Give 'em Some Stankeye!

Omar Vizquel's injury may turn into a disaster of larger proportions than first thought, because it may quicken the seemingly impending (and ill-conceived) trade for White Sox third baseman Joe Crede. Why would a shortstop going down affect the third base slot?

Simple. With Vizquel out for at least the first few weeks, Kevin Frandsen is now the favorite to get much of the playing time at shortstop. Frandsen was seemingly the top third base option going into the season, so now that he is filling in at another position, it creates a gaping hole at that spot. Thus, it would behoove the Giants to snap up a major league-ready third baseman, post-haste.

Just not Joe Crede. As I mentioned a while back, Crede is just not any kind of answer at third base. Imagine a crappier facsimile of Pedro Feliz, if that can be believed. Unfortunately, the Giants have been rumored to be on the cusp of acquiring him all winter, apparently spurred on by Aaron Rowand's non-stop praise of Crede's intangibles (the Giants still have "character" and "grit" listed higher than "performance", I guess).

Crede may surprise us and turn in a good year that nets the team a draft pick, but more likely he repeats his usual combination of injured and sucky, and we have the same unwatchable mess at third base that we've come to know so well. Knowing Brian Sabean, he'll probably find a way to give up something of value for a player Sox GM Kenny Williams is desperate to get rid of.

-Into the blog arena steps The Bay Area Sports Machine, written by a Mr. Lomez (no Bob Sacamano as a co-author, though). It discusses all Bay Area sports, all the time, with more focus lately on the Giants, obviously, as Spring Training has arrived. Check it out, and take a gander at my personal favorite post for starters.

-Now for the really nerdy stuff. If any of you readers also happen to be fans of the movie Blade Runner, mosey on over to this weird website that I update once in a blue moon. In celebration of me finally being able to watch the BR: Final Cut Five-Disc Special Edition that I got for Christmas, I've been posting some stuff about the movie and some of the neat add-ons contained in the new DVD set. If you think this site charts new waters of dorky obsessiveness, you ain't seen nothing yet.

--This looks awesome...

Labels: dumb trades, joe crede, kevin frandsen, omar vizquel

It's time for everybody's favorite...TGIF links! Here's a collection of random tidbits, most baseball-related, some not. I've also concluded that January sucks, at least in a baseball sense. Only one more month until pitchers and catchers report. One...more...month.

--Today on ESPN.com, Rob Neyer chatted with fans about which pitcher would be better, our own wunderkind Tim Lincecum, or Brewer uberprospect Yovani Gallardo. Lincecum has hellacious stuff and destroyed everything in his path in the minors, but Gallardo is younger and has shown better control. The answer of who will be better isn't exactly as clear-cut as we Giants fans might like.

It makes for an interesting read, and some good points are made, especially in counter to all the people freaking out about Lincecum's small frame, and the injury risk involved, and also just about the general unpredictability of pitchers. He's a pitcher and he exists, therefore he's an injury risk. It happens. Some chatters brought up the example of Mark Prior, who was considered a brilliant physical specimen who could never get hurt, then...got hurt.

Another point raised is that just because Lincecum's delivery is bizarre doesn't mean it's dangerous. It seems like most of his power comes from his lower body, which would take a lot of strain off of the arm. Power pitchers like Nolan Ryan and Roger Clemens had notoriously strong legs, which enabled them to throw hard as hell, and both those guys pitcher forever.

I also realize from reading this chat that some fans just don't live in reality. A majority of the people submitting questions come from the Bay Area, understandably, and some think Lincecum is a top ten pitcher right now. I'm just as excited about Timmy as anybody else, but let's get a hold of ourselves here. He's still young and he's thrown just 146 major league innings. Given the adjustments hitters are likely to make against him, and again given that pesky (knock on wood) injury risk just by him being a pitcher, there are bound to be some bumps in the road before true greatness.

