[Giants]

Giants 2.5 ahead of Dodgers in NL, 3.5 ahead of Milwaukee, but 12.0 ahead of Atlanta and Cincinnati, and 13 ahead of San Diego.

Giants #5 in MLB OPS, #9 in runs scored, #1 in HRs (187), #2 in ERA (3.29) and T1 for WHIP (1.12), #4 in Fielding percentage with .987 -- but #1 in total chances, with 4,507.

Where are the Giants on batting average?

Do you think 4 hits; 2 runs (on a 2-run dinger) is a sustainable strategy through the playoffs?

Indeed, against the A's, every run the Giants scored in the 3-game series was thanks to the long ball.  I just don't see that happening much in the playoffs.  But maybe . . . 

P.S.  The Dodgers lost!!!!! Woo Hoo!!!

Hitting stats that matter in the current era…

HR, BB, OPS.  Batting Average is no longer something that is important.  

National League HR Leaders (placings are divisional standings)  

SF - 1st place
Atl - 1st place
Cin - 2nd place 
LA - 2nd place
Mil - 1st place

BB

LA
SD - 3rd place 
Mil
SF
Atl

OPS

Cin
SF
LA
Atl
Was - 4th place 

BA

Was
Cin
Colo - 4th place 
LA
SF

The playoff concern for SF is not hitting.  It is pitching.  Unless Webb channels 2014 Bumgarner, the Giants will have problems, especially in the first series.  It is a best of five and, in a likely scenario, they won’t have Webb to begin the series because he will have pitched the Wild Card game.

[Giants]

Giants 2.5 ahead of Dodgers in NL, 3.5 ahead of Milwaukee, but 12.0 ahead of Atlanta and Cincinnati, and 13 ahead of San Diego.

Giants #5 in MLB OPS, #9 in runs scored, #1 in HRs (187), #2 in ERA (3.29) and T1 for WHIP (1.12), #4 in Fielding percentage with .987 -- but #1 in total chances, with 4,507.

Where are the Giants on batting average?

Do you think 4 hits; 2 runs (on a 2-run dinger) is a sustainable strategy through the playoffs?

Indeed, against the A's, every run the Giants scored in the 3-game series was thanks to the long ball.  I just don't see that happening much in the playoffs.  But maybe . . . 

P.S.  The Dodgers lost!!!!! Woo Hoo!!!

Hitting stats that matter in the current era…

HR, BB, OPS.  Batting Average is no longer something that is important.  

National League HR Leaders (placings are divisional standings)  

SF - 1st place
Atl - 1st place
Cin - 2nd place 
LA - 2nd place
Mil - 1st place

BB

LA
SD - 3rd place 
Mil
SF
Atl

OPS

Cin
SF
LA
Atl
Was - 4th place 

BA

Was
Cin
Colo - 4th place 
LA
SF

The playoff concern for SF is not hitting.  It is pitching.  Unless Webb channels 2014 Bumgarner, the Giants will have problems, especially in the first series.  It is a best of five and, in a likely scenario, they won’t have Webb to begin the series because he will have pitched the Wild Card game.

[Mick]

Giants 2.5 ahead of Dodgers in NL, 3.5 ahead of Milwaukee, but 12.0 ahead of Atlanta and Cincinnati, and 13 ahead of San Diego.

Giants #5 in MLB OPS, #9 in runs scored, #1 in HRs (187), #2 in ERA (3.29) and T1 for WHIP (1.12), #4 in Fielding percentage with .987 -- but #1 in total chances, with 4,507.

Where are the Giants on batting average?

Do you think 4 hits; 2 runs (on a 2-run dinger) is a sustainable strategy through the playoffs?

Indeed, against the A's, every run the Giants scored in the 3-game series was thanks to the long ball.  I just don't see that happening much in the playoffs.  But maybe . . . 

P.S.  The Dodgers lost!!!!! Woo Hoo!!!

No one cares about Batting Average anymore. I don’t think 2 runs on 4 hits is a strategy.  Montas was throwing 97 on the corners with a 91 slider and nasty change up. He is tough when on.  And he was on.

To answer directly. Giants fifth in NL. .245. Dodgers 4th .246.

Giants are averaging 4.86 runs per game, Dodgers are averaging 5.176.  Giants are giving up 3.72 rpg, Dodgers are giving up 3.54 rpg.  Giants are 8-8 against the dodgers, both teams have scored and given up 68 runs in those 16 games.  The Giants have a strong edge in fielding, they're #4 in MLB with a .987 fielding average, Dodgers are #21 at .983.  Translation: Giants have committed 57 errors, dodgers have committed 73.

