Biased Giants Fanatic

Phoenix Reborn: I'm Now ObsessiveGiantsCompulsive

2006-03-30T03:30:00.000-08:00

I am taking the unusual step of abandoning my Biased Giants Fanatic nom de plume and taking on a new one: ObsessiveGiantsCompulsive. I will be switching all my IDs around the place to reflect this new ID but I might either forget one or another or have a technical glitch.

I am doing this for a number of reasons. One is that I've found that people get a bit confused about my intentions and motivations when they see the "biased" part of the name. Hence my having to try to explain it in my description. I try (don't always succeed, but try) to be fair in my logic and rationale in assessing the Giants but I'm human and I make mistakes - I just try my honest best. I find my greatest pleasure not in seeing my team with rose-colored glasses, but in knowing how good or bad my Giants are and setting my expectations accordingly. Hopefully I'm succeeding more times than not. In any case, my new ID reflect my mind-set more aptly.

Two, I'm not proud but I've gotten into some flame wars with this ID on a discussion board. I try and try to have a civil discussion with certain board members but for some unknown reason they decide to pick a fight. The first few times I took the high road and let them go, but eventually it came to this old proverb: fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

I decided to defend myself because the moderators there were either weak or a friend of these people who sink down to name calling and insults when their logic is not sound enough to convince anyone of their position (one sunk low enough to use my dead father to try to insult me). But this left me feeling all negative and life is too short for that type of stuff. Plus the moderators' lack of discipline and tolerance for these baseless insults grew tiring as well. I decided to leave for other discussion boards, it wasn't the only one in town, and it was good for my mental health.

Three, I think this name has served its purpose and has outlived its origins. The BGF moniker was a lark that started when I volunteered to help out somebody who started up their Giants website on Yahoo and was looking for contributors - so I had to have a name for my column and came up with Biased Giants Fanatic, which was funny to me because I try so hard to not be biased, but you know how good (NOT!) inside jokes are, that other people don't get.

Initially, I just did that column on an irregular basis. But I ended up posting articles pretty regularly. Then soon I was helping out with farm system reports, which evolved the next year into contacting the Giants farm clubs for interviews. It just grew from that and eventually became my online identity and I dropped my prior on-line ID that I had at that time.

However, soon my publisher left and one of my tormenters from the board took over. I decided then to try out blogs and publish via both channels. I found that I enjoyed the freedom of blogging plus my work would go out the day I'm done, not delayed because there was a queue of other articles ahead.

Of course, the thought of working under this person made my skin crawl but I felt I owed it to the former publisher, who was very nice, to still post there so that her baby could live under the new publisher, instead of leaving them high and dry because I was the only one regularly writing stuff beyond the usual game recaps plus doing original research. But, when I thought they were ready to fly on their own, I just stopped sending articles.

I am for the better for the experience of helping out with that website because I know so much more about the Giants (and baseball in general) today than I ever did before. I love swimming in numbers and there are numbers galore on the Internet and I love to analyze things. But now it's time for me to move on.

Last, but most importantly, I've found an ID that fits me to a T and I am very happy with it. I have thought about this move for a long time now, since the dark days of my on-line battles. But it never felt right to change my ID plus I never found a name I wanted to move to. Until now.

And while I like this BGF ID - as it feels like it has become a part of me, weirdly enough - it recently reminded me of the bad times when I was getting into battles when that person came back into my life and I hated the feelings that was engendered by that. So I've made the difficult decision to stop using this ID and switch to another.

To get a clean start. To be re-born. I won't forget the abuse nor the illogic of these people. I was going to list and provide links to the stupid advice this person had put out there, but I've decided that going forward from this point on, now that I got this off my chest, I will finally try to move on from all that. (But I was really tempted to post the links - really, keeping Snow at $6.5M was better than getting Vlad?!?)

So I'm going to switch to a new ID and hopefully it has a better karma but I really like this new ID and feel real good about this move. Take care and hope to see you at my new blog: ObsessiveGiantsCompulsive. (And sorry to those who have to switch their RSS links, I know what a pain that is, I had to redo all my RSS in switching IDs plus having to redo my whole format of myYahoo for my new ID)

Your 2006 Giants: The Wright Man for the #5 Starter

2006-03-28T18:48:00.000-08:00

I could have done this earlier. I've written extensively on why I think Jamey Wright should be the 5th starter and with each successful outing that he has had in the spring, he pretty much pitched great, winning the position, as Hennessey has been so-so this spring and while Correia has done well too, Wright has been that much better plus has the "seasoned vet" status that Sabean appears to love so much, so I guess I can put up this post now.

Here are other posts on Wright:

http://biasedgiantsfanatic.blogspot.com/2006/01/giants-doing-wright-thing.html: covers most of the arguments I am making for Wright as #5 starter for the Giants in 2006, particularly his success on the road, how there were aberrations in 2005 that made his road stats look worse than usual, and the need to give Hennessey every chance to have a breakout year in 2007 because he proved to be so dominating but not in a consistent manner.
http://biasedgiantsfanatic.blogspot.com/2006/02/article-on-wright-in-chron_114092823767679317.html: has interesting comments on Wright from his former catcher in Colorado who happens to be our leading candidate for backup catcher this season.
http://biasedgiantsfanatic.blogspot.com/2006/03/rueter-retires-and-wright-speculation.html: speculation that Wright would be in line for long relief if he don't make starter, seems like that would be one too many relievers or that means only one of the three rookie relievers from last season will make this season, most probably Munter. But it looks like Correia is now up for this long relief role, which makes sense given how poorly Fassero did as a starter in 2005 plus the need to leave Hennessey alone in AAA to mature and learn to be consistently as dominating as he showed he could be in 2005, but would follow up with very poor outings.
http://www.mccoveychronicles.com/comments/2006/3/7/153944/0953/3: in addition I posted on McCovey Chronicles, which has become my blog home away from blog home, that when you look at Ron Shandler's PQS rating for Wright's starts in 2005, while he was a mediocre 30% DOM overall, when you looked only at his road games, it was a sterling 47% DOM with only 7% DIS, both very good rates from top of the rotation guys, not something you would expect out of a bottom of rotation guy.
http://www.mccoveychronicles.com/comments/2006/3/28/171936/410/4#4: I got my elevator speech on Wright down pat, this one repeats much of the first post, plus I threw in a new twist: since he is an extreme groundball pitcher, he should get more doubleplays probably. If you subtract his DP/GS from his BR/9 figure, oops, I should have used his DP/9 rate of 1.2 instead of the 0.8 DP/GS rate - I quoted a reduction to a 1.42 WHIP but it should have been reduced to 1.38, which is a good WHIP rate for a starter. Also, I noted that given his road numbers and potential at AT&T, he should do no worse than the various #5's we have trotted out over the past few years - Jensen, Foppert, Moss, Hennessey - while giving Hennessey a chance to concentrate on getting himself ready to take a rotation spot in 2007, because when he is going good, he is dominant, but unfortunately he was inconsistent the past two seasons, going from bad to great to back to bad in successive starts. We need to harnest his strengths and maximize his potential. As I noted in another thread above, 77% of all minor league starting pitching prospects fail when they come up without a full year of AAA pitching, whereas only 33% fail with a full year, or looking at it the other way, without a full year, only 16% do well, with a full year, 56% do well. Compelling numbers to just keep Hennessey in AAA in 2006 and get him ready for 2007.

2006 Wright

He has shown the stamina and ability to throw 180-200 IP in a season, which will be good for saving the bullpen, though he has not done it often, so I don't know if it was stamina/injury or just poor pitching that stopped him, though I've read that he has had an injury history (according to Baseball Prospectus' team health report, fee but most of it is readable for free). With a low 4 ERA lifetime on the road and potentially under 4 ERA pitching at AT&T Park in 2006, he may be able to get his overall ERA into the high 3's and perhaps better, depending on how much of an advantage he gets from pitching in AT&T Park. But at worse, he should be as good as any of the #5 starters we have had over the past few years.

He's not going to get a lot of strikeouts but it should be decent enough rate (5-6 K/9) and his walks will be horrendous, but he gets an extraordinary number of ground balls to fly balls, his GB rate is 10 percentage points better than Schmidt and he had a similar looking chart to what Matt Morris did his last four seasons, that should deliver a lot of double plays and force outs. His past DP/9 rate reduces his WHIP nicely into the 1.3 range, which is good for any pitcher, let alone #5 pitchers. Plus he keeps his H/9 down around 9 or one per inning, which helps a lot with his high W/9 rate. He seems like Rueter in that way, Kirk would rather walk you than give up a hit.

He could potentially pitch as well as Morris did last season on an overall basis, making Wright the new Kirk Rueter of the rotation: high walks, low strikeouts, somehow gets batters out enough times to keep the score close enough for the team to win eventually. I wouldn't be surprised if he has a W/L record like what Rueter used to put up for the Giants regularly. At worse, he will be an adequate #5 starter and won't harm the Giants playoff ambitions, though he won't help either if this occurs. At best, he could put up Rueter-like number of wins with horrible other stats, looking like he did it with mirrors. His sinker and groundballs will be the keys to his success or failure. I think most of the signs point to him succeeding and possibly doing very well for us in the starting rotation, assuming he can stay healthy.

Your 2006 Giants: Vizquel and Matheny, Hidden Icebergs of Disaster But Relief/Rest Arrives

2006-03-27T19:32:00.000-08:00

Vizquel and Matheny were considered to have had a better offensive year for the Giants than expected. However, if you look at their monthly performances, they just had a really good first half of the year for the Giants before settling in to the poor performance that Giants fans were fearing. Vizquel hit the following pre and post ASG, but his 2005 season was about spot on his career numbers:

Period - AVG - OBP - SLG - OPS
Pre-ASG - .305 - .359 - .397 - .756
PostASG - .229 - .318 - .292 - .611
2005 - .271 - .341 - .350 - .691
Career - .274 - .341 - .358 - .698

Matheny main drop was in his sharp drop in HR power he showed in his first 3 months, many in SBC, but his numbers were much improved in power overall relative to his career:

Period - AVG - OBP - SLG - OPS
Pre-ASG - .245 - .305 - .455 - .760 with 9 HR in 233 AB (26 AB/HR)
PostASG - .238 - .283 - .352 - .635 with 4 HR in 210 AB (52.5 AB/HR)
2005 - .242 - .295 - .406 - .701 with 13 HR in 443 AB (34 AB/HR)
Career - .239 - .293 - .344 - .638 with 64 HR in 3717 AB (58 AB/HR)

So which player will we get, the pre-ASG or the post-ASG? Is this a sign that the player is losing ground vs. the competition and pitchers were finally figuring out how to get him out, i.e. is this a sign of his age decline? Or will he do better under different circumstances despite his age and difficult position?

2006 Vizquel

Vizquel had a bookends of the season that matches his career somewhat in a backward way. He hit as well as his recent career numbers in the first half of the season but ended the season hitting as well (that is as poorly) as he did early in his career. In fact, he was great in April and June, with OPS in the low 800's, which is great for his position, but then from July on, his OPS tumbled down the stairs: .819 in June, then .708, .642, .534. There was probably some correlation with the trade of Deivi Cruz and Felipe feeling the need to play Vizquel more, resulting in him playing 25 games, 25, 27 in the final 3 months, whereas in the two months Vizquel ruled, he only played in 23 and 24 games (he played in 26 games in May and had an OPS of .617). Perhaps giving Vizquel enough rest will help him out in 2006 so that he can play near his peak vs. near his end.

Vizcaino will certainly help with that. With a career .664 OPS, and recent OPS in that range, which is not good but looks great compared to Vizquel's post-ASG stat-line, Vizquel has a replacement who will not bring the offense down too much taking Vizquel's place. So hopefully Felipe will feel confident resting Vizquel more frequently in 2006 in order to keep Vizquel's bat potent and his legs - which stole 24 bases, much more than recent SF teams have been able to muster - fresher.

In addition, Vizquel suffered from a malady that hits most new SF Giants hitters: trying to figure out how to hit at SBC. Some conquer it fast but most struggle with it to some extent during their first year with the team. Vizquel hit much better on the road, in fact, it was better than for his career, which is a good sign that his hitting ability was still sharp on the road:

Place - AVG - OBP - SLG - OPS
Home - .252 - .333 - .307 - .640 with 0 homers in 274 AB
Away - .289 - .348 - .391 - .739 with 3 homers in 294 AB (98 AB/HR)
Career- .272 - .339 - .359 - .699 with 39 homer in 4247 AB (109 AB/HR)

Assuming he gets some uplift from figuring out how to hit at AT&T and from getting more rest from an adequate replacement like Vizcaino, Vizquel should be able to counteract whatever decline he might experience due to his age and position, and do at least as well as he did in 2005, and perhaps a bit better. He has kept his body in very good shape from all the accounts I have read about him so that will help as well.

In addition, for his career, he has hit better with men on base than with the bases empty:

Career - AVG - OBP - SLG - OPS
Empty - .260 - .333 - .337 - .670
Runner- .294 - .351 - .387 - .737
RISP - .279 - .337 - .374 - .711
Loaded - .278 - .272 - .451 - .723

And, frankly, he probably came up too often with no one on base as the season went on. The Giants didn't really have a good leadoff hitter, after Ellison took over from Durham who was moved lower to help protect Moises Alou, until Winn came in and was on fire. This season, Winn should be on base a lot when Vizquel comes up to bat.

2006 Matheny

While Matheny had a second half fall-off, it was relative to the lofty heights he reached earlier in the season. His hitting after the ASG, while bad, was more in line with his career numbers, his first half was the aberration. In addition, looking at his monthly stats, it is clear that he started to tire by the end of the season. His OPS was steadily in the mid-700 range for the first four months of the season, with him playing 19-22 games each month, but then after Torrealba was traded away for Winn, Alou didn't trust Haad, so Matheny played 24 and 26 games, respectively, in August and September, driving his OPS to .699 in August and .560 in September. Again, a few extra games played appear to sap the strength out of Matheny, just like Vizquel in 2005.

With an established backup catcher in Todd Greene this year, Matheny should get plenty of rest to keep his hitting up. In addition, he apparently loves hitting at SBC/AT&T, particularly for power via a homerun rate double that of his career, than at Busch and he loves hitting in the NL West more than he did hitting in the NL Central, regarding divisional rivals he played most of his away games against. So Matheny should do no worse than he did last season, and there is every reason to hope that he might do better, given proper rest.

In addition, he hits much better with men on base than without, just like Vizquel:

Career - AVG - OBP - SLG - OPS
Empty - .226 - .272 - .335 - .610
Runner- .256 - .318 - .356 - .674
RISP - .261 - .339 - .369 - .708
Loaded - .319 - .340 - .451 - .790 (about 100 PA)

Not sure how that will pay off for Matheny since, while Alou will bat 5th and get on base a lot, then Feliz and Niekro will follow. If they both start walking more and hitting better, as I think they will, then Matheny will face more of the key runners on situations and hit better overall, but if the two of them fall back to how they did in 2005, then Matheny's hitting will probably suffer as well, creating a domino effect at the bottom of the lineup and perhaps affecting into the top of the lineup with Winn and Vizquel at the top.

Your 2006 Giants: Worrell and Kline, Two Setup Men, Not Settling For

2006-03-26T21:30:00.000-08:00

Tim Worrell and Steve Kline came to the Giants with poor performances in 2005. Worrell had personal problems that took him out in the early 2005 season and Kline just never adjusted to his new team and league. Some Giants fans question the acquisitions of these two relievers, particularly since Hawkins is pretty good against LHP, reducing the need for a LOOGY like Kline plus they gave up cash as well. But there were extenuating circumstances in both cases.

In Worrell's case, after he resolved his personal issues, he pitched well, compiling 2.55 ERA, 1.27 WHIP, .261 BAA, 6.9 K/9, 2.3 W/9, 3.0 K/W, and 1.3 HR/9. This was very good and in line with his performances over the previous past 6 seasons. It was particularly good since he pitched at a hitters park like the BOB (now Chase).

In Kline's case, he had been a good reliever for 7 seasons prior to his poor year in 2005, with ERA's in the low 3's or lower and WHIPs under 1.40, plus strong strikeout rates and low HR rates, his main problem had been walks. But in Baltimore, where not only was he not very happy, but he publicly let that be known and the fans rightly crucified him for it, and he didn't know the hitters or the parks, which all added up to a horrible year all around for him. His return to career norms is not as assured as Worrell but he did do better the last two months of the 2005 season, compiling a 1.96 ERA and 1.17 WHIP, with low 2.7 W/9 though very poor 2.7 K/9 and 1.2 HR/9. However, Felipe Alou was his manager when he first did well and Kline has expressed confidence that Alou will know how to use him to best effect - often and in key situations.

2006 Worrell

He's been like the energizer rabbit for the most part over the past 7 seasons except for his personal problems early last season - hopefully he is over them and from his record afterward, he was. He may be old but he's never relied on a blazing fast ball nor been injured in the recent past. He's happy to be back - he didn't want to leave in the first place he said then and now and is glad to be back - and as noted he pitched well after he returned to action, so there's no reason to believe that he won't continue to do as well as he has over the past 7 seasons, he'll be a bulldog in the bullpen like he was when he was here with the team his first time around.

2006 Kline

He was very good for 7 seasons, with dominance in 2 of the prior 4 seasons for the Cardinals, but then stunk up the joint in 2005? And he's only 33 years old. We know how unhappy he was in Baltimore plus he started finally coming around the last two months of the season for the Orioles and now he's back in the league and hitters he is most familiar with plus the catcher he had his biggest successes with in Matheny plus a manager that he first enjoyed success with and who he is looking forward to relieving for because he believes that Alou knows how to use him best for performance and will use him often, which is the way Kline likes it.

In addition, there were flukey elements to his 2005. His HR/FB was 20% whereas the mean that all pitchers show fall to is 10%, so it was a huge outlier in terms of this metric, particularly since he didn't give up that much more flyballs than usual. In fact, his GB/FB ratio actually was pretty high as his LD was down from historic norms. And he actually pitched OK in Baltimore, it was on the road that he was not doing well at all, his BABIP was off the charts when normally it should be in the .300 range (generally plus based on career norms for prior three seasons). Plus he was about normal against RHH but just blew it against LHH, which I would consider to be an aberration given he was still OK vs. RHH, it was just one of those years.

The Giants fans complaining about the trade of Hawkins forget that despite the Giants giving up cash in the deal, they saved that much in salary after all is said and done. And that amount is approximately the salary that they paid for Vizcaino over Angel Chavez. So look as it as a trade of Hawkins with Chavez as backup MI to Kline with Vizcaino as backup MI. Plus while Hawkins could be very good at times, even with us he seemed flakey to me, I would not have been comfortable knowing he was coming into a high pressure situation whereas Kline has a history of doing well in pennant situations with the Cardinals.

2006 Setup

I think the Giants set up situation is going to be fine in 2006. Worrell and Kline has a history of doing well, with just a poor 2005 season to show for their troubles. I think Kline will replace Eyre's production for the most part, he has had 3 seasons similar to Kline over the previous 7 whereas this was Eyre's first good season so there was no guarantee that even had we retained Eyre that even Eyre would have replaced his 2005 production. He should return to his effectiveness against LHH and do well in AT&T where his groundballs will be gobbled up by a good defensive infield. Worrell will be the ace in the hole should Benitez falter in any way but will be a pillar in the setup role like he was in the past for us.

Your 2006 Giants: Durham and Alou - Got (not enough) Games, a Tale of Two Old Men

2006-03-26T02:13:00.000-08:00

That's the irony here, both Durham and Alou "got game" but "don't got games." Both are excellent hitters for their positions, a great addition to any lineup but that's the rub, they have to be in the lineup to contribute. And while Durham did get into the most games in a season as a Giant in 2005, that was a false promise because he played at less effective levels because his power was missing, particularly against LHP, whom he usually killed, pushing his overall hitting from good to average. And Alou missed a boatload of games in his first season as a Giant, which is not unusual for him, as earlier in his career he missed a lot of games each season, it was rarer for him to play a full season than to miss games. So now that he' breaking 40, there's no reason to believe that he will suddenly play a full season, he will be like Bonds, getting rest frequently, to keep him sharp and relatively healthy. Hence the cruciality of Finley returning to his prior form as I noted in my post on Finley.

2006 Durham

So there's not much more to say. Durham is in his last year of his contract so he'll be playing for his new contract. With Frandsen and perhaps Sanders pressing for 2B in the next year or two, he probably will not be resigned by the Giants so he will have to make a good show of it in 2006. He changed his conditioning routine before the 2005 season to the one recommended by the Giants training staff because the one he was following didn't really do much for him the two prior years, but he still didn't do it under the staff's supervision so that probably undercut their effectiveness. That's probably why it didn't seem to do much for him, even if he didn't go on the DL, he was still hampered by aches and pains still and missed 20 games still, plus, more importantly, despite playing 22 more games than in 2004, he only got 18 more plate appearances so the extra games were only pinch hit appearances - we don't pay him $7M+ to pinch hit for us.

He will probably hit well again for the games he does play but Vizcaino is his backup this year so there will be a big drop off in offense when that happens, and it has basically happened for 40-50 starts each year he has been with the Giants. Hopefully if there is any hint of problems, instead of hobbling through it by keeping him on the bench and hoping, just put him on the DL and bring up Frandsen, if he recovers early great, he can use the extra time off getting into better condition.

His hitting vs. LHP should return to normal "killer" heights because his RHP hitting was right in line with his recent career norms, which suggests that the dropoff vs. LHP was just a case of small samples. In addition, over the past two seasons, Durham has been able to curb his strikeouts and has kept his walks high, so he has been in the top 20% of batters in terms of BB/SO ratio, and those are the best hitters. Thus he should hit close to his career norms across the board, because he has been relatively consistent in that way, it is just the number of games he does this in that is the problem. If his hammy squeaks, just bite the bullet and sit him down and let Giants fans see the future with Frandsen called up.

2007 Alou

Again, not much to say. 40 year olds - which Alou will join this season - will rarely play over 120-130 games in a season and he only played in that many last season. In addition, they eventually succumb to age and have a decline in production. So expect at most 130 games and hope that he only suffers from a slight decline because all players will eventually have a steep decline in production if they play long enough.

He is also in the last year of his contract and has said that he would still like to play another year, even if not with the Giants (hey, if I knew I could make $3-5M, I would play another year too.). So that should help to boost his production, though that did not do anything for Grissom last season. His hitting vs. RHP was in line with his recent career norms and his LHP hitting was in Barry-Land (1.157 OPS), so he played with strength in 2005 and that's a good sign for 2006. However, he had a very slight second half slump so that's a bad sign, though it was so slight, it could just be a hiccup. He also hit much better on the road than at home and he was still very good at home, his power did not suffer much at SBC, except perhaps for homers.

The Bill James rule for old players at the end of their careers, and he certainly has passed through that gateway, is that you assume he'll continue to hit well for another year, so I expect something close to what he did in 2005, which was close to what he did for the past three seasons, so there's that continuity and consistency there that is comforting. In addition, looking at his peripherals, if anything, his walk and strikeout rates have been rising over the past few years, the only thing negative I could see was that he had a decline in power vs. RHP in 2005 but that was only in context with how great he did in 2004 vs. RHP, else 2005 would have been in line with previous seasons.

There are only two caveats. One is that I would also throw in a slight decline to account for his age. Two is that the main problem, as with Durham, is how many games he will play, though if Finley can hit anywhere close to his recent career norms before his horrendous 2005 season, he (or rather Winn) would be an adequate replacement for Alou in RF, unlike the problem of what happens when Durham is out of the lineup.

Bonds Lawsuit Against "Book of Shadows"

2006-03-24T12:45:00.000-08:00

Well, the lawsuit the Against-Bonds contingent was been clamoring for has arrived, though probably not in the way that would appease them. Bonds is suing not for libel but for something arcane called, "California's Unfair Competition Law." Sports Law Blog gives their take on it here. Though they say that libel is very hard to prove - "Generally, libel is difficult to prove, and as you can tell by their more burdensome standard for proving guilt, public figures have an especially difficult time winning libel suits." - then they say that others have won before, which paints Bonds, to my reading, with a guilty color.

I'm not a lawyer, but the two examples given as winners were cases where it can be proven that the defendents were lying. In Carol Burnett's case, all she needed was Henry Kissinger and another uninterested party at that restaurant to attest that she was not "drunk and arguing." In the other case, all the guy needed to do was have a copy of the interview and prove that he was misquoted. Both cases involve incidences where the plaintiff could prove their version of the story.

But how does Bonds prove a negative? As I noted in a comment in response to another comment on this on another post, if I ask any guy whether he still beats his significant other, he cannot prove that I'm wrong and being malicious. So it seems to be fallacious for people to demand that Bonds sue for libel, when there is no chance to win against claims that you used an illegal substance because there is no way you can prove that, this is a claim on a continuous length of time, not a pinpoint period of time as in the two cases that were won.

In addition, look at the example in the Sports Log Blog of a suit that didn't win. Jerry Falwell sued when Hustler parodied an ad but putting Falwell in there discussing partaking in incest, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was protected by the First Amendment, no matter how upsetting the satire may be. That was pretty heinous and Falwell couldn't do anything about that, partially because he cannot prove maliciousness, but I would assume there is no way he could prove he was not partaking.

Not a Bonds Believer, But A American System Believer

Again, not that I believe that Bonds is innocent. I've been beaten down and agree that it certainly looks suspicious and, in any case, I've always acknowledged that the anti-Bonds side had some good ammo, only that there is now more ammo and bigger. However, there is enough "buts" out there that suggest that that Bonds could do what he did legitimately, so it is not like I believe he is absolutely guilty either, though right now my suspicisions (and that is all they are) is that he is using human growth hormone which is untraceable. In addition, some of the logic people have been using for Bonds could also be applied to Hank Aaron as well and to Ted Williams, so does that mean they were using too?

So if we are going to claim he is guilty, we need more conclusive evidence than that provided so far, we need unimpeachible sources. And there is enough issues of impartiality to say that the "evidence" exposed in the books are not actually truths. How do you trust the word of a woman who is scorned and looking for money? Particularly since it has been over a year that she accused him of hiding baseball card signing income and yet the government has not lifted one finger yet to bring Bonds to justice, which would blow a big hole in the only other blockbuster claim that she made about Bonds.

And fraud like this is not new. Pete Rose was caught and sent to jail in the early 1990's. Duke Snider and Willie McCovey was caught around the same time and had to plead guilty to tax evasion. This is something the government is experienced in ferreting out and prosecuting famous people for this. And putting them behind bars when necessary.

And Bonds, given how fast he got a lawyer just for the steroids controversy, obviously uses experts to guide him when he needs help. Does anyone really think he would risk going to jail to pocket $80K in baseball card income when he was making $10M per year at the time? Especially with old family friend Willie McCovey to warn him to watch out for the government, or he could get thrown in jail like Pete Rose? No, he would get a tax lawyer who will lay it straight for him so that he does everything right and not risk that.

How do you trust the word of a man who claims to be a friend but, according to Sheffield, had problems with the way Bonds was treating him - Bonds made him look really bad by correcting his instruction in front of a client - and could have been jealous of his much more successful friend, particularly since Bonds appeared to be stingy with what he paid Anderson for his services.

If you are going to accuse someone of such a serious accusation, you need to have more proof than "well, it looks like he did it." You need something that the government can put him in jail for. And they have the perfect opportunity to do it, Bonds testified that he didn't use and the government has all these schedules and other "proof" that is trotted out in the book. If the proof was good, then why isn't Bonds convicted? Why isn't he in jail, they have had this information for years now. That is how our system works, innocent until proven guilty.

Inconsistencies Kills the Story Woven

And even if you believe all the stories told, there is a huge inconsistency between the stories. The reporters would have been better off just focusing on the Balco leak, but that wasn't enough so they included the mistress. But she claims that he was totally paranoid and worried about his legacy as a ballplayer. And Sheffield showed that Bonds was not above openly correcting his hired help - and they hated Bonds for it - if he thought they were screwing up plus was a control freak who tried to control Sheffield, who was none too happy about it; his story is probably the most unimpeachible of the three.

If you believe those, then how can you believe that Bonds would allow Anderson to have any evidence linking Bonds to drug usage? If I was paranoid and worried about my legacy, I would barge into Anderson's home like a SWAT team and shake everything down to make sure that he wasn't being stupid and leaving evidence. And I would randomly do it too, just to be sure he isn't screwing up - again - and do anything to incriminate me. And I certainly wouldn't allow an invoice to be issued under my name for these drugs, I would force Anderson to buy them under his name and I pay him under the table in small bills over time. In addition, I would have laughed in the face of Conte when he asked me to advertise for his vitamins in a Happy Happy Joy Joy ad. I took the liberty to put Bonds smiling face here but the link is here if you want to see it as it exists on-line.

None of this holds together when you put all the logical implications of the various stories out there together. But when you go into this with the hypothesis that Bonds is guilty, you don't bother to work out the inconsistencies in the stories and just accept what the reporters say, or rather, what the government prosecturos were saying, since they were the ones who leaked the information to the reporters - the reporters would have nothing if they didn't get those illegally released documents.

Prosecutors Not Infallible

Also, because the information is from a Grand Jury investigation, it lends weight to the findings because most people believe that our legal system is infallible (I believe in our system but know that it is definitely fallible) . However, the San Jose Mercury recently had this big expose about prosecutors who made all sorts of errors in their trials, particularly in favor of their hypothesis:
Here's a opening quote from the article:

The three cases are among hundreds examined in an unprecedented three-year Mercury News investigation of the Santa Clara County criminal justice system
that shows a disturbing truth:

A dramatic number of cases were infected with errors by prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges, and those errors were routinely tolerated. In dozens of cases, the errors robbed defendants of their right to a fair trial. And in a small number of the very worst cases, they led people to be wrongly convicted.

The study reveals "a basic truth about how the criminal justice system operates," said Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor who teaches criminal law and ethics at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. Levenson was one of seven experts in criminal procedures and ethics who reviewed the Mercury News findings. "A lot of sausage gets pushed through that machine. Errors that help the prosecution are common. The uneven nature of criminal justice is a serious concern."

I think this shows that prosecutors are not infallible in pursuing their trial convictions and, in particular, their zealousness blinded them to the truth. I don't doubt that there are a lot of prosecutors, even among the ones who committed these errors, who care about justice and who do their best to do what's right, but this article shows that there are problems with the system that need to be fixed. And for a government employee to be unable to prosecute because they didn't have enough evidence, then illegally releasing this information to reporters, shows how zealous he or she was.

Also, this paragraph was very eye opening (my bolding): "The review established that in 261 of the appellate cases reviewed -- more than one in every three of the total -- the criminal trial had been marred by questionable conduct that worked against the defendant. In only about one in 20 cases did the defendant win meaningful relief -- either a new trial or a significantly reduced sentence -- from higher courts." That is a huge rate of problems! And brings into question how valid these suppositions (not truths) proferred by the authors are given the likelihood that the investigation was compromised by an overzealous government prosecutor.

Taking the Higher Moral Ground

In addition, I just heard one of the reporters rationalizing why he had to circumvent U.S. grand jury laws and release the grand jury testimony: to save the children from the scourge of steroids. I had to laugh at that one. It is the news that glorifies and publicizes all this stuff. If the news were operating the way it was in the 1920's, we wouldn't know about Bonds taking steroids, we would just know he was hitting homers at a great pace. We would see him hulk out over time but assume that he earned his muscles the old fashion way.

If anything, they will now contribute to widening the use of this. They are laying out what is claimed to be his entire regimen of taking the drugs. Before, kids could wonder if they were doing the right thing, or taking too much. But if they go over the whole regimen in their book - and it is my understanding that they laid that all out according to all the marketing hype I have heard about the book - then they have a ready recipe that a superstar player "reportedly" used to get bigger and stronger and they don't have to worry as much about poisoning themselves, as long as they hold to the recipe and get a clean and reliable source of the drugs.

If they don't want to add to the scourge, then stop reporting on baseball games that Bonds play in. F' the readers of your newspaper, you are doing something to save their children's souls, they will thank you later that they are not hulked out loonies using steroids. While they are at it, don't report all the various evils of society that happens on a daily basis, just report news as if we live with Beaver Cleaver as neighbor and "Father Knows Best", because the news just teaches the kids new ways of breaking the law, of how to mis-behave.

Also, how does the book discourage the youth of America from using steroids any more than the newspaper articles did? Even with all the proselytizing on how bad Bonds is from this book, I don't see the youth of America being saved in any incremental way by the book over the newspaper articles. There was already all the news about Balco the past two years, the kids would have to be living with their heads in the sand for them not to get the message. In addition, there were the blowups with Palmeiro, Giambi, and Sheffield at various times to further drive the point home.

And yet the point is actually being driven another way for some of these youths: these stars probably used, made a lot of money, and they still look pretty healthy to me, just not held in high esteem by society, but remember the millions of dollars. How does that convince kids not to use? It would have been much more effective if they wrote a book discussing all the horrible things that would happen to you if you took steroids. But that don't sell books - however, a tell-all book on Barry Bonds, well, that's a horse of another color!

So the only reason to do a book would be to make money as authors, not this high moral ground of saving the youth of America, because there is a lot of other more effective ways of accomplishing this. Not that there is anything wrong with making a buck, but don't make it seem like a noble cause by saying you are doing it for the kids when there are better ways of influencing the youth of America.

Your 2006 Giants: Niekro Just Fine, Maybe Better Than Fine

2006-03-23T07:53:00.000-08:00

After a nice long run, JT Snow was let go by the Giants after his road power finally left him, and the Giants gave the 1B job to Lance Niekro. Niekro, who has been in our system since being drafted in 1999, has always been a good for hitting .300 all the way up the minors and just recently the power kicked in and he started pounding them out more often, a lot more.

He had a nice start to his MLB career in 2005 but he ended the season on a very poor note, bad enough that the Giants have qualified their support for him as starter. In addition, there is his long history of injury which struck him again last season, and happen to strike right when his stats started declining, so it was not clear whether the injury caused it or if the league happened to finally figure things out around that time. Normally, this bad second half is an indicator that pitchers had figured him out but the injury muddles the analysis enough to make it not clear what happened.

Not Quite Day and Night

Like Finley, there are signs either way that he's bad or good. He was hitting .308/.336/.564/.900 with 7 HR in 117 AB when he got injured. After that he hit only .211/.266/.385/.651 with 5 HR in 161 AB. And that does seem abnormal because his minor league stats translated into him being a .250-.270 hitter in the majors. So he did really well early in the season before his injury seemed to put a cramp into his hitting style plus he wouldn't be able to hit .300 in the minors if he couldn't hit RHP to some extent, so perhaps it was a flukey thing in the latter half of 2005.

Also like Finley, his injury appeared to affect his hitting vs. the opposite thrower. While his hitting vs. RHP did suffer initially, he was able to hit to his normal level for much of the season until the last month when perhaps fatigue set in since it was his first full MLB season, which is longer than what he did in the minors. Whereas his LHP hitting slowly sunk from the point of the injury. Conversely, however, he starting striking out a lot more, off the charts, against RHP at the end of the season, after being in the good zone most of the season. And he was able to stay pretty good vs. LHP, particularly his ISO, until, again, late in the season.

Again like Finley, Niekro's home park did him in. His great start was almost entirely driven by his road numbers. Possibly because he had to leave hitter's havens like Colorado and Arizona, his road numbers fell like a rock. And I don't know if it was a coincident or not but once he had his injury, his road numbers dropped off the clift whereas his numbers at home stayed in the same crappy range. And his strikeout rate just exploded after that on the road, whereas at home it was relatively consistent. He was in the "good" range on the road until around August, same with his ISO.

And while he had problems at home, his ISO at home rose from average to good as the season progressed, suggesting that he slowly figured out how to hit at home. This is similar to the struggles that Grissom, Durham, and Alfonzo ran into their first season in SF, there was an interview with Grissom where he talked about the trio's difficulties figuring out SBC/AT&T. So his power stayed, only he couldn't buy a hit, but he started figuring out how to get walks.

Other factors that affected his hitting was three things related to his injury. One was that because he started less, it was harder for him to get into a groove and, at the same time, harder to get out of slumps because he wasn't playing as regularly. Problems at the plate tends to weight on players longer that way. In addition, by being on the bench, he had to pinch hit a lot, about 30-35 times after his injury. The pinch-hitting after the injury killed his numbers and masked his adequate peripherals. Spliting it out (I took his game stats and I assumed 3 PA or higher was a start, else PH), I got this (plus I threw in his before numbers too so one can see how much he dropped):

his role - OPS - BB% - Contact% - BB/SO - AB/HR
Start - .667 - 7.7% - 80.3% - 42.3% - 26.4 AB
PHing - .578 - 3.3% - 58.6% - 8.3% - no HR
(Before - .900 - 4.1% - 87.2% - 33.3% - 16.7 AB)

As you can see his peripherals as a starter were OK, BB% was about average, Contact% was about average, his BB/SO was a little low (50% is min for acceptable major leaguer). Plus his HR rate was still good, 20+ homer pace. But his hitting performance did not truly reflect his OK peripherals. And pinch-hitting just totally killed his numbers in the second half and for the season.

Third is that his ISO showed that he had power when he connected, but as his sky-high strikeouts showed, his contact rate went way down, resulting in a huge drop in his fly ball rate. But the good news there is that his fly ball rate returned in the last weeks of the season. And recent research has shown that a batter's HR rate is related to the number of fly balls he hits.

