Are the Giants a .500 Team?

[rog]

The way they stand RIGHT NOW, are the Giants a .500 team?  What would we take for an over/under on their win total in 2018?

[Islandboagie]

A centerfielder/leadoff hitter is the biggest need for the Giants. Now they could get a CF with some pop (Cain) and a RF would would be a decent leadoff (Melky) and that would work too. But that's the biggest need. One or two outfielders that can play defense well and plug the leadoff spot.

The second biggest need is creating more quality depth in the rotation. Samardjiza cannot be the #3 pitcher ahead of two unproven pitchers, that's stretching our rotation too thin. We need a solid #2 or #3, preferably a #2.

That's about it really, if they make those adjustments I believe the Giants will be competitive in 2018.

[Islandboagie]

I misread the question. Right now we're a slightly above .500 team.

[rog]

How many wins would you put the Giants' over/under at, Boagie, and what is your rationale?

As you point out, the Giants have a lot of needs, although we could reasonably expect many players to improve from 2017. I have seen it written that all the Giants' positions need to improve, and improvement will certainly necessary from most -- and should be reasonable from most.

Lorenzo Cain isn't happening, although Melky Cabrera is a possible name. Melky is now 33, and might be possible if he hasn't worn out his Giants welcome and comes cheaply.

The Giants would like to add another starting pitcher, although it is expected to be of minor league contract quality. One more arm to battle for the two open rotation spots. The Giants need significant ERA improvement from Jeff Samardzija, and there are peripherals that indicate they might well get some.

The Giants are still looking for bullpen help, and one to three arb-eligible bullpen arms might be offered as trade bait. Dyson, Gearrin and Strickland could have at least a little value, and trading all three would cut about $8 million from payroll.

The needs are significant, and the means are little. But in trading Arroyo and the contracts of Moore and Span for a couple of prospects and Evan Longoria, the Giants have shown some creativity.

I'm not sure the Giants as they are now constituted are a .500 team, but it isn't ludicrous to think so. At this moment and off the top of my head, I would put the over/under at something like 77 or 78 wins. That's within 10 wins or so of competing for a playoff spot. A lot still to be done, but a decent improvement could reasonably be expected simply from reasonable improvement by the players on the roster.

[sfgdood]

Of course...two nobodies and a has been added...time to celebrate more Bobby Evans triumphs

[Islandboagie]

I'm not going to guess how many wins they'd be over next season because it would be exactly that, just a guess. But you'd be dillusional to not believe they could be significantly better with a healthy Bumgarner. Not to mention a healthy Belt and the acquisition of Longoria and the subtraction of Retard.

[rog]

.two nobodies and a has been added...time to celebrate more Bobby Evans triumphs


Rog -- You are showing a one-track mind, Randy. First you say it is crazy to say the trades are neither good nor bad until we know the plan and how well it has been completed. Now you put down the two trades because you in your wisdom know how to evaluate in incomplete picture.

No one is celebrating Bobby Evans' triumphs. It's too early to tell whether there are any triumphs to celebrate. There has been some creativity, but that's no guarantee that the final result will be significant improvement.

You're trying to judge with little rationale behind your judgment, which is premature at best.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4228/giants-500-team#ixzz52QC9TIwl

[rog]

But you'd be dillusional to not believe they could be significantly better with a healthy Bumgarner. Not to mention a healthy Belt and the acquisition of Longoria and the subtraction of Retard.


Rog -- One would indeed expect them to be better, and one can make a decent argument to show HOW much better they should be. But as you point out, players have good years and bad ones, so there is no way to know for sure how things will turn out. The best we can do is give a decent estimate and back it up with fact, logic and analysis.

You demean yourself by calling someone Retard. Not only is doing so demeaning to both parties, we have no indication Denard's problem is due to low intellect. It appears to be due to declining physical abilities.

At the moment it's hard to expect Gorkys Hernandez to be significantly better than Denard. Frankly, both players were poor last season. The most productive way to utilize them if the Giants still had both would likely be to platoon them, using Denard as a pinch hitter for Gorkys in key situations against right-handed pitchers (who aren't likely to be immediately replaced) and by using Gorkys as a defensive replacement for Denard. The Giants no longer have that option, which wasn't good anyway, but is likely better than what they have at the moment.

