Well, right now.
However, I must congratulate Jamey Wright for having such a strong Spring and making the Giants team as the 5th starter. I mean, if the job was up for grabs (and apparently, it was), then he earned it.
But should it have been up for grabs? Yes. No. Maybe.
I believe the job should have been Brad Hennessey's to lose, which he may have done with a Spring ERA of 7.02. However, when I mean the job should have been his to lose, I mean the during the regular season, not Spring Training.
This seems like another one of those cases where Brian Sabean was just looking for an excuse to take an older veteran over the younger player. Nevermind that Wright has never pitched exceptionally well wherever he's been, and nevermind that although his time spent in Coors Field for the Rockies could have skewed Wright's numbers some, his road numbers weren't much good, either.
And what about Kevin Correia, who's Spring has been just as strong as Wright's?
C'mon now, he was never really in the running. Nevermind that the main two issues he needed to fix to become a much better pitcher (giving up gopher balls and cutting down on the walks) have both been addressed in his Spring outings -- he would have needed both Wright and Hennessey to pitch horribly to have a shot.
So, once again, Sabean pisses on the Giants future by going with a present that isn't any better, just older. I'm going to begin the Wright Watch, which will wonder weekly whether Wright will pitch well.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Saturday, March 18, 2006
WORLD CLASSIC, ANYONE?
Daniel runs a tight Giants ship over here, even though we get to occasionally see photos of him drunk on wine. So, to keep on topic, I'll mention that I watched with pleasure as Moises Alou played for the DR in today's kinda sorta interesting match between the Dominican Republic and Cuba.
What I really want to talk about is how much fun the World Classic has been. No, I haven't been to any games, but I've filled the lonely hours late at night streaming Classic games. As I write this, the final showdown between Japan and Korea is stalled by rain in the 8th, with Japan, well, shaming Korea 6-0, 5 of those from the top of the 7th. During this stall, I learned that Japan's manager, Sadaharu Oh, the world home-run leader, happily admits that if he had played in the major leagues, he wouldn't have hit nearly as many homers. Someone suggested that he'd have been in the 600+ club, with an outside chance in a 20-year career of nearly touching 700. Thank you World Classic for making information like that available to ignorant shmos like me. Makes me love baseball even more.
Daniel, have you followed the games much?
I loved Stephen Colbert's rant last week about team USA's wince-inducing defeat at the hands of Canada. Funny stuff. Is anyone else as irritated as I am by MLB's promotion of this as some sort of patriotic expression? Before you love your team, you love your country. Sure, yeah, whatever, dude. Does this mean that if I don't love "my" team, I can't vote in the next election?
Is spring training over yet? [tapping foot impatiently]
What I really want to talk about is how much fun the World Classic has been. No, I haven't been to any games, but I've filled the lonely hours late at night streaming Classic games. As I write this, the final showdown between Japan and Korea is stalled by rain in the 8th, with Japan, well, shaming Korea 6-0, 5 of those from the top of the 7th. During this stall, I learned that Japan's manager, Sadaharu Oh, the world home-run leader, happily admits that if he had played in the major leagues, he wouldn't have hit nearly as many homers. Someone suggested that he'd have been in the 600+ club, with an outside chance in a 20-year career of nearly touching 700. Thank you World Classic for making information like that available to ignorant shmos like me. Makes me love baseball even more.
Daniel, have you followed the games much?
I loved Stephen Colbert's rant last week about team USA's wince-inducing defeat at the hands of Canada. Funny stuff. Is anyone else as irritated as I am by MLB's promotion of this as some sort of patriotic expression? Before you love your team, you love your country. Sure, yeah, whatever, dude. Does this mean that if I don't love "my" team, I can't vote in the next election?
Is spring training over yet? [tapping foot impatiently]
Thursday, March 16, 2006
A #4, Super-Sized with a 2003 Cabernet, please
I never showed you all any pics from the wine bus I partooketh of a couple of weeks ago, so...
Here are the highlights. I absolve myself of any responsibility for any drunkeness that is displayed in the following pictures.
Yes, you too can be a Mac Daddy, if you get them drunk enough.
And God shall call the Grapes of Wrath upon thee!
Yes ma'am, I'll need to look very closely to make sure there aren't any lumps...
Cooler smoke has never been blown.
Trust me, I was a lot drunker than I looked here.
Hotties. No coldies.
Lucky Luis, puttin' down game to all the fly cuties, as usual.
Yes, more hotties. Wine bus trips tend to attract them by the twos, apparently.
Felix and Jay being cool and easy, and Ed...wait, what the heck IS Ed doing, anyway?
What, did you think we WOULDN'T play poker afterwards?
So there you have it. Some pictures have been left out to protect the innocent (or was that the intoxicated?).
Here are the highlights. I absolve myself of any responsibility for any drunkeness that is displayed in the following pictures.
Yes, you too can be a Mac Daddy, if you get them drunk enough.
And God shall call the Grapes of Wrath upon thee!
Yes ma'am, I'll need to look very closely to make sure there aren't any lumps...
Cooler smoke has never been blown.
Trust me, I was a lot drunker than I looked here.
Hotties. No coldies.
Lucky Luis, puttin' down game to all the fly cuties, as usual.
Yes, more hotties. Wine bus trips tend to attract them by the twos, apparently.
Felix and Jay being cool and easy, and Ed...wait, what the heck IS Ed doing, anyway?
What, did you think we WOULDN'T play poker afterwards?
So there you have it. Some pictures have been left out to protect the innocent (or was that the intoxicated?).
Monday, March 13, 2006
Musings...
Well, that's out of the way, finally.
Now that Barry Bonds has hit his first home run of 2006, we here at O&B (all three of us: me, myself, and I) were wondering if people think that Bonds is currently on steroids.
Past juicing we'll gloss over, and assume that he was doing it for some length of time.
How 'bout now?
It'd be tantamount to an award for All-Time Stupidity if he was, I'm sure we'll all admit. And being that "stupid" has never been an adjective applied to Bonds in any print media I can remember, I'd like to put forward the assumption that he isn't currently juicing.
So, what happens if he hits another, say, 45 home runs this year?
Would we all assume, then, that he continued to use steroids in the face of drug testing? If he is tested and passes, would we assume that whatever steroid he was using is undetectable?
Lemme know what you think.
Now that Barry Bonds has hit his first home run of 2006, we here at O&B (all three of us: me, myself, and I) were wondering if people think that Bonds is currently on steroids.
Past juicing we'll gloss over, and assume that he was doing it for some length of time.
How 'bout now?
It'd be tantamount to an award for All-Time Stupidity if he was, I'm sure we'll all admit. And being that "stupid" has never been an adjective applied to Bonds in any print media I can remember, I'd like to put forward the assumption that he isn't currently juicing.
So, what happens if he hits another, say, 45 home runs this year?
Would we all assume, then, that he continued to use steroids in the face of drug testing? If he is tested and passes, would we assume that whatever steroid he was using is undetectable?
Lemme know what you think.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
A little Dub-B-C
Well, that was an exciting game.
I will have to admit, the World Baseball Classic is making a valiant attempt to be just that -- a classic tournament of world baseball.
Before today, I've only been able to catch most of the game between Korea and China (which was a laugher), and there is an obvious divide between the haves and have-nots (winless in their first three games were South Africa, Australia, Panama, and China -- and Chinese Taipei's only win was vs. the most hapless China team).
But, all that aside, when you get down to the baseball being played between Canada, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Cuba, the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Domincan Republic (and Venezuela isn't bad, either), there really isn't a way around it -- it's good baseball.
The first game I watched in full was today's controversial victory by the United States over Japan, 4-3.
Firstly, the U.S. obviously should have been down at least one run. The botched tag-up call will loom large in the discussion around this game, and the fact that the game was played here in the U.S. will obviously spark some bad feelings in Japan (and probably other places with anti-U.S. sentiments).
However, I will say this -- the U.S. showed some moxie in this game after going down 3-0 early, with Chipper Jones and Derrick Lee connecting on big flies to bring them back even. The gap between talent levels has obviously been bridged, for the most part, between here and Japan.
I'm going to go ahead and watch the Puerto Rico/Dominican matchup tonight, and I'm expecting some good baseball there, too, as there's a bevy of major leaguers in that game. Interesting sidenote: the stadium capacity for this game was 20,000 -- that sold out the very 1st day. The attendance for the U.S./Japan game was 35,000 -- my estimate was that the crowd there was 30% Japanese.
I will have to admit, the World Baseball Classic is making a valiant attempt to be just that -- a classic tournament of world baseball.
Before today, I've only been able to catch most of the game between Korea and China (which was a laugher), and there is an obvious divide between the haves and have-nots (winless in their first three games were South Africa, Australia, Panama, and China -- and Chinese Taipei's only win was vs. the most hapless China team).
But, all that aside, when you get down to the baseball being played between Canada, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Cuba, the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Domincan Republic (and Venezuela isn't bad, either), there really isn't a way around it -- it's good baseball.
The first game I watched in full was today's controversial victory by the United States over Japan, 4-3.
Firstly, the U.S. obviously should have been down at least one run. The botched tag-up call will loom large in the discussion around this game, and the fact that the game was played here in the U.S. will obviously spark some bad feelings in Japan (and probably other places with anti-U.S. sentiments).
However, I will say this -- the U.S. showed some moxie in this game after going down 3-0 early, with Chipper Jones and Derrick Lee connecting on big flies to bring them back even. The gap between talent levels has obviously been bridged, for the most part, between here and Japan.
