On Beyond Ugly

[klaiggeb]

With apologies to Dr. Zesus, Tim's outting last night was "On Beyond Ugly."

Actually, if I had a more descriptive word than ugly, I use it.

But I don't.

And though I applaud his effort to get out of trouble, I dare say, if Tim had been pitching to a lineup that could really hit, (like the Rockies or Marlins) we would have lost the game Eleventeen to six.

He got away with a ton of really "hittable" balls last night that I flat out lost count.

Still, a win is a win.

boly

[Rog]

It is worth looking at MLB's Gameday after a game. I had gotten away from it after Tim's starts until recently, and I missed out on some things when I didn't. I felt slightly better after I looked at Gameday this morning -- although obviously still not great.

. Tim's main issue was that a lot of the time he couldn't get his fastball even close to the plate. I should probably go back again and look, but I'll bet he didn't throw many more than 40% of his fastballs for strikes. (My guess without looking it up is 42.4%.) Hector Sanchez's catching of Tim's pitches was pretty ugly, but Tim's throwing of them was even worse.

. When he got the ball in the zone, he actually had better command than average. At least two of the five hits (the double by "Bull" Dozier and a single by the future Hall of Famer) came on pitches a little outside the zone.

. He didn't have the big break on the slider he had in his previous two starts. He had a career break two games ago, a nice break a game ago, and just so-so break last night. The slider had been his best pitch the previous two games; last night it wasn't and to his credit he didn't throw as many of them, relying more on the curve ball. Without looking it up, he threw more fastballs (55.8%?) than he had been throwing, as well.

. He didn't actually reach more total strikes than balls until the last hitter, to whom he threw 7 strikes and 2 balls. Those last 9 pitches were pretty good too -- except for the final one, which Tim was lucky got hit for an out. He almost certainly would have been out of the game otherwise.

Two things Tim needs to do to make his next outing a good one: Get more bite back on the slider, and get a clue with the fastball.

Actually though, going back and looking again, I was off regarding the fastball. By my count, Tim threw only 55 (compared to 57 secondary pitches), and 32 were strikes (58%). That's still very bad control of the fastball, but my own estimate of balls and strikes was almost exactly reversed.

So it was Tim's secondary pitches he had the most trouble controlling. By my count, just 23 of 57 secondary pitches were strikes. Sometimes the way we see the game and the way it actually happened just weren't the same. I naturally watch Tim pretty closely, and I certainly was off on a few things last night.

Slightly more positive than I had believed in that Tim threw more fastball strikes than I thought and threw with better command in the strike zone than I had realized. Probably the most disturbing factors were that Tim had a very hard time throwing strikes when he needed to, and many of them weren't close. The word "scud" certainly comes to mind.

Tim's fastball also wasn't. Didn't run an average, but it couldn't have been too much over 99.0 mph. A lot of work to be done before his next start. At least he gave up less than a hit per inning and kept the ball in the ballpark (barely).

Thank goodness for the cars. ("It's off the top of the fence! It's off the top of the CARS!" And Jeff Kent's double wins it in walkoff fashion for the Giants.)

[klaiggeb]

Rog--So it was Tim's secondary pitches he had the most trouble controlling. By my count, just 23 of 57 secondary pitches were strikes. Sometimes the way we see the game and the way it actually happened just weren't the same. I naturally watch Tim pretty closely, and I certainly was off on a few things last night.

Slightly more positive than I had believed in that Tim threw more fastball strikes than I thought and threw with better command in the strike zone than I had realized. Probably the most disturbing factors were that Tim had a very hard time throwing strikes when he needed to, and many of them weren't close. The word "scud" certainly comes to mind.


---boly says---

Rog, there is no question that Campos' strike zone... wasn't. He was worse than he usually is.

In fact, he was an embarrasment behind the plate.


However, that said, even though you admit he was bad, you seem to be trying to come up with a lot of statistical reasons to excuse Tim's terrible showing.

Roger, you are my friend. Of that there is no question.

But your rationale just doesn't fly with me, and here's why.

Let's ignore what could have, or should have called a strike, (there were plenty for both pitchers) and let's simply focus on how many times he was ridiculously off the plate and out of the strikezone

Fastballs and off speed stuff both.

There were more than I can count.

Tim missed so badly, so often, for a minute, I thought I was watching a Little League game, it was that awful.


