|
Post by rxmeister on Aug 24, 2013 13:59:22 GMT -5
Boly, you said the Dodgers injuries didn't hurt them as much as ours because they had depth and we didn't, but doesn't that lead to the question of why didn't we? Injuries are only a valid excuse when you lose a bunch of players at the same positions. You're not supposed to be able to cover that. However the Giants lost ONE outfielder, (Pagan) one infielder, (Sandoval) one starter, Vogelsong, and a couple of relievers, (Affeldt, Casilla). If the organization is doing it's job, those players should be replaced by players who are not as good obviously, but good enough. That's a failure that starts with Sabean. As for Rog, I disagree about Affeldt not being here next year. Why would a team with bullpen issues this year not be happy about getting one of their top relievers back? And with Lopez a free agent and Mijares pretty terrible, I'm thinking they need Affeldt. And yes they could trade him if they eat salary, but what would motivate them to do so?
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 24, 2013 18:07:18 GMT -5
Post by dk on Aug 24, 2013 18:07:18 GMT -5
Boly, you said the Dodgers injuries didn't hurt them as much as ours because they had depth and we didn't, but doesn't that lead to the question of why didn't we? Injuries are only a valid excuse when you lose a bunch of players at the same positions. You're not supposed to be able to cover that. However the Giants lost ONE outfielder, (Pagan) one infielder, (Sandoval) one starter, Vogelsong, and a couple of relievers, (Affeldt, Casilla). If the organization is doing it's job, those players should be replaced by players who are not as good obviously, but good enough. That's a failure that starts with Sabean. As for Rog, I disagree about Affeldt not being here next year. Why would a team with bullpen issues this year not be happy about getting one of their top relievers back? And with Lopez a free agent and Mijares pretty terrible, I'm thinking they need Affeldt. And yes they could trade him if they eat salary, but what would motivate them to do so? dk..I have been pointing to the fact that the Giants only have had 5 major league starters in their whole system for the last few years...I wanted them to use a six man rotation in the hot days of summer (any where but SF) to get the best five ready for the race at the end....I think some of the problems this year was that the starters wore out...they were lucky that they dug up Chad from the dumpster...I don't understand the low opinion of Guiden, he looks OK to me.....I pass on his moral problems...
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 25, 2013 9:33:47 GMT -5
Post by klaiggeb on Aug 25, 2013 9:33:47 GMT -5
Boly, you said the Dodgers injuries didn't hurt them as much as ours because they had depth and we didn't, but doesn't that lead to the question of why didn't we? Injuries are only a valid excuse when you lose a bunch of players at the same positions. You're not supposed to be able to cover that. However the Giants lost ONE outfielder, (Pagan) one infielder, (Sandoval) one starter, Vogelsong, and a couple of relievers, (Affeldt, Casilla). If the organization is doing it's job, those players should be replaced by players who are not as good obviously, but good enough. That's a failure that starts with Sabean.
---boly says----
You're right about the lack of depth, Mark, and going into the season we ALLLLLLLLL said that LF was going to be a problem.
The entire year was the "Domino Effect."
That's where injuries killed us.
1-The loss of Pagan meant a ton more playing time for the very average to below average offense of Blanco.
And worse, it meant Torres had to play a ton more often.
When a replacement could NOT be found...the Dominoes fell.
2-Vogey-I can't remember who pointed it out, but Vogey's loss was larger than it seemed because it put unbelieveable pressure on the bullpen.
3-Casilla's loss further taxed an already distraught pen as now, they had no set up guy who could also close.
4-Affeldt-Was rarely totally healthy. His problems with injuries doomed the pen.
5-Scutaro was hurt(had to be), more than he let on. Some of his play was just awful and can only be explained by injuries to his little finger and back.
Blaming Sabean?
Not sure I agree.
I'm betting he tried to fill that void in LF, but was simply not willing to pay the price.
Thus:
1-The injuries got the ball rolling down hill.
