. The rep for not developing position players stretches before Sabes and Tidrow though.
This is what I was implying
Bold Prediction: Pablo Sandoval finishes 1st or 2nd in 2012 NL MVP voting. I'm Twittering now (well maybe not literally now): @GoofusMcP
Because that rep existed before them doesn’t absolve them of a decade of failure. That’s the thing: Sabean has been around a very long time. Yes, in recent years (3 or 4) the development has finally started to pay off, but that has simply not been the case with the majority of his tenure. I’m not 100% on board with blaming every Giants’ FO mistake of the Sabean Era on somebody else.
One of the top 3 criticisms I have of Sabean is his use and misuse of the farm system. He was very successful at trading away loose ends for good plug ins for his first six years. Then things got pretty dicey. I wouldn’t necessarily call it a decade of failure, he did get very useful MLB pieces. Still, its only since the Timmy draft that he has shifted towards a successful approach with prospects. Another thing I’d like to know is who made the decision to hire Barr, whether it was Peter the Pink, the Braintrust as a whole or Sabey Sabes.
I agree with not blaming everything on the FO, but some situations are a bit grey. Like Kent leaving for example. I used to blame Sabey Sabes hook line and sinker, and people in these parts have steered me towards part Kent’s fault, part Barry’s fault, part Sabean’s but also a big part Peter the Pink and his PR obsession.
I certainly don't absolve Sabean of everything
Excercising the Affeldt option wasn’t the highest and best use of resources, IMO.
There have been plenty of deal I didn’t like, but I think the criticism he gets is often through the 20/20 lense of hindsight. The Huff deal is an example of that.
Also, I think people fail to give him credit for deals he doesn’t do, which may be good on his part or just lucky. Nevertheless, if he’d listened the collective wisdom here, our starting outfield might have been Dunn, Crawford and Werth.
Bold Prediction: Pablo Sandoval finishes 1st or 2nd in 2012 NL MVP voting. I'm Twittering now (well maybe not literally now): @GoofusMcP
As much as he gets hammered for Huff being some sort of sentimental reward, he’s really signed as a 2 WAR player. A good example of the move he didn’t do is an extension for Cody Ross. If he had locked up Ross he would be getting hammered.
Sometimes its better to be lucky than good. Almost matching Uribe wasn’t so hot, but the 1MM deferred wins it for the Doyers and lookie here, we have a supplemental pick, one Kyle Crick, out of the equation. You could use that argument for all the stalking horse guys too – dodged a bullet on Soriano, Lee and Matthews Jr.
I can see clear reasons not to re-sign Beltran. And if Don Carlos got hurt, Sabean would take a bunch of heat (unfairly) for trying to get value out of the Wheeler trade. 20/20 style.
I like his dumpster dives – Grissom, Uribe, even Deivi Cruz. I don’t like his impulsive “go grab the guy” moves such as Neifi, Tejada or even Alfonso. I do think people forget how successful he was at trading off farm pieces for good major leaguers the first six years. Its a very good record.
I thought Huff's deal was more than a little over-market
I figured a two-year deal worth $14-16M was appropriate. He got considerably more than that. Still, when it was signed, there wasn’t a general outpouring of rage, it was just when he wasn’t producing. In fact, if you switch the reactions to each of his contracts (the $3M one and the $22M) with the contracts themselves, MCC’s reaction matches up much better with his production. It still annoys me that people have now grouped that deal in with Rowand and Zito when it comes to the dead weight that’s pulling us down – Huff’s deal was a little expensive but it made a lot of sense and hasn’t had nearly the same impact as Rowand or Zito. The Renteria contract was far worse and no one compared that one to Rowand or Zito.
Seth Rosin can hit the side of a barn with a baseball. From space.
Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to WIN that (TM)
You can’t really call a deal “over-market,” except in retrospect. The Giants paid Huff to produce 4 WAR over two years, which seemed very reasonable at the time. One below replacement level year later, it’s asking a lot.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - SLC
Including the buyout
More like 5 WAR. Given his 2009 season, I don’t think he deserved that much per year – inconsistent players get less than their upside.
Seth Rosin can hit the side of a barn with a baseball. From space.
Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to WIN that (TM)
Huff’s buyout is 2mil. That is not equatable to 1 WAR. He is also not getting paid for his upside, he is getting paid for something roughly in between his upside and his shitside.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - SLC
It's not
But $20M is not equal to 4 WAR. At $4.5M/WAR, 5 WAR costs $22.5M, which is closer than the $18M 4 WAR costs. And $4.5M is on the high end of estimations for the FA value of a win.
He didn’t get paid for the best he could do or has done. But with how bad his 2009 was, as well as his age and the championship after his career in the cellar, I think they should have been able to pay less. Maybe he would have taken the money from the Dodgers if we didn’t essentially match their offer, but I’m not so convinced.
Seth Rosin can hit the side of a barn with a baseball. From space.
Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to WIN that (TM)
It would’ve been one of those three, given the budget and the tiered nature of their free agencies (as in, they were white whales in separate years).
Huff shouldn’t be such a surprise. He was a scrap heap signing that worked out. That he didn’t work out again the very next year isn’t real a surprise. It kinda doesn’t fall into the 20/20 framework, because it’s not like it’s was a 100% thing at the time of the deal. Most people understood that you couldn’t just disband the world series team, but it was perfectly natural to believe/expect/fear that performances wouldn’t/couldn’t repeat.
Orlando Cabrera was abysmal. Mark DeRosa was dumb. Even Freddy Sanchez was vanilla. Edgar Renteria, for the years and the dollar amount, wasn’t great even though it worked out pretty swell in the end… oh, and Aaron Rowand — that was a stupid deal at the time, too. Just like Barry Zito. I’m sure you could make a long list of mistakes that weren’t so great even in the moment, never mind hindsight. And, I’m sure if you stacked up Sabean’s mistakes and somehow adjusted for tenure, Sabean is probably, percentage-wise, on par with most GMs in terms of hits or misses. The problem is that Brian Sabean is (either by force of FO or decision-making on his part) banking on hitting jackpots in free agency to cover the gaps created by the lack of jackpots in the farm system (again, the result of either the FO or his own decision-making).
I’m sure the counter to that is ALL BASEBALL TEAMS DO EXACTLY THIS, to which I say “I don’t think that’s true” AND “even if it was true, this is my team and I expect them to be the best, and when they don’t meet my unreasonable expectations every year, I’m sorely disappointed. What pours salt in the wound is when they aim for average”.
I think I’ve settled on Tejada being an unnecessarily vilified deal in hindsight. I mean, it didn’t take very long for that deal to explode in the Giants’ face, but their lack of creativity sorta forced them (as it often does) into their last resort, which was actually their first resort since they signed Tejada pretty fast and for a lot of cash.
Really? I think that I’m an optimist, although I am realistic about it, and I’ve never worried about posting optimistic comments. I think there’s a difference between constant pessimism and lots of gousing. In general, I think that the posters on this site like to grouse about things, but I don’t find the MCC pervaded with pessimism. I also think that most posters tend to swing between grousing and cheering over a full year’s time. You shouldn’t feel hesitant to post what you feel (even if you don’t have a ready bunch of stats at hand) just because you feel the mood in a thread is tending towards pessimism.
"There ain’t much to being a ballplayer, if you’re a ballplayer." - Honus Wagner
It seemed like the attitude was that pessimistic points of view are somehow marginalized, to the point that GP had to draft a defense of pessimism. I don’t think that’s reality, at least not on MCC. I suppose I could be wrong.
@legaleagle88
I'm not crazy. My mother had me tested.
Apologist!
2010 World Series Champions!
Adopted 'nephew' to the ever avuncular and always awesome Jon Miller
by Johnny Disaster on Jan 17, 2012 3:30 PM PST up reply actions
Well, in the case at hand, GP had it put to him in another post (fairly, I think) that he should explain and justify his general pessimistic outlook. I think GP felt it was a fair request, as well, and thus this post. I applaud both GP and mhad for their efforts.
I would say MCC trends heavily pessimist. I’m actually quite cynical but I don’t get any chances to throw down that side because everybody else is always negative. That’s my view on the whole optimist/pessimist argument as related to the site.
As long as the Giants keep the core group together I see a lot of reason for optimism. Lincecum, Cain, MadBum, Posey and Sando are the best young core in baseball. I think the Giants have plenty of money to make that happen, so I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt until they screw the pooch. Then its back to dusting off the lunatic fringe card.
Roger's right
This post is in response to this comment: http://www.mccoveychronicles.com/2012/1/16/2711819/projecting-the-giants-using-fangraphs-fan-projection-tool#88921938
The most delightful ecumenical contradiction in nomenclature.
Dursh nerf darsh narf. Poop.
I'm going to call BS
The notion that the pessimists have cornered the market on stats and optimists just run around saying “everything’s great” is just not true, IMO. As an example, I think the pessimists have largely ignored or dismissed this year’s ZiPS projections because it doesn’t fit their narrative that the Giants’ offense will be historically bad.
As someone who is probably in your bucket of “blind fanaticism”, I feel pretty confident that you won’t find many posts from me that say “Player A will have a good year because he’s groovy.” I’m hardly a “stat guy”, but I do look at them to try to form a reasoned opinion and use them to support an opinion, as do others.
On the flip side, the other thing I try to do is expand the discussion to things that might explain a level of performance beyond the stats. Call it the “human element” or whatever, but I think there’s always more to the story, whether it’s a player’s performance or a FO decision, than just the stats. When I expressed a belief that Panda could lose weight and be better again, I was told that I have nothing to base that on, when in fact I’d seen how my own conditioning had affected my athletic ability.
Bold Prediction: Pablo Sandoval finishes 1st or 2nd in 2012 NL MVP voting. I'm Twittering now (well maybe not literally now): @GoofusMcP
The tricky thing about the human element:
As it is largely unquantifiable, the persuasiveness of your argument is significantly correlated by your ability to expression your convictions in writing. A good understanding of stats gives even poor writers the ability to make a persuasive argument, so it kind of levels the playing field. It’s also hard to be perfectly objective about humanity, as we are in the thick of it.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - SLC
Totally agree
But is “Maybe the Giants saw Beltran’s knee up close and decided he was too big a risk” really an absurd thought?
That’s an example of a “human element” that doesn’t show up in the stats but could certainly be considered as reasoning for not signing him.
Bold Prediction: Pablo Sandoval finishes 1st or 2nd in 2012 NL MVP voting. I'm Twittering now (well maybe not literally now): @GoofusMcP
If only the Giants medical staff were as good at examining Sanchez or DeRosa before their signings!
I think it’s entirely plausible that the team was wary of Beltran’s endurance, but on the flip side, the team has also shown a propensity for signing damaged goods. It’s difficult to reconcile the two.
