The EEEEEE! Postmortem Brings You
Professor Gregg and His Pal, Statistical Hijinx!

by Gregg Pearlman

Ninety-seven wins during the regular season, one during the postseason. There. Enjoy your trip Inside The Numbers? Well, as always, I'm going to profess to take you Inside The Numbers, and as always, that's going to be a huge lie, because I'm really not qualified. However, please indulge me during my look At The Numbers.

Offense and Defense, Sort Of

• Rich Aurilia: Richie got hammered pretty badly in the Giants newsgroup early on, when he just wasn't hitting. His defense suffered, too. His head was called for, sometimes on a platter. But he very much turned his season around, and wound up with what I think we can call his second straight Rich Aurilia year. Like everybody else in the Giants' infield, he's godawful slow -- 1 steal (and on the final day of the season, yet) in 3 tries -- but his lack of footspeed doesn't seem to kill him, at least not as badly as his pals Snow, Kent, and Mueller.

  Overall he hit .271, with a .339 OBP and a .444 slugging percentage. None of these is world-beating, but I won't complain about a .444 SP for a shortstop, even in the era or A-Rod, Nomar, and Jeter. Obviously the OBP's nothing to write home about, but he did manage to draw 54 walks -- nothing special in itself, but still more than I would've expected.

  Aurilia hit .286 against lefties and .267 against righthanders -- not that much of a difference. However, his OBP splits were .368 and .329, respectively, and his SPs were .521 and .421, respectively. His OPS was 879 against lefthanders and only 750 against righthanders. So don't let that relatively small difference in batting average fool you. The lad probably should have done what he did a lot this year, which is bat ahead of Snow against lefties. And even .879 isn't exactly fabulous, but it's a damn sight better than Snow's .746.

  Richie reached base a bit better at home than on the road (.287 average, .351 SP vs. .255 and .326), but he hit for far more power at home (.492 SP vs. 396): 12 doubles both home and away, plus 2 triples and 12 homers at home vs. 0 and 8. His day/night splits were pretty similar to home/road. He didn't hit at all on artificial turf -- .179/.220/.308 -- but that was in only 39 at-bats. The Giants played only 13 games on turf anyway, so none of the individual players' turf stats can be all that meaningful.

  He was at his best, though, with runners on base (ROB) and in late-inning pressure situations (LIPS). With runners on, he went .298/.370/.496, with 11 of his 20 homers and 15 of his 24 doubles; in 60 LIPS at-bats -- which, again, isn't all that much, but still not that far from the team lead -- he went .333/.385/.567 with 4 of his home runs. This is a guy you want up there late in the game, believe it or not.

  I'd give him a 7.
  
  

• Marvin Benard: As nasty as the fans could be toward Aurilia sometimes, special wrath was saved for Benard, and not without good reason. He just didn't have a good year at the plate. His 63 walks, which, though that's not too far from what one might expect of Benard, is still awful for a leadoff hitter, led to an OBP of .342, which absolutely does not cut it. His .396 slugging percentage is disappointing, too: 27 doubles, 6 triples, 12 homers. I mean, if you're not gonna get on base much, you'd better hit for some power. He managed to steal 22 bases in 29 tries, but as leadoff hitters go, this is just not someone to be afraid of, if you're on any team other than the Giants. I'd like to believe that he simply had a down year, but I have the feeling we're seeing the real Marvin Benard, or something close to it.

  He didn't play much against lefties, which is a good thing: .216/.283/.275 in 102 at-bats, plus only 6 walks. His .273/.355/.424 performance against righties is something to sneeze at, too. He was particularly awful in LIPS, with a .196 average, .274 OBP, and a ridiculous .268 SP (for an OPS of -- get ready for this, unless you've already mentally done the math -- .542. Benard's overall OPS is worse than Barry Bonds' SP against lefties, in a year where he didn't hit lefties. Benard's other splits were unremarkable -- fairly consistent across the board, sadly. What that means is, there's no real situation where he's a "must play." Best bet: day game at home.

  On defense, well, Marv would thrill us with the occasional circus catch, and indeed he wasn't charged with an error until the season was nearly over. However, those circus catches have a lot to do with getting a rotten jump on fly balls. He's not Glenallen Hill out there, thankfully, but center field is too great a challenge for Benard, especially at Pac Bell Park, where it's big. Steven R. hit this one on the head in his first look at the yard.

  Perhaps Marv spoiled us in 1998, and even last year, to an extent. Either way, he gets a 4 from me here.

• Barry Bonds: Once again Bonds leads the team in being the most interesting player. I'm not sure he wants that to be the case, but oh, well. His .306 batting average would've been a lot higher, I suspect, if he hadn't played hurt as much as he did (or, to put it another way, if he hadn't been hurt as much as he was). When healthy, he was a monster, as his overall .440 OBP and .688 SP show. That's an OPS of 1.128, which is stratospheric. He missed 19 games, though, with various ailments and rest days, which isn't at all bad at his age, but isn't a great sign, either. He only had 147 hits (28 doubles, 4 triples, a career-high 49 homers), but drew 117 walks, compared to 77 strikeouts. You know he's slowing down, though, because despite his rather whopping 129 runs scored, he only tried 14 steal attempts, and was successful 11 times.