Mark's idea of Lagares isn't a bad one. The problem is that the Giants need not one but at least TWO outfielders, and it appears more creativity will be needed to complete that process. The Giants now appear to have a little more salary to apply, but their prospect bank is even thinner. And, frankly, the free agents aren't all that appealing in comparison to their likely cost.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4228/giants-500-team?page=1#ixzz52QDHNCaF

[rog]

Hey, we're at least generating a little thought on an extremely slow day. When the big news is the Reds' re-signing of Jared Hughes and the Twins' signing of Zack Duke, I think the day qualifies as slow. Perhaps tomorrow -- or possibly even later tonight -- the post-Christmas lethargy will wear off. Despite the lack of results, I'm sure the various front offices are continuing to work hard.

[Islandboagie]

Rog- At the moment it's hard to expect Gorkys Hernandez to be significantly better than Denard.

Boagie- a pile of shit with a glove is significantly better than Retard Span.

[rxmeister]

Man, I used to think Boagie was an intelligent guy, but I’m losing respect for him one post at a time. Has someone taken over his account?

[klaiggeb]

I think you nailed our needs right on the button, boagie.

Longoria makes us respectable and gives us a shot at .500.

But until we get the 2 other pieces you mentioned, .500?

Who really cares?

I don't.

If we're not competing for the division or a World Series, everything else is moot.

[Islandboagie]

Mark- Man, I used to think Boagie was an intelligent guy, but I’m losing respect for him one post at a time. Has someone taken over his account?

Boagie- I'm sorry you feel that way, Mark. I still respect you even though we have differing opinions.

Just so you know, I did regret posting that xmas post, because I knew it would start a debate where the same dumb talking points that have been discussed a million times before on Fox and CNN would litter yours and Randy's post.

Now if you'd like to discuss it further on the board marked "political" I'd be more than happy to do so.

As for Span, I might be rough on the guy, but he was absolutely awful in a Giants uniform, I think that's a topic in which everyone would agree.

[rog]

As for Span, I might be rough on the guy, but he was absolutely awful in a Giants uniform, I think that's a topic in which everyone would agree.


Rog -- I don't think anyone disagrees with that, Boagie, it's just that Gorkys hasn't yet shown he can be a big step up.

By the way, I may not know much about baseball, but I know that if Denard and Gorkys are a team's center fielders, the way to play them is to platoon and then get Gorkys in for defense as soon as practical. Even Denard realized his deficiencies in center field and volunteered to play left this season.

By the way, the guy screaming hardest for the Giants to spend, spend, spend is Randy, who wanted to spend whatever it took to bring Pablo Sandoval back. Can we imagine how difficult things would be if the Giants had re-signed Pablo?

One thing I will say for the Giants is that while they certainly haven't always been successful, they haven't been reticent in going after the top free agents in the game. We expect them to land the guys we want them to get, not realizing that if the Giants fail to acquire a player, they're one of the 29 who fail to do so. And while they're not fighting all of the other 29 teams to sign a player -- many of the teams don't have the payroll to even compete for the top players -- they are usually fighting with half a dozen others.

And when it comes to hitters, which has been and is the Giants' biggest need, why would a power hitter want to sign with the Giants and fall to the level of Brandon Belt in homers?

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4228/giants-500-team#ixzz52aILRJnH

[Islandboagie]

Rog- By the way, the guy screaming hardest for the Giants to spend, spend, spend is Randy, who wanted to spend whatever it took to bring Pablo Sandoval back. Can we imagine how difficult things would be if the Giants had re-signed Pablo?


Boagie- Considering how they ended up spending the money, perhaps Randy was right. Pablo wasn't bad in a Boston uniform just because his skills declined, he was BAD because Boston let him be a fat slob.

[rog]

Rog- By the way, the guy screaming hardest for the Giants to spend, spend, spend is Randy, who wanted to spend whatever it took to bring Pablo Sandoval back. Can we imagine how difficult things would be if the Giants had re-signed Pablo?


Boagie- Considering how they ended up spending the money, perhaps Randy was right. Pablo wasn't bad in a Boston uniform just because his skills declined, he was BAD because Boston let him be a fat slob.


Rog -- Believe me, Randy wasn't right. Pablo's being overweight was a Pablo thing, not a Giants or Red Sox thing.