Giants are #10 in MLB, Dodgers are #9 in batting average using Teejers' stats.

[Mick]

Giants 2.5 ahead of Dodgers in NL, 3.5 ahead of Milwaukee, but 12.0 ahead of Atlanta and Cincinnati, and 13 ahead of San Diego.

Giants #5 in MLB OPS, #9 in runs scored, #1 in HRs (187), #2 in ERA (3.29) and T1 for WHIP (1.12), #4 in Fielding percentage with .987 -- but #1 in total chances, with 4,507.

Where are the Giants on batting average?

Do you think 4 hits; 2 runs (on a 2-run dinger) is a sustainable strategy through the playoffs?

Indeed, against the A's, every run the Giants scored in the 3-game series was thanks to the long ball.  I just don't see that happening much in the playoffs.  But maybe . . . 

P.S.  The Dodgers lost!!!!! Woo Hoo!!!

No one cares about Batting Average anymore. I don’t think 2 runs on 4 hits is a strategy.  Montas was throwing 97 on the corners with a 91 slider and nasty change up. He is tough when on.  And he was on.

To answer directly. Giants fifth in NL. .245. Dodgers 4th .246.

Giants are averaging 4.86 runs per game, Dodgers are averaging 5.176.  Giants are giving up 3.72 rpg, Dodgers are giving up 3.54 rpg.  Giants are 8-8 against the dodgers, both teams have scored and given up 68 runs in those 16 games.  The Giants have a strong edge in fielding, they're #4 in MLB with a .987 fielding average, Dodgers are #21 at .983.  Translation: Giants have committed 57 errors, dodgers have committed 73.

Giants are #10 in MLB, Dodgers are #9 in batting average using Teejers' stats.

[teejers1]

Giants 2.5 ahead of Dodgers in NL, 3.5 ahead of Milwaukee, but 12.0 ahead of Atlanta and Cincinnati, and 13 ahead of San Diego.

Giants #5 in MLB OPS, #9 in runs scored, #1 in HRs (187), #2 in ERA (3.29) and T1 for WHIP (1.12), #4 in Fielding percentage with .987 -- but #1 in total chances, with 4,507.

Where are the Giants on batting average?

Do you think 4 hits; 2 runs (on a 2-run dinger) is a sustainable strategy through the playoffs?

Indeed, against the A's, every run the Giants scored in the 3-game series was thanks to the long ball.  I just don't see that happening much in the playoffs.  But maybe . . . 

P.S.  The Dodgers lost!!!!! Woo Hoo!!!

Hitting stats that matter in the current era…

HR, BB, OPS.  Batting Average is no longer something that is important.  

National League HR Leaders  (placings are divisional standings)  

SF - 1st place
Atl - 1st place
Cin - 2nd place 
LA - 2nd place
Mil - 1st place

BB

LA
SD - 3rd place 
Mil
SF
Atl

OPS

Cin
SF
LA
Atl
Was - 4th place 

BA

Was
Cin
Colo - 4th place 
LA
SF

The playoff concern for SF is not hitting.  It is pitching.  Unless Webb channels 2014 Bumgarner, the Giants will have problems, especially in the first series.  It is a best of five and, in a likely scenario, they won’t have Webb to begin the series because he will have pitched the Wild Card game.

I just want this team to get to a 5-game series, preferably by winning the division.
Think the Giants' hitting has been on downward trend of late . . . definitely a concern.  (Posey, in particular, has been scuffling.  Belt, too, though less so).

[teejers1]

Giants 2.5 ahead of Dodgers in NL, 3.5 ahead of Milwaukee, but 12.0 ahead of Atlanta and Cincinnati, and 13 ahead of San Diego.

Giants #5 in MLB OPS, #9 in runs scored, #1 in HRs (187), #2 in ERA (3.29) and T1 for WHIP (1.12), #4 in Fielding percentage with .987 -- but #1 in total chances, with 4,507.

Where are the Giants on batting average?

Do you think 4 hits; 2 runs (on a 2-run dinger) is a sustainable strategy through the playoffs?

Indeed, against the A's, every run the Giants scored in the 3-game series was thanks to the long ball.  I just don't see that happening much in the playoffs.  But maybe . . . 

P.S.  The Dodgers lost!!!!! Woo Hoo!!!

