Cain the Giants do it?

[Rog]

There has been a lot of talk here about signing Lorenzo Cain as a free agent to man center field.  Bad news from something I read.

I was thinking the Giants could sign him for no more than $15 million per season, but I read an article that suggested that both he and teammate Mike Moustakas, a third baseman with whom the Giants have also been mentioned, will likely command $18 to $22 million per season for five or six years.  I don't think either is a good deal, and I don't see how the Giants -- with their already-committed $166 million -- can afford either player.

As they stand, and signing no free agents from outside but re-signing their own, I don't see how the Giants can come in with a payroll much less then $190 million.

(The Giants' Opening Day payrolls the past three seasons have been $173, $172 and $181 million.  I have read that while the actually luxury tax begins at a lower figure, it really gets tough above $197 million this season.)

Anyone have any ideas?  I realize we've seen general plans here, but how about some specifics showing the impact on the Giants' payroll.  Remember, counting their $7.5 million buyout of Matt Cain's 2018 contract, the Giants really DO have $166 million committed for 2018 -- unless Johnny Cueto opts out, which seems highly unlikely and which would put the Giants in grave danger of losing their #2 starting pitcher.

The Giants have that $166 million committed with 17 roster spots still available internally for pre-arbitration players, arbitration players and re-signing their own free agents (notably Nick Hundley, Sam Dyson and Pablo Sandoval), the Giants would exceed $190 million simply by re-signing the 17 players at an average of $1.5 million each.

We -- and the Giants -- need ideas!

Here's a broad and not-well-thought-out plan:  Trade Brandon Belt for a power-hitting outfielder, and use the freed up money for some low-to-medium-priced free agents.  Trade someone like Christian Arroyo, Tyler Beede, Chris Stratton or Ty Blach for a center fielder with range or a power-hitting outfielder or third baseman.

The key question here, of course, is:  Is Brandon healthy enough to allow such a trade to jump-start the plan?

Can anyone remember an off-season as tough as this one?

[klaiggeb]

Rog-Trade someone like Christian Arroyo, Tyler Beede, Chris Stratton or Ty Blach

**boly says**

This is what I suggested over a week ago, Rog.

I don't see many other options, because regardless of how much I would LIKE to see Belt moved... his concussion history, IMHO, limits that.

boly

[Rog]

The problem with trading any of those four guys is that they have limited value. Arroyo and Beede have the most.

Of the players that have been discussed, Joe Panik would seem to have the most value. As you mentioned, Boly, Brandon Belt will be hard to trade due to his health history. The Giants don't seem inclined to trade Jeff Samardzija. Mark says he saw something from Sabean that indicated the Giants would make the bold moves I thought they had spoken of earlier.

I believe that without strong moves, the Giants are highly unlikely to contend next season. Highly unlikely as in a 10% to 20% shot.

My boldest idea of any practicality would be to trade Samardzija. I'm hoping others here can come up with something better.

[klaiggeb]

I agree.

That's why I posted what I did after the last game; for the first time in dozens of years I'm NOT looking forward to the next season.

I love the Giants, but I love to win. And if I know I have no chance even before we start... well that just sucks the life out of me.

boly

[Rog]

We don't know what the Giants will do, so we Cain't yet assess their chances. What we know right now is that they have a rough row to hoe, and they might not be properly identifying their starting point.

Without know what the Giants will do, let's ask ourselves what WE would do. I would think it prudent to forge two separate plans -- one if Belt can indeed be traded, and one if he can't.

Whom would we trade? What would we be looking for in return? What reasonable return could we expect? What free agents would we pursue or at least which needs would we want to fill with free agents with any salary freed up by the trades?

My general thinking is that the Giants must leverage both their assets and the salary saved in trading those assets. One would hope that the Giants could directly benefit from a trade -- received more in return (at least in value to the Giants) than they gave up.

But the magic of free agency is that even if they get back say three-quarters in return they shed salary. Let's suppose they can get another three-quarters of value on the free agent market. That's a total of one and a half, or an improvement of 50% in the total of the transactions. That's not great trading -- receiving only a three-quarter return -- but it's great leveraging, turning a mediocre trade and a mediocre free agent signing into a 50% improvement.

We can hope that they could do more, perhaps even doubling their value. But improving an asset such as Belt or Jeff Samardzija by even 50% is rather significant. Maybe the Giants could make a great trade AND a great free agent signing and more than double the value. It is a way of addressing both the present and the future.

