The deal for Shea Hillenbrand looks a bit worse when you look at what what the Tigers and Yankees gave up to get Sean Casey and Craig Wilson.

I'm assuming a bit of what prompted Sabean to get Hillenbrand was the opportunity -- decent hitter at a low cost.

Okay, but was Accardo really a lower cost than Brian Rogers or...Shawn Chacon? Personally, I don't think so, but I'm not a GM, so I admit things could have been different than the result I'm seeing.

I don't know what Sabean thinks of all three of those players -- perhaps he ranks Hillenbrand ahead of the other two -- but when I see that the Pirates supposedly wanted a "major league ready" player for Wilson, and that player ended up being Shawn Chacon...

...the Giants couldn't come up with the equivalent of Shawn Chacon? I find that hard to believe, so I have to think Sabean wanted Hillenbrand more than Wilson.

I'm just venting. Whatever.

First of all, let me just say that acquiring Aubrey Huff hardly would have been the answer to the Giants offensive woes. He's a solid bat, although he's not putting up the kind of offensive numbers you'd want from your 3rd baseman, or for your 1st baseman.

Acquiring Huff would've put Mark Sweeney in a bit of a twilight zone, as there'd be no real reason to have Sweeney on the team -- Huff plays all of the positions Sweeney plays, bats lefty, and is a better hitter overall. That is, unless the team DFA'd Jason Ellison, and used Sweeney as a 5th corner outfielder...they do have both Steve Finley and Randy Winn to play center, after all. But still, a left-handed bat at 1st base isn't really what the Giants need, unless it's a really, really good one.

So, what I'm saying is, although something might have been worked out, I wasn't really miffed that the Giants didn't get Huff.

That is, I wasn't until Huff runs out and hits an important, game-breaking home run in his first game with his new club, the Houston Astros.

I shouldn't really be mad -- there are other opportunities out there for Brain Sabean, although those don't seem to be many (psst...still Craig Wilson). The Giants still have time, after all -- they were in a worse position last year and still made a race of it at the end. And after all, this was just one game.

Then I thought about it for a sec. The Astros are one of the few teams in the NL with an offense just as bad as the Giants, and their situation in their division is undoubtedly a worse one than the Giants', what with two teams in the Cincinatti Reds and the St. Louis Cardinals that are not only further ahead in the division, but definitely look like better teams (the Cardinals' strange recent losing streak notwithstanding).

But, well, the Astros are doing something about their offensive problems, and they're doing it now. They aren't waiting for their fortunes to change, they weren't going to wait and see if Jason Lane regained his 2005 form, to see if Preston Wilson could match his numbers in Colorado (heh, don't hold your breath, Houston), etc., etc.

They went out and got somebody who will help. Huff likely isn't the answer for the Astros, either, as Houston's biggest problems occur outside of the friendly confines of the Juice -- their offense suddenly turns into a much improved version of Jose Vizcaino on the road, which incidentally, still sucks (.761 OPS at home, .694 OPS on the road). Huff isn't the kind of player that will change that all by his lonesome little self.

But can he add a win, maybe even two over what Lane was producing so far this year? Yep. Can the Giants us someone who will add a win or three over what Mark Sweeney and Lance Niekro would produce?

Yep.

Like I said, Houston didn't exactly solve their problems with Huff, but at least they're moving in the right direction. Better.

Partly because I didn't see a diary with this theme in it, and there should ~always~ be one before any Giants/Dodgers series, and also because I was saddened that all of us (me too) were so worried about Armando in the 5-4 win that we forgot who were are and what we do.

We: Giants fans
We do: Dodgers Hatred

Beat LA...another three times in the next three days.

As the Giants were the toast of the town yet again -- in Denver -- with a 3-5 loss to the Rockies, I was winding down my work day. Coming home at around 9:00p.m., I got a wild hair and decided to call into KNBR for what would be the 2nd time in my entire life.

See, I don't normally do too much talk radio. I usually find that whomever the host of whatever show is on misses a lot of points on whatever team he's covering, and over-emphasizes many other points for the sake of all that time the poor guy's got to fill with talk. Also, I think at least 2/3rds of the people that call into the shows to make a comment aren't worth my time to listen to -- a few "Yeah, man, they gotta do better 'n stuff"s and a couple "see, they never shoulda traded whozizface back in 2002"s, I become impatient.

