|
Post by sharksrog on Sept 11, 2013 1:15:22 GMT -5
Boagie -- This is true, but the point remains, the Dodgers had the same disadvantage and they went to the post season 10 times during the same period, winning the World Series 4 times. 3 times with Koufax and Drysdale. I hate being on the side of the Dodgers, but pitching wins. The Dodgers proved it in the '60s, just like the Giants proved it in 2010 and '12. Rog -- Pitching certainly doesn't always win, but having a few very good starters does have added value in the postseason due to the extra days off. Depth is a far more important factor in the regular season than in the postseason. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1990&page=2#ixzz2eYuNcvyN
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Sept 11, 2013 1:20:23 GMT -5
Boagie -- my original comment was Tim Lincecum being the best player to ever play for San Francisco, which I still stand behind, and nobody has given me a solid argument to prove otherwise. Rog -- Other than Willie Mays' being considered by some to be the best player to play the game, I've got to agree with you. Well, except for Hall of Famers such as Willie McCovey, Juan Marichal, Orlando Cepeda and Gaylord Perry. Then there are Barry Bonds, Jeff Kent, plus Will and Jack Clark. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1990&page=2#ixzz2eYvQb5sM
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Sept 11, 2013 1:37:04 GMT -5
Allen -- Timmy's way down the line. He's Jim Barr or Shawn Estes. Maybe Jack Sanford. Rog -- I understand your point here, Allen, but uh NO. Boagie underrates Willie Mays and several other Giants, but you seem to ignore that Tim has won two Cy Young Awards, while the other guys didn't come close. Sanford did win the Rookie of the Year Award with the Phillies though. I would compare Jack more to Matt Cain though. Solid innings eater. You would like Jack though. In 1962 he went 24-7, yet his 3.43 ERA that season was just higher than Matt's CAREER ERA in a higher run environment. I know you'll be shocked when I tell you that Jack's run support that season was 5.83 runs. That's probably about a run and three-fourths more than Matt's career support average. Sanford (137-101) has easily the better won-loss record of the two, but Matt has been the better pitcher. Just thought of a Giants pitcher who is easily overlooked, in part because his Giants career was brief. But Jason Schmidt finished 2nd in the Cy Young voting and could easily have won it. Marichal, Perry, Lincecum and Schmidt have been the Giants' shooting stars starters. They, plus Cain and with competition coming on from Bumgarner, have likely been the best San Francisco Giants starters. Vida Blue would be in there, as well, in addition to former Cy Young Award winner Mike McCormick. Atlee Hamaker was a shooting star who burned out pretty quickly. Former Giant Mark Davis won a Cy Young Award with the Padres. Speaking of Davis, in one of his better high school games at Granada High in Livermore, he pitched a two-hitter. I played softball for a few years with the guy who got both the hits against Davis in that game. I was rather surprised to learn that fact, since the guy wasn't even the best hitter on our softball team. I have a question here. Based on their pitching ONLY AS GIANTS, which five SF Giants starters would you pick for your all-SF rotation? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1990&page=2#ixzz2eYwKKbOX
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Sept 11, 2013 11:51:17 GMT -5
Rog -- You're not forgetting that fewer teams made the playoffs back then, are you? Also, in the '60's, they just kept missing out on the pennant. Under today's rules they would have made the playoffs a LOT.
No one is saying the Giants were a great team from 1958 through 1986. But they WERE a really fine team in the '60's and through 1971.
Boagie- I already touched on this. I know it was harder to make the playoffs back then. But the point of bringing that up was to compare the Dodgers success with pitching compared to the Giants success with hitting. The Giants were a good team but never the best. Always a brides maid, never a bride. I'm a third generation Giants fan too, Rog. My Grandfather and my uncles were big Giants fans when they first came to S.F. I've heard many times how frustrating it was to see the Giants always finish behind the Dodgers.
Rog- By the way, after your initial season as a Giants fan, did you look at their team and think that they were going to be pretty good in 1987, that one of their few needs was a utility infielder? That's how my dad and I looked at it -- and he told Chris Speier just that when he and my mom stayed at Chris and Aleta's house while they attended a funeral in Sun City.
My dad suggested Chris contact his former third base coach, Don Zimmer, who had just joined the Giants, and less than a week later, Chris was a Giant.
