|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 11, 2013 19:08:21 GMT -5
You say Tim Lincecum suddenly lost the ability to win in 2011. You point to his 27-38 record over that period. The run differential formula says he won just about as many as he should have. It predicted 26 wins compared to his actual 27. Allen- I don't think I used the word "suddenly". Rog -- You're right. I was the one who used it. Tim "suddenly" dropped from 16-10 with a 3.43 ERA in 2010 to just 14-13 in 2011. The reason? In 2011, Tim yielded 74 runs compared to 84 in 2010, but he received only 71 runs of support compared to 115 in 2010. In other words, Tim didn't suddenly lose the ability to win; he lost his run support. By the way, back when he was winning the Cy Youngs, I mentioned that he wouldn't have won as many games as he had without the run support. Of course, even then I was his protector.  Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1885&page=1#ixzz2YmflCxny |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 11, 2013 19:15:30 GMT -5
Allen- I think you're getting bogged down in the reason and therefore overthinking it a bit. For whatever reason, Tim doesn't win. Rog -- The reason is critical. If Tim were somehow not winning because he's lost the ability to win, that would be a concern going forward. If he has lost the "ability" to win, that would concerning, since it would imply that he wouldn't win even if he ERA bounced back. He would be the 14-13 guy of 2011 instead of the 16-10 guy in 2010. If Tim pitches well and gets good run support, he'll win again. If he pitches poorly OR doesn't get good run support, he likely won't. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1885&page=1#ixzz2YmkjGfOy |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 11, 2013 19:22:20 GMT -5
Allen- Nope. I'm saying that if you're going to spend that kind of money, get a guy in here who can win some games. Evidently the other pitchers haven't fallen victim to the poor run support Tim has. (at least prior to this year) Or maybe they're just pitching better. Rog -- The past 2 1/2 seasons, Tim has a run differential of minus 69 runs. You show me a pitcher with a similar run differential, and I'll almost surely show you a pitcher with a similar record. You could look it up. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1885&page=1#ixzz2YmmcOCdg |
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jul 11, 2013 19:41:22 GMT -5
Rog -- It would be kind of like measuring your performance at work by how much money your company makes or its efficiency record. Of course your performance makes a difference, but you could be doing a marvelous job and yet the company could lose money if your "teammates" aren't performing well. Measuring a pitcher by his won-loss record is actually counter-team, since it transfers part of a team record to an individual. Allen- Wouldn't you agree that all the players working together combine to constitute team performance? What is Tim's job? To win games. Rog -- Tim's job ISN'T to win games. Tim's job is to pitch well, which does give his team a better chance to win games. Allen- A pitcher has a unique position in baseball because if he meets the requirements (innings pitched, in the game when his team takes the lead) and his team wins, he is credited with a "win". Obviously Tim (nor any player) can win a game by himself. So in a way it's semantics, but a pitcher's job is to pitch well enough to accrue wins. Are you going to tell me Ernie Banks didn't do his job? If so, what is he doing in the Hall of Fame? Allen- As far as I know, Ernie didn't pitch. Are you going to tell me that in 2007 and 2008 when he was a combined 15-30, Matt Cain wasn't doing his job? Allen- Yes. Are you going to tell me that Aaron Rowand and Miguel Cabrera did their jobs better in 2010 than Cain did in 2007 and 2008, since Rowand and Cabrera earned rings, while Matt didn't even come close to making the playoffs? Allen- Again, not pitchers. |
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jul 11, 2013 19:50:53 GMT -5
