Since, again, I have way less data in the way of breakdown stats this year than last, I'd be delighted if readers were to come up with interesting material along those lines. We'll call it a post-Postmortem, or something cleverer.
- Rich Aurilia: I am absolutely amazed that his OPS (.780) was lower than the team's. Granted, he never walks (43, in 614 plate appearances), leading to an OBP of only .336. However, I'm happy with his production at the plate. First, how can you argue with 22 home runs? This was unheard of from a Giants shortstop. He also poked 23 doubles -- not a high figure, but one that can be improved upon.
Richie increased his plate time by over a third, and he didn't really seem to wear down, as he often did last year. I don't know what to expect of him next year -- we know nothing about Pacific Bell Park (I mean, sure, we can guess: I'm gonna say hitter's park favoring lefties, and lots of doubles and some triples) -- but I'm figuring on his 2000 season to look a lot like his 1999, though maybe the raw numbers will be better because of the relative nature of the Pac Bell and the 'stick.
Richie's taken some heat for his fielding this year, but I don't know that it was any worse than expected, or even below average. My understanding, though I haven't seen the numbers, is that his range numbers were pretty decent, if not good. It's just that he made a passle of errors. In itself, this doesn't mean much, but it seemed to me that he made his errors in bunches.
- Marvin Benard: This is not a great leadoff man. However, he might well have taken over the "Best Since Brett Butler" title from Darryl Hamilton. Benard's OBP was .359 -- just barely better than the team's -- but he hit .290, which tells you he didn't walk a whole lot. Still, 55 in 626 plate appearances, while not good, is still better than might have been expected from one who seems to be such a free-swinger. Still, frankly, Marv needs that batting average to be way up there in order to be a decently effective leadoff man. I think he might be better suited for the sixth spot, though -- not that I can think of a better, more entertaining leadoff candidate.
Benard had a hell of a lot of extra-base hits: 57. This netted him a .457 slugging percentage -- also not the kind of number you'd expect to see from a leadoff hitter. I think the Giants would be delighted to have a player whose OBP and SP numbers were Marvin's, only in reverse (by which I mean a .359 SP and .457 OBP, not a .953 OBP and .754 SP, though I'd sure as hell take that...). As far as I'm concerned, anybody who thought he was a patsy should think again. I happen to like a leadoff man with some pop, and Marv's got that.
Too bad he's such a weak outfielder. His arm's not bad -- it's probably among the best on the team (not that that's saying much) -- but he still doesn't seem to have much fly-ball sense, and I happen to believe that bad outfield defense is one of the main things that can kill a pitching staff. And he's not helped much, flanked by the gimpy Ellis Burks and the fairly gimpy Barry Bonds, not to mention Armando Rios, who seems to be pretty wet behind the ears out there. It's also pretty telling that when they both appeared in the lineup, Benard was often shifted to one of the corner outfield positions to make room for F.P. Santangelo, who ain't no great shakes out there, either.
Benard stole 27 bases to lead the club, but was caught 14 times, which is just a touch under the pace he'd need to set for the steals to mean anything.
- Barry Bonds: I don't care what anybody says: Losing this guy for roughly two months killed the Giants' season. Bonds-haters maintain that the loss wasn't so big because the Giants held their own in his absence, but it's not as though they played well. And even when Bonds returned, Burks went out... and Mueller was missing a lot of the time... and Kent missed time again, too... I mean, the starting lineup just wasn't healthy enough. But the biggest blow was Bonds.
It was inspirational that he returned as soon as he did. Mulletheads persist in calling him a selfish, egotistical player -- as if they know him -- but he knew that the team needed him, and he came back nearly a month before he should have. And it didn't help much.
He never got his batting average to a respectable level -- .262 when all was said and done -- but his OPS was still over a thousand, with a .389 OBP and .617 SP. The man averaged a homer every three games, for crying out loud (and stole 15 bases in 17 tries, often on a bad knee or pulled groin). If only one could give him a third of a season at the statistical pace he set -- he'd'a wound up with 51 dingers, 136 runs, 124 RBIs, and 109 walks... and people still would've ripped him.
