Mark DeRosa's Career | WAR Graph Wednesday

In honor of Mark DeRosa's career, which has possibly come to an end (or if not, is quite close to an end), some WAR Graphs...

Giants to Rely on In-House Options for Infield Depth

Good. I'm sick of this. Yes, Mike Fontenot has a terrible arm for a shortstop. Yes, Emmanuel Burriss has little durability, a weak bat, and his defense at shortstop is mediocre at best. And Mark DeRosa, of course, doesn't profile well at shortstop, not to mention the impact his wrist injury probably had on his power.

But who cares? I think I can live with a backup shortstop with a weak arm. People love to bring up age: and guess what? Miguel Tejada is going to be turning 37 next year. Does that mean that, suddenly, after playing 150+ games in 11 of the past 12 seasons, he will incur a plethora of injuries that will limit him to 60 games this year? There's no evidence to support that. He's been consistently durable throughout his career.

And in the event that Tejada becomes injured to the point where the Giants might actually need a backup shortstop to start more than 12 games, the Giants can go out and execute a trade for a shortstop, or pick one of these free agent shortstops up (it's possible that many of them won't receive contracts). In reality though, these backup shortstop options (Orlando Cabrera?! Bobby Crosby?!) are really not going to be much better than Mike Fontenot.

Please do me a favor, and stop throwing names out there like Bobby Crosby, who has managed to compile -1.3 WAR in 167 games over the past two seasons. He's just Burriss with less speed, and a little more pop in his bat.

San Francisco Giants - 2011 ZiPS Projections

Dan Szymborski released his 2011 ZiPS projections.

Highlights for me:

• Nate Schierholtz is projected to hit better than Mark DeRosa. This is no surprise, obviously, with DeRosa coming off of wrist surgery, but it's still interesting. If there's an outfield spot open, I'd much rather see the trio of Ross/Torres/Schierholtz out there than DeRosa/Torres/Ross. 
• Brandon Belt: .266/.357/.440 
• Freddy Sanchez...he's aging, but I think he can do better than his projection of .278/.320/.386

Looking Back at the 2010 Giants Projections

To say that 2010 was a season full of surprises would be an understatement: Pablo Sandoval and Tim Lincecum had disappointing sesasons; Mark DeRosa was injured after playing in only 26 games; Andres Torres and Aubrey Huff played far beyond expectations, putting up all-star caliber numbers; and Buster Posey had no trouble whatsoever in adjusting to the majors, becoming an elite catcher from day one (his debut). Lastly, the Giants picked up some phenomenal players on the way, namely Cody Ross, Javier Lopez, and Pat Burrell. Now that we've looked at (and made) projections for the 2011 season, I thought it'd be fun to take a look back at how certain Giants were expected to perform in 2010 (and compare it to their actual performance). This will give context to how surprising 2010 really was. For the purposes of this, I'll use ZiPS projections, one of the most well-respected projection systems out there. If you want to take a look at the 2010 ZiPS projections, they are available here.

Pablo Sandoval
Projected - .320/.368/.516; OPS+ 130
Actual - .268/.323/.409; OPS+ 95

Aubrey Huff
Projected - .270/.330/.448; OPS+ 102
Actual - .290/.385/.506; OPS+ 138

Aaron Rowand
Projected - .273/.335/.431; OPS+ 100
Actual - .230/.281/.378; OPS+ 75

Buster Posey
Projected - .263/.343/.398; OPS+ 95
Actual - .305/.357/.505; OPS+ 129

Freddy Sanchez
Projected - .296/.331/.414; OPS+ 95
Actual - .292/.342/.397; OPS+ 98

Edgar Renteria
Projected - .280/.336/.388; OPS+ 90
Actual - .276/.332/.374; OPS+ 90

Juan Uribe
Projected - .269/.311/.442; OPS+ 95
Actual - .248/.310/.440; OPS+ 99

Andres Torres
Projected - .254/.315/.397; OPS+ 86
Actual - .268/.343/.479; OPS+ 119

As can be seen from these comparisons, which look at only eight of the Giants, there were many surprises. Torres, Huff, and Posey far exceeded expectations; on the other hand, Rowand and Sandoval far underperformed. All in all, the Giants ended up playing much better than expected, taking home a World Series trophy with an offense that, before the season began, was the subject of ample criticism.

