running out of reasons for optimism.

[sfgdood]

The day started with a major bummer, Pagan being scheduled for season-ending surgery. Then the Pirates continue to win. Then Bumgarner gets rocked. I mean if we can't depend on Bumgarner to be an ace, then we're basically down to ZERO hope now, especially with Posey, Sandoval and Pence not doing anything.

[sfgdood]

TWO gopher balls to Turner??? You have GOT to be kidding me!!!!

[klaiggeb]

Randy:

I have to admit, I didn't see that coming.

But then I watched the video closely...and the pitches that dipstick hit out were GOOD PITCHES!

I mean, that first HR was inside, 4 to 6 inches off the plate. It was a flat cutter that bore in on Turner's hands.

He got lucky...that's all it was. BUT, as I continue to say, when you're GOING TO WIN, that's the kind of stuff that happens.

His 2nd Hr, was just above his ankles, like Crawford's was the day before.

They were QUALITY pitches.


When that nonsense happens, you are destined to lose.

What I call "signs."


Madison threw the pitches right where he wanted to. Turner got lucky.

He's a mediocre player having a career year, much like Andres Torres did for us in 2010



I'm more distressed at Pence. In the last 2 weeks he's suddenly become the Pence we got at the trade deadline back in 2012, only WITHOUT the clutch hits.

He's swinging through pitches that he should crush, and chasing crap that isn't even close to a strike.

The Pirates have gotten ridiculous-hot... like we were after the All Star break for a while.


Doesn't look good

boly

[sfgdood]

I could have dismissed the one HR by Turner but two in one game? And 36 first inning pitches? That's very UN-acelike. I love the way Madison bounced back and his emotion after he went yard off Greinke was just awesome. But when the team is in a bad way like right now, we need our ace to be an ace. Thank God the Brewers went into the tank because the way things look right now it's almost like the Giants are TRYING to fold. I only hope the real Madison comes back in time for the play-in game in Pittsburgh.

[klaiggeb]

I agree, Randy, an ace needs to be an ace.

But when a guy pulls dumb-assed luck out of his fanny, as Turner did... there's nothing you can do to stop it.

Madison made good pitches. He should have popped both of those balls up in the air.

Change that, and Madison's out of the inning with around 17 pitches.

Like Krukow always says, when a guy does something crazy like that, all you can do is tip your hat and say, 'he beat me.'




boly

[rxmeister]

Turner could always hit, although the home runs are out of character. Bumgarner bounced back though, and should have won the game if not for the fact he was the entire offense. Really Giants? Your pitcher hits a two run HR and the rest of you can't produce a single run to support him? Not one? I don't blame him for the second HR because why the hell was he still in the game?

[sfgdood]

4 runs in 8 IP is an OK outing for most pitchers...but not for an ace.

[Rog]

According to MLB's Gameday, Turner's first home run came on a pitch that really wasn't very good. Although the slider didn't have a lot of the plate, it wasn't inside, and it was right around the belt. A very hittable location.

Turner's second home run did come on a good pitch, a 77 mph curve ball that was toward the inside and might have been just below the knees.

I wonder if the Puig incident caused Bumgarner to lose concentration for a bit.

[klaiggeb]

Rog, I'm going to believe my eyes, not MLB game day.

I watched that pitch a number of times... a cutter, in on the hands, off the plate.

I know what I saw. I watched Turner's hands.

Game day is wrong.

boly

[Rog]

Here's the thing. Game Day doesn't simply have a guy watching the pitch. It records the location of the pitch electronically and is considered to be accurate to within an inch. I try to watch the catcher's glove. Otherwise, I can't be right within three or four inches. Even then, it is often hard to tell just where the catcher sets up.

As an umpire, I could tell if the catcher set up off the plate. To check if a catcher was consistently doing so, I would move to the other side of the plate for one call. Not a thrilling place to be for foul balls, but certainly a good way to check on the catcher.

I could also tell when a catcher was framing a pitch, with the possible exception of his angling the glove. But if he moved his glove after catching the ball, I figured HE didn't think it was a strike. I loved it when a catcher would hold the ball right where he caught it. In that case, I felt he BELIEVED it was a strike. I still had to determine whether he was right, but unless I was sure a pitch was a strike, if the catcher moved his glove to make the pitch look better, I would call the pitch a ball.

Once in a while I WOULD call a strike when the catcher moved his glove, but rarely so. The only time I think a catcher might pull the pitch is if he caught it with his glove moving and he is trying to simply bring the ball back to where he caught it.

