|
Post by rxmeister on Nov 3, 2013 7:57:06 GMT -5
You know Hughes pitches in a bandbox right? He's a right hander pitching in a left hand hitter's paradise. As you said, Hughes gave up 24 homeruns last year. Seventeen in Yankee Stadium, just seven on the road. Considering he threw 67 innings on the road, that was less than one HR per nine innings. His home ERA was over 6.00 as well, his road ERA was 3.88. Put him in a pitcher friendly park, his ERA at home would be better than his road ERA, don't you think? That would make him a pretty good pitcher.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Nov 3, 2013 10:15:15 GMT -5
Boagie -- I would imagine the #5 starter will be a scrap heaper.
Rog -- I think the #5 starter is more likely to be either Vogelsong or Gaudin.
Boagie- Both were scrap healers when the Giants gave them a shot.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Nov 3, 2013 10:15:49 GMT -5
Heapers*
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Nov 3, 2013 10:21:34 GMT -5
Boagie -- With that in mind, I think the more the merrier, even if it's a pitcher like Hughes.
Rog -- I'm not sure how you mean that. EVEN if it's a pitcher like Hughes? Hughes won't be a scrap heap pitcher.
Boagie- He's certainly pitched like one. If the Giants give him anything more than a minor league contract or an invite to spring training I'll be disappointed. I don't think Sabean would be that brain dead.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Nov 3, 2013 11:39:17 GMT -5
Right field is tough at Yankee Stadium, and right down the line in left. Center, straigtaway left and left center are plenty spacious. If homers were Phil's only problem, you might have a point, but it's just one of many. I think Phil's main problem is confidence and for lack of a better word, guts. He's more than a bit of a headcase. I just think we can do better.
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Nov 3, 2013 12:54:39 GMT -5
I agree they can do better, but remember the specific goal here is to get a starter on a short term deal because of the arms in A ball. That's why we're looking at pitchers lower down on the totem pole, so to speak. What are you going to do when Crick, Escobar and Blackburn are ready, and you have an entire rotation of long term deals?
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 3, 2013 13:12:29 GMT -5
Rog -- When Rueter went 15-10, his ERA in wins was 0.99 higher than Hughes' was. His ERA in losses was 2.56 runs higher than Hughes. In no-decisions, Kirk's ERA was 1.71 runs higher than Phil's. You could look it up. dk..and if you look it up. Kirk won 15 games, Phil 4....when Kirk won 15games, his ERA was 3.27...not bad for a team that scored over 5 runs per game.... Rog -- And when Phil won, his ERA was 2.26. What in the world is your point here? That when Phil won, he outpitched Kirk? If so, I absolutely agree with you. Don -- Kirk won when he pitched well... Rog -- Not entirely true, but you're close. Twice Kirk pitched well and wound up without a decision. That -- or a couple more no-decisions -- is common. He once LOST when he gave up two runs in six innings. When Kirk gave up two or fewer runs, he went 9-1, so you're close. Don -- and when he was bad he lost Rog -- Here is where it would have paid to do your homework. Kirk actually had three no-decisions when he yielded 6, 5 and 5 runs. He actually got a WIN when he yielded 8 (!). To give us an idea of how lucky Kirk was that season, after three games his ERA was 10.22 -- and yet his record was 1-0. When Kirk gave up five or more earned runs, his record was 1-8. That's about what we would expect. When he yielded two or fewer, he was 8-1. That's a little better than we would think. Where Kirk was fortunate in games in which he yielded three runs. That's pretty much an average effort, so one would expect about a .500 record. Instead, he went a sparkling 5-1. He yielded four earned runs in only one game -- and yet won it. What made Kirk's season was that he went 6-1 in games in which he yielded a number of runs that were more likely to yield a no-decision or loss than a win. What you said wasn't literally true, Don, but it wasn't far off. What made Kirk's season was that he went 6-1 in games in which is was more likely that he would go 1-6. That's where his tremendous run support really paid off. That and the game he amazingly won while giving up 8 earned runs. Based on how he pitched, Kirk should have been five or more games UNDER .500 more so than 5 games OVER it. What you said wasn't too far off, Don. A little, but not a lot. What you didn't mention was how well Kirk fared while yielding three or four earned runs. And the one game you really missed out on when you said that Kirk lost when he pitched poorly, he gave up 8 earned runs and won. How often do you recall that happening in your long lifetime? I'll bet in the 14 seasons since, that hasn't happened to Giants pitchers half a dozen times. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=2066&page=1#ixzz2jbc3rCKG
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Nov 3, 2013 13:24:04 GMT -5
Using your logic Mark, it would make the most sense to get a veteran pitcher rather than a younger guy who might still have some growing pains.
