|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 18, 2021 17:37:34 GMT -5
The Giants are reported to be in on the Japanese outfielder Seiya Suzuki. Duane Kuiper wants them to pursue the Reds' former outfielder Castellanos. The Giants are said not to be signing any 9-figure contracts this offseason. If they aren't signing 9-figure contracts, that explains why they didn't get Ray, Gausman or Scherzer, but not Stroman or Verlander. If they aren't signing 9-figure contracts, they might still get Suzuki (expected to sign for about 2/3rds that much), but not Castellanos, who is seeking 7 or 8 years and will easily exceed $100 million if he gets them. Almost certainly rules out a return of Kris Bryant as well. And the acquisition of either Freddie Freeman or Carlos Correa. Suzuki would fit nicely because he bats from the right side. Darin Ruf is probably the only one of the top-three hitting outfielders of the Giants who bats from the right side. The Mariners are said to also be in on Suzuki, and since they signed Ichiro, they would seem to be the favorites for Japanese players. The Giants signed the first Japanese player, Masanori Murakami, back in 1964. It is believed that Murakami, now 77, is unlikely to make a comeback. I haven't studied Suzuki, but I like the idea. He has 189 homers and a .309 average in nine seasons in Japan. He's only 27. It's almost certain the Giants could sign Carlos Rodon for eight figures. His arm concerns will limit the length of his contract. Clayton Kershaw also might be available on a shorter-term pact, although one wonders if the Dodgers will let him get away once he returns to health. Kershaw's 3.55 ERA was easily the highest since his rookie season, but his 3.17 xERA was only 11 points higher than in 2020, when his actual ERA was 2.06. Kershaw isn't what he once was, but he's likely capable of pitching better than Madison Bumgarner has pitched since the 2018 season. Clayton is 33. The point is that there are still options out there. Which players do we want, and how high are we willing for the Giants to go to get them? Not much point in complaining if we don't have better solutions, although that's certainly never stopped us before!
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 22, 2021 9:39:53 GMT -5
I'd be a little leery about things Duane Kuiper says at the moment. He's been dealing with some health issues and new grand children so he's not fully engaged with what's happening on the Giants. His KNBR interviews are not really that informative and seem more like a chore to him so what he says does not necssarily reflect the opinions of anyone else. Castellanos makes sense for the Giants in a few ways by being a needed bat in the middle of the lineup. However, there's a few more negatives on the ledger. He is probably going to want a five year contract and he is not the best fielder.
Grant Bisbee did a Castellanos and player X comparison where player X was a better fielder and more durable and Castellanos had more power but both had really bad K/BB ratios. Otherwise, both were eerily similar. This was one of the scariest Player A vs Player X comparisons I've ever seen. Player A is Castellanos at age 29. Player X was Aaron Rowand at age 29, the year before he came to the Giants. Draw your own conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 22, 2021 11:37:48 GMT -5
Comps for Castellanos: Most similar batter is Jim Ray Hart. Most similar players to age 29 is Vernon Wells and Bobby Thomson. The way he plays now makes him seem like he is older than he actually is.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 22, 2021 12:46:08 GMT -5
I'm rooting for Suzuki. Castellanos can hit, but he's a very poor fielder. The Rowand comparison is scary.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 22, 2021 16:11:56 GMT -5
The other thing is that since Oracle Park has such an expansive right field, Castellanos would be a liability in right field (he was Cincinnati's right fielder) and it would make the center fielder (probably Slater or Yastrzemski) run ragged. If the Giants sign him, he's a left fielder at most.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 22, 2021 17:58:47 GMT -5
It would be nice if they worked on Wade Jr's ability to hit lefties and Slater's ability to hit righties. What's nice about the current coaching staff is they seem invested in improving productivity, not just sustaining productivity. If Wade Jr. could hit lefties and Slater could hit righties we wouldn't need to sign another outfielder.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 22, 2021 19:27:39 GMT -5
You are right, Matt.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 23, 2021 11:25:15 GMT -5
One thing about all the switching to get matchups is that it creates a Catch 22. They limited Wade Jr's exposure to lefties to 37 AB all year in 32 games. They obviously don't trust them in the situation but they are not going to get better if Wade gets switched out the minute a lefty comes in. At least with Slater, at least they gave him more exposure. As you say Boagie, if they want to improve productivity, that would be a good place instead of trying to buy another outfielder. I don't think Slater will improve but Wade Jr might. I would still want them to make a run at Suzuki.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 23, 2021 17:24:45 GMT -5
It's virtually always a good idea to try to get a player to improve his platoon splits, and if any coaching staff can do it, it's probably the Giants'. But LaMonte has batted just .104 in his limited exposure to lefties.