2-Cain and Vogey's stumbling out of the gate kicked the ball even further down the hill
3-Sub par seasons by players sealed the deal.
boly
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 25, 2013 21:07:09 GMT -5
Post by Islandboagie on Aug 25, 2013 21:07:09 GMT -5
The most noticeable hole we had going into this season was starting pitching depth. That came back to bite us. I still think that's the Beltran deal coming back to bite us in the ass. Wheeler was ready right at the time Vogelsong went down. People who were all for that deal are now wanting to crucify Sabean for not having anyone in the wings. The fans need to learn that you can't keep all the prospects and get the rental players too.
That being said, I think Sabean should have been a little more proactive in getting some pitching depth...instead he focused on stacking up on backup infielders.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Goudin
Aug 26, 2013 2:37:54 GMT -5
Post by sfgdood on Aug 26, 2013 2:37:54 GMT -5
You are correct, Boagie, but then again, it's not like Wheeler led his team to greatness. And Vogey's injury was a freak occurance. Sure it would have been nice to have a Wheeler waiting for some unforeseen event, but each of the opening day starting 5 have been quite durable throughout their careers.
~Dood
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 26, 2013 11:12:31 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Aug 26, 2013 11:12:31 GMT -5
Rog -- And here Allen has told us Jonathan was a poor pitcher in 2009. I feel so CONFLICTED! Allen- No need to Rog. 8-12, 4.24=poor. Rog -- 4.24 was league average in 2009 -- a little better than league average for a starter. When an average starter finishes below .500, we should usually start by looking at run support. Sure enough. Jonathan had only 3.63 runs of support. This is pretty obvious to a logical person, Allen. I just don't understand why you don't get it. I guess I should simply look at it as a quirk on your part and move on. Before I do though, one last thing. Let's look at the other pitchers that season with ERA's without 0.10 runs of Jonathan, then look at their run support and won-loss record. I've never looked this up before, but I will be surprised if the correlation between won-loss record and run support isn't significant: Andy Pettitte 4.16, 5.52, +1.36, 14-8 Aaron Harang 4.21, 3.37, -0.84, 6-14 Sanchez 4.24, 3.63, -0.61, 8-12 Ricky Romero 4.30, 4.96, +0.66, 13-9 Cole Hammels 4.32, 4.67, +0.35, 10-11 Jason Hammel 4.33, 5.12, +0.79, 10-8 Each pitcher's record is pretty much what run differential would predict. The guy who was perhaps the biggest laggard was Cole Hammels, who is considered to be one of the top starters in the game. If we combine those guys, they were 1 game below .500 -- pretty much what we would expect from pitchers whose ERA's were right around league average. Not surprising either is that the guy with the worst won-loss record (Harang at 6-14) had the worst run differential (-0.84), and the guy who had the best record (Pettitte at 14-8) had the best (+1.36). In fact, the rankings by run differential is almost exactly the same as the rankings by won-loss record. I have shown here how the formula for predicting won-loss record by run differential is very accurate in virtually every large sample. Conversely, no one who thinks pitchers are just good enough to win or just good enough to lose has yet proven his theory. In sizeable samples, the winners get more runs than they give up, while the losers give up more than they receive. The better the pitcher, the better chance he will receive more runs than he gives up. That's why good pitchers tend to have good records -- not because they pitch just well enough to win. They pitch well enough to win, period. If you can't understand the logic here, Allen, I truly have to wonder how logical your other opinions may be. Not saying they aren't logical; simply saying your lack of logic on this topic calls your other opinions into question. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1973&page=1#14270#ixzz2d5ZoBP7H
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 26, 2013 11:19:42 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Aug 26, 2013 11:19:42 GMT -5
