Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Network Bar & Login
Section Navigation
Main Blog Content
Secondary Sidebar: Links to Recent Stories, FanPosts and FanShots
Masthead

Around SBN: Four TCU Football Players Among 17 Arrested In Drug Ring

Do or Dye?

by BigO on Jun 4, 2007 3:28 PM PDT

As I'm sure most already saw, today's Chron reported that Giants' scouts have been watching the Pale Hose. It is suggested that we may have an interest in Jermaine Dye:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/04/SPG5AQ6AV41.DTL

Seems to me that (a) This year's stats notwithstanding, he's got a bat we could use; and (b) he may well be on the market (plenty of rumours today about him being swapped to the Yanks for Abreu).

Pretty sure he's a free agent at the end of the year. Given this, what would we be willing to/need to give up for him if we are still in contention a month from now? Sanchez would seem to be too much for a rent-a-slugger, but I'm not sure he could be had for less...?

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.

Tweet Comment 81 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Re: Do or Dye?

Maybe they'll take Dave Roberts for him. The White Sox sure seem to love those scrappy types.

*(Not an entirely serious post.)

Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Jun 4, 2007 3:31 PM PDT reply actions

hmmmm....

Overpaid? Check

Overrated? check

Over the hill? check

Yep! The giants must be interested!

Flossing a dead horse

by kenshin1 on Jun 4, 2007 3:43 PM PDT reply actions

Re: hmmmm....

Overpaid: No, $6 million for a guy coming off a 1.000 OPS season is actually quite a steal. Do you need to be reminded what Roberts/Winn is making this year. Dye is leagues better than either of those two.

Overrated: By who? the guy is a career .822 OPS hitter playing in some bigtime pitchers parks for most of his career and hasn't hit less than 23+ HR in 7 of the last 8 seasons (broken leg the other one).

Over the hill: Yeah, seriously he just posted a 1.000+ OPS season last year. He's so washed up.

Poster who just lists arbitrary statements without anything else? CHECKAROONEY!

The Giants should be thrilled if they could get Dye this season. I don't see where they'd play though, you'd probably have to send them Roberts or something, which isn't a bad thing if they want him.

by awesomer @ McCovey Chronicles on Jun 4, 2007 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: hmmmm....

What happened to Dye between 2002-2005? (aka the Oakland years).

Remember when he was the "bad part" of a trade with Michael Tucker?

by zenbitz on Jun 4, 2007 4:06 PM PDT up reply actions

Those...

seasons clearly don't count! 33 years who post the best season of their careers are absolute locks to maintain that level of performance.

Flossing a dead horse

by kenshin1 on Jun 4, 2007 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: hmmmm....

He broke his leg. It was nasty.

by North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan on Jun 4, 2007 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: hmmmm....

lol...

OPS by the last 4 years

.793
.846
1.006
and in small sample size: 728

My 2 year old cousin could pick out the outlier here.

Do you really think a 34 year old player whose previous season was inconsistent with his past level of play is an ideal candidate for the Giants?

Flossing a dead horse

by kenshin1 on Jun 4, 2007 4:09 PM PDT up reply actions

For the $4 million he's due the rest of the season

Dye would be a great gain for the Giants and a lot better than Roberts/Lewis/Ortmeier in the OF.

by awesomer @ McCovey Chronicles on Jun 4, 2007 4:19 PM PDT up reply actions

.728 this year...

hmm, maybe that's because he's batting .228 with an incredibly unlucky bapip of .243. His LD% is down and FB% up accounts for some of it, but GB% remains the same so he's definitely running pretty bad. Bump that up more towards his career .303 line and watch the OPS soar.

Obviously he won't post a 1.000+ OPS again, but I'm pretty sure he can get it up to the .850+ range again, which would be a huge improvement for the Giants. His 10 HR would put him 2nd on the team already by 3 HR.

+ You get a compensation pick for him at the end of the year, with a good shot of it being in the A range.

by awesomer @ McCovey Chronicles on Jun 4, 2007 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: .728 this year...

I actually do like this rent-a-player scenario. He'd give us an actual player to hit behind bonds and at the end of the season, we get another draft pick, i don't see how this would be a horrible trade, unless it was sanchez.