I'm going to go ahead and watch the Puerto Rico/Dominican matchup tonight, and I'm expecting some good baseball there, too, as there's a bevy of major leaguers in that game. Interesting sidenote: the stadium capacity for this game was 20,000 -- that sold out the very 1st day. The attendance for the U.S./Japan game was 35,000 -- my estimate was that the crowd there was 30% Japanese.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Shocking...or, absolutely expected
There's been a book written that goes into detail about alleged steroid use by Barry Bonds from 1998, and for at least five years afterward.
Those who are paid to say things about these types of events are saying that it is now harder than ever for Bonds to deny steroid use (see Ken Rosenthal's response to the book).
Those who are not paid to say things about these types of events, like me, say...that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Why is it harder? Nothing has changed. It's simply another accusation, and it's not even really a new one -- the two gentleman who wrote the book are San Francisco Chronicle reporters. Yes, reporters of the same newspaper that leaked Bonds' grand jury testimony, and the same newspaper that has been finding bits of circumstantial evidence for years now.
So, again, why is it harder?
I suppose it could get even harder to deny if some guy from Idaho comes out and testifies that on April 28th, 2002, he saw Bonds using the cream and the clear while sucking on a lollipop and playing Super Mario Bros. on the Gameboy in downtown Sausalito. I mean, that's about as much new proof as this book provides, coming from the source that it does -- which, essentially, is the San Francicsco Chronicle.
The story will sweep the nation, just as it shouldn't. There isn't anything new here -- most of the nation believes he took steroids, so is this book supposed to make those people believe even more than they already do?
No, I bet that many think this book might sway people like myself, who suspect Bonds of steroid use, but simply refuse to raise allegations on something that I cannot verify for myself. And, furthermore, people who would rather see concrete proof (like say, a failed drug test or some DNA samples) before grabbing my torch and noose.
And now, Bonds will have 10 times the steroids questions and probes to deal with, though all those asking the questions and doing the probing should know that he'll keep denying it. He hasn't a choice, now, whether he's lying or not, so why ask? Why not wait for concrete proof, which I guarantee that gobs of people are working to get?
But no, instead we'll have this farce continue -- Bonds being tried in a court of public opinion that has already deemed him guilty, yet doesn't seem to get tired of "new" allegations and "proof" that Bonds has done something that most folks are sure he's done anyway.
The merry-go-round goes 'round, and we just keep hopping on thinking it'll take us somewhere new and interesting.
Mr. Rosenthal says he "can't wait" to hear what Bonds will say. Personally, I can't wait to hear people like Rosenthal say exactly what I know they'll say after they hear exactly what they should know Bonds will say. Nothing more entertaining than getting exactly what you think you'll get. It's the spice of life, I tell ya.
Sigh.
Those who are paid to say things about these types of events are saying that it is now harder than ever for Bonds to deny steroid use (see Ken Rosenthal's response to the book).
Those who are not paid to say things about these types of events, like me, say...that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Why is it harder? Nothing has changed. It's simply another accusation, and it's not even really a new one -- the two gentleman who wrote the book are San Francisco Chronicle reporters. Yes, reporters of the same newspaper that leaked Bonds' grand jury testimony, and the same newspaper that has been finding bits of circumstantial evidence for years now.
So, again, why is it harder?
I suppose it could get even harder to deny if some guy from Idaho comes out and testifies that on April 28th, 2002, he saw Bonds using the cream and the clear while sucking on a lollipop and playing Super Mario Bros. on the Gameboy in downtown Sausalito. I mean, that's about as much new proof as this book provides, coming from the source that it does -- which, essentially, is the San Francicsco Chronicle.
The story will sweep the nation, just as it shouldn't. There isn't anything new here -- most of the nation believes he took steroids, so is this book supposed to make those people believe even more than they already do?
No, I bet that many think this book might sway people like myself, who suspect Bonds of steroid use, but simply refuse to raise allegations on something that I cannot verify for myself. And, furthermore, people who would rather see concrete proof (like say, a failed drug test or some DNA samples) before grabbing my torch and noose.
And now, Bonds will have 10 times the steroids questions and probes to deal with, though all those asking the questions and doing the probing should know that he'll keep denying it. He hasn't a choice, now, whether he's lying or not, so why ask? Why not wait for concrete proof, which I guarantee that gobs of people are working to get?
But no, instead we'll have this farce continue -- Bonds being tried in a court of public opinion that has already deemed him guilty, yet doesn't seem to get tired of "new" allegations and "proof" that Bonds has done something that most folks are sure he's done anyway.
The merry-go-round goes 'round, and we just keep hopping on thinking it'll take us somewhere new and interesting.
Mr. Rosenthal says he "can't wait" to hear what Bonds will say. Personally, I can't wait to hear people like Rosenthal say exactly what I know they'll say after they hear exactly what they should know Bonds will say. Nothing more entertaining than getting exactly what you think you'll get. It's the spice of life, I tell ya.
Sigh.
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Wish me luck...
Got tickets to the Korn concert tonight in San Jose. Dunno if it's the best situation -- the other two bands playing are guys I've never heard of in Mudvein and 10 Years, but one can hope they aren't too bad (I hear Mudvein is pretty heavy, though).
This'll be back to back nights watching bands, as I and a few of my cohorts, Lucky Luis, Dave, and Craig were in Livermore watching Lavish Green rock out. Tried to mosh a little last night, but figured I had to conserve some energy for tonight.
Should I even be moshing at my age? I keep making this joke that upon trying to get into the moshpit, security's going to check my ID at the edge and say, "Aren't you a little old to be in the moshpit, sir? You might get hurt in there at your age."
It's kind of like Chris Rock said in Bigger and Blacker:
(paraphrasing) You don't wanna be the old guy at the club. You know who I'm talking about. He really ain't old, just a little too old to be in the club.
Ah, screw it. You only live once.
This'll be back to back nights watching bands, as I and a few of my cohorts, Lucky Luis, Dave, and Craig were in Livermore watching Lavish Green rock out. Tried to mosh a little last night, but figured I had to conserve some energy for tonight.
Should I even be moshing at my age? I keep making this joke that upon trying to get into the moshpit, security's going to check my ID at the edge and say, "Aren't you a little old to be in the moshpit, sir? You might get hurt in there at your age."
It's kind of like Chris Rock said in Bigger and Blacker:
(paraphrasing) You don't wanna be the old guy at the club. You know who I'm talking about. He really ain't old, just a little too old to be in the club.
Ah, screw it. You only live once.
Friday, February 24, 2006
I'll get that Hennessey for you Wright away, sir. And some other clever phrase utilizing Correia.
Not knowing sucks.
Wouldn't we all like to know if Barry Bonds will stay healthy? Wouldn't be nice to know that Armando Benitez will pull his...considerable...weight this upcoming season? Wouldn't it be wonderful to know that Rogain worked?
...nevermind. I'm just fine with my shaved head.
In any case, we'd all like to know whether or not Brad Hennessey will be able to cut it as the Giants 5th starter in 2006, but that's difficult. The main thing that Hennessey's 2006 campaign showed is that we still don't know, even after 21 starts of data.
Personally, I'm optimistic he can at least match last season's production, and perhaps improve upon it to some degree -- I like that his stuff matches the kind of pitcher he is (his stuff isn't spectacular and is sometimes very hittable, but that fact that he's a groundball pitcher negates that some), and we cannot ignore that in 14 of his 21 starts, Hennessey was able to pitch into the seventh inning and beyond, with 12 of the 14 being at or near the "quality start" level. That's plenty good enough for a 5th starter.
Of course, he also had four starts where he didn't even make it past the 3rd inning, so...
This sounds like a situation ripe for the ol' insurance policy. But, should Hennessey fail or become injured, which insurance policy is better -- Kevin Correia or Jamey Wright?
Wright is a fairly known quantity, with the possiblity of being better than his statline reads.
Career: 5.13 ERA, 4.84 k's/9 (strikeouts per 9 innings), 1.07 k/bb ratio (strikeout to walk ratio), 1.92 g/f ratio (ground ball to fly ball ratio), .822 OPS against.
That...isn't good. A low strikeout rate, a poor strikeout to walk ratio, and a high OPS against indicative of a journeyman pitcher who's been released by five teams during his career. The two things in Wright's favor are: 1) his great groundball to flyball ratio, and 2) six of the 10 years he's pitched in the majors have been with the Rockies.
So, perhaps we'll give him a break. Let's slide on by those numbers pitching in Coors Field, and let's compile Wright's road numbers from the past two seasons:
4.52 ERA, 5.87 k's/9, 5.07 bb/9, 1.15 k/bb ratio (127.1 innings pitched over 2004 and 2005)
Well, there's more pitcher there, obviously, but those still aren't numbers to...Wright...home about (I can hear you groaning, but I choose to ignore you). With that, we'll throw up Correia:
Career: 4.86 ERA, 6.63 k's/9, 4.53 bb/9, 1.46 k/bb ratio, 0.80 g/f ratio, .863 OPS against.
Forgive me if I look at Correia as the better option. Correia, despite control problems last year, still walks less hitters over a nine-inning stretch than Wright's superior road numbers, and strikes out another batter and a half more per nine over Wright's road totals from the past two seasons. Correia's biggest problem seems to be keeping the ball inside the ballpark -- he gave up close to two homers per nine innings last season (1.85/9), but given the type of stuff he has, I think that's fixable.
In summary, while I don't think picking up Wright as an insurance policy was a bad idea, using him as anything but an insurance policy would be a mistake, in my mind. He hasn't shown a definitive ability to do anything particularly well in his career other than induce ground balls, and he hasn't shown that he's appreciably better than Hennessey or Correia. Long relief/spot starter is the role that best fits Wright.
