|
Post by klaiggeb on May 3, 2014 12:09:46 GMT -5
Nice job from Timmy last night. Honestly, this is the kind of performance we MUST have from him 60-70% of the time if we expect to challenge not just for the division, but for the NL, and the World series.
He might not have had big "K" numbers but he was down in the strikezone, and basically, in control the whole game.
Well done!
boly
|
|
|
Post by Rog on May 4, 2014 4:06:53 GMT -5
Congrats to Boagie for calling Tim's success in advance. One thing I'd like to point out though.
A lot of how we judge a pitcher in a particular game has to do with luck.
As you point out, Tim had a season low 4 strikeouts in his 6.0 innings -- with the exception of his 3 strikeouts in 4.2 innings his previous outing.
Tim gave up a season high tying 3 walks, giving him his worst K/BB ratio on the year.
Tim gave up a season-high 15 fly balls. He usually pitches best when he throws a lot of ground balls. His best route to success features few walks, a lot of strikeouts, and a lot of ground balls. None of those three factors was in his favor last night.
Now, for the positive side:
. He did keep the ball down better -- and his high fastballs higher.
. He threw 2/3rds strikes, which is good for almost anyone.
. His slider and curve ball were pretty good.
. For the first time on the season, he didn't give up an extra base hit.
. He had a season high 12 swing-throughs.
The most depressing peripheral for Lincecum this season? His ground ball rate is at a career-low of 38.6%, well below his career mark of 46.4%. Tim's WORST previous season for ground balls was 43.9%.
Tim's fly rate is virtually at his career average. What has happened is that he's traded ground balls for line drives. His ground ball rate is by far his lowest, and his line drive rate is easily his highest. His swinging strike percentage is also easily the lowest of his career.
We talked about Tim's keeping the ball down last night, and he perhaps did a better job of it than usual. Still, he had only 9 combined ground balls and strikeouts. By comparison, Tim Hudson had 23 combined the ground balls and strikeouts the previous night. Hudson's LOW for combined ground balls and strikeouts this season is 15.
If two or three of the hard-hit balls Tim threw for outs had fallen, we would likely be seeing his outing in a much different light. I'm clearly one of Lincecum's top fans. But I'm sorry to say I'm not as impressd with Tim's last two games as Boagie (first one) and Boly (last night).
I do think Tim is getting better. I expect him to get better still. But his hit rate is more than half again as high as his career average. His home run rate is about 2 1/2 times as high as his career mark.
Tim hasn't yielded a home run in either of his last two games (his first two homerless games of the campaign), but they have also featured 5 of his 9 walks on the season. Over the past two games he has been unable to cut down his high hit rate -- and his alk rate has increased.
Tim's 1.61 WHIP this season is 0.36 over his career mark -- and 0.14 higher than his worst season (2012). Tim is improving slightly as the season progresses, but his improvement is coming hard rather than easily.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on May 4, 2014 9:36:47 GMT -5
Rog---If two or three of the hard-hit balls Tim threw for outs had fallen, we would likely be seeing his outing in a much different light. I'm clearly one of Lincecum's top fans. But I'm sorry to say I'm not as impressd with Tim's last two games as Boagie (first one) and Boly (last night).
I do think Tim is getting better. I expect him to get better still. But his hit rate is more than half again as high as his career average. His home run rate is about 2 1/2 times as high as his career mark.
---boly says---Rog, you don't see it because you can't see past the numbers. You keep comparing him to his career numbers and that is not the better way to do it.
He's not the same pitcher with the 95+ heater, and because he's not, he can't and doesn't often get away with the mistakes he always makes in the strikezone.
His strikeouts SHOULD be lower, because he no longer has that liquid flame, thus, his flyball rate is understandably higher.
He's learning to actually "pitch" not just 'throw,' which is really all he used to do. That adjustment is not easy.
I reference Robin Roberts. Go back and look up his numbers.
From 1948 through 1955, his ERA was anywhere from the mid 3's to mid 2's and THAT on a very consistant basis.
Then, his fastball deserted them. He had to go from thower to pitcher.
From 1956-1961 (6 Years) 4.45 4.07 3.24 4.27 4.02 5.85
Then, remarkably, he turned it all around in 1962. He had learned to "pitch."
And even though he was now very old for a pitcher, with tons of innings on his arm he reeled off consecutive seasons of 2.78 3-33 2.91 2.78 3.38, still starting 15 to 30 games/year.