  As always seems to be the case, he was healthily downrapped by fans and media for his relatively low RBI count: 106, on 49 home runs. This, evidently, proves that he's just a selfish, stats-oriented ballplayer who can't be counted on to drive in any teammates, or some such nonsense. As was very much the case in 1997, Bonds just didn't bat much with people on base. Batting behind the pitcher, Benard, and Mueller, both of whom had bad years, Bonds had 203 at-bats with runners on base, compared to Jeff Kent's 288 -- roughly an ROB at-bat every other game. Bonds, though, walked 74 times in such situations, compared with Kent's 58, which is still a healthy total. I don't have sacrifice-fly and certain other data, but this means that Bonds had 277 at-bats plus walks with ROB, and Kent had 346. The difference? Instead of pitcher-Benard-Mueller preceding Kent, he had Benard-Mueller-Bonds. You might say that Bonds is going to produce more runs than the pitcher's spot, generally speaking.

  Bonds' lefty/righty splits surprise me: 230/.320/.527 vs. .340/.487/.759. What that means is, this year he's Babe Ruth against righties, but Best-Case-Scenario J.R. Phillips against lefties, without all the strikeouts. Still, his walk and strikeout numbers were interesting: 20 and 33 against lefties, 97 and 44 against righties. For reasons that I think are pretty obvious, righties don't want to pitch to him. He no longer scares lefties, though -- at least not as much as he used to. His 12 homers in 148 at-bats shouldn't be ignored.

  If you guessed that he had a better offensive season at home than on the road, you were right: .321/.449/.741. But he was a monster on the road, too -- just not as much of one: .291/.431./.633. The big difference in slugging percentage is accounted for easily enough: he hit about two-thirds of his doubles and all of his triples at home, while splitting his homers down the middle. He also probably should get a little credit for making none of his 3 errors at home, given that it's his first year in a brand-new left field, but probably that stat doesn't mean anything.

  At first glance, his day/night stats are, well, as different as night and day. If you want to strike him out, for instance, try to be a lefty during a day game, or John Franco in the postseason. Bonds hit .263 in day games and .331 at night, but the other splits tell me that the difference wasn't that great: .383 OBP during the day, .471 at night -- the man's incredible -- and respective SPs of .674 and .695. His grass/turf splits were fairly wide, but bear in mind, again, that the Giants played very few games on Astroturf, and Bonds sat two of those out. So his grass stats are only a tiny bit weaker than his overall numbers, but he went .344/.549/.875 on turf. (Babe Ruth, who played no games on Astroturf, set the major league SP record with .847 in 1921.)

  Now we get to the part that the Bonds-bashers like best Æ almost: his bases-empty/ROB splits. If you hate Bonds, you expect .167/.235/.314 with runners on, but in fact it's .350/.511/.660. Yes. And with the bases empty, it's .274/.378/.708. Tragically, only 42% of his at-bats came with ROB (compared to 49% for Kent); that looks like a small difference until you realize that Bonds drew 66% of his walks with runners on (64% for Kent)ƒ and that with Mueller persistently making the last out of one inning, Bonds constantly led off the next.

  But the part that makes the bashers happiest has to be his LIPS batting average of .230 in 61 at-bats. This time he can't exactly fall back on fear-generated walks as a cause -- he only drew 13 LIPS walks (which is still a lot). In those 61 at-bats he had only 14 hits, of which half were home runs (and none were doubles or triples). His OBP was, for him, low: .365. Ditto his SP: .574. Know what? I don't care. I'm giving him a 9.

• Ellis Burks: He had a fabulous year, when he was able to answer the bell. I don't belittle the fact that he only did this about 75% of the time: my knees hurt sometimes, and I don't play baseball for a living. I sure as hell can't run on them much, so I figure that Burks' efforts are nearly superhuman. Overall: .344/.419/.606 -- which, except for the batting average, are truly Bondsian. I still don't know how he kept it up there, but he did. He murdered lefties and righties alike -- .360/.441/.550 and .338/.412/.625 Æ and you really can't complain about any facet of his season except the lack of durability. And even then, the complaints are more "on his behalf" than "against him." He's almost a latter-day Willie McCovey.

  He was the Angel of Death at Pac Bell (.362/.446/.697) and far from a slouch on the road (.327/.394/.524); Godzilla during the day (.327/.380/.627) and a slightly different monster at night (.354/.443/.594); he tore it up on grass (.335/.415/.615) and, in limited playing time, was the more than adequate on turf (.448/.484/.483). He went .335/.398/.654 with the bags empty and .351/.437/.559, not to mention .341/.413/.634 in LIPS. In short, this is a guy you want up there under any circumstances, unless you play for the other team.

