How do the Giants do it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flpmagikat

How many innings did Cueto and Strasburg through this postseason? Not that I disagree with you neccesarily, I think luck is obviously a huge factor. SF is lucky that their rotation remained healthy, and I as all those teams have pretty great frontline SP, which is the most important factor. I guess I don't count Lincecum this year as he hasn't been in the rotation all year.

---

Stras was shut down and Cueto had an untimely injury.....your point? The point I was annoyed by was the suggestion that team stats don't matter because only your top guys pitch in the postseason and SF has clearly the best top guys. 1) Their top guys are comparable with two teams that were eliminated earlier than them. If not teams eliminated earlier were better and 2) Not just your top guys pitch as Barry Zito has demonstrated this postseason. So it's a ridiculous argument that none of your points do anything to support.

---

You may be bothered by the comment that team stats don't matter but how many fifth starters pitch in the playoffs? How much are you using your relief players? Not much. Be bothered by that fact all you want but the use of these players in the regular season versus the post season is significantly different. Comparing team stats when your rosters is used differently thus is not an accurate way to portray the team in an attempt to compare them. Nothing you have posted disproves that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old nurse

[You may be bothered by the comment

---

I'm bothered by your insistence on a stupid premise to back up an erroneous theory. Care to throw Jeff Gray around some more or did that one little bit hit home at least?

Quote:

---

that team stats don't matter but how many fifth starters pitch in the playoffs?

---

Who is the Giants fifth pitcher? Lincecum? Zito? or Vogelsong? If you put an iota of thought into your next post you'll probably say Lincecum, who, for many people would not have been teh fifth starter most of the season. Either way it doesn't change the fact that SF's best pitcher this postseason was their number 3 starter. And their number 4 has been better than 2. Next stupid assertion please....

Quote:

---

How much are you using your relief players? Not much.

---

The Giants are averaging 3.5 innings per game from their bullpen. That's compared to 2.87 innings per game in the regular season. Do you even try to look up the nonsense you're spouting?

Quote:

---

Be bothered by that fact all you want but the use of these players in the regular season versus the post season is significantly different.

---

Significantly different than you how apparently perceive it....yes.

Could you at least try and fact check your nonsense?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

Yeah, it's a crapshoot. Last I checked the Nats and the Reds were the best teams this season in team ERA. The Braves were ahead of the Giants too. So where does all this crap about best pitching staff come from?

The truth is, all it takes is a fluke or two to dramatically shift a series and a playoff structure. As Twins fans, we should all be very familiar with that. In the regular season those flukes balance out, in a 10 days worth of games they make the results much more of a coin flip.

---

That was your initial premise. My initial premise was that you are erroneous to equate best team ERA in the season to better team in the playoff. First off, due to injury and roster shuffling not all pitchers used during the season are on the playoff roster. With the goal of winning, the net effect of the mop up crew of the bullpen is meaningless towards 4 wins. It is rare (rare does not mean never) to use a fifth starter in the playoffs. In search of accuracy of winning baseball then one should compare what is used in winning situations, your top 4 starters and top three to four relievers. That is what is used in winning games.
In terms of complaining of lack of research, are there not better metrics than ERA to determine better pitching? You would appear to be the one being lazy

Jeff Grey comment was to jerk your chain.
Where is there any flukey plays that caused the Giants to win a game?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old nurse

In terms of complaining of lack of research, are there not better metrics than ERA to determine better pitching? You would appear to be the one being lazy

---

By all means - let's see the basis upon which you have determined the Giants are the best pitching team. Mind you, this also means it should work for last year. The year before. Etc. I look forward to you actually putting in some thought.

Quote:

---

Jeff Grey comment was to jerk your chain. Where is there any flukey plays that caused the Giants to win a game?

---

Jerk my chain? Was the bullpen comment the same? You're posting unresearched stupidity and getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar. I'm basing the assessment of "best" pitching staff on statistics gleaned from the best sample size we have (the regular season). What are you basing it off of?

(Cute also, now that it's being pointed out, that 3rd and 4th starters count too. Care to imagine what percentage of regular season team stats is compromised by your top four starters and top four bullpen arms? Which, to help you with the math, is 8 out of likely 11 or 12 spots? Perhaps you should study your careless Jeff Gray remark before you keep arguing that regular season team stats don't matter when you've included those that do matter as being your top four starter and top four bullpen arms. Here's a hint:

Team top 8 ERA 3.30 Total: 3.68
Team top 8 ERA 3.17 Total 3.34
Team top 8 ERA 2.99 Total 3.33

Only one of those three teams had a real disparity. In fact, your Giants (even with pulling the filler out), were still not as good in ERA. But by all means, put up or shut up. And don't bring Jeff Gray wins stats into this please. Pretty amusing for you to get haughty about better metrics when you cited the number of wins for Jeff gray in this conversation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old nurse

In terms of complaining of lack of research, are there not better metrics than ERA to determine better pitching? You would appear to be the one being lazy

---

By all means - let's see the basis upon which you have determined the Giants are the best pitching team. Mind you, this also means it should work for last year. The year before. Etc. I look forward to you actually putting in some thought.

