|
Fear
Nov 17, 2021 13:31:37 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Nov 17, 2021 13:31:37 GMT -5
10 wins a season worse.
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 17, 2021 13:32:03 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Nov 17, 2021 13:32:03 GMT -5
That's a huge disparity between two good teams.
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 17, 2021 15:12:34 GMT -5
Post by reedonly on Nov 17, 2021 15:12:34 GMT -5
You know that comparing the 60s team against the 10s team is comparing two different eras. There are numerous differences even though it is the same game on the surface. Nowadays, there are twice as many teams, there is year round focus on baseball... no having to sell used cars in the offseason, the players as a whole are richer, stronger, faster, the strike zone is tighter, and the mound is lower. No longer does an expansion team have to wallow at the bottom of the standings for decades. The talent is still divided but I think there is a bit more parity in the modern game. If one of the other posters like Boly would get misty eyed over the 60s, I would think you would be one of the first on the message board to mention all these things. Its kind of like an older man comparing his son and his grandson.
If you really want a bit of a comparison, I think the front office of the 60s had the edge on the international market but flat out sucked when they made trades. The litany of 60s trades is horrific and one could field a decent top tier team using those pieces that they traded away. They kept trading away outfield prospects for spare pieces and it worked to an extent until Willie Mays got older. Everyone brings up the Cepeda for Sadecki trade as the example but I think the worst ones were Hands and Hundley for Don Landrum and McDaniel or Matty Alou for Joe Gibbon and Ozzie Virgil. I guess in those days, all you had to do was get Horace and Chub into the Pink Pony and feast on the Giants roster like a buffet table. Maybe the one guy they should have traded when he was peaking was Jim Ray Hart (for Sam McDowell !!).
60s probably had better hitters. As for starting pitching, Marichal was the better ace but the rest of the rotation not as good as the 10s (Cain, Mad Bum, Vogey and Sanchez beat Gaylord and Bolin). The 60s relievers were non-existant (Linzy, McDaniel), and the 10s far superior bullpen. 10s probably had better fielders except for Mays. Manager Bochy beats Dark and Franks. I'm not going to choose one of the other. It's kind of futile because of all the differences the game has brought us in 50 years. However, I think the difference in the Giants of the two eras is not a chasm.
***
As a digression, A few years ago, one of my nephews asked me if I had to visit a ballpark from any era, which. I mentioned that the ones we have now are the best. I've been to Wrigley and Fenway and while they have that history and old neighborhood charm, no one talks about all the mold you can smell or the rust. For Wrigley, I had to park in a cemetary and walk over. On Fenway, the ceilings were so low, I nearly hit my head a few times. Or rocks thrown at cars near Candlestick by neighborhood kids. If you have some spare hours and want an eye-opener, use google maps and look up where some of the old ballparks were and then do a 360 view. It's pretty clear that in most cases, owners probably couldn't wait to get out of their ballparks, especially in the inner cities. One surprise is that a couple of those really old sites are still being used today (League Park repurposed as a rec park and Braves Field now for football). All of which goes to show that one's memory changes as we get older and we need to be careful about how our minds rewrite history.
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 17, 2021 16:01:49 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Nov 17, 2021 16:01:49 GMT -5
I agree with you that the difference between the two composite teams isn't a chasm. I do believe though that it is significant, as the approximate 10-win per season difference would indicate. I also agree that the two eras are quite different, and I would add that if we took today's players as they exist now and played them against the 60's players as they existed then, today's players would win consistently. That's why I specified that the composite teams would be era-adjusted.
The 60's team outscored their opponents by at least 40 runs every single season of the decade, and by 885 runs over the full decade. The 10's team outscored their opponents in five of the 10 seasons and were outscored in five of them. They were actually OUTSCORED by 11 runs over the course of the decade. Can a team be OUTSCORED over a decade and still be the team of the decade? I'm not so sure.
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 17, 2021 16:12:22 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Nov 17, 2021 16:12:22 GMT -5
You brought up a good point that I would love to get to the bottom of, Reed. (Maybe we should call you "Reeder" in honor of Kirk Rueter.) You mentioned that the Giants kept trading their many outfielders for spare pieces. Here is what I would like to get to the bottom of, Reeder.