But let's suppose Pablo had stayed in the same shape as he was when he left the Giants. Here is what we might have expected.

. Pablo's up and down defense almost certainly would have declined as he aged.

. Pablo was already a platoon player. His OPS against southpaws in his last two seasons with the Giants were .686 and .563. In his first full season of 2009, Pablo destroyed southpaws. Since then his OPS had been steadily declining.

. Pablo's overall offense was declining as well. His OPS had fallen from an impressive .909 in 2011 to .789, .758 and .739. Pablo had gone from an excellent hitter to little more than an average one.


The handwriting was on the wall. Thank goodness the Red Sox didn't see it either.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4228/giants-500-team#ixzz52bBq3z6r

[Islandboagie]

Why did his WAR increase every year between 2012 and 2014 if he was indeed declining as a player?

[rog]

Why did his WAR increase every year between 2012 and 2014 if he was indeed declining as a player?


Rog -- That's a great question, Boagie, and the type I wish we asked more of. It forced me to do quite a few minutes of study. Your question is essentially, how can a player be getting better if he's getting worse? Outstanding question.

The biggest part of the answer is that WAR measures hitting (which what I was addressing), fielding and base running. Pablo's base running didn't fluctuate much, but his fielding improved. That accounted for most of his improvement.

The next factor is that in 2014 Pablo played in far more games in 2014 than in either 2012 or 2013. He had somewhere around a quarter more plate appearances. Obviously, the more a player plays and bats, the higher his totals should go. If a player has a quarter more plate appearances, his WAR should increase by around 25%.

Finally, we should look at other measures as well as WAR. Pablo's OPS was declining. His OPS+ was declining.

One could argue that most if not all of Pablo's decline at the plate was coming from his right-handed hitting, that his lefty hitting didn't decline much if at all. That I'll certainly buy.

But as a hitter, Pablo was becoming more and more a platoon player.

Another factor we considered in evaluating how big a contract to give Pablo was his constant struggles with his weight. Would he be consistent from year to year? Would the added weight make him more prone to injury (which turned out to be the case). Would his body type cause him to decline faster?

There were simply far too many reasons for not giving Pablo a big, long contract. This decade the Giants have gone out of their way (spent more money) to keep the team together so as not to lose its chemistry. I think that contributed to their offering to grossly overpay Pablo.

I too would have overpaid Pablo as it turned out. I didn't think he would be essentially worthless. But I wouldn't have been willing to overpay by nearly as much as the Giants were willing.

Anyway, I hope that helps to answer your question, which was one of the best I've seen here.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4228/giants-500-team#ixzz52foKH6C9

[Islandboagie]

Ok, but Pablo was still a quality major league hitter. Other than his stats from the right side, there was zero noticeable drop off. Switch hitters are an unpredictable beast, one season they look poor from one side, then it can flip the next season, looking bad from the other side. Even Chipper Jones (arguably the best switch hitter in history) had his inconsistencies from the right side. We know what happened to JT Snow from the right side, but if memory serves, his issues from the right side were a constant struggle for Snow, not a sign of his decline as a player.

I agree that Pablo's weight problems are his own, but the Giants tried to watch him. After Pablo's departure from S.F the stories of them playing big brother started to surface. Boston didn't offer that same protection, in fact, they tried to cover up the fact that he showed up fat to spring training. The manager himself said Pablo was in great shape. Bochy had to call out Pablo in the media to get him to lay off the Taco Bell.

[rog]

Switch hitters are an unpredictable beast, one season they look poor from one side, then it can flip the next season, looking bad from the other side.


Rog -- You are right that things can change from side to side from year to the next, but like Denard later, Pablo's trend was bad. I'll miss on someone along the way (probably the very next time), but I thought both Pablo and Denard were relatively easy calls -- especially Denard.

In 2015 with the Red Sox, his right-handed hitting got so bad that after going 2 for 41, he switched to left-handed against southpaws.

When Pablo bounced back last season in September, he began to hit lefties at least a little better. He still wound up at only .150 against southpaws in 2017. Against right-handed pitching, he was bad but not horrible.

Incidentally, the irony of BOTH Pablo and Denard is that they hit southpaws really well when they first came up.






Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4228/giants-500-team#ixzz52nrrsPTN