That's right, I said it. I've never liked Joe Buck, and I'm not saying he's good. But I don't think he deserves all the criticism he gets. The hatred. The absolute vitriol heaped upon him. I'm not really sure where all that came from.
For my purposes here, I'm referring to his baseball announcing. I don't have the interest in or knowledge of football to comment with authority on his play-by-play work in that realm. But for baseball, is he really that bad?
My criticism of Buck has always revolved around his monotone. Whatever was happening on the field, he seemed to speak with the same cadence and volume. He would say things like "...and Cole Hammels pitches around some trouble in the 4th..." and then later "...a three-run homer from Chase Utley has tied this game in the bottom of the 8th..." And he'd be at pretty much the same excitement/volume for both. This is a completely fabricated example, but go read those "quotes" again in Joe Buck's voice. Surely you see what I'm talking about.
But, no joke, he's totally improved on this over the last few years. Go back and watch highlights of the 2014 Playoffs. There's genuine excitement in his voice.
Yes, when he's calling Cardinals games, he's probably a little biased. But I do believe he knows the game and has insights to deliver. Really, I think he has been severely held back all these years by Tim McCarver, who is an idiot, plain and simple. Thankfully, McCarver retired after the 2013 playoffs. Unfortunately he was replaced by Harold Reynolds, who is not much better.
I know it's fashionable to hate on Joe Buck. And I know he has a very punchable face. But what, really, is your problem with him?
Monday, November 10, 2014
Sunday, November 9, 2014
The Gianasty
I wrote this is 2010, and this in 2012. So I feel like I
should spew my Giants thoughts again, now that I have another SF Chronicle to frame. In a separate post-2010-title post,
I wrote that having won one World Series, the new goal should be to become the
team that wins so much, everyone outside of San Francisco hates them. I think
we’re getting there(!).
Three titles in five years. Soooo weird. I think this points
to why baseball is my favorite sport. I can come up with plenty of reasons why
basketball and football are better games. But baseball is just so delightfully
unbelievable*. Travis Ishikawa—a guy who was this close to retiring
mid-season—hitting a home run to send his team to the World Series? And this
comes after Michael Morse—in like his second at bat in a month—hits a
game-tying homer in the bottom of the 8th?? Nah, dog. That ain’t
real.
[*Or, if you’re on the losing end, horrifyingly unbelievable]
I will say that of the three title teams, this 2014 one was
the worst. Not that they weren’t just as fun. But looking at the 25-man rosters
of each World Series team, I think it’s clear that this one had the least
talent. Which makes appreciating it’s members that much more fun. Let's do it:
Madison Bumgarner. Start at the top. This was the best
post-season performance for a pitcher of all time. That’s pretty much an
objective fact. In all of sports, this has to rank up there as one of the all
time “I got this” performances. He was Michael Jordanian. Completely put his
team on his back and carried it to the promised land. We can argue all day
about whether “clutch” even exists. Regardless, it’s so incredibly exciting to
watch athletes perform their best when the stakes are at their highest. Makes
you marvel that you’re even of the same species. I look forward to 50 years
from now when people are still talking about how awesome Bumgarner was. Five
shutout innings of relief on two day’s rest to close out Game 7 of the World
Series. Stuff of legends. This is one of the most storied franchises in baseball. Madison Bumgarner is its greatest post-season pitcher, and he's 25.
I feel bad for Royals fans, who probably feel like they got
beat by one guy. I hope they make it back.
Buster Posey. On paper, he had a pretty awful post-season.
Not one extra-base hit, and he particularly struggled at the plate in the World
Series. Doesn’t matter. He caught nearly every inning, including the 18-inning
marathon in Washington. He’s a boss.
Brandon Crawford. I love having him as the shortstop. So
consistently impressive. This play will go down as the most underrated of the
playoff run. In an instant, he finds the ball in front of him and knows exactly what to do. His instincts are
amazing. And how ‘bout that arm? (keep in mind that’s Lorenzo Cain running).
Joe Panik. I’m not as bullish on Joe Panik’s future as most
people are. I think he’s a good candidate to regress once scouts get a book on
him. And he’s not even that great to begin with: .711 OPS in the regular
season; .646 in the playoffs. But second base was a black hole for the
Giants most of the year. Remember Brandon Hicks? Dan Uggla?? Shudder. He filled
in so darn adequately, it makes me smile. Plus if you love making bad puns, this guy is a gold mine. Coming into this season, he probably
thought maybe he’d sniff a September call-up from the minors. As it turns out,
he’s starting in the World Series, and making one of the most important plays in Giants history.
Lookie here:
At this point in time, it’s basically first and third with
no outs. Everybody knows it, and it sucks. But because Joe Panik was born, it’s nobody on and two outs. I already
mentioned Crawford’s instincts. Doesn’t seem like Panik’s are too bad either.
On his from-the-belly glove-flip: "This is the first time I've ever done
something like that. It was just instinctual. I couldn't get my bare hand to my
glove." I love it.
Funny thing about this play: If Hosmer doesn't slide into first base, he's probably safe. OR, if Cain slides feet-first into second, Hosmer is probably safe.
Funny thing about this play: If Hosmer doesn't slide into first base, he's probably safe. OR, if Cain slides feet-first into second, Hosmer is probably safe.
Yusmeiro Petit. In 2013, he was one out away from a perfect game. This year, he broke the record for consecutive batters retired, with 46, over 8 appearances. That's 1.7 perfect games. And then in the playoffs he was this year's 2012 Lincecum. What a BAMF.
Bruce Bochy. Without question, he’s now a
#NoBrainerHallOfFamer. I think the coolest part about Bochy is this: Usually
when analysts tout a great manager, they talk only about his resume—his win totals,
his titles, his longevity. With Bochy, they actually talk about his decisions.
They specifically mention how he out-smarts his counterpart. He’s out-managed
his opponent in every series in the last five years. Not only does he have the
resume, but you can be sure he contributed to those accomplishments himself—not just
his players.
The rest of the coaching staff. Dave Righetti and Mark
Gardner have to be the most underrated pieces of this era of Giants baseball.
And let’s not forget about bench coach Ron Wotus. As I understand things, he’s
responsible for positioning players in the field. And if Juan Perez isn’t
hugging the line in the 5th inning of Game 7 with a runner on
second, he doesn’t catch Aioki’s line drive.
Advanced Scouting Department. I have no evidence to back
this up, but I bet the Giants’ major league scouts are some of the best in the
game. Whomever the Giants play in the playoffs, they always seem to know how
best to play them.
The rest of the front office. This era of Giants baseball is
built upon homegrown guys, which is ideal for a fan. The 2014 team in particular was
littered with ‘em. And the rest of the roster was filled in via savvy trades
and picking out unseen talent from the bargain bin. They’ve built this dynasty
with three different aces and three different closers. Nice work, Sabes.
I don’t know if it’s an organizational philosophy to get
this kind of personnel, or if the coaching staff deserves even more credit than they
already get. But these Giants teams seem to have a calmness about them. A quiet
confidence. Look at all of those elimination games in 2012. Or in Game 4 of
this World Series when they went down 4-1, and were staring at a 3-1 series
deficit. In short, unlike me, they did not freak the fuck out. They trusted
each other, as if they knew things would fall into place. Thanks again, Giants.
See you in 2016.
Don't forget to check out McCovey Chronicles for other crucial 2014 playoff videos, including some under-appreciated moments.
Don't forget to check out McCovey Chronicles for other crucial 2014 playoff videos, including some under-appreciated moments.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Giants 2013 Preview: Pitching
I covered how I think the Giants' offense will do in 2013 a few days ago. Today I'll do the same for the pitching staff. Just like the line-up, the make-up of the pitching staff looks almost identical to how it did back in October. Evidence indicates it worked out pretty well back then. Can they repeat their performance in 2013?
Matt Cain
2012 stats: 16-5, 2.79 ERA, 219.1 IP, 1.04 WHIP
Better or worse in 2013? about the same
Big Sugar vaulted himself to the status of unquestioned staff ace last year, but his numbers were not all that different from what they had been in the past. I don't see any reason why they'd stray significantly in the coming year. Matt Cain is Matt Cain.
Madison Bumgarner
2012 stats: 16-11, 3.37 ERA, 208.1 IP, 1.11 WHIP
Better or worse in 2013? slightly better
Bumgarner kind of blew it down the stretch last year, and he watched his ERA go from 2.83 to 3.37 over his final seven starts. That final number doesn't look bad, but it's not all that impressive when you consider he pitched half his games at AT&T Park, which suppressed runs in a major way last year. Here's the good news: the dude is only 23. Most hot prospects are getting ready to have their first full season at his age. Bumgarner already has 15 scoreless World Series innings under his belt. Speaking of which, just like Brandon Belt, I'd say Bumgarner has the best chance to take "the leap" to a new level we haven't seen from him yet.
Tim Lincecum
2012 stats: 10-15, 5.18 ERA, 186 IP, 1.47 WHIP
Better or worse in 2013? better
Easily the biggest question mark on the entire staff. Big Time Timmy Jim was just about the Least Valuable Player in the league last year. Among those who qualified for the ERA title, he finished dead last. So the good news is it can't get worse. If he can manage even league average this year, it will be a significant improvement. He's got plenty of motivation, too. Ever since he came into the league, critics have cited his small size and complex mechanics as reason to suggest his early success was unsustainable. Another year resembling last year and they will have been proven right. Not only that, but he's a free agent after this season. In every one of his starts, there will be literally millions of future dollars at stake.
Barry Zito
2012 stats: 15-8, 4.15 ERA, 189.2 IP, 1.23 WHIP
Better or worse in 2013? about the same
2012 was billed as somewhat of a "redemption" year for Barry Zito, even though his ERA was identical to what is was in 2010, when he was left off the post-season roster. Somehow, last year he became the Giants' most reliable starter down the stretch, and then had a couple of career-defining moments in the playoffs. The fact is, Barry Zito is kind of like Matt Cain. Because Barry Zito is Barry Zito. Which makes him nothing like Matt Cain. He's kind of like Lincecum, in that Zito is in a contract year, but the most likely scenario we'll see is more of the same: some good starts, some bad starts, and some mediocre starts, all adding up to a passable fifth starter. Given how much attention his last contract got him, his next one will be absolutely fascinating to me.
Ryan Vogelsong
2012 stats: 14-9, 3.37 ERA, 184.1 IP, 1.39 WHIP
Better or worse in 2013? worse
Hey, Ryan Vogelsong, I think this is the year your Cinderella story comes to an end. Your 2011 All-Star appearance and 2012 playoff heroics? Flukes! That's what I say. And so does everybody else. If you were really this good, it would have shown up earlier in your career. There are plenty of stats out there that suggest you're about to fall off a cliff. What are you gonna do about it? I'm not buying it. You'll be back in Japan in no time. You suck and you'll never amount to anything. Prove me wrong.
Bullpen
2012 stats: 3.56 ERA, 1.34 WHIP
Better or worse in 2013? slightly better
Affeldt, Lopez, Mijares, Kontos, Casilla, Romo. All of those guys are returning for 2013. The only new addition will fill the void left by Mota, and it looks like it will be Chad Gaudin. Nothing ground-breaking here. Those numbers from last year look pretty pedestrian -- I remember the bullpen being better. Perhaps that's because due to injury, some innings had to be taken up by some scrubs. Can't count on an injury-free season, but I like this group, so I'll give them the benefit.
If you look closely at the pitching stats from last year, the Giants were actually not all that great. They were 5th in the NL in ERA, but 11th when accounting for ballpark effects. In looking at the above, I think the pitching staff, as a whole, will be marginally better, but not drastically so. And if AT&T plays a bit more like an average park, the raw numbers will look similar.
So what have we learned? Both the line-up and the pitching staff are essentially the same as last year, and I'm predicting that they will perform at about the same level. Riveting stuff. I can't believe I'm not getting paid for this.
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Giants 2013 Preview: Offense
One good thing about having a relatively boring offseason consisting of mostly just bringing back the guys from last year, is that it makes predicting the upcoming season a fairly simple exercise. In trying to figure out how the 2013 Giants will fare, the 2012 Giants provide a pretty good reference point. The Opening Day (only two weeks away!) roster will be the same as the 2012 World Series clinching roster, minus a Mota, a Theriot, a Huff, and a Nady. I'm not saying it's easy to accurately predict how the G-men will do, but the process is simple: look at each position, and decide if the personnel there will be better, worse, or about the same. So here's my stab at it, taking a look at the line-up first. The pitching staff will be handled in the near future. The following thoughts are not based on any fancy projection system, but rather gut instincts and an intermediate understanding of typical career progression:
Catcher
2012: Buster Posey (best player in the league)
Better or worse in 2013?: worse
He's an American hero, a swell guy, and a fine actor. He also hits baseballs extremely well. But to expect BP to replicate his MVP season is unreasonable. The safe bet is that he'll regress towards the mean at least a little. After the first two months, when he's hitting .310/.366/.465, we'll no doubt be subjected to articles and KNBR callers asking "what's wrong with Buster Posey?" But we shouldn't have to. We also shouldn't expect the same scorching second half he had last year, which vaulted him to the top of the MVP ballot.
