How did the Giants manage to finish in first place? I still don't know. I only know that I have this nagging feeling that not going all the way in 1997 has pretty much sealed our doom forevermore, thanks to the strong possibility that soon enough, Rupert Murdoch will ensure that the Dodgers perennially field the National League All-Star Team, a lineup that might necessitate Mike Piazza batting eighth or something.

A major contributor to the Giants' division-best 92-70 record was heart. I don't care what you might say in disagreement. I don't care if no statistics exist to back up that assertion. All I know is that down the stretch, this team won, this team scrapped, this team played like a bunch of guys who love to play baseball. This team believed -- certainly more than its fans did; certainly more than this fan did.

This team won. And it won in rather spectacular fashion, almost literally seizing the division forever on September 18, when catcher Brian Johnson hit that twelfth-inning, game-winning, head-spinning home run that put his team into a first-place tie with the Dodgers. Then the comments started -- in the Dodgers' clubhouse, for a change: the occasional sour-grapey remark, the whistling in the dark, the really vague statements that you know were said more out of fear of bad juju than anything else. Typical stuff, really -- not necessarily of the Dodgers, but of teams in their position. These guys were shocked -- they had the NL West bagged, and then the Giants simply came up and took it away. The Dodgers reeled in disbelief, then lost confidence. Lest you think this is typical Dodger-bashing on my part, let me just say that this happens a lot in baseball, and it's happened enough to the Giants over the years. The team that's been de-perched, well, suddenly no tienen ganas. I don't think the players know it, at least not consciously, but they've caught the uncertainty bug, and it's their undoing. The bug does them in before they know it's hit them.

An example of this might be seen in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, when, accompanied by swashbuckling music, John Cleese, as Sir Launcelot, suddenly wipes out one of the two sentries who'd been placidly guarding a castle, which Cleese then storms. The other sentry plaintively and ineffectually says: "Hey!"

Something similar happened to the Giants in 1993, but a better analogy would be the one about the boy who says, "I had a no-hitter going until the big kids got out of school." (I had a similar experience in sixth grade, when, to my surprise, I was timed at 6.9 in a 50-yard dash. I wasn't the fastest runner in class, but I was close, and feeling pretty smug about it -- until the next year, when I ran against someone who was legitimately fast, and I got smoked.)

So we've covered heart. Now let's look at the front office -- which I don't want to do in great detail this time; sorry. Brian Sabean picked up Jeff Kent, Jose Vizcaino, Julian Tavarez, J.T. Snow, Doug Henry, Rich Rodriguez, Mark Lewis, Damon Berryhill, Brian Johnson, Wilson Alvarez, Roberto Hernandez, Danny Darwin, Terry Mulholland, and Pat Rapp. I'm sure I've left out somebody, but the point is, in some way, all of these guys contributed -- some more than others. (I mean, I hardly want to equate Rapp's contribution with that of Snow.) The main thing we gave up in all this was Matt Williams, and though we missed him, we adapted.

Richard Booroojian reviewed the 1997 season in superb detail in "Anything Can Happen -- And For Once, It Did," so I don't want to tread mostly covered ground. However, let's one again look at this team, position by position (excluding prospects such as Darin Blood and Russ Ortiz, who haven't played for the Giants yet). If I've left out anyone, please let me know:

• First Base: J.T. Snow stayed around .300, with 29 homers and over 100 RBIs, plus about plenty of doubles and walks -- an exceptional season, really, especially given how bad I and others have ripped him in EEEEEE! and the Giants newsgroup. There are those who say they expected this kind of performance out of Snow, but I don't believe it. I do believe, however, that it was partly a product of Snow very emphatically bouncing back from his beaning in the spring -- his strong desire to "show everybody." And he did. He did. After a very slow start, the dude was terrific, at the plate and in the field. My only complaint, I think, is that he had an alarming tendency to take strike three with the bases loaded, but I figure maybe that just stood out to me for some reason, and wasn't really much of a problem. But I said in "First Place? What Are the Giants Doing There?" that I was waiting for the other shoe to drop -- and it never did, really.

  I also said, and I have no reason to change my mind about this: "I am quite impressed with his defense -- that is, the grace he shows on defense; he's flashy as hell, and fun to watch."

  Once again I shall employ the Gregg Satisfaction Scale, 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 an 8 -- up from 6 at the All-Star Break. I really believe we don't win 92 games without Snow.