That said, the Giants allowed Willie McCovey to bat only 12 times against lefties even in their World Series season of 1962. I once listened to them pinch hit career backup Joey Amalfitano for Willie in a key late-inning situation. Willie Mac went on to post a decent .776 career OPS against southpaws. But he also had a history of having hit southpaws quite well as a rookie. I haven't been able to find many of Wade's minor league splits.
I have no idea if LaMonte could switch hit, but that would be another possibility. Tito Fuentes helped himself by doing so, and Chris Speier once spent a winter learning to switch hit, only to have his efforts foiled when a strike or lockout greatly limited Spring Training, causing him to feel he didn't have enough time to complete the possible switch. My dad felt Chris would have been able to be successful with switch hitting, but then he also felt after shagging flies for Michael Jordan, that Michael might have been able to learn to hit major league pitching. Hard to know if either would have been the case. But at least my dad had the advantage of having seen both of them hit from up close. (My dad may have pitched batting practice to Chris, although I'm unsure about that. I know they played catch during the off season, and I know my dad saw Chris hit left-handed, but I'm unsure about whether my dad pitched to him.) I myself played basketball with Chris, but not baseball.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 23, 2021 17:39:53 GMT -5
We've discussed that one advantage of the Opener is that it can turn help in the effort to turn lineups around, and I still feel that Gabe Kapler shouldn't have started Tommy La Stella against the Dodgers Opener in Game 4, which would have then allowed him to be available to pinch hit for Wilmer Flores against Max Scherzer with two outs in the ninth inning. Had the Giants had Tommy available, the Dodgers could also have countered with a lefty reliever, but would they have done so?
Mark and others made a roster point that might have made a difference as well. They preferred Estrada to Dickerson on the roster. Thairo had a big reverse split that allowed him to hit .303 with a .922 OPS against right-handers last season.
There are two points I made in advance, both to people in the Northwest, that I remember.
First, prior to Tim Lincecum's no-hitter, I emailed his dad for the first time that season that I believed Tim would have a very good game against the Padres that night. (I didn't predict a no-hitter, but Tim had been struggling for a season and a half.)
Second, when I saw that the Dodgers were going to use an Opener in Game 4, I emailed Matt that I thought it would be a mistake for Gabe to overreact, that he should start Brandon Crawford as the only left-handed hitter and bat him third to ensure he faced the righty Opener. I had no idea the game would come down to an 0-for-17 Flores against Scherzer, but I did believe that the Dodgers were trying to get the Giants to use more lefty hitters early so they wouldn't be available against the Dodgers' strong right-handed relief pitching later in the game. Sadly, Gabe took the bait -- one of the few mistakes he made. I would have loved to have been able to be in Gabe's ear when he made the decision to start both Mike Yastrzemski (which in retrospect, I don't disagree with) and La Stella, which I believe was a clear mistake.