Willie Mays played shortstop when he was in the Army (as is often the case with a team's best athlete). On occasion, he would take infield practice at shortstop with the team before games at Candlestick. I saw him do so quite a few times. I saw him do things there that I didn't see again until I saw Ozzie Smith.
My question is: How good might the Giants have been if they had played Willie at shortstop to take advantage of all those fine outfielders? It's counter-intuitive to take the player considered by many if not most to be the greatest defensive center fielder of all time and play him at shortstop. I suspect the Giants would have been worried about injury, although Ernie Banks played there for eight seasons without much in the way of injury problems.
How good would Willie have been at shortstop? I can't say for sure that he would have been as good as he was in center, but I saw enough of him in infield practice that I think he would have been pretty good. And with the possible exception of catcher, shortstop influences the game more defensively than any other position, even center field. But to overly simplify, would you rather have one of the Alou brothers or Daddy Wags or Willie Kirkland or Jackie Brandt or Ken Henderson in your lineup, or Jose Pagan or Hal Lanier?
I would love for someone to ask Willie how he thinks the Giants have done.
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 17, 2021 16:16:53 GMT -5
Post by reedonly on Nov 17, 2021 16:16:53 GMT -5
Annointing the team of the 60s is a little murky because the Yankees, Cardinals, and Dodgers each won two World Championships and the Orioles had the most regular season wins and 1 WS championship. The Giants could make a case for being the team of the 60s with second most regular season wins but there were no WS Championships so no few would consider them. In fact, some people would say that the most memorable teams of the 60s were the Pirates (Mazaroski's homer) or the 1969 Mets.
Another thing to consider is that in the 2010s, the Giants won 11 playoff series and 3 WS Champions so to win a World Series is more difficult in the playoff stage because in the playoffs, a team would need to win 11 to 12 games against playoff caliber teams to win the championship, not just 4 wins in the beginning of the 60s. By the way, the team with the most regular season wins in the 10s is not the Dodgers, its the Yankess. The most years in the playoffs are the Yankees and Dodgers. Most people would not use regular season wins as a measure. Measuring years in the playoffs as a measure of success is not a good measure, either because that translates to 7 playoff defeats for the Yankees and Dodgers.
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 17, 2021 16:21:05 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Nov 17, 2021 16:21:05 GMT -5
You bring up a good point, Reeder, that the Cepeda for Sadecki trade wasn't quite as bad as most people think. Sadecki was pretty good for a while, and the Giants had no place to properly play both Peruchin (Cepeda) and Willie McCovey at the same time.
Matty Alou for Joel Gibbon and Ozzie Virgil Sr. was pretty darn bad, as was (as you alluded to), Gaylord Perry for Sam McDowell, which may be the worst the Giants have ever made. Bill Hands went with Randy Hundley to the Cubs for Pittsburg, CA native Don Landrum and solid reliever Lindy McDaniel, making it a much worse trade than had it been for Hundley straight up. That the Giants soon traded Lindy for a done Bill Monbouquette didn't help much either.
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 17, 2021 16:22:27 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Nov 17, 2021 16:22:27 GMT -5
If I could visit any old park, it would be the Polo Grounds. I got to visit the site in 1964 (and pick up the remnants of a couple of seats), but by then it was just rubble.
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 17, 2021 16:34:25 GMT -5
Post by reedonly on Nov 17, 2021 16:34:25 GMT -5
You brought up a good point that I would love to get to the bottom of, Reed. (Maybe we should call you "Reeder" in honor of Kirk Rueter.) You mentioned that the Giants kept trading their many outfielders for spare pieces. Here is what I would like to get to the bottom of, Reeder. Willie Mays played shortstop when he was in the Army (as is often the case with a team's best athlete). On occasion, he would take infield practice at shortstop with the team before games at Candlestick. I saw him do so quite a few times. I saw him do things there that I didn't see again until I saw Ozzie Smith. My question is: How good might the Giants have been if they had played Willie at shortstop to take advantage of all those fine outfielders? It's counter-intuitive to take the player considered by many if not most to be the greatest defensive center fielder of all time and play him at shortstop. I suspect the Giants would have been worried about injury, although Ernie Banks played there for eight seasons without much in the way of injury problems. How good would Willie have been at shortstop? I can't say for sure that he would have been as good as he was in center, but I saw enough of him in infield practice that I think he would have been pretty good. And with the possible exception of catcher, shortstop influences the game more defensively than any other position, even center field. But to overly simplify, would you rather have one of the Alou brothers or Daddy Wags or Willie Kirkland or Jackie Brandt or Ken Henderson in your lineup, or Jose Pagan or Hal Lanier? I would love for someone to ask Willie how he thinks the Giants have done. I would have loved it. You are essentially swapping out a Cepeda or an Alou for Pagan or Lanier. If I recall correctly, Mays played SS in that 23 inning game against the Mets. Maybe that was a foreshadowing of things to come with all the switching they did in that game. Davenport was the rover in that game and hit a triple in the 23rd. In that game, Mays played SS for one inning and had no chances. That was the moment where Gaylord Perry used the spitter he learned from Bob Shaw. In 1964, Mays played SS for 3 innings, also no chances and one game at 3B for over five innings (one assist).
