As reported on all the Giants news outlets, Dave Roberts was let go. Chris Haft had a nice blog post on Roberts's intangibles, which I still believe is valuable (though not $6.5M valuable, but that is a sunk cost already) and hopefully he'll come join the Giants as a coach, particularly baserunning instructor for the minors, in the future. Just look at what he has done with Randy Winn in the two years he's been here (Winn credited him recently), horrible SB%, and in two years he has the best SB% in his career, at the elite level. Everything looks amicable between Roberts and the Giants, just disappointing, so I'm hoping he does return to the organization as a coach eventually.
I think the writing was on the wall, though, the moment I saw the media note that Roberts was having knee problems. Injuries have basically knocked Roberts out of the Giants plans at the start of the past two seasons. He's been as advertised when healthy, but he hasn't been healthy, unfortunately for significant periods of his time with the Giants.
The Giants also recently floated the thought that they might go with 11 pitchers instead of 12, before Roberts was let go. If both are followed through with, that opens up two spots on the bench and takes away one bullpen spot.
Bullpen and Bench Swap
It is curious that they suddenly said they might go with 11 pitchers instead of 12. Of course, once the team needs 12 pitchers again, that guy who earned his way onto the starting day roster will probably be dropped back down to AAA at that point. In any case, this implies that one of the position prospects is opening their eyes more than expected.
Obviously, Velez is doing that right now, pushing out Roberts. And perhaps the talk about 11 was originally about keeping Velez until they learned more about Robert's knee and that came to the fore as a reason to get a spot. So that bears watching.
Bullpen Watch
But assuming they are sincere and separate about both statements, that makes the bullpen a bigger situation to watch. With only 6 relievers, and 3, probably 4 (Taschner), spots already spoken for (it would have been 5 if Romo was healthy and producing, I believe), that leaves two spots for Romo, Hinshaw, Sadler, Matos, Miller, Medders, Valdez, Perdomo to pursue, with Yabu and Pichardo (who could stand a year in AAA anyway) the first to miss the chair when the music stopped, which makes sense as that's a lot of competition for very few spots, one less with the move to 11 (assuming it sticks now). And Valdez only today threw his first inning, who knows how his health will turn out.
Odd thing to me is that Perdomo has been doing pretty well so far, so I would think the Giants would want to keep more relievers than less, in order to keep him. Though really, Hinshaw, Matos, and Sadler probably could use a year in AAA in 2009. Miller I saw as an upgrade on Yabu, so maybe start the season with Miller and Perdomo on the roster, both Romo and Valdez on DL or rehab, and the rest in AAA.
Then as Miller and/or Perdomo show what they can do for the Giants in the majors, Romo and Valdez, when ready, can either come up if Miller or Perdomo are failing, or Romo could still go to AAA to cool his heels (Romo could use some time there also) and Valdez would have to be waived, so I would think that if Valdez is healthy and all the relievers are doing OK, they would move to a 12 man pitching staff at that point.
In any case, Perdomo has done very well up to now, so he looks to make the roster if he can continue to do well. And if Valdez is doing well, and can stay healthy, he would also earn a spot as well, he is out of options. That could push Romo to AAA, even if he's healthy and doing well. He'll get the "Schierholtz" speech of the past two years: you should be up here but with the roster we have, you have to be in AAA. Miller looks like he's not going to make the roster unless somebody is injured or recovering from an injury, and once they are back, he'll be in AAA.
Bench Watch
The other big question then is the bench, which moves from 5 to 6. Holm, Aurilia, Uribe, Schierholtz have been pretty set and now Roberts is out, making it two spots open now instead of just the one for Roberts spot. Velez looks like he's headed for a utility role on the bench, and would probably be the first go-to guy for 2B, with Uribe covering SS, and Uribe and Aurilia covering the corner infield. Schierholtz looks to soak up most available OF starts and substitutions, with Velez as backup as really necessary. So who is opening eyes?
