|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Jun 28, 2014 11:42:22 GMT -5
This is today's SF Gate article. My comments follow, for what they're worth, and I'm betting many will disagree.
Best S.F. pitcher? It's Marichal, not Lincecum
Bruce Jenkins
Updated 11:39 pm, Friday, June 27, 2014
In the glorious aftermath of Tim Lincecum's no-hitter, a number of folks got especially giddy and pronounced him the greatest San Francisco Giants pitcher of all time. He definitely belongs in the mythical rotation, but let's not forget that things actually happened before the 1980s.
Save that spot for Juan Marichal. For my money, this is your basic NO brainer. Yeah, Timmy was outstanding in his short lived prime, but if you actually got to see Juan, it's no contest.
I guess you have to be a crusty old coot to have watched Marichal in his prime, but be advised: He was every bit as stylish and magical as Lincecum, and infinitely more accomplished. Key word INFINATELY; as in more accomplished. You could say he didn't match Lincecum's claim to two Cy Young Awards, two no-hitters and two World Series rings, but you'd also be saying you don't know much about baseball history.
How tough was the National League back then? Marichal played alongside Willie Mays, Willie McCovey, Orlando Cepeda, Gaylord Perry, Jim Ray Hart and Bobby Bonds at various times, and got to only one World Series.
He was a serious threat to throw a no-hitter every time out, and he did notch one. In the first five years of his prime (1962-66), there was just a single Cy Young Award, putting Marichal up against Sandy Koufax, Bob Gibson, Warren Spahn, Don Drysdale and everyone in the American League. Koufax was a veritable deity in those days, the best pitcher ever to take the mound, but over those five years, Marichal won as many games (111) as the Dodgers' legend.
As the Giants head into Lincecum's next start, his career record is 95-75 with a 3.52 ERA, managing four seasons of 200-plus innings. Marichal didn't just clear the 200 mark for 10 straight years, he had three seasons of 300-plus. It's not fair to compare complete games in this dumbed-down era of pitch counts, but Marichal went the distance 244 times to Lincecum's 10.
And in a career featuring 243 wins, check out these Marichal years: 25-8, 2.41; 21-8, 2.48; 22-13, 2.13; 25-6, 2.23; 26-9, 2.43; 21-11, 2.10. Lifetime ERA in 3,507 innings: 2.89.
In other words, folks, you have got to be kidding. Bingo! IMHO, you've got to be kidding if you even think Timmy ranks ahead of Juan.
Don't take this as some sort of Lincecum put-down. He might be my favorite pitcher over the past 25 years. Even in his prime, at his very best, he was never my favorite pitcher over the last 25 years. I'm not saying he wasn't awesome, I'm just talking "favorite." No more, no less. My favorite? Probably either Schmidt or Reuter. Like Marichal, he's delightfully unconventional. He's not much of a batsman, but he loves to take his cuts and takes great pride in the occasional single to left. He could throw 218 pitches one night and not miss his next start. He's a fabulous all-around athlete, a treasure to the fan base, a man who thrives on high exposure and an outright rock star, even now, having passed the dreaded 30 years of age.
In fact, let's do this: Send the Giants into some mythical best-of-seven series with a four-man rotation. Marichal starts the opener, then Perry, the Hall of Famer most identified with the Giants (1962-71). Lincecum goes third, followed by ... wow, good question. Could be Mike McCormick, Jack Sanford, Jim Barr, Kirk Rueter - but I'll go with the vintage Matt Cain. Including Jim Barr in this group, and NOT including Sad Sam Jones, is an extreme dis-service not only to Sam, but also to Jack Sanford and Mike McCormik. Sanford's prime time with Sf was cut short by an arm injury.
If all you're looking at are numbers, if you can't see past the numbers, if you neve SAW these guys pitch. Fine. Whale away You're entitled to your opinion. Just understand, that your opinion is going to be tainted by what you haven't seen, and influenced by what you have.
Heck, including Barr and NOT Billy O'dell, is flat out nuts, IMHO.
That means Lincecum pitches Game 7. Perfect.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jun 29, 2014 0:42:59 GMT -5
I don't think anyone considers Tim to be better than Juan. I might have given the nod to Tim through his first 8 starts of 2010, but since then it hasn't been even close.
