Giants potential September call-ups

The future Giants opportunities to show their stuff may be complicated by how long the Giants remain in contention (a good-news, bad-news angle) in addition to the glut of OF's the Giants now have. But here are the players I would most like to see at some point down the stretch.


GIANTS TOP MINOR LEAGUE PROSPECTS

1. Conor Gillaspie 6-1,200 3B Lefty bat, has not progressed as quickly as some may have liked, but still shows promise as a hitter.

2. Brandon Belt 6-5,185 1B Lefty bat, solid hitting prospect across the board. Plate discipline, contact, power #'s are all solid

3. Thomas Neal 6-1, 225 OF R-R Great pure hitter, seems to be cutting down on his K% each year, has battled wrist injuries. 2009 BA California League Best Hitting Prospect, Best OF Arm in organization

4. Roger Kieschnick 6-3, 215 OF Lefty bat, potential five-tool corner OF who could hit for power and steal some bases. Plays fearless defensively and shows a good arm. Above average speed. Power is a plus skill. Swing is a bit long but has good plate discipline and draws walks.

5. Francisco Peguero 6-0, 175 OF solid hitter, needs more plate discipline to advance, his speed is near off the charts

6. Brandon Crawford 6-2, 200 SS has shown promise as a hitter, needs more plate discipline, less K's to move into eilte prospect turf.

7. Nick Noonan 6-0, 180 2B another who may have slipped a bit from early reviews, still grades out well with the bat, patience and plate discipline are hurting him. Otherwise, a solid prospect.

8. Ehire Adrianza SS slick fielder, shows some pop with bat

There really are not any young pitchers ready to make significant contributions. Most of the prospects are either here, too old or too young. The top four listed are the players I would like to get a read on the most. We need to find out what Conor Gilaspie can do at the ML level. Brandon Belt is taking some reps in the OF to open up a spot for his bat. He is making almost Sandoval/Posey like strides through the system. He appears to be a serious hitter with great stats across the board. He has not hit a significant speed-bump at any one of his minor league stops. Thomas Neal and Roger Kieschnick may be the odd-men out in a crowded OF situation.

September call-ups are always complicated. Right now, Bochy's priority #1 is winning. He has to go to the whip and see if these guys can bring a playoff berth home. Secondarily, he needs to find out how guys like Huff, Burrell, Guillen and Ross fit for next year. My guess is Burrell, Huff and perhaps Ross are safe bets to stay if they'd like. After that, if you can get a good look at some of these more mature prospects, the need to make patchwork moves is diminished.

Also, in 2011 I would be very happy if we don't have another "I didn't know that Buster Posey could play at this level" moments.

If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there in no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. - Winston Churchill

LLWS and the maddening drumbeat of instant replay

EASY TO MAKE THE CALL NOW, RIGHT? DOESN'T LOOK THIS WAY IN REAL LIFE, CHAMP!!




WHAT'S THE CALL? SAFE, OUT, OBSTRUCTION? I'M STILL NOT SURE THEY GOT IT RIGHT.

From ESPN:

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/llws10/news/story?id=5509918

LLWS officials happy with instant replay

Little League officials are pleased with how the expanded instant replay system worked at this year's World Series.

For the first time, managers were allowed one replay challenge per game, similar to how the NFL allows coaches replay challenges. Also, replays were expanded from just outfield fence or boundary calls to close calls on the base paths.

As of Sunday's consolation game, replay had been used 16 times during the 10-day tournament, with eight calls upheld and eight overturned, according to league vice president Lance Van Auken. The total delay for all 16 calls was about 52 seconds.

One of the concerns entering the tournament was how much replay would slow the game. League president Stephen Keener said the system would be evaluated after the series, though it would likely be kept in its current form next year.

ESPN provides the video that a replay team of a Little League umpires and officials reviews to determine whether a call should be upheld.

"At this point, I would assume we could continue to use it," Keener said. "We'll evaluate all aspects of it, and we'll try to make it even better."

This story piques my interest on so many levels.

- One of the concerns entering the tournament was how much replay would slow the game?

You mean slow it down any more than the countless pitching changes made because one of the pitchers hit one of the multiple choice, hodge-podge "pitch count" quotas?

The one and only concern is whether or not viewers would have enough time during the replay review to change the channel.

The play shown above and the story from ESPN shows a couple of the gaping holes in the argument of the jack-booted advocates of replay. The goal of "getting the call right" transfers neatly into the premise that there will no longer be any grievous errors that influence the outcome of games.

OK, look at the replay shown above and tell me that the call should not have been changed. And not in the way the broadcasters speculated. The Texas SS appears to have obstructed the runner coming back to the bag and very likely should have been awarded third base. But that is a "judgement call" which would normally fall outside the jurisdiction of the replay process.

Of course, it would have been hilarious if the Texas coach did challenge the ruling -- looking for a change of call from safe at 2B to an out -- and instead of making that change, upon review the umpires and reviewers instead awarded the kid 3B. In the interest of of getting the call right, of course. Process be damned, get it right, RIGHT?. I'm still not sure why the coach did not challenge that call in the end.

Secondarily, I understand small sample size and all but the story says 16 reviews vs. 8 calls overturned on calls that were subjected to review. These reviews are all made on what are inherently "coin-flip" calls. Call that are 50/50 in nature. FAIR or FOUL!!! SAFE or OUT!!! SWING OR NO SWING!!! And yet the umpires in these tough call situations did no better than a coin in deciding the proper call. You would hope that is not indicative of the overall skill level of the umpires and that this skill level doesn't translate into ball/strike calls. These are the calls which do more to influence the outcome of games than any of these precious replay calls we want to spend so much time cleaning up. So what's next?

By contrast, the following ESPN story indicates that MLB umpires are getting 80% of the close calls correct. Eight percent is pretty good if the theory is that 50% indicates virtually no better outcome than having the kids choose it, playground style and 100% being you're an Umpire-God, utter perfection.

From ESPN:

Study shows 1 in 5 close calls wrong

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/otl/news/story?id=5464015

Researchers used broadcast footage of all games from June 29 to July 11 -- 184 in total -- and reviewed every call, with the exception of balls and strikes.

The overwhelming majority of the calls (fair or foul, safe or out) were so obvious they did not require any sort of review.

What the Hall of Famers say
ESPN surveyed 40 members of the National Baseball Hall of Fame about umpiring and instant replay:

Before this season, did you support expanding the use of instant replay to correct some calls made by umpires?

Yes: 21 (52.5%)

No: 19 (47.5%)

Did Jim Joyce's call in Armando Galarraga's near-perfect game increase your support of the use of instant replay?

Yes: 15 (37.5%)

No: 25 (62.5%)

Are you in favor of the use of instant replay to correct calls on the bases and the foul lines?

Yes: 17 (42.5%)

No: 23 (57.5%)

Are you in favor of the use of instant replay to correct calls on balls and strikes?

Yes: 1 (2.5%)

No: 39 (97.5%)

Should a player's status be a factor in ball and strike calls?

Yes: 0 (0%)

No: 40 (100%)

What level of human error is acceptable for an umpire?

