JUAN URIBE!
dle...@gmail.com
Now with him, DeRosa and Renteria in the lineup sandwiching Pablo and
Freddie Sanchez, lets get ready for the PLAYOFFS! This signing is
AWESOME and really fills the lack of power and RBI issues the Giants
have had.
A few questions...
1. Is it too late to order season tickets? A lineup of Velez, Sanchez,
DeRosa, Sandoval, Uribe, Posey, Torres and...jeez...pick an awesome
player? Renteria to add stability to the bottom of the order? Lewis in
that role? He does have raw talent and speed. Man. So many choices. I
predict sellouts all season long.
2. Can I just go ahead and get World Series tickets NOW too?? I simply
cannot wait. This lineup is awe inspiring. The 2010 San Francisco
Giants are a product I must have.
3. Who will win 20 games faster? Lincecum or Cain? I mean, with this
lineup and the added run production it'll be a battle. Call me crazy,
I say they both win 25 and Sanchez and Zito win at LEAST 15 each.
I cannot wait for baseball season. This lineup compliments this
pitching staff perfectly now.
dlew
Duwop
> YES! HE'S BACK!!
>
> 3. Who will win 20 games faster? Lincecum or Cain? I mean, with this
> lineup and the added run production it'll be a battle. Call me crazy,
> I say they both win 25 and Sanchez and Zito win at LEAST 15 each.
>
> I cannot wait for baseball season. This lineup compliments this
> pitching staff perfectly now.
>
> dlew
You do know that "sarcasm doesn't work on the internet" is real,
right?
dle...@gmail.com
Yeah....but I'm pissed and my general grousing was covered in the Mark
DeRosa thread :-/
dlew
nomisnala
This lineup will make me commute from Florida to SF, for each game!
I see lefty righty switches in bochy's gigundo head, clicking away
on his scorecard right now.
Jesse Radin
What happened to all the intelligent posters like Gregg and Greg?
Do they not post in the offseason or not at all anymore?
All I see are whiny people who don't understand baseball anymore.
Greg Lentz
<electri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 30, 11:56�am, nomisnala <ari...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 30, 2:30�pm, "DLew...@gmail.com" <dlew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 30, 10:45�am, Duwop <tut...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Dec 30, 10:14�am, "DLew...@gmail.com" <dlew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > YES! HE'S BACK!!
>>
>> > > > 3. Who will win 20 games faster? Lincecum or Cain? I mean, with this
>> > > > lineup and the added run production it'll be a battle. Call me crazy,
>> > > > I say they both win 25 and Sanchez and Zito win at LEAST 15 each.
>>
>> > > > I cannot wait for baseball season. This lineup compliments this
>> > > > pitching staff perfectly now.
>>
>> > > > dlew
>>
>> > > You do know that "sarcasm doesn't work on the internet" is real,
>> > > right?
>>
>> > Yeah....but I'm pissed and my general grousing was covered in the Mark
>> > DeRosa thread :-/
>>
>> > dlew
>>
>> This lineup will make me commute from Florida to SF, for each game!
>> I see lefty righty switches in bochy's gigundo head, clicking away
>> on his scorecard right now.
>
>What happened to all the intelligent posters like Gregg and Greg?
I'm around (a bit).
>Do they not post in the offseason or not at all anymore?
>
>All I see are whiny people who don't understand baseball anymore.
After finishing scratching my head about this latest inexplicable signing,
I'm guessing the plan is to play DeRosa at third and Sandoval at first.
Can't say I'm shocked that they came to exactly the wrong conclusion about
moving Sandoval off third and getting another couple of power hitters in
the outfield and first base instead.
Hopefully someday Sabean will be gone.
--
Greg Lentz
Jesse Radin
I'd put DeRosa in left field and sign a first baseman if there are any
left worth taking.
DeRosa is much better than Velez will ever be.
