Saturday, May 26, 2012

Friday Baseball Post

First of all, I give: Melky's okay. Well, he's obviously a lot better than okay so far this year, but he's enough better that I'm ready to say I was wrong about him.

What I said after the trade was that it all depended on whether he could play CF. After all, he's coming off a 339 OBP/470 SLG year that looked like a bit of a fluke, and even if it was for real that's just barely okay as a LF. It's only 200 more PAs, but I'd say the evidence is a lot stronger that 2010 was a genuine improvement, not a fluke, even if he does come crashing back down. And of course it's not unusual for a player to show real improvement at age 26 (last year), although it will be shocking if his true level is anywhere close to what he's been doing so far this year.

There's still the question of whether a ~120 OPS+ guy is doing anything for you in LF. But since right now he's been much better than that, and since it's not as if there's anyone better that he's pushed to the bench or off the team...

Second point: this now makes three years in a row in which a fairly good Giants team has been chasing what appears to be a complete fluke team. In 2010 a 92 win Giants team spent the year chasing a 90 win Padre team...the Pads win totals over the last five years are 63, 75, 90, 71, and they'll be lucky to reach 71 this season. Then it was the Diamondbacks, who spiked to 94 wins after years of 70 and 65 and are back to pumpkin this year. So now it's the Dodgers turn. They're not quite as much of a fluke, since they were basically a .500 team the last two years, and of course there's no way of knowing what they'll look like going into the future...still, it sure looks like a fluke year to me. For what it's worth, Clay Davenport's adjusted standings says that they've been lucky, but I think overall they also just have a lot of guys over their heads. I mean, it's not as if the Giants don't have Melky, Gregor, and Pagan all overachieving, but still...I'm not really making any predictions here, just saying that it's weird that this appears as if it will be the third straight season structured the same way.


  1. But, the Giants weren't pretty good last year; they allowed more runs than they scored, so they got very lucky to finish with 86 wins; their Pythagorean W-L was 80-82.

    1. Fair point! But it was the structure of the season anyway, chasing a fluke team until late; it's just that in '11 they fell back at the end.

      Also, FWIW, the Giants certainly underperformed, thanks to injuries.

      I don't mean to say that they've been unlucky -- none of the three Giants teams were good enough to "deserve" anything. WS win notwithstanding. Just that the seasons were similar, that's all.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Who links to my website?