Standing on the Shoulders of GIANTS

Excellent Fan-made Video on the Giants' World Series Victory

2011-03-09T21:11:00.001-08:00

Thought I would share. Found this little gem on youtube.

Giants LOL About Zito

2011-03-03T20:47:00.000-08:00

Look at those hands. $126 million hands.

No one likes Barry Zito. Well, no one likes $126 million-Barry Zito. No Giants fans enjoy being reminded that their former ownership group made the biggest blunder in signing Barry Zito since the Dodgers signed Darren Dreifort or Germany invaded Russia. Zito, wisely or not, was brought into the Giants organization in the wake left by Barry Bonds's unheroic departure from the team. He was supposed to be the face of the franchise and was supposed to keep fans in the seats. 57 losses later, Zito clearly is far from being anything close to the face of the franchise or even from being one of the more popular players.

Nonetheless, it was shocking to hear last week that the Giants were near the end of their rope with Zeets. Early in the week, the San Francisco Chronicle wrote that a "source" from within the "team" declared that the Giants were at the end of their rope with Zito following an abysmal spring training start, where he walked more guys than he got out, which was reminiscent of his final start of the regular season, where Zito ended up walking in runs during the first inning in a big-stage game against the Padres (at game which yours truly attended for better or worse). It was not shocking to hear that the Giants were tired of Zito, as he is the most over-paid player in the league given his talent level, but it was shocking to hear that the Giants actually were considering trading Zito or buying out his contract.

Zito is a league-average pitcher. Regardless of his salary and what he should be, Zito is, and always will be, a league-average pitcher. In terms of WHIP, Zito has been a slightly better than average pitcher in every season with Giants except for the horrendous 2008. Given the Giants' strength in pitching, with Lincecum, Cain, Bumgarner, and Sanchez slated to be your 1 through 4, having a solid league average pitcher in your 5th hole, where Zito is slated to be this season, is pretty damn good. Most fifth starters in the league are below-average starters. That is why they are at the tail end of the rotation.

Additionally, the Giants, for all their pitching strength, lack depth in their system to replace starters. Who would you have replace Barry Zito if the Giants were to kick him to the curb? Jeff Suppan? Suppan was so bad last year he had a -0.7 WAR. He was so bad that he lost his job on the BREWERS. If you are so bad that you can't even stay on the Brewers, you have no place consistently starting on the San Francisco Giants.

Fortunately, sanity has prevailed and it seems like this "source" the Chronicle found was more likely than not some girl in the front office Zito boned and never called back. Bruce Bochey explained today that there is absolutely no merit to the rumor that Zito is going to be dumped.

Good. Because that would be almost as dumb as signing the guy for $126 million. The bottom line is this: Zito will be a Giant until his contract expires. If that bothers you then all I have to say is:

Welcome to the Show

2010-11-05T09:29:00.000-07:00

The San Francisco Giants have won the World Series. Despite being a Giants fan my entire life (to varying degrees of intensity), despite always pulling for this team, defending it against the naysayers, I never thought I would be able to write that sentence. The Curse of Coogan's Bluff was something etched into Giants-lore, much like the Curse of the Bambino for the Red Sox, that honestly left me thinking and fearful that the Giants would never win a championship outside of New York.

The story is pretty simple. When the Giants played in New York their home was the Polo Grounds in Harlem. Overlooking the stadium was a rock formation the locals called Coogan's Bluff. While in New York, the Giants were one of the most successful franchises in the sport: they won 5 World Series (7 if you count the two that predated the modern championship format, and perhaps they would have won in 1904 against the Red Sox if they had not boycotted the championship to snub the American League) and won 17 National League Pennants. Some of the greatest names in baseball were known for their time with the Giants: Christie Mathewson was probably the greatest pitcher of the dead ball era, John McGraw is still one of the most successful managers of all time, and no one could forget Bobby Thompson's "shot heard 'round the world" in 1951.

Despite being a powerhouse throughout their early history, the Giants' success and popularity waned in the 1940s and 1950s. First of all, they stopped winning. The Giants won 13 pennants between 1904 and 1937. They won zero in the 1940s. Additionally, the Yankees moved to town. The Yankees had a nicer stadium in a whiter part of town. The Giants played in Harlem. White fans, i.e. wealthy fans, did not want to spend their money on a team that played in a black part of town. Moreover, the Yankees had the Bambino, they had Dimaggio, they had Mantle. New York became a Yankee town and there wasn't enough room for the Jints.

So began the westward expansion, spearheaded by the Giants and the Dodgers. Incensed Giants fans in New York decried that the once proud Giants would never win a World Series so long as they did not play at Coogan's Bluff. For 52 years that curse was true.

The Giants moved to San Francisco. Instead of finding a pristine location for their new stadium, as the Dodgers did with Chavez Ravine, Giants-owner Horace Stoneham picked perhaps the worst location in the United States to build a baseball park: Candlestick Point. In the four decades the Giants would play at the 'stick they would win a measly two pennants and zero World Series championships. The reason was pretty clear: fans did not want to freeze watching their team and players did not want to play there. The once proud Giants, a franchise that had the most wins in baseball history, a healthy number of World Series championships, and an army of pennants simply became a joke. The Curse of Coogan's Bluff could not have been any truer.

Luckily for the Giants and their fans, brighter shores were in store for the team. The Giants went from playing in the worst stadium in the majors to playing in the best one in 2000 when what is now known as AT&T Park opened in downtown San Francisco. Since the opening of the new stadium the dynamic of the team completely changed. Whereas before Giants fans were mostly considered hooligans from South San Francisco and Daly City, the new location drew in a wealthier crowd with more appeal to middle class people in the Bay Area. More free agents were willing to sign with the Giants, as the new stadium is a gem to play in. From 2000 to 2010 the Giants won 2 pennants, 3 Western Division Titles, 1 wild card berth, and most importantly, 1 World Series Championship. The curse of Coogan's Bluff has been broken and the Giants have restored pride to the franchise.

Being a fan of this team in its San Francisco era was nothing short of masochism up until now. The history of the Giants in San Francisco was one of always coming short: in 1962 the Giants lost game 7 of the World Series with men on first and second, when Willie McCovey hit the would-be series winning ball straight to a Yankee Glove. In 1989 an earthquake was the most eventful occurrence when the Oakland A's swept the Giants in the World Series. In 2002, the Giants led by Bonds and Kent, lost game 6 of the World Series despite having a 5-run lead. The Angels would go on to win the whole thing the next day. In 1993 the Giants had a 100+ win season and still failed to make the playoffs. It just seemed part of a Giants fan that you would be constantly disappointed.

And it was something that was shocking to Giants fans who had come to love a team that seemed to have it all. The Giants are a team with a historic pedigree, a great fanbase, a beautiful ball park, and the best announcing team in the game. The only thing they lacked is that one damn championship.

Well now we have it. All is right in the world. Being a Giants fan is awesome again.

Let's do it next year.

What to Get for The Push?

2010-07-26T20:53:00.000-07:00

The Major League Baseball trade deadline is less than a week away. The Giants are projected to win the National League West, which would put the team into the post-season for the first time since 2003. The drought has been so long that even a long-time fan such as myself is having a difficult time remembering the Giants in October. If the Giants do make it will be the first time the Giants will be in the playoffs without Barry Bonds, something which the army of fans the Giants have amassed since moving to AT&T park have never seen. So the question on every Giants fan right now is what to do about the trade deadline. There are two things which the Giants need to shore up to have an elite team: hitting and bullpen depth.

The Offense Now
Thus far, the Giants offense has not been bad, especially if you have been watching the Giants Bonds left. As it stands now, the Giants have the fourth highest batting avg in the national league and the eighth best SLG and OBP. This can largely be attributed to unlikely resurgences in Aubrey Huff and Andres Torres, as well as the emergence of Buster Posey as the Giants best hitting positional prospect since Will Clark. That said, if the Giants want to go deep into the playoffs they are going to need more than a slightly above-average offense. They will need an offense that ranks among the top third of baseball, at least, in order to compete with the pitching staff in October. Given that, which players should the Giants look to acquire before the week's end?

Jayson Werth

Werth would give the Giants an Edge.

Of all the available players, Jayson Werth would probably be the most ideal for the Giants. First, the Giants are looking to upgrade int he outfield. This season right field has been manned primarily by Nate Schierholtz or platooned with Aubrey Huff and Andres Torres. While Schierholtz provides superb defense, his hitting has been rather pedestrian this year. Upgrading in right would allow the Giants to add a strong player without crowding out any of the other serviceable options.

After signing Ryan Howard to a ridiculous contract, it became clear in Philadelphia that they would not be able to financially hold onto Werth, who is set to hit free agency at the end of the season. Thus, the Fightin' Phils have put Werth on the trading block. Rumor has it that the Phillies, who are looking for starting pitching, and the Astros, who are looking to move Roy Oswalt for prospects, could be trying to figure out a three way deal which would land then the Astros' ace. The Giants have been linked to Werth, and possibly could be involved in this three way deal. The Giants certainly have a decent amount of prospects, including Tomas Neal and Nick Noonan, who may prove to be attractive enough to Houston to part ways with Oswalt.

So, it may be possible to get Werth, but why would be help the Giants out? For the past several years, Werth has been around a 4.5 to 5.0 WAR player. He is superb with the bat, plays defense well enough, and can run with speed. Werth currently has been hitting with a .382 wOBA, which would bode well for a the Giants offense, and definitely hits for power (Werth hit 36 HRs in 2008).

As I noted above, however, Werth will hit free agency at the end of the year. Thus, any trade for Werth would only guarantee his services through the end of the season. His agent, Scott Boras, has made it clear that Werth will be the premiere free agent in the off-season, thus to retain him would require a lot of cash. However, it Werth leaves via free agency it will give the Giants two draft picks, which will help replenish the farm system after trading some 'specs away for Werth in the first place. Thus, while it may be frustrating to get a rental player, having someone like Werth who could help the Giants get a ring this play-off season would be well worth parting with a few prospects. You have to spend money to make money.

Therefore, Werth should be on top of the Giants' list. If it is possible to get him, they should.

Josh Willingham
Willingham is a 31-year old outfielder in the Washington Nationals organization. Like Werth, Willingham could man down in right-field, and could provide some significant production there. Throughout his career, Willingham has been a 2.5 WAR player. Clearly, Willingham could not provide the same production that Werth could, nor would he impact the lineup nearly as much as would Werth, but Willingham could provide a more well-rounded lineup which offers more depth and fewer auto-outs.

Willingham's stats are impressive and would be a welcome addition. He is on track to hit 30 HRs this season, and offensively this year has actually been better than Jayson Werth with a .391 wOBA. Clearly, he is a good player.

And perhaps that is the reason why it would take a lot to get him from Washington. After the emergence of Stephen Stausborg, Washington is working hard to build a formidable team. While they have been wallowing in mediocrity, Willingham could be one of the pieces that they will need in the coming years to have a winning season. In order to pry him away from Washington, the Giants would certainly have to wow him. Apparently, Nationals GM Rizzo has mentioned that he is not shopping Willingham, but has received calls regarding them. Thus, it seems that Willingham may not even be possible, but if he is an option, Brian Sabean should seriously consider it.

Cory Hart
Hart is currently an outfielder for the Milwaukee Brewers. I wanted to address Hart because the Giants were closely linked to a deal with the Brewers for Hart, which the Giants wisely turned down. Apparently the Brewers wanted Jonathan Sanchez for Hart. Thank goodness, Brian Sabean turned this deal down.

The Giants are known for being a pitching team. However, despite having a good rotation, the Giants system lacks pitching depth. If the Giants were to lose one of their starters either Todd Wellemeyer or Joe Martinez would have to fill in, which has never worked out well for the club when they were forced to use those options. Cory Hart has had an up and down career. While he has provided his team with a 4.1 WAR one year, the next he regressed down to 0.7. This year looks to be another career year for Hart, and it seems that he won't be able to continue the production he has had in the past, as his career has been one that remains very unpredictable.

Unpredictability is an adjective that goes hand in hand with Sanchez as well. However, Sanchez remains a serviceable fourth-starter that has proven to be a strong anchor for the Giants at the end of the rotation. Giving up a good starter for a hitter whose production is unlikely to be sustainable is something that the Giants were wise to say away from. Thus, my hat is off to the Giants front office for not folding to the Brewers' demands.

Adam Laroche
Many fans might have remembered how Adam Laroche snubbed the Giants during the offseason. Laroche was one of Sabean's initial offerees while preparing for 2010. Larache apparently turned the Giants down and later accepted a deal for half the money from the Arizona Diamondbacks. Now, half way through the season, the Dbacks are one of the worst teams in baseball, and management is having a firesale. One has to wonder if Laroche thinks he made the right decision.

Laroche, while not an outfielder, would still make a good addition to the Giants at first base. As far as WAR is concerned, Laroche would probably offer the same that Willingham and Hart would: he would be an upgrade, he would be a good hitter, but he would not be the impact player that Jayson Werth would be. Laroche's wOBA is currently lower than Hart's and Willingham's at .340, but hopefully hitting in a better lineup would see those numbers get higher, even if half his games are played at AT&T Park.

One thing that I like about Laroche is that he may be open to a deal that we could lock him into for a couple years. Players like to be part of winning teams, and the Giants are going to be competitive for several years. With a decent hitter like Laroche on the club it might just be the addition they need to be a contender.

Conclusion
The Giants need offense. They will probably win their division with the players they currently have. However, it is unlikely they will be able to go deep into the playoffs without a little more help. Jayson Werth is the best option available, and Brian Sabean should do everything he can to make that happen. Short of Werth, the second-tier hitters available should be closely examined.

The bottom line: something has to happen.

One for The History Books

2010-07-25T23:26:00.000-07:00

Anyone who reads this blog may have noticed that I have not updated in quit a long time. The reason for that is because I have been studying for the California Bar Exam. However, the test is next week, I feel as prepared as I possibly can be, and last week I had the opportunity to watch one of the greatest baseball games I have ever seen in my life. Thus, my decision to update.

Baseball's Greatest Rivalry

There are many rivalries in sports. When people think of baseball I am sure the majority of fans think about the Yankees and Red Sox and their rivalry. That rivalry certainly gets the most attention in the press, and those two teams are the two most popular teams, so of course their rivalry is going to be romanticized. However, it truly does not capture the intensity, the history, and the pedigree that the Dodgers-Giants rivalry has.

The Giants and Dodgers are two of baseball's oldest teams. Their hatred for each other began while the two teams broke ground as two of the premiere teams in New York and Brooklyn, respectively. The Giants represented the wealth and class of big city New York, while the Dodgers represented the knock-hard working class Brooklyn. The cultural rivalry that was represented each time the two teams met on the diamond endured across an entire continent, when the Dodgers moved to Los Angeles and the Giants moved to San Francisco: two cities which have always fought and struggled with another to be the beacon of the American West.

Unlike the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry, which has been historically one-sided, the Dodgers-Giants rivalry is uncannily even insofar as the success of the two franchises is concerned. The Giants have beaten the Dodgers 1164 times, while the Dodgers have won 1147 times. Additionally, the Dodgers have 22 pennants while the Giants have 20; the Dodgers have 6 World Series titles, while the Giants have 5. Indeed, the rivalry between these two teams has always been fresh and intense, due to the fact the two teams always have something to prove to another.

The rivalry, being the longest in sports' history, has may great moments. The Shot Heard Round the World, is perhaps the greatest moment in the history of call sports. Juan Marichal's viscous attack on Johnny Rosboro with a bat remains the most viscous episode of violence in the history of professional baseball. Brian Johnson's 12th-inning homerun agains the Dodgers in 1997, which sent the Giants into the post-season, remains one of the greatest homeruns in Giants' history.

A New Chapter

And now, the Giants and Dodgers have yet another game to add to the long list of epic moments the often results when these two franchises meet. On July 20, 2010 the Giants and Dodgers met at Chavez Ravine to play game 2 of their three-game series. The Giants had not fared well against the Dodgers at all this year. Going into the series the Dodgers had beaten the Giants 5 times, including a sweep at AT&T Park, while the Giants had beaten the Dodgers once. The Giants were able to beat their rivals on July 19, 2010, and going into game 2 it seemed like the Giants would be able to win their first series against their rivals, as Tim Lincecum was taking the mound against Clayton Kershaw.

Also on the minds of many Giants fans was when the Giants were going to get revenge. Earlier in the season, Dodger starting-pitcher Vicente Padilla threw a ball that hit Aaron Rowand in the face, fracturing the Giants' center fielder's cheek bone; an injury that would sideline him for several weeks. Many of us anticipated the Giants would retaliate when the Dodgers came to San Francisco, but nothing happened and it seemed that Rowand's injury would be forgotten.

The game began immediately with the Dodgers drilling Giants' lead-off man, Andres Torres. Again, Giants fans wondered when the retaliation would come. It appeared that the Dodgers were going to continue to bully our players and no one on our staff would get revenge. As a blood thirsty fan you want to see blood whenever a Dodger pitcher hits a Giants batter. However, to make matters worse, Lincecum did not have his stuff going for him. He threw some pitches randomly into the air, he could barely hit the strike-zone, and before he was taken out in the fifth inning he had given up five runs.

In the fifth-inning however, with the Giants down 5 to 1, the tensions would escalate. With Matt Kemp at the plate, on the 1-0 pitch, Lincecum threw a ball high and inside, which brushed Kemp back, knocking him to the ground. Boos echoed throughout Dodger Stadium as Kemp stood up and resumed his stance in the box. With the next pitch, Lincecum threw at Kemp again, hitting the Dodger-slugger in the back. Kemp marched out in front of the plate and watching the game you wondered if he would charge the mound. Lincecum, for his part, stepped off the mound and turned his back to Kemp as the Dodger fumed and marched to first base. Pablo Sandoval rushed forward and stood between Kemp and Lincecum. The tension subsided and the game went on.

The drama would return however. Pablo Sandoval hit a three-run double in the 6th inning that brought the game to 5-4. With Aaron Rowand at the plate in the 7th, Dodger pitcher Clayton Kershaw threw a ball right at Rowand, hitting him in the leg. Due to the fact that Kershaw had been warned about retaliation, he was ejected along with manager Joe Torre. The game went out without any more immediate drama.

In the bottom of the ninth, the Giants managed to get a man on second and third. Jonathan Broxton, the elite closer for the Dodgers, came on to close out the game and to protect the slim 5-4 lead Los Angeles had. After Broxton came on he walked the first batter he saw to load the bases. After that perhaps one of the weirdest rules lawyering happened that I have ever seen in baseball would end up helping the Giants mount one of the most epic comebacks in recent history.