So, after listening to host Damon Bruce for a bit, he had a caller that was venting about wanting a six or eight-game winning streak, or something.

Ding! Light, chimes...several small, annoying (yet attention-grabbing) devices went off in my brain, letting me know this was a chance to inform, what with my obsession...yes, I admit it...with wanting the Giants to have a single four-game winning streak this year, which they have yet to do.

So, I called, got an answer immediately by the staff, told them want I wanted to say, and waited about 10 minutes (I ended up catching one of those incredibly long commercial breaks). After the wait, I got on and talked with Bruce for about two or three minutes about the lack of even a four-game winning streak (which, of course, astonished him), the lack of offense, and the lack of options Brian Sabean had to fix the lack of offense. We chatted a bit about the NL West in general, too, and by the time we were done, he told me I was informative, but sounded depressed.

And he offered me tickets. And I graciously accepted the tickets. (and you will never hear a bad word out of my mouth about Damon Bruce)

So, courtesy of KNBR, I (along with my Pops) am going to the July 17th game, where the Giants will be hosting the Brewers, and probably scoring something less than five runs in eight or nine innings of play.

Yippee?

No finger pointing, no name calling, just facts about the month (and one day of this month) that was.

The league average for runs scored is just a skoche below five runs per game -- I'm just going to call it five because...it's my diary and I'll round up if I want to, round up if I want to, round up...

Let's look at those 28 games and see how the Giants fared against that magical number of five runs per game scored:

Giants scoring average in those 28 games: 4.2
Times Giants scored five runs or more: 11 of 28 games
Times Giants scored exactly five runs: 5
Giants record when scoring five runs or more: 9-2
Times Giants scored two runs or less: 10
Giants record when scoring two runs or less: 3-7

Now, the Giants scoring average on the season is 4.64, so the month of June was not kind to them...well, maybe.

The Giants record in those 28 games? 14-14.

I don't know how they do it, exactly, but I think the team failing to be out-and-out poor and the mediocrity of the rest of the NL West (keeping the Giants in contention) are causing Brain Sabean to not make any moves to rectify this huge problem of the offense -- he's just waiting for Moises Alou to get (and stay) healthy, and hoping for Bonds to magically become Bonds v2004.

There are worse things, I 'spose, but I think he could get better at first base without costing the organization too much, and perhaps at 3rd base -- but he won't do anything with Feliz.

So...sigh.

How is it that the Pirates, with their horrible record, big-time losing streak (although they took the Giants' lunch money recently in S.F.), and small market-ness are able to have Jason Bay lead the NL in votes for the All-Star game, and Omar Vizquel can't even crack the top five shortstops playing in a medium-sized, media-focused market like San Francisco?

Bay is having a good year, and the All-Star game is being played in Pittsburgh this year -- obviously those play a large role in things, but...

I'm just not fully understanding, that's all. Is there something that the Pirates PR people are doing that the Giants PR people are not?

I'm uncertain if anyone else has mentioned this, but if so, I'm mentioning it again.

You don't mind, really.

Omar Vizquel needs to be the starting shortstop for the NL this year in the All-Star game. There just isn't any way we, as Giants fans, can let anything else come to pass. Is there anyone as good as Omar in the NL this year?

Well, statistically, perhaps. Bill Hall of the Brewers has been great with the bat, and Edgar Renteria has been very productive as well. However, when we include defense...

...I'm not sure about Hall, but I'm going to guess he hasn't been as good as Omar has been this year, and Renteria...I'm ashamed to even begin any comparisons. Renteria's always been acceptable at best defensively. Omar he ain't.

So vote, Giants fans. Get Omar-Fu in there. Besides Jason Schmidt, there isn't any Giants that are anywhere near as deserving, so let's do what we can to make certain that one that should be in there will be in there.

Omar Vizquel, All Star in the AL and NL.

This is a horrible question, because: 1) it's moot...when Matheny is healthy, he'll be back playing everyday and Ebeneezer Alfonzo will be sent back, and 2) the limited at-bats of Alfonzo and Greene.

But...still. I don't mind saying that I think a Greene/Alfonzo platoon at catcher stands to be significantly better offensively than Matheny, although obviously they won't remain this much better.

