Madison Bumgarner Gets Some Positive Attention

[Rog]

Madison Bumgarner is off to a great start to his career, somewhere between Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain at the same career time.  It's getting noticed too.

The MLB Network had Madison just missing the Top 10 Pitchers right now.  At least one person on the show had him in their top 10.

Bleacher Report recently ranked Madison #5 among all players below 25.  Even though he is entering his 6th season this year, he's still just 24 years old.

[sfgdood]

outside of the top 10 isn't such a great start, not for a bonus baby. I expected Madison to be WELL inside the top 10 by this time in his career. Not bad but not great either.

[rxmeister]

That's just ridiculously high expectations then. The Giants (and most fans) are unbelievably happy with the player Madison Bumgarner, a key performer in two world championship, has become. Between this and the Marichal comment I'm starting to think you're no longer being serious, or just losing it.

[sfgdood]

What part of not bad did you not get? Of course I have high expectations for high picks. If we don't, then what hope is there for the future of the team? The only thing ridiculous is setting the bar low and praising mediocrity.

[Rog]

Randy -- outside of the top 10 isn't such a great start, not for a bonus baby. I expected Madison to be WELL inside the top 10 by this time in his career. Not bad but not great either.

Rog -- Let's look at this logically. Being in the top 10 starters means a pitcher would be the ace of at last two thirds of the rotations in the major leagues. Bumgarner was drafted #10 overall. Let's say five of the top 10 drafted each year are starters. Let's say that the average starter has an eight-year window to make the top 10. Eight times five is forty. That would mean that Madison would have to be better than three-quarters of the pitchers drafted as high as he -- assuming no pitcher drafted lower made the top 10 (which isn't realistic).

Condsider these names:

Luke Hochevar, Brad Lincoln, Brandon Morrow, Andrew Miller, Tim Lincecum.

Rickey Romero, Wade Townsend, Mike (Bats in Your) Pelfrey.

Phil Humber, Jeff Nieman, Mark Rogers, Jeremy Sowers, Homer Bailey, Wade Townsend (again), Thomas Diamond.

You know who those guys are? Probably half of them you've never even heard of before. Those are the guys drafted as high or higher than Madison in the previous three year's drafts who WEREN'T in the top 10. Clayton Kershaw and Justin Verlander (each drafted higher than Madison) are the two who were.

That's two out of 16, or one out of eight. If we take the pitchers drafted in Madison's year, he was one of six pitchers selected in the first 10. Only David Price was picked in the top 10 right now, and he wasn't picked on every list.

We tend to think that the top draft choices should all be stars, and that just isn't the case. The Giants did extremely well with Tim Lincecum, Bumgarner, Buster Posey and Zack Wheeler, and despite trading Wheeler, those three players are among the very top reasons the Giants have won two out of the last four championships.

You realize now, don't you, that your expectations for Madison as a top 10 pick are too high, right?

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2181/madison-bumgarner-gets-positive-attention#ixzz2s0Lzo7Z9

[islandboagie]

I kind of agree with Randy here. I'm not dissapointed with Bumgarner, but if you'd have asked me back in 2010 what Bumgarner would do from then until now, I'd have expected a little more. Thats not to say he still can't get to that level.

[Rog]

Boagie -- I kind of agree with Randy here. I'm not dissapointed with Bumgarner, but if you'd have asked me back in 2010 what Bumgarner would do from then until now, I'd have expected a little more.

Rog -- What Randy said was that a bonus baby should be in the top 10. I listed the 16 pitchers taken at #10 or before in the last three drafts, and I'll bet Randy hadn't heard of even half of them.

Now, going back to 2010, I guess we could have expected more from Madison. But given that the guy's career ERA is 3.08, how much more should we have expected? Last season it was 2.77, which was 5th-best in the league. My guess is that since the end of the 2010 season, Bumgarner's ERA ranks in the top 10 half dozen or so in the majors for pitchers throwing over 600 innings. Clayton Kershaw, Justin Verlander and Cliff Lee have done so. Can we think of any others?