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 17, 2021 16:35:10 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Nov 17, 2021 16:35:10 GMT -5
With regard to Giants starting pitchers of the 60's, lets not forget Jack Sanford, Billy Pierce and Billy (Digger) O'Dell. They weren't around for a long time, but they were strong in 1962. Sam Jones was with the team for only three seasons, but he was their ace for two of them (including 1960). Mike McCormick won a Cy Young Award in 1967.
Bobby Bolin was a good starter for the Giants, but he was an even better reliever. His ERA as a starter was 3.71, while his ERA in relief was 2.87. He pitched in about twice as many games in relief, but pitched nearly twice as many innings as a starter. As you mentioned, Reeder, bullpens were far less effective back then. That said, Frank Linzy and Bill Henry were pretty good. McDaniel had been among the best, as had Don McMahon, although Don pitched mostly in the 70's for the Giants. Masanori Murakami was around for only two seasons, but he was effective as the first Japanese player in the majors.
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 17, 2021 16:44:45 GMT -5
Post by reedonly on Nov 17, 2021 16:44:45 GMT -5
With regard to Giants starting pitchers of the 60's, lets not forget Jack Sanford, Billy Pierce and Billy (Digger) O'Dell. They weren't around for a long time, but they were strong in 1962. Sam Jones was with the team for only three seasons, but he was their ace for two of them (including 1960). Mike McCormick won a Cy Young Award in 1967. Bobby Bolin was a good starter for the Giants, but he was an even better reliever. His ERA as a starter was 3.71, while his ERA in relief was 2.87. He pitched in about twice as many games in relief, but pitched nearly twice as many innings as a starter. As you mentioned, Reeder, bullpens were far less effective back then. That said, Frank Linzy and Bill Henry were pretty good. McDaniel had been among the best, as had Don McMahon, although Don pitched mostly in the 70's for the Giants. Masanori Murakami was around for only two seasons, but he was effective as the first Japanese player in the majors. Gaylord was good but not great for the Giants. He was very erratic in the beginning. Bolin is very underrated but still not up to the 2010s starters.
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 17, 2021 17:35:47 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Nov 17, 2021 17:35:47 GMT -5
You seem to know your 60's Giants well, Reeder. You must be older than I thought! I would like to disclaim a bit though. Gaylord went 2.96 with the Giants, winning 134 games while losing 109. That compares pretty closely with Madison Bumgarner's 3.13 with a 119-92 record. As you likely know, Bob Shaw -- a 60's Giants pitcher I should have mentioned earlier -- is alleged to have taught Gaylord the spitter, presumably in 1964. You are right that Gaylord got off to a bit of a slow start, but from 1964 on, he had a pretty stellar Giants career. I hate that Gaylord had to cheat to be as good as he was, but he was a very good pitcher for the Giants. In fact, his 2.96 ERA was lower than his 3.11 career Hall of Fame ERA. As for Bolin, I wouldn't put him quite at the level of Matt Cain, but aside from not having as much endurance as Matt, he was pretty close. Bobby had the ability to pitch well as a starter or out of the bullpen, and most seasons did a fair amount of each. Shaw pitched well for a while, Warren Spahn was good in his brief time with the Giants at the end of his career, and as you mentioned, Sadecki wasn't bad. In the bullpen, Jim Duffalo had some success. As you mentioned, the bigger difference was likely in the bullpen, where even noting that present bullpens are much better than the bullpens of yore (when exactly was yore, anyway?), the Giants especially in the first half of the decade had marvelous bullpens. That said, the bullpen blew up on them in game 4 with the Cubs in 2016, although I believe Bruce Bochy had the answer in his bullpen in Will Smith, who hadn't been scored upon in a month and a half and had even allowed few hits, let alone runs. Will did come in later in the inning, and gave up a hit, but the ball was a grounder that simply found a hole up the middle. Hit in a slightly different direction in a double play situation, it might have been just what the doctor ordered. Certainly Smith overcame an injury to become a bona fide closer when the Giants finally gave him the chance. Bruce didn't make many