Giants Have Interest in Renteria....Seriously?

According to John Shea, there's mutual interest between the San Francisco Giants and their World Series hero Edgar Renteria.

Let's see here...the Giants have Mike Fontenot on a one-year deal. He can play short and second. They have Freddy Sanchez as their starting second baseman. They have Pablo Sandoval starting at third, and Miguel Tejada starting at short (he can also play third). Then they have Mark DeRosa at the utility role. He can play both middle infield positions that Renteria would supposedly play (shortstop, where he's lived his entire career, and second base, a position to which he recently said he's willing to switch). Then, of course, there's the younger guys, who to be honest, probably aren't the best options: Emmanuel Burriss and Ryan Rohlinger.

So to review...at short we have Tejada, Fontenot, and DeRosa. Do the Giants really need a fourth shortstop? And if so, are Burriss and Rohlinger truly incapable of being viable fourth shortstop options?

Then we have Sanchez, Fontenot, and DeRosa at second. Do the Giants really need a fourth second baseman? And if so, are Burriss and Rohlinger truly incapable of being viable fourth second baseman options?

The Giants don't really need another middle infielder. On top of that, it's simply a waste of money to sign Renteria again. Renteria has constantly battled injuries, he's not that fast anymore, his defense is quite mediocre, he's old, he can't hit for power, he can't hit for a high average, and he'd likely cost more than Burriss and Rohlinger combined. Plus, Burriss gives the Giants speed off of the bench.

So...I truly believe that Renteria will NOT man a Giants uniform next season. And if he does...well, I can't even begin to understand what is wrong with the Giants management.

Giants Re-Sign Pat Burrell

The Giants have re-signed Pat Burrell to a one-year $1MM deal without incentives. Ah, how refreshing. I'm one of the first to doubt Burrell -- after seeing him strike out 11 times in 13 at-bats in the 2010 World Series, I just can't even tell if he's the same player that saw a resurgence a few months prior. Or maybe it's the fact that he has more World Series rings (2) than hits (1). He has one hit in 27 career World Series at-bats.

Whatever. He'll be making $1MM without incentives. He's pretty much guaranteed to be worth that $1MM. Even if he's just a bench bat, and manages to come off the bench and get a few important hits, he'll be worth it. And there's high reward -- if he does play like the Pat the Bat of June 2010 (.338/.405/.615), he'll be extremely valuable.

I can't think of a possible scenario where this contract hurts the Giants. I honestly can't. It's $1MM, and I'm pretty sure that Burrell will be a better left-fielder than Mark DeRosa coming off of wrist surgery. DeRosa wasn't even good for the Giants before that wrist injury -- .194/.279/.258...this, hopefully, puts him back in the utility role, a role he's better suited for. A good chunk of his value is dependent on his being able to play multiple positions, so hopefully he'll be doing that now...

Lastly, I think this contract seals Travis Ishikawa's fate. I don't know how the Giants would find a spot for him on the roster, barring an injury. The way I see it, here are their starters:

C Posey
1B Huff
2B Sanchez
3B Sandoval
SS Tejada
LF Burrell
CF Torres
RF Ross

And their bench...

C Whiteside
OF Rowand
OF Schierholtz
UT DeRosa
IF ________ (probably not Fontenot...who knows...maybe Rohlinger? or Burriss?)
And then, eventually, Brandon Belt at 1B.

I don't know what will happen to Ishikawa. It's kind of a shame. If his bat were just a little bit better, he could be a JT Snow-type player. He's a great defensive first baseman. But first basemen just aren't in high demand.

If this is, indeed, the end of the line for Travis, he shall be remembered as the tying run in Game Three of the NLDS.

More Pablo Sandoval...

In a recent article, Mychael Urban said the following:

Pablo Sandoval simply can’t be counted on at this point, so it’s not absurd to see the Giants going with a left-side tag team of Uribe and Tejada, with a little Mark DeRosa and Manny Burriss on the side.

