EEEEEE! Contributing Editor David Beck said, "Why don't you write about why the Giants are in first place?" Simple request. Simple answers? Not really. But I'll try.

Before we talk about what the Giants are doing in first place, let's first take "It's July" -- which, incidentally, is the title of the July installments, and I'm doing this because I want to maintain some perspective. We've played 98 games. Our current record is 55-43 (51-36 at the All-Star Break, mind you, and 39-38 since our 16-5 start). The Giants have already won about as many I expected them to win for the whole season, and clearly I was wrong about that (and delighted to admit it). We're sitting atop the National League West by three games. With 64 to go. Our magic number is 62. It's July.

But that works both ways. At the break, the Giants had a six-game lead on the Dodgers, who had just started putting it together at the same time the Rockies decided to drop like a stone. Now the Dodgers are three games out. And to those who say -- almost literally -- "Watch out, battery-chuckers! Our Dodgers are gonna crawl all over your ass! We're gonna be in first place soon! Hahahahahahahahahahaha!" I say, "Look, it's July." Well, right now, the Dodgers are 52-46, three games out, and kicking butt in the National League. Near as I can tell, the only feasible explanation for this is: They're the Dodgers, and this is what the Dodgers do. Not to take anything away from them: they've played very well; they're a better team, in my opinion, than any of their NL West competition. You should never rule out the Dodgers.

In fact, that is pretty much a dictum among Giants fans: Never Rule Out the Dodgers. It's as simple, true, and important as:

• Look both ways before crossing the street.
• Wash your hands after you go to the bathroom.
• If you're playing blackjack and are dealt a pair of kings, don't hit.
• Don't stick your hand in an open flame.
• If you're a pitcher, you won't get a green light on a 3-0 count.
• To quote Tom Lehrer: Be sweet and kind to Mother, now and then have a chat. Buy her candy or some flowers or a brand new hat. But maybe you had better let it go at that.

There. Simple rules to live by -- among which is, Never Rule Out the Dodgers. Never. Even when they're mathematically eliminated, as those of us who haven't blocked 1993 from our minds remember. It doesn't matter if the uniformed personnel consists entirely of three -year-olds, ferrets, and hydrangeas: Don't count 'em out. The role of the Dodgers is to make Giants fans miserable. And they do their job so well.

Dave informs me that if the Dodgers win the division, evidently they will have come back from their largest deficit in club history. My gut reaction was, "No way!" But Dave said, "How often are the Dodgers that far out of first?" Oh, yeah. Forgot.

Now, Dave and I expect the Giants to be well out of first place by the end of the next homestand. Sure, this is standard Giants Fan Pessimism, but bear in mind where that comes from: We've been burned so many times before. It's hard to be particularly optimistic. It's hard not to be in a mode of waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Not only that, but let's look at the team we're talking about here, and, indeed, let's examine Dave's question: Why are the Giants in first place?

Damn, I dunno. There are a bunch of factors, certainly. I'm certain many more could be brought to my attention than these:

• The rest of the division, except for the Dodgers lately, haven't played particularly well. The Giants, until recently, hadn't had much to do with that, as they played most of the bulk of their games against West clubs from late June to mid-July (and by "West" I'm also talking about AL West clubs, which don't count, really).

• New players are playing more or less up to (and in some cases better than) the expectations of the top people of the San Francisco Giants. Who would've thought it?

• The Giants have gotten massively great stretches from Julian Tavarez, Doug Henry, Rich Rodriguez, and Rod Beck. Shawn Estes (despite a couple of miserable post-break losses, not to mention the one during the break) and Mark Gardner have been way better than reasonable expectations.

• Generally, in victories, the Giants have played exactly as well as they've needed to; in losses, they've been hammered, but in the standings, a 5-3 loss is no better or worse than a 19-3 loss.
• Chemistry. In the newsgroups, the debate rages, as debates always do, about team chemistry -- whether it's a legitimate effect or a bunch of nonsense. I believe that a pleasant work atmosphere is, or at least can be, conducive to better production; but more than that, I believe that a rotten work atmosphere screws everything up.

