User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.2821 seconds
54 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Absolutely stated without evidence. My contention is that he was operating under the orders of Emperor Norton (who being a good native of SF, had the Giants' best interest at heart, but was, sadly, insane).
You mean guys like Randy Winn and Edgar Renteria?
I think the offense will likely be a touch better. On the other hand, I said the exact same thing about 2009 (relative to 2008), and it was actually worse. Despite a Pablo breakout and fluke seasons from Uribe and Torres (the only players with a positive wRAA last year).
I guess the nicest thing you can say is that they had -55 wRAA from Winn, Renteria, Burriss, and Aurillia, and 3 of those guys are gone, and I expect a little dead-cat bounce from Edgar (for no other factor than counting stats because he will get benched if he keeps playing like he did last year)
As for BTF groupthink... I was a Sabean hater back in the USENET and Mosiac days. The word "blog" hadn't even been invented yet.
or as Voros said, an 83 OPS+ followed by an 81
if EVER a team was in a position where overpaying for premium offense made sense, it was the Giants and Sabean didn't do it, it looks like he didn't even try.
Yes these Giants SHOULD HAVE made a run at Holliday, over paying him if they had to.
Look at what the DBs are paying LaRoche, he would have been the Giants 2nd best hitter easily
For crissakes, look at the OFs on their 40 man roster
hell, at this point, sign Damon or something
I don't think Sabean is terrible, I mean, you are right, look at his multi-year record, look at that pitching staff, but what drives people crazy is that his flaws are so OBVIOUS
It's an old Bill James meme- the easiest teams to fix are the ones where bad players are dragging down the good players- THAT'S the Giants. The median corner OF and 1B has a 120 OPS+, the Giants didn't sniff that from any of those three positions (not counting Panda's time at 1b).
and because "Hot Stove" is Dutch for "Dead Horse Beating"...
In Sabean's tenure, the following player/seasons at RF/LF/1B have had a 120 or higher OPS+ (non Bonds, of course):
1997 JT Snow 1B
1999,2000 Ellis Burks RF (<500 PAs @ RF)
2004 JT Snow 1B
That's it. 4 Seasons out of 22. And it's not like there were a bunch of 115s or 110s, in there either.
But I am sure he was under ownership pressure during this time.
He did get good production out of 2B, however.
Rk Player OPS+ PA Year1 Barry Bonds 268 612 2002
2 Barry Bonds 263 617 2004
3 Barry Bonds 259 664 2001
4 Barry Bonds 231 550 2003
5 Barry Bonds 188 607 2000
6 Barry Bonds 178 697 1998
7 Barry Bonds 170 690 1997
8 Barry Bonds 169 477 2007
9 Ellis Burks 163 458 2000
10 Barry Bonds 156 493 2006
11 Barry Bonds 155 434 1999
12 J.T. Snow 146 417 2004
13 Ellis Burks 146 469 1999
14 Moises Alou 138 490 2005
15 J.T. Snow 135 637 1997
16 J.T. Snow 113 627 2000
17 J.T. Snow 112 668 1999
18 Marvin Benard 110 625 1999
19 Reggie Sanders 107 571 2002
20 Darryl Hamilton 106 436 1998
21 Stan Javier 106 490 1998
22 Randy Winn 105 667 2008
23 Fred Lewis 105 521 2008
24 Randy Winn 104 653 2007
25 Marquis Grissom 104 618 2003
26 Jose Cruz 104 650 2003
27 J.T. Snow 102 500 1998
28 Stan Javier 102 510 1997
29 Marvin Benard 100 429 2001
same time period, another frustrating team:
Rk Player OPS+ PA Year1 John Olerud 163 665 1998
2 Carlos Beltran 150 617 2006
3 John Olerud 135 630 1997
4 Cliff Floyd 134 425 2003
5 Carlos Delgado 131 618 2006
6 Carlos Beltran 129 706 2008
7 John Olerud 128 723 1999
8 Carlos Delgado 127 686 2008
9 Rickey Henderson 127 526 1999
10 Cliff Floyd 126 626 2005
11 Carlos Beltran 125 636 2007
12 Benny Agbayani 123 414 2000
13 Brian McRae 116 645 1998
14 Jason Phillips 115 453 2003
15 Butch Huskey 114 505 1997
16 Mo Vaughn 113 558 2002
17 Cliff Floyd 110 457 2004
18 Todd Zeile 110 623 2000
19 Mike Piazza 108 528 2004
20 Roger Cedeno 106 525 1999
21 Mike Cameron 104 562 2004
22 Shawn Green 103 490 2007
23 Timo Perez 103 481 2002
24 Carlos Delgado 102 607 2007
25 Bernard Gilkey 100 606 1997
If you remove Bonds, the Giants have had 19 such seasons, and a total of 11 players.
