|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 20, 2013 9:39:23 GMT -5
Giants CEO Larry Baer said yesterday that the Giants' need for another starting pitcher is "fluid." He makes a valid point, but will it work out well or poorly for the Giants?
In a best-case scenario, the Giants already have more than enough starting pitching (when Ryan Vogelsong gets healthy). Chad Gaudin has done a nice emergency job, and the Giants' original five starters this season were considered one of the best rotations in the majors.
In a worst-case scenario, only Madison Bumgarner is truly effective, Vogelsong is unable to come back effectively, Gaudin turns out to be a mirage, Lincecum and Zito get even worse, and Matt continues to be inconsistent.
So where will the ball finally land on the spinning roulette wheel?
Baer seems to think that Vogelsong will return in time for the Giants to evaluate him prior to the trade deadline. He gave the impression the Giants might be willing to make a protective trade right now, but "there aren't many trades made in June."
The question becomes, will this fluid situation enable the Giants' to be in the best possible position to evaluate their situation at the trade deadline, or will the vast market for starting pitching pass them by in the meantime?
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Jun 20, 2013 10:14:54 GMT -5
After so many months of NOT pitching, I'm not holding my breath for Ryan to be sharp for at least 4 or 5 starts.
And let's not forget, he was anything BUT sharp in all but his last outting.
Cain has been very consistant in his last 3 or 4 starts. He is back to his old self.
Bumgarner had a few bumps recently, but he's simply too good not to continue to get better.
I'm worried about Gaudin. He's never been really successful as a starter for a reason. He's basically a 2 pitch pitcher, and those 2 pitches are fastball and slider.
yeah, he throws a change up, but not often enough, and not for enough strikes to make the hitters even worry about it.
2nd, 3rd times through the line up could/should be fatal should he continue to start.
Boagie and I continue to disagree about Zito, and Lord knows, I hope HE'S right, and I'm wrong.
Tim... I've already said enough about him. He is what he is, and not likely to get any better.
So fluid? I say, horse crap. I think Sabean is, once again, feeding the media, and by extension, the other clubs, what he wants them to hear.
In short, it's a smoke screen.
I think he's actively, but quietly, if that's possible, pursuing a deal.
Personally, of the crap that's out there, I'm hoping for Nolasco of Milwaukee... because I don't think there's much hope for the guy I REALLY want; the guy that can get our staff back to what it used to be, Cliff Lee.
boly
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 20, 2013 11:32:13 GMT -5
Boly -- Personally, of the crap that's out there, I'm hoping for Nolasco of Milwaukee... because I don't think there's much hope for the guy I REALLY want; the guy that can get our staff back to what it used to be, Cliff Lee. Rog -- Despite what Allen seemed to think over the winter, Lee is an excellent pitcher. Allen was put off by Cliff's 6-9 record last season, but -- as usual -- that was because of a lack of run support. As you point out, Cliff is almost certainly beyond the Giants' reach. As for Nolasco, he's pretty much an example of why Tim Lincecum is more valuable than some think. We're very unhappy with Tim and his 4.57 ERA. Guess what? Nolasco's ERA this season is 3.61, but the last four seasons it has been 5.06, 4.51, 4.67 and 4.48. So why is Nolasco pitching better this season? To be honest, that's a good question. His line drive percentage is about the same. His fly ball percentage is up, which usually isn't a good sign. Batters aren't missing more pitches, and they're actually swinging at FEWER pitches outside the strike zone. His percentages of both first-pitch strikes and pitches in the strike zone are down. So is his percentage of infield fly balls. So what are we left with? It appears he's benefited from some good luck. Batters are hitting just .278 on Balls In Play against him, compared to .306 over his career. It appears the ball is being hit about as hard against him, but more are being caught. Nolasco was a very good pitcher back in 2008. But in every other full season of his career he has been below average. I guess you have brought up another good point: There's not much out that that the Giants can afford to trade for and yet is clearly better than what they already have. Thank goodness Brian Sabean is a master of the mid-season trade. It's really tough to pick up a starting pitcher midseason. The Giants haven't done so in 10 years (Sidney Ponson). Speaking of the two bad trades Brian has made, they share a couple of things in common: . The Giants gave up an excellent pitching prospect (Joe Nathan and then Zack Wheeler). . They got no more than a year out of the players they acquired (A.J. Pierzynski and Carlos Beltran). Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1841&page=1#11819#ixzz2WlxOceBO
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Jun 20, 2013 14:32:38 GMT -5
