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.
Monday, January 28, 2013
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.
Monday, October 29, 2012
In Appreciation of Various Giants
The Giants sure did pick the right time for their first 7-game winning streak of the year. The pitching staff morphed into 2010 form, Bruce Bochy out-managed his counterpart, and they rode timely hitting and impecable defense to their second title in three years. In a year in which the Giants struggled so much to complete series sweeps, they swept the Tigers to bring the trophy is back where it belongs. In between LOLing at all the "experts" and framing another SF Chronicle newspaper, let's take some time to appreciate some individuals that made up this wonderful team. Comment for the guys I don't list below.
- Tim Lincecum. (in my best Jeff Daniels voice): Just when I thought he couldn't get any worse, he goes and does something like this...and TOTALLY REDEEMS HIMSELF!! Wow was he awesome out of the bullpen. His gaudy numbers (13 innings, 3 hits, 1 run in relief) don't even tell the whole story. He was a weapon that allowed Bochy to save his other front-line relievers for other high-leverage situations. If you look at the 2010 and 2012 World Series, he might be the MVP of the two combined.
- Marco Scutaro. How fitting it was that he provided the kill shot -- a two-out hit for the game-winning RBI. Interestingly, had there been less than two outs, there's no way Theriot scores on that hit.
- Brandon Crawford. He's not my favorite Giant, but he's definitely in my top 5. And that is no small accomplishment for a guy who hit .248 in the regular season. But he uses Eminem and Drake songs as his walk-up music, and he's an absolute joy to watch in the field. He won't win a Gold Glove this year, but his performance on the playoffs national stage will get him the attention he needs for next year. He just kept making one incredible play after another. And they all seemed to come with runners on base. Or late in the game when Giants fans were counting the remaining outs. Or right before Miguel Cabrera was coming up. Or all of the above. If I wasn't already a devoted Romosexual, there's a good chance I would let Crawford do bad things to me.
- Matt Cain. Because Matt Cain.
- Buster Posey. Sometime around 9 months before March 27, 1987, Gerald and Traci Posey got in the mood, and now San Francisco Giants fans get to enjoy the fruits of their labor. This was Posey's first full Major League season. And already he's a 2-time World Champion, a Rookie of the Year, and in a few weeks, an MVP. Not a bad resume. He was injured in 2011, so basically this is a 3-peat.
- Jeremy Affeldt. His 2012 post-season: 10.1 IP, 5 H, 0 R, 3 BB, 10 SO. Enough said.
- Ryan Vogelsong. If Disney made the Ryan Vogelsong Story, and nobody knew it was based on actual events, it would be criticized as being unrealistic and too cheesy. It's completely bonkers what he's done. From injuries, to Japan, to being release multiple times, to being the best pitcher in the playoffs for a World Series winning team. I don't think I'll ever be able to fully grasp it. Loved the way Grant Brisbee described his Game 3 outing: "everyone would have understood if Voglesong pantomimed pushing an invisible wheelbarrow on the way back to the dugout. The better to carry his … well, you get the idea. How else would you expect him to get around with those things? Seems uncomfortable." Speaking of stones...
- Sergio Romo. You could probably fit two Sergio's into one Miguel Cabrera. Did that stop Romo from challenging the game's most feared hitter with a fastball to get the final strike of the World Series? Not a chance. I almost felt bad for the Tigers when he was in there. Because that fastball really showcased the awesome power of his slider. Certainly the Tigers had heard about the slider coming into the series. But it must be a whole different thing to actually see it. Poor guys never had a chance. Makes you wonder if he had a plan to throw that fastball all along. As in the entire season of throwing that slider so often was just one big (and effective) long con, all to set up the fastball for the final strike and make frozen pizza out of that last hitter. Stones. Here's a nice analysis of that final pitch.
- Barry Zito. A few years into Zito's tenure with the Giants, I asked my friend Jake what he would say to Zito if he ran into him at a bar. Jake nailed it, and it didn't even take him long to come up with his response: "Buy me a beer." I've always said that the day Barry Zito comes off the payroll, I'm throwing a party. I don't think I will anymore. And now I'd want to buy Barry a beer. He's finally given the nation something other than his contract to remember him by with the two most important starts of his career. He saved the season against the Cardinals, and then beat the unbeatable Justin Verlander in WS Game 1. Buster Posey is the MVP of the league. The Giants had 3 starting pitchers this year who were more valuable than Zito. But I think you could argue that the 2012 season for the Giants kind of belongs to Zito. In his first start of the year, when the Giants were 0-3, he righted the ship with a shutout in Colorado. Down the stretch of the regular season, he became the Giants' most reliable starter. And then he has the two signature outings in the playoffs. No one deserves their WS Ring more than him. You gotta hand it to him -- Barry Zito was shown a lot of disrespect over the past 6 years, and showed none in return.
- Brian Sabean. Once again, making all the right moves this year along with the preceding offseason. Shipping Andres Torres and Ramon Ramirez (who had terrible years this year) to get Angel Pagan. Win. Getting Melky Cabrera for Jonathan Sanchez (who's career may be over). Bigtime win. Giving Gregor Blanco a shot. Picking up Jose Mijares off the waiver wire. And most importantly, heisting Scutaro from the Rockies. WIN.
- Bruce Bochy. Hall of Fame manager. San Francisco hero forever.
- Dave Righetti and Mark Gardner. Unquestionably, these guys are the two most underrated people in the organization. I'm even underrating them now by grouping them together, but I don't know how exactly they split up their duties/roles, so I'd just be saying the same thing about both of them. The pitching staff has been nails for 4 years now, and they don't get nearly enough credit. And in this post-season in particular, they fixed Madison Bumgarner, possibly Tim Lincecum, and prepared Barry Zito mentally to go out and pitch the games of his life. It's impossible to quantify their contribution. But I think it's a safe bet that the Giants would not have won two out of the last three titles without these guys.
See you all at the parade.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)