Bumgarner twice has finished in the top 11 in the Cy Young voting -- both in down seasons for the Giants' team. I believe Clayton Kershaw's career ERA is the only active ERA lower than Madison among starters with as many as the 735 innings Madison has thrown in his career.

What were we EXPECTING from Bumgarner?

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2181/madison-bumgarner-gets-positive-attention#ixzz2s3h0wXaY

[islandboagie]

When you post his numbers it makes me look picky. But that's what I've become thanks to Lincecum and Cain. I guess I've been expecting him to dominate more. I've seen a lot of 2 or 3 run games, which are good, but I'd like to see a few more 0 and 1 run games with a high strikeout total. I think he can be that guy. For whatever reason, he becomes that guy in the World Series.

[Rog]

Boagie -- When you post his numbers it makes me look picky. But that's what I've become thanks to Lincecum and Cain. I guess I've been expecting him to dominate more. I've seen a lot of 2 or 3 run games, which are good, but I'd like to see a few more 0 and 1 run games with a high strikeout total.

Rog -- Most consider consistency to be a virtue. They would prefer to see more 2- and 3-run outings compared to 0- and 1-run outings mixed in with 4- and 5 run games. Mad Bum was somewhere in between. He gave up no runs or one run in 13 of his 31 starts (41%). In his two Cy Young years, Tim was at 44% and 38%.

As for strikeouts, Madison doesn't strike out as many batters as Tim, but he strikes out more than Matt. Last season Madison's 8.9 K/9 was clearly ahead of Matt's 7.7, and actually was just higher tha Tim's 8.8.

I don't know this for fact, but I'll bet Madison's strike out percentage since he came into the league is just about as good as Tim's during that period. Madison hasn't struck out as many, but he also throws fewer pitches.

You said you were looking for more dominance from Bumgarner after his 2010 season. Madison's strikeout percentage last season was 36% higher than in 2010. His WHIP was 21% lower. Those are dramatic improvements -- especially from a guy whose 2010 ERA was 3.00.

On more than one level here, our expectations may be too high.

Boagie -- I think he can be that guy. For whatever reason, he becomes that guy in the World Series.

Rog -- I think the reason is small sample size. In Madison's other postseason appearances, his ERA is 6.53.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2181/madison-bumgarner-gets-positive-attention#ixzz2s61BRcYI

[rxmeister]

I think people tend to forget that Madison Bumgarner is STILL only 24 years old. So what have we gotten so far? Two shutouts in the World Series leading to two championships. The youngest pitcher in the history of baseball to throw eight scoreless innings in the series. (Just turned 21) Had a 1.13 ERA as a rookie in 2010 in five September starts as the Giants overtook the Padres for the division championship. Made the all star team last year and finished fifth in the league in ERA. (2.77) Fifth in WHIP, seventh in strikeouts. Had the lowest WHIP from a Giants left hander since Carl Hubbell in 1933!!! 13-9 for a team in last place most of the year. All this and 24 years old. Tough crowd.

[Rog]

I find Randy strangely silent here now. Perhaps he is wondering why it strongly appears Jackie Robinson DIDN'T retire because he would have had to becme a Giant.

[islandboagie]

Well said, Mark. Perhaps my slight dissapointment is because he's not amongst the top 5 in the game. Kershaw has set the bar so high, I guess I just miss the days when our guys were among the best.

[Rog]

Boagie -- Well said, Mark. Perhaps my slight dissapointment is because he's not amongst the top 5 in the game. Kershaw has set the bar so high, I guess I just miss the days when our guys were among the best.

Rog -- The only Giants pitcher who would have been among the top 5 in the past five seasons or so would be Tim Lincecum, who arguably should have been considered the BEST starter at the end of the 2009 season. I can't remember where he was ranked after 2010, but it was still quite high (#3 among pitchers?). He was still in the top 10 after 2011. Since then, his stock has decined precipitously.

