|
|
Post by sharksrog on Apr 2, 2013 11:58:02 GMT -5
Intriguing -- if undefining -- snippet from Alex Pavlovic:
Bochy was told that out of 43 ESPN experts, exactly zero picked the Giants to repeat. “That changes everything,” he joked, adding that he might have to call a team meeting to inform his troops. (He was joking, but I wouldn’t put it past some of the motivational speakers down there to point this out.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Apr 2, 2013 12:34:34 GMT -5
Nobody picked the Giants to repeat on the MLB Network either. The question is how many picked them in 2012, or 2010, and why are they still being called experts when the only thing they're expert at is being wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Apr 2, 2013 13:30:47 GMT -5
Boagie -- Nobody picked the Giants to repeat on the MLB Network either. The question is how many picked them in 2012, or 2010, and why are they still being called experts when the only thing they're expert at is being wrong? Rog -- The 2010 Giants are an excellent example of how hard it is to pick the World Series winner. When the season ended, they had Buster Posey, Madison Bumgarner, Chris Ray, Javier Lopez, Ramon Ramirez, Cody Ross, Pat Burrell and Mike Fontenot on the team. All but Ray were playing important roles. Posey and Mad Bum could have been anticipated, but none of the rest. The Giants entered the season with bargain basement pickups over the past two winters such as Aubrey Huff, Juan Uribe, Andres Torres, Santiago Casilla, Guillermo Mota, Brandon Medders, Todd Wellemeyer and Waldis Joaquin. That's right. Wellemeyer began the season as the 5th starter, and Medders and Joaquin were in the opening day bullpen. Jonathan Sanchez and Barry Zito were the #3 and #4 starters. Aaron Rowand played the most center field, and batted .230. Nate Schierholtz was the primary right fielder, batting .242. Pablo Sandoval had the worst season of his career. Freddy Sanchez was unavailable for the postseason. The Giants made the playoffs on the last day of the season and were underdogs in each of the three postseason rounds they played. How in the world would anyone in his right mind -- or even right-handed -- have predicted with any type of decent analysis to win the World Series? It's hard enough to predict which team will be the best team over the course of the season. And how often does the best team win the World Series? It's no wonder the "experts" don't get it right very often. By the way, my choice this season is the Washington Nationals. I would say they might have as good as a one-in-five chance of winning it. I can't think of any other team with a better shot. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1629&page=1#9973#ixzz2PKTnC6mE |
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Apr 2, 2013 16:07:59 GMT -5
You're just focusing on the question marks and negatives. I know going into the 2010 season there were expectations within the Giants ownership/management that they would compete. I know I felt it too. Afterall, they were 14 games over .500 in 2009, and our two biggest prospects were on schedule to arrive in S.F. sometime in 2010.
Their pitching was great, Tim and Matt were one of the best if not the best 1-2 punch in the game. Sanchez was on the rise (we hoped) Barry was a decent for being a bottom of the rotation guy and Wellemeyer, while I didn't like him, was established as a decent pitcher and had a very nice spring. At the same time we knew Bumgarner would find his way to the roatation if someone got injured or crapped out, and that's what happened. It would have been fairly easy to predict success from this rotation.
Brian Wilson was an established closer. Affeldt was coming off a career year. Romo, Joaquin, and Runzler were all young and showing good signs. Medders was great in 2009. Solid bullpen.
There was a lot to be optimistic about going into 2010, as far as the pitching was concerned.
Hitting was entirely different, we weren't going to put up a ton of runs.
However, Sandoval had a monster year in 2009, and Molina has solidified himself into the middle of the lineup.
We also added Mark DeRosa to our offense, which was a fairly news worthy signing at the time.
Torres had already showed that he could be of value, playing really well in 2009.
Freddy Sanchez came over late in 2009.
There weren't a ton of expectations for Huff, but he was still a soild veteran.
Overall, while it was far from a sure bet of them competing in the post season, you'd have to at least consider them. I know I did, and I have no "expert" credentials. But I get it, I would have been shocked if anyone in the media had predicted them to win it in 2010, mainly because they're a pack of morons that focus on sparkly colorful things rather than structure. If you asked the same morons why the Yankees dominated in the late 90's early 2000's their eyes would glaze over and they're say "Jeeeeterrr" while rubbing themselves. They understand what makes headlines, but they still can't grasp what makes a good team.
In 2012 I would have even been more shocked if they'd been picked, because I wouldn't have picked them either. Posey was coming back from a major injury. Wilson has some injury issues. Huff was terrible in 2011. Torres, Ross, Burrell, and Sanchez were gone. Barry Zito seemed to be on the edge of being released. Wasn't looking very good.
