you folks are grumpy
bris4096
I just finished my first run through with this newsgroup, and hoo boy,
little optimism here. You think that a Royals/Tigers AAA lineup is
going
to contend now? I'll admit, the kids have a future, but for the love of
God, quit making cases for them on how they performed in A in '93, and
how Aurilia had that All-Star season in the eighth grade. A majority of
you folks were the ones swearing at the top of your lungs when we let
Matt Nokes slip through our fingers. For those of you who ask "what
optimism has Sabean given us?", you have to admit that it is a different
team from last year's. The impression I get is that you would feel
better with no moves made, and that you'd be more excited with last
year's lineup at the end of the season, hoping they'd improve. Please.
Gregg Pearlman
bris4096 wrote:
>
> I just finished my first run through with this newsgroup, and hoo boy,
> little optimism here.
But plenty of realism. Or is that bad?
> You think that a Royals/Tigers AAA lineup is
> going
> to contend now? I'll admit, the kids have a future, but for the love of
> God, quit making cases for them on how they performed in A in '93, and
> how Aurilia had that All-Star season in the eighth grade.
All together now: Past performance is the best predictor of future
performance.
> A majority of
> you folks were the ones swearing at the top of your lungs when we let
> Matt Nokes slip through our fingers.
Got any names by way of support for this statement? In other words, name
one of us who was swearing at the top of his or her lungs when Matt
Nokes departed.
> For those of you who ask "what
> optimism has Sabean given us?", you have to admit that it is a different
> team from last year's.
And being murdered is different from not being murdered, but it's not
something you get optimistic about.
> The impression I get is that you would feel
> better with no moves made, and that you'd be more excited with last
> year's lineup at the end of the season, hoping they'd improve. Please.
Well, you're warm. In a nutshell, most of us would be way happier with
Williams and, say, McCarty/Wilson than Lewis and Snow. And we'd be
right.
Gregg
Robert Ward
I'm curious:
Will the Giants win more games than they did last season? And if they do,
doesn't that mean that Sabean's moves have been positive ones?
I will miss Matt too, but as the Forty-Niners have proven over the years,
it's often better to trade a player too soon rather than too late.
Bob
--
********************************************
"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities,
In the expert's mind, there are few."
---Shunryu Suzuki Roshi
********************************************
Robert Ward
Associate Principal Horn
San Francisco Symphony
http://www.slip.net/~rnward
Mail-Order Snide
Robert Ward wrote:
>
> I'm curious:
>
> Will the Giants win more games than they did last season? And if they do,
> doesn't that mean that Sabean's moves have been positive ones?
I suspect, barring a pitching staff miracle, that they will be pretty
close.
No, it DOES NOT mean that the move are positive, because if he had made
NO moves,
there is no guarentee that they will win the same number of games.
> I will miss Matt too, but as the Forty-Niners have proven over the years,
> it's often better to trade a player too soon rather than too late.
1) It's not the Matt trade, it's the *Snow* trade that's REALLY bad.
2) It's not that TRADING Matty was bad, it was trading him for
Tavarez, Roa, Kent, and Vizcaino that was bad.
Actually, I consider the pitchers a plus, but Kent, while an OK player
is 29 and not cheap. Viz is WAY overpriced for a replacement level SS.
--
Void Where Prohibited * Laden With Cosmic Significance
Ayatollah of the Three True Outcomes, etc.
Rob Deer Fan Club (RDFCect, find out what it means to me)
+===Real Email address follow -- Do not reply Directly========+
Ben Hitz* hi...@cumbnd.bioc.columbia.edu *Dept. of Biochemistry
*** http://tincan.bioc.columbia.edu/Home/ben.home/ ***
Robert Ward
In article <332938...@leland.stanford.edu>, Gregg Pearlman
<gre...@leland.stanford.edu> wrote:
>Well, you're warm. In a nutshell, most of us would be way happier with
>Williams and, say, McCarty/Wilson than Lewis and Snow. And we'd be
>right.
That's only taking into account some of the trades and signings that have
been made, so I don't think it's a completely relevant statement.
Mail-Order Snide
Robert Ward wrote:
> That's only taking into account some of the trades and signings that have
> been made, so I don't think it's a completely relevant statement.
Let's recap shall we:
1) Williams for Roa/Tavarez/Kent/Vizcaino.
analysis: Vizcaino is a total loser. No reason he should be paid 2.6M
or traded for to do what he does, which is provide no bat and avg.
defense
at SS. Roa/Tavarez/Kent is value. Summary: they didn't get commpletely
ripped off, but given that the salary equivalent is close, they should
have
gotten more. At least Brian Giles or something
2) Watson AND a prospect for JT Snow, worst regular 1B in 1996.
