|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jan 23, 2013 6:34:34 GMT -5
It is a good idea for Giants fans to watch Clubhouse Confidential tomorrow, since the Giants will be featured.
Watching MLB Network's top 10 by position has been intriguing, as well. So far they have covered center fielders, second baseman, starting pitchers and relievers. The Giants have fared well.
Angel Pagan just missed the list of the top 10 center fielders. Marco Scutaro had a similar miss at second base, although he did have the honor of being picked at #5 by none other than Bill James.
Matt Cain just missed the top 10 starters, and Sergio Romo was ranked the #2 reliever in the game.
Regarding Romo, I would point back to early 2010 when some fans felt he was a poor pitcher because he gave up a few ill-timed home runs and hits late in close games. Clearly those fans were overly focused on those mistakes.
The past two days Clubhouse Confidential has paid homage to the two Hall of Famers who died over the weekend.
They have pointed out how great Stan the Man Musial was, including finishing in the top two in the NL in OBP no fewer than 13 (!) times.
The pointed out how Earl Weaver was ahead of his time, calling the 27 outs his team's most precious possession.
I learned something about each of them.
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Jan 23, 2013 21:19:52 GMT -5
maybe you should learn a little about Mel Ott, as he was a Giant...and learn how Mel had the most in almost all the career hitting records before Musial got to the game....
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jan 24, 2013 2:57:50 GMT -5
Don -- maybe you should learn a little about Mel Ott, as he was a Giant...and learn how Mel had the most in almost all the career hitting records before Musial got to the game.... Rog -- Thank you so much for using a sad occurrence such as the death of the great Stan the Man Musial to tell us redundantly about Mel Ott. By the way, Babe Ruth held far more records than Mel did, so I guess Ott didn't really have "almost all career hitting records." Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1434&page=1#8456#ixzz2IsT6Qcrq |
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Jan 24, 2013 10:44:10 GMT -5
Rog- It is a good idea for Giants fans to watch Clubhouse Confidential tomorrow, since the Giants will be featured.
Boagie- I watched, but they didn't really feature the Giants players, they featured Larry Baer and talked about what it takes to build a good franchise. I thought it was interesting, sort of.
Later on the MLB Network they talked about how the future of baseball are the "Nationals, Nationals, Nationals." Eventhough the Giants core is still young.
Last week they talked about the top 5 bullpens in baseball, the Giants didn't find their way into anyone's picks.
All this offseason they've talked about how the team to beat in the NL West are now the Dodgers.
The Giants will never get the credit they deserve on a national level, no matter how many times you claim they've "fared well."
Rog- Watching MLB Network's top 10 by position has been intriguing, as well. So far they have covered center fielders, second baseman, starting pitchers and relievers. The Giants have fared well.
Angel Pagan just missed the list of the top 10 center fielders. Marco Scutaro had a similar miss at second base, although he did have the honor of being picked at #5 by none other than Bill James.
The Giants will never get the credit they deserve on a national level, no matter how many times you claim they've "fared well."
Bill James' picks were better than the "shredder's" IMO. Pagan, Scutaro and Cain should have been in the top 10 in their respective positions.
Put any of those 3 guys in a Yankee or Redsox jersey and they likely crack to top 5.
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Jan 24, 2013 14:54:19 GMT -5
Don -- maybe you should learn a little about Mel Ott, as he was a Giant...and learn how Mel had the most in almost all the career hitting records before Musial got to the game.... Rog -- Thank you so much for using a sad occurrence such as the death of the great Stan the Man Musial to tell us redundantly about Mel Ott. By the way, Babe Ruth held far more records than Mel did, so I guess Ott didn't really have "almost all career hitting records." dk...I think you know I was talking about the NL, but you couldn't hold back from being your usual snide, stupid self.;..and shove that redundancy up your anatomy because if anyone on this board is redundent...look in the mirror..... |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jan 24, 2013 15:34:55 GMT -5
Boagie -- Later on the MLB Network they talked about how the future of baseball are the "Nationals, Nationals, Nationals." Eventhough the Giants core is still young. Rog -- I too have mentioned the Nationals as likely being the best team in baseball. As a starting point, they won more games last season than anyone in baseball, including four more wins than the Giants. And they did so despite shutting down Stephen Strasburg (15-6, 3.16) the last month of the season and not calling up Bryce Harper until a month into the campaign. How good will those guys be? If I were the Nationals, I'd take my chances, take my chances, take my chances. Harper was rated the #1 overall prospect by Baseball American both one year ago and two years ago. Even though (like Mike Trout) he was called up a little way into the season, he was an All-Star and won the Rookie of the Year Award AT AGE 19. He had a 19-year-old season that