|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 11, 2013 20:09:08 GMT -5
Allen -- 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. Rog -- I'll just call it a hunch then -- and as I mentioned, you certainly could be right. But I like logic behind my opinions. I found a lot of it when you suggested the Giants trade Tim last winter. I had no idea whatsoever that he would have such a clunker of a season, but I did feel it was very likely his trade value was higher than it would be again. And I could -- and did -- point to a variety of solid reasons why. I certainly don't dismiss your thoughts on Dickey, but I just can't find a reason for them. True, it took him a long time to develop, but it can take a long time to develop the knuckler. And yes, he'll be 40 (actually, 39, unless the Blue Jays either pick up his option or they go right down to the very last possible day of the 2014 postseason). But age doesn't seem to be nearly as important for knuckle ballers, who often peak much later than other pitchers. If we were talking about a three or four year contract for $20 million per season, I would have to agree with you. But Toronto is guaranteeing him just $25 million for two years. His ERA could rise by a full run over its level the past three seasons, and he would easily be worth his contract. Over the next TWO years, Dickey is going to make just a couple of million more than Tim Lincecum will make this season. If you were going to predict which of the two will fare better this season, which one would you choose? For me, it's a tough decision. That it's a tough decision speaks well to the strong comeback I expect from Tim. Regarding Tim, what I see him needing most is (in order): . Command, command, command. . A bounceback on his fastball speed, which will help his secondary pitches by creating more speed differential with them. . A return of the waterfall curve he had early in his career. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1603&page=1#9472#ixzz2NHa85Jbe
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Mar 12, 2013 14:18:14 GMT -5
When has a returning World Champion have so many question marks?
Dood - Only EVERY single one...if you want to pick nits. Nothing is guaranteed and there are so many variables in this game that even what seems near certain, is not so. That is true of every team every year no matter what the record was the previous season. Every team and every player has the ability to be better or worse than they had been previously.
Your desperation to "prove" that the Giants world championship was pure luck is laughable and sad. Just enjoy the ride and stop with the nonsense already.
~Dood
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Mar 12, 2013 15:50:18 GMT -5
To summarize: The Giants could potentially fall victim to the World Series hangover as they did to an extent in 2013,
Dood - this could very well be THE most stupid thing I've ever read on here. First of all, the Giants have not yet fallen victim in 2013 to the WS hangover, mostly because that season hasn't started yet. Secondly, if you meant that they fell victim to that in 2011, you would be grossly incorrect. They fell victim in 2011 to their best player going down with injury early in the season and not being able to quite overcome that. Before that injury, the team was leading the NL West and they continued to lead even after the injury until August, I believe...no hangover.
As my military friends would say...Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
~Dood
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 13, 2013 16:35:45 GMT -5
Rog -- When has a returning World Champion have so many question marks? Dood - Only EVERY single one...if you want to pick nits. Nothing is guaranteed and there are so many variables in this game that even what seems near certain, is not so. That is true of every team every year no matter what the record was the previous season. Every team and every player has the ability to be better or worse than they had been previously. Your desperation to "prove" that the Giants world championship was pure luck is laughable and sad. Just enjoy the ride and stop with the nonsense already. Rog -- Why do you post something out of context when it would have been so easy and honest to post the entire first paragraphs, which ended: 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. So, Randy, why do you make such off-the-mark comments when I said "the Giants were (good) in 2012" and that in 2013 "they could become even better."? It appears you are so dead set on putting my statements down that you don't bother to pay attention to what they actually say. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1603&page=1#ixzz2NSS8ZW8kRead more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1603&page=2#9503#ixzz2NSRkcmuo
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 13, 2013 16:51:27 GMT -5