However, I don't think the Giants should worry about pitchers in A ball. The odds are still not on their side for developing into quality major leaguers. Lincecum only is signed for 2 years and Vogey will not likely get any more than 2 years as well. So there will be room for Crick and perhaps others if they continue to develop. If there's a chance to land a quality young pitcher without losing much I'd imagine Sabean won't hesitate because of who we have in San Jose. At least I hope he wouldn't.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 3, 2013 13:28:43 GMT -5
Allen -- What's the love affair with Hughes?
Rog -- Why the hyperbole? There IS no love affair with Hughes. What has happened is that someone said the pitcher the Giants should sign is Hughes, and some of us discussed why that might be a good idea.
If you had said "Why do you guys support Hughes?" we might feel we are talking to an objective viewer. When you say "What is the LOVE AFFAIR (my caps) with Hughes?" we fear we may not be.
By the way, Allen, I'm beginning to agree with you more with regard to Petit -- as I will explain in a later post -- but I don't feel you are being objective here, either.
I can understand how you -- as also a Yankee fan -- can be frustrated with a pitcher who certainly hasn't come close to his potential, and I will state (although I suspect you didn't know it) that Petit was also once considered a fairly high prospect. But if one is going to argue Petit over Hughes, I think he needs to show more detailed analysis than you have given thus far.
You have often said that I think someone gives a good analysis when he agrees with me -- and don't think that if he doesn't agree. I am going to show why you have helped to change my mind on Petit a bit, but yet I still don't think you have made a good case for him over Hughes.
Mark makes the best case for Hughes. Phil's bugaboo has been the gopher ball. It's been a killer for him in Yankee Stadium. But on the more neutral road, his home run rate is half as high as in Yankee Stadium, and is in fact slightly below league average.
I'm venturing over toward Petit, but Mark has made what is probably the best point in this discussion thus far. Phil Hughes in Yankee Stadium has been a very poor #5 starter. But on the road, he's been a good #4 or an averagish #3. Isn't that kind of what the Giants are looking for?
And if the guy happens to be just 27 years or age and could become an important part of the Giants' rotation if he DOES approach his potential, doesn't that make him all the more appealing? If the Giants can get Phil on a two-year contract to fit their time frame (looking more iffy than it appeared when this discussion began), he might offer a decent risk/reward ratio.
