Article written by

13 comments
kenshin
kenshin

I honestly have no idea about Sandoval. UZR liked him and while that value clearly represents small sample size silliness, I think it represents an encouraging sign that he can at least play 3rd without totally embarrassing himself. Burriss definitely seems like a guy who should be a plus defender. I however, have no clue if he is one.

Chris
Chris

@Kenshin Over the past three seasons, by bUZR, Winn has saved 8.4, 7.8, and 16.9 runs in right field. I think calling him a +8 defender is pretty accurate. We know that the best and worst defenders usually range from +10 to -10 runs below average. If he's defending at +8, he's still a very good outfielder. In these WAR projections I try to go conservatively. Especially with the defensive projections. Winn is probably closer to a +10 outfielder. CHONE, ZiPS, Oliver, and Marcel all project Winn to regress a little with the bat. Most of them have him around a .330 wOBA. Over the past couple of year's he's been between .350 and .352 for wOBA. Winn will be 35-years-old next season but his player-type seems to age well. He could very well beat his projection at the plate. I've got him right beneath +2 wins. Avoiding any collapses, I think he could beat that projection by maybe a half-win. He's still one of our better players. The defensive numbers for Burriss, Ishikawa, and Sandoval are all educated guesses. I think Burriss can be a plus-defender at second but I might have him a little high right now at +5 runs. I'm up for debate on that. I keep going back and forth on Pablo at third base. I'm not sure if -5 is too low or not low enough. I'm also open for debate on that one.

kenshin
kenshin

Nicely done Chris. What's up with the Randy Winn projection? Even accounting for his conservative defensive estimate, that seems like a pretty significant dropoof. One of the problems with projecting the 2009 Giants is the number of young players. We generally have a good idea how minor league offensive numbers translate but defensive evaluation contains a significant amount of voodoo (several seasons of play-by-play data is required before one can trust defensive stats).

Chris
Chris

@Marcello A poster on BtBS was putting together WAR lineups for the NL West. You can find them here: http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2008/12/27/70261... Note: The lineups are using the Marcels projection system. As a result, the Giants WAR is about +2 wins over mine because of Sandoval hitting much better and some pretty optimistic projections for players without 3-years of major league data -- Burriss is projected to hit a .330+ wOBA which isn't going to happen. Still, it's a decent measuring stick for how the NL West is shaping up but I think mine is more accurate. I think he's planning to do the pitching for each team as well.

marcello
marcello

Yeah, I think that 85 wins might be the high end, honestly. But I haven't done any evaluations, it's really just my eyeballing the division. I am excited to see the division projections.

Chris
Chris

@MrLomez It's a thought, but I'm not sure it's one that the Giants will entertain. I don't know if we're remembering the same Bowker at first base from last year. He really had trouble at times. bUZR -- in a pretty small 500 inning sample -- had him a little under average. I think he could get better over time but with Sabean's comments this offseason on defense -- which probably were directed at the Bowker experiment -- I don't see them trying it again anytime soon. I'd rather just jettison Roberts -- who doesn't have a place on the team -- instead of monkeying around with Nate defensively. @Marcello 88 wins is probably the high-end, it could be much closer to 86 wins needed. I need to evaluate the other NL West teams to make a better estimate. It's mostly a guess that it'll take 86-88 wins. For what it's worth, Seidman at FanGraphs thinks 85 wins is the magic number, that seems about right to me. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/can-the-...

marcello
marcello

>> I figure that the West can be won with 86-88 wins next season. Out of curiosity, why do you think it will take that many wins to win the West? The Dodgers were something like an 88 win team last year, and even if they resign Manny I think they will have taken a step back this offseason. Also, considering the composition of their staff, they have a significant potential for injury and collapse. The D'Backs lost Randy, Dunn, and Hudson. They have a bunch of young guys that could break out, but they aren't likely to be a strong team.

MrLomez
MrLomez

After watching Bowker transition to 1B with moderate success (at least defensively), I wonder if Schierholtz can do the same this year. It's safe to assume that the bulk of starts in the OF will be a Winn, Rowand, Lewis trio. Why not let Schierholtz get some hacks as a 1Bman? He's no gem of a RF anyway, and obviously an upgrade at the plate over Ishikawa.

Chris
Chris

Just fixed an error in my spreadsheet. I had Holm as a -6 run defender at catcher. It was supposed to 0 runs. It moves our WAR total to +15.6-ish wins.

Chris
Chris

@Ted You can adjust the playing time around a little but it's not going to make a huge difference, it might swing the win totals by .5 wins. I don't mind seeing Roberts get less playing time, but I still think the Giants -- and Bochy -- will play him. I definitely think Rowand and Winn will hit 80-85% for playing time. Winn has accumulated almost 650 PA's per season since he came to San Francisco, he's a rock. Even with injuries last year, Rowand broke the 600 PA mark. I know they plan to rest him more this year, but I still think he'll make it past 600 PA's. A 75% PT for Rowand is about 525 PA's and a 70% PT for Winn is 490 PA's. Winn is one of the Giants best players. He must get 600+ PA's. The offense -- and defense -- would miss him too much if he didn't. There's just no way they'll play him just for 490 PA's. I think Nate's key will be Lewis' health. He had the foot thing, but he should be ready for the start of the season. If he's not, you can bump Nate's PT up some. If the Giants can move Roberts, I would do it. Even if it means eating his salary. It's much more important to get Nate playing time and until Roberts leaves, he might have trouble finding it.

tedfordfan
tedfordfan

I think Nate will get more PT than that. I'd adjust the allocations of PT to be: LF - Lewis (75%); Roberts (15%); Schierholz (10%) CF - Rowand (75%); Winn (15%); Lewis (10%) RF - Winn (70%); Schierholz (30%) Both Sabean and Bochy have publicly stated that they think Roberts is miscast as a CF (at least I know Sabean has, not sure about Bochy, now that I think about it). They've played Lewis in CF last year and he didn't embarrass himself. I think they'll play Winn in CF this year to make more room for Schierholz as well, assuming he doesn't pull an Ortmeier and completely embarrass himself at the beginning of the year.

daveinexile
daveinexile

Nice work Chris. Thanks. I always liked the way Roberts carried himself but Sabean needs to perform an intervention. He is crack to Boulder Skull and if he keeps getting rammed down Giants fans throat things will probably get ugly. And he deserves better then that.

oldjacket
oldjacket

The Giants are a fish and Dave Roberts is their bicycle.