Duwop
If Ishikawa could learn to hit on the road he'd be a monster. Take a
look at his splits.
Home BA .350 OBP .400 SLG .535
Away BA .162 OBP .250 SLG .221
dle...@gmail.com
How am I not undestanding baseball, Jesse. If you have a lack of run
production and are amongst the lowest 3 teams in baseball in power,
it's pretty easy to see the Giants need a power hitter or 2. DeRosa is
successful as a puzzle piece player on teams that features 2-3 real
power threats which is why he succeeded in Chicago and somewhat in
Texas. These teams have lineups with true power hitters. The Giants do
not. I liken this to Rowand who is solid when he's not a key cog in
the lineup.
Adding DeRosa to this lineup DOES NOTHING. He's a great utility guy,
super. We don't need that. We have a glut in the OF and now with Uribe
signing, we have a glut on the IF as well.
The 2010 Giants lineup is all puzzle piece/postion players. All
journeymen or poor outlook youngsters (save Sandoval). It's an insult
to this amazing pitching staff and an insult to fans as well.
dlew
Greg Lentz
>I'd put DeRosa in left field and sign a first baseman if there are any
>left worth taking.
>
>DeRosa is much better than Velez will ever be.
I don't know about that (not that I'm a big Velez fan, but I could at
least see a path for him to be a good top of the lineup player some day),
but I can't say I'm excited about either guy getting a lot of LF work.
Just go out and get the best hitter at any position you can right now. You
got a guy who can play 3B/1B/C and a guy who can play 2B/3B/OF. You have
flexibility. Get someone who can actually hit besides Sandoval,
goddammit.
--
Greg Lentz
nomisnala
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 08:13:21 -0800 (PST), Jesse Radin
>
So the plan is lets go out and pay 6 mil a year, to a utility guy
who will play left field, and block Bowker, who could if given a
chance,
be an actual power hitter. All we are saying, is give Bowk a chance.
One more expensive middle of the road guy who will block a young
giant farm system guy whom we need to see if he can play up to
his potential. We blocked aurillia with Dunston, then we used
Aurillia as a blocker when he was past his prime. It looks to me
like Sabean is bidding against himself.
nomisnala
What happened to all the intelligent posters like Gregg and Greg?
Do they not post in the offseason or not at all anymore?
All I see are whiny people who don't understand baseball anymore.-
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
What a condescending post, to end the year!
Peter Lawrence
>
> So the plan is lets go out and pay 6 mil a year, to a utility guy
> who will play left field, and block Bowker, who could if given a
> chance, be an actual power hitter. All we are saying, is give
> Bowk a chance.
Bowker has been given multiple chances. I doubt that he'll ever be a major
league power hitter. He is Todd Linden redux.
- Peter
Jesse Radin
I just want a power hitting first baseman and now.
nomisnala
Linden was a switch hitter. He switched from good at triple a
to bad in the majors. He had a loopy swing that MLB pitchers
feasted against. Bowker, has a shorter swing. He has shorter
arms. They are very different hitters. Bowker has real power.
Linden could not show his power in the majors because all the
holes in his swing. Bowker on the other hand has much more
ability above the 4A level. Give the freakin guy a chance. Sabes
has to stop with the vengeance and Bochy has to give the kid
a chance. If he is paying DeRosa 6 mil to play left field, than he
is paying 6 mil to a guy who is blocking a potential real power
hitter. You like Uggla who hit 234 and flashed 30 dingers, but
if Bowker did that you would all say he sucked.
Grizzlie Antagonist
It's possible.
Bowker had great success in Fresno last year by becoming selective --
(74 BB's to 64 K's).
Once he got up to the majors, he started to chase bad pitches (18 K's
to 4 BB's). Some of that difference might have been due to the
difference in quality between major league and minor league pitching
-- but some of it might have been due to the pressure to make good.
Maybe he can learn selectiveness on the major league level again.