Seriously? I know Pablo Sandoval had a disappointing season, but I find the notion to be ridiculous: that Miguel Tejada, Mark DeRosa, or Emmanuel Burriss are better options than Sandoval playing alongside Juan Uribe. Let's do a little comparison...for the sake of making this unbiased, I will use anonymity...I refuse to even include Burriss in this, because it should be obvious that Sandoval is a better option than him. Burriss has played mediocre defense in his career at short, and has a career slash line of .264/.329/.302; yes, I'm not making this up. Burriss has a career SLG of .302...oh yeah, and he's injury-prone. Let's move on here...

Listed are the following players' 2010 slash lines along with their current ages...

Player A: .194/.279/.258, injured for most of 2010, current age: 35
Player B: .268/.323/.409, current age: 24
Player C: .269/.312/.381, current age: 36

Hmm...so it appears that player B put up similar numbers to player C in 2010, with one exception. Player C is 12 years older. It should be pretty obvious who these players are, but in case you are unaware, A is DeRosa, B is Sandoval, and C is Tejada.

DeRosa is an injury risk, and was terrible when he played in 2010. Even assuming a full recovery, his upside is minimal -- he'll probably max out at 15 home runs, and that's at best. Meanwhile, his third base defense is mediocre, with a career UZR/150 of -5.7, as is his shortstop defense (career UZR/150 of -1.5). So, yes, it's absurd to think that DeRosa is a better option than Sandoval. Oh yeah, and to reiterate, he's 35 years old.

Now Tejada has only played third base in one season, 2010, and he produced -6.9 UZR. Just awful. In all fairness, though, small sample size. At shortstop, however, he has played thousands of games, and his career UZR/150 of -3.4 is mediocre. His offense, meanwhile, was slightly worse than Sandoval's, due to a nauseating 4.4% walk rate, and slightly less power than Sandoval. Oh yeah, and he's 36. Plus, he'd cost extra money because he's a free agent, whereas the Giants already have Sandoval and DeRosa for 2011.

Keep in mind, also, that Sandoval is due for a resurgence. I recommend that you look into this for further reading.

If Sandoval gains another 20 pounds this offseason, and comes back looking like Mo Vaughn in 2003, then yes, send him to the minors. But at this point, taking into account that he's due for at least a slight resurgence, that he has less of an injury history than DeRosa/Burriss, that he's younger than DeRosa/Tejada, and that he's never played atrocious defense, at least by UZR standards (career UZR/150 of -0.5 at third base), he's a better option to play alongside Uribe than DeRosa/Burriss/Tejada.

People are too quick to lose faith in players. Remember in August, when people thought Tim Lincecum's career was quickly coming to an end? Exercise patience, people. Sandoval's 2010 production was that of an average third baseman. He needs to lose weight, but that doesn't mean he's not worthy of the starting job at third.

Twins Win Bidding for Nishioka. Good News for Giants?

The Twins have won the bidding for Japanese middle-infielder Tsuyoshi Nishioka. This could be good news for the Giants, though.

Nishioka is said to be a better fit at second base, but the Giants are looking for a guy who can play shortstop well. In 2010, Nishioka posted a slash line of .346/.423/.482, but that was in all likelihood a big fluke, as he had a BABIP of .389... Before that, his previous best was .300/.366/.463...This article by Patrick Newman of Fangraphs basically likens Nishioka to Chone Figgins and Ryan Theriot, both of whom had unimpressive campaigns in 2010. So Nishioka isn't that great...throw in the fees for bidding and signing him to a contract, and it's definitely too high of a price to pay for a relatively weak shortstop.

The good news here is that this increases the likelihood that J.J. Hardy becomes available on the trade market. Hardy is one of the best shortstop options currently available: he's one of the best defensive shortstops in the majors, with a career UZR/150 of 11.0, and his bat has great offensive upside. From 2007-2008, Hardy belted a total of 50 home runs, although he hasn't come near those numbers in the past couple of seasons. However, his Bill James projections see him hitting .263/.328/.425 next year with 16 home runs. Throw in the superb defense that he'll inevitably provide, and that is an extremely valuable shortstop. Even with his .268/.320/.394 slash line in 101 games in 2010, he managed to produce 2.4 WAR. Project that over a full season and his 2010 worth is at 3.5-4.0 WAR. But he's projected to improve upon those numbers. At this point, the Giants probably wouldn't even have to give up much to get him.