Mattingly, the Dodgers coach after Torre and their second in command had been ejected, came out to talk with the Dodgers and Broxton. The men huddled on the field and discussed strategy for a moment. After a short time they broke. Mattingly stepped off the mound and onto the grass. As he did so, James Loney, first baseman for the Dodgers, asked a question. Mattingly spun around and stepped back onto the mound in order to answer.

Renteria scores the winning run.

Suddenly, with a fire in his step you rarely see, Bruce Bochy came thundering out of the Giants dugout. Bochy bee-lined straight for the umpires and starting complaining about something. No one watching the game knew what was going on. The Dodgers didn't know what was going on. The Giants didn't know what was going on. The Dodger-fans never know what's going on. Certainly none of the umpires knew what was going on. However, an obscure rule would come into play, which would turn the Giants' fortunes for the better.

Rule 8.06 of Baseball limits the amount of mound visits a coach can make during the same batter. Subsection (b) holds that "a second trip to the same pitcher in the same inning will cause [the] pitcher's removal." Lastly, subsection (d) holds that "a manager or coach is considered to have concluded his visit to the mound when he leaves the 18-foot circles surrounding the pitcher's rubber."

After a short argument, Jonathan Broxton, the elite-closer for the Dodgers was taken out of the game. In to replace him was George Sherrill, one of the biggest disappointments in major league baseball this year. After just two pitches, Andres Torres hit a shot into left-center, which scored two runs and gave the Giants the lead, and after a shut down from Brian Wilson, the Giants were able to steal away a game from the Dodgers and stun them. It was one of those moments that harken back to the glory days of baseball. It was one of those moments that fired up an entire fanbase and let us all know that the 2010 Giants have a fire in their hearts and are going to try their hardest to go deep this year.

A Rivalry Renewed?

During the Bonds years there was a fervor in the Giants-Dodgers rivalry. Dodgers fans hated Barry Bonds. He was the best player in the game and he played for their hated enemy. Giants fans loved to see Barry beat LA. Since Bonds left, however, the rivalry, at least from the perspective in San Francisco, lost a little of its pop. The Giants were hardly competitive through 2007 and 2008, thus the rivalry lost a little of its fun. Moreover, for all the hatred that existed between the fans of these two franchises, you always had to wonder where the hatred was between the players, if it existed at all.

Beat LA.

I always wanted the players on my team to hate the players on the Dodgers. I never wanted to see them get chummy at first base. I never wanted to see them laughing and making jokes with each other. I never wanted to see them tell the media how good of a team the other was. No. I didn't want them to friend. I wanted Juan Marichal beating the crap out of a blueberry with a baseball bat. That's baseball. That's Giants-Dodgers.

With modernity, a lot of these rivalries fizzled out on the field. In the early days of baseball many of the players on major league teams were actually from the cities they played in. They often grew up rooting for the teams they played for. And many of them lived within blocks of the stadiums where they worked each day. Thus, players of yesteryear understood how the fans felt. They understood what it was like to hate the Dodgers or hate the Giants. Because they grew up being in the same place as the fans had been.

Now, however, with baseball being an extremely professional and sophisticated business, most players do not play for the team they grew up rooting for. In fact, several Giants players today, such as Sergio Romo and Barry Zito, actually grew up rooting for the Dodgers. Thus, much of the hatred for the Dodgers, which is so personal for fans, is simply not there for the players.

Suck it Russel Martin.

I feel that has changed with this past series in Los Angeles. Over the past two years several incidents have occurred which I believe has led to some serious bad blood that now has become personal between players on the Giants and Dodgers, which has seemingly recurred on the field several times. One such incident was last year when Casey Blake mocked Brian Wilson from the dugout in Los Angeles by copying the gesture Wilson makes in remembrance of his father. To Blake's credit, he didn't know what Wilson's gesture meant, but even after he found out what it meant he refused to apologize.

In 2009, the Giants and Dodgers cleared the benches at AT&T park after Pablo Sandoval and Russel Martin got into an argument at the plate. No punches were thrown but it looked like something serious was brewing. This year, Aaron Rowand has been thrown at twice. Matt Kemp has been hit. Andres Torres has been hit. Russel Martin got a brush-back. And after 20 July, the Dodgers suffered one of their most humiliating losses in years.

There is no telling if further retaliation will come. However, coming this week the Dodgers will return to AT&T Park. Let's hope another chapter in the rivalry will be written.

Antitrust and Competitive Balance

2010-04-30T13:08:00.000-07:00

Competitive balance is a hot topic for baseball fans these days. After the Yankees won their 27th World Series on a gargantuan payroll that was leaps and bounds ahead of any other team in the league, the grumblings around the baseball community about the need to address balance issues in MLB were renewed. Indeed, without a doubt baseball does have a balance issue. "From 1980 to 1986, twenty of baseball's twenty-six teams made it to a League Championship Series (LCS). From 1995 through 2001, only eleven of baseball's thirty made it to an LCS." (Zimbalist, May The Best Team Win (2003) p. 43.) Moreover, of the eleven teams that did make it to an LCS during the 1995-2001 period, none won a World Series who were outside the top fourth in payrolls. (Id. at p. 43.) Clearly there is something wrong with baseball. A myriad of solutions have been suggested: salary caps, salary floors, more revenue sharing, and realignment have been the most common solutions debated in the media.

There is one thing, however, that I never hear discussed. Baseball's archaic antitrust exception. Baseball's antitrust exception has allowed the league to create a system which lends itself to balance issues throughout the lead. With its antitrust exception, baseball has created a flawed minor league system which may be a chief contributor to baseball's balance issues. In this essay I will detail the history of baseball's antitrust exception, what it means, and why it still matters for baseball today.

What Is Antitrust?
Antitrust law is the federal government's attempt to stop business concentration and economic power. (E. Thomas Sullivan et al., Antitrust Law, Police And Procedure: Cases, Materials, Problems (6th Ed. 2009) p. 1.) Antitrust law is designed to prevent economic power from being concentrated in too few hands (avoid monopoly). It is also designed to stop unreasonable restraints on trade, including inter alia: price fixing agreements (where competitors agree to charge higher prices than they would if they competed), market allocation (where competitors to agree not to compete in certain geogrpahical areas), and attempts to monopolize. Antitrust laws prohibit more than just the aforementioned conduct, however those actions are the most commonly seen.

Since antitrust law is federal legislation enacted by Congress, it can only reach activity that is interstate, as per Congress's commerce clause power. This is important because what exactly is interstate commerce is not the same today as it was when baseball first was granted its antitrust exception.

Baseball's Antitrust History

In order to understand baseball's current antitrust exception one must delve into the history of MLB. MLB was formed in 1903 with the merge of the American and National Leagues. (Zimablist, May The Best Team Win, supra, at p. 15.) While the leagues were once competitors, the owners of the respective leagues determined it would be economically viable for them not to compete with each other. Pursuant to their collusion, the owners of the newly formed MLB could create labor policies that players were helpless to combat: with the two major leagues now combined into one league, players could no longer vote with their feet and move to a different league that offered better playing conditions. The policy that was the most unbearable for players was the dreaded reserve clause. The reserve clause forbade players from seeking free agency; players could only be moved if an owner wanted to sell that player to another team. In a sense, this was 20th century indentured servitude. Players hated the reserve clause, but all attempts to rid baseball of this arcane labor requirement failed.

Seeing a class of disgruntled players ripe for the picking, a new baseball league was formed in 1913. The Federal League was originally formed as a minor league, but quickly announced that it would become a major league and began to court MLB players by promising players long-term contracts and abandoning the reserve clause. (Id. at p. 15.) The floodgates opening, and a army of disgruntled MLB players jumped ship for the FL. Between 1914 and 1915, 221 major league players joined the FL. (Id. at p. 15.)

MLB was not about to take this betrayal sitting down. MLB quickly blacklisted any players who went to the FL and sued many of the defectors. (Id. at p.16.) The FL responded by suing MLB, claiming MLB's attempt to block players from joining the FL was an unreasonable restraint of trade, an antitrust violation.

The case went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. The argument in the Federal Baseball case was whether federal antitrust laws reached baseball. Was baseball "interstate commerce"? Ultimately, the Supreme Court found that it was not interstate commerce and ruled baseball was exempt from antitrust laws. In an opinion by Oliver Wendell Holmes, baseball games were "purely state affairs" that did not effect interstate commerce, because the travel across state lines each team did to play in a rival city was merely incidnetal to the game, but it was not an essential element of baseball. (Id. at p. 17.) Thus, the FL had no ability to prevent MLB's anticompetitive behavior. Within several years the FL folded.

While it may seem odd to us today, the decision was not necessarily wrong at the time. Prevailing views of what constituted interstate commerce were extremely different in 1922, when the case was heard. It was not until the 1930s and 1940s that our modern idea of what constitutes interstate commerce began to take shape. The decision in Wickard v. Filburn (1942) 317 U.S. 111 noted that Congress has the power to regulate any activity, local or interstate, that either in itself or in combination with other activities has a substantial economic effect upon or effect on movement in interstate commerce. This decision greatly broadened the power of the commerce clause, as now federal laws could reach activity that was entirely intrastate if that activity, in the aggregate, would or could have an effect on interstate commerce. Clearly, after Wickard, baseball fell into that class of activity.

However, the battle over baseball's antitrust exemption did not end there. Following World War II, a new baseball league was formed. The new Mexican League offered players handsome salaries, especially for young players looking for an initial club to sign with. One such player, Danny Gardella, signed with the ML after getting a handsome offer (coincidentally, the MLB he snubbed was the Giants). (Id. at pp. 17-18.) Gardella began playing in Mexico, but found the playing conditions simply unbearable. He walked away from the league and sought return to the MLB, however for his defection to the ML, he was now blacklisted. Gardella sued MLB, claiming that baseball's antitrust laws no longer applied given the advancement of commerce clause jurisprudence and that the advent of radio and television had changed the nature of baseball so drastically that it certainly constituted interstate commerce. (Id. at p. 18.) Lower circuit courts ruled for Gardella and awarded him damages of $300,000. MLB attempted to take the case to the Supreme Court, however before the Court could hear the case it was settled. Thus, there remained ambiguity about baseball's antitrust exemption: a federal circuit court had seemingly struck down the exemption, however the Supreme Court never got the chance to have the final word.

The battle continued. In the 1950s, Congress held hearings, not unlike the ones following the steroid scandal in the 21st century. Aftering hearing from many ballplayers, including Ty Cobb, who argued that the reserve clause was required in order for baseball to stay competitive, Congress declined to remove the antitrust exemption as it applied to baseball (Zimbalist 18).

The Supreme Court, bizarrely, confirmed baseball's antitrust in yet another decision in 1953. George Toolson sued MLB after he was to be traded from the Yankees. Toolson refused to report to duty when the Yankees informed him they were moving him. The Supreme Court claimed that baseball had an antitrust exemption for two reasons: (1) we already ruled that baseball has an antitrust exemption (even if it no longer makes sense); (2) Congress held hearing and decided not to remove the exemption. This seems like a bizarre excuse from the high court. They felt they did not need to act because Congress did not decide to remove the baseball exemption that Congress never gave them in the first place? Baseball's antitrust exemption was a judicial monster, not a congressional one. Should not the solution come from the judiciary? What made this case so frustrating, is just several years later in Radovich v. NFL, the Supreme Court ruled that the National Football League did not have an exemption from baseball. (Id. at p. 20.)

Finally, the Flood case would begin the death knell of the reserve clause, which remained to be hated by major leaguers throughout baseball. Curt Flood was one of the best center fielders in the game in the late 1960s and early 1970s. When he was traded from the St. Louis Cardinals he objected. He wrote to the baseball commissioner and requested that he not be traded; the request was denied. Following this, Flood sued MLB, claiming that the reserve clause was an unreasonable restraint on trade. The Supreme Court eventually heard the case, and in a decision by Justice Blackmun the Court noted that baseball's antitrust excemption was an "aberration." The Court refused, however, to remove baseball's exemption, alleging that the rule had stood for so long, and so many people had many important business or life decisions on baseball's exemption. Justice Blackmun also noted that the decision was a "reconition of baseball's unique characteristics and needs." Oddly enough, Blackmun failed to explain exactly what made baseball so unique from football. (Id. at pp. 20-21.)

Fortunately for Mr. Flood, however, while the antitrust exemption survived, the reserve clause did not. In 1975, MLB agreed to abandon the reserve clause and in 1976 the free agency system began.

So where do we stand now? Today there is still ambiguity over whether baseball has an antitrust exemption. Most of the litigation surrounding the exemption addresses the reserve clause. Some pundits have talent his to mean that the exemption only reaches the reserve clause, and seeing now that the reserve clause is dead, the exemption means nothing. MLB has been very good at avoiding litigation it believes will destroy its antitrust exemption. As it stands now, baseball has a broad antitrust exemption in most legal circles; at least until there is cause for the Supreme Court or Congress to clarify exeactly what the exemption reaches today. Regardless, the presumed exemption has effects on the modern game.

What The Antitrust Exception Means
There are several practical effects the antitrust exception still has on baseball. Traditionally, as I hope has been made clear, most litigation surrounded the reserve clause. Despite the fact that the reserve clause is a thing of the past, the minor leagues are still greatly effected by the antitrust exception.

Minor Leagues and Antitrust
Baseball is unique in professional American sports in that it grows players in a unique minor league system. How does this system work? Every June MLB holds a draft. Unlike the NFL draft, where teams get together to draft NFL-ready players out of college, the MLB draft is for high school and college players from the US, Canada, and Puerto Rico. Players are chosen by a particular team. "Once chosen, players can either sign with the selecting team with a fixed salary . . . plus a signing bonus for the top prospects, or they can stay out of professional baseball until the next year's draft. Chosen players who sign witha major league team then spend up to four years in that club's minor league system before another team has an opportunity to sign them." (Id. at p. 25.) If a minor league player is put on a team's 40 man roster, then he cannot be picked up by another team for seven years.

As I noted above, antitrust laws prohibit unreasonable restraints on trade. Generally, a restraint the artificially fixes prices or prohibits competition will be unreasonable. In the case of minor league players, this is clearly an unreasonable restraint of trade. Why? First, because players are not allowed receive competitive bids for their services after they are drafted. Their pay rate is set by the owners and does not reflect his own skill. Imagine you have a business making pizza. Your pizza is the greatest pizza in town, but the city has put some restrictions on you: (1) you can't raise your price; (2) you can't move to a more profitable block. These are unreasonable restraints on trade and it is what goes on with baseball players in the minor leagues. Furthermore, minor league players are not, and cannot, be unionized. They cannot partake in collective bargaining. All htese are unreasonable restraints on trade and the only reason they are legal is because baseball has an antitrust exemption.

What would happen if the antitrust exemption were lifted? Baseball competitive balance would probably improve. Currently, teams draft players and then are responsible for a player's development. It is on the team to grow budding players into superstars. Often, prospects do not work out. Under the current system, the teams with the worst records from the previous year get the first pick in the draft. However, it is extremely common for these top prospects to not pan out. So, the fact that weak teams often get first dibs often does not matter. However, if the antitrust exemption were lifted, baseball might have to modify its system.

Zimbalist envisions a system were minor leagues still exist, but they are not controlled by major league franchises as they are today. Under this system, minor league teams would develop players and after a set service time they would be eligible to be drafted in the major leagues. This would probably have a good effect on competitive balance in baseball, because unlike the current system, where teams essentially pick players and then hope for the best, under this proposed system teams would select players after they have largely been developed.

Under current free agency laws, a player cannot hit free agency until he has six years of big-league experience. This would allow smaller market teams to draft MLB-ready players directly out of the minors and get six years of play time. For those six years, small market teams could try to create a team that could compete with the big boys. It would be easier for smaller teams to make educated decisions about which players would better fit their club, because they will have a better idea of what kind of major league player they are going to get.

Conclusion
Baseball's antitrust exemption is still a problem for the sport. Today baseball does face competitive balance problems. Some solutions, such a salary cap, may never be realized considering the great opposition from the Players' Union. In fact, I don't think a salary cap would make much of a difference either: money would simply go to management and not necessarily to the players. Reorganizing baseball's draft and minor league system may be one part of the ultimate solution to see more balance in the sport.

The Future of Fred Lewis

2010-04-13T10:13:00.000-07:00

Anyone who follows the Giants knows that the Achilles Heel for this team is its offense. While the Giants have amassed perhaps the best pitching staff in MLB for 2010, there is still a large question mark regarding the effectiveness of the team's offense. General Manager Brian Sabean has made some moves to improve the offense, such as resigning Freddy Sanchez and Benjie Molina, while also bringing in Aubrey Huff and Mark DeRosa. The jury is still out on whether this offense will be able to help the ace-staff the Giants have on the mound into the playoffs. The fact remains, however, that this team needs all the help it can get.

Let's assume there was a player who had the following career stats: .775 OPS, .420 SLG, .343 wOBA, and a 10.1 BB%. All things would indicate a player who has the ability to hit for some extra bases, can take a walk, and can get on base more than the average player. Also assume that this players make fewer errors on average than other players at his position.

If you thought: "Hey, that player sounds a lot like Fred Lewis", then you are correct. Because that player is Fred Lewis. So that sounds good. Fred Lewis is ready and waiting to get some playing time in with the Giants. Let's put him on the team, and have him help our way toward making it to the playoffs.

Wait. What's this? The Giants have already decided to trade Fred Lewis or remove him from the roster? 'Tis true. The Giants, for some asinine, reason have decided to get rid of Fred Lewis, and apparently Lewis has been informed of this. The Giants have indicated that they already have six outfielders (DeRosa, Bowker, Schierholtz, Rowand, Torres, and Velez), including two left-handed hitters, like Lewis (Bowker and Schierholtz). Thus, they intend of getting rid of Lewis as there is no room.

This is an utterly absurd move. DeRosa and Rowand, due to their contracts are certainly not going anywhere, so that cannot be helped. Bowker has proven himself with the bat while Schierholtz seems destined to be a fourth outfielder, due to his defensive prowess but weak bat. That leaves Torres and Velez. Neither player can hit well. At all. Velez and Torres both have below average wOBA and show no promise of improvement. Velez is probably the more valuable of the two: he can play many positions on the diamond and that versatility is probably what gave him his job on the team. But do we really need that? Mark DeRosa can play any position on the field, while Juan Uribe was signed for the purpose of being a utility infielder. What is the point of holding onto Velez? Why not send Velez to AAA, move DeRosa to 2B, bench Uribe, and put Lewis in LF? The Giants' lineup would look much better:

Lewis LF
Renteria SS
Sandoval 3B
Huff 1B
DeRosa 2B
Rowand CF
Bowker RF
Molina C
P

I would rather see Torres go than Velez, but Bruce Bochey seems intent on having a right-handed outfielder to platoon with John Bowker. Of course, once Freddy Sanchez returns, the field will look more crowded, but having Lewis on the bench would prove to be far more valuable than having Eugenio Velez on the bench. The fact that the Giants' front office does not recognize this is utterly mind-boggling. Whoever's decision this was, whether it was Bochey's, Sabean's, or both deserves to be fired. This is ridiculous.

