Why has Tim Lincecum been successful of late?

[sharksrog]

Just curious as to why our posters think Tim Lincecum has been so much more successful of late. I have some ideas which I'll post later, but I'm curious to see what others think.

[allenreed]

Since June 1st, Tim is 2-6 and the Giants are 2-9 in his starts. Successful? He may be pitching better, but I don't think successful is the right adjective.

[sfgdood]

Since June 1st, Tim is 2-6 and the Giants are 2-9 in his starts. Successful? He may be pitching better, but I don't think successful is the right adjective.

Dood - That depends on how you define "success" for a starting pitcher. In those 11 starts, Tim's ERA is a respectable 3.78, while the team scored a total of 23 runs...a paltry 2.09 per game. Of course in the 9 losses, the team scored just 12 runs...1.33 per game. Was it Tim that was not successful or was it the team?

However I think the original point of the thread was even more recent than just since June 1. Taking away Tim's best (the no-hitter) and worst (against the Reds) starts since the beginning of July, Tim's ERA is 3.08. Now, to my way of thinking, a 3.08 ERA for a starting pitcher is pretty much a successful clip.

~Dood

[allenreed]

Again, it's not golf. This is a team sport. If your team doesn't win, you're not successful. As a general rule, when Tim pitches, the Giants don't win. 81% of the time since June 1st.

[sharksrog]

Allen -- Since June 1st, Tim is 2-6 and the Giants are 2-9 in his starts. Successful? He may be pitching better, but I don't think successful is the right adjective.

Rog -- Tim has been successful; the Giants have not. Kind of like back in 2007 and 2008 when Matt Cain went 15-30.

The two pitchers shared two things during those periods. Both pitched well, and neither got much run support.

Why is it, Allen, when a pitcher's won-loss record is lower than his ERA would indicate, his run support has almost always been sub-par? Is that a coincidence?

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1948&page=1#13541#ixzz2bDWpFYYF

[sharksrog]

Allen -- Again, it's not golf. This is a team sport.

Rog -- Which is why victories measure the team far better than the player. Wins are a TEAM stat which just happen to be attached to pitchers as well.

When you're playing with 8 other guys, isn't it foolish to measure your individual performance by how well the TEAM (made up of you and EIGHT other guys) fares?

We don't measure a team by its Cy Young winners. Why would we measure a pitcher by his team's wins?

Let's suppose the company you work for goes bankrupt, Allen. Does that mean you failed at your job?

Let's suppose you take a class and the overall class average is a C-, while you got an A. Does that mean you were a poor student?

Let's suppose that you're family's average IQ is 90 even though yours is 120. Does that mean you're dumb?

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1948&page=1#ixzz2bDXmktHa

[Islandboagie]

While I don't agree with Allen's overwhelming interest in seeing Timmy in a Dodger uniform next year, I'm somewhat inclined to agree with his statement. When you're losing, "success" is probably not the BEST choice of words. Timmy is however pitching better, which Allen did recognize.

[Islandboagie]

Rog- Let's suppose the company you work for goes bankrupt, Allen. Does that mean you failed at your job?

Boagie- if Allen were making $20 million a year and expected to control about 20% of the company's production and wasn't doing so...yes, I'd say some of the blame would fall on his shoulders.

I love Timmy but let's be realistic. If Tim were pre-2012 Tim and Matt Cain were pre-perfect game Cain...we'd be in the race.

[sfgdood]

Again, it's not golf. This is a team sport. If your team doesn't win, you're not successful. As a general rule, when Tim pitches, the Giants don't win. 81% of the time since June 1st.

Dood - so by this logic, a player who hits .450, has an OPS of 1.100 and drives in 2 runs per game on average is UNsuccessful if his team is under .500?

~Dood

[sharksrog]

Rog- Let's suppose the company you work for goes bankrupt, Allen. Does that mean you failed at your job?

Boagie- if Allen were making $20 million a year and expected to control about 20% of the company's production and wasn't doing so...yes, I'd say some of the blame would fall on his shoulders.

Rog -- Well, of course. And your example actually makes a very good case as to WHY wins and losses are team stats, not truly individual ones, as they would be in tennis or golf.

Tim pitches about 14% of the Giants' innings. Pitching is perhaps 90% of defense, with the team's defense in the field the other 10%. So Tim himself is responsible for something around 13% of the Giants' overall defense.

Defense is half the game, with offense being the other half. So Tim himself is responsible for about 6% of the Giants' overall team effort. On the days he pitches, he's responsible for about 30% of it.

Tim has an effect on the Giants' record -- but not as much as we would think. Even on the days he pitches, his effect is far less than half.

