|
Zito
Jun 1, 2013 13:53:22 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Jun 1, 2013 13:53:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Zito
Jun 1, 2013 14:34:00 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Jun 1, 2013 14:34:00 GMT -5
Boly -- Why, when someone on the board makes a point, must you frequently take the opposite point of few? Rog -- That's a good question. I think we rarely consider all the points of view on a topic. I often try to point some of them out so that we can broaden our points of view. In this instance, you have made a point that Tim hasn't pitched very well. I agree. One of my points is that your standards for starters seem closer to a reasonable standard for 50 years ago than today. It is tougher for today's starters to get batters out than it was 50 years ago. Does that mean the hitters were better back then? I don't think so. If the hitters were truly better back then, today's relievers would also have a harder time getting them out. And today's relievers fare FAR better than the relievers of 50 years ago. Pitchers back then were better at retiring batters, but not by a whole lot. NL pitchers gave up 3.81 runs per game back in 1963; today they yield 4.09 runs. There are, however, a couple of big differences: . 50 years ago starters were FAR better than relievers; today, relievers have ERA's more than half a run better than starters do. . There were far more unearned runs back then. Today's pitchers have a runs per game that is just 0.29 runs higher than their ERA's. The pitchers of half a century ago yielded 0.52 more runs than their ERA's -- or nearly twice as many. I believe that today's hitters are enough better that today's pitchers for the most part need to pitch in short bursts in order to get them out at a high level. And today's starting pitchers need to throw harder and bear down more often in order to get them out. The official historian of major league baseball believes the players keep getting better and better. Yet I would say that the prevailing opinion here is that the game of our youths was better than today's game. We seem to agree that athletes today are faster/bigger/stronger and that other sports are played at higher levels than they used to be. Yet many here think that doesn't apply to baseball. There are a couple of general of beliefs frequently expressed here which I believe can be refuted by one single post I made here. . There is this perception that I am biased for my favorite players -- especially Tim Lincecum, since I know his dad. . There is another perception that all I can see is stats. Yet after the 2009 All-Star game started by the younger Lincecum, I was the one here who said that Tim made at least three mistakes in his brief starts in covering first base. No one else here or anywhere else I have seen made mention of three times he didn't properly cover. Not those who apologized for Tim. Not those who understood only numbers. Not even those who didn't apologize for Tim and DID understand the game beyond just numbers. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1789&page=1#ixzz2UzaIcO3b
|
|
|
Zito
Jun 1, 2013 16:31:24 GMT -5
Post by klaiggeb on Jun 1, 2013 16:31:24 GMT -5
Boly --I don't see a guy with a 4.00 ERA as a top 3 guy. For me, my top 3 darned well BETTER be 3.50 or less.
Rog -- I certainly agree with you that we would HOPE our starting pitchers performed that well, but it just isn't realistic to expect someone to have to perform that well in order to be a #3 starter.
There are 65 qualifiers this season with an ERA of 4.00 or lower. That's just five more total qualifiers than two per team (60). One could make an argument that almost any pitcher with an ERA below 4.00 is a #2 -- let alone a #3.
We would indeed LIKE each of our top three starters to have an ERA below 3.50, but there are just 42 qualifiers who do indeed have an ERA of 3.50 or below. That's about 1 1/2 starters per team -- not three.
Boly -- And for the 1 and 2 guys MUCH, MUCH less.
Rog -- There are 27 starters this season with an ERA of 3.00 or less. That's just less than one per team. There are 34 starters with an ERA of 3.25 or less.
In other words, there exists somewhere around one starter per team who would fit your requirement to be a #1 or a #2.
Boly -- # 5?
I'm willling to live with 4.30-4.50; period.
Rog -- There are 72 starters with an ERA of 4.50 or below. That's about two and a half per team.
----boly says----
Rog, why are you bringing up meaningless numbers like this from this season?
Who was talking about this year, or any year?
Not me.
I never compared our 1-2-3-4-5 guys to any other team.
I simply stated what I expected, and I prefaced it all, in a previous post, that "I'm from a different time."
I posted "what I EXPECT," not what the league is doing.
My friend, seriously, your logic befuddles me.
So to re enforce my point I first went back to 2010 to demonstrate that what I am EXPECTING, is not over the top, nor ridiculous, nor un attainable.
Of the pitchers who started 18 games or more, the ERAs were:
3.14 3.43 3.07 3.00 4.15
That's 150 starts in 162 games.
2012
2.79 3.37 3.37 4.15 5.18
161 starts
Top 3 are less than 3.50, precisley what I expect.
It can be done, and we have done it.
I'm not asking for ERAs in the 2.00s
I'm demanding ERAs UNDER 3.50 for the top 3.
So Rog, honestly, telling me what the league is doing, what the averages are, really, is moot.
I'm asking for what we have consistantly done, nothing more, nothing less.
And right now, we're getting one HECK OF A LOT less.
Unacceptable.
boly
|
|
|
Zito
Jun 1, 2013 17:52:54 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Jun 1, 2013 17:52:54 GMT -5
I guess I just wasn't understanding what you meant, Boly. Entering this season I was expecting that Matt and Mad Bum would be below 3.50 and that Ryan and Tim might be around 3.75. I expected Barry to be above 4.00 and perhaps well above.
This brings to mind though that saying "I expect a 3.50 ERA" can mean two different things:
First, it can mean that if the ERA isn't 3.50 or below, I will be disappointed.
Second, it can mean that if I were to give it my best effort, I would anticipate that a pitcher's ERA would win up around 3.50.
When you say your expect your top three starters to be below 3.50, you are clearly meaning you will be disappointed if they aren't. I'm saying based on my best knowledge going in, I anticipated Matt and Mad Bum would be below 3.50 and that Ryan and Tim wouldn't be too far over.
