Now, I can post it.

[klaiggeb]

I held up all year posting this... and based upon last night, and now that we're done, I will.

1-I never, ever understood the talk about Bumgarner winning the CY Young award this year.

Too many games when he was anything BUT dominant.

2-I was one who did NOT believe the innings last year would effect him. I was wrong. Based upon his +3 ERA this year, I think it did.

For him to have an ERA at or near 3.00 is simply average, and frankly, not good enough.

3-How many HRs did Madison give up this year? Way too man.


He was not himself for most of the year.

That's the way I see it, and that's sad.


He can use the extra rest this off season.

boly

[sfgdood]

I agree that Madison doesn't deserve CY consideration this year...but he did have a very good year all things considered.

In the words of Buffalo Springfield...you better stop, hey, what's that sound? Everybody look what's going down

[klaiggeb]

Great quote, Randy, to a really good song!

It was a good year... but the standards of others. Not by the standards he's previously achieved.

boly

[Rog]

I think we're off base about Madison this year. I too was worried about his workload last season affecting him and perhaps his last two starts show that it did. I posted here from a study in Fan Graphs that showed it hadn't made all that much difference in similar situations, but IIRC it did who a fall-off of about a quarter of a run on average.

But Madison's ERA is actually BETTER than his career average. It is the 2nd-lowest of his career, behind only last season. Despite the last two tough starts, his ERA ISN'T above 3.00. It's 2.93, which is 11 ticks lower than his career mark. Nothing wrong with his won-loss record. 18-9 is the best of his career.

How about other indicators?

ERA+ -- The best full season of his career.

Strikeouts -- The most, both in total and per nine innnings.

Walks -- Also the lowest of his career, in both counting and ratio stats.

K/BB ratio -- Obviously the best of his career.

Fielding Independent Pitching -- The 2nd-best of his career.

WHIP -- The best of his career.

H/9 -- 2nd-best.

K/BB -- Obviously the best of his career.

Home run rate -- 0.1 more homers per nine than his career average. The worst indicator here, but if that is the worst, it probably has been a nice season -- especially with all the other positives.

Innings pitched -- The most of his career, possibly with one more start remaining.

WAR -- Best of career.

Swinging strike % -- Best.

Pitch efficiency -- faced four fewer batters in an inning less than last season, throwing 60 fewer pitches in doing so.

Most of the other indicators are somewhat positive, as well.


I believe our thinking here might be swayed by his past two outings. The first one was at least decent (3 runs in 7 innings), but he threw a season-high 120 pitches in that one. The high pitch count in that one might have affected his performance last night, especially since he was pitching without an extra days's rest. Still, he yielded just five hits and one walk in 5.2 innings. His problem was the long ball.

One could easily argue that despite all those innings last season and perhaps a bit of overuse in his next-to-last start to date, he has had the best regular season of his career. It might be difficult to argue against it.

[klaiggeb]

Rog, YOU saw him pitch. Did you see the dominance we've seen in the past?

I didn't.

I don't care what the numbers say here. I really don't.

THIS Bumgarner 3.0 would not have starred in the World Series last year, nor in the post season.

This version gave him 3 HRs last night.

Last year's version did not, and would not have.

boly

[sfgdood]

Bumgarner hadn't given up 3 bombs in one game since his rookie season of 2010. I believe those last two were the result of Bum pushing himself to give more than he should have. He was spent and I suspect that he knew that but he also knows the bullpen was wiped out and he wanted to spot them one more inning.

[Islandboagie]

I agree with Rog. If you compare the numbers between this year and last, they're very similar, but this year he's probably even a little better. Minus the post season of course. Pitching a lot of innings is always a worry, but in this case I don't think there's any evidence of Bumgarner having an issue.

[klaiggeb]

Okie-dokie.

I see it differently, but that's okay.

Now we all sit back and wait and see what the off season brings.

boly

[Rog]

Here's why I think we feel Madison was more dominant last season than this. Well basically, he was -- if we include last postseason. But he had one of the best REGULAR seasons of his career this season.

I think we're coloring our opinions based on remembering last postseason and how tough it was for him to finish this season.