In Soviet Russia, save blows Benitez!

by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on Jun 4, 2007 5:00 PM PDT up reply actions

The Giants...

have roughly an 11% chance of making the playoffs. Giving up anything of value for a rental player is probably a mistake.

Flossing a dead horse

by kenshin1 on Jun 4, 2007 5:09 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: The Giants...

did you just pull that number out of your ass??? Where'd you get it, because it seems like quite an arbitrary statistic.

I think he may be worth a lot more, including the draft pick. He will severely improve that chance by the way.

In Soviet Russia, save blows Benitez!

by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on Jun 4, 2007 5:53 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: The Giants...

He probably got it from BP's playoff odds report.

Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Jun 4, 2007 5:56 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: The Giants...

hrm.

well, that just seems like a bit of a stretch to attribute that as being a reliable number.

In Soviet Russia, save blows Benitez!

by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on Jun 4, 2007 5:58 PM PDT up reply actions

honestly...

I am not trying to be mean but a monte carlo sim carried out 1 million times is significantly more accurate than your gut assessment.

Flossing a dead horse

by kenshin1 on Jun 4, 2007 5:59 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: honestly...

I'm not saying i'm right or that I'm more accurate, because i'm certainly not at all. However, most projection seems to be no more that that, projection. Looking further, i really don't like the trade as much as I thought I did. I just started to believe (pathetically) that this season might not be as lost as I thought it was. It was a silly hope, but Jermaine Dye seems like a cheap fix for a team. Unfortunately, it would take way too much.

In Soviet Russia, save blows Benitez!

by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on Jun 4, 2007 6:04 PM PDT up reply actions

yes....

I just made up the number.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/ps_odds.php

PS: you're wrong

Flossing a dead horse

by kenshin1 on Jun 4, 2007 5:57 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: yes....

well yikes, i was wrong, i'm extremely sorry.

I sounded a lot like an asshole and you didn't deserve that.

My bad.

In Soviet Russia, save blows Benitez!

by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on Jun 4, 2007 6:00 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: yes....

At least we have a better chance than the Royals and Nats...

by rod beck on Jun 5, 2007 8:02 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: The Giants...

that sounded really harsh. I just don't see beyond maybe Pecota projections or Pythagorean run therom that you could get that kind of number. And even then when compared to the other teams, things change and that number to me seems quite arbitrary.

In Soviet Russia, save blows Benitez!

by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on Jun 4, 2007 5:57 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: hmmmm....

Breakdown time!

I wouldn't call him overrated, but I do think the difference between Dye and Winn isn't as much as folks think.

Dye is probably about average with the glove; say he's not quite as good as those numbers say and that Winn's a little better than his numbers say, and we'll call it a full win's difference between the two on defense alone, although it could also easily be a wash. On offense, though, Dye is definitely superior. How superior is up for debate. If Winn's "true" talent level is around 70 RC, and Dye's is around 80 RC, then the difference between them is... TA DA! One win. Or, the difference in their defense. Meaning they likely make the same contribution to winning, and at best Dye is a two win improvement over Winn over the course of the season.

Don't trade Sanchez for him.

David Arnott
Sportszilla -- Kickass Sports Writing
Adopted EME

by David A. Arnott on Jun 4, 2007 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

We could mold him into an excellent Whipping Boy.

by Whipping Boy on Jun 4, 2007 3:49 PM PDT reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

No. No. No. No.

BB

All those Giants fans down in Giants land love that Crazy Crab!

by BlackDougal on Jun 4, 2007 3:50 PM PDT reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

Do. Or do not. There is no Dye.

Your 2012 NL ERA champion: Sergio Romo

by Lyle @ McCovey Chronicles on Jun 4, 2007 4:29 PM PDT reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

Beautifully done. I'm appalled that nobody has praised this post yet.

Just fantastic.

Coming to you by proxy (I adopted: Dave Righetti!)

by howtheyscored on Jun 4, 2007 6:42 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

Merci.

Your 2012 NL ERA champion: Sergio Romo

by Lyle @ McCovey Chronicles on Jun 5, 2007 2:13 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

I just saw it... YEAH! Well done.

