Memories... good and bad

[klaiggeb]

As I reflect upon past teams, certain memories really stand out.

Buster's HR against Latos in the Play offs.

Hunter Pence and Michael Morris' PRODIGIOUS HRs during the season.

Hunter Pence rallying the troops in the dug out before a Cincinnati game.

Ishi's walk off HR.

Belt's HR vs Washington

Petit's incredible relief vs Washington

Bum slamming the door shut vs KC.

Scutaro's season after the trade.

Uribe's timely hitting.

Aubrey Huff's timely hitting and him whimsically declaring he was the best athlete on the team.

Cabrera's departure.

The Melk Man fans

There are so many more which define 2010-2012 & 2014, but that's all I can think of right now.


But these last 3 years have bad, bad... UGLY-BAD memories.

The 2nd half collapse 2016 for ME is right up there with the 1964 Philly implosion; 7 to go, have to win only 1... and win none.

I will never forgive them for that, especially since Flannery gave me the word for which I have been looking to describe them; COMPLACENCY.

For ME, that is the defining moment of these last 3 seasons; that 2nd half. They came out of the break so sure, so cock-sure they were the best, they mentall shut down... and couldn't get it restarted. For professionals, there is NO excuse for that.

None.


2017 will be remembered as THE WORSE SEASON I've seen the Giants have since I got DirecTV.

They were disgustingly bad.

Ridiculously bad, and no excuse they could EVER make would be good enough.


2018-Three things will always be remembered by me for this debacle.

1-Can't hit with RISP

2-The number of RIGHT DOWN THE HEART OF THE PLATE pitches THEY TOOK, AND DIDN'T EVEN SWING AT!!!!!

3-The outrageous, Little-League-Like, stupid, ridiculous swings at pitches UP and out of the strike zone they took all year long.

NO OTHER team that I've seen this year, NO OTHER TEAM does that.

But we did, and it just never stopped.



And how did they go out in what is likely the final game I'll get to see this year since Dodger broadcasts are blacked out here:

In the last 2 innings, all the runners they left in scoring position.

Perfect ending for this collection of incompetent jackasses.

Perfect.

[rog]

They came out of the break so sure, so cock-sure they were the best, they mentally shut down... and couldn't get it restarted.


Rog -- Their timing leans in that direction, although they were able to put things back together briefly at season's end, make the playoffs and win their first elimination game. They were, frankly, unlucky in the NLDS, or they just might have advanced to the NLCS. I would guess that the Cubs would have been something like 3-2 favorites had there been a Game 5, which means the Giants would theoretically had a 40% chance of advancing. And Cueto was really GOOD that year, although the same was true of Jon Lester, who prevailed 1-0 over Cueto in the series opener and would have opposed Johnny again had their been a Game 5..

The other side of the story though is that I believe we badly overrated them the first half of the season. Think of all the games where Four A players were heroes. Eventually they were going to begin playing like Four A players. Think of the timely hitting. Teams that win with timely hitting are eventually going to lose with untimely hitting.

I felt strongly at the time that we were overrating them, but I didn't realize by how MUCH we were overrating them. The Giants have played .433 ball since then, winning 170 games and losing 223. If they were truly anything approaching the best team in San Francisco Giants history, I don't think that would have happened.

So was it the Giants' complacency, or were they simply not as good as we thought they were? If the Giants had rebounded significantly and over a decent time frame, I think we could look toward complacency. Given that two and a half seasons have gone by, and they have never again been anything close to that team of the first half of 2016, I think we mostly overrated them.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4839/memories-good-bad#ixzz5SLEXjh6a

[klaiggeb]

You might feel strongly that they were over rated, but I did NOT.

Thus, I 'strongly' disagree.

They were good.

They were doing with the winning Giants had done in '10, '12 'and '14.

Good pitching and defense, Timely hitting.

After the break, nada.

[rog]

We look at things from a different perspective. What I saw was:

. The players were good, but not nearly as good as their record.

. Many Four A players had been heroes, something that would almost certainly change.

. The Giants' run differential of +73 wouldn't normally be nearly enough to support their being 24 games over .500 as they were. As I'm sure I mentioned at the time, either the run differential would increase, or their record would decline. Since the players didn't seem to be nearly as good as their record, it seemed likely they wouldn't continue to win as many games.


When one looks at those factors, it appeared the Giants were playing over their heads. Based on what has happened in the two and a half seasons since, I would say they were.

