What's not to like?

[sharksrog]

What's not to like?

The Giants' rotation is full of pitchers who have won Cy Young Awards or pitched at an All-Star level. The flip side is the shocking year of Tim Lincecum, and the likelihood of decline by Barry Zito and Ryan Vogelsong.

The bullpen is about as deep as it gets. The downside is that despite have several relievers who appear they could close on a given day, they have no truly PROVEN closer.

Behind the plate, they have one of the best catchers in the majors and a young backup with starting potential. The only downside is that Hector Sanchez is promising but not truly proven.

The infield has Gold caliber gloves at two positions, solid bats at two positions, and improvement at the plate the direction of both Brandons. With the versatile Joaquin Arias, it has depth. The downside is the age of Marco Scutaro, the healthy of Pablo Sandoval, and the young, unproven nature of both Brandons.

The outfield has the speed and defense we have craved, as well as good -- not great -- bats. The downside is the lack of a fifth outfielder and of a proven outfielder of consistent All-Star performance.

The Giants have 21 of their 25 core players from their World Championship team back, plus they have Andres Torres from their 2010 World Championship roster, and the possibility of having Ryan Theriot return.

The imperfections have been cited above. On balance, don't they look pretty darn good?

[klaiggeb]

What's not to like?

The Giants' rotation is full of pitchers who have won Cy Young Awards or pitched at an All-Star level. The flip side is the shocking year of Tim Lincecum, and the likelihood of decline by Barry Zito and Ryan Vogelsong.

---boly says---

I agree with everything else you posted, Rog, except the above.

1-I've stated my Lincecum stuff and won't repeat my reasons.

2-I think last year was Zito's FSY (Final Spurt Year). I look for him to return to somewhere between what he WAS with us, and his season last year. Either way, I view him as a marginal # 5 guy. Which is where I see Tim. Can't have 2 number 5's

3-I do not see a regression by Vogey. Not in the least.

I thought last year he had a bit of a stumble, but he STILL possesses great command and that Bulldog mentality. Unlike Tim, Ryan CAN spot the ball with great consistantcy

4-That leaves Bumgarner and Cain. I expect Madison to ONLY get better and for Cain to be as good as his overall season last year.

So what's not to like?

A #1, a #2, and a #3 starter that can pitch with anyone... but HUGE holes in the #4 and 5 spots.

IF we were to win every 3 of 5, no problem. But that's not going to happen

boly

[sharksrog]

Boly -- 1-I've stated my Lincecum stuff and won't repeat my reasons.

Rog -- You have stated your reasons well. Still, Tim is almost certain to improve this season. I think it is almost certainly a question of how much.

Why is he likely to improve?

First of all, there isn't much else he can do. Players have (comparitively) good years and bad years. Tim's performance last season wasn't just worse than before. It was two RUNS worse. There's room for improvement without his even being more than an average starting pitcher.

Second, isn't Tim's drop virtually unprecedented? Similar in some ways to Adam Dunn's unprecedented drop at the plate in 2011. Stunningly, Dunn regressed from 38 homers and 103 RBI's (pretty close to his average over seven seasons) to just 11 homers and 42 RBI's. NO good hitter ever seemed more lost than Adam Dunn in 2011. Yet Dunn bounced back last season to his 41 homers and drive home 96 runners.

Third, Tim had a bad 1.47 WHIP to go along with his depressing 5.18 ERA. Here are the ERA's of pitchers with similar WHIPS:

Edinson Volquez -- 1.45, 4.14

Luis Mendoza -- 1.42, 4.23

Tommy Hansen -- 1.45, 4.48

Rick Porcello -- 1.53, 4.59

Jeremy Guthrie -- 1.41, 4.76

Henderson Alvarez -- 1.44, 4.85

Ivan Nova -- 1.47, 5.02

Ubaldo Jiminez -- 1.61, 5.40

Ricky Romero -- 1.67, 5.77

In other words, Tim can pitch as poorly as he pitched last season and likely have better results.

Fourth, Tim's ERA was as high as it was because he pitched poorly out of the stretch. In the postseason, he pitched exclusively from the stretch and was lights out.

Fifth, Tim's strikeout and walk rates were similar to those of Nolan Ryan over the Hall of Famer's career. Nolan allowed 2.3 fewer hits per nine innings, but his ERA was 3.19, or nearly two runs lower than Tim's.

Sixth, I don't believe any starting pitcher in history has approached Tim's strikeout rate and had an ERA nearly as high. In other words, the pieces don't fit together properly.

