by Gregg Pearlman
Monday, May 17, 1999
As I read through the text you'll see below, I noticed Jack V. calling Charlie Hayes "Chuck," which made me wonder what other fans call Giants players. I call Hayes "Chuck" too, and sometimes "Chuckles." (Big mental stretch, there.) Sometimes "Chuckaloo," because it's ludicrous. Carlos, for instance, calls Bill Mueller "Billy Moo," and Tom A. calls him "Dirt Dog." I've never seen anyone else call him either name.
I slip easily into the habit of giving these guys nicknames, as if we're acquainted -- my best-known, certainly, is "Jate," for J.T. Snow, and the Giants newsgroup picked up on that one pretty quick, as they have on my variations, "Jater" and "Jateroo," though I've yet to see anyone else try "Jater from Decatur" (except Jack, who, for all I know, came up with it independently, as it's a word play on a relatively common craps term), and wisely so. Because of "Jate," F.P. Santangelo is "Efp." Edwards Guzman is "Eds" -- another one that the group seems to like. I don't really have a nickname for Jeff Kent, though the group calls him "Quotron" because he really is a quote machine. Rich Aurilia and Rich Rodriguez are both "Richie" -- that's creativity! -- and Ellis Burks is "Ellie." What else?
Ramon Martinez is "Moaner," partly because he makes me moan with annoyance, but probably because Brent Mayne's teammates call the catcher "Mayner," though I don't. To me, Mayne's one of those guys who just doesn't have a nickname (I mean, what, "Brenty"?), like Kent, Scott Servais, even Barry Bonds. Kirk Rueter, on the other hand, is the victim of Monty Python, as I always think of a sketch involving the movie Scott of the Sahara in which actor Kirk Vilb's name is rendered by producer Jerry Schlick as "Kirk-Angel" or "Kirkie-Doll." So Rueter gets those periodically from me, but usually it's "Kirkles." I don't know why, either. But everybody else in the world calls him "Woody." (What I thought was funny was that Steve Reed's nickname, "Reeder," is pronounced -- in case you didn't know -- virtually the same as Rueter's last name... but whenever he'd hear it in the clubhouse, I assume, he'd ignore it, because he's "Woody," and someone else is "Reeder/Rueter." Also, I wonder if Steve Reed has always been "Reeder" or if it's because Jeff Reed was "Reeder" when he played here. Must've been confusing when both played for the Rockies.)
Orel Hershiser, for years, has been "Anel," an obvious play on not only the pronunciation but also the spelling of his first name, but it also comes from an old Joe Bob Briggs column referring to Oral Roberts' brother Anal. Real flattering, I know.
Wilson Delgado is "Willie," which is boring, but if I called him "Del," what would I call Miguel Del Toro? (Yes, I know: "A triple-A pitcher.") Marvin Benard is usually "Marv," of course, but sometimes "Marvola," which makes as much sense as "Brockola" for Chris Brock. Any possible nickname for Armando Rios escapes me, except maybe "Mando," which is dull. Nor do I have a nickname for Robb Nen. Jerry Spradlin, whom I don't even like (and, sadly, don't expect to), is "Sprad," and John Johnstone, whose teammates call him "Stoney," is "J.J.," which I expect to "shorten" to "Jage," in memory of John Jekleman, David Beck's favorite player from his fictional table-top league (and whose nickname led me to come up with "Jate" for J.T. Snow).
Sometimes I go the other way with nicknames. For instance, Russ Ortiz is "Russell," and Rod Beck was always "Rodney," which, it seems, is what he used to be called before Dusty Baker started calling him "The Shooter" -- a good nickname made stupid by annoying former KNBR Pete Franklin, who insisted on calling the man "Shooter Beck."
One of my favorites, because it's so moronic, was the nickname I eventually had for Will Clark, which -- because of a sketch I once wrote in which a completely sports-knowledge-free interviewer was fawning all over Jose Canseco while treating Clark like a four-year-old idiot (which happened on ESPN before the All-Star Game, circa 1990; the other guy was Wade Boggs, not Canseco), all the while calling both Clark and Canseco by unfitting, unflattering, inappropriately silly pet names -- was "Wilbersmule," later shortened to "Smule," or "The Smulester."
Kind of makes you wonder why we don't call these people what their parents named them, doesn't it? I guess it's just more fun to call them something else.
The Giants are 22-16, a game ahead of the Diamondbacks and one and a half ahead of the Dodgers. They're a game over .500 since their five-game winning streak to start the season -- still better than I would've expected, with Bonds out of the lineup for so long already.
The Dodgers are up there because, well, they're the Dodgers, and they have players like Gary Sheffield, Jeff Shaw, and, of course, Kevin Brown -- it's not so much what they've done as who they are, because there's really no excuse for that team not to be well in the lead. One could make a similar argument for the Diamondbacks, but it seems to me that the three names I keep hearing over and over are Jay Bell, Luis Gonzalez, and (pardon me while I fight back this wave of nausea) Matt Williams. And we're going to be seeing them real soon. We should kill 'em... but won't.
Also nauseated by this are Carlos, Ethan, Brian P., Tim I., Greg L., Dan O., Anson, Ron M., Ben F., Michael E., Mr. Crud, Jason, William, Clayton, Paul, Jon R., John G., Ken K., John B., "gaetano," Felix, Jack V., Jonathan, Dave F., Jim J., Richard, Sean, "JYK," Harry, Daniel P., and Vanessa.
This guy's through, for crying out loud. Just a few short years ago Nomo struck out a whole bunch of All-Stars in a row, unjustly conjuring up memories of Carl Hubbell and ensuring that King Carl would have to share that glorious moment with a Dodger. Just a few short years ago The Hideous One no-hit the Rockies at Coors Field. Now... he's nothing. Last year the Dodgers designated him for assignment, then traded him to the Mets. The Mets gave up on him after the season (during which he pitched well against, well, the Giants, but I don't know who else, if anybody), and he wound up in the Cubs organization, where it took three minor league starts for him to show that he just couldn't cut it. A tryout with the Indians showed that he had "nothing." Then the Brewers -- obviously under orders from Murdoch-owned Major League Baseball and its hideous, unseen Supreme Leader, Tommy Lasorda -- signed Nomo just in time to make the Giants look lucky to have scored two runs somehow. Stick Giants batters in front of him, and the guy is Roger Clemens. Like this is fair.
"Here's what I think will happen for the rest of the year," says Carlos: "Hideo Nomo will be traded to a team that will play the Giants in his first appearance for that team. He will pitch well in that appearance, stink up the place in his next appearance, and then be traded to another team that will face the Giants. Hence, there is no justice."
Well, we know there's no justice. The Nomo thing, all in all, is just another brick in the wall.
"I think he will learn eventually not to even try a 'next' appearance," says Ethan. "He will buy a home in San Francisco and be picked up by whatever team is coming to town to pitch one game, then be dropped and sign with the next team that comes through. He could legitimately finish 15-0."
"Sort of a temp-service starter?" says Brian P. "Just call Manpower when you're playing the Giants. If they sign up Mark Portugal too, it could get ugly for the home team."
"I expect Nomo to stink, but I also expected him to beat the Giants," says Tim I. "It's just one of those constants in life. You don't think it was a coincidence that his return to the major leagues was against the Giants, do you?"
Clearly Tim is blissfully unaware of the very evil conspiracy in Major League Baseball that continues to plague my dreams.
"How many major league debuts can one guy have against the Giants?" wonders Greg L.
"Maybe we should take up a pool to see how long he lasts against the rest of the league," says Carlos. "I'm surprised he wasn't picked up by an AL team, since there's always been a theory that he's hard to hit the first time you see him. I almost would prefer Jeffy Juden because we would be fired up to beat him, but he'd probably injure one of our players in the process, so I guess Nomo is better."