  Do I trust Snow to keep it going next year? In a word, no. This was as close to a breakout season as Snow has had, and it's very common to slide back some -- plus, I still don't think he's really as good as he played. I do expect more stellar defense, though.

  My main concern is that he simply cannot hit lefthanders. I don't have the numbers, but I bet his OPS against lefties was about the same as his OPS against righthanders -- provided you subtract his OBP from that one. Last I heard, though -- and I'm not sure what to make of this -- Snow was supposed to attend a "switch-hitting camp" run by bench coach Sonny Jackson. I'd just like to know why it would be a dumb idea for him to give up batting righthanded at all.

• Second Base: Jeff Kent kept that batting average around .250, but who cares? He didn't walk much, which kept his OPS lower than you might like -- but hell, the man hit 29 home runs, tying Snow for second on the club, and drove in a massive number of runs, especially for a second baseman: 121. These are San Francisco Giants records for a second baseman, and Kent got awfully close to Rogers Hornsby's all-time Giants record of 125 RBIs, which he set in 1927, his only year with the Giants. Say what you want about RBIs as a statistic -- God knows I do -- but this is damn impressive.

  Kent swung at an awful lot of bad pitches toward the end of the year, which I'm sure he was wearing down, but the lad plays hard, and he plays hurt. He doesn't look like a second baseman, but he sure plays like one. I don't care what New York Mets fans say: you gotta like this guy. Plus, in a lost cause, he put a couple of balls over the wall in the Giants third and final playoff game; whether anybody else gave up or not, Kent sure didn't give up.

  I still feel he doesn't have much range, though he does seem pretty good at going after tough popups. His defense, though, has to be about a hundred percent better than I figured on when we got him.

  In "First Place?" I said, "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." I still think that, though maybe he could be a decent five-hole hitter. Still, he performed admirably in the cleanup role.

  Last time I gave Kent an 8, and I'm sticking to that.

• Shortstop: Jose Vizcaino's gone, and I'm okay with that. His batting average generally is a huge part of is offense, and if he doesn't hit roughly .300, he doesn't do you any good -- not to say that he does a world of good if he does hit .300. It was foolish of Dusty Baker to spend so much time batting him second, and it seems to me that the offense picked up when he was dropped to seventh in favor of Bill Mueller. He did come up with a couple of important hits, though, so he's not completely useless.

  As I said last time around, his main role is on defense, and he does not excel there. He reminded me a lot of Jose Uribe -- but what's so bad about that? On the other hand, what's so good about it? I gave Vizcaino a 5 last time, and that still seems about right. Of course, it's a 0 now, really, because he's a Dodger, and though I'll always have some fondness for him because of 1997, I truly hope he stinks out the joint in 1998. Nothing personal, Jose.

  At the moment, Rich Aurilia is probably the front-runner for the starting shortstop's job, but Dusty Baker keeps mentioning Wilson Delgado, whom I think of as "just another middle infielder." I'd like to see Richie get the job -- he seems pretty sure-handed to me, and he has pop that Vizcaino lacks. I feel he's paid his dues, and I'd give him an 8 -- he'd gotten a 7 at midseason.

  My biggest concern about shortstop is something Gary Huckabay of Baseball Prospectus brought up, in the sense of a post pleading for Brian Sabean to do this: What if the Giants sign Ozzie Guillen? Bleah!

• Third Base: At the Break, I complained that Bill Mueller hadn't hit as well as I thought he should. He seemed to pick it up, though, and not just in terms of a bunch of singles. He added some pop -- I think he ended up with a total of seven dingers, which still is hardly Matt Williams country (unless you're talking about a decent month for Matty). He draws walks, though he swung at bad pitches more often than I remember him doing in 1996.

  As I said last time, he seems to take too many 3-2 pitches down the middle -- i.e., he seems to be looking for walks. However -- again, without the numbers in front of me -- I bet he did that less once he was moved up in the order ahead of Barry Bonds.

  I like his defense, though I think it degraded a bit toward the end of the year. I said last time, "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." That latter part is probably somewhat too high praise, but I still have little to complain about with Mueller. I gave him a 6 last time, but I'd call it a 7 now.

  Mark Lewis is now with the Phillies, who traded away Mickey Morandini, meaning -- who knows? -- that Lewis might be a front-runner for the second base job. He wasn't offered arbitration by the Giants, though they've said they're in the market for a "veteran middle infielder." They mean "cheap with experience," though, and Lewis only fits part of that profile. I like his pop, but he seems awfully streaky, though a pretty good hitter overall. This probably doesn't matter, though, unless he helps the Phils ruin the Giants a few times or something.

