|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 4, 2021 9:59:40 GMT -5
Boogie is correct. I want a Matt Cain type but that's not available. The three pitchers they signed are very brittle. Great example, Reed! Saber metric geeks just point to numbers and really never see any deeper. So...yeah, Descla and Woods had much better numbers than the average pitcher, but as boagie pointed out they had to be treated gently, pulled early
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 4, 2021 11:21:54 GMT -5
The big issue is health. All three guys have pitched well when healthy, but they haven't always been healthy. That's also why the Giants were able to bring them back or pick them up reasonably. In a best-case scenario, the Giants find a way to make a good trade for say one of the Cincy starters. They now have prospects they can give up. But how much are we willing to give up? In retrospect, even though the Giants didn't give up any of their best prospects, I doubt they would make the Kris Bryant trade if they had it to do over again. But they didn't give up Zack Wheeler this time. You know. The guy who just finished 2nd in the Cy Young voting. Of course we'd all like a Matt Cain type. Tim Lincecum in his prime would be even better. And we'd like 180 to 200 innings. More, if possible. But do you guys know how many pitchers pitched 180 innings last season? That would be 20. Not even one per team. And of those 20, only 11 reached 183 innings. Which puts Anthony DeSclafani back in perspective. In the last two full seasons, DeSclafani has pitched 166.2 and 167.2 innings. His ERA's were 3.89 and 3.17. Last season he was 31st in innings pitched and 13th in ERA. In 2019 and 2021 Anthony WAS a Matt Cain type. Last season by ranking 31st in innings pitched and 13th in ERA, Anthony was not only a #2, he was right on the verge of being a #1. When one combines ERA and innings pitched, how much doubt is there that he was a top 25 pitcher. In fact, there were only nine other pitchers who pitched as many innings as Anthony and had an ERA as low as he. And you know what? While Alex Wood almost certainly won't get in that many innings, he might pitch as well or even better than Anthony. Five years ago Alex finished 9th in the Cy Young voting, going 16-3 with a 2.72 ERA. We're talking about the guy who came back from a COVID absence to post a 1.38 ERA in September and October, then threw 4.2 shutout innings at the Dodgers in the playoffs. No, he didn't go even five innings, but guess what? Starting pitchers in the playoffs don't average even five innings anymore, or if they do, they do so just barely. Cobb is a little more of a flyer. But if anything, he may look BETTER coming in than Kevin Gausman did two years ago. So here is my challenge to you guys, Matt and Boly. Which pitcher or pitchers should the Giants have signed that they didn't, or which pitcher or pitchers should they be signing or trading for now? You guys are quick to criticize, but you seldom have good ideas for improvement, and even less often do you back those ideas up with facts, analysis and logic. I would LOVE to see you guys prove me wrong here. We'd ALL like good ideas. Heck, I'd love it if you guys would simply answer questions factually and logically. Far too often, you don't even answer them at all. Let me circle back to DeSclafani. As Reeder said, we'd all love a Matt Cain type. Well, the past two full seasons, Anthony has BEEN a Matt Cain type. In 2010, Matt threw his career high in innings. He finished 11th in the majors in innings pitched and 20th in ERA. Last season Anthony finished 13th in ERA and 31st in innings pitched. That's a pretty decent Matt Cain impression, especially when we compared Anthony to Matt's BEST season for innings pitched. (It was Anthony's 2nd-best season for IP.) Would we all like to see the Giants get even MORE starting pitching? Of course. Is there still time to do so? Yes. Will the Giants ADD more starting pitching? That too is almost certainly a yes. Here's a question: The Giants signed three guys who are most likely in the 3.50 to 4.00 range. The question is health. Would we rather they have signed three such pitchers, or three guys who are likely to throw 160-180 innings, but would be more likely to pitch in the 4.00 to 4.50 range? The Giants spent about $80 million, and they got these guys for at least two years each. How would we have BETTER spent that $80 million? I agree health is an issue, Rog, of course health is a big factor in determining the durability and innings pitched. But Wood and Desclafani have NEVER been consistently durable or have the good stuff to be a frontline starter. You might be right that there's no easy frontline starter option out there for us..that is a valid argument. But to act like Wood and Desclafani can be that, is a big stretch. I even question whether Cobb can be that for us. The National League West is not an easy division to pitch in. They have a lot of drastic changes to ballparks, most notably San Francisco is the hardest to hit in, and Colorado being the easiest. Arizona with the big batter's eye is also a pitcher's nightmare. Not to mention a lot of the games played with the Diamondbacks, Dodgers and Padres are close games that require pitchers to grind and hang in there. I'm not sure if Cobb is up to the task, I hope he is. Your stats certainly show Desclafani as being on the upper tier of pitchers last year as far as innings and ERA. But what you're not recognizing is we were coming off the Covid season in 2020, so I believe innings were dialed back on a lot of pitchers. Also, a significant amount of the more prominent pitchers in today's game are nearing retirement age. I'm fairly certain the 2021 numbers are skewed because of those two reasons. Did you know that, or did it not occur to you? If it didn't cross your mind I can understand that, if it did cross your mind then you're just cherry picking again. I don't like smoke and mirror discussions, I like honest conversations, Rog, and you're the master of the smoke and mirror argument. You're absolutely right that only 20 pitchers pitched 180 innings or more in 2021. But in 2019, 33 pitchers eclipsed 180 innings, and 51 pitchers logged more innings in 2019 than Desclafani did in 2021. That's a significant difference, so much that I think you have to recognize that 2021's numbers are skewed. I like that you subscribe to the analytic side of baseball, Rog. It brings a different dynamic to the board that Boly or I don't really focus on. But your inability to use those stats responsibly have made your arguments weak and/or untruthful. I believe you know the flaws in your argument before you post them, which just means you're lying. I hope Boly is right and you're just simply not digging deep enough to come up with the entire truth, but I guess I'm not as optimistic as Boly. I think you DO dig deeper, you just conveniently leave out what doesn't help your argument. Be a truth seeker, Rog. Come up with the whole truth yourself and don't count on me or someone else to fill in the blanks. It would make your posts not nearly as nauseating with all the fluff and smoke and mirrors.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 4, 2021 14:06:57 GMT -5
You made some good points and added some perspective here, Matt. I hadn't thought about it, but your point about innings in 2021 8s correct. The trend I had considered more is that pitchers are pitching fewer innings each season now. But you're right that some pitchers were limited on innings last season because of the COVID season. That may have included the three new Giants, none of whom pitched many innings in 2020.
