|
Zito
May 25, 2013 23:05:58 GMT -5
Post by klaiggeb on May 25, 2013 23:05:58 GMT -5
A number of years back I put forth the idea of a players FSY.
Final Spurt Year.
It's something I've believed in for a long time.
Not everyone has them, that one last top of the barrell go around, but many do.
Uribe for us in 2010 is a great example.
My latest one is Zito.
After a great, great run last year, and for a while this year...I'm guessing that Zito has his FSY... and isn't going to come close to what he did for us in 2012.
Our starting staff, while not kaputt, is no longer feared by anyone in the NL.
We've got 2; Cain and Bumgarner.
Lincecum has become not just an inconsistant pitcher but one who rarely gives you a chance to win.
He falls behind in counts, and quickly the team falls behind on the scoreboard.
Zito... For a # 5 he's okay... but you can't have 2 number 5 guys.
Lincecum is the other.
Vogey is hurt, and other than that last start, he simply was terrible.
Sabean and Bochy have a huge dilemma on their hands.
They've finally got a line up that can score, and hit some long balls, a usually solid defense...
But a starting staff that is, as Mick Jagger once sang, in "Tatters."
Our bullpen isn't what it was either.
You saw Romo again today; getting pitches up, and lacking that slider snap that he once had.
Casilla's on the DL
Lopez, lately has been lights out
Affeldt has been doing okay
Machi lacks experience, but I still like him
Gaudin doesn't have a very good history, and thus, is the long man.
Kontos has all too often, simply not been the guy he was last year.
My point? I'm not all that happy with the bullpen I don't care what their numbers are.
I no longer believe they can be counted upon as we could count upon them in 2010, 2011, and 2012.
Sabean, I hope you have some magic up those sleeves, because I believe we're going to need it.
boly
|
|
|
Zito
May 26, 2013 11:25:19 GMT -5
Post by Islandboagie on May 26, 2013 11:25:19 GMT -5
Boly- A number of years back I put forth the idea of a players FSY.
Final Spurt Year.
It's something I've believed in for a long time.
Not everyone has them, that one last top of the barrell go around, but many do.
Uribe for us in 2010 is a great example.
Boagie- Burrell and Huff in 2010 too.
I think all 3 spent themselves that season...which is fine with me, it came at the perfect time.
Boly- My latest one is Zito.
After a great, great run last year, and for a while this year...I'm guessing that Zito has his FSY... and isn't going to come close to what he did for us in 2012.
Boagie- You all thought Zito was done after 2011. He's obviously not been as sharp his last 3 starts, but prior to that he was pitching beautifully. The issue here isn't Zito.
Boly-Zito... For a # 5 he's okay... but you can't have 2 number 5 guys.
Lincecum is the other.
Boagie- I would say most teams have 2 guys whom we'd consider #5 guys. Some have 3 guys.
I agree Boly, the starting pitching needs to step up, but Cain has been better and Bumgarner has been very good. Prior to his start at Colorado he was excellent.
Lincecum looked good to me his last start, he was actually hitting his spots, but the Colorado bats still managed to put balls in play.
Boly- Our bullpen isn't what it was either.
You saw Romo again today; getting pitches up, and lacking that slider snap that he once had.
Boagie- His slider doesn't have the same dramatic movement on it, but it's still been effective. In his last 3.2 innings he's struck out 5 and only given up one run, the solo shot to Tulowitzki yesterday. Giving up a solo shot to Tulo is going to happen to the best pitchers in baseball.
Boly- Casilla's on the DL
Boagie- This is a problem. I think people underestimate Casilla and what he's done for the Giants since 2010. Losing him for an extended amount of time would be very bad.
The good news? Ramon Ramirez hasn't given up a run in his last 7 outings. In fact, he's only given up 2 hits while striking out 12 in those 7 outings.
Boly- Kontos has all too often, simply not been the guy he was last year.
Boagie- I think Kontos's numbers are misleading. I would still trust him in a close game. He's been bitten by the same bug that alot of our pitchers have, he's been terrible on the road. He's also recieved alot of ground balls that have found the holes. Batters are hitting .381 on ground balls against Kontos.
In home games this year his BA against is .179, on the road it's .315.
This might interest you, and might support my view of Kontos in close games..In late and close situations his BA against is .217, when the margin is more than 4 runs it blows up to .444.