Less than 1%: 5 respondents

Between 2% and 5%: 14 respondents

Between 6% and 10%: 6 respondents

Between 11% and 20%: 3 respondents

Declined to answer: 12 respondents

But the "Outside the Lines" analysis found that an average of 1.3 calls per game were close enough to require replay review to determine whether an umpire had made the right call. Of the close plays, 13.9 percent remained too close to call, with 65.7 percent confirmed as correct and 20.4 percent confirmed as incorrect.

"That's high," said U.S. Sen. Jim Bunning, a Hall of Fame pitcher. "They shouldn't be allowed to miss [that many].

WOW!! 25 out of the 40 HOF'ers want a 90% or better success rate on calls that some of them are about happening about as fast as the human eye and the brain can process information. Remember, these guys are reviewing the toughest calls of each game, that occur in random split second fashion at times when their are multiple outcomes and possibilities that the umpire has to account for. Me thinks these guys doth protest too much. Can you say unrealistic expectations?

Plus 100% of them -- all of them -- say that a players status shouldn't determine the outcome of ball and strike calls. Was Greg Maddux in that group of 40 that were questioned? And are you seriously going to tell me that if Jim Bunning put one right on the black in the middle of August or September and some rookie spat on it and the umpire called BALL!! that Bunning or one of his ilk wouldn't look in and bark that he should get that call on the basis of seniority or reputation? Sorry, HOF dudes. You lost some credibility on that one.

I really shouldn't have to school a HOF'er like Jim Bunning on the "culture of the game" but given some of his more recent public utterances in his Senate position, maybe Jim needs some more schooling.

Calls that are subjective or judgement calls are not subject to review and can never be by their nature. You can't program the computer to reviews balks or interference and obstruction calls, folks. So the goal, while noble, is inherently unachievable.

Without question, for limited calls and for a limited amount of challenges, you want to have replay as an option. But I don't think people should be lulled into thinking it's going to be a panacea, because there's still going to be imperfections and unintended consequences from implementing any replay system.

Surprisingly, I think that Bud Selig's cautious approach is the correct one here. ESPN and the networks in general are beating the drums for their own interests on this issue. If they become an integral part of the playing of the game through the use of their infrastructure and equipment, they become not just a partner with MLB, but as indispensable a part of the game as we used to think umpires were.

Remember the old saying along the lines of "If you think the umpires are bad, try playing without them". It seems like some would like to try. Ironically, this type of mind-set of elimination of playground-style arguing and bickering is the motivation Carl Stoetz had to start what is now Little League baseball many years ago. How far we've come...how far we have to travel.

If you want to see where this could all lead, I recommend these articles for further reading.

FROM THE HARDBALL TIMES:

Strike Zone Fact vs. Fiction


http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/strike-zone-fact-vs-fiction/

The Eye of the Umpire

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-eye-of-the-umpire/


It doesn't seem like things would be any clearer than they are now with the more techology-savvy among us in charge.

Personally, I prefer this type of approach to improving the problem. Improve the umpires. Volunteer or not, reputation or not, when you get to this level if you don't pass the test, you do not pass GO, do not proceed to Williamsport. Find another umpire.

FROM THE BBC:
Health Check: New test keeps umpires' eyes on the ball

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11145057

Mr Ananth Viswanathan from Moorfields Eye Hospital has developed a new test, tailored to the fast-moving game of international tennis.

The test examines both near and far sight, and central and peripheral vision as umpires have to watch the players' feet, the ball, the line judges - whilst flicking back and forth to their notes.

And here is a different take, from the sport (tennis) most often pointed to as being years ahead of baseball in regard to using technology and replay to settle close call. Some of the conclusions are quite interesting.

FROM THE U.K. SUNDAY TIMES:

Hawk-Eye proves tennis umpires and linesmen have better eyesight than players


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article3753533.ece

You cannot be serious! Oh yes we can, Mr McEnroe: the umpires and linesmen of the world of tennis have much better eyesight than the players, a fact for which they rarely get credit.

Famous for his disputes with officials over whether a ball was in or out of the court, the one-time enfant terrible of Wimbledon was more likely to be wrong than right, a scientific study has found. John McEnroe wouldn’t agree, of course.

Using evidence from the Association of Tennis Professionals, George Mather, of the University of Sussex, has concluded that while players and line judges can be prone to error when assessing where a ball has bounced, because of what he calls “inherent limitations of human perceptual vision”, the officials are significantly more accurate.

Dr Mather conducted his research after the introduction in 2006 of the Hawk-Eye electronic line-calling system, which has revolutionized the sport. Today, many of the sport’s biggest courts are equipped with instant replay screens that supply quick-fire judgment on where the ball has landed — to within three millimeters.

The system is not universally popular. Roger Federer, for example, the world No 1 and 12-times grand slam tournament champion, openly despises it.

Whatever its faults or merits, Hawk-Eye was not available in the days when McEnroe railed against the umpires. He was young, ambitious, lippy and feisty; they were elderly, autocratic and probably blessed with less-than-perfect eyesight.

Whatever the reasons, they used to annoy the tennis shorts off him. But they, in turn, may have been wrong as often as McEnroe accused them of being. Dr Mather used information from 1,473 Hawk-Eye challenges made by 246 players or doubles pairings during 15 tournaments in 2006 and 2007. Of those, 39.3 per cent were successful, indicating that line judges can make mistakes too. “The judges perform more reliably than the players, but they do make a significant number of mistakes,” Dr Mather concludes. “That suggests players should certainly use their full quota of challenges, because some errors are inevitable and they have little to lose.”

More errors occur on the base and service lines, which run horizontally across the court, than on the side or centre lines. The reason, Dr Mather says, is that the judges on the base and service lines sit side-on to the court, and the ball flashes past them in a blur. “For the players, it is certainly worth thinking harder about challenging calls made on the cross-court lines. However, they should bear in mind that they are also more likely to get these wrong themselves.”

The research found that 94 per cent of challenges featured balls that bounced within 100mm of a line — less than twice the diameter of the ball itself. That, Dr Mather claims, suggests strongly that players challenge when they genuinely believe that a mistake has been made, rather than using it as a ploy to unsettle an opponent or to buy vital seconds to rest before a critical point. “It seems to be a case of players believing they are right on balls that are literally too close to call, and not gamesmanship.”

Tennis officials welcomed Dr Mather’s findings. Gerry Anderson, a University of Sussex graduate who has umpired seven singles finals at Wimbledon, said: “Everybody knows that we officials make mistakes, but Hawk-Eye has proved we make far fewer than players in general think we do.”

From next year the number of challenges a player is allowed will rise from two to three, with one additional one in the event of a tie-break.

Federer, however, remains unimpressed by Hawk-Eye. “Now the umpires can hide even more behind these calls. It makes it really hard for us. They tend to now just let us do the work, the tough stuff. They let us get embarrassed, basically,” he said recently.

So, players will still complain (as Federer does here) regardless of whether they use top of the line technology to aid officials.

There will still be gamesmanship and arguments and challenges with the best technology available, because it has a margin of error attached, albeit smaller. The nature of the arguments will just be different, they won't be eliminated.

On the professional level, the effort and the expense can be better justified than on the youth sports or Little League level. There, the focus should be very, very different.