Which brings me to Sanchez.

During Hector's last start, I was praising him for his work behind the plate, thinking, at the time, that his mechanics were better than Posey's

Not any more.

Last night I wanted to ask if he was drunk, high or both.

He didn't just stink, he caught as bad, or perhaps as you pointed out, worse than Tim pitched!

That was not a major league effort.

Not even close!


And it carried over to his plate appearances, too. He wasn't at the game, that's for sure. I don't know where he was, but it wasn't at AT & T

His entire night was flat out pathetic!

We were lucky to escape with a win.

boly

[allenreed]

I thought we did just what we should do with a team like the Twins. Jump on them early, crush their hope, don't let them get close. Campos was absolutely wretched, but no worse than he usually is.

Some notes: Anointed savior Zach Wheeler is now 1-5 with an ERA in the mid 4s.

As Memorial Day approaches, I have to give Obama props on the VA thing. At least he's showing some integrity. He doesn't even pretend to give a sh**.

Is there any bigger group of incompetents than Obama's cabinet, both past and present?

If you could make this trade, would you? Timmy and Pablo for Jeff Samardzija and Mike Olt?

[klaiggeb]

Allen---
If you could make this trade, would you? Timmy and Pablo for Jeff Samardzija and Mike Olt?

---boly says---

I'd include Tim in that deal, but not Pablo.

And why would the Cubs want a guy asking for the money he wants, and is a FA?

That doesn't make much sense for them.

I would part with Tim and Crick, though, or Tim and Susac and another, lesser player.

boly

[klaiggeb]

Allen--Campos was absolutely wretched, but no worse than he usually is.

--boly says--

Roger contends these guys ARE evaluated, and Campos is one of many reasons why I contend that, thought they may be evaluated, they are not held accountable.

Campos is an embarassment to umpiring, with that heavy set guy, (Joe West?) not far behind.

If they were held accountable, they would be fine or suspended for their terrible... no make that, consistently terrible performances.

boly

[Rog]

Boly -- However, that said, even though you admit he was bad, you seem to be trying to come up with a lot of statistical reasons to excuse Tim's terrible showing.

Rog -- I appreciate your giving me credit for saying that Tim was bad. I simply said he wasn't as bad as I had thought while watching the game. While watching, I thought he was just WRETCHD, especially for having given up only two runs.

I'm still amazed that he yielded only the two tallies, but whereas I would have guessed that in addition to coming within one of his career record for walks in a game, Tim gave up more hits than innings pitched. As it turned out, he yielded only 5 in 6 innings of pitching.

One reason he gave up only two runs was that Dozier missed a home run by perhaps a foot -- then began one of the strangest base running innings I have ever seen by simply taking off for third. I'm not sure what he read from Tim, but he certainly read it wrong. I'm not sure I've even seen that one before, although I think I might remember one or two through the fog.

Then Pagan made two base running errors himself in the bottom of the inning, and Dozier made a fielding doozy by pulling off the bag too soon.

And, yes, Allen, that happened in today's improved game. It wasn't improved that inning though.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2278/on-ugly#ixzz32jtu3bnT

[allenreed]

Samardzija is in the same boat as Pablo. He wants out of Chicago. I think Pablo could help the Cubs more than Jeff, if they could sign him.

[Rog]

Getting back to Tim's pitching, I'm not quite sure how I used stats to show that Tim pitched better. The one thing that did make me a tiny bit happier was that his command in the zone wasn't as bad as I had thought based on how badly he was missing on many pitches -- including "get-it-in" situations.

But here is some of what I said:

. Hector Sanchez's catching of Tim's pitches was pretty ugly, but Tim's throwing of them was even worse. (That's pretty damning.)

. He didn't actually reach more total strikes than balls until the last hitter... (That's pretty damning.)

. He didn't have the big break on the slider he had in his previous two starts. (And it was the increased break on the slider that was giving me the most hope for continued improvement.)

. By my count, Tim threw only 55 (compared to 57 secondary pitches), and 32 were strikes (58%). That's still very bad control of the fastball. (And by extrapolation, he was even worse with his secondary pitches - much worse. 25 strikes out of 57 pitches.)

. By my count, just 23 of 57 secondary pitches were strikes. (See what I mean?)

. Probably the most disturbing factors were that Tim had a very hard time throwing strikes when he needed to, and many of them weren't close. The word "scud" certainly comes to mind. (And I found out by looking at MLB.com's Gameday, it wasn't only the fastball that was yielding scuds.)