By the way, only three major league teams have three starters with ERA's below 3.50. The first two (Detroit with Sanchez, Fister and Scherzer -- Verlander is at 3.68 -- and St. Louis with Miller, Wainwright and Lynn) may not be surprising, but the third -- the Cubs with Wood, Feldman and Samardzija -- surprised me.
But thus far only 10% of the 30 major league teams have indeed put together three starters with ERA's below 3.50.
I myself didn't expect the Giants' starters or their relievers to be as good this season as they were last. I certainly didn't expect the rotation to essentially fall apart though.
I do think Ryan would have put it together if he hadn't been injured, that Cain will do so, and that Tim might.
How about this for a prediction? The best Giants starter ERA the rest of the way will belong to Mad Bum (surprise, surprise), and that the worst will belong to Barry Zito.
|
|
|
Zito
Jun 1, 2013 21:22:44 GMT -5
Post by klaiggeb on Jun 1, 2013 21:22:44 GMT -5
I myself didn't expect the Giants' starters or their relievers to be as good this season as they were last. I certainly didn't expect the rotation to essentially fall apart though. I do think Ryan would have put it together if he hadn't been injured, that Cain will do so, and that Tim might. How about this for a prediction? The best Giants starter ERA the rest of the way will belong to Mad Bum (surprise, surprise), and that the worst will belong to Barry Zito. ---boly says--- I agree about expecting them to be as good this year as last. Not likely As to your predictions... I can't address them right now, as my wife is desperately trying to hide our supply of arsenic and the weapons of me. boly
|
|
|
Zito
Jun 1, 2013 21:30:18 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Jun 1, 2013 21:30:18 GMT -5
Didn't the Giants have a mediocre first half last year, and then really turnt on after the break? Why the panic? No one's running away with the division, or even really playing very well. On the other hand, the Giants were utterly humiliated in both games today, and really didn't seem very into it, especially on offense. One thing that steamed me. Bummy hits one off the wall and settles for a single. Wainwright hits one between the outfielders that doesn't really make it up the alley, and hustles it into a double.
|
|
|
Zito
Jun 2, 2013 18:43:40 GMT -5
Post by klaiggeb on Jun 2, 2013 18:43:40 GMT -5
Didn't the Giants have a mediocre first half last year, and then really turnt on after the break? Why the panic? No one's running away with the division, or even really playing very well. On the other hand, the Giants were utterly humiliated in both games today, and really didn't seem very into it, especially on offense. One thing that steamed me. Bummy hits one off the wall and settles for a single. Wainwright hits one between the outfielders that doesn't really make it up the alley, and hustles it into a double.
---boly says---
Allen, I see no panic. And I don't feel any.
What I HAVE expressed, and will continue to do until they fix it, is our GAWD AWFUL STARTING PITCHING!
If a Giant fan isn't ticked, confused, angry, confused, befuddled at that, I have to ask, what the heck is wrong with you? (not you, any Giant fan)
If these were kids out there, or aging veterans, this could be expected.
But the total implosion of 3 pitchers in their mid 20's?
That's not right.
And it shouldn't happen to an entire staff.
boly
|
|
|
Zito
Jun 3, 2013 10:01:44 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Jun 3, 2013 10:01:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Zito
Jun 3, 2013 10:03:05 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Jun 3, 2013 10:03:05 GMT -5
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Zito
Jun 3, 2013 13:25:53 GMT -5
Post by donk on Jun 3, 2013 13:25:53 GMT -5
Two things happened Sunday that made me happy...Chad got a start and now rates another look....the Giants evidently talked to Posey about what I have said before...he is setting up too wide and he is setting up too early....Zito improved when he started to throw an ocassional inside fastball....I don't think the other pitchers throw enough inside...batters get too comfortable in the box...and they are set to hit the outside pitch,,,the ump was very inconsistant on the outside corner pitch Sunday, let's see what happens with Posey sitting more to the middle and with a different ump...
|
|
|
Zito
Jun 3, 2013 17:49:42 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Jun 3, 2013 17:49:42 GMT -5
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Zito
Jun 3, 2013 23:50:43 GMT -5
Post by donk on Jun 3, 2013 23:50:43 GMT -5
Don -- the Giants evidently talked to Posey about what I have said before...he is setting up too wide and he is setting up too early. Rog -- He could be setting up too early and allowing the batter an early peak, but there really isn't much harm in setting up too wide. A good umpire won't often be fooled by the mitt off the plate, but it can't really hurt. In fact, the announcers compliment catchers for "trying to steal a strike." dk...it is better to set your glove close to the strike zone unless you have a hitter who might chase a pitch waaaay out of the zone....it is impossible to steal a strike if your glove moves too far.....I still like the old American League umpires who stood up in back of the catcher and in the middle of the strike zone...he could call the corners and judge the height....I think the pitch that umps blow the most are the ones on the outside corner...as I said last year...rookies like Crawford always seem to get that pitch called against them until the umps see that they are a good judge of location and are capable with the bat.....
|
|
|
Zito
Jun 4, 2013 15:06:43 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Jun 4, 2013 15:06:43 GMT -5
dk...it is better to set your glove close to the strike zone unless you have a hitter who might chase a pitch waaaay out of the zone....it is impossible to steal a strike if your glove moves too far.. Rog -- An umpire shouldn't be influenced by how the catcher catches the ball, but the stats indicate they are. Since the umpire might be looking for a glove moving AWAY from the strike zone as an indication the pitch is a ball, the pitch where the glove doesn't move or is moved back TOWARD the strike zone has some chance of being called a strike. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1789&page=2#11392#ixzz2VHPMA2KR
|
|