Seventh, Tim has lost speed on his fastball, but he still has his stuff. His swinging strike rate was even higher than his career rate.

Eighth, you expected Tim to have a big drop off in performance, but I don't think even you expected it to be of this magnitude. He could bounce back sharply this season and still have experienced a drop off similar to what you expected.

Ninth, while Tim's drop off was huge, there is no reason to expect he can't bounce back to some degree. Remember, this is a kid who IIRC was four-foot-11, 85 pounds in 8th grade. He has had to overcome issues his entire pitching life.

Tenth, Tim DID improve as the season went along -- a LOT. His ERA in the season's first half was, incredibly, 6.42. After the All-Star break, and including the postseason, it dropped to 3.62. That's a drop of 2.8 runs per nine.

Eleventh, Tim's improvement seems to have stemmed from his having made adjustments. His strikeout rate actually declined, indicating he was PITCHING more than throwing in the second half. Both his hits against and walks against showed considerable improvement.

Twelfth, if we look at Tim's entire body of work last season -- including the postseason -- he was still very bad -- but not horrible. He still walked too many batters, but his strikeout rate was excellent, and his hit rate was better than average (8.5/9 innings).

Thirteenth, he still pitched fairly well to left-handed hitters, even though he struck them out less frequently than righties. If he pitched OK to lefty hitters, is there any reason he can't make adjustments so that he will become reasonably effective against righties, as well?

There is no guarantee Tim's pitching will improve. But the above shows not one reason, not two, not even five reasons -- but 13 (!) -- why he should do so. If we took a poll of, say, managers around baseball, I'll bet at least 80% of them would expect him to improve. At LEAST 80%. Pitching coaches too, I suspect.

Bill James expects him to improve by a run and three-quarters per game. He could improve by a third that much, and the improvement would still be noticeable.

Tim has so much room to improve off last season's disaster he almost HAS to.








Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1412&page=1#7973#ixzz2FKRJT1Wa

[sharksrog]

Boly -- 2-I think last year was Zito's FSY (Final Spurt Year). I look for him to return to somewhere between what he WAS with us, and his season last year. Either way, I view him as a marginal # 5 guy.

Rog -- Barry really wasn't all that much better last season. Yeah, his won-loss record improved amazingly, but so did his run support.

Barry's WHIP was only his 4th-best among his six seasons with the Giants. His hit rate was his 2nd-worst. His strikeout rate was his 2nd-worst. Only his walk rate, which was his best as a Giant, truly improved.

I fully agree with you that Barry will regress. But whereas you saw last season as his Final Spurt Year, I saw it as a highly overrated season. Barry was better in both 2008 and 2009. He really was.

What changed was his run support. In 2008 and 2009 it was 3.60 and 3.54. Last season it was 4.76.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1412&page=1#ixzz2FKhPfd55

[sharksrog]

Boly -- 3-I do not see a regression by Vogey. Not in the least.

Rog -- And you could be right. With the exception of that month-plus where he inexplicably lost it, he was the best pitcher in baseball last season.

In fact, other than the fact that he will be a year older, I see no reason he should regress. My gut still tells me he is likely to decline a bit, but I can't really support it with facts or logic. You either won me over or at least got me to be neutral on this one. And I think I'll go with the former.

And here Randy says once I make my mind up, I won't change it.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1412&page=1#ixzz2FKlQmjVe

[sharksrog]

Boly -- A #1, a #2, and a #3 starter that can pitch with anyone... but HUGE holes in the #4 and 5 spots.

Rog -- As you know, I don't see Tim as a hole. A bit of a question mark? Perhaps. But not a hole. And while I do think Barry was overrated last season, he's not all that bad for a #5 starter.

For, uh, starters, not many 5th starters pitched 184 innings last season.

Boly -- IF we were to win every 3 of 5, no problem. But that's not going to happen

Rog -- I see no reason it can't. 3 out of 5 is 97 wins, or an improvement of just three wins. The NL West will probably be tougher this season, which might prevent it.

Teams don't always win with their best pitchers, or lose with their worst. Last season Tim and Barry combined for an ERA around 4.70, yet they went 25-23 between them.

Matt, Ryan and Mad Bum won't win every time out, but Tim and Barry won't lose every one, either.

The best reason I can give why the Giants WOULDN't win three out of five games is that the rest of the division should be improved. The Giants themselves could very well be better too.

Lincecum, Sandoval and Belt. Let's see how much those guys improve. Oh, and Hunter Pence too.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1412&page=1#ixzz2FKnKA31b

[klaiggeb]

Rog -- You have stated your reasons well. Still, Tim is almost certain to improve this season. I think it is almost certainly a question of how much.

