San Francisco Giants 2012 Offseason Thread

[9RoyHobbsRF]

Scutaro on board for 3 years

[KHenry14]

In a classic "what the heck" move by Sabean, the Giants have signed Andes Torres to a one year deal: http://blog.sfgate.com/giants/2012/1...andres-torres/

Not sure how he works into the lineup, but at least he's cheap.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

So while the Dodgers are spending money like the U.S. Department of Defense the Giants are signing players like Andres Torres. It should be an interesting 2013 season.

[9RoyHobbsRF]

In a classic "what the heck" move by Sabean, the Giants have signed Andes Torres to a one year deal: http://blog.sfgate.com/giants/2012/1...andres-torres/

Not sure how he works into the lineup, but at least he's cheap.

superb fielder, base runner and small ball player
hits well as a RH (Blanco does poor against exceptional LHP)
great clubhouse and team chemistry guy
can play all 3 OF positions

att park is a park for small ball guys

I like it

[Honus Wagner Rules]

superb fielder, base runner and small ball player
hits well as a RH (Blanco does poor against exceptional LHP)
great clubhouse and team chemistry guy
can play all 3 OF positions

att park is a park for small ball guys

I like it

I like Torres. Gald to hear he is back. If he can return to his 2009-10 form he'll be a huge asset. One major concern i have is that he'll be 35 years old next season.

[KHenry14]

Torres is a good guy, but to be honest, I don't hold out much hope that he's going to be much help. But I'd love to be wrong about that.

[KHenry14]

Looks like the Giants came to terms on a 3yr./15 mil deal with Santiago Casilla. I like this move, especially since Wilson is likely to move on.

[KHenry14]

Looks like the Giants came to terms on a 3yr./15 mil deal with Santiago Casilla. I like this move, especially since Wilson is likely to move on.

For a different view on the signing, from a Sabremetric standpoint is this: http://stangraphs.com/2012/12/18/con...-of-relievers/

First, I don't know what the heck this guy means about the Giants "random" WS wins. And I sure as heck don't know what in the world the stat xFIP is, but I don't give a darn what this guy thinks. He seems to think that we can just pull a guy out of nowhere to do what Casilla did. Sure, Santiago walks more guys than I'd like, but so did Wilson. Casilla can also close, and with Romo's arm, we need guys who can step into that role if need be. Relief may be the "least important" part of any team. But the Giants win WS titles because of timely hitting and one of the best pitching staffs in MLB, and Casilla is part of that. And this is more important since Wilson isn't likely to be part of the team.

[filihok]

For a different view on the signing, from a Sabremetric standpoint is this: http://stangraphs.com/2012/12/18/con...-of-relievers/

First, I don't know what the heck this guy means about the Giants "random" WS wins. And I sure as heck don't know what in the world the stat xFIP is, but I don't give a darn what this guy thinks.

Ignorance is always a good reason to dismiss something.

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/index.php/pitching/xfip/

[KHenry14]

Ignorance is always a good reason to dismiss something.

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/ind...pitching/xfip/

Stats are a tool. So are eyes. IMO, we need both. And I admit that I am a bit fed up with whatever the next stat of the week is, too often a stat is invented not because it is needed, but because someone could figure out a new stat, so he did it. With that said, my assessment of players, both current and historical, will never be based solely upon numbers. And that's my decision. If that makes me ignorant in your opinion, so be it.

[filihok]

Stats are a tool. So are eyes. IMO, we need both. And I admit that I am a bit fed up with whatever the next stat of the week is, too often a stat is invented not because it is needed, but because someone could figure out a new stat, so he did it. With that said, my assessment of players, both current and historical, will never be based solely upon numbers. And that's my decision. If that makes me ignorant in your opinion, so be it.

Everyone is ignorant of something.

What makes you ignorant of what xFIP is is your admittance that you don't know what it is.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

KH,

xFIP is is basically what a pitcher's ERA "should" be. It's a helpful tool but some pitchers can have ERA's much lower than what their xFIP suggests. Matt Cain is a very famous example of this. For years saber dudes couldn't understand why Matt Cain's ERA was much lower than what his xFIP was. Grant Brisbee over at McCovey Chronicles wrote a very poignant and hilarious essay about it back in late 2010. The bolded part is a key point. If Matt Cain's xFIP is the same as Jon Garland and Joe Blanton's xFIP that does NOT mean Cain is is on their level.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Viceroy of Stats,

First off, thank you for the stats. If I were to do a line graph comparing my love for baseball and the rise of the internet, the two lines would start rising dramatically around 1996 without a single dip. The stats are a big part of that. One of my favorite things in the world is feeling superior to other people. Now when someone references RBI, I know I’m objectively better than them in every capacity. You can’t buy that feeling, and I have stats to thank. Plus, when people argue about "sabermetrics" vs. "sabremetrics", it reminds me of the Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912 joke,and that’s always a good thing.