There is little question the Giants are taking innings risk with all three pitchers, particularly Wood and Cobb. But they all pitched well in 2021, showing signs of improvement as had been the case with Gausman the previous season.
I'm with the rest of you guys that I would love to see another solid pitcher here. I'll be surprised if the Giants don't add one, either this winter or at the deadline. I like the approach of building depth. Mr. Zaidi could have torn it all down when he came to SF. Instead he chose to keep the core and improve around the margins. He has made some very wise decisions. Not every move has worked out, but he never stops trying, no matter how small the improvement.
The primary point I've been trying to make here is that the Giants' rotation ISN'T simply Webb and three "guys." Their teams won 72.5% of the games the present four starters pitched for their teams last season. I'm not sure if ANY other team can say that with their top four starters for 2022. It wasn't just their pitching. I mentioned that the quartet got excellent run support. But did they pitch well enough to give their teams a good chance to win? You bet.
Remember, Mr. Zaidi is all about value. He could have overpaid for one of the top starters, but he chose not to. That gives the Giants more flexibility going forward. Their best seasons should be ahead of them, and they should have a lot of young talent to lock up.
As an aside, Oracle Park now plays fairly, as did both Dodger Stadium and Arizona's park last season. The outliers are now Coors Field on the hitting side and Petco on the pitching side. Neither Oracle nor Dodger Stadium are playing as much to the advantage of the pitchers as they formerly did.
Finally, if I were evaluating the Giants' rotation by number, I would probably rate Webb a #1, DeSclafani a #2, and both Wood and Cobb #3's. I might rank Cobb as a #4, but remember, the average #4 starter last season had an ERA in the mid- to high-fours.
Regarding stuff, last season Webb had a very good fastball and excellent slider. He throws in the low- to mid-90's. DeSclafani had a very fine fastball and slider. He throws his fastball in the mid-90's. Wood did well with the same two pitches (although his slider had been categorized as a curve prior to last season), and he throws in the low 90's. Cobb had four above-average pitches, with his change up or splitter being his put-away pitch. He throws in the mid-to low-90's. Those guys all had good stuff last season. Pretty decent control too, especially Webb.
I wish the Giants were stronger in center field, but I'm very big on Luis Matos, and he may be only a couple of seasons away.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 4, 2021 14:42:10 GMT -5
DeSclafani had very good control as well last season, walking only 2.25 per nine innings. Among qualifiers, Anthony ranked #23 in K-BB%, a nice measure combining stuff and control of it. The top 3 were Corbin Burnes, Max Scherzer and Gerrit Cole. The top Giants pitcher was Kevin Gausman, who ranked #8.
I haven't done the calculations, but there weren't a lot of pitcher who both pitched more innings and had a lower ERA than DeSclafani the past two full seasons. I'm guessing somewhere between 20 and 30. DeSclafani isn't an ace, but he's a solid pitcher if he's healthy.