Wouldn't we all like to know if Barry Bonds will stay healthy? Wouldn't be nice to know that Armando Benitez will pull his...considerable...weight this upcoming season? Wouldn't it be wonderful to know that Rogain worked?
...nevermind. I'm just fine with my shaved head.
In any case, we'd all like to know whether or not Brad Hennessey will be able to cut it as the Giants 5th starter in 2006, but that's difficult. The main thing that Hennessey's 2006 campaign showed is that we still don't know, even after 21 starts of data.
Personally, I'm optimistic he can at least match last season's production, and perhaps improve upon it to some degree -- I like that his stuff matches the kind of pitcher he is (his stuff isn't spectacular and is sometimes very hittable, but that fact that he's a groundball pitcher negates that some), and we cannot ignore that in 14 of his 21 starts, Hennessey was able to pitch into the seventh inning and beyond, with 12 of the 14 being at or near the "quality start" level. That's plenty good enough for a 5th starter.
Of course, he also had four starts where he didn't even make it past the 3rd inning, so...
This sounds like a situation ripe for the ol' insurance policy. But, should Hennessey fail or become injured, which insurance policy is better -- Kevin Correia or Jamey Wright?
Wright is a fairly known quantity, with the possiblity of being better than his statline reads.
Career: 5.13 ERA, 4.84 k's/9 (strikeouts per 9 innings), 1.07 k/bb ratio (strikeout to walk ratio), 1.92 g/f ratio (ground ball to fly ball ratio), .822 OPS against.
That...isn't good. A low strikeout rate, a poor strikeout to walk ratio, and a high OPS against indicative of a journeyman pitcher who's been released by five teams during his career. The two things in Wright's favor are: 1) his great groundball to flyball ratio, and 2) six of the 10 years he's pitched in the majors have been with the Rockies.
So, perhaps we'll give him a break. Let's slide on by those numbers pitching in Coors Field, and let's compile Wright's road numbers from the past two seasons:
4.52 ERA, 5.87 k's/9, 5.07 bb/9, 1.15 k/bb ratio (127.1 innings pitched over 2004 and 2005)
Well, there's more pitcher there, obviously, but those still aren't numbers to...Wright...home about (I can hear you groaning, but I choose to ignore you). With that, we'll throw up Correia:
Career: 4.86 ERA, 6.63 k's/9, 4.53 bb/9, 1.46 k/bb ratio, 0.80 g/f ratio, .863 OPS against.
Forgive me if I look at Correia as the better option. Correia, despite control problems last year, still walks less hitters over a nine-inning stretch than Wright's superior road numbers, and strikes out another batter and a half more per nine over Wright's road totals from the past two seasons. Correia's biggest problem seems to be keeping the ball inside the ballpark -- he gave up close to two homers per nine innings last season (1.85/9), but given the type of stuff he has, I think that's fixable.
In summary, while I don't think picking up Wright as an insurance policy was a bad idea, using him as anything but an insurance policy would be a mistake, in my mind. He hasn't shown a definitive ability to do anything particularly well in his career other than induce ground balls, and he hasn't shown that he's appreciably better than Hennessey or Correia. Long relief/spot starter is the role that best fits Wright.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Can I have change for a dollar? Yes, two 20's and a 10 would be fine...
In honor of pitcher's and catcher's reporting today, I went out and smelled some grass.
Take that how you will.
In other news, Randy Winn was selected to represent the U.S. in the World Baseball Classic. The article spends most of it's time talking about Winn's scorching September last year.
Hm. Could that be because the rest of Winn's career isn't all that much to look at, and that his selection shows how few choices they must have had? I mean, I like Winn, like his hustle, loved his couple of months with the Giants last year, and hope he repeats that performance in 2006, but...
World Baseball Classic? Randy Winn, representing the U.S.? There wasn't anyone better? But yeah, you gotta love that September of 2005 Winn had...boy, that was some September. Did you know he was Player of the Month in the NL last September?
I've had a few months before where I've helped out some people with counseling, loaning money, doing favors -- you name it, I was there for people.
Was I cheated out of my Nobel Peace Prize, or what?
I really shouldn't be that bothered by this, but I hate adding two and two and coming up with 516,238.
Take that how you will.
Take that how you will.
In other news, Randy Winn was selected to represent the U.S. in the World Baseball Classic. The article spends most of it's time talking about Winn's scorching September last year.
Hm. Could that be because the rest of Winn's career isn't all that much to look at, and that his selection shows how few choices they must have had? I mean, I like Winn, like his hustle, loved his couple of months with the Giants last year, and hope he repeats that performance in 2006, but...
World Baseball Classic? Randy Winn, representing the U.S.? There wasn't anyone better? But yeah, you gotta love that September of 2005 Winn had...boy, that was some September. Did you know he was Player of the Month in the NL last September?
I've had a few months before where I've helped out some people with counseling, loaning money, doing favors -- you name it, I was there for people.
Was I cheated out of my Nobel Peace Prize, or what?
I really shouldn't be that bothered by this, but I hate adding two and two and coming up with 516,238.
Take that how you will.
Friday, February 10, 2006
Happy Chinese New Year! Uh, Parade!
I'm working tomorrow, but I'll be able to almost witness something cool firsthand: the Chinese New Year Parade. It takes place in downtown San Francisco, going down Market Street and around Union Square where I work.
I say almost witness because I'm getting the heck out of there before the thing starts. I'd love to watch, but it's one of those things that I'd only feel like watching if I was off work on the day it took place and the day after. I'm wierd like that. And speaking of wierd...
...why is it that the darned parade takes place two weeks after the actual start of the Chinese New Year? It's been like this for a while, I'm told, but why? Wouldn't it be a little odd to you if you were invited to a party to celebrate New Year's on January 14th?
One good thing, though, is that it looks like this will be the first Chinese New Year parade in years that won't be rained on. Perhaps it is a good omen for those born in the Year of the Dog (I'm a Year of the Tiger guy, myself).
In any case, go on San Francisco...get your parade on.
I say almost witness because I'm getting the heck out of there before the thing starts. I'd love to watch, but it's one of those things that I'd only feel like watching if I was off work on the day it took place and the day after. I'm wierd like that. And speaking of wierd...
...why is it that the darned parade takes place two weeks after the actual start of the Chinese New Year? It's been like this for a while, I'm told, but why? Wouldn't it be a little odd to you if you were invited to a party to celebrate New Year's on January 14th?
One good thing, though, is that it looks like this will be the first Chinese New Year parade in years that won't be rained on. Perhaps it is a good omen for those born in the Year of the Dog (I'm a Year of the Tiger guy, myself).
In any case, go on San Francisco...get your parade on.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Surfin', surfin', USA
Bear with me, folks.
I'm off work today, and I'm bored. This combination usually leads to things involving ladders, a rodent, old car batteries, and a parachute, but today I've decided to surf popular baseball sites for stuff...and of course pass on the surfin' goodness onto you all. Thank me later. Oh, and the better stuff is on the bottom, really...but bear with me, folks.
Phil Rogers has a fluff article on ESPN.com about which players he thinks is poised for a Derrick Lee-type breakout season. I guess it kills some time, reading this, but Rogers doesn't seem to provide lots of concrete reasons as to why he believes these particular players will break out, other than: a) He's good, and he's capable of being better, b) He's improved for a few years straight, and c) the time honored reason, "Just 'cuz". It's articles like these which make me believe, if only for a few, reality-suspended seconds, that I could be a professional writer. The article just has the feel of, "Oh, man, my deadline is coming up, and I gotta put together something."
Baseball Prospectus has the Week In Quotes article up, and as usual, there's some fun stuff in there. My favorite is a quote from Royals 1st baseman (and cool guy) Mike Sweeney, where he states, "From top to bottom, we’ve got a great lineup. Or at least a better lineup, definitely."
I'm thinking I would find it difficult to downshift from 5th gear to 2nd, but apparently Sweeney is more skilled than I.
Rich Draper over at the Official Giants Site (MLB.com) writes about the Giants outfield, managing to not tell us a single thing we didn't already know -- the season revolves around the health of Barry Bonds, and that there are also injury concerns for Moises Alou and Steve Finley. I'm gathering it's tough to write consistently interesting and informative stuff throughout the offseason.
Well, wasn't that fun? Wow, I can't wait to do that again. Now, onto the real stuff: blogs.
Grant at McCovey Chronicles has put up the most recent of his projection pieces, this one on Matt Cain. He notices Cain's fluky low hit rate, and I noticed the same about him last September in a comparison between him and Noah Lowry's first season:
See how cool that is? See how much cooler blogs are? See how much cool could a cool-chuck chuck if a cool-chuck could chuck cool?
John over at Give 'Em Some Stankeye (nice to see you writing again, John) doesn't eff around -- he tells us, straight up, he's just going to provide links to hot Jessica Alba pics, and baseball be damned. Well, for at least a day. Again, blogs cooler than other sites. We can do these types of things, whenever we please. For instance, just because I feel like it, I'm going to provide a link to a picture of Kate Beckinsale (Note: that used to be a link to a Kate Beckinsale pic, but the site I linked to yesterday that worked yesterday, apparently didn't work today and led to a site that tried to download a virus...I apologize profusely for this, but at the time I put the link up, it led to exactly what I said it led to -- a nice pic of Kate Beckinsale.)
Joe over at Giants Cove gives us a humourous account of why writing sucks. Yes, Joe, it does, when compared to say, sex, but otherwise it isn't too bad. Of course, this coming from a guy who writes better than I do anyway, but I'll forgive him his faults.