I DON'T BELIEVE YOU (AGAIN) [now with theme song]
I tweet (and occasionally blarg) | Your San Francisco Giants: "Together We're Broken!"
by can of corn on Jan 18, 2012 11:20 AM PST up reply actions
A 2 hour exam and being around a guy for several weeks are kind of different though
Bold Prediction: Pablo Sandoval finishes 1st or 2nd in 2012 NL MVP voting. I'm Twittering now (well maybe not literally now): @GoofusMcP
Freddy was defensible
DeRosa was not, and will never be. Going into that offseason the one guy I didn’t want was DeRosa, and lo and behold they got him.
Seth Rosin can hit the side of a barn with a baseball. From space.
Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to WIN that (TM)
Actually
I don’t think Freddy’s injury history preceded him – he played 86 games with Pittsburgh in 2009 and 145 or more games in each of the previous three seasons. In 2005 he played in 132 games and it looks like he didn’t miss extended periods of time, just a few days here and there. It looks like his lack of playing time earlier than that was a result of being shuffled between the majors and minors too. I know he had questions as he was coming over in 2009, but he didn’t have a history of being consistently hurt before that.
Seth Rosin can hit the side of a barn with a baseball. From space.
Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to WIN that (TM)
I thought he essentially limped over from the visitor dugout with a bum leg. He came injured.
I DON'T BELIEVE YOU (AGAIN) [now with theme song]
I tweet (and occasionally blarg) | Your San Francisco Giants: "Together We're Broken!"
And then to compound the error, the Giants signed him to an extension shortly after his second shoulder surgery.
I DON'T BELIEVE YOU (AGAIN) [now with theme song]
I tweet (and occasionally blarg) | Your San Francisco Giants: "Together We're Broken!"
Yes
But the Giants’ medical staff cleared him, and his “injury history” likely didn’t play a large part in the considerations while acquiring him. He wasn’t consistently hurt before 2009, and claiming they should have been more diligent about his injury history as they acquired him isn’t fair, because he didn’t really have one.
Seth Rosin can hit the side of a barn with a baseball. From space.
Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to WIN that (TM)
Not an absurd thought, but not nearly as concrete as a stat, which is why the stats probably (rightfully) carry more weight in an argument. It’s worth mentioning that even leading sabermetric analysts readily admit that stats cannot tell the whole story. It’s just that they are one of the few things that us fans have an objective view of.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - SLC
I don’t like having to construct stories or conjure theories to make myself feel better about something not working out when I wanted it to work out.
It’s enough for me that the Giants didn’t sign Beltran or didn’t sign another player of his caliber. And based on Sabean’s comments (“no household names”), I don’t even need to speculate as to whether or not the team even made an effort.
by Every6thDay on Jan 18, 2012 12:24 PM PST up reply actions
You're missing my point
It’s not about coming up with theories to make myself feel better; it’s about giving examples of the elements that factor into a decision that we’re not privvy to.
Bold Prediction: Pablo Sandoval finishes 1st or 2nd in 2012 NL MVP voting. I'm Twittering now (well maybe not literally now): @GoofusMcP
That’s fair. It’s just not my perception. And the ZiPS are a good point, too.
by Every6thDay on Jan 18, 2012 11:31 AM PST up reply actions
Cause with statistics you can do both. I can’t think of who originally said it, but Mark Twain quoted it often, "There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics"
I’ve come to hate that quote.
Ask me about my blog.
lol. I could see why, but too many people use statistics to back up their pov only, and that’s reality.
Consider the old stand by example: There’s a train derailment and the facts are 100 people perish and 20 people survive. Headline #1: Train derails! 100 people are DEAD!. Headline #2: Train derails! 20 people SURVIVE!
Yes, it’s simplistic in nature, but it doesn’t detract from the truth of the statement. It happens on this site too when you have two idealogues going at it and only using the statistical set that backs up their arguement. It can make for entertaining reading (for the first few volleys), but it ends up in a train wreck at the end. (Where both sides suffer casualties).
I’m all for statistics, but I want all sides presented and not just what fuels a specific arguement, and I find that style of statistical anaylsis rampant on this site at times.
Go Giants.
My two favorite teams are the Giants, and whomever is playing the Dodgers!
by World Series or Bust on Jan 17, 2012 10:36 AM PST up reply actions
Hah. In that case, I'd argue
“But a lot of people died. That’s the bigger story. More people died than lived. It’s a tragedy.”
by Every6thDay on Jan 17, 2012 10:42 AM PST up reply actions
Guess that depends on whether or not you knew anyone personally on that train. That would alter your opinion based on the survivor vs deceased. That’s all I’m trying to say, is that it just depends on how you see it, and how you see it depends on the lens you are looking through at the time. :)
My two favorite teams are the Giants, and whomever is playing the Dodgers!
by World Series or Bust on Jan 17, 2012 11:10 AM PST up reply actions
I’m not sure I see that (nor am I sure that yours is a particularly useful example of statistics, as opposed to, just numbers). Viewing the Titanic sinking as anything other than an unmitigated disaster and tragedy seems kind of muddle-headed to me, despite the fact that several hundred people survived, particularly as “surviving” your trip isn’t generally something that we assume needs to be celebrated. But more importantly, the number of dead or survived isn’t necessarily useful information for an analysis of how dangerous that particular train trip is or how the tragedy came to happen.
There’s no doubt that people use statistics to prove both pessimistic and optimistic viewpoints, but the use of analysis should be an exercise is trying to determine the reality of the situation distanced from one’s personal emotions. The whole point of statistics is to open yourself up to truths that your eyes (or heart) hadn’t seen.
but the use of analysis should be an exercise in trying to determine the reality of the situation distanced from one’s personal emotions.
I totally agree with this comment. As a lifelong Giants fan, I tend to be optimistic. That does not mean that I ignore reality. Stats, for me, provide background to the game, let me know what I can expect based on history. Occasionally, players out perform their history for one reason or another. That is one of the reasons we love baseball. It’s 162 games, and anything can happen. For all of the things that went right in 2010, just as many went wrong in 2011.
The 2010 Giants are/were an almost perfect case for optimism. At the start of the season I thought they had a good chance to win the division. I can honestly say that I continued to hope that the 2010 team would do well enough to win in the playoffs. I felt that way all the way through the postseason right up until the WS. I was pretty confident they could beat the Rangers, but the Braves and Phillies scared the hell out of me. The reality of the situation numbers told me the Giants should not win it, but my heart told me they could.
I'm a Giants Fan, but I'll always be rooting for Matt Downs
Adopted Son:Dan Burkhart , Future Backup To Buster Posey.
Consider the old stand by example: There’s a train derailment and the facts are 100 people perish and 20 people survive. Headline #1: Train derails! 100 people are DEAD!. Headline #2: Train derails! 20 people SURVIVE!
Yes, it’s simplistic in nature
It’s not simplistic so much as irrelevant to the discussion of baseball statistics. Baseball statistics are numerical representations of various performance metrics. Your example is of actual human beings. I don’t see how discussing the value of Brandon Crawford’s defensive metrics as contrasted with his offensive output can in any way compare to whether 100 deaths or 20 survivors is better.
Even if you’re not a true believer in statistics (I still think BABIP is used oddly), at the least, the metrics provide a basis for comparison and discussion, even if the conclusions one draws from them are not the same.
You might want to rethink your “old stand by.”
I DON'T BELIEVE YOU (AGAIN) [now with theme song]
I tweet (and occasionally blarg) | Your San Francisco Giants: "Together We're Broken!"
Well I'm old and I stand by what I said
but, I think I could have explained the premise better it seems.
I’m not a statistician, but I like the metrics that have been developed in baseball and believe it has improved the understanding of a players performance dramatically over the “eyes only” and “RBIs” formulas of yesteryears.
Be that as it may, my comment was that even with this new fangaled metrics, (Get off my lawn you houligans!) you can still get individuals so tied to their mantra, that they refuse to look at anything other than the way they are viewing it.
My rather poor example is from Journalism 101, so it doesn’t translate well to baseball metrics, but hopefully I haven’t muddled my position further. But right or wrong, you still need to get off my lawn!
My two favorite teams are the Giants, and whomever is playing the Dodgers!
by World Series or Bust on Jan 17, 2012 6:35 PM PST up reply actions
I believe that I posted an optimistic thread recently where numbers were my primary defense for the optimism. Furthermore, it’s not as though this post is replete with numerical evidence either.
Optimism need not be fueled by irrationality or emotion. It can be simply a different take on the numbers.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - SLC
Personally speaking...
Both my optimism AND my pessimism are fueled by emotion and irrationality.
Thank you Edgar Renteria, for hitting the ball three feet higher.
A pitching injury is, and will always be, my biggest concern. Pitchers get hurt a lot and the Giants team is basically composed on pitching talent.
Ask me about my blog.
Strangely one of my obsessions for worrying about 2012 is a total implosion of Brian Wilson. This isn’t a team that’s built to withstand say 10 or 12 blown saves in the first half of the season. They need to be able to put every chip they can get their hands on in the bank.
That’s definitely something that I thought last year in the early going, when it felt like they were squandering opportunities. Obviously, having a busted closer is a far different situation, but you’re absolutely right. And to make matters worse, there’s a strong possibility that the Giants are without Wilson and Romo at some point this season. Blech.
by Every6thDay on Jan 17, 2012 10:55 AM PST up reply actions
I actually think it would be a better thing to be without Wilson, than to be with a very bad Wilson.
This is a true statement.
I'm a Giants Fan, but I'll always be rooting for Matt Downs
Adopted Son:Dan Burkhart , Future Backup To Buster Posey.
Basically yeah
I was going to do a ‘guess whether this is Wilson or a rapidly declining closer’ game.
Sundrendy!
My first thought.
Adopted father of Chris Lincecum, without whom (quite literally) Timmy would not exist.
I kind of agree with you ...
But my version of this nightmare includes Gimpy Wilson geting a 3-4 year contract extention @ $10 mm/year while Cain & Tim go elsewere.
Just trying to gruntle my Giants baseball Jones in the least destructive way available.
2010 was just a dream.can I have another please?
This is pretty good and remarkably balanced based on what I might have expected...
