Why do other teams' top prospects get top billing, but our top guys get short shrift? If Drew, Upton, Young or Kemp, Martin, Loney are brought into the equation, then why don't people automatically go Cain, Lincecum, Lowry for the Giants? Is there something about good performance that don't deserve attention, attention over prospects who either hasn't proven their worth yet or don't have a long track record yet?

Particularly Drew, Upton, Young: their performances are so poor that were they renamed to be Giants prospects, fans would just complain about the long line of failed Giants position prospects, the lack of generation from the farm system. Drew has a 66 OPS+, Upton 71 OPS+, and Young 88 OPS+ this season. Not every prospect turn out, no matter how hyped, as the Padres learned with Sean Burroughs, and could be learning with Kouzmanoff.

Then Kemp, Martin, Loney. Martin, I can see, he's performed well. Kemp has performed well, but at incredibly horrible peripherals. Maybe he's like Vlad, but with periperals like 6.2 BB%, 24.2 K%, 0.27 BB/K, that's close or worse than someone we all love to hate, Pedro Feliz: 5.1 BB%, 17.6 K%, 0.31 BB/K. Then Loney, I've never understood why he's so highly hyped, he has never hit for much homers and as some Giants fans like to complain about JT Snow, you want a homer hitting 1B, not a 19 or less homer hitting 1B.

Meanwhile, Cain, Lincecum, and Lowry has been delivering sub-3, low-4 ERAs, which are GREAT for a starting pitcher. Why don't the Giants get credit for producing them?

It is not like the Dodgers or D-backs produced great pitching over the past two years. Yet all I hear about is their position prospects while our guys get zippo, even Lincecum you don't hear much about, despite what he has done thus far.

I am not one for patience. What happens if we resign Barry and add A-Rod to your .500 team?

You keep beating this drum, ogc, but you seem to lack some perspective.

There is no doubt that Cain & Lincecum are excellent young pitchers. Lowry is serviceable and would be more valuable to the Giants.......given their current situation.....as trade bait for young position players.

The point that you don't seem to get is that other teams' young prospects are mentioned more often because they've been able to win with these young prospects that have been brought up to the big show. These guys are only going to get better with time & experience, so if their clubs are able to win with them now, the future looks bright for those teams.

The Giants, on the other hand, have 2 excellent young pitchers. The problem is that a) they are not winning now and b) there is no hope that it is going to get any better in the near term future. Why? Because the Giants management has completely dropped the ball in retooling the aged roster that they've been tried to patch up for about 5 years now, while at the same time, totally ignoring stocking their farm system with the needed position players.

Pitching is extremely important......we all agree on that point. However, each pitcher only affects 1 game in every 5 that is played. Position players play every day. When you are in a position that you have to basically replace 7 to 8 position players in order to build around your young pitching, one can draw the conclusion that the future is a long way away for this team. Nobody cares about your 2 gem pitchers when your team sucks as bad as this team does right now and will continue to suck for the next 3 or 4 years.

I meant that Ortmeier, Davis and Frandsen don't match the upside and promise of Upton, Drew, Young, etc etc. It wasn't a comment on the talent of the Giants young starting pitchers.

I hae read on other blogs the argument that the Giants' run differential is as close is it is becuase of their blowout wins. Whcih goes to show that people remember what they want to remember. The Giants had 12 blow out games (defined as being games decided by 8 or more runs), which they split, 6-6. Of the 6 they lost, they lost by a combined 67-10. Of the 6 they won, they won by a combined 66-3. So, there is a small (+6 run) differential, which hardly explains the Giants overall -8 run (ie, nearly = 500) differential.
For those interested, thru Aug 30 they have fared thusly:
1 run games: 20W-23L
2 run games: 12 - 23
3-4 runs: 13 - 16
5-7 runs: 9 - 6

32% of their games were decided by 1 run; 26% by 2; and 22% by 3-4. Or, 80% of their games have been decided by 4 or fewer runs and in thise games they are 62-45. Their run differential in these 80% of their games is -35 which, while significant, does not account for their extraordinarily poor record (45-62). When you look more closely at these games, the reasons for losing are spread throughout the team, with about 40% being due to bad starts, 35% due to poor hitting (the 1-0, and 2-1 games) and 25% due to bull pen failure.
So, looking at these numbers, I will say, as I've said all Summer, this team is not that far away. It is/will be stonger with Misch, Wilson, Walker in the pen than with Benitez, Kline (altho he has had his usual solid year). The OF and C has produced enough. The team is hurt by 4 IFs hitting sub 250 (Aurilia, Durham, Omar, Feliz). Get 3 guys with 270-280 BAs and 310-330 OBPs and we are there with SD and LA - and better and stronger than Az.