  I'd give him a 9, but he's leaving, so let's make it an 8. Out of spite. Hell, if spite is to be a factor, I may as well make it a big ol' zero. I'm not pleased. (In fact, just as I finish typing the previous sentence, I hear the news that Burks has signed with the Indians. So zero it is. See ya, Ellis. And thanks.

• Felipe Crespo: I think this guy was a hell of a find, though I'll apply one of my many watchwords: When a marginal player has a good year, it might be time to shop him, 'cause he ain't likely to do it again. Still, I'm prepared to hope he proves me wrong (as long as he stays with the Giants). He had only 131 at-bats, in which he put up .290/.351/.443 figures. These aren't killer, and improvement is not out of the question. Mostly his role seemed to be "Go on up there and get a single," so he did. A lot.

  Then again, he was only 4-for-23 against lefties, which isn't a great sign, but .315/.379/.491 against righties. He played far more on the road than at home, and performed far better, too: .260/.310/.320 in the friendly confines, .309/.378/.519 otherwise. He clearly was a nighttime hitter, too (.318/.375/.470). He wasn't vastly different with the bases empty than with runners on, and, given his role, his LIPS numbers were nothing to write home about: .293/.356/.415. Then again, it's hard to blame him, assuming he batted a lot against other teams' closers.

  He didn't play a whole lot of defense, but he strikes me as an infielder forced to play the outfield. He gets a 7 from me.

• Russ Davis: He'll be heartbroken to know that he's nowhere near my favorite 2000 Giant. A few pinch-hits in the last few weeks brought his batting average up to a "respectable" .261, but his .302 OBP and .439 SP were pretty much all you could reasonably expect of him. In other words, not good. Not good at all.

  He hardly played against righthanders, which may be why he did so poorly against them (rather than the other way around): .195/.232/.299. Against lefties he was, well, not great, but pretty damn good: .311/.355/.544. Probably his best split was in night games: .296/.327/.480. His worst? LIPS, I'm sorry to say: .100/.136/.250, albeit in only 20 at-bats.

  Defensively, he might be worse at third base than Mark Lewis was. I feel I'm being nice in giving him a 5. The papers are saying he probably won't be back.

• Bobby Estalella: This guy might have been the most frustrating Giant of them all. He started like a house afire... and then turned into Russ Gibson right before our eyes. I think, though, that it might be fair to peg him as a low-average slugger who draws a few walks. You really can't complain that much about him. His .234/.357/.468 year -- his first full season -- is hardly Piazzaesque, but I think he might be Glenallen Hill strong (with about as much propensity to whiff: 92 in 299 at-bats). He performed well against lefties (.250/.389/.542), so perhaps he's someone to look at as a platoon player, though I have this sort of instinctive dislike for platooning catchers on a lefty-righty basis. He hit well at home (.261/.393/.500) and brutally on the road (.211/.326/.441) -- tragic, that, given that he had several more plate appearances on the road. Other splits, apart from artificial turf, are unremarkable.

  I think I like him on defense, and I wish he'd just hit better. I'm hoping he could be a regular for us. I'll give him a 6.

• Pedro Feliz: Who can tell? The guy had seven major league at-bats and beat out a pair of dribblers. I want to like him, especially after his rather good year at Fresno. I'm gonna give him a 6 and keep hoping. Not only that, but didn't his last name used to be spelled "Felix"?

• Jeff Kent: Should this guy be the MVP? He sure as hell had a great year. I wouldn't argue against that for love or money. Who could argue with .334/.424/.596? Not me. But I don't envision ever seeing Kent as the MVP over Bonds, even just on the Giants. Not in any of the four years he's been here, even though he's always touted as such. That's not to take away a thing from Kent; he's just not as great a player.

  He is, however, great, and at this moment, I'd sure rather have him than Matt Williams, no matter what I said when the trade came down. I love the 41 doubles and 33 home runs, not to mention the club-leading 7 triples. This guy's a hustler. And hey: 114 runs, 125 RBIs, 107 walks? He's a monster. There is, I daresay, no better second baseman in the major leagues right now, pound for pound. (That might be different in April -- who knows?)

  His splits are mostly consistent: .324/.459/.524 against lefties, .337/.412/.620 against righties; .336/.419/.567 at Pac Bell, .333/.429/.624 not; .359/.442/.641 during the day, .316/.412/.564 at night. He was far, far better on grass than turf, but that practically doesn't count. He really stood out, though, with runners on base: .382/.482/.632, as opposed to a perfectly fine .288/.362/.562 with the bags empty. Interestingly, though -- and believe me, I never would've expected this -- he fell off the edge of the earth in LIPS: .279/.347/.368.

  I don't see much about Kent not to like, though. This is one of those situations where crow tastes just dandy. I mean, I thought Robby Thompson was The Man For All Time at second base, but Kent's zoomed right past him. Sure, Robby was better on defense -- better than damn near anybody -- but whatever Kent lacks defensively, he more than compensates for at the plate. I think Bonds is the MVP, but I'd be delighted if Kent got it. The best of all possible worlds, given the Giants' quick postseason elimination, would be Bonds and Kent somehow echoing the 1979 NL MVP vote and finishing in a first-place tie. Till then, Kent gets a 9 from me for exceeding expectations. [Addendum, November 17: Well, Kent did get the MVP, and I am delighted. So much so that he now gets a 10.]