I won't get into the details, but there is evidence the Giants played above their heads the first half and "below their heads" the second half. In other words, they weren't as good as they appeared in the first half, and they weren't as bad as they seemed in the second.

[rog]

They were doing with the winning Giants had done in '10, '12 'and '14.

Good pitching and defense, Timely hitting.

After the break, nada.


Rog -- As for the pitching, in the first half, their ERA was 3.62. In the second half, 3.78. Not much of a difference. As for the defense, they allowed 24 unearned runs in the first half and just 8 in the second. The defense (combined with the pitchers pitching through the errors) appears to have been better.

Combining the two, in the first half the Giants yielded 3.90 runs per game. In the second half, they gave up 3.89 runs per contest. It can't get much closer than that. Combined, the pitching and defense were virtually identical in the second half to the first.

Pitching and defense weren't a reason for the precipitous decline.

That leaves timely hitting. I don't have any breakdown between halves on hitting, but it seems logical that since it was the offense that changed -- and even the offense declined only from a .742 OPS to a .709 OPS, significant, but not usually nearly large enough on its own to cause the decline.

The difference was in the timeliness of their hitting. And timely hitting is cyclical. A team can be lousy at it for part of a season and suddenly "find" it. The Giants were very timely and probably a tad lucky in the first half. In the second half, they lost their timeliness at the plate and likely were a bit UNlucky during that time.

The evidence suggests the Giants were winning not by being a great team but with, as you pointed out, timely hitting. When the hitting ran out of "timely," as it almost always does for at least a while, the true Giants were exposed. Their .633 winning percentage that first half has fallen to just .433 in the two and a half seasons since.

If the Giants were truly as good as they seemed in the first half, does it seem likely they would have endured a two and a half season slump immediately thereafter?

[klaiggeb]

ERA is important, no question, but it's WHEN those runs are allowed.

Our bullpen this year has a solid, solid ERA.

But they've allowed 22, final at bat games to get away from them, which we lost.

Same with hitting.

Team batting averages don't mean a lot IF you don't get those hits at timely moments.

In that second half, we didn't.

Combine that with what I called at the time, "Lethargic play," and you have the formula for losing.

[rog]

There are things you mentioned that I just don't have a way of looking up, but here is my guess. I think you are right that the Giants were far more clutch in the first half than in the second. In fact, it is my believe that they were TOO clutch, that they were playing over their heads.

IIRC in the first half, there were Four A players who were heroes day after day after day. A team just can't reasonably expect them to continue doing that. Sooner or later, they're going to play down to their level.

In the first half of the season, pretty much everything went right. That too is cyclical, and if nearly everything is going right, it will eventually stop doing so to such an extreme.

I believe that if the 2016 Giants were initially as good as we thought, they wouldn't have fallen apart so badly in the second half, and in particular they wouldn't have lost 98 games just a year later.

Which of the good SF Giants teams followed up that good season with 98 losses the following year?

Maybe the Giants WERE as good as we thought they were in the first half of 2016. But if so, why did they follow it up by being one of the WORST teams over the next season and a half?

I believed at the time we were overrating them, and I think what has transpired in the two and a half seasons since provides significant evidence in that direction. How does the best team become the worst team (exaggeration, but not much) virtually overnight?

[sfgdood]

How is this helping? Pardon my French but F--- the past. We can't let those poisonous thoughts stay in our minds. You know why? Because the next thing you know we have 40 year old Belt and Posey roaming around talking about the good old days, wondering why we still are "unlucky."

[rog]

As long as we buy tickets, concessions and merchandise, it doesn't matter to the Giants all that much WHAT we think -- other than as it might affect our future buying of tickets, concessions and merchandise.

We shouldn't forget the past, since those who do are often doomed to repeat it.

[Islandboagie]

You should tell the Libtards that when they use sexual misconduct lies to smear appointees to the supreme court. It failed with Anita Hill 30+ years ago, and it's bound to fail with this crazy liberal broad now. When will they learn?

[sfgdood]

She can't remember where it happened, when it happened, how she got there, how she got home or who was there...but she's 100% sure it was Kavanaugh.

It had nothing to do with Kavanaugh's mom kicking her family out of its house in a Foreclosure case or her working with Feinstein's husband for the last 10 years.

[Islandboagie]

Rog- The players were good, but not nearly as good as their record.

