Stepping it up?

[klaiggeb]

Win loss record aside, with something like 10 games to go before the season starts... I am anything but impressed.

Outside of Bumgarner and Cueto, the starting pitching has been far from impressive.

In fact, after watching Moore get lit up last night, I'd venture a guess that he's 20 to 40 innings away from being ready.

The bullpen, with a few exceptions has been perfectly average, and the offense, suddenly is springing leaks; And by that I mean, the season hasn't even begun and we're seeing what we saw in the 1st month of last season; injuries.

This is NOT a good sign.

It is a sign, but I see it as a foreboding one.




I'm not screaming the sky is falling.

Far from it because when you turn the salt shaker upside down, none of this counts.

I'm merely making an observation; an observation I would rather not have to make.


Let's wait a month and see if I'm right.


But if it turns out that I am, please remember my comments.

boly

[sfgdood]

I didn't like Moore's outing last night either, Boly, but I'm not going to make any judgments on any veteran's spring performance. Moore is a known commodity. He's going to be solid and he's going to give us innings. Of course we'd love to see everyone dominate every day in Spring. But I'm not going to worry one bit about this one outing. We're talking about PRACTICE, here.

[Islandboagie]

Boly- Let's wait a month and see if I'm right.

But if it turns out that I am, please remember my comments.

Boagie- Can we remember your comments if they turn out wrong?

Last season for example you said it was the best team since the 1962 Giants. I didn't beat that to death, because I don't like ripping someone for being overly optimistic. Just like I don't like patting someone on the back for being pessimistic. I tend to just wait and see what happens. Right now I just want the fricken season to start already!

[klaiggeb]

Absolutley, boagie!

Hold me accountable either way.

And, I STILL feel that, w/o the injuries, that WOULD HAVE BEEN the best team since 1962.

boly

[Rog]

And, I STILL feel that, w/o the injuries, that WOULD HAVE BEEN the best team since 1962.


Rog -- I doubt it, but it is certainly possible. The problem is that injuries are a part of virtually EVERY season. Remember, the Dodgers had so many injuries that I read they had 84 players last season, although I'm sure that is true.

What I do know is they USED 55 players last season -- 24 everyday players and 31 pitchers. The Giants used 21 position players and 24 pitchers, or 10 fewer overall.

Why do I think the Giants wouldn't have been as good as say the 1993 team? Well, they won 16 fewer games than that team. Do we think that having Hunter Pence, Joe Panik, Matt Duffy, Angel Pagan, Jake Peavy and Matt Cain healthy the whole season would have made up those 16 games? Not likely IMO.

Not to mention the 1993 Giants had injuries of their own. Will Clark missed 30 games; Robbie Thompson 34; Darren Lewis 26; Willie McGee 32. Trevor Wilson was able to make only 18 starts; Bud Black 16. Bryan Hickerson was forced to make 19 starts; Jeff Branley 12. Greg Brummet made 8 starts. Remember him? I don't.

In fairness too, you believed the Giants were better than any team since 1962 (or did you believe they were even BETTER than 1962?) BEFORE they added Matt Moore, Eduardo Nunez and Will Smith.

As is usually the case, I believe we overrated the Giants early on when they were hot, and underrated them in the second half when they struggled.

Another indicator the Giants last season weren't as good as you believed? You don't think Brandon Belt is all that great a player, and yet Brandon was the Giants' best hitter.

The Giants were a good team in 2016. Despite their red-hot start, they weren't a great team. Think about all the Four A players who were key contributors during the first half. Despite some injuries, everything just seemed to fall into place.

Who were the Giants' good players who were with them at the beginning of the season? Madison Bumgarner. Johnny Cueto. Derek Law. George Kontos. Buster Posey. Brandon Belt. Brandon Crawford. Hunter Pence. That was it. Everyone else either wasn't all that great to begin with or had a bad season.

We got carried away with the 2016 Giants early and then darn near gave up on them late. Clearly they were in the middle.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3781/stepping#ixzz4cHGZVRQm

[klaiggeb]

In spring training, Rog, I said as good as, and likely better.

Long before the addition of Moore and Nunez.

I didn't see Cain's implosion, nor Jeffy the Stubborn's problems coming.

