We're all chomping at the bit -- nyom nyom nyom -- to get these Giants fixed up right for next year.
The conventional wisdom says all this team needs to compete is an average offense, instead of an historically bad one. If you want to talk averages, how about this: The Giants averaged 749 runs a year this decade, right about middle of the pack. To get back to that mediocre mark in 2010, the Giants would need to add nearly 100 runs. They scored 657 in 2009, fifth worst in MLB.
Round it up: Will 750 be enough to win a pennant? It depends how many runs they allow, of course. Let's say, just for fun, the Giants maintain their MLB-leading ability to prevent runs. (They tied with the Dodgers for fewest allowed in 2009: 611.) That would give them 750 runs for (mediocre), 611 against (awesome!). Plug that into Bill James'
pythagorean expectation formula* and you get a predicted record of 97 wins, plenty to win the NL West or at least the Wild Card.
(The average numbers of wins for NL West division winners the past five years is 89. The average number of wins for NL wild card winners past five years is 91.)
Wait a second. Ninety-seven wins would be fine and dandy, but seeing how they probably need at least 90 wins for a good shot at a playoff berth, let's revise our runs scored/allowed totals to reflect more realism.
Before we get to the reality check on the Giants adding 100 runs to their season total -- i.e., no way in hell it's going to happen -- let's check the other side of the ledger, runs allowed. Gut feeling says the Giants won't repeat the astounding pitching/defense they displayed this year.
Just this decade, which has flaws as a sample size that we'll
ignore for now, four teams have allowed fewer than 611 runs: Toronto in
2008 (610), Houston in 2005 (609), the Dodgers in 2003 (556), and
Atlanta in 2002 (565). We might as well throw the 2002 Giants in the
group, too, with 616 runs allowed. Add this year's Giants and Dodgers,
and seven teams in ten years have managed the feat. That's
2.3% percent of all major-league teams.
Repeatable? I could be pollyannish (Best! Pitching! Staff! Ever!) but I prefer to be slightly pessimistic and say they give up 650 runs next
year, 39 more than this year. That's about one extra run every fourth
game. (Six-hundred fifty, by the way, would have put them fifth in the
majors this year.)
Let's be even more pessimistic and say they give up an extra run every
two games, or 692 runs. That's still good for sixth-best in the majors
this year, by the way, and it's just a smidge under their seasonal
average for the decade, 714 runs allowed.
It's not hard to imagine the starters being as good collectively in 2010 as they were this year, and the Giants have enough interesting young arms to fashion a pretty good
bullpen, with some luck and freedom from injury, every year. With the expected turnover at a few positions, defense is hard to project.
So let's take two different runs-allowed figures. First, 650. To get to 90 wins, they would have to score about 725. That's 68 more than 2009, or about two extra runs every 5 games.
Now let's pretend they allow 690 runs. To get to 90 wins, they would need about 770 runs. That's 113 more than 2009, or nearly two extra runs every three games.
I can't see the team adding 100+ runs, but 68..... Start with a full year of a
healthy Freddy Sanchez (perhaps a pipe dream). Even if he's not at his peak, he should be worth 30 or 35 runs, at a position where Emmanuel Burriss in 200 at-bats actually subtracted 8 runs from the ledger (I'm using the "Runs Above Replacement" statistic on Fangraphs, which includes contributions on offense and defense). Uribe was better, though I don't know how much of his offense came while playing second base. Sanchez himself was practically invisible once a Giant, so let's take a rough guess that a 35-RAR season from Sanchez would be a 25-run improvement over what the Giants got from their second basemen in 2009.
Now let's pretend they sign Matt Holliday (57 RAR in 2009) or Jason Bay (35 RAR). Simply adding one of them and subtracting Randy Winn (17 RAR in '09) would make up quite a bit more. (Remember, this is rough -- I'm not trying to project what they're likely to do in 2010, I'm just comparing '09 to '09 seasons and assuming they won't suffer a serious decline).
Of course, the Giants aren't likely to sign Holliday or Bay. One name that's surfaced in rumors is Johnny Damon (30 RAR). One who hasn't but is intriguing is Mike Cameron (43 RAR). So perhaps we can assume 15 or 20 more runs.
