Five questions: San Francisco Giants

Ah, yes! It’s that time of year again, when we dust off our (oh so murky) crystal ball and do our best at sizing up just what might be in store for Los Gigantes de San Francisco.

Last year’s ball club turned out to be among the most positive surprises in either league; they most definitely far surpassed the expectations of yours truly, coming in at 88-74, good for third place in the dramatically improved NL West. Whether they can build upon that improvement (or even sustain that level of performance) in 2010 is, of course, a function of how various looming questions may be answered. Let’s consider the most pressing five.

1. How will the Dubious Duo do at the keystone?

A double play combo consisting of Edgar Renteria at shortstop and Freddy Sanchez at second base could very well be considered among the finest in the game—it could be, that is, if it’s still, say, 2006. Unfortunately I believe we’ve made it all the way to 2010, and thus this particular keystone pairing is, well, uncertain, in a Brian Sabean Special sort of way.

In terms of raw age, neither of these guys is ancient, although Renteria at 33 and Sanchez at 32 are both well beyond the normal prime years for middle infielders. The larger issue is that neither was healthy last year: Renteria was dogged by a sore elbow, and neither hit nor fielded well, while Sanchez spent the second half of ’09 hobbling on a bad knee. Both underwent surgery in the offseason; Sanchez in fact went under the knife twice, dealing with the knee and a shoulder problem as a bonus.

Sanchez hasn’t played an inning of spring training and won’t be available until mid-April at the earliest. Renteria has been playing this spring, but he has a lot of improving to do on his 2009 production to even be considered average. All in all, things will have to turn out as well as they possibly can for the Giants to avoid problems at one or both of the crucial middle infield positions in 2010.

2. What’s the story in right field?

The archetypal right fielder is a big guy: Whether or not he possesses the position’s ideal of a cannon arm, he’s almost always a power hitter. Very often the right fielder is among his team’s top run producers, a core-of-the-order slugger.

But not for the Giants of the current era. This franchise hasn’t had a right fielder who hit as many as 20 home runs in a season since, get this, 2003, and only one since then (Moises Alou in 2006) has delivered as many as 15. The 2009 Giants presented yet another distinctly inoffensive alignment in right field: Randy Winn and Nate Schierholtz combined for 151 starts at the position, while delivering a total of seven homers and 50 RBIs.

Sabean’s action in addressing this issue for 2010 consisted of letting Winn go, and, well, nothing else. So the 26-year-old Schierholtz is back; despite modest major league production so far, the position is his to lose. Schierholtz brings some impressive tools to the challenge: He does have the requisite howitzer, and he’s a big fellow who runs reasonably well (though he hasn’t shown particular defensive aptitude). He has a track record of consistent high-average, moderate-power hitting at every level of the minors, and the kind of doubles power Schierholtz demonstrated as a youngster often develops into home run power later.

Balanced against those positives is an amazing absence of strike zone discipline (more than once in 2009 Schierholtz swung through a pitch that plunked him in the back leg). One suspects that unless meaningful progress is made on the plate discipline, the power won’t materialize, and while 26 isn’t too old for it to begin to happen, it’s getting darn close.

The only real competitors for the job currently on the Giants’ roster (a late-spring pickup of someone like Jermaine Dye isn’t out of the question) are John Bowker, another 26-year-old left-handed hitter with impressive minor league credentials but not much in the majors, 29-year-old Fred Lewis, whose all-around mediocrity lost him the starting left field job in 2009, and speedy 28-year-old jack-of-all-trades Eugenio Velez—and if Velez ends up spending a lot of time in right field, then the Giants will be pulling off their most ardent head-scratcher yet.

3. How will the young southpaw starters fare?

The Giants’ starting rotation for much of 2010 will likely contain two young left-handers who represent the opposite ends of the spectrum of great potential: Jonathan Sanchez (who, to be sure, at 27 isn’t all that young anymore), who’s teased the Giants for several years with dazzling stuff and erratic results, and Madison Bumgarner, who’s just 20, but who’s torched the minor leagues so thoroughly that he appears nearly ready for the majors. (Just this week, the Giants optioned Bumgarner to Triple-A, but he will almost certainly be back soon.)