Allen- I think you're getting bogged down in the reason and therefore overthinking it a bit. For whatever reason, Tim doesn't win. Rog -- The reason is critical. If Tim were somehow not winning because he's lost the ability to win, that would be a concern going forward. If he has lost the "ability" to win, that would concerning, since it would imply that he wouldn't win even if he ERA bounced back. He would be the 14-13 guy of 2011 instead of the 16-10 guy in 2010. If Tim pitches well and gets good run support, he'll win again. If he pitches poorly OR doesn't get good run support, he likely won't. Allen- I think over a shorter span, the reason might be critical. But we're talking 2 1/2 seasons now. It's hard to think of this as a temporary condition anymore. Are you going to tell me Tim has merely been unlucky for 2 1/2 seasons? Or is the present condition the normal condition. With $20+ million likely at stake, which way would you go? The results are the results. It's like someone getting killed in a car wreck. No matter the cause, they're still dead. |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 11, 2013 20:33:58 GMT -5
Rog -- If Tim pitches well and gets good run support, he'll win again. If he pitches poorly OR doesn't get good run support, he likely won't. Allen- I think over a shorter span, the reason might be critical. But we're talking 2 1/2 seasons now. Rog -- And it has been demonstrated that Tim's record -- from his 14-13 in 2011 when he pitched well to the past two seasons when he hasn't -- is in accordance with his run support. In order to win more often, Tium needs a better run differential -- which can come from better pitching and/or better run support. Right now Tim is pitching poorly (on the season) and has subpar run support. Not surprisingly the result of that combination is almost always a bad record. Allen -- It's hard to think of this as a temporary condition anymore. Are you going to tell me Tim has merely been unlucky for 2 1/2 seasons? Rog -- No. He hasn't pitched particularly well (ERA around 4.0), and his run support (about 3.4) has been lousy. That tends to lead to a poor record. Yovanni Gallardo has a similar ERA over that time (about 3.9) His record is 40-27. (Wow!) How can that be unless Tim isn't a winner (as you state he isn't)? Well, Yovanni's run support has been about 5.6 runs per nine -- or more than two runs higher than Tim. Believe it or not, Yovanni has received 124 more runs of support than Tim has. Allen -- ( Or is the present condition the normal condition. Rog -- If we think Tim's 4.0 ERA over the period is normal for his pitching now. the 3.4 run support is well below normal. Look at the Giants' record this season back when they were scoring runs. Look at how poor it has been since. They scored 243 runs in April and May combined, while posting a combined 29-26 record. In June those runs dropped to 90, and they went 10-17. Get the picture? Allen -- With $20+ million likely at stake, which way would you go? Rog -- I have been stating for a year or so now that the Giants were unlikely to re-sign Tim. That was in part because I was unlikely to want to do so. Allen -- The results are the results. It's like someone getting killed in a car wreck. No matter the cause, they're still dead. lRog -- Very true. And given that possibility, would you prefer to drive in good situations or bad ones? Pitch with good run support or bad support? You would be dead either way, but your chances of "winning" are clearly greater in the good situations. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1885&page=2#12539#ixzz2YmvpyQbO |
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Jul 12, 2013 9:59:05 GMT -5
Boly -- And if we're out of things by trade deadline, Timmy could bring in some top young kids, even though he'd be a one year rental.
Rog -- I agree with you that Tim could bring some value in return. But I doubt it will be anything compared to what Carlos Beltran brought.
---boly says---
I agree. But please, remember what I've been saying: I'm NOT looking for a bonifide star in return. I've always, always, always said, get some kids on the cusp of being ready; kids who have a real, REAL shot at making an impact next year, and the years that follow.
Again, we need to re tool, not bring in old guys for a rental, or a quick fix.
We need to re tool the rotation
As you point out, and as I pointed out when the season began, we need a LF. Although I'll admit, I have been more than a little surprised at how well Blanco has done this year.
