Vogelsong is still better than Kershaw.
Hey Dodgers Fans
1,134,072 Views |
5587 Replies |
Last: 10 days ago by GMP
So, 26 days after your last floor/ceiling post, are you ready to bump up either the floor or the ceiling? On 6/16, you thought the Giants ceiling was a 45-50 finish, the floor was a 38-57 finish. How about now?71Bear said:Great question...GMP said:71Bear said:...and 85 would require a 72-70 finish. That sounds like a reasonable range (between 62-72 wins from this point forward).GMP said:71Bear said:Regression to the mean...GMP said:71Bear said:San Diego for real? That is laughable. Let's see... 52 years and counting - zero World Series titles.....bonsallbear said:
It's going to be an interesting season. Padres are for real. Are the Giants?
As for SF, they are on track for an 75-85 win season. That is in line with expectations. Does that qualify as "for real"? I guess it depends on your definition......
75-85 wins? They're on pace for 105 wins. I'm not saying that will happen by any stretch, but that's the pace they are presently at.
They needed a decent start to have a chance to hit their expectation.
As I said - I'm not saying 105 is happening. But 75 is way too low at this point. Something very bad would have to happen. They'd have to finish 62-80. I don't see that.
Heck, I am a Giants fan. I would love to see them post 105. However, I think it is a year too soon to expect more than 85......
Addendum...
In 2013, SF started off 13-7 and wound up winning 76 games......
Almost two months later, the Giants remain in first place with the best record in the NL and are on pace for 101 wins. They'd have to finish 33-62 to finish with 75 wins. They'd have to finish 43-52 to finish with 85 wins.
Do you still think 75-85 is the number?
I'll bump the floor up to 80 and the ceiling to 87. The bullpen is the big question mark. To avoid another second half collapse (see 2016), Zaidi has to make a deal or two at the trade deadline to secure more pitching.
I have full confidence in SF in the years to come (the combination of a loaded farm system and Zaidi's ability to spot talent that others overlook is something that will put the parade planners back in business) but I still think 2021 is a bit too soon.
At this point, to get to 87 wins, the Giants need to go 30-43. To get to 80 wins, the Giants finish 23-50. Is that their floor?
It may be realistic to think they are not likely to keep up the current winning percentage, which would result in 103.75 wins, but if we're talking a range the Giants are "on target" for, it has to be better than 80-87, a range of 23-50 to 30-43.
Big C said:oski003 said:Big C said:GMP said:oski003 said:GMP said:Big C said:chazzed said:Cal8285 said:Well, you posted my quote in response to GMP saying, "No one said they wouldn't be ok." A fair implication is that you thought my quote said the Dodgers wouldn't be OK. But GMP's reading comprehension is spot on. No one, not me, not anyone, said the Dodgers wouldn't be ok.chazzed said:oski003 said:chazzed said:GMP said:chazzed said:Cal8285 said:I don't love the Padres. Perhaps it is nice that they sweep the Dodgers, but I'm not sure sure they aren't the bigger threat to the Giants this season, especially with the foreign substances crackdown that may hurt the Dodgers more than a lot of other teams. The Dodgers are winless since the crackdown began. Hmmmm. . . .GMP said:
Man, who doesn't love the Padres.
5 and 0 since this post, including a 2-game sweep of the Giants. I think they will be okay.
Lol. No one said they wouldn't be ok.
Cal8285:
". . .especially with the foreign substances crackdown that may hurt the Dodgers more than a lot of other teams. The Dodgers are winless since the crackdown began. Hmmmm. . ."
The dodgers won their last 6 games, including a sweep of the BALCO stained Giants. Whatcha smoking?
Also, Bauer was just put on 7 day admin leave.
That isn't my take. I was simply quoting Cal8285.
I said I'm not sure the Padres aren't the bigger threat. How does that equate "The Dodgers won't be ok'?????Especially given the uncertainties at the point where the Dodgers were 2 games into the crackdown, with the Pads just having swept the Dodgers, a fair statement -- "I'm not sure" who is the bigger threat. If you're sure, give me 100-1 odds the Dodgers will finish ahead of the Pads, I'm happy to put $50 on the Pads. Give me 50-50, I'll pass.
The Dodgers are stacked with big guns -- even with disaster, they can't be anything but "ok." Even if Bauer's weird sexual proclivities get him suspended for the season (and even if everything was consensual, oh brother. . .), the Dodgers will be "ok." Being simply "ok," however, is total failure for the Dodgers. For last 9 years, the Dodgers have been either World Series Champions or a total failure. And except for the bogus COVID MLB season (less bogus than the 2020 Pac-12 season, but still bogus), the Dodgers have been a total failure.
It is very difficult to know who will be affected most by the crackdown, even if some guys like Bauer clearly became better through the use of Spider Tack. Alex Wood has likely been using rosin and sunscreen his whole career, just like most pitchers use some substance for grip, activity that baseball has been aware of for decades and ignored. He stopped using before the official crackdown started, and it was clearly in his head. The crackdown creates a lot of uncertainty all over the place.
The Dodgers have too much to be anything but at least "ok." I'm confident the Dodgers will be "ok." But unless there is a shift in organizational attitude, there's a really good chance they will be a failure.
When somebody posts "The Dodgers are winless since the crackdown began. Hmmmm. . .", it says to me that the poster thinks the Dodgers will struggle.
Anyway, you can call the 2020 season bogus until you're (Dodger) blue in the face, but LA was clearly the class of MLB last year and took home the hardware.
LOL, the one time this century that the Dodgers win the WS and it was the year that pretty much didn't count... and then they fueled COVID all over SoCal. Way to go, you bums!
I'm torn on this one. It's absolutely different. It counts, but it's different. A 60 game season allows far fewer chances for injuries, and that's important. Every championship team has to deal with injuries, and the Dodgers had very few. Just compare it to this year - Bellinger has missed a ton of time, Seager has been out almost this entire season, and Kershaw got very bad news today. Last year, they had only five pitchers start more than two games and only 10 guys qualify for the batting title. That's pretty remarkable and something that just doesn't happen in a full season. To me, that is why the title is questionable/different.
There are of course arguments why it counts - they played who was on their schedule (reminds a bit of the debate on Bumgarner's 7 inning no hitter) and they had an extra round to deal with (the strongest point in their favor). But I don't see how any Dodger fan old enough thinks it's as good as 1988, and I think the next time the Dodgers win a WS many fans will acknowledge that 2020 didn't feel as good.
Another loser post. Anyone else?
You should lighten up like10%.
Somebody obviously can't get over the trauma for Dodger fans that was 2010/2012/2014. Seven years and a quasi-legitimate World Series victory... you'd think that would assuage a lot of the bitterness, but I guess not.
Doubling down on loser I see. Dodgers won because they are good. Have a good day
If there are losers here, it is the team that won one 21st century World Series in a shortened, randomized season and then spread COVID all over SoCal, not the team that has won THREE glorious, legitimate World Series over the same period.
Actual, neither team is full of losers. The loser is the person who posted what you just did. I dont respect the BALCO stuff the Giants were involved with, but I do respect the rebuilding they are doing. They have some young talent.
At the All-Star break:Cal8285 said:So, 26 days after your last floor/ceiling post, are you ready to bump up either the floor or the ceiling? On 6/16, you thought the Giants ceiling was a 45-50 finish, the floor was a 38-57 finish. How about now?71Bear said:Great question...GMP said:71Bear said:...and 85 would require a 72-70 finish. That sounds like a reasonable range (between 62-72 wins from this point forward).GMP said:71Bear said:Regression to the mean...GMP said:71Bear said:San Diego for real? That is laughable. Let's see... 52 years and counting - zero World Series titles.....bonsallbear said:
It's going to be an interesting season. Padres are for real. Are the Giants?
As for SF, they are on track for an 75-85 win season. That is in line with expectations. Does that qualify as "for real"? I guess it depends on your definition......
75-85 wins? They're on pace for 105 wins. I'm not saying that will happen by any stretch, but that's the pace they are presently at.
They needed a decent start to have a chance to hit their expectation.
As I said - I'm not saying 105 is happening. But 75 is way too low at this point. Something very bad would have to happen. They'd have to finish 62-80. I don't see that.
Heck, I am a Giants fan. I would love to see them post 105. However, I think it is a year too soon to expect more than 85......
Addendum...
In 2013, SF started off 13-7 and wound up winning 76 games......
Almost two months later, the Giants remain in first place with the best record in the NL and are on pace for 101 wins. They'd have to finish 33-62 to finish with 75 wins. They'd have to finish 43-52 to finish with 85 wins.
Do you still think 75-85 is the number?
I'll bump the floor up to 80 and the ceiling to 87. The bullpen is the big question mark. To avoid another second half collapse (see 2016), Zaidi has to make a deal or two at the trade deadline to secure more pitching.
I have full confidence in SF in the years to come (the combination of a loaded farm system and Zaidi's ability to spot talent that others overlook is something that will put the parade planners back in business) but I still think 2021 is a bit too soon.
At this point, to get to 87 wins, the Giants need to go 30-43. To get to 80 wins, the Giants finish 23-50. Is that their floor?
It may be realistic to think they are not likely to keep up the current winning percentage, which would result in 103.75 wins, but if we're talking a range the Giants are "on target" for, it has to be better than 80-87, a range of 23-50 to 30-43.
2016: 57-33
2021: 57-32
Post All-Star break:
2016: 30-42
2021: ??
Final record:
2016: 87-75
2021: ??
Before updating my 80-87, I think we need to get through the first of August. 10 of the next 16 are v. LA (7) and Houston (3).
Regardless, at this point, a divisional title is still a long shot but a wild card slot is starting to come into focus.
Giants drafted a Cal player, Ian Villers Rd 8. It is nice to have at least one Bay Area team draft Cal players.
I'm not sure that the 2016 Giants are the best support to avoid updating the 80-87 range. In order to get only 87 wins, the Giants have to have the WORST post-All-Star game record in HISTORY of any team that had the best record at the break. The target -- the Giants of 2016.71Bear said:At the All-Star break:Cal8285 said:So, 26 days after your last floor/ceiling post, are you ready to bump up either the floor or the ceiling? On 6/16, you thought the Giants ceiling was a 45-50 finish, the floor was a 38-57 finish. How about now?71Bear said:Great question...GMP said:71Bear said:...and 85 would require a 72-70 finish. That sounds like a reasonable range (between 62-72 wins from this point forward).GMP said:71Bear said:Regression to the mean...GMP said:71Bear said:San Diego for real? That is laughable. Let's see... 52 years and counting - zero World Series titles.....bonsallbear said:
It's going to be an interesting season. Padres are for real. Are the Giants?
As for SF, they are on track for an 75-85 win season. That is in line with expectations. Does that qualify as "for real"? I guess it depends on your definition......
75-85 wins? They're on pace for 105 wins. I'm not saying that will happen by any stretch, but that's the pace they are presently at.
They needed a decent start to have a chance to hit their expectation.
As I said - I'm not saying 105 is happening. But 75 is way too low at this point. Something very bad would have to happen. They'd have to finish 62-80. I don't see that.
Heck, I am a Giants fan. I would love to see them post 105. However, I think it is a year too soon to expect more than 85......
Addendum...
In 2013, SF started off 13-7 and wound up winning 76 games......
Almost two months later, the Giants remain in first place with the best record in the NL and are on pace for 101 wins. They'd have to finish 33-62 to finish with 75 wins. They'd have to finish 43-52 to finish with 85 wins.
Do you still think 75-85 is the number?
I'll bump the floor up to 80 and the ceiling to 87. The bullpen is the big question mark. To avoid another second half collapse (see 2016), Zaidi has to make a deal or two at the trade deadline to secure more pitching.
I have full confidence in SF in the years to come (the combination of a loaded farm system and Zaidi's ability to spot talent that others overlook is something that will put the parade planners back in business) but I still think 2021 is a bit too soon.
At this point, to get to 87 wins, the Giants need to go 30-43. To get to 80 wins, the Giants finish 23-50. Is that their floor?
It may be realistic to think they are not likely to keep up the current winning percentage, which would result in 103.75 wins, but if we're talking a range the Giants are "on target" for, it has to be better than 80-87, a range of 23-50 to 30-43.
2016: 57-33
2021: 57-32
Post All-Star break:
2016: 30-42
2021: ??
Final record:
2016: 87-75
2021: ??
Before updating my 80-87, I think we need to get through the first of August. 10 of the next 16 are v. LA (7) and Houston (3).
Regardless, at this point, a divisional title is still a long shot but a wild card slot is starting to come into focus.