The problem that ESPN doesn't address ( and yes I'm talking to you Karl Ravech )
http://espn.go.com/mlb/notebook/_/page/bbtn100816/baseball-tonight-clubhouse
is the "trickle-down" effect of their beating the drum and using the Little Leaguers as pawns to browbeat MLB into accepting instant replay.

This is an example of what what happens when we elevate the expectation of "getting the call right". It morphs into the "expectation of perfection" from umpires. I don't want to hear the argument that this type of thing happened before, isolated incident, yada, yada. You either make the situation better or you make it worse. The mixed messages being sent and perverse incentives don't help. You're either part of the problem or you're part of the solution.

This came about as the result of a perceived bad call and the sense of entitlement to a standard of perfection. How many umpires and officials are assaulted after games? The numbers are rising.

FROM CTV NEWS:

Little league players brawl after game in Saint John


http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100812/little-league-100812?hub=BritishColumbiaHome

"The situation is probably because the umpire ... changed the tournament for my team," he said. "We practiced all summer long to come here ... and now one guy changed the game."

And whether you realize it or not, once the ESPN induced "bright lights, big city" atmosphere ends -- with the incessant comparisons of 12-year olds to their adult, major league counterparts -- these players, coaches, managers and umpires go back to their local leagues and act like the prima donnas that your coverage cultivates. And the people that watch bring the same expectations and behaviors to the local sandlot.

For the "volunteer umpires" that you laud for their virtuous nature ("they're all volunteers") while simultaneously planting the subconscious seed that "you get what you pay for" that replay brings, you make a tough job of umpiring youth league sports virtually impossible and a thankless job significantly less than thankless (if that's even possible).

I wish I had a dollar for every time a youth league parent wanted to show me a camera phone replay. I usually decline, saying "By rule, I can't use it". I wonder though, if they got a good angle. Where do you think that new mind-set comes from, ESPN? It's not just the increased availability of better technology.

For that you should be ashamed of yourselves, but as you've shown in the past, you are more concerned with bringing more demographically desirable eyeballs to your corporate advertisers than you are for the betterment of a kid's game.

Stephen Strasburg faces the knife

Story from ESPN:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=5502866

The reason may have more to do with "ligament limitation" than pitch counts or overuse. Some will also point the finger at questionable mechanics. Some combination of the two seems to be about right. The risk posed by the questionable mechanics will certainly increase as you approach the dreaded ligament limitation.

THE LIMITATION:

From the San Diego Union-Tribune

Is there a Speed Limit?

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060807/news_lz1s7speedlim.html

By Sam Mellinger
MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS

August 7, 2006

But while the world record in the 100 meters keeps falling – nine times since 1968, twice since Maurice Greene's 9.79 in 1999 – nobody has knocked Ryan out of the record book or Dalkowski out of memory.

Basketball players are taller, quicker and more athletic. High jumpers jump higher. Long jumpers jump longer. Swimmers swim faster. Even baseball hitters hit balls farther.

Pitchers, though ...

“About 100 mph seems to be the maximum,” says Glenn Fleisig, a biomechanical engineer who has worked with big-league teams at the American Sports Medicine Institute. “You won't have faster top speeds than before. But you can have more people near the top speed.”

The reason that's true, the reason that the 2056 Cy Young Award winners won't throw any faster than this year's winners has everything to do with physics and the limitations of the human body.


.....Faster speeds come from better energy transfer from legs to trunk, trunk to shoulder, shoulder to elbow, elbow to hand. In physics, it's called the kinetic chain. In sports, it's called coordination.

“You can always make people stronger,” Fleisig says. “But it's not going to translate into more ball velocity.”

Which is why Roy Oswalt is 6 feet, 185 pounds and throws upper 90s and the meathead at your gym is 6-4, 240 and probably couldn't break glass.

It also helps explain why more pitchers have upper-90s fastballs than ever before. Presumably, Bob Feller or Bob Gibson or Christy Mathewson or Steve Dalkowski never studied biomechanics. For whatever reason, they just naturally threw with outstanding mechanics, maximizing their already-freakish potential.

As technology and knowledge advance, more pitchers benefit from knowing the proper technique to throw closer to their bodies' capability.

Fleisig calculated that about 80 newtons of torque are put on the elbow when a top-level pitcher throws a fastball. He also studied cadaver elbows, testing their durability to force. The ligament in most elbows snaps around 80 newtons of torque.

And that's the problem with throwing much faster than 100. There comes a point where more torque stops making the ball go faster and starts making the elbow snap. That will be true as long as there is no accepted way to significantly strengthen that ligament.

Ligament limitation can also explain why athletes in other sports are doing things only dreamed of 20 years ago. Sprinters, for instance, aren't close to reaching what their tendons and ligaments can take. No single movement from a sprinter puts as much stress on any ligament, tendon or bone as a pitcher puts on his elbow.

THE ??-ABLE MECHANICS

From Project Prospect

Stephen Strasburg: Great or the Greatest?
by Lincoln Hamilton
November 22, 2008


http://projectprospect.com/article/2008/11/22/stephen-strasburg-great-or-the-greatest

There are a few videos of Strasburg on youtube. After breaking them down like the Zapruder film I've made a few assements. Here's what worries me:

He brings his elbow too far back during the scap load phase of his delivery.
While hard to tell from the video, given his arm angle upon release and his follow through he seems to have a supinated release.
His follow through is really bad. There's significant arm recoil and he finishes basically standing up.
Obviously he does some things well, I mean he throws 99 mph with great control. However, there are enough red flags that I believe he's a major injury risk. That does not mean he will absolutely get hurt, just that he's more likely to other people. Without taking him to ASMI (American Sports Medicine Institute) labs and getting specific joint load data, no one can say for sure.



Conclusion:

While I think it's likely Strasburg will eventually be scarred by a surgeon's blade, right now I would advise the Nats to still take him first next June. He's so good, historically good, that his level of talent is very rare. There isn't a Joe Mauer or Mark Teixeira in this draft to compete for the No. 1 spot. So I'd grab Strasburg, hand him a giant sack with a money sign on it -- after I lose a fiddle contest with Scott Boras -- let him dominate for a couple years then turn him into my Herschal Walker. Despite being "injury-prone", Mark Prior has managed 650+ innings, Kerry Wood over 1,200, A.J. Burnett 1,300+, and Ben Sheets over 1,400. Can you imagine the haul if Chicago would have traded Prior in 2004? Besides, maybe Strasburg really is a once-in-a-generation freak who can handle extra stress.

Just Thinking....Random Thoughts

ROGER CLEMENS BACK IN THE NEWS:

Talk about hubris, pot meet kettle? A congressman chastising someone about hubris? And lying to the public? Are you kidding me?

Rep. Tom Davis from Virginia regarding the Clemens indictment.

"We didn't wish this on Clemens, I guarantee you. But there are people who think they can bluff their way through, and it's hubris. ... These matters are taken very seriously. We impeached a president [Bill Clinton] for lying in a deposition. Nobody's above the law, including the president and All-Star pitchers."

My only question is -- and continues to be -- where is the punishment when those in Congress lie to the public? Somehow, "see you in November" doesn't seem good enough for some of the crimes these guys have pulled off, but that's for another rant.