The youngest Giant "offensive position" player to clear 100 was Lewis at age 27... JT and Bernard made it at age 29.
The youngest Giant "offensive position" player to clear 100 was Lewis at age 27... JT and Bernard made it at age 29.
And of those 11 players, the only ones produced by the Giants' farm system were Benard and Lewis. Benard was a player Sabean inherited on the major league roster, so it becomes the case that in 13 full seasons as GM, the farm system overseen by Sabean has produced a grand total of one -- singular, unitary, solo, ONE -- one outfielder or first baseman who's delivered the big league team a season of 100 or better OPS+, and that one player has done it one time.
Think about that.
Astros 38Rockies 36
Brewers 35
Padres 34
Cardinals 34
Marlins 34
Phils 33
Reds 31
Dodgers 30
Nats 29
Giants 29
Cubs 28
Braves 28
Dbs 26
Mets 25
Pirates 21
Remember 10 of those Giant seasons were Bonds
Last 5 years looks like this:
PHI 17MIL 17
SDP 14
HOU 14
FLA 14
LAD 13
STL 12
COL 12
CIN 12
WSN 11
CHC 9
ARI 9
PIT 8
NYM 8
ATL 7
SFG 6
That includes 2 Bonds years, basically the Giants have the worst offensive performance of any team in the NL the last 5 years WRT the offense first positions
The Mets had just 4 home grown guys do it 1 time each in that span....
Your list only includes NL teams.
But I have confidence that if it included AL teams as well, the Giants would still be bringing up the rear.
Which is pretty doggone bad -- yet it's four times better than Sabean's Giants have managed to do.
It's truly impressive, what Sabean's pulled off. Don't try this at home.
I meant to fix that
.
Anyway, my point was the 2010 Giants look like the easiest team to "fix", but Sabean is not doing it, it doesn't look like he's even trying, rather he's treating Lince & Cain like he did Bonds- the SAFEST thing (in his mind) is to go out and plug a middling vet into every position.
When the Mets got Bay, Bay's 130 OPS+ is replacing 105-110 OPS+ performance- If the Giants got Damon, his 115-120 OPS+ would be replacing what? Someone else hitting a 90-
The Giants marginal gain would be as great as if not greater- and they'd only ahve to pay a fraction of what the Mutts will be paying Bay.
When the DBacks got LaRoche's 120 OPS+ hide- that's a huge improvement over what they got at 1B last year - he improves there offense more than Bay improves the Mets- and they are only paying 1 year at less than 1/2 the annual salary - that could have been the Giants...
Hey Dye is available...Garko (oops), Gomes, Orlando Hudson (cleared 100 4 straight years), Felipe Lopez, Nady...
I hear Uggla is available- the Marlins don't want a guy who is going to get expensive real soon- you don[t ahve to give them anyone you'd need in 2010
Giant OPS+ last 3 yeras:
82
83
81
It's not hard to get that to 90...
Unless you are Brain Sabean
82
83
81
It's not hard to get that to 90...
Precisely. It's harder to get from 90 to 95 than it is to get from 85 to 90, and it's harder still to get from 95 to 100 than it is to get from 90 to 95.
But getting from the low 80s to 90, hell just getting from the low 80s to the high 80s, is really not very difficult at all. It simply requires one not to allow gaping wounds in the lineup to freely hemorrhage, and the talent to stanch such wounds is truly not difficult to acquire. Yet the competitive improvement in your ballclub is just the same as if you were going from 95 to 100.
In short, it's the easiest challenge any GM can face, and Sabean has persistently failed to master it.
That in essence is it, yes Sabean does some things well, yes the team won 88 games last year, but good god, 82, 83, 81, and barring an unexpected breakout from someone, they're looking at another 80-85 season.