Bochey Uses Affeldt Right

2010-04-11T20:00:00.000-07:00

In today's game against the Atlanta Braves, Bruce Bochey allowed Jeremy Affeldt to pitch across two innings. This forced Affeldt to bat, after the Giants had an unexpected big inning in the bottom of the eighth. As I noted in an earlier post, using elite relievers over a course of two innings is generally better than saving them only for one inning. Well played Bochey.

Using Relievers Part Duex: Torre Blows It

2010-04-11T15:15:00.000-07:00

Several things define the Giants fan. She enjoys AT&T park, she goes to the stadium whether or not the team is losing or winning, she laments the Giants' continual failure to capture a World Series since moving to SF, and she takes great schadenfreude in seeing the hated Dodgers blunder their way through a season. He also makes liberal use of pronouns to avoid sexism; afterall, this is San Francisco.

My last post discussed some options and strategies for maximizing the use of a team's bullpen, in particular when to use your elite reliever. Recently, the Dodgers lost a series to the Florida Marlins, most due to a woefully inefficient use of their bullpen. Considering I enjoy seeing the Dodgers lose and that they lost in a way that is directly linked to a post I recently made, I would like to discuss what the Dodgers did, why it was wrong, and what they should have done in order to avoid an embarrassing series-loss to the Florida Marlins.

The Facts

The Dodgers played a weekend series against the Florida Marlins on 9 April, 10 April, and 11 April. The Dodgers won the first game of the series, coming off a strong performance by LA starter Hideki Kuroda. The Dodgers would start the next two games off well, only to come up short due to late inning heroics on the part of the Marlins, coupled with late-inning blunders by Dodger manager Joe Torre.

In game 1, the Dodgers entered the ninth inning with a 7-1 lead. Torre, wisely, initially brought in Russ Ortiz, a weak reliever, to close out the game for LA. As I discussed in a previous post, there is little statistical difference in having a weak or strong closer end a game where the closing team has a three run lead; the closing team wins at the same rate whether the close is elite, average, or weak. Surely, such a difference is even more insignificant when a team has a 6-run lead. However, Ortiz began the inning by giving up 2 runs, closing the Dodgers' lead to 4 runs, which is still a huge lead in the last inning of a ballgame. Torre apparently choked and made a knee-jerk reaction to save the game by bringing in Jonathan Broxton. Broxton is a wonderful pitcher, and he may one day be the best closer in the league if his weight does not end his career prematurely. Broxton is capable of bringing the heat: his fastballs regularly breach 100 mph. Needless to say, Broxton came in, fanned two batters, and the Dodgers took the day.

Game 2 is a different story. The Dodgers entered the bottom of the ninth with a 6-4 lead. Instead of bringing in Broxton, who Torre used the day before to close out a blow-out game, Torre brought in George Sherrill, who, with a 1.36 career WHIP, is a fairly average reliever. With Sherrill on the mound, the Marlins made a three-run rally and won the game. Broxton, meanwhile, sat on the bench watching as the game got away from LA.

Game 3 also got away from the Dodgers. Their starter put on a great performance, striking out 12 Marlins, however the Dodger bullpen collapsed, and gave up enough runs for the Marlins to make a late inning return to take the game and the series.

Ineffective Assistance of Bullpen

As I also noted in an earlier post, while the difference is not huge, there is a difference between using a weak and strong reliever when there is a 2-run lead. Remember: with a 2-run lead an elite closer will lose the game 4.9% of the time, while an average or weak reliever will lose 9.0% of the time (Tango 215). However, when there is a 3-run lead there is no statistical difference between using a strong or weak reliever. An ace-reliever will win 97.%5 of the time with a 3-run lead, while a bad reliever will win 95.5% (Tango 213).

Thus, Torre's initial decision to use Russ Ortiz to close out game one, where the Dodgers have a huge 6-run lead, was the correct decision. However, after Ortiz game up two runs, Torre freaked-out and put in the ace, Broxton, despite the fact that the Dodgers still had a 4-run lead, and had 1 out. It was absurd to put in Broxton. If Torre had no confidence in Ortiz's ability to end the game, then he should have taken him out and put in another reliever, but not Broxton. As it was, it was a waste to use Broxton when he did.

This would lead Torre to not use Broxton the following day, when the situation was appropriate to use an ace-reliever. Instead of using Broxton, whom Torre must have believed needed rest, Torre put the game in George Sherrill's hands. Sherrill, being an average reliever, had twice as large a chance of blowing the game than did an elite closer like Broxton. And, no surprise, Sherrill blew the game.

Thus, Joe Torre made a huge blunder by wasting Broxton's service on a blow-out game, and then not using him the following day when it woudl have been appropriate. Sherrill should have closed out the blow-out game, while Broxton should have closed out the close game. All in all, very pathetic decisions from the Dodgers' skipper.

How Often Can a Reliever Pitch?

Torre probably did not use Broxton because there is a belief in present-day baseball that relieving pitchers should not pitch back-to-back. In his book, Tango addresses this issue and finds that relieving pitchers who have a heavy workload, show no difference in effectiveness from pitchers who have a comparatively light workload (233-6). In fact, Tango argues that relievers should be used up to 40% more than they already are (236).

Broxton had pitched about 1.2 innings before game 2, when Torre decided not to use the closer, apparently because he was overworked. This is simply wrong, and is refuted by statistical analysis of pitchers over a many year period, which shows that relievers can handle a much larger workload than current MLB-practice would have.

Simply put, another blunder from ol' Joe.

Conclusion

This past series highlights the reasons why managers must know how to effectively use their bullpen. Had Torre used Broxton in game 2, and used Sherrill in game 1, LA probably would have taken the series. Instead, the Dodgers get to fly home knowing they are in last place after a week deep into the 2010 season.

Works Cited

Tango, Lichtman, and Andrew E. Dolphin. The Book: Playing the Percentages in Baseball. Washington D.C.: Potomac Books, 2007.

Using Bweezy Right

2010-04-07T15:17:00.000-07:00

On Tuesday's game against the Houston Astros, the San Francisco Giants were up by three runs going into the ninth inning. According to official baseball statistics, this is a typical "save" situation. In such situation, baseball lore has it that a manager should bring in his best reliever in order to close out the game. A save is any situation where the following occurs: (1) the pitcher is the finishing pitcher by the winning team; (2) he is not the winning pitcher; (3) he has at least 1/3 (one out) recorded; (4) he does one of the following: (a) he enters the game with a lead of no more than three runs; (b) he enters the game, regardless of the count, with the typing run either on base, at bat, or on deck; or (c) he pitches for at least three innings.

In baseball the best relief pitcher is normally referred to as the team's "closer." Such a pitcher is generally brought in the game during a situation like the one above between the Astros and Giants: your team is winning by three runs or less. You bring in the closer (the best relief pitcher) in order to ensure that the opposing team does not make a late inning come-back. Anyone who watches Giants games will note that Bochey virtually never brings Brian Wilson into the game before the ninth inning, and only does it in save situations.

So is this the best way to make use of our team's best relief pitcher? The answer is not what one may think.

Tom Tango's book on baseball, The Book: Playing the Percentages in Baseball, offers a wonderful statistical analysis of baseball lore. Is the sacrafice bunt actually a good play? When should you walk a hitter? Does leveraging lefties and righties actually work? One question Tango addresses is the use of closers.

Tango begins his analysis by noting that a save in baseball is the same, no matter if the winning team is ahead by three runs or by one run (Tango 208-9). However, Tango notes that from 1999-2002 a closer was brought into the game with a three-run lead 1,034 times (210). How many times did the closer's team lose? Only 31 times, which is 3% of the games (210). Tango also notes that even poor relievers who come in during a close situation rarely lose with three runs or more (1 time out of 25) (213). So, at the end of the day, a three run lead is almost a sure win in the bottom of the ninth, and good relievers do not seem to help that win any more than do poor ones. So what about when your team has a smaller lead? What then?

Tango addresses this issue as well (215-16). Without going into the math in depth, Tango compares the win percentages of average and elite relievers when they come into the game in the ninth when the pitcher's team is ahead by one or two runs. For two run leads, an average reliever's team will lose 9.0% of the time. When an elite reliever is in the same situation, a reliever's team loses 4.9% of the time. A fairly big difference. When the pitcher's team has a one run lead, the average reliever will lose 21% of the time, while an elite reliever will lost 15% of the time. Thus, while bringing an average reliever in during the ninth inning, when a team is up by three, is generally no different than bringing in a true "closer", there is a disparity in one and two run leads between average and elite relievers.

So it seems in Tuesday's game against the Astros, Bochey should not have brought Wilson in when he did (ninth inning, Giants up by three). Perhaps that is a bit of an overstatement. It certainly is not wrong to bring in Brian Wilson; but perhaps we didn't optimize him.

That simply begs the question: So, smart-guy, when do bring in the elite reliever? Only when his team is up by one or two runs?

No. There are more situations where it is optimal to bring in the closer. In fact, in the 1970s, one would often see the elite reliever come in during the eighth inning. Elite relievers like Goose Gossage and Bruce Sutter face more batters than not in the eighth inning, rather than the ninth (217). Tango goes into an in-depth analysis, using the expected run-distribution over the course of two innings for elite pitchers and average pitchers (219). Assuming an average reliever come in the eighth inning, when his team is up by one, and pitches through the ninth, Tango found the following results: 65%.9 win in 9 innings; 18.8% lose in 9 innings; 15.3% extra innings. What was it for elite relievers (like Wilson)? 75.7% win; 11.3% lose; 13.0% extra innings.

Wow. What a difference. There is almost a 10% higher chance of winning if you use an elite reliever over the course of two innings rather than an average hitter. National League baseball fans, which I am, will ask one question: That may make sense, but in the national league pitchers have to hit. Does that effect the win outcome at all? Oftentimes a manager doesn't want the reliever to hit, so he will take him out.

I think this is a fair question, and I do not see an answer for it in Tango's work. That said, it would be interesting to see whether having the closer in over two innings is more valuable than the near-guaranteed out the relief pitcher will give the other team when it is his turn to bat.

Regardless, Tango's research does suggest that it is significantly better to bring your elite closer in during the 8th inning with 1 or 2 run lead, rather than in the ninth inning with a 3-run lead. I think Bochey should take notice of this in order to maximize Wilson's effectiveness. It is nice for Wilson that he gets the saves in easy situations where we have a 3-run lead, but since he is the Giants's best reliever he should probably be put to work in situations where he impressive talent will help the team win close games.

Lince-CAN

2010-04-05T22:17:00.000-07:00

If you know me, you know I like certain things: I like vanilla ice cream, I love baseball, and I am quite fond of puns and cheesy play-on-words. Hence the title of today's post. Today was opening day, and it could not have gone any better for the G-men. The Giants opened up the season with the first of a three-game series in Houston against the Astros. Lincecum was set to face off against Astros's stud Roy Oswalt. A couple questions hung over the heads of the Giants as they entered the 2010 season:

(1) Would Lincecum be able to start the season off well? Last year, although the Giants won the game, Lincecum pitched very poorly against the Milwaukee Brewers, and barely made it through three innings before the 'penn took over. Giants fans were waiting on the edge of their seats to see whether the face of the franchise would be able to overcome his opening day jitters.

(2) How would the Giants's offense pan out? Today was the first day that the Giants offense got to swing the lumber in a game that counted. Certain off-season acquisitions and call-ups changed the Giants's opening day roster in 2010 from what it was in 2009. Gone is Randy Winn, Emmanuel Burriss, Travis Ishikawa, and Fred Lewis from the 2010 starting roster. Entered Aubrey Huff, Mark DeRosa, John Bowker, and Juan Uribe. Would they be able to put up solid numbers? Would they be able to give this stellar pitching staff the support it needs?

Luckily for Giants fans the answers to the aforementioned questions were all: "Yes, and how." Lincecum simply was phenomenal tonight. He went 7 full innings, gave up no runs, allowed only 4 hits, and struck out 7 batters. Lincecum, to the collective joy and elation to his fans, simply dazzled. Barring a no-hitter, Lincecum could not have pitched a better game.

And lucky for Lincecum, his support was strong. Collectively, the Giants managed 10 hits together, including a single-HR blast from Mark DeRosa. One surprise came from Edgar Renteria. Renteria had a terrible 2009 season, during which he played through pain and battled an injury. Renteria is apparently healthy once again and it shows. Today, Renteria went 2 for 3, with one RBI, and one walk. It seems like there is some life in Ol' Edgar afterall. John Bowker and Aubrey Huff both went 4 for 1, which Bowker getting 1 RBI. All in all, the Giants offense was pleasantly alive and well today, and they clearly made a statement that they are here and ready to play ball for 2010.

The lineup was as folllows:

(1) Rowand
(2) Renteria
(3) Sandoval
(4) Huff
(5) DeRosa
(6) Molina
(7) Bowker
(8) Uribe
(9) Lincecum

The line-up performed well today, but one thing that troubled me was batting Benjie in the sixth hole. Benjie needs to be lower in the line-up. Molina has a terrible OBP and he is horrificly slow (I believe he is the slowest base runner in MLB). It is unfortunate to have him batting in front of John Bowker, who will be forced to slow down if Benjie cannot pick up the speed. I suggest Bruce Bochey switch his line-up around a little:

(1) Renteria
(2) DeRosa
(3) Bowker
(4) Sandoval
(5) Huff
(6) Rowand
(7) Uribe
(8) Molina
(9) Pitcher

Although few managers are aware of this, you generall want your best hitters to bat in the #1, #2, and #4 spots (Tango 132). The overall quality of your #2 and #4 hitters should be about the same, and they should be the two best hitters on the team (Tango 130). It is clear that Pablo Sandoval and Mark DeRosa are currently the two best hitters on the team, and given that Sandoval is more of a HR guy, and DeRosa is a smarter hitter, it makes sense to put them in the #4 and #2 spots respectively. Your third best hitter, generally, should be your #1 hitter because the "run value for the leadoff hitter, for each event [hitting a single, double, homerun, etc.], is closest to the #2 and #5 hitters. The biggest differences are that the run value of the HR for the leadoff hitter is the lowest among the top five spots, while the walk is the highest" (Tango 131). This suggests that you want a hitter who has discipline, who can get on base, but lack pop or power. Right now Bochey has put Rowand in that position, which may be the best decision, however after watching Rowand struggle up there today, and seeing Renteria enjoy some success, I thought I would put Renteria in the leadoff spot.

A number three hitter has a HR value higher than the #1 and #5 spots, but lower than the #4 spot, and about lower than the #2 spot in all regards except for HR, which is even (Tango 130). This suggests that the #3 hitter should be worse thant he #4 and #2 hitters. For some reason, in major league baseball today the #3 spot is considered the place for the best hitter on the team. This is clearly wrong (Tango 130). For that reason, I put John Bowker in the #3 spot, as he is the new guy on the team, but has shown an ability to hit the ball. The rest of the lineup basically answers itself. I want Molina at the bottom of the order so as to not clog up the base paths, Uribe and Rowand will bat after Huff hopefully getting on base so Benjie can knock them in.

Something to think about. It would be interesting to see how a line-up like this would work on a real major league team.

Works Cited:

Tom Tango, Mitchell Lichtman, and Andrew Dolphin. The Book: Playing the Percentages in Baseball. Potomac Books, Inc. Washington DC, 2007.

Should the Giants pick up Ryan Garko?

2010-03-30T23:56:00.000-07:00

Today something unexpected occurred: the Seattle Mariners, who picked up Ryan Garko after he was non-tendered by the San Francisco Giants, have elected to put Garko on waivers after giving the first baseman a one-year contract worth $550,000. This is truly bizarre. It seems that Garko is a guy who just cannot find a home and continues to be mismanaged by clubs throughout the league.

As anyone who reads my blog knows, I am a fan of Garko and I think he should play on the team. I wrote fairly extensively about how I believe the Giants should not have non-tendered Garko. Now the question is: should the Giants pick up Garko now that his name is attached to a cheap price tag?

Let's first go back and, briefly, look at what happened with Garko. The Giants acquired Garko through a trade with the Cleveland Indians. The Indians received Giants' prospect Scott Barnes and the Giants received Garko. The Giants, in the middle of trying to capitalize on a unexpectedly competitive season, needed bats to get into the playoffs. Garko, they hoped, would be the key to that. Garko showed up. The Giants gave him 100 at-bats. Garko did not perform as they had hoped in the very few opportunities, and Garko as relegated to the bench. Apparently, Garko and Bruce Bochey had some sort of falling out. One can only guess what that means. Additionally, Brian Sabean noted that he could not imagine paying Garko $2-3 million, which Garko could have gotten through arbitration. So, the Giants let Garko go. The Giants wanted to get Nick Johnson to play 1B, but he went to the Yankees. Then they went after Adam LaRoche. But he went to the Diamondbacks. Then they went after Aubrey Huff.

The Mariners signed Garko on the cheap, and today they have released him. I must say I did not see this one coming. But now that Garko is on the market again, should the Giants take a look at resigning him?

Let us look at what Garko has to offer. Garko is a first baseman who offers an above-average bat, which is stellar on this Giants team. Garko has a career .347 wOBA, .792 OPS, and has decent plate discipline with a .58 BB/K in 2009. He is projected to offer about 1.0 WAR in 2010 (which, coincidentally is also what Aubrey Huff is projected to offer, yet we are paying him millions. Good job Sabean.).

Moreover, Garko is dirt cheap. We would be picking up a player who has a proven bat, is young, and will not cost the Giants much at all.

So what is stopping the Giants from picking him up? I see a couple reasons why the Giants will not go after Garko, even though I think it is in the team's best interests. First, I am concerned about this falling out that allegedly occurred between Garko and Bochey. What exactly happened? Does Bochey refuse to work with Garko? Does Garko refuse to work with Bochey? Did Garko call Bochey's mother a dog? What happened? I do not have an answer to this, but apparently it was significant enough to be reported and was significant enough to keep Garko sitting on the bench for most of the 2009 season while with the Giants.