As we've seen in the Bonds situation, it's a long way from an indictment to a conviction. Never mind Bonds. How about the Blago trial up here in Illinois? The prosecutor promised multiple convictions and a virtual life sentence behind bars for Blago leading up to the trial and ended up going 1 for 24 in court. That's a .042 batting average if you're scoring at home.

Brian McNamee admittedly was not a very credible witness, but his story was supported somewhat by Pettitte. We'll see if that support holds as strong in a trial phase.

I'm a little concerned when I hear comments like those from a Buster Olney where he said with, no qualms whatsoever, that "once Clemens was named in the Mitchell Report, there was no way for him to clear his name". Case closed. That's not justice. To say nothing of the appearance at least that Palmiero, Sosa and perhaps McGwire either lied or obstructed Congress and walked away virtually unscathed. Not good for confidence in the Justice system, if that was the intent. It gets to the selectivity of prosecution question which erodes confidence.
------

TONY DUNGY CALLS REX RYAN OUT ON CUSSING:

And people go stark raving stupid. Especially Jets fan. If you really want to lose faith in your fellow man, read the comments section after some of these stories. I'm going to come down on Tony Dungy's side in most if not all comparisons with Rex Ryan. If Jet fan needs a second Super Bowl ring that bad, so be it. To compare what Coach Dungy is trying to do for Michael Vick versus his criticism of Ryan's behavior as justification for dismissal of Dungy's comments misses the point. It's the same point. Bad behavior. If you justify by matter of degree, I can make a justification for Vick by saying he didn't kill a human being, lay off him.

Rex Ryan is a tool trying to project an image of cool. To the extent that Roger Goodell has decided he wants to clean up the NFL's image and modify behavior of players on and off the field, it doesn't seem like a stretch for the leaders of said players to be held to some standards of behavior as well.
--------

OMG!! APPARENTLY SHE FOUND A TURKEY BASTER SUITABLE ENOUGH FOR HER HIGH STANDARDS!!

BILL SIMMONS PROVES ONCE AGAIN WHY HE'S THE BEST

In one of his more recent articles Bill Simmons bring it on.

A few theories to chew on

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/100820

Not so much the Nolan Ryan - Robin Ventura fight theory, but further down, the Jennifer Anniston riff. I mean first off, a Jennifer Anniston riff in the middle of sports story. BRILLIANT. Because who hasn't wondered the same?

Chewed-On Theory No. 3: "Why can't Jennifer Aniston find a man?"

Point by point, cannot disagree and Simmons starts off in lawyer like fashion making his case.

On the surface, this has nothing to do with sports. Just bear with me. Aniston became an A-list star thanks to "Friends." When the show folded in 2004, unlike everyone else on the cast, she managed to remain an A-List star despite making the following movies.

Point by point, cannot disagree. Then comes the classic blast -- that you can only hope by the grace of God you are not sipping coffee at the time you read it -- because it pounds the point home in a way that only Simmons can.

Aniston's life resonates with that demographic better than anyone. Now she's 41, still hunting for a man, her ovaries rumbling like Earl Campbell, but we're all a little confused because … I mean, how could Jennifer Aniston, of all people, not find a man? How could someone that attractive need a friend to set her up on dates? What the hell is going on here? Is she secretly super-annoying? Is she terrible in bed? Does she have bad breath or bad hygiene? Are her standards simply too high? Does she still pine for Pitt and any potential mate can sense it?

...her ovaries rumbling like Earl Campbell.....WOW!!! I hope dude is not single, looking to mingle after a blast like that, because those kind of comments get around.
--------
JENNIE FINCH RETIRES FROM SOFTBALL

JENNIE FINCH ABOUT TO THROW ONE PAST A-ROD

It did not get as much play as it probably should have, but Jennie Finch retired from softball. She likely did as much or more for the growth of the sport at the youth and HS levels in recent years as anybody, for a lot of reasons. When she carried the torch for womens softball, the torch was in good hands. She will be missed.

------
JAY MARIOTTI, A CAUTIONARY TALE

Now the subject of tabloid journalism sensationalism and he doesn't like it. After years of being on the firing end of the firing squad, he and his ilk, have a problem with the process.

A process they helped to nourish, build and profit from, comes tumbling down on them. What's the proper term? Poetic justice?

http://www.tmz.com/2010/08/21/jay-mariotti-espn-sports-writer-arrested-los-angeles-felony/

Mariotti was arrested on a felony charge at 4:30 AM -- a police source tells us it is a domestic violence charge.

He was held on $50,000 bail and released shortly after noon.

Mariotti is a regular on the ESPN show "Around the Horn" and a writer for the popular sports website Fanhouse.com.

I'm sure this goes past guys like Mariotti, but I'll try anyway.


Matthew 7:1-3

1Do not judge, or you too will be judged.
2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged,
and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye
and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

Like Yogi Berra once noted in comparing baseball to church, "Many attend, few understand".
----

Also prominent in the news, two young athletes, both early in the process of writing the story of their athletic lives. LeBron James and Tim Tebow.

YES, INDEED. WE ARE ALL WITNESSES.

But ask yourself exactly what are we all witness to? And where exactly are our eyes fixed?

LeBron James came to Cleveland with all of the following labels.

Chosen One, King James, Savior of the Franchise.

He leaves looking as if he believes the Cleveland franchise/owner treated him with the same lack of respect as that goofy JetBlue flight attendant.

Passengers say flight attendant Steven Slater was rude, and prompted the infamous confrontation with passengers. The Associated Press
WHAT A SURPRISE! HE LOOKS SO NORMAL!

A staggering fall from grace? Maybe not, when you come to the city billed as a Messiah and you leave delivering little more than that which was previously delivered by Craig Ehlo.

He and the Cavalier fans believed that he was chosen by destiny to perform a task that nobody else could perform. Throw in the hometown boy makes good angle and you have the all the ingredients for an epic movie.

The good fans of Cleveland are likely more mad at themselves for falling for the shlocky media (over)-hype that was the LeBron James experience than they are mad at LeBron James himself. So get over yourself LeBron, it's not always about you, dude.

They realize in hindsight that they were not only simply witnesses, but active participants in the (over)-hype, the false idolatry, the somewhat over-the-top hero worship and are slowly coming to their senses. I applaud their newly found wisdom.

By contrast we see how Tim Tebow handled his "exit" or last game with the Florida Gators. He chose the message from Hebrews 12:1-2 that includes the words "since we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses" to pay homage to the fans who supported him during his time there.



HEBREWS 12:1-2

Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

One of the prevailing themes from this passage is that we are all very much in debt to those who raised us, taught us, nurtured us and helped us get to our current station. The best way to repay that debt is to pass along the same kindness to others, to better the lot of those around us and help those less fortunate than ourselves. It is encouragement to remain steadfast in their mission with eyes focused on the ultimate prize and to persevere through patience, endurance and faith to victory. Tim Tebow gets it.

What LeBron doesn't get is that the greatest sin he committed against the fans of Cleveland -- and the franchise and his former teammates -- is that he did not return the faith that they so clearly placed in him, as the "Chosen One". He basked in all the glory bestowed upon him when times were good. But unfortunately, he chose to abandon ship once the going got a little tough and took his "talents" to Miami. In doing so, he proved himself unworthy of the titles bestowed upon him by the fans and the over indulgent media.