A year ago Matt Cain was considered to be in the "close" category when picking the top 10. Matt has been underrated most of his career, but while I hoped he would make the bottom of the top 10, he likely was properly placed. After last season, of course, he fell out.

So, really, Mad Bum is as highly rated now as any Giants pitcher since 2010 -- and is rated nearly as highly as Tim Lincecum after 2011. It's hard to argue that at just outside the top 10, he is grossly underrated.

It's even harder to argue that we should have EXPECTED him to be in the top 10 because of where he was drafted. Hopefully we have put that latter opinion to rest as not being close to correct. Out of the 20 or so pitchers chosen over Madison's draft year or in the three prior years as high or higher than Madison, many aren't even in the major leagues. Madison likely ranks #3 out of the 20 or more.

As for Kershaw, one could make an argument that no pitcher in live ball history has been better at this time in his career than Clayton has been. Lincecum was exceptional. Kershaw has gone BEYOND exceptional.

To have Lincecum, Cain or Bumgarner ranked among the top 15 starters or so every season since 2008 seems like a pretty good accomplishment to me. At the end of 2012, Ryan Vogelsong wasn't WAY off that level.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2181/madison-bumgarner-gets-positive-attention#ixzz2sOHXUW20

[islandboagie]

Do you think Cain was considered a top 5'er when LaRussa picked him to start the All-Star game in 2012? I don't really know about the rankings, mine always seem to be different than what other people think, especially the so called "shredder". My point is Lincecum and Cain have been considered top tier pitchers at some point. Bumgarner, although close, hasn't quite reached that level yet.

[sfgdood]

Hey Rog...shut your pie hole once in a while and you might find more wisdom in your pea brain. It's just like a stats geek to take cheap pot shots at someone just because he isn't choosing to chime in on a subject that has been adequately debated by others. Get a life!

[Rog]

Boagie -- Do you think Cain was considered a top 5'er when LaRussa picked him to start the All-Star game in 2012?

Rog -- That's a good question, but not necessarily as obvious as it seems to imply. Here are some of the All-Star starters since the turn of the century:

Jimenez
Sheets
Rogers
Penny
Buehrle
Mulder
Loaiza
Lowe
Wells


Boagie -- I don't really know about the rankings, mine always seem to be different than what other people think, especially the so called "shredder".

Rog -- I'm sure you have noticed there can be significant differences between the lists of even "experts." A consensus usually gives us a pretty good idea, and certainly the pitchers who are on most lists probably deserve to be considered in the top 10. They often say on that show that once one gets beyond the obvious guys, there isn't much separating a following group totaling double digits.

Boagie -- My point is Lincecum and Cain have been considered top tier pitchers at some point.

Rog -- I think you know I have long considered Matt to be underrated, but unless one broadens "top tier" to a number higher than 10, I'm not sure Matt has reached that plateau. IMO he's underrated, and there are simply a LOT of really good starting pitchers.

Boagie -- Bumgarner, although close, hasn't quite reached that level yet.

Rog -- But we should take hope in that if he continues to pitch as well as he has for even one more year, he'll probably join the list. The competition is fierce, but with every excellent season, his reputation is growing.

I personally think it is at least as big an affront that a year ago Matt didn't make the top 10. At that point, he had posted consecutive ERA's of 2.89, 3.14, 2.88 and 2.79. Madison has been in that same general area, but not quite as good and not over four full seasons.

If we had indeed put Matt in our top 10 a year ago, this past season would have shown us to not have been good predictors. A year before that, his top 10 rating wasn't a good predictor for Tim.

Remember, the list is for the top 10 RIGHT NOW. It is basically saying that these are our choices for who will be the top 10 pitchers this coming season.

I was a little surprised that Madison didn't make the top 10, but when the actual list was announced, I realized there are a LOT of really good starting pitchers right now.

And if Madison keeps this up (and let's not forget that his 8.9 K/0 was easily his career high thus far), he won't be missing from the list for long.