I think I forgot to praise whoever posted "never tell me the odds" in a diary the other day. I apologize and thank you here.

by North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan on Jun 5, 2007 7:49 AM PDT up reply actions

We ride tornadoes; We eat tomatoes

If we do or die
We should try
If we don't try
I say bye-bye
And if I say bye-bye
I'll wonder why
We didn't try
To do or die
Yeah yeah yeah

by tobias on Jun 4, 2007 5:17 PM PDT reply actions

Re: We ride tornadoes; We eat tomatoes

SFA. Awesome.

by seclusive on Jun 4, 2007 8:12 PM PDT up reply actions

I am a seller

But Dye is intriguing for a few reasons.

1. He is a FA (possibly type "A") at end of season
2. He could bat 5th behind Bonds and play RF
2. White Sox are looking to move him
3. White Sox want prospects

If SF can retain its core players then it should be considered. Dye could help the club this season and if he is not re-signed then could get a Type "A" draft pick in 2008. It is like a poker hand where you could discard the cards you do not need (prospects other than Sanchez, Schierholtz, EME etc) in hopes of better cars (the draft picks you pick you for losing him as a FA).

by wilriv21 on Jun 4, 2007 5:19 PM PDT reply actions

I'd let any of them go besides Sanchez

including orty and probably even freddy, as long as you keep one of freddy or nate they should be OK. Send them two prospects if they want, they really need bullpen help too if you can entice them with it.

by awesomer @ McCovey Chronicles on Jun 4, 2007 5:39 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: I am a seller

okay, i think EME at this point is expendable.

It'll take at least one ML player.

In Soviet Russia, save blows Benitez!

by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on Jun 4, 2007 5:55 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

If the Yanks are offering Abreu, do you think we will get him for less than Sanchez? I would like to have him but I'm about 78% sure we need more than him and we should be sellers not buyers this year,

Jack Mustachner

by The Thrill on Jun 4, 2007 5:29 PM PDT reply actions

Possibly

Abreu carries a hefty salary while Sanchez is a solid LHP prospect and inexpensive. I'm on the record of hoping to keep Jonathan.

by wilriv21 on Jun 4, 2007 8:44 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't change the fact that its still a pig. This is not a good team, no matter what GiantsRainMain and co tell you. Hell, I'd spend the next 2 months trying desperately to flog Dave Roberts, Steve Kline, and any other assorted "veterans" for anything of value. The Giants have perhaps 3 hitters who are even league average(or higher) at their positions (Bonds, Durham, and Molina).

by Aadik on Jun 4, 2007 6:09 PM PDT reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

I guess the question is, is Dye "of value" at this point in his career?

I think, on the whole, probably not. He's 34, he's not a LOT better than the OFs we already have, and we have a whole mess of CFs already.

On the other hand, if the Sox will take some pricey, long-term contracts it's not so bad. But giving up minor-leaguers for Dye sounds like a really good deal ... for Chicago.

by Mel Ott on Jun 4, 2007 6:17 PM PDT up reply actions

Giants prospects = teh suck

Do you guys agree with this or not? If they do, then what do you lose by trading them away. You get Dye, who will be a FA, who the Giants will almost certainly not sign, and a good chance of being a Type A draft pick where you get a 1st or 2nd round pick + a sandwich pick between those two rounds. So you basically get 2 top 40ish picks (the white sox only trade dye is they suck so their pick would be high).

This gives you 2 more shots at developing better prospects than the ones you gave up (especially if you have new management by then).

This is Dye's main value, not so much what he'd bring. The A's did the same thing back in the day as seen in Moneyball where he owned teh Sox and stole Durham from them. Though Durham played well, he was more concerned with the draft picks. Its the same situation here.

by awesomer @ McCovey Chronicles on Jun 4, 2007 6:26 PM PDT reply actions

Re: Giants prospects = teh suck

Not all Giants prospects are bad. The ones the White Sox will want in exchange for a productive major-leaguer, for example, will probably have some real potential. If the Sox want Lance Niekro, well, pull the trigger.

