SBNation.com User Blog: Missing Barry

No such thing as a "tweener" anymore

Missing Barry — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 17:42:22 -0000

No such thing as a "tweener" anymore

Well, you can't always be right (unless you always agree with me!), but Beckley Mason hit this nail on the head by apparently reading my arguments and finding them convincing. 'Tweer 3/4's work best at PF in the current NBA.

On a more serious note, I just think the discussion on the topic is interesting and relevant for us, especially thinking about Draymond.

All-time Greats

Missing Barry — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 22:02:42 -0000

So in another one of the threads, I called Lebron a truly special player even by HoF standards - a real inner pantheon guy with a very limited number of peers. There was some disagreement based on his limited career (to date), as compared to guys like Jordan who have a career worth of accomplishments at this point. I'm not here to argue that point. It did inspire me to think of the following scenario, though: you and a friend are competing in a fantasy draft against each other. You're putting together a 5 man team consisting of any player in basketball history at his peak. First question - is there any way Lebron isn't in that game? What other players are definite shoo-ins? I'd say Jordan and maybe Wilt. Probably Magic. Not sure about anyone else.

Second (and more interesting thought exercise, I think) - what does your mock draft board look like? Just based on initial thoughts, my board has MJ number one, and after that, a C for sure. So my board (I draft in tiers):

Wilt/Shaq

Lebron/Duncan/Hakeem

Magic/Bird/Dirk/Oscar Robertson/Scottie Pippen/Kevin Garnett

Jerry West/Chris Paul

That's my initial draft board. Now, I'm not saying these are the greatest players in history, or even the best at their peak (though many are, of course), necessarily. I'm trying to put together a team here - guys that complement each other. So someone like Kareem, despite being a better player all-time and at his peak than some of these guys, is out because I don't like how he fits next to Shaq or Wilt (who I WILL have), whereas I do like how Duncan, Hakeem, Garnett and Dirk would fit next to them. Likewise, you'll notice a serious lack of outside shooting on that team, hence Chris Paul, Dirk and Jerry West, whereas I won't even consider Isiah because of his lack of shooting. Depending on who I get I'll alter my picks to try to make sure they fit, and also to match up with your team as you make picks.

Now, the third question. It's not a fantasy draft, you're just putting together the very best squad you can. Who's your 5? Mine is: MJ, Lebron, Larry Legend, Duncan, Wilt. No PG you say? Fine with me, I have two point forwards and Duncan. You play any PG not named Magic and my team will demolish them. I like the mix of defense, team offense and superior physical talent on that team. Needed Larry in there for his shot, and really like having great team players with a huge bball IQ like him. Other guys I considered for the team: Shaq, Dirk, Garnett, Jerry West. Don't think I can get by throwing Magic in there, just not enough shooting. Maybe with Dirk but that's it. Think you have a better 5?

Two ending thoughts...not a single mention of Karl Malone anywhere. What can I say, I'm big into size, no chance I pick him on any of these teams. Second, would love to get some perspective from people who've been watching the NBA longer than myself. Share away!

Wilt/Shaq

Lebron/Duncan/Hakeem

Magic/Bird/Dirk/Oscar Robertson/Scottie Pippen/Kevin Garnett

Jerry West/Chris Paul

GSoM getting a mention in Bloomberg

Missing Barry — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:36:16 -0000

GSoM getting a mention in Bloomberg

"After the Golden State Warriors signed Lin—and faced rumors that they were just pulling off a publicity stunt for the Bay Area’s large Asian-American population—a blogger at Golden State of Mind, writing in August 2010, took a look at something called the Position Adjusted Win Score per 40 minutes and found that Lin’s so-called PAWS40 predicted he’d be an above-average NBA player."

Cool graphics on the many different ways to build a team

Missing Barry — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 08:28:43 -0000

Cool graphics on the many different ways to build a team

Just click the link

On Jason Kidd, clutch performance, the Mavericks, the greatest clutch lineup ever?, the NBA Finals, Lebron James is clutch...