Rog -- Jonathan Sanchez was darn good from his no-hitter through the end of May, 2011. I think at that point he suffered some type of physical and/or mental injury. He became a completely different pitcher, and one could almost dispense with the term "pitcher." Allen- Mental injury?! All I can do is shake my head and chuckle. You're a top flight apologist, Rog. Rog -- Perhaps I should have expanded it to mental illness, just as players can be affected by physical illness as well as injury. And I'm not saying it WAS mental (as was indicated by "physical and/or mental"). But you tell me, Allen, why after the end of May, 2011, Jonathan changed as a pitcher so much that he made Tim Lincecum look highly consistent. I'm not an apologist, Allen; I'm a realist. Until you can come up with another reason for a change that was far more dramatic than even Steve Blass (whose difficulty WAS mental, not physical), I've got to say you're not a realist on this one. When it comes to Jonathan Sanchez, Pablo Sandoval and Barry Bonds, you've had fat from your buttocks injected into your lips. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1973&page=1#ixzz2d5n9pn3C
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 26, 2013 11:23:44 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Aug 26, 2013 11:23:44 GMT -5
Boagie -- The most noticeable hole we had going into this season was starting pitching depth. That came back to bite us. I still think that's the Beltran deal coming back to bite us in the ass. Rog -- No question the Giants suffered this season from the Beltran/Wheelter deal. But their biggest hole going into the season was left field. Maybe I'm misremembering, but weren't you high on Barry Zito early this season? If so, starting pitching depth wouldn't seem to be more of a problem than it had been in their two World Series seasons. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1973&page=2#14318#ixzz2d5ovG05L
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 26, 2013 11:30:01 GMT -5
Post by Islandboagie on Aug 26, 2013 11:30:01 GMT -5
I loved Jonathan Sanchez, and you are probably right about May of 2011 being his turning point. But I think I gave up on Jonathan in the 2010 playoffs when he lost his cool. Basically ALL that progress he made that season was flushed down the toilet in one instance. He proved his temper would always be an issue and he would always be a mental liability.
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 26, 2013 11:30:52 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Aug 26, 2013 11:30:52 GMT -5
Boagie -- That being said, I think Sabean should have been a little more proactive in getting some pitching depth...instead he focused on stacking up on backup infielders. Rog -- The Giants added Abreu, Tanaka and one other guy I've forgotten to back up on the infield. Meanwhile, they added pitchers Gaudin, Rosario, Proctor, Moscoso and Ramirez after adding Mijares late last season. I think they did a fair job of adding bargain basement depth in both areas. They could have done a better job of adding outfield depth, but they did add Torres, Franceour and Gillespie. Even behind the plate, they had added Quiroz. I think Brian Sabean's ability to fortify his roster from the bargain basement is one of his top strengths. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1973&page=2#ixzz2d5phmphY
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 26, 2013 11:42:47 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Aug 26, 2013 11:42:47 GMT -5
Boagie -- I loved Jonathan Sanchez, and you are probably right about May of 2011 being his turning point. But I think I gave up on Jonathan in the 2010 playoffs when he lost his cool. Basically ALL that progress he made that season was flushed down the toilet in one instance. Rog -- I think that was premature, Boagie. You gave up on Jonathan because of one admittedly foolish act in one post-season game after he was the Giants' best pitcher in September (even better than Tim Lincecum) and won the final game of the season, putting the Giants into the playoffs? Now, Jonathan has been HORRIBLE since the end of May, 2011, but after April and May of that season, he had a 3.38 ERA. Clearly it worked out the way both you and especially Allen were pushing, but from his no-hitter through the end of May, 2011 -- nearly two years -- Jonathan was a good to very good pitcher. He led the Giants in ERA in 2010. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1973&page=2#ixzz2d5t4Sbav
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 26, 2013 11:52:51 GMT -5
Post by Islandboagie on Aug 26, 2013 11:52:51 GMT -5
Yup, Jonathan was great down the stretch and the clincher in 2010 was one of my favorite pitching performances ever. But losing your cool in a playoff game is 100% irresponsible and not considering your teammates. Not that I still didn't like Jonathan still..but his total collapse after that wasn't a surprise to me.
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 26, 2013 12:05:20 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Aug 26, 2013 12:05:20 GMT -5
This is pretty obvious to a logical person, Allen. I just don't understand why you don't get it. I guess I should simply look at it as a quirk on your part and move on.