was slightly better at the plate than Mickey Mantle at age 19 (although as Don is almost sure to remind us, not nearly as good as Mel Ott's 19-year-old season). Strasburg was coming off Tommy John surgery, but put up an excellent year. He now has a 2.94 career ERA, and his 11.2 strikeouts per nine innings I believe is the best of any starter in history. Oh, and he walks just 2.4 per nine and allows 7.7 hits, for a 1.09 WHIP. That's Juan Marichal/Sandy Koufax territory. Strasburg himself is a former #2 overall prospect, and like Harper, he was a 2012 All-Star. Just for good measure he won the Silver Slugger among pitchers, with a .759 OPS (which is close to Angel Pagan territory). In other words, the Nationals are one of the few teams who have two better young players than the Giants' Buster Posey and Madison Bumgarner. Strasburg is still just 24, and Harper is only 20. Do you like Dan Haren as a starter? He has a career 1.18 WHIP. He is the Nationals' #4 starter. Ross Detweiler is #5. Last season his ERA was 3.40. We were really happy with Barry Zito's 4.15. In other words, the Nationals' rotation can compete with the Giants'. So can their bullpen. Last season they had bullpen ERA's of 2.34, 2.37, 2.38, 2.85, 3.03 and 3.72. Then they went out and signed Rafael Soriano, he of the 2.26 ERA and 42 saves with the Yankees. So the Nationals' bullpen can run with the Giants as well. The Nationals' pithing lead the NL last season, while the Giants finished 5th. And the Nationals have done far more to improve their staff than have the Giants. As good as the Giants' pitching is, the Nationals are likely even better. The Giants own a HUGE advantage behind the plate, but the Nationals' infield is younger and likely better than the Giants. Ryan Zimmerman and Adam La Roche are more established than the Giants' duo of Pablo Sandoval and Brandon Belt, although I wouldn't give the Nationals an edge there. Marco Scutaro was certainly a better second baseman last season than the Nationals' Danny Espinosa, but Espinosa is 11 years younger and will likely close the gap a bit. At shortstop, Ian Desmond had a fabulous .845 OPS and played well in the field. He hit 25 home runs. Overall, the Nationals' infield would seem to be slightly better. The Nats likely hold the outfield edge, as well. With the addition of defensive-minded Denard Span in center, they were so deep that they traded Mike Morse and his .870, .910 and .791 OPS the past three seasons for prospects. The aforementioned Harper hit with the 19-year-old Mantle, and it should be noted that Mickey broke out to a league-leading .924 OPS at the age of 20. Harper is considered to be the rare prospect in Mantle's class. Before last season, he was ranked ahead of Mike Trout. The Giants have to be somewhat satisfied with Angel Pagan and up-and-down Hunter Pence. That duo might have a slight edge over Span and Jason Werth. But Harper against Gregor Blanco? As much as I love Gregor, that is a mismatch that is even greater than their size differential. As for prospects, third baseman Anthony Rendon is ranked #33 overall by MLB.com; center fielder Brian Goodwin is considered a 5-tool player who is ranked #67; right-hander A.J. Cole is ranked #90. The Giants do have one prospect who is ranked in the top 100. In fact, he is ranked #6. But in a trade we decried at the time, Zack Wheeler went to the Mets for Carlos Beltran. Their present top prospect Gary Brown -- who some say could have been traded instead of Wheeler -- didn't crack the top century. So the Nationals won more games than the Giants last season; they are likely better right now; their prospects are ranked better; they have a now-20-year-old wunderkind who could threaten for the 2013 MVP; and they have a 24-year-old starter who despite Tommy John surgery, owns the highest strikeout rate of any starter in history. I love the Giants and hope they beat the heck out of the Nationals. But when I become objective, I have to like the chances of the Nationals, who are likely better, younger and with better young prospects. To put things into perspective, Harper is only 20, and Strasburg is just 24. If they were still just prospects instead of major leaguers, they might well rank #1 and #2 as they have in the past. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1434&page=1#8474#ixzz2IvIEc6ZS |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jan 24, 2013 15:36:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jan 24, 2013 15:41:56 GMT -5
Boagie -- All this offseason they've talked about how the team to beat in the NL West are now the Dodgers. Rog -- I think they would be wrong to place the Dodgers above the Giants. Can you give us a few references? Boagie -- The Giants will never get the credit they deserve on a national level, no matter how many times you claim they've "fared well." Rog -- Which player is the most popular in the National League? Which pitcher was most popular in the league three years ago? How much publicity is Marco Scutaro -- an aging middle infield whose lack of range has been decried on this very board and who has a .731 career OPS -- receiving? How about Sergio Romo being ranked #2 among all relievers even though he has just 17 career saves? I think we sometimes see what we choose to see. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1434&page=1#ixzz2IvYtZKMT |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jan 24, 2013 15:42:51 GMT -5
Oh, Boagie, and how is it that Larry Baer was on Clubhouse Confidential talking about how to build a winning franchise?