Regarding Jim (Singles) Barr, (Sad) Sam Jones and Billy (Digger) O'Dell, Jim pitched by far the most innings for the Giants (1800 to 633 to 921). (Singles') ERA was 3.41 compared to 3.30 (Sad) and 3.55 (Digger). His ERA+ was 109 compared to Jones' 112 and O'Dell's 101.
Jim led the league in walk rate (1.8) in 1974. Sam led the league in walks with 109 in 1959. Billy led the league in hits allowed with 282 in 1962.
Jim once held the league record for consecutive batters retired. Sam pitched a seven-inning no-hitter against the Cardinals and was perhaps robbed by the official scorer of one when an error wasn't called on shortstop Andre Rodgers. Billy didn't get the win when Willie Mays hit a solo homer against Turk Farrell in the 8th inning of game 162 of the 1962 season, but he allowed only 1 run in 7.0 innings. He offset that by blowing a save in what could have been the playoff winner when he allowed 3 runs (2 earned) in 0.0 innings two days later against the Dodgers in game 2 of the playoffs.
I think Sad Sam was underrated for the Giants. He had a league-leading 21 wins (15 losses) and 2.83 ERA as the Giants nearly pulled off the NL pennant in 1959. But Barr was even more underrated.
I would pick Barr over Sad Sam, but one could easily make an argument for Jones. IMO there really isn't a great argument that can be made for O'Dell among the three.
The guy who may not belong is Rueter, whose wonderful winning record came far more from great run support than his mediocre pitching (average ERA and not many innings per outing).
As for not being able to see past the numbers, the numbers are facts. They don't tell everyone, but they do provide facts among what is otherwise mostly opinion.
As for Sanford and McCormick, one can certainly make an argument for the 1967 Cy Young winner (McCormick). Mike had three very good years with the Giants in 1960, 1961 and 1967. But he was very inconsistent in his other six Giants seasons and had a career ERA of 3.68 ERA with the Giants and a slightly below average 98 ERA+. He threw 1823 innings for the Giants.
Jack was very good in 1959 (3.16 ERA). He finished 2nd in the Cy Young voting in 1962, but his 24-7 record was due more to his 5.83 runs of support than his 3.43 ERA.
Overall, Jack pitched 1406 innings for the Giants with a 3.61 ERA and a 100 (average) ERA+.
I saw all these guys pitch, and I likely saw McCormick, Sanford and O'Dell pitch live more often than everyone on this board combined. Likely more on TV than anyone here. IMO, Barr was the best with the Giants of the pitchers discussed here because of the high number of innings he pitched, because he could both start and relieve, and mostly because of his very fine consistency.
At his best, I would take Sad Sam. But his career with the Giants spanned just three seasons.
Rueter and O'Dell were likely overrated. Rueter benefited from fabulous run support, and O'Dell benefited from a very pitcher-friendly Candlestick Park.
Billy's road ERA's in his five seasons with the Giants were 3.78, 3.36, 4.26, 3.28 and 5.11.
Matt Cain has struggled the past season and a half, but IMO he may be the most underrated of the Giants' starters. Over the four year period from 2009 through 2012, Matt was about as good as any pitcher in baseball, right up there with Roy Halladay, Felix Hernandez. Justin Verlander and behind perhaps only Clayton Kershaw.
My all-time Giants starters are Marichal, Perry, Lincecum, Cain and Jason Schmidt. Juanito stood nearly as high above the three top Giants pitchers of this century as his leg kicked on his delivery, and he was a clear winner over Perry, whose career as a Giants sparkled clearly more than the other three.
As for favorite pitchers, obviously Tim has been my favorite, followed by Juan.
Hey, a guy who should have been mentioned here IMO is Bobby Bolin, whose 3.26 ERA over 1282 innings was impressive.
Billy Swift's 2.70 ERA and 138 ERA+ in 507 innings shouldn't be overlooked.
At their three-year peaks, I'd have to look at Marichal, Perry, Lincecum, Swift, Schmidt and Jones. Right after them, Cain and Madison Bumgarner.
