Grading the off seasn

[klaiggeb]

Below is a link to an article in which the author ranked each teams' off season's moves.

Not surprisingly, he gave us a well deserved C-.

The Padres?

Oh. Yeah. Those guys.

A+

Say what you want, but I agree with the grades.

bleacherreport.com/articles/2336404-mlb-offseason-report-card-grades-1-month-from-spring-training/page/25

boly

[sfgdood]

C-? Sabean must have kissed his ass

[klaiggeb]

No, Randy. C- is fair. It is exactly what it should be.

He resigned some guys, came up with a 3Bman and an OF.

Not what we wanted, but C- is about right.

boly

[Rog]

Boly -- Below is a link to an article in which the author ranked each teams' off season's moves.

Not surprisingly, he gave us a well deserved C-.

The Padres?

Oh. Yeah. Those guys.

A+

Say what you want, but I agree with the grades.

Rog -- I'm not sure about the Padres' grade. I'd have to research it much closer. Probably the "+" isn't deserved, but the A may be.

As for the C- for the Giants, I think that's a generous grade. It shows that perhaps McGehee and Aoki aren't as bad as we thought.

Based on what lost and what they gained, I would have expected a "D." Pretty tough to replace $55 million in players with the $27 million the Giants have spent.

It sounds like they might be re-signing Ryan Vogelsong. I like the idea of Ryan's coming back. He's certainly not great anymore, but I do think he's underrated.

The one thing that bothers me about it though is that it may show a heavier level of concern about Tim Hudson than I had hoped for. Don't know that's the case, so for now I'll stay positive. But it certainly could be an indication the Giants are more than a little concerned.

So let's take a look at the worst-case scenario. Let's suppose the Giants re-sign Ryan because Hudson might miss the entire season. Sounds pretty bleak, doesn't it?

But not so fast. If we look at the Giants' pitching compared to the staff they finished last season with, the entire thing is virtually intact -- except that Matt would have replaced Hudson. The Giants had a 3.50 ERA last season, they have brought back the bullpen intact, and in a worst-case scenario, they have replaced Hudson with Cain. Sounds like the chance for improvement is pretty decent, isn't it?

It's not Jon Lester; it's not Max Scherzer; heck, it's not even James Shields. But it's a nice staff that could be improved.

Now let's suppose that Hudson will be OK. Then the Giants should have a fairly solid staff. Bumgarner, Cain and Lincecum have been among the top starters in SF Giants history. I doubt Tim will bounce back to that level, but Bumgarner and Cain should be a strong one-two punch. Peavy and Hudson aren't what they once were, but they're solid veterans who KNOW HOW TO PITCH.

The pitching part of the equation could be pretty good.

The hitting almost certainly will decline from last season -- assuming Pagan and Belt once again aren't healthy. If they can get healthy, Aoki has shown he can get on base, and McGehee hasn't been bad at driving in runs. Get a load of this: McGehee had 15 more RBI's than Morse last season.

Would we rather have Morse hitting instead of McGehee? Of course. But Casey isn't a bad consolation prize.

No question Pablo will be missed, both at bat and in the field. Aoki doesn't compare with him as a hitter. But Aoki is better at keeping the line moving, and that was the Giants' mantra last season. Not two bloops and a blast. It was "keep the line moving." It may move better this season.

So can a healthy Pagan and Belt make up for the power loss from Sandoval and Morse? Not very likely. A healthy Belt though could make up for half of it. Last season he hit 12 in just 214 at bats. It wouldn't be totally unrealistic for him to hit 28 in a full season. He's hit 26 in his last 609 at bats.

That extra 16 would make up half of the deficit lost with Pablo and Morse. A healthy Pagan isn't going to make up the rest. Angel has never hit more than 11 home runs. But back in 2012 -- his last fully healthy season -- he hit 8 homers, 38 doubles and 15 (!) triples.

If Pagan and Belt stay healthy all season long, the Giants' hitting could be about as good as 2014. It's not very likely that the power will be quite the same, but the Giants could indeed "keep the line moving" better.