. Tim's fastball also wasn't. Didn't run an average, but it couldn't have been too much over 99.0 mph. A lot of work to be done before his next start. (Not the most complimentary thing I've ever said about Tim. A fastball that wasn't. I kind of liked that one -- although not having to say it. Might have been nice if I had posted my intended 89.0 MPH instead of 99.0 MPH. Tim's fastball continues to decline in speed. I either just thought it or posted it somewhere else, but I don't think Tim will break 89.5 MPH on average this season. That's a decline of almost 5 mph from his peak. From a guy whose 2nd major league pitch was clocked at 101 mph, that is particularly discouraging.)

. Thank goodness for the cars. (Nothing like having your first pitch of the game CRUSHED. If Dozier hadn't hit it quite so well and gotten underneath by just a hair, it would have been long gone instead of going off the top of the car. And, yeah, Jon Miller's call on Kent's walk-off double is one of my favorites among his many good calls.)

One thing I thought but forgot to post is that while Tim's location on strikes was better than I had thought, that may have simply been luck.

Bottom line: I think posters here sometimes see what they want to see in my posts. I try to present all sides of a story, so perhaps if one is selectively looking for it, he finds that part of the argument which goes against his own beliefs.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2278/on-ugly?page=1#scrollTo=20250#ixzz32jxjXhd6


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2278/on-ugly?page=1#scrollTo=20250#ixzz32jxP64tF

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2278/on-ugly?page=1#scrollTo=20250#ixzz32jwvUpZh

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2278/on-ugly?page=1#scrollTo=20250#ixzz32jwbjm43

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2278/on-ugly?page=1#scrollTo=20250#ixzz32jwIk8Hv


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2278/on-ugly?page=1#scrollTo=20250#ixzz32jw7RZQz

[islandboagie]

How does looking back on MLB gameday change your opinion on something you saw with your own eyes? That baffles me.

[islandboagie]

Allen---
If you could make this trade, would you? Timmy and Pablo for Jeff Samardzija and Mike Olt?

---boly says---

I'd include Tim in that deal, but not Pablo.

And why would the Cubs want a guy asking for the money he wants, and is a FA?

That doesn't make much sense for them.

I would part with Tim and Crick, though, or Tim and Susac and another, lesser player.

Boagie- OR... We could just keep the team we have and enjoy having the best record in baseball. Just another crazy idea by islandboagie.

[allenreed]

Just some grist for the mill, boag. Don't jump off a building.

[klaiggeb]

boagie--Boagie- OR... We could just keep the team we have and enjoy having the best record in baseball. Just another crazy idea by islandboagie.

---boly says---

Boagie, I was merely responding to Allen's question.

Nothing more. It was a 'fantasy' moment.

As to Lincecum... I'd move him in a heartbeat. (in the right deal of course).

And I mean that, sincerely.


Of course, we would have to acquire a SP, that goes without saying.

And I'd love to getJeff Samardzija!

Who wouldn't!

But that would be expensive. Thus, my desire to move either Susac or Crick, since Chicago would DEMAND equal or better value.


Personally, I'd rather see Tim where, as I think Rog or boagie suggested years ago, in the bullpen.

Of course we'd need another starter, and right now... I don't see that we have one.

boly

[allenreed]

You'd be virtually exchanging Tim's salary for Jeff's, and be saving a bundle in the Pablo/Olt exchange.

[Rog]

Boagie --How does looking back on MLB gameday change your opinion on something you saw with your own eyes? That baffles me.

Rog -- The same way that going back and watching the game again does. The same way that charting every pitch and then going back and looking at and analyzing it did when I did that with Tim's minor league and early major league starts. Once Tim began pitching at a Cy Young level, I didn't think I "needed" to do so.

Here's what looking at Gameday does for me, Boagie:

. It shows me the speed, location, horizontal break and vertical break on every pitch Tim threw in the game. If you can remember those factors on every pitch he made to every batter in the game, you're a better man than I.

. By stepping back, I get a better overview of the game than I do in watching it live and with the emotions of the game.

. Primarily what it does is give me a way to not only look at the game again, but look at it in a different perspective.