A couple of other points:

First, pitchers and players often get noticed more for one spectacular year than they do for a few excellent ones. Think Lincecum compared to Cain and, thus far, Bumgarner.

Second, when we see projections for players, we're sometimes surprised that they not predictions of BETTER performance. For instance, why does the "Steamer" projection have Madison at 3.39 for the upcoming season when that is cleary above his career average and certainly above his trend?

The answer may be that players do have poor seasons. Think Tim Lincecum in 2012. Clearly his ERA was WAY above projections. Think Matt Cain and Ryan Vogelsong last season. Certainly Cain and especially Vogelsong were above their projected ERA's. Thus, projections can be a bit muted.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2181/madison-bumgarner-gets-positive-attention##ixzz2sSj2VnPw

[Rog]

Randy -- Hey Rog...shut your pie hole once in a while and you might find more wisdom in your pea brain. It's just like a stats geek to take cheap pot shots at someone just because he isn't choosing to chime in on a subject that has been adequately debated by others.

Rog -- Fair enough. The point I was making is that you rarely seem to comment after being shown to be incorrect.

You kept defending Gary Brown even as multiple scouts were downgrading him. You seemed to ignore that even when Gary was putting up outstanding numbers at San Jose, there were scouts who were considerably worried about his swing. Finally you admitted that you simply strongly believed that he had the tools, regardless of what the many doubtes said. We all hope you'll be right.

Where you almost certainly weren't right was in saying that Jackie Robinson retired because he would't play for the Giants. You cited Ken Burns as your source, and indeed it was a good one.

But how did it stand up to multiple sources that said that WASN'T the case, sources that inclded Jackie's biography and the Library of Congress?

You just seemed to come back to Ken Burns said it, so it must be right.

And where you were almost absolutely wrong was in saying that because Madison Bumgarner was chosen in the top 10 in the 2007 draft, we should expect him to be among the top 10 pitchers now. The facts actually showed that based on his draft year and the three before it, he was more likely not to be in the majors now than to be in the top 10 pitchers.

Yet you remained strangely silent on the topic.

Hey, I'm wrong too. But I admit it when I am. And I WILL change my mind if the facts warrant it. A very recent example was just a few days ago when Boagie said that the Dodgers weren't as infallible as I was making them out to be. I decided, as I usually do when someone comes up with a different conclusion than I do, to see what the facts said and implied.

What I found was that Boagie was right, that despite their extremely hot final three-plus months last season and their continued spending, the Dodgers -- while tough -- certainly aren't as infallible as I was making them out to be. The Dodgers' depth isn't as good as I thought it was, although they're probably not finished with their rotation.

The point, Randy, is that it shows character -- not weakness -- when we admit our mistakes. We all make them. Why not simply admit them when we do? It's a lot more honest.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2181/madison-bumgarner-gets-positive-attention?page=1#scrollTo=18714#ixzz2sSqUX91X

[sfgdood]

When it comes to Jackie, we have differing versions out there. You choose to believe your sources, mine are no less credible. Actually the sources are those of Ken Burns, who I am reasonably certain had access to your sources and who I KNOW would never put anything in any of his documentaries that he believed could be wrong.

Again with Madison and Gary it's a matter of opinion. I could very well be wrong in someone else's estimation and I accept that. What you don't seem to get is that firing off a bunch of stats doesn't necessarily makes a differing opinion wrong. And it's not a character flaw for someone to hang on to his opinion, no matter how many stats geeks show reasons why his opinion might not match up. I have been wrong many times, both here and in the real world, and have never been loth to admit that...but I wont be bullied into it by you or anyone else here who suggests it countless times to make his ego grow to epic proportions.

[Rog]

When it comes to Jackie, we have differing versions out there. You choose to believe your sources, mine are no less credible. Actually the sources are those of Ken Burns, who I am reasonably certain had access to your sources and who I KNOW would never put anything in any of his documentaries that he believed could be wrong.