Or at least safer -- not that we could necessarily beat Juden, either, wherever he is.
"If he keeps getting what the Brewers paid him and gets to keep it all, that's $250,000 times 15: $3.75 million! Just for dissing our boys. Sheesh!"
Dan O. says, "Well, in light of all of the amazing, bizarre, yet still somehow mostly wonderful things that have befallen the Giants this year, perhaps culminating [the next night] in Russ Ortiz outpitching John Smoltz the day after our heroes got stomped by washed up ol' Nomo, I can only think of one phrase that completely encapsulates the season to date: 'Huh?'"
"The Giants handed Smoltz his first loss!" says Anson. "Awesome! Let's look at it from the real Giants fans' point of view: Why is it that they can beat the best pitcher in the league but they can't beat Hideo Nomo?"
"It's a mystery," says Carlos. "I think that if a pitcher 'owns' a team, then he always owns a team. On the other hand, if a team 'owns' a pitcher, he will eventually beat the team. I do acknowledge the ridiculousness of this assertion, but there's nothin' like good ol' false beisbol wisdom.
"Maybe it's part of Dusty's history with the team, first as batting coach and then as a manager who still gives batting tips.
"There's definitely something psychological going on, but not on Nomo's side. Last year when Nomo was with the Mets, we had him on the ropes all during that day game at the 'Stick, but we couldn't break through. Aurilia said kind of the same thing after Sunday's game, since he felt Nomo didn't wasn't sharp in the early innings.
"We should have had our best 'get a walk' lineup in there and let Nomo self-destruct. Maybe have F.P. Santangelo lead off and get hit by a pitch. Get a work-a-walk conga line going, '1-2-3-4 Take Your Base, 1-2-3-4 Take Your Base, 1-2-3-4 Take Your Base, 1-2-3-4 Run Scored!'"
One thing that helped the Giants beat Smoltz -- not to take any credit away from Russ Ortiz, who pitched some great ball -- were umpire eccentricities that, for a change, benefited the Giants. (I know. I couldn't believe it either.) Andrew Jones was called for interference on a double-play relay throw from Rich Aurilia that he swatted down -- that's when Bobby Cox got himself ejected -- and later he was called out on a tag play at first base after rounding the bag following a single. Seems the perception was that he'd made a move toward second, though the replays sure didn't indicate that.
"I was at the game, so I didn't have the advantage of replay," says Ron M. "So what exactly happened? Did Jones make a turn or not? I thought he must have gone back to the bag and then stepped off without calling time," says Ron, but listening to the radio afterward they made it sound like the problem was that Jones turned toward second. Can anyone who saw a replay explain this one?"
No. Wish I could. I saw maybe two replays, and there was no apparent indication that he was headed for second. I don't even remember him making a subtle move toward the bag. He maybe turned three degrees left or something. As the guys on TV said, it was a ticky-tack call. Not that I mind.
I didn't see Jones knock down Aurilia's throw, though, and they called that a ticky-tack call, too.
"I did see [the double play]," says Ron, "and, in my opinion, if you don't make the call there, it's very hard to make the call ever if the ball hits a runner. The ball hit his hand, and it's not like his hand was close to his body. What was his hand doing there if not trying to interfere with the throw? (Mind you, I don't think he wanted to hit the ball, but he wanted to make Aurilia throw around him.)"
I'm just saying that the broadcasters said it was a ticky-tack call. I was delighted.
Reminded me of an intramural softball game in junior high school. I was forced at second base, but rather deliberately and ostentatiously stuck my arm in the path of the throw to first. The ball ricocheted off me and well into right-field foul territory, and we scored another run out of it. Heck, if I'd known the umpire was going to be stupid enough to let this pass, I'd have kept running the bases....
"I have to say that [the second Jones play was] one weak call," says Ben F. "It looked like Jones turned his shoulders for an instant but his legs were going forward."
Well, I guess we should expect this kind of thing, since umpires have been empowered to read minds.
"In the more narrow angle (also from the outfield but focusing on Jones as he ran past first), there was an instance when he jerked his body toward second as he considered going for it, but there were no actual steps toward second," says Michael E. "He was in foul territory the whole time."
"From this same angle, when Jones turned his body toward second, I swore I saw the front half of Jones' right foot in the chalk," says Mr. Crud. "However, I must have missed this 'jerk' you mention. If there was a jerk, then it seems that the call may have been legit.
"Also, does J.T. tag all runners that run out a ground ball? If not, doesn't it say something that maybe J.T. picked up on something that is not usually there when runners simply 'run through the bag'? I must say, on the replay, J.T. looked fairly confident walking over to make the tag, and also looked fairly 'unsurprised' when the out call came."
Even so, if an umpire is going to interpret a minor body movement as "intent," against all evidence, this is just plain scary:
"You're outta the game!"
"Huh? Why? I didn't say anything. I didn't even move!"
"Maybe not, but you were gonna!" "My baseball justice meter, which I use to see how I feel about a call by reversing the teams, says it was a bogus call by the first base umpire," says Michael. It's so unusual, it shouldn't have been called. On the other hand, the Giants did the fundamentally sound play by tagging the runner.
"Jones didn't do the fundamentally sound play because he should have bolted to second as soon as the ball went by him (Candlestick has huge foul ball territory). When I umpire Little League games, close calls that are hard to judge go to the team that played fundamentals correctly."
Off topic, but sometimes I wonder why teams don't always appeal on plays in which runners tag up. (I think EEEEEE! Contributing Editor David Beck is the one who first brought this one up in conversation.) The conclusions I've come to are:
"Umpires have a position for every fly ball that allows them to see both the runner and the outfielder making the catch," says Bob W. "They move while the ball is in the air. It all depends on which field the ball is hit to, which base has a runner, and which ump goes to the outfield to call the catch. This isn't simply positioning and I'll bet umps make mistakes frequently (just like players do)."
Well, we can pretty much count on that. I'm guessing -- seriously -- that they get fewer than, say, two-thirds of appeal calls right in situations like that. I'm pretty sure I'm being generous.
Now, I'm not just doing the gratuitous umpire-bashing dance here; I'm just saying that I don't get the impression they pay much attention in these situations.
"When they make a mistake, I'll bet most calls go as if the ump was in the correct position and the player played fundamentally correct (i.e., the runner tagged before advancing). For an ump to do otherwise, would be admitting a mistake and I doubt they would do that (umps have big egos, or so I hear)."
That's a working theory. It still requires a great deal of testing involving a control group of umpires without big egos. Obviously we're having trouble tracking any down....
Do those reasons sound legit? If so, they have nothing to do with the rules....
"Except when you knock down a bad throw that would have gone past the first baseman," says Bob.
That's probably a worthwhile risk, in a strange way. I mean, way more throws are going to be accurate, right?
"The hitter, who would otherwise be on second, is out. I think that poor throws to first would happen more often then you get a (non-) obstruction call in your advantage. Best strategy: Don't touch the ball, but scare the crap out of the fielder as you slide into second in an attempt to induce a bad throw."
Exactly.
Michael says, "In the earlier play where the batter was called out when Jones touched the thrown ball as he was sliding into second, I thought he was legally trying to break up the double play and just left his hand up high too long. He was out by an easy 10 or 15 feet and didn't slide low hoping to obscure Aurilia's view toward first long enough to affect his throw. I thought that this was an easy and correct call by the second base umpire."
The radio call made it sound like he just stuck up his hand and swatted down the throw. In a way, it's not a bad play -- I mean, theoretically the batter should get called out for interference 100 times out of 100, but maybe there'll be that one guy who won't make that call. Am I missing something here (such as umpires getting annoyed), or is that a reasonably sound strategy?
Also, there's rules about continuing to run after being put out, but can't you get around those?