My only comment (since I am naturally quite disposed to the contrarian view) is that the offseason is only a small part of the package. Lately, Sabes seems much more comfortable (and perhaps ownership drives this ) making small incremental moves in the offseason and saving his bigger moves for mid-season. I am not saying I agree with this as a strategy. It would be interesting to look at whether the market is any more or less efficient in the offseason versus midseason. I would predict the former since there is less obvious need and there would appear to be be more inventory. However, the fact remains that the team as it is constructed now will likely look substantially different come August. It almost always does with Sabes. I think that with the level of competition and the extra WC, it is not absurd to take the wait and see approach and fill in where needed. For that reason and that reason alone, I retain some optimism for this season. When I start to drift into pessimism-land, I quickly look at this:
Opening day lineup San Francisco Giants, 2010
Aaron Rowand CF
Edgar Renteria SS
Pablo Sandoval 3B
Aubrey Huff 1B
Mark DeRosa LF
Bengie Molina C
John Bowker RF
Juan Uribe 2B
Tim Lincecum P
Good observation
It’s sort of like a poker game. You can go “all in” before the addtional cards are revealed, or wait and see.
Bold Prediction: Pablo Sandoval finishes 1st or 2nd in 2012 NL MVP voting. I'm Twittering now (well maybe not literally now): @GoofusMcP
The problem I have with Beltran being considered the potential savior of the Giants
Is that with his bat in that lineup, the number of players who have amassed two full above-average seasons in a row recently is still zero. The same goes for Jimmy Rollins (88 games in 2010 is not a full season). For Beltran, you have to go back to 2007-2008 for that, which seems a little disingenuous to guys like Posey, Sandoval, Belt, or Crawford, as they were all undrafted or in the low minors at that point. Cabrera and Pagan were just breaking into the majors. Point is, half our lineup hasn’t had time (or, for Nate, opportunity) to put together two full above-average seasons – that’s not something you can hold against them. Nor do I recall a lack of veteran presence being something commonly cited as a problem on the Giants’ roster – now that we have youth we want players with more experience?
The use of $10M on two left-handed relievers is not something I want to defend because it really isn’t defensible. OTOH, if we had dumped Affeldt and gone with Runzler, plenty of people around here would be screaming about our lack of bullpen depth. We’re going to trust Dan Runzler? The guy who can’t stop walking people to save his life? He of the major 2010 injury? Lopez is a LOOGY, goddammit, we need a lefty who can go for more than one hitter and that is not Runzler! Replacing Lopez with Runzler likely would have resulted in a similar reaction about how Lopez is actually good when used properly and Affeldt is bad. I think there’d be less vitriol if we hadn’t spent so much to keep those two, but we shouldn’t act like we’d be celebrating them both leaving when Runzler (who I like) ends up as a key member of the pen, one of our strengths.
Worry about injury is ever-present and a legitimate concern. But it is not unique to the Giants, and teams that have the depth to replace a star player are stupid. What happens to the Phillies if Halladay goes down? The Braves and Marlins get a lot happer, because Philadelphia can’t replace six wins by snapping their fingers. And let me remind you that Halladay’s injury history is actually worse than Lincecum or Cain’s and he’s much older. No team can replace a star player that’s lost to injury, and that includes the Giants, because keeping a player with that kind of talent in the minor leagues (otherwise it’s not replacing the lost player) when you’re trying to contend is stupid.
There are things to be annoyed about, particularly how much money was spent on Lopez and Affeldt while crying poor. Beltran would be nice to have. But I think most of the divide is coming on something I mentioned in passing at the beginning – nearly all the lineup is unknown. We don’t know if Pablo will continue to be Good Pablo, if Nate can handle a starting RF gig, if Pagan and Cabrera will play to potential or crap out again, if Posey and Sanchez will come back strong, if Crawford and Belt will hit. Some people look at that and see the potential for a pretty great lineup, because it’s there, and others look at it and see the potential for a colossal failure, because it’s there, and everything in between. This is an annoying offseason because there’s so much uncertainty, and no one likes uncertainty.
Seth Rosin can hit the side of a barn with a baseball. From space.
Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to WIN that (TM)
Pessimism/Skepticism
I love statistical analysis of baseball, the demand for which (in discussions of players, at least) on this site is why I read it. And I believe in skepticism. But statistical analysis here would for me involve going through the team with ZIPS, PECOTA, Bill James, and what have you, to see what the predicted RS and RA might be. Skepticism would involve wait-and-see rather than hatred of the off-season, recognizing with capn that roster changes don’t stop with the off-season, especially for a team with financial uncertainty (arb cases, possible move of A’s to San Jose) that will be in large part resolved once the season starts. The OP isn’t pessimistic or skeptical, it’s an expression of nervousness with a well-put rationale. Sure, after 2011 I’m nervous too; I’m nervous every time I watch a game; and by definition, nervousness looks only on the dark side of possibilities. It broods on a fragment of serious analysis. The situation is well summarized by quincy0191 in his post preceding this one.
As to the opening statement, “Pessimism, as I’ve come to comprehend, isn’t a particularly popular sentiment,” its truth depends on what group(s) one polls to determine popularity. I would have said that the prevailing tone on MCC is one of disgruntlement, varied through whining, invective, snide irony, and bleak forecasts about what can’t rationally be forecast (e.g., the percentage of likelihood of retaining Lincecum and/or Cain, the likelihood of what Melky Cabrera and/or Pagan will do or what we will want them to do a year from now). The rightness of this emotional posture is not an obvious consequence of the doings of the FO or the team.
I would have said that the prevailing tone on MCC is one of disgruntlement, varied through whining, invective, snide irony, and bleak forecasts about what can’t rationally be forecast
Ahhh, comfy, comfy home.
by Roger on Jan 17, 2012 1:16 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
A convincing case
And I agree a Beltran signing would have been huge.
But I can’t help but feel a little optimistic when I look at the Giants’ OPS by position last year:
C — .628: Buster could OPS that with his catcher’s gear on.
1B — .732: If Huff can’t top this Belt starts. Please?
2B — .667: A timeshare of Freddy, Font and Not Burriss should do better.
SS — .564: I know Crawford is Crawford, but .564? I mean good god man! .564!
3B — .817: Should be about the same.
LF — .684: Dead cat bounce to .685.
CF — .646: Pagan should be a lot better than this (Torres, too, unfortunately).
RF — .801: OK, this will be worse.
What I see through my rose colored glasses is an offense primed to make the massive leap from historically wretched to moderately sucky.
Hey, it’s Giants baseball. Anything can happen.
by AztecsKillingHim on Jan 17, 2012 1:11 PM PST reply actions
Even your optimism might be a little pessimistic
I’ve inserted the ZiPS projections of the projected starters:
C — .628: Buster could OPS that with his catcher’s gear on. (Buster .798)
1B — .732: If Huff can’t top this Belt starts. Please? (Huff .751)
2B — .667: A timeshare of Freddy, Font and Not Burriss should do better. (Sanchez .686)
SS — .564: I know Crawford is Crawford, but .564? I mean good god man! .564! (Crawford .627)
3B — .817: Should be about the same. (Pablo .844)
LF — .684: Dead cat bounce to .685. (Cabrera .765)
CF — .646: Pagan should be a lot better than this (Torres, too, unfortunately). (Pagan .745)
RF — .801: OK, this will be worse. (Nate .736)
That’s statistical projected improvement at 7 out of 8 positions. Obviously, it doesn’t account for days off, but if the primary backups are Stewart (.640), Fontenot (.675) and Belt (.817), you’re still looking at improvement across the board.
Bold Prediction: Pablo Sandoval finishes 1st or 2nd in 2012 NL MVP voting. I'm Twittering now (well maybe not literally now): @GoofusMcP
No, it is not statistical projected improvement at 7 out of 8 positions
Unless you’re assuming that every one of the players you listed is going to play 162 games.
The most delightful ecumenical contradiction in nomenclature.
Dursh nerf darsh narf. Poop.
I think it's safe to pencil Freddy in for the full season, no?
But seriously, I’m with Goofus. When the backups are Belt, Fontenot, and your boy Gregor, we might not be talking about too big of a dropoff from the starters at a lot of positions. That’s the good thing about mediocre starters — they are easily replaced.
by AztecsKillingHim on Jan 18, 2012 11:41 AM PST up reply actions
The catching “depth” makes me cry, though. That’s a Blu-ray to VHS drop in quality.
by Every6thDay on Jan 18, 2012 11:44 AM PST up reply actions
Assuming Buster makes more than half the starts
the catching position could improve on its OPS by 50 points even with Bill Bathe as the backup.
by AztecsKillingHim on Jan 18, 2012 11:46 AM PST up reply actions
What two positions are you saying won't improve based on ZiPS?
Bold Prediction: Pablo Sandoval finishes 1st or 2nd in 2012 NL MVP voting. I'm Twittering now (well maybe not literally now): @GoofusMcP
2B and RF seem like they won't.
Adopted father of Chris Lincecum, without whom (quite literally) Timmy would not exist.
He acknowledged that
But most of those improvements are substantial enough that there will be superior offense even considering time-shares; you’re looking at 100 points of OPS in C, LF, and CF, and a nice cushion at SS, 3B, and possibly 1B (if Belt usurpes Huff, even better according to ZiPS).
Seth Rosin can hit the side of a barn with a baseball. From space.
Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to WIN that (TM)
I'd wager
2B and RF: Worse
3B, SS, 1B: Same
LF, CF, C: Better
It’s a mixed bag, but certainly not one that’s demonstrably better than last year, especially with the shit they’re saying about getting Burriss PT, which will drag down SS, 2B, outfield, wherever he plays.
The most delightful ecumenical contradiction in nomenclature.
Dursh nerf darsh narf. Poop.
Burris gotta go
But I’ll gladly take that first base bet. I think (probably irrationally) that Belt will force his way into the lineup at some point, probably with Huff in left and Nate benched.
And second base looks the same to me.
So put me down for four better, three same, one worse.
by AztecsKillingHim on Jan 18, 2012 12:06 PM PST up reply actions
I've been generally down on our offseason
And don’t even think we’re odds on for the playoffs. And that’s actually not a particularly rational thought, because I refuse to believe that Posey will come back as anything less than an All-Star level.
I know it’s not a lock, or even all that likely. But Buster Posey is my optimism right now. Not the team as a whole, not our chance to recapture 2010. I just want to see Buster Posey hit, behind Sandoval, ahead of Beltran Belt the pitcher. Because without Buster Posey, we’re going to need a hell of a lot else to go right.
Plus, look at that jawline.
Proud father of Barry Zito. As long as he keeps throwing strikes, that is.
ADMIT IT, YOU LOVE IT!
2010 World Series Champions!
Adopted 'nephew' to the ever avuncular and always awesome Jon Miller
by Johnny Disaster on Jan 17, 2012 3:24 PM PST reply actions
Hey, I really like the deal with Pablo! Downright reasonable and built in cost certainty for three years. Great move, Giants brass!!!
Me too
Covering all three arb years for <$6M a season? I’d be happier if we got a club option or two but he was worth $7.3M per Fangraphs even in 2010, so that’s actually kind of unfair. Good deal.