Boly -- Personally, of the crap that's out there, I'm hoping for Nolasco of Milwaukee... because I don't think there's much hope for the guy I REALLY want; the guy that can get our staff back to what it used to be, Cliff Lee. Rog -- Despite what Allen seemed to think over the winter, Lee is an excellent pitcher. Allen was put off by Cliff's 6-9 record last season, but -- as usual -- that was because of a lack of run support. As you point out, Cliff is almost certainly beyond the Giants' reach. As for Nolasco, he's pretty much an example of why Tim Lincecum is more valuable than some think. We're very unhappy with Tim and his 4.57 ERA. Guess what? Nolasco's ERA this season is 3.61, but the last four seasons it has been 5.06, 4.51, 4.67 and 4.48. So why is Nolasco pitching better this season? To be honest, that's a good question. His line drive percentage is about the same. His fly ball percentage is up, which usually isn't a good sign. Batters aren't missing more pitches, and they're actually swinging at FEWER pitches outside the strike zone. His percentages of both first-pitch strikes and pitches in the strike zone are down. So is his percentage of infield fly balls. So what are we left with? It appears he's benefited from some good luck. Batters are hitting just .278 on Balls In Play against him, compared to .306 over his career. It appears the ball is being hit about as hard against him, but more are being caught. dk...did it ever cross your mind that things change...new team mates, different approach to pitching, etc., etc... simple change in a players stats don't always mean his luck changed...some times it is other things that changed... Nolasco was a very good pitcher back in 2008. But in every other full season of his career he has been below average. I guess you have brought up another good point: There's not much out that that the Giants can afford to trade for and yet is clearly better than what they already have. Thank goodness Brian Sabean is a master of the mid-season trade. It's really tough to pick up a starting pitcher midseason. The Giants haven't done so in 10 years (Sidney Ponson). Speaking of the two bad trades Brian has made, they share a couple of things in common: . The Giants gave up an excellent pitching prospect (Joe Nathan and then Zack Wheeler). . They got no more than a year out of the players they acquired (A.J. Pierzynski and Carlos Beltran). dk...Nathan was not a prospect, he was coming off a 12-4 season for the Giants after being in the organization for 9 years, seven as a pitcher..Liriano and Bonser were the prospects....
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jun 20, 2013 18:21:01 GMT -5
, and Matt continues to be inconsistent.
Allen- The Giants have won eight of Matt's last ten starts. Of the two they lost, they were shut out in one, and scored one run in the other. His ERA has dropped almost two full runs in that time. Matt got off to a bad start, and had an exceptionally bad inning against the Cards. He was perfect the rest of that game. I'd say that Matt is trending upward.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jun 20, 2013 18:28:02 GMT -5
Rog -- Despite what Allen seemed to think over the winter, Lee is an excellent pitcher. Allen was put off by Cliff's 6-9 record last season, but -- as usual -- that was because of a lack of run support.
Allen-Actually, I was more put off by his contract.
As for Nolasco, he's pretty much an example of why Tim Lincecum is more valuable than some think. We're very unhappy with Tim and his 4.57 ERA. Guess what? Nolasco's ERA this season is 3.61, but the last four seasons it has been 5.06, 4.51, 4.67 and 4.48.
Allen- Nolasco has a ton of ability, but has never really put it together for any length of time. I would take him, but I wouldn't give much for him.
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Jun 21, 2013 7:21:27 GMT -5
We'll see him tonight and we can judge for ourselves. The guy I want though is Bud Norris of Houston. Nice K rates, a fan of the team growing up so he'd love to be here, and unlike Nolasco, under team control for two more years, which is important with Zito, Lincecum and possibly Vogie (team option) as free agents after this year. He's also only 28. He grew up in Novato as a Giants fan, and said last week that he gets "goosebumps" just thinking of pitching for them one day.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Jun 21, 2013 10:10:03 GMT -5
We'll see him tonight and we can judge for ourselves. The guy I want though is Bud Norris of Houston. Nice K rates, a fan of the team growing up so he'd love to be here, and unlike Nolasco, under team control for two more years, which is important with Zito, Lincecum and possibly Vogie (team option) as free agents after this year. He's also only 28. He grew up in Novato as a Giants fan, and said last week that he gets "goosebumps" just thinking of pitching for them one day.
---boly says---
I like Norris, too, Mark. I'd forgotten about him. Thanks for bringing him up.
As much as Righetti has been hammered on this board, he has done some good things with cast offs.
Casilla, for one, Gaudin for another.
As you point out, Norris has a ton of talent, as does Nolasco. Maybe... just maybe Righetti could be the guy to add that one "thing" that would help turn them around.
Thing is, whom could we offer to a young team like HOuston to get Bud?
