|
Cain
Mar 28, 2017 20:17:30 GMT -5
Post by klaiggeb on Mar 28, 2017 20:17:30 GMT -5
Color me perplexed.
Matt Cain allowed 4 runs in 5 1/3 ip today, called it a good outting, and figures he'll be that 5th starter.
Sorry, but I just do NOT get that logic.
4 runs in 5 1/3 is like allowing 7 runs or so in 9
And he calls that a good outting?
Can't compare with Blach's last outting. Not even close.
But, as I continue to say, HE'LL be the 5th starter.
Now I'll add more.
By the end of May he will not have won more than 1...2 games at the most, and he'll have an ERA somewhere near 6.00
He will have had 6 or 7 starts, of which we might win 3.
If I'm wrong, I'll eat my words, but to ME, that is just pissing away a number of games, taking losses when with someone else starting we would have had a better chance to at least play .500 ball in those 6 or 7 games.
Not smart.
Not smart at all.
boly
|
|
|
Cain
Mar 28, 2017 20:42:44 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Mar 28, 2017 20:42:44 GMT -5
If Matt had had another stinker today, it would have been really hard for the Giants to start him over Blach. But his outing was acceptable in that he yielded just two runs in five innings before falling apart in the sixth. If Matt can throw five innings per game during the regular season and give up just two runs, the Giants would be delighted. All they would have to do is relieve him after five innings.
There is no question that based on performance Blach has won the job. But when a guy is making $21 million and is owed at least $7.5 million beyond that, other factors can come into play.
On the radio it was suggested that the Giants start Ty and see if Matt can turn things around as a reliever. It's certainly worth a shot.
|
|
|
Cain
Mar 28, 2017 20:58:03 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Mar 28, 2017 20:58:03 GMT -5
By the end of May he will not have won more than 1...2 games at the most Rog -- Quite possibly he would have -- even if he pitched poorly. Wins are a team statistic, and sometimes starters pitch well and don't get them; other times they pitch poorly and still get the win. Now, Matt hasn't been known for the great run support he has received, but that can change in an instant. Remember how we examined Kirk Rueter's winning 15 games in 1999 despite a 5.41 ERA? If Kirk Rueter can win 15 games in a season despite a 5.41 ERA, Matt Cain win three games in two months with a similar ERA. I'm not saying he would -- but it's certainly possible. It's not quite as dramatic as Rueter, but Tim Lincecum won 10 games in 2012 despite a 5.18 ERA. Last season Jered Weaver won 12 games despite a 5.06 ERA. Wade Miley won nine with a 5.37 ERA. Edinson Volquez won 10 despite the same ERA as Miley. Now, would I rather have Blach start the season instead of Cain? Definitely. But I also realize that it's certainly possible Matt would win more than one or two games in the season's first two months. If he were to pitch as he did today, and the Giants were to make him a five-inning pitcher, he very likely would. What's important anyway isn't Matt's record, but the Giants' record in the game he starts. Start Blach and put Matt in the bullpen. I like that idea. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3784/cain?page=1#ixzz4cfuwxwet
|
|
|
Cain
Mar 29, 2017 9:22:37 GMT -5
Post by klaiggeb on Mar 29, 2017 9:22:37 GMT -5
I don't like the idea, Rog, not at all.
Moving Cain to the pen blocks the growth of other younger, better pitchers.
I'd rather have Suarez in that role, and let Cain work it out in AAA
IF he doesn't agree, then I say thanks for the memories and show him the door.
boly
|
|
|
Cain
Mar 29, 2017 9:53:04 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 29, 2017 9:53:04 GMT -5
Boly- Matt Cain allowed 4 runs in 5 1/3 ip today, called it a good outting, and figures he'll be that 5th starter.
Boagie- It is worth noting that one of those runs scored after Cain left the game because Osich was throwing batting practice to the Cubs.
|
|
|
Cain
Mar 29, 2017 12:34:22 GMT -5
Post by klaiggeb on Mar 29, 2017 12:34:22 GMT -5
If that's the case, Boagie, I retract my statement with a caveat.
3 runs, + base runners in 5 1/3 is not what I call a 'good' outing for a guy trying to fight his way back.
I didn't get to see the game, and couldn't find the box score in any convenient location, but it BEGS me to ask this question:
What was the Cub lineup?
Mostly regulars?
Or, like the game in which we scored double digit runs this past week, mostly border line players, guys desperately trying to make the club.
Big difference.
That's the problem with "numbers" when "Numbers" are all that one sees.
The "numbers" looked terrible.
