|
Goudin
Sept 3, 2013 18:13:47 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Sept 3, 2013 18:13:47 GMT -5
Mark -- I'd like to start 2014 with five solid starters ready to go. Allen- So would every other team. Unfortunately, that's not always possible, as we've found out this season, and last for that matter. I don't think you would call Timmy's 2012 performance solid. Rog -- I would call it slightly below that of an average starter. When one considers the number of innings he has pitched, I might consider it to indeed be average. This is probably surprising to most, but there are 49 pitchers who both have a lower ERA than Tim and have pitched as many innings as he. That's fewer than two starters per team. I'm not trying to say Tim had had even a good season. What I am saying is that there haven't been nearly as many pitchers who have both pitched as well and been as durable as Tim as one would think. It is far from intuitive that a league-average starter has value, but that is clearly the case. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1973&page=4#ixzz2dsDyKrFL
|
|
|
Goudin
Sept 3, 2013 18:18:26 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Sept 3, 2013 18:18:26 GMT -5
Allen- I'm sure you know the minors better than I. Besides Crick, who else is coming up? Rog -- As has been mentioned here before, there are several -- but none began the season above A ball and none is presently above AA. The average arrival time for these guys is probably 2015. The Giants hung on to all of these guys at the deadline. By the way, the Giants were criticized by some for "reaching" for shortstop Christian Arroyo, but he had an excellent season and was voted the MVP of the Rookie League. Their #2 draft choice, a third baseman named Jones IIRC, also had a nice season. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1973&page=4#ixzz2dsHLC4Gv
|
|
|
Goudin
Sept 3, 2013 18:23:10 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Sept 3, 2013 18:23:10 GMT -5
On the negative side of the position prospects, the two top prospects expected at the beginning of the season to be the next top guys to make the majors the soonest instead finished their seasons (assuming they're done) 0 for 10 with four strikeouts (Joe Panik) and 6 for 35 with 11 strikeouts (Gary Brown).
Just about all the Giants' top pitching prospects are likely to be rated higher than those two guys, who at one time were ranked #1 and #2 in the organization IIRC.
|
|
|
Goudin
Sept 3, 2013 18:34:18 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Sept 3, 2013 18:34:18 GMT -5
Mark -- Third up will be Clayton Blackburn, who struck out 138 in 133 innings with an ERA a little higher at 3.65, but he started slowly and his ERA over his last ten starts was 2.40. Rog -- Nice rundown of the Giants' young starters. One other guy who is probably worthy of mention is Martin Agosta, 2.06 with 109 strikeouts in 92 innings at Low A Augusta. Agosta was the Giants' #2 draft pick in 2012 after pitching collegiately at St. Mary's. Agosta did have some arm issues during the season. One added positive about Blackburn is that his 138 strikeouts came with only 35 walks in those 133 innings. Blackburn is more of a finesse pitcher though, and his 12 home runs yielded indicate he may be highly hittable when he misses his spots. His 111 hits against in 133 innings was good though. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1973&page=4#ixzz2dsJuGNXd
|
|
|
Goudin
Sept 3, 2013 18:36:28 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Sept 3, 2013 18:36:28 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
|
Goudin
Sept 3, 2013 20:36:57 GMT -5
Post by sfgdood on Sept 3, 2013 20:36:57 GMT -5
Of course as you have been telling us for months now, Single A stats mean nothing until they are repeated in AA and AAA
Allen- C'mon Randy. Say Crick gets to Fresno, and does poorly. Say he has a losing record and his ERA is in the fives. Do you still promote him to the bigs?
Dood - I didn't get a chance to see Kyle this year so I really couldn't say. It's harder to pinpoint the games for pitchers than for position players and the SJ Giants games I chose this year I unluckily missed Crick's starts. Whether I would still promote him as a September callup in your scenario would depend on many factors, including how he had been pitching more recently leading up to the callups. To me it shouldn't just be about having "earned" it...it's about how much he might help a postseason push or how much you still believe in him. If there's no belief, then you send him home to his couch.