No sugar coating on this one. Definitly the worst move by ANY team
this year, and possible an all-time loser.
3) Fausto Macey for Mark Lewis. Upside: Lewis is 27, a good age
to get a role player. Down side: We have Mueller. Why pay more?
4) Daryl Hamilton: Useless. Old, slow, lousy range in center, and
doesn't
walk. A VERY marginal improvment over Bernard. Essentially, Stan
Javier
w./out the defense.
5) Doug Henry. He's an arm. Probably no better or worse than Mark
Dewey,
who was released for nada.
6) Resigned Glenallen Hill and Rick Wilkins. I don't have a great
problem with Wilkins. Hill is a league-average offense corner OF, whose
defense
is, shall we say, less than inspiring. A waste of $1.7M, but hey, it's
not my money.
7) Resigned Bonds for >11M. Good move. He's worth it. Even if they
give up, they can still ship him for prospects. Assuming they knew what
one was.
What am I forgetting?
Unknown
>I just finished my first run through with this newsgroup, and hoo boy,
>little optimism here. You think that a Royals/Tigers AAA lineup is
>going>t
we're not grumpy, we're GIANTS FANS! It's our right to be grumpy...
>team from last year's. The impression I get is that you would feel
>better with no moves made, and that you'd be more excited with last
>year's lineup at the end of the season, hoping they'd improve. Please.
I know I would...
David Pease
[deletia...]
>Got any names by way of support for this statement? In other words, name
>one of us who was swearing at the top of his or her lungs when Matt
>Nokes departed.
Well, I was.
>Well, you're warm. In a nutshell, most of us would be way happier with
>Williams and, say, McCarty/Wilson than Lewis and Snow. And we'd be
>right.
Yow. The arrogance.
You sound like a BP author, man.
Thank you for your time
dp
--
EL, DDfL & J dave pease, RDFC Armchair Analyst
Baseball Prospectus on the WWW -- Last Updated Mar. 12, 1997
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/
Erik Simpson
: Will the Giants win more games than they did last season?
Maybe.
: And if they do,
: doesn't that mean that Sabean's moves have been positive ones?
Goodness, no. The team last year was not that good to start with and then
decimated by injuries. What we Sabean-bashers contend is that the team
could have been somewhat better and vastly cheaper than last year's,
enabling the signing of an actual good player or two instead of the
retreaded dreck that Sabean brought in.
And that's a terrible standard for judging GM's anyway; the best are
building for years at any given time, often making marginal short-term
improvements at great expense for the future.
: I will miss Matt too, but as the Forty-Niners have proven over the years,
: it's often better to trade a player too soon rather than too late.
You're preaching to the choir, as they say. Believe me, we're all well
aware of the benefits of trading high-priced players in their thirties to
build a team. The problem was that, while Sabean got one desirable player
in Tavarez, Roa is a borderline prospect and Kent and Viz's biggest impact
is to add about four million dollars of needless salary.
: Robert Ward
: Associate Principal Horn
: San Francisco Symphony
Oooo, cool.
Erik
Barry Ramey
Mail-Order Snide wrote:
>
> 3) Fausto Macey for Mark Lewis. Upside: Lewis is 27, a good age
> to get a role player. Down side: We have Mueller. Why pay more?
-Actually, Macey was the prospect along with Watson to the Angels for
Snow. The Giants traded minor league first baseman Jessie Ibarra to the
Tigers for Lewis.
>
> 4) Daryl Hamilton: Useless. Old, slow, lousy range in center, and
> doesn't
> walk. A VERY marginal improvment over Bernard. Essentially, Stan
> Javier
> w./out the defense.
>- I don't think Hamilton's defense is bad. I think he has more range than
Benard and as much as Javier, plus committed 0 errors in 147 games last
year. And he's a better player than both Javier and Benard.
Albert Yang
Mail-Order Snide (d...@spammerscum.bioc.columbia.edu) wrote:
: 2) Watson AND a prospect for JT Snow, worst regular 1B in 1996.
: No sugar coating on this one. Definitly the worst move by ANY team
: this year, and possible an all-time loser.
Unless the rumors about the Mets acquiring Manny Alexander are true...