mistakes, but I believe that was a glaring one. We have the benefit of hindsight now, but Derek Law instead of Smith? Really? And I would SO have loved to see Cueto against Lester for all the NLDS marbles the next game. Both were really fine pitchers at or near the peaks of their games. Lester had won the opener of the series against Cueto, 1-0, in a game pitched extremely well by each pitcher. Ryan Vogelsong was a very important pitcher for the 10's team. He is a fan favorite, but I don't think many around baseball realize how amazingly consistent he was for about a year's period between 2011 and 2012. That said, let's not forget that even though he was mediocre as a Giant, Barry Zito played a prominent role in the rotation during most of his seven years with the team. Tim Lincecum was excellent in 2010 and 2011, but not very good the rest of the decade. Matt Cain was quite good through 2012, but not so good thereafter. I would need to do a study to compare the Giants' rotations of the 60's with those of the 10's, but I have a feeling it might be closer than one might think. The big difference between the two teams though was their hitting. Which did create a huge discrepancy in their respective run differentials. I kind of agree with you that there isn't a chasm between the two decade teams, but there most certainly is a chasm in run differential, so I'm probably underestimating the difference between them.
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 17, 2021 18:51:47 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by reedonly on Nov 17, 2021 18:51:47 GMT -5
If I could visit any old park, it would be the Polo Grounds. I got to visit the site in 1964 (and pick up the remnants of a couple of seats), but by then it was just rubble. The scariest looking one is the site of Wrigley Field California. On the site of Wrigley Field is a mental health clinic, a parking lot, and a whole lot of grafitti.
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 17, 2021 21:10:15 GMT -5
Post by reedonly on Nov 17, 2021 21:10:15 GMT -5
You bring up a good point, Reeder, that the Cepeda for Sadecki trade wasn't quite as bad as most people think. Sadecki was pretty good for a while, and the Giants had no place to properly play both Peruchin (Cepeda) and Willie McCovey at the same time. Matty Alou for Joel Gibbon and Ozzie Virgil Sr. was pretty darn bad, as was (as you alluded to), Gaylord Perry for Sam McDowell, which may be the worst the Giants have ever made. Bill Hands went with Randy Hundley to the Cubs for Pittsburg, CA native Don Landrum and solid reliever Lindy McDaniel, making it a much worse trade than had it been for Hundley straight up. That the Giants soon traded Lindy for a done Bill Monbouquette didn't help much either. Gaylord was a good pitcher for the Giants and he deserves to be in the Hall Of Fame but I'm not sure he deserves the statue. In the 60s, he won 20 games once and again in 1970 but he also lost about 15 games each year. ERA is not useful as a comparison to 10s pitchers because of the larger strike zone and higher mound in the 60s. I think I would have reserved the statue for DiMaggio, O'Doul, or one of the newer players.
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 17, 2021 21:33:17 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Nov 17, 2021 21:33:17 GMT -5
I too was surprised when Gaylord was given a statue. He was excellent for the Giants, but he built a lot of his Hall of Fame case after he left them.
Regarding ERA, I think the best way to compare pitchers of different eras is to use ERA+, which factors in the era and also the pitcher's home park. Gaylord's ERA+ of 119 with the Giants was also almost identical to Madison's 120.
Aside from opposite hands and completely different styles, the main difference I see between the two is that when Gaylord left the Giants, he had a lot left in the tank, whereas when Madison left, his best years were clearly behind him.
I don't think Lefty O'Doul was worthy enough of a statue to offset that he played only three years for the Giants, and while as the best player to come out of SF, DiMag was plenty good enough, he had no ties to the Giants whatsoever. I think it would have been good to save Gaylord's statue spot for Buster.
I was surprised that the Giants of the 10's wound up with a NEGATIVE run differential, although their won-loss record for the decade was so close that I shouldn't have been surprised. Can we in good faith award the team of the decade award to a team that was outscored?