Here is how I sometmes differ from others here. Most here think they are right on the money with what they see with their own eyes. I feel pretty confident in that too, but I also realize that you and I may look at something and see it differently. By looking at it again -- especially if from a different perspective -- I can get a second look. Kind of like looking at an instant replay, hopefully from a different angle.

I realize people here think I'm a "know it all." But actually, I put less faith in what I see than others here do and thus try to go back and check things out when I am able. I'm more of a "study it all."

You may be right, and I may be wrong -- but it usually isn't because I didn't study and analyze the situation well enough. I tend to see the game from as broad a perspective as anyone here, and I tend to study the game as hard as anyone here.

That doesn't always make me right. But it usually makes me thorough.

It's kind of like why I used to go back over tapes of games I reffed. I learned from seeing plays again and seeing them from a different perspective. It gave me added confidence when it affirmed my call, and it made me work hard to understand the why if I missed a call, so I wouldn't make that mistake again.

People post intriguing thoughts here. Sometimes I disagree with those thought or believe they are wrong. Often I study those points as clearly as I can. In doing so, I nearly always learn something. Sometimes I learn that I was wrong. Other times I learn a handful of reasons why I was probably right. I almost always learn some new fact or look at something differently than I did.

I probably learn as much from this board as anyone does. That tends to put me in a place where I know close to as much as anyone here. It also puts me in a place where I understand and appreciate the power of learning. Which helps me to learn even more.

In a way, I like it when someone disagrees with me more than when they do. If the agree, usually I don't study much further on the subject, at least not at that time. If they disagree, I usually do study. Sometimes I understand I was wrong. Sometimes I understand there is more than one side to the issue. Other times I understand more reasons why I might be right.

But I almost always understand MORE. Which puts me in position to understand more the next time. And more the time after that.

The thoughts here cause me to learn more facts about the Giants, their players and baseball in general than I otherwise would learn. I'm happy for that.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2278/on-ugly#ixzz32mEDH62V

[Rog]

Allen -- Allen---
If you could make this trade, would you? Timmy and Pablo for Jeff Samardzija and Mike Olt?

Rog -- Good question. For me, it becomes a question of whether or not to put one's faith in Tim and Pablo.

Samardzija seems to be finding himself as a starter. He'll likely make big bucks as a free agent this coming winter. Maybe more than Tim is making, and almost certainly for a longer time. I don't think Olt will do much as a major leaguer, but he will be cheap for years to come. Would it be better to have him on the cheap or to pay Pablo?

I would trade Tim for Samardzija, but not Pablo for Olt. Overall, I wouldn't do the deal. That said, I think it was an intriguing question, and I'm glad you brought it up.

By the way, Olt has struck out almost once every three at bats -- even in the minors. He hit only .258, although he did show pop.

If I knew what Samardzija and Pablo would command salary-wise, I would be in better position to judge. Sandoval for Samardzija might be intriguing. I'd have to look long and hard at that one. Lincecum for Olt could be worth it if one had a strong plan for what to do with the cost savings.

Right now though, I don't think so. Still, I've come up with worse ideas.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2278/on-ugly?page=1#scrollTo=20267#ixzz32mKSVpDT

[Rog]

By the way, regarding Tim's outing, upon furter review I think it was as ugly as I remembered but not QUITE as bad as I thought. I did think it would be a key outing for Tim, and in that regard, I'm extremely dissatisfied. When a pitcher has lost his slider and doesn't know where anything is going, it's hard to be pleased.

If I looked closely though, I suspect I would find several games in which he had pitched worse -- even in his glory seasons. Even the great pitchers throw up the occasional clunker.

[islandboagie]

Does anyone else find the irony in this conversation about a replacement for Lincecum on the day we put up 7 runs on Ricky Nolasco? Nolasco is now 2-5 with a 6.12 ERA.

On a side note, Paul Maholm is 1-4 with a 5.06 ERA.

[allenreed]

We brought up alot of names last year when it was still up in the air as to whether Tim and Vogey would be back. Some are doing badly, some are doing well. Jason Hammel (whomI I didn't care for) is doing well. Jason Vargas is doing well. Phil Hughes is doing well. Scott Feldman was doing well, then got injured. I haven't checked in on him lately.

[islandboagie]

Good point, Allen. Those names were brought up. I guess I only remembered Maholm and Nolasco because we faced them both this season already and roughed them both up.

[allenreed]

If I recall, I was lukewarm on Maholm and thought Nolasco wanted way too much money.

