|
Post by sharksrog on Apr 18, 2013 11:51:09 GMT -5
Rog -- Probably like you, I had hopes for Howarth when he came up. But he never hit above .235 in any season. Howarth never had even a decent season. Sanchez has had a few. Allen- Uh, no. Me and my friends used to go to games and bet on whether Howarth would get a hit or not. If you bet that he would you would collect 5 to 1 on the rare occasions he hit safely. Howarth was one of the worst players I've ever seen in the majors, and Sanchez is right now probably the worst pitcher in the majors. Thus, my choosing Howarth for this argument. Rog -- If you want to compare Sanchez TODAY with Howarth over Jim's career, I'm right with you. If you want to say their careers are similar, I would beg to differ. I have been pretty accurate in my evaluation of Jonathan's performance, Allen -- both up and down. You seem to be too broadly painting him with a dark brush. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1665&page=2#10353#ixzz2QpnYXYq2
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Apr 19, 2013 12:34:40 GMT -5
I have been pretty accurate in my evaluation of Jonathan's performance, Allen -- both up and down. You seem to be too broadly painting him with a dark brush.
Allen- Your opinon. You know the rest. I'd say you've been more of an apologist for Jonathan than anything else. Btw, I see the Pirates skipped Jonathan's last start. Another break hoping for him to get his head on straight, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Apr 19, 2013 14:09:03 GMT -5
Allen -- I have been pretty accurate in my evaluation of Jonathan's performance, Allen -- both up and down. You seem to be too broadly painting him with a dark brush. Allen- Your opinon. You know the rest. I'd say you've been more of an apologist for Jonathan than anything else. Rog -- If agreeing with you that since the beginning of June, 2011, Jonathan has likely been the worst starter in baseball is being an apologist, color me guilty. Allen -- Btw, I see the Pirates skipped Jonathan's last start. Another break hoping for him to get his head on straight, I guess. Rog -- I suppose I'm less objective than you, but I posted that Jonathan was walked and hammered early in his start (Tuesday) before retiring something like the last four batters before the game was rained out. I posted that his outing was decidedly mixed. He yielded two runs, one earned, giving up something like two hits and a walk. I guess that had I been more objective, I would simply have posted that "I see the Pirates skipped Jonathan's last start." I didn't see those two innings, of course, but here is how I "saw" them. Same old stuff with Jonathan until he finally righted the ship late in the first inning and retired the last four batters he faced. As I mentioned, decidedly mixed, but given how awful he has been since the beginning of June, 2011, I would call it a tiny bit hopeful. Two other positive signs were that Jonathan stayed healthy and threw a decent percentage of strikes. After an AMAZING start to his major league career coming out of the pen -- sometimes in key situations -- Jonathan struggled as the Giants tried to decide if he was a starter or a reliever. He experienced some arm soreness, but nothing that should have affected him too badly. Finally, the Giants made him a starter at the major league level, and he struggled mightily for a year and a half. Then came his July, 2009 no-hitter, and suddenly he was a good pitcher through the end of May, 2011. Then something happened, either physical and/or mental, and he has been either horrible or injured ever since. I would say the Pirates would be just about his last shot, which is unusual for a pitcher who just three seasons ago had the lowest ERA of any Giants starter. But it is what it is. Just under two years of good to very good pitching, and the rest anywhere between so-so and horrible. Even for the entire 2009 and 2010 seasons through May of 2011, Jonathan had a lower ERA than Barry Zito has EVER posted for the Giants. He also had awful run support, which his won-loss record reflects. He did have good support in 2010, and he went 13-9, including the win on the final day of the season that put the Giants into the playoffs. Jonathan's ERA down the stretch (Sept/Oct) was just a shade over 1.00 -- even better than Tim Lincecum, who had dynamite September himself. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1665&page=3#10363#ixzz2Qw86X9ao
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Apr 27, 2013 10:14:14 GMT -5
Wow. That's all you can say about Jonathan's latest. Homer, homer, single, hit batter, ejection. Zero innings pitched, two earnies three hits. I'm sure Rog will point out that Sanchez didn't walk anyone and kept his pitch count down.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Apr 27, 2013 14:45:08 GMT -5
Allen -- Wow. That's all you can say about Jonathan's latest. Homer, homer, single, hit batter, ejection. Zero innings pitched, two earnies three hits. I'm sure Rog will point out that Sanchez didn't walk anyone and kept his pitch count down. Rog -- I guess you probably didn't read my post carefully and didn't realize it was posted on April 19th and applied to the start Jonathan made that was rained out. That was the start you inadvertently said the Pirates had skipped him. Man, Jonathan's game yesterday was AWFUL. That's about as bad as I've seen from ANYONE. Until you posted this I hadn't realized he had even pitched again. I believe what I posted a week ago is pretty accurate though. If I have been an apologist by saying that Jonathan wasn't skipped three starts ago, I apologize for my transgression. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1665&page=3#10459#ixzz2Rh6cRHmr
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Apr 28, 2013 11:50:43 GMT -5
If there was a rainout, they simplay would have started him the next day. They didn't so he was skipped.
