No reason to panic about Tejada

Note: this post is a joke, a spoof, and does not represent my actual thoughts on the subject. I thought I'd made that clear at the end, but I apparently did not. Sorry about that. Head over to Bay City Ball for my real take (there was and is a link to it at the bottom as well). Also, please do enjoy this ridiculous post I had fun writing...

• • •

Here’s something I was surprised to read from Andy Baggarly, via Twitter (@extrabaggs):

Tweet 1: [The Giants] are having a great spring overall, but gotta be honest: Miguel Tejada has looked terrible. He falls down fielding hard grounder. 

Tweet 2: Not to be mean, but if I’m Tim Lincecum watching Miguel Tejada play short, I’m thinking I’d better strike out 400 this year.

Beat writers are paid to be objective, but this is borderline malicious. They have to ask the tough questions, sure, but come on! And besides, Tejada definitely has something left.

First of all, Tejada won an AL MVP award in 2002, and that definitely means something. He’s also an eight-time All-Star and two-time Silver Slugger award recipient. He’s one of the best players at the keystone over the last 20 years or so. What’s more, he’s hit in the middle of the lineup for just about every single team he’s ever played for, including the 2010 Padres, And those Padres almost made the playoffs.


He's a leader in the clubhouse, worthy of replacing two others in Edgar Renteria and Juan Uribe.

The evidence doesn’t stop there. Tejada hit 50 doubles in 2005 to lead the league! 50! He even hit 46 in 2009 to lead the league again. He’s already got 300 home runs in his career and his career batting average is very good for a shortstop at .287. More important than all of that, though, is the RBI he’s accumulated. He can really smell a run batted in when there are runners on base. It’s because of this that he’s finished six seasons with 100 or more RBI, leading the league in 2004 with 150!

Defensively, I’ve read a lot of junk about how he can’t play the position – this in addition to Baggarly’s recent additions to the discussion. It seems crazy to me. Really crazy. Ozzie Smith has a career .978 fielding percentage, and he’s in the Hall of Fame. In fact, he was largely voted in because of his glove and not his bat. They didn’t call him The Wizard for nothing. Tejada is a career .972 fielder, or just a shade below Smith.

Smith played until he was 41, and I see no reason why Tejada cannot follow in his foot stops. And Tejada’s a better run producer to boot. After the jump, my conclusion on this madness about Tejada's shortcomings...

· · ·

Scoring and run prevention of World Series winners

I posted an addendum to my most recent Hardball Times article. You can find it here.


----


On an unrelated note, Scottsdale is warm and fun. Also, there are a gajillion Giants fans here. But, I do wonder when their love affair began.

What you risk when you send Brandon Belt to Fresno

I'm writing this from my iPhone, so when you find the first error, know that and move on.

----

I asked a question to myself today, and "fired it through the Internet," as Ron Gardenhire would say. I used Twitter, the preferred method of the times. My question: Are Brian Sabean's recent comments -- Brandon Belt might be ready, and he's opened up some eyes this spring -- obligatory, or are they sincere? Which is to ask, is he simply saying this so we all don't grumble that, when he does send him to Triple-A, he's done so to delay his seemingly inevitable date with arbitration, or, is he actually contemplating placing Belt at first on Opening Day at Chavez Ravine?

A fellow blogger, the Crazy Crabbers, wondered what the harm would be in being cautious:

I don't see there being a huge downside for waiting but there is in bringing him up too soon. What is wrong with [a] cautious approach?

It could be that there's no harm at all. Or, it could be disastrous. Here's why: If, when you leave a talented player in the minor leagues, you're not putting the best team you can on the field, you're playing a dangerous game. There's something to be said for putting your best team on the field, you know, because that's what wins you the most baseball games. The Giants played this game last year, gambled, and won. They "preferred" Bengie Molina to Buster Posey on Opening Day, and for the first couple of months. Then, when Posey was good and "ready," they brought him to San Francisco. There's little doubt that he helped the Giants win more games than Molina would have. There's little doubt they won fewer when Molina was starting every day in April and May.