The ceiling for each (particularly Bumgarner) is sky-high. But, alas, neither has any record of consistent major league success, and if there is any creature on the planet less dependable than a young pitcher, it’s a young pitcher with brilliant potential.

Either or both could get hurt or otherwise implode. Sanchez could join the legion of great-stuff throwers who never put it together, and Bumgarner could join the legion of what-might-have-beens. But still, there is a real possibility of true brilliance from both. Where these two land upon the spectrum from nothing to all may well make the difference in how the Giants do in 2010, and quite a ways beyond.

4. Will the run production be any less meager?

The Giants won 88 games in 2009 despite featuring the worst offense in the league. (Those who might interpret the team’s low-scoring tendency as an artifact of its home ballpark are looking at some very out-of-date data; AT&T Park hasn’t played as a friendly environment for pitchers in many years.) While a win is a win and a loss is a loss, regardless of how it’s created, sustaining a successful ball club without even as much as a league-average performance in one half of the inning or the other is a most difficult act. Balance imparts flexibility, while all the eggs in one basket imparts vulnerability.

San Francisco’s offense in 2009 presented one extraordinarily good hitter (the phenomenal 22-year-old Pablo Sandoval) and, effectively, nothing else. The remedy Sabean has endeavored to provide for 2010 consists of acquiring so-so 33-year-old veteran Aubrey Huff as the new first baseman and so-so 35-year-old veteran Mark DeRosa as the new left fielder. While it’s a measure of the remarkable offensive weakness of those positions on the ’09 Giants that Huff and DeRosa will likely bring upgrades in run production, neither is truly a good hitter by the standards of first basemen and left fielders, and moreover their age suggests meaningful injury risk.

Sabean’s other major move was to re-sign 35-year-old veteran catcher Bengie Molina. While Molina is a decent hitter for a catcher, he isn’t a good one, and moreover his presence serves to block 23-year-old rookie Buster Posey—universally regarded as the best-hitting catching prospect in the game today, almost certainly a better hitter than Molina right now. Only the Giants, it seems, would find a way to do something like this.

What it means is that while the Giants’ offense won’t likely be any worse than it was in 2009 (one might well ask, “How could it?”), the probability of it being much better isn’t high. Which means the team’s pitching staff will once more shoulder an exceptionally heavy burden. Which leads to the final question …

5. How long can the young aces remain injury-free?

Let’s face it: Injuries are a part of every sport, baseball certainly included. It’s just the nature of athletic competition; as the body is pushed to the breaking point, well, sometimes it’s going to break. Any team in any sport that makes plans based on an assumption of zero injuries is a team doomed to disappointment.

Thus the 2010 Giants seem particularly precariously poised. The team in the field is hugely dependent upon 30-somethings, a most injury-vulnerable demographic, and the ball club’s strength is heavily focused upon two great young starting pitchers: 26-year-old Tim Lincecum and 25-year-old Matt Cain.

Both of these exceptional young right-handers have made their mark not only on the basis of their effectiveness (wonderful as that has been, obviously and especially in Lincecum’s case), but also on the basis of their stalwart durability: Neither ever misses a dang start. Lincecum may be a hippie gymnast-flexible prodigy, and Cain a strong-as-an-ox old-schooler, but the bottom line is that both have simply never gotten hurt. Ever. At all. Period. Not once. Never. Ever.

We Giants fans fervently hope that this will always be the case. But we’d be fools (and yes, I know, we’re Giants fans so that may already be settled) if we expected this to always be the case. At what point either or both of these remarkable workhorses demonstrate normal susceptibility to injury is the point at which the Giants are likely to struggle.

Print Friendly
 Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Google+0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone
« Previous: Five questions: Arizona Diamondbacks
Next: Baseball’s top middle infield prospects: 2010 outlooks and future stat projections »


  1. Graham said...

    Hey Steve,

    Just to point out: Lincecum did miss a start with back spasms at the end of 2009.  Your point about his and Cain’s remarkable durability still stands, though.