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jan 24, 2013 16:05:01 GMT -5
Boagie -- Pagan, Scutaro and Cain should have been in the top 10 in their respective positions. Rog -- I thought because the Giants won the World Series and have become one of the most talked-about franchises, those three guys might indeed make the back end of the top 10 at their positions. But let's look at them one-by-one. Even though he is 31 years old, Angel has been a full-time starter in only two seasons (2010 and 2012). His glove has been criticized even on this board. His career OPS is a middling .757, and even in what most would call his career year in 2012, he didn't break .800. I can understand why he just missed the top 10. Marco Scutaro's fielding has been criticized heavily here. His career OPS is .731. Twice in the past year he has been traded for almost nothing. I thought he would come in at perhaps #10, but I can see why he didn't make the list. I personally would have put Matt Cain around #10. He has been one of the most consistent starters in the past four seasons. But there are a lot of REALLY GOOD starters around. But there is a starter whose ERA's over the past seven seasons has been 3.22, 3.21, 2.70, 3.37, 3.18, 3.00 and 3.38 who didn't make it. During that time, the guy has gone an outstanding 122-57. You know how I think won-loss records are overrated, but Cain's career spans those same seven seasons, and his career mark is just 85-78. Boagie -- Put any of those 3 guys in a Yankee or Redsox jersey and they likely crack to top 5. Rog -- I think you may be showing your true bias here, Boagie. The pitcher I mentioned who, like Matt, didn't crack the top 10 is a Yankee, has the highest contract of any pitcher in the game, has won a Cy Young Award, and has finished in the top five on four other occasions. He grew up in the Bay Area. Can you name him? He will quite possibly be a future Hall of Famer. Depends in great part on how he ages. If it is gracefully, he's probably in. I understand your point, Boagie, but I think you may not be totally objective. CC Sabathia certainly wouldn't think so. As disappointed as I was that Matt didn't make it, I was even more surprised that CC didn't. One factor that no doubt augured against Matt is that until recently, he was somewhat lost in the dual shadow of Tim Lincecum and his own sub-.500 record. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1434&page=1#ixzz2IvaZdVCn |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jan 24, 2013 17:26:00 GMT -5
I just watched yesterday's edition of Clubhouse Confidential, and I think it spoke loudly against Boagie's -- and before that, Randy's -- argument for East Coast bias.
First of all, the interview with Larry Baer was long -- about half the show and perhaps even more.
Second, the Giants were rated the #3 franchise in baseball, behind the Rays and Cardinals and just ahead of the Rangers and Braves. The Yankees, nor Red Sox, nor Phillies made the list. Not even the Washington Nationals, who along with the Rays, Giants and a couple of others likely have the best case going forward right now. The A's were discussed on the show in a good context.
I realize that Clubhouse Confidential is more objective than most sources, but it certainly didn't appear to me that the teams we most think of as being East Coast giants (no pun) -- the Yankees, Red Sox and Phillies -- weren't in any way overrated, while newcomers such as the Giants, Randgers and even the A's were given nice consideration.
To the extent that the East Coast bias exists, I think it is primarily a time zone thing. When we go to bed, almost all the games are over. When the East Coast goes to bed, the games played on the West Coast usually aren't. Hey, if one lives in Hawaii, most of the games are over before dinner.
The internet and ESPN have helped reduce the time zone effect a bit. I think the East Coast bias was overated at its peak and that now it is more an excuse than a fact.
You said, Boagie, that if the Giants were the Yankees or Red Sox, Pagan, Scutaro and Cain would probably have been ranked in the top five at their positions. They wouldn't have been.
In the cases of Pagan and Scutaro, they're just not that good. In Cain's case, there's just too much competition. Matt probably won't make the Hall of Fame, and there are likely at least a half dozen pitchers today who will.
Today's Clubhouse Confidential is said to dealing with underated players and/or pitchers. Now THAT'S a list I expect Matt to make. I'm DVR-ing the show in five minutes. Hopefully I'll be watching it soon thereafter.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jan 24, 2013 17:32:08 GMT -5
The teaser question on yesterday's Clubhouse Confidential was, "Which Giants player has the most RBI's in franchise history?" Don would get that one right, and so did I (although had it been asked in a different context, I might have guessed Willie Mays). Mel Ott's 1860 RBI's as a Giant are one more than Willie's 1859. I rank Willie as the #1 center fielder of all-time, regardless of team. I rank Mel as my #3 right fielder. Along with Christy Mathewson, depending on how one looks at it, Barry Bonds, and perhaps Carl Hubbell, I see those as the top Giants players ever. The Giants have more Hall of Famers than any franchise, and the performances of all of the above with the exception of Hubbell rank VERY high at their respective positional lists. Top 3 high IMO. That's pretty impressive for any franchise -- even one that is presently located on the West Coast.  |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jan 24, 2013 17:59:03 GMT -5
I made a mistake when I said the Giants didn't have any prospects in MLB.com's top 100 prospects. Gary Brown is rated at #79, and Kyle Crick is ranked #85.