Based on three-year peaks, I'd have three present Giants pitchers in the top eight. All three were very good together in 2010 and 2011.
Here's some fun: All five present Giants starters have been All-Stars. Lincecum (4), Hudson and Cain (3 each) and Vogelsong and Bumgarner (1 each) have combined for a dozen All-Star berths.
Not very likely to happen, but it is possible all but Vogelsong could receive Hall of Fame consideration. Hudson already will.
Lincecum already has two Cy Young Awards, and Hudson has finished in the top 6 on four occasions.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Jun 29, 2014 11:47:36 GMT -5
Rog--Hey, a guy who should have been mentioned here IMO is Bobby Bolin, whose 3.26 ERA over 1282 innings was impressive.
Billy Swift's 2.70 ERA and 138 ERA+ in 507 innings shouldn't be overlooked.
----boly says----
Disagree, Rog. 507 innings doesn't even qualify him to be part of the discussion.
Now Bolin I think, is one of THE most UNDER RATED Giants of the SF era. Never a star, but a very, very solid pitcher for a very long time.
Rog-----At their three-year peaks, I'd have to look at Marichal, Perry, Lincecum, Swift, Schmidt and Jones. Right after them, Cain and Madison Bumgarner.
Based on three-year peaks, I'd have three present Giants pitchers in the top eight. All three were very good together in 2010 and 2011.
--boly says---I wasn't looking at them in 3 year intervals, Rog, but rather, over the longer haul.
You mention Sanford's 2 solid years, but you're not taking into account his arm injury in 1964 which basically derailed a solid vet, and neither are you taking into account the players they pitched against; Aaron, Mathews, Musial, just to name 3,which, to my way of thinking were FAR better than what Barr faced.
Not only that, you're ignoring that since there war so many FEWER teams than in Barr's day, the pitchers faced those guys much more often.
You can have Jim Barr in his prime.
Me? I'll take Sanford in his, or Sam Jones in his.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jun 29, 2014 12:50:17 GMT -5
I'm having a great deal of trouble reconciling these two statements: "Disagree, Rog. 507 innings doesn't even qualify (Swift) to be part of the discussion." "Including Jim Barr (who threw 1800 innnings as a Giant) in this group, and NOT including Sad Sam Jones, is an extreme dis-service ... to Sam (who threw 633 innings as a Giant) ..." The number of innings have been inserted by me into Boly's quote. How is it that Swift's 507 innings (126 fewer than Jones) doesn't even qualify him for the discussion, yet putting Barr (who threw 1167 more innings as a Giant than Jones) in the group and not including Jones is a disservice to Sam? Let's compare innings and ERA's: IP -- Barr 1800, Jones 633, Swift 507. ERA -- Swift 2.70, Jones 3.30, Barr 3.41 Jones and Swift are close on innings pitched, while Barr has a huge lead. Jones and Barr have similar ERA's, while Swift has a big edge in that category. IMO all three have a place in this discussion -- especially given that Swift pitched in an era in which his 507 innings was more or less equivalent to Jones' 633 in his. Regarding Barr, how does one overlook that he essentially threw three times as many innings as Jones or Swift? Aside from his one-time record for consecutive batters retired, Barr didn't have the flash of either of the other two guys who each had 2nd place finishes in the Cy Young voting, but he was more consistent, more versatile and threw far more innings. Jones and Swift were flashes like Lincecum, while Barr was steady like Cain. All five of those guys have been pretty darn good Giants pitchers. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2341/best-giant-pitchers-gate-june#ixzz363CJufUcRead more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2341/best-giant-pitchers-gate-june#ixzz363BjCGpp |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jun 29, 2014 14:27:56 GMT -5
Rog-----At their three-year peaks, I'd have to look at Marichal, Perry, Lincecum, Swift, Schmidt and Jones. Right after them, Cain and Madison Bumgarner. Based on three-year peaks, I'd have three present Giants pitchers in the top eight. All three were very good together in 2010 and 2011. --boly says---I wasn't looking at them in 3 year intervals, Rog, but rather, over the longer haul. You mention Sanford's 2 solid years, but you're not taking into account his arm injury in 1964 which basically derailed a solid vet, Rog -- When evaluating players, it's tough to know whether to consider peaks or careers. Usually evaluations consider both, which is what I attempted to do. You mention Sanford's arm injury, and most certainly that was a factor, but it was part of his Giants career, and that is what we're evaluating, right? Personally I think Jack is overrated, and I know this shocks everyone, but I am prepared to tell you why.  