As comparing the two regular seasons only, I feel we may be giving too little credence to the stats. Do stats tell the whole story? Of course not. They're measurements, and few if any measurements are perfect. But stats do tell a high percentage (notice how I sneaked in another statistical term!) of the story. How can we logically say, I saw it, so I know how it was when the stats clearly say all the things above.

Madison induced more swings and misses and struck out batters faster than at any time in his career. That shows dominance.

He walked fewer batters than in any season in his career. That shows control.

He pitched an extra inning, yet faced fewer batters and threw 60 fewer pitches than the previous season. That shows efficiency.

Batters made less contact against him than in any season of his career. That shows mastery.

Here's what I don't understand -- and I'm not trying to be difficult here, but rather to try to find out what goes on in other minds. How can we ignore these clear indicators that Madison WAS at least as dominant -- and likely more so -- because of what our eyes told us? Our eyes aren't always right. Our interpretations of what we see aren't always right. We've got a lot of good baseball people here, and how often do we see things two or more different ways?

I just don't understand.

[Islandboagie]

Rog- Here's why I think we feel Madison was more dominant last season than this. Well basically, he was -- if we include last postseason. But he had one of the best REGULAR seasons of his career this season.

I think we're coloring our opinions based on remembering last postseason and how tough it was for him to finish this season.


Boagie- Couldn't agree more. If you compare the regular season numbers between this season and last, they're eerily similar, and the edge would likely be given to this season.

[klaiggeb]

Boagie, and Rog, I couldn't DISAGREE more.

I'm not basing my opinion on his post season, I'm basing it upon what I OBSERVED DURING the season, and comparing it to what I OBSERVED during his last 2 seasons.

Here's what I SAW this year, and saw a LOT.

1-Madison gave up homeruns early in games which put his team behind.

2-He was throwing far tooooo many pitches EARLY in games, which ran his pitch count way up.

3-He simply did NOT, repeat, did NOT have that devasting bite on his slider as often.

4-His command was simply not as sharp as often. No, I don't mean base on balls, I mean command in the strike zone.

Ya'all can believe what you want, but like I titled the post "now I can post it..." because I saw it all year long hoping I was wrong.

I wasn't.

boly

[rxmeister]

I couldn't disagree more. Thought he had a great year. I think the dominant post seasons he has had have elevated him in your eyes and you're expecting him to be more than he is. He has never been on the first tier of elite starting pitchers and he's never been a Cy Young candidate. He's not Kershaw and he's not Greinke and he's not Felix Hernandez, Scherzer or David Price. He's at the very top of the next level though, and that's pretty damn good. Remember Cy Young Tim Lincecum? Madison Bumgarner will never be that good. What he was this season is exactly what he is, and with all the Giants injuries, he still should have been a 20 game winner, and that's more than good enough for me!

[Islandboagie]

Boly, You can disagree with me, but what I stated were facts. Last year and this year's numbers are similar, and based on numbers the edge would go to this year.

What you see is what you see, I'm not going to say you're wrong.

In my own opinion, I don't think Madison is as dominant as Lincecum was in 2008-2009 I don't believe he's a Cy Young winner, although he deserves to be in the discussion. I believe he should also be in the discussion for MVP, because nobody impacts a game like Bumgarner does.

I recall this same topic coming up around the half. Bumgarner then went on to dominate much of the second half.

I don't buy into the stats anymore than you, Boly, and when they go against what I see, then I often ignore the stats and stick with my opinion. But I do that in cases when the stats aren't necessarily telling the whole story.

For instance, Rog used to talk about Crawford being a poor hitter. At that point I couldn't argue much with that. What I could argue with was his value in the lineup and in the field. Overall he wasn't good with the bat, but he still found a way to drive in runs in clutch situations and play a good defense. Rog couldn't argue with that. We just saw different outcomes for Crawford's future. We can argue our opinions on a player, but we can't argue the statistical details.

You can't say a player with 40 homeruns doesn't have power, just like you can't say a pitcher who has a 6-1 k/bb ratio with 1 wild pitch is lacking command.

Just my opinion, don't hate me.

[klaiggeb]

I don't hate you Boagie. Couldn't happen.