I believe Kontos is just one of those guys who needs to have the pressure on him to perform well. I'm not making excuses for him, but I think these numbers show that demoting him to the minors like you've suggested probably needs to be reconsidered.
|
|
|
Zito
May 27, 2013 13:21:12 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on May 27, 2013 13:21:12 GMT -5
Boly -- A number of years back I put forth the idea of a players FSY. Final Spurt Year. It's something I've believed in for a long time. Not everyone has them, that one last top of the barrell go around, but many do. Uribe for us in 2010 is a great example. My latest one is Zito. After a great, great run last year, and for a while this year...I'm guessing that Zito has his FSY... and isn't going to come close to what he did for us in 2012. Rog -- One thing about a final spurt year is that it can involve a fair amount of luck -- especially in the case of a pitcher. Let's take a look at Barry's Giants career through the eyes of Fielding Independent Pitching. What is Fielding Independent Pitching (FIP)? It is a way of measuring a pitcher's ERA independent of the fielding behind him. How accurate is FIP? Well, it's accurate enough that it is a better predictor of a pitcher's ERA the next year than actual ERA itself is. So, with his injured 2011 season taken out, what has Barry's Fielding Independent Pitching indicated? 2007 -- 4.82 2008 -- 4.72 2009 -- 4.31 2010 -- 4.25 2012 -- 4.49 2013 -- 3.78 What this shows is that Barry has been essentially the same pitcher each of those seasons -- except that he may be pitching slightly better this year. By the way, Barry's FIP his last four seasons with the A's was 4.05, 4.50, 4.34 and 4.89, which essentially shows that the Barry Zito who has pitched for the Giants isn't that much different than the Barry who pitched his last four seasons with the A's. Or -- and again, throwing out the injury-riddled season of 2011 -- let's take a look at Barry's ACTUAL ERA's his past four full seasons (or, partial, in the case of 2013): 4.03, 4.15, 4.15, 4.13. Here is my point: Barry Zito has been one of the most consistent of pitchers over his past dozen or so seasons. It's simply that we haven't noticed it. Ignoring the FIP thing, if we take out 2009 (very unlucky year) and 2011 (injury-shortened season), Barry's ACTUAL ERA between 2004 and this season has never been lower than 3.83 (2006) nor higher than 4.53 (2007). In four of those eight seasons, his ERA has been between 4.03 and 4.15. In two others, it was 3.83 and 3.86. The other two it was 4.48 and 4.53. Barry Zito has been essentially the same pitcher for the past decade. We just haven't noticed it. As an aside, what a horrible travesty that Zito won the 2002 Cy Young Award instead of Pedro Martinez. Pedro has a 2.26 ERA compared to Barry's (somewhat lucky) 2.75, and a 0.923 WHIP compared to 1.134. But the voters hadn't yet figured out that wins weren't as important as they seemed, and thus gave (in more ways than one) the award to Zito (23-5) instead of Martinez (20-4). Martinez led the league in winning percentage, ERA, strikeouts, ERA+, WHIP, H/9, K/9 and K/BB -- yet through the ignorance of the voters, didn't win the Cy Young. Zito led the league in two things: wins and games started. What a gift. That misjudgment was a bit different than our judgment of Barry over the past decade, but in each case we are guilty of -- if not seeing things that aren't, at least not seeing things as they ARE. Barry Zito is essentially the same pitcher today he was nine years ago. His fastball is even slower, and he's added a slider and some smarts. As far as how he is controlling his results, he's about equally as effective now as he was then. The one way we can argue that Barry was better then than he is now is that he was playing in a higher run-scoring environment back in 2004. But whatever Barry's decline, it has been pretty closely offset by playing in a lower-scoring environment as time has passed. Take out 2008 and 2011, and Barry has been HIGHLY consistent over the past decade. He has HAD no final spurt year. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1789#ixzz2UW2gfFag
|
|
|
Zito
May 27, 2013 13:36:40 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on May 27, 2013 13:36:40 GMT -5
Boly -- Lincecum has become not just an inconsistant pitcher but one who rarely gives you a chance to win. Rog -- It may seem that way, but it isn't. Tim has held the Giants' opponents to three or fewer runs in 15 of his last 25 starts. One could easily argue that he gave the Giants the chance to win in those 15 starts. Now, Tim has done so only four times in his last 10 starts, so he hasn't done as well in that regard this season as he did after last season's All-Star break. But I think to say that he rarely gives the Giants the chance to win is a misstatement. I don't think anyone would make that statement about Madison Bumgarner, yet Mad Bum has given up three or fewer runs in 17 times in 24 starts over that same period. Am I trying to say that over this period Lincecum has been as good as Mad Bum? Absolutely not. But what I AM trying to show is that Tim has given the Giants the chance to win more times than not. As has been the case with Barry Zito, things can be different than they seem. Speaking of Zito, he has allowed 3 or fewer runs in 16 of his 25 starts in that period. Again, not all that different from Mad Bum. Ryan Vogelsong has allowed three or fewer runs in only 12 of his last 24 starts (not including his lights-out 2012 postseason), and Matt Cain has done so 19 of his last 26 starts. One could argue that since the 2012 All-Star game, each Giants starter has given the chance to win at least half the time -- and none has done so as often as three-quarters. Upon further review, things aren't always as they seem. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1789&page=1#ixzz2UWDVpOPB
|
|
|
Zito
May 27, 2013 14:27:16 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on May 27, 2013 14:27:16 GMT -5
The Giants have won 16 of Tim Lincecum's last 25 starts.
|
|
|
Zito
May 28, 2013 12:36:45 GMT -5
Post by klaiggeb on May 28, 2013 12:36:45 GMT -5
Take out 2008 and 2011, and Barry has been HIGHLY consistent over the past decade.