Jack NEVER had an ERA below 3.00 -- even in a fairly low-scoring era. Jack was a solid pitcher, but not a great one. In only two seasons did he have more than three more wins than losses. And both those two winning records were fueled more by his run support (4.95 runs in 1957 and 5.83 in 1962) than his ERA's in those two years (3.08 in 1957 and 3.43 in 1962). As for Sanford's injury, it cut short his Giants career, but it didn't really impact his ERA as a Giant. In fact, in his final two years as a Giant, his ERA was 3.61 -- exactly what it was prior to 1964. Jack was like Matt in that he was far more bulldog than superstar. The primary difference between the two is that Jack got great run support, while Matt has received horrible support. That enabled Jack to have a good won-loss record, while Matt is at .500. Matt's ERA is 3.40 compared to Jack's 3.61 as a Giant, even though Jack pitched in a much lower-scoring era. Matt has pitched nearly 400 more Giants innings than Jack did. Based on the things a pitcher can control, IMO Matt has been a clearly better pitcher than Jack as a Giant. I'll bet though that you see them as pretty much equals -- probably with Sanford on top by a smidge. Here's something to consider. Not once did Jack have an ERA less then 3.00. Matt has done so in three seasons. Madison Bumgarner has done so once (and is on track this season, as well), and even Ryan Vogelsong did it in 2011. Sanford was a good pitcher who was made to look better by very good run support. Matt has been a very good pitcher who has been diminished by very bad run support. That is my opinion, and it is one that can be supported objectively. This is all just opinion, of course, and people will differ based on what they're looking at and how they're evaluating it. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2341/best-giant-pitchers-gate-june?page=1&scrollTo=21109#ixzz363PWgLwl |
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Jun 29, 2014 20:32:26 GMT -5
Roger---Personally I think Jack is overrated, and I know this shocks everyone, but I am prepared to tell you why. Jack NEVER had an ERA below 3.00 -- even in a fairly low-scoring era. Jack was a solid pitcher, but not a great one. In only two seasons did he have more than three more wins than losses. And both those two winning records were fueled more by his run support (4.95 runs in 1957 and 5.83 in 1962) than his ERA's in those two years (3.08 in 1957 and 3.43 in 1962). As for Sanford's injury, it cut short his Giants career, but it didn't really impact his ERA as a Giant. In fact, in his final two years as a Giant, his ERA was 3.61 -- exactly what it was prior to 1964. Jack was like Matt in that he was far more bulldog than superstar. The primary difference between the two is that Jack got great run support, while Matt has received horrible support. That enabled Jack to have a good won-loss record, while Matt is at .500. Matt's ERA is 3.40 compared to Jack's 3.61 as a Giant, even though Jack pitched in a much lower-scoring era. Matt has pitched nearly 400 more Giants innings than Jack did. Based on the things a pitcher can control, IMO Matt has been a clearly better pitcher than Jack as a Giant. I'll bet though that you see them as pretty much equals -- probably with Sanford on top by a smidge. Here's something to consider. Not once did Jack have an ERA less then 3.00. Matt has done so in three seasons. Madison Bumgarner has done so once (and is on track this season, as well), and even Ryan Vogelsong did it in 2011. Sanford was a good pitcher who was made to look better by very good run support. Matt has been a very good pitcher who has been diminished by very bad run support. That is my opinion, and it is one that can be supported objectively. This is all just opinion, of course, and people will differ based on what they're looking at and how they're evaluating it. ---boly says--- Rog, your logic, though sound on the surface, belies what I said in my post: Sanford had to face Mathews, Aaron, Musial, just to name a few. There are NO players of that caliber around today, so those ERA numbers you quote are moot. boly |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jun 30, 2014 14:50:13 GMT -5