No question the Giants' failure this season is in part Tim's doing. But if the team were hitting, and the rest of the rotation was flourishing, it would be doing fine -- as is shown by last year's team, when Tim wasn't nearly as good as he's been this year.

Boagie -- I love Timmy but let's be realistic. If Tim were pre-2012 Tim and Matt Cain were pre-perfect game Cain...we'd be in the race.

Rog -- Yes, but still a ways out. For simplicity, let's use 2011 as a frame of reference. In 2011, Tim and Matt pitched at 8 games above replacement between them. Over 2/3rds of a season, that would be about 5 games above replacement. So far this seasons they're about a game below replacement.

So if we had the old Tim and the old Matt, the Giants would have won about 6 more games. That would put them 6 games back of the Dodgers. Let's suppose one of those extra wins came over the Dodgers. That would put them about 5 games back.

Matt and Tim by themselves could probably have cut the deficit by a little more than half if they were pitching back to the old days.

But in order to be ahead in the NL West, the Giants would likely need more hitting and defense, as well.

Once again we see that an individual player has only so much control over a game he pitches -- or hits in. That's why wins and losses are a team concept.

And why while on player can have a significant impact on a team, he almost never can singlehandly take a losing team and make it into one of the top teams.

To place too much emphasis on a pitcher's won-loss record is actually to demean the rest of the team, which itself has a lot to do with those wins and losses. More than the pitcher himself does.

If we believe that Kirk Rueter was a much better pitcher than Matt Cain, we can indeed place a lot of emphasis on a pitcher's won-loss record.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1948&page=1#13558#ixzz2bE1xD2uh

[allenreed]

Aug 6, 2013 14:04:25 GMT -5 sharksrog said:

Allen -- Since June 1st, Tim is 2-6 and the Giants are 2-9 in his starts. Successful? He may be pitching better, but I don't think successful is the right adjective.

Rog -- Tim has been successful; the Giants have not.

Allen- I don't think you can seperate the two. Not in a team sport. Success is measured by winning. Winning defines success. Tim may indeed be performing better, but he's losing with greater frequency than when he wasn't performing so well. Not
successful. I think Tim would be the first to agree.


Why is it, Allen, when a pitcher's won-loss record is lower than his ERA would indicate, his run support has almost always been sub-par? Is that a coincidence?

Allen- Of course not. But we weren't discussing the reason for Tim's lack of success, merely that 2-6 can't be defined as success.

[allenreed]

While I don't agree with Allen's overwhelming interest in seeing Timmy in a Dodger uniform next year, I'm somewhat inclined to agree with his statement. When you're losing, "success" is probably not the BEST choice of words. Timmy is however pitching better, which Allen did recognize

Allen- No particular interest in seeing Tim pitch for the Dodgers next year. I'm just interested in seeing him not pitch for the Giants.
Frankly, I don't think Tim could make the Dodgers rotation. He might be of service in their bullpen.

[allenreed]

Rog- Let's suppose the company you work for goes bankrupt, Allen. Does that mean you failed at your job?

Allen- If I was one of the top earners in the company, and I failed in 81% of the endeavors I was assigned, I would indeed expect to be fired.

[Islandboagie]

A well thought out post. Unfortunately WAR and the percentages you use here hold about as much factual evidence as the easter bunny.

[allenreed]

The Giants have lost 81% of Tim's starts since June 1st. (Actually 81.8%). That's a fact. Al Qaeda or anyone else we're at war with has nothing to do with it.

[Islandboagie]

Sorry, that was directed toward Rog.

[sfgdood]

Allen- I don't think you can seperate the two. Not in a team sport. Success is measured by winning. Winning defines success. Tim may indeed be performing better, but he's losing with greater frequency than when he wasn't performing so well. Not
successful. I think Tim would be the first to agree.

Dood - Cain pitched 7 innings tonight, giving up 4 hits, 0 walks and 2 earned runs while striking out 6, using 87 pitches.

What a failure he was tonight. He should apologize to management, his teammates and all the fans in attendence for not throwing the shutout it would have taken to win the game...shouldn't he Allen?

~Dood

[Islandboagie]

Do you honestly believe Cain felt successful after getting beat by a Ryan Braun-less Brewers? These guys are 2 time Champs not little leaguers. Cain pitched OK, but success is not leaving the field with your team down by any amount of runs. I hope no Giants player ever feels this, if they do they should be released or traded.

