Less pressure on the bullpen?

[Rog]

We have been worried here about the high pressure on the Giants' bullpen last season, as the starting pitchers went less deeply into games.  The Giants finished only 10th in the National League with 78 quality starts.

With the addition of Johnny Cueto and Jeff Samardzija, the Giants could join the leaders in quality starts.  Only three teams -- The Cardinals, Mets and Dodgers -- exceeded 92 quality starts last season, as the average in both the National and American League was dropped to 81 quality starts, or half the games.

Neither Cueto nor Samardzija was anything approaching a quality start machine, as Cueto gained 19 in a down season and Samardzija picked up 15 in a nightmare year.  The pair did tie for 29th and 61st in the majors in the category.  


Madison Bumgarner was naturally the Giants' leader with 22, tied for 13th.  Chris Heston, who isn't expected to join this year's rotation, was next among Giants starters with 14.

If Cueto and Samardzija pitches as expected/hoped, they might form a trio of 60 or more quality starts when joined with Bumgarner.  If Matt Cain and Jake Peavy remain healthy, it would seem quite possible they could combine for 30 or more.  If either of the latter pair can't stay healthy, Heston has shown he can pitch a quality start or two himself.

The bottom line should indeed be less pressure on the bullpen.  Would it be enough less for the Giants to go with "only" 12 pitchers?  Possibly.  Cueto and Samardzija should be worth something approaching an inning per start more than they guys they are replacing, and a healthy Cain should pick up more than a few innings as well.

In addition, a bullpen of Casilla, Romo, Strickland, Lopez, Osich, Kontos and Heston should provide depth, perhaps reducing the need for extra relievers in some of the games.  That might enable the Giants to carry a sixth outfielder or sixth infielder in addition to the usual five outfielders, five outfielders and two catchers allowed by a 13-man staff.

The load on the relievers should be noticeably reduced from last season.  They actually held up pretty well last season, but with the ages of Casilla,  Romo and Lopez -- arguably their three most important relievers -- any load reduction could help the bullpen's performance of last season to hold up or even improve.

The Giants finished among the leaders in fewest blown saves last season.  If they could get more games to save this season without increasing the number of games blown, their overall pitching could be quite strong.

With excellent seasons from Buster Posey and the infield in 2015, it is difficult to expect more offense in 2016.  The defense was outstanding.  This year's improvement will likely need to come from the pitching staff (which is where the Giants put their money this off-season), and the balance between starters and relievers appears to be far better than last season's bullpen overload.

Bullpen roles might shift, and extra depth is always welcome, but the hard-working rotation additions should place the bullpen in spots to be effective.

[Islandboagie]

Rog-With excellent seasons from Buster Posey and the infield in 2015, it is difficult to expect more offense in 2016.

Boagie- Considering that Panik and Pence were both out for a substantial amount of time, it's not difficult at all to expect more offense next season. Those impact players just need to stay healthy.

[Rog]

Boagie- Considering that Panik and Pence were both out for a substantial amount of time, it's not difficult at all to expect more offense next season. Those impact players just need to stay healthy.


Rog -- That's a good point, Boagie, and the Giants will likely still add an outfielder, which should help even more. Yet, I think some of the infleiders may have had career years or close to it. That could leave them vulnerable to somewhat of a drop off.

On the other hand, I still think Belt is going to have at least a small breakout one of these seasons. And a healthy Pagan -- or one who is so unhealthy that another, better player replaces him -- could add more offense. As you mention, Pence and Panik missed about a full season between them, and both Belt and the now-departed Aoki did as well. So I guess the key -- as it would have been last season -- is health.

My gut still tells me that a drop off is more likely than an improvement, but I agree with you that it could go either way. You have helped me to feel better now. I guess it may still depend on who the new outfielder is.

In that regard, I still favor Fowler, but he will almost certainly be the most expensive of the free agent center fielders. Or perhaps Austin Jackson's defense at a bargain price would win the day. With Scot Boras as his agent, Span's signing will likely be late and expensive.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3175/less-pressure-on-bullpen#ixzz3vSzsV21c

[klaiggeb]

100% agree, Boagie.