Boly -- Rog, your logic, though sound on the surface, belies what I said in my post: Sanford had to face Mathews, Aaron, Musial, just to name a few. There are NO players of that caliber around today, so those ERA numbers you quote are moot. Rog - You're attempting to prove your argument (that Jack Sanford was clearly better than Billy Swift et al) with another opinion (that the hitters of Sanford's era were better than today's hitters). Logic says you need to prove your premise in order for your final conclusion to be true. I posted a decent argument that today's hitters are likely better than the earlier ones, but no one truly knows for sure. And since no one knows for sure, you can't use that argument with reason. Hey, I liked Jack, but I do think he was overrated. Let's just suppose that your argument that the old-time hitters were better is slightly correct. We've still got the problem that Jack's Giants ERA was 3.61. Juan Marichal's over a similar period was 2.89. Jack was nearly three-quarters of a run worse than Marichal. Meanwhile, Swifty's 2.70 ERA as a Giant was about as good as anyone in the majors over that period. There is no way of which I am aware to prove this one way or the other. But I think I can come closer to proving my conclusion than anyone here on the other side of the discussion. Your "proof," Boly, begs the question IMO. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2341/best-giant-pitchers-gate-june#ixzz369YvY7ud |
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Jun 30, 2014 21:04:19 GMT -5
Rog - You're attempting to prove your argument (that Jack Sanford was clearly better than Billy Swift et al) with another opinion (that the hitters of Sanford's era were better than today's hitters). Logic says you need to prove your premise in order for your final conclusion to be true.
I posted a decent argument that today's hitters are likely better than the earlier ones, but no one truly knows for sure. And since no one knows for sure, you can't use that argument with reason.
Hey, I liked Jack, but I do think he was overrated. Let's just suppose that your argument that the old-time hitters were better is slightly correct. We've still got the problem that Jack's Giants ERA was 3.61. Juan Marichal's over a similar period was 2.89. Jack was nearly three-quarters of a run worse than Marichal.
Meanwhile, Swifty's 2.70 ERA as a Giant was about as good as anyone in the majors over that period.
---boly says---
Rog, HAD Swift pitched more than a couple of years with SF, I would agree with you.
But he didn't.
He had that one "big year," and then was hurt, for a total of 2+ with the Giants.
That's too few seasons in which to judge him, and that was why I picked Sanford over him.
For me, minimum 5 years for a player to be considered one of their all time best.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jul 1, 2014 1:12:35 GMT -5
Boly -- Rog, HAD Swift pitched more than a couple of years with SF, I would agree with you. But he didn't. He had that one "big year," and then was hurt, for a total of 2+ with the Giants. That's too few seasons in which to judge him, and that was why I picked Sanford over him. For me, minimum 5 years for a player to be considered one of their all time best. Rog -- I understand your point, and certainly agree with it to an extent. But here is where I get confused. You said "Including Jim Barr in this group, and NOT including Sad Sam Jones, is an extreme dis-service not only to Sam." Jones pitched 126 more innings than Bill, but he also posted a 3.30 ERA compared to 2.70 for Swift. Swift's ERA+ was 138 compared to The Toothpick's 112. In other words, Sam was 12% better than the average pitcher. Bill was more than THREE times that. You said to include Jim Barr in the group of top pitchers but not Jones was a disservice to Sam -- even though Barr's ERA was only 0.11 runs higher and he pitched nearly three times as many innings as Sam. Now you are saying that because neither Jones nor Swift pitched five seasons with the Giants, they wouldn't qualify for you. How can Barr be doing Jones a disservice if Jim qualifies for consideration, and Sam doesn't? And if Sam qualifies, why doesn't Swift? It's a tough call between the three. If we value longevity, Barr is the easy winner. If we value short-term performance, Swift and Jones -- each of whom finished #2 in the Cy Young race -- are strong. As much as I liked Sam -- better, actually, than Swifty -- I would have to give Bill the slight nod over Sam, since his 126 fewer innings seem to be more than offset by his ERA of three-fifths of a run lower (which translated into a performance three times higher than average). One objective way to measure the pitchers' contributions to the Giants against each other is Wins Above Replacement. Obviously, the longer a pitcher pitches for his team, the more Wins Above Replacement (WAR) he has the chance to provide. In their short stints with the Giants, Swift provided 9.8 wins above