On the infield, it's rumored the Giants are pursuing a trade for Dan Uggla (29 RAR), who would either play third base, likely eroding his suspect defense even further, or bumping Sanchez to third. That would move Pablo Sandoval to first, where he would replace the Aurilia/Ishikawa/Garko trio from last year that on offense barely registered a blip. (Ishikawa however was valuable for his glove.) Call it a 20-run bump -- Uggla over last year's first basemen.
Sanchez, New Outfielder, Uggla: 60 more runs? Then Renteria does something, anything to improve upon his 2-RAR season, Posey is a pleasant surprise and beats Molina's 18 RAR from last year, and Nate Schierholtz shows steady improvement. Bit by bit, the team could climb above that 68-run mark.
Again, it's all rough, but you get the picture. The Giants likely can't afford to give up 690 runs next year. But if the pitching staff (and defense, don't forget) fare slightly worse and allow an extra run every few games, the necessary offensive improvement of 68 more runs to get to a theoretical 90-win mark isn't impossible to imagine. It would have to come from a few positions. Not even Matt Holliday could close the gap by himself. But you don't have to twist yourself into self-delusional pretzels to get there.
* There are more refined versions of the Pythagorean formula, but I'm keeping it crude tonight.
Yeah..... not going to happen.
Sanchez is going to get worse.... in my opinion.
Cain and Linecum will be the same.
Everything else is very questionable..... especially since it's been a while they have had any injuries to impact players....which could break your whole theory apart.
To play Devil's, we haven't had an impact player in a while, ba dum BUM!
While not the impact he is talking about, one could say that the 2009 Giants did suffer a loss of impact, as Winn, Molina, and Renteria performed much below what we had been expecting them to produce for 2009. Zito the two years before that, I would count Durham too, plus Edgardo Alfonzo and Armando Benitez, Matt Morris, Aaron Rowand, even the Big Unit. Plus the year Bonds was out injured. We have been having a lot of players who we expected to provide an impact but have come up short on us each season since at least the World Series.
I think you have hit the nail right on it's head.
This is pretty reasonable.
But to counter CD's pulling a long face, one could buoyantly point out that the team won 88 this year. We might get a decent boost in runs scored from: improvement from Sandoval, who started last year slow, substituting Posey for Molina, a full year from FSanchez and a healthier Renteria, and one more productive hitter. An effective #5 starter might well add a couple of wins, and ditto if Zito pitches as he was post-AS break.
Good analysis, but ultimately it boils down to the fact that the Giants need to muscle up on offense where they can without giving up their ability to prevent runs. Moving Sanchez to third and using another second baseman doesn't seem like a great idea to me. Probably better to put Uggla (if we are to pursue him) in left and leave Panda at third, Sanchez at second. (note: I saw a story about Uggla liking his position, indicating he may not be amenable to be shuffled around to find a place where a team can use his bat.) I've always liked the look of Mike Cameron, but he never seems to have played up to what I thought his ability to be. He will be 37 when the season starts, hit only .250 last year with 24 hr.
What has been missed about Cameron is that he walks a lot, so his OBP is always above average, plus he plays great defense in CF. I think he's a viable (and economical) candidate to pursue, pushing Rowand to LF, where perhaps his defense would become a plus (though then his offense is a minus, but perhaps with less pressure on his defense, he can concentrate on hitting plus maybe not be injured as much). It has also been noted that Cameron's skills are those that last longer.
I don't think Uggla is a good acquisition unless he's playing 2B. I'm OK with Sanchez at 3B then because basically his offense is OK for 2B and Uggla's is OK for 3B, and Uggla is happy and hitting (hopefully). If he's unhappy, not going to do us much good in the clubhouse, I think. And, once here, he might be amenable to moving to 3B after 2010 season.
In any case, I prefer trying to find an OF than an IF (assuming equivalent hitters), because any IF move means that Ishikawa and Garko are out of jobs, while an OF makes Schierholtz and Bowker fight for RF. Garko is a more proven hitter and with Ishikawa would be a good mix for 1B, while neither Bowker or Schierholtz will necessarily be good in the OF (though I do believe in both), so then we are only relying on only one of the two succeeding in RF, rather than hoping both succeed in LF and RF, respectively.
