|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 7, 2013 15:26:39 GMT -5
When has a returning World Champion have so many question marks? Well, that a question mark in itself.
When you win it all and then re-sign all your healthy and important free agents, how can you have questions? Because as good as the Giants were in 2012 and as much as they will have to fight the battle to repeat as much as any team, they could become even better.
In order to do so, they need a positive answer to three of these five questions:
. Will the real Tim Lincecum come back and exorcise that imposter from his body?
Amazing that the Giants could improve last season despite having their ace pitcher fall from a Hall of Fame level to becoming the worst qualifying starting pitcher in all of baseball. It would be like a former college football center morphing into a guy who couldn't keep his feet in later life. Oh, wait.
The good news is that there is no player in baseball who has as much room to improve this season as does Lincecum. The bad news is that he has so much room to improve.
Lincecum has been scratched due to his blister once again from today's start, but it is believed he could be back in the spring rotation as soon as Saturday.
. Can Gregor Blanco fill the shoes of Melky Cabrera?
Heck, maybe even Melky without the aid of steroids can fill the shoes of Melky Cabrera. Blanco can't, but he's even better defensively, and that helped make up for his offensive deficiencies.
The key is for Gregor to get on base. His .333 clip last season wasn't high enough.
. Can Hunter Pence become Hunter Pence again?
In 2011, Pence hit -- get this -- .314. In 2012 he hit ... well, after he got to the Giants, he didn't. Instead, he swung at pitches outside the strike zone -- and didn't hit those in the zone with consistency. He leapt from 124 strikeouts to a career high 145.
As manager Bruce Bochy put it, "I thought Pablo Sandoval had the least discipline of anyone I'd seen -- until we got Hunter Pence."
Pence can hit -- but he can't hit balls pitched to Millbrae. If he tightens up his strike zone to just something CLOSE to the zone, the Giants will have a true #5 hitter to protect Buster Posey. If not, Posey could stop seeing pitches to hit, and Pence won't see a new contract.
. Can Posey keep being Posey?
Buster was the MVP last season -- and truly carried the Giants after the All-Star break, during which time he put up an obscene .423 BABIP. That translated to a .368 BABIP over the season, and while Buster is more likely to maintain that lofty level than Kevin Frandsen, it would be surprising if he were able to do so either.
Buster needs to cut down on his strikeouts a little and hit with a bit more power. It seems unlikely he will once again hit .336. He had a .394 batting average on fly balls, for crying out loud. That's over 100 points above the norm.
The Giants may not need Buster to be as good as last season. But they need him to be darn good.
. Is Brandon Belt finally there?
Belt finally hit .349 in August and .310 in September, although he did so with minimal power. This spring he's hitting, and he's hitting with power.
Which hitters made up for the late-season loss of Cabrera? The obvious two -- Posey and Scutaro -- but also Belt.
Even when he's not hitting, Brandon draws walks. If he hits a little, he'll get on base a LOT. If he also hits with power, look out!
. Can Pablo Sandoval bounce back?
Pablo has broken both hamate bones, so he has no more to break. That could allow his hitting to break back out, like it did when he hit a Ruthian three homers in the opener of the World Series.
Get Pablo hitting again and Belt finally hitting, and the Giants have a nice middle of the order. Add to it a five pence (as in Hunter hitting in the 5-hole), and suddenly the Giants' mid-order becomes one of the league's best.
. Can the bullpen be as good as last season?
Last season the bullpen put in a yeoman team effort after losing closer Brian Wilson. They slumped at midseason, but were very, very good early and late. Still, questions remain.
Can Sergio Romo handle the load as a full-time closer?
Can Santiago Casilla be a backup closer so Sergio's workload isn't overwhelming?
Will Jose Mijares get healthy after suffering bone chips in his elbow this spring?
Who will fill the 12th bullpen spot?
A bounceback from Lincecum could significantly improve the rotation. The bullpen needs to at least hold serve.