Former Giants minor leaguer Luis Castillo might be a bit underrated, but he's probably not THAT underrated, and I believe he's eligible for free agency after the 2023 season. I think he would probably cost too much, although I'm virtually certain the Giants will be checking. I still think the Giants should emphasize 2023 and beyond.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 4, 2021 14:55:14 GMT -5
Wood brought one on himself by not vaccinating and getting Covid.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 4, 2021 14:58:15 GMT -5
Boogie is correct. I want a Matt Cain type but that's not available. The three pitchers they signed are very brittle. Great example, Reed! Saber metric geeks just point to numbers and really never see any deeper. So...yeah, Descla and Woods had much better numbers than the average pitcher, but as boagie pointed out they had to be treated gently, pulled early They also have to be cautious about anointing Webb as the ace. His away/home split skews home
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 4, 2021 15:00:34 GMT -5
The big issue is health. All three guys have pitched well when healthy, but they haven't always been healthy. That's also why the Giants were able to bring them back or pick them up reasonably. In a best-case scenario, the Giants find a way to make a good trade for say one of the Cincy starters. They now have prospects they can give up. But how much are we willing to give up? In retrospect, even though the Giants didn't give up any of their best prospects, I doubt they would make the Kris Bryant trade if they had it to do over again. But they didn't give up Zack Wheeler this time. You know. The guy who just finished 2nd in the Cy Young voting. Of course we'd all like a Matt Cain type. Tim Lincecum in his prime would be even better. And we'd like 180 to 200 innings. More, if possible. But do you guys know how many pitchers pitched 180 innings last season? That would be 20. Not even one per team. And of those 20, only 11 reached 183 innings. Which puts Anthony DeSclafani back in perspective. In the last two full seasons, DeSclafani has pitched 166.2 and 167.2 innings. His ERA's were 3.89 and 3.17. Last season he was 31st in innings pitched and 13th in ERA. In 2019 and 2021 Anthony WAS a Matt Cain type. Last season by ranking 31st in innings pitched and 13th in ERA, Anthony was not only a #2, he was right on the verge of being a #1. When one combines ERA and innings pitched, how much doubt is there that he was a top 25 pitcher. In fact, there were only nine other pitchers who pitched as many innings as Anthony and had an ERA as low as he. And you know what? While Alex Wood almost certainly won't get in that many innings, he might pitch as well or even better than Anthony. Five years ago Alex finished 9th in the Cy Young voting, going 16-3 with a 2.72 ERA. We're talking about the guy who came back from a COVID absence to post a 1.38 ERA in September and October, then threw 4.2 shutout innings at the Dodgers in the playoffs. No, he didn't go even five innings, but guess what? Starting pitchers in the playoffs don't average even five innings anymore, or if they do, they do so just barely. Cobb is a little more of a flyer. But if anything, he may look BETTER coming in than Kevin Gausman did two years ago. So here is my challenge to you guys, Matt and Boly. Which pitcher or pitchers should the Giants have signed that they didn't, or which pitcher or pitchers should they be signing or trading for now? You guys are quick to criticize, but you seldom have good ideas for improvement, and even less often do you back those ideas up with facts, analysis and logic. I would LOVE to see you guys prove me wrong here. We'd ALL like good ideas. Heck, I'd love it if you guys would simply answer questions factually and logically. Far too often, you don't even answer them at all. Let me circle back to DeSclafani. As Reeder said, we'd all love a Matt Cain type. Well, the past two full seasons, Anthony has BEEN a Matt Cain type. In 2010, Matt threw his career high in innings. He finished 11th in the majors in innings pitched and 20th in ERA. Last season Anthony finished 13th in ERA and 31st in innings pitched. That's a pretty decent Matt Cain impression, especially when we compared Anthony to Matt's BEST season for innings pitched. (It was Anthony's 2nd-best season for IP.) Would we all like to see the Giants get even MORE starting pitching? Of course. Is there still time to do so? Yes. Will the Giants ADD more starting pitching? That too is almost certainly a yes. Here's a question: The Giants signed three guys who are most likely in the 3.50 to 4.00 range. The question is health. Would we rather they have signed three such pitchers, or three guys who are likely to throw 160-180 innings, but would be more likely to pitch in the 4.00 to 4.50 range? The Giants spent about $80 million, and they got these guys for at least two years each. How would we have BETTER spent that $80 million? I agree health is an issue, Rog, of course health is a big factor in determining the durability and innings pitched. But Wood and Desclafani have NEVER been consistently durable or have the good stuff to be a frontline starter. You might be right that there's no easy frontline starter option out there for us..that is a valid argument. But to act like Wood and Desclafani can be that, is a big stretch. I even question whether Cobb can be that for us. The National League West is not an easy division to pitch in. They have a lot of drastic changes to ballparks, most notably San Francisco is the hardest to hit in, and Colorado being the easiest. Arizona with the big batter's eye is also a pitcher's nightmare. Not to mention a lot of the games played with the Diamondbacks, Dodgers and Padres are close games that require pitchers to grind and hang in there. I'm not sure if Cobb is up to the task, I hope he is. Your stats certainly show Desclafani as being on the upper tier of pitchers last year as far as innings and ERA. But what you're not recognizing is we were coming off the Covid season in 2020, so I believe innings were dialed back on a lot of pitchers. Also, a significant amount of the more prominent pitchers in today's game are nearing retirement age. I'm fairly certain the 2021 numbers are skewed because of those two reasons. Did you know that, or did it not occur to you? If it didn't cross your mind I can understand that, if it did cross your mind then you're just cherry picking again. I don't like smoke and mirror discussions, I like honest conversations, Rog, and you're the master of the smoke and mirror argument. You're absolutely right that only 20 pitchers pitched 180 innings or more in 2021. But in 2019, 33 pitchers eclipsed 180 innings, and 51 pitchers logged more innings in 2019 than Desclafani did in 2021. That's a significant difference, so much that I think you have to recognize that 2021's numbers are skewed. I like that you subscribe to the analytic side of baseball, Rog. It brings a different dynamic to the board that Boly or I don't really focus on. But your inability to use those stats responsibly have made your arguments weak and/or untruthful. I believe you know the flaws in your argument before you post them, which just means you're lying. I hope Boly is right and you're just simply not digging deep enough to come up with the entire truth, but I guess I'm not as optimistic as Boly. I think you DO dig deeper, you just conveniently leave out what doesn't help your argument. Be a truth seeker, Rog. Come up with the whole truth yourself and don't count on me or someone else to fill in the blanks. It would make your posts not nearly as nauseating with all the fluff and smoke and mirrors. Health may be more an issue since they locked out training camps and Cobb is not getting the chance to work with coaches. Crawford was said to be working out at Scottsdale but that’s now closed
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 4, 2021 15:17:28 GMT -5
From boagie: "I don't like smoke and mirror discussions, I like honest conversations, Rog, and you're the master of the smoke and mirror argument."