I take a very analytical approach; a coach's appraoach, if you'd rather.

I do see the numbers, and I believe they are incredibly important.

But I focus more on technique, hands, arm and swing slots...execution... stuff a coach would look at.

Which is what I was for a long, long time.

And you are right; no where near as dominant as Tim was in those years you referenced.

boly

[Rog]

For instance, Rog used to talk about Crawford being a poor hitter. At that point I couldn't argue much with that. What I could argue with was his value in the lineup and in the field.


Rog -- Did you imply here that I said that Brandon wasn't a good PLAYER, Boagie? That was never the case.

In fact, when Brandon got off to a very slow start with the glove a few years ago and Randy criticized his fielding, I stood up for Brandon.

Where I did go wrong was in underestimating how far Brandon would advance with the bat. I would like to point out the context though. When I first questioned Brandon's hitting, he was hitting .371/1.045 at San Jose. Those were better than Buster Posey's numbers there. And in fact, Brandon was promoted from San Jose about two months earlier than Buster was. In that context, he hasn't been the hitter some may have expected.

But, again, and even though his career average is still just .246, he's been better than I expected. He exceeded my expectations last season, and he greatly exceeded them this season.

As for his driving runs in well, that didn't happen until 2014, when he was above average. This season he was well above average.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3065/post#ixzz3nggLh8SW

[Rog]

Boagie, and Rog, I couldn't DISAGREE more.

I'm not basing my opinion on his post season, I'm basing it upon what I OBSERVED DURING the season, and comparing it to what I OBSERVED during his last 2 seasons.

Here's what I SAW this year, and saw a LOT.

1-Madison gave up homeruns early in games which put his team behind.


Rog -- In 2014 Madison gave up 8 homers in the first inning. This season he gave up five. Through two innings, he gave up 9 in 2014 and 8 this season. Through 3 frames, he yielded 12 in 2014 and 9 this season. In 2014 he yielded 13 homers through four innings and a like number this season. Through 5 innings, he gave up 16 homers in 2014; 15 homers this season. In 2014 he yielded 19 homers through six innings, while giving up 17 this year.

If Madison gave up more early home runs that put his team behind than in 2014, it came because the Giants weren't scoring runs; not because he was giving up more.

2-He was throwing far tooooo many pitches EARLY in games, which ran his pitch count way up.


Rog -- I don't have a pitch count by inning for Madison, but he was clearly more efficient overall with his pitch count in 2015, throwing 40 fewer pitches while pitching one more inning. He threw 3.80 pitches per plate appearance, down from 3.84 in 2014.

3-He simply did NOT, repeat, did NOT have that devasting bite on his slider as often.


Rog -- According to two different measures in Fan Graphs, Madison's slider got better results in 2015 than 2014. I would agree this one is more blurry, but both measures indicated the very significant improvement in 2015. They showed Madison back in line with his slider success in 2011 through 2013.

4-His command was simply not as sharp as often. No, I don't mean base on balls, I mean command in the strike zone.


Rog -- Perhaps, but he limited batters to a .222 average in 2015, compared to .240 in 2014. He gave up a .349 slugging percentage in 2015 compared to a .372 mark in 2014.

This is what I mean by maintaining one's position in the face of evidence to the contrary. I will say this. Results don't always totally reflect how the PITCHER performed. Batters and fielders have an impact on the results, as well. But everything we're looking at says that Madison had to be very lucky in 2014 and/or unlucky this past season for your point to be accurate.

I guess I would have to ask -- not antagonistically -- how you continue with your position in the face of such strong evidence to the contrary. It's kind of like my best friend's refusing to go to the doctor to treat his Parkinson's Disease. I just don't get it.

Please help me to understand. I'm not trying to anger you. I know you're a wonderful person. I'm simply trying to understand your thought process.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3065/post?page=1#ixzz3ngjl6CIq

[klaiggeb]

What you call evidence isn't evidence to me.

#1 I didn't say "1st inning HRs. I said early in the game HRs which put his team behind

#2 You immediately go to pitch count, and I counter with what I SAW. Pitch count can be squewed. 28 pitches in the first 30 in the 2nd, 5 in the 3rd, 6 in the 4th, and suddenly things don't look too bad.

