|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Sept 8, 2015 9:34:16 GMT -5
This is a point I just won't let drop; what the Giant's DIDN'T DO in the off season to address their starting pitching.
Well, that's behind us now, and from where I sit, it's obvious they knew from day one they really didn't have much of a chance.
Maybe, as some suggested, they were just going to let this season play itself out, knowing they had millions coming off the books next year (2016)
In so doing, I believe they knowingly gave their fans an enema.
With all that in mind, I can't help but wonder if the front office learned any lessons.
I'd like to think they have, but until I see the results in the off season, I'll be skeptical.
No. I am skeptical.
Consider the teams that are out in front AGAIN this season; Cardinals, Dodgers, Mets, Pirates, Cubs. All with deep staffs, all with dominant (or at least 2) starters.
All of which we lacked.
The rotation needs to be totally re worked.
Period.
No more half assed solutions, no more lame-assed reasons for what they couldn't do, no more excuses.
Pitching won for us in 2010, and 2012.
We got lucky... VERY, VERY lucky in 2014 in that we just barely had enough to pull it off.
It didn't happen again, and it won't happen again.
Will they learn?
I hope so.
I really do.
But in the meantime I'm not holding my breath.
A very disappointed, very skeptical...
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 9, 2015 16:11:41 GMT -5
We would have been happy if the Giants had signed either Jon Lester or James Shields, right? If they had, they likely wouldn't have re-signed Jake Peavy, Sergio Romo and Ryan Vogelsong. Based on WAR, that likely would have made a game's difference in the standings.
Wouldn't you rather have money available for this year's highly-rated free agent starters than be 7 1/2 games out instead of 8 1/2? The point is that the three free agents most wanted by Giants fans -- Lester, Shields or Pablo -- wouldn't have made that much of a difference. And the Giants would have a lot less salary flexibility going forward.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Sept 9, 2015 16:37:34 GMT -5
Rog, I disagree eleventeen on a scale of 1 -10.
IF we had had both, or even either one, we would have had 3 or 4 solid starters, and thus, WOULDN'T be behind so often in games.
Vogey and Hudson and Cain had us behind so often, with all of the injuries we've had, we couldn't keep pace.
Look at St. Louis.
They lost their ENTIRE outfield!
But they still have the best record in the NL!
How is that?
pitching!
boly
|
|
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 Sept 9, 2015 16:56:17 GMT -5
I also disagree that IF we'd signed Lester that would have eliminated the possibility of signing Peavy or anyone else. It would have been their own choice. I hate when they act like a small market team
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Sept 9, 2015 20:17:12 GMT -5
Which is exactly what they acted like, Randy.
In retrospect, signing Peavy WOULD HAVE been okay IF Peavy was the # 5 guy.
But he became the number 3 guy when Cain didn't rebound, and wasn't # 2 ONLY because we hit pay dirt with Heston.
If Peavy, Vogey, Hudson and/or Lincecum are numbers 3-5... you're screwed!
And we were!
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Sept 10, 2015 7:10:58 GMT -5
It's pretty well accepted that the Giants were the high bidders on both Lester and Shields, so to say they acted like a small market team is unfair and incorrect as well. Sometimes the player doesn't want the highest bid he wants to go where he thinks he'll be happiest. I agree with Rog that signing either wouldn't have made a difference at this point, there are just too many teams better than us. The question now is what do they do with this knowledge in the offseason? The teams in the central are strong and will probably be even better next year, especially the Cubs. If they want to make the playoffs next year they have to win the west. Will they make the moves necessary, or will their strategy he to cross their fingers and hope that both Kershaw and Greinke get hurt?
|
|
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 Sept 10, 2015 10:41:02 GMT -5
Exactly why it's imperative that we hook at least one of the top 3 FA pitchers this offseason...hopefully two.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 10, 2015 23:32:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 10, 2015 23:39:44 GMT -5
Exactly why it's imperative that we hook at least one of the top 3 FA pitchers this offseason...hopefully two. Rog -- One is realistic. Two isn't impossible, but it's not realistic, either. It is possible the Giants will have the 2nd-highest payroll in the majors next season. Incidentally, the record of the three teams with higher payrolls than the Giants averages 74.33-64.33. The Giants' record is 72-68. Given all the injuries the Giants have suffered, it appears not only that they are among the top payroll teams, but they've spent that payroll fairly wisely. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3029/lesson-learned?page=1#ixzz3lOwqwKe1 |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 10, 2015 23:48:24 GMT -5
In 2008, the Giants' payroll was $76 million. This season it was $173 million at the beginning of the season (and more now). The Giants have far more than doubled their payroll -- essentially an increase of $100 million -- over the past seven years, and yet some of us are still not happy.