Alfonzo/Greene: .337/.388/.554 (85 plate appearances)
Matheny: .231/.276/.338 (171 plate appearances)

...that's...a big...difference. Kinda.

With the offense struggling like me trying to understand a drunk Irishman talk (don't ask), do we really want to lose any more offense?

I..DON'T...HAVE THE POWER!

The Giants don't have the power of Grayskull, nor do they have the power of...uh, like, hitting extra-base hits. I noticed this in May and wrote about it here, and things haven't changed a bit.  

While the Giants are 1st in the league in triples thanks to Triples Alley, they are 2nd to last in the league in doubles, and 3rd to last in home runs -- both of which are much more common than triples.

Adding to that already damaging fact is that the Giants are dead last in the league in steals and steal %, so they aren't supplementing all the singles they hit by swiping a bag here and there to get into scoring position.

The Giants are basically a station-to-station, singles-hitting team. And when hit a lot of singles and can't steal bases, it leads to...

...things like leading the league in double plays hit into.

Where can help come from? Almost nowhere, really. The way the position players are set, the only place that I can see the Giants making a change is at 1st base. The outfield, along with 3rd base, SS, 2nd base, and catcher all have players there that are either immovable because of value (or perceived value, in the case of Pedro Feliz and Mike Matheny), or because of their contract (i.e. Ray Durham and Steve Finley).

So, 1st base it would have to be. Who's available? Darned if I know, but here's a list of players performing well enough at that position on teams that actually may give them up:

Craig Wilson, Pittsburgh

Yes, that's it. All the other 1st baseman that are any good are either on teams that are chasing a pennant, or would figure large in a weaker team's hopes to rebuild.

I tend to think the Giants would have to give up a lot to get Wilson, but if they are serious about this last go 'round with Bonds, they'll pay it. Time's a-ticking, too -- the Cardinals have been reported to have an interest in Wilson, so...

...chop-chop Sabes.

These two really are the exact same hitter. Really. I mean it. Read on!

Well, wait. (teaser)

Before I get into the comparison, Niekro's last 13 games are weird. In five of those games, Niekro put up a total 0-fer -- no hits, no walks, no contribution to the offense in 20 at-bats.

In the other eight games (including last night), he's World Beater. 19 for 35, 3 walks, 3 doubles, 1 triple, and 2 home runs.

Onto the meat of this here diary. Here are some career stats for Feliz and Niekro, Feliz's stats first and Niekro's 2nd:

Pitches Per Plate Appearance (P/PA): 3.37/3.49
Walks Per Plate Appearance (BB/PA): .48/.59
Walk to Strikeout Ratio (BB/SO): .27/.37
Isolated Power (ISO SLG): .185/.186
Career Line: .257/.292/.442 vs. .254/.298/.440
Ground Ball to Fly Ball Ratio (GB/FB): 1.14/.99
Secondary Average (Uh, no abbreviation): .237/.245
At-Bats per Home Run (AB/HR): 25.2/26.6

That's about as close as you can get, folks. Niekro's numbers are tempered somewhat by having a lot less career at-bats, but if you think he's going to become some vastly different hitter sometime soon...well, let me have a hit before you smoke it all up -- me wanna see da pritty cullers, brudder.

How long
how long will I slide
Separate my side
I don't
I don't believe it's bad
Slittin my throat
It's all I ever

Red Hot Chili Peppers, Other Side

I'm not sure exactly what Anthony Kiedis was talking about when he wrote those lyrics, but I was musing on how long the Giants should let Tim Worrell pitch if he keeps being this horribly, and for some odd reason that seemed to fit.

Martin from Obsessive Giants Compulsive commented to me yesterday that Worrell's had a bit of a Jeckyll and Hyde season, and we should reserve judgement. I don't think there's anything wrong with that stance, and given that Worrell has only had about a month and a half's worth of pitching, it isn't inconceivable he could turn things around in a hurry.

Hurry. Now there's an apt word if ever there was one.

Worrell needs to make that turnaround in a hurry. To eventually make a charge at the division title and one last run at a Series ring with Barry Bonds, the Giants need to have solid pitching all around because this team ain't built to win offensively. One thing I like about this year thus far is that Brian Sabean hasn't been afraid to cut bait on bullpen non-performers this year, as evidenced by the demotions of Jack Taschner and Scott Munter, and the expulsions of Jeff Fassero and Tyler Walker. As far as the bullpen is concerned, Sabes ain't screwin' 'round, folks.

