Thursday, April 28, 2005

10-11*

In some ways, last night's win felt like "watching" (quotation marks because I live on the East Coast now, and don't get to actually watch the games very often) a team that's already been mathematically eliminated win a pointless game in September. Why the sudden pessimism?

Nen Redux.


An MRI revealed that Armando Benitez will miss four months with a torn hamstring, trainer Stan Conte said.

Stan Conte had said that he was 99.9% sure that Benitez' injury wasn't a "Garciaparra situation". Well, as it turns out that 0.1% came up for the Giants. Four months means we might get him back for September. Call me a doomsayer (I've been called worse), but I don't think it's going to matter much by September.

So what really to say about this? It would be unfair and completely inaccurate to say "I told you so" about Benitez, since I didn't genuinely dislike the signing, all things considered and because this isn't a recurring injury.

That being said, we don't have to go back too far to get back to one of my baseline notions about roster construction - DON'T SPEND SO MUCH *&#*$&ing money on a $*!damn CLOSER!

I mean come on. One Robb Nen wasn't enough to learn the lesson? Benitez is going to make $21M off the Giants one way or another over the next three years. $4.7M of that is due this year. For that $4.7M worth of 2005 dollars, in all likelihood, the Giants will have received:

8 appearances, 1-1, 9.1 IP, 5.79 ERA, 1.61 WHIP, 4 K, 4 BB, 4 SV

Doesn't seem like a very good investment to me.

Honestly, as I read over the above, I'm just a little angry, and I have to admit it. $4.7M is a pretty decent deal for Benitez' average season, which looks something like:

2.75 ERA / 1.29 WHIP / 80 Ks in about 75 innings

If the Giants had received that in 2005, Benitez would have been a good signing, at least as regards this year, which appears to be the only calculus the Giants' front office knows. But is it so much to hope that an organization that drafts NOTHING but pitchers can't develop a closer every few years? Looking back at the Giants' closers, how far back do we have to go to find one that was actually developed in-house?

2005: Benitez - free agent (and God only knows who else)
2004: Herges - trade; Hermanson - Non-roster invite to camp; Eyre - trade
2003: Worrell - trade
2002: Nen - trade
2001: Nen
2000: Nen
1999: Nen
1998: Nen
1997: Beck - so here we find it, and I suppose 8 years ago isn't *so* long ago (considering that if we ran this exercise for a number of positions around the diamond we'd have to go a LOT further back).

Rod Beck was drafted by the Giants and came up in 1991 as a 23-year-old (one of my favorite strangenesses of the baseball world is that Rod Beck is currently only 36. I'd have sworn he was 36 in 1993) and closed for the Giants starting midseason in 1992 and held the job until the end of 1997. Looking over his 1997 line, I'm not entirely sure why the organization decided to get rid of him (this is a sidelight, but I need something to distract me from the current season). Beck's 1997 line was:

73 appearances, 70 IP; 67 H; 53 K; 8 BB; 37/45 saves; 3.47 ERA; 1.07 WHIP

I'm guessing it was the 8 blown saves that did it. It's too bad, when you look at it with 2005 eyes, because this was a pitcher who had a 7 to 1 K/BB ratio and a WHIP just north of 1.00. He just happened to be brought into a lot of one-run games.

If there's more to this story, I invite my more seasoned Giants fans to comment on it. There's certainly no question that as good as Back was in 1997, Nen was better in 1998 (when he put up a 1.52 ERA with 110 Ks in 88.2 innings), but it strikes me as curious.

The amusing thing about the Benitez situation is the absolute feeding frenzy that took place in my fantasy league as people try to get what save opportunities the Giants will deliver. Here is a list of the Giants pitchers picked up in the wake of Benitez' injury:

Matt Herges
Jeff Fassero
Jim Brower
Merkin Valdez
David Aardsma

Note that Jesse Foppert is already on a roster despite playing in AAA.

So as far as I can tell, essentially every reliever on the Giants' roster has been picked up other than Scott Eyre, Jason Christianson, Tyler Walker and the recently activated Al Levine, including THREE GUYS IN THE MINORS.

Think this is a team currently sailing in choppy waters?

Wednesday, April 27, 2005

9-11 (no, not that one)

The Giants are 9-11 (in case anyone thought this was going to be the oft-threatened but never executed inclusion of politics into this space, fear not) and April is nearly over. They've scored 97 runs (5th in the NL behind LA, Chicago, the Mets and, of course, Colorado) and have allowed 105 runs (13th in the NL - only Philadelphia and, of course, Colorado are worse). It's sort of strange outcome given the conventional wisdom about [annoying phone company name of the week] park.