As an aside, the Warriors look like they're back to being great again. In 2020 when they lost Durant, Thompson AND Curry, they were horrible, which I guess was to be expected. With Curry back last season, they were on the cusp of the playoffs. Last night they simply ran past the team some rated as the only team who might be better this season than the Warriors have been, making it clear that thus far (and the season is only a sixth of the way through), the Warriors are the best team. And that's WITHOUT Thompson and last year's #2 overall draft pick, both of whom may be back before Christmas.
I mention this because if the Warriors turn out to be great again for another four or five years, they could approach the Celtics as the top NBA team ever, or at least get up there with the Michael Jordan Bulls (if they aren't already pretty close). For me, much of dynasties are about prolonged excellence. The Giants were very good for a long time, but they were poor from 2005 through 2008. Now five years have passed since the Giants were very good at all, meaning that if they can build a dynasty under Mr. Zaidi, the time and the change of management would seem to make it two separate dynasties -- as opposed to the Warriors' continuity and the short time in between greatness (especially under pandemic conditions) would seem to allow them to extend their already great dynasty.
Then again, I would love to see Mr. Zaidi build a dynasty of a decade or more -- hopefully beginning with 2021, a season in which the Giants won more regular season games than any in their history. To perhaps put some things into proper perspective, the 2021 Giants won 19 more regular season games than their 2014 World Champions. Looked at another way, even if we include both postseasons, the 2021 team won 10 more.
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 17, 2021 21:45:37 GMT -5
Post by reedonly on Nov 17, 2021 21:45:37 GMT -5
I too was surprised when Gaylord was given a statue. He was excellent for the Giants, but he built a lot of his Hall of Fame case after he left them. Regarding ERA, I think the best way to compare pitchers of different eras is to use ERA+, which factors in the era and also the pitcher's home park. Gaylord's ERA+ of 119 with the Giants was also almost identical to Madison's 120. Aside from opposite hands and completely different styles, the main difference I see between the two is that when Gaylord left the Giants, he had a lot left in the tank, whereas when Madison left, his best years were clearly behind him. I don't think Lefty O'Doul was worthy enough of a statue to offset that he played only three years for the Giants, and while as the best player to come out of SF, DiMag was plenty good enough, he had no ties to the Giants whatsoever. I think it would have been good to save Gaylord's statue spot for Buster. I was surprised that the Giants of the 10's wound up with a NEGATIVE run differential, although their won-loss record for the decade was so close that I shouldn't have been surprised. Can we in good faith award the team of the decade award to a team that was outscored? As an aside, the Warriors look like they're back to being great again. In 2020 when they lost Durant, Thompson AND Curry, they were horrible, which I guess was to be expected. With Curry back last season, they were on the cusp of the playoffs. Last night they simply ran past the team some rated as the only team who might be better this season than the Warriors have been, making it clear that thus far (and the season is only a sixth of the way through), the Warriors are the best team. And that's WITHOUT Thompson and last year's #2 overall draft pick, both of whom may be back before Christmas. I mention this because if the Warriors turn out to be great again for another four or five years, they could approach the Celtics as the top NBA team ever, or at least get up there with the Michael Jordan Bulls (if they aren't already pretty close). For me, much of dynasties are about prolonged excellence. The Giants were very good for a long time, but they were poor from 2005 through 2008. Now five years have passed since the Giants were very good at all, meaning that if they can build a dynasty under Mr. Zaidi, the time and the change of management would seem to make it two separate dynasties -- as opposed to the Warriors' continuity and the short time in between greatness (especially under pandemic conditions) would seem to allow them to extend their already great dynasty. Then again, I would love to see Mr. Zaidi build a dynasty of a decade or more -- hopefully beginning with 2021, a season in which the Giants won more regular season games than any in their history. To perhaps put some things into proper perspective, the 2021 Giants won 19 more regular season games than their 2014 World Champions. Looked at another way, even if we include both postseasons, the 2021 team won 10 more. I just mentioned Lefty ODoul because he was a hometown hero with the Seals and was a goodwill ambassador for baseball in Japan before and after World war II. He managed the Seals for 15 years and helped to develop joe Dimaggio (I was smart enough to leave him alone). The Tokyo Giants exist because of him and share SF's colors. My father, who grew up in San Francisco felt Lefty and Joe were the two best baseball guys before the Giants came. That said, Gaylord's spot should have been for reserved for Lefty, Joe, Buster, Barry or Monte Irvin. Will Clark probably doesn't deserve the statue but it would be a great loooking one.