I had the pleasure (if you don't count the fact that the Giants lost, and looked pitiful in the process) of attending the final night game at the 'Stick with EEEEEE! Contributing Editor Richard Booroojian, who expressed the hope and belief that Bonds would win the Willie Mac Award as the Giants' most inspirational player of 1999. It hadn't occurred to me, but the more Richard talked, the more I thought he had a point. Marvin Benard won it, of course -- Bonds'll get a citizenship award just after I tattoo my butt with a picture of my butt, stupendous though it is. Now, I'm not saying Benard shouldn't have won it -- hell, I don't know what it's like in that clubhouse -- but man, if Bonds' early return wasn't courageous and selfless, ergo inspirational, I don't know what was.
- Ellis Burks: A full season of this guy -- well, three-quarters of a season, really -- was fun to watch, except when he seemed to be aching out there. He only came to the plate 471 times, but he sure made a lot of it, with 31 homers and 96 ribbies, not to mention a .963 OPS -- pretty awesome for a guy whose pain is so pervasive that there's talk of him hanging 'em up soon. His slugging percentage was .569 (and that .394 OBP is nothing to sneeze at), which is about as good as a Giants' second banana has had in a while. Jeff Kent -- who probably is considered the team's MVP by the media and other Bonds-haters for the third year running -- put up a .511 SP.
He's tough to watch in the outfield, though, Burks is. Maybe it's because he's so tentative on those knees of his, but for the most part, I'm surprised when he chases down a long fly or makes a spectacular catch. I don't exactly expect Glenallen Hill out there, but I'm not seeing Roberto Clemente, either. But, to my amazement, Burks is a former Gold-Glover. He knows what he's doing out there -- his body just doesn't listen to his brain as well as it should.
- Jay Canizaro: I have the feeling the Giants are looking at him as a replacement for Charlie Hayes as the Backup Infielder With Pop (BIWP). I have no doubt he has that -- at least his Triple-A numbers seem to bear that out -- but I do doubt that he's worth a damn as a major leaguer. I just don't trust the guy. Still, in his brief stint at the end of the year, Canizaro went 8-for-18 with 9 RBIs, 2 doubles, a home run, and five 5 scored. He even stole a base.
- Wilson Delgado: I honestly think of this guy as Just Another Middle Infielder (JAMI). He doesn't seem like a hitter at all, and he's a bit short of defensive prowess (or so he's shown). He wound up with a .622 OPS, which is astounding in that it's five points higher than Barry Bonds' slugging percentage alone. I keep hearing he's got pop, but I haven't seen it. If he's the heir apparent to Aurilia, I'm scared.
- Edwards Guzman: You know, I had decent hopes for him. I don't know what it was that I liked about him -- possibly that he seemed kind of like an underdog to me. And granted, the Giants gave Eds only 15 chances to show his stuff... but he didn't reach base, not even once. He didn't even rate a September call-up, which is kind of sad.
- Charlie Hayes: Last year I said, "I'm surprised at how low his OPS is: .770." I should've listened more closely. This year it was -- where have we heard this before? -- .622. When the BIWP hits like JAMI, you got trouble. Last year his slugging percentage was .419, which I thought was lower than it should've been, but this year it dropped 105 points. Bleardgh.
Apparently there's still talk about bringing him back, but I can't imagine why. He's old, not a great defender by any stretch, and frankly, he's dangerous. You know how on Star Trek: The Next Generation, they persist in keeping Data, an android, aboard ship, filling vital roles? Notice how, about every fifth episode, one of his wires goes "Sproing!" and he starts, like, beaming crewmates into deep space or making the toilets back up? And nobody ever says, "Um, maybe it's time to, like, stick Data back on Earth somewhere, perhaps in a museum, because he's way more trouble than he's worth." Well, that's Charlie Hayes.
And if you're gonna tell me that his idiot Assault From Second Base on Todd Stottlemyre wasn't largely responsible for the Giants losing Bonds for eons -- we never heard anything about Barry's elbow before the brawl -- I'm just not going to believe you.