Quote:

---

Jeff Grey comment was to jerk your chain. Where is there any flukey plays that caused the Giants to win a game?

---

Jerk my chain? Was the bullpen comment the same? You're posting unresearched stupidity and getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar. I'm basing the assessment of "best" pitching staff on statistics gleaned from the best sample size we have (the regular season). What are you basing it off of?

(Cute also, now that it's being pointed out, that 3rd and 4th starters count too. Care to imagine what percentage of regular season team stats is compromised by your top four starters and top four bullpen arms? Which, to help you with the math, is 8 out of likely 11 or 12 spots? Perhaps you should study your careless Jeff Gray remark before you keep arguing that regular season team stats don't matter when you've included those that do matter as being your top four starter and top four bullpen arms. Here's a hint:

Team top 8 ERA 3.30 Total: 3.68
Team top 8 ERA 3.17 Total 3.34
Team top 8 ERA 2.99 Total 3.33

Only one of those three teams had a real disparity. In fact, your Giants (even with pulling the filler out), were still not as good in ERA. But by all means, put up or shut up. And don't bring Jeff Gray wins stats into this please. Pretty amusing for you to get haughty about better metrics when you cited the number of wins for Jeff gray in this conversation.

---

What do the reds and nats team eras look like when you take out cueto and stras numbers? Honest question, im on my phone and not that clever. I imagine that .3 gap looks a bit different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flpmagikat

What do the reds and nats team eras look like when you take out cueto and stras numbers? Honest question, im on my phone and not that clever. I imagine that .3 gap looks a bit different.

---

To be fair, I didn't do that because I also removed Timmy Lincecum's numbers. Which I think is being more than fair to the Giants considering he was a full-time starter for them. But if you pulled Stras out of Washington they are probably more like a 3.33 ERA team, which is still as good as the SF top 8!!! None of the regular season stats show SF as a clearly better pitching staff. And that's despite SF having the second best pitcher's park in all of baseball compared to Cincy as the 8th worst and Wash in the middle of the pack.

The point I'm making is that there isn't much of a gap between the top 8 and the team ERA because even in the regular season you tend to use your best players most often. The contention that the playoffs is more starters, less pen and none of the lesser guys are relevant therefore eliminating regular season team stats is foolish. The lesser guys pitch less innings in the regular season and their actual impact on team stats is far more minimal than people think. Lincecum is the prime suspect for SF's gap, not their scrubs. Team stats are a perfectly valid way to compare pitching talent.

By pretty much every measure I've seen, SF was not the best pitching staff going in and it certainly wasn't clear that they were. And even if the theory of "best pitching staff wins" - why is Washington sitting out while St. Louis advances? Better yet, someone please explain to me the 2011 St. Louis Cardinals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by biggentleben

When you look at overall pitching staff for the regular season, you miss a lot. Brandon Beachy wasn't walking onto the Braves roster, Strasburg wasn't walking onto the Nats roster. In playoff rosters, the Giants had the best combination of starters and bullpen arms of any team in the NL. What's stepped up drastically for the Giants was their defense once they got Belt in at first and Blanco in left.

---

Cincy had the best combination. They had the league's best bullpen and comparable starters. Cueto-Latos-Bailey were absolutely comparable to Cain-Bum-Vogelsong. And the bullpen was a clear Cincy advantage. When Cueto went down it hurt, but what might have happened if St. Louis didn't beat a superior Washington pitching staff? I could easily point to multiple teams from the last few years that won over superior pitching teams. Not to mention your Atlanta example back when they used to say "pitching gets you to the postseason, hitting wins it"

---

By pure pitchers, Cincy was better, but Bochy is an exceptional bullpen manager, which to me overcomes the minimal difference in talent between the two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by biggentleben

y pure pitchers, Cincy was better, but Bochy is an exceptional bullpen manager, which to me overcomes the minimal difference in talent between the two.

---

That's a fair analysis, it's more a gut thing for you then which I don't have a problem with. The two are pretty close and we both seem to agree that it isn't purely the quality of the pitching staff that gets you there. It sure as hell helps but it isn't as simple as some here are making it. So I can respect that opinion.

