Winn Loses But Giants Win; Plus Elias Rankings and Free Agency

According to a blog by Andy Baggarly, the Giants have informed Randy Winn that his services would no longer be needed by the Giants.

Giants Thoughts

First off, thank you to Randy Winn for his many years of service to the Giants. Good luck in your future endeavors and hopefully you can make the playoffs with another team, though, of course, should you face the Giants in the playoffs, I hope you don't do so well.

Andy opined that this move might be because the Giants management is worried that Bochy would play Winn regularly instead of letting the younger players play. There is some validity in this statement. Winn started 22 games out of 28 games in August and 18 games out of 31 games in September/October, while hitting around .600 OPS over two months. To Bochy's credit, at least the percentage fell from 79% to 58%, but that type of hitting usually warrants a benching, not playing over half the games.

But he was kind of forced to use Winn. In August, Velez hit .273/.307/.405/.712 in 121 AB and Schierholtz hit .208/.255/.417/.671 in 48 AB, while Winn hit .247/.304/.301/.605 in 93 AB. Lewis did hit well in limited (34) at-bats, but that was probably mainly against RHP and probably small samples as his stats then tanked the rest of the season.

In September/October, Velez hit .239/.294/.413/.707 in 92 AB, Bowker hit .222/.276/.444/.720 in 27 AB, Schierholtz hit .222/.273/.293/.565 in 41 AB, and Lewis, balancing off his hot August with a very poor end to his season. Winn didn't do much better, .230/.329/.262/.591 in 61 AB, but he at least is a veteran with a strong track history. With the days in the season dwindling, usually betting on the veteran is a good bet.

However, his track record in the 2009 season was pretty poor. His OPS was at or below the 700 OPS range in 5 of the 6 months, he only had one month similar to his usual production in May. More importantly, he was striking out much more than he usually did, even in his poor 2006 season, and such a negative turn in his contact ability spoke to his probable physical decline and inability to make contact with pitches he once hit with authority.

The one good thing that Winn at least was able to do was to get on base a lot. Despite a lower OPS than his career, his OBP was at least presentable, unlike the other OF starter options, at the end of the season. So it was not like Bochy was totally off base with his decision to start Winn.

Personally, I would have just given the starting job to Bowker at the start of September, in recognition of his great season in 2009, much like how Sandoval and Ishikawa got to start a lot of games at the end of 2008 season. That would have also given us a look towards 2010 plus allowed him to chillax a little and show what he could do.

But when you are trying to win in the last month of the season, you don't go starting young prospects with that extra pressure on, it is hard enough to show what you can do earlier in the season when the pressure is not that high, but playoff pressure is an additional negative factor on a young prospect's performance. Though sometimes you are forced to do that.

In any case, this is a good move. Right now, LF and RF are open positions, with Fred Lewis, Eugenio Velez, Nate Schierholtz, and John Bowker competing for the two spots, with Andres Torres a dark horse candidate and Jose Guzman an unlikely possibility but still could be in the mix. If the Giants want to ensure another steady bat in the lineup, LF is one possibility to fill with a player, like free agent Chone Figgins.

However, Sabean's comments thus far suggest that they are content with going forward with their current roster of players, avoiding any early free agent signing. That is the way he likes to operate, but waiting to see how the free agent market shakes out and perhaps provide us with a nice cheaper alternative. Perhaps after the non-tendered arbitration candidates in December is one way he might go or waiting until Jan/Feb for the vets still looking for a job and perhaps ready to give the Giants a nice deal.

Plus, the Giants pick is not protected, so he most probably won't be going after any of the Type A free agent because of this and the size of the contract in terms of years and dollars that the top hitters will want.

Unfortunately, Chone Figgins is a Type A free agent (list just released today, check here at bizofbaseball for their account) so there goes my best idea of who the Giants might pursue among the free agents.

The good news for Giants fans is that Bob Howry, Randy Johnson, and Randy Winn are Type B free agents, so if some team were to sign them before the deadline for offering arbitration, they would earn us a first round supplemental pick. However, odds are that probably only Howry would beat that deadline, as the other two will probably be after thoughts, given how poorly they performed. Also, Bengie Molina is a Type A free agent, so there is some possibility that a contending team needing a good starting catcher might sign him (like the Brewers), though a rising team might want him too (like the Rays). But it is no sure bet that the Giants will get both a first round pick and a supplemental sandwich pick for Molina.

Plus, the free agents catchers I was hoping the Giants might target as the veteran backup who will backup Posey this season, either all season or keeping the starting job warm until Posey is brought up won't cost us any compensation: Ausmus, Zaun, and Jose Molina would not cost us anything in terms of draft picks (Zaun should also have an option that the Rays might pick up).

You Win Some, You Lose Some: It Is What It Is

Yes, very disappointing to be swept after sweeping the A's. Particularly because we were set up to win the series, but it happens when you are dealing with a young team. They will have glitches sometimes. They had a big one in this series.

Still, we have some positive things to take away from the series. Schierholtz continued to hit OK. Ishikawa has continued to hit OK despite sitting on the bench for a long while. Sandoval is ready now to play 3B regularly, which is where he belongs right now. Downs had a nice debut.

For all the nice touchy-feely of Juan Uribe this season, his main value was his power and he has 1 HR in 122 AB and a 131 ISO. Not good, so he just belongs on the bench and allow us to play Ishikawa at 1B, Sandoval at 3B, and Downs/Frandsen at 2B.

It would be a bad sign to me (one that would influence me to vote no against Bochy) if Bochy continues to play Uribe more than occassionally, he should not play more than the young guys right now. The only reason he was playing was because we had nobody to play 3B. Even going forward, he should not be starting if 3B is free, Frandsen should be brought up to start at 3B in that case, he has proven himself in AAA to be healthy and back to where he was before offensively, if not better defensively.

Another thing I learned is that Sanchez should sit his next start. Partly because he hasn't done well. Mostly because that would mean that the A's would face Lincecum, Johnson and Cain instead of Sanchez, Lincecum, and Johnson. I would like to see the Giants sweep the A's again, and putting our three best starters against them would help with that. Plus, if we skip his next start after that, we get to pitch Lincecum in the St. Louis series, which is one of the better teams in the NL. Then put him back into the rotation after that, as we would be facing Houston, Florida, and San Diego before the All-Star break.

And that would give us one more Lincecum start that Sunday before the All-Star Game. That is good because 1) he will probably make the All-Star team, 2) if he starts that Sunday, he goes to the bottom of the list of pitchers to use for the NL manager, 3) I don't want him pitching in the game. More pitches on his arm and all that, plus if he pitches, then he might be affected physically since he would most likely be the first pitcher starting after the break.

Personally, I think he can do it, but why push it in this case? It is not like we are making the World Series, where it would matter. But the good news is that we have that Thursday off, so even if he does play, he would only go 1 inning and then pitch again 3 days later, instead of 2. So it is not bad if he plays, just ideal if he doesn't. But he probably wants the ball badly, and I suspect that the AL will tee off on him, as he has had the yips when he faces a new pressure situation, his first game in spring training, his first MLB start, his first opening day start, his adrenaline seems to get the best of him.

That is one reason why it would be great if we can get him into the playoffs this year. Even if we get in, we probably won't get deep into it, so if we can squeak in, then Lincecum could get the sensation of pitching in his first playoff game out of the way, and be dominant in seasons going forward. But I would not make any of the crazy trades that people are suggesting we do in order to win more games. 2009 is not about the playoffs, it is about seeing which prospect to keep going forward, and who to discard.

Right now, Sandoval is a clear keeper, but Lewis, Ishikawa, Frandsen, Sanchez, are all question marks. They all have done things in the past to deserve a chance to show what he can do, but all have been up and down, none has shown much (or enough in Lewis's case) consistency in performing at the major league level.

I think Lewis will eventually snap out of it, but meanwhile, give Schierholtz a chance to play while Fred rests and figures things out. Sanchez is ace material if he can put it together, so I'm giving him a long leash, though since stamina was an issue last year, skipping a few starts with him is OK with me. Ishikawa, we have nothing better, really, so just play him the rest of the season, unplatooned, and see what happens, mix in Frandsen at 3B and Sandoval at 1B whenever he is scuffling again. Frandsen, as I've written, deserves an extended chance to start, whether at 2B or 3B or even SS. But who knows, maybe he stinks in the majors. But we won't know unless we give them extended chances to start and fail.

Giants Outfield Defense is Good

I just received The Fielding Bible Volume II by John Dewan, and thought I would cover the Giants defense in the outfield - the infield is not as easily doable since most of the players are not covered in the book.

Giants Outfield Defense

Fred Lewis

Fred Lewis has been criticized for a variety of things he has done wrong in the outfield defensively.  However, he was one of the top players in the MLB in 2008.  He had 5 runs saved, where #1 Carl Crawford had 13 and #35 Delmon Young had -11;  18 of the 35 had 0 or was negative, among those who qualified for the rankings.  He was tied for 10th in the majors, so he was actually pretty good, overall, when all is said and done.  And he was only 2 runs saved away from a tie for 5th.  In total, he was 12 runs better than Barry Bonds was in 2007, or a little more than one win better, defensively.

Where Lewis excelled was with his throwing arm.  He saved 3 runs with his arm, tied for 8th in the majors.  He saved 2 runs in his Plus/Minus, where he was tied for 13th in the majors.    He had 33 runners take extra bases out of 88 opponents who had an opportunity to advance, or 37.5% advanced on him, where the MLB average was 35.9%, so he was slightly bad there.  He had 3 kills on the basepaths, tied for 13th in the majors.  He was a +6 on shallow balls, +1 on medium depth balls, and -4 on deep balls.  That is a problem of positioning better to catch those deep balls, which he should be able to improve on over time as he learns the hitters.

They wrote:  

• Lewis is a gifted athlete who has good speed, a good first step, and a playable arm.  But having tools doesn't make you a good player, and Lewis definitely has room for improvement.  This is not to say that he is a liability in the outfield, because he makes more than his fair share of impressive catches.  To be a better outfielder, though, he'll need to cut down on his mistakes.  Far too often, he allows balls to bounce off his glove or eat him up after falling safely for a hit.
  
• Given his athletic ability, he simply doesn't come close to catching as many calls as he should.  His best skill currently is his ability to create outs with his arm.  He doesn't have the strongest arm in the world, but he plays it up by getting rid of the ball quickly and accurately.  He also is prepared to throw on every play, preventing runners from advancing by throwing the ball to the correct base.   Lewis has above-average talent for a left fielder.  If he puts that talent to better use, he could be a superb defender.

Aaron Rowand

Aaron Rowand has been even more criticized for a variety of things he has done wrong in the outfield defensively, even more than Lewis.  However, he was one of the roughly average players in the MLB in 2008, as he had 1 run saved, where #1 Carlos Beltran had 21 and #35 Nate McLough had -19;  17 of the 35 had 0 or was negative, among those who were in the rankings. 