Even now, I would like to know Gabe's thinking. I believe he made a mistake, but I still would like to hear his side of the story. He might have had a better reason for doing what he did than I had for his not doing it.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 23, 2021 22:19:18 GMT -5
We've discussed that one advantage of the Opener is that it can turn help in the effort to turn lineups around, and I still feel that Gabe Kapler shouldn't have started Tommy La Stella against the Dodgers Opener in Game 4, which would have then allowed him to be available to pinch hit for Wilmer Flores against Max Scherzer with two outs in the ninth inning. Had the Giants had Tommy available, the Dodgers could also have countered with a lefty reliever, but would they have done so? Mark and others made a roster point that might have made a difference as well. They preferred Estrada to Dickerson on the roster. Thairo had a big reverse split that allowed him to hit .303 with a .922 OPS against right-handers last season. There are two points I made in advance, both to people in the Northwest, that I remember. First, prior to Tim Lincecum's no-hitter, I emailed his dad for the first time that season that I believed Tim would have a very good game against the Padres that night. (I didn't predict a no-hitter, but Tim had been struggling for a season and a half.) Second, when I saw that the Dodgers were going to use an Opener in Game 4, I emailed Matt that I thought it would be a mistake for Gabe to overreact, that he should start Brandon Crawford as the only left-handed hitter and bat him third to ensure he faced the righty Opener. I had no idea the game would come down to an 0-for-17 Flores against Scherzer, but I did believe that the Dodgers were trying to get the Giants to use more lefty hitters early so they wouldn't be available against the Dodgers' strong right-handed relief pitching later in the game. Sadly, Gabe took the bait -- one of the few mistakes he made. I would have loved to have been able to be in Gabe's ear when he made the decision to start both Mike Yastrzemski (which in retrospect, I don't disagree with) and La Stella, which I believe was a clear mistake. Even now, I would like to know Gabe's thinking. I believe he made a mistake, but I still would like to hear his side of the story. He might have had a better reason for doing what he did than I had for his not doing it. The Giants used up so many lefties early that they were only able to use two left handed hitters in the bottom of the 9th agaibst Scherzer. Crawford lined out Wade Jr struck out looking.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 24, 2021 15:25:12 GMT -5
I believe one of the first things one should do when an opponent makes a change is to ask himself why the change was made. When I saw that the Dodgers were going with an Opener, which they hadn't previously done with Urias, I didn't need to even ask. It appeared obvious it was to get the Giants to use up their left-handed hitters, diminishing some of the platoon advantage the Giants had employed to excellent use in 2021.
The Dodgers had their backs to the wall. It was time to use their best strategy. Getting rid of some of the Giants' lefty bats might well prove advantageous to the Dodgers if the opportunity arose to bring in their strong right-handed bullpen members to close out the game.
That's why I emailed Matt that Gabe shouldn't take the bait, that he should bat Crawford third to ensure Brandon got to bat against the right-handed Opener, but that he shouldn't sacrifice any lefty bats. Matt didn't reply.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 24, 2021 23:09:10 GMT -5
Kapler didn't take the bait, I think he played it just like he had for most of the season. He got his hitters the good matchups they should have taken advantage of, but they choked. You don't set up your lineup to ensure all the best hitters are available on the bench in the 9th. You set up your lineup to score runs and take the lead before the 9th. I've been critical of Kapler at times, but this analysis you've conjured up in your head is worse than the Giants looked during that series. Outside of game 1 they looked like absolute crap, they should wear it, not Kapler.
If Kapler DID make a mistake, it wasn't setting his lineup, because the starting lineup was pretty standard. The mistake was made far before game five. Yaz hit lefthanders as good if not better than righthanders prior to 2021, why are we trying to convince players like Yaz that he's a specialist, rather than getting him back on track? The Giants pride themselves on versatility, but a third of their lineup is considered useless against almost half, or more than half of the pitchers on the opposing team. That's not versatility, that's a big weakness, a weakness that needs to be addressed. I think this may be the trick of the modern day GM and manager, convince players that they're not a complete player, that way you get a superstar caliber player at a discounted price. It's not analytics, it's mind control.