The loss of Panik and Pence... man. They can post all the numbers they want, but numbers alone don't even come CLOSE to the impact those two will have if they are in the line up every day.

boly

[Islandboagie]

Rog- My gut still tells me that a drop off is more likely than an improvement, but I agree with you that it could go either way. You have helped me to feel better now. I guess it may still depend on who the new outfielder is.

Boagie- The nice thing about the Giants infield is not just the numbers they put up together last season, but more the way they've all solidified themselves as a solid core that will be successful for years to come. I get the feeling your lack of confidence in them repeating their success is mainly due to Crawford's breakout season. You're obviously not ready to give up on the idea that he's not a good hitter. If he does in fact take a step back, the others could take a step forward. We know Posey is capable of more, we saw it in 2012, and Panik is capable of staying healthy.

I predict a better offensive season in 2016.

[Rog]

The loss of Panik and Pence... man. They can post all the numbers they want, but numbers alone don't even come CLOSE to the impact those two will have if they are in the line up every day.


Rog -- In Panik's case at least, I think they do. According to Fan Graphs, last season Joe was worth 4.2 Wins Above Average (WAR). That came in 100 games. Pro-rated to 162 games, that's a full-season WAR of close to seven games. Only Bryce Harper, Mike Trout, Josh Donaldson and Paul Goldschmidt among position players had more than seven WAR.

I think the WAR stat didn't cheat Joe at all. Anyone think they do?

As for Hunter, he pro rated out to close to four WAR over 162 games. That's not bad for a guy who batted .275, grounded into 8 double plays in 40 chances and was a negative base runner.

So I've got to ask a question here. How did the stats undervalue Joe or Hunter? One can argue that they both contribute to team chemistry, but how much less do they contribute when they're on the bench than when they're playing?

Between Joe and Hunter, they would have contributed close to 11 WAR over a full season. Only about a half dozen other pairs of teammates in the majors combined for more.

One could perhaps demonstrate that WAR might have slightly OVERVALUED Panik and Pence, but I don't see how a strong argument can be made that it undervalued them.

Stats aren't perfect, but sometimes they're pretty darn good.

Maybe when we say that stats don't show the value of Panik and Pence we're talking about less sophisticated stats than WAR. Still, Joe's OPS ranked highest among all major league second baseman, so we don't even have to get to the level of sophistication of WAR to see his contributions.

No matter how we look at Joe, he was darn good. On a rate basis, last season might wind up being Joe's career year. If so, it was one heck of a season. Joe's OPS+ was 131, meaning he was close to a third better than league average in hitting. For a second baseman, that's outstanding. To help put it into perspective, Jeff Kent was one of the best-hitting second basemen ever, and Jeff's career OPS+ was 123.



Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3175/less-pressure-on-bullpen#ixzz3vTG6wg8j

[klaiggeb]

Rog, NO ONE is claiming the stats undermined either.

My statement was, regardless of how GOOD their numbers for the team appear to be... they are more than the sum of their numbers. Much, much more.

As boagie said, they've solidified themselves as one heck of an infield, and there value to the team can simply NOT be measured by numbers.

The value of both players, when added to the sum of the whole, when the entire 8 are on the field is truly, makes this upcoming Giant team solid, solid, solid!


And also, as boagie pointed out, if one of them slips (as in I don't see 21 HRs from Crawford again), the others will more than fill in the hole, especially Posey and Pence.

boly

[Rog]

My statement was, regardless of how GOOD their numbers for the team appear to be... they are more than the sum of their numbers. Much, much more.


Rog -- I think I understand what you're saying here. Your comment is a figurative one indicating the two players have values that don't show up in the stats we are able to use at this time. And since we agree that chemistry exists even though it can't yet be accurately measured, you are correct.

It is also correct that since WAR would have valued Panik and Pence among the top half dozen or so duos had they played the full season at the level they played while healthy, WAR very likely doesn't undervalue them.

That's the problem with chemistry. While we can make a reasonable estimate of a player's value based on the statistics he put up during the season, we can't make a reasonable estimate of his value to team chemistry, since the chemistry itself can't be properly evaluated.

And to complicate matters, there is the question as to whether chemistry breeds winning or winning breeds chemistry. My sense is that there is something of each.

I agree with you that (and these are my words, not yours) Brandon Crawford likely had a career year in 2015. And I agree with Boagie that health of Pence in particular could well add something of significance in 2016.

