Unhappy Predictions

[klaiggeb]

I wish I believed differently... but I don't.

I pray I'm wrong... but I don't think I will be.

Here are my predictions for this 3 game series with the Dodgers.

1-We lose 2 of the 3 games

2-Crawford re injures his oblique early in the series because it's not really healed and is worse than they thought, and is mostly done for the year.

3-Even with the expanded roster, we don't score more than 3 runs in any game this series.

I feel like the harbinger of doom... I really do.

We'll see, but with out Pence, and Panik... and a gimpy Crawford, I don't like our chances.

Sigh...

Done in by what we didn't do in the off season.

There are times I really hate it when I'm right...



boly

[sfgdood]

well we have 3 runs in the first three innings tonight so there's a good chance for more, especially with the Dodgers terrible bullpen. The next two games will be all about running up pitch counts on Kershaw and Greinke. Even then it'll be tough to win the series. Tonight is an absolute MUST win.

Craw looks solid, health-wise. On a sour note, Bochy confirmed on his radio show that there's a good chance we wont see Pence back before mid September at the earliest.

Fear thee not...you're not right just yet

[klaiggeb]

And we ended up losing...

boly

[Islandboagie]

Boly- Done in by what we didn't do in the off season.

Boagie- You can spin it any way you want, but the true reason the Giants have struggled are the injuries to Pence (most of the season) Panik, and Aoki. Because with those guys healthy we played at an elite level. An addition of Lester or Shields would have made almost no difference.

[sfgdood]

Good for you, Boagie, chanting the company line. When the Giants win, they have greatest FO ever assembled and if they fail, it was bad luck. Just the kind of fan loyalty that will allow the FO to sit on its hands and do nothing to reverse the disturbing trends that you either do not see or choose to ignore.

[klaiggeb]

I disagree with boagie. In fact, on a scale of 1-10, I disagree eleventeen.

Why?

Look at what St. Louis has done with all of their injuries.

How have they done so well?

Pitching!

All too often, our starters NOT NAMED Bumgarner, (and recently Leake) have caused us to fall behind early in games.

Then it becomes a matter of catch-up.


In 2010, and 2012 when our pitching was dominant, we won low scoring games often because the other team couldn't score.

When the other team can't score, all we have to do is score like we're scoring now; around 3 1/2 to 4 runs/game.

Thus my logic; we'd BE in it big time, injuries and all.


But not only are our starters shaky, throw in the mish-mash we have in the bullpen.

Can't count on Romo to get out lefties, can't count on Lopez to get out righties, and who knows about Casilla half the time.

Too many unknowns down there for a manager to be comfortable holding a lead.

And right now, they ARE over worked... thank you Vogey and Heston, thank you very much.

boly

[Islandboagie]

You guys can call me names and disagree all you want. It doesn't mean I'm not being realistic.

The Cardinals are a good team, but its not because they went out and got pitching last off season, because they didn't. It's because their young players have produced at a very high level.

The teams that gained all the envy this off-season from both of you (Boly and Randy) have fallen on their faces. The Nationals, Whitesox, Padres, Angels and Redsox are now figuring out how to dump their payroll and start over. This is what would be happening if the Giants had used the same off season strategy that both of you suggested.

Those are the facts, that is what we know, and both of you STILL reject being wrong about any of that.

Boly, you're not as bad as Randy, hell, Randy still believes not signing Pablo was a mistake. But together, consistently patting each other on the back and seeing the future so clearly is nothing short of vomit-inducing. If you two got your way 5 years ago, Sabean and Bochy would have been shit canned and 90% of our team would be gutted. Thank goodness that didn't happen.

Most of the time, I like you both, you're boIh very passionate, but when you're upset, you're both hard to take. Which is why I'm taking a hiatus until November.

The Giants still have a legit shot, and I'll be rooting for them, just not here. I can only take negativity so long. Take care everyone! And go Giants!

[sfgdood]

Boly, you're not as bad as Randy, hell, Randy still believes not signing Pablo was a mistake.

Dood - No I don't Boagie...I was with you 100% in preferring 6-4-3 McGehee the whole time

[sfgdood]

But together, consistently patting each other on the back and seeing the future so clearly is nothing short of vomit-inducing.

Dood - You know what makes Boly and I puke? The fact that the Giants still haven't figured out how to avoid the odd year failure. I'll tell you something else...if they don't change their strategy and make changes in the offseason rather than midseason, you can forget about another title in 2016

[sfgdood]

The Giants still have a legit shot,

Dood - a legit shot at what, exactly? There is just 1 month remaining, we are 4.5 games behind LA, 5.5 behind Chicago, our pitching sucks, our offense is punchless, apart from Byrd, and we're staring at Kershaw and Greinke the next two games. You like those odds? Really?