Hitting stats that matter in the current era…

HR, BB, OPS.  Batting Average is no longer something that is important.  

National League HR Leaders  (placings are divisional standings)  

SF - 1st place
Atl - 1st place
Cin - 2nd place 
LA - 2nd place
Mil - 1st place

BB

LA
SD - 3rd place 
Mil
SF
Atl

OPS

Cin
SF
LA
Atl
Was - 4th place 

BA

Was
Cin
Colo - 4th place 
LA
SF

The playoff concern for SF is not hitting.  It is pitching.  Unless Webb channels 2014 Bumgarner, the Giants will have problems, especially in the first series.  It is a best of five and, in a likely scenario, they won’t have Webb to begin the series because he will have pitched the Wild Card game.

I just want this team to get to a 5-game series, preferably by winning the division.
Think the Giants' hitting has been on downward trend of late . . . definitely a concern.  (Posey, in particular, has been scuffling.  Belt, too, though less so).

[BobK]

Belt is 2 for his last 18. However both hits were HRs

[BobK]

Belt is 2 for his last 18. However both hits were HRs

[DC 86]

The Giants have a strong edge in fielding, they're #4 in MLB with a .987 fielding average, Dodgers are #21 at .983.  Translation: Giants have committed 57 errors, dodgers have committed 73.

Fielding Average is to Fielding as Batting Average is to Batting, i.e. not a useful metric. Advanced statistics indicate that the Giants are a better fielding team than the Dodgers but not by a significant margin.

[DC 86]

The Giants have a strong edge in fielding, they're #4 in MLB with a .987 fielding average, Dodgers are #21 at .983.  Translation: Giants have committed 57 errors, dodgers have committed 73.

Fielding Average is to Fielding as Batting Average is to Batting, i.e. not a useful metric. Advanced statistics indicate that the Giants are a better fielding team than the Dodgers but not by a significant margin.

[Mick]

Think the Giants' hitting has been on downward trend of late . . . definitely a concern.  (Posey, in particular, has been scuffling.  Belt, too, though less so).

You're correct, the Giants started out very slow in March/April (.225/.305/.395/.700), then improved to .236/.331/.435/.766 in April, then really improved in June and July, while cooling in August:

June  (.259/.333/.457/.791)
July (.260/.340/.459/.799)
August (.249/.314/.435/.749)

Posey cooled off considerably.  He's at .250/.364/.411/.774, whereas during the rest of the season he was comfortably over .325/.450/.475/.925

[Mick]

Think the Giants' hitting has been on downward trend of late . . . definitely a concern.  (Posey, in particular, has been scuffling.  Belt, too, though less so).

You're correct, the Giants started out very slow in March/April (.225/.305/.395/.700), then improved to .236/.331/.435/.766 in April, then really improved in June and July, while cooling in August:

June  (.259/.333/.457/.791)
July (.260/.340/.459/.799)
August (.249/.314/.435/.749)

Posey cooled off considerably.  He's at .250/.364/.411/.774, whereas during the rest of the season he was comfortably over .325/.450/.475/.925

[Papa John]

This past weekend, the A's led at the end of 28 half-innings, the Giants 6. And the Giants won 2 out of 3. They've also won 8 series in a row. That is simply amazing to me.

[Papa John]

This past weekend, the A's led at the end of 28 half-innings, the Giants 6. And the Giants won 2 out of 3. They've also won 8 series in a row. That is simply amazing to me.

[Giants]

The Giants have a strong edge in fielding, they're #4 in MLB with a .987 fielding average, Dodgers are #21 at .983.  Translation: Giants have committed 57 errors, dodgers have committed 73.

Fielding Average is to Fielding as Batting Average is to Batting, i.e. not a useful metric. Advanced statistics indicate that the Giants are a better fielding team than the Dodgers but not by a significant margin.

Agreed.  Players who field all the balls hit at them but have no range are not as effective as those who can cover a lot of ground even if those guy make occasional errors. 

I think UZR (ultimate zone reading) is a good method of measuring fielding effectiveness (available at fangraphs).

---

Think the Giants' hitting has been on downward trend of late . . . definitely a concern.  (Posey, in particular, has been scuffling.  Belt, too, though less so).