Rog you continue to find numbers which you believe prove your points.

They don't because the numbers can be manipulated, as I did with them above.


My argument is, and again, not antagonistically, why you refused to believe what you see?

boly

[Rog]

What you call evidence isn't evidence to me.

#1 I didn't say "1st inning HRs. I said early in the game HRs which put his team behind


Rog -- Which is why I posted the comparative cumulative totals for each of the first six innings. If facts aren't evidence for you, I guess it will be tough for us to agree. It might be worth reading my comments again.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3065/post#ixzz3nkZeUQGI

[Rog]

#2 You immediately go to pitch count, and I counter with what I SAW. Pitch count can be squewed. 28 pitches in the first 30 in the 2nd, 5 in the 3rd, 6 in the 4th, and suddenly things don't look too bad.

Rog you continue to find numbers which you believe prove your points.

They don't because the numbers can be manipulated, as I did with them above.


Rog -- I agree with you that high-pitch-count innings are particularly destructive to a pitcher's endurance. But in your example -- which is a distorted one that I have a feeling didn't happen in any game to Madison -- he still has thrown 69 pitches in four innings, which isn't very good.

I don't have access to the number of pitches Madison threw in each of the innings he pitched, but I can report on the average number of batters he faced and his ERA in each of the first six innings.

First inning: 4.22 batters, 3.66 ERA. Not a great starter, but nothing disastrous.

Second inning: 4.00 batters, 3.38 ERA. Getting in the groove.

Third inning: 3.81 batters, 1.69 ERA. Who did Madison think he was, Zack Greinke? This is outstanding pitching.

Fourth inning: 3.84 batters, 3.48 ERA. Again, Madison faced few batters, but he did give up more power in this inning.

Fifth inning: 3.97 batters, 2.03 ERA. This is excellent pitching.


Four or fewer hitters per inning is excellent, and the only inning Madison exceeded that was in the first. Not too much evidence that he threw a lot of pitches in an inning frequently, although he might have done so in the first.

You say numbers don't prove anything because they can be manipulated, as you did. Here is the difference: Your numbers were examples; mine were real. If you think a number is being manipulated, just show how it has been manipulated and what it would be if it hadn't been manipulated.

As for your telling us what you SAW, you don't know how often Madison threw 10, 12, 15, 23, 25 or 30 pitches in an inning. I don't either, but what I did show were facts.

If you are going to tell us what you saw, shouldn't you tell us what you truly did see, not your estimate of what it was? And if you believe I manipulated the numbers, just HOW did I manipulate them, and what should they be?

The numbers I present shouldn't be discounted simply because they COULD have been manipulated. You need to show how I indeed did so, and what they should have been instead of what I posted.

Is this sequence logical? Numbers can be manipulated. You used numbers. Therefore your numbers shouldn't be trusted. I don't think so.

Wouldn't that be sort of like saying? People sometimes make mistakes when they talk. You spoke. Therefore what you said shouldn't be trusted.

We know for sure that Madison faced fewer batters and threw fewer pitchers per batter. In order for what you say to be proven, we have to show evidence of how it happened.

Doesn't it make sense that if a guy threw fewer pitches while adding an inning, he likely had more innings with fewer pitches in them?

Let me ask you this: How can you remember how many high-pitch-count innings Madison had this season compared to last? I follow numbers pretty closely, and I certainly can't.





Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3065/post?page=1#ixzz3nkaPVSGH

[klaiggeb]

In terms of sure numbers I can't.

Not exactly.

But I pitched into my 40's, and I just... well, notice things that others who did NOT pitch so long might not.

I just do NOT remember this year's strike zone command, nor do I remember his pitch count being so high so early.

boly

[Rog]

It's really tough to find anything that shows pitch count by inning (and it would take a L-O-N-G time to go through game by game), but in looking, I came across that Madison's 15.17 pitches per inning was 17th lowest. What I found intriguing was that Mike Leake was 3rd-best with 14.34 pitches per inning. Just two and three spots behind him came Zack Greinke (14.55) and Clayton Kershaw (14.58).