[klaiggeb]

boagie-The Cardinals are a good team, but its not because they went out and got pitching last off season, because they didn't. It's because their young players have produced at a very high level.

The teams that gained all the envy this off-season from both of you (Boly and Randy) have fallen on their faces. The Nationals, Whitesox, Padres, Angels and Redsox are now figuring out how to dump their payroll and start over. This is what would be happening if the Giants had used the same off season strategy that both of you suggested.

Those are the facts, that is what we know, and both of you STILL reject being wrong about any of that.

***boly says---

Boagie, I agree, the Cardinals did NOT go out and get pitching. They didn't have to.

and I never said they did.

Like we didn't have to in 2010 andn 2012.

They HAD good pitching to open the season.

And that's what I was talking about.

Yeah, the young PITCHERS stepped up, and they got just enough offense from the new guys to make it work.

We got a LOT from our young guys one offense; Panik, Duffy, and to a lesser extent, Tomlinson.

What we didn't have, and still don't, is pitching.

My other point was that IF WE HAD the pitching, we're scoring enough runs to win.

but we don't. We're always playing catch up.

The Cardinals score less than we do, I believe I'm correct, yet THEY lead the league by a ton.

Why?

Pitching.

boly

[klaiggeb]

boagie-The teams that gained all the envy this off-season from both of you (Boly and Randy) have fallen on their faces. The Nationals, Whitesox, Padres, Angels and Redsox are now figuring out how to dump their payroll and start over.

***boly says***

Yep, you're right. No question.

we were wrong and wrong BIG TIME.

But what we were RIGHT about was that the lack of pitching would do us in... and it has.

boly

[klaiggeb]

boagie-But together, consistently patting each other on the back and seeing the future so clearly is nothing short of vomit-inducing

***boly says***

Ummm, no, boagie, that's not what we're doing.

We just both happen to agree on the subject of the front office and how we believe they screwed up.

But we don't agree on everything.

Randy and I DON'T see eye to eye on Pablo, for instance.

You want to take a hiatus until November, that's fine.

Personally, I'll miss your comments and insights.

boly

[Rog]

Boly, you're not as bad as Randy, hell, Randy still believes not signing Pablo was a mistake.

Dood - No I don't Boagie...I was with you 100% in preferring 6-4-3 McGehee the whole time


Rog -- Nicely put! Or was it because of the $90 million the Giants saved? I know it has to be one or the other.

Hey, if you want one heck of a negative statistic, consider that Pablo has hit into.

Actually, that's not it. 14 GD's is livable. The horrible stat is much closer to home. Duffy and McGehee have combined to ground into 36 double plays. I KNEW there was a downside to not re-signing Pablo, and there it is!

At the end of this season, the Giants are committed to Duffy and McGehee for a total of ... zero years.

Meanwhile, Pablo is hitting .247 with a .670 OPS. His WAR is minus 0.7. In other words, even without Duffy, the Giants would have been about a win better off to replace Pablo with a replacement-level player.

Pablo has four years to redeem himself. Anyone here think he will? If so, the Giants could probably get the Red Sox to eat at least $20 million of Pablo's contract.

Here's an intruiging question: Would the Red Sox trade Pablo for Peavy, Romo, Aoki, McGehee, Vogelsong? I think we all know the answer to that one.

So would the Cubs trade Lester for the same package? That one isn't as clear. After a slow start, Jon has still posted a 3.59 ERA. Just for fun, that's pretty close to the 3.56 Mike Leake has averaged over the past three seasons, and just a few ticks further behind Mike's 3.49 this season. Lester has pitched 2/3rds of an inning more than Mike this season, although he is behind Mike's average over the past three seasons.

Is Lester a true #1? Probably not, although one could make that argument. Is Leake a true #3? Not very likely. In reality, Mike is as close to being a #1 as he is to being a #3.

Here's some more fun. Over the past four seasons, Lester's ERA is 3.67, or just 0.15 less than Leake. If the Giants are able to re-sign Leake, they will acquire a pitcher who is nearly four years younger than Lester and who has pitched nearly as well as Jon over the past four seasons -- including this one.

Of course, Leake isn't re-signed yet. But I think the Giants' chances are pretty good. And I'll bet Leake's contract is for at least $50 million less than Lester's.