Niekro 2006

Given small samples and extremes, his 2006 numbers will probably end up between the extreme of what he was hitting when he got injured (had a .900 OPS) and of what he was hitting after the injury (had a .667 OPS if you exclude all the pinch-hitting). I know, big whoop, it doesn't take much to say this. The significance of this range is that he will be batting 7th mainly for the Giants in 2006. Even if he hits poorly, while that is bad relative to most team's 1Bman, he would fit right in with the other 7th place hitters across the league. The median OPS was .702 for the NL, which is not far from the .667 OPS he had as a starter after his injury.

Even a minor uptick from recovering from his injury would cover that difference and put him in the middle plus be better than what the Giants got in 2005. If he can either consolidate what he was learning in the second half regarding walks or hit like he did before the injury, he only needs to hit .713 to be 7th in the NL and only needs to hit at least .800 to be in the top 3 in the NL. However, he needs to avoid the injuries, which, unfortunately, he's already got something this spring, hopefully this gets it out of his system and he can be healthy during the season.

And frankly, successful winning teams don't rely on a good hitting 7th place hitter, they are a luxury. The teams with the best 7th place hitters were, for the top half of the NL, were Mets, Brewers, Reds, Cards, San Diego, Florida, Dodgers, and Cubs. Most were .500 or worse teams, only the Cards were much over .500. Out of the other playoff teams, the Braves were 9th, so they were in the bottom half of teams and that was an OPS of .695. And Houston was 16th or last with .610.

People are focused too much on Niekro as a weak link because he's a firstbaseman and not hitting like other firstbasemen. While that is of some concern, the Giants have a pretty good top of the lineup with Winn, Vizquel, Durham, Bonds, and Alou, with Finley as an adequate substitute if he bounces back to his previous hitting performance. And Feliz could make it even stronger if he does breakout like I think the indicators appear to be saying. If the other hitters hit like they are suppose to, we don't need Niekro to hit as well as other firstbasemen, though that would make our lineup even better.

Lastly, and I think very importantly, he seems to be taking very seriously this opportunity to start. He has made adjustments in his hitting that has been evident even in the small sample spring stats. His dad told him it might be his one and only chance to start, which he appears to have taken to heart. He at least is talking the talk by saying he's working hard to earn 1B, not just take it by default, not just take it because he is being given it.

According to this well timed artice on him, he added on 15 pounds of muscle during the offseason. That should help him with hitting with more power and that should help him with lasting deeper into the season, assuming some of his late season decline was related to insufficient conditioning. The article also confirms much of the above paragraph. He noted, "I'm trying to be more selective and find a pitch in the zone." That's straight out of Ted Williams hitting book, which I loved as an instructional for hitting, it tried to make a science of hitting (and coinky-dink enough, that's the title, The Science of Hitting) and helped turn a 90 lb weakling hitter like me into the Pete Rose of our 8-1 intramural college team (FYI: if you just love hitting balls over and over again, I got to do that 25 years ago at Chabot College taking their summer baseball class - there wasn't enough people for a game so the 3-4 of us just fed the hitting machines to each other. Pure joy.)

In addition, it noted that he has made adjustments. He has altered his stance so that he's now staying over the ball better, according to the Giants batting coach, and it's a much quicker path to the ball with a lot of power. The coach feels that since he is stronger now, it has given Niekro confidence plus when you are weaker you have a tendency to lose your mechanics quickly. Hopefully that will keep him out of the funk that he admitted affected him greatly, whether lefty or righty. He noted, "there were a couple of pitches they were getting me out on, even lefties, and once they found that spot they started attacking me." And it showed in his stats, with the huge jump in strikeouts at the end of the season. But now it looks like the pitchers will have to adjust back, so it will be a battle this season

So when I add that all up, even at his worse, he's around the league middle for 7th place hitters. And if you assume he can hit better than he did in the second half, taking out injury and PHing, then he's pushing above the median. And if he can return to his pre-injury hitting, he'll be one of the top 7th place hitters. And if he can hit in the low .800 OPS, he would be in the middle of the pack among firstbasemen. Lastly, his .900 OPS to start last season would have put him 6th and close to the 4th and 5th spots. He should be fine starting at firstbase for the Giants this season and there are a number of signs that he could be better than fine.

Lefty's Post on SF Prospects

2006-03-22T08:44:00.000-08:00

There is a great post at Lefty Malo's yesterday, titled "Temperance Movement," it discusses not the woman anthropologist on the TV show Bones, my favorite new show of the TV season (only because Grey's Anatomy technically started up last season), but how most farm systems normally only hold at any time eight future major leaguers: two position starters, two bench players, two starting pitchers, and two relievers. Or, as Lefty put it, only 4 (or 3%) of the 150 or so prospects will be valuable starters in the majors.

This backs up what I've been saying with my draft studies, that it is very hard to draft regular major leaguers. Because if it was so easy or so likely, you would have more than 3% of your farm system be valuable starters in the majors in the future. If I had the time, the corollary study to do would be to see how many players "graduate" to a starter's position in the majors each year.

I wish I had a database program, the data is probably available via retrosheet, you just have to pull up each players' first season with X number of games played/Y number of plate appearances, where X is somewhere between 120 and 140, not sure, or Y is 300 or 400 AB, or even Z for PA/game, which is at least 2.5 or 3.0, all these will need to be determined. And for pitchers, it would be the number of games started, 16 (half a season of starts), 24 (3/4 season starts), average over 5 IP per game, again, something to be thought about and determined what's the right criteria, for how do I handle, say, Francoeur, Ryan Howard, and Zach Duke, who clearly were starters at the end of the season, but played less than half. I guess if the database also covered whether they were still eligible for the ROY award, I guess that would be a great delineator.

Lefty also had a good discussion starter question: who among the Giants current prospects (excluding Cain and Hennessey) are our future two position starters and two starting pitchers. I chose EME and Marcus Sanders, both have been described in superlative terms that went beyond just themselves as players but to span the minors in Sanders case, cause he was described by one of the prospect services as the fastest prospect in the minors. For pitchers, I went with Valdez and Sanchez, as both have been described in superlative terms, Valdez for his 100 MPH fastball (rare to combine such speed with good results in the minors) and Sanchez as I noted yesterday in the Hiatt interview. I would also throw in Frandsen and Brian Wilson as just missing (assuming Wilson is slated back to starting again since he is now fully recovered from his arm surgery).

He also had two other interesting questions. One was who was the last ROY for the Giants who was a position player. I blanked on that until Lyle noted Speier as a possible one. That jogged my memory because I remembered that he started a string of three ROY awards for the Giants, Speier, Gary Mathews Sr., and Garry Maddox, if I remember the sequence right (maybe swap the last two). The only other possible ones would be Clark (Jack that is, Will definitely didn't win) and maybe Matt Williams but I don't really recall either of them winning it, they had nice first years but not outstandingly good ones that I recall, but my memory lately has been pretty bad.

The other was the last Giants prospect to make the All-Star Game in a Giants uni. My best guess would be Matt Williams since he challenged Maris' record in the strike year, which is after Clark left, they would be the only ones I would think would have a chance to play in the ASG, because after them, the best Giants position prospects were probably Marvin Benard and Chris Magruder, oh and Armando Rios, and two of them are suspected steroids users.

And lastly, technically, you have to count Cain in the mix for the starters, because he's still eligible for the ROY award, I assume the Giants purposefully held off bringing him up in order to give him a chance to win it this year. The Giants farm system looks to be in pretty good shape with so many possibilities, but this is only making up for the multi-decade slump the Giants have been in since the 1970's, with only the Clark/Thompson/Williams/Clayton brief respite we had in the late 80's/early 90's. While I know that they haven't proven to be major leaguers yet, let alone starters, so I might be jumping the gun, I truly think the farm system today is probably the strongest it has been since I started following the Giants 35 years ago, when it had all those ROY awards plus Ron Bryant, John "the Count" Montefusco, Ed Halicki, Jim Barr, coming up.

Hiatt interview on MILB.com: talk about top prospects

2006-03-21T12:45:00.000-08:00

There is an interesting interview on milb.com with Jack Hiatt, who is the Giants Director of Player Development. Here is the bits of news I got from it for those who don't want to sit and listen through the 10+ minute interview:

Cain is ready to step up and be a full-time starter. Giants lucky to have a 20 year old with the mentality of older pitcher. He has great stuff and excellent command of himself, don't get rattled or flustered, which is half the battle for a rookie, being able to adjust to the pressure and the media.
Valdez came in 100% healthy this spring, unlike past with minor injuries, opening eyes with his good performance and acceptance of relief this spring (I guess he wasn't so accepting of it previously; don't know if that resulted in his poor pitching in relief or if his poor pitching in relief caused his lack of acceptance). He has a 100 MPH fast ball and hard breaking ball and been effective this spring. He's still a young arm, so he will be used as needed. He has the experience to be a starter but has now accepted a short role so that's additional flexibility. Organization always thought he could start, setup, close, so he seems to be fulfilling the team's expectations. Luxury to use as we need.
About EME, he noted that it wouldn't hurt any of the OF to learn how to play 1B, as that increases their flexibility (that's been a Sabean popular phrase in recent years) - he's been seeing some practice there now. He also pointed out John Bowker and Brian Horwitz (won batting title in two leagues). Also said he is the "finest right-handed hitter since Matt Williams," and got that type of power and impact. He is healthy, strong, a special hitter plus now is healthy. Will have a lot of luck at the major league level. Call him LF/1B for now.
Apparently it was Nate Schierholtz who pushed for the move to RF, or so Haitt said. He wanted to try it out and ended up loving it, as did the Giants. I recall BA noting that they hoped the Giants would give Schierholtz more of a chance to prove whether or not he'll cut it at 3B and they were disappointed when he moved to RF so fast afterward. He has a plus arm and, because of his great swing, beautiful swing, he will hit. He rounds out a great crop of outfielders coming up: EME, Bowker, Timpner, and himself.
Marcus Sanders will be headed to the Cal League. Will see if he is able to handle better pitchers and catchers moving up but he has great instincts and unbelievable speed, he can change the game with his speed, the first in the system in a long time. He had a minor operation on his arm during the off-season but he looks great, he's healthy and happy (which means Giants fans are happy, assuming that means he is still a SS prospect).
Said outside of the usual prospects, we should keep an eye on Jon Sanchez. He's the talk of the camp because he has an excellent arm, above average stuff, which is rare for a LHP, live fast ball, good hard breaking ball, and a nice feel for pitching. He ended by saying Sanchez got all the ingredients and that we might see him in the majors by the end of summer.

Exciting news overall, hope he's right on most of it.

Your 2006 Giants: Feliz a Hitting Volcano Waiting to Erupt

2006-03-21T07:59:00.000-08:00

"Happy Pete" as Pedro Feliz is called by come Giants fans is an enigma within a facade. Derided by Giants fans for years for his hack-tastic impatient ways, he was the epitome of what one former sports talk host dubbed "brain-dead" that, while on target, the host unfortunately made crass and unforgiveable by making it racist as well. Pedro was a disappointment for many Giants fans in 2005, including myself (it doubly hurt because he was on my fantasy team) with a second half fade that resulted in many fans going "huh" when it was announced almost immediately after the 2005 season that he's the starting thirdbaseman for 2006. But not all is as it seemed in 2005, fans (including this one) and the host missed some key things.

Feliz's Bad Past

On the surface, in spite of the fact that fans felt that Feliz would be an improvement over Alfonzo, fans are still scratching their head and wondering why the Giants don't use their "Maddux" money to get a better 3B. His career, career best, and 2005 season OBP would rank last among 3B in 2005. He was likewise last for 6th place hitters, which is where he is slated to bat in 2006. His OBP was abyssmal.

However, it was much better for his slugging, which is where most of the run value is to be gained from a 6th place hitter - most NL teams don't rely on their 7th, 8th, and 9th place hitter to drive in the 6th place hitter. His career and 2005 season SLG would have ranked 8th or 9th, respectively, and his career best would have ranked 5th, which would have been pretty good out of 16 teams.

But the OBP dragged down his OPS. His OPS would be 11th or 12th, 9th for his career best. So he looks to be a weak link in the Giants lineup, which was my thoughts going into this post.

Improved Hitting Hidden Under the Surface of Mediocre Results

However, looking at his FanGraph stats page, a couple of interesting developments were revealed. First, while he is walk challenged, he's not as bad as Giants fans have been depicting him, at least not in 2005. He made a big leap in 2005, as his overall BB% rose to a career best 6.3%, which is above his poor rates of his career and is approaching league average, which is around 8%. In fact, looking at his in-season average, he spent a good portion of the year in the middle of the pack, with some peaks into the good range. It's clear that he took some time working on improving his walk rate, I don't think you can fluke into getting 50% more walks during a full season without consciously working on it.

Meanwhile, he kept his strikeouts in the good half of the middle again in 2005 vs. 2004, which resulted in an improvement in his batting eye - BB/SO ratio - again, from 0.19 in 2003, to 0.27 in 2004, to 0.37 in 2005. Still, 0.50 (or 50%) is the minimum for any major leaguer who expect to hit adequately, but at least he's been making progress each year and improving by leaps and bounds - at the rate he has been improving he should be approaching 0.50 in 2006. And there were extended periods in 2005 where his batting eye was good, the first time in his career that he did this. And it is clearly trending higher on an overall basis from season to season the past three seasons. In addition, he spent much of the time from around August 2004 to around August 2005 with his SO% in the good range (top 20%) of hitters, before possibly tiring in his first full season of play or having his play in LF affect his hitting.

Looking at his left/right splits, he has shown improving mastery over LHP each year while continuing to have average performance against RHP. His BB% vs. LHP was actually in the Good range for much of the season in 2005 and never once strayed into the Poor range. In fact, his key hitting indicators - BB%, BB/SO, and contact rate (AB-BB/AB) - vs. LHP were all in the good range, even though his overall hitting performance didn't show it. In addition, while his hitting appears to be down overall in 2005, his hitting was much more consistent in 2005, in terms of up and down variance, than it was in previous years.

While his SLG went way down the past two years, it was mainly a result of his HR/FB dropping the past two years. But it only marked what appears to be a regression to the mean as he is now down to 10.8% in 2005, which is not far off from the standard 10% HR/FB mean that pitchers are suppose to regress to, so hopefully he won't fall any further, though I don't recall any study that says that batters adhere to this rule of thumb as well.

Another positive sign for his power hitting is that his Fly Ball percentage has been going up each year the past three seasons and his GB/FB (ground ball/fly ball) ratio took a big drop in 2005, showing a greater propensity for fly balls. This is usually a sign of coming power development as HR hitting is tied to the number of fly balls you hit. And the reason his batting average took a hit in 2005 was because his line drive percentage has been going down and line drives are more likely to become hits than ground balls or fly balls.

Home and away, his hit rates were mainly in the mid-range, rarely in the poor range, and sometimes in the good range over the past two seasons. And his key hitting indicators were all trending upward as well. So these also suggest that Feliz has been improving each year as well, whether at home or on the road, echoing the improvement shown vs. LHP I noted above.

2006 Feliz

I didn't realize until I looked in-depth at Feliz's numbers just how poorly he hit in 2005 overall. And yet, when you dig deeper into his numbers, he has never had a better year in terms of key hitting indicators. So what's real, the worse hitting in 2005 or the better hitting indicators?

I'm just starting to understand all this but the basic gist of how I understand this stuff is that even hitters with good key hitting indicators will have a widely varying performance in any given year, but in general overall they will hit better than hitters with poor hitting indicators. Not to say that Feliz is at the point where he has good hitting indicators, but he looks like he is ready to become a much stronger hitter vs. LHP whereas before he was relatively even, versus left or right. In addition, he kept his hitting on a relative even keel for much of 2005 whereas he would turn absolute hot, then cold, in previous seasons.

So what all this means is that I expect Feliz to have a breakout type of season in 2006, where he will open up some eyes. The factors above certainly indicates this to a great extent, mainly in his hitting vs. LHP, but with average hitting vs. RHP, as he has been able to do previously in his career, that would translate into good hitting overall if you can dominate vs. LHP. In addition, he will get to play the full season at 3B, where he is most comfortable, whereas in 2005 he spent a lot of it in LF, where his defensive struggles may have carried forward and affected his subsequent at-bats. Furthermore, what could be a huge factor is that he becomes a free agent after the season for the first time, so he should be working his butt off to earn his next contract, his first free agent contract.

Overall, given the improving hitting indicators, his batting average may go up but shouldn't get worse, and with his improvement in taking walks, his OBP should start approaching league average, which is only around .320, whereas before he was at or under .300, which is bad, very bad. An improved batting average would help improve his SLG and the increasing trend towards fly balls should lead to at worse the same 20-25 homerun range he has been the past two years and perhaps if he can get his HR/FB up again as it was in seasons past, he could go even higher. So, I know this is hard to believe - and I'm hesitant to go on a limb like this given his poor history - but the evidence above suggests that Feliz has generally been improving on his hitting each year he got more playing time and that he is on the brink of becoming a very good hitter vs. LHP, and thus a good hitter overall, in 2006.

Your 2006 Giants: Finley Rebound Key To World Series

2006-03-18T23:01:00.000-08:00

Steve Finley was Giant property finally after years of free agent and trade foreplay when the Giants traded Edgardo Alfonzo for him this past off-season. A trade of expensive contracts and players no longer useful to their former teams, it was haled by Giants fans not for Finley but for ridding the team of Alfonzo, who took the mantle of most hated Giant by Giants fans from Neifi (who inherited it from Marvin Benard). But could Finley also paly a key role for the Giants in 2006?

Sign of Decline or Injury Induced?

Finley injured his shoulder diving for a ball in the 2nd game of the 2005 season. He tried to suck it up and play through it but despite a good month in May, he wasn't able to handle it anymore and went on the DL in mid-June. He still could not do anything after coming off the DL until September, when he hit .271/.300/.500/.800 with 3 HR in 48 AB. That would suggest that he finally was healed by the end of the season.

So I looked at his charts on FanGraph, suddenly my favorite analytical tool. Looking at his R/L splits, he appeared to hit LHP as well as before (though small samples he still hit .271/.317/.441/.758 with 3 HR in 118 AB, not far from his career hitting vs. LHP) but his hitting vs. RHP really suffered, particularly his power. So it appears that the injury took away from his abilities to hit RHP. But there is clearly a downward trend, going down over the past three seasons so maybe it is a real trend. However, his BABIP (batting average balls in play) was still normal vs. LHP whereas it was very poor vs. RHP, which suggests that it was just bad "luck" in that balls that normally went for hits became outs instead, as BABIP is a metric that most players fall to the mean. Either way, something affected his hitting vs. RHP, but it appears likely that it was either due to injury or "bad luck bounces" since his hitting vs. LHP appears to be at career norms.

Another factor which made 2005 such a bad season was his pattern of reaching his offensive peak during the summer, basically at the time he went on the DL. And it is quite a peak based on past years' data. So that added to his reduced performance overall.

Lastly, the move to the Angels hurt him two ways. The Angel's ballpark really did a number on his home stats, obviously sinking his overall numbers. But his away wasn't something to write home about either, though he really truly was terrible at home: home .204/.263/.331/.594 with 3 HR in 181 AB vs. away .236/.278/.409/.687 with 9 HR in 225 AB (or 1 HR in 25 AB, still pretty good power). However, that's not necessarily going to get better with the Giants because our home park affects left-handed hitters like Finley much more than right-handed hitters plus he hasn't historically hit well in SF. Secondly, he has been an NL man, since 1991, and moved to the AL, where his experience with pitchers and defenses is not as useful as it was playing in the NL. Returning should help him in that regard.

World Series Factor

I believe that Finley being the hitter he once showed is key to the Giants World Series hopes, presuming they get there first. One, he will be getting a lot of playing time behind the top three outfielders during the regular season. If he can keep pace with their offensive production, overall, then the outfield contribution to the offense will be on a high level; if not, because he'll be seeing so many games (or a lesser replacement), he will drag down the offense.

Two, he will be a dangerous PH off the bench for the games he is sitting for veteran presence, hitting savvy, and HR power. That's something we haven't had except when Galarraga was here. In addition, if he's starting, then one of the other OF will be that dangerous presence on the bench. Third, in the 2002 World Series, we were relying on Dunston, Feliz, and Shinjo for DH, but if he's hitting the way he can, he can play LF while Bonds become our DH, which is a win-win there, both offensively and defensively. If we had a good hitter DHing for us in 2002, we would have won it.

2006 Finley

Overall, it appears that Finley should return to form if he has recovered from his injury. His September rebound suggests that he returned to health because he could hit for power, which he couldn't do the three months before. In addition, he had a strong year hitting vs. LHP whereas his BABIP vs. RHP was abnormally low, around .220 when his BABIP vs. RHP has bounced around around .300 the previous three seasons, which suggests that he should rebound somewhat towards his established mean, though not necessarily all the way back, given his age plus rebounds don't revert to the mean as fast or as well as fall backs. The main negative is his poor history hitting at SBC, but small samples again.

Looking over his L/R splits over the past 10 seasons plus H/A splits, he has been able to do well overall whether hitting poorly at home or hitting poorly on the road. For his career, he has been amazingly similar whether at home or away. His L/R splits, assuming his hitting vs. RHP reverts back, even if he can duplicate his previous worse vs. RHP in the last 10 seasons - .277/.328/.453/.780 with 12 HR in 422 AB - that would be adequate production for a replacement during the season and great if we are good enough (and lucky enough) to make it to the World Series.

Your 2006 Giants: Winn-ing Combination

2006-03-17T20:47:00.000-08:00

Randy Winn came to the Giants in a controversial - for some fans still but not me anymore - trade where we gave up Jesse Foppert and Yorvit Torrealba, but then won the fans' hearts with his superlative hitting (he hit 11!!! in September, it was like Bonds was reincarnated!), which earned him getting his option picked up and a 3-year extension at $24M {EDIT: correction per Allfrank; thanks!}. While that $8M per year average appears high, it is basically the same as the A's deal with Kotsay, both getting $8M in salary in 2008 (not including any pro-rated bonus).

Winn's Power Surge: Real or Mirage?

Another reason is that I think his power surge is not all mirage and small sampling. I know that this is a bit far out but, as I had posted before but somehow lost most of it, I compared SBC with Winn's other home parks using the MLB.com's Hit Chart feature. This chart shows where each hit and out was made in the ballpark. They appear to be proportioned the same so I printed out the hit charts for each park for all the years available and eyeballed where the hits at his old home park would have landed in SBC.

I saw that his homer total would have roughly increased between 50 and 100 percent, meaning that he would have had approximately 20-25 homer power in past years had he been playing in SBC instead of Safeco or Tropicana. And there were a number of hits that were borderline which I did not count, I only counted the ones clearly past the fence outline.

In addition, many of the additional homers were in the band of stands in SBC that the fence is inner relative to Safeco; many of his hits ended up being doubles or outs at Safeco instead of homers because of that. So SBC's odd RF wall shouldn't affect his power much, based on the small sample results of the 2005 season - where he blasted a lot of them into RF - and where the hits landed in the comparative hit charts.

To check this, I took out Adrian Beltre's hit chart for 2004 Dodgers and 2005 Seattle and compared the home runs changes. If he had been playing in Dodger Stadium instead of Safeco in 2005, there were clearly 4 homers taken away plus 2 borderline ones. He had 23 in LA in 2004 and only 7 in Seattle. He wouldn't have duplicated his LA stats, but he could have had 11-13 homers at home instead of the anemic amount that he had, almost double, to echo what happenned to Winn. Whereas Sexson wasn't affected as much because his old home park, Miller, is actually bigger than Safeco, so if anything he benefitted, as there were around 6 homers Miller would have took away and another 4 borderline ones, so his age and injury reduced his power, but the park gave him enough to make up for that, relative to him hitting in Miller.

I think there were a multitude of factors which worked towards him hitting more homers on the road as well as he did at home. One is that part of his surge was just one of those months where everything clicked. In addition, another contributing factor to his surge is that he hits better later in the season and with more power, he either brings it up a notch or he's just better conditioned than the pitchers. Also, he has had one outlier homer month during the season in, I think 3 out of the past 4 seasons. There is just one month every year where everything clicks and he just goes crazy, relatively, homer hitting-wise. Plus, even taking out this year's data, he has normally pushed things up a notch homer-wise previously in his career, not just SLG, averaging 1 every 76 AB pre-ASG vs. 1 every 52 AB post-ASG, or approximately a 50% increase in the homerun rate. With all these factors combined, that added up to one incredible short-run results for the Giants in September.

Looking at his homer ratios showed that his homer rate was severely depressed playing in Safeco as he hit only 1 homer in 90 or so AB in the 2005 season at Safeco. Even looking at his career rates, he hit 1 every 65 AB in Safeco, 1 every 58 AB in Tropicana, and 1 every 18 AB in SBC. If the hit chart is correct, he should have been hitting at around double the rate before, or 1 every 30-32 AB or so, which would work out to 20-25 homers per year.

In addition, his homer rate on the road vs. NL teams were not really outlandish, giving us hope that his road hitting will continue as a Giant. He has hit homers mainly at homer oriented parks: 2 in Chase, 2 in Turner, 1 in Miller, 1 in Great America. He also has 2 in Dolphins but in 57 AB, 0 in Coors despite 17 AB (so he is due big time), plus 1 in Dodger despite only 10 AB, so those last two could balance out over time. But 0 in PETCO, Shea, RFK, Busch, PNC, which is not unusually either (mostly in 10-25 ABs total) plus they are all harder to hit homers in except for Busch.

Overall, I would say, obviously, he won't hit 11 homers every month (else we found Barry's successor! :^), but his improved power is no mirage either. Plus, as was noted in various newspaper articles, he is a fastball hitter who is finally in the fastball league. His aggressiveness showed by his drop in walk rate after joining the Giants (from 8.8% to 4.6%; career 7.7%) plus his striketout rate when up high as well (12.5% to 15.7%; career 16.2%, but previous season was 14.4%)

Hitting Fundamentals Appear to Back His Growth

With a 3 year trend of lowering strikeout rates, from slugger rates to hitter rates, until coming to SF, plus a generally downward trend over his career, he has been gradually becoming a better and better hitter. Perhaps Ichiro was rubbing off on him. His contact rate (times he hit the ball into play instead of striking out) has gradually risen from a so-so 80% range to MLB-average 82%, then jumped the past two years to 84.4% and then 86.3% with the Mariners, before dropping back to 83.6% with the Giants. The best hitters have a contact rate of over 85%.

In addition, the BB/SO ratio, or batting eye as Ron Shandler's books have coined it, has risen in recent years as well. He was right around the 50% marginal point, below which the batter is considered a poor hitter, and he was under in 2 of 3 years, but again Ichiro appeared to help him out. In his second year with Seattle, he pushed it up to 54.1% then had it up to 68.8% when he came to the Giants, whereupon his reduced walk rate and increased strikeout rate dropped him back down to 29.0%.

Interesting Facts at FanGraphs

Looking at FanGraphs yielded some interesting facts. His batting average has been above the MLB average for the past five seasons and has been in the good territory for the past four. His OBP has been above the MLB average for the past six seasons, but only in the good area three times in those years. His SLG has been at or above for four seasons, only good last season.

His BB% has been basically slightly under the MLB average, he typically is above early in the season, then gets aggressive later, going under but then hitting for more power. His K% has been at or below the average for six seasons, with there being a sharp separation the past two years, showing his progress as a hitter. His BB/K ratio has been basically at the average for the past five seasons. Again, he is in the good area to start the season but then falls below to the average. His RC/G has been sharply above average the past four seasons, showing how valuable a hitter he is.

His LD/GB/FB chart (Line Drive/Ground Ball/Fly Ball) shows the spike I was talking about earlier about homeruns. Homeruns are correlated to fly balls and every year he suddenly starts hitting a lot of them, way above average, leading to his homerun spikes every year. Spikes appear to happen more frequently at the end of the season for him.

Despite being a natural RHH, he seems to hit better against RHP than LHP. Perhaps it has to do with the preponderance of ABs against RHP. Only in BB/K does he perform better vs. LHP than RHP. He is an unusual hitter in that way, this makes him more valuable than a hitter like Grissom, who mashes LHP but sucks vs. RHP. Being consistent against both LHP and RHP makes our lineup that much better, there's less highs and lows, there's more evenness in the team run scoring distribution, in my opinion (and obviously), if your hitters are able to hit either handed pitchers relatively equally. That was one of the assets of Rich Aurilia, he could hit either relatively well.

Looking at Home/Away splits, it is clear that during his time with Seattle, Winn's stats have been depressed by the fact that he is playing at Safeco, which has been a pitchers park, overall, the past few years according to Bill James' Handbook. However, in keeping with the trend towards AT&T/SBC/PBP Park becoming more a neutral park the past few years, his hitting home and away were either close, or even better, at home.

In particular, his K% had been slowly getting better and better on the road during his time in Seattle, whereas it was high and all over the place at home, probably because pitchers can challenge hitters better because of the depressive effect it has on homers. However, it got back to his old ways once he came to the Giants, jumping back to where he was about two years back. Also, according to THT stats, he was not swinging earlier in the count in being aggressive while with the Giants, his P/PA according to The Hardball Times was almost identical, in fact, it was higher with the Giants at 3.6 vs. 3.5 with the Mariners, despite having one whole percentage point less combined walks and strikeouts, meaning he hit that much more balls into play than in Seattle.

Especially impressive is that his BB/K ratio, which has been so-so for much of his career, it was clearly in the good range for much of the past two seasons on the road, only dipping again to the poor region while with the Giants and mainly in the last month or so. This shows that Winn clearly made a leap in terms of his hitting "I.Q." starting in 2004 but it was masked by his playing half his games in Seattle plus a good number of games against the A's and Angel's, two other tough pitcher's parks the past few years. Shandler's research has shown that hitters in the good zone hit significantly better than other hitters, this is where .300 hitters usually come from. Lastly, his batting average on balls-in-play (BIP) has clearly been in the good range the past three seasons on the road, but either average or poor while at home in Seattle.

I think that is the biggest clue to how Winn will do going forward, his BB/K ratio. This has been generally getting higher and higher on the road. This would normally result in him showing much better stats the past couple of years. However, his improvement as a hitter has been masked by Safeco's big park, which then affected how pitchers pitched to him there. Most probably because homers are reduced, they don't worry as much about walking batters since the homers won't cost them and gave less strikes to swing at. Once he got out of that environment to other parks, he was able to do much better at the fundamentals.

Now why all these fundamentals left him when he went to the Giants and yet he not only didn't do poorly but actually did great is puzzling. That would suggest that he will revert backwards towards the mean and do worse with the Giants going forward. However, one rule that has made sense to me on players is that once a player has shown an ability, he owns it. He has shown the ability to hit on the road so I think he owns it, you cannot know how to hit on the road then shut it down mentally at home. So I think the end of last year was just a fluke oddity, particularly since it was a small sample, but his hitting ability should be evident to Giants fans going forward and I'm feeling a lot better about his big contract now.

2006 Winn

I think he will do better than people think (i.e. his career), though obviously not as good as his career month-long spree when batting with Barry in the lineup - I don't think it is all a Brady Anderson type of fluke. He's been hampered by hitting at SAFECO and Tropicana and thus far he apparently is one of those rare LHH who can muscle up homers in SBC (like Bonds). We need to lock up players like that. He should be good for .290-.310, 20+ homers, 20+ steals, OK defense in CF, and be equally adept at scoring and driving in runs, you know, like what we expected from Durham at lead-off the past three seasons.

In addition, offense is a hard commodity to find in the CF position. His road OPS was .824 in 2005, .821 from 2002-2004; that would have ranked 7th in terms of overall OPS after Junior, Andruw, Edmonds, Jose Cruz Jr, Milton Bradley, and Grady Sizemore in the Majors for guys with over 300 PA, 5th if you counted only players who were qualified. Looking only at road OPS, he would have ranked 10th for hitters with significant ABs, 7th for those with over 250 PA.

In addition, we don't have much coming up soon in the CF pipeline. Fred Lewis took a step back last season and he was already old as it was for his league. However, he appeared to have been able to figure out what was wrong early in the season and he hit well after his early struggles. And Clay Timpner doesn't deliver much offense already and he just finished high-A league play. He smells like another Calvin Murray type, all defense, all speed, little hitting. So signing Winn guaranteed that CF will be set for the next four seasons, at least if he isn't suddenly injury prone.

One thing I don't like is Winn batting leadoff. Vizquel should be batting leadoff. Vizquel has much less power whereas Winn appears to be coming into his own power-wise with the Giants as a happy confluence of a number of different factors. This way, Winn has a better chance of hitting one out with someone on base. In addition, Vizquel apparently tired after the first month because his hitting was not that good after April.

Vizqeul has historically hit better leading off, however, so that could help offset whatever weakened him - perhaps it was all the stolen bases he did in April, I think there was a sharp dropoff after that. In addition, it bunches up our best hitters - Winn, Durham, Bonds, Alou - consecutively, so that pitchers cannot relax for an extended period. With Vizquel hitting 2nd, if he hits poorly again, he'll be a resting point separating Winn from the other batters.

So I see a good year for Winn in 2006. He should be headed for career highs in a variety of offensive measures. He should be driving our offense from the top of the order, though I would prefer that he hit 2nd. Getting runs early will help our starting pitchers to relax and not worry about having to be too fine in their pitches. We all saw how he drove the offense late last season. And I think, finally, now that I've crunched through all these numbers, that it was a great deal to get Winn and a great deal to sign Winn for a three-year extension. As long as he stays injury free and continues to progress as I've outlined above, the contract could be a deal once everything is said and done.

ESPN Excerpt of Another Book Attacking Bonds

2006-03-17T01:02:00.000-08:00

ESPN has a quote from another explosive book on Bonds:

On an otherwise ordinary night, over an otherwise ordinary meal, Griffey, Bonds, a rep from an athletic apparel company and two other associates chatted informally about the upcoming season. With Griffey's framed memorabilia as a backdrop, and Mark McGwire's obliteration of the single-season home run record a fresh memory, Bonds spoke up as he never had before. He sounded neither angry nor agitated, simply frustrated. "You know what," he said. "I had a helluva season last year, and nobody gave a crap. Nobody. As much as I've complained about McGwire and Canseco and all of the bull with steroids, I'm tired of fighting it. I turn 35 this year. I've got three or four good seasons left, and I wanna get paid. I'm just gonna start using some hard-core stuff, and hopefully it won't hurt my body. Then I'll get out of the game and be done with it."

This is a lot more damning, to me, than the other book, particularly since the author said he got it from multiple sources. At least at the surface it is, that's how these authors seem to suck people in, they make their arguments sounds so authoritative. "We have 200 sources." "I got multiple sources confirming this conversation."

Why Would Bonds Do This?

But it got me thinking: would anyone as controlling and paranoid as Bonds has been described by the Chronicle writers' book really discuss taking steroids in front of 3 strangers? From most accounts, it is agreed that Bonds' sense of humor is not always apparent to the ordinary people. Could this be a case of that? And if he was serious, again, would he really talk in front of three strangers?

What I find more realistic is that Bonds was joking around with his close childhood friend but was a total boor with the other three and they are pissed at him. He makes a joke about taking steroids, which gets the others attention and maybe they get it but maybe they don't and think Bonds is serious. Either way, they will remember that conversation.

Because this is like the "wiping out Babe Ruth" quote all over again. He was kiddingly saying that but a lot of reporters took that to be serious and lambasted him in print all over the U.S. but a reporter here in the Bay Area backed him up on this, that these other people didn't understand Bonds was teasingly saying that, that he was saying it out of respect, not to demean Babe Ruth.

So maybe years later, these apparel reps, hearing about all these investigations and thinking they can screw around with Bonds since he was so rude to them, they contact the author and offer their "scoop". How else would an author researching Barry Bonds will run into multiple sources confirming this story, what is the odds that he gets in contact with one of these reps, let alone all three of them. It only makes sense if they coordinated their story together and then contacted the author. At least that is how I imagine the journalistic process working, perhaps I don't understand this part of journalism.

But obviously it was these three people who are associated with the athletic apparel company that Pearlman got in contact with and got their end of the story. There is no way I can imagine how Pearlman somehow finds out that Bonds met with three nondescript athletic apparell personnel on an evening almost 7 years ago and record their run-in with Bonds years later.

Why Didn't They Speak to the Grand Jury?

Why didn't they come out with this explosive information earlier? I suppose that it would just be their word against Bonds. But how about when the BALCO investigation started? Particularly with the way it was obvious that the government wanted to railroad Bonds. Wouldn't these people realize that the Grand Jury would want to know this? If they can figure out that Pearlman wanted this info, why didn't they step forward then when it could have made the difference in the grand jury investigation? If they wanted their anonymity, the Grand Jury testimony was suppose to be secret, they could have had their say and go, why a book which does nothing but blasts Bonds instead of testifying to the grand jury and really burying him?

Oh yeah, you can be prosecuted for lying to the Grand Jury. No, they chose the anonymity of being quoted sources in a book whose purpose is to blast Bonds instead. They do it so that they can get back at him for trespasses, real or imagined, but not have to answer to their testimony.

I find their choice to be troubling, why hide behind a book author if you have such explosive information? Why not really zip Bonds and see that he gets in bigger trouble? Particularly by the time Bell testified in 2005, they would have known that Bonds appeared to be in trouble legally.

I can see Novitzky starting up the war drums again and trying to pry the names of these people out of the author's hands. I wonder how that would work, legally. I guess Pearlman would protect his source but then get threatened with being jailed over it. I hope Novitzky does it, I wonder if they would still testify to what they told Pearlman, but I'm guessing not else they would have step forward already.

