|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 27, 2013 10:36:54 GMT -5
Not quite sure why Tim Lincecum is losing it in the 6th inning now, but he has shown some promising signs the last two games:
. Just one non-intentional walk in 12.1 innings.
. An uncharacterist 65% strike rate despite throwing a high percentage of secondary pitches.
. A fastball that has been a mile or two faster than in previous outings.
For the first five innings of each of the past two games, Tim has pitched a little like the Tim of old. There have been some positive signs this month.
It's clear though that he's not yet out of the woods, and we shouldn't forget that last season he had a 3.06 ERA over a 13-game stretch.
But let's also look at the realities. At last year's All-Star game, Tim's ERA was 6.42. Since then it has been 4.10 including the postseason. Tim's walk rate of 3.44 has been a full walk lower than the first half of 2012 and just .08 higher than in 2011. Those who say Tim hasn't bounced back at all just haven't been paying close attention.
Since last year's All-Star game, Tim has been about a league average starter. That's nothing close to what we were expecting from him. But it does represent a bounce back at least halfway from where he once was to where he was the first half of 2012.
The question of Tim's value will be decided after this season, when he his eligible to be a free agent. As more or less a league average starter who has shown excellent potential in the bullpen, has in the past been as good a starter as there was then, has been as healthy as any pitcher in the league, and who is still just 29, Tim will command a tidy sum. Likely he will command TOO much.
But he's worth so much more than 1/$6 that said evaluation of his worth is simply laughable.
Allen and I have had a lot of agreement on Tim to go along with our disagreements. Each of us would have traded him two winters ago. Neither of us would re-sign him after this season at the dollars he will likely command.
But the big difference seems to be that I understand the value of a league average starting pitcher who stays healthy and age-wise is in his prime, while I think Allen horribly underrates the value of such a pitcher.
Tim isn't close to being what he once was, but the closer I look at his situation, the more foolish 1/$6 million looks.
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jun 27, 2013 11:00:17 GMT -5
I think your problem lies in reading comprehension, Rog. I didn't say I didn't value any starting pitcher who can eat innings, just not Tim. Although I don't understand the value of eating innings if the innings are bad and the games are losses. Also, I didn't say that $6 was all Timmy was worth on the open market, in fact I've said just the opposite on many occasions. I'm sure there's some blockhead who will pay him close to what he's making now. What I have said is $6 is all that I would pay him, simply because I know he wouldn't take it and I don't want him.
We've went over why I don't want Tim back several times. Won't learn the fundamentals of his job, doesn't know what is wrong or how to fix it, losing command and velocity, won't make any significant changes in his routine or his mechanics. And that's without taking into account that he is going to want way more than he's worth.
And again, even when Tim pitches well, he still loses, as we saw last night. Had a lead, couldn't hold it. 27-37 since the start of 2011.
Btw, Scott Feldman won again last night, beating Yovanni Gallardo and the Brewers. RA Dickey had an excellent outing, pitching a CG 2-hitter against the Rays. Got the ERA back under 5.00.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member 
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Jun 27, 2013 11:39:47 GMT -5
Allen...as much as I agree that eating innings has less value when coming in a loss, it does still have value (both short term and long) to save the bullpen work when it is getting plenty already. Also, I hope that when you say $6 is all you would pay to keep Tim, you really mean $6 Mil...if not, I would say your own head would be closer to block than the guy who pays market value.
That said, I am a little shocked by Tim's year so far. Obviously he has had some very frustrating games wherein a bad inning early or late ruins what otherwise would be a very impressive line. The fact that he is lacking in fundamentals and in the ability to close down a rally (which had prior to last year been a staple of his strengths) in this his walk year, speaks to me that his will isnt where it should be for whatever reason. Maybe somewhere in his head he has convinced himself that 2 CYs and 2 rings is enough and he can afford to just coast now. I still feel that sooner or later, he will turn it around because there's just way too much talent there still. Problem is, if it's not happening in his walk year, how long can a team afford to wait for it to happen?
Should be interesting to see where he goes and at what price next year.