He's young himself.
I still think Susac has to be one of our bigger "trading" cards to play.
boly
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jun 21, 2013 10:33:23 GMT -5
I'd be delighted to get Norris. I think he would thrive here for the reasons Mark mentioned and the fact that he would be in a winning atmosphere. What do you think it would take to get him? Btw, did anyone see the interview with the Giants' top pick last night? I can't remember his name, but he looks to be about 13 years old.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Jun 21, 2013 16:16:38 GMT -5
Btw, did anyone see the interview with the Giants' top pick last night? I can't remember his name, but he looks to be about 13 years old.
boly says---
Allen, his name is Arroyo, and he just graduated High School.
Personnally, I'd never draft a High School hitter, number 1. They just don't see enough top flight competition.
Not only does he look 13, but he acts like every other High School kid I've ever taught.
I have to wonder, if, mentally, he's even ready for rookie league.
I sure hope this isn't a wasted pick.
boly
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Jun 21, 2013 20:59:24 GMT -5
Arroya is a smart kid..Salutatorian of his class and I thought he was very ariiculant in his interview...the second pick also was a great student who had a scholarship to Stanford and spoke very well in his interview.....Mel Ott was 17 and Al Kaline was right out of high school and never played in the minors...these two kids will get a chance to develop before going to the majors....
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jun 21, 2013 21:28:26 GMT -5
I thought he was articulate enough, but when hey first showed him on camera, I thought he must be the pick's younger brother.
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Jun 22, 2013 0:33:39 GMT -5
I thought he was articulate enough, but when hey first showed him on camera, I thought he must be the pick's younger brother dk...did you forget how you looked in High School?
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Jun 22, 2013 10:14:01 GMT -5
Arroya is a smart kid..Salutatorian of his class and I thought he was very ariiculant in his interview...the second pick also was a great student who had a scholarship to Stanford and spoke very well in his interview.....Mel Ott was 17 and Al Kaline was right out of high school and never played in the minors...these two kids will get a chance to develop before going to the majors....
---boly says---
Don: Kaline and Mel Ott... different time.
I've been teaching High School kids for 30+ years, and here's what I can tell you, advise you, and caution everyone about.
1-In general, most high school children are NOT, repeat NOT of the same maturity levels when compared to the time period about which you speak.
Why?
2-HS children today are often the product of "helicopter" moms. They are babied, and pampered beyond belif.
3-Because of 1 & 2 above, though they certainly "may" have the talent to go to the show, they have not been "allowed" by mom to develop the mental toughness required to make it to the show.
Now to be fair, I can ONLY speak to HS kids from California.
But I would put Florida and Arizona HS kids in the same basket simply based upon my observations.
So, who's not in the basket?
Kids from the south.
Inner city NY kids
Again, this is based upon my small observations.
Those are the reasons I would not draft a HS hitter.
boly
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Jun 22, 2013 13:20:53 GMT -5
My 2 kids had the most over protective mother in the world...she not only protected them but made sure they knew what path through life to take. The kids never gave us any real problems and they grew up able to compete in their life's chosen field.....I'm not sure that being a ball player has the same mental toughness to achieve success, but I am sure that the field of medicine does...and my son excelled right to the end....My daughter chose another field but she restricted herself some what by making sure any job would allow her to be able to be available to my Grand daughter when she was needed....mental toughness, you should have seen my two kids fight the toughest enemy of all...Cancer....