It's also strange in that what I had wanted for this team was to play .500 until Barry Bonds came back, because really to hope for more was quite foolish. But looking at the way this team is winning and losing, I have to wonder how much it will really help. Obviously it will make the team better, but this is a team that is scoring enough runs to compete, particularly if you factor in park effects, but can't pitch to save its life.

It's worth looking a little bit at how this is happening, even if it'll be relatively obvious.

The runs are being scored because of Pedro Feliz (.819 OPS), Edgardo Alfonzo (1.047 OPS), Omar Vizquel (.379 OBP, 7 for 7 in steal attempts) and terrific part-time performances from Yorvit Torrealba (1.064 OPS in 10 ABs), Jason Ellison (1.028 OPS in 22 ABs), Lance Niekro (.528 SLG in 36 ABs) and JT Snow (.441 OBP in 52 ABs).

So the scary part is 50% those numbers above - this is a team that is hitting well above its head and is still under .500. Really only Ray Durham (.596 OPS) and Moises Alou (.542 OPS) look very likely to significantly improve, while all the guys above look likely to decline. I'd probably include Grissom in the "likely to improve" category, but at 38 and with his history of helpelessness against right-handers, I'm not entirely sure. He's still hitting lefties well, although not crushing them, but it's a mere 14 ABs at this point, so nothing can be drawn from this. In his 58 ABs against right-handers he's hit like a pitcher, with an OPS of .565.

On top of all of this, Bonds' rehab is going slowly and Armando Benitez just hurt his hamstring. On April 27, 2004 the Giants were 8-13. They wound up winning 91 games. So of course it's too early to give up on this team. But I see very little I like right now.

Thursday, April 14, 2005

"Westworld" is embarassing

The Giants aren't creating a lot of excitement right now. I was looking over their site and saw a new feature called "Westworld", which is a "a weekly foray into the wild, weird and wonderful workings of the West divisions of the American and National Leagues, where so many interesting things often happen after all the major news organizations in this country have gone to sleep." Alright, so the opening column of this west-focused feature compares the organizational styles of the Oakland A's, known as "Moneyball" (duh) to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (is there anyone not annoyed by this, btw?), known as "Mikeyball". First things first, is there a reason it's not called "Stoneyball" after GM Bill Stoneman? He's the guy who built the team, isn't he?

Right off the bat, I know I'm going to love this. The sidebar near the author's name has a picture of Vladimir Guerrero pointing skyward, indicating his acknowledgement that yes, Jesus wanted the Angels to win that game. The caption reads, "Vladimir Guerrero fits perfectly in Mike Scioscia's game plan -- a great situational hitter and aggressive baserunner". Really? Vlad fits into Scioscia's gamplan? Amazing, because he's such a poor fit for most gameplans. Good job, Mikey?

Come on. To say that Vlad is a great situational hitter and an aggressive baserunner is like saying that a Porsche 911 Turbo has a 6-disc CD changer and connolly leather seats. It's true, but it's not why you buy such a vehicle. To the unsophisticated (which not having even read the article I'm starting to think is the case with its author), the Moneyball approach is about walks and home runs rather than sacrifice bunts and stolen bases.

So which is Mr. Mikeyball Vlad? Well, over the three-year period between 2002 and 2004 he stole 64 bases and was caught 28 times (a 70% success rate, which is pretty decent and indicates a "break-even" effort, at least according to the very anti-Mikeyball stats-minded). That being said, he stole 40 of those 64 in 2002 as an Expo. He stole 15 last year. It's an average of 21 per year. How about home runs? 103 over the last three years, 39 last year. Walks? Vlad has a reputation for being a hacker, and it was true ... until 2000 when he boosted his walk rate. Barry Bonds he isn't, but Vlad has averaged about 70 walks a year over the last four years.

All of which tells is what we already knew - Vlad is neither a "moneyball" or a "mikeyball" player. The guy is just a superstar. Alright, moving on.

Here's a choice bit:

"We want to stay aggressive and play 'little ball,' but only as long as we have the team to do it," Scioscia adds. "I just don't think you can cookie-cutter any team into a philosophy."

We'll soon see how the cookie crumbles in the AL West.