He has HAD no final spurt year.
---boly says---
Rog, I disagree eleventeen.
Sorry.
But that 3.78, and the way he was getting hitters out last year IS and WAS different by a lot!
An ERA of 4.25, may only be roughly 50 points different, and looking strictly at numbers, it seems that way.
But the numbers belie the results.
Allowing 3 and 3/4 runs/game is one HECK of a lot different than allowing 4 and 1/4.
sorry, but as the old saying goes, "that dog just won't hunt."
boly
|
|
|
Zito
May 28, 2013 12:39:15 GMT -5
Post by klaiggeb on May 28, 2013 12:39:15 GMT -5
But what I AM trying to show is that Tim has given the Giants the chance to win more times than not.
As has been the case with Barry Zito, things can be different than they seem. Speaking of Zito, he has allowed 3 or fewer runs in 16 of his 25 starts in that period. Again, not all that different from Mad Bum.
--boly says---
Rog, with all due respect, your concept for "giving a chance to win," and mine, then, are very different.
If you're allowing 4 runs in 5 innings, THAT, IMHO, is not giving your team a chance to win.
Tim has simply not been very good from 2012 through today.
As I said before, now, he's a number 5 guy... and marginally that.
boly
boly
|
|
|
Zito
May 28, 2013 15:48:15 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on May 28, 2013 15:48:15 GMT -5
Rog -- Take out 2008 and 2011, and Barry has been HIGHLY consistent over the past decade. He has HAD no final spurt year. ---boly says--- Rog, I disagree eleventeen. Sorry. But that 3.78, and the way he was getting hitters out last year IS and WAS different by a lot! An ERA of 4.25, may only be roughly 50 points different, and looking strictly at numbers, it seems that way. But the numbers belie the results. Allowing 3 and 3/4 runs/game is one HECK of a lot different than allowing 4 and 1/4. Rog -- I think pitching luck can easily account for half a run's difference. How many hard-hit balls are caught? How many squibs and bloops fall in? How many marginal plays are called hits, and how many are called errors? How effective are your relievers at keeping your bequeathed runners from scoring? But Fielding Independent Pitching (FIP) is designed to take OUT the effects of luck (and is indeed more accurate in predicting future ERA than current ERA itself is). It is FIP -- not ERA -- that says Barry has pitched his best ball for the Giants this season. Indeed, 5 of the 8 runners Barry has put on base for his relievers this season have scored. That's 62%. I realize many think Barry's best season with the Giants was 2012, since he went an excellent 15-8. Personally, I think 2009 was his best season, since he put up more or less the same ERA as 2010 and 2012 even though in 2009 AT&T was playing as a HITTERS' park. Barry went only 10-13 in 2009, but he also had 1.22 fewer runs of support (3.54 in 2009 compared to 4.76 last season). What is is that makes us think that Barry was substantially better last season than he was in some of his other Giants years? His differences in won-loss record can be mostly explained by his run support in the various seasons. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1789&page=1#11152#ixzz2UcYS9FIn
|
|
|
Zito
May 28, 2013 15:58:23 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on May 28, 2013 15:58:23 GMT -5
Rog -- But what I AM trying to show is that Tim has given the Giants the chance to win more times than not. As has been the case with Barry Zito, things can be different than they seem. Speaking of Zito, he has allowed 3 or fewer runs in 16 of his 25 starts in that period. Again, not all that different from Mad Bum. --boly says--- Rog, with all due respect, your concept for "giving a chance to win," and mine, then, are very different. If you're allowing 4 runs in 5 innings, THAT, IMHO, is not giving your team a chance to win. Rog -- I see no difference in our opinions as to what giving one's team a chance to win is -- at least not based on your comment here. I defined giving your team a chance to win as allowed three runs or fewer. I agree that giving up 4 runs in 5 innings isn't giving your team a very good chance to win. Boly -- Tim has simply not been very good from 2012 through today. Rog -- Again, we agree. Boly -- As I said before, now, he's a number 5 guy... and marginally that. Rog -- Here we disagree. One could argue that Tim is a #5 guy -- but not that he is marginally so. On his own team -- a team pretty well known for its starting pitching -- Tim is #3 in both ERA and WHIP among the rotation. Among all qualifying major league pitching, he ranks #81 in ERA and #85 in WHIP. That sounds more like a #3 starter, as well. 30 teams x 3 starters = 90 starters. Tim is in the top 90 in each category. I don't have a problem with your calling Tim a #4 or even #5 starter now. But to say he's MARGINALLY a #5 just doesn't mesh with the facts. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1789&page=1#ixzz2Ucf3d4Es
|
|
|
Zito
May 28, 2013 18:57:30 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on May 28, 2013 18:57:30 GMT -5
Giving your team a chance to win. Pretty nebulous. Depends alot on how your team does offensively, don't you think? If you're team scores 10 and you hold the other team to six, you gave them a good chance to win. If they score two, and you give up the same six, you didn't give them much of a chance to win.