I see Panik, Duffy and Crawford as each having hit or come close to career years. I think Belt still has upside, although shifts seem to have limited it a bit.

Posey might have a better season in 2016, but he appears to have had a near-career year defensively in 2015 while putting up an OPS within 10 points of his career average, so the odds may not favor it. It's an oversimplification, but since two out of three of the possibilities between improving, staying the same or declining wouldn't show improvement, the odds of improvement likely aren't even 50%.

The Giants might get more from their new left fielder when we know who he is (although Aoki was good when healthy). Blanco may have approached a career season, especially if he defense continues to decline. We don't think highly of Pagan, but Angel wouldn't have to have a great season for it to be an improvement over 2015. If Blanco replaces him due to injury or other reason, that might also provide an upgrade, even while hurting depth.

If the pitching staff doesn't provide the bulk of the Giants' improvement, it could still be tough making the playoffs. Cueto and Samardzija are replacing essentially Hudson/Lincecum/Vogelsong, which should provide a nice bump. It appears the bullpen could go either way. Casilla, Romo and Lopez are aging, and Kontos may be coming off a career year. On the other hand, Strickland, Osich, Heston and others could provide a nice influx of youthful performance.

The bench could be better due both to better health among the starters and Susac plus the possibility that the team might be able to get by with "only" a dozen relievers. Tomlinson is another player who likely had close to a career year, but this time he should be available for the whole season.

The tough thing about making team predictions is that there are several variables that are very difficult -- almost impossible -- to predict. Health, which players will have up and which will have down seasons, and -- while some here question it -- flat-out luck.

The one thing we can be pretty sure of though is that the Giants appear to have more and/or better pieces this season. Our expectations can reasonably be higher this season. An added bonus is that thus far the Dodgers have declined even as the Giants have been improving. That will almost certainly change before the beginning of the season, and it will be intriguing to see how and how much it does.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3175/less-pressure-on-bullpen#ixzz3vXPxxLyR

[Islandboagie]

Rog- I see Panik, Duffy and Crawford as each having hit or come close to career years. I think Belt still has upside, although shifts seem to have limited it a bit.

Posey might have a better season in 2016, but he appears to have had a near-career year defensively in 2015 while putting up an OPS within 10 points of his career average, so the odds may not favor it. It's an oversimplification, but since two out of three of the possibilities between improving, staying the same or declining wouldn't show improvement, the odds of improvement likely aren't even 50%.

Boagie- Panik and Duffy won't even be approaching their prime age in the next few years, so how do you know what their career years should be?

Seems like an odd thing to predict when so much of it depends entirely on staying healthy, and after last season the bar wasn't set that high.

[Rog]

Panik and Duffy won't even be approaching their prime age in the next few years, so how do you know what their career years should be?


Rog -- I don't know what their career years will be. But I think each approached that level last season. In Joe's case, he hit better last season than he hit in the minor leagues, and that is a tough standard to keep up. In Matt's case, he struck out 96 times compared to just 30 walks. That ratio doesn't indicate to me that a player will continue to improve.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3175/less-pressure-on-bullpen#ixzz3vZutjfUq

[Rog]

Don't know how much it means, but Baseball-Reference projects Matt at .291/.335/.425/.761, or very close to his .295/.334/.428/.762 mark from last season. Fan Graphs sees him at .276/.323/.394/.717.

Baseball-Reference projects Joe at .299/.359/.426/.785, while Fan Graphs pegs him at .278/.337/.380/.717. He batted .312/.378/.455/.833 in 2015.

It will be intriguing to see how 2016 plays out for each player.

[Islandboagie]

I guess that's why we disagree, we're not looking at the same things. You're looking at average, on base percentage, and slugging percentage. With Joe Panik the most important stat I'll be looking at next year is at bats. If he plays considerably more than he did in 2015, I believe we'll be better offensively AND defensively. Same goes for Hunter Pence and Brandon Belt.

This is one of those instances when I think you're getting too wrapped up in the stats.

If Joe Panik plays in 150 games and bats .280, he'll have likely contributed to more offense in 2016, even though his stats might not be as impressive on a stat sheet. And if he and Crawford play up the middle more during next season, the defense will be better.