Without reasonably healthy returns from Cain, Belt and Pagan, I don't think the Giants can be better than last season. If that trio remains healthy and productive, I think they can be.

The Dodgers worry me some. The Padres worry me a little. The team that worries me is the Nationals. Then again, the Nationals were clearly better than the Giants last season, and yet the Giants knocked them out of the playoffs, 3 games to 1.

We're looking for a Giants team with more talent than last season. When a team loses $55 million of talent and has half that much to replace it, that just isn't in the cards.

What the Giants aren't going to be is the best team in baseball. But that hasn't kept them from winning three World Championships in five seasons.

We want guarantees, and the Giants aren't that type of team. What they have shown themselves to be though is a formidable tournament team. Why should that be different this season?

Don't the doubters get it that the Giants won the World Series last season with just one starter? With Blanco, Ishikawa and Perez making up two-thirds of the outfield?

The doubters say yeah, but we can't count on them to do it again. Guess what, guys? We couldn't count on them last season. And all they did was get it done.

The Giants haven't been the best team in baseball any time in the past 10 years. But that hasn't stopped them from winning the tournament three times.

Can we count on them doing it again? Sorry, but we can't. But we couldn't have counted on it if they had signed Pablo, Lester AND Tomas.

Baseball is a funny game. Lately it's been funny in a good way for the Giants. Why buy the best team in baseball and destroy their mojo?


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2673/grading-off-seasn#ixzz3Pcg2CV00

[rxmeister]

When are the champions of the off season ever the champions of the regular season? And Bleacher Report? Not exactly the Bible of baseball. Randy has talked about the Giants having "ifs." The Padres ifs are much larger. Matt Kemp has two arthritic hips, Justin Upton struck out 170 times and had a batting average lower than Casey McGehee and Nori Aoki, and Wil Myers was just awful last year. You want to overlook all that and give them an A plus you're setting yourself up to look ridiculous. These writers count on readers having short memories and forgettimg their dumb predictions and that's usually the case. Did anybody pick the Giants in 2010? In 2012? In 2014?

[Rog]

Mark -- These writers count on readers having short memories and forgettimg their dumb predictions and that's usually the case. Did anybody pick the Giants in 2010? In 2012? In 2014?

Rog -- Anyone who picked the Giants in 2010 didn't really know what he was doing. Someone who picked them in 2012 might have had a nagging feeling that they would bounce back from an injury-riddled 2011 season. Someone who picked them in 2014 may have been on to the even-numbered year thing. I don't think there was a lot of reason to pick them in any of those seasons.

I have seen many writers -- especially the analytical ones -- who review their picks at the end of the season. There are so many variables that even the best prognosticator is going to be wrong as often as he is right.

Although Clay Davenport's PECOTA projections aren't very favorable to the Giants (probably a little more so now that they have signed Aoki and Vogelsong), they're a bottom-up projection. In other words, they don't start with last year's team and guess where they are better and worse. They project each player individually, than add up the players to estimate where the team is.

They're better than many projections because they are objective and have a historical system behind them. As I mentioned, that doesn't mean they're going to be right. It does mean though that they are probably well-thought-out.

Randy scoffs at WAR. No problem, Randy. Tell us what works better? If WAR is so lousy, come up with a better method yourself. If it's as bad as you say, that should be easy, shouldn't it?

Kind of like, if the Giants' moves this winter were so awful, what would you have done that would be better?

I liked Boly's idea of moving Buster Posey to first or third base. It wouldn't have been a cure-all, but it would taken greater advantage of what I view as a fine young asset in Andrew Susac.

Randy had a great idea for the Giants to spend more money. Unless they made a serious mistake or two, how could they NOT do better with more money to spend?

But once we got down to the Giants' having about $30 million budgeted for free agents and trade acquisitions, what plan was better than Peavy, Romo, Vogelsong, McGehee and Aoki? If we come up with one, we have to ask one more question: Could that plan have been executed? And one more question we probably shouldn't overlook is, what effect would the moves have on team chemistry? And another: how do the signings affect future seasons as weell as the next one or two?