. Will the Giants have enough backup for the infield and outfield?
While far from overwhelming, the Giants seem to have at least a lot of contenders for their fifth outfield and sixth infield spots.
Brett Pill, Francisco Peguero and Cole Gillespie are among the former, while Wilson Valdez, Brock Bond, Nick Noonan and Kensuke Tanaka are among the latter.
Pill holds the only power bat among the group, but he is a far better first baseman than left fielder. Peguero is off to a great start to spring training and is likely the leader at the first turn.
Bond and Tanaka can get on base, but each has questions with the glove. Valdez has shown he can play in the bigs, and is likely the favorite at this time. Bond is off to the best start.
The Giants have Posey who will play some first base while resting from catching, and they have versatile backups in Andres Torres and Joaquin Arias. The candidates to back up those backups isn't exciting, but it shouldn't have to be.
To summarize: The Giants could potentially fall victim to the World Series hangover as they did to an extent in 2013, but they have several key players who could make substantial improvements, and there appears to be stability among their key players.
Marco Scutaro and others may not be able to keep up their 2012 pace, but Lincecum, Sandoval, Pence and Belt could buckle down and more than offset any decline from others.
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 7, 2013 19:41:55 GMT -5
There are certainly alot of question marks you've listed here. However, I think you're selling the Giants short making Posey a question mark. This is partly why I disagree with you so often, you look at other players around baseball with a twinkle in your eye, whereas you look at the Giants players in a very pessimistic way. If Posey didn't produce in 2013 it would be a surprise to everyone except Don. I think as Giants fans we've come to expect 20+ homeruns and 100+ rbis.
I don't really think Pence or Scutaro can be considered question marks either, they're proven ball players. Last spring Pence was with the Phillies and considered a run producer, 100 rbis and a Giants jersey later he's a question mark? Not sure about that one.
Scutaro's record of consistency speaks for itself. He may not be Marco of post-season fame, but he puts the bat on the ball.
Belt's production is a question, but where he's playing isn't, he's our starting first baseman and this is more than we knew about him this time last season.
Pablo has had the hamate bone issue, but now he has no more to break, and his time on the DL hasn't affected his playing when he is healthy. His weight is a slight issue, but not enough to make it a question mark going into the season.
I really only see 4 legitimate question marks going into 2013. Not 7. And only one seems like it will impact the Giants in a major way.
- Will the combination of Blanco, Torres and perhaps Peguero be a solid left fielder for us?
- Will Lincecum be the '08-'09, '10-'11 or the '12 Tim Lincecum? If he's anything but the 2012 Timmy, we'll be happy.
-Who will make up the rest of our bullpen? There are a few outlining issues with who will be the 12th, or perhaps even 13th pitcher in our pen, but neither role will make or break our bullpen. Another issue might be who will be our closer all year? Romo seems to have the job now, but it could change during the season. We know Casillia is capable, and we have enough solid lefties to survive with a bullpen by commitee. The good thing is we have enough proven relievers that if one or two of them aren't as sharp as we expect, we will still have a soild pen. If they're all healthy and pitching up to expectations, we likely have the best pen in baseball.
- Who will be our backup infielder to our backup infielder? Not a vital spot on a 25 man roster. Arias will get most of the playing time if needs be. Bond, Tanaka and Noonan seem to be in the running for this spot as of right now.
- 5th outfielder (if there is one)? Peguero seems to be making a strong case for himself, but if Torres and Blanco are both healthy and contributing, Peguero might find himself back in Fresno to get playing time. As much as I like what Peguero has done so far this spring, if they're going to keep Blanco and Torres, and both are healthy, I see the 25th spot more valuable as another bullpen arm.
Brett Pill might also have a shot for the 5th outfielder spot, but now that Belt is our starting first baseman and Posey and Sandoval can also play 1st, I see no need for a LF/1st base unless Pill can hit well. So far he's just shown he has a little pop with not much contact.