There is no doubt as to where the focus of a Tim Tebow lies. It is clear where his eyes are fixed and the story his life will tell. He has already proven that he is winner and a champion, on and off the field.

LeBron has his eyes fixed on what he deems his birthright, a championship. We are all "witnesses" to where a focus on that kind of self-entitled, self-interested, worldly pursuit has led him so far. I say good luck to you in your pursuit of a shiny ring, LeBron. It should be an interesting and cautionary story that your life will tell.

This is what Nike has "witnessed" so far about Mr. Tebow.

from St. Pete Times article:
http://www.tampabay.com/sports/football/bucs/is-tim-tebow-the-greatest-sports-marketing-machine-ever/1115036

Talk about Tebow to people who work in the overlapping industries of sports and entertainment and business and a handful of words and phrases keep coming up. Authentic. Sincere. Moral. Winner. Champion. Leader. Presence. Humility. Clean-cut. All-American.

"It's safe to say he's got unprecedented numbers heading into a rookie season," E-Poll president Gerry Philpott said of Tebow's current Q rating. Q in this case doesn't stand for quarterback. This Q rating measures a celebrity's overall popularity and appeal.

According to the Davie-Brown Index, he outranks Michael Jordan, maybe the most famous athlete in history, in categories like trustworthiness, compassion and sincerity, and it's not even close.

"He's got a unique background among athletes," E-Poll's Randy Parker said. "He's perceived as having high standards and a different sort of ethical stance than many athletes."

Good stuff.

Giants get Ross, an OF they didn't really want

At least according to the San Francisco Chronicle report by Henry Schulman.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/22/SP6S1F1NKE.DTL

(08-23) 04:00 PDT ST. LOUIS -- It appears the Giants have a new outfielder, whether they wanted him or not. They placed what was believed to be a blocking claim on Cody Ross of the Marlins to prevent the Padres from acquiring him. Florida elected not to pull Ross back and instead handed him to the Giants, who must pay the $1.1 million left on his 2010 contract.

The only question in my mind is, why wouldn't they have wanted Cody Ross? This guy seems like he would be a better player overall than Jose Guillen. Career stat wise, it appears to be a virtual tie, same type player. Maybe after this season, you find a way to let Guillen walk and keep Ross around.

Ross has had some productive years for the Fish, he's down this year almost across the board. He's going to strike out 100+ times in a full season but will provide some pop. His O-Swing% is up this year around 33.9% from a career 28.6%. Maybe a change of scenery is all he needs.

This could be turn out to be one of the better moves the Giants never really wanted to make.

Cody Ross stats

Year AB HR RBI Avg. OBP
2006 269 13 46 .227 .293
2007 173 12 39 .335 .411
2008 461 22 73 .260 .316
2009 559 24 90 .270 .321
2010 448 11 58 .263 .315

Forget the Wild Card, The 2010 Giants may not beat the 2009 Giants

TO SUPPORT THIS CONCLUSION, WE TURN TO STAT-MAN


That's the way the rest of the season may be shaping up if things don't change pretty quickly.

Last years 88W 74L 657 RS 611 RA stat line looks pretty much in line with the current trajectory.

Currently we stand at 68W 54L 528RS 459 RA which projects to 89W 73L 701 RS 609 RA, virtually no improvement from last years squad. A slight improvement in the offensive metrics is offset by a virtual flat line from the pitching staff.

The improvements made across the diamond offensively have been offset a little bit by a backslide in the production of one Pablo Sandoval. Whether the pre-season tinkering with his weight, conditioning and vision issues are the root cause or his personal issues regarding a rumored divorce I suppose nobody really knows except Panda, but he's clearly not the same offensive force this season after a decent start. The bright spots that are Huff, Torres, Posey and Burrell have been virtually offset by the disappointments of Panda, Rowand and DeRosa.

The recent key series brought to light a couple of the issues that I think are holding the Giants back. Throughout the Padres and Phillies series I would see the final score flash as an ESPN trailer and then the stat line of the opposing pitcher and the stat that kept jumping out to me was 10K 0BB or 9K 1BB. Do opposing pitchers turn into strike throwing machines against the Giants or what?

When the Giants made the change from Carney Lansford to Hensley Meulens as hitting coach the team preached patience. A key discipline.

"Being at the bottom of the pile in those numbers, of course there are improvements to be made," Meulens said. "They don't come overnight. We have to be patient."

The numbers he was talking about were as follows:

The Giants finished 88-74 this season, four games behind wild-card winner Colorado—and with 16 more victories than in 2008. But the team is looking to boost its run production after having the second-fewest homers (122) and drawing the fewest walks (392) in the majors in 2009. The Giants were 13th in the National League in runs.

Runs / Game (RPG) are up from 4.06 to 4.34 (League wide RPG are down from 4.43 to 4.28)
HR/G are up from 0.75 to 0.91
BB/G are up from 2.54 to 3.15
K/G are down from 7.15 to 6.68
BB/K are up from 0.355 to 0.472
AVG/OBA/OPS improved from .257/.309/.699 to .260/.326/.731
OPS+ improved from 80 to 92

So clearly, statistically the Giants have improved under Meulens. He has done the job he set out to do, so far. The problem goes further down the chain as far of development of hitter's.

THE OFFENSE HAS BEEN ABOUT AS EXPECTED THIS SEASON, A BIT BETTER THAN LAST, BUT STILL AVERAGE AND PEDESTRIAN. NO SPEED - NO HIT & RUN - NO SMALL BALL - WAIT FOR THE OCCASIONAL HR TO PRODUCE RUNS AND HOPE SOMEBODY IS ON BASE AT THE TIME IS NOT GOING TO CUT IT. THEY ALSO PICKED A BAD TIME (MOST OF AUGUST) TO GO INTO A DITCH. OTHER THAN THE CUBS SERIES - AND THE CUBS HAVE QUIT - THEY ARE AVERAGING ABOUT 2-3 RUNS PER GAME CONSISTENTLY AND THE NUMBER OF RUNS THAT ARE PRODUCED FROM OTHER THAN THE HR HAS, OF LATE, BEEN ALMOST NON-EXISTENT.

The last couple of series have been an eye-opener.

During the three-game series vs. The Padres and the first two vs. the Phillies (1W - 4L overall) the Giants produced 43K - 8BB and only manufactured 4 RUNS in 5 GAMES. Manufactured runs meaning runs coming the result of something other than a HR.

They have basically turned into an AL offense, waiting for the 3-run HR and if they don't get it, look for 3 or under Runs Scored. The major characteristics used to describe the Giants hitters are all negatives:

IMPATIENT (average BB/K ratio 16th in the league)
UNDISCIPLINED (Highest O_Swing% in baseball)
SLOW (least # of SB in baseball)

STAT LINES FROM THE PADRES - PHILLIES SERIES:

Friday Lost 3-2 to Padres Clayton Richard
4K, 3BB,M 0 HR'S - 2 MANUFACTURED

Saturday W 3-2 to Padres (11 Innings) Mat Latos
11K, 3BB, 1 SOLO HR BY SANDOVAL - 1 MANUFACTURED

Sunday Lost 8-2 to Padres to Wade LeBlanc
10K, 2BB, 2 RUN HR BY POSEY - 0 MANUFACTURED

( 2-9 23 RS 40 RA VS. PADRES)


Tuesday's Notes - Lost 9-3 vs. Oswalt
Giants starters are 0-8 with a 5.97 ERA in the last 13 games.
10K, 0BB, 2 SOLO HR'S - 1 MANUFACTURED

8-2 Wednesday Lost 8-2 vs. Blanton
8K, 0BB, 2 SOLO HR'S - 0 MANUFACTURED

San Francisco failed to get a win from its starting pitcher for the 14th consecutive game.