Missing Barry — Sun, 12 Jun 2011 19:32:39 -0000

On Jason Kidd, clutch performance, the Mavericks, the greatest clutch lineup ever?, the NBA Finals, Lebron James is clutch...

Great article by The Painted Area. Extremely interesting, and read the addendum, too. The article has everything, what more could you want?!

GSoM Draft Profile: Alec Burks!

Missing Barry — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 21:51:35 -0000

With Alec Burks officially declaring for the draft, I thought I might take some time to write an official GSoM Draft Profile for him for the 2011 Community Draft Project!. Especially since it's that time again (playoff time!), and Warriors fans, as we're accustomed to doing, have nothing better to do than think about the draft. Over the last couple of seasons I’ve attempted to watch Colorado play whenever possible (in other words, if they’re on national TV), so I think I’m somewhat qualified to offer an opinion on him. First, let’s take a look at what the draft pundits have to say:

NBADraft.net:

He’s currently ranked #7 on their prospect rankings (check out their rankings for yourself to give their site some hits!), and that includes guys like Harrison Barnes, Perry Jones and Jared Sullinger who may not enter the draft. Not good news for the W’s if he ends up out of our reach. They have not updated his profile since Jan 1, 2010, so I will exclude comments for now but look to add them later.

Draftexpress:

He’s currently ranked #12 on their prospect rankings (check out their rankings for yourself to give their site some hits!), but unlike NBADraft.net, they aren’t including guys who have indicated they’re currently planning on returning to school. Their latest profile of Burks:

As an indication of how much he has progressed, Burks now ranks fourth in scoring on a per-40 minute basis amongst the top 100 NCAA prospects in our database,. It's not just the quantity of points he accumulates that intrigues NBA teams, though, but how he gets his offense.

Burks is a shot creator, a skill that is highly coveted at the professional level. Over two-thirds of his offense is generated by himself, be it in isolation situations, in transition or in pick-and-roll opportunities. He ranks in the top five amongst our top 100 prospects in free throw attempts, and (more impressively) is second overall in makes because of the stellar 82.4% he shoots from the line.

Capable of driving in either direction, Burks is a smooth yet explosive slasher with an outstanding second gear. He has excellent speed in the open floor and the body control and ball-handling skills needed to slither his way around opponents and get to the rim.

Burks is not yet a great finisher around the basket, as indicated by his sub-50% 2-point percentage. He must continue to fill out his frame as he struggles to finish through contact in traffic. He's a scorer through and through, though. He uses the glass nicely with reverses and such and has a knack for finding a way to put the ball in the basket, even in tight spaces.

Unlike most big-time scorers from small(er) colleges, Burks is a fairly unselfish player who is more than capable of making the extra pass. Even if he's often asked to be the one creating and finishing shots for his team (particularly late in the shot clock), he's a nice weapon to have in a half-court offense thanks to his solid court vision and good basketball IQ. When Colorado's starting point guard goes to the bench, Burks will man the position, which is a good indication of the versatility he brings to the table.

Defensively, Burks is somewhat of a mixed bag, but he shows good potential on this end of the floor. With his good size, nice length, excellent lateral quickness and solid anticipation skills, he has all the tools needed to guard his position successfully in the NBA.

He generally puts in a good effort on the defensive end, getting low in his stance and often guarding the opposing team's best scorer—and doing so effectively for the most part. He already ranks as the second-best rebounding wing player in this draft class (after Travis Leslie), which has to be considered a good sign.

With his narrow frame and lack of strength, Burks has some issues fighting through screens and will lose his focus occasionally, but based on what we're seeing there's no reason he can't be a good defender at the NBA level.

One area of his game in which scouts surely would have liked to see more progress this season is his jump shot. He doesn't take (or make) many 3-pointers—he's just 21 of 69 on the season from this range--but he is streaky from mid-range too, a place many Big 12 teams have forced him to operate from by taking away the paint with help-side defense. Burks has converted just 54 of 184 (29%) jumpers this season, largely due to his struggles shooting off the dribble (30 of 118, or 25%).