|
|
|
Zito
May 29, 2013 11:16:33 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on May 29, 2013 11:16:33 GMT -5
Allen -- Giving your team a chance to win. Pretty nebulous. Rog -- Let's start with what we know. We know that a quality start is defined as up to three earned runs in at least six innings. So we can be almost certain that yielding three earned runs in six innings would be defined as "giving your team a chance to win." I chose the definition of no more than three runs, which would almost always involve at least five innings. That's probably a reasonable definition. I would add to that any outing of 8 or more innings with no more than earned runs. Teams feel pretty comfortable scoring 5 runs in a game. If a pitcher goes 5 or more innings and gives up 3 or fewer runs, his reliever can be scored upon at least once and still put the team in position to win if it achieves its scoring goal. Monday night Madison Bumgarner gave the Giants a chance to win. He wound up yielding four runs, but when he left the game he had given up only two. The Giants have actually WON 16 of Tim Lincecum's last 25 starts. It seems likely that he put them in position to win a fair number of times. By my definition, he did so 15 times. By the way, Allen, in a pure definition of giving your team a (reasonable) chance to win, the number of runs your team scores is irrelevant. That is beyond the pitcher's control. A pitcher can "put his team in position to win" and still suffer the loss. He can also fail to "put his team in position to win" and gain the victory. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1789&page=1#11178#ixzz2UhM2GE23
|
|
|
Zito
May 29, 2013 11:17:08 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on May 29, 2013 11:17:08 GMT -5
I think Allen has posed a good question here. How would each of us define "giving your team a chance to win?"
|
|
|
Zito
May 29, 2013 11:45:46 GMT -5
Post by Islandboagie on May 29, 2013 11:45:46 GMT -5
Rog- I think Allen has posed a good question here. How would each of us define "giving your team a chance to win?"
Boagie- I'm not very fond of the term myself. A pitcher could give up 6 runs in the first inning and his team could come back and score 7 runs and win 7-6. Kruk and Kuip would chalk that up as giving his team a chance to win by holding them to those 6 runs. I say putting your team in a 6-run hole is only increasing their chance of losing. In a game like that I think the focus should be put on the offense giving the pitcher a chance to get a win or a no-decision.
|
|
|
Zito
May 29, 2013 19:16:15 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on May 29, 2013 19:16:15 GMT -5
Boagie -- A pitcher could give up 6 runs in the first inning and his team could come back and score 7 runs and win 7-6. Kruk and Kuip would chalk that up as giving his team a chance to win by holding them to those 6 runs. I say putting your team in a 6-run hole is only increasing their chance of losing. In a game like that I think the focus should be put on the offense giving the pitcher a chance to get a win or a no-decision. Rog -- Assuming you are correct in your assumption as to what Kruk and Kuip would say, you are far more on target than they IMO. To me, it seems close to a no-brainer. Who is the better pitcher -- the guy who holds the opposition to two runs in seven innings every game, yet doesn't get run support and thus has a poor won-loss record, or the guy who gives up four runs in six innings every game, gets great run support, and thus has a good won-loss record? I think the answer is clear, and that the Giants have good examples in Matt Cain and Kirk Rueter. Which pitcher do YOU think has been better? Kirk has easily the better won-loss record despite having a much higher ERA. I don't need to tell you which pitcher got a LOT more run support than the other, do I? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1789&page=1#11197#ixzz2UjKkYRyk
|
|
|
Zito
May 30, 2013 15:10:16 GMT -5
Post by klaiggeb on May 30, 2013 15:10:16 GMT -5
Boly -- As I said before, now, he's a number 5 guy... and marginally that.
Rog -- Here we disagree. One could argue that Tim is a #5 guy -- but not that he is marginally so.
On his own team -- a team pretty well known for its starting pitching -- Tim is #3 in both ERA and WHIP among the rotation.
Among all qualifying major league pitching, he ranks #81 in ERA and #85 in WHIP. That sounds more like a #3 starter, as well. 30 teams x 3 starters = 90 starters. Tim is in the top 90 in each category.
---boly says---
Rog, Timmy's ERA is 5.12!
And THAT after 10 games!
he's not getting better because he can't command what he has. In particular, his fastball.
Heck, you can win with 88-92 MPH, but not if you can't locate.
And Timmy can't do that.
For that reason alone, he's not anyone's number 3
boly
|
|
|
Zito
May 30, 2013 15:12:47 GMT -5
Post by klaiggeb on May 30, 2013 15:12:47 GMT -5
I think Allen has posed a good question here. How would each of us define "giving your team a chance to win?"
--boly says---
My version of "giving your team a chance to win" is this:
1-NOT consistently falling behind early on the scoreboard. 2-NOT walking 4 or so guys/game 3-NOT having opponents hitting .300+ with RISP 4-NOT losing leads too often when they are given to you.
Now, which of those fits Tim?
