Jake Peavy

[Rog]

Jake Peavy's won-loss, ERA, WHIP and innings per start this season have been 7-6, 3.66, 1.13 and 5.9

Jon Lester's have been 10-12, 3.43, 1.15 and 6.4.

James Shield's have been 13-7, 3.91, 1.33 and 6.1.


Jake is well behind Lester when it comes to innings pitched, but has been darn close to Jon's equal in the other categories.  One could easily argue that Jake has been BETTER than Shields.  Jake does have the significant disadvantage of having been injured and therefore having pitched far fewer innings.

But the Giants are committed to Jake for just one more year, while the Cubs and Padres are committed to Jon and James for five and three more respectively.  The Peavy signing is likely the best of the three, although his injuries might argue against that.

After this winter, the Giants are likely to wind up with Peavy AND a better pitcher than either Lester or Shields.  Stay tuned.

[sfgdood]

Having spending cash is only helpful if you have a GM who can close big deals. Sabean couldn't...we'll see if Bobby can.

[klaiggeb]

Rog:

One could also argue that, playing in AT & T could have benefited Lester due to its spacious outfield.

boly

[Rog]

One could also argue that, playing in AT & T could have benefited Lester due to its spacious outfield.

boly


Rog -- Absolutely. And Lester might be vain enough (as many athletes are) to think his presence would have put the Giants in the playoffs. But it probably wouldn't have. Jon has been fairly good this season, but not THAT good.

I didn't mention the AT&T benefits for him in part because I didn't want to make it seem that NONE of the three players the Giants missed out on were happy, and mostly because Jon is in the playoffs, he's on one of the fastest-rising teams in the majors, and he's with his buddy, which may be the biggest reason he's in Chicago instead of San Francisco. I think the odds that he is happy with his decision are very good.

Better, IMO, than the Giants' odds of being happy if they had signed him. The question there, of course, is whether they would have made the playoffs -- and advanced at least a couple of rounds -- with him. I don't think they would even have made the playoffs.

With Barry Bonds in his prime, they would have done so. With Jon Lester, probably not. Baseball-Reference shows him at three wins above replacement. That very likely wouldn't have done it.

If Jon had pitched as Madison Bumgarner has, it just might have. But at least for the Cubs, he didn't come all that close to doing so.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3063/jake-peavy#ixzz3nG25CKoH

[Rog]

Here is a question: Percentage-wise, how much was the Giants' not making the postseason caused by their decisions last winter, and how much was caused by injuries?

Another question: If the Giants had signed Sandoval, Lester or Shields, would they have made the postseason?

[Rog]

Given that the Cubs made the playoffs with Lester, my comment above seems pretty ambiguous. My point was that if Lester had pitched for the Giants as he did for the Cubs, that probably wouldn't have been enough for the Giants to make the postseason.

[klaiggeb]

And I would disagree.

Plug in Lester into Vogey and Hudson's spot, and we have a different result. Meaning, we likely are NOT 6 games behind.

boly

[Rog]

And I would disagree.

Plug in Lester into Vogey and Hudson's spot, and we have a different result. Meaning, we likely are NOT 6 games behind.

Rog -- And I would agree with you there. And I don't think the Giants would yet be mathematically eliminated. But I doubt that they would be tied or ahead, either.

To both compliment and complement your argument though, one could argue that the chain effect on the bullpen could indeed stretch the impact of Shields. James did average half an inning more than Jake.

Still, it's a team game, and very few players make a six-game difference in a season. According to WAR, which is likely at least a DECENT measurement of a player's impact, I don't think any Giant has.

For perspective on WAR as a measurement, the Giants are on pace for 38 WAR this season. If that is accurate, it means that the Giants should win about 38 more games than a team made up entirely of replacements. If the Giants win 3 of their last 5, that would project team "replacement level" as about 47 games.

Is that accurate for how a replacement team would fare? I don't know, but I can't remember a team's winning that few, and there have been some pretty bad teams through the years. I'm pretty sure there have been some, but surely the number is very small. This season the Phillies have won 60, and they still have five games remaining.

Would the Phillies be about 15 games better than a replacement team? Given that the Giants will likely wind up the season about a third better than the Phillies, that might be reasonable.