You're correct, the Giants started out very slow in March/April (.225/.305/.395/.700), then improved to .236/.331/.435/.766 in April, then really improved in June and July, while cooling in August:

June  (.259/.333/.457/.791)
July (.260/.340/.459/.799)
August (.249/.314/.435/.749)

Posey cooled off considerably.  He's at .250/.364/.411/.774, whereas during the rest of the season he was comfortably over .325/.450/.475/.925

I recently read an article that suggested the Giants’ big upswing in June/July was due to the MLB crackdown on pitchers loading the ball.  The spin rates are down and the Giants have taken advantage.

[Giants]

The Giants have a strong edge in fielding, they're #4 in MLB with a .987 fielding average, Dodgers are #21 at .983.  Translation: Giants have committed 57 errors, dodgers have committed 73.

Fielding Average is to Fielding as Batting Average is to Batting, i.e. not a useful metric. Advanced statistics indicate that the Giants are a better fielding team than the Dodgers but not by a significant margin.

Agreed.  Players who field all the balls hit at them but have no range are not as effective as those who can cover a lot of ground even if those guy make occasional errors. 

I think UZR (ultimate zone reading) is a good method of measuring fielding effectiveness (available at fangraphs).

---

Think the Giants' hitting has been on downward trend of late . . . definitely a concern.  (Posey, in particular, has been scuffling.  Belt, too, though less so).

You're correct, the Giants started out very slow in March/April (.225/.305/.395/.700), then improved to .236/.331/.435/.766 in April, then really improved in June and July, while cooling in August:

June  (.259/.333/.457/.791)
July (.260/.340/.459/.799)
August (.249/.314/.435/.749)

Posey cooled off considerably.  He's at .250/.364/.411/.774, whereas during the rest of the season he was comfortably over .325/.450/.475/.925

I recently read an article that suggested the Giants’ big upswing in June/July was due to the MLB crackdown on pitchers loading the ball.  The spin rates are down and the Giants have taken advantage.

[DC 86]

The Giants have a strong edge in fielding, they're #4 in MLB with a .987 fielding average, Dodgers are #21 at .983.  Translation: Giants have committed 57 errors, dodgers have committed 73.

Fielding Average is to Fielding as Batting Average is to Batting, i.e. not a useful metric. Advanced statistics indicate that the Giants are a better fielding team than the Dodgers but not by a significant margin.

Agreed.  Players who field all the balls hit at them but have no range are not as effective as those who can cover a lot of ground even if those guy make occasional errors. 

I think UZR (ultimate zone reading) is a good method of measuring fielding effectiveness (available at fangraphs).

Outs Above Average and Defensive Runs Saved as well.

[DC 86]

The Giants have a strong edge in fielding, they're #4 in MLB with a .987 fielding average, Dodgers are #21 at .983.  Translation: Giants have committed 57 errors, dodgers have committed 73.

Fielding Average is to Fielding as Batting Average is to Batting, i.e. not a useful metric. Advanced statistics indicate that the Giants are a better fielding team than the Dodgers but not by a significant margin.

Agreed.  Players who field all the balls hit at them but have no range are not as effective as those who can cover a lot of ground even if those guy make occasional errors. 

I think UZR (ultimate zone reading) is a good method of measuring fielding effectiveness (available at fangraphs).

Outs Above Average and Defensive Runs Saved as well.

[Mick]

I think UZR (ultimate zone reading) is a good method of measuring fielding effectiveness (available at fangraphs).
I recently read an article that suggested the Giants’ big upswing in June/July was due to the MLB crackdown on pitchers loading the ball.  The spin rates are down and the Giants have taken advantage.

Fangraphs projects the Giants going 20-18 the rest of the way, on their way to a 100 win season (behind the Dodgers' projected 101 win season).  That would be quite a trick.  The Giants haven't won fewer than 21 games during any 38 game stretch this season, and there have only been six of those over 86 sets of 38 consecutive games.  All the rest have been between 22 and 26 wins for this remarkably consistent team.

Fangraphs also projected the Giants to be 78-84 this year. Joke's on them, the Giants are already 80-44, so FanGraphs were only off by 21 games. Consequently, Fan Graphs call this year's iteration of the Giants the "Most Shocking Contender of the Last 15 Years." Actually, the second most shocking. The 2012 Orioles were projected to win at .414, actual was .574. Giants were projected to win at .471, actual is currently .626.

Reasons for improvement in this article:

https://www.mlb.com/news/how-giants-beca...-contender

Apparently, three of the top four hitting overperformers in 2021 are Giants (Wade, Ruf, Posey), along with six of the top ten (throw in Crawford, Longoria and Duggar). Because the Giants hired three excellent batting coaches and they don't swing at bad pitches. They also hired two superb pitching coaches.

