|
Fear
Nov 12, 2021 16:57:38 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Nov 12, 2021 16:57:38 GMT -5
With the exception of the Giants, I think the Dodgers' organization is about as strong as there is. And of course they have SO much money to spend. I don't know that they're geniuses, although I have a feeling Mr. Zaidi may be.
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 12, 2021 17:24:28 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Nov 12, 2021 17:24:28 GMT -5
I don't think even the Braves thought they would get as much from Pederson, Soler, Duvall and Rosario as they did.
Pederson's OPS was only .738 in the first half. Even in the second half, it was only .752. In the postseason it was only .680. Pederson gave the Braves some depth, but he really wasn't all that great.
Soler had a .658 OPS with the Royals. He bumped that up to .882 with the Braves and .969 in the postseason, but the Braves had to feel that his performance was at the very top of their expectations. There was no way they could have EXPECTED it.
The Braves had had Duvall before, but they weren't willing to pay him enough last winter to keep him. He put up a decent .755 OPS with the Marlins, and improved it slightly to .800 when he returned to the Braves. It was only .673 in the postseason.
The guy who made the biggest difference was Rosario, who wasn't mentioned. Rosario had only a .685 OPS with Cleveland, then jumped it up to .903 with the Braves and a stunning 1.196 in the postseason. Rosario was the number one addition, and his performance was almost off the charts.
I see no way that one could have known with the acquisitions of Pederson, Soler and Duvall that the Braves would win it all. I'm virtually certain the Braves didn't know, and they knew a lot more than we did.
Regarding how they looked against the Giants, they did look good when they won two out of three in August. But then they lost two out of three to the Giants in September.
The Braves won it all because they got hot on September 19th and stayed that way. They likely benefited from a lack of health from the Dodgers too.
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 12, 2021 17:26:49 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Nov 12, 2021 17:26:49 GMT -5
What I want to know, Boly, is why you and Matt have been stressing about that for years?
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 12, 2021 17:58:54 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Nov 12, 2021 17:58:54 GMT -5
There are indeed different way to judge the best team in a given year. Generally I would say the teams that win the most consistently are the best, but injuries could make a difference. If a team is really good, but they are decimated by injuries, they might not fare especially well in the postseason or even in the regular season, yet have the best team.
We talk about the importance of depth, but because of the abnormal number of days off in the postseason, depth isn't nearly as important. The postseason might receive extra value because the games are the most important, but they also need to be devalued because they are played in abnormal circumstances, and there are many, many fewer of them.
I think the Giants can make the best argument for being the best team in 2012, but even there, they had to win no fewer than SIX straight elimination games. No question it takes something to win that many in a row, especially with all the pressure on, but a truly great team isn't likely to put themselves in that position in the first place. They did win the World Series 4-0.
The 2010 and 2014 teams had a lot of things go their way. The 2010 team didn't even make the playoffs until the final day of the season, and the 2014 team was a shocker that got a lot of important performances from what were essentially bench players.
Not saying the Giants were a bad team those seasons. They certainly weren't. But compare the relative abilities of the Giants who won three World Championships from 2010 through 2014 with the Warriors teams which won three out of five from 2015 through 2019. The Warriors were a great team that between the regular and post seasons won 77.5% of their games. The Giants were a good team that won 54.8% of their games. Perhaps a better way to compare would be that the Giants LOST 45.2% of their games, which was just over twice the percentage of the Warriors, who lost only 22.5%.
Basketball has a shorter seasons, and the top teams win at a higher percentage than top baseball teams do. But that the Giants lost TWICE the percentage the Warriors did shows how much better the Warriors were in their five-year run than the Giants were in theirs. Another way to look at it is that in the two years each team DIDN'T win the championship, the Warriors came within one game each time of winning a fourth and a fifth World Championship, whereas the Giants didn't even make the playoffs either of the other two seasons, and finished below .500 in one of them.
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 12, 2021 18:10:55 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Nov 12, 2021 18:10:55 GMT -5
You are correct, Matt, that the Giants' biggest problem in the postseason wasn't pitching, but rather not being able to score runs.
As for you comment that Bochy wouldn't have used Doval in the first game, I don't think there is any way to know. Given that Camilo was rested to the point of rust, that the Dodgers had already seen him (and no doubt scouted him EXTEMELY closely), and that after being called up in September, Doval had done his best pitching against the Padres, who saw him no fewer than seven times in 21 days, I suspect he would have.