"But your inability to use those stats responsibly have made your arguments weak and/or untruthful."
Boagie, that was well said.
I, too, like that Rog uses numeric data because that is something I don't focus on.
I will be honest, boagie, Roger influenced me to look at those things much more closely than I have in the past.
But I don't ever, ever forget that there is so much more to the games than just the numbers, as you pointed out so well in another thread about Cain, Wood, and DesClafani.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 4, 2021 16:37:12 GMT -5
I just let it pass the first time, Matt, but there is no one here who backs up their points better than I. Let's put it this way: If I truly argued with smoke and mirrors, my arguments would be simple for you to attack, and whether it be baseball or politics, you haven't been able to successfully do so. What you are apparently referring to as smoke and mirrors, most would call facts and logic.
You guys are certainly right that the numbers don't tell the entire story. But they tell a whole lot more than sometimes is understood. Figures don't lie, but they are sometimes misinterpreted. What is important is knowing what the numbers say, what they don't say, and how to use them to their best advantage.
Let me give you an example, Boly. I asked you what you thought of my idea that Steven Duggar should be more aggressive so that he could get more of his at bats decided in the first three pitches. I said that because he had hit about 100 points higher on the first three pitches than on subsequent pitches. Steven is prone to striking out, so it usually benefits him to get his at bat over before he reaches two strikes. Hence the idea of getting the at bat over in three pitches or fewer.
You said no, that Steven needed to get on base more often, and one simply can't walk in three pitches (barring the very rare occasion where the umpire simply blows it). There is no question it's counterintuitive that a punch hitter wouldn't benefit from walking more. My response though was that if Steven began to hit better (by getting more at bats over in three pitches or fewer), pitchers would fear him more, and they would then walk him a little more often.
This past season Steven got close to 40% of his plate appearances over in three pitches or fewer, compared to a little above 30% previously, and he greatly improved his average, his power, and -- lo and behold -- his walk rate.
You didn't believe the statistics I was using told the whole story. You were right, of course. They DON'T tell the WHOLE story. But they told a lot of it, and I'll bet the Giants showed to Steven the very thing I was talking to you about. At the very least, something changed to get him to become more aggressive about getting his at bats over in those first three pitches.
Do you know what Steven hit on the first three pitches this season? He hit .339/.350/.548/.908. Very nice. When he settled his at bat in the first three pitches without going to an 0-2 count, he hit .400/.407/.667/1.074. Perhaps most surprisingly, after his walk rate declined from 6.6% to 5.7% to 2.8% over his first three seasons, last season with his more aggressive approach, it grew to a career-high 9.1%.
I'm glad you're looking at stats more closely, Boly. There are so many more stats available to us than when we were kids, and when we interpret and use them properly, they can tell us a lot. Not everything. But a lot. And that's why a more aggressive approach by Steven worked so well last season, even though intuitively it seemed he wouldn't walk as much.
You may remember that Steven's problem was never going outside the strike zone too much. Even with the more aggressive approach, he continued his career trend of going outside the zone less often than Buster Posey. Even with the more aggressive approach, he went outside the zone 2% less often than his career average entering the season.
One thing about statistics is that they are facts. They can be (and too often are) misinterpreted, but they're facts. Intuitively, it wouldn't make sense for a punch hitter to be more aggressive, when what he needed as much as anything was to draw more walks. But when one looked at the stats and interpreted them correctly, they implied that Steven had a fine chance of benefitting from a cautiously more aggressive approach. And he did.
So now I need to bring up a more disappointing stat. Unless he continues to improve his approach, I don't expect all of Steven's improvements to hold. He hit .257, but Statcast says based on how hard he hit the ball, that should have been only .232. His SLG was .436, but Statcast says only .406 of that was real. Remember back in his rookie season when you were excited as he hit .255? I cautioned that Statcast said that should have been only .206. And sure enough, his next two seasons he hit .234 and .176.
I probably like Steven as a center fielder better than you do, Boly, but I still worry about his hitting, despite the improvement in his numbers last season. He improved his hitting, but probably not quite as much as it appeared on the surface. He'll likely need to improve further to put up the same numbers.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 4, 2021 20:09:56 GMT -5
Rog- I just let it pass the first time, Matt, but there is no one here who backs up their points better than I. Let's put it this way: If I truly argued with smoke and mirrors, my arguments would be simple for you to attack, and whether it be baseball or politics, you haven't been able to successfully do so.Â
Boagie- In your distorted mind that's probably true, but in reality it's not. Your arguments are very simple to attack with logic but you don't see logic, instead you get immersed in the mainstream opinion and cannot bend on anything unless the mainstream tells you otherwise.
Take Carlos Beltran for example. You kept going on and on about him being a saint and when I pointed out instances where I felt he rubbed me the wrong way you rejected them as me being foolish or unfair. I wasn't even attacking your opinion, I was merely stating mine and defending it when you went on the attack.