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 18, 2021 14:23:48 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Nov 18, 2021 14:23:48 GMT -5
I would love to see Monte get a statue, although he probably isn't deserving of one. Will probably isn't quite good enough either, although as we know, his stats were better than Buster's. Barry Bonds is probably the one who deserves the statue. You make the excellent point though, Reeder, that there needs to be a positional adjustment, and Buster played perhaps the toughest position of all.
One thing that helps Buster's HOF cause is his .302 batting average. But as Don was quick to tell us, Buster didn't hit as well behind the plate as he hit as a first baseman. He hit "only" .298 as a catcher, and surprisingly, he hit only .280 as the designated hitter. Don, of course, felt that the Giants should move Buster to first base, but they already had a pretty good one there in Brandon Belt, and Buster was a much better defensive catcher than first baseman. Buster's leadership also came more into play behind the plate.
Also, one poster here mentioned that perhaps one of the reasons Buster hit better when playing first base had nothing to do with the position (DH didn't seem to help), but rather that because Belt hit left-handed, Buster started a higher percentage of games at first base against southpaws. As a catcher, Buster had an .823 OPS. At first base, his OPS was .904. Against southpaws and right-handers, Buster had similarly different OPS figures of .797 and .916.
He's an all-time great Giant when one combines performance with character.
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 23, 2021 11:46:41 GMT -5
via mobile
reedonly likes this
Post by Islandboagie on Nov 23, 2021 11:46:41 GMT -5
They should have a statue of Matt Cain and Buster Posey's embrace after the perfect game. It would represent the first and only (to date) perfect game in franchise history, not to mention it happened at AT&T, where it would be. Plus it would immortalize two career Giants that were a big part of the dynasty. On a plaque in front of the statue they could talk about that game, and continue with the 3 world championships both players were a part of.
|
|
|
Fear
Nov 23, 2021 15:33:30 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Nov 23, 2021 15:33:30 GMT -5
That's a good idea, Matt. Buster probably deserves his own statue, but I like your idea. As you pointed out, it would honor Buster, Matt, the Giants' only perfect game and the three World Championship teams.
Years ago I said over at the McCovey Chronicles that I thought Matt had a better chance of throwing a no-hitter than Tim Lincecum did. Since Tim was the better pitcher, I naturally got questions about the statement. I liked Matt's chances better because he seemed to be better able to throw the high, hard one past batters than Tim, although Tim had the nastier overall stuff. I certainly thought Tim was the BETTER of the two, but I felt that he ran too much risk of giving up a hit on the high, hard one, even though I did see him pitch a no-hitter for 6.1 innings at Fresno.
As it turned out, both got no-hitters, and Tim got two of them. He had more no-hitters, but Matt's was more special, since it was a perfect game. I didn't predict Tim's no-hitter, but I did think driving home from work before it that he would have a really good game that night and emailed that thought to his dad. It wasn't the only time I ever did that, but it was the only time that season. As I mentioned earlier, I was on vacation in the Midwest when he pitched his second one and only saw it several days later.
While a good pitcher is more likely to pitch a no-hitter than a bad pitcher is, there is often as much or more luck than skill involved in a no-hitter. Tim pitched two of them, but neither came during his prime. I thought Yusmeiro Petit's near-miss on a perfect game was a better-pitched game than either of Tim's no-hitters or Matt's perfect game.
My favorite thing about Matt's perfecto was Gregor Blanco's great catch. Not only was Gregor an excellent and speedy outfielder who went a long, long way to make the catch, he never would have gotten there had he not paid close attention to the scouting report and been so far off the line before the pitch. Any other park but the Giants, and almost any other outfielder, and that ball would have gone for extra bases.
In Tim's first no-hitter, Hunter Pence bailed him out with a fine diving catch. In Yusmeiro's near-miss, Hunter was JUST short of being able to make a very similar catch. That came with two outs in the ninth. And the pitch before, the A's batter looked like he was so fooled that he couldn't get off a swing, which he very likely would have missed on. As it was, the breaking ball just missed.