• Terrell Lowery: He went 1-for-6 at home and 1-for-7 in LIPS. Other than that, his breakdowns were mostly great. Still, he only had 34 at-bats, so there's not much you can say about him. A lot of folks were angry and surprised that the Giants could send him down in midseason despite his .556 batting average (that's 15-for-27; after his September 1 call-up, he went 0-for-7), but I was mostly surprised and sort of relieved that they passed him through waivers. I'm guessing that the rest of the teams recognize, too, the fact that, hey, he sure looks like a ballplayer -- he can run, he can throw, he's got some pop -- but no matter how thin you slice him, he's still Terrell Lowery. Call him a 7, but only because of that hot start.

• Ramon Martinez: He sure did a lot better than I figured he would. True, he only had 189 at-bats, but he still went .302/.354/.487 with six home runs. Can't argue with that. His left/right and home/away splits were pretty consistent, but... well, I've already overused the "day and night" pun, but it applies here: .378/.441/.592 under the sun, .220/.253/.374 under the stars. Moaner could be counted on to perhaps start a rally with an extra-base hit (.294/.336/.523), but with runners on base, he could be counted on mostly to reach base rather than move people around (.313/.378/.438 -- not that this is bad, either). Terrible in 28 LIPS at-bats: .143/.200/.179.

  Duane Kuiper said on the radio that he and Robby Thompson consider Martinez to have the best hands among Giants infielders (aside from J.T. Snow). That scared me; I really didn't think it was a good omen. I still have this image of Martinez as, well, a brutal fielder, but I think I'm keying in on a couple of bad plays from last year. This year he made only one error, though that's the only defensive stat I have on him. He seems to be a natural second baseman who can't play third at all, but he did a fine job at short, I think. I'd pegged him as Just Another Middle Infielder, like the departed Wilson Delgado, but he's better than that -- call him a 7, say.

• Juan Melo: Here's your Just Another Middle Infielder. He went 1-for-13 as a late-season call-up, so you really can't tell anything about him (except that he struck out five times). Not impressive, but hasn't had a chance to be: 4.

• Damon Minor: My initial impression was "Uh-oh: J.R. Phillips." However, I think this guy's way better already, even after only nine major league at-bats (including three homers). I have no idea what the Giants are going to do with this guy, though: 8.

• Doug Mirabelli: You know, he hit one of the softest .230's you're ever going to see (.337 OBP, .370 SP). It's really too bad, because he started out looking pretty good. However, his only half-decent split is day games, where he hit .270/.376/.450. Then again, he tore it up in 28 LIPS at-bats: .321/.367/.536. I think, though, that overall, we're looking at a backup catcher who got over 200 at-bats, here.

  I keep wanting to like him on defense -- he does have a fine arm -- but maybe I expect too much from him. And Lord, is this guy slow. That's not news, of course, but I'm not sure you could pick a slower starting fivesome than Mirabelli and the four regular infielders. This is not a guy who should bat with a runner on first and less than two outs. Ever. 'Cause the pitcher will lead off the next inning. I'll give him a 6, but probably just out of blind hope.

• Bill Mueller: I like Mueller, and I want to keep on liking him. For that to happen, he'll have to hit a hell of a lot better. The .268 average is about 40 points below what it should be, but let's not even talk about the .388 SP and .333 OBP. Batting second. Ahead of Bonds. And he reached base once every three tries. This is, what, Vizcaino country?

  I think he took to heart all the complaints about his lack of home-run prowess, so he humped up and hit... 10. Hey, it's a career high, at least. I'm starting to think of him as a switch-hitting Mike Aldrete.

  Funny damn thing: Dusty had always seemed reluctant to play him against lefties, but he did far better against them this year than against righties: .306/.390/.435 vs. .259/.319/.376. He couldn't hit at all at home (.243/.291/.337) -- maybe it's psychological or something -- but was just dandy on the road: .292/.373/.437. His other splits aren't that pronounced. However, interestingly enough, here's his LIPS numbers: .294/.360/.500. Who would've guessed? Not this writer, who says 6. That is, I would've said 6, but as of today, Mueller's been dispatched to the Cubs for Tim Worrell, a middle-reliever who had a good year for two bad teams. I'm not so bummed about this, but then they turned around and signed Russ Davis to a one-year deal, apparently willing to sacrifice offense and defense to give Pedro Feliz a year of "seasoning" at the big-league level. In any case, Mueller's now, sadly, a zero. Buy, Billy -- I'll miss you. A lot of us will.

• Calvin Murray: My expectations were pretty low, but he didn't even meet those. Lots of speed, but no particular walks, no particular power, no particular on-base-gettitude (.242/.348/.345). Very disappointing. He'll probably always be remembered for his grand slam off Randy Johnson to pretty much ice home-field advantage, but his only other homer was in the first series at Pac Bell. He did hit well with runners on, though: .282/.373/.451. That's great. However, this is the kind of guy you want starting an inning, and with the bases empty, he was terrible: 220/.333/285.