His excellent defense and significant offensive potential warrant serious consideration. A lineup of Buster Posey, Aubrey Huff, Freddy Sanchez, J.J. Hardy, Pablo Sandoval, Mark DeRosa, Andres Torres, and Cody Ross is a legitimate offense. Pair that with the incredible rotation that the Giants have, and I think they have the tools to win many games. And that's not even considering the eventual call-up of Brandon Belt.

The Great Nate Debate

Guest post by Zachary Chiang.

Everyone knows that Buster Posey is a very talented young player. Another article praising his offensive prowess, defensive instinct, and unheralded leadership would simply be redundant. His highly anticipated debut did not disappoint, and his overall performance went above and beyond expectations. In the wake of the rookie catcher's amazing season, it is important to remember that not every transition to the big leagues is quite as smooth as his. Let's take a look at one of the quiet contributors to the Giants' championship run.

At this point in his young career, Nate Schierholtz is best known for his brutal collision with the Chinese catcher in the '08 Beijing Olympics. Once thought to be the right fielder of the future, the Danville native was denied regular playing time with the big league club even after hitting .320/.363/.594 with 18 HRs in 93 games at the AAA level. While most Giants fans hold Nate's defensive skills in high regard, many seem to have varying opinions of his offensive ability. Some see him as a slap hitter with value only as a fourth outfielder, while others believe his star potential has been stunted by his limited playing time. Realistically, if Nate became more consistent, he would be a solid hitter, similar to David DeJesus.

A look at Nate's stats year by year turns up unimpressive results, but even with an abyssal line of .242/.311/.366 in 2010, there are bright spots to be picked out. Back on May 6th, he peaked out at .381/.458/.587 with a stellar 3 for 4 day. In June of '09, he hit .375 and people wanted to install him as high as third in the order. Even in his impressive '08 call up, he produced 1.2 WAR by pounding out 10 extra base hits in a mere 19-game stretch. With respect to small sample size, it is obvious that Nate is prone to streakiness. There are several months in which he hit under .200 with no sign of power whatsoever. However, it is appalling to think that the Giants could not find him regular playing time during their mediocre '07 and '08 seasons. Who knows what he could have accomplished as a regular the last three or four years?

Next year, Andres Torres and Cody Ross are locked into starting outfield roles. If Schierholtz were to land the last spot, Ross would be shifted to left as he was in the playoffs. Unfortunately, this scenario seems to be very improbable. Mark DeRosa will be back, and possibly return to left field. Aaron Rowand may have accepted a bench role this year, but it seems unlikely that he'll start the year there. Lastly, there still is the possibility of re-signing veteran leader Pat Burrell or picking up another free agent outfielder. As usual, 2011 will be an uphill battle for Nate. He must show management that he can play not only as well, but better than the veterans who will continue to block his way.

Do you have a strong opinion on Nate Schierholtz? We encourage you to comment below.

Should the Giants Re-sign Pat Burrell?

Should the Giants re-sign Pat Burrell? As of now, they have the following five players that can man the outfield:

• Cody Ross
• Andres Torres
• Aaron Rowand
• Nate Schierholtz
• Mark DeRosa

With such a crowded outfield, is there room for Burrell?

In 96 games with the Giants, he put up a .266/.364/.509 slash line, and hit 18 home runs. Among the San Francisco Giants, he had the second-highest OBP behind Aubrey Huff's .385, and his OPS+ of 132 was also second-best on the team, behind Huff's 138. The two benefits that Burrell brings are as follows:

1. Plate Discipline...Burrell's walk rate of 13.8% was easily tops among the Giants, and he and Huff were the only two Giants with double-digit walk rates. How important is walk rate? Well, consider this. The Giants ranked in the bottom ten in the majors in walk rate for 2010; in other words, they need players with plate discipline, because they are quite lacking in that category. Before they had Huff and Burrell, their offense had mighty struggles because none of their players could take a walk. Because free-swinging Bengie Molina left, and Pablo Sandoval was no longer the big bat in the middle of the lineup, the Giants were able to create a balanced cast of players (especially thanks to Burrell and Huff) that could guide them to the playoffs.