I would argue, none.
boly
|
|
|
Zito
May 30, 2013 19:09:28 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on May 30, 2013 19:09:28 GMT -5
Boly -- As I said before, now, he's a number 5 guy... and marginally that. Rog -- Here we disagree. One could argue that Tim is a #5 guy -- but not that he is marginally so. On his own team -- a team pretty well known for its starting pitching -- Tim is #3 in both ERA and WHIP among the rotation. Among all qualifying major league pitching, he ranks #81 in ERA and #85 in WHIP. That sounds more like a #3 starter, as well. 30 teams x 3 starters = 90 starters. Tim is in the top 90 in each category. ---boly says--- Rog, Timmy's ERA is 5.12! And THAT after 10 games! he's not getting better because he can't command what he has. In particular, his fastball. Heck, you can win with 88-92 MPH, but not if you can't locate. And Timmy can't do that. For that reason alone, he's not anyone's number 3 Rog -- I understand what you're saying, Boly. I would normally call a pitcher with an ERA as high as Tim's a #5 starter. My point though is that saying Tim is MARGINALLY a #5 starter isn't congruent with the facts. The point I made here is that there aren't all that many starters who are able to pitch enough innings to qualify for the ERA title. Because of injuries, the #4 and #5 starters are often guys who ideally would be that team's #6 or even #7 starter. I stated fact here. As I pointed out, I wouldn't have quibbled with your characterizing Tim as a #5 starter, but when you added "marginally that," I think you went over the line. The facts showed that you made your statement, there weren't three starters per team who had both pitched better than Tim and pitched enough innings to be a qualifier. I don't think you and I really see Tim that differently. I think it is more that because of injuries and the like, it doesn't take all that much to be in the top 90 qualifiers (three per team). Has Tim pitched in the manner we would usually expect from a #3 starter? No, he hasn't. My point is that because of various factors, our expectations from one of the top 90 starters (qualifiers) in the league are likely too high. We certainly agree that Tim hasn't pitched as well as we would like our #3 starter to pitch. Not even close. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1789&page=1#11257#ixzz2Up6Beoz5
|
|
|
Zito
May 30, 2013 19:17:07 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on May 30, 2013 19:17:07 GMT -5
Boly -- My version of "giving your team a chance to win" is this: 1-NOT consistently falling behind early on the scoreboard. 2-NOT walking 4 or so guys/game 3-NOT having opponents hitting .300+ with RISP 4-NOT losing leads too often when they are given to you. Now, which of those fits Tim? Rog -- I would have to look it up, but I'm not sure #4 wouldn't apply to Tim. But based on the general point of your definition, I'm with you. But when Marty Lurie has said the past two seasons that the diminished Lincecum "just needs to pitch well enough to give the Giants the chance to win," I think he is defining "giving one's team a chance to win" closer to my arbitrary definition of not allowing more than three runs. If a pitcher doesn't allow more than three runs, he has done nothing to eliminate the chance of his team to win a lot of games. At the time we began discussing this, the Giants had indeed won 16 of Tim's last 25 starts. Whether by the way it worked out or by means of what I would consider a reasonable definition of giving one's team a chance to win, I think Tim did so over that period. If no more than three earned runs in six or more innings is a "quality start," wouldn't it seem that "giving one's team a chance to win" would be a lesser standard (and thus my no more than three runs yielded, without an innings minimum)? Based on your definition, Boly, I'm with you. I simply think your definition is too harsh. I would argue, none. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1789&page=1#ixzz2UpAkfRix
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Zito
May 30, 2013 22:00:04 GMT -5
Post by donk on May 30, 2013 22:00:04 GMT -5
Boly -- As I said before, now, he's a number 5 guy... and marginally that. Rog -- Here we disagree. One could argue that Tim is a #5 guy -- but not that he is marginally so. On his own team -- a team pretty well known for its starting pitching -- Tim is #3 in both ERA and WHIP among the rotation. Among all qualifying major league pitching, he ranks #81 in ERA and #85 in WHIP. That sounds more like a #3 starter, as well. 30 teams x 3 starters = 90 starters. Tim is in the top 90 in each category. ---boly says--- Rog, Timmy's ERA is 5.12! And THAT after 10 games! he's not getting better because he can't command what he has. In particular, his fastball. Heck, you can win with 88-92 MPH, but not if you can't locate. And Timmy can't do that. For that reason alone, he's not anyone's number 3 Rog -- I understand what you're saying, Boly. I would normally call a pitcher with an ERA as high as Tim's a #5 starter. My point though is that saying Tim is MARGINALLY a #5 starter isn't congruent with the facts. The point I made here is that there aren't all that many starters who are able to pitch enough innings to qualify for the ERA title. Because of injuries, the #4 and #5 starters are often guys who ideally would be that team's #6 or even #7 starter. I stated fact here. As I pointed out, I wouldn't have quibbled with your characterizing Tim as a #5 starter, but when you added "marginally that," I think you went over the line. The facts showed that you made your statement, there weren't three starters per team who had both pitched better than Tim and pitched enough innings to be a qualifier. I don't think you and I really see Tim that differently. I think it is more that because of injuries and the like, it doesn't take all that much to be in the top 90 qualifiers (three per team). Has Tim pitched in the manner we would usually expect from a #3 starter? No, he hasn't. My point is that because of various factors, our expectations from one of the top 90 starters (qualifiers) in the league are likely too high. We certainly agree that Tim hasn't pitched as well as we would like our #3 starter to pitch. Not even close. dk...last year he had the highest ERA of any starter with enough innings to qualify as the leader....and that was 5.18 ...you think that is enough improvement to jump him to the status of a #3 starter......I think he could still be a winner if he would go somewhere away from his father and learn new mechanics that would give him better command... ]
|
|
|
Zito
May 31, 2013 9:44:33 GMT -5
Post by klaiggeb on May 31, 2013 9:44:33 GMT -5
Rog -- I understand what you're saying, Boly. I would normally call a pitcher with an ERA as high as Tim's a #5 starter. My point though is that saying Tim is MARGINALLY a #5 starter isn't congruent with the facts.