I thought him a .250 hitter at best, and so far... SO FAR... it appears I was wrong.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 12, 2013 11:42:20 GMT -5
Boly -- I'm NOT looking for a bonifide star in return. I've always, always, always said, get some kids on the cusp of being ready; kids who have a real, REAL shot at making an impact next year, and the years that follow. Rog -- If a team looks at Tim based on what he once was and feels it can re-sign him, they might give up something. I think part of the reason the Giants were willing to trade Zack Wheeler for Carlos Beltran is that they thought they would re-sign Carlos. I don't think any team should count on re-signing Tim. If he were going to give any team a hometown discount, I think it would be the Giants -- and if they trade him, that isn't likely to happen. So what do you give up for two months of a pitcher who might perform as a #2 starter -- but might not be better than a #5? I wouldn't think it would be more than the Giants gave up for Hunter Pence last summer -- and probably less. The Giants got a year and a third of Hunter, with the possibility of building a relationship that could last several years longer. The Phillies essentially got Tommy John, a young catching prospect who was at least two years away and who probably has the ceiling of a second division starting catcher. I saw him as a B- catcher, although some may have seen him as high as a B+. (An A prospect has superstar potential, while a C prospect has less than a 50/50 chance of ever making the majors.) So what would a team give up for a third of a season of Tim? They would need to give up more than the Giants think a 2014 draft choice is worth, since that is what the Giants will receive if they make Tim a qualifying offer and he signs elsewhere. But I doubt the Giants could expect much more than a class A B- prospect, conceivably a B prospect or a lower prospect closer to the majors. Perhaps if they could get a potential replacement for Pablo Sandoval down the road they might have interest. And since Tim will likely bring more on the free agent market than he likely is worth, the Giants might be able to get more of a prospect than Tim is worth. Boly -- Again, we need to re tool, not bring in old guys for a rental, or a quick fix. Rog -- That will depend in part on where the Giants are at the trade deadline. If they've made significant progress toward .500, they might be willing to take a low-priced chance on a rental player, as they did with Marco Scutaro. Speaking of which, the Wheeler/Beltran trade was a disaster. But it one combines it with the Culberson/Scutaro trade and the Giants had re-signed Beltran, on average the two trades wouldn't have been bad. Think of the Giants right now with Scutaro at second base and Beltran in the outfield. I would still rather have Wheeler and the forgettable Culberson, but at least the combination of the trades would be in the range of reasonableness. Boly -- We need to re tool the rotation Rog -- Let's assume that Cain isn't this year's Lincecum and that he will bounce back to the level of a #1 starter. Cain and Bumgarner make a heck of a start to a rotation. Let's assume Vogelsong will again become a sub-4.00 ERA starter. Let's suppose Gaudin can be that same type of pitcher. Now the Giants of 2014 are a decent #5 starter away from a good to very good rotation. They have a net $11 million option on Zito, who could get them through 2014 and on to one or more of the Class A pitchers. I agree with you that the Giants could use one or two more starters going into 2014. That would provide a replacement for Lincecum and possibly a second replacement for Zito. But here is the problem: If the Giants are to pick up a decent starter or two, they will almost certainly have to make a big commitment in both money and time. The Class A pitchers might become blocked. Still, better to have too much pitching than not enough. Maybe Gaudin will best serve the team from the bullpen. Maybe Vogelsong is nearing the end of his effectiveness. The might be able to pick up an older pitcher such as the pitcher they faced last night, Jason Marquis. Allen has been hyping him, and he certainly is an option. I thought Marquis pitched very well last night (although the way the Giants have been hitting, that wasn't unexpected). I have felt Marquis has had the luck of the Irish this season. Last night he had both good and bad luck. The bad luck he had was that the Giants were able to bunch their base runners as opposed to having them more spread out. The good luck came in two pieces. First, Buster Posey was robbed of what might have been a two-run double. Then in Marquis' last inning, he left the bases loaded with one out. He could have expected one of those runs to score, and it could have been more. Marquis wound up allowing just two runs in 5.1 innings, making for a nice outing. But without the help of his third baseman and bullpen, he could have allowed five or six runs in that time. All in all though, I thought he looked pretty good last night. Only two walks. A play was made by Quintanilla that I thought might have indicated why as good as he is, there may be other defensive shortstops who are at least close to his equal. Quintanilla's play up the middle had all the grace of Crawford's best plays -- on a ball Crawford might not have gotten to. Crawford would seem to have the better arm, and I'm not sure how steady Quintanilla is. Speaking of Crawford, he hasn't seemed quite as steady defensively of late, although that may be due to bad hops. Boly -- As you point out, and as I pointed out when the season began, we need a LF. Although I'll admit, I have been more than a little surprised at how well Blanco has done this year. I thought him a .250 hitter at best, and so far... SO FAR... it appears I was wrong. Rog -- I was more optimistic than you regarding left field -- although I still thought it to be the most likely area to be shored up at the trade deadline. I felt a platoon of Blanco and Torres could be effective, since Blanco hits righties well and Torres had a fine 2012 season against southpaws. The problem has been that with the loss of Pagan, the fairly effective platoon has become two everyday players. Particularly in Torres' case, that has allowed his platoon splits to become exposed. In addition, where did the defensive Andres Torres go, and who is that imposter out there in left field? The Giants need at least a left-handed hitting outfielder for more platooning. Maybe Kinsuke Tanaka can be that guy, but his bat is really soft for a corner outfielder. Tanaka and Joaquin Arias might form a decent keystone platoon though if Marco Scutaro were to go down. And the Giants also have Tony Abreu, so their middle infield depth seems fine. They still need one or two outfielders of at least platoon capability. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1885&page=2#12547#ixzz2YqVgcZPK |
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jul 12, 2013 12:29:44 GMT -5
I think you stated before that Jason's luck would run out. To me, that would infer that he would go back to being neutral, luckwise. His last three starts, Jason has been the victim of bad luck. In the first, his second baseman kicked a ball to start off an inning, and then his catcher misplayed a fairly easy foul pop to cost him as well. The next start the Pads were shut out. Last night Pablo hit a pitch that was six inches off the ground and on the outside corner for a home run. So I guess Jason's luck hasn't run out, it's just gone from good to bad.