The position player's name that has been popping up in recent games that I've been noticing is Jesus Guzman, the former A's (and others) prospect who we signed away from the A's during the off-season. He set some records in the Venezuelan Winter League (both he and Sandoval bashed there this winter) or simply compiled big numbers there, as the case may be. He's a power hitter and plays both 1B and 3B, and he's powered out a couple of homers already. If he continues to hit well, the Giants might just decide to bring him up for at least a while and platoon with Ishikawa and Sandoval, grabbing starts at 1B and 3B, before they need to bring up the 12th pitcher.
Another name that I've seen mentioned has been John Bowker. Sabean noted him as a possibility in the outfield. But based on spring training stats, he hasn't done much of anything to warrant opening a spot for him right now. Plus, he's another left-handed power bat off the bench, which duplicates Schierholtz, who is going to get most of the ABs anyhow, and there is Ishikawa, Aurilia, Uribe, and Sandoval who can play 1B. So I believe it is him who has piqued the Giants interest.
In addition, while I haven't seen either of their names in the news, their batting lines suggest both are looking to take hold of 2B: Burriss and Frandsen. Burriss is hitting .476/.500/.571/1.071 with no strikeouts in 21 AB (but also no walks and only 2 extra-base hits, doubles, in 10 hits) and Frandsen is hitting .412/.500/.647/1.147 with no strikeouts in 17 AB (and only one walk, but with a double and HR out of 7 hits).
As nicely as Burriss is hitting, it also illustrates the reasons why the Giants would want him to go to AAA this season and work on things. First and foremost, his lack of power. I suppose Lansford's suggestions have not made it into his head yet. 20% XBH% and 95 ISO is not what you want to see, you want to see at least 30% if not 35% XBH% and ISO at least 150. Small samples, but Frandsen is showing why he should win the 2B position, 29% XBH and 235 ISO (not going to keep it that high, but illustrates his power potential differential over Burriss).
Still, if Burriss continues to hit this well, just not the way the Giants want, the Giants would probably feel like they need to start the season with him on the opening day roster on the bench, to reward his nice spring, then send him back down once they need the 12th pitcher in the bullpen.
Friday, March 06, 2009
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Manny Being Manny: Good Riddance
A reader commented on another post that he's glad the Manny dance is over, that it was such a distraction, particularly since we weren't even close to signing him.
Well, I wasn't distracted, it was misguided fans who were getting impatient with the rebuilding process who were in love with getting Manny, particularly one fiery on-air sportstalk personality.
Hello, the Giants Are Rebuilding
People need to get it in their heads: the Giants are rebuilding. Rebuilding teams often (and usually) lose a lot, most have at least 4-6 losing years, if not more. Spending $20+M on a player for 2 years don't make much sense when you are rebuilding, particularly for a 37 year old player, particularly since he might not be motivated and carries an attitude to boot, particularly since we are not that close to contending and going for winning the World Series.
Heck, all the arguments people have been giving about the Giants and losing (worse streak in SF, 1974-1977, 4 year skid, plus 1983-1985 and 1994-1996 3 year skids; franchise worse was 4 year skid 1899-1902 plus the SF 4 year period), are probably similar to what Braves fans were saying about GM Bobby Cox after the Brave's 4th year of losing. He didn't even have his Cy Young award yet (though they came soon enough afterward in Glavine and Smoltz) nor did he draft Chipper Jones yet. In fact, he lost (and horribly so, not like what the Giants have been doing, they were epic losing, worse in the majors type of losing, like the Rays recently) for another two years, for a total of 6 whole seasons.
Had they chose to listen to the fans and stop rebuilding after their fourth losing season and/or fire Bobby Cox, and just acquire a bunch of free agents in hopes of returning to competitiveness quickly, they would NOT have had their long stretch of success on the field because Chipper Jones would have been drafted by some other team (he was the #1 pick overall that year, which was the pick they earned for their putrid 5th year of losing), and a major cog of their long success would not have been around.