~Dood
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Jun 27, 2013 12:25:09 GMT -5
I think the Giants have to re-sign Tim, even if they have to overpay him...I see very little chance of the Giants improving with the pitchers that are out there as FA's and they have very little in the way of prospects to trade away....as I have been saying for the last few years, the Giants were one injury away from major trouble if they lost a starter because there was no one ready in the farm system.....and that really hasn't improved since Vogey went down.....all the good "numbers" are down in the A leagues as the Giants continue to be careful in advancing pitching prospects until their age starts being a factor....I can't understand why college pitchers have to stay so long in the lower classifications...has college baseball regressed so low?  |
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Jun 27, 2013 12:31:28 GMT -5
as I have been saying for the last few years, the Giants were one injury away from major trouble if they lost a starter because there was no one ready in the farm system....
Dood - the last few years...you mean those years the Giants won 2 WS titles? Yeah you hit the nail on the head with that one. A blind squirrel can starve to death before a nut falls from a tree and hits his dead body on the ground.
~Dood
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jun 27, 2013 13:12:11 GMT -5
Allen...as much as I agree that eating innings has less value when coming in a loss, it does still have value (both short term and long) to save the bullpen work when it is getting plenty already. Also, I hope that when you say $6 is all you would pay to keep Tim, you really mean $6 Mil...if not, I would say your own head would be closer to block than the guy who pays market value. Allen- Of course it's $6 million dood. Rog and I have been having this discussion where alot of money figures are tossed around, and I simply got tired of typing the word "million" again and again. So let's say that all figures are in millions. That said, I am a little shocked by Tim's year so far. Obviously he has had some very frustrating games wherein a bad inning early or late ruins what otherwise would be a very impressive line. The fact that he is lacking in fundamentals and in the ability to close down a rally (which had prior to last year been a staple of his strengths) in this his walk year, speaks to me that his will isnt where it should be for whatever reason. Maybe somewhere in his head he has convinced himself that 2 CYs and 2 rings is enough and he can afford to just coast now. Allen- I think you may have a point there in that Tim has always gotten by on his ability, and hasn't really had to pay much attention to the details. Now, when that's not enough and adjustments need to be made, I'm not sure he knows how or what to do. Two things really bug me about Tim. That he doesn't feel it's important to learn the nuts and bolts of his job (ie holding runners on, backing up bases and the like) and that he (as Tim himself has said) can't maintain focus. I really don't see any reason for not being able to do either. Should be interesting to see where he goes and at what price next year. Allen- It definitely should. I don't understand why this isn't getting more play in the media. Despite his recent struggles, Tim is still a major face of the franchise. Will he stay? Will he go? Will he take a cut? Will he be traded? What's Sabean's take? |
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jun 27, 2013 13:16:31 GMT -5
I think the Giants have to re-sign Tim, even if they have to overpay him...I see very little chance of the Giants improving with the pitchers that are out there as FA's
Allen- The bar Tim is setting is not very high. He's 4-8, 4.64. I think you can find someone out there that will give you a 4.60 ERA, and a .333 winning percentage. And for alot less money.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 27, 2013 14:47:23 GMT -5
Allen -- I think your problem lies in reading comprehension, Rog. Rog -- If I do have a problem, it isn't reading comprehension. Allen -- I didn't say I didn't value any starting pitcher who can eat innings, just not Tim. Rog -- And that is where the problem lies IMO. You seem to set a different criterion for Tim. Let's just take a quick look at how the pitchers you recommend have pitched since last year's All-Star break: . Since last year's All-Star break, Lincecum, Nolasco, Marquis, Norris and Feldman have basically been the same pitcher in terms of results. Lincecum and Nolasco have pitched more innings than Marquis or Feldman -- with Norris in between. Feldman has had a slightly lower ERA, but the ERA's are amazing close. Norris, Lincecum, Marquis and Nolasco have ERA's of 4.06, 4.10, 4.11 and 4.12. Feldman is the slight leader, with a 3.94 ERA over that period. Than again, if we carry Scott back through the beginning of the 2012 season, that swells to 4.40. So what you're