Allen- Jonathan Sanchez was a lousy pitcher, Rog. I just don't understand why you don't get it.
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 26, 2013 12:08:35 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Aug 26, 2013 12:08:35 GMT -5
When it comes to Jonathan Sanchez, Pablo Sandoval and Barry Bonds, you've had fat from your buttocks injected into your lips.
Allen- Seriously? This is the best you can do? It doesn't even make sense.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Goudin
Aug 26, 2013 12:40:55 GMT -5
Post by sfgdood on Aug 26, 2013 12:40:55 GMT -5
Rog -- And here Allen has told us Jonathan was a poor pitcher in 2009. I feel so CONFLICTED!
Allen- No need to Rog. 8-12, 4.24=poor.
Dood - Bud Norris is 9-10 with a 4.22 ERA this year. He is 37-47 with a 4.38 in his career. Yet you were wanting to trade our top prospects for HIM.
~Dood
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Goudin
Aug 26, 2013 12:55:30 GMT -5
Post by sfgdood on Aug 26, 2013 12:55:30 GMT -5
I loved Jonathan Sanchez, and you are probably right about May of 2011 being his turning point. But I think I gave up on Jonathan in the 2010 playoffs when he lost his cool. Basically ALL that progress he made that season was flushed down the toilet in one instance. He proved his temper would always be an issue and he would always be a mental liability.
Dood - I love when people say someone proved he will ALWAYS be this or NEVER be that. How in the world can you know this, especially when the someone in question is very young? A lot of young players lose their cool once in a while. Madison Bumgarner once had an epic meltdown in Fresno that went viral on Youtube. After the division clinching start Jonathan had that same year--after both Cain and Zito failed miserably--one could easily have said that Jonathan PROVED he would always come up clutch...but they would have been equally wrong, obviously.
~Dood
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 26, 2013 14:48:41 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Aug 26, 2013 14:48:41 GMT -5
Rog -- And here Allen has told us Jonathan was a poor pitcher in 2009. I feel so CONFLICTED! Allen- No need to Rog. 8-12, 4.24=poor. Dood - Bud Norris is 9-10 with a 4.22 ERA this year. He is 37-47 with a 4.38 in his career. Yet you were wanting to trade our top prospects for HIM. ~Dood
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 26, 2013 14:54:36 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Aug 26, 2013 14:54:36 GMT -5
Dood - Bud Norris is 9-10 with a 4.22 ERA this year. He is 37-47 with a 4.38 in his career. Yet you were wanting to trade our top prospects for HIM.
Allen- Not our top prospects, just Brown and Panik. Still would. Norris is 3-1 with the O's, and Baltimore is 5-1 when he starts. Change of scenery may have helped. Certainly didn't help Sanchez.
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 26, 2013 15:01:20 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Aug 26, 2013 15:01:20 GMT -5
Yup, Jonathan was great down the stretch and the clincher in 2010 was one of my favorite pitching performances ever. But losing your cool in a playoff game is 100% irresponsible and not considering your teammates. Not that I still didn't like Jonathan still..but his total collapse after that wasn't a surprise to me. Allen- And the thing was, he lost his cool over nothing. Utley merely tossed the ball back to him. Hate to say it, but I figured early in his career that Sanchez didn't have what it took. This is how I figured his career would end up.
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 26, 2013 15:13:14 GMT -5
Post by Islandboagie on Aug 26, 2013 15:13:14 GMT -5
Utley purposely baited Sanchez, he knew that would rile him up. Sanchez should have shrugged it off but his mental weakness wouldn't allow him to do that, even in a playoff game that could have sunk the Giants.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Goudin
Aug 26, 2013 15:26:30 GMT -5
Post by sfgdood on Aug 26, 2013 15:26:30 GMT -5
I agree Utley cheaply baited Jonathan there. There was absolutely no good reason to toss the ball back in Jonathan's direction except to try to get under his skin. Unfortunately Jonathan allowed it to work and he melted down. Fortunately his teammates picked him up and we won despite it all, and Utley had to eat crow as he watched the Giants celebrate the NL penant and ultimately the world championship.