  Hard not to like this guy in center field, though. Then again, maybe that's just because Benard's so frightening. How 'bout a 5?

• Armando Rios: Hard to complain: .266/.347/.502. Didn't hit lefties at all (.167/.222/.333 in 42 at-bats), but was almost Jeff Kentesque against righties: .288/.372/.539. Couldn't hit at home, though, but came up big on the road (.220/.312/.385 vs. .306/.378/.605). Drastically better at night than during the day, too: .289/.346/.535 and .231/.349/.451. And I think he proved that he just might not be the kind of player you want starting an inning, but you do want him delivering the knockout punch with runners on: .181/.268/.331 and .368/.437/.708. His .270 LIPS batting average is nothing special, but his .372 OBP and .622 SP rate raves, albeit in only 37 at-bats.

  He's still a little frightening in the outfield, but he sure does have a gun. I love strong-armed outfielders. I'm happy with him: 7

• Scott Servais: Unfortunately, the USA Today site didn't provide team breakdowns for Servais, but I think he managed one hit in his second go-round as a Giant. It was actually fine with me that the Giants picked him up again, though I don't think much of him as a player. I kind of liked the idea of bringing in a veteran catcher who's pretty familiar with the pitching staff at a time when the roster can afford to carry three catchers. Not only that, but until Servais got onto the field in early September, no one else had caught an inning for the Giants except Mirabelli and Estalella. Servais didn't have much of a chance to perform, but I believe he fulfilled his function: 7.

• J.T. Snow: The first thing anybody's going to look at with this guy is his performance against lefthanders, which was not strong: .256/.351/.395. It's way better, however, than we've come to expect, especially given that this is only his second season as a full-time lefty. In 129 at-bats against lefthanders, he managed 6 doubles and 4 homers, which is nothing special, but in previous years it seems like we couldn't have expected half that. Against righthanders the numbers were .292/.370/.479 -- not bad, if not particularly good for a first baseman. He was up at home (.313/.373/.508) and down on the road (.255/.358/.412) and a better hitter at night (.294/.380/.486) than during the day (.268/.340/.416). Most significantly, I think, he was gold with the bases empty -- .305/.368/.503 -- and dross with runners on -- .258/.363/.406. He hit reasonably well in LIPS, though: .292/.329/.492.

  I'm guessing he's going to win yet another Gold Glove, which is nice -- he seems to save at least one bad throw per game, but maybe I just notice that because of his reputation; maybe other first basemen are just as prolific. However, much as I maligned his defense back in 1996 (without knowing better), I have to say that this is the best defensive first basemen I've ever had the pleasure of watching. I don't know what his defensive numbers say, and I don't care. In fact, I'm doubting that defensive numbers tell you much about first basemen anyway.

  I sure wish he'd hit more, though. His numbers are sort of Aurilia-like, which is great if you're a middle infielder but less so for a corner: 7.

• Team offense: Bear in mind that I'm not going to do a statistical comparison across teams, or even compared to the league as a whole, so I really don't know how the Giants stack up against other teams. I kept hearing how they had the "number-one offense," or "number-two," or finally "number-three," but I was never real sure what that meant. They scored 925 runs, which is a hell of a lot: 5.7 per game. They gave up 747 -- 4.6 per game -- and Pythagoras suggests that they should have won 98 games. They were close enough with 97, meaning that they played to their projection -- quite different from the 1997 team that went 90-72 but whose runs scored/runs allowed ratio suggested an 80-win season.

  Pacific Bell Park, from all accounts, played like a pitcher's park. If you didn't know that already, you might well be surprised. I sure expected the place to be at least neutral, if not one that favored the hitter somewhat, but that wasn't the case at all. However, the Giants hit better at home than on the road, but not by all that much. Their Pac Bell numbers: .283/.362/.482 (practically a dead ringer for their percentages against righties); their road numbers: .273/.361/.463. They scored 23 fewer runs at home, but they played a whole lot fewer ninth innings at home, too. The other numbers were pretty close, though they struck out 120 more times on the road than at home -- a differential of 1.5 a game. They also made 33 errors at home compared to 60 on the road, but who knows to what extent "home-town calls" affected this?

  They were pretty much the same team in the daytime (.274/.357/.572) as at night (.281/.365/.472), and hit for quite a bit less power on artificial turf (.265/.371/.449) than on grass (.279/.361/.474). I suppose this is The Mark Of A Winner, but they were vastly better with runners on base than with the bases empty. With no one on: .262/.339/.458; but get a runner on base, and it's .298/.388/.490. Sadly, though, their LIPS numbers reflect their bases-empty numbers: .265/.338/.452 -- which works out to 29 homers in 642 at-bats, with 67 walks and 142 strikeouts.