Boagie- Their rotation and bullpen were.

[rog]

I'm not sure how you think the rotation and bullpen in the first half of 2016 were as good as the Giants' 57-33 record. A 3.62 ERA usually doesn't go along with the best record in the majors.

In the second half, their ERA was 3.78, yet the team went only 30-42. As Boly posted, ERA isn't the only measure of a pitching staff, but for their ERA to change that little and their team record that much, I just don't see how the rotation and bullpen could have been as good as the first half record.

What am I missing, Boagie?

[Islandboagie]

I thought you were talking about 2010-2014, my fault.

[rog]

You're right about 2010, 2012 and 2014. The Giants had a lot of meaningful starters AND relievers during that time. Their pitching came from different sources, but its strength overall was a constant.

[rog]

Libtards? Regardless of one's political persuasions, what kind of garbage is that? As a person who until a week or so ago was a registered Republican, I take offense to such debasing language -- for both the accused and the accuser.

[klaiggeb]

Liberal Retards, Roger. I don't understand your taking offense to that.

It basically says Liberals who don't think are mentally retarded.



Retarded ISN'T a put down. It means the learning/maturing process has slowed down or stopped, so you shouldn't be offended by boagie's use of the word "libtards."





I'm not being condescending, Rog, but seriously, listen closely to liberals on the street, radio, or TV.

I hear what's coming out of their mouths and my mouth falls open in surprise!

What the heck are they talking about?

Where is the validation to the data given?

They call Trump a "clown," because of the way he looks and his ridiculous use of Twitter.

But he's done more good things for this country than ANY President since Regan, and that's not good enough.



All too often, they don't want to discuss facts, they want to discuss "feelings or emotions" about candidates, those in office, or others in general.

Not every liberal, for sure, Roger, but far too many.


Far too frequently they are selective with their facts and that is where the problem starts.

Here's just one example.

When employment was good, liberals credited their president.

Now that it's at an all time high, they REFUSE to credit the president.

You can't have it both ways.


A friend of mine came up with this statement, one that I think covers most liberals only too well: "Don't confuse liberals with facts."

And I think that's a pretty true statement for 80%-90% of liberals.

[sfgdood]

Rog doesn't like President Trump because he is a "bully."

He bullied his way into the White House when liberals proclaimed that impossible.

He bullied North Korea into agreeing to denuclearization.

He bullied NATO into paying their fair share as earlier agreed to.

He bullied Mexico, Canada and the EU into fair trade agreements.

He bullied Congress into historic Tax cuts.

He bullied Congress into taking care of veterans.

He bullied our way AWAY from burdensome regulations that kill small businesses and jobs.

He bullied our way to energy independence.

As a result of his "bullying" the Dow and Nasdaq ar reaching historic levels. Unemployment for blacks and hispanics are at historic low levels. GDP growth is well over 4% when haters, including Obama, claimed it would never get over 2 under Trump. Then when he was proven wrong, Obama tried to take credit for Trump's success. North Korea is no longer firing missles over Asia, no longer doing nuclear testing and has returned our fallen remains to the USA, all without concession of sanctions. Veterans can now be taken care of at any medical facility they choose and VA employees have accountability for their actions. The wall is being built. And the US is now the world's largest EXPORTER of energy.

He accomplished all these things and more with NO HELP from Democrats and complete scorn, doubt and hate from the media. Now, you can cry and scream all you want about his tweets, his tough talk or whatever...he's getting the job done for all of America. If you deny this then you are blind or in late stages of TDS.

[Islandboagie]

Very well said, Randy. Personally I like Trump because I got a nice tax return and I got my health care back at a reasonable cost. I can now go to an actual doctor with a practice, no longer do I have to sit in crowded waiting rooms of an urgent care to finally have a "nurse" miss my vein five times before charging me more for a visit than I'm paying now. I've heard many stories that are much like mine, so I know, despite what Rog reads on the Huffington Post, or sees on CNN, the American people (unless you're in Hollywood or a black football player who likes to disrespect our country and the people who defend it) are happy the way things are going.

As for the name "Libtards" I'm sorry if it offends you, Rog, but it's a nickname they've earned. They've tried to destroy a man and his family just so they could delay the appointment until the midterms. It's disgusting, and every single Democrat politician I've heard is on completely board with this plan. Anyone who thinks it has more substance than merely a nasty political play is absolutely, 100%, stupid.