I didn't see Castillo tanking the way he did, nor Pence's injury, nor how Span still wasn't recovered.

hey! I own up to my posts, good or bad.

I'm accountable, and ya'all can hold me to what I write.

boly

[Rog]

In spring training, Rog, I said as good as, and likely better.

Long before the addition of Moore and Nunez.

I didn't see Cain's implosion, nor Jeffy the Stubborn's problems coming.

I didn't see Castillo tanking the way he did, nor Pence's injury, nor how Span still wasn't recovered.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3781/stepping#ixzz4cK40z6Yq


Rog -- I'm glad you stand behind your statements, Boly. Admirable, as you are.

But didn't you say that without their injuries, the Giants would have been better than any Giants team since 1962? And at one point didn't you actually say they were better than the 1962 team? I'm not positive about the latter.

But even without injuries, there have been better Giants teams since 1962 than the 2017 team. Let's start with the 1993 team.

Looking back at the 2017 team:

. Two outstanding starting pitchers, not too much beyond that.

. No truly good closer, and a shaky bullpen overall.

. Slumping players at second and third bases.

. A platoon-caliber center fielder.

. A so-so left fielder (who actually had a decent season).


That just doesn't sound like an all-time great Giants team.

[klaiggeb]

Rog -- I'm glad you stand behind your statements, Boly. Admirable, as you are.

But didn't you say that without their injuries, the Giants would have been better than any Giants team since 1962? And at one point didn't you actually say they were better than the 1962 team? I'm not positive about the latter.

****boly says****

I did, rog, I certainly did. Here's my post from above: "And, I STILL feel that, w/o the injuries, that WOULD HAVE BEEN the best team since 1962."

I also spelled out some of those particular injuries, FORGETTING Panik's injury.

So I'll re post:

KEY injuries:

1-Pence
2-Panik

I was operating with what I knew and/or assumed.

For instance:


I didn't know Span was NOT 100%.

I didn't anticipate Casilla suddenly pitching like he was 50 years old, blowing how many games?

After ending the 2015 season with a solid, solid outting, I figured he'd figured it out. He hadn't

Belt IMPLODING the second half.

Blanco reverting to what he had been prior to Aoki helping him.

Peavy going back into the toilet.

So many things I could not have predicted.


I also posted that we DIDN'T need any career seasons from ANY of our players.


We NEEDED each player to have his normal season.

I figured Crawford would not hit that many HRs again, which he didn't.

I figured that Belt would continue to progress, which for 1/2 of the season he did.

So,when so many players didn't have "normal" season, and injuries were added to the mix, the toilet was flushed, and down we went.


You keep playing up that 1993 season, and no question they were a good team... but BEFORE the season began, I saw last year's team having the opportunity to be better.

That we weren't still ticks. me off.

boly

[Islandboagie]

Boly- Blanco reverting to what he had been prior to Aoki helping him.

Boagie- Blanco was good prior to Aoki "helping" him. Don't you remember 2011-2014?

[klaiggeb]

Yeah he did, Boagie.

In blanco's own words: "he helped me learn how to use my hands."

When Aoki was there, Blanco was the best I've ever seen him.

And it wasn't even close.

He hit .291!

boly

[Rog]

Belt IMPLODING the second half.


Rog -- Why do we pick on Brandon here? The entire team had a bad second half.

Brandon Belt certainly wasn't as good as he had been in the first half, but that was because he was playing at a huge level in the first half. In the second half, his OPS was .792, which was higher than all but Hunter Pence (.808) and Buster Posey (.796). When Brandon "imploded" in the second half, he still hit better than all but two Giants hit over the full season.

Know what Brandon's OPS was down the stretch in September and October? .932, or right up there with his first half.

If I were going to pick a guy who imploded, I might have chosen the other Brandon. You're a big RBI guy, and Crawford fell from 61 first half RBI's to just 23 RBI's' in the second. By comparison, Belt fell only from 47 first half RBI's to 35 (second on the team) in the second.

You're a big fielding guy. Did you know that Crawford made seven of his 11 errors on the season in the second half, including three throwing errors in one game soon after the All-Star game? Belt made one of his eight errors in the second half, although ironically that one error broke the Giants' errorless streak that was something like the second-longest ever.