He has been a major offensive weapon for them. He had the team's best OPS in 8 of the past 13 years, when they went 909-709 during that period, and winning 10 division titles in that period, and the NL twice. Since he joined the Braves, they have won their division 12 times in those 16 seasons, the NL three times, and the World Series. You cannot understate his importance to the Braves offense during those years.
Are You With the Program?
So fans have to decide: do you like how the Giants are developing? If you do, let them do what they feel they need to do to keep developing the team. And if you don't, then what do you have against Lincecum, Cain, Sanchez, Lowry, Wilson, Romo, Hinshaw, Sadler, Matos, Bumgarner, Alderson, Sosa, Martinez, Pucetas, Barnes, Quirate, English, Pichardo, Casilla, Lewis, Sandoval, Ishikawa, Frandsen, Velez, Burriss, Schierholtz, Bowker, Posey, Villalona, Rodriguez, Noonan, Gillaspie, Kieschnick, Crawford, Guzman, Adrianza, Tanner, Joaquin, Schoop, Fairley, McBryde, Neal, Downs, Downs, Culberson, etc.
Use any analogy you want, where you need to exercise patience or risk ruining things: souffle, cooking in general, raising a child, detailing a car, developing a photograph, getting yourself ready for a marathon, marching downfield for a touchdown...
And that is good one, perhaps, Bill Walsh showed how effective a team can be in scoring by patiently moving downfield and moving the chains every 10-15 yards. Getting a Manny is equivalent of a Hail Mary pass, it could work out spectacularly but you can also ruin a good scoring chance by taking such a risk.
Why risk jeopardizing the rebulding effort? We have a really nice thing going right now, why risk that by spending gobs of money on an aging slugger, with a horrible body type (not like Bonds at all), with horrible LF defense (people critized Bonds' defense, but even in his last season, his UZR/150 was -14.7; from 2005 to 2007, Manny's UZR/150 was -15.5, -24.8, and -27.1, until he inexplicable (other than motivation) improved to a -3.0), and with a horrible attitude and varying motivation? At least with Bonds, you never had to doubt his motivations, he was there to win.
Not Worth the Money: Last Gasp Manny
And, according to Fangraphs, Manny's monetary value in wins for the past 7 seasons was under the $22.5M he will average for this contract if it goes the two years for every season except for 2008, when he went crazy for the D-gers for three months. To put his 2008 season into perspective, his career BABIP is .339 and his BABIP for 2005-2007 was around .320, but he bumped up his BABIP in 2008 to .370. The last time he had a BABIP that high was in 2002 when he only played in 120 games, 518 PA, when it was .373.
His 2008 BABIP was approximately the BABIP he had from 1997 to 2002, when he was 25-30 years old. It is highly unlikely that at 37 he suddenly figured out how to hit so much better consistently. Even Bonds couldn't do it, he had one peak year in BABIP, about 30 above his career BABIP in 2002, in his late 30's, but otherwise it was about average or at the end of his Giants career, much worse. So the Manny the D-gers just bid all in on is unlikely to be the Manny they saw in 2008, but more like the Manny of 2004-2007: still a very good hitter, still one of the best in the majors, but not the offensive dynamo they caught in a bottle late in the 2008 season, and not worth the money he's being paid, at least according to Fangraph's calculations.
Giants Probably Won't Have a Losing Record in 2009 Anyway
I wonder how symbolic or prophetic the headline I saw, the day he signed, was: "Dodgers lose to Giants on day Manny signs." Most projections have the Giants scoring a lot more runs than last season, and they were not outrageous projections regarding what the young unproven players might do in 2009, they were reasonable given their success in the minors and briefly in the majors. Same for the starting pitchers.