I was trying to be optimistic but it was hard. I was shocked they made the post-season so easily. After they beat the Reds I saw another WS title being a possibility. Not many picked them against the Cardinals, but the Cardinals were the defending WS champs so they got the respect. I wish the Giants would get the same respect now, and after 2010.
After we beat the Cardinals it was a sealed deal for me. Yet, nobody in the media except maybe Eric Byrnes picked them to beat Detroit.
After two World Series Championships I would have figured they'd now get the respect, but nope. Their main picks are now the Nationals and the Tigers or Angels. No mention of the Giants. I've grown to accept this, I don't like it, but I accept it.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Apr 2, 2013 18:11:17 GMT -5
Boagie -- Overall, while it was far from a sure bet of them competing in the post season, you'd have to at least consider them. I know I did, and I have no "expert" credentials. But I get it, I would have been shocked if anyone in the media had predicted them to win it in 2010, mainly because they're a pack of morons that focus on sparkly colorful things rather than structure. If you asked the same morons why the Yankees dominated in the late 90's early 2000's their eyes would glaze over and they're say "Jeeeeterrr" while rubbing themselves. They understand what makes headlines, but they still can't grasp what makes a good team. Rog -- I was with you after the first two sentences, Boagie, in that one should consider almost ANY team if he is going to make a projection. After that you either get humorous or go far overboard. You are right about the hitting, although perhaps you overstate the pitching. A staff that began the season with Wellemeyer in the rotation (as well as Barry Zito -- 4.53, 5.15 and 4.03 ERA's the previous three seasons), and had Brandon Medders (1.38 WHIP), Danny Bautista (1.61 WHIP) and Santiago Casilla (1.78 WHIP) couldn't be considered a staff about which to be optimistic, could it? Not that the pitching turned OUT poorly (which it didn't), but that one could look at it optimistically going into the season. One could have anticipated the addition of Mad Bum (although perhaps not pitching as well as he did), but how would one have foreseen the career turnaround of Casilla, or the addition of Ray, Lopez and Ramirez (who combined for an ERA of about two)? Regarding the hitting, I did feel a confidence in Huff, who had been an every-other-year guy who was very good in the even years, but I could easily have been wrong (not that THAT has ever happened before.  I liked Torres too, but he was still unproven. Freddy Sanchez's health was an issue, Bengie Molina wasn't good enough to command a multi-year contract (He would be out of baseball at the end of the postseason.), and the outfield was weak. The Giants were coming off an 88-win season, and hadn't done much to improve themselves. Their only big-dollar acquistion in the offseason had been Mark DeRosa, and as Boly correctly pointed out, the type of wrist injury Mark was coming off was one he couldn't be expected to bounce strongly back from. De Rosa wound up hitting .194 with no power. To predict them to win the World Series was to be in position to have made a LOT of money in Las Vegas. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1629&page=1#9998#ixzz2PLhosw3D |
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Apr 2, 2013 18:53:46 GMT -5
Rog- You are right about the hitting, although perhaps you overstate the pitching. A staff that began the season with Wellemeyer in the rotation (as well as Barry Zito -- 4.53, 5.15 and 4.03 ERA's the previous three seasons), and had Brandon Medders (1.38 WHIP), Danny Bautista (1.61 WHIP) and Santiago Casilla (1.78 WHIP) couldn't be considered a staff about which to be optimistic, could it?
