1. Buster Posey, C

2. Conor Gillaspie 3B

3. Roger Kieschnick OF

4. Brandon Crawford SS

OK so just breathe a little.  First we get swept by the hated Angels who then went on to lose to the Dodgers.  Then we sweep the Rangers to balance out the karma of the universe in Giantsland.  Then we go into Oakland and take two of three from a team already struggling.  Finally, we march into Milwaukee and lose in heartbreaking fashion, followed by an uplifting performance by Ryan Sadowski in his first ever major league start.  Now today we watch as the offense explodes for 10 runs while Tim Lincecum throws a two-hit shutout.

Put simply, the Giants are bipolar.  We have on one hand the sad-sack losing Giants that can't score a run or work a count to if someone held a gun to their head.  On the other hand, we have the world-beating, run-scoring, shutout-throwing juggernauts with the second best record in the National League.  The sad-sack Giants are frustrating at their best, and downright heartbreaking at their worst.  World-beating Giants bring joy and rapture to the souls of fans everywhere and make us believe that they're one hitter away from a playoff berth.

Today, the world-beating Giants gave us hope for the rest of the four game set against the Cardinals, as well as for the rest of the season.  Tomorrow, with Chris Carpenter pitching, the sad-sack Giants might make an appearance and make us think that there's no way in any realm that we can contend.  So which one are we right now?

To be honest, I'm leaning towards world-beating Giants for a few reasons.  One, the pitching staff from the rotation to the bullpen is absolutely dominant.  Sergio Romo, Jeremy Affeldt and Brian Wilson nailing down the final three innings is enough to feel good about any lead in the late innings.  Two, Pablo Sandoval, Nate Schierholtz, and Travis Ishikawa are demonstrating an ability to hit major league pitching and then some.  Sandoval should be an All-Star, while Schierholtz and Ishikawa are finally coming into their own.  On top of all this, John Bowker is waiting down in Fresno while sporting a .346/.446/.602 with 14 homers and 45 walks to 47 K's.  Third, the Giants have demonstrated the ability to beat good teams (see Cardinals, Rangers, et al).

For each of these pros, there are bound to be cons that seem just as reasonable, but to be honest it feels way better to have a reason to be optimistic, however cautious this optimism may be.  The next two games we're facing Carpenter and Adam Wainwright, so this warm fuzzy feeling may be short-lived, but that still leaves us a chance to split the four game set and head home with some confidence after getting our souls crushed in Milwaukee.  

>Edgardo Alfonzo (2005, 3 years) $21 million

>Ray Durham (2 years) $14.5 million

>Dave Roberts (3 years) $18 million*

>Barry Bonds (final year) $16 million*

>Aaron Rowand (5 years) $60 million*

>Barry Zito (7 years) $126 million*

>Edgar Renteria (2 years) $19 million*

That's $300.5 million wasted on below average players over a very short period of time. Throw in what many consider to be one of the worst trades in MLB history, the 2003 Giants dealing Joe Nathan/Francisco Liriano/Boof Bonser to Minnesota to rent A.J. Pierzynski for one year, and you would think this franchise would be toast. And very burnt toast at that. But, despite dramatically poor decision making by the front office the past six years, the San Francisco Giants are still about to emerge as a serious force in the game. And that is testimony to their money and their relatively new ball park.

On a purely financial front, the Giants debt payment for the quasi-privately funded AT&T Park is approximately $20 million a year according to Forbes (I have also read that the debt payment is $15 million a year, and $18 million a year, etc.). That debt will be paid off somewhere around 2019, coinciding nicely with the Giants' huge investment in a mega residential/office space/concert venue/retail development project in Mission Bay, just across McCovey Cove. This is the same "retail/housing/multi-use" development mantra that seems to accompany every new MLB or NFL stadium proposal around the country.

What that means is the San Francisco Giants Baseball Club will become a mega conglomerate with multi revenue streams and an expanding real estate and business portfolio. As a result, in the years following the upcoming 2010-2015 "Giants era", the team could continue a high level of regular season and post season play, due to the unparalleled financial bounty required to support superior player drafting and development, and high end free agency signings. The Giants, in essence, would join the Yankees, Red Sox, and Angels in the top echelon of big money Major League teams.

And, starting today, please disregard the previous definitions of "small market" and "large market" teams. Someone (probably an owner) promoted the idea that the size of the metropolitan area in which a team resides determines the team's revenue stream. In reality, nothing could be farther from the truth.