The Giants' rotation, usually one of the team's strengths, is 0-9 with a 5.97 ERA during that stretch.

46 RUNS SCORED LAST 15 GAMES (3.07 AVG.)
23 RUNS SCORED CUBS 4 GAMES

23 RUNS IN LAST 11 NON-CUBS SERIES (2.09 AVG.)

1 vs. COL, 4 vs. ATL, 4 vs. CUBS, 3 vs. SD, 2 vs. PHI

The website Fan Graphs has a stat that I think leads to where the Giants major challenge lies offensively.

FANGRAPHS WEBSITE:
http://www.fangraphs.com/teams.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&type=5&season=2010&month=0

If you look here you see the Giants are a worst in the majors 32.3% O_Swing% or Outside Swing Percentage.

This measures the % of pitches a batter swings at that are outside the Strike Zone.

The League Average is around 29%, Just eyeballing the table you can see that the better teams offensively are clustered at the top The Yankees at 25.8%, Red Sox 26.7%, Braves 26.7% and so on. After the D-Backs you see the A's, Twins, Rays, Phillies and Dodgers.

Intuitively, you would think that swinging at pitches outside the strike zone makes the pitchers job of getting you out easier. Does it? And if so how much does it hurt an offense or a team?

Is the patient, milk the count, Yakees-Red Sox, Moneyball approach more efficient offensively and does it correlate to winning better than an aggressive, swing at the fist pitch you like approach?

If we accept that O_Swing% identifies the various approaches and correlate the O-Swing% to Runs Scored or RS and then to Win%, we see that:

O-Swing% correlates to RS negatively -0.3912 (15.30% R-squared) a moderate negative correlation, which implies that the more you swing at pitches outside the strike zone, the less you will score runs. Makes sense. Moderate because you can recover from a bad swing here and there and salvage the AB.

There is a low correlation between O_Swing% and Win% of -0.2697 (7.27% R-squared). Makes sense. You can recover from having a poor overall team hitting approach offensively by having a strong defense and pitching.

The surprising number to me, at first, was the correlation between BB/K and winning. The walk to strikeout ratio to me is the most useful identifier and predictor of how a hitter or pitcher will progress or advance from the minors to the majors.

And now I think I see why. Follow me here. Because it plays into the Voros McCracken/SABR analysis that puts forth the theory that once the pitcher throws the ball and the hitter hits the ball, neither has control over its eventual destination. Short term. AB to AB. The idea is to make consistently good pitches (as a pitcher) and take consistently good swings (as a hitter) and let the "Law of Averages" or law of large numbers work in your favor. This explains the rise of BABIP as a closely watched and evaluated metric.

Hitters know this theory explained by the days when they hit four balls on the screws, at-em balls right at somebody, and go 0 for 4 and somebody else hits a humpback liner, a seeing eye grounder, a duck snort and a swinging bunt and end up 4 for 4. Pitchers see this in reverse after they make a good pitch and see a bad result and at times make a bad pitch and get away with it.

Process matters long-term, it feeds into long-term results. Short-term almost any approach can work. Remember the pitchers hitting philosophy "Swing hard in case you make contact". It explains why hitters and pitchers regurgitate what seems like throw-away, shop-worn lines like, "I'm just taking it one pitch at a time, trying to make good pitches/take good swings, etc." They get it.

But I digress. The ultimate confrontation in baseball is between the pitcher and the hitter, it feeds into every other metric. The objective of the game is to score runs and win games. You get 27 outs, to be used judiciously to score said runs and win said games. Anything that leads you closer to an out moves you further away from a run and a win.

If we accept the premise put forth by the BABIP'ers that once the pitch is thrown and the bat is swung the result is random and out of the control of the participants, then the most reliable, efficient and objective statistic available to evaluate the pitcher / hitter confrontation is BB/K ratio.

So I looked at that statistic and found that the Giants are about league average. 0.47 as an offense, but down to 0.19 in the last five disaster games versus the Padres and the Philies.

What was surprising was the extent to which this statistic correlates to Win% 0.6386 (40.76% r-squared). This indicates a moderate to nearly high correlation and a substantial to marked relationship. The 40.76% r-squared indicates that almost 41% of winning and losing can be attributed to controlling, maintaining and improving the performance that flows through to this statistic.

The Numbers are posted here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36147619/Stats-OSwing-vs-Win-amp-RS


More patience and discipline at the plate, making better contact, swinging at better pitches, making the pitchers job tougher rather than easier.

The Ted Williams approach is what we seem to need a little more of around the organization. The first rule is to get a good pitch to swing at. To the extent that the Giants continue to lead the league in O_Swing%, they continue to violate Rule #1.

The second rule is to put a good swing out there. That doesn't seem to be a problem, these guys are major leaguers, but to the extent that you violate Rule #1, you hurt Rule #2 and eventually, long-term, you hurt the end results, which are Batting Average, Run Production and Wins and Losses.

BTW, the Giants O_Swing% per batter were as follows:

BURRELL 23.8%
RENTERIA 25.7%
FONTENOT 26.3%
TORRES 27.9%
POSEY 28.5%
GUILLEN 28.6%
HUFF 28.9%
DEROSA 30%
SCHIERHOLZ 30.4%
URIBE 34.5%
ISHAKAWA 35.2%
MOLINA 35.5%
SANCHEZ 36.4%
ROWAND 38.5%
SANDOVAL 43.6%

The surprise is that Rowand's number, as a veteran, is so high. Sandoval's is abysmal. It may be cute when he's hitting .300, but not so much at .265.

I don't want to leave the pitching staff out of the analysis. Prior to the season, I envisioned a dominant starting staff that would win approx. 60% of it's decisions and leave the rest of the staff to play .500.

The results have been tepid at best and of late they have shown signs of fraying at the seams.

LINCECUM 11-7
CAIN 9-10
ZITO 8-7
SANCHEZ 9-8
BUMGARNER 4-4
TOTAL 41-36

THE PITCHER'S, ESPECIALLY THE VAUNTED STARTING ROTATION HAS BEEN LIVING ON REPUTATION AND IT HAS CAUGHT UP WITH THEM THIS MONTH. THE GIANTS LEAD THE LEAGUE IN WALKS, LINCECUM LOOKS TIRED OR HURT, CERTAINLY NOT A DOMINANT PITCHER. CAIN IS BACK TO A LESS THAN .500 PITCHER. INFACT THE STAFF IS VIRTUALLY .500 ACROSS THE BOARD. THE BRIGHT SPOT HAS BEEN WILSON AS THE CLOSER. THE MIDDLE RELIEF HAS BEEN ABOUT AS EXPECTED.