Overall, I see a team that has all their starting positions set in stone, a set rotation, and a pen that's got all it's main pieces.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 8, 2013 0:16:23 GMT -5
Boagie -- However, I think you're selling the Giants short making Posey a question mark. Rog -- In one sense, I agree with you completely. I certainly don't consider Buster to be a question mark. Except in one sense. In the sense that he is so important to the lineup that even a slight decline would be tough. By the way, I like Buster better than any player in the majors. Right now I'm looking at his picture -- along with those of Mike Trout and Bryce Harper -- on the cover of this month's Men's Health magazine. Kind of intriguing in a way. You've got the proven youngster ( Buster), the red hot rookie who hasn't gone through the potential of a sophomore slump (Trout), and the guy who has shown great promise since he was about 15 (Marc even talked about him.) and who is expected to fully blossom this year (Harper). Anyway, I think your comment is right on the money. I hope you understand my thinking in listing Buster as a question mark and that it was actually a huge compliment to him. As for what I think Buster will hit in the intermediate term, I think it will be at or close to his career average -- but that he'll walk more and hit for more power. Except for Barry Bonds, I think his swing is prettier to me than any other Giant -- including that of Will Clark. Willie Mays' swing was more exciting. But Buster's is more pure. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1603&page=1#9408#ixzz2MvD1Axnz |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 8, 2013 0:25:06 GMT -5
Boagie -- I don't really think Pence or Scutaro can be considered question marks either, they're proven ball players. Rog -- I've got to disagree on this one. Which Pence did the Giants get? The one who was a very fine hitter in the first half of last season -- or the wild swinger they had after they acquired him? Which Scutaro will the Giants get -- especially at the age of 38? Will it be the incredible Marco who played for them -- or the guy who couldn't hit outside Coors Field as a Rockie? My personal feeling is that the Pence the Giants will have is closer to the first-half guy. Unfortunately, I also think the Scutaro the Giants will have will also be closer to the guy of his first half of last season. At some point the pitchers are going to start getting the ball by Marco. When they do, he'll drop from an excellent contact hitter to just a very good one -- and eventually to only a good one. Once his contact rate and solidity begin to drop off even a little bit, his overall hitting ability could plunge. By the way, both Pence and Scutaro -- and especially Hunter -- are among my favorite Giants. It's just that I see question marks surrounding two of the more important players on the Giants. If both Pence and Scutaro have good seasons, I think the Giants will become very good offensively. If either one has a good year, they should be OK. But if neither gets the job done offensively -- and remember, expectations and requirements are high -- the Giants' offense could struggle to be much above average. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1603&page=1#ixzz2MvFo3xuR |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 8, 2013 0:30:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 8, 2013 0:37:00 GMT -5
Boagie -- Will Lincecum be the '08-'09, '10-'11 or the '12 Tim Lincecum? If he's anything but the 2012 Timmy, we'll be happy. Rog -- Man, I certainly won't be. For me to be happy, he'd at LEAST have to get back close to the 2010-2011 Timmy. I suppose I could live with anything below a four ERA, but I won't be happy unless it's below 3.50. I should have mentioned Barry Zito as a question mark, too. I'm more worried about him than Tim. On the other hand, I'm glad I wasn't among those who wanted Barry gone even if it meant releasing him. And I'm glad that I was able to point out that -- as crazy as it seemed until one looked into it -- the Giants might actually exercise Barry's $18 million option for 2014. I expect Barry to fall off some this season -- and for the Giants to perhaps try to keep him by not exercising the option but signing him for a lesser amount. If Barry has another good season this year though, the Giants would actually be ill-advised not to exercise the option. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1603&page=1#ixzz2MvJJ18vY |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 8, 2013 0:40:59 GMT -5
Boagie -- As much as I like what Peguero has done so far this spring, if they're going to keep Blanco and Torres, and both are healthy, I see the 25th spot more valuable as another bullpen arm. Rog -- Since starters usually don't go as far into games early in the season, I could see keeping a 13th pitcher at least for a while. If Tim can once again become a 7-inning pitcher instead of a 6-framer, he could take a lot of pressure off the bullpen. If Tim doesn't do so, the bullpen could get stretched when Tim is followed in the rotation by Barry. On the plus side, the Giants have a LOT of relievers pitching quite well this spring. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1603&page=1#ixzz2MvL7WZam |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 8, 2013 0:45:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 8, 2013 9:13:22 GMT -5
Which Pence did the Giants get? The one who was a very fine hitter in the first half of last season -- or the wild swinger they had after they acquired him?