That said, going forward they need to learn how to manufacture runs, rather than relying on hitting 4 homeruns a game. Be aggressive on the base paths, advance runners, sac flies, ect..When they can't knock the hell out of the pitchers they need to go with a plan B. During that whole series they were sticking with plan A, and it failed. If they continue to fail in the post-season and can't get over that hump THEN it's on Kapler for not establishing a plan B. And for god's sake, let them play during the regular season regardless of who's on the mound.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 24, 2021 23:49:36 GMT -5
Kapler had two of the left handed hitters I wanted up in the bottom of the ninth. MVP candidate Crawford and Late Night Lamonte choked.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 25, 2021 0:00:44 GMT -5
We've discussed that one advantage of the Opener is that it can turn help in the effort to turn lineups around, and I still feel that Gabe Kapler shouldn't have started Tommy La Stella against the Dodgers Opener in Game 4, which would have then allowed him to be available to pinch hit for Wilmer Flores against Max Scherzer with two outs in the ninth inning. Had the Giants had Tommy available, the Dodgers could also have countered with a lefty reliever, but would they have done so? Mark and others made a roster point that might have made a difference as well. They preferred Estrada to Dickerson on the roster. Thairo had a big reverse split that allowed him to hit .303 with a .922 OPS against right-handers last season. There are two points I made in advance, both to people in the Northwest, that I remember. First, prior to Tim Lincecum's no-hitter, I emailed his dad for the first time that season that I believed Tim would have a very good game against the Padres that night. (I didn't predict a no-hitter, but Tim had been struggling for a season and a half.) Second, when I saw that the Dodgers were going to use an Opener in Game 4, I emailed Matt that I thought it would be a mistake for Gabe to overreact, that he should start Brandon Crawford as the only left-handed hitter and bat him third to ensure he faced the righty Opener. I had no idea the game would come down to an 0-for-17 Flores against Scherzer, but I did believe that the Dodgers were trying to get the Giants to use more lefty hitters early so they wouldn't be available against the Dodgers' strong right-handed relief pitching later in the game. Sadly, Gabe took the bait -- one of the few mistakes he made. I would have loved to have been able to be in Gabe's ear when he made the decision to start both Mike Yastrzemski (which in retrospect, I don't disagree with) and La Stella, which I believe was a clear mistake. Even now, I would like to know Gabe's thinking. I believe he made a mistake, but I still would like to hear his side of the story. He might have had a better reason for doing what he did than I had for his not doing it. Tim's no hitters were torture. The first one was 148 pitches.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 25, 2021 14:30:08 GMT -5
That was the one I "predicted" (not really).
The second one came when we were back in Tennessee for a post-wedding week. We were driving back to Indiana to visit more relatives when my friend from Bremerton, WA called to tell me Tim had thrown a no-hitter. I said, yeah, but it was a year ago, and then got really excited when he told me Tim had thrown another one!
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 27, 2021 11:24:26 GMT -5
Kapler didn't take the bait, I think he played it just like he had for most of the season. He got his hitters the good matchups they should have taken advantage of, but they choked. You don't set up your lineup to ensure all the best hitters are available on the bench in the 9th. You set up your lineup to score runs and take the lead before the 9th. I've been critical of Kapler at times, but this analysis you've conjured up in your head is worse than the Giants looked during that series. Outside of game 1 they looked like absolute crap, they should wear it, not Kapler. If Kapler DID make a mistake, it wasn't setting his lineup, because the starting lineup was pretty standard. The mistake was made far before game five. Yaz hit lefthanders as good if not better than righthanders prior to 2021, why are we trying to convince players like Yaz that he's a specialist, rather than getting him back on track? The Giants pride themselves on versatility, but a third of their lineup is considered useless against almost half, or more than half of the pitchers on the opposing team. That's not versatility, that's a big weakness, a weakness that needs to be addressed. I think this may be the trick of the modern day GM and manager, convince players that they're not a complete player, that way you get a superstar caliber player at a discounted price. It's not analytics, it's mind control. That said, going forward they need to learn how to manufacture runs, rather than relying on hitting 4 homeruns a game. Be aggressive on the base paths, advance runners, sac flies, ect..When they can't knock the hell out of the pitchers they need to go with a plan B. During that whole series they were sticking with plan A, and it failed. If they continue to fail in the post-season and can't get over that hump THEN it's on Kapler for not establishing a plan B. And for god's sake, let them play during the regular season regardless of who's on the mound. Correct. If plan A is to live and die trying to hit home runs, they have to develop plan B if plan A is not working.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 27, 2021 11:52:24 GMT -5
I totally agree with both of you.