You love statistical evidence, and I've provided it for you that demonstrates why you can't compare "young Timmy" to "current Timmy."
His last start was pretty good; a HUGE improvement over his previous one.
More pitches down in the zone, much better command OF the zone.
But if you still look to compare, you won't see the difference, Rog, you just won't.
boly
|
|
|
Post by islandboagie on May 4, 2014 11:07:45 GMT -5
Boly- His last start was pretty good; a HUGE improvement over his previous one.
More pitches down in the zone, much better command OF the zone.
Boagie- Actually it was about the same. As I mentioned after his last start I saw more control down in the zone and working his changeup better. The results weren't very good, but the location of pitches were about the same. The difference? The Rockies are red hot offensively and one awkward tomahawk swing by the rockies pitcher that fell in. The Braves have talented but dumb hitters, like the Upton brothers.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on May 4, 2014 12:15:15 GMT -5
Boagie- Actually it was about the same. As I mentioned after his last start I saw more control down in the zone and working his changeup better. The results weren't very good, but the location of pitches were about the same. The difference? The Rockies are red hot offensively and one awkward tomahawk swing by the rockies pitcher that fell in. The Braves have talented but dumb hitters, like the Upton brothers.
---boly says---
Wow! Boagie! I'm not sure we're talking about the same game! We see the start prior to this one sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo differently!
As to the Braves hitters, I agree. Krukow talked about all the "holes" in their swings, and he flat out nailed it!
BJ Upton, at this point in his career, IMHO, not only ISN'T the player he once was, but offensively, other than running into a mistake once-in-a-great-while, is really a wasted spot in the lineup.
He's gone the way of Uggla. Once upon a time, a solid, power guy, but now? More holes than John Lennon sang about in "A day in the life."
"4,000 holes in Blackburn, Lancashire."
boly
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on May 5, 2014 7:54:33 GMT -5
I was happy that Timmy pitched well, but the low K totals against a free swinging Braves team was a little disconcerting. We just saw Vogelsong strike out 6 in 6 innings, and Bumgarner fan 10 in 6 innings against them this weekend. Something to look at in Pittsburgh.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on May 5, 2014 10:40:36 GMT -5
Maybe Tim is looking to pitch to contact more. Perhaps realizing he's no longer a strikeout pitcher. His pitch counts have been more efficient and his walks have been down a bit, no?
|
|
|
Post by islandboagie on May 5, 2014 12:01:10 GMT -5
Maybe Tim is looking to pitch to contact more. Perhaps realizing he's no longer a strikeout pitcher. His pitch counts have been more efficient and his walks have been down a bit, no?
Boagie- Bingo! He can still get strikeouts, but it's not a very effective method for him to keep a low pitch count and work deep into games. He's now pitching more like Tim Hudson and less like Tim Lincecum. Perhaps Mr. Hudson is helping him?
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on May 6, 2014 10:10:26 GMT -5
His K totals this year(31 in 31.2 innings) are pretty much what they've been the last couple of years, I'm just talking about the Atlanta start. I think it's too early to say he's trying to be more like Hudson. The walk totals this year are definitely improving so far.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on May 7, 2014 12:19:10 GMT -5
Rog---If two or three of the hard-hit balls Tim threw for outs had fallen, we would likely be seeing his outing in a much different light. I'm clearly one of Lincecum's top fans. But I'm sorry to say I'm not as impressd with Tim's last two games as Boagie (first one) and Boly (last night). I do think Tim is getting better. I expect him to get better still. But his hit rate is more than half again as high as his career average. His home run rate is about 2 1/2 times as high as his career mark. ---boly says---Rog, you don't see it because you can't see past the numbers. You keep comparing him to his career numbers and that is not the better way to do it. He's not the same pitcher with the 95+ heater, and because he's not, he can't and doesn't often get away with the mistakes he always makes in the strikezone. His strikeouts SHOULD be lower, because he no longer has that liquid flame, thus, his flyball rate is understandably higher. Rog -- I understand your point, Boly, although Tim's strikeouts aren't all that much lower. But you're right that he no longer has the heat and thus must become a cool pitcher who keeps the opponents' flame down. And that should lead to a LOWER fly ball rate. When the term fly ball rate is used, it is the ratio of fly balls to grounders. In order to be successful now, Tim must DECREASE his fly ball rate (or said differently, increase his ground ball rate). A lower fly ball rate means he's keeping the ball down. With his decreased velocity, an increase in his fly ball rate will almost certainly lead to giving up far more home runs. When he gets the ball up, those fly balls are likely to be hit DEEPER than when he was throwing harder. Let's take a look at his pitch speed, fly ball rate, his home run rate per fly ball, the homers he has given up, and his ERA: 2007 -- 94.2 mph, 80% Fly ball rate, 8.2% home runs per fly ball,16 homers, 4.00 ERA 2008 -- 94.1 mph, 81% Fly ball rate, 5.6% home runs per fly ball, 11 homers, 2.62 ERA 2009 -- 92.4 mph, 70% Fly ball rate, 5.5% home runs per fly ball, 10 homers, 2.49 ERA 2010 -- 91.3 mph, 65% Fly ball rate, 9.9% home runs per fly ball, 18 homers, 3.43 ERA 2011 -- 92.3 mph, 69% Fly ball rate, 8.0% home runs per fly ball, 15 homers, 2.74 ERA 2012 -- 90.4 mph, 66% Fly ball rate, 14.6% home runs per fly ball, 23 homers, 5.28 ERA 2013 -- 90.3 mph, 70% Fly ball rate, 12.1% home runs per fly ball, 21 homers, 4.37 ERA 2014 -- 89.2 mph, 87% Fly ball rate, 18.2% home runs per fly ball, 39 homers, 5.12 ERA (Please note that the home runs for both 2007 and 2014 are pro-rated for a full season.) So what do we see? We see that Tim's fly ball rate this season is the highest of his career -- and that he's on pace to give up far more homers than ever before. We see that his home run percentage began increasing in 2010 and has really exploded in 2012, 2013 and 2014. We see that Tim's ERA has risen as his home run percentage has risen. And we see that, not surprisingly, his home run percentage has risen as his fastball has slowed. I think we both agree that Tim needs to keep the ball down. He also needs to keep it from the middle of the plate. For most of his life, he had the stuff and speed to get by with poor command. He still has the stuff -- but no longer the speed. His lack of speed allows hitters a split second more to react to his secondary pitches, somewhat diminishing their effectiveness and increasing his need for location. You and I are both seeing the same thing, and only our different interpretations of fly ball rate have caused us to disagree here. Incidentally, I don't think it's fair to see I can't see beyond the numbers. As you can see here, they do provide me with depth. They can tell me the speed and the horizontal and vertical movement of each of his pitches. They can show me if he has a consistent release point. But I was the first one here to see the movement of Tim's pitches. I was the first one here to see that he added a change up (split finger) in 2007. I was the first one here to chart his pitches. I was the first one here to study Tim in every way I could and to chat with his dad. I think you can see from my analysis of the play that ended last night's game that I don't have any problem seeing the game WITHOUT stats. The stats do provide me with an added dimension to how I can see the game. With regard to mechanics, I certainly give the nod to Don and especially you. But when it comes to watching just about anything else in the game, I'm right in there with anyone else on the board. I have several ways to see the game. Pretty much the same ways everyone else -- plus from a statistical analytical direction and through the eyes of an official. I spend as much time with the game as anyone here. With the exception of Don, I have studied it longer than anyone else on the board (as poorly as that speaks to my age). I have talked the game with a Giants player (Chris Speier) and a Giants dad (Chris Lincecum). For the first time on the seaoson, I called for a very good game from Tim minutes before his no-hitter. I don't think saying that I can't see beyond the numbers is a fair assessment. When I disagree with someone here, it doesn't mean I can't see beyond the numbers. It simply means that I'm seeing things differently. And that isn't always a bad thing. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2253/time#ixzz3130a0rgY
|
|
|
Post by Rog on May 7, 2014 12:23:39 GMT -5
Boly -- You love statistical evidence, and I've provided it for you that demonstrates why you can't compare "young Timmy" to "current Timmy." Rog -- What you have provided is statistical evidence that Roberts recreated himself as a pitcher. Clearly Tim hasn't been able to do so yet. I think everyone here can see the obvious difference in Cy Young Tim and struggling Tim. His velocity is no longer high enough for him to overcome his lack of command. As you have pointed out, it's pretty much just that simple. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2253/time?page=1#scrollTo=19942#ixzz313FS65Vn
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on May 7, 2014 15:52:26 GMT -5
Rog --I don't think saying that I can't see beyond the numbers is a fair assessment. When I disagree with someone here, it doesn't mean I can't see beyond the numbers. It simply means that I'm seeing things differently. And that isn't always a bad thing.