|
|
|
Post by dk on Nov 3, 2013 15:15:50 GMT -5
Rog -- When Rueter went 15-10, his ERA in wins was 0.99 higher than Hughes' was. His ERA in losses was 2.56 runs higher than Hughes. In no-decisions, Kirk's ERA was 1.71 runs higher than Phil's. You could look it up. dk..and if you look it up. Kirk won 15 games, Phil 4....when Kirk won 15games, his ERA was 3.27...not bad for a team that scored over 5 runs per game.... Rog -- And when Phil won, his ERA was 2.26. What in the world is your point here? That when Phil won, he outpitched Kirk? If so, I absolutely agree with you. Don -- Kirk won when he pitched well... Rog -- Not entirely true, but you're close. Twice Kirk pitched well and wound up without a decision. That -- or a couple more no-decisions -- is common. He once LOST when he gave up two runs in six innings. When Kirk gave up two or fewer runs, he went 9-1, so you're close. Don -- and when he was bad he lost Rog -- Here is where it would have paid to do your homework. Kirk actually had three no-decisions when he yielded 6, 5 and 5 runs. He actually got a WIN when he yielded 8 (!). To give us an idea of how lucky Kirk was that season, after three games his ERA was 10.22 -- and yet his record was 1-0. When Kirk gave up five or more earned runs, his record was 1-8. That's about what we would expect. When he yielded two or fewer, he was 8-1. That's a little better than we would think. Where Kirk was fortunate in games in which he yielded three runs. That's pretty much an average effort, so one would expect about a .500 record. Instead, he went a sparkling 5-1. He yielded four earned runs in only one game -- and yet won it. What made Kirk's season was that he went 6-1 in games in which he yielded a number of runs that were more likely to yield a no-decision or loss than a win. What you said wasn't literally true, Don, but it wasn't far off. What made Kirk's season was that he went 6-1 in games in which is was more likely that he would go 1-6. That's where his tremendous run support really paid off. That and the game he amazingly won while giving up 8 earned runs. Based on how he pitched, Kirk should have been five or more games UNDER .500 more so than 5 games OVER it. What you said wasn't too far off, Don. A little, but not a lot. What you didn't mention was how well Kirk fared while yielding three or four earned runs. And the one game you really missed out on when you said that Kirk lost when he pitched poorly, he gave up 8 earned runs and won. How often do you recall that happening in your long lifetime? I'll bet in the 14 seasons since, that hasn't happened to Giants pitchers half a dozen times. dk..you have to be the biggest nit-picker on the planet...I was talking in general terms....I have the same data you have but I didn't think I had to go into complete details to show how crazy it was for you to compare Phil's 4 wins to Kirk's 15.......and besides. a pitcher can pitch well and still give up runs........and he can pitch poorly and end up with good results......and I am living proof of that....my first high school game I came into the game in the 7th inning and gave up 5 runs on topped infield hits and pop flies that no one bothered to catch....
|
|
|
Post by dk on Nov 3, 2013 15:23:19 GMT -5
Using your logic Mark, it would make the most sense to get a veteran pitcher rather than a younger guy who might still have some growing pains. However, I don't think the Giants should worry about pitchers in A ball. The odds are still not on their side for developing into quality major leaguers. Lincecum only is signed for 2 years and Vogey will not likely get any more than 2 years as well. So there will be room for Crick and perhaps others if they continue to develop. If there's a chance to land a quality young pitcher without losing much I'd imagine Sabean won't hesitate because of who we have in San Jose. At least I hope he wouldn't dk..it is pretty scary that Crick is the Giants #1 prospect...I've seen him twice in all-star games and he looked good..big, strong, fast ball in mid 90's...and he pitched poorly....he got picked for the Arizona all-star game....but he only had pitched in 9innings and had given up 9 walks.....and that was how he pitched yesterday.....he also didn't log many innings in San Jose, this year....
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Nov 3, 2013 18:16:21 GMT -5
I agree they can do better, but remember the specific goal here is to get a starter on a short term deal because of the arms in A ball. That's why we're looking at pitchers lower down on the totem pole, so to speak. What are you going to do when Crick, Escobar and Blackburn are ready, and you have an entire rotation of long term deals?