Boagie- I was 10 or 11 at the time, all I knew is Will Clark was my hero. But I'm glad your dad suggested that, Speier became one of my favorite players in '87.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Sept 11, 2013 13:11:01 GMT -5
Of course, I was speaking of legitimate players, not steroid cheats.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Sept 11, 2013 13:18:55 GMT -5
Marichal, Perry, Sanford, Cain, Schmidt. Many here want to seem to ignore the recent Lincecum and pretend he's still the Timmy of three years ago. I can't do that.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Sept 11, 2013 14:02:39 GMT -5
Rog -- I suspect you're right -- although I'll bet I've seen a lot more in person than you have. Not meaning to get into a "mine's longer, no mine's longer" discussion with you, but I do resent it when you say that all I know is stats. You couldn't be more wrong.
Boagie- I'm not trying to get into a "mine's bigger than yours" discussion either. I just gave my opinion on whom I thought was the best S.F. Giant in history. Not who had the best career, or who belongs in the Hall of Fame. I believe winning it all trumps the rest, do you think there are Hall of Famers who never won it all who would trade the Hall of Fame for a WS ring? I'd imagine there are more that would trade the HoF for a WS ring rather than players who would trade their WS ring for the HoF. There's no way of knowing that of course, that's just my opinion.
In fact, all of this is just my opinion. So why are you getting personal by saying I know less now than you did decades ago? That's fine, I'm sure you're right since your dad knew Chris Speier, discount all the logical evidence I presented.
I'm sorry you don't like my opinion, and feel the need to get out your tape measure. I was invited to the board in the late 90s by Marc and Bambam because they felt I was knowledgeable. Now here we are close to 15 years later and you're questioning my knowledge.
I am guilty of ONCE saying that you had no knowledge of the game outside of the stats, but that was a few years ago and I've since retracted that statement. Now my opinion is you tend to focus more on the stats than anything else and I believe that's accurate.
I also stated in this thread that most fans still don't know what it takes to win. That was mainly directed toward the people who want to get rid of Lincecum and think Petit or Gaudin will pick up the slack allowing the Giants to remain competitive. I stand behind my opinion, however I should re-word it, because I'm not fully certain I understand what it takes to win either. What I am certain of is that we don't win in 2010 without Lincecum. And without the experience of 2010, I question whether we would win in 2012. Thus, my statement should be..I don't believe we can win without Lincecum, especially if the best answer is Petit and Gaudin.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Sept 11, 2013 14:30:50 GMT -5
Marichal, Perry, Sanford, Cain, Schmidt. Many here want to seem to ignore the recent Lincecum and pretend he's still the Timmy of three years ago. I can't do that.
Boagie- But you can ignore Cain's season this year, Jason Schmidt's 2005 season and a few of Jack Sanford's seasons. I get it.
Btw, you say 3 years ago..but 2 years ago at this time Lincecum was posting a lower ERA than Sanford ever did with the Giants.
You always take exception to the word "hate" but when you fabricate the evidence to make Tim look worse, what are we to think?
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Sept 11, 2013 20:20:43 GMT -5
Cain isn't doing as badly as Timmy is this year, not to mention last year. Schmidt's 2005 was caused by injury, and he still went 12-7, 4.40. Timmy's perfectly healthy and he's still 9-13 with the same ERA. Maybe Jason knew how to cover and back up bases. None of Sanford's seasons as a Giant were as bad as Timmy's last two have been. None of this is fabricated boagie, it's hard statistical fact. You sound like Obama calling Benghazi a "phony scandal".
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Sept 12, 2013 2:20:00 GMT -5
OK..we've covered their worst seasons, do their best seasons not count? The fact that Lincecum is a 4 time All Star, 2 time Cy Young winner and led the league in strikeouts 3 straight seasons is all void because he has had two sub par seasons?
Make your case for Marichal, or Perry..or even Cain. But to say Lincecum doesn't belong in the rotation is ludicrous.