The Giant are weakly represented in the top 100, but they are indeed represented by two players.
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Jan 24, 2013 21:15:38 GMT -5
Rog -- I think you may be showing your true bias here, Boagie. The pitcher I mentioned who, like Matt, didn't crack the top 10 is a Yankee, has the highest contract of any pitcher in the game, has won a Cy Young Award, and has finished in the top five on four other occasions. He grew up in the Bay Area.
Can you name him? He will quite possibly be a future Hall of Famer. Depends in great part on how he ages. If it is gracefully, he's probably in.
I understand your point, Boagie, but I think you may not be totally objective. CC Sabathia certainly wouldn't think so. As disappointed as I was that Matt didn't make it, I was even more surprised that CC didn't.
Boagie- Of course you're surprised, because CC is a Yankee. Lets remember this is the top 10 pitchers right now. Over the past 4 years Matt Cain has beat CC in ERA and WHIP in EVERY season. But yet you think CC definitely makes the top 10 while Matt is at best, on the cusp.
Not only are you looking the other way on the east coast bias, Rog. You're a victim of it.
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Jan 25, 2013 14:31:26 GMT -5
The teaser question on yesterday's Clubhouse Confidential was, "Which Giants player has the most RBI's in franchise history?" Don would get that one right, and so did I (although had it been asked in a different context, I might have guessed Willie Mays). Mel Ott's 1860 RBI's as a Giant are one more than Willie's 1859. dk..it is a great shame that SF fans do not know about the franchise super stars I rank Willie as the #1 center fielder of all-time, regardless of team. I rank Mel as my #3 right fielder. Along with Christy Mathewson, depending on how one looks at it, Barry Bonds, and perhaps Carl Hubbell, I see those as the top Giants players ever. The Giants have more Hall of Famers than any franchise, and the performances of all of the above with the exception of Hubbell rank VERY high at their respective positional lists. Top 3 high IMO. That's pretty impressive for any franchise -- even one that is presently located on the West Coast. dk..wow, I think you should do a little research on King Carl as well as Mel Ott....Hubbell had TWO MVP and still has the record of 24 straight wins spread over 2 years....just look at Carl's performancegame by game, when he helped win the flag ...start, relief, pinch run, pinch hit...not much that he didn't do for the team.....and how many teams can go thru an entire season with 8 pitchers...plus one guy who pitched in one game before retiring.... |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jan 25, 2013 15:04:14 GMT -5
Boagie- Of course you're surprised, because CC is a Yankee. Lets remember this is the top 10 pitchers right now. Over the past 4 years Matt Cain has beat CC in ERA and WHIP in EVERY season. But yet you think CC definitely makes the top 10 while Matt is at best, on the cusp. Not only are you looking the other way on the east coast bias, Rog. You're a victim of it. Rog -- I think you misunderstood what I meant, Boagie. I wasn't saying I would pick CC over Matt; I was merely showing that CC's not being picked even though he was a Yankee rather destroys your comment that had Matt played for the Yankees or Red Sox, he would have been placed in the top five starting pitchers. I don't remember the exact list, but let's start with Justin Verlander, Clayton Kershaw, David Price and Felix Hernandez. As good as Matt is, is there any question those guys -- none of whom is a Yankee or Red Sock -- are better than Matt. Each of those guys has won a Cy Young Award; Matt's best finish was 6th place this past season. Surely Jered Weaver is better than Matt, isn't he? He very deservedly has a 2nd, 3rd and 5th place in the AL Cy Young voting the past three seasons. More a ground ball pitcher than a strikeout artist, he nevertheless led the AL with 233 strikeouts in 2010. Given Roy Halladay's poor 2012, I might pick Matt over his RIGHT NOW. One could argue for Matt over Halladay's teammate, Cliff Lee, but Lee has a Cy Young award plus a 3rd and a 7th over the past five years. I might choose Matt over the Philies' 3rd top starter, Cole Hamels. The two are pretty close IMO. I probably lean toward Matt. One guy I don't lean toward Matt over is Stephen Strasburg. Matt has the more proven track record, but as I mentioned already, Strasburg has struck out batters at a level not equalled by any other starter in history. And he doesn't walk batters, either. 8.8 K's per nine is excellent. Strasburg is averaging 8.8 more K's net of walks per nine. No one has ever come close to that. R.A. Dickey is another Cy Young winner, although I would probably take Matt. I would take Matt over CC Sabathia, although one could easily argue in the other direction. An argument could be made for 23-year-old White Sox southpaw Chris Sale. Heck, on Matt's own team, one could argue that any of three starting pitchers might have a better season than Matt. I think I personally would put Matt near the bottom of my own personal Top 10 Right Now, but I can't say it is anything approaching a travesty that he wasn't picked. I believe Clubhouse Confidential talked about a show on underrated players. Now THERE'S a list I think Matt should make. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1434&page=1#8496#ixzz2J18vtqDc |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jan 25, 2013 15:18:30 GMT -5