Somehow, I don't think that's the case, though.

by Mel Ott on Jun 5, 2007 6:43 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

Dye is local. He's tired as shit of Ozzie Guillen's act. If you're from here, how many freekin Ditka jokes can you sit through?

He would play better here assuming he is still healthy. I'm pretty sick of low OBP with no power guys.

I don't care if its "financially prudent" or not. The Giants are a weak ass offensive team. I don't know if Dye moves up or not. Bottom line is the Giants remind me of Dick Nolan's 49ers offense of the early 70s. "off-tackle, sweep, incomplete pass, punt". Now its, popup, groundout strike-out, warm up the pen.

Meantime Dodgers 3 teams are 10-11 games over 500 in front of the Giants, by 6.5 games.

I refuse to follow any team on a regular basis that decides to tank the season in favor of a bunch of scrubinnis. This isn't KC or Tampa Bay.

Save Matt Morris. Save The Pitchers. Save The World.

by E Ticket on Jun 4, 2007 7:37 PM PDT reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

You do realize don't you that the Giants have scored more runs then any other team in the NL West measured in both total runs and runs per game?

As for Dye, if we can get him for Roberts and a prospect then GO FOR IT!

by giantsrainman on Jun 4, 2007 8:28 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

Being the best offense in the NL West is like being the tallest midget.

Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Jun 4, 2007 8:42 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

So What! We ain't competing in the NL Eest.

We have also scored more runs per game then anyone in the NL Central other the the Reds and Cubs (Yes, more then the Brewers!) and we are pretty damm close to both the Reds and Cubs. The Reds have scored just 10 more runs but in 2 more games and we have actually scored 6 more runs then the Cubs but also in 2 more games.

by giantsrainman on Jun 4, 2007 8:59 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

Yeah, and in the same sample size we have the fourth worst pitching staff in the NL West.

Barry Zito: Mike Hampton with a guitar

by JakeS on Jun 4, 2007 9:06 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

This is true! And we can thank our bullpen for this. Compared to the Padres, Dodgers, and Diamondbacks our bullpen is where we are coming up short. This is especially true in high leverage games (last three innings or extra innings with score difference of 2 runs or less). In these situations our bullpen has given up 24 runs in 48 innings and the Giants are just 4 and 11 in these 15 games.

by giantsrainman on Jun 4, 2007 9:19 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

I think it would be misleading to attribute that entirely to the bullpen. We're still tied for third/fourth in starting pitching:

San Diego: 3.68 RA
Arizona: 3.96 RA
Los Angeles/San Francisco: 4.08 RA

Barry Zito: Mike Hampton with a guitar

by JakeS on Jun 4, 2007 9:32 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

Way to take advantage of the fact that the Giants starters have suffered all of our unearned runs (hard to believe but true) while the defense has not hurt the bullpen at all. Our Starters only trail the Padres in ERA but of course you ignored this because it doesn't support you position.

by giantsrainman on Jun 4, 2007 9:45 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

RA is a better measure than ERA - it varies less. While unearned runs are somewhat the fault of the defense they are certainly the fault of the pitcher as well for putting the runners on base. Ball in play pitchers tend to allow more unearned runs - it's as much a trait as it is luck.

Or, if you'd prefer, "What do you want, Runs or Stats."

Barry Zito: Mike Hampton with a guitar

by JakeS on Jun 4, 2007 9:56 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

Most un-erned runs got on base because of the error. Yeah, a few were just advanced or driven in because of the error but the bottom line is that they would not have scored without the error.

The point I was making (which you seem to have missed) is the the Giants starters have suffered all of the Giants unearned runs. If this was more balanced with the relievers getting their far share then your use of RA might have be appropiate. But, since it is not balanced your use of RA is not appropiate.

by giantsrainman on Jun 4, 2007 10:00 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

But I'm only comparing the starting rotations, not the bullpens. Overall, our starting rotation has been only the third/fourth best at preventing runs.

Your accusations that I'm only using RA to further this specific point ring hollow (as do your accusations generally) - if you'd care to check back you'll find that I consistently use RA over ERA in my posts because it is a superior measure of performance.

