2002 SF Giants: A 'Throwback' Team?

soxfan121 · 10-25-2002, 05:20 PM

OK, this has been percolating in my noggin for weeks now, and I must have some resolution to it. Please be patient, cause this isn;t fully formulated and may seem disorganized.

The 2002 SF Giants seem to me to be a team built like teams of yore - one superstar, one or two very good players and a supporting cast that does not stand out statistically, but is competant and efficent in the way they approach the game.

In fact, the Giants remind me of the 30's-era Detroit Tigers. Greenberg, Bonds. Gehringer, Kent. Cochrane, Santiago. A long period of 'success' as a team, always falling short until 'everything came together'. Maybe this is a flawed comparison - I haven't done more than cursory research on this.

As I see it, the way contending teams are constructed has changed. Prior to the 'Offensive 90's', teams did not have "bangers" up and down the lineup. One player cannot win a championship all on his own. But the convergence of two minor stars with a major star, plus an astute manager, solid pitching staff, and oodles of "role" players seems to be the general formula for success. And the Giants follow this to the letter.

Two questions: 1. Has the methodology and philosophy of assembling a 'championship team' changed over the past 15-20 years (without lapsing into a rant on FA or $$, OK?)?
2. What 'team' do the 2002 Giants resemble? Is it the 30's Kittens? Or some other similar team?

gyb13 · 10-25-2002, 05:24 PM

the second minor star in this squad is Aurilia, not Santiago

sweaver · 10-25-2002, 05:48 PM

Hmmmmm. I'm not sure I see this the way you do, sf. I mean, it's great to build your team around a great star, but the trick to that is, getting the great star. How many have been of Bonds' caliber? Ruth, Cobb, Wagner, Mantle, Mays, Williams, Musial. A few others, no doubt, but not many. Is the way teams are built different? Well, the way offense are constructed seems to have changed, but the Angels look like the throwback here, not the Giants.

moose · 10-25-2002, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sweaver
Hmmmmm. I'm not sure I see this the way you do, sf. I mean, it's great to build your team around a great star, but the trick to that is, getting the great star. How many have been of Bonds' caliber? Ruth, Cobb, Wagner, Mantle, Mays, Williams, Musial. A few others, no doubt, but not many. Is the way teams are built different? Well, the way offense are constructed seems to have changed, but the Angels look like the throwback here, not the Giants.

the late-20s giants had 2 stars of bonds' caliber....

SHOELESSJOE3 · 10-25-2002, 08:15 PM

Maybe I missed some thing in this post season. If there was any team that looked to be playing "real " baseball, the way it was once played it was the Angels. Right from the start against the Yankees, the Angels forced the action, taking that extra base, forcing the issue and even a couple of good bunts, just to get something going. They were not my favorites at the start but a fun team to watch.

Max Power · 10-25-2002, 08:20 PM

In terms of the team distribution of contributions, the 2002 Giants sort of remind me of the 1987 Cardinals...........

Code:

RCAA                           RCAA    
1    Jack Clark                   68   
2    Ozzie Smith                  20   
3    Vince Coleman                11   
4    Terry Pendleton               2   
5    Jose Oquendo                  1   
T6   Rod Booker                    0   
T6   Doug DeCinces                 0   
T6   David Green                   0   
T6   Skeeter Barnes                0   
10   John Morris                  -2   
T11  Tom Pagnozzi                 -3   
T11  Dan Driessen                 -3   
T13  Mike Laga                    -4   
T13  Lance Johnson                -4   
T13  Tom Lawless                  -4   
T16  Curt Ford                    -5   
T16  Tito Landrum                 -5   
18   Steve Lake                   -8   
T19  Tom Herr                    -10   
T19  Willie McGee                -10   

RCAA                           RCAA    
1    Barry Bonds                 161   
2    Jeff Kent                    46   
3    Reggie Sanders                6   
4    Kenny Lofton                  4   
5    Ramon Martinez                3   
6    Trey Lunsford                 2   
7    Cody Ransom                   1   
T8   Tony Torcato                  0   
T8   Marvin Benard                 0   
T8   David Bell                    0   
T8   Damon Minor                   0   
T12  Calvin Murray                -2   
T12  Bill Mueller                 -2   
T12  Tom Goodwin                  -2   
15   Yorvit Torrealba             -3   
T16  Benito Santiago              -4   
T16  J.T. Snow                    -4   
18   Pedro Feliz                  -6   
T19  Rich Aurilia                 -8   
T19  Tsuyoshi Shinjo              -8  