And whereas Gabe used his hottest pitcher to close, in 2016, Bruce ignored his as the closer. Instead of bringing Will Smith into open the 9th inning of game 4 with the Cubs, he brought in Derek Law, of all people. After that game, Derek saved nine games with a 5.34 ERA. Will has saved 85 more games with a 2.62 ERA.
In 2016, Bruce may have been playing chess, but if so, he gave the Cubs an extra few moves.
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 13, 2021 11:58:39 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by reedonly on Nov 13, 2021 11:58:39 GMT -5
There are indeed different way to judge the best team in a given year. Generally I would say the teams that win the most consistently are the best, but injuries could make a difference. If a team is really good, but they are decimated by injuries, they might not fare especially well in the postseason or even in the regular season, yet have the best team. We talk about the importance of depth, but because of the abnormal number of days off in the postseason, depth isn't nearly as important. The postseason might receive extra value because the games are the most important, but they also need to be devalued because they are played in abnormal circumstances, and there are many, many fewer of them. I think the Giants can make the best argument for being the best team in 2012, but even there, they had to win no fewer than SIX straight elimination games. No question it takes something to win that many in a row, especially with all the pressure on, but a truly great team isn't likely to put themselves in that position in the first place. They did win the World Series 4-0. The 2010 and 2014 teams had a lot of things go their way. The 2010 team didn't even make the playoffs until the final day of the season, and the 2014 team was a shocker that got a lot of important performances from what were essentially bench players. Not saying the Giants were a bad team those seasons. They certainly weren't. But compare the relative abilities of the Giants who won three World Championships from 2010 through 2014 with the Warriors teams which won three out of five from 2015 through 2019. The Warriors were a great team that between the regular and post seasons won 77.5% of their games. The Giants were a good team that won 54.8% of their games. Perhaps a better way to compare would be that the Giants LOST 45.2% of their games, which was just over twice the percentage of the Warriors, who lost only 22.5%. Basketball has a shorter seasons, and the top teams win at a higher percentage than top baseball teams do. But that the Giants lost TWICE the percentage the Warriors did shows how much better the Warriors were in their five-year run than the Giants were in theirs. Another way to look at it is that in the two years each team DIDN'T win the championship, the Warriors came within one game each time of winning a fourth and a fifth World Championship, whereas the Giants didn't even make the playoffs either of the other two seasons, and finished below .500 in one of them. . Apples and watermelons
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 13, 2021 13:42:51 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Nov 13, 2021 13:42:51 GMT -5
I didn't mention that the Giants were limited by salary constraints, whereas the Warriors were willing to pay tens if not hundreds of millions of luxury tax, but I was comparing how good the teams were, not how good they were compared to their salaries. I mentioned that top NBA teams win a higher percentage of games then top MLB teams. Were there other significant differences I missed?
The point I was making is that great teams win consistently, which the Warriors did to a FAR greater extent than the Giants. During their dynasty, the Warriors were by far the winningest team, whereas the Giants weren't the winningest team during theirs.
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 13, 2021 20:31:15 GMT -5
Post by reedonly on Nov 13, 2021 20:31:15 GMT -5
This is not a good comparison. The Warriors were willing to blow past the salary cap no matter what it took. At times, 80% of the starting five consisted of future hall of famers. Also, the NBA talent is not evenly spread out as with MLB. It consists of about 2 elite teams, a bunch of good teams (but not top tier) and a slew of bad teams with no chance. The top level teams have higher winning pct than baseball top teams. The Giants do not have a hard salary cap and could blow by the luxury tax like the Dodgers do a lot or they can pay millions in penalties like the Warriors do but its not good business and NBA and MLB systems are different with different luxury tax penalties. Baseball also has a longer season so repeating or even sustaining is harder.
The Giants may not have had the best 25 players during this time but they did have the best organization. When they give out the rings, the players get the rings but the manager, GM, coaches, trainers, and all the vice presidents, scouts, etc get one too. Even Lou Seal has three. The championship goes to the best organization and it doesn't matter if other teams won more games or had prettier spreadsheets or has had injuries. There might be a reason why the Dodgers win the NL West so often but have little in the way of championships to show for it. I think FZ might have an idea working from behind the Blue Curtain for so long
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 14, 2021 9:21:53 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Nov 14, 2021 9:21:53 GMT -5
The difference may have been that the Giants may have had the best organization, but clearly they didn't have the best players. One could make an argument that the Warriors had BOTH the best organization and the best players. No question the Warriors benefited from much heavier spending (as was the case with the great 49er teams of the Bill Walsh and George Siefert eras).