Burks creates good separation from defenders in the mid-range area, but he has a tendency to shoot off balance. He tends to kick his legs out on attempts and not square his shoulders to the basket. His shot selection also leaves something to be desired—he makes just enough bad shots to lead him to believe he should be taking more off-balance, contested attempts, but not enough to lead his team to a better than 7-7 record in the Big 12 thus far.

With his feet set, Burks shows nice shot-making potential, often just throwing the ball in the rim in difficult situations. The minimal arc he gets on his jump shot doesn't leave him very much margin for error.

This is an important factor in assessing Burks' NBA potential, as it's unlikely that he'll have the ball in his hands quite as often as he does at Colorado. If he can find a way to become a more consistent outside shooter, his transition to the NBA will be much smoother—something Evan Turner has learned the hard way as a rookie this season.

As we learned with Turner, whichever team drafts Burks will need to put him in a role that suits his strengths, alongside teammates that complement him. The learning curve Burks has shown over the past two years is intriguing, though. There's a pretty good chance he's nowhere near his full potential at the moment, especially given his late growth spurt and the fact that he's one of the youngest members of his draft class, not turning 20 until July.

In a draft that looks increasingly shallow at the wing position, Burks stands out with his shot-creating skills and scoring instincts. If he can convince a team that his long-range shooting won't be too much of an issue in the NBA, he'll be a popular name during the pre-draft process.

Draftexpress video breakdown.

ESPN: Well, ESPN can piss off. I don’t have access to any of their crap. Definitely avoiding going to their site so you don’t give them hits. Bastards. Evanz has provided a profile from Chad Ford. Here it is!

Chad Ford's profile
Projection Milwaukee Bucks
(No. 10 pick)
Positives
Long, athletic 2 guard
Great scoring instincts
Can kill you in multiple ways
Excellent slasher
Explosive leaper and finisher around the basket
Negatives
Needs to add strength/weight
Streaky perimeter shooter
Lacks range on the three ball
Gets caught standing around when he doesn’t have the ball

Now, on to my own assessment of Burks as a prospect, and then to his potential fit for the Warriors:

As an athlete, I think Burks is a good prospect. He’s tall, he appears long (I’ll update with combine information when it comes out), and he’s athletic. His only major weakness, physically, is his strength, as he’s on the skinner end and probably will never be all that big. He has a very nice combination of height, length, and movement abilities (he’s fairly quick, definitely fast, and a smooth athlete) to more than make up for it, though. He’s not an elite athlete at all – don’t expect a Wade or Iguodala combination of physical traits, but he should be above average by NBA standards.

Burks skillset is a mixed bag.

Offense: I think his biggest strength is his ability as a slasher off the dribble. He gets to the rim frequently – he was 3rd in the entire NCAA in both FTA’s and FTM’s, and did it while shooting a nice 82.5% from the line. FT’s are the most efficient shot in basketball, people, so you have to like that. Drawing fouls is a skill, and it’s something Burks excels at, and I expect it to translate nicely to the NBA from the start. Burks can handle the ball well – he’s no PG, so don’t expect him in that role, but he’s definitely comfortable creating off the dribble. From time to time he displays nice vision and basketball IQ, and generally takes pretty sound shots and makes very nice passes on occasion (over 62% TS% as a freshman, 57.4% last year), but he’s definitely a scorer first, passer second.

The biggest question marks for Burks on offense are his shooting, and his ability to play off the ball, which are somewhat related. Burks can’t shoot. Well, that’s a little harsh, but he’s not a very good shooter. His form isn’t great, and he has a really flat shot, and all you have to do is look at his %’s to reach the same conclusion. He only took 96 3PTA’s this past season on 535 FGA’s (and remember, he went to the line a lot), while hitting a weak 29.2% of them. Last year he did better at 35.2%, but this is still college ball we’re talking about, not good for an NBA prospect. The good news is shooting is something that can be corrected. So, he can’t shoot, and as DE’s article mentions, he creates a ton of looks for himself. That’s good in one sense, but bad in another – what’s he going to do when the ball isn’t in his hands? It’s a big question. He didn’t stand out to me as moving well without the ball when I watched him play, though he wouldn’t play off the ball all that often, anyways. As we’re seeing with Evan Turner this year, not shooting and not playing well off the ball are a serious concern. I haven’t seen enough to really judge what he can do, so at this point, I have to leave it as a question mark, though one I'm defiinitely concerned about.