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 22, 2013 15:37:20 GMT -5
dk...did it ever cross your mind that things change...new team mates, different approach to pitching, etc., etc... simple change in a players stats don't always mean his luck changed...some times it is other things that changed... Rog -- I get your point, but there is a difference between the process and the results. Process a pitcher has control over; his results rely on things outside his control. So let's look at Nolasco's PROCESS: His fly ball percentage is up. The better pitchers tend to throw more ground balls, which lead to more double plays and fewer extra base hits. Batters are swinging at fewer pitches outside the strike zone. That usually indicates a pitcher's stuff isn't fooling them as much. He's throwing fewer first-pitch strikes, which shows a decline in control and quite possibly command as well. He's throwing fewer pitches in the strike zone, which can be an indicator of the same. His percentage of infield flies is down, which usually indicates batters are hitting the ball harder and often shows that the fastball is losing velocity and/or hop. (Nolasco's fastball has declined from 91.6 mph to 90.3 mph over the past two or three years.) So you're right. Things HAVE changed with Ricky. But they seem to have changed for the worse, which is what makes his good results so baffling and would seem to indicate a high potential for decline. When the process declines, they usually lead eventually to a decline in results. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1841&page=1#11834#ixzz2WyjcVR22
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 22, 2013 15:39:20 GMT -5
dk...Nathan was not a prospect, he was coming off a 12-4 season for the Giants after being in the organization for 9 years, seven as a pitcher..Liriano and Bonser were the prospects.... Rog -- I was trying to show the comparison, not the differences. Nathan was still a prospective closer. His 2003 results indicated he could well turn into one. Liriano was clearly the highly rated prospect, but the Giants seemed to feel he would develop arm problems. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1841&page=1#ixzz2WynMicr3
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 22, 2013 15:44:21 GMT -5
Boly -- Personnally, I'd never draft a High School hitter, number 1. They just don't see enough top flight competition. Rog -- Perhaps there are exceptions you might wish to make. Alex Rodriguez and Ken Griffey, Jr. seemed to turn out OK. The bigger risk is with high school PITCHERS. But in each case, there is often both a greater risk and a greater reward with high school players. That dynamic seems to have shifted a bit though. The Giants have done pretty well with college players, but Matt Cain was a high school pitcher who turned out well. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1841&page=1#ixzz2WyoJX2QC
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 22, 2013 15:53:43 GMT -5
Boly -- I have to wonder, if, mentally, he's even ready for rookie league. Rog -- In the rookie league he'll be playing primarily against ... well, other rookies, almost all of whom were drafted lower than he. Boly -- I sure hope this isn't a wasted pick. Rog -- We all do, of course. But other than the fact the Giants have drafted reasonably well, we have almost no way of knowing. Heck, the Giants don't even know for sure. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1841&page=1#ixzz2WyqvJmi1
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 22, 2013 15:57:30 GMT -5
Allen- Nolasco has a ton of ability, but has never really put it together for any length of time. I would take him, but I wouldn't give much for him. Rog -- Doesn't that pretty much describe Feldman, Norris and Marquis as well? with Marquis there are also the questions of age and health. Did I happen to mention that there is a high demand for free agent starting pitchers and a low supply? Did I happen to mention what that does to prices? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1841&page=1#ixzz2WyrbHaiz
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 22, 2013 15:59:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jun 23, 2013 12:21:34 GMT -5
I thought he was articulate enough, but when hey first showed him on camera, I thought he must be the pick's younger brother dk...did you forget how you looked in High School? Allen- I didn't look that young.He would compare to how I looked at about 14. Nothing wrong with how he looks. As long as he can play. Juan Perez looks pretty young too.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jun 23, 2013 12:31:30 GMT -5
Rog -- Doesn't that pretty much describe Feldman, Norris and Marquis as well? with Marquis there are also the questions of age and health.
Allen- Yes. As does the fact that I would take them, but wouldn't give much for them, as opposed to Lincecum, who despite not being able to put it together, you will have to give alot for.
Did I happen to mention that there is a high demand for free agent starting pitchers and a low supply? Did I happen to mention what that does to prices?
Allen- You mentioned it. I'm not sure it's true though. I believe Cots lists no less than 57 starting pitchers as potential FAs.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Jun 23, 2013 14:43:04 GMT -5
Rog -- Doesn't that pretty much describe Feldman, Norris and Marquis as well? with Marquis there are also the questions of age and health.
Allen- Yes. As does the fact that I would take them, but wouldn't give much for them, as opposed to Lincecum, who despite not being able to put it together, you will have to give alot for.
Did I happen to mention that there is a high demand for free agent starting pitchers and a low supply? Did I happen to mention what that does to prices?
Allen- You mentioned it. I'm not sure it's true though. I believe Cots lists no less than 57 starting pitchers as potential FAs.
---boly says---
Whomever we sign... it's certainly NOT going to bring our rotation back to what it used to be.
And the guy we get we NEED to be able to sign for more than one year.
I HAD to listen to that moronic broadcast from the Miami guys the other day.
Man! Do your homework!
They clearly didn't, saying nonsense like, Sanchez only had 3 at bats vs LHP which shows he can't hit LHP.
No, morons, it shows that BELT has clearly demonstrated that he CAN and DOES hit LHP well.
In any case, they were commenting on how "Ricky" was such a better pitcher this year than last year.
More strikes, better command.
IF... and I say IF... he's finally blossoming, it would be nice to have him in the orange and black for more than a year.
I, for one, am NOT convinced that Vogey will come back and pick up where he left off in that last start.
He'll need to build up arm strength, command... lots of stuff.
And that won't happen in 2 to 3 minor league re hab starts.
