Best Draft in 2007
As noted in the title, the Giants were rated as having the best draft in the 2007 Amateur Draft. Here is what he wrote:
They wouldn't have been this high had they not landed Bumgarner. I like Bumgarner, Alderson, Fairley and Noonan. Culberson is not a bad pick either. Yeah, it helps that they had six out of the first 51 picks. They're taking risks here (they're all high-schoolers), but they're good risks.
He also rated Madison Bumgarner (10th overall) the 4th best pitcher in the draft, noting:
Big athletic lefty with good mechanics. There's a little work to do to tighten up his mechanics, but I'd trust the Giants on this one. I love this kid's potential.
Rated as the third best pick in the draft was Nick Noonan, the 32nd pick overall, but he didn't say much other than:
Needs to stick at short to be a real steal.
Noonan was also rated the top favorite non-first round pick. Not sure how he is doing defensively in rookie ball right now, but he's been hitting really well, and for some power. Hopefully he will continue to do so.
Giants Thoughts
I don't know enough to compare our draft with other team's drafts, but I had heard a lot of good info on the players we did draft to at least think that we would be in the running for best draft. It is nice to know that one expert thinks that the Giants did well in this draft.
The Giants have been pretty productive in recent years, as most of their pitching staff is either supplied internally or traded for using farm products. Hopefully this will continue the nice streak the Giants have been on since drafting Lowry and Hennessey in the first round of the 2001 draft.
Thus the Giants have rebuilt about half their team over six years of drafts. For comparison, the Brewers, who people were pointing at as an example of how to do things, have rebuilt their team over a twelve year period, from when Geoff Jenkins was drafted.
I don't think the Giants will have to wait another six years to compete for a division title, like the Brewers have to get to competing in 2007. Despite the poor performances of the relief corp this year in terms of inherited runners, the pitching staff as a whole has been pretty stellar, with expected improvements now that Zito has apparently gotten over his big contract and Morris is gone with Misch, Correia, or Sanchez taking over, and I think they can match what he did for us this year overall. Plus, Brian Wilson and Tyler Walker look ready to perform well in 2008 and Hennessey is pitching like he wants to stay the closer. Despite all the harping on the bullpen, you don't need the whole bullpen to be Robb Nen's to win, you just need a good closer and setup guy and that should cover all you really need, everything else would be extra (and nice).
Sure, the offense is probably going to be sucky in 2008, even if Bonds do re-sign, but I think most of us already realized that 2008 is going to be a rebuilding year, a growth year for our pitching staff, as they mature and further develop (SIGN LINCECUM NOW! :^), and hopefully we will see a few position players push themselves into the starting equation for 2008/2009. Ortmeier is one I'm encouraged by - Merc compared him to Matt Holliday today. So is Davis, Lewis, and Schierholtz.
Martin, I am not sure I agree with your statement that the Giants offense will suck in 08. To bewgin with, the NL West is the strongest division in the NL. Our top 3 teams have winning percentages of 552, 551 and 522. Only the Mets have a higher winning percentage. The Phillies would be in 3d place in our division. No Central division team would be in the top 3 in the west.
ReplyDeleteIf one just lookds at runs scored they can come to the wrong conclusion. Many of the parks in the central and east are hitters parks.
NL teams build teams that are designed ton play in their larger, slightly pitchers parks. So, just looking at runs scored doesn't tell the tale. As I start out, look at the W-L records and you see the NL west has very good teams, despite the fact that they are all (except Colo) in the bottom of the NL in runs scored. That is, I believe, the park effect. If the NL west teams were truly weak offensive teams, they would be losing to the central and eastern teams, when, in fact they are not, they are beating them.
Second, for this year we have scored only 27 runs fewer than the Dodgers, 23 fewer than the Padres and 5 more than Az. While more runs would have meant more wins, I don't think it is as simple as sauying our 578 runs has lead us to last place.
As I have argued here and elsewhere (and as you argue in this piece), I expect our starting pitching to be better next year. I expect our pen to be better. (BTW, I think inherited runners scored is a function of a young pen. Coming in w/ runners on and escaping takes more experience - and I think the roles will be defined better next year, leading to fewer runners on situations, and our pen will have one more year of experience). And I expect our luck to be more even, not noticable bad as it has been this year.
The real unknow is, in fact our ooffense. I have been arguing that I think we are fine at C and the OF. We only need to upgrade our IF - not with allstars (but no one would complain if we could find some), but with 4 guys hitting 270-280 (as opposed to our 4 present guys (Aurilia, Durham,Omar, Feliz) all hitting sub 250. Bring in 4 IFs with a total of 1600 ABs (at this point in the season) hitting an average of 275 with an OBP of 315 and average SLG and I think we pick up the 23 or 27 runs, if not surpass them that we currently trail LA and SD.
Looked at another way, I would say you could explain our 12 games deficit in the standings this way:
SP: 5
RP: 3
Off: 2
bad luck (see Pythagoras): 5
Not sure you will see this note, but did Bumgarner do anything after signing? Did he pitch any innings for anyone?
ReplyDelete