1st Base
2012: Brandon Belt (.275/.360/.421, 7 HR, 56 RBI)
Better or worse in 2013?: better
Buried beneath the organization's and the media's expectation that Belt would be the second coming of Will Clark was actually a pretty decent season. That slash line above translated to an OPS+ of 124 (100 is average, Posey's was 172). Still, Belt represents this line-up's best chance at significant improvement over last year. After a smoking hot June (OPS of .963) and a miserable July (.480), his August and September were solid (.887 and .881, respectively). If he can sustain his late-season form and avoid those stretches where he looked completely lost at the plate, Belt will be a very nice run producer. Spring Training numbers don't mean anything unless they can be used to support a point I'm making, and Belt's numbers are a perfect example. He's torching the competition so far, so that's surely a sign of things to come.
2nd Base
2012: Pu pu platter, Marco Scutaro (as a group: .288/.327/.343)
Better or worse in 2013?: about the same
Second base was a black hole before Scutaro arrived wearing a cape and underwear outside of his pants. However, there's no better candidate for regression than Scutaro. In 61 regular season games with the Giants, Scutaro hit an other-worldly .362/.385/.473. He followed that with post-season moments out the wazoo, and the Giants rewarded him with a 3-year deal for his age 37-39 seasons. Scutaro's offensive outburst was vastly aided by his .366 BABIP (69 points higher than his career mark), and he's old, so don't expect the hit parade to continue. Still, he puts the ball in play more often than almost anyone, and having an average hitter for a whole season will probably produce about the same as the second base merry-go-round did last year.
3rd Base
2012: Pablo Sandoval (.283/.342/.447 in 108 games)
Better or worse in 2013?: slightly better
If Sandoval can simply stay on the field, that should yield more production from the 3rd base position. Thankfully, he's out of hamate bones to fracture, so hopefully he'll have a full season. His weight will always be a mild concern, especially since he's now a World Series MVP, and you can't exactly threaten him with a trip to the minors if the doesn't shape up (as the Giants did back in the Spring of 2011). But if he's healthy in every sense of the word, he's capable of putting up MVP numbers. It would be silly to count on that, but also foolish to assume he'll repeat his woeful 2010 season.
Short Stop
2012: Brandon Crawford (.248/.304/.349)
Better or worse in 2013?: slightly better
Crawford's 2012 ended up pretty solid, considering that I was hoping for a .230 BA at the outset of the season. Also encouraging is the fact that his second half was significantly better than his first half. He'll never be more than a role player, but he can continue to improve, and enter 2013 with a lot of confidence. He belongs.
Left Field
2012: Melky Cabrera, Gregor Blanco, trace amounts of others
Better or worse in 2013?: worse
Melky is the forgotten contributor of 2012. At the time of his suspension, he was a fringe MVP candidate, and without him, the Giants would have had a much tougher time winning the NL West. After he left, Scutaro took the reigns as leader of the hit parade, but as covered above, that probably ain't happening again. The lack of Melky Cabrera is the largest reason why the 2013 Giants may struggle offensively (as compared to 2012). A platoon between Gregor Blanco and Andres Torres is the plan for LF as we approach the start of the season. If both of them produce the same platoon splits as they have throughout their career, that will be perfectly satisfying (still nowhere close to Melky, but acceptable nonetheless). However neither of them is having a good Spring, Torres is already battling bumps and bruises, and they're each a year older. Did you know Torres is 35?!? Look at LF as the spot most likely headed for a trade deadline upgrade.
Center Field
2012: Angel Pagan (.288/.348/.440, 29 steals)
Better or worse in 2013?: worse
Pagan was in a contract year last season, so of course he had a really solid campaign. Now after being handsomely rewarded with a 4-year/$40M contract, will he keep it up? I don't see Pagan as the type of guy to sit back and rest on his laurels, but I do think we can expect at least a slight dip in production. It's just the nature of things.
Right Field
2012: Nate Shierholtz, Gregor Blanco, Hunter Pence
Better or worse in 2013?: better
Let's just say it: Pence played like shit for the Giants last year. He made some wonderful pre-game speeches in the playoffs, and had some timely hits, but overall, his play was unacceptable. So he really can't play much worse without getting benched. And looking at his career numbers, he should bounce back. He's well-liked, and won't have the pressure that comes with being a mid-season major aquisition. That should free him up mentally. Don't expect an All-Star appearance, though.
Catcher
2012: Buster Posey (best player in the league)
Better or worse in 2013?: worse
He's an American hero, a swell guy, and a fine actor. He also hits baseballs extremely well. But to expect BP to replicate his MVP season is unreasonable. The safe bet is that he'll regress towards the mean at least a little. After the first two months, when he's hitting .310/.366/.465, we'll no doubt be subjected to articles and KNBR callers asking "what's wrong with Buster Posey?" But we shouldn't have to. We also shouldn't expect the same scorching second half he had last year, which vaulted him to the top of the MVP ballot.
1st Base
2012: Brandon Belt (.275/.360/.421, 7 HR, 56 RBI)
Better or worse in 2013?: better
Buried beneath the organization's and the media's expectation that Belt would be the second coming of Will Clark was actually a pretty decent season. That slash line above translated to an OPS+ of 124 (100 is average, Posey's was 172). Still, Belt represents this line-up's best chance at significant improvement over last year. After a smoking hot June (OPS of .963) and a miserable July (.480), his August and September were solid (.887 and .881, respectively). If he can sustain his late-season form and avoid those stretches where he looked completely lost at the plate, Belt will be a very nice run producer. Spring Training numbers don't mean anything unless they can be used to support a point I'm making, and Belt's numbers are a perfect example. He's torching the competition so far, so that's surely a sign of things to come.
2nd Base
2012: Pu pu platter, Marco Scutaro (as a group: .288/.327/.343)
Better or worse in 2013?: about the same
Second base was a black hole before Scutaro arrived wearing a cape and underwear outside of his pants. However, there's no better candidate for regression than Scutaro. In 61 regular season games with the Giants, Scutaro hit an other-worldly .362/.385/.473. He followed that with post-season moments out the wazoo, and the Giants rewarded him with a 3-year deal for his age 37-39 seasons. Scutaro's offensive outburst was vastly aided by his .366 BABIP (69 points higher than his career mark), and he's old, so don't expect the hit parade to continue. Still, he puts the ball in play more often than almost anyone, and having an average hitter for a whole season will probably produce about the same as the second base merry-go-round did last year.
3rd Base
2012: Pablo Sandoval (.283/.342/.447 in 108 games)
Better or worse in 2013?: slightly better
If Sandoval can simply stay on the field, that should yield more production from the 3rd base position. Thankfully, he's out of hamate bones to fracture, so hopefully he'll have a full season. His weight will always be a mild concern, especially since he's now a World Series MVP, and you can't exactly threaten him with a trip to the minors if the doesn't shape up (as the Giants did back in the Spring of 2011). But if he's healthy in every sense of the word, he's capable of putting up MVP numbers. It would be silly to count on that, but also foolish to assume he'll repeat his woeful 2010 season.
Short Stop
2012: Brandon Crawford (.248/.304/.349)
Better or worse in 2013?: slightly better
Crawford's 2012 ended up pretty solid, considering that I was hoping for a .230 BA at the outset of the season. Also encouraging is the fact that his second half was significantly better than his first half. He'll never be more than a role player, but he can continue to improve, and enter 2013 with a lot of confidence. He belongs.
Left Field
2012: Melky Cabrera, Gregor Blanco, trace amounts of others
Better or worse in 2013?: worse
Melky is the forgotten contributor of 2012. At the time of his suspension, he was a fringe MVP candidate, and without him, the Giants would have had a much tougher time winning the NL West. After he left, Scutaro took the reigns as leader of the hit parade, but as covered above, that probably ain't happening again. The lack of Melky Cabrera is the largest reason why the 2013 Giants may struggle offensively (as compared to 2012). A platoon between Gregor Blanco and Andres Torres is the plan for LF as we approach the start of the season. If both of them produce the same platoon splits as they have throughout their career, that will be perfectly satisfying (still nowhere close to Melky, but acceptable nonetheless). However neither of them is having a good Spring, Torres is already battling bumps and bruises, and they're each a year older. Did you know Torres is 35?!? Look at LF as the spot most likely headed for a trade deadline upgrade.
Center Field
2012: Angel Pagan (.288/.348/.440, 29 steals)
Better or worse in 2013?: worse
Pagan was in a contract year last season, so of course he had a really solid campaign. Now after being handsomely rewarded with a 4-year/$40M contract, will he keep it up? I don't see Pagan as the type of guy to sit back and rest on his laurels, but I do think we can expect at least a slight dip in production. It's just the nature of things.
Right Field
2012: Nate Shierholtz, Gregor Blanco, Hunter Pence
Better or worse in 2013?: better
Let's just say it: Pence played like shit for the Giants last year. He made some wonderful pre-game speeches in the playoffs, and had some timely hits, but overall, his play was unacceptable. So he really can't play much worse without getting benched. And looking at his career numbers, he should bounce back. He's well-liked, and won't have the pressure that comes with being a mid-season major aquisition. That should free him up mentally. Don't expect an All-Star appearance, though.
Overall, where does that leave the Giants? By my calculations, which are completely arbitrary, I don't see a significant change in offensive production either way. The runs/RBIs will be distributed a little differently, but I think the offense will roughly stay the same. Which puts the team in a familiar spot. Hover around league average scoring prowess, and lean on the pitching staff to deliver.
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Buster Posey: Is There Anything He Can't Do?
Buster Posey is the man. I know I'm not breaking any news with that statement, but sometimes it bears repeating. For instance, when he shows the world yet another reason why he is, in fact, the man. In addition to his considerable baseball skills, we now know he can act as well. He had been in some commercials a few months ago during the time when fans were voting for who should be on the cover of the PlayStation game, "MLB '13: The Show". On a scale of 1-to-funny, those mostly clocked in around "meh." Obvi, the writers are to blame, and that's why Posey didn't win said fan vote. But in a new commercial released by PlayStation yesterday, Posey shows us he was using those duds to hone his acting chops. Here, he delivers with Peyton-Manning-esque timing, while staying true to those dashing good looks:
Acting.
Acting.
World Baseball Classic 2013: We Don't Care, Others Do
World Baseball Classic games began last Friday, with Chinese Taipei beating Australia, 4-1. Few American baseball fans knew about this, and even fewer cared. As an advocate for all things baseball, my reaction to The WBC's lack lack of coverage has mostly been frustration and bewilderment. Until I realized that I don't care about it, either. Set in the middle of Spring Training, the WBC is a tournament that lacks identity, though it is not without purpose. As a showcase for international baseball fans, the WBC is doing fine and has room to grow.
Simply put, people around these parts don't care about the Classic because they already care too much about the World Series. A Major League Championship for our favorite baseball teams has a corner on the market for our baseball-related emotions. Until the WBC makes gains in its market share, America's best players will hesitate to participate; and until those stars are eagerly signing up, the WBC will struggle to pull on America's heart strings. It's all very chicken-or-the-egg-y. Somehow basketball has pulled it off with the Olympics. I'm not sure how.
Fans of Major League Baseball want their team to win a World Series. That's the first priority, and for most, the only priority. So when the Giants send seven of their players to go play in an exhibition tournament in the middle of their Spring Training, I'm not thrilled about it. Front offices are not excited, either. The players risk extending themselves too far too soon, and sustaining a season-altering injury as a result. Given that the Major League baseball season is so long, there's really not a good time for this tournament to be held.
But the international scene is where the WBC becomes relevant. It may never win the hearts of Americans, but not every country is spoiled with the world's most elite baseball league. Major League Baseball is the standard against which all other international baseball will be measured. The World Baseball Classic gives international fans a way to see how their guys compare. In fact, I think it might be more interesting if no MLBers were allowed at all. Everyone just sends their best who have yet to be deemed ready for The Show. The WBC would be relegated to a sort of world-wide scouting combine niche, but it would be interesting to see how the countries stacked up on that even playing field.
Either way, though, the WBC should focus on its role of being an international showcase (which it already does for the most part). The baseball-related emotional marketplace is not tapped out for non-American baseball fans, and if I may, a brief anecdote to support that point: I attended a few games of the inaugural WBC in Anaheim in 2006. My dad and I arrived a bit late to our first game, and upon hearing multiple raucous cheers as we were walking up to the stadium, we assumed we were missing a ton of excitement. On the contrary, the score was 0-0 when we arrived at our seats. Turns out fans were simply cheering every hit like a home run, and every out like it was the last one of the game.
And let's not forget that it is good baseball. The 2009 World Baseball Classic Title Game was a thriller, with two current and prominent Major Leaguers (Ichiro Suzuki and Yu Darvish) playing principle roles. And if America keeps losing, maybe at some point the USA will attempt to send an actual All-Star team.