~Dood
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 27, 2013 10:11:43 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Aug 27, 2013 10:11:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 27, 2013 10:41:39 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Aug 27, 2013 10:41:39 GMT -5
Dood - Bud Norris is 9-10 with a 4.22 ERA this year. He is 37-47 with a 4.38 in his career. Yet you were wanting to trade our top prospects for HIM. Allen- Not our top prospects, just Brown and Panik. Still would. Norris is 3-1 with the O's, and Baltimore is 5-1 when he starts. Change of scenery may have helped. Rog -- Several thoughts I have here: . I think this would be a pretty even trade. When it was first brought up, my gut told me no. It's usually better to go with one's gut, but I changed my mind when I looked closely at what I thought Panik and Brown might become. Both players could become starters, but don't seem likely to me to be first-division starters. Each player could also wind up as a fifth infielder/fourth outfielder respectively. . Bud Norris isn't a great pitcher, but he appears to be a league average pitcher who is under team control for two more years. Such a pitcher has pretty decent value on the open market. The Astros got a 19-year-old pitcher who has allowed just 6.4 hits per nine and 9.5 strikeouts per nine in his minor league career. They got a 23-year-old right fielder who has hit .310 for the Astros since the trade. They got a Round A Competitive balance draft choice which will be in the top 40 picks in 2014. In other words, they probably got more value than both Panik and Brown combined. (As an aside, Bleacher Reports now ranks Panik the Giants' #5 prospect, while Gary Brown just fell out of the top 10 to Giants' first-round pick this season, Christian Arroyo, a middle infielder who is showing some power in rookie ball.) . Norris is from Novato and has stated he would love to play for the Giants, giving them a good chance to re-sign him when he becomes eligible for free agency two years ago. . The Giants might even HAVE offered Panik and Norris to the Astros, but I think Houston wound up taking a better deal. The Astros got THREE potentially nice pieces in their trade with Baltimore. In Hoes, they even got immediate help, something neither Panik nor Brown would have provided them. . Maybe I should have gone with my gut on the hypothetical trade of Norris for Panik and Brown. But I think changing my mind was the better thing to do. It will be intriguing to see how this looks in five or six years. So far though, the advantage would be to what the Astros actually got for Norris compared to having potentially received Panik and Brown. . As for Allen's pointing out that Norris has gone 3-1 for the Orioles and that they have gone 5-1 in games he has pitched, mentioning his 5.53 ERA might also have somehow been pertinent. I don't know whose place Norris took in the rotation, but it is likely that that guy might have posted a similar won-loss record -- probably with a lower ERA. Norris received a no-decision in his last start (and would have received the win had he been able to complete the 5th inning), leading the game 8-7 when he left it. Bud did pitch pretty decently in his first five starts with the O's. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1973&page=2#ixzz2dBOUeILZ
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 27, 2013 10:49:50 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Aug 27, 2013 10:49:50 GMT -5
Boagie -- Utley purposely baited Sanchez, he knew that would rile him up. Sanchez should have shrugged it off but his mental weakness wouldn't allow him to do that, even in a playoff game that could have sunk the Giants. Rog -- It was a weird play. With or without the incident, Jonathan was coming out of the game. By the way, someone (Randy?) brought up that Mad Bum had a meltdown at Fresno at least as bad as Jonathan's. I believe Madison also had a very bad one earlier in his career in which he was tossed in the first inning. It should be noted that Bumgarner was much younger when his incidents occurred. But I just LOVE those who are able to draw permanent conclusions from "body language" or a single incident. I have two questions for you, Boagie. First, if Jonathan was so messed up mentally in October, how was he so excellent under the September pressure of a pennant race that went down to the final day of the season (which he himself won)? Second, if Jonathan had lost it then, how did he pitch so well through May of the next season? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1973&page=2#ixzz2dBVhoZSP