[rog]

Liberal Retards, Roger. I don't understand your taking offense to that.

I would feel the same way if someone came up with the ridiculous moniker contards or servtards or something like that. My mom taught me that if you can't say something nice, don't say anything (although I break her rule sometimes when I'm frustrated), and I have learned over time that those who hurl insults usually do so to cover their lack of facts, analysis and logic.



Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4839/memories-good-bad#ixzz5SnnEGN3z

[klaiggeb]

But Rog, when a size able group of people deliberately IGNORE the facts, they are acting, as we used to say in the 60's, retarded.

These same people are liberals.

That moniker really works because it describes them as well as these describe their people.

Here are some others that could BE WELL TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT.

Will the thrill (Who's he thrilling? Is this sexist? Is this a put down of women who are incapable of getting "thrilled" without a guy?

Joe D. What's the D for, the size of Marilyn's cups?

The Splendid Splinter-A splinter? That's a throw away piece of wood! What a put down!

Hammerin' Hank-A black man? hammering? Racist statement if I ever heard one! What, that's all blacks can do is "hammer" things? As in blue collar work?



I could go on and on, but you see my point.

The moniker fits, and I wish you would not be offended and take it as it's intended.

[rog]

I think there is a slight difference between the Yankee Clipper and libtard.

When Will Clark's answering machine used to come on, it featured B.B. King.

[sfgdood]

I hadn't heard that about Will...that's so perfect

[sfgdood]

I would feel the same way if someone came up with the ridiculous moniker contards or servtards or something like that. My mom taught me that if you can't say something nice, don't say anything (although I break her rule sometimes when I'm frustrated), and I have learned over time that those who hurl insults usually do so to cover their lack of facts, analysis and logic.

Dood - apparently your mom's values or those learned by you over time has not spilled over into academia. A Georgetown University professor who has referred to Trump supporters as MAGAttes and Trumpanzees (didn't Roseanne get fired for something like this?) this weekend said that Senators who vote to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme court need to be killed, castrated and have their genetalia fed to pigs while feminists watch and laugh. Yes, Rog, this is what is teaching tomorrow's leaders. This woman is, in fact, the definition of a Libtard...a dangerous one with influence over our young men and women.

Sadly the university did not discipline this vile behavior...in fact they backed her up as the disgusting professor played the victim, saying she's been "bullied" after her tweets got called out. Does she have the right to say what she did? Absolutely...but Georgetown also has the right to do the right thing and get this LIBTARD away from the students who pay exhorbidant tuition to learn not only facts but also Catholic Jesuit values on that campus.

[rog]

Trumpanzees

Rog -- Horrible IMO. I'll give some credit for some creativity, but horrible nonetheless.

This is a bit ironic given how I am seen here on the subject now, but two and a half years ago or so my wife and I were having dinner with a friend who is on some type of Democratic organizing committee. I was giving her some good-natured pro-Trump, anti-Hillary ribbing, and she was laughing along with it. The more she drank, the funnier I became!

[Islandboagie]

Life is too short to get upset about some silly nicknames. The PC culture has gotten way out of hand, it's made the younger generation a bunch of emotional pusscakes. That's why they grab a gun and execute their classmates when they get their feelings hurt.

[klaiggeb]

I just heard a report on the radio today, that some woman took offense, and claimed she was being "bullied" when a guy asked for her phone number!


What the...?

You're right, boagie, the PC culture IS out of hand.

That's what the 'emotional left' has brought us.

[Islandboagie]

I honestly believe that is a big reason why Trump got elected. The rest of America (people like You, Randy and I) are tired of the PC culture, and Trump's unfiltered personality was a breath of fresh air. Reagan was the same, with a little more class of course, but the message was the same.

[klaiggeb]

I agree.

The silent majority really did stand up. Kind of like Popeye's old chant; "That's all I can stand, and I can't stand no more!"

I saw and still see, Trump as THE last hope for this country.

He holds the line and doesn't give a rat's patootie about what people think about him.

[rog]

I told my wife that surprisingly, we weren't talking baseball here. I told her about the libtards and the Trumpanzees.

I told her she could be a Barbtard. "Don't call me that, she said. "I never would," I said (valuing my life).

I told her I could be a Rogdog. "You already are" was her comeback.

I certainly get a lot of respect in MY home!