So what’s the Giants’ plan? To be honest, it’s not terribly clear. One has to believe that the plan was largely to rebuild the roster that won them a World Series. That fact is perfectly obvious. They re-signed Aubrey Huff, their best player from 2010. They brought back Pat Burrell, one of their best midseason moves of 2010 and most critical contributors in the second half. They signed Miguel Tejada, who basically replaced Juan Uribe with an extremely similar – and significantly more ripened – skill set, but at a substantially cheaper price in terms of years, and slightly cheaper in annual value. Regardless of how you feel about these moves, be it they were brilliant or misguided, the intent was clear. After that, though, it’s gotten a bit confusing.
To make this simple, let’s eliminate Posey and Whiteside. That leaves 23 roster spots remaining. Let’s also eliminate the twelve man pitching staff, which let’s face it, is inevitable. My guess would be: Lincecum, Bumgarner, Cain, Sanchez, Zito as starters, and Wilson, Romo, Casilla, Affeldt, Lopez, Runzler and Ramirez as relievers. There is one wrinkle, though. The Giants have been said to be trying to convert Runzler into a starting pitcher. Why? I’m not exactly sure. I read Sabean said that Runzler’s best shot at making the bullpen is to stretch out and become a long reliever. Let’s ignore the fact that he’s younger, cheaper and has better peripherals than Jeremy Affeldt – thus may be a more serviceable non-LOOGY lefty out of the ‘pen than Jeremy, whom I still adore for his Game Six emergency innings against Philly, by the way. But anyway, that’s perhaps a discussion for another time.
That leaves us with 11 remaining roster spots. And this is where I can’t say with absolute certainty I know where the roster is headed. The starters will be Sandoval at third, Tejada at shortstop, Sanchez at second and Huff at first. That leaves 7. In the outfield, you have to expect it to be Torres in center, Ross in right and DeRosa in left. Each one of these players is under contract; each of them will be on the roster. That leaves 4. That leaves Ishikawa (league minimum or about), Mike Fontenot (re-signed for $1 million), Aaron Rowand (still here for 2 years and too much), Pat Burrell (re-signed for $1 million) and Nate Schierholtz (league minimum or about). If you’ve lost count, that’s already one too many.
Another possibility is that Brandon Belt could make the club. Brian Sabean gushed about him yesterday – seriously, he talked about not only his defense and advanced hitting approach, but also about his base running – and said that he’d be given an opportunity to make the club as either a first baseman or left fielder. He’d essentially be displacing Aubrey Huff to whichever position he doesn’t end up. This seems a real possibility to me. If that happens, the Giants have two too many.
And in case that’s not enough for you, the Giants also have interest in returning Edgar Renteria. They don’t just have interest because they’ve actually already made him an offer. That’s now three too many. And if you wanted to make it four, you could, because Sabean has also made it clear he would like an additional left-handed bat.
And when you lay it all out this way you can only come to two conclusions: 1) the Giants don’t know what they want to do with the roster, and in some cases they can’t quite know because of players like Brandon Belt that they feel they need to see in the spring, and thus are collecting as many pieces as possible or 2) they are getting ready to move a player of two. That could simply mean optioning Ishikawa or Schierholtz or both to AAA, or that could mean a trade. But in any case, you have only 25 roster spots; I don’t think any of these guys have minor league options, and something has to give.
There’s also a good chance that Mark DeRosa won’t be right, again, or Freddy Sanchez’s shoulder will take longer than thought to heal. And if that’s the case, the Giants are clearly covered. But it’s probably safe to say the Giants again won’t have a set lineup in 2010, at least not at its outset, but believe it or not they might be getting closer to one – Torres, Sanchez, Huff, Posey, Sandoval, Ross, Belt, and Tejada. Believe it or not, that’s a perfectly balanced lineup that never has a righty and a lefty hitting back to back.
I think the safest conclusion is that you just need to wait and see. They don’t know how they all fit yet, so how can we? You can keep on trying, god knows it’s fun, but you’re just going to tie your brain into a knot.
Insightful baseball analysis for the casual crowd, Moneyball masses and you, the Third and King crew
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
The Road to Lincecum's 3rd Cy Young
The Giants have the type of rotation that GM’s and managers dream about. They have Cain, Sanchez, now Bumgarner and Zito – a roughly a league average pitcher, which is so critical to a contender as was so poignantly pointed out recently by King Kaufman. Finally they have Tim Lincecum, easily the most talented arm in the rotation to say the least, despite being a pony in a stable of stallions. More accurately, Tim Lincecum is one of the most talented – not to mention absolutely exhilarating to watch – pitchers in baseball now, recently and perhaps ever.
So let us get on with this business of: Can he win his third Cy in 2011? But first, we must start at the beginning. Lincecum came into the league in 2007 after forging a swath in the minor leagues that would make Sherman blush. He was somewhat rudely greeted by the Phillies’ Shane Victorino and Ryan Howard, but then he got the most recent laugh. He made 24 starts and pitched extremely effectively, winning 7 games, throwing 146.1 innings and striking out greater than a batter per inning while walking four per nine. He was still just getting his feet on the ground, and yet he was worth 3.2 Wins Above Replacement (WAR) in roughly three-fourths of a season.
Over the next two seasons, he was a force to be reckoned with. He would combine to win 33 games in 66 starts in 452.1 innings, while walking around three per nine and striking out well over ten per nine. He was also relenting home runs at a rate of just .42 per nine innings. In 2008 he finished with a 2.62 ERA, an identical 2.62 FIP and 7.5 WAR. In 2009 he finished with a 2.48 ERA, a 2.34 FIP and 8.2 WAR. For his outstanding effort, he took home the ultimate hardware for a pitcher in each season, i.e. the Cy Young award.
In 2010, he struggled and people panicked, a lot. When all was said and done after the regular season, he’d won 16 games in 33 starts over 212.1 innings, hardly a disaster. He’d also, again, struck out well over a batter per inning while walking 3.22 (for a ratio of 3.04). His home run rate did increase to .76 per nine but it was far from poor. He finished with a 3.43 ERA, a 3.15 FIP and a still outstanding 5.1 WAR. He was far from broken, but so it goes when you win back-to-back Cy Young awards in your first two full seasons. So what happened?
In March and April he pitched brilliantly and everyone was sure he’d win another Cy Young. In May he inexplicably completely lost his control and walked nearly six batters per nine innings. In June he went back to doing what he does and pitched great. In July he stopped striking batters out in quite the droves but walked fewer and pitched great; he was doing what he does, mostly. In August the stuff hit the fan. He once again was striking batters out, but he just wasn’t getting the results. He walked nearly five per nine, which was up but certainly not alarming in a small sample. But something else happened. His home run per fly ball rate skyrocketed to 17.8% and he gave up nearly two home runs per nine. Exacerbating matters, the diminutive ace gave up nearly a .400 average on balls in play, an unusually high number not likely to recur given his .308 career mark. Talk radio lost it, the sky was falling and the Freak was ordinary, no bad. But in September and October, the decorated competitor returned and he again pitched as brilliantly as he had in April, no more brilliantly. He surged. He struck out greater than eleven per nine, walked 1.73 for a ratio or 6.50, his ERA was 1.94 and his FIP 2.17.
He’d rebounded in mesmerizing fashion, going 4-1 in the playoffs behind a few decent starts and two truly brilliant ones – his Game 1 NLDS, 14-strikeout, 31-swing-and-miss start in particular – and the Giants won the World Series. It’s safe to say a handful believed he was back, while others, if not outwardly, wondered: who is now the real Tim Lincecum?
Over his career, he’s won 56 games in 123 games and 811 innings. He’s had an ERA of 3.04 and a FIP of 2.86. With peripherals, he’s been brilliant; he has struck out 10.07 batters per nine while walking 3.25 (ratio of 3.1), and given up just .57 home runs per nine. He’s casting a career that ends in Cooperstown, racking up 24 Wins Above Replacement in fewer than four seasons.
So what happened in May and August of 2010? The simplest answer may be that these things just happen. And, it may be the correct one too. Oddly enough, in some ways he improved in 2010, giving fuel to the argument that he 1) struggled with control for whatever reason at times and 2) was simply unlucky other times. After all, his line drive rate (LD%) was right in line with his career (19%) at 19.5% in 2010, and in between the 20.8% and 19.2% he posted in his two Cy Young seasons. Even better, his ground ball rate (GB%) improved to a career high of 48.9%, up from 47.9 in ’09 and 43.9 in ’08. And finally, his fly ball rate (FB%) decreased, again, which it has in every season, from 37.5, to 35.3, to 33.3 to 31.6 in 2010. These are all indicators that would actually portend better results. His home run per fly ball rate (HR/FB) did increase to 9.9% but there’s no reason to conclude this is permanent given his resume.
And with all the evidence that Tim Lincecum is likely poised to rebound, there’s more. Much of the hullabaloo surrounding Lincecum in 2010 revolved around his diminished fastball velocity. While real, it’s not something that, in my mind, is going to either cripple or doom him. Furthermore, there’s reason to believe it will improve.
The above chart comes from Fangraphs’ Pitch F/X data. It’s clear to see that his fastball velocity has fallen from its peak in 2008. But if you look at around midseason in 2010 – this is the middle of the far right pink area – you’ll see that it peaked and then dropped precipitously over several starts. After which, you’ll see that it steadily and over time substantially increased over the rest of the season, creating a trough from midseason until seasons end. Many Giants fans will recall that Lincecum redoubled his conditioning efforts after a meeting with Bochy, as well as after a quote came out from Roy Oswalt about his own conditioning, and how pivotal it’s been to him to stabilize his plus velocity throughout his career, especially give his small stature. Lincecum was apparently listening, and I think the results were evident. You, the reader(s), can make your own determination.