Only after popular opinion turned on him when his role in the Astros scandal came to light did you change your tune. You needed the media to direct your thoughts because you can't see things logically yourself.
I only mention this example because it was used for years in trying to demean me on the board, calling me illogical and saying I wasn't thinking rationally about Saint Beltran. Over and over I heard many times from you "you've been proven you can't be objective because of how you see Carlos Beltran."
But here we are, it's 2021 and Carlos' career is now seen as a stain on Major League Baseball and yet for some reason, in your head, you still think you're the most objective person in the room.
You're not.
You live your life by way of the mainstream because you know you'll always have support from articles and websites providing you with your opinions and material to support it. That material uses the same logic you do..dig just deep enough to support your narrative...and use words like "research" and "teach" to make yourself sound like you actually know what you're talking about.
You don't.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 4, 2021 20:25:31 GMT -5
Good point about Webb, Reeder. I had been thinking that too. I'm pretty confident in him, but prior to last season he hadn't pitched well in the majors, and he wasn't a top prospect coming up.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 4, 2021 20:36:00 GMT -5
From boagie: "I don't like smoke and mirror discussions, I like honest conversations, Rog, and you're the master of the smoke and mirror argument."
"But your inability to use those stats responsibly have made your arguments weak and/or untruthful."
Boagie, that was well said.
I, too, like that Rog uses numeric data because that is something I don't focus on.
I will be honest, boagie, Roger influenced me to look at those things much more closely than I have in the past.
But I don't ever, ever forget that there is so much more to the games than just the numbers, as you pointed out so well in another thread about Cain, Wood, and DesClafani.
To look a this analogy in another sport, guys like Harden and Westbrook are popular with fantasy players because they run up their stats and you would think with careers with the stellar stat sheets that they would have a few rings?
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 4, 2021 20:43:22 GMT -5
Matt, you're WAY off base. I go with the facts.
Beck when you were putting Carlos Beltran down for doing things like visiting a hospital when he was getting over a cold, I supported him. You seemed not to like him mostly because you felt he let the Giants down in 2011. No question that trade was disappointing (neither you nor I supported it at the time it was made), and Carlos got off to a horrible start before being injured. IIRC you felt he was jaking it, and the Giants did indeed take a long time before putting him on the DL. But I think they took so long because they were hoping he could come back before the 15 days, and they were pinning a lot of hopes on him.
I think that living in Queens, Mark was in the best position to know about Carlos, and he felt much the same about him as I did, including that while Carlos got off to a very poor start with the Giants, he actually played well for them after he came off the DL. You thought that wasn't important, since the Giants were pretty much out of it when he came back, but it wasn't especially his fault they played so poorly without him. Remember, that was the season Buster got injured, and most of the season was a struggle. As Mark pointed out, Carlos' numbers with the Giants were excellent, although one could make the point that he didn't do well initially, and he never did drive home a lot of runs. Part of that had to do with the Giants not being a team that got a lot of runners on, but Carlos hit much better with the Giants with the bases empty than with men on. Mark and I felt though that Carlos played well for the Giants, but you disagreed.
I could find nothing bad about Carlos -- and quite a bit that was good -- until the garbage can scandal. I lost a lot of respect for him for doing that, but I still can't find much bad about him aside from that. Not that it wasn't a huge stain, but until then, all I could judge him on were the available facts, which were pretty darn supportive of him, all the way to winning the Roberto Clemente Award.
I go with the facts, Matt. Both with Carlos, and in politics, with Donald Trump, whom I originally supported. Without getting into politics deeply here on this side of the board, my experience is mostly in business, so I liked the idea of a businessman for president. Then I learned what a horrible human being Donald was, and like a couple of years later with Carlos, I had to alter my opinion.
My question to you is, why do you so seldom answer my questions? If I'm as unobjective as you say, it should be easy. If I don't know what I'm talking about, it should be easier yet. In this case, silence isn't golden.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 4, 2021 21:11:27 GMT -5
I'm not a fan of either James Harden or Russell Westbrook, although it's hard to argue that they not both great players.
This morning I got up early and looked at the Warriors' box score (I got to watch their game on TV last night, but I hadn't seen the box score.) Then I came across a 15-minute version of the Santa Cruz Warriors game last night, and I wanted to see how Jonathan Kuminga and Moses Moody in particular fared (not very well for Kuminga; a little better for Moody). Then I saw a long clip of James Wiseman highlights. He was better than I remembered. The Warriors played poorly with James in the lineup last season, but his potential is tremendous.
The Warriors may already once again be the best team in the NBA, and that's without a future Hall of Famer in Klay Thompson and possibly another future Hall of Famer in Wiseman. Once that pair gets back to playing, does any team have four better veterans than Curry, Green, Thompson and Wiggins? Does any team have four players below the age of 23 who are better than Poole, Wiseman, Kuminga and Moody? Does any team have six role players who fit better than Looney, Igoudala, Porter, Payton, Toscano-Anderson and Bjelica?
Given the COVID seasons and the injuries to Thompson, Wiseman and Curry, I think if the Warriors continue to come on again this season and keep it up for another two or three years, we could consider this a continuation of their dynasty, which is already one of the best in NBA history.