In fact, our INability to hit with RISP was something I continually pointed out during the season.
Then again, and I'm only being partially tongue-in-cheek here, Earl Weaver always said he played for the 3 run HR.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 27, 2021 13:03:08 GMT -5
How can you say that Kapler didn't take the bait, when he took the bait? This isn't second-guessing. I pointed out to you BEFORE the game, Matt, that Kapler shouldn't start any left-handed hitters except Brandon Crawford against the right-handed Opener, and he should bat Crawford third to ensure he would bat against a right-hander in his first at bat. (I didn't realized the Dodgers would follow the Opener with another right-handed "follower.") I later admitted I hadn't fully studied Slater against right-handers and upon further review would have started Yastrzemski (and batted him second, or maybe batted Brandon second and Mike third).
But starting La Stella was IMO a mistake, one which proved difficult when Wilmer Flores was forced to bat with two outs in the ninth against a pitcher he had gone 0 for 17 against career. Don't get me wrong: The Giants still would likely have lost. But the manager's job is to give his team its best chance to win, and this time Kapler -- who had done a very nice job over the course of the season -- didn't do that.
You are correct that Mike hit southpaws well prior to last season. But the Giants weren't trying to convince Mike he was a platoon player; Mike convinced THEM by not hitting left-handers this season, even though he was given plenty of chance to do so. Again, Gabe's job is to put the Giants in the best position to win; with Mike in the lineup against southpaws, the Giants weren't in their best position to win.
That said, after studying the situation fully, I was fine with Mike in the lineup and in fact would have moved him up in the order. After all, he had an .842 OPS against right-handers on the season, and the Giants had plenty of left-handed hitting outfielders (Dickerson and Wade) for later in the game. It was left-handed hitting INFIELDERS they were short of, which is why La Stella should have been saved.
While early runs are in reality pretty much as valuable as runs later in the game (as far as I know, each counts precisely one run), all other things being equal, teams SHOULD play it so they can bring strong batters to the plate late in the game. The defense is using its best relievers late in the game; the offense needs to have its best hitters ready (within reason). There is a reason why in the NBA, teams realize it isn't their STARTING lineup that is most important; it's their closing lineup. Just ask the players.
Matt, why did you say that "platooning" is a trick of today's GM's and managers? You said it's mind control. And you're likely dead wrong about that.
You don't think that teams work hard with their platoon players to improve their hitting against the other hand? For starters, it isn't realistic to prevent a hitter from facing pitchers of their weak hand. Thirty percent of Yastrzemski's plate appearances last season came when a left started the game. That's eight percent more than his Hall of Fame uncle, who made only 22% of his own appearances when a southpaw started. I'm virtually certain that the Giants were working hard with Mike to bring back his ability to hit lefties. Twenty-nine percent of his plate appearances came against them. Why WOULDN'T the Giants work hard with him to adjust?
When you post an opinion, you might want to consider asking yourself if it makes common sense. Common sense says the Giants AREN'T using mind control to convince Yastrzemki that he can't hit lefties. Common sense DOES say that his poor platoon splits last season are telling the Giants that last season he couldn't hit them. Common sense also says that since he hit them prior to last season, it makes great sense to analyze what he is doing differently against them, and what they are doing differently against him.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 27, 2021 13:08:49 GMT -5
Given that he lined out to left, I wouldn't exactly say that Brandon Crawford choked in the 9th inning of Game 5.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 27, 2021 13:30:28 GMT -5
Boly, you may have continually pointed to the Giants' inability to hit with RISP, but the fact is that it didn't exist. The Giants hit 11 points higher with RISP and nine points higher with runners on base than they hit with the bases empty. Their OBP was 23 points higher with RISP and 16 points higher with runners on base than with the bases empty. Their SLG was 20 points higher with RISP and 30 points higher with runners on base than with the bases empty. Their OPS was 43 points higher with RISP and 46 points higher with runners on than with the bases empty.