[rxmeister]

Chad Gaudin pitched a beautiful game on Monday night, a shutout into the seventh inning. He then allowed one run. Santiago Casilla pitched one scoreless inning where he worked out of a jam. Santiago Casilla was the winning pitcher. That alone should tell you the worthlessness of wins when it comes to judging a pitcher. How many times have you seen a closer blow a save after a terrific performance by the starter, only to get the win when his team then scored? Baseball has finally moved past that, awarding Cy Young's to pitchers with average win-loss records, like Lincecum and Felix Hernandez in recent years. The Giants have certainly moved past it, giving over 120 million to Matt Cain, who has a career record of 92-85. The only question is how come many fans haven't gotten past that? Think about the way Lincecum has pitched recently and asked yourself if he would have won these games on a team that actually scored runs. I give Timmy a ton of credit. After struggling for almost two years, he's working his way back to a position where he's going to get a big free agent payoff. Why? Because not a single GM is going to look at how many wins and losses does he have!

[rxmeister]

As for Cain last night, since he's a team player, I'm sure he's disappointed they lost, but it's the offense that should hang their head, not him. He has every right to be proud of himself after a performance like that. As he usually is when he pitches, he was the best player on the team last night.

[sfgdood]

Do you honestly believe Cain felt successful after getting beat by a Ryan Braun-less Brewers? These guys are 2 time Champs not little leaguers. Cain pitched OK, but success is not leaving the field with your team down by any amount of runs. I hope no Giants player ever feels this, if they do they should be released or traded.

Dood - this is just plain ridiculousness. A pitcher's job is to give the team an opportunity to win. Any starting pitcher who had Cain's line last night has gone above and beyond what is expected. In fact the only reason Matt didn't pitch a complete game is because the offense was an absolute joke last night, and that includes Posey who left the tying run stranded at third base with less than two outs (in fact when you consider his throwing error which allowed the second Brewers run, Buster was probably the biggest goat of the game).

It IS a team game but an individual can do his part and then some and still have the team lose...that's not failure. We can say the team didn't succeed but that player did in fact succeed in performing his duties...Matt did that at a very high level by any reasonable observation. For you to say he was merely "ok" shows you are WAY overselling your point.

~Dood

[allenreed]

Tim will indeed make alot of money next year. Why? Same reason RA Dickey made alot of money this year. Same reason Josh Beckett has made big bucks the last few years. Alot of GMs are idiots. You can say all you want about run support, and alot of it is true. But then there are some pitchers who just don't win. Over the last three seasons, Tim has become one of those pitchers. I think anyone who thinks Tim will suddenly develop into a big winner if he goes elsewhere are overly optimistic. Actually, he's not pitching for a bad team right now. They've won the WS two of the last three seasons.
I also think we're arguing over semantics with the word "successful" here. Can a pitcher pitch well and still not be successful? You bet. I bet Cain would be the first to tell you that his outing wasn't successful because the team didn't win. That was my original point in Rog calling Tim more successful as of late. I wasn't saying Tim hadn't pitched well, but when your team loses 9 out of your last 11 starts, I don't think you consider yourself successful.

[sfgdood]

I wasn't saying Tim hadn't pitched well, but when your team loses 9 out of your last 11 starts, I don't think you consider yourself successful.

Dood - so I ask again...an everyday player who hits over 400 with an OPS over 1.000, driving in 140 + runs for a losing team...was that player successful by your standards?

~Dood

[Islandboagie]

I think you guys need to pay attention to what I'm saying before you blindly comment on it. I'm not saying its Cain's fault we lost. And I'm not saying Cain failed. What I'm saying is Cain didn't strut off the mound with his chest out saying "well, I did my job." He didn't leave the mound feeling successful. Matt Cain would rather give up 5 runs and win rather than give up one run and lose. I can guarantee you that, so there's really no argument here.

[sfgdood]

I think you guys need to pay attention to what I'm saying before you blindly comment on it. I'm not saying its Cain's fault we lost. And I'm not saying Cain failed. What I'm saying is Cain didn't strut off the mound with his chest out saying "well, I did my job." He didn't leave the mound feeling successful. Matt Cain would rather give up 5 runs and win rather than give up one run and lose. I can guarantee you that, so there's really no argument here.

Dood - so you're saying a pitcher who goes 30-3 with a 7.59 ERA should win the CY award?

~Dood

[allenreed]

Aug 7, 2013 12:34:44 GMT -5 sfgdood said:

I wasn't saying Tim hadn't pitched well, but when your team loses 9 out of your last 11 starts, I don't think you consider yourself successful.

Dood - so I ask again...an everyday player who hits over 400 with an OPS over 1.000, driving in 140 + runs for a losing team...was that player successful by your standards?

Allen- Do you think Tim has performed at that level?

The player has succeeded as an individual, but ultimately it's a team game. Usually, that kind of production would lead to a team winning. Has a player ever had that kind of year for a losing team?
Do you think Tim considers his June and July a success? If so, he's a very selfish player who is missing the team concept. I doubt that Tim sees the last two months as a success.