Why is he likely to improve?

First of all, there isn't much else he can do. Players have (comparitively) good years and bad years. Tim's performance last season wasn't just worse than before. It was two RUNS worse. There's room for improvement without his even being more than an average starting pitcher.

Second, isn't Tim's drop virtually unprecedented? Similar in some ways to Adam Dunn's unprecedented drop at the plate in 2011. Stunningly, Dunn regressed from 38 homers and 103 RBI's (pretty close to his average over seven seasons) to just 11 homers and 42 RBI's. NO good hitter ever seemed more lost than Adam Dunn in 2011. Yet Dunn bounced back last season to his 41 homers and drive home 96 runners.

Third, Tim had a bad 1.47 WHIP to go along with his depressing 5.18 ERA. Here are the ERA's of pitchers with similar WHIPS:

Edinson Volquez -- 1.45, 4.14

Luis Mendoza -- 1.42, 4.23

Tommy Hansen -- 1.45, 4.48

Rick Porcello -- 1.53, 4.59

Jeremy Guthrie -- 1.41, 4.76

Henderson Alvarez -- 1.44, 4.85

Ivan Nova -- 1.47, 5.02

Ubaldo Jiminez -- 1.61, 5.40

Ricky Romero -- 1.67, 5.77

In other words, Tim can pitch as poorly as he pitched last season and likely have better results.

Fourth, Tim's ERA was as high as it was because he pitched poorly out of the stretch. In the postseason, he pitched exclusively from the stretch and was lights out.

Fifth, Tim's strikeout and walk rates were similar to those of Nolan Ryan over the Hall of Famer's career. Nolan allowed 2.3 fewer hits per nine innings, but his ERA was 3.19, or nearly two runs lower than Tim's.

Sixth, I don't believe any starting pitcher in history has approached Tim's strikeout rate and had an ERA nearly as high. In other words, the pieces don't fit together properly.

Seventh, Tim has lost speed on his fastball, but he still has his stuff. His swinging strike rate was even higher than his career rate.

Eighth, you expected Tim to have a big drop off in performance, but I don't think even you expected it to be of this magnitude. He could bounce back sharply this season and still have experienced a drop off similar to what you expected.

Ninth, while Tim's drop off was huge, there is no reason to expect he can't bounce back to some degree. Remember, this is a kid who IIRC was four-foot-11, 85 pounds in 8th grade. He has had to overcome issues his entire pitching life.

Tenth, Tim DID improve as the season went along -- a LOT. His ERA in the season's first half was, incredibly, 6.42. After the All-Star break, and including the postseason, it dropped to 3.62. That's a drop of 2.8 runs per nine.

Eleventh, Tim's improvement seems to have stemmed from his having made adjustments. His strikeout rate actually declined, indicating he was PITCHING more than throwing in the second half. Both his hits against and walks against showed considerable improvement.

Twelfth, if we look at Tim's entire body of work last season -- including the postseason -- he was still very bad -- but not horrible. He still walked too many batters, but his strikeout rate was excellent, and his hit rate was better than average (8.5/9 innings).

Thirteenth, he still pitched fairly well to left-handed hitters, even though he struck them out less frequently than righties. If he pitched OK to lefty hitters, is there any reason he can't make adjustments so that he will become reasonably effective against righties, as well?

--boly says---

Rog, it's not that your logic isn't sound here; it is sound. But... and here's the but, his fall from grace ISN'T un precedented.

Can't remember the name of that KC pitcher who went from start, to INability to throw strikes back in the 1990's.

Rick Ankiel would be another. All of a sudden, couldn't find the strike zone.

Those are just two who came to mind without much thought, but there have been others.

My point always comes back to the same issues; go back and look at Ankiel and that KC pitcher; SOUND mechanics, not goofy mechanics. How come THEY suddenly couldn't throw strikes?

Just like Steve Sax who all of a sudden, couldn't throw a strike to 1B!

I'm alarmed at his huge drop off in velocity, too. Huge! He went from, what, mid 90's consistantly, to consistantly 88? 89?

You and Randy and everyone else can expound your reasons for a re bound. After all MOST good pitchers do. Once in a while they have a 'down' season.

But nothing like this.

And let's be honest. This isn't an over night, all-of-a-sudden thing.


We saw it first in August of 2010, then again in 2011... and finally the train wreck that was 2012.