So the question is: Which players should they trade, what is reasonable to expect in return, and what should they pursue on the free agent market with the money they save?

We don't know what will be the case this off-season, but last year the commodity considered most undervalued on the free agent was one-dimensional power hitters. And I don't think too many of those one-dimensional power hitters prospered.

The Giants need power hitters, but it would be a great help if they weren't one-dimensional. And barring a fortuitous combination of fine scouting and great luck, that means high prices.

So with a tough task at hand, what are our plans? Let's find a way to look forward to next season -- if only to see how the clever moves the Giants make turn out (or at least the moves we ourselves came up with)!

[klaiggeb]

Evans and Sabean have both emphatically stated that they won't be using FA to upgrade the club; that it'll be by trades.

boly

[Rog]

You guys are getting more information than I am, so thanks for passing it along. The trade-only thing could be bad or good.

It could be bad in that the salary leveraging I mentioned wouldn't happen. It could be good in that without leveraging their deals, I don't see how they can believe they will make themselves competitive in 2018. That would mean putting the emphasis on the future rather than the present. Building for the future is something I think all of us here agree with.

Perhaps the Giants have a middle road in mind. That would involve making deals that would help fill the many holes without opening too many more. That sounds like Joe Panik or Christian Arroyo. I prefer Arroyo. That sounds like cobbling together the Giants' young players for another team(s)' controlled players, hoping once again to fill holes.

Then the Giants might wait to see how things go until the deadline. If things go well, they would once again be buyers. If things are going poorly, perhaps that would be the time to dump the salaries of Belt and Samardzija. Right before the big free agent class of 2018/2019, which has the potential to be the greatest ever.

The Giants would be making a run at it for 2018, but be in position to quickly shift gears toward the future if things aren't working out in the present. Then using the saved money to make a strategic move or two in free agency.

Their pursuit of free agents may not be THIS winter, but next. If the Giants don't trade salary (likely in the form of Belt and/or Samardzija), they won't have money to go after any significant free agents this winter.

Let's fast-forward to a year from now though. The Giants should have around $35 million clearing from Span, Pence and Cain's buyout. If they somehow fare well in 2018, that should help them soon thereafter. If things aren't going well and they trade Belt and Samardzija, that would give them something like $65 million to pursue the exciting 2018/2019 free agent market.

I'm using broad numbers here. In reality the numbers aren't likely to be quite that high. Most of their players will get raises from 2018 to 2019, eating up some of the available salary. But that $35 million might net out to $15 or $20 million, and the $65 million should net out close to $50 million.

Maybe they keep Samardzija but trade Belt. That would still leave potential for $45 million instead of $65 million, netting out to close to $30 million. That's the kind of money they had available when they signed Cueto and Samardzija two winters ago.

I would like to see the Giants be more aggressive this winter, but if they have a good Plan B as I have mentioned should 2018 not go well, I might actually like that best of all. Make moves this winter to try to quickly become competitive without clearing salary, but be prepared to pivot at the trade deadline if 2018 goes more like we would reasonably expect.

The one thing I worry about is whether teams will be willing to absorb big salaries at the 2018 trade deadline given the potential 2018/2019 free agent market. They may want to hold onto their money so they can be players a year from November.

If the Giants don't make big moves to improve in 2018 (or if the moves they make don't pan out), we could be looking at another high draft choice in 2019. It is conceivable that by the 2020 season the Giants might be able to get contributions from at least their top two picks from this year's draft and the high picks in 2018 and 2019. That's the way teams are usually rebuilt.

Slow-playing their hand now might wind up in even bigger benefits in the mid-term future. That also gives the Giants' young outfield prospects time to develop. They now have their top catching prospect Garcia -- a former 2nd-round pick IIRC -- playing in the Arizona Fall League. Might that be a first step toward moving Buster Posey away from the plate more often around the turn of the decade?

The Giants' core is around 30 now. They should remain quite helpful for another five years or so. Wouldn't it be nice to have a vision in 2020 that continued at least through 2021 and 2022? That might be long enough to have a whole new core, built from the high draft picks between now and then.