But I also remember those early days of the internet stats. No-hit, all-glove wizards were not tolerated. Teams and GMs who signed players like Royce Clayton, Rey Sanchez, and Mike Bordick were mocked without mercy. The new stats, though, tell us that some of those guys had pretty valuable seasons. Jose Vizcaino, for whom I had a strong distaste in 1997, was actually a 2+ win player that year. Well, I’ll be. This isn’t to suggest that because the methods of evaluation have changed, people should discount every innovation because it’s likely to be considered wrong in a decade. Of course not.

It might not be a bad idea, though, always to assume that stats are likely to contain some measure of imperfection. When I see single-season WAR totals used with a dogmatic certainty, it makes me uneasy. I have a feeling that the formula for WAR will be updated and tinkered for years, if not decades, because it’s surely tricky to combine hitting stats with something as variable as single-season fielding stats to produce a single number. Yet there’s a small faction among us who likes to use single-season WAR as a blunt object. It feels like some folks -- certainly not most or all -- use the stat without the spirit of intellectual curiosity with which it was created.

So I’ve searched for the most diplomatic way to phrase this, and I think I’ve arrived at something that fair, honest, and non-combative. Here goes: Matt Cain is good, and people who use xFIP as a blunt object can shut their yap holes. The idea of normalizing ERA to account for luck with balls put in play is a fine one. Trying to normalize home runs per fly all is a good idea too. Assuming that the current construct will work as an infallible predictive tool for every single pitcher in professional baseball right now? Not my favorite idea.

Matt Cain has outperformed his FIP for four straight seasons. He has probably benefited from some measure of luck, especially in 2009, when he beat the mark by a full run. The traditional stat, ERA, indicates that Matt Cain is an elite pitcher. FIP suggests that Cain is merely very good. That’s a fair debate. Pitchers can do that sort of thing for an entire career, but they’re the exceptions, not the rules. The burden of proof would probably be on the person suggesting that Cain is elite.

However, xFIP suggests that Matt Cain is an innings-eater of the most ordinary capacity, like a Jon Garland or a Joe Blanton. Matt Cain’s career xFIP is 4.43, and aaaaaaany day now, his ERA will regress to meet that mark. Some people pounce on that, and they froth at the mention of Matt Cain as a top pitcher. And I’m forced to react like a troglodyte, mentioning that a) I’VE TOTALLY WATCHED, LIKE, EVERY ONE OF HIS STARTS, AND MY EYES ARE MORE BETTER THAN YOUR STATS, and b) but his ERA! I don’t like both of those arguments. I can link to a study by the wizard who actually invented FIP, which acknowledges that there could be outliers like Cain when calculating xFIP, but because the math hurts my brain, I can’t do anything but appeal to his authority.

It feels like with some folks, you get "Matt Cain’s xFIP is this. His ERA is that. The difference means there is something wrong with Matt Cain." I would like more, "Matt Cain’s xFIP is this. His ERA is that. Maybe there’s something that makes this happen every year." That’s all. I would just like the small, vocal minority to use stats like WAR, FIP, and xFIP as useful tools, not divinely inspired scripture just yet. Please command them to do so with your powers as Viceroy of Stats.

I would like to end this open letter by noting that Matt Cain did not allow an earned run this postseason, and contrary to popular belief, that performance has tremendous predictive value. I predict that in 20 years, Matt Cain’s performance in the 2010 playoffs will still have been totally awesome.

Sincerely,
Some English Major

[filihok]

xFIP is FIP (see video)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuWoLBhnJ1g

with a normalized home run rate.


Cain somehow has the ability to have a well-below average HR rate. Most pitchers can't sustain that.

[KHenry14]

That's why I hate a lot of these advanced metrics. Any stat that equates Matt Cain to Joe Blanton is just plain wrong.

And just look at the discussions we have over WAR on this site to understand why this stuff grates on me.

BTW, I've spent time at FanGraphs and my head hurts after every visit. Frankly, advanced stats just flat out take the fun out of the game for me.

[filihok]

Frankly, advanced stats just flat out take the fun out of the game for me.

That's fine. Not everyone thinks the same things are fun.

If you think that there's a front office in major leagues that doesn't use advanced stats though, you're wrong.