The Planetary Extreme Baseball Alliance

Calzones wrote:I dont know where Duffy and his hitting numbers came from, but ill take it. He doesnt look like great slugger to me but he just hit his 9th homer of the year last night.
Even pitchers in SF are hitting these days, 2 days ago MadBum hit his 3rd homer of the year, helping himself in 2-1 win vs Oakland. He's sitting on .754 OPS now, better than Pagan, Susac, McGehee, Arias, Sanchez and Maxwell.

Duffy, a Long Beach State Dirt Bag, so they say, didn't even hit a HR in college... So go figure that out!

MadBum? Well... He's just MadBum and a horsely Stud!

Oh Pablo, you made yourself such an easy target. I'm putting the over/under on the number of years on that contract that the Red Sox end up eating at 3.

http://www.csnne.com/boston-red-sox/san ... be-problem

Does anyone else like the trade Giants made last night, Mike Leake for Mella and Duvall?

Sure Leake is only rental atm, but i think there is a good chance he will extend with Giants (because who wouldnt?). He was born in California too and his dad was a Giants fan
Mella is suppose to be our #1 prospect (im not sure about that), so its a bit pricey to give him away for a rental starter.
But Duvall is just meh, im not a big fan of him, especially since we have Duffy on 3rd now.

Hopefully Leake will extend after season, and most importantly that he will pitch better than Hudson did ;p

I think it's solid - haven't heard much about the RHP, but Duvall is certainly - as OOTPers would say... redundant. Plus, he had some chances and did little.

I think Leake signs - the Giants usually don't make this kind of deal without a pretty good chance they'll sign the guy - Carlos Greedtran not withstanding.

Borealis wrote:I think it's solid - haven't heard much about the RHP, but Duvall is certainly - as OOTPers would say... redundant. Plus, he had some chances and did little.

I think Leake signs - the Giants usually don't make this kind of deal without a pretty good chance they'll sign the guy - Carlos Greedtran not withstanding.

I agree, in fact it's the first thought that came to my mind when the trade was announced. I think the Giants went into this with the thought they can get Leake to stick around. He is just coming into his prime, and if you look over his last 11 starts, he is really pitching well. Just one ugly start in there, everything else 3 runs or less, with the Reds 8-3 behind him over that span. In those 11 starts, 73 innings, 14 innings, 56 k, just 2 HR allowed. And he's going from one of the best hitters parks to one of the best pitchers parks. And let's not overlook his bat, career .219 hitter with 5 Hr.

A lot of money coming off the books for the Giants after this season, which makes me think they find a way to sign Leake. He's just 27, so I really like the deal. If they can lock him up for 5 years, the future looks decent with him, Heston and Bumgarner in the rotation.

No doubt, the Giants have improved their club for the future. But all this folderol about this season is just misplaced. The Giants have NEVER won it all in an even numbered year, and only ONCE in their entire history in SF did they play in an even numbered World Series (the magical, unlikely, expansion season of 1962).

So, though I would like nothing more than watching Bumgarner and Posey in another October Classic, it ain't gonna happen this year.

Bulldozers wrote:No doubt, the Giants have improved their club for the future. But all this folderol about this season is just misplaced. The Giants have NEVER won it all in an even numbered year, and only ONCE in their entire history in SF did they play in an even numbered World Series (the magical, unlikely, expansion season of 1962).

So, though I would like nothing more than watching Bumgarner and Posey in another October Classic, it ain't gonna happen this year.

Nurse!!!! Sedate this delusional man. And lock him in a closet until November.

Ocelots wrote:
Nurse!!!! Sedate this delusional man. And lock him in a closet until November.

Your wish is my command.

--Nurse Peters
Camarillo State Hospital

Ocelots wrote:

Borealis wrote:

You know if he played in NY of ChiTown, all ESPN would be talking about is The DuffMan!!! Matt Duffy - en fuego!!!

Hell, in Chicago he would be so overhyped that they would already have him elected to the HOF. (YES, Chicago annoys me. No way Sandberg or Dawson belong in the HOF.)

I'm with you on Dawson, but even this Cards' fan thinks Sandberg belongs in the HoF. Five seasons of 6+ WAR as a 2B, plus 9 Gold Gloves is a fine resume IMHO. Granted, he's nowhere close to the inner circle, but he's in.