Seth Rosin can hit the side of a barn with a baseball. From space.
Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to WIN that (TM)
I like it too. I think the Giants are doing a great job of not over extending their finances until the “true” talent level of the team is more certain. Shit could hit the fan and the team could jettison parts and rebuild fairly quickly, without any long-term financial problems. The team could turn into one of the top NL teams in the next 2-3 years, and start locking their best players for a long window of contention.
It’s a good position to be in.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - SLC
Well, as I guess I’ve already noted, the “rebuild fairly quickly” notion is something I just don’t see. They’ve caught lightning in a bottle with this group by having three straight top 10 picks return a historic level of return in immediate impact, while also having a former #1 pick and $10k international UFA hit a high peak at the exact same time. That’s a perfect storm of talent acquisition that has got them into the situation we now find (including TGWTWS!!!). I don’t see anything like that on the horizon, and “rebuilding” via FA is, historically, a losing proposition. Very difficult to do for anyone, and not something that the Giants have a real good history of accomplishing (though you could say the 2002-2003 team qualifies well).
I wouldn’t suggest that they rebuild via free agency. The idea behind rebuilding would be to trade some of your better players under team control for top prospects, and capitalize on a few years of poor standings by drafting some top prospects. The whole thing shouldn’t have to take more than 2-3 years, and might not even involve losing Posey/Bumgarner.
For instance:
If the Giants are out of contention by July 2012 and resolve to trade Tim Lincecum, I would be willing to bet that the Texas Rangers, if they are in the thick of a race with the Angels, could be made to listen to a deal for Jurickson Profar. Hell, someone of Lincecum’s caliber could probably even get a discussion started with the Angels about Mike Trout.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - SLC
It’s a lot easier to find rebuilding programs that have never worked than it is to find a lot that have worked in 2-3 years. Besides which it’s almost impossible to imagine the Giants dealing Lincecum this year. They won’t do it. They didn’t deal Schmidt when they could and probably should have. they stated emphatically they aren’t trading Cain or Lincecum and it’s entirely believable coming from them. (And Mike Trout’s not getting dealt either; maybe the last GM would have done that, but no sensible one would).
And just to expand upon that point, there are two important elements. 1) there’s a huge middle ground between competing, and falling out of contention to the point where you consider trading your stars. Given the Giants recent history, it’s hard to even imagine where that bottom line picks up, and I have to say I’m glad of that because I don’t want them to trade Lincecum. But more importantly, given the core group of talent, it seems very very unlikely that they get off to such a terrible start in 2012 that they would reach that point.
And 2) the notion that trade your star = profit is wildly optimistic and completely misreads the trends in baseball. As talent becomes more expensive teams are making more of an effort to identify their can’t move talent, and as more front offices are getting more analytical, it seems they’re getting better at it, too. I’ve said this before, but I’ll repeat: if you added all three Cliff Lee deals, the Roy Halladay trade, the Sabathia trade, and the Johan Santana trade you still wouldn’t have netted yourself a single above average major leaguer thus far (and not much in the way of average either, I think Carlos Martinez might be the most productive of that whole crop thus far, though Smoak still has his supporters, as do a couple of the minor leaguers). Heck let’s throw in the Mark Mulder and Tim hudson deals as well. Didn’t help much. I think the best pitcher trade I can think of recently was the A’s deal of Dan Haren, which did net them some valuable players though it did not help them to field a winning team.
This is off the top of my head so I’m probably missing something, but the only two teams I can think of in the last decade who dealt a star and then got better were the Twins when the traded Santana (and nobody could reasonably suggest that that trade was an important element in their division winning teams that followed) and the Rangers, who really did make a very good deal when they traded Tex. But even that deal, which netted Andrus, Feliz and Matt Harrison was only one part of a lot of other things going right at the same time for the franchise (the great Hamilton and Nelson Cruz trades, having Ian Kinsler turn into a star, the successful CJ Wilson conversion etc.).
We shouldn’t imagine that just trade Tim will make things better. It’s much much more likely to make things worse.
I am not talking about a full-on yardsale when I talk about rebuilding. I am talking about perhaps re-assessing the window of competition, if perhaps it might not be better to delay said window, and try to get value for players who are about to get (more) expensive. If the team does not compete in 2012, it might be best to trade Lincecum and possibly Cain, trading expensive, impending free agents for cost-controlled players. Deadline deals often work out well for the selling team (look at the Mets). It’s just that teams in the Giants’ position are rarely sellers at the deadline.
I agree with you that things would have to be downright awful for them to be out of contention by July. This isn’t a likely scenario. This is a worst-case scenario. My point is that the worst-case scenario isn’t all that bad, when you think about the impact over the next 5 years.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - SLC
Actually, deadline deals only infrequently work out well for the selling teams. The Mets certainly got good value for what they had to offer, but it remains to be seen how well they did and it’s entirely possible that the Giants actually received more value than they traded away.
There was a good Jim Callis column last year looking at all the aces trades between the Bartolo Colon deal (and noting its bizarrely unreplicable circumstances) and the Zack Greinke deal (which prompted the column). It’s here if you’re a subscriber. If not, essentially in 13 deals, only twice did the buyer have need to regret their decision (Jake Peavy and Erik Bedard), while on three other occassions the seller got a decent return (Haren coming, Haren going, and Josh Beckett, maybe Haren going again will be added to that list). In the other 8 the seller got nothing of value.
Since I’m not a subsriber, I do not know the circumstances of the 8 trades where the seller got hosed. I’m assuming the majority are situations where prospects were traded for, and said prospects did not pan out. Trading for prospects is always a gamble. But if a strong case can be made for a certain prospect’s likelihood of reaching the majors, sometimes the gamble can be made in good faith. It’s not as though most productive major leaguers appear out of the blue. Many were well-documented top prospects in the minors.
Another relevant point is where Lincecum’s July-2012 trade value ranks with the other 13 deals. There’s a big difference between a haul of middling prospects and 1 or 2 A level guys.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - SLC
I don't like this offseason either
But I’m still more optimistic than not about the Giants playoff chances. I really don’t see the Dodgers being there in September, and the Diamondbacks are only a handful of wins (true talent) better than this team. So, Go Giants! (?)
Don't think he can cut it in the bigs? Brock Bond will be the bigger man and walk walk walk away.
Hate the offseason
I have hated almost everything about this offseason. They have a dreadfull lineup with no pop or spark. Scoring 3 or 4 runs a games is even going to be next to impossible for this group. Granted rest of the west didn’t do much, but really I don’t see this team going anyplace. Maybe that extra wild card will help them stay in the race, but I think this year is going to be much like last.
by Giants-Just-Win on Jan 17, 2012 8:59 PM PST reply actions
Grant has put up a mediocre post saying that the Giants’ outfield, by ZIPS projections, is mediocre, i.e., league average for an OF. Looking at ZIPS OBP projections, one could extend this to the whole of the Giants’ offense, with Belt, Sandoval, and Posey well above league average, Huff at it, Sanchez somewhat below it, Crawford well below it. In other words, by ZIPS projections, the Giants’ “moderately sucky” offense (from AztecsKH above) or, if you prefer, G-J-W’s “dreadful lineup with no pop or spark,” ought to be league-average at the plate. With their fine defense and excellent pitching, these projections suggest they are set up to do very well. G-J-W could look at these figures at least as well as I can, I suppose, and yet prefers to think that the product of this hateful offseason will find it next to impossible to score 3 or 4 runs a game. If s/he isn’t just posturing, in tune with the title of the OP, what a striking example of the victory of dyspepsia over intellect we have here.
They have a dreadfull lineup with no pop or spark
This is a baseball team, not a fireworks display or a relationship. They need hitters, which I think would be frowned upon in a fireworks display or a relationship. They may have hitters, we’re not quite sure yet. In any case, I think the reasonable expectation that some guys will rebound combined with the general lack of options (some of this was self-inflicted) indemnifies them somewhat. It’s kind of stupid to say that past mistakes exonerate current mistakes, but speaking in the context of this offseason only, there isn’t that much to get upset about on the whole, particularly now that Sandoval has been extended. They could have locked themselves into a big contract with Beltran or Rollins, and they didn’t. Preserving financial flexibility for Cain and/or Lincecum is pretty much the best move they can make IMO.
Seth Rosin can hit the side of a barn with a baseball. From space.
Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to WIN that (TM)
Hate the offseason continue
Look at the total runs scored last year, 572 runs total all year. That put them 29th overall in runs scored. I don’t need much more stats then that to tell me this team is going to continue to have a hard time scoring runs. It’s not like they added a “significant” bat.
Fisrt three in the lineup are back from injury. Bottom three we don’t have any clue what were going to get. Huff do we get last years version or the 2010 version. Belt, does he get enough at bats or is he on the fresno express. Crawford can he hit at all ?
I am just don’t see much to be positive about, other then were getting a hopefully healthy Posey for a full year. The only real saving grace is that the rest of the west didn’t do much this offseason, I still don’t think they are better then Arizona at this point, nor do I think they can average 3-4 runs a game. I don’t need a lot of stats to come to this conclution.
Alone just look at the runs scored when Lincicum is pitching. From stats inc, In 16 of his 33 starts, they failed to score more than one run. They were shut out in 10 of his outings.
I don’t need much more then that to tell me the Giants don’t score many runs.
by Giants-Just-Win on Jan 17, 2012 10:41 PM PST reply actions
Last in the NL and second-last in the majors
Without Posey or Sanchez for most of the season, without Sandoval for a few weeks, with terrible RISP performances (that should not expect to be repeated), complete regression from former anchors in Huff and Torres, absolutely nothing out of the SS position, and a messy graduation by Belt. Nearly everything that could go wrong went wrong last year. Unless you’re predicting that will happen again, I don’t see how we’re not better.
Seth Rosin can hit the side of a barn with a baseball. From space.
Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to WIN that (TM)
I'd say you're cherry picking "bad" stats and saying "that's all the stats I need"
Bold Prediction: Pablo Sandoval finishes 1st or 2nd in 2012 NL MVP voting. I'm Twittering now (well maybe not literally now): @GoofusMcP
No, you don’t need much more than that to tell you the Giants didn’t score many runs in 2011. Your glum assumptions that 2011 will be repeated in 2012 rest on uncertainty, not on the probabilities reflected in the projections for the players in this new season. That suggests that you are down in the dumps rather than that other Giants’ fans ought to be.
great great
post here
and exactly what i have been feeling, not quite thinking , if only bc my thinking unit couldnt have had these thoughts…
sooo, thx for telling me what i should have been thinking
i have been pissed all winter , and now know why.
good job
It seems as though pessimism is actually quite popular
Given the resounding support that this post has garnered. There is very little criticism in the comments here, so I will attempt to give you my best criticism, without simply rehashing the points made in my fanpost.