- Stan Javier: He just didn't do much for the Giants this year, but it was still kind of sad to see him go to Houston. He was certainly likable -- my dad would describe him as a real blue-collar player, like Kent and Aurilia, for instance -- but the only time he showed any particular punch as a Giant was in those first few weeks after taking the right field job away from Glenallen Hill. He talks, evidently, about hoping to find a starting job somewhere, but how easy is it for an outfielder with a .689 OPS to stay in the lineup? I kinda miss him... but kinda don't. Still, you never know: Brian Sabean may bring him back. Hell, there's already chilling talk about bringing back Willie McGee.
- Jeff Kent: There always seemed to be some nagging injury -- indeed, he spent a couple weeks on the DL with turf toe, and never really got past it -- but he still managed to rack up 40 doubles and 23 homers in 138 games, plus those 101 RBIs. He scored 86 runs, too, and was 13 of 19 as a base stealer. He gave the Giants an OPS of .877, which is unspectacular, but hardly bad. Given what he's done as a Giant, I consider 1999 an off year for him, and if he stays healthy, I don't see why he can't have a better year next year.
One weird thing, by the way, is that he, Benard, and Bill Mueller all hit .290 on the button.
- Ramon Martinez: I've had pretty low expectations for Moaner, but he surprised me with his power. He had a .410 slugging percentage, which isn't exactly McGwire country, but it's still about 70 points higher than I'd guessed. I sure don't like him on defense, though, and I'm really not sure what the team's plans for him can be.
- Brent Mayne: Wow. He bumped his OPS from .719 to .808, raising his OBP 30 points and his SP 59 -- largely on the strength of 32 doubles, because he only went deep twice. I felt that he improved defensively this year, too. It doesn't look like he's going to stick around, though. He's going to want a lot more from the Giants than they'll want to pay, and I figure they'll put stock in Doug Mirabelli and maybe somebody else. Maybe Scott Servais, even. Rather have Mayne than Servais.
- Doug Mirabelli: He tore it up in Fresno, then came up and hit .253 with a .356 SP with the big club. In his first stint, they couldn't get him out; once he returned, he couldn't buy a hit. In the past, he's reminded me of Kirt Manwaring: highly touted arm, no bat whatsoever. However, thanks in part to thoughtful analysis by Giants newsgroup regular Jonathan Bernstein, I've come to think of Mirabelli as someone with a definite upside. I just hope we're both right.
- Bill Mueller: Again, Mueller hit close to .300 (.290). This time, though, he did it with no pop whatsoever: a .362 SP, to go along with his terrific .388 OBP (for a 750 OPS). But because of the lack of power, the Giants supposedly are looking for another third baseman. I don't like that much. I like Mueller, and I think he could get better. He broke his toe on a pitch in his first plate appearance of the year, and I think it affected his swing all year. Maybe a healthy Mueller can give the Giants what they need from the third-base slot.
Last year he struck out 83 times, compared to 79 walks. This year, though, it's 52 and 65. That's encouraging.
- Calvin Murray: He went 5-for-19 with a pair of doubles, but he was the PCL's Most Valuable Player, somehow. He's no longer a prospect -- he's way too old -- but he could stick as a fifth outfielder. I'm suspicious of him anyway.
- Armando Rios: I was pretty skeptical about this guy, but I sure like what he did for the Giants last year -- at the plate, anyway; despite a fabulous arm, he had some defensive lapses I'd rather not remember.
I'd love to know what he would've done over a full, healthy season. He trashed his shoulder making a diving catch, and the Giants lost him for about two months, so he had only 150 at-bats at the big-league level. He responded with a .327 batting average, .420 OBP, and .527 SP, on the strength of 9 doubles and 7 home runs.
- F.P. Santangelo: For the first few weeks of the year I thought, "This guy hasn't done thing one to help this club." But then he started hitting. Sure, eventually he stopped hitting, but on the whole, I kind of like him. He had only a .260 batting average, but in 325 plate appearances, he drew 53 walks and was plunked 11 times, and was 12-for-16 as a base stealer. He only had a .386 slugging percentage, thanks to 17 doubles, 3 triples, and 3 homers, but when you play so little, well, maybe there'd be some wild fluctuations in 2000 -- no matter where he plays.
I like his versatility on defense: all three outfield positions, plus at least two infield positions. The Giants need versatile players, given Dusty Baker's tendency to employ 12 and sometimes 13 pitchers at once. And I like the way Efp finds ways to reach base. He should be a keeper, till that skill disappears.