    I am curious, though, what your take is on Bumgarner given both his oft-reported drop in velocity since last June or so and his horrendous spring.  Not counting a start against minor leaguers, Bumgarner walked a batter per inning and struck out no one.  Considering this was a guy whose peripherals have been John Ritter double-take worthy in terms of things like K/9 and BB/9, are you more than a little bit worried about MadBum?  I know SSS and all that, but still—the precipitous decline in velocity coupled with massive control and command issues makes me wonder what’s up with Bumgarner.  Unless he flat-out dominates AAA, I think I’d prefer to keep him there til September—he’s only 20, after all, and still way ahead of schedule (though he’s basically on the same track as Cain at this point).

  2. Steve Treder said...

    You’re right that I took a bit of poetic license with Lincecum.  But only a teeny bit:  he has been tremendously durable.

    WRT Bumgarner, as I say in the article, it’s entirely possible that he could flame out with a bad arm.  Young pitchers do so all the time, and perhaps with him it’s already happening before our eyes.

    But inconsistency is also a hallmark of young pitchers.  He could just be dealing with some manner of mechanics that’ll get straightened out right away, and he’ll be back to mowing ‘em down, until the next time his mechanics go haywire.  He is just a kid, still in the early stages of learning his difficult craft.

    We just don’t know.  The range of plausible possibilities for Bumgarner literally ranges from the HOF to a complete bust, and all points in between.

  3. Chris said...

    Very nice write-up, Steve. I agree with everything you’ve said.

    re: Nate’s defense in RF

    He’s gotten good marks (in an admittedly small sample) with UZR. He looks range-y enough and his throwing arm looks solid. I’m not sure he’ll ever hit for anything other than .280/.310/.420, but his defense looks good.

  4. Steve Treder said...

    Probably.  Neither one really excites me, but Bowker will likely provide more run production, so much so that it overcomes Schierholtz’s defensive edge.  This is RF, after all, not normally a position at which one favors defense over offense, and this is a team desperately in need of run production.

    But more sensible than that would have been to just let Bowker play 1B or LF, and not sign either Huff or DeRosa, both of whom are costing a hell of a lot more than Bowker and won’t hit much better, if any better.

    And more sensible than that would have been to forego farting around with the long list of veteran mediocrities over the past several years (not just Huff and DeRosa, but also Rowand and Molina and Renteria and Winn, etc.) and focus the free agent $$ on a serious bat.  But, of course, these are the Giants, and apparently that is against their franchise charter, or something.

  5. Steve Treder said...

    Well, that’s grossly overbroad, but yes, there does seem to be that tendency in the franchise DNA.

  6. SharksRog said...

    Until the 2006 draft, the recent Giants didn’t have much young talent to mishandle.  They may open the season with more than half their roster being young talent, with Brian Wilson being the oldest of that group.

  7. SharksRog said...

    The only thing in the National League that has less range than the Giants outfield is their infield.  Better ranges have been left at the side of the road in the hope that some unfortunate victim of an explosion and fire will pick them up.

    The Giants’ cleanup hitter is being paid a quarter as much as their leadoff man and a third as much as their 8th-place hitter.  Despite batting cleanup, he might be only the Giants’ third-best hitter at his position.

    The Giants’ super sub isn’t a super sub, but rather is starting at a position he has played only 59 times in the past.

    The Giants’ best catcher likely won’t be on their roster.  Not a problem though.  He’s probably only their second-best hitter.

  8. Steve Treder said...

    “I’ve been a Giant fan since 1950.  Will we ever win another World Series. Once in 59 years doesn’t cut it.”

    I’m relatively a rookie, having been a fan only since 1965.  My 0-for-44 streak isn’t sitting too well, though.

  9. Charlie said...

    I’ve been a Giant fan since 1950.  Will we ever win another World Series. Once in 59 years doesn’t cut it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>