Lester is viewed as an ace, but over the past four seasons he's performed at the level of a low two. Leake is viewed as a mid- to bottom- of the rotation starter, but over the past four seasons he's performed at about the level of a mid- to high-two.

Here's a question: Let's suppose Leake gets a 5/$100 contract. Would you trade him for Lester and the 5/$125 left on his contract? Given that the Giants' time is soon if at all, I probably would. And surprisingly, if I were the Cubs with a longer time frame, I might do the opposite (although probably not).

In the long run would Leake at 5/$100 be the better bargain than Lester at 5/$125? Probably. But Lester should be better in the early years, with Leake catching up in the later ones.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3019/unhappy-predictions#ixzz3knqAOY3g

[sfgdood]

actually, Rog, now that you bring it up, I do recall now...when the Giants announced the trading of two pitching prospects for McGehee, Sabean stated that the plan all along was for McGehee to perform SO horribly that they will cut Casey and give the job to a player who had never played 3rd base professionally and who had never been an everyday player at ANY position above the AA level because they were certain he would work out beautifully in the end.

So it wasn't pure blind luck at all!

[Rog]

hell, Randy still believes not signing Pablo was a mistake.

Dood - No I don't Boagie...I was with you 100% in preferring 6-4-3 McGehee the whole time


Rog -- First of all, Boagie, don't take a hiatus. You kept the board alive, and you continually offer challenging observations. The board isn't even close to being the same without you.

As for Randy, I realize you're joking, but you SHOULD have preferred Casey the whole time. No question Casey was AWFUL -- but the Giants spent only $5 million on him. Pablo has been bad (not awful), and still has his four oldest years left on his contract.

Which was the better decision, $95 million on Pablo or $5 million on Casey? As horrible as Casey was, the answer based on what we know at this time is quite clear.

I'm not one who criticizes the front office a lot now, since the moves they have made since drafting Tim Lincecum have in general worked out FABULOUSLY, but I will say they were clearly wrong about wanting to re-sign Pablo. They would probably have gone another $5 million if he had been willing to sign.

Some here criticize stats, but the stats made it clear that Pablo was a risk. If we follow the progression of Pablo's OPS from 2011 on (.909, .789, .758, .739) is .672 (Pablo's present OPS) unrealistic? Personally I thought Pablo would change the trend in the first year or two of his contract before falling off in the last two or three years. I didn't expect .672. But really, was it unrealistic to think so? In retrospect, when we look at the numbers, we see it wasn't.

How about McGehee? He once was a good hitter before falling off and going to Japan. In 2014, he was the NL Comeback Player of the Year. But after a very good first half, he slumped badly the second. Were the Giants getting the Casey at the bat of the first half of 2014, the second half, or somewhere in between? Somewhere in between seemed the most likely scenario, but in reality, his second-half decline not only continued, it accelerated.

In reality, the signings of BOTH Sandoval and McGehee were mistakes. The difference is that the signing of McGehee was a little mistake, while the signing of Sandoval appears to be a very big one.

It has been said here over and over again and appears as true now was it did originally. Pablo saved the Giants from themselves.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3019/unhappy-predictions#ixzz3lGp2e4HD

[Rog]

One advantage to the Sandoval and Lincecum signings: The Giants likely won't be as anxious in the future to overspend to retain their own players.

[sfgdood]

In reality, the signings of BOTH Sandoval and McGehee were mistakes. The difference is that the signing of McGehee was a little mistake, while the signing of Sandoval appears to be a very big one.

Dood - The other differences are, 1) the Sox can still get value from Pablo, either through play on the field or via a trade later, and 2) McGehee also cost us 2 pitching prospects, one of which had a very good year.





It has been said here over and over again and appears as true now was it did originally. Pablo saved the Giants from themselves.

Dood - That is not a fact, yet...it is an open question and we wont know the answer to that question until the term of the contract is completed. As of now, it hasn't saved us because we lost two pitching prospects and we wont be in the playoffs this year.

[Rog]

actually, Rog, now that you bring it up, I do recall now...when the Giants announced the trading of two pitching prospects for McGehee, Sabean stated that the plan all along was for McGehee to perform SO horribly that they will cut Casey and give the job to a player who had never played 3rd base professionally and who had never been an everyday player at ANY position above the AA level because they were certain he would work out beautifully in the end.

So it wasn't pure blind luck at all!


Rog -- It's usually not good to put words in the mouths of others. The point here is that while the signing of Casey McGehee turned out to be a very bad one, based on what we've seen thus far, it wasn't as bad as the re-signing of Pablo would have been.