Now his FINAL NUMBERS may have looked "okay" in 010 and 011... but I contend they were an indicator of what was to come; that there was an implosion on the horizon.

We'll see. I hope you're right. I really, REALLY do! We NEED Tim to at least approach what he once was.

boly

[sharksrog]

Boly -- Rog, it's not that your logic isn't sound here; it is sound. But... and here's the but, his fall from grace ISN'T un precedented.

Can't remember the name of that KC pitcher who went from start, to INability to throw strikes back in the 1990's.

Rick Ankiel would be another. All of a sudden, couldn't find the strike zone.

Those are just two who came to mind without much thought, but there have been others.

My point always comes back to the same issues; go back and look at Ankiel and that KC pitcher; SOUND mechanics, not goofy mechanics. How come THEY suddenly couldn't throw strikes?

Just like Steve Sax who all of a sudden, couldn't throw a strike to 1B!

Rog -- Mackey Sasser too. The former Giants suddenly couldn't throw the ball back to the pitcher. And among pitchers, Steve Blass.

But that is why I can't think of any precedents for Tim. Those guys suddenly couldn't throw the ball. Tim still can -- and with stunning stuff at times.

To see how different Tim's decline has been from this other, far weirder group, let's compare Tim's decline last season with Blass's in 1973. As bad as Tim's was, Blass's was far worse.

Steve hadn't been the pitcher Tim was, but he was a very good one. In 1972, he posted an excellent 2.49 ERA. That was lower than Tim's 2.74 in 2011. So let's see how they both went from there.

In 1973, Blass pitched in 23 games. Even though five of those were in relief, he gave up fewer than three earned runs in only two of the 23 games. And that was even though he pitched 3.1 or fewer innings in 11 of those 23 games.

Whereas Tim had good games and a very good postseason, Blass was bad in almost every single outing.

Blass gave up 97 earned runs in 88.2 innings. Including the postseason, Tim yielded 112 earnies in 203.2 innings. That's a huge difference.

Blass went from walking 84 runners in 249.2 innings to walking the same number in those 88.2. Tim went from 86 in 217 innings to walking 95 in his 203.2 frames. Another huge difference.

Blass's strikeouts dropped from 117 to 27. Tim's dropped from 220 to 190. Different ballpark.

Blass's WHIP leapt from 1.25 to 2.18. We thought Tim's soared when it went from 1.21 to 1.47. Different ballpark; different district of town.

There is no way of knowing what the future will bring for Tim, but it appears to me that whatever problem he has, it isn't what Blass, Sax, Sasser and Ankiel had.

I've posted this here before, but it's still intriguing. Allegedly, poor-fielding third baseman Pedro Guerrero was asked what he was thinking in the late innings of a close game.

"I hope they don't hit the ball to me," Pedro replied, then added, "And I hope they don't hit to Saxy, either."


Boly -- I'm alarmed at his huge drop off in velocity, too. Huge! He went from, what, mid 90's consistantly, to consistantly 88? 89?

Rog -- Tim's velocity drop has been quite fast, but it happens to pitchers as they age, especially change up and split finger pitchers. Since he came up in 2007, his velocity has dropped from 94.2 to 90.4. That's about twice as much as Matt Cain's drop from 93.2 to 91.4.

A pitcher who had a similar drop to Tim's 92.3 to 90.4 from 2011 to 2012 was the Braves' Tommy Hanson. Hanson dropped from 91.2 to 89.7. Like Tim, he maintained a high strikeout rate that dropped a bit.

Like Tim, his walk rate is going up, after declining early in his career. Similar to Tim, Bill James projects his ERA at 3.66 (compared to Tim's projected 3.47). Like Tim, his hit and home run rates jumped last season.

But unlike Tim, his ERA jumped only from 3.60 to 4.48 -- a jump of less than 40% of Tim's leap from 2.74 to 5.18.

The drop in Tim's fastball speed is indeed concerning. But it doesn't fully explain his ERA's nearly doubling last season.

A couple of encouraging facts.

First, most pitchers do lose velocity. The ones who remain relatively successful are those who learn to pitch better.

Second, Tim's ERA went down 1.7 mph from 2008 to 2009. Still, he won his second Cy Young Award. It dropped another 1.1 mph from 2009 to 2010, but he picked back up in 2011 all but a tenth of a mph of the latter drop.

Will Tim be able to regain some speed this season? We'll have to see.

Either way, he will need to continue to learn to become more of a pitcher and less of a thrower.

One encouraging sign is that Tim actually had a slightly higher strikeout rate and a higher swing-through rate in 2012 than in 2011, despite the velocity drop.