Boagie- Not when you focus on the negatives, no. Was any of the pitchers you mentioned here the core performers of our staff? You didn't mention our best three pitchers in the rotation (Sanchez, Cain and of course Lincecum who was coming off two straight Cy Youngs), our left handed specialist at the time (Affeldt), our setup guy (Romo)who had an incredible strikeout rate in 2009, and Brian Wilson who had 38 saves the previous year. That bullpen and staff would rival many in today's game, and pitching has evolved quite a bit since just 3 years ago. Now, unless you have 3 frontline starters, and a solid bullpen, your chances of going far in the post season is slim to nil. Care to guess why? I'd gather that Cox, Manuel, Washington, Baker, Matheny and Leland might be able to tell you why.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Apr 2, 2013 18:53:46 GMT -5
Boagie -- In 2012 I would have even been more shocked if they'd been picked, because I wouldn't have picked them either. Posey was coming back from a major injury. Wilson has some injury issues. Huff was terrible in 2011. Torres, Ross, Burrell, and Sanchez were gone. Barry Zito seemed to be on the edge of being released. Wasn't looking very good. Rog -- I can't remember for sure that I picked the Giants to win the NL West, but there was reason to be optimistic IIRC. I expected a decline from Tim, but not to nearly the extent it occurred. I thought Barry would bounce back some. I didn't think Melky would do nearly as well as he did, but I expected a good year from Pagan. I thought Belt would do better, although I wasn't expecting nearly as much improvement from Crawford as he got. I expected more from Sandoval than they received. I thought the bullpen would decline, but not radically. I wasn't all that concerned about the loss of Wilson, since I thought the Giants had enough to cover for him. I think I did predict the NL West for the Giants (although I'm not positive), but I know I didn't pick them to be World Champions. As you point out though, it wasn't all that easy to predict a great deal of success for the Giants. I do remember pointing out that I had seen a Bleacher Report prediction that rated the Nationals and Reds ahead of the Giants. That was viewed in some circles as East Coast bias, but it did turn out that each team won more regular season games than the Giants, and each was or would have been favored over the Giants in the postseason. IIRC I overpredicted the Giants in 2011, although I'm pretty sure I didn't pick them to repeat. But whether it's you or me or some other fan, it's not all that easy to predict -- in part because we don't really know the other teams all that well. But even to predict the Giants is tough. To give us an idea of how difficult it is to predict, how many of us would have predicted the Giants would have more offense AFTER Melky was suspended than before it? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1629&page=1#ixzz2PLozZdas |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Apr 2, 2013 19:03:07 GMT -5
Boagie -- After we beat the Cardinals it was a sealed deal for me. Yet, nobody in the media except maybe Eric Byrnes picked them to beat Detroit. Rog -- Let's stop to consider the facts we knew at that time: . The Giants had been forced to bounce back from the brink in each of their first two series and didn't have their rotation set up the way they would have liked. . Madison Bumgarner had yielded 10 earned runs in 8 innings, but would have to be included in the rotation because Tim Lincecum had also bombed as a starter. . The Tigers' rotation was well set up, including having Justin Verlander available for as many as three games should the series go seven. . Verlander enjoyed a big season's edge over any Giants pitcher, and the rest of the rotation was closer to the Giants' than one would have anticipated. . Detroit was 7-2 in postseason play, while the Giants had twice barely avoided elimination. . The Giants did enjoy the home field advantage, and Detroit was virtually without a closer. You can't see why the Tigers were favored? Remember, those betting on the game have their pocketbooks as their primary interest, and they certainly thought the Tigers would win. Were the Giants actually favored in ANY series in 2010 or 2012? I would think they were favored against the Cardinals, but I'm pretty sure they were underdogs in the other five series. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1629&page=1#ixzz2PLyGhnUo |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Apr 2, 2013 19:05:12 GMT -5
Boagie -- You didn't mention our best three pitchers in the rotation (Sanchez, Cain and of course Lincecum who was coming off two straight Cy Youngs), our left handed specialist at the time (Affeldt), our setup guy (Romo)who had an incredible strikeout rate in 2009, and Brian Wilson who had 38 saves the previous year. Rog -- Your point here is a good one. But the Giants' offense entering 2010 was highly suspect. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1629&page=1#ixzz2PM0mNUr3 |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Apr 2, 2013 19:12:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Apr 3, 2013 10:50:01 GMT -5
Boagie -- After we beat the Cardinals it was a sealed deal for me. Yet, nobody in the media except maybe Eric Byrnes picked them to beat Detroit.
Rog -- Let's stop to consider the facts we knew at that time:
. The Giants had been forced to bounce back from the brink in each of their first two series and didn't have their rotation set up the way they would have liked.
. Madison Bumgarner had yielded 10 earned runs in 8 innings, but would have to be included in the rotation because Tim Lincecum had also bombed as a starter.
. The Tigers' rotation was well set up, including having Justin Verlander available for as many as three games should the series go seven.
. Verlander enjoyed a big season's edge over any Giants pitcher, and the rest of the rotation was closer to the Giants' than one would have anticipated.
. Detroit was 7-2 in postseason play, while the Giants had twice barely avoided elimination.
. The Giants did enjoy the home field advantage, and Detroit was virtually without a closer.
You can't see why the Tigers were favored? Remember, those betting on the game have their pocketbooks as their primary interest, and they certainly thought the Tigers would win.
Were the Giants actually favored in ANY series in 2010 or 2012? I would think they were favored against the Cardinals, but I'm pretty sure they were underdogs in the other five series.
Boagie- First off, I just looked up the predictions for that series and it looks like the Cardinals were the easy favorite by many. Your buddy, baseball "expert" John Sheehan picked the Cardinals in 5.
Joe Sheehan
The Cardinals are the better team and have an excellent offense. Aside form Matt Cain, who can pitch just one of the first five games, the Giants' starters have been shaky.
CARDINALS IN FIVE.