--boly says---
But Rog, you're still comparing apples to orange; Old Tim to new Tim.
That's why I don't think looking at the numbers works here.
boly
|
|
|
Post by Rog on May 8, 2014 2:42:05 GMT -5
Rog --I don't think saying that I can't see beyond the numbers is a fair assessment. When I disagree with someone here, it doesn't mean I can't see beyond the numbers. It simply means that I'm seeing things differently. And that isn't always a bad thing. --boly says--- But Rog, you're still comparing apples to orange; Old Tim to new Tim. That's why I don't think looking at the numbers works here. Rog -- Really? His first four full seasons, his ERA was 2.62, 2.49, 3.43 and 2.74. The last two seasons it has been 5.28 and 4.37 (going off the top of my head here, so one or more might be a little off). Entering play today his ERA was 5.12. You said I couldn't see beyond the numbers immediately after I stated Tim's hit rate was more than half again as high as his career rate and his home run rate was 2 1/2 times as high. Wasn't I looking at the right numbers. Someone mentioned that Tim was being more efficient pitch count-wise. It only got worse today, but previously, he was averaging 17.5 pitches per frame. How was that being more efficient? You don't think the numbers show an entirely different pitcher? (Not to mention an entirely different picture.) Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2253/time#ixzz316i1heM4
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on May 8, 2014 9:13:50 GMT -5
Rog---You said I couldn't see beyond the numbers immediately after I stated Tim's hit rate was more than half again as high as his career rate and his home run rate was 2 1/2 times as high. Wasn't I looking at the right numbers.
---boly says---
Maybe I misread your post, Rog, but other than that instance you referenced, it just seemed to me that you were still comparing old Tim to New Tim strictly based upon numbers.
I know you're a numbers guy, and you've demonstrated to me that I need to look at numbers differently, but my point is, all of those numbers you referenced in your first post were terribly misleading.
We can't "look" for equalities and find them just because we want to, and that's what it looked like you were doing.
boly
|
|
|
Post by Rog on May 9, 2014 1:58:40 GMT -5
Boly -- I know you're a numbers guy, and you've demonstrated to me that I need to look at numbers differently, but my point is, all of those numbers you referenced in your first post were terribly misleading. Rog -- Intriguing. When I looked at those stats, they indicated to me that as Tim has lost his speed, his lack of command has begun to hurt him to an extent we wouldn't have imagined early in his career. Were those stats truly misleading -- or might you not have interpreted them as I did? Actually, though I see you were referring to my use of stats in a previous post I originally missed when I looked back. I'll tackle that one in my next post. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2253/time#ixzz31COkIi9H
|
|
|
Post by Rog on May 9, 2014 2:12:40 GMT -5
Congrats to Boagie for calling Tim's success in advance. One thing I'd like to point out though. A lot of how we judge a pitcher in a particular game has to do with luck. As you point out, Tim had a season low 4 strikeouts in his 6.0 innings -- with the exception of his 3 strikeouts in 4.2 innings his previous outing. Tim gave up a season high tying 3 walks, giving him his worst K/BB ratio on the year. Tim gave up a season-high 15 fly balls. He usually pitches best when he throws a lot of ground balls. His best route to success features few walks, a lot of strikeouts, and a lot of ground balls. None of those three factors was in his favor last night. Rog -- I'm not quite sure how this was misleading. Now, for the positive side: . He did keep the ball down better -- and his high fastballs higher. . He threw 2/3rds strikes, which is good for almost anyone. . His slider and curve ball were pretty good. . For the first time on the season, he didn't give up an extra base hit. . He had a season high 12 swing-throughs. Rog -- Not quite sure how this was misleading. The most depressing peripheral for Lincecum this season? His ground ball rate is at a career-low of 38.6%, well below his career mark of 46.4%. Tim's WORST previous season for ground balls was 43.9%. Tim's fly rate is virtually at his career average. What has happened is that he's traded ground balls for line drives. His