--I try to stay away from Baseball Think Factory, really I do. It's not because the site has a bunch of bad baseball writing or anything. Au contrere, BTF is home to some of the richest baseball analysis out there by some of the most amazing fans of the game. It constantly blows my mind how smart a lot of these guys are.

No, I try to stay away because once I get on, I can't get off. First there are the front page articles, then there are Dan Szymborski's ZiPs projections, then there's the News Blog, which points out some really crappy articles from around the country, then skewers them. One interesting baseball thread leads to another, and before I know it, I've wasted away five hours, my complexion has developed that pasty-white sheen, and when I go outside I hiss at the sun like the Nosferatu or some other denizen of the night. For the sake of a healthy dating life, I try to stay off.

So I basically take it in small steps, kind of the Atkins Diet of baseball stat nerdery. During my 12-step BTF recovery process, I came across this writeup by Chris Dial, where he presents his choices for who should have won the NL Gold Gloves (because the real GG voting is a joke), using a number of (confusing) defensive metrics.

According to his analysis, Pedro Feliz was 2007's best defensive third baseman, which comes as no surprise. I've harped about that before. No, the real shocker is that he rates Omar Vizquel as the best shortstop. We all know Omar is still pretty good, but it seemed like common wisdom that he was declining rapidly. Not so, says Dial. In fact, check out this quote:

>That (outstanding defense) could have been enough to make Omar an average player in 2007, shocking as that sounds.>

Whoah. Omar must have been one hell of a wizard with the glove to make him average, as his bat reached Neifi depths of putridness. I'm not sure I agree, as this is the only bit of analysis that I've seen that rates Vizquel as the best (whereas just about every defensive metric has Feliz as the top 3B), but if true, it gives his re-signing a more positive outlook.

--There was an article today on the Giants official website about the Giants apparently letting Ray Durham and Kevin Frandsen fight it out for the second base job, but I think Chris Haft is just scratching for things to write about. When is the last time the Giants actually let a young player compete, fair and square, for an everyday job against a veteran? Remember the Jamey Wright vs. Brad Hennessey "contest" that really wasn't a fight at all, because Wright had the job as long as he didn't completely mess himself in the spring. Same with Russ Ortiz this past season. Do you really think the Giants are going to give Frandsen a fair shot at taking the starting job from the savvy veteran making $7 million? Please.

For the record, though, I do want to see Frandsen start at third base (assuming the Giants don't upgrade that position in the interrim), and I expect Durham to be considerably better this year. His track record is is just too good for him to fall apart this much, this fast. Plus, how could he be any worse?

--I discussed the lunacy that can go hand-in-hand with Hall of Fame arguments last week, especially involving Jim Rice, but if you want to take a head-long plunge into the darkest depths of the stark-raving-mad HOF argument, I direct you to this bit of wisdom from everybody's favorite Curly-Haired Boyfriend. FJM tears into poor Dan quite nicely here.

--Ten years after my Freshman English teacher in high school sent the class into a baffled stupor by citing it, I think I finally get this joke. Or do I?

--Ah, TGIF video, how I've missed ye. I'm not sure I can really explain this, but...just check it out.

Labels: awful sportswriting, defense, Hall of Fame, link drop, omar vizquel, Tim Lincecum

On his immensely popular (and awesome) site Baseball Musings, David Pinto has released the 2007 results for a defensive metric he concocted called "Probabilistic Model of Range", which, in short, tries to determine how many outs a fielder made on the year as opposed to the amount of outs he was supposed to make. You'd best follow that link above to get a coherent explanation of how it's devised, because you ain't gettin' one here, but trust me, it really is a neat tool.

Basically, the way it works, if this studly and very handsome center fielder named Paul Rice is expected, based on several factors picked from play-by-play data, to make 150 outs on the season, and he makes 200, he's a pretty damn good fielder, because he's made way more plays than you'd have any right to predict. If he makes only 100 out of 150 predicted outs, he'll grow a creepy mustache and call himself "Benard".