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Apr 28, 2013 14:02:04 GMT -5
In watching the Pirates so closely, I'm surprised no one has mentioned that the best closer in the league is now Jason Grilli, ex-Giants # 1 draft pick ...1 run in 11 innings, 17 K's, 4 BB's...0.82ERA... 10 for 10 in saves ...he was out there as a free agent this winter...Syracuse guy, who overcame some bad arm problems...
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Apr 28, 2013 17:05:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Apr 28, 2013 17:06:38 GMT -5
Don -- In watching the Pirates so closely, I'm surprised no one has mentioned that the best closer in the league is now Jason Grilli, ex-Giants # 1 draft pick ...1 run in 11 innings, 17 K's, 4 BB's...0.82ERA... 10 for 10 in saves ...he was out there as a free agent this winter...Syracuse guy, who overcame some bad arm problems... Rog -- I was hoping over the winter that the Giants would indeed sign Jason, but I suspect they felt he was too expensive. Perhaps he would have been a good signing. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1665&page=3#ixzz2RnYVb400
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Apr 28, 2013 21:59:29 GMT -5
After I saw how much money he was making, I agree with you....however, there is a lot of TV money out there and I am still nervous about Romo and Castilla being the 8/9 closers...however, Jason is still a gamble because he has had problems....I like the Syracuse connection, though....
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on May 5, 2013 13:53:02 GMT -5
As most probably know, Sanchez was DFA'd by the Pirates. No word on what they've done with him, though I heard he was to be released. Our old buddy Adam Dunn is currently hitting .143 with 36 Ks in 98 ABs.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on May 7, 2013 13:18:32 GMT -5
I'm surprised about Dunn. He bounced back nicely last season from what was considered by some to be the worst season EVER by a full-time player.
Throw in Tim Lincecum, and we're talking about three of the quickest and most baffling declines that I can remember.
Regarding Sanchez, as we have discussed, his ERA for close to two years (no-hitter through the end of May, 2011) was in the low-to-mid 3's. Since then, however, he has yielded 100 earned runs in 115.2 innings.
In other words, perhaps an even more shocking decline than that by Tim Lincecum. Lincecum has at least returned to being a slightly above-average starter since last year's All-Star game. Sanchez just kept getting worse.
The toughest NL starter to hit in 2010, Sanchez has yielded 140 hits in those 115.2 innings. Never anything approaching a control pitcher, he has yielded 93 walks.
You and I will never agree on how good a pitcher Jonathan was from his no-hitter through the end of May, 2011, but we can both agree how AWFUL he has been since.
One could make an argument that he went from being the hardest pitcher to hit to the easiest -- all while converting poor control into a horrendous lack thereof.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on May 7, 2013 15:01:20 GMT -5
Rog- In other words, perhaps an even more shocking decline than that by Tim Lincecum. Lincecum has at least returned to being a slightly above-average starter since last year's All-Star game. Sanchez just kept getting worse.
Boagie- I don't think anyone was shocked by Sanchez's decline as much as we were about the decline and continued lack of success by Lincecum. Sanchez of course has declined more than Lincecum and more than I would have expected, but the shock value is minimal. Lincecum being statistically the worst pitcher in baseball last season was a shock.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on May 7, 2013 19:41:11 GMT -5
Boagie- I don't think anyone was shocked by Sanchez's decline as much as we were about the decline and continued lack of success by Lincecum. Sanchez of course has declined more than Lincecum and more than I would have expected, but the shock value is minimal. Lincecum being statistically the worst pitcher in baseball last season was a shock. Rog -- I'd have to agree with you that Tim's decline had more shock value. But at least he hit bottom and bounced back a bit. Jonathan simply went into free fall and has yet to recover. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1665&page=3#10635#ixzz2Semzw7L6
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on May 7, 2013 20:16:12 GMT -5
I came across this about Jonathan Sanchez from NBC's Hardball Talk:
"Dating back to the beginning of last season Sanchez is 1-12 with an 8.73 ERA and more walks (61) than strikeouts (60) in 78 innings while allowing opponents to hit .330 with a 1.057 OPS. He’s still just 29 years old and not that far removed from being a solid mid-rotation starter with a good strikeout rate for the Giants, but that’s about as bad as pitching gets."
