So, the new hot thing around here is the reformation of the Giants team.  Trades and such.  But I want to talk about four more years.  I want to talk about this team and how it will do as currently constructed (MINUS MOTHEFUCKING DENKER. FUCK YOU SABEAN, YOU STUPID FUCK).  Anyways, yeah…

Basically, what I’m doing here is trying to estimate what we’ll get at each position assuming we make no moves this offseason.  Assume rose-tinted glasses and such.  However, I honestly don’t know how to translate a line into VORP, RC, or anything else, so this is my best estimate.  I’m even worse doing that with defense, so again just estimates.  Partly, I’m hoping someone can explain to me a little how to do it.  The more statistically inclined please give feedback/criticism/tear me to shreds (Anyone can give feedback, just stick to your strengths).  Any criticism will be met peacefully if it’s backed up with evidence/support.  The +/- here are just the difference in runs from 2008 to 2009.  10 runs is ~1 win.

Offense/Defense:

C: Bengie: -5/-5 – Just a natural, slight offensive and defensive decline.

1B: Ishikawa: +10/+10 – 1B was a disaster offensively and defensively in 2008.  I honestly think these projections are conservative compared to what we got.

2B: Frandsen: -10/+10 –Frandsen can’t replicate Durham offensively but he can make up for it some defensively.  The overall +- might be a little optimistic.

3B: Sandoval: +10/0 – I realize Sandoval probably won’t get the bulk share at 3B, but I guess he might.  Regardless, this was another fucking wasteland for the 2008 Giants and if they can’t do better than this, shame on them.

SS: Burriss: +20/-10 – Burriss should be a huge upgrade offensively at SS (and that’s not saying much) but Vizquel and Ochoa were amazing defensively.

LF: Lewis: +5/-5 – Small improvements offensively and a small step back defensively.  

CF: Rowand: 0/-5 – Defensively this year was out of line, I’m expecting some regression.

RF: Winn: -5/-5 – More a playing time concern than an actual regression.  I assume Schierholtz will take some of his playing time (along with some of the playing time of Lewis and Rowand).

4th OF: Schierholtz: +5/0

Offense/Defense Total: +30/-10

O/D Total: +20

Pitching:

Lincecum: -5 – Some regression.  I’d like to believe he’ll just get better, but the safe bet is the other way.

Cain: +5 – Slight improvements (every offseason I’m perpetually optimistic for him to turn into an ace and I’m hoping +20).

Zito: +10 – Hoping he keeps his velocity up for the whole 2009 season, and that the correlation of the velocity gain in the 2nd half with the improved pitching continues (thanks WalrusMan).

Sanchez: +5: I would expect small gains, but he has the possibility to break out so I think this is conservative.

5th: +5: Our fifth starter was fucking terrible all year, it will be better this year and there is the potential that it will be much better.

Pitching Total: +20

Total Total: +40

Clearly, I'm ignoring bench and bullpen here, but those are pretty finicky beasts that are slaves to random fluctuation.  It's probably not worth it to try and predict something so random.

2008 Record: 72-90 (pythag: 1st: 68-93, 2nd: 71-91, 3rd: 70-92)
2009, No-changes, marcello projected record: 76-86

Opinions please.

Hey, I just wanted to put something up so we can coordinate a little for tonight's game.  I was thinking we could all meet just inside the main gate, near the large chalkboard with the lineups on it (assuming they still have that) around 5:45.  I plan on just getting a General Admission ticket, for those that care I think they are $9.  Other than that, I'm not sure how many people are going.  Let me know if you have any better ideas for meeting/tickets/anything else.  Go (SJ) Giants!

In another topic, some questions about stats were asked.  I thought it might be a good idea to have an open thread where people can ask any questions they have about stats, sabermetric or otherwise.  I'm hardly the most qualified to answer all questions, but I have a decent grasp of sabermetric stats and I'm hoping/expecting any and all people to contribute to the answering.  So, please, if you've wondered what some of us are referring to in other threads (xFIP, EqA, BABIP, etc.) please don't hesitate to ask.

P.S. Let's try to keep this thread relatively non-hostile, if possible.  I know that the subject of sabermetric stats can be a little controversial at times, and I know that I'm hardly the role model in keeping things mellow, but let's try.

P.P.S. See how easy it is to put together 75 words?  I'm a terrible writer and I managed it, even without the P.S. and P.P.S.

Link

Roger Goodell thinks something is wrong with the rookie pay scale and that it is ridiculous that unproven players are getting so much guaranteed money.  I completely agree with him and, for once, am happy that he seems to attack his issues kamikaze style.

With the system as it currently is, it's easy for a team that's bad to get stuck in a perpetual loop of suckitude.  High draft pick + bust = huge chunk of salary cap gone + another high draft pick.  Perhaps, you might say, these teams just need to draft smarter.  However, to me, it seems very few teams are able to consistently avoid wasting high drafts.  Not to mention how easy it is for players to get injured in the NFL.