ground ball rate is by far his lowest, and his line drive rate is easily his highest. His swinging strike percentage is also easily the lowest of his career. We talked about Tim's keeping the ball down last night, and he perhaps did a better job of it than usual. Still, he had only 9 combined ground balls and strikeouts. By comparison, Tim Hudson had 23 combined the ground balls and strikeouts the previous night. Hudson's LOW for combined ground balls and strikeouts this season is 15. Rog -- Not quite sure how this is misleading. If two or three of the hard-hit balls Tim threw for outs had fallen, we would likely be seeing his outing in a much different light. I'm clearly one of Lincecum's top fans. But I'm sorry to say I'm not as impressd with Tim's last two games as Boagie (first one) and Boly (last night). Rog -- Make sense? I wasn't as impressd with Tim's two starts prior to his last one as Boagie (the first one) and you (the latter) seemed to be. I do think Tim is getting better. I expect him to get better still. But his hit rate is more than half again as high as his career average. His home run rate is about 2 1/2 times as high as his career mark. Tim hasn't yielded a home run in either of his last two games (his first two homerless games of the campaign), but they have also featured 5 of his 9 walks on the season. Over the past two games he has been unable to cut down his high hit rate -- and his alk rate has increased. Tim's 1.61 WHIP this season is 0.36 over his career mark -- and 0.14 higher than his worst season (2012). Tim is improving slightly as the season progresses, but his improvement is coming hard rather than easily. Rog -- Not quite sure how this was misleading. I guess you will have to show me how you are interpreting the above differently than I am. It seems to me that I was less impressed than you or Boagie by Tim's starts. I hope I will be proven wrong (and I DO think Tim will eventually improve), but I suspect that after Tim's start earlier this week, you and Boagie have come back closer to my position. I hope we'll all be able to adjust our opinions upward, but thus far Tim's season has been a huge disappointment. While he still wasn't close to what he had been, Tim improved a noticeable amount last season compared to 2012. So far this season he's taken a step backward. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2253/time?page=1#scrollTo=19987#ixzz31CQ3MXSA
|
|
|
Post by Rog on May 9, 2014 2:16:58 GMT -5
In his 2nd Cy Young season of 2009, batters hit just .208 against Tim. As recently as 2011, they hit just .222.
This season batters are hitting a jaw-free-falling .329 against him. .329. Against Tim Lincecum. To paraphrase Ernest Hemingway, the son no longer rises.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on May 9, 2014 7:55:06 GMT -5
Vogey seems to be turning it around though. He was spectacular last night, and actually his last three have been pretty good. Should we have kept the reasonably priced Vogey and dumped the horribly overpriced Lincecum? Seems I remember someone here saying just that.
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on May 9, 2014 9:13:55 GMT -5
I'm very pleasantly surprised at the way Vogelsong has pitched lately. He looks like his old self. Rather than bury Lincecum, I'd prefer to think that if they can turn Vogey around, they can do the same with Timmy.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on May 9, 2014 9:43:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on May 9, 2014 9:57:03 GMT -5
Mark-m very pleasantly surprised at the way Vogelsong has pitched lately. He looks like his old self. Rather than bury Lincecum, I'd prefer to think that if they can turn Vogey around, they can do the same with Timmy.
---boly says----
Mark, that's what people keep hoping for with timmy... but it's not that simple.
Vogey has VERY SIMPLE, uncomplicated mechanics. His much more traditional in his wind up, gathering and release than Tim.
I keep saying the same things; the more complicated a wind up/delivery/swing, when a player gets miles on him as he gets older, they become harder and harder to repeat.
Vogey dedicted a mechanical flaw, and since his mechanics are so simple, it was "relatively" easy to fix it.
Not so with Tim. So many loose, moving parts, ending with that ridiculous stride.
Unless he makes some DRASTIC changes, he's not going to be an easy fix.
Thus, as I continue to say, NO ONE is going to be able to "turn him around."