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on May 8, 2013 11:21:31 GMT -5
Lincecum's act is stating to wear a little thin. It seems like he spends the first couple of innings still warming up. And what's with grooving the first pitch of the inning? Nix just killed two first pitches last night, and Utley hit one about halfway to Oakland. It seems as if he expects to just throw anything up there and have them miss it. Perhaps still having trouble focusing. The way things have gone so far, I can't see re-signing Tim unless he's willing to take a massive pay cut. He's certainly no longer a $22 million pitcher. He's a .500 pitcher who struggles with command and keeping himself in the game mentally.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on May 8, 2013 13:31:52 GMT -5
Jonathan's decline was certainly more predictable, though some here had predicted that Tim would decline as well. Sanchez never had his head on right, wasn't very mentally tough, and didn't seem to want to take coaching or work very hard. He never seemed to care or really want success that much. No real edge. When Tim came up, on the other hand, he was a bulldog of a competitor. What happened to that guy? Now he seems alot like Sanchez, tentative, not particularly focused, and not really mentally tough. He seems to fade in the face of adversity. Has his edge been dissipated by dope or the fat contract?
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on May 8, 2013 13:42:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on May 8, 2013 17:03:17 GMT -5
Allen -- Jonathan's decline was certainly more predictable, though some here had predicted that Tim would decline as well. Rog -- You and I both predicted Jonathan would decline in 2011, although I don't think either of us excpected its magnitude. Same with Tim in 2012. I don't think Jonathan's decline was anymore predictable than Tim's -- at least not to anywhere approaching the magnitude both occurred. I just re-read an article that showed that Jonathan hadn't really improved nearly as much from 2008 to 2010 as his ERA drop from 5.10 to 4.24 to 3.07 would indicate. The author said he wouldn 't be surprised to see an ERA regression, "possibly by a full run." That is in line with my own expectations. Even looking back now, I see no red flags. A few yellow ones, but none that were really even orange. Another article written mid-season in 2012 (after Jonathan had imploded horribly and was out fo the season) cited a decline in his fastball velocity, accompanied by an increase in the speed of his change up. Based more on fastball velocity drop, the same gap reduction between fastball and change up speed has also afflicted Tim. Both Sanchez and Lincecum were pitchers who dominated with pure stuff far more than accurate placement of their pitches. The shortening of the speed gap between hard stuff and soft stuff resulted in fewer pitches being swung at outside the zone and even within the zone but more in the pitcher's area of the zone. Tim's K/BB ratio had been declining, while Jonathan's had improved by just a bit. Tim's line drive rate was steady, while Jonathan's had been improving. Tim's ground ball to fly ball ratio had held steady, while Jonathan's had slipped. I guess the primary sign of decline from Jonathan was that his 3.07 ERA in 2010 was based in part on luck, while Tim's peripherals were showing clear signs of decline. Tim was declining, while Jonathan hadn't improved as much as hit two-year drop from a 5.10 ERA to 3.07 indicated. I would say Tim actualy was the one who most appeared to be declining, while Jonathan wasn't as good as his 2010 season indicated. In that sense, perhaps Jonathan's decline WAS more predictable -- since it wouldn't take a true performance decline, but simply a reasonably expected RESULTS decline, to produce it. But I would say Tim was the pitcher who truly showed more signs of decline. But I don't think anyone could have predicted the magnitude of the two declines. Boly and Don had long predicted a decline from Tim, but neither was specific as to when it would happen. And I doubt that either of them expected the quickness and degree of the decline, although their views at least came closer to foreshadowing it. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1665&page=3#10647#ixzz2SjuH5GCJ
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on May 8, 2013 17:18:49 GMT -5
Allen -- When Tim came up, on the other hand, he was a bulldog of a competitor. What happened to that guy? Now he seems alot like Sanchez, tentative, not particularly focused, and not really mentally tough. He seems to fade in the face of adversity. Has his edge been dissipated by dope or the fat contract? Rog -- I think the answer to your last question would correctly be "no." Isn't it something to think that when Tim had great stuff, he was a great competitor and now that he has lost the consistency of that stuff, he isn't? Is Tim less of a competitor now, or is it that he is having a harder time getting batters to swing at bad pitches and to miss the bad ones in the strike zone? So, did Tim lose his stuff, or his competitiveness? Perhaps he lost some of each. But it is measurable that he has lost stuff, while the loss of competitiveness is hypothetical. Not to pick on Mark, since he truly is a fine observer of the game, but he once said that Matt Cain was poor at holding leads, indicating to some extent that Matt lacked toughness and/or competitiveness. Turned out that Matt WASN'T bad at holding leads, whereas I can remember a few BIG ones Tim blew, even as Tim was winning his two Cy Young Awards. Clearly our perceptions are based on what we REMEMBER, and what we remember isn't always accurate. When a pitcher is getting results, he seems to be a far better competitor than when the those results don't follow. But sometimes he just doesn't have the same stuff and/or command. We should probably focuse more on the process than the results, the latter of which is based more on teammates and luck. If the