Perhaps I'm not digging deep enough for you this time, but in this case, digging deep isn't necessary.

[Rog]

I guess that's why we disagree, we're not looking at the same things. You're looking at average, on base percentage, and slugging percentage. With Joe Panik the most important stat I'll be looking at next year is at bats. If he plays considerably more than he did in 2015, I believe we'll be better offensively AND defensively. Same goes for Hunter Pence and Brandon Belt.


Rog -- You're absolutely right. When I said that Panik had a career year, I was talking about rate stats, not counting stats. Even if he has a much worse season but stays healthy, his counting stats will likely be higher next season.

In terms of contribution, I do expect more from Joe next season (although even as little as he played, his contribution was very high last season). I don't really think he had a lot of injury problems before last season, and I believe his back problems stemmed from a type of slide he usually wouldn't make.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3175/less-pressure-on-bullpen#ixzz3vaMNSTDg

[Rog]

Perhaps I'm not digging deep enough for you this time, but in this case, digging deep isn't necessary.


Rog -- You were digging plenty deeply here. We were simply talking about different things. I should have made myself more clear.

Speaking of looking forward, I haven't studied this at all, but I read where Brandon Belt's numbers were very similar to Freddie Freeman's -- and the Braves are paying Freddie a lot of money and consider him almost untouchable. I think Brandon Crawford is finally beginning to get proper recognition here (in part because there is more to recognize), while Brandon Belt just doesn't seem to be properly appreciated on all fronts.

Now, if Brandon can simply stay healthy. And the Giants can lock him up before his cost goes off the charts. They did a very nice job of that with Brandon Crawford.

In fact, if one considers Crawford's extension as well as the signing of Cueto and Samardzija, one would say the Giants have already had a HECK of an off-season -- and they've almost certainly got at least one more move up their sleeves.






Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3175/less-pressure-on-bullpen?page=1#ixzz3vaNMpehf

[Islandboagie]

Rog- Now, if Brandon can simply stay healthy. And the Giants can lock him up before his cost goes off the charts. They did a very nice job of that with Brandon Crawford.

Boagie- I don't think Belt's value will ever go off the charts. He puts up solid numbers, and is a fantastic defensive first baseman. So basically he's the same guy he was when he broke spring training with the Giants in 2011. He hasn't really progressed much since then, he hasn't established himself as a scary hitter or a big run producer. He's never even knocked in 70 runs in a season the 4 years he's been here. I like Belt, but he is replaceable, we've seen it the many times Buster has played 1st. Brandon Crawford? not so easily replaced. Thus far, I think the Giants have been very smart to lock up Crawford, and be less eager to do so with Belt.

Rog- In fact, if one considers Crawford's extension as well as the signing of Cueto and Samardzija, one would say the Giants have already had a HECK of an off-season -- and they've almost certainly got at least one more move up their sleeves.

Boagie- Very true. I didn't entirely agree with the Samardzija deal, but the Giants have undoubtedly made some noise this off season.

[Islandboagie]

Rog -- You're absolutely right. When I said that Panik had a career year, I was talking about rate stats, not counting stats. Even if he has a much worse season but stays healthy, his counting stats will likely be higher next season.

Boagie- And that's why when we're talking about a better or worse offense than last year, I prefer to contribute with opinions that are relevant to the discussion, rather than immediately resorting to WAR and other "smoke and mirror" statistics.

[sfgdood]

Rog-With excellent seasons from Buster Posey and the infield in 2015, it is difficult to expect more offense in 2016.

Boagie- Considering that Panik and Pence were both out for a substantial amount of time, it's not difficult at all to expect more offense next season. Those impact players just need to stay healthy.

Dood - and the team also won't have DP McGehee screwing things up at 3rd base for 2 months

[sfgdood]

I've always had a problem with the term "quality start" being associated with what amounts to a mediocre at best stat line (a 4.50 ERA). But I guess as in society, in baseball our standards are lowering considerably.

[Rog]

the team also won't have DP McGehee screwing things up at 3rd base for 2 months


Rog -- McGehee was worse for longer than anyone I can remember, but thank goodness it wasn't five years of Pablo.