dk..wow, I think you should do a little research on King Carl as well as Mel Ott....Hubbell had TWO MVP and still has the record of 24 straight wins spread over 2 years Rog -- I thank you for pointing out just how good Carl Hubbell was. I didn't realize he had won two MVP's. That said, he doesn't come close to ranking in anybody's top 3 pitchers that I have ever seen. Lefty Grove isn't usually placed quite in the top three, and most consider him to be the king of southpaws. As good as he was and as good as the teams he played on, King Carl won 253 game, while Grove won an even 300. Grove had an amazing 185 ERA+ AT THE AGE of 39, and Lefty's 148 career ERA+ dwarfed Hubbell's 130. I might put Hubbell in my top 10 starting pitchers of all time, but certainly not close to my top three. The other guys I mentioned -- Mays, Ott, Bonds and Mathewson -- are usually ranked in the top 3 or 4 at their positions, which is why I did mention Hubbell, I didn't put him quite in their company. I didn't mention it at the time, since I was talking only about players, but manager John McGraw might also be considered to be in the top 3 at his "position." Among the all-time Giants players, I would rank them Mays, Bonds, Mathewson, Ott and then Hubbell. As I have said all along with Tim Lincecum -- despite your protests to the contrary -- it's a long, long way off, but it is conceivable that Buster Posey could enter that type of elite company. If I were betting, I would still have to bet against it, but it is certainly possible that Buster could go down as one of the very best catchers ever. At some point though, Buster could -- as Don has suggested -- move to one of the corners, lessening his value and taking away from his legend as a catcher. And he may already have put up his career season. I don't expect him to hit .336 again, although I wouldn't totally rule it out. I do believe Buster will exceed his 24 homers this season. And he'll likely exceed his 2 passed balls, as well. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1434&page=1#ixzz2J1HIXZB5 |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jan 25, 2013 15:37:38 GMT -5
Sorry to see that the Giants' farm system was ranked only #28 out of 30 by Bleacher Reports.
Looking back, the Giants had four straight top-10 overall draft picks from 2006 through 2009. They drafted beautifully, picking Tim Lincecum, Madison Bumgarner, Buster Posey and Zack Wheeler. Aside from that, their drafting has been rather so-so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Jan 25, 2013 16:25:29 GMT -5
Rog -- I think you misunderstood what I meant, Boagie. I wasn't saying I would pick CC over Matt; I was merely showing that CC's not being picked even though he was a Yankee rather destroys your comment that had Matt played for the Yankees or Red Sox, he would have been placed in the top five starting pitchers.
Boagie- You said that Matt Cain would be your #10, and at the same time you acted surprised that CC wasn't in the top 10. So that tells me one of two things, either in your opinion CC belongs in the top 10, OR that you were surprised that the BIASED media didn't put him there. Since you say there is no bias, I'll assume you believe CC belongs in the top 10.
So, tell me this, if Matt Cain is your #10, and you believe CC belongs in the top 10, where does that place CC? I'd assume since Matt is #10, then CC would have to be before that to actually make the top 10.
Heck, I'll even let you get away with CC being #10 and Cain being #9, since you said you'd put Cain at "around" 10. But I think theres a farther gap between what Cain has done recently than what CC has done recently, than there should be between #9 and #10. Which would make me believe one belongs there and one doesn't. Care to guess who doesn't belong?
Lets pretend the Redsox won the World Series in 2012. Jon Lester who figures to be their ace pitched ALL the clinching games along the way. would he have cracked the top 10?
Jon Lester is a good example actually. Jon Lester who is widely talked about on east coast baseball shows as being an "ace" has been an All-Star twice, and even came in 4th in the Cy Young voting in 2010. Pretty good right? I'd say those are good accolades. Especially good considering the guy has never had an ERA below 3.00, and never had a WHIP below 1.2 in ANY season.
FYI, Matt Cain's career WHIP is 1.173.
Who would you say is closer to a household name? And who do you personally believe is the better pitcher? Heck, the "shredder" wouldn't even get this one wrong.
Better yet, if Lester was a Giant, would he have been an All-Star twice?