I was hoping, like everyone else, that the Giants would sign a
free-agent position player who could make a real impact. Failing
that, I was hopeful that they would give guys like Ishikawa, Bowker,
and Schierholtz a legitimate chance to make good.
Siging a marginal player like DeRosa who will make little impact and
will simply stand in the way of the younger players was exactly what I
didn't want to happen and was exactly what I feared would happen.
Duwop
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Couldn't agree more Griz. Good analysis.
Everyone does know that Uribe's not been signed yet, right?
Zee
>> I was hoping, like everyone else, that the Giants would sign a
>> free-agent position player who could make a real impact. Failing
>> that, I was hopeful that they would give guys like Ishikawa, Bowker,
>> and Schierholtz a legitimate chance to make good.
>
> Couldn't agree more Griz. Good analysis.
How many above-average players in the league needed as much time as we have
already given these guys to "make good"? Give me just a few names even. Not that
it can't still happen, but I think the chances of any of these guys actually
making good have diminished quite a bit (and continue to diminish as we speak).
With this pitching staff we need to make moves to win now. I don't want these
"youngsters" eating up at-bats anymore on the slim chance that one of them has a
breakthrough at age 27.
Grizzlie Antagonist
wrote:
Thank you, Duwop.
I'm confused about Uribe's situation. I keep hearing that he has been
signed or that he is on the verge of signing and the last I heard was
that it's contingent on whether he passes a physical tomorrow.
Uribe was a rare recent Sabean success story - an .824 OPS at a
bargain rate while playing three positions creditably -- so I am
hopeful that the Giants get him back.
Grizzlie Antagonist
Yes, but Mark DeRosa is not the one who should be eating into their
playing time.
Duwop
wrote:
Which was, after all, your point.
DeRosa isn't going to be much, if any better at all than Ishikawa, and
*if* Ishikawa can start hitting on the road? Schierlholtz and Velez
both deserve more time as they both showed flashes of big time
ability. And Bowker? I've not been impressed with his AB's, but he's
not had enough of them for me to feel comfortable writing off what
he's shown in Fresno. Problem is, it's AAA hitters league.
There just wasn't much out there this off-season.
And why don't we have a catcher (not named Whiteside) signed already?
Zee
>> How many above-average players in the league needed as much time as we have
>> already given these guys to "make good"? Give me just a few names even. Not that
>> it can't still happen, but I think the chances of any of these guys actually
>> making good have diminished quite a bit (and continue to diminish as we speak).
>> With this pitching staff we need to make moves to win now. I don't want these
>> "youngsters" eating up at-bats anymore on the slim chance that one of them has a
>> breakthrough at age 27.
>
> Yes, but Mark DeRosa is not the one who should be eating into their
> playing time.
Absolutely. In the best-case scenario we would have signed *two* someones better
than DeRosa to eat their playing time. My point was simply that I've given up on
these not-so-youngsters. They are who they are. Duwop seems to hold out much
more hope based on a series of "if"s, but I think that's a pipe dream.
No argument about the DeRosa signing itself, though.
Grizzlie Antagonist
wrote:
>On Jan 3, 11:13�am, Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 10:36:52 -0800, Zee <no_...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>> >Duwop wrote:
>>
>> >>> I was hoping, like everyone else, that the Giants would sign a
>> >>> free-agent position player who could make a real impact. �Failing
>> >>> that, I was hopeful that they would give guys like Ishikawa, Bowker,
>> >>> and Schierholtz a legitimate chance to make good.
>>
>> >> Couldn't agree more Griz. Good analysis.
>>
>> >How many above-average players in the league needed as much time as we have
>> >already given these guys to "make good"? Give me just a few names even. Not that
>> >it can't still happen, but I think the chances of any of these guys actually
>> >making good have diminished quite a bit (and continue to diminish as we speak).
>> >With this pitching staff we need to make moves to win now. I don't want these
>> >"youngsters" eating up at-bats anymore on the slim chance that one of them has a
>> >breakthrough at age 27.