The best teams generally have the best pitching. There is really no way around it.
Team ERA Leaders (1-10):
1 Tampa Bay (90-72) 2 LA Dodgers (86-76) 3 Washington (98-64) 4 Cincinnati (97-65) 5 Atlanta (94-68)
6 Oakland (94-68) 7 San Francisco (94-68) 8 St. Louis (88-74) 9 Detroit (88-74) 10 Seattle (75-87)

Seattle is the only team that isn't good and they are 10th anyway. The Yankees (12th), Baltimore (14th), Texas (16th), and Angels (18th) are all good teams, but they at least have average pitching. I think an argument can be made that pitching is a lot more important to team success in the NL than the AL.


Nearly every team in the postseason has a great staff and because of this the illusion becomes that the 'best' one will win every year. My opinion is that you have to be very lucky or have a good 1-3 to reach the WS (not necessarily the best). Both teams this season have excellent pitchers and that's a good example and support for this.

[QUOTE=TheLeviathan;6
By all means - let's see the basis upon which you have determined the Giants are the best pitching team.

I Never claimed the Giants were the best pitching team in the playoff. I claimed your logic in determining what was the best team in the playoffs was fatally flawed. And to further show your reading ability I have never claimed to like the Giants. The regular season stats of those players not on the roster and not going to play make a difference. You used three unnamed teams in an attempt to discredit me. There were 10 teams in the playoffs.

Single factor analysis. Is ERA the best determinant of best pitching. Individually there is not even a close 1:1 relationship to the Cy Young award and ERA leader. If the individual with the best ERA is not voted the best pitcher, why should the team with the best ERA be considered the best pitching team. Your analysis of declaring the top pitching team is simplistic at best. I never declared any team to be the top pitching team. I found your analysis simplistic and called you as such.

Where are the flukes wild claiming person that determine who wins the WS. I want your BS answer.

Not working that way. You claimed season team ERA was flawed - name another. You got caught with your embarrassingly stupid Jeff Gray and bullpen reasoning and still have yet to provide an unrefuted reason. I have posted stats and analysis to consistent shoot down your stupidity. Name what you use to assess the teams instead. Just make sure its better than Jeff Grays win total so you recover some face here. Hell I'm annoyed with you and still fell bad for how ignorant you have looked.

So let's hear it and I will be happy to answer. I've put plenty of effort in (in clear contrast to your laughable attempts) so no need to worry. This was an amusing attempt to use a fallacy to wiggle out though. Nice try, no dice.

Nice edit - I repeat - name another. This changes nothing - take any stat you want. Fact is all stats are subject to the same flaws so your distinction is meaningless. We can do this anyway you want and your arguments are still nonsense. So post your analysis tool - it isnt hard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

Not working that way. You claimed season team ERA was flawed - name another. You got caught with your embarrassingly stupid Jeff Gray and bullpen reasoning and still have yet to provide an unrefuted reason. I have posted stats and analysis to consistent shoot down your stupidity. Name what you use to assess the teams instead. Just make sure its better than Jeff Grays win total so you recover some face here. Hell I'm annoyed with you and still fell bad for how ignorant you have looked.

So let's hear it and I will be happy to answer. I've put plenty of effort in (in clear contrast to your laughable attempts) so no need to worry. This was an amusing attempt to use a fallacy to wiggle out though. Nice try, no dice.

---

Using your standard of regular season team statistics and single factor analysis to determine best pitching staff one can get different results. WAR by team pitching shows the Tigers have the best pitching staff followed by the Rangers and Rays. XFIP says it is the Rays, Cardinals then Phillies. Gee, lets go by team strikeouts. That is one statistic independent of the rest of the team. Brewers win, Phillies, then Rays. Using three different methods, three different answers who was the top team for pitching. The litmus test for validity? All three of the measures I used have the Twins at the bottom. The Rockies and the Indians have worse team ERA than the Twins.

Now for the third time, you claim that it is flukes that win the WS. Care top expound on your BS claim?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old nurse

Using your standard of regular season team statistics and single factor analysis to determine best pitching staff one can get different results.

---

Actually, I've compared players specifically as well. I never claimed team ERA was the end-all, be-all. Go back and (since you finally, 6 posts in demonstrated the ability to research the BS you throw on the screen) and see - it's just what I chose to use because it has a strong sample size and is comparable. No stat is perfect, but all of your charges against it (fifth starters, backend bullpen, Jeff Gray's win total) were stupid and unfounded.

Quote:

---

WAR by team pitching shows the Tigers have the best pitching staff followed by the Rangers and Rays. XFIP says it is the Rays, Cardinals then Phillies. Gee, lets go by team strikeouts. That is one statistic independent of the rest of the team. Brewers win, Phillies, then Rays. Using three different methods, three different answers who was the top team for pitching. The litmus test for validity? All three of the measures I used have the Twins at the bottom. The Rockies and the Indians have worse team ERA than the Twins.