Did Quintanilla get traded from the Mets, or were you speaking of a game in the Mets series?
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 12, 2013 13:18:51 GMT -5
Allen -- I think you stated before that Jason's luck would run out. To me, that would infer that he would go back to being neutral, luckwise. Rog -- Or that it would even become negative luck, which is a possibility in the short run and becomes less likely as the sample gets bigger. Allen -- His last three starts, Jason has been the victim of bad luck. In the first, his second baseman kicked a ball to start off an inning, and then his catcher misplayed a fairly easy foul pop to cost him as well. Rog -- None of the runs in that game were earned, so whatever the bad luck, it didn't hurt his ERA. Allen -- The next start the Pads were shut out. Rog -- What does that have to do with Jason's performance? Allen -- Last night Pablo hit a pitch that was six inches off the ground and on the outside corner for a home run. Rog -- I agree with you that was bad luck. Jason could throw that same pitch a lot more times in the same location and have a far better result. Then again, the Giants probably missed a few of his mistake pitcher as well. Allen -- So I guess Jason's luck hasn't run out, it's just gone from good to bad. Rog -- Let's say that Jason had bad luck on Pablo's homer and take it away. Let's say he had good luck on Buster's ball down the third base line and give the Giants two more runs. Let's say he had good luck when his reliever didn't give up even a single run in an inherited bases loaded, one out situation. Take away one, and add three. Jason would have yielded four earned runs in 5.1 innings, which wouldn't have been a very good outing. Jason's WHIP in the game was 1.7, and he yielded 14 total bases. That's not an outing that would suggest giving up just two runs. One might even say he was lucky not to yield more tallies. Allen -- Did Quintanilla get traded from the Mets, or were you speaking of a game in the Mets series? Rog -- The latter. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1885&page=2#12557#ixzz2Yr7HPhNx |
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jul 12, 2013 17:11:44 GMT -5
Rog -- None of the runs in that game were earned, so whatever the bad luck, it didn't hurt his ERA.
Allen -- The next start the Pads were shut out.
Rog -- What does that have to do with Jason's performance?
Allen-You'll have to forgive me, Rog. I keep forgetting that in your mind the object of the game is to compile stats. I keep thinking it's to win games.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Jul 12, 2013 17:59:22 GMT -5
So what do you give up for two months of a pitcher who might perform as a #2 starter -- but might not be better than a #5?
---boly says---
Rog, you're talking vet here, again. I'm not.
I like that kid Norris(?) in Houston. I see a lot of upside.
I'm not looking for a guy who's been proven to be... whatever. I want a kid on the cusp, be it with or without big league time.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Jul 12, 2013 18:02:20 GMT -5
Rog -- Let's assume that Cain isn't this year's Lincecum and that he will bounce back to the level of a #1 starter. Cain and Bumgarner make a heck of a start to a rotation.
Let's assume Vogelsong will again become a sub-4.00 ERA starter. Let's suppose Gaudin can be that same type of pitcher.
---boly says--
Rog, no way I make those assumptions other than cain.
I LOVE Vogey... but he's 35. Why he got lit up, all of a sudden this year, is still a mystery, but I'm not betting the house on him returning to what he was.
IF we get a mid 3's ERA, I'd be happy.
But Gaudin?
No thanks.
Yes, he's done well for us. But look at his history as a starter. Not good.