Now, don't get me wrong, I think CC is a good pitcher, and Lester isn't bad either, but right now neither of them are at Matt Cain's level. In fact, comparing their careers, except for wins.. Matt Cain's stats are better than that of CC's. But the east coast biased media would never tell you that.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jan 25, 2013 18:32:44 GMT -5
Rog -- I think you misunderstood what I meant, Boagie. I wasn't saying I would pick CC over Matt; I was merely showing that CC's not being picked even though he was a Yankee rather destroys your comment that had Matt played for the Yankees or Red Sox, he would have been placed in the top five starting pitchers. Boagie- You said that Matt Cain would be your #10, and at the same time you acted surprised that CC wasn't in the top 10. So that tells me one of two things, either in your opinion CC belongs in the top 10, OR that you were surprised that the BIASED media didn't put him there. Since you say there is no bias, I'll assume you believe CC belongs in the top 10. Rog -- I actually said that I would have had Matt "around" #10. And I made a strong attempt to refute your saying that had Matt been a Yankee or with the Red Sox, he would have been in the top 5, noting that CC Sabathia wasn't. I didn't say whether I would have put CC in the top 10 or not, but I doubt I would have. Once we get beyond Verlander, Kershaw, Hernandez and David Price, it becomes somewhat a matter of personal taste. I think Jered Weaver is very strong, and I love the potential of Stephen Strasburg, who had a strong 2012 despite coming off Tommy John surgery. All three top Phillies pitchers get a lot of consideration nationwide, and particularly in the cases of Roy Halladay and Cliff Lee, one can understand why. CC Sabathia, R.A. Dickey and a few other pitchers come into play. Aroldis Chapman is switching to a starter, and he could be considered. I wouldn't put Cain in the top 5, regardless of where he pitched. I would probably place him in the second five. But his just missing the top 10 certainly isn't a big putdown. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1434&page=1#8506#ixzz2J24qSxDn |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jan 25, 2013 18:46:16 GMT -5
By the way, a year ago Tim Lincecum was coming off two good-but-not-great seasons and his peripherals were in decline, indicating his ERA would likely follow (although not to anywhere near where he finished). Tim was rated #7.
I of course would have liked to see him higher, but given what the peripherals looked like, I was actually a little surprised he came in at #7. Don't forget that I recommended trading Tim last winter.
If the Giants hadn't traded for Carlos Beltran and HAD traded Tim last winter, their team right now would likely look even better than it does now. And as you know, I figure the Giants as the team to beat in the NL West.
In fairness, although I was right on the money regarding both Zack Wheeler (who went for Beltran) and Tim, I didn't like the trade for Melky Cabrera, and I was WAY wrong on that one. I didn't have the luxury of knowing he was on steroids, and I have to admit that while he was a very big help last season, the Giants presently have nothing to show for the trade.
I did mention last winter that I felt Jonathan Sanchez had become injured around the end of May, 2011, but I had no idea he wouldn't be able to recover.
At first I didn't like the Pagan trade, either, but I did eventually come around on that one when I realized that Ramon Ramirez's peripherals indicated he was likely to have a decline in 2012.
Can you imagine though, if the Giants still had Wheeler and had received a big package for Tim last winter? The pitcher I wanted to replace Tim with (assuming the Giants didn't get a replacement in the trade) was Edwin Jackson. Signing a reasonable one-year contract with the Nationals instead, Jackson was essentially a league-average starter who ate up nearly 190 innings. Sadly, that was a lot better than Tim did.
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Jan 25, 2013 20:39:51 GMT -5
dk..wow, I think you should do a little research on King Carl as well as Mel Ott....Hubbell had TWO MVP and still has the record of 24 straight wins spread over 2 years Rog -- I thank you for pointing out just how good Carl Hubbell was. I didn't realize he had won two MVP's. That said, he doesn't come close to ranking in anybody's top 3 pitchers that I have ever seen. Lefty Grove isn't usually placed quite in the top three, and most consider him to be the king of southpaws. As good as he was and as good as the teams he played on, King Carl won 253 game, while Grove won an even 300. Grove had an amazing 185 ERA+ AT THE AGE of 39, and Lefty's 148 career ERA+ dwarfed Hubbell's 130. I might put Hubbell in my top 10 starting pitchers of all time, but certainly not close to my top three. dk...I wasn't ranking anyone, but I did hackle at the statement that Hubbell didn't rate with the other Giants in the HOF....you really don't know anything really important about Hubbell (ie. 2 MVP's) but you put out that statement....Hubbell was kept out of the majors until he was 25 because Ty Cobb didn't like his screwball....and finally the Tigers got rid of him...his whole career was in the so called live ball era and he pitched in a very tough ball park for pitchers...just as you didn't know many of the details about Mel Ott...such as his career base on balls, OPS, and the fact that despite the critics knocking him for hitting a lot of homers in the Polo Grounds, he was the career leader in hitting homers on the road...when he retired.....and he spent some of his productive years being a playing manager...what a double burden.... The other guys I mentioned -- Mays, Ott, Bonds and Mathewson -- are usually ranked in the top 3 or 4 at their positions, which is why I did mention Hubbell, I didn't put him quite in their company. I didn't