Yusmeiro not only broke Jim Barr's record for the most consecutive batters retired, he came oh, so close to having the Giants' first perfect game. Anyone else remember when Barr set his record over two consecutive starts? Neither was a no-hitter, but, man, what a great stretch spread over two games. And then Yusmeiro spread his over, what nine games or something like that? Incredible.
I didn't see Yusmeiro pitch for the A's last season, but my friend said he just didn't have it anymore. He came out of virtually nowhere to patch together a very nice career though. The Giants probably should have re-signed him rather than letting him get away.
|
|
|
Fear
Dec 7, 2021 13:34:15 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Dec 7, 2021 13:34:15 GMT -5
Matt -- I know you discredit their Championships, but to say they were FAR from the best team is inaccurate.
Rog -- The person who said the Giants were FAR from the best team in those seasons was Boly. I said that overall I agreed they weren't the best team, but that in 2012 they were close.
In 2010, the Giants didn't make the playoffs until the final day of the season. Five other teams won more games in the regular season than they did.
In 2012, the Giants tied for the third-most wins.
2014 was probably the weakest of the three teams. The Giants tied for the seventh-most wins.
But the person who said the Giants were nowhere close to being the best team in those three seasons was Boly.
What I would say about the Giants' "dynasty" is that they probably weren't the best team in any of those seasons, although they were at least in the running, especially in 2012. But what makes their "dynasty" weak is that in the two years sandwiched by their three championships, they failed to make the playoffs at all, and in one of the two, they were 10 games below .500. I see the Warriors as a true dynasty because they were likely the best team in each of the five seasons in which they won three championships, and not only did they make the playoffs in the other two, they came extremely close to winning those championships as well -- despite injuries and a suspension.
And as I mentioned, I think with the dynasty having been interrupted only by two COVID seasons, we could say it is continuing this year. Whereas the Giants had at least four years and probably six between their two (hopefully) dynasties.
I'll be REALLY excited if the Giants don't fall back this season. When a team wins 107 games, a setback the following season is almost a certainty, although it's also possible the Giants won't be the best regular-season team but follow their previous pattern of winning the championship. Remember though that the Giants clearly fell backward the season after each of their three championships. It appeared they had regained their prowess in 2016 when they were the best team in baseball the first half, but they were the second-WORST team the second half, and they didn't make it past the NLDS.
Marco Luciano is MLB.com's #5 overall prospect. I wish the Giants had drafted Kahlil Watson this past season. Despite being only 18 for nearly another four months, Watson is already ranked the #27 overall prospect, already ahead of Giants prospects Luis Matos and Heliot Ramos. I mentioned that the Giants may have drafted Will Bednar, not yet a top 100 prospect, instead of Watson because in doing so, they saved nearly a million dollars, which they could then spread among their lower prospects -- a tactic they have been using effectively in the Farhan era, since it allows them to draft good prospects later on and give them over-slot bonuses so they can sign players who otherwise might have gone to college.
I wonder though if they had realized that Watson -- projected by many to be a top 5 pick -- would be available, if they would have gone in his direction. My sense though is that they believed so strongly in their Plan A that they went ahead with it even though Watson did become available. I would have been shocked if they didn't have a Plan B in case someone like Watson DID fall to them. Watson signed with the Marlins and while his season was severely limited by a hamstring injury when he aggravated, he did manage to hit .394 with a 1.130 OPS in the games he did play.
One thing about the Giants is that they need young pitchers more than they need your everyday players. Hopefully Bednar will turn out to be at least close to Watson (hopefully even better!) and will become the Giants' future #1 or at least a co-ace with Logan Webb.
Keep an eye on southpaw Kyle Harrison as well. Harrison was drafted in 2020 and received a big over-slot bonus to keep him from going to UCLA. I wonder if he, as a De La Salle grad, grew up a Giants fan as Brandon Crawford did. Both players grew up in the East Bay, and Harrison was a 3rd-round pick who signed rather than attending UCLA, while Brandon was a 4th-round pick OUT of UCLA. In his first minor league season, Harrison struck out 14.3 batters per nine for Low A San Jose in 2021 after throwing much harder in the 2020 Arizona Fall League than he had thrown in high school.
A note on Harrison: His increased velocity as a pro has come at the expense of control and command, which had been a plus for him in high school. If Kyle can regain his command while keeping his added velocity, his fastball and slider should play well enough to make him a positive in the future Giants rotation. If he can also add a decent change up, he could become a star.
|
|