Until then, the most important things for MLB fans will be the Spring Training opportunities created for scrubs by the vacancies left by Major Leaguers heading to the Classic. Case in point: Brock Bond! Marco Scutaro is playing for Venezuela, so with plenty of playing time available, the race for the Giants' 25th-man/utility-player is heating up! Left Coast Lean favorite Brock Bond has been playing well, and has upgraded his status from "outsider's puncher's longshot" to "longshot". What a man.
Simply put, people around these parts don't care about the Classic because they already care too much about the World Series. A Major League Championship for our favorite baseball teams has a corner on the market for our baseball-related emotions. Until the WBC makes gains in its market share, America's best players will hesitate to participate; and until those stars are eagerly signing up, the WBC will struggle to pull on America's heart strings. It's all very chicken-or-the-egg-y. Somehow basketball has pulled it off with the Olympics. I'm not sure how.
Fans of Major League Baseball want their team to win a World Series. That's the first priority, and for most, the only priority. So when the Giants send seven of their players to go play in an exhibition tournament in the middle of their Spring Training, I'm not thrilled about it. Front offices are not excited, either. The players risk extending themselves too far too soon, and sustaining a season-altering injury as a result. Given that the Major League baseball season is so long, there's really not a good time for this tournament to be held.
But the international scene is where the WBC becomes relevant. It may never win the hearts of Americans, but not every country is spoiled with the world's most elite baseball league. Major League Baseball is the standard against which all other international baseball will be measured. The World Baseball Classic gives international fans a way to see how their guys compare. In fact, I think it might be more interesting if no MLBers were allowed at all. Everyone just sends their best who have yet to be deemed ready for The Show. The WBC would be relegated to a sort of world-wide scouting combine niche, but it would be interesting to see how the countries stacked up on that even playing field.
Either way, though, the WBC should focus on its role of being an international showcase (which it already does for the most part). The baseball-related emotional marketplace is not tapped out for non-American baseball fans, and if I may, a brief anecdote to support that point: I attended a few games of the inaugural WBC in Anaheim in 2006. My dad and I arrived a bit late to our first game, and upon hearing multiple raucous cheers as we were walking up to the stadium, we assumed we were missing a ton of excitement. On the contrary, the score was 0-0 when we arrived at our seats. Turns out fans were simply cheering every hit like a home run, and every out like it was the last one of the game.
And let's not forget that it is good baseball. The 2009 World Baseball Classic Title Game was a thriller, with two current and prominent Major Leaguers (Ichiro Suzuki and Yu Darvish) playing principle roles. And if America keeps losing, maybe at some point the USA will attempt to send an actual All-Star team.
Until then, the most important things for MLB fans will be the Spring Training opportunities created for scrubs by the vacancies left by Major Leaguers heading to the Classic. Case in point: Brock Bond! Marco Scutaro is playing for Venezuela, so with plenty of playing time available, the race for the Giants' 25th-man/utility-player is heating up! Left Coast Lean favorite Brock Bond has been playing well, and has upgraded his status from "outsider's puncher's longshot" to "longshot". What a man.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Smart decisions are often easy
In April of 1993 the greatest quarterback in the history of professional football was traded to the Kansas City Chiefs. For Niner fans, it was a day of mourning. The story behind that trade goes something like this. 49er brass preferred to trade their greatest asset a year before he couldn't play anymore as opposed to hanging on to him for another year, knowing he was on the downside of his career. Oh yeah, they also had a future hall of famer gripping a clipboard with both hands and ready to kick some ass!!!
On February 27, 2013, another 49er quarterback was traded to Kansas City. Alex Smith is far from Joe Montana and the comparison between the two players stops at the fact that they were traded to the same team. Fans of this franchise have been split most of the season with a good chunk of the fan base saying that Alex deserved to start after his injury and the other half bidding him a good riddance. The 49ers did the right thing today and despite the fact that we don't know exactly what they will receive in the trade (it's said to be the first pick of the 2nd round and possibly another; the deal won't be official until March 12, 2013) we do know this much. Alex Smith was due $8 million and the team would be stupid to keep him, pay him that much cash to be the backup, knowing they have starters on this roster who deserve the cash instead.
The media loves this stuff. They are already labeling this as a fresh start for Alex with a new coaching staff in Kansas City. A fresh start is something a high school bully gets when he changes high schools. A fresh start is something the prom queen gets when the high school jock ditches her. Alex Smith is n't getting a fresh start; Kansas City is getting a tired, soft and ineffective player who is not good enough to be The guy. When Jim Harbaugh looked to Kaepernick instead of Smith, knowing this team needed to get to the Superbowl no matter what, it told us all we need to know. Alex is a stand up guy, he's respectful, a good clubhouse guy, and a great teammate, but to quote my all time favorite guy, Charles Barkley, "he just not very good."
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Spring Training Already Started?
Yeah, like almost two weeks ago. Weird. Why aren't we talking about it? There are two reasons for this:
1. Usually*, the offseason is longer. You may remember that the Giants played relatively deep into last season's playoff tournament. So in terms of "days since the last Giants game", it still feels like it should be the offseason. Also, our friends, the 49ers, did us a solid and played pretty deep into their own postseason tournament. That provided healthy distraction over the cold winter.
2. The offseason and the beginning of Spring Training has been incredibly boring for The Giants.
I expanded on #1 here, and here. And half of #2 here. That doesn't leave a whole lot to write about, but I'll summarize what's the haps because I ought to.
In short, the Giants' Opening Day roster will not be very different from the one that won the World Series. In fact, all signs indicate that 21 of those 25 players will be returning. The pitching staff remains almost identical. Assuming George Kontos reprises his role as underrated righty, the only spot to be filled is the one left by Guillermo Mota.
Forgive me for not being over-enthused about speculating which name will fill the final bullpen spot, but I'm going to link you over to McCovey Chronicles, where Grant is providing gangbusters coverage on what looks to be a nail-biter. I will summarize with some names in the running: Chad Gaudin, Scott Proctor, Sandy Rosario. Also old friend and World Series Champion, Ramon Ramirez. The longshot chances provide a little more excitement: semi-hot prospect Heath Hembree (I'm sure we'll see him at some point this year), and Brett Bochy (Son of Bruce, thrower of baseballs). And then I suppose the door isn't completely shut on Brian Wilson. Everything I read suggests a deal is unlikely, though.
On the offensive side, the open spots come in the voids left by Xavier Nady, Aubrey Huff, and Ryan Theriot. Filling in for the former:
Hey! A feel-good story: Our old friend and World Series Champion, Andres Torres is back. The idea is to have him platoon with Gregor Blanco in left field. While they won't strike fear into opposing teams, if you combine their career splits (Blanco vs righties and Torres vs lefties), Gregres Torco becomes a decent player (107 OPS+). Plus Torres can pinch run, provide clubhouse pixie dust, and maybe be a late-game defensive replacement for Pence.
Brett Pill probably has the best shot at grabbing the Huff spot, which I like because it puts him exactly where he should be: in the Majors but glued to the bench. Although if the Giants feel they need more speed, Francisco Peguero could get a shot. The Theriot role provides competition between Connor Gillaspie (perennial Giants minor-leaguer), Tony Abreu (a classic player-to-be-named later, claimed off waivers), and Kensuke Tanaka (Japanese import). Once again, riveting stuff.
So there you have it. No starting roles are up for grabs, as Bochy has finally appeased the Beltophiles. The rotation is set and solid. A list of nobodies will compete for the final few roster spots, and the rest of the battles will be between the Giants and their health, which is never a guaranteed victory.
So what do we do? I'll tell you what we do. We follow and root for Brock Bond. He's toiled around the Giants' Minor League teams for 5 years, and he had a solid AAA campaign last year. He's got nothing more than an outsider's puncher's longshot chance of making the squad, but look at that name. Brock Bond. If he doesn't succeed it will be the worst case of an athlete underperforming his name since Colt McCoy. Go out and wow us, Brock Bond.
*But not in recent years. Boom!
1. Usually*, the offseason is longer. You may remember that the Giants played relatively deep into last season's playoff tournament. So in terms of "days since the last Giants game", it still feels like it should be the offseason. Also, our friends, the 49ers, did us a solid and played pretty deep into their own postseason tournament. That provided healthy distraction over the cold winter.
2. The offseason and the beginning of Spring Training has been incredibly boring for The Giants.
I expanded on #1 here, and here. And half of #2 here. That doesn't leave a whole lot to write about, but I'll summarize what's the haps because I ought to.
In short, the Giants' Opening Day roster will not be very different from the one that won the World Series. In fact, all signs indicate that 21 of those 25 players will be returning. The pitching staff remains almost identical. Assuming George Kontos reprises his role as underrated righty, the only spot to be filled is the one left by Guillermo Mota.
Forgive me for not being over-enthused about speculating which name will fill the final bullpen spot, but I'm going to link you over to McCovey Chronicles, where Grant is providing gangbusters coverage on what looks to be a nail-biter. I will summarize with some names in the running: Chad Gaudin, Scott Proctor, Sandy Rosario. Also old friend and World Series Champion, Ramon Ramirez. The longshot chances provide a little more excitement: semi-hot prospect Heath Hembree (I'm sure we'll see him at some point this year), and Brett Bochy (Son of Bruce, thrower of baseballs). And then I suppose the door isn't completely shut on Brian Wilson. Everything I read suggests a deal is unlikely, though.
On the offensive side, the open spots come in the voids left by Xavier Nady, Aubrey Huff, and Ryan Theriot. Filling in for the former:
Hey! A feel-good story: Our old friend and World Series Champion, Andres Torres is back. The idea is to have him platoon with Gregor Blanco in left field. While they won't strike fear into opposing teams, if you combine their career splits (Blanco vs righties and Torres vs lefties), Gregres Torco becomes a decent player (107 OPS+). Plus Torres can pinch run, provide clubhouse pixie dust, and maybe be a late-game defensive replacement for Pence.
Brett Pill probably has the best shot at grabbing the Huff spot, which I like because it puts him exactly where he should be: in the Majors but glued to the bench. Although if the Giants feel they need more speed, Francisco Peguero could get a shot. The Theriot role provides competition between Connor Gillaspie (perennial Giants minor-leaguer), Tony Abreu (a classic player-to-be-named later, claimed off waivers), and Kensuke Tanaka (Japanese import). Once again, riveting stuff.
So there you have it. No starting roles are up for grabs, as Bochy has finally appeased the Beltophiles. The rotation is set and solid. A list of nobodies will compete for the final few roster spots, and the rest of the battles will be between the Giants and their health, which is never a guaranteed victory.
So what do we do? I'll tell you what we do. We follow and root for Brock Bond. He's toiled around the Giants' Minor League teams for 5 years, and he had a solid AAA campaign last year. He's got nothing more than an outsider's puncher's longshot chance of making the squad, but look at that name. Brock Bond. If he doesn't succeed it will be the worst case of an athlete underperforming his name since Colt McCoy. Go out and wow us, Brock Bond.
*But not in recent years. Boom!
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Second Guessing Greatness
The San Francisco 49ers accomplished what was said to be extremely difficult. Prior to the 2012 NFL season, many experts and talking heads were convinced that the 49ers would stumble and couldn't possibly repeat the performance from the year before. Those experts cited a much more difficult schedule, the team being the hunted rather than the hunter and of course, they claimed that San Francisco was somewhat lucky and that luck wouldn't strike this franchise twice. In the off season the GM addressed positional holes that were problematic in 2011. They brought in Randy Moss, signed Mario Manningham, drafted LaMichael James and A.J. Jenkins among other moves. With the exception of Jenkins, the players listed above contributed to the success in 2012 and improved the team as a whole. Randy Moss may not be the greatest of all time, as he claimed to be, but what he did was provide leadership for the younger guys in that locker room.
There is absolutely no way around the fact that 2012 was an up and down rocky road for this franchise. They didn't play well every time they took the field, they lost games they should have won and also won games they were tagged to lose. Jim Harbaugh made a very difficult decision during the season when he benched a healthy Alex Smith in favor of a young, unproven kid in Collin Kaepernick, which proved to be a decision that led this team to New Orleans. From the perspective of the media, this team was really good but laced with flaws. From the perspective of fans who followed this team daily,we saw how hard this team worked to accomplish their goals, to avenge the loss to New York in the NFC Championship game. We bought what Jim Harbaugh was selling and we bought it in bulk. He's our guy and for the most part, we saw him as the man we were looking for all the years that we suffered through countless 10 loss seasons.
Entering the home playoff game vs. Green Bay many fans were skeptical and many others were convinced that the team would lose that game. Could Collin do enough to beat Aaron Rogers and the vaunted Green Bay Packers? Could the team win a shootout against a hefty opponent? They did more than win, they dominated the football game in all three phases by doing what this team does best. They played a very physical game and forced the opponent to be uncomfortable. Heading to Atlanta, similar questions were raised and the Niners beat up on the NFC's #1, in their house, on their way to Superbowl XLVII. It wasn't pretty at times, it definitely wasn't easy. They overcame adversity once again by playing their brand of football. Physical on both sides of the ball, smash mouth running game and an excellent performance by a young and exciting Kaepernick.