Again with Madison and Gary it's a matter of opinion.

Rog -- You're right on the money about Gary. It IS a matter of opinion as to how well he will fare. I simply think you overprotect him to this day, much as you did with Brandon Belt, until you inexplicably seemed to say you were giving up him. Perhaps I misintepreted your giving up on him. I believe you later said that you were giving up on him only as a base runner. Personally, I haven't given up on him even in that regard.

As for Jackie, I agree with you that Ken Burns is a credible source. I myself consider him to be an excellent one - but not an infallible source. Those of us have cited more and arguably even better sources. You have failed to cite any source beyond Burns, who dealt with so many facts in his fine Mini Series that he very likely got some of them wrong.

As for Madison, your comment that as "bonus baby" he should be expected to already be a top 10 pitcher has been shown to be bogus. It just doesn't sense on the face of it. On average, there are four or five pitchers drafted where Madison was drafted or drafted higher. There is no way THAT many pitchers can be in the top 10 at a given time.

It appears that young pitchers are such a risky proposition that a even a pitcher drafted that high is at least as likely to not succeed as to become a top star. High school pitchers are even more risky than college draftees.

I'm not going to look it up, but it would surprise me if more than two or three of the top 10 are players drafted out of high school in the top 10. There might not even be any of them.

Gosh, just admit you were wrong on this one at least.



Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2181/madison-bumgarner-gets-positive-attention#ixzz2sT6R7TLs

[sfgdood]

What exactly am I supposed to admit to being wrong about? That my expectations for Madison were too lofty? Maybe they were and are too lofty but they are MY expectations...not yours, not stats geek publications' and not the media's. I couldn't care less what your numbers say. Right or wrong I did indeed expect more from Bummy. If you didn't, that's your business and I would never try to make you feel bad about that. Why does it make you feel better to do this to me and other posters? Give it a freakin rest already.

[islandboagie]

Remember, the list is for the top 10 RIGHT NOW. It is basically saying that these are our choices for who will be the top 10 pitchers this coming season.

Boagie- Ok, so why is Justin Verlander on the list and Bumgarner not, when clearly Madison's numbers are better? Better yet, why are pitchers like Verlander given reputation considerations while pitchers like Cain have been left off the list? It seems like the shredder has been implemented with an east coast bias.

[Rog]

Randy -- What exactly am I supposed to admit to being wrong about? That my expectations for Madison were too lofty?

Rog -- No. You were supposed to admit you were wrong when you said "outside of the top 10 isn't such a great start, not for a bonus baby." That statement went well beyond Bumgarner, and I proved it was far from correct, yet you came back with nothing.

Either admit you were wrong here, or prove otherwise.

You were proven wrong, yet you neither acknowledged it nor combatted it. It would seem the character thing to do to step up to this issue -- one way or the other. I'm not sure what evidence you have that would back up your comment, but I would love to hear it.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2181/madison-bumgarner-gets-positive-attention#ixzz2sTp8z2TD

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2181/madison-bumgarner-gets-positive-attention#ixzz2sToa6LH2

[sfgdood]

At this point I'll admit that I am wrong about the world being round if it shuts you up about this already.

[Rog]

I think you've got a pretty good idea of the shape of the earth, Randy, but not the shape of how we can expect pitchers to develop.

I was actually surprised at how FEW of the top drafted pitchers of the four years I cited were top-10 pitchers. but the real shocker was how many of those top-drafted pitchers weren't even in the majors.

There was a kid from my high school, seven years behind me but well ahead of Randy Winn and Nate Schierholtz, who was drafted #9 overall by Kansas City. He was also accepted to Stanford, but chose what was for then a very large bonus to sign. He made it all of 6 years in the minors before arm troubles took him out of the game. He pitched all of 43 innings in AAA.

A friend of mine was drafted a year behind me in high school by the Giants. He also pitched 6 years, and made it for 8 innings in AAA. I briefly met George Foster and Gary Maddox through my friend. He told me his slider was as good as Randy Moffett's, but I watched them both warm up, and clearly it wasn't. Too bad. Nice guy and very down to earth.