There’s more. In a post just before the Game 1 NLCS matchup between Lincecum and Roy Halladay, I mentioned that he was taught a new slider grip by Matt Cain before a game against San Diego on September 12. Well, there’s substance to this rumor as well.
The above chart shows Lincecum’s slider velocity in his career. You’ll see that it has been pretty sporadic at times, and never was it more so than throughout 2010. More often than not, it was below 85 MPH if not well below, while at other times, it was above 85 and sometimes well above it. This is when it was not a refined or go-to-pitch for him, and when thrown particularly hard I believe it was behaving as a cutter. Take a look at the final four green dots in the far right pink area. You can see that he began throwing his slider in the 85-86 MPH range with consistency. The first of the four dots represents September 12, and the remaining three represent September 18, 24 and 29. Whatever Cain taught him, he was using – just ask the Braves who faced him in Game 1 of the NLDS.
In addition to the slider coming in harder, it was moving differently, too.
Both of the above come from his September 24 start against the Rockies. During which, I myself was driving with friends to Big Sur for a glorious weekend of camping while listening to the game, and enjoying every decibel of it. You MUST go sometime. The left side shows both the vertical and horizontal movement of the pitch, and the right side shows the vertical movement and velocity. What we can see, is that he’s throwing the pitch about 86 MPH on average, while also getting both downward and right to left movement. This is devastating to a right handed hitter – please ask Aaron Rowand – and can also be effective in slipping a pitch under a lefties bat – please ask Nate Schierholtz, or perhaps every left-handed hitter who has emerged from the Giants’ farm system; I hope Brandon Belt doesn’t suffer the same fate. Lincecum threw eight innings, struck out nine and walked none in this masterful outing in Colorado.
Now here’s one from August 5, 2010, the month of the heart of his struggles and a game which he gave up two home runs, including a game winning one to Eric Hinske.
You should notice a few things. Most obvious is the fact that he’s throwing far fewer sliders. Also, you can see that the average velocity is closer to 82 MPH or less, and no slider approaches 85. Lastly and least obviously, you can see that his getting less vertical movement, which means the ball is going downward or falling less. This is one example, and I encourage you to numb your mind by looking at more of his games by going to his Fangraphs page > Pitch F/X > Game Charts. What I think you’ll discover is that his slider was more of an afterthought than a go-to pitch in his career. It was sometimes harder and more like a cutter. It was other times slower and perhaps more slurvy as opposed to having sharp bite. This is clearly not the same pitch it was in September.
Let’s look at another:
This one actually belongs to Matt Cain when on September 26, 2010, he threw a nine inning complete game and struck out nine while walking one. Like in Tim’s example, you’ll see he’s throwing the pitch with both horizontal (right to left) movement and vertical action (downward bite). Also, he’s throwing the pitch at about the same speed as Lincecum was, or around 86 MPH. This is an example of when Cain’s at his best. When he’s got that slider going, he strikes batters out and is very tough. But, if you look back up at Lincecum’s September 24th game, you’ll see that Tim is actually getting much more downward bite more often than not. Perhaps, the apprentice has exceeded his mentor.
Finally, for dramatic effect, let us view just one more:
This chart is neither from Lincecum nor Cain. This actually belongs to Zack Greinke, winner of the 2009 AL Cy Young award and possessor of a devastating slider. What you’ll see is that he’s throwing it at around the same velocity as both Cain and Lincecum, if not just a bit harder at times, as well as getting both vertical and horizontal movement. With that being said, if you really take a close look at both Greinke’s charts here, and Lincecum’s September 24 chart above, you’ll likely discover that Lincecum is actually getting more vertical movement. That movement is what made Rob Nen so nasty and what does the same for Brad Lidge when he’s right. Folks, let me tell you, this is a nightmare for a hitter. On this day, amidst his Cy Young campaign on August 25, 2009, Greinke went all of eight innings, struck out fifteen Indians and walked just one, a spectacular outing.
In conclusion: There’s quite a lot here that bodes well for the Freak in 2011. We’ve seen that he may well have ran into a bit of bad luck in 2010, when his batting average on balls in play (BABiP) went from a career mark of (and very normal) .308 to .324. And in addition to that, he had a month where he just couldn’t seem to keep the ball in the park for whatever reason, and in another just couldn’t throw strikes. We also may well have some empirical evidence, along with what we’ve heard with his conditioning, that his velocity is trending upwards again. While it’s probably very safe to say his mid-nineties heater probably won’t reemerge, a consistent 92-93 is attainable. And finally, it seems clear that Tim has added a quality pitch to his repertoire, if not a devilish one, to couple with his changeup that has so tormented the league. What he now has is two pitches to put away hitters. One designed to dispatch left-handed hitters – this is the changeup because it moves down and left to right. And the other designed to screw right-handed hitters into fits – this is the slider biting downward and right to left. Which is not to say they aren’t weapons regardless of the opposing hitters handedness. Good luck.
In any case, he’s my (very early) 2011 NL Cy Young pick because Tim Lincecum is still carrying the fire.
Stats and Pitch F/X data pulled from Fangraphs 12/8/10
So let us get on with this business of: Can he win his third Cy in 2011? But first, we must start at the beginning. Lincecum came into the league in 2007 after forging a swath in the minor leagues that would make Sherman blush. He was somewhat rudely greeted by the Phillies’ Shane Victorino and Ryan Howard, but then he got the most recent laugh. He made 24 starts and pitched extremely effectively, winning 7 games, throwing 146.1 innings and striking out greater than a batter per inning while walking four per nine. He was still just getting his feet on the ground, and yet he was worth 3.2 Wins Above Replacement (WAR) in roughly three-fourths of a season.
Over the next two seasons, he was a force to be reckoned with. He would combine to win 33 games in 66 starts in 452.1 innings, while walking around three per nine and striking out well over ten per nine. He was also relenting home runs at a rate of just .42 per nine innings. In 2008 he finished with a 2.62 ERA, an identical 2.62 FIP and 7.5 WAR. In 2009 he finished with a 2.48 ERA, a 2.34 FIP and 8.2 WAR. For his outstanding effort, he took home the ultimate hardware for a pitcher in each season, i.e. the Cy Young award.
In 2010, he struggled and people panicked, a lot. When all was said and done after the regular season, he’d won 16 games in 33 starts over 212.1 innings, hardly a disaster. He’d also, again, struck out well over a batter per inning while walking 3.22 (for a ratio of 3.04). His home run rate did increase to .76 per nine but it was far from poor. He finished with a 3.43 ERA, a 3.15 FIP and a still outstanding 5.1 WAR. He was far from broken, but so it goes when you win back-to-back Cy Young awards in your first two full seasons. So what happened?
In March and April he pitched brilliantly and everyone was sure he’d win another Cy Young. In May he inexplicably completely lost his control and walked nearly six batters per nine innings. In June he went back to doing what he does and pitched great. In July he stopped striking batters out in quite the droves but walked fewer and pitched great; he was doing what he does, mostly. In August the stuff hit the fan. He once again was striking batters out, but he just wasn’t getting the results. He walked nearly five per nine, which was up but certainly not alarming in a small sample. But something else happened. His home run per fly ball rate skyrocketed to 17.8% and he gave up nearly two home runs per nine. Exacerbating matters, the diminutive ace gave up nearly a .400 average on balls in play, an unusually high number not likely to recur given his .308 career mark. Talk radio lost it, the sky was falling and the Freak was ordinary, no bad. But in September and October, the decorated competitor returned and he again pitched as brilliantly as he had in April, no more brilliantly. He surged. He struck out greater than eleven per nine, walked 1.73 for a ratio or 6.50, his ERA was 1.94 and his FIP 2.17.
He’d rebounded in mesmerizing fashion, going 4-1 in the playoffs behind a few decent starts and two truly brilliant ones – his Game 1 NLDS, 14-strikeout, 31-swing-and-miss start in particular – and the Giants won the World Series. It’s safe to say a handful believed he was back, while others, if not outwardly, wondered: who is now the real Tim Lincecum?
Over his career, he’s won 56 games in 123 games and 811 innings. He’s had an ERA of 3.04 and a FIP of 2.86. With peripherals, he’s been brilliant; he has struck out 10.07 batters per nine while walking 3.25 (ratio of 3.1), and given up just .57 home runs per nine. He’s casting a career that ends in Cooperstown, racking up 24 Wins Above Replacement in fewer than four seasons.
So what happened in May and August of 2010? The simplest answer may be that these things just happen. And, it may be the correct one too. Oddly enough, in some ways he improved in 2010, giving fuel to the argument that he 1) struggled with control for whatever reason at times and 2) was simply unlucky other times. After all, his line drive rate (LD%) was right in line with his career (19%) at 19.5% in 2010, and in between the 20.8% and 19.2% he posted in his two Cy Young seasons. Even better, his ground ball rate (GB%) improved to a career high of 48.9%, up from 47.9 in ’09 and 43.9 in ’08. And finally, his fly ball rate (FB%) decreased, again, which it has in every season, from 37.5, to 35.3, to 33.3 to 31.6 in 2010. These are all indicators that would actually portend better results. His home run per fly ball rate (HR/FB) did increase to 9.9% but there’s no reason to conclude this is permanent given his resume.
And with all the evidence that Tim Lincecum is likely poised to rebound, there’s more. Much of the hullabaloo surrounding Lincecum in 2010 revolved around his diminished fastball velocity. While real, it’s not something that, in my mind, is going to either cripple or doom him. Furthermore, there’s reason to believe it will improve.