[Rog]

The core appears to have changed slightly, hasn't it? A year ago it was Posey and Bumgarner, supplemented by the long-term contracts to the two Brandon's. Now it appears the Giants might unloosen Belt, which wouldn't be a Panik move. Didn't Joe play well enough this past season to rejoin the core? And youth-en it a bit.

[klaiggeb]

I would seriously roll the dice and "investigate" the possibility of trading BOTH Moore and Samardzija.

I say "roll the dice" because I'd rather dump those 2, and their salaries, and take a chance with Stratton and Blach.

I know they make "some" money, but it's not outrageous.

And I'll BET there'd be a bunch of takers because they want an innings eater like Jeffy.

Moore's history , until this last year has been solid, and he's got a good upside.

1-We need to get younger.

2-We need at least 1, preferably 2 bats

3-We NEED a CF

Worth a try.

boly

[Rog]

A lot of good ideas here.

Starting with Samardzija and Moore: I've mentioned that I would be quite open to trading Jeff, but that I can also see the value of holding on to him at least until the trade deadline. His value as an innings-eater right now should be high given that his peripherals indicate significant upside, but should he actually get off to a good start to next season, his trade value could become among the very highest.

I would take a fine offer now, but would be more than willing to wait to see if he comes out of the gate quickly in 2018. Jeff has three years left on his contract, so his value should be high.

Moore seems to me like more of a deadline deal candidate. I would think his trade value right now is rather limited. He's under team control for only one more season, and his 2017 season was a disaster. If he gets off to a good start though, his value could soar. Trading him would help some with salary, but he will be making only $9 million this season, and trading him would help for only the one year -- not three as would be the case with Samardzija. At just 28, Matt is four and a half years younger than Samardzija, so if he's hot at the deadline, a team might look to use him in the pennant chase and hope also to re-sign him as a free agent.

As for Stratton and Blach, we shouldn't get our hopes up too high. We look at them both as prospects, but at 27, neither is young. Stratton pitched well as a starter late last season, but let's not forget how well Blach pitched early in his career, only to wind up with a 4.78 ERA over the 2018 season. And Blach's minor league ERA was more than half a run lower than Stratton's.

Boly talked about Chris's high spin rate on his curve ball, and that augurs well for sharp bite. But while Stratton pitched well at the end of the season for the Giants, his AAA ERA was 5.11 -- in his third season in AAA.

If one of the two turns out to be a good fifth starter, the Giants will have fared well.

Regarding center fielders, if the Giants aren't too concerned about the accompanying bat, they should be able to pick up a good young middle defender without breaking the fragile prospect bank.

And regarding a power hitter, assuming that Belt is healthy enough to trade, a team with a home run park for left-handed hitters might be frothing at the mouth to grab Belt's power bat along with his glove, which may be as good as any first baseman in the game. I'm not up on other teams' prospects now, but maybe next year's Rhys Hoskins or Cody Bellinger is out there on a contending team that could appreciate Belt. Brandon is still just 29 and is under team control for what should be four more prime seasons or close thereto. With $64 million still left on his contract, Belt's health does make him a risk. Perhaps trading Belt would be as much about freeing up salary as about the return he would command.

Getting significantly younger would involve trading for prospects, which I think would be the best direction to go. The Giants have yet to indicate they agree, but at least they're willing to make some type of trades.

Maybe we can begin to identify trade targets. I must admit I'm woefully behind in that regard. Hopefully someone(s) else can pick up some of the slack. This might be the Giants' tradingest winter in recent memory, so the research might help us get ahead of the curve more than usual.

[Rog]

Regarding Blach, I have a question: We're talking about him as a decent starter candidate, yet we don't like the idea of using him as a LOOGY. Does that make any kind of sense?

A LOOGY is a LOOGY because he's not good enough to be a starter, to consistently get right-handed hitters out. He's a LOOGY instead of a set up man or closer because he can't consistently get right-handed hitters out.

Let me give you half a dozen reasons Ty Blach may be much better suited to be a LOOGY than to be a starter:

Let's begin with an objection: Boly stated he would hate to see Blach face Joey Votto with the game on the line. So let's see how Ty has fared against the lefty hitters he's faced the most:

Corey Seager -- 15 PA, .762 OPS

Charlie Blackmon -- 0 for 12

Cody Bellinger -- 10 PA, .600 OPS

Joc Pederson -- 9 PA, .444 OPS

Carlos Asuaje -- 8 PA, .542 OPS

Adrian Gonzalez -- 8