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Yang | "I'm not just a DH. I'm headed to
Internet: apy...@ucdavis.edu | the Hall of Fame." -- Ruben Sierra
http://dcn.davis.ca.us/~albert/ | (3/97)
| "I'm not an idiot." -- Brian Sabean
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregg Pearlman
David Pease wrote:
>
> In article <332938...@leland.stanford.edu>,
> Gregg Pearlman <gre...@leland.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> [deletia...]
>
> >Got any names by way of support for this statement? In other words, name
> >one of us who was swearing at the top of his or her lungs when Matt
> >Nokes departed.
>
> Well, I was.
Giants fans. I meant Giants fans, Dave.
>
> >Well, you're warm. In a nutshell, most of us would be way happier with
> >Williams and, say, McCarty/Wilson than Lewis and Snow. And we'd be
> >right.
>
> Yow. The arrogance.
Yeah, well, I try not to be....
>
> You sound like a BP author, man.
Ooh. Thank you. From what I've read in the book so far, I take that as a
compliment.
Gregg
Gregg Pearlman
Robert Ward wrote:
>
> In article <332938...@leland.stanford.edu>, Gregg Pearlman
> <gre...@leland.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> >Well, you're warm. In a nutshell, most of us would be way happier with
> >Williams and, say, McCarty/Wilson than Lewis and Snow. And we'd be
> >right.
>
> been made, so I don't think it's a completely relevant statement.
Oh, it's completely relevant. I've actively posted with this group for
well over a year, during which time I haven't routinely gone off
half-cocked or armed with less than a modicum of information. The
implication of my statement was that few of us are pleased with most of
the Giants' offseason maneuvers. Therefore, using only the starting
lineup, rotation, and short relievers as examples:
Column A Column B
McCarty/Wilson Snow
Mueller Kent
Aurilia Vizcaino
Williams Lewis
Bonds Bonds
Javier Hamilton
Hill Hill
Wilkins Wilkins
VanLandingham VanLandingham
Estes Estes
Fernandez Fernandez
Watson Gardner
Gardner Rueter
Beck Beck
Poole Tavarez
Dewey Poole
The Giants fans who post here have shown an overwhelming preference for
Column A -- and the infield is the prime reason why. (Just about the
only attractive thing about Column B is Tavarez.) There has also been a
sincere lack of excitement -- and rightly so -- for the other players
acquired in the offseason. I very much take this into account. The
information shared here has augmented my own information-gathering
processes in helping make me very aware of who's on my team.
Gregg
Gregg Pearlman
MarieC wrote:
>
> we're not grumpy, we're GIANTS FANS! It's our right to be grumpy...
Even if it's not our right, it certainly is our nature. There's not much
to *not* be grumpy about. Ditto grouchy.
> >team from last year's. The impression I get is that you would feel
> >better with no moves made, and that you'd be more excited with last
> >year's lineup at the end of the season, hoping they'd improve. Please.
>
> I know I would...
As many of us have said in reaction to most of these deals, you don't
make changes just to make changes.
Gregg
Gregg Pearlman
Barry Ramey wrote:
>
> >- I don't think Hamilton's defense is bad. I think he has more range than
> Benard and as much as Javier, plus committed 0 errors in 147 games last
> year. And he's a better player than both Javier and Benard.
I'd like to think he's probably a better player than Javier, but there's
been so much posted here about how he's essentially the *same* player as
Javier that I find it *real* difficult to get stoked about this guy.
Baseball Prospectus uses AFDA, which as near as I can tell is adjusted
"fly ball" defensive average -- fly balls caught divided by adjusted fly
ball opportunities. Here's some numbers from last year (bearing in mind
that Ken Griffey had a terrific AFDA, despite how regularly his defense
gets trashed on r.s.bb):
AFDA AFDA
Darren Lewis .631 Ray Lankford .617
Ken Griffey .624 Stan Javier .609
AL Average .579 NL Average .573
Darryl Hamilton .546 Marvin Benard .555
I'm not just blindly accepting this method, because I don't know enough
about it, but it appears to be taken almost for granted as a reliable
measure by those who know stats way better than I do, so I'm treating it
as though it *is* reliable.
For offense, here are some Davenport Translations, which I'm sure
somebody else would be glad to explain, but which I pretty much trust:
BA OBA SA
Hamilton .283 .341 .369
Javier .279 .344 .389
Benard .257 .341 .337
I realize this is only for 1996, and I sure don't own all the brains on
this stuff, but my interpretation of the numbers is that the Giants
wasted their money, and they certainly didn't go after youth.