Picking on Belt in the second half isn't the least bit fair. He was still one of the Giants' best players. It seemed like he collapsed more than others simply because his first half was close to Hall of Fame caliber.

You said you were biased, Boly, and I have to admire you for admitting it. But I guess the question I need to ask is, why? Why be biased?

[Rog]

Blanco did say that Aoki helped him to hold the bat more loosely. Gregor then held the bat the most visibly loosely I can remember seeing anyone hold it. That said, he still held it extremely loosely last season when he slumped.

Boagie is right that Gregor had some very nice seasons previously, but at the plate, Boly is right to say Gregor had his best season in 2015. Gregor was a good fourth outfielder, and the Giants could use a right-handed hitting version of him right now.

[Rog]

I didn't know Span was NOT 100%.

I didn't anticipate Casilla suddenly pitching like he was 50 years old, blowing how many games?

After ending the 2015 season with a solid, solid outting, I figured he'd figured it out. He hadn't

Belt IMPLODING the second half.

Blanco reverting to what he had been prior to Aoki helping him.

Peavy going back into the toilet.

So many things I could not have predicted.


Rog -- Good point. You also didn't know the Giants would add Nunez, Moore and Smith.

What I believe you did know though was that:

. The Giants weren't particularly good in left field.

. With the question marks surrounding Matt Cain, the Giants' rotation wasn't particularly good beyond Bumgarner and Cueto.

. A bullpen that was clearly getting older.

. Neither Casilla nor Romo could get lefty hitters out.

. The Giants had very little power.

. Their backup catcher was weak.

. They had no right-handed power off the bench, which was weak overall.


One of the things the 1962 team had that the 2016 team didn't was depth in most areas.

The 1993 team had:

. Barry Bonds, Matt Williams, Will Clark, Robby Thompson and Willie McGee.

. Four fine starters in Billy Swift, John (Charcoal) Burkett, Trevor Wilson and Bud Black.

. Closer Rod Beck and his 48 saves.

. Two players -- Bonds and Williams -- whose 84 combined homers were only less than the entire Giants starting lineup in 2017.

. Three .300 hitters in the starting lineup.

. A terror off the bench in Mark Careon, who hit .327 with a .913 OPS.


The 1993 Giants won 16 more games than the 2016 team. Given their level of talent, that's not entirely surprising.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3781/stepping?page=1#ixzz4cV3bPjPb

[Rog]

I didn't know Span was NOT 100%.

I didn't anticipate Casilla suddenly pitching like he was 50 years old, blowing how many games?

After ending the 2015 season with a solid, solid outting, I figured he'd figured it out. He hadn't

Belt IMPLODING the second half.

Blanco reverting to what he had been prior to Aoki helping him.

Peavy going back into the toilet.


Rog -- I realize you said there were many more things, but let's examine the possible effect the things you specifically identified.

. Denard Span was just a one-win player last season. Not counting his injury-shortened 2015 season, Denard had been a three-win player in previous years. That's a loss of two wins we might not have expected, although with Denard coming off three injuries in less than a year -- one of the injuries quite serious -- it probably wasn't reasonable to expect more than a two-win season from him. So the Giants lost one to two wins they could have expected from Denard.

. Casilla had been a one- to two-win player. Last season he was less than a one-win player. Let's call it a loss of one game.

. Belt "imploding" in the second half. Brandon actually had the best season of his career. Beginning with his sophomore season, Brandon had been a three-win player. Last season he was a four-win player, or one win more than we might have expected.

. Blanco had a very rough season. Of course, he was a bench player, so he wasn't likely to make a huge difference. But he had been a GOOD bench player, one who had been worth two wins. Last season he didn't even play at replacement level and was was worth MINUS one win. That's a difference of three wins.

So the scorecard for the four players you mentioned is Span costing one or two games (based on whether we expected him to return completely to his old self in his first season after serious injury). Casilla was a loss of one game. Belt actually ADDED one win. Blanco was the big offender, costing the Giants three wins.

If we all those up, the players you brought up cost the Giants three to four games. Despite adding Moore, Nunez and Smith, they fell 16 wins short of the 1993 team. That's more than three to four.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3781/stepping?page=1#ixzz4cVAWU12q

[Rog]

About half the difference between the 1993 team and the 2017 team was the performance of their stars. Barry Bonds, Matt Williams, Robby Thompson and Billy Swift were worth 27 games above replacement. Madison Bumgarner, Johnny Cueto, Buster Posey and Brandon Crawford were worth 20.