Bob says, "If you're not part of it, it's against the rules to obstruct the play. Examples of this kind of obstruction is the batter moving across the plate to obstruct the throw from catcher to second base to stop a stolen base. It's a judgment call by the ump. If the runner keeps running after being called out, he risks being called for obstruction."
But that's the key: It's a judgment call. My recollection is that the ump has to determine "intent" -- i.e., "Oh, he knew he was out, and was interfering deliberately." In any case, you never see it, so probably it'd be penalized in a huge percentage of cases.
"I'm no expert, but I've umpired my son's Little League and once attended an umpiring seminar," Bob says. "I have a lot of respect for the major league umps. They are undoubtedly the best, or were at one time. From the news reports I've read of player and coaching opinions, the union seems to keep old timers around too long."
I have a lot of respect for what major league umpires should be and, I think, have been....
Jason says, "The Chronicle didn't mention it, but Bobby Cox watched the game from the right field doorway after being ejected. Was there any follow-up on that?"
Good question. I didn't see anything about it in the Mercury either (unless I didn't look closely enough). I didn't notice him being there the next night, though. By the way, on the night in question, Cox got away with it for a few innings, and then the umps shooed him away. It's not as though Cox was hiding, either: he was in plain view. Ergo, couldn't Dusty Baker have protested, if for some reason he wanted to? I think he'd have to file the protest right away upon seeing Cox.
"Quietly Russ Ortiz is becoming one of the NL best pitchers," says William. "Consistently pitching late into each game, he was improved his strikeouts-to-walks ratio. Along with Nathan and (hopefully) Estes, the new ballpark should see many outstanding-pitched games."
"Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!" warns Carlos. "Don't let them (look up) know about the silver lining in our whacky season. No matter what happens, it's nice to see these young Giants arms mature."
"Yeah. What type of appeasement do we have to give the Baseball Gods now?" says Tim I. "Treading lightly... yeah, Ortiz has finally learned how to get through a lineup the second time. Is he being more unpredictable in pitch selection? Just not walking as many? Better stuff? He's not getting bombed in the fourth and fifth innings like he did last year. And his arm (and Brock's to a lesser but significant extent) is currently riding my [team] to a first-place standing in my fantasy league.
"I've stocked up on cheap but promising pitching. It's working pretty well so far."
"Perhaps Cox is going for a record," says Clayton. "How many games in a row has a manager been yanked from... that sort of thing."
I'm guessing Earl Weaver holds the record. Whatever the number is, I suspect it's the number of consecutive games in which he managed and Ron Luciano umpired.
"Given the early goodbye last night to Brian Jordan as well, maybe the team is going for the most ejections in a three-game series."
I missed what that argument was about, but Clayton says Jordan was "mightily unhappy about his called third strike. So unhappy that he continued to express his displeasure to the ump as he went out to take his position in the bottom of the inning."
How dull. Aren't players ever creative about these things?
"What was very amusing was Total Baseball's play-by-play," says Paul. "Usually it's pretty straightforward, but occasionally it contains extra explanatory commentary, often humorously done. Anyway, it said, 'Atlanta's Brian Jordan decides he doesn't want to play out in the cold any more, continues an argument with Dreckman, and is ejected.'"
"For Jordan it seemed to be more his unwillingness to stop arguing than his ability to be creative in his language towards the ump," says Clayton.
Sad. I must say, though, that I don't know if there's a right way to argue with an umpire over a call you really really hate....
"Someone, anyone, talk to me!" says a desperate Mr. Crud. "How long can F. Rod. shut down the Braves? EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"
Poor guy. He's so One Of Us. (And for those of you who aren't: "Gooble gobble, gooble gobble, we will make you one of us.")
Among my many baseball pet peeves is extra-inning games that (a) the Giants lose, and (b) the Giants lose way past my bedtime.
"After the Giants got six runs in the bottom of the first to take the lead 6-4, what did Shawn Estes do in the top of the second?" says Jon R. "Did he walk the first batter? I was muttering to myself that I couldn't stand to see him on the mound choking away a lead right after a rare six-run comeback. I did see that he promptly gave up another run in the second. What transpired?" "Here's what," says John G.: "Walt Weiss singled to left [Making him 3-for-26 on the season against lefthanders. -- GP], Odalis Perez sacrificed him to second. Gerald Williams grounded out to the pitcher. Bret Boone singled to center, Weiss scored. Chipper Jones struck out looking."
Weiss scored a couple of two-out runs from second base on singles that night.
That was awfully annoying, but Ken K. was pretty annoyed with Jon Miller: "If you are listening on radio, you'll do better listening to the crowd noise to know the outcome of a play that by listening to Miller."
This is exactly what Dave and I always said about Ron Fairly, so Ken's words are quite biting indeed.
"Miller's dramatization skills are too good in my estimation," says Ethan. "He is responsible for quite a bit of marginal stress and nail biting in close games and on close plays. The crowd tells you what's up."
His call of Ellis Burks' three-run home run off Smoltz, however, really made me feel as though the Giants had the game bagged -- in the first inning. Can't explain it, but it almost felt as though what won the game was Miller's call. I really felt he captured the excitement of the moment like a master.
"As far as Felix Rodriguez goes," says Ethan, "every time I've seen him pitch multiple innings, he has dominated for two and lost his edge in the third. Dusty really should know this if I know it."
There's a lot of that going around.
"Nathan would have a much better choice to replace FRod in the 12th. He could pitch into the 20th if need be, and the Braves' bats would be too tired and slow for his 96 mph gas."
Well, Rodriguez has 96 mph gas, too....
But I was thinking Embree (because I forgot about Nathan). Either way, I don't trust FRaud to start with, especially after two innings. It also pretty much honked me off that the dude couldn't get the bunt down in the top of the inning, preferring instead to pop out.
"Hey, why was he trying to bunt anyway in that situation?" says John G. "He was the Giants best hitter to that point. Okay, I'm being facetious. But, seriously, can't he handle the bat a little bit?"
Well, Ramon Martinez couldn't get the bunt down either -- at least not a good bunt. So I guess the answer is, these guys just aren't, um, clutch bunters.
"At least we could have done the butcher boy play, which might have mangled Chipper Jones' face -- not necessarily a bad thing -- since he was practically in FRod's lap. Hell, the bunt nearly got over his head for a single."
John B. says, "If FRod gets the bunt down, the Giants now have runners on second and third, Snow gets the intentional walk, and Aurilia's fly to fairly deep left (he hits lots of these, doesn't he?) becomes the game-winning sacrifice fly."
John probably nailed everything up to Aurilia's at-bat -- I mean, you never know. Heck, even if he'd hit into an inning-ending double play, at least somebody woulda done his job.
"I was thinking that Sonny Jackson should've given Felix the 'hit a home run' sign, like he did on FRod's other AB."
Clearly Sonny missed the sign from Dusty.
"Funny thing: I was listening to the Braves broadcast of the game (some of which are carried here in Orlando). Yeah, that wasn't too bitter-- listening to those unctuous Braves announcers until 2:30 in the morning, only to be treated to that ending (no, that's not the 'funny thing'). The funny thing was that one of the Braves announcers speculated that FRod may have actually been trying to pop the bunt over Chipper's head. He cited an example he'd seen of another player who had successfully used that maneuver. The other announcer seemed to agree that FRod may actually have been attempting this, commenting that had FRod made a bit better contact, he'd have easily pulled it off, and probably would've reached base safely himself."
Well, I've heard announcers say that some players have attempted it, but I'll never believe it, at least not in an important situation, and certainly not by a pitcher who rarely bats, even if he did start his professional career as a catcher.