He was 18th in the majors in runs saved, so he was basically average, overall, when all is said and done.  He was poor on his plus/minus, ranking 21st there, but was among the best with his arm, saving 5 runs, which ranked him 9th overall.   But he was among the worse in misplays and errors.  In 2008, the average CF allowed extra bases on 54.1% of the opportunities that runners had to advance, and only 49.3% did against Rowand.  He also had 4 kills, tied for 7th in the majors.  But he did poorly on deeper hit balls, registering a 0 for Shallow, -3 for Medium, and -4 for Deep hit balls.

They wrote:

• When watching Rowand play, you get the feeling that he doesn't quite know his limits.  He is still adept at reading the ball off the bat and taking great routes to the ball, using his above-average range, but at times he just doesn't put it together.  While his ability to track down balls and make the highlight-reel catch won him a Gold Glove in the postage stamp yard in Philadelphia, he has more area to cover in a weaker defensive outfield in San Francisco.  This caused Rowand to take more bad angles and come up short more often.  
• He also consistently throws balls to the wrong base or throws inaccurately to a base, which allows baserunners to advance.  Rowand still is a good center fielder, but he needs to rein it in to better exploit his ability.

Randy Winn

Randy Winn has been one of the best RF position players defensively.  He was one of the best players in the MLB in 2008, as he had 12 runs saved, where #1 Franklin Gutierrez had 22 and #35 Brad Hawpe had -22 and he was tied for 6th;  14 of the 35 had 0 or was negative, among those who were in the rankings. 

He was 6th in the majors in 2008, and was tied for 6th in 2007.  He was also ranked in the CF list for 2006, and was 7th there.  He was very good on his plus/minus, ranking 3rd, and was OK with his arm, saving 3 runs, which ranked him 15th.  He was able to keep runners from advancing on him, only 44.8% advanced on him, where the average RF allowed 47.0%, but only had one kill.  He was equally good on Shallow, Medium, and Deep balls, +6, +5, and +5, respectively.    And he was ranked #2 in their Universal Fielding Percentage Leaderboard for centerfielders (that was his main position until recently).  

They wrote:

• Winn has been one of the more consistent right fielders in baseball, finishing in the top five in the Plus/Minus System for the last three seasons.  He does not have elite range, but he can still run, gets good jumps, and takes good routes to flyballs.  Winn is comfortable going straight back on flyballs, and he is tremendous reading line drives off the bat, often making sliding catches that normally would drop in for base hits.
• Winn's only weakness is that his arm strength is below average for a right fielder, but he charges balls well and is very accurate with his throws, thus limiting the extra bases runners would normally take.  Winn also rarely makes mistakes, further cementing his value as a defensive asset in the field, despite his age.

Giants Thoughts

According to one of the leading researchers on defensive metrics, the Giants outfield is above average, or good:  

• Lewis "has above-average talent for a left fielder" and his defensive stats put him among the leaders, in the Top 10.   Not great but clearly above average, but with rough edges that he needs to smooth out.  
• Rowand "is still a good center fielder" but needs to be more aware of his limits in order to be a better CF in the spacious SF center field.   Thus, despite misplaying numerous balls, he's still a good defensive player, but need to improve to earn the rep he had in Philly.
• Winn "has been one of the more consistent right fielders in baseball, finishing in the top five in the Plus/Minus System for the last three seasons," and because he rarely makes mistakes in the field, "further cementing his value as a defensive asset..."  A player consistently in the top five for three years is among the elite in defensive play for his position.  
  

Looking over all the centerfielders, one reason Rowand's misplays probably seem excessive is that he has more of them than almost any other center fielders.  He had 38 misplays and errors in 2008, with only a couple of other CF with more.  However, one thing people don't account for is that he gets to a lot more balls with his range than most outfielders.  With the number of touches he gets, the average player makes 30 misplays and errrors.  38 is still large, but at least is in the ballpark compared to the average.

Only 8 players had enough touches to be in range of his average misplay and errors figure of 30 and I will include the few players who were up there in misplays and errors average as well:

• Carlos Beltran (30 average; made only 23)
• Shane Victorino (24 average; made 29)
• Carlos Gomez (31 average; made 40)
• Wily Taveras (20 average; made 27)
• Chris Young (30 average; made 34)
• BJ Upton (28 average; made 41!)
• Aaron Rowand (30 average; made 38)
• Grady Sizemore (28 average; made only 24)
• Torii Hunter (27 average; made only 19!)
• Rick Ankiel (16 average; made 26!)
• Lastings Milledge (25 average; made 39!)
• Nate McLouth (29 average; made 25)

So while not good, at least in this aspect, he is not alone either, as there are a number of players who would rank up there with him had they had as many touches as he did in 2008.

Why I Like Dave Roberts on the Giants

Many fans have been clamoring for the Giants to trade Dave Roberts. One reason I have been supporting keeping Roberts around, as long as we are on the hook for all that money, is for him to pass on his base-stealing tips that he picked up from Maury Wills to the Giants stable of young roadrunners. If he can do that, and the knowledge lives on in our farm system, it would be worth all those millions he received. Recently, there is news that he has been passing on his knowledge to a Giants player, though not one of the young guys.

In Joan Ryan's "Inside the Giants Clubhouse" blog, she noted some of the information that was imparted at a recent Comcast baseball luncheon on Treasure Island:

Randy Winn on his success on the bases last season: "I'm trying to get a little smarter as I get older. I'm talking a lot to Dave Roberts.''

And learn Randy Winn did. He learned some tips on stealing from Roberts in 2007 and 2008 and went from being horrible stealing bases, a career 67% percentage success, 60% the two previous seasons, to having a success rate of 83% in 2007, a career high (previous highs were 82% in 2003, then 77% in 2002 in a 11 year career, 8 as a starter; best basestealers are 80% and above), then 92% in 2008, which only the elite does.

I hope Roberts and Winn can teach Lewis, Velez, and any of our other rabbits in our system (Ford , McBryde, Richardson, Izturis, Noonan, etc.) so that this knowledge will get passed along in our system. I had been hoping Roberts will become our base stealing coach after he retires, but he seems to be mad that Lewis is starting over him, so I don’t know if that will happen now. Hopefully Winn and the other speedsters can pick up things that will get stored in the Giants Way manual for future training…

Graphical Player 2009: MINERS for Hitters

Graphical Player is an annual put out by John Burnson, who heads up Heater magazine; I've been buying GP regularly since it first came out. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in studying the statistics for players and Amazon sells it for about 30% off the cover price. The only minus is that he has been changing it slightly each year, so the continuity is not always there, but since I like seeing different ways of understanding how a player is doing grahpically, it's all good for me, but I know that some might prefer more continuity.

I will be taking stuff from this book and putting up posts on items relating to the Giants. Obviously, this is the first one.

MINERS for Hitters

This is a section of the book that covers MINERS for Hitters. MINER shows a projection of a player's "true talent," using monthly OPS for the full career of the hitters chosen from vets with eight or more seasons in the MLB (starts on page 5). The "true talent" line is not just a rolling average, they write, it incorporated OPS over the past three seasons, including minor league stats adjusted for MLE, and adds a component of regression to the MLB mean, where the size of regression is inversely related to the amount of playing time. They also note: "The lesson that you should draw from these graphs is to take the long view."

Devoted to Fantasy players, the book noted that Edgar Renteria is a buying opportunity for players who undershot their true talent. That applies, I presume, to real life as well. Below, I will discuss what the graph shows for a number of vet hitters plus include some info from their profile section (I'll cover the non-vet hitters in another post) and my thoughts.

Bengie Molina

The first Giant vet covered is Bengie Molina. I've seen a number of fans say over the years that he's hitting over his head, but according to the MINER system, he has basically been hitting what his talent for a number of years now, even back to when he was with the Angels. He's been very consistent in that way, based on his graph of actual OPS versus "true talent" OPS.

From text taken from the player profile portion of the book, the analyst does note that Molina's "advancing age should start to show" and that "his excellent defense and veteran presence must be some comfort to his young starters." However, his OPS projection shows a slight drop in 2009 before steady and steep declines. Based on this system, keeping him on beyond 2009 at the same salary appears to be a losing proposition, as they expect 2009 to be the best of the years to come. Of course, that's true for most projection systems that take age into account, as most players start their final decline once they reach Bengie's age range.

Some people think he should be traded now, but I think that unless we get two prospects close to the value of the draft picks we could get for him if he goes free agent, we should hold onto him until mid-season, at which point we should have a better idea how good Posey is and how close he is to reaching the majors. We should also get a better idea of how good a hitter Sandoval really is as well, because even if Posey isn't ready for 2010, if Sandoval does turn out to be a pretty good hitter - and the signs point to yes because of his ability to avoid strikeouts and get the bat on the ball - then he could keep the catching position steady until Posey is ready.

But if neither if ready, which is still a significant possibility, then we need Molina around as a backup plan for 2010 and trading him would make him very unlikely for us to sign him as a free agent after the 2009 season.

Edgar Renteria

According to MINER, Renteria's true OPS lies closer to 800 than it is to 700, another indication that his deal is a good one, as an 800 OPS at SS is much above average. And this 800 OPS level of "true talent" has been so since 2003 season. The analyst noted, "With his fine K%, we expect somewhat of a bounceback in terms of BA and OBP."

That is basically what I've been saying, that his K% in 2008 was very much like it was during his career, which is a good rate for hitters, a good sign he will continue to hit well in 2009, particularly after hitting .812 OPS after the All-Star break. And even if he hit .699 OPS like he did in 2008, that would still be a huge improvement over what we got in 2008 at SS. Still, given his batting peripherals, he looks like he should be able to reach his true talent OPS level in 2009, which would be another jump in level of improvement over what the SF shortstops did in 2008, as they really did very poorly, that was one of the biggest holes in the lineup.

According to my analysis of lineups, with Renteria, the lineup should be improved from the 4.0 runs per game averaged in 2008 to 4.1-4.2 runs per game with Renteria (and others), based on the most conservative projections for 2009. That should basically put us at .500 for 2009 given our pitching. CHONE projections, which were recently shown by The Book's website author to be the best of the projection systems for 2008, has the Giants at 4.19 RS, 4.05 RA (assuming 0.13 unearned runs average) or an 83-84 win season.

Aaron Rowand

According to MINER, Rowand's true OPS lies closer to 800 than his performance in 2008. Rowand has exhibited 800-ish talent since the start of the 2004 season. The analyst noted that "Rowand's intense style of play might have led to his weak finish in 2008. Of course, his apparent lack of comfort at home, and generally hitting in the #5 spot didn't help either." They forecast that he'll be closer to what he hit in 2008, and still rates him as 2 white gloves, where 3 white gloves is best and 3 black gloves are worst. (Molina has 3 white gloves, Renteria 2 black gloves, FYI).

Clearly, from his last three seasons stats, he hits best when he is patient and not striking out so much. It appears that Rowand will hit 6th or lower in 2009, as Lewis, Molina and Sandoval appear to be the guys slotted to hit in the middle, with Molina batting cleanup again, in 2009. Hopefully, now that he should be over his first season jitters, plus perhaps any lingering injury is healed properly, and the team not as dependent on his hitting, he can hit like he did early in 2008, around 900 OPS, for most of the season. The key is him avoiding the strikeout.