He's been much more effective in relief, where I think he should be.
So, back to square 1.
We need to re tool.
We DON'T need a 1 or a 2 guy, but a guy with 3 potential would be what I'm shooting for.
Heck, most teams simply do NOT have a 1 and 2 with the quality of Madison and Matty.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jul 13, 2013 11:58:23 GMT -5
I'll disagree on Chad. Th guy has earned his chance.
|
|
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 Jul 13, 2013 13:32:29 GMT -5
I'd keep Gaudin as a reliever but not a starter. I wouldn't put too much trust in a man who would grope women in an emergency room and who begs onto the DL for a little boo boo
~Dood
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jul 13, 2013 14:50:33 GMT -5
Is Pablo any different because he did his groping in a bar? I'd like to know more about the incident with Gaudin. Something about it just doesn't sound right. As for him "begging onto the DL", I'm not sure I would call taking a line drive off your pitching elbow a "little boo boo".
Gaudin has really only had one bad start out of six, is only 30, knows how to pitch and doesn't make squat. His ERA is 2.39. Now I don't expect him to continue at that pace, but until I see something better that's readily available, I'd keep running him out there. What's he done to show he doesn't deserve a shot?
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Jul 13, 2013 15:43:55 GMT -5
I'll disagree on Chad. Th guy has earned his chance.
--boly says---
Yeah, I man have to re evaluate my stand on him, Allen.
Last night was his 5th very good outting in 6 starts.
And to me, it was clear he didn't have his great command, or best stuff.
He gutted it out nicely.
Maybe he just figured it out late.
Or as that news guy suggested, he's on steriods like Cain, Lincecum, Garza and Evereth.
I'm just being sarcastic, not serious.
boly
|
|
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 Jul 13, 2013 18:11:22 GMT -5
Is Pablo any different because he did his groping in a bar? I'd like to know more about the incident with Gaudin. Something about it just doesn't sound right.
Dood - You know as much as about that incident as you do the Sandoval incident and yet you are willing to condemn him any chance you get. What we do know about the two incidents is Gaudin has been charged with a crime, and Sandoval never was and never will. Not saying I like Sandoval being stupid enough to be involved in that situation but the Gaudin incident, if true, is much more troublesome IMO.
As for him "begging onto the DL", I'm not sure I would call taking a line drive off your pitching elbow a "little boo boo".
Dood - No structural damage. Basically he got a little bruise. If you can't pitch with that after 4 days off, then you are a wussy (pronounced with a "p"). I pitched with worse than that in Pony League and threw a shutout.
Gaudin has really only had one bad start out of six, is only 30, knows how to pitch and doesn't make squat. His ERA is 2.39. Now I don't expect him to continue at that pace, but until I see something better that's readily available, I'd keep running him out there. What's he done to show he doesn't deserve a shot?
Dood - As I said...I would sign him and keep him in the bullpen. I just dont want a mental wussy who cant keep his genitals in check in a sterile environment like an Emergency Room being someone I need to rely on for 6 innings+ every 5th day. Plus, he's never been a starter before. Sooner or later the league will catch up to him and then what will happen? I don't want to find out the hard way. And he can't hit, or even bunt, to save his life.