mention it at the time, since I was talking only about players, but manager John McGraw might also be considered to be in the top 3 at his "position." Among the all-time Giants players, I would rank them Mays, Bonds, Mathewson, Ott and then Hubbell. As I have said all along with Tim Lincecum -- despite your protests to the contrary -- it's a long, long way off, but it is conceivable that Buster Posey could enter that type of elite company. If I were betting, I would still have to bet against it, but it is certainly possible that Buster could go down as one of the very best catchers ever. dk...and you think Buster is going to be better than Bill Terry, a career .341 and last .400 hitter and great fielder...or even on par with Frankie Frisch as a Giant...career .316, but higher as a Giant.... At some point though, Buster could -- as Don has suggested -- move to one of the corners, lessening his value and taking away from his legend as a catcher. And he may already have put up his career season. I don't expect him to hit .336 again, although I wouldn't totally rule it out. I do believe Buster will exceed his 24 homers this season. And he'll likely exceed his 2 passed balls, as well. dk..I think the odds are that he will run out of pitchers before too long....... |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jan 26, 2013 10:32:02 GMT -5
Don -- I did hackle at the statement that Hubbell didn't rate with the other Giants in the HOF....you really don't know anything really important about Hubbell (ie. 2 MVP's) but you put out that statement....Hubbell was kept out of the majors until he was 25 because Ty Cobb didn't like his screwball.... Rog -- Here is what I wrote that apparently indicated to you that I didn't rate Carl with the other top Giants Hall of Famers: "I rank Willie as the #1 center fielder of all-time, regardless of team. I rank Mel as my #3 right fielder. Along with Christy Mathewson, depending on how one looks at it, Barry Bonds, and perhaps Carl Hubbell, I see those as the top Giants players ever." Now I see why you think I don't believe Sandy Koufax is great. One possible thing to consider doing: Read what is written, not how you seem to WANT it to read. As for Carl's not making the majors until he was age 25, that no doubt hurt his win total and quite possibly cost him 300 wins. But since it gave him more time to learn his craft, it likely kept his career ERA under 3.00 (2.98), as well. Carl's career ERA+ for his career was 130. That is truly excellent, yet it leaves him short of Mathewson's 135. I think most historians would rank Willie, Mel, Barry and Christy as the greatest Giants players, with Carl a notch behind but clearly better than any other Giants player I can think of. Then we get into the Willie McCovey/Juan Marichal level, which is still pretty high cotton. Then the Orlando Cepeda level, which is great performance but IMO iffy for the Hall of Fame. But my Hall would be more pure than most. It would be a notch above the level that currently gets players in. Maybe my standards would be too strict, but I prefer it. Obviously guys like Cepeda wouldn't. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1434&page=1#8512#ixzz2J5x6gxU7 |
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Jan 26, 2013 22:35:40 GMT -5
The teaser question on yesterday's Clubhouse Confidential was, "Which Giants player has the most RBI's in franchise history?" Don would get that one right, and so did I (although had it been asked in a different context, I might have guessed Willie Mays). Mel Ott's 1860 RBI's as a Giant are one more than Willie's 1859. I rank Willie as the #1 center fielder of all-time, regardless of team. I rank Mel as my #3 right fielder. Along with Christy Mathewson, depending on how one looks at it, Barry Bonds, and perhaps Carl Hubbell, I see those as the top Giants players ever. The Giants have more Hall of Famers than any franchise, and the performances of all of the above with the exception of Hubbell rank VERY high at their respective positional lists. Top 3 high IMO. That's pretty impressive for any franchise -- even one that is presently located on the West Coast. dk...when you say "perhaps Carl Hubbell"...and when yousay"with the exception of Hubbell" I think you are full of BS when you accuse me of not being abletoreadjust as you wrote that Koufax wasn't really great, it was the ball park that made him....you can stuff your comments about my being able to read......you can back off you high horse....you even admitted you didn't know Carl won 2 MVP's or that Ott had so many records and yet you consider yourself able to judge ball players of different eras...... |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jan 27, 2013 11:22:11 GMT -5
dk...and you think Buster is going to be better than Bill Terry, a career .341 and last .400 hitter and great fielder... Rog -- I think he has a very fine chance. Terry was indeed the last National League .400 hitter (Ted Williams hit .400 11 years laster in the AL), and he hit .300 or better in each of his ten full seeasons. But he played a hitters' position in a hitters' era, and didn't realy impact the game as much as did Willie McCovey -- except with his glove. To emphasize what a hitters' erea Bill played in, the only season he led the league in hits was his .400 season. Despite the 10 .300 seasons, he didn't reach 2200 hits over his career. Terry never led the league in total bases, and he hit 20 or more home runs only three times. Terry didn't walk enough, in part because he wasn't that much of a long ball threat. Bill did lead the league with 20 triples in 1931, but he hit only 154 homers in his career. McCovey hit 147 or more homers over five seasons eight straight times. Bill was an exceptional average hitter, but he didn't walk enough or hit for enough power to fashion a .900 OPS (although he just missed, coming in at .899). Bill was a great Giant, and certainly ranks ahead of Orlando