Randy Winn

Winn's talent has been steadily around 800 OPS since the 2002 season, and he has rarely been below his true talent level during his career; but we all know how steady a performer he has been. While a decline is forecasted for 2009, it is a very slight drop, and most probably related to his age. The analyst noted that "Winn continues to hit for average, play a brilliant right field," but warns that "it may be too much to expect for him to keep that up at his age - the forecast says the floor is about to drop," as beyond 2009, the forecast has him dropping greatly in OPS.

What I see is that his K% stayed consistently good all season long in 2008, and his H% was over .300 much of the season, in fact, peaking by season's end. Rated for three white gloves, he should still hit well enough in 2009, his last year on his current contract. The Giants should not entertain Winn's agent's offer to negotiate an extension.

With Schierholtz in the wings and all their talk about how he's ready, the Giants will probably give the starting outfield extra rest early in the 2009 season plus sit injured players when needed in order to give Schierholtz enough opportunities to show what he can do. While it made sense to sit down other prospects relatively quickly when they had slow/poor starts, I think they will give Schierholtz more rope because he's one of the few top prospects to spend a lot of time in AAA, giving the team more assurance that he's more of a real thing, or at least don't need more AAA seasoning.

Assuming Schierholtz does as well as I expect him to do - he appears to be duplicating his pattern during his rise up the system, hit .300 with no power initially to gain his bearings before hitting for power - Winn could then be dealt mid-season to open up RF for Schierholtz or, if not enought talent is not offered, the Giants could try to get the draft picks for him and give RF to Schierholtz in 2010.

Rowand in the NY River?

I posted much of the below on another site that had a rumor that the Yankees want Rowand for maybe Matsui and also posted it on El Lefty Malo, so I thought I should put it here as well.  I tried not to make it look too distorted in the flow, plus, as always tweaked based on new thoughts I had:

First off, compared to contracts out there, Rowand is very reasonable, OK if he is average, a bargain if he is out performing. The "problem" is that he's been average more often than outperforming during his career.

However, that's the (real) problem when people who are unfamiliar with a player's background. One reason one year was bad was because he smashed his face on the fence catching a ball. He was batting over 900 OPS when that happened, below average after that. So forgiving him that season (or better crediting him for the great hitting before his injury), he only has the one unexplained poor season and two very good seasons (plus the good start to his injury year) plus 2008, which also started well.

When a young player has an inconsistent year like 2008, you have to wonder whether he's just that inconsistent, but when you have a vet with a history of doing well when not injured, you have to wonder about his 2008 performance (as noted above) being marred by injury: he had roughly 950 OPS first two months of the year, then high 600 OPS rest of the season (think Durham's 2007).

A veteran don't usually do that over such an extended period of time, doing that poorly, without an injury to account for it. He did injure himself severely early in April, but soon was hitting well again, and there is no reported injury that accounts for the severe dropoff after May.

However, something similar happened to Randy Winn a couple of seasons ago, he injured his leg (fouled a ball of his shin if I recall correctly) and while he did return to starting, he didn't hit well at all the rest of 2006 and refused to blame that injury though most fans thought so and reporters asked him repeatedly if that was the case.

Most Giants fans that off-season were complaining about Winn's contract like they are doing now with Rowand's contract. Then he had an OK, Randy Winn-type season in 2007, and fans were in love with him again and he was a fan favorite in 2008 again.

Rowand is today's Winn. Change all the complaints about Rowand, put Winn's name, that was two years ago.

A hitter can go on hot streaks and cold streaks (Durham's 2007), but Rowand's problem has appeared to be injuries that linger on when he should take it easy and heal properly first.   And he is only 30 years old, if he was hitting his peak, he wouldn't hit around 950 to start the season then 600-something the rest of the season, he would struggle offensively like Vizquel did last season and this season.

That's the problem with mechanical forecasting systems, it doesn't capture nuances like this for Winn and Rowand, or any player with an injury. Not that mechanical forecasts aren't great, but you have to know it's limitations.

Rowand has been a very good hitter for a significant amount of ABs. He's also been not so good as well, but much of it can be attributed to an injury he suffered earlier that season.   He has been more a good hitter than a bad hitter when there isn't an injury involved.

Still, I wouldn't go on the record as saying that he's going to be very good in 2009 since there was no official explanation for his drop in 2008 (unlike, say, Morris's drop when it was revealed that he broke a rib but pitched anyway - and poorly - the rest of the season).

I wouldn't go the other way either, as another factor that nobody mentions is how AT&T depresses right-handed hitters stats, which, while not as bad as against lefties, can still be significant. In 2008, he hit .256/.328/.386/.714 at home and a more robust .287/.350/.434/.784 on the road.

So his poor/average season was actually more average to good overall when considering his road numbers.  And I think that is a much better comparison point for any homepark where hitting is skewed either way, whether Giants, Dodgers, Padres for pitcher's parks, or Reds, Rockies, D-backs for hitter's parks.  And consider this: the average NL CF hit .267/.334/.426/.759 whereas Rowand, even with the AT&T downturn, still hit .271/.339/.410/.749 overall, right about average, clearly above average based on his road numbers.

2009 will be his put up or shut-up season. I think that there are a lot of indications that he can be a regularly good hitter - and not even accounting for playing in CF, mid-high 800 OPS would be good for most offensive positions - but there has been enough bad times to wonder if he'll just be a yo-yo the rest of his career, much like how Pete Reiser shortened his career, both length and magnitude, with his multiple injuries.  Still, despite his off-season in 2008, he was still an above average hitter in CF (based on his road numbers).  Think of how good he could be uninjured.

Rowand said before the season that he's learned it's not good to put himself in position to injure himself but then he went ahead and did it within a week or two of joining the Giants. Adrenaline and sheer will, I believe, allowed him to play unfettered by the injury but it eventually caught up with him in June. Or so it seems. Hopefully he has finally learned his lesson and hopefully he will be all healed for 2009.

In any case, the Giants had made a big point of signing him (the Gamer ad program which I enjoyed and, frankly, it was ultimately appropriate as there was no better gamer around than Lincecum) so I don't think he's going anywhere. Plus, he's our only true CF, Winn and Roberts are poor CF. And I think the Giants still believe they got the excellent hitting CF they thought they signed.

Randy Winn is the player who makes the most sense for the Yankees to trade for. He's a reasonable salary, only one year to his contract, produces well, plays 150+ games, can play all OF positions acceptably defensively on a short time basis, RF excellently as a starter, which is cleared by Abreu's free agency.

Plus, the last thing the Giants need is another OF like Cabrera or Matsui, Japanese or not, he's old (the Giants are reportedly looking in Japan more actively now anyhow, I would think they would go young and go relievers) and the Giants are now looking young and clearing their roster of the older players.

That vet strategy was the "Win with Bonds" strategy that didn't work; they are now looking younger and long-term now. The last thing we need is another old about average (and declining the past 4 seasons) OF or young below-average OF, particularly when AT&T kills left hitters.

Because we have plenty of OF options without trading for another. If we trade Winn, Schierholtz gets the chance to show his stuff in RF and I think he will do well, he's done well in short stints with us and well in AAA the past two seasons. He just needs the opportunity. In addition, the Giants have Dave Roberts as utility OF (LF-CF), plus probably John Bowker (LF-RF), perhaps Dan Ortmeier (all 3 OF) and Velez could play LF in a pinch (plus Sandoval, I would think, if necessary). Not great, but no reason to trade a good OF, whether Rowand or Winn, for an OF who, unlike either, is clearly declining in Matsui (OPS+ declining for years now) or a young OF who hasn't hit that well yet, and can't even hit for power in Yankee Stadium.

So unless they are giving up Cano or Jesus Montrero (and I wouldn't do that straight up if I were the Yankees), I don't see what the Yankees have that the Giants would be interested in. I would be interested in Wilson Betemit but not straight up, the Giants would need a prospect thrown in to even up the deal. But he's useful to them so I don't see them giving him up. I just don't see a match between the teams otherwise.  Or if they want to give up some young pitchers like Joba Chamberlain or Phil Hughes (again, not a deal the Yankees would want to do).   I suppose I wouldn't mind any of their young strikeout relievers, like Edwar Ramirez, Ross Ohlendorf, David Robertson, Phil Coke, or Jonathan Albaladejo.

How about Cano (he had a poor year in 2008, unexplained) and either Wilson Betemit or two of the relievers I listed for Winn (only one year but they can sign him to an extension, I'm sure he would do that)?

Lastly, the Giants have also expressed interest in Alex Rodriguez before, but I assume the Yankees are holding onto him. :^)

Trade Deadline Talk

I was reading Grant's post on McCovey Chronicles about the Giants trade deadline plans, and I wrote so much that I thought I would post it here too. Grant wonders about Winn and Molina in particularly, Aurilia too, and about how Winn is blocking Schierholtz while doing worse than Schierholtz this season:

Winn Vs. Schierholtz

It depends on whether the Giants believe that the .726 OPS Winn currently carries represent his net future value or the .766 career OPS or .798 OPS he has compiled as a Giants player. If you think he is done (the .726 OPS), then you try to dump him now, throwing cash out and playing Schierholtz. Think of it this way, nobody thought of this earlier in the season when he was hitting better, only when he has been slumping recently, and yet the only real difference between then and now is that Winn is slumping right now. Unless you think he suddenly lost it, there is no reason to think he's not still the roughly .800 OPS hitter he has been for us the past few years. And if you think it's the .798 OPS, then you hold onto Winn because of his better defense and veteran experience, because then he has Nate beat on three counts, offensive, defensive, and intangible leadership.

BTW, that is the trade scenario that Ted Robinson discussed while on Ralph's and Tom's show the other day when he suggested that Winn was horribly overpaid since we could get equivalent production by playing Schierholtz (nevermind the fact that players of his offensive abilties are getting that much and more - hello Gary Mathews Jr. - on the open free agent market). He admonished the Giants for not trading Winn when we got an equivalent or better player (and much younger and cheaper) sitting in AAA.

It also depends on whether you believe that Schierholtz is actually the .778 MLE OPS from this season or the .787 MLE OPS is his 2007 suggests, or if the holes in his swing that scouts and observers have noted about him would expose him in the majors as a AAAA hitter, much like Todd Linden's 2005 .904 MLE OPS didn't really portend anything close to that in the majors. That MLE hasn't really materialized yet, has it?

Not to jinx him, but MLE is not a guarantee, it is an approximation that, while nice for giving you a ballpark estimate of his MLB abilities, is still only a very rough estimate, with a wide bell curve, and sometimes your prospect falls behind the curve, much like the Cards discovered recently with Anthony Reyes, who was their Tim Linceucm/Matt Cain a couple of years ago, but they just recently gave up and traded him away for nothing much, at least I didn't recognize the name.

I love Nate, else I wouldn't quote him in my sig, and wish him well, but as good as he is hitting, he is only 29th in OPS in the PCL. Unless you think there are going to be 30 players coming up from the PCL over the next year and not only start but hit nearly .800 OPS as a regular starter, you have to admit that there are many of these players out of that 30 who are going to eventually go to the majors and majorly suck. If you know that Nate is not going to be one of them, then you deserve a job as a fortune teller, because there isn't anybody who knows that for certain, there are levels of belief and possibilities.