~Dood
|
|
|
Goudin
Sept 3, 2013 22:36:50 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Sept 3, 2013 22:36:50 GMT -5
Agosta at Augusta. Nice.
|
|
|
Goudin
Sept 3, 2013 22:41:19 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Sept 3, 2013 22:41:19 GMT -5
I don't think you would call Timmy's 2012 performance solid.
Rog -- I would call it slightly below that of an average starter. When one considers the number of innings he has pitched, I might consider it to indeed be average.
Allen- Seriously? Man, you do set a low bar. In 2012 Timmy was quite possibly the worst starter in the major leagues.
|
|
|
Goudin
Sept 3, 2013 23:09:25 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Sept 3, 2013 23:09:25 GMT -5
Ler's suppose the Giants play the Dodgers to open the season. If the Giants win the game, they are one game ahead; if they lose it, they are one game behind. If that isn't a two-game swing, I have no clue what is.
The last I looked, 1 - (-1) = 2. You are perhaps referring to the next math?
Allen- Either way, they are one (1) game from their original position. And it isn't exclusive to when they play each other. Say the Giants open against AZ and win. The Dodgers open against the Padres and lose. Same deal. What's wrong with your equation is that since it's the opener, the starting point is 0, not 1. If it's any consolation, I think you were right when you said you had no clue.
|
|
|
Goudin
Sept 4, 2013 0:08:42 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Sept 4, 2013 0:08:42 GMT -5
Randy -- Of course as you have been telling us for months now, Single A stats mean nothing until they are repeated in AA and AAA Allen- C'mon Randy. Say Crick gets to Fresno, and does poorly. Say he has a losing record and his ERA is in the fives. Do you still promote him to the bigs? Dood - I didn't get a chance to see Kyle this year so I really couldn't say. Rog -- I have never seen Kyle pitch, but I can tell you that if he gets to Fresno and has an ERA in the fives (regardless of his won-loss record), he is highly unlikely to be promoted. Who is the last player anyone can remember who was promoted to the majors with a 5.00+ ERA? I'm sure it's happened, but it's rare. I think this is a VERY hard question to answer with absolute certainty, but a simple one to answer based on common sense -- whether someone has seen the player or not. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1973&page=5#14629#ixzz2dthfjN8R
|
|
|
Goudin
Sept 4, 2013 0:17:01 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Sept 4, 2013 0:17:01 GMT -5
Randy -- Whether I would still promote him as a September callup in your scenario would depend on many factors, including how he had been pitching more recently leading up to the callups. Rog -- Very true. But a 5.00+ ERA would make it very unlikely that the player would be worth calling up. Randy -- To me it shouldn't just be about having "earned" it...it's about how much he might help a postseason push or how much you still believe in him. Rog -- I basically agree with you here -- if the playoffs are on the line. If not, I think it would be about the player's having earned the promotion, whether placing him on the 40-man roster would be unnecessary without the callup, and whether one felt the promotion would benefit him or possibly hurt him, although the latter seems unlikely in a non-pressure, likely little-playing scenario. As mentioned before, the salary implications could come into play, as well. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1973&page=5#ixzz2dtikKXfQ
|
|
|
Goudin
Sept 4, 2013 0:18:25 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Sept 4, 2013 0:18:25 GMT -5
Allen -- I don't think you would call Timmy's 2012 performance solid. Rog -- I would call it slightly below that of an average starter. When one considers the number of innings he has pitched, I might consider it to indeed be average. Allen- Seriously? Man, you do set a low bar. In 2012 Timmy was quite possibly the worst starter in the major leagues. Rog -- I'm sorry, Allen. I thought you had said 2013. Regarding 2012, you are absolutely correct. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1973&page=5#ixzz2dtkZTfTx
|
|
|
Goudin
Sept 4, 2013 0:37:25 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Sept 4, 2013 0:37:25 GMT -5