The reality behind them might indeed be something else.
boly
|
|
|
Cain
Mar 29, 2017 12:52:59 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 29, 2017 12:52:59 GMT -5
Again, it's just Spring Training, the off speed and breaking pitches don't have nearly the same movement. I imagine we'll see Cain and Blach again in the Bay Bridge series, I'll reserve my opinion about who I believe should be the 5th starter until then.
|
|
|
Cain
Mar 29, 2017 13:03:08 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Mar 29, 2017 13:03:08 GMT -5
That's the problem with "numbers" when "Numbers" are all that one sees. The "numbers" looked terrible. The reality behind them might indeed be something else. boly Rog -- The mere numbers of a pitcher from a game -- or even a little stretch -- can indeed be deceiving. The bigger the sample, the more accurate the numbers usually become. Also, it's important to look at ALL the numbers. Go to FanGraphs.com to look more closely at a pitcher's season. What was his Batting Average on Balls In Play? Does that match up with the line drives he gave up, the hard-hit balls he yielded, and his number ground balls and infield flies. Obviously, a pitcher wants to be as low on the first two and as high on the last two as possible. If he's limited line drives and hard-hit balls while inducing a lot of ground balls and infield flies but still has a high BABIP, he's likely been a bit unlucky. (And despite what anyone might say, don't think luck factors into the equation.) How can luck NOT enter into it? If batter just gets a piece, he stays alive. If he gets more of the ball, he hits a pop up or soft ground ball that turns into an out. Well, except that if he hits the ground ball slowly enough, he beats it out. And if he bloops the ball just over the infield, that gets him a far better result than a blast right at the outfielder. Oh, and if he happens to hit the ball AWAY from the fielder, he doesn't have to hit it nearly as hard. (Batters have SOME control over where the ball goes, but not enough to say consistently hit their ground balls into the 5 1/2 hole.) But circling back to what's most important, our problem with the numbers' not showing the whole picture is more that we don't have ENOUGH numbers, but that we don't look at enough of them. Fortunately, more and more numbers are becoming available, and as we learn how to understand them, more and more of the whole picture evolves. As for Matt, as we know, his biggest problem is a lack of command, something that somehow develop in the blink of an eye. Matt's stuff isn't nearly as forgiving as it used to be, and somehow his command can turn on a dime. Boly mentioned that Matt's release point may not be as consistent as it was when he couldn't completely extend his arm due to his bone chips in the elbow. One would think that having more extension would allow him to throw harder, but his surgery may also have weakened his arm. Worse, the situation is DIFFERENT, which may cause him to struggle to command it. One thing that is available -- although I don't always know where to find it -- is essentially a time-release picture that shows precisely where a pitcher's pitches have been released. I haven't seen one for Matt, but if we could see it, it might help explain a lot. Rest assured that the Giants' management and Matt himself have access to such a picture. Obviously that would be where they start in an effort to be more consistent with his release point. (Watching live, it's tough to see, since the difference may be only an inch or two.) Anyway, Boly, the numbers DO show a lot, especially in large samples. But it's knowing all the numbers that are available and how to interpret them that is the key. People say that numbers lie. No, they really don't. It's just that we don't always interpret them correctly or even know all the numbers to look at. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3784/cain#ixzz4cjp7Thpu
|
|
|
Cain
Mar 29, 2017 13:12:21 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Mar 29, 2017 13:12:21 GMT -5
What was the Cub lineup?
Mostly regulars?
That is the beginning of the questions we would like to have answered. By the way, if we go to sfgiants.com, the first thing that will come up on the left side of the screen during or after a game is the game itself. And there is, ironically, a little box that says "box." It can be tough to find at times, but it's there.
And if you go to gameday, you can see the location, speed and movement of the pitches right as the game goes on. It's certainly not the same, but I sometimes like to "watch" the game on gameday.
One problem with baseball today is that there is so much information available it's hard to find the time to digest it. And even finding some of it can be hard. But it's there. More and more of it is there.