And that should give us approximately a .500 record for 2009. If we get some upside from Lewis or Sandoval or Sanchez, or return to past performance from Rowand or Renteria or Howry, we should have a winning record. Be happy with progress, be happy with development, this is preparing us for a golden age from 2010 to perhaps 2020, if players work out the way they project out to be and we are able to keep them long-term.
NL West NOT LA's Yet
They can't win just on offense, and they lost a major cog in their pitching from 2008 in Lowe. They haven't replaced a 3.24 ERA, 211 IP, 34 start pitcher with any of their pickups yet. Randy Wolf, Jeff Weaver, Jason Schmidt? Please, talk about throwing Jell-O at the wall. And to expect that good of a year out of Stultz, Kershaw, or McDonald is to be a fanboy having a nice fantasy. Only Kershaw is capable of that, but at only 21, it is not likely that he's going to duplicate Lowe's performance in 2009, perhaps in the future. Plus both Stultz and McDonald are middle rotation guys. And their bullpen after Broxton and Kuo is nothing to be scared of, unless you are a LA D-ger lead.
Plus Manny won't be repeating his 2008 performance, as I noted above. They actually had a losing record his first month, 13-16, before they had their nice run in September, going 17-8, to finish 30-24 with Manny. That's like a 90 win season.
However, it wasn't all him leading to that record. Even with Lowe's great ERA, the team was only 19-15 with him starting, but he turned it on in the last two months and greatly helped out, it was not all Manny, with a 2.27 ERA, 6-2 record, which could have been easily 8-2 with some better support offensively. So he was also significantly responsible for the D-ger's success during those two months, as the team was +4 in the win column in his decisions during that period and was +6 overall.
Another way to look at it is to compare each of their contributions in terms of wins. According to Fangraphs, Lowe contributed 5 wins to 2008, so Manny will roughly cover that with his addition, basically Manny 2009 is equal to Lowe and Manny 2008 in LA. And the D-gers, was .500 when they acquired Manny, meaning if Manny replaces Lowe's production then they end up with the same 84-78 record, assuming the rest is the same.
Any way you look at it, the loss of Lowe is a huge blow to the D-ger's efforts, because he's unreplaced by anyone, plus Manny will be a notch or two below what he did for LA in 2008. This should push them into the low-to-mid 80's win area.
That's a recipe for roughly .500, particularly since they have many young unproven players in their lineup. You don't know exactly what they are going to produce, particularly Loney and Kemp (though Ethier looks like a breakout; imagine the A's couldn't use him now?), who both look like 2007 is the fluke, and not growth from 2006.
So the D-gers are a middling team, in a division of middling teams. Injuries and unexpected good performances will be the determinants of who win in the NL Worst in 2009. And the Giants should be right in the mix of things this season.
Well, I wasn't distracted, it was misguided fans who were getting impatient with the rebuilding process who were in love with getting Manny, particularly one fiery on-air sportstalk personality.
Hello, the Giants Are Rebuilding
People need to get it in their heads: the Giants are rebuilding. Rebuilding teams often (and usually) lose a lot, most have at least 4-6 losing years, if not more. Spending $20+M on a player for 2 years don't make much sense when you are rebuilding, particularly for a 37 year old player, particularly since he might not be motivated and carries an attitude to boot, particularly since we are not that close to contending and going for winning the World Series.
Heck, all the arguments people have been giving about the Giants and losing (worse streak in SF, 1974-1977, 4 year skid, plus 1983-1985 and 1994-1996 3 year skids; franchise worse was 4 year skid 1899-1902 plus the SF 4 year period), are probably similar to what Braves fans were saying about GM Bobby Cox after the Brave's 4th year of losing. He didn't even have his Cy Young award yet (though they came soon enough afterward in Glavine and Smoltz) nor did he draft Chipper Jones yet. In fact, he lost (and horribly so, not like what the Giants have been doing, they were epic losing, worse in the majors type of losing, like the Rays recently) for another two years, for a total of 6 whole seasons.