To summarize: The Giants could potentially fall victim to the World Series hangover as they did to an extent in 2013, Dood - this could very well be THE most stupid thing I've ever read on here. First of all, the Giants have not yet fallen victim in 2013 to the WS hangover, mostly because that season hasn't started yet. Secondly, if you meant that they fell victim to that in 2011, you would be grossly incorrect. They fell victim in 2011 to their best player going down with injury early in the season and not being able to quite overcome that. Before that injury, the team was leading the NL West and they continued to lead even after the injury until August, I believe...no hangover Rog -- Once again, Randy, you have quoted only what you wanted to quote and not accurately depicted what I said, which was: 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. Gosh, Randy, I say of the Giants that "there appears to be stability among their key players" and go on to add that "Lincecum, Sandoval, Pence and Belt could buckle down and more than offset any decline from others." Does that sound like a put-down? As for your comment about the Giants' not making the playoffs due to Buster's becoming seriously injured, I agree with you that is part of the 2011 story. Other parts of the story included the Giants' being nearly bereft of help at the shortstop position, the utter collapse of Aubrey Huff, a big fall-off from Andres Torres, poor seasons from Cody Ross and Pat Burrell, a horrible and injury-shortened season from Barry Zito, and a rotation kept strong only by the totally unexpected bailout from Ryan Vogelson, who wasn't even on the roster to open the season. Boagie would add that Carlos Beltran failed the team after being acquired at the trade deadline, but I personally don't believe that to be the case. But were there enough negatives to indicate a not-unexpected hangover? Clearly there were. Of course, you don't bother to mention my post where I gave a handful of reasons why the Giants were far better prepared this time to avoid such a hangover in 2013. Basically, Randy, you seem to take things out of context and fail to include my comments that more than balance out the part you choose to quote. You're starting to become like Don. Almost never do I sound dumber than when you guys try to quote me. Don tends to be inaccurate, while you build your inaccuracy with the more subtle quoting of only the part you choose to quote to make your point. Read and understand the whole thing, Randy. Don't overreact simply because you want to put me down. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1603&page=1#ixzz2NST9GJWCRead more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1603&page=2#ixzz2NSSzbF9g
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Mar 13, 2013 17:41:00 GMT -5
only in your sick mind am I inaccurate....
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Mar 13, 2013 20:39:13 GMT -5
So, Randy, why do you make such off-the-mark comments when I said "the Giants were (good) in 2012" and that in 2013 "they could become even better."?
It appears you are so dead set on putting my statements down that you don't bother to pay attention to what they actually say.
Dood - because I am sick and tired of you and other yahoos saying the Giants won the WS only because they got lucky. So is Bochy. Regardless of how good a motivating factor it could be, it still is disrespectful and petty. The Giants were no luckier than any other WS champion. They earned it just like all the other championship teams did...end of story!
~Dood
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Mar 13, 2013 20:46:14 GMT -5
As for your comment about the Giants' not making the playoffs due to Buster's becoming seriously injured, I agree with you that is part of the 2011 story. Other parts of the story included the Giants' being nearly bereft of help at the shortstop position, the utter collapse of Aubrey Huff, a big fall-off from Andres Torres, poor seasons from Cody Ross and Pat Burrell, a horrible and injury-shortened season from Barry Zito, and a rotation kept strong only by the totally unexpected bailout from Ryan Vogelson, who wasn't even on the roster to open the season.
Boagie would add that Carlos Beltran failed the team after being acquired at the trade deadline, but I personally don't believe that to be the case.
But were there enough negatives to indicate a not-unexpected hangover? Clearly there were.
Dood - The word "hangover" has the connotation of a team having CHOKED, austensibly because they were overconfident and complacent following a championship. Since the team was right in the race, even leading the NL West for most of the season, it can't very truly be said that they did indeed choke. Losing their MVP catcher, on the other hand, is a far more tangible and credible explanation for the 2011 demise.
~ Dood
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 14, 2013 11:38:17 GMT -5
Rog- Boagie would add that Carlos Beltran failed the team after being acquired at the trade deadline, but I personally don't believe that to be the case.
Boagie- Rental players cannot pull themselves out of the lineup to figure out their problems in the batting cage to increase their offseason free agent market value while watching your team slip out of contention. Beltran proved to have a negative affect on the Giants hopes of returning to the post-season. Why do you think Sabean didn't even bother to call Beltran during the off-season?