In Pablo's defense, I believe he did have injuries last season. Of course, that is part of the package with Pablo. He's been rather injury-prone through the years, and as he ages, that propensity could increase. He is listed with no fewer than 40 injuries -- many of them minor -- from 2009 trough 2014. It should be noted that pretty much all players suffer minor injuries, so 40 isn't as bad as it seems. For instance, Hunter Pence suffered 10 injuries over that period and didn't miss a game.

One would have expected last season to be one of Pablo's best under his 5-year contract. Hopefully for Pablo, that wasn't the case. If he gets back into shape, it might not be.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3175/less-pressure-on-bullpen#ixzz3veD4MZdF

[sfgdood]

of the injuries that kept Pablo from playing for any significant time, it was mostly due to freak hamate fractures which is now an impossibility for him moving forward.

[Rog]

Back to McGehee, he worked out horribly, but his lack of success last season likely wasn't predictable. After all, he had been the 2015 NL Comeback Player of the Year. The only indication might have been that he had a poor 2nd half in 2014 after a very good first half. But that happens to a lot of players and certainly doesn't necessarily indicate future decline.

The overall performance of the five free agents signed last winter was dragged down by McGehee, but the group overall didn't perform badly. The five players combined for a WAR of just under three. Given the cost of free agents today, that's pretty close to expectations. Pablo, Jon Lester and James Shields combined to average about half the WAR per player as the five Giants' signings in total. On average, the value received in those signings was clearly sub-par.

The best part of those signings is that the Giants didn't tie up money for a long period of time. The three players they missed out on were signed for an average of five years, while the Giants' signee's averaged just under a year and a half, or basically only a fourth the time of the others.

How well that works out in the long run will depend in great part on how this year's free agent signings work out. But it appears the Giants at least got more POTENTIAL this winter than they would have a year ago. On average the two pitchers they have signed so far this winter are about two years younger than the guys they were chasing last winter, so the Giants should get more years that are in or closer to the players' primes.

Here's a question. Would a team now be able to trade Pablo and Lester for Cueto and Samardzija, looking only at player value vs. cost and not at team need? I don't believe they would be able to do so. As free agent pitchers' salaries have risen this winter, the signing of Shields doesn't look like as much of a disappointment as it did during the season.

[sfgdood]

Back to McGehee, he worked out horribly, but his lack of success last season likely wasn't predictable. After all, he had been the 2015 NL Comeback Player of the Year. The only indication might have been that he had a poor 2nd half in 2014 after a very good first half. But that happens to a lot of players and certainly doesn't necessarily indicate future decline.

Dood - of course this ignores the obvious factor that winning the "comeback" award means you had to come back in the first place...either from a sharp decline in play or from a severe injury. In McGehee's case he had played SO poorly that no team this side of the Pacific Ocean wanted him. In that light, McGehee's horribleness wasn't really THAT unforeseeable.

[rxmeister]

I don't think I've ever seen a younger group of players being branded as players who perhaps had career years. Rog, you could ultimately be right, but at this point I would dismiss such a claim as being absurd. A rookie like Duffy won't get better? Second year Joe Panik? We could see them improving already, as they added more power, why have they reached their limits at this point? I think you were already wrong about Panik, because you pretty much had predicted his lack of power would render him almost a Manny Burriss type, yet we have seen him become a gap hitter who also easily pulls balls into the bleachers. I think multi time all star is a better projection for Panik than 2015 being a career year. And Duffy will become a 15-20 HR hitter for sure. Let's just sit back and enjoy, rather than predict failure based on pretty much nothing.

[Rog]

Good points, Mark. I am enjoying the now and am excited to see which outfielder the Giants and if they possibly sign another reliever. But I do think the two have reached pretty close to their pinnacles. I would love to be wrong.

But I felt the same way about Buster Posey after his 2012 MVP season, and while he's certainly remained a huge star (as I thought he would), 2012 may indeed wind up being his personal pinnacle from a batting standpoint. At this point all we know is that he hasn't come within 100 OPS points of 2012. One thing that is intriguing about catchers though is that many tend to do their best hitting in their 30's. May have to do with all the pitches they see from behind the plate.

Anyway, I'm not expecting either player to be failures. Panik in particular might be my favorite Giant. I just think it is possible they have hit as well as they're going to hit in the future.