Second, I am concerned about roster-space. The 25-man roster is looking pretty full right now for the Giants. Here is what I envision the roster looking like come opening day:

Starting Pitchers: Tim Lincecum, Matt Cain, Barry Zito, Jonathan Sanchez, Todd Wellemeyer
Relief Pitchers: Brian Wilson, Dan Runzler, Jeremy Affeldt, Sergio Romo, Guillermo Mota, Brandon Medders, Kevan Pucetas
Infielders: Aubrey Huff, Juan Uribe, Edgar Renteria, Pablo Sandoval, Travis Ishikawa
Outfielders: Aaron Rowand, John Bowker, Fred Lewis, Nate Schierholtz, Eugenio Velez
Catchers: Benjie Molina, Eli Whiteside

Freddy Sanchez will be on the DL for most of April. Buster Posey, I hope, will be sent down to the minors until we are ready to give him a starting position. You will notice that I dropped Andres Torres. Torres is a scrub and I really think given the emergance of Nate Schierholtz and John Bowker he really has no place on the team. Another questionmark is Fred Lewis. Despite Lewis's strong performance the Giants seem hell-bent on misusing him. Thus, we might see Lewis go also.

To make room for Ryan Garko someone will need to go. It might Travis Ishikawa, but I believe he is out of minor-league options and the Giants would need to sneak him through waivers. It has been reported that the Giants are trying to trade Fred Lewis. I doubt they would get anyone solid enough to be on the 25-man roster, if they are not willing to play someone with Lewis's talents as is. Thus, it seems that Ishikawa or Lewis would have to go and then Garko would have space on the roster. Once Freddy Sanchez returns, both Ishikawa and either Lewis or Velez will need to go in order to make room on the roster. Would the Giants do that?

Probably not. The Giants love Eugenio Velez, probably for his versatility more than his offensive prowess. While Ishikawa may not be as good as Garko, he also isn't Ryan Garko, which, again for some reason that escapes me, seems to matter to the Giants.

To close, I would like to note that I think signing Ryan Garko would be a very good move for the Giants. That said, I doubt it will happen. Here's to hoping.

For Opening Day . . .

2010-03-29T20:18:00.001-07:00

I thought I would share this video with Giants fans. It was made with the 2009 season in mind, however I think it is still a great opening day video.

Baseball the Giants Way

2010-03-29T13:51:00.000-07:00

Before the Giants moved to San Francisco, they were one of the premier teams of professional baseball. When looking at the accomplishments of the Giants, which includes 5 World Series titles, 20 National League Pennants, and 6 West Division Titles, it becomes clear the Giants were a much more powerful team during their days in New York. 5 of their World Series titles came in New York, while 17 of their National League Pennants also came from back east. Since moving to San Francisco, the Giants have managed to make it to the World Series three times, yet each time they fell (they lost to the Yankees in game 7 in 1962, were swept by the Oakland A's in 1989, and lost in Game 7 to the Anaheim Angels, following a heartbreaking Game 6 loss in Southern California). For those of you who are interested in myth, there is a legend that the Giants will never win a World Series in San Francisco due to the Curse of Coogan's Bluff. The legend goes that once the Giants were packing up to leave the Polo Grounds (which lay on Coogan's Bluff), fans noted that they would never win a World Series away from New York. Thus far, their predictions have remained true. For those of us, however, who do not believe in baseball specters, there must be another reason for the Giants' failure over the past 50 years.

Before attempting to answer that question, I believe it would be wise to take a look at a similarly situation team: the ever hated Dodgers. Before the Dodgers moved to Los Angeles, they played in a place called Brooklyn, while the Giants played up-town. This is where the seeds of rivalry were sown. During the New York era the Dodgers were the Giants' whipping boys. The Giants were vastly more successful than the Dodgers: whereas the Giants won the World Series five times, the Dodgers won it once. The Giants won the pennant 17 times, while the Dodgers won it 12. However, the teams fortunes changed after the moved to California.

The Los Angeles Dodgers have generally enjoyed a success that the San Francisco Giants have not. They have won 9 pennants since coming to LA, and they have won 5 World Series in Chavez Ravine. Why were the Dodgers more successful?

One thing might have been payroll. I do not have any statistics on hand, but at least in the past 20 years the Dodgers have generally had a higher payroll than the Giants. Another part of higher payroll is fan revenue. With Chavez Ravine being easily accessible to Los Angelinos, and with there being a vast amount of people available to attend games, Los Angeles has generally been a very profitable ball club.

After the 1970s, the Giants fortunes were not so good. Candlestick Park, where the Giants played since they moved to San Francisco up until AT&T Park was built in 2000, was known as being cold, wet, and depressing. Furthermore, being a Bay Area native myself, I personally knew how difficult it was to get to the park. Most Giants fans do not live in San Francisco, rather they live in the East and South Bay. Growing up in the East Bay myself, it was quite a drive, through San Francisco, which is always a nightmare, to get to an evening baseball game. My mother, an avid Giants fan throughout my youth, was loathe to go to a game during the week after working. I think many fans felt the same way. In fact, after negotiations to create a new stadium failed throughout the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Giants threatened to move to Florida. The move, thankfully, was stopped. Private funding was made for the new stadium, the Giants signed Barry Bonds, and San Francisco baseball continued.

Thankfully, the trends of poor attendance and revnue has reserved. The Giants are now considered one of the most profitable clubs, with Forbes reporting that the Giants are the ninth most valuable baseball club (the Dodgers are the fourth). Moreover, per fan, the Giants are the most valuable team. So, for now, it seems economics should no longer player much of a role in the achievement gap.

What else then? Strategy. Strategy probably is what has led to the significant achievement gap between Los Angeles and San Francisco. When you think of your favorite Giants players, aside from those still playing on the team, few are pitchers. Most fans will mention Mays, Bonds, Jack Clark, Will "the Thrill" Clark, and McCovey. In fact, the San Francisco Giants defined their team through the strength of its hitting through almost all of the time in San Francisco. The Giants were known as sluggers; there's a reason for "Bye, Bye, Baby."

When thinking of the great Dodgers of the Los Angeles era, however, not many hitters come to mind. Most think of Koufax, Drysdale, Hershiser, and Ramon Martinez, players who defined Los Angeles as a pitcher's club.

Today, however, the roles have seemed to reversed. Will we see something different in the coming years? The Giants have one of the best young pitching staffs in baseball, while the Dodgers have some of the best hitters in baseball. Thus far, it has been the Dodgers who have been the more successful club, as they are coming off back-to-back NL West titles.

So what does the future hold for the San Francisco Giants? Will a change in strategy help this club become more successful? What strategy changes are taking place?

William "Bill" Neukom became Managing General Partern of the San Francisco Giants in 2008. When Neukom rolled into town he announced that the Giants would change course. They would start following a plan that Neukom called "baseball the Giants' way." What exactly is baseball "the Giants' way?" Neukom's new strategy revolves around internal development of players. The Giants, instead of looking outside for talent on the market, will focus much of their resources into building better facilities and hiring better trainers and coaches for the players being brought up in our farm. Neukom described the plan as being something that would be "medium-term to long-term."

So, where will such a plan land the Giants? It's hard to tell. The benefits are clear: building an organization from within certainly is cheaper. If the Giants have a lot of young, exciting baseball players making relatively little they will be able to focus more money on getting the right free agents for that particular season. That might be exactly what the Giants need in order to make a World Series run. Thus far, the system has seemed to work out well: The Giants have the best pitcher on baseball on their team, Tim Lincecum, and up until last year he was making less than half a million. Matt Cain, also brought up through the Giants' system, is considered on of the National League's elite. Brian Wilson, yet another veteran of the Giants minor league system, is considered among the league's best closers. Finally, Pablo Sandoval, the best position player in his division with the exception of perhaps Andrian Gonzalez, was also brought up through the system. Thus far, the Giants' youth movement appears to be working.

What's the downside? It will be interesting to see where the team is in 2012. Payroll restrictions are going to hurt the Giants. In 2010, Barry Zito, Matt Cain, and Brian Wilson will make $42.5 million. How much will Lincecum make that year? $20 million? So now we have four pitchers taking up $62.5 million? Then add in Aaron Rowand's final year ($12 million) so now we have $74.5 million. Unless the plan works out, and we can fill the rest of the 40 man roster with the money available, the Giants are not going to have enough money to go out and get big name free agents. Essentially, the San Francisco Giants, in the short term, will live and die with Neukom's plan. Hopefully it works.

A new era of Giants baseball is certainly on the rise. Fans have called out dearly for a youth movement to save them from having to see, year in and year out, one of the oldest teams in baseball. For this team to really capitalize on the plan, however, I think some organization changes must be made. First, Bruce Bochey either needs to get specific instructions to start playing younger players or he needs to go. The fact that Bochey played Randy Winn throughout the 2009 season, despite Winn's pitiful performance is shocking. Winn was clearly outplayed by Schierholtz, yet the younger player sat most of the season on the bench. Bochey also was quick to give up on former Giant Ryan Garko. Garko was brought into the organization through a trade, by which the Giants sent Cleveland Scott Barnes, a top pitching prospect, in exchange for Garko. Garko received 100 at-bats and was quickly benched. Bochey needs to learn how to work with young players or this system will never come to fruition.

Second, the Giants need to learn how to evaluate hitting talent. In the past several years, the Giants have shown that they have no clue how to organize a team around hitting. Take Fred Lewis. Lewis is a fine baseball player and one that can consistently get on base. Yes, he has struggled as of late, however that is no reason to abandon him and assume he will never get back to form. Rumor has it, however, that there is no longer any place on this team for Lewis and the Giants are actively seeking to trade him. Look at the free agent acquisitions the Giants made this season. Why on Earth was Ryan Garko non-tendered after we made a trade for him, and then the Giants go out and sign Aubrey Huff? I understand the Giants wanted Adam LaRoche, and LaRoche turned them down. However, quick knee-jerk reactions to deals falling through should not result in signings of mediocre veterans like Aubrey Huff.

The Giants currently have some of the best prospects in baseball in their system. Buster Posey is on the brink of breaking through. Right now, the Giants are considering bringing up the young catcher and splitting him at 1B. This would be the most asinine move the Giants could possibly make. If the Giants do not want Posey catching in the bigs today, they should keep him in the minors, where he can start every single day. The Giants should certainly not let their future star rot on the bench in 2010.

To close, the Giants' future will be interesting to watch. The Giants will rise or fall depending on the success of players whose names almost no one today knows.

Let Bowker Bat

2010-03-26T11:36:00.000-07:00

It has been quite some time since I posted, and I apologize to anyone who happens to read my blog for the delay. Seeing as Spring Training is wrapping up and the regular season is set to begin I thought I would offer some thoughts on what the opening day roster should look like.

The first thing that Giants fans should be aware of is that Freddy Sanchez is injured. The ever brittle Sanchez was originally set to return to the team for opening-day. Then, we were told, Sanchez would not make opening day. Now, it is up in the air. When will Sanchez return? Who knows. The second thing is that, despite the fact that he is one of the few players on the team who has a decent OBP, Fred Lewis seems to have no future with the club. The Giants are reported to have been trying to trade Lewis for a back up middle-infielder. While I think this move is absurd, and yet another sign that the Giants have absolutely no idea how to organize a club offensively, it is what it is. The only positive from the supposed Lewis trade and Sanchez's injury is there might be more room to let some of the youth get a chance to make the opening day roster.

One man that deserves such a position on the team is John Bowker. Aside from Buster Posey, John Bowker is probably the best major league-ready player in the Giants' farm system. At the AAA level Bowker owned a .447 wOBA, a 1.047 OPS (!), and .451 OBP in 2009. That is absolutely amazing. Clearly, Bowker has nothing more to prove at that level. Bowker was briefly called up during the 2009 campaign, but the Giants sent him packing citing a "lack of offensive production." Bowker hit wiht a .271 wOBA at the major league level, however that was in a paltry 67 at-bats. Someone needs explain to the Giants front office what statistical significance is.

Entering the 2010 Spring Training, most of those who follow the Giants knew that, with the departure of Randy Winn, the RF position was wide open, and ready for one of the youngster to snatch it up. Nate Schierholtz seemed like the most likely choice, as Schierholtz is a superb defender and showed much promise during the 2009 campaign. The only other person waiting in line for the position seems to have been Bowker. Luckily for those of us who would prefer to see Bowker in RF, which includes yours truly, the Spring Training campaign has showed a Bowker who has excelled behind the dish, while Schierholtz has continued to struggle.

Bowker has proven throughout Spring Training that he is in fact ready to bat at the major league level. While I do not find much significance in RBI as a stat, Bowker does lead all of Spring Training players in RBI. Bowker has homered numerous times, and has played very well offensively, which is what this team needs if they are to be considered true contenders in 2010.

Naturally, Bruce Bochey, when asked abotu Bowker, continues to pull his normal nonesense, wherein he shows his utter disdain for young players:

"We know Johnny can hit . . . . That's a great bat there. It's a matter of what is best for the ballclub. The ball is jumping off his bat, but there are other things you consider."

If I know Bochey, this means he will probably not start Bowker. Why? Would it not make sense to play an offensively productive player on a team that has absolutely no thunder in the lumber? It is completely absurd how Bochey seems to completely ignore those players available who are offensively productive. Bochey has relegated Lewis to the bench, depsite being a fairly quality players, and the second most offensively productive Giants in 2009.

Luckily, however, Freddy Sanchez's injury might give Bowker the opportunity to play on opening day. If Bochey decides to give Schierholtz the starting position, he will still have a hole in 2B, with Sanchez out. The Giants do have Juan Uribe, however Uribe's offense is nothing special. A wise decision would be to move Mark DeRosa over to 2B, where is capable of playing, and start Bowker in LF. Such a lineup could produce something like this:

(1) Aaron Rowand CF
(2) John Bowker LF
(3) Mark DeRosa 2B
(4) Pablo Sandoval 3B
(5) Aubrey Huff 1B
(6) Edgar Renteria SS
(7) Nate Schierholtz RF
(8) Benjie Molina C

Not a terrible line-up in my opinion. Bochey seems intent on putting Rowand in the leadoff spot, where he did excel last year, albeit briefly, and he has done well during Sprin Training. Putting Sandoval in the four spot allows him to be surrounded by DeRosa and Huff. If Bowker continues his offensive production, the first five of our lineup could provide some decent offense.

Afterall, if the pitching remains in top form in 2010, the Giants only need an average offense to make a deep run for the playoffs. Make it happen Giants!

Some Possible Non-Tender Candidates and What about Uggla in Left?

2009-12-12T13:56:00.000-08:00

This weekend is the final opportunity for teams around MLB to offer players under control contracts. Non-tendered players are released from control and may hit the FA market. This has particular meaning for the Giants. First, current Giant Ryan Garko has not yet been offered a contract. In all honestly, he probably will not be offered a contract. The Giants simply do not have room for the first baseman. The Giants essentially have one spot in the in-field. One likely scenario signing Adam LaRoche or Nick Johnson at first base, while keeping Sandoval at third, Renteria at short, and Sanchez at second. Another ever more likely scenario is getting Dan Uggla for second, moving Sanchez to third and Sandoval to first, while keeping Renteria at short. I think it possible the Giants will trade for Dan Uggla as well as sign someone at first, which I will address later. Regardless, the Giants are looking at options that do not have a spot for Ryan Garko. Thus, I doubt the Giants will keep Garko on the team, which I do believe is a shame. I think one wise option would be to trade for Uggla, keep Garko at first, and spend the money we would have spent on Johnson or LaRoche on getting a stud in the outfield (here's looking at you Xavier Nady). There is little indication, however, that the Giants intend to do this.

Another significant result of this weekend is the class of free agents who will hit the market after this weekend. Anyone who has followed the Giants during the past weeks know the Giants are looking for a catcher to hold down the fort while Posey continues to develop. The Giants intended to sign the likes of Pudge Rodriguez, Olvio, or Ausmus. Unfortunately, for the Giants, the catcher market was screwed up when the Washington Nationals agreed to sign Pudge for a two-year deal, something few clubs were willing to do with aged veterans past their prime (were the Giants willing to go multiple years on catchers they probably would have just re-signed Bengie Molina, much to my dismay). Now, every catcher similar to Pudge (Olvio and Ausmus) are also looking at similar deals. This effectively forced the Giants to go back to the drawing board, even to consider just starting Posey instead of signing someone else.

This weekend, however, brings the chance that new catchers will hit the market. Catcher who has less value than Pudge, Olvio, and Ausmus, who probably will not be able to command the two-year deal that the older catchers can. Two such men are Dioner Navarro and John Buck.

Navarro currently is the catcher for the Tampa Bay Rays. Something interesting of note: Navarro came up through the Dodgers system alongside current Dodger Russell Martin. Navarro was originally given the starter job with the Dodgers ahead of Martin, while Russell was sent to develop further in the Dodgers' farm system. After a lackluster year at the bigs, Navarro was demoted and Martin was brought up. Eventually Navarro found his way onto the Rays, where he is today.

The good thing about Navarro is he would come very cheap. The bad thing: there is a reason why he would come very cheap. Throughout his career Navarro has continued to show weakness both offensively and defensively. In 2007, Navarro had more errors than any other catcher in the bigs and batted with a .227 avg. Navarro improved greatly in 2008: he hit with a .330 wOBA and .295 avg. However, in 2009 he regressed again: .218 avg and .258 wOBA. It now looks like the Rays are through with Navarro, as the media speculates he will be non-tendered.

The other candidate, John Buck, came up through the Astros and Royals systems. In 2003, he was considered the 21st best prospect in MLB. Buck is known as a catcher with almost no offensive ability, but with a strong defensive ability. In his career, Buck has never hit above a .250 avg. However, in 2009 he did post an above average .332 wOBA. Perhaps Buck is beginning to turn things around, however the Giants should not count on that.

Ultimately, Buck is currently the more valuable catcher, with a 0.9 WAR in 2009 compared to Navarro's -0.1 WAR. If these catchers hit the market, they probably will not be able to have much leverage to command more than a one year deal. Their low value makes them fairly good candidates for the Giants to pick up for the interim, in order to give Posey enough time to get called up. Of the two, Buck is clearly the better choice. The Giants want a catcher who can show Posey the ropes and hold down the fort defensively. Buck has shown better discipline behind the dish, while Navarro appears to be error prone. Either catacher, however, would be decent for the short term. The Giants will probably be looking into signing one of these guys should they hit the market.

Beside the catching market, there is also the issue of what to do with Dan Uggla. It is no secret that the Giants are looking at acquire Uggla, and it also appears that the Giants have extended offers to sign Adam LaRoche and Nick Johnson. The Giants only have one spot in the infield open for a new player. So what would happen if the Giants were able to get Uggla through a good trade and Adam LaRoche was willing to sign? One idea that has been floated is moving Uggla to left field. Indeed, the Boston Red Sox have considered Uggla as a replacement should both Jason Bay and Matt Holliday not decide to go to Fenway for 2010.