Pinto puts the difference into a ratio. If a player is over 100 (i.e. a 1:1 ratio), he's a pretty good fielder. If he's under 100, he isn't making as many outs as he "should" be making, and thus probably lacks range or just sucks in some general fashion. The metric can work for teams as well as individual players.

Let's check out the 2007 rankings for shortstops, right on the heels of the Omar Vizquel signing. Vizquel ranks tenth among all shortstops with a rating of 101.25, meaning that he was pretty good, but not too far above average. You can sort of argue that this might be Omar's reputation in a nutshell. Many statheads have argued that Vizquel, while he makes the eye-popping highlight reel plays all the time, is merely good at making the routine plays, not great. Thus, while awesome to watch, the numbers would seem to say that he's merely a pretty good shortstop as opposed to a frabulous, grabulous, zip-zoop-zabulous one.

If Vizquel really isn't as great as he seems, then it only gives more weight to the naysayers who are ripping his new contract. If you're paying for a no-hit defensive specialist who isn't that fantastic with the glove after all, then what are you getting? A black hole?

The rank is a little disappointing, I suppose, but I'm not really worried too much. Vizquel's rating is still pretty darn good, and he is fun to watch. And hey, it's not like he's Derek Jeter out there or anything (bottom of the list...yikes!). Christina Kahrl of BP defended the Vizquel signing here, essentially saying that $5 mil isn't much to pay for one or two years of solid defense that could make those quality young arms the Giants have that much better. Plus, you never know, Vizquel could bring that bat back to respectability and then no one would be bitching about the Giants bringing him back.

I guess my original opinion on the matter is the same. I'm always of the "offense first, worry about defense second" philosophy, and this signing would seem to conflict with that, but this is not going to be an albatross contract, so if he sucks it's not going to hamstring the team. I would also have loved to see the team be a little more creative in filling that shortstop gap, but there really aren't many appealing options elsewhere and Brian Sabean hasn't done anything imaginative in years. Hell, if Omar can continue to help keep Noah Lowry's horrid peripheral stats from eating him alive, who can argue?

-Also check out the ratings on Baseball Musings for third basemen and second basemen. Pinto's results show that Pedro Feliz was indeed one of the best (if not the best) as I'd talked about last week. They also show Ray Durham to be one of the worst fielders in the majors at second base, which, if accurate, probably makes poor Ray-Ray the worst everyday player in baseball in '07, except maybe for the lovably execrable Nick Punto.

Labels: defense, obligatory nerdy simpsons reference, omar vizquel

So that youth movement is going to begin...when?

The Giants seemingly can't contain themselves when it comes to old, helpless players, as they've brought back Omar Vizquel on a one year/$5.5 million contract with a possible second year that vests if Vizquel plays in 140 games. Judging from Vizquel's history of health, and the Giants' abysmal group of infielders in the minor leagues, there's a high likelihood that Vizquel will reach that plateau fairly easily. Basically, we're looking at a two-year deal here, folks. As Mr. Horse would say: no sir, I don't like it.

Here's what we know about Vizquel:

-He'll be 41 next season.
-Last year he was one of the worst hitters in all of baseball.
-He's still one of the best defensive shortstops in the NL, probably in the top three.
-Fans love him because he makes a least one highlight reel play per week.

Judging from the latter point, this signing is probably mostly for PR. Vizquel has a lot of flash to his game, and it's fun to watch. Sadly, at this point, the substance is rapidly fading from the style. Vizquel is definitely one of the better defensive players, but at his age, how long can he maintain his range? I understand he keeps himself in great condition, but a 41-year-old is a 41-year-old. If his defense slips at all he'll be totally worthless, because his bat can't carry the light of day.

Oh, that bat. Last season Vizquel hit .246/.305/.316. By Baseball Prospectus's VORP, he was easily the worst hitting shortstop in the NL. Players who see their bat go in the tank at age 40 rarely recover, so those expecting a rebound best not hold their breath. In fact, there's every reason he could be even worse.