You are either a) delusional or b) Brian Sabean if you think that the Giants are not that far away. Not that far away from what?? Retirement homes? Collecting a ML pension? Are we talking about the same team that is one of the 3 or 4 worst teams in baseball and getting worse?

Every tick of the clock takes this collection of has-beens and never-wannabes (save a few) farther away from the target. I just don't see how you can say what you said after watching this team go in a downspiral over the last few years.

First of all, two nitpicks: the team has been over .500 for a month, which means in the narrowest sense it's getting better, or at least not getting worse. Second: there are 8 teams with worse winning percentages in MLB. I guess you could argue they're still one of the worst 3 or 4 teams in baseball, but cogent arguments don't seem to be your strong suit.

I think the evidence I laid out in my post -- the equal # of runs scored and allowed, the core of good young pitching -- shows there's at least a chance this team could be a .500 team next year.

I disagree with Frank that the team only needs to replace the infield suck to compete with SD, LA, and bypass ARZ next year (and what about COL?) but I think the Giants could be better than expected next year.

Part of my point is that these Giants have lost 1/3 of their games by 1 or 2 runs. They are not like the KCs or Tampa Bays, or Pirates, never in the games they play. It would take fairly little to achieve a substantial improvement in the 46 games that were lost by 1 or 2 runs. When I look at the numbers, I'm not too worried about the slugfests (games won by 5 or more runs), as we actually hold our own there, winning 15, losing 12. We are in a lot of close games. This is largely due to our very good pitching. But even our SP is better now than it was in Ap-May and I think it is reasonable to expect it to be about as good next year as it has been lately (we are 1 game under 500 for July-Aug). This is because we are rid of Morris and Oritz, and have/are replacing them with Lincecum, Correia, Misch. I am also assuming Zito has 'adjusted.' As I pointed out above, I think our pen is better now and will be even better in '08. We have a fair amount of promise and production from the OF. We've gotten just enough from the IF to keep games close - but end up losing.
I do not have the statistical tools to do a comparison of the '07 production of Aurilia, Omar, Durham, Feliz with an IF that is hitting 270-280 as opined above, but I think it (since it is half the line up)nwould make for a sigificant increase in runs scored AND games won.
In short, in responding to Lefty's original post, I think there are 4 primary reasons '07 has sucked: 1) very bad luck (see the Pythagorean expectation AND compare our runs scored and runs given up to Az) 2) Our SP took half a year to come around as did 3) our RP and 4) we got outlier bad, completely unexpectedly bad years from the IF. I expect the luck to average out next year, think we're already seeing strength in the SP as well as a hint of increased strength in the RP. I also am of the opinion that we can live with the production we have from the OF and C positions, IF we significantly shore up the production of the IF.
I think the idea that we are years away is not based on an in depth look at this year, at our strengths, at our strengthening components, and at how we compare with the competition in our division.

Sorry Lefty, but I just meant most commentary about other team's good players vs. ours. I know you know we got good young pitchers.

That comment by Boof shows one part of what I'm talking about: the understatement that Lowry is serviceable. Lowry is 20th in the NL in ERA - how is that serviceable? That's good pitching!

And in 2005, he was 22nd among qualified pitchers. Even in his poor 2006 season, he would have been tied for 28th had he had 3 more IP among qualified pitchers - his time on the DL costed him. Assuming the top 16 starters can be defined as aces, and the next 32 as #2's, Lowry has been a #2 starter for 3 yeras now, strongly so in 2005 and 2007 (thus far).

While people rightfully look at peripherals for strong indicators that a pitcher is good, then they are stuck with that mentality that one theory fits all: ultimately, for a pitcher, if you can keep runs off the board, it doesn't matter if you wear clown feet and a rubber ball nose when you pitch, if you keep the other team from scoring, you are good.

Those of us who have watched Lowry enough know that he is not as good a pitcher as his stats may otherwise indicate. In my opinion and in the opinion of many others out there in blogland, the Giants should actively shop Lowry before he "Morris' down" his value any more, as Grant has so accurately pointed out over at McCovey Chronicles. A pitcher like Lowry who is young & tied up in a decent contract could return a coupl of decent near-ML ready position prospects that would be a much needed short in the arm for the Giants rebuilding effort.