  It looks as though the Giants have a pleasant work atmosphere this year and didn't last year. Maybe the guys we sent packing -- Robby Thompson and Matt Williams in particular -- contributed to that. We'll never know.

• Luck. This one has been talked about a lot. It doesn't mean, necessarily, that the Giants are winning their games on pure luck. But one thing you could easily point to is the whole "Pythagorean Theorem," which tells us that wins and losses are directly proportionate to the squares of runs scored and runs allowed. That is, dividing the square of runs scored by the sum of the square of runs scored and the square of runs allowed will yield a number that normally will be pretty close to your actual won-lost percentage. Well, at the moment, the Giants' won-lost percentage is .561, but they're Pythagorean won-lost projection is somewhat less than .500. To say that the Giants are playing "above their projection" is to say that they're "winning more games than they should." That's pretty lucky -- which is something not often said about the Giants.

Let's look at this team, position by position:

• First Base: J.T. Snow is hitting around .300, with 13 homers and about 50 RBIs, plus about 25 doubles. I think he's also still in the top 10 in walks in the National League. This far exceeds my expectations for him, and the same could probably be said for many, such as those involved in Baseball Prospectus, who deal knowledgeably in statistical projections.

  While I'm certainly pleased with Snow's performance -- that is, pleased that it's not nearly as bad as I expected, though still wishing it were quite a bit better -- it should be said that before the first interleague series in Arlington, Snow'd been having a rotten season, except that he'd been drawing an alarming number of walks and chiming in with more doubles than you'd've thought. Then suddenly he started hitting home runs and driving in runs. He's been hot -- or at least hottish -- for about five weeks now, and, in somewhat typical fashion (for me), I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop.

  The Giants broadcasters have gotten across the idea that Snow's slow start was due to (a) learning a new league, and (b) the recovery from the preseason beaning, which extended Jate's spring training into the season. This could all be true, but I tend to think the guy's just streaky -- and I've heard as much from some Angels fans. (Granted, near as I can tell, most major league hitters are streaky, but Snow evidently falls into the extreme range.)

  I am quite impressed with his defense -- that is, the grace he shows on defense; he's flashy as hell, and fun to watch. Reliable sources (such as Jonathan, for instance) say that he doesn't really get to that many batted balls, and often a lack of range makes for spectacular plays on balls that might be considered "semi-tough" for better fielders. Snow has made a couple of stupid physical errors, but on the whole, I'm not really down on his defense. For instance, he seems great at handling low throws, which shouldn't be taken lightly at all. (Bear in mind that last year's first baseman, pretty much, was Mark Carreon, who played first like a tap-dancing polar bear.)

  How satisfied am I with Snow so far? On a scale of 0 to 10, with 10 being "Thank you, Brian! Serve me up some crow!" and 0 being "He's Kim Batiste; pleasemake him go away," I'd give Jate about a 6 -- which is a hell of a lot better than I'd have guessed.

  Other first basemen this year have been Jeff Kent and Stan Javier. Kent hasn't played there enough for me to form an opinion, except to say that offensively, I don't believe he'd come close to cutting it as a full-time first baseman. Ditto Javier, who showed yesterday that he might not cut it defensively, either.

• Second Base: Duane Kuiper suggested yesterday that Jeff Kent was sacrificing some batting average in favor of production, and he may have a point. Kent's hitting below .250, which I'm not crazy about, but it doesn't bug me that much. It'd bug me less if the guy would draw a walk or two, though. The man's hit three grand slams this year, which is impressive, but I get a sense now that whenever he hits with the bases loaded, he's pressing a bit too much because now he's expected to hit grand slams. I know I expect it.

  Kent recently surpassed Robby Thompson's team marks for home runs and RBIs by a second baseman, and while I was pleased for Kent, I was a bit sad. Thompson should've been better. I just wish he'd been healthier, because he'll always be one of my favorites.