But in taking a quick look at what might be the best five-year baseball and basketball teams of my lifetime, I found that the 1949-1953 Yankees had a .636 winning percentage compared to the 2010-2014 Giants' .548 winning percentage. The Yankees were .084 better than the Giants. Meanwhile, the Warriors' .775 winning percentage was .064 BETTER than the 1960-1965 Celtics.
During the time the Warriors won their three World Championships in five seasons, they blew away the total winning percentage (regular season plus playoffs) record that had been set by the all-time great Boston Celtics. The Giants didn't come even remotely close to the Yankees' record.
You mentioned Hall of Famers. The Warriors had at least two and perhaps as many as five future Hall of Famers on most of those teams. The Giants likely had only one. The Celtics had five or more themselves, and the Yankees had at least four I can think of off the top of my head.
The Giants were a very good team from 2010 to 2014. But they weren't close to a historically great team as were the 2014-2019 Warriors. I don't think they were as dynamic historically as the Walsh 49ers. Their World Championships is what separates them from the best Sharks teams.
I look forward to a few years down the line when the Giants -- like the Warriors and 49ers teams I mentioned -- might have both the best organization and the best players. The future looks exceptionally bright. It looks even brighter than the day Mr. Zaidi was hired, and it looked pretty bright that day. When you hire a guy whose professor thought he could become one of the world's great economists before he gave up economics for baseball, things start to look as rosy as presidents try to make the economy look.
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 14, 2021 12:09:24 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Islandboagie on Nov 14, 2021 12:09:24 GMT -5
Let me focus on the backstory of this conversation for you, Reed, just so you know where Rog is coming from.
Major League Baseball, and all professional sports for that matter have never really defined what makes a true dynasty other than multiple Championships, it's always been left up to us to decide what makes a true dynasty. We've always just believed teams that are successful at winning Championships during a short period of time are considered dynasties. Because it can't be defined simply by the leagues, the stat geeks have recently hijacked what it means to be a dynasty. Because of that, what we knew to be a dynasty is now thrown out the window. Now it's not about winning Championships, it's just about being good enough to win in the regular season consistently. While I agree that consistently being good is a good measure for determining good teams, winning Championships should still be the focus when it comes to Dynasties. But the stat geeks disagree.
For example, Bill James lists the current Dodgers team as a better dynasty than the 2010-2014 Giants. Now I can't argue that the current Dodgers haven't been very dominant in the regular season, but they still only have one Championship with a huge asterisk, thus making them undoubtedly good, but not a dynasty in my mind. He also lists the 90's Braves high up on the list, despite only winning one Championship, but at least their Championship was legitimate.
As for the Warriors, I think we all know basketball is lopsided nowadays. The best players tend to group up on a few teams and just steamroll the rest of the league. You make a good argument that if the Giants could have afforded a player at the level of a Kevin Durant, they could have likely sustained their dynasty longer. Rog is right though, the Warriors were very good and because of their Championship tally they should be considered a dynasty. How good of a dynasty is left up to us to decide, and it makes for an interesting debate.
But just keep in mind, Reed, that the prominent stat geeks have redefined what a dynasty is, and they have a lot of meaningless stats to prove it. Rog is their biggest fanboy, so you will see the same meaningless stats if you continue this conversation. When it comes to discussions like this, it's really your argument against Bill James or some other prominent stat geek making up stats to sell the latest sabermetric handbook to Rog. Rog is just the messenger, so don't blame him too much. The sports media has also been overtaken by sabermetric thinkers, so Rog will have many articles that use Bill James' opinion as the gold standard.
What shocks me is that Rog is using potential Hall of Fame members as a qualifier for dynasties..Obviously it's a flawed argument because the HoF measures one person's accomplishments, not a team's. It's as credible an argument as using Championships to define Hall of Fame qualifications. But I also recall the sabermetric crowd to be somewhat critical of the Hall of Fame because of it's simplified view of stat requirements. Did Rog think of this argument himself, or is the sabremetic community now accepting the Hall of Fame because it fits their narrative on dynasties?
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 14, 2021 13:42:44 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by klaiggeb on Nov 14, 2021 13:42:44 GMT -5
Another excellent boagie!
I think it's important to remember, that we only one of those three championships because we were lucky...
Yeah, right.
So, by that warped logic Buster Posey's home run off of Matt latos was luck, as were Pablo Sandoval's home runs of Max scherzer in the world series against Detroit.