At this point someone in the Giant's FO should have told Sabean- GET A HITTER, preferably 2, NOW is the time to rent someone for a year or two
Someone like LaRoche has more marginal value to the Giants than he would to any other team, he wouldn't break the bank- not a sniff
Damon playing 1B/LF for the Giants has more value to the Giants than Damon playing LF/DH for any AL team, I bet there won't be a sniff.
He should probably also count for a 1/2 for 2006 (345 PAs)
I knew there was a reason I felt Kinship for Mets' fans, and it wasn't just 10 years in NYC. The adjective that springs to mind is "Hapless".
Finally, re: AL teams. I would guess the Royals are worse.
Yeah baby.
Take THAT, Sabean-bashers.
Have I not said this? I'm saying that the "evidence" critiques of Sabean don't hold up. In terms of, until 2 years ago, he was a "disaster" draft guy -- couldn't build a farm system, regardless of the ML roster success. No players ever came up. Now, he has incredible MiL success, but OMG, the big league club, even after Magowan's HR quest, isn't successful for 5 years. Yet, now we have all these pitchers. But: no hitters! Except Sandoval. And Posey. And maybe Noonan ...
So what is it? It can't be both, as he's had success in both 1) building an SF farm; and 2) keeping the G's in extended contention. Maybe not at the same time, but now, it seems that might not be far away.
I guess what counts here is my contention, *all along*, is that there is no monolithic way of judging the Giants' "plan". We actually know that they work year-to-year, in terms of offseason plans. At least, those of us who listen to the missives, which usually demonstrate the G's operate with a flexibility that is distracting, at best, and ruinous at worst, but I'm not sure any sort of monolithic strategy would work in something like baseball.
So ... evidence? This isn't fantasy baseball. This is the real world, where we have to assume that we aren't going to be told everything we want, or need, to hear.
hell, at this point, sign Damon or something
I'd be down for that, except they'd probably have to pay him as a CF, as opposed as to a corner OF, and we all know how well Sabean does WRT CFs.
It's truly impressive, what Sabean's pulled off. Don't try this at home.
If Sabean has established a winning record without some sort of traditional strategy, isn't that reason to, perhaps, examine why and how it works? I mean, if he has had less than spectacular (to be generous) corner production, how exactly is it he's had his track record of success? I call BS on the "luck" card. I think there's more to it. I will be the first to admit that I'm not the guy to suss out this sort of thing. I'm just saying, calling "luck" on a guy with a sustained record of success - especially by saying "well, Bonds by himself kept them a winning team for more than a decade" -- well, then I have to conclude that those sorts of "analysis" are flawed. If you truly think that one player can make a team win for a decade, well, I don't know who would laugh harder, scouts, seamheads, or fans.
I don't think Sabean is terrible, I mean, you are right, look at his multi-year record, look at that pitching staff, but what drives people crazy is that his flaws are so OBVIOUS
What I'm saying is, are they? For years he was completely and utterly incapable of drafting and developing any players whatsoever. If anything, it was fourth OFs and bullpen guys. Then, we had a wave of pitchers show up. Cain, Sanchez, Wilson, Lincecum. But: who cares, the slackjaw can't develop any hitters, that's where winning baseball is. Then, Sandoval comes up. Oh, well that's just *one* hitter, where's all the Jeters and Pujols. Maybe Noonan and Posey et al can prove he can develop more than one hitter, we'll see. The point is,
*If he's doing this now - ie developing All Star talent in a rapid, efficient manner - why didn't that happen earlier? Is this some sort of new efficiency on his part?*
*Or is it an organizational change that came from above? ie, post-Magowan, post-Bonds*
It's not like he just sort of developed this ability all of a sudden. I mean, they signed him from the Yankees exactly to be a draft & develop guy. Only thing is, he turned around one of the worst, most hopeless farm & ML orgs around so fast (please, check out the '96 and '97 teams, and tell me he didn't work miracles) he didn't have the chance to have an extended d&d;period, in terms of traditional draft picking and developing. And, as I've said, I think Giants ownership, for many reasons I've stated, and I stand by them, preferred to spend their money on the ML roster.
