|
Back
Apr 15, 2017 15:18:09 GMT -5
Post by klaiggeb on Apr 15, 2017 15:18:09 GMT -5
I'm gone 8 days and THIS is what I come back to?
A 4 win team, Buster beaned, and we've signed 2 of the worst players I can think of: Upton and Stubbs.
Seems I can't trust ya'all to hold the fort while I'm on vacation.
I'm glad I wasn't here during what I hear has been one assinine scoring drought.
No excuse for this team not scoring.
None.
Not one!
It's only April, and you can call this lack of production what you will.
But I call it a lack of focus, and had I BEEN here to watch, I might also have added lack of effort.
Hell, had I been here I might STILL have called it a lack of effort.
Front office did its job. Seems the players are not exactly holding up THEIR end of the bargain.
I'm not willing to put up with this horse crap for another season, especially if the injury trend I see coming... AGAIN, is about to repeat itself.
boly
|
|
|
Back
Apr 15, 2017 23:17:41 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Apr 15, 2017 23:17:41 GMT -5
A few comments:
. Not that it's much better, but the Giants are a FIVE-win team. (Maybe it was four wins while you were gone that you were referring to.)
. I haven't seen any mention of it, but did you know that Buster got beaned in 2009 for San Jose and missed at least a week or maybe 10 days? We discussed it at the time and have talked about it once or twice since.
. The Giants are fortunate to be playing the Royals when Buster is eligible to come off the DL. He could simply be designated as the DH for two games, giving him a little extra time (especially when the two games are bracketed by two days off).
. The front office DIDN'T do its job this past winter. Given the money in the budget and the huge need for a closer, their hands were tied a bit when it came to addressing left field in particular and the outfield in general, but had they known that Greg Holland would be able to apparently come back decently, they might have saved money with Holland, leaving a few bucks for left field.
. Regarding your complaint about the Giants' not scoring, entering play today they were leading the majors in runs scored. You were gone, so you weren't aware.
. As an aside, the bullpen -- which had struggled so badly at the very beginning of the season -- really picked it up while you were gone. And continued today.
|
|
|
Back
Apr 16, 2017 10:24:17 GMT -5
Post by klaiggeb on Apr 16, 2017 10:24:17 GMT -5
And our record is....5-8?
I don't see any upside here, Rog.
boly
|
|
|
Back
Apr 17, 2017 1:38:45 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Apr 17, 2017 1:38:45 GMT -5
I see upside here. The Giants will finish with more than 62 wins, which is their present pace.
Getting a little more specific though, in the first half of last season we thought the Giants were the best team in San Francisco. They weren't. Three years ago this coming August a poster gave up on the Giants. They won the World Series. This past August it seemed the Giants would never put together enough wins to make the postseason. They did.
We aren't even 10% of the way into the season. There are things we can see, most of which we could see before the season began. But it's way too early to draw conclusions.
The Giants have scored 59 runs and yielded 60. If they continue at that pace, they'll very likely finish somewhere around .500. That isn't nearly good enough, of course. But if they can play as badly as they have thus far and yet been outscored by only one run, they just might be pretty good when they get it together.
When we were praising the Giants as the best team in SF history a year ago, their run differential told us they weren't. This season the run differential tells us they'll win more than 62 games.
Remember how horrible the bullpen was early in the season? They looked like a repeat of last season. Now their ERA is 3.85. If we take out Ty Blach, who is really a starter avoiding gathering rust while the Giants keep him available should Matt Cain fail, and the ERA is 3.49. The point is, the bullpen has bounced back. So will the rest of the team.
The only question is whether they will bounce back enough. And the likely answer is yes -- although it's disturbing that the Rockies now have pitching. I'm more worried about how well the Rockies have played so far this season than how poorly the Giants have played.
|
|
|
Back
Apr 17, 2017 10:52:05 GMT -5
Post by klaiggeb on Apr 17, 2017 10:52:05 GMT -5
Run differential means little when you have the pitching we "supposedly" have.