  Though on the whole the Giants hit better at home, you can't say Pac Bell Park helped visiting teams any. Opponents achieved a .250 batting average, .322 OBP, and .373 SP, if you can believe that, while toiling in the Beautiful New Ballpark. In their own yards they raked Giants pitching at clips of .282, .362, and .451 -- really quite similar to the Giants' performance in these other teams' yards. Then again, I'm not entirely sure what USA Today means by opponents' home/road stats: Does "home" mean "opponents' home," or "Giants' home"? If the latter, ignore the last paragraph or two or three.

  Giants opponents hit pretty much the same whether runners were on base or not, with the differentials of 2 points in batting average and 3 points in SP in favor of "bases empty" and a 7-point differential in OBP on the side of "runners on base." Their LIPS batting average and OBP weren't far from those of the Giants -- .254 and .332 -- but the Giants, by comparison, really turned on the juice in those situations, outslugging their opponents by 58 points (.452 to .394).

• Miguel Del Toro: he only threw 17-1/3 innings, but he managed to get rocked to the tune of a 5.19 ERA. Still, he pitched well at times, and in fact he struck out 16 and walked only 6 in his time with the big club. As in the past, his downfall has been the home-run ball: 3 this year. Righthanders only hit .231 against him (.348 OBP), but with a ludicrous .538 slugging percentage. You have to wonder what the Giants' plans for this guy could be, and it's pretty scary that he was on the playoff roster, with John Johnstone on the shelf. I think I'm probably being nice to him when I give him a 4.

• Alan Embree: His season stats -- 3-5, 4.95 -- don't grab you, but after a horrific start, he settled down and threw quite well, for the most part. Then again, his breakdowns sure aren't particularly impressive. Apart from his 3.14 ERA and .625 opposition OPS (OOPS) at home, he mostly got hammered -- his worst showings being on the road (6.61, .833), with the bases empty (.810), on turf (4.50, .929), and, disturbingly, in LIPS (.847, wherein hitters banged him around for a .476 SP). Still, I have no real complaints about the guy, and I'd be okay with him in the bullpen in 2001. He's no specialist, though: .286/.352/.407 against lefties, .267/.344/.378 against righties. I don't think this guy's a short-man. I'd go as far as to give him a 6 for 2000, though.

• Shawn Estes: He's been pretty thoroughly ripped on the Giants newsgroup thanks to his fairly incompetent performance in the Division Series against the Mets: no control, couldn't get out of jams, sprained his ankle on the bases and came off in time to get himself tagged out. Had this been any other pitcher, probably it would have been written off as an unfortunate game, but with Estes, well, people seem so bent on forcing this guy into the Atlee Hammaker role -- you know, lights up the sky early on, lights up the scoreboard the rest of the time, is a head-case, etc... none of which is necessarily fair to Hammaker, either.

  The chief problem with Estes is that he walks 5 men a game and only strikes out 6. Not that the strikeouts themselves bother me, but in relation to the walks... that's not good. If you're going to walk so many guys, you'd better strike out a hell of a lot more. The league hit .275 against him this year: .285/.379/.388 against righties, but .216/.328/.314 against lefties. Clearly nobody really hammers this guy, but those walks kill him. In fact, he walked more lefties than he struck out, somehow.

  If he could duplicate his home performance on the road, he'd be in clover, mostly: 9-4, 3.21 ERA, .728 OOPS. The OOPS wasn't exactly bad on the road (.766), and the opposition batting average was actually lower away from Pac Bell, but he walked a bunch more guys than at home. His day/night splits were pretty close, too.

  Estes seemed to have trouble finishing off one-two-three innings, and indeed his .290/.380/.381 bases-empty numbers might bear this out -- no power, but lotsa walks. He was better with runners on, though not that much better: .257/.361/.373. Batters in LIPS went 4-for-16 against him, but with six walks, which is why he didn't throw much in LIPS. His 15-6, 4.26 season earns him a 6 from me.

• Aaron Fultz: He picked it up toward the end of the year, only to make sure to give up a game-losing home run in extras in the LDS. Lefties didn't hit him much, though: .221/.281/.395. He's the closest thing we have to a specialist. He also pitched well at home -- .231/.299/.354, with a 3.25 ERA -- but was murdered on the road: .296/.372/.504, 6.21. A fair amount of his mound time came in LIPS: .258/.329/.470. Too much slugging, though only 3 of the 8 home runs he gave up. Overall, he was unspectacular, though he had some good outings. I really couldn't give him more than a 5, though.

• Doug Henry: As with Servais, Henry's numbers on the USA Today site are for the entire season, most of which was spent with Houston. Watching him pitch made me feel the absence of a healthy John Johnstone. He had, if I remember right, a decent debut for the Giants this year, and indeed won in his first two appearances, but it was pretty touch-and-go. Control was the key issue all season, as he walked 5.6 guys per 9 innings despite holding opposing hitters to a .207 batting average: .220/.352/.480 for lefties -- frightening isolated power (which is slugging percentage minus batting average) -- and .200/.322/.337 for righties. In other words, he really doesn't actively need to face lefthanded hitters much. I was not real impressed with his second Giants stint, though -- call it a 3. A healthy Johnstone, if there ever will be such a creature again, is a better bet.