Uggla would probably lose considerable value moving to left field. Uggla is already a below average second baseman. A move to left might bring his value down even further. On the other hand, Jason Bay is a terrible left fielder as well. If Uggla could continue to put up the offensive numbers he has in the past, which he probably could do at AT&T, since he is a righty with pull, it might work out for the Giants to plunk Uggla in LF and put Adam LaRoche at 1B.

Here's to hoping.

Jason Bay Five Year Deal?

2009-12-11T16:10:00.000-08:00

One thing we have heard from Brian Sabean this offseason is how dedicated he is to signing second-tier players, and not looking at this year's premier free agents: Matt Holliday and Jason Bay. If you have been reading my posts, you know that I pretty much agree with Sabean here. The Giants do not need to needless throw money at Jason Bay or Matt Holliday. We can put together a playoff calibre team much more cheaply (and perhaps more effectively) by signing the Adam LaRoche and trading for Dan Uggla, rather than dumping all our resources into Matt Holliday or Jason Bay.

So what has been going on with Jason Bay this offseason? The media has speculated there are three places he could end up: San Francisco, Boston, or with the Mets in New York. I highly doubt the media's belief that Bay could end up here in San Francisco: sure we need a player like Bay but I don't think they realize how strapped for cash we are.

Today, Peter Gammons, a big time Red Sox fan and huge homer, mentioned that the Giants in fact have made a five year offer to Jason Bay. Well, that's not true. He said that he knows the Giants would make a five year offer to Jason Bay. I have no idea how or where he got this information. Perhaps he is clairvoyant. However, there has been no indication whatsoever that the Giants would go that long with Jason Bay. However, in addition to this mysterious five year deal, apparently Jason Bay does not want to play in San Francisco! How does Gammons know this? Well, naturally, he gives no sources and gives no reason. He just knows. Jason Bay does not want to play in San Francisco. Really?

This article stinks. I am not sure what Gammons is talking about and how much we can really trust it. However, it does make one wonder: are the Giants out on Jason Bay? Or are they secretly in on the slugger?

Don't Count Out Dan Uggla?

2009-12-09T22:59:00.000-08:00

Andrew Baggarly reports that the Giants are not out on Dan Uggla, and are probably just trying get the Marlins to come down on their price for the second baseman.

What about Ryan Garko?

2009-12-09T13:20:00.000-08:00

The Giants acquired Ryan Garko after the All-star break in the 2009 season in order to bring in a bat that would help the Giants in their playoff push. In acquiring Garko from the Cleveland Indians, the Gmen gave up pitching prospect Scott Barnes for Garko's services.

The 28-year old first baseman was suppose to be the offensive power that the Giants needed to get into the playoffs. In the 2008 season, Garko put up good numbers: a .333 wOBA and a .346 OBP. The guy could get on base better than most players in the MLB, which was excellent for the Giants, who had one of the league's most anemic offenses.

Sadly, Garko was poorly misused in San Francisco. He started for about 10 games until Bruce Bochey essentially sidelined Garko for Travis Ishikawa. Ishikawa better with the glove, but was weaker offensively. By the end of the season, Garko was rarely seen, even as a pinch hitter.

What happened? The Giants barely gave the guy a chance. Moreover, he is exactly the type of player this team needs: a guy who can consistently get on base. Granted, Garko's first several games in San Francisco did not go well for him. He hit with a .235 avg, .289 wOBA, and .307 OBP. It was probably for these, misguided, reasons that the Giants decided to drop Garko so prematurely.

However, it shocks me that the Giants management would make a judgment on Garko's offensive ability in so few games. Garko was never given an honest and true chance to show he could hit and to adjust to the National League (Garko had spent his entire professional career with the Indians in the American League).

Little has been said about Garko for the 2010 season. When asked about the status of Garko, Brian Sabean said he was "on the bubble." I suspect the Giants are looking to trade Garko for one of the big bats they need. Considering one of the premier free agents the Giants are pursuing is Nick Johnson, who plays first base, it would make sense if the Giants could trade Garko to another team for a bat (I know the Giants have been hot and cold on Dan Uggla, although I don't know how and if Garko could help out that team). Barring any great deals to trade away Garko for a better bat, however, I think the Giants should retain him and give him another chance for 2010.

One thing that alarms me is how wedded the Giants management is to the idea of starting Eugenio Velez next year in LF. Let me be brutally honest: Eugenio Velez sucks. I don't want to hear about how he went on that impressive hot streak in 2009. Batters can be hot and cold, however to truly and accurately judge a player's talent you need to look at a larger sample size. Offensively, Velez is a joke. He hit with a .301 wOBA in 2009. That is awful, especially considering Garko generally hits far above and beyond that. Yet, for some reason the Giants are dedicated to giving Velez another shot at the starting job. It is probably because the Giants have this old-fashioned belief that your lead-off hitter needs to be a speedy guy. Let me make this clear to the Giants management: A leadoff hitter needs to be good at getting on base, not being fast. Eugenio Velez cannot get on base enough for his speed to even matter. At best, Eugenio Velez should be a pitch hitter/runner and a fourth outfielder.

So what should the Giants do with Garko? Almost no matter what the Giants do to upgrade their infield, someone else will be playing at first. If they sign Nick Johnson of Andy LaRoche, then those players will be a first. If they sign Adrian Beltre, then he will play third and Pablo will move to first. If they trade for Dan Uggla, then Freddy Sanchez will move to third, while Pablo will move to first. So almost no matter what we do, someone else will be at first. That means, if we are to give Garko a starting job, then he will have to move elsewhere.

The outfield is the only spot that makes sense. Garko has played a few games out there. Admittedly, he is not a good defensively player. This is where Velez has the advantage over Garko. In 2009, Garko played 20 games in the outfield. He racked up a -2.4 UZR. Velez, on the other hand, played 59 games in the outfield and had a 3.5 UZR. First of all, we are dealing with small sample sizes, so there is not much weight that we can put into these numbers. However, from we do have, we can make an unscientific, educated guess that Velez will be the better defender. However, Garko's offensive numbers will hopefully make up for his lack of defense ability in LF. To contract, Jason Bay had a -13.0 UZR with the Red Sox last season (although Bay's offense is much better than Garko's).

If we put Ryan Garko in the outfield and signed Nick Johnson we could have a lineup like the following:

(1) N. Johnson (1B)
(2) F. Sanchez (2B)
(3) R. Garko (LF)
(4) P. Sandoval (3B)
(5) N. Schierhotlz (RF)
(6) A. Rowand (CF)
(7) B. Posey (C)
(8) E. Renteria (SS)
(9) Pitcher

Not bad, I'd say. If Renteria's injury last season really was the force that was causing him to underperform then we might see a bounce back next year. If so, he could hit higher up in the line-up. It is something to think about. Ryan Garko could be a solution to our offensive woes, and it is a solution that we already have in our dugout.

Indianapolis Updates

2009-12-08T23:53:00.000-08:00

Andrew Baggarly has reported some interesting tidbits on the Giants' front. First of all, the Giants are effectively out of running for Dan Uggla. Due to Uggla's nearing free agency and his weak glove, the Giants essentially lost interest in the Marlins's infielder. Bengie Molina is certain not to return. Brian Sabean spoke of Moline: "That ship has sailed." Baggarly also reports it is possible that Uribe will revisit the Giants' offer (whatever that means).

Some good news though: Baggs has reported that the Giants are interested in Orlando Hudson. If the Giants sign Hudson, they will move Freddy Sanchez to 3B. That would be a wonderful pickup. Hudson is a great player who fits nicely with the Giants' needs. Hudson has a career .340 wOBA, which would contribute nicely to the Giants meager offense. In all seriousness, we should have signed Hudson instead of Renteria last year. That was a huge blunder on Sabean's behalf.

The Giants are still interested in Mark DeRosa, however.

One interested piece of information reported by Baggs is that the Giants could possibly make a run for Jason Bay. If we are only going to sign one bat, then Jason Bay would be a great option, obviously.

The San Jose Mercury News has reported that the Giants will probably only sign one bat this off-season. The article offers no reason for this, and gives no sources. I am not sure how much I trust this piece of information, but it is certainly disheartened if true. I had hoped the Giants would sign one bat in the infield and one bat in the outfield. I had dreamed of Nick Johnson/Andy LaRoche and Xavier Nady. I really think the Giants need to sign two bats to make us a little more solid up the 3, 4, and 5 spots.

It looks like the Giants' interest in Jermaine Dye and Johnny Damon has waned (good).

Wow. Some of this news is good, some of it is bad. Clearly, the Giants need more than one bat, short of returning players really stepping up to the plate. Edgar Renteria was a terrible disappointment for the Giants last year, however he was playing through an injury. I expect Renteria will be better than he was in '09, but I don't think the Giants can count on him being a strong hitter. He has declined in recent years. Hopefully, he will have some sort of bounce back year.

Aaron Rowand hit .218 in the second half of the season. That is unacceptable. Clearly and utterly unacceptable. Rowand needs to get his bat back. We are paying him a ridiculous amount of money.

It looks like Andres Torres, Eugenio Velez, and even Emmanuel Burris will be seeing significant playing time next year. It is utterly absurd that Velez is being given a starting sport, seemingly, even before spring training. Velez, despite his hot streak last season, cannot hit. He hit last season with a .301 wOBA. That is terrible. If the Giants expect the start Eugenio Velez and still make the playoffs they are dreaming. This is exactly why I wanted the Giants to sign two bats: one in the outfield and one in the infield. If that were done, we could start Rowand in CF, Nady in RF, and Lewis in LF. Or, we could start Rowand in CD, Nady in LF, and Schierholtz/Torres in RF.

While Fred Lewis is bad on defense, he has decent hitting abilities. He can get on base right at the league average (which for the 2009 Giants is stellar). He should certainly be higher on the Giants list than Eugenio Velez . . . it is absurd. Utterly absurd, that Eugenio Velez might be starting next season.

Can anyone tell how frustrated I am?

The best piece of news from this is the fact that Pudge Rodriguez was signed by the Washington Nationals for a two year deal. Why is this good? Because it screwed up the catcher market. Remember in one of my previous posts when I talked about how the Giants would need to find a catcher who would be willing to take a one year deal? Well, the market for that catcher no longer exists. With the nationals setting a precedent like that, no other catcher will be willing to accept anything less than a two-year deal. Thus, Sabean has admitted it might be time to go back and revisit whether or not starting Buster Posey is an option.

Mr. Sabean:

If you are only signing one bat, you had better start Buster Posey, since he will be the only other player on our team, other than Pablo and Freddy Sanchez, who can hit. Make it happen Sabes.

Talent Compression: Addressing One of Baseball's Chronic Problems

2009-12-07T15:20:00.000-08:00

One of the blogs I regularly read is The Dodgerhater: A San Francisco Giants Blog. The author recently reported on the spat Scott Boras made about revenue sharing, which led to a discussion about how the revenue sharing system is broken in MLB. This probably does not come to a surprise to most of you, however if you are unfamiliar with the revenue sharing system and why it is broken, here is a quick summary:

Baseball has no salary cap. In order to encourage competitive balance in MLB (which is good for the health of the sport and to keep fan interest), rich teams must pay into a collective pot which is distributed to poorer teams. So, the Yankees help pay for the Marlins, Pirates, and Rays, for example. However, despite collective revenue from this system, there is no guarantee that the teams will spend the revenue-sharing money on their payrolls. In fact, the Marlins took in the most money in 2009, but still had the lowest payroll in MLB. This apparently is not uncommon. The Pirates and Rays are both also guilty of hoodwinking their fans and the league in this same manner.

But, how do you fix baseball? Forests have been felled to make the paper written about this subject. The bottom line is you are never going to have all teams on a completely equal footing, but that is okay so long as there is some general feeling of league parity.

I do believe in salary caps and salary floors, the latter of which is hinted at by Jason Stark in the aforementioned ESPN article. However, there is something that I rarely see discussed in mainstream baseball media, and I think this problem has led to chronic unbalance in MLB.

The problem I am talking about is talent compression. Now what on Earth is talent compression?

Have you ever looked over old baseball records and wondered by so many of them were made in the early days of baseball? How on Earth did Nap Lajoie hit a .426 avg in a single season? No one has approached a .400 avg in years. Hugh Duffy hit .440. in one season. Willie Keeler hit 424. How did these guys hit so well? They all played in the 1920s or earlier. Were players better back then?

Of course not. Baseball players were in no way better in the early days than they were now. In fact, your average baseball player was far worse in the early days of baseball than the average player today. Why? Because of something called talent compression.

Take a society. It can be any imaginary society. Natural athletic talent falls on a bell curve, where most people fall somewhere in the middle. However a small elite few land on one end. This very small number of extremely gifted athletes are the Barry Bonds, the Hank Aarons, and so forth of the world. Now, the larger amount of people you select from our bell curve means the larger disparity between the great players and your average Joes. So, Nap Lajoie, for example, played in the early 1900s. He played during an era when the vast majority of baseball players were white males from the North East. If we made our bell curve for that "society" (white males from the American North East) we are going to have to select a higher percentage of people on the curve to be in our league, meaning we are going to have a large disparity between the good players and the not-so-good players. If you are still confused let me put it in mathematical terms:

Imagine we have a society of 100 people. On our bell curve 10% are too physically weak to even play baseball. 80% of our society is just average. 10% are bonafide athletes. So, we have 10 people who are just too weak, 80 people who are okay, and 10 people who are good. Imagine we have a league that need 30 players. Well, we only have 10 bonafide atheletes in our society. Assuming we draft them all, we still need 20 spots. So, because of the way the market is, we need to bring in 20 people who are just average. So, now we have a full league, but only 10 people in the league are actually good players.

But let's shake things up. Let's say there are another 100 people who we previously didn't let play, but now we decided to let them play. The talent distribution would be on the same level. So now we have 20 people who are too physically weak to play, 160 who are just average, and 20 who are good. Now our league has 20 good players and just 10 average players.

So what's the lesson here? The greater the pool of people you have to make into professional athletes the smaller the disparity between good and bad players. The above formula is exactly what happened in professional baseball. Before Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier, MLB was largely made of white males from the North East. After the color barrier was broken we have a lot more people we can have in our leagues, and thus the talent becomes compressed: we have more talented players in MLB. Because baseball statistics are generally a measure of relative worth against other players, that is why you don't see batters hitting above .400 these days: pitchers are better than they were in 1900.

So you are probably asking yourself: what's the problem? We broke down the color barrier, we opened up the game to foreign players, it seems we are allowing more people to play the game than ever before, so shouldn't the talent compression not be an issue?

One problem is that there is a lot of talent out in foreign countries these days, but not all teams can bite at them equally. Foreign players are not part of the minor league draft. This means they generally are available to the teams with the most money to burn, because foreign minor-league players have the ability to negotiate their contracts, whereas American players do not. If you have been following the news lately, that is exactly what is happening with Aroldis Chapman. It is no surprise that Chapman is being courted almost entirely by rich teams like the Red Sox and the Yankees. He is example from the minor league draft because he is from Cuba. Given that, poor teams simply can't afford to throw money at him. Compare Chapman to Stephen Strasburg. Before Strasburg signed with the Nationals, he and Chapman were considered the two best pitchers in the world who were not playing in MLB (Yu Darvish is another, however he has expressed no interest in playing in the United States). Not surprisingly, Strasburg, the best American pitching prospect in a generation, went to the lowly Nationals. Why? Because he was able to be drafted.

Thus, the problem is we have opened up the international market, however because international players are exempt from the minor-league draft, we have basically created a system where rich teams can shop around the international market to select the cream of the crop. Everyone who is not selected by these elite teams loses value and trickles down to the hoi polloi. Thus, one thing MLB needs to do is require that foreign born players are part of the draft, or create some other system to enforce more parity among teams shopping for foreign born players.

Another problem is there mere fact that baseball must compete with other national sports for talent. Football, basketball, hockey, and (increasingly) soccer all compete for future athletes. MLB should do everything within its power to create and encourage little league systems in the inner-city and poor areas of the country to get more kids playing baseball, who might otherwise turn to a sport like soccer which might be more available to them. Fostering more talent at home would create a better sport with more players of fine talent playing the game.

Without any salary caps or floors you are still going to his disparities. If we are able to create a system that encourage more players with more talent to play in MLB, you are still going to have the best players rising to the richest teams with the lesser players falling to the poorer teams. The difference is, with the more "good" players you put in the system, the less the difference between rich and poor is. This is basic market saturation. The Yankees could still buy a better team, but they couldn't buy a much better team if there are six A-Rods in the league instead of just one. Moreover, if you saturate the market with big talent, simple economics states that the value of those players will fall. You aren't going to see the ridiculous contracts given to the likes of Mark Texiera and Alex Rodriguez if there are a lot of those guys in the league. They simple will not be worth as much. If the value of players falls, then poorer teams will be able to buy more with the limited funds they have, thus leading to more parity in MLB.

What might the Giants do?

2009-12-05T12:13:00.000-08:00

The winter meetings are set to begin in Indianapolis. Giants' GM Brian Sabean noted that they would not be looking to put Buster Posey in the starting position at catcher to start the season. The Giants brass feels that Posey is just not ready for a starting position, and they want to see him get some more playing time in the minors. They apparently also do not want to rush Madison Bumgarner, however they are still considering him for a sport in the rotation. With Bengie Molina almost certainly not coming back (the Giants want to give him a one-year contract; Bengie wants a multiyear contract), it looks like the Gmen are going to be in the market for a catcher. According to the SF Chronicle, however, the Giants are not keen on older catchers like Brad Ausmus and Pudge Rodriguez.

The Giants are in a bit of a bind with the catcher position. They are not keen on the older, aforementioned catchers, however there seems to be few other options. Yorvit Torrealba, who has been linked to the Giants, is seeking a multi-year deal, like Bengie Molina. That will probably rule him out, and the only other catacher on the Giants roster is Eli Whiteside, who is considered largely just as a backup.

One option out there is Blue Jays catcher Rod Barajas, who is not the kind of offensive power the Giants need. While he hit 19 homeruns last season, his wOBA is an abysmal .282. Still, if the Giants are looking for a cheap solution to keep the position warm until Posey is ready to come up, then Barajas might not be a bad solution. If the Giants want to sign him for a one year deal, and maybe pull of Posey halfway through the season that could end up being a fairly good deal.

The problem the Giants have with signing a catcher right now is anyone who comes here knows Posey will be taking his spot as catcher whenever the Giants brass feels the young pup is ready. Given that, I think the Giants only real options for this position are aged-veterans who really don't have the bargaining power to go elsewhere for multi-year contracts. No, they will not offer the Giants the offensive upgrade they need, but you aren't really going to be getting that from many catchers in MLB. Not everyone can be Joe Mauer (except Buster Posey). It will be interesting to see what the Giants decide to do with the position, but I think we are going to see them sign the likes of Barajas or Pudge Rodriguez just to keep the seat warm until Posey is called up, which I hope will be sometime around the all-star break.