By comparison, in 2008 the Yankees' payroll was $209 million. This season it is $217 million. The Giants have increased their payroll by 12 times as much over that time as the Yankees have. The Red Sox payroll was $133 million, and now it's $184 million, an increase of $51 million. The Giants have come close to twice the increase the Red Sox have made.
Now, the Dodgers are another kettle of fish. Their payroll in 2008 was $119 million, and now it's $271. That's more than a doubling.
The Giants' payroll is higher than any of the other teams. One could easily say that the Giants have increased their payroll more over the past seven years than all but one team in the majors.
Yet they're still considered cheap. Are we simply spoiled?
|
|
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 Sept 10, 2015 23:52:37 GMT -5
I hate when they act like a small market team
Rog -- I would too if they did so. Their payroll is 4th highest in the majors this season. That's hardly acting like a small-market team. Please give us your logic here. The facts seem to dispute it.
Dood - when they say that they can make one deal or another, but not both...that's acting like a small market team. Top revenue teams don't use excuses like that
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 12, 2015 7:41:00 GMT -5
Rog, I disagree eleventeen on a scale of 1 -10. IF we had had both, or even either one, we would have had 3 or 4 solid starters, and thus, WOULDN'T be behind so often in games. Rog -- Lester and Shields each have a WAR of about two games. The Giants are 7 1/2 games back. Lester or Shields would certainly have helped, in great part because of just what you mentioned. But it is unlikely that either would have made enough difference. Unless a player performs as a star, he helps but usually isn't a difference maker. It's easy to criticize the Giants' rotation, and certainly while it hasn't been horrible, it hasn't been particularly good, either. But look at the injuries. Bumgarner, Heston and Vogelsong have stayed healthy (although Heston was shut down for while), but each of the other four starters has missed a large chunk of time to injury. Not to mention how that might have affected their effectiveness when they returned. Do I think the Giants wish they could have improved their pitching last winter? Given that Lester and Shields were their two top outside targets, it's obvious they did. They made strong plays for each, offering the pair well over $200 million between them. But if we've got five or ten teams chasing a top free agent, as those two were considered, four or nine teams are going to be disappointed. We have accused the Giants of being cheap. They weren't with Lester, Shields or Sandoval. That's three of the four highest paid free agents from last year. The Giants offered each at least as much as he wound up getting. I have explained the reasons Lester and Shields may not have signed with the Giants despite their generous offers. With Pablo, I just don't know, although it appears he carried a grudge for what he viewed as slights. In his case in particular it is clear the Giants didn't undervalue the player. They were simply unable to beat out the competition. As was the case with the majority of teams chasing those guys. We all knew the Giants' rotation was fragile (in more ways than one) entering this season. They needed a return to health and/or form from almost every pitcher in it. They did enter the season with six starters (not all of them healthy), and it turned out they had a nice starter in Sacramento. They would have LOVED to be in better position with their rotation. But aside from overpaying free agent pitchers even more than they wound up being overpaid, how were they supposed to do that? Some have called Mike Leake a third starter at best, but isn't he better than any free agent pitcher last winter except for Lester, Shields and Scherzer? Heck, only Scherzer has badly outperformed him, and since June, he has been better than Max. Of course, Leake himself became the sixth Giants starter to lose time to injury or being shut down. How is a team supposed to survive that much injury to the point where it can make the playoffs? Especially when it suffered similar amounts of injury to its position players? Which team out there is it that has done so? The Dodgers have had a lot of injuries. As was pointed out, the Cardinals lost their top pitcher. But which playoff team out there has survived the same level of injuries the Giants suffered? By hook or by crook, the Giants front office has brought us three World Championships in five (now almost certainly six) years, and we're taking pot shots at them? Each of us should be doing so well in our jobs that we perform at World Championship caliber three out of six years. Boly got a huge award a few years back, and I'm sure each of us has had his successes in our jobs. But has any of us performed at a championship level three of the past six years? Wouldn't it be great if the Giants could sign one this year's potential Big Four free agent pitchers, and sign Mike Leake as well? I think it's very possible they might do so. And God willing, that should put them in position to once again be highly competitive (as they were or at least approached for 5/6ths of this season, even with all the injuries). The Giants have what some consider to be the best infield in baseball. They have Buster Posey. They have Madison Bumgarner. They have Hunter Pence. They have an above-average bullpen. They aren't that far away, especially given their recent history. As for Bobby Evans, he should be just fine. Thus far he has done a very nice job at the trade deadline, making significant progress at filling in the injury holes. In the end though, it appears there were just too many of them for him to completely patch the dike. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3029/lesson-learned#ixzz3lWfZOfFn |
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Sept 12, 2015 10:42:50 GMT -5
Again, Rog, you're reducing players to numbers, and those numbers are being taken out of context.