  I cannot stand to watch him on defense anymore, though. It's just too much, especially on those occasions -- usually windy Candlestick nights -- when he'd play second base with Glenallen Hill in right field. It's like topping off a bottle of Tabasco sauce with a can of Snap-E Tom. I'd stick with my previous 4, but of course it's now a 0.

  However, I'd rather have kept him than gone after Charlie Hayes, for whom the Giants coughed up a minor leaguer. It wasn't enough to make us fear this acquisition last year; Brian Sabean had to put us through it again, and then actually pick him up.

  I don't see the allure of this guy. I'm generously giving him a 2 right off the bat, just because I don't want him on my team (though I'd take him over Kim Batiste in a heartbeat). I'm not confident Hayes would provide better defense than Lewis, especially with that Greggesque gut and the fact that he's not even a summer chicken, and I'm convinced he won't give us much on offense -- less than Lewis. Hayes had one big home-run year in 1993 with the Rockies at Mile High Stadium, but he ain't given squat since, and didn't do much before that. This is his second go-round with the Giants -- he went to Philly in the Steve Bedrosian trade in 1989, because clearly he wasn't going to dislodge Matt Williams any time soon (not that there's no sick irony in that now) -- after two go-rounds with the Phillies and Yankees. And maybe the Pirates, too. Who cares?

  What I do care about is how much playing time he gets. Ostensibly he's around to provide some relief for both Bill Mueller and J.T. Snow -- a righthanded bat against lefties -- but if Hayes has a phenomenal spring, it'll be Mueller on the bench and him at third, and I think that's a recipe for disaster.

• Left Field: Barry Bonds -- how beleaguered was this guy? (If you want to find out, see my article about it at the Baseball Prospectus site.) The media and fans were all over Bonds because of his "off year." The man wound up with his near-.300 batting average, 40 dingers, and 100 RBIs, and he wasn't that far off from another 40/40 season. More importantly, he reached base all the time and moved people around all the time. However, he wasn't the guy in the driver's seat on enough RBIs to please the sportswriters, who attributed his "drop in production" to, basically, his being a shmuck. Could it possibly have had Thing One to do with the fact that for most of the year, the guys batting ahead of him were Darryl Hamilton and Jose Vizcaino? I mean, it seems as though once Dusty Baker flip-flopped Vizcaino and Bill Mueller, Bonds started driving in more runs -- but that was seen in the papers as being due more to Bonds smelling playoff money. Geez.

  This is not to say that Bonds has been flawless. Clearly he hasn't. He had some real tough stretches in which, time after time, he failed when it counted. The worst was probably when Florida's Robb Nen got him to foul out to the suddenly Gold-Gloved Bobby Bonilla with two outs and the tying run on base in the ninth. That is, that's probably the worst during the season. In the Division Series, when he had a very necessary opportunity to "prove" that he's not a "choker" -- and frankly, anyone who thinks he is has nary a screw fully tightened -- he took strike three on a 3-2 count, leading to Mueller being doubled up while trying to steal second, and leading further to a gleeful rant by the horrifying Lowell Cohn of the Santa Rosa Press Democrat. (For more on that, see the aforementioned BP article.)

  I think what bothers me most about the criticism that Bonds "didn't drive in enough runs" is the failure to see just how Bonds did contribute. A perfect example is the August 29 game against the Texas Rangers, the last two innings of which I had the pleasure of watching last night. In the bottom of the twelfth, Mueller led off with a walk. Bonds then smoked one hard inside the first-base line that hit the bag and then skipped up in the air, slowing it down enough for Mueller to reach third and Bonds to reach second. Jeff Kent then drove in the game-winner with a solid single to left.

  Bonds gets credit for neither a run scored nor an RBI, but without that double, the Giants maybe don't win. The hit was huge -- too huge for sportswriters to see, I'm thinking.

  This is why OPS is such a valuable way of looking at offensive performance (even though you're kind of adding apples and oranges and calling it "fruit"). OPS measures a player's ability to get on base, as well as his ability to move along baserunners. This translates loosely as "his ability to score and drive in runs," or, better yet, "his ability to contribute to runs scored." A single look at Bonds' OPS will tell you all you need to know: the man's a monster. He was a monster in 1997, and was even more of a monster before that. He just ran into a buzz-saw known as the Barry Bonds Standard, which means: "Because we hate you, if you measure up to your best season ever, you're a puke; if you don't, you're a serial puppy-drowner. Bastard!"