Felix says, "Oh, didn't you know about this? All the starting pitchers agreed to at least put two men on base in the first inning of every single game, and they must get out of the jam facing no more than four more batters. And oh, those two men must both be in scoring position, which explains Brock's balk. If the pitcher fails to do so, he will put up $50 to the Kangaroo court."
"Sure," says Brian P. "When you're team is as good as the Giants, its only sporting to spot the opponent a few runs to make the games interesting. Otherwise, the games are all boring blowouts and people would stop attending. At least I assume that the reason. Or maybe the starters have a side bet going to see who can get out of the most jams. Loser buys the beer."
"I can't remember the last time I saw a one-two-three inning in the first," says gaetano. "Out of our starting five, I only have confidence in Ortiz and Brock. I have no confidence in our other three starters. I know that the Giants have made a living on coming back in ballgames, but come on. You cannot continue to win like this all of the time."
The only thing I can think of is that the first inning, I'm pretty sure, sees more scoring than any other, possibly because starting pitchers often haven't hit their stride yet. Not that this explanation works for me.
"On a side note," gaetano says, "Is it just me, or has Robb Nen lost a little bit from his control? I know that he's always been a little wild, and fast, but he's never been this bad. It seems like it takes him about two or three batters to get warmed up. Before this season is over, I know that this pitching staff of ours is going to give me a heart attack."
"Actually, Rueter has spurred quite a bit of confidence in his last two starts," says Ethan. "The only bad innings he's had in those three starts were the four-run inning vs. Milwaukee, which occurred because of a Hayes error, an unlucky break on a curveball that hit a batter's foot, and an exceptional swing by Berry on a great pitch; and the two-run Rondell White homer that happened while his hand was still stinging from being nailed on a comebacker
"Other than that, he's been dominating, and has worked really well with the umpires.
"Gardy looked far better in his last start, and has given me reason to anticipate seeing how he'll do against Houston's potent offense. Estes is a heart attack every time out, but he's got a rhythm that, when he finds it, he can be as good as anyone. We saw it against the Rockies and Pittsburgh.
"Honestly, one of the things that has been our strength in Barry's absence is our pitching. The team ERA has fallen off significantly, and against some really good offensive teams (Colorado, Montreal, New York, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Atlanta).
"But once again, we've got six games with arguably the NL's best team the next couple weeks. we'll see what happens."
Well, it's not good so far: The Giants blew an early 4-0 lead last night, stopped hitting, and watched as the Astros scampered merrily to a 7-4 victory, thanks in large part to the ineffectiveness of the increasingly annoying Jerry Spradlin.
(The good news is not the next day's game, a 10-5 loss that, for a while, the Giants tried to turn into a ballgame, but Sunday's game, in which Russ Ortiz left in the seventh, leading 4-2. The bad news is that John Johnstone put a couple runners on, and Dusty Baker, for the first time this season, brought in Robb Nen before the ninth. Nen promptly gave up a 2-0 double to Craig Biggio, a ball that missed going out by inches, and the game was tied. It stayed tied until the eleventh, when Armando Rios cranked the Giants' first pinch-hit home run of the season -- the Giants' pinch-hitters have been otherwise horrific this year. Joe Nathan relieved Nen and struck out Jeff Bagwell to end it, with the winning run on third. Stirring, very necessary victory -- in the Giants' last-ever regular-season game at the Astrodome.)
"This is the worst defense the Giants have had in years," says Jack V. ""Even in the bad years of the early '90s and mid '90s, the defense was pretty solid. I'm tired of hearing about a 'defensive slump.' I don't think a team can slump defensively for a month. Maybe it's time for the announcers to just admit that this is a bad defensive team.
"It's very possible I'm overreacting here, but I'm so tired of watching Shawn Estes cave in every time something goes wrong. He gives up a double to Bret Boone, then simply has to throw the ball to Charlie Hayes to tag out Boone. He throws a one-hopper that Hayes can't handle. One-nothing Braves. To his credit, he then gets Chipper Jones to hit a grounder into the hole on the left side. Rich Aurilia backhands, straightens up, and throws a worm-killer to first that evades J.T. Snow. Then back-to-back homers to Brian Jordan and Andruw Jones: 4-0 Atlanta before I've even kicked my feet up.
"With very few exceptions (three innings here and there in some of his starts), Estes has not looked like a major league pitcher. I'm tired of hearing about how 'Shawn worked on some things between starts and should be squared away.' Since the 1997 All-Star Game (not counting tonight), Estes is 16-17 with an ERA of 4.76. I think it's ludicrous to ask for anything more than mediocrity from this guy, let alone the responsibility of 'staff ace.' Thirteen months ago I was absolutely positive that Estes was a guy who would be the Giants' first true stud ace since I've been a fan. Now he's clearly the weak link of this rotation. Again, I'm typing this as the Giants are down 4-0, so my emotions are running high. But I'm beginning to think Estes will be 'just another lefthander' who had one great season. To me, he's an underachiever who will always be one of those pitchers with great stuff who should be better than he really is. I'd love to be wrong, but it doesn't look like it. I keep waiting for him to find himself, but with the exception of a few good innings scattered among his walkfests, he isn't improving.
"And Chuck Hayes just whiffed in ugly fashion with the sacks jacked. Jeff Kent has singled in a run, it's now 4-1. Since there is only one out, Jater won't strike out looking; he'll hit a ground ball to second that will be a double play. Hayes is a classic example of a player -- WAIT! Earnest Ragging Theory comes to life! Jater from Decatur just smoked a double into the alley in right-center field that cleared the bases. I tell you, Earnest Ragging never fails.
"Hayes is a classic example of a player who looks great coming off the bench and starting once or twice a week. But he's brutal as an everyday player. Shades of Mark Carreon.
"Okay, now that it's 4-4. I feel a lot better. But if Shawnie is his recent self, he'll make me piss and moan again. Estes seems to be exempt from the Earnest Ragging Theory. I rag on the guy relentlessly, and it doesn't seem to work.
"Aurilia with a double to left. Snow scores, 5-4 Giants. Amazing. One of these days I'll learn."
Greg L. agrees with Jack about Estes. "I don't think Estes is a former 19-game winner who had a rough year," he says. "I think he had a very good half-season, but is a .500 pitcher with great stuff and poor in-between-the-ears stuff. Were I BFS, I'd be looking to score a good deal with Estes, if it's out there, for a real first baseman or center fielder, even though the alien has returned to inhabit Jate's body."
"On the plus side," says Jonathan, "Estes has 42 strikeouts in 41 innings pitched, which is absolutely excellent. I'd be inclined to give him a little more rope; at this point, I think it's still pretty likely that he'll turn it around.
"Since y'all asked, William VanLandingham's best strikeouts-to-innings pitched was 95/122. Here:
IP K
1994 84 56
1995 122 95
1996 181 97
1997 89 52
"So there's good reason to think that Estes still has a future."
"On the other hand, if there was a great deal to be had, you might want to let him turn it around on someone else's timetable.
"Regarding Steve Reed: Anyone think we could've had Brian Giles for Reed and Jacob Cruz? Doesn't seem unreasonable to me."
Well, I think maybe other teams could've swung that deal....
"Stole the words right out of my mouth," says Greg. "Of course, they would have had to part with Alvin Morman and Shawon Dunston first before they could trade Reed and Cruz to get Giles (ignoring of course that these guys were all on the same team, but trying to put the futility in perspective)...."
"Losing Bonds and Mueller hurts, but this much?" says Tim I. "These guys haven't been fielding like major leaguers since their six-error meltdown in Montreal."
Dave F. says, "Well, the top guys for errors are Aurilia (10), Hayes (6), and Martinez (5). No one else has more than three. The Giants have 38 total errors, so these three account for well over half. The Giants have given up 20 unearned runs, which is a lot.