What if the Padres don't lose 11 games in a row? What if, the Giants lost Sunday, October 3, 2010, and again on Monday. What if they then lose to the Braves? Well, because hindsight is 20/20: the Giants don't just miss the playoffs, they lose a World Series championship. They lose a parade of one million people rejoicing in the splendor of the first championship in San Francisco Giants history. They lose an awful lot.

I'm not saying Belt is ready or that he gives them the best chance to win. That's for Sabean and his minions to decide. But if he is, and they send him to Fresno, it's a crying shame. You might gain another year of Belt and save some money, but you potentially lose Who Knows What. that's the harm: The unknown.

The Giants aren't such favorites that a few wins shouldn't matter. A few wins might decide the division. Plus, wasn't it refreshing when Jason Heyward made the Opening Day roster of the Braves last year? I sure thought so. Something tells me the Braves' brass was also refreshed when Heyward helped propel his team to the first round of the playoffs. And finally, I'm not the least bit convinced a great deal of harm can be done by bringing a player up to soon, and having him experience a bit of failure. Show me the study that says it'll ruin a young hitter, and we can talk.

----

I'm now boarding to Scottsdale. Finally.

Why the 2010 Giants' World Series was no fluke

I don’t have anything new up today, but I thought you might want to head over to the Hardball Times for my recent article: Pitching (almost) always wins championships.
 
Here’s a portion that would be of interest to Giants fans:
 

I think this really hammers home the point that pitching really does win championships; that you need at least an adequate stable of arms to have a prayer. Trying to win the Fall Classic without league-average pitching has proven to be about as fruitful as attempting to drive a car without gas. You’re not going to get very far. So, if you had to choose which is more important between offense and pitching, the answer is obvious: run prevention…
 
I also took the liberty of averaging each teams OPS+ and ERA+ to determine how much better than average they were overall. I then averaged all of those numbers, whereby I discovered the average World Series champion has graded out at 108.7, or about eight percent better than league average.
 
If you take the most recent champion, the San Francisco Giants, and add their OPS+ (95) and ERA+ (121) from 2010 together, you get a grade of 108. This goes to show their World Series title in 2010 shouldn’t be considered lucky or a fluke, rather, they were a perfectly average champion. What’s more, their excellent ERA+ fulfilled the pertinent requirement of at least adequate pitching. Looking at the data this way would make a lot of pundits feel silly on their pre-postseason picks, routinely expecting them to lose.

 
Please head over to the Hardball Times for the rest.

Pablo Sandoval is lighter, but is he better?

Jeff Sullivan at SB Nation recently pointed out that this March isn’t the only March where Pablo Sandoval has lost a bunch of weight.

First off, while many claimed Sandoval had leaned out some last spring training, our eyes were telling us something different entirely. Perhaps, instead of admitting then and there that “Camp Panda” was a failure, the Giants figured they could get a handle on him once again considering they’d have their hands on him (figuratively speaking, folks) all day, every day… or most of it anyway.

But here’s the portion I’m interested in:

It’s important, though, to remain reasonable. Sandoval may bounce back in a big way at the plate. He may improve in the field, too. Being in better shape can’t possibly hurt him. But the last time he lost a lot of weight he went on to struggle, and that’s something people have to keep in mind. That Pablo Sandoval’s eating wheat bread now doesn’t automatically mean his numbers are going to go up, because while his weight was probably an issue, it was never his biggest problem. Sandoval’s biggest problem has always been that he’s way too aggressive, and unless he’s suddenly able to deduce more proficiently what’s a ball and what’s a strike, he’s unlikely to re-establish himself as a star.

I can sympathize where Jeff is going, but I don’t necessarily agree. No, I can’t because I don’t think Sandoval’s ability to re-emerge as a young star in the National League weighs on his plate discipline any more than Carlos Gonzalez’s plate discipline (or complete lack there of) weighs on his ability to remain one.