>>
>> Yes, but Mark DeRosa is not the one who should be eating into their
>> playing time.- Hide quoted text -
>
>
>Which was, after all, your point.
Indeed.
>DeRosa isn't going to be much, if any better at all than Ishikawa,
Probably not, though a number of commentators seem to think that it
was a good pickup.
I don't see it, but do those guys have any special insight?
> and
>*if* Ishikawa can start hitting on the road? Schierlholtz and Velez
>both deserve more time as they both showed flashes of big time
>ability. And Bowker? I've not been impressed with his AB's, but he's
>not had enough of them for me to feel comfortable writing off what
>he's shown in Fresno. Problem is, it's AAA hitters league.
>
>There just wasn't much out there this off-season.
>
>And why don't we have a catcher (not named Whiteside) signed already?
Probaby because the Giants -- and this is something that I don't blame
them for-- misjudged the demand out there for veteran catchers.
Ivan Rodriguez got a multi-year deal, and there's talk that the Mets
are going to offer Molina a THREE-year deal, which would be
incredible.
The Giants just need someone to keep the position warm for a
half-season or so for Posey and don't need to commit to a multi-year
deal -- and yet they may have to swallow one if they want that veteran
catcher.
Greg Lentz
Yep. Most of them suck. Burriss might be OK someday. Velez will only be
worth anything if he learns to field 2B. I wouldn't leave more than one
position open for a minor league guy to fight for a job.
--
Greg Lentz
Duwop
> My point was simply that I've given up on
> these not-so-youngsters. They are who they are.
Well why didn't you say so in the first place?
> Duwop seems to hold out much
> more hope based on a series of "if"s, but I think that's a pipe dream.
"Much more", "series of ifs". You know, there are ways to disagree
without being disagreeable.
And as "much more" )hope) is being compared to "none at all". "Much"
can be a pretty small thing, can't it?
>No argument about the DeRosa signing itself, though.
Ah, good. At least one point of agreement.
nomisnala
Some of you folks see the past and can give some of our young
players the trajectory from the past as a straight line. If Mays came
up with this group, and was given 11 or so AB's and looked terrible,
his
trajectory on this team would be he will never be good. Let some of
these
kids play full time, and see what they can do. Do not block them
with
marginal players at 6 million a pop.
Zee
>> My point was simply that I've given up on
>> these not-so-youngsters. They are who they are.
>
> Well why didn't you say so in the first place?
I thought I did:
"I think the chances of any of these guys actually making good have diminished
quite a bit....I don't want these 'youngsters' eating up at-bats anymore on the
slim chance that one of them has a breakthrough year at age 27."
I think that's pretty clear. DeRosa was not mentioned once in my initial post.
>> Duwop seems to hold out much
>> more hope based on a series of "if"s, but I think that's a pipe dream.
>
> "Much more", "series of ifs". You know, there are ways to disagree
> without being disagreeable.
I'm not sure how you're interpreting my tone, but I'm simply stating what was
said in other posts. *If* Ishikawa can learn to hit on the road...*If*
Scheirholtz can learn to be more consistent...*If* Minor can learn to have the
patience in the majors that he has shown in AAA...I'm sorry if you're offended
that I disagree with you, but I wasn't trying to be antagonistic.
If you'd like to try and change my opinion, you can still provide some names of
27-year-olds with similar trajectories to these players who suddenly had
break-out years. That would give me a little more hope.
> And as "much more" )hope) is being compared to "none at all". "Much"
> can be a pretty small thing, can't it?
Hrm, if you re-read the quotes above from my first post, I think it's quite
clear that I don't think the chances are "none at all", just quite slim. But are
you saying that your hope is small or not?
Zee
> Some of you folks see the past and can give some of our young
> players the trajectory from the past as a straight line. If Mays came
> up with this group, and was given 11 or so AB's and looked terrible,
Don't be ridiculous Wayne. All of these guys have had wayyyy more than 11 ABs.