The above chart comes from Fangraphs’ Pitch F/X data. It’s clear to see that his fastball velocity has fallen from its peak in 2008. But if you look at around midseason in 2010 – this is the middle of the far right pink area – you’ll see that it peaked and then dropped precipitously over several starts. After which, you’ll see that it steadily and over time substantially increased over the rest of the season, creating a trough from midseason until seasons end. Many Giants fans will recall that Lincecum redoubled his conditioning efforts after a meeting with Bochy, as well as after a quote came out from Roy Oswalt about his own conditioning, and how pivotal it’s been to him to stabilize his plus velocity throughout his career, especially give his small stature. Lincecum was apparently listening, and I think the results were evident. You, the reader(s), can make your own determination.
There’s more. In a post just before the Game 1 NLCS matchup between Lincecum and Roy Halladay, I mentioned that he was taught a new slider grip by Matt Cain before a game against San Diego on September 12. Well, there’s substance to this rumor as well.
The above chart shows Lincecum’s slider velocity in his career. You’ll see that it has been pretty sporadic at times, and never was it more so than throughout 2010. More often than not, it was below 85 MPH if not well below, while at other times, it was above 85 and sometimes well above it. This is when it was not a refined or go-to-pitch for him, and when thrown particularly hard I believe it was behaving as a cutter. Take a look at the final four green dots in the far right pink area. You can see that he began throwing his slider in the 85-86 MPH range with consistency. The first of the four dots represents September 12, and the remaining three represent September 18, 24 and 29. Whatever Cain taught him, he was using – just ask the Braves who faced him in Game 1 of the NLDS.
In addition to the slider coming in harder, it was moving differently, too.
Both of the above come from his September 24 start against the Rockies. During which, I myself was driving with friends to Big Sur for a glorious weekend of camping while listening to the game, and enjoying every decibel of it. You MUST go sometime. The left side shows both the vertical and horizontal movement of the pitch, and the right side shows the vertical movement and velocity. What we can see, is that he’s throwing the pitch about 86 MPH on average, while also getting both downward and right to left movement. This is devastating to a right handed hitter – please ask Aaron Rowand – and can also be effective in slipping a pitch under a lefties bat – please ask Nate Schierholtz, or perhaps every left-handed hitter who has emerged from the Giants’ farm system; I hope Brandon Belt doesn’t suffer the same fate. Lincecum threw eight innings, struck out nine and walked none in this masterful outing in Colorado.Now here’s one from August 5, 2010, the month of the heart of his struggles and a game which he gave up two home runs, including a game winning one to Eric Hinske.
You should notice a few things. Most obvious is the fact that he’s throwing far fewer sliders. Also, you can see that the average velocity is closer to 82 MPH or less, and no slider approaches 85. Lastly and least obviously, you can see that his getting less vertical movement, which means the ball is going downward or falling less. This is one example, and I encourage you to numb your mind by looking at more of his games by going to his Fangraphs page > Pitch F/X > Game Charts. What I think you’ll discover is that his slider was more of an afterthought than a go-to pitch in his career. It was sometimes harder and more like a cutter. It was other times slower and perhaps more slurvy as opposed to having sharp bite. This is clearly not the same pitch it was in September.Let’s look at another:
Finally, for dramatic effect, let us view just one more:
In conclusion: There’s quite a lot here that bodes well for the Freak in 2011. We’ve seen that he may well have ran into a bit of bad luck in 2010, when his batting average on balls in play (BABiP) went from a career mark of (and very normal) .308 to .324. And in addition to that, he had a month where he just couldn’t seem to keep the ball in the park for whatever reason, and in another just couldn’t throw strikes. We also may well have some empirical evidence, along with what we’ve heard with his conditioning, that his velocity is trending upwards again. While it’s probably very safe to say his mid-nineties heater probably won’t reemerge, a consistent 92-93 is attainable. And finally, it seems clear that Tim has added a quality pitch to his repertoire, if not a devilish one, to couple with his changeup that has so tormented the league. What he now has is two pitches to put away hitters. One designed to dispatch left-handed hitters – this is the changeup because it moves down and left to right. And the other designed to screw right-handed hitters into fits – this is the slider biting downward and right to left. Which is not to say they aren’t weapons regardless of the opposing hitters handedness. Good luck.
In any case, he’s my (very early) 2011 NL Cy Young pick because Tim Lincecum is still carrying the fire.
Stats and Pitch F/X data pulled from Fangraphs 12/8/10
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Free World Series DVD's, other stuff
Graham at Baseball: Past and Present spent a great deal of time putting together a post on the 50 greatest players not in the Hall of Fame. It is important to note that it’s not a list of 50 who necessarily belong, an important distinction, though I’ll submit a good number of them do. It turned out fantastic, and I myself contributed by casting a 50 player ballot. I can’t say who I voted for – or maybe I can – but I’ll just say I was not one of the 7 that omitted Bert Blyleven.
I am contributing a piece to that same space in the next day or so: Does he belong in the Hall of Fame: Ted Simmons. He landed on the top 50 list at #13, grabbing 44 of a possible 63 votes.
Congratulations to Jay Jaffe of Baseball Prospectus and founder of FutilityInfielder.com for being voted into the Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA) today. The internet writers are slowly making progress.
Comcast (CSN Bay Area) will be re-airing six pivotal Giants playoff games as they marched to their first World Series in San Francisco history. You won’t have to listen to (and harshly ridicule) the Fox team of McCarver and Stockton this time, because they’ll essentially be dubbing it with Krukow, Kuiper, Flemming and Miller – this, a courtesy that wasn’t offered to us during the actual events. Watch them, DVR them, and relish in them, I personally can hardly wait.
12/09/2010, 8:00 PM – NLDS Game 1, SF (Lowe V Lincecum)
12/11/2010, 7:00 PM – NLCS Game 4, SF (Blanton V Bumgarner)
12/15/2010, 7:00 PM – NLCS Game 6, PHI (Sanchez V Oswalt)
12/17/2010, 7:00 PM – World Series Game 1, SF (Lee V Lincecum)
12/23/2010, 7:30 PM – World Series Game 4, TEX (Bumgarner V Hunter)
12/24/2010, 8:00 PM – World Series Game 5, TEX (Lee V Lincecum)
Finally, I received a couple free World Series DVD’s thanks to Shout! Factory, which was in addition to my invitation to attend the private viewing. I’d like to do some sort of trivia contest – it will likely be a non-Google-able question about the Giants, much like those done by Rob Neyer some late nights on Twitter – in order to give the DVD’s away. Please let me know if you’re interested by emailing me at http://www.blogger.com/PaapFly@gmail.com. If I do in fact get enough interest, I will come up with a question and post when exactly it’s to be asked. The first two who email me the correct answer will get the prize (World Series DVD).
I also recently joined the Baseball Bloggers Alliance. I just thought you should know.
--Paapfly
I am contributing a piece to that same space in the next day or so: Does he belong in the Hall of Fame: Ted Simmons. He landed on the top 50 list at #13, grabbing 44 of a possible 63 votes.
Congratulations to Jay Jaffe of Baseball Prospectus and founder of FutilityInfielder.com for being voted into the Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA) today. The internet writers are slowly making progress.
Comcast (CSN Bay Area) will be re-airing six pivotal Giants playoff games as they marched to their first World Series in San Francisco history. You won’t have to listen to (and harshly ridicule) the Fox team of McCarver and Stockton this time, because they’ll essentially be dubbing it with Krukow, Kuiper, Flemming and Miller – this, a courtesy that wasn’t offered to us during the actual events. Watch them, DVR them, and relish in them, I personally can hardly wait.
12/09/2010, 8:00 PM – NLDS Game 1, SF (Lowe V Lincecum)
12/11/2010, 7:00 PM – NLCS Game 4, SF (Blanton V Bumgarner)
12/15/2010, 7:00 PM – NLCS Game 6, PHI (Sanchez V Oswalt)
12/17/2010, 7:00 PM – World Series Game 1, SF (Lee V Lincecum)
12/23/2010, 7:30 PM – World Series Game 4, TEX (Bumgarner V Hunter)
12/24/2010, 8:00 PM – World Series Game 5, TEX (Lee V Lincecum)
Finally, I received a couple free World Series DVD’s thanks to Shout! Factory, which was in addition to my invitation to attend the private viewing. I’d like to do some sort of trivia contest – it will likely be a non-Google-able question about the Giants, much like those done by Rob Neyer some late nights on Twitter – in order to give the DVD’s away. Please let me know if you’re interested by emailing me at http://www.blogger.com/PaapFly@gmail.com. If I do in fact get enough interest, I will come up with a question and post when exactly it’s to be asked. The first two who email me the correct answer will get the prize (World Series DVD).
I also recently joined the Baseball Bloggers Alliance. I just thought you should know.
--Paapfly
Monday, December 6, 2010
My evening with the Giants
By some stroke of absolute luck, I managed to make my way into the private viewing of the 2010 World Series and It’s Magic Inside DVD’s at AT&T ballpark.
I received an email from a PR person for Shout! Factory – the promoter of the World Series DVD – in which they offered a few free copies of the DVD to give away on the blog, and later, he forwarded an “Invitation to cover” the event. I thought it must have been some sort of mistake, but after getting an RSVP confirmation from a Giants front office staff member I was officially going, and ecstatic. I did ask for a +1, but it wasn’t in the cards; it’s better to quit while ahead, anyway.