Another interesting development is the Giants brass announcing the Pablo Sandoval will likely stay at 3B for the 2010 season. This essentially rules out signings or trades for the likes of Dan Uggla and Adrian Beltre (both names have been linked at one point or another to the Giants). What this means is the Giants will pursue a first-baseman, and luckily there are some good options out there. Nick Johnson, Adam LaRoche, and Mark DeRosa have been thrown out there as possibilities. Honestly, if the Giants could acquire DeRosa, put him in the outfield, and either Johnson or LaRoche at 1B, then we would have a very competent baseball team. In fact, if we got something like that I would expect a very good contending team for the NL West.

DeRosa is primarily an infielder, however he has played all over the field. He could end up being a good solution for the corner outfield, as he can put up some decent offensive numbers. Bill James has him with an wOBA of .328 in 2010 and hitting 17 HR. Not bad.

Nick Johnson is an OBP beast, which is what the Giants need. In 2009 he owned a .426 OBP, .373 wOBA, and .831 OPS. Really nice. He would be a fantastic offensive upgrade for the Giants.

If Nick Johnson does not pan out, Adam LaRoche would be a satisfactory backup. He doesn't have as good OBP as Johnson, but at .355 he was still hitting ahead of the curve. What LaRoche offers that Johnson does not is pop. In 2009 LaRoche hit 25 homeruns, while Johnson hit a paltry 8.

Hopefully, if the Giants pull together some of these deals, we will be able to put a team on the field that could make a great playoff run. 2010 is looking good.

Tim Lincecum, the Cy Young, and the Changing Face of Baseball.

2009-11-27T16:20:00.000-08:00

If anyone keeps up with this blog, they may notice that I have not posted anything about Tim Lincecum winning the Cy Young. Why haven't I written anything about it? A couple reasons, really. First, I have just been genuinely busy. The semester is wrapping up and I had things to do. Second, everyone else was covering, and I was not sure what exactly I could say about the subject. Finally, I wasn't really sure what the victory meant. I was shocked, to be honest.

After thinking about it for a while, Tim Lincecum deserved to win the Cy Young. Many around the baseball world are confused and angry about the subject. One St. Louis writer (and a blatant homer) cried about how Lincecum won the Cy Young over Carpenter and Wainwright with having only 15 wins. What? How can that be? Clearly, five years ago there was no way in heck that Lincecum could win the Cy Young with only 15 wins. In fact, Lincecum is the fist NL pitcher to do so with only so few wins.

So why does Lincy deserve the award?

Simply put, wins mean nothing when determining the value of a pitcher. Baseball fans, and especially baseball writers, need to learn this very basic fact. Wins reflect more of how a specific pitcher performs on a specific team. Let's imagine you had two pitchers of equal talent. Pitcher A plays on a team with a great offense. Pitcher B plays on a team with an anemic offense. Pitcher A would have more wins than Pitcher B. Yet, the pitchers are of the same quality. Why, therefore, is it so ingrained in MLB-lore that we use win/loss as an indicator of a pitcher's worth?

Moving away from problematic statistics like wins, ERA, and RBI and focusing on more advanced statistics like FIP, K/9, K/BB, UZR and so on allow us to better evaluate a pitcher's value on his own rather than as a pitcher on a specific team. If Lincecum played on the Los Angeles Dodgers (a terrible thought, I know) he undoubtedly would have more in the wins column.

Let's compare Lincecum, Adam Wainwright, and Chris Carpenter, the latter two who were also in the race for the Cy Young.

Tim Lincecum 15-7, 2.48 ERA, 261 SO, 1.05 WHIP, 4 CG, 225 IP, 10 K/9, 3 B/9, and 2.34 FIP.

Adam Wainright 19-8, 2.63 ERA, 212 SO, 1.21 WHIP, 1 CG, 233 IP, 8 K/9, 2 B/9, and 3.11 FIP.

Chris Carpenter 17-4, 2.24 ERA, 144 SO, 1.01 WHIP, 3 CG, 192.2 IP, 6.73 K/9, 1.78 B/9, and 2.78 FIP.

Wainwright and Carpenter had more wins than Lincecum (although Wainwright also had more losses, which I rarely saw anything about in conservative baseball press). What really stands out here about Linecum is how he, moreso than the other two pitchers, was able to completely dominate pitchers in the NL. Evidenced by his SO rate, Lincecum was preventing batters from putting the ball in play at a significantly higher rate than either Wainright or Carpenter. Lincecum's 261 SOs is significantly higher than Wainright's 212 and completely dominates Carpenter's 144. This is also reflected in FIP (FIP reflects a pitcher's value while omitting the skill of the pitcher's team's defense). Lincecum's FIP is much better than Carpenter's and Wainwright's. Clearly, Lincecum was the best pitcher in the NL last year, something that would not be reflected if we looked at flawed statistic like W/L and ERA.

I am very happy to see baseball writers move in this direction. The way we evaluate baseball players has significantly changed, for the better, over the past ten years. It is good to see the professionals actually in the industry catching on to what baseball fans have known for decades.

More Offseason notes

2009-11-14T10:15:00.000-08:00

MLB Trade Rumors took a look at the San Francisco Giants this offseason in their column "Offseason Outlook." According to the article have roughly $62 million dedicated to the payroll before arbitration raises. Several key players are promised arbitration including Lincecum, Sanchez, Wilson, and Medders. The article also notes that these raises will not come cheap (especially Lincecum who was awarded super-two status), and will likely push the Giants committed payroll into the $80 million range. Considering our payroll was less than $83 million last season, and we are not expected to raise it much this season, this pretty much precludes the Giants from picking up a big name like Jason Bay or Matt Holliday (although, I always assumed Matt Holliday was too pricey for the Giants this year).

On the bright side, Andrew Baggarly of the San Jose Mercury News suggested that the Giants have enough money to afford "one free agent starting pitcher and one modestly-priced free agent hitter."

Assuming this is correct we hopefully could bring back Brad Penny and some FA hitter (Xavier Nady or perhaps Nick Johnson is what I am thinking. I would rather have Nady). If Brad Penny insists on being paid more than the Giants can afford I suggest the Giants look after Rich Harden. Harden is an old colleague of Barry Zito and I think he would fit in well with the Giants as a second option.

Despite these payroll limitations, the Giants still have the opportunity to field a good team next year. Our first move was picking up Freddy Sanchez for what I believe is a good deal. He plays great defense at second base, and he has an average bat (which is an above average bat considering the Giants offense since Barry Bonds left the team).

Another option has floated around the Giants rumor-mill for our infield: Dan Uggla of the Florida Marlins is apparently for sale. Uggla plays third base, which means we could move Pablo Sandoval to first base and solve our corner infield problem. This would preclude us from signing Nick Johnson, since he would have to play first and we would not have room for him and Sandoval. For this reason, I think the Giants should move to sign Xavier Nady and plunk him in left field. There is also talk that Uggla can play left field, in which case we could sign Johnson, put him at first, and leave Sandoval at third. I do not think this is as good as the first option. Uggla himself is a good player, especially since he will come on the cheap.

Initially, the Giants and the Orioles were the two interested teams. Now it looks like the Orioles have dropped out of the race for Uggla, leaving us alone with him for now. Hopefully Sabean can get this deal done without any drastic moves (like trading Alderson). The Marlins will be looking for a prospect player that won't be arbitration eligible for a while. I'm not really sure who could fill their needs, but hopefully we can get it done.

I would welcome Uggla on the team. Last year he hit 31 HRs with a .243 AVG. The guy also had a .813 OPS. Definitely worth it for the Giants to pick him up. He has pop and the guy gets on base.

So, what do I expect the Giants to do considering this information? With our limited payroll this season due to bad contracts and pay raises, I expect the Giants to concentrate on keeping our core talent together, while signing Brad Penny and Xavier Nady ( or someone like him in the outfield) and then trade for Uggla. If all goes according to plan, the Giants would boast a lineup like the following:

Aaron Rowand
F. Sanchez
Dan Uggla
Pablo Sandoval
Xavier Nady
Schierholtz/Velez
Renteria
Posey
Pitcher

Not a bad lineup. Not bad at all. I put Aaron Rowand in the lead-off spot because he did well there in 2009. Hopefully he can pick up his game a little bit for next year. I also am hoping that Edgar Renteria will see some more of his old self next year with his injury healed.

There is one question left open here: what about Posey? Is he ready to catch at the big leagues? I think the Giants don't have many options here. Molina is not going to be a Giant next year. There is simply no way that will happen (unless Molina took a bizarre pay-cut, which he would be a fool to do). There has been talk about the Giants signing Pudge Rodriguez as a way to mentor Posey during his first year.

I think the Giants need to stop pussy-footing around with Buster Posey. The only way he is going to learn is by throwing him in there. We don't need to waste precious money on Rodriguez. Posey can come up and get the starting job. Posey can hit, and he will learn to call big-league games. If he has trouble in the beginning, we can use Whiteside to step in.

All in all, I expect the Giants to put something similar to the above on the field in 2010. If that happens I will be very pleased, and I think we will be a contender for the division title.

More Trade Rumors

2009-11-08T23:30:00.000-08:00

MLB Trade Rumors released a note about where they predict the top 50 free agents will end up signing this off-season. I've highlighted the ones that will have an effect on the Giants.

3. Jason Bay - Red Sox. It's been rumored the Red Sox are willing to offer four years and $60MM to Bay. That seems to be a fair opening bid, given his defensive struggles.

I hope this is not what ends up happening, as Jason Bay is the premier free agent that I can see the Giants acquiring this off-season. Bay ending up as a Giants is very unlikely (seeing as he is a very sought-after FA), however I really want him on this team, and I am sure the Giants brass is keeping a close eye on him as well.

9. Adrian Beltre - Twins. The Twins made a large upgrade at shortstop by acquiring J.J. Hardy. Beltre would give them fantastic left-side infield defense and another possible 20 home run bat. The Twins had interest in trading for Beltre a year ago, though the Scott Boras client added them to his no-trade clause.

I have no idea how likely it is that Beltre will end up as a Giants. If this is any indicator he probably won't. However, it would be a nice move seeing as we could then send Pablo over to first base. I don't know how keen on this the Giants brass is though.

16. Nick Johnson - Giants. A jolt of OBP at first base would do the Giants good. They were involved in talks for Johnson around the trade deadline.

I am not sure how I feel about Nick Johnson coming over to the Giants. He is a very disciplined hitter (something very few Giants are capable of). His very good OBP is something this team really needs, and it certainly would make up a much better team. However, I just don't want to try to get OBP from a first baseman. I am not ready to give up on Garko or Ishikawa. I think both of these guys (Garko moreso than Ishi) have the potential to be great starters. I would feel better about getting an upgrade elsewhere (outfield). However, if Nick Johnson is the best FA the Giants can get, then let's bring him on.

21. Adam LaRoche - Braves. Did LaRoche's scorching stint with the Braves last year price him out of their range? The Mets, Orioles, A's, Mariners, Giants, D'Backs, and Rangers might also be in the market for a first baseman.

If the Giants are going to be looking for an upgrade at firstbase, Adam LaRoche might be an option if Nick Johnson does not work or (or is LaRoche comes with a cheaper price tag). He has a nice career .834 OPS, which would be very welcome on the Giants. Keep this guy in mind. I have the same problems with LaRoche that I have with Johnson.

25. Brad Penny - Mets. Penny is just one of many different arms the Mets might consider as they attempt to bolster their rotation depth. No other free agent starter throws harder, so Penny's upside is still tantalizing.

He was awesome with the Giants. I'm sad to see him leave, if in fact he does not resign with the Giants. Our rotation won't be as awesome as it was at the end of the season with him.

28. Bengie Molina - Nationals. Molina is difficult to place, especially if he demands more than $5MM. With Jesus Flores coming off shoulder surgery, the Nats will probably add a veteran on a one-year deal. The Mets also may sign a catcher.

Big Money might fit in well with the power-hitting Nationals. Again, sad to see this guy go, but his time with the Giants is definitely up. Time for Buster to step in.

38. Juan Uribe - Mariners. Uribe was quietly very valuable in 2009, playing all around the infield for the Giants. Uribe's shortstop-third base flexibility could fit for Seattle.

A very good player. This guy deserves a starting position. If the Mariners are going to give him that, then he more than deserves it and at a good price. He was very good with the Giants and I have nothing but love for this guy.

40. Jermaine Dye - Rangers. The Rangers signing both Byrd and Dye might be a stretch, though Dye should be used strictly at DH. Given his second half decline he should be affordable.

There is talk that this guy could be a pickup for the Giants if Bay does not work out. I am really against this. His defense is just awful (worse than Bay's apparently) and he is getting old. Injury prone as well. Just say no to Dye.

48. Xavier Nady - Diamondbacks. The D'Backs will probably tender a contract to Conor Jackson, but Nady could still be helpful at first base and left field. He's a Scott Boras client, but he missed most of the season due to Tommy John surgery.

A backup option if Bay does not pan out. Nady has two problems: he is a Scott Boras client and he is injury prone.

Angel Villalona Released?

2009-11-08T21:54:00.000-08:00

I came across this bizarre tweet. It notes that Angel Villalona has been released from jail upon paying $150,000 to the family of the man who was murdered two months ago. First of all, I have no way to check the veracity of this. Any fool could of made this up. Even if the source is reliable, the tweet explains very little. It does not appear this is some form of bail, however there is no equivalent in America. In the American criminal justice someone, no one is ever released from jail simply by paying the family of the victim. Only if one posts bail, by paying the court, can someone be temporarily released pending criminal charges.

I highly doubt this means the charges against Villalona have been dropped. I imagine if the charges were dropped news sources would be popping up all over the place right now, considering he is the Giants' number one offensive prospect.

If Villalona is guilty of murder, clearly he should never play baseball in the United States (indeed, if he is found guilty of murder he probably will never return to the United States at all). However, if this man is innocent this truly is a tragedy (not to mention the loss of life for the young man killed that night). It could completely ruin this man's budding and promising career.

Those who maintain that Villalona is innocent note that he is a celebrity in the Domincan town where he grew up, and is a target of frame-jobs like this. I know nothing about Domincan culture, so I cannot comment on the veracity of that.

All I can hope for is that the family of the murdered man will be able to see he who is responsible for this crime brought to justice, whether it be Villalona or some nameless thug.

Off-season Notes

2009-11-07T08:30:00.000-08:00

The off-season has just begun. However, some important trades that will likely impact the Giants have been made. I will highlight those which I think are important around the league:

Manny Ramirez has picked up his $20 million option to stay with the Los Angeles Dodgers through the 2010 season. I am happy about this. Ramirez is simply not the slugger he used to be. Unlike Bonds, who kept putting up amazing numbers almost to the day he retired (perhaps due to prolonged PED use), Ramirez simply is not hitting like he used to. During the 2009 NLCS he hit in the .260's. He has complained that his knees are also hurting him, so playing in left-field is getting harder (and he never was a good defensive player). I am glad Ramirez picked up this option because it basically locks the Dodgers into a very expensive contract. If LA wasn't committed to Manny, they might be able to go out and get the likes of Matt Holliday or Jason Bay. I'm not sure what their budget looks like, but perhaps it will also put them out of the running in the event Roy Hallady goes on the FA market in the near future.

Bengie Molina has filed for free agency. First off: Bengie, you were a great Giant. You were recognized for your clubhouse presence, you were a decent hitter, and you called games pretty well. In fact, your hitting is good enough to where you would be considered a great hitting-catcher on other teams. However, on the Giants, who lack offensive pop, we need to be going in another direction. We have Posey coming up this year, and there simply is not enough room for Bengie to be on the team for another year at the price a veteran like Bengie deserves. So, I do not think we will Bengie on the team next year. I wish him the best on the FA market. Good luck, Big Money.

JJ Hardy has been traded to the Twins. This really does not impact the Giants that much, however last week I thought about how wise it would be to eat Renteria's contract and pick up a cheap shortstop, who might have some future potential. JJ Hardy was perfect. The former Brewers shortstop has put up some decent number in the past, however he had a disastrous 2009 season. In fact, he was sent down to the minors for part of that season. I do believe, however, that he will have a bounce-back year. Oh well, there is no crying of spoiled milk. I think the best option for the Giants at shortstop is to the hope Renteria's dismal performance throughout 2009 was due to his injury. Hope that 2010 is a bounce-back year for him.

Juan Uribe has also filed for free agency. I really doubt we will see Uribe back next year. Like Molina, there is just no place for him. He was awesome during his tenure with the Giants, and I will be very sad to see him go. After having a great year, this guy deserves a pretty good contract on a team where he will be playing every day.

Coco Crisp and Austin Kearns hit the FA market when their teams declined their options. Crisp might be a cheap FA pickup for the Giants, that might fill a good role on the team.

That's all the noteworthy news I have for today!

Lincecum Busted

2009-11-05T19:15:00.000-08:00

Well, saying he got busted is a little over the top. Lincecum was driving in his home state, at a rate of 76 mph in a 60-zone. He was pulled over by a state trooper, who, upon contacting Lincecum, smelled weed in the vehicle. Lincecum was found in possession of about 3.3 grams of marijuana.

Oh man.

The media is making a big deal about this, but I really do not see what the excitement is about. Manny Ramirez and Big Papi both got busted using serious PEDs, and the baseball world seemed not to really care (especially regarding David Ortiz. That was in the news for about a week).

I mean, seriously. Take a gander at the handsome fellow to the left. If that is not the face of a stoner, I am not sure what is. This is not really a huge revelation. Thankfully, the guy plays in the San Francisco Bay Area, a place known for its tolerance of marijuana usage.

I hope this remains a story for about a week, and then fades away.

Knowing ESPN, this will be the most they follow the Giants all year.

Giants Name New Hitting Coach

2009-11-02T14:12:00.000-08:00

Unfortunately, his name is not Barry Bonds (I had my hopes, however unrealistic they were). The Giants have named Hensley Meulens as their new hitting coach. Meulens is a minor-league hitting coach with the Giants system. He has been credited with turning around Eugenio Velez and John Bowker. Meulens has never had a coaching position at the major league level. He will be replaced Carney Lansford, who was with the Giants through the 2008 and 2009 seasons.

Source.

Jason Bay to The Giants?

2009-11-02T08:45:00.000-08:00

We already signed Freddy Sanchez, why not bring over another one of the Pirates former stars? It is no secret that the Giants are in the market for a player with pop and power. We need to score runs, and we need someone who can bat in the fourth hole who is not as slow as Bengie "Ima take my time" Molina. Jason Bay seems like someone who might be able to fill that role for us.