doing, Allen, is valuing four pitchers who over the same year's period (2nd half of 2012 plus postseason plus so far this season) have been more or less Lincecum and who don't have histories to come close to Tim, at a higher value than you place on him. How is that fair and rational? Allen -- Although I don't understand the value of eating innings if the innings are bad and the games are losses. Rog -- The innings eaten help save the bullpen, and if they are performed at a better level than a replacement pitcher, they have even greater value. Allen -- Also, I didn't say that $6 was all Timmy was worth on the open market, in fact I've said just the opposite on many occasions. Rog - I am well aware of what you said. We have no disagreement here. Allen -- I'm sure there's some blockhead who will pay him close to what he's making now. Rog -- I'm not sure of it, but I suspect he'll come within $5 million of it if he signs for one year. Maybe closer or for a longer term. Allen -- What I have said is $6 is all that I would pay him, simply because I know he wouldn't take it and I don't want him. Rog -- You value him at 1/$6, which is an extreme undervaluation. That is my whole point here. We don't really disagree on much else. But your number is so far out of bounds as to make you look foolish. Allen -- We've went over why I don't want Tim back several times. Rog -- And you undervalue him and overvalue others. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1858#ixzz2XQv9pQBT |
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Jun 27, 2013 15:12:43 GMT -5
as I have been saying for the last few years, the Giants were one injury away from major trouble if they lost a starter because there was no one ready in the farm system.... Dood - the last few years...you mean those years the Giants won 2 WS titles? Yeah you hit the nail on the head with that one. A blind squirrel can starve to death before a nut falls from a tree and hits his dead body on the ground. dk..dodo, get your head out of your ass and READ what I said...one injury away....there hasn't been one of the starters that have been DL until Vogey went down...take your nail, blind squirrel and nut and shove it..... |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 27, 2013 15:13:14 GMT -5
Allen -- And again, even when Tim pitches well, he still loses, as we saw last night. Had a lead, couldn't hold it. 27-37 since the start of 2011. Rog -- He had a 2.74 ERA in 2011, yet went only 12-13. His run support was just 2.81 runs. Since Tim's own run average was 3.07 runs, 12-13 is at least as well as one would expect. Last season was a disaster, as he ballooned all the way to 5.18 with a run average of 5.34. He received 3.98 runs of support, so his 10-15 record again was at least in line with what one would expect. This year he's only 4-8. His ERA is 4.64 with a run average of 5.21. With run support of 3.83 runs, we might expect a slightly better record, but not by much. In total, his run support over the past three seasons of about 3.50 compared to his run average of around 4.35 makes a 27-37 won-loss record pretty much what would be expected. If we look at 2010, he had a run average of 3.59 and run support of 4.45. His 16-10 record is at least as good as we would expect. Given that Tim went 40-17 prior to 2010, I don't think we can call Tim a pitcher who pitches just well enough to lose. The facts just don't back you up, Allen. Time after time they show your opinion to be questionable at best. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1858&page=1#ixzz2XRpeV0Kr |
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Jun 27, 2013 15:13:33 GMT -5
as I have been saying for the last few years, the Giants were one injury away from major trouble if they lost a starter because there was no one ready in the farm system.... Dood - the last few years...you mean those years the Giants won 2 WS titles? Yeah you hit the nail on the head with that one. A blind squirrel can starve to death before a nut falls from a tree and hits his dead body on the ground. dk..dodo, get your head out of your ass and READ what I said...one injury away....there hasn't been one of the starters that have been DL until Vogey went down...take your nail, blind squirrel and nut and shove it..... |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 27, 2013 15:26:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 27, 2013 15:27:52 GMT -5
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Jun 27, 2013 15:50:53 GMT -5
It's not that Rog...it's that lack of focus in one critical inning (Tim has admitted this himself). It isn't like he's struggling every inning and just not having it. He was able to avoid big innings before last year...now he isn't. Time for him to stop smoking a fattie before starts.
This is his walk year. If he can't focus in his walk year, what happens when he gets a fat contract with long term security? Man am I glad he turned down the Giants big offer before last year...whew!