Giants Trading Deadline Plans

It also depends regarding the Giants deadline plans. Typically, Sabean and the Giants pronouncements are much like Horton The Elephant, "he says what he means, he means what he says," and what he last said was that the team is in transition and they are listening to offers for any veterans but are not trading away any young pitching. Now, how much they accept in trade is another question, but A.J. notwithstanding, the Sabean regime has been pretty good when trading with other teams, we tend to come out ahead of the deal, sometimes by a little, sometimes by a lot. Even in the cases of the no-name names that Grant notes, most of the time, the other team didn't get much either.

I think that no team will wow the Giants for Molina, which is what that would take because we have nobody who can take over right now, unless we get their lame-o catcher back in return - and at least get a good enough defensive catcher - along with a good prospect. In this case, getting their catcher would clear the way towards the other team being OK taking on Molina's 2009 contract. I think it would take the loss of the starting catcher for the season while leading the division to get the team to be that desperate for Molina, but then you don't get the lame-o catcher in return, so that's a catch-22. So losing Molina is unlikely in my opinion.

I think Aurilia will probably be gone after the trade deadline, because he can still hit well (road OPS .791; 34 AB/HR or about 20 HR in 680 AB season, good HR power; mashes lefties with .893 OPS) and can play 1B, 3B adequately and SS, 2B in a pinch, can come off the bench for power and driving in RISP. His contract is also pocket change at that point.

After because he's not a difference maker - Durham can make a huge difference if he continues to hit well while Weeks sucks - since he can't hit RHP that well and is not great defensively, so a team would want to acquire him to help them get over the top as the season nears ending and it is clearer what the team's chances are for winning it all. He may or may not make the playoff roster (not if after August 31st), again because he's not a difference maker UNLESS the other team lost a starter for the season and has no adequate replacement. He could be a supplemental acquisition, like how we picked up Bill Mueller one September past.

Winn is not a difference maker either, but is much more valuable than Aurilia because he hits so consistently throughout his career and plays good defense at all three OF positions. He would also represent speed off the bench, along with a touch of double-digit power. Given his 2009 contract, I think it would again take a situation like I described above for Molina for Winn to be traded.

He's a nice player, a complementary player, and it would probably take an injury to an OF late in the season where the team still has a good chance to get into the playoffs for a team to be desperate enough to trade for a Winn now, plus perhaps the situation of losing an OF as a free agent this offseason, meaning Winn has a spot for next season. Otherwise, I don't see another team taking on Winn's contract until the off-season and the musical chairs music ends, and a team finds that they need to get a decent OF in trade. I think we can probably get a failed prospect, much like we got for Durham, plus a prospect with flawed but decent potential (probably a lot of speed too), again much like Durham's trade.

Lose Winn Proposition: Wells Fargo Know Something?

Today I was listening to the game and then I heard a little kid talking about his Dad, JT Snow, scooping up Darren Baker before scoring a run, when suddenly I hear the Wells Fargo lady talk about how each Giants run scored would result in $100 going to schools.

But this is (was) Randy Winn's gig and his ads were running earlier in the season, right up to the All-Star Break, as far as I can remember.

So does Wells Fargo knows something we don't? Did they switch because the Giants management told them, "Hey, Randy Winn will be dealt soon, so you might want to think about switching to a new spokesperson, maybe someone who will be around for a while, like JT Snow." Maybe, maybe not, but I thought I would mention this since I noticed it.

Giants Fire Sale: Addendum

MLB Trade Rumors quotes Jayson Stark's take on the fire sale rumor that confirms the Ken Rosenthal article. Where's there smoke, there's a fire sale. His article provides three additional names to the list: Tyler Walker, Rajai Davis, and Merkin Valdez. It also includes the usual suspects: Durham, Aurilia, Winn, and Kline.

I had speculated on Davis being on the list but totally missed Walker and Valdez. I saw Hennessey being the one to be traded, but Walker credentials are almost that of Hennessey in that he has served in all the roles of the bullpen, he just hasn't started much, if any. So, in terms of value, he could be near that of Hennessey, even though he's many years older and just recovering from TJS.

But given the clear statement by the Giants that Hennessey is not starting, then I don't see why Walker and not also Hennessey. They are only really necessary if the Giants are really serious about competing in 2008, not so much if it is a rebuilding year. Perhaps the Giants think they can get more for Walker than for Hennessey. Or maybe they simply think that he won't be good enough, long enough, so may as well see what they can get for him today. If they don't get offered enough, they can simply pull him off the table then.

Valdez I am surprised by, especially since he is doing well this spring training. Maybe they are just doing a switch and bait with him on the list, to get a feel for how much teams are willing to give up for him plus get the team on the phone and talk them into another player. Maybe he still does something the Giants don't think will work out in the long run, much like how they gave up on Jerome Williams so fast, faster than fans (including myself) were willing to, but ultimately they have been correct, Williams and Aardsma have not amounted to much, and they at least got some usefulness out of Hawkins and Kline.

Still, surprising to see his name there. After all this waiting, I want to see what we got, not trade him away. I would only be happy getting an interesting position prospect for him. Though I guess I would be OK with another starting pitcher prospect who is semi-decent.

About Davis, another thought just popped in: perhaps Bowker is opening the eyes of the Giants brass this spring, and they are thinking of jumping him to the majors to platoon with Roberts. He isn't hitting particularly well in terms of results, but maybe they are impressed by how well he is swinging.

Or it could be that they are looking at Davis's horrendous September stats and realizing that he was just really lucky in August when they got him, he is just not that good a hitter, so trade Davis now, while his value is high, and try out someone else in platoon with Roberts.

Again, there is no Dave Roberts on the list. I know a lot of fans want him gone instead of Winn, but really, he's the one who mkes the most sense for the Giants going forward, both in terms of lead-off abilities and allowing a young player or two to get significant playing time, plus the fact that we would get more back in a trade from Winn than we would from Roberts. And he has some skills that are plus, whereas Winn is plus nowhere, he is just Mr. Average.

And that's not a knock, just the truth. That is because even an average player is worth something in baseball, the average player is still much better than the so-called replacement level player who are on the margins of baseball. And even the best teams don't have stars at every position, they need average players to complement the good players.

Fire Sales, per the comments made on the other post, don't necessarily mean that you sell off all your good players. It could mean clearing out the deadwood that gets in the way of the new growth, the young players. And before spring training, Durham and Aurilia probably had very little value, given how poorly they did in 2007, so a good showing thus far makes them all shining and, well, not new, but gritty vets with something left to prove. And spring is the time for injurie to crop up, making teams suddenly need players, perhaps, like Durham or Aurilia.

For example, Aurilia would fit in nicely with LA right now, given LaRoche's recent injury, and provide coverage at 3B in case Nomar gets injured again, plus if LaRoche takes longer to recover (or alternatively, they don't have to rush him back), and at worse he's the uber-utility guy across the infield again. Guys who can play multiple positions are especially coveted these days because of the expanded bullpens and 5 man rotations.

And Chicago has been getting dry humped over and over again by the Orioles regarding Brian Roberts, maybe they get tired and pick up Durham again, he's a known quantity, he's from Chicago White Sox before, so the fans know him, and he is good when he is hitting well, and he has been hitting very well this spring. Or any AL team who needs a better DH, Durham could do that as well.

Giants Fire Sale?

The MLB rumor site quoted Ken Rosenthal of Fox Sport reporting that the "Giants have informed several teams that they are shopping over a dozen of their major league and minor league players." Ken Rosenthal said some of the players include Ray Durham, Rich Aurilia, Randy Winn, and Steve Kline. The author of the site then actually called the Giants "and found out that Travis Ishikawa and Noah Lowry are both on that list as well." He suggested that this is a Giants fire sale.

Not quite because not every player who should go in a fire sale were mentioned. All the players listed make a lot of sense to trade because they are holding back younger players or is not as necessary anymore or both.

Durham out = Frandsen starting at 2B. Durham's horrid 2007 notwithstanding, he has had a very solid career, and a good spring could convince another team that he is back enough to obtain. The level of player we get back will correspond fully with how much the other team believes Durham is back.

Aurilia out = Velez as uber-utility guy. Aurilia had a horrible 2007, probably caused by a fender bender in spring training. But he's a relatively cheap vet who can play the whole infield and hit OK enough for a team to take him for a nothing prospect sent to the Giants. And the Giants are happy to oblige because they don't need him right now, except as 3B insurance, but there are others who should do OK at 3B, like Frandsen and possibly Velez.

Randy Winn was one of the few to have a good 2007, so the Giants should want to trade him because he could net a good prospect, unlike the others = Nate Schierholtz and/or Fred Lewis getting a chance to start in RF. They can't platoon since both are lefties, but they would be competing for playing time there. Or they could give Lewis the starting role for half a season, and if he can't hold it, bring up Schierholtz, or even Bowker, depending on who is doing better (though it appears that Bowker might be prepped as Ortmeier's replacement if Dan falters).

Steve Kline out = probably Jose Capellan being kept. Giants have a number of young good RP who are out of options or could be lost: Valdez, Threets, Capellan. The first two have been doing well, and the third, Capellan, comes highly recommended, Felipe Alou would lose a lot of face if they return him to the Red Sox because they got him in Rule 5 draft.

Noah Lowry out = Jonathan Sanchez or Pat Misch in. Both need to start in the majors to see how they do, but Correia looks good to go in winning the only open spot, and Lowry is the most expendable of the top four of Cain, Lincecum, Zito, and Lowry (obviously Zito's contract precludes any trade, and the Giants aren't trading the other two, no matter how many fans want them to).

Unfortunately, Lowry went under the knife Friday for surgery, so he's not going to be traded right now. I assume the Giants are kicking the tires, as Sabean would say, in order to set the table for trading him by mid-season.

Travis Ishikawa is a failing prospect and there are now other prospects looking to be the Giants future 1B. First, we have Angel Villalona, who most rate as being in the Top 30 (or better) overall among all prospects. So even if Ishikawa came up this year, Angel will take the spot in a couple of years. Then there is Dan Ortmeier who looks to be getting the chance to start there until Angel is ready, plus if he is OK at 1B, he colld always return to the OF. If Ortmeier falters, then John Bowker would next get the chance. And there are a number of college 1B who the Giants could pick in this season's amateur draft with their #5 pick overall.

Still, Ishikawa is a great defender and has considerable power plus walks a lot, and he really needs to start in AAA or he'll be lost by the Giants next season as he only has one option left. But they appear to like McClain and he plays 1B at AAA plus they are trying out John Bowker at 1B as well (he could also come up mid-season and start in RF too).

I think they should keep him because he has been severely bothered by the poor parks at San Jose and Norwich (see MiLB.com's series by Jonathan Mayo for insight on how bad these parks are for hitters), they need to see how he does in AAA, in more regular parks. But it is not like he's a sure thing, it is just that he showed a lot of power and ability to walk despite the bad hitting environment in San Jose and Norwich is just a bear to play in for almost any power hitter. There should be other teams willing to give him a chance, heck, even Todd Linden got picked up and Ellison was traded twice and was a glorified pinch-runner with each team.