- Scott Servais: This poor guy probably sealed his status as an Untrustable in his first start at home this year, when something like seven opposing runners stole bases. Granted, you can blame the pitcher for most of this, most of the time, but that day, Servais blew opportunities to throw out at least two of those runners. But to try and be fair, he did at least hit decently for a backup catcher, albeit a backup catcher who still got over 200 plate appearances: a .273 average and .726 OPS. But there were rumors late in the year that the Giants were trying to ship him to Pittsburgh, and I wouldn't have been upset if they had. I like Mirabelli better.
- J.T. Snow: Jate picked it up some from last year, bringing his OPS up from .755 (.423 SP, .332 OBP) to .826 (.451, .370). He went lefty all the way this year -- not a single righthanded plate appearance -- and while he was hardly a monster against lefthanders, he put on a much better show than he did last year. Still, that slugging percentage isn't much (25 doubles, 2 triples, 24 homers). He played in all but one game this year, after missing 24 last year, but his doubles still dropped.
He did pick up another Gold Glove this year -- three in a row as a Giant -- and I think he probably deserved it. He's slick out there. Does it make up for the lack of offense? I still don't think so. I'm disturbed, though, that the Giants locked themselves into a long-term deal with him. He's not real likely to be productive when he hits 35, say.
- Chris Brock: In his first start or two, Brock had us thinking we'd won the lottery or something, but after that, well, he was nothing to write home about. In 106-2/3 innings, he produced a 5.48 ERA -- making him one of six Giants with ERAs of at least 5.24 (all but one of whom pitched way too much to rely on lack of innings as an excuse). I wouldn't mind seeing him back, perhaps as a long man, but I don't see a need for him to be the fifth starter again. I have to give him credit, though, for pitching and winning his Giants finale -- while going the last four innings on a torn-up knee. Tough dude.
- Miguel Del Toro: The man pitched 23-2/3 innings and gave up 5 home runs. That's about all you need to know. He was the righthanded, 1999 version of Al Morman. He had a spectacular first couple of games, then... nothing.
- Alan Embree: He was pretty damn good all year long. His ERA ended up at 3.38, but only because of a couple of bad outings late in the season. In 58-2/3 innings he struck out 53 while walking 26, and gave up only 42 hits. He was second on the team with 68 appearances, though -- that's a lot of warming up.
- Shawn Estes: Interestingly, Estes is seen as having improved vastly on last year -- a lost season. That, I'm sure, is only because he improved his won-lost record from 7-12 all the way up to 11-11. But know what? His ERA plummeted from 5.06 all the way to 4.92. He did throw 203 innings, though, which is impressive -- but 209 hits and 112 walks isn't. He struck out 159, which isn't enough to justify the walks.
- Mark Gardner: After two years of great first halves and rotten second halves, Gardy reversed the pattern last year. This year, however, he sort of combined the two by having rotten first and second halves. This year he was Danny Darwin: 5-11, a 6.47 ERA. The poor guy just could not get anybody out. He might sail along for two or three innings, then the wheels would come off -- just like Darwin. Perhaps the best moment of the season for him was early on, when he hit his first major league home run.
- Livan Hernandez: Is this guy worth two top prospects? He wasn't much better here than he'd been in Miami this year, going 3-3 for the Giants with a 4.38 ERA and a stint on the DL. He had a way of sailing along, then losing it. He also continued his pattern of going too long in games where he was pitching well, but that's hardly his fault. Blame Dusty.
- John Johnstone: He had another terrific year, and once again he was overused. This time he was hurt and couldn't go during the last three weeks or so. Overall, though, in 65-2/3 innings, he delivered a 2.60 ERA and 56 strikeouts, as opposed to 20 walks and 48 hits. Five unearned runs, though -- not a great sign. He's a late-inning, close-game reliever, and even though five doesn't seem like much, it still makes me wonder about just how well he pitches through an error.
- Joe Nathan: Without that horrific game where the Diamondbacks knew what was coming, he had an ERA around 3.70. As it is, it was 4.18 in 90-1/3 innings. He gave up 84 hits, but 46 walks and only 54 strikeouts, and let's not talk about the 17 home runs. This guy's not our savior -- but I'd love to see how he does in a full season at the big-league level.