Their career performances up until this point are clearly not due to small
sample sizes. You're really trying to argue that we just have to give them more
ABs so the law of averages can catch up with them?
Let's face it -- they all need to have some kind of *actual* improvement in
order to be viable every-day players, and the chances of that happening get
smaller and smaller with each passing year. Duwop spelled out nicely what each
player needs to do. I guess it just comes down to how much hope you have that a
27-year-old can make those kinds of changes.
> Do not block them with marginal players at 6 million a pop.
It's the $6 million part that the problem. I don't mind blocking them with
marginal players so long as they are cheap, because at this point any random
marginal player has just as much chance of improving as these guys do. Heck,
even DeRosa has just as much chance of improving as these guys -- perhaps even
moreso because he's younger. I just didn't want to pay that kind of $$ to find out.
Zee
> perhaps even moreso because he's younger.
Oops, major brain freeze on that one. :-)
Ron Johnson
> Duwop wrote:
> >> I was hoping, like everyone else, that the Giants would sign a
> >> free-agent position player who could make a real impact. Failing
> >> that, I was hopeful that they would give guys like Ishikawa, Bowker,
> >> and Schierholtz a legitimate chance to make good.
>
> > Couldn't agree more Griz. Good analysis.
>
> How many above-average players in the league needed as much time as we have
> already given these guys to "make good"? Give me just a few names even.
Ken Phelps springs to mind immediately. Among the better hitters
in the league for a few years and washed out of his first 4 chances.
And then lost his job after putting up a 151 OPS+ in regular play.
Hank Sauer and Mike Easler are earlier examples (Sauer didn't become
a regular until he was 31. Easler didn't become a semi-regular until
his 7th try at 29)
Among current players, Jack Cust would be a decent example, washing
out
6 times before establishing himself in the majors.
> Not that
> it can't still happen, but I think the chances of any of these guys actually
> making good have diminished quite a bit
Well these guys were never at the level of Phelps et al. Playing them
would have been more hoping for improvement from players young
enough to have a chance. Rather than playing guys with no chance at
an upside.
And if that was the strategy I'd suggest that going after guys
with some kind of track record in the minors -- a few year back
I'd have suggested Kevin Barker -- would seem to me the way to go.
Or pick up interesting guys with specific (and correctable)
weaknesses.
Peter Lawrence
>
> Or pick up interesting guys with specific (and correctable)
> weaknesses.
I think that would be a good strategy to take, but I don't think the Giants
brain trust would be up to the task.
- Peter
Greg Lentz
wrote:
More importantly, we're not good at correcting weaknesses. What they are
when they get here as a hitter is more or less what they will be here,
less however much a deep right-center and high CF wall affects their power
numbers.
--
Greg Lentz
Peter Lawrence
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 11:08:49 -0800, Peter Lawrence wrote:
>> Ron Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>> Or pick up interesting guys with specific (and correctable)
>>> weaknesses.
>>
>> I think that would be a good strategy to take, but I don't think the Giants
>> brain trust would be up to the task.
>
> More importantly, we're not good at correcting weaknesses. What they are
> when they get here as a hitter is more or less what they will be here,
> less however much a deep right-center and high CF wall affects their power
> numbers.
That was part of my thinking when I stated that the Giants brain trust
wouldn't be up to the task. The other part would be in successfully
identifying those players with correctable weaknesses, which I doubt also
that the Giants management would be able to do.
- Peter
Ron Johnson
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 11:08:49 -0800, Peter Lawrence <hummb...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> >> Or pick up interesting guys with specific (and correctable)
> >> weaknesses.
>
> >I think that would be a good strategy to take, but I don't think the Giants
> >brain trust would be up to the task.
>
> More importantly, we're not good at correcting weaknesses.