process is poor, the results will usually decline in time. Tim's process just isn't nearly as good as it once was. Let's face it'; Matt Cain and Ryan Vogelsong don't seem as highly competitive this season either. But is it the competitiveness that is missing -- or simply (or at least mostly) the results? Let's focus on Cain. When he pitched in tough luck early in his career, he didn't seem nearly as competitiive as he did from 2009 through 2012, did he? And again this season, he doesn't seem to be as competitive. Let's focus on Vogelsong. He seemed highly focused when he was arguably the best starter in the majors the first three-quarters of last season. Then he looked highly UNFOCUSED when he struggled mightily for six or seven starts. Then when he was the starting pitching star of the 2012 playoffs, he seemed suddenly re-focused again. And this season he once again seems unfocused. How much of this is reality -- and how much is perception? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1665&page=3#ixzz2Sk1Xgdmf
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on May 8, 2013 19:19:43 GMT -5
?
Rog -- I think the answer to your last question would correctly be "no." Isn't it something to think that when Tim had great stuff, he was a great competitor and now that he has lost the consistency of that stuff, he isn't?
Allen- I think the question is why has he lost that consistency? Tim himself has said he has trouble maintaining focus. When you work every fifth day, why should focus be a problem? I think Tim has lost focus, competitiveness and confidence. The question is why? Whether it's dope or a big contract is of course, speculation. But dope does make one lose focus, and certainly doesn't make one feel competitive. A fat contract might make one tend not to work as hard. I don't think it's any secret that Tim smokes alot of weed, and he makes $22 million a year. I don't think either reason is very far fetched, but only a few people probably know for sure.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on May 9, 2013 11:05:58 GMT -5
Allen- I think the question is why has he lost that consistency? Rog -- And I think there are several possible reasons aside from the two you proffered. As for your asking why a pitcher who pitches only once every five days would lose focus, I think the problem becomes that once something that was muscle memory is lost, it can be difficult to pick it up again. The key in sports is to focus without thinking too much. And since a lot of luck is involved in short-term success or failure, it can be easier to fall out of a groove than to regain it. Your reasons aren't far-fetched at all. In fact, they are overly simplistic. I don't think ANYONE knows for sure what the problem is -- even Tim. If he could totally define the problem, he could overcome it. He's been overcoming a size problem all his life. You think Tim is small now? He was REALLY tiny until late in high school. I'm sorry to be so critical, Allen, but I get the opinion that you have an oversimplified vision of the world and that while you think you have the answers, oft times that is because you don't thoroughly understand the questions. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1665&page=3#10651#ixzz2SoNq7EmM
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on May 9, 2013 13:01:43 GMT -5
Allen- I think the question is why has he lost that consistency? Rog -- And I think there are several possible reasons aside from the two you proffered. Allen- No doubt. And the two I named are highly speculative. But they are possibilities. As for your asking why a pitcher who pitches only once every five days would lose focus, I think the problem becomes that once something that was muscle memory is lost, it can be difficult to pick it up again. Allen- I think you're reaching here. Pitching is all Lincecum does. It isn't like he stopped for ten years, then tried to pick it up again. He also has video and coaches. I don't see him losing muscle memory. The key in sports is to focus without thinking too much. And since a lot of luck is involved in short-term success or failure, it can be easier to fall out of a groove than to regain it. Your reasons aren't far-fetched at all. In fact, they are overly simplistic. I don't think ANYONE knows for sure what the problem is -- even Tim. If he could totally define the problem, he could overcome it. Allen- Could be. Could be he has a lifestyle he doesn't want to give up. Hey, the money's still rolling in, whether he pitches well or not. Maybe Tim is stubborn enough to think he can do things his way and still be successful. After all, he was before. Could be he's slow to adjust to the fact that hitters have adjusted to him, or that he can't do the things he once did and has to make some changes. Maybe it's all gotten too matter of course for him, and thus the loss of focus. Here's a question, say Tim continues at his present pace or something like it for the rest of the season. If you're the Giants, what would you do with him? I'm sorry to be so critical, Allen, but I get the opinion that you have an oversimplified vision of the world and that while you think you have the answers, oft times that is because you don't thoroughly understand the questions. Allen- I think the key word here would be opinion. I don't claim to have the answers here, never said I did. I'm throwing some highly speculative theories out there, which I've also said. I'm of the opinion that when it comes to Tim Lincecum, you're much like a lioness protecting her cub.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on May 10, 2013 10:55:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on May 10, 2013 12:26:53 GMT -5
Not necessarily. You suggested the trade due mostly to economic reasons, not because his ability has dissipated.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on May 10, 2013 12:49:00 GMT -5
Boly- If we went by love and honoring past actions, Marichal would still be pitching for us, and Mays would be patrolling CF.