replacment, and Jones provided 6.7. Not surprisingly, the much more tenured Barr blew them away in this category, with 28.2 WAR. To the extent that WAR is accurate -- and it's not too bad -- Barr was FAR ahead of Swift, who was clearly ahead of Jones despite 126 fewer innings. If we're using five years as our criterion, Jones, Barr, Bumgarner and Schmidt don't qualify. If they do qualify, each can provide some nice credentials, even if they are abbreviated. Anyway, I found it odd that you thought Barr and his 1800 innings was an insult to Jones, while you used the five-year threshold with Swifty. By the way, given the recent rise in Giants no-hitters, did you know that Sam pitched a seven-inning complete game no-hitter over the Cardinals? I listened to it on KMOX (St. Louis) all the way through the rain delay that finally ended in the game ending after seven frames. Actually, I guess you did know it, since I mentioned it earlier in this thread. And I think almost every Giants fan of that era remembers the consternation when a booted ground ball by Andre Rodgers was ruled a hit and cost Sam a nine-inning no-hitter. Based on the five-year threshold, I would pick Marichal, Perry, Lincecum, Cain and Barr as my top five -- with Sanford as my #6. There aren't too many other guys to whom I would give much consideration. Just thought of one though. Scott Garrelts. And I'd already mentioned Bobby Bolin. Both those guys did a lot of relieving though. And both were really good. I was also a big fan of Gary Lavelle, who was a two-time All-Star when not as many relievers were picked as today. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2341/best-giant-pitchers-gate-june#ixzz36C1a4GHHRead more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2341/best-giant-pitchers-gate-june#ixzz36C1EJWRK |
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Jul 1, 2014 9:03:12 GMT -5
Rog -- I understand your point, and certainly agree with it to an extent. But here is where I get confused. You said "Including Jim Barr in this group, and NOT including Sad Sam Jones, is an extreme dis-service not only to Sam."
Jones pitched 126 more innings than Bill, but he also posted a 3.30 ERA compared to 2.70 for Swift. Swift's ERA+ was 138 compared to The Toothpick's 112. In other words, Sam was 12% better than the average pitcher. Bill was more than THREE times that.
You said to include Jim Barr in the group of top pitchers but not Jones was a disservice to Sam -- even though Barr's ERA was only 0.11 runs higher and he pitched nearly three times as many innings as Sam.
Now you are saying that because neither Jones nor Swift pitched five seasons with the Giants, they wouldn't qualify for you. How can Barr be doing Jones a disservice if Jim qualifies for consideration, and Sam doesn't?
---boly says---
good point, Rog. I had forgotten that Sad Sam only pitched so few years in SF... so I officially take him off my list.
As to Barr... I just didn't care for him, and I can't say why.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jul 1, 2014 9:52:56 GMT -5
Boly -- as to Barr... I just didn't care for him, and I can't say why. Rog -- I think it's because he's Jim (Singles) Barr, and you were already married to Candee! Seriously though, I think Jim was on the front side of an evolving trend. One of the beauties of the old spring training is that you got so close to the players. Giants catcher Dave Rader in the Giants' bullpen to a teammate that he wished he had gone to college as Barr did (USC). Over time, more and more players have gone to college unless they are drafted at the very top and are able to command big bonuses. From my high school there was a pitcher named Lew Olsen who debated between a Stanford education and a very big bonus. He chose Kansas City, then blew out his arm and wound up with almost nothing in his career. Would he have been better off going to Stanford? Probably. But he also could have blown out his arm there and been left with only a Stanford education. Pretty good consolation prize though. I would be very surprised if he had it to do all over again, Olsen would have chosen Palo Alto. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2341/best-giant-pitchers-gate-june#ixzz36EDaHtPz |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jul 1, 2014 10:06:26 GMT -5
I'm trying to put myself in your shoes, Boly, and see why you might not have liked Barr.
I see him as something of a Bobby Bolin/Matt Cain mix, although I don't like him as well as Cain and as for liking (as a player), didn't like him as well as BB. He played during a down Giants era, bounced between starting and the bullpen like Bolin and was a bulldog like Cain.