The Warriors probably have in recent seasons played the best ball that has ever been played in NBA history. And it was their first championship team all the way back in 1974-75 that first got me interested in team chemistry. I once didn't miss a single Warriors home game in ten seasons and have seen almost as many Warriors games in person as Giants games, even though the basketball season obviously has only half as many games. So I like them really well too.
But I know a lot more about baseball, even though I've probably played at least as much basketball as baseball. I don't know as much about football or hockey as about baseball or basketball, but I love those sports as well. One of my joys in life was back almost 30 years ago when I got to talk a lot of both baseball and hockey with former Giant Brad Wellman when Brad's son and mine played hockey together. My son actually played his first hockey game with Brad's younger son, who went on to I believe become the first Bay Area youngster to play in the NHL.
As to your point about fantasy, Reeder, I play only baseball, since that is the sport I know best. Naturally I look at players differently for fantasy than for real baseball, although most of the same players excel at both. The thing about fantasy -- which I never thought I would play but have loved doing since I took over my son's team two hours before his league's draft back in 2015 -- is that it's taught me much more about the players. When I was a kid, I knew pretty much all the players. There were only about half as many, and as a kid, I had plenty of time to get acquainted with them. I didn't know them as well as an adult, but now that I play fantasy, I've learned them much better, including to some degree the top prospects.
It's really cool in fantasy being both manager and general manager. We don't get to make in-game decisions in fantasy, but we still make out our best lineup on a daily basis, basing the lineups on matchups and hot streaks as well as pure talent. I flat-out LOVE platooning in fantasy, much as I suspect Gabe Kapler enjoys it with the Giants.
Matt was nice enough to start up a fantasy league for our board several years ago, and Mark is the best fantasy player I know. Mark plays fantasy football too, so he's still busy these days.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 5, 2021 8:24:22 GMT -5
Boly admits that DeSclafani and Wood have good numbers, but puts them down by saying they have to be pulled early.
Let me ask this question: Would we rather have a pitcher who pitches well for five innings (Wood) or five to six (DeSclafani), or a pitcher who goes seven innings but pitches only so/so? (Actually, there are no pitchers who pitch only so/so but pitch seven innings. In fact, there were no pitchers no matter how good who averaged seven innings, and only six who averaged even six full.)
So in other words, Boly's comments were almost meaningless. Boly isn't in tune with the modern game.
Boly says the Giants have Webb (who pitches at the level of a #1, although he has done so for only one season) and three "guys." Those "guys" are DeSclafani, who over the past two full seasons has pitched at the level of a #2 and one could argue pitched last season at the level of a #1; Wood, who is a former All-Star and has finished in the top 10 in the Cy Young voting, and is at least a #3 (with a .667 winning percentage in his last 54 decisions); and Cobb, who is the closest to being just a "guy," but who finally showed nice promise last season after having injuries keep him from previously coming close to his potential.
To say that Webb is a true #1 but say that the Giants somehow have LESS than a #2, #3 and #4 to back him up, simply isn't true. To say that health is a very legitimate worry would be correct. But one can make at last as good an argument for DeSclafani, Wood and Cobb as legitimate #2, #3 and #4 as he can make for Webb as a legitimate #1.
Virtually every team in baseball wishes it had better starting pitching. But few have less reason for that wish than the Giants, and of the few who might have less reason, virtually none of the teams has spent less on its rotation.
Boly, you say you like what Mr. Zaidi has done. How can you NOT appreciate a guy who built a poor team into a 107-game winner while actually CUTTING payroll? So why not just give him a chance to go about his work? I can't emphasize enough how much LESS we know than Mr. Zaidi about how to build a team. We're merely showing our ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 5, 2021 14:53:42 GMT -5
From NBC Sports Bay Area:
Giants fans have grumbled about the lack of spending, but what if they follow their pitching moves by bringing Kris Bryant back, or adding Nick Castellanos and Seiya Suzuki? The Dodgers lost Max Scherzer and Corey Seager, but got Chris Taylor back on a very reasonable deal and are rumored to be pushing hard for Freddie Freeman. A disastrous start to their offseason could end up leading to a healthier long-term outlook.
Farhan Zaidi and Andrew Friedman are two of the best execs in the game and they mostly sat out the craziness. After winning a combined 213 games last year, they've earned the right to be judged only when this is all over.
That's a rational look at the Giants' and Dodgers' situations.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 5, 2021 16:11:58 GMT -5
The current off-season parallells the 2015 off-season because of the Giants' need for starting pitching that year. I remember that year was the one where we were coming off a bad season (this was th Mike Leake one). The top free agent pitchers were Cueto, Greinke, Price, Samardzija, Zimmermann.. about 50 free agent starters altogether. Out of the fifty, most of them did not live up to their contracts and glancing at that group, only Greinke, Maeda, and Hill provided decent value. The worst one was Price 7y/$217mm and some geniuses thought to give Ian Kennedy 5y/$70mm, Zimmermann 5y/$110mm, Leake 5y/$90mm. If I remember correctly, of this group, the ones that were most highly regarded were Price, Zimmermann, Cueto, and Greinke and of the group of 50 starters, Zimmermann was thought to be the "safest".
2014 was similar and the most desired FA starters were Scherzer, Lester, Shields, Mccarthy, and outside of Scherzer and Lester, most of the rest were bad signings.