My fingers are crossed because he's almost like the Kurt Warner story, and I do love the guy.
boly
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 24, 2013 14:00:38 GMT -5
Rog -- Doesn't that pretty much describe Feldman, Norris and Marquis as well? with Marquis there are also the questions of age and health. Allen- Yes. As does the fact that I would take them, but wouldn't give much for them, as opposed to Lincecum, who despite not being able to put it together, you will have to give alot for. Rog -- We agree on not re-signing Tim. I don't think you would be willing to offer enough to acquire the others. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1841&page=1#11907#ixzz2XA5g2c6z
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 24, 2013 14:06:52 GMT -5
Did I happen to mention that there is a high demand for free agent starting pitchers and a low supply? Did I happen to mention what that does to prices? Allen- You mentioned it. I'm not sure it's true though. I believe Cots lists no less than 57 starting pitchers as potential FAs. Rog -- That is a good point. The problem though is there are so few pitchers of quality, and some of those will be kept by their own teams. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1841&page=1#ixzz2XA6DRwGN
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jun 24, 2013 14:10:51 GMT -5
Again Rog, when I stated what I would offer Marquis and Feldman before, you said it was too high. It's amazing that we've argued for so long on a point on which we both agree with the basic premise. Neither one of us wants Tim back at the price he will command.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 24, 2013 14:53:24 GMT -5
Boly -- In any case, they were commenting on how "Ricky" was such a better pitcher this year than last year. More strikes, better command. Rog -- I can't comment definitively on the "better command" remark, but I can show that the "more strikes" aspect isn't true. This season Ricky has thrown 62.0% strikes; last season it was 65.1% This season Ricky has thrown 57.9% first pitch strikes; last season it was 62.6%. This season Ricky unintentionally walked 4.7% of the batters he faced; this season he has walked 5.8%. With regard to command, these are inconclusive, but Ricky has allowed 23.8% line drives this season compared to 21.6% last year. He has induced only 5.7% of his fly balls as infield flies, compared to 8.6% last season. Clearly, Ricky is throwing fewer -- not more -- strikes. He is throwing fewer first-pitch strikes. He's walking more. Thta strongly indicates his control hasn't improved. The stats indicate batters may actually be hitting the ball HARDER off his this season, which doesn't give a strong indication that his command has improved. I would caution not to believe everything you hear. Kruk and Kuip are very good, but they're not always right. The stats actually point AGAINST Ricky's having better control and command this season. The command part is more a likelihood than a fact. But the numbers point more to luck than to control and/or command as a factor in Ricky's "improvement" this season. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1841&page=1#ixzz2XA7spiJI
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 24, 2013 14:55:11 GMT -5
By the way, when the process numbers indicate luck is involved in performance, one of two things usually happen:
. The process numbers get better or
. The performance decreases.
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Jun 24, 2013 17:27:40 GMT -5
Boly -- In any case, they were commenting on how "Ricky" was such a better pitcher this year than last year. More strikes, better command. Rog -- I can't comment definitively on the "better command" remark, but I can show that the "more strikes" aspect isn't true. This season Ricky has thrown 62.0% strikes; last season it was 65.1% This season Ricky has thrown 57.9% first pitch strikes; last season it was 62.6%. This season Ricky unintentionally walked 4.7% of the batters he faced; this season he has walked 5.8%. With regard to command, these are inconclusive, but Ricky has allowed 23.8% line drives this season compared to 21.6% last year. He has induced only 5.7% of his fly balls as infield flies, compared to 8.6% last season. Clearly, Ricky is throwing fewer -- not more -- strikes. He is throwing fewer first-pitch strikes. He's walking more. Thta strongly indicates his control hasn't improved. The stats indicate batters may actually be hitting the ball HARDER off his this season, which doesn't give a strong indication that his command has improved. I would caution not to believe everything you hear. Kruk and Kuip are very good, but they're not always right. The stats actually point AGAINST Ricky's having better control and command this season. The command part is more a likelihood than a fact. But the numbers point more to luck than to control and/or command as a factor in Ricky's "improvement" this season. dk..once more the stat nerd looks at data and comes up with a possible wrong conclusion....if a pitcher isn't throwing more strikes it COULD be he is hitting the batters weakness...which isn't always in the strike zone...and so his control can be improving if he doesn't throw more strikes....many times pitchers like Cain get burned for a long ball because he throws a strike when he is actually trying to throw off the plate...you really have to know the pitcher and what he is trying to do with the ball before making a broad statement....Tim did much better when his curve and change bounced....hitters did do much better when they looked for a grooved fast ball....and when the fast ball lost velocity...ole....
|
|