The number of players in that lineup who have amassed two full above-average seasons in a row recently is 0. Zero.
Thank you for the clarification re 0. Snark aside: This is a valid point that underlines the primary problem with the offense as constructed in 2012. However, if you look at players who have amassed at least 4 war in one season over the last two years, you get Pagan, Pablo, Posey, Cabrera, and Huff. Sanchez produced 2.5 WAR in 2010, and Belt and Crawford haven’t been around long enough for these parameters to be a fair judgment on their abilities. You can assume that this lineup will all produce their off year a second time, but that’s no more sound an assumption than assuming that they will produce their good year.
First of all, the elephant in the room: injuries.
I don’t think that saying “injuries can happen” is very sound logic for being particularly pessimistic about the Giants. Injuries can happen to, and devastate, just about every major league baseball team. Look at the Red Sox last September. The Giants would need an incredible bench, minor league depth, and salary to alleviate these types of concerns. Saying that injuries can happen does not influence my opinion on how this team can perform in 2012. It’s something that the team has almost no control over.
Counting on the bullpen to be as good as it was even a year ago is silly.
The bullpen, outside of Romo, wasn’t particularly good in 2011. It was solid, and fairly consistent, but it’s not as though people were having career years all over the place. There are even a few candidates for positive regression. My point is that age-related decline from some members of the bullpen should be easily compensated for by some offensive improvement.
Complaints without solutions are not fun to read, and since I know that a thought among many who read this will be “what would you have done instead?”
Complaints without solutions are not fun to read, but neither are scenarios composed out of the comfort of hindsight that do not offer us any insight into any possible future direction for the team. Even if well thought out in a “huh, that could have worked” kind of way, your “what you would have done” scenario is not constructive. I’d rather hear what you think the Giants should do going forward to preserve the long-term future of the team.
Frankly, I think all the pessimism surrounding the end of 2011 and into the beginning of 2012 has been mainly reactionary, hinging around a disappointing season where it is easier to be vocally pessimistic. There were a lot of reasons to be pessimistic going into 2011, but the people who might have thought so kept their mouths shut.
Remember that the Giants, whose 2011 went about as horribly as a season can go, in terms of injury and ineffectiveness, still competed late into September. This is a strong team, and the franchise is set up well for the long term.
Thanks for the post though. You make good points and it serves as a good point-counterpoint with my article. I’m not saying I hate it, only that I think it is wrong.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - SLC
I think, as usual, the biggest concern for the offense is there’s too many outs. But looking at the lineup, there’s hope that we can approve on last year’s abysmal team OBP of .303. Last year we managed to run out a team where Huff’s .306 OBP was actually only the fourth lowest in the lineup. The career OBP of what I assume is their starting 8 for next year: .331 (Pagan), .331 (Cabrera), .335 (Sanchez), .356 (Sandoval), .353 (Posey), .342 (Huff), .318 (Schierholtz), .288 (Crawford).
Of course we’re a Sanchez shoulder kablooey away from getting Burriss and Crawford in their together. Still when you’re high is only .356 and your low is .288, there’s a thin line to be walked there in order to up production.
No Belt.
Do you really think that Schierholtz is going to be given a starting position over Belt?
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - SLC
I am willing to put money down on the fact that Belt will end up with more at-bats than Schierholtz by the end of the season.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - SLC
What about in by June?
Don't think he can cut it in the bigs? Brock Bond will be the bigger man and walk walk walk away.
By June
Almost certainly. The only way I see Belt losing ABs to Nate is if he struggles in the first couple months of the season, and is benched. I think Belt/Huff are our default opening day 1B/LF, not sure which is which though.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - SLC
I mean, do you wanna bet but have June 1 be the deadline? I know that, barring injury, Belt is going to have more PA’s in at least September than Nate.
Don't think he can cut it in the bigs? Brock Bond will be the bigger man and walk walk walk away.
TAKE OFF YUR SHIRT
Celebrating 60 years of NBC News Today, January 14, 1952 - January 14, 2012
by TheLetter2 on Jan 18, 2012 10:34 AM PST reply actions 5 recs
I think this is a very fair post
I don’t agree with all of it, but you laid out your case.
Not directed at you, but the pessimism that drivex me batty is the type that every bad thing that happens is proof they suck and every good thing that happens is written off as luck.
Bold Prediction: Pablo Sandoval finishes 1st or 2nd in 2012 NL MVP voting. I'm Twittering now (well maybe not literally now): @GoofusMcP
The greatest thing that ever happened to the San Francisco Giants was more the product of luck than talent, but that’s not to say that the talent the Giants do have is purely the result of luck.
by Every6thDay on Jan 18, 2012 11:34 AM PST up reply actions
And I'd argue that last season's disappointing results were the result of bad luck more than lack of talent
I guess this is the definition of the difference between an optimist and a pessimist
Bold Prediction: Pablo Sandoval finishes 1st or 2nd in 2012 NL MVP voting. I'm Twittering now (well maybe not literally now): @GoofusMcP
I think that’s true, but I also think it’s true that they’re constructed in such a way where they can’t absorb a lot of things going wrong. And that’s not good, because things are going to go wrong.
What teams can absorb "a lot of things going wrong"?
Find me a team that can take pretty much season-long injuries to a star, two serious injures to starters, two six-win players combining for 1.5 wins, a reclamation project canceled out by the implosion of an average player, historically terrible performance in key situations, then finish with 86 wins.
Seth Rosin can hit the side of a barn with a baseball. From space.
Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to WIN that (TM)
I suspect the historically terrible performance in key situations was a result of those factors and not a factor itself.
Partially
But the splits with RISP and without RISP are ridiculous. Given that most PAs are not with RISP, particularly for a team that is generally bad at offense, and that offense tends to increase with runners on base, going from .248/.305/.387 with the bases empty .219/.301/.329 with RISP should not happen. That may not seem like a big difference, but they had a 92 wRC+ with no one on and a 66 wRC+ with RISP, the lowest in the majors by five points. As far back as Fangraphs’ splits go (2002), that’s the lowest mark. Ever. Second-worst is the Tigers with a 68 in 2003, and most years the worst mark is in the high 70’s.
Seth Rosin can hit the side of a barn with a baseball. From space.
Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to WIN that (TM)
two six-win players combining for 1.5 wins
I don’t think anyone expected Huff or Torres to be 6 win players going forward.
Adopted father of Chris Lincecum, without whom (quite literally) Timmy would not exist.
No
But I don’t think anyone expected them to average less than a win each. Even major regression from both of them predicted two wins apiece. Torres actually hit that plateau, but for Huff to go from six wins to -0.6 wins is pretty nutty (not so much in the context of his career, but in general).
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 Giants of 2010 actually got some pretty substantial things that went wrong (Pablo’s huge decline, Timmy’s decline, injuries to the 5th starter that proved fortuitous, couldn’t keep the SS on the field, couldn’t find a LF or RF they wanted on the field, Sanchez missed a couple of months, Affeldt was terrible).
Last year, the Rangers managed to overcome a lot of injuries to both Hamilton and Cruz (both played about 120 games). The Rays overcome historically horrible seasons from both the SS and C positions, and some fairly disappointing pitching. The Yankees got only 99 games out of Arod, lost Soriano for the season, barely got 2 wins out of Burnett and Hughes combined, and basically had to make up their rotation as they went.
St. Louis’ best pitcher was gone before the season began, everybody in opening day bullpen blew a save before April was gone, and Pujols had a slow start, missed some time with an injury, and generally produced his weakest season (4 wins less than 2009 and previous levels).
Heck even Arizona had to catch and pass after having lost Drew halfway thru the season.
Injuries happen. Slumps and off years happen. It behooves teams that are serious about competing to have enough depth that the loss of one star doesn’t kill them.
Which isn’t to say that I don’t think that last year was bad luck. It certainly was. Cincinnati had similar poor injury luck last year and got sucked down by it too.
But going forward, it seems that the Giants’ response to the run of bad luck of 2010 doesn’t seem to be “hey we learned from last year that greater depth of talent thru the lineup, and thru the roster is an important thing to have going into the season for when things go wrong” so much as it’s the gambler’s fallacy “our luck has to be better next year.”
I don’t know that that’s the right lesson to have learned.
The Yankees, Rays, and Rangers are all better built than the Giants
So they can sustain worse luck. I also don’t think they had worse luck – if the Rays had lost Longoria for an extended period, or hadn’t seen Kotchman break out, or Farnsworth, or Shields (who didn’t really break out but got a lot luckier than in years past), then maybe. Shoppach was awful, but Sean Rodriguez produced 2.3 WAR at SS.
The Rangers did not have bad luck. Ogando’s transition to the rotation, Michael Young hitting; Hamilton’s a lock to miss time, and 30 games isn’t huge anyway.
St. Louis lost Wainwright, but got great seasons from Berkman and Lohse, who more than replaced his production.
Arizona losing Drew was bad, but their bullpen completely rebounded and they got guys like Collmenter who came out of nowhere.
The Yankees had to make up their rotation, but anytime you get that much out of freaking Bartolo Colon and Freddy Garcia you are not unlucky. Curtis Granderson exploding is not bad luck either, and it was probably a good thing Soriano got hurt.
A lot of this is run-of-the-mill stuff. The Giants did not have run-of-the-mill bad luck.
Seth Rosin can hit the side of a barn with a baseball. From space.
Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to WIN that (TM)
You think if the Giants lost Cain during ST they’d have even a shot at 88 wins?
Adopted father of Chris Lincecum, without whom (quite literally) Timmy would not exist.
If they got a five-win season from Tejada
And Zito was a two-win pitcher, sure. I would trade one season of a Cain injury for a great season from our big FA signing, consistent performances from our established stars, a “rebound” season from our third baseman (Freese for St. Louis), the emergence of a late-blooming starter (Craig for St. Louis…Pill for us? but instead of a September call-up, half a season worth 2.5 wins), a nearly injury-free season otherwise, etc. The Cardinals lost Wainwright but got a lot more than that back from players few people did not think were going to do much.
Seth Rosin can hit the side of a barn with a baseball. From space.
Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to WIN that (TM)
But that’s to their credit that they were able to find production from other sources, just as it’s to the Giants, uh, debit I suppose, that they weren’t (and really didn’t even try much in the case of the C and SS situations).
Between the lost or diminished production of Wainwright, Pujols, and Rasmus the Cardinals lost something on the order of 12-13 wins that they might have expected when constructing the roster. And they got barely above replacement level play from their hoped for solution at SS. They had to find ways to replace that production and they did. Good for them!