Defense: I think Burks has nice defensive potential. He’s definitely appropriately sized for a wing, and has all the physical tools to be solid on that end. At Colorado, he and Cory Higgins were pretty interchangeable – they’re almost the exact same player (Burks is just a younger and more athletic version of that player), so there really wasn’t much going on from a strategy/matchup perspective. Burks took the tougher wing more often, so that’s a good sign. He generally played solid D, though from time to time I saw him lose focus and intensity. He didn’t show the intensity of a defensive stopper, so I wouldn’t expect that, but he showed the physical tools and enough commitment to it that I expect him to be a solid wing defender.

Overall: I think Burks will be a solid player overall. Solid on offense, but it would really help him to learn how to shoot. He could be a very nice offensive player if he did that, especially with his ability to get to the line. If he became a legitimately good shooter, we’re talking about Kevin Martin-like potential, only a better passer. That’s probably on the very high end of expectations for him. Should be solid on D. What’s the one area I haven’t covered yet? Rebounding! Burks is an excellent rebounder. He spent all his time playing wing and PG, so his rebounding numbers are not inflated, but for a wing, he does excellent in this regard. This has a couple of implications. First, he should be a very good wing rebounder in the NBA, as rebounding translates very well from college to the pros. Second, there’s a general correlation between college rebounding and how well other skills translate to the NBA. I don’t know why, exactly, but it’s a good sign for Burks. Burks is also only 19 years old (turns 20 in July). So he has a number of things going for him. Overall, he’s fairly good prospect, and could definitely turn into a long time starter in the league. I do not think he has star potential – he’s just not exceptional enough at anything and doesn’t have the elite athleticism, but he has potential to be very solid in every aspect of the game. The main question is – what’s he going to do when he moves up to the next level and is no longer good enough to dominate the ball on offense?

I think he would be a solid fit for the Warriors, and given how weak the draft is (especially if all these guys really go back to school), I would definitely take him, though there's a good chance he will not be there for us. He’ll give our wing rotation more depth, and he fits a number of our needs. He would give us more size and rebounding from the wing, he would give us more defense, and another guy who can get into the lane and to the line, something we were worse at than anyone else in the NBA this past season.

NBADraft.net:

Draftexpress:

As an indication of how much he has progressed, Burks now ranks fourth in scoring on a per-40 minute basis amongst the top 100 NCAA prospects in our database,. It's not just the quantity of points he accumulates that intrigues NBA teams, though, but how he gets his offense.

Burks is a shot creator, a skill that is highly coveted at the professional level. Over two-thirds of his offense is generated by himself, be it in isolation situations, in transition or in pick-and-roll opportunities. He ranks in the top five amongst our top 100 prospects in free throw attempts, and (more impressively) is second overall in makes because of the stellar 82.4% he shoots from the line.

Capable of driving in either direction, Burks is a smooth yet explosive slasher with an outstanding second gear. He has excellent speed in the open floor and the body control and ball-handling skills needed to slither his way around opponents and get to the rim.

Burks is not yet a great finisher around the basket, as indicated by his sub-50% 2-point percentage. He must continue to fill out his frame as he struggles to finish through contact in traffic. He's a scorer through and through, though. He uses the glass nicely with reverses and such and has a knack for finding a way to put the ball in the basket, even in tight spaces.

Unlike most big-time scorers from small(er) colleges, Burks is a fairly unselfish player who is more than capable of making the extra pass. Even if he's often asked to be the one creating and finishing shots for his team (particularly late in the shot clock), he's a nice weapon to have in a half-court offense thanks to his solid court vision and good basketball IQ. When Colorado's starting point guard goes to the bench, Burks will man the position, which is a good indication of the versatility he brings to the table.

Defensively, Burks is somewhat of a mixed bag, but he shows good potential on this end of the floor. With his good size, nice length, excellent lateral quickness and solid anticipation skills, he has all the tools needed to guard his position successfully in the NBA.