As far as the Giants go, it should be a great pennant race - I expect to see the Giants, Cubs, and Dodgers battle it out for two playoff spots - I don't really see any of them catching the Pirates. All three made a bunch of moves to improve, but the Leake move is the one I like the best; IMHO, he's the best player that any of the three teams acquired.

Longshoremen wrote:
I'm with you on Dawson, but even this Cards' fan thinks Sandberg belongs in the HoF. Five seasons of 6+ WAR as a 2B, plus 9 Gold Gloves is a fine resume IMHO. Granted, he's nowhere close to the inner circle, but he's in.

My argument against using the Gold Glove as a measure is that as we have seen over the years, it's sort of a beauty contest. The writers fall in love with one guy at a position and will keep awarding him the award year after year, deserving or not. I would prefer that we not have baseball writers voting for the HOF or any of the awards, because their own personal biases (which player kissed their backside and which didn't) come into play.

As for Sandberg, he had a nice decade where he was the dominant player at his position, but he was washed up at age 34. I still believe if he and Lou Whitaker switched teams, Whitaker would have gotten in as a Cub and Sandberg wouldn't have gotten in as a Tiger. That's how biased I believe the voting is with Chicago. Whitaker lasted until he was 38, was still playing well as he aged, and was a model of consistency, posting a 3.5 or better WAR for 15 out of 16 seasons in which he played more than 100 games. He was a Rookie of the Year, part of the longest running double play combination in major league history, and he won something a Cub can only dream about, a ring. Whitaker was the best second basemen of his era in the AL. His career obp is 19 points higher than Sandberg. His OPS+ is 2 points higher. You put the numbers side by side and it's hard to make a clear argument for Sandberg over Whitaker. I still believe that if Sandberg is in, Whitaker should be in.

But this is the Chicago bias, which is really much clearer when you put Dawson next to Dwight Evans. Who had more seasons of 29 or more home runs? Evans 4 to Dawson's 3. Who had more seasons of 97 or more rbi? Evans 6 to Dawson's 4. Dawson had one great season, but was otherwise just a very good player, not a legend. Evans career WAR is 2.5 better than Dawson's. His career obp is 47 points higher than the fraud who spent a few years in Wrigley. Dewey was the consummate professional, a model of consistency, for two decades in Boston. Unfortunately being a guy who does your job well for two decades is nothing compared to having a few good seasons on a lousy Cubs squad, at least where the writers are concerned.

The Sandberg-Whitaker argument is the classic peak v. career argument. The exact argument can be turned around just as equally in Sandberg favor (i.e. Sandberg put up the same WAR in like 4 less seasons, Sandberg's WAR from peak 7 seasons is like 10 WAR better than Lou). I think the guys with better peaks tend to get the benefit of the doubt more (a perspective I agree with; I like dominant players).

I will call BS on Sandberg not being a HOFer though. Most metrics put him in the top 10 of 2Bs all time. This is especially if you take out the perspective of guys like Biggio, Alomar, and Kent who played after him. This of course has nothing to do with whether Whitaker is or is not a HOFer.

Warriors wrote:The Sandberg-Whitaker argument is the classic peak v. career argument.

I understand the peak vs career argument. I think there are guys who had both types of careers who should get in. I'm not either/or on that. But if Sandberg is going to get credit for his peak years, why not Dale Murphy? For 8 seasons he was the most feared hitter in the game, 2 MVPS, hit 36 or more HR in 5 out of 6 seasons at his peak. If he had been a Cub, he would have waltzed in on the first ballot.

Another guy getting shafted by the BBW in the voting is Fred McGriff. He is 44th on the all-time rbi list. He had 12 seasons over 90rbi and 3 more over 80 rbi. He came to the ballpark day in and day out for 19 yrs and was a model of consistency. If a bum like Don Sutton is going to get into the HOF on his longevity, why not McGriff? This is why I would scrap having the writers vote at all. They suck at it.

I'm all for Dawson being in the Hall because (1) I _am_ a Cub fan, and (2) I traded Bob Knepper for him in my Rotisserie League (back before they became "Fantasy" Leagues) the off-season before he hit his 49 dingers.

:)

http://www.csnbayarea.com/giants/krukow ... ocid=yahoo

Krukow touts Duffy for ROY. He's probably right, at this point.