Boagie- What he did with the Giants was a small sample. What he's done throughout his career is average .285, 25 hrs and 94 rbis. Even while with the Giants he managed to drive in 45 runs in 59 games.
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 8, 2013 9:34:25 GMT -5
Rog- Which Scutaro will the Giants get -- especially at the age of 38? Will it be the incredible Marco who played for them -- or the guy who couldn't hit outside Coors Field as a Rockie?
Boagie- I too was confused how Scutaro could be so good with the Giants, and so lousy with the Rockies, but then I heard what Jim Tracy said about Scutaro after he had success with the Giants. Perhaps you missed it.
From a USA Today article:
- His performance doesn't surprise former Rockies manager Jim Tracy, who swears Scutaro would have led the league in hitting if half the liners he hit fell in instead of finding opponents' gloves. As it was, he had the third-most hits in the NL with 190 and finished with a .306 average.
From SF Gate:
Rockies manager Jim Tracy thinks the world of Marco Scutaro, saying, "He's a great person on the field, a great person in the clubhouse."
It didn't surprise Tracy when he looked at a TV in the wake of the trade that sent Scutaro from the Rockies to Giants and noticed him playing third base. Even though Scutaro hadn't played third since 2008.
"He'll do anything you ask him to do," Tracy said. "He's a consummate professional."
Scutaro is hitting .322 in 59 at-bats as a Giant, and Tracy said, "There was not a guy who had more barrel of the bat on the ball than he did."
You would say this is bad luck, in this case I might tend to agree.
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 8, 2013 9:38:18 GMT -5
Rog -- Man, I certainly won't be. For me to be happy, he'd at LEAST have to get back close to the 2010-2011 Timmy. I suppose I could live with anything below a four ERA, but I won't be happy unless it's below 3.50.
Boagie- when I said "anything but the 2012 Timmy" I meant anything within the '08-'11 years. So we agree.
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 8, 2013 9:45:04 GMT -5
Rog- On the other hand, I'm glad I wasn't among those who wanted Barry gone even if it meant releasing him. And I'm glad that I was able to point out that -- as crazy as it seemed until one looked into it -- the Giants might actually exercise Barry's $18 million option for 2014.
Boagie- I believe if Barry gets 200 innings the option is automatically picked up. After the season I mentioned the possibility of the Giants picking up his option, and I believe it still might happen because Vogelsong and Lincecum will also be free agents.
Rog- I expect Barry to fall off some this season -- and for the Giants to perhaps try to keep him by not exercising the option but signing him for a lesser amount.
Boagie- This is probably more realistic.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 8, 2013 9:58:00 GMT -5
Rog -- Which Pence did the Giants get? The one who was a very fine hitter in the first half of last season -- or the wild swinger they had after they acquired him? Boagie- What he did with the Giants was a small sample. What he's done throughout his career is average .285, 25 hrs and 94 rbis. Even while with the Giants he managed to drive in 45 runs in 59 games. Rog -- That does offer a great deal of hope. Remember too that the guy hit .314 just a year ago. Still, it seems a natural question. It is likely that both Hunter and Marco will hit closer to their career averages. That would be a slight negative, but I think it is one we would take, since it would give the lineup better balance. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1603&page=1#9417#ixzz2Mxbb9tQx |
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 8, 2013 10:04:18 GMT -5
Boagie -- Overall, I see a team that has all their starting positions set in stone, a set rotation, and a pen that's got all it's main pieces.