Tired of the Lynch Mob Mentality

I just want the truth. All this stuff takes a leap of faith, either you believe or you don't. Most people leap because it is easy to believe that Bonds is everything the authors say he is. I don't necessarily don't believe that he did Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs), but I'm not going to accept other people's words just because they say it, people are motivated to do a lot of stuff they shouldn't, their story has to make sense to me.

But I don't see how you can paint someone as being so controlling a personality, a monster really, and he NOT harange Anderson, who he obviously treats as a flunkie, to make sure that there is no evidence of his usage. If he is calling Ms. Bell at all hours, I would see him go over to Anderson's place and say, "let me see all your stuff for BALCO, I'll bet you're messing it up, I want to see what you're doing for them, your records, I don't want anything to get out." And he would be like the TV character Monk, obsessing over this, coming over to Anderson's frequently to make sure he's not doing something stupid.

I mean, he openly corrected Anderson on working out in front of people - talk about demeaning him, that's his main job - and in front of a client, Sheffield. Sheffield noted this in his interview with SI. That shows Bonds' contempt for Anderson's abilities and intelligence. If he's like that for something Anderson is suppose to be the expert in, I don't see him going "whatever" regarding the BALCO stuff.

I see him going over to Anderson's and demanding to see what he's doing regarding BALCO. "You dumba--, you have a folder with my initials on it what were you thinking! You also have a bill in my name - NOT SMART!!!" Some people with the biggest ego in the world might think that that they won't get caught and thus do all the things Bonds is alleged to have done according to these books, but Bell testified that he feared getting caught, which means he should be paranoid about being caught.

This puts a big hole (for me) in the foundation of truth across all these stories. After all, he feels that the media is out to get him (and that may not be far from the truth the way the sportwriters in the Bay Area has been piling on top of him) and no one has questioned the sources the way I have. I would like answers for these questionable witnesses and their motivations to lie when testifying against Bonds.

Stories' Logic Not Holding Up

Their stories do not feel whole to me, I am seeing all these contradictions. I'm hoping this will get Novitzky to demand the names of these apparel people and force them to testify on the grand jury because I assume they are going to fear getting thrown in jail over what was said, particularly since Griffey doesn't share their version of the story, unlike Bell, who is in the classic "he said/she said" situation and cannot really be caught in a lie regarding what she testified to be true about their conversations (but really, after reading them, anybody with internet search skills could have dug up all that information and testified the same things that she did in 2005). These people who want their anonymity obviously don't want the fame or money involved with their explosive testimony, so testifying will the be a good litmus test whether they are telling the truth or not.

I wish someone would ask Griffey specifically whether he recalls that meeting with the athletic apparel company reps or not. He claims to have never heard Bonds speak on steroids, it would be interesting to see if he recalls this meeting and conversation. How many times does he meets Bonds with apparel representatives in Florida in 1999? If he backs up Bonds, that would put a big hole in these guys story because he has a lot more to lose if he is pulled into the grand jury and attest to his version of the story under perjury. If he claims to not remember that meeting, then it will be that much bleaker for Bonds.

Even though this is just an excerpt that came out, there are already two people key to the excerpt who say that what's in the book is not true. Ken Griffey Jr., when confronted with this passage, said that he does not recall Bonds speaking on steroids at any time with him. However, he is a close friend from childhood, so there is some bias there, an additional reason, beyond being a fellow baseball player and superstar, to not tell the truth.

However, Jay Canizaro, a former Giants prospect, who only came up for a cup of coffee, has a big part in this article as well. Here is what he is claimed to have said, from the Chron:

According to the excerpt, Bonds told teammates he used androstenedione, which McGwire admitted to using in '98, and little-used infielder Jay Canizaro estimated as many as 13 players on the '99 Giants were steroid users and that he was sure Bonds was a user because of the signs, including his body size and acne on his back. Canizaro said Bonds' trainer, Greg Anderson, gave him details about Bonds' steroid intake.

"The Giants that year were really out of control," Canizaro is quoted as saying.

However, he has already come out and said that he didn't say what was attributed to him.

Here's another quote from the book:

And in Bonds' case, it seemed to be working. According to the Society for American Baseball Research, the peak age for players with at least 200 career home runs is 27. After 30, a noticeable decline begins. At 35, the decline becomes a steep hill. But here was Bonds, at 35, hitting the ball harder and farther than ever. He started the 1999 season on a tear, leading the Giants with an April average of .366. "One of the things I noticed was how fast he was able to put the bat on the ball," says pitcher Russ Ortiz. "He could recognize the pitch well before he had to swing, and then he would get around so fast, so hard." Equally amazing was Bonds' indifference to fatigue. He could lift weights, play, lift more weights, then arrive early the next morning to pump more iron.

From my research and just general baseball knowledge, I have found at least three other hitters who fits the description that the author notes about after 35 peak: Ted Williams, Hank Aaron, and Darrell Evans. This is true if you measure by HR/AB or if you are going strictly by OPS or OPS+. So is he claiming that these three players were using as well? Or would he be willing to accept that, while most players deteriorate at any early age, Bonds and the others were outliers physically.

Your 2006 Giants: Cain Rising or Bust?

2006-03-15T17:34:00.000-08:00

Cain is probably the best prospect to come out of the Giants farm system since Will Clark and definitely is the best pitching prospect to come out of the Giants farm system and do well out of the 35 seasons I have followed and enjoyed the Giants. Not that there were a lot of them, Montefusco, Bob Knepper, Scott Garrelts, John Burkett, Jerome Williams, and now Noah Lowry. He had a meteoric rise through the system since he was drafted out of high school, culminating in 7 starts at the end of 2005, to allow management to kick the tires and see how good he really is. Boy, was he good.

Wunderbar Wunderkind

Late season, 20 years old, never really pitched into September before, and only two years removed from his season being cut short because of elbow problems, Cain shouldn't have the conditioning to pitch this late in the season, he should have been tiring already. However, he was strong enough to pitch well for 7 games at the MLB level: 2.33 ERA, 0.93 WHIP, extremely low H/9 (4.7), low HR/9 (0.8), but borderline bad W/9 (3.7) and borderline good K/9 (5.8). This after playing well in the hit-happy PCL: 4.39 ERA, 1.31 WHIP, 7.3 H/9, 1.4 HR/9, 4.5 W/9, and superlative 10.9 K/9.

Not only that, but he also faced Colorado and Arizona twice in those short 7 games and, given that they should have learned something for the second time around plus he should have been even more tired, plus was in Colorado for the second game, he still did well against them the second time around, though just a hair worse:

1st games: 12.0 IP, 6 H, 3 R/ER, 1 HR, 5 BB, 6 K, 2.25 ERA, 0.92 WHIP

2nd games: 12.1 IP, 9 H, 4 R/ER, 2 HR, 5 BB, 7 K, 2.92 ERA, 1.14 WHIP

Lastly, you throw in a masterful 2-hit, 1-walk, 8-K complete game, giving up only 1 run on a homer, and this is against a veteran Cubs team fighting to reach .500, fighting to stay in 3rd place, and fighting to extend a 3 games winning streak into 4 games, but was shut down totally, you have a bunch of giddy Giants fans over their young prospect starting pitcher.

Cain Predictions

We'll start with the bad stuff. FIP is not kind. Whereas his actual ERA was 2.33 in 2005 at the MLB level, FIP analysis rates his performance out to be a 4.06 ERA type of performance for the average pitcher and xFIP, which takes into account standardized HR rates, his xFIP is 5.23, where FIP and xFIP are indicators of how well he pitched relative to other pitchers and are better indicators of where his true ERA lies, not his actual ERA.

Ron Shandler's Baseball Forecaster had a better view of Cain. This is because FIP relies only on his short MLB experience whereas his and Bill James systems should account for his AAA performance as well. The Baseball Forecaster sees Cain pitching 160 IP, 148 K, 10-6 record and 3.61 ERA, 1.18 WHIP. Rates predicted were 8.4 K/9 (very good), 3.7 W/9 (so-so, ideally want under 3.0), 2.3 K/W (good, minimum of 2.2 is best), 0.8 HR/9 (under 1.0 is good). They have a propriety Pitching Quality Starts (PQS) system where games are rated and then the games are labeled DOM (for Dominating), DIS (for Disaster), and other - Cain had 57% DOM/0% DIS for the seven games he pitched in the majors. As I had shown in the Morris post, anything over 50% appears to be the elite pitchers, over 70% appear to be the top pitchers.

Bill James was very high on Cain for 2006. His book sees Cain starting 30 games for 184 IP, 142 hits and 17 homers, with 74 walks and 181 strikeouts, leading to a 14-7 record and 3.16 ERA and 1.17 WHIP. That translate to 8.9 K/9 (very good), 3.6 W/9 (so-so, ideally want under 3.0), 2.4 K/W (good, minimum of 2.2 is best), 0.8 HR/9 (under 1.0 is good), which are all very similar to Ron Shandler's, which is not too surprising, Shandler is a disciple of James and used James' techniques to start with and went on from there.

Not that Shandler's book wasn't also high on Cain. The author, Patrick Davitt, of Cain's description noted, "Walks are a small concern, but he has the stuff to be an elite, high-K, front-of-rotation starter." Music to this Giants' fan's ears.

2006 Cain

Hard to say since he hasn't had much MLB experience to extrapolate off of, hence why I include some predictions from a variety of methods. I expect Cain to do well, the only question is how well he will do. A 3 ERA is definite but low-3 or high-3, I could go either way - I won't dare dream of a sub-3 ERA but I think that is a possibility if he can get off to a good start.

Since he will be pitching lower in the rotation, as long as the top three of Schmidt, Morris, Lowry, do as they are expected, he should not feel too much pressure to be superlative, he should be relaxed enough to just let his talent to shine. Even then, he is finally the first Giants prospects out of the Sabean prospects that have been described to be "mature beyond his years" to actually appear to be "mature beyond his years." He appears to be a dream come true, a prospect who is good but well grounded and polite, confident but willing to learn, humble but confident of his abilities and talents.

I think the sky will be his limit. And if you point a gun to my head and force me to guess what he will do, I would say that there is a good chance that he will have a better performance than any of the starting 3 of Schmidt, Morris, and Lowry. He is that good, he is that strong, he is that smart, enough to concentrate on just how well he does, not in comparison to anyone else, not to show off anyone, just to build upon, little by little, his expertise. His goals are equally to do well and to learn something, continuously, with every game he pitches. And he has done well at every level of the game he has played at. And he's only 21 for the 2006 season, he should be the leader of the Giants post-Barry period, leading by example. I expect him to be signed to a long term contract covering his arbitration years after the 2006 season, if not during.

Why the bias in the media on steroids? Players' Advisors Share Bigger Blame

2006-03-15T07:57:00.000-08:00

{Sorry, somehow my save didn't work out right so I've gone through and fixed up obvious errors and tweaked it, nothing substantive but just thought I would point this out.}

Why is the media so biased in their assessment of the steroid scandal? Obviously you should focus on the cheaters who took steroids. And MLB management has gotten a nice black eye on this as well and rightfully so, they should have brought this issue to the fore much earlier than this, but better late than never. But there seems to me to be this inequality inherent in most of the articles I have read.

Why Bonds and Not McGwire?

Some have been calling for Selig to start an investigation along the lines of the John Dowd investigation that was done for Pete Rose. I don't like to use the race card, but where's the equality in outrage for McGwire? He basically admitted that he used steroids in his testimony, or lack thereof, when he could have shown the world, like Palmeiro (oops!).

Why no outrage for that? Why no call for investigating that? While I understand that he isn't challenging Ruth's and Aaron's records, he did set the season record before Bonds took it and he also set the rookie HR record as well, and is in the Top 5 of all time homerun hitters, pushing down players like Schmidt and Frank Robinson out of the top.

And he was caught with androstenedione, whereas Bonds hasn't been caught with anything yet, it is all hearsay and innuendo thus far, very circumstantial, whereas McGwire basically told the world he took because he took the 5th and the only reason to do that would be that you could be caught in a lie and yet nothing like this happened to him. He is a liar and a cheat too, circumstantially like Bonds, so why no outrage for him?

Why MLB Management and not Players Union?

And I don't understand the piling up on the MLB management including Selig. Not that I'm particularly pro-management, nor do I care for Selig, baseball needs a real Commissioner not a puppet like him, but have they seen the last umpteen strikes that have happened? The players are in control, the inmates have control of the prison. I have seen Selig say in public that they tried to get the Players Union to do stiffer drug testing but they refused. All the weak penalties are the work of the Players Union and Donald Fehr.

This recent review of a book on Selig's tenure as commissioner backs me up on this. Here is the pertinent quote:

And by working in concert with Congress (a large consideration) to get the players' association to open up the collective bargaining agreement not once but twice, a substantive drug testing policy has been implemented, with steroids as the chief target.

What this all means is that the MLB commissioner and management could not do much of anything to get the players union to agree to a better drug testing procedures and had to work with Congress in order to get the player's union to agree to a much better drug testing policy.

Why don't the newspapers attack the Players Union, they have got to know what was happening in their ranks, they have got to know how it would eventually play out (with scandal), why didn't they push for stronger penalties? Why didn't they make a stand? Why did they protect the cheaters?

And why don't the newspapers point this out? Probably because they are union too and they watch out for each other, I've seen very little criticism of the Players Union in this mess, all this tsk-tsking of the owners and management but really, the players have had the power, if they wanted stronger penalties and testing, they could have put it in, because management would not have fought that.

Why not Donald Fehr and his Management Team?

And why not put bigger shame on the management of the Players Union, particularly on their leader, Donald Fehr? Should they not be looking out for the long term health of their union members? Shouldn't they try to stop destructive behaviors as well as illegal behaviors? Don't they owe it to their membership to make the competitive landscape equal for everyone? Don't they want their players to not feel like they have to take illegal substances in order just to stay even?

Oh, wait, the 'roided players make a lot of money now, they're bringing in the dough, they have a lot of say and power now, particularly the agents making all that money, like Scott Boras. Any way you look at it, the players side look even worse than the management side in this whole mess. Does anyone really think that management would turn down strict penalties and a tougher testing regiment if the players agreed to something like that? No, the players' union never did anything like that to stem the rumors and innuendo swirling around the game.

Players' and Their Agents' Complicity Worse Than Management

And what about the players' agents? Why doesn't any of the reporters ask why Boras didn't make a big stink before? He has a large percentage of the top baseball players as clients. Shouldn't he want to prevent the use of steroids, because that would make his clients less valuable. Given his renown for extremely detailed work in putting together a free agent player's prospectus, wouldn't he have figured out at some point, given all the speculation that was in the press and discussed among fans and players, that there were significant number of users and that would make his clients worth less in a contract?

He would unless HIS clients were taking and thus he stayed quiet because he couldn't kill the golden goose. I have no idea whether any of his players are or were using but given his fanaticism in working for his clients, this seems like a rather big rock that he left unturned in making sure his clients are the best paid in baseball. Why don't the newspapers point this out as well? Why no calling out of this discrepancy?

If a prominent agent like Boras made a big stink about this problem, do you think he would be ignored as a crackpot? And he must have known about this problem, he has so many clients, he gets so involved with the training and development of his clients, there must have been one who let him know that either 1) he's a steroid user or 2) he'd seen steroid users and it's not fair or 3) he's heard of steroid use and he's worried about the pressure to use it. Wouldn't an agent hearing stuff like this be pushing hard with the players union to get penalties and testing put in because allowing steroids would make your client significantly less valuable?

Plenty of Blame But Why One-sided to Management?

So there is plenty of blame to spread around, only, conspicuously, none of the player's advisors, the people who should be looking after their best interests, whether the union or their agents, have been put on the carpet for this and they are probably the most culpable because they had the power to do something, the worse the owners could do would be to cancel out a whole season, but I don't think that they would get a whole lot out of that one, let alone stiffer drug penalties.

Look at how baseball tries to invoke a stiff penalty on Kenny Rogers for his cameraman incident. Did the players union accept that this act was a horrible act and accept the punishment? No, it appeals it and then gets it reduced in arbitration. That's how impotent MLB management is, what a load of hooey reporters are shoveling.

The Players Union and their agents are fiduciarily responsible to the players on the whole and to their clients, respectively. If there is anything that damages the people they are representing, whether physically or monetarily, it is their responsibility to protect their client, unlike management who has more of a hands-off relationship with the players. Why aren't the newspapers attacking these people, they were the ship captain on the Valdez oil tanker, driving the ship, MLB management was the flunkie the ship captain delegated the steering to before it crashed.

Your 2006 Giants: Lowry Year to Shine

2006-03-14T18:15:00.000-08:00

Noah Lowry is the one who finally did it. Unlike the greater heralded starting pitching prospects to come out of the Giants farm system before him - Ainsworth, Williams, Foppert - Lowry was the one who finally made the rotation at the start of the season and had a good year overall. Ainsworth's first season ended with a freak break of his shoulder blade. Williams, after a superb mid-year promotion, was up and down for his first season as a starter, and after a second straight year of not being in good condition coming into spring training, he was traded. Foppert rose like a meteor through the farm system, leaving the rest in the dust, but when he got there, he injured his arm and kept quiet about it until the ligament broke and Tommy John beckoned.

Noah outdid them all and he left them in the dust where it counted: in the majors. He had 33 starts in 2005, winning 13 games, with a 3.78 ERA in 204.2 IP and 1.31 WHIP. But it was not all sunshine and flowers everywhere in 2005 for Lowry, he had an ERA of just over 5 after three months, he looked like a pitcher headed for the dreaded sophomore jinx. He didn't have good control and he was giving up too many homeruns. He was lucky there wasn't anyone waiting to come up or he might have been sent down.

But then he finally straightened himself out in July. And he followed that up with as dominating a month as a pitcher will ever have in August: going 5-0 with 39.1 IP, giving up only 22 hits and 9 walks, with 33 strikeouts and 0 HR, he had a 0.69 ERA with a 0.79 WHIP and .167 BAA. He then regressed in Sept, but it was still an OK month, just not great.

And 2005 Could Have Been Better

There's the old saying, "if it wasn't that I had bad luck, I wouldn't have any luck at all." That was slightly his plight in 2005. While Tomko got 3 starts in LA and 2 in SD, two of the best pitchers parks in the majors and Schmidt got 2 in SD (though 3 in AZ) and even Hennessey got 2 games in LA, Lowry got to enjoy 3 starts in Coors and 2 starts in Chase (though he pitched well at Chase). If he would have gotten only 1 start, pro-rated, at Coors, which is what all the other starters did, removing those stats reduced Lowry's overall ERA to 3.47 and WHIP to 1.26 (from 3.78 and 1.31, respectively) and reduced his road ERA to 3.75 and WHIP to 1.34 (from 4.43 and 1.45, respectively). Suffice it to say, he got his butt whooped pretty good there in 2005 but if he got less starts there in 2006, his overall numbers will look better.

In addition, as a pitcher playing in the majors for the first time, he most probably was not conditioned to last a full MLB season. Even the minor league seasons are not as long. And this showed in his September stats. After two months of under 1 hit per IP and low HR rate and high strikeout rate, he gave up more hits in that month than in any other month, even the three months when he was pretty lost at the beginning of the season. And his K9 rate fell to the levels of his first month.

2006 Season

Prospect books say that the 2nd half is a good leading indicator of how a young prospect will fare in the intervening years. I hope that is true because Lowry had a great second half of pitching:

Period - ERA - WHIP - H9 - HR9 - BB9 - K9 - K/BB
Pre-ASG - 5.07 - 1.52 - 9.9 - 1.4 - 3.8 - 7.5 - 2.0
Post-ASG - 2.43 - 1.10 - 7.0 - 0.4 - 2.9 - 7.7 - 2.7

He improved across the bar, some dramatically so, and was totally dominating. I think a low to mid-3 ERA is within reach, if he can get some lucky breaks and if he could ever figure out how to bottle the stuff, he could get into elite status with an ERA under 3.00. And like Morris and Schmidt, a low to mid 3 ERA should enable Lowry to win a lot of games, somewhere between 15-19. I think the possibilities of the Giants having a formidable 1-2-3 in Schmidt, Morris, and Lowry is very good.

Your 2006 Giants: Morris is HEALED!

2006-03-13T22:00:00.000-08:00

I'm not a doctor but I play one on my blog.

Remember when it was a big deal when you were a "6 Million Dollar Man"? It got you a beautiful wife like Farrah Fawcett Majors and powers like you couldn't believe. Well, Morris is the Giants' 9 million dollar per year man and, of course, Giants fans are curious about who we got. What exactly did we get for our money, a bionic man or damaged goods?

Obviously, we've gotten a pitcher with an injury history. We also got a pitcher who was a hands down ace once upon a lifetime (for a pitcher) ago, but not quite Tomko-rrific the past two years if you look at his ERA. Are we doomed to his FIP of around 4 ERA?

What's Under the Hood?

I decided to check his recent history in order to try to read the tea leaves about what type of pitcher we are going to get in 2006. What people (and I include myself in this) sometimes forget is that FIP is an idealized ERA based on his skill components, i.e. everything being equal (and we know they never are) his ERA should look like FIP given his components. But what if his components were compromised? FIP works as an overall, odds favor aggregate basis, but not always on an individualized basis, if there were extentuating circumstances. And I believe there is in Morris' case.

Here's the chronology as I see it. He has a number of good years after returning from his Tommy John surgery, relieving for one year in 2000, then starting from 2001 to 2003. But 2004 was a bad season overall for him when it was discovered why he pitched so badly: he got arthroscopic shoulder surgery, where his frayed labrum was cleaned up on November 30, 2004. He then follows with a mediocre (for him; good otherwise) season in 2005 that is marred, however, by a very poor second half after a very strong first half. So which is the real Matt Morris, the first half or the second?

Doctor, Doctor, Give Me the News

Here comes the doctor part: I think the first half is closer to the "real" Matt Morris than the second half. I did some research on-line looking for recovery periods for that type of surgery and found that he didn't have a lot of time to build up his muscle afterward. He had nearly 3 months - about 11.5 weeks - before he started throwing on February 19th, 2005. According to one site, the patient is asked to refrain from using the shoulder and arm - even if feels good - for 3 to 4 weeks after the procedure, except for a strict, limited set of exercises. After perhaps 2-6 weeks, when any pain has settled, the resistance can be increased and weight training started, but initially, for the first 2-4 weeks of weight training, only very light weights should be used. It was also noted that recovery would continue over a few months.

So the net I get from that is that he couldn't really use his shoulder for anything for one month, then could not do any heavy lifting for another month and a half (6 weeks), meaning that after his shoulder had atrophied for a couple of months, he could start exercising unhindered, meaning he could actually start throwing, in early February.

There was no way he got his shoulder back to game shape by spring training given all the restrictions on his usage of his shoulder post-surgery. And I think that was reflected by his needing to be placed on the disabled list to start the 2005 season. So once he started the season, his arm was finally built up enough to match his strength that he had before but, and I think this is a key but, he was not able to build in the endurance that would be necessary to pitch well throughout the season.

Statistical Evidence

If you split his season by the point at which it is clear he started his slide down, which is the second game after the All-Star Game (and his first game, while OK, was marked by a large number of hits) which was on July 23rd, here is the difference:

2005 Split Point - H9 - W9 - K9 - HR9 - WHIP - ERA
Pre-July 23rd - 8.5 - 1.4 - 6.2 - 0.6 - 1.10 - 3.09
Post-July 23rd - 10.9 - 2.1 - 4.3 - 1.4 - 1.45 - 5.06

However, looking at his game stats closely, there was even another split within, splitting the season into 3 parts. He was very dominating, similar to his post-TJ career, when he started the season, but as the season wore on, his stats got worse, though the last third looks better in some ways but note that his key K9 rate fell by nearly 1 K:

2005 splits - H9 - W9 - K9 - HR9 - WHIP - ERA
First third - 8.3 - 1.5 - 6.5 - 0.6 - 1.09 - 3.13 (ending Jul 4th; actually nearly half the season)
Second third - 11.1 - 2.0 - 4.6 - 1.4 - 1.45 - 5.01 (ending Aug 20th)
Last third - 10.3 - 1.9 - 3.8 - 1.1 - 1.36 - 4.43 (ending Sep 27th)

An interesting data point that suggests that it was only his arm strength affecting his pitching, he was able to keep his K/W ratio at or above the 2.0 ratio that is the minimum you want to see from your pitcher. So despite his arm strength being so weakened by the end, he was able to keep his control good enough to keep that ratio in good stead.

You can see further how up and down 2005 was month by month, as his strength deteriorated during the season:

Mon - H9 - W9 - K9 - HR9 - WHIP - ERA
April - 6.9 - 1.6 - 10.1 - 0.5 - 0.94 - 2.12
May - 8.9 - 1.6 - 6.8 - 1.1 - 1.18 - 4.07
Jun - 8.8 - 1.6 - 4.4 - 0.2 - 1.15 - 3.23
Jul - 10.1 - 0.8 - 5.7 - 1.4 - 1.21 - 4.36
Aug - 11.6 - 1.9 - 4.0 - 0.9 - 1.50 - 4.96
Sep - 9.9 - 2.9 - 4.1 - 1.3 - 1.42 - 4.15

He was like a battery, though, his strength would ebb and flow through the months. And while obviously there is the small sample effect happening when going by month, particularly for a pitcher, it does show that he was generally trending downward throughout the year as he weakened.

Morris is Healthy

Given that he is a veteran starter who has shown the resiliency to bounce back from adversity and continue to do well, the downtrend is more a sign that his shoulder, while now healthy, was not 100% in terms of fitness and it tired as the season wore on, particularly by June. His second half fade, which could be a sign of a pitcher in his 30's starting their path towards retirement, does not appear to be age-related based on how well he did initially in the season. He was dominating those first few starts he had and I find it unlikely that someone who could be so dominant could suddenly find it switched off and start on the downside of his career.

I don't know about future years - don't know how soon a labrum fraying would recur - but for 2006, I think Morris is entering into his first healthy year after the shoulder surgery so he should be back to normal. Based on how well he did in the first part of the season, he should be able to return to what he had been able to do from 2001-2003, which was very good.

In addition, he has shown an intelligence about his abilities and capabilities, as shown by how he was able to adjust from the flame-thrower he was early in his career to flourishing while a softer thrower, plus learning and mastering a variety of breaking pitches, like a changeup , to help him stay relatively effective. In addition, his problems with the gopherball should be ameliorated because he is now pitching at AT&T Park for him home park. Homers vs. lefties have been a problem and AT&T will help fix that for him.

Morris 2006

So I think he should be able to return to the form he had from 2002 to 2003, where he ERA ranged from 3.42 to 3.76 with a mean around 3.60 expected from him. His K-rate might be as high but his walk rate has dropped since then as well, plus pitching at AT&T will help lower his homerun-itis that has afflicted him the past 3 seasons. With a strong offense humming again in SF, he should be winning anywhere from 15-20 games this year while providing good pitching. Schmidt and he will make a good pair at the start of the rotation, quite a contrast in style.

I think Morris will be worth the extra money he got over mediocrities who were getting $7M per year in 2006 and will be worth it over the life of the contract if he is able to avoid the injury bug. I am a bit worried that it might rear its ugly head by 2008 but by then hopefully all our young pitching prospects would be ready to take over the mantle at the top of the rotation, Cain, Lowry, maybe Hennessey, Valdez, Wilson, Sanchez, and we won't need Morris to be a top rotation guy, he'll just be overpaid or injured.

Giants Prospect No-Hitter in WBC: Shairon Martis

2006-03-13T11:30:00.000-08:00

Now that's a name for Giants fans to remember: Shairon Martis. He no-hit the Panamanian team (both teams were 0-2 going into the game) in 7 innings exactly on the 65 pitches he was limited to and the game ended due to the mercy rule, 10-0. MLB description here.

However, it is a little flukey. One, the Panamanian team is not exactly filled with major leaguers, though they have one or two good hitters. Only major league hitters were, in order of accomplishments, Carlos Lee, Olmedo Saenz, and Ruben Rivera. So, star, journeyman, below-replacement level. Which means all the rest were even worse. And the three only had 5 AB between them (Saenz had the walk so 6 PA) in the 7 inning game.

Second, he had ZERO strikeouts plus 1 walk. Apparently they swung at pitches early in the count and got themselves out. Or hit into a double play, which Martis needed in order to finish the game because it came on his 65th pitch with him needing two outs to finish the game. Reminds me of the no-hitter Babe Ruth was involved in. He walks the first guy and gets thrown out for arguing with the umpire. His relief pitcher came in and I think picked off the runner then proceeded to set the rest of the lineup down for a 27 batter no-hitter, perfect for him but imperfect because of Ruth's walk.

Martis, a soon to be 19 year old RHP from Curacao, pitched for the Giants' rookie-league Arizona League farm team last season. Baseball America rated him the 10th best prospect in the league. In 34.0 IP, he gave up 28 hits (1 HR) and 9 walks, getting 50 strikeouts, and giving up 10 R/7 ER for a 2-1 record with 1.85 ERA. Not only was his hit rate and HR rate very low, his K-rate was extremely high and he still had a very good BB-rate, around 2.4 per 9IP, which obviously all led to a low WHIP of 1.09. According to this article, he is likely to begin the season at Augusta in the low-A Sally League.

Too early to get all that excited about a prospect but still a name to keep your eye out for: Shairon Martis. Maybe in 3-4 years?

Steroids... again

2006-03-13T01:36:00.000-08:00

Two items today, both on steroids.

Who Watches the Watchmen?

First, I am just flabbergasted by how journalists who say that "I" or "we" who still say that evidence has not been found that Bonds used steroids are blind to his faults when they themselves are blind. Case in point, Susan Slusser, whose writing I normally like.

I have to quote from her Sunday article: "Frank Thomas is 52 homers shy of 500, and he is one of the few sluggers of the past decade and a half who is untainted by performance-enhancement speculation. Because he's been a behemoth since his days playing football at Auburn, there hasn't been any sudden weight gain that can arouse suspicion in a player."

How could she have written that with a straight face? Hello, all the talk about teenagers taking steroids in high school, he could have gained all his suspcious weight before he played at Auburn. And football in the 80's, steroids were probably all over the place, Lyle Alzado said he was doing it around then. At least she then quote his high school coach as saying that he's always been like that, but really, does she think that middle school students were not taking back then either? This is football we're talking about, not baseball, and they were more likely to be regulars at the gym where you can get your cocktail sans steroid, particularly HGH which appears to be the PED of choice among the smarter ones because it is so far undetectable.

And look at Thomas. He has been affected by one injury or another for the past whatever years, very injury prone, his body seems to be failing him. And just because he said that he hasn't used and everything, look at Palmeiro, he said he didn't use either. And not to knock Thomas, he is clean as far as I know, but these are all signs that a non-fan would use to say, "see, there's some smoke there." Same as many has and still do with Bonds.

And again, I'm not saying Bonds is clean, I've finally been worn down by everything and think that he probably used, but I'm going to join the lynch mob until I get good proof that I can believe, not stories that a jilted woman who wants money has told to two journalists who was ready to listen to anything that fits their story.

The Logic is Not There

One of the interesting facts that I read in the excerpts is one from the mistress, Bell. She said that Bonds was very concerned about his place in history, that he didn't want his "secret" to get out. Well, most people doing something illegal generally don't want the secret to get out, kind of messes things up because, well, they're illegal.

OK, add to that this point: raise your hand if you think Bonds is very suspicious and paranoid about the press, and generally angry at them? I think most of us Giants fans would agree that is true. So if he had a secret, he would do anything to keep it from the press.

In addition, it appears that Bonds is very controlling. I think the Sheffield interview revealed that Bonds often overruled his trainer, Greg Anderson, or worse, show him up and correct him as he was working with Sheffield. Bell also noted that Bonds was not very happy when she did not do as she was told by him (again, assuming she is telling the truth here).

Lastly, most close observers of him have said that he is very intelligent. I would agree, from the interviews I have seen or heard him, he has been articulate, thoughtful, intelligent, very charming.

When I mix those together - intelligent, paranoid, controlling, don't want his secret to get out - I don't get a story where Anderson would have a bill naming Bonds purchasing illegal drugs or a folder naming Bonds and his drug schedule or Bonds cheerfully advertising for BALCO or even Bonds telling his mistress about his steroid usage woes. I see Bonds warning Anderson to never have anything remotely associating him with BALCO and the drugs he was taking, I see Bonds warning Anderson to not have a schedule with "BLB" on it, I see Bonds refusing to advertise anything for BALCO, I see Bonds telling his mistress nothing that can ever get out on him, because loose lips sinks ships. That's what a paranoid would do.

Not that intelligent people with big egos never make mistakes, some think that they can do anything and get away with it. However, most of these people don't always have journalists coming up to their face and asking you rude (to your sensibilities) questions that is insulting to someone who works out honestly every day to be the best he could be. In this day of paparazzi and journalists who want to be Bernstein and Woodward, breaking the big news, the big scandals, the big secrets, wouldn't an intelligent paranoid be extra secretive?

I guess one could say, "he's already cheating with another woman, what is the big deal about him confiding in her his illegal usage." But she herself said that he was very afraid of getting caught. Someone so afraid of being caught wouldn't want any evidence at all at BALCO or Greg Anderson that could finger him. Perhaps Anderson slipped up and thought he didn't need to be careful anymore, he could be the weak link in the chain for Bonds, so that makes some sense.

But why would he tell a mistress that he wouldn't even shell out $100K to keep quiet, wouldn't you think he would know that she could squeal about the steroid usage, if she had told him? Again, big ego could do that, but given the explosive information she would have on him, she should be able to get a lot more than $100K off of him without resorting to a very public trial to get $100K out of him.

If I were her lawyer - and I'm not a lawyer - first thing I say is "what has he told you in confidence that he would want you to shut up about? I've researched him and he's been accused of using steroids - that would be big news that he would want to shut you up on. If you got that, I can probably get you millions of dollars for that, let along the $100K you want." And if I were Bonds lawyer and she was threatening to do that, I would say, "pay her the $100k and make her go away, sign the damn papers and keep her quiet."

Yet here we are, she's the star witness for a personal vendetta by a government official who probably broke the laws of the land releasing grand jury testimony and, oh yeah, she's writing a tell-all book about her relationship with Barry, so it is not like she doesn't have any motivation to embellish her story in certain ways. Bonds has made over $100M just from playing baseball, he's probably kept over half that (taxes you know) plus invested it along the way to make even more money, he could have easily paid shut up money to the tune of $5M, which is more than she'll ever see from her book and claim that it was to protect his family from his shameful dalliance.

And yet he wouldn't even pay $100K to make her go away. He knows the press, he knows they wouldn't let it go if she blabbed about anything and everything. He knows that they would believe every word she said. Plus that and the BALCO investigation, it would be a huge mess.

Maybe he just didn't care, or his ego thought it wouldn't be any worse than what he was already going through. But given the vendetta that the IRS agent was waging against him, she could become his star witness. Why take that risk if you were a paranoid bent on protecting your legacy? Letting her go out and do this doesn't protect your legacy, it would cheapen it greatly. Ego might make you think you should have to do that, but the controlling paranoid inside him would say that $100K is cheap to keep her relatively quiet, do it, or else there would be this huge PR disaster which will make your legacy in doubt.

Not that I would know what a controlling paranoid would do, but that's how I see the logic falling out on Bell's accusations, it doesn't add up for me the actions she claim he did, based on stuff she had said plus other facts known about Bonds.

Nice article on Travis Ishikawa

2006-03-12T01:48:00.000-08:00

There was a nice article on Travis Ishikawa on sfgiants.com. I've been following his career closely ever since someone challenged me on my assertion that Ishikawa was a prospect to watch because of his ability to take walks and hit for power; he thought Jason Columbus was a better prospect. Obviously, any prospect getting $1M (or nearly so) in bonus from your team is going to be of great interest to any fan of that team, but that challenge has made me view Ishikawa with a microscope.

Not that I think I'm all that great in judging prospects, there are many more qualified people on McCovey Chronicles who could spin me in circles on prospects, but I wanted to see if there is anything about him to justify the other person's logic. Obviously, Travis strikes out a lot. But that is not that great an evil if he can keep his walk rate up and his HR rate up, there are plenty of major leaguers who strike out a lot but make up for it with walks and homers. Plus I had read that he has a great swing ("sweet" I've seen it described; and his stance did remind me of Will Clark when I first saw it) and plays good defense.

One reason that I said that Ishikawa should be kept is because he is overmatched at that time because he was facing players who were a few years older than he. I said that most players mature physically to a greater degree during their 18-22 phase and yet he was doing OK despite that disadvantage to him, he would have spurts of dominance followed by a period where he's totally lost. I couldn't get anyone on that board to agree with me or to defend my position, so I thought maybe I was out there on a limb alone. So this quote from the article was sweet music to my ears:

Although 6-foot-3 and 210 pounds, Lefebvre says Ishikawa has yet to be
fully formed physically and mentally. When he does, watch out.

"He has a great swing, and I think as he physically matures, there's going
to be more power in the swing and a lot of quickness in his bat," said
Lefebvre. "And he's real solid around the bag."

So I don't feel as dumb as I did back then, plus more importantly, Ishikawa is sounding like a great prospect who is only going to get better. Niekro better not get too comfortable with 1B; too bad Niekro could not stay at 3B, we don't have any 3B close to the majors and Feliz is probably not going to last much longer with the team, he'll be a free agent after this season and I don't see the Giants signing him for big bucks unless he gives a home discount.

I particularly like this quote from him, which ends the article:

"I've got the confidence now I can put up numbers -- at times I was scared
I was never going to be able to hit," he added. "I'm a perfectionist, and
I know I have a lot more room for improvement."