Alright, so there you go -- enough reading fodder to relieve the boredom of just about anyone...except me. I'm still bored.
I'm off work today, and I'm bored. This combination usually leads to things involving ladders, a rodent, old car batteries, and a parachute, but today I've decided to surf popular baseball sites for stuff...and of course pass on the surfin' goodness onto you all. Thank me later. Oh, and the better stuff is on the bottom, really...but bear with me, folks.
Phil Rogers has a fluff article on ESPN.com about which players he thinks is poised for a Derrick Lee-type breakout season. I guess it kills some time, reading this, but Rogers doesn't seem to provide lots of concrete reasons as to why he believes these particular players will break out, other than: a) He's good, and he's capable of being better, b) He's improved for a few years straight, and c) the time honored reason, "Just 'cuz". It's articles like these which make me believe, if only for a few, reality-suspended seconds, that I could be a professional writer. The article just has the feel of, "Oh, man, my deadline is coming up, and I gotta put together something."
Baseball Prospectus has the Week In Quotes article up, and as usual, there's some fun stuff in there. My favorite is a quote from Royals 1st baseman (and cool guy) Mike Sweeney, where he states, "From top to bottom, we’ve got a great lineup. Or at least a better lineup, definitely."
I'm thinking I would find it difficult to downshift from 5th gear to 2nd, but apparently Sweeney is more skilled than I.
Rich Draper over at the Official Giants Site (MLB.com) writes about the Giants outfield, managing to not tell us a single thing we didn't already know -- the season revolves around the health of Barry Bonds, and that there are also injury concerns for Moises Alou and Steve Finley. I'm gathering it's tough to write consistently interesting and informative stuff throughout the offseason.
Well, wasn't that fun? Wow, I can't wait to do that again. Now, onto the real stuff: blogs.
Grant at McCovey Chronicles has put up the most recent of his projection pieces, this one on Matt Cain. He notices Cain's fluky low hit rate, and I noticed the same about him last September in a comparison between him and Noah Lowry's first season:
Lowry, with a much larger sample size, had a higher strikeout rate and a lower walk rate, which are good signs. Cain is somehow doing a marvelous job of simply not allowing hits (to the tune of a .133 BABIP), but that is something which can't and won't last over the course of a full season. For perspective, the ERA leader in the NL, Roger Clemens, has a BABIP of .236.
See how cool that is? See how much cooler blogs are? See how much cool could a cool-chuck chuck if a cool-chuck could chuck cool?
John over at Give 'Em Some Stankeye (nice to see you writing again, John) doesn't eff around -- he tells us, straight up, he's just going to provide links to hot Jessica Alba pics, and baseball be damned. Well, for at least a day. Again, blogs cooler than other sites. We can do these types of things, whenever we please. For instance, just because I feel like it, I'm going to provide a link to a picture of Kate Beckinsale (Note: that used to be a link to a Kate Beckinsale pic, but the site I linked to yesterday that worked yesterday, apparently didn't work today and led to a site that tried to download a virus...I apologize profusely for this, but at the time I put the link up, it led to exactly what I said it led to -- a nice pic of Kate Beckinsale.)
Joe over at Giants Cove gives us a humourous account of why writing sucks. Yes, Joe, it does, when compared to say, sex, but otherwise it isn't too bad. Of course, this coming from a guy who writes better than I do anyway, but I'll forgive him his faults.
Alright, so there you go -- enough reading fodder to relieve the boredom of just about anyone...except me. I'm still bored.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
99 most desirable women...well, kinda
AskMen.com has put up its list of the top 99 most desirable women.
...you know, this is just one of those lists that just begs to be argued against at various points, but I agree with their #1 pick -- Jessica Alba. The funny thing about these lists is, she was #78 last year...did she undergo some sort of genetic enhancement that I am as yet unaware of? If she's numero uno this year, that means she was #1 last year and they just ranked her incorrectly.
Number Two is a mystifying Sienna Miller. If you're going, "Sienna Who?", then you understand my mystification. She's not bad looking, sure (although not my type), but she: 1) isn't a bombshell by any means, 2) doesn't have a voluptuous body to make up for the lack of looks, and 3) is probably best known as Jude Law's fiancee (according to the site), who apparently didn't think she was all that hot himself because he's already had an affair before they've even gotten married. Great job there, fellas. Spot on with your number two pick -- she actually rose more ranks than Alba did, going from #86 to #2.
Just for perspective, good ol' Anna Kournikova is barely hanging on, coming in at No. 99. Did her last birthday bring her to 70 years old or something? No, she's 24, and she's also 187.564 times hotter than Sienna Miller, period, no matter how little or how much spotlight either of them get.
You know, there's a little more commentary that I would throw up on this, only the...uh, men... at AskMen.com are morons. The only way to surf their list if you, say, don't have all the rankings memorized, is one...by...one. There's no master list, no way to search out a particular name to find out a woman's respective ranking more quickly. You can skip 10 at a time, but it brings you to a particular woman's page (at ranking #10, 20, 30...you get the idea), and the other nine ranked women on the page are just the numbers representing the ranks -- no names attached, so you can see the number five for the fifth ranking, but you haven't any idea who it is unless you click on the link.
Sure, it keeps the drama bubbling for a second or two, but then it just becomes tedious. I went through the whole ranking once, kind of semi-noting my favorites (Eva Longoria, Salma Hayek, Leeann Tweeden, Kate Beckinsale), but when I go to write a word or three about the list, I find I'd have to randomly search around the ranking number that I think a particular woman was at to find the page again.
Great job at either being stupid, or being lazy.
...you know, this is just one of those lists that just begs to be argued against at various points, but I agree with their #1 pick -- Jessica Alba. The funny thing about these lists is, she was #78 last year...did she undergo some sort of genetic enhancement that I am as yet unaware of? If she's numero uno this year, that means she was #1 last year and they just ranked her incorrectly.
Number Two is a mystifying Sienna Miller. If you're going, "Sienna Who?", then you understand my mystification. She's not bad looking, sure (although not my type), but she: 1) isn't a bombshell by any means, 2) doesn't have a voluptuous body to make up for the lack of looks, and 3) is probably best known as Jude Law's fiancee (according to the site), who apparently didn't think she was all that hot himself because he's already had an affair before they've even gotten married. Great job there, fellas. Spot on with your number two pick -- she actually rose more ranks than Alba did, going from #86 to #2.
Just for perspective, good ol' Anna Kournikova is barely hanging on, coming in at No. 99. Did her last birthday bring her to 70 years old or something? No, she's 24, and she's also 187.564 times hotter than Sienna Miller, period, no matter how little or how much spotlight either of them get.
You know, there's a little more commentary that I would throw up on this, only the...uh, men... at AskMen.com are morons. The only way to surf their list if you, say, don't have all the rankings memorized, is one...by...one. There's no master list, no way to search out a particular name to find out a woman's respective ranking more quickly. You can skip 10 at a time, but it brings you to a particular woman's page (at ranking #10, 20, 30...you get the idea), and the other nine ranked women on the page are just the numbers representing the ranks -- no names attached, so you can see the number five for the fifth ranking, but you haven't any idea who it is unless you click on the link.
Sure, it keeps the drama bubbling for a second or two, but then it just becomes tedious. I went through the whole ranking once, kind of semi-noting my favorites (Eva Longoria, Salma Hayek, Leeann Tweeden, Kate Beckinsale), but when I go to write a word or three about the list, I find I'd have to randomly search around the ranking number that I think a particular woman was at to find the page again.
Great job at either being stupid, or being lazy.
Monday, February 06, 2006
We need backups for our backups
I've been pretty silent -- that is, absolutely silent -- on the issue of catching for the Giants in 2006 thus far. The reasoning is simple. If I dwell on it, I'll scream.
There are some roles on a team that I believe you can get away with having some dude in a uniform: backup 1st baseman, pinch-hitter, and 5th outfielder all come to mind. But backup catcher isn't one of them.
Brian Sabean's non-move in regards to filling this spot is a bit mystifying to me. After all, this is a guy who seems to love making moves, even ones that seem unneccesary. I was reminiscing the other day about Reggie Sanders, who had a solid season offensively and a good season defensively for the Giants in 2002 playing right field, but was not brought back in 2003. In comes Jose Cruz, Jr., who was palatable offensively and stellar defensively in 2003, but also was not brought back for 2004. The two-headed monster of Michael Tucker and Dustan Mohr handled the right field duties in 2004, and both were effective in their roles...but again, were let go before 2005.
By the time we get to Moises Alou, folks, that's four roster moves made where one would have sufficed (simply re-signing Sanders). Not exactly a model of efficiency.
Another example is Dustin Hermanson, Tim Worrell, and Joe Nathan. While Sabean has hung onto the likes of Jason Christiansen and Matt Herges, both of whom were mediocre at their best during their tenure with the club, Sabes sometimes treats good relievers like hot potatoes. Worrell, Hermanson, and Nathan were good enough to keep (Worrell and Nathan after the 2003 season, and Hermanson after the 2004 season), and all were better than others who were allowed to stick around.
While I do see that all three might have cost more money than Sabean was willing to spend, let's look at two moves that were made for 2005 and think; LaTroy Hawkins and Armando Benitez. Didn't have much problem taking on payroll there, did he?
Wouldn't it have been worlds easier to just pay those players (all three of whom probably would have made close to the same salary combined as Benitez makes by himself) than go through all of this musical reliever crap? Not even to mention Sabean is doing it again with Scott Eyre, letting him go in the exact same fashion as Worrell and Nathan -- right after their career years.