So. How long for Worrell? His first appearance post-DL was...uninspiring, to say the least. While Martin is correct that Worrell has had numerous appearances this year where everything's went just fine, his line this year is still reads more like the Amityville Horror than the Brady Bunch.

Worrell, 2006: 17 appearances, 15.1 innings pitched, 20 hits allowed -- 7 of them home runs.

I'm sorry, but if more than 1/3rd of the hits you've allowed are home runs, you are having a problem fooling hitters. Adding to this is the measly k/9 rate (strikeouts per nine innings) of 4.4 -- more proof that there is something missing this season. The last time Worrell's strikeout rate was that low was his rookie season in 1993, and his career k/9 rate is 7.0.

Could the home runs be an anomaly of sample size? Of course they could. Could the low strikeout rate be an anomaly of sample size? Of course it could. Do the Giants have time to wait for Worrell to work out the kinks and regain form? Of course they don't.

Let's make up an experimental productivity stat. This is going to be very long and kind of complex.

What I figure is that I can loosely (yes, LOOSELY) figure out a player's production in comparison to his salary, and use both old school performance gauges (runs scored and RBI) in conjuction with newer metrics (OPS and total bases), and come up with a number to bounce off of a player's salary.

(Runs scored + RBI + Total Bases/3) x OPS/Salary (in millions)

What I'm hoping this will do is take into account a few things: 1) While runs scored and RBI are mostly a function of opportunity, they are of direct help to the team, plus you cannot rack up big totals of these if you are hurt a lot of the season. Total bases are thrown in to balance possible lack of opportunity to score runs and drive them in, and to factor in things like stolen bases and walks (as a raw number). 2) OPS is the sabermetric which will help out players who might not be in prime run scoring or RBI places in the lineup (leadoff, bottom of the order), yet are being productive.

Bear with me. I really do think this makes sense. What I want to do is throw up a few different player types into the mix to see what comes of this. Players who are productive making higher salaries, players who are productive making lower salaries, and players who have missed a large number of games while making a high salary.

Adding the runs scored, RBI, and total bases and dividing them by 3 will basically make it an average score, then multiplying it by the OPS (which is essentially a percentage) will determine how much of that average score the player will get to keep to divide by their salary. Dividing it by their salary will come up with a productivity number per million dollars. Higher numbers are obviously better.

My 1st experimental players to do this on will be Ray Durham, Pedro Feliz, and Barry Bonds (three different salary grades), and I will do it for the 2004 and 2005 seasons, collectively, for Feliz and Durham, and do it for 2003 and 2004 for Bonds. Here we go.

Ray Durham (2004 and 2005): 162 RS + 127 RBI + 441 TB = 730/3 = 243.3 average score

243.3 x an average .817 OPS for 2004 and 2005 makes for a total score of 199

199 / Durham's combined salary for '04 and '05 ($14.4 million) = 13.8 productivity score per million dollars for 2004 and 2005

Pedro Feliz (2004 and 2005): 141 RS + 165 RBI + 484 TB = 790/3 = 263.3 average score

263.3 x an average .754 OPS for '04 and '05 makes for a total score of 199 (believe it or not, same as Durham)

199 / Feliz's combined salary for '04 and '05 ($3.175 million) = 62.7 productivity score per million dollars for 2004 and 2005.

Barry Bonds (2003 and 2004): 240 RS + 191 RBI + 595 TB = 1026/3 = 342 average score

342 x an average 1.350 OPS for '03 and '04 makes for a total score of 461.7

461.7 / Bonds' combined salary for '04 and '05 ($33.5 million) = 13.8 productivity score per million dollars for 2004 and 2005.

I don't know if that's a satisfying result, so let's take two examples of abnormally high production with a lower salary: Albert Pujols for 2003 and 2004, and Miguel Cabrera for 2004 and 2005.