I arrived at the ballpark around 6:15 PM last Thursday (12/2/10). I parked along the sidewalk near McCovey’s statue, near the cove opposite the ballpark. Parking with such ease was odd, to say the least. If my memory serves me correctly, the ballpark stadium lights were dimly lit but the ballpark neon’s were as bright as ever. I approached the Willie Mays plaza where we were to enter, and though I had to wait a bit in a light drizzle, I was snug as a bug. I hadn’t yet been carted off yes as a fraud, given an invite by some mistake.
Soon after, I was invited in and greeted with a free World Series DVD followed by my choice of beer, wine or water and a hot dog. Seriously? When it finally filled up, there were probably only around 100 people there, so it was pretty intimate. There were members of the media, many I did not recognize, but I did see: Hank Schulman from the Chronicle and Mychael* Urban, CSN Bay Area – who is a giant, if you weren’t aware. I’m 6’2” and felt like a twelve year old next to him. Even better, I saw Larry Baer, President and COO, Bill Neukom, Managing General Partner and CEOm, and right off the bat, Kuiper was directly to my left going over his narration duties. Up front were obvious members of the ownership group, in that many of them looked wealthy.
*Horrible spelling of Michael, (but not his fault).
Before the viewing of the It’s Magic Inside film, Brian Sabean and Bruce Bochy walked the World Series trophy down the middle of the aisle. It was equally sparkly as awesome. Duane Kuiper was the narrator for the viewing (and the first film) and was about as charismatic as possible, for what reason I’m not sure. The lights went out and the DVD began.
The first film was good and provided a few laughs, for example, when in Spring Training DeRosa joked how Edgar Renteria had a World Series winning hit back with the Marlins in “1985.” I probably don’t have to say it, but it was actually 1997. And this was both funny and awesome, because six months later Renteria got the last laugh, for obvious reasons. Overall, I enjoyed the film but it skipped by key moments, which is understandable, but also seemed to have the ability to somehow make certain moments of the 2010 euphoria somehow anticlimactic, which was not understandable. I think the editing left a little to be desired in certain areas.
After the first film ended, we were given around ten minutes to use the restroom and grab some popcorn. I witnessed a conversation between Ashkon of the “Don’t Stop Believin’” YouTube sensation and Larry Baer.
Then the World Series film began. The World Series film was undoubtedly the better of the two, despite being narrated by Rob Schneider. Actually, in his defense, he has a pretty good voice for a narrator, when being serious, and pretty much forgot it was him after about five minutes. It did take us through the 2010 season starting in Spring Training, all the way up to the clinch on the final Sunday of the year against San Diego, catching some key moments along the way. It then gave pretty good if not a bit rushed recap of both the NLDS against and Atlanta and NLCS against Philadelipha. But finally, when it got to the World Series, the coverage was awesome. The film did a good job of bringing the viewer right back to the World Series, game by game, culminating in Renteria’s miraculous home run and Wilson’s save to end all the torture. If you’re planning to purchase just one of the two, purchase the World Series version and you’ll be glad you did.
Afterwards, Kuiper asked some questions to Brian Sabean and Bruce Bochy. It was pretty interesting to learn that Bochy didn’t get to celebrate with the team in the clubhouse because he got pulled the MVP trophy ceremony, interviews, and almost immediately had to hunker down with Sabean to make decisions about 2011, thanks to the pushing up of the free agency deadline to five days after the World Series. He said he then slept for about five days straight when he finally got the chance, unsurprisingly.
Bochy also expressed awe in his rookie catcher for catching every pitch from about mid-September until Wilson struck out Cruz to win the World Series. It’s pretty remarkable when you think about it, and just more praise for the Giants’ franchise position player, Buster Posey.
Brian Sabean was clearly proud of his and the Giants’ accomplishment, as he should be.
As it all wrapped up, I got to take a picture with the World Series trophy, as well as shake hands with Bill Neukom. I told him “thank you for a great season” and he replied, “thank you.” His thank you felt sincere and it was probably the highlight of my night. While I don’t always agree with the roster decisions made by the Giants, I always see the Giants as an exceedingly classy organization. They have the human aspect down to a T.
As I walked out of the park after a wonderful evening, I snapped a few pictures with my iPhone; the park photos so beautifully, it’s crazy. After my evening of rubbing (brushing) elbows with the Giants executives, meeting Ashkon – a huge part of my 2010 experience – watching the films, seeing a few members of the media and taking a photo with the trophy that had eluded the Giants since 1954, one thing was unmistakable: It had finally sunk in, at least for me, the Giants are the 2010 World Series Champions. Holy cow.
I received an email from a PR person for Shout! Factory – the promoter of the World Series DVD – in which they offered a few free copies of the DVD to give away on the blog, and later, he forwarded an “Invitation to cover” the event. I thought it must have been some sort of mistake, but after getting an RSVP confirmation from a Giants front office staff member I was officially going, and ecstatic. I did ask for a +1, but it wasn’t in the cards; it’s better to quit while ahead, anyway.
I arrived at the ballpark around 6:15 PM last Thursday (12/2/10). I parked along the sidewalk near McCovey’s statue, near the cove opposite the ballpark. Parking with such ease was odd, to say the least. If my memory serves me correctly, the ballpark stadium lights were dimly lit but the ballpark neon’s were as bright as ever. I approached the Willie Mays plaza where we were to enter, and though I had to wait a bit in a light drizzle, I was snug as a bug. I hadn’t yet been carted off yes as a fraud, given an invite by some mistake.
Soon after, I was invited in and greeted with a free World Series DVD followed by my choice of beer, wine or water and a hot dog. Seriously? When it finally filled up, there were probably only around 100 people there, so it was pretty intimate. There were members of the media, many I did not recognize, but I did see: Hank Schulman from the Chronicle and Mychael* Urban, CSN Bay Area – who is a giant, if you weren’t aware. I’m 6’2” and felt like a twelve year old next to him. Even better, I saw Larry Baer, President and COO, Bill Neukom, Managing General Partner and CEOm, and right off the bat, Kuiper was directly to my left going over his narration duties. Up front were obvious members of the ownership group, in that many of them looked wealthy.
*Horrible spelling of Michael, (but not his fault).
Before the viewing of the It’s Magic Inside film, Brian Sabean and Bruce Bochy walked the World Series trophy down the middle of the aisle. It was equally sparkly as awesome. Duane Kuiper was the narrator for the viewing (and the first film) and was about as charismatic as possible, for what reason I’m not sure. The lights went out and the DVD began.
The first film was good and provided a few laughs, for example, when in Spring Training DeRosa joked how Edgar Renteria had a World Series winning hit back with the Marlins in “1985.” I probably don’t have to say it, but it was actually 1997. And this was both funny and awesome, because six months later Renteria got the last laugh, for obvious reasons. Overall, I enjoyed the film but it skipped by key moments, which is understandable, but also seemed to have the ability to somehow make certain moments of the 2010 euphoria somehow anticlimactic, which was not understandable. I think the editing left a little to be desired in certain areas.
After the first film ended, we were given around ten minutes to use the restroom and grab some popcorn. I witnessed a conversation between Ashkon of the “Don’t Stop Believin’” YouTube sensation and Larry Baer.
Then the World Series film began. The World Series film was undoubtedly the better of the two, despite being narrated by Rob Schneider. Actually, in his defense, he has a pretty good voice for a narrator, when being serious, and pretty much forgot it was him after about five minutes. It did take us through the 2010 season starting in Spring Training, all the way up to the clinch on the final Sunday of the year against San Diego, catching some key moments along the way. It then gave pretty good if not a bit rushed recap of both the NLDS against and Atlanta and NLCS against Philadelipha. But finally, when it got to the World Series, the coverage was awesome. The film did a good job of bringing the viewer right back to the World Series, game by game, culminating in Renteria’s miraculous home run and Wilson’s save to end all the torture. If you’re planning to purchase just one of the two, purchase the World Series version and you’ll be glad you did.
Afterwards, Kuiper asked some questions to Brian Sabean and Bruce Bochy. It was pretty interesting to learn that Bochy didn’t get to celebrate with the team in the clubhouse because he got pulled the MVP trophy ceremony, interviews, and almost immediately had to hunker down with Sabean to make decisions about 2011, thanks to the pushing up of the free agency deadline to five days after the World Series. He said he then slept for about five days straight when he finally got the chance, unsurprisingly.
Bochy also expressed awe in his rookie catcher for catching every pitch from about mid-September until Wilson struck out Cruz to win the World Series. It’s pretty remarkable when you think about it, and just more praise for the Giants’ franchise position player, Buster Posey.
Brian Sabean was clearly proud of his and the Giants’ accomplishment, as he should be.
As it all wrapped up, I got to take a picture with the World Series trophy, as well as shake hands with Bill Neukom. I told him “thank you for a great season” and he replied, “thank you.” His thank you felt sincere and it was probably the highlight of my night. While I don’t always agree with the roster decisions made by the Giants, I always see the Giants as an exceedingly classy organization. They have the human aspect down to a T.
As I walked out of the park after a wonderful evening, I snapped a few pictures with my iPhone; the park photos so beautifully, it’s crazy. After my evening of rubbing (brushing) elbows with the Giants executives, meeting Ashkon – a huge part of my 2010 experience – watching the films, seeing a few members of the media and taking a photo with the trophy that had eluded the Giants since 1954, one thing was unmistakable: It had finally sunk in, at least for me, the Giants are the 2010 World Series Champions. Holy cow.