NO TEAM has ever won fewer than 40% of its games after having the best record at the break. The Giants won 8 of their last 12 in 2016 to avoid attaining that distinction. To avoid attaining that distinction, the 2021 Giants need to finish 30-43, but it would STILL be the WORST record of any team IN HISTORY that had the best record in the majors at the break.
30-43 gets them to 87 overall. We can't update the TOP of their range to be better than making history for the worst post-All-Star game collapse of any team with the best record?
I think a better argument is that the 2016 Giants demonstrate the bottom of the likely range. Sure, the 2021 Giants could surpass the 2016 Giants for the worst collapse in history among teams with the best record at the break, but they can do that and still win 87 games. 23-50 would break the 2016 Giants' record post-All-Star break collapse by a LOT.
Sure, we'll know a little more after August 1. I agree there is a good chance the Giants will go under .500 in that stretch, it is a tough stretch, and anything over .500 will be okay IMO, the Pirates series is the only one where I will be truly disappointed if they don't get a series win. The next two weeks AFTER August 1, however, should be a stretch where they can be well over .500.
The 2016 Giants didn't really have enough margin for error in performance. While the bullpen actually had a better ERA after the break than before, the collapse of closer Casilla created a big problem -- Bochy was great with a bullpen when roles were settled. When things went wonky, it always took Bochy some time to figure it out and work his bullpen in the proper way. Casilla always seemed a couple of bad outings from losing his mental ability as closer, and in 2016, he lost it. The offense was the bigger issue, however. Belt and Posey collapsing were huge factors. Posey fighting through his physical issues while still playing is what we want our players to do, but the loss of his offense was a HUGE deal to that team.
The Farhan Giants aren't constructed this way. They have lost so many pieces already, yet have the best record. They have guys coming back. Longoria, La Stella, Belt, Posey, should all be coming back, yet the team has won in their absence. If a guy gets physical issues and can't perform, he won't be in the lineup. As it is, the team has more guys on the roster than they have spots for, and the team won't hesitate to put a player on the IL if physical issues are affecting his play, like Posey in 2016. If a guy starts being horrible, there's someone else to step in. The biggest danger is losing a couple of the quality starting pitchers. So far, they haven't lost more than one at a time, the injuries have mostly been in the #5 starter spot. A season-ending Crawford injury might be a problem, too, especially defensively. But this team just isn't constructed to have the potential for collapse like the 2016 Giants.
Sure, odds are that the team won't maintain its .640 pace, and there is a reasonable chance of enough of a reduction in wins to miss the wild-card. And the stretch between now and August 1 is tough. But 87 wins would be the worst post-All-Star game collapse in history for any team with the best record at the break, by 1/2 game over the 2016 Giants. To say the range is 80-87 wins is to say that the Giants will have the worst post-All-Star game collapse in history by a team with the best record at the break, it is just a question of whether they squeak by or blow by the 2016 Giants historical mark. I have a real hard time thinking that the 80-87 range makes any sense at this point. 87 as the bottom? Sure, but not the top.
That's the big thing here. The 2016 Giants didn't have a ton of depth beyond the front-line guys. Farhan Zaidi seems to have built an organization with more depth; injuries have not affected the 2021 team's performance very much. They've just called up replacements who have performed adequately. This is not too different than how the Dodgers were under Farhan (though of course the Dodgers have more top-line talent right now).Cal8285 said:
The Farhan Giants aren't constructed this way. They have lost so many pieces already, yet have the best record. They have guys coming back. Longoria, La Stella, Belt, Posey, should all be coming back, yet the team has won in their absence. If a guy gets physical issues and can't perform, he won't be in the lineup. As it is, the team has more guys on the roster than they have spots for, and the team won't hesitate to put a player on the IL if physical issues are affecting his play, like Posey in 2016. If a guy starts being horrible, there's someone else to step in. The biggest danger is losing a couple of the quality starting pitchers. So far, they haven't lost more than one at a time, the injuries have mostly been in the #5 starter spot. A season-ending Crawford injury might be a problem, too, especially defensively. But this team just isn't constructed to have the potential for collapse like the 2016 Giants.
I can't quite make out what's on farhan's cap. Can someone help me out?
The 80-87 reflects mid-June data. The next update with come six weeks after that time. I am optimistic that it will be better but I wants to see some more results before making any adjustments. 2016 is too fresh in the memory to do otherwise.Cal8285 said:I'm not sure that the 2016 Giants are the best support to avoid updating the 80-87 range. In order to get only 87 wins, the Giants have to have the WORST post-All-Star game record in HISTORY of any team that had the best record at the break. The target -- the Giants of 2016.71Bear said:At the All-Star break:Cal8285 said:So, 26 days after your last floor/ceiling post, are you ready to bump up either the floor or the ceiling? On 6/16, you thought the Giants ceiling was a 45-50 finish, the floor was a 38-57 finish. How about now?71Bear said:Great question...GMP said:71Bear said:...and 85 would require a 72-70 finish. That sounds like a reasonable range (between 62-72 wins from this point forward).GMP said:71Bear said:Regression to the mean...GMP said:71Bear said:San Diego for real? That is laughable. Let's see... 52 years and counting - zero World Series titles.....bonsallbear said:
It's going to be an interesting season. Padres are for real. Are the Giants?
As for SF, they are on track for an 75-85 win season. That is in line with expectations. Does that qualify as "for real"? I guess it depends on your definition......
75-85 wins? They're on pace for 105 wins. I'm not saying that will happen by any stretch, but that's the pace they are presently at.
They needed a decent start to have a chance to hit their expectation.
As I said - I'm not saying 105 is happening. But 75 is way too low at this point. Something very bad would have to happen. They'd have to finish 62-80. I don't see that.
Heck, I am a Giants fan. I would love to see them post 105. However, I think it is a year too soon to expect more than 85......
Addendum...
In 2013, SF started off 13-7 and wound up winning 76 games......
Almost two months later, the Giants remain in first place with the best record in the NL and are on pace for 101 wins. They'd have to finish 33-62 to finish with 75 wins. They'd have to finish 43-52 to finish with 85 wins.
Do you still think 75-85 is the number?
I'll bump the floor up to 80 and the ceiling to 87. The bullpen is the big question mark. To avoid another second half collapse (see 2016), Zaidi has to make a deal or two at the trade deadline to secure more pitching.
I have full confidence in SF in the years to come (the combination of a loaded farm system and Zaidi's ability to spot talent that others overlook is something that will put the parade planners back in business) but I still think 2021 is a bit too soon.
At this point, to get to 87 wins, the Giants need to go 30-43. To get to 80 wins, the Giants finish 23-50. Is that their floor?
It may be realistic to think they are not likely to keep up the current winning percentage, which would result in 103.75 wins, but if we're talking a range the Giants are "on target" for, it has to be better than 80-87, a range of 23-50 to 30-43.
2016: 57-33
2021: 57-32
Post All-Star break:
2016: 30-42
2021: ??
Final record:
2016: 87-75
2021: ??
Before updating my 80-87, I think we need to get through the first of August. 10 of the next 16 are v. LA (7) and Houston (3).
Regardless, at this point, a divisional title is still a long shot but a wild card slot is starting to come into focus.
NO TEAM has ever won fewer than 40% of its games after having the best record at the break. The Giants won 8 of their last 12 in 2016 to avoid attaining that distinction. To avoid attaining that distinction, the 2021 Giants need to finish 30-43, but it would STILL be the WORST record of any team IN HISTORY that had the best record in the majors at the break.
30-43 gets them to 87 overall. We can't update the TOP of their range to be better than making history for the worst post-All-Star game collapse of any team with the best record?
I think a better argument is that the 2016 Giants demonstrate the bottom of the likely range. Sure, the 2021 Giants could surpass the 2016 Giants for the worst collapse in history among teams with the best record at the break, but they can do that and still win 87 games. 23-50 would break the 2016 Giants' record post-All-Star break collapse by a LOT.
Sure, we'll know a little more after August 1. I agree there is a good chance the Giants will go under .500 in that stretch, it is a tough stretch, and anything over .500 will be okay IMO, the Pirates series is the only one where I will be truly disappointed if they don't get a series win. The next two weeks AFTER August 1, however, should be a stretch where they can be well over .500.
The 2016 Giants didn't really have enough margin for error in performance. While the bullpen actually had a better ERA after the break than before, the collapse of closer Casilla created a big problem -- Bochy was great with a bullpen when roles were settled. When things went wonky, it always took Bochy some time to figure it out and work his bullpen in the proper way. Casilla always seemed a couple of bad outings from losing his mental ability as closer, and in 2016, he lost it. The offense was the bigger issue, however. Belt and Posey collapsing were huge factors. Posey fighting through his physical issues while still playing is what we want our players to do, but the loss of his offense was a HUGE deal to that team.
The Farhan Giants aren't constructed this way. They have lost so many pieces already, yet have the best record. They have guys coming back. Longoria, La Stella, Belt, Posey, should all be coming back, yet the team has won in their absence. If a guy gets physical issues and can't perform, he won't be in the lineup. As it is, the team has more guys on the roster than they have spots for, and the team won't hesitate to put a player on the IL if physical issues are affecting his play, like Posey in 2016. If a guy starts being horrible, there's someone else to step in. The biggest danger is losing a couple of the quality starting pitchers. So far, they haven't lost more than one at a time, the injuries have mostly been in the #5 starter spot. A season-ending Crawford injury might be a problem, too, especially defensively. But this team just isn't constructed to have the potential for collapse like the 2016 Giants.
Sure, odds are that the team won't maintain its .640 pace, and there is a reasonable chance of enough of a reduction in wins to miss the wild-card. And the stretch between now and August 1 is tough. But 87 wins would be the worst post-All-Star game collapse in history for any team with the best record at the break, by 1/2 game over the 2016 Giants. To say the range is 80-87 wins is to say that the Giants will have the worst post-All-Star game collapse in history by a team with the best record at the break, it is just a question of whether they squeak by or blow by the 2016 Giants historical mark. I have a real hard time thinking that the 80-87 range makes any sense at this point. 87 as the bottom? Sure, but not the top.
I completely understand the desire to avoid putting too much hope out there, but "on track" doesn't mean what WILL happen, just what the team is "on track" for. I understand it doesn't mean "on pace," because portions of the schedule are easier or harder, there will be regression to the mean, etc.71Bear said:The 80-87 reflects mid-June data. The next update with come six weeks after that time. I am optimistic that it will be better but I wants to see some more results before making any adjustments. 2016 is too fresh in the memory to do otherwise.Cal8285 said:I'm not sure that the 2016 Giants are the best support to avoid updating the 80-87 range. In order to get only 87 wins, the Giants have to have the WORST post-All-Star game record in HISTORY of any team that had the best record at the break. The target -- the Giants of 2016.71Bear said:At the All-Star break:Cal8285 said:So, 26 days after your last floor/ceiling post, are you ready to bump up either the floor or the ceiling? On 6/16, you thought the Giants ceiling was a 45-50 finish, the floor was a 38-57 finish. How about now?71Bear said:Great question...GMP said:71Bear said:...and 85 would require a 72-70 finish. That sounds like a reasonable range (between 62-72 wins from this point forward).GMP said:71Bear said:Regression to the mean...GMP said:71Bear said:San Diego for real? That is laughable. Let's see... 52 years and counting - zero World Series titles.....bonsallbear said:
It's going to be an interesting season. Padres are for real. Are the Giants?
As for SF, they are on track for an 75-85 win season. That is in line with expectations. Does that qualify as "for real"? I guess it depends on your definition......
75-85 wins? They're on pace for 105 wins. I'm not saying that will happen by any stretch, but that's the pace they are presently at.
They needed a decent start to have a chance to hit their expectation.
As I said - I'm not saying 105 is happening. But 75 is way too low at this point. Something very bad would have to happen. They'd have to finish 62-80. I don't see that.
Heck, I am a Giants fan. I would love to see them post 105. However, I think it is a year too soon to expect more than 85......
Addendum...
In 2013, SF started off 13-7 and wound up winning 76 games......
Almost two months later, the Giants remain in first place with the best record in the NL and are on pace for 101 wins. They'd have to finish 33-62 to finish with 75 wins. They'd have to finish 43-52 to finish with 85 wins.
Do you still think 75-85 is the number?
I'll bump the floor up to 80 and the ceiling to 87. The bullpen is the big question mark. To avoid another second half collapse (see 2016), Zaidi has to make a deal or two at the trade deadline to secure more pitching.
I have full confidence in SF in the years to come (the combination of a loaded farm system and Zaidi's ability to spot talent that others overlook is something that will put the parade planners back in business) but I still think 2021 is a bit too soon.
At this point, to get to 87 wins, the Giants need to go 30-43. To get to 80 wins, the Giants finish 23-50. Is that their floor?