And the more there is, the more accurate the picture it paints.
|
|
|
Cain
Mar 29, 2017 13:13:34 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Mar 29, 2017 13:13:34 GMT -5
If we have enough numbers, the intangibles we respect but have such a hard time measuring would no longer be intangible. We're getting closer.
|
|
|
Cain
Mar 29, 2017 13:27:00 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Mar 29, 2017 13:27:00 GMT -5
I don't like the idea, Rog, not at all. Moving Cain to the pen blocks the growth of other younger, better pitchers. I'd rather have Suarez in that role, and let Cain work it out in AAA Rog -- The biggest trouble with Matt is that in trying to "protect" him, showing loyalty and respect, the Giants can lose another player to waivers or, as you point out, lose a game they "shouldn't" have. Moving Matt to the bullpen might cause the loss of a player, but if he's not successful, shouldn't block their growth much. If he's successful as a reliever, they Giants have squeezed as much out of a highly-paid asset as they could. If he isn't successful, he shouldn't be kept around long. If he hurts the team, is he more likely to do so as a fifth starter, or if he pitches in long relief. The answer to that is so obvious that I wonder why you are questioning a move to the bullpen by him. Not only does it give him a different way to succeed (such as Dennis Eckersley and John Smoltz did), but it puts him in lower-leverage (less important) situations. Making him a reliever doesn't affect his being sent to the minors. In fact, wouldn't it give Matt a better psychological "out" if the Giants told him they feel he can be more effective at this point in his career as a reliever and that they want to give him time at Sacramento to develop the role? We -- and hopefully the Giants -- should try thinking a little outside the box at times. Rather than pooh-pooh an idea out of hand, why not try to think of circumstances under which it might work? And then try to provide those circumstances. New ideas seem strange to us, and thus take us out of our comfort zones and make us more likely to reject them. But if we approach them as a learning opportunity, our minds can grow. We could all benefit from opening our minds a bit more. Especially us old guys are vulnerable to failing to do so. I know I'm certainly guilty of it -- and have been guilty of it longer than most here! Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3784/cain?page=1#ixzz4cjwmtKkl
|
|
|
Cain
Mar 29, 2017 16:18:37 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Mar 29, 2017 16:18:37 GMT -5
Matt's outing looked better than I thought it would. In fact, when he came out to pitch the sixth inning, the Cubs' announcers -- which included former Giants pitcher Jim (Silhouettes on) DeShais -- commented on it. So here's what happened.
Matt started strong, keeping his fastball up enough to avoid having it squared up and spreading his pitches around. His change up was his best offering.
With one out in the top of the third, Matt lost his command a bit and gave up his first hit to Jake Arrieta, who doubled on a hanging breaking ball. After missing with a fastball to second baseman Chesny Young, he didn't get a high, inside fastball high enough and in enough, and Chesny hit it out. The Cubs announcers had just cited Young's lack of power, but he hit his third homer of the spring.
Cain had trouble with the next hitter too, resulting in a walk IIRC, but he then righted the ship.
In the fifth he began to weaken, but with no serious results. In the sixth, he just didn't have it. He gave up a sharp line drive double on a fastball to the struggling Jayson Heyward. After Gorkys Hernandez made a nice catch on Anthony Rizzo's line drive to deep center (again on a fastball), he gave up a run-scoring single and left the game. Matt's control and command had exited along with his stuff.
Something I had a feeling about remembering back to Matt's suddenly losing it in the middle of games last season. I looked it up. On his first 25 pitches last season, Matt limited the opposition to a .591 OPS. To put that into perspective, last season Madison Bumgarner's overall OPS was .617, and Johnny Cueto's was .633.
IMO the Giants should make Cain their long reliever immediately. That would mean giving up on Albert Suarez, but Albert might clear waivers anyway.
It wasn't my idea to make Cain a reliever. But it's a good one.
I suspect Matt pitched well enough yesterday to keep his job as the #5 starter. But the Giants should give the chance to Ty Blach and put Matt into a role in which he appears to have a better chance to succeed.
Sometimes starters have difficulty with getting into the game. That wasn't the case with Matt last season. That wasn't the case with Matt yesterday. Matt's recent problem has been losing it all of a sudden.
The Giants shouldn't make Matt the fifth starter, and they shouldn't give up on him. They should take the middle road and see how he can relieve.
I know you don't like the idea, Boly, but the Giants risk less with Matt as the long reliever than as the starter. And his recent results give indication the bullpen just MIGHT be his salavation.
He and the Giants need one.
|
|
|
Cain
Mar 29, 2017 20:18:56 GMT -5
Post by klaiggeb on Mar 29, 2017 20:18:56 GMT -5
It's not that I don't see your point, Rog, I do.
But for me... here's the thing; his presence blocks Blach or another player, delaying their emergence for another year, or month, or whatever.
Blach proved he belonged by a combination of 3 things:
1-His over all performance last year.
2-His total shut down of Kershaw and the Dodgers that last game he pitched.
3-His spring, especially his last outing.
IMHO, he WON the job... but the Giants won't let him have it.
If I'm in the system? And THAT performance didn't win a job, I'm asking myself, "what the heck do you have to DO to win a freaking job?"