Boof, you are clearly correct on two key points:
1. Lowry's shiny numbers belie his dingy peripherals. Yeah, sure, he MIGHT turn out to be Tom Glavine some day. I'd rather trade him to another team and let them take the gamble, and in return get some of those hitting prospects that Brian Sabean so foolishly ignored in the draft.
2. Every day the Giants drift further from the target. Sabean has sown the wind since at least 2001, and now we are reaping the whirlwind. We can perhaps optimistically project Nick Noonan and Angel Villalona for two infield spots - in 2012 or 2013! No idea where our next catcher is coming from. Bowker, Davis, and Schierholtz could be a decent OF trio, but they aren't a lock. We have a lot of rebuilding to do. If Sabean is able to jettison Durham this off-season, under any circumstances, then I will believe he finally "gets it." But I fear he thinks like Frank and others do.

To paraphrase from you Boof, "You keep beating this drum, Boof, but you seem to lack some perspective" and, apparently, short-term memory, as once I answer your questions, you forget what you argued about and find something new to argue about. I originally assumed that you conceded the point to me, then you go on elsewhere (or again at my blog), saying the same old tired arguments which I had already answered and you, thus far, have not even attempted much to answer in response.

You apparently read a lot of my blog and yet you don't really remember what I write about. I've been saying all along that Lowry should be tradeable for the right package; you mention two MLB-ready position players, well, that's good enough for me for the most part. A number of people have been saying "Trade Lowry, Trade Lowry, Trade Lowry" without thinking about what we should be getting, and I don't think that is right.

I've been saying that Lowry is a very valuable pitcher and we should not just trade him, we should get a good, valuable package because he's a good pitcher, as I illustrated with my stats.

You say that he's not as good as his stats and yet he has been doing it for 3.5 seasons now, essentially, except for when he was pitching injured in Sept 2006. At what point does it become fact for you and not just a supposition? 5 years? 10 years?

I don't really give a damn if he becomes a Glavine or not in the future, all I really care is that he is a damn good pitcher right now and if another team wants him off my hands, they will give me a good package, two position starters who are ready or near ready, though I would want at least one who is more than decent, as you put it. Pitchers like Lowry don't fall off the tree every season, he is much more than just a decent pitcher, he should be worth at least one good prospect plus your decent MLB-ready position prospect. And we can afford to wait for the right offer.

People like to harp on the fact that the Giants have no position prospects. Well, how about the Brewers, they have been hurting in their pitching staff, why no harping there? San Diego is so bad off, they have to resort to Brett Tomko, meanwhile the Dodgers resorted to David Wells, essentially they traded the two for each other. And they have been crappy pitchers this season (and Tomko for many seasons).

I guess Lyle didn't care for the World Series team in 2002, since he is complaining about things from 2001. I also guess that he doesn't like what the Tigers have done either, as they rebuilt using mainly free agents and trades to fill all their position needs, until Granderson came up. No, it's not a real rebuild unless you do it via the draft, the Lyle way.

The thing is, position players are pretty much hit or miss propositions after the first 3-5 hitters. What Lyle don't know is that picking prospects who become good, even as early as the 21-30 pick overall, is worse than odds than trying to get a 7 when throwing craps. Clearly the Giants have some expertise in chosing pitchers, so why not focus on them and eventually trade them for the position players you need?

And that's why it's called a strategy, not a tactic. Tactics can be done in the short term, but strategies have to be laid out over time. He, like others, is too impatient to wait out the strategy, everything has to be "NOW, NOW, NOW." Well, show me a team who has rebuilt their team in a few years. Few have ever done that, it takes a number of years to do a turnaround. Nobody, including Boof, has given me a good example of a rebuild that didn't take a number of years.

And apparently Lyle wasn't too impressed with Bonds hitting 73 homers in 2001 - it's rebuilding time according to Lyle! Or maybe he didn't like getting Lowry, Hennessey, and Cain in those draft years in 2001 and afterward. And I suppose he would rather have one of the position players who are still in A-ball right now instead of Lincecum. As long as they pick position players, that's all he cares about.

The fact is, the Giants have rebuilt almost their entire pitching staff with draftees or via trades using draftees, and is now at the point where there are spare pieces that are good, like Lowry, who are tradeable for a nice package of prospects, with Correia, Sanchez, and/or Misch ready to move into the rotation in 2008 and take his place.

Reportedly, the Mets were tangling Carlos Gomez straight up for Sanchez, even though he was struggling and all that. Imagine what he would net us once he become established in the rotation (hopefully in 2008)?

We could probably do as Frank says and acquire some players in free agency for 2008 and be competitive. I would rather be shooting for the brass ring, for winning the World Series, so no more short-term contracts for so-so players, fill from within in 2008, best as we can and still be good defensively, and shoot for 2009.

That's actually a pretty short timetable for returning to competitiveness, if we shoot for 2009, rebuilds do not take just a couple of years, it usually is at least five years, and could push into the decades if you are unlucky. Just sign free agents who are actually very good at something, whether offense or defensive for 2008, shoot to fill pieces via trades and free agents for 2009.