Which makes Joe Panik's diving stop and flip for the double play to Brandon Crawford luck also, as was Madison bumgarner coming out of the bullpen to beat Kansas City, luck.
Using that kind of logic, of course our three world championships don't qualify for a dynasty designation
It was all nothing but luck!,😂ðŸ¤ðŸ™ƒðŸ˜±ðŸ˜°ðŸ¤ªðŸ˜‹
Yeah, right!
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 14, 2021 18:00:46 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Nov 14, 2021 18:00:46 GMT -5
It's really frustrating, whether it's sports or (especially) politics to argue with people who tend to disregard facts and who, seemingly since they can't make their arguments with facts and logic, exaggerate the arguments made by the other side.
Natt says "prominent stats geeks have redefined what a dynasty is." I looked in the dictionary, and the definition of dynasty seems unchanged. When it comes to sports, the term isn't truly defined. If it isn't defined, it would be impossible for someone to REdefine what it is."
Dynasty is actually an historical term. There have been many changes in leadership over the millennia, but few are historically designated as dynasties. I tend to use that general structure when I choose my dynasties to consist mostly of the Montreal Canadiens, the Boston Celtics and the New York Yankees. I would place a few others there, including the Warriors. The difference between the Warriors and the Giants is that despite the same number of titles, the Warriors also dominated the regular season, which the Giants didn't. And the two years the Warriors didn't win, they lost out in the final minute of game 7 each time, whereas in their down years, the Giants didn't even make the playoffs, and were below .500 in one of the two.
Based on how dynasty is used in history, I think my definition of a team with sustained and consistent excellence is a good one, but there is no definition that is universally accepted.
Matt says "Rog will have many articles that use Bill James' opinion as the gold standard." In truth, while it may have been negligence on my part, I haven't read Bill in years -- and I don't think I've read him a lot in the past decade. But Matt can't make good points with facts, so he sometimes makes them up to suit his argument.
Matt goes on to say "What shocks me is that Rog is using potential Hall of Fame members as a qualifier for dynasties." I have never done that, since I don't think it's a very good qualifier. As Matt correctly points out, it is the TEAM that forms the dynasty, not the players.
That said, I mentioned the number of Hall of Fame members because as a result of their winning, true dynasties tend to have a lot of Hall of Fame members. If one wins a lot of championships, he is more likely to make the Hall of Fame. Posey is perhaps a good example.
I think it is more likely that Buster will make the Hall of Fame than Joe Mauer, even though Joe played 15 seasons and had 7970 plate appearances compared to Buster's 12 seasons and 5607 appearances. The reason I believe that? Joe didn't win a World Championship, while Buster won three. Both were quite popular with the media, which might help both of them make the HOF. I think most would agree that the two players were similar and that Mauer played about 40% more than Buster did. But I think Buster's World Championships make him more likely to make the Hall of Fame. It would probably be a good thing if both make it.
Boly says that I said the Giants won three World Championships only because they were lucky. If you see something that looks ridiculous, I probably didn't say it. This is such a case. I don't think anyone wouldn't say that luck entered into the equation. If luck weren't involved in tournaments, the teams with the record of success proven over the full season would usually win the tournament. That isn't the case.
I think both Matt and Boly are strong proponents of Brian Sabean. Brian said that the playoffs are a crapshoot. I disagree with him in that in craps, skill isn't involved -- only luck. Certainly luck is involved in the playoffs, but so is skill.
Neither Matt nor Boly can make proper arguments here, so they twist the truth. I'm trying to be nice when I say that.
In my broadest definition of a sports dynasty, the Giants qualify. In my purest definition, they don't. To me, it's dominance over time. Because the Warriors were quite possibly the best basketball EVER over five years, they satisfy my definition, even though I wish the time were longer. Over their five years, the Giants were a very good team but not a great one. They satisfy my broadest definition, but not the definition I truly believe in.
A tough question here that may be worthy of debate is, does Buster Posey deserve to be elected to the Hall of Fame? I believe he will be, but is he truly qualified? That's a tough one.
Tell me which of these two former Giants you think deserves more to be in the Hall of Fame:
Player A: Batted .302 in close to 5000 at bats. Had an .831 OPS and a 129 OPS+. Seven-time All-Star and an MVP. One Gold Glove. 45 WAR.
Player B: Batted .306 in over 7000 at bats. Had an .880 OPS and a 137 OPS+. Six-time All-Star and finished 2,4,5 and 5 in MVP voting. 56 WAR.