Giants Thoughts

The names on the list above are no surprise to most Giants fans. What is surprising, at least to those who don't read here, is that Dave Roberts is not on the list. As I have been harping on, the Giants want Roberts around to teach tips to the speedsters we'll have up here in 2008 and 2009. The key to making aggressive basestealing work is to not get caught and Roberts steals both in quantity (23-49 while starting regularly) and quality (81% career success; 88% last two seasons).

There was only six names revealed in the two articles, meaning that about five to seven more names are on the list that were not noteworthy enough for the authors to mention. Here are some of my thoughts on who else might be on the list.

Given that the Giants list outfielders as a desire, I have to think that Rajai Davis and Clay Timpner are on the list. Rajai Davis was never much of a prospect, a AAAA candidate until he had that nice month with us before the league caught up with him. And Clay Timpner really only works in CF and we just signed Aaron Rowand to play CF for a long while. Maybe Fred Lewis is on the list too, though I would think he would be mentioned if Ishikawa was.

In addition, they are reportedly looking for set up relievers, so it could be that Brad Hennessey might be on the list as well. As nicely as he has done, in a wide variety of roles - starting, long relief, set-up, and closing - he does not have the power arm that Giants management likes, so he could be a case of selling high, after doing so well in 2007 in a number of roles, as well as oping a spot for one of the trio of relievers we would lose if not on the Giants 25 man roster come starting day: Merkin Valdez, Erick Threets, and Jose Capellan.

He could net a good prospect due to how well he has done, how flexible he can be in a variety of situations, and how much longer they have to control him. It could explain why the Giants started him recently in spring training. You know, show how valuable he can be to prospective teams.

I would also add Randy Messenger and maybe Vinnie Chulk as possibilities too. Particularly Messenger after his big blow up over his demotion the other day. With so many other good young relievers who cannot be sent down, the Giants could afford to trade these two while the trio are doing well and the two have some trade value as major league relievers.

Chulk would not get sent down in any case, but had a nice year last season and thus could net a nice prospect back. Messenger was just sent down recently, as the Giants still had an option on him, but, still, he did well for us until he busted his fist in the wall, which probably cost us any chance of getting anyone good for him in trade, but I would not mind losing him because he don't strike out that many batters on a K/9 basis. We need strikeout pitchers to be more successful in the playoffs and neither of them are stellar in that regard.

Oddly enough, the Giants are looking for backup catchers, which implies that they are not happy with Eliezer Alfonzo or Guillermo Rodriguez as our backups. Given their offensive show during the Carribean Winter Leagues, that suggest they are looking for a strong defensive catcher to complement Molina, whose defense has seen much better days. I like Alfonzo as backup, but given the Giants future relies so much on pitching, it would behoove us to pick up someone solid defensively as a backup catcher, for defensive purposes at the end of the game, plus he could see starts when Bengie Molina is struggling offensively, which is his only area of value-add.

Lewis Brought Up

Not that he doesn't deserve it but in the report on his call-up, Bochy noted that they will work him into the lineup: "...We wanted to get him up here. He'll get playing time. We want to work him in as much as we can to keep him sharp."

Well, Schierholtz has done well too and he should play a lot as well.

But with Roberts being the only OF who platoons, and he sits against lefties and Lewis and Schierholtz shouldn't hit against lefties, that leaves splitting time in LF when Bonds isn't playing. So when do they play?

The only way I see them getting regular playing time is if Roberts and Winn start to see more days off. Given that both of them has been hitting poorly in June, that would give a reason for Bochy to give more days of rest to them. That plus Bonds' days off are the main way I see of getting them regular playing time to keep them sharp.

Another alternative is if they start playing Schierholtz at 1B. He was a 3B when drafted and played there for a season professionally. He probably hasn't seen any time at 1B and the majors would be a poor place to learn the position, but if he starts practicing now he could maybe play 1 game a week there. Just a thought, not suggesting it.

Lincecum-itis: Young Tim's Fourth Start

Lincecum-itis (lin - suh - cum - i - tis): the urge of the Giants opposing team's batters to sit out that game, for whatever reason (pain, rest, etc.) when Lincecum is the opposing pitcher.

Krukow brought this up in his morning show on KNBR and the post-game wrap, that batters will soon miss games where Lincecum is starting. Yesterday's game was the first known case of Lincecum-itis, as Craig Biggio, who regularly plays in 153+ games (8 of last 11 seasons), missed yesterday's game after playing in 41 of 44 games. Skipper thought he needed a rest.

Krukow then noted how Biggio looked silly last week striking out three times - a sombrero, new term for me. Biggio, in a spiteful remark, after that performance, noted that Lincecum has "the best young stuff I've seen since I saw Kerry Wood." :^) He also noted, "he dropped that thing from the roof of Minute Maid and I was like, 'Where did that come from?' " Apparently they tried to prepare for him last time by watching his game against the Phillies, where he got blasted because he used mainly fastballs, and missed his great start with Colorado where he used all his pitches much more and to greater effect.

Fourth Start of the Lincecum Era

He pitched well again against the Astros, but was not as dominant as he was last time. He no-hit them for the first 3 innings, showing that they didn't seem to learn much on him, and lasted 8 innings, giving up 5 hits, 2 runs/ER, 0 HR, 1 walk, got 4 strikeouts. He did this in 104 pitches, 71 of them for strikes, which is a very good ratio, and I think the ratio went up as the game went on as it seemed like it was around 60% earlier in the game. However, it was slightly disappointing that he only got 4 strikeouts, though I guess that's good since he went deep into the game with 104 pitches.

It is another dominating game with a 4 PQS, only missing out because he only stuck out 4 this time, versus 10 last time. He now has 3 dominating games out of 4, so he now has 75% DOM/25% DIS. And had he lasted two more outs in his first game without giving up another hit, he would have earned a 2 PQS for that game and not be given an automatic 0 PQS for not pitching 5 innings.

For a pitcher known for his wildness in college, even in his breakout year when the Giants drafted him, he has now allowed only 1 walk a game for his past 3 starts, after walking 5 in his first start. This has allowed him to keep his WHIP around 1.0 (1.03), which he has done by also keeping his hits low, he has giving up only 19 hits in 26.1 IP. And if you throw out his first start, he has a 1.64 ERA, a WHIP of 0.77, and a 20:3 K/BB ratio in 22 IP.

Frandsen Graduates

Just wanted to leave a note of congratulations to Kevin Frandsen for earning his final two course units necessary to graduate from San Jose State University. He has a bachelor's degree in finance. He was shooting to graduate in 4 years but unfortunately two classes he needed his final year was cancelled in his last semester and so he had to finish off the classes later, via correspondence.

Giants Notes

Got some news from the Merc and sfgiants.com today:

• RP/Closer Tyler Walker has started throwing live batting practice and is expected to be assigned to a minor league affiliate in mid-June, about one year after getting Tommy John surgery last year.
• SS Emmanuel Burriss, who had a great start to his pro career for us on Salem-Keizer's Rookie A league team, was jumped to Advanced A San Jose this year but, unfortunately he was overmatched, batting only .165 in 139 ABs for San Jose, and so he was demoted to Augusta's A-league team in the Sally League (South Atlantic League). He is considered one of the fastest prospects in the minors, better than even Marcus Sanders. He is a hair behind Detroit's great prospect, Cameron Maybin.
• Winn's 20 game hitting streak ended yesterday, which tied Willie Mays for the fifth longest streak in SF Giants history and is the longest since Robby Thompson's 21 game streak in 1993 (hope the same don't happen to Winn, Robby's career went into the tanker after that season, after he signed that huge contract with us).
• Been meaning to report this, but Bengie Molina was interviewed a while back about his clutch hitting for us lately, particularly with 2 strikes, and he noted that when there is less than 2 strikes, he swings like he's 6' 5", but when he is at 2 strikes, he swings like he's 5' 6". Which is a nice way of following your little league coach's advice to choke up on the bat and protect the plate when there is two strikes. :^)
• Good news about Dave Roberts, as he continues to show rapid improvement in his recovery from surgery to remove bone spurs and bone chips from his left elbow. He hasn't started throwing yet, so there's still much to do and go, but at least he has started swinging a fungo bat, 10 days after surgery, which I guess is pretty good, based on the way it is written. Roberts noted, "I'm trying not to get ahead of myself, but it's pretty encouraging." As I noted in another post, I wonder who they will keep as the utility OF when Roberts come back, Lewis or Ortmeier. It would make more sense to keep Ortmeier, but Lewis has played very well since coming up so it would be a nice reward to keep him up. But if not them, who then? There is no real obvious other choice.

Your 2007 Giants: Big 6 Questions

Ol' Big 6 himself, Christy Mathewson must be grinning from ear to ear with the Giants new centerpiece of Zito, Cain, and, eventually, Lincecum, and possibly Sanchez. The Giants have rarely had two top guns leading the rotation: Mathewson and Iron Man Joe McGinnity, Mathewson and Rube Marquard, Carl Hubbell and Hal Schumaker (yeah, I did't know him either), perhaps the 1954 rotation of Johnny Antonelli, Ruben Gomez, Sal Maglie, and Don Liddle, then during my era, Marichial and Perry, Reuschel and Garrelts (made me think of Laurel and Hardy), Burkett and Swift, Schmidt and Rueter. Yeah, kind of reaching at the end there...

This is my annual Q&A on factors that I believe are critical in any scenario regarding the Giants success in the upcoming season, from highest to lowest.

Q1: Barry Good or Barry Bad

I've written a number of posts on Bonds and he is still the stick that stirs the Giants offensive chances, centerpiece or no centerpiece. Clearly, there is no precedence for a 42 year old, and soon to be 43 year old hitter, to continue to still be at the top of his game enough to be among the league's best hitters. Ted Williams probably could have done it if he felt like it, but he didn't try. Most hitters succumb to age and fade away before they reach their late 30's, let alone 40's.

Here are some publicly available projections on the web for Bonds, scroll down to the section for 2007. They expect around 329 AB, 444 PA (approximately since not all project HBP, SF, SH), 24 HR (meaning he's expected to pass Aaron by season's end), 74 runs, 64 RBI, .283/.468/.568/1.036. Plus throw in 3-4 steals. Not too shabby for anyone at any age, let alone 42-43.

He seems to be healthy and doing well in spring training. He is being moved to the third spot and we'll see how it goes. We'll never know how bad this move really is, but theories range from this being a non-move to one that will hurt the Giants ability to maximize their scoring opportunities. From my post here, I believe that this is going to hurt them.

However, the lineup seems to be pretty balanced, top to bottom, with no true under .700 OPS baddies (Perez) but not many goodies above .800 (Durham, Bonds), so maybe the point about where Bonds bat is relatively a non-factor. All the other regulars have been in the .700 OPS club and while that is not great for middle of lineup type of guys - 3, 4, 5, 6 - Bonds and Durham occupy two of the spots and a third, Klesko/Aurilia, could combine to be over .800 if Klesko is back to "normal" (more on that later).