"You can expect your shortstop to lead the team in errors, but Aurilia's fielding percentage in .924 is pretty awful. He was at .979 last year. Hayes is a defensive liability, and is only starting because Mueller is out. I was surprised, however, to see that his fielding percentage at third was .989 last year. This year, it's 910. If Snow is finally going to hit lefties, I suspect Hayes is going to spend a lot of time on the bench after Mueller returns, as his bat has been pretty awful this year as well. Ramon's fielding percentage is .891, so this better be a case of a rarely used player being nervous, because he sure isn't out there for his bat.
"I think it'll get better when Mueller returns, and Aurilia's problems are an aberration."
BB OBP
Mike Benjamin 9 .333
Mike Caruso 4 .292
Royce Clayton 5 .215
Deivi Cruz 2 .278
"Five starting major league shortstops, five men who learned their crafts in the Giant farm system, not a one able to take a walk. Cruz, in fact, had the peculiar final April result of carrying a batting average which was higher than his OBP.
"We're generally a good OBP team, having the NL lead in that category until recently when, I would suggest, Marvin's inability to get on base from the lead off position really began to cost us runs. Whatever it was that he did last year to increase his plate discipline he has thoroughly lost.
"Our farm system seemingly produces fewer regulars than the major league average; I'm now interested to note if their aggregate walk totals are similarly low, and, if so, whom do we blame?"
Me. I blame myself.
Ben F. says, "You forgot these two:
BB OBP
Jose Vizcaino 5 .329
Rey Sanchez 5 .346
"Hey, as bad as the Giants' farm system has been in this regard, you can't blame it for these two stiffs," says Richard.
"For what it's worth," says Greg L., "Eight of the 16 shortstops with more walks than Aurilia have OBPs under .333. T'aint all walks."
Meanwhile, in response to my whining about Ramon Martinez dropping that popup in New York, having failed to wear his sunglasses, Anson says, "Don't know if you saw it, but in the second inning [of Sunday's game, Aurilia] missed an infield popup with his glasses down. Satisfied?"
Oh, goodness, no.
The Chronicle had Aurilia saying he had it all the way... then lost it 50 or 75 feet from the ground. Ih.
"And I was sitting out in the front patio with my wife, sipping a brewski," says Tim, who never fails to point out that he has a patio, and all we have is a "lanai" with potted plants and a hornet's nest on it, "and as soon as it happened, I turn to her and said, 'This is going to cost us.' Sure enough, here comes Marquis Grissom [another famed Giants killer -- GP], and smack!, double to score a run, followed by another run, both unearned."
Evidently not -- Aurilia wasn't charged with an error.
"Should the Brew Crew even have a run? Without the extra pitches Gardy (who deserved much better) had to throw, does Joe Nathan start the sixth to give up the dinger to Sean Berry? The Giants shouldn't have had their first run either, as Fernando Viña flubbed what should have been a double-play ball hit by Charlie '6-4-3' Hayes. [Most of us have come to the conclusion that Hayes, while perhaps a fine bench player, shouldn't be a regular under any circumstances, except for the Dodgers. -- GP]
"These days, the Giants can't make any mistake in the field without having it turn into runs for the opposition. That is annoying."
Let's just make it easier on ourselves and call the Giants "snakebit."
"Whoever said that the Giants errors haven't cost them any game is wrong," Anson says. "Certainly the Martinez error and [Sunday's] errors cost them two games."
This is why I'm mildly surprised that Guzman got the ax (in favor of Wilson Delgado) and not Ramon Martinez. I figured they were bringing up a glove to replace a non-glove.
"Oh sure," Anson says, "you're just upset that after Guzman got the ax you might not get his baseball card on Trading Card Day."
Not at all. Alex Diaz was long gone by the time we got his cards last year. I'm not worried about Eds -- and heck, you never know, he might actually have something Diaz didn't have much of, which is a future. He might get a major league hit some day.
"And Gregg is also wrong."
Me? I wasn't even there....
"Aurilia flipping down his glasses on that play did not make me feel any better. Although Aurilia's play made me feel easier to forgive Martinez."
Yes, but... whither forgiving Gregg...?
Ben F. seconds: "Maybe you're the blame."
I would say that this thought occurred to me at the time, but the truth is that it's always first on most people's minds: "Maybe it's Gregg's fault." I'm used to it.
Paul doesn't understand why I would prefer to keep Guzman over Martinez: "Eds has been neither hitting up a storm nor occupying a key defensive position."
Correct, in the sense that he's 0-for-14 as a major leaguer and has played almost no defense at all, though he has appeared both at third and behind the plate.
"Ramon has at least been getting on base pretty well, even if he hasn't been exactly a wizard with the leather. Seems like a no-brainer to me."
Well, like I say, I'm "mildly surprised." First, Dusty loves having that third catcher. Second, Martinez has been really iffy with the glove. However, he's hit better than I thought he would (which isn't saying much).
The other thing is, I'm not sure I see a substantial difference yet between Martinez and Delgado, so I figured maybe they'd just have Wilson fill the Ramon role, perhaps better than Ramon.
And guess who's got that Number-Three Catcher role now.
"Who?" says Tim. "Last year, it was Alex Diaz, right? It was Guzman... but now?"
Well, according to at least one newspaper, Porky Lopez is working with... Ramon Martinez.
"I'll take .270-ish with surprising pop over a Diaz-clone at bat," Tim says. "And at least Martinez can fill in at three positions."
Oh, easily. I don't think he's a lost cause or anything, nor am I intending to color him as a bad fielder. He's just having a bad time right now.
"Again, though, can Delgado play third? Ramon is probably more versatile defensively, even if not as sure-handed as Delgado, and that certainly helps keep him up. I'd look for Ramon to be optioned to Fresno when Mueller is healthy. Not until."
We'll find out soon. Mueller's supposedly due back Monday.
"By the way, I just looked at Delgado's bio on the Giants website:
'How Obtained: Acquired from Seattle with LHP Shawn Estes in exchange for RHP Salomon Torres, May 20, 1995.'
"Let's see: Delgado and Estes for Salomon Torres.
"Kinda makes the Steve Reed trade look like only minor buffoonery. This from the organization (Seattle) which traded Jose Cruz Jr. for some spent relievers, $1.98 and a Kim Batiste trading card."
Hey, man, I treasure my Kim Batiste trading card.
"Which reminds me," Greg L. says, though I can't remember why, "Do I get a free EEEEEE! T-shirt for correctly nailing who would be sent down when Mark Gardner came back?"
Well, you get a free promise of a free EEEEEE! T-shirt.
"Problem is, there has to be an EEEEEE! T-shirt first," says Tim.
That is the problem, though I don't think the logo would be all that hard to create.
"Black shirt with orange lettering, or visa versa if you're a '70s Giants uniform fan," says Carlos. "It could have the name of a classic Giants Tweak on the front with an EEEEEE! on the back. You could get it made at a T-shirt shop. What kind of lettering should it be? Probably what is on Gregg's site, right?"
That's why it'd be easy. Boring, but easy. (I just use plain ol' Times -- the HTML default -- but alternating the black and orange... that's talent.) At one of the games we attended as a newsgroup last year, Steven Chan talked about doing a new logo in Adobe Photoshop: A picture of the seats in the upper deck, shaded to look as though appropriate seats were left down to form the letters.
I was thinking about putting the Tweaks' names -- good suggestion -- on the back, but there wouldn't be nearly enough room for all of them, even at four-point type.
"What if it was in Rick Reuschel's size?" says Greg.
Heck, you maybe could fit 'em all using 18-point type.
Also, we gotta have EEEEEE! on the front, so we can get picked up by the cameras. ("Look at those bozos!" says Mike Krukow.)
"There is an easier, cheaper way to get picked up by the cameras," says John G.: "Let's all put a big 'E' on our chests and doff our shirts. I'll bring a black marker. Besides we could all get to know each other better this way."