~Dood
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 27, 2013 15:52:56 GMT -5
Don -- I think the Giants have to re-sign Tim, even if they have to overpay him... Rog -- I certainly don't. Don -- I see very little chance of the Giants improving with the pitchers that are out there as FA's and they have very little in the way of prospects to trade away.... Rog -- You seem to be right on track here. The Giants' starting pitching has been coming around though -- even without Vogelsong and, recently -- Gaudin. Don -- as I have been saying for the last few years, the Giants were one injury away from major trouble if they lost a starter because there was no one ready in the farm system..... Rog -- You are pretty close there. The Giants were lucky when Ryan Vogelsong was such a star in 2011 and 2012, and in that Chad Gaudin has filled in so beautifully this year. Don -- and that really hasn't improved since Vogey went down..... Rog -- Of course not. Don -- all the good "numbers" are down in the A leagues as the Giants continue to be careful in advancing pitching prospects until their age starts being a factor.... Rog -- I don't see that as being true. Matt Cain and Madison Bumgarner were in the majors at age 20, and Tim Lincecum at 22. Even Ryan Vogelsong was just 23. Don -- I can't understand why college pitchers have to stay so long in the lower classifications...has college baseball regressed so low? Rog -- Seems to depend on the pitcher. Lincecum went 3.53, 3.11 and 1.94 in college and was in the majors less than a season after he was drafted. Chris Stratton went 5.29, 5.21 and 2.38 and is in Low A ball a year after signing. He might be in Low A (which is where Tim wound up his draft season) if he weren't somewhat blocked by the other good, young starters. Martin Agosto went 5.40, 2.80 and 2.18 and is lighting it up in Low A ball a year later. He too is somewhat blocked. I think it depends on the pitcher and on the opportunity. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1858&page=1#ixzz2XRzp4g3j |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 27, 2013 15:54:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 27, 2013 15:59:41 GMT -5
Dood - the last few years...you mean those years the Giants won 2 WS titles? Yeah you hit the nail on the head with that one. Rog -- No, Randy, he's right. He was among many who made the point about the Giants' lack of rotation depth for quite some time now. In 2011, the Giants lucked out with Ryan Vogelsong, but they lost both Barry Zito and Jonathan Sanchez to injury, and they didn't make the playoffs. You may recall that it was Erik Surkamp in 2011. The Giants lucked out this season with Chad Gaudin (or was it Scott Proctor?), but then it was Mike Kickham. It won't happen this way, but next season it is conceivable they could be down to Cain and Mad Bum. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1858&page=1#ixzz2XS6JC5cR |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 27, 2013 16:02:15 GMT -5
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Jun 27, 2013 16:04:30 GMT -5
dk..dodo, get your head out of your ass and READ what I said...
Rog -- I agree with you on this point (1 injury away from trouble), but Randy is no dodo.
Dood - If it was JUST the Vogelsong injury, I doubt it would have had a huge effect. But coupled with Pagan's, Panda's and especially Cassilla's injuries (and Kontos falling apart), it was just too much adversity to overcome immediately.