He generally puts in a good effort on the defensive end, getting low in his stance and often guarding the opposing team's best scorer—and doing so effectively for the most part. He already ranks as the second-best rebounding wing player in this draft class (after Travis Leslie), which has to be considered a good sign.

With his narrow frame and lack of strength, Burks has some issues fighting through screens and will lose his focus occasionally, but based on what we're seeing there's no reason he can't be a good defender at the NBA level.

One area of his game in which scouts surely would have liked to see more progress this season is his jump shot. He doesn't take (or make) many 3-pointers—he's just 21 of 69 on the season from this range--but he is streaky from mid-range too, a place many Big 12 teams have forced him to operate from by taking away the paint with help-side defense. Burks has converted just 54 of 184 (29%) jumpers this season, largely due to his struggles shooting off the dribble (30 of 118, or 25%).

Burks creates good separation from defenders in the mid-range area, but he has a tendency to shoot off balance. He tends to kick his legs out on attempts and not square his shoulders to the basket. His shot selection also leaves something to be desired—he makes just enough bad shots to lead him to believe he should be taking more off-balance, contested attempts, but not enough to lead his team to a better than 7-7 record in the Big 12 thus far.

With his feet set, Burks shows nice shot-making potential, often just throwing the ball in the rim in difficult situations. The minimal arc he gets on his jump shot doesn't leave him very much margin for error.

This is an important factor in assessing Burks' NBA potential, as it's unlikely that he'll have the ball in his hands quite as often as he does at Colorado. If he can find a way to become a more consistent outside shooter, his transition to the NBA will be much smoother—something Evan Turner has learned the hard way as a rookie this season.

As we learned with Turner, whichever team drafts Burks will need to put him in a role that suits his strengths, alongside teammates that complement him. The learning curve Burks has shown over the past two years is intriguing, though. There's a pretty good chance he's nowhere near his full potential at the moment, especially given his late growth spurt and the fact that he's one of the youngest members of his draft class, not turning 20 until July.

In a draft that looks increasingly shallow at the wing position, Burks stands out with his shot-creating skills and scoring instincts. If he can convince a team that his long-range shooting won't be too much of an issue in the NBA, he'll be a popular name during the pre-draft process.

Draftexpress video breakdown.

Chad Ford's profile
Projection Milwaukee Bucks
(No. 10 pick)
Positives
Long, athletic 2 guard
Great scoring instincts
Can kill you in multiple ways
Excellent slasher
Explosive leaper and finisher around the basket
Negatives
Needs to add strength/weight
Streaky perimeter shooter
Lacks range on the three ball
Gets caught standing around when he doesn’t have the ball

Now, on to my own assessment of Burks as a prospect, and then to his potential fit for the Warriors:

Burks skillset is a mixed bag.

Forget Kobe Bryant, Isolations are the issue

Missing Barry — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 00:05:41 -0000

Forget Kobe Bryant, Isolations are the issue

This is the conversation I've been waiting for. The focus on Kobe Bryant as the main character isn't the important point - the important point is general strategy, and where the NBA (and many other basketball minds) are currently failing. Just because it's an important time of the game doesn't change what constitutes good offense, yet you see players, coaches and teams change their strategy as if an isolation is suddenly a good play. It's not.

Must Read Article on Carmelo

Missing Barry — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 21:37:57 -0000

Must Read Article on Carmelo

A good read. Summarizes another article that provides good evidence and a good explanation as to why Caremlo isn't an efficient scorer. Read both articles. Whether you think Carmelo is great or think he's overrated, and despite the subject already being beat to death, it is still worth your time to read.

Jerome Randle Summer League

Missing Barry — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 17:21:16 -0000

Jerome Randle Summer League

Some cool pictures, check them out.

Patience [with young players] Pays

Missing Barry — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 14:02:24 -0000

Patience [with young players] Pays

I don't think I have to explain why this is relevant on a Giants site. The potential reward for sticking with a young, cheap, cost controlled guy is huge - even if he only turns into an average player (~2 WAR) or a bit less, at $400K, that's a very nice surplus value you're getting. Why some people don't understand this is beyond me. But, this is the Giants, so we'd still rather give a veteran the chance to fail than a young guy, despite the young guy having a much higher potential reward if he works out....