ESPN Notes on the staff: I added the WHIP for comparison, Lincecum is the only starter above the team average

• ON TIM LINCECUM: "He's not the same guy. And if he's not the same guy, they're in trouble. He doesn't have confidence in his fastball right now. He's got a good enough change to get by, but he can't become a changeup monster at age 26."

News: Lincecum lost for the third straight time on Sunday, giving up six runs (five earned) on eight hits and three walks over only 3.2 innings. He struck out six.

Spin: With the bad outing, Lincecum's ERA climbed to a mere-mortal 3.62. He was a little unlucky, but once again his control wasn't as precise as it has been in previous years. "I missed my spots here and there. There were a lot of bloop hits here and there but hits are hits and a loss is a loss," he said. "At the end of the day that's what I have to look at it as and just get better from here." 1.34 WHIP VS. 1.33 TEAM AVG.

News: Cain took the loss against the Phillies on Wednesday after allowing five runs - two earned - on seven hits in six innings.

Spin: Cain fell victim to a four run rally in the fourth inning, but breezed through the Phillies aside from that. He entered the game with a 3.62 ERA and 1.31 WHIP on the road, a far cry from his 2.62 ERA and 1.01 WHIP at home. 1.16 WHIP

News: Zito took the loss Tuesday when he allowed four runs over five innings against the Phillies.

Spin: Zito surrendered eight hits, walked one and failed to strike out a single batter. His record now sits at 8-7 on the season, with a 3.56 ERA and 1.26 WHIP. Giants starters are 0-8 with a 5.97 ERA over the last 13 games. ZITO 1.26 WHIP

News: Sanchez lasted just 5.1 innings Friday against the Padres, allowing three runs on five hits to drop to 8-8.

Spin: Sanchez's inconsistency continues. His 144 strikeouts in 137.1 innings are offset by the 70 walks and 15 home runs. There is still some upside here, but the ups and downs will continue. 1.27 WHIP

News: Bumgarner pitched seven innings of two-run ball Saturday, allowing eight hits and two walks. He struck out two.

Spin: Bumgarner pitched well even though he was left with no decision. He's allowed two runs or less in five of 10 starts this season. 1.33 WHIP

The other side of "The Shot Heard 'Round the World" story

THE SHOT: FROM THE DODGERS POINT OF VIEW

What a remarkably poignant and moving story from the perspective of legendary Dodgers announcer Vin Scully. It truly demonstrates the value of displaying dignity in both victory and defeat.

Over the years, both Bobby Thomson and Ralph Branca were certainly role models for their behavior during what had to be one of the the biggest "thrill of victory and the agony of defeat" moments in baseball history.

Scully sure knows how to make it hard to hate the Dodgers.
WHAT AN AWESOME STORY.

FROM ESPN.COM

By Ramona Shelburne
ESPNLosAngeles.com

http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/news/story?id=5472666

LOS ANGELES -- Vin Scully has been responsible for some of the most memorable calls in baseball history. Kirk Gibson's home run, Don Larsen's perfect game, Hank Aaron's 715th home run, Bill Buckner's muffed ground ball.

The Hall of Fame broadcaster was merely in the building for Bobby Thomson's "Shot Heard 'Round the World" in 1951.

Scully said that as soon as the ball was hit, he'd looked down to the club seats at Branca's fiance.

"Ann, Ralph's wife to be, was sitting in the club box," Scully said. "I knew she was there, so when the ball was hit and everything went crazy, I instinctively looked down there.

"I can remember it in order. Ann, when the ball went in the seats, opened up her purse, and rather calmly, took out a handkerchief, closed the purse, opened the handkerchief, and then buried her face in the handkerchief. I'll always remember that."

Branca, who was 25 at the time, handled the moment with tremendous dignity.

"To me, and again I'm coloring this perhaps out of friendship, the fellow who came out of that incident 10 feet tall was Ralph Branca," Scully said. "He was subject to every old-timers day, recreating the home run, blah, blah, blah. Their names were completely linked, you couldn't say one without the other.

"Although it was very easy to take bows, and Bobby [Thomson] did it very well. He didn't gloat or anything. He was a very unassuming hero. Ralph to me really carried the cross exceptionally well. One of the reasons, I think, I don't think it was the first Saturday, but certainly by the next [weekend], Ralph and Ann were getting married.

"I always thought, out of the ashes of this thing, Ralph just kept growing in stature because he took it so well."

In his book, The Echoing Green: The Untold Story of Bobby Thomson, Ralph Branca and the Shot Heard 'Round the World Joshua Prager relates how he was able to initially deal with the defeat. As they were leaving the park an hour or so after the game..

Ann sat in the backseat in tears, her father's second cousin Francis Rowley, a Jesuit priest, come to console her. Rowley turned to Branca.

"Forget it, Ralph" he said,..."It could have happened to anyone. You did your best."

Branca's mind cleared. He had lost the pennant.

A need to make sense of his lot welled in Branca. He had once been a great pitcher. And at twenty-five, he remained a good man. He did not smoke, did not cheat, and save an occasional highball, did not drink.

And so he answered Rowley, a man of the cloth, with a desperate and familiar question. "Yes, Father," he said "but why did it have to be me? Why me?"

Father Rowley,....he did not hesitate with his answer. "The reason God picked you to throw that pitch," he said, "was because He knew that your faith was strong enough to withstand the agonies that would follow. That you would know it was His will and you had done your best and no one could ask more of any man."

Branca listened. Here in a sedan in an empty parking lot in Harlem was an answer that made sense, that jibed with scripture and his world view and his sense of self, an answer elastic enough to accommodate all that was sure to follow. Here was a reply tantamount to a reprieve. The home run was a crucible. Fiancée at his side, Branca drove off.

Even fifty years after the moment, when a 2001 Wall Street Journal story alleged Giants sign stealing during that season came out, Branca maintained a high level of class and dignity. He and Thomson remained friends until Thomson's death. Thomson never admitted to knowing what pitch was coming from Branca.

Giants playoff chances still alive, but it doesn't hurt to plan ahead

The Giants are one step closer to being out of the playoffs after yesterdays debacle against the Phillies. An early 2-0 lead melted like an ice cream cone in the August heat into a disappointing 9-3 loss to the Phils.

The Giants began the scoring doing what they do best offensively, with Aubrey Huff grounding into a DP, as Andres Torres scored after leading off the inning with a 2B. Pat Burrell added a solo HR after Huff's DP. Newly acquired Jose Guillen added a HR late in the game. Zito and Oswalt pitched equally well, but a couple of stats stood out. Giants 10K and 0 BB. NO WALKS, REALLY!! This is contrasted by only 2 K's and 3 BB's on the Phillies side of the ledger.

Giants pushed only 3 runners into scoring position vs. 13 for the Phillies. Understood that reliever Chris Ray threw a lot of gasoline on the fire late, but this is symptomatic of a lack of diversity in this offense. Not good for late in the season play or, God forbid, we manage to squeak into the playoffs. The lineup looks better on paper, with a disturbingly old-style American League feel. Wait for the 3-run HR. If you don't get it, runs are hard to come by. Two solo HR's look good on the stat sheet, but only count for 2 R's. Not very efficient.

The G-men are almost dead on the MLB average across the board in the major offensive metrics.