Nobody is consistently successful. Even Ted Williams (whose record
as a hitting instructor is far and away the best of all time)
never had a student who sustained improvement longer than two years.
You just never know on any given player though. My point about
going for those guys is that there's a reasonable case for
optimism -- even if you make it improbable that any given
player will work out.
Buy bulk and discard. That's what the Expos did with pitchers in
the Alou/Kerrigan era -- and they did get any number of breakthroughs
from pitchers who had been given up on by other organizations.
Maybe it's easier with pitchers, but it does strike me as a viable
strategy for hitters too.
> What they are
> when they get here as a hitter is more or less what they will be here,
> less however much a deep right-center and high CF wall affects their power
> numbers.
And it might be prudent to avoid players who rate to struggle against
this.
Dunno, concentrate specifically on either dead pull hitters or guys
who
are good doubles hitters.
Greg Lentz
<joh...@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote:
>On Jan 4, 4:19�pm, Greg Lentz <nodamns...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 11:08:49 -0800, Peter Lawrence <hummb...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Ron Johnson wrote:
>>
>> >> Or pick up interesting guys with specific (and correctable)
>> >> weaknesses.
>>
>> >I think that would be a good strategy to take, but I don't think the Giants
>> >brain trust would be up to the task.
>>
>> More importantly, we're not good at correcting weaknesses. �
>
>Nobody is consistently successful.
We're consistent. We're just consistently bad at it.
>> What they are
>> when they get here as a hitter is more or less what they will be here,
>> less however much a deep right-center and high CF wall affects their power
>> numbers.
BTW, obviously meant RF wall here. Duh.
>And it might be prudent to avoid players who rate to struggle against
>this.
See VanderWal, John
>Dunno, concentrate specifically on either dead pull hitters or guys
>who are good doubles hitters.
For anybody with a significant NL track record, I'd look specifically at
their Pac Bell stats. Even though it's probably not a great sample size,
it's still worth looking at. Then I'd look at their hit chart. Chances
are, I'd probably want my power hitters to be mostly right-handed hitters
and my left-handed hitters to be guys who are high OBP guys.
The problem more with the Giants is that they get guys who aren't good
anywhere.
--
Greg Lentz
nomisnala
11 AB's was an exaggeration for effect, but none of these guys has
played everyday and regularly. It makes a big difference to many
players. DeRosa's early stats were no better than our young 25-28's.
For most of baseball these days, and especially the giants, todays
25-26 is yesterdays 21-22. More guys coming out of college, and
playing professional ball later. As a matter of fact, DeRosa's stats
were worse. So give these guys a chance. Schierholtz has shown
speed, a rifle and accurate arm, he has hit for a decent average in
professional ball, and he has potential, but if he does not play
regularly and get a chance to make adjustments on a major league level
he will never reach his potential. Bowker has demonstrated power, and
showed good adjustments at triple A. an occasional AB for him in the
majors is not going to let us see if the guy can play. The guy
dominated triple A last year, and to automatically assume he will be
another Linden is unfair to the kid and the giants. A guy much worse
on the giants, ended up having a decent year last year for the
athletics after the giants just let him go. Not saying that Raj. Davis
is a great player, but he turned out to be better than the giants
thought he would be after looking like crap after a handful of AB's
Guys in the majors have slumps, and if a young guy starts the year out
in a slump, it should not be the end of a career. And paying 6
million for a decent utility guy is one thing (overpayment) but to
have that guy block a young guy with potential is ridiculous. If you
think otherwise, your are just an idiot and know absolutely nothing
about baseball. Nothing at all. And to suggest otherwise shows you
immaturity and ignorance. I need to write this because many of you
are in here to insult others, show off your overbrazen egos and to put
down other opinions. It is not my first choice, but I can play your
same game. GO GIANTS!
Zee
> 11 AB's was an exaggeration for effect,
But if you are trying to make a legitimate argument based on sample size, you
should probably use some real numbers instead of exaggerating.
