Hey, the new guy's pretty good

I just thought I’d publish a few thoughts on the new guy, David Schoenfield. A couple of days ago, he officially debuted on the SweetSpot as the replacement of Rob Neyer – big shoes to fill according to us, little shoes according to Neyer. You have to love the humility.
 
Anyway, I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t eagerly awaiting his replacement. For one, Neyer vowed a hunger strike until his replacement emerged, and I don’t wish him to die. Of course, he was almost certainly as apocryphal about the fast as he was about the “small shoes to fill” comment. Or else he’d be quite gaunt.
 
The other reason is that I think I was ready for consistent, cohesive content on the SweetSpot. I thought handing the space over to the Network writers was a phenomenal idea, one that gave most of them a really great chance to showcase their talents. It also exposed a gamut of topics given the different styles and interests of each writer. Even better, I think the best of the bunch really shined. But as I said, I was ready.
 
His inaugural post was but an introduction, and I enjoyed it. As his furious pace continued in day one, I continued to read. Most importantly, when every so often a new post appeared on my Twitter feed, I found myself compelled to read it. This was always why I found myself coming back to the SweetSpot when Neyer was at the helm (and why I continue to do the same at his SB Nation page): I genuinely wanted to read everything he wrote. I don’t always agree with him, but there’s something about his writing that makes me feel as if, were I to miss a single post, I’ll have missed something important.
 
I also like this about the new guy’s style: it’s different. I won’t say they could have cloned Neyer, but maybe they could have hired someone to do something similar. Instead, they hired Schoenfield and he’s taken a different approach – as was evidenced by his posting of the Random Old Photo of the Day, which reminds me of something I quite enjoy about Roger Ebert’s blog. Another example: how he “teases” the ESPN Podcast – that’s one of David’s words (tease), by the way. Different. Joel and Ethan Coen could have casted someone to mimic John Wayne in the True Grit (2010) remake. But they astutely plugged in Jeff Bridges, allowed him to steal the show – alongside a brilliant performance by a 14-year-old girl – and forged a new classic. Brilliant.
 
I don’t know that I’ll continue to read David day after day, but I hope I do.
 
ESPN: you done good.
 
----
 
On a side note, I’ve joined Chris Quick and Otis Anderson at Bay City Ball, the San Francisco Giants’ representative at the ESPN SweetSpot Network. Many of you already know this. Both are great writers and I was thrilled to join Chris’ “nerd-squad.” We’ll be covering the Giants all year long, and Chris will continue to provide the blurb for the weekly Power Rankings. Good stuff.
 
Paapfly isn’t disappearing. I’ll probably update it from time to time. I don’t know. That’s the honest answer. But, as you can see, I just posted this, so I don’t have immediate plans to shut it down. What’s more, I plan to continue to excerpt what I write elsewhere here. Most of all, I’m confident if you truly enjoyed reading my writing that you’ll find it, wherever it is.

Schierholtz a decent replacement for Ross

Over at Bay City Ball, I examine why Ross' calf injury isn't the End of the World.

When Giants fans see Cody Ross, they see a bald, smiling saint that crushes home runs off of Roy Halladay. Luckily, though, not all Giants fans are created equal. You see, about half of today’s Giants fans were yesterday’s casual baseball fan – or maybe last August’s casual baseball fan. Certainly, half is probably an exaggeration, but you get the point...

Nomar Garciaparra's career

I took the liberty of creating a visual of Nomar Garciaparra's career for you. I debuted this on Twitter earlier today, to my chagrin, it was met with lukewarm reception. I guess some folks don't quite understand the painstaking intricacies of such an endeavor.

After the jump, you can decide for yourself.

Brian Wilson is out, who's in?

Brian Wilson's likely out for at least a little while. That's not horrible news. I mean, it's not great but it's also not the end of the world. So, who will replace him?

Romo seems the obvious choice to fill his shoes, but it might be worthwhile to explore a platoon.

Click the link and enjoy the adventure.

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…

----