Now, there were OTHER teams who had even bigger differences, but there were also teams who DID hit worse with RISP and/or runners on base than with the bases empty. They weren't great with TWO OUTS and RISP (which means they were VERY good with one or no outs and RISP), and they didn't hit especially well in tie games, but they hit much better in high-leverage situations than they hit in medium-leverage situations than they hit in low-leverage situations.
Now, EVERY team could benefit from improving their hitting with RISP and runners on -- just as they could benefit from improving their hitting with no one on. RISP helps the most, followed by hitting with runners on, and hitting with no one on helps the least. But the Giants ranked higher in their hitting with RISP and runners on than their hitting with no one on, which was more of a weakness than their hitting with RISP or runners on.
And somehow the Giants wound up scoring the 2nd-most runs of any National League team.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 27, 2021 13:41:10 GMT -5
It's easy to say that the Giants should manufacture runs, but I believe it was in 2017 when the Giants led the majors in manufactured runs, yet finished next-to-last in NL scoring because they finished dead last in home runs. This past season they were second in the NL in runs scored.
And it's easy to say they should be more aggressive on the bases, but in fact Kapler HAS stressed being more aggressive on the bases. Despite that though, they were below-average in base running because they're one of the oldest teams in the majors, and older usually means slower, which usually means not as good. Where the Giants DID excel though was in base stealing. The Giants were middle-of-the-pack 16th in steals with 66, but because they were caught the fewest times of any teams (14), they had the highest success rate (82.5%) of any team in the majors.
So it might not be productive to try to manufacture more runs, and it appears the Giants did their best base running as a team when they played it conservative.
I'm open to the ideas of manufacturing more runs and being more aggressive on the bases, but the facts seem to argue against them. Can anyone here point to evidence that shows the Giants would likely improve if they manufactured more runs and were more aggressive on the bases?
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 27, 2021 13:49:45 GMT -5
So how DOES a team get better at scoring runs in the postseason, when because of the importance of each game and because there are many more days off, the pitching teams face is better?
I haven't studied WHICH players might help out here, but I believe now that the Giants have a good enough team to have a good shot at the playoffs, they should focus on adding players who hit better against power pitchers. Because pitching depth isn't as important in the playoffs, teams face more power pitchers (since power pitchers are usually better than average power/finesse pitchers, who as usually better than pure finesse pitchers).
Last season the Giants had a .709 OPS against power pitchers. That paled in comparison to their .787 against average power/finesse pitchers and .784 against finesse pitchers. If someone wants to "help" the Giants score more runs in the postseason, perhaps that person should look for hitters who hit comparatively better against power pitchers. I don't imagine there are a lot of them, but I suspect that they exist and that some are undervalued.
Instead of complaining about areas that might not make a significant difference even if they ARE improved, perhaps we should be searching in an area that may have a greater potential to make a positive difference.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 27, 2021 14:19:05 GMT -5
It was good that the Giants had two good left-handed hitters up in the ninth, but wouldn't it have been even nicer if La Stella had been available to hit for Flores?
Something I just thought of though. I have mentioned that I would love to be able to talk with Gabe Kapler to find out why he started La Stella when it seemed clear to me that wasn't the ideal direction to go. Is it possible that Tommy's Achilles was so bad that they felt he would be better off starting the game when they could do everything possible to make it as healthy as possible? That said though, it would seem they could have worked on the Achilles during the game so that he could have been equally ready late.
As I have mentioned, the Giants likely would have lost anyway, but it's the manager's job to put his players in the best position to succeed as often as he can. Flores was in a HORRIBLE position to succeed, and with better planning, it could have been La Stella. The result likely wouldn't have been better, but I think we all agree that Tommy had a better chance of getting a hit or walk against Max Scherzer than Flores did.