Certainly there are questions with Tim for this upcoming season. But he's done a pretty good job of answering questions with his pitching over the past 20+ years.

Boly -- You and Randy and everyone else can expound your reasons for a re bound. After all MOST good pitchers do. Once in a while they have a 'down' season.

But nothing like this.

Rog -- I agree. Which is why I'll be very surprised, shocked even, if we don't see some type of bounce back.

Juan Marichal's ERA nearly doubled from 1969 to 1970 -- 2.10 to 4.12. In 1971, he bounced back with 2.94. I can't say whether he lost velocity from 1969, but he did give up more hits and a lot more homers, while seeing a plunge in his strikeout rate.

Boly -- And let's be honest. This isn't an over night, all-of-a-sudden thing.


We saw it first in August of 2010, then again in 2011... and finally the train wreck that was 2012.

Now his FINAL NUMBERS may have looked "okay" in 010 and 011... but I contend they were an indicator of what was to come; that there was an implosion on the horizon.

Rog -- Prior to last season, Tim suffered through three prolonged slumps:

Four straight starts in June of 2007. Three straight starts in May of 2010. Four straight starts in August of 2010. Three straight starts in June of 2011.

The bad streaks did increase in frequency beginning in May of 2010, but he bounced back strongly from each. There was nothing to indicate he would have a 6.42 ERA the first half of 2012. Even then, he bounced back pretty well the second half of 2012 and the postseason.

Don't forget, Allen and I both suggested trading Tim last winter, so I saw declining performance. But when ERA's of 3.43 and 2.74 are declining performance, it's hard to expect the roof to fall in.

And fall in it did. Tim's bounce back wasn't as strong as it previously had been. But he did bounce back strongly after last season's All-Star break.

Do we really think Tim will be as bad this year as last? It's hard to imagine. Certainly possible -- but darn hard to imagine.

When is the last time a guy put up a sub-3.00 ERA over his first five seasons and then saw it jump to over 5.00 in his sixth season? Tim's ERA was one of the worst of all the pitchers in baseball who pitched enough innings to qualify for the ERA title.

It's hard to believe he has suddenly become that bad a pitcher. Especially when he's still striking out a lot of batters. The pitchers who struck out as many batters last season as Tim had ERA's of 2.53, 2.56, 2.64, 2.73, 2.79, 2.89, 3.05, 3.05, 3.06, 3.16, 3.37, 3.37, 3.38, 3.48, 3.52, 3.66, 3.74, and 3.90.

Tim's ERA was 5.18. Which one was the outlier?

The difference between the best ERA and worst ERA of the others is 1.27. The difference between the worst of the others and Tim is 1.28.

Tim wasn't as bad last season as his ERA indicated. He struggled mightily from the stretch. He completely conquered that problem in the playoffs.

Trust me. I'm not wrong too often about such things. The odds of Tim's having a bounce back are quite good. The odds of his having a STRONG bounce back are good.

Let's re-visit this a year from now.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1412#ixzz2FMazjz7B

[klaiggeb]

Juan Marichal's ERA nearly doubled from 1969 to 1970 -- 2.10 to 4.12. In 1971, he bounced back with 2.94. I can't say whether he lost velocity from 1969, but he did give up more hits and a lot more homers, while seeing a plunge in his strikeout rate.

---boly says---

I remember that season, Rog, and there is a reason for the jump in ERA; Juan was hurt.

boly

[Islandboagie]

Boly- I'm alarmed at his huge drop off in velocity, too. Huge! He went from, what, mid 90's consistantly, to consistantly 88? 89?

Boagie- I think you're low-balling his mph numbers here, Boly. I believe Timmy is more around 90-91 consistantly. Also, in August he was regularly getting it up to 93-94. Certainly a drop from his 2007-2009 seasons when he was hitting the gun at 96-98, but as Rog pointed, and I agree, often pitchers realize they need to pitch rather than just throw and some mph's do tend to decline because of it.

I am biased though. I will always defend Tim. If he stinks it up next year and we don't resign him, he'll still go down as one of the greatest Giants of all time as far as I'm concerned.

If you haven't heard, this offseason he's working on strengthening his arm, so if all goes right, he might pick up a mph or two on his fastball and the added strength might also be key in being able to spot those fastballs better. If this happens I believe he goes back to elite pitcher status.

[sharksrog]

Let me attempt to put a few pieces together here:

. Boly and Don both called for a future decline from Tim, which we got in spades, in full, and in distress. We should not ignore their thoughts about the future.