~Dood
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Jul 13, 2013 18:22:41 GMT -5
Is Pablo any different because he did his groping in a bar? I'd like to know more about the incident with Gaudin. Something about it just doesn't sound right. Dood - You know as much as about that incident as you do the Sandoval incident and yet you are willing to condemn him any chance you get. What we do know about the two incidents is Gaudin has been charged with a crime, and Sandoval never was and never will. Not saying I like Sandoval being stupid enough to be involved in that situation but the Gaudin incident, if true, is much more troublesome IMO. As for him "begging onto the DL", I'm not sure I would call taking a line drive off your pitching elbow a "little boo boo". Dood - No structural damage. Basically he got a little bruise. If you can't pitch with that after 4 days off, then you are a wussy (pronounced with a "p"). I pitched with worse than that in Pony League and threw a shutout. Gaudin has really only had one bad start out of six, is only 30, knows how to pitch and doesn't make squat. His ERA is 2.39. Now I don't expect him to continue at that pace, but until I see something better that's readily available, I'd keep running him out there. What's he done to show he doesn't deserve a shot? Dood - As I said...I would sign him and keep him in the bullpen. I just dont want a mental wussy who cant keep his genitals in check in a sterile environment like an Emergency Room being someone I need to rely on for 6 innings+ every 5th day. Plus, he's never been a starter before. Sooner or later the league will catch up to him and then what will happen? I don't want to find out the hard way. And he can't hit, or even bunt, to save his life. dk..please get your facts straight before spreading them on the internet...Gaudin was said to be drunk and fondled a woman...nothing to do with his tools....and the guy has something like 86 starts in his major league career...34 in one year for the A's... ~Dood |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 14, 2013 2:03:23 GMT -5
Boly -- Rog, no way I make those assumptions other than cain. I LOVE Vogey... but he's 35. Why he got lit up, all of a sudden this year, is still a mystery, but I'm not betting the house on him returning to what he was. IF we get a mid 3's ERA, I'd be happy. But Gaudin? No thanks. Yes, he's done well for us. But look at his history as a starter. Not good. He's been much more effective in relief, where I think he should be. So, back to square 1. We need to re tool. We DON'T need a 1 or a 2 guy, but a guy with 3 potential would be what I'm shooting for. Rog -- I don't know what assumptions to make about these guys either, Boly. But I don't see any reason why Ryan Vogelsong should be done. And while the sample is very small with Chad Gaudin, I like what I've seen thus far. I have been thinking how lucky and/or good the Giants have been with finding that duo in first 2011 and then this season. Just uncanny. I see no reason Matt Cain't come back. As you know, Zito I don't like, but tonight Tim showed why we have been saying here that he has been pitching very well lately despite not completing his results. Tonight's game probably makes it a little more likely that Tim will be back with the Giants -- and I don't know yet if that's a good thing or not. But he's a big fan favorite who seems also to be popular with the players. I still think it will boil down to a hometown discount, but who really knows for sure? Number three starters don't grow on trees, and they tend to get paid very well in free agency. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1885&page=2#12580#ixzz2Z03DF3Bi |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 14, 2013 2:05:54 GMT -5
Allen -- The results are the results. It's like someone getting killed in a car wreck. No matter the cause, they're still dead. lRog -- Very true. And given that possibility, would you prefer to drive in good situations or bad ones? Pitch with good run support or bad support? You would be dead either way, but your chances of "winning" are clearly greater in the good situations. Rog -- Are you finally beginning to understand why "the results are the results" aren't quite looking at the entire picture, Allen? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1885&page=2#ixzz2Z08CSIjy |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 14, 2013 2:07:41 GMT -5
Rog -- None of the runs in that game were earned, so whatever the bad luck, it didn't hurt his ERA. Allen -- The next start the Pads were shut out. Rog -- What does that have to do with Jason's performance? Allen-You'll have to forgive me, Rog. I keep forgetting that in your mind the object of the game is to compile stats. I keep thinking it's to win games. Rog -- It's really pretty easy, Allen. Team -- wins. Players -- good performance, which increases the chances of team wins. You seem to be totally lost on this one, Allen. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1885&page=2#ixzz2Z08iVf7P |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 14, 2013 2:09:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 14, 2013 2:16:13 GMT -5
Rog -- So what do you give up for two months of a pitcher who might perform as a #2 starter -- but might not be better than a #5? ---boly says--- Rog, you're talking vet here, again. I'm not. I like that kid Norris(?) in Houston. I see a lot of upside. I'm not looking for a guy who's been proven to be... whatever. I want a kid on the cusp, be it with or without big league time. Rog -- Tim's trade value certainly didn't get hurt tonight. Nor did the chances the Giants still will be buyers at the deadline. I like the idea of getting Bud Norris, since he won't be eligible for free agency until after the 2015 season, and he would LOVE to be a Giant. That said, he's no longer a prospect but rather an established NL starter. As such, the Giants couldn't get him for Tim -- especially since Houston itself wants starters. Perhaps the Giants could get involved in a three-way deal, but those are rare, and they still couldn't get Norris for Tim. After tonight's game, I don't think Tim is going anywhere this season -- even if he were before tonight. Starting pitching is tough to come by, and it's expensive when available. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1885&page=2#ixzz2Z09bvilu |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 14, 2013 2:18:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 14, 2013 2:24:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Jul 14, 2013 12:20:44 GMT -5
.