Rog -- Let's suppose the Giants play the Dodgers to open the season. If the Giants win the game, they are one game ahead; if they lose it, they are one game behind. If that isn't a two-game swing, I have no clue what is. The last I looked, 1 - (-1) = 2. You are perhaps referring to the next math? Allen- Either way, they are one (1) game from their original position. Rog -- Absolutely. Allen -- And it isn't exclusive to when they play each other. Say the Giants open against AZ and win. The Dodgers open against the Padres and lose. Same deal. Rog -- Again, absolutely true -- except that the Giants' win over Arizona has no impact on whether the Dodgers win or lose -- so the Giants could wind up EITHER a game ahead or tied. If they beat the Dodgers to open the season, there is no ambiguity. They would be one game UP, as opposed to one game DOWN if they lost the game. That's obviously a two-game swing. Almost anyone knows that. Allen -- What's wrong with your equation is that since it's the opener, the starting point is 0, not 1. Rog -- No one said the starting point was one -- although you seem to insist the ENDING point is one. And indeed it COULD be, just as it could be MINUS one. Allen -- If it's any consolation, I think you were right when you said you had no clue. Rog -- I set you up pretty nicely on that one, didn't I, Allen. I knew you would think I was right when I said I had no clue -- and I wanted you to be right about SOMETHING. Actually, I DID have a clue what you were thinking. It was merely simplistic. It kind of goes like this: If the Giants beat the Dodgers in the opener, they are one game ahead of the Dodgers (simplistic). If the Dodgers beat the Giants in the opener, the Giants TRAIL the Dodgers by one game (simplistic). That means whether the Giants win or lose has a two game swing in the standings (well, not exactly complex). You're right, and I'm right. It simply depends on how one looks at it. What I DO know for sure though is that whether the Giants win the opener with the Dodgers or lose it, makes a difference of TWO games in where the teams wind up in the season. One plus one is still two. If someone wants simply to look at either one, the answer is indeed one. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1973&page=5#ixzz2dtl9Judv
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Sept 4, 2013 7:12:46 GMT -5
We've had this disagreement with Allen for over a decade. I suggest we don't start it again.
|
|
|
Goudin
Sept 4, 2013 10:37:13 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Sept 4, 2013 10:37:13 GMT -5
Mark -- We've had this disagreement with Allen for over a decade. I suggest we don't start it again. Rog -- You're probably right as usual, Mark. Perhaps we should look at it more philosophically. It shows how smart people can disagree. I suppose it's like a cue ball that is half black and half white. If one looks at it directly from the black side, it naturally appears to be black. When he looks at it directly from the white side, it naturally appears to be white. Without meaning to put Allen down on this, this is sort of a situation where he's looking at the white half, while the rest of us are looking from a side angle and are seeing both sides of the ball. From where Allen is, he's absolutely correct. From where the rest of us are, we're also clearly correct. Also without getting political discussions re-started, it appears to me that Don sees one side of the cue ball, while Allen sees the other. I'm not saying either one is right or wrong here -- merely that they're looking at opposite sides of the same ball. It's kind of like the disagreement I've had with Randy on Gary Brown. He looks at all the skills Gary has and how successful he has been with them when Randy himself saw Gary. I look at the various questions about Gary's hitting and how he hasn't progressed the past two seasons. I'm really hoping Randy is right on this one. It is going to cost the Giants a lot of money to re-sign Hunter Pence, and they already have a fair amount invested in Angel Pagan. It appears the Giants will sign a third outfielder, likely at significant cost. If Gary can break through, the Giants could trade off one of their outfielders and save significant money that could be used to shore up another area/areas which might show up at next year's trade deadline. At least that's how I'm looking at this particular cue ball. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1973&page=5#14642#ixzz2dwDFIISV
|
|
|
Goudin
Sept 4, 2013 10:45:26 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Sept 4, 2013 10:45:26 GMT -5
The last I looked, 1 - (-1) = 2. You are perhaps referring to the next math?