Who is Jason Bay? Bay currently plays for the Red Sox, but he came up through the Padres system, but ended up with the Pirates and, in fact, Bay played with Freddy Sanchez back in Pittsburgh. In 2008, Bay was involved in a three-way trade involving the Pirates, the Dodgers, and the Red Sox. Manny Ramirez left Boston for Los Angeles, Laroche and Morris went to Pittsburgh, and Bay ended up in Boston (where he would replace Ramirez in left field).

Bay was selected for the 2009 All-star team, and Sporting News listed Bay as the 41st best baseball player today. Bay stated that he would test the free agent market for the 2010 year. Boston still seems interested in Bay though, and the Giants seems to be the other team in the running to get him.

What are Bay's strengths? Basically, he is essentially what the Giants need: a player that excels in nearly every offensive statistic. Bay is a good base runner and has a healthy number of stolen bases. The guy can also rake: he has a career .280 avg and185 HR. Bay has some power, clearly: in 2009 he had a .547 SLG. He shows great plate discipline, as he walks often (15 BB%). He owned a .921 OPS in 2009.

Clearly, Bay would be a great addition for the Giants offensively. A possible line-up might be:

Velez/Torres
F. Sanchez
Sandoval
Bay
Posey
Renteria
Garko/Ishikawa
Rowand
(Pitcher)

Or some variation thereof. All of a sudden our lineup seems pretty formidable. If Renteria's poor performance in 2009 was due largely to his arm injury, then maybe we will look even better.

So what is bad about Bay? He apparently is below average in left field. He also will not come on the cheap. I would expect to pay at least $15 million a year for this guy. However, I think it would be worth it if we were able to get into the post-season next year. Afterall, that's the point of the game. We cannot be in rebuilding mode forever. I think we finally have the ability to make a strong run for the NL West, after years of trying to tread water.

I would support a move for Jason Bay. How likely is it that we will get him? I think we would generally lose a bidding war with the Red Sox. However, we do have one thing going for us: Matt Holliday. Holliday will never play in San Francisco, however he could go for Boston. If the Red Sox got Holliday, there would be no reason for them to sign Bay. Holliday probably go to the highest bidder, and it looks like the Red Sox may just be that.

Only time can tell, but I think Sabean will keep a close eye on the Bay situation.

Giants Resign Freddy Sanchez

2009-10-30T21:05:00.000-07:00

Good news for Giants fans: Freddy Sanchez has been resigned and at a lower price that we had anticipated. Sanchez had an option for one year at $8.1 million. This is a little steep for a player who barely gave us any playing-time last year. However, luckily, Sanchez has agreed to a two year deal at $12 million. This is great, because we will have a solid .300 hitter for 2B for the next two years (assuming Sanchez's production won't drop a great amount), and for a price cheaper than we had expected.

Here is a link to the story.

In the story Sanchez noted how sorry he was that was unable to help the Giants into the post-season in 2009:

"I try to be as loyal a person as I can . . . . Being a part of this San Francisco Giants family, hopefully I can do what they traded for me to do."

A real class-act. I appreciate a player who is a humble and loyal to his team. That is a rare quality these days.

Freddy Sanchez is already shaping up to be my favorite Giant of the 2010 season.

Why Being A Giants Fan Is Better than Being A Dodgers Fan

2009-10-26T00:25:00.000-07:00

It's the offseason, so I don't have a lot to write about. Naturally, I gravitate toward what most Giants fans like to write about when they don't have games to talk about: Why we are better than the Dodgers. So, here are my reasons why if you are a Giants fan you should be proud. If you are a Dodgers fan, you should probably just check out.

I. The Giants Have Beaten the Dodgers More Times Than the Dodgers Have Beaten the Giants.

Over the course of their entire history, the Giants have beaten the Dodgers 1160 times, whereas the Dodgers have beaten the Giants 1139 times. When asking which team is better, there is no better measure than who has won more head to head contests. And the winner of that, ladies and gentleman, is the Giants. Ask Dodger fans they will probably respond with something asinine like "Well, the Dodgers have beaten the Giants more times since the move to California." That's swell! You can carve up history however you want ("Hey, the fact of the matter is, the Giants beat the Dodgers more times this past weekend. So they must be better, right?"), but the fact of the matter is, the Giants won more times. Period. There is no denying it. Sorry.

When confronted with this statistic, most Dodgers fans respond with touting the five World Series rings they have won since moving to California, whereas the Giants have yet to win one. That's fine. The Giants have still won five World Series championships over their history. We only have to win one more to tie it all up. And considered the Giants have been to the World Series twice since the Dodgers last appeared there (and the fact that the Dodgers seem to be NLCS challenged as of late), I would say it is quite possible that the Giants will win a WS before the Dodger win their next one.

II. AT&T Park Is Vastly Superior to Dodger Stadium.

This one just seems unfair. No one in their right mind would say Dodger Stadium is nicer than AT&T Park (Dodgers fans would, but no one in their right mind would be a Dodger fan to begin with). Dodger Stadium rests over the giant parking lot that smells of urine. On a hot day, the pungent smells of filth radiate off the asphalt, making Dodger Stadium one of the most unpleasant places to be in professional sports. Contrast that with AT&T Park: a shimmering example of American architectural achievement, AT&T Park rests over the beautiful San Francisco Bay, with stunning views of East Bay. There is little nicer than sitting at AT&T on a Saturday afternoon watching the Giants.

But don't take my word for. I am obviously biased. When rating all MLB ballparks, Forbes magazine placed Dodger Stadium at number 20 while AT&T claimed the top spot. Dodger Stadium may have history, but that's about it.

Have some garlic fries, Dodger fans. That will turn those frowns upside down.

III. Juan Marichal Beat the Crap out of A Dodger.

I don't normally condone violence. But this one is just too good. On 22 August 1965 the Dodgers were playing the Giants at Candlestick Park. Giants Pitcher Juan Marichal had thrown two balls near the head of Dodgers' outfielder Maury Willis. When it was Marichal's turn to bat, Dodgers' catcher Johnny Rosboro returned throws too close to Marichal's head, with one ball in fact grazing the Giants' ace's ear.

Well, Juan Marichal doesn't take shit. Especially shit from a blueberry.

Juan turned around and beat the living hell out of Rosboro with his bat. Rosboro apparently took off his helmet to argue with Marichal. Marichal responded by whacking the blueberry several times right across his empty dome.

The incident resulted in Marichal's suspension. But it was well worth it. Dodger fans still hate Juan Marichal for the incident. For us Giants fans, however, it is a reminder of how you don't screw with the Gents and walk away from it.

Dodger fans remain angry to this day because, despite all their claims to toughness, a Dodger has never come close to getting the up on a Giant like what happened on that day.

IV. Barry Bonds Broke the All-Time Homerun Record as a Giant and at AT&T.

Barry Bonds is amazing. Steroids or no steroids. The man simply is one of the greatest baseball players of all-time, and he is someone the Dodgers love to hate. Why? Because he beat the crap out of them for years. Dodger fans loved to call Barry a cheater during his tenure with the Giants. They refused to acknowledge he is the Homerun King. They always complained about how he was rude with the media.

Yet, now the Dodgers curiously have their own steroid-riddled outfielder. And suddenly that is okay.

No matter: the bottom line is Barry Bonds has more homeruns than any other player in the history of baseball (with the exception of that Japanese guy, but he doesn't count since they play in Little League parks in Japan).

The Dodgers have nothing comparable to put up against the Giants.

And that makes them sad.

IV. Our Classic Song Is Better than Theirs.

"When the Giants Come to Town" is simply better than "D-O-D-G-E-R-S."

Nothing else needs to be said about that.

V. Tommy Lasorda.

I am not comparing Lasorda to anyone.

I'm just glad he never was part of the Giants organization.

VI. Giants Fans Actually Show up for Games.

I wrote about this in a previous post. Per capita, more Giants fans show up for their team's home games than do Dodger fans for their home games.

Sad but true.

Maybe if they didn't play over a latrine in a hot ravine they would have more people show up for their games in LA.

VII. The Shot Heard Round the World.

The year is 1951. The Giants were down and out mid-way through the season. The Giants were 13.5 games behind the hated Dodgers and it looked like all was lost. However, the Gents were able to pull off a 16-game winning streak and at the end of the season they forced a three-game tie-breaker playoff.

The Giants won the first game at Ebbets Field. From there, they went back to the Polo Grounds where they would play the last two games of the series. The Dodgers won game 2. So, it all came down to game 3.

The Dodgers started off well. By the bottom on the ninth, the Dodgers were ahead 4 runs to 1. The Giants managed to score one run, and ended up with two men on base. The score was 4 to 2, Dodgers favor, when Bobbby Thompson came up to bat. On the second pitch of the at-bat, Thompson ripped the ball into the stands, getting a walk-off three-run homerun. It was called the shot heard round the world. There is probably no other moment in baseball history as iconic as this one. The announcer that day was so shocked and overcome all he could muster to say was "The Giants win the pennant! The Giants win the pennant! The Giants win the pennant!"

In 2001 it was reported that the Giants actually had a coach sitting in the stands with a telescope spying on the Dodgers in order to steal signs. Ever since this was revealed, Dodger fans act as if this moment somehow is cheapened or "doesn't count." Unfortunately, Dodger fans fail to note that sign-stealing was not against the rules of baseball at the time, and was in fact a common practice.

Plus, if your signs get stolen, too f'n bad.

Play harder next time.

PEDs and HOFers

2009-10-24T16:09:00.000-07:00

I was 9 years old in 1994. I loved baseball then. I played on my Little League team (several seasons with the Giants and several with the Yankees), and I looked forward to games every weekend. My friends and I had a vast amount of hero-worship for the Giants slugger, Mr. Barry Bonds. Whenever someone asked me who my favorite player was there was no question. Barry. Barry. Barry.

1994 was not a good year for baseball fans. The players went on strike and the season ended. I won't endeavor to comment on why the strike was held and whether I agreed with it or not. I will say how I felt though: devastated. How could baseball go on strike? How could they not play? I remember feeling slightly betrayed: I had to go and support my team even when I was sick. My mother made me. Because that is what a good teammate does. You always show up to play the game unless you physically can't. Yet, in 1994 all of my heroes walked off the field.

I was angry. And so were a lot of other baseball fans. I fell out of love with baseball for several years because of the strike.

The changed in 1998.

Mark Mcgwire, Sammy Sosa, and Ken Griffey Jr. were all in the race to break Roger Maris's homerun record. It was exciting. Players in my time were breaking records. My friends and I watched games routinely throughout that season. The storylines. The drama. The record! It was simply an amazing thing to watch. When it was over, I was suddenly back into baseball.

But I wanted more.

Barry Bonds, my old favorite, gave it to me. Bonds broke the record that Mcgwire set. He also broke the all-time record several years after that. But, unlike with McGwire, suddenly people wondered.

What the hell is wrong with baseball? And why does Barry Bonds look like a body-builder? Is this right?

And so the great steroid drama ensued. People were mad. They called Bonds a cheater. They worried about the sanctity of the game. They threw syringes on the field. They hated the monster we had all created and allowed to come into fruition. And so now, with the steroid-era at a close one question remains: what do we do about the players who broke old records? Should those records stand?

This question is not new to anyone who has followed baseball, even in the most casual sense, over the past several years.

There are two rules which help me form my opinion on the matter:

1) Baseball is not a fair game;
2) There is no crying in baseball.

Following these two golden rules I come to the conclusion that those players who used PEDs should not be barred from entering the hall of fame, nor should their records be suspect or marked with asterisks. This is not simply because of Barry Bonds. I do not believe Manny Ramirez, Alexander Rodriguez, or any other player should be demonized for the steroid-era, or their accomplishment be cheapened.

Many people who believe that baseball players who used PEDs should not be allowed in the Hall of Fame, because they "cheated." I cannot say that using PEDs was not cheating. I think it is wrong, I think it is foul, and I think it is immoral. However, this brings me to Rule One: Baseball is not a fair game. It is true. Baseball is not a fair game. No one can sit with a straight face and say Major League Baseball is fair. Big market teams dominate playoff spots, since they have the most money to sign the best players. There is little parity in baseball. However, just because the New York Yankees have the most money to buy the best players does not mean their championships are tainted. Yes, the Yankees have a huge advantage over the Oakland A's. Yet, we accept that as fans of MLB. Baseball is not fair.

Let's look at another dark era in baseball history and at the stars who played during the time. The star of segregation-era baseball, for many, is Babe Ruth. Babe Ruth is still considered by many to be the true homerun king. He is certainly one of the top five most recognized names in American sports, let alone baseball. Yet, Babe Ruth had an advantage that a lot of players today don't have.

He didn't have to compete with some of the best competition. Up until Jackie Robinson broke down the color-barrier, black players were not allowed in MLB. Today, many of the greatest baseball players are black (see Barry Bonds). Babe Ruth had a distinct advantage during his era. He did not have to play against many people who may have become the best baseball players of the era.

Now, was it Babe Ruth's fault that black players could not play in MLB. Of course not. He wasn't in charge of that. However, he still benefited from a system of racism. Yet, we do not (and should not) fault him for it. Babe Ruth accomplished what he did and he did it during a time when that was considered acceptable and "how it was."

Jump forward to the steroid-era. The difference here is that Barry Bonds, Manny Ramirez, Alexander Rodriguez, and so on, all made a personal choice to use steroids. Yet, at the same time, using PEDs was characteristic of the times. Just about every single big name of the time was using PEDs. If you wanted to make it in MLB during those years, you probably had to use PEDs, unless you were Heracles.

Just like segregation was not fair, so too is PED use. However, baseball is not fair. Steroids, like segregation, is a dark part of baseball's history. Despite that, we cannot cast shadow over the players who thrived during those times. We should put an asterisk on their records, to denote that their records are tainted, or were created in unfair conditions. If that were so, nearly every World Series winner would have an asterisk that would read: "WS Champs. Although, they had a lot more money than the team they beat."

Possible Trade Plan (Brian Sabean Read)

2009-10-20T22:26:00.000-07:00

I post often at Pro Sports Daily, which has a lot of dedicated and knowledgeable Giants fans, who are always willing to share ideas for the team. The following plan was suggested by one poster on the board, and I have to say I think it is a solid plan for the Giants: it appears doable and, most importantly, it is a plan that could get us into the playoffs.

First, we would sign the following players:

Eric Byrnes (OF) - 2 years/7 mil
Brian Schneider (C) - 1 year/2 mil
Juan Uribe (Utility) - 2 years/9 mil
Brad Penny (SP) - 3 years/12 mil
Rich Harden (SP) - 2 years/10 mil
Freddy Sanchez 3 year (2B) - 16 mil

Second, we would make the following trades:

Aaron Rowand for Milton Bradley (OF)
Sanchez/Bowker/Kieschnick/Garko/Valdez for BJ Upton (OF) and Pena (1B) from Tampa Bay.

With those acquisitions we could have the following lineup:

1. Sanchez (2B)
2. Upton (CF)
3. Sandoval (3B)
4. Pena (1B)
5. Bradley (LF)
6. Uribe (SS)
7. Posey (C)
8. Schierholtz (RF)

On the bench we would have Velez, Ishikawa, Renteria, Byrnes, and Schneider.

Our rotation would be solid:

1. Lincecum
2. Zito
3. Cain
4. Penny
5. Harden

The bullpen would have Wilson, Romo, Affeldt, Runzler, Medders, Bumgarner, and Joaquin.

Why do I like this plan? First, it adds some much needed offense to our lineup. Bradley, Upton, and Pena are welcome additions. Sanchez, Schierholz, Panda, and Uribe are good or great bats we already have. Put that group together and, ladies and gentlemen, I present you a playoff team.

Second, our defense remains strong. Schierholtz has a great arm, and I really like him in right field. Upton is known for his speed and strength in center field. We would not need to worry about him there. Bradley is not the best defensive player, but I will take him out there in left field. Pena will play some good defense at first, Sanchez is an excellent second baseman, Uribe has been better at short than Renteria has all year, and Panda doesn't need any justifications. Some say Posey is not ready for the majors yet, and there is some indication that he might spend some time down in the minors next year. I really hope this is not the case. Sabean should bring him up. If he doesn't, Schneider can hold the fort down. At the very least, they could share the catcher's role for a while, until Posey is ready to take it on full-time.

Third, the pitching remains solid, if not better than it was last year. As I noted in older posts, I am a huge Brad Penny fan. I am very happy to have him on the team, and I hope we sign him again. Lincecum, Cain, and Zito are all great pitchers, and three of them are the core of our franchise right now. I liked watching Harden pitch when he played for the A's. I would love to have him on the Giants. His ERA is not phenomenal, although we are spoiled in San Francisco. He would be great in the number five spot.

Now, what is lacking? I really want Norichika Aoki to play for us. Really, really bad. The Giants need an offensive, every day superstar again. All franchises need their face. Right now we have Tim Lincecum, and he is great. Every Giants fan loves Tim Lincecum (yours truly is no exception). However, he is not an every-day player. With a city known for its Asian-American community, signing a big name player from the Asian market would be a very smart move. I am sure he would bring people to the stadium.
Aside from a marketing standpoint, Aoki is just a wonderful baseball player. He is great with the bat and quick around the base pads. Bring Aoki t
o SF! If he could fit into our plans somehow, I implore Brian Sabean to pick up this wonderful player!

Good Video

2009-10-20T15:26:00.000-07:00

This great video sums up a good season for the Giants.

Give it a watch.

Outlandish Acquisitions

2009-10-19T20:48:00.000-07:00

The Giants' season is over. The race ended after the Giants failed to execute in a do-or-die series against the Chicago cubs. The club ended the year on a high note, sweeping Arizona and taking the final series of the year from the Padres.

Now begins the long winter and off-season.

The club has some questions it needs to answer. What is going to become of Bengie Molina and Randy Winn? Both veterans are up for free agency this year. I, personally, would like to see them both go. Winn has had some great years with the Giants, but his lack of power and his pathetic batting average this year has made me want to part ways. I am not sure how I feel about Benjie Molina. What I really want to see is Buster Posey playing, however many people around the Giants community believe he needs another year down in the minors. I am a little skeptical about that: we brought up Pablo very quickly. Lincecum as well. At the most, I would suggest playing him in the minors until the All-star break.

That brings me to Randy Johnson. I really enjoyed having this great baseball player on my team. The fact that he got his 300th win as a Giant is very special and I am glad he shared that achievement with us and made it part of Giants history. That said, the man got hurt and basically missed half the season. At his age it is doubtful he can return to playing at the level he did before the injury. I suggest cutting ties with him. Where would that leave our rotation?