[islandboagie]

I was all for resigning Lincecum and Vogelsong. I even thought the Giants should have picked up Vogelsong's option based on his 2011-2012 seasons. I was neutral on Hudson.

[allenreed]

I saw no reason not to re-sign Vogey. It was a reasonable price, and he was hurt last year. I don't think you should lose your job because you're hurt. I was against Timmy because I knew they would overpay, and he's just not that good anymore. Let's face it, he's never going to return to his old form, not with any consistency.

[Rog]

Allen -- Phil Hughes is doing well.

Rog -- I don't remember the participants, but I know there was one or more posters here who thought that signing Phil Hughes was a ridiculous idea. I remember Mark's being for the idea of signing Phil.

I haven't really kept up with the pitchers we were discussing, other than to see that Scott Feldman (Allen's recomendation) got off to a FABULOUS start. I guess he's injured now (as Allen said).

On the Giants, clearly re-signing Tim hasn't worked out thus far, but the signing of Tim Hudson and the re-signing of Ryan Vogelsong have been quite good. I don't think of anyone who had a problem with the signing of Hudson, but I believe I recall Randy's feeling that the re-signing of Vogelsong was more or less a form of giving up.

Just about ALL these pitchers and players have question marks. Otherwise, they wouldn't be allowed to become free agents. I would say the Giants did quite well with their off-season moves -- and that is a big part of why they lead the major leagues in wins. Hopefully this means the Giants are paying more attention to their analytics people, since that is a type of judgment success that is likely more sustainable in the future.

Remember, the best way to judge players is with both analytics and scouting. The teams that are combining the two more closely are tending to fare better in those judgments.

One thing we likely should remember too is that it helps to get lucky. I don't think Morse or Vogelsong were first choices, but they certainly have been good ones.

[allenreed]

I believe Feldman pitched today. He was 2-2 with an ERA right around 3.00. He is pitching for Houston.

[klaiggeb]

Allen--I believe Feldman pitched today. He was 2-2 with an ERA right around 3.00. He is pitching for Houston.

---boly says---Feldman is the guy I wanted. But if that meant we wouldn't have gotten Hudson, no deal.

I like Hudson better.

I like his veteran presence, I like his savy, I like his stuff.

Now... if we could make a deal to get HIM, I would be very pleased... assuming of course, we didn't sell the farm.

boly

[Rog]

Allen -- Let's face it, he's never going to return to his old form, not with any consistency.

Rog -- The Giants weren't expecting him to do so. If teams expected that, he would likely have commanded something akin to 5/$140 or more.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2278/on-ugly#ixzz32tlTvryM

[allenreed]

I certainly hope they were expecting more than they've gotten.

[Rog]

Boly -- Personally, I'd rather see Tim where, as I think Rog or boagie suggested years ago, in the bullpen.

Rog -- I do like the concept of Tim as a "super reliever," where his rubber arm could allow him to rack up innings and be used in a variety of ways -- as was the case in the 2012 postseason. If he doesn't come around this season, they might use him that way next year. Or if they did acquire Samardzija without giving him up, he would likely take on that role at that time.

I still hope Tim will bounce back. He was a lot better last season than in 2012, but he hasn't shown anything approaching that type of further improvement this year. In fact, he's regressed. Perhaps a new role would do him good. But as Boly pointed out, the Giants would then need another starter, and they don't appear to have one at this time.

Samardzija could be that guy, but the cost would be high. I would think the Cubs would desire young players, although surprisingly, Pablo is still young. If the Giants now want to wrap up Pablo, sooner would probably be better than later.

The Giants have had a young core. Now that core is aging, which means eligibility for free agency, or arbitration in the case of Brandon Belt. What that means is that the payroll gravy train is nearing an end, and the Giants will have to pay for their talent -- unless they move some of it for younger, cheaper players. Thus Allen's Olt idea.

I think though that dealing for the Cubs' third baseman would be yet another case of getting too late smart and too soon Olt.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2278/on-ugly#ixzz32yGasvR8

[Rog]

Allen -- I certainly hope they were expecting more than they've gotten.

Rog -- My guess -- and it's only a guess based on nothing based on nada based on zilch based on nyet -- is that they were. I'm sorry to go out on a limb here.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2278/on-ugly?page=1#scrollTo=20322#ixzz32yJ0oDU9