What you're forgetting is the number of runs this team scored, and how many runs OUR pitchers were allowing.
You're also forgetting how often we were behind after the first or second inning, especially in August, and playing catch-up.
IMHO, what you're forgetting more than makes up at least 5 or 6 games in the standings.
Again, I point you towards St. Louis and what THEY did when they were steam rolled by injuries.
Now their pitching would STILL have been better, but WE have the far better offense.
You don't need the best pitching to win, but you need good pitching.
Even having added just one of those 2, Lester or Shields, would have made the difference, because it would have kept other starters off the mound
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 16, 2015 13:09:54 GMT -5
Again, Rog, you're reducing players to numbers, and those numbers are being taken out of context. What you're forgetting is the number of runs this team scored, and how many runs OUR pitchers were allowing. Rog -- Isn't that reducing players to numbers? Which backs up the point that ultimately it is the numbers (runs put on the board) that matter more than the players. What we want to examine in EITHER case is how those runs are put up and prevented. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3029/lesson-learned#ixzz3lvU996EU |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 16, 2015 13:11:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 16, 2015 14:01:48 GMT -5
Even having added just one of those 2, Lester or Shields, would have made the difference, because it would have kept other starters off the mound Rog -- I'm not so sure this is true. When the Giants couldn't sign either Lester or Shields, they instead signed Peavy and later Vogelsong. Peavy and Vogelsong filling in for Peavy have gone 12-12 with a 4.07 ERA. Shields has a 3.80 ERA, which wouldn't be a great improvement. Lester's 3.38 would represent a significant improvement, but Jon himself has gone only 10-10. The Giants have fared OK with the Peavy/Vogelsong slot instead of Shields or Lester. Shields' ERA isn't all that much better, and Lester has actually won fewer games. In fact, Shields hasn't won more either, although he has lost six fewer. With Lester or Shields instead of Peavy/Vogelsong, the Giants likely would have won one to three more games and still likely wouldn't have made the postseason. Here's a potential bright spot. If the Giants are unable to sign two good pitchers this winter, they could probably trade for Shields. The Padres were said to be looking to deal him at the deadline. I don't think Lester is available, although with his being owed another $135-$155 million, I'm not sure he's a bargain anyway. Jon doesn't appear to be past his prime yet, but he likely is close to being so. It wouldn't be at all surprising to see Mike Leake pitch better over his upcoming contract than Lester will pitch over the remainder of his, since Leake is four years younger and has been nearly as good as Lester over the past few years. The Giants RIGHT NOW are better with the combination of Peavy and Leake than they would be with either Lester or Shields alone. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3029/lesson-learned?page=1#ixzz3lvVYLoMa |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 16, 2015 14:23:25 GMT -5
You don't need the best pitching to win, but you need good pitching. Rog -- The Giants have had reasonably good pitching. Their team ERA is 3.67. With the exception of the Cardinals and Pirates, they're not that far behind the playoff teams. You mentioned that the Cardinals had enough pitching to overcome the injury to Adam Wainright. Mark made the point that they brought up their pitching internally. I don't believe they added a single significant pitcher last winter. So let's analyze the situation. The Giants went after two of the top three starters last winter. They were willing to pay market rate or above. They simply didn't land either, for reasons already explained. Nonetheless, they brought back Peavy, Romo and Vogelsong and added Leake. Despite a rash of injuries, their team ranks #6 in the league in ERA. When healthy, they have a rotation of Bumgarner (2.91), Leake (3.72), Heston (3.61), Peavy (4.15) and Lincecum (4.13. Had Cain been healthy, he likely would have replaced one of the above. But even without him, the Giants' rotation was above-average. In fact, its combined record (including Leake's time with the Reds) is 59-43. Assuming they don't pull of a miracle and still make the postseason, the primary factor that kept them out will be their injuries, not their pitching. A rotation that has gone 59-43 (50-38 for the Giants)hasn't really been the primary problem. By the way, if I pick only the stats that back up my points, it should be easy for anyone here to find those I have left out that would turn the tide on my point. Saying I do so without backing it up isn't fair, is it? And aren't we still waiting for the quotes where the Giants lied last winter? Isn't that a devastating statement to make without concrete backup? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3029/lesson-learned?page=1#ixzz3lviFLRQh |
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Sept 16, 2015 14:48:48 GMT -5
Rog -- The Giants have had reasonably good pitching. Their team ERA is 3.67. With the exception of the Cardinals and Pirates, they're not that far behind the playoff teams.