And while it may have been true that Tommy had a better chance of getting on base in the first inning than Donovan Solano would have, that's not necessarily the case. Donovan's .344 OBP against right-handers was actually 31 points better than Tommy's. In addition, Donovan's OBP in September/October was a resounding .480, and it was .395 in the entire second half. Tommy's OPS against righties was a little better, .734 compared to .705, because Tommy's SLG was 60 points higher. That likely would have been more meaningful later in the game though than while leading it off.
Matt, feel free to disagree with me on this, but if you're going to do so, would you mind giving factual and/or logical reasons? I'd be willing to bet that if Gabe could do it all over again, he would do it differently. I'm not positive of that, and that is why I would love to have the luxury of discussing it with him. I suspect he would either agree with me or give me logical reasons why he went the direction he went.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 27, 2021 14:24:31 GMT -5
I forgot to mention with regard to creating runs, the Giants were 6th in the majors with 16 bunts for hits.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 28, 2021 11:41:54 GMT -5
We've discussed that one advantage of the Opener is that it can turn help in the effort to turn lineups around, and I still feel that Gabe Kapler shouldn't have started Tommy La Stella against the Dodgers Opener in Game 4, which would have then allowed him to be available to pinch hit for Wilmer Flores against Max Scherzer with two outs in the ninth inning. Had the Giants had Tommy available, the Dodgers could also have countered with a lefty reliever, but would they have done so? Mark and others made a roster point that might have made a difference as well. They preferred Estrada to Dickerson on the roster. Thairo had a big reverse split that allowed him to hit .303 with a .922 OPS against right-handers last season. There are two points I made in advance, both to people in the Northwest, that I remember. First, prior to Tim Lincecum's no-hitter, I emailed his dad for the first time that season that I believed Tim would have a very good game against the Padres that night. (I didn't predict a no-hitter, but Tim had been struggling for a season and a half.) Second, when I saw that the Dodgers were going to use an Opener in Game 4, I emailed Matt that I thought it would be a mistake for Gabe to overreact, that he should start Brandon Crawford as the only left-handed hitter and bat him third to ensure he faced the righty Opener. I had no idea the game would come down to an 0-for-17 Flores against Scherzer, but I did believe that the Dodgers were trying to get the Giants to use more lefty hitters early so they wouldn't be available against the Dodgers' strong right-handed relief pitching later in the game. Sadly, Gabe took the bait -- one of the few mistakes he made. I would have loved to have been able to be in Gabe's ear when he made the decision to start both Mike Yastrzemski (which in retrospect, I don't disagree with) and La Stella, which I believe was a clear mistake. Even now, I would like to know Gabe's thinking. I believe he made a mistake, but I still would like to hear his side of the story. He might have had a better reason for doing what he did than I had for his not doing it. The error on the Dodgers part was firing all their bullets in the NLDS and causing Scherzer to have a dead arm in the NLDS and Buehler to be less effective than usual. Kapler might have had one eye on the NLDS, which is understandable. Remember, the Dodgers needed twelve wins to secure a World Championship. Its okay to get win #4 but they were stopped halfway to 12. The Giants needed 11 wins and got 2 but the bullpen was so ravaged by fatigue that they probably would not have gotten more than 5 wins total, anyway. As was mentioned before, the Dodgers beat the Giants in the NLDS but the Giants-Dodgers series beat the Dodgers in the NLCS and it likely would not have mattered what LaStella would have done against Scherzer. Kapler does not need to explain himself about the way he reacted to the opener. I believe this was probably debated a bit by committee and they did what they felt was best and criticizing in 20/20 hindsight doesn't mean anything. Its done.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 28, 2021 18:26:22 GMT -5
I'm not sure the bullpen was ravaged by fatigue. I believe they were the best in the majors in August and September. Perhaps they ran out of gas, but why would you run out of gas AFTER four days off, then two days of games, then a fifth day off, then two days of games, then a sixth day off, then another game? The Giants played only five games in 11 days. If their bullpen wasn't worn out the final week of the season, how were they worn out after only five games in 11 days?