It may be realistic to think they are not likely to keep up the current winning percentage, which would result in 103.75 wins, but if we're talking a range the Giants are "on target" for, it has to be better than 80-87, a range of 23-50 to 30-43.
2016: 57-33
2021: 57-32
Post All-Star break:
2016: 30-42
2021: ??
Final record:
2016: 87-75
2021: ??
Before updating my 80-87, I think we need to get through the first of August. 10 of the next 16 are v. LA (7) and Houston (3).
Regardless, at this point, a divisional title is still a long shot but a wild card slot is starting to come into focus.
NO TEAM has ever won fewer than 40% of its games after having the best record at the break. The Giants won 8 of their last 12 in 2016 to avoid attaining that distinction. To avoid attaining that distinction, the 2021 Giants need to finish 30-43, but it would STILL be the WORST record of any team IN HISTORY that had the best record in the majors at the break.
30-43 gets them to 87 overall. We can't update the TOP of their range to be better than making history for the worst post-All-Star game collapse of any team with the best record?
I think a better argument is that the 2016 Giants demonstrate the bottom of the likely range. Sure, the 2021 Giants could surpass the 2016 Giants for the worst collapse in history among teams with the best record at the break, but they can do that and still win 87 games. 23-50 would break the 2016 Giants' record post-All-Star break collapse by a LOT.
Sure, we'll know a little more after August 1. I agree there is a good chance the Giants will go under .500 in that stretch, it is a tough stretch, and anything over .500 will be okay IMO, the Pirates series is the only one where I will be truly disappointed if they don't get a series win. The next two weeks AFTER August 1, however, should be a stretch where they can be well over .500.
The 2016 Giants didn't really have enough margin for error in performance. While the bullpen actually had a better ERA after the break than before, the collapse of closer Casilla created a big problem -- Bochy was great with a bullpen when roles were settled. When things went wonky, it always took Bochy some time to figure it out and work his bullpen in the proper way. Casilla always seemed a couple of bad outings from losing his mental ability as closer, and in 2016, he lost it. The offense was the bigger issue, however. Belt and Posey collapsing were huge factors. Posey fighting through his physical issues while still playing is what we want our players to do, but the loss of his offense was a HUGE deal to that team.
The Farhan Giants aren't constructed this way. They have lost so many pieces already, yet have the best record. They have guys coming back. Longoria, La Stella, Belt, Posey, should all be coming back, yet the team has won in their absence. If a guy gets physical issues and can't perform, he won't be in the lineup. As it is, the team has more guys on the roster than they have spots for, and the team won't hesitate to put a player on the IL if physical issues are affecting his play, like Posey in 2016. If a guy starts being horrible, there's someone else to step in. The biggest danger is losing a couple of the quality starting pitchers. So far, they haven't lost more than one at a time, the injuries have mostly been in the #5 starter spot. A season-ending Crawford injury might be a problem, too, especially defensively. But this team just isn't constructed to have the potential for collapse like the 2016 Giants.
Sure, odds are that the team won't maintain its .640 pace, and there is a reasonable chance of enough of a reduction in wins to miss the wild-card. And the stretch between now and August 1 is tough. But 87 wins would be the worst post-All-Star game collapse in history for any team with the best record at the break, by 1/2 game over the 2016 Giants. To say the range is 80-87 wins is to say that the Giants will have the worst post-All-Star game collapse in history by a team with the best record at the break, it is just a question of whether they squeak by or blow by the 2016 Giants historical mark. I have a real hard time thinking that the 80-87 range makes any sense at this point. 87 as the bottom? Sure, but not the top.
This started with you saying, when the Giants were 12-7, that they were "on track" for 75-85 wins. They were on pace for 102 (by the next day when GMP posted, on pace for 105). Your "regression to the mean" argument made some rational sense. If the Giants were roughly a .500 team, a 12-7 start wasn't inconsistent, a .500 finish would have put them around 83 wins, within your range, and starting 12-7 and finishing under .500 for a team projected to finish under .500 would be typical.
I don't think that the 80-87 was rational based on the 42-25 record the Giants had, that was enough to indicate that the Giants are very unlikely to be a sub-.500 team. Although at that time, they were "on pace" for 101, I could agree they were "on track" for something less, recognizing some regression to the mean, but a rational person, as opposed to a Giants fan traumatized by the worse post-All-Star game collapse in history by a team with best record at the break, would have said on June 16 they were on target for something more like 85-95.
Regression to the mean doesn't mean the worst collapse in history, so I'm not sure how they can be "on track" for even as low as 87. On pace for 103.75, but I'd say on track for 93-100 (the later it gets, the narrower that "on track for" window needs to be). Is it POSSIBLE for the Giants to finish with 85 wins? Sure. It is also POSSIBLE for the Giants to win 110. But we're not talking about the range of possible, rather, what they are "on track" for. Historical trauma suffered by fans doesn't really alter what the team is on track for, so "on track" for 93-100 is pretty close to accurate.
Fun series. Thanks!
DeSclafani > Buehler and Every Human Being > Bauer
Go Gigantes!
p.s. as a long time Giant fan I sure feel like many more games like this have gone against us with the Dodgers than for us.
Same thing on the calls-definitely a swing by Ruf but even more obviously It should have been ball 3 for a 3 and 0 count previous to that....
p.s. as a long time Giant fan I sure feel like many more games like this have gone against us with the Dodgers than for us.
Same thing on the calls-definitely a swing by Ruf but even more obviously It should have been ball 3 for a 3 and 0 count previous to that....
71Bear said:The 80-87 reflects mid-June data. The next update with come six weeks after that time. I am optimistic that it will be better but I wants to see some more results before making any adjustments. 2016 is too fresh in the memory to do otherwise.Cal8285 said:I'm not sure that the 2016 Giants are the best support to avoid updating the 80-87 range. In order to get only 87 wins, the Giants have to have the WORST post-All-Star game record in HISTORY of any team that had the best record at the break. The target -- the Giants of 2016.71Bear said:At the All-Star break:Cal8285 said:So, 26 days after your last floor/ceiling post, are you ready to bump up either the floor or the ceiling? On 6/16, you thought the Giants ceiling was a 45-50 finish, the floor was a 38-57 finish. How about now?71Bear said:Great question...GMP said:71Bear said:...and 85 would require a 72-70 finish. That sounds like a reasonable range (between 62-72 wins from this point forward).GMP said:71Bear said:Regression to the mean...GMP said:71Bear said:San Diego for real? That is laughable. Let's see... 52 years and counting - zero World Series titles.....bonsallbear said:
It's going to be an interesting season. Padres are for real. Are the Giants?
As for SF, they are on track for an 75-85 win season. That is in line with expectations. Does that qualify as "for real"? I guess it depends on your definition......
75-85 wins? They're on pace for 105 wins. I'm not saying that will happen by any stretch, but that's the pace they are presently at.
They needed a decent start to have a chance to hit their expectation.
As I said - I'm not saying 105 is happening. But 75 is way too low at this point. Something very bad would have to happen. They'd have to finish 62-80. I don't see that.
Heck, I am a Giants fan. I would love to see them post 105. However, I think it is a year too soon to expect more than 85......
Addendum...
In 2013, SF started off 13-7 and wound up winning 76 games......
Almost two months later, the Giants remain in first place with the best record in the NL and are on pace for 101 wins. They'd have to finish 33-62 to finish with 75 wins. They'd have to finish 43-52 to finish with 85 wins.
Do you still think 75-85 is the number?
I'll bump the floor up to 80 and the ceiling to 87. The bullpen is the big question mark. To avoid another second half collapse (see 2016), Zaidi has to make a deal or two at the trade deadline to secure more pitching.
I have full confidence in SF in the years to come (the combination of a loaded farm system and Zaidi's ability to spot talent that others overlook is something that will put the parade planners back in business) but I still think 2021 is a bit too soon.
At this point, to get to 87 wins, the Giants need to go 30-43. To get to 80 wins, the Giants finish 23-50. Is that their floor?
It may be realistic to think they are not likely to keep up the current winning percentage, which would result in 103.75 wins, but if we're talking a range the Giants are "on target" for, it has to be better than 80-87, a range of 23-50 to 30-43.
2016: 57-33
2021: 57-32
Post All-Star break:
2016: 30-42
2021: ??
Final record:
2016: 87-75
2021: ??
Before updating my 80-87, I think we need to get through the first of August. 10 of the next 16 are v. LA (7) and Houston (3).
Regardless, at this point, a divisional title is still a long shot but a wild card slot is starting to come into focus.
NO TEAM has ever won fewer than 40% of its games after having the best record at the break. The Giants won 8 of their last 12 in 2016 to avoid attaining that distinction. To avoid attaining that distinction, the 2021 Giants need to finish 30-43, but it would STILL be the WORST record of any team IN HISTORY that had the best record in the majors at the break.
30-43 gets them to 87 overall. We can't update the TOP of their range to be better than making history for the worst post-All-Star game collapse of any team with the best record?
I think a better argument is that the 2016 Giants demonstrate the bottom of the likely range. Sure, the 2021 Giants could surpass the 2016 Giants for the worst collapse in history among teams with the best record at the break, but they can do that and still win 87 games. 23-50 would break the 2016 Giants' record post-All-Star break collapse by a LOT.
Sure, we'll know a little more after August 1. I agree there is a good chance the Giants will go under .500 in that stretch, it is a tough stretch, and anything over .500 will be okay IMO, the Pirates series is the only one where I will be truly disappointed if they don't get a series win. The next two weeks AFTER August 1, however, should be a stretch where they can be well over .500.
The 2016 Giants didn't really have enough margin for error in performance. While the bullpen actually had a better ERA after the break than before, the collapse of closer Casilla created a big problem -- Bochy was great with a bullpen when roles were settled. When things went wonky, it always took Bochy some time to figure it out and work his bullpen in the proper way. Casilla always seemed a couple of bad outings from losing his mental ability as closer, and in 2016, he lost it. The offense was the bigger issue, however. Belt and Posey collapsing were huge factors. Posey fighting through his physical issues while still playing is what we want our players to do, but the loss of his offense was a HUGE deal to that team.
The Farhan Giants aren't constructed this way. They have lost so many pieces already, yet have the best record. They have guys coming back. Longoria, La Stella, Belt, Posey, should all be coming back, yet the team has won in their absence. If a guy gets physical issues and can't perform, he won't be in the lineup. As it is, the team has more guys on the roster than they have spots for, and the team won't hesitate to put a player on the IL if physical issues are affecting his play, like Posey in 2016. If a guy starts being horrible, there's someone else to step in. The biggest danger is losing a couple of the quality starting pitchers. So far, they haven't lost more than one at a time, the injuries have mostly been in the #5 starter spot. A season-ending Crawford injury might be a problem, too, especially defensively. But this team just isn't constructed to have the potential for collapse like the 2016 Giants.
Sure, odds are that the team won't maintain its .640 pace, and there is a reasonable chance of enough of a reduction in wins to miss the wild-card. And the stretch between now and August 1 is tough. But 87 wins would be the worst post-All-Star game collapse in history for any team with the best record at the break, by 1/2 game over the 2016 Giants. To say the range is 80-87 wins is to say that the Giants will have the worst post-All-Star game collapse in history by a team with the best record at the break, it is just a question of whether they squeak by or blow by the 2016 Giants historical mark. I have a real hard time thinking that the 80-87 range makes any sense at this point. 87 as the bottom? Sure, but not the top.
Ok Nate silver. Waiting with bated breathe for the next update.
ducky23 said:71Bear said:The 80-87 reflects mid-June data. The next update with come six weeks after that time. I am optimistic that it will be better but I wants to see some more results before making any adjustments. 2016 is too fresh in the memory to do otherwise.Cal8285 said:I'm not sure that the 2016 Giants are the best support to avoid updating the 80-87 range. In order to get only 87 wins, the Giants have to have the WORST post-All-Star game record in HISTORY of any team that had the best record at the break. The target -- the Giants of 2016.71Bear said:At the All-Star break:Cal8285 said:So, 26 days after your last floor/ceiling post, are you ready to bump up either the floor or the ceiling? On 6/16, you thought the Giants ceiling was a 45-50 finish, the floor was a 38-57 finish. How about now?71Bear said:Great question...GMP said:71Bear said:...and 85 would require a 72-70 finish. That sounds like a reasonable range (between 62-72 wins from this point forward).GMP said:71Bear said:Regression to the mean...GMP said:71Bear said:San Diego for real? That is laughable. Let's see... 52 years and counting - zero World Series titles.....bonsallbear said:
It's going to be an interesting season. Padres are for real. Are the Giants?