BA (.260 vs. .259 MLB avg.)
OBP (.326 vs. .327 MLB avg.)
SLG (.405 vs. .405 MLB avg.)
OPS (.731 vs. .732 MLB avg.)

Average will likely not get it done down the stretch. The offense simply has to start picking up the pace.

I know the pundits and most fans will want to continue to hang our hats on the strength of the Giants superior pitching. However, even here the starting pitching is beginning to show some cracks and the middle innings relief, which was a strength has already faded somewhat due to injuries.

The most disturbing stat is that the Giants pitching staff leads the majors in WALKS. Which turns a good-looking .243 BA against into a near league average OBP.

The Padres, with perhaps more depressing offensive stats than the Giants, just seem more diversified offensively. At least in the limited number of games I've seen the Pads play this season.

We know that the Phillies--the other main threat to the Giants playoff chances--are beginning to reload their lineup with a returning Chase Utley and Ryan Howard. Their offense is more than ready to pick up the pace into September. They are a veteran team that has been there before.

The Giants have seemingly been on a 90 win pace all season. Unfortunately, it seems like it may take 92-93 W's to secure the wild-card berth. The Giants, of late, show more signs of fading to 85-87 wins than closing the race like legendary track stars Jim Ryan or Kip Keino.

It's time to pick up the pace and close the deal or start making other plans for mid to late October.

Sad News for Giants fans....Bobby Thomson died today

http://www.silive.com/sports/index.ssf/2010/08/bobby_thomson_immortalized_by.htm

Bobby Thomson, the New York baseball legend who called Staten Island home and hit perhaps the most famous home run of all-time -- the "Shot Heard 'Round the World" to win the 1951 pennant for the New York Giants -- died Monday night at the age of 86.

Immortalized in Giants and baseball lore with the "Shot Heard 'Round the World". One of the most famous HR's in baseball history. I wasn't even born, but as a Giants fan hearing Russ Hodges call of the shot and reading about the history of the Giants famous comeback that season -- The Little Miracle of Coogan's Bluff -- is timeless and just makes the hair on the back of my neck stand on end.

The Giants closed a 13 1/2 game deficit on July 4th of that season to force a three-game playoff that culminated in Thomson's HR. A 20-year old rookie CF Willie Mays--whose call-up aided the Giants comeback season enormously--knelt nervously, admittedly trembling under the stress, in the on-deck circle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_Heard_'Round_the_World_(baseball)

On August 11, Brooklyn had held a 13½-game lead on the Giants, but the Giants turned around and won their next 16 games. While Brooklyn finished the season on a 26–22 clip, the Giants put together a streak almost unequalled in baseball history, winning 37 of the last 44 games, including the last seven in a row. Only a 14-inning victory over the Philadelphia Phillies, the previous year's league champions, on the last day of the regular season enabled the Dodgers to force the best-of-three-games showdown.

Brooklyn won the coin toss to decide home-field advantage in the series. Controversially, manager Charlie Dressen opted to play only the first game at home, rather than the last two; he reasoned that if the Dodgers won their only home game, they would need to win only one out of two on the road.

1951 World Series Giants Win Pennant

Giants round up the 2010 draft class...Brown and Parker signed

Giants sign first-round pick Gary Brown

SF also inks second-round pick Jarrett Parker

http://sanfrancisco.giants.mlb.com/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20100816&content_id=13532188&vkey=pr_sf&fext=.jsp&c_id=sf&partnerId=ed-3987850-153012614

SAN FRANCISCO, CA -- The San Francisco Giants have signed their first two selections in the 2010 First-Year Player Draft, the club announced this evening. The Giants inked outfielder, Gary Brown, their first pick and 24th overall selection to a 2011 deal. San Francisco also penned their second pick and the 74th overall selection in the 2010 Draft, Jarrett Parker. The Giants have come to terms with 33 players from this year's draft, including each of their first 14 selections and 18 of their top 20 picks.

http://sanfrancisco.giants.mlb.com/team/draft.jsp?c_id=sf

I am not sure how accurate the list posted further down the page, as it shows 5th rounder Richard Hembree and 6th rounder Mike Kickham as unsigned. Hembree has pitched for the AZL Giants and Kickhham is already with Salem Keizer. They also show 6-8 USF LHP Andrew Barbosa as unsigned, which would be a bit of a loss. He may have been a bit of a project, but he seemed like a very intriguing pick in that spot.

http://sanfrancisco.giants.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100816&content_id=13531364&vkey=news_sf&fext=.jsp&c_id=sf

THE NEWEST GIANTS PROSPECTS:

1st/24th Gary Brown 6-0,185 CF R/R/Cal-State Fullerton - has plus speed, considered a lead-off hitter who can be a force at the top of the lineup. His base stealing success rate was above average. His defense in CF is also considered a plus, good range and instincts that could develop into a potential Gold glover-type. His arm is acceptable if not a plus tool. A gap-to-gap hitter with little power, he has to improve his patience at the plate to properly utilize his speed. He can bunt and makes enough contact. Brown should begin with the Arizona League squad or Salem Keizer, but may hit near the top of most prospect lists shortly. The comparisons have varied on Brown's game to Johnny Damon, Jacoby Ellsbury or Juan Pierre. Solid prospect with solid tools,

2nd/74th Jarrett Parker 6-4,210 CF L/L Virginia also has plus speed with some pop in his bat. He is an athletic hitter with a good frame, his hitting is a bit raw. He projects as a top-of-the-order hitter and a great base stealing threat with plus speed. The only question seems to be how fast he transitions to making consistent contact with professional pitching. He is a high power/high K% Rate with the bat currently. Swings and misses more than he should. Can be bothered with breaking stuff. Defensively, he's a plus CF with an average arm in the OF. Should also begin with Arizona / Salem Keizer.

3rd/105th Carter Jurica 5-11,185 SS R/R Kansas State - considered a utility IF type. A bit of a surprise pick in this spot. Not a real polished or toolsy prospect but a solid player. He is considered a plus runner and a patient, disciplined hitter. Average defender with an average arm but a versatile defender who may have to carry many gloves in his bag.

4th/138th Seth Rosin 6-6,245 RHP Minnesota - Good body control and command of his pitches. He could rise very fast. Efficient, a control-type pitcher who projects as a solid, bottom of the rotation 3rd/4th starter or solid set-up reliever. FB runs 90-94 with command. Change and breaking stuff is average. Throws strikes and scouts liked his demeanor. Only 12 BB over 103 IP in 2010.

5th/168th Richard Hembree 6-4,210 RHP College of Charleston - A bit raw and inexperienced, but a fresh arm with a FB that touches 98 and major league size gives him a chance to advance.

6th/198th Mike Kickham 6-4,205 LHP Missouri State - signed for $410K, over slot for the draft position shows what the Giants think of him. A quality arm with good size from a college program that has been producing some quality professional arms of late. FB runs from 90-94.

As of last night's deadline, the only two draftees that the Giants did not sign from within the first 20 rounds were 15th rounder Andrew Barbosa, a left-handed pitcher out of South Florida, and 19th rounder Austin Southall, a highly regarded prep 1B from University HS (LA).

This looks to be a solid, if unspectacular draft haul for the Giants. If they hit 2/3 on the position players listed and 2/3 from amongst the pitchers, it can become a very successful draft.