> but none of these guys has played everyday and regularly.
Bowker had 326 ABs in 2008. Schierholtz had 285 ABs last year. So let's not act
like these guys haven't gotten some "regular" playing time in the majors. Again,
the question is not whether they have been given enough ABs to prove themselves
-- they have, and they didn't cut it. The question is whether they can still
*improve* at this age, because improvement is what's needed.
Now, you could make the argument that at this point improvement is only possible
at the major league level for these players, so we should take a chance on our
investments and let them play. If we were building a team to win in 3 years, I'd
be more likely to agree with that. But with this rotation we need to be trying
to win now, and playing all these guys is not the recipe. I think the chance of
improvement for them is small (though certainly better than the chance of
improvement from DeRosa given their respective ages).
> DeRosa's early stats were no better than our young 25-28's.
So we're hoping one of these guys turns out to be as good as DeRosa? That would
be really....adequate.
> As a matter of fact, DeRosa's stats were worse.
DeRosa's worst years were when he was 29-30. When he was 25 his OPS was actually
.785 which is greater than his career OPS of .767.
> And paying 6
> million for a decent utility guy is one thing (overpayment) but to
> have that guy block a young guy with potential is ridiculous.
Again, I'm not arguing that the DeRosa signing is a good thing. I'm just arguing
that I feel no need to give any of these "youngsters" more of an opportunity to
prove (or disprove) themselves. I would replace one of them with DeRosa in a
heartbeat if it was cheap enough. Anything within reason to give us a better
chance to win now is just fine with me.
> show off your overbrazen egos and to put down other opinions.
Wayne, I generally like you, but you have one of the biggest egos in this group.
I will say, however (if you're willing to take a compliment) that it may be
smaller than that of the average doctor. :-)
I've had disagreements with some of your more recent analyses, so we've gotten
into it a bit. But it's nothing personal. If I think someone's argument is way
out there, I'm going to say it -- especially when they are arguing it with such
conviction.
Peter Lawrence
>
> For anybody with a significant NL track record, I'd look specifically at
> their Pac Bell stats. Even though it's probably not a great sample size,
> it's still worth looking at. Then I'd look at their hit chart. Chances
> are, I'd probably want my power hitters to be mostly right-handed hitters
> and my left-handed hitters to be guys who are high OBP guys.
>
> The problem more with the Giants is that they get guys who aren't good
> anywhere.
AT&T Park is fine for right-handed power hitters. Players like Jeff Kent
and Andres Galarraga did fine here. Also Left-Handed power hitters that are
dead-pull hitters like, of course, Barry Bonds, but also players like Carlos
Delgado and Luis Gonzalez also have had success at AT&T Park.
The power hitters that struggle at AT&T Park are the left handers that
regularly hit the ball in the right field power alley. Also any hitter that
tends to hit fly balls between left field and right field power alleys at
AT&T Park will struggle.
- Peter
dle...@gmail.com
Just saw this on the twitter transom:
"Giants manager Bruce Bochy says Edgar Renteria will remain his evyday
SS: "With his surgery, I think we’re going to see a different player."
Wheeeeeeeee!! Welcome to 2010, same as 2009!!
dlew
Peter Lawrence
It's official. The Giants have re-signed Juan Uribe. It's a one year deal
worth $3.25 million.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4798337
- Peter
dle...@gmail.com
Glaus is a Brave.
Bay is a Met.
Holliday is a Card.
What have we done to improve this team?
dlew
Peter Lawrence
I haven't done anything. Sorry.
But Sabean signed DeRosa of course!
;)
- Peter
Grizzlie Antagonist
wrote:
>Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
And they say that he looks to be the regular 3rd baseman. Between him
at 3rd base and Sandoval at 1st base, they should get more offensive
production from the corners anyway.
Grizzlie Antagonist
Nothing worth getting excited over, but I'm glad that they resigned
Uribe.