The two weeks leading up to the Superbowl media types across the land were guzzling the Harbaugh kool aid. San Francisco was now the favorite to win the Superbowl and just about every person asked about the match-up favored San Francisco. They were younger, more talented, more physical and the overall theme was that San Francisco was much better than Baltimore. I heard former head coach Brian Billick on 95.7 The Game prior to the Superbowl and he claimed that San Francisco was head and shoulders better than Baltimore and the Niners would likely win going away. The team and the fan base were riding high, feeling good about themselves and it brought a lot of us back to the glory days. The days when San Francisco was the most successful and hated franchise in the NFL. We were right back to the good ole days of Superbowl or bust and back then, the idea of bust didn't even cross our hemisphere because the team was so damn good. We were peppered with stories of Jim Harbaugh's greatness and what I took from the many stories I read and heard was that San Francisco has taken on the identity of their head coach. A tough minded, physical football team with a competitive edge and a team that worked harder than many others in the game.
Monday morning after the Superbowl loss to Baltimore was a very tough day for fans of the San Francisco 49ers. A lot of us wanted to second guess the offensive play calling, the coaching, the way the players performed or didn't perform. It was almost too easy for us to head back down the path we walked when Mike Nolan, Dennis Erickson and Mike Singletary were in charge of our football team. So many of us were riding Jim Harbaugh's coat tails all the way from a lockout shortened off season to the Superbowl in the Big Easy and we couldn't see what was right in front of our faces. After a very difficult loss we were ready to jump ship and tag him as a failure. Some of the fans were posting "Faithful for Life" pictures to Facebook but for every one of those there were ten people questioning the game plan, the play calling, the coaching, the preparation and the worst thing, we were bitching and crying that the refs did a job on us. Take a moment to reflect on where we were before Jim Harbaugh signed a 5 year deal to coach this football team. We were a fan base that went from expecting to win a Superbowl every season to a fan base focused on the NFL draft when the weather changed in the month of December. It's very difficult to accept that we lost and as much as we want to finger point and place blame, the fact remains that this football team had an amazing season. The core of this group will return in 2013 with similar aspirations and goals. Superbowl or bust is once again the expectation of the great fans in The Bay Area and rightfully so. However, I would like to focus some energy on what we did accomplish this season, rather than what we didn't.
When the final seconds ticked off the clock and the confetti rained down on the Mercedes Superdome, I was stunned. I wanted the result to be different and of course, I wanted to call in sick today, Tuesday February 05, 2013 to attend the biggest party in the country. The San Francisco 49ers Superbowl parade. But here I sit, at work and listening to Jim Rome talk about Ray Lewis and the Baltimore Ravens Superbowl parade. It's a tough pill to swallow and the pain in my gut will be there for a very long time. On the flip side, the fans know who their quarterback will be going into next season and we won't be forced to spend $8 million on Alex Smith because we don't know what Kaepernick can do. Jim Harbaugh, the quarterback guru, will have an entire off season to work with Kaep and to improve upon what we already know to be a highly talented and valuable asset. The 49ers are one of the youngest teams in football right now and the core of this team is under contract for the next few seasons. The team is poised to take the next step forward and will have 14, yes 14 draft picks to work with. We made it to the top of the mountain and when we got there, another guy was already planting his flag. I'm OK with that and a step further, I am proud of the accomplishments in 2012 and not looking to place blame. I'm looking at this glass knowing it's half full and as high as my expectations are for the 2013 season, my praise for the 2012 season is just as high.
Monday, February 4, 2013
Super Bowl Debrief
That would have been so sweet.
It really seems like San Francisco should be glowing like a woman nearing her third trimester right now. Had the 49ers pulled out a win yesterday, that would have gone down as one of the most famous Super Bowls of all time. Not only would it have been (by far) the largest comeback in Super Bowl history, but the 3rd quarter blackout gave the game a built-in iconic identity. With the '9ers beginning their comeback right after that, it was almost perfectly scripted. There would have been tons of wonderful jokes and slogans about "flipping the switch". The final drive would've gotten its own name, and Kaepernick would have be a 49er legend, no matter what happens from here. And this would have come just 3 months after a Giants World Series win. It just would have been perfect.
So the pain is more like an absence of pleasure. But when you start thinking about the game as a whole, the absence of pleasure begins to turn back into pain. Because the '9ers did not play their best game yesterday. They were sloppy at times, especially in the first half. Didn't see that coming, considering Jim Harbaugh is perhaps the best coach in the NFL, and he had two weeks to prepare. There were costly penalties. There were missed tackles in the backfield that could have changed drives and momentum (how many times did the Ravens turn broken plays into 3rd down conversions?). There was a lost fumble, and that interception Kaepernick threw was awful. There were timeouts used that would have been, oh, slightly useful at the very end of the contest. Flacco and his receivers were awesome, but I think if the 49ers and Ravens were to play 10 times, the '9ers win six or seven of those. It hurts knowing the best version of your team would have won that game.
It also hurts knowing that we'll have to endure this continued media-gasm over Ray Lewis, now that he has ended his career with a goal-line stand to win the Lombardi Trophy.
But in the end, the hole the 49ers dug themselves was just a little too deep. Except not really, because it really did seem like they were going to pull it out once they had 1st-and-goal with roughly two minutes to play. And in fact, the 49er's win probability did creep over 50%. So yeah, I guess they blew it. I thought the officiating was pretty poor, and that the 49ers took the worst of it, but it was bad both ways. Try not to use that as an excuse. What's more important is that for whatever reason, the great protection Kaepernick got for most of the game seemed to vanish in the red zone. Or maybe Kaepernick failed to recognize the blitz. We'll always think of that final series, but they would not have had to go for it on 4th down had they converted that 2-point chance after their previous touchdown. Don't overlook that similar-looking play as a game-changer.
Here's the positive news: Kaepernick is good. He wasn't at his very best yesterday, but he has shown he can be the quarterback for a Super Bowl team. Overall he played well enough to win. Those passes he throws for 15-30 yards are perfect (again, perfect) more often than not. He's so fun to watch. The 49ers will likely be the favorites to represent the NFC again next year. So it's not like the proverbial window has slammed shut. But that doesn't mean it'll happen. These opportunities don't come around that often. And from now it will be championship-or-bust, so they've got some weight on their shoulders to carry around. I do worry that the defense has not been the same since Justin Smith's injury, and he'll be one year older next year. I've been waiting for Frank Gore to break down for years now. But I really wouldn't be surprised if Kaepernick lit the league on fire next year. I'm looking forward to it.
Still, I'm in pain today, and it's not the type of pain you want to be feeling after a Super Bowl: hungover and with a sore hand from high-fiving hundreds of strangers. That would have been sweet.
It really seems like San Francisco should be glowing like a woman nearing her third trimester right now. Had the 49ers pulled out a win yesterday, that would have gone down as one of the most famous Super Bowls of all time. Not only would it have been (by far) the largest comeback in Super Bowl history, but the 3rd quarter blackout gave the game a built-in iconic identity. With the '9ers beginning their comeback right after that, it was almost perfectly scripted. There would have been tons of wonderful jokes and slogans about "flipping the switch". The final drive would've gotten its own name, and Kaepernick would have be a 49er legend, no matter what happens from here. And this would have come just 3 months after a Giants World Series win. It just would have been perfect.
So the pain is more like an absence of pleasure. But when you start thinking about the game as a whole, the absence of pleasure begins to turn back into pain. Because the '9ers did not play their best game yesterday. They were sloppy at times, especially in the first half. Didn't see that coming, considering Jim Harbaugh is perhaps the best coach in the NFL, and he had two weeks to prepare. There were costly penalties. There were missed tackles in the backfield that could have changed drives and momentum (how many times did the Ravens turn broken plays into 3rd down conversions?). There was a lost fumble, and that interception Kaepernick threw was awful. There were timeouts used that would have been, oh, slightly useful at the very end of the contest. Flacco and his receivers were awesome, but I think if the 49ers and Ravens were to play 10 times, the '9ers win six or seven of those. It hurts knowing the best version of your team would have won that game.
It also hurts knowing that we'll have to endure this continued media-gasm over Ray Lewis, now that he has ended his career with a goal-line stand to win the Lombardi Trophy.
But in the end, the hole the 49ers dug themselves was just a little too deep. Except not really, because it really did seem like they were going to pull it out once they had 1st-and-goal with roughly two minutes to play. And in fact, the 49er's win probability did creep over 50%. So yeah, I guess they blew it. I thought the officiating was pretty poor, and that the 49ers took the worst of it, but it was bad both ways. Try not to use that as an excuse. What's more important is that for whatever reason, the great protection Kaepernick got for most of the game seemed to vanish in the red zone. Or maybe Kaepernick failed to recognize the blitz. We'll always think of that final series, but they would not have had to go for it on 4th down had they converted that 2-point chance after their previous touchdown. Don't overlook that similar-looking play as a game-changer.
Here's the positive news: Kaepernick is good. He wasn't at his very best yesterday, but he has shown he can be the quarterback for a Super Bowl team. Overall he played well enough to win. Those passes he throws for 15-30 yards are perfect (again, perfect) more often than not. He's so fun to watch. The 49ers will likely be the favorites to represent the NFC again next year. So it's not like the proverbial window has slammed shut. But that doesn't mean it'll happen. These opportunities don't come around that often. And from now it will be championship-or-bust, so they've got some weight on their shoulders to carry around. I do worry that the defense has not been the same since Justin Smith's injury, and he'll be one year older next year. I've been waiting for Frank Gore to break down for years now. But I really wouldn't be surprised if Kaepernick lit the league on fire next year. I'm looking forward to it.
Still, I'm in pain today, and it's not the type of pain you want to be feeling after a Super Bowl: hungover and with a sore hand from high-fiving hundreds of strangers. That would have been sweet.
Monday, January 28, 2013
The Warriors are Good at Basketball. The Warriors!
The Warriors have played 43 games. They've won 26 of them. The season is more than half-way through and the Warriors are winning at a .605 clip, putting them on a pace to win 50 games. These are facts. This is actually happening.
And they're not just doing it against the league's worst. They're 13-7 against winning teams. They're 12-11 on the road. They've beaten one title contender, the Clippers, 3 times. They are the only team in the entire league who have beaten the Clippers, Heat, and Thunder, after handing OKC its first loss of the season when leading after 3 quarters. They just finished a stretch of 15 games, 12 of which were against playoff teams (if the season ended today), and 2 against would-be just-miss teams. They went 8-7 over that stretch, keeping them afloat in the upper echelon of the Western Conference, and they now look ahead to a favorable schedule that includes 16 of their final 22 at home.
Jump on this bandwagon now. The Bay Area will be going bananas for this team come playoff time.
Even more reason to be excited: they've done all of this without their starting center, Andrew Bogut. You may recall he's the guy they got last year when the Warriors traded their best player at the time in Monta Ellis. I love Monta, and he's having a fine season with the Bucks, but it sure doesn't look great for his stock now that the W's are doing so well without him, especially when they are without the player he was traded for. It's a bigger case of addition-by-subtraction than when the Giants finally traded Bengie Molina to make room for Buster Posey. Even if Bogut is a lost cause, did the Warriors still win that trade? Monta Ellis shareholders can't be happy that that's even a question.
They say Bogut is inching towards a return, although I remain cautiously pessimistic. It seems to me that these giants simply do not fully heal. Their bodies are just too big, and create too much stress to play basketball. Greg Oden, Yao Ming, even Andrew Bynum. I would not be surprised if Bogut ended up in the same group. But if you believe the Warriors press, his return is a matter of weeks away. And that likely would make this good team even better. Right now Festus Ezeli is the starting center, and he's pretty much a zero on the offensive end. About once a game he shows off his stone hands by fumbling a Curry dish-off-a-drive. Bogut will give them another dimension offensively, without sacrificing rebounds and defense. The one potential negative to his return has to do with chemistry, as there is an argument to be made centered around not fixing it if it ain't broke. After all, the Warriors crunch-time line-up of Steph Curry, Klay Thompson, Jarret Jack, David Lee, and Carl Landry has been very effective. Maybe you don't want to mess with that.
So in the absence of a reliable center, how have the Warriors been doing it? Well, Lee and Curry have been playing at an elite level. I made the case for their All-Star selections a few days ago. Unfortunately, the coaches must not have read what I said about Curry, since only Lee was rewarded with a spot. Indeed a shame, since Curry is the team's MVP, although you could even make a (flimsy) case for Jack as an MVP, given how many times he's bailed out the team down the stretch. He and Landry are both candidates for 6th man of the year (how many teams have ever had two?).
But the most credit should probably go to Mark Jackson. In just his second year coaching, he's transformed this team from one in which defending was an afterthought, to one that grinds out wins with stingy defense and solid rebounding. The Warriors are the 6th best team in the NBA in terms of opponent FG%. Two years ago they were 21st and last year, 20th. Even after struggling on the boards the past couple games, the Warriors are 8th in the league in rebound differential. They had been dead last for the previous FOUR seasons. They are doing things that Warrior fans like myself just didn't even know were possible.