As for SF, they are on track for an 75-85 win season. That is in line with expectations. Does that qualify as "for real"? I guess it depends on your definition......
75-85 wins? They're on pace for 105 wins. I'm not saying that will happen by any stretch, but that's the pace they are presently at.
They needed a decent start to have a chance to hit their expectation.
As I said - I'm not saying 105 is happening. But 75 is way too low at this point. Something very bad would have to happen. They'd have to finish 62-80. I don't see that.
Heck, I am a Giants fan. I would love to see them post 105. However, I think it is a year too soon to expect more than 85......
Addendum...
In 2013, SF started off 13-7 and wound up winning 76 games......
Almost two months later, the Giants remain in first place with the best record in the NL and are on pace for 101 wins. They'd have to finish 33-62 to finish with 75 wins. They'd have to finish 43-52 to finish with 85 wins.
Do you still think 75-85 is the number?
I'll bump the floor up to 80 and the ceiling to 87. The bullpen is the big question mark. To avoid another second half collapse (see 2016), Zaidi has to make a deal or two at the trade deadline to secure more pitching.
I have full confidence in SF in the years to come (the combination of a loaded farm system and Zaidi's ability to spot talent that others overlook is something that will put the parade planners back in business) but I still think 2021 is a bit too soon.
At this point, to get to 87 wins, the Giants need to go 30-43. To get to 80 wins, the Giants finish 23-50. Is that their floor?
It may be realistic to think they are not likely to keep up the current winning percentage, which would result in 103.75 wins, but if we're talking a range the Giants are "on target" for, it has to be better than 80-87, a range of 23-50 to 30-43.
2016: 57-33
2021: 57-32
Post All-Star break:
2016: 30-42
2021: ??
Final record:
2016: 87-75
2021: ??
Before updating my 80-87, I think we need to get through the first of August. 10 of the next 16 are v. LA (7) and Houston (3).
Regardless, at this point, a divisional title is still a long shot but a wild card slot is starting to come into focus.
NO TEAM has ever won fewer than 40% of its games after having the best record at the break. The Giants won 8 of their last 12 in 2016 to avoid attaining that distinction. To avoid attaining that distinction, the 2021 Giants need to finish 30-43, but it would STILL be the WORST record of any team IN HISTORY that had the best record in the majors at the break.
30-43 gets them to 87 overall. We can't update the TOP of their range to be better than making history for the worst post-All-Star game collapse of any team with the best record?
I think a better argument is that the 2016 Giants demonstrate the bottom of the likely range. Sure, the 2021 Giants could surpass the 2016 Giants for the worst collapse in history among teams with the best record at the break, but they can do that and still win 87 games. 23-50 would break the 2016 Giants' record post-All-Star break collapse by a LOT.
Sure, we'll know a little more after August 1. I agree there is a good chance the Giants will go under .500 in that stretch, it is a tough stretch, and anything over .500 will be okay IMO, the Pirates series is the only one where I will be truly disappointed if they don't get a series win. The next two weeks AFTER August 1, however, should be a stretch where they can be well over .500.
The 2016 Giants didn't really have enough margin for error in performance. While the bullpen actually had a better ERA after the break than before, the collapse of closer Casilla created a big problem -- Bochy was great with a bullpen when roles were settled. When things went wonky, it always took Bochy some time to figure it out and work his bullpen in the proper way. Casilla always seemed a couple of bad outings from losing his mental ability as closer, and in 2016, he lost it. The offense was the bigger issue, however. Belt and Posey collapsing were huge factors. Posey fighting through his physical issues while still playing is what we want our players to do, but the loss of his offense was a HUGE deal to that team.
The Farhan Giants aren't constructed this way. They have lost so many pieces already, yet have the best record. They have guys coming back. Longoria, La Stella, Belt, Posey, should all be coming back, yet the team has won in their absence. If a guy gets physical issues and can't perform, he won't be in the lineup. As it is, the team has more guys on the roster than they have spots for, and the team won't hesitate to put a player on the IL if physical issues are affecting his play, like Posey in 2016. If a guy starts being horrible, there's someone else to step in. The biggest danger is losing a couple of the quality starting pitchers. So far, they haven't lost more than one at a time, the injuries have mostly been in the #5 starter spot. A season-ending Crawford injury might be a problem, too, especially defensively. But this team just isn't constructed to have the potential for collapse like the 2016 Giants.
Sure, odds are that the team won't maintain its .640 pace, and there is a reasonable chance of enough of a reduction in wins to miss the wild-card. And the stretch between now and August 1 is tough. But 87 wins would be the worst post-All-Star game collapse in history for any team with the best record at the break, by 1/2 game over the 2016 Giants. To say the range is 80-87 wins is to say that the Giants will have the worst post-All-Star game collapse in history by a team with the best record at the break, it is just a question of whether they squeak by or blow by the 2016 Giants historical mark. I have a real hard time thinking that the 80-87 range makes any sense at this point. 87 as the bottom? Sure, but not the top.
Ok Nate silver. Waiting with bated breathe for the next update.
Lol.
Why do the Dodgers still think Kenley Jansen is the type of closer a World Series team needs?
He hasn't been that type of player in 5 years.
Outstanding work from Kenley Jansen in this series. Two very enthusiastic thumbs up!
NVBear78 said:
Go Gigantes!
p.s. as a long time Giant fan I sure feel like many more games like this have gone against us with the Dodgers than for us.
Same thing on the calls-definitely a swing by Ruf but even more obviously It should have been ball 3 for a 3 and 0 count previous to that....
I'm old and a lifelong baseball fan so you'd think I hate replay. For the life of me I can't understand why baseball is taking so long implementing the ball-strike technology used by tv to show the strike zone and replay on check swings. Ruf's AB was exhibit A in my argument. He should have had a 3-0 count instead of 2-1 and it can be argued he swung at what should have been ball 4 only because what should have been ball 3 was called a strike. And, yes, he did not check his swing on ball 4. These were game changing missed calls. Either no technological replay (and live with the human errors in umpiring) or go the full route. I don't get the partial use of technology.
Awesome series. Let's Go Giants!
To be fair, 71Bear is not being Nate Silver, he's nowhere close. 71Bears' evaluation that ducky23 quoted was, as shown in 71Bear's post, based on 71Bear suffering from PTSD after the 2016 season, clearly not a Nate Silver type of evaluation. Nate's website updates us every day as to what the Giants are "on target" for, as opposed to "I'll wait until the tough 2 1/2 week post-All-Star break stretch is over to update my mid-June numbers." You don't have to wait with bated breath for Nate. And PTSD is not factored in to the FiveThirtyEight analysis.GMP said:ducky23 said:71Bear said:The 80-87 reflects mid-June data. The next update with come six weeks after that time. I am optimistic that it will be better but I wants to see some more results before making any adjustments. 2016 is too fresh in the memory to do otherwise.Cal8285 said:I'm not sure that the 2016 Giants are the best support to avoid updating the 80-87 range. In order to get only 87 wins, the Giants have to have the WORST post-All-Star game record in HISTORY of any team that had the best record at the break. The target -- the Giants of 2016.71Bear said:At the All-Star break:Cal8285 said:So, 26 days after your last floor/ceiling post, are you ready to bump up either the floor or the ceiling? On 6/16, you thought the Giants ceiling was a 45-50 finish, the floor was a 38-57 finish. How about now?71Bear said:Great question...GMP said:71Bear said:...and 85 would require a 72-70 finish. That sounds like a reasonable range (between 62-72 wins from this point forward).GMP said:71Bear said:Regression to the mean...GMP said:71Bear said:San Diego for real? That is laughable. Let's see... 52 years and counting - zero World Series titles.....bonsallbear said:
It's going to be an interesting season. Padres are for real. Are the Giants?
As for SF, they are on track for an 75-85 win season. That is in line with expectations. Does that qualify as "for real"? I guess it depends on your definition......
75-85 wins? They're on pace for 105 wins. I'm not saying that will happen by any stretch, but that's the pace they are presently at.
They needed a decent start to have a chance to hit their expectation.
As I said - I'm not saying 105 is happening. But 75 is way too low at this point. Something very bad would have to happen. They'd have to finish 62-80. I don't see that.
Heck, I am a Giants fan. I would love to see them post 105. However, I think it is a year too soon to expect more than 85......
Addendum...
In 2013, SF started off 13-7 and wound up winning 76 games......
Almost two months later, the Giants remain in first place with the best record in the NL and are on pace for 101 wins. They'd have to finish 33-62 to finish with 75 wins. They'd have to finish 43-52 to finish with 85 wins.
Do you still think 75-85 is the number?
I'll bump the floor up to 80 and the ceiling to 87. The bullpen is the big question mark. To avoid another second half collapse (see 2016), Zaidi has to make a deal or two at the trade deadline to secure more pitching.
I have full confidence in SF in the years to come (the combination of a loaded farm system and Zaidi's ability to spot talent that others overlook is something that will put the parade planners back in business) but I still think 2021 is a bit too soon.
At this point, to get to 87 wins, the Giants need to go 30-43. To get to 80 wins, the Giants finish 23-50. Is that their floor?
It may be realistic to think they are not likely to keep up the current winning percentage, which would result in 103.75 wins, but if we're talking a range the Giants are "on target" for, it has to be better than 80-87, a range of 23-50 to 30-43.
2016: 57-33
2021: 57-32
Post All-Star break:
2016: 30-42
2021: ??
Final record:
2016: 87-75
2021: ??
Before updating my 80-87, I think we need to get through the first of August. 10 of the next 16 are v. LA (7) and Houston (3).
Regardless, at this point, a divisional title is still a long shot but a wild card slot is starting to come into focus.
NO TEAM has ever won fewer than 40% of its games after having the best record at the break. The Giants won 8 of their last 12 in 2016 to avoid attaining that distinction. To avoid attaining that distinction, the 2021 Giants need to finish 30-43, but it would STILL be the WORST record of any team IN HISTORY that had the best record in the majors at the break.
30-43 gets them to 87 overall. We can't update the TOP of their range to be better than making history for the worst post-All-Star game collapse of any team with the best record?
I think a better argument is that the 2016 Giants demonstrate the bottom of the likely range. Sure, the 2021 Giants could surpass the 2016 Giants for the worst collapse in history among teams with the best record at the break, but they can do that and still win 87 games. 23-50 would break the 2016 Giants' record post-All-Star break collapse by a LOT.
Sure, we'll know a little more after August 1. I agree there is a good chance the Giants will go under .500 in that stretch, it is a tough stretch, and anything over .500 will be okay IMO, the Pirates series is the only one where I will be truly disappointed if they don't get a series win. The next two weeks AFTER August 1, however, should be a stretch where they can be well over .500.
The 2016 Giants didn't really have enough margin for error in performance. While the bullpen actually had a better ERA after the break than before, the collapse of closer Casilla created a big problem -- Bochy was great with a bullpen when roles were settled. When things went wonky, it always took Bochy some time to figure it out and work his bullpen in the proper way. Casilla always seemed a couple of bad outings from losing his mental ability as closer, and in 2016, he lost it. The offense was the bigger issue, however. Belt and Posey collapsing were huge factors. Posey fighting through his physical issues while still playing is what we want our players to do, but the loss of his offense was a HUGE deal to that team.
The Farhan Giants aren't constructed this way. They have lost so many pieces already, yet have the best record. They have guys coming back. Longoria, La Stella, Belt, Posey, should all be coming back, yet the team has won in their absence. If a guy gets physical issues and can't perform, he won't be in the lineup. As it is, the team has more guys on the roster than they have spots for, and the team won't hesitate to put a player on the IL if physical issues are affecting his play, like Posey in 2016. If a guy starts being horrible, there's someone else to step in. The biggest danger is losing a couple of the quality starting pitchers. So far, they haven't lost more than one at a time, the injuries have mostly been in the #5 starter spot. A season-ending Crawford injury might be a problem, too, especially defensively. But this team just isn't constructed to have the potential for collapse like the 2016 Giants.
Sure, odds are that the team won't maintain its .640 pace, and there is a reasonable chance of enough of a reduction in wins to miss the wild-card. And the stretch between now and August 1 is tough. But 87 wins would be the worst post-All-Star game collapse in history for any team with the best record at the break, by 1/2 game over the 2016 Giants. To say the range is 80-87 wins is to say that the Giants will have the worst post-All-Star game collapse in history by a team with the best record at the break, it is just a question of whether they squeak by or blow by the 2016 Giants historical mark. I have a real hard time thinking that the 80-87 range makes any sense at this point. 87 as the bottom? Sure, but not the top.
Ok Nate silver. Waiting with bated breathe for the next update.
Lol.