Allen -- What's wrong with your equation is that since it's the opener, the starting point is 0, not 1.
Rog -- No one said the starting point was one
Allen- Uh, Rog, the first number in your equation is ...? You sound like Obama saying he didn't set a red line, when he's on video as saying exactly that.
]
|
|
|
Goudin
Sept 4, 2013 11:12:46 GMT -5
Post by Islandboagie on Sept 4, 2013 11:12:46 GMT -5
C'mon Allen, you know better than this. Obama was merely suggesting that we were going to take a strong position on Syria.
|
|
|
Goudin
Sept 4, 2013 12:46:18 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Sept 4, 2013 12:46:18 GMT -5
The last I looked, 1 - (-1) = 2. You are perhaps referring to the next math? Allen -- What's wrong with your equation is that since it's the opener, the starting point is 0, not 1. Rog -- No one said the starting point was one Allen- Uh, Rog, the first number in your equation is ...? Rog -- Zero. The teams obviously start at zero, and then wind up at either +1 or -1. You're seeing only the black (or white) side of the cue ball, Allen. The rest of us are seeing both sides. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1973&page=5#14649#ixzz2dwmNXz2S
|
|
|
Goudin
Sept 4, 2013 12:57:18 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Sept 4, 2013 12:57:18 GMT -5
The number looks like a one to me, Rog. But then I didn't go to some fancy colleg like y'al did. You're obvioyusly only seeing the wrong side Rog, or maybe you're just on that side when it's night, and therefore not seeing as well as you could. The difference between zero and one is still one.
|
|
|
Goudin
Sept 4, 2013 13:03:03 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Sept 4, 2013 13:03:03 GMT -5
C'mon Allen, you know better than this. Obama was merely suggesting that we were going to take a strong position on Syria. Allen- Uh, no. He said chemical weapons we the red line. Aug 21st wasn'tt he first time Asaad had used them either. This time was just better publiciazed so Barack was forced to address it. It isn't like Obama is the first President to ignore the use of chamical weapons. Saddam used them, and we didn't punish him either, because we were backing Iraq at the time (vs, Iran). As for Obama suggesting we were going take a strong position on Syria, that hasn't quite turned out to be the case either, has it?
|
|
|
Goudin
Sept 4, 2013 14:45:03 GMT -5
Post by sharksrog on Sept 4, 2013 14:45:03 GMT -5
Allen -- The difference between zero and one is still one. Rog -- Can't disagree with that. Can't disagree that Barry Zito was 15-8 last season, either. Or that Jonathan Sanchez was 8-12 in 2009. Coincidentally, two pitchers I used in one of my run support example, Tim Lincecum and Eric Stults, square off tonight. My prediction is that the one who receives the more run support will win. Of course, no-decisions could enter into the equation, as well. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1973&page=5#14654#ixzz2dx7NrIES
|
|
|
Goudin
Sept 4, 2013 23:08:31 GMT -5
Post by Islandboagie on Sept 4, 2013 23:08:31 GMT -5
C'mon Allen, you know better than this. Obama was merely suggesting that we were going to take a strong position on Syria.
Allen- Uh, no. He said chemical weapons we the red line. Aug 21st wasn'tt he first time Asaad had used them either. This time was just better publiciazed so Barack was forced to address it. It isn't like Obama is the first President to ignore the use of chamical weapons. Saddam used them, and we didn't punish him either, because we were backing Iraq at the time (vs, Iran). As for Obama suggesting we were going take a strong position on Syria, that hasn't quite turned out to be the case either, has it?
Boagie- I was trying to make a subtle joke about Obama "suggesting" there needs to be a red line. I thought it was clever, but maybe it was too subtle, much like the so-called red line.
|
|
|
Goudin
Sept 5, 2013 0:28:35 GMT -5
Post by allenreed on Sept 5, 2013 0:28:35 GMT -5
Too subtle for me, apparently.
|
|