Chris Cooley also touched on this a while back, and, well, he's just awesome so...link:

Respect Captain Chaos 

One of the arguments the players and agents use is that if rookies get huge salaries, established players can use the rookie payscale as leverage in contract negotiations.  I don't buy that horseshit for a second since the rookies initial contract has nothing to do with their NFL skill level.

So, let me know what you think.  Are you too in agreement with the commish, or do you think the rookie payscale is fine as is?

P.S.  Sorry if this diary fanpost is so scattered/disjointed.  My mind isn't working great today.

I don't understand it.  I wouldn't be surprised if it happened, although I don't agree with it, but can ANYONE explain why they think he should be fired?  What is the basis?  I'm asking for logical arguments here, not, "the Sharks lost, FIRE RON WILSON!!!"  Give me a reason he's earned a firing.

This was a topic created by Braekneck way back in August:

http://www.ninersnation.com/story/2007/8/8/20841/18440

I am bored at work, and remembered it, so I thought it would be a good time to review picks.  I'm only going to analyze my own predictions, but I encourage everyone else to analyze anyone's, in addition to their own (if you made predictions).  Here's how I had it playing out:

AFCE:  Pats.  Easy win, hardly counts.

AFCN:  Steelers.  I'm fairly happy with this prediction as I nailed both Pittsburgh and Baltimore.

AFCS:  Colts.  Another easy one.

AFCW:  Broncos.  Whoops, I let my hatred for Norv guide me here.  It's not surprising that following personal dislikes led me astray.

NFCE:  Philly.  Ouch.  I have to say, I think they were really unlucky, but that doesn't matter too much now.  I definitely whiffed big predicting a Romo collapse.

NFCN:  Bears.  Fook Mi.  Where to start:  1) I claimed this was an easy pick. 2) I predicted improvement for Grossman. 3) I laughed in the face of Green Bay, Brett Farve, and anyone who predicted them to win the division. 4) My Superbowl winner was the Bears.  I suck, everyone point and laugh.

NFCS:  Saints.  The surprise team from 2006 surprised again by tanking in 2007.  This division sucked balls, so I don't really care that I missed on Tampa.

NFCW:  Niners.  Everyone knows how this went, but I'm still happy with this pick.  The O-line and QB health issues were impossible to see in advance.  I'm giving myself a moral incomplete for this until the 2008 season plays out.

Superbowl:  Chicago over Pittsburgh.  Vegas has not contacted me to learn the secret art of predicting.

All-in-all, I went 3-5.  3 of 4 in the AFC, but two were the Pats and Colts.  I'm sort of amazed at how badly I missed on the NFC, since you would think I would know that conference better.  Oh well, I'll do better next year.

Sub-title: Gets mocked by any being with an IQ above 50.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AqVulMVBKLnVGibPjFrQ6xA5nYcB?slug=anonbettingmansworldseri& ;prov=tsn&type=lgns

Anyways, I understand that he's picking them as the sleeper bet with longshot odds, but I don't really care.  There is no chance for the Giants this year, and based on those odds there are better teams that have longer odds.  Personally, if I were betting with the listed odds, these are the teams I would take (in order):

Tampa: 150 to 1.  They've got a young team that could take a huge step forward, their defense should be much better this year, and PECOTA projected them for like 89 wins.  It would seem they are close.  The Giants odds were 100 to 1, and Tampa so obviously has a better shot than us.

Nationals: 200 to 1.  They have a lot of interesting options for offense, especially in the outfield.  Their pitching staff is questionable, but at 200 to 1, this seems like a decent enough bet.

Arizona: 22 to 1.  I'm agreeing with the guy I called a moron, I know.  Anyways, this seems fairly straightforward.  What they will surely lose in the bullpen from last year, they should gain back from the development of their hitters and the acquisition of Haren.  A healthy Randy would make this even more interesting.

Anyone have any bets they would take, based on the odds listed in the article?  I was interested in Cincy at 50 to 1, but I just can't trust Dusty to dole out playing time correctly.

There is not much going on in 49er land, but a few things have been mentioned recently.  Many of you probably already know this, but what the heck.

First, Ted Tollner is going to be the new QB coach, as was speculated:

http://49ers.pressdemocrat.com/default.asp?item=738070&mode

He will also have the title Assistant to the HC.

Second, Jared Allen wants to play for the 49ers next year, although he will almost certainly have the franchise tag placed on him:

http://49ers.pressdemocrat.com/default.asp?item=738982&mode

Maybe someone could fill me in, but isn't Allen suited more for a 4-3 than a 3-4?  Is he just good enough that he would be able to hold his own in either scheme?

Disclaimer: If someone has already posted this news elsewhere, my apologies.  I did not see it and I'm an idiot.  This disclaimer should just be my signature, it would save time and cover my ass in the future.