Ok, I don't mean to be difficult, but after lauding the Angels' defeat of the A's in the final series of the regular season last year, how can this comment be credibly made? For one thing, wasn't the 2004 Angels team built around Vladimir Guerrero, Troy Glaus, Garrett Anderson and Tim Salmon? Aside from the ridiculous decision to play Darin Erstad at first base, this was a power team last year. This year, with Glaus gone and Salmon out with injuries we'll see what happens when the Angels actually play little ball, rather than just claiming they're playing little ball while holding a roster full of sluggers.

This is particularly irksome to me in that the 2002 Angels, who of course beat my beloved Giants in the World Series, were lauded as the Great Littleball Team that could. Strangely, though, I remember it being Scott Spiezio's HOME RUN that put the Angels back in. It wasn't David Eckstein hitting an infield single and then skittering around the basepaths three times. It was the good old Earl Weaver-style 3-run jack that got them back in. Furthermore, the Series MVP was Troy Glaus, who hit what, seven home runs during the Series? The Angels might have been all about the sac bunt but it was pure power that got them their rings. That the conventional wisdom was so inaccurate just added lemon juice to my wounds.

The rest of the article is relatively benign, but the other bit I think is just criminally omitted if you're going to compare the A's to the Angels:

A's 2005 payroll: $55.8M (btw, when did THAT happen?), 21st in MLB
Angels 2005 payroll: $95M, 5th in MLB (after the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets and ... Phillies?)

Just for reference, splitting the difference:
Giants 2005 payroll: $89.5M, 7th in MLB

Anyway, if you insist on comparing the Angels to the A's, might at least *mention* the economic disparity. One easy thought experiment on how to equalize these teams would be this: If you moved Vladimir Guerrero's $12.5M from the Angels to the A's you'd be looking at $68.3M (A's) versus $77M (Angels). I don't think too many would argue that the A's with Vlad would have a lot of trouble taking on the Angels without him. Well, some would, and I'd be forced to write about it.

Wednesday, April 13, 2005

The Bullpen and Plan B

Tim wrote in a comment to yesterday's blog entry:

I think the fact that it is so hard to believe, looking back, that we'd have landed Morneau, Crosby, etc. is both a testament to your baseball knowledge and to the "fantastical" nature of the entire concept.

I'd like to know what you think of this year's bullpen (an entity conspicuously missing from the "Plan B" story). I made it very clear during the first week of the season that the bullpen woes did NOT bother me, and it was because of the ineffectiveness of Spring Training for relief pitchers. If anyone else is interested, I'll explain that concept, but I'm interested in Eric's analysis (pre-season perspective, even) of the 2005 San Francisco Giants Bullpen.
While at the same time accepting Tim's compliment about the quality of the Plan B team I put together last April, I would like to divert some of this praise by saying this: The idea of a Plan B-style rebuilding isn't as difficult as it seems. It's not *that* difficult to identify the guys likely to be successful once players are in the high minors (assuming you believe the once-"fantastical" notion that minor-league performance data predicts with some accuracy the major-league potential of a player) and note that the Plan B acquisitions were almost all position players rather than pitchers. The pitching staff was composed primarily of existing Giants farmhands (Williams, Foppert, Cain, Valdez) with a handful of new guys (Blanton, Nieve, Honel) brought in to ensure that we actually got a few good ones. Pitchers are MUCH more difficult to project and injuries make them a far dicier proposition.

No, I don't think you need to be a genius to trade a team with guys like Bonds and Schmidt into a great young team. What you need, -ahem-, is balls (apologies to the likely non-existant female readers of this blog). It takes cojones to trade away Jason Schmidt, at this point a proven commodity and an extremely valuable one, to get Jeremy Reed. Do I think Reed is going to have a couple of .325 / .410 / .475 seasons with 30 steals at a good success rate while playing plus defense? Yes, I absolutely do. But I don't *know* that. I do know that Schmidt is one of the best starting pitchers in baseball. So there's a big risk in trading away proven commodities to get prospects who might become future all-stars but could just as likely turn into Ruben Rivera or Esteban German.

As well worth it to note that the Giants have some extraordinarily attractive trade pieces in Bonds and Schmidt and, to a lesser extent, Durham. I was able to put together the Plan B team with real blue chip prospects because the veterans being dealt were so good.