[Mick]

I think UZR (ultimate zone reading) is a good method of measuring fielding effectiveness (available at fangraphs).
I recently read an article that suggested the Giants’ big upswing in June/July was due to the MLB crackdown on pitchers loading the ball.  The spin rates are down and the Giants have taken advantage.

Fangraphs projects the Giants going 20-18 the rest of the way, on their way to a 100 win season (behind the Dodgers' projected 101 win season).  That would be quite a trick.  The Giants haven't won fewer than 21 games during any 38 game stretch this season, and there have only been six of those over 86 sets of 38 consecutive games.  All the rest have been between 22 and 26 wins for this remarkably consistent team.

Fangraphs also projected the Giants to be 78-84 this year. Joke's on them, the Giants are already 80-44, so FanGraphs were only off by 21 games. Consequently, Fan Graphs call this year's iteration of the Giants the "Most Shocking Contender of the Last 15 Years." Actually, the second most shocking. The 2012 Orioles were projected to win at .414, actual was .574. Giants were projected to win at .471, actual is currently .626.

Reasons for improvement in this article:

https://www.mlb.com/news/how-giants-beca...-contender

Apparently, three of the top four hitting overperformers in 2021 are Giants (Wade, Ruf, Posey), along with six of the top ten (throw in Crawford, Longoria and Duggar). Because the Giants hired three excellent batting coaches and they don't swing at bad pitches. They also hired two superb pitching coaches.

[teejers1]

I think UZR (ultimate zone reading) is a good method of measuring fielding effectiveness (available at fangraphs).
I recently read an article that suggested the Giants’ big upswing in June/July was due to the MLB crackdown on pitchers loading the ball.  The spin rates are down and the Giants have taken advantage.

Fangraphs projects the Giants going 20-18 the rest of the way, on their way to a 100 win season (behind the Dodgers' projected 101 win season).  That would be quite a trick.  The Giants haven't won fewer than 21 games during any 38 game stretch this season, and there have only been six of those over 86 sets of 38 consecutive games.  All the rest have been between 22 and 26 wins for this remarkably consistent team.

Fangraphs also projected the Giants to be 78-84 this year.  Joke's on them, the Giants are already 80-44, so FanGraphs were only off by 21 games.  Consequently, Fan Graphs call this year's iteration of the Giants the "Most Shocking Contender of the Last 15 Years."  Actually, the second most shocking.  The 2012 Orioles were projected to win at .414, actual was .574.  Giants were projected to win at .471, actual is currently .626.

Reasons for improvement in this article:

https://www.mlb.com/news/how-giants-beca...-contender

Apparently, three of the top four hitting overperformers in 2021 are Giants (Wade, Ruf, Posey), along with six of the top ten (throw in Crawford, Longoria and Duggar).  Because the Giants hired three excellent batting coaches and they don't swing at bad pitches.  They also hired two superb pitching coaches.

Agree that coaching hires have been great;
agree that Giants have may overperformers to date.

Only caveat:  still a month to go.  There is time for reversion to the mean (see Posey, Crawford, Belt).  The good news about the Giants' depth is that fatigue should be less of a problem - as "the grind" of this season may not be as taxing on the regulars as is typical.  We shall see.

[teejers1]

I think UZR (ultimate zone reading) is a good method of measuring fielding effectiveness (available at fangraphs).
I recently read an article that suggested the Giants’ big upswing in June/July was due to the MLB crackdown on pitchers loading the ball.  The spin rates are down and the Giants have taken advantage.

Fangraphs projects the Giants going 20-18 the rest of the way, on their way to a 100 win season (behind the Dodgers' projected 101 win season).  That would be quite a trick.  The Giants haven't won fewer than 21 games during any 38 game stretch this season, and there have only been six of those over 86 sets of 38 consecutive games.  All the rest have been between 22 and 26 wins for this remarkably consistent team.

Fangraphs also projected the Giants to be 78-84 this year.  Joke's on them, the Giants are already 80-44, so FanGraphs were only off by 21 games.  Consequently, Fan Graphs call this year's iteration of the Giants the "Most Shocking Contender of the Last 15 Years."  Actually, the second most shocking.  The 2012 Orioles were projected to win at .414, actual was .574.  Giants were projected to win at .471, actual is currently .626.