I don't blame it all on Beltran. As Randy said, Ross, Burrell, Huff, Zito all had bad seasons, and of course the injury to Posey, and Sanchez didn't help either.
In Beltran's case, a rental player's job is to come in and add a burst of production down the stretch, Beltran played like shit for 2 or 3 weeks then went on the DL for a few more. It didn't really matter at that point what he did for the rest of the season because the Giants were already out of contention by the time Beltran decided he was ready to come back.
As far as recent Giants rental players go, he's perhaps the worst. Or at least tied with Orlando Cabrera.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 14, 2013 11:57:54 GMT -5
Dood - The word "hangover" has the connotation of a team having CHOKED
Rog -- Really? I went to the Free Online Dictionary, and right after the #1 connotation of having drunk too much is the #2 definition: "A letdown, as after a period of excitement."
No mention of choking. I am sometimes quite surprised as to what posters here THINK words mean as oppposed to what they truly do mean.
If you reread what I have written here and truly understood the meaning of all the words, I think you will come to quite a different conclusion than you already have.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 14, 2013 11:59:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 14, 2013 12:03:26 GMT -5
Boagie -- In Beltran's case, a rental player's job is to come in and add a burst of production down the stretch, Beltran played like shit for 2 or 3 weeks then went on the DL for a few more. It didn't really matter at that point what he did for the rest of the season because the Giants were already out of contention by the time Beltran decided he was ready to come back. Rog -- The Giants were hoping Carlos would help them make the playoffs and that he would then return and not be strictly a rental. Is it Carlos' fault that he became injured and that the Giants couldn't stay in the race for the two weeks he was out? If you look at Carlos' performance as a Giant, it was good. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1603&page=2#ixzz2NXCFrCr0
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 14, 2013 12:05:34 GMT -5
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Mar 14, 2013 12:18:51 GMT -5
Dood - The word "hangover" has the connotation of a team having CHOKED
Rog -- Really? I went to the Free Online Dictionary, and right after the #1 connotation of having drunk too much is the #2 definition: "A letdown, as after a period of excitement."
Dood - going to a free online dictionary could give you a very accurate definition of a word as it pertains to most obvious contexts...but it wont always tell you how the word is interpreted in a sports or baseball-specific context. Tell me if you find the term "World Series Hangover" in that online dictionary and I'm pretty sure the definition would vary to be quite more negative to the point of possibly being seen as a choke of sorts. Beyond that, I also did--and you deliberitely omitted from the context--the phrases overconfident and complacent following a championship.
When I hear someone referring to a potential WS Hangover, it tells me that person expects the team to play below its capability because they are drunk with overconfidence. Basically he's expecting them to gag.
~Dood
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 14, 2013 16:40:34 GMT -5
Dood - going to a free online dictionary could give you a very accurate definition of a word as it pertains to most obvious contexts...but it wont always tell you how the word is interpreted in a sports or baseball-specific context. Tell me if you find the term "World Series Hangover" in that online dictionary and I'm pretty sure the definition would vary to be quite more negative to the point of possibly being seen as a choke of sorts. Beyond that, I also did--and you deliberitely omitted from the context--the phrases overconfident and complacent following a championship. When I hear someone referring to a potential WS Hangover, it tells me that person expects the team to play below its capability because they are drunk with overconfidence. Basically he's expecting them to gag. Rog -- So in other words, I'm wrong because I used the word "hangover" to mean what it is in the dictionary. And I'm wrong because I didn't include the words "choked, gag, complacent and overconfident," even though they were your words not mine? So I'm wrong because I used the dictionary meaning instead of your own personal meaning. I think I'm beginning to catch on now. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1603&page=2#9547#ixzz2NYIpSbXX
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Mar 14, 2013 16:53:51 GMT -5
Rog -- So in other words, I'm wrong because I used the word "hangover" to mean what it is in the dictionary. And I'm wrong because I didn't include the words "choked, gag, complacent and overconfident," even though they were your words not mine? So I'm wrong because I used the dictionary meaning instead of your own personal meaning.