  There's no disguising the fact that Bonds had some trouble with men in scoring position, though. His average in those situations came up some from the Break, but not much, and he still hit more solo shots than you'd like to see. (Compared to other types of home runs, that is.) Plus, you're always going to hear about how he doesn't hustle. A prime example of this is the bad press he got -- plus Mike Krukow going on about it during the telecasts -- when, in the Division Series, he poked two balls off the "Teal Monster" in Pro Player Park, but didn't "run them out," thus holding himself to mere doubles rather than triples. Now, granted, I saw video of only one of these -- as both games came during the work day -- but (a) he didn't seem to be "not running them out" to me, and (b) how often do people hit triples to left field anyway? Criminy Dutch, the man had the play in front of him in each case; I'm sure he could see that barring some stupid fielding play, he'd have doubles no matter how hard he ran. (Besides, in his second inside-the-park home run in 1997, he trotted all the way around the bases. In other words, puttin' on the Ritz doesn't always help, and "conserving your energy" doesn't always hurt.)

  I still feel that in left field, the man's a diva. As I said last time, Bonds "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." If only he'd bother to run hard after those foul balls up the first base line.

  Overall, Barry gets a 7 again, but only because rating him any higher would be seen as kissing his ass, I guess -- but as I said last time, "it'd be a 10 if he were anybody but Barry Bonds."

  Marvin Benard had a fine year as a pinch-hitter, but not otherwise. His strike-zone judgment is borderline Glenallen Hill, and he doesn't have the power to back it up. (Neither does Hill, incidentally.) For Benard's sake I really hope he's working his tail off during the offseason, because were I he, I'd be figuring on trying to find a job with another organization. Right now he's way down on the outfielder totem pole, below Bonds, Darryl Hamilton, Stan Javier, and probably Jacob Cruz and Dante Powell. Realistically, he's no better than a fifth outfielder, and the Giants probably don't need six -- especially given that he doesn't reach base much or play the outfield with an air of expertise. He rated a 6 last time, but now I'm inclined to give him a 4 -- but only because I like him. For some reason.

• Center Field: Darryl Hamilton was kind of streaky during the year, which is no big deal except that many of the streaks were really bad ones. As I said last time, "He doesn't walk much, and for someone who says he's 'about speed,' his stolen base numbers are horrific. I'm deeply unimpressed with him as a leadoff hitter, and I'm thinking that maybe he's better suited to the number-two hole (perhaps on another team, too). I would not be upset if Stan Javier became the center fielder and Jacob Cruz got the right field job.

  He still gets raves for his defense, but defensive numbers -- for what they're worth; they seem far less reliable than batting or pitching statistics -- show him to be a little below average for a center fielder, and we don't need that. Plus, as I said last time, "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. I gave Hamilton a 5 last time, and that sounds about right this time.

  I still want to see what Dante Powell can do, though I do see him as being raw as hell. The poor guy will probably be best remembered (for a while, anyway) as the guy whose otherwise perfect throw home to cut off the winning run in Game 2 of the Division Series was impeded by the mound. Still, the lad's quick, and he appears to be talented. However, once the Giants sent him down after he spent a month with them as an injury replacement, his attitude apparently turned south, which translated into pretty lousy performance. I'll stick with my 6 from last time.

• Right Field: Unless it's Brian Sabean's way of buying the negatives, Glenallen Hill is gone, and good riddance. I cannot imagine a reason on God's Green Earth to bring him back. I said this last time: "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."

  His defense started out as horrific, then got worse (though he did come up with a crucial running catch in a close game against the Padres down the stretch). He simply has no place on this team. Sorry, Glenny -- 3 last time, 0 this time. You're now officially Kim Batiste, as far as I'm concerned.

  (I know. That's just mean.)

  Stan Javier just re-upped, and I'm fine with that. He really showed me something in taking over from Hill. However, they're already touting him as the starting right fielder again, and I still believe he's practically the quintessential fourth outfielder. I think I'd rather see him in center than Hamilton (and definitely I'd rather see him in center than right; Javier has described himself as a good center fielder but an average right fielder -- which is still leaps and bounds better than Glenallen Hill), but I'd rather see Powell and Cruz get lots of playing time. I gave him a 7 last time, but much as his new contract from the Giants seems largely to be based on gratitude for what he gave them in Hill's stead, my rating's also based on gratitude: 8. I just think he's a good guy to have around.