I like seeing that from prospects. He is confident enough in his abilities and yet humble enough to know that he has a lot more room for improvement. Plus he's a perfectionist, so he's always going to try to improve himself and try to get better, instead of coasting on his abilities and talents.

I had no idea when this whole thing started whether Ishikawa was that great a prospect, I just knew that we shouldn't throw the towel in on him so early, it was at the start of the 2004 season. But none of that matters, what matters is that Ishikawa looks like he has a bright future ahead of him and he could be starting for the Giants by 2008-9, if he continues progressing nicely.

Your 2006 Giants: Big 6 Questions

2006-03-10T22:24:00.000-08:00

The questions are pretty obvious but I gotta make a list, it's in the blogger union guidebook:

What will Bonds be healthy enough to produce in 2006? While I don't think his presence is necessary to making the playoffs, given our potentially great rotation, good bullpen, and poor divisional opponents (I'm waiting for the Dodgers' injured list to start growing anytime now) I think this should be possible even without Bonds in the lineup as long as the other players hit like they are capable of, I think Bonds is crucial (duh!) to the Giants going all the way. So far, so good, Bonds is happy with his brace means that we Giants fans are happy with his brace. I think all bets are off until he starts playing regularly and putting pressure on that knee.
Which Schmidt will show up, 2004's version or 2005's version? This is probably more important to the Giants NL Division hopes than Bonds, so maybe I should have put it first but Bonds (to steal from Mr. October) is the straw that stirs this lovely orange and black concoction. If he is on and pitching like he has most of his Giants career, then anything Morris, Lowry, and Cain can do is not as critical so then they can pitch with less pressure on them. If he is wildly off like he was in early 2005, then the rotation will depend greatly on Morris, and while I think he is good, he's just not Schmidt good, you know?
Will any of these regulars play without injury or poor performance taking away a lot of games: Alou, Durham,Winn? These players are the key supporting offensive players behind Bonds. If they can hit like they have proven they can hit and stay uninjured, then the offense should be running along nicely enough to win a lot of games, given our potentially strong rotation. Last year, it didn't work out, Alou and Durham missed a number of games, Grissom could only hit very poorly, and Alfonzo, after seemingly returning to his pre-Giants days as a Met for the first two weeks of the season, apparently the fountain of youth stopped flowing and he declined into a year-long hitting funk worse than anything he had before as a Giant (and that's doing some).
Which Finley will show up, 2004's version or 2005's version? The spector of age and injury in the outfield makes Finley's performance important. He plays a pivotal role on the 2006 team. He needs to be able to hit like he did in 2004 so that the offense won't take such a big hit when Bonds, Alou, or Winn is taking a game off, like it did in 2005 when Ellison or Linden came into the game. If he hits like he did in 2005, then the margin for error for the rest of the hitters is reduced greatly, as he will be getting a lot of at-bats this year in place of the starting outfielders. In addition, he adds a needed left-handed pressence to the bench or the lineup.
Will new regulars Feliz and Niekro play as good as they are capable or as bad as they are capable? As good as the top of the lineup can be with Winn, Vizquel, Durham, Bonds and Alou, the bottom of the lineup can become this big gaping hole if Feliz and Niekro don't hit like they have shown they are capable of doing. Feliz started off the year nicely but perhaps the wear and tear got to him last season and he started fading offensively by the middle of the season. Niekro had a great start but after his injury he was not able to hit at all. Was that the injury's fault or did the league catch up with him? Given that he has been able to hit - and well - all through the farm system, he has shown that he has been able in the past to adjust to the league while the league was adjusting to him and adjust to a new level.
Will the bullpen hold together? Last year Benitez failing and then falling injured, set off a domino effect through the bullpen. None of the relievers expected to pick up the slack was able to, not Brower, not Herges. It fell to Tyler Walker, who was the reliver at the bottom of the totem pole in 2004 to pick up the slack at closer, which of course meant that there were no set-up men to speak of. This year, we have Worrell, who did a admirable job of stepping in a couple of years back plus Munter, Taschner, and Accardo look like they are able to do well in a expanded role on a short term basis if necessary, should any of the big boys - Benitez, Worrell, Kline - falter.

Sabean felt that depth was one of the big problems with last year's roster composition and he has worked this off-season to correct that. In the starting rotation, the addition of Wright into the mix gives the Giants 6 legitimate starters going into the season - should any of the opening 5 falter or falls to injury, the 6th starter can move into the mix. In the bullpen, the addition of Worrell provides a "proven" closer should Benitez falters again for whatever reason plus Accardo and Munter show signs that they might be able to handle the job as well. In the lineup, Finley provides a good backup should Bonds or Alou succumb to any injury.

However, there is no equivalent backup in the corner positions of the infield. Vizcaino could man shortstop adequately - offensively and defensively - in place of Vizquel and Kevin Frandsen looks like he might be able to come up and take 2B should Durham be out for an extended period. However, there is no legitimate 1B or 3B in the farm system to come up should Niekro or Feliz, respectively, falters and Vizcaino would be horrendous for the offense if he started at either corner IF position.

But Sabean can only do so much when you don't have all the money in the world to spend and Benitez, Bonds, Durham, Finley, and Schmidt are taking up $51.1M of their $85M budget and Alou, Morris, and Winn another $15M, leaving about $20M to spend on the rest of the team. And if Niekro does falter, the Giants could always bring up Travis Ishikawa and give him a shot, assuming he is doing well at AA early in the 2006 season.

Sabean is knocked, and factually so thus far, for not deliverying young players via the farm system. But it is interesting to note that four pre-arb players should be on the 25 man roster when the season start - Cain, Lowry, Niekro, and Munter - and up to five others - Accardo, Ellison, Hennessey, Linden, and Taschner - could make the roster if the numbers game don't work against them. Plus there was previous talk about Eliezer Alfonzo and Angel Chavez perhaps making the team. And some think that Frandsen could play in the majors right now, though he probably wouldn't be a starter. So if things continue to develop well, nearly half the team could be composed of pre-arb players at some time in the not-too-distant future.

Barry Not So Unique A Late Bloomer

2006-03-09T21:12:00.000-08:00

A problem that a lot of fans miss is that Barry is not the only player to have such an unusual jump in homerun power in his late 30's. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, is that two players he is compared with were in this group.

Here's a player's AB/HR trend over his career, notice the big jump from when he was 35 to 39:

Age - AB/HR
20 - 36
21 - 22
22 - 23
23 - 14
24 - 20
25 - 16
26 - 15
27 - 18
28 - 13
29 - 14
30 - 24
31 - 18
32 - 14
33 - 15
34 - 21
35 - 12
36 - 14
37 - 11
38 - 13
39 - 11
40 - 17

Here's a player entering the phase of life when he should deteriorate, age 35, and previous to that he could manage a mid-teen rate on occassion, but then for 5 straight seasons, he not only is consistently hitting in the teens, he pushes it even higher than he's ever done it before, almost double the rate at age 37 and 39 relative to what he was doing in his early 20's.

Cheater? His name: Hank Aaron.

Darrell Evans and Ted Williams had similar spikes when they reached their late 30's. Of course, their spike was not as extreme as Barry Bonds, but neither were their workout regiment either nor were nutritional science as advanced either or even vitamin science. So do you point your finger at them too or do you acknowledge that there are players who have been blessed by their genetics to do well into their late 30's? And if so, do you acknowledge that it is plausible that Barry did it naturally, via extreme workouts he was documented to go through in Men's Health magazine?

Babe Ruth didn't have such a spike at a late age, but he was so good that even though he got a bit worse as he got older, he was able to hit in the low teens up to age 40, basically at the same rate as he was hitting from age 27-31, the so-called peak career years from most research on players' career peaks. So he was a freak too, in some ways, hitting HRs in his late 30's at about the same rate as he was during his "peak" years. Or was he a cheat as well, how could he hit as well at 40 as he could at 30?

These other players show that it is possible to end your career on a good note and do more there than you did when you were "at your peak". Barry is not alone in defying age or improving with age, his only proven sins are his problems with the press and his attainment of cherished statistical career marks.

The Elephant in the Room: Book on Bonds' Steroid Use

2006-03-09T03:36:00.000-08:00

"Hit them when they're up, hit them when they're down" - Dirty Laundry by Don Henley

I cannot ignore the elephant in the room: a book exerpt has come out on SI and the book alleges that Barry Bonds has used steroids since 1988 when McGwire and Sosa took the spotlight with their homerun chase. It was written by the Chronicle writers who have been publishing illegally released grand jury documents, probably by the disgruntled IRS agent with an axe to grind with Barry, for some reason.

Why he doesn't chase all the millionaires and billionaires who get away without paying any taxes on their riches instead and make our country better, I have no idea why. And if he really had anything on Bonds about card money unreported, Bonds would have been tried in court already and jailed, why do these reporters keep on repeating this "fact", do they think it will suddenly become true? Instead, he illegally releases all these documents to these two reporters, who will now become rich because he gave them the winning lottery ticket, because there are a lot of Bonds haters out there.

And if the government really have all this solid evidence as the reporters said they did, then Bonds perjured himself on the stand and it sould be a slam dunk trying him and throwing him into jail - they did it to Martha Stewart. And yet he's still getting ready for the 2006 season, unjailed, and unaccused by the courts. And all this evidence that the reporters claim prove that Bonds did it, it has been in the hands of the government since sometime in 2005, when Bell testified against Bonds, but nothing has been done to Bonds yet, legally.

Steroids is Not Magical Beans

I won't pretend to know all the nuances of steroids. There are numerous theories out there about what it can do for you and I admit I don't know all of them nor plan to read up on all of them. I've seen side effects mentioned from a larger head, acne on the back, baldness, shrunken testicles, irritableness, short-temper, and glaucoma.

What I think I know is that steroids don't magically make you stronger, you still need to devote your time to build up your muscles, you still need to put the work in. It allows you to work out more often because your body needs less rest time before you exercise again. So basically, you still need to earn your bigger muscles by putting in the work to get them. It is not a magic pill you take that automatically makes you better than someone else who is not taking, you still need the work discipline to apply yourself to make your body stronger and better, with the difference being that you can do more with your body than you could naturally.

That's why all these lame players are getting caught using steroids, they think it was a magic pill, they don't apply themselves to baseball like Barry did - plus they didn't have his god-given abilities either. This wouldn't excuse Barry, if he did use, but it is not like there aren't substances available that can be taken and make the player instantly better than he was before taking the substance. Like amphetamines or even caffeine.

Book on Barry's Usage

Even if you believe the "facts" that the Chronicle writers "documented" in their book - and really, their whole case appears to be based on Bell's words, a woman who claims to be Bonds mistress and has sued him AND LOST, so she is most definitely disgruntled - and on illegally gotten grand jury testimony, then this means that Bonds was clean from the start of his career in 1986 to 1998 and judging by that portion of his career, he was already a first ballot Hall of Famer. My opinion might change once I hear these tapes and can hear for myself what was being said, but I doubt we'll ever hear them. But even if you believe her, all he did was just gild the lily, he already was a first ballot HOFer..

Speaking of the tapes, we keep on hearing about these tapes. And yet, in this age of celebrity sex tapes somehow leaking into the hands of the public and making millions for someone, nothing has been done with these tapes. If she has really juicy stuff about Bonds' alleged usage on them, wouldn't book publishers be lined up with book offers to publish the transcripts of those tapes. I know I would if I were a publisher. And she would make a lot more from a book or tape like that than the $100,000 she was suing for but lost. Anything she says that is not on tape is a "She said/He said" situation that cannot be proved either way and, wait, we know that she wants money from him and as the woman scorned, perhaps by hook or crook, she might do anything. We don't really know much, other than we know that she isn't doing it from the bottom of her heart or for truth and justice, it's all about the Benjamins.

Evidence, Schm-evidence

A McCovey Chronicle diary listed the documentation of the sourcing for the book. Suffice it to say, I had a bit to say about that here. I found most of the stuff there not convincing at all, there was only one thing that clearly looked like good evidence, a folder labeled "BLB 2003" with a road schedule and shots scheduled there. But as I noted there:

I must say that they presented this very authoritatively. That said, most of the information is pretty much circumstantial. There is not one instance where they saw Bonds taking the drug, just that Anderson is getting the drugs purportedly for Bonds.
What if Anderson SAID that he was getting it for Bonds, in order to get the good stuff for a peon ballplayer who normally wouldn't be in a position to get the good stuff? "Hey, you give me the money, I can get you the stuff only the elite athletes can egt." "Yeah, um, this is for Bonds." Not that I necessarily think Bonds is innocent, either, but there IS another possible explanation for that, particularly since Anderson outed his other clients but said he didn't for Bonds.

What if Anderson screwed his buddy? Wouldn't be the first time that a friend traded on their friend's celebrity to make a buck. Wouldn't be the first time a friend thought, "he's got a lot; I want mine." Particularly if he was treated badly by Bonds (which Gary Sheffield noted at some point in an SI interview - SI wants to bring down Bonds any way they can - but then his bodyguard loved him and Barry loved him back, giving him the stomach staple surgery his friend wanted, as a wedding present, but unfortunately he passsed away on the operating table, he is the guy Bonds was pointing to after homers). So he makes a sale to this peon ballplayer promising him the stuff that he gives to Barry, good stuff, and he tells BALCO that he's dealing Bonds, see, here's my schedule, here's his cash.

Or Anderson could be telling his bosses that he's giving it to Bonds but tells Bonds that it's flaxseed oil. I've heard and read people saying that Bonds is intelligent, he knows what's going into his body, but if your good friend gives you a drop of flaxseed oil in your mouth, what are you going to do, say "hey, don't give that to me, where's the bottle, I don't trust you, I want to see the ingredients." Or do you take it and say "so what is this suppose to do for me?" If Bonds was that paranoid to question his friend on what he's being given, he would have an official taster take everything for him. The same goes for a cream.

And maybe those are the stories that Bonds and Anderson concocted if they are ever found out, you know, plausible deniability. But we'll probably never know which story is right. My stories are just as good as their story, at least I think so. I don't think I missed an angle, other than I'm not trying to spin it against Barry which is the authors' intent, their hypothesis.

I can see the logic of their story, but my story has a logic to it as well. I am at the point where I expect the worse to happen at any point regarding Bonds, and while it's not that I'm being blindly loyal to Bonds, it's more like the motto for Missouri: "Show me." Show me incontrovertible evidence that he used. Show me a confession. All this circumstantial crap is just annoying me, it's like a bad courtroom TV show plot.

And I'm tired of the media repeatedly saying that Bonds testified that he took steroids (today, Ralph Barbieri was the latest who got me mad saying that). He never said that, he said he used some stuff and it was the government who is claiming that the stuff he used is the clear and the cream. Bonds has never admitted in court that he is a steroid user.

If True Barry Should Have Tested Positive

With all the cocktails that Bonds supposedly took, he should have tested positive by now. According to the book, he took Deca-Durabolin as part of his steroid cocktail. Yet Mike Morse has tested positive 3 times for using that drug, 16 months after taking it the first time. This article outlines some of what's up with that: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/mariners/2002479599_morseside08.html

Why haven't Bonds tested positive for this? According to the expert in the article, Dr. Charles Yesalis, "These things get in your fat cells and they just hang around forever, seemingly." According to a doping lab doctor, "There's anecdotal reports of 16 months, but we certainly have every reason to believe it could be longer than 16 months. Once injected, it resides in the body for a long period of time." He also added that he believes testing by the MLB, like that of the World Anti-Doping Agency, which regulates the anti-doping efforts of the International Olympic Committee, is too sensitive for Deca Durabolin. "You get findings that don't indicate current use or use with intent to cheat." If it is that sensitive, shouldn't Bonds have been found with that stuff? Or at least they could test to see if he had ever used it before, if, as the doctor noted, "they just hang around forever."

Subverting the Justice System

And how do they get away with releasing sealed Grand Jury testimony? Some have defended their release of grand jury testimony as necessary for whistle-blowers. But what's the use of promising protection of your testimony as a part of a grand jury if some over-zealous government worker decides that it is better that your testimony should be released?

Where will the line be drawn? Who will decide where the line is drawn? Who will spell this out? What assurrances can you give any potential grand jury testifiers when someone has decided that this particular testimony is OK to release, how can anyone be assured that, really, this time we won't release the information to the public? This cuts out a lot of testimony that you otherwise might not have gotten as well.

You Either Go the Full Monty or You Wimp Out

In addition, while I believe that he probably used some sort of PED at some point, whether on purpose or via someone giving it to him unknown to himself, I feel that ballplayers have been using illegal substances since WW II, in particular amphetamines, which I've written about before. "Greenies" was more widely used - Willie Mays was known to keep a jar of "red juice", Pete Rose has reportedly used it, and Jim Bouton wrote extensively about it in his book, Ball Four - so it probably contributed to more career numbers than steroids, on an overall basis.

And it didn't require the user to work to earn that advantage, you just take it and "pow" you got an advantage over someone who isn't taking. Not like steroids, which still requires you to put in the work to keep your body in such good shape. So no asterisks is necessary for Bonds records; otherwise, just asterisk anything and everything since WW II, because the use of amphetamines was widespread from all the sources I've seen in print, more so than steroids.

In Conclusion

I'm getting tired of this witchhunt by the media. Either show me evidence that Bonds used - none of this circumstantial crappolo provided by a disgruntled mistress and psuedo evidence that can be explained away by another theory that appears to fit the facts gathered thus far - or just shut up already! They spin a nice story in their book from what I gather from the excerpts I've read but that's all it is, a story which has as its main beam of support stories from a disgruntled alleged mistress who is looking for her pound of flesh, her dowry, her payment for services provided.

She has claimed on national TV to have never seen Bonds take any Performance Enhancing Drug (PED) but testifies as to when Bonds started taking them and how it hurt his arm and how he got acne. Maybe I'll change my mind if I ever see her testimony details, but from what I've been given thus far, what she has alleged to have testified to could have been said by almost anyone who has been following the allegations that Bonds is taking PEDs. I bet I could have Googled "Bonds steroids" in 2005, when she gave her testimony to the Grand Jury, and pulled up numerous websites and articles and blogs which will recount in excruciating detail the Bonds Haters' reasoning on how Barry cheated and when and where and why he looks like it. I could have trained her myself on what to say and what she could get away with without worry of perjury.

Building Made of Cards

Without her, their story starts falling apart. It could be Bonds conspiring with Anderson. It could be a "good" friend taking advantage of his superstar friend's celebrity to make a buck claiming to be selling the stuff that helps Barry do what he does. We don't know, there isn't enough clear-cut evidence. And while the bigwigs at BALCO are saying they supplied Barry, that is what Anderson told them he was doing. It wouldn't be the first time that a, basically, loser want to impress his bosses by "getting" them a whale of a client, his pal, Barry.

Barry, as I noted, is pretty smart. Would it be smart to be putting your big smiling face in an advertisement for your pusher? If you are deathly afraid of being revealed to be a fraud, a cheater, as Bell claims he said, wouldn't you stay as far away as you can from tying yourself to your supplier?

Furthermore, wouldn't you avoid having a mistress, calling her at all hours, including work, where people who don't really give a damn about Mr. Superstar would know that he is having an affair with her and wouldn't feel like they have an obligation to keep quiet, particularly now that everything is out in the open and public. I can see her collecting taped messages but I've seen how the press works, wouldn't some intrepid reporter show up at Bell's work and ask if Barry was actually calling all the time, as alleged? To corroborate her story? Then we would see that somewhere in print, that, yes, Bonds was calling at all hours.

But then some superstars have hubris and think they can do anything and get away with it, so why would Bonds be different? However, Bonds knows he has a bullseye on him. He knows or at least acts like he thinks the press is out to get him. And that's probably true to some extent. He knows that they are going to watch him under a microscope. And he is definitely paranoid of them.

So why do something he could be caught at. He might not have realized that the conversations were taped - FYI it is illegal to tape anyone without their prior consent in California, so they are probably not useful in a court of law - but haranguing her at work and controlling her, as she claims he did, that would not be smart, the press would have a field day with that one. Of course a mistress would be another, but that's old hat today with the press whereas harrassing her at work would not.

Just give me some real news or shut up already!

Your 2006 Giants: Schmidt's Last Stand

2006-03-07T18:00:00.000-08:00

Jason Schmidt is our ace of the staff, he's the one who will drive the success of our rotation by pitching Schmidt-like again. Schmidt pitching like he's capable of will take pressure off Morris (not that he needs it) so that he doesn't press at any point to show the team what he can do plus take pressure off Lowry and Cain from trying to overdo things and just let things happen naturally, as they might press if Schmidt is off.

I think Schmidt is ready to lead the way again but just don't expect another year like 2003's 2.34 ERA with lows of H/9, W/9, WHIP. However, I think something along the lines of his other three successful seasons with us (2001, 2002, 2004 with ERA's respectively of 3.39, 3.45, 3.20) is very doable for a number of reasons. The only question is which (not whether) injury will hit him this year and how long will he be out and how long will he be ineffective.

Free Agency Year

A reason why he should be able to do well this season is because he becomes a free agent at the end of the season. There have been many players who do well in their year that they go free agent, motivation for that big contract always have been a good motivator for some players. Not that I think Schmidt needs that type of motivation, but that has got to play in his mind a little bit. In fact, in an off-season interview he briefly noted that he kind of wished the Giants didn't pick up his option so that he could have joined in on the riches being passed around, so it is in his mind, somewhere.

Goodbye Mr. Schmidt

If I were a betting man, I would bet that Schmidt is gone after this season. As a fan, I want the Giants to sign him to another contract so that he could be with us for the rest of his career (not with just the one contract but 2-3 years then another contract). As a fanatic, I cringe at the thought of signing him to the money that was being handed out like candy this past off-season. If A.J. Burnett can get 5 years at $55M and Kevin Millwood 5 years at $60M, I don't see why Schmidt cannot get 3-5 years at $13-15M per year, perhaps more if the Yankees jump in. And with his injury history (not one season without missing at least one start), it don't look good to throw that much money at one player.

In addition, I was leafing through my copy of The Graphical Pitcher 2005 (by John Burnson and published by Ron Shandler's company) and I noticed that most pitchers who reach 3500 pitches (or approximately so) tend to see their skill levels, as measured by their proprietary GOG metric, fall that year or the year afterward, and if they were over 30 at the time, that became a milestone of when their skill levels started declining, either to new lows or a lower skill plateau. Schmidt reached that pitch level in 2004 and you saw what happened to him in 2005. So I would not count on another 2003/2004 and hope that he can plateau at the 2001-2002 level for this year at least, before the decline comes. He could be the unusual player like Randy Johnson or Roger Clemens who can throw 4000 pitches in a season and not blink an eye, but given his injury history, the better bet is that his career has entered or is about to enter his decline phase.

Might Pull a Kent

Then again, who says that Schmidt even wants to stay. He hasn't really said anything positive in that way to the press, he has been leaning more towards anger and an inkling towards moving on and away from SF. I think the media helped in making Schmidt less than enamored with Giants management when they were asking him last season what he would do if the Giants management don't pick up his option for 2006 and he reacted as if the Giants didn't pick up his option. Which, obviously, didn't happen but now his feelings are immortalized in print. It's kind of like asking a wife what she would do if her husband beats her, of course she'll be angry, but what if he's not, and never will be, a wife-beater?

In addition, he is definitely clearly less than happy with Felipe as manager, especially after that playoff start flap that Felipe started by saying Schmidt backed out of the start. I think the only way Schmidt stays with the Giants is if the Giants win the World Series, Felipe Alou retires with his accomplishment and takes on the full-time role they had envisioned for him in Player Development, perhaps he'll head our Carribean branch to recruit new prospects - he can flash his shiny new ring - and can go fishing anytime he wants plus spend time with his young children in Florida, while the Giants name someone internal, probably Ron Wotus but maybe Dave Righetti as manager, who Schmidt would be happy with, and sign a AJ Burnett-sized contract (which would be a home discount by next off-season...) to stay with the Giants. Unfortunately, no matter what the scenario, the spector of injury will hang like the Sword of Damocles over Schmidt whereever he goes, and his signing team will be praying to whatever God they follow that his arm and body holds together during that contract.

Do the Giants Even Want Him Back?

And I'm not sure that signing Schmidt is necessarily something Giants management wants to do, particularly with the injury factor going on there. If 2006 unfolds ideally (and I don't think that this is out of the realm of possibilities), Lowry and Cain will come to the fore as co-aces, making Morris one of the top #3 starters in the majors in 2007.

Signing Schmidt in that situation would be gilding the lily when there is the matter of replacing Bonds' production at the plate, whether by re-signing him plus getting a good 4th OF to essentially platoon with him, or getting multiple other players at other positions to do that, and that will take money. But with a top three all pitching well, Wright and Hennessey would then be adequate 4 and 5 starters in 2007. The only reason for the Giants to sign Schmidt in that situation is to have a monster rotation to drive, once more, to get Barry (and the Giants) a World Series Championship in 2007. But given their cautious nature (plus getting burned by Robb Nen's injury), I don't see the Giants re-signing Schmidt unless the whole rotation falls apart, probably literally.

Schmidt in 2006

I have no idea how many IP Schmidt will have due to his injury problems. I expect something less than 200 IP but wouldn't be surprised if he threw 180-200 IP. I think his overall stats will be better than his post-ASG stats in 2005, which was:

3.66 ERA
8.7 K/9
4.1 W/9
0.6 HR/9
2.1 K/W
.216 BAA

So I'm seeing a low-to-mid 3 ERA (much like 2001, 2002, 2004), high K/9 (over 9.0 again but not in double digits), high but OK W/9 given his K/9 (i.e. good K/W ratio), low HR/9, and low BAA - that is, not as good as his best year but still pretty good for almost any other pitcher.

He sounds healthy and if the Giants are ever going to win the World Series with Bonds, this is probably it. Bonds is probably still good enough to produce a lot for a good number of games so having a Schmidt who is pitching well is a very encouranging bit of news towards making a World Series run in 2006. Hopefully Schmidt will hold up enough physically to pitch in the playoffs for us, he was always walking that tightrope of "is he/isn't he" injured badly which didn't really bite us in the rear until 2005 (when Bonds being out also bit us in the rear). We will need his dominating nature to get through the playoff gaunlet.

Rueter Retires and Wright Speculation

2006-03-06T21:11:00.000-08:00

Thanks Woody

First off, I just want to give a heartfelt thanks to Kirk Rueter for almost a decade of excellent pitching for the Giants - he announced his retirement today from baseball. He had a few other offers but the only team he was interested in (besides the Giants, natch) was St. Louis, his boyhood team, and they didn't return the interest. He decided that it's time to devote his life to his wife and two children. And like he said, he'll always be a Giant no matter what.

He is one of the greats in the history of the San Francisco Giants, certainly of the time I followed the team. He was the bumblebee of baseball - baseball science couldn't explain how he could win so many games consistently over such a long period of time with as little "stuff" as he had and thus sabers have denigrated his accomplishments - but Giants fans have appreciated his competitiveness and his ability to rise to the occassion when it was crunch time.

He was the quintessential competitor and there would have been no limits to what he could have accomplishment if he only had more skills. Still, he finished with a 130-92 record (.586 winning percentage) with a 4.27 ERA by being a cunning pitcher and utilizing all his abilities, particularly his one good skill, keeping his walk rate below 3.0 (good pitchers have rate below 3.0) for most of his good years. Thanks for all the great memories Woody!

Giants Mailbag: Wright Stuff?

Rich Draper gave some interesting news in his latest Giants Mailbag, assuming it is true. In it he noted that if Brad Hennessey wins the #5 spot, Jamey Wright will head to the bullpen for long relief or spot starts. "Wright seems assured of sticking." That's shocking news from a number of fronts.

I know that Wright has said this spring that he'll do whatever the team wants, start, long relief, whatever, but I took that for spring time exuberance from a newbie because the bullpen is pretty set with Fassero as long relief/spot starter: Benitez, Worrell, Kline, Walker, Fassero, plus two of Munter, Accardo, Taschner for 7 in the bullpen, 5 starting rotation, and 13 position players (8 starters, 5 bench). If Wright gets the long relief position, that probably means Fassero becomes a LOOGY and Taschner's probably out since Alou had raved about Munter before plus, more importantly, you don't really need 3 LOOGY's.

The only other option is trading away a reliever. Maybe Sabean is hoping to trade Tyler Walker to a team desperate for a closer after the other team's closer burns out sometime during spring training. That is the only way I see someone traded, no one will touch Benitez with that contract, it wouldn't make sense to trade away Kline again, Worrell just signed and there's probably a rule on trading away a signed free agent, and you can't get much in return for any of the youngsters so you may as well keep them and put them in AAA to start the season.

In any case, despite Hennessey doing very well thus far, I still feel that the Giants long term looks better if they stash Brad in AAA this year and let Wright earn his way onto the 2007 rotation. With Schmidt potentially out the door and Morris, Lowry, Cain potentially a great 1/2/3 for the next couple of years afterward, the Giants need a good 4/5 for 2007-8 and if Wright can produce for the Giants what he did on the road for his career (near 4 ERA), he would be a great #4 with Hennessey taking #5. And he would be a great #5, as well, for 2006 if he can produce that.

Plus Hennessey would be a great insurance policy in case any of the starters flame out during the season. That is a strong possibility. With Schmidt's and Morris' poor health history in the past and Lowry and Cain still very inexperienced at the major league level, plus who is the real Wright, any of them flaming out would allow Hennessey to come up and the rotation won't miss a beat much.

Your 2006 Giants: Dear Barry, Won't You Come Out and Play-hey-HEY!

2006-03-05T21:34:00.000-08:00

" Dear Barry, won't you come out and play-hey-hey.
Dear Barry, greet the brand new day-hey-HEY.
The sun is up, the sky is blue,
It's beautiful, so catch a clue,
Dear Barry, won't you come out to play?"
By the Beatles if they were teammates on the 2006 Giants and rewrote "Dear Prudence"

I've been putting out a giant tome of how I see the Giants doing in the upcoming season for a number of years now but due to personal and work issues, I'm not sure if I'll be able to get it all wrapped up before the season starts. So I'm going to do things in piecemeal fashion and put them out as they flow out of my fingers into the keyboard in a series of article, this being the first, which will focus on LF for the most part and our key player, Barry Bonds.

My Name is Barry, Barry Bonds

I think most people hear about other people who know that the breakup is coming soon so these other people are already meeting other people and preparing for the breakup such that they have their new partner when the breakup is official. I think Barry's one of those thinking ahead to future possibilities and looking beyond his baseball career. And acting appears to be his choice, after all, he did put in an appearance on 90210 many years (and pounds) ago.

Barry's inner thespian was coming to the fore with his Paula Abdul impersonation for the Giants Idol competition/ritual rookie hazing and his reality program, which appears to be one big audition by Barry to help him transition into another area of the Entertainment field after his ballplayer days are over and his personal services contract with Magowan starts up. And it sounds like he did a great job doing the whole drag thing so it might work, maybe there will be a sequel to "To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything, Love Julie Newmar" that he can audition for, I think Wesley Snipes has hung up his inner drag queen (Patrick Swayse, not so much, I'm sure he's all for another payday).

"Act-TING" as John Lovitz used to exclaim on SNL as Master Thespian. Yeah, that's the ticket. He's the acting-meister, he's acting. Maybe he can get on "Dancing with the Stars" after this season, that is, if he retires by then. Or maybe get into a dance off with Jerry Rice, won't that be something?

Does He See His Shadow?

But there's still the little matter of the last year of his monster contract before he gets deep into all that acting nonsense. As it is most seasons, the Giants fortunes shine or fade depending on their star nonpareil, Barry Bonds. But unlike previous seasons, they will have to wait until game day for Barry to stick his head up from his barcalounger to see if he can see his shadow - if he can, then there will be at least six more innings of play before he leaves the game for a defensive substitution, most probably Steve Finley; if he can't then Steve Finley will start in CF, shifting Winn to LF.

Like most over-the-hill hitters say, "I can still hit, it's just my body won't cooperate anymore," so the question is not whether he can hit but whether his body won't cooperate anymore. Barry is reaching that point. Will his knee cooperate? Who knows. He has not given any clues yet on what's happening other than that it is feeling good. In fact, he said recently that his brace for his right knee is his new best friend because he doesn't feel any pain when he is using it in the field. So that sounds good, right?

Oooo, Pick Me Coach!

Right now the over-under is 100 games for Barry, 120 games if he's feeling good. That leaves Steve Finley 42-62 games plus DH games (that was 9 games in 2005; FYI, the DH's hit .379/.444/.553/.996 for the Giants in 2005 and that's STILL worse than what Bonds have done the past few years, amazing) to play in Bonds absence plus all the games he will get in as defensive replacement late in the game, when Barry is bushed and/or the game is out of reach. Moises will probably contribute about 20 games and Winn another 10 games, for a total of 81-101 games to play in the outfield for Finley to show that he's not over the hill and can garner another big contract, at least for another year.

He's Amazing

I think as long as Barry's body holds up, he's going to put in a good 120 games, like Hammering Hank did in his waning days, and, unlike Aaron, hit like he has the past few years and not like an over the hill hitter. Over .300 BA, over .400 OBP (.500+ again?), over .600 SLG, with 30-40 homers. Ted Williams was able to stroke it good his last season too, but just in limited play as well, and I think Barry is a comparable player in terms of physical condition, demeanor, and hitting abilities.

In addition, I think Steve Finley will do well for the Giants this season, his last month with the Angels showed that he was finally healthy and hitting like he did before and I think that will carry into this season, as long as HIS body holds up. If he can do this, there will be only a slight drop off in offensive production in LF relative to the drop the Giants experienced going from Barry to Feliz in terms of production in 2005. Plus, if Linden is doing well in AAA again, the Giants might trade Finley, assuming he's playing well, to another pennant contender and pick up a prospect or two for him, just to shed the salary and perhaps set up another trade to add back on the salary but at another position of need.

And should, shudder, Barry's acting career starts sooner than expected, then I think Steve Finley will play up to his recent past abilities and be a passable substitute in LF, unlike Feliz in 2005 (not that there's anything wrong with what he did, he's just being Feliz, you can't blame him for that). Finley has kept himself in pretty good shape and rarely has any injury. His only problem is age, being 41 himself sometime this year, if I recall correctly.

And should he fail as well, then I think Linden will be able to pull off a Feliz-like performance in LF, for the most part, his numbers in AAA the past couple of seasons are similar to how Feliz did in AAA. This worse case scenario won't necessarily doom our season as Feliz for Bonds didn't do in the Giants, it was that plus Marquis turning into a Nova, literally in Spanish, and Alfonzo proving that he COULD go lower than the past two seasons, plus Vizquel not really hitting well after April, plus Ellison going cold, plus Niekro not hitting after injury, plus Snow finally not hitting well on the road as well as at home, and Durham and Alou missing a good number of games, plus none of the starters doing very well for the first 2-3 months of the season, plus most of the relievers not doing very well for the first 2-3 months of the season (did I miss anybody?).

Niekro Speaks!

2006-03-05T09:24:00.000-08:00

Niekro had a nice write up today in SJ Mercury. Most fans know of his problems hitting RHP in 2005 - to that he noted, "In the past, I've always hit right-handers better than lefties. I didn't pay attion to anyone who said I couldn't hit righties, because I know I can." I don't know if that's true that he hit them better, but you don't hit over .300 (as he did all through the minors, or close enough) without hitting RHP to a certain extent.

His hitting came up in a discussion diary on McCovey Chronicles, in particular his ineptitude in taking walks. For example, in 2005, Niekro had 3 walks or less in every month of 2005 except one, when he had 5. In addition, Niekro had zero games with more than one walk during the 2005 season. That's basically Feliz-bad, which is not good.

The reason he came up was because he took 3 walks in the first game, which is something he hasn't done before at the major league level for two walks, let alone three. And the poster was wondering if this was a sign that he is doing what he said he would do, which was talking more pitches. While it is an extremely small sample, and I would add that it is spring training and pitchers are just beginning to get into shape and/or trying out pitches that they are not good at throwing, I think it is a rare enough event that is noteworthy enough to point out and to keep an eye out for further progress.

Beause, bad pitches or not, rusty pitchers or not, Niekro has shown previously via inept-walkability (or Feliz-itis in Giants parlance) that there isn't a pitch he won't swing at, and yet for one shining day he somehow took 3 walks. Thus far this spring he is 3-6 with 1 HR, 6 runs, 5 RBI, and the aforementioned 3 walks with only 1 strikeout. Too early to rely on results but it sure is better than 0-8 with 1 HBP and 1 run, like Frandsen, unfortunately, is doing.

Niekro is worried about fans accepting him due to Snow's big shadow and footprints, but I think all fans are rooting for him to figure out things and became the hitter he was early in the 2005 season and for him to be healthy all season, which I think is the bigger hurdle to leap for him.

Morris' ranking among pitchers

2006-03-04T21:10:00.000-08:00

I wrote some of this in a post on McCovey Chronicles, but thought I would post it here as well.

It started with someone comparing Tomko to Morris and stating that there' only a marginal improvement. I don't agree. I have listed other reasons in other posts but here's some more data I dug up to show how Morris is differentiated from Tomko.

Ron Shandler's book, my favorite baseball stat book the past two years, breaks down pitcher's game performances into three categories, the two main important ones being DOM (for dominating) and DIS (for disaster). Here are their lines for past three years:

Morris
Year - DOM - DIS
2003 - 44% - 15%
2004 - 41% - 16%
2005 - 48% - 16%

Tomko
Year - DOM - DIS
2003 - 21% - 18%
2004 - 35% - 26%
2005 - 40% - 17%

Scanning the pitchers records (no average or distribution was provided unfortunately) for the past three seasons, the worse to average pitchers have DOM under 40%. Good pitchers have DOM between 40-50%. Better have 50-70%. Best have 70%+.