Bonds has been pretty good - except for his knee incident that started everything - about avoiding injuries so it is pretty much him against Father Time, and Bonds has been beating him bad for years now. And while the circumstantial evidence that he was an abuser of performance enhancement drugs has been significant, I think if he has another good season that builds upon last season, he has to put some doubters on edge regarding how much steroids/HGH really helped him during his out-of-the-world streak.

Given that Jason Grimsley was harangued by G-men to try to entrap Barry Bonds into giving it all up, showing how desperate they are to get Barry, clearly the government is being driven by certain people who have Barry in their cross hairs. I would bet that Barry and his home has been under surveillance since Balco blew wide open and that any and all packages that are headed to Barry are examined to the greatest degree possible and that anyone associated with Barry will feel the prying eyes of the government to see if they might be involved as well. And thus far, nothing.

So if Barry can ignore all the other "stuff" and hit as well as the projections, that is the minimum requirement for the Giants offense to be OK. Without him, it is very improbable, if not impossible, and the season will sink pretty fast, much like 2005.

Q2: Klesko Good or Klesko Bad

As I have noted in posts like these, I think Klesko can be the magic sauce that makes the Giants offense move from just OK with Bonds to be above average. He could be the Ellis Burk addition of 2007, making the offense that much better. But will he?

Bochy says that Klesko is back to the Klesko of old. If so that is pretty potent. His decline started in 2003 and given that he was entering into his 30's, that's nothing to be ashamed of. Still, in his decline, with congenital problems with his shoulder where there is bone on bone contact, he was still a better hitter than any other hitter on the Giants other than Barry and Ray-Ray: he hit .263/.370/.440/.809 with 26 AB/HR and still a great eye, with his BB/K ratio at 0.93 (best hitters are above 1.00). The year prior to that season, he hit .300/.387/.537/.924 with 19 AB/HR and 0.88 BB/K, and that's very good.

If so, that means that there is not that great a drop in the offense when the annointed LF is in the lineup for when Barry isn't playing - Barry projected 1.036 OPS, Klesko last great year .924 OPS. That's better than inserting in sub-.700 Steve Finley into the lineup (he recently realized that no one thinks of him as a starter so he accepted a job as a backup somewhere) whenever Barry or Moises sat.

On a side but related note, people talk about the drop in offense now that we lost Moises, but really, with him missing so many games, it was really MoiseLey who played "RF" and MoiseLey combined was only a mid .700 hitter at best. The additions of Roberts, Klesko, and Aurilia I think will more than make up for the losses of Alou, Finley, Hillenbrand, Niekro, in the lineup, just because of how bad those other (and still another to be discussed, Winn) hit in 2006.

And, in addition, if he is hitting that well, he's probably the starting 1B against RHP, which makes Bochy's decision become "who plays 3B, Aurilia or Feliz?" And if Aurilia is hitting like he did last season (above .800), it is probably him, but if he is hitting like he was before (.700's or less), then it becomes whoever between Feliz and him are hitting well at the moment. And Feliz is actually an acceptable offense at 3B when he is fresh - his hitting takes a huge dip from the first half to the second half - so Aurilia could find himself sitting much more than he thought he might when he thought he was the starting 1B.

However, as much as I like Frandsen, I can see Aurilia taking over for Vizquel a lot during the season because Vizquel has been in the habit of hitting around .700 every other year for a number of years - like his body tires out or something before recovering - and he's due for 2007. If he's hitting that poorly, I can see Aurilia getting a number of starts there "to keep Vizquel fresh and to give Aurilia starts since Klesko is getting most 1B starts."

Q3: Morris/Lowry Good or Morris/Lowry Bad

As I've written in a number of posts regarding the starting rotation, I think that it is best to view Lowry and Morris as a tandem pair for the #3 and #4 spots in the rotation. And despite their problems last season, I think that both can return to their former performance levels of prior years. According to research on starting pitchers (In The Hardball Times) they both pitched as well any #3 and #4 starter in 2006, despite their problems. If both are healthy, they both should pitch much better than that.

But will both do that? While there is a possibility that happens, the more conservative move is to assume that one will do so and the other will pitch like 2006 (I don't think that it is likely that both perform like in 2006).

The reasons why Lowry should pitch well is that when he was healthy, in 2005 and 2006, he was able to pitch at a high 3 ERA performance level, for a year and a half, which is #2 starter performance. His performance did not lag with repeated exposure to hitters, in fact, he had his patented late season surge (around August) both years, showing that when he is on, he is totally dominating. There is a physical reason for his poor 2006 season - his strained oblique muscle in his first start of the season - and if you look at his key indicator stats month by month (K/9, BB/9, K/BB), they improve month by month until he had his injury in September, when the wheels came off. He even had his August surge too. In fact, his good walk rate remained good during his struggles, which allowed him to continue to do relatively well, but his strikeout rate plummetted. You can do OK like that but not as well as Lowry was before.

The only question mark is whether he is fully recovered and that is where it gets less likely for him to do well. I recently read that he is still experiencing something with that oblique muscle, which had caused him to change his throwing mechanics, and which obviously affects his pitches. But he has been throwing much better this spring, so I expect him to hit the ground running when the season starts.

Morris is a controversial area for Giants fans. People see his salary and think, nay, demand, that he should be a top of the rotation starter. Yeah, it stinks to pay so much for so little, thus far. However, instead, I think fans should focus on what he can do in the context of the Giants rotation. He is nominally the 4th starter based on his stats from last season. Unfortunately, he had so many things going on that it is hard to read what exactly to expect from him in 2007.

Of course, I think I see, but others disagree, so I'll note them again here. First, Morris pitched poorly in the beginning of the season and a number of people (including myself) attributed that to being overamped trying to pitch well to justify his new contract and to please the fans. But even if you don't give him that, he pitched well enough to drive his ERA down to the low 4 area, #2 starter area, by mid-July. He then bounced around the mid-to-high 4 ERA range after that until September when his ERA blew up because of the mysterious rib injury that he suffered somewhere, somehow, sometime in August or perhaps even July. In any case, his ERA was still in the mid-4 range when August ended. Thus, even with all the problems Morris had last year, until his rib injury kicked in in September, he was pitching like a #2/3 starter overall.

That is a huge advantage over other teams if your #4 starter is pitching like a #3 and your #3 starter (Lowry) is pitching like a #2 starter. And keeping the runs given up down is key to the Giants winning because the offense is not too good but not too bad either, with only Bonds as the clearly above average player, and Durham and Klesko as possibly better than average. In addition, there will be platooning most probably with Roberts (Linden) and Klesko (Aurilia and Bonds), so that will help the offense be more balanced against LHP as well as RHP.

One of my problems in my previous analysis of what is going to happen in a season is that while I think it is a higher probability that each of the players does well, however, cummulatively, I should be ratcheting down the good expected outcomes, since by random chance, there will be poor performances popping in. So instead of saying that both will pitch like a #2 in 2007, which I think both have a good chance of doing, individually, I examine the odds of the two of them pitching like a #3 and #4 starter in 2007, and I think it's likely that one of them will be able to pitch like a #2, with the other pitching at least like a #3 starter (ERA below 4.84). Even in their poor 2006 season, both pitched like a #3 and #4 starter, so I don't think that it is much of a stretch to say that the two, in tandem, will pitch like a #2 and #3 starter, which would be an advantage over most other teams in the middle of the rotation.

Add to that the great spring of Russ Ortiz, who is capable of #2 starter performance but is slotted #5, and among the three of them, I don't see why we cannot expect at minimum a #2, #3, and #4 type of performance from our #3, #4, and #5 starters. Obviously, if everything went our way, the Giants could potentially have 3 #2 type performance from these three starters, and hence why I've been saying that the Giants have a good chance of winning the division and doing some damage in the playoffs, because when you have dominating pitching from your starting staff, as a whole, that's when the value of pitching outweights the hitting of individual position players who play everyday.

Q4: Cain Ace or Cain Sophomore Jinx

I have written about Cain's change in 2006 season in a number of posts plus here is a a quote from an artice on Cain on sfgiants.com that really made me fall in love with him:

"That's going to come sooner or later, hopefully," said Cain, appearing intrigued by the possibility of achieving a no-hit milestone. "You want to be able to do that once."

Cain also possesses an aptitude that has hastened his improvement. When he's presented with something new, said Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti, "you don't have to tell him twice."

Thus, when Cain answers a question about how his perspective has changed now that he's in his third big-league camp, his well-worn response sounds more genuine than hackneyed. He truly understands the pitfalls of complacency, although the notion that he won't make the season-opening rotation is ludicrous.

"I have to compete like usual," said Cain, who finished 13-12 with a 4.15 ERA last season and tied for fifth in the National League Rookie of the Year balloting. "There are always guys coming in here kicking to come up. I feel like I always have to perform to earn my spot."

After all, Cain was among those ambitious prospects not long ago. "You've
got guys who want to come up as badly as you did at that time," he said.

Clearly, I don't think that Cain will have much problems pitching like an ace in 2007, but again that is not a conservative stance. So instead I use his 2006 season as a model for 2007. Will he have a sophomore jinx?

Looking at his 2006 season, he got better as the season went along, showing that while hitters might have been learning about him through repetition, Cain learned even more about the hitters and did even better. I would say that the odds favor that he should do at least what he did in 2006, that he will not regress from where he was last season, and he was a #2 with his 4.16 ERA. Obviously, the upside is that he attain full-blown ace status (which would happen if he repeats his second half 3.38 ERA).

Like with Morris and Lowry, I have been pairing up Cain with Zito when viewing performances overall, and I think that while both are capable of ace status, I think it is conservative to say that out of Cain and Zito, one will be an ace (ERA under 3.78) and the other will be a #2 (ERA under 4.31). The average NL ace had an ERA of 3.51 and average #2 had an ERA of 4.04, and that is not something to bet on as Zito hasn't reached 3.51 in ages and it is too much to expect Cain to do that (yet, that is). But I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say that both should have ERAs in the high 3, which is about what you get when you average the average ace with the average #2 starter (ERA of 3.78 to be exact), so I think the Giants will be covered overall there with Cain and Zito in comparison with other #1/#2 tandems.

Q5: Zito Good Enough or Zito Flopsy, Mopsy, and Cottontail

I've posted a number of articles about the Giants $126M man (that's some inflation over the $6M man :^), since the Giants signed him to his lucrative contract. After his funky introduction to the Giants - "here's my new pitching motion, hope you love it" - he has been quietly good all spring, pitching like Zito has shown that he can, but with some tweaks and improvements. From what I've read since he was signed, Zito is like the pitching equivalent to Barry Bonds in terms of nutrition, working out, and trying to find that extra edge that will give you an advantage over the other team.

That gives me encouragement that the long contract won't be an albatross on the Giants payroll the way that Nen's contract, Alfonzo's contract, or Benitez's contract, were. As I had noted before, given the inflation rate of salaries, particularly pitcher's salaries, because Zito's contract starts out low initially, the average pitchers's salary will have caught up with Zito's high priced portion of the contract and thus, as long as Zito can pitch like an average pitcher, like a #3 type pitcher, the Giants will be OK as long as he is healthy and can pitch. And given his track record and maniacal devotion to being the best physically and mentally, that seems like there's a good chance that he can do that.