Had they chose to listen to the fans and stop rebuilding after their fourth losing season and/or fire Bobby Cox, and just acquire a bunch of free agents in hopes of returning to competitiveness quickly, they would NOT have had their long stretch of success on the field because Chipper Jones would have been drafted by some other team (he was the #1 pick overall that year, which was the pick they earned for their putrid 5th year of losing), and a major cog of their long success would not have been around.
He has been a major offensive weapon for them. He had the team's best OPS in 8 of the past 13 years, when they went 909-709 during that period, and winning 10 division titles in that period, and the NL twice. Since he joined the Braves, they have won their division 12 times in those 16 seasons, the NL three times, and the World Series. You cannot understate his importance to the Braves offense during those years.
Are You With the Program?
So fans have to decide: do you like how the Giants are developing? If you do, let them do what they feel they need to do to keep developing the team. And if you don't, then what do you have against Lincecum, Cain, Sanchez, Lowry, Wilson, Romo, Hinshaw, Sadler, Matos, Bumgarner, Alderson, Sosa, Martinez, Pucetas, Barnes, Quirate, English, Pichardo, Casilla, Lewis, Sandoval, Ishikawa, Frandsen, Velez, Burriss, Schierholtz, Bowker, Posey, Villalona, Rodriguez, Noonan, Gillaspie, Kieschnick, Crawford, Guzman, Adrianza, Tanner, Joaquin, Schoop, Fairley, McBryde, Neal, Downs, Downs, Culberson, etc.
Use any analogy you want, where you need to exercise patience or risk ruining things: souffle, cooking in general, raising a child, detailing a car, developing a photograph, getting yourself ready for a marathon, marching downfield for a touchdown...
And that is good one, perhaps, Bill Walsh showed how effective a team can be in scoring by patiently moving downfield and moving the chains every 10-15 yards. Getting a Manny is equivalent of a Hail Mary pass, it could work out spectacularly but you can also ruin a good scoring chance by taking such a risk.
Why risk jeopardizing the rebulding effort? We have a really nice thing going right now, why risk that by spending gobs of money on an aging slugger, with a horrible body type (not like Bonds at all), with horrible LF defense (people critized Bonds' defense, but even in his last season, his UZR/150 was -14.7; from 2005 to 2007, Manny's UZR/150 was -15.5, -24.8, and -27.1, until he inexplicable (other than motivation) improved to a -3.0), and with a horrible attitude and varying motivation? At least with Bonds, you never had to doubt his motivations, he was there to win.
Not Worth the Money: Last Gasp Manny
And, according to Fangraphs, Manny's monetary value in wins for the past 7 seasons was under the $22.5M he will average for this contract if it goes the two years for every season except for 2008, when he went crazy for the D-gers for three months. To put his 2008 season into perspective, his career BABIP is .339 and his BABIP for 2005-2007 was around .320, but he bumped up his BABIP in 2008 to .370. The last time he had a BABIP that high was in 2002 when he only played in 120 games, 518 PA, when it was .373.
His 2008 BABIP was approximately the BABIP he had from 1997 to 2002, when he was 25-30 years old. It is highly unlikely that at 37 he suddenly figured out how to hit so much better consistently. Even Bonds couldn't do it, he had one peak year in BABIP, about 30 above his career BABIP in 2002, in his late 30's, but otherwise it was about average or at the end of his Giants career, much worse. So the Manny the D-gers just bid all in on is unlikely to be the Manny they saw in 2008, but more like the Manny of 2004-2007: still a very good hitter, still one of the best in the majors, but not the offensive dynamo they caught in a bottle late in the 2008 season, and not worth the money he's being paid, at least according to Fangraph's calculations.
Giants Probably Won't Have a Losing Record in 2009 Anyway
I wonder how symbolic or prophetic the headline I saw, the day he signed, was: "Dodgers lose to Giants on day Manny signs." Most projections have the Giants scoring a lot more runs than last season, and they were not outrageous projections regarding what the young unproven players might do in 2009, they were reasonable given their success in the minors and briefly in the majors. Same for the starting pitchers.