The Warriors haven't just gotten better. They've fundamentally altered their style to a winning formula. Jackson has instituted a culture change that one would expect would take a half-decade to produce results. For that, he'll no doubt get a lot of votes for Coach of the Year, and rightfully so. Back when Don Nelson was running the team, I always wanted the Warriors to be good, but I didn't want them to change, fearing that abandoning the high-paced, offense-only style would produce a team that wasn't any fun to watch. I'm happy to be dead wrong.
If you're not watching this team on the regular, you're missing a lot of excitement. Like I said, you're late, but there's still room on the bandwagon.
And they're not just doing it against the league's worst. They're 13-7 against winning teams. They're 12-11 on the road. They've beaten one title contender, the Clippers, 3 times. They are the only team in the entire league who have beaten the Clippers, Heat, and Thunder, after handing OKC its first loss of the season when leading after 3 quarters. They just finished a stretch of 15 games, 12 of which were against playoff teams (if the season ended today), and 2 against would-be just-miss teams. They went 8-7 over that stretch, keeping them afloat in the upper echelon of the Western Conference, and they now look ahead to a favorable schedule that includes 16 of their final 22 at home.
Jump on this bandwagon now. The Bay Area will be going bananas for this team come playoff time.
Even more reason to be excited: they've done all of this without their starting center, Andrew Bogut. You may recall he's the guy they got last year when the Warriors traded their best player at the time in Monta Ellis. I love Monta, and he's having a fine season with the Bucks, but it sure doesn't look great for his stock now that the W's are doing so well without him, especially when they are without the player he was traded for. It's a bigger case of addition-by-subtraction than when the Giants finally traded Bengie Molina to make room for Buster Posey. Even if Bogut is a lost cause, did the Warriors still win that trade? Monta Ellis shareholders can't be happy that that's even a question.
They say Bogut is inching towards a return, although I remain cautiously pessimistic. It seems to me that these giants simply do not fully heal. Their bodies are just too big, and create too much stress to play basketball. Greg Oden, Yao Ming, even Andrew Bynum. I would not be surprised if Bogut ended up in the same group. But if you believe the Warriors press, his return is a matter of weeks away. And that likely would make this good team even better. Right now Festus Ezeli is the starting center, and he's pretty much a zero on the offensive end. About once a game he shows off his stone hands by fumbling a Curry dish-off-a-drive. Bogut will give them another dimension offensively, without sacrificing rebounds and defense. The one potential negative to his return has to do with chemistry, as there is an argument to be made centered around not fixing it if it ain't broke. After all, the Warriors crunch-time line-up of Steph Curry, Klay Thompson, Jarret Jack, David Lee, and Carl Landry has been very effective. Maybe you don't want to mess with that.
So in the absence of a reliable center, how have the Warriors been doing it? Well, Lee and Curry have been playing at an elite level. I made the case for their All-Star selections a few days ago. Unfortunately, the coaches must not have read what I said about Curry, since only Lee was rewarded with a spot. Indeed a shame, since Curry is the team's MVP, although you could even make a (flimsy) case for Jack as an MVP, given how many times he's bailed out the team down the stretch. He and Landry are both candidates for 6th man of the year (how many teams have ever had two?).
But the most credit should probably go to Mark Jackson. In just his second year coaching, he's transformed this team from one in which defending was an afterthought, to one that grinds out wins with stingy defense and solid rebounding. The Warriors are the 6th best team in the NBA in terms of opponent FG%. Two years ago they were 21st and last year, 20th. Even after struggling on the boards the past couple games, the Warriors are 8th in the league in rebound differential. They had been dead last for the previous FOUR seasons. They are doing things that Warrior fans like myself just didn't even know were possible.
The Warriors haven't just gotten better. They've fundamentally altered their style to a winning formula. Jackson has instituted a culture change that one would expect would take a half-decade to produce results. For that, he'll no doubt get a lot of votes for Coach of the Year, and rightfully so. Back when Don Nelson was running the team, I always wanted the Warriors to be good, but I didn't want them to change, fearing that abandoning the high-paced, offense-only style would produce a team that wasn't any fun to watch. I'm happy to be dead wrong.
If you're not watching this team on the regular, you're missing a lot of excitement. Like I said, you're late, but there's still room on the bandwagon.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Will the Warriors End All-Star Drought?
The last time a Golden State Warrior played in the NBA All-Star Game, people my age were slow dancing to No Doubt's "Don't Speak". That song was likely sandwiched between Hanson's "MMMBop" and followed by Aqua's "Barbie Girl". Such was the context when Latrell Sprewell was selected in 1997. Sixteen years later--the NBA's longest such drought--the Warriors have not had a player represent them among the NBA's best. It's a fairly staggering accomplishment. But this year, with David Lee and Stephen Curry propelling the W's to the West's 5th best record, that streak has a very strong chance of ending.
Those two have been playing at an elite level, and frankly, it's a shock that there's a chance they both won't make it. But the West is stacked with talent, and there are only so many spots on the rosters. The starters were voted in by the fans, leaving space for two guards, three forwards, and two wild cards for reserves. Picked by the coaches, the reserves will be announced tonight.
David Lee's competition comes in the form of Tim Duncan, Marc Gasol, Zach Randolph, and LaMarcus Aldridge. Based on what I'm reading, Duncan is a lock, having his best and most efficient season in years. Gasol is perhaps the league's best defender, plays on an elite team, and is no slouch on offense, though he does fall short of Lee's numbers. Aldridge edges Lee in scoring by 1 point per game, but Lee has the edge in rebounds per game (by 2) and assists per game (by 1), plus shoots at a higher percentage. Randolph out-rebounds Lee, but falls short everywhere else. It's also hard to ignore the fact that Lee leads the NBA in 20-point-10-rebound games. I say it's an injustice if he's not selected.
Curry probably faces even stiffer competition in Russell Westbrook, James Harden, and Tony Parker. Westbrook and Harden are consensus Top-15 players in the league; they're getting in. That leaves Curry fighting for a wild card spot. Watching this guy night in and night out, it's nearly unfathomable to think he might not be an All-Star. The guy takes over stretches of games on a routine basis. He's 8th in the league in scoring, and 14th in assists. He's the league's most prolific 3-point shooter, making an astonishing 45% on 7 attempts per game (putting him 2nd in the NBA in 3-pointers made). Tony Parker has Curry beat in assists (7.4 to 6.6 per game) and FG% (52% to 44%). But Curry plays more minutes, scores more, and grabs more rebounds. Only two other guys in the NBA can claim they score 20+ points, dish 6+ assists, and grab 4+ rebounds per game: LeBron James and Russell Westbrook. It's a very tough call. Maybe they both can get in.
It's not as if the Warriors haven't had deserving candidates since '97. I've been infuriated in previous years when Monta Ellis was snubbed, despite his gaudy scoring numbers. But respect in this league comes with winning, and that's the difference this year. Ellis's dreaded stigma of "good player on a bad team" cost him year after year. The Warriors are a team committed to defense this year, and it's translated into a lot more wins. Curry and Lee are by no means elite defenders, but there's no question they've made improvements, and their overall attitudes and leadership should also be considered as part of the reason for the improved team record.
Coaches: please don't give me a reason to revisit "Barbie Girl" again next year.
P.S. Here's a link to Bill Simmons's BS Report Podcast in which he interviewed Lee and Curry. It was recorded in early January after they beat the Clippers. A good interview -- not just your standard questions and answers.
Those two have been playing at an elite level, and frankly, it's a shock that there's a chance they both won't make it. But the West is stacked with talent, and there are only so many spots on the rosters. The starters were voted in by the fans, leaving space for two guards, three forwards, and two wild cards for reserves. Picked by the coaches, the reserves will be announced tonight.
David Lee's competition comes in the form of Tim Duncan, Marc Gasol, Zach Randolph, and LaMarcus Aldridge. Based on what I'm reading, Duncan is a lock, having his best and most efficient season in years. Gasol is perhaps the league's best defender, plays on an elite team, and is no slouch on offense, though he does fall short of Lee's numbers. Aldridge edges Lee in scoring by 1 point per game, but Lee has the edge in rebounds per game (by 2) and assists per game (by 1), plus shoots at a higher percentage. Randolph out-rebounds Lee, but falls short everywhere else. It's also hard to ignore the fact that Lee leads the NBA in 20-point-10-rebound games. I say it's an injustice if he's not selected.
Curry probably faces even stiffer competition in Russell Westbrook, James Harden, and Tony Parker. Westbrook and Harden are consensus Top-15 players in the league; they're getting in. That leaves Curry fighting for a wild card spot. Watching this guy night in and night out, it's nearly unfathomable to think he might not be an All-Star. The guy takes over stretches of games on a routine basis. He's 8th in the league in scoring, and 14th in assists. He's the league's most prolific 3-point shooter, making an astonishing 45% on 7 attempts per game (putting him 2nd in the NBA in 3-pointers made). Tony Parker has Curry beat in assists (7.4 to 6.6 per game) and FG% (52% to 44%). But Curry plays more minutes, scores more, and grabs more rebounds. Only two other guys in the NBA can claim they score 20+ points, dish 6+ assists, and grab 4+ rebounds per game: LeBron James and Russell Westbrook. It's a very tough call. Maybe they both can get in.
It's not as if the Warriors haven't had deserving candidates since '97. I've been infuriated in previous years when Monta Ellis was snubbed, despite his gaudy scoring numbers. But respect in this league comes with winning, and that's the difference this year. Ellis's dreaded stigma of "good player on a bad team" cost him year after year. The Warriors are a team committed to defense this year, and it's translated into a lot more wins. Curry and Lee are by no means elite defenders, but there's no question they've made improvements, and their overall attitudes and leadership should also be considered as part of the reason for the improved team record.
Coaches: please don't give me a reason to revisit "Barbie Girl" again next year.
P.S. Here's a link to Bill Simmons's BS Report Podcast in which he interviewed Lee and Curry. It was recorded in early January after they beat the Clippers. A good interview -- not just your standard questions and answers.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Open Letter to the BBWAA
To the members of the Baseball Writers Association of America, specifically those who did not vote for Barry Bonds to join the Hall of Fame:
Shame on you. Shame on you for keeping one of the most interesting and talented ballplayers out of the museum of Baseball history. Shame on you for imposing your own morals on the rest of fans. Shame on you for making assumptions you cannot confirm, and for displaying subjective inconsistencies that render your integrity as journalists questionable, at best.
This isn't about my favorite baseball player of all time being denied entry into the Hall of Fame. This is about the Hall of Fame becoming meaningless. We now have a Hall of Fame that lacks mention of the all-time hits leader (Pete Rose), perhaps the greatest pitcher of all time (Roger Clemens), and the all-time home run king (Barry Bonds), who also is arguably the greatest player of all time. It is now a museum that lacks the legitimacy that would make it worth visting.
Let's assume that Barry Bonds did use performance enhancing drugs, starting after the 1998 season (which is the consensus on when he allegedly started). Despite the fact that he had the numbers to be a no-doubt Hall of Famer before that, you didn't vote for him. Let's examine some possible reasons why. Was he a cheater? No. To anyone who says that Bonds and players like him cheated, I ask you: what rule did he break? All the stuff he took was not on any sort of banned substances list at the time he was allegedly taking it. That's a fact. He didn't break any baseball rules. Unlike Hall of Famers such as Gaylord Perry, who have admitted doctoring baseballs to produce an advantage (which is specifically against the rules). But, you may counter, the Hall of Fame instructs writers to base voting on character and integrity along with performance on the field. Even if juiced players weren't breaking any rules, surely they must have known it was wrong. Are you really going to place more weight on character/integrity than on on-field performance? That doesn't fit with past precedent. Here we have the most dominant player the game has seen since Babe Ruth, but you are going to keep him out because he was morally questionable? I guess we better remove Ty Cobb from the Hall then, because he was a documented dirty player and a racist. Bonds was never friendly with the media, but to punish him for not being your friend is nothing short of childish.
And let's not forget that performing enhancing drugs have been part of the game for longer than it seems you care to remember. Amphetamines, or "greenies" as they were known, were commonly used (before being banned in 2006) going all the way back to the 1960's. That means our heroes like Willie Mays and Hank Aaron were getting an extra pep in their step when they really shouldn't have been. Not only that, but they never had to face pitchers who were on steroids, as Barry Bonds and other modern hitters did.