In addition, I just realized that even if he starts scuffling by the end of his long contract, the Giants should be covered pretty well by then because of Sabean's (and Tidrow's) focus on pitching. Over the intermediate term, the Giants should have a rotation full of cheap starters and relievers: Cain, Lowry, hopefully Lincecum and Sanchez too, then the crop of relievers here and coming up. As expensive Zito's contract will be, that would be made up by how cheaply we will be paying for starting pitching for our other young starters and relievers. Potentially, our whole pitching staff could be paid less in aggregate than Zito alone, starting midway through the contract.

Then there is the matter of how well Zito will pitch. In this case, the future can wait, what can he do for us right now. As much as saber-theory hate pitchers like Zito, Ortiz, Rueter, they were successful for a long time doing what they were doing. So you cannot blanket apply those princicples on Zito, as I learned soon after looking at Zito sabermetrically. He just plain makes hitters unable to get hits off of him and that makes up for his walks, flyballs turning into HR, and low strikeout rate.

Even without that, just statistically, while his stats do not scream "best contract ever given a starting pitcher ever" nor do they look like Cy Young type of seasons, they have been still pretty good, in the 3's for the most part, and that is great to have in your rotation, where you plug him in and can expect something in the 3's. And that's what I expect, particularly since ERA's are typically lower in the NL than the AL, which makes a lot of sense since there is that easy prey, the pitcher, waiting in the 9th spot, an easy out for the most part, in fact an easy strikeout as well. Unless there is an injury of some sort, I expect Zito to do well and deliver a high 3 ERA at minimum, and potentially something in the mid-3's, which would be just awesome, when paired with Cain, as I noted above in the Cain section.

With Zito/Cain paired as well as any team's #1/#2 and Lowry/Morris/Ortiz looking capable of at least a #2/#3/#4 performance out of the #3/#4/#5 slots, the Giants starting pitching will keep the Giants in a lot of games. With an average or perhaps better offense, the Giants can win a lot of games if the starting rotation can pitch like they are capable of.

Q6: Randy Winn Good or Randy Winn Bad

Randy Winn can be a key part of the offensive equation. He is, right now, an odd puzzle piece of the lineup where you don't know where to put him. Leadoff is taken by Roberts and Vizquel owns #2. Bonds just took #3, which is one that I thought would have been good to have Winn at, which means Durham is #4. You obviously don't bat Winn 5th, so that leaves #6, 7, and 8, and right now Bochy seems to want to bat him 8th. And if he hit like he did in 2006, particularly the second half, that's exactly where he should be hitting.

However, I believe his second half of 2006 was as flukey as his 2005 with us, when he suddenly became Barry Bonds for a month. As I noted in another post, if you look at his 2005-2006 stats together, they look like any other season he has had for most of his career, once he became a starter. Look at the splits 1st half vs. 2nd half: .275/.345/.440/.785 with 8 HR in 298 AB vs. .247/.289/.349/.638 with 3 HR in 275 AB. The first half is vintage Winn, the second, a horrible mess. So I think he will return to have a regular Winn type of season, about what he did in the first half of 2006, only over a full season.

And that will be critical to the lineup because then there will not be any sucking hole in the lineup with a sub-700 OPS starter. Last year, Finley, Winn, Alfonso (after first month), Feliz (all of the second half of the season), and the 1B, were batting somewhere in the 600's OPS, just killing the offense. This season, however, we got Roberts, Vizquel, Bonds, Durham, Aurilia/Klesko, Molina, Feliz, and Winn, there should not be one bat under 700 in the bunch, though Vizquel might be right there at 700 all season. And Linden and Frandsen appear ready to hit above that when they come in and spot-start.

As much as people say that Durham won't hit like that again, he has consistently been an above 800 hitter for a long while now - I think 2006 balances his 2005 - and as long as he hits around 820-850 OPS, he will be fine. Roberts could be affected by AT&T but he's never been much of a HR hitter, so I think his hitting there will be fine, despite being a LHH. Vizquel should be at least 700, and with Bonds now hitting behind him, that could help him out and get him more good pitches to hit. Bonds will be Bonds. I think Klesko will force his way into a platoon in the lineup and that Bochy will be playing Aurilia all around the infield (though that will take starts away from Frandsen), particularly at 3B if Feliz falters again. Feliz will play as long as he hits - and a 790-ish OPS is nothing to sneeze at - but with Aurilia and Frandsen around, he's going to sit if he isn't hitting that, so the offense will still be OK if he messes up. Molina has been a consistent 700's range OPS so I don't think he'll be a problem.

So that leaves us with Winn. As I noted, he really stunk in the second half. But that is one half out of many seasons of good play, where he had a high 700, 800-ish OPS most seasons. If the second half of 2006 is the real Winn, then the lineup could be in trouble, because while Linden might be a good replacement for Winn, he's also backing up CF plus LF sometimes, if Klesko plays 1B and Aurilia or Feliz is sitting. He can only play one position at a time. Thus it is a key factor if Winn can return to his former form, else the dominos start falling.

Particularly coming out of the 8th spot, he could be acting as the Giants bottom of the lineup lead-off hitter, getting on base and starting a rally in front of the top of the lineup. He gets on base, get to 2B via steal or pitcher sacrifice, then Roberts, Vizquel, and Bonds get a shot at driving him in. In addition, if his bat returns, he will be driving in runs as well from that position, for when the guys ahead of him are getting into scoring position. Most teams have a crappy hitter in 8th, if he hits like he is capable, .750-.800 range, then the Giants would have one of the best 8th place hitters around.

Giants in 2007

I normally publish a huge evaluation of the Giants lineup and pitching each season but I'm just too far behind in my work to do so this year. But I've done a lot of the basic work involved with that, so I've been writing to those facts in my posts, including this one.

The lineup, while not Murderer's Row, they are potentially OK to good (.750-.800 OPS) up and down the lineup. Plus there will not be many weak spots vs. RHP or LHP because platooning will put our best hitters in against the starting pitcher, unlike previous years when there were players who should have been platooned. The lineup will be as balanced as it has ever been and I think they can score just enough runs to support our starting rotation, scoring in the 4.5 runs, perhaps more, range. That's plenty if the starting rotation is as good as I think it could be, conservatively.

Meanwhile, the starting rotation could potentially be filled with #2 starter type of performances, high 3, low 4, and if they can do that, the Giants will not only have a winning record but could win the division. I think the Dodgers, despite their big signings, went backwards getting Pierre for the top of their lineup. He's going to kill rallies with his mega-low OBP (low relative to other top of lineup hitters). The Padres are betting on improved performances to maintain what they had last season, but have a rookie manager, who will make rookie mistakes sometimes, no matter how prepared he thinks he is. The D-backs are relying on too many youngsters, they would all basically have to do well for them to win. And Colorado I will worry about when they give me something to worry about.

Even if the rotation don't do that well, I think Cain and Zito will be able to do in aggregate as well as or better than most #1/#2 pairings. Then with Lowry, Morris, and Ortiz, I do not think that it is too much of a stretch to think that getting #2, #3, #4 type performances from the group of them is likely, and that would still keep the Giants competitive all season, even with our offense, even with our bullpen.

Our bullpen is a big area of worry, but, as much as I hate Benitez and think that he is not that good a person, the main thing is that when he is healthy and on, he's dominating, and he has been dominating all spring. Unfortunately, some players we were expecting more out of has not been delivering, but I think that the Giants have enough bodies in the minors that they can rotate relievers in and out for the first few months of the season and not seriously damage their chances of winning games, particularly with Bochy wanting to go to Benitez for more than one inning and Molina getting Benitez to concentrate on just getting guys out quickly and keeping his pitch count down (which he hopefully is working with Cain, Zito, and Ortiz on, as well).

Also, the setup men seem to be OK. Kline will be quietly good and Chulk I liked, his stats in Toronto were good, but I think the manager there just don't know what he is doing, so the main problem will be in middle relief. But you normally bring them in when the game is sort of out of hand anyway, so the odds of winning is usually slim at that point anyhow. And while some people say that our rotation is not innings eaters, I think all of them are capable of pitching 200 IP, which is 1000 IP out of 1400 or so IP. That basically leaves the 8th and 9th to pitch, normally, so for the close games, you bring out the big guns, but if the Giants have a good lead, you bring in the question marks and see if they can get out of the inning, allowing you to save your best relievers. If not, then you bring in the calvary to save the day, particularly with Benitez pitching more than 1 inning occassionally.

Thus, overall, I think the Giants will do well all season, and stay competitive for the lead. If the starting rotation is as good as I think it could be potentially, I think the Giants have a chance to not only win the division title, but to go deep into the playoffs. How can they not if the rotation is really balanced and all pitches like #2 starters? Just like a balanced lineup means no weak spots offensively, having a balanced rotation will mean no weak spots there either, and the back end of the rotation will easily take care of other teams's #3, #4, and #5 starters regularly. The bullpen, while weak, is strong enough where it counts: closer and set-up relievers. I think that it can be a good season in 2007 as long as the question marks above is answered positively, else the scenario is that we'll have another bad year like 2005 and 2006 and Sabean's job in danger (but that's a story for another post).

Bill James Handbook 2007: Fielding Info

Just got my copy of this book. It is not even close to the old Bill James annuals but it is still certainly a good book to get every year, for the new stats and updated stats. If you like to swim in numbers, this is a good book to get. And he provides a different set of stats to look at and get some sort of perspective on the situation.

I will be revisiting certain parts of the book as the need and mood see fit, but I thought I would start with this particular subject, one, partly because the book starts there, and two, it concerns some of our position players.

Fielding

Fielding stats, as I have written before, is still in the 19th century (and I'm just quoting from another source, because I agree). This year's handbook has a couple of sections on this topic and so I thought I would share the highlights for Giants fans. The sections are written by John Dewan, who publishes the book, appropriately enough, The Fielding Bible, and presents a variety of interesting info.

Fielding Bible Awards

This is suppose to be their version of the Gold Glove awards, except that they use "experts" to rate the players and they look at the MLB, not just each league. I put experts in parens because, while I would agree that they are more expert than the sports writers who vote on the players each year, and thus this would be a more valid, assessment, some of the voters seem, to me, to be no better than baseball writers, so that negates at least partially their claim of superiority over baseball writers.

I'm only being tough because they took the stance of selecting experts and stating that as a plus over the baseball writers. However, I would agree that probably their vote, because of the selection bias and the transparency of the process, is better than the Gold Glove awards. And that's why I'm presenting some of the 2006 results here, as it pertains to the Giants (or near-Giants, as the case may be).

The voting was 10 voters, voting for the 10 best players from 1st to 10th, with points given in reverse order, 10 points for a 1st, 9 points for 2nd, down to 1 point for 10th. Thus a unanimous vote would give 100 points to the player.

1B: Unsurprisingly, no Giants in Top 10. Only Giant to show was Shea Hillenbrand, with 4 points.

2B: Unsurprisingly, Durham did not get any votes.