[Islandboagie]

Rog- Casilla had been a one- to two-win player. Last season he was less than a one-win player. Let's call it a loss of one game.

Boagie- When a closer struggles like Casilla did last season, it affects a lot more than a difference of one game, or 2-3 games if you do correct math. Casilla blew a lot of semi- comfortable leads, plus a lot of close leads. You also have to take into consideration the times when someone else was asked to close out games and blew the save too. The bullpen as a whole was affected by Casilla's struggles, which is why these numbers are significantly flawed.

[klaiggeb]

It's not "pick on Belt," again, Rog, he DID implode in the 2nd half!

Have you forgotten the 100 or so at bats when he had trouble hitting air?

I haven't.

He imploded.

And yes, many players stunk up the second half, but... if Casilla DOESN'T blow all those saves, it's Belt we're all pointing at.

boly

[Rog]

It's not "pick on Belt," again, Rog, he DID implode in the 2nd half!

Have you forgotten the 100 or so at bats when he had trouble hitting air?

I haven't.

He imploded.


Rog -- I guess it depends on how one defines "implode," but personally I don't consider posting the best OPS on the team and driving in the second-most runs while playing very good defense qualifies.

If we want to look at implosions, wouldn't it be better to look at Brandon Crawford, whose RBI's fell from 61 to 23 or to Buster Posey, whose OPS fell from .843 in the first half to .740 in the second.

Isn't the guy who truly imploded in the second half Brandon Crawford? From 61 RBI's to just 23? How big a drop off is THAT. Not to mention that late July game with THREE throwing errors?

Remember when Crawford made two unfortunate throwing errors in the final game of the postseason, including the one that lead to the losing run? Remember how you said you couldn't remember Brandon's ever making two throwing errors in the same game? Well, I guess technically you were right, since three months earlier he made THREE throwing errors, not two.

You criticize me for looking only at the numbers, Boly. In reality, I look at much more than that, but given how many numbers I use, I can see how you would form your point of view. What I too often see though is where you form your judgment on your impression, not on what actually happened.

Memory plays tricks on us all. That's one of the reasons I try to look things up. Your Crawford mis-remembering is an example.

As for Belt, I'm just not getting it. You criticize him for not getting enough RBI's, yet when he finishes second on the team in RBI's the second half and drops off by only 12 RBI's, it's hard for me to say he imploded without referring more to Crawford, whose RBI total dropped by 38 from one half to the other.

And while errors aren't the only measure of fielding (and not a particularly good one at that), we know that Brandon made only one of his eight errors after the break, while Crawford made seven of his 11.

So, second on the team, the best OPS, very good defense, and he "imploded?" I'm not seeing it. I'm just not hearing what you're saying. It doesn't feel right to me.

Not to mention I'm not buying your hypothesis!


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3781/stepping#ixzz4caF8afKX

[Rog]

As for Belt's striking out like crazy for a long while after the break, I certainly haven't forgotten it. But you said he imploded in the SECOND HALF. He saved his second half by posting a .781 OPS in August and .923 in September.

In other words, he played some of his best ball down the stretch. He drove in 33 runs in those two months -- or 10 more than the other Brandon did in the entire second half.

You're simply not being fair this time, Boly. And you're not like that.

[Islandboagie]

Nobody imploded except for our bullpen.

[klaiggeb]

I'm not being fair, Rog?

Have you forgotten his second half?

When literally every time he went to the plate for over 100+ at bats he couldn't even hit the ball, much less drive it.

Yeah, he somewhat recovered near the end... and that made his numbers look okay...but that belies what we all had to put up with.


His batting average fell from something like .302 to .275.

That's a huge fall.

boly

[Grant Brisbee]

www.google.com/amp/www.mccoveychronicles.com/platform/amp/2017/3/28/15096960/brandon-belt-sf-giants-projections

[Rog]

In fact, after watching Moore get lit up last night, I'd venture a guess that he's 20 to 40 innings away from being ready.



