AZ 11 SF 0
Chris Stratton had another excellent start but the Giants were both shut out and swept by the Diamondbacks. It was a close game until the 8th when Matt Cain (2/3 IP, 8 R) had perhaps his worst appearance ever. If not the worst, then close, and that's saying a lot considering he's been in the bigs since 2005 and has logged over 2000 innings. But that's not really important. For all his career accomplishments in orange-and-black Matt Cain is not a part of the future. It makes me sad to say that but it happens to all players, and he leaves behind an outstanding body of work. The only thing we can be interested in at this point in this wretched season is next season and the season after that, etc. The present is intolerable; the future has a chance to be better. Chris Stratton is showing some major-league moxie and I'm excited by that. Even if his ceiling is only as a fifth-starter (and it may not be), the Giants still need choices for that role, and he's serving notice that he should be in the mix. Good for him. Let's see more guys bang on the door and say "put me in coach, I'm ready to play."
Next stop is San Diego tomorrow night. Jeff Samardzija gets the ball.
GO GIANTS!
--M.C.
p.s. The uniforms the Giants sported this weekend were the most clownish I've ever seen them in and it is fitting that they played poorly while looking like a beer-league slo-pitch team. Some promotions really are cringe-worthy--this was one of them.
10 comments:
Chris Stratton struck out 10, as he did earlier in August against the Nats.
Razing Matt Cain.
I hope that they start publishing advance warning of Idiotic Uniform promotions - I never want to pay a dime to see my Team wearing any of this shit. And, while on that subject, how is it that Arizona's uniforms looked more like Giants' uniforms that the ones that the Giants wore? It just seems like they throw a few random, irrlevant parametres into a blender, & spit out uniform schemes. These even featured the dopey nicknames. What was that? Some kind of Little League World Series tie-in? Societal decay is what that was. Is it over yet? (this particular uniform thing ... not societal decay ... that will only be interrupted when we get a new President)
I noticed that, too. The DBacks Sedona Red looked a lot like Giants Orange. Marketing, marketing, marketing. That's the mantra, man. Sell more shit!
In the Sporting Green in today's (8/28) Chronicle, there are 2 stories about the Giants. Not on the first page, that is an A's victory, 49er loss, Stanford victory, and something about what books the Raider's receivers are reading. Not on the second or third pages, either, they cover the Little League World Series won by Japan, a boxing post-partum, soccer, golf, tennis, and how the hurricane in Texas affects the Astros and Rangers. Here, on page 5, both by Henry Schulman, "SF let down by relief corps" and "Offense fails to get going."
From the first, "The relief corps has not been as bad as last year, when the Giants led the majors with 32 blown saves....". I disagree with this statement. The relief corps has been very much worse than last year's. Using blown saves as the sole metric to make that statement is very much flawed. Fewer blown saves (Giants are, this year, close to the league average) are a product of save opportunities as well as success or lack thereof. The Giants' relief corps have allowed 71 inherited runners to score. The worst team in the major leagues is the Mets, who have allowed 74 inherited runners to score. The Giants have allowed 38% of inherited runners to score, which is the second worst in the major leagues, behind Houston, with 39%. Last year the Giants allowed a MAJOR LEAGUE BEST 22% of inherited runners to score.
Giants have blown 17 saves this year (which is the league average). They have saved 30 games (which is just below the league average of 32), probably because Sam Dyson, who was not a Giant for the first 2.5 months, has saved 12. The Giants have had 47 save opportunities, which is, surprisingly, just under the league average of 49. Keep in mind, however, that it is not a save opportunity unless you get into the 9th inning ahead by 3 runs or fewer. You blow the lead in the 7th or 8th, you don't have a save opportunity. Nor do you if you are up by a bunch (not that this applies to the Giants) or tied.
And finally, it really makes no difference if your relief pitching gives up 9 runs, or 19 in a game IF YOU DON'T SCORE A SINGLE RUN YOURSELF.
The Astros are the 2nd-best team in baseball and they allow the 2nd-most inherited runners to score. Interesting! I suppose when you lead the league in hitting and scoring you can afford to give up a few late runs.
Logic would lead me to agree with Zo, that strand rate is the prime stat in judging a relief corps--not, of course, the only one. But since the Giants' 'pen was pretty disastrous in 2016, the fact that it led MLB in strand rate seems to discredit that logic. A post on MCC a while ago offered stats to show that the 'pen wasn't at all bad in 2016 except in the late innings, in closing out games; perhaps the apparent anomaly of a weak-appearing relief course with nonetheless an excellent strand rate may be resolved by thinking about when in the game inherited runners were let score as well as the total pct of inherited runners.
We need, clearly, better metrics for measuring individual relievers and groups of relievers than we now have. One would start with strand rate, I should think, together with measures of leverage, WHIP minus intentional walks, and consistency/reliability.
For "relief course" above, read "relief corps." Goddamn autocorrect.
Most save situations start at the beginning of the 9th inning. So if the "strand rate" is favorable, but the Giants lead in blown saves, that implies that you need a better closer, not so much a better bullpen all around. Which is where we were last year and why they went out and got Melancon. It was, therefore, logical to think that a closer could solve the Giants relief problems. Logical, but wrong, as it turns out. Although the pen was "pretty disastrous" in 2016, the Giants made the playoffs, being the 2nd best team, by record, in the NL that did not win a division. I think some of the high profile losses, like, say, the last one colors our perception of whether the bullpen was disastrous or not.
But campanari makes a good point. If you put in a relief pitcher in the 7th, in a tie game, and he gives up 6 runs, it is neither a blown save or a inherited runner scoring. Nor is it a hold, and I don't know if they keep track of blown holds. They should, they could call them "blowholes." I have no doubt that the Giants, or any team, has stats that the average folks can't tap into.
A save is kind of a dumb stat. Sometimes the most important outs are NOT the last three. Jeremy Affeldt was the most valuable reliever I've seen, and he never got saves. He was too important and had to be used in earlier, higher-leverage situations, like two on and one out in the 7th, for example. I think the focus should be on outs. Like how many batters does it take for a reliever to get the outs he is in there to get? Obviously guys who have low walk rates and high strikeout rates are desirable, as well as guys who generate weak contact. Saves and holds are sort of like RBIs, great for writing the game narrative after it's over, but not much use evaluating who is the most effective at keeping the ball in the yard and getting easy outs. Good relief pitching is like pornography--you know it when you see it but it's damn hard to write a clear-cut definition.
Post a Comment