One of those players isn't yet eligible for the Hall of Fame. The other didn't make it beyond his first year on the ballot because he received less than 5% of the Hall of Fame vote in his first year.
I can think of two or more other former Giants who might be even more deserving of the Hall of Fame than the one above who didn't get in.
The Hall of Fame is tricky. So are dynasties. When it comes to discussions, I respect those who answer questions honestly and logically and who don't twist statements that I or others made. I don't expect them to always agree with me, but is it too much to expect that questions be answered and answered honestly and logically? And that the statements of others not be twisted?
By the way, the last thing I remember reading from Bill James was a headline he wrote that read "Trump as in Rump." At the time, I wondered why a smart guy like James would say that. Sadly, it didn't take me long to find out.
One final comment for Matt. I come up with most of my arguments myself. If I use the argument of someone else, I usually attribute it.
And one final question: Matt is correct that the great players in basketball tend to congregate to the best teams. With a few Super Teams, doesn't that make it even harder to win championships? In those five seasons, despite having to play against those Super Teams, the Warriors won more than 77 out of 100 games on average, including the playoffs. That's why I give them dynasty status despite their being a little short on the timeframe. I'm hoping that in a few years, they'll have an even stronger case for being a true dynasty.
I'm also hoping the Giants will build another dynasty that will be purer than the case they made from 2010 through 2014. It could happen. I think they've already got a better organization. Now all they need to do is get more good players and enjoy a modicum of luck.
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 14, 2021 18:02:10 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Nov 14, 2021 18:02:10 GMT -5
Boly, you said, "Yeah, right!" I would merely like to comment, "Yeah, wrong!" If you embrace it, the truth shall indeed set you free.
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 14, 2021 18:48:34 GMT -5
Post by reedonly on Nov 14, 2021 18:48:34 GMT -5
Let me focus on the backstory of this conversation for you, Reed, just so you know where Rog is coming from. Major League Baseball, and all professional sports for that matter have never really defined what makes a true dynasty other than multiple Championships, it's always been left up to us to decide what makes a true dynasty. We've always just believed teams that are successful at winning Championships during a short period of time are considered dynasties. Because it can't be defined simply by the leagues, the stat geeks have recently hijacked what it means to be a dynasty. Because of that, what we knew to be a dynasty is now thrown out the window. Now it's not about winning Championships, it's just about being good enough to win in the regular season consistently. While I agree that consistently being good is a good measure for determining good teams, winning Championships should still be the focus when it comes to Dynasties. But the stat geeks disagree. For example, Bill James lists the current Dodgers team as a better dynasty than the 2010-2014 Giants. Now I can't argue that the current Dodgers haven't been very dominant in the regular season, but they still only have one Championship with a huge asterisk, thus making them undoubtedly good, but not a dynasty in my mind. He also lists the 90's Braves high up on the list, despite only winning one Championship, but at least their Championship was legitimate. As for the Warriors, I think we all know basketball is lopsided nowadays. The best players tend to group up on a few teams and just steamroll the rest of the league. You make a good argument that if the Giants could have afforded a player at the level of a Kevin Durant, they could have likely sustained their dynasty longer. Rog is right though, the Warriors were very good and because of their Championship tally they should be considered a dynasty. How good of a dynasty is left up to us to decide, and it makes for an interesting debate. But just keep in mind, Reed, that the prominent stat geeks have redefined what a dynasty is, and they have a lot of meaningless stats to prove it. Rog is their biggest fanboy, so you will see the same meaningless stats if you continue this conversation. When it comes to discussions like this, it's really your argument against Bill James or some other prominent stat geek making up stats to sell the latest sabermetric handbook to Rog. Rog is just the messenger, so don't blame him too much. The sports media has also been overtaken by sabermetric thinkers, so Rog will have many articles that use Bill James' opinion as the gold standard. What shocks me is that Rog is using potential Hall of Fame members as a qualifier for dynasties..Obviously it's a flawed argument because the HoF measures one person's accomplishments, not a team's. It's as credible an argument as using Championships to define Hall of Fame qualifications. But I also recall the sabermetric crowd to be somewhat critical of the Hall of Fame because of it's simplified view of stat requirements. Did Rog think of this argument himself, or is the sabremetic community now accepting the Hall of Fame because it fits their narrative on dynasties? Somehow, I get the feeling