This season Baseball-Reference rates Shields only a little bit better than Jake based on WAR. Their numbers certainly don't indicate the Giants would be on a par with the Dodgers -- not with all the injuries the Dodgers have suffered (although the Dodgers have suffered quite a few themselves). By the way, based on WAR Baseball-Reference rates the Dodgers four games better than the Giants. Over 80-something wins, that's pretty darn close.

Based on Baseball-Reference's calculations, Greinke and Kershaw have carried the load, adding about 16 wins between them. That's a big difference for two pitchers to make -- but then, both have enjoyed outstanding seasons. In fact, I wonder how many years it has been since two starters on the same starting staff have posted a combined ERA below 2.00 in the same season. I can't remember that being the case. I think we'd be going a long way back, although there is almost always someone (or in this case two) we forgot about.

I'm going to go with Koufax and Drysdale. Looking at that pair though, the best they managed was a combined 2.00 in 1964. Oh, so close! In fact, if we took it out a decimal point or two, they would make it. Probably another pair or two in between the two pairs too, but it is certainly a rare feat.

And for Greinke and/or Kershaw, the season may not be quite done. Hard to figure how they might set up for the playoffs. The best idea might be to simply give them more rest -- or perhaps pitch them an inning or so on the day they would normally take their bullpens. Given the rigors of pitching, I think I would simply rest them.





Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3063/jake-peavy#ixzz3nGhqe5BW

[Rog]

I was talking Shields here. If it were Lester, I would give the Giants a game or so better shot. Well, or maybe not. Shields is the one who has gone half an inning longer than Peavy. Lester's extra fifth of an inning wouldn't make that much difference.

Then again, one could argue that if Jon had been pitching in pitcher-friendly AT&T instead of the Friendly Confines, he would have racked up more innings than he has.

One could argue either way I guess. But I can make a more well-backed-up argument for the Giants' NOT improving by enough. There would have to be one heck of a domino effect in order for the signing of either Lester or Shields to make that much difference.

Not impossible IMO. But probably not.

[klaiggeb]

Rog, either of the two pitching in the rotation inwhat was Vogey or Hudson's spot, makes a HUGE, HUGE difference!

Both had far better years than either Ryan or Tim.

NOT being behind so often, so early might have/likely would have, made a dramatic difference.

boly

[rxmeister]

Boly, you keep saying plug him into Hudson's and Vogey's spot, but if Lester was signed then he would be in Peavy's spot, because Jake would have went elsewhere, and as Rog pointed out, Jake has been as good as Lester. The Giants didn't do enough this past offseason, in spite of the fact that they were incredibly lucky. They signed Peavy but that was not their intent, they were going to splurge on Lester or Shields. And they totally lucked out when they missed on Sandoval and McGehee and found themselves Matt Duffy. What would have been an incompetent offseason turned out to merely be an average one, and you're not making up the difference in talent with the Dodgers without a terrific offseason. It's time to scrap the idea that you don't have to compete for the divisional title, you can sneak in as the second wild card. There are three solid teams in the central and they'll all be making the playoffs for the next few years unless the Giants pick up the pace.

[sfgdood]

Jake did NOT have as good a year as Lester...unless you consider being on the DL for 2 months productive.

[klaiggeb]

Mark, I'll give you Lester. Your arguement is a good one.

Let's just talk Shields.

Yeah, didn't have a great year in SD, but it's STILL a ton better than Hudson and/or Vogey.

Shields did not get in the way of signing Peavy. I don't believe that for one second.


Bottom line, and I've said this before, I WOULD not have done what they did.

I would NOT have re signed Vogey.

I would NOT have run Lincecum out there everyday, I would have moved him because out there is a GM who would have been foolish enough to believe Timmy wasn't hurt/wasn't done.

Someone would have taken Timmy and we would have gotten a minor leaguer back, and that would have been okay with me.

We got lucky with Peavy, darned lucky! But at what cost? Like Randy said, 2 months on the DL?

Last year especially near the end, Peavy was on fumes, and was simply not that effective.

We could have done better, and though you and Rog may disagree with me, I was not satisfied with the efforts of the front office.

I contend they KNEW the product was sub par, were content to 'let it ride' and see what happened, mabye making an add at the trading deadline.