Personally, I would be OK with going with what we currently have, but clearly the Giants want to further ensure that they are contending for the title in 2010, if not going deep in the playoffs, and that would require acquiring another big hitter, like an Uggla or Cameron.
And if Uggla is a pursuit, he will cost us at least a few good developed prospects, so perhaps signing Chone Figgins is not that bad an alternative, as that would only cost us our first round draft pick, unproven and unlikely to be a good player. Not a big hitter, but Sabean noted a need for a leadoff guy and he could be a good one for us in LF or 3B, or perhaps, if he's willing, he can roam again.
I know Uggla's agent is making noise about Danny staying at 2B, but his hands of stone would hurt us less in LF than anywhere in the infield.
I believe alot of this talk is posturing for a multi-year contract with the new team. A four-year contract would change Uggla's song and dance about 2B.
As for Uggla's clubhouse "presence," isn't our resident genius manager's alleged "expertise" supposed to be keeping a happy clubhouse. It's not as though he's good at developing young player.
I myself would prefer that first base be an option for Nick Johnson, who, although not a HR hitter, is a doubles machine and a patient hitter. (His injury history, however, means he would need a platoon partner.)
Too bad Sabean has dismissed the idea of a Rowand-Bradley swap. Ridding the club of his contagious hacking ineptitude would create a better example for the young players.
Word is that rowand is a cock to young players.It comes from a very reliable source.This player was actually a victim of rowand being a cock to young players in spring training. That must have been before he went on a milk catorn.
Word is that rowand is a cock to young players.It comes from a very reliable source.This player was actually a victim of rowand being a cock to young players in spring training. That must have been before he went on a milk carton.
I would be OK with going with what we currently have
So would the rest of the NL.
I guess Sabean opened his mouth while Haft was around and had a few less then surprising things to say:
The Giants are unwilling to offer Bengie Molina more than a one-year contract, though they will offer him arbitration.
Brad Penny's current contract demands are "out of reach at this point."
Juan Uribe, who hopes to earn something similar to his $4.75MM deal from 2008, won't get close to that from the Giants.
Still, this doesn't mean the Giants won't be spending money this winter. Haft writes, "Sabean said that he envisions the Giants filling their personnel needs through free agency rather than trades."
So Sabean doesn't like trades because he always gets screwed by smarter GM's eh? Not surprising to say the least. If they don't keep Bengie or Penny around which I am beginning to think would be the best idea, that would leave something like 12-15 million that they could throw at Bay or Holliday... not sure about how I feel about that but better then another year of Bengie.
The rotation would be fine with Bumgarner or some scrub filling the fifth spot and if we aren't making trades then Sanchez will be the 4th starter which I have no problem with. One year of a little uncertainty at catcher wouldn't kill us and there might even be enough money left over to get a guy like Blalock or DeRosa to fill in at 3rd. It wouldn't be the best lineup in the league but it would be a lot better then what we have had the last few years:
Velez/Torres CF
Sanchez 2B
Panda 1B
Bay LF
Blalock 3B
Schierholtz RF
Posey C
Renteria SS
Lincecum
Cain
Zito
Sanchez
Bumgarner
I guess it could be better, we wouldn't have an ideal leadoff hitter but then again how many teams do? Give Posey a chance to mature down in the lineup and take some pressure off of Renteria by batting him 8th. I think Blalock has some nice upside and Bay would at least drive in more runs and run the bases a lot better then Bengie. We still may not make the playoffs but we would at least figure out whether guys like Schierholtz, Torres, Bowker, and Velez can contribute and then make moves accordingly next offseason.
What is rowand doing giving sabean a happy ending in his suite? Oh maybe they will trade him for your beloved VMART. Get real.
Go fuck yourself dave jr, you are not only a moron but an annoyance to all. Nobody here gives a shit about what you have to say so save all of us the trouble and go hang yourself in your closet.
blow yourself you little faggit.
Velez has had plenty of opportunities to show what kind of player he is: A super utility.