Allen- Thing is, you don't have to sign anyone to get the results you can get with Hughes. Petit can do it. Gaudin can do it. And for alot less money. You're talking about someone with an ERA of 5.00. That isn't hard to replicate. You could probably bring Sukamp or Kickham up and they could do as well.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Nov 3, 2013 18:24:16 GMT -5
My main gripe with Hughes is that most of what you hear from the Yankees is what they're trying to do to fix him. He's in the rotation, he's out of the rotation. He's starting, he's relieving. He's hurt. He's got a dead arm. He has to get his head on straight. And it's year after year after year. He's always got some sort of problem, and is never right and ready to go. He's got talent, but something's missing. I see him as a headache we don't need.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 4, 2013 1:34:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 4, 2013 1:36:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 4, 2013 1:43:15 GMT -5
Boagie -- If the Giants give him (Hughes) anything more than a minor league contract or an invite to spring training I'll be disappointed. I don't think Sabean would be that brain dead. Rog -- Please, Boagie. It is estimated that Phil will get about $10 million per season, perhaps for as many as three seasons. What is it that you know that other teams don't know about Phil that makes you think that anything above a minor league contract makes one brain dead? There's a HUGE difference between a minor league contract and one for $10 million per. Your opinion is SO different than MLB's that I have to wonder what it is that you're seeing that they're missing. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2066&page=2#ixzz2jekshoIC
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 4, 2013 1:54:02 GMT -5
Allen -- If homers were Phil's only problem, you might have a point, but it's just one of many. Rog -- Actually, Allen, aside from home runs, Phil has been a decent pitcher. His hit rate of 9.1 isn't great, but it's decent. If some of his home runs turned into outs, it would definitely be decent. His walk rate of 2.8 is good. His strikeout rate of 7.6 isn't great, but it certainly isn't bad. Last season the AL averages in those figures were 8.8, 3.1 and 7.7. For starters, they were a little worse. Phil has been pretty average in those categories for a starter. It's the home runs that have hurt him. His 1.3 per nine is well over the league average of 1.0. Home runs have been his primary problem. Away from Yankee Stadium, they haven't been a problem. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2066&page=2#ixzz2jemhareH
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 4, 2013 1:55:50 GMT -5
dk..it is pretty scary that Crick is the Giants #1 prospect...I've seen him twice in all-star games and he looked good..big, strong, fast ball in mid 90's...and he pitched poorly....he got picked for the Arizona all-star game....but he only had pitched in 9innings and had given up 9 walks.....and that was how he pitched yesterday.....he also didn't log many innings in San Jose, this year.... Rog -- Kyle is considered to be one of the top pitching prospects in baseball. What are you seeing that they're not? By the way, the nine walks were attrocious, but you somehow forgot to mention he struck out 14. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2066&page=2#ixzz2jep76hnj
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 4, 2013 1:58:15 GMT -5
Boagie -- I agree they can do better, but remember the specific goal here is to get a starter on a short term deal because of the arms in A ball. That's why we're looking at pitchers lower down on the totem pole, so to speak. What are you going to do when Crick, Escobar and Blackburn are ready, and you have an entire rotation of long term deals? Rog -- Trade the overflow of pitching -- a very valuable trade commodity -- to help fill other holes. Allen- Thing is, you don't have to sign anyone to get the results you can get with Hughes. Petit can do it. Gaudin can do it. And for alot less money. You're talking about someone with an ERA of 5.00. That isn't hard to replicate. You could probably bring Sukamp or Kickham up and they could do as well. Rog -- Almost no one in baseball agrees with you here, Allen. What is it you know that they're missing? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2066&page=2#ixzz2jepfUnjw
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 4, 2013 10:14:14 GMT -5
Now, the case for Yusmeiro Petit:
. He wasn't doing it with mirrors. Although he throws only 88 mph, he does have strikeout stuff, fanning 8.8 per nine after fanning 9.3 at Fresno. It seems unlikely his 12% swing and miss rate will hold up, but he had been at close to 10% over his career.
. The fielding independent measures pegged his ERA from 2.86 to 3.55. He wasn't simply benefitting from luck.
. Like Phil Hughes in this discussion, he's a fly ball pitcher who should benefit from pitching in AT&T Park.
. He's a strike thrower. His walk rate has been dropping as he ages, and it was just 2.1 per nine for the Giants. He walked just 1.3 per nine for Fresno.
. He gets ahead of hitters. Seven of 10 first pitches were strikes.
. He got hitters to chase far more often than in the past, jumping from 24% career to 40% last season.
. In a small sample, teams didn't seem to figure Petit out last season. He faced the Rockies three times, with similar results each time. He faced the Diamondbacks twice, and the second time he nearly pitched a perfect game.
Petit's success or lack thereof is likely to come from his ability to keep the ball in the park. Even though three of the four homers he yielded last season came at AT&T, the home park should help him in that regard. Petit looks like he could be a 4.00 ERA guy or perhaps a little better. For me, he projects to be a very decent #5 starter.