Rog -- With the exception of left field, I agree with you.
Boagie- I had a feeling my comment might be questioned because of the Torres/Blanco platoon. But, we know that Blanco and Torres will be platooning, so theres not really much of a question there, at least for now.
But you're right, the starter in LF isn't set in stone because it will be a platoon. But I guess the idea of a platoon is set in stone, so either way, there's not alot of question marks going into next season. At least, not a significantly higher number than most championship teams have to deal with.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 8, 2013 10:07:19 GMT -5
Boagie -- From a USA Today article: - His performance doesn't surprise former Rockies manager Jim Tracy, who swears Scutaro would have led the league in hitting if half the liners he hit fell in instead of finding opponents' gloves. Rog -- I agree completely with what Tracy says about Marco's character, but the above statement is hyperbole. Marco hit .707 on line drives, meaning well over half the line drives he hit were hits. If taken literally and accurately, Tracy's desire for Marco would have HURT his average. By the way, the major league average on line drives is about .700. Tracy's comment had a real ring of truth to it,didn't it? After all, he's a highly respected manager who has nearly "seen it all." But his comment wasn't accurate. What WAS impressive about Marco is that he hit a LOT of line drives -- 25.8%, to be exact. The major league average is about 20%, and Marco's career average is 20.7%. It wasn't that Marco's line drives didn't fall in; it was that he hit so MANY of them. I won't go so far as to say not to believe what managers say. What I will suggest is to filter it. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1603&page=1#ixzz2MxcKBoEg |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 8, 2013 10:10:48 GMT -5
Boagie -- You would say this is bad luck, in this case I might tend to agree. Rog -- I would say it was probably bad luck if fewer than half Marco's line drives fell in, as Tracy suggested. We talk about "well, I saw it with my own eyes." Tracy believe he saw this with his own eyes, but he didn't. Jim didn't mean to lie, but his memory played tricks on him (or he got carried away in the moment). Stats don't lie. They often don't tell the whole truth, but they don't lie. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1603&page=1#ixzz2MxeYv6aJ |
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 8, 2013 11:22:01 GMT -5
Most of the guys you named as question marks will, if anything, get better. I would put Pence, Timmy, Belt, and possibly Blanco here. Guys who may fall off? Scutaro, Pagan, and possibly Zito.
Can Pablo stay healthy all year? That weight may be a problem. I'm not sure Romo will hold up all year either. I think Bochy's going to have to be very, very careful with him.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 8, 2013 14:08:31 GMT -5
Allen -- Most of the guys you named as question marks will, if anything, get better. I would put Pence, Timmy, Belt, and possibly Blanco here. Rog -- I think Pablo will show clear improvement, as well. Not sure about Gregor. As much as I like him, I was disappointed he struck out so much and didn't walk as much as usual. Allen -- Guys who may fall off? Scutaro, Pagan, and possibly Zito. Rog -- I think Angel has the best chance of holding steady, but I think it is likely all three will decline. Probably Ryan Vogelsong and the bullpen as well. Maybe Hector Sanchez. Perhaps Joaquin Arias. But the guys you mentioned, plus Pablo, should show clear improvement. Allen -- Can Pablo stay healthy all year? That weight may be a problem. I'm not sure Romo will hold up all year either. I think Bochy's going to have to be very, very careful with him. Rog -- Pablo's weight is still a concern, but I think everything about him will be healthier this season, including his average and isolated power. The Giants are already upset that Romo threw 28 pitches yesterday in the WBC (which I hate, by the way, although the concept is wonderful). The good news is that they can use Santiago Casilla as a 2nd closer. Casilla was actually pretty good in that role last season, despite a blister problem that derailed him at midseason. The Giants have other guys who could close, as well. But I do expect an overall dropoff from the pen. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1603&page=1#9428#ixzz2MybBixIN |
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 8, 2013 15:39:19 GMT -5
Rog -- I agree completely with what Tracy says about Marco's character, but the above statement is hyperbole.