I think its time to come out and say you just don't like Tim. Whether it was his pot smoking, or trashing his apartment. This is the only thing that I can think of because you're usually a sensible guy when you don't have a bias. Like with the Bonds bias, I think you're justified in your dislike of Bonds, he made it a point of not being liked, but your dislike for him has created an unrealistic view of what he was on the field. I'm starting to see the same with Tim now.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Sept 12, 2013 9:53:43 GMT -5
Marichal, Perry, Sanford, Cain, Schmidt. Many here want to seem to ignore the recent Lincecum and pretend he's still the Timmy of three years ago. I can't do that. Rog -- Apparently you also can't ignore Jack's 3.61 ERA with a 100 ERA+ (average) with the Giants. Jack's won-loss record of 89-67 was almost identical to Tim's 88-69, and Jack had much better run support. Tim's ERA is up to 3.45, but that's still clearly better than Jack's, especially considering Tim has played in a higher-hitting era. I might go with Madison Bumgarner over Sanford, although Jack certainly has the advantage of more time with the Giants. My comment to you, Allen, would be that you can't seem to forget Tim's past two seasons and remember what an outstanding pitcher he was the five years prior. If Tim continues to pitch as he has the past two seasons and continues to pitch for the Giants, he could regress enough to fall behind Jack. But as of right now, there is little to back up your opinion -- even if one DOESN'T factor in Tim's two Cy Young awards, his four All-Star teams and his postseason pitching. Jack was good in the postseason too (1.93 ERA), but he didn't have as many opportunities. But he fell two short of Tim in Cy Youngs, and as a Giant, he fell four short of Tim in All-Star selections. That's right. Jack wasn't once selected as an All-Star while pitching with the Giants. His one All-Star game came in his rookie season with the Phillies. We might want to look at how Jack's Giants career was framed. He was acquired after the 1958 season for Ruben Gomez and Valmy Thomas, not exactly a king's ransom. Gomez was coming off a 1958 season with a 4.38 ERA and had been below 4.00 only once since 1954. Thomas played in 101 games after the trade. On the other end, Jack was acquired by the Angels without the Giants' even receiving a player. All the Giants got for Jack was cash. Should Tim's Giants career end after this season, he will have arrived after being the #10 overall draft pick (and coming off an 0.29 ERA in Fresno) and have left to a lot of money. I'm really surprised you picked Jack over Tim, Allen. The facts just don't justify your choice. You will likely point to Jack's marvelous 24-7 record with the pennant-winning 1962 Giants. But Jack's 3.43 ERA that season equaled the LOWEST fashioned by Tim in Tim's first four full seasons. Jack's outstanding won-loss record was aided considerably by his 5.83 runs of support. When a pitcher's run support is a full 2.40 runs more than his ERA, he's going to post a very nice won-loss record -- whether the ERA is 3.43 and the run support 5.83, or the ERA is 2.43 and the run support is 4.83. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1990&page=3#14864#ixzz2eglIiw1L
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Sept 12, 2013 13:37:28 GMT -5
I have nothing personally against Tim. But you can't say you're happy with his performance the last two seasons. For someone with his ability, it's shameful. For someone making $22 million per annum, it's disgraceful. So I do have a problem with his performance. I have a big problem with his not knowing the basic fundamentals of his job, his inability to back up or cover bases, hold runners on, and bunt with any consistency, though the latter has improved a bit. I also have a problem with someone who's job lasts about 3.5 hours every fifth day saying they can't maintain focus. Tim's 2012 season was the worst of any starter in baseball. This year has only been slightly better. He's lost in double figures four years in a row. The last three years in the teens. That's alot of losses. You look at where Tim stands on some important categories in the SF Giants all time list, and he's in with some pretty ordinary pitchers. To me he just hasn't had the consistency or length of time as an outstanding pitcher to be in the top five.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Sept 12, 2013 13:46:54 GMT -5
Tim has indeed spent some time at the top of the pitching food chain. He's also spent some time ator near the bottom. I'm not sure that's a place I want one of my top five residing. Perhaps I'm looking for a little more consistency. I guess you're also ticked that I didn't choose Livan, another Giant who led the league in losses for a team that won its division.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Sept 12, 2013 13:51:08 GMT -5
A career minor leaguer with a 5.37 ERA in his limited time in the majors, is as good as a pitcher who has been in a major league rotation for five years, has an ERA a full run lower over his career, and who has struck out 686 hitters in 729 innings, which is almost a batter an inning? Petit's last year when he was part of a rotation was 3-10 with an ERA of 5.92!
---boly says---
Mark, this was my argument, more or less, about Petit; his track record/minor league history, is not pretty.
Someone on the board, can't remember who, pointed out that the PCL is a hitter friendly league, and thus, all of his HR's allowed.
Firstly, I, like Allen, think he deserves a legit shot, but that said, consider:
2012 166.2 ip 178 hits 14 HR 2013 87.2 ip 92 hits 16 HR 2010 59 ip 54 hits 9 HR.
Totals:
313 1/3 innings pitched 324 hits 39 hrs!!!!
Those numbers... THAT track record concern me!!!
Over that same period, I calculate an ERA of 4.05
That's why I'm watching him very, very closely as this year winds down.