[Islandboagie]

Dood - so you're saying a pitcher who goes 30-3 with a 7.59 ERA should win the CY award?

Boagie- Even with today's analytics, being 30-3 would at least put him in the conversation, probably more so than someone who was 3-30 with a 2.00 ERA. However, that's not my point. The argument is out of those two pitchers who would feel more success, someone with a good ERA with a 3-30 record or someone with a bloated ERA but managed to win 30 games while only losing 3?

I never played professionally, but I remember being the best player on a very lousy little league team and I certainly didn't feel much success. In fact I'd say frustration was felt more than anything.

I gotta say, Randy, I'm a little surprised you're taking that side of the argument. I've always considered you more into the team play rather than individual achievements. I would be even more surprised if Matt Cain felt this way.

[sfgdood]

Dood - so I ask again...an everyday player who hits over 400 with an OPS over 1.000, driving in 140 + runs for a losing team...was that player successful by your standards?

Allen- Do you think Tim has performed at that level?

Dood - Of course not. Just zeroing in on your definition of success.




The player has succeeded as an individual,

Dood - and that is the context in which the description was made, I do believe. So if you agree that a player can succeed as an individual in a team sport regardless of whether the team is winning as a result, then the only matter remaining is to define what level of indivual achievement is required to be a success.




but ultimately it's a team game. Usually, that kind of production would lead to a team winning. Has a player ever had that kind of year for a losing team?

Dood - to my knowledge it hasnt been achieved on any team. Only a handful of guys have hit over 400 in a season. There HAVE, however, been MVP awards handed out to players on losing teams. Andre Dawson comes to mind.





Do you think Tim considers his June and July a success? If so, he's a very selfish player who is missing the team concept. I doubt that Tim sees the last two months as a success.

Dood - all players have individual goals in mind and just because they exceed these goals in a time period in which the team isn't winning does not make them selfish, IMO. Tim has never struck me as being selfish although he does have extremely high expectations for himself...I recall he gladly accepted a role in the bullpen last October and instead of pouting, he dominated and was a huge part of the championship being achieved for the team.

~Dood

[allenreed]

I complained about Rog misusing the word successful, and then I did it here myself. Tim has pitched better, but has not been successful in terms of getting the desired results.

I believe Ernie Banks won back to back MVPs while playing for the Cubs, though he never came close to having the type of year you described.

I don't believe Tim is a selfish player, though I do think he could be better by working on some fundamentals.

BTW, Bud Norris is 2-0, 2.25 since moving to Baltimore.

[sharksrog]

Allen -- Frankly, I don't think Tim could make the Dodgers rotation.

Rog -- If the Dodgers DID sign Tim, I believe you would find that he would. They already have three excellent starters in Clayton Kershaw, Hun-Jin Rui and Zack Greinke, but certainly Tim would slot no lower than 4th in their rotation.

The other two starters in their rotation now are Stephen Fife and Chris Capuano. Fife has pitched very nicely since coming up, but he has a 4.11 career minor league ERA. Capuano is roughly a league average starter. Rickey Nolasco is at best a league average starter who is having a nice 2013 season.

Josh Beckett was once a very good pitcher, but injuries have robbed him of his effectiveness. Chad Billingsley is a nice starter, but he too has had injury problems (just 12 innings this season) and had just a 4.11 ERA in his last qualifying season (2011).

Not that the Dodgers don't have three very fine starters; not that they don't have very good depth that has helped them through an injury-plagued season for their starters; some might question the Dodgers' need for another starter given their depth.

But if the Dodgers decided to sign Tim Lncecum and were successful in doing so, he would make their rotation.

Lincecum's stock is rising. Since the beginning of June, Tim has been a very good pitcher. For the first time in over a year, it is looking to me as if it's at least even money the Giants will bring him back.

And as we should see beginning Friday, a rotation of Bumgarner, Cain, Lincecum, Vogelsong and Gaudin can be pretty darn good.

I'd have to think it might be possible for the Giants to sign both Lincecum and Pence if given a bit of a hometown discount -- and perhaps still address the left field position and/or re-sign Javier Lopez.

An important aside regarding the Dodgers: A year ago AFTER acquiring the raft of expensive players, GM Nick Colletti said that the trading for all those players was a stop-gap move; that their primary thrust of the future was in signing and developing young players -- especially internationally.

Now we see that two of the most important players on their team -- pitcher Ryu and outfielder Yasiel Puig -- were signed internationally in 2012.

Another aside: As recently as earlier this season, we were debating whether the Dodgers were performing poorly because they lacked chemistry or because they had so many players injured.

Sadly, we seem to have found the answer.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1948&page=1#13563#ixzz2bJLnOJJg