View from the other side of the Bay

Dan Hennessey of the Oakland A’s blog Baseballin’ on a Budget – the same of Rob Neyer’s (abandoned) baby: The SweetSpot Network – and I thought it might be fun to get an unbiased take from one another on the San Francisco Giants and Oakland Athletics. It makes a whole lot of sense given the adjacency of their markets and the cross-town rivals that they are – not to mention, that “quick” little study Bud Selig is working on regarding the Athletics’ potential move to San Jose. After the jump, Dan will answer some questions on the Giants. Well, mostly the Giants…

----

Remembering Giants’ 2006 offseason, ‘7 Rule IV Draft

The 2003 season ended abruptly for the Giants with a baseball tightly clutched in the hand of Ivan Rodriguez, dusty after being bowled over by J.T. Snow. The Marlins, for the second time in seven years, had blindsided them in the Divisional Series along their way to the World Series championship.

In 2004, the Giants’ season ended again in heartbreaking fashion, this time a bit sooner (but still late) on the last day of the regular season. As the Giants were eliminated from extra baseball – the scoreboard at Chavez Ravine happened to be the bearer of bad news – a disappointed Barry Bonds left the game early, grabbed his bats, and headed down the tunnel to the clubhouse. He’d had one of the greatest offensive seasons in history and it wasn’t enough to get to October. It was as painful as the day earlier, when Steve Finley had crushed their chances of the western-division title with a decisive walk-off grand slam.

The look on his face was and is unforgettable, a bitter representation of defeat. Not just of the battle, but of the war. Bonds must have known right then and there that his chance of making it back to the Fall Classic was gone; his career had slipped by without winning it all. At least there would be 755 to chase.

Unfortunately, the Giants and Brian Sabean didn’t know what their otherworldly slugger did. They’d won 91 games in 2004, finished a game out, and went looking to improve the team and make it back.

In 2005, they went out and got Omar Vizquel, Mike Matheny, closer Armando Benitez and, most notably, Moises Alou. The results were mixed, to say the least.

After a fantastic season in Florida the year before, Benitez blew out his hamstring in April. He’d never pitch well for the Giants, miss a ton of time to the DL, blow a lot of saves, and ultimately be traded back to the Marlins for Randy Messenger in May of 2007.  Giants fans wouldn't have peed on him if he were on fire. He was not a fan favorite.

Unfortunately, Alou dealt with injuries as well and only played 123 games. When he was on the field, he was very good. He hit .321/.400/.518 for an OPS+ of 138. But even worse than Alou’s limited playing time, Bonds only played 14 games (all in September) following knee surgery. He was his (not quite so) usual self, hitting five home runs in 52 plate appearances with a line of .286/.404/.667 for an OPS+ of 174. It wasn’t enough and the Giants finished with just 75 wins and in third in the NL West.

In 2006, the Giants were still supposed to contend. They signed Matt Morris but later sent him to Pittsburgh for Rajai Davis and a player to be named later (PTBNL) when they weren't contending. They also acquired Mike Stanton to close for a minor leaguer. But Bonds only played 130 games, Alou 98 and Ray Durham 137. That was trouble, because they were the only offense the Giants had to speak of. The acquisition of Shea Hillenbrand for an interesting bullpen arm in Jeremy Accardo didn’t do anything to bolster it. He was having a decent season in Toronto, but it didn’t continue in San Francisco as his average on balls in play (BABiP) went from .312 in Canada to .268 in the states.

They won 76 games to cap their second-straight losing season. Their once-great slugger was fading away. So, the Giants finally got the picture. They let their free agents walk, hung on to their own draft picks and collected those that came from the teams scooping up Stanton, Alou and Schmidt. They packed it in and prepared to watch the stadium fill, despite not competing, while Bonds surpassed Hank Aaron on his way to 762.

····

B:P&P: MVPs for a teams second-best player

Over at Baseball: Past and Present, I recently wrote a bit about MVPs and Win Shares...