Strohman, Ray, and Gausman are probably the top of the heap this year but I think they are less talented than the free agents back then at the time. As such, if the Giants gave out one of those big deals, the odds are that the deal would turn bad quickly. Out of all the deals so far, the ones that are the least harmful are the ones with the least years, those are the Scherzer, Verlander, and Strohman deals. Notice that the big money teams and the ones with the more innovative GMs (we are talking Giants, Dodgers, Red Sox, Rays, A's, and Astros) are laying low and the ones that are desparate to make a move Jays (need to pass three teams), Rangers (new ballpark),Mets (Steve Cohen), and Tigers (years of ineptitude) were the big spenders. I think most of the time, it takes that extra year tacked onto the end of the contract to make it go and most of the the time, tht extra year is a real albtaross.
That said, maybe the Giants could make a run for Freeman or Suzuki later.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 5, 2021 16:13:07 GMT -5
Also, Dodgers could be saving up for Juan Soto.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 5, 2021 16:34:23 GMT -5
Also from NBC Sports Bay Area: "What Alex brings is, I just think it's another dominant strike thrower," (Giants pitching coach Andres) Bailey said. "Elite at getting groundballs, has a great pitch mix. I mean, the splitter is an elite pitch. "And then there's some things that we can sprinkle on. ... Alex is a great addition to our staff." Cobb, 34, went 8-3 with a 3.76 ERA last season for the Los Angeles Angels. However, he also had a 2.92 FIP, 119 ERA+ and set a new career high with 9.5 strikeouts per nine innings. What Cobb excelled at last season was getting batters to chase and missing barrels. According to Baseball Savant, Cobb ranked in the 93rd percentile in chase rate and the 94th percentile in barrel percentage. His 37.6 hard hit percentage also was a new career best. Think it's worth getting a pitcher in the top seven percent in getting batters to go outside the zone? Usually if a batter goes outside the zone, he missed or makes weak contact. Think Ted Williams knew anything about hitting? Ted said that even as great a hitter HE was (the last batter to hit .400), he couldn't hit pitching outside the zone well. Think it's worth getting a pitcher who is in the top six percent in keeping the ball off the barrel when batters swing? It's barreled balls that go out of the park. Cobb gave up only half a homer per nine innings last season, less than half the league average. And it wasn't because of park luck. He simply didn't allow many fly balls, and allowed an even more miniscule barrel rate. This is the kind of guy one should want to add to his pitching staff. Too bad the Giants didn't get him. Oh, wait! They did.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 5, 2021 16:35:49 GMT -5
More from NBC Sports Bay Area:
Much of Cobb's success comes from his splitter. While the Giants lost a great splitter with Kevin Gausman's departure, they gained one in Cobb, who throws the pitch 36.9 percent of the time. Opposing batter had just a .308 slugging percentage against his splitter and whiffed 35.2 percent of the time.
"Honestly, not too many people know how to teach the splitter because it's such a unique pitch," Bailey said. "I gotta be honest, I don't really know how to teach the splitter. What we can do is look at different angles that we have and look at how the ball comes out of the hand and look at some pitch movement and talk to our pitchers about it.
"We really lean on our players to take the bull by the horns a little bit and lead the way and just kind of create conversations around feel and then we blend in some of the different technology. It's such a unique pitch and there really isn't one way to do it."
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 5, 2021 16:38:53 GMT -5
By the way, Boly, your comment that those who follow sabermetrics simply look at numbers and go no deeper is a generalization. You think, for instance, that Mr. Zaidi goes no deeper? In reality, Mr. Zaidi sees things we don't even know exist. That's why he's so good.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 5, 2021 21:43:01 GMT -5
After getting to know Zaidi a little more over these last few seasons I think he's pretty balanced in his approach at building a roster. He uses analytics of course, but he also seems to focus heavily on chemistry, conditioning and versatility. He wants everyone on the roster to really focus on maxing out their potential. I wouldn't characterize Zaidi as a pure numbers guy anymore, eventhough that's how he's often portrayed in the media.
A pure numbers guy is Brian Kenny. Brian will argue fundamentals with former major leaguers despite not really knowing what he's talking about.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 5, 2021 23:22:41 GMT -5
The Giants have it "all" under Mr. Zaidi. To me the most unique aspect is the coaching staff.
Brian Kenny knows more about major league fundamentals than we do (even Boly). How can he not, when he's talking to former major leaguers all the time?
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 5, 2021 23:51:31 GMT -5
I did a quick search of pitching Wins Above Replacement in the past two full seasons. DeSclafani ranked #27, which would make him a #1 except that not all of today's pitchers were pitching back in 2019. So let's move him down a few spots and make him (once again) a solid #2.
As a comparison, the three big-money guys we might have preferred to him were Robbie Ray at 6.2 WAR and a 5/$115 contract, Marcus Stroman at 7.3 WAR and a 3/$71 pact, and Kevin Gausman at 6.4 WAR and a 5/$110 contract. DeSclafani was at 5.6 WAR and a 3/$36 million contract.
So the Giants signed a guy who had between half a win and two wins fewer than the three guys we're comparing him to, and he signed for between $35 million and $79 million less.