Dood - No...you're wrong because what I said is that "World Series Hangover" is used in a slightly different way from a normal hangover.
I think I'm beginning to catch on now.
Dood - I certainly hope so...been waiting for it for years.
~Dood
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 14, 2013 21:14:59 GMT -5
Rog -- So in other words, I'm wrong because I used the word "hangover" to mean what it is in the dictionary. And I'm wrong because I didn't include the words "choked, gag, complacent and overconfident," even though they were your words not mine? So I'm wrong because I used the dictionary meaning instead of your own personal meaning.
Dood - No...you're wrong because what I said is that "World Series Hangover" is used in a slightly different way from a normal hangover.
Rog -- I'm sorry I used the word hangover the way it is written.
Here is a nice story from Yahoo.com about the Giants and the World Series Hangover. It mentions "lapse of concentration" and even "out of shape," but never does it mention "choked or gag." I would say the comment on Aubrey Huff does imply "complacent and overconfident," particularly the former.
But apparently this writer views "World Series Hangover" closer to the way I view it than to the way you do. I don't think you choked or gagged on this one, but I do think you allowed your desire to put me down get in the way of your fairness and better judgment.
Regardless, not a bad article.
The San Francisco Giants will begin their title defense on April 1 versus the Los Angeles Dodgers. But before then, Giants' skipper Bruce Bochy must make sure the team doesn't fall victim to a lapse in concentration.
The 2011 Giants became the fifth team since the 2003 Angels to miss out on the playoffs the year after winning the World Series. While many attribute the Giants unfortunate turnover solely on the injury to Buster Posey, a host of other reasons may be relevant as well.
While reaching the Commissioner's Trophy is the ultimate goal, many who reach that plateau might take their eyes off the prize. Aubrey Huff arrived in Scottsdale, Ariz. in 2010 in excellent shape, hungry to make a positive contribution. He was a catalyst on the future world champs leading the team in home runs, RBIs and OBP. After receiving a new contract he entered Arizona out of shape and found himself riding the bench for much of the season.
The 2013 Giants have similar issues to contend with. Third baseman Pablo Sandoval and catcher Hector Sanchez have reportedly both come back in less than stellar condition. Bochy is asking both players for an increase in their conditioning workload to shed a few pounds prior to opening day.
Straight out of left field
The Giants roster remains largely the same as it did a year before. The starting rotation is untouched, as is the case with the infield. However left field and the bullpen may be the areas of focus during spring training. According to Alex Pavlovic of the San Jose Mercury News, Brett Pill is ramping up his efforts to claim the corner outfield spot. With Brandon Belt blocking his path to first base, Pill has shown up to Arizona with an outfielder's glove and plans to give it his full attention. Also with Andres Torres and Angel Pagan spending time away from camp for the WBC, Pill is all but guaranteed an increased workload. The same can be said for top prospect Gary Brown, who will be given ample opportunities to impress the big league club.
When all is said and done, the bullpen may be the most significantly changed aspect of the 25 man roster. CSNBayArea.com Insider Andrew Baggarly is reporting that free-agent closer Brian Wilson and Giants' General Manager Brian Sabean are still at "square one." After Wilson's second Tommy John surgery, Sabean remains steadfast that an incentive-laden contract would be best, however agent Dan Lozano disagrees. It's believed that Wilson will not return to the club in 2013.
Interim closer Sergio Romo is ready and willing to reclaim the position full time going forward. According to Henry Schulman of the Chronicle, Romo needs to prove he is durable enough to handle the role this year. Knowing Romo's admiration for his slider, Bochy will be cautious with the 29-year-old righty in order to limit the strain put on his arm.
Other bullpen names to keep an eye out for during spring training include former Giants Boof Bonser, Ryan Sadowski, Ramon Ramirez and prospects Heath Hembree and Michael Kickham.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Mar 14, 2013 23:33:28 GMT -5
Rog -- I'm sorry I used the word hangover the way it is written.
Dood - no worries...you're probably drinking too much.