But as I said, this is not just about Barry Bonds. This is also about McGwire, and Sosa, and Clemens, and Piazza, and Palmiero, and A-Rod (in the future), and all the people who dominated during this era. No one player illustrates the ridiculousness of your holier-than-thou stance than Jeff Bagwell does. He had over 2300 hits, over 2500 RBI, and 449 HRs. Looking at more advanced metrics, he had a career OPS+ of 149 (Mike Schmidt's was 147). His career WAR sits at 76.7, ahead of guys like Pete Rose, Joe DiMaggio, and Robin Yount (per Baseballreference.com). He's one of the best first basemen of all time, and he's never been linked to any PEDs. But because he was big and bulky, and played in the Steroid Era, he only got 60% of the vote (75% is needed to get in). Forty percent did not vote for him, mostly based on assumption. And when Ken Griffey Jr. appears on the ballot, he will likely get voted in, based on the assumption that he "did it clean". I'm not saying Ken Griffey Jr. took PEDs. All I'm saying is that we cannot know for sure. Steroids were so pervasive during this era, it's nearly pointless to try to figure out who did what. Remember, it's not just the big home run hitters -- we got a stark reminder of that just this past year when Melky Cabrera got suspended. Also note that he just got a raise.
As Ray Ratto recently pointed out, it is not your duty, responsibility, or even your right to keep the game "pure". Throughout baseball history, players have played under the rules set by Major League Baseball, not rules set by you. Your job is to cover the sport objectively, and without assumption. Speaking of your job, the entire Steroid Era was a gigantic swing-and-a-miss on the part of the baseball media. More accurately I should say you were caught looking on a fastball right down the middle. I'm not saying responsibility for PED use lies with the media, but this was going on right under your noses. You are the ones with the everyday access. You are the ones who had relationships with players, coaches, GMs, and owners. You are the ones with the jobs to uncover the truth and inform the public on what's happening in the sport. So where were you with your moral objections in 1998? And now you wish to sweep this entire era of baseball under the rug as if it never happened.
Should we do the same for the pre-1945 racially segregated era? Think about it -- for every one of our heroes from that era, there is another equally legendary African-American ballplayer we don't even know about. So maybe no one from that era should get in the Hall of Fame. We don't know how Babe Ruth would have done if he had to face pitchers like Satchel Paige. Just like we don't know how Willie Mays would have done if he faced Pedro Martinez. Baseball is a game of eras. The best we can do is compare players to their peers. In a world where not everything can be known, due process--based on facts--is all we have.
And I ask you this: how confident are you that the Hall is not already sullied with a steroid user? Along with his power bat, Ricky Henderson made his money stealing bases during a time when sprinters were not exactly known for their clean urine. Nolan Ryan shared a clubhouse with Jose Canseco, Juan Gonzalez, and Rafael Palmiero; and he relied on a dominating fastball well into his 40's. The only other pitcher to dominate on the strength of a fastball at that advanced age? Roger Clemens. Again, I'm not saying these guys took PEDs (the lack of evidence would make that accusation stupid). I'm just pointing out the obvious fact that we don't know if they did or not, and that anecdotal evidence can be applied to anyone. What we do know is that these guys played well above their competition, and they deserve to be recognized for it, even if it's noted that they played in an era where some players had an edge over others. To doll out that recognition based on hunches and incomplete evidence is simply unprofessional.
When you get your ballot next year, acknowledge the fact that you are not some mythical Guardian of the Game (another Ratto phrase). Take your arrogance down one notch and admit that neither you nor anyone can know who took performance-enhancing drugs, and how much it may have helped those who did. Take a dose of reality and realize that the people you are crusading against never broke any rules of the game. Most importantly, stop denying baseball fans the history museum they deserve.
Sincerely,
Mike Meade
P.S. Let's also remember that the door was blown open on the Steroids Era by Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams in their book, "Game of Shadows". A lot of the accusations in that book are based on leaked grand jury testimony. That's right: illegally obtained materials that enhanced the performance of these writers.
Shame on you. Shame on you for keeping one of the most interesting and talented ballplayers out of the museum of Baseball history. Shame on you for imposing your own morals on the rest of fans. Shame on you for making assumptions you cannot confirm, and for displaying subjective inconsistencies that render your integrity as journalists questionable, at best.
This isn't about my favorite baseball player of all time being denied entry into the Hall of Fame. This is about the Hall of Fame becoming meaningless. We now have a Hall of Fame that lacks mention of the all-time hits leader (Pete Rose), perhaps the greatest pitcher of all time (Roger Clemens), and the all-time home run king (Barry Bonds), who also is arguably the greatest player of all time. It is now a museum that lacks the legitimacy that would make it worth visting.
Let's assume that Barry Bonds did use performance enhancing drugs, starting after the 1998 season (which is the consensus on when he allegedly started). Despite the fact that he had the numbers to be a no-doubt Hall of Famer before that, you didn't vote for him. Let's examine some possible reasons why. Was he a cheater? No. To anyone who says that Bonds and players like him cheated, I ask you: what rule did he break? All the stuff he took was not on any sort of banned substances list at the time he was allegedly taking it. That's a fact. He didn't break any baseball rules. Unlike Hall of Famers such as Gaylord Perry, who have admitted doctoring baseballs to produce an advantage (which is specifically against the rules). But, you may counter, the Hall of Fame instructs writers to base voting on character and integrity along with performance on the field. Even if juiced players weren't breaking any rules, surely they must have known it was wrong. Are you really going to place more weight on character/integrity than on on-field performance? That doesn't fit with past precedent. Here we have the most dominant player the game has seen since Babe Ruth, but you are going to keep him out because he was morally questionable? I guess we better remove Ty Cobb from the Hall then, because he was a documented dirty player and a racist. Bonds was never friendly with the media, but to punish him for not being your friend is nothing short of childish.
And let's not forget that performing enhancing drugs have been part of the game for longer than it seems you care to remember. Amphetamines, or "greenies" as they were known, were commonly used (before being banned in 2006) going all the way back to the 1960's. That means our heroes like Willie Mays and Hank Aaron were getting an extra pep in their step when they really shouldn't have been. Not only that, but they never had to face pitchers who were on steroids, as Barry Bonds and other modern hitters did.
But as I said, this is not just about Barry Bonds. This is also about McGwire, and Sosa, and Clemens, and Piazza, and Palmiero, and A-Rod (in the future), and all the people who dominated during this era. No one player illustrates the ridiculousness of your holier-than-thou stance than Jeff Bagwell does. He had over 2300 hits, over 2500 RBI, and 449 HRs. Looking at more advanced metrics, he had a career OPS+ of 149 (Mike Schmidt's was 147). His career WAR sits at 76.7, ahead of guys like Pete Rose, Joe DiMaggio, and Robin Yount (per Baseballreference.com). He's one of the best first basemen of all time, and he's never been linked to any PEDs. But because he was big and bulky, and played in the Steroid Era, he only got 60% of the vote (75% is needed to get in). Forty percent did not vote for him, mostly based on assumption. And when Ken Griffey Jr. appears on the ballot, he will likely get voted in, based on the assumption that he "did it clean". I'm not saying Ken Griffey Jr. took PEDs. All I'm saying is that we cannot know for sure. Steroids were so pervasive during this era, it's nearly pointless to try to figure out who did what. Remember, it's not just the big home run hitters -- we got a stark reminder of that just this past year when Melky Cabrera got suspended. Also note that he just got a raise.
As Ray Ratto recently pointed out, it is not your duty, responsibility, or even your right to keep the game "pure". Throughout baseball history, players have played under the rules set by Major League Baseball, not rules set by you. Your job is to cover the sport objectively, and without assumption. Speaking of your job, the entire Steroid Era was a gigantic swing-and-a-miss on the part of the baseball media. More accurately I should say you were caught looking on a fastball right down the middle. I'm not saying responsibility for PED use lies with the media, but this was going on right under your noses. You are the ones with the everyday access. You are the ones who had relationships with players, coaches, GMs, and owners. You are the ones with the jobs to uncover the truth and inform the public on what's happening in the sport. So where were you with your moral objections in 1998? And now you wish to sweep this entire era of baseball under the rug as if it never happened.
Should we do the same for the pre-1945 racially segregated era? Think about it -- for every one of our heroes from that era, there is another equally legendary African-American ballplayer we don't even know about. So maybe no one from that era should get in the Hall of Fame. We don't know how Babe Ruth would have done if he had to face pitchers like Satchel Paige. Just like we don't know how Willie Mays would have done if he faced Pedro Martinez. Baseball is a game of eras. The best we can do is compare players to their peers. In a world where not everything can be known, due process--based on facts--is all we have.
And I ask you this: how confident are you that the Hall is not already sullied with a steroid user? Along with his power bat, Ricky Henderson made his money stealing bases during a time when sprinters were not exactly known for their clean urine. Nolan Ryan shared a clubhouse with Jose Canseco, Juan Gonzalez, and Rafael Palmiero; and he relied on a dominating fastball well into his 40's. The only other pitcher to dominate on the strength of a fastball at that advanced age? Roger Clemens. Again, I'm not saying these guys took PEDs (the lack of evidence would make that accusation stupid). I'm just pointing out the obvious fact that we don't know if they did or not, and that anecdotal evidence can be applied to anyone. What we do know is that these guys played well above their competition, and they deserve to be recognized for it, even if it's noted that they played in an era where some players had an edge over others. To doll out that recognition based on hunches and incomplete evidence is simply unprofessional.
When you get your ballot next year, acknowledge the fact that you are not some mythical Guardian of the Game (another Ratto phrase). Take your arrogance down one notch and admit that neither you nor anyone can know who took performance-enhancing drugs, and how much it may have helped those who did. Take a dose of reality and realize that the people you are crusading against never broke any rules of the game. Most importantly, stop denying baseball fans the history museum they deserve.
Sincerely,
Mike Meade
P.S. Let's also remember that the door was blown open on the Steroids Era by Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams in their book, "Game of Shadows". A lot of the accusations in that book are based on leaked grand jury testimony. That's right: illegally obtained materials that enhanced the performance of these writers.
Monday, January 7, 2013
A Rivalry Renewed
With the Packers man-handling the Vikings in the Wild Card Playoff round last Saturday, they will now travel to San Francisco to face the 49ers for a trip to the NFC Championship Game.
Oh. Baby.
The 49er Dynasty of the 1980's is a massive source of pride, but I was born too late to really enjoy it. Their rivalry with the Cowboys in the 1990's was great, and left me with a healthy hatred of "America's Team" that still hangs on today. But it was the rivalry with the Packers of the late '90's that took hold of me in the most emotional way, and gave me my favorite football memory of all time. The media began its shameful love affair with Brett Favre during this time, taking away attention from the much-deserving Steve Young, who had turned in the greatest SuperBowl performance of all time in 1994. But in 3 straight seasons, the Pack ousted the 49ers from the playoffs. It was, as they say, on. So to get that monkey off their backs in 1999 with The Catch II ("OWENS! OWENS! OWENS!"), well that was just peachy.
The Packers got the 49ers again in 2002 to go up 4-1 in playoff meetings, so there is some work to do to turn the tables. They can start this Saturday, as a new chapter in this history book will be written. And the '9ers already showed they can beat their rivals when they handily upset the Packers in Week 1, in Green Bay. Packers fans no doubt have some excuse as to why that game went the way it did, and the 49ers are banged up, so it will be no easy task. They are at home this time, and they also have a different quarterback, which apparently is an important position.
By now I think we can agree that Kaepernick is a (probably minor) upgrade over Alex Smith, right? He lacks experience, which could turn out to be huge, but it will be tough to measure. What we can know is that he can throw the ball faster and farther, and he's more mobile (although people do seem to be forgetting that Smith could run the ball, too). Anyway, my point is, I think we know pretty much what we are getting from most of this 49er team. From my limited football knowledge, I'd say there are two 49ers on which the game will hinge: Justin Smith and David Akers.
It was never a secret that Aldon Smith relied heavily on Justin Smith while he was piling up the sacks this year. But since Justin went down with a torn tricep tendon, Aldon hasn't added to his sack total once. More frightening is that it's easy to tell the defense as a whole has suffered. Through the first 13.5 games this year, the '9ers gave up an average 3.3 points per quarter (that's counting the two overtimes against St. Louis and the first half of the Pats game). Since Halftime of that Pats game (roughly when Smith went out), the 49ers have allowed an average of 8.6 points per quarter. (That's not as good). It looks like Smith will play this weekend, but there's no way to tell how effective he will be. The 49ers will need to get consistent pressure on Aaron Rogers to stop that high-powered offense. I'm not sure they can do it with 50% of Justin Smith.
Meanwhile, David Akers has gone from one of the best in the game to one of the worst. Hopefully he'll continue doing his best Tim Lincecum impression and have a complete revival in the playoffs. The 49er formula of grinding out wins with stingy defense, conservative offense, and winning the field position battle doesn't really work without a lock-down field-goal kicker. That's yet another reason why Kaepernick may be the better choice. Still, probably my favorite moment of this regular season was Akers's 63-yarder against the Packers. Seems like he's a completely different person now. Harbaugh even brought in another kicker to practice this week to compete with Akers.
So there's uncertainty. Surprise Surprise. I'm just glad there's reason to truly dislike the Packers again. Ever since Favre left, (and since the 49ers have been mostly bad), I haven't had a problem with them. Aaron Rogers has been so unbelievably good, it's hard to hate him aside from his stupid touchdown celebration. Well as soon as he throws his first on Saturday, it is, as they say, on.