Do you not agree?




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3019/unhappy-predictions#ixzz3lLZbDqI7

[Rog]

In reality, the signings of BOTH Sandoval and McGehee were mistakes. The difference is that the signing of McGehee was a little mistake, while the signing of Sandoval appears to be a very big one.

Dood - The other differences are, 1) the Sox can still get value from Pablo, either through play on the field or via a trade later, and 2) McGehee also cost us 2 pitching prospects, one of which had a very good year.


Rog -- To get to the crux of the matter, would we rather have Pablo, his $95 million contract, Luis Castillo and Kendry Flores or have spent $5 million on Casey and have significant money to use in the free agent pitcher sweepstakes? I think the answer is pretty clear, isn't it?




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3019/unhappy-predictions?page=1#ixzz3lLaAEw35

[sfgdood]

It definitely sets up better in this coming offseason to not have that contract on the books. But I have NEVER accepted the premise that Pablo's contract would have prevented other deals from being made.

There also is the fact that McGehee worked out so horribly that he had to be released in the middle of the season. That in itself shows how awful he was as a second choice. It's not JUST that the Giants lost out on the Pablo sweepstakes...it's that their backup plan was ill-conceived and failed miserably and very predictably. The Giants missed the playoffs. It's not a slam dunk that signing Pablo would have prevented that, but replacing him with McGehee was definitely a failed backup plan.

Also on the negative side of the ledger is Kendry Flores, who pitched well enough to be called up in August. All the injuries in the Giants' starting rotation this season have provided multiple opportunities for the top pitching prospects in the system to get their feet wet, but guess what? None of them are as good as Flores. That's not a good sign.

Given that Pablo is still young and very capable of greatness, and that Kendry Flores has shown to be much more advanced than any of the pitching prospects we have left, we simply cannot judge that the Giants were saved from themselves through being rejected by Pablo...that has yet to be determined. If--BIG IF--they are able to convert the money they saved into a huge upgrade in the starting rotation, then that could prove your point. But they haven't done it yet.

[klaiggeb]

Randy---It definitely sets up better in this coming offseason to not have that contract on the books. But I have NEVER accepted the premise that Pablo's contract would have prevented other deals from being made.

Read ***boly says***

Bingo!

That has been the company line all along and I flat out DON'T believe them.

not for an instant!



I think there were a number of moves that could have been made, Randy, the Flores move being one of them.

When the roster expanded, why didn't the bring up Fransden?

Veteran experience off the bench, can't replace that.

Instead, they continued to go into the toilet with adrianza.

I just don't get that logic in the MIDDLE of a pennant run.

Not smart, I say, not smart at all.

boly

[Rog]

Randy---It definitely sets up better in this coming offseason to not have that contract on the books. But I have NEVER accepted the premise that Pablo's contract would have prevented other deals from being made.

Read ***boly says***

Bingo!

That has been the company line all along and I flat out DON'T believe them.

not for an instant!


Rog -- I think Mark hit it when he said that the Giants would have/would increase their budget for a star. By the way, the Giants didn't say that Pablo's contract would have kept them from other signings. If anything, they said the opposite.

I realize you in particular believe the Giants lied to us, Boly, yet no one has been able to resurrect the lie. Unless you can find the "lie," it could well be that we misinterpreted. And if you do find the "lie," it could still be that you misinterpreted it. But unless you can find it, the rest of us can't judge.

When I post something here without disclaimer, I can usually find something to back it up. If you want to call the Giants liars, a pretty strong accusation, you should at least show us what it was that they said to lead you to that conclusion. Then we can form our own opinions.



Boly -- I think there were a number of moves that could have been made, Randy, the Flores move being one of them.

Rog -- The Giants have an excellent record of not trading pitchers who come back to bite them. What no one has mentioned here is that Flores has gotten only one start for the woeful Marlins and has put up a 4.97 ERA, allowing 16 hits in 12.2 innings. He has struck out nine and walked four. His WHIP is 1.58. Keep in mind too that most of this has been done out of the bullpen, where short bursts usually lead to more success. If the Giants had called up Flores, and he had had this little success, we wouldn't have been happy. He's not old by any means, but at 23-turning-24 in November, he's not a true kid, either.

Boly -- When the roster expanded, why didn't the bring up Fransden?

Rog -- Kevin hit only .272 at Sacramento with four home runs and according to what I read somewhere (Andrew Baggarly?), he wasn't the answer. I agree he couldn't have been worse than Adrianza, but I don't think Kevin is capable of playing shortstop at a decent level anymore.