. After his two Cy Young seasons, Tim struggled twice in 2010. He bounced back in 2011 with an extra mph on his fastball, although in reality, his bounce back from 3.43 to 2.74 wasn't nearly as complete as it looked.

. As you mentioned, Tim is on a program this winter which could well add an mph or so back to his fastball, as he did after the 2010 season.

. Tim's #1 problem is location, not speed. The lack of speed increases the problem, but Tim showed this postseason that when he locates, his stuff is plenty good enough.

. There is the disturbing fact that Tim sometimes DOES locate in the bullpen (with Maddux-like precision, as it has been described by Andrew Baggarly and others), but then can't locate once the game begins. Tim has been extremely strong mentally thoughout his pitching life, but this has a disturbingly mental twist to it, one that may be even more inexplicable than the crash he suffered last season.

. Barring arm trouble, it is rare for a good pitcher not to bounce back from a bad season.

So where does this all leave Tim? We just don't know. We know that most good pitchers bounce back, but we also know that complete declines such as Tim's are highly unusual, and that there has never been a pitcher quite like Tim.

Boly looks at Tim's mechanics and regretfully says, I told you so. Boly feels Tim is aging and losing flexibility, which will prevent him from getting it back. (Hopefully I'm speaking more or less correctly here for you, Boly. Even though you and I differ on a lot of opinions, I believe I understand a lot of how you think, and vice versa).

I am looking at a variety of factors and thinking it is likely that Tim will bounce back at LEAST to halfway between his career ERA going into last season and his ERA of last year. That would put him at 4.08, or essentially where Barry Zito was this past season.

Has Tim truly declined to the point where he's WORSE than the 2008, 2009 and 2012 version of Zito? I see Barry as being worse than he was in 2012, but not Tim as being worse than Barry version 2012.

To me, it is likely a question of how FAR Tim bounces back more than if.

I believe the first question we should ask ourselves is this: Is Tim Lincecum, this coming season, a 5.00+ ERA pitcher?

This past season, 88 pitchers pitched the 162 or more innings needed to qualify for the ERA title. Tim qualified easily with 186 innings. Of those 88 pitchers, only 7 had ERA's of 5.00 or more. That's one out of 12.

Given Tim's sub-3.00 ERA entering last season, it just doesn't seem like another 5.00 ERA season. Perhaps closer to the midpoint of those 88 pitchers, which was 3.78.

Let's be honest. Tim's situation is nearly unprecedented in more than one way. We're all really just guessing here.

But I can't think of a single situation barring arm trouble or a complete inability to find the plate where so good a pitcher just lost it and couldn't get at least part of it back.

And let's not forget that this postseason Tim DID get it back -- and from the stretch, no less, which had been his pronounced weakness during the regular season.

[sharksrog]

Juan Marichal's ERA nearly doubled from 1969 to 1970 -- 2.10 to 4.12. In 1971, he bounced back with 2.94. I can't say whether he lost velocity from 1969, but he did give up more hits and a lot more homers, while seeing a plunge in his strikeout rate.

---boly says---

I remember that season, Rog, and there is a reason for the jump in ERA; Juan was hurt.

Rog -- You're probably right. Juan missed the first 10% of that season. Once he returned though, they didn't treat him as if he were hurt. Despite missing three or four starts at the season's beginning, he still pitched 242 innings in 33 starts and one relief appearance.

And in the dog days of August, they pitched him 12 innings. In fact, from late July through the end of August, Juan went 9, 9, 9, 7, 12, 9, 9 and 9 innings over 8 consecutive starts.

Speaking of durability (in another sport), the season he averaged over 50 points and over 25 rebounds, he averaged more than the (regularly scheduled) 48 minutes per game. Wilt played in a few overtimes, and missed just 8 minutes the entire season. That came not because he was rested, but because in the 4th quarter, he was tossed from the game.

Recently watched "Wilt 100," narrated by Bill Russell. To see the difference in sports back then and today, ONE writer was covering that game (played in Hershey, Pennsylvania), and the famous picture of the game showed Wilt sitting on his locker bench (not chair or even stool), holding a hand-written "100" on a sheet of paper.

In addition to being a 7-footer, Wilt was truly an amazing athlete. He was considered one of the 10 strongest men in the world and one time lifted weights with Arnold Schwartznegger, apparently pumping off heavy sets like there was nothing to it.