This isn't a horrible signing, I guess, since the commitment isn't too long and the Giants don't have any immediate viable replacements (Kevin Frandsen at short is not the answer). It's just that it'd be nice to see the Giants explore some other options, try to bring in some unknowns with breakout potential. This team is going to suck with or without Vizquel, so why not use the $5.5 million on something that has the chance to be better?

It just seemed like Sabean and co. were chomping at the bit to get Vizquel re-signed when there was no plausible reason to be so hasty. Couldn't they at least have considered looking around for other talent, wherever that may have been? Plus, this whole thing about giving Vizquel a raise after he just killed the Giants last year...well, God bless America, I suppose.

This move isn't the worst, but it's just the same old, same old from front office people who can't seem to get it into their heads that loading up on old retreads perhaps isn't the best course. Now the ultimate nightmare scenario becomes if the Giants really do re-sign Pedro Feliz, which would mean that the Giants could very possibly have the two absolute worst hitters in the league at their respective positions. Ladies and gentleman, your 2008 Giants! Geez, if that happens, this'll be me with the oar.

Labels: omar vizquel, pointless ren and stimpy references

It's Friday, and I'm heading up to the A's game tonight. I'd take pictures and post them here, but who really wants to see pics of the Oakland Coliseum and its pee-soaked corridors? And this is a Giants site after all. In fact, I'll probably be rooting for the Rangers tonight, since they have Kason Gabbard going, and he's on my fantasy squad (it's a really deep league...don't ask).

Well, here are some random links I thought you readers would find fun and interesting. Enjoy!

---Last week, ESPN's Jayson Stark wrote a wonderful article detailing why the save is probably the most ridiculous statistic in baseball. The insane overvaluing of saves is something I've ranted about repeatedly over the years, but this is the first time, I think, that I've ever seen a columnist from the mainstream sports media talk about it. I haven't gone on an anti-saves tirade in a while, but Stark opened the door, so I be a rantin'.

There are so many things wrong with saves, I don't even know where to begin. Let's start with a somewhat extreme example. Let's say a reliever, we'll call him Paulie Rice, comes into a game with a 5-2 lead. Now, I know there's probably more pressure in the ninth inning, but protecting a three-run lead by getting three outs seems like something most guys can do, right?

So Paulie comes in, walks the bases loaded, gives up a two-run single, but gets out of the jam and the team wins 5-4. Paulie gets credit for the save, even though he pitched atrociously. That save is somehow supposed to reflect upon some quality inherent in Paulie's ability, even though he pitched like crap. True, there are a lot of one-run saves, where the room for error is smaller, but coming in with no one on base to get three outs doesn't seem too taxing for a big league pitcher, no matter what the score is.

The problem is, closers are often paid vast amounts of money based on their save totals. This is just silly. You know who leads the AL in saves this year? Joe Borowski, with an ERA of 5.40. Yet you can bet that Borowski is going to get the "proven closer" label and stick around in the majors for a while, probably stinking up the joint. It's crazy. You can find pretty much any decent pitcher off the scrap heap and plug him in as a closer and he'll rack up saves. Remember Tyler Walker and his 23 saves in 2005? Okay pitcher, resilient fellow, but "proven closer" my arse. Matt Herges also saved 23 games in '04, and he stunk. The list goes on. If a guy consistently blows saves and can't get it done in the ninth, it usually just means he's a bad pitcher. Do I need to bring up Armando Benitez here?

If you look at BP's Wins Expected Above Replacement Level (WXRL, yeah it's a mouthful), which gauges reliever performance based on stranding inherited runners and difficulty of situation, among other things, a lot of the guys at the top aren't even closers. It's because the most critical situations in a baseball game usually don't come in the ninth inning. Yes, there are good pitchers who don't have what it takes to close, for whatever reason (LaTroy Hawkins is one). However, there are also a lot of guys who couldn't consistently come in with the bases loaded and one out in the seventh inning and strand every duck on the pond, and I guaran-damn-tee you Joe Borowski is one of them.