• Catcher: You might say that the difference in the catching from the All-Star Break to the end of the season was, well, stark. Rick Wilkins? Gone. Now a big 0 -- sorry, but I had to take away his 3. Whatever he did right in 1996, he never got it back -- and he wound up with Seattle, where they discovered that the guy had eye infections and (I'd guess) was having vision problems all season. Either way, goodbye.

  I gave Damon Berryhill a 5, but only because he was basically holding his own. He's a 0 now, because the Giants chose to cut him loose, and I'm okay with that. He's now with Oakland.

  I gave Marcus Jensen a 2, but he's gone now, so 0. I miss him not.

  Thus far, though, I believe I've supported my above point -- the stark difference in catching -- in a way that you might call "the opposite way of what was intended." That's where Brian Johnson comes in. Since he'd played only two games for the Giants by the time I wrote the midseason piece, his rating was "lambda," but it's fair to say he got well up into the numbers when all was said and done. I feel that he made an immediate impact on the pitching staff (based on what Mike Krukow said, for instance, and the fact that Kirk Rueter seemed to pitch much better with Johnson behind the plate than other catchers). Johnson's the first Giants catcher to hit 10 or more home runs in eons -- Bob Brenly's the last one, back in 1987 -- and a couple of these were huge, such as the one in the top of the ninth (or extra innings, whichever) in Colorado, which came a few days after (and was almost as important as) the one he beat the Dodgers with in the twelfth at Candlestick on September 18 -- the one that essentially won us a division title.

  I don't believe I'm overemphasizing that. I feel that that one batted ball was basically a catalyst for subsequent winning behavior (which, of course, went to hell in a handbag the next time we hit Florida -- where Johnson homered again). I'm tempted to give B.J. a perfect 10, but I'm going to make it a 7 instead because of my nagging fear -- probably echoed by the fact that the Giants just gave him only a one-year deal -- that he's going to pull a Rick Wilkins on us. But no matter what, unless he winds up a Dodger, he'll always be remembered fondly by Giants fans. The guy hustles, he works hard, he gets dirty -- he produces.

  His backup will be Brent Mayne, whom the Giants signed as a free agent. He seems to be a younger Damon Berryhill, but with maybe a little more pop. I have some hope for him, though, and I'm willing to give him a big upsilon. What's interesting is that he and Berryhill basically swapped teams -- and, therefore, jobs.

  Doug Mirabelli more or less finished the year with the Giants, and I could see him sticking as the third catcher, but only because Dusty likes using three catchers. I'm impressed enough to give him a 3. Sorry, Doug. Play more, then we'll talk.

• Starting Pitchers: Yeah, Shawn Estes appeared to go Atlee Hammaker on us after losing the All-Star Game, but he still won 18 games -- the most by any Giants lefty since Vida Blue in 1978 -- and frankly, I think he might have just pitched too many innings early on. He seemed to get back on track, right up until he won that 18th game, at which time he appeared to begin pressing for 20. Plus, he rather bit the bag in Game 2 of the Division Series, walking everybody in sight. However, he sure has one hell of a curve, and if he were on any team other than the Giants, I'd figure on him to really step it up and become of the outstanding pitchers in the majors. Evidently he also had a bit of trouble with Dick Pole (now the Red Sox' bullpen coach), so maybe he'll respond very positively to Ron Perranoski. You never know. Either way, I wish he had better control, because he seems to throw an awful lot of pitches. However, he was still vital to this team, and while he didn't deserve the Cy Young, he certainly rated a vote or two. I gave him a 10 at the Break, and I'm about as pleased as I was then, and I figure that he's at least as important now as he was then.

  I gave Mark Gardner an 8 last time, but only because I wasn't aware of the Gardner Effect which states, "He (provided he's Mark Gardner) who has an ERA in the low threes at the Break will give you an ERA well over five after the Break." Still, he's back in the fold, and I have to think he's being looked at as the number-three starter. When he's on, he's terrific. Were I Brian Sabean, however, I'd be looking to shop him by midseason. I'd call him a 6 now.