  Lately, what Kent seems to do is stop hitting for about three games, go 3-for-5, be pronounced "out of the slump" by Mike Krukow, then stop hitting for another three games or so. Plus, he's had the strikeout bug recently, and I don't trust him in a clutch situation. He swings hard, though, and hits lots of balls hard.

  He's got about 300 RBIs, about 285 of which came before June.

  On defense, he seems to struggle. He doesn't seem to get to a lot of balls -- which, if it is true that Snow doesn't either, would rather account for a whole bunch of base hits to right field. (Jose Vizcaino doesn't have great range either, so there's lots of balls that go up the middle. And with Mark Lewis at third, why, there's lots of base hits to left field, too. Krukow has crowed a lot this year about the defense, and I'm not sure why.)

  What bothers me most about Kent is that he's hit third or fourth for most of the year -- I think he's a number-six hitter. Well, to be more accurate, it's not that this bothers me about Kent: it bothers me about the Giants. The only legitimate three-, four-, or five-hitter on this team is Bonds. I think that under the circumstances, though, Kent has done remarkably well. I'd give him an 8.

  If I recall correctly, the only other second basemen this year have been Lewis, Vizcaino, and maybe Rich Aurilia once. When the latter two are in the lineup at the same time, Vizzer moves over. I don't know if that's because Aurilia's obviously the better shortstop or because Vizcaino is perceived as the better second baseman. I have the feeling Aurilia is better at both positions than Vizcaino, and I'm not sure which of the two should move over to second.

  Lewis has made some good plays at second, but he's done so at third, too -- more on him later.

• Shortstop: Jose Vizcaino's been hitting lately, and his average is at about .275, which is maybe 15 points less than recent performance. However, he's playing at Candlestick now, so .275 is about what we should expect rather than the .290-something we'd been told he should hit. He has no pop to speak of, and he's not a "pesky enough" hitter. I don't like him batting second at all; eighth would be about right.

  His main role is on defense, and he does not excel there. He seems prone to erratic streaks, and he just doesn't have much range. In this way, he kind of reminds me of Jose Uribe, who was a bit flashier, which isn't saying much. On the whole, I'd give Vizcaino maybe a 5.

  The other shortstop, Rich Aurilia, just got sent to Phoenix, a victim of the numbers game. I'd rather he'd been the starter this year, but that's just me (and some others). Aurilia has more pop in his bat, though he's probably more strikeout prone. In the field, he's just plain better than Vizcaino. Problem is, he's had so little playing time that it's hard to evaluate him fairly. But since I like what I've seen, I'll give him a 7.

  With Aurilia gone, the backup shortstop appears to be either Lewis or Bill Mueller. If it's Lewis, we might as well forfeit whatever game he plays short in. I'd trust Mueller way more.

  Wilson Delgado started the season with the team, but only because Lewis was hurt. Call him a 4, because I feel I have to say something.

• Third Base: Bill Mueller hasn't hit nearly as well as I expected. He just spent two weeks on the disabled list with a broken finger, meaning that we endured Lewis for two solid weeks, but aside from that, he's struck out way too much -- which isn't necessarily a lot, just more than we'd come to expect last year, before the league had begun to figure him out. He doesn't have much power, though he's hit three homers this year, including one in his second game back from the DL. He also isn't particularly fast, which makes him kind of like Pete Rose Lite.

  What's disturbed me most about Mueller is that he hasn't been very aggressive at the plate. It seems as though he takes way more 3-2 pitches taken down the middle than are strictly necessary. I do think, though, that he'd profit from being in the number-two hole for a while, where he thrived last year.

  I've been very pleased with his defense. His arm, which was previously branded as weak, has been more than adequate, and he's about as slick on his side of the field as Snow is on his. Mueller earns a 6 from me.