Jayson Werth signs with Nationals
I’ll start this post with a retelling of an excerpt from Michael Lewis’ – the writer of Liar’s Poker, Moneyball and The Blindside, among others – newest work, The Big Short:
--- When a [super agent] helped him [to sign a free agent] that seemd perfect in every way, [Mike Rizzo] asked the [agent]. “I appreciate this, but I just want to know one thing: How are you going to fuck me?”
Heh-heh-heh, c’mon, [I’d] never do that, the trader started to say, but [Mike], though perfectly polite, was insistent… And the [agent] explained how he was going to fuck him. And [Mike signed the free agent]. ---
Now let’s be clear: Jayson Werth is an excellent player. He’s a good defender, with a good arm. He’s a good baserunner, with great instincts. He’s a very good hitter, with a great eye and the ability to work the count and get on base. While not Adam Dunnn, he also hits for power.
But, he’s not without his flaws (he strikes out more than a quarter of the time). And most importantly, he’s not getting any younger. Carl Crawford is going to be 29 in 2011, and thus should expect around a seven year deal. But Jayson Werth is going to be 32, and to make matters worse, he’s had a history of injury. He’s had both knee problems and wrist problems, which is to say, he’s not the likeliest of candidates to both age well and avoid nagging injuries as his career progresses and he reaches those ages in which players most often get hurt, i.e. their mid to upper thirties.
This contract is as ill-advised as Fredo taking a boat ride. It’s nearly impossible to arrive at a figure that justifies Jayson Werth’s contract, for 7 seasons and $126 million. To do so, you really have to paint it peachy.
As 2011 will be his age 32 season, the Nationals have expertly signed him just in time for his decline phase. Brilliant. If we average his Wins above Replacement (WAR) over the last three seasons, giving a 50/50 weighting to Fangraphs and Baseball-Reference, we can get a 2011 WAR of 4.58 for Jayson. If we assume that the dollar per win above replacement for the 2011 season is around $5 million – and so long as teams are doling out this kind of money this offsesaon, it seems a fair assumption – and then increase that rate over the following six seasons (or the duration of his contract) at 7% per season, as well as assume he regresses at just half a win per season through age 38, we can get to $126 million. I got $127.22.
Unfortunately, it’s extremely unlikely that all of these occurences will happen in parallel. Probably the least of which is that Jayson will age at just half a win per season. If we go to a 0.7 regression in years 34-38, and a more modest $/win growth rate of 5% per season, we can get to $102.35 million. That’s still an overpay of about $25 million, and we still have not factored in the fact that a) Werth was likely helped in the past three seasons by his home ballpark, Citizens Bank Park, and b) the Nationals aren’t likely to contend in the next two seasons when Werth will almost certainly be doing his best work.
This is an ugly contract that Rizzo will almost certainly come to regret. It’s too bad he didn’t lock up Ryan Zimmerman, who looks to be a perennial MVP candidate if the Nationals can climb into relevance – though, it should be noted, Rizzo has effectively just made this much less likely to happen.
The moral of the story is this: Scott Boras does it again. It was said that the offer was so large in terms of years and dollars, Boras didn’t even bother to submit it to other teams to see if they would be willing to match it. That about sums it up. It's also worth noting the Phillies got jobbed on this: Because the Nat's were a bottom feeder in 2010, their frat round pick was protected and thus Philly will get their second rounder and a sandwich pick, which together, won't be nearly as valauable probably. Though, in a deep draft, it's not a disaster.
--- When a [super agent] helped him [to sign a free agent] that seemd perfect in every way, [Mike Rizzo] asked the [agent]. “I appreciate this, but I just want to know one thing: How are you going to fuck me?”
Heh-heh-heh, c’mon, [I’d] never do that, the trader started to say, but [Mike], though perfectly polite, was insistent… And the [agent] explained how he was going to fuck him. And [Mike signed the free agent]. ---
Now let’s be clear: Jayson Werth is an excellent player. He’s a good defender, with a good arm. He’s a good baserunner, with great instincts. He’s a very good hitter, with a great eye and the ability to work the count and get on base. While not Adam Dunnn, he also hits for power.
But, he’s not without his flaws (he strikes out more than a quarter of the time). And most importantly, he’s not getting any younger. Carl Crawford is going to be 29 in 2011, and thus should expect around a seven year deal. But Jayson Werth is going to be 32, and to make matters worse, he’s had a history of injury. He’s had both knee problems and wrist problems, which is to say, he’s not the likeliest of candidates to both age well and avoid nagging injuries as his career progresses and he reaches those ages in which players most often get hurt, i.e. their mid to upper thirties.
This contract is as ill-advised as Fredo taking a boat ride. It’s nearly impossible to arrive at a figure that justifies Jayson Werth’s contract, for 7 seasons and $126 million. To do so, you really have to paint it peachy.
As 2011 will be his age 32 season, the Nationals have expertly signed him just in time for his decline phase. Brilliant. If we average his Wins above Replacement (WAR) over the last three seasons, giving a 50/50 weighting to Fangraphs and Baseball-Reference, we can get a 2011 WAR of 4.58 for Jayson. If we assume that the dollar per win above replacement for the 2011 season is around $5 million – and so long as teams are doling out this kind of money this offsesaon, it seems a fair assumption – and then increase that rate over the following six seasons (or the duration of his contract) at 7% per season, as well as assume he regresses at just half a win per season through age 38, we can get to $126 million. I got $127.22.
Unfortunately, it’s extremely unlikely that all of these occurences will happen in parallel. Probably the least of which is that Jayson will age at just half a win per season. If we go to a 0.7 regression in years 34-38, and a more modest $/win growth rate of 5% per season, we can get to $102.35 million. That’s still an overpay of about $25 million, and we still have not factored in the fact that a) Werth was likely helped in the past three seasons by his home ballpark, Citizens Bank Park, and b) the Nationals aren’t likely to contend in the next two seasons when Werth will almost certainly be doing his best work.
This is an ugly contract that Rizzo will almost certainly come to regret. It’s too bad he didn’t lock up Ryan Zimmerman, who looks to be a perennial MVP candidate if the Nationals can climb into relevance – though, it should be noted, Rizzo has effectively just made this much less likely to happen.
The moral of the story is this: Scott Boras does it again. It was said that the offer was so large in terms of years and dollars, Boras didn’t even bother to submit it to other teams to see if they would be willing to match it. That about sums it up. It's also worth noting the Phillies got jobbed on this: Because the Nat's were a bottom feeder in 2010, their frat round pick was protected and thus Philly will get their second rounder and a sandwich pick, which together, won't be nearly as valauable probably. Though, in a deep draft, it's not a disaster.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Burrell gives Giants what Derek Jeter won't
It’s hard not to like the deal of re-signing Pat Burrell for one year and $1 million without incentives. In fact, I think you’d have to be a Machine not to like it, and a not very bright one at that.
When I first heard of the deal, it was reported he’d be retained at a “fraction” of his 2010, $9 million salary; this was paid almost completely by the Rays, as many will recall. I wanted to reserve judgment on the signing until I heard the exact terms of the contact, because telling us it was “at a fraction” wasn’t telling us much at all, other than to say it was for less. Weird.
Pat’s already said he’d be willing to play in a reserve role. In that capacity, I think he’s an excellent option as a right handed pinch hitter off the bench. He’s clearly capable of giving your squad a good at bat, perhaps drawing a walk, and he’s also good for igniting the crowd (or depressing a road one) with a majestic fly ball or a lightning bolt to left on occasion. Just ask Jonathan Broxton.
Even with his dreadful start to the 2010 season in Tampa Bay, Pat Burrell put up a .252 average, .348 on base percentage (OBP), .469 slugging percentage (SLG) and a .351 weighted on base average (wOBA). And I’m not cherry picking his San Francisco stats, this is his line for the season in aggregate. He also hit 20 home runs and his .217 isolaTed Power (ISO) was right in line with his career mark of .221. All said and done, and with some apparently quality defense – I don’t expect this to reoccur, I’m not delusional – his season Wins Above Replacement (WAR) was 2.5. That means he was worth around $11 million in 2010.
By signing Pat Burrell for just $1 million without incentives – this is a key, i.e. the lack of incentives or possible add-ons – the Giants are basically paying for 0.2 wins in 2011. It would take a remarkable nose-dive in 2011 for him not to be worth that. More likely, he will exceed that by a wide margin if he’s given any significant playing time. I mean, if he dropped two full wins, he’d still be worth the money. It’s clear that Pat has given the Giants the elusive hometown discount. Not even the greatest, most revered, team oriented players in the game today are willing to do that. If you don’t believe me, just ask Derek Jeter.
I’m very much looking forward to seeing Huff and Burrell back at it again. Their antics and dugout celebrations were phenomenal. If you weren’t able to see the complete genuineness in their interactions throughout 2010, you probably don’t have a soul. I’m just saying.
Having said that, Neyer said it best in his thoughts on the deal – and for the record, it’s exactly how I ended my post on Tejada, as well.
When I first heard of the deal, it was reported he’d be retained at a “fraction” of his 2010, $9 million salary; this was paid almost completely by the Rays, as many will recall. I wanted to reserve judgment on the signing until I heard the exact terms of the contact, because telling us it was “at a fraction” wasn’t telling us much at all, other than to say it was for less. Weird.
Pat’s already said he’d be willing to play in a reserve role. In that capacity, I think he’s an excellent option as a right handed pinch hitter off the bench. He’s clearly capable of giving your squad a good at bat, perhaps drawing a walk, and he’s also good for igniting the crowd (or depressing a road one) with a majestic fly ball or a lightning bolt to left on occasion. Just ask Jonathan Broxton.