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 27, 2013 11:00:46 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Aug 27, 2013 11:00:46 GMT -5
When it comes to Jonathan Sanchez, Pablo Sandoval and Barry Bonds, you've had fat from your buttocks injected into your lips. Allen- Seriously? This is the best you can do? It doesn't even make sense. Rog -- You're talking out of your shall we say tush? Allen- Uh, no. Well, obviously I was wrong about Sanchez, his career is thriving. Pablo? Where was I wrong? He wasn't out of shape? He hasn't missed too much time? He' not having a subpar year? Bonds? Again, he's a lowlife. Cheats at his profession, his marriage, his taxes. He's a perjuror, and a coward who used his child to protect himself from having to take accountability for his actions. Oh, and a good father too, as he raised that child to physically abuse his mother. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 27, 2013 11:03:06 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Aug 27, 2013 11:03:06 GMT -5
Allen- And the thing was, he lost his cool over nothing. Utley merely tossed the ball back to him. Allen -- Hate to say it, but I figured early in his career that Sanchez didn't have what it took. This is how I figured his career would end up. Rog -- You're not even shrewd enough to recognize that he was clearly better than "poor" in the 2009 season. You base FAR too much on a pitcher's won-loss record. According to your thinking, Matt Cain has been just an average pitcher over the course of his career, while Kirk Rueter was a very good one. Don't you understand that a won-loss record that seems out of whack with ERA has a high degree of correlation to run support? Until you understand that, you're not going to be a very good evaluator of pitchers. Do you honestly think Bud Norris has pitched well for the Orioles, as his 3-1 record would indicate? Heck, the guy gave up SEVEN runs in his last start, yet would have received his fourth Orioles win if he could simply have finished the 5th inning. Incidentally, your logic regarding Sanchez was that a pitcher COULDN'T be anything but poor if he gave up as many walks as Jonathan. Yet you lauded Jason Marquis earlier this season, suggesting he would be a good pitcher to sign instead of Tim Lincecum, even though Marquis' walk rate of 5.2 was clearly higher than Jonathan's 4.8 in 2009, when according to you Jonathan was "poor." The problem with using poor logic is that the logic often contradicts itself. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1973&page=2#ixzz2dBXron8K
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 27, 2013 11:10:17 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Aug 27, 2013 11:10:17 GMT -5
I notice, Allen, that you haven't addressed the 2009 run support issue. Perhaps it's just coincidence that run support explains the disparate records in the pitchers with similar ERA's to Jonathan Sanchez. I'm guessing the reason is that there is no rational response to contradict it.
I've studied this issue, Allen; you're merely guessing at it. And pretty much trying to wiggle away from reason.
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 27, 2013 11:31:42 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Aug 27, 2013 11:31:42 GMT -5
Who do you think is a better pitcher, Marquis or Sanchez? Marquis has managed to last at the big league level quite a bit longer than Jonathan has. Was Jonathan a good pitcher after leaving the Giants? Obviously, in your opinion, his 1-12 record had nothing to do with his ability. Just poor run support, right? I guess I'm not "shrewd" enough to see 8-12, 4.24 as good. How is his record out of whack with his ERA? 4.24 should equate to 8-12, if not worse. And when was Jonathan good in 2009. At the end of June his ERA was 5.45, his record 2-8. Obviously poor run support. By July he had wittled that all the way down to 4.81, record of 4-9, despite pitching a no hitter. So, at max, he had a couple of good months. Hardly a good season. In 11 of his starts, he gave up four earned runs or more, in 13 starts he went five innings or less. Norris? Three good outings, three bad ones. He took the loss when he came in to pitch in the 14th inning in AZ. He could easily be 3-0 for the O's. Actually Baltimore is 5-0 in games he has started.