So what direction would you have gone with the $30 million? Is it reasonable to believe that way would have been more productive than the directions they went?

The best writers have logical and detailed reasons for their predictions. Are ours logical, or are they affected by our emotions and biases? The best writers stand by their projections for good or for bad. How well do we stand behind ours?

The bottom line is that with the exception of Pablo Sandoval, the Giants' departing or potentially departing free agents became decent bargains. The Giants likely could have brought all of them back for about $54 million per season. Instead, they brought back three of the five with the $31 million they had available ($2 million more than predicted, with the Giants likely loosening the purse strings slightly due to Tim Hudson's set back being combined with the return from injury of Matt Cain, the wild inconsistency of Tim Lincecum, and Yusmeiro Petit's never having shown he can be a full-season starter in the majors.

For about $23 million more, the Giants could perhaps have re-signed Pablo and Morse instead of acquiring McGehee and Aoki. Looking at what they got with the $31 million they did spend and the fact that they didn't tie themselves up with any player for more than two years, it's tough to argue that they would have gotten as much VALUE from the added $23 million as they got from the $31 million they did spend.

Put Buster at first or third, and aside from the pitchers' apparently not liking the idea, the Giants could have done better. Add another $23 million to the payroll, and the Giants could have done better.

Given what they had to work with and that they had the added monkey wrench thrown in when Hudson's health became a bigger concern, I think they did decently.

Given what we would have LIKED to see them accomplish, I have a hard time going much above a D+. Pablo and Lester surely would have been nice. But given the budget they had to work with, I'd given them a B+ or an A- -- probably the latter.

Four positives about the Giants' acquistions: First, they have a pretty good idea what they're getting. Second, they appear to have kept their chemistry strong. Third, they acquired players who want to play for the Giants. Fourth, they did all this without committing to anyone for more than two years.

On that last point, the oldies here such as Don, Boly and I can tell you from experience the value of maintaining flexibility. Things change, and the more quickly one can react, the better he can adapt.

If our expectations were unreasonable, impractical or simply went in another direction than the Giants felt comfortable in going, naturally we're disappointed now.

But if we realized how much the Giants need to accomplish and how little they had to do it compared to what it would have cost to retain the status quo, I don't think we can be too upset.

I don't think the players the Giants would have liked to have will make that huge an impact on the first couple of years, and I think in three or four years the Giants would have been regretting a long contract or two.

As things stand, they have capability, possibility and flexibility.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2673/grading-off-seasn#ixzz3PgFk7A9h

[sfgdood]

Randy scoffs at WAR. No problem, Randy. Tell us what works better? If WAR is so lousy, come up with a better method yourself. If it's as bad as you say, that should be easy, shouldn't it?

Dood - this is exactly my biggest problem with you stats geeks...you feel like there MUST be some designer stat to use that is better than time tested conventional stats. You feel like you need some ubermetric formula that tells us more than just looking at the normal stats do. WATCH THE DAMN GAMES, Eggheads!

[Rog]

Randy scoffs at WAR. No problem, Randy. Tell us what works better? If WAR is so lousy, come up with a better method yourself. If it's as bad as you say, that should be easy, shouldn't it?

Dood - this is exactly my biggest problem with you stats geeks...you feel like there MUST be some designer stat to use that is better than time tested conventional stats. You feel like you need some ubermetric formula that tells us more than just looking at the normal stats do. WATCH THE DAMN GAMES, Eggheads!

Rog -- What is your answer?

By the way, most of the stats guys you are criticizing watch a lot more baseball than you look at analytics. In fact, I would venture that most of them watch more baseball than you do. Certainly they watch a broader range than you do.

Saying guys can't both watch games and use analytics is like saying that a person can't be good in math and English. Or good in baseball and basketball.

So again I ask: What is your answer?