  Mark Lewis has shown some pop and overall decent hitting ability, and I think he could be a valuable bench player, but he's a brutal third baseman. Don't get me wrong: he's made some excellent plays. But so has Glenallen Hill. Lewis has made a bunch of errors, including mental ones. I just don't think he should be playing third. The broadcasters were talking recently about how he uses a tiny glove and Dusty et al. have been bugging him to try a bigger one. Well, I would think he'd sense that his defensive performance might suggest that he should try something different.

  When Kim Batiste played third (or short, for that matter) last year, literally every time a ball came his way, I expected him to screw it up. The same isn't true for Lewis, but one day it might be. I'd give him a 4.

• Left Field: Barry Bonds has gotten a lot of press because of his subpar year. I'm not here to dispute that. He went on a home-run jag a few weeks ago, and since then, he'll hit two or three in two or three games, then cool off for a week or so. Early in the year, his relative lack of production was blamed on the fact that he walked all the time and that no one would give him anything to hit. But you know something? Lately, he's getting plenty to hit, and he's not hitting it. The league is starting to take a wise approach, which seems to be (a) to give him something to hit in situations where he's not expecting to get it, or (b) simply challenging the hell out of him, psyching him out, putting that doubt in his mind (I'm probably reading more into this part than is true) that people don't think he's so tough anymore. (I also think he's starting to listen to people like Brian Sabean who think walks aren't such a hot idea -- in fact, there was a recent quote from Bonds saying that he's swinging at more pitches outside the strike zone.) I think you could say that this is simply not Bonds' year. But, as media-types used to say about Will Clark in his not-so-special years here, "Most guys would kill to put up the numbers Bonds is putting up this year."

  Remember Jeff Kent's 300 RBIs? Especially in April and May, the guy he was driving in was Bonds. (And some media people don't seem to make the connection between Kent's RBI and Bonds' runs-scored numbers.) Hamilton and Vizcaino didn't reach base a whole lot -- hence Bonds' relatively low RBI total, which he's added to quite a bit lately.

  Bonds' main drawback this year -- and it's a big one -- is that he's done a miserable job, especially lately, with men in scoring position -- something like a .220 average. His home runs are generally solo shots. Lately he's had lots of chances to come up big in crucial situations, including the first two games in the current series in St. Louis, but he hasn't done the job. On defense, I have no complaints about Bonds. Never have. The dude positions himself like no left fielder before him, and he gets to batted balls very quickly, doesn't make stupid throws, and prevents lots of doubles. Overall, Barry gets a 7 -- it'd be a 10 if he were anybody but Barry Bonds.

  Marvin Benard, like Aurilia, had a stint in Phoenix through no fault of his own, but, rather, because he had some options left, and somebody had to go. And when he did go, the Giants soon discovered that one extra outfielder simply isn't enough, especially if that one outfielder is Glenallen Hill.

  Benard's 9-for-27 as a pinch-hitter, which is pretty damn fine. Otherwise, he's probably hitting below .200, and all with no particular power. He strikes out a lot. Stole some bases last year, but this year he doesn't play enough, or reach base enough, to do much stealing. On defense, well, I can't really tell if he's improved any this year. Last year he seemed to have trouble figuring out how best to get to fly balls -- taking bad routes, as Krukow would say. This year I'd give him about a 6. There's talk in the newsgroup that maybe we should just send him down and give Jacob Cruz a chance, and I'm leaning in that direction, too.

• Center Field: Darryl Hamilton has started to string some hits together lately and is hitting right around .300. His on-base percentage is about .375, which is better than I expected, but still not good enough. He doesn't walk much, and for someone who says he's "about speed," his stolen base numbers are horrific -- he's got eight (the last five within the last month or so), with (I think) less than 50 percent success. Also, his bunting is nothing to brag about.

  At bat, he pretty much zeroes in on the left-field line, a la Brett Butler, but he's not as good as Butler (even now). Like Vizcaino, Hamilton's not a "pesky enough" hitter.