Wilt was a high jumper (with no previous experience) and quarter miler in college. One of his feats as a basketball player was blocking shots without slapping them, but rather CATCHING them. They didn't officially keep the number of blocks back then, but Russell said Wilt once blocked 26 (!) shots in a game.

I have seen a couple of high school clips of the 7-foot Chamberlain leading fast breaks. On one, he throws a behind the back bounce pass to a teammate for a layup. On another, he does a Magic Johnson hold the ball while swinging it back, look one way and throw the other pass to a teammate for an open jump shot. Amazingly for a 7-footer, Wilt once led the NBA in assists.

I once stood next to Wilt after the Warriors moved to San Francisco. He was in uniform at the side of the court, and I remember seeing him as a very tall guy with long, skinny legs and comparatively huge arms.

As "Wilt 100" showed, Wilt wasn't just a dunker. Late in his 100-point game, he got one of his 36 buckets that night on a backcourt steal. He also shot a very soft finger roll from up to five feet, and shot turnaround, banked jump shots from 12-15 feet from the hoop.

His one weakness was shooting foul shots, but amazing, in his 100-point game, he went a career-best 28 for 32.

At one point in that 100-point game, the Knicks were intentionally fouling other Warriors so Wilt couldn't get the ball and score. The Warriors retaliated by fouling Knicks players so that New York couldn't stall for time.

Sadly, but expectedly, considering the time, there is no TV of the game. I was blessed 10 years or so ago to listen to the remastered broadcast.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1412&page=1#ixzz2FR0bn7fK

[rxmeister]

I guess I couldn't appreciate Wilt as much because I didn't really get into basketball until Wilt's later years, when he wasn't scoring as much as a member of the Lakers. The Lakers were the main thorn in my Knicks side in those years, although the Knicks took them twice in the finals to win their only two championships. To make it worse, the 100 point game was against them too! Still, his achievements were mind boggling. The one guy I loved to watch though that wasn't on my team was Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. As someone who loved to play basketball and whose best shot was a hook shot, Kareem's sky hook was the prettiest shot I've ever seen, far better than the slam dunks and three pointers of today's game.

[sharksrog]

Mark -- The one guy I loved to watch though that wasn't on my team was Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. As someone who loved to play basketball and whose best shot was a hook shot, Kareem's sky hook was the prettiest shot I've ever seen, far better than the slam dunks and three pointers of today's game.

Rog -- I rank Kareem -- whose sky hook was indeed a very graceful and effective shot -- at the #3 center of all time. He was indeed one of the all-time greats.

I rank Wilt #1 among centers, since he dominated the game more than any other player. And Bill Russell #2, since Bill is the winningest player in history. Don will throw George Mikan, the game's first great center, into the discussion.

I believe Russell said in the "Wilt 100" documentary that Wilt holds 65 NBA records.

Russell himself is considered the top center by many, since he is the winningest. Bill was great enough that before he even played his first NBA game he was traded for two future Hall of Famers (Easy Ed McCauley and Cliff Hagan).

So how do we rate Russell against Chamberlain and Kareem? Russ is rated the greatest defensive center of all time (although Chamberlain and Hakeem Olajuwon were right up there, as well). Even though Russell wasn't a high school starter until his senior season, he won 13 championships in his next 15 seasons (two at USF and 11 for the Celtics).

Yet he was surrounded by Hall of Famers, making the winning easier. For instance, Basketball-Reference has Russ rated the #17 player ever. His teammates John Havlicek and Bob Cousy rank #15 and #17, respectively.

Despite all those titles, the Celtics' best regular season record was 60-20. Chamberlain himself won two titles when he himself was surrounded by great players, and those team's won-loss figures were then-records 68-13 and 69-13.

Abdul-Jabbar won five titles, with a team-best record of 66-16.

The number of Hall of Famers with whom Russell played reaches double digits. He was traded to the Celtics for two future Hall of Famers, even before he played his first NBA game. He came to a team that already had five future Hall of Famers.

One can say that several of those made the Hall of Fame because of all the titles and that Russ was the biggest factor in those titles. That was certainly true. But Bill was likely surrounded by more talent than any player in history.

As an aside, Russ played his entire career for the Celtics, even serving as their player-coach. The other three of the first four great NBA centers -- Wilt, Kareem and Mikan -- won titles with the Lakers.

If anyone wants to see the value of surrounding great centers with Hall of Fame talent, he need look only at Russell (11 titles in 13 seasons ) and Mikan (5 titles in his first 6 campaigns).

One other aside: My dad saw Russell's 2nd NBA game, on December 23, 1956. If I had been a little older, I would have been able to do so myself.