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 27, 2013 12:28:04 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Aug 27, 2013 12:28:04 GMT -5
Allen -- Who do you think is a better pitcher, Marquis or Sanchez? Rog -- Right now, I wouldn't want either one of them at the major league level. Marquis is injured and free agent eligible, while Jonathan is flat-out lost. Allen -- Marquis has managed to last at the big league level quite a bit longer than Jonathan has. Rog -- I would rank Jason's career ahead of Jonathan's. He's had far more longevity. Here's something that might shock you a bit though. At the end of May, 2011, Jonathan's career ERA was four-tenths of a run lower than Jason's. Allen -- Was Jonathan a good pitcher after leaving the Giants? Obviously, in your opinion, his 1-12 record had nothing to do with his ability. Just poor run support, right? Rog -- Allen, why do you even MAKE a comment as foolish as this? I have said that since the end of May, 2011, Jonathan has been AWFUL. Allen -- I guess I'm not "shrewd" enough to see 8-12, 4.24 as good. Rog -- It WASN'T good, Allen; as I have long said, it was average. It's just that it wasn't POOR, as you said it was. Why do you continue to misrepresent my opinions here? Allen -- How is his record out of whack with his ERA? 4.24 should equate to 8-12, if not worse. Rog -- See, Allen, this is where you show a huge lack of understanding. Jonathan's 4.24 ERA in 2009 was just off the league average of 4.20. It was actually LOWER than the league average for starters, which was closer to 4.40. You're saying a starting pitcher with an ERA slightly lower than the league average for starters should be only 8-12? That makes no sense whatsoever. What DOES make sense is that Jonathan's sub-.500 record stemmed mostly from a run support of 3.63, compared to a league average run support of 4.49. Jonathan was a league-average pitcher who received horrible run support. That tends to translate to a poor won-loss record. You act as if this stuff is rocket science, Allen, when really, it's mostly common sense. Allen --And when was Jonathan good in 2009. At the end of June his ERA was 5.45, his record 2-8. Obviously poor run support. By July he had wittled that all the way down to 4.81, record of 4-9, despite pitching a no hitter. So, at max, he had a couple of good months. Hardly a good season. Rog -- I didn't say it was a good season; I said it was an average season. I agree with you; it WASN'T a good season -- although he certainly was a good pitcher from his no-hitter through the end of May, 2011. Once again, you are in a futile manner representing what I have said. Allen -- In 11 of his starts, he gave up four earned runs or more, in 13 starts he went five innings or less. Rog -- Yet you were apparently impressed with Barry Zito's 2012 season, since he went 15-8! Yet Barry also gave up four or more earned runs, and in 10 starts he went five innings or less. I don't suppose Barry's having well over a run more support than Jonathan had did much to affect their respective won-loss records, do you? Allen -- Norris? Three good outings, three bad ones. Rog -- In 17 of Jonathan's 32 outings in 2009, he yielded two or fewer earned runs. Allen -- He took the loss when he came in to pitch in the 14th inning in AZ. He could easily be 3-0 for the O's. Actually Baltimore is 5-0 in games he has started. Rog -- Believe me. Overall, Jonathan pitched better in 2009 than Bud has as an Oriole, although take away Bud's last outing, and he's been the better pitcher. All one truly has to do is look at this stuff objectively, Allen. It's mostly common sense. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1973&page=2#14357#ixzz2dBmacJ23
|
|
|
Goudin
Aug 27, 2013 14:57:54 GMT -5
Post by Islandboagie on Aug 27, 2013 14:57:54 GMT -5
Dood - I love when people say someone proved he will ALWAYS be this or NEVER be that. How in the world can you know this, especially when the someone in question is very young? A lot of young players lose their cool once in a while. Madison Bumgarner once had an epic meltdown in Fresno that went viral on Youtube. After the division clinching start Jonathan had that same year--after both Cain and Zito failed miserably--one could easily have said that Jonathan PROVED he would always come up clutch...but they would have been equally wrong, obviously.
Boagie- I wish Jonathan had the same mindset when facing every team that he had facing the Padres. He pitched great in the clincher, I'm the first to recognize that. However, melting down in a crucial playoff game is unacceptable. Jonathan made a lot of progress In 2010 then screwed it all up against one batter. His meltdown is like a heroin addict going through rehab then showing up bombed out of his mind on the last day.
|
|