I'm guessing he gets 2... maybe 3 more starts.
I WISH I had seen yesterday's game.
If anyone did, other than the box score, please post your observations about:
1-His control 2-How hard were the 6 hits he gave up.
boly
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Sept 12, 2013 13:54:41 GMT -5
Rog -- Apparently you also can't ignore Jack's 3.61 ERA with a 100 ERA+ (average) with the Giants. Jack's won-loss record of 89-67 was almost identical to Tim's 88-69, and Jack had much better run support.
Tim's ERA is up to 3.45, but that's still clearly better than Jack's, especially considering Tim has played in a higher-hitting era.
I might go with Madison Bumgarner over Sanford, although Jack certainly has the advantage of more time with the Giants.
---boly says---
Ya'all are comparing apples and oranges.
I am one of the few on this board who saw them both.
Sanford was an excellent pitcher, but he was not in Madison's class speaking of stuff alone.
Also, beginning in mid to late 1963, Jack had arm trouble.
He also had to face the likes of Aaron, Mathews and others more frequently than today's pitchers face the big time power hitters of the day.
Fact is, in the NL today there AREN'T big time power hitters like Aaron, Mathews, Mays, McCovey et. al.
Can't just look at ERA and compare the 60's to today.
Different game.
Jack was one NASTY sob.
Not as nasty as Gibson, but darned nasty.
Listen to what his managers and teammates had to say about him.
he was one ornery cuss!
boly
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Sept 12, 2013 13:55:48 GMT -5
Tim has indeed spent some time at the top of the pitching food chain. He's also spent some time ator near the bottom. I'm not sure that's a place I want one of my top five residing. Perhaps I'm looking for a little more consistency.
Re---boly says----
I'll state my position of not wanting him back very clearly.
I want one of my top 3 starters to be MORE consistant.
boly
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Sept 12, 2013 22:32:23 GMT -5
I WISH I had seen yesterday's game.
If anyone did, other than the box score, please post your observations about:
1-His control 2-How hard were the 6 hits he gave up.
Allen- His control was very good to excellent for the most part, but he kept trying to live on the outside corner. Eventually they adjusted and started hitting some pretty consistently hard line drives to right.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Sept 13, 2013 9:57:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Sept 13, 2013 13:08:52 GMT -5
Tim led the league in losses, earned runs surrendered, and wild pitches. Overall, who was worse, Jonathan Sanchez? I will amend to say worst in the NL though.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Sept 13, 2013 19:43:20 GMT -5
Allen -- Tim's 2012 season was the worst of any starter in baseball.
Rog -- That isn't true, Allen. You could look it up.
It drives me nuts, Allen, when someone has a good point (which you certainly do here), but ruins it by making a false statement.
If you had simply stuck with the facts, you would have had an argument that was plenty good enough.
If you are going to say someone was the worst, look it up to make sure you're right.
--boly says---
Rog, does it really matter if he's actually THE worst, or simply one of the WORST five?
To me, you're picking nits...
Timmy flat out stunk during the regular season.
Stunk.
Worst, 2nd to worst, third to worst... doesn't matter. When you in that discussion... you're doing pretty badly.
I've said before, and I'll say it again; we need to move on from Timmy.
Bumgarner and Cain make a great 1-2 punch.
But WITH Lincecum, Petit or Gaudin and Vogey, we have 2 top of the rotation guys, and 4 bottom of the rotation guys.
As in 4th or 5th starters.
We aren't going ANYWHERE unless we come up with a solid, SOLID number 3.
Timmy is no longer that, and, as I continue to say, never will be again.
boly
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Sept 14, 2013 2:22:13 GMT -5
I want to first point out that you've given a pass to Cain this season, because he hasn't been a solid front line starter this season. You have a legitimate argument for not calling Lincecum a solid #3 because during the last two seasons he hasn't been. But up until this season Vogelsong has been a very good #3 and would probably compare more with #2 pitchers during the 2011-2012 seasons. I know you make a point of selling Lincecum short, but now it appears you're selling Vogelsong short too.
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Sept 14, 2013 7:20:11 GMT -5
Ryan Vogelsong is 36 years old and has a 5.82 ERA. It's pretty hard to give the guy a pass for a bad season considering his age. Expecting him to bounce back strongly next year and to take the ball every sixth day as a rotation starter is a pipe dream. To paraphrase the Buzzcocks, "He came out of nowhere, and he's heading straight back there."