One of the players Russ faced in that game was George (the Bird) Yardley. A season later, George would become the first NBA player to score 2000 points in a season (in a game I listened to on radio. I doubt there are 100 people still alive who can say the same. And perhaps even fewer who would even want to.)

To bring this full circle and give our board an idea how great Chamberlain was, three years after Yardley's feat, Wilt became the first player to score 3000. The season after that, Wilt became the first to score 4000. In each of Chamberlain's first 7 seasons, he scored over 2500 points.

The great Michael Jordan scored 50 points in a single game 25 times. In his third season -- the one in which he scored 100 -- Wilt AVERAGED over 50 points a game.

Wilt Chamberlain was the Babe Ruth of basketball.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1412&page=1#7987#ixzz2FWEayoSo

[allenreed]

Wilt to me is kind of like Babe Ruth in baseball, or Jim Brown in football, a player who simply was way ahead of his time physically, and therefore dominated the normal guys he played with. I'm not saying Wilt would be just another player in today's game, but he certainly wouldn't dominate to the extent he did in his time.

[allenreed]

The imperfections have been cited above. On balance, don't they look pretty darn good?

Allen- Yes, they do. I was hoping they would go after Victorino, and I'm still hoping they go after Kyle Lohse, though I doubt that they will (and it may be overkill at that).
Scutaro won't be the player he was for us last year, I don't expect Pagan to be quite as good, but many players should improve. Pablo could do more by simply playing more, and since he's out of hamate bones he, should. The two Brandons should improve with experience. Timmy should be better, and Pence should be more consistent. Hector Sanchez should be better with age. I'd like to see Arias get more time. I think this guy could be a difference maker if given the chance. Vogey and Bummy could be more consistent without the bad streaks they encountered last year. This isn't to say they won't have bad games, but hopefully not in a streak. We'll no doubt have the best defensive left field in baseball.
We overcame alot last year to win. Our closer went down early, the guy many had penciled in as the starting second baseman never took the field, Huff was worthless, our ace never really caught hold, and yet we won it all.

[sharksrog]

Allen -- I'm not saying Wilt would be just another player in today's game, but he certainly wouldn't dominate to the extent he did in his time.

Rog -- Very true. Physically, it's a whole new game now.

Guys like Wilt, Bill Russell and Jumpin' Johnny Green helped turn a horizontal game into a vertical one.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1412#ixzz2FtnXUfIy

[sharksrog]

Allen -- I'd like to see Arias get more time. I think this guy could be a difference maker if given the chance.

Rog -- You may not have been around when I posted that Arias was the player the Rangers chose over Robinson Cano in the Alex Rodriguez deal. Joaquin later hurt his arm, limiting his ability to play the great shortstop he once was projected to be.

Joaquin did a nice job of stabilizing the infield after his callup last season. He represented yet another piece Brian Sabean picked up off the scrap heap.

I would have liked to see him platoon at shortstop more, and perhaps he can get a little playing time from Marco Scutaro when Marco returns to earth.

But as for his being a difference maker, I doubt it. And I say that even though he was the MVP of whatever winter league he played in a winter ago (similar to Gregor Blanco) and hit .400 for Fresno before being called up. Coming off the shoulder injury, he hit just .232 the previous season.

And let's not forget the old K/BB/HR ratio. For a guy with just 33 homers in the minors, a 373/164 K/BB ratio does not bode well.

A nice player to have, to be sure. But how good can a guy with a .304 OBP be?

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1412&page=1#ixzz2Fwlk02xU

[allenreed]

Obviously my contention is that with more PT and experience, he will improve.

[sharksrog]

Allen -- Obviously my contention is that with more PT and experience, he will improve.

Rog -- I would think that the odds would favor that. But you said you thought he would be a difference maker, and there usually aren't many players who are considered to be difference makers.

I could be misremembering this, but what I think I read was that a player who over a decade or so was worth five wins a season (as measured by Wins Above Replacement) was a superstar. That a player who was worth four wins was a star. And that a player who was worth two wins was playing at a starting level.

Not very many players are worth four wins per year on a prolonged basis, so that would imply there are few difference makers.

I have mentioned this several times before here, but this discussion reminds me of the postseason in which Peter Gammons said that Rick Honeycutt would be "the difference" for the A's.

In one game which my dad saw, Honeycutt was roughed up a fair amount. My dad happened to run into Gammons in the elevator afterward.

"You were right. Honeycutt was the difference today," my dad told Peter.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1412#ixzz2G7fXYseF