Erik Simpson
Mail-Order Snide (d...@spammerscum.bioc.columbia.edu) wrote:
: 3) Fausto Macey for Mark Lewis. Upside: Lewis is 27, a good age
: to get a role player. Down side: We have Mueller. Why pay more?
Wrong prospect--Macey was the guy in the Snow trade. Jesse Ibarra, whom I
still think was very much worth holding onto, was the guy traded for
Lewis. Ick.
Erik
David Pease
In article <332A8E...@leland.stanford.edu>,
Gregg Pearlman <gre...@leland.stanford.edu> wrote:
[deletia...]
>I'd like to think he's probably a better player than Javier, but there's
>been so much posted here about how he's essentially the *same* player as
>Javier that I find it *real* difficult to get stoked about this guy.
As well you should. Hamilton used to be a somewhat useful player,
but injuries have really trashed his career. (Sort of like Javier,
lately...)
>Baseball Prospectus uses AFDA, which as near as I can tell is adjusted
>"fly ball" defensive average -- fly balls caught divided by adjusted fly
>ball opportunities.
Basically, yes. FWIW, DA is regarded as about the best defensive
measurement available by many folks on rsbb; due to lingering
questions about park effects, pitching staff effects, etc., it's
not the sole arbiter of defensive prowess, but it's certainly
something to look at (IMO, of course).
>Here's some numbers from last year (bearing in mind
>that Ken Griffey had a terrific AFDA, despite how regularly his defense
>gets trashed on r.s.bb):
Griffey's an interesting case. He had terrible DA's throughout the
early 1990's, was about average in 1995, and had an excellent 1996.
Looks like defensive development to me.
> AFDA AFDA
>Darren Lewis .631 Ray Lankford .617
>Ken Griffey .624 Stan Javier .609
>AL Average .579 NL Average .573
>Darryl Hamilton .546 Marvin Benard .555
>
>I'm not just blindly accepting this method, because I don't know enough
>about it, but it appears to be taken almost for granted as a reliable
>measure by those who know stats way better than I do, so I'm treating it
>as though it *is* reliable.
The most important aspect of a CF's defense is obviously his effective
range; DA makes plenty of intuitive sense as a measure of this, to me.
>For offense, here are some Davenport Translations, which I'm sure
>somebody else would be glad to explain, but which I pretty much trust:
These are adjusted numbers for last year's performances by these three
players.
Clay's EQA number is a measurement of overall offensive effectiveness.
It attempts to put everything a player can do on offense (hit for
power, avoid outs, steal bases, whatever) into one number. I'll
append it (and the projections for next year) to your data:
> BA OBA SA EQA EQA (projected for 1997)
>Hamilton .283 .341 .369 .244 .246
>Javier .279 .344 .389 .254 .257
>Benard .257 .341 .337 .233 .267
An EQA of .265 is a league-average hitter; an EQA of .300 indicates
an excellent offensive year. It uses roughly the same scale as
batting average.
>I realize this is only for 1996, and I sure don't own all the brains on
>this stuff, but my interpretation of the numbers is that the Giants
>wasted their money, and they certainly didn't go after youth.
Absolutely agreed. About everything the Giants have spent money on
this offseason has been useless.
If Hamilton is a leadoff hitter, then I'm a cleanup hitter. He's old,
he's an injury risk, and he really didn't have all that good a season
last year.
Thank you for your time
dp
--
EL, DDfL & J dave pease, RDFC Armchair Analyst
Baseball Prospectus on the WWW -- Last Updated Mar. 14, 1997
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/
Gregg Pearlman
David Pease wrote:
>
> In article <332A8E...@leland.stanford.edu>,
> Gregg Pearlman <gre...@leland.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> [deletia...]
>
> >I'd like to think he's probably a better player than Javier, but there's
> >been so much posted here about how he's essentially the *same* player as
> >Javier that I find it *real* difficult to get stoked about this guy.
>
> As well you should. Hamilton used to be a somewhat useful player,
> but injuries have really trashed his career. (Sort of like Javier,
> lately...)
And he's already popped a groin, which I think is a scary portent.
> >Baseball Prospectus uses AFDA, which as near as I can tell is adjusted
> >"fly ball" defensive average -- fly balls caught divided by adjusted fly
> >ball opportunities.
>
> Basically, yes. FWIW, DA is regarded as about the best defensive
> measurement available by many folks on rsbb; due to lingering
> questions about park effects, pitching staff effects, etc., it's
> not the sole arbiter of defensive prowess, but it's certainly
> something to look at (IMO, of course).