that some of the posters like the Dodgers because they are this family organization Boys Of Summer owned by the O'Malley family. The Dodgers of that era built teams the old fashioned way mainly by developing their own talent. the current regime is more like the ruthless soap box racer who is the only one in town who can buy the soap box with fiberglass body and hybrid gasoline engine. The way they spend money gives them a huge advantage because if the engine doesn't work right, they can simply purchase a new one. You would think that a team with that big of an advantage would have a dynasty but for one reason or another, they don't. As such, because of the way they spend money and how much they spend, the Guggenheim regime is underperforming. Even the 90s Braves had some continuity with the Big Three pitchers. If you ask anyone who the team of the 2010's were, its the Giants, not the guys who won a bazillion NL West titles. What gives the Giants a bit of advantage going forwards is that I think Zaidi has understood that its not all about being a stats geek (because everyone is trying to be a stats geek). Its back to creating an advantage using kinesiology, training, legacies, and chemistry. Every time the Dodgers have lost in the playoffs, there seems to be this moment when they try to get too cute with their strategy (they want to have their Bumgarner moment). Examples would be the way they used Kershw in the past and this year with the way they used Scherzer and Urias. This is where their strategists fail. They don't respect the game and had they played a more conventional style, they might have won a couple more. They spent about $65 million more than the team that spent the second most (Yankees), their payroll is more than twice the amount of the MLB average and over $100 million more than the Giants' payroll according to Spotrac. LA Times says that they will lose $100 million in 2021. Even though they got that 2020 World Seires win, I can't see how the Dodger organization is successful. With greater resources comes greater expectations.
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 15, 2021 16:02:59 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Nov 15, 2021 16:02:59 GMT -5
I don't believe anyone currently posting on this board likes the Dodgers, although I might be the only one here who doesn't hate them. To me, hating them gives them too much credit. Plus, I believe in hating actions, not people.
Perhaps with all their financial losses, the Dodgers will begin to spend less money.
I agree that if there were a team of the 2010's, it was the Giants. But I don't think there was a true major league baseball team of the 2010's. One could certainly make an argument that the Giants were the team of the first half of the decade.
I think the Giants could become the team of THIS decade.
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 15, 2021 18:44:35 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Islandboagie on Nov 15, 2021 18:44:35 GMT -5
Weren't the 49ers the team of the 80's in the NFL? They too won 3 Championships that decade.
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 15, 2021 19:40:39 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Nov 15, 2021 19:40:39 GMT -5
I'm going from memory here, but the Packers were likely the team of the 60's, the Steelers of the 70's, the 49ers of the 80's, the Cowboys of the 90's and perhaps the Patriots of both the 00's and the 10's. Does it surprise anyone that my favorite Packers player in the 60's was Willie Wood (#24)? Or that before we moved to California, my favorite football team was the New York Football Giants, since they had the same name as the New York Baseball Giants? After about a year though, I switched to the 49ers. And when the Warriors moved to San Francisco, they replaced the Detroit (formerly Fort Wayne, where I lived for two years) Pistons as my favorites.
We lived about 30 miles outside Fort Wayne when George (The Bird) Yardley, formerly of Stanford, became the first NBA player to score 2000 points in a season. I listened to that game on the radio. In only about three years, Wilt Chamberlain became the first player to score 3000, and a year after that, he became the only player to score 4000. As difficult as it to get 50 points in a single game, it's one of sports' most amazing accomplishments that Wilt AVERAGED 50 points a game over a full season.
Anyone else get to listen to the recording of the radio broadcast of the game when Wilt got 100? A couple of his points came when he stole a pass in the back court and took it in for a dunk. Wilt was one heck of an athlete, especially for as big as he was (7-foot-2). In addition to running the quarter mile and high jumping in college, he later was considered by some to be among the 10 strongest men in the world (probably hyperbole, although he was inordinately strong). I loved seeing film of him in high school when he ran a fast break and set his teammate up for a layup with a behind-the-back pass.
Standing next to Wilt, he had long, skinny legs but very large biceps. Nate Thurmond was like a pogo stick with a large chest.
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 15, 2021 22:34:33 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Islandboagie on Nov 15, 2021 22:34:33 GMT -5
Thanks for the trip down memory lane, Rog, but you're missing my point...if the 49ers were the team of the 80's for winning 3 Championships, why are the Giants not the team of the 2010's?