Well, I would suggest that the Giants resign Brad Penny. This guy is a thug. I love his in-your-face attitude. We need a lot of that in our club. I cannot begin to gripe about how much I hated seeing the Giants completely collapse once they ran into some trouble. Come-from-behind victories were few and far between for the 2009 Giants. With a guy like Brad Penny riling up the club, perhaps we would see more fight in them. I would like to send Johnson to another team while, resigning Brad Penny. If we kept Bumgarner up we could have a rotation like:

Lincecum
Zito
Cain
Penny
Bumgarner/Sanchez

This would also give us flexibility to trade Sanchez to another team, perhaps as a package with some minor league prospects, or with Aaron Roward or Edgar Renteria, for a better bat. There are a couple possibilities for offensive production that come to mind, and that I think might be some good choices for the Giants.

Milton Bradley
Bradley might seem like a strange choice. I like to call him the Terrell Owens of baseball. The guy has been in numerous scandals throughout his career. He made inflammatory remarks about his current team, the Cubs, calling the fans racist and questioning why they have not won the World Series in over 100 years. He did not have a great 2009 season with the Cubs. He had a less than impressive .257 batting average and only 12 homeruns. However, looking at his 2008 year with Texas, he puts up very impressive numbers: .321 avg; 22 HR; .436 OBP; .563 SLG.

I do not know why Bradley's numbers dipped this year. It might have a lot to do with the fact that he is a drama queen: he was unhappy in Chicago and the way he play reflected that. Or perhaps he was unhappy in Chicago because his numbers are declining. It is difficult to tell what is causing what. There is also talk that the Cubs' GM would like to swap Bradley's contract for another bad one, so that he can rid his club of Bradley. The Giants could jump on that and offer up Rowand for Bradley. If that were the case, I would be all for it. I cannot stand Aaron Rowand that much.

In the end I am iffy on Bradley. I do not want a temper-mental drama-queen on the team who will risk ruining the great chemistry we have built in San Francsico. We also have a long and proud tradition in SF of acquiring 30-something players who have declining past their prime, yet still pay them the big-bucks (See Edgar Renteria). On the other hand, we might get lucky and have a great player who wants to be a winner.

Norichika Aoki
Aoki is a Japanese star with the Tokyo Yakult Swallows, who has expressed an interest in playing in Major League Baseball. Aoki has a combined OBI of over .400 in five seasons with the Swallows. He also is the proud owner of a career .332 avg and a three-time golden glove winner. There is no doubt: Aoki can field and he can hit.

The problem? He is Japanese. Players like Aoki, who are good enough to make the jump across the pond, usually come at a high-price, especially if they are the real deal. The other concern is that the good numbers posted by Aoki in Japan's league is not necessarily an indicator of how well he will play in the United States. It would be thoroughly embarrassing if the Giants shelled out good money for Aoki and he ended up a dude. However, if he became the next Ichiro, the Giants could be playing in the post-season next year.

I also think signing a big-name Japanese player could be a great marketing scheme. If the Giants signed him to a big multi-year contract, and the guy produced, he would become a fan favorite quickly, especially in a very diverse city like San Francisco, which also has a very large and proud Asian-American community. A Japanese star would put some buts in seats, no doubt.

Aoki is describe as a contact-hitter, which is exactly what we need on the Giants and at ATT park. ATT is known for suppressing homeruns, so I don't necessarily want the Giants to get another Bonds. I want the Giants to have a contact hitter that can place the ball in our deadly triples-alley. I have always yearned for a batter with Ichiro Suzuki's finesse, to place the ball in that gap. With Aoki as out lead-off man we might be seeine a fair amount of lead-off doubles and triples.

Defensively, Aoki is a great outfielder. He plays centerfield, which would be great for the Giants, since I would love to see Aaron Rowand off our team. If Rowand stays (because we cannot trade him away), then we could pluck Aoki in left or right field. All in all, I would love to see this guy in a Giants uniform.

Prince Fielder
This man needs no introduction. The Prince won the homerun derby in 2009, batted .299 in the same year, had 46 HRs, and owns a .602 SLG. The problem with Fielder is that he is so damn good, and proven to be a reliable player. Fielder will come a huge cost. I imagine the Brewers would want nothing less than a pitcher like Matt Cain plus something more for Fielder. Few Giants fans would be willing to give up Cain for anyone. In my opinion, Lincecum and Cain are simply untouchable. They are the cornerstone to the franchise, and if you trade them away you are ruining this team's near future. For the price, I think the Prince can go elsewhere.

BJ Upton
What is so good about Upton? First off, Upton is a young guy. He would fit in well with the Giants' youth-movement. Because he is young and promising, I would not be opposed to signing him for a decent contract for three or four years. Upton has a career batting avg of .288 and a .410 SLG. Upton is also able to make contact with the ball when he should: 82.3% Z-Contact%. Upton also has post-season experience, and was part of Tampa Bay squad that made it to the 2008 World Series. Such experience would prove to be valuable to a squad of young guys making a playoff run.

So, what would we need to do to get Upton? I think the Giants could offer a package to Tampa Bay for Upton. If we sign Penny and bring up Bumgarner we could off Lewis, Sanchez, and Ishikawa to Tampa Bay. Sanchez will be a great pitcher soon, and perhaps his break-out year will be the next one. Tampa Bay may want to take advantage of that, and Lewis and Ishikawa, while not great, are decent players to cushion the Sanchez deal.

COL 2 @ SFO 10; Giants Rebounding with a Fury!

2009-09-15T22:42:00.000-07:00

Ladies and Gentleman, the San Francisco Giants are only 2.5 games behind the Colorado Rockies for the wild card, after decimating the Rockies for the second time in so many games. With Matt Cain taking the mound tomorrow, it looks like the Giants will be able to leave San Francisco for Los Angeles while only being 1.5 games behind the wild card. This is great news. The series with the Dodgers is the only series the Giants will have for the rest of the year against teams above .500. Luckily, the Rockies have two such series remaining in the year, one against the Dodgers and one against the Cardinals. If the Giants can come within 1.5 games, the chances of them tying the Rockies or overcoming them by the end of the season is pretty good. Last week I was fairly forlorn about our chances of seeing the post-season. Now, I think we can do it. We are definitely in this.

The game tonight was epic, and the Giants showed up. Everyone did. Zito's pitching was amazing. The Lefty walked one, struck out nine, and let up only on one in seven innings. What a thug. If they gave out Cy Youngs for the second half of the season, Barry Zito would win it. Hands down.

The offense showed up as well. The lineup tonight was similar to the ones seen in the past few days:

Velez (LF)

Sanchez (2B)

Winn (RF)

Sandoval (3B)

Molina (C)

Uribe (SS)

Ishikawa (1B)

Rowand (CF)

Zito (P)

Everyone got at least one hit tonight, except Rowand (who still got two RBIs) and Zito. Uribe was able to knock in three RBIs, and has really proven himself to be one b

ad ass. Bengie Molina had a great play, where he hustled in from third and was able to beat the throw. It was refreshing seeing him beat a throw for once. Good job Bengie!

I really like this line-up, and I am so afraid to see what will happen once Renteria returns. Bochey stated in his post-game interview that Rents would play tomorrow, which I hope to all that is holy and wonderful will not happen. However, tonight was a great victory, and I cannot believe the Giants have blown out their opponents three times in a row.

Another Reason Why Giants Fans Are Better than Dodgers Fans

2009-09-15T20:10:00.000-07:00

It hardly needs explaining, but Giants fans are vastly superior to Dodger fans. Dodger fans show up at the third inning and leave before the seventh. They tend to be the biggest fair-weather fans in Major League Baseball, and most of them show up to games just to fight and go to jail. In fact, this season, I am sure about 40% of Dodgers "fans" can't name a single player on the team besidew Manny Ramirez. That aside, I came across some interesting information that proves once for all how much better Giants fans are than their mentally disabled southern counterparts:

LOS ANGELES DODGERS

Year Attendance Percentage Record
2001 66.5 86/76 (W)
2002 69.0 92/70 (W)
2003 69.2 85/77 (W)
2004 76.9 93/69 (W)
2005 79.4 71/91 (L)
2006 82.9 88/74 (W)
2007 85.0 82/80 (W)
2008 82.2 84/78 (W)
2009 81.6 ****

SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS

Year Attendance Percentage Record
2001 100.1 90/72 (W)
2002 98.4 96/66 (W)
2003 97.1 100/61 (W)
2004 96.8 91/71 (W)
2005 94.6 75/87 (L)
2006 93.0 76/85 (L)
2007 95.8 71/91 (L)
2008 85.1 72/90 (L)
2009 85.8 ***

Source

The statistics do not lie: in every season in recent memory the Giants have been able to fill their stadium more consistently than the Dodgers. Clearly, Giants fans are more loyal and more dedicated to their team, than those who follow the Dodgers. Even during losing seasons, Giants fans show up considerably more often than do Dodgers fans (Dodgers fans reading this might respond: "Oh yeah? Well we just don't have as many losing seasons!" Well, I'm sorry to say that the Giants have a better franchise win/loss record and percentage than do the Dodgers. Try again).

An astute baseball fan might say, "Well, that's not really fair. The Dodgers have a larger stadium than the Giants, so it is harder for the Dodgers to fill it up." It is true, Dodger Stadium has a significantly higher capacity than does AT&T Park (compare 56,000 to 42,000). But then again, there is a clear answer to that, and one that actually makes Dodgers fans look even worse: examine the populations of the two areas, and you will find that Los Angeles dwarfs the entire San Francisco Bay Area in terms of population. In fact, Los Angeles has some 8 million more souls living in it than does the Bay Area. This population difference in LA's favor should compensate for the much larger stadium. However, it fails to do so, proving even further how laughable Dodger-fans' dedication to their team is.

There are certainly some factors that probably led to a higher Giants attendance: Barry Bonds chasing the record, going to the World Series (LA fans probably can't even remember what that is like), and the opening of a new stadium. However, even in losing seasons, after Barry Bonds retired, and many years after AT&T opened, Giants fans still fill out their stadium better than do Dodgers fans.

And this is not to say that the Dodgers have had no reason for their fans to show up. The Dodgers have been a successful franchise during the past decade (and beyond). In the past ten years, the Dodgers have gone to the playoffs thrice (and will go a fourth time in 2009). Of course, because the Dodgers are a suckfest, they failed to win more than one playoff game between 1989 and 2007, but hey, they still made it to the playoffs, right?

Oh yeah, in that same period, the Giants won 17 post-season games. Ouch.

Who's the best? Suck it, LA.

Video of Me at The Giants/Dodgers Game

2009-09-15T20:07:00.000-07:00

Click

COL 1 @ SFO 9

2009-09-14T22:04:00.000-07:00

Wow. Just wow. I am speechless.

Coming into this series, the Giants knew one thing: they had to win. Not only did they have to win, but in order to really get back into the playoff picture, the Giants need to sweep the Rockies while we have them here at the phone booth. We just embarrassed the Rockies so bad, I bet they are glad they only have to play in San Francisco for two more days. Hopefully I won't be eating my words, tomorrow is a crucial game, but I think the Giants just might get back in this thing.

I noted in an earlier post that Bochey made a good move by knocking Molina down to the fifth spot in the lineup. This was a great move, as tonight the offense really came alive and gave Tim Lincecum some of the best run-support he has seen all year. I do not know how much of this is attributable to Bengie batting in the fifth spot, but I hope Bochey keeps the trend up for the rest of the year (and hopefully the post-season).

I noted it in an earlier post but here was the lineup:

Velez (LF)

Sanchez (2b)

Winn (RF)

Sandoval (3B)

Molina (C)

Uribe (SS)

Ishikawa (1B)

Rowand (CF)

Lincecum (P)

Panda didn't have a good night; he went 0 for 4. One thing I have noticed, and he has done it all year, is the guy gets over-zealous and tries to hit anything that comes at him. Pablo is already a great hitter, however he really needs to learn how to take a pitch. This is what separates the men from the boys down the line. Barry Bonds was one mean hitter, and it wasn't just because he could crush a ball. He could see a pitch and knew how to read it. Pablo needs to take a lesson from Bonds and pick his pitches a little better.

Aaron Rowand had a crucial hit in the second run that ended up as a 2-run RBI. Molina, Ishikawa, and Uribe all got two hits tonight. Kudos to them. Randy Winn even put up a hit.

While Molina came through offensively for the team today, I am still very disappointed in his abilities and I really want him off the team. His defense continues to fade away. Molina can't make the throw to get guys out stealing second. I watched the same text-book steal happen three times during the game, and each time Molina was too throw to slow it over. Bengie also missed a change-up from Tim Lincecum that ended up being the only run scored against the Giants tonight. I hate to say it Bengie, but Buster Posey would not have let that go by. Oh well, here's looking forward to seeing Buster next year . . .

Tim Lincecum, as usual was a beast. He struck out 11 over the course of 7 innings, while giving up only 4 hits. Welcome to AT&T, welcome to K-ville.

Tomorrow is a crucial game. It is the one game I am truly worried about during this series against the Rockies. Zito takes the mound against Rockies Ace Ubaldo Jimenez. Jimenez is a good pitcher, and he has put up some good stuff against the Giants this year. Zito is a great second half pitcher, and I hope he will show up with the good stuff tomorrow. I also hope the bats keep up tomorrow and keep the runs rolling in. Zito is good, but he will definitely need the run support.

This series is crucial. Giants, you gotta keep your head in this, get the bats going, and keep the pitching good. If we sweep these suckers, then we go down to LA to show the blueberries how baseball is played in the west.

We aren't "in this thing" like we were before. But we might be in a couple days.

COL @ SFO: Bochey Does Something Right

2009-09-14T21:08:00.000-07:00

I am writing this as the game progresses between Colorado and the Giants in a do or die series. I have noticed one thing: Bochey actually did something right. Take a look at the opening line-up:

Velez (LF)

Sanchez (2B)

Winn (RF)

Sandoval (3B)

Molina (C)

Uribe (SS)

Ishikawa (1B)

Rowand (CF)

Lincecum (P)

The bold might have drawn your attention to something. If not, I won't hold out any longer: Bengie Molina is not batting in the number four spot! Finally. So far, this game it has proven to be pretty good for the team. The offense showed up today. So far, the Giants are shelling the Rox, and we are up 4 to 1. Lincecum, as usual, is pitching like a freak.

If we win this series, we just might be able to get back in this thing.

LAD 2 @ SFO 7; 13 September 2009

2009-09-13T21:36:00.000-07:00

The Giants entered this game enduring a terrible and embarrassing two-game loss at the hands of their hated rival, "Dem Bums" from LA. I went to the game with my roommate, Ben, who is a huge Dodgers fan. Regardless of what the standings are, I always have a good time at Giants/Dodgers games at AT&T, so the past two games didn't weaken my spirits as I took the muni down to the game.

The game had a pretty good turnout, although I was bummed to see some empty seats there. I don't think it was a sellout, unless a lot of people didn't show up after the Dodgers handed us a good beating on Friday and Saturday. Regardless, the fans were pumped for the game. That is one thing I love about the Giants and Dodgers: no matter what the standings are, no matter what happened yesterday, today is always a new day. No matter what is going on in the season at large, each game seems like we are in it for the pennant.

I was seated in section 141, right behind center field in the bleachers. Despite the many times I have been out to the phone booth, this was the first time I had the opportunity to sit in the bleachers. I really enjoyed the experience: the fans out in the bleachers are much rowdier and know how to have a good time. There is a lot more heckling, which I love; it's part of the game.

In fact, I saw something today that I have never seen: a baseball player react to fan-heckling. During the 7th inning, the Giants fans had a long chant for Matt Kemp, saying things like "What's the matter with Matt Kemp? He's a bum!" to "Matt Kemp's mom takes steroids!" Eventually, Matt Kemp turned to us and cupped his ear with his hand and then laughed. He seems like a good guy, despite the fact that he wears that ugly blue uniform. I certainly got a good laugh out of it.

Brad Penny took the mound for the Giants, and he was a beast. He pitched 7 innings, and held dem Bums to a meagre 5 hits. Considering the Dodgers explosive offense, that is quite a feat. He gave up a 2-run jack, but other than that, the Dodgers were unable to get anything going against Penny all day.

Chad Billingsley started for the Dodgers. I really have no faith in Bills, but it pleases me so much that Dodgers fans have a true love for the guy. After this game, Bills has a 3.99 ERA and a 12-10 record. For a supposed ace, that is not very impressive. In fact, the Giants lackluster offense forced Torre into taking Bills out after just 4 innings. Pretty nice.

Our lineup was pretty good today, and it is something I wish we could see more of. The starting lineup for the Giants was:

Torres (CF)

F. Sanchez (2b)

R. Winn (LF)

Sandoval (3b)

Schierholtz (RF)

Uribe (SS)

Ishikawa (1b)

Whiteside (C)

No Rowand, no Renteria, and no Molina. It's not that I dislike Rowand, but he is far too inconsistent and it really irritates me. However, he does play a mean center-field and he is a gamer. Renteria has the mind of a great baseball player, but I don't think he has the physical strength left. Unfortunately, I know we are going to have to deal with him for at least another year; there is no way he will sit on the bench with a $9 million contract. Molina is just a piece of crap and I cannot wait for him to leave the Giants. He can't call a game, can't hit, and is the slowest man on the base paths in major league baseball. Get him out of here, fast. I cannot wait for Buster Posey to be our starter next season.

Offensively, we did amazingly well. Juan Uribe (aka the man) got a two run jack to get us started in the second inning. The ball fell fairly close to me, but far enough away that it would be impossible for me to have retrieved it. The Dodgers had a couple bizarre plays that led to some runs for us later in the game. James Loney ran into an umpire during a hit from Schierholtz, which would later result in a run for the Giants on a subsequent.

The Dodgers weren't out of the game until the sixth inning, when they completely collapsed. My homeboy Jeff Weaver came into the game, and ended up destroying any hopes the Dodgers would have had for a comeback. By the end of the sixth inning, the Giants would be up 7 to 0, thanks to a nice RBI from Freddy Sanchez, who is becoming one of my favorite players on the Giants (assuming he will remain healthy).

All in all, the game was a very fun experience. At one point, a scuffle broke out between some Giants and Dodgers fans, very close to where I was sitting. I do not know what started the fight, but it ended before anything serious could happen (except for a Giants fan spraying some dorky Dodgers fan with a beer). The best part about the whole incident was a Dodgers fan who was wearing a white turtle-neck beneath his jersey. I found it utterly bizarre that anyone would wear a turtle-neck under their jersey, even some wuss from LA who can't take a little cold weather. It was fairly ridiculous seeing him yell at Giants fans, in a futile effort to act tough, while wearing his Macy's turtle-neck.

Once again, I love Giants baseball. I love Giants baseball even more when those bums come to town. Following the game, the Giants still lead the all-time rivalry, however that deficit is shrinking. Hopefully next year we can widen it once again.