Rog -- I hope he's not that far away. Madison Bumgarner is the only pitcher who has thrown more than 20 innings this spring.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3781/stepping#ixzz4cdtlw0Un

[Rog]

I'm not being fair, Rog?

Have you forgotten his second half?


Rog --No, I haven't. But it appears you have either forgetten it or not put it into proper perspective in the first place. Although he wasn't nearly as good as in the first half, was still the Giants' best hitter in the second. That shows us two things:

. How well he did in the first half.

. And that he wasn't the only one to decline.


Didn't you get the part about Brandon's having the second best number of RBI's in the second half while Brandon Crawford fell off by 38. Fell off by 38 RBI's. Fell of by 38. 38.

How many times do I have to say it? 38?

Seriously, Boly, you're a wonderful baseball man, but I think you have the same kind of blinders on with regard to Belt as Don does with regard to Buster. Possibly worse, since Don has made some decent points.

Speaking of pointing, you keep pointing to Brandon's lack of RBI's, but when he hits 82 and finishes second on the team -- and with far less of a decline in the second half than the other Brandon, who led the team in RBI's, you shift to how he imploded.

For a while he was horrible, but were you paying attention in August and September when he was actually quite good? Why in the world are you focusing on batting average, when most baseball fans now know that on-base percentage and slugging percentage (and hence, OPS) are far better measures.

Remember Harmon Killebrew? You know, the Hall of Famer? Harmon certainly didn't make the Hall because of his (-(poor) fielding. He didn't make it because of his (slow) base running either. Nor did he make it because of his mediocre .256 batting average.

He made it for his .376 OBP, most for his .509 SLG, and thus for his OPS.

Brandon Belt led the Giants in the second half of the season with a .792 OPS. You're using the Giants' best second-half hitter as the guy who imploded. Not good. Not fair.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3781/stepping?page=1#ixzz4cfg4ldnl

[Rog]

And yes, many players stunk up the second half, but... if Casilla DOESN'T blow all those saves, it's Belt we're all pointing at.


Rog -- It's Belt you and Randy are pointing at, Boly. Those who are objective are pointing to the team in general, the bullpen in particular, most of the hitters -- but not Brandon in particular.

Why are you pointing your finger at the Giant's best second-half hitter. As was the case in the first half, he led the Giants or was very close to the top in most categories.

I hope this will put things into perspective for you. How do you think Brandon's on-base percentage in the second half compared to Brooks Robinson's career mark? Probably not as good, right? Well, yes, as good. In fact, 56 points higher. That's not good enough for you?

Yeah, you say, but he didn't slug like Brooks. Well, yeah, he did. His SLG was a baker's dozen higher. Let's see how that means their OPS's compare. Well, 56 plus 13 equals 69. What, you say, Brandon Belt in the second half when he "imploded" had an OPS 69 points higher than Brooks Robinson.

Well, yeah, he did. Gee, are we talking about another Hall of Famer? Obviously we are. And, yes, Brooks made the Hall mostly because of his glove. But he was also known as a good hitter.

But not nearly as good as Brandon Belt in the second half of last season when Brandon "imploded."

Are you being fair to Brandon Belt?





Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3781/stepping?page=1#ixzz4cfihUpoN

[Rog]

His batting average fell from something like .302 to .275.

That's a huge fall.


Rog -- Brandon fell by more than many of the Giants because he was so much BETTER than they were in the first half? Don't you understand that Brandon's OPS in the first half of the season was higher than most Hall of Famers? In fact, it was more than 200 points higher than Brooks Robinson. It was more than 75 points higher than Orlando Cepeda.

Brandon Belt's first half was outstanding. His second half was above-average. Over the entire season, he was very good.

You could look it up.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3781/stepping?page=1#ixzz4cflwVOpZ

[klaiggeb]

Rog I TOTALLY acknowledge that even with Belt crashing and coming close to burning, the REAL PROBLEM was the blown saves. By Casilla in particular.

You just picked out that one point in my post and ignored the Casilla part.

Here are my posts:
1-"I didn't see Castillo tanking the way he did"

2-"I didn't anticipate Casilla suddenly pitching like he was 50 years old, blowing how many games?"

Why did you ignore those points?