While the Giants are "on pace" for 103 wins based on winning percentage, after last night's games, FiveThirtyEight effectively says the Giants are "on target" for 96 wins, while the Dodgers are "on target" for 98 wins. Those numbers represent the average number of wins based on some absurd number of simulated unplayed portions of the season.
I don't know what Nate's site had back in mid-June when 71Bear had his 80-87 number, but I'm sure it was in the 90's, above 71Bear's 80-87 range, with the top of a "range" even further above that. I'm not sure if the range should be one or two standard devisions from the mean, but I would also guess that back then, 80 was more than 2 standard deviations below the mean for expected Giants wins, but that's a guess. I'm sure Nate's people could easily tell us the range based on both one standard deviation and two, but I don't think that can be found on the website.
While Nate's site gives the Giants a 96% chance of post-season, it gives only a 33% chance of winning the division, while the Dodgers have a 53% chance of taking the West and the Padres have a 14% chance. In spite of 71Bear's evaluations being "seat of the pants" and including a Giants/Cal fan type pessimism that makes his numbers far too low, FiveThirtyEight at least agrees that the Dodgers are still favorites to win the division.
We don't need the last three nights to tell us this, but a lot of weird things happen in baseball, so who knows where things will be come October 3. From a rational, statistical perspective, however, 71Bear has not been Nate Silver but has been overly pessimistic so far this year. I blame too many years as a Giants/Cal fan and specifically his 2016 PTSD.
Cal8285 said:To be fair, 71Bear is not being Nate Silver, he's nowhere close. 71Bears' evaluation that ducky23 quoted was, as shown in 71Bear's post, based on 71Bear suffering from PTSD after the 2016 season, clearly not a Nate Silver type of evaluation. Nate's website updates us every day as to what the Giants are "on target" for, as opposed to "I'll wait until the tough 2 1/2 week post-All-Star break stretch is over to update my mid-June numbers." You don't have to wait with bated breath for Nate. And PTSD is not factored in to the FiveThirtyEight analysis.GMP said:ducky23 said:71Bear said:The 80-87 reflects mid-June data. The next update with come six weeks after that time. I am optimistic that it will be better but I wants to see some more results before making any adjustments. 2016 is too fresh in the memory to do otherwise.Cal8285 said:I'm not sure that the 2016 Giants are the best support to avoid updating the 80-87 range. In order to get only 87 wins, the Giants have to have the WORST post-All-Star game record in HISTORY of any team that had the best record at the break. The target -- the Giants of 2016.71Bear said:At the All-Star break:Cal8285 said:So, 26 days after your last floor/ceiling post, are you ready to bump up either the floor or the ceiling? On 6/16, you thought the Giants ceiling was a 45-50 finish, the floor was a 38-57 finish. How about now?71Bear said:Great question...GMP said:71Bear said:...and 85 would require a 72-70 finish. That sounds like a reasonable range (between 62-72 wins from this point forward).GMP said:71Bear said:Regression to the mean...GMP said:71Bear said:San Diego for real? That is laughable. Let's see... 52 years and counting - zero World Series titles.....bonsallbear said:
It's going to be an interesting season. Padres are for real. Are the Giants?
As for SF, they are on track for an 75-85 win season. That is in line with expectations. Does that qualify as "for real"? I guess it depends on your definition......
75-85 wins? They're on pace for 105 wins. I'm not saying that will happen by any stretch, but that's the pace they are presently at.
They needed a decent start to have a chance to hit their expectation.
As I said - I'm not saying 105 is happening. But 75 is way too low at this point. Something very bad would have to happen. They'd have to finish 62-80. I don't see that.
Heck, I am a Giants fan. I would love to see them post 105. However, I think it is a year too soon to expect more than 85......
Addendum...
In 2013, SF started off 13-7 and wound up winning 76 games......
Almost two months later, the Giants remain in first place with the best record in the NL and are on pace for 101 wins. They'd have to finish 33-62 to finish with 75 wins. They'd have to finish 43-52 to finish with 85 wins.
Do you still think 75-85 is the number?
I'll bump the floor up to 80 and the ceiling to 87. The bullpen is the big question mark. To avoid another second half collapse (see 2016), Zaidi has to make a deal or two at the trade deadline to secure more pitching.
I have full confidence in SF in the years to come (the combination of a loaded farm system and Zaidi's ability to spot talent that others overlook is something that will put the parade planners back in business) but I still think 2021 is a bit too soon.
At this point, to get to 87 wins, the Giants need to go 30-43. To get to 80 wins, the Giants finish 23-50. Is that their floor?
It may be realistic to think they are not likely to keep up the current winning percentage, which would result in 103.75 wins, but if we're talking a range the Giants are "on target" for, it has to be better than 80-87, a range of 23-50 to 30-43.
2016: 57-33
2021: 57-32
Post All-Star break:
2016: 30-42
2021: ??
Final record:
2016: 87-75
2021: ??
Before updating my 80-87, I think we need to get through the first of August. 10 of the next 16 are v. LA (7) and Houston (3).
Regardless, at this point, a divisional title is still a long shot but a wild card slot is starting to come into focus.
NO TEAM has ever won fewer than 40% of its games after having the best record at the break. The Giants won 8 of their last 12 in 2016 to avoid attaining that distinction. To avoid attaining that distinction, the 2021 Giants need to finish 30-43, but it would STILL be the WORST record of any team IN HISTORY that had the best record in the majors at the break.
30-43 gets them to 87 overall. We can't update the TOP of their range to be better than making history for the worst post-All-Star game collapse of any team with the best record?
I think a better argument is that the 2016 Giants demonstrate the bottom of the likely range. Sure, the 2021 Giants could surpass the 2016 Giants for the worst collapse in history among teams with the best record at the break, but they can do that and still win 87 games. 23-50 would break the 2016 Giants' record post-All-Star break collapse by a LOT.
Sure, we'll know a little more after August 1. I agree there is a good chance the Giants will go under .500 in that stretch, it is a tough stretch, and anything over .500 will be okay IMO, the Pirates series is the only one where I will be truly disappointed if they don't get a series win. The next two weeks AFTER August 1, however, should be a stretch where they can be well over .500.
The 2016 Giants didn't really have enough margin for error in performance. While the bullpen actually had a better ERA after the break than before, the collapse of closer Casilla created a big problem -- Bochy was great with a bullpen when roles were settled. When things went wonky, it always took Bochy some time to figure it out and work his bullpen in the proper way. Casilla always seemed a couple of bad outings from losing his mental ability as closer, and in 2016, he lost it. The offense was the bigger issue, however. Belt and Posey collapsing were huge factors. Posey fighting through his physical issues while still playing is what we want our players to do, but the loss of his offense was a HUGE deal to that team.
The Farhan Giants aren't constructed this way. They have lost so many pieces already, yet have the best record. They have guys coming back. Longoria, La Stella, Belt, Posey, should all be coming back, yet the team has won in their absence. If a guy gets physical issues and can't perform, he won't be in the lineup. As it is, the team has more guys on the roster than they have spots for, and the team won't hesitate to put a player on the IL if physical issues are affecting his play, like Posey in 2016. If a guy starts being horrible, there's someone else to step in. The biggest danger is losing a couple of the quality starting pitchers. So far, they haven't lost more than one at a time, the injuries have mostly been in the #5 starter spot. A season-ending Crawford injury might be a problem, too, especially defensively. But this team just isn't constructed to have the potential for collapse like the 2016 Giants.
Sure, odds are that the team won't maintain its .640 pace, and there is a reasonable chance of enough of a reduction in wins to miss the wild-card. And the stretch between now and August 1 is tough. But 87 wins would be the worst post-All-Star game collapse in history for any team with the best record at the break, by 1/2 game over the 2016 Giants. To say the range is 80-87 wins is to say that the Giants will have the worst post-All-Star game collapse in history by a team with the best record at the break, it is just a question of whether they squeak by or blow by the 2016 Giants historical mark. I have a real hard time thinking that the 80-87 range makes any sense at this point. 87 as the bottom? Sure, but not the top.
Ok Nate silver. Waiting with bated breathe for the next update.
Lol.
While the Giants are "on pace" for 103 wins based on winning percentage, after last night's games, FiveThirtyEight effectively says the Giants are "on target" for 96 wins, while the Dodgers are "on target" for 98 wins. Those numbers represent the average number of wins based on some absurd number of simulated unplayed portions of the season.
I don't know what Nate's site had back in mid-June when 71Bear had his 80-87 number, but I'm sure it was in the 90's, above 71Bear's 80-87 range, with the top of a "range" even further above that. I'm not sure if the range should be one or two standard devisions from the mean, but I would also guess that back then, 80 was more than 2 standard deviations below the mean for expected Giants wins, but that's a guess. I'm sure Nate's people could easily tell us the range based on both one standard deviation and two, but I don't think that can be found on the website.
While Nate's site gives the Giants a 96% chance of post-season, it gives only a 33% chance of winning the division, while the Dodgers have a 53% chance of taking the West and the Padres have a 14% chance. In spite of 71Bear's evaluations being "seat of the pants" and including a Giants/Cal fan type pessimism that makes his numbers far too low, FiveThirtyEight at least agrees that the Dodgers are still favorites to win the division.
We don't need the last three nights to tell us this, but a lot of weird things happen in baseball, so who knows where things will be come October 3. From a rational, statistical perspective, however, 71Bear has not been Nate Silver but has been overly pessimistic so far this year. I blame too many years as a Giants/Cal fan and specifically his 2016 PTSD.
On June 18, FiveThirtyEight had the Giants at 92-70.
I thought the Nate Silver joke was funny because of 71's saying his prediction was based on "mid-June data," which was funny.
One problem with using replay for a checked swing is that the rule doesn't actually define what is a swing and what isn't. It is up to the umpire to decide. A swing is "an attempt to strike at the ball." What the hell does that mean? The NCAA has a specific rule about how far the bat can go to make it is swing, so at least there is arguably something objective. MLB doesn't have anything, in spite of whatever people may think about how far the bat can go. Unless and until MLB amends its rule to make it clear cut, a swing is whatever the umpire decides is a swing.82gradDLSdad said:NVBear78 said:
Go Gigantes!
p.s. as a long time Giant fan I sure feel like many more games like this have gone against us with the Dodgers than for us.
Same thing on the calls-definitely a swing by Ruf but even more obviously It should have been ball 3 for a 3 and 0 count previous to that....
I'm old and a lifelong baseball fan so you'd think I hate replay. For the life of me I can't understand why baseball is taking so long implementing the ball-strike technology used by tv to show the strike zone and replay on check swings. Ruf's AB was exhibit A in my argument. He should have had a 3-0 count instead of 2-1 and it can be argued he swung at what should have been ball 4 only because what should have been ball 3 was called a strike. And, yes, he did not check his swing on ball 4. These were game changing missed calls. Either no technological replay (and live with the human errors in umpiring) or go the full route. I don't get the partial use of technology.
Without a rule, there can never be indisputable video evidence that the call was wrong. The video review ump can't know how the on-field ump interprets the rule, so the original call ALWAYS might be right. I suppose you could let the on-field ump decide if he sees something that would change his mind, but then we'd need quality on-field video screens just for checked swings. And who is the proper "on-field" umpire? I suppose it is the home plate umpire if the home plate ump called a swing or called no swing and refused to appeal, or the first/third base ump if there was an appeal and a swing called, but it is effectively both the home plate and the first/third based ump if the call was "no swing" and the home plate ump granted an appeal, so who decides in that situation? IEven if there is a rule, it will be rare when there is indisputable video evidence that the call was wrong, because video angles for check swings aren't perfect, but there needs to be a rule before there can be replay. Without a rule, there can NEVER be "indisputable video evidence," so that review needs an on-field umpire to review his own call. While it might make sense to actually have an objective rule regarding what a checked swing is, I can't get too worked up about not having replay for it, especially while there is no rule.
I mostly agree about implementation of the computerized strike zone, if only to create consistency when we have the technology to do it. I think it may create more impossible to hit strikes, and I'm not bothered by a pitched called a strike when the pitched was outside the zone by a sliver of the ball, or the pitch is called a ball when only a tiny sliver was in the zone, but calls like the 2-0 call last night are inexcusable and can change a game, and make me want a computerized strike zone.
There are some calls that technology can never fix. There were balls called foul Wednesday on balls over the third base bag that probably were called incorrectly in favor of the Giants, one a ball that Pujols hit that would probably have been a double, the other one that Flores hit in the 9th that probably would have been an out and was followed by the Flores HR. But unless you have a camera directly over the bad, you'll never be able to tell, and that is pretty impossible to do except in indoor stadiums.
