Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Off-season filler

Stat geeks don't like the Giants 2010 offense. Big surprise, eh? Check out BaseballProjection.com and click on the Giants hitters. There's also a projection for Free Agents. OK, since I know you won't follow the links, here are the highlights:

GIANTS:
Sandoval .312/.356/.502
FSanchez .281/.319/.396

FA:
Holliday .299/.376/.510
NJohnson .264/.395/.407

The fellow who puts these together is named Sean Smith and his system is called CHONE (he's an Angels fan). BBTF's Dan Szymborksi has a system called ZiPS, but I don't believe he has worked up next season for the G-men. FanGraphs has Bill James projections available if you really need to waste time at work. These are popular with fantasy league guys, and I enjoy them because I do that sort of thing in my head all the time--imagining what so-and-so will hit next year. These are just more systematic, and have a track record. Have fun while we wait on Tim news!

12 comments:

Bob said...

I loves me that Panda as much as anyone, and there's no way he's going to do worse next year. He's just going to get better and better.

Zo said...

See the article from Chris Haft at http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20091116&content_id=7674708&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb or the summation by Howard Megdal at http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/11/discussion-sabean-and-the-giants.html.

It says, "Only one year for Molina; Penny asking too much; Uribe asking too much and probably no trades." First, always remember that Brian Sabean does not always do what he says, and I think that is by design. Only one year for Molina, and an offer of arbitration = good. I'm not sure I buy the next two. If the Big Unit got $8 mil last year, why is $5 mil too much for Penny? If Uribe wants (a couple years at) $4 - $5 mil, why is that too much when we gave Edgar $9 mil? I'd rather sign Uribe and cut Edgar. Then again, Sabes may just be playing it close to the vest, waiting to see what the market offers. I think that there will be a robust free agent market for Holliday, Bay, and pitchers (maybe including Penny), but not much else. I don't see Uribe, or almost any other hitter getting signed for their asking price. Finally, the no trades statement is good, but probably not true. Here is a translation for those not attuned to Sabe-speak:
We are ready to make a trade, but don't offer us crap for Tim Lincecum or Matt Cain. We have some major and minor league pitching talent that we would part with but need hitting that is good, relatively cheap, young and has an upside.

M.C. O'Connor said...

No, you mean "we need 30+ year old savvy vets with clutchness, gamerness, and their career best years behind them."

Sorry, couldn't resist. I can live with Uribe, and I agree he won't get a big offer. The odds that he'll be as valuable to us as he was this year are pretty low, but he would make a great super-sub at SS, 3B, and 2B. This assumes we sign a 1B like Nick Johnson and back him up with Garko.

Arbitration for Molina is probably a good idea, as we could score some draft picks if he (likely)walks. I won't be happy if he sticks around. In fact, it will be horrible if he sticks around.

Penny would be worth the risk. We could get some decent starts from him.

Ron said...

Why all of this excitement (or what passes for it, when it comes to our offense) about Nick Johnson??? Not just Mark, but plenty of people who I have read. He is always hurt. He is pretty good, when he isn't on the DL, but is not great. Here's an idea: if everyone thinks that the Ishikawa experiment is over, why not sign Holliday/Bay/Guerrero/Damon to play 1B? Or, Figgins to play in the OF, with Ishikawa/Schierholtz/Bowker covering 1B? Or, Figgins at 3B, & Panda at 1B? I'd be happier with any of those (more expensive) options than signing a guy who spends about 50% of his time on the DL. As far as Uribe, give him a decent offer, but not $5M. Penny, about the same.

Zo said...

Well, as I stated before, I do not see a lot of upside for the cost from Damon or Guerrero. Figgins would be good, but he has plenty of suitors, would be expensive and is a hitter, not a slugger. One assumes that we will be outbid for Holliday or Bay, but you are correct, they would be better parked in LF or at 1B. Johnson is attractive not because anyone thinks he could blow someones socks off, but because he should be an upgrade, and more reliable than what we have seen.

I think Uribe should be the starting SS, I think Garko at backup 1B and catcher is a great idea (depending on cost, of course). I also think that we can do this without rushing - we pay Edgar $9 mil because we signed him before the market was set.

M.C. O'Connor said...

I wouldn't call it "excitement." I'd call it "making the best of limited options." Johnson is hurt a lot, but he's an OBA beast when he's healthy. That's a big plus hitting in front of the Panda. Plus, he'd be easy to sign to a cheap, short-term deal. I don't believe the Giants will pursue Holliday (or Bay). We need a first baseman (I like Panda at 3rd). Ergo, Johnson.

Ron said...

Of all 21 of the ESPN 'experts' who gave their picks for NL Manager of the Year, only one indicated Bochy. Who was that deluded individual? Jon Miller - yikes!

Ron said...

Here's a sort of fresh idea - if we can't sign Penny, how about Pedro to be our designated gritty, bargain-priced, older veteran starting pitcher? How about $4M?

M.C. O'Connor said...

Pedro as designated OTH HOF (over-the-hill Hall-of-Famer). I like it.

Re Schierholz: his fielding, right now, is his best asset. Putting him at 1B would be nuts. The guy is fast and has a cannon. CF or RF for sure. Let's hope he can swing an ML-average bat.

Zo said...

I agree with Mark. I don't think we have had a right fielder with an arm like Nate's since Jack Clark. Plus, right field is tricky (often didn't look like it because Randy Winn was under-rated defensively). I will say this for Bochy - everyone picked the Giants to finish sub-.500, dead last. You can argue (as many have) whether Bochy should get credit for that, but as far as managers of teams that played over expectations, he has to be near the top.

Ron said...

Yes, but did we exceed expectations because of Bochy or in spite of Bochy? I say in spite of Bochy. Think about the thousands & thousands of ridiculous decisions that we have questioned on this very blog in the last year.

I understand that Schierholtz is a fine OF. I also think that he will be a fine batter, so I think that we need to get him into the lineup regularly. Given that we have an excess of OF's with a claim to playing time (if you count people like Bowker, Velez, Torres, along with Rowand & whoever we happen to pick up), I just offered the idea of Schierholtz at 1B (but I only really mean on those days when he isn't in the OF). On the other hand, I think that Travis Ishikawa can develop into a legitimate force, too.

M.C. O'Connor said...

I think Ol' Boch did good work with the bullpen, and I rarely faulted his game tactics. His lineups were a joke, but I'm not sure anyone could have done anything with our crew. He was hopelessly in love with guys like Winn and Molina, which really killed us. Overall? Meh. If we had talent, I don't think Ol' Boch would keep us from winning.

Nate has a long way to go before he is ML-average, but that's way beyond Velez or Torres. Velez is not a solution to anything, and Torres is a fine 5th OF, but that's it. Nate should be our starter in RF until he either delivers or plays his way to the waiver wire. We don't really have another option, unless you consider Bowker, and that's pretty iffy. Fred Lewis lost his job in LF, and I think the organization will cut ties with him, but he beats Velez by a long shot. He'd be a useful 4th OF or part-time leadoff hitter, but we still have a huge OF hole. Moving Nate would only make it worse.

At first we have Garko, who might be adequate. Bowker has an outside shot. Ishikawa doesn't project too well, but he might make a platoon work. I like his glove, but he has to hit a LOT more than he has so far. It's a massive gaping bloody hole and I'm not sure how it's going to be fixed.