RSAA                           RSAA    
1    Todd Worrell                 14   
2    Ken Dayley                    9   
3    Joe Magrane                   8   
4    Greg Mathews                  6   
5    Steve Peters                  4   
T6   John Tudor                    2   
T6   Ricky Horton                  2   
T6   Danny Cox                     2   
T9   Scott Terry                   1   
T9   Randy O'Neal                  1   
T11  Pat Perry                    -3   
T11  Jose Oquendo                 -3   
13   Ray Soff                     -4   
T14  Dave LaPoint                 -5   
T14  Bill Dawley                  -5   
T16  Tim Conroy                   -7   
T16  Bob Forsch                   -7   
T16  Lee Tunnell                  -7 

RSAA                           RSAA    
T1   Robb Nen                     13   
T1   Kirk Rueter                  13   
3    Tim Worrell                  12   
4    Jay Witasick                 11   
5    Jason Schmidt                 7   
T6   Russ Ortiz                    5   
T6   Chad Zerbe                    5   
T6   Kurt Ainsworth                5   
9    Scott Eyre                    3   
T10  Manny Aybar                   2   
T10  Joe Nathan                    2   
12   Jason Christiansen           -1   
13   Troy Brohawn                 -2   
14   Felix Rodriguez              -3   
15   Aaron Fultz                  -5   
16   Ryan Jensen                 -13   
17   Livan Hernandez             -14

Bad news for the Giants, the Cards, up three games to two, lost the series in 7 that year.............

Gosfgiants · 10-25-2002, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3
Maybe I missed some thing in this post season. If there was any team that looked to be playing "real " baseball, the way it was once played it was the Angels. Right from the start against the Yankees, the Angels forced the action, taking that extra base, forcing the issue and even a couple of good bunts, just to get something going. They were not my favorites at the start but a fun team to watch.

I totally agree with you. The thing that got the Angels to where they are is that they play good fundamental baseball. I can not remember the last time that a team ran the bases and put pressure on a defense as well as they do. I think that they are throwback to the dead-ball era.

SmedIndy · 10-25-2002, 11:56 PM

Max - one day we'll look at Worrell and Fultz like Cards fans recall Dawley and Dayley?

soxfan121 · 10-26-2002, 09:51 AM

`87 Cards works for me. Thanks Steve.

The Giants do not remind me of a "deadball" team - and the Angels aren't reminiscent of a "deadball" team either. Certainly, the Angels play the game the right way (moving runners, aggressive baserunning, etc.) but Salmon-Anderson-Glaus is a pretty traditional middle of the order (in the 90's style). Besides, this ain't an Angels thread.

The Giants success revolves around Bonds - presumably, more than any team in history (looking at those RCAA numbers, it's hard not to see it that way). Having watched the games up to this point, the Angels strategy (and the Cards, and the Braves, and the rest of the NL) has been to keep Bonds from beating them. The Giants offensive strategy has been to get to Bonds with men on base.

KCBOOMER · 10-28-2002, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by soxfan121
In fact, the Giants remind me of the 30's-era Detroit Tigers. Greenberg, Bonds. Gehringer, Kent. Cochrane, Santiago.

You must be a charter member of the Santiago for the HoF to even mention him in the same breath as Mickey Cochrane.

gyb13 · 10-28-2002, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Max Power
Bad news for the Giants, the Cards, up three games to two, lost the series in 7 that year.............

an unfortunate co-in-key-dink

qtlaw · 10-28-2002, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Max Power
In terms of the team distribution of contributions, the 2002 Giants sort of remind me of the 1987 Cardinals...........

Bad news for the Giants, the Cards, up three games to two, lost the series in 7 that year.............

Why MP do you have to do the double whammy, align the Giants with the 1987 Cards who not only lost 3-2 but also took my heart out against the Giants in St.L.? Just when I think I'll never see Maldonado go into a slide again someone brings it up. Drat!!

Fuzzy Bear · 10-31-2002, 07:36 PM

The Giants seem more like a post-93 team; a wild-cart with a timely hot streak.

Aurelia improved late in the year, and Santiago had a good year, although he can't be counted on from week to week, let alone year to year.

The Giants were dependent on Bonds and Kent. When Kent wasn't at his peak, Bonds could be neutralized. If the Giants were such a good team, why was Dunston playing such a large role?