The final five games of the regular season the Giants' regular relievers pitched 19.2 innings and gave up ............... ONE earned run. Then they had four days off -- and six days off out of 11. Does that sound like a bullpen that should have been tired?
How could a tired bullpen be phenomenally effective the final five days of the season, get four days off and THEN be tired? Does that make sense?
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 28, 2021 18:45:22 GMT -5
I understand your point about second-guessing, Reeder, but I was first-guessing. Still, there is nothing we can do about it at this point.
But I think it was a pretty good first guess. Likely wouldn't have changed the outcome, but it almost certainly WOULD have given the Giants a better chance.
I rarely first OR second guess. The last time I recall first or second guessing was in the 2016 playoffs, when I pointed out that I believed the Giants should be using Will Smith as their closer. His pitching the final 40 days of the season was similar to Doval's this year. I think there was a strong possibility that had Bruce Bochy brought Smith in to begin the 9th inning -- or at least brought him in after Kris Bryant led off the inning -- the Giant would have won the game. Even then, they would have had to have Johnny Cueto bet Jon Lester to advance. But, man, what a TREMENDOUS matchup that would have been.
The two faced off earlier in the series, with the Cubs winning 1-0. Despite the loss, Cueto pitched an 8-inning complete game. Lester also went eight, with Aroldis Chapman closing it out.
The chances of Smith's affecting the game's outcome were much higher IMO than La Stella's would have been. But the point is for the manager to give his team the best chance to win, and while both Bochy and Kapler are much better managers than I would have been, in the particular cases I mentioned, I don't believe either manager gave the Giants their best chance.
In all the years I've watched the Giants, there really aren't all that many things I would have rather their managers did. I don't remember the specifics, but I thought Roger Craig could have done better in Game 3 of the NLCS with the Cardinals in 1987. I reached Ralph Barbieri at KNBR, and he agreed with me, although I was the final caller, and we didn't have much time to discuss it. Then the two that I just mentioned.
By the way, Chris Speier's dad, Wes, suffered a heart attack at Candlestick after that Game 3 and never left the hospital. He did get to see Chris immediately after the Giants' plane returned home after they lost Game 7, but Wes passed very soon thereafter, and Wes's funeral was held just four days after the Giants lost the series. Not that they were in any way related, but that was the day before the stock market crashed. Still the worst one-day crash in history.
It was almost as if Wes were waiting to see Chris so he could pass. My dad's funeral came nine years later. Two of Chris's kids came up from Scottsdale to attend, and Luke said that after their grandpa's death, my dad had been almost as much of a grandfather to them as their own grandfather had been.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 28, 2021 18:48:15 GMT -5
By the way, psychologically, I think it IS possible the Giants' bullpen was tired after four days off. Still, when it counted most -- the two wins and the tough Game 5 loss -- the bullpen was really good. But the one run they (Doval) yielded cost them.
Let's not forget though that the Giants pitched much better against the Dodgers than the Braves did. The difference was that the Braves hit the heck out of the ball, while the Giants didn't.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 29, 2021 10:07:28 GMT -5
I'm not sure the bullpen was ravaged by fatigue. I believe they were the best in the majors in August and September. Perhaps they ran out of gas, but why would you run out of gas AFTER four days off, then two days of games, then a fifth day off, then two days of games, then a sixth day off, then another game? The Giants played only five games in 11 days. If their bullpen wasn't worn out the final week of the season, how were they worn out after only five games in 11 days? The final five games of the regular season the Giants' regular relievers pitched 19.2 innings and gave up ............... ONE earned run. Then they had four days off -- and six days off out of 11. Does that sound like a bullpen that should have been tired? How could a tired bullpen be phenomenally effective the final five days of the season, get four days off and THEN be tired? Does that make sense? They may have felt they were "done" after winning the NL West.
|
|