Even with his dreadful start to the 2010 season in Tampa Bay, Pat Burrell put up a .252 average, .348 on base percentage (OBP), .469 slugging percentage (SLG) and a .351 weighted on base average (wOBA). And I’m not cherry picking his San Francisco stats, this is his line for the season in aggregate. He also hit 20 home runs and his .217 isolaTed Power (ISO) was right in line with his career mark of .221. All said and done, and with some apparently quality defense – I don’t expect this to reoccur, I’m not delusional – his season Wins Above Replacement (WAR) was 2.5. That means he was worth around $11 million in 2010.
By signing Pat Burrell for just $1 million without incentives – this is a key, i.e. the lack of incentives or possible add-ons – the Giants are basically paying for 0.2 wins in 2011. It would take a remarkable nose-dive in 2011 for him not to be worth that. More likely, he will exceed that by a wide margin if he’s given any significant playing time. I mean, if he dropped two full wins, he’d still be worth the money. It’s clear that Pat has given the Giants the elusive hometown discount. Not even the greatest, most revered, team oriented players in the game today are willing to do that. If you don’t believe me, just ask Derek Jeter.
I’m very much looking forward to seeing Huff and Burrell back at it again. Their antics and dugout celebrations were phenomenal. If you weren’t able to see the complete genuineness in their interactions throughout 2010, you probably don’t have a soul. I’m just saying.
Having said that, Neyer said it best in his thoughts on the deal – and for the record, it’s exactly how I ended my post on Tejada, as well.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Is Beane's offer to Beltre foolish?
Athletics fans – all three of you reading this – if you have not already read my previous post, then you’re behind the ball. Quickly – Now! – go read my piece on Carl Crawford to catch up.
It’s been widely reported that Billy Beane, GM of the oppressed Oakland Athletics, is willing to offer Mr. Adrian Beltre a sum of $64 million dollars for his services over a term of five seasons, at the end of which (2015), he will be 36 years old. And according to Scott Boras, he’ll be headed to the Cooperstown; we’ll see about THAT.
Let’s run him through our Tom Tango framework (from the previous post, which I’ve already alluded to); because he’s another Big Fish on the market this offseason.
Assumption 1: He’s worth 4.05 Wins Above Replacement (WAR) in 2011. Why? If you weight his WAR in each season from 2004, i.e. his mega walk year for the Dodgers, to 2010, i.e. his near-mega walk year while not equally fantastic with Boston, with a 50/50 split between Fangraphs’ and Baseball-Reference’s WAR figures*, and then you average those weighted WAR’s, you get 4.05 WAR. That’s simple enough, right? In any case, it’s what I’m using.
*We have the same phenomenon as with Carl Crawford, by the way, where Fangraphs loves Beltre and Baseball-Reference just likes him. I think it’s because Fangraphs is giving him too much credit for defense, or Baseball-Reference too little, but that’s a discussion for another time.
Assumption 2: He will regress at a rate of 0.7 wins per season, which seems at least somewhat likely if not being just slightly pessimistic.
Assumption 3: The dollars ($) per win above replacement will start at $4.5 million in 2010 and increase at a rate of 5% per season.
Plug it in and: VOILA! Using these assumptions he’s worth almost exactly $64 million over the next five seasons ($64.2 M), which is the exact offer believed to be on the table for Beltre at this moment. I love it when a plan comes together. To answer the question of my title: no.
It’s been widely reported that Billy Beane, GM of the oppressed Oakland Athletics, is willing to offer Mr. Adrian Beltre a sum of $64 million dollars for his services over a term of five seasons, at the end of which (2015), he will be 36 years old. And according to Scott Boras, he’ll be headed to the Cooperstown; we’ll see about THAT.
Let’s run him through our Tom Tango framework (from the previous post, which I’ve already alluded to); because he’s another Big Fish on the market this offseason.
Assumption 1: He’s worth 4.05 Wins Above Replacement (WAR) in 2011. Why? If you weight his WAR in each season from 2004, i.e. his mega walk year for the Dodgers, to 2010, i.e. his near-mega walk year while not equally fantastic with Boston, with a 50/50 split between Fangraphs’ and Baseball-Reference’s WAR figures*, and then you average those weighted WAR’s, you get 4.05 WAR. That’s simple enough, right? In any case, it’s what I’m using.
*We have the same phenomenon as with Carl Crawford, by the way, where Fangraphs loves Beltre and Baseball-Reference just likes him. I think it’s because Fangraphs is giving him too much credit for defense, or Baseball-Reference too little, but that’s a discussion for another time.
Assumption 2: He will regress at a rate of 0.7 wins per season, which seems at least somewhat likely if not being just slightly pessimistic.
Assumption 3: The dollars ($) per win above replacement will start at $4.5 million in 2010 and increase at a rate of 5% per season.
Plug it in and: VOILA! Using these assumptions he’s worth almost exactly $64 million over the next five seasons ($64.2 M), which is the exact offer believed to be on the table for Beltre at this moment. I love it when a plan comes together. To answer the question of my title: no.
Carl Crawford's Potential Bounty
Update: Carl Crawford was just signed by the Boston Red Sox for 7 years and $142 million. It looks like I nailed this one with Tango's framework. Check out what I wrote a few days ago (below).
Tom Tango recently did some work to determine how a player will age over a contract, and according to him, it looks as though a regression of 0.5 wins above replacement per season is a good place to start for an elite player hitting free agency. That framework seems to work best for player age 28-33, and perhaps, a more robust drop of 0.7 should be applied to players that are 34 and older. That makes sense intuitively, because we know that in the post-steroid era, a players skills erode precipitously at advanced ages (as they should), and you can almost see it before your very eyes.
I used this very framework most recently to try and come to some conclusion on what Miguel Tejada might be worth next season. Admittedly, it wasn’t the best instance to use this methodology because even over several years you’re not going to get perfect linear regression for a single player, and thus over a single year you’re really drawing at straws.
Joey over at BBTIA (Baseball Time in Arlington) applied this very same framework to Cliff Lee. He came to the conclusion that Lee might be worth around $143 million over a six year deal paying him $23.3 million per season (straight line) and ending in 2016 when he’s 37. That’s if he was 1) worth 6 wins in 2011 2) regressed at just .5 wins per season and 3) starting with $4.5 million in 2011, the cost per win in baseball increased at a rate of 5% per season. His other (less peachy) scenario had him declining at .7 wins per season, which ultimately leaves his value at $127 million on a six year deal, a non-disaster of $13 million in overpayment; otherwise known as: who gives a crap if you win a World Series because of it?
It only seemed fitting despite the fact that I’m a Giants blogger and there seems a slightly greater chance that Sabean brings back Willie Mays than Carl Craword, that someone try this on Mr. Crawford as well. Here goes.
My assumptions are that Crawford is worth 5.45 wins above replacement in 2011. Why not? I got this by splitting the Fangraphs – a site that loves Crawford – WAR from 2009 as well as the Basebalal-Reference – who very much likes Carl Crawford – WAR for 2009, and splitting them 50/50. That method renders Crawford worth 5.05 wins in 2009. I did the same for 2010 which yielded a value of 5.85 wins. Finally, I averaged the two years to surmise his worth is 5.45 wins in 2011. This seemed a reasonable place to start, at least to me.
Next, I assumed Crawford would get a deal of $140 million – the same deal Lee got in Joey’s scenario – except over 7 years instead of 6. I did this because Crawford is 3 years younger and it’s assumed he will age well. I think there’s a strong likelihood he gets a 6-8 year deal, he’s asking for 8, so I went with 7 or in between the two. Also, I went with just a $20 million annual salary because he’s a corner outfielder, and somehow I feel that may prevent him from getting truly elite annual salary dollars.
In terms of dollar per win increases, I also went with a 5% increase per year, making a free agent win cost around $6 million in 2017. That seems reasonable enough to me, right now, but I realize this could swing significantly.
My last assumption was that Crawford would regress by 0.5 wins for the first 3 seasons (30-33) and then by .7 wins in his final two seasons (34-35). This was a blending of sorts with what Joey did; he opted to create two scenarios where in one he regressed by .5 and the other by .7. I, however, wanted to present a single scenario to justify a hypothetical contract for Crawford, as well as to regress him more rapidly only in the latter years of his contract.
All said and done, Crawford – again, using these assumptions – would be worth more than the $20 million per over the first four seasons ($90.57 million value versus $80 million salary), and then be worth less than his annual check in his final three seasons ($47.03 value versus $60 million salary). It looks to me like Crawford is a good bet to be worth around $140 million over seven years, and having said that, I won’t be the least bit surprised if he gets a similar deal to that of Cliff Lee. Feel free to plug in your own assumptions; I'll throw my spreadsheet onto my Box.net gadget on the right-hand side to make it easier for you.
And finally, no Giants fans, Crawford will not be roaming left field at AT&T in 2010.
Tom Tango recently did some work to determine how a player will age over a contract, and according to him, it looks as though a regression of 0.5 wins above replacement per season is a good place to start for an elite player hitting free agency. That framework seems to work best for player age 28-33, and perhaps, a more robust drop of 0.7 should be applied to players that are 34 and older. That makes sense intuitively, because we know that in the post-steroid era, a players skills erode precipitously at advanced ages (as they should), and you can almost see it before your very eyes.
I used this very framework most recently to try and come to some conclusion on what Miguel Tejada might be worth next season. Admittedly, it wasn’t the best instance to use this methodology because even over several years you’re not going to get perfect linear regression for a single player, and thus over a single year you’re really drawing at straws.