It discourages not just ME, the young player, but everyone else in the system.
boly
|
|
|
Cain
Mar 30, 2017 12:49:51 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Mar 30, 2017 12:49:51 GMT -5
Some good points, Boly. Let me offer a counter or two.
First, we agree that Ty should be the fifth starter. And your point about his not being named so could be discouraging to the younger players. On the other hand, you're a huge chemistry guy,and what message will it sent to the team if their war horse isn't given one final chance.
It doesn't have to be a long chance. If he pitches like he did Tuesday, he should probably keep the spot. Just get him our of there a little earlier. Remember, Ty isn't going to be a savior either. Just a capable fifth starter.
My guess would be that Matt pitches himself out of the rotation. Then Blach gets his chance, encouraging the youngsters with the veterans having been satisfied with the Giants' going the extra mile for Matt before removing him from the rotation.
What would I do? I would give the spot to Blach and move Matt to the bullpen. Or perhaps let Matt have his string while keeping Suarez. Probably the latter. One thing to remember though if the Giants lose Suarez. He's likely this year's Chris Heston -- a guy who pitched over his head.
Speaking of which,that's probably what Blach has done too. He's not going to beat Clayton Kershaw very often. His ceiling is likely as a competent fifth starter.
Matt's 2016 season gives a hint that he would make a fine long reliever. Remember, he was EXCELLENT his first 25 pitches. Heck, let him tag team with Blach, getting Ty out a little early if necessary.
Here's the thing: This probably isn't a big issue. Just put a short leash on Matt. If he succeeds, wonderful. If not, get Ty in there by the end of April and move Matt to the bullpen, where he likely belongs now.
A question: If Matt blocks Albert Suarez by becoming a reliever, is that a loss worth worrying about? Here is something to worry about with Albert. His 3.47 career minor league ERA isn't bad. Not great by any means, but not bad. But his run average is 4.40, which is bad for the minors. It appears Albert needs good fielding behind him, that he may not be great at pitching out of trouble. His 4.40 ERA at Sacramento last season was just behind his 4.29 in the majors. Not good, but the sample wasn't big, either. What was horrible was his 5.12 run average. At both locations, his WHIP was 1.31, which leaves him vulnerable.
Even in the minors, Albert has just 6.1 strikeouts per nine innings. He's a good ground ball pitcher, but not good enough to make up for his lack of dominance.
I'd prefer Matt NOT cause the Giants to lose Suarez, who might clear waivers even if he is cut. But if they do lose Albert, I see no great harm.
Here is another way to look at it. Soon Albert might be blocking someone like Chris Stratton. I'm not all that fond of the former first round pick either, but he would seem to have more potential than Suarez.
Why not see if Matt could be a decent weapon out of the bullpen?
|
|
|
Cain
Mar 30, 2017 13:43:26 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Mar 30, 2017 13:43:26 GMT -5
The Cubs' announcers were discussing how good Anthony Rizzo was, which led to a discussion of how many good first basemen there are in baseball now. Because the Cubs were playing the Giants, the announcers commented on Brandon Belt. They said someting to the effect that "Brandon Belt must be considered a top 10 first baseman."
Which leads me to repeat the question: Why is it that we're so eager to trade a top-10 player at his position? I'm sorry to repeat the question, but it seems that I keep stumbling into facts and opinions that make me scratch my head.
And to combine it with another topic, just how is it that we're all over Brandon and and his .868 OPS last season and yet think it's off-base when Denard Span and his OPS that was 300 points lower against southpaws last season than Bradon's overall OPS isn't a platoon player?
On a directly related matter, Belt is also a left-handed hitter. His OPS against lefties last season was .883. Buster Posey has a reputation for crushing southpaws. His OPS against southpaws was .899. Not only was Brandon the Giants' best hitter against right-handers last season, he was nearly their best against southpaws.
Span was not.
|
|
|
Cain
Mar 30, 2017 14:48:08 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Mar 30, 2017 14:48:08 GMT -5
We criticize Brandon Belt for not having more RBI's. We talk about how good Anthony Rizzo is. Well, is Belt as good as Rizzo? No. He's not in that top tier of first baseman -- Goldschmidt, Cabrera, Rizzo, Votto, Freeman, Abreu and Encarnacion if one considers him a first baseman instead of a designated hitter -- but he's comfortably in the second tier and likely at or near the top of it, particularly when we consider his excellent fielding.
But how did Brandon's 2016 season compare with Rizzo's career for outs per RBI? Almost identical, it turns out. 4.93 outs made per RBI for Rizzo compared to 4.98 outs per RBI for Belt last season.