While this is certainly true, you probably wouldn't make this suggestion once we actually met....
"Yeah," says Tim. "I'm thinking he'll change the suggestion so that we each put 'EE' on our chests instead."
"I think I already know you plenty well enough, thank you," says Richard. (Stop shuddering, Richard. It's impolite.)
John says, "So you figure we're all too old and unattractive to play the role of zany fanatics in the outfield stands?"
"Well, I am, at least," Richard says.
If I were Woody, I'd say, "at most." But I won't do that, 'cause that'd be mean.
"Hey," says John, "I've seen fat old dudes bare-torsoed at games before on TV, like the Browns fans in the Dawg Pound, for instance. Since it's a day game, it won't be too cold. In fact, we could be turning Crazy Crab red. You gotta figure that people would wonder what the heck EEEEEE! is, anyway. Good pub for your site."
Well, this would be the main benefit. To me, anyway.
Richard offers the following Chronicle headline: "Overweight balding man with big 'E' on his chest causes fainting, dizzy spells amongst women, children, Giant players. Defense improves.'"
Let's be fair, now: The Chron seldom uses headlines that long. The longest I can remember is "Army Focuses on Second Base in Sex Probe."
"Maybe not the kind of publicity that would be best for the site."
Well, publicity is publicity, see. Look at Dennis Rodman -- I mean, everything written about him screams "What a yutz!," but he sobbing all the way to the bank.
"One unique Tweak per T-shirt would be nice because it individualizes our group frustration," says Carlos. "It would also set the tone for how each person pronounces their EEEEEE! I say this because I don't think a Julian Tavarez EEEEEE! would sound the same as an Alex Diaz EEEEEE! Everyone could pick their favorite tweak."
Well, when I said "EEEEEE!" at Charlie Hayes yesterday, it came out as sort of a growl. But in any case, I'm not sure "favorite tweak" is a concept that leaps readily to mind. Also, let's be honest, the whole public tweakitude concept isn't the kindest of ways to express oneself. (Not that that ought to stop us....)
"Cool," says Richard. "Instead of having Trading Card day, we can have Trading T-shirt day! I have dibs on Steve Frey. I plan on changing my car oil right after the game, and old Stevie would finally come in handy for something."
Good point. Alex Diaz could be used to kill minute vermin; Kim Batiste could be used as a burp rag; Vic Harris could wind up soaking up beer vomit at a frat house."
"I'd rather buy a black T and have a huge orange 'E' sewn on it," says Carlos.
I don't know. I'm thinking the statement could be at least as eloquent if you write an "E" on a plain ol' white T-shirt with a muddy black marker.
"I have actually done things like this more often than not. I already have a black T with a classy cursive orange 'Say Hey' sewn in the upper left corner of the shirt.
I still have my "GARVEY EATS IT" T-shirt. It fit better when I weighed 135.
"If I make it an orange T with a black 'E,' then at least from a distance, I'll still fit in with you bare-chested fellows."
Anybody remember a World Series years ago -- can't remember which one -- in which the camera captured this oldish guy with a big fat stogie? They show him nodding off, drooling onto his jacket, and waking up abruptly. They show this over and over. This would pretty much be my nightmare if we did the T-shirt thing....
"Hmmmm, we'd need a satellite feed so we can see when they are watching us. That way no one can capture me picking my nose."
Well, you never know -- maybe they'd nail you on the European feed or something.
"To do this right I say we need seven people, unless someone wants to wear an 'E' with an exclamation point. I'm actually willing to do this pro-bono, since I like spectacles and I like to spend money."
I prefer wearing contacts and having money.
"I say XL black T's with 10-inch italic orange 'E's.' At the end of the day we'll give these shirts (off our backs) to Gregg and he can be the 'keeper for EEEEEE! occasions.'"
I'm almost certain you're right about the XL part.
Ben H. offers his concept: "The EEEEEE! Jersey: "Maybe a Giants-logo-like logo spelling 'EEEEEE!' on the front, and the name of YOUR FAVORITE TWEAK (with his number) on the back. Okay, it would get a little pricey, but if you are only getting 30-odd shirts made."
That's not true. They'd all be odd.
I'm not sure whether Ben means the style of the current lettering or more like the "SF" logo (not that I could imagine how to do that.)
"I think Ben meant the same style of lettering as that which spells out 'Giants' on the front of the jersey," says John B. "In fact, I was just about to make the same suggestion. I mean, I would basically just recreate the Giants' official logo (sans the baseball), replacing 'GIANTS' with six good old 'E's'. [Don't forget the exclamation point. -- GP] The 'Giants font,' along with the black-and-orange color scheme, would clearly identify the shirt to other Giants fans as San Francisco Giants-related. Make sure to re-create that slight arc that the Giants logo has -- then it'll be perfect! (I have no idea who would >actually do all this, nor how much it would cost. But I'm perfectly >willing to give unsolicited and annoying advice.)"
(Such as, "You! In the stands! Lose weight!")
"This could be doable if the T-shirt people have the font," says Carlos. "If it is black with orange trim, then the cost of the lettering will go up. The curve should be doable by their T-shirt sewing software.
"I already know that for the 10-inch TV T-shirt it will cost a lot of money because they charge by the size and number of letters. It is going to take a massive amount of time to sew.
"But now you have given me a new idea. If I can get hold of that heavy felt that they use for old-timey collegiate letters, then I can make the big letters myself. As for sewing, that's what moms are for (I keep my slave labor practices within the family)."
"Ben and I were thinking the same thing [about Tweaks' names on the back]," John B. says. "I think I'd opt for Mike Laga, although Gino Minutelli, Hobie Landrith, Jim Duffalo, Alex Sanchez, and Tom Heintzelman are other faves I'd have a tough time passing up."
"Think of the response you would get from people who knew about these players and can't understand why you are wearing their name... until they see the 'EEEEEE!'" says Carlos.
"I get Mike Ivie," says Ben. "He's 'tweaked' enough, isn't he? If not, I want Metzger."
Man. Ben's rough.
"Roger or Butch?" says John B.
Well, I suspect we couldn't use Butch, out of some weird sense of imagined solidarity with the MLBPA -- since Butch ended up being a replacement player and all....
"I get dibs on Ramon," Carlos says. "Hmmm, maybe the back could be Ramon EEEEEE Martinez: that way I could make the shirt dual use, useful for both TV remote viewing and close-up billboard advertisements for Gregg's home page. Hmmmm, now I have to include the web address to make the advertisement complete. Gads." (Try http://zap.to/EEEEEE; let me know if you have no luck.)
"Oh, and I almost forgot to say that Ramon is only a borderline tweak. After a while, he may come into his own (as long as he doesn't play shortstop), so I could wear the T with the prideful knowledge that Earnest Ragging makes players better. I wonder who will want EEEEEE.T. Slow?"
"That's cheating," says Ben H. "You make that shirt, you will kill his career now. You want that on your conscience?"
Plus there's that key element of Earnest Ragging: Forethought kills it.
"You're right," says Carlos. "I'm just not good at tweaking players. I was simply making a word play off the 'E's' in their names for my own egotistical benefit."
Which is as good a cause as any.
Of course, for the last 10 years, I've been in the habit of Earnestly Ragging a Giants player, then realizing, like, one word before the end of the sentence, that I've been Earnestly Ragging him, which is tantamount to forethought... so I finish the sentence, albeit dejectedly, knowing I've failed to help the cause. Sigh.
I'll tell you something, though: I have the feeling that the power of the sheer amount of anger in the Giants newsgroup alone about the Joe Carter trade caused the Baseball Gods' cup to runneth over, Earnest Ragging-wise, and that our ire had a great long-term effect. I applaud us.
"How about anti-favorite tweak?" says Carlos.