Albert Pujols (2003 and 2004): 270 RS + 247 RBI + 783 TB (yes, 783) = 1300/3 = 433.3 average score

433.3 x an average OPS of 1.089 for '04 and '05 makes for a total score of 471.9

471.9 / Pujols' combined salary for '03 and '04 ($7.9 million) = 59.7 productivity score for 2003 and 2004

Miguel Cabrera (2004 and 2005): 207 RS + 228 RBI + 653 TB = 1088/3 = 362.6 average score

362.6 x an average OPS of .912 for '04 and '05 makes for a total score of 330.7

330.7 / Cabrera's combined salary for '04 and '05 ($.69 million) = 479.3 productivity score per million dollars for 2004 and 2005

One more type, just for fun -- high salary and low production. Let's go with Adrian Beltre and Jim Thome of 2005.

Adrian Beltre (2005): 69 RS + 87 RBI + 249 TB = 405/3 = 135 average score...yech.

135 x a .716 OPS for 2005 makes for a total score of 96.7

96.7 / Beltre's salary for '05 ($11.4 million) = 8.5 productivity score per million dollars for 2005.

Jim Thome (2005): 26 RS + 30 RBI + 68 TB = 124/3 = 41.3 average score...ow, that hurts

41.3 x a .712 OPS for 2005 makes for a total score of 29.4

29.4 / Thome's salary for '05 ($13.167 million) = 2.2 productivity score per million dollars for 2005.

Okay, I'm done. What I think I ought to do with this is comparisons by position to get an idea of where a player stands in comparison to his positional peers, but for now I'm just throwing it out there to play around with.

Boy, am I a nerd. If you've somehow lasted until this point, tell me what you think, and I will take requests to apply this formula to any two players you want to compare...but I'm only going to do complete seasons at this point, so that means no 2006 comparisons. I don't want to tackle dividing salaries by games played on top of all that other stuff.

Post game after the 5-2 loss to the Marlins, Kruk mentions that Winn isn't right, and he should be able to get a day off after Alou comes back.

He mentioned how tough it is when you're running a four outfielder rotation to get rest...

Jason Ellison isn't even a member of the team anymore, he's just a really old and overpaid batboy. He isn't even good enough to give a slumping Winn and Finley a single day off.

Let the boy go!

Had to make this a seperate thread, because it makes me want to scream.

To follow up yesterday's quasi-rant about how Father Alou constructed his lineup yesterday, I also came to wonder this...

What kind of message is Felipe sending to Jason Ellison? Ellison is the 5th outfielder, yet Felipe has played Mark Sweeney in front of him a couple of times already this year. Now, granted, I'm imagining this was an offensive move on Felipe's part -- Sweeney has hit well against right handed pitching this season, so I understand the move to get him in the lineup on Friday although Sweeney has hardly played any outfield in his career.

However, when you follow up that move by putting the Force of Outtage a.k.a. Jose Vizcaino at 1st base, that logic flies out of the window. I can follow wanting Sweeney's bat in the lineup, but I can't follow finding a spot for Vizcaino.

It's simple. Ellison is the 5th outfielder on a team that was playing with one outfielder already hurt (Moises Alou), and another one playing DH (Barry Bonds). So, with this being the case, not only did Felipe not play the next outfielder in line (Ellison), but he instead took a player out of position to put him in the outfield (Sweeney) in Ellison's place, then took another player out of position (Vizcaino) to put in the spot that Sweeney could've occupied naturally at 1st base.

Felipe could've had two players playing at natural positions in Ellison and Sweeney, and could've made sure Vizcaino's pressed-board bat didn't make it into the lineup to exert its gravitational pull on outs. What type of message is Felipe transmitting here?

The message is: Jason, you won't play, ever. You'll pinch run and be a late inning defensive replacement, but that's it. The Giants didn't seem to mind getting Kevin Frandsen a run at 2nd base playing instead of Vizcaino, but when a chance to get Ellison instead of Vizcaino arose, Felipe instead moved two players out of position to set his starting lineup.

That is horrible, horrible managment on Felipe's part. Ellison really isn't very good, but: 1) he's a better hitter than Vizcaino, 2) he's better defensively in the outfield than Sweeney, and most importantly, 3) he's done everything they've asked of him this year, which has basically been all cleanup work.