***boly says***
Rog, your rationale misses the point incredibly badly.
PRIOR to the season I brought up the point of exhausting the bullpen because ALL OF THE GUYS we had were 4 to 6 inning pitchers.
You can't have 4 of your 5 starters likely leaving the game in the 5th or early 6th.
Hudson, Vogey, Peavy all had years and age on their arms, and simply were not likely to consistently go deep into games.
And if Hudson hadn't of shown up, we would have been up that proverbial creek not only without a paddle, but with no raft to boot!
So once again, and with all due respect, you can show me all of the numbers you want, but it doesn't change the facts that:
1-We're OFTEN behind early... just like last night
2-Those arms had MILES on them
3-Those guys simply weren't likely to go deep into games.
4-They were NO LONGER innings eaters.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 16, 2015 17:04:00 GMT -5
Exactly why it's imperative that we hook at least one of the top 3 FA pitchers this offseason...hopefully two. Rog -- So you're saying that with at least five teams pursuing each of the top three free agent pitchers, the Giants should get two? Do you realize how high the odds are against such a feat? The odds would be high even WITHOUT keeping the payroll under $200 million. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3029/lesson-learned#ixzz3lwRV4LMW |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 16, 2015 17:13:31 GMT -5
You can't have 4 of your 5 starters likely leaving the game in the 5th or early 6th. Rog -- Assuming you mean Peavy, Hudson, Lincecum and Vogelsong as the four starters, they made it into the late sixth inning or later in 43 times in 72 starts (60%), so apparently they WERE'T likely to leave the game in the 5th or early 6th innings. by the way, Jake Peavy is 12 for 15 in this regard, and Ryan Vogelsong had a streak of 11 out of 12. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3029/lesson-learned?page=1#ixzz3lwSImBrc |
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Sept 17, 2015 9:51:36 GMT -5
Sigh... Rog, I just can't get you to use your eyes, so I'm giving up.
Yeah, Peavy pitched into the 7th last night... and he shouldn't have.
Just like most of the numbers you cited above SHOULDN'T have begun that 6th inning.
But bochy had no choice BECAUSE pulling them would have blown up the bullpen.
You 'see' but you don't observe, rog, because you can find numbers, cherry pick numbers, to often prove, or rationalize, your point.