You can win 10 games by 1 run, and lose 3 by 15 runs, and the 'run differential' makes it suddenly look like you're not a very good team.
This team stumbling out of the gate is NOT acceptable.
Period.
With our starters, it's that complicated and it's that simple.
boly
|
|
|
Back
Apr 17, 2017 22:00:07 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Apr 17, 2017 22:00:07 GMT -5
Run differential means little when you have the pitching we "supposedly" have. Rog -- The number of games a team wins during a season usually has a nice correlation to its run differential. That means that run differential DOES have significant meaning. As for the Giants' pitching, the only guy who has disappointed me thus far is Matt Moore. The other starters have pitched about as expected. The relievers got off to a HORRIBLE start but have rebounded sharply. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3810/back#ixzz4eZA3e3JE
|
|
|
Back
Apr 17, 2017 22:06:18 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Apr 17, 2017 22:06:18 GMT -5
You can win 10 games by 1 run, and lose 3 by 15 runs, and the 'run differential' makes it suddenly look like you're not a very good team. Rog -- Of course. But as the sample grows larger, run differential usually correlates closer and closer to win totals. If the Giants wind up the season with as bad a record as they're headed for, their run differential will grow in its negativity. If the run differential stays close to neutral, their record at the end of the season is very likely to be around .500. By the way, when is the last time you saw the Giants or any other team win 10 games by one run while losing three by 15 runs. If we have to use an extreme example to "disprove" a concept, we're probably reaching. Several seasons it has been mentioned here that the Giants' run differential is out of sync with its won-loss record. In each case, the two got more in sync as the season went on. The same thing will almost certainly happen this year. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3810/back?page=1#ixzz4eZAtm0Ea
|
|
|
Back
Apr 18, 2017 10:15:54 GMT -5
Post by klaiggeb on Apr 18, 2017 10:15:54 GMT -5
It's not important the last time I saw it, Rog, but it happens.
The one that comes to memory is the 1960 World Series.
When Pittsburgh lost, they got clobbered. 16-3, 10-0, and 12-0
When they won, it was close. 6-4, 3-2, 5-2, 10-9
They got outscored 55-22, if my math is correct.
Thus my point; run differential isn't always an indicator.
boly
|
|
|
Back
Apr 18, 2017 14:44:33 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Apr 18, 2017 14:44:33 GMT -5
It's not important the last time I saw it, Rog, but it happens. The one that comes to memory is the 1960 World Series. When Pittsburgh lost, they got clobbered. 16-3, 10-0, and 12-0 When they won, it was close. 6-4, 3-2, 5-2, 10-9 They got outscored 55-22, if my math is correct. Thus my point; run differential isn't always an indicator. Rog -- I think your exception may be the one that proves the rule. In a short period of time (such as the 1961 World Series or the Giants' 2017 season to date), run differential doesn't always correlate at all closely to won-loss record. But over the larger sample of the season, it usually does. A team's expected record based on its run differential is called its Pythagorean record. Thus far the Giants' Pythagorean number of wins is seven, or 40% more than their actual five wins. Beginning with their first World Series season, the Giants' seasonal record has varied from its Pythagorean record by a total of 25 wins, or 4%. If the Giants continue at their present run differential pace, it is highly likely that they will fall no lower than 75 wins, which is a heck of a lot higher than the 56 wins they're on pace for. A team's early run differential is usually a far better predictor of its won-loss record at the end of the season than its early won-loss record. If the Giants are going to make the playoffs, they're very likely going to have to play a little better than they have -- but not nearly as much as their 56-win pace would indicate. The number of wins predicted by their run differential thus far is 80 wins. The number predicted by their won-loss record to date is 56. Any idea which will prove to be closer? Let's say the Giants need to win 88 games to make the postseason. They will likely need to improve their run differential by about half a run per game. Last season they scored 84 more runs than they gave up -- or about half a run per game. This thing is highly doable. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3810/back#ixzz4edBUgL52
|
|