Again, Belt isn't as good as Rizzo. But clearly he's not a guy we should be recommending the Giants get rid of either.
And again, do we not realize how excellent it was to have Grant Brisbee visit us here? How did the national baseball writer and Giants expert feel about Belt?
I can tell us one thing: If we had to make our living by how well we evaluate Belt, we'd have to tighten ours.
|
|
|
Cain
Mar 30, 2017 14:55:45 GMT -5
Post by klaiggeb on Mar 30, 2017 14:55:45 GMT -5
Matt pitches himself out of the rotation... same thing I said.
However, please remember my other issue: Why are we essentially BLOWING those games WHILE he pitches himself out of the rotation?
I would argue, he's already pitched himself out of the rotation by his performance last year, and this spring.
1...ONE decent, not good, decent outing.
Why in the world is he still being considered for the rotation?
We've shown him the respect he's EARNED by NOT cutting him last year.
No more is merited.
I'm on the wrong side of this argument as far as ya'all and the Giants are concerned, but MY logic makes more sense.
boly
|
|
|
Cain
Mar 30, 2017 20:18:24 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Mar 30, 2017 20:18:24 GMT -5
By pitching Matt, the Giants aren't giving the games up. I'm with you that I would rather see Blach, but he too will lose some games.
One thing about the Giants though is that they're very loyal to their players. I think that has helped to build their chemistry, which appears to be as good as any team in the majors and could have been a substantial part of their success.
If Matt does poorly and the Giants miss the playoffs by a game, obviously this will be a HUGE issue. But the odds are that won't be the case.
I'm with you, Boly, but I understand why the Giants will almost certainly go with Matt for a while at least. I would think that two bad starts and he would be out. Three at the most.
As long as he makes mediocre starts, he'll likely stay in the rotation. Fifth starters don't usually give better than mediocre starts. A couple of good starts, and he'll earn a lengthened leash.
This is indeed a sticky wicket, but hopefully it won't become a big issue.
To be honest, I'm MUCH more concerned about the outfield. It seems unlikely that Jarrett Parker will pan out, and that could well cost the Giants more games than Matt Cain. And if the Giants have an outfield injury, watch out.
I certainly haven't looked at all the major league outfields, but let's just say that I haven't seen one that is worse. The Giants' outfield floor seems kind of low, and the ceiling doesn't appear to be all that high.
You know how they say that one man's ceiling is another man's floor? That may apply to outfields too. Unfortunately, the Giants don't appear to be far removed from the entrance.
Denard Span came on strong at the end of spring training, but just for fun, let's look at how he, Jarrett and Hunter fared in the spring.
Denard -- .294/.859 Great recovery after a horrible start. Six walks vs. eight strikeouts is very good.
Parker -- .263/.876 Slow finish after a hot start. 21 strikeouts in 57 at bats is ominous.
Pence -- .160/.493 Shocking -- but it's only spring training. He's pulling off the ball again.
The Giants need a right-handed hitting Gregor Blanco. Chris Marrero looks like the right-handed pinch hitter off the bench, but how well can he play left field? He hasn't played the outfield in the majors, although he did play a little over 200 games in the minors.
Chris played for the Reds in 2011 and 2013 and was horrible. But he was drafted #15 overall (only five spots behind Tim Lincecum) in 2006 and was the #27 prospect entering the 2008 season. He's been decent but not great in the minors, hitting 140 homers in 10+ seasons. Killed it in spring training though, including seven home runs.
|
|
|
Cain
Mar 30, 2017 20:34:15 GMT -5
Post by Rog on Mar 30, 2017 20:34:15 GMT -5
The latest word seems to be Gillaspie and Hill as infield backups, plus Marrero as a first baseman/outfielder. Hernandez seems to be the favorite for the other spot, since he is the only sure-fire defensive center fielder. Add in Hundley as the backup catcher, and there would be room only for the Giants to carry 12 pitchers.
The five starters, the four sure-fire relievers, Okert and probably Gearrin. That leaves one spot. Blach or Suarez? Ramirez has one option remaining. That and trouble getting the ball over the plate on Tuesday likely seal Sacramento to open the season despite his fantastic strikeout rate (16 strikeouts in 9.2 innings, which is Chapman-esque). Despite issuing two walks to open the ninth inning on Tuesday, his 16/4 K/BB ratio was still highly impressive.
Gearrin had a bad spring, and Suarez was mediocre, so the opening is there at least for Ramirez, who posted a 1.44 ERA for the Cubs in 2014.
|
|