~Dood
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 27, 2013 16:12:53 GMT -5
Allen -- Tim is still a major face of the franchise. Will he stay? Rog -- Unlikely, probably highly so. Allen -- Will he go? Rog -- Likely, probably highly so. Allen -- Will he take a cut? Rog -- Almost certainly. Allen -- Will he be traded? Rog -- Only if the Giants are WAY, way out of it by the trading deadline, and despite the recent losing streak, that seems quite unlikely. Allen -- What's Sabean's take? Rog -- Well, Brian's certainly not going to share it with us, but here is my take on Brian's take. (Take THAT!) Matt Cain and Madison Bumgarner are the only sure bets for 2013, although barring injury, Ryan Vogelsong is almost certainly one as well. Barry Zito will command $11 net if the Giants exercise his option, and at this point I would think Brian see's 1/$11 as a good deal for a team whose next wave of starting pitching seems at least two years away. That leaves Tim. And, yeah, Brian expects to leave him. The best chance for Tim to stay would be if he took a one-year contract to prove himself, with that one year serving the Giants' purposes as well. But Tim will likely get a lucrative enough longer-term contract that he will go that way. And as Allen says, the Giants can almost certainly and for less money (likely less time, as well) pick up a pitcher who has pitched at Tim's level the past season and a half. Brian already has his scouts working toward potential deadline deals. Their scouting should translate toward evaluating potential free agenst, as well, since some of those candidates will be among the possible trade acquisitions. So he's thinking about and evaluating his options -- both for the rest of the season and for next year. No one except Brian knows precisely what he's thinking, but don't those things make sense? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1858&page=1#ixzz2XS8KFDDk |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 27, 2013 16:20:31 GMT -5
Dood - If it was JUST the Vogelsong injury, I doubt it would have had a huge effect. But coupled with Pagan's, Panda's and especially Cassilla's injuries (and Kontos falling apart), it was just too much adversity to overcome immediately. Rog -- We have long had a discussion on team chemistry. Earlier this season the Dodgers were playing poorly, and "everyone" expected it, since they had bad chemistry despite spending all that money. The Giants were doing well, which wasn't surprising given their chemistry, leadership and World Series experience. Now that the Dodgers are suddenly playing better than the Giants, is that because the Dodgers have built chemistry -- or because their players are beginning to recover from injuries or becoming phenoms, and their talent level is suddenly higher? Is it because the Giants have lost their chemistry, or because they have key players injured? I would say that right now the arguments regarding the importance of talent seem more convincing than the arguments regarding the importance of chemistry. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1858&page=1#ixzz2XSBA3LnQ |
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jun 27, 2013 17:57:27 GMT -5
Allen -- I think your problem lies in reading comprehension, Rog. Rog -- And that is where the problem lies IMO. You seem to set a different criterion for Tim. Allen- That's right. And I've given you the reasons. I'll do so yet again. Tim makes alot more money than the others do. So you could exchange Tim for any of the others, and save dollars which you could use to improve your club.Tim doesn't want to leave his comfort zone to make necessary changes. He has no idea what is wrong or how to fix it, and Tim does not pay attention to fundamentals like holding runners on and backing up bases, and Tim self-admittedly loses focus. Let's just take a quick look at how the pitchers you recommend have pitched since last year's All-Star break: . Since last year's All-Star break, Lincecum, Nolasco, Marquis, Norris and Feldman have basically been the same pitcher in terms of results. Lincecum and Nolasco have pitched more innings than Marquis or Feldman -- with Norris in between. Feldman has had a slightly lower ERA, but the ERA's are amazing close. Allen- I don't believe I've recommended Norris or Nolasco, though I'd take Norris. Again, what you're missing is that Tim is making alot more money than the other guys. He may make more than the other four combined. Having Tim instead of the others is like paying a Jaguar price tag for a Corolla. Tim's history is irrelevant. That was a long time ago. If history does it, go get Koufax. So what you're doing, Allen, is valuing four pitchers who over the same year's period (2nd half of 2012 plus postseason plus so far this season) have been more or less Lincecum and who don't have histories to come close to Tim, at a higher value than you place on him. How is that fair and rational? Allen- It's called bang for your buck. Also, I haven't heard complaints of the other pitchers you named losing focus, forgetting to back up bases, or refusing to work on other aspects of their game. Rog -- The innings eaten help save the bullpen, and if they are performed at a better level than a replacement pitcher, they have even greater value. Allen- If all you want is someone to go