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 16, 2021 8:20:55 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Nov 16, 2021 8:20:55 GMT -5
Glad you asked, Matt. In the 80's, the 49ers won four Super Bowls, made the playoffs 8 out of 10 years, and had a regular season winning percentage of .678. They were a very good team in 8 of the 10 seasons, including the last seven in a row. The Giants won three World Series, made the playoffs 4 out of 10 years, and had a regular season winning percentage of only .507.
When a team is barely .500 for the decade, it's tough to be the team of the decade IMO.
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 16, 2021 8:31:13 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Nov 16, 2021 8:31:13 GMT -5
I'm willing to compromise and say the Giants were a dynasty, but that their dynasty was a mini-dynasty. It was short on both length (5 years) and dominance (.548 winning percentage including the playoffs).
The Warriors barely met my timeframe for a dynasty (also five years), but at .775 over those five seasons, they were far more dominant than even the Boston Celtics (basketball's best dynasty) at .711.
The 49ers met the timeframe (10 years if we include 1960, or twice as long as the Giants), and they met the dominance requirement with a .729 winning percentage, or nearly five times as far above breakeven as the Giants.
If the Giants were indeed a dynasty, they barely met the requirements of a dynasty and thus were a mini-dynasty. The truer dynasties were nearly as much better than the Giants than the Giants were better than the average team.
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 16, 2021 9:18:44 GMT -5
Post by reedonly on Nov 16, 2021 9:18:44 GMT -5
I don't believe anyone currently posting on this board likes the Dodgers, although I might be the only one here who doesn't hate them. To me, hating them gives them too much credit. Plus, I believe in hating actions, not people. Perhaps with all their financial losses, the Dodgers will begin to spend less money. I agree that if there were a team of the 2010's, it was the Giants. But I don't think there was a true major league baseball team of the 2010's. One could certainly make an argument that the Giants were the team of the first half of the decade. I think the Giants could become the team of THIS decade. The team you don't give much credit to has enough bad actions on their ledger (Bauer, Ramirez, Puig, Bradley, Bryan Stow). Don't think they will be spending less money because by this time next year, you may see them sign Juan Soto when he declares free agency. Because they can.
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 16, 2021 10:06:32 GMT -5
Post by reedonly on Nov 16, 2021 10:06:32 GMT -5
Tell me which of these two former Giants you think deserves more to be in the Hall of Fame: Player A: Batted .302 in close to 5000 at bats. Had an .831 OPS and a 129 OPS+. Seven-time All-Star and an MVP. One Gold Glove. 45 WAR. Player B: Batted .306 in over 7000 at bats. Had an .880 OPS and a 137 OPS+. Six-time All-Star and finished 2,4,5 and 5 in MVP voting. 56 WAR. Player B should have been a Giant for life and he was hurt by the strike. He was said to be on a hall of fame path after his first couple of years. I did look it up and Player A is a catcher and player B played first base so one would have to account for position, not just the slash line. By the way, Jeff Kent's slash line is comparable and has a higher WAR than either of those two. Ernie Lombardi is also similar but he's already in the Hall (slowest man to ever play baseball well).
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 16, 2021 10:10:38 GMT -5
Post by reedonly on Nov 16, 2021 10:10:38 GMT -5
If Camilo adds another pitch, he could be on the verge of having a starter's arsenal. Kevin Gausman gets by with mostly two, and an added pitch would give Camilo three. IMO the best pitch for him to add would be a change up or split, which should give him added downward movement and another off-speed pitch. But adding the two-seamer would also give him a pitch that moves down and in, whereas his present two pitches both move away. If Camilo could add BOTH an effective two-seamer and a change up or split, he would almost certainly have the arsenal to start. They are aiming for him to be the next Rivera.
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 16, 2021 10:22:16 GMT -5
Post by reedonly on Nov 16, 2021 10:22:16 GMT -5
I don't believe anyone currently posting on this board likes the Dodgers, although I might be the only one here who doesn't hate them. To me, hating them gives them too much credit. Plus, I believe in hating actions, not people. Perhaps with all their financial losses, the Dodgers will begin to spend less money. I agree that if there were a team of the 2010's, it was the Giants. But I don't think there was a true major league baseball team of the 2010's. One could certainly make an argument that the Giants were the team of the first half of the decade. I think the Giants could become the team of THIS decade. The Bauer signing is seen by their own sportswriters and fanbase as pretty dispicable. They feel that it sort of violated their trust in the team's ethics and that the Dodgers neglected to to their due diligence. That, and the way the TV contract has been so restricitve, they are feeling it from their own fan base and by prominent writers such as Plaschke and Hernandez. Also, the fans are hugely disappointed by the strategies deployed during the World Series in recent years. I would say a good percentage of their own fans would run Friedman and Roberts out of town if they could. Giants fans may hate the Dodger organization but I sense we would have to stand in line behind a lot of Los Angeles people (including some of my in-laws).