Initially I read that as "favorite anti-tweak," which is another tough concept. I mean, how do you define it? Favorite good player? Least favorite bad player?
"Probably one's favorite player who didn't turn out to be bad. Billy Moo might qualify, since he's a no-tool scrapper who beat the system."
Good call. Rod Beck might have been another one -- one of these "Who is this clown?" people who turned out to be pretty damn good. For a while.
My favorite Tweak, however, might be Skip James, just because he kind of started the whole thing, back when Dave and my friend Pat and I would play "I'm Thinking of a Giants Tweak." James was the stumper. (By the way, it's Pat who really came up with the concept. He and I were waiting for a movie to start, circa 1982, and he said, "I'm thinking... of a tweak." I knew right away that this was meant to be a 20-questions game, but instead of asking one, I immediately said, "Phillip Carson," which made Pat go ape because that's exactly the obscure, nearly forgotten tweak from high school whom he had in mind. We called the game "Name That Tweak," and within a few years it mutated into "Name That Giants Tweak," which Pat, Dave, and I would play at ballgames. "Tweak" in particular is a Pat word. But you don't know Pat, so why am I telling you this? Huh? Answer me!)
"I don't think either Ramon or J.T. are 'allowable' Tweaks," says Ben. "Doesn't a Tweak have to be past tense? Ramon could still have a career, and J.T., as much as I ride him, is probably a tad too good to be real Tweak material."
I guess it's not necessarily a past-tense thing. Then again, when I did the first Giants Tweaks Song in late 1989, Pat Sheridan hadn't been canned yet. Also included was "John Bur-KETT," because we didn't know he'd ever actually come back and tell people how to pronounce his name. So while the song clearly murdered Sheridan's career, Burkett was able to fight the tide.
"Still, on all tweak matters I defer to Mr. Pearlman. In other words, if it's in the song, it's fair game."
See, this is how I feel. Dave, who pretty much co-developed the concept of the Giants Tweaks Hall of Fame, felt strongly that Steve Carlton shouldn't be on the list, even if he was a Tweak as a Giant, which certainly he was." (Also see "On the Way to Gooperstown.")
"I'll have to pick a good one from the official list," says Carlos.
That said, there is no official list. Dave and I never officially opened up the Giants Tweaks Hall of Fame. But the articles might help.
Seems to me that the Biggio maneuver is way less risky because McGwire hits lots of fly balls, but this Cubbie thing... well, we saw the main risk (which I think was brought on at least partly by Beck losing concentration, perhaps thinking too much about the new "alignment"), but in more reasonable terms, to get that shift to work, the batter, Mike Grudzielanek, absolutely had to hit the ball on the ground. And with the infield in, even with the extra guy behind second base, you still don't necessarily cut off the run. Plus, is Rod Beck really a ground ball pitcher? He gets some ground balls, but (perhaps because of 1991) I've always thought of him as a fly ball pitcher.
"I'd at least begin playing Rios against all righthanders," suggests Sean. "He has trouble hitting lefties, but this is the time to give him a shot."
"I agree," says Ben F. "Benard is in a major slump and Rios has gotten a hit in every game he has started, and driven in runs in three of those five games. Defensively Rios is better than Benard so we lose nothing there. Benard's .305 OBP is horrible for a leadoff man. In fact it is horrible for any spot in the order. There is no reason why Rios should not get his shot now."
"Benard seems to be a real streaky hitter," says Dave F. "He surrounds lengthy periods of mediocrity or worse with spurts of playing quite well. Dusty loves to play the hot hand. He's no center fielder, and he's no leadoff hitter, so sooner or later he'll be where he belongs: as the fourth or fifth outfielder.
"You can console yourself with the though that he's better than Otis Nixon. How Otis gets a starting job year after year remains a mystery. I guess those stolen bases and reasonable (not great) batting average fool teams each year."
I'm willing to bet that Dusty Baker and the rest of the on-field brain trust know perfectly well that what Dave said is true -- i.e., that Benard is neither a center fielder nor a leadoff hitter -- but they're trying to "hope" him into one.
Ethan says, "Mueller lacks the necessary speed to lead off, in my opinion.
Ben H. replies, "Someone needs to explain to me again 'the need for speed' in the leadoff spot. I mean, 'ye olde play for one-run innings' kinda went out of style, oh, 25 years ago. Ditto the stupid-ass hit-and-running with the number-two guys. With your power hitters coming up 3-4-5, all you need is guys with average speed in the top two positions who are on base when they hit their doubles and homers. Obviously the 'average' speed is so that they can score from first on a double."
I'm pretty sure I agree with most of this, though I'd amend that last part to include "and second on a single."
However, I do see the benefit in having a real solid base-stealer at the top of the lineup, especially if he's the kind of guy about whom no one says, "You can't steal first." Guys like this -- Rickey Henderson, say -- are disruptive and distracting, and over the years I've often wished the Giants could have a guy like that, especially after watching it happen to them a whole bunch of times.
Man, a high-OBP base-stealer and an opposing head case on the mound... recipe for first-inning success.
"Put speed at the bottom of the order, where your chintzy singles hitters can get the occasional RBI after a stolen base. My lineup:
Mueller"With no Bonds, move Burks up to third, Snow fifth, and bat Javier or Benard seventh or eighth.
Aurilia
Bonds
Kent
Burks
Snow vs. right/Hayes vs. left
Rios
Mayne vs. right/Servais vs. left
Here's where speed in your top spots makes a difference, too: double plays. With this lineup, I think you'll have an unusually high proportion of "Bonds batting with two outs" situations. Assuming he ever returns, that is.
"At this point, I have to say that, as feared, Benard has played himself out of center field. He's really just doing nothing well, other than maybe stealing bases at a reasonable clip. I guess he could just be mired in a 130-plate-appearance slump, but considering he's hitting exactly what you'd expect... assuming 1998 was a fluke...."
I'm prepared to give him more time, because if I remember right, he took a while to get on track last year. Granted, he didn't get anything like the playing time he's getting now, but it's possible he's not a cold-weather hitter or something. On the other hand, Ben's not wrong.
at Arizona: 0-1Make that 13-11 after last night (and after tonight's game, which starts in 10 minutes, who knows?).vs. Florida: 2-1 vs. Colorado: 3-1 at Montreal: 3-0 at New York: 0-3 at Pittsburgh: 1-2 vs. Milwaukee: 2-1 vs. Atlanta: 2-1 Total: 13-10.
"Of course, the problem is that it breaks down to 2-4 against good teams and 11-6 against teams that stink," says Jonathan. "On the other hand, we got through the Braves series, and Mueller is coming back, and most of everything is looking not too bad this week.
"I've been thinking all along that the goal is to be fairly close to the Dodgers and Mets by the time Bonds is back, and we're a lot closer to that goal now than 25 games ago."
"God knows how many errors and unearned runs we'd have if J.T. weren't at first during our defensive nosedive," says Ethan.
"I don't get it," says Jonathan. "Anyone else hits .200 in April and they're a bum; J.T. does it, and everyone gives him a pass. Anyone else lets a couple dozen throws skip past him and they're a bum; J.T. does it, and just imagine how many more balls would have skipped past everyone else.
"What's the charm?"
"Chicks dig the long ball"? Wait. Never mind.
"Maybe it's an X-Files thing," says Carlos. "I was getting sick of him too, but now he's doing okay and someone said that he still had a great OBP at .200. When he's okay at the plate, I think he solidifies the infield. Aurilia's errorless streak in 1998 ended the day Snow went on the DL, so I think he makes a difference. I wish I could prove it." By the way, a recent Bruce Jenkins column in the Chronicle -- I can't believe it took this long -- was about how the Giants don't need Bonds, that they're "exactly the same team" without him. (That's a tadlet out of context; he's saying they're the same in the sense of being "gritty.")