Keep this in mind: The Giants were the only team in the bottom-ten in the majors in walk rate that made it to the playoffs. Astros didn't make it. Orioles didn't make it. Royals, White Sox, Angels, Mariners, Pirates, Blue Jays, Cubs did not make it. So, what to take from this? The Giants are in need of players who can walk. And in that category, Burrell is quite adequate.

2. Power...Burrell's 18 home runs were tied for third-best on the Giants. His SLG of .509 was the best on the team, and although it's a small sample size (341 plate appearances), his ISO of .242 indicates that he has great power. In 2009, the Giants did not have a Huff. They did not have a Posey. And they did not have a Burrell. Burrell was one of the major bats in the lineup that drove the Giants' offense to a World Series title by virtue of his ability to crush the ball.

The Giants aren't desperate in this category. They've got Posey, Sandoval might rediscover his 2009 power bat, Torres has a little pop, Huff could be brought back, Uribe could be brought back. Burrell's power isn't a necessity, but it's surely nice to have.

Ah, but every rose has its thorns. Burrell does have two major perceived flaws:

1. High K rate...Burrell's strikeout rate of 26.6% was the second-worst on the team behind Eli Whiteside. And surely, his dreadful World Series in which he batted .000 and struck out 11 times in 13 at-bats, is not forgotten. If he's supposed to be a big bat in the middle of the order, the way I see it, he needs to make contact a little more often.

2. Defense...the defensive merits of Burrell are hard to get a full grasp on, merely because he hasn't played a full season in the outfield since 2008. What is a sure fact, however, is that advanced defensive metrics haven't been too kind to Burrell throughout his career. Since 2002, he's cost his teams about 40 runs on defense (based on UZR). His arm is average, however, and especially adequate for a left-fielder.

Quite lacking, however, is Burrell in his ability to cover range. In 2006-2008, his range (or lack thereof) cost the Phillies 44.5 runs (based on RngR). Having seen Burrell run, it's not hard to understand that he can't cover much range out in left field.


So what to take from all of this?

On the offensive side, I feel like Pat Burrell is a less-extreme version of Mark Reynolds. He's got power, walks a lot, and strikes out a lot.

On the defensive side, he's nothing special. The Giants, however, could work around that flaw. They could give Burrell the same treatment they did this year, taking him out for later-inning defensive improvement. Also, if he was to be used as a pinch hitter, the Giants wouldn't have to deal with his mediocre defense. That was, after all, the original intention when he was acquired. I don't think he wants to turn into Matt Stairs at the age of 34, though.

The big looming question is, how much will Burrell want? Based on his WAR, his performance with the Giants in 2010 was worth about $11MM. After seeing his bat disintegrate in the World Series, however, I have lost confidence in the belief that he's back to being an impact bat.

I think the Giants should just play it safe. I think they should give Burrell a small contract (like Huff's 1yr/$3MM deal) to be a pinch-hitter and occasional left-fielder (an outfield reserve). And if all goes well, he'll force himself into a starting outfield spot as he did in 2010. If he's not willing to take such a small contract, he's not worth it. He's too risky at this point. I wouldn't want to see that World Series Pat Burrell struggle at the plate day after day in 2011 and receive ten million dollars for those services. That risk is just too eminent.

After all, how did the Giants enjoy so much success in 2010? The bargain contracts that outweighed their horrible contracts. Torres, Huff, Posey, Bumgarner etc. all played top-notch baseball on cheap contracts. That's how this team is going to need to build success around Rowand's 5yr/$60MM contract and Zito's 7yr/$126MM contract.

Yes, this is rather cruel. Pat the Bat did a lot to help the Giants bring home their first-ever World Series title since moving to San Francisco. But in order to succeed, they need to minimize risk. And I see Burrell as a mighty risk, given his bat's propensity for rapid-aging.

Andrew Baggarly - "Bringing back Pat Burrell is a matter the Giants are discussing right now. I know Bochy loves Burrell’s clubhouse presence, but he’d likely be in a reserve role."