Greg Lentz
wrote:
>Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
As usual, too much.
--
Greg Lentz
nomisnala
When folks say that others do not know anything, to make their point I
would say
that is what I am talking about. Maybe my assumption that most
people, except
the trolls are in here because they do know something. They may
disagree, but
but it becomes more of a one upmanship deal. Truthfully there is
enough of that
in Medicine, the way it is taught, and the way many Docs relate to
each other,
especially in academics. I really am not looking for that in my Hobby
life. A good
hard fought argument is one thing, but the put downs are trashy. Some
of the
medical newsgroups are worse, and I basicly stopped going to them. I
go to more
cooperative, medical blogs and sites. The newsgroups either were
visited by too
many trolls, or the guys in their were always one upping each other.
Greg Lentz
Will you still be glad when he goes back to being normal Juan Uribe, the
same way that Randy Winn went back to normal Randy Winn and Marvin Benard
went back to normal Marvin Benard after they all got overpaid too?
At least it's only one year.
--
Greg Lentz
Greg Lentz
They should get more production from the corners than they got from the
same two guys who played those positions last year?
--
Greg Lentz
Grizzlie Antagonist
Well, it IS only one year; $3.25 million is worthwhile compensation
for last season's performance, and he did have 432 plate appearances.
It's not as though his .824 OPS was achieved over a limited period of
time.
Grizzlie Antagonist
Uribe was mostly a middle infielder last year. He played only 44
games at 3rd base.
It was mostly Sandoval at 3rd base and Ishikawa/Aurilia/Garko at 1st
base.
Yes, I think that Uribe will produce more than the corner infielders
that he will replace.
Peter Lawrence
And *because* it's just for one year, that means this will be another
*contract* year for Uribe, so he'll still have a strong financial incentive
to perform his best. (Something that Winn and Benard lacked in their too
generous multi-year deals.)
- Peter
dle...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 23:29:05 -0800, Greg Lentz
>
>
>
> <nodamns...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 18:58:14 -0800, Grizzlie Antagonist
>
> >>On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 14:12:53 -0800, Peter Lawrence <hummb...@aol.com>
Troy Glaus signed with the Braves for $1.75 million for a year.
dlew
Zee
> When folks say that others do not know anything, to make their point I
> would say
> that is what I am talking about. Maybe my assumption that most
> people, except
> the trolls are in here because they do know something. They may
> disagree, but
> but it becomes more of a one upmanship deal.
I have definitely called a few of your opinions ridiculous, but I don't think I
have ever made sweeping generalizations like saying you do not know anything.
You obviously have intelligence if you are a doctor. The only real issue I have
with you (aside from the constant in-game posts complaining about how much the
Giants are screwed by the umps) is that you argue some points so vehemently and
with such conviction, in a very black-and-white manner, when in my opinion you
have an incomplete understanding of the situation.
For example, when you argued that Molina's lack of plate discipline is due
entirely to his cultural background ("walks are for pussies") and not to any
possible limitations in his physical ability, you had absolutely no proof to
support your claim other than generalities about Latino culture. It's one thing
to posit a hypothesis to the group for discussion, and if you had done it that
way I would have agreed that his cultural background could have been a *factor*.
But in reality, lack of plate discipline can be a combination of many factors
(natural ability, eye sight, mechanics, mental discipline, cultural background,
etc.), and there is really no way to prove how much each of these factors comes
into play with Molina. Yet there you were, arguing adamantly that it is 100%
cultural/mental, when you could not possibly know that this is the case. It
makes you look foolish to make such bold claims that you obviously cannot know
for sure.
I certainly do not have all the answers, but I try to argue only for the things
I feel I can support with evidence, and hypothesize more in the gray areas. In
the Molina argument, I never tried to claim how much each factor was
contributing to his lack of plate discipline. I was simply arguing that your
extreme stance was...well...ridiculous.