And that should give us approximately a .500 record for 2009. If we get some upside from Lewis or Sandoval or Sanchez, or return to past performance from Rowand or Renteria or Howry, we should have a winning record. Be happy with progress, be happy with development, this is preparing us for a golden age from 2010 to perhaps 2020, if players work out the way they project out to be and we are able to keep them long-term.
NL West NOT LA's Yet
They can't win just on offense, and they lost a major cog in their pitching from 2008 in Lowe. They haven't replaced a 3.24 ERA, 211 IP, 34 start pitcher with any of their pickups yet. Randy Wolf, Jeff Weaver, Jason Schmidt? Please, talk about throwing Jell-O at the wall. And to expect that good of a year out of Stultz, Kershaw, or McDonald is to be a fanboy having a nice fantasy. Only Kershaw is capable of that, but at only 21, it is not likely that he's going to duplicate Lowe's performance in 2009, perhaps in the future. Plus both Stultz and McDonald are middle rotation guys. And their bullpen after Broxton and Kuo is nothing to be scared of, unless you are a LA D-ger lead.
Plus Manny won't be repeating his 2008 performance, as I noted above. They actually had a losing record his first month, 13-16, before they had their nice run in September, going 17-8, to finish 30-24 with Manny. That's like a 90 win season.
However, it wasn't all him leading to that record. Even with Lowe's great ERA, the team was only 19-15 with him starting, but he turned it on in the last two months and greatly helped out, it was not all Manny, with a 2.27 ERA, 6-2 record, which could have been easily 8-2 with some better support offensively. So he was also significantly responsible for the D-ger's success during those two months, as the team was +4 in the win column in his decisions during that period and was +6 overall.
Another way to look at it is to compare each of their contributions in terms of wins. According to Fangraphs, Lowe contributed 5 wins to 2008, so Manny will roughly cover that with his addition, basically Manny 2009 is equal to Lowe and Manny 2008 in LA. And the D-gers, was .500 when they acquired Manny, meaning if Manny replaces Lowe's production then they end up with the same 84-78 record, assuming the rest is the same.
Any way you look at it, the loss of Lowe is a huge blow to the D-ger's efforts, because he's unreplaced by anyone, plus Manny will be a notch or two below what he did for LA in 2008. This should push them into the low-to-mid 80's win area.
That's a recipe for roughly .500, particularly since they have many young unproven players in their lineup. You don't know exactly what they are going to produce, particularly Loney and Kemp (though Ethier looks like a breakout; imagine the A's couldn't use him now?), who both look like 2007 is the fluke, and not growth from 2006.
So the D-gers are a middling team, in a division of middling teams. Injuries and unexpected good performances will be the determinants of who win in the NL Worst in 2009. And the Giants should be right in the mix of things this season.
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Giants Hitting Manual
Credit Andy Baggarly's quick pen for quickly scribbling down the 16 (!) chapter titles for the Giants hitting manual and posting on his blog (some of his blog readers actually thought he could get a copy of it for them...). Here are the chapters:
Giants Thoughts
I am also glad that they have a chapter on pitchers as hitters. As I demonstrated in a post a while back (and which was confirmed to a degree by a later study by Baseball Prospectus, which I covered here), if a pitcher can improve his hitting to be as good as a poor major league position player (in my example I used Vizquel's projection of .671 OPS), he can get himself 1-2 extra wins per season just by that act. A 12-12 .500 pitcher is suddenly a 13-11 or 14-10 pitcher. And over roughly 10 seasons, he goes from having a 120-120 record to having a 130-110 or 140-100 record.