---

So your easily explained pre-disposition as a Twins fan to see them as the worst vindicates your choice of statistic? Well, you didn't top Jeff Gray, but good effort. I have no problem using those stats too. To me it doesn't matter what the stat is, there isn't one that shows the Giants are clearly the best. I picked team ERA (because, for the fun of it, let's just say my litmus test was the Rockies were baseball's worst pitching team. Subjectivity is fun!) because it represents the runs the team allowed with some independence from poor defense. Not as much as other stats, but a simple go-to stat. Team ERA could certainly be criticized based on park factors, FIP, and a few others but because of fifth starters, unresearched bullpen assertions, and Jeff Gray's win total? No, that's stupid.

Quote:

---

Now for the third time, you claim that it is flukes that win the WS. Care top expound on your BS claim?

---

Absolutely. Luck plays in on a number of factors. The Giants are lucky to have had their entire starting rotation the entire season. They had a grand total of 2 starts by guys not planned to be in their rotation. That is flukey and lucky. Having your first round opponent (a superior team IMO) lose it's best starter and possible Cy Young winner in the first inning of Game 1 was lucky. Bochy and Blanco have both credited "god" for breaks this postseason. It happens in baseball that flukes and things tend to just go your way (broken bat hits, funny hops, etc.) - denying this can play a role in the postseason is silly.

Seems to be a basic premise missing with some of these comments. When I say "The playoffs are a crapshoot," I'm starting with the assumption that all 8 (or 10) playoff teams are good baseball teams. I believe that, in the playoffs, bullpens paly a huge role, but it obviously starts with starting pitching. The Twins have no starting ptiching, so I don't know if there is any Twins discussion in this thread (regarding good, playoff teams). The question of, "Can the Twins get there?" is legit... The answer? Sure, if they can find a couple of strong #2s, Gibson and Hendriks take a step forward, and they find a diamond in the rough, like Vogelsong. And that's certainly not predictable.

When your hitting falls apart like the Yankees vs Detroit, and currently Detroit, the pitching doesn't matter. Does your whole team play well under the pressure of the playoffs. The Giants have enough players playing their best at the right time. That has kept them coming back in the earlier rounds. Carrying that thought towards the Twins, will the pieces added on offense to the Twins be able to come through. Span played well in his two times in the playoffs. Mauer and Morneau have had highs and lows. Vogelsong kicked around the majors and the minors for a long time before something clicked. The Twins attempt in 2012 was PJ Walters, in 09 it was RA Dickey. There will be somebody signed that they take a chance on.

@Leviathan. The game 4 starter for the Reds did not lose the game for them, the bullpen did. It might or might not have mattered if Cueto was available. Broken bat hits, funny hops happen in any game and on a regular basis. That is part of the game. Things like letting the ball dribble through your legs is a flukey thing. Someone like Drew Butera with an OPS of 800 through the playoffs would be a flukey thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old nurse

@Leviathan. The game 4 starter for the Reds did not lose the game for them, the bullpen did. It might or might not have mattered if Cueto was available. Broken bat hits, funny hops happen in any game and on a regular basis. That is part of the game. Things like letting the ball dribble through your legs is a flukey thing. Someone like Drew Butera with an OPS of 800 through the playoffs would be a flukey thing.

---

Getting to a world series involves a lot. But first let me again point out the fact that you didn't do your research. Mike Leake started Game 4....do you know why? Probably not since once again you posted nonsense without fact-checking. When Cueto went down Matt Latos (the would be Game 2 starter) pitched 4 innings. Which forced Game 3 starter Bronson Arroyo up. Which then forced Cincy's 5th starter Leake to pitch in a situation that would have been Arroyo with Cueto going in a do or die Game 5. If you don't think that kind of adjustments were an advantage for the Giants and a big stroke of luck....well I'll keep my current opinion of your mental fortitude to myself.

Between the Giants lack of pitching injuries, gifts from "god" (Giants players themselves admitting to getting lucky breaks), and severe injuries to their regular season and postseason opponents - they've had plenty of good fortune.

Good to know though that dribbling grounders through your legs are flukes but broken bats and funny hops "happen in any game." I'd ask where that difference is, but I'm really just hoping you realize how embarrassing this has been for you and just move on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seth Stohs

Seems to be a basic premise missing with some of these comments. When I say "The playoffs are a crapshoot," I'm starting with the assumption that all 8 (or 10) playoff teams are good baseball teams.

---

This. I think when I make the comment that the winners of the World Series are a tournament winner and not the "best" team in baseball, there are those that think I'm saying they're unworthy winners. That's not the case at all. There is a lot of luck/goofy hops/short series stuff that can mean one team gets breaks that another doesn't. What I've been saying all along here is simply winning in the postseason does not determine who is the better overall team.

How did they do it?
They have payroll of 129 mm. They have drafted front line pitching talent and good sisters while surrounding them with veteran role players.

They use strong revenues from the best ballpark in baseball to invest in their team