The list of pitchers in the categories I roughly created looks pretty good, in terms of breaking down the starters:

40-50: Burhrle, Eaton, Maddux, Millwood, Morris, Mussina, Sabathia, John Thompson, Wells (David and Kip)

50-70: Burnett, Carpenter, Clement, Colon, Escobar, Halladay, Harden, Lieber, Oswalt, Peavy, Penny, Pettitte, Prior, Vazquez, Webb, Willis, Carlos Zambrano

70+ : Clemens, Johnson, Martinez, Santana

Notes from looking over everything:

Schmidt had been in the 70+ for the three seasons before a horrible 2005 (Schilling and Woods too, all were injured in some way and would have been 70+ as well).
Other Giants (year by year, past two years): Lowry (43%, 58%), Cain (57%), Hennessey (14%, 29%), Wright (14%, 30%), Correia (36%). I would be inclined to almost double Wright's rate because pitching at Colorado, DOMs are probably pretty rare, though I think Cain might have gotten one there.
Beckett was wild: 43%, 73%, 58%, 76%. He could join the elite if he could be consistent.
Bonderman with a bullet: 29%, 47%, 55%
Kevin Brown going down: 70%, 36%, 31%
Hudson fell from 60-70 in two previous seasons to mid-30's the past two seasons.
Leiter fell from 50's to 40% in 2004 to 19% in 2005 (plus 38% DIS).
Mulder fell from 40-60 in three previous seasons to 19% in 2005 (plus 25% DIS).
Rogers was in the 30's and quickly declining: 39%, 31%, 30%.
Sheets need another year to join the 70+ club.
Weaver would actually fall in to the middle group if not for his horrendous stint with the Yanks.
Zito has been jumping from 60-40-60 so it was hard to categorize him as either but if not for last year, he would have been in the 40's group.
Free Agents competing with Morris this off-season: Byrd (37%, 39%), Loaiza (71%, 21%, 59%). I would be inclined to nearly halve Loaiza's 2005 figure because it was at Washington's extreme pitcher's park.

Spring News on Prospects

2006-03-03T21:35:00.000-08:00

Two nice articles on sfgiants.com about prospects.

First is specifically on Fred (Freddie to friends) Lewis. It is a typical Rich Draper story - even though the stories are not subject to the MLB or team approval, he tends to be pretty much a homer when he writes, so there's nary a cloudy day when it comes to the Giants. And this one was no different, for the most part.

There were some interesting tidbits of info there. First, our new Giants Minor League hitting instructor, Bob Mariano, who, unlike his predecessor, is willing to travel and go help his charges, did a good job with Lewis. Lewis was struggling to hit in the first half, compiling a .226 average. Then Mariano works with him, getting him to move his arms, and he raises his average to .273. (Oddly enough, since Lewis is known more for his speed and leading off, Draper noted Lewis' "career-high 47 RBI" instead of noting his runs scored. BTW, neither was a career high, he scored 79 runs in 512 AB but in 2004 scored 91 runs and drove in 59 runs. He did have a career high 28 doubles.)

That was quite a climb. From my stats, which only capture week by week stats, I had him at a .227/.311/.337/.648 batting line as of June 27, which was about the closest I could get to the .226 that was quoted - after that his average took off, so I think that June 30 was the half way point used (most people use the ASG as the "first half"; also, the minor league season is shorter than the majors so the first half is reached before the end of June, about a week before). From June 28 to the end of the season, Lewis had 78 hits in 239 AB and 64 games, scoring 40 runs and driving in 28 runs, with 16 doubles, 4 triples, and 3 HR with a batting line of .326/.423/.464/.887, which was more like what we Giants fans were hoping from him in 2005.

Mariano said that Lewis listened, learned, and produced. That's good, if true, I have seen some observers note that he sometimes was lacksidaisical about learning or applying his learning. He also noted that Lewis "caught fire and hit some balls harder than I've seen in 25 years." Don't know Mariano enough to know if that is total B.S. or what, so take that with a grain of salt. He is, after all, talking about one of the team's top prospect, you can't really rip him in the press yet but, on the other hand, you don't shine them on either, or at least you shouldn't, since he can read this as well, so there must be some truth in that statement.

Interesting, Lewis boasts "I know in my heart I'm ready to play here, but it's not up to me." That's big talk for someone whose batting line in Norwich was only .273/.361/.396/.757 with 7 HR in 512 AB. Hopefully he can back up the talk in AAA in 2006 and be ready to come up in 2007. Alou or Bonds could be gone, or both, leaving just Winn in CF and Linden, Lewis, Ortmeier, and perhaps Ellison to battle for the two positions, assuming Sabean doesn't sign someone to play either or both corner OF positions.

He also appears to be taking advantage of being in spring training. He says he watched Barry Bonds and other Giants LHH (are there any other LHH we want him learning from? :^) and learned to use his lower body at the plate, boosting his power by using his legs more, generating more power from the bottom half of his body. He says it feels like the ball is jumping off his bat. Again, the proof in the pudding is if he can do this in AAA. And this is the year to do it, he is getting old for a baseball prospect, raw or not, at 25 years old.

The discouraging part of the interview comes at the end. He says, "I feel I've learned the game more and I'm still learning about hitting and running, knowing when to move the runner over, which base to throw to from the outfield." Well, after 4 professional seasons, one would hope that he would have learned such elemental things already. Hopefully he's not that polished a speaker and misspoke on that. He's got two seasons to show that he belongs in the big show before his prospect status becomes null and void when he turns 27 and the spector of journeymanship beckons.

Bits About Other Prospects

The second article covers a number of prospects. First off is Matt Cain. He's still saying all the right things. Though he has been labeled the fourth starter for the team, he noted maturely, "The way stuff has happened in the past and in general, you won't believe you're on the team until you're there -- in San Francisco" (FYI, he tossed 2 IP of shutout 2-hit ball today). "That's the way I have to think about it. If I don't throw well, somebody else will be throwing good, so I feel I have to throw the ball well to guarantee that spot."

That's well and good, but really, unless he totally loses it, there is almost no chance that he won't make the team. But I'm glad he's not taking it for granted, he is going to work to earn it, and that's great. But if he is not in the starting pitching rotation, our chances to win the pennant will take a hit.

There was also good news about Scott Munter. After being put on the DL for his arm problems last season, shutting him down for the season, fans would have to wonder how he will do coming back, there's always that question mark for any player coming back from injury. Well, his sinker is back and working well, he was three up, three down, all on grounders in his relief appearance today.

Apparently, SS Jake Wald has caught Felipe Alou's eyes. Alou likes Wald's power to the opposite field and will be playing him semi-regularly in Cactus League play. That's one of the benefits of the World Baseball Classic, Vizquel is playing for Venezuela and that opens up a lot of ABs for SS prospects like Wald and Angel Chavez. Chavez played 3B, however, in the first game, so it appears that they are grooming him more for a utility role at the moment. Alou noted Wald "had a big season in San Jose and earned respect as a player."

And boy, did he. He hit .293/.357/.493/.850 with 15 homers in only 304 AB, or 20 AB per homer. He also drove in 62 runs and scored 56 runs. His main flaw - as it is with most hitters - is that he strikes out a lot - 87 in those 304 AB. That's a horrible contact rate and he needs to reduce strikeouts while increasing his walks. Plus he's 24 years old in a league where most top prospects are 21-23, like Ishikawa, EME, Schierholtz, and Frandsen were. But he still ranked highly in a number of statistical categories. His SLG ranked 26th in the league among players with over 250 AB and his OPS ranked 33rd. His highest rank was in AB/HR, where he was 13th (tied with Ishikawa).

He's an interesting prospect, one that I consider underrated given the lack of notice he got. But that is kind of understandable because a lot of our top prospects were on that San Jose team. Players like EME, Ishikawa, Schierholtz, Frandsen, Bowker, Timpner, Jennings, Coutlangus, Hedrick, and Reina. Also, Bateman, Espinelli, and Waddell did well too, so it would be hard to get much notice there. But with his homerun rate, it would be very hard to ignore those numbers.

His future with the Giants, though, is foggy because Marcus Sanders is the heir apparent at the moment for the SS position. But in the event Sanders' injuries keep him from performing his duties, Wald look to be in the right place to take over that slot because Angel Chavez looks like he is going to be a utility player for the moment. Plus the Giants could use a 3B as well, as our top 3B prospect is so far down the farm system, that it could be years before he makes it to the big show, so perhaps, with his power, he might switch over to 3B, much like how Matt Williams did many years ago. The article noted his excellent defense - not sure if just game or always - so he might be able to shift to 3B without any defensive downgrade.

Play Ball!!! First game of Spring Training 2006

2006-03-02T22:38:00.000-08:00

Giants win the first game of spring training, 10-5, over the Brew Crew, sans Le Barry Show, which had a big hit the past couple of days with his Paula Abdul impersonation for a "Giants Idol" rookie hazing exercise, forcing the rookies to croon, William Hung style, for the approval of the vets. Barry was the only one to dress up for the occasion, wearing a moo-moo type outfit the first day and a halter top "an-saam" the second day, replete with actual fake boobs (according to one account I read, he got a boob job in between because he seemed bigger the second day), and apparently speaking like and acting like Paula, seemingly unscripted and improvised. I loved one comment on this: "I see it but I can't unsee it". If this don't boost the Giants morale enough to go on and win the World Series, I don't know what will! :^)

Here is one pretty good first-person account of the event - just scroll to Feb 28/Mar 1st - complete with pictures of various rookies and Barry in his get-up. Travis Ishikawa apparently stole the show among the rookies (how could any of them compete with Bonds?) with his sexy rendition of "I'm Too Sexy", stripping down to his very brief undies. Quite a hoot! Plus it benefited a charity as well, the Giants Foundation, as they passed a bucket that fans could donate into and the Giants and Rob Schneider (actor-comedian, "Deuce Bigalo", SNL "Going to the copier, the Copy Meister").

This was also the start of the Barry Bonds Reality show that ESPN is taping. I presume Bonds is preparing for life after baseball with this. He once appeared on "90210", playing golf with Steve Sanders, maybe he wants to go the Jerry Rice route. Or maybe he wants people to see the "real" him and soften people up as he starts his run for Ruth and Aaron. But still, dressing up in drag when you know its going to be broadcast nationwide takes a lot of guts.

Anyway, back to the game. There were a variety of highlights, given the blowout. Winn led off the spring with a homer. Knoedler (I cannot begin to pronounce his name correctly), went two for two and had a 2-run homer to finish things off in the 9th. Linden went 4-4, run, RBI, 2B, SB, plus a fielding error. Ellison went 2-2, run. Durham had a 3-run double in two ABs. Matheny 2-2, RBI. Lots of rookies getting playing time. Shabala 0-2; Delarosa 0-2 (never heard of him); Ishikawa 0-1; Frandsen 0-3; Busher 1-1, 2B, run; Nunez 1-3 (who?); Lewis 0-1; Chavez 0-4; McMains 0-1; Schierholtz 1-1, run, SB; plus Knoedler above.

Pitching was pretty good overall, though obviously bad for someone given the 5 runs. Lowry started, 1.2 IP, 3 H and 1 W, with 2 K and 3 R/ER. Miller (picked up from Pittsburgh I believe) went 0.1 in relief of Lowry and got the win. Worrell (1IP, 1H, 1W), Hennessey (3IP, 1H, 1W, 2K), Reina (1 IP, 1H, 1K) shutout, but Matt Anderson (former #1 pick overall, 1997) gave up two runs on two hits in 1 IP. Then Taschner closed things down 1IP, 1 hit.

Go Giants!!!

Winn signed (finally) for 3 year extension at $23.5M

2006-03-01T14:52:00.000-08:00

When I first heard the news, I had to catch my breath. "$23.5M for 3 years?" I was expecting something like Jacque Jones $16M over 3 years deal. "Almost $8M per year?" I thought $7M per year would have been the range for him. I was not too happy with Sabean's negotiations on this deal, I had been hoping that it was Colletti who was the driving force behind the problems with contracts that we have been having (or so in Giants fans thoughts at least).

But after reading comments by other fans and calming down a little, I finally realized that this was an extension for the years 2007-2009 with some built in inflation for future years, not quite the same as Jacque's, which starts in 2006. So I thought that we could look at Winn's contract, instead, as a 4 year contract for $28.5M or about $7M per year, which I could buy (see above). But it still seemed like a lot, it almost seems like the Giants were giving him extra to make up for the $5M in 2006. But the Chron noted that it was similar to Mark Kotsay's 3 year $22M deal, so that makes it a little more platable.

Then I recalled the sad fact that the Giants don't really have anybody who looks like they'll be a front-line starter for us in the next few years coming up the farm system. Fred Lewis' status as a regular starter prospect is starting to look gamey, kind of like Linden - they both need to excel this season if they are to get on the 25 man roster in 2007-8. Clay Timpner looks like the next in the long line of "great glove, not so good bat" CF, along the lines of Calvin Murray and Jason Ellison. There has also been talk that perhaps Marcus Sanders, possibly our second best hitting prospect (after EME), might be forced to play CF if his injuries don't heal properly, but for now he's at SS with 2B as his first alternative and CF as next. So if the Giants don't sign Winn now, particularly since he's looking for a deal now, they would have to go into the free agent market for that, and who is out there who would be a better choice?

So I'm feeling better about the deal now. It's obviously not a great deal but it appears to be a fair deal, in line with the marketplace, somewhat, relative to Kotsay's and Jones' deals. In addition, he gets a no-trade clause for 2006-2007 plus can veto 10 teams as trade destinations in 2008-2009. Hopefully we don't need to come to that anyway, it would mean that either the Giants somehow get really lucky with their 10th pick and get their future CF and he moves up fast or, more likely, Winn does an Alfonzo and we need to swap salary. Winn is the first player signed out to 2009, beyond Matheny and Vizquel now.

Stats

As the Chron noted, Winn has been a very steady player and Sabean noted his durability. But, then again, so was Ray Durham when we signed him and he has been all aches and pains since. But that's something we cannot predict, or we could retire and buy our own baseball team.

He has a career .288/.346/.425/.771 batting line with a so-so walk rate of 7.7%, good contact rate of 82.5%, borderline OK W/K percentage of 47.7%. Showing that consistency, that is approximately his rates for the past 3 seasons: .296/.350/.450/.801 with a so-so walk rate of 7.2% (average of 8% in AL and 9% in NL), good contact rate of 83.9% (85%+ is considered best, he had 85.3% in 2005; 82% was the average), borderline OK W/K percentage of 47.8% (Under 50% is considered bad but average in AL is 50% and NL is 54%, so he not far off from the average player; over 100% is considered best). His homerun rate is slightly better lately than career but that huge output for the Giants skewed his numbers, but only a little, he's been basically hitting 14 homers per year for the recent past: homer every 53 AB for career (11.3 HR/season) vs. homer every 41 AB for past 3 seasons (14.7 HR/season).

According to his baseball-reference profile, he has hit over league average in a number of areas. His BA of .288 compares well with the league BA of .267. That helps makes up for his lower walk rate in keeping his OBP above average: .346 vs. .334. If he could continue the .391 OBP he had while a Giants last season, then he'll be obviously better, but that .346 is kind of low for a leadoff hitter. His SLG of .425 is about league average, which was .427, even though his homerun binge pushed his SLG to .680 with the Giants. His OPS+ is only 103 for his career but he improved lately and has been in the 105-126 range the past four seasons. His SB% has been bad for his career, at 67% when 80% is considered the mark of excellence. Over the past few seasons, he generally been around 75-80% except for 2005 when it was a low of 63%, though still better than it was early in his career. His similar batters don't look great, but through 31, these players show up: Roberto Kelly, Steve Finley, Jose Cruz, Mule Haas, Dom DiMaggio, and Bake McBride.

Defensively, Baseball Prospectus' profile shows that their defensive methodology shows that he is very slightly above average and is worth about 1 win or 10 runs above a replacement player, just for defense. Most descriptions I've seen on him basically states the same, that he is about average defensively as a CF. These descriptions usually also note that he is a much better corner outfielder.

Quoting from Ron Shandler's blurb on Randy Winn: "...skills are as consistent as they come." I couldn't agree more. Since becoming a full-time starter, his AB has ranged from 600-626, his runs from 84-103, hits from 177-189, 2B from 34-47, 3B from 4-9 (mainly 4-6), HR from 11-20, RBI from 63-81, SB from 19-27, BA from .286-.306, OBP from .346-.360, SLG from .425-.499, contact rate from 82.5%-85.3%.

Only, $8M per, whew, salaries just get higher and higher, it's getting to the point where you just leave it in Giants management hands and just wish them luck and keep a blind eye towards all that. But I like numbers, just not those numbers, though the sticker shock is slowly going away. At least it wasn't as bad as I thought it was at initial look.

Giants Invite a Number of Prospects and Vets to 2006 Spring Training

2006-02-26T03:06:00.000-08:00

Note: I've had this hanging for a long while and spring training has already begun, so I'm just publishing this without finishing off other prospects that caught my eye.

The Giants announced the invitation of prospects and MLB veterans to their 2006 Spring Training. Chief among them, as I've already noted, is Jamey Wright. I thought I would point out some interesting ones:

Joe Bateman: Don't know exactly why I've liked him from the start, didn't know much about him, didn't know his stats when I first learned of him, but my gut says to watch him. He's been pretty good for the Giants the past two seasons, don't know why Brian Wilson flied to AAA while Bateman, after a good season in A plus a good stint in AA in 2004, gets sent back to high A in 2005 and stays there all year despite totally dominating the batters there, ranking first in a number of stats (which was partly expected since he's older than most players there but still he was in the top 5-10 among all pitchers in a number of categories).
Justin Hedrick: Steve turned me on to him and he had a real nice season in San Jose in 2005. He was in the Top 10 of a couple of categories. Assuming he's in Connecticut, the team should have a real nice bullpen as San Jose had a great one in 2005 and most of them are moving up.
Billy Sadler: Had a nice season in Norwich (writer forgot that the AA team was called Norwich last season, not Connecticut), improving his walk rate, and therefore his K/W ratio, greatly, but it was still lacking (1.9 vs. the 2.0 minimum to be good and the 2.2 one would like to see ideally).
Brian Wilson: flew up the organization in 2005, it was his first full professional season healthy and he did not disappoint. He's probably the reliever to watch in 2006, the second guy up out of the system after whomever among Munter, Taschner, and Accardo is sent down. He is relieving because of his recovery from surgery, he could end up trying out for the starting rotation in 2007 if there is a need. And he loves Brian Wilson music, natch.
Jonathan Sanchez: lefty strikeout machine. His name is showing up on the lips of fans, his stats are electrifying. Could fly up the system in 2006 if he can continue to dominate like that.
Kevin Frandsen: Future 2B of the Giants? Probably not if Marcus Sanders continues to progress, as his injury probably pushes him from SS to 2B. Sabean mentioned 3B and SS as possibilities - for him to have a long career as a starter, he's probably going to have to do it at SS as he has not shown much power and 3B is normally a power position. Plus this next guy might make 3B his home for many years if he continues to develop.
Pablo Sandoval: As noted, he's only 19, a 3B, and will be the youngest player in camp. He had a great season in Salem-Keizer, hitting .330/.383/.425/.808 with 3 homers in 294 AB. That seems and is low but he's middle of the pack as players in this league are young and undeveloped, perhaps their first year in pro ball, and 3 homers looks to be in the middle. He was a Baseball America top prospect pick for the Northwest League.
Jake Wald: Had a quiet season but he hit .293/.357/.493/.850 with 15 homers in 304 AB. His HR/AB rate ranked 13th in the league out of 82 hitters with over 250 AB.
John Bowker: Not sure why he got the call, he had a down year in 2005, which took some lustre off his prospect status, but I guess it wasn't bad enough. Plus he was only 22 last season.
Brian Horwitz: Had a great season in Augusta and his hitting prowess got him this invite, though at 22, he was a little old for the Augusta crowd, he really should have been in San Jose, but as an outfielder, he is probably being held back by all the good outfielders we had in San Jose. They probably want to assess him carefully this season and make sure he isn't held back any more, they could be comparing him with Bowker to see who gets to AA Connecticut and who gets to San Jose.
Clay Timpner: He had a nice season, good speed, no ability to take a walk or hit with power though, but great bat control otherwise, he doesn't strike out that much, making a lot of contact. Looks like a typical Giants CF: all glove, no bat, though maybe he'll hit a bit better than Calvin Murray or Jason Ellison because of his ability to make contact.

Schierholtz Played Injured 2005, Now Healed

2006-02-26T02:57:00.000-08:00

Wow, like Nate said in the interview on SFGiants.com, "that wasn't smart." He was lucky his bone didn't get worse by playing, Conte said it could have broke. So he was in pain all year and it sounds like his bone could have broke eventually but all he did was hit .319/.363/.514/.877 with 15 homers in 502 AB.

Some of his rate stats looked worse in 2005, so I thought he was on a down trend but this could be a brand new ballgame with this confession. 2006 should hopefully be even more interesting than 2005, especially since he feels his time is running out since it's his fourth year. Motivation could help him break out. But he's only 22, so there's still time, unlike Linden, who is probably nearing his shelf-date as a serious prospect.

Article on Wright in Chron

2006-02-25T20:16:00.002-08:00

Nice article in the Chron on Wright, I like Todd Greene’s comment:

Todd Greene, who caught some of those games, said, "I think he has electric stuff. You don't get away with as many mistakes in Denver. His sinker and curveball are above-average major-league pitches for sure. He's got major-league stuff."

I hope so, cause that could give us a pretty good to very good rotation, top to bottom.

Odd mention in the article is that he hopes to either be the 5th starter or "If it's not the rotation, it's the bullpen. As long as I'm in a Giants uniform when we head north, all the other stuff will work itself out."

Where is there a spot for that? Fassero is suppose to be our long reliever, we can't have two of them. Plus, if we do, that means two of Munter, Taschner, and Accardo would go down to the minors, if I am counting right - Benitez, Worrell, Kline, Fassero, Walker, Wright - yeah only one spot left if we go with 12 pitchers.

Well, like I noted numerous times, I hope Wright comes through and takes the 5th spot, he'll be a nice cheap starter for us for a few years if he can pitch to the levels his career road numbers suggest. Then Hennessey can hopefully bloom for us in AAA and be ready to take a rotation spot in 2007, assuming we don't somehow re-sign Schmidt with a huge home discount. Or Correia or Valdez, I'm not picky, I know prospects don't always work out, look at the A's and Met's 4 Aces in the early 1990's, they ALL fizzled out as starters, only Isringhausen had any kind of a good career afterward.

Rewarding the Best Team By Far

2006-02-23T08:51:00.000-08:00

I was thinking about the playoffs structure because the Sabean article got me thinking about how hard it is for even the best team to win the World Series. With three rounds of games, it makes it that much harder for even the best team to make the World Series, let alone win it. As I noted, Billy Beane called it a crapshoot and it really does seem so based on the research I read at Baseball Prospectus (I found it but only subscribers can read the whole thing; I only read it when they had their week of free viewing).

So I was thinking: what reward is there for having the best record in the league? Nothing. When the MLB started, the team with the best record got to go to the World Series - today, nothing. So what could be done to reward excellence in that way, without trivializing it when the races are close and they just happen to be first after the last game?

First Round Bye

My idea is providing the team with the best record in a league with an incentive: first round bye. But it won't be easy to attain as my requirement would be that the team would have to beat the potential Wild Card team by 10 games (don't know why this number and not another, other than it is "round", just plucked it out of the air). I know, no precedence in the game for this, but there was no precedence for the wild card or DH either.

This would also could make the wild card a little more exciting for if there is a team running away with things and just winning a lot of games, there could be the tension of both trying to become the wild card team and the possibility that making the wild card was ultimately futile because the other team was winning so many games. It would have certainly spiced up a number of races.

History

From my running through the history of the playoffs, it would have "worked" about half the time in the NL (6 times no change, 5 times wild card is knocked out, with a number right at 10 games or so). It was about the same for the AL, off by one game and leads more toward no change - 7 times no change, 4 times wild card knocked out (though oddly, most were early for AL, most were lately for NL). However, it was bad in the AL as a very good team (102 wins) got pushed out because another team went crazy (116 wins).

Thoughts

I can go either way with this. I still think there should be some reward to a team who is clearly the best team in the league that year. But as the BP calculations showed, even the Cardinals vs. Astros would have resulted in the Cards winning only 63% of the time against the wild card team (which they didn't play because they were in the same division; 70% of the time vs. the 'Dres, whom they did play). So about a third of the time the best team is ousted from the competition in the first round, just from pure chance. However, with this rule in place, they would have gotten a bye on the first round and faced the winner of the Braves-Padres series plus get some days to heal up (though also to get rusty as well; it is a double-edged sword).

And an added "bonus" from adding this rule is that there will be less Wild Card teams getting a chance to get to the World Series. I don't know how others feel, but it just seems like the wild card team is getting to the World Series too often. Perhaps I'm being "old school" but they had a fair competition (barring injuries and lopsided trades) and lost to the team which did win their division.

If they were so bad that they could not even get within 10 games of the best team in the league, what is the big difference if they don't get to go to the playoffs? Isn't that the whole point of the wild card, rewarding those teams who did well enough to win a division but couldn't because they happened to be in a division where a team went wild and ran away with the division. This rule would eliminate about half the wild card teams, but the races look like they would have still been intact because it was rare when a team ran that far ahead of the pack of wild card teams. It would be an added level of difficulty for the wild card teams, forcing them to watch another team's results.

Bar-Bonds and Son

2006-02-22T21:57:00.000-08:00

"Oooo... It's the Big One... You hear that fans ... Oh, this is the biggest one I ever had... I'm coming to join you fans and retire"

It's the annual Barry Bonds retirement press conference. It is kind of like those (dating myself) series of specials that Jack Benny used to have every year in the late 60's, early 70's maybe (not sure when he passed) that was titled his "retirement" show, which of course he had ever year, which was the joke. Or more recently the spate of singers who retire and unretire, like Frank Sinatra, the Eagles, etc.

Every year he's in pain and not sure how much longer he is going to last, every year he's getting that much older and not sure how much longer he is going to play, every year he's tired of the media attention (and of course to remedy that he goes on a reality show on ESPN) and negativity and not sure how much longer he is going to put up with it.

Not that I'm doubting that he feels these things truly and deeply. But like the boy who cried wolf, fans get a bit immune to his annual announcement. Of course, this year is a little different because he only has a contract for 2006 and obviously with no contract for 2007 he has to retire, doesn't he? Or maybe if his aching body is still raring to go and he's not ready to give up his multi-million dollar contracts, he signs somewhere for 2007 (and unless his leg falls off, he's probably going to get some offer, look at The Big Hurt, even he got a contract with the A's, Barry only needs to be relatively healthy to get a much bigger contract, how many games has Frank played in the past few years?)

I can sympathize though. I'm about his age and my body is ranked with pain just getting up sometimes and I have aches where I didn't know I had body part (ba-dum bum! :^). And I haven't beat up my body playing a sport for half the year (I'm part of the original C.P.C - Couch Potato Club - and have earned my Easy Chair many times over). So I know he's not kidding.

But as a fan, while I can sympathize to some extent, and I know this is cold, all we really care about is whether he's going to play for us and play well. Because, whether he likes it or not, it is a business and about $22M of our money is leaving our pockets via some channel, into his bank account.

I don't feel well right now (fighting a cold) but my clients don't really care as long as I am still delivering my service to them, relatively uninterrupted. Well, it's not really much different for him, I'm sorry he's not feeling well and all that, but for $22M (or whatever it really is this year, $18M? $20M?) we kind of expect a great performance, no pressure BTW. And bless his soul, he has done it every year (for the most part) until last year: hopefully he's got another great season in that aching, aging body of his.

Great Article About Sabean

2006-02-22T17:45:00.000-08:00

The Chronicle had a great article on Sabean a few days ago and I've been chewing on it. I had been working on a post defending Sabean because I feel there are two many fans being too harsh (or even biased :^) in their evaluation. But maybe I'll scrap that (or save for next off-season) and throw out my thoughts in reaction to the article.

New Name Mentioned for his Inner Circle

The article mentioned his cabinet of advisors, his inner circle. Most names I either know or have heard of: Dick Tidrow, Pat Dobson, Ted Uhlaender, and (formerly) Ned Colletti. But there was a new one there, Joe DiCarlo. And, surprising to me because I saw their names put out when Ned was hired away as possible replacements, Jack Hiatt and Bobby Evans were not mentioned. I guess they are more administrator types, but one would hope that your Director of Player Development and Director of Minor League Operations, respectively, would be held in higher esteem by the GM.

Looking in the Giants 2005 Media Guide, I had to dig to find Joe DiCarlo's name: he is mentioned simply as one of our major league scouts. There is no other detail, other than he hails from New Jersey; perhaps they met when Sabean was head of player development for the Yankees, that's how Uhlaender got close to Sabean, I believe.

Sabean Pulled Off Nathan Deal Without Magowan Input

Wow, that is huge, particularly since his contract was up soon after that, if I recall correctly. Most people who do something like that usually would have something happen to them, some sort of public reprimand. DeBartolo demoted Walsh - Walsh! - after he had a great season but lost in the League Championship Game leading up to the Super Bowl. Most other people get fired for such a bone-headed move. And this trade only looks exponentially worse and worse with every season. Instead, he not only gets an extension, but he gets a contract of undisclosed length.

I still wonder who engineered that trade - according to Colletti in one of the article after he joined the Dodgers, he praised Sabean for allowing others to work out trades with other teams, among other duties. Was it really Sabean, then, who engineered the trade (though certainly he was the one who pulled the trigger)? Or was it Sheriff Ned? Or someone else?

Vocal Detractors who said his success due Solely to Bonds

That's one of my big problems with detractors. To me it is a big red herring. Of course a GM's success is related to the success of his best players. If you take the best player off of almost any team, that team will not "look pretty" either. But until 2005, when Bonds was out for most of the season, there was no comparison point so these people point to 2005 and say "see, that's what I mean!"

And sure, Bonds has outperformed for a while now, even for his prior standards. But without Bonds, the Giants are a $65M payroll team. That drops them to the middle of the pack payroll-wise, which makes it that much harder to compete. And these people conveniently forget that the team fell apart almost across the board in 2005, which drops them even further down, as high priced players underperformed for even what they did the prior two seasons.

The starting rotation was off. Schmidt was MIA for the season, subtract another $7M off. Williams appears to have ate his way off the team. While Rueter and Tomko did about what could be expected. Only Lowry did reasonably well and Hennessey was up and down but at least showed a lot of potential (at least he'll be a cheaper Tomko for the most part in 2006, at minimum).

The bullpen imploded. Benitez went on the DL almost immediately (and should have been on it sooner the way he was pitching). Brower, Christiansen, and Herges went MIA. Only Fassero and Eyre was doing it while Walker was hanging in there, pitching well enough as a closer but horribly otherwise.

The lineup was also hit. Grissom, who had performed well the two previous seasons, particularly for the money, just fell apart. As bad as Alfonzo had been with the Giants, he was a decent performer the two previous seasons, but in 2005, after he had one last gasp the first two weeks of the season, he then turned into a high-priced pumpkin for the rest of the season (at least you could get seeds from a pumpkin). There goes three of the main offensive contributors in Bonds, Grissom and Alfonzo. And Tucker, who had been a reliable 4th OF his whole career, and did well the previous two seasons filling in for Carlos Beltran and when Hammonds went lame (again). The team as constructed could have survived missing Bonds for the season, but not half their offense and half of their pitching.

Now these detractors would say, well, he got these lousy players, that's why he sucks. Well, these are the same players who contributed to a 100-win season two years before and 91-win season the year before. You can't say they are lousy players in 2005 if they were good players in 2003 and 2004, contributing to the team's success, you cannot have it both ways.

Sabean Does Not Bow to OBP, Therefore He Sucks Mentality

There are those who say he is SO not a saber, because of the low OBP players he has gotten or used, like Vizcaino, Russ Davis, Dunston, Grissom, Santiago, Feliz, Neifi, and Deivi. But you cannot judge how he is by how he choses relatively minor (i.e. cheaper, under $3M players) players because every team (except for the Yankees) is forced to make sacrifices with the edges of the starting lineup when you allocate a lot of money to your best players. Or do these fans really think that he can get a high OBP hitter, particularly a starter, for a couple of million?

You need to look more at his bigger acquisitions, particularly via contract extensions and free agents. Of course, Bonds you cannot count, the best players are typically high OBP hitters. You could apply similar logic to Kent if you wish on his extension. However, if you look at his other acquisitions, he looks a lot more like a saber than sabers would think.

To me, the players he should be accountable for were signed to salaries over $4M. Alfonzo and Durham clearly qualifies as high OBP hitters. People complain about him resigning Snow, whether via contract extensions or free agent contracts, but he is a high OBP hitter as well. In addition, Ellis Burks and Moises Alou are very much high OBP hitters. Even Vizquel counts as a high OBP hitter. On the short end, Aurilia and Benard also got big contracts but neither was not a high OBP hitter, though Aurilia was a power hitter among shortstops, which has value too, OBP is not the only game in town.

Also, looking over the league average OBP for the past five years, the mean OBP has been around .325-.345. There were a number of bigger name players who were acquired, though they didn't necessarily make the bigger bucks. Players like Sanders, Hammonds, Tucker, and Pierzynski would count in terms of players acquired who fall into that range. Kenny Lofton, Darryl Hamilton and Jose Cruz Jr. would count as high OBP hitters as well as El Gato Galarraga, though they didn't make the big bucks. Plus two of our best hitting prospects are on-base machines - EME and Ishikawa.

Kent Reconcilation Not Realistic

No way, Kent hated Bonds and his attention and attendent circus, plus his privileges (I guess he didn't react well to the bull-dance initiation :^). It was simply an untenable situation that Sabean could not have ameliorated no matter what he did.

Look at Kent's behavior after he left the Giants. He chose to make fun of Giants fans, he deliberately burned his bridges with this area, despite starring at U.C. Berkeley and with the Giants. His behavior post-Giants and "dream come true" by signing with the Dodgers makes me wonder if he subconsciously underachived during the playoffs. He wasn't even our 4th best hitter during the World Series run of 2002.

B.S. (And That Doesn't Mean Brian Sabean) on Vlad

That is such B.S. about Vlad Guererro and the Giants. First, Guerrero never expressed a desire to come to any team so what is the point that he didn't express a desire to come to SF. But he clearly said that he was willing to play anywhere, even New York. Compile that with Guererro telling a Spanish news outlet that he owes his career to Felipe Alou and one of his proudest moment as a ballplayer would be to be on the field with Alou in the opposing dugout, one can see that while Vlad may not have expressed a desire to come to SF, he surely would have greatly enjoyed it. If he got such a thrill being in the opposing dugout, imagine how he would feel in the same dugout!

Second, the Giants could have afforded the contract the Angels gave him, as I showed in an article I had written before in another lifetime. Basically, with the $6-7M the Giants were offering Maddux that same off-season plus not signing Tucker and Hammonds plus a few others and, even better, not trading for Pierzynski, the Giants could have afforded to sign Guerrero and keep the main core of players on that 2004 Giants team. They could have done that if they had kept their eye on Guererro as an acquisition target instead of jumping on the Pierzynski trade so fast.

Success With No World Series Championship

Ultimately, yes, I would share this opinion, but he has done well enough to warrant a 5 year period A.B. (After Barry) to try for this before I would say his time is up. He has a lot of interesting prospects coming up - Cain, Hennessey, Correia, EME, Ishikawa, Sanders, Sandoval, Sanchez, Frandsen, Valdez - and some already up - Lowry, Munter, Taschner, Accardo - that the post Bonds period is looking to be an exciting period of re-birth for the Giants franchise.

Sabean Deserves To Lead Us

Overall, I'm glad Sabean has been our GM and I still support him. Someone with the talent and know-how to identify and acquire so many useful and talented player over the years earned my support. He found two great players via trades in Kent and Schmidt - how many even get one? And where would the Giants have been without the two? He found a lot of good puzzle pieces off the junk heap, like F-Rod, Hermanson, Santiago, Embree, Eyre, Brower, Grissom, Tucker. He found other good pieces in JT Snow, Durham, Burks, Worrell. He stole other pieces like Livan and Nen. He shepherded others through the farm system in Russ Ortiz, Shawn Estes, Bill Mueller, Rich Aurilia, Keith Foulke, and Joe Nathan. And he has drafted nice players like Jerome Williams and Noah Lowry.

For those who point to the Pierzynski trade, I say that any GM who isn't making any mistakes in his trades isn't working hard enough or taking enough risks. Any good or great GM will make mistakes sometimes, you need to look at both sides of the ledger to judge him correctly. You need to look at the whole of his decisions, which is how well the team has performed under his guidance.

He has a .558 winning percentage, third best to the Yankees and Braves during his tenure as GM. And as one baseball stat website showed (sorry, don't recall where), the odds of the best team winning the World Series is ridiculously small given the short series plus three rounds of play. Plus Billy Beane has said that the playoffs is a crapshoot in terms of who wins it all. So winning it all is not the be all and end all it used to be before the wildcard came in. So I think Brian deserves a chance to shepherd his young draftees into the major league leagues and see how a team developed by Brian Sabean really looks like.