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2673/grading-off-seasn#ixzz3PgcGIdNq

[sfgdood]

Ask all you want. I gave my answer and Im sticking to it. I'm not about to dive into stats geekery

[rxmeister]

I think WAR attaches way too much importance to defense, which is why I usually don't find it as useful as it should be. I always go back to that 2013 season where Gregor Blanco had a higher WAR than Carlos Beltran, despite Beltran hitting about .300 with 24 HR, while Gregor hit .260 with 3 HR. To top it off Beltran's team went to the series, while the Giants just finished out of the cellar. Beltran would have had to literally sit in the OF on defense and nap to be less valuable as Blanco considering the offensive duscrepancy

[rxmeister]

I think WAR attaches way too much importance to defense, which is why I usually don't find it as useful as it should be. I always go back to that 2013 season where Gregor Blanco had a higher WAR than Carlos Beltran, despite Beltran hitting about .300 with 24 HR, while Gregor hit .260 with 3 HR. To top it off Beltran's team went to the series, while the Giants just finished out of the cellar. Beltran would have had to literally sit in the OF on defense and nap to be less valuable as Blanco considering the offensive discrepancy

[donk33]

Jan 23, 2015 17:18:27 GMT -5 sfgdood said:

Randy scoffs at WAR. No problem, Randy. Tell us what works better? If WAR is so lousy, come up with a better method yourself. If it's as bad as you say, that should be easy, shouldn't it?

Dood - this is exactly my biggest problem with you stats geeks...you feel like there MUST be some designer stat to use that is better than time tested conventional stats. You feel like you need some ubermetric formula that tells us more than just looking at the normal stats do. WATCH THE DAMN GAMES, Eggheads!

k...if the stats indicators are so good, why is it that many ball players have such up and down careers?

[Rog]

Randy -- Ask all you want. I gave my answer and Im sticking to it. I'm not about to dive into stats geekery

Rog -- You can say all is fair in love and WAR, Randy, then turn and run from the truth. Or you could step up to the plate and either answer the question or simply say you don't have one. Criticism without solution is pollution not worthy of absolution.

That said, I forgive you for everything. I simply wish you would step back and realize you are capable of far better. We've seen it and look forward to seeing it again.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2673/grading-off-seasn#ixzz3PklZr7iy

[Rog]

dk...if the stats indicators are so good, why is it that many ball players have such up and down careers?

Rog -- That's a very good question. An excellent one. I think it comes down to players being human and the impact of luck.

That brings to mind a discussion between Chris "Mad Dog" Russo and Brian Kenny yesterday. They were comparing Alex Gordon and Nelson Cruz in picking their top 10 left fielders. Mad Dog pointed to home runs, while Kenny stressed Gordon's all-around game, including much better defense.

Russo said there aren't more than two defensive plays a week that Gordon made that Cruz didn't. Something flashed into my mind. Two defensive plays a week are 52 plays in a season.

Cruz hit a career high 40 home runs last season while making 469 outs. Gordon had fewer than half as many home runs, but made only 418 outs. Cruz had 35 more plate appearances. Cruz accumulated 382 bases to Gordon's 319.

I'm going advantage, Cruz because the power differential allowed Cruz to accumulate so many more bases.

But if Russo is right that Gordon made "no MORE than two defensive plays a week" than Cruz did, that's an extra 52 more outs.

Gordon already made 51 fewer outs at the plate than Cruz. If he also made 52 more outs in the field, that's a difference of 103 outs. If Russo's comparison of the defense by the two players is correct, by his own numbers he showed Gordon to be the better player.

Now let's suppose that of those extra 52 plays made by Gordon only half turned into outs, with the rest saving a base.

Now we've got the net out difference between the two players down to 77, but we've also cut the net bases difference down to 37.

I'm not sure the difference in defensive plays is as great as Russo said it was (and he did say that the difference was no MORE than two a week), but if it is, Russo pretty much proved his opinion to be wrong.

Russo and Kenny did agree on one thing: If Gordon had hustled, he probably would have hit an inside the park home run to tie game 7 of the World Series. As a Giants fan, I'm glad he didn't. As a baseball purist, I am saddened he didn't play the game right, but instead fell into the trap of tradition.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2673/grading-off-seasn?page=1#ixzz3PknuJLf3