Boagie- Not for me. I don't care about personal achievements as much as a I do winning. I can appreciate the fact that Mays and Marichal were good, but what did that give the fans? The Giants were still always looking up at the Dodgers. Quite honestly, I don't think Mays, McCovey and Marichal should be out on the field during the ring ceremony accepting rings, they didn't win those, they proved incapable of winning those (besides Mays very early in his career.) I've actually lost a lot of respect for those guys by going out there pretending to be a part of the celebration. Barry Bonds, love him or hate him, understands the game better than Mays, McCovey and Marichal. When Bonds was asked if he was going to come to the parade in 2010 he said "No, why would I be there? I didn't win it."
Jeff Kent during his 10 year anniversary of '02 season speech at AT&T said that the '02 team couldn't do what the 2010 team did...He gets it. Personal achievements are nice, but in the end being the best is what matters.
I can appreciate Timmy's Cy Young awards, but that's not what I'll look back on years from now. I'll look back on what he did for the Giants in the post season in 2010 and 2012. What do you remember more, his starts in the post-season in 2010, and relief appearances in 2012, or any of the games he pitched during his two Cy Young award seasons?
We always talk about chemistry, but some of you always want to mess with it. Do you think we win the World Series 2 out of the last 3 years without Lincecum? I can assure you 2010 wouldn't have happened without Tim, 2012 could have, but I'm not sure, he did come in and shut down the Reds in game 4 of the NLDS and let the Giants get a comfortable lead, without him maybe we don't win that series. Also, without the 2010 experience, maybe 2012 doesn't happen.
I prefer Tim have a good ERA and lead the league in strikeouts, but honestly, if we win the World Series and Tim Lincecum helps us do that, then what do you care what his ERA is? Furthermore, why would you want to chance not having that same chemistry and post-season success?
Think about it, has Tim had a season where we'd be better off without him? He was a soild rookie in 2007, he was the Cy Young winner in '08 and '09, he was our ace in 2010 when we won the WS, he had an ERA below 3.00 in 2011, and he helped us win the second WS in 2012 by playing a big role as a super reliever. So far, I wouldn't have changed a thing, even last season.
I understand what you're saying Boly, you always make very good points, but at the same time we're still in first place, so it's not time to panic yet. If Timmy doesn't straighten up then yeah, my idea would be to put him in the super reliever role that he was in when we won 7 games in a row against two of the best teams in baseball. I don't see how it could hurt us if he performs like he did last post-season.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on May 11, 2013 11:25:12 GMT -5
Allen -- Not necessarily. You suggested the trade due mostly to economic reasons, not because his ability has dissipated. Rog -- I'm a little surprised at you, Allen. Yes, it is possibe that you could have forgotten that I suggested the trade because Tim's peripheras were declining. But I again posted about Tim's declining peripherals in this very thread. I tire of posts that say I said this or that when I didn't. Even back when Tim was winning Cy Young Awards, I was the one who was most critical of his performances. As an example, IIRC when Tim made his debut as the All-Star starting pitcher, I was the only one anywhere (as far as I know) who pointed out he made THREE fielding mistakes in the first inning alone. Once or twice when Tim made bounce back performances last season, I pointed out I wasn't as impressed as others were. I ask once again, does this sound like a lioness protecting her cub? Or her Brave, or her Cardinal? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1665&page=3#10671#ixzz2T09d6xRe
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on May 11, 2013 11:27:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on May 11, 2013 11:30:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on May 11, 2013 11:33:03 GMT -5
|
|