Yahoo - While many attribute the Giants unfortunate turnover solely on the injury to Buster Posey, a host of other reasons may be relevant as well.
Dood - maybe so, but the Giants were, in fact, in first place when Posey went down, hinting that a "lapse in concentration" was in no way evident.
~Dood
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 15, 2013 11:32:05 GMT -5
Rog -- Let's differentiate between the player and the deal. Beltran played far better for the Giants than Hunter Pence did this past season. But the Giants gave up little besides Tommy Joseph for Hunter; they gave up what is now one of the top prospects in the game to acquire Carlos.
Boagie- I'm not even really considering whom they were traded for. It's not Beltran's fault that we traded Zack Wheeler for him. And, to be quite honest, If we had traded Wheeler for what Pence gave us down the stretch I'd be more accepting of the trade. So trying to act like I'm just sore about losing Wheeler isn't flying.
Hunter Pence came here and did his job, he protected Posey and drove in 45 rbis in 59 games down the stretch.
Beltran in the end had a good ops, but his production from the time we traded for him to the end of the season was almost non-existent.
In retrospect, I think if we had gotten Hunter Pence's production as a Giant in 2011 instead of Beltran, our chances of making the playoffs would have been better.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 15, 2013 12:50:45 GMT -5
Boagie- I'm not even really considering whom they were traded for. It's not Beltran's fault that we traded Zack Wheeler for him. And, to be quite honest, If we had traded Wheeler for what Pence gave us down the stretch I'd be more accepting of the trade. So trying to act like I'm just sore about losing Wheeler isn't flying. Rog -- I didn't mean to imply that you were sore about the trade simply because they lost Wheeler. What I was implying was that perhaps you should be only for that reason. Hunter Pence came here and did his job, he protected Posey and drove in 45 rbis in 59 games down the stretch. Boagie -- Beltran in the end had a good ops, but his production from the time we traded for him to the end of the season was almost non-existent. Rog -- Carlos didn't do a great job of driving in runs for the Giants, but he also had half as many runners in scoring position and on base as Hunter did. The primary reason Hunter drove in over 100 runs on the season is that he had the most runners to drive in of any hitter. The biggest difference between the two players is that Carlos made only 122 outs compared to Hunter's 178. You just aren't going to find many who will agree with you that Hunter has played better for the Giants than Carlos did. And there's a reason why. Boagie -- In retrospect, I think if we had gotten Hunter Pence's production as a Giant in 2011 instead of Beltran, our chances of making the playoffs would have been better. Rog -- Given how many more outs Hunter made, I don't think many would agree with you. When one looked at the results of 2011, he was forced to consider that Beltran and his .323 average played better than they realized. Whereas when one looked at how Hunter hit over 100 points lower and struck out only out of every 3.6 at bats, he had to wonder how the heck Hunter drove in as many runs as he did. The answer, of course, was that he had so many more runners to drive in. When is the last time a guy who hit .219 outplayed a guy at the same position who hit .323? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1603&page=2#9569#ixzz2Nd7RjZ00
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 15, 2013 13:14:53 GMT -5
Coincidentally, the concept of the World Champion hangover came up on the Sharks' telecast last night, primarily because they were playing the defending champion LA Kings.
Sharks analyst Bret Hedican won a ring with the Carolina Hurricanes. When asked about the "hangover," he replied that you tried to avoid it but that it was hard to do so. The Hurricanes fell from a 55-22-8 record to just 40-34-8.
The Kings themselves were said to be suffering from a bit of a hangover this season. Since the season started so late, the announcers were saying that there was no reason for physical fatigue, but that it was hard to avoid mental fatigue.
Now, Hedican admitted his team suffered from the hangover. Don't you think he would have been defensive if hangover meant "choke" and :gag" as you indicated?
My suggestion to you is that it isn't fair to criticize me for having a different definition of the word "hangover" than you do. Especially when the indications are that my definition is at LEAST as accurate as yours.
The dictionary indicates a hangover is a letdown after a period of excitement. What, you didn't think winning the World Series in 2010 was a period of excitement?