  He seems to be a pretty good center fielder. I'm not getting a feel for his range, though -- whether it's better or worse than we've become used to. Typical of Giants center fielders over the last several years, he ain't gonna throw out anybody on the basepaths. Runner on third, line drive to short center, Hamilton catches it on the run: sacrifice fly. Runner on second? Tags and goes to third. (Overall, the Giants don't have an outfield arm that scares anybody.) I'd give Hamilton a 5.

  When Hamilton was on the shelf, a lot of playing time went to Dante Powell. Even though I had said that I would rather they had given him the center field job than paid a few million for Hamilton, my main impression of Powell was: green. (Ever try to eat a green banana? First, it's really hard to peel -- way too much work. It's damper and slimier than you'd expect, Then the banana itself doesn't taste particularly good, and it leaves that gritty feeling in your mouth -- well, my mouth, anyway; I haven't felt yours. The upside is that it's fruit, and fruit is good for you, or something.) Powell started pretty slowly but did a little hitting later. I'm thinking 6 -- though I'm rather disappointed that no one has talked about him in a while, including the dudes who compiled the PCL All-Star teams.

• Right Field: Let's start with Glenallen Hill: he may be a terrific guy, but I don't like him. Never have. I've always felt that with his apparent strength and natural talent, he should be a monster -- but he ain't gonna be. Zero strike-zone judgment; propensity to swing at the first pitch, no matter where it is; not a lot of speed anymore -- but then again, he reaches base so seldom that he might not have a chance to display it.

  On defense, well, what can I say that I haven't said already, over the months? He's horrific -- the kind of player Dusty Baker feels compelled to defend by saying, "He tries." Around the time he was ripping Dusty for not playing him, he and others were pointing out that Bobby Bonds is the only San Francisco Giants right fielder ever to win a Gold Glove and that Candlestick has the toughest right field in baseball history. But note that no one felt compelled to say this when Jack Clark, Candy Maldonado, and Willie McGee were patrolling out there. The whole intent of bringing up the elder Bonds is to excuse Hill's play, but it's inexcusable.

  The funniest thing about Hill, unless you're a non-Giants fan and get to watch him play defense, is his "defense" in the papers, where he has said, "I'm the starting right fielder," and "How can people judge me as a right fielder based on a few errors?" "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt" has been the general response to this. (In fact, before yesterday's game against the Cardinals, KTVU showed a montage of defensive highlights; Hill was in four, Bonds was in two. I think someone's trying to say, "See? See?" But I digress.) An ideal situation for Hill might be an American League platoon-DH setup. He cannot cut it as an everyday right fielder in the major leagues; he simply isn't good enough. He rates a 3. If the Giants can trade him, I wish they would.

  The good news is that for the moment, he appears to have lost his job as the right fielder. He hardly even pinch-hits. I'm hoping Dusty et al. have gotten the clue that they don't need this type of player -- they need someone far better. (Even though his defense is about as bad, I'd certainly take Gary Sheffield, if anyone asks.)

  The bad news is that he lost his job to Stan Javier. Not that I think Javier's a bad player; I don't. He's just not someone you're "stud right fielder" should be losing his job to. Like J.T. Snow, Javier really started to pick things up when the Giants hit Arlington -- started hitting home runs, driving in runs, doing all the positive things Hill was supposed to do. He's cooled off over the last two weeks or so, but right now he's still the best option in right. His three-run homer in the ninth today against St. Louis somewhat solidifies that.

  He's a fine defensive outfielder, and with him in right, you don't hear talk about the dearth of Gold-Glove right fielders on the Giants. (Not that I think Stan would win one.) To me, Javier's about a 7.