And I wonder how you could do such adjustments anyway. Seems way too
complicated, if possible at all.
> >Here's some numbers from last year (bearing in mind
> >that Ken Griffey had a terrific AFDA, despite how regularly his defense
> >gets trashed on r.s.bb):
>
> Griffey's an interesting case. He had terrible DA's throughout the
> early 1990's, was about average in 1995, and had an excellent 1996.
>
> Looks like defensive development to me.
Meaning that the guy should be given some credit already.
> >I'm not just blindly accepting this method, because I don't know enough
> >about it, but it appears to be taken almost for granted as a reliable
> >measure by those who know stats way better than I do, so I'm treating it
> >as though it *is* reliable.
>
> The most important aspect of a CF's defense is obviously his effective
> range; DA makes plenty of intuitive sense as a measure of this, to me.
Good enough for me, then.
> >For offense, here are some Davenport Translations, which I'm sure
> >somebody else would be glad to explain, but which I pretty much trust:
>
> These are adjusted numbers for last year's performances by these three
> players.
>
> Clay's EQA number is a measurement of overall offensive effectiveness.
That much I understand. It does require your clarification below about
.265 being the league average, though.
> It attempts to put everything a player can do on offense (hit for
> power, avoid outs, steal bases, whatever) into one number. I'll
> append it (and the projections for next year) to your data:
>
> > BA OBA SA EQA EQA (projected for 1997)
> >Hamilton .283 .341 .369 .244 .246
> >Javier .279 .344 .389 .254 .257
> >Benard .257 .341 .337 .233 .267
Useful, interesting, and strange.
> An EQA of .265 is a league-average hitter; an EQA of .300 indicates
> an excellent offensive year. It uses roughly the same scale as
> batting average.
> If Hamilton is a leadoff hitter, then I'm a cleanup hitter.
Well, maybe, but if you won't swing at those borderline pitches, Brian
Sabean doesn't want you. Plus there's that "proven major leaguer" thing.
Gregg
Tom_Austin
Robert Ward wrote:
>
> I'm curious:
>
> doesn't that mean that Sabean's moves have been positive ones?
to expand on an earlier post, here are several reason why that might not
be true:
1) even if the team wins more games than last year, there's no guarantee
that a different set of player moves, or *no* player moves, would not
have achieved more success.
2) It's possible that playing "proven veterans" instead of promising
youngsters will lead to a short-term increase in winning percentage at a
cost of hurting the club's long-term chances, by denying the young
players development time and by spending money (on the veterans) that
could have been more wisely spent elsewhere)
It is my contention, and I believe that of many regulars of this group,
that both reasons 1) and 2) apply to this year's Giants club.
Furthermore, I for one would not be surprised to see this year's team do
worse than last year's team, if the injuries and luck go against us as
severely as they did last year.
> I will miss Matt too, but as the Forty-Niners have proven over the years,
> it's often better to trade a player too soon rather than too late.
>
No argument there. What we are unhappy about is not *that* Williams was
traded (OK, we were unhappy about that, but for different reasons), but
that he was traded for such mediocre talent. Added injury to insult, as
it were.
Erik Simpson
bris4096 (bris...@tao.sosc.osshe.edu) wrote:
: I just finished my first run through with this newsgroup,
Then this is a really bad time to be snotty and tell us what to do, don't
you think? Years and years of careful analysis have gone into the
pessimism you see here; this is not a sports bar. If you want to dispute
something, by all means go ahead, but popping up for the first time and
telling us not to do certain kinds of analysis is discourteous at best.
This is a long-running conversation you're joining. We're happy to have
you, but what you just did is the equivalent of going to a party where you
don't know anyone, overhearing a debate about the relative merits of
Faulkner and Hemingway, and announcing loudly that American lit isn't
worth reading anyway.
Erik
Tom_Austin
Erik Simpson wrote:
>
> bris4096 (bris...@tao.sosc.osshe.edu) wrote:
> : I just finished my first run through with this newsgroup,
>
> This is a long-running conversation you're joining. We're happy to have
> you, but what you just did is the equivalent of going to a party where you
> don't know anyone, overhearing a debate about the relative merits of
> Faulkner and Hemingway, and announcing loudly that American lit isn't
> worth reading anyway.
>
*sniff*
well, it's *not*.
simply EVERYONE knows that nothing good has been written since the
Austrian neo-medievalists of the pre-Hapsburg period.
Unknown
Except for the stuff on EEEEEEEE!
Gregg Pearlman
Oh, you sweet thing.
Gregg