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 16, 2021 11:01:26 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Islandboagie on Nov 16, 2021 11:01:26 GMT -5
Good points, Reed. Although I'm not sure how many of their fans dislike the organizational decisions...it's not that they're loyal, I think they simply don't know any better or just blindly follow. These are the same fans that watched Bryan Stow being beaten in their own parking lot and did nothing. That would not have happened in San Francisco. Of course, they have security at Oracle park which prevents situations like this.
After the Bauer incident the Dodgers organization was in hot water with MLB for their comments about how to handle questions about Bauer. They also turned the other cheek when Puig beat his sister, and we all know about Kapler's poor decision and the cover up. The Dodgers have a ton of money, but are grossly short on moral values.
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 16, 2021 11:32:16 GMT -5
Post by reedonly on Nov 16, 2021 11:32:16 GMT -5
Good points, Reed. Although I'm not sure how many of their fans dislike the organizational decisions...it's not that they're loyal, I think they simply don't know any better or just blindly follow. These are the same fans that watched Bryan Stow being beaten in their own parking lot and did nothing. That would not have happened in San Francisco. Of course, they have security at Oracle park which prevents situations like this. After the Bauer incident the Dodgers organization was in hot water with MLB for their comments about how to handle questions about Bauer. They also turned the other cheek when Puig beat his sister, and we all know about Kapler's poor decision and the cover up. The Dodgers have a ton of money, but are grossly short on moral values. My in-laws are smart hard core fans and they don't like Friedman and Roberts and to be honest, they were ready to get rid of Kobe Bryant when he declined. Remember, the Dodgers also turned the other cheek when Urias shoved his girlfriend. With regard to the Bauer situation, the organization said he was innocent until proven guilty. I'm not sure of exactly what he is innocent of. This was after pictures surfaced of the woman with black eyes and bruises on her genitals. The current organization is not the O'Malley family organization (although I hear they were unpopular for running squatters out of Chavez Ravine). I guess some people can be indifferent about them and they choose what they want to get riled up about but, as you say, they are definitely lacking in the ethics department. I'm no fan of Larry Baer, either.
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 16, 2021 12:14:34 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Nov 16, 2021 12:14:34 GMT -5
Doval already has one advantage over even Mariano: He has TWO good pitches, whereas Mariano had only one. The Giants are grooming Mariano, er, Camilo to close, but if he had a good change or split, he could probably start. If he had a good off-speed pitch AND a good two-seamer, he almost certainly could do so. McGee is mostly a one-pitch pitcher, which a reliever can get by with if it's a really good pitch.
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 17, 2021 12:58:03 GMT -5
Post by reedonly on Nov 17, 2021 12:58:03 GMT -5
Tom Brady: "Well, the number one [reason] it's so hard to repeat is that it's hard to win one Super Bowl," Brady said.
"There's one of 32, and being second is the same as being 32nd. In the end, there's one team that everyone's going to remember from every season. So to win two of those back-to-back is extremely difficult."
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 17, 2021 13:21:11 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Nov 17, 2021 13:21:11 GMT -5
Tom is right. Of the 55 Super Bowl winners, only 8 have won it a second year in a row. And a team literally can't repeat until it has won one.
Incidentally, that there are only 8 repeat winners out of 55 illustrates that the best team doesn't always win the tournament.
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 17, 2021 13:30:33 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Nov 17, 2021 13:30:33 GMT -5
We have talked about whether the Giants were the team of this past decade. By default, perhaps they were.
But here is a way I think we can judge dynasties. Let's say the Giants were the team of the past decade. They finished barely above .500 for the decade. The Giants were probably no better than the 3rd-best team of the 60s, likely behind both the Yankees and Dodgers. Yet they finished more than 200 games over .500 for the decade.
My guess is that if on an era-adjusted basis, the composite Giants team of the 60's would beat the composite Giants team of the 10's if those composite teams played 500 or 1000 games. Or perhaps we'd like to make it 1620 games to represent the full decade. 500, 1000, 1620 -- any of those would be long enough schedules to factor out most extraneous factors.
Anyone think the team of the 10's would win -- when they were basically wins a season worse than the 60's team?
|
|