So why, Felipe, when there's a genuine opportunity to get the man one measly start, did you turn around and shit on him? Remember, this is the guy they kept out of Spring Training...why hasn't there been more than 15 at-bats worth of opportunity in a month and a half on a team where Moises Alou has missed significant time with injury, and Bonds has missed a bunch of games resting his knee?

Anybody got any insight?

What in the heck is Vizcaino doing at 1st?

His bat doesn't exist, and they have a perfectly acceptable 1st baseman in Sweeney...playing left field...with a perfectly good defensive outfielder in Jason Ellison...sitting the bench.

Ellison's not much with the stick, but he's better than Vizcaino, not to mention I'm guessing he's a bit better than Sweeney defensively in the outfield, seeing as how Sweeney's hardly played there in his entire career, and seeing how HE'S A FIRST BASEMAN.

I'm just perplexed. Enlightenment, anyone?

First at-bat vs. the A's...aw what the heck...on the first pitch of the at-bat, too, on an inside fastball from Dan Haren that catches a wee bit too much plate...

Gone.

Let's call it a right field shot...bouncing off of the concrete stairs...no!...a 2nd deck shot!

And all will be well, because although he will not have hit the home run in San Francisco, Bonds will have hit it in the best possible alternate location -- Oakland, CA, about a 15 minute BART ride away from S.F.

What do y'all think?

Becoming a serious, serious problem is Matt Morris. While it's easy to simply say that Morris sucks and it was a mistake to sign him (try it yourself!), what I see is a pitcher who is not himself:

In essence, there's nothing Morris is doing well. For better or worse, he's going to get ample opportunity to right the ship because of the type of signing this was thought to be. Let's just hope things turn around, because right now it's looking as if bringing back Brett Tomko was the move to make.

...just had to end it that way (chuckle).

I read a neat piece by Dayn Perry over at FOX Sports which summarizes a bunch of reasons why Babe Ruth was overrated. I agree with him wholeheartedly while disagreeing with him -- all of his reasoning is solid and factual: Ruth drank heavily and cheated on his wife, he didn't play against the best competition because baseball wasn't integrated, the dimensions of Yankee Stadium favored his home run exploits, etc, etc.

There can be absolutely no doubt that if Ruth played today as he was then, he wouldn't have gotten anywhere. His physical limitations (brought on by his eating and drinking habits) would have greatly hampered his effectiveness in today's game, and even if he was to do well enough to hold down a job as a DH or something, he'd get blasted in the media day-in and day-out for his lack of morals. He either wouldn't have been good enough to stick around unless he got in shape, and he wouldn't even have been welcomed for very long by any club with all of the negative press he would've brought with him.

However, that being said, there is a reason why Ruth is so huge -- he was so much better than anyone else playing around him, weakened talent pool or not. Not admiring Ruth's baseball career would be like to discount, say, LeBron James' high school career. Sure, it was obvious he was head and shoulders above those around him, but what could he do about it?

It would've been nice if Ruth had been tested against the world's best players, which is what someone like Barry Bonds, Albert Pujols, or Greg Maddux have to do everytime they play. This wasn't the case, but there's nothing that can change that, so I don't see much value in bringing Ruth down because of it.

If we are doing a comparison of Ruth and Willie Mays as players and trying to equate their accomplishments, then sure, Ruth's era and circumstances warrants a huge hit. But if we are compare Ruth's and Bonds' stature and impact on the game at the respective times they played, well, Ruth is and should be just as big of a deal as he is.

And who knows? If Ruth had been tested against the world's best and had found his physical condition lacking, perhaps he would have made the necessary changes to adjust and still be just as good as he was. While it might be a valid point to doubt the absolute validity of Ruth's accomplishments from a statistical standpoint (especially when compared with today's players), I don't think it's wise to doubt his talent and impact on baseball.

What does everyone else think?

He fields a little bit, and when he's not doing that, he also seems to do a good job at holding a piece of wood that he has no idea what to do with.

Okay, perhaps not that bad, but is it really that far away? He's never been much with the stick, and he's 38 -- yes, that age-thingy ~does~ mean something eventually.

No, about 46 plate appearances isn't enough to bury someone, and Frandsen isn't quite doing enough to just give the job to him until Durham comes back, but...

When you have a guy on your team that you wouldn't pinch hit over four pitchers (and yes, I would pinch hit Brad Hennessey, Noah Lowry, Matt Cain, and Jamey Wright before Vizcaino at this point), you gotta wonder why you have him at all.