I thought about Kershaw a moment and realized this is yet another indication of how amazing he's been. The guy struck out over 300 batters, tops in the majors by 25. When we think of a high-strikeout guy, we think of high pitch counts. Yet here is Kershaw with the rare combination of easily leading the majors in strikeouts and finishing 6th among all qualifying pitchers in low pitch count per inning. Now THAT'S mastery.

I hate to talk so effusively about a DODGER, but Kershaw truly is headed toward being one of the very best pitchers of all time. Still plenty of time for things to go wrong, but what an amazing start.

This will also give us an idea of Clayton's mastery. This past season he struck out one out of every 2.96 batters he faced. Sandy Koufax's best was one out of every 3.40 batters in 1965. We shouldn't forget that more batters strike out now than back in Sandy's day, but this is still an amazing accomplishment on Kershaw's part. I don't know of any official record in this regard, but I suspect it is Pedro Martinez's one batter out of every 2.70 in 1999.

I didn't even bother looking up Nolan Ryan, since Nolan walked so many batters that he faced a high number, as well. Well, maybe I'd better look. Nolan may have had an exceptional season in this regard. Looking it up, I think his best was one of every 3.51 batters back in 1972.

Just for fun (and to make things as fair as possible), let's compare Pedro's top season to Sandy's best -- adjusting for the average rate of strikeouts in each's season. I think Sandy should win this one, since there are certainly a lot more strikeouts now than back then. Before I perform this calculation, I should mention that Pedro's feat came against designated hitters, not fellow pitchers. But that should be reflected in the overall strikeout rate for the American League that year.

Well, I was wrong on this one. Maybe it was because of the designated hitters, but the strikeout rates were almost identical. One out of every 6.39 National League batters struck out in 1966, while one out of every 6.37 American League hitters fanned in 1999.

That adjustment will likely do in Clayton though, but let's see. Sandy struck out one of every 3.40 batters. The average National League pitcher struck out one of every 6.39. Sandy was 1.88 times better than the league average, or what we might call a 1.88 K+. Clayton struck out one of every 2.96 batters. The National League average was one out of every 4.83 batters (believe it or not!). So Clayton's K+ was 163, well behind Sandy.

So let's see what Pedro's K+ was. How does 236 sound to you? We're talking about all-time great strikeout artists here, and Sandy's best (188) beats out Clayton's best (163). But at 236, Pedro blows them both away. What we're seeing is that Sandy at his best beats Clayton at his, and Pedro blows them both away. Based on striking out batters, Pedro's 1999 season was the most dominant ever.

If we look at ERA+ for the three seasons, Pedro comes out on top again. His 243 in 1999 beats out Clayton's 175 this past season, which beats out Sandy's 160 in 1965. Please note though that these weren't the best ERA+ marks of each's career. Those came within a year, but not the same year. In BEST ERA+, Pedro's 291 in 2000 blew away Clayton's 197 in 2014 and Sandy's 190 in 1966.

The more I look at this, Pedro in 1999 and 2000 was likely more dominant than any other live-ball pitcher over two straight seasons (or probably ANY two seasons, for that matter) -- and not by just a little. With regard to ERA+, Sandy's and Clayton's numbers are reduced by their large (Clayton) and huge (Sandy) advantage of pitching in Dodger Stadium.

I'm sure I've lost almost everyone by now, but in terms of gaining strikeouts, limiting runs and limiting base runners (which I haven't even gotten into here, but suffice it to say that Pedro's 0.74 in 2000 is by far the best in live-ball history and even leads any dead-ball season), Pedro Martinez had the best two straight years ever (and, again, probably the two best regardless of whether they were back-to-back or not).

I know Boly takes Sandy, and obviously I take Pedro. Boly saw a lot of Sandy and probably only a little of Pedro. The numbers -- which are at the very least objective -- show Pedro to be clearly ahead, at least over a two-year period. And given that in 2000 Pedro's ERA was an unmatched 3+ runs below the league average and his WHIP is easily a live-ball record, that's not surprising.

In fact, inning-for-inning, Pedro's 2000 season was almost certainly the best of the live-ball era. In addition to strikeout mastery, his ERA was just 0.01 behind Sandy's 1.73 -- despite pitching in a much-higher-scoring era and in a much more hitter-oriented park -- and his 0.74 WHIP beat Sandy's 0.99 by a quarter of a runner per inning. In other words, Pedro's WHIP was a quarter runner per inning LESS than Sandy's.