The point I made here is that there aren't all that many starters who are able to pitch enough innings to qualify for the ERA title. Because of injuries, the #4 and #5 starters are often guys who ideally would be that team's #6 or even #7 starter.
I stated fact here. As I pointed out, I wouldn't have quibbled with your characterizing Tim as a #5 starter, but when you added "marginally that," I think you went over the line.
The facts showed that you made your statement, there weren't three starters per team who had both pitched better than Tim and pitched enough innings to be a qualifier.
I don't think you and I really see Tim that differently. I think it is more that because of injuries and the like, it doesn't take all that much to be in the top 90 qualifiers (three per team).
Has Tim pitched in the manner we would usually expect from a #3 starter? No, he hasn't. My point is that because of various factors, our expectations from one of the top 90 starters (qualifiers) in the league are likely too high.
--boly says---
Wow, Rog. We sure aren't, and aren't likely to be, in agreement over Timmy.
With his ERA, 5.12, I don't know what else to call him but marginal #5.
And let's be honest, until he went into the bullpen last year, his troubles were and continue to be, the same.
His stuff is not in question. It's still outstanding.
But...
boly
|
|
|
Zito
May 31, 2013 9:50:04 GMT -5
Post by klaiggeb on May 31, 2013 9:50:04 GMT -5
If no more than three earned runs in six or more innings is a "quality start," wouldn't it seem that "giving one's team a chance to win" would be a lesser standard (and thus my no more than three runs yielded, without an innings minimum)?
Based on your definition, Boly, I'm with you. I simply think your definition is too harsh.
---boly says---
No question, Rog, it is harsh.
Remember, I come from a different time than most 'analysts and media' than today, and that effects my perspective of the game.
To me, an ERA of 4.00+ is not acceptable for the top 3 guys in the rotation.
I've come to grips that the complete game has gone the way of the dodo bird.
I understand the specialist aspect of the game.
I understand the 'smaller' ball park argument
But my expectations for what I consider at top 3 guy haven't changed.
Timmy was once elite, and frankly, though I understand why his problems are what they are, I've never, EVER seen a pitcher who should be in his prime, with such a great past, go from great to well below average so quickly.
If he was 35...even 34, I could understand.
But at his young age?
Nope. Never seen it before.
As allen continues to say, at the end of this year, unless he'll take a MASSIVE pay cut, I let him walk.
Can't pay someone what he's making for an ERA in the 5.00's, or, for that matter, in the 4.00's.
boly
|
|
|
Zito
May 31, 2013 10:07:21 GMT -5
Post by Islandboagie on May 31, 2013 10:07:21 GMT -5
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a team that wouldn't trade their #5 guy for Tim Lincecum.
That being said, me and Boly made an agreement, it's now 11 pitching outings into the season and I'll admit, it hasn't gotten any better. Still inconsistent, still no command of the strike zone. There have been a few good games, but more bad games..I'm dissapointed. Tim Lincecum is a mystery to me, perhaps the scouts were right in their assesment of Tim as a draft pick. Too small to have that arm hold up tong term.
I think we should put him back into the role that brought back the old Timmy for a little while during the post-season, and with Casilla out we could use the help. Unfortunately, with Vogelsong out and no young pitcher on the horizon, we need more help in the starting rotation, which is why this won't happen. So why even talk about Tim and his struggles?
Obviously ripping on Torres has worked well, Boly. Ripping on Tim hasn't. Maybe since there's no chance of Tim being ousted from the rotation anytime soon, you should switch it up and be positive and just see what happens? I will do the opposite.
Tim Lincecum sucks, get rid of him.
|
|
|
Zito
May 31, 2013 11:18:47 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on May 31, 2013 11:18:47 GMT -5
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a team that wouldn't trade their #5 guy for Tim Lincecum.