Starting lead-off man? No.
Torres will be 32 next year and has been a career minor-leaguer. It is illogical to assume he's a legitimate, full-time starter. Good 5th outfielder, however.
Bowker's swing impressed even Barry Bonds. In the Great One's words, "The ball jumps off the bat." Can he be patient? Wait for the ball to come to him? Lay-off the breaking ball in the dirt?
Perhaps. He has a small window of opportunity.
Nate Schierholtz's major issue is Bochy's distaste for him. Whenever Schierholtz WAS doing well. Bochy made up some bogus b.s. about this or that as a pretense to start Winn. Understandably, Schierholtz never received ca consistent opportunity like Bowker and Velez.
Of the players you mentioned, only Schierholtz deserves not only and opportunity but protracted PATIENCE from the All-Mighty Botch-it. Nate's speed and defense are excellent, and he has the ability to drive a hard and away fastball.
But like Matt Williams when he first came up, Schierholtz need to identify the breaking ball better.
There is only one way to do that.
As Mr. Spock once said, "We learn by doing."
Hmmm, I would say that Velez hasn't proven one way or another what type of player he is going to be but after his last call up I think the guy deserves a chance to show what he can do especially since there are NO OTHER OPTIONS AT LEADOFF! I guess you could put Rowand back there and see how he does but why? Torres and Velez would at least give us speed at the top and by no means did I mean that they would be the long term answer there.
On the subject of latest call ups, did you happen to catch Bowker's at bats over the last month of the season or did you blink while he was swinging and missing at EVERY BREAKING BALL IN THE DIRT! Hard to make a ball jump off your bat when you cant make contact.
There would be plenty of room on the roster to carry guys like your beloved Bowker or Ishikaka or Frandsen or any of the other AAAA rejects that this club is filled with but going forward it would be nice to solidify a position like LF with a quality bat like Bay and then the following season we go out and get a SS and slowly but surely you have the makings of a solid lineup.
Aside from Bay, the other moves are pretty low risk including Blalock who if healthy I think has the potential to blow up in the national league facing fast ball pitchers. Posey at C is kind of a no brainer unless you think spending 6 million on a busted up Bengie is more worthwhile. Bottom line is that there is only a few million dollars to play with and instead of signing guys who we already know aren't going to help us win, why not try some youth with a few FA's sprinkled in and see what happens.
Matt Holliday, yes.....Jason Bay, No thank you very much.
Matt Holliday. Agreed.
If Sabean (wisely) is not going to sign Molina, Uribe, and Penny, why not take go after Matt Holliday?
What a nightmare, Velez/Torres leading-off. Only Bochy could come up with such a botched up idea.
The bullshit you spew is always 50% off.You are a little boy talking crazy!Why put rowand there you ask???? 60 fucking million dollars MORON! The same fucking reason that fucking Zito drags his fucking sorry ass out there every 5th day and the same reason Peter Magowan lost his gig.The mistake is made and there is nothing that can be done about the bad contracts DAAHH!!! Oh heres a news flash you little fag Increase the payroll.What a concept.You are so busy trying to tell everyone how stupid Sabean is you forgot you were a dumb ass.The problem is that once in a while you nail a good point but the rest of the time you peck away on your little computer while you steal from your job.If Sabean is so stupid and you are so fucking brilliant then why isnt Bill nuekom tracking you down and paying you millions????
You might want to increase the dosage on the Xanax.
Nate is an option at leadoff. Posey is an option at leadoff. Lewis is an option at leadoff.
Anybody but Velez. All the hopes for him in hitting lie on the power side of the ledger, which sounds odd looking at him, but it's true. You can't have a guy with such a shitty on base average leading off, you just can't.
All I am saying is that Velez showed enough improvement last year to give him a shot at it this season. Do I think he will pan out? Probably not but at this point the options are not exactly optimal and yeah you could try Nate or Posey??? or Lewis but are any of those options any better then Velez, not in my opinion.
This lineup is hurting up and down so to get bent out of shape about who is leading off is kind of petty considering the gapping holes in the middle of the lineup. Other options at leadoff in free agency aren't exactly all that exciting either unless we decide to pay Chone 12 million over 4 years. Aside from him, any option you put at leadoff will be less then ideal.