• Livan Hernandez: He's the staff "ace," with a 17-11 record and a 3.75 ERA -- neither of which is anything to sneeze at, especially given his horrid start to the season. His two consecutive shutouts won him the "ace" moniker, and you do have to like the way he pitched. He walked less than three men every nine innings, though he gave up a hell of a lot of hits (73 walks, 254 hits in 240 innings). His lefty/righty splits were real close: .273/.339/.412 for lefties, .272/.314/.402 for righties. He was damn near unbeatable at home, though, with a 12-3 record, a 2.98 ERA, and an OOPS of .640 (.235/.295/.345). What that means, however, is that on the road, he bit the bag: 5-8, 4.61, .826 (.311/.357/.469). Though his respective won-lost records would tell you differently, he was pretty much the same pitcher during the day as he was at night (day: 7-7, 3.87, .697; night: 10-4, 3.65, .761). His ball seemed to carry more at night, as accounted for by a 70-point differential in opposition SP.

  He had two wretched starts on Astroturf, leading to a 12.38 ERA in 8 innings, but that's not much to go on. He also gave fans significantly more grief with runners on than with the bases empty -- meaning, I guess, that this is a guy who has trouble pitching out of trouble. With no one on: .255/.315/.376, .691; with ROB: .297/.339/.451, .790. Fortunately, he faced far more batters with the bases empty. His LIPS numbers frighten me a little, and I think they can be accounted for largely by the fact that Dusty tends to stick with him too long: .310/.372/.434, .806.

  My friend Pat considers Livan "the real deal," though, and I have to think he has a point. Leevster gets an 8.

• John Johnstone: What a wretched year. I wonder if he had 10 healthy days all season. He only pitched 50 innings this year, but coughed up 64 hits, including 11 home runs. Lefties went .377/.419/.675 against him, while righties managed a slightly more sedate .287/.326/.516. His only good split at all was .000/.250/.000 in a single inning on artificual turf, but he still gave up a run. And check out these OOPSes: left/right -- 1.094/.842; home/road -- .888/.988; day/night: 1.092/.829; grass -- .951; bases empty/ROB -- .970/.908; and LIPS -- .949.

  Absolutely terrible. But this would seem to have been caused largely by the back injury he suffered down the stretch last year. Clearly he hasn't come back from it, and we even had to shelve him for the postseason, just after he'd just started to pitch well. It's truly a shame: 2. I still have faith that he can come back, though.

• Scott Linebrink: I had such high hopes for this guy, and I'm not delighted that all we got in return was Doug Henry. Because he's gone, he gets to be a big ol' 0.

• Joe Nathan: Sorry, gang, I'm just not very impressed: 63 walks and 61 strikeouts in 93-1/3 innings. A 5.21 ERA despite a 5-2 record. Lefties clocked him at a .295/.409/.455 clip, though righties were largely ineffective: .214/.330/.434. Still, that SP is a little disturbing, and comes courtesy of 8 home runs in 173 at-bats vs. righthanders. Yick.

  Nathan managed to pitch extremely well at home, though: 3-0, 2.63 in 48 innings (.206/.330/.318). He was almost Johnstone on the road, though: .302/.409/.564. He had trouble keeping hitters off base with runners on -- .266/.398/.442 -- though he wasn't so susceptible to the big hit. In fact, his opposing SP with ROB was actually lower than that with the bases empty: .246/.347/.446. He stank in his limited LIPS appearances, though: .286/.448/.619, 1.067.

  And let's not talk about the fact that he was forever going on the DL, which, in a guy so young, is not a great sign. I'm going to give him a 5.

• Robb Nen: What an astounding season he had, really for the second time in three years. People like to point to the 41 saves, but I don't. I like to point to that ERA: 1.50. Oh, and that opposition batting average: .162. And hey, how 'bout that OOPS: roughly .431 (I don't have sacrifice fly numbers and such). The league was a collective Kim Batiste against him. The highest ERA in any of his breakdowns: 2.13 at night ( as opposed to 0.38 during the day). His opposing batting averages ranged from .135 (righties) and .138 (ROB) to .188 (lefties) and .179 (bases empty). As you can imagine, about three-quarters of the hitters he faced were in LIPS, where -- obviously -- he excelled: .164/.241/.237, .478. The highest OOPS against him came from lefties (.563), as one might reasonably expect; in fact, he faced more lefties than righties, as you'd also expect. This guy, for all our moaning about him last year, is a 10 this year -- the only one on the team, as far as I'm concerned. Absolutely unhittable -- 92 strikeouts in 66 innings.

• Russ Ortiz: He had a fabulous August, which salvaged his season. He wound up 14-12 with a 5.01 ERA and walked 5.2 men per game while couging up 20 homers. He showed us that leaving him out there in the ninth was disastrous, as hitters spanked him to the tune of .333/.429/.528 in LIPS (.957 OOPS), and aside from a .559 mark on turf (in 13 innings) and.723 at home, his OOPSes landed between .783 and .849. Still, though, while his 4.21 home ERA is nothing special, his home stats -- .237/.336/.387 -- are certainly something to crow about.