boly
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on May 9, 2014 10:34:29 GMT -5
We've been going through this same stuff with Timmy for over two seasons now. Got burned on his last contract, stand to get burned even bigger on this one. Sorry Mark, I just don't see Timmy getting fixed.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on May 21, 2014 10:42:30 GMT -5
Boly -- Rog, you don't see it because you can't see past the numbers. You keep comparing him to his career numbers and that is not the better way to do it. He's not the same pitcher with the 95+ heater, and because he's not, he can't and doesn't often get away with the mistakes he always makes in the strikezone. His strikeouts SHOULD be lower, because he no longer has that liquid flame, thus, his flyball rate is understandably higher. He's learning to actually "pitch" not just 'throw,' which is really all he used to do. That adjustment is not easy. I reference Robin Roberts. Go back and look up his numbers. From 1948 through 1955, his ERA was anywhere from the mid 3's to mid 2's and THAT on a very consistant basis. Then, his fastball deserted them. He had to go from thower to pitcher. From 1956-1961 (6 Years) 4.45 4.07 3.24 4.27 4.02 5.85 Then, remarkably, he turned it all around in 1962. He had learned to "pitch." And even though he was now very old for a pitcher, with tons of innings on his arm he reeled off consecutive seasons of 2.78 3-33 2.91 2.78 3.38, still starting 15 to 30 games/year. Rog -- Are you saying the numbers are a good way to evaluate Robin Roberts but not to evaluate Tim? The numbers don't show HOW Robin bounced back, merely that he did so. We can pretty easily guess the how. The numbers show that Tim HASN'T yet bounced back yet. I'm curious, Boly, what is it that the numbers don't show here? In fact, if we look closely at the numbers, we can see a pretty clear picture of Tim without even seeing him pitch. . The obvious one: His ERA is way up. Clearly he's doing something wrong. . His walk rate is up. He has lost some of his control. . His strikeouts are still high. He still has stuff. . His hit and especially home run rates are up. He isn't throwing as hard or locating as well. . His percentage of pitches in the strike zone are down. He's lost some of his control. . His fastball is 4.5 mph slower than when he entered the league. He isn't throwing as hard. . His swinging strike percentage is right at his career average. He still has stuff. . His percentage of pitches outside the strike zone swung at are at his career average. He still has stuff. . He is throwing his fastball far less often. He's losing speed and trying to become more of a pitcher. He may have more pitches to choose from. . He's throwing his slider and change up more and his fastball and curve ball less. He has gained confidence in the former two pitches and lost it in the latter two. . His line drive percentage is clearly up. He isn't pitching well. Since his strikeout percentage is still high, he's likely leaving hittable pitches higher in the zone. The more I look at them, the more I think the numbers DO tell a lot of the story of Tim Lincecum. Much as they seem to tell the story of Robin Roberts. It is the story, not the accuracy of the numbers or what they tell, that is the problem with Tim. If we hadn't ever seen Tim pitch but saw just his numbers, we could paint a pretty accurate picture of what has happened with his career. By the way, I can see WELL past the numbers. Pretty much anyone who has watched the game a lot can do so. But the numbers themselves enable us to see a rather clear picture. Baseball teams have concluded for quite a while now that the best way to see the game is by combining the two. Numbers are being used more and more in sports because of their accuracy and objectivity. Basketball is much more a team sport than baseball, but Sunday's Contra Costa Times had an article about how analytics have changed the game of basketball. Here is part of the article: Analytics: Software analyzes images, reads player's jersey number and associates eery pass, shot and block by that player. The software can also trace player movements, movements, tactics and speed. Information age: The live statistics can be sent to the team and fans within 90 seconds of a play. "It's a real game changer," said Ben Alamar, a professor of sports management at Menlo Colege in Atherton, who works as a consultant to the Cleveland Cavaliers. "It's allowing us to ask questions that we really couldn't ask before." The technology was first embraced by individual NBA teams, rather than by the league as a whole. The first four teams installed the camera system before the 2010-2011 season; the Warriors adopted it later that season, becoming the fifth team to do so. The data from SportVU has helped teams determine that the 3-point shot is one of the most efficient ways to score points and has underscored the importance of taking uncontested shots, said Steve Hellmuch, the NBA's director of operations and technology. "That's led to a lot of passing a a really kind of a cool game where the ball moves rapidly around," he said. In the near future, the N BA and its teams may be doing a lot more with the date. It could allow coaches to make real-time, in-game adjustments to their play calling. It could also allow the NBA to automate some of the calls now made by referees and scorekeepers, such as when a player assists on a basket or when a basket has been goaltended. Bottom line here: This board has been skeptical of the use of analytics in sports. As this article and a previous one quoted here from ESPN the Magazine show, those who don't include analytics in their spectrum of sports observation are being left behind, much as -- although not to the same extent as -- those who don't use computers and the internet are being left behind in real life. Every month, ESPN the Magazine prints statistical analyses of various sports that open up my eyes. We joke here about not being able to see beyond the numbers. The problem we are beginning to see more and more though is not being able to see and understand all the numbers that are available today. As more and more become available, that approach will leave us more and more behind the game. Baseball is the game that is most easily captured by analytics. But the other, more team-oriented sports are developing further analyses that are perhaps making even greater advances in their sports. We here all understand the basics and even the intracies and nuances of the game. But the realm of knowledge about the game is growing more quickly than even the best hitter or pitcher can make adjustments. If we are content with our understanding of the game just as that level of understanding is right now, there is no point in paying attention to analytics. But if we would like to continue growing and not be left behind as knowledge of the game itself grows, we should do so. We can resist analytics and remain static in our knowledge. Or we can embrace them as we did the computer and grow our knowledge at an increasing rate. The increased use of analytics on TV and radio will force us to increase our knowledge a bit. But for the most part, it is up to us. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2253/time#ixzz32MOWBzOv
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on May 21, 2014 11:48:12 GMT -5
Rog---Rog -- Are you saying the numbers are a good way to evaluate Robin Roberts but not to evaluate Tim?