Barry Zito: Mike Hampton with a guitar

by JakeS on Jun 4, 2007 10:03 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

Over the long haul you use of RA rather then ERA might be the more accurate. But, that doesn't mean it is always the most accurate and this is one of those cases where it is not. A clear abnormality is here with the Giants starters suffering all of the Giants unearned runs and in this case this abnormality must be accounted for to get a true assessment of the performance of the Giants starters.

by giantsrainman on Jun 4, 2007 10:13 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

The Giants starters have pitched the lion's share of the innings, so they will be likely to get the most unearned runs.

If it is indeed "all" of the unearned runs, then that is a small sample size problem and it is unlikely to continue.

by North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan on Jun 5, 2007 8:07 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

Before today, we were hitting .317/.396 as a team. That "ain't" good.

Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Jun 4, 2007 9:13 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

After today we are up slightly to .320 and .400.
This was not good in previous years. But, in case you haven't noticed, OPS and run scoring is down bigtime accross the board.

by giantsrainman on Jun 4, 2007 9:21 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

It's still not good. We are 10th in the NL in OPS.

Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Jun 4, 2007 9:25 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

What do you want, Runs or Stats?

by giantsrainman on Jun 4, 2007 9:34 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

The runs are more useful to tell use how good the team has been, the stats are more useful to predict how they'll continue to be.

Barry Zito: Mike Hampton with a guitar

by JakeS on Jun 4, 2007 9:36 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

OPS is going to correlate a lot more to runs scored in the future than runs scored so far.

Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Jun 4, 2007 9:36 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

You are assuming that the Giants OPS will remain the same. I am not. I see Durham, Aurilia, Vizquel, and Roberts getting much better then any drop off in those that have been hitting well this far. This also (in my judgment) makes the mistake of not taking into account "Clutch" (getting the hits at the right time).

by giantsrainman on Jun 4, 2007 9:57 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

Of course, study after study has shown that "clutch" is not a repeatable skill.

Barry Zito: Mike Hampton with a guitar

by JakeS on Jun 4, 2007 9:58 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

Of course you do.

Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Jun 4, 2007 10:06 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

I see you not understanding statistics - again.

by Aadik on Jun 4, 2007 10:37 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

No, I understand all to well (Masters In Electrical Engineering and Business Administration). I just think it is nieve to believe that statistics without understanding the talents that produce them (scouting if you will) are about as useful in predicting the future as a coin toss.

by giantsrainman on Jun 4, 2007 10:42 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

Well no wonder you run off on tangents and lack any humor. Try removing the slide rule from your ASSSSS get your nose out of the S&P 500, stop obsessing over the Giants front office, get a glove, some spikes, bats, a bucket of balls, grab some underprivileged kids, find a big grassy field and fucking live a little!

Save Matt Morris. Save The Pitchers. Save The World.

by E Ticket on Jun 5, 2007 8:11 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

I hear that those underprivileged kids have some hot moms sometimes...

by North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan on Jun 5, 2007 9:01 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

Indeed they do. Indeed they do. Hence the "live a little". As a bonus, we are at the extreme end of the column as Moggeee prophecized.

Save Matt Morris. Save The Pitchers. Save The World.

by E Ticket on Jun 5, 2007 9:28 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

"You do realize don't you that the Giants have scored more runs then any other team in the NL West measured in both total runs and runs per game?"

There are a few very sizable outliers that are really skewing that statistic. The Giants routinely have trouble scoring 4 or more runs, and have scored many of their total runs inconsistently in single game bursts.

Somebody can look it up and prove me wrong if they want to, but I'm fairly confident I'm right about this.

Coming to you by proxy (I adopted: Dave Righetti!)

by howtheyscored on Jun 5, 2007 1:37 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

Fun Fact: The Giants run differential is currently 247-226. If, however, you take out the combined 28-2 from the 15-2 and 13-0 games (clear outliers), the run differential falls to 219-224!

(this doesn't include Monday's game, but still... you get the picture.)

Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Jun 5, 2007 1:45 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

You can't really throw out the outliers.
I think what might be useful is to calculate the SD of runs scored for teams in the NL - and this would probably lead you to conclude that it will be very hard to predict future (giants) runs score for the rest of the year.