Marco hit .707 on line drives, meaning well over half the line drives he hit were hits. If taken literally and accurately, Tracy's desire for Marco would have HURT his average.
By the way, the major league average on line drives is about .700.
Tracy's comment had a real ring of truth to it,didn't it? After all, he's a highly respected manager who has nearly "seen it all." But his comment wasn't accurate.
What WAS impressive about Marco is that he hit a LOT of line drives -- 25.8%, to be exact. The major league average is about 20%, and Marco's career average is 20.7%.
It wasn't that Marco's line drives didn't fall in; it was that he hit so MANY of them.
I won't go so far as to say not to believe what managers say. What I will suggest is to filter it.
Boagie: I think the point that I'm trying to make is Marco was hitting better for the Rockies than his numbers suggested. You said he couldn't hit outside of Coors field, but you only know that by the numbers. Jim Tracy knows the numbers AND saw every at-bat. From what we saw out of Scutaro when he came to the Giants it would appear that Tracy was correct and the stats in fact didn't tell the true story of how Scutaro was hitting.
I think you need to look at the fact that based on the numbers alone Scutaro might not have ended up in a Giants uniform. Based on just the numbers Scutaro appeared to be at the end of his Major League career. The stat geeks would have said no to a trade for Scutaro. This is why scouting is important and will never be replaced with a number.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 8, 2013 19:47:13 GMT -5
Boagie: I think the point that I'm trying to make is Marco was hitting better for the Rockies than his numbers suggested. Rog -- And you may be right. Usually though, hitters who play in Coors hit BETTER than they are -- not worse. Marco must have had all his bad luck with the Rockies outside Coors. At the time of the trade, he was hitting .304 at Coors but only .232 outside Coors. At the time of the trade, Marco's OPS+ of 73 was the lowest of his career (27% below average). Marco is a weird cat. The two highest averages of his career have come at age 35 (.299) and age 36 (.306). Three out of the past four seasons he has exceeded .280 -- the only times in his career he has done so. The projections I have seen not surprisingly expect the 37-year-old to decline. They project him to hit between .269 and .284, with an OPS between .680 and .732. Marco has certainly been surpassing the projections the past two seasons. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1603&page=1#9432#ixzz2Mzul2HJA |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 8, 2013 19:52:19 GMT -5
Boagie -- The stat geeks would have said no to a trade for Scutaro. This is why scouting is important and will never be replaced with a number. Rog -- A couple of things here, Boagie. First of all, according to Brian Sabean the Giants use analytics as well as scouting in their decisions. Secondly, I am clearly the most stats-oriented of our group, and I was definitely in favor of the trade. The Giants almost certainly got more than they had expected in the trade, just as they got less than expected in the Pence move and gave up more than they thought in Zack Wheeler. I will say this about Wheeler though. At the time of the trade, one unidentified source in the Giants organization said of Zack, "He's going to be a good one." Brian had said as recently as the beginning of that season that he wouldn't trade a top prospect for a rental, and now he knows why. I do think the Giants thought they would re-sign Beltran, and had they made the postseason and fared decently, they might well have done so. Beltran's money ultimately went to Pence. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1603&page=1#ixzz2N00e1KOH |
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 9, 2013 12:12:29 GMT -5
the WBC (which I hate, by the way, although the concept is wonderful).
Allen- Absolutely agree. I don't mind the competition, I just think it's the wrong time of year to have it. It takes the players away from spring training and exposes them to possible injuries that they won't have time to recover from prior to the regular season.
Also, the unique pitching rules alter the competition. Also, some of the players' team choices baffle me. Romo was born in the US, why is he pitching for Mexico?
