|
Post by sharksrog on Aug 27, 2013 13:34:52 GMT -5
Allen -- Can you explain what happened to that guy? Why at the still young age of 29, he's become a less than mediocre pitcher? Rog -- I certainly can't. I don't think anyone can. I respect Boly's and Don's theory that it is Tim's mechanics that did him in. They predicted a significant decline, and it occurred. But even if they are right on, I don't think that explains all of the decline. Did Tim suddenly go from mechanics good enough in 2011 to post a 2.74 ERA to mechanics so bad that his ERA jumped almost four runs to 6.42 in last season's first half? I think there must be multiple reasons, which is why even Tim is having a hard time figuring it all out. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1978&page=1#ixzz2dC6eyqsB
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Aug 27, 2013 15:29:11 GMT -5
Dood- You can't have 8 Jacoby Ellsburys and expect to win.
Boagie- I'd take my chances with a lineup that hits .290+ with an obp of .350+. I'd trade our lineup for that in a heartbeat. I might agree with you if Ellsbury was just a singles hitter but he hits a fair number of doubles and triples too.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Aug 28, 2013 12:57:45 GMT -5
Dood- You can't have 8 Jacoby Ellsburys and expect to win. Boagie- I'd take my chances with a lineup that hits .290+ with an obp of .350+. I'd trade our lineup for that in a heartbeat. I might agree with you if Ellsbury was just a singles hitter but he hits a fair number of doubles and triples too. Rog -- I am shocked that Randy doesn't think a team could win with 8 Jacoby Ellsbury's, but I'm sure he's not alone. Here are the reasons I think Gary and others are wrong. . Gary is considered to be a good fielder, so eight of him would add value there. . He is rated this season at 6.1 Runs Created per nine innings. That is a mathematical measurement based on having nine of him in the lineup. With the pitcher hitting in the National League, let's reduce that by 10% and say the 8 Jacob's plus a pitcher would score 5.5 per game. With the average number of runs scored per game in the NL being 4.1, that would win a lot of games. . Gary is rated at 4.8 Wins Above Replacement. That pro-rates to 6.0 WAR per season. For the entire 8 Jacoby Ellisbury's, that would be 48 wins above replacement. That's a lot of wins. . My own back-of-the envelope formula has Jacoby and his "team" OPS scoring 4.9 runs per game. That would also provide a lot of wins. I understand where Randy and others are coming from. They have pre-conceived ideas of what each spot in the order should provide. But if a team has guys throughout the lineup creating bases and not making a lot of comparative outs, it will score a lot of runs. With an average pitching staff plus Jacoby's good defense, the 8 Ellsbury's would win a lot of games. Perhaps Randy and any others here who don't think the hypothetical team would win a lot of games can provide us evidence as to why they wouldn't. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1978&page=2#14393#ixzz2dHlboutj
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Aug 28, 2013 13:09:21 GMT -5
a) Who's Gary?
b) Ellsbury throws lefty, which would be problematic at catcher, 2b,ss, and 3b.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Aug 28, 2013 14:19:33 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 Aug 28, 2013 16:21:32 GMT -5
to be perfectly clear...I didnt mean "win" to be that the fighting Jacoby's couldn't have a winning record. I specifically spelled out that I meant winning penants and titles. In a postseason series, any team with no diversity of hitting styles (power, high average, contact, high OBP) can be handled by a playoff caliber pitching staff. A division title is possible, although even there I have my doubts. In tight situations, you always want at least the threat of the longball somewhere in the lineup. A lineup made up solely of warning track power guys wouldn't cut it, IMO. Just like a lineup with ONLY power hitting, low average and OBP guys can be neutralized by a good staff too.
~Dood
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Aug 28, 2013 17:28:44 GMT -5
Randy -- to be perfectly clear...I didnt mean "win" to be that the fighting Jacoby's couldn't have a winning record. I specifically spelled out that I meant winning penants and titles. In a postseason series, any team with no diversity of hitting styles (power, high average, contact, high OBP) can be handled by a playoff caliber pitching staff. A division title is possible, although even there I have my doubts. In tight situations, you always want at least the threat of the longball somewhere in the lineup. A lineup made up solely of warning track power guys wouldn't cut it, IMO. Just like a lineup with ONLY power hitting, low average and OBP guys can be neutralized by a good staff too. Rog -- Perhaps you can show us why and how these things would happen. I'm going to look at a few Cardinals teams, since I think they were able to win or at least make it to the World Series without much power. The 1982 Cardinals had a slugging percentage of just .364 -- and no starter with an SLG higher than George Hendricks' .450 -- and yet won the World Series. Their pitching did rank #3 in the NL in ERA that season. The 1985 Cards had a .379 SLG, yet went to the World Series. Their pitching ranked #2 in the NL in ERA. The 1987 Cards had only Jack Clark as a power hitter, leading to their .378 SLG. They also went to the World Series (after beating the Giants, who had a .430 SLG and the top pitching staff in the NL), based in part on a pitching staff with the #5 league ERA. The above doesn't prove much, but they were simply Cardinal teams of the 1980's which had very little power, yet were successful. The 1965 Dodgers had a .335 SLG -- with no one finishing about .391 -- yet won the World Series behind their #1 NL pitching staff. In 1966, they lost the World Series 4 games to none, but they made it there despite having no real power and with a .362 SLG. Again, it was their pitching that did the job. Most teams -- whether successful or not -- DO have variety in their lineups. But there are some that haven't had a lot of variety who still have fared well. Give me 8 good PLAYERS, a decent pitching staff, and my team has a chance of going pretty far (depending on HOW good the 8 players are, as well as having at least a little bench). This year's Giants haven't fared poorly solely because they have little power. They haven't scored a lot of runs primarily because they don't have good overall HITTERS. Give me a team that gets a lot of runners on base, and that team will probably score quite a few runs even without much power. Variety is the spice of life, but I'm not sure it's necessary in order to score runs and win games. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1978&page=2#14427#ixzz2dItv2RTw
|
|