However, their component stats (OBP+SLG) are bad, so that would seem to say that they are going to regress in runs scored.

by zenbitz on Jun 5, 2007 7:56 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

You could also just take out a couple of the early-season shutouts and our run differential would be better. As zenbitz says, you can't really do that. Outliers happen, and as the season goes on that will smooth out some.

by North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan on Jun 5, 2007 8:09 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

I know, I know, I just thought it was interesting. The only reason I looked at it is that I think our pythag record is a little skewed at the moment (31-25).

Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Jun 5, 2007 8:39 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

I just spent a lot of time trying to prove this because I'm too anal to just go to damn bed, and apparently I'm either full of shit, or I'm not very good at math. Well, I am pretty good at math, but I need more than my windows calculator to do this right. What I really need is a good set of graphs that show the number of times each team scores a specific number of runs and then uses a line of best fit to work around pesky outliers. I don't have those, though, and they'd probably just show me that my windows calculator math was probably right and that I'm putting way too much intuitive weight on fewer than 10 games that don't make as much of a statistical impact as I want them to.

I admit, in the NL West, the total of the Giants offense has been marginally better than the competition.

And I completely failed to consider run differential in any of this. Whatever. Either way, it's averaging out pretty convincingly to a team that's still two games under .500. And if your team is two games under .500, then to compete you either need more runs or fewer runs allowed. The runs allowed seems pretty ok to me, so I'd say we need more runs. There's some solid 2am logic for you.

I believe the ultimate conclusion here is this: I was almost definitely wrong in my original assertion, and more or less take it back. My bad

Coming to you by proxy (I adopted: Dave Righetti!)

by howtheyscored on Jun 5, 2007 2:10 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

jponry is obviously better at 2am logic than I am.

I've still come to the conclusion that runs scored in the NL West is an unfairly cherry picked statement that takes some serious outside considerations to put in proper perspective, but within the NL West my fruitless attempts to account for outliers has shown me that I do think it's clear that even outliers aside the team's offense is more or less on par with the division. So the problem is still the weak division giving us false hope. But hey, at least we're not the Cubs.

Coming to you by proxy (I adopted: Dave Righetti!)

by howtheyscored on Jun 5, 2007 2:17 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

Weak Division?

Sure, The NL West scores less runs per game then the NL East but the NL West scores more runs per game then the NL Central. So even just looking at offense only the NL West ain't weak. It is average.

But, the NL West also gives up less runs per game then any other division in the NL and it ain't even close.

More importantly the NL West is 26 games over .500 while the NL East is only 8 games over .500 and the NL Central is 40 games below .500. (Yes this doesn't quite add up because the NL is down 6 games to the AL in interleague).

Bottom line seems to me that the NL West is actually the strongist division in the National League and this (like runs given up per game) ain't even close.

by giantsrainman on Jun 5, 2007 2:35 AM PDT up reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

Weak division offensively.

The NL central isn't really fair because it's such an atrociously bad division right now.

I agree the NL West overall has been pretty good, and compares well to the East. I think this is true. What I meant was that the division is weak offensively, and that is what's making offensive comparisons within the division misleading.

There are a lot of reasons for optimism, but the offense hasn't really been a springboard for hope unless you restrict your field of view. That's what I was trying to say.

Coming to you by proxy (I adopted: Dave Righetti!)

by howtheyscored on Jun 5, 2007 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

I would definitely do Sanchez + Aurilia/Vizquel/Durham for Dye. Career .822 OPS? There's undoubtedly a lot of people here who wouldn't do that deal, but what we need is someone to bat behind Bonds, and Dye could do it. Imagine #3Klesko#4Bonds#5Dye. That's at least B movie intimidating, which is better the the straight-to-video cr@pola that we're subjected to on a fairly daily basis.

Succumb to Tiny Tim! Adopted dad of Minor Izzy

by hairball on Jun 4, 2007 8:39 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

I assume you are saying just one of Aurilia, Vizquel, or Durham (not all three) so that I am not wasting my time tresponding to someone that has gone insane.