Bruce Bochy spoke that he felt the Giants didn't suffer a 2011 hangover. “They weren’t full of themselves or getting a little smug or caught up in all the attention, which they’ve earned,” he said. He didn't go on to add something like, "We certainly didn't choke or gag." That's likely because he -- and most -- don't associate the hangover with gagging, but rather with a letdown.
Aside from you, Randy, I think most associate letdown and complacency with a World Championship hangover -- not choking and gagging.
Perhaps you can show us references to such a hangover involving "choking" and "gagging." Otherwise you might want to at least consider the possibility that you are being pigheaded here.
In fact, by criticizing me for having a different definition of the word than you do, you pretty much ARE being pigheaded. I wouldn't go so far though as to say that you gagged or choked.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 15, 2013 13:27:33 GMT -5
Randy -- When I hear someone referring to a potential WS Hangover, it tells me that person expects the team to play below its capability because they are drunk with overconfidence. Basically he's expecting them to gag. Rog -- Most consider a World Series hangover something that is hard to avoid. They look at it as a letdown -- but gagging? Anyway, you have your definition, and I'll have mine. But don't be criticizing me for mine. That's just dumb. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1603&page=2#ixzz2NdLXUGQV
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 15, 2013 13:34:47 GMT -5
Dood - No...you're wrong because what I said is that "World Series Hangover" is used in a slightly different way from a normal hangover. Rog -- This is illogical, Randy. I could possibly be wrong because "World Series hangover" truly IS used in a slightly different way than a normal hangover, but not because that is what you SAID. Oh, and I fully agree with you that a sports hangover is different than a drinking hangover. But whereas a drinking hangover may indeed have followed choking, gagging and throwing up, the sports hangover doesn't have to involve any of those things. Again, show us where you have even seen sports hangover and choked or gagged used together. Does one have to have suffered a sports hangover to choke or gag? No. Does one have to have choked or gagged to have suffered a sports hangover? Again, no. Sometimes it is a good idea to realize that you don't define the world, Randy. Other times it is a good idea to realize you don't define the world. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1603&page=2#ixzz2NdOfxPWP
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 15, 2013 13:46:52 GMT -5
Rog- You just aren't going to find many who will agree with you that Hunter has played better for the Giants than Carlos did. And there's a reason why.
Boagie- I would be surprised if that were the case. I'll say again... Beltran sat his ass on the bench nursing an injury so that he could come back 100% and bolster his stats going into free agency, while the Giants slipped in the standings. He cared more about his contract than he did about winning. If you don't see that you're blind my friend. Beltran is soft. Just this last post-season he pulled himself out of the game after he tried to run out a grounder..He showed no noticeable limp while running down the line or going back to the dugout. To me, if I were a Cardinals fan, I'd consider that unforgiveable.
I understand why you like Beltran, Rog, on paper he looks good because that's how he's managed his career. Playing it safe, and trying to maximize his production to better suit himself and his lavish lifestyle. Taking himself out of the lineup when things are going bad, or when he has an owwie. He's a contract guy, much like Ray Durham was.
Hunter Pence on the other hand is a ball player, you give me 25 Hunter Pences and I'll give you a Championship, 25 Beltrans and you have the NY Mets, who are now trying to recover their franchise and get back to a respectable level.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Mar 15, 2013 15:24:31 GMT -5
I like Pence but the #s don't lie...with the Giants in 2011, Beltran was .323/.369/.920. With the Giants last year, Pence was .219/.287/.671.
Beltran was better and it wasn't even close. The fact is if Beltran's Giants had Scutaro, Pagan and especially a healthy Posey, anyone who even questioned if Pence was better than Beltran would be laughed off this board.
~Dood
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 15, 2013 20:48:52 GMT -5
Rog -- Carlos didn't do a great job of driving in runs for the Giants, but he also had half as many runners in scoring position and on base as Hunter did.