Joey over at BBTIA (Baseball Time in Arlington) applied this very same framework to Cliff Lee. He came to the conclusion that Lee might be worth around $143 million over a six year deal paying him $23.3 million per season (straight line) and ending in 2016 when he’s 37. That’s if he was 1) worth 6 wins in 2011 2) regressed at just .5 wins per season and 3) starting with $4.5 million in 2011, the cost per win in baseball increased at a rate of 5% per season. His other (less peachy) scenario had him declining at .7 wins per season, which ultimately leaves his value at $127 million on a six year deal, a non-disaster of $13 million in overpayment; otherwise known as: who gives a crap if you win a World Series because of it?
It only seemed fitting despite the fact that I’m a Giants blogger and there seems a slightly greater chance that Sabean brings back Willie Mays than Carl Craword, that someone try this on Mr. Crawford as well. Here goes.
My assumptions are that Crawford is worth 5.45 wins above replacement in 2011. Why not? I got this by splitting the Fangraphs – a site that loves Crawford – WAR from 2009 as well as the Basebalal-Reference – who very much likes Carl Crawford – WAR for 2009, and splitting them 50/50. That method renders Crawford worth 5.05 wins in 2009. I did the same for 2010 which yielded a value of 5.85 wins. Finally, I averaged the two years to surmise his worth is 5.45 wins in 2011. This seemed a reasonable place to start, at least to me.
Next, I assumed Crawford would get a deal of $140 million – the same deal Lee got in Joey’s scenario – except over 7 years instead of 6. I did this because Crawford is 3 years younger and it’s assumed he will age well. I think there’s a strong likelihood he gets a 6-8 year deal, he’s asking for 8, so I went with 7 or in between the two. Also, I went with just a $20 million annual salary because he’s a corner outfielder, and somehow I feel that may prevent him from getting truly elite annual salary dollars.
In terms of dollar per win increases, I also went with a 5% increase per year, making a free agent win cost around $6 million in 2017. That seems reasonable enough to me, right now, but I realize this could swing significantly.
My last assumption was that Crawford would regress by 0.5 wins for the first 3 seasons (30-33) and then by .7 wins in his final two seasons (34-35). This was a blending of sorts with what Joey did; he opted to create two scenarios where in one he regressed by .5 and the other by .7. I, however, wanted to present a single scenario to justify a hypothetical contract for Crawford, as well as to regress him more rapidly only in the latter years of his contract.
All said and done, Crawford – again, using these assumptions – would be worth more than the $20 million per over the first four seasons ($90.57 million value versus $80 million salary), and then be worth less than his annual check in his final three seasons ($47.03 value versus $60 million salary). It looks to me like Crawford is a good bet to be worth around $140 million over seven years, and having said that, I won’t be the least bit surprised if he gets a similar deal to that of Cliff Lee. Feel free to plug in your own assumptions; I'll throw my spreadsheet onto my Box.net gadget on the right-hand side to make it easier for you.
And finally, no Giants fans, Crawford will not be roaming left field at AT&T in 2010.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
SF Giants sign Miguel Tejada
First off, it should not be remotely surprising that Brian Sabean has chosen to sign Miguel Tejada. He went with the established veteran, something he’s done time and time again throughout his tenure. Let’s take a look at the two established veterans that just departed, Renteria and Uribe. Both were considered leaders in the clubhouse, like Tejada, and one hit an NLCS clinching HR while the other hit the World Series winning HR against one of the best pitchers in baseball, sealing his Fall Classic MVP. This all but confirmed Sabean's philosophy, so of all the responses you should have following this announcement, shock should be the last.
It’s also important to quickly dispel the myth that Tejada HAS power. He HAD power. People hear Tejada and they think he has pop, but in his current, 36-year-old state that couldn't be further from the truth; his 2010 slugging percentage of .381 was a point lower than Scott Podsednik. Rumor dispatched.
Something he also far from possesses, and this holds true now and throughout his entire career, is plate discipline. If you think Uribe likes to hack, you probably won’t be thrilled to learn that Tejada saw fewer pitches per plate appearance (P/PA) than Juan in 2010 (3.34 versus 3.59). Tejada had a 90 OPS+ in ’10 – that’s 10% worse than a league average hitter – to go along with a .306 weighted on base average (wOBA), .312 on base percentage (OBP), .381 slugging percentage (SLG), and .693 OPS. That’s awful.
Bill James projects he'll rebound slightly to the tune of a .320 wOBA in ‘11, but he's no upgrade over what the Giants had in 2010 with Renteria (.314 wOBA) and Uribe (.322 wOBA). More likely, he's a downgrade, both offensively and defensively.
He's had negative defensive ratings by Fangraphs in 9 of 13 seasons (-4.9 wins career) and in 10 of 13 by Baseball-reference (-6.7 wins career). Which is to say, they never thought his defense was good, and because he'll turn 37 in May, it’s bound to be atrocious. You wouldn't mind the defense if he was still hitting even near as well as he was in his prime, but he's not, and he won't again.
One thing he does do is play every day, and that’s probably worth something. But he will need to again be worth the 1.35 wins above replacement (WAR) he was in 2010 to earn his paycheck. His WAR was 1.35 when you blend his 2010 WAR 50/50 between Fangraphs (1.3) and Baseball-Reference (1.4). He’ll need to play at least that well to be worth the $6.5 million they're paying him at the rate of $4.5 to $5 million per win (which is the believed to be value of a win above replacement on the open market currently).
*1.35 WAR x ($4.5 or $5.0) = $6.075 to $6.75 million, or right on the money
The trouble is, there’s reason to believe he won’t play that well. Players at such an advanced age lose about a half a win per season on average, at least. Some work by Tom Tango recently revealed that it's probably appropriate to regress even more aggressively with players over 33 to the tune of 0.7 wins per season. If that holds true, and even if we take the higher market value of $5 million per win and the higher WAR figure from Baseball-Reference of 1.4, he'd regress to 0.7 wins above replacement in 2011, or a value of $3.5 million. However you look at it, it looks as though the Giants are paying him fair value, best case scenario, or about $3 million too much worst case scenario. In my wildest dreams he might be worth two wins next year, but I’d be happy if he again hit 1.3 wins above replacement.
The silver lining in all of this is pretty obvious, though. While Sabean surely did not avoid going the once-upon-a-time-a-star, veteran route, he did manage to avoid doling out a multi year deal. Progress! Tejada will be a one year stop-gap to give the Giants' minor league options time to develop. If none of them (Brandon Crawford and Ehire Adrianza, specifically) pan out, they'll again look to build another bridge to the next prospect, or fill the need via free agency or the trade market.
It's easy to ridicule, tar and feather Sabean for this deal based on Tejada's recent success (or rather, lack there of), but we all knew the shortstop options weren't attractive. Many would have probably preferred Uribe at 3 years and $21 million, but those in favor would also likely be first in line to crucify Sabean when in two years he isn't hitting, a serviceable shortstop, healthy, or some combination of the three. The truth of it is this: Uribe may and likely will be the better player in 2011, but after that the Dodgers are on the hook for two more seasons and an additional $14 million. The Giants won’t be.
The Giants picked one out of a stable of unattractive options, and are content to see how it works and buy themselves enough time to find a long-term option later. What were the other options? As far as free agents go, there was Cezar Izturis with his .248 wOBA and -0.3 WAR. There was Orlando Cabrera with the .292 wOBA and 1.3 WAR. There was Edgar Renteria with a .314 wOBA and 1.3 WAR but who can’t possibly be expected to play even half a season. There was Adam Everett with his .210 wOBA and -0.3 WAR in just 31 games this past season. There was Christian Guzman and his .287 wOBA and -0.1 WAR. Are you getting the picture? Trade candidates who would cost a prospect or two were: Jason Bartlett (.302 wOBA, 0.7 WAR), J.J. Hardy (.313 wOBA, 2.4 WAR) and Ryan Theriot who was already shipped to the Cardinals by the Dodgers. There was technically Derek Jeter. He, however, would have cost more than the Yankees were willing to pay, or upwards of $45 million over three seasons, which can also be described as a sum likely far greater than his actual worth.
The truth is the options were awful, and throwing darts at a board of their names or faces would have been about as productive. The Giants get a sandwich pick between the first and second rounds because Uribe went to the Dodgers as a Type B free agent. The Giants also didn’t sign themselves up to a multi-year deal with a player they weren’t wild about – Uribe was clearly in this category. Finally, they didn’t cost themselves a prospect, and Sabean has been clutching them tightly in recent years, the results of which cannot be argued with.
One thing to keep in mind and certainly keep an eye on is this: If Pablo doesn't return to his 2009 form or something approaching it, the wheels could fall off the left side of the infield in a hurry. The lack of range on the left side would be frightening, and the lack of plate discipline and propensity to ground into double plays between them could be horrifying. This is the nightmare scenario. What’s more, if either J.J. Hardy or Jason Bartlett are non-tendered instead of traded, the Giants may have painted themselves into a corner in which they cannot negotiate for their services due to lack of payroll. This seems unlikely, but it’s a possibility.
A blanket goal of the offseason should have been to improve. On top of that, the front office explicitly acknowledged a desire to get more athletic and more left-handed. They've accomplished neither the specific goals nor the blanket goal to this point in the offseason, and it’s far from apparent that additional moves will change any of that.
Hopefully, management recognizes quickly – if they have not already – that while the results of 2010 were a Dream Come True, the path taken was far from a straight line. The savvy veteran will not always hit an opposite field home run to win the pennant. The aged shortstop will not always hit an improbably home run off of the elite left-handed pitcher. Pitchers have down years and players get hurt; no matter how good your pitching is, the goal should never be to score "3 to 4 runs per game." The Giants simply MUST find a way to eclipse 700 runs by some significant number, or else they'll be missing the playoffs more often than they’d like.