Allen- Not at his current price.
|
|
|
Zito
Jun 1, 2013 9:23:24 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Jun 1, 2013 9:23:24 GMT -5
Boly -- Wow, Rog. We sure aren't, and aren't likely to be, in agreement over Timmy. With his ERA, 5.12, I don't know what else to call him but marginal #5. Rog -- What would you say is the average ERA of all 5th starters? Unless it is at least half a run lower than Tim's -- and it isn't -- how can you call him marginal in that role? When this discussion began, Tim's ERA was 4.75. Right now there are 102 major league qualifiers, and there are only 74 ERA's among them that are lower than 4.75. So what does that tell us? First, it tells that among qualifiers, a 4.75 ERA is in the top 75%. Even if all starters were qualifiers, only the bottom 20% would truly be pitching at a 5th starter level. The top 1-20% would be pitching at the level of a first starter. The 21th to 40% percent would be pitching at the level of a #2 starter. Etc., all the way to the 81st to 100th best starters having pitched at the leve of a #5 starter. So even if only qualifiers were among the starting pitchers who make up the #1 through #5 starters of the 30 major league teams, pitching in the 73rd-worst percentile (as is represented by ranking 74 out of 102) would be pitching ABOVE the level of a #5 starter -- let alone better than the level of a MARGINAL #5 starter. But 102 qualifiers mean that only 68% -- just over two out of three -- of all starters are good enough and healthy enough to pitch enough innings to qualifiy. That means that many #5 starters and even some #4 starters don't even qualify. To say Tim has pitched poorly is a no-brainer. To say he has pitched at the level of a #5 starter is questionable. To say he his pitching has been only MARGINAL for a #5 starter isn't in congruence with the facts. You and I don't really disagree on how poorly Tim has pitched, Boly, but IMO you greatly over-estimate how good a #5 starter is. I don't think any fact has been presented in this discussion to demonstrate otherwise. If I missed it, please reinforce it with me. Maybe I can put it this way: In order for Tim to be only a marginal #1 starter, I would think he would have to be in, say, the bottom 10 of the 150 starters. The bottom 30 would make up the level of a 5th starter, and perhaps the bottom third of that group could be considered to be marginal. Who are the 140 starters who have outpitched Tim? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1789&page=1#11266#ixzz2UyPgHo76
|
|
|
Zito
Jun 1, 2013 9:44:19 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Jun 1, 2013 9:44:19 GMT -5
dk...last year he had the highest ERA of any starter with enough innings to qualify as the leader....and that was 5.18 ...you think that is enough improvement to jump him to the status of a #3 starter.. Rog -- You're not understanding my position, Don. Last season Tim was #85 out of 88 qualifiers. That means 67 of the top 150 starters in baseball didn't even qualify. Very few -- if any -- 5th starters are both good enough and healthy enough to qualifiy. Tim was lousy, but he was good enough and healthy enough to pitch the 58th-most innings of any starter in major league baseball. This season he has pitched the 53rd-mosts innings, and by the end of the season, he will likely rank higher than that. My point is that because of injuries and other factors, 5th starters aren't very good. In the old days there were just 4 starters, which meant that starters were better on average (for their era). It was the relievers who were much worse than today's bullpens. When this discussion began, Tim had the 3rd-best ERA in a rotation considered to be (until lately) among the best. Tim has pitched poorly this season. But he has pitched clearly better than a marginal 5th starter. Does it SEEM as if he has? Not really. He's been pretty darn bad (and highly inconsistent, both from inning to inning and from start to start). But the reality is that he indeed done so when we look at the starters throughout the major leagues. Can we show otherwise? I don't think we can. If someone can, I'd welcome it. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1789&page=1#ixzz2UyUGuLcb
|
|
|
Zito
Jun 1, 2013 9:58:12 GMT -5
Post by klaiggeb on Jun 1, 2013 9:58:12 GMT -5
Boly -- Wow, Rog. We sure aren't, and aren't likely to be, in agreement over Timmy. With his ERA, 5.12, I don't know what else to call him but marginal #5. Rog -- What would you say is the average ERA of all 5th starters? Unless it is at least half a run lower than Tim's -- and it isn't -- how can you call him marginal in that role? ---boly says--- For me, Rog, a number 5 guy doesn't have an ERA anywhere near 5.00 Now remember, I'm an old guy, with obviously out dated expectations (please note the not very well veiled sarcasm ). I don't see a guy with a 4.00 ERA as a top 3 guy. For me, my top 3 darned well BETTER be 3.50 or less. And for the 1 and 2 guys MUCH, MUCH less. # 5? I'm willling to live with 4.30-4.50; period. My number 5 will give me 5 innings... maybe 6, and give me what I posted in a previous message, my definition of a chance to win. Yes, my requirements are harsh. Yes, my requirements are strict. But this is the frickin' major leagues. Others may be satisfied with ERAs over 4, and call them quality starts, but this old fart simply will not accept that. In 2010 the Giant WON with pitching and defense. We did that again in 2012. I submit that really good pitching IS the way to way championships, or to at least be in a solid position to win them. The staff we have right now? Sorry, but even the 1961 Yankees wouldn't win with this group. A team simply can't score often enough to win. boly
|
|
|
Zito
Jun 1, 2013 10:10:08 GMT -5
Post by klaiggeb on Jun 1, 2013 10:10:08 GMT -5
When this discussion began, Tim had the 3rd-best ERA in a rotation considered to be (until lately) among the best.