I see no reason Matt Cain't come back. As you know, Zito I don't like, but tonight Tim showed why we have been saying here that he has been pitching very well lately despite not completing his results.
Tonight's game probably makes it a little more likely that Tim will be back with the Giants -- and I don't know yet if that's a good thing or not. But he's a big fan favorite who seems also to be popular with the players.
I still think it will boil down to a hometown discount, but who really knows for sure?
Allen- Before we jump off the deep end here, let's remember that this was Tim's first win since June 4th, and his first road win since April 3rd. Also the first Timmy start the Giants have won since June 4th. Let's also remember that it's the Padregs, who have won just one game in July and are averaging 2.3 runs per game for the month. Let's put away the checkbook for now.
That being said, Tim was just great. Really had the secondary pitches working, and actually reached the plate with a good portion of his pitches.
|
|
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 Jul 14, 2013 12:31:14 GMT -5
Allen- Before we jump off the deep end here, let's remember that this was Tim's first win since June 4th, and his first road win since April 3rd. Also the first Timmy start the Giants have won since June 4th.
Dood - in Tim's last 10 starts before last night, the Giants had scored a grand total of 12 runs...pretty tough for the team and for Tim to get a win with that kind of futility at the plate.
Let's also remember that it's the Padregs, who have won just one game in July and are averaging 2.3 runs per game for the month.
Dood - the Giants weren't doing much better in either category.
~Dood
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 15, 2013 0:19:45 GMT -5
Allen -- That being said, Tim was just great. Really had the secondary pitches working, and actually reached the plate with a good portion of his pitches.
Rog -- I have mentioned for quite a while that I wish Tim would use his curve ball more. And noted of late that he has done so. For a couple of years he used it almost exclusively as a get-it-in first pitch -- and even then not very much.
Now he is using the curve as a weapon. With four pitches, he's tough to predict. He's not using his fastball as much, and he's throwing a four-seamer or even a cutter now as well as the two-seamer.
He can vary his looks quite a bit and is doing so more and more.
As Allen mentioned, we can't consider Tim to be well yet. He started out against the Padres after last year's All-Star game and also threw a wonderful game. In fact, he pitched very well from July 14th through September 18th.
Over that two-month period, his ERA was 3.06. So much for those who have said they didn't see any signs that Tim would improve.
Again, I certainly wouldn't consider Tim cured of his ails yet, but for the first five innings of his last five starts, he has been ther Cy Young Tim again.
It probably wasn't coincidence that I began this "Five signs Tim Lincecum is headed back" thread three days before his masterpiece. It probably wasn't coincidence either that I e-mailed his dad just before his Tim's outing started last night -- the first time I have done so this season.
There were clear signs that Tim was improving, even as some said he wasn't.
By the way, for those of you who have said all I see is the stats, were you predicting a "breakout game" from Tim last night? Do you see now why I get upset with those who say I can't see beyond the stats?
And I DO know Tim Lincecum's pitching about as well as any layman.
If I truly can't see beyond the stats, the view is apparently rather clear without having to do so. Do you know anyone else who was predicting a breakout game from Tim last night?
Hey, I make plenty of mistakes too. But apparently the recent insight that scouting coupled with analytics are better than either separately has some true meaning.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Jul 15, 2013 0:26:48 GMT -5
Dood - in Tim's last 10 starts before last night, the Giants had scored a grand total of 12 runs...pretty tough for the team and for Tim to get a win with that kind of futility at the plate. Randy -- That's a darn good stat you came up with, Randy. I just don't understand why Allen and Tim don't understand the importance of run support. I have said here that I can strongly back up my statement that pitchers whose ERA's are out of whack with their won-loss record can usually be explained by run support. I have asked for demonstrations of the "pitches just well enough to win (or lose)" point of view. Neither Allen nor Don has been able to do so. Wouldn't you think they would put up or shut up? It's kind of like with Carlos Beltran. I have come up with example after example of how Carlos isn't the "bum they wouldn't want on their team." The primary reason on the other side seems to be "he's a bum because I say he is." It's really tough to compete with logic like that. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1885&page=2#ixzz2Z5YfZpQk |
|