out there and absorb a beating, bring someone in who makes the minimum. Allen -- Also, I didn't say that $6 was all Timmy was worth on the open market, in fact I've said just the opposite on many occasions. Rog - I am well aware of what you said. We have no disagreement here. Allen -- I'm sure there's some blockhead who will pay him close to what he's making now. Rog -- I'm not sure of it, but I suspect he'll come within $5 million of it if he signs for one year. Maybe closer or for a longer term. Allen -- What I have said is $6 is all that I would pay him, simply because I know he wouldn't take it and I don't want him. Rog -- You value him at 1/$6, which is an extreme undervaluation. That is my whole point here. We don't really disagree on much else. But your number is so far out of bounds as to make you look foolish. Allen- No. It's so low that it's a cinch he won't take it, meaning he will move on, which is my desired outcome. |
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jun 27, 2013 18:07:38 GMT -5
Allen -- And again, even when Tim pitches well, he still loses, as we saw last night. Had a lead, couldn't hold it. 27-37 since the start of 2011. Rog -- He had a 2.74 ERA in 2011, yet went only 12-13. His run support was just 2.81 runs. Since Tim's own run average was 3.07 runs, 12-13 is at least as well as one would expect. Last season was a disaster, as he ballooned all the way to 5.18 with a run average of 5.34. He received 3.98 runs of support, so his 10-15 record again was at least in line with what one would expect. This year he's only 4-8. His ERA is 4.64 with a run average of 5.21. With run support of 3.83 runs, we might expect a slightly better record, but not by much. In total, his run support over the past three seasons of about 3.50 compared to his run average of around 4.35 makes a 27-37 won-loss record pretty much what would be expected. If we look at 2010, he had a run average of 3.59 and run support of 4.45. His 16-10 record is at least as good as we would expect. Given that Tim went 40-17 prior to 2010, I don't think we can call Tim a pitcher who pitches just well enough to lose. The facts just don't back you up, Allen. Time after time they show your opinion to be questionable at best. Allen- They don't? Tim isn't 27-37 since the start of 2011? I believe that is a fact. He didn't have a lead last night? I believe he did; He didn't lose said lead? Again, I believe he did. I think the facts do back me up. What you present is an excuse. Perhaps Tim is just unlucky. At any rate he is a very talented pitcher who admits he can't stay focused, and doesn't execute the fundamentals that might help him win more often. What he did prior to 2010 is irrelevant. He's not that guy anymore, and he'll never be that guy again. |
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jun 27, 2013 18:09:32 GMT -5
Allen -- Btw, Scott Feldman won again last night, beating Yovanni Gallardo and the Brewers. Rog -- Scott's 7-6 record is a bit below what we would expect from a guy with 4.60 runs of support and a 4.15 run average. Scott has had 3 or fewer runs of support in 6 starts, but four or more in nine. Allen- He pitches for the Cubs. |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 27, 2013 19:03:56 GMT -5
Rog -- And that is where the problem lies IMO. You seem to set a different criterion for Tim. Allen- That's right. And I've given you the reasons. I'll do so yet again. Tim makes alot more money than the others do. So you could exchange Tim for any of the others, and save dollars which you could use to improve your club. Rog -- Allen, that is so obvious I'm surprised you even mention it. What I'm talking about is whether Tim is worth more than 1/$6. That's also so obvious I hate to even mention it. But you don't seem to understand it. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1858&page=1#12064#ixzz2XSrSqljl |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 27, 2013 19:09:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 27, 2013 19:14:04 GMT -5
Rog -- The facts just don't back you up, Allen. Time after time they show your opinion to be questionable at best. Allen- They don't? Tim isn't 27-37 since the start of 2011? I believe that is a fact. He didn't have a lead last night? I believe he did; He didn't lose said lead? Again, I believe he did. I think the facts do back me up. Rog -- Of COURSE what you state here are facts. But they don't support that Tim can't win when he gets run support and pitches well. You said he loses even when he pitches well, and if so, that is usually the result of poor run support. Allen -- What you present is an excuse. Rog -- What I presented were facts and reasonable conclusions. And they refuted your comment. Allen -- Perhaps Tim is just unlucky. Rog -- No. Even Matt Cain in 2007and 2008 wasn't unlucky. He simply didn't receive run support. You could look it up. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1858&page=1#ixzz2XStUudvj |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 27, 2013 19:16:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jun 27, 2013 19:17:24 GMT -5
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Jun 27, 2013 20:33:26 GMT -5
To balance your run support figures, you have to talk park factors.....big difference pitching in Chicago versus SF...
|
|