10-25-2002, 05:20 PM	#1
soxfan121 Renounced Membership 7/9/03 Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Live Free Or Die, USA Posts: 1,335	2002 SF Giants: A 'Throwback' Team? OK, this has been percolating in my noggin for weeks now, and I must have some resolution to it. Please be patient, cause this isn;t fully formulated and may seem disorganized. The 2002 SF Giants seem to me to be a team built like teams of yore - one superstar, one or two very good players and a supporting cast that does not stand out statistically, but is competant and efficent in the way they approach the game. In fact, the Giants remind me of the 30's-era Detroit Tigers. Greenberg, Bonds. Gehringer, Kent. Cochrane, Santiago. A long period of 'success' as a team, always falling short until 'everything came together'. Maybe this is a flawed comparison - I haven't done more than cursory research on this. As I see it, the way contending teams are constructed has changed. Prior to the 'Offensive 90's', teams did not have "bangers" up and down the lineup. One player cannot win a championship all on his own. But the convergence of two minor stars with a major star, plus an astute manager, solid pitching staff, and oodles of "role" players seems to be the general formula for success. And the Giants follow this to the letter. Two questions: 1. Has the methodology and philosophy of assembling a 'championship team' changed over the past 15-20 years (without lapsing into a rant on FA or $$, OK?)? 2. What 'team' do the 2002 Giants resemble? Is it the 30's Kittens? Or some other similar team?

10-25-2002, 05:24 PM	#2
gyb13 NS Omnipresent Brasilian Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Crazy George's playground Posts: 10,903	the second minor star in this squad is Aurilia, not Santiago __________________ Gustavo NDF Moderator Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Season starts tonight; Diamondbacks alter their rotation	nyy26wc	Around The Majors Reports	1	03-30-2003 01:49 PM
Giants sign Cruz	nyy26wc	Around The Majors Reports	10	02-12-2003 04:22 PM
Angels tie series; Giants take lead	nyy26wc	Around The Majors Reports	3	10-10-2002 11:00 PM
Team highlight - 2002	Ytown Tribe fan	2002 Hot Baseball Chatter Archives	34	10-03-2002 06:30 PM
Joe Torre and the fallacy of managerial labels	nyy26wc	Around The Majors Reports	13	05-03-2002 01:34 PM

10-25-2002, 05:48 PM	#3
sweaver Netshrine Cleanup Hitter Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Mountain State Posts: 8,883	Hmmmmm. I'm not sure I see this the way you do, sf. I mean, it's great to build your team around a great star, but the trick to that is, getting the great star. How many have been of Bonds' caliber? Ruth, Cobb, Wagner, Mantle, Mays, Williams, Musial. A few others, no doubt, but not many. Is the way teams are built different? Well, the way offense are constructed seems to have changed, but the Angels look like the throwback here, not the Giants.

10-25-2002, 08:15 PM	#5
SHOELESSJOE3 NetShrine MVP Join Date: May 2002 Location: Buffalo Posts: 207	Maybe I missed some thing in this post season. If there was any team that looked to be playing "real " baseball, the way it was once played it was the Angels. Right from the start against the Yankees, the Angels forced the action, taking that extra base, forcing the issue and even a couple of good bunts, just to get something going. They were not my favorites at the start but a fun team to watch.

10-25-2002, 11:56 PM	#8
SmedIndy NetShrine's Historian Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Zionsville, IN Posts: 10,569	Max - one day we'll look at Worrell and Fultz like Cards fans recall Dawley and Dayley?

10-26-2002, 09:51 AM	#9
soxfan121 Renounced Membership 7/9/03 Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Live Free Or Die, USA Posts: 1,335	`87 Cards works for me. Thanks Steve. The Giants do not remind me of a "deadball" team - and the Angels aren't reminiscent of a "deadball" team either. Certainly, the Angels play the game the right way (moving runners, aggressive baserunning, etc.) but Salmon-Anderson-Glaus is a pretty traditional middle of the order (in the 90's style). Besides, this ain't an Angels thread. The Giants success revolves around Bonds - presumably, more than any team in history (looking at those RCAA numbers, it's hard not to see it that way). Having watched the games up to this point, the Angels strategy (and the Cards, and the Braves, and the rest of the NL) has been to keep Bonds from beating them. The Giants offensive strategy has been to get to Bonds with men on base.

10-31-2002, 07:36 PM	#13
Fuzzy Bear NetShrine's Evangelist Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Living by faith, and not by sight! Posts: 2,194	The Giants seem more like a post-93 team; a wild-cart with a timely hot streak. Aurelia improved late in the year, and Santiago had a good year, although he can't be counted on from week to week, let alone year to year. The Giants were dependent on Bonds and Kent. When Kent wasn't at his peak, Bonds could be neutralized. If the Giants were such a good team, why was Dunston playing such a large role?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)