I dont disagree with any of that. But in the past, when this team has knocked on the door, we have been fortunate enough to have some lights out type closers. 1980 - Joe Sabito 1986 - Dave Smith 1998 - Billy Wagner 2005 - Brad Lidge This 2017 team doesn't have that guy. And Giles isn't as good as any of those aforementioned. Does it mean were doomed? Of course not. But these are the type of guys he is being compared to, and by that comparison, as unfair as it is, he is most of the things said about him. Compared to your average ML closer, no, he isn't as bad as that.
I can only guess at that answer. But I think its going to depend on how he does in the playoffs. If he can save games, he will be a hero. If he is the reason for a critical loss, especially a series ending, post-season ending loss, then he going to get hammered here in the forums even if his performance between now and then is as you say, 90% good.
Luke Gregerson saved games in the 2015 playoffs. I don't think Giles saving games is going to be all that monumental. He should be counted on to do so. Lastly, Lidge was hammered like no other after blowing game 5 and the subsequent poor outings in the WS, regardless of what he just did prior to that (same goes for Wagner in 1998). Closers blowing playoff games are universally hammered.
Giles has the mph and the slider that Kimbrel has. He can even locate his pitches when the stakes are low. All he needs is Kimbrel's composure. Maybe we should make him do the lean-in, hunched shoulders thing when he's taking signs from th catcher? Worth a shot
You mention 1986 Dave Smith. He finished the season with a 4-7 record, 33 saves and 6 blown saves. If Giles had allowed 2 less runners this year, his WHIP would be roughly the same as Smith had over the course of the season. Wagner had 30 saves and 5 blown saves with a WHIP higher than Giles currently has. Even as dominant as Lidge was in 2005, he allowed about the same amount of baserunners (percentage-wise) as Giles does. EDIT - 1980 Sambito had 17 saves and blew 5. He did have a very good WHIP of under 1.0.
Nick, Giles is definitely a closer Nick, Giles is certainly a closer, no argument there, and those who say he isn't well they're entitled to their opinion. One thing I will say he seems to be a different pitcher at home then on the road this yr. I brought it up about six weeks ago, and I certainly can appreciate that at that point the sample size was relatively small. His ERA is 1.29 at home compared to 5.87 on the road. His WHIP at home is 0.643 and 1.630 on the road. Hitters are batting .125 against him at home and .267 on the road. Opponents have .192 OBP at home and .357 on the road. In 15 gms at home (14.0 IP) he has 21 K and only 3 BB whereas on the road in 16 gms (15.1 IP) he has 16 K and 9 BB. He's given up runs in 8 of his 16 appearances on the road. Hopefully they can get him turned around on the road. Maybe he needs to start smoking what Fiers is smoking.
Looking at everything in hindsight is so much easier than looking it at present and trying to project the future. So, to answer your question, yes people would be happy. The thing is that we as a whole have had high expectations for this team for 2 years now and thats when Giles was brought in(at a very high price). Hes supposed to be a major keystone to it all and for that high price I dont think he has returned on that investment overall in his entirety of his tenure. If you invested in 2 pieces of property, one at a very high cost and one at a very low cost, in which you project to be bought out or developed by a bigger fish, which do you check on more? Especially if you know that expensive piece of property is very integral to the land development in that area. The case with Giles is hes that very expensive piece of property thats going to be critical in our playoff run(land development). Him constantly having runners on base doesnt boast well for us, because teams with hitters more locked in than ever in the playoffs are going to capitalize at some point.
Yes, he has been worse on the road.... but has he been that much worse in save situations on the road? Off the top of my head, I can also recall a few of those road situations.... was brought into that bases-loaded situation in Anaheim after Hinch let Keuchel go too far, was brought into the men on base situation in KC during the winning streak, had to pitch unexpectedly in the NY game where Feliz couldn't hold the big lead, had to get work in a game in Oakland at the beginning of the season, had to get work in the 5-1 game vs Seattle the other night... Again, he's been worse on the road than at home. Also, for some reason, he isn't facing the same sort of mid-inning road situations or non-save situations at home. He's usually starting innings clean at home. We know he has more mental focus during closer games based on his career numbers.
I understand and can agree, but what would make you happy as a fan with respect to Giles? I assume a 90% save rate would make you happy. Would it take a WHIP in the .85 - .95 range to solidify that? Also, at this point in time, the Astros gave away next to nothing for Giles. Eshelman is the guy playing the best considering Velazquez has injury and consistency issues. I do understand that at the time they made the trade, there were a couple of valuable trading chips they gave up that could have been used for someone else.
A lower whip and more consistency with his fastball would do wonders. Like I said earlier, hindsight is 20/20 in reference to what we gave up for Giles. That same lot we gave up spurred another GM to say 'Luhnow loves to give away talent' also.
I get what you're saying about giving up a lot vs. expectations. But that does present a bit of a problem. If Giles isn't living up to his expectations based on what we gave up, but the package we sent for him is even worse...perhaps expectations were universally inflated? If both teams got some value here, I'd call this a win-win trade. But I feel like your line of thinking might make it a lose-lose, because both packages have fallen short of very lofty hopes. In short, if we continue to evaluate Giles based on increased expectations due to his price, shouldn't we also evaluate what we spent? To use your property analogy, I'd say either you evaluate whether you do "well" with the property independent of what you paid...or if you want to look at cost/benefit, wouldn't it matter if the value of the dollar went down?
Thats a very fair way of looking at it, but the only problem is is that we acquired him to put us over the hump in the chase for a ring. The value of the dollar doesnt really matter at that time since at the time we paid a high amount for services that were supposed to give us high returns(a ring/dominant closer). If you look at it through your view, all in all is equal and Id be okay with him not being as dominant, but we are in a win now situation and we might miss out on a window thats open for greater things.
Besides the prospect angle, I'd say expectations are lofty due to his performance in Philly... 1.18 ERA in 2014 and 1.80 in 2015. In HOU, he's 4.00+ last year followed by 3.60+ this year. Giles' book isn't written yet. He's young and has shown improvement as an Astro. I'll be happy if Giles can.... 90% success rate with a 2.00 ERA. He needs to perform similarly in the postseason for ultimate respect (looking at you Wagner-Lidge).
Lets redefine what a success rate is. Say, an appearance without an earned run. 31 appearances 9 in which he gave up an earned run (or more) = 71% success rate. Just because you earned the save doesn't mean you pitched well. If he could manage 90% with this criteria, then I would be good with him. As things are, we just dont have an immediate better option. http://www.espn.com/mlb/player/gamelog/_/id/32762/ken-giles