  Kirk Rueter, on the other hand, moves from a 6 to an 8. Maybe it's having Brian Johnson catch for him; maybe it's just maturity; whatever it is, I sure like the guy. (Of course, just saying that is probably tantamount to sounding the death knell for him.) However, he too throws a lot of pitches -- though he doesn't walk hitters on the order of Estes. He seems to pitch with a lot of guts and heart -- which I can't quantify, so I can say it safely -- and on this team, anyway, barring the acquisition of a legitimate stud, I think Rueter will be an adequate number-two guy.

  Osvaldo Fernandez is being looked at as a potential starter, and I gave him a 3 last time. I'd say that hasn't changed, though I now trust him less than ever.

  Danny Darwin rates a 1 -- only because we've signed the man, and we're stuck with him. He was supposed to have retired, but the sound of $550,000 was enticing, so he's ba-ack. I was deeply unimpressed with his performance as a Giant. He'd go fine for three or four innings, then boom! Bleah.

  The guy who should have been our second or third starter, Wilson Alvarez, is gone. To Tampa Bay. (Evidently what swayed him was the thought of becoming the number-one starter. Makes me wonder if any contenders were offering him money.) Like, we all knew he wasn't going to stick around anyway, unless he'd done spectacularly for the Giants -- which he didn't. He did, however, win the division-clinching game, pitching a very convincing 6-1 win over the Padres in game number 161. I'll always like him for that. However, I don't much care for his control, especially the kind of control that makes him walk a hitter or two just before giving up a devastating home run. I'll always resent him, however, for the grand slam he gave up to Devon White in Game 3 of the Division Series, which pretty much iced things for the Marlins. Had we kept him, I'd call him roughly a 7 -- probably a combination of a 5 for performance and a 9 for importance -- but he's a Devil Ray. He's a 0.

  The Giants acquired Pat Rapp for one or two minor leaguers, and Rapp gave them very little in return. His best outing was his first as a Giant, when he pulled a rib-cage muscle during an at-bat, went on the DL, and never fully recovered. I gave him a 5 after his first start, but now I would give him a 3, though if we do sign him -- we didn't offer him arbitration -- I believe (1997 evidence to the contrary) that he could eat up some innings and even provide some quality.

  William VanLandingham is a strange story, but you knew that. He seems to have lost all confidence, which makes it a mystery as to why the Giants, after waiving him, bothered to bring him back. Near as I can tell, they waited till he'd just gotten his three years of major league service in, then waived him -- instead of being able to option him; I guess they wanted him off the 40-man roster altogether, though they still wanted him in the organization, which, with a talented pitcher, is a nice trick if you can pull it off. So he was claimed by, I believe, the Phillies, but refused the claim, thus becoming a free agent. He then negotiated with at least one other club before returning to the fold, at which time -- knowing they couldn't bring him up before September even if they wanted to -- the Giants signed him to a minor league deal. They brought him up for the last series of the year, evidently feeling that he should be a part of the clinching celebration ,which I thought was a nice gesture. One guy who didn't care for the gesture was Desi Wilson, who was dropped from the 40 to make room for VanLandingham. As of the December 20 deadline, Vandy (as well as Rapp and Mark Lewis) was not offered arbitration, however, which I think is kind of strange given all the trouble the Giants went to to retrieve him the first time. Whether he returns or not, though, I stick by my earlier rating of 2.

  Keith Foulke rated a 5 before we sent him to the White Sox in the Alvarez deal. Now it's a big 0.

  Doug Creek is also a 0, but had less far to fall, having been previously awarded a great big 2. We sent him to the White Sox for cash after the season, and he's now about to play in Japan, where he'll join his former teammate, the aforementioned Desi Wilson..

  The newest starter: Orel Hershiser. I'm going to handle this as objectively as I can, putting out of my mind the fact that the guy plain gives me the willies. On a good day. Frankly, I think his performance in the World Series gave strong indications that he's through, that there's a point where you can no longer trade on guts and guile. And I think that's all he's got left. Naturally, then, you can see why the Giants would want to give him $3.45 million -- and the option to walk if he pitches enough innings. Out of pure altruism, and because of his apparent importance to the team, I give this odd ducksicle a 4.

• Bullpen: Rod Beck had converted 30 of 33 save opportunities, then failed to reach even 40 saves for the season -- and missed out on 200 for his career by one, which is kind of sad, because he ain't gonna do it as a Giant. He simply didn't have many save opportunities during the last half of the year, and he was generally not very effective in any case. I'll always like the guy, though (unless he heads to L.A., which is certainly a possibility, though the Cubs are more heavily rumored, as are the Yankees, Orioles, and Mariners). I'll remember with special fondness his outing on September 18, when he gutted out three innings against the Dodgers, capping this off by giving up three straight hits to load the bases with nobody out, then somehow getting an out, and finally inducing an amazing 4-2-3 double-play grounder out of pinch-hitter Eddie Murray.