Looking at all of this it seems clear that while he's not a #1, DeSclafani is a clear #2, and he was signed for FAR less than the other guys, who are a little better than he, but far more expensive.
Looking at the four signings, it's hard not to argue that DeSclafani isn't easily the best one.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 5, 2021 23:56:15 GMT -5
Too many negatives there. I should have said it's hard not to argue that Anthony IS the best signing. There are other ways of looking at this, but WAR over the past two full seasons isn't a bad one. And DeSclafani comes out close to (but not quite) a number 1. But no one has said he's a #1. As long as he can stay healthy though, he appears to be a strong #2. We do remember, do we not, that aside from the Dodgers, Anthony had a 2.37 ERA last season.
The guy can pitch. If he's not a true #2, I'm not sure who would be.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 6, 2021 11:39:57 GMT -5
After getting to know Zaidi a little more over these last few seasons I think he's pretty balanced in his approach at building a roster. He uses analytics of course, but he also seems to focus heavily on chemistry, conditioning and versatility. He wants everyone on the roster to really focus on maxing out their potential. I wouldn't characterize Zaidi as a pure numbers guy anymore, eventhough that's how he's often portrayed in the media. A pure numbers guy is Brian Kenny. Brian will argue fundamentals with former major leaguers despite not really knowing what he's talking about. Who is this Brian Kenny?
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 6, 2021 11:41:46 GMT -5
Too many negatives there. I should have said it's hard not to argue that Anthony IS the best signing. There are other ways of looking at this, but WAR over the past two full seasons isn't a bad one. And DeSclafani comes out close to (but not quite) a number 1. But no one has said he's a #1. As long as he can stay healthy though, he appears to be a strong #2. We do remember, do we not, that aside from the Dodgers, Anthony had a 2.37 ERA last season. The guy can pitch. If he's not a true #2, I'm not sure who would be. Well, if you feel members of the discussion board don't value Deslafani, you should be glad that Deslafani did not value himself so highly and asked for more money.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 6, 2021 17:13:48 GMT -5
I'm simply glad Anthony re-signed with the Giants.
I felt the Giants had erred by not making Anthony a Qualifying Offer. I felt if he accepted, a 1/$18.4 contract was a win for them. And if he chose not to take the QO, they would be able to negotiate in competition with other teams with the other teams facing the cost of the compensation.
But it sounds like they were already negotiating a longer-term contact in good faith, so they went ahead without the QO. Perhaps they thought the $18.4 million was too much to pay for one season, but it doesn't seem excessive.
I suspect, by the way, that Anthony did ask for more money, but perhaps 3/$36 was where they compromised. Anyway, it worked out, and I think the Giants got a fine deal. As I mentioned, his past two full seasons have been valued at over $44 million by Fan Graphs, so if he can merely put up that much value in THREE years heading forward, the Giants will have fared well.
Last season alone the three pitchers the Giants signed or re-signed were valued at $64 million. Given that they have seemingly the best of the trio for three years and the remaining pair for two seasons, their risk seems extremely low. I hadn't actually done the sum of what they were valued at last season. Doing so now, this looks like an even more amazing set of signings.
Let's look at it this way: I would have been willing to sign Marcus Stroman for 3/$71 as the Cubs did. For just $9 million more, the Giants got THREE pitchers. At $27 million, Marcus was valued $3 million higher than DeSclafani last season, but the full trio was valued at $37 million more than Marcus.
I don't think any team has gotten as much value with their signings so far this winter as the Giants, and it may not be close. I would have liked to see the Giants rather than the Dodgers sign Andrew Heaney at 1/$8.5 million, but Andrew was valued last season at essentially just what he got for the upcoming year. I would have liked his signing with the Giants, but I LOVE their signing DeSclafani, Wood and Cobb.
Given that that trio was valued last season alone just $16 million less than the Giants signed the trio for an average of 2.33 years, how can we have posters who are disappointed?
I have a feeling that those posters might have worried that the Giants might have a little too much long-term risk if they had signed Robbie Ray and Kevin Gausman for a combined 5/$225, but they would have been happy with the improvement. But for just over a third of that amount, the Giants got a combined seven seasons from three pitchers who last season were valued at just $4 million less than Ray ($39 million) and Gausman ($31 million).
Kudos to Mr. Zaidi once again. The man seems to know value, whereas we sometimes appear to be caught up more in names.
I liked Cobb as the best value, but the one guy I felt had a fine chance to do the best over five years was Ray. Looking again though, Cobb, DeSclafani and Wood appear to be far better values. In the long run it may well be better than they DIDN'T sign Ray.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 7, 2021 11:24:16 GMT -5
Kruokow said Desclafani and the Giants were negotiating since mid-season.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 7, 2021 12:22:14 GMT -5
And it worked out. I believe they were negotiating with Kevin Gausman since last winter, and that didn't quite result in a meeting of the minds and wallets. I hope they're working on a long-term pact with Logan Webb. That would be a nice place to put some of the remaining salary dollars. If the Giants are really sharp -- and they are -- we might be seeing a lot of money in the next four or five years going toward locking up their fine, young talent, with Webb being the most advanced.
In the past, the Giants' long-term deals with Bumgarner, Posey, Crawford and Belt have worked out nicely. Remember, locking the fine, young talent early is a big step toward establishing and continuing a dynasty.
|
|