Jeremy Affeldt - Best or Bestest?

Missing Barry — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 13:54:44 -0000

Jeremy Affeldt - Best or Bestest?

Little piece by Fangraphs on how awesome Affeldt's fastball is. Not mentioned, but something this evidence implies: Jeremey Affeldt might be underrated by FIP/fWAR.

LOLstros

Missing Barry — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 17:22:52 -0000

LOLstros

I seriously fear the joke will be on us soon enough when Sabean's extended. Honestly, what does a bad GM have to do to get fired?!

McC sucks

Missing Barry — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 21:24:18 -0000

McC sucks

D-Rays Bay did this, so...where's our Giants version of this? Just kidding....kind of. But seriously, really impressive effort on their part. Really cool that they put in all that work out of love of the game.

Verducci Effect, new study

Missing Barry — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 17:43:41 -0000

Verducci Effect, new study

We recently discussed the Verducci effect a bit, and I mentioned I was surprised by the lack of actual research done into it. Here's a good first step into the kind of thing I've been hoping to see.

Aubrey Huff and Subtraction by Addition

Missing Barry — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 15:33:18 -0000

Aubrey Huff and Subtraction by Addition

Fangraphs shares my sentiments on Aubrey Huff.

Giants player information system

Missing Barry — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 02:22:23 -0000

Giants player information system

Just wanted to share this little nugget I found in an article about the Pirates.

"There are other major-league teams with similar systems, including San Francisco and Cleveland, where Pirates general manager Neal Huntington migrated from in the fall of 2007."

Now, I like Sabean-bashing as much as anyone, but I also do have a fair side to me. Maybe there is some progressive stuff going on in the Giants front office. In a vacuum, this sounds to me like a very good thing and positive step for the Giants. Of course, this isn't in a vacuum, it's still within the context of a Sabean run front office...so feel free to make your own interpretation...

Bengie Molina, 2nd best!

Missing Barry — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:24:52 -0000

Bengie Molina, 2nd best!

Fangraphs article looking at players who are over and undervalued based on RBI's. This is what I thought particularly funny and interesting:

"2007-2009 Leaders and Trailers (qualifed, 250 RBI minimum):

1. Jeff Francoeur, 1.30 RBI/24RC. .313 wOBA, 252 RBI, -17.62 Sitch
2. Bengie Molina, 1.28 RBI/24RC. .317 wOBA, 256 RBI, 23.29 Sitch
3. Robinson Cano, 1.28 RBI/24RC. .346 wOBA, 254 RBI, -53.47 Sitch
4. Garrett Atkins, 1.19 RBI/24RC. .339 wOBA, 258 RBI, -6.31 Sitch
5. Mike Lowell, 1.18 RBI/24RC. .359 wOBA, 268 RBI, -4.79 Sitch
6. Ryan Howard, 1.16 RBI/24RC. .385 wOBA, 423 RBI, 22.80 Sitch
…
43. Lance Berkman, 0.80 RBI/24RC. .397 wOBA, 288 RBI, 25.32 Sitch
44. Albert Pujols, 0.80 RBI/24RC. .440 wOBA, 354 RBI, 15.22 Sitch
45. Hanley Ramirez, 0.72 RBI/24RC. .409 wOBA, 254 RBI, -27.34 Sitch

Note how much the Sitch scores fluctuate on both ends of the rankings and draw your own conclusions. Any list with Frenchy and Bengie on one end and Pujols and Han-Ram on the other speaks for itself."

Bengie was #1 on the context-neutral version of these rankings, found:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-2009-carter-batista-award

Discussion on Linear Weights

Missing Barry — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:49:02 -0000

Discussion on Linear Weights

Good discussion on the pros and cons of linear weights. First thing that came to my mind? BtB Power Rankings for the Giants. I theorized that being at the extremes may cause some problems for their model...and after reading this, I'm beginning to think that just might explain almost all the discrepency in their model compared to the actual results...