So yeah, I'll say it. Like Billy Beane. Beane was criticized by those who don't know as much as they think they do for trading away two of the "big three" for younger guys. In trading away Tim Hudson and Mark Mulder for Dan Haren, Dan Meyer, Juan Cruz, Kiko Calero and Daric Barton, Beane is essentially putting in place his own Plan B team (the part I don't understand is why he hasn't traded for Ryan Howard and done something about the Scott Hatteberg situation). Hudson and (to a lesser extent) Mulder are known quantities. Those guys he got aren't. But they're good and they're cheap. And they will allow Beane to build his team with the knowledge that he has inexpensive skilled players. But you have to admit, Beane has balls to trade Mark Mulder for Dan Haren. No matter how smart you think it is, it's a pretty gutsy move regardless.

So yeah, thanks for the kind words about Plan B. I think it would have made being a Giants fan very interesting and fun to watch a team full of great young position players the for the next 5 or 6 years. Hopefully when it comes time to rebuild, there's still some value on the Giants roster to trade for the generation. Certainly Mike Tucker and Jeff Fassero aren't going to do it.

As far as the bullpen goes - the original Plan B posts explicitly omitted the bullpen, partially because it turns over so quickly that I didn't feel it worthwhile to try and figure out who is still there by 2006 and partially because, honestly, I don't think it's that hard to build a decent one. 2004 notwithstanding, this is something Brian Sabean has always done well, although his fascination with Jason Christianson appalls me.

The current pen will, I think, be fine. Benitez will be good, although not as good as he was for Florida last year. The rest of the guys will be ok, particularly after Foppert is brought up to be the long man. I haven't watched him this year, but I think Herges might be done. He's been solidly average to above average most of the last few years, but last year and so far this year he's been scary bad. If he's really done he needs to be let go quickly. I have little use for Eyre, but he's acceptable. Not sure why we have Fassero. Brower is a solid righty, and if/when Foppert joins the pen it'll give the Giants plenty of right-handed depth. Ideally, I'd like to see Matt Cain break in as a reliever midseason after 10-15 starts in Fresno. Assuming he's dominating hitters there as I suspect he's capable, I think a half-season (at least) of the Johan Santana treatment will do him well.

Note to all that I've added some guest bloggers to the site, so you might see their stuff as well from time to time. Let me know what you think of it.

Tuesday, April 12, 2005

Looking back on Plan B

Last April I posted a long plan to dismantle the 2004 Giants team and rebuild to contend in 2006. My theory was that the current team built around Bonds and Schmidt wasn't good enough to go all the way, and that we'd all be better off trading the few (very) shiny baubles the Giants had on the roster for a boatload of prospects that would form the next great Giants teams. Some thought my notions of the Giants' players trade values were a little inflated, but most of the disagreements were on the margin.

As it turns out, I was both right and wrong. I was right in the Giants, built to win in the present, missed the playoffs. I was wrong in that they just barely missed it. Fantastic second-half surges from Brett Tomko and JT Snow kept the Giants in the thick of it until the bullpen imploded against (who else?) Steve Finley and the Dodgers.

I'll be honest, I don't think last year, looked at as a whole, really deserved Plan B, but it was an idea that I thought about a lot, so now, near the outset of 2005, I want to look back at the "Plan B Team" to see what they're all doing and how we'd be looking as a franchise if we'd put that in place, rather than watch the Tuckermohr's almost make the playoffs last year.

Note for those that might actually be checking: Comments on the Giants early-season exploits will be forthcoming. If last year proves anything it's that you can't rely too much on April.

Going around the diamond, I'll check in with the Plan B team one by one, along with how I had the Giants acquiring each player:

Catcher: Yorvit Torrealba (already on the team)

Yorvit is still on the Giants, but Sabean signed Mike Matheny to a 3-year deal that relegates Yorvit to a perennial backup role. I still believe he'd be at least an average starting catcher in the NL, possibly better.

1B: Justin Morneau (acquired from the Twins for Ray Durham)

For those who will immediately exclaim that Minnesota would never trade Morneau for Durham, remember that at the time of this post Morneau was languishing in the minors. He's currently the starting first baseman for the Twins after a very good (.271 / .340 / .536) 280 post-callup ABs. The consensus is that Morneau is going to be a very good, possibly great slugging first baseman for many years to come. He's currently 24.