Cain interview on SFGiants.com

2006-02-18T23:00:00.000-08:00

Der Wunderkind speaks! Nothing particularly interesting or new except for statement that he felt he was over-throwing earlier in the season but with the All-Star Game break, he had three days to help him relax, after which "everything felt better after that. I calmed down and that let me have fun." Before that he said, "I was trying too hard, making sure my body was a certain way every time, just being tense, too focused. My head was getting in the way of my body."

So I wondered if performance matched his perception. Obviously, he pitched pretty well for the Giants at the major league level. Here is his approximate stats pre and post ASG in the minors (it appears to have been the week of July 18th so the stats are all pre-July 11th and post), plus MLB stats:

Time Period - H/9 - W/9 - K/9 - K/BB - HR/9 - WHIP
Pre- ASG - 7.02 - 4.74 - 10.58 - 2.23 - 1.46 - 1.31
Post-ASG - 8.12 - 4.39 - 11.63 - 2.65 - 1.32 - 1.39
SF Giants - 4.66 - 3.69 - 5.83 - 1.58 - 0.78 - 0.93

His minor league stats did look marginally better post than pre, with only H/9 regressing a lot, pushing WHIP slightly higher but still in a good range. More importantly, his W/9 dropped and continued to drop in the majors. His HR/9 rate was still too high but he obviously enjoyed life in the majors in that regard.

Cain really took things to another level at the majors in H/9 but that was pretty abnormal, he should regress there by a lot, but the more encouraging thing was getting his W/9 under 4.0 (still, 3.0 is the max it should be, ideally). Both made the WHIP a great 0.93.

However, his K/9 fell drastically, which dropped it to barely acceptable levels, and making his K/BB ratio below the minimum range of 2.0-2.2 that it should be if he is to be the starter we Giants fans hope him to be. He was able to get away with that with his low H/9 but that should go much higher in 2006.

The good thing, from what I gathered from various interviews I've read, Cain didn't really go to any of his secondary pitches while up in the majors, he relied solely on his fast ball, so while major leaguers might catch up with his fast ball, he should be able to counteract that by going more to his secondary pitches once the major leaguers figure out his fast ball. Hopefully Matheny and Morris will be able to help him out in that regard.

Addendum

The Chron had some great news in today's baseball column: "Matheny caught Jason Schmidt and could not contain his glee. 'Beautiful. He had the late life he was missing most of last year, and a great changeup. To have that kind of life and arm speed this early is something to be excited about.' "

If Schmidt is back, the Giants potentially have a super rotation with Schmidt, Morris, Lowry and Cain in it if they can pitch like they have in the past. Lots of "ifs" still but this is great news to start with early in spring training.

Winn News, All The Time

2006-02-18T09:12:00.000-08:00

According to article in SJMerc, Winn said that his agent began talks Thursday with Giants management on a multi-year contract. No word on what he thought of the idea.

Sidenote

Lefty Jonathan Sanchez got a shoutout too. He's 23 years old, 6' 2", 165 pounds (wow, he's thin!!!) and Alou said "he has an explosive, sneaky fastball. His arm is quick and strong." He led Class A (low-A) South Atlantic League with 166 strikeouts in only 125.2 IP at Augusta.

Felipe Alou on Brian Wilson

2006-02-17T16:03:00.000-08:00

Interesting observation from Felipe Alou on Brian Wilson (SJ Mercury) today:

Alou said he noticed right-hander Brian Wilson, a non-roster invitee who pitched at Class A, Double-A and Triple-A last season, as half of the pitchers threw off mounds during the opening workout. ``I see why he was so dominant,'' Alou said of Wilson, 6-2 with 21 saves and a 1.35 ERA overall.

That's great news, it wasn't some fluke successful season he had, if he still shows the ability to be dominant, unlike Foppert the season he was the hyped "next one". Wilson could become a dark horse for the #5 spot in the rotation, though I would rather they start him at AAA and be ready to come up if needed (after Correia and Hennessey in that order with Wright the #5 starter, ideally), else he'll get a full year starting at AAA to prepare him for 2006's MLB starting rotation. God only knows, he could make some sweet music; now wouldn't it be nice?

Give that man a long term contract!

2006-02-16T22:27:00.000-08:00

Scott Munter was on KNBR tonight on the Giants segment that they do every Thursday and he said that he learned his sinker from Bob Stanley, who worked with him on it in 2003 and 2004 before Munter broke through with his 2005 season. Munter said that his success didn't come until he was able to break 90 MPH on his sinker, which I guess took him two years to figure out.

He said that he's working on a slider to give him more options in 2006. He said his arm feels like normal now, his surgery took out bone chips and scraped off scar tissue that had formed in there. As Chico would say to Da Man, "Lookin' Goood!"

Anyway, we should give Stanley a long term contract to teach his sinker to other pitchers. I wonder what Tidrow's specialty pitches were.

The Mythical Contract Extension: Sabean Crying Wolf?

2006-02-16T07:55:00.000-08:00

Does Brian Sabean have short term memory loss? Either that or he takes us for dopes - and we are not an idiot! :^) Today, I read in the Mercury that Sabean said that a contract extension with Randy Winn could start today. Then again, about a month ago (Jan 20th), he said that it would start in late January, early February. Then again, early in the off-season, he said that it would start seriously at the end of November, around Thanksgiving.

Why the sliding "deadline"? Why is it every time he speaks on the Winn extension, it's "we are very serious about an extension and we'll be talking with him (seriously) very soon. Seriously." This is three times he has said on-record that he will be speaking with Winn about an extension. I understand that he got married in early December plus had a honeymoon to go to, but he's had all January to just call Winn and his agent and start kicking some figures around. To get it going.

Obviously, I want to see Winn get an extension. I posted a while back that, for a good number of reasons, we need to sign Winn. So I've been a little anxious. OK, very anxious. So don't be a tease and say the discussion is just around the corner. Just get the damn thing done or be quiet about it, show the old Sabean diplomacy and inscrutable charm that he has displayed all his time as GM, "We would be very amenable to signing Randy to a long term extension. We just need to set aside time to discuss this very important topic to the Giants. Seriously."

It was in the Stars

2006-02-15T12:30:00.000-08:00

I was reading through an interesting article on The Hardball Times discussing the 1994 Expos and Where Are They Now? and it seems like it was meant to be for Marquis Grissom (what a car! Luckily he wasn't named after the Nova, that would have been ironic given his speed) to eventually become a Giants because he was traded for players who were with the Giants at one time or another in their career before Gris joined us.

First, there was the trade to Cleveland for Alan Embree and Kenny Lofton. Then he was traded with Jeff Juden to the Brewers, who had a brief, if controversial cup of coffee with us. OK, nothing earth-shattering, but I thought it was interesting from a Giants fan perspective.

He's also been involved with A's players in trades as well, Mike Fetters and David Justice. But I doubt he'll ever end up with the A's, Billy Beane has rarely signed free agents that old, though he's starting with "The Big Hurt".

Maybe Beane's trying out Sabean's methods now that some site (was that The Hardball Times as well?) had validated Sabean's method of signing older players as being effective, even it is is odd and ridiculed. They said that he's doing "Moneyball" tactics, which is finding undervalued commodities, but that he has found his own pocket of inefficiency in the marketplace and has exploited that.

I would argue that giving up draft picks like he has been doing is another form of exploiting inefficiency in the marketplace. I'll have to update my thoughts and writing on that given the time that has passed since I published that research and others have published similar research which contradict mine, or so my detractors have said. Hopefully I can find the right way to present the data, I've given another try on McCovey Chronicles and I'll use that info in a future post to try to show that giving up draft picks are logical under certain circumstances.

Sidenote

Can there ever be a more obvious headline? There is a news article entitled, "Alou Counting on Bonds Health". Of course he is, almost any manager is counting on the health of their best players, whether he has a history of health problems or is a model of health or just an old fart.

ADDITION: Weaver just signed for $8.4M with the LAnaheim Angels for one year (couldn't find any takers at $10M/year for multiple years). That makes our signing of Morris look like a bargain, Morris is much better than Weaver. Boras does it again for his clients.

Atlanta's Gambling Strategy and Portfolio Risk Minimization

2006-02-10T11:21:00.000-08:00

Thinking about the Atlanta draft strategy, I realized that I might have posted the following thoughts on a discussion board but not here, and a search on my blog didn't yield anything interesting other than the search function does not allow the use of the "AND" operand.

Another interesting aspect of the Brave's draft strategy, besides drafting local players, is that they also focus on High School players to a great extent. I haven't read that book on the Braves scouts and their farm system, so perhaps I'm repeating something from there, but I posted (probably on McCovey Chronicles) that successful teams who draft in the later part of the draft (i.e. the non protected draft picks) probably improve their chances at finding a star player vs. just a good or useful player by drafting High School players. I think it works in two ways.

Don't Search for the Quarter Under the Streetlamp

First, there is a self selection/separation that occurs when players go to college. The better ones do well and get drafted by the protected picks (for those who don't recall, I did a study on draft picks that found that after somewhere among the protected picks, the odds of finding even a useful player goes down greatly and good teams always get an unprotected pick) and thus it is much harder for successful teams drafting lower in the draft to find even a useful player by drafting college players, let alone a star player, the odds are greatly against that even for the early unprotected picks.

However, for High School players, while the odds of a big payoff for a team is much lower than a college player who has proven himself, he still has the potential for becoming a star baseball player, presuming the scouts can recognize the skills properly and the team can pay enough/talk them into signing with them instead of going to school.

It is like that old joke about a guy looking for his lost quarter and when the guy helping him ask him where he lost it, he points in the dark and says "over there but the lights better under the lamppost". Searching among the college players is like looking under the lamppost with every other team when you don't have a protected draft pick (and even 11-15 isn't that good either, it is best 1-5 and still better 6-10, but falls off greatly after that, if my memory serves). High School players can still be that diamond in the rough, if your scouts can recognize the raw talent and mental maturity well enough.

Portfolio Diversification of Risk

Unfortunately, I don't recall the correct term for this in investment circles but the second reason it works is because of the properties of how diversification reduces the overall risk for a given investment return, even if you have a portfolio of highly risky investments - that is what made Michael Milken the millionaire (billionaire?) that he is today, applying that principle to junk bonds. Thus, if you draft consistently over time, looking for high potential ballplayers but with the large risk that most will fail, over time you maximize the likelihood that you do find that high potential star ballplayer. I think that is how Atlanta finds their stars in their system.

As people learn in intro business stat classes, any particular investment might have a large risk component, a wide standard deviation that is, but when you diversify your investment portfolio with a large number of these type of risky investments, you reduce the overall risk of your portfolio, particularly the more random the risk is. Thus if you invest in one coin toss, you have a 50% chance of a complete loss, but if you invest in two coin tosses, you only have a 25% chance of a complete loss, 50% of breaking even, 25% chance of two wins, so your risk of losing everything goes down a lot.

However, in the case of drafting ballplayers, you are talking more like lottery level of odds against you winning than a 50-50 coin toss. I think focusing on college players gets you a distribution where you are maximizing the likelihood of finding a useful and perhaps good player, but you greatly reduce the odds of getting a star player (higher bell curve), whereas focusing on high school players gets you a much wider distribution (i.e. greater risk, flatter bell curve) but still leaves you with the greater possibility of finding a star player than you would just drafting college players. And given Atlanta's success at doing this, perhaps it improves their chances of also finding good and useful players, who are also necessary components for any successful team.

Old Man River

But this requires consistent execution of the strategy as well as proper and accurate scouting. And the Braves appear to be doing both, if not to perfection, to very good effect. They had a big crop of players come through for them last season and just used another in the offseason (Marte) to obtain a needed player. They just keep rolling along.

Atlanta is Machiavellian, But in a Good Way

2006-02-10T01:10:00.000-08:00

Amazingly enough, this thought started out with an article about the Sharks signing Cheecho and Nabakov to long term contracts. Nabakov has an interesting no trade clause: it depends on his performance during the season for it to vest for the next season. So that got me thinking that this might be a good way to motivate players in baseball as well, to get that extra incentive to do well each year - that is one of my pet peeves about sports contracts, how do you motivate a player after you sign him to a guaranteed long term contract, there are so many examples just locally of players who regressed after signing the big contract, like Moonman Minton, or who would be career average but then do very well in his free agent year, then regress, like Robby Thompson, Dana Stubblefield, Billy Owens, Erick Dampier, or who just sign the contract and never fulfill the potential, like Joe Barry Carroll, Russell Cross, Chris Washburn, Joe Smith, James Owen, JJ Stokes. Not that a no-trade clause is the end all and be all, but it would be an additional twist.

That thought led me to think about how Atlanta likes to draft local kids, because they - like Barry Bonds - might be motivated to do well for their boyhood team. That's when it hit me: that is one of the tenets of Machiavelli, that a mercenary army is not ideal, you want a citizen army. And Atlanta's draft strategy essentially encapsulates that with their policy to draft local kids. That also makes sense in that the player will have some emotional investment, being a fan when younger, so they won't be as demanding for a bonus or salary, at least in the early years, because they will get emotional value playing for "their" team. And they will be internally motivated to do well for their boyhood team.

And I was looking through the 2005 Media Guide and the Giants have been drafting or obtaining local people - not sure what a significant proportion is, just that there has been a number of local players: Foppert, Tyler Walker, Kevin Frandsen, Nate Schierholtz, Mike Mooney, Erick Threets, Julian Benevidez, Nick Conte, Brian Stirm. Plus one or two Sacramentoans.

Todd Greene, Hitting Machine?

2006-02-08T12:45:00.000-08:00

The Giants signed Todd Greene to a minor league contract after the 'Dres signed Piazza and Greene asked them to release him from his minor league deal with them. The Giants website touted Greene's HR hitting of the past few years, citing a homer every 17 AB. This would suggest to fans that he is a great power hitting catcher.

Whoa there Nelly! What they forgot to mention is that for the past few years, Greene's home team have had home parks which are so skewed that fantasy baseball advisors had to have a separate category for when teams are playing there: he had two seasons with Texas, then two with D'Rockies. So the better indicator of his HR hitting prowess is not his overall numbers but his numbers on the road.

From ESPN's 3-year data, here is his splits:

Home - .285/.319/.519/.838 with 13 HR in 260 AB or 20 AB per HR
Away - .226/.256/.414/.670 with 14 HR in 266 AB or 19 AB per HR

Wow, so his power does seem legit, he hit for the same power on the road as he did in his homer-homes!

So I wondered how that differs from his career. From Yahoo's career data, here is his splits:

Home - .246/.287/.456/.743 with 35 HR in 678 AB or 19 AB per HR
Away - .250/.274/.436/.710 with 34 HR in 736 AB or 22 AB per HR

Because he has played with so many teams, his home numbers are blended, so it is not a surprise that the numbers end up pretty close to each other. As his body matured (i.e. as he started packing on the weight that most mid to late 30-year-olds do), his power has picked up, though it appears his hitting has gotten worse, when comparing the Away figures. But the HR power is definitely legit, both recent and over his career.

Matheny hit .242/.295/.406/.701 overall in 2005 with 13 HR in 443 AB or 34 AB/HR. Here are his splits:

Home - .254/.293/.446/.739 with 8 HR in 213 AB or 27 AB/HR
Away - .230/.296/.370/.666 with 5 HR in 230 AB or 46 AB/HR

So Greene appears to be an upgrade in terms of HR power, but walks much less, so his OPS appears to be in the same ballpark as Matheny, when comparing Away figures. Based on the valuation of OBP being around 1.8 times the value of SLG, Matheny is the more valuable run producer, overall. In addition, Matheny would appear to have an advantage with his much better home stats, but Greene has hit well in limited action in AT&T/SBC/PBP (someone suggested calling it "The Bell" and it has a nice ring to it, so I might start using that):

SBC Park - .333/.375/.733/1.108 with 2 HR in 15 AB in 5 games there during his career.

I would have preferred to have picked up a lefty hitting catcher, especially since Greene will get a $700K contract if he makes the major league roster, if I had my druthers (Fick got $850K). It looks like Greene's main value is his ability to hit the homer off the bench plus play C to give Matheny a rest; don't know how good his defense is. Matheny clearly tired out by season's end, in particular the last two months, so he could help there:

OPS by month: .765 (April); .727; .760; .733; .699; .560 (Sept)

That could be because by then Yorvit was traded and Haad was the backup and Alou rode the horse to exhaustion:

Games played/AB by month: 19/69 (April); 22/70; 21/64; 21/77; 24/78; 26/84

As we can see, his games played and AB went up a lot in the last 2-3 months. Hopefully Greene will be able to take up that slack. Greene has been good for 100-200 AB per year, 35-60 games per year, so that should help Matheny out, including the times he gets PHed for by another batter on the bench, whether Bonds, Alou, Finley, or Sweeney, among the main choices.

Side Notes

The D-gers signed Takashi Saito, a 35-year-old reliever, from Japan's Central League. I wonder if this means that it was Sheriff Ned who engineered the trade to bring Shinjo to the Giants. I still like Shinjo, I can still remember that throw he made, barehanded, from CF after the RF flubbed it, it is the Willie Mays World Series throw for this recent generation of Giants fans.

He was just totally misused and abused by Dusty Baker: he should not have been leading off and neither should he have been batting 8th. He was a decent 6/7 hitter, which was the way he was used in Japan and how he viewed himself and how his stats looked like, even 5th would have been better than 1st or 8th. Throughout his brief MLB career, he hit very decently in the 5/6/7 spot, but just horrible anywhere else in the lineup that he got a lot of ABs in. He hit .277/.322/.423/.745 with 36 AB/HR. That is not bad given his superlative defense in CF and compared to what we got from Grissom, who costed us probably about twice what we could have signed Shinjo to (he got a $1M from the Mets after leaving us): .281/.316/.441/.756 with 29 AB/HR.

With that extra money, we could have done a number of things: up the contract offer to Maddux; not have to sign Tucker early to avoid paying a bonus to 1st round draft pick; signed a better relief/starting pitcher during the offseason so that we didn't need to trade prospects away to get Wayne Franklin et al; kept Tim Worrell instead of letting him go, which probably would have allowed us to keep Jerome Williams instead of trading him away to get relief help; lots of stuff...

Follow-up on Venezuelan Connection: I realized that my 2005 Media Guide would have been helpful as well. Didn't miss any other prospects from there, but missed some major leaguers, Yorvit Torrealba also came from there, and, of course Edgardo Alfonzo is from there as well.

Interesting thing was that I found out that there is also a number of Canadians, eh!, in the farm system. Most Giants fans know about Chris Begg, who was on the Canadian Olympic team, but there were a few other players who were born in Canada that I found in that book (not sure if all still on team for 2006): Aaron Hornostaj, Ryan McGovern, Brooks McNiven, Brent Swanson.

The Felipe Alou Added Value

2006-02-07T20:27:00.000-08:00

Note: My posts will be shorter and spur of the moment than usual for a while, though I have some longer pieces that I will eventually finish up. And I will use this as my soapbox/therapy session every so often.

I heard something interesting on KNBR today. Dave Fleming was guest hosting on the Razor and Mr. T show and he mentioned during the Omar Vizquel interview that Felipe Alou had told him, as good and well known as the Dominican Republic is for developing top players, that in 15 years Venezuela will be the leader in that. Omar then responded that it's more like 5 years.

I don't know all the home countries of our prospects, but I do know that Pablo Sandoval, one of our top position prospects, is from Venezuela. Not as high a prospect, but also calling Venezuela their home country (researched from affiliates in 2005 via The Baseball Cube, not sure if all were retained for 2006) are Eliezer Alfonzo, Julio Cordido, Oscar Montero, Jesus Reina, Alex Requena, Guillermo Rodriguez, and Carlos Valderrama. I would say that Alfonzo and Reina probably have the most chance of making the majors of the bunch, though Reina's stats looks like Threets, so he has a lot to learn still: high K but very high BB as well.

Don't know where Curacao fits in but two prospects who got on the top prospect radar in 2005 were Shairon Martis and Sharlon Shoop. While Martis did great last year, Shoop right now have the makings of another Johnny LeMaster: all field, no hit. But he's still young, just 18 last season, so hopefully he will fill out over the years and get some pop to his bat.

Anyway, that was one thing the Giants got Felipe for, to help with the farm system after he retires as manager, so hopefully he is right and we get some more good ones like Sandoval.

Thank you

2006-01-31T20:47:00.000-08:00

Thanks to everyone who has kindly given me support, both here and via e-mail, in my time of distress. I greatly appreciate your sympathy and empathy.

As much as I am a numbers man, I am also a touchy-feely, spiritual person as well, I believe in the greater good, I believe in the power of well wishes and prayers. Therefore, I cannot thank you all enough for your kind gestures and well wishes.

Take care.

I Won't be Posting Regularly for Forseeable Future

2006-01-26T16:12:00.001-08:00

I'm not going to be posting very frequently for a while. My mom is fighting cancer again (5th time in 20 years, basically every 5 years) but this is the first time I've been really scared to the core. As much as I now really need an outlet to get my mind off ... things... I will be taking off some time from work to take her to the doctor but need to keep my day job OK as well, so I won't have as much time for the research I do for this site.

When I get some free time I'll probably be posting stuff at McCovey Chronicles (I need some outlet) with the occcassional post here (use RSS to easily see if I posted anything here) if I happen to get inspired. I also have a number of ideas boiling in the pot and if I get them done, I'll post them here.

No one comes to a blog for this type of info, but I wanted to explain why I'll be relatively silent. Take care.

Giants Doing the Wright Thing

2006-01-22T10:43:00.000-08:00

EDIT: Oops, darn Blogger doesn't update my date stamp to when I last modified, this should have been posted this morning.

The Giants recently invited Jamey Wright to spring training with a chance to supercede Brad Hennessey for the #5 spot in the rotation. I hope he is able to because I think Hennessey needs more time in AAA to figure out how to pitch at the high level that he has shown very sporadically on a consistent basis. Plus we have no other good candidates internally to "replace" Schmidt in the rotation in 2007, assuming we lose him to free agency. Hopefully Cain is ready to take over Schmidt’s role by then, leaving a #4 spot to fill with Wright, hopefully.

Wright Isn’t Half Bad

Wright's one of those pitchers who drive sabers crazy. His K/9 is horrid, a little over 4.8 and his K/W is very close to 1 when you want it to be 2. And his HR/9 is over the magic 1.0 rate, though only slightly over for his career.

However, he's had the misfortune of pitching for Colorado for many years, hence his stats are horribly skewed by pitching at that offense-oriented part, so any analysis that includes his home stats are hopelessly flawed. Thus, we should look at only his road stats. (for ease of analysis; my pet project has been to create a spreadsheet that can take past park stats and pro-rate them according to a team’s upcoming schedule)

While his rate stats don't improve much on the road, the one stat that does improve greatly is the stat that counts most: ERA. He has a lifetime 4.25 ERA (though still bad WHIP of 1.51) with a BA of .268. And he gets his HR/9 under 1.0 (roughly 0.8), which helps his poor K/9, W/9 (about 4.5 when under 3.0 is key), and K/W.

It is also much better over the past three seasons on the road, showing a little improvement over his 10 year career. His ERA is 4.07, his WHIP is still 1.51, his BA is .256, but he shows improvement in his rate stats, with a K/9 of 6.0 (150.1 IP), W/9 of 4.7, resulting in an increase of K/W to 1.3 (still too low but at least he has a good K/9), and HR/9 of 0.9

In addition, in 5 starts/6 games in SBC, he has pitched 35.1 innings with 23 hits and 21 (Bonds!) walks but only 12 strikeouts, though 0 homers, with a 2.29 ERA, 1.25 WHIP, and .184 BAA. And the Giants offense through those years were not shabby.

The Real Slim Shady

Even in his poor season last year, he had a 4.63 ERA, 1.50 WHIP on the road, which is about what you might expect to get from Hennessey in 2006. But he also had the misfortune of two horrible outings in Dodger Stadium, 8 IP, 5.63 ERA, which pushed up his ERA, plus a bad one in Great American (Reds), which he may or may not get a start in for 2006 if he pitched for us (depends on where the rotation and schedule falls). The Dodger Stadium and GA aberrations removed drops his road ERA to 4.18, which is in line with his career line of 4.25.

Whereas I'm not sure who's the real Hennessey. He pitched horribly in SBC but great on the road, though great at some hitter's park and horribly at neutral or pitcher's parks. He still needs to make the leap.

But his potential is obviously there and we need to tap it because we will probably need to replace Schmidt’s spot in the rotation in 2007. Cain might do it but it would be prudent to have other options brewing. According to Ron Shandler’s book, The Baseball Forecaster, their research shows that pitchers with a full year of AAA experience performed well 56% of the time in their first exposure to the majors whereas pitchers with less than a year of AAA experience performed well only 16% of the time, 3.5 times better. Obviously, he's already missed the boat on that, having pitched most of last year in the majors, but assuming there is a critical growth phase that occurs in AAA, we need to maximize the odds of Hennessey performing well in 2007 and beyond and having him pitch in AAA and hopefully figure out that critical bit of knowledge or experience would seem to do that.

Looking at Beyond 2006 and A.S. (After Schmidt)

As briefly noted, we are probably losing Schmidt to free agency next season as I don't see the Giants spending the $12-15M ($18M?) necessary to sign Schmidt (and rightly so for an oft-injured pitcher) and will need good pitching to replace him. Frankly we have no one in the farm system who I think can do it in 2007 unless someone surprises. However, if Wright can pitch as well as his road numbers indicate, while he won't replace Schmidt, he will certainly be a good middle of the rotation guy for us and hopefully Morris, Lowry and Cain can be a good 1-2-3 for us with Hennessey coming up primed for success.

If Wright really does pitch well at SBC on a regular basis, he would be a good middle of rotation starter (plus experienced innings eatter) for the 2007 rotation and we would have gotten him cheap with a year and option deal. And Wright has definitely had some success at SBC, with a 2.29 ERA in 5 starts there. For an example of how a sinkerballer might do at SBC, Munter's known for his sinkerballs and he had a 2.51 ERA at home in 2005 and that is comparable to Wright’s success in SBC thus far.

And while 2.29 is not likely on a full season basis, I think a high 3/low 4 ERA is not out of the question given his ERA at SBC and on the road so far. And that, combined with a lifetime 4.25 ERA on the road, should easily get him to low 4 ERA overall. That compares well with Tomko's 4.26 ERA pitching for us. And there is the potential of going under 4 if he really is that good at SBC.

Meanwhile, I think Hennessey has the higher ceiling than Wright and therefore we need to have the patience to get that type of performance out of him. Hennessey could be as good as Lowry once he becomes consistent enough and getting a year in AAA to concentrate on doing that will prepare him for great success in 2007 and beyond for us. We need to maximize his chances of doing that and I believe playing him most of the season at AAA would do that, by keeping his mind focused only on performing well instead of worrying about the consequences at the major league level.

We need to take the chance on Wright and keep Hennessey in AAA so that he can figure it out, if we are to prepare the team for a good to excellent rotation, overall, in 2007. Count me on the Jamey Wright bandwagon to take the #5 starters role for 2006 as long as he is cheap, say, on the order of Tomko's contract with us for the past two seasons. Given that he willingly took a minor league contract with only an invitation to spring training suggests that he won’t be hard to sign. It suggests that he realizes that he has a good opportunity here to prove his worth and then cash in in the free agent market in a couple of years. Then we can let Hennessey concentrate on becoming consistent with whatever he needs to be in order to be that pitcher who dominated the powerful Cardinals offense before the All-Star break.

Sabes Talkin' Giants Baseball

2006-01-20T01:40:00.000-08:00

Brian Sabean just the other day had an online chat with fans online. Since you can read it via the link I provided, I won't go over every question because, as any long-time Giants fan would know, Sabean has mastered the art of appearing to say something useful and important but not really opening his kimono to the listening audience. I will provide my take of his answers, whether it is of interest or something that requires reading between the lines.

Sabean: Munter is on schedule to be ready when all the pitchers report on Feb. 15. He obviously opened our eyes last year and will be given a chance to make our staff, probably as a middle reliever.

BGF: Well, that's good news, sort of - it also means that he is not ready at the moment, just that he is "on schedule." That's been one of my worries this winter, based on the fact that the Giants pursued relievers so strongly and signing Worrell and resigning Fassero, when he could have went with the young guys, who did so well. The signings meant one of the three rookies - Munter, Taschner, Accardo - would be sent down at the start of the year. Though that is good for competition plus cover the problem of one of them not doing so well coming out of spring training, we have a number of other relievers looking to move up, Brian Wilson in particular, who could be ready by mid-season.

It also means that despite how well Munter did last season, he didn't earn a spot with his great performance, whereas Cain also did great but is in rotation, no question (given in later answer).

Sabean: [Question on young talent who can surprise] Starting with the pitching, Merkin Valdez will be given a chance to impress the staff. In the catching department, Eliezer Alfonzo, recently added to the roster, will be added to the backup competition along with Yamid Haad and Justin Knoedler. We look forward to seeing Kevin Frandsen not only play second and third base, but he might be given an opportunity to learn shortstop as well. He's on the fast track to become a full-time player in the Major Leagues. And lastly, in the outfield, Dan Ortmeier and Nate Schierholtz hope to get enough exposure this spring to give us an idea how far along their development is.

BGF: Interesting tidbits of info, most suspected, but good to confirm. The trying out of Frandsen at 3B and SS suggests that Sabean may be clearing the way for Marcus Sanders at 2B. Hopefully that means that there is encouraging signs in Sanders recovery from shoulder problems. Also, there are no other 2B or 3B prospects who look like promising starters, so this suggests that Sabean doesn't see Feliz as a long-term guy at 3B or perhaps feel that he might not be able to sign him after the 2006 season, after he becomes a free agent, and thus Frandsen would become 3B insurance for 2007 (though Sanders would not be ready for 2B by then, maybe 2008-9, so that would mean either re-signing Durham or pursuing a free agent there). The Giants also don't have good SS prospect ready soon but with Vizquel signed for another couple of years, I am not sure what trying out Frandsen at SS would accomplish other than perhaps increase Frandsen's value as trade bait, but I hope not, there wouldn't be a better story in baseball than Frandsen starting for the Giants.

Interesting that they mention Schierholtz as a possibility for OF. There was not much in his stats that would suggest that he would be more ready than, say, EME or Ishikawa, in coming up to the majors in 2006, other than EME hasn't proved that he could play a position yet and Ishikawa is now blocked by Sweeney in terms of backup 1B (I have to presume Schierholtz could only win the 5th OF spot).

Sabean: At this point in time, Lance will be given a chance to win the job full-time.

BGF: Looks like the Giants are going to let Lance play against RHP in 2006 and either swim or watch Sweeney and perhaps others take ABs away from him at 1B. He was horrible against RHP in 2005, he will need to learn from his mistakes and grow further in 2006 or he'll strictly be a platoon 1B.

Sabean: [progess in long-term contract discussions with Winn] We're very interested in signing Randy long-term. I talked to him as recently as today and he is interested in pursuing a multi-year deal. Formal talks won't begin until the end of the month or the first week in February.

BGF: What happened to talking to Winn in November, as he originally said? I expect something similar to what Jacque Jones got from Chicago (3 years, $16M or $5.3M/year), which is about the price of the option they Giants picked up to retain him.

Sabean: [get superstar after Bonds?] Replacing Barry, per se, will obviously be almost impossible, but we are committed to sign the best player or players available with the monies that will be available once he leaves.

BGF: Sounds like the Giants don't intend to sign a superstar while Bonds is around. That would kill our chances of signing Derrek Lee after the 2006 season if Bonds is resigned for 2007. I hope the Giants don't sign Bonds for $20M for 2007, Aaron record or not; if he is unwilling to accept at least 50% less because of his reduced playing time, then he is not that serious about bringing a World Series championship to San Francisco, and we should just move on.

Sabean: Our budget for 2006 will end up being similar to last year's figure, in and around the mid-80's, with an opportunity to be increased at the trade deadline.

BGF: It is the Giants practice to have a budget target for spring training with some additional money available to use at the trade deadline to add on salary as needed for a World Series run. This confirms that will happen again in 2006.

Sabean: [Steve Finley playing time] I have spoken with Steve, including just recently, and his desire is the same as ours: to play as much as possible. We feel confident that he'll get plenty of at-bats in our outfield. The only complicated situation that is inherent is that his best position is center field and we are in the process of trying to sign Randy Winn long-term at that position. Having said that, we do have a club option on Steve and it is in our best interests to make sure he does get ample playing time in order to evaluate him properly against picking up that option. So simply stated, we do not view Steve as a bench player, more as a starter in an outfield that will probably change on a day-to-day basis to utilize everybody's strength and keep everybody fresh and healthy.

BGF: Randy has been playing LF the past few years and most talk I've seen says that he's not that good a CF, that he's better off in LF. Of course, LF is taken by Barry for now. I see Finley starting in Bonds place (Alou has said that he expects Bonds to start 100 games, leaving 62 games to Finley) with Randy moving over to LF. Randy has played from 157 to 160 games the past few years, so Alou might give him 152 starts to give him some rest, leaving Finley 10 starts. Moises Alou probably will get into 122-132 games, leaving Finley 30-40 starts. That adds up to 102-112 starts. Which is not too bad. And if Bonds get the DH for another 18 or so games, then Finley is up to 120-130 games. He was hitting fine in May but April, June, July, and August were horrible, but his September was nearing normal, at .801 OPS with 3 homers in only 43 AB. So that is some hope that 2005 was an aberration.

Sabean: [Resign Schmidt if he returns to form in 2006] Absolutely, if he returns to form.

BGF: And that's the key phrase "if he returns to form." Most probably, Schmidt will not return to form, he is going through what Morris did a few years ago, adjust his pitching when he could no longer just blow guys down with strikeouts. But he will still be good if he is able to make a similar adjustment, just not Schmidt Ace good. So it could be his last season with us.

Sabean: Pedro Feliz will be our everyday third baseman and quite frankly, he's one of the better defensive third basemen in our league. To have him in the lineup every day at that position as well as hitting further down in the lineup this year should be good for all parties.

BGF: At least the Giants recognize that Feliz is not getting a lot of walks and so he should be down lower in the lineup. I'm sure there will be those games where he is up near the top of the lineup but Felipe generally don't do that on a continual basis, just as a mix to change things up sometimes.

Sabean: Matt will certainly be in our rotation. It remains to be seen what slot he will take, but we hope he's capable of providing in and around 200 innings.

BGF: Wow, so they expect him to hold up for 200 innings. That would be great if we could pencil him in for that.

Sabean: Kevin's [Frandsen] going to be given every opportunity to show us how ready he is to play in the Major Leagues in 2006. With Durham as our everyday second baseman, Kevin would obviously be hard-pressed to win that spot, but we are encouraged that he does play second and third base at this time and also will be introduced to shortstop. It would be in his best interest as a young player to play every day as a second baseman instead of being on our roster as a utilityman.

BGF: Mixed message here for me. One they see him as a starter, but two, he can play a lot of positions, but three, the team feels he's better off starting and playing everyday. And how could he get every opportunity if Durham is the starting 2B?

Sabean: The signing of Sweeney did not affect our decision with J.T. ... But when we made the decision to give Niekro a chance to become the full-time first baseman going into the future over J.T, we felt he needed some support, which Sweeney provides.

BGF: Looks like the Giants drunk the coolaid on Niekro, thinking he could do better than J.T. could, with Sweeney as backup to Niekro.

Sabean: Tyler [Walker] really stepped up for us in a very difficult situation ... His durability is a valuable commodity.

BGF: That's about his only value, his stats are nothing to write home about.

Sabean: [Why Vizcaino over Aurilia] We had bona fide interest in Richie, but unfortunately his signing would have cost us another draft pick and we felt with the picks we lost last year, and the two we've already lost this year, that it was time to hold onto our picks.

BGF: The Giants actually do care about keeping picks. Let's hope they can do something with these ones in 2006, particularly their first round pick.

My Annual Push for Bobby Bonds for HOF

2006-01-15T05:15:00.000-08:00

The election of Bruce Sutter got me thinking to this topic again: Bobby Bonds deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. Sutter got in on the basis of his being the poster child for the re-invention of the closer as a one-inning only, save situation only, reliever (which technically his manager did) and for being the poster child for the split-finger fastball (though you rarely hear anything about that nowadays, what happened to that). His career was way too short and his peak was not that much better than other closers, even of his day. That appears to be Bobby Bonds "fault" in the eyes of voters as well, his short career (relatively) and his lack of peak stats (relatively).

In addition, he suffered from the following as well: 1) not being Willie Mays reincarnated, 2) not being media friendly, 3) being a strikeout monster early in his career, 4) he was a baseball vagabond his last seven seasons with seven teams, 5) his stats were split between being leadoff and an RBI guy during his career, and 6) not enough appreciation for how rare it is for someone to be able to hit for power as well as run for SB.

What voters (and some fans) are missing is that Bobby Bonds was one of the top RF for a decade and that he was a unique player, much like Sutter. Despite a "short" career, he was in the Top 100 list of a variety of counting stats when he retired, among them HR (around 50th when retired, 77th now), SB (45th now, around 30th when retired), runs scored (just short of 100th now, just 35 behind, should have been around 70-80th when he retired), total bases (close to 100th now, should have been in Top 100 when he retired). And despite being a leadoff hitter for a good portion of his early years, he still ended up with over 1,000 RBIs. Plus he's still only one of two to ever achieve 30/30 five times, his son being the other.

In a game that celebrates both the SB (Ty Cobb, Lou Brock, Rickey Henderson) and the HR, how can they miss out on someone who could do both equally well? So well that a feat that is no easy feat to do (how hard is it to just get 30 SB? how hard is it to just get 30 HR? now combine doing both) nor some obscure statistical oddity was accomplished 5 times in his career.