Sorry, my old friend, but that's the way I see it.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 17, 2015 17:35:07 GMT -5
Rog, your rationale misses the point incredibly badly. PRIOR to the season I brought up the point of exhausting the bullpen because ALL OF THE GUYS we had were 4 to 6 inning pitchers. You can't have 4 of your 5 starters likely leaving the game in the 5th or early 6th. Rog -- And it has been more likely than not that they wouldn't do so. As for the relievers, the Giants have carried 13, as has been their wont in recent seasons, and the relievers haven't truly been overused. Yusmeiro Petit leads with 70.1 innings. That's certainly not an overload for a long reliever, particularly when he had one start thrown into the mix. George Kontos has thrown 69 innings. He's the middle reliever, so again, not too many innings. Santiago Casilla had pitched 51.2 innings, or not much more than an inning every three games. Doesn't look like an overload. Same with Sergio Romo, close behind with 50.1 frames Humter Strickland has thrown only 46.1 innings, although he also threw 21.2 innings at Sacramento, so he appears to be the lone reliever who has worked more than one might expect. But he appears to be a pretty strong guy who can handle it. Still, throw up a caution flag with Hunter. Javier Lopez has made the most appearances with 70, but he has tossed only 37.1 innings. With the possible exception of Strickland, it's hard to argue that any of the relievers has been overused. In fact, nearly all of them threw more innings LAST season, in some cases despite missing a little time to injury. Which pitchers have been overused? Possibly Strickland, although until his last outing he had pitched quite well this season, and still sports just a 2.33 ERA. I'll need to see evidence that the staff has been overworked. I'm just not seeing it. Are you? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3029/lesson-learned#ixzz3m2NECBnM |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 17, 2015 18:01:12 GMT -5
Yeah, Peavy pitched into the 7th last night... and he shouldn't have. Just like most of the numbers you cited above SHOULDN'T have begun that 6th inning. But bochy had no choice BECAUSE pulling them would have blown up the bullpen. Rog -- How am I not using my eyes. They've seen the glory of the coming of the Lord. Oh, wait. That's a different song. Personally I would have taken Jake out with two outs in the sixth, right after Phillips' double. And that would have meant that the Giants' relievers would have had to record one more out than they did. Would that have blown up the bullpen? I hardly think so. Especially with a day off today. Has Bruce left Peavy in too long before? I would say so. But I don't think it has cost them too often, and as I pointed out earlier, the bullpen really hasn't been overworked. The Giants' starters have averaged 5.86 innings per start. With arguably the two top pitchers in the National League, the Dodgers have averaged 6.08. Not a huge difference. That's basically an extra inning for the bullpen every five games. The Cardinals have had marvelous starting pithing. Their five starters each have ERA's of 3.17 or lower. They've averaged 6.13 innings per start, meaning the Giants' relievers have had to pitch an extra inning about every four starts. Again, not a huge deal. If the Giants didn't have Madison Bumgarner to head up the staff, I would agree with you. Without creative utilization (which wouldn't really have been all that hard), they probably would have been overworked. But as the rotation stands, I see little evidence the staff has been pushed too hard. And that's even with some of the starters' innings being limited a bit by having to come back from injury. You're saying I'm not using my eyes, but the facts (numbers) say that you may not be using yours in optimal (get the play on optics?) fashion. The bullpen has performed quite well (a 3.08 ERA despite using several September pitchers). I'll give you Strickland as a possibly overused reliever. Which other pitchers are you seeing being overused? We have complained about the Giants' two top relievers, Romo and Casilla, yet the pair has pitched its best ball down the stretch. Would that have been likely if they had been overused? The Giants' reliever had their problems in the second and third months of the season, when they shouldn't even have been tired. Their ERA's in May and June were 3.80 and 3.69. But when they were fresh in April and seemingly fresh in July, August and now September, their respective ERA's were 3.04, 2.33, 2.95 and now 2.14. Is that what we would expect from an overworked bullpen? I think it was highly unfair of you to question my use of my eyes. The facts indicate they are actually seeing quite clearly now, and indeed the rain did fall. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3029/lesson-learned?page=1#ixzz3m2Qc17oS |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 17, 2015 18:07:24 GMT -5
Dood - when they say that they can make one deal or another, but not both...that's acting like a small market team. Rog -- Actually, that's acting like a realistic team. And THEY haven't said they couldn't sign two of the top three pitchers. I did. I don't believe they think they can, although I feel they believe they can realistically (not certainly) sign one of the three -- and Mike Leake, who may well be the #4 free agent starter. Let's say the Giants sign the #3 guy plus Leake. Would you be happy with #3 and #4? As I have pointed out, the Giants would likely need to spend right at $200 million next season to accomplish this, but I believe they would be willing to do so. In 2010, the Giants won their first San Francisco World Championship with a payroll of $96 million. It is quite likely they will at least double that amount next season. They might rank in the top three in payroll next season, even better than the top four this year. One can say they're acting like a small market team, but he can't do so accurately. It's time for Giants' fans to grasp reality. I think many of them do. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3029/lesson-learned?page=1#ixzz3m2X6BlEz |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 17, 2015 18:11:08 GMT -5
I love everyone here -- even Randy, believe it or not, since I know it doesn't appear that way -- but I'm just not seeing tons of logic used in this thread. I've been accused of not using my eyes, so I guess I'm saying some here aren't using logic. When I read, my eyes can see that, and my mind can process it logically.