Am I wild about Tejada? No. But after further reflection following my initial knee-jerk reaction, he’s not a disaster.
It’s also important to quickly dispel the myth that Tejada HAS power. He HAD power. People hear Tejada and they think he has pop, but in his current, 36-year-old state that couldn't be further from the truth; his 2010 slugging percentage of .381 was a point lower than Scott Podsednik. Rumor dispatched.
Something he also far from possesses, and this holds true now and throughout his entire career, is plate discipline. If you think Uribe likes to hack, you probably won’t be thrilled to learn that Tejada saw fewer pitches per plate appearance (P/PA) than Juan in 2010 (3.34 versus 3.59). Tejada had a 90 OPS+ in ’10 – that’s 10% worse than a league average hitter – to go along with a .306 weighted on base average (wOBA), .312 on base percentage (OBP), .381 slugging percentage (SLG), and .693 OPS. That’s awful.
Bill James projects he'll rebound slightly to the tune of a .320 wOBA in ‘11, but he's no upgrade over what the Giants had in 2010 with Renteria (.314 wOBA) and Uribe (.322 wOBA). More likely, he's a downgrade, both offensively and defensively.
He's had negative defensive ratings by Fangraphs in 9 of 13 seasons (-4.9 wins career) and in 10 of 13 by Baseball-reference (-6.7 wins career). Which is to say, they never thought his defense was good, and because he'll turn 37 in May, it’s bound to be atrocious. You wouldn't mind the defense if he was still hitting even near as well as he was in his prime, but he's not, and he won't again.
One thing he does do is play every day, and that’s probably worth something. But he will need to again be worth the 1.35 wins above replacement (WAR) he was in 2010 to earn his paycheck. His WAR was 1.35 when you blend his 2010 WAR 50/50 between Fangraphs (1.3) and Baseball-Reference (1.4). He’ll need to play at least that well to be worth the $6.5 million they're paying him at the rate of $4.5 to $5 million per win (which is the believed to be value of a win above replacement on the open market currently).
*1.35 WAR x ($4.5 or $5.0) = $6.075 to $6.75 million, or right on the money
The trouble is, there’s reason to believe he won’t play that well. Players at such an advanced age lose about a half a win per season on average, at least. Some work by Tom Tango recently revealed that it's probably appropriate to regress even more aggressively with players over 33 to the tune of 0.7 wins per season. If that holds true, and even if we take the higher market value of $5 million per win and the higher WAR figure from Baseball-Reference of 1.4, he'd regress to 0.7 wins above replacement in 2011, or a value of $3.5 million. However you look at it, it looks as though the Giants are paying him fair value, best case scenario, or about $3 million too much worst case scenario. In my wildest dreams he might be worth two wins next year, but I’d be happy if he again hit 1.3 wins above replacement.
The silver lining in all of this is pretty obvious, though. While Sabean surely did not avoid going the once-upon-a-time-a-star, veteran route, he did manage to avoid doling out a multi year deal. Progress! Tejada will be a one year stop-gap to give the Giants' minor league options time to develop. If none of them (Brandon Crawford and Ehire Adrianza, specifically) pan out, they'll again look to build another bridge to the next prospect, or fill the need via free agency or the trade market.
It's easy to ridicule, tar and feather Sabean for this deal based on Tejada's recent success (or rather, lack there of), but we all knew the shortstop options weren't attractive. Many would have probably preferred Uribe at 3 years and $21 million, but those in favor would also likely be first in line to crucify Sabean when in two years he isn't hitting, a serviceable shortstop, healthy, or some combination of the three. The truth of it is this: Uribe may and likely will be the better player in 2011, but after that the Dodgers are on the hook for two more seasons and an additional $14 million. The Giants won’t be.
The Giants picked one out of a stable of unattractive options, and are content to see how it works and buy themselves enough time to find a long-term option later. What were the other options? As far as free agents go, there was Cezar Izturis with his .248 wOBA and -0.3 WAR. There was Orlando Cabrera with the .292 wOBA and 1.3 WAR. There was Edgar Renteria with a .314 wOBA and 1.3 WAR but who can’t possibly be expected to play even half a season. There was Adam Everett with his .210 wOBA and -0.3 WAR in just 31 games this past season. There was Christian Guzman and his .287 wOBA and -0.1 WAR. Are you getting the picture? Trade candidates who would cost a prospect or two were: Jason Bartlett (.302 wOBA, 0.7 WAR), J.J. Hardy (.313 wOBA, 2.4 WAR) and Ryan Theriot who was already shipped to the Cardinals by the Dodgers. There was technically Derek Jeter. He, however, would have cost more than the Yankees were willing to pay, or upwards of $45 million over three seasons, which can also be described as a sum likely far greater than his actual worth.
The truth is the options were awful, and throwing darts at a board of their names or faces would have been about as productive. The Giants get a sandwich pick between the first and second rounds because Uribe went to the Dodgers as a Type B free agent. The Giants also didn’t sign themselves up to a multi-year deal with a player they weren’t wild about – Uribe was clearly in this category. Finally, they didn’t cost themselves a prospect, and Sabean has been clutching them tightly in recent years, the results of which cannot be argued with.
One thing to keep in mind and certainly keep an eye on is this: If Pablo doesn't return to his 2009 form or something approaching it, the wheels could fall off the left side of the infield in a hurry. The lack of range on the left side would be frightening, and the lack of plate discipline and propensity to ground into double plays between them could be horrifying. This is the nightmare scenario. What’s more, if either J.J. Hardy or Jason Bartlett are non-tendered instead of traded, the Giants may have painted themselves into a corner in which they cannot negotiate for their services due to lack of payroll. This seems unlikely, but it’s a possibility.
A blanket goal of the offseason should have been to improve. On top of that, the front office explicitly acknowledged a desire to get more athletic and more left-handed. They've accomplished neither the specific goals nor the blanket goal to this point in the offseason, and it’s far from apparent that additional moves will change any of that.
Hopefully, management recognizes quickly – if they have not already – that while the results of 2010 were a Dream Come True, the path taken was far from a straight line. The savvy veteran will not always hit an opposite field home run to win the pennant. The aged shortstop will not always hit an improbably home run off of the elite left-handed pitcher. Pitchers have down years and players get hurt; no matter how good your pitching is, the goal should never be to score "3 to 4 runs per game." The Giants simply MUST find a way to eclipse 700 runs by some significant number, or else they'll be missing the playoffs more often than they’d like.
Am I wild about Tejada? No. But after further reflection following my initial knee-jerk reaction, he’s not a disaster.
The 11th Reason...
There were a number of baseball fans across the country whose passion for baseball was ratcheted up a notch thanks to the 2010 Giants. Their interest had dwindled over the years for various reasons: bad trades, enormous contracts and overpaid, spoiled, steroid using players. While the 1998 home run chase reinvigorated the sport and drove revenues to new heights, the BALCO investigation and Mitchell Report were the hangover after the party. For a lot of people, the 2010 Giants brought the word team back into sports and was refreshing to many*, even to hardened fans of struggling franchises, like the Mariners. My fiancés father, Gregg, a self-proclaimed “hardened Mariners fan,” pointed this 11th reason out to me.
*I say “to many,” though not to as many as should have been possible. Jeff Passan at Yahoo! Sports just wrote an article laying out his reasons for being adamantly against an expanded playoff. I’m right there with him. It’s sad and extremely transparent, that Selig’s and Baseball’s primary motivation for expanding the playoffs is not to improve the game, but instead it’s for greed. As Jeff points out, expanded instant replay, which would provide an instantaneous improvement, is coming along as slow as a banana slug and is a perfect example of what’s overlooked when there are dollar signs in the eyes. He also suggests Selig could simply speak to ESPN and FOX and simply say, for the “long-term health [of the game], the networks need to focus less on the Yankees and Red Sox and more on growing the fan base among small and medium markets so a World Series like this year’s doesn’t find itself eminently skippable.” But the money is in the Yankees and Sox rivalry, as tired and watered down as that storyline has become in the past 8 years, and not in the rest of baseball. Until baseball becomes more interested in the sanctity and health of the game, and not just the loot that comes with it, fans will be missing out across the country, especially when a fun-to-watch team like the 2010 Giants comes along, and they simply haven’t heard much more than a peep about them for six solid months leading up to the Fall Classic.
*I say “to many,” though not to as many as should have been possible. Jeff Passan at Yahoo! Sports just wrote an article laying out his reasons for being adamantly against an expanded playoff. I’m right there with him. It’s sad and extremely transparent, that Selig’s and Baseball’s primary motivation for expanding the playoffs is not to improve the game, but instead it’s for greed. As Jeff points out, expanded instant replay, which would provide an instantaneous improvement, is coming along as slow as a banana slug and is a perfect example of what’s overlooked when there are dollar signs in the eyes. He also suggests Selig could simply speak to ESPN and FOX and simply say, for the “long-term health [of the game], the networks need to focus less on the Yankees and Red Sox and more on growing the fan base among small and medium markets so a World Series like this year’s doesn’t find itself eminently skippable.” But the money is in the Yankees and Sox rivalry, as tired and watered down as that storyline has become in the past 8 years, and not in the rest of baseball. Until baseball becomes more interested in the sanctity and health of the game, and not just the loot that comes with it, fans will be missing out across the country, especially when a fun-to-watch team like the 2010 Giants comes along, and they simply haven’t heard much more than a peep about them for six solid months leading up to the Fall Classic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)