As I mentioned in a previous post, it isn't like we are the only team with this problem either. I can think of maybe 5 leadoff hitters in the league who are elite and a lot of guys who have huge holes in their games.
Leadoff may be the toughest spot in the lineup to fill. As soon as you think you have an ideal leadoff hitter like say Hanley Ramirez, his bat becomes too valuable to let sit at leadoff and he ends up batting 3rd. Johnny Damon, Brandon Phillips, Juan Pierre, Tavarez, Upton, Bourne, are all guys who have been leadoff hitters in the past and either haven't worked out or were too valuable as rbi guys to let sit in the leadoff spot.
Lastly, just because management made the mistake of signing Rowand to 12 million a year doesn't mean they have to make another mistake by playing him. If he were at a position where we didn't have other options it would make sense to keep him around and cross our fingers hoping he somehow figures things out but with Velez, Lewis, Bowker, Nate, and Torres all fighting for playing time I would rather see them get at bats and have Rowand rot on the bench. Didn't we just pay Dave Roberts 6 million last season to stay at home? Didn't hear anyone complaining about not playing him.
You're correct about Rowand: just because he has a big contract doesn't mean he has to play. Perfect example is Gary Matthews, Jr.
However, Velez's big improvement is relative. He was absolutely terrible and "improved" to an average hitter. He's had many opportunities, and he's pretty much shown us what he's got, and it ain't starting lead-off man stuff.
This, however, does not mean we have to sign Chone Figgins to lead-off. We had a good lead-off guy in Fred Lewis until the genius brass tried to convert him into a #3 hitter.
Lewis, unlike Velez, is a patient hitter. A requisite for a lead-off hitter.
That said, if Bowker wins LF or if the G-men sign a LF, Rowand can lead off.
So after all that your solution is to bat Rowand leadoff? Maybe my memory is hazy but when was Lewis ever a good leadoff hitter? When was Lewis a good anything? I like Fred and would love to see him do well but his average is garbage and although I agree with you that he is a patient hitter, it is to his detriment because he wont swing at a first strike fastball unless it is right down the middle. He takes more corner pitches then anyone I know which puts him behind in the count and sets himself up for a K later in the at bat when he has to swing at what the pitcher wants him to.
Velez also showed a little more patience the last month of the season, not to the extent that proves he is a patient hitter and belongs in the leadoff spot but he did have some nice takes and some quality at bats against good pitching. Another advantage Velez has over everyone else is he is really the only guy who has proven he can steal a base. Lewis couldn't steal candy from a baby even though he has great speed. The only thing Rowand steals these days is his paycheck from the Giants.
It would be interesting to see what others thought about the leadoff spot because clearly there is no ideal clear cut option. My prediction is that Velez will be the leadoff hitter and starting LF on opening day and then just like last season, everything will be up in the air 2 weeks into the season.
You're probably right about Velez leading off because Bruce Bochy is too unimaginative to do anything else.
"When was Fred Lewis a good leadoff hitter?"
Uh… 2008, if you’ve forgotten already.
"his average is garbage"
Well then it's a good thing that on-base is WAY more important than average for a hitter, and his on-base is great.
"it is to his detriment [that] he wont swing at a first strike fastball unless it is right down the middle"
Not true. In fact, the exact opposite of the truth. A detrimental approach is swinging at a pitcher's strike at the first pitch and getting out immediately like Rowand and Renteria do, because you take yourself out of the at-bat immediately and help the pitcher immensely.
"Velez also showed a little more patience the last month of the season".
Also false, as his OBP was .294 in September and his career OBP is .305 (both way below the average hitter who has a .331 OBP, let alone the average leadoff hitter).
“Velez…is really the only guy who has proven he can steal a base.”
Even this isn’t true. The league average for stolen base success rate is 73%. Velez had a success rate of 68.8% (11 out of 16… whoopee) this year and 30 stolen bases in his career.
“The only thing Rowand steals these days is his paycheck from the Giants.”
Well, you do end your thoughts with a clever one.