The Giants lost maybe 3 – 3.5 expected wins when the lost Posey, maybe 1 – 1.5 when they lost Sanchez and saw serious declines from Huff and Torres (but on the positive side, got really something close to a best-case scenario of production from Sandoval despite the missed time, given the fears they had for him in the winter). They needed to find some way to make up for that production and they couldn’t (and in the case of Posey, again they never seemed to try). Tough for them.
But really, the magnitudes of scale you’re suggesting between their woes just doesn’t seem to exist to my eyes. The Giants didn’t have the organizational depth.
On a side note, the Cards lead all of baseball (by a lot) in creating major leaguers out of their drafts since 2006 (they have 24 major leaguers out of the last 6 drafts, nobody else has 20), and that’s not coincidental to the way their season went last year. They were able to draw on a fairly deep organization to solve some of their problems in a way the Giants weren’t. And, in the signing old vets with “something left in the tank”, they did much better than us in the Berkman v. Tejada evaluation.
So to recap:
Roger: The problem is the Giants aren’t built to withstand problems.
Quincy: NOBODY is!
Roger: /gives several examples.
Quincy: Well, YEAH, all those teams are. But not the Giants!
A little long-winded, but I appreciate the confirmation of my point anyway, Q.
Nobody is built to withstand problems on the magnitude of the Giants last year
And nobody did.
Seth Rosin can hit the side of a barn with a baseball. From space.
Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to WIN that (TM)
I was saying that none of the teams you listed had nearly as many things go wrong as the Giants
Vogelsong and Pablo were it for us last year. Everything else was bad.
Seth Rosin can hit the side of a barn with a baseball. From space.
Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to WIN that (TM)
Well, as I say above I think that you can make an easy case that St. Louis lost more expected value than we did last year and found ways to make up for it.
But as my original comment was focussed on next year, this is what’s important to me: last year the Giants got execrable production out of 1B, 2B, SS, and C. So what lessons were learned or changes implemented? At 1b: hope they play better (i.e., nothing). At 2b: hope Freddy Sanchez doesn’t get injured again (i.e., nothing). At SS: really nothing. At C: Hope Buster Posey’s knee and ankle can hold up to full time catcher (i.e. nothing).
We’re staring in teeth of a starting MI of Manny Burriss and Mike Fontenot coming our way for some portion of 2012, and there are a lot of people out there saying they don’t believe Posey is going to be able to catch as many as 80 games, which means we’re staring at the possibility of another Whiteside/Stewart/Sanchez catching “solution.”
The only problem they attempted to fix CF, and I’d argue that was pretty far down the list of problems. They made a game attempt at replacing Beltran’s production with Melky’s but in doing so they created an extremely precarious situation at the 5th starter position, where our incumbant is coming off a year of giving us 50 innings of 64 ERA+, and after that your rotation depth is Surkamp, Burres, and Boof Bonser (when he recovers from surgery).
The Giants not only aren’t constructed for things to go wrong, they’re constructed to hope a lot of things go right.
I’d like to know your plan for 2B that would make you comfortable. Catcher as well. The prediction on Posey’s number of games catching has dropped from 142 to 120 to 110 and now its 80 games? I know its the OP and not you, but because Jason Kendell was never the same after his injury the Giants should do what with Posey exactly?
I don’t know what they do with Posey. But catching puts an incredible strain on the two joints he just injured. And if he can do it defensively, there’s certainly a toll that’s going to be taken on his bat, which the team desperately needs. There’s a lot of things that can wrong in that scenario, like Joe Mauer 2011 kind of wrong.
As for what would make me comfortable, I’d say acquiring some depth would have been nice. There were a few veteran catchers changing teams this year, and a crapload of veteran MI. Picking up Chris Ianetta and Nick Punto or something along those lines would certainly have upped my comfort level.
If we have any significant amount of games this year in which three of our 8 starters are Whiteside, Burriss, and Fontenot, we’re going to behind the 8 ball. Hell, if we have 80 games in which three of our 8 starters are Whiteside/Stewart, Fontenot, and Crawford I’m not crazy about our chances. There’s alot of outs there.
by Roger on Jan 19, 2012 6:30 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
If we believe strongly reported rumors, Sabey Sabes did go after Bloomquist, Barmes and Alex Gonzalez. Bloomquist wants to stay in AZ, Barmes and Sea Bass want to start and not babysit some pretty boy.
Why he didn’t go after a Punto, who’s pretty good defensively and i wouldn’t mind at all, I’m not sure. Ryan Theriot, who is not good defensively but could be a nice platoon with the Hobbit, is still available. I agree, a 2B/SS who could hit would be better than Burriss.
With the catching I’m not sure. I really feel like Hector Sanchez is going to rake in spring training and force them to play him. Two birds with one stone – you get the switch hit bat off the bench as well. I don’t think the Rocks would have made Ianetta available. Hernandez or Doumit would have provided some bat help and the GInts didn’t blink, although Doumit really shouldn’t catch and Hernandez got a 2 year deal.
I think with Posey he’s our best player, franchise cornerstone what not, its a hard call. If they really are planning on playing Whiteside for 50 plus games, its not going to be pretty, I agree. But I can understand going forward somewhat after watching the Orange Kool Aid propaganda they just threw down in that rookie/posey/freddy segment. Maybe they’ve determined he’s sound and they’re OK with it. Why Krukow is spouting that he’s only playing 110 games behind the dish though…
Do you specifically mean you don’t think the Rox would have made Ianetta available to us? Because they did give him away for a song this winter (to the Angels) and have obviously not liked him for awhile. They gave Street to the Padres, so I don’t know that they’ve shown an unwillingness to deal within the division.
It would be nice if Sanchez makes the developmental leap required, but for a guy who really should have been in A+ ball all last year, it’s asking a lot.
I just like building in contingency plans myself, especially when you have a lot riding on a project, and given the work, money, attention, and personal investment involved, there aren’t a lot of things that have more riding on them than a professional sports season.
Sabean has never swung a trade with O’Dowd and only one trade to CO (Ellis Burks) that I can recall. Whether that is interdivisional tension, different player evaluation or personal dislike I don’t know. Street was a salary dump, the Pads bit. I don’t think there was a lot of demand for him. Ianetta is making 3.5MM, he’s not exactly cheap contingency.
The only explanation of the bizarre callup of Hector last year that makes sense to me is the Giants love his bat, and were hoping for Sandoval 2.0. And yes, maybe that’s not the best contingency plan in the world. We don’t know what teams were asking for catchers but the price must have been pretty high last year.
Sabean has decided to avoid the old vets and trust his farm system for the moment. I think he panicked last year with the Cabrera trade and went back to old comforts. That didn’t go so well. But for a guy who has been criticized for so long with the proven vet tagline to appear to be moving away from that, its kind of funny that fans are clamoring for more proven vet types.
Hey if they had young players who looked ready I’d be all over that. But Manny Burriss, Mike Fontenot, Eli Whiteside, and Chris Stewart don’t qualify. The Sanchez thing was, to me, and update of the old “lightning in a bottle move” that they tried in years past with Ishikawa, Merkin Valdez, and Brian Bocock.
He’s probably our best bet, but his bat has shown flashes of potential over the years. He’s done nothing to suggest he’s ready for major league play. He was absolutely terrible in AAA last year, and only a little above average in the Cal league (114 wRC+). I’ll grant you some amazing leap of development out of our farm system could well be necessary this year and I’d love to see it happen, but I don’t see much right now that would tell me they should be planning on it (the way, say, they probably could, and in their words, did plan on Posey and Bumgarner making that leap in 2010).
Oh, and full disclosure, I don’t think Crawford is either. I don’t have any hope that Crawford survives a full season as the starting SS.
I’m shocked they haven’t at least signed up Theriot to caddy Craw along. This is a strange development for sure.
I think he'll make it
If for no other reason than because we probably can’t get anyone better. But his 2011 BABIP obscures a pretty good offensive performance, and the glove is there. We won 86 games with Tejada bringing nothing to the table – unless you think he’ll underperform Tejada’s .260 wOBA, which he matched with a .230 BABIP, and his defense will decline, he looks pretty solid. As a +5-10 run defender at SS he can hit quite poorly and still be a 1-2 WAR player.
Seth Rosin can hit the side of a barn with a baseball. From space.
Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to WIN that (TM)
lol Scutaro
Adopted father of Chris Lincecum, without whom (quite literally) Timmy would not exist.
Yeah
The Red Sox seem to just be giving away interesting shortstops. I can’t imagine the Giants couldn’t have beaten that offer and at the very least gotten the Rockies to pay more.
Seth Rosin can hit the side of a barn with a baseball. From space.
Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to WIN that (TM)
Interesting that he Red Sox apparently gave Scutaro away so thy could av he money to sign Oswalt. Gants can get in on the bidding because they cant fit Scutaros $6mil under theyre budget without trading somebody else.
And once again we’re back to the absurdity of h first move of the winter: the Affeldt and Lopez signings.
Low BABIP doesn’t necessarily mean a player is hit “unlucky though” nor that it will necessarily “normalize.” sometimes it’s an indication of a lack of ability at the level. Just to take a couple of pretty obvious examples, Hal Lanier had a career .255 BABIP in over 3000 PA and Johnnie LeMasters was.260 in I’ve 3500 PA.
I don't think anyone has had a career .230 BABIP
In any meaningful amount of plate appearances. Not to mention those guys played in a different era.
Hitter BABIP is certainly more variable than pitcher BABIP, but I’m not convinced anyone who can make the majors has a true-talent BABIP of .230. But let’s say Crawford does. With the destruction of offense around the league, losing 15 points of wOBA in two years, a plus defender at a premium position like SS can rack up value even if he can’t hit at all. Crawford managed to pick up 0.5 WAR in 66 games – over a full season, that’s a 1.5 WAR pace. I’m not absolutely sure he is a +10 run defender, but it’s not crazy (and he could be better), nor is the idea that he could hit better.
I don’t love Crawford as a SS – there are obviously plenty of better players out there. But I don’t see anyone else who is a better solution – Rollins is aging and injured and expensive, Reyes would have been too expensive, Furcal is aging and injured (and signed already). I don’t trust Furcal to be better than Crawford and I don’t trust Rollins or Reyes to be worth the money. But personally, I’d rather use the limited funds we have to fill the gaping LF hole than the mostly-open SS hole; Crawford at SS is a better solution than pretty much any option we have for LF (in the long term – I think Huff 1B Belt LF should be okay in 2012), so I don’t want to lock into a long-term contract that would tie up money.
Seth Rosin can hit the side of a barn with a baseball. From space.
Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to WIN that (TM)
"found ways to make up for it"
is a little misleading, unless you think St. Louis’ player evaluation is the best in baseball by a pretty good margin. Did you expect Berkman to be a five-win player? Did you think Lohse would pick up 2.5 wins? That Craig would produce 2.5 wins in half a season?
