Which team will be the most surprising in 2011?
There's going to be a great deal of change in the National League West.
I don't expect the Diamondbacks' rebuilding efforts to pay off immediately and the Padres are obviously going to miss Adrian Gonzalez terribly, but it's hard to figure where everyone else ends up.
Still, the Giants might surprise a lot of people by dropping from world champions to third place, and perhaps even a not particularly competitive third place. In 2010, almost everything that could have gone well for them did go well, with a number of Giants enjoying surprisingly good seasons. If there's reason for optimism, it's tied almost solely to the assumption that Buster Posey and Madison Bumgarner will continue to thrive in their first full seasons. Will that be enough to balance the presumed regressions of Aubrey Huff, Andres Torres and Jonathan Sanchez, along with the departure of Juan Uribe (who's been replaced by Miguel Tejada)?
We'll know in eight or nine months.
In my personal opinion, it is absolutely essential for a professional sports writer to back up his or her claims with significant statistical evidence. I am all for expressing radical opinions, but when I read ludicrous conclusions based on cherry-picked numbers, or in this case, no numbers at all, it simply ticks me off.
It is reasonable to believe that the Giants will miss the playoffs next year. A third place finish is also within the realm of possibility. But saying that they won't be competitive? Give me a break.
As Neyer points out, the Diamondbacks and the Padres are unlikely to be contenders in the NL West. While it seems that both teams could compete in the near future, we'll save that argument for another day. Eliminating those two leaves the Dodgers and the Rockies, who finished with 83 and 80 wins respectively. With this in mind, it's hard to imagine both teams leaving the Giants in the dust as predicted. Neyer cites various flaws with San Francisco's roster, but clearly, the same circumstances apply to both Los Angeles and Colorado as well.
First is the argument of "uncertainty" concerning rookies Buster Posey and Madison Bumgarner. While each has their own small blemishes, I can not find any clear signs pointing towards future struggles. Posey's below-average walk rate (6.8%) and Bumgarner's mediocre K/9 (6.97) are hardly worth mentioning. To me, a pair of sophomore slumps for these young stars seems possible, but not probable. On the contrary, as a Dodger fan, I would be worried about Matt Kemp's struggles hitting the fastball, as well as Jonathan Broxton's second half implosion. Similarly, Rockies fans should be concerned about Carlos Gonzalez's unsustainable .384 BABIP and Jhoulys Chacin's high walk tendencies.
Next, we get to the regression dispute. Is it really fair to say that Aubrey Huff will bring the Giants down when rival lineups feature aging veterans Todd Helton and Casey Blake? And while Andres Torres' breakout season seems like an anomaly, the attack on Jonathan Sanchez seems illogical. Luck is a factor throughout the game of baseball, and thus, every team has at least one pitcher that outperforms their peripherals, some more than others. Jon Garland (3.47 ERA, 4.35 xFIP) and Ubaldo Jimenez (2.88 ERA, 3.73 xFIP) are excellent examples of this.
Lastly is the trifle issue of the Giants changing shortstops. While Juan Uribe flashes more power and defensive prowess, Miguel Tejada brings durability and contact abilities to the table. The gap between these two is marginal compared to that of Manny Ramirez and an average left fielder. And while the Rockies did not lose any key players this offseason, they did part with solid contributors Miguel Olivo and Clint Barmes, who combined for 3.6 WAR in 2010.
I believe many will agree with me when I say that writers must look at the bigger picture if they wish to write a relevant article. It is obvious that the success of the Giants will be highly dependent on that of the Dodgers and the Rockies. When Rob Neyer chose to only examine the inadequacies of the Giants through unspecific generalizations, he failed to do the same for their main competition, thus destroying the foundations of his argument.