I mentioned the Baseball-Reference forecast and the Fan Graphs forecast for each player in 2016. One of them predicted that they would more or less stay the same, while the other expected something of a decline. I reached my conclusion before seeing either of those, but I guess you could say that I'm in the decline camp.

To be fair, I expected a small decline from Panik last season and thought that Duffy would probably benefit from a few AAA at bats. Maybe Duffy WOULD have benefited from the AAA at bats, but he certainly hit quite well as it was. His bat speed is about as good as I have seen, giving him the ability to hit to right field while still being able to sharply pull the inside fastball. And Panik clearly improved, mostly in the power department.

I think Matt has more potential to improve but has less likelihood of doing so than Joe. But I think Joe has hit about as well as he will hit and that Matt will drop off not precipitously, but noticeably.

I don't put a huge amount of stock in first half versus second half performance, especially in players who aren't near the end of their careers, but Matt did drop off in power and RBI's in the second half. Hit three points higher though, so clearly the drop off wasn't large. Sadly, Joe's second half was a small sample due to his injury.

I like both players going forward, especially Joe. And I think that Matt could make a very good left fielder if for instance Christian Arroyo wound up playing third base. Of course, Matt is a heck of a third baseman, so it might not make sense to move him. Anyway, that's likely looking at least a year ahead, but heck, it's winter, so we have plenty of time to look ahead.

We can be sure that is what the Giants are, were or soon will be doing.

[Islandboagie]

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you said here, Rog. However, the first point of yours that I took issue with is when you said "it's difficult to see the Giants offense improving." Since then you've back tracked on that statement. Where exactly do you stand now?

You say Duffy has basically hit his ceiling, do you feel that way about any other good rookies we saw last year?

Duffy to me had a solid season, but has plenty of room for improvement, knowing his work ethic and character, I'd say improvement is more likely.

If Joe Panik is one of your favorites, why are you suggesting his career year comes in a season when he only has 382 at-bats? If that's his career year, he just became my least favorite Giant.

Crawford you might be correct about. Winning a gold glove and a silver slugger could be a career year for just about anyone. That being said, Crawford IMO has improved every season since 2011 when he came up, there's no solid evidence that he'll have a substantial drop off, if any.

I have a feeling most of this prediction is being recycled from some stat geek publication that had predicted the Nationals winning the last 4 World Series and Yasiel Puig being the greatest baseball player ever.

[Rog]

Back to McGehee, he worked out horribly, but his lack of success last season likely wasn't predictable. After all, he had been the 2015 NL Comeback Player of the Year. The only indication might have been that he had a poor 2nd half in 2014 after a very good first half. But that happens to a lot of players and certainly doesn't necessarily indicate future decline.

Dood - of course this ignores the obvious factor that winning the "comeback" award means you had to come back in the first place...either from a sharp decline in play or from a severe injury. In McGehee's case he had played SO poorly that no team this side of the Pacific Ocean wanted him. In that light, McGehee's horribleness wasn't really THAT unforeseeable.


Rog -- Yeah, it really wasn't. As for the comeback award, it indicates a player is headed in the right direction -- and to an extent that it is noticeable. It would have seemed more likely that he might have failed in 2014, when he hadn't played in the majors for a year, than in 2015. On the other hand, Casey played quite well during his year in Japan.

Regardless, the Giants went after what they viewed to be the best available alternative on a risk/reward basis, and since they didn't risk much, it didn't work out all that badly in the long run. In fact, the play of Matt Duffy made it a hiccup rather than a belch.

What was perhaps a bit more predictable was the decline of Pablo Sandoval -- although maybe not to the extent it occurred. Pablo's injuries may have contributed to that. If he can get back into shape, he might become a comeback player of the year himself. Last season he was essentially the platoon player that had been predicted (.197/.465 against southpaws), although not to the extent that it occurred.

The shocking thing about Pablo is that when he first came up, he actually hit southpaws better than right-handers. His decline over the past four seasons has come mostly against southpaws.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3175/less-pressure-on-bullpen#ixzz3vm0kaSB4

[Rog]

I don't think Belt's value will ever go off the charts. He puts up solid numbers, and is a fantastic defensive first baseman. So basically he's the same guy he was when he broke spring training with the Giants in 2011. He hasn't really progressed much since then, he hasn't established himself as a scary hitter or a big run producer. He's never even knocked in 70 runs in a season the 4 years he's been here.