- Robb Nen: This is not the same guy who had such a great 1998 season. His ERA went from 1.52 to 3.98; his strikeouts dropped 1.5 per inning. He didn't walk many, but gave up 79 hits, including 8 home runs, in 72-1/3 innings. He saved 37 games somehow, but he must have blown another 35,000. Shortly before the All-Star Break, it was revealed that he'd have to miss the game because of "tendinitis." Clearly he was hurt more than that, and longer. And maybe Dusty did use him too much last year. And this year.
- Russ Ortiz: Lotta home runs (24), lotta walks (125) -- just like last year. In fact, his walks-per-nine-innings rate was even worse this year: 5.4, compared to 4.7. Perhaps the weirdest stat, though, is the 21 unearned runs he gave up -- roughly 1 every 10 innings. He had a 3.81 ERA on a team with a 4.71 ERA, but is Ortiz really the ace of the staff? He threw some beautiful ballgames, but -- 18 wins or no -- I'm afraid he has a long way to go.
- Bronswell Patrick: I kind of looked upon his late-season recall and subsequent appearances in 6 games as Dusty Baker's way of letting us know he was throwing in the towel. Patrick, though he pitched only 5-1/3 innings, seemed to get into ballgames where the Giants needed, say, Johnstone. He struck out 6 in that time, but gave up 7 runs, 6 earned, on 9 hits. He's since been dropped from the 40-man roster, which is a shame, I guess, except that he's nothing special.
- Felix Rodriguez: The scary news is that his 3.80 ERA was third-best on the team. He started out looking like he had no idea what planet he was throwing to, but after a while, he settled down some. Dusty kept using him in extra innings for two or three innings, and he'd always collapse in the third one, but overall, he did okay: 29 strikeouts, 55 walks, 67 hits in 66-1/3 innings. Nothing majorly special, but I think I like him for 2000. I think.
- Rich Rodriguez: The papers are saying that the Giants hope to re-sign Rich, but I'm not sure how bad I'd miss him if they didn't. How bad do they need an old reliever with a 5.24 ERA? He walked about a batter every two innings, and gave up more hits than innings. He still seemed to have trouble with lefthanded hitters. I don't think he's trustworthy anymore.
- Kirk Rueter: Another year, another bunch of wins, another high ERA. Rueter went 15-10 with a 5.41 ERA, much of which was fueled by a horrific early season. He strikes out about 1 batter every other inning, which isn't encouraging, and gave up 219 hits in 184-2/3 innings, including 28 home runs. I'm with Steven Rubio (who no doubt will write about Rueter in next year's Baseball Prospectus) on Rueter: How long can this luck hold out?
- Jerry Spradlin: I've said before that whenever Spradlin came into a game, I always felt as though the Giants had a good chance to win. Sadly, this was back in his days as one of their opponents. These days I don't trust him at all. His ERA was 4.87, which is bad, but not Tavarez bad, but it doesn't tell the story. The 65 hits and 32 walks in 61 innings also don't tell the story. The 10 guys he hit with pitches begin to tell the story, though. He only threw 2 wild pitches, but one of them took a victory away, and you know what? I think the other one did, too. Spradlin cannot be trusted. Bigger is not always better.
- Julian Tavarez: "A very irritating pitcher" is how I finished his entry last year. It's even worse now. The Giants have declined his option, but that doesn't mean he won't be back. If he is, I can't imagine why. Far as I'm concerned, he was way worse than his 5.93 ERA in 54-2/3 innings might indicate. Too many headaches, this guy.
Again, if you have anything to add to this, by all means, please do. I'd love to see a more in-depth analysis -- but then again, it just might hurt too much.
As I said last year, and as I've no doubt made clear over the last three years plus, I'm no statistical expert. The numbers are interesting to me, even fun, but I'm no analyst. Still, I can look at some baseball numbers and tell you, reasonably, what they mean. Sadly, this year I don't have the vast array of breakdowns that I had last year, which is disappointing (well, to me) -- but the upside is, the article won't be as long this year, either. Therefore, this year's piece will be a more general assessment than last year's.