As I noted then, it is probably not possible to improve all pitchers to be as good as one of the worse position hitters, but if they can at least close up some of the gap between pitchers in general and the worse hitters, that can add 5-10 wins to a team's record annually, with no improvement in the overall lineup, no improvement in pitching, no improvement in defense. Just improving the pitcher's hitting could do that for a team.
Just that alone could bring the Giants to .500 over the 2008 team.
The Giants by also adding Randy Johnson (improvement on #5 starter from 6+ ERA to low 4 ERA), Renteria (2008 SS only hit .228/.295/.281/.576; he could hit 200 OPS above that), and improving a bullpen that gave up many wins in 2008, plus any improvement in the pitchers' hitting should easily reach .500 in 2009. And that does not include any improvement by Sanchez, Zito, Rowand, Sandoval (over Castillo mainly), Ishikawa (over Bowker mainly), Frandsen/Burriss (over 2B in 2008), and having Schierholtz on the bench when he probably could be a starter.
I also like that Lansford made the point that it irks him that a coach might tell him to do something without showing the prospect how to do that, exactly. That gets at Chapter 15, the responsibilities of the hitting coach, as it is easy to say what you want but to get the prospect to understand what you are trying to teach them, you have to be able to show that to the prospect as well.
Most of all, I like that they have a hitting manual that will guide instruction and learning across the whole organization. I think that will pay off dividends in the future. I've read about how teams, that had Ted Williams as their manager, improved greatly in their hitting from one year to the next, with mostly the same crew of talent they had the year before. It was all Teddyball teaching them the art and science of hitting. This manual could do the same for our organization eventually.
- Accelerated development
- Development of the patiently aggressive hitting approach
- The mental game
- Vison plan
- Situational hitting
- Two-strike approach
- Batting practice routines
- Mechanics
- Bunting
- Maintenance program
- Pitchers as hitters
- Use of video systems
- Terminology
- Drills
- Responsibilities of the hitting coach
- Count knowledge
Andy asked Carney Lansford, the Giants hitting coach, what "Accelerated Development" meant:
He defined it as teaching kids to be major league hitters from the time they’re in rookie ball, not just teaching them what they need to be successful against pitchers at their current level.
“When they get here, they need to know what to expect,” Lansford said. “As a player, it was my pet peeve when a coach would tell me to do something without showing me how. `Hey, we need you to hit behind the runner.’ OK, great. Any coach can say that. Why don’t you show me how to do it?
There was also a prior article on the manual that led to this blog post. Here are some interesting bits from that, which I'm quoting because the Mercury cuts off articles after a while:
This book won't be a best seller. It's not available from Amazon.com. It won't turn baseball on its ear.
But the Giants believe it will help them break an embarrassing drought.
The book begins thusly: "The San Francisco Giants hitting program is designed to provide the means for each hitter within the organization to realize his potential and to develop into a productive, knowledgeable, professional hitter as quickly as possible."
"Professional" is underlined.
The Giants crafted a hitting manual over the winter — a document to spell out their expectations for coaches, detail their core theories and make sure knowledge is spread consistently and evenly like black earth on a farm field.
It has 16 chapters, with titles such as "The Mental Game" and "Batting Practice Routines" and "Count Knowledge" and "Development of the Patiently Aggressive Hitting Approach."...
"Before you can develop hitters, you've got to have them," Sabean said. "It's tough to polish up somebody with skills who has a marginal bat."
...
"This is part of the 'Giants Way' you're hearing about," Manager Bruce Bochy said. "Most organizations have a manual, but with the changes on the staff the last couple years, it was time to do another one. It's not so much a specific way to hit as much as making sure we're all doing things the same way from top to bottom; that we're teaching the same things, using the same terminology and using the same drills on every level.
"It's OK for a coach to have different ideas. We just want to make sure we aren't confusing the player."
Hitting coach Carney Lansford, who returns for his second season, led the effort to craft the manual, in concert with organizational hitting coordinator Bob Mariano. The Giants hired two former big leaguers to coach at their top two minor league affiliates: Hensley Meulens at Triple-A Fresno, and Garey Ingram at Double-A Connecticut.