• Catcher: Talk about your weak links. Could I have been more wrong about Rick Wilkins? Could the Giants? It really bothers me, because I was really hoping his performance with the Giants last season wasn't a fluke. He's still under .200, but without particular power, and it's not as though he's walking up the wazoo. What he's done all season up the wazoo is strike out. He seems to have lost his confidence. (One of the worst moments this season was the feeling of inevitability when Dusty sent him up against Todd Worrell of the Dodgers in the bottom of the ninth with the bases loaded and two outs in a tie game. It was clear that Wilkins would strike out -- never any question. Wilkins had been bombarded by lack-of-confidence rays from the fans in the stands and at home, which I guess makes this our fault. For the record, this was the Marcus Jensen game I'll mention below.)

  His offense has suffered, and his defense has suffered nearly as much. If he plays twice a week, he seems good for at least one rotten throw to second base. I give him a 3, but only because I hold out hope that he'll turn it around.

  The starting catcher these days is Damon Berryhill, which tells you how awful things are behind the plate for the Giants. Berryhill had hit for a fairly high average (though pop-free) until the break, but now he's in a horrific slump of Wilkinsesque proportions. He hasn't shown me much on defense, either. I'd say 5.

  Marcus Jensen, recently traded to Detroit, was wretched. His stance made him look entirely ineffectual from both sides of the plate (that's left and right, not top and bottom), but not as much as his actual hitting made him look ineffectual. To call him "overmatched" is to overrate him severely. This was clearly a case of keeping a man on the major league club because you think he'll be a good one up the line, but he's out of options, and you'd lose him on waivers if you tried to send him down -- which you know he needs.

  Defensively, well, what's fresh in my mind is that one unbelievable inning against the Dodgers -- passed ball, failure to throw out the speed-burning Todd Zeile stealing, and dropped throw from Barry Bonds -- but on the whole, to me, he didn't live up to the defensive hype I'd been hearing, especially about his arm. Since he's gone, clearly he's a 0, but if I'd done this position-by-position list a week ago, he'd have been a 2. He ain't the Kim Batiste of catchers, but he's in the next Giants Tweaks song, that's for damn sure.

  The guy we got for him is Brian Johnson, who's played in two games for the Giants. He got the start today and had a couple of big hits, plus he seemed to work very well with Kirk Rueter. He was talked up a lot during the game, given lots of credit for getting Andy Benes to pitch inside when both were with the Padres. But right now, having seen so little of him to date, I'd rate him as a lambda.

• Starting Pitchers: What we feared with Shawn Estes came to pass: that he'd go to Cleveland, be roughed up in the All-Star Game, and pitch poorly afterwards. (To be fair, he's only had two post-break starts). Visions of Atlee Hammaker dance through our heads. However, I really don't have quite the same fear I did with Atlee. I mean, we knew Atlee was a bit, well, off-center, and even during his horrific All-Star outing, my heart sank because I was convinced that it would affect Atlee negatively, and possibly in the long run. Jonathan maintains -- probably rightly so -- that Hammaker's career took a sharp downturn, and stayed down, due to injuries, not the All-Star Game, but still....

  I just don't think Estes is this fragile. I do recall hearing about a "twinge" during BP before his first post-break start, and that worries me; so does his admission that he doesn't have the command of his pitches that he had before the break. However, this stuff happens; I think it's possible that he's not far from righting the ship. This guy wasn't 12-2 because of fabulous run support, that's for sure. He's thrown a couple of two-hit shutouts and some other damn fine games, though he does throw more pitches than you might like to see. Either way, I'd give him the team's only 10.

  Mark Gardner has defied my best guesses. I figured he was pretty much a Mark Leiter clone, but even in their youth, Gardner was a way better pitcher. He's got nasty stuff, and when he's on, even Estes isn't quite as good. However, he also can put together a few bad outings. I think he's an 8.

  Kirk Rueter was going great for the first six weeks or so. Then in the game against Chicago, when the Giants hit into a triple play, Rueter threw (I believe) seven shutout innings. I wondered why Dusty removed him, but little did I know that he'd thrown about 135 pitches. Must've been a lot of foul balls, because Cubs didn't get many hits or walk much that day. But after that game, Rueter went into the tank for about three or four weeks, and I'm not convinced he's not completely out of it. Still, I kind of trust him, and would give him a 6.