Boly -- Veteran experience off the bench, can't replace that.

Rog -- Performance and the ability to play shorsttop apparently weight higher in the Giants' minds.

Boly -- Instead, they continued to go into the toilet with adrianza.

Rog -- I wish they had gotten rid of him instead of Arias. But they still seem to see something in Ehire, who does give them good defense, and it has been said here that you win with pitching and defense.

Boly -- I just don't get that logic in the MIDDLE of a pennant run.

Not smart, I say, not smart at all.

Rog -- I try not to question the Giants all that much unless I have answers. I don't think Flores or Frandsen were. If the Giants had re-signed Pablo, I would have at least questioned it. But who knew that the answer would be Duffy? (Actually, I think you did, but it certainly would have been a risk.) Apparently in signing McGehee the Giants felt that you can't replace veteran presence. I recently read that idea somewhere.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3019/unhappy-predictions#ixzz3lXX6T4nB

[sfgdood]

The Giants have an excellent record of not trading pitchers who come back to bite them. What no one has mentioned here is that Flores has gotten only one start for the woeful Marlins and has put up a 4.97 ERA, allowing 16 hits in 12.2 innings. He has struck out nine and walked four. His WHIP is 1.58. Keep in mind too that most of this has been done out of the bullpen, where short bursts usually lead to more success. If the Giants had called up Flores, and he had had this little success, we wouldn't have been happy. He's not old by any means, but at 23-turning-24 in November, he's not a true kid, either.

Dood - what Flores did AFTER being called up in a microscopic sample size is besides the point. The fact is he kicked ass this season in the minors and earned his way to the majors. The Giants top pitching prospects had multiple opportunities to do the same thing but they fell flat on their faces IN THE MINORS!!

Oh and btw...yes short bursts lead to success in the bullpen but also one bad outing can KILL your stats and it will take you a lot of clean innings to compensate. This is what infuriates me about stats geeks...you manipulate stats to fit your argument. You lecture us constantly about small samples but when it fits YOUR narrative, you have no problem using a small sample to make a point.

As to 23, 24 being OLD now...I can only shake my head

[donk33]

when one discounts all the pitchers that the Giants dumped and had some success despite injuries,etc. I have to question what the heck you are talking about.....currently I would say that Liriano and Alfredo Simon would be strong pitchers in the Phone Booth....and even Vogey might have been the best of all before his injury...then there were Nathan, Fowlkes, Wheeler, and others.....

[Rog]

Oh and btw...yes short bursts lead to success in the bullpen but also one bad outing can KILL your stats and it will take you a lot of clean innings to compensate. This is what infuriates me about stats geeks...you manipulate stats to fit your argument.


Rog -- When was it that I did so, Randy? One thing I DO remember is pointing out that while Sergio Romo's 3.72 ERA last season wasn't exactly great, he gave up seven runs on back-to-back days. If we took out those two appearances, his ERA was 2.56.

Was that ignoring the impact one (or in this case two back-to-back in two days) outing can have on an ERA?

What I wind up with here is your saying that I ignore such impact, while Boly said that I was essentially cherry-picking and that Sergio still didn't have a very good season. I then pointed out that it couldn't have been TOO bad a season, since Sergio has 23 saves and 11 holds with only five blown saves. In other words, he had only five blown saves in 39 opportunities, an 89% success rate.

You might consider that I take into account more stats than anyone else here (as well as pretty much the same amount of on-the-field stuff) and work at least as hard at coming to an objective conclusion as anyone else here.

If you wish to accuse me of being pompous, I have no problem with that (except with myself, since I shouldn't be). But when you accuse me of being unfair or non-objective, I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

You have clearly been non-objective about Gary Brown and Pablo Sandoval, to name a couple of players. Which players have I been non-objective about? No one here likes Tim Lincecum more than I, but no one here has brought up more of his faults, either.

No one here loves Willie Mays more than I, but no one here has brought up more of Willie's faults. I quite possibly know more good and more bad about Tim and Willie than anyone else here. Certainly I don't believe anyone knows MORE of either than I.

With regard to Willie, can anyone remember any of the three gaffes I have mentioned here? I might have mentioned more (although clearly Willie didn't make many), but there are three that jump to mind, and all three have been mentioned here on multiple occasions.

Take a stab at them, Randy. If you get all three right, I'll let you keep your ridiculous statement in your sign-on icon.



Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3019/unhappy-predictions#ixzz3lw5Kqc12