We can quibble that Pedro pitched "only" 217 inning, while Sandy did pitch a highly impressive 323, but when each was out there, Pedro was much better. And it's tough to pitch in a worse era and a worse park and still essentially equal a guy's ERA and blow him away in WHIP.

This should be fun. WAR factors in TOTAL Wins Above Replacement. Was Pedro able in 217 innings to best Sandy in 323 innings? If we adjusted for average innings per starter in the era, Pedro would almost certainly win. But how about on strictly an empirical, counting basis. I think this one will be close -- and both likely pretty close to records for the live-ball era.

Well, Steve Carlton's 12.0 in 1972 comes out on top, with Roger Clemens' 11.9 in 1997 coming next. Pedro's 11.7 in 2000 ties with Wilbur Wood in 1972. Sandy's 10.3 is clearly below all those. I'm a little surprised that Pedro was that much more ahead.

Again though, Pedro's 2000 season looks more and more like the best live-ball season ever. And his 7 seasons from 1997 through 2003 were likely the most dominant and best 7 straight seasons of the live-ball era, although Clayton Kershaw could threaten him on that.

Back to Kershaw, he hasn't yet pitched long enough for the Hall of Fame. But with seven straight excellent seasons to Sandy's five, couldn't make the argument that Clayton has ALREADY passed Sandy? I know that's a little tough for the Sandy backers to take, and I haven't researched it myself, but it is certainly possible. That could be why some already think Clayton is the best they've seen. Pedro might have something to say about it, too.

[Rog]

I kind of hate it when I do more and more analysis of top streaks. The objective look (stats) shows more and more that his 1997 through 2003 seasons made up the best streak over a seven-year period. And I too saw Sandy Koufax pitch quite a few times both in person and on TV. I had tremendous respect for him on and off the field. Still do.

But as great as my memories of him are, I just can't make an objective argument that he was better from 1962 through 1966 than Pedro was in his seven years. Even if I extend Sandy back to 1961 or even 1960, I just can't do it.

My heart says Sandy. My mind says Pedro. Hopefully my mind thinks more clearly than my heart. If not, I should be literally out of my mind in my thinking.

[Rog]

Back to Madison, he's on a Hall of Fame track, but unless he puts up another half dozen post seasons of the caliber of his first three, it's hard to put him with the very top pitchers. Someone placed a few ahead of him earlier in this post. If I stretch it, I can make an argument for him over all but Kershaw by placing a high emphasis on the postseason.

But in today's game, Clayton is in a class by himself. Although that wasn't necessarily the case this season, he's even in a class clearly above his teammate Zack Greinke.

Speaking of Greinke, how high would we go for Zack if he came on the free agent market?

[sfgdood]

But in today's game, Clayton is in a class by himself. Although that wasn't necessarily the case this season, he's even in a class clearly above his teammate Zack Greinke.

Dood - If Kershaw pulls another choke job in the postseason, you'll have a hard time selling that, even to other Dodgers fans.

[Rog]

With all the emphasis put on post-season play (understandable, with all the National TV coverage), Clayton would do well to pitch well to remove what is pretty much the only blemish on his record.

When he has had bad games in the post season, Clayton's pattern has been mostly to pitch very well and then suddenly fall apart.

In his first bad game, he pitched four shutout innings against the Phillies before totally falling apart in the 5th. In his second, he pitched two shutout frames before giving up a lot of ground ball hits and being touched for four runs in the 3rd. In his third disaster, he led 6-2 after six innings before being hit very hard and giving up six runs in the seventh.

Kershaw's sequencing has been horrible, and he's walked more batters than usual (18 in 51 innings). But he has struck out 58 and given up 45 hits.

You are right though that his reputation will take a further hit if he doesn't perform well this postseason. That said, I will be surprised if he doesn't. And while this will likely be the minority opinion here, if I had the choice between Kershaw and Madison Bumgarner to pitch Game 7 of the World Series, I would go with Clayton.