  I gave him an 8 last time, but if he were still around, I'd make that a 7. He's not, so it's a 0. Goodbye, Shooter; I'll miss you.

  The new closer is Robb Nen, who rather failed to acquit himself particularly well in the postseason, even allowing the Giants to get back into Game 3 before retiring foolishly chosen pinch-hitter Damon Berryhill on a rather predictable grounder to second to end all hopes of advancement.

  However, the man has blazing heat, with more movement than that of Roberto Hernandez, near as I can tell. The radar readings show him to be throwing 102 mph, which I don't believe for an instant, but that doesn't matter; if opposing hitters believe it, I'm all for it. His numbers, over the years, are similar to Beck's, with one key difference: Nen walks about five times as many batters. Joy. At the moment, largely because of his importance to his new team, I'll let Nen inherit Beck's old 8.

  Speaking of Roberto Hernandez, he's now a Devil Ray, too. No way the Giants were going to sign him, even though we maybe don't win it without him. His arrival got inside Beck's head, though, which I think caused, shall we say, a lack of concentration on Rodney's part. No matter; Hernandez generally pitched great for the Giants. On some occasions he was simply unhittable. In the Division Series, not so much. If he'd stuck around, he'd rate a 9. He didn't, so he's a 0.

  Julian Tavarez gave up zero runs in June, but was otherwise unspectacular. I gave him an 8 last time, but almost entirely because he was so hot at the time. I think, however, that Dusty used him way too much. If he's smarter this time, I think Tavarez will respond positively (and with a better strikeout ratio than 1-to-1... I hope). I'd now give him a 7, largely because, though he is in fact a candidate for the starting rotation, he's also pretty much inherited the setup role again, partly because of the departure of Hernandez.

  And partly because of Doug Henry, who, as I said last time, was "great for a while -- absolutely unhittable. I no longer trust him, and I give him a 6." Well, of course he's now a 0, having signed with Houston, but I'm okay with being rid of him. He never regained my trust. He too was overused.

  Rich Rodriguez has come back, and I'm okay with that. I wish he'd get lefthanded hitters out, though -- but I stick to my earlier rating of 7.

  Apparently the Giants are counting on Jim Poole again, or at least don't seem to be trying to move him, despite a horrific season. I said 4 last time, but only because I'm ever hopeful. This time I'd say 2.

  I was somewhat saddened that Joe Roa was not recalled in September. I hear he's in the plans, but I wonder. I gave him a 5 last time, and I'll stick to that. For now.

  Rene Arocha was a joke -- a big 0 Probably the most similar Giants pitcher in recent years was Luis Aquino. Arocha's off the 40 -- and out of the organization, I hope. Meanwhile, the guy we traded for him, Tom Lampkin, just re-upped with the Cardinals.

  Rich DeLucia was traded early on, by which time he'd earned himself a golden 0. Naturally he pitched just dandy for the Angels, then got hurt.

  I really rooted for Dan Carlson -- until he started pitching in a Giants uniform in 1997. It seemed like every ball he threw got roped. He's gone now -- to Tampa Bay in the draft, which is a shame because he was, as I understand it, a fan favorite in Phoenix -- so he's a 0, but had he stuck around, he'd have dropped from a 3 to maybe a 2, probably a 1.

  John Johnstone looked just fine in his first stint with the Giants -- I gave him a 6. Then Dusty tried to send him down (I believe this was right around the time William VanLandingham was just about to get his three years in.) Well, Johnstone was out of options, so we tried to pass him through waivers -- not a worthwhile endeavor, as he was claimed by the A's, for whom he stank. When they released him, the Giants picked him up again (at which point he didn't pitch so well), thus making him the only Giant in my recollection who played for another major league team in the middle of two (or more) stints for the Giants in the same season; in fact, I can't think of another player to do that since Frank Fernandez of the A's and Senators (and then Cubs) in 1971. The Giants evidently have plans for Johnstone, so I'll stick with the 6 I gave him last time.

  Unaccountably, the Giants also seem to have plans for Cory Bailey, who had a lousy stint or two near the end of the season. I'm thinking 4, at best.

Back to the EEEEEE! Home Page