- 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.