The numbers don't show HOW Robin bounced back, merely that he did so. We can pretty easily guess the how.
The numbers show that Tim HASN'T yet bounced back yet.
--boly says---I'm not suggesting the numbers are good for one, and not the other.
Not at all.
What I'm saying is this, and this is the point I think you're missing.
1-Robin had to make drastic changes to turn his career around. 2-The numbers back that up.
3-Tim has not changed his mechanics (I would argue, refuses to... but that's another arguement) 4-Since he hasn't changed his mechanics, and though his strike zone command marginally improved, you can't use his fastball velocity, number of strikes, etc. to prove your point.
5-Yeah, he's thrown more strikes, but are they quality strikes? Based upon his ERA, I would argue that he has not. And the numbers back this up.
6-Because he's not made what I consider to be 'needed' changes; the types of changes Robin made,thus all of those numbers that you're quoting are moot.
You and the guys keep saying "yet."
Without drastic changes, stuff or not, there won't BE a yet.
His future is a 4.25-4.75 pitcher.
You heard it here first, and Lord knows, I wish I was wrong.
boly
|
|
|
Post by Rog on May 21, 2014 20:52:32 GMT -5
--boly says---I'm not suggesting the numbers are good for one, and not the other. Not at all. What I'm saying is this, and this is the point I think you're missing. 1-Robin had to make drastic changes to turn his career around. 2-The numbers back that up. 3-Tim has not changed his mechanics (I would argue, refuses to... but that's another arguement) 4-Since he hasn't changed his mechanics, and though his strike zone command marginally improved, you can't use his fastball velocity, number of strikes, etc. to prove your point. Rog -- #4 is where your argument becomes illogical, Boly. (I'm not saying it is wrong here. Simply that it becomes illogical.) Through #3 we agree. But on #4, you say "Since he hasn't changed his mechanics ..., (I) can't use his fastball velocity, # of strikes, etc. to prove (my) point." Whether he has changed mechanics or not doesn't impact what I can use to prove a point. Again, I'm not saying your argument is wrong, Boly. I don't think we know for sure whether it is or not. But at #4 it becomes illogical. (Again, not necessarily wrong.) You seem to be sort of saying, "Since I'm right, your arguments can't be used to prove your point." I don't think that is what you mean, but it is a circular argument. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2253/time#ixzz32PA2vZJ4
|
|
|
Post by Rog on May 21, 2014 21:01:13 GMT -5
Boly -- 5-Yeah, he's thrown more strikes, but are they quality strikes? Based upon his ERA, I would argue that he has not. And the numbers back this up. Rog -- Actually, Boly, I pointed out he is throwing FEWER pitches in the strike zone, not more. Boly -- 6-Because he's not made what I consider to be 'needed' changes; the types of changes Robin made,thus all of those numbers that you're quoting are moot. Rog -- Again, you sem to be saying that since you're right, my argument is moot. I wasn't using the numbers to prove that Tim is pitching well. I merely stated that the numbers show that Tim ISN'T pitching well and that they imply why he isn't (less speed, worse command). I don't think you understood what I was saying, Boly. I think we both agree that he still has stuff, but that his loss of speed has shown the importance of his lack of command. His initial speed helped to mask that problem. We're not arguing here whether Tim is pitching well or not. I think we agree that he's not, and that we agree on the problems he's trying to overcome. I was simply showing how the numbers illustrate those very points. If you re-read what I wrote, I think you will agree. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2253/time?page=1#scrollTo=20190#ixzz32PC2h29F
|
|
|
Post by Rog on May 21, 2014 21:17:58 GMT -5