My point is that we really shouldn't expect a top-10 overall drafted pitcher to become a top 10 major league pitcher. I'm going to go so far as to say that pitcher's chance of becoming a top-10 pitcher is even lower than of not making the majors at all. I know that doesn't sound possible, but unfortunately for a lot of top-10 picks, that's the way it is.

By the way, Randy, I had a REALLY hard time talking baseball with my friend the Giants drafted. Of course, that was before I became a stats geek and forgot everything I knew about baseball.

[Rog]

Randy, if you had said that your expectations of Madison Bumgarner were that he would be a top 10 pitcher, I couldn't fault you too much. There were issues with his speed when he was promoted to AA, but it came back the following year. His entire minor league career was excellent.

The problem is that you indicated you were talking about ALL top-10 drafted pitchers, which would also indicate that was your expectation when they were drafted. I imagine that when the Giants drafted him, they hoped he would become a top 10 pitcher, but didn't EXPECT it.

When they drafted Tim Lincecum, I do think they expected him to become a top 10 pitcher. Tim threw very hard, and his curve was considered by many scouts to be the best pitch in the 2006 draft. Before the draft, there was some consideration that he might go #1 overall, but the concerns about his motion and size lowered him down to #10.

Based primarily on scouting reports, including my own, I believed he would become a top 10 pitcher. I hardly knew his name when he was drafted, but I did a lot of research on him and, as you know, saw a high percentage of his minor league career. By the time he made the majors, I likely knew more about him than many of the professional scouts.

I gave his dad scouting reports on his outings in Fresno, for crying out loud. I guess just for that brief time I forgot about being a stats geek.

As for Madison, I saw him pitch only once in the minors, April 10, 2009. My scouting report on Madison was that he was hard to pick up, that his slider and change up both looked pretty good in the bullpen, and I wished he had thrown more of them in the game. I'm pretty sure he threw at least 80% fastballs and likely closer to 90%. IIRC he was throwing about 93 or 94. Not exceptionally fast, but smooth.

It was later that season when Bumgarner's velocity took a temporary drop. His strikeouts at Connecticut dropped off to just 69 in 107 innings, but he allowed just 6.7 hits per nine and 2.5 walks. His prospect rating by Baseball America fell off slightly from #9 to #14.

Madison didn't really have a great 2010 season, although he did pitch effectively both in AAA and the majors. His WHIP was 1.33 at Fresno and 1.31 with the Giants. But as he has approached the prime ages of his career, his WHIPS have steadily dropped to 1.21, 1.11 and 1.03. His major league ERA has remained near the 3.00 area, but as his WHIP shows, he's gotten considerably better.

At 8.9 K/9, he became a strikeout pitcher last season. His charts are pretty much all going in the right direction. His fastball has consistently been between 91.7 (2011) and 91.1 (2012). His usage of it has dropped though, which may have attributed to his success. That consistency indicates that he did go through a dead arm period in 2009, when he was reported to have thrown as low as the 86-87 mph area and threw only 89.2 when he was called up by the Giants in 2009.

I'm glad I took the time to look at Madison's peripherals. The more one looks, the more there is to like. The guy's only 24, his fastball hasn't yet started to decline, and he's mixing up his pitches while still keeping his walks low (although he did increase from 2.1 BB/9 his first three seasons to 2.7 last year). He continues to throw over 60% of his first pitches for strikes. His swinging strike percentage has increased from 7.6% in 2010 to 11.1% last season.

Madison's ERA makes it appear he was very good in 2010 but hasn't radically improved since then, instead remaining remarkably consistent. Masked has been the fact that his improvement curve has been sharp. Last year was considered Bumgarner's 23-year-old season. The 1.03 WHIP wasn't that far off Clayton Kershaw's 0.98 at a similar age.

One could argue if Madison is in the top 10 right now, but a year from now there may not be much argument.