The Cardinals got a lot of production from places they certainly weren’t expecting. They probably lost about nine wins at most between Wainwright’s injury (6 WAR) and Pujols not being Pujols and getting hurt (3 WAR). But Berkman gave them back at least three, Lohse another, Craig 1-1.5, Molina and Punto had career years, Carpenter threw 240 innings with a 3 FIP at 35, etc. Maybe they’re that much better at evaluating players and they expected all of that, or maybe, like the 2010 Giants, they got a lot of value out of players they did not expect. It’s also likely we undersold how good that team was at the beginning of the season – once they lost Wainwright I thought they were done. But they had a deeper and better team to begin with (not to mention an easy division) than I, and I think many others, initially believed. None of this is to say their luck was worse than the Giants, though – even if they underperformed by a few wins, which could be argued, they didn’t suffer a near-complete meltdown of the lineup, or anything close. The guys they counted on to hit hit, as well as some they didn’t count on, and other than Wainwright they got as much as could be expected out of their staff.
Seth Rosin can hit the side of a barn with a baseball. From space.
Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to WIN that (TM)
If by "average", you mean "Re-field the team that just delivered a world championship" I agree
Bold Prediction: Pablo Sandoval finishes 1st or 2nd in 2012 NL MVP voting. I'm Twittering now (well maybe not literally now): @GoofusMcP
Yes, that is a classic rephrasing of “players who got hot at the right time”.
The Giants gold standard is pitching. The one year the team had a league average offense, they won it all (6 of the last 7 have been at or near the bottom of the entire league). By doing a “re-field” they aimed for average.
My point was, hot or not, the 2010 Giants were not merely "average"
Bold Prediction: Pablo Sandoval finishes 1st or 2nd in 2012 NL MVP voting. I'm Twittering now (well maybe not literally now): @GoofusMcP
OK, now you're talking about just offense
I thought we were talking about the team as whole.
Bold Prediction: Pablo Sandoval finishes 1st or 2nd in 2012 NL MVP voting. I'm Twittering now (well maybe not literally now): @GoofusMcP
So, holding all else equal, one could argue that the Giants have been about an 89-win team… their total from 2009, and the average number of wins that Sabean has accumulated over his 15-year tenure.
89 is also pretty much right on the threshold for the first wild card spot. Obviously if you can be better you should be, but it’s not like this organization is hopeless and destitute.
"I see these guys walking around with rings on, and I want one. That's what it's all about." -Ryan Vogelsong
There was luck. There was also incredible talent. Even the Jeter Yankees had plenty of unlikely heroes. Our guys played their hearts out, and to dismiss it as more luck than talent is doing them a disservice.
Offseason
“No, you don’t need much more than that to tell you the Giants didn’t score many runs in 2011. Your glum assumptions that 2011 will be repeated in 2012 rest on uncertainty, not on the probabilities reflected in the projections for the players in this new season.”
No it dosen’t. I am looking at past actual production, not some general estimate.
Melky cabrera, struk out 90 time last year v. 35 BB, not great. Is anything going to change with him. High strike out guys tend to be high strike out guys. So I would expect a high stike out rate from him. Which means no one on base for the middle of the order.
The middle of the order Sanchez, Sandoval and Posey. I don’t have any general problmes with except we don’t know what to expect from Posey coming back from a significant injury. I don’t think you can really project any stats for him at all at this point.
Based on last years stats from Huff, a 245 .avg with 90K. A year older. I am suspect that he can’t do much better this year. I don’t beleive that he is going to “turn it around”.
Bandon Belt. Had 57K in only 187 AB. Anyone can project stats for him but I don’t think after only 1/2 a year we really know what were going to get, except it looks like he is going to strike out a lot for right now.
The Giants made no real significant changes to the lineup from last year. I don’t see the runs scored of last year increasing that much. The avg runs per game from the Giants last year was 3.52.
I generaly don’t beleive that this team is significatly better then last year. If they didn’t make real improvments then I don’t expect to see anything more then the 3.52 runs a game they scored last year. Project all you want but I don’t see any real improvements.
by Giants-Just-Win on Jan 18, 2012 4:09 PM PST reply actions
So, are you saying that we can quote advanced projections systems like ZiPS all we want, but your eyes just don’t see any improvements? Would this perhaps be because you haven’t seen any of these players with your eyes since the last televised Giants’ baseball game? Do you even know what ZiPS is?
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - SLC
This is seriously cherry-picking and sometimes outright false
Cabrera was in the top third of strikeout rates among qualified hitters in the major leagues. A 13.3% K rate is quite good, particularly when his career is even lower. There’s no reason to expect a serious increase in K’s if there is one at all. His 5% BB% was actually a lot lower than his career of 7.2%. He may not get on base that much, but he won’t be striking out a lot either.
Posey’s supposed to be one of the biggest upgrades over last year – the production we got out of catcher was absolutely abysmal. Posey’s a pretty good hitter. But sure, let’s ignore that.
Huff was supposed to be done after 2009. Then 2010 happened. Not saying it’s going to happen again, but you can’t just write him off as a definite failure. The talent is obviously there, it just has to do something.
Belt does look like he’s going to strike out a lot – his MiLB K rates are quite high. But you’re ignoring strong walk rates and pretty great power. I don’t know if he’ll be good, but he certainly looks like it.
You completely left out Sandoval, who looks like he’ll be good again as he continues to keep the weight off. You left out Cabrera’s career-high ISO and WAR in 2011. You left out the terrible RISP luck. You left out the fact that even if Crawford doesn’t hit, he won’t be the statue Tejada was. You left out the near impossibility that Posey will be worse than Stewart+Whiteside. You left out the likelihood that Sanchez will be better than his replacements. Apparently you’d rather focus on the fact that the Giants didn’t acquire All-Stars making the league minimum.
Seth Rosin can hit the side of a barn with a baseball. From space.
Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to WIN that (TM)
by quincy0191 on Jan 18, 2012 4:30 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
What is this K fetish on hitters? On Mekly in particular. If you want to talk about runners for "the hart of order" use OBP. Melky career OBP is 22 higher than the #2 spot of last year and about ( a .02 difference ) what the #2 spot did in 2010. But if , so some strange reason, K% is your end all be all standard for hitters then explain how 13.2% K (94 / 706) is worse than 16.7% ( 246 / 1473) from the 1 & 2 spot in 2011 . Just for giggles the #2 spot in 2010 K% was 14.4%. In both 2010 & 2011 the #2 spot had lower SLG than Melky career SLG.
Just trying to gruntle my Giants baseball Jones in the least destructive way available.
2010 was just a dream.can I have another please?
GP, here's my question:
It’s about pitchers. You claim that pitchers peak at 26-27, but a quick check of top ten lists of various pitching stats shows most elite pitchers, no matter how you rate them, are between the ages of 27-34. (The exception seems to be pure power, which is a young man’s game.) So, yeah, maybe on average pitchers peak at 27, but you’re talking about LIncecum and Cain. Sure, they could get injured, but so could anyone, and neither of them have shown any tendency to do so thus far.
Is it really the best policy to dump every pitcher when they get to 27? Should we not worry about Phillies because their rotation LOL OLD?
2012 is going to be awesome!
Of course Philly's rotation is good
But would you really want to take on Cliff Lee’s contract?
The most delightful ecumenical contradiction in nomenclature.
Dursh nerf darsh narf. Poop.
But other would ask whether it’s worth $100M to take on Reyes’ injury history. And at least they would be dealing in specifics.
It seems that taking a very general tendency and making it a hard and fast rule is the antithesis of what statistics is designed for. You use stats to drill down, to complicate and deepen the understanding, not to dumb things down.
Regardless of whether you stick with a player, trade or dump him, if I’m the owner, I want that GM to give me exact and supportable reasons specific to that player for the decision. Do you really think the owners would be happy with “well, yeah, Tim is a compelling player with great numbers and swag sales through the roof, but he hit the age limit so we had to cut him loose.”
2012 is going to be awesome!
Well sure
But, for the record, if the Giants were to sign either Cain or Tim for the amount of money Reyes got, I’d be fine with it. Reyes at 100 million is fine.
The most delightful ecumenical contradiction in nomenclature.
Dursh nerf darsh narf. Poop.
This is non responsive. The question was about how elite pitchers don’t fit into the typical aging curve.
2010 World Series Champions!
Adopted 'nephew' to the ever avuncular and always awesome Jon Miller
by Johnny Disaster on Jan 19, 2012 8:43 AM PST up reply actions
All pitchers fit into the aging curve
Because aging curves are constructed using data from all pitchers.
Look, Tim might age worse than the aging curve. He might age better. He might never age. He might have a Benjamin Button thing going one. There are outliers every which way.
But for most pitchers, on the aggregate, over time, they peak at 27 and decline.
Maybe Tim doesn’t fit that description. That’s an individual scouting call you have to make.
So how much money are you willing to bet that Tim is different?
The most delightful ecumenical contradiction in nomenclature.
Dursh nerf darsh narf. Poop.
That’s an individual scouting call you have to make.
That was MY point. So you’re saying you agree and your OP was kind of lazy in regard to pitching?
2012 is going to be awesome!
There’s no reason to think that Lincecum will age any better than normal.
Cash rules everything around me
C.R.E.A.M.
Get the money
Dollar dollar bill y'all
That’s not the question. Everyone ages, but elite pitcher adjust their approach as they lose velocity. Is he likely to retain and/or increase value during the next few years as elite pitchers do? Is a slight decline in FIP enough to convince you he’ll not be worth FA money?
2012 is going to be awesome!
I find this to be similarly non responsive. The question is whether elite pitchers hew to the same aging curve as all pitchers, in aggregate, do.
I am actually curious about this question and not trying to make debate points:
Do they exhibit the same basic curve, but at a higher level (so that even in the decline phase they can still be quite effective)? Is the shape the same, but extended out over a longer period? Is the post-27 slope shallower for elites, or are they just regressing from a higher starting point? That sort of thing. At this point my curiosity is in general terms and I’m not talking specifically about Timmy (although the answer may well color my opinion about his re-signing).
2010 World Series Champions!
Adopted 'nephew' to the ever avuncular and always awesome Jon Miller
by Johnny Disaster on Jan 19, 2012 9:34 AM PST up reply actions
The aging curve is the aging curve for all pitchers.
I think it’s fallacious to assume that “elite” pitchers age differently than regular pitchers. Why would that be the case?
Of course, elite pitchers regress from a higher peak. I said this in the post:
Lincecum will be past his peak age, and his year-to-year FIPs (2.34—>3.15—>3.17) paint the picture of a pitcher already declining, albeit slowly and from a high peak.