Oh. Baby.
The 49er Dynasty of the 1980's is a massive source of pride, but I was born too late to really enjoy it. Their rivalry with the Cowboys in the 1990's was great, and left me with a healthy hatred of "America's Team" that still hangs on today. But it was the rivalry with the Packers of the late '90's that took hold of me in the most emotional way, and gave me my favorite football memory of all time. The media began its shameful love affair with Brett Favre during this time, taking away attention from the much-deserving Steve Young, who had turned in the greatest SuperBowl performance of all time in 1994. But in 3 straight seasons, the Pack ousted the 49ers from the playoffs. It was, as they say, on. So to get that monkey off their backs in 1999 with The Catch II ("OWENS! OWENS! OWENS!"), well that was just peachy.
The Packers got the 49ers again in 2002 to go up 4-1 in playoff meetings, so there is some work to do to turn the tables. They can start this Saturday, as a new chapter in this history book will be written. And the '9ers already showed they can beat their rivals when they handily upset the Packers in Week 1, in Green Bay. Packers fans no doubt have some excuse as to why that game went the way it did, and the 49ers are banged up, so it will be no easy task. They are at home this time, and they also have a different quarterback, which apparently is an important position.
By now I think we can agree that Kaepernick is a (probably minor) upgrade over Alex Smith, right? He lacks experience, which could turn out to be huge, but it will be tough to measure. What we can know is that he can throw the ball faster and farther, and he's more mobile (although people do seem to be forgetting that Smith could run the ball, too). Anyway, my point is, I think we know pretty much what we are getting from most of this 49er team. From my limited football knowledge, I'd say there are two 49ers on which the game will hinge: Justin Smith and David Akers.
It was never a secret that Aldon Smith relied heavily on Justin Smith while he was piling up the sacks this year. But since Justin went down with a torn tricep tendon, Aldon hasn't added to his sack total once. More frightening is that it's easy to tell the defense as a whole has suffered. Through the first 13.5 games this year, the '9ers gave up an average 3.3 points per quarter (that's counting the two overtimes against St. Louis and the first half of the Pats game). Since Halftime of that Pats game (roughly when Smith went out), the 49ers have allowed an average of 8.6 points per quarter. (That's not as good). It looks like Smith will play this weekend, but there's no way to tell how effective he will be. The 49ers will need to get consistent pressure on Aaron Rogers to stop that high-powered offense. I'm not sure they can do it with 50% of Justin Smith.
Meanwhile, David Akers has gone from one of the best in the game to one of the worst. Hopefully he'll continue doing his best Tim Lincecum impression and have a complete revival in the playoffs. The 49er formula of grinding out wins with stingy defense, conservative offense, and winning the field position battle doesn't really work without a lock-down field-goal kicker. That's yet another reason why Kaepernick may be the better choice. Still, probably my favorite moment of this regular season was Akers's 63-yarder against the Packers. Seems like he's a completely different person now. Harbaugh even brought in another kicker to practice this week to compete with Akers.
So there's uncertainty. Surprise Surprise. I'm just glad there's reason to truly dislike the Packers again. Ever since Favre left, (and since the 49ers have been mostly bad), I haven't had a problem with them. Aaron Rogers has been so unbelievably good, it's hard to hate him aside from his stupid touchdown celebration. Well as soon as he throws his first on Saturday, it is, as they say, on.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Assessing the Giants' Offseason So Far
The Giants are getting the band back together. Brian Sabean and the rest of the gang had a busy day at the Winter Meetings yesterday, signing Angel Pagan and Marco Scutaro to reprise their roles from the 2012 season. This comes a few weeks after Jeremy Affeldt re-signed as well. In bringing back these three important contributors to the World Series-winning team, the Giants check off the boxes on their off-season wish (needs) list, although they now have little room to do much else. The cynics will moan about how they haven't learned their lesson from the Aubrey Huff debacle -- you shouldn't overpay to bring back aging veterans just for sentimental reasons. And there's plenty of reason to be concerned. All three of these guys got more money and more years than we would have liked. But that doesn't change the fact that these were the best options at their respective positions. The talent pool in the Giants' minor league system isn't exactly overflowing. And given how the market was playing out, these terms were probably necessary. The Giants are built to win now, so if they have to Aaron Rowand these guys a couple years down the road, well, so be it. The Giants won 2 World Series during the Aaron Rowand era, and he wasn't even on the team for one of them. It can be done.
Pagan signed for 4 years and $40 million. The obvious concern is that much of Pagan's value lies in his legs: stealing bases, beating out infield singles, ranging in center field, setting franchise records for triples, etc. Legs don't usually age particularly well. Pagan's 2012 was fantastic -- 4 Wins Above Replacement. He's unlikely to repeat that, just because...well just because. So if he starts rapidly declining, years 3 and 4 of this contract could easily be a sunk cost. On the other hand, analysts like to claim these days that 1 Win Above Replacement "costs" about $5 million (and rising) on the open market. By that measure, to make this contract "worth it", Pagan simply needs to be a 2-Win player on average. That seems more than doable. But the main reason I'm happy to see Pagan back is the other options out there. In other words, he's not Shane Victorino, whom the Red Sox just overpaid because he has a fun nickname and he's a "star". Puke. The Giants have their core set with Posey, Sandoval, and the starting pitching. Making a huge splash with Michael Bourne or Josh Hamilton would have had the same age concerns and would have put more strain on the club when negotiating with their young hitters. The lack of production from Gary Brown in the minors this year definitely hurt, as he was sort of the plan for 2013. But now that he's not a viable option to start in the Majors, Pagan was really the only acceptable option.
Pretty similar situation with Scutaro, who signed for 3 years, $20 million. It's too much, but it also is how much the market dictated for the best option at 2nd base. Maybe they could have cobbled together an acceptable season from some combination of Joaquin Arias, Ryan Theriot, and even Freddy Sanchez. But that doesn't sound like a plan suitable for a team trying to cement a dynasty. Scutaro probably has one or two more productive years in him, and he's not blocking a prospect who is ready to play in the Big Leagues, either (like Aubrey Huff was).
The Jeremy Affeldt signing is the most puzzling. Three years at $6M apiece seems out of this world for a middle reliever/set-up man. And it would be, except unfortunately, we exist in a world in which the Dodgers also exist. It's horrifying on multiple levels. Specifically on this front, though. Since the Dodgers wipe themselves with thousand-dollar bills, they had no problem throwing 3 years and $22.5 million at Brandon League, a guy with a similar role to Affeldt. I believe that this contract was offered specifically to set the market high on Affeldt, maybe even to price the Giants out so they could lure him away themselves. At the very least, they succeeded in making the Giants overpay for Affeldt. Must be nice, Ned Colletti.
So it looks the 2012 Giants will be essentially the same as the 2013 team. I've got no beef with that. Of course that includes Gregor Blanco starting in LF, which is not ideal (really the Giants needed 2 outfielders, which makes the Pagan deal even more necessary). The fact that Scutaro and Affeldt may have priced the Giants out of a platoon option in left is probably the largest reason not to like the deals. That and the fact that the Giants are usually pretty good at grabbing effective relievers out of the bargain bin (Casilla, Lopez, Mijares, etc).
Speaking of effective relievers, let's talk about the elephant in the room: Brian Wilson. It's looking increasingly like he won't return, after the Giants decided to not tender him a contract in arbitration. Upset that the Giants did not want to pay around double his market value, there's talk of B Weez taking his beard-growing talents to LA, where he lives in the off-season. Again, this would be horrifying. But let's look at the upside. He may not be ready for Opening Day and he may not be fully effective all year. He's coming off his second Tommy John surgery. There's a real chance he'll Jason Schmidt the Dodgers and become one of the best Giants ever. Aside from Dodger-fail reasons, from a baseball perspective, the risk/reward just doesn't seem worth it. When Wilson went down last year, it wasn't the closer position that suffered (remember, Casilla was a marked improvement before he faltered, at which point the committee--led by Romo--did just fine). The biggest loss for the bullpen was its depth. Below average guys had to take some of the middle innings, and they didn't fare too well. But with Mijares added, I think there's enough. Romo, Affeldt, Casilla, Lopez, Mijares, and Kontos make up a bullpen that most teams would lust for (Without Guillermo Mota uglying them up, they are a handsome group, no?). Bringing Wilson back comes with the possibility that he just might not be that effective, and with that comes a closer controversy, and it won't be one of those "good problems to have" like they have going on over at Candlestick. For the price Wilson probably wants, it's just not worth the risk.
Pagan signed for 4 years and $40 million. The obvious concern is that much of Pagan's value lies in his legs: stealing bases, beating out infield singles, ranging in center field, setting franchise records for triples, etc. Legs don't usually age particularly well. Pagan's 2012 was fantastic -- 4 Wins Above Replacement. He's unlikely to repeat that, just because...well just because. So if he starts rapidly declining, years 3 and 4 of this contract could easily be a sunk cost. On the other hand, analysts like to claim these days that 1 Win Above Replacement "costs" about $5 million (and rising) on the open market. By that measure, to make this contract "worth it", Pagan simply needs to be a 2-Win player on average. That seems more than doable. But the main reason I'm happy to see Pagan back is the other options out there. In other words, he's not Shane Victorino, whom the Red Sox just overpaid because he has a fun nickname and he's a "star". Puke. The Giants have their core set with Posey, Sandoval, and the starting pitching. Making a huge splash with Michael Bourne or Josh Hamilton would have had the same age concerns and would have put more strain on the club when negotiating with their young hitters. The lack of production from Gary Brown in the minors this year definitely hurt, as he was sort of the plan for 2013. But now that he's not a viable option to start in the Majors, Pagan was really the only acceptable option.
Pretty similar situation with Scutaro, who signed for 3 years, $20 million. It's too much, but it also is how much the market dictated for the best option at 2nd base. Maybe they could have cobbled together an acceptable season from some combination of Joaquin Arias, Ryan Theriot, and even Freddy Sanchez. But that doesn't sound like a plan suitable for a team trying to cement a dynasty. Scutaro probably has one or two more productive years in him, and he's not blocking a prospect who is ready to play in the Big Leagues, either (like Aubrey Huff was).
The Jeremy Affeldt signing is the most puzzling. Three years at $6M apiece seems out of this world for a middle reliever/set-up man. And it would be, except unfortunately, we exist in a world in which the Dodgers also exist. It's horrifying on multiple levels. Specifically on this front, though. Since the Dodgers wipe themselves with thousand-dollar bills, they had no problem throwing 3 years and $22.5 million at Brandon League, a guy with a similar role to Affeldt. I believe that this contract was offered specifically to set the market high on Affeldt, maybe even to price the Giants out so they could lure him away themselves. At the very least, they succeeded in making the Giants overpay for Affeldt. Must be nice, Ned Colletti.
So it looks the 2012 Giants will be essentially the same as the 2013 team. I've got no beef with that. Of course that includes Gregor Blanco starting in LF, which is not ideal (really the Giants needed 2 outfielders, which makes the Pagan deal even more necessary). The fact that Scutaro and Affeldt may have priced the Giants out of a platoon option in left is probably the largest reason not to like the deals. That and the fact that the Giants are usually pretty good at grabbing effective relievers out of the bargain bin (Casilla, Lopez, Mijares, etc).
Speaking of effective relievers, let's talk about the elephant in the room: Brian Wilson. It's looking increasingly like he won't return, after the Giants decided to not tender him a contract in arbitration. Upset that the Giants did not want to pay around double his market value, there's talk of B Weez taking his beard-growing talents to LA, where he lives in the off-season. Again, this would be horrifying. But let's look at the upside. He may not be ready for Opening Day and he may not be fully effective all year. He's coming off his second Tommy John surgery. There's a real chance he'll Jason Schmidt the Dodgers and become one of the best Giants ever. Aside from Dodger-fail reasons, from a baseball perspective, the risk/reward just doesn't seem worth it. When Wilson went down last year, it wasn't the closer position that suffered (remember, Casilla was a marked improvement before he faltered, at which point the committee--led by Romo--did just fine). The biggest loss for the bullpen was its depth. Below average guys had to take some of the middle innings, and they didn't fare too well. But with Mijares added, I think there's enough. Romo, Affeldt, Casilla, Lopez, Mijares, and Kontos make up a bullpen that most teams would lust for (Without Guillermo Mota uglying them up, they are a handsome group, no?). Bringing Wilson back comes with the possibility that he just might not be that effective, and with that comes a closer controversy, and it won't be one of those "good problems to have" like they have going on over at Candlestick. For the price Wilson probably wants, it's just not worth the risk.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
KAP or Smith?
Read more here
Personally, I am 100% on Smith side. All the guy did was QB the team to a 6-2 record and post quality numbers across the board. He get's hurt for a game and half and get demoted to an somewhat unproven 2nd year player? Doesn't add up to me. Maybe it's Harbs ego and personality getting in the way here. Or maybe it's something that not even the media has hit on yet.....