Sabes, you can trade relievers after their career years, because their value is at the highest and you'll get something in return. But just letting them go because you don't want to pay them money that you end up spending on other relievers anyway? Just doesn't make sense.
Sabean, to me, seems to believe that the only thing that validates his presence as General Manager is moving players in and out, fitting pieces to a puzzle that ends up making a picture strikingly similar to the puzzle he dismantled the year before.
So, why the complacency with backup catcher? While I don't agree with many of the things Sabean's done, the only stupid move he's made was Alex Sanchez (although that was stupid enough for three or four other stupid moves of the normal variety). I'm not about to think he's going to let Justin Knoedler be the backup for a 35-year old Mike Matheny all season long, is he?
Both Knoedler and Yamid Haad amassed negative VORP's last year (Value Over Replacement Player), but I can see how one might pass over Knoedler's numbers given that he only had 10 at-bats to show anything.
But riddle me this -- if the organization believed Haad was the #1 guy behind Yorvit Torrealba, and believed it enough that they were willing to send Torry on his way and bring Haad in, what do they project for Knoedler after their #1 guy was so horrible? No, Knoedler cannot be any worse, true, but...
...is this over-confidence in Knoedler, or over-confidence in Mike Matheny's ability to play the vast majority of the season at a high level?
I think it's the latter, and I cannot help but think there's a very good chance that this could easily hurt the Giants in 2006. We all should already know that Matheny's offensive output last year was above his normal levels (and, by the way, notice how those numbers came back to the mean by the end of the season?), and there is. not. any. way. that. he. will. hit. for. that. high. of. an. average. with. runners. in. scoring. position. again.
So, anybody with some sense should realize the only direction for Matheny's offensive production to go is down, especially given his age of 35. Which brings us to another point -- games played. Matheny played 134 games last year, and a la Benito Santiago, saw his offensive numbers fall deeper into the season when his legs were no longer fresh. Does Sabes now propose to have Matheny play more games next season after seeing this phenomenon of old catchers getting tired late in the season for four of the last five seasons?
I guess that's the case, because otherwise he's trying to say that Knoedler can start about 30 games next year and be productive -- and that's 30 games if the 35 year-old catcher they currently have doesn't get hurt.
Seems an incredible stretch of common sense to me.
UPDATE: Thanks to Adam for this update, which apparently just happened a bit after I made this entry -- Todd Greene has signed a minor-league contract with the Giants within the last hour or two. Greene is 34, and has had some decent offensive production at times, although notably his best offensive years have been with the Rockies and Rangers, respectively.
Things make a lot more sense now than they did...oh, about three hours ago. Greene seems capable enough for a backup role, although officially he's to compete for the job.
There are some roles on a team that I believe you can get away with having some dude in a uniform: backup 1st baseman, pinch-hitter, and 5th outfielder all come to mind. But backup catcher isn't one of them.
Brian Sabean's non-move in regards to filling this spot is a bit mystifying to me. After all, this is a guy who seems to love making moves, even ones that seem unneccesary. I was reminiscing the other day about Reggie Sanders, who had a solid season offensively and a good season defensively for the Giants in 2002 playing right field, but was not brought back in 2003. In comes Jose Cruz, Jr., who was palatable offensively and stellar defensively in 2003, but also was not brought back for 2004. The two-headed monster of Michael Tucker and Dustan Mohr handled the right field duties in 2004, and both were effective in their roles...but again, were let go before 2005.
By the time we get to Moises Alou, folks, that's four roster moves made where one would have sufficed (simply re-signing Sanders). Not exactly a model of efficiency.
Another example is Dustin Hermanson, Tim Worrell, and Joe Nathan. While Sabean has hung onto the likes of Jason Christiansen and Matt Herges, both of whom were mediocre at their best during their tenure with the club, Sabes sometimes treats good relievers like hot potatoes. Worrell, Hermanson, and Nathan were good enough to keep (Worrell and Nathan after the 2003 season, and Hermanson after the 2004 season), and all were better than others who were allowed to stick around.
While I do see that all three might have cost more money than Sabean was willing to spend, let's look at two moves that were made for 2005 and think; LaTroy Hawkins and Armando Benitez. Didn't have much problem taking on payroll there, did he?
Wouldn't it have been worlds easier to just pay those players (all three of whom probably would have made close to the same salary combined as Benitez makes by himself) than go through all of this musical reliever crap? Not even to mention Sabean is doing it again with Scott Eyre, letting him go in the exact same fashion as Worrell and Nathan -- right after their career years.
Sabes, you can trade relievers after their career years, because their value is at the highest and you'll get something in return. But just letting them go because you don't want to pay them money that you end up spending on other relievers anyway? Just doesn't make sense.
Sabean, to me, seems to believe that the only thing that validates his presence as General Manager is moving players in and out, fitting pieces to a puzzle that ends up making a picture strikingly similar to the puzzle he dismantled the year before.
So, why the complacency with backup catcher? While I don't agree with many of the things Sabean's done, the only stupid move he's made was Alex Sanchez (although that was stupid enough for three or four other stupid moves of the normal variety). I'm not about to think he's going to let Justin Knoedler be the backup for a 35-year old Mike Matheny all season long, is he?
Both Knoedler and Yamid Haad amassed negative VORP's last year (Value Over Replacement Player), but I can see how one might pass over Knoedler's numbers given that he only had 10 at-bats to show anything.
But riddle me this -- if the organization believed Haad was the #1 guy behind Yorvit Torrealba, and believed it enough that they were willing to send Torry on his way and bring Haad in, what do they project for Knoedler after their #1 guy was so horrible? No, Knoedler cannot be any worse, true, but...
...is this over-confidence in Knoedler, or over-confidence in Mike Matheny's ability to play the vast majority of the season at a high level?
I think it's the latter, and I cannot help but think there's a very good chance that this could easily hurt the Giants in 2006. We all should already know that Matheny's offensive output last year was above his normal levels (and, by the way, notice how those numbers came back to the mean by the end of the season?), and there is. not. any. way. that. he. will. hit. for. that. high. of. an. average. with. runners. in. scoring. position. again.
So, anybody with some sense should realize the only direction for Matheny's offensive production to go is down, especially given his age of 35. Which brings us to another point -- games played. Matheny played 134 games last year, and a la Benito Santiago, saw his offensive numbers fall deeper into the season when his legs were no longer fresh. Does Sabes now propose to have Matheny play more games next season after seeing this phenomenon of old catchers getting tired late in the season for four of the last five seasons?
I guess that's the case, because otherwise he's trying to say that Knoedler can start about 30 games next year and be productive -- and that's 30 games if the 35 year-old catcher they currently have doesn't get hurt.
Seems an incredible stretch of common sense to me.
UPDATE: Thanks to Adam for this update, which apparently just happened a bit after I made this entry -- Todd Greene has signed a minor-league contract with the Giants within the last hour or two. Greene is 34, and has had some decent offensive production at times, although notably his best offensive years have been with the Rockies and Rangers, respectively.
Things make a lot more sense now than they did...oh, about three hours ago. Greene seems capable enough for a backup role, although officially he's to compete for the job.
Sunday, February 05, 2006
Speaking of Mays Field...
Good ol' Aneel over at Trapped in L.A. urges us to sign the petition started by the folks at MaysField.org, which happened to be such a good idea that I not only signed the petition, but then put up a large link on that thar sidebar for all of you all to click on and sign as well.
The petition goes as follows:
I couldn't have said it better myself, which is why I didn't say it myself, opting instead to let the much more eloquent (and much less lazy) Mays Field peoples take care of things for me. They're so nice that way...
So, why are you still reading this? Go. Sign. Makes so much sense that even George W. could grasp the concept (ba dump! crash!).
The petition goes as follows:
While we wholeheartedly support the sponsorship and financial commitment SBC/AT&T has provided to the San Francisco Giants, we believe the time has come to honor one of the most beloved ball players of all time whose name has been synonymous with the San Francisco Giants franchise for nearly half a century.
We propose re-branding SBC Park as “Willie Mays Field at AT&T Park” effective immediately.
This new name will continually remind the rest of the world of our rich baseball heritage and honor possibly the greatest player in baseball history. At the same time, the new name provides stability and class for one of the most beautiful ball parks in the nation and allows SBC/AT&T to continue their sponsorship while increasing their visibility. For this reason we believe this is a win-win situation for the San Francisco Giants, Major League Baseball, its fans, and the new combined SBC/AT&T Company.
I couldn't have said it better myself, which is why I didn't say it myself, opting instead to let the much more eloquent (and much less lazy) Mays Field peoples take care of things for me. They're so nice that way...
So, why are you still reading this? Go. Sign. Makes so much sense that even George W. could grasp the concept (ba dump! crash!).
Saturday, February 04, 2006
I saw the sign...
AT&T Park, eh?
...
..............
....................... .. . ... ......... .. ...
I agree with Lefty. Whatever.
Mays Field.
...
..............
....................... .. . ... ......... .. ...
I agree with Lefty. Whatever.
Mays Field.
Steve Finley vs. Jason Ellison
Here we go again.
Last year after the Giants acquired Randy Winn from the Seattle Mariners at the end of July, I was a little peeved.
Brian Sabean had traded away a good backup catcher and a younger, although questionable, pitcher in Yorvit Torrealba and Jesse Foppert to get an outfielder whose statistics were hardly better than the outfielders that had been playing to that point...and added a few million to the Giants payroll in the process. It wasn't that the Giants didn't need outfield help -- it was difficult to believe that Jason Ellison was the answer in CF, no matter how much effort the guy put out. So yes, help was needed, but Winn's statistical pedigree suggested he would have minimal impact.