Did watch the US play last night, (well, some of it) and it brought to mind something I think will happen this year. I think Totonto is really going to regret giving that big contract to RA Dickey. He got hit pretty hard last night, and his career doesn't really indicate that last year was anything but a fluke.
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 9, 2013 12:16:31 GMT -5
Rog -- A couple of things here, Boagie. First of all, according to Brian Sabean the Giants use analytics as well as scouting in their decisions. Secondly, I am clearly the most stats-oriented of our group, and I was definitely in favor of the trade.
Allen- What was the downside? The Giants gave up next to nothing for an experienced player who could play multiple positions and help them down the stretch.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 9, 2013 15:56:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 9, 2013 15:59:34 GMT -5
Rog -- A couple of things here, Boagie. First of all, according to Brian Sabean the Giants use analytics as well as scouting in their decisions. Secondly, I am clearly the most stats-oriented of our group, and I was definitely in favor of the trade. Allen- What was the downside? The Giants gave up next to nothing for an experienced player who could play multiple positions and help them down the stretch. Rog -- There was (and is) one potential downside to the deal (which otherwise as you correctly pointed out was very, very low risk). The potential downside was that the Giants would re-sign Marco and then have Marco not be able to play to his contract. But when the deal was made, it was really a no-brainer. The decision on whether to re-sign Marco came later. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1603&page=1#ixzz2N4v8tXwa |
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 9, 2013 17:07:57 GMT -5
Dickey's last three years have been OK, but as you say, he's 38 years old. He's also pitched those three years at Citi Field, a notorious pitcher's park. Toronto isn't that.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 10, 2013 12:26:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 10, 2013 13:04:34 GMT -5
I wouldn't say PBP is more pitcher-friendly than Citi Field, especially before they moved the fences in. Again, I don't think Dickey will have a particularly good year, certainly not good enough to justify what they're paying him.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 11, 2013 12:39:29 GMT -5
Allen -- I wouldn't say PBP is more pitcher-friendly than Citi Field, especially before they moved the fences in. Rog -- I have mentioned the three different periods of AT&T. When it opened it was a pitchers' park. About the time it stopped being Pac Bell, it became a somewhat fair park for a number of seasons. Then came the past two seasons, when it played 11% below average and 13% below average. That trend began to materialize the previous season, when it played 3% below average, after playing at 4% ABOVE average. Those four seasons -- +4%, -3%, -11% and -13% -- correspond with the four years of Citi Field. In its four season, the Mets' new park has played at -2%, -4%, -2% and -4%. During the four years of Citi Field, AT&T has been about twice as pitcher-friendly. Allen -- Again, I don't think Dickey will have a particularly good year, certainly not good enough to justify what they're paying him. Rog -- And while I don't agree with you, it is tough to judge knuckleball pitchers, so you could well be right. One thing I should mention is that in his 38-year-old season, Hoyt Wilhelm posted a 2.30 ERA (mostly in relief). Hoyt pitched until he was 49. Phil Niekro struggled slightly with a 4.03 ERA (which because pitched in an a HUGE hitters' park -- +17% STILL resulted in at ERA+ that was 11% better than average). Phil threw 330 innings and struck out 262 batters. Those guys, of course, were Hall of Famers. Wilbur Wood didn't even make it to age 38. But here is where we severly disagree. You said that Dickey's career hadn't shown anything that didn't indicate last year was a fluke. If last year was a fluke, then his last THREE seasons have been flukish. And you said that Dickey had been "okay" during those three seasons. He has arguably been better than than any Giants pitcher over that period, and the Giants' pitching has been their strength. As I said, I think you are likely wrong that the Blue Jays will regret their contract with Dickey (although you certainly could be right on this one). But for you to