Rog -- Brandon's OPS in 2011 was .718. In the four years since, it has average about a hundred points higher. He hasn't improved as much as I thought he would, but he has improved a lot. Part of the reason he may not have improved more may have been his unexpected injuries.

If Brandon does improve the next two years, he will be worth a lot on the open market. If he is healthy, he would be worth a lot now. Pablo got 5/$95 a year ago, and Brandon is a better player now than Pablo was then. He is also younger.

The Braves have said that the one player they won't trade is Freddie Freeman, even though they owe Freddie $118 million over the next six years. Yet Freddie's numbers last season (.276/.841) were virtually the same as Brandon's (.280/.834). Put Brandon on the free agent market right now, and he would likely earn nine figures.

You are correct that Brandon hasn't driven home as many as 70 runs in a season, but he has hit as well with runners on and in scoring position as when no one is aboard. He hit even better in late and close situations, and has been clearly better in high leverage and medium leverage situations than in low leverage at bats.

Last season Brandon again didn't hit the 70 RBI mark. But remember what a great job Hunter Pence did driving in runs back in 2012 when the Giants traded for him? 104 RBI, or half again as many as Brandon had last season. Well, in 2012 Hunter had an RBI per 4.9 runners on base; last season Brandon was at 5.1. Hunter had an RBI per 2.7 runners in scoring position; Brandon had one for every 2.5 runners in scoring position.

In other words, while Hunter's 104 RBI's seem FAR better than Brandon's 68, they both did about the same job given the runners they had on base and in scoring position. Incidentally, Hunter hit .251 with a .443 SLG with RISP and .273 with a .470 SLG with runners on. Brandon hit .285/.446 and .282/.459. Again, pretty darn close.

If Hunter's 104 RBI's in 2012 were good, so were Brandon's 68 last season.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3175/less-pressure-on-bullpen?page=1#ixzz3vm44rpF6

[Rog]

I prefer to contribute with opinions that are relevant to the discussion, rather than immediately resorting to WAR and other "smoke and mirror" statistics.


Rog -- WAR is a "smoke and mirror" stat that is used by general managers. Maybe though they're just "smoke and mirror" GM's, not real ones!



Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3175/less-pressure-on-bullpen#ixzz3vpeSVlHO

[donk33]

Dec 30, 2015 14:01:41 GMT -5 Rog said:

I prefer to contribute with opinions that are relevant to the discussion, rather than immediately resorting to WAR and other "smoke and mirror" statistics.


Rog -- WAR is a "smoke and mirror" stat that is used by general managers. Maybe though they're just "smoke and mirror" GM's, not real ones!



Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3175/less-pressure-on-bullpen#ixzz3vpeSVlHO

dk...and 29 of these GM's were losers....and some never won anything....by the way, if you are now going to use WAR, please get the definition correct....maybe I'm wrong, but Baseball Prospectus' "Extra Innings" defines WAR as a players comparison to 75 to 80% of the average player at his position...not to the average player as posted on this board......thus (they say) it compares a player to the 25th man on a major league roster or to a career minor leaguer who never has made it to the majors....their reasoning is that an average major league player is an "above average" player and sets too high a ceiling to compare some another player...typical "nerd" logic...you can always go plus or minus from any "straw man" .....

[Rog]

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you said here, Rog. However, the first point of yours that I took issue with is when you said "it's difficult to see the Giants offense improving." Since then you've back tracked on that statement. Where exactly do you stand now?


Rog -- I thought you made some good points about how the Giants' offense might improve. I had forgotten them when making my original statement. My position now is that things could go either way (duh!). My gut still tells me the chances of less offense are slightly greater than higher offense, but the truth is indeed that it could go either way and will likely depend in part on injuries and who the new outfielder is.

Perhaps the most likely outcome will be that the offensive output doesn't change all that much, that the pluses and minuses will more or less neutralize each other.

As you mentioned, one of the things that favors more scoring is that the Giants' had the 2nd-most trips to the disabled list of any big league team last season, with most of the DL trips coming from the offense.





Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3175/less-pressure-on-bullpen?page=1#ixzz3vpfRg99Y