Barr was never a dominant pitcher. He never made an All-Star team (perhaps in part because the Giants were so poor and because he bounced back and forth between the rotation and bullpen). He led the league in only category -- lowest walk rate in 1974. He never received a single Cy Young vote. He hardly ever struck guys out.
I see him as an exceptional #2 starter who could also perform well in the bullpen. Solid and versatile. He pitched 1800 mostly effective innings for the Giants.
Perhaps it was Barr's lack of dominance that turned you off. Maybe there was just something about him that turned you off. One thing I know you had to like about him though was his 2.0/9 walk rate. He had a high 9.3 hit rate, but you would have liked his low home run rate (0.).
I've got to go, but let me throw out one last thing: From the windup, Tim Lincecum is pitching virtually as well as he did in his salad days. It is from the stretch that he has declined from wonderful to lousy.
What do we make of it? In terms of mechanics, there would be fewer moving parts from the stretch than the windup. Velly intellesting. I don't know what to make of it? Anyone else want to try?
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Jul 1, 2014 20:37:54 GMT -5
Rog, I really have NO CLUE as to why Barr turned me off.
Then again, it was baseball in the 1970's, which I consder THE WORST era in baseball in my lifetime.
Cookie Cutter ballparks... no really outstanding players of the Mays, Aaron, Musial, Mantle catagory, just boring, self absorbed, arrogant clods like Reggie Jackson and Ricky Henderson.
Barr was certainly more than serviceable. I mean, with some bad teams he won a lot of games.
He's just about the only Giant pitcher, or regular player for that matter, that I never cared for and for the life of me... I don't know why.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by islandboagie on Jul 2, 2014 10:43:14 GMT -5
Rog- What do we make of it? In terms of mechanics, there would be fewer moving parts from the stretch than the windup. Velly intellesting. I don't know what to make of it? Anyone else want to try?
Boagie- I believe it's the same thing that revitalized Zito's career in 2012. Less fastballs. Batters were sitting on the fastball with Barry and Timmy. I'm not sure about yesterday, but in his no-hitter he threw only about 30% fastballs which is far lower than his career average.
This is the same problem that Romo is dealing with now, but not with the fastball, instead they're sitting on his slider and waiting for a hanger. As I mentioned back in June of 2013 his slider tends to hang out over the plate much more often than it did in previous years. For Romo to be effective again he'll have to mix it up more with other pitches so they aren't able to sit on his sliders anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Jul 2, 2014 11:11:27 GMT -5
I think it comes down to a couple of things, and both apply to Lincecum (prior to the last 2 games) and Romo, and maybe to a lesser extent, Cain:
1-Predictablity-Romo's slider had slipped, yet he was still as predictable as a sunrise.
2-Location-when a pitcher becomes predictable, hitters can sit on a pitch. When they're expecting a pitch and the pitcher locates poorly... wham!
In Tim's case, he couldn't locate the fastball, so they began sitting on his off speed stuff. Heck, if he can't throw the fastball for strikes, why worry about it.
Anyway, that's my opinion.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jul 2, 2014 16:02:25 GMT -5
Rog- What do we make of it? In terms of mechanics, there would be fewer moving parts from the stretch than the windup. Velly intellesting. I don't know what to make of it? Anyone else want to try? Boagie- I believe it's the same thing that revitalized Zito's career in 2012. Less fastballs. Batters were sitting on the fastball with Barry and Timmy. I'm not sure about yesterday, but in his no-hitter he threw only about 30% fastballs which is far lower than his career average. Rog -- The decreased us of the fastball is a very good point, Boagie. What I'm trying to find out though is why Tim's problems have come almost exclusively out of the stretch. Perhaps he's been throwing more fastballs with runners on in order to reduce the running game, but I don't recall that being the case. We now know that Tim's problems have come mostly out of the stretch. But even with some good analysts of pitching mechanics here, we don't yet know why. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2341/best-giant-pitchers-gate-june#ixzz36La4zCTR |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Jul 2, 2014 16:07:24 GMT -5
|
|