I’ve never delved in to win shares on my own blog, but will here today. But first, what are ‘Win Shares’?

Win shares are the creation of the master himself: Bill James. They are a really fun and outstanding metric James first introduced in his 2002 book Win Shares. Bill uses his system to assign a certain number of win shares for each player on a particular team, based on that player’s offensive, defensive and pitching contributions to the team. The statistics are also park-adjusted, league-adjusted and era-adjusted. Of course, Bill is also dealing in advanced metrics – sabermetrics – and not in RBI, wins, etc.


More to the mechanics of it, a win share is a third of a team win. So when the Giants won 92 games in 2010, they had 276 win shares to go around. We won’t go into the complicated formula, we haven’t the time, and so you’ll just have to buy the book. The basic idea is to determine how many win shares each player on a particular team deserves, to determine how valuable each player was. Often, we give too much credit to the offense while taking away from the importance of defense. We won’t do that here, not today.


This brings us to the topic of the day: Most Valuable Player awards. There’s always a lot of debate on this subject. Should it go to the leagues best player? Should it go to the player that was most valuable to his team? Does that player get extra credit if his team makes the playoffs? These are all very fair questions. I won’t bore you with my own convictions.


When the award comes out, there isn’t always consensus on who should have actually won… “There’s no way Ryan Howard should have won, Albert Pujols had a way better season!” It happens. It happens often. A lot of the time, though, the player that loses comes from another team that just didn’t play as well overall; the deserving player was simply overlooked. But how often do they give the award to a player that wasn’t even the best player on his own team?

You'll just have to head over to Baseball: Past and Present for the rest.

THT: National League up in arms

Earlier this week, I wrote about the starting pitchers in the National League, and how they appear to be improving at the expense of the American League. The NL has a long way to go to match the talent in the "Junior Circuit," but they are making progress. Maybe.

The National League has been called the Senior Circuit for many years—I’m no historian so I won’t attempt to gather exactly how long. The American League has been the Junior Circuit for just as long, having been elevated to major league status in 1901, 25 years after the NL. These things tend to be cyclical, but currently the description doesn’t exactly fit. But the NL, though probably not consciously, is attempting to make strides to close that gap, and it’s with top-heavy pitching that it's making that progress.

You'll just have to head over to the Hardball Times right here for the rest.

Paapfly programming

I have not put anything up in a few days – with the exception of this phenomenal link… drink it in, Giants fans – because I’ve been working on something big to put up on these pages. Actually, I just lied there. It’s actually for the Hardball Times (THT) but I’ll be sure to excerpt it here and leave a link. I’m certain you’ll want to read it.
 
At the risk of later being told I’m full of spit: It’s a fascinating subject. It pertains to the Giants’ 2010 run to their first World Series in San Francisco history, and just how important pitching is in these matters. Stay tuned.
 
Over the weekend (Sunday probably) I’ll have a post up where Dan Hennessey of Baseballin’ on a Budget --which is a really great A’s site that belongs to the venerable SweetSpot Network – answers some Giants questions I throw at him. I’ll answer his questions on the Giants and A’s on his site. You won’t want to miss that either.
 
I’m also going to be in Scottsdale for spring training next weekend, starting Thursday (3/17 – 3/20). This means two things: 1) I may not have a lot up next week, either. Sorry. And 2) If you see me at the park on Friday or Saturday (or in Scottsdale at all) and happen to be there too, say hello. I’ll be the bald guy that’s extremely inebriatintoxicated. Don’t judge, it’s my brother’s bachelor party, so there will be a few of us.
 
Finally, I’d like to end this with a question or two: Dear reader, who are you? I’m quite curious. Send me an email at paapfly[at]gmail or drop something in the comments or on Twitter. I’d like to know how you discovered my blog, what you like about it, what you don’t, and maybe what you’d like to see more of. Seriously. Don’t be timid.
 
If you’re willing, anyway.