Something I just thought of with regard to the first pitch Turner hit out. Clearly he hit the ball well out on the bat. If he had hit it anywhere but close to the sweet spot, it wasn't likely to go out. Clearly his hands WERE well inside the plate, but if the pitch was truly three or four inches inside, wouldn't he have to be out in front enough to hit the pitch on the sweet spot for the ball to hook foul? IIRC the ball wasn't really close to the line.

Anyway, analytics are getting bigger and bigger in just about EVERY sport because what we think we saw isn't always what happened. I have been surprised how much analytics are being used in basketball and hockey, two sports which are seemingly difficult to quantify.

Baseball, on the other hand, is the sport best described through statistics. That said, stats are now measuring things like how long a ball stays in the air and how far the outfielder went to get it, including tracking his actual path to the ball. I read where a ball was hit to Yasiel Puig that was deemed to be almost impossible to catch given how far it was from him and the length of time it was in the air. Apparently it took a spectacular play, but he JUST caught the ball.

We talk about a player getting a great jump on the ball and taking a great route. It is now possible to measure HOW quick the jump was and sketch the route the fielder took to the ball.

Throw in things like measuring how effective a catcher is at framing pitches, right down to a calculation of runs saved, and a measurement of how an umpire calls strikes and balls, and you can see we've come a long, long way from batting average, homers and RBI's.

One thing stats can't tell us about is a player's "makeup." That is something that takes both observation and a fair amount of research.

I'll give you an example. I have sent you some stuff on the football Cardinals' Lorenzo Alexander. When I was writing, I got to know him a little bit, and I learned how good his "makeup" is. I talked to everyone I could who knew him. Couldn't find a single one who had a bad thing to say about him.

Now, despite not being drafted, he made the Pro Bowl two years ago as a Special Teams player. He's played more positions than probably anyone else in the NFL and has gone from a 300 pound defensive tackle to a 244 pound linebacker. Every year he is nominated to the league by his team for his off-field work.

Now, stats can't tell us about his makeup (other perhaps than his GPA and his Wonderlic score). But stats also don't get in the way of understanding it. Some here have the perception that if someone is a stat head, he can't understand the non-statistical parts of the game. That's kind of like saying a person can't be a good writer if he is a good mathematician.

Pretty much all the teams are using analytics more and more. Ten years ago, they were the exception. Now they're the rule. If we use them, we're simply keeping up with the times, as the teams themselves now are.

When we're looking at a pitch with a camera 300 feet from the pitch and off-angle, it's pretty hard to imagine we can be more accurate than electronics measuring the location -- as well as the speed, the horizontal and vertical movement, and the rpm of the pitch. Not to mention, the speed and angle the ball takes from the bat when it is hit.

Technology allows us to "see" far more than we would have believed even a decade ago. I think managers, coaches and players spend much more time analyzing the game now. There's just so much more DATA available now.

They say statistics lie. If we think about it, that actually CAN'T be true. A statistic is a fact, which is inherently true.

What can make it SEEM as if statistics lie is our lack of understanding and interpretation of those facts.

[klaiggeb]

Rog, I'm looking at what he did with his hands. He pulled them IN, which means he got jammed, and that BASED upon WHERE HE SET UP, the pitch was inside.

had to be, or he wouldn't have pulled his hands in so drastically.

I realize the camera is "off angle."

I do.

But the hands don't lie, based upon the set up.

This my disbelief at Gameday.

boly

[Rog]

Boly -- This my disbelief at Gameday.

Rog -- I guess this is an area in which we'll just have to disagree. I just can't in good conscience say my naked eye can tell where a pitch is (even considering the catcher's glove and the batter's swing) better than a laser system that baseball believes is accurate within an inch and thus uses it to evaluate its umpires.

Even as an umpire right behind the plate, usually with a great look at the pitch, I missed them on occasion.

Don't get me wrong. I'm nearly a dinosaur as far as using technology goes, but I believe it has fabulous capabilities (all the way to making umpires nearly redundant), and I have a great deal of trust in it.

If a technology is accurate within an inch, it's certainly got my own naked eye beat. When you see the strike zone depicted on some TV at bats, do you think your own naked eye is better? Man, I surely don't.

I realize I'm considered pretty stubborn here, but I am almost always open to objective information. Same thing when I umpired and refereed. If I could get objective evidence that I was missing a call, I would change it.

I'm really surprised here.