When you also would rather have Neifi Perez or Joe McEwing over Vizcaino...gosh, I'm not saying the writing is on the wall, but there's a three year-old and an open box of crayons. Draw what conclusions you will.

It has commenced in earnest.

The Somewhat Waffling On Being Official Kevin Frandsen Walk and Power Watch has begun...in earnest.

We (being made up of a tribunal of me, myself, and I) shall be watching Frandsen in an attempt to accurately ascertain the exact time of the rookie's first base on balls.

And if we cannot be precise, we shall strive to endeavor to attempt to try to be close to being somewhere in the vicinity of being near to approximate...earnestly.

We shall also be closely monitoring Frandsen's ISO SLG % (closely, in this context, meaning following loosely).

At the time of this writing...or, the time of this striking of plastic buttons, if you will...Frandsen has zero walks and an ISO SLG % of .027, which is better summarized by saying he's got one freaking double in 11 hits (43 plate appearances).

I like the kid and he's just started, but you are only allowed to pull a Jeff Francouer if you are hitting copious amounts of far-struck balls in amongst all the non-walkedness...oh, and Earnest goes to Washington.

From Rich Draper's recap of the 2-0 Giants win over Milwaukee on Wednesday:

"Fireworks came from third baseman Pedro Feliz, who is struggling offensively, but has a knack of rising to the occasional with men on base..."

Uh, like, what?

That's incredibly untrue. From 2003-2005, where pretty much all of Feliz' career resides, he's hit .254 with runners on base, and .240 with runners in scoring position. This year, he's hit .200 with runners on and .148 with runners in scoring position.

Rich, what exactly are you talking about? I'd send the guy an e-mail with those stats, but it seems like such an effort for a lost cause. Draper's grasp of statistical analysis is about the same level as Joe Morgan's.

Doesn't the letter "y" at the end of words just make 'em oh, so cute?

...nevermind.

Anyhow, I compiled some numbers that I thought were interesting, so I'd thought I'd share. I'm nice that way. (numbers should be within a +- 1% kind of range, and were compiled as of May 1st)

The Giants have given about 30.5% of their plate appearances to hitters who have the following line: .203.278/.282 (Matheny, Feliz, Durham, and Vizcaino).

So, about a third of the team's plate appearances to those hitters, and I didn't include the pitchers. Basically, the Giants currently have about four guys in the lineup on a daily basis that are hitting more like pitchers than position players.

Like, ewwww.

Randy Winn leads off, but does that make any sense? Even if you subscribe to the theory that Winn will fall back to Earth next season (like I do), it's obvious that the man can put up a run of extra-base hits.

If/when he does that next season, should the Giants have him batting 1st, where: 1) he'll lead off an inning once or twice a game, thereby having no one on base to drive in with any doubles, triples, or home runs, and 2) where he bats behind the pitcher's spot, and Mike Matheny (with no speed and a career OBP below .300), so baserunners will be in short supply all season in the regard, too.

Look at how Winn's 14 home runs with the Giants breaks down over this season (small sample size warning, but it still proves my point).

Solo - 12
2Run - 2
3Run - 0
GS - 0

So 86% of Winn's home runs this season were solo shots, and the two that weren't were only one run better.

In games that Winn homered (12), the Giants lost three. Two of those losses were by one run, and the other was by two runs.

Not that the Giants wouldn't won those games if Winn had hit 2nd or 5th, but...isn't that possible? Does Felipe Alou not realize how many unscored runs he has on his hands by not putting Winn in a position where his extra-base hits can possibly drive in runs?

Winn shouldn't lead off next season, Vizquel should. Even if Winn falls back to his career SLG levels of .411, the Giants still need to make sure that he has more opportunities to drive in more runs.

This is an entry from my blog, where I had mused which was more rare -- the cycle which was hit by Randy Winn on August 15th vs. the Cincinnatti Reds, or the three walks drawn by Pedro Feliz in the same game.

Thanks to Nick Schulte for doing the more difficult part of the research, which was tracking Feliz's games to check out the walks, while I did the easier part in tracking down the number of cycles hit in MLB history and doing the bit of math to compare the two.

Enjoy!

Continue reading this post »