But on the aggregate, pitchers get worse after 27. Some elite pitchers stay good for longer. Some elite pitchers get worse quicker. Some mediocre pitchers stay mediocre longer. Some mediocre pitchers get worse quicker.
You’re treating elite pitchers as if they’re some sort of distinct biological subgroup.
The most delightful ecumenical contradiction in nomenclature.
Dursh nerf darsh narf. Poop.
I am asking if they are. You are assuming they aren’t and then treating that as a fact.
2010 World Series Champions!
Adopted 'nephew' to the ever avuncular and always awesome Jon Miller
by Johnny Disaster on Jan 19, 2012 12:34 PM PST up reply actions
They're human beings.
The most delightful ecumenical contradiction in nomenclature.
Dursh nerf darsh narf. Poop.
OK, you aren’t interested in actual discussion. NVM.
2010 World Series Champions!
Adopted 'nephew' to the ever avuncular and always awesome Jon Miller
by Johnny Disaster on Jan 19, 2012 12:42 PM PST up reply actions
What do you want me to say?
So far as I’m aware, there are no studies on pitcher aging that divides aging pitchers into categories of quality. The question you’re asking has no answer.
The most delightful ecumenical contradiction in nomenclature.
Dursh nerf darsh narf. Poop.
The closest thing is the Tom Tango study which I linked above, which has some detail on controlling for quality
At age 28, the number of IP goes down, but the performance per game goes slightly up (the bad guys are discarded, causing this effect). Had the bad guys remained, what would have happened? Could we just give them a WAR of 0? If we do, then age 27 is easily the higher one, as the gross WAR is 1137 at age 27 and 1047 at age 28. But, what if we give the bad guys a WAR of .03 wins per game? In that case, we’re adding an extra 41 wins, still not enough to catch up. Indeed, you’d have to give them a WAR of +.07 per game to the bad/missing IP in order for age 28 to overtake age 27.
So, it’s clear enough: age 27 IS the peak age for pitchers.
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/when_do_pitchers_peak/
The most delightful ecumenical contradiction in nomenclature.
Dursh nerf darsh narf. Poop.
Which, I guess, answers the question in clear enough terms.
27 is the peak age for pitchers.
The most delightful ecumenical contradiction in nomenclature.
Dursh nerf darsh narf. Poop.
It’s an interesting question — probably unanswerable because of sample size problems.
Tim would seem to have less latitude for decline than most pitchers just because he seems to be getting absolutely everything out of his body already. But on the other hand, he’s been remarkably resourceful about developing new weapons every time he needed them. My guess is that he’ll stay good for a long time, with a decent chance of getting even better than he is now.
Projections
I question furture projections, because of the health of so many of the postions players.
You just have no idea how they are going to come back from an injury and what the production is going to be. Had everyone been healthy from last year I would tend to agree with some of the projections, and not be as negative.
As for Sandoval, as I stated I don’t generaly have a problem with the middle of the order Sanchez, Sandoval and Posey. However Sanchez and Posey are both coming back from injury, and Posey a rather significant one. Do I think a full year of Posey is better then Stewart+Whiteside, YES. but again I am looking at the entire lineup up and down.
I didn’t ignore Belt. I would agree that he looks like he has some power, but he is still young and learing the strike zone. As I stated I don’t even know if they are going to stick with him the entire year or not. I stated I do see a lot of K’s from him next year. In fact one projection has him with 129 strike outs for 2012.
How can you project anything out of Huff. You have one good year and the next a total horrid year. Are we going to get the former or latter, no stat sheet can tell me which one shows up next year. A computer is not going to be able to tell me which one were going to get.
My point is, I don’t think the lineup changed that significatly from last year. I don’t think all of a sudden were going to start to see the Giants scoring 5 or 6 runs a games. I think by the end of the year were still going to see the Giants as same old same old with an average of 3 to 4 runs a game like they have been giving us.
I never thought that the Giants would go and acquire an All Star making the league minimum, but at least make more of an effort to improve the lineup.
And Yeah I know what fricken ZIPS is. Pitching projections include Barry Zito with 7 wins for 2012, that’s why I don’t believe in that stuff. IMO ZIps are overly optimistic, and are based on ideal conditions, using computers.
On Lincecum and Cain getting injured. I am simple stating that we have been lucky so far with both of them being healthy, and I just happen to think that our luck is going to run out. That it. I have no cristal ball, no stat. Just an obervation watching pitchers break down at some point. They both have a lot of innings building up, they don’t get a lot of run support, they both pich on a fine line not being able to give up a single run or risk a L. I think that puts a lot of stress on them when they pitch, that it.
As for the Phillies, well all I can say is at least they have a lineup that scores some runs.
by Giants-Just-Win on Jan 19, 2012 4:45 AM PST reply actions
Why would one think ZiPS is assuming ideal conditions? That would be a pretty poor bit of modeling.
by D.Szymborski on Jan 19, 2012 6:51 AM PST up reply actions
How does it work?
2010 World Series Champions!
Adopted 'nephew' to the ever avuncular and always awesome Jon Miller
by Johnny Disaster on Jan 19, 2012 8:43 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah, but you USE COMPUTERS
The most delightful ecumenical contradiction in nomenclature.
Dursh nerf darsh narf. Poop.
Not selling jeans here
Don't think he can cut it in the bigs? Brock Bond will be the bigger man and walk walk walk away.
Curious about catchers
Is there really a consensus that they peak that early? It seems surprising because I thought the conventional wisdom was that catchers needed a certain amount of minor league development time, more so than other position players.
I found one not very recent study on BP debunking the notion that catchers peak later than other position players:
As with position players, the most frequent peak age for catchers is 27. The peak range for catchers extends from 25 to 31, with a strong dropoff on either side. The dropoff for all players ends a year earlier at age 30, so there is some credence to the idea that catchers can still reach their peak around age 30-31 more often than players who play other positions.
Has there been more recent analysis that points to an earlier peak?
"If it's weird, you know it's probably Wilson's." - Matt Cain
Enrique_Rojas1 Enrique Rojas/ESPN
Source to ESPNdeportesLosAngeles.com: #Athletics very interested in Manny Ramirez es.pn/w4j4PJ
The most delightful ecumenical contradiction in nomenclature.
Dursh nerf darsh narf. Poop.
2 year average
Since GiantPain talks about the last 2 years and uses that as his main point, I decided to figure out the 2 year avg. WAR for all players in our starting lineup:
Pagan: 3.2
Sanchez 1.75
Sandoval 3.65
Posey 2.75
Cabrera 1.6
Belt N/A Fangraphs predicts: 3.2 Schierholtz 1.1
Huff 2.7
Crawford N/A Fangraphs predicts 1.9
Total: 20.75
2011 Pitching WAR: 22.9
According to http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/fanblogs/114483159.html, a 0 WAR team would have 45.5 wins.
That means the starters and pitchers(if they repeat 2011) would be expected to have 89 wins. If Schierholtz starts over Belt, it will be 87 wins. Now how many wins is the bench worth? I would argue at least 2 wins (Fonty, Stewart, Schierholtz alone were worth over 3 wins last year).
That means the 2-yr projection is somewhere around 89-91 wins. I’d say that’s decent. My biggest bench worry is actually Burriss. He was -0.6 WAR last year. I’d rather they have Ehire as an emergency SS backup after Fonty and bring up Conor to backup 3B/1B and Pill as 2B/1B backup. Ehire, Conor and Pill may at least be replacement level. Manny, unfortunately, is a good bet to be below replacement level.
Ehire would certainly be below replacement level.
by free f.p. #14 on Jan 20, 2012 3:22 PM PST up reply actions
Not according to ZiPs
ZiPs projects him to be equivalent to Crawford, with both projectiosn 40 OPS points above Crawford’s awful performance last season. Crawford was above replacement last year.
If Ehire’s glove is as good as Crawford’s, then he has a chance to be above replacement level. Crawford was only above replacement level because of his glove, his 60 wRC+ is definitely below replacement level. I don’t believe that Adrianza’s glove is better than Crawford’s, and so therefore I believe he would be below replacement level.
by free f.p. #14 on Jan 21, 2012 2:06 PM PST up reply actions
Adrianza is quicker and has more range, but not as strong of an arm, so the D pretty much evens out at this point.
However, there’s no way that Adrianza would hit better than Crawdaddy in the majors this season – most likely he’d hit worse. Ehire needs to be allowed to mature physically and develop his offense in the minors for at least 1.5 more seasons, so any talk of rushing him to the majors as we did with Crawdaddy, Bocock, and Burriss is just idiotic, IMO.
"There ain’t much to being a ballplayer, if you’re a ballplayer." - Honus Wagner
+1
I’m fine with the FO taking their time with Adrianza, as long as they don’t rush him unnecessarily.
Don't think he can cut it in the bigs? Brock Bond will be the bigger man and walk walk walk away.
ZIPS often seems bullish on San Jose players. It projected Peguero to be a solid major-league regular in 2011, just as it projects Gary Brown to be one in 2012. In addition to the Adrianza/Crawford oddity, it gives Jarrett Parker a .300 OBP in the majors next year. I’m skeptical.
He might be able to do that
Of course, he’d hit .200.
Seth Rosin can hit the side of a barn with a baseball. From space.
Giants baseball: We're stupid enough to WIN that (TM)
Since Franchez and Buster each only played in less than 50% of the games during the 2010 & 11 seasons you really need to extrapolate what the C and 2B positions will produce in 2012 if those 2 guys are healthy for the full season.
"There ain’t much to being a ballplayer, if you’re a ballplayer." - Honus Wagner
Yes, but my point was the OP's main argument rests on the glaring risk of injury...
Assuming every player in the starting lineup has a similar injury rate or similar suckage rateas they’ve had the past 2 seasons, then that injury risk spread out across multiple players at multiple positions should come to the WAR of each player average’d out across both seasons.
That was the exercise I performed. And the exercise showed that even with his main argument assumptions in place, which may or may not be disputable, the Giants are still projected to have a very competitive chance to make the playoffs: 89-91 wins.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on McCovey Chronicles
Related FanShots on McCovey Chronicles
![From SFist: Buster Posey's Summer Vacation
Note the pile of dead Marlins.
At the Q Restaurant in the Richmond:
George [the artist] tells SFist: "I am currently at work with the fine folks at Q Restaurant and Wine Bar, who have allowed me over the past few months to make use of their largest wall for themed murals. This month, with our beloved Buster Posey sent. . .to the DL. . .I felt it appropriate to send him some well wishes from all his fans at the eatery."](http://cdn1.sbnation.com/fan_shot_images/202096/busterart_2_small.jpg)
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