  But those walks... I'd give him a 5 for the season (and only because of August) and hope like hell he kicks it into gear in 2001.

• Felix Rodriguez: This guy might be the best setup man we've had in a long time. I wish he walked fewer people, but I have to think that his control keeps hitters pretty loose at the plate. He struck out 95 in 81-2/3 innings, but walked 42. Still, the league hit .220 against him, and it wasn't exactly a hard .220 either: .291 SP, .317 OBP (approximately -- again, no sacrifice stats, hit batsmen, etc.) That's (roughly) a .607 OOPS... and the lefty/righty breakdown is the opposite of what you'd expect: .267/.361/.400 for righthanded batters (.761), only .160/.267/.206 (.473!) for lefties. They really couldn't hit him in any venue this year: .188/.268/.254, .522 at home; .247/.361/.367, .728 on the road. He was way more hittable in the sunshine (.281/.374/.421, .795) than in the dark (.177/.283/.240, .523). His numbers were nearly identical with ROB or not: .224/.329/.327 with the bases empty, .215/.310/.302 with runners on, and he was even better in LIPS (which he damn well better have been): .192/.284/.269, .553). His ERA breakdowns, apart from no runs in 7-1/3 innings on turf, were all between 2.55 and 2.91. This guy helped a lot. I think he wore out down the stretch, though, so I'm gonna drop him all the way to a 9.

• Kirk Rueter: His 3.96 ERA surprises me. I would've guessed at least a run higher. However, he ended up doing a good job after getting bombed early. His 11-9 record is almost unheard of for him; for the first time as a Giant, he really didn't get good run support.

  At home Rueter went 6-5 with a 3.15 ERA and .281/.342/.431, .773 figures (though we walked more than he struck out). On the road, thoughƒ ick: .5-4, 5.06, .302/.349/.494, .843. He got lefties out pretty regularly: .244/.309/.400; righty batters, however, somewhat lit him up: .301/.353/.472. He walked 50 righthanders and struck out 50, compared to 12 and 21 for lefties. LIPS batters went 6-for-14 against him, which just tells you he usually didn't make it into crunch time. If only it could work out this way: the time to pitch Rueter is against lefties at home during night games: 7.

• Ryan Vogelsong: Well, the kid only threw 6 innings, but they were impressive: 4 hits, 2 walks, 6 whiffs, no runs. I'd be quite pleased if he pitched well for the Giants next year, in whatever role they choose to use him. When he first came up, I thought, "Uh-oh... not another Scott Linebrink," in the days before I knew that there wouldn't be any USA Today Giants-only stats on Linebrink, that is... but Vogelsong did something Linebrink never did in his very few innings here: looked tough. Because he pitched so little, but so well, I'll give him a 7.

• Ben Weber: Interestingly, despite his eventual departure to Anaheim, USA Today lists Weber's Giants stats, but doesn't break them down. That's probably a good thing. In 8 innings he gave up 16 hits and 13 runs, all earned, walking 4 and striking out 6. I feel bad for him, as he was a 30-year-old rookie with about 300 minor league seasons behind him, and he had a dandy spring. But he just couldn't get over the hump with the Giants (if a 14.63 ERA is any indication). The league hit .400 off him, which is pretty much all you need to know. An enormous 0.

• Chad Zerbe: Here's another longtime minor leaguer. He managed to get into four games with the Giants, giving up 3 runs in 6 innings, which is nothing special. However, he walked 1 and struck out 5, which isn't bad. I don't know that he has any future, but I was impressed enough to give him a 6.

• Team pitching: An astounding 3.45 ERA at home is counterbalanced by a 4.99 ERA on the road. Day/night and grass/turf splits are all between 4.08 and 4.30, though. Approxomate OOPS for Giants pitching was .753. Compare that to the opponents' OOPS, which was .832, not to mention a 5.64 ERA at Pac Bell compared to 5.27 in their own parks against the Giants. Giants pitching was about as good against righties (.268/.340/.417) as it was against lefties (.262/.346/.403). What I think I like best, though, are the won-lost breakdowns. For the Giants: 55-26 at home, which most of us know, and 42-39 on the road; 37-29 during the day, 60-36 at night; and 89-60 on grass, 8-5 on turf. Flip those around for their opponents. Know what else I like? Opponents slugged .410 with runners on base, and .394 in LIPS, while the Giants managed .490 and .452, respectively. Giants pitching, however, gave up 72 unearned runs while scoring only 61... all while making 13 fewer errors than their opponents. This suggests to me, despite the smallness of sample size, that the Giants aren't generally as good as their opposition at pitching through a defensive lapse.

  However, for the first time I can remember, the Giants really don't have any pitching woes to speak of, at least not in terms of the numbers.

Back to the 2000 Postmortem Home Page

Back to the EEEEEE! Home Page