Why? 1) Keep the team in contention. Sells tickets, plus airtime. I mean, who has clearly won the Bay Area media sweepstakes? The Giants. I think people forget how much of an afterthought baseball was here after the strike, and the G's have clearly won the Bay Area since then. The Giants were behind the A's in terms of success, they were in an absolute dump of a ballpark, there was little if no chance of getting anything better; Pac Bell, for example, is a veritable miracle, and the CSNBA coup basically ruins the A's in the region; 2) Recoup Candlestick monies lost; 3) Generate $$ for Pac Bell; 4) Generate $$ for CSNBA.
But I've said all this already, multiple times. What kills me is:
1) with all the normalized stats and tables run, 1) if my contention is right - that a flexible, year-to-year ownership mandate can complicate the analysis of any GM - then why are we using '97 stats and '01 FA signings to understand what Sabean is doing right now, today? I mean, obviously he's doing something different and better, but your tables aren't showing it. Why is that?
2) If Sabean is so horrible, then his success cannot be marginalized. In other words, if he succeeds despite your analysis, THEN IT IS YOUR ANALYSIS THAT IS FLAWED. Forgive me for yelling, but I'm afraid if I don't, Shooty might misunderstand me and chastise me for kicking the precious sandcastles his little buddies built in the playpen again.
Obviously you aren't familiar with what I've written on this subject many times, on this site and elsewhere, for many years. That's fine, but the fact is that I have written many, many defenses of Sabean's record from 1997-to-2003-or-so, explciitly detailing the many ways in which the Giants' success, while obviously primarily a function of Bonds, was much more than that, and specifically that Sabean's record of finding useful talent at reasonable prices, and plugging holes quickly and resourcefully, was excellent.
But Sabean since that period has simply not performed that way. Not close to it. And what I've also written many times, on this site and elsewhere, is that we shouldn't be surprised to find that GMs (like field managers) don't perform with machine-like consistency over periods of a decade or more. Like players, they often show improvement, and peak, and decline. Sabean's performance with the Giants strongly suggests a quick-thinking young GM who was ahead of the curve for half-a-decade or more, but who has since become tired, less energetic and nimble, has fallen into familiar risk-averse patterns and his peers -- most of them now younger than him, and nearly all of them lesser-tenured than him -- are now consistently getting the better of him.
Luck, frankly, has had little to do with it.
What I'm saying is, are they?
82
83
81
This flaw is as obvious as the sun in the mid-day sky. It doesn't mean Sabean's clear strength of scouting, drafting, signing, and developing young pitching talent doesn't remain, but the flaw could hardly be more plain, real, or serious.
That, my friend, is preposterous. Luck is a tremendous part of baseball success and failure, even over a 12 year period. Sabean has had his share of luck, both good and bad over the years.
It was a miracle. Jeff Kent's development into a hall-of-fame class hitter was nothing short of miraculous.
Other than that, he made some decent signings, and some questionable ones. The emergence of Rich Aurillia and Bill Mueller can hardly be credited to him (especially since he lets Mueller walk after a off-year)
The problem with those late 90's - early 00's teams was ironically that they had no starting pitching.
So now we not only have a guy who can't put a competitive team on the field while developing players (your contention) AND we have a guy who cannot develop a team with an offense and a defense simultaneously. All while having a high pay roll.
Sounds to me like a GM with some serious flaws.
How many wins/season was Barry Bonds worth to the Giants? Use any method you like.
OPS+ is calculated based on the average non-pitcher's production, but team OPS+ in the NL includes the hitting of the team's pitchers. The league as a whole had an OPS+ of 94; the Phillies' offense posted a 103 and led the league in runs. (Neyer got in trouble on this when he claimed the Phils' offense was only 3% better than league-average before the World Series.)
All that being said, it's still not really too hard to get to 90, or at least to 85 or 88 or something.
Oh, of course, absolutely. But the issue is that neither Sabean's successes nor his failures have been primarily as the result of unusually good or bad fortune. His record is a fair representation of the quality of his decisions given the resources at his disposal.
No doubt Sabean was lucky that Kent blossomed as he did with the Giants. But to conclude from that single player that Sabean's overall record with the Giants is significantly distorted by that good fortune is wholly unpersuasive. On every team over any 13-year period there are going to be several players who perform unpredictably well or poorly. Uttering the name "Kent" falls miles short of presenting a case that Sabean's tenure has been unusual in this regard.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main