Instead, Winn came in and posted a 1.071 OPS over 231 at-bats during August and September, was the sparkplug for just about all of the offense that the Giants managed to scrape together for those two months, and played a decent centerfield despite having a history of playing a questionable centerfield and playing one of the most difficult centerfields in all of the majors.
Yeah, well see, that would've been my 2nd guess.
The situation the Giants have created for themselves this offseason by picking up Steve Finley for Edgardo Alfonzo in the Trade of the Unwanteds has quite a few striking similarities to Winn's acquisition.
For one, the writing is again on the wall for Ellison. Last year, the writing said, "You're not good enough to start in our outfield", which wasn't a bad thing -- I loved the guy's hustle and effort, and he came out of the gate strong last year when the Giants were figuring out that Marquis Grissom wouldn't do them any good anymore, but he isn't a starting centerfielder, to be sure. Now, though, the writing says, "You're not good enough to be our 4th outfielder". Is that true?
(sigh) Yes, it is, but only if you have a better option. Is Finley a better option? Yes, no, maybe.
Stats are tough to compare for these two, because of two extreme circumstances for both players: Ellison has really only half a season's worth of big league at-bats to speak to what kind of numbers he's capable of putting up, and while Finley has a host of statistical data to analyze, he'll be 41 years of age by the time the 2006 season begins. But I'm a glutton for futile efforts, so...
Ellison: 352 at-bats, .264/.316/.361, 24 BB/44 SO (.55 bb/k ratio), 14 steals in 20 chances, 3.10 p/pa (pitches per plate appearance...say that 10 times fast), 1.67 g/f ratio (ground ball to fly ball)
Finley: 406 at-bats, .222/.271/.374, 26 BB/71 SO (.37 bb/k ratio), 8 steals in 12 chances, 3.84 p/pa, 0.92 g/f ratio
I would throw in Todd Linden, too, but my oracle told me that Dan Ortmeier and Adam Shabala have a better shot to make the team than Linden. Linden's career path seems destined to follow that of Pedro Feliz. He'll get a real shot when he's about 29 years old.
I won't bother with any career analysis for either Ellison or Finley, because it seems irrelevant. Ellison's inexperience and Finley's advanced age dictate we take things one year at a time.
But how does that one year comparison look? Horrible, really. Both players were terrible, but Finley costs a lot more to be terrible. Ellison strikes out at a lower rate (one per eight AB's, while Finley is at one per every 5.7 AB's), but doesn't do anything else significantly better. Finley sees almost a full pitch more in a plate appearance than Elly on average, which is good, and also has a much more palatable g/f ratio. He also has a much better ISO power number than Elly (152 vs. 97). Stolen base % and their walk rates are even enough to call it a wash.
Defensively, Finley has the edge if one look at Range Factor and Zone Ratings, which I really don't -- Finley Range Factor is much better then Elly at 2.72 to 2.00. But Finley also had a better fielding percentage, which is something I do glance at: .985 to .974.
What does this all boil down to? Finley, statistically, was a slightly worse player than Ellison last year, but they were both poor enough that it hardly matters. It really comes down to whether one believes Finley's age caught up with him last year and he's incapable of performing significantly better, or that he's got another year left in him to put up numbers that at least approach his 2003/2004 seasons with Arizona. One could also muse as to whether or not Ellison is talented enough to improve, but since we all know that Finley will be the only one to get enough plate appearances to show anything good or bad, it's a moot point.
In any case, it doesn't look good. Recalling a few other names of outfielders still playing at 40 doesn't exactly inspire confidence: Willie Mays, Rickey Henderson, B.J. Surhoff, Jose Cruz, Barry Bonds (oh, wait, nevermind that one). Heck, the Giants can do an in-depth study on the aging process of older outfielders all by themselves -- Grissom broke down a little shy of 40, while Moises Alou is almost there. I suppose it's hard not to believe Finley might have a little gas left in his tank with the 40-ish examples of Bonds and Alou right in front of you.
Last year after the Giants acquired Randy Winn from the Seattle Mariners at the end of July, I was a little peeved.
Brian Sabean had traded away a good backup catcher and a younger, although questionable, pitcher in Yorvit Torrealba and Jesse Foppert to get an outfielder whose statistics were hardly better than the outfielders that had been playing to that point...and added a few million to the Giants payroll in the process. It wasn't that the Giants didn't need outfield help -- it was difficult to believe that Jason Ellison was the answer in CF, no matter how much effort the guy put out. So yes, help was needed, but Winn's statistical pedigree suggested he would have minimal impact.
Instead, Winn came in and posted a 1.071 OPS over 231 at-bats during August and September, was the sparkplug for just about all of the offense that the Giants managed to scrape together for those two months, and played a decent centerfield despite having a history of playing a questionable centerfield and playing one of the most difficult centerfields in all of the majors.
Yeah, well see, that would've been my 2nd guess.
The situation the Giants have created for themselves this offseason by picking up Steve Finley for Edgardo Alfonzo in the Trade of the Unwanteds has quite a few striking similarities to Winn's acquisition.
For one, the writing is again on the wall for Ellison. Last year, the writing said, "You're not good enough to start in our outfield", which wasn't a bad thing -- I loved the guy's hustle and effort, and he came out of the gate strong last year when the Giants were figuring out that Marquis Grissom wouldn't do them any good anymore, but he isn't a starting centerfielder, to be sure. Now, though, the writing says, "You're not good enough to be our 4th outfielder". Is that true?
(sigh) Yes, it is, but only if you have a better option. Is Finley a better option? Yes, no, maybe.
Stats are tough to compare for these two, because of two extreme circumstances for both players: Ellison has really only half a season's worth of big league at-bats to speak to what kind of numbers he's capable of putting up, and while Finley has a host of statistical data to analyze, he'll be 41 years of age by the time the 2006 season begins. But I'm a glutton for futile efforts, so...
Ellison: 352 at-bats, .264/.316/.361, 24 BB/44 SO (.55 bb/k ratio), 14 steals in 20 chances, 3.10 p/pa (pitches per plate appearance...say that 10 times fast), 1.67 g/f ratio (ground ball to fly ball)
Finley: 406 at-bats, .222/.271/.374, 26 BB/71 SO (.37 bb/k ratio), 8 steals in 12 chances, 3.84 p/pa, 0.92 g/f ratio
I would throw in Todd Linden, too, but my oracle told me that Dan Ortmeier and Adam Shabala have a better shot to make the team than Linden. Linden's career path seems destined to follow that of Pedro Feliz. He'll get a real shot when he's about 29 years old.
I won't bother with any career analysis for either Ellison or Finley, because it seems irrelevant. Ellison's inexperience and Finley's advanced age dictate we take things one year at a time.
But how does that one year comparison look? Horrible, really. Both players were terrible, but Finley costs a lot more to be terrible. Ellison strikes out at a lower rate (one per eight AB's, while Finley is at one per every 5.7 AB's), but doesn't do anything else significantly better. Finley sees almost a full pitch more in a plate appearance than Elly on average, which is good, and also has a much more palatable g/f ratio. He also has a much better ISO power number than Elly (152 vs. 97). Stolen base % and their walk rates are even enough to call it a wash.
Defensively, Finley has the edge if one look at Range Factor and Zone Ratings, which I really don't -- Finley Range Factor is much better then Elly at 2.72 to 2.00. But Finley also had a better fielding percentage, which is something I do glance at: .985 to .974.
What does this all boil down to? Finley, statistically, was a slightly worse player than Ellison last year, but they were both poor enough that it hardly matters. It really comes down to whether one believes Finley's age caught up with him last year and he's incapable of performing significantly better, or that he's got another year left in him to put up numbers that at least approach his 2003/2004 seasons with Arizona. One could also muse as to whether or not Ellison is talented enough to improve, but since we all know that Finley will be the only one to get enough plate appearances to show anything good or bad, it's a moot point.
In any case, it doesn't look good. Recalling a few other names of outfielders still playing at 40 doesn't exactly inspire confidence: Willie Mays, Rickey Henderson, B.J. Surhoff, Jose Cruz, Barry Bonds (oh, wait, nevermind that one). Heck, the Giants can do an in-depth study on the aging process of older outfielders all by themselves -- Grissom broke down a little shy of 40, while Moises Alou is almost there. I suppose it's hard not to believe Finley might have a little gas left in his tank with the 40-ish examples of Bonds and Alou right in front of you.
Friday, January 20, 2006
Life as a Moron must be difficult...
I've been a moron on several occasions throughout the span of my life. Doubtless I will stray into that unique level of incompetence again, and probably within the next hour or so.
I do, however, strenuously avoid being a career moron. A lifer. Gene Wojciechowski apparently doesn't share the same level of concern as I do.
He threw out an article here explaining the finer points of why he would not let either Mark McGwire or Sammy Sosa into the Hall of Fame.
Not a new argument, to be sure, and this article breaks absolutely no new ground in the discussions surrounding any of the convicted/suspected steroids users from the last 10 years or so. So, why read it? Because it's great fun to see people hang themselves with their own rope.
This is the part that really got me:
So, Mr. Wojciechowski is perfectly fine knowing there are other players in the Hall who cheated in other ways to unknown effect, yet draws the line at McGwire's and Sosa's potential drug use. Cheating is okay as long as you use guile, but not with drugs.
Excuse me. What the fuck?