Thus, I contend I did address the REAL issue, and that you continue to bring up Belt BECAUSE I've ranted against him so often.

boly

[Rog]

Boagie- When a closer struggles like Casilla did last season, it affects a lot more than a difference of one game, or 2-3 games if you do correct math. Casilla blew a lot of semi- comfortable leads, plus a lot of close leads. You also have to take into consideration the times when someone else was asked to close out games and blew the save too. The bullpen as a whole was affected by Casilla's struggles, which is why these numbers are significantly flawed.


Rog -- I too think WAR may understate the effect of closers. One thing it may underestimate is the high leverage of the innings closers pitch.

Looking at the win probability added by Mark Melancon and Santiago Casilla the past three seasons, Mark has added 2.06 more wins per season than Santiago. Last season the difference was 2.50 runs.

Win probability for a pitcher is the likelihood of his team winning when he departs the game less the probability of a win when he enters. Let's say the closer enters the game in the ninth when his team has a .90 (90%) chance of winning. If the team wins, he gets a win probability added of .10 (100% less the 90% when he entered the game). If he blew the save with a blown loss, he would get a win probablity of -.90, since he turned a 90% probability of a win into a loss.

Melancon's win probablity added over the past three seasons has averaged 3.37 wins. His WAR has averaged precisely one win less. Hard to say based on one example, but it may be that WAR slightly understates the effect of a closer.

I know that as well as Melancon has pitched the past three seasons as a closer, one would expect him to have added more than 3.37 wins per season to his team, but that's what his pitching has done.

As for the effect of a closer's pitching on other pitchers, I just don't know. One thing I believe though is that if the closer is doing poorly, it should motivate the other relievers to do better, giving them a better chance at becoming the closer (and its huge resulting bucks) themselves.



Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3781/stepping#ixzz4cfz4t43Z

[Islandboagie]

No offense, Rog, but this means absolutely nothing to me.

[Rog]

Here are my posts:
1-"I didn't see Castillo tanking the way he did"

2-"I didn't anticipate Casilla suddenly pitching like he was 50 years old, blowing how many games?"


Rog -- How many 50-year-olds do you know who pitched as well as Castillo did last season?

But more to the point, did Santiago REALLY cost the Giants 16 games, which is what it would have taken to catch the 1993 Giants?

We overrated the Giants in the first half of 2016. When a team wins as often as they did, that is usually the case. Once in a while the team is as good as it appears, but 99% of the time, when a team is hot, they aren't as good as they appear. When they're cold, they're not as BAD as they appear.

How many times do we have to go over this? We've said it on multiple occasions year after year, and do you remember the last time it wasn't true? Probabably 1993. Even the 1993 Giants weren't quite as good as they seemed. They blew a pretty decent lead IIRC. Most of that was the unexpected play of the Braves down the stretch, but the Giants did lose 8 in a row in early September. (They later won 14 of 16 games through their penultimate contest. Sadly, they lost the last contest to the Dodgers, allowing the Braves to stay ahead of them.)

We talked in the first half about how the Giants were playing over their heads. Didn't that become rather obvious when they called up Four A players and those guys somehow kept making key contributions?

Incidentally, the Giants DID have a lot of injuries last season. It seems they've had a lot of injuries the past four seasons (although they remarkably overcame them in 2015), but there was at least one team that had MORE injuries last season than they -- the Dodgers.

Back when the good stuff started, in 2010, the Padres played over their heads for a long time. But on the final day, the Giants clinched and the Padres were left out. Last season the Giants played over their heads early on, only to become one of the worst teams in baseball for over a month, before they finally made it to the postseason based in part on their acquisitions of Moore, Smith and Nunez -- and partly because Brandon Belt got red hot the last week of the season and, batting second, spurred the Giants on.

Brandon certainly struggled in late July. He was HORRIBLE. But what we seem to have missed is that he bounced back.

And down the stretch in the final week when the Giants needed him most, he went 9 for 22. You want RBI's? He got 5 in the six games. Runs? Five. Doubles? Three. Triples? Yeah, he got one. Yeah, but he couldn't possibly have hit a home run, did he? Well, yeah, he hit one. Want walks? Five. Strikeouts? Well, yeah, he did that three times too.

(Three times too is six, right?)


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3781/stepping#ixzz4cgtwoH7W