Tim has pitched poorly this season. But he has pitched clearly better than a marginal 5th starter.
Does it SEEM as if he has? Not really. He's been pretty darn bad (and highly inconsistent, both from inning to inning and from start to start). But the reality is that he indeed done so when we look at the starters throughout the major leagues.
Can we show otherwise? I don't think we can. If someone can, I'd welcome it.
---boly says---
Rog, let's take this point by point.
#1; He had the 3rd best ERA on the staff. Wow. Blow me down and pick me up, as Kirk Douglas sang in an old Disney Movie from the '50's.
That's not saying a lot when Vogelsong's ERA was near 7.
My deal with Boagie was 10 starts. After 10 starts, where is he? 5.12.
Boagie is an honorable man. He remembered our agreement and was honest about Tim.
#2 You're arguing semantics, and I ask, why?
Okay. I'll conceed the point. He's been better than an marginal number 5.
Swell.
That changes nothing, Rog. As Boagie said, for the most part, he's been terrible.
#3 And finally, why are you continuing to argue semantics? I am really confused.
On the one hand, you admit he's been highly inconsistant. Your words. But on the other, you constantly seem to be making excuses for him.
He has not been a very good pitcher, and certainly NOT worth the money he's being paid, as Allen continues to point out.
He's continually behind in the count to most hitters.
He struggles getting his fastball anywhere near good location, and the few times he does, are not enough for other hitters to be concerned about.
So I'll pose this question to you, and as my friend, I'm being serious. (Had we had the time when the four of us met for dinner, I would have asked you then).
Why, when someone on the board makes a point, must you frequently take the opposite point of few?
In a way, you're acting like my friend Jim; He always wants to play the Devil's advocate to provoke discussion.
That's not fun for me.
If you agree. Agree.
If you disagree, disagree.
But it is not fun, nor logical to almost always take the later position, or to argue the semantics of a post.
Electronic communication can't convey the vocal inflection the speaker intends, so I submit that many times, not having that can mis represent a point.
And you know me, Rog. I'm prone to hyperbole. Thus my statement, "Marginal."
Anyway one shapes the situation, Tim has been very bad, to really bad for last year, and most of this year.
The numbers prove that.
boly
|
|
|
Zito
Jun 1, 2013 13:46:41 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Jun 1, 2013 13:46:41 GMT -5
Boly --I don't see a guy with a 4.00 ERA as a top 3 guy. For me, my top 3 darned well BETTER be 3.50 or less. Rog -- I certainly agree with you that we would HOPE our starting pitchers performed that well, but it just isn't realistic to expect someone to have to perform that well in order to be a #3 starter. There are 65 qualifiers this season with an ERA of 4.00 or lower. That's just five more total qualifiers than two per team (60). One could make an argument that almost any pitcher with an ERA below 4.00 is a #2 -- let alone a #3. We would indeed LIKE each of our top three starters to have an ERA below 3.50, but there are just 42 qualifiers who do indeed have an ERA of 3.50 or below. That's about 1 1/2 starters per team -- not three. Boly -- And for the 1 and 2 guys MUCH, MUCH less. Rog -- There are 27 starters this season with an ERA of 3.00 or less. That's just less than one per team. There are 34 starters with an ERA of 3.25 or less. In other words, there exists somewhere around one starter per team who would fit your requirement to be a #1 or a #2. Boly -- # 5? I'm willling to live with 4.30-4.50; period. Rog -- There are 72 starters with an ERA of 4.50 or below. That's about two and a half per team. What you are willing to live with from a #5 starter is about the level of a #3 starter. You seem to be talking about what we would like. I'm talking about what IS. I think your expectations is more in accordance with the days of our youths, when the starters were pretty good overall, and the relievers stunk as a group. Most of the relievers then weren't CLOSE to what we could expect from today's bullpens. But the starters came closer to meeting your expectations. Your 3.50 ERA criterion wasn't too bad 50 years ago. In 1963 there were 46 pitchers with an ERA of 3.50 or less. That was just over two per each one of the 20 major league teams, so it was tight, but not horribly so. To give us an idea that your requirements might have been a bit tight though, I think one would consider Hall of Famer Bob Gibson to be a #1 starter. He was actually the 46th pitcher that season with an ERA below 3.50. One could argue that in 1963, Bob was a #3 starter, not a #1. Here's something that may help us put this discussion in better perspective. The average ERA for a starting pitcher last season was something above 4.10. We would expect the average starter to be right in the middle of #3 starters. Having an expectation of 3.50 or lower for a #3 starter might be about 0.60 runs on the low side. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1789&page=1#11294#ixzz2UzS5WBNJ
|
|
|
Zito
Jun 1, 2013 13:49:48 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Jun 1, 2013 13:49:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Zito
Jun 1, 2013 13:51:37 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Jun 1, 2013 13:51:37 GMT -5
|
|