Reasons for improvement in this article:

https://www.mlb.com/news/how-giants-beca...-contender

Apparently, three of the top four hitting overperformers in 2021 are Giants (Wade, Ruf, Posey), along with six of the top ten (throw in Crawford, Longoria and Duggar).  Because the Giants hired three excellent batting coaches and they don't swing at bad pitches.  They also hired two superb pitching coaches.

Agree that coaching hires have been great;
agree that Giants have may overperformers to date.

Only caveat:  still a month to go.  There is time for reversion to the mean (see Posey, Crawford, Belt).  The good news about the Giants' depth is that fatigue should be less of a problem - as "the grind" of this season may not be as taxing on the regulars as is typical.  We shall see.

[lex24]

I think UZR (ultimate zone reading) is a good method of measuring fielding effectiveness (available at fangraphs).
I recently read an article that suggested the Giants’ big upswing in June/July was due to the MLB crackdown on pitchers loading the ball.  The spin rates are down and the Giants have taken advantage.

Fangraphs projects the Giants going 20-18 the rest of the way, on their way to a 100 win season (behind the Dodgers' projected 101 win season).  That would be quite a trick.  The Giants haven't won fewer than 21 games during any 38 game stretch this season, and there have only been six of those over 86 sets of 38 consecutive games.  All the rest have been between 22 and 26 wins for this remarkably consistent team.

Fangraphs also projected the Giants to be 78-84 this year.  Joke's on them, the Giants are already 80-44, so FanGraphs were only off by 21 games.  Consequently, Fan Graphs call this year's iteration of the Giants the "Most Shocking Contender of the Last 15 Years."  Actually, the second most shocking.  The 2012 Orioles were projected to win at .414, actual was .574.  Giants were projected to win at .471, actual is currently .626.

Reasons for improvement in this article:

https://www.mlb.com/news/how-giants-beca...-contender

Apparently, three of the top four hitting overperformers in 2021 are Giants (Wade, Ruf, Posey), along with six of the top ten (throw in Crawford, Longoria and Duggar).  Because the Giants hired three excellent batting coaches and they don't swing at bad pitches.  They also hired two superb pitching coaches.

Agree that coaching hires have been great;
agree that Giants have may overperformers to date.

Only caveat:  still a month to go.  There is time for reversion to the mean (see Posey, Crawford, Belt).  The good news about the Giants' depth is that fatigue should be less of a problem - as "the grind" of this season may not be as taxing on the regulars as is typical.  We shall see.

 What is Posey “mean”. How bout Belt’s.  The only one of the three performing over his career numbers is Crawford.  The analysis on Posey failed  to take into account that the second half of ‘18 and all of ‘19 were injury related. Tough to hit with just your hands.  

It’s pitching, not hitting that is the issue.  They have a lot of depth 1-8. So if a couple drop others can pick up the slack - Yaz and Dickerson are two examples. There starting pitching has no depth.  If Gausman  continues to struggle the lack of ability for anyone save Webb to get through 6 will catch up with them.

[lex24]

I think UZR (ultimate zone reading) is a good method of measuring fielding effectiveness (available at fangraphs).
I recently read an article that suggested the Giants’ big upswing in June/July was due to the MLB crackdown on pitchers loading the ball.  The spin rates are down and the Giants have taken advantage.

Fangraphs projects the Giants going 20-18 the rest of the way, on their way to a 100 win season (behind the Dodgers' projected 101 win season).  That would be quite a trick.  The Giants haven't won fewer than 21 games during any 38 game stretch this season, and there have only been six of those over 86 sets of 38 consecutive games.  All the rest have been between 22 and 26 wins for this remarkably consistent team.

Fangraphs also projected the Giants to be 78-84 this year.  Joke's on them, the Giants are already 80-44, so FanGraphs were only off by 21 games.  Consequently, Fan Graphs call this year's iteration of the Giants the "Most Shocking Contender of the Last 15 Years."  Actually, the second most shocking.  The 2012 Orioles were projected to win at .414, actual was .574.  Giants were projected to win at .471, actual is currently .626.

Reasons for improvement in this article:

https://www.mlb.com/news/how-giants-beca...-contender

Apparently, three of the top four hitting overperformers in 2021 are Giants (Wade, Ruf, Posey), along with six of the top ten (throw in Crawford, Longoria and Duggar).  Because the Giants hired three excellent batting coaches and they don't swing at bad pitches.  They also hired two superb pitching coaches.

Agree that coaching hires have been great;
agree that Giants have may overperformers to date.