I could actually go along with one of Aurilia or Vizquel plus a lessor pitching prospect then Sanchez. But, the remainder of this year of both Sanchez and Durham plus upto 5 more years of Sanchez and one more year of Durham for just the remainder of this year of Dye is silly. Dye just ain't enough of an upgrade over Durham to even consider this.

by giantsrainman on Jun 4, 2007 8:50 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

I like Dye, don't get me wrong, I just don't want to give up Sanchez for a guy who doesn't get us to the playoffs this year. If we're really talking Roberts and a B-level prospect I'd certainly do it, but Kenny Williams is a pretty sharp GM and I doubt he'd sell that low.

Barry Zito: Mike Hampton with a guitar

by JakeS on Jun 4, 2007 8:42 PM PDT up reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

I've no doubt Sabean is desperately trying to acquire Dye, and will give up more than any of us want to instill the perception that the Giants can contend this year and he should be spared his job. I mean, just last year he gave up Jeremy Accardo for friggin Shea Hillenbrand (and Chulk)! - what's he willing to trade for a player coming off a .300/40/120 season, 5th in MVP voting?

Dye would be a great asset if the Giants were truly going to contend in the post-season, but I don't want to liquidate more of the Giants future for a rent-a-player and a pipe dream...

Cuz our GM is a numnut...

by bryce on Jun 4, 2007 9:51 PM PDT reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

I'm not too wild about Dye, but if we were to get him without breaking the bank, I wouldn't be too upset.

Mandowear | comics | Sugarman FTW

by Natto on Jun 4, 2007 10:36 PM PDT reply actions

Re: Do or Dye?

I think Dye would be an asset. Will he make the Giants better? I believe he will. Is he worth more than Sanchez, as a half-season rental? Probably not. And with our luck, after we trade him Sanchez will become [redacted to avoid .giffing].

Hmm, maybe Sabean can use this to our advantage. Most of the young arms we've traded away recently have turned out to be great, so maybe this will increase the value of our existing crop of young arms? Yeeeeaaaahhhh, that's the ticket.

BTW, I blame this diary for getting "Live or Let Die" in my head for most of the day.

Adopting Dave Roberts since 2007

by hometownboy on Jun 5, 2007 12:06 AM PDT reply actions

Let's go Dye!

If we can get Dye and keep him for more than two months, I'm for it.

Strikeouts are boring. Besides that, they're fascist. Not boring: Emmanuel Burriss. Not fascist: SF Dugout

by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Jun 5, 2007 6:36 AM PDT reply actions

Comments For This Post Are Closed

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Sp-giants21_ph_t_0501991449_part6_small

The McCovey Chronicles Fantasy League, For Money.

by GiantPain 3 days ago

40 comments | 3 recs

Calvin_and_hobbes_small

2012 Adoption Draft: Who's In?

by free f.p. #14 5 days ago

363 comments | 7 recs

Calvin_and_hobbes_small

2012 Adoption Draft: Rules Discussion

by free f.p. #14 8 days ago

148 comments | 4 recs

Honus_wagner4_small

Hector & Gregor's Excellent Adventure (In the VWL)

by Fla-Giant 8 days ago

31 comments | 3 recs

Recent FanPosts

2012 MLB Draft Snapshot - Power Hitters

by shankbone about 7 hours ago

2 comments

2012 MLB Draft Snapshot – College Left Handed Pitchers

by shankbone 2 days ago

18 comments

Cormac McCarthy novel The Road

by foothillsfan 3 days ago

13 comments

2012 MLB Draft Snapshot – HS Left handed pitchers

by shankbone 4 days ago

16 comments | 1 recs

Angel Villalona reported to have a work visa

by Gianni 6 days ago

11 comments

2012 MLB Draft Snapshot – The Catchers

by shankbone 6 days ago

25 comments

Hidey-fern_small

Hiking on the 18th?

by Merope 7 days ago

5 comments | 1 recs

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Recent Posts

Copyright © 2012 Vox Media, Inc. All rights reserved.

Newsletter Signup About Us Frequently Asked Questions Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guiding Principles Advertise With Us Contact Us

Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.

OpenCalais - Powered by Thomson Reuters • Odds Shark