2B: Bobby Hill (acquired from the PPirates for Pedro Feliz)

I think I might have blown this one. I had a strong sense that Hill was a late-bloomer, and that his on-base skills would make him at least a Todd Walker for relatively little coin. He did his best David Eckstein hitting impression with the Pirates last year (.266 / .353 / .339) over 233 ABs as a backup to Jose Castillo. He was 0 for 3 in steal attempts. All that being said, his OBP was still .353, and that's nothing to scoff at. A lot of leadoff guys are worse than that. A guy like that, particularly if he developed just a smidge of power, is valuable.

SS: Bobby Crosby (acquired from Oakland for Barry Bonds & Neifi Perez)

I had the Giants getting the A's crown jewels for Bonds (Swisher and Blanton along with Crosby) and I still maintain that Beane would have done it. Crosby was last years ROY in the AL (in real life, of course, he was still with the A's - in the NL he'd likely have lost out to Jason Bay just like Khalil Greene did) and looks to be an above-average starting shortstop going forward.

3B: Morgan Ensberg (acquired from Houston for Edgardo Alfonzo and Jason Christianson)

Ensberg had a terrible 2004 and lost a ton of playing time to Mike Lamb (for those who don't think Houston would have traded him, note that he lost playing time to MIKE LAMB). He's off to a great start this year and I still think that had he been allowed to settle in and play full time he'd have had no trouble (cheaply) hitting .270 / .350 / .475, which is quite adequate. Ensberg wouldn't have been a long-term solution at third base (he's 28) but he'd have manned the position nicely while the Giants developed someone else (like Eric Duncan, who I had the Giants picking up from the Yankees for Felix Rodriguez. Amusingly, FeRod is now on the Yankees).

LF: Todd Linden (current Giants player)

Likelihood is this rare selection from the Giants' own system would have been inadequate. Linden struggled badly in 2004 at Fresno and probably wouldn't be ready this year. A Michael Tucker or someone like him would be required to see if Linden is ever going to build on his big 2002 at AA.

CF: Jeremy Reed (acquired from the White Sox for Jason Schmidt)

I love this guy. And he could most certainly have been had in the deal I envisioned, since he was ultimately dealt to Seattle for the far lesser Freddy Garcia. Reed was called up last year, hit .400 over a few ABs and is now Seattle's #2 hitter.

RF: Nick Swisher (acquired from the A's for Barry Bonds & Neifi Perez)

Swisher is many peoples' pick for this year's AL rookie of the year. He does a little of everything and is going to be quite good, even if he does receive undue scrutiny because of his Moneyball fame. Sure Beane would have hated to give him up, but he could just look at that ring on his finger every time he thought about it (and yes, I think the As with Bonds could have beaten the Red Sox in the ALCS).

Starting Pitchers:

Jerome Williams (already on the team)

Jerome isn't genuinely ready to be a #1 starting pitcher, but remember that the 2005 Plan B Giants weren't really supposed to contend. By the time certain others on the staff develop, he'd settle in as the #3 starter he probably is.

Jesse Foppert (already on the team)

Foppert will probably need 2005 to develop after having Tommy John surgery, but the low-pressure of a non-contending Giants team would have given him the ideal conditions under which he could log 150 innings and get his groove back. And remember, the Plan B team is a 2006 team. I'd allowed for the possibility of some Hermanson-style stopgaps to eat innings in 2005.

Merkin Valdez (already in system)

Valdez had a tough 2004, but like Foppert I still think he's a year of development away from being really good. See above comments on how to use 2005.

Matt Cain (already in system)

Same deal. Cain needs at least 4 months in AAA, but by 2006 he's going to be a ROY candidate if he stays healthy. This guy is awesome.

Kris Honel (acquired from the White Sox for Jason Schmidt)

Honel was/is is a good prospect, but he missed most of 2004 with elbow problems. Hey, building a pitching staff out of young guys is frought with peril.

So anyway, looking at the 2006 "Plan B" Giants, I think you're looking at at least three potential all-stars on offense (Morneau, Crosby, Reed) and at least two potential ace starters (from among Foppert, Valdez, Cain). Not bad considering that the 2006 plan B team was not designed to be real, it was designed to be the team the Giants would put on the field if it spent essentially no money on payroll. It was anticipated that they'd use all this cheap talent to free up the funds to sign a couple of really big players after 2005 or midseason in 2006.

At any rate, instead we have the exact opposite of the Plan B team - we have the aged roster of the 2005 Giants. Will they be good enough to make it, even with Barry Bonds missing at least a month or two? Give me at least until May to decide.