Boagie: And Hunter drove in MORE than twice as many runs as Beltran, scored more runs, and played in more games. Thus making Hunter MORE valuable to the 2012 Giants than Beltran was to the 2011 Giants.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 15, 2013 20:55:55 GMT -5
Randy- Beltran was better and it wasn't even close. The fact is if Beltran's Giants had Scutaro, Pagan and especially a healthy Posey, anyone who even questioned if Pence was better than Beltran would be laughed off this board
Boagie- Would that have magically made Beltran not slump and nurse his wrist?
I know Pence had a poor average, and ops and all that jazz, but the fact is he came here to drive in runs behind Posey, and he did that. Beltran came here to keep us in first place, he shit the bed then went on the DL, then after we were basically out of the race he decided to hit. Hunter did his Job, Beltran didn't, end of story.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Mar 15, 2013 21:04:07 GMT -5
Come on Boagie I know you're smarter than this. Beltran hit over 100 points higher, got on base over 80 points higher and his OPS was 250 points higher. You're really going to try to convince me that a guy hitting that much worse than someone else didnt have a whole lot more help around him in the order to get his RBI? That's like Nancy Pelosi trying to convince us that Obama is the most bipartisan president in history.
And the way you tell it, you make it sound like Beltran was on the DL by choice...that's just absurd.
~Dood
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 16, 2013 0:34:09 GMT -5
Call me crazy, Randy. I guess I believe in people doing the job they were hired to do. Beltran wasn't brought here to slump, go on the DL and then start hitting when it's too late. I have always appreciated players who do their best when it matters most, Beltran wasn't that guy with the Giants.
Funny you should mention Obama, I see somewhat of a simularity between Obama and Beltran. Both were hired to do a job, and neither one managed to achieve the main objective. Obama has focused on everything other than fixing the economy and creating jobs, and Beltran focused on everything other than the Giants winning games.
Obama has actually achieved alot of the other things that was on his agenda, and Beltran achieved what he wanted, another contract. But both failed miserably with their task they were hired to do. People who are blindly impressed by hollow stats would appreciate both Obama and Beltran. People who prefer the content of what people achieve, would not be impressed by either.
Fortunately for the Giants we won't have to endure 8 years of Beltran.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Mar 16, 2013 9:32:46 GMT -5
Boagie -- Hunter Pence on the other hand is a ball player, you give me 25 Hunter Pences and I'll give you a Championship, 25 Beltrans and you have the NY Mets, who are now trying to recover their franchise and get back to a respectable level. Rog -- 25 Hunter Pence's playing as he played for the Giants last season? No way. When is the last time you heard of a team even making the playoffs with a .219 batting average? 25 Hunter Pence's the way he's played over his career? Then you've got a good shot. As for Beltran, I'm not sure you've followed his injury history, but it all went south on him AFTER he signed his 7/$119 contract. He badly injured his knee or hamstring, but played through it. In 2004, he had a .915 OPS and stole 42 bases while being caught only 3 times. He was the hero of the 2004 postseason. After signing with the Mets, he played in 151 games, but his OPS dropped to an uncharacteristic .744 and he stole only 17 bases while being thrown out 6 times. Carlos went from a guy stealing 40 bases a year at a 90% clip to a guy stealing half as many. His balky knee limited him to 81 games in 2009 and 64 in 2010. When traded to the Giants in 2011, he had missed only something like 3 games despite being limited by a cumbersome knee brace. I believe that I read that he was forced to spend a long, long time getting his knee ready for games. Actually, I just looked it up. Against the Mets' wishes, Carlos had knee surgery after the 2009 season. The Mets even threatened to void his contract should the surgery go awry. He bounced back strongly in 2011 even though the surgeon who fixed his knee was surprised he could play at all at that point and felt in the future Carlos would have to cut back to three or four games a week. The article said mentioned that despite this, a year and a half after the surgery Beltran had actually become the most durable Met. With Knee Repaired, Carlos Beltran Erases Doubts - NYTimes.com www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/sports/baseball/with-knee-... I am surprised that you have been shooting off the top of your head on this one, Boagie. If we're going to cxriticize someone, we should endeavor to find the facts before doing so. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1603&page=2#9575#ixzz2NiDMw4KT
|
|