This line of reasoning is so asinine I literally shudder to think there may be others who think this way. Truly, cheating is a black and white thing. Cheating bad, not cheating good. I don't care the form, and neither should he. Cheating is morally reprehensible, period, but now the steroid jargon has gotten so out of control that we have people saying that corking a bat to hit better or scuffing up a ball to gain an unfair advantage isn't THAT bad when compared to drug use...drug use that, by the way, wasn't even banned.
I refer to something I wrote in the infancy of this blog right about a year ago -- while steroid use is wrong and should be banned, and punishments for breaking that ban should be harsh, is it really that different than what us working shmucks do every day to get by?
Energy drinks. Coffee. Pain pills. We put things into our bodies everyday that just aren't meant to be there, and four out of five times we're doing it in a work-related capacity. Feel better, more alert, have more energy, all in an effort to perform at a higher capacity than we would have had we not ingested any taurine, caffeine, or B-12.
It seems to all be a matter of degree for Mr. Wojciechowski. Drug use is such a large commitment with such far-reaching effects that it apparently crosses a line with him, while marking a baseball to make it move in ways it wouldn't normally is a small, one-time commitment. Nevermind that anyone using drugs ~still has to work extremely hard to net anything positive from the drug use~, while a guy who scuffs a baseball doesn't have to do a damned thing except find something with a rough surface, hide it in his glove, and rub the baseball for a few seconds.
Sure. That makes sense. Let's be glad Mr. Wojciechowski doesn't have a vote for the Hall, and let's hope he never gets one. Besides, he's too busy being a moron, and that's a difficult thing to maintain on a daily basis.
I do, however, strenuously avoid being a career moron. A lifer. Gene Wojciechowski apparently doesn't share the same level of concern as I do.
He threw out an article here explaining the finer points of why he would not let either Mark McGwire or Sammy Sosa into the Hall of Fame.
Not a new argument, to be sure, and this article breaks absolutely no new ground in the discussions surrounding any of the convicted/suspected steroids users from the last 10 years or so. So, why read it? Because it's great fun to see people hang themselves with their own rope.
This is the part that really got me:
There are hitters in the Hall of Fame who likely used corked bats on occasion to add to their numbers. There are pitchers in the Hall of Fame who almost certainly loaded up the ball once or twice (or more) during their careers. But prescription baseball is a level of cheating so obscene, so arrogant in nature (and yet, conveniently ignored by MLB and the players union during glorious 1998), that it prompted a congressional hearing.
So, Mr. Wojciechowski is perfectly fine knowing there are other players in the Hall who cheated in other ways to unknown effect, yet draws the line at McGwire's and Sosa's potential drug use. Cheating is okay as long as you use guile, but not with drugs.
Excuse me. What the fuck?
This line of reasoning is so asinine I literally shudder to think there may be others who think this way. Truly, cheating is a black and white thing. Cheating bad, not cheating good. I don't care the form, and neither should he. Cheating is morally reprehensible, period, but now the steroid jargon has gotten so out of control that we have people saying that corking a bat to hit better or scuffing up a ball to gain an unfair advantage isn't THAT bad when compared to drug use...drug use that, by the way, wasn't even banned.
I refer to something I wrote in the infancy of this blog right about a year ago -- while steroid use is wrong and should be banned, and punishments for breaking that ban should be harsh, is it really that different than what us working shmucks do every day to get by?
Energy drinks. Coffee. Pain pills. We put things into our bodies everyday that just aren't meant to be there, and four out of five times we're doing it in a work-related capacity. Feel better, more alert, have more energy, all in an effort to perform at a higher capacity than we would have had we not ingested any taurine, caffeine, or B-12.
It seems to all be a matter of degree for Mr. Wojciechowski. Drug use is such a large commitment with such far-reaching effects that it apparently crosses a line with him, while marking a baseball to make it move in ways it wouldn't normally is a small, one-time commitment. Nevermind that anyone using drugs ~still has to work extremely hard to net anything positive from the drug use~, while a guy who scuffs a baseball doesn't have to do a damned thing except find something with a rough surface, hide it in his glove, and rub the baseball for a few seconds.
Sure. That makes sense. Let's be glad Mr. Wojciechowski doesn't have a vote for the Hall, and let's hope he never gets one. Besides, he's too busy being a moron, and that's a difficult thing to maintain on a daily basis.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Happy New Year!
If you think you detect a note of sarcasm in my writing the title of this entry 11 days after the actual event took place, you are wrong. You do not detect a note of sarcasm...
...say, rather, you detect a symphony of sarcasm.
The Forces of Darkness (to be referred to hereafter as, "work") are about to find their efforts to keep me from writing thoroughly thwarted (and yes, thoroughly is a completely useless adjective when used with a word like thwarted, because something cannot be thwarted by degrees -- it either is thwarted, or it isn't. But I don't care, really. I'm finally writing something again. So there. I'm even breaking an unwritten grammar rule by taking entirely too long to close off these parenthesis and get on with the entry. But again, care, me, don't.)
I haven't the slightest clue as to what's going on with the Giants, or sports in general, save that my prediction of a Carolina Panthers/New England Patriots Superbowl matchup is looking pretty good at the moment.
Well, that isn't totally true. I hear the San Diego Padres have signed Shawn Estes (insert laughing synonym here), and that the Giants are interested in Josh Fogg. Usually I'd jump for joy hearing that the Giants are interested in a pitcher like Fogg...at least, I would until I realized that Fogg isn't any good...which, honestly, I did as soon as I read the blurb, thereby curtailing any possibility of the aforementioned jumping for joy. Ahem.
Note to Brian Sabean: Sabes, really, it's okay to let Brad Hennessey and Kevin Correia battle it out for the 5th spot in the rotation. Hennessey has the singular distinctive ability to become a totally non-descript pitcher -- which is what 5th starters usually are. He'll also make league minimum next year, something Fogg won't do to be just as poor/mediocre as Hennessey will be. At least we've seen a number of quality starts out of Hennessey -- bringing in somebody like Fogg would be absolutely superfluous.
Correia has the possibility of developing into...er, something other than a starting pitcher, I think. He never shows the "flash" often enough; that combination of control, velocity, and stuff that people seem to think he's capable of if given a chance to pitch regularly. I doubt it, personally, but I don't think there'd be much harm in letting Correia have the 5th spot if Hennessey can't seem to cut it, because I think there's a good enough chance Kevin could show that "flash" about once every three or four starts, which'd be good enough for a 5th spot in a rotation.
So no, Sabes, while a pitcher named Fogg pitching in a place like San Francisco would reap untold amounts of cool points for the franchise, there isn't any reason to bring the guy in.
Oh, and J.T. Snow signed with the Red Sox. Doesn't that just fit? They got Doug Meintkiewicz (did I just spell that guy's name right on the fly?), who is the poor man's J.T. -- no power, all glove, lefty hitting 1st baseman -- but perhaps felt cheated after he played fairly crappy for them during his short tenure there, only to grab the last out ball from their historic World Series win 2 years ago and fight with them for it. J.T., of course, is the real deal No-Power-All-Glove-Lefty-Hitting-First-Baseman, so I'm sure the Red Sox's NPAGLHFB fetish is satisfied, and of course Snow will give any World Series last out ball back to the team and the city, because that's the kind of guy he is. J.T.'s got more class than a prep school.
Anyways, I should be bulking up the entries now that I actually have two days off in a week, and of course Spring Training is sneaking up on us like a naked ninja wearing socks (which would mean he wasn't really naked, but nevermind).
...say, rather, you detect a symphony of sarcasm.
The Forces of Darkness (to be referred to hereafter as, "work") are about to find their efforts to keep me from writing thoroughly thwarted (and yes, thoroughly is a completely useless adjective when used with a word like thwarted, because something cannot be thwarted by degrees -- it either is thwarted, or it isn't. But I don't care, really. I'm finally writing something again. So there. I'm even breaking an unwritten grammar rule by taking entirely too long to close off these parenthesis and get on with the entry. But again, care, me, don't.)
I haven't the slightest clue as to what's going on with the Giants, or sports in general, save that my prediction of a Carolina Panthers/New England Patriots Superbowl matchup is looking pretty good at the moment.
Well, that isn't totally true. I hear the San Diego Padres have signed Shawn Estes (insert laughing synonym here), and that the Giants are interested in Josh Fogg. Usually I'd jump for joy hearing that the Giants are interested in a pitcher like Fogg...at least, I would until I realized that Fogg isn't any good...which, honestly, I did as soon as I read the blurb, thereby curtailing any possibility of the aforementioned jumping for joy. Ahem.
Note to Brian Sabean: Sabes, really, it's okay to let Brad Hennessey and Kevin Correia battle it out for the 5th spot in the rotation. Hennessey has the singular distinctive ability to become a totally non-descript pitcher -- which is what 5th starters usually are. He'll also make league minimum next year, something Fogg won't do to be just as poor/mediocre as Hennessey will be. At least we've seen a number of quality starts out of Hennessey -- bringing in somebody like Fogg would be absolutely superfluous.
Correia has the possibility of developing into...er, something other than a starting pitcher, I think. He never shows the "flash" often enough; that combination of control, velocity, and stuff that people seem to think he's capable of if given a chance to pitch regularly. I doubt it, personally, but I don't think there'd be much harm in letting Correia have the 5th spot if Hennessey can't seem to cut it, because I think there's a good enough chance Kevin could show that "flash" about once every three or four starts, which'd be good enough for a 5th spot in a rotation.
So no, Sabes, while a pitcher named Fogg pitching in a place like San Francisco would reap untold amounts of cool points for the franchise, there isn't any reason to bring the guy in.