I'm not going to ask my fiancee for a second opinion on this, because she'll tell me I'm ugly too! Now THAT I wouldn't contradict!
|
|
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 Sept 17, 2015 18:13:22 GMT -5
translation...we need to lower expectations and accept mediocrity
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Sept 17, 2015 18:15:53 GMT -5
I say you're not using your eyes because you don't seem to be seeing what I see; location of pitches.
You look at the numbers, but numbers often belie the truth.
Sometimes a pitcher can get by for a while throwing fat pitches, or pitches up in the zone.
Inning by inning I watch the catcher's glove and see how close the pitcher comes to hitting it.
You only seem to be looking at ERA, WHIP and other things. And to a point, those are excellent tools.
But being a pitching coach/manager one has to see more. One has to, as they said in the movie, "The Legend of Bagger Vance," one has to "see the field..." The WHOLE field. And when one only looks at numbers, your field is limited.
Now remember, you've influenced me greatly when it comes to numbers.
But DURING A GAME, I trust my eyes first.
Pitch location and movement.
In other words, a pitcher's command, or lack-there-of.
Take Peavy, for instance. I love watching Peavy pitch! Just love it!
Love his fire! Love his intensity! Love how he KNOWS he can't blow people away, but actually 'pitches!'
Those are rare qualities.
Unlike most people, throughout the game, I watch PITCH LOCATION, and starting in the 5th... Peavy was starting to miss his location, and missing it OFTEN.
For me, he would NOT have hit that last at bat. No how, no way.
Yeah, the bullpen needed a rest, but we had Vogey, Petite who could have pitched the 6th and the 7th, along with Affeldt.
I would NOT have done what Bochy did; bring tired arms on to the field if I had other options.
And in the 6th he HAD other options. (See above)
Why close with a tired Casilla?
That makes no sense.
I close with Gearin last night, and if I need 1 out I've got Affeldt for a LHB, and Romo for a rhb.
Casilla, God love him, was pitching on fumes!
Too much at risk to throw a tired arm at those Red hitters.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 18, 2015 1:21:47 GMT -5
I also disagree that IF we'd signed Lester that would have eliminated the possibility of signing Peavy or anyone else. Rog -- If the Giants had signed the players they signed PLUS Jon Lester, their payroll this season including the $15 million signing bonus paid to Jon on April 15th (apparently he was worried he would owe the IRS a lot of money!) would be $203 million. Seriously? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3029/lesson-learned#ixzz3m4J1JsEX |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 18, 2015 1:34:12 GMT -5
With regard to how many runs the Giants have scored and how many they have given up, they've scored 637 and yielded 556.
Here is something that is a little disturbing about that. That run differential points to an 82-64 record. The Giants are only 77-69. One would expect a team with good chemistry to post at LEAST as good a record as their run differential would indicate. They did so in 2012 and 2014. Heck, they even accomplished it in 2011 and 2013.
If the Giants hadn't exceeded their expected record but only equaled it, they would be 2 1/2 games out of first place in the NL West. If one of the five extra victories had come against the Dodgers, they would be half a game out.
The Giants' record this season in one-run games -- their specialty in recent seasons -- is just 16-25. That has a lot to do with why they have under-performed their run differential. Again, that's not what we would expect from a team of gamers with chemistry.
Anyone have an explanation?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Sept 18, 2015 1:42:54 GMT -5
So now it appears we have identified the two main reasons the Giants have failed to reach the playoffs this season.
Injuries. And the failure to win one-run games.
Since one-run games are usually decided late in games, that sounds more a failure of the hitting and the bullpen than of the starters. And we know the bullpen has been pretty good. In reality, I'm sure a close examination would show that the rotation, bullpen and batting order have all shared in the poor results. But certainly the results don't point toward the rotation as being the primary cause. Sounds like the bullpen, and perhaps even more so the batting order, are more to blame.
Injuries. And the failure to win one-run games.
The Giants have outscored their opponents by 81 runs and are 77-69. The Cardinals have outscored their opponents by 115 runs and are 91-54. Based on their respective run differentials, the Cardinals should have four more wins than the Giants. Instead they have 14 more -- and 15 fewer losses.
Which teams does that suggest has the chemistry?
|
|