Cepeda among Giants first basemen. Johnny Mize was a better hitter, although Terry was the better GIANT, since the Giants were one of three teams (Cardinals and Yankees) Mize played for. Don -- or even on par with Frankie Frisch as a Giant...career .316, but higher as a Giant.... Rog -- Frankie played only eight seasons with the Giants, and while he certainly deserved Hall of Fame status, his career OPS+ was only 110. Frankie was another hitter who didn't walk enough, although he did steal over 400 bases. My point is that if he plays enough at catcher to be considered a catcher over his career, Buster has a shot at becoming one of the top catchers of all time. Even with very nice career batting averages, Terry nor Frisch are considered in air quite that lofty. Buster isn't likely to keep it up over his career, but right now his career OPS+ is 146 compared to Terry's 136. A 146 OPS+ is exceptional for a catcher. 136 is outstanding for a first baseman, but far from exceptional. There are nearly 20 first basemen with a career OPS+ higher than Terry's, but nary a catcher above Buster. With Buster the question isn't whether he is good enough; the questions are whether he can sustain his performance and whether he will be remembered as a catcher. To give an idea of how Buster could compare with Terry, Buster has already won an MVP, while Bill's best finish was 3rd (which he did twice). Part of this is a difference in eras, but Terry finished with 137 career sacrifice bunts. Can we imagine Buster being asked to bunt within even 100 of that number? Buster has no sacrifices; Williams had 5; Mize reached 20. McCovey had 5 sacrifies; Mays had 13; Bonds accumulated only 4. If you are a very top hitter, you are seldom asked to bunt. Bill Terry was a great hitter, but despite being the last National Leaguer to hit .400, not a very top one. Not enough power, not enough walks. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1434#ixzz2JBtsdaXg |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jan 27, 2013 11:22:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jan 27, 2013 11:26:29 GMT -5
dk...when you say "perhaps Carl Hubbell"...and when yousay"with the exception of Hubbell" I think you are full of BS when you accuse me of not being abletoreadjust as you wrote that Koufax wasn't really great, it was the ball park that made him.... Rog -- Most don't think quite as highly of Hubbell as you do, although I know of no one who doesn't think he was easily a Hall of Famer. As for Koufax, I don't know of anyone who doesn't think was great -- me included. IMO you often read things the way you want to read them -- as opposed to how they were written. It isn't a positive trait, since it often leads to arguments. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1434&page=1#ixzz2JC4k5ETi |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jan 27, 2013 11:39:45 GMT -5
Boagie -- I think CC is a good pitcher, and Lester isn't bad either, but right now neither of them are at Matt Cain's level. In fact, comparing their careers, except for wins.. Matt Cain's stats are better than that of CC's. But the east coast biased media would never tell you that. Rog -- I don't consider Lester to be as good as Matt, especially after Lester's poor 2012 season. But although I personally prefer Matt over CC right now (by a tiny bit), it doesn't take any kind of bias to pick CC. Matt has been excellent each of the past four seasons, but he also pitches in what the past three years has been a very pitcher-friendly park. Matt's ERA+ figures the past four seasons have been 145, 124, 121 and 125. CC's have been 137, 136, 143 and 124. Matt allows fewer hits and homers. He has a lower WHIP. CC strikes out more and walks slightly fewer. CC's numbers are hurt slightly by having to face a designated hitter rather than the pitcher. I would take Matt. Others would take CC. Some say tuh-MAY-toe. Some say tuh-MAH-toe. Some live on the East Coast. Some live on the West Coast. Some live in the middle. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1434&page=1#ixzz2JC5r8poq |
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Jan 27, 2013 19:13:21 GMT -5
dk...when you say "perhaps Carl Hubbell"...and when yousay"with the exception of Hubbell" I think you are full of BS when you accuse me of not being abletoreadjust as you wrote that Koufax wasn't really great, it was the ball park that made him.... Rog -- Most don't think quite as highly of Hubbell as you do, although I know of no one who doesn't think he was easily a Hall of Famer. As for Koufax, I don't know of anyone who doesn't think was great -- me included. IMO you often read things the way you want to read them -- as opposed to how they were written. It isn't a positive trait, since it often leads to arguments. dk..the main problem is you keep flipping from what you write when we disagree with your comments and with your back to the wall youu accuse us of not being able to read...and that includes several people of this board.. |
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Jan 27, 2013 19:45:49 GMT -5
dk...when you say "perhaps Carl Hubbell"...and when yousay"with the exception of Hubbell" I think you are full of BS when you accuse me of not being abletoreadjust as you wrote that Koufax wasn't really great, it was the ball park that made him.... Rog -- Most don't think quite as highly of Hubbell as you do, although I know of no one who doesn't think he was easily a Hall of Famer. As for Koufax, I don't know of anyone who doesn't think was great -- me included. IMO you often read things the way you want to read them -- as opposed to how they were written. It isn't a positive trait, since it often leads to arguments. dk..the main problem is you keep flipping from what you write when we disagree with your comments and with your back to the wall youu accuse us of not being able to read...and that includes several people of this board.. |
|