Boly -- You and the guys keep saying "yet." Without drastic changes, stuff or not, there won't BE a yet. His future is a 4.25-4.75 pitcher. Rog -- You may be right. But three facts indicate that might not be the case. First, Tim improved a lot from 2012 to 2013 despite not making the radical changes you recommend. Second, it has been shown that with normal bullpen support last season, Tim's ERA would have been right at 4.00, which is lower than the 4.25-4.75 range you suggest. Third, he seems to still be improving. His first two starts this season were horrible, but his starts since have yielded an ERA equal to his 2010 ERA. I pointed out that I don't believe he has been as good in those starts as he was in 2010 (especially if we include his great 2010 postseason), but if he continues to pitch as he has over his most recent stretch, we should all be happy -- and his ERA will come in clearly lower than 4.25-4.75. I don't think any of us knows how this will turn out. I can make an argument in either direction. But in your belief that the only way he can pitch below 4.25 again is to make drastic mechanical changes, I believe you may not be giving the three facts above enough credence. I'm certainly not as confident that Tim will improve over the rest of his career as I was that on July 13, 2013, he would pitch a good game. I wasn't even certain of that (although it turned out to be a pretty good guess). But you seem certain that he WON'T improve -- and I just don't think we know that for sure. If you say it is unlikely he will ever become Cy Young Timmy again, I will agree with you. I just don't see that happening (although it isn't impossible). But I think there is enough evidence to show he might become better than he has been the past two seasons for us not to be sure he won't be. As I say, I'm cautiously optimistic. You seem to be uncautiously pessimistic. At the very least, it appears my mind is more open on the subject than yours is. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm simply saying I don't think we know for sure. It may be that his mechanics will prevent him from ever being better than a 4.25 pitcher again. But what we know for sure is that with his present mechanics, he has been one of the best starters in the game -- as well as (in 2012), one of the worst able to hold a regular place in a starting rotation for the whole season. I think your objectivity may be colored by your long-time belief that Tim's mechanics would hurt him. While he's been as frustrating as any pitcher I can think of, he's still been an above-average pitcher over the course of his career. With almost every game, his career is declining. But he's still had a good career. Certainly far better than most pitchers who reach the majors. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2253/time?page=1#scrollTo=20191#ixzz32PDyV0F2
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on May 22, 2014 10:00:48 GMT -5
Rog--I think your objectivity may be colored by your long-time belief that Tim's mechanics would hurt him.
---boly says---
No question, Rog, you're correct.
I pitched and coached for too many years, studied pitching mechanics for too many years, to think differently.
You keep saying "I don't think we can know for sure," and to an extent, you're right.
But my arguement is that we do already have ample data to support my position; that his mechanics are the problem.
Simply look at all of his data since his last sub 4.00 season.
boly
|
|
|
Post by Rog on May 23, 2014 13:01:43 GMT -5
Boly --But my arguement is that we do already have ample data to support my position; that his mechanics are the problem. Simply look at all of his data since his last sub 4.00 season. Rog -- I guess one can look at this one either way. One could argue that Tim's mechanics aren't the problem; they didn't stand in his way during his two Cy Young seasons. But one can also argue that it is the mechanics that cause his lack of command, which is a problem he can no longer overcome since his velocity is down. The lack of command is the problem; whether the mechanics are the problem is debatable. There are plenty of pitchers with orthodox mechanics who also have command difficulties. One point I have to disagree with is your saying that Tim's mechanics don't allow him to get on top of his pitches to get downward bite. We can see that isn't a problem. Tim's problem is controlling his pitches -- not getting them to move. One thing we DON'T know is if Tim would have or can be successful with more orthodox mechanics. Here is the thing that bothers me the most: It has been reported on multiple occasions that Tim has had on problem hitting the glove while warming up in the bullpen. Is it that his adrenaline gets flowing that causes him to lose that ability once the game starts? There are just so many things about Tim's pitching that we don't understand. Are they all caused by his mechanics? I don't think so, but I just don't know. Maybe we could agree that his mechanics don't seem to help him in solving the problems. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2253/time#ixzz32Yvlf1ZT
|
|