I'm biased in that he was my first baseball "hero/star" for me, but I don't think that is clouding my judgement. Speed and power has always been admired in the game and he had both in spades, just not far extreme like a Rickey/Brock or a Aaron/Ruth, but still extreme enough that neither is a feat that is easily duplicated on their own, let alone together.

I'm still hoping that the Veteran's Committee will correct this oversight when Barry is voted in and have the both of them inducted together, but given the VC's total reluctance to vote in anyone at all, I figure that's never going to happen. I thought the baseball writers were bad but the HOF players appear to be just as bad. Hopefully, they will find a way to fix this by the time Barry is up for election. Maybe if they allow a fan vote like they are doing for baseball announcers, that will help push whoever controls the overlooked veterans to vote in Bobby.

Baseball Writers Suck And How to Better the HOF Vote

2006-01-11T18:03:00.000-08:00

How in the heck did Walt Weiss, Greg Jefferies, Doug Jones, Rick Aguilera, John Wetteland, Gary Gaetti, Ozzie Guillen, and Hal Morris get votes? And how does Will Clark not get more than 5% of the votes and therefore is dropped off the ballot? I don't know if there's anything to do for borderline cases like Clark (I love Clark but I can see why people don't want him in; I can go either way, I've seen some eloquent stats put up for why he belongs, I see that after a great start, he was an hobbled star who could not play a full season that often) but how can any voter keep their right to vote by voting for those other guys?

I have also always been stupified by the writer's voting (how does Mays and Aaron not get 100%? And that's just for starters, how does Babe Ruth not get 100%?) and have thought about ways to try to get around this but I've never found anything satisfactory. Any penalty system will change people's votes to be more cautious, voting for borderline candidates when he would have voted against, just to avoid a penalty, for example. But it would certainly avoid atrocities of obviously non-HOF getting a vote. Personally, if I had known a writer who didn't vote for Mays, I would have scorched him in print in a column, that would be so idiotic.

My Proposal: Three Strikes and You're Out

My idea, just to throw it out there, feel free to tear apart, is to have a "three strike and you're out" system. You get a strike if you vote for anyone who gets 1.0% or less of the votes. That was the easy one. We could make it 2% but 1% covers 5 votes and that seems fair to me.

The harder one is the reverse: the gimmees. Obviously, whoever didn't vote for Ruth, Mays or Aaron would get a strike. But Frank Robinson would appear to be an obvious HOF to me but only got 89.2% of the vote, whereas Aaron got 97.8%, Mays got "only" 94.7%, and Ruth got 95.1%. That seems way too low a threshold.

And speaking of Ruth, lets look at the first five inductees. Ty "Georgia Peach" Cobb got 98.2% of the vote, Honus "The Flying Dutchman" Wagner tied Ruth at 95.1%, Christy "Big 6" Mathewson had 90.7% of the vote and Walter "The Big Train" Johnson got only 83.65 of the vote. I would think that they were all obvious inductees today but look at their vote totals. Where do you draw the line?

And how about this factoid: Cy Young, whose name now graces the award for the top pitcher of the year, got only 49.1% of the vote in that first vote. I guess they were having problems with peak vs. longevity from the very first vote. Looking over Young's baseball-reference profile, he rarely led the league in anything but just kept on plugging away and pitched for 22 years, only 2 of which he had an ERA below the league average. He led in a lot of saber-stats, like WHIP and K/W, but in the traditional stats of that era, his only one was, obviously, wins, where he led the league 5 times in his 22 seasons, not too shabby, but I guess not deserving enough when you don't strike out a ton of people, like the Big Train did.

So where to set the tipping point? Given that Mays and Ruth had approximate 95%, that would seem to the minimum to set the bar, but in this case, none of the Mays non-voters would have gotten a strike. Dropping it down to 85% to include Frank Robinson seems a bit extreme. So maybe 90% might be the right balance. It misses Frank Robinson but should honor most of the obvious candidates with a high vote

So that got me thinking about the lower threshold. Maybe 1% is too low. Looking over the votes of the past few years, anywhere from 1% to even 5% (the minimum necessary to keep your name on the ballot) would seem reasonable, it depended, year by year. Lets go with 2.5% as the balance point on that one, that's about 12-13 votes, still a fringe candidate. That doesn't penalize any of the people not voting for Will Clark, but that's baseball, sometimes the ball doesn't go your way.

Lastly, I was just thinking that perhaps losing your vote is too harsh. It's not like they killed a player or anything, at least not literally. Maybe it could be like a suspension of some sort, instead of a permanent loss of voting right for three strikes. So they don't get to vote until they tack on, say, another three years of experience (I think the minimum right now is 10 years experience as a baseball writer in the association/union that they have) as penance.

The Rule

So the rule would then be the writer get a strike if they vote for anyone getting less than or equal to 2.5% of the vote or does not vote for anyone getting 90% or more of the vote and after three strikes, they need to work another three years as a baseball writer to earn back the right. This way, they won't be cautious with their vote until they get to two strikes. And maybe throw in you lose a strike after 3 years of going without a strike, so that the writer is not stuck at two strikes for the rest of his career and this only applies if you have a strike. Anyway, just a thought, something to work on when I'm perturbed by the latest HOF vote. I'll try to remember to revisit this next year.

Bobby Bonds Gets Stat Support for Hall of Fame - repost

2006-01-11T12:45:00.000-08:00

Repost of article posted on November 19, 2005: corrected garbled first paragraph to include proper links to the article that prompted me to post this in the first place plus to my original article and follow-up article.

There was a very interesting article written by John Brattain for The Hardball Times about Bobby Bonds credential for the Hall of Fame. It has a lot more info than the original article that I wrote or the other one I wrote here on my blog.

One additional point the author could have added was that his totals were warped by the fact that he spent his early part of his career leading off and the latter as an RBI guy. That hurt his chances to get RBIs in the early part of his career, then hurt his chances to get runs later in his career. If he had strictly stayed one or the other, he could have put up bigger numbers in one or the other, instead of where he is now.

It gave him more of a jack of trades look, statistically, when he could have been a run machine like Ricky Henderson or an RBI machine like any other middle of the lineup guy. As it was, I think that he was up among the top 100 in a number of the major offensive categories when he retired but his notoriety as a strikeout beast, plus he didn't make friends in the media (imagine how bad Barry must be relatively for his dad to have told him to take it easy), cost him any chance for the Hall of Fame, as well as his travels to 7 teams in 7 years in his last years. And despite the strikeouts, his contact rate was at least over the 75% rate for much of his career, the minimum rate for contact, particularly during his best years. And he walked enough so that for his career, he had just over 50% walks:strikeout ratio, which is not as bad as one would think given all the strikeouts, though still not that good, just barely acceptable.

The author should have also emphasized his OBP a bit more. Yes, he struck out a lot but he also got a lot of walks, his walk rate was consistently and comfortably over 10%. Given what we know now about the importance of getting on base, I think this was one area that he was never given his due on. Thus his OBP throughout his career was in the OK to good range, .330 to .375, until his final years. And his OBP was at or above (looks like averaged about 24 point above) the league OBP for his whole career, except for his next to last season. That plus his power contributed to a strong OPS throughout most of his career. His OPS+ was consistently in the 120-150 range throughout his career. He never had one year with his OPS+ under 100, even at the end of his career.

Given all this, I've always thought that he should be in the hall of fame, but now with this further evidence, that should make his case a bit more: he was not just a prodigious strike-out artist, nor just a hybrid, odd-ball power-speed athlete, nor a failed Willie Mays wannabe (in media's eyes, of course), nor just Barry Bonds father - he was the best RF in the game for a 10 years out of 14 career seasons. What more does an baseball player have to do?

Interesting Question: Will Schmidt Rebound

2006-01-09T22:02:00.000-08:00

A burning question for Giants fans is whether Jason Schmidt will return to past glory or if he's on the downside of his career. That is very important because of a number of factors. First and most importantly, he's the ace of our staff. Secondly and also very importantly, we are paying him $10.5M this season. In addition, this could be Bonds swan song season with the Giants and it would be sabotaged by another Schmidt Magical Mystery Tour. Lastly, our pitching staff does not have the depth to replace a Jason Schmidt at the moment (though we hope Matt Cain will) and if he doesn't do well, it is not like we could drop him mid-season like we did with Rueter and replace him.

Analyzing Schmidt's 2005 Season

Schmidt definitely wasn't the Schmidt we knew but he was good most of the season. Unfortunately, he had a few oddities in the season that made his overall seasonal stats look poor. If you cut out his bad May, his overall ERA was 3.96. Alternatively, if you cut out his poor outing at Great American (since he won't pitch there in 2006) and his lousy PETCO performance (normally a strong pitchers park, he did well before there), he had a 3.82 ERA overall otherwise. Taking out those anomalies dropped his ERA considerably; taking out both would have returned his stats to near what we normally see from Schmidt.

Most projections and indicators I've seen so far pegs Schmidt for a good to great rebound. For one, his FIP was 3.86 in 2005, which means his performance was generally in that range. According to Bill James projections, Schmidt will have a 3.32 ERA, 1.26 WHIP, 8.7 K/9, 3.5 W/9, 0.8 HR/9, 2.5 K/W, all pretty good except for W/9, which is a little on the high side (3.0 is the ideal minimum for that but his high K/9 rate makes up for it in a big way. Also, his post ASG stats was 3.66 ERA, 1.26 WHIP, .216 BAA, which was pretty good for almost anyone else, but poor based on his past performances for the Giants. Second half stats are good indicators for the next season.

Schmidt Should Be OK in 2006

I think by most indications Schmidt had a year that in most years would have been a mid to high 3's ERA, which is good, not great. It looks bad in particular compared to what we fans have been expecting from him. In addition, he kept his K/W ratio at 2 or above for most months, he really only had one bad month with that and that was May again. Keeping it above 2 is key to keeping his ERA in the right range, below 4 and ideally below 3.5, if he is going to be our ace. Plus it is his free agent year so he will be motivated to perform well and get a huge contract.

Picking up his option was a no-brainer. Given that the Giants already owed him a $3M buyout if they did not pick up his option, his effective net cost in 2006 is only $7.5M, which would have only bought us a Loaiza or Byrd at the going price for starters. He should be much better than either of them. I think he'll be fine in our new reconstructed starting rotation, hopefully we can get another decent starter to round things out at the bottom and provide our system with some starting pitcher depth with Hennessey and Correia backing up the starting rotation in AAA.

Food for Thought: Trade Schmidt?

Given that this is Schmidt's free agent year, do the Giants trade him? Sacriligious one might say, particularly if the Giants are trying to win the World Series, but do we risk losing him for nothing but perhaps draft picks after the season? But there are scenarios where I can see it happening.

Obviously, it would be a no-brainer if the Giants self-destructs again and are at or near the bottom again by mid-season. He would bring a lot from a contender, particular if he is pitching as well as I've painted above. Plus the move would save a lot of money from this season that could be used next season. The prospects would help set us up for 2007, like how the A's did it with Hudson and particularly Mulder.

But what if the Giants are competitive or even leading the division? It will definitely be a tough choice and a bold risk. But if things are going well, then what if Morris is putting in a good season as expected, Lowry continues to build upon his August, and Cain just continues to amazes? That would give us the three strong starters most teams would need to get through the playoffs. That could allow the Giants to trade Schmidt for a good young starter to a contender who needs experience over youth plus pick up a few other prospects in the deal as well or to fill whatever other needs we might have at that time, whether relievers or position players.

Because Schmidt, if he performs even moderately well in 2006, will probably be looking at getting a contract in the $12-15M per year range, based on what we've seen this off-season, and a multi-year contract, probably 3 years with a team option for the 4th with a buyout. The Giants could afford that with all the free agents leaving after the season but they probably will balk at the money and the years, particularly given Schmidt fragile status over the years.

Besides, if Bonds does retire or, worse, perform poorly, Sabean will be looking to spend his money on a young hitter to replace Bonds in the lineup. And I would think Derrek Lee would be very attractive unless the Cubs resign him beforehand. But I would think that they would have announced a deal with Lee by now, like how the Pirates handled Jason Bay, or the Cards with Rolen, unless Lee is looking to both enjoy free agency plus look to get back closer to home, which is Sacramento. Which is not that far away from SF. Keep your fingers crossed!

Interesting Question: Alou Abuse, Part Deux

2006-01-04T20:23:00.000-08:00

Not All Coaches Believe Pitchers Are So Fragile

I came across a very interesting interview/biography of Leo Mazzone done by ESPN that was linked to on a blog I frequent: Dan Agonistes (he writes for The Hardball Times, another site I visit regularly).

Since I compared Alou with how Cox uses relievers often and Mazzone used to be the pitching coach for Atlanta, I found these quotes interesting from Tom Glavine on Mazzone's technique:

Glavine - [Mazzone] was very ambitious and gung-ho. He was going to get the starting pitchers to throw twice between starts instead of one time, and to try
to get the relievers to throw off the mound more often, even though they might
pitch in a game that night. The biggest shock was that, here we were, doing what
we've done for so many years, and all of a sudden it's, hey, we're going to throw even more than we do now. I remember it being a very foreign way of thinking.

Glavine - You get guys to throw as much as they want to, so they can develop feel on their pitches and understanding of their mechanics. In terms of getting guys to throw more often, I think a lot of people don't want to do that simply because they are scared to death somebody's going to get hurt. Coaches are going to err on the side of caution and not encourage guys to throw as much as Leo does.

That was part of the philosophy that Johnny Sain passed on to Mazzone when Sain was nearing the end of his coaching career and Mazzone was starting his.

Mazzone - The throwing program is based on common sense. I don't think it's that big a deal, but you'd be amazed how people can't understand. Somebody told me one time that you can't do that because pitchers would break down late in the year. I asked him what he did. And he said that his pitchers played catch in the outfield. And I said, "Well, explain the difference between playing catch in the outfield and playing catch on a mound when you're only 60 feet, six inches from your target." He said, "Well, they had a tendency to throw too hard." I told him, "That's what the hell they pay you for, to regulate the effort."

Not that Alou does all this - I have no idea whether he does or doesn't or if Righetti does or doesn't, since it sounds like Alou delegates the duty of handling the pitchers to Righetti - but I thought I should bring this up to show that not all successful coaches believe that babying pitchers is the best way to keep pitchers productive, that there are other perspectives on how to handle pitchers.

I personally think the pendulum has swung too far the other way and that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. I'm hoping for the first brave soul who will go out and have a four man starting rotation again, especially with all these 5th starters who are not very good at all. That would also open a spot up for another reliever or bench position player.

Why Join the Giants If Felipe Is So Bad?

There are also some things to note about this reputation Alou has with Giants fans for abusing relievers that I have not figured out. For one thing, if Alou abuses relievers, why would Hermanson and Fassero return to pitch under Alou? They needed to resurrect their careers, not bury it, why come here? Or even Christiansen, who pitched one season for Alou and in his free agency, after another bad year with us, decided that SF was the best place to be? Plus this year Worrell came back for more "abuse" - why would any pitcher in their right mind put up with abuse that could ruin their career? They were free agents, they had more options than re-chosing Alou as their manager but they chose to be with Alou again.

And if Alou was that bad, why would other free agent relievers come here, like Tyler Walker and Armando Benitez? If his abuse is so bad that fans can see this, why hasn't this bad reputation spread through the league and discourage relievers from signing with us? Like any organization, there are grapevines in baseball and a bad rep should pass pretty quickly if he is as bad as some Giants fans are making Felipe out to be. And yet it hasn't stopped pitchers from joining or rejoining Felipe on the Giants.

All in all, I understand why some fans question Alou's handling of the pitchers but given all that I've presented, I don't see why it sticks. I won't say he is perfect - he could have handled the Schmidt non-start in the playoffs much better, he shouldn't have throw Brower out there to face Finley when he had nothing, I wouldn't have skipped Jerome Williams start after a good first start early in 2005 - but I don't find myself very perturbed about how he or Righetti handle the pitchers.

Why Do Some Fans Still Cling to Baker Still?

I especially find it odd for the people who still wishes Dusty Baker was still here over Alou. I was not happy with how Dusty handled the pitchers. From not starting Rueter when he had the chances to do so in the playoffs to taking out Ortiz in Game 6 to starting Ryan Jensen over Kurt Ainsworth, there was a lot that I was not happy about how he handled the pitching, let alone the position players. I'm happy he's gone.

In addition, from Bill James Handbook, the stats show that Baker is hard on pitchers too. Baker has some of the highest Long Outings among managers of the past 10 years. Alou's high with the Giants (13 in 2004) was surpassed by Baker in 6 of the past 10 seasons, with one tie, meaning that Baker had less than 13 only three seasons - and in two of the three, he had 10, which would have (and did) ranked 2nd worse by a large margin in 2005. He has seasonal highs of 27, 26, 25, basically double Alou's worse with the Giants. Alou had 8, 13, and 7 LO.

And Baker used relievers as much as Alou. His average since 1994 is 434 relief appearances while Alou's since 1994 is 451. And Baker has as quick with the hook as Alou the past three seasons, as he had 101 quick hooks while Alou had 102. Baker had more slow hooks, with 142 slow hooks while Alou had 126 the past three seasons, so he was leaving his starters in longer relative to other managers.

Stats or no stats, I've been happy with Felipe Alou as the Giants manager, though not necessarily with the results, but I don't blame him for the injuries and the failure to produce, for the most part, that has hurt the Giants chances to win the division or get into the playoffs. I think he has done about the best he could with what he was given to work with. As I've noted in other posts, management/ownership has failed to give Sabean enough money to get Alou the talent he needs given the budget situation skewness that Bonds places on the budget. Plus they should have planned for some overspending during Bonds' final contract years to sign a primo free agent who would both be his successor and backup offensive force should he fall to age or injury.

Fool Me Once, Shame on You, Fool Me Twice...

2006-01-01T03:15:00.000-08:00

The Rangers swore they would never sign another pitcher to a 5 year contract after their Chan Ho Park fiasco (courtesy of one Scott Boras) and, as the Bond movie title goes, "Never Say Never Again," as they just signed Kevin Millwood to a 5 year, $60M contract. So what's different this time?

Won't Get Fooled Again

Well one difference is that Millwood appears to have had a worse career than did Park prior to signing with Texas. Park had five excellent seasons in six while with the Dodgers before signing with Texas whereas Millwood appears to have one great season every third season, filled with mediocre Tomko-esque performances in-between (ERA in 4-range). So Park's career stats looked much better.

However, Park had the advantage of pitching at Dodger Stadium, one of the most extreme pitcher's parks around. Dodger Stadium had a pitching factor of approximately 92 or 93 from 1996 to 2001, the time Park pitched there. His road stats were much worse than at Dodger Stadium: ERA 4.74, WHIP 1.44, BAA approximately .246 on the road vs. ERA 3.00, WHIP 1.22, BAA .216 at Dodger Stadium.

Millwood, meanwhile, pitched at Atlanta, once known as a hitters park but during his tenure there, it was a league neutral park, with a park pitching factor of approximately 100 from 1997 to 2002; at Philadelphia, first at pitcher's park Veteran's then at more hitter oriented Citizen's Bank Park in 2003 and 2004 (2004 was not as bad as 2005, having a pitcher's park factor of only 101); and lastly at Cleveland's pitcher's park, Jacobs Field, where he had one of his best seasons ever. So, overall, in his career, Millwood has pitched in mainly pitcher's neutral parks with a few years in pitcher's park, which gives his career numbers a slight edge towards pitching in home pitcher's parks. His split stats shows this: ERA 3.97, WHIP 1.29, BAA .252 on the road vs. ERA 3.55, WHIP 1.19, BAA .241 at home.

So based on road stats, Millwood looks to be a better pitcher than was Park when the Rangers signed them. In addition, his FIP confirms that his performance is sub-4 ERA worthy: he had a FIP of 3.82 in 2004 and 3.77 in 2005. Also applicable, since he pitched at a pitcher's park in Jacobs but is moving to a hitters park at Ameriquest, is his 2005 xFIP, which adjusts the results for homerun rate, is 3.99. But is that worth $12M per year?

Buy Me That Doggy In the Window?

As comparison, lets look at the other big money pitchers signed this offseason: A.J. Burnett, Jarrod Washburn, Matt Morris, Kenny Rogers, Esteban Loaiza, Paul Byrd. Burnett got 5 years/$55M or $11M/year. Washburn got 4 years/$37.5M or $9.4M/year. Morris got 3 years/$27M or $9M/year. Rogers got 2 years/$16M or $8M/year. Loaiza got 3 years/$21.4M or $7.1M/year. Byrd got 2 years/$14M or $7M/year. And, as noted above, Millwood got $12M/year so he got more per year than anyone else here.

I don't need to see sabermetrics to 6 sig-figs to see that mediocre pitchers are getting about $7M per year. That seems to be the bar today. So is Millwood worth the extra $5M per year?

I'm sure Steve Boras' prospectus probably made Texas think that he was. Just like he made them think that Park was worth that as well. But I don't see how the Rangers got fooled again as his FIP suggests that he's been only slightly better than average the past two seasons with an ERA approximately just under 4.00 plus his career pattern.

Millwood has been good once every three seasons. Exceptionally good but still once every three seasons. Over a five year contract, that's at best twice out of the five, but since it has been exactly 2 mediocre seasons then 1 great one for nine years now, one could say that he might only have 1 great season in the five, in his third season with the Rangers. But lets assume the best and he is great twice.

That means he was mediocre the other three seasons, meaning the Rangers got $7M worth those seasons. That means that the Rangers are paying $39M for those 2 great seasons, or $19.5M per year. That's Roger Clemens type of money. It gets a lot worse if he has only one great season.

Looking at his baseball-reference.com stats, here's his ERA+ for his career: 104, 104, 162, 100, 102, 127, 103, 90, 143. Roger Clemens career average ERA+ is 143. So maybe he could be worth it based on his two best seasons. Then again, Clemens the past two seasons had ERA+ of 145 and 221.

So I guess it all comes down to belief. Do you believe that Millwood, who could not consistently do well in pitching neutral Atlanta, could not pitch well in pitching-park Veterans, did horribly in hitters-park Citizens Bank Park, and did very well in pitchings-park Jacobs, could deliver a great pitching performance in extreme hitters-park Ameriquest Field, a park so bad that fantasy baseball advisors would note when hitters and pitchers were due to play there so as to avoid pitchers and select hitters?

Well, he did do well in his one career start there, going 6.0 IP and only 2 ER. However, he gave up 8 hits and 1 walk with 5 strikeouts, good for a 1.50 WHIP and .320 BAA. Lets take a look at other homerun hitters parks he has pitched at:

Coors - 3.97 ERA, 1.35 WHIP, .267 BAA in 7 starts
Miller - 6.91 ERA, 1.47 WHIP, .255 BAA in 3 starts
Great American - 6.46 ERA, 1.63 WHIP, .333 BAA in 3 starts
Citizens Bank Park - 4.95 ERA, 1.45 WHIP, .275 BAA in 11 starts
Minute Maid - 2.30 ERA, 0.99 WHIP, .210 BAA in 4 starts
Chase Field - 2.00 ERA, 0.85 WHIP, .172 BAA in 4 starts

A mixed lot that suggests that he will do poorly in Ameriquest though there is the oddity that he did poorly in Northern hitters parks and well in Southern hitters park, particularly in Minute Maid, which is also in Texas. To bet $12M per year that he can do well in Ameriquest wouldn't be a bet I would take. But that is essentially the bet that the Rangers are making on Millwood. We will see but the odds does not seem to favor him doing so.

Happy New Year!!!

2006-01-01T00:00:00.000-08:00

A wish for a prosperous and safe and healthy new year in 2006 to you and your loved ones!

Take care.

Vizcaino Signed for $1.25M

2005-12-29T22:36:00.000-08:00

Sorry if this is late but it's the season plus, really, I don't have much angst over utility players - though others apparently do, from what I've seen in various discussions. I don't see what the problem is. He signed for a little more than I would have paid but I can understand why he got more - he can play all four IF positions and he switch hits. Of course, he does not hit well overall but that is not that big a deal because, well, he's only a utility middle IF and if he could hit, well, you wouldn't get him for $1.25M and he would be a utility player, he'd be a starter.

Looking at his hitting, he's played at hitters haven Houston the past five seasons so his road numbers are probably the best indicator of what he can do: .261/.296/.345/.642, which is Neifi like without the gold glove fielding - but without the $4M/2 year contract either! I then took the ratio of his hitting vs. LHP and RHP and applied it to his road numbers and while he hits for a better average against LHP, he hits for more power against RHP (he walks about the same against either), resulting in almost no change in OPS (.643 LHP vs. .641 RHP).

Then I compared him to Vizquel, his main replacement, he's not that far off as a replacement for what Vizquel did overall last season: .271/.341/.350/.691, though he's mainly missing in the all important OBP area, so that makes it a bit worse (some view OBP as anywhere from 1.5 to 3.0 times as valuable as SLG). That's not too bad a drop for a replacement. Plus it's a middle infield position, so hitting is hard to get there anyway.

However, I think the key to Vizcaino for the Giants is his ability to give Vizquel frequent rests during the season. Vizquel hit .305/.359/.397/.756, which is adequate offense for a #2 hitter, pre-All Star Game, but only .229/.318/.292/.611 post-ASG. That's a result of him playing 152 games last season. Thus Vizcaino is an upgrade over the tired Vizquel we saw in the second half of 2005 and if he allows Vizquel to keep his strength throughout the season, that would be a big boost against what Vizquel did last season.

Defensively, I turn to my newly arrived Bill James Handbook and see that Vizcaino did OK overall. He took some games at 1B and didn't do great there, but given that Niekro hit .206/.251/.335/.587 vs. RHP, he'd be an offensive upgrade over Niekro at 1B (I don't see how Sweeney will get all the RHP ABs at 1B, nobody has ever played him over 200 AB in a season until last season, and he was barely over. Plus his fielding percentage would have been last in the MLB for starting 1B, .988 vs. .989 and .991 and .992). At 2B, his FP was 1.000 and Range was 5.66 in 109.2 innings played at 2B - obviously his FP won't stay that good but his range would have ranged 2nd in the MLB. At 3B, his FP was .786 and his range was 2.45 in 40.1 innings- I don't think his FP would stay that lousy and his range would have been last, whereas Feliz' FP was .970 and range 2.91, good for a tie for 7th and 5th, respectively. At SS, his FP was 1.000 and range of 3.82 in 101.1 innings - again obviously his FP won't stay that good but his range would have ranged 2nd to last in the MLB (ouch!). Hmmm, let's see, his 2004 stats show a little better with FP of .969 and Range of 4.31 in 455.1 innings, which is a bit better, ranking tied with Izturis for 20th in 2004.

So overall, he's an adequate offensive replacement at SS and perhaps could lead to Vizquel hitting much better (quality over quantity), would be a defensive upgrade at 2B though obviously a downgrade in hitting vs. Durham, and would help take away RHP AB from Niekro at 1B when Sweeney is not starting there. All for only $1.25M. Looks like a good deal to me. Let's worry more about who we're going to have as our #5 starter or perhaps picking up a better lefty hitting 1B.

Interesting Question: Alou Abuse (first in series)

2005-12-27T22:00:00.000-08:00

This is the first in a series of Interesting Questions (or eventually IQ) that I will periodically write. The main reason I started blogging was just as an experiment to see what the experience was like. But the other one was that, as a Giants fan, there are certain questions that I would have liked to see answered so, when I have time, I look into these questions and write on them, like the matter about the draft pick and Sabean's GM style.

Alou Abuse

I'm a regular at McCovey Chronicles lately and a question that popped up there is one that I've seen often whereever Giants fans post: does Alou abuses Giants pitchers. And the arguments made some sense, about letting starters go too long, about jumping from relief pitcher to next in one or two batters, etc. So I've always wondered about that, whether it's true or not.

What follows I would not call definitive but just some data for thought. I got the latest edition of Bill James annual stats book (he doesn't really do much in there, not like his wonderful annuals in the 80's, but if you feel a debt to him, you should pick one up and, in any case, it's good so pick it up anyway) and there is a section on how managers use their pitchers, both starters and relievers.

The stats I will discuss are Quick Hooks, Slow Hooks, Long Outings, and Relief Appearances. For Quick and Slow Hooks, each game is scored by calculating this - add the number of pitches to 10 times the number of Runs Allowed for the starter - and the bottom 25% of scores are Quick Hooks and the top 25% are Slow Hooks. Long Outings are the number of games in which the starter threw more than 120 pitches. And Relief Appearances are simply that.

Given what fans have been saying about Alou, I would think that he has a lot of quick hooks but very few slow hooks, plus a lot of long outings and a lot of relief appearances.

In the 2005 season, that's not quite true. In Quick Hooks, he was 13th highest out of 16 NL teams with 28, but the three below him were close so I would call it about even (27, 26, 26), essentially a dead heat for last by a clear margin (12th was 40). In Slow Hooks, he was tied for 13th lowest out of 16 NL teams with 47, though clearly not last (47, 55, 66). So in two key categories, Alou is the model of patience with his starters compared to the rest of the NL managers.

However, he was not so good in the other two categories but I don't think they are as bad as it first appears. He was on the high side on the Long Outings (LO) with 7, making him 3rd highest (behind 16 and 10 and just before 6 and 5; average was 4.4 and the median was 3.5). I decided to see who he might have abused and included any game close to LO:

Schmidt had 2 of the LO with another 6 in the 115-120 pitch range in 29 starts (one 131).
Lowry had 2 of the LO with another 6 in the 115-120 pitch range in 33 starts (one 128).
Tomko had 2 of the LO with another 1 in the 115-120 pitch range in 30 starts.
Hennessey had 0 of the LO with another 2 in the 115-120 pitch range in 21 starts.
Rueter had 0 of the LO with another 2 in the 115-120 pitch range in 18 starts.
Cain had 0 of the LO with another 0 in the 115-120 pitch range in 7 starts.

So it does not seem like he really abused any of the starters. Despite having the 3rd highest in the NL, I would not say that any one pitcher was terribly abused, both Schmidt and Lowry tied with 8 LO or close-LO, only about 1 every 4 starts, only 2 each over the 120 threshold.

The last stat, Reliever Appearances, we all know that he's up there - and he is. He had the #1 rank, with 511. And Cincinnati's managers together was 2nd with 487. But the #3 manager was very surprising to me: it was Bobby Cox with 484. So the difference between him and the acknowledged "pitchers manager" is 27 relief appearances, or about 1 extra every 6 games.

To see if there was a one year aberration, I checked Alou's Giants career. His Quick Hooks averaged 34 per season, which would have ranked 13th still. His Slow Hooks averaged 42 per season, tied for 12th. His LO averaged 9 per season, still good for 3rd and a bit higher still than 2005, but does not seem killer. Lastly, his relief apperarances averaged 498, still 1st but Bobby Cox averaged 485 himself and no one has accused him of pitcher abuse that I'm aware of.

Curious pattern for his Giants career, his first year here he was as people expected, high Quick, Low Slow, high Long, high Relief, but then the last two years he swung the pendulum and had low Quick, high Slow, and, as I've tried to show, his Long and Relief, while high in rank, doesn't look that bad, comparatively.

So, no, based on these stats, it does not look like Alou abuses his pitchers any more than other managers do, and, if anything, has been babying them the past two seasons. True, his relief use is high, but so is Cox and I don't see any such criticism aimed his way for his reliever usage.

Alfonzo traded for Finley of the Angels

2005-12-21T22:46:00.000-08:00

Giants just had to make me post...

The prototypical "Give me your lousy contract, I'll give you mine" type of deal. Both players are owed $8M eventually, both players really, really, really stunk it up last season. Both players now get another chance with their new team. Finley said all the obligatory statements about being excited joining such a good team.

We all know Alfonzo's bad stats, so I'll go over some positives for Finley for the Giants. While Alfonzo was absolutely Neifi-ish for the Giants in 2005, except for hitting at SBC, Finley at least hit well against LHP, batting .271/.317/.441/.758, oddly enough since he's a lefty, but poorly against RHP, batting .201/.252/.347/.600. One partial season results but he did get 118 AB vs. LHP and 288 vs. RHP, so there was a significant number of ABs. He averaged a homer every 39 AB vs. LHP and a homer every 32 AB vs. RHP, which is a heck of a lot better than Alfonzo did against either. He also hit better on the road, but it was still bad, .236/.278/.409/.687 on the road, .204/.263/.331/.594 at home. The Angel's home killed his power, he only average a homer every 60 AB at home vs. a homer every 25 AB on the road, so his power was still around, just not his batting average, so maybe last year was a fluke - I'll have to look at his peripherals when I get a chance and see what the tea leaves say.

What If?

One thing I'm worried about is what the Giants will do next. I just assumed that Finley would be the backup when I first heard about the trade and thus I was all for it. However, I just had this ugly thought: now that Sabean thinks he has an everyday CF, could he trade Winn to fill other needs? Like starting pitcher or power lefty 1B?

I really like Winn and would not want to see him gone. However, it's known that the Giants offered a contract extension to Winn in early Nov and was suppose to finalize things during the Winter Meetings but we haven't heard anything yea or nay on the deal - I have to assume things are not going well. It helps that Jacque Jones signed, and he only got 3 years, $16M, so maybe Winn's demands won't be that bad anymore, something in the same range since they seem to be similar players, from my cursory knowledge of both players (please correct me if I'm wrong on this detail).

And now Finley comes in and he says that he's going into spring training looking to win a starting position. Well, with Bonds, Alou and Winn in the mix, his only real chance is beating out Winn. Thus, what if the Giants believe the same, that he's good enough so maybe trade Winn, like they did Hawkins (we should have gotten more in the deal!). With Ellison as adequate backup (in their heads; I would not feel the same), they might feel good about making that trade to fill other holes.

I guess it depends on who we get in the deal but right now, my faith in Sabean's trading ability is at a low ebb, buoyed only by the Winn trade, but there hasn't been many trades that worked out for the Giants for many years now, perhaps since the Schmidt trade. So I'm worried that we would not get equal value for Winn in a trade. Hopefully I'm just being silly but I'll keep my fingers crossed just in case...

FYI: during holidays, my posts will probably be infrequent

2005-12-21T02:19:00.000-08:00

Unless, that is, my family or I get really sick, which would give me a lot of time on my hands.

Happy Holidays to all: Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Merry Kwanzaa, whatever your faith or beliefs that I'm not aware of. I hope everyone have a good and safe time celebrating the season and a Happy New Year!

And hopefully the Giants will find a lefty powerhitter plus a better #5 starter in their stockings this year!

Take care and Go Giants! - Martin

More on FIP and my Crush on Cain

2005-12-20T09:18:00.000-08:00

Lyle brought up a good point in his comment so I thought I would answer him with a post since others may have the same question. He asked whether FIP could be used to project 2006's ERA for everyone.

This is all new to me too and I wouldn't term it ignorance, as Lyle put it, just part of the learning process. Sorry, I probably should have put in more examples to explain it than just spitting it out, but time is compressed for me right now as I'm juggling things, getting ready for the holidays and vacation.

I would not use the term "projections for 2006" to describe FIP, though they will certainly be used in that way; I will be doing the same and see how they turn out. From my understanding, FIP basically standardizes a pitcher's stats so that you can see what the "average normal" pitcher would have accomplished, ERA-wise, based on the stats. I think it covers most of the main rate stats sabers follows for pitchers except for HR-rate.

(Sidenote: there is "x-FIP" which does account for HR-rate which I left out. We all know ATT/SBC/PBP, i.e. Mays Field, affects HR rate so there is no use adjusting the FIP as long as the pitcher continues to pitch at SBC because most of them will have their ERA nudged upward. This also means that there should be a reduction in FIP for any pitcher joining the team, so Kline, Worrell, and Morris could well get a spike down in ERA due to the park - particularly Morris who has a homer problem the past two years - so hopefully so! :^)

So, the FIP gives you an indicator how far off the mean average performance that each pitcher did in 2005. In that way, it is an indicator of what the pitcher's "true" pitching performance was in 2005 and what we can expect more of in 2006. And thus better than the ERA in assessing each pitcher's "true" abilities as a pitcher.

But just like the ERA, it is biased by the pitcher's performance of that year, which could include any sort of reasons why his performance went down, like Jerome dealing with his Dad's health, Worrell dealing with family problems, injuries, pitching through injuries, or just plain dead arms, plus many other reasons which would mark that particular year as different from his "true" abilities.

So while FIP is a good, overall general guide to a pitcher's "true" abilities (and from what I have read, the concept seems sound and I have no reason at the moment to doubt it), it must be tempered in the final analysis to account for factors that might have affected it negatively or positively. I should pull up the 2004 numbers and present them as well - over time FIP should be a good guide towards a player's true abilities, but any one year's performance can be colored by a number of factors.

I wouldn't suggest following just one inidicator (and not that anyone else would either) as a guide to anything. It's better to open your eyes to various possibilities and let your brain guide you. FIP is one piece of the puzzle, from the way it is intended to be used, just one tool used to understanding how our roster as constituted might do in 2006. Say, I should calculate the average of 2004 and 2005 to see what that yields, that would be probably a better guide/projection towards 2006.

I mainly brought it up because I've found myself to be wildly enthusiastic about how Matt Cain was going to do in 2006 - I normally laugh at those who think "boy wonder will win the Cy Young, pitch 30 complete games, strike out 300 batters, and win 30 games" - but for the first time in over 30 years of following the Giants, Cain is the first prospect I've ever been wildly excited about. I feel as giddly as any guy would after a great first few weeks of dates where everything is clicking and going great, I have high expectations for Cain's future and I cannot help myself.