  Osvaldo Fernandez started out looking just lovely, too. Now he's out for the rest of the year with an elbow problem (which may be the result of being 30 years older than he says). He's a 3.

  William VanLandingham -- what the hell has happened to this guy? Last year it was "Boom! Boom! Boom!" This year it's "Takeyerbase. Takeyerbase. Takeyerbase." He's in Phoenix now -- 2.

  Keith Foulke looked great in that one start against the Dodgers, but not so hot in any other appearance. Still, I think he's got something -- 5. (Yes, I know, that's a really hard-hitting analysis....)

  Doug Creek is someone I don't trust, period. I'm glad he did so well against the A's, but his control is too scary to put much stock in the guy. I'd say 2.

  Pat Rapp just came over from Florida, where we let him go in the expansion draft, preferring to keep Mike Benjamin. Rapp started yesterday, struck out lots of Cardinals, threw lots of pitches, and left in the sixth with the bases loaded and no outs. I kind of like him, though, but such a small sample leads me to say that he rates a 5 until further notice. Plus, he hurt his rib on a check-swing yesterday, so who knows when he'll actually pitch again?

• Bullpen: Rod Beck has been pretty scary at times, but his save-conversion rate has been outstanding: 30 of 33. The blown saves have hurt, of course, but I don't hold them against him (especially the one against Seattle, where the best righthanded hitter in the league got him with a hard single -- and the Giants still won). What I like is that he finally seems to have accepted the fact that he doesn't throw as hard as he did in 1993. He seems to be pitching a lot smarter than in the last three years. When he comes on, I feel like it's almost automatic again. What I don't like is that he just doesn't seem to concentrate in a non-save situation -- even in a tie game. I'd give him an 8.

  The hot hand right now belongs to Julian Tavarez, who indeed has just been named the setup man. Until giving up a three-run dinger last weekend to some Dodger who's not even worth mentioning by name, he hadn't been scored upon in about 375 straight appearances, after a wretched start. I don't really have a sense of how he gets hitters out, but he does. Despite roughly a 1-to-1 strikeout-to-walk ratio and a miserable early season, he gets an 8; here's hoping Dusty doesn't burn him out.

  Tavarez was supposed to be the setup man out of spring training, but instead that honor befell Doug Henry, who was great for a while -- absolutely unhittable. I no longer trust him, and I give him a 6.

  I also worry about Rich Rodriguez, who'd matched Henry's early effectiveness even longer than Henry did. Overall, though, I'm pretty pleased with him, and despite early (and current) troubles getting lefties out, he rates a 7.

  Jim Poole has somehow become awful, after pitching wonderful ball for the Giants last year. He doesn't seem to have found his curve. I'd say 4.

  Joe Roa blows. I'm sorry, I meant to say that he blows hot and cold. His curve seems tough, but evidently it flattens out often enough to get him roughed up from time to time. He rates a 5.

  Rene Arocha blows. This is the guy we got for Tom Lampkin, who's probably contributed to every Cardinals victory over the Giants this year. Arocha's a big 0.

  Rich DeLucia is gone, of course. The Giants traded him to the Angels early on, after a mere 4-2/3 innings, during which he demonstrated that it just wasn't going to happen for him in a Giants uniform. He too is a big 0.

  Dan Carlson, the guy I hoped would make the club ahead of DeLucia, started the season on the DL. Evidently he's done well at Phoenix, but put a Giants uniform on him and he becomes Boom-Boom Beck. He's a 3, but only because I'm pulling for him.

  John Johnstone has had one bad game out of five, I think, and has impressed me so far. Baker has gone to him frequently lately -- I believe this is because he's seen that he's gone to Tavarez, Henry, and Rodriguez dangerously often, and now he needs a new arm to tax. I'd give him a 6 so far.

Back to the EEEEEE! Home Page