And I won't even go into the ridiculous three-inning rule that allowed Wes Littleton to get the save in the notorious 30-3 game this year. So please, everybody, stop overvaluing saves. It's a bad statistic and just because a guy racks up 35 in a season and has a pair of goofy glasses or a scary mustache, it doesn't mean he has some sort of grit or intestinal fortitude that other pitchers don't. Ok, I got that out of my system. End rant.

--Also last week, BP founder Gary Huckaby caused a furor amongst the stathead community by announcing, in pseudo-Nietzschian fashion, that "baseball analysis is dead". This, of course, sent all of us nerds into a panic. Here we had the founder of the most prestigious and influential stathead website in the world just coming out and saying that everything we believe in is all for naught and we should just stop trying. What's going on here? Is OBP suddenly not life? Have our efforts to dissect VORP been rendered moot? Has Joe Morgan won?

Well, no. Actually, it really isn't that apocalyptic. Huckaby's point is a little muddy (even he admits that in a subsequent chat), but I think he's basically saying analysis is dead in the context of front offices actually utilizing such information. His argument is that all the obvious stuff (like OBP is good, don't shag young pitchers' arms) is pretty much accepted by major league teams now, so there are only so many things a stathead can give you if you're a GM and you hire him on to your staff. The thing is, most of the real in-depth number-crunching is being done independently all over the Internet; it's out there so anybody can grab it, unlike traditional scouting measures. So in that sense, why hire a bunch of stat guys to give you data that you can just get for free by having some intern spend five minutes on The Hardball Times?

I think Huckaby has clearly got a point here, but I also think he's being a merciless drama queen. Does he really have to announce that "baseball analysis is dead"? It just seems like a ploy to get people yelling. Why can't he just say something like, "We've reached a point where quantitative analysis has essentially reached its limits in being an asset to major league front offices. Good job, people. You nerds, don't stop doing what you're doing, though." As for the argument that every front office has accepted the common sense arguments of the saber-types...ladies and gentlemen, I direct you to the Juan Pierre signing.

Huckaby has always been sort of a pompous writer, and he's definitely not my favorite of the BP squad. Dave Studeman and Nate Silver have appropriate rebuttals to the "baseball is dead" article. It's a fun little controversy to wrap your brain around.

--The Giants are apparently looking to bring back Omar Vizquel on a one-year deal for 2008. If it's just one year, then this is a perfectly acceptable move. Vizquel still plays Gold Glove defense, and that's a tremendous thing to have with young pitchers who could get rattled by a bunch of errors behind them. With no immediate alternatives (I do not want Kevin Frandsen as the everyday shortstop, and who does?), bringing back Vizquel would make perfect sense.

One thing though: I really didn't realize until now just how bad Vizquel has been with the stick. He's hitting .243/.303/.300 on the year. That's mother-bleeping atrocious. This is seriously his worst season offensively, and he had some pretty crappy seasons early in his career with Seattle. I'd say there's no way he can get worse, but he's 40 and seems to be done. Like I said, I'd still advocate bringing him back for a year based on his defense alone, but man, his bat has been friggin' awful this season.

--There's really no point to this, but I'm a big Dave Matthews fan, so this is a little something I found on YouTube for all you DMB lovers. It's a live performance of one of his more, er, cult-ier (is that a word? Ah, screw it) songs, Halloween. It's neat because the song rocks and the band almost never plays it live. I think they've only played it in concert like seven times in the past ten years or so. The best part is at the end when Dave just starts talking gibberish into the microphone, like he's having some kind of epileptic fit. Enjoy, and have a good weekend!

Labels: anti-saves rant, arbitrary youtube links, link drop, omar vizquel, stat nerd stuff