I feel that Cain can be the new face of the Giants after Bonds retire. He seems to be that good! So once I found anything that suggests that perhaps he's not what he seems, I had to put it out there, as I'm sure there are others who are just as wildly enthusiastic about Cain's future. But still, the FIP is not that bad for Cain given he's just 21 now, I would take that in a heartbeat from any young prospect who just basically came up. And hopefully he can outperform FIP and do even better, he IS only 21 after all, he should still be developing and improving.

Giants Pitching Not As It Good as Seems - According to FIP

2005-12-16T15:02:00.000-08:00

I was reading on The Hardball Times this article on FIP and it says that pitchers with positive FIP-ERA should fall back to the "mean", as defined by the FIP (Fielding Independent Pitching; read article for explanation of the concept or this glossary). Many of our pitchers we are relying on qualified there as pitchers who are not as good as they would seem from their data.

Here is the Giants pitchers from THT database of stats who should fall back to the mean (i.e. should do worse) in 2006 based on their skill stats in 2005 (ERA, FIP, xFIP, which is expected FIP adjusting for normal HR rate):

Cain : 2.33 - 4.06
Taschner: 1.59 - 3.05
Correia: 4.63 - 5.97
Munter: 2.56 - 3.78
Benitez: 4.50 - 5.24
Walker: 4.23 - 4.61
Eyre: 2.63 - 2.99
Hennessey: 4.64 - 4.99
Lowry: 3.78 - 3.87

So basically our whole pitching staff, according to this stat, had better ERA than their stats would indicate. I wonder if SBC skews this but I could not figure out a way to get the numbers for 2004 season. But no one important got horribly bad except for Benitez and I wouldn't trust his numbers, he came back faster than expected and pitched when he wasn't 100% so I have to give him his due for trying when we needed it. Correia is pretty bad so it would make sense, given this stat, to try someone else than him as starter. If he is out of options, though, we might have to trade him or trade someone (probably Walker) to open a position for him. Lastly, Cain doesn't look so impressive anymore, statistically so I guess I was hasty to think that he would do great going into his first season (however, BA thinks that Cain is a ROY candidate so that can't be all bad; plus a 4-ish ERA is better than anything Tomko ever did for us).

Here are the ones expected to get better:

Accardo: 3.94 - 3.81
Hawkins: 4.10 - 3.81
Tomko: 4.48 - 4.18
Fassero: 4.05 - 3.71
Schmidt: 4.40 - 3.86

Well Accardo came off well from this. And Hawkins looked like the pitcher I liked in the trade for Williams and Aardsma (can you imagine if we had Aardsma and Accardo in the pen?). Tomko came off better but still not worth $7M per season to me. And Schmidt was particularly heartening, it looks like a bit of bad luck finally hit him last season.

Here's how our acquisitions so far has for their FIP:

Worrell (PHI): 7.41 - 4.77
Worrell (ARI): 2.27 - 4.20
Kline: 4.28 - 5.70
Morris: 4.11 - 3.97

Boy, this makes the trade for Kline look particularly bad. Hawkins may have had his faults but he was still good last season, whereas Kline and Worrell look even worse. This makes it look like Sabean just imploded the bullpen.

Our best hope is that the psychology of the move really affected Kline - and one can reasonably assume so because how rare is it for a ballplayer to openly state that he made a mistake signing with a team? And Kline looked particularly good the previous few seasons with, who else, Matheny behind the plate. So hopefully that (especially since it looks like Javy Lopez isn't that great a catcher, he's being moved to either 1B or DH or traded) plus the return to the NL where he was comfortable plus his now pitching at a neutral ballpark like SBC (last three seasons, look in baseball-reference).

A similar hope for Worrell too, that whatever personal problems that caused him to leave the team upset his whole season and now he can return to how he did before, which was pretty good. Again, factors like familiarity and SBC (Phillies and D-Backs have huge hitter's ballparks) should help him out.

Looks like Morris was a bit better than his overall stats, so that's good. And perhaps a return to Matheny, who is a good friend of his, will help him out as well. Matheny probably knows Morris' stuff better than anyone and would be better pitch selector for him in 2006.

FIP Says....

Here is our current staff's FIP and the overall average:

Schmidt - 3.86
Morris - 3.97
Lowry - 3.87
Cain - 4.06
Hennessey - 4.99
Correia (backup in AAA) - 5.97

Benitez - 5.24
Worrell - 4.40-4.50
Kline - 5.70
Walker - 4.61
Fassero - 3.71
Munter - 3.78
Taschner - 3.05
Accardo (backup in AAA) - 3.81

Overall, this makes our starting staff look good but our bullpen look pretty bad. There were mitigating factors for our three main relievers - Benitez, Worrell, and Kline - so hopefully there will be improvements there. After them, the rest of the bullpen look decent though not as awesome as their actual ERAs would suggest.

Ideas for 2006 Given FIP

Assuming FIP works as advertised (and the examples given in the article obviously support that, though I wish I could examine past data for Giants pitchers to see how FIP did in predicting them), then perhaps the Giants might consider starting Fassero as the #5 to begin the season and give Hennessey time in the minors to learn to be consistent. This would allow the Giants to keep Accardo in the bullpen with us.

Then we go half a season like that (plus we could return to the old way of going with four starters to begin the season, then work in the #5 starter later in the season) and reassess then: maybe Fassero doing well, then continue, but if Hennessey is going good (or any other prospect that looks that good), bring him up to start and send down a reliever (or trade away for prospect; Walker should look attractive to any team looking for a closer after ineffectiveness or injury or whatever).

Musing on Kruk and Kuip...

2005-12-15T09:58:00.000-08:00

Ah, Kruk and Kuip. Who knew that two trades I totally hated would end up so well in the end, after their careers had ended? I love them as our broadcasting team, I wish they would do more stuff together on radio (my main way of catching Giants games via the media).

Two Hated Trades, Two Beloved Broadcasters

I was so mad at Giants management when Joe Morgan was traded to get Krukow. And Al Holland was given up to boot! We had just started tasting some success and Morgan and Smith were jettisoned, just like that. What was up with that? (Plus Haller screwed up and let Barry Bonds go unsigned that year as our draft pick over $5K! $5K! Bonds makes probably that much just sitting on the on-deck circle today!)

But it worked out in the end, Krukow had a great career with the Giants and he bled the Orange and Black like nobody, even back then, even though he was a Cubbie originally. I wonder which team was his boyhood team, he was born in SoCal if I remember right and played college ball at St. Luis Obispo.

Kuip, oy, we traded Ed "NY Pyscho" Whitson for him. Why, I'll never know, we already had Morgan and Whitson was a good starter for us and continued to have a long and successful career, when he wasn't pitching at Yankee Stadium.

Then again, if we hadn't done the stupid trade, we wouldn't have Kuip and we might not have needed to trade Morgan for Krukow either because if we still had Whitson, perhaps they might have needed something else in trade. In any case, we Giants fans are very lucky to have two broadcasters as good as Kruk and Kuip, manning the games for us, but, like I said above, I wish they would do more games together on the radio.

What If?

Then again, again, if we had Whitson in 1982, we might have won the NL West title instead of just falling short starting pitchers like Renie Martin and Alan Fowlkes. And who knows what would have happened then? St. Louis swept Atlanta in the playoffs, whom they lost their season's series against, 5-7, whereas the Giants lost their season's series against the Cards, also 5-7, so you never know.

But the odds would have been strongly against us. They had an offense led by Keith Hernandez, Ken Oberkfell, Lonnie Smith, George Hendrick and a new guy brought up, a young Willie McGee. They had a pitching staff led by Joaquin Andujar, John Stuper, and Bob Forsch, with new super closer, Bruce Sutter, just obtained the season before. They were all young and in their prime, in their 20's.

The Giants were led by old vets (surprise) Joe Morgan, Reggie Smith, and Darrell Evans, with Jack Clark, Chili Davis and Jeffrey Leonard manning the outfield. Our pitching staff had young guys starting, Bill Laskey, Atlee Hammaker, Rich Gale, Renie Martin, and Alan Fowlkes, as well as Fred Breining, Jim Barr, and Al Holland taking a number of starts, plus Greg "Moonman" Minton closing and Gary Lavelle also contributing in relief, as well as the aforementioned Fred Breining, Jim Barr, and Al Holland relieving for the most part.

I wish I had a simulation game like Diamond Mind and play these two teams together just to see what would have happened (with Ed Whitson, of course).

Milton Bradley Brings His Game to Oakland

2005-12-14T15:07:00.000-08:00

What are the A's thinking? Well, probably the same thing Depodesta was thinking when he traded for Bradley when he was the D-ger's GM: that you don't look at a gift horse in the mouth. However, what a mouth on that horse! He's like that Michigan J. Frog from that classic Warner Brothers cartoon, the one the construction worker thinks will make him a fortune only to disappoint him to the point of basically giving it away to the next person who thinks he'll make a fortune.

Just looking over the incidents happening each and every year makes me cringe. Bradley is an accident looking for a point of impact and he will disrupt the Oakland vaunted loosey goosey clubhouse that Beane always tout. How they cannot see that, I don't know, Beane (and Depodesta) probably just looks at his numbers and salivate over getting that for a lower-level (though promising) hitting prospect plus Beane got a cheap infielder to boot, though he sounds like he's another Ginter in that he's all hit and no field, so if he doesn't hit, like Ginter, well, it won't go according to plan.

Either way the Giants win. Bradley on the team probably would have been a "T.O." level of disruptive influence with his running feud with Jeff Kent. That had to affect their team in 2005. Bradley off the team means that the D-gers now have to figure out how to replace Bradley offensive production which was a good combo with Kent and Drew (assuming Drew even plays regularly, what was Depodesta thinking with him?) . There's no one out on the market who really is qualified in that way and the ones who were - Konerko and Giles - passed on the D-gers riches for some home cooking. This means the D-gers will have to trade for him.

Lucky for them, they have a well regarded farm system, but then trading them away to get the players they need will probably deplete their farm system and empty the pipeline for homegrown players in the near-term, basically the strategy the Giants have been employing under Sabean. That's a win again for Giants fans, looking forward, though balanced against them improving themselves both 2006 and perhaps beyond.

But they have a lot of holes from what I've been reading in blogs and articles: starting pitching (they were sniffing around Loaiza and Morris as well), 3B (just filled by Mueller but he has hit horribly at Dodger Stadium for his career), 1B, OF, backup catcher, bullpen. And they don't have that many prospects that they can just go and try to fill all of these holes, so they will have to make due with what they can get. Plus Drew is probably going to miss a significant number of games again, it is almost an annual rite for him (except for his contract year, luckily enough for him). Lastly, Furcal signing to the contrary, I've seen nothing to suggest that the D-gers have a lot of budget to sign players or that they can spend willy-nilly, but do know that McCourt is hocked up to his ears buying the D-gers (debt is around 95-99% of the value of the club) and the rumors have been that he will need to cut budget - if Fox needed to cut budget when they were owners, and they have deeper pockets, I don't see how McCourt, hocked up to his ears, is going to be able to outspend a multi-billion dollar corporation.

Thus, the D-gers should go into 2006 with some unfilled holes needing to be filled by inexperienced prospects or garbage free agents left over at the end of the Hot Stove session to be signed cheaply. And that's good for Giants fans, not only will they be undermanned, but that means one less able-body competitor for the Giants for the NL West pennant (not that there were any last season).

More on Morris, Part 2

2005-12-13T08:39:00.000-08:00

Today's newspapers have additional info from the press conference that was cut short on KNBR due to Ralph Barbieri cutting us all off to discuss the Raider's inept offense and to have a scary screaming match with a Raiders fan. For me, it was the verbal equivalent of a rumble.

Got these tidbits off of accounts from the Chronicle and Mercury:

Biggest interesting item was that Sabean noted that they were pursuing BOTH Loaiza and Morris hard (one of my questions above), which would have busted the budget, but he would have done it and asked questions (and presumably trade players) later. In that scenario, I could see how that Schmidt trade rumor popped up, perhaps that's how the Giants would have dumped salary - no other real way I could see.
Merc noted that Sabean might consider #5 starters on fringes of free agent market.
Also, he's trying to trade a position player for a left-handed hitter (note the lack of the phrase "power" in there) since the Morris chase took his eye off Mueller;
Gathright rumor repeated though with term "known to have pursued" meaning the chase is off;
lastly, he said he's trying to trade Alfonzo but isn't actively pushing Feliz.
Schulman of Chronicle got some good quotes in his column. Gives a great flavor of Morris' intensity and competitiveness.
Said Sabean noted Morris' reputation as a pitcher who rises to importance of the game and his drive.
Quotes Matheny, "We've had some good battles together against the other team and against each other on the mound. He's intense. He's one of those guys you know you're going to get everything he's got."
Matheny also explained how Morris and Carpenter encouraged each other in the weight room and clubhouse, says "if you ask Chris, he'll pass on a lot of credit [for Cy Young] to Matt."
I like the quote from Morris on his definition for gamer, which is what Sabean called him in the meeting: "To me, it's a guy who takes the ball every fifth day and competes with intensity whether he's sharp or not, and the other four days are spent pushing the other guys. I'm not going out there every fifth day and then sitting around for four days drinking coffee. It's such a long season, you want everyone to be happy. You want everybody to compete. That's the type of player I am." Now that's what I like to see in a ballplayer.
Shea got some good bits of info as well. There was a long quote from Magowan: Morris better track record than Loaiza, most of best pitchers controlled by Boras so there will be a long and drawn out process to sign them and there was a premium to get something done fast (like Giants wanted is the impression I got); Morris brings lot to table, reminds him of Smoltz in leadership and winning and talking to other pitchers; plus he's 3 years younger than Loaiza.
Magowan also reiterates $85M payroll range figure (2nd year in roll we are at that figure).
Interestingly, the Red Sox called Sunday hoping to enter the bidding, so we may have dodged a bullet there (for those who want Morris; I like the guy, hate the money).
Lastly, a quote from Morris on pitchers who throw a lot of innings: "I guess it's a rare commodity nowadays, a guy who can throw a ton of innings, 200 innings. There's nothing better for a manager and a bullpen. I'm looking to save the bullpen and win some games."

More on Morris

2005-12-12T17:20:00.000-08:00

Here is contract info I snipped from SI's website, it should be out everywhere soon anyway as it is an AP report, which is the only source I know of for player contract details:

He will receive a $2 million signing bonus at the end of his contract and is scheduled to make $5 million next season and $9.5 million in both 2007 and '08. The contract contains a $9 million club option for a fourth season that could go up to as much as $11 million with escalators based on performance. He would receive a $1 million buyout if the option is declined.

That's huge backloading which should free up money to get other items on Sabean's wish list: second starting pitcher, lefty power hitter, backup catcher, utility MI. Hopefully, he can fulfill some of the needs via trade, perhaps Alfonzo for Matsui as had been rumored for nearly a year, perhaps Feliz for a starting pitcher or even a lefty power hitter, though that would then necessitate signing a 3B to take over.

Notes from Morris talking about the signing:

Giants were his first choice, and he was gratified that they pursued him from the start and was upfront with their interest.
Talked with Matheny about the Giants, spoke well of Felipe and the team.
Thinks the world of Matheny, coached him through some big games, a tremendous person, looking forward to being reunited with him.
Cards made it easy, made business decision to pursue Burnett, plus was slapped in face with 2 year, $13M offer from Cards, knew it was time to move on.
Why chose Giants: ownership, team, chances for winning World Series, nice weather, nice city, great park (dissed Cincinnati's and Phillies' parks)
Length of contract was a factor, it's what he earned, he's aware of the market for starters heating up the past two off-seasons.
Has made transition from power pitcher to complete pitcher: in 2001, after tommy john surgery, he got back his top velocity and used with curveball, was just 2-pitch pitcher. But it took a toll on him with power, so he has added pitches over the years, changeup, and cut fastball in 2005.
Will push Lowry and Cain, help them out, work with them, try to get them to outperform him.
Health question: 2004 ended with cleanup on labrum, came back faster than expected, felt better than he's felt since college in 2005, look forward to pitching here.

Giants sign Morris to 3 years/$27M plus team option 4th year

2005-12-12T15:40:00.000-08:00

I think I've exhausted everything one can say about Morris. There are question marks. There are extenuating circumstances. He didn't pitch that bad in 2005's second half, he just wasn't as good as usual. Declining K-rate and K/W-ratio is scary.

Morris in the press conference said that the surgery after 2004 cleaned out things and he hadn't felt that good since he was in college. He loves the ownership, the team, the city, it was his "first" choice (well, when your choices are Rangers, Reds, Mariners, Dodgers, there's really only one choice if you are looking for a organization with a long term winning reputation looking to compete in 2006, and that's the Giants). Loves rejoining Matheny. Looks forward to tutoring Lowry and Cain and egging them on to outdo him.

Again, out of the available free agents, he's the best of the bunch in our price range (under $10M per year), by far. High risk, high reward, he could outpitch the Schmidt of pre-2005, he could match Schmidt of 2005. The more I look at his numbers, the more I think he would be closer to his former self than to the pitcher he was in 2004-2005. Still, we could be paying $9M for an average pitcher, which, while obviously not great, is not that bad given how much other teams are paying average pitchers, it was worth the extra $2M per year to try to catch lightening in a bottle.

Because if he is on and Schmidt is on, we would have a dual head monster on par with Randy Johnson/Curt Schilling at the D-backs. And the scary thing for Giants fans is that if Lowry could get consistent over a full season, he could also be a top of the line starter, making it a three headed monster. Lastly, Cain pitched as well as a top line pitcher during his short time with us.

Obviously fan hyperbole and wishful thinking, but I don't believe that all four will do it. However, to have four pitchers who have a realistic chance of pitching like a top of the line starter is a great comfort to me. I have been writing that the Giants need to have a stronger rotation in order to move deep into the playoffs, something akin to the Johnson/Schilling duo. I think we have a reasonable chance of having something similar in the 2006 season, and if we are really lucky, three such starters. And at worse, only one will pitch like an ace and the rest will pitch ordinarily.

So now we need a lefty power-hitting 1B to play with Niekro at 1B in a platoon or, better, take over the position full-time. And if we can upgrade on Feliz at 3B, all the better. I would be OK with Mueller at 3B as been rumored if the Giants can get a power lefty at 1B, else we shouldn't do it. Sounds like he probably will sign soon so they will have to decide soon whether they need him or not.

Amazing...

2005-12-12T03:22:00.000-08:00

... what you can do when you are caffeinated late in the day by a Venti Mocha Frappaccino from Starbucks! Go Giants!!!

Snow in LA? Hope for it, Pray for it!

2005-12-12T03:03:00.000-08:00

Now that Snow is officially an ex-Giant, he is searching for new employment. And he prefers close to his San Mateo home so he probably wants to stay on the West Coast, preferably California. And it happens that someone who admired him is now GM of the Dodgers and they are one of the contenders for his services.

Some Giants fans are hoping Snow doesn't go there, but a part of me does. Not necessarily from the evil part of me, hoping that Snow slows up their offense, though that's a possibility, 2005 was his first season where he couldn't generate adequate HR power on the road, something he was able to do even in his injury plagued seasons.

No, I'm hoping that he signs with them because it could help out the Giants. The Dodgers recently signed Furcal and obviously he's playing SS. Former starting SS Izturis is out anyway with injury and surgery recovery and is scheduled to return mid-season, whereupon the plan is to move him to 2B, which would push our ol' buddy, Jeff Kent, to 1B. So currently lefty hitting power hitter Hee Seop Choi would be out of a job by then anyway (Ironically, if Snow signs and starts plus they get Mueller, another rumor, the Dodgers could be starting Snow, Kent, and Mueller in the infield; and Jose Vizcaino is a free agent if they are looking for backup MI...).

However, at the moment, the Dodgers are keeping Choi to play 1B for the first half that Kent isn't playing there. But, here's where Snow comes into play for the Giants: if he signs with LA for under $1M, then the Dodgers won't have any need for another lefty 1B only like Choi who could expect to make $2-3M in arbitration plus there would be no need for him by mid-season anyway, so the Dodgers would non-tender him and make him a free agent on Dec. 20th. Then the Giants could sign him to play 1B and be our lefty power-hitting bookend to Niekro's righty power-hitting bookend at 1B. Wouldn't that be special? Amen, brethren!

I would still prefer Adrian Gonzalez, if I had my druthers, but he'll cost us a good prospect to obtain whereas Choi could fall into our pocket for just $1-2M if Snow signs with LA. Make it so, Sheriff Ned, make it so.

Winn-Win?

2005-12-12T02:49:00.000-08:00

I hope the Giants sign Winn and soon. I think he will be a great addition for the future and will improve our offense significantly. Obviously he's not going to hit 11 homers in a month again. I think Winn is worth the risk, he showed a lot in his short time with us, and obviously salary inflation is hitting the league hard again and I don't see any reason for it to stop next off-season.

I think he will do better than people think (i.e. his career), though obviously not as good as his career month-long spree when batting with Barry in the lineup - I don't think it is all a Brady Anderson type of fluke. He's been hampered by hitting at SAFECO and Tropicana and thus far he apparently is one of those rare LHH who can muscle up homers in SBC. We need to lock up players like that. He should be good for .280+, 20+ homers, 20+ steals, OK defense in CF, and be equally adept at scoring and driving in runs, you know, like what we expected from Durham.

Offense is a hard commodity to find in the CF position, his road OPS was .824 in 2005, .821 from 2002-2004; that would have ranked 7th in terms of overall OPS after Junior, Andruw, Edmonds, Jose Cruz Jr, Milton Bradley, and Grady Sizemore in the Majors for guys with over 300 PA, 5th if you counted only players who were qualified. Looking only at road OPS, he would have ranked 10th for hitters with significant ABs, 7th for those with over 250 PA.

And we don't have much coming up soon in the CF pipeline. Fred Lewis took a step back last season and he was already old as it was for his league. And Clay Timpner doesn't deliver much offense already and he just finished high-A league play. He smells like another Calvin Murray type, all defense, all speed, little hitting.

I would still hold my nose to whatever contract we sign Winn for, but like I said salaries are escalating and we cannot be timid in the face of it. I would hope the contract is something like 3 years at $7M ($6M/$7M/$8M; his salary is $5M I think for 2005 and free agent salaries are strongly tied to their last season's salary projected forward with inflation) plus team option at $9M or $2-3M buyout for the 4th year. That seems about right given his old salary and the way the market is climbing.

Sabean said that the two sides would get more serious about negotiating around Thanksgiving and obviously we haven't heard anything yet. I am hoping the only hitch thus far in negotiations is the Giants' pursuit of starting pitching and not that Winn is holding out for more. Most players want to play at or near home and Vallejo, I think, was where he grew up (or was it Richmond?). That's more A's territory but still, it's home cooking and I think his wife is from here as well, so family from both sides will be here, so we might even get a hometown discount of some kind, who knows, or maybe he loved hitting at SBC and that could maybe sway him to stay here. Whatever it takes, as long as it is market-reasonable and not crazy, I hope he stays with us long-term.

Sometimes Morris Happens...

2005-12-12T01:54:00.000-08:00

Most accounts in the news says that the Giants won the Morris sweepstakes for 3 years at $27M. Sounds like it'll be at the 3 years at $25M level plus $2M buyout plus team option for the 4th year, probably around the $10-11 level. At this salary and injury risk factor, I can only hold my nose and wish for the best.

I know my title connotate more of a negative tone to my stance on the deal, but I'm not that torn up over the deal. I wouldn't say that we are getting ripped off, as some have put it. His stats last year was still good overall, but we are certainly at risk for overpaying slightly for average results and definitely at risk of having another Robb Nen situation of a pitcher lost for the season with nothing to show for $9M - he's been seriously injured twice during his healthiest years, his 20's, there's no reason to believe that he'll miraculously become healthy in his 30's.

However, his risk is no worse than when we signed Schmidt to his contract. Schmidt only had that beautiful half season with us on his record as a starting pitcher, he was pretty ordinary previously plus frequently injured. I was similarly scared by that contract over an unknown quantity - one could say even more worried as at least Morris had done well before, whereas Schmidt just had that lovely half-season with us. Both will have the injury Sword of Damocles hanging over them for the rest of their careers: so will we get domination or will we get injury marred seasons? Hopefully, their risks will "negate" each other, like risky stocks in a portfolio, and we get one dominating season from one and we'll see from the other. That plus Lowry and Cain should be enough to get us to the divisional title in 2006, damn what happens in the future.

This is also no worse than the gamble the Giants took with Bonds' $95M contract. How many of you thought Bonds would be hitting well at 41-42? Even 40 was questionable, the history of baseball said that it was extremely unlikely he would do well, only Ted Williams did and fortunately he's the one who matched up best with Bonds skill and career-wise at that stage of Bonds' career. But we could have been paying $20M to Bonds for slop, history said it, our guts said it. Age and injury were huge question marks for Bonds - I'm more than glad most of it worked until 2005. And I assume we all agree that his injury put a wrench into the works in 2005's season.

I could have went either way with Morris, signing or passing. If we are going to blow away a big chunk of money anyway on a starting pitcher, I preferred Morris over the choices who were in our price range (under $10M per year) as most of his "substitute goods" are journeymen mediocre pitchers whereas he actually had pitched well before. I didn't consider any of Boras's stable of pitchers to be substitute goods because he somehow snookers teams to overpay for his clients, both in years and dollars, and I assume $10M is the where the bar is set for the limboing set. No thanks, I'll pass on that drama.

As I have recently written, I have become of the persuasion that it probably is better to dip into the non-tender market and find, say, 4 cheap mediocre starters and let them battle Hennessey for the last two spots in the rotation. Obviously signing Morris would kill that idea for the most part. But the Giants could always do that for the last spot.

For those who want to compare Morris' uninspiring last two seasons to Tomko, I think it's hard to judge his results for 2004-5 because of his injury. I'm not as convinced about the second half "collapse" that most nay-sayers have been pointing at and holding their noses. In July he had a 4.36 ERA and in September, he had a 4.08 ERA, those hardly connote a collapse; it was in August where he stunk and even then it was a 4.93 ERA, which, while not great, is certainly an acceptable result for a good starter, he can't be great every month.

This is similar to what happened to Tomko in 2004, only in reverse. In that case, everyone was wowed by his dominating post-ASG stats but when I dug into them, he had two average months sandwiching a dominating one month. Which was real and which was illusion for Tomko, the two average months or the great one month? Same for Morris.

He was also "homeriffic" those last three months vs. the first three, 6 homers in first 3 months vs. 13 homers in last 3 months. Looking at the stats, I don't know how significant or not it is, but 7 of those 13 homers were in games against Chicago, else he was about on par with the first half of the year. As he's never really been a homer type, I think he'll be better going forward.

His K's also went down in the last two months but it was pretty good the first 4 months of the season. As well, his K/W ratio was extremely good (>2.0) until his final month.
Also on a positive note, he pitched really well his last two games of the season, 6.0 IP, 1 hit/3 BB, 1R/0ER, 4 K then 6.0 IP, 5 hits/1 BB, 2 R/ER, 1 HR, 3 K; except for his K total, they were two of his best games pitched in the post-ASG period.

Essentially his tailspin began soon after that long layoff between starts because of the ASG, 9 days between starts. He had an OK but short start, then a string of 5 bad starts, killing August, before righting himself enough for so-so starts until those final two games. So he looked pretty much like the Morris of old until the final two months. The question is whether the decline was due to fatigue, or a new or recurring injury, or even just damn random luck - maybe it was just one of those stretches when he couldn't strike anyone out and everything guys were hitting were falling in for hits, Schmidt had that type of period in the 2005 season but he did it early so that he had time to fight back and do well again, whereas Morris' was near the end, though he did pitch really well his last two starts.

Don't know which it is for certain, right now I am inclined to predict that he will do well, but in any case, it looks like we Giants fans will have front row seats to see what will really happen.

Reading the Tea Leaves the Wrong Way

2005-12-11T10:35:00.000-08:00

OK, the Merc today states that the Giants are the front runners now for Morris. Only Cincinnati stands in our way. I'll shut up now. :^)

Tiiime is NOT on our side, no it ain't

2005-12-10T21:21:00.000-08:00

OK, that's the title I wanted for my last post....

Sabean said 48 hours, it's past 48 hours now, either Morris and his agent were bluffing or maybe he has had a change of heart (of the kind that Bonds had when he resigned with the Giants "I wasn't really going to leave the Giants...." or something like that). Either way, most reported signs are that the Cards either insulted Morris with their low-ball offer of "hometown" discount or are balking at 3 years or both and Morris' agent said that they aren't looking at accepting arbitration for a one year deal and that they are open to leaving if the Cards aren't going to be competitive with their contract offer, which so far we've heard that they were insulted by the offer, yet the clock is still ticking, he hasn't chosen yet.

Perhaps Sabean meant the 48 hours as a sign that Morris isn't interested in the Giants but is interested in using the Giants to leverage the Cards into a bettter deal. Obviously something is slowing down negotiations, as it is. Maybe Morris was hoping to get more like what Burnett got, it would cheese me if I was as good a pitcher as Morris was earlier in his career whereas Burnett hasn't really done as much, but because Morris had the bad two years because of the injury, he's going to get less than someone who appears to be around the same skill level as you (or perhaps worse, depending on what you look at for comparison). Maybe he really wants to stay with the Cards but needed to display a negotiation edge (can't get any bids from other teams saying that you only want to stay with the Cards).

Whatever it is, I feel like the Giants are the groom at the altar with the wedding ring in hand, waiting for the bride to come down the aisle and the music is playing but still no bride. Cold feet? Change of mind? Phone not working? Climbed through the bathroom window? Took off with her old boyfriend?

I hope the Giants stick to the offers I've seen in the press: 2 years, $18M or 3 years, $25M. To think that we, meaning baseball, are to the point of paying $7M for an "inning-eating" pitcher appalls me. I've been told to get used to it, that it's the new revenues rolling in, that this is the market, that I'm an oldtimer (OK, I called myself that one :^).

But to me an "innings-eater" is just another way of saying mediocre pitcher who don't pitch particularly well but he can pitch a LOT of innings and that's a good thing. No, it's not. It is time to find other ways to eat those innings. Heck, for $7M, take every prospect we have in our farm system, sign every free agent pitcher to a minimum contract, and use the gelatine (I don't want any trademark lawyers coming at me ;^) on the wall trick and see who can eat a lot of innings mediocrely.

Because we have a pretty good core of Schmidt, Lowry, and Cain. They may all not pitch dominantly as a top of the rotation type of pitcher in 2006 but as long as we have Bonds in the lineup, we got a dominant offense, and you saw how many games Rueter could win not pitching dominantly but pitching well enough for our offense. As I noted in the other post, they should be good enough for the top of our rotation in 2006, we just need inning eatting #4 and #5 starters to get us through to the middle of the year, where we could then trade for a rental starter in the Top of the Rotation mode of pitchers to get us to the finish line.

The longer it takes, the worse it is

2005-12-10T08:51:00.000-08:00

The Matt Morris "Watch" is now in its "final" day. Sabean said nearly two days ago that this should be resolved in 24-48 hours - we are less than 12 hours away from that guess. I figure the longer it takes, the more likely it is that Morris is signing with someone else, presumably the Cardinals. Obviously he wants to make sure that there's no chance of resigning with them before moving on or even taking arbitration, which is a new option for him.

And that option is not that bad for him. He gets to stay where he wants to stay, the new big contracts means he's going to get at least $7-8M anyway in arbitration, probably more, then he gets another year to prove that he's the pitcher he was prior to 2004 and not the pitcher of 2004-5, though the risk is that another substandard year would clearly mark his career turn. But even if that, average pitchers today are getting $7-8M and it's going up each off-season for the past couple of off-seasons, so he'll get at least what the Giants are offering anyway. But the gain is that he jumps back to elite status and get something in the $11M+ range. The worse case scenario is that he has a horrible year and no multi-year offers come in next off-season. Plus, now that the Cards are stuck with him anyway, they can still negotiate a long-term contract anyway before the arbitration date.

I have been mainly for getting Morris as the best of our options during this offseason among the free agents. I don't want to deal with Boras, mainly because he gouges teams in terms of years and money (can you imagine making any team appear to be ripped off signing an A-Rod? or making it look like a good move to trade him? And yet he did) and the track record is not good (hello Kevin Brown). That left A.J. Burnett as the cream of the crop but he's not worth the $10M+ he obviously was going to get (he got $11M eventually). And it physically sickens me that mediocre pitchers like Benson and Loaiza get $7M+ per year contracts. Morris at least was average the past two seasons, but was obviously very good previously, so we had the potential of hitting the jackpot with him if he returned to previous form and only a slight loss if he performs at the level of the Benson's and Loaiza's.

But I've been coming to the feeling that it may be best to pass on these higher priced "established" pitchers and wait for the non-tenders of Dec. 20th to see what comes up then. The risk is that we end up with no one, but there should be at least one OK pitcher, just needing a chance to prove himself, who we could sign so that we could leave Correia in AAA as backup. And if we are lucky, we get two and also have Hennessey in AAA as backup as well. I am beginning to think it's better to save the money if we can for a trade later in the season.

Because I like our starting three: Schmidt, Lowry, Cain. When they are on, any of them can be a dominant top of the rotation kind of starter. Schmidt's year was scary but he righted himself by mid-season and performed well. And he actually pitched OK most of the season, only May was horrible, though September was bad also: 3.41 ERA in April, 7.78, 4.35, 4.03, 3.13, 5.40. However, Sept was a bad luck month as he was good otherwise: 1.35 WHIP, .205 BAA, < 1.0 HR/9, K/W=2.0, 10.8 K/9, about 7 H/9, only his walks were bad at 5.4 W/9. Lowry had a similar year, very poor start, but he was downright dominant in August. And Cain had a scintillating start to his career, the only negative one can say is that he walked too many at 3.7 W/9 but otherwise he shut down the other teams, even on his second time around with a couple of the teams. If they are all on, we don't really need to add another top of the rotation pitcher.

However, if we do, then by mid-year, a struggling team will want to get rid of their soon to be free-agent expensive starting pitcher (maybe Zito? :^) and the Giants will have the budget to pick up such a pitcher for minimal prospects. Plus, this opens the door for the Giants to pursue, instead of a starting pitcher eventually, a power-hitting LHH at some point at the corner positions of the infield. Derrek Lee will be a free agent next season and the Cubs are a year older and signed a bunch of relievers plus traded for Pierre but are missing the power of the past couple of seasons, with Alou and Sosa gone first, then Jeromy Burnitz this past season, and the Giants have dealed with them before. Give them Valdez and Simon?

So I can go either way with Morris now. If we sign him great, but if we don't sign him, that's great too. As much as I think Morris is a good risk, I think we should wait for the non-tenders and pick from there. We've picked up nice pieces before (Jose Cruz Jr. comes to mind) plus players by January become cheap (Reggie Sanders and Kenny Lofton signed for $1M with Pirates one off-season). It won't be a big bang acquisition we Giants fans wanted but with this lame batch of free agents, there really wasn't any sure thing hitter or pitcher out there for the grabbing, we're just picking our poison.

Given that, while I've been agitating, like most Giants fans, for Sabean to do something to "show the white smoke coming from the church chimney", perhaps it might be better to wait this one out and see what happens. While our team is not ideal and it can be crippled easily with a key injury or three or a few poor performances, I think the team as is can stay close in the NL West because no one else is doing well in the off-season either. Pick up a few pitchers with potential that get non-tendered, maybe a corner infielder, who all have their problems and risk but also the potential to do well, and their motivated performance in 2006 might put us over the top. If not, we have the money to pick up somebody as a rental in the second half.

That's because baseball is no longer a 162 game season. You only need to survive the first half in good shape then retool mid-year with either prospects or trade to finish strong going into the playoffs. There's no reason to win the most games you can, because, as we saw in the NL West this past season, all you really need to do is finish with the most wins in your division. As long as you got a good finishing kick going, you might be able to ride that streak through the playoffs to the World Series Championship. Because, how often does the winningest team in the regular season win the World Series? Go Giants!

Coming down to the end on Morris

2005-12-09T08:11:00.000-08:00

The bidding for Morris is coming to a head. The San Jose Merc says the Giants offer is 2 years/$18M or 3 years/$25M. Sabean says that something should happen within 48 hours, yea or nay. The Giants appear to be the front runner at the moment, with Texas and Seattle also in the running. It appears that Morris' agent, Barry Axelrod, is waiting for the Cardinals to make their best bid now and that Sabean probably gave them 48 hours to take it or leave it, hence his being able to say that 48 hours is the timetable - I'm sure the agent would be more than happy to let things run and see what happens with the bidding.

Funny how the Cards are presented depending on the source. The St. Louis papers are saying that St. Louis is working hard to re-sign Morris and preparing a 3 year deal while the SF Bay papers are saying that St. Louis is balking at a multi-year contract with Axelrod saying that one year doesn't cut it for Morris, he wants multiple years.

Hard to say which contract I prefer right now, the 2 year-$18M or the 3 year-$25M. Obviously, shorter is better, but the other contract has him at $7M for the third season effectively and the way contracts are going right now, that's cheap for even the decline in performance that Morris has done in the past two seasons. And he was better in 2005 than 2004, giving some hope that it was 1) his injury that caused his poor 2004 and 2) it was his surgery that caused his poor second half of 2005, perhaps weakening it enough so that he wasn't effective but obviously he was lights out in the first half (3.10 ERA, 1.07 WHIP, .246 BAA) when he still had his arm strength. Based on this reasoning, I guess I prefer him to sign the 3 year deal but either way I would hold my nose and wish for the best.