Oh, and J.T. Snow signed with the Red Sox. Doesn't that just fit? They got Doug Meintkiewicz (did I just spell that guy's name right on the fly?), who is the poor man's J.T. -- no power, all glove, lefty hitting 1st baseman -- but perhaps felt cheated after he played fairly crappy for them during his short tenure there, only to grab the last out ball from their historic World Series win 2 years ago and fight with them for it. J.T., of course, is the real deal No-Power-All-Glove-Lefty-Hitting-First-Baseman, so I'm sure the Red Sox's NPAGLHFB fetish is satisfied, and of course Snow will give any World Series last out ball back to the team and the city, because that's the kind of guy he is. J.T.'s got more class than a prep school.
Anyways, I should be bulking up the entries now that I actually have two days off in a week, and of course Spring Training is sneaking up on us like a naked ninja wearing socks (which would mean he wasn't really naked, but nevermind).
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Yeah, that'd be about right...
So, Brian Sabean managed to find a way to dump Edgardo Alfonzo, not save any money by doing so, and managed to make the team older, all in one fell swoop?
Yeah, that'd be about right.
I like saying "Steve Finley, 4th outfielder" about as much as I like saying, "Edgardo Alfonzo, 3rd baseman". Which is to say, not at all. But oddly enough, I feel better. I mean, if Sabes wants to pay his 4th outfielder more than his starting centerfielder and his starting right fielder, more power to the guy.
Hey, does anyone think that he even looks at any free agents under the age of 30? Sorry, rhetorical question.
It'll take me a bit to digest all this, at which point I'll try to address the issue of whether or not the Giants are significantly better with all the moves they've made this offseason. Offhand I think they're better, but significantly better is the part that worries me. I mean, if you just put the names side by side...
Brett Tomko/Matt Morris
Scott Eyre/Tim Worrell
LaTroy Hawkins/Steve Kline
Edgardo Alfonzo/Steve Finley
J.T. Snow/Mark Sweeney
Let's really think about that. If you want to say the names on the right constitute a significant upgrade, I'm fine with that -- but I'll talk about you behind the front of your back when you're not looking in a mirror. Or something.
Hm. That list is just beggin' for some good ol' fashioned new-fangled statistical a-nalysis, which I just ain't got the time to do at the moment. But, I'm guessing if y'all didn't feel like waiting, you could mosey on over to that thar sidebar and find some folks who might have an extra minute or three to have done it.
Otherwise, gimme 7-10 business days.
Yeah, that'd be about right.
I like saying "Steve Finley, 4th outfielder" about as much as I like saying, "Edgardo Alfonzo, 3rd baseman". Which is to say, not at all. But oddly enough, I feel better. I mean, if Sabes wants to pay his 4th outfielder more than his starting centerfielder and his starting right fielder, more power to the guy.
Hey, does anyone think that he even looks at any free agents under the age of 30? Sorry, rhetorical question.
It'll take me a bit to digest all this, at which point I'll try to address the issue of whether or not the Giants are significantly better with all the moves they've made this offseason. Offhand I think they're better, but significantly better is the part that worries me. I mean, if you just put the names side by side...
Brett Tomko/Matt Morris
Scott Eyre/Tim Worrell
LaTroy Hawkins/Steve Kline
Edgardo Alfonzo/Steve Finley
J.T. Snow/Mark Sweeney
Let's really think about that. If you want to say the names on the right constitute a significant upgrade, I'm fine with that -- but I'll talk about you behind the front of your back when you're not looking in a mirror. Or something.
Hm. That list is just beggin' for some good ol' fashioned new-fangled statistical a-nalysis, which I just ain't got the time to do at the moment. But, I'm guessing if y'all didn't feel like waiting, you could mosey on over to that thar sidebar and find some folks who might have an extra minute or three to have done it.
Otherwise, gimme 7-10 business days.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Egads, that's a lot of money
I suppose I could make an attempt at a quasi-gloat, seeing as how the Giants signed the exact pitcher that I was thinking they would and should back in October.
Instead, I'll go for a wince. Of consternation. And a little hand-wringing, too.
Three years is the length of the contract given to former St. Louis Cardinals starter Matt Morris, which is a length I fully expected.
Twenty-seven million dollars is the value of the guaranteed portion of the contract given to Mr. Morris, which is a number I would've thought possible over a three-year span, but also would've thought silly.
I wanted Morris in the starting rotation, but methinks that salary figure is just too much. Did the Giants and Brian Sabean have much choice? Probably not, but we've seen how much Sabean covets proven veterans, "winners", and their ilk. He simply overpays veterans whenever possible, although whether that's because of a lack of negotiating skills, market pressures, or other circumstances is beyond my feeble ability to ascertain.
But while Morris was the "best of the rest" of the starters on the market not named Kevin Millwood or A.J. Burnett (which reminds me...Toronto!? What the heck is Burnett doing going to...nevermind), he just isn't worth nine million per year. His contract is valued at about three and a half times the annual salary Brett Tomko made last season, yet Morris isn't anywhere close to three and a half times as good. Better, yes, but is he going to give the Giants an extra 6.5 million worth of pitching over Tomko? No, not unless he duplicates his 2001 Cy Young, which saw him run up 7.7 k's per nine innings, a 2.01 g/f ratio, and a .685 OPS against, all of which are fantastic numbers, and none of which are numbers he came close to duplicating in his last two seasons pitched.
But, will he help? Yes, I don't think there's much doubt he adds stability to the rotation, which could run into potential issues with the youth and inexperience of Noah Lowry and Matt Cain, a possible skills decline in Jason Schmidt, and a fifth spot that has yet to be determined. I can see Morris being a rock of consistency in the rotation at the third spot. I can also see him experiencing a bit of a resurgence in SBC/Mays Field, as the left-handed lineups many opposing managers will throw at him should have trouble taking him deep -- most of Morris' pitching history has seen him give up few long balls (with the notable exception of 2004), and with him now in a park that kills most left-handed hitters chances of hitting home runs, I expect to see him continue that habit.
Interesting to note that as the Giants part ways with J.T. Snow and his Gold-Glove defense at 1st base, they bring in a pitcher who will end up having a lot of ground balls head to the right side of the infield. Not to say this was a good enough reason to bring Snow back, but...well, the platoon combo of Lance Niekro and Mark Sweeney had better hit enough to make up for the loss in defense, at the least.
So, with this large contract done, one can't help but think the Giants are all but done making any kind of major changes in their roster. I'm assuming they don't really have any money left after signing Morris, so big names are out. I'm expecting perhaps one more relief pitcher's name to pop up (who I'm assuming will be over 35 years old), and a 4th outfielder of some sort. I don't rule out another starter to take the 5th spot, but I tend to think that the job will end up falling to Brad Hennessey in some way, shape or form.
Take care, all.
Instead, I'll go for a wince. Of consternation. And a little hand-wringing, too.
Three years is the length of the contract given to former St. Louis Cardinals starter Matt Morris, which is a length I fully expected.
Twenty-seven million dollars is the value of the guaranteed portion of the contract given to Mr. Morris, which is a number I would've thought possible over a three-year span, but also would've thought silly.
I wanted Morris in the starting rotation, but methinks that salary figure is just too much. Did the Giants and Brian Sabean have much choice? Probably not, but we've seen how much Sabean covets proven veterans, "winners", and their ilk. He simply overpays veterans whenever possible, although whether that's because of a lack of negotiating skills, market pressures, or other circumstances is beyond my feeble ability to ascertain.
But while Morris was the "best of the rest" of the starters on the market not named Kevin Millwood or A.J. Burnett (which reminds me...Toronto!? What the heck is Burnett doing going to...nevermind), he just isn't worth nine million per year. His contract is valued at about three and a half times the annual salary Brett Tomko made last season, yet Morris isn't anywhere close to three and a half times as good. Better, yes, but is he going to give the Giants an extra 6.5 million worth of pitching over Tomko? No, not unless he duplicates his 2001 Cy Young, which saw him run up 7.7 k's per nine innings, a 2.01 g/f ratio, and a .685 OPS against, all of which are fantastic numbers, and none of which are numbers he came close to duplicating in his last two seasons pitched.
But, will he help? Yes, I don't think there's much doubt he adds stability to the rotation, which could run into potential issues with the youth and inexperience of Noah Lowry and Matt Cain, a possible skills decline in Jason Schmidt, and a fifth spot that has yet to be determined. I can see Morris being a rock of consistency in the rotation at the third spot. I can also see him experiencing a bit of a resurgence in SBC/Mays Field, as the left-handed lineups many opposing managers will throw at him should have trouble taking him deep -- most of Morris' pitching history has seen him give up few long balls (with the notable exception of 2004), and with him now in a park that kills most left-handed hitters chances of hitting home runs, I expect to see him continue that habit.
Interesting to note that as the Giants part ways with J.T. Snow and his Gold-Glove defense at 1st base, they bring in a pitcher who will end up having a lot of ground balls head to the right side of the infield. Not to say this was a good enough reason to bring Snow back, but...well, the platoon combo of Lance Niekro and Mark Sweeney had better hit enough to make up for the loss in defense, at the least.
So, with this large contract done, one can't help but think the Giants are all but done making any kind of major changes in their roster. I'm assuming they don't really have any money left after signing Morris, so big names are out. I'm expecting perhaps one more relief pitcher's name to pop up (who I'm assuming will be over 35 years old), and a 4th outfielder of some sort. I don't rule out another starter to take the 5th spot, but I tend to think that the job will end up falling to Brad Hennessey in some way, shape or form.
Take care, all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)