"I tried real hard to hate that column, but there really weren't too many things in it that were all that bad," Jonathan says.
No. It was kind of subtle, even. There was a strange bit, though, where essentially he said that Mueller would make a difference. Given the overall theme that Bonds won't make a difference....
"On the other hand, if the Dodgers and Giants swapped rosters today, tomorrow's papers would be full of how now the Dodgers had too much talent to lose, while the Giants would need plenty of grit to make up for their third-class team."
We're Giants fans. We can't win.
Some are concerned about what kind of shape Bonds will be in when he returns, but he seems pretty nutty about staying in shape, so I'm not worried about that. Timing will no doubt be a big issue, but I can't imagine Bonds would take long to regain it -- at least no longer than a typical Bondsian slump, which usually isn't that long.
"Reportedly, Barry lost a few rehab days when he got sick, but a doctor said his triceps muscle looked good," says Sean.
Well, let's hope so, anyway.
Last night, as I got in the car to go home from work, I thought, "I really want to hear Ted Robinson, while giving the lineups, tell us that Bill Mueller will indeed be back after the weekend, and that Bonds'll be back sooner than expected." So he didmention that about Mueller, but gave the lineups as follows: "Leading off for the Giants today is Marvin Benard. He'll be in center field. In left field today and batting second is Armando Rios. Batting third and in right field is Barry Bonds."
I said "What?" out loud. I actually had that momentary thought that maybe my wish had come true, for, like, the first time ever with regard to the Giants, but then I realized he said right field, and I had this nanosecond thought of, "Are you kidding? He just had his elbow operated on." Then I laughed, realizing that Robinson had made a mistake -- almost certainly not because he was used to saying Bonds' name in the third slot of the lineup, but because he had Bonds on his mind for some reason. A minute later, he said that Bonds had soft-tossed in the outfield that day and that though he'd still be out quite a while, his recovery was still on course. Oh, and Ted never corrected his mistake with the lineup.
"Damn," says Ben H. "Not to give a sucker an even break or anything, but the guy pitches pretty well for someone with pneumonia. Of course, one could make the analogy of 'lungs' as 'muscles that suck' -- then you find out that he had a bad infection of the sucking apparatus. Hee. Sometimes I just kill myself!"
I've had pneumonia -- twice. It sucks huge green donkey laps. It takes a long time to recover from -- although, granted, I'm not a professional athlete who's in good shape, so maybe it was just me, but I still -- 20 years later -- have some minor, lasting effects from the first time I got it. It's more than just a cold, believe me.
Some of the Giants newsgroup members are hoping that Tavarez will be dealt when he returns from the DL, My point is that if I were another team's GM, I'd be awfully leery about any offer involving Tavarez. Well, I would anyway, but especially after a bout with pneumonia.
Another recent Bruce Jenkins column yesterday briefly mentioned the rumor about new uniforms, and he expressed the hope that they stay black and orange. Till then, the thought never once occurred to me that they might change their colors.
I got these horrid visions, too, like adding red, green, gold, navy, and teal in honor of the Bay Area's other teams. Or color combos like purple 'n' green, puce 'n' loam, liver 'n' pancreas, breaking 'n' entering.... If the Giants try, they can screw up their uniforms, and screw them up but good.
I think they're gonna be smart, though -- Earnest Praising alert -- and keep the black and orange, but maybe they'll give their uniforms a more contemporary turn-of-the-century style. (I'm guessing they'll use Arena Football as their model....)
"Change is good sometimes," says Harry -- Sure. It's good that the Giants chose to change from being a team with an Alex Diaz to being a team with no Alex Diaz. -- "In the 49ers' case. Bring back the old red and white!"
"If the Giants do change their colors, then they are bastards," says Carlos. "Peter Magowan had better put a stop to this. Jolly GREEN Giant. Ugghh. It's so sad when they mess things up.
"With that said, I wouldn't mind one commemorative season of doing something different: using 'Seals' lettering to spell 'Giants,' or maybe using old 'Red Sox'-style lettering that the old New York Giants used for some seasons. I don't mind if they try to generate money off of the new season/park thing. Heck, they could have 'old-style unis' every weekend and gimmicks like that, maybe celebrating a decade of Giants history at a time. But after that first season, take a lesson from their UFO Coke sponsor and return to the 'classic.'
"Oooooooh, how about 'SF' on their shirt sleeves like the old Giant teams had NY on the sleeves? Or how about some all black outfits (for night only, to avoid daytime overheating) like the McGraw World Series teams wore?"
For what it's worth, in today's Chron, Jenkins wrote that there's nothing to worry about, that there would indeed be a change, but "picture Willie Mays in the '60s."
"Then he's a moron," says Daniel P. "First off, the team has to win 100 games. Second, the team has to win them with the pitcher... the same pitcher, in a save opportunity. That pitcher would basically be out there two out of every three days."
At least.
Here's how I could see it happening, and even this is pretty remote: An appallingly great money-built juggernaut -- one, say, fielding the de facto All-Star team for a given league -- with a lineup like Craig Biggio, Alex Rodriguez, Ken Griffey, Mark McGwire, Barry Bonds, Mike Piazza, Sammy Sosa, and Scott Rolen, and a rotation like Greg Maddux, Roger Clemens, Pedro Martinez, Tom Glavine, and John Smoltz, with an utterly unhittable closer. Okay, now that I think about it, the team would need to have a good offense but not a great one; they'd need to be able to hold opposing hitters off, while entering the ninth with three-run leads every day.
In other words, Krueger's out of his tree (which we knew anyway, right), unless he's heard that the major leagues plan to expand their schedule to 250 games per team per year.
"What's the highest number of saves than an entire team has racked up?" Daniel says.
Fine question. I bet not much more than 60. If I remember right, Greg Minton and Gary Lavelle saved 50 between them in 1982. Bobby Thigpen saved, what, 57? In 1990? I'm guessing there weren't more than five saves distributed among the rest of the team.
Speaking of Minton, Ethan says, "My fondest Moon Man memory was in an extra-inning night game at the Stick (as it was called back then). Giants-Dodgers, 16 innings, and Minton had gotten on base ahead of Hac Man. Leonard lines one into the outfield, and our chilly marathon ended with the Moon Man bellyflopping across the plate."
Almost. Brenly got the hit, and it was a 1 p.m. start, on Fan Appreciation Day, that happened to end at night.
"Hmm," Ethan says. "Was Leonard the runner behind Minton on the bases then? I know he was there somewhere, and I remember being rather upset that just because we had just scored the winning run, the next guy couldn't score too. (I was six or seven at the time... what year was that?)"
1986.
What I don't remember was whether Minton doubled and Brenly singled, or Minton singled and Brenly doubled.
"Thanks to my handy Giants Diary, I can confirm it was Minton double, Brenly single," says Richard.
Attaman.
I do this at least half a dozen times a year, but that game was memorable for a bunch of reasons, including:
Amazing game.
Sarah's J.T. Snow page is also highlighted, as are the Virtual Lounge and Jaybird's new Giants page that I know he's been working on for a long time, plus a few others I hadn't seen before. Forgive me for not adding your links here -- I'm not online, and I can't access my bookmarks file right now. And for those of you who are wondering why I haven't added your links to my site, please understand that I've merely forgotten. Feel free to remind me.
"As for those who have made me scream 'EEEEEE!' at the television: Estes -- what more is there to say? And he's on my fantasy league team! Ahahhhhhh! He's wreaking havoc in two areas of my life.
"They always torture me.
"Good stuff on here. Keep on doing the good work!"
I love praise.
Copyright ©1999 by Gregg Pearlman
Last updated 5/17/99 Gregg Pearlman, gregg@EEEEEEgp.com