Rockets Take Ferry to Game

Missing Barry — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:14:43 -0000

Rockets Take Ferry to Game

Ha, funny. I don't live in the Bay, but it I imagine it's a mess back home because of the bridge right now...

New Uni's next year looking good

Missing Barry — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:56:03 -0000

New Uni's next year looking good

"• The Warriors have a great uni history that presents all sorts of intriguing throwback possibilities, but here's one you probably didn't see coming. Simple but cool, and dig the little arrow on the shorts logo patch! On-court debut: Dec. 3. (Looking ahead, a small item buried within this interview with team president Robert Rowell and GM Larry Riley indicates that the team will get a design makeover next season. Uni Watch has seen the preliminary mock-ups and can say with a fair degree of certainty that you will not be disappointed.)"

Little tidbit on throwbacks this year and our new uni's next year.

(If you're not familiar with Lucas' Uni Watch, I suggest following the link. The actual article has links to pictures and such.)

Examining the Garko trade

Missing Barry — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 14:30:44 -0000

So we have posts everywhere about the Garko trade, and I posted this comment in the original fanpost, but I think it's worthwhile enough to give it's own fanpost to. Here's an evaluation of the trade:

I’ve taken the time to do some actual research, and come to a few conclusions. First, let’s assume Barnes is a grade C prospect. According to the work done here, that’s worth $2.1M to the Giants. If he was a grade B prospect he’d be worth $7.3M. So the question is, is Garko worth that to the Giants? Research done here also shows each additional WAR a hitter provides the Giants is actually worth more than 1 win, because of the low run scoring environment we play in.

Let’s call Garko a 2 WAR player, and say he’ll contribute .5 WAR to us the rest of this season. We should be on the hook for about $.2M for Garko this season. Using 40%, 60%, 80% arbitration numbers (I believe those are included in one of the articles I linked), we should pay Garko about $4M, $6M, $8M in each of the next 3 seasons, so we’re at about $18M or so. He accumulates 6.5 WAR over that time, worth about $29M. This is without even taking the low run scoring environment adjustment into account. Garko provides us with an approximate $11M in value, far more than Barnes, even as a Type B prospect, is worth. Great trade, we win.

If Garko is only a 1 WAR player, the numbers adjust (including how much he makes in arbitration) to $2M, $3M, $4M. About $9.2M total for a 3.25 WAR (.25 for the this year's production) player, which is about $14.6M in value. $5.4M in value from Garko, which doesn't quite offset a Type B prospect (though it'll be closer given the run scoring environment adjustment), but is worth more than a Type C prospect. A pretty even trade at that point, given that Sickels had Barnes as a C+ prospect.

Credit goes to BtB for their research.

Curry A Star!

Missing Barry — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:56:48 -0000

Curry A Star!

Why bother with anything basketball related when you can tell someone will be great simply by their name?

Fun with steroids, your list

Missing Barry — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:02:53 -0000

Let's have a little fun with steroids, what do you think. There are 103 players on the 2003 list we don't know about yet. If you could choose any player to be on that list, who would you pick and why?

For me it's a tough choice between David Ortiz, Derek Jeter, and Ken Griffey Jr. Jeter should be obvious why. Maybe I just am friends with too many Red Sox fans, but I'd love to see their arrogance swept away with an Ortiz positive test. I've taken a lot of anti-Bonds crap from Red Sox fans while they had Manny (a similar personality to Bonds) and Ortiz (who fits the steroid profile perfectly) in the middle of their lineup. For too long Griffey has been given a pass by the media for being clean, in the same sort of way Arod was supposed to break Bond's record and save baseball from the evil steroid users....

In the end I'd love to see Jeter on the list, because the reaction would be hilarious/ridiculous.

*Note: This isn't supposed to turn into an argument about who might have/might not have used, just who you'd like to see on the list and why.

In the end I'd love to see Jeter on the list, because the reaction would be hilarious/ridiculous.

*Note: This isn't supposed to turn into an argument about who might have/might not have used, just who you'd like to see on the list and why.