Apparently Sheehan doesn't agree with your assesment of the regular season record being the telling stat of who the better team is.
Out of the 9 SI.com writers, only 2 of them picked the Giants to win. I just wanted to clear that up really quick..
Speaking of regular season records...how come you keep preaching about the regular season record being the most important factor in deciding who the best team is? I constantly hear about how the Nationals were better than the Giants last year because they had the better record. But at the same time it's viable to say that the Giants who won 94 games are somehow the underdogs to a team that only won 88 games? How come regular season record is only important when the opposing team has a better one than the Giants? When they don't, all of a sudden many other factors are taken into consideration.
Going into the 2010 WS, the Giants had a better regular season record than the Rangers, and had a better post-season record. Yet who was the underdog? the Giants.
Now all of a sudden, in 2012, since the Giants had the worse post-season record, they become the underdogs. If that's the theory why weren't the Rangers the underdog in 2010?
The alternate theory would be that the team with the worse post-season record to that point was more battle tested. So why wouldn't the Giants be the favorite over the Tigers?
How many times did we see highlights of the 2011 post-season during the NLCS in 2012? It would appear that the advantage was given to the Cardinals because of their success in 2011. I get that. But why wasn't that same advantage given to the Giants when they were facing the Reds and the Tigers who hadn't won the series they were playing in for quite some time (the reds hadn't won in the first round since 1990, and the Tigers hadn't won in the World Series since '84.) Experience is thrown out too if the Giants have the advantage.
I'm not trying to bitch and moan here, Rog. At this point I'd just like to understand the thinking of you and the mainstream media. Are these predictions really based on a solid theory about the game and what it takes to win? or are they just made up to discredit the Giants success and promote the other team. I can tell you it's starting to point in a certain direction, and frankly, I'm a little dissapointed that you've adopted their thinking.
Of course, it might also have something to do with my star factor theory. Which just goes to prove, the experts aren't really experts of baseball and what makes a good team, they just like to talk about the flashy superstars. They've been so drastically inaccurate recently that it would appear my theory is starting to hold some merit.
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Apr 3, 2013 11:14:04 GMT -5
Nobody picked the Giants to repeat on the MLB Network either. The question is how many picked them in 2012, or 2010, and why are they still being called experts when the only thing they're expert at is being wrong?
Allen- Thank you. Very well put.
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Apr 3, 2013 13:12:44 GMT -5
Why would anyone get worked up on what someone picks to win the flag...no one can really predict who will get injured or caught with drugs or what team starts unloading payroll and what team is able to pick up the missing pieces...right now the Giants have their normal hitting problems...Posey is running neck and neck with Burriss as a singles hitter and Pablo is one step away from exploding and his arm doesn't look healthy...so far his throws are short...and Pablo must be hurting as he hasn't smiled much on the field..Belt and Crawford were overmatched after looking very good in ST....the rest of the lineup looks about the same...records of not much powetr...the one possible exception is Pence...being able to predict where this team is going to finish is very difficult.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Apr 3, 2013 15:15:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Apr 3, 2013 15:18:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Apr 3, 2013 19:49:11 GMT -5
Rog -- I have carefully explained why even an expert will be wrong most of the time unless his name is Nostradamus.
Boagie: Bad luck?
Seriously, Rog. I think you need to consider how much of an expert they are when they've miscalculated the most successful post season team in the last 10 years in EVERY series they've played in, during the 2010 and 2012 post-season. Either there's a considerable bias going on, or the number guys have proven that talking about the numbers really doesn't make them smarter than the average fan.
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Apr 3, 2013 19:56:34 GMT -5
Don -- Posey is running neck and neck with Burriss as a singles hitter Rog -- Given that the sample size has exploded to two games, I would trade Buster while he still has value. dk..well, I was talking about spring training....the time of the year some guys lose their jobs based on performance....the Dodgers are pitching Posey the same as the Reds and Cards did in the post season... |
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Apr 3, 2013 20:49:56 GMT -5
Yes. Posey was MVP, batting champ, and Comeback Player of the Year. He just signed a nine year deal for a ton of money. No doubt he should have had to fight for a job this spring. Don, you're ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Apr 10, 2013 14:55:51 GMT -5
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Apr 10, 2013 22:41:55 GMT -5
the facts were what I wrote....and now that Posey has a couple of extra base hits all his loyal fans point the finger.....my pass completion rate was over 60%....
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Apr 11, 2013 10:12:12 GMT -5
|
|
I liked Torres too, but he was still unproven. Freddy Sanchez's health was an issue, Bengie Molina wasn't good enough to command a multi-year contract (He would be out of baseball at the end of the postseason.), and the outfield was weak.