Only caveat:  still a month to go.  There is time for reversion to the mean (see Posey, Crawford, Belt).  The good news about the Giants' depth is that fatigue should be less of a problem - as "the grind" of this season may not be as taxing on the regulars as is typical.  We shall see.

 What is Posey “mean”. How bout Belt’s.  The only one of the three performing over his career numbers is Crawford.  The analysis on Posey failed  to take into account that the second half of ‘18 and all of ‘19 were injury related. Tough to hit with just your hands.  

It’s pitching, not hitting that is the issue.  They have a lot of depth 1-8. So if a couple drop others can pick up the slack - Yaz and Dickerson are two examples. There starting pitching has no depth.  If Gausman  continues to struggle the lack of ability for anyone save Webb to get through 6 will catch up with them.

[Phogge]

Teejers, were you a Halifax supporter before the Dunkirk evacuation?

Did you give up on the 24th Foot before the Zulu's attacked at Roark's Drift?

Did you think that George Thomas couldn't hold at Chickamauga?

All of them didn't have enough pitching but they prevailed.

[Phogge]

Teejers, were you a Halifax supporter before the Dunkirk evacuation?

Did you give up on the 24th Foot before the Zulu's attacked at Roark's Drift?

Did you think that George Thomas couldn't hold at Chickamauga?

All of them didn't have enough pitching but they prevailed.

[Leftcoast]

There's a flip-side to every story

My Giants Friends >>  Oh my God, we've been on a fantastic streak since the All-Star Game and the Dodgers are still right behind us. We're doomed!

My Dodger Friends >>  Oh my God, we've been on a fantastic streak since the All-Star Game and made up almost NO ground on the Giants.  We're doomed!

Fans are the sort of people who look for a worm in every apple.

[Leftcoast]

There's a flip-side to every story

My Giants Friends >>  Oh my God, we've been on a fantastic streak since the All-Star Game and the Dodgers are still right behind us. We're doomed!

My Dodger Friends >>  Oh my God, we've been on a fantastic streak since the All-Star Game and made up almost NO ground on the Giants.  We're doomed!

Fans are the sort of people who look for a worm in every apple.

[BostonCard]

12 hits and 7 runs through 4 innings.  Every Giants starter, including Long, has a hit.

Belt, who as Bob pointed out in this thread, had been in a 2 for 18 slump, is 3 for 3 today, with 2 HR.

BC

[BostonCard]

12 hits and 7 runs through 4 innings.  Every Giants starter, including Long, has a hit.

Belt, who as Bob pointed out in this thread, had been in a 2 for 18 slump, is 3 for 3 today, with 2 HR.

BC

[BostonCard]

8 runs 15 hits, 0 error.  Long plus 3 relievers shut out the Mets.

Dodgers are up 1-0 on the Padres, whose playoff hopes are going, going... but maybe they can spoil teh Dodgers.

BC

[BostonCard]

8 runs 15 hits, 0 error.  Long plus 3 relievers shut out the Mets.

Dodgers are up 1-0 on the Padres, whose playoff hopes are going, going... but maybe they can spoil teh Dodgers.

BC

[DC 86]

The Athletic had an interesting analysis of how much of a home run-dependent team the Giants are.

It's true that the Giants score a very high proportion of their runs via home runs, but the Giants also have the best record in MLB in their homerless games. Of the 30 MLB teams only 14 have won more than 30% of games in which they don't homer and only 4 teams have won more than 40% of their homerless games. The Giants are 14-16 (.467) in their homeless games this year.

Obviously sample sizes are small but this does seem to refute the narrative that the Giants are overly dependent on home runs and unable to win games that require manufacturing runs the hard way. The reality is that it's difficult for any team to win a game without hitting a home run, and just because the Giants are better than other teams at hitting homers doesn't correlate to being worse than other teams at winning games via other means.

[DC 86]

The Athletic had an interesting analysis of how much of a home run-dependent team the Giants are.

It's true that the Giants score a very high proportion of their runs via home runs, but the Giants also have the best record in MLB in their homerless games. Of the 30 MLB teams only 14 have won more than 30% of games in which they don't homer and only 4 teams have won more than 40% of their homerless games. The Giants are 14-16 (.467) in their homeless games this year.

Obviously sample sizes are small but this does seem to refute the narrative that the Giants are overly dependent on home runs and unable to win games that require manufacturing runs the hard way. The reality is that it's difficult for any team to win a game without hitting a home run, and just because the Giants are better than other teams at hitting homers doesn't correlate to being worse than other teams at winning games via other means.

[Phogge]

Some reactions are like watching SC and Oregon recruiting.

“Oh my God they got THAT guy.” IDGAF!

Love the one you’re with. Go Giants!

[Phogge]

Some reactions are like watching SC and Oregon recruiting.

“Oh my God they got THAT guy.” IDGAF!

Love the one you’re with. Go Giants!

[lex24]

The Athletic had an interesting analysis of how much of a home run-dependent team the Giants are.

It's true that the Giants score a very high proportion of their runs via home runs, but the Giants also have the best record in MLB in their homerless games. Of the 30 MLB teams only 14 have won more than 30% of games in which they don't homer and only 4 teams have won more than 40% of their homerless games. The Giants are 14-16 (.467) in their homeless games this year.

Obviously sample sizes are small but this does seem to refute the narrative that the Giants are overly dependent on home runs and unable to win games that require manufacturing runs the hard way. The reality is that it's difficult for any team to win a game without hitting a home run, and just because the Giants are better than other teams at hitting homers doesn't correlate to being worse than other teams at winning games via other means.

I doubt that W-L record is the most telling analytic on this one.  Cause it may simply be they have pitched better than most other teams in “homeless” games.

I believe the Giants have the highest percentage of runs scored on HRs in baseball.  Which is fine, cause they have hit a boatload of HRs. Still, I’d like to see where the Giants rank on runs scored in homeless games.   I think that would be interesting. One thing about the Giants is they are pretty much a station to station team from a baserunning standpoint. (Course, they get to jog through all stations with the HR….). They’re pretty slow when you get right down to it. One of the reasons I wanted Marte was that he would bring some speed to the team. Something I hope they add a little of next year.

[lex24]

The Athletic had an interesting analysis of how much of a home run-dependent team the Giants are.

It's true that the Giants score a very high proportion of their runs via home runs, but the Giants also have the best record in MLB in their homerless games. Of the 30 MLB teams only 14 have won more than 30% of games in which they don't homer and only 4 teams have won more than 40% of their homerless games. The Giants are 14-16 (.467) in their homeless games this year.

Obviously sample sizes are small but this does seem to refute the narrative that the Giants are overly dependent on home runs and unable to win games that require manufacturing runs the hard way. The reality is that it's difficult for any team to win a game without hitting a home run, and just because the Giants are better than other teams at hitting homers doesn't correlate to being worse than other teams at winning games via other means.

I doubt that W-L record is the most telling analytic on this one.  Cause it may simply be they have pitched better than most other teams in “homeless” games.

I believe the Giants have the highest percentage of runs scored on HRs in baseball.  Which is fine, cause they have hit a boatload of HRs. Still, I’d like to see where the Giants rank on runs scored in homeless games.   I think that would be interesting. One thing about the Giants is they are pretty much a station to station team from a baserunning standpoint. (Course, they get to jog through all stations with the HR….). They’re pretty slow when you get right down to it. One of the reasons I wanted Marte was that he would bring some speed to the team. Something I hope they add a little of next year.

[DC 86]

I doubt that W-L record is the most telling analytic on this one.  Cause it may simply be they have pitched better than most other teams in “homeless” games.

I think that's the point. It's never implied that the Giants are good at the "little things", rather the conclusion is that 1) no team is successful when it fails to hit home runs, 2) strong pitching allows you to at least win some of your homerless games, which the Giants have done thus far.

The notion that the Giants are vulnerable because they are bad at advancing runners and such is a false narrative. If the Giants don't win the division or get beaten in the playoffs it will be because they don't hit enough home runs and their pitchers aren't dominant enough to overcome the power outage. If the Giants' opponents blast a bunch of home runs then a bunch of singles and sacrifice flies won't be enough to compensate.

[DC 86]

I doubt that W-L record is the most telling analytic on this one.  Cause it may simply be they have pitched better than most other teams in “homeless” games.

I think that's the point. It's never implied that the Giants are good at the "little things", rather the conclusion is that 1) no team is successful when it fails to hit home runs, 2) strong pitching allows you to at least win some of your homerless games, which the Giants have done thus far.

The notion that the Giants are vulnerable because they are bad at advancing runners and such is a false narrative. If the Giants don't win the division or get beaten in the playoffs it will be because they don't hit enough home runs and their pitchers aren't dominant enough to overcome the power outage. If the Giants' opponents blast a bunch of home runs then a bunch of singles and sacrifice flies won't be enough to compensate.