3B: Feliz got 44 points (winner had 78) and finished 7th in the voting.

SS: Unsurprisingly, Vizquel was second (to a surprising Adam Everett; I never knew, though now I recall how well he got Assists and Putouts in my fantasy league) by a wide margin (98 to 61, Everett was 1st in 8 of 10 voters).

LF: Unsurprisingly, Bonds did not get any votes. Dave Roberts was ranked 3rd with 62 points (Crawford first with 87), he was a clear 3rd with 4th coming in at 53. Alfonso Soriano was 6th with 39 points.

CF: Finley actually got one vote, a 10th place vote that got him 1 point. Gary Matthews was 4th with 46 points and Juan Pierre was 6th with 35 points.

RF: Randy Winn, surprisingly to most Giants fans, finished 4th with 47 points (Ichiro was first with 95 points).

C: Amazingly, Eliezer Alfonzo got 1 point. Benjie Molina got 3 points (his brother got 90 points to finish 2nd to, who else, I-Rod, who, by the way, was not an unanimous choice, though close).

P: No Giants pitcher got a vote

In summary, the only Giants, either 2006 or 2007 versions, deemed to be good defensive players, period, are Feliz, Vizquel, and Winn.

Plus/Minus Leaders

The Plus/Minus System was developed at Baseball Info Solutions, which is owned by John Dewan. A player gets a "plus" if he makes a play that at least one other player at his position missed during the season and he gets a "minus" if he misses a play that at least one player made. Each play is looked at individually, and a score is given for each play. Sum up all the plays for each player at his position and you get his total plus/minus for the season.

Getting a score near zero means the player is average. Looking at the top 10 for each position, in general +10 or above are generally good to very good, for some positions, +5 is good, for any particular season.

For 2006:

1B: Shea Hillenbrand was 10th with a +5 and was not that far from tying for 4th place which only took a +7 and Pujols got 1st with +19. So Hillenbrand is a better 1B than most give him credit for, even the experts voting for the Fielding Bible Award, for he got to 5 more balls that other 1B did not get to and ranked 10th. But that is one problem I found with this stat, it gave me no magnitude of this, 5 out of 100 is one good thing, 5 out of a 1000 is not that big a deal - I would guess it would be closer to the latter than the former. But still, it is interesting.

2B: No Durham here. Top was, amazingly, Jose Valentin with +22, and he wasn't even a regular 2B for the Mets, if memory serves. 10th was Brian Roberts with +8.

3B: Pedro Feliz was a close 2nd with +25, with Bradon Inge 1st with +27 and Adrian Beltre 3rd with +23 and Joe Crede with +22. Then a steep drop to each lower position until 10th, David Bell with +8. Again, Feliz showed his defense to be top notch again here, perhaps he's as good as the Giants have made him out to be in comments to the press, though, again, not so good to make up for his lack of offense.

SS: Surprisingly, no Vizquel here. He of dazzling plays did not get to balls that other SS did not get to often enough to rank here. Adam Everett was the leader by far with +43, with Clint Barmes 2nd with +27, then falling to Rafael Furcal and David Eckstein with +7 in a tie for 9th.

LF: Again, no Bonds, but Dave Roberts was 1st with +16. Of course, he'll be playing CF for the Giants, but I think this shows that he is still a pretty good defensively OF, though obviously CF is much harder than LF.

CF: No Giants here, Corey Patterson was far and away the leader with +34, just ahead of Andruw Jones with +30 and Juan Pierre with +25. What I'm amazed by is that infielders, I would think, get a lot more balls to field than OF, but then Patterson was the highest for any position except for Everett.

RF: Randy Winn was 1st here with +22, where 10th place had +5. And that is despite only playing 89 games in RF in 2006.

For 2004-2006, I'm just covering Giants (the old joke about the easier to count):

3B: Pedro Feliz ranked 3rd despite not playing 3B for the most part during those 3 years, maybe 1.5 seasons worth, and yet he had a +54, tied for 3rd with David Bell, behind Adrian Beltre and Scott Rolen. Eric Chavez is considered to be a very good fielder (I think he has a gold glove already) and only had a +33.

LF: Moises Alou was 9th with a +4.

Range Factor

Lastly, a more common defensive stat has been Range Factor, which measures how many balls the player handles per 9 inning game. Obviously, if you have a strikeout and/or flyball staff, that would reduce the range for your infielders and if you are a groundball pitcher, then your OF would suffer. But still an interesting piece of the puzzle towards trying to understand how good defensively a player is, as there are no definitive stats out yet.

2B: Durham was 20th of 29 regulars. Frandsen at his rate would have been last, but only 19 starts.

3B: Feliz was 10th of 30 regulars. Unsurprisingly, Hillenbrand would have been last but had only 22 starts at third.

SS: Vizquel was 23rd of 30 regulars. Aurilia would have been 6th but only 25 starts, Frandsen 20th but only 2 starts.

LF: Bonds was 13th of 28 regulars. Roberts was 4th and Linden would have been 3rd but only 7 starts and 40 games.

CF: Only Finley qualified as a regular. Roberts would have been 2nd but had only 13 starts and Winn would have been 4th, but only had 57 starts.

RF: Winn was 1st of 27 regulars. Linden would have been 26th but only had 4 starts.

Giant Thoughts

From these data points, clearly, Feliz and Winn are much better defensive players than people have given them credit for. They are not only good, but can be around the best at their positions in the majors. But is that good enough to make up for their offense, or lack thereof?

Pedro Feliz

Feliz, even at his best (which was an OPS of .790 in the 2003-2004 season), would still rank in the lowest third of the NL in OPS for 3B in 2006. Is his defense that much better to make up for that? Maybe, but probably not. But he is clearly a superior fielding 3B, creating about 25 more outs per season than the average 3B over the past 2 seasons or so.

If he can hit 790 OPS and field like that, taking out 25 outs from his AB would result in an OPS in the 820 range, which would put him in the middle of the pack in the NL. Don't know if it makes sense to do that to his hitting, as I am not sure if an out hitting is the equivalent of an out fielding, but I thought it would be interesting to see what happens. If they are equivalent, he would not be that bad a 3B for the money if he can hit 790 OPS and field at such a high rate.

The problem is that he has been batting in the low 700 OPS the two last seasons where he played pretty much full time. Perhaps Bochy will be able to rest him more often than Felipe because he will have Aurilia as a relatively equivalent replacement at 3B, with Sweeney taking over at 1B for Aurilia, or even giving Frandsen a shot at 3B every once in a while when it is a lefty starting pitcher. Feliz was actually a pretty decent 3B the first half of the 2006 season, hitting .274/.306/.486/.792 pre-All Star with 15 HR in 350 AB, or 23 AB/HR.

But the key is whether he can keep it up for a whole season and that is why most fans, me included, were not happy about his re-signing. He says that he is working on an off-season conditioning program to help with his stamina while also working on his batting selectivity. I will believe it when I see it, he had his big chance in 2006 to start at 3B undisturbed, and he flubbed it up offensively.

I think he just lucked out, the Giants had no choice but to take him back for 2007, because even with Aurilia on board to start at 3B, then who do we start at 1B, SweeNiekro again? We saw how that worked last season, when Sabean was forced to trade for Hillenbrand. So the Giants had to re-sign Feliz, they had too many holes to fill and could not take the risk that they could not obtain a better hitting 1B, like a Sexson or Burrell, so they compromised and got Feliz.

If they bat him 8th, though, he would actually be a plus hitter because most 8th place hitters cannot hit in the .700 range or above. Even if he hits like he did in 2005-2006, he would still be a top hitter in the 8th position. In addition, he would still be average if he hit in the 7th position. And Bochy has made it clear in interviews that Feliz will be hitting in the bottom of the order, at least to start with.

Side thought: Hillenbrand is still unsigned and I can see the Giants signing him for less than Sean Casey money when all is said and done, just before Spring Training, basically "prove that I'm worth more" salary that Kenny Lofton and Reggie Sanders had to do a few seasons back with the Pirates. While he is not a huge upgrade over Aurilia, I do consider him an upgrade, and if the Giants can get him cheap enough, that would strengthen the club.

Randy Winn

Winn I have been thinking that people have been giving short shrift to and the fielding stats seem to support my position even further. He is a lifetime .765 OPS hitter and a .785 hitter since he became a regular in 2002 and if you just look at his stats without 2006, .802 OPS, so I don't think that 2006 is a representative year for him. He actually hit OK at AT&T in 2006, .285/.347/.424/.770, but it was the road that killed him: .237/.300/.367/.667. In particular, it was the NL West that was hard on him, he couldn't hit in Colorado, LA or San Diego. He also had problems in D.C. and Oakland.

An .802 OPS puts Winn right in the middle of the pack for RF, and .765 to .785 would put him just slightly behind. So whereas Feliz would need to bat at his high OPS for his career for his superior defense to be adequate, Winn just needs to hit about where he hit before for his career to be adequate overall, considering offense and defense.

And that seems fairly likely. It was not like he was hitting poorly all season long. He hit very decently from April to June, with above .800 OPS in two of the three months. Even at the All-Star Break, he was still hitting .270/.343/.427/.770.

But then something happened, drastically, and he only hit .249/.296/.349/.645 for the rest of the season, and he was particularly affected in July and August, with OPS of .599 and .637, respectively, before recovering some in September with a .703 OPS. Historically, for his career, even with the poor 2006, he gets better in the second half - .744 OPS pre-All Star and .790 OPS post-All Star - so his second half decline was clearly caused by something unusual, like perhaps that knee injury he suffered in May, maybe he reinjured it mid-year and it screwed up his hitting and power.

Furthermore, he ranked first in the majors in RF for Plus/Minus despite playing only 89 games there and was first in Range Factor. Perhaps he will be that much ahead of the pack in 2007 playing more of the season there instead of just 89 games there. Roberts will probably be platooned in CF so Winn will probably get the starts vs. LHP in CF and start around 120-130 games in RF. So he could be a premium defensive RF while providing OK offense, and that seems like a pretty good trade off to me.

Other Players

Don't have a lot of time, but someone else I thought I should point out is Dave Roberts. Unlike some people's opinion, he appears to be a good defensive OF, whether LF or CF, from the data above. Offensively, he has hit .285/.358/.409/.767 since playing in pitcher's park Petco and that marks the improvement in his batting line since leaving the D-gers and joining Boston, as his OPS has been in the high 700's since leaving the D-gers. Playing in Petco greatly affected him in 2005 but not so much in 2006 - apparently the park dimension changes helped out lefty homers greatly, though that didn't work for Roberts, as he only got 1 HR in 2006 vs. 5 in 2005. There was a slight increase in the lefty batting average, but only 2% increase.

If he can continue to hit .285/.358/.409/.767, that would have placed him 6th in 2006. In addition, the OPS of .358 would put him at 3rd. So leadoff looks to continue to be a strength with Roberts at the top of the order and his speed and accuracy - he didn't get caught much last season - will jazz up the top of the lineup in a way that hasn't really been seen since Brett Butler used to stir things up for us. That plus his defense makes him a good acquisition for the Giants, if old, though technically younger than Finley, who got the most games in CF last season for the Giants.