Tag Archives: san-francisco-giants

SF Giants

The Giants should start the season with another starter in the rotation

1 Comment

Heading into the 2024 season, the Giants’s rotation was certainly in need of an upgrade. The 2023 starters were below average in quality starts (6 innings and fewer than 3 runs) and ranked third from the bottom in wins in games started. Some of that statistical poor showing has to do with the outsized use of the “opener.” Even still, Kapler’s reliance on the “opener,” in addition to him being a poor decision-maker, was mostly a symptom of a weak rotation–Wood, Manaea, and Stripling would have been starting games outright if they were performing.

But there were bright spots. Giants starters led the league in complete games (4), with Logan Webb (who should have been an All-Start and was the Cy Young runner-up) and Alex Cobb (first-time All-Start) logging two apiece. Both also threw for more than 150 innings (Webb led the league with 216 innings pitched). As spring training rolls along, Webb is a lock to make his third consecutive Opening Day start.

Some of the necessary changes have been made. All of the “featured pitchers” from the “opener” experiments have gone elsewhere. The Giants landed the 2021 Cy Young winner Robbie Ray by trading injury-ridden Anthony DeSclafani and outfielder Mitch Haniger to Seattle. They also brought on flame-throwing right-hander Jordan Hicks on a four-year deal with the intention of using him as a starting pitcher.

If everyone was healthy, the starting rotation would look something like this:
1. Logan Webb
2. Robbie Ray
3. Alex Cobb
4. Jordan Hicks
5. Kyle Harrison

But with less than a month before Opening Day, the Giants are rolling in with a skeleton crew. Instead, the rotation is:
1. Logan Webb (lock)
2. Jordan Hicks (reliever turned starter)
3. Kyle Harrison (unproven)
4. ?
5. ?

And after spring training injuries have taken their toll, some of the leading contenders for those rotation slots to fill in for Ray and Cobb are now on the shelf themselves. The Giants should add another starting pitcher!

The three names that I’ve heard most frequently linked to the Giants are Blake Snell, Jordan Montgomery, and Michael Lorenzen. At this juncture, I think Lorenzen makes the most sense.

There are a couple of different ways to go about constructing a roster. One approach is to stockpile talent and sign the best players regardless of position and then try to move talent around after the fact. That seems to be what the Giants did with their signing of Matt Chapman despite already having a quality starting third baseman on the roster. On the one hand, you’ve got a better team (at least on paper) and plenty of depth. But there are constraints to stockpiling talent. After all, there are only 9 spots on the lineup card and only 9 innings per game (usually) for pitchers to pitch.

If the Giants want to stick with the “most talented” approach, they should nab Snell or Montgomery. Statistically, they had the better 2023 campaigns–although, of the trio, Lorenzen was the only All-Star. But given the current roster, Lorenzen makes plenty of sense. He would slot in as a quality starter immediately, but he would also be a good depth piece for a rotation with injury issues and several question marks. As players return from injury, he could remain a starter or, given his experience as a set-up man, move to the bullpen. That kind of flexibility is helpful over a 162-game marathon is a tremendous asset. He’s also viewed as a more cost-effective option. MLBTR predicted a two-year, $22 MM contract earlier in the offseason.

Lorenzen had his struggles last year, mostly in the second half, but he also had flashes of brilliance, e.g., throwing a no-hitter in his second start after being traded to the Phillies. It’s possible that those struggles were a consequence of wearing down. Before last season, he had only thrown more than 100 innings once in his career, and that was his rookie season with the Reds back in 2015. If the Giants bring him aboard, he’ll pencil in at the back end of the rotation, where usage and late-season fatigue will be of less concern.

I would certainly be happy with the Giants signing either Snell or Montgomery–heck, go for both–but I also understand the constraints. The bottom line is that the Giants need a starter, and Michael Lorenzen would be a good fit to fill that need.

SF Giants

The Giants bring on Matt Chapman

2 Comments

After all the speculation and rumors linking Matt Chapman to the San Francisco Giants, the four-time gold glove third baseman is finally headed back to the Bay.

Time will tell if this move pays off. I have my doubts.

The Giants already have incumbent third baseman J.D. Davis on the roster for a more modest salary. While Chapman is reportedly coming in on a three-year, $54 million contract ($20 million in 2024), Davis is only slated to take home $6.9 million this season. Does Chapman improve the roster by the additional $13 million he’ll be paid next year?

Measured by career numbers, Chapman certainly has the edge on Davis. Both players are the same age, but Chapman has logged significantly more major league experience. He’s also more impressive defensively.

https://stathead.com/tiny/DOdgJ

But more recent numbers paint a picture of Chapman as a more expensive Davis with a better glove. In fewer plate appearances last season, Davis put up comparable numbers and was also vying for a spot on the NL All-Star team before coming up short in voting for the Summer Classic.

https://stathead.com/tiny/mPWFy

Chapman’s defensive prowess cannot be ignored. Last season, the Giants were the worst team defensively, logging 117 errors. While Davis contributed to that total with 9 errors of his own, his numbers do not look all that different from Chapman’s (who won his fourth gold glove last season). Chapman recorded 12 errors across 1214 innings at third base (300 more than Davis, who also spent 30 games between first base and DH) and .968 FPCT. Davis had a .967 FPCT at third base and although he clocks in below Chapman on the “range factor” metric, he made strides in the field last season and proved to be a capable defensive third baseman.

Some speculated that signing Chapman and his superior glove makes even more sense, given the uncertainty surrounding Marco Luciano as the heir apparent at shortstop. However, it seemed to me that the Giants had already hedged against that by bringing in two-time Gold Glove winner Nick Ahmed on a minor league contract.

Because Davis can also play first base, the Giants could retain him in more of a utility and depth role, but that route is complicated by the presence of Wilmer Flores.

https://stathead.com/tiny/5LWGh

While it’s true that Wilmer is more of a defensive liability at the hot corner (a .928 fielding percentage and a career-low .848 in 2023), he’s coming off of a great offensive second half and has been the clubhouse guy that successful teams need. Look no further than his recruitment efforts to bring on Jorge Soler — a bat that would encroach on Wilmer’s DH opportunities — as evidence of his team-first mentality. With a 2024 salary of $6.5 million, he is also the lowest-priced of the three. If the Chapman signing spells the end of Wilmer’s time in San Francisco, then count me out on the deal.

The bottom line: The Chapman signing raises just as many questions as it answered. The Giants now have a surplus at third base and making a trade to clear up defensive assignments seems to be the next order of business. But who are the Giants going to part with, and what can they expect in return? Seemingly, the Giants will be able to find a suitor, but will that trade fill other pressing roster needs, i.e. starting pitching, and balance out Chapman’s more expensive contract?

Signing Matt Chapman could be the right move. He is a team leader and has history with new manager Bob Melvin from their time together in Oakland. As the 2024 season progresses, an offensive resurgence and Chapman’s intangibles might prove he’s worth the money. As a Giants fan, I’ll hope for the best, but I’m skeptical that this was much of an improvement.