Mark me officially quite comfortable with a battle between Yusmeiro, Vogelsong and Gaudin. I would be comfortable with Petit and either of the other two, and I would be willing to take a gamble on Petit himself if necessary. I don't think he's a long shot.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Nov 4, 2013 11:10:46 GMT -5
Rog -- Please, Boagie. It is estimated that Phil will get about $10 million per season, perhaps for as many as three seasons. What is it that you know that other teams don't know about Phil that makes you think that anything above a minor league contract makes one brain dead?
Boagie- Apparently I know that Phil Hughes has stunk over the last 3 seasons. If someone offers him $10 mil I would question their sanity.
I was actually supporting your Phil Hughes idea in the beginning, but if you think the Giants should pay him anywhere near $30 mil for 3 years then I completely disagree.
|
|
|
Post by dk on Nov 4, 2013 13:37:10 GMT -5
dk..it is pretty scary that Crick is the Giants #1 prospect...I've seen him twice in all-star games and he looked good..big, strong, fast ball in mid 90's...and he pitched poorly....he got picked for the Arizona all-star game....but he only had pitched in 9innings and had given up 9 walks.....and that was how he pitched yesterday.....he also didn't log many innings in San Jose, this year.... Rog -- Kyle is considered to be one of the top pitching prospects in baseball. What are you seeing that they're not? By the way, the nine walks were attrocious, but you somehow forgot to mention he struck out 14. dk...I said I liked what I saw in his potential. but I don't like his stats.....in 14 starts in San Jose, he only got thru 68 .2 innings...great for a middle reliever, not acceptable for a starter....he must throw a lot of pitches because of his control...and the fact that he appears to choke in big games worries me....but he s young enough to overcome that....
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Nov 4, 2013 14:02:27 GMT -5
Allen- Thing is, you don't have to sign anyone to get the results you can get with Hughes. Petit can do it. Gaudin can do it. And for alot less money. You're talking about someone with an ERA of 5.00. That isn't hard to replicate. You could probably bring Sukamp or Kickham up and they could do as well.
Rog -- Almost no one in baseball agrees with you here, Allen. What is it you know that they're missing?
Allen- You've surveyed all of baseball and got their opinions, have ya there, Rog? It's simple numbers. Hughes is a guy that's going to give you about a 5.00 ERA. He isn't going to win many games for you unless you score for him like crazy. If the Giants were an offensive juggernaut, than you might be able to throw Hughes out there and let him eat some innings. They're not. Besides we have guys in house who can pitch to a 5.00 ERA (or better). Why spend the money on a headache like Hughes?
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Nov 4, 2013 14:07:22 GMT -5
Boagie- Apparently I know that Phil Hughes has stunk over the last 3 seasons. If someone offers him $10 mil I would question their sanity.
Allen- Hear, hear! In fact having watched Phil over the last few years, I would say the numbers don't do justice to how bad he has been. It doesn't take into account all the crap that you have to put up with trying to get the guy right to pitch.
|
|
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 Nov 4, 2013 16:04:35 GMT -5
the only thing I would add to any discussion on FA pitchers...Bochy, Righetti and Sabean have been very good at finding "right fit" pitchers in recent years, even those who some may deem to be "scrap heap" type pitchers. I would never make early judgments on any pitcher those guys pick up. I've made that mistake for the last time.
~Dood
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Nov 4, 2013 17:40:30 GMT -5
Could be. Hughes could benefit from a change of scenery. Maybe he can't function under the pressure in NY. But I wouldn't bet millions of dollars on it.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Nov 4, 2013 17:51:46 GMT -5
In other news, Bronson Arroyo did not receive a qualifying offer from the Reds, meaning signing him would not involve compensation.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Nov 4, 2013 19:47:23 GMT -5
Allen- Hear, hear! In fact having watched Phil over the last few years, I would say the numbers don't do justice to how bad he has been. It doesn't take into account all the crap that you have to put up with trying to get the guy right to pitch.
Boagie- You mean to tell me the numbers alone don't tell the full story, Allen? Pure blasphemy!! Rog and Brian Kenny can quantify circles around you all day. Just admit you're out of your league here.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 5, 2013 1:46:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 5, 2013 1:48:37 GMT -5
|
|