Where there is technology available to be certain the call on the field was wrong, fine, use replay. But we'll never have review of every wrong call, so we live with partial use of technology. But I agree, the number of plays where technology can be used could expand, and we do have the technology for ball and strike calls.
Only a blind man doesn't call that a swing.
In a nutshell, you cannot use technology to make judgment calls. The NFL tried to implement replay to determine PI calls and it was a miserable failure. Beginning this season the NFL will revert to leaving PI calls in the hands of the referees.Cal8285 said:One problem with using replay for a checked swing is that the rule doesn't actually define what is a swing and what isn't. It is up to the umpire to decide. A swing is "an attempt to strike at the ball." What the hell does that mean? The NCAA has a specific rule about how far the bat can go to make it is swing, so at least there is arguably something objective. MLB doesn't have anything, in spite of whatever people may think about how far the bat can go. Unless and until MLB amends its rule to make it clear cut, a swing is whatever the umpire decides is a swing.82gradDLSdad said:NVBear78 said:
Go Gigantes!
p.s. as a long time Giant fan I sure feel like many more games like this have gone against us with the Dodgers than for us.
Same thing on the calls-definitely a swing by Ruf but even more obviously It should have been ball 3 for a 3 and 0 count previous to that....
I'm old and a lifelong baseball fan so you'd think I hate replay. For the life of me I can't understand why baseball is taking so long implementing the ball-strike technology used by tv to show the strike zone and replay on check swings. Ruf's AB was exhibit A in my argument. He should have had a 3-0 count instead of 2-1 and it can be argued he swung at what should have been ball 4 only because what should have been ball 3 was called a strike. And, yes, he did not check his swing on ball 4. These were game changing missed calls. Either no technological replay (and live with the human errors in umpiring) or go the full route. I don't get the partial use of technology.
Without a rule, there can never be indisputable video evidence that the call was wrong. The video review ump can't know how the on-field ump interprets the rule, so the original call ALWAYS might be right. I suppose you could let the on-field ump decide if he sees something that would change his mind, but then we'd need quality on-field video screens just for checked swings. And who is the proper "on-field" umpire? I suppose it is the home plate umpire if the home plate ump called a swing or called no swing and refused to appeal, or the first/third base ump if there was an appeal and a swing called, but it is effectively both the home plate and the first/third based ump if the call was "no swing" and the home plate ump granted an appeal, so who decides in that situation? IEven if there is a rule, it will be rare when there is indisputable video evidence that the call was wrong, because video angles for check swings aren't perfect, but there needs to be a rule before there can be replay. Without a rule, there can NEVER be "indisputable video evidence," so that review needs an on-field umpire to review his own call. While it might make sense to actually have an objective rule regarding what a checked swing is, I can't get too worked up about not having replay for it, especially while there is no rule.
I mostly agree about implementation of the computerized strike zone, if only to create consistency when we have the technology to do it. I think it may create more impossible to hit strikes, and I'm not bothered by a pitched called a strike when the pitched was outside the zone by a sliver of the ball, or the pitch is called a ball when only a tiny sliver was in the zone, but calls like the 2-0 call last night are inexcusable and can change a game, and make me want a computerized strike zone.
There are some calls that technology can never fix. There were balls called foul Wednesday on balls over the third base bag that probably were called incorrectly in favor of the Giants, one a ball that Pujols hit that would probably have been a double, the other one that Flores hit in the 9th that probably would have been an out and was followed by the Flores HR. But unless you have a camera directly over the bad, you'll never be able to tell, and that is pretty impossible to do except in indoor stadiums.
Where there is technology available to be certain the call on the field was wrong, fine, use replay. But we'll never have review of every wrong call, so we live with partial use of technology. But I agree, the number of plays where technology can be used could expand, and we do have the technology for ball and strike calls.
In baseball, a checked swing is a judgment call. No matter how much technology you bring to bear, it will remain a judgment call. In this instance, it appears that Ruf did complete his swing. However, the first base umpire didn't see it that way and life goes on. Heck, if Jansen had not loaded the bases and given up a run before the fateful call, we wouldn't be talking about it. As always, a specific call did not decide the outcome of the game, the pitcher's inability to make pitches when he had to determined the outcome.
The Prime Directive of sports: Never put yourself in a position where the officials/referees can determine the outcome of the game. Jansen violated the Prime Directive.
As has been noted, Jansen also got a super generous strike call on the third pitch of the Ruf at-bat, which would have made the count 3-0 rather than 2-1. It might not have even gotten to 2 strikes without that call. Win some, lose some.
That said, yes, Ruf did swing at that last one.
That said, yes, Ruf did swing at that last one.
sycasey said:
As has been noted, Jansen also got a super generous strike call on the third pitch of the Ruf at-bat, which would have made the count 3-0 rather than 2-1. It might not have even gotten to 2 strikes without that call. Win some, lose some.
That said, yes, Ruf did swing at that last one.
I think it was Baggarly who reported the difference in expected on base percentage between 3-0 and 2-1 and it was massive - like 500 points. Ruf got hosed long before the Dodgers did.
GMP said:sycasey said:
As has been noted, Jansen also got a super generous strike call on the third pitch of the Ruf at-bat, which would have made the count 3-0 rather than 2-1. It might not have even gotten to 2 strikes without that call. Win some, lose some.
That said, yes, Ruf did swing at that last one.
I think it was Baggarly who reported the difference in expected on base percentage between 3-0 and 2-1 and it was massive - like 500 points. Ruf got hosed long before the Dodgers did.
Totally. Once it's 2-1 the batter feels more pressure to swing at anything close, particularly if the ump just called a strike on a pitch 6 inches outside. Sure enough, he chased one after that to make it 2-2. He doesn't swing if it's 3-0.
GMP said:Cal8285 said:To be fair, 71Bear is not being Nate Silver, he's nowhere close. 71Bears' evaluation that ducky23 quoted was, as shown in 71Bear's post, based on 71Bear suffering from PTSD after the 2016 season, clearly not a Nate Silver type of evaluation. Nate's website updates us every day as to what the Giants are "on target" for, as opposed to "I'll wait until the tough 2 1/2 week post-All-Star break stretch is over to update my mid-June numbers." You don't have to wait with bated breath for Nate. And PTSD is not factored in to the FiveThirtyEight analysis.GMP said:ducky23 said:71Bear said:The 80-87 reflects mid-June data. The next update with come six weeks after that time. I am optimistic that it will be better but I wants to see some more results before making any adjustments. 2016 is too fresh in the memory to do otherwise.Cal8285 said:I'm not sure that the 2016 Giants are the best support to avoid updating the 80-87 range. In order to get only 87 wins, the Giants have to have the WORST post-All-Star game record in HISTORY of any team that had the best record at the break. The target -- the Giants of 2016.71Bear said:At the All-Star break:Cal8285 said:So, 26 days after your last floor/ceiling post, are you ready to bump up either the floor or the ceiling? On 6/16, you thought the Giants ceiling was a 45-50 finish, the floor was a 38-57 finish. How about now?71Bear said:Great question...GMP said:71Bear said:...and 85 would require a 72-70 finish. That sounds like a reasonable range (between 62-72 wins from this point forward).GMP said:71Bear said:Regression to the mean...GMP said:71Bear said:San Diego for real? That is laughable. Let's see... 52 years and counting - zero World Series titles.....bonsallbear said:
It's going to be an interesting season. Padres are for real. Are the Giants?
As for SF, they are on track for an 75-85 win season. That is in line with expectations. Does that qualify as "for real"? I guess it depends on your definition......
75-85 wins? They're on pace for 105 wins. I'm not saying that will happen by any stretch, but that's the pace they are presently at.
They needed a decent start to have a chance to hit their expectation.
As I said - I'm not saying 105 is happening. But 75 is way too low at this point. Something very bad would have to happen. They'd have to finish 62-80. I don't see that.
Heck, I am a Giants fan. I would love to see them post 105. However, I think it is a year too soon to expect more than 85......
Addendum...
In 2013, SF started off 13-7 and wound up winning 76 games......
Almost two months later, the Giants remain in first place with the best record in the NL and are on pace for 101 wins. They'd have to finish 33-62 to finish with 75 wins. They'd have to finish 43-52 to finish with 85 wins.
Do you still think 75-85 is the number?
I'll bump the floor up to 80 and the ceiling to 87. The bullpen is the big question mark. To avoid another second half collapse (see 2016), Zaidi has to make a deal or two at the trade deadline to secure more pitching.
I have full confidence in SF in the years to come (the combination of a loaded farm system and Zaidi's ability to spot talent that others overlook is something that will put the parade planners back in business) but I still think 2021 is a bit too soon.
At this point, to get to 87 wins, the Giants need to go 30-43. To get to 80 wins, the Giants finish 23-50. Is that their floor?
It may be realistic to think they are not likely to keep up the current winning percentage, which would result in 103.75 wins, but if we're talking a range the Giants are "on target" for, it has to be better than 80-87, a range of 23-50 to 30-43.
2016: 57-33
2021: 57-32
Post All-Star break:
2016: 30-42
2021: ??
Final record:
2016: 87-75
2021: ??
Before updating my 80-87, I think we need to get through the first of August. 10 of the next 16 are v. LA (7) and Houston (3).
Regardless, at this point, a divisional title is still a long shot but a wild card slot is starting to come into focus.
NO TEAM has ever won fewer than 40% of its games after having the best record at the break. The Giants won 8 of their last 12 in 2016 to avoid attaining that distinction. To avoid attaining that distinction, the 2021 Giants need to finish 30-43, but it would STILL be the WORST record of any team IN HISTORY that had the best record in the majors at the break.
30-43 gets them to 87 overall. We can't update the TOP of their range to be better than making history for the worst post-All-Star game collapse of any team with the best record?
I think a better argument is that the 2016 Giants demonstrate the bottom of the likely range. Sure, the 2021 Giants could surpass the 2016 Giants for the worst collapse in history among teams with the best record at the break, but they can do that and still win 87 games. 23-50 would break the 2016 Giants' record post-All-Star break collapse by a LOT.
Sure, we'll know a little more after August 1. I agree there is a good chance the Giants will go under .500 in that stretch, it is a tough stretch, and anything over .500 will be okay IMO, the Pirates series is the only one where I will be truly disappointed if they don't get a series win. The next two weeks AFTER August 1, however, should be a stretch where they can be well over .500.
The 2016 Giants didn't really have enough margin for error in performance. While the bullpen actually had a better ERA after the break than before, the collapse of closer Casilla created a big problem -- Bochy was great with a bullpen when roles were settled. When things went wonky, it always took Bochy some time to figure it out and work his bullpen in the proper way. Casilla always seemed a couple of bad outings from losing his mental ability as closer, and in 2016, he lost it. The offense was the bigger issue, however. Belt and Posey collapsing were huge factors. Posey fighting through his physical issues while still playing is what we want our players to do, but the loss of his offense was a HUGE deal to that team.
The Farhan Giants aren't constructed this way. They have lost so many pieces already, yet have the best record. They have guys coming back. Longoria, La Stella, Belt, Posey, should all be coming back, yet the team has won in their absence. If a guy gets physical issues and can't perform, he won't be in the lineup. As it is, the team has more guys on the roster than they have spots for, and the team won't hesitate to put a player on the IL if physical issues are affecting his play, like Posey in 2016. If a guy starts being horrible, there's someone else to step in. The biggest danger is losing a couple of the quality starting pitchers. So far, they haven't lost more than one at a time, the injuries have mostly been in the #5 starter spot. A season-ending Crawford injury might be a problem, too, especially defensively. But this team just isn't constructed to have the potential for collapse like the 2016 Giants.
Sure, odds are that the team won't maintain its .640 pace, and there is a reasonable chance of enough of a reduction in wins to miss the wild-card. And the stretch between now and August 1 is tough. But 87 wins would be the worst post-All-Star game collapse in history for any team with the best record at the break, by 1/2 game over the 2016 Giants. To say the range is 80-87 wins is to say that the Giants will have the worst post-All-Star game collapse in history by a team with the best record at the break, it is just a question of whether they squeak by or blow by the 2016 Giants historical mark. I have a real hard time thinking that the 80-87 range makes any sense at this point. 87 as the bottom? Sure, but not the top.
Ok Nate silver. Waiting with bated breathe for the next update.
Lol.
While the Giants are "on pace" for 103 wins based on winning percentage, after last night's games, FiveThirtyEight effectively says the Giants are "on target" for 96 wins, while the Dodgers are "on target" for 98 wins. Those numbers represent the average number of wins based on some absurd number of simulated unplayed portions of the season.
