Batting Order

And do you really want Barry to bat in the first inning with two outs and no one on?  That is the time when it LEAST hurts the opposition to walk him.  Yes, a runner on first base with two outs rather than no one on with two down is normally worth .1325 more runs per inning.  But having Barry Bonds at the plate with two outs and no one on is worth nearly that much more than usual because of the frequency with which he homers.

Further, do you want to have Barry batting third when he his less likely to have as many runners on in the first inning as if he is batting fourth, providing the Giants with one more batter to provide a runner or runners ahead of him?

And if he MUST bat with no one on, wouldn't it be highly preferable that it be with NO outs rather than one?  We already mentioned that by walking Barry with two outs and no one one the run expectancy increases by .1325 runs.  By walking him with NO outs and no one on the run expectancy increases by .3880 runs.  So it is nearly three times as "expensive" for the opposition to provide a bases-empty walk to Barry with no outs as it is with two outs.

Add that Barry is one more spot removed from the pitcher and his almost automatic out when Barry bats cleanup rather than third, and the likelihood for Barry to bat with fewer outs and more runners on would also seem to be higher later in the game when he bats cleanup.

Yes, if Barry plays 130 games he might get another 15 plate appearances by batting third rather than fourth, but isn't the idea to have Barry bat with as few outs and as many runners on as possible?  And because Barry is less likely to have a runner on first base by batting third than fourth, many of those extra 15 plate appearances would likely end in a walk anyway.  Add to that that Barry is often left in the lineup until he gets in that extra at bat (regardless of where he is batting in the lineup), and I think it is actually possible that Barry would wind up with fewer AT BATS (not plate appearances) if he batted third.

Incidentally, it is because the 3rd-place hitter bats with two outs and no one on far more often than any other batter in the order that lineup theory actually dictates hitting a team's best hitters first, second and fourth.  Does anyone of us believe Barry isn't one of the Giants best three hitters?

"It may save him 40 to 50 innings if he hits in the eighth and you get him out of there," Bochy said."

This is a smart comment by Bruce -- with two exceptions.  

First, hopefully the Giants will post something like 40 wins in which they don't even bat in the ninth inning.  That would certainly reduce the prudence of leaving Barry in to play the ninth in those games, wouldn't it?

Second, if we assume that the Giants are in the position of not batting in the bottom of the ninth in 30 of the 130 games Barry starts, that leaves another 100 games.  The chance of the second-place hitter making the final out of the eighth can't be much more than one in nine.  So instead of the 40 or 50 innings Bochy estimates Barry would save by batting third instead of fourth, the actual number is likely no higher than 15 -- and probably more like a dozen.

I guess my comment with regard to Bruce's thinking here is that I admire the thought process -- but that the conclusion he reaches likely lacks a bit of congruity with reality.

I can see how Bruce might feel this way off the top of his head, but I suspect that if he examines his thinking on the subject more deeply, he will see that there is a high probability that he is overstating the impact.

I think the rest of your analysis is accurate, if a bit on the optimistic side. Barring a return to form of Klesko and/or a breakout year from Linden, the team is sorely lacking in power and will struggle to score runs. Also, the bullpen is bad. So we'll need outstanding starting pitching in order to have a shot at the playoffs. Fortunately, that is at least a plausible scenario.

Also, most of the Giants contracts are escalating, which could mean they don't have the full $27 million available.  If Bonds were to return for yet another season, they would have little only about $11 million to spend, less the increases (which would be nearly that amount).

So the problems the Giants face in 2008 include a lack of everyday talent going into this coming off-season, the need to replace as many as four regulars, a likely continued dirth of star-level free agents (although with Andruw Jones being a possible candidate), few if any minor leaguers ready to make an impact, a shortfall in players the Giants can afford to trade for talent, and the likely need to spend even more money than their increased payroll of this season.

I would have little problem with Brian's being replaced, but I don't think it would be fair for us to expect a new general manager to effect a quick turnaround.  Having six draft picks among the top 51 in this year's draft following right on the heals of a year in which the Giants signed Tim Lincecum and Angel Villalona will hopefully make a nice start to digging out of the rather large hole Brian Sabean has gradually dug over the past decade,  but aside from Lincecum it is unlikely that more than one of the other seven players/choices will make a big contribution during this decade -- and aside from Lincecum, none of them may be advanced enough to do so.

I fully agree that 2008 not only MIGHT get interesting, but that it will.  Still, it probably won't be as productive on the field as we would like.  For the season to meet our wishes ON the field, the Giants would likely need to get VERY lucky on the free agent market -- necessitating their spending far more money -- and make one or two good trades despite not having much to trade.

That's a pretty tall order for any GM, whether his name is Sabean or to be determined.