Was there a QB controversy behind closed doors before Smith got injured? I know KAP and a number of other unproven young guys were killing it in the early i the year in practice. Either way, no matter what a player should have to fail in on the field to lose there job. Well, unless your Jamarcus Russell!
What do you leaner's out there think?
Cheers,
Mr. A
LaMichael ready to show the NFL what he's all about!
Can't wait to see what LMJ and even Jenkins can do if they get activated this Sunday. Looks and sounds like LMJ has the better shot to get out there!
"In my mind, I feel like I can go out there and play any day," James said. "I feel like I can make plays against anybody. That's the competitive nature in me, but it's probably different from the coaches, I don't know."
If you think you're the best, you will be the best. Can't wait to see KAP and LMJ breaking the Rams ankles all over the field on Sunday!
Cheers,
Mr.A
#whosgotitbetterthanus #LMJ #49ers #kaepernick
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Chip Kelly to the NFL... The question isn't if, but when!
With the NFL being a "what have you done for me lately" league these days, it's never surprising to see any coach get fired mid-season or in the off-season. As a Duck fan, Chip Kelly seems to always be in the news about a rumor he is leaving Eugene for the pros. Here's the latest list of potential teams he could go to.
Read More....
My gut tells me he is done with the Ducks after they crush Kansas State in the Fiesta Bowl this coming January (more to come on that after the championship games over the next two weekends).
The most likely suitor has got to be the Carolina Panthers. With Coach Rivera talking about not coming back, Kelly could step in and run his flash offense with Newton and the stable of running backs currently on the squad right now not to mention they will be getting a super early draft pick since they suck this year.
Back from the dead,
Mr. A
#camnewton #bbigballschip #WTD #carolinapanthers #NFL
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
2010 Giants vs. 2012 Giants: Who Wins?
The Giants won the World Series. Just a coupla weeks ago. It happened. You can look it up. They also won it in 2010. Fact. Also, fact: when a team wins two titles so close together, it's inevitable that people will begin to compare the teams. Emotionally, I don't think you can top 2010. The joy combined with (quite frankly) relief made for a sense of "everything is going to be okay". In 2012, at least for me, it still seemed a bit like we were playing with house money. I just don't think anything can top the first one. That's why my parents love my older brother more than me, and that's why everybody says losing their virginity is still the best sex they've ever had*.
But what if we take emotion out of it? Amid all the recent election fury, one question that I can't seem to get out of my head is this: which of the two recent World Series winning Giant teams is better, 2010 or 2012? It's a difficult question to answer, given that the two teams have a lot (literally) in common, but also differences that cannot be ignored. Also mucking up the waters is the fact that the 2012 Giants had a bit of an identity change during their playoff run to the World Series, not to mention the 2010 line-up was so mix-and-match it changed almost every night. So while we're comparing two teams, we're really looking at three or more teams, even while all teams share a lot of players. Let's try to hash it out anyway.
Lineups/Bench:
2010 2012
Andres Torres CF Angel Pagan CF
Freddy Sanchez 2B Marco Scuraro 2B
Aubrey Huff 1B Pablo Sandoval 3B
Buster Posey C Buster Posey C
Cody Ross RF Hunter Pence RF
Pat Burrell LF Brandon Belt 1B
Juan Uribe 3B Gregor Blanco LF
Edgar Renteria SS Brandon Crawford SS
Pablo Sandoval Ryan Theriot
Aaron Rowand Juaquin Arias
Nate Shierholtz Xavier Nady
Mike Fontenot Hector Sanchez
Travis Ishikawa Aubrey Huff
Eli Whiteside
Like I said, this is far from an exact science, as the names above don't paint nearly a complete picture. Cody Ross was barely a factor in the 2010 regular season, yet he gets a spot there. Melky Cabrera paid a pivitol role in getting the 2012 Giants to the playoffs, but he's not mentioned. Basically the entire 2010 line-up was shuffled on a daily basis. But by the final end to the season, these are the line-ups that were generally settled upon. Niether of the benches are anything to write home about so I'll call that a wash. For the regulars, we have to decide what kind of sample size to look at. I'm not going to assume that Renteria duplicates his MVP performance on the regular. Nor can I hold the 2012 line-up to their post-season production, which other than Sadoval, Scutaro's NLCS, and two amazing HRs from Posey, was pretty poor. As great as Torres was that year, Pagan was better this year. MVP Posey is better than ROY Posey. Huff edges out Belt, and because you can't say that Scutaro would hit .362 for a whole year, 2nd base is essentially a wash. The remaining guys are close as well, but top to bottom, you'd have to take the 2012 guys. Numbers will back that up.
EDGE: 2012
Rotation:
2010 2012
Tim Lincecum Matt Cain
Matt Cain Madison Bumgarner
Jonathan Sanchez Ryan Vogelsong
Madison Bumgarner Barry Zito
Barry Zito (sort of) Tim Lincecum (sort of)
Starting with Barry Zito's season-saving start in St. Louis, the 2012 rotation looked just as un-hittable as the 2010 guys. But that may have been their best stretch of the season. The 2010 guys did it all year, waiting for the offense to approach average. They only had 2 bad starts the entire post-season, both by Sanchez against the Phillies. Meanwhile the 2012 staff was bailed out by their offense down the stretch. Lincecum, when starting, was worse than any Barry Zito we've seen.
EDGE: 2010
Bullpen:
2010 2012
Jeremy Affeldt Jeremy Affeldt
Santiago Casilla Santiago Casilla
Javier Lopez Javier Lopez
Guillermo Mota Guillermo Mota
Ramon Ramirez George Kontos
Sergio Romo Sergio Romo
Brian Wilson Jose Mijares
Tim Lincecum (sort of)
These are both excellent bullpens. A wonderful security blanket for both teams, probably because they're so similar. Kontos replaces Ramirez, Brain Wilson gets hurt so everyone moves up a spot, and Mijares fills in behind. Tim Lincecum is the wild card here. Can we even count him in the 'pen? If so, can we expect him to be the atomic weapon he was throughout the playoffs? It's hard to remember, but if you look at the regular season numbers, the 2012 'pen struggled a bit. Still, this has got stay-away written all over it.
SLIGHT EDGE: 2010
Defense:
The 2012 Giants were lauded for their solid defense throughout the playoffs. But it's not like the 2010 team embarrassed themselves, aided of course by defensive replacements Ishikawa and Shierholtz. Gotta give the edge to Torres over Pagan, but Blanco heavily over Burrell. It's the short stop position that tips the scale, though.
EDGE: 2012
Coaching:
Are these exactly identical? It would be hilarious and awesome to see Bochy try to out-manage himself.
EDGE: EVEN
Intangibles:
2010 had their castoffs and misfits, riding magic particles to deliver rapture via torture. 2012 never said die, playing for each other to reach one common goal: win today. It's hard to argue against winning 6 elimination games. But the 2010ers did seem like more of a team of destiny to me. Again, maybe because that victory was slightly more emotionally satisfying. Or maybe it's because they beat heavy favorites in both the NLCS and WS. We're all winners, here.
EDGE: EVEN
Conclusion:
This is basically impossible to call. Can someone invent a time machine so we can actually play this out? But I know I didn't write nearly 1000 words just to bail on my own quesiton. So here's my thought: Over a 162-game season, the 2012 Giants would prevail over their 2010 counterparts. They'd feast on the inferior competition, while 2010's razor-thin margin of error would cost them a division title. But in a 7-game series, I'd take the 2010 Giants. The pitching would just be too much (remember what they did to Texas?), and they might be able to push just enough runs across, likely via the home run.
The real question is, who would you root for?
*No one has ever said this, but I'm trying to make a point, here. Also: my parents called to tell me they love me just as much as Broseph.
But what if we take emotion out of it? Amid all the recent election fury, one question that I can't seem to get out of my head is this: which of the two recent World Series winning Giant teams is better, 2010 or 2012? It's a difficult question to answer, given that the two teams have a lot (literally) in common, but also differences that cannot be ignored. Also mucking up the waters is the fact that the 2012 Giants had a bit of an identity change during their playoff run to the World Series, not to mention the 2010 line-up was so mix-and-match it changed almost every night. So while we're comparing two teams, we're really looking at three or more teams, even while all teams share a lot of players. Let's try to hash it out anyway.
Lineups/Bench:
2010 2012
Andres Torres CF Angel Pagan CF
Freddy Sanchez 2B Marco Scuraro 2B
Aubrey Huff 1B Pablo Sandoval 3B
Buster Posey C Buster Posey C
Cody Ross RF Hunter Pence RF
Pat Burrell LF Brandon Belt 1B
Juan Uribe 3B Gregor Blanco LF
Edgar Renteria SS Brandon Crawford SS
Pablo Sandoval Ryan Theriot
Aaron Rowand Juaquin Arias
Nate Shierholtz Xavier Nady
Mike Fontenot Hector Sanchez
Travis Ishikawa Aubrey Huff
Eli Whiteside
Like I said, this is far from an exact science, as the names above don't paint nearly a complete picture. Cody Ross was barely a factor in the 2010 regular season, yet he gets a spot there. Melky Cabrera paid a pivitol role in getting the 2012 Giants to the playoffs, but he's not mentioned. Basically the entire 2010 line-up was shuffled on a daily basis. But by the final end to the season, these are the line-ups that were generally settled upon. Niether of the benches are anything to write home about so I'll call that a wash. For the regulars, we have to decide what kind of sample size to look at. I'm not going to assume that Renteria duplicates his MVP performance on the regular. Nor can I hold the 2012 line-up to their post-season production, which other than Sadoval, Scutaro's NLCS, and two amazing HRs from Posey, was pretty poor. As great as Torres was that year, Pagan was better this year. MVP Posey is better than ROY Posey. Huff edges out Belt, and because you can't say that Scutaro would hit .362 for a whole year, 2nd base is essentially a wash. The remaining guys are close as well, but top to bottom, you'd have to take the 2012 guys. Numbers will back that up.
EDGE: 2012
Rotation:
2010 2012
Tim Lincecum Matt Cain
Matt Cain Madison Bumgarner
Jonathan Sanchez Ryan Vogelsong
Madison Bumgarner Barry Zito
Barry Zito (sort of) Tim Lincecum (sort of)
Starting with Barry Zito's season-saving start in St. Louis, the 2012 rotation looked just as un-hittable as the 2010 guys. But that may have been their best stretch of the season. The 2010 guys did it all year, waiting for the offense to approach average. They only had 2 bad starts the entire post-season, both by Sanchez against the Phillies. Meanwhile the 2012 staff was bailed out by their offense down the stretch. Lincecum, when starting, was worse than any Barry Zito we've seen.
EDGE: 2010
Bullpen:
2010 2012
Jeremy Affeldt Jeremy Affeldt
Santiago Casilla Santiago Casilla
Javier Lopez Javier Lopez
Guillermo Mota Guillermo Mota
Ramon Ramirez George Kontos
Sergio Romo Sergio Romo
Brian Wilson Jose Mijares
Tim Lincecum (sort of)
These are both excellent bullpens. A wonderful security blanket for both teams, probably because they're so similar. Kontos replaces Ramirez, Brain Wilson gets hurt so everyone moves up a spot, and Mijares fills in behind. Tim Lincecum is the wild card here. Can we even count him in the 'pen? If so, can we expect him to be the atomic weapon he was throughout the playoffs? It's hard to remember, but if you look at the regular season numbers, the 2012 'pen struggled a bit. Still, this has got stay-away written all over it.
SLIGHT EDGE: 2010
Defense:
The 2012 Giants were lauded for their solid defense throughout the playoffs. But it's not like the 2010 team embarrassed themselves, aided of course by defensive replacements Ishikawa and Shierholtz. Gotta give the edge to Torres over Pagan, but Blanco heavily over Burrell. It's the short stop position that tips the scale, though.
EDGE: 2012
Coaching:
Are these exactly identical? It would be hilarious and awesome to see Bochy try to out-manage himself.
EDGE: EVEN
Intangibles:
2010 had their castoffs and misfits, riding magic particles to deliver rapture via torture. 2012 never said die, playing for each other to reach one common goal: win today. It's hard to argue against winning 6 elimination games. But the 2010ers did seem like more of a team of destiny to me. Again, maybe because that victory was slightly more emotionally satisfying. Or maybe it's because they beat heavy favorites in both the NLCS and WS. We're all winners, here.
EDGE: EVEN
Conclusion:
This is basically impossible to call. Can someone invent a time machine so we can actually play this out? But I know I didn't write nearly 1000 words just to bail on my own quesiton. So here's my thought: Over a 162-game season, the 2012 Giants would prevail over their 2010 counterparts. They'd feast on the inferior competition, while 2010's razor-thin margin of error would cost them a division title. But in a 7-game series, I'd take the 2010 Giants. The pitching would just be too much (remember what they did to Texas?), and they might be able to push just enough runs across, likely via the home run.
The real question is, who would you root for?
*No one has ever said this, but I'm trying to make a point, here. Also: my parents called to tell me they love me just as much as Broseph.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)