say that nothing in his career has shown that last season wasn't a fluke and that his last three seasons have been (just) "okay" flies in the face of the facts. And as I look more closely at Dickey's contract -- Do you even know what it IS? I thought it was bigger than it actually turned out to be. -- I think it is an excellent contract for the Jays. Dickey is basically being paid to be an average starter -- $25 million over two seasons. The Jays also hold a $12 million option for a third season. What do you know about Edwin Jackson? Personally, I like him. When you were one of two posters last season who suggested the Giants trade Tim Lincecum, Jackson was the pitcher I suggested they sign to "replace" Tim. But Jackson has been a league-average starter. His ERA+ -- both for last season and for his career -- is 2% below average, which makes it roughly average for a STARTING pitcher. Jackson just signed with the Cubs for 4/$52. Now, Jackson is nearly a decade younger than Dickey -- but he isn't a knuckle ball pitcher, either. Dickey has been FAR better the past three seasons than Jackson, and has pitched 60% more innings. So you've got the Blue Jays controlling Dickey for three seasons while the Cubs control Jackson for four. The Blue Jays have guaranteed Dickey $25 million, while the Cubs have guaranteed Jackson twice as much. The past three seasons Dickey has been one of the best pitchers in the majors. Jackson has been a bit better than league average. Dickey has been a horse. Jackson hasn't reached 190 innings in any of the three seasons, and has exceeded 125 just once. Jackson's contract is considered a decent one, perhaps slightly better than average. Dickey's is considered to be a good one -- in part because the contract is for only two seasons. I guess it comes down to how long Dickey can continue to throw the knuckle ball effectively. The biggest problem knuckle ballers usually have is controlling the dang pitch. The past three seasons Dickey has walked 2.2, 2.3 and 2.1 batters per nine. That's great control for ANY pitcher. Now I'm questioning that Dickey's contract isn't a good one more than before we started this discussion. You could well be right that Dickey will be a failure. But all he has to do to justify the contract is be a league average starter for two seasons. Given that he's been one of the best pitchers in the game over the past three seasons, why WOULDN'T we think it is likely that he will be at LEAST an average starter over the next two seasons? Dickey may indeed fail. But what is it NOW that would make us expect him to do so? Well, as you said, he has been lousy in spring training. Yet his stats are REMARKABLY similar to his 2010 spring training stats -- and 2010 became his first really good season. In 2010, Dickey gave up 5 runs, 9 hits and 3 walks in 5 innings, striking out 2. This year he has given up 5 runs, 8 hits and 1 walk in 5 innings, striking out 1. I guess that doesn't include his poor outing in the WBC this year. But really, Allen, what are you seeing that others aren't? Here's something for you to consider. When Dickey was struggling early in his career, he was throwing about 61% or 62% strikes. These past three seasons during which he has gotten good, he has thrown 66%, 67% and 69% strikes. The five projections at Fan Graphs for the 2013 season have his ERA between 3.10 and 3.99. The projections for Ryan Vogelsong range between 3.55 and 4.24. For Madison Bumgarner, 3.03 to 3.46. Matt Cain, 2.81 to 3.82. Tim Lincecum, 3.47 to 3.78. Barry Zito, 3.77 to 4.91. Dickey's projections are close to those of Cain and Bumgarner -- and better than any of the Giants' other three starters. I did find one bad trend for Dickey. His home runs have risen from 13 to 18 to 24. And last season he did give up more line drives and fly balls. But his swing-through percentage shot up from a career average of 8.8% to 12.2%. Tim Lincecum's percentage has never been higher than 11.8%. Again, Allen, what are you seeing here? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1603&page=1#9462#ixzz2NFMe51TM |
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 11, 2013 14:58:16 GMT -5
I just don't think he was worth the money they gave him. They're going to be paying this guy $12.5 million when he's 40. The guy knocked around his whole career until he got to the Mets. Frankly, I just don't think he's that good. The game he started in the WBC, they were just teeing off on him. Even the outs were hit very hard. Call it a hunch if you want to.
|
|
