Numbers, numbers, numbers.
San Francisco Giants: 41 - 48 at the All Star break.
Home: 20 - 26; Away: 21 - 22
March: 1 - 3
April: 11 - 15; 1st "inning": 8 - 10
May: 10 - 16; 2nd inning: 8 - 10
June: 14 - 13; 3rd inning: 5 - 13 (yuk!); 4th inning: 10 - 8
July: 5 - 1.
The Giants will complete their 5th inning at the conclusion of the first game after the break Friday night (their 90th game).
San Francisco Giants vs NL West: 23 - 24;
vs Arizona: 6 - 7; vs Colorado: 5 - 4; vs Los Angeles: 5 - 8; vs San Diego: 7 - 5, with 4 more to play vs Colorado right after the break to complete the early and middle face-offs against our division foes.
However, since the June 7 start of these series, here is how the numbers shape up:
vs Arizona: 4 - 3; vs Colorado: 1 - 2; vs Los Angeles: 2 - 5; vs San Diego: 5 - 0. It would appear that San Diego, looking so strong at the start of the season, is erratic while the smogsuckers are looking dominant, at least in the divisional race. In that time, the Giants are also 4 - 2 against non-divisional opponents. Make of this what you will. However, after a mediocre start and an awful 3rd inning in which the Giants dropped 7 in a row, anyone would have to admit that they are playing tough, competitive baseball.
Since the All-Star break in 2016, the Giants have been the worst team in the National League, save Miami, and if I had written this at the end of June, the Marlins would have had a better record than the Giants. The Marlins are 1 - 5 in July vs 5 - 1 for the Giants. And ever since, I have been tearing myself up asking, "WHY?" The answers haven't come to me - injuries, aging, over-valuing players and locking them into long-term contracts, all that has a part, but I could never reconcile just how bad the Giants became, seemingly overnight. In 2016, the Giants had the best record in baseball prior to the All Star break and coasted into the playoffs only to lose to the Cubs juggernaut.
But, the Giants are now playing well with a winning 4th inning and a great start to July. They are 7 games under .500, even though they were once 12 games under. Their offense has been number 1 in the major leagues lately, at least before the 1 - 0 win on Sunday. Can these random newcomers really have made that much of a difference? 32 wins out of 73 remaining gives the Giants a better record than last year. 33 wins out of 73 remaining gives Bruce Bochy a nice, even 2000 wins for his career. 40 wins out of 73 remaining gives the Giants a .500 record for 2019. In an interview in the Chronicle today, FZ said that he did not feel pressure to be a seller and that, in fact every team is in an evaluation mode. Is .500 possible? Can it be that a 3-year curse which we do not begin to understand has finally been lifted?
C'mon Giants! Don't trade Madbum!
3 comments:
I think .500 is very possible. I think it would be a hell of a good goal. However, re-stocking the 40-man roster and the upper minors is an even more important goal.
If they have to trade people to beef up the organizational depth, I'm OK with it. It will hurt to lose good people, but the team is old and top-heavy with long-term deals. I'd like to see a leaner, younger, roster. Then they have the financial flexibility to chase FAs when they need to.
I think the roster-ing that FZ has pulled off so far has improved the team. They are playing more like a normal ball club. And even if they trade away the "core" of the bullpen that will just give guys like Moronta, Ray Black, Trevor Gott, and the minor-leaguers a chance to perform, and that's what's needed for the long term.
I am from the school, that in today's game the bullpen is more important than it has ever been. We are no longer in the days of Juan Marichal and Gaylord Perry each pitching 30 or so complete games a season. The giants have one complete game, and that game was rain shortened. The pen today, against common convention is a key part of winning and success. A very good pen is not easy to assemble. Good hitting teams today, with decent starting pitching, and poor bullpens are going nowhere. Let us not under rate the importance of a good pen. To think that the assembling of a good pen is an easy task, is also a mistake. Money wise it may be cheaper than assembling some other areas of the team, but talent wise, it is hard to assemble a good pen with a decent share of righties and lefties. Not only for this year, but with rule changes, it will be important that righty pitchers can get lefties out, and lefty pitchers can get righties out, in addition to getting batters out from their same side. Look at the giants win loss records of their pitchers. Despite not hitting, the giants pen has assembled a good W to L percentage, while their starters records are abysmal. Also, when viewing the giants as a team, they would be a completely different team this year if we could just erase the first inning of each game. Of course we cannot do that, but to me, it has been a problem that management must solve. We do not have a great team, but they are also not as bad as their record. Also, several players are due to get hot.
I agree, the Giants have certainly shown that a strong, deep 'pen can be a real asset. Although I expect some of the key arms, like Watson, Dyson, and Smith to be traded, I feel good about some of the youngsters getting more of a chance to develop. Melvin Adon and Sam Sellman are possible call-ups, for example. And I think Reyes Moronta is eventually going to be a key setup man or even a closer. I think I mentioned Ray Black and Trevor Gott before, I expect both of them will get more responsibilities.
Smith is a free agent next year and at $4+M he won't be re-signed, most likely, so it seems smart to trade him now. Dyson's making $5M and goes to his final year of arbitration next year. I think it makes sense to trade him due to the cost and commitment when there are some live arms ready to step in. Obviously those young guys could flop, but even established relievers "lose it" at some point. Bullpens are very variable in performance. I believe Tony Watson has a player option for next year ($2.5M), but the club seems to have a buyout clause as well ($0.5M), so there may be less incentive to move him. Not to mention he has some red flags like declining K numbers, and increased hits and homers. Why spend money on a vet when you might just get a similar performance from a rookie?
I think this is a case where the current trade value outweighs the future value, that is, trading those three now will pay off more down the road than keeping them. I might feel differently if the Giants were competitive, but I don't believe they are. At best this is, as far as I can tell, a .500 club, and I think their odds of getting to the post-season are too small to plan for.
MadBum is a different case because of course the deep ties to the organization and the championship teams. The Giants might be smart to hold out for a really good deal on him and if they don't get it they can keep him and finish the season and make him a Qualifying Offer. Then the ball will be in his court and he can decide his future.
Post a Comment