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Sept 14, 2013 10:11:28 GMT -5
I want to first point out that you've given a pass to Cain this season, because he hasn't been a solid front line starter this season. You have a legitimate argument for not calling Lincecum a solid #3 because during the last two seasons he hasn't been. But up until this season Vogelsong has been a very good #3 and would probably compare more with #2 pitchers during the 2011-2012 seasons. I know you make a point of selling Lincecum short, but now it appears you're selling Vogelsong short too.
---boly says---
A couple of things, Boagie.
Firstly, Mark is right; Vogey is 36 years old. Tim is not even close to that age.
Secondly, Timmy has had 2 + very bad seasons (I say very... because of how young he is, and how good he was)
Thirdly, this is Cain's FIRST poor season.
Until his start Thursday against LA, he simply hasn't been the same guy. His very good command/control had gone on vacation, I'm guessing, to Jupiter, and his propensity, suddenly, for giving up the long ball, had reached ridiculous portions.
Someone on the board back in June? July? pointed out/asked the question, that Cain was slinging the ball.
I spent his last 15 starts watching for that and, indeed, he had begun "slinging" the ball more than ever.
Bottom line: matt gets a pass because he has had one bad year.
Timmy does not because it's now multiple years.
As to Vogey, I'm not selling him short, I'm being honest. Prior to this year, I thought he was a solid, SOLID #3.
BUT AT THIS POINT IN TIME:
1-His velocity is down 2-In his last 2 starts he has lost command in or about in the 5th inning. 3-He's 36 years old.
Do I believe he can rebound?
Yes, I do... but he wasn't ever a top of the rotation guy.
boly
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Sept 14, 2013 11:01:10 GMT -5
Cain's ERA is 2.65 in the second half. Not a bad season, just a bad first half.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Sept 14, 2013 11:10:57 GMT -5
As to Vogey, I'm not selling him short, I'm being honest. Prior to this year, I thought he was a solid, SOLID #3.
BUT AT THIS POINT IN TIME:
1-His velocity is down 2-In his last 2 starts he has lost command in or about in the 5th inning. 3-He's 36 years old.
Do I believe he can rebound?
Yes, I do... but he wasn't ever a top of the rotation guy.
boly
Boagie- Ever? What about last post season? What about the first half of 2011 when he led the league in ERA? Vogelsong has at very least put up #3 type numbers prior to this season and in long stints has proven to be more like a front line starter. I think we've been spoiled by our pitching prowess since 2010. Most teams out there would make Vogelsong or Lincecum their #3 in a heartbeat.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Sept 14, 2013 13:58:34 GMT -5
Ryan seems to think playing in the WBC really hurt his stamina this year. I'm a bit alarmed at how he will be cruising along, then suddenly can't get anyone out. That has happened in a few of his recent starts.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Sept 14, 2013 15:19:23 GMT -5
Ryan seems to think playing in the WBC really hurt his stamina this year. I'm a bit alarmed at how he will be cruising along, then suddenly can't get anyone out. That has happened in a few of his recent starts.
---boly says---
That has me, and I'm sure the Giants, alarmed, too.
In part I think some of it may be explainable as to not having the endurance/arm strength built up.
Maybe... But I'm not sold on the idea.
Like I said; #4 or 5 guy for next year.
boly
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Sept 14, 2013 15:22:24 GMT -5
Boagie- Ever? What about last post season? What about the first half of 2011 when he led the league in ERA? Vogelsong has at very least put up #3 type numbers prior to this season and in long stints has proven to be more like a front line starter. I think we've been spoiled by our pitching prowess since 2010. Most teams out there would make Vogelsong or Lincecum their #3 in a heartbeat.
Rea---boly says---
You misunderstood, Boagie. I wasn't talking Lincecum, I was talking Vogey.
One year... maybe 2, and Vogy might have been considered a #3.
He just never had the stuff to be a 1 or a 2.
But you're right; from 2010-2012, I'd take him as my #3 in a heartbeat.
When I say Top of the Rotation, I'm talking 1 or 2.
Three is mid rotation,
4 and 5, bottom of the rotation.
And yes, I"ve gotten spoiled. I have a right to, what with the way we pitched from 2010-2012.
What bothers me/worries me/concerns me is what some of our posters are willing to accept.
Not saying you, Boagie, I'm just speaking in general.
The bar has been set by 2010-2012.
Reach it, or pitch somewhere else.
boly
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Sept 15, 2013 12:48:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Sept 15, 2013 12:50:13 GMT -5
|
|