"Some of the biggest things we can do are the simplest," Lansford said. "When one of your hitters gets moved, make a phone call." Lansford pointed to the Los Angeles Angels and Colorado Rockies as clubs with especially strong coordination in their
player-development systems.
"If you wait till they get to the big leagues, it's too late," Lansford said. "We've got guys in the major leagues who don't know how to hit the ball to right field."
...
You won't find any "Moneyball" excerpts in Lansford's manual, though. He believes strongly in a patiently aggressive approach. And so does his general manager.
"We like pitches per plate appearance and on-base percentage and all that, but you've got to learn how to hit first," Sabean said. "We don't want to teach kids how to walk. If you don't have the basic aggressiveness to swing the bat or be able to hit a fastball, you're not going to be prepared when you get something to hit. And that's really true at any level."
Giants Thoughts
That is a pretty comprehensive manual on hitting. Baggarly noted that there wasn't a chapter on walking, but I think that would be covered in Chapter 2. To me, being patient is the essence of a hitter who tries to draw walks.
Teddy Ball
Furthermore, being patiently aggressive is how I would describe Ted Williams approach to hitting, as described in his book "Science of Hitting". Hits are what a team needs more, as you can drive in runs as well as score runs, and Williams taught that the batting average you can derive will vary with each zone you swing at pitches. In a certain part of the strike zone, if you get a pitch there, you can hope to hit .400 or better there; in other parts, you drop to the low 200's. By being picky about which pitches you swing at, you improve the location of the pitches/strikes thrown at you. And you be aggressive is in swinging for the fences, as the home run is obviously the best hit to get.
Other ChaptersI am also glad that they have a chapter on pitchers as hitters. As I demonstrated in a post a while back (and which was confirmed to a degree by a later study by Baseball Prospectus, which I covered here), if a pitcher can improve his hitting to be as good as a poor major league position player (in my example I used Vizquel's projection of .671 OPS), he can get himself 1-2 extra wins per season just by that act. A 12-12 .500 pitcher is suddenly a 13-11 or 14-10 pitcher. And over roughly 10 seasons, he goes from having a 120-120 record to having a 130-110 or 140-100 record.
As I noted then, it is probably not possible to improve all pitchers to be as good as one of the worse position hitters, but if they can at least close up some of the gap between pitchers in general and the worse hitters, that can add 5-10 wins to a team's record annually, with no improvement in the overall lineup, no improvement in pitching, no improvement in defense. Just improving the pitcher's hitting could do that for a team.
Just that alone could bring the Giants to .500 over the 2008 team.
The Giants by also adding Randy Johnson (improvement on #5 starter from 6+ ERA to low 4 ERA), Renteria (2008 SS only hit .228/.295/.281/.576; he could hit 200 OPS above that), and improving a bullpen that gave up many wins in 2008, plus any improvement in the pitchers' hitting should easily reach .500 in 2009. And that does not include any improvement by Sanchez, Zito, Rowand, Sandoval (over Castillo mainly), Ishikawa (over Bowker mainly), Frandsen/Burriss (over 2B in 2008), and having Schierholtz on the bench when he probably could be a starter.
I also like that Lansford made the point that it irks him that a coach might tell him to do something without showing the prospect how to do that, exactly. That gets at Chapter 15, the responsibilities of the hitting coach, as it is easy to say what you want but to get the prospect to understand what you are trying to teach them, you have to be able to show that to the prospect as well.
Most of all, I like that they have a hitting manual that will guide instruction and learning across the whole organization. I think that will pay off dividends in the future. I've read about how teams, that had Ted Williams as their manager, improved greatly in their hitting from one year to the next, with mostly the same crew of talent they had the year before. It was all Teddyball teaching them the art and science of hitting. This manual could do the same for our organization eventually.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)