Which they did.

Too little, too late.


You guys are welcomed to your opinions. I have incredible respect for the both of you, enjoy the daylights out of reading your posts, but we're not always going to agree.


And with that, for me, and for the sake of our friendship, I'm done with this topic.

boly

[Rog]

Jake did NOT have as good a year as Lester...unless you consider being on the DL for 2 months productive.


Rog -- You're absolutely right here. I think what Mark meant was that when Jake pitched, there wasn't all that much difference between him and Lester. Jon pitched about a fifth of an inning deeper into the game, and his ERA was a quarter run lower. Their WHIP's were virtually identical, with Jake enjoying the tiniest of edges.

Here is an important question in my mind. Would we now rather have Jake signed at a reasonable amount for only one year and with far more money available for this off-season's excellent starting pitching free agent crop, or would we rather have Lester for five more seasons at around $130 million?

Here is how I view this season: If they had remained healthy, they would have had a nice shot at the NL West just as their roster is constituted now. With average health, they would likely still have fallen short.

Lester wound up with a good season, and he might have been good enough to keep them in the race with decent team health, but he likely still wouldn't have been enough with the horrible health they had. How does one guy overcome five man-seasons lost by important players?

As for Shields, the Giants likely got as much from Jake as the Padres got from James. And I was one who would have been OK with their signing James, since it was for half the money Lester got. The Giants might have to arrange a three-team trade to do so, but if they want him this winter, they can likely get James. He is said to be easily available. I'll bet the Red Sox would LOVE to have someone -- anyone -- take Pablo off their hands.

Who knows? A year from now Lester might be available, as well. But by then, the Giants should have Zimmermann and Leake and not really need Jon.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3063/jake-peavy#ixzz3ncJWa9tS

[Islandboagie]

Jake did NOT have as good a year as Lester...unless you consider being on the DL for 2 months productive.


Rog -- You're absolutely right here. I think what Mark meant was that when Jake pitched, there wasn't all that much difference between him and Lester. Jon pitched about a fifth of an inning deeper into the game, and his ERA was a quarter run lower. Their WHIP's were virtually identical, with Jake enjoying the tiniest of edges.

Boagie- Randy does make a good point about Peavy being on the DL for an extended time. But what if we compare Peavy AND Vogelsong (who filled in for Peavy) to Lester. If you do that I think its pretty plain to see the Giants got a better bang for their buck taking the route that they did.

[Rog]

Boagie- Randy does make a good point about Peavy being on the DL for an extended time. But what if we compare Peavy AND Vogelsong (who filled in for Peavy) to Lester. If you do that I think its pretty plain to see the Giants got a better bang for their buck taking the route that they did.


Rog -- I can see this one from a lot of angles.

I can see how some are very disappointed that the Giants didn't do "enough," especially if they feel lied to. (And on that, all I ask is that they dig up those lies. If we were truly lied to, I'm very upset too.)

I can see how you're looking at the overall picture here, realizing the Giants have left themselves more flexibility going forward. (Let's suppose, for instance, that in a best-case scenario they wind up with Zimmermann and Leake to go with Bumgarner, Peavy and a healthy-again Cain. Now THAT would be a rotation.)

I can see Mark's point that the Giants might have been willing to spend more last winter if they got the right guy, but when they didn't, still wound up with the 4th-highest payroll in baseball.

I can see how the Giants might feel they still did "enough," since they were able to withstand five man-years of injuries to important players and still say alive until game 157.

What is important now is what the Giants will do going forward. Bobby Evans yesterday said they would look inside the organization, at trades, at free agents and even at the international market. He acknowledged that the primary need was the rotation. How will he be able to act on those things?

Here's a question I don't think we've discussed.

Did the Giants play Buster Posey at first base merely because Brandon Belt was hurt, with no other motives? Or did it signal a realization they should trade Brandon Belt and move Buster to first base full time? After all, they didn't have a first baseman to replace Belt, but they also didn't have a catcher to replace Buster. Was Buster a bit banged up, causing the Giants to feel he needed to move there temporarily? Despite playing first base, Buster didn't finish the season strongly at the plate, even though he had been red hot going into September.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3063/jake-peavy#ixzz3nnZOMR9j