Thanks to the era of "baseball-only" stadiums, an attendance base of 40,000 (with at least 25,000 season ticket holders), can turn a major league baseball team into a money printing machine. It's not the location, it's the stadium and the deal, it's the national and local TV and radio revenue, and it's the marketing potential. The Giants and the Oakland As are two teams on the far side of this economy: the Giants got what they needed and are prospering and about to prosper even more; the As are making money, but not nearly as much as they would with a new stadium and the attendant enhanced revenue.

But enough of the business of baseball. I promise to get back to the game--like what a pure joy it is to watch Pablo Sandoval play baseball every day-- because it is poetic, because it is raucous, and (most importantly) because it is pure fun.

Thus, I find Burriss' very presence on this roster irksome.  Consider me quite irked.    Perhaps my hatred, which burns with the undying fury of 1000 suns, seems somewhat hypocritical.  After all, I and many other Giants fans have clamored for internal player development since the dawn of Sabean and his obsession with the Pursuit of Gritty Veteran Veteraness.  One can argue that most young players experience an adjustment period coming into the bigs.  Struggling is a part of the maturation process which we must accept if we want to develop young players.   This argument (which admittedly is something of a strawman) is fatally flawed in the case of Burriss for  a number of reasons.

1. No indicators existed at the time of Burriss' callup in 2008 that suggested he would succeed at the major league level.  His 2009 season may not be an period of adjustment but rather a reflection on his true talent level.

2. Sabean decided that Burriss' performance in 2008 was predictable and repeatable.  He therefore handed him the 2009 starting job without competition.

3. It always makes sense to have a backup plan, especially with players whose predicted performance carries a high degree of uncertainty.  The fact that Sabean essentially decided to stick with Burriss at 2nd come hell or high water is unbelievably bad roster construction.

The Giants currently sit precariously perched atop the NL wild card leader board.  If the Giants fall, the blame can squarely be laid at Burris' and by extension Sabean's feet. 

All-in-all, it's been a pretty good last week, with the Giants record right now being their best since 2004.  Now that I've put all that out there, please approach this optimism with caution.  I've been hurt by this team too much to get too excited about being in contention, especially with Sabean's pension for making scary moves at the deadline.  I want to believe we can keep winning like this; I truly do.  So I'm going to hope they show me that.

For the time being though, things are going well.  We're coming off of a fantastic draft in which we got a very good young pitcher and two plus hitters.  We've somehow managed to climb atop the wild-card.  Now we might have two pitchers in the All-Star game while Pablo Sandoval heats up, Juan Uribe becomes a useful player, Nate Schierholtz & Andre Torres are both potential starters now, Sergio Romo has stabilized the bullpen, and the list goes on.

Next we host the Angels, so with 2002 in mind, I hope we can manage to completely annihilate them.  The next few series won't be a cake-walk, but as long as our pitching keeps giving us a chance to win we should be fine.  Don't take this winning for granted, enjoy the run while it lasts, and keep hoping for a continued run at the postseason.

Kevin addendum: Matt Cain had a GREAT game (CG, 1 ER, 1 HR, 9K, 0BB).  In fact, this start is one of the 2 best (the other contender occuring in his rookie season).  SIgn us up for more of those.

Make no mistake, the lack of production from the right side of the infield remains one of the major cauastive factors for the Giants' offensive woes.  The blame for this situation can squarely be laid at Sabean's feet as he utterly failed to provide acceptable alternatives to Burris and Ishikawa (two players with fairly high chances of struggling).

Ishikawa has been far from a good hitter this season.  He strikes out at an alarming rate (30%) and, so far,  hits for neither average (BA .261)  or power (ISO .081).  He has pretty much struggled with all facets of the offensive game and posted an appropriately awful .305 wOBA worth -2.7 runs below average.    

As much as he has struggled at the plate, Ishikawa has succeeded in the field.   Ishikawa has always had a reputation as slick-fielding 1st baseman and this season the stats support his reputation (+4.5 runs according to UZR).   His defense has been so good in fact that it creates value even after adjusting for position and is the sole reason he has been better than replacement (.3 wins above replacment). 

If he maintains his current defensive and offensive rate stats, Ishikawa will be worth about 1 win over the course of a season.  While this value is well below average (2 wins), it's not a total disaster either.   Ishikawa underscores one of the new sabermatic truisims: Defense matters.  Because of his defense, Ishikawa can hit less than the average 1st baseman (although a .304 wOBA is not cutting it) and still be an asset. 

How have Johnson's individual pitches changed since 2002?  Read on to find out.

Observations.

1.  Johnson is the only Giants pitcher that, at least from a historical perspective, I would have loved to see data extending back beyond 2002.   Johnson clearly was a very different pitcher in his earlier years and this data set fails to capture his prime.    Since 2002,  Johnson's major change has been a not unexpected drop in velocity.  From a terrifying  94.5 MPH in 2002, he has since declined to a much more human 90.7 in 2009.

2.  Much like Jonathan Sanchez, Randy Johnson personifies the benefits of being a left-hander who can break 90.  Similar to Sanchez, Johnson relies on a fewer number of pitch types than his right-handed brethren requires.   He, in fact, only throws 2 1/2 pitches  (his third pitch, the split finger, is really just a variation on a fastball).

3.  The value of Johnson's fastball really surprised me.    For the past 5 seasons, his fastball has actually been a slightly below average pitch.  Now some of this can be attributed to his decline in velocity; however, even in 2002 (94.5 MPH) this pitch was shockingly mediocre.  

4.  Once again the data, at least ostensibly, supports subjective evaluation.   As a spectator, I have noticed hitters absolutely crushing hanging "fastballs" left up in the zone by Johnson.   I suspect these pitches are splitters that fail to sink.

Well, I hope you enjoyed our tour of linear weight pitch values made possible by fangraphs.    It was a blast to write and, for me at least, quite enlightening.

Methinks I  am a closeted strikeout fetishist because while I tend to underestimate Matt Cain's value (despite his solid K rate), I tend to inflate Jonathan Sanchez' value.   Jonathan Sanchez is, in reality, much closer to a league average pitcher than an above average one.  Of course, given the egregious price mediocre FA starting pitching commands, cheap league average starting pitching has significant value. On to the numbers.  NB: I chose not to include the season Sanchez spent in the bullpen.

Observations:

1. Jonathan Sanchez is proof that when you are left-handed and throw above 90 mph, you can survive as a major league starting pitcher with only 3 pitches (even when one is pretty terrible).  So remember parents,   tie your kid's right arm down when he is learning to throw a baseball.

2.  Jonathan Sanchez throws more fastballs than any other Giants starter.  In fact he throws many more fastballs than any other Giants starter (Matt Cain throws the 2nd most at 60%).   As befitting an average to slightly-above average fastball pitcher, Sanchez' fastball is slightly above average.

3. Sanchez has always struggled with his changeup.  This year his changeup has been exceedingly terrible.

4.  I included Sanchez fastball velocity mainly as an interesting fact.   Most pitchers experience a bump in velocity when they move to the bullpen and lose velocity when the move from the pen (which makes intuitive sense).   Sanchez patently ignores this tendency and throws the same velocity regardless of his role.

Observations:

1.  What the hell happened in 2006?   Although his effectiveness had declined following his (undeserved) Cy Young in 2002, Zito had remained largely the same pitcher from 2002 through 2005.   In 2006 (bolded above), he lost velocity and started throwing fewer fastballs and curveballs and more changeups.  Throwing more changeups when your fastball has lost a step (or three0 may seem like a pretty silly idea; however, the changeup actually was his best pitch that season.

2.  Sometimes the common wisdom gets one right.    Traditional baseball  thought attributed Zito's decline largely to his lost velocity.  As you can see from above,  Zito has a directly proportionate relationship between fastball velocity and FIP.

3. Zito is no longer a curveball pitcher.  In fact, in 2009 he has thrown fewer curveballs than any other pitch.

4. Zito has been a different pitcher in 2009. He has increased his velocity and is throwing significantly more sliders.   Additionally he has had more success with 3 of his 4 pitches than at any other point during his Giants tenure.  So why is Zito still so resoundingly mediocre?  The answer lies in his fastball and his changeup.  Zito's fastball has become a league average pitch with the increased velocity.  Zito's changeup is the real problem.  He throws a ton of them (18.2%) and they are not very good (-.3).   When 70% of your pitches (fastball + changeup) are average or not very good, you are going to be a mediocre pitcher.