I don't know what Nate's site had back in mid-June when 71Bear had his 80-87 number, but I'm sure it was in the 90's, above 71Bear's 80-87 range, with the top of a "range" even further above that. I'm not sure if the range should be one or two standard devisions from the mean, but I would also guess that back then, 80 was more than 2 standard deviations below the mean for expected Giants wins, but that's a guess. I'm sure Nate's people could easily tell us the range based on both one standard deviation and two, but I don't think that can be found on the website.
While Nate's site gives the Giants a 96% chance of post-season, it gives only a 33% chance of winning the division, while the Dodgers have a 53% chance of taking the West and the Padres have a 14% chance. In spite of 71Bear's evaluations being "seat of the pants" and including a Giants/Cal fan type pessimism that makes his numbers far too low, FiveThirtyEight at least agrees that the Dodgers are still favorites to win the division.
We don't need the last three nights to tell us this, but a lot of weird things happen in baseball, so who knows where things will be come October 3. From a rational, statistical perspective, however, 71Bear has not been Nate Silver but has been overly pessimistic so far this year. I blame too many years as a Giants/Cal fan and specifically his 2016 PTSD.
On June 18, FiveThirtyEight had the Giants at 92-70.
I thought the Nate Silver joke was funny because of 71's saying his prediction was based on "mid-June data," which was funny.
Yeah, I don't think anyone is comparing 71 bear to Nate silver. As Gmp noted, I just think it's amusing how seriously 71bear takes his "predictions" considering his accuracy so far.
Yes, a big difference in "expected on base percentage," but we'll never know how things would have played out if the 2-0 pitch properly gets called a ball. Surely Jansen doesn't throw the same pitch 3-0 that he did 2-1 (a pitch out of the strike zone that Ruf swings at), and surely Ruf has a take sign 3-0, since Jansen had been a little shaky with control (wow, that 3-2 pitch to Vosler!), and he has to come in again at least on 3-1, because even with a green light, Ruf isn't likely going out of the zone 3-1. Does Ruf get ball 4 on 3-0 ? Does he get ball 4 on 3-1? Does he get a grooved fastball 3-1 that Ruf hits out, or otherwise gets a base hit on? Does Ruf swing and pop up or otherwise make an out 3-1? Or do we get to 3-2, but not having been hosed earlier, Ruf isn't tempted to swing at that pitch out of the zone on 3-2?GMP said:sycasey said:
As has been noted, Jansen also got a super generous strike call on the third pitch of the Ruf at-bat, which would have made the count 3-0 rather than 2-1. It might not have even gotten to 2 strikes without that call. Win some, lose some.
That said, yes, Ruf did swing at that last one.
I think it was Baggarly who reported the difference in expected on base percentage between 3-0 and 2-1 and it was massive - like 500 points. Ruf got hosed long before the Dodgers did.
That 2-0 call was horrible, HORRIBLE. There is no good excuse for a major league umpire to call that pitch a strike. Ruf definitely was hosed before getting the benefit of the check swing call.
I agree with 71Bear that replay doesn't work for what he is calling a "judgment call," if by "judgment" you mean there is no black and white under the rules (like safe or out or, in theory, in the defined strike zone or not), as opposed to "judgement call" in the sense of old rule 7.04 that provided you can't play a game under protest based on a judgment call (meaning any call that didn't involve a rules screw up, but judging things like safe or out).
And under that definition, boy, is swing or no swing a judgment call, since swing isn't defined. A pitch is a strike if it is Is "struck at by the batter and is missed." What does it mean if a ball is "struck at??" Different people like to define it differently, but the rules don't define it, so the umpire gets to decide.
Krukow likes to point out the swings in the "50-50" zone, but sometimes he'll say a swing is in the "30-70 zone." In either case, what he is saying is that the rule doesn't tell you, and umpires can legitimately call it either way, because there IS NO CLEAR DEFINITION. Ruf's swing was more like in the 98-2 zone. While under the rules, the 2-0 pitch was a ball, under the rules, Ruf's swing was arguably not a swing, because the rules don't define it. We can say it is a bad call because 98% of the time umpires will call it a strike. But is it a WRONG call under the rules as written? No.
After the Giants and Ruf were clearly hosed under the rules, the Dodgers were hosed because a call was made other than how it is usually made, but they weren't hosed under the rules.
At the time, the Dodgers should have been happy the 2-0 pitch was called a strike, but in hindsight, the Dodgers should wish that the 2-0 pitch had been called a ball, because we KNOW what happened when it was called a strike, in hindsight it is 100% certain the Dodgers lose with it called a strike. Because we don't know what would have happened If it had been called a ball, MAYBE the Dodgers win, we'll never know.
A rules aside, a recent change that has been largely ignored is that games can no longer be played under protest. A bad/mistaken rule interpretation by the umps? Too bad. The pine tar game would not get replayed, Brett is out, game is over. Only 15 protests were upheld over 110 years, and many of them pretty meaningless. For instance, the Mets "win" a protest of a Giants game in 1977, essentially arguing a judgment call the game should have been halted earlier due to bad rain, but win that the umpires incorrectly called the game immediately after 6 innings with the Giants ahead 10-0 instead of waiting 40 minutes (the Mets decide a day or two before the game is to be resumed not to complete the game). But now, there is no recourse if the umps screw up a rule.
LOL! Anyone who has followed my predictions over the years knows that I follow the Cosell Rule of Forecasting - make a lot of crazy predictions and get lucky once in a while..ducky23 said:GMP said:Cal8285 said:To be fair, 71Bear is not being Nate Silver, he's nowhere close. 71Bears' evaluation that ducky23 quoted was, as shown in 71Bear's post, based on 71Bear suffering from PTSD after the 2016 season, clearly not a Nate Silver type of evaluation. Nate's website updates us every day as to what the Giants are "on target" for, as opposed to "I'll wait until the tough 2 1/2 week post-All-Star break stretch is over to update my mid-June numbers." You don't have to wait with bated breath for Nate. And PTSD is not factored in to the FiveThirtyEight analysis.GMP said:ducky23 said:71Bear said:The 80-87 reflects mid-June data. The next update with come six weeks after that time. I am optimistic that it will be better but I wants to see some more results before making any adjustments. 2016 is too fresh in the memory to do otherwise.Cal8285 said:I'm not sure that the 2016 Giants are the best support to avoid updating the 80-87 range. In order to get only 87 wins, the Giants have to have the WORST post-All-Star game record in HISTORY of any team that had the best record at the break. The target -- the Giants of 2016.71Bear said:At the All-Star break:Cal8285 said:So, 26 days after your last floor/ceiling post, are you ready to bump up either the floor or the ceiling? On 6/16, you thought the Giants ceiling was a 45-50 finish, the floor was a 38-57 finish. How about now?71Bear said:Great question...GMP said:71Bear said:...and 85 would require a 72-70 finish. That sounds like a reasonable range (between 62-72 wins from this point forward).GMP said:71Bear said:Regression to the mean...GMP said:71Bear said:San Diego for real? That is laughable. Let's see... 52 years and counting - zero World Series titles.....bonsallbear said:
It's going to be an interesting season. Padres are for real. Are the Giants?
As for SF, they are on track for an 75-85 win season. That is in line with expectations. Does that qualify as "for real"? I guess it depends on your definition......
75-85 wins? They're on pace for 105 wins. I'm not saying that will happen by any stretch, but that's the pace they are presently at.
They needed a decent start to have a chance to hit their expectation.
As I said - I'm not saying 105 is happening. But 75 is way too low at this point. Something very bad would have to happen. They'd have to finish 62-80. I don't see that.
Heck, I am a Giants fan. I would love to see them post 105. However, I think it is a year too soon to expect more than 85......
Addendum...
In 2013, SF started off 13-7 and wound up winning 76 games......
Almost two months later, the Giants remain in first place with the best record in the NL and are on pace for 101 wins. They'd have to finish 33-62 to finish with 75 wins. They'd have to finish 43-52 to finish with 85 wins.
Do you still think 75-85 is the number?
I'll bump the floor up to 80 and the ceiling to 87. The bullpen is the big question mark. To avoid another second half collapse (see 2016), Zaidi has to make a deal or two at the trade deadline to secure more pitching.
I have full confidence in SF in the years to come (the combination of a loaded farm system and Zaidi's ability to spot talent that others overlook is something that will put the parade planners back in business) but I still think 2021 is a bit too soon.
At this point, to get to 87 wins, the Giants need to go 30-43. To get to 80 wins, the Giants finish 23-50. Is that their floor?
It may be realistic to think they are not likely to keep up the current winning percentage, which would result in 103.75 wins, but if we're talking a range the Giants are "on target" for, it has to be better than 80-87, a range of 23-50 to 30-43.
2016: 57-33
2021: 57-32
Post All-Star break:
2016: 30-42
2021: ??
Final record:
2016: 87-75
2021: ??
Before updating my 80-87, I think we need to get through the first of August. 10 of the next 16 are v. LA (7) and Houston (3).
Regardless, at this point, a divisional title is still a long shot but a wild card slot is starting to come into focus.
NO TEAM has ever won fewer than 40% of its games after having the best record at the break. The Giants won 8 of their last 12 in 2016 to avoid attaining that distinction. To avoid attaining that distinction, the 2021 Giants need to finish 30-43, but it would STILL be the WORST record of any team IN HISTORY that had the best record in the majors at the break.
30-43 gets them to 87 overall. We can't update the TOP of their range to be better than making history for the worst post-All-Star game collapse of any team with the best record?
I think a better argument is that the 2016 Giants demonstrate the bottom of the likely range. Sure, the 2021 Giants could surpass the 2016 Giants for the worst collapse in history among teams with the best record at the break, but they can do that and still win 87 games. 23-50 would break the 2016 Giants' record post-All-Star break collapse by a LOT.
Sure, we'll know a little more after August 1. I agree there is a good chance the Giants will go under .500 in that stretch, it is a tough stretch, and anything over .500 will be okay IMO, the Pirates series is the only one where I will be truly disappointed if they don't get a series win. The next two weeks AFTER August 1, however, should be a stretch where they can be well over .500.
The 2016 Giants didn't really have enough margin for error in performance. While the bullpen actually had a better ERA after the break than before, the collapse of closer Casilla created a big problem -- Bochy was great with a bullpen when roles were settled. When things went wonky, it always took Bochy some time to figure it out and work his bullpen in the proper way. Casilla always seemed a couple of bad outings from losing his mental ability as closer, and in 2016, he lost it. The offense was the bigger issue, however. Belt and Posey collapsing were huge factors. Posey fighting through his physical issues while still playing is what we want our players to do, but the loss of his offense was a HUGE deal to that team.
The Farhan Giants aren't constructed this way. They have lost so many pieces already, yet have the best record. They have guys coming back. Longoria, La Stella, Belt, Posey, should all be coming back, yet the team has won in their absence. If a guy gets physical issues and can't perform, he won't be in the lineup. As it is, the team has more guys on the roster than they have spots for, and the team won't hesitate to put a player on the IL if physical issues are affecting his play, like Posey in 2016. If a guy starts being horrible, there's someone else to step in. The biggest danger is losing a couple of the quality starting pitchers. So far, they haven't lost more than one at a time, the injuries have mostly been in the #5 starter spot. A season-ending Crawford injury might be a problem, too, especially defensively. But this team just isn't constructed to have the potential for collapse like the 2016 Giants.
Sure, odds are that the team won't maintain its .640 pace, and there is a reasonable chance of enough of a reduction in wins to miss the wild-card. And the stretch between now and August 1 is tough. But 87 wins would be the worst post-All-Star game collapse in history for any team with the best record at the break, by 1/2 game over the 2016 Giants. To say the range is 80-87 wins is to say that the Giants will have the worst post-All-Star game collapse in history by a team with the best record at the break, it is just a question of whether they squeak by or blow by the 2016 Giants historical mark. I have a real hard time thinking that the 80-87 range makes any sense at this point. 87 as the bottom? Sure, but not the top.
Ok Nate silver. Waiting with bated breathe for the next update.
Lol.
While the Giants are "on pace" for 103 wins based on winning percentage, after last night's games, FiveThirtyEight effectively says the Giants are "on target" for 96 wins, while the Dodgers are "on target" for 98 wins. Those numbers represent the average number of wins based on some absurd number of simulated unplayed portions of the season.
I don't know what Nate's site had back in mid-June when 71Bear had his 80-87 number, but I'm sure it was in the 90's, above 71Bear's 80-87 range, with the top of a "range" even further above that. I'm not sure if the range should be one or two standard devisions from the mean, but I would also guess that back then, 80 was more than 2 standard deviations below the mean for expected Giants wins, but that's a guess. I'm sure Nate's people could easily tell us the range based on both one standard deviation and two, but I don't think that can be found on the website.
While Nate's site gives the Giants a 96% chance of post-season, it gives only a 33% chance of winning the division, while the Dodgers have a 53% chance of taking the West and the Padres have a 14% chance. In spite of 71Bear's evaluations being "seat of the pants" and including a Giants/Cal fan type pessimism that makes his numbers far too low, FiveThirtyEight at least agrees that the Dodgers are still favorites to win the division.
We don't need the last three nights to tell us this, but a lot of weird things happen in baseball, so who knows where things will be come October 3. From a rational, statistical perspective, however, 71Bear has not been Nate Silver but has been overly pessimistic so far this year. I blame too many years as a Giants/Cal fan and specifically his 2016 PTSD.
On June 18, FiveThirtyEight had the Giants at 92-70.
I thought the Nate Silver joke was funny because of 71's saying his prediction was based on "mid-June data," which was funny.
Yeah, I don't think anyone is comparing 71 bear to Nate silver. As Gmp noted, I just think it's amusing how seriously 71bear takes his "predictions" considering his accuracy so far.
I'm a little too superstitious or too cowardly (or both) to make any predictions. At the risk of stating the obvious, there's a lot of baseball left -- about 60 games (or, as Dodger fans like to call it, "a full season") -- so I'm just going to sit back and hope my heart survives this upcoming series and the ensuing two months.71Bear said:
LOL! Anyone who has followed my predictions over the years knows that I follow the Cosell Rule of Forecasting - make a lot of crazy predictions and get lucky once in a while..
The Giants even getting a wild card spot would mean they've well surpassed my expectations for this season, and at this point they seem virtually guaranteed to do that, at minimum.
I'd feel a lot better if they had a Madbum type of pitcher on their roster. Gausman's recent struggles are making me nervous for the rest of the season and any potential WC game.sycasey said:
The Giants even getting a wild card spot would mean they've well surpassed my expectations for this season, and at this point they seem virtually guaranteed to do that, at minimum.
There is a difference, however, between stating a range of how many games the Giants are "on target" to win, and making a crazy prediction about how many they WILL win.71Bear said:LOL! Anyone who has followed my predictions over the years knows that I follow the Cosell Rule of Forecasting - make a lot of crazy predictions and get lucky once in a while..ducky23 said:GMP said:Cal8285 said:To be fair, 71Bear is not being Nate Silver, he's nowhere close. 71Bears' evaluation that ducky23 quoted was, as shown in 71Bear's post, based on 71Bear suffering from PTSD after the 2016 season, clearly not a Nate Silver type of evaluation. Nate's website updates us every day as to what the Giants are "on target" for, as opposed to "I'll wait until the tough 2 1/2 week post-All-Star break stretch is over to update my mid-June numbers." You don't have to wait with bated breath for Nate. And PTSD is not factored in to the FiveThirtyEight analysis.GMP said:ducky23 said:71Bear said:The 80-87 reflects mid-June data. The next update with come six weeks after that time. I am optimistic that it will be better but I wants to see some more results before making any adjustments. 2016 is too fresh in the memory to do otherwise.Cal8285 said:I'm not sure that the 2016 Giants are the best support to avoid updating the 80-87 range. In order to get only 87 wins, the Giants have to have the WORST post-All-Star game record in HISTORY of any team that had the best record at the break. The target -- the Giants of 2016.71Bear said:At the All-Star break:Cal8285 said:So, 26 days after your last floor/ceiling post, are you ready to bump up either the floor or the ceiling? On 6/16, you thought the Giants ceiling was a 45-50 finish, the floor was a 38-57 finish. How about now?71Bear said:Great question...GMP said:71Bear said:...and 85 would require a 72-70 finish. That sounds like a reasonable range (between 62-72 wins from this point forward).GMP said:71Bear said:Regression to the mean...GMP said:71Bear said:San Diego for real? That is laughable. Let's see... 52 years and counting - zero World Series titles.....bonsallbear said:
It's going to be an interesting season. Padres are for real. Are the Giants?
As for SF, they are on track for an 75-85 win season. That is in line with expectations. Does that qualify as "for real"? I guess it depends on your definition......
75-85 wins? They're on pace for 105 wins. I'm not saying that will happen by any stretch, but that's the pace they are presently at.
They needed a decent start to have a chance to hit their expectation.
As I said - I'm not saying 105 is happening. But 75 is way too low at this point. Something very bad would have to happen. They'd have to finish 62-80. I don't see that.
Heck, I am a Giants fan. I would love to see them post 105. However, I think it is a year too soon to expect more than 85......
Addendum...
In 2013, SF started off 13-7 and wound up winning 76 games......
Almost two months later, the Giants remain in first place with the best record in the NL and are on pace for 101 wins. They'd have to finish 33-62 to finish with 75 wins. They'd have to finish 43-52 to finish with 85 wins.
Do you still think 75-85 is the number?
I'll bump the floor up to 80 and the ceiling to 87. The bullpen is the big question mark. To avoid another second half collapse (see 2016), Zaidi has to make a deal or two at the trade deadline to secure more pitching.
I have full confidence in SF in the years to come (the combination of a loaded farm system and Zaidi's ability to spot talent that others overlook is something that will put the parade planners back in business) but I still think 2021 is a bit too soon.
At this point, to get to 87 wins, the Giants need to go 30-43. To get to 80 wins, the Giants finish 23-50. Is that their floor?
It may be realistic to think they are not likely to keep up the current winning percentage, which would result in 103.75 wins, but if we're talking a range the Giants are "on target" for, it has to be better than 80-87, a range of 23-50 to 30-43.
2016: 57-33
2021: 57-32
Post All-Star break:
2016: 30-42
2021: ??
Final record:
2016: 87-75
2021: ??
Before updating my 80-87, I think we need to get through the first of August. 10 of the next 16 are v. LA (7) and Houston (3).
Regardless, at this point, a divisional title is still a long shot but a wild card slot is starting to come into focus.
NO TEAM has ever won fewer than 40% of its games after having the best record at the break. The Giants won 8 of their last 12 in 2016 to avoid attaining that distinction. To avoid attaining that distinction, the 2021 Giants need to finish 30-43, but it would STILL be the WORST record of any team IN HISTORY that had the best record in the majors at the break.
30-43 gets them to 87 overall. We can't update the TOP of their range to be better than making history for the worst post-All-Star game collapse of any team with the best record?
I think a better argument is that the 2016 Giants demonstrate the bottom of the likely range. Sure, the 2021 Giants could surpass the 2016 Giants for the worst collapse in history among teams with the best record at the break, but they can do that and still win 87 games. 23-50 would break the 2016 Giants' record post-All-Star break collapse by a LOT.
Sure, we'll know a little more after August 1. I agree there is a good chance the Giants will go under .500 in that stretch, it is a tough stretch, and anything over .500 will be okay IMO, the Pirates series is the only one where I will be truly disappointed if they don't get a series win. The next two weeks AFTER August 1, however, should be a stretch where they can be well over .500.
The 2016 Giants didn't really have enough margin for error in performance. While the bullpen actually had a better ERA after the break than before, the collapse of closer Casilla created a big problem -- Bochy was great with a bullpen when roles were settled. When things went wonky, it always took Bochy some time to figure it out and work his bullpen in the proper way. Casilla always seemed a couple of bad outings from losing his mental ability as closer, and in 2016, he lost it. The offense was the bigger issue, however. Belt and Posey collapsing were huge factors. Posey fighting through his physical issues while still playing is what we want our players to do, but the loss of his offense was a HUGE deal to that team.
The Farhan Giants aren't constructed this way. They have lost so many pieces already, yet have the best record. They have guys coming back. Longoria, La Stella, Belt, Posey, should all be coming back, yet the team has won in their absence. If a guy gets physical issues and can't perform, he won't be in the lineup. As it is, the team has more guys on the roster than they have spots for, and the team won't hesitate to put a player on the IL if physical issues are affecting his play, like Posey in 2016. If a guy starts being horrible, there's someone else to step in. The biggest danger is losing a couple of the quality starting pitchers. So far, they haven't lost more than one at a time, the injuries have mostly been in the #5 starter spot. A season-ending Crawford injury might be a problem, too, especially defensively. But this team just isn't constructed to have the potential for collapse like the 2016 Giants.
Sure, odds are that the team won't maintain its .640 pace, and there is a reasonable chance of enough of a reduction in wins to miss the wild-card. And the stretch between now and August 1 is tough. But 87 wins would be the worst post-All-Star game collapse in history for any team with the best record at the break, by 1/2 game over the 2016 Giants. To say the range is 80-87 wins is to say that the Giants will have the worst post-All-Star game collapse in history by a team with the best record at the break, it is just a question of whether they squeak by or blow by the 2016 Giants historical mark. I have a real hard time thinking that the 80-87 range makes any sense at this point. 87 as the bottom? Sure, but not the top.
Ok Nate silver. Waiting with bated breathe for the next update.
Lol.
While the Giants are "on pace" for 103 wins based on winning percentage, after last night's games, FiveThirtyEight effectively says the Giants are "on target" for 96 wins, while the Dodgers are "on target" for 98 wins. Those numbers represent the average number of wins based on some absurd number of simulated unplayed portions of the season.
I don't know what Nate's site had back in mid-June when 71Bear had his 80-87 number, but I'm sure it was in the 90's, above 71Bear's 80-87 range, with the top of a "range" even further above that. I'm not sure if the range should be one or two standard devisions from the mean, but I would also guess that back then, 80 was more than 2 standard deviations below the mean for expected Giants wins, but that's a guess. I'm sure Nate's people could easily tell us the range based on both one standard deviation and two, but I don't think that can be found on the website.
While Nate's site gives the Giants a 96% chance of post-season, it gives only a 33% chance of winning the division, while the Dodgers have a 53% chance of taking the West and the Padres have a 14% chance. In spite of 71Bear's evaluations being "seat of the pants" and including a Giants/Cal fan type pessimism that makes his numbers far too low, FiveThirtyEight at least agrees that the Dodgers are still favorites to win the division.
We don't need the last three nights to tell us this, but a lot of weird things happen in baseball, so who knows where things will be come October 3. From a rational, statistical perspective, however, 71Bear has not been Nate Silver but has been overly pessimistic so far this year. I blame too many years as a Giants/Cal fan and specifically his 2016 PTSD.
On June 18, FiveThirtyEight had the Giants at 92-70.
I thought the Nate Silver joke was funny because of 71's saying his prediction was based on "mid-June data," which was funny.
Yeah, I don't think anyone is comparing 71 bear to Nate silver. As Gmp noted, I just think it's amusing how seriously 71bear takes his "predictions" considering his accuracy so far.
When you start citing "regression to the mean" and how few games have been played to say they are "on target" to win 75-85, as you did in April, that isn't a prediction, that is making some kind of statement about what can reasonably be expected.
Nate SIlver will tell you his numbers aren't predictions, they are expected outcomes. Run the election 1,000,000 times, Joe Smith will win 720,000 times, Jane Doe will win 279,000 times, and third party candidate Fred Jones will win 1,000 times. Run 100,000 simulations of the rest of the season and the Giants win an average of 95 games. What will actually happen? Who knows, there's no prediction in there.
I always find it funny when sports media people say, "The Vegas bookmakers predicted that team X would win big." No, the Vegas bookmakers predicted nothing except, in setting the original line, what line would get bettors to bet evenly on both sides of the line.
If you had said in April the Giants are on pace for 105 wins, on target for 85-95 wins, but you predict 75-85, that would have been fair, the 75-85 is just your crazy prediction. You can then adjust your prediction in mid-June and early August based on additional games, as opposed to adjusting what the Giants are "on target for" based on the record to date and things like regression to the mean. Using language like "on target for" while referencing regression to the mean as justification says you are looking at some rationally based expectations, not a crazy prediction.
I'm generally not into predicting the future. I rarely make predictions about how many games Cal or the Giants will win, because a) I don't like to be disappointed if I predict too high, and b) I don't like to minimize hope by predicting low. I will occasionally make bets on the over-under for the season when I think the line is too high or too low, but even then, it isn't a prediction, it is making a good financial decision based on the likelihood I think I will win the bet. I think I'll probably win the bet or I wouldn't make it, but I won't predict that I'll win the bet.
Bellinger isn't playing well.
I'm going to speculate that the reason why is that he has a drug problem.
The guy needs help.
I'm being serious here.
Featured Stories
See All
Bears Take Down USC
by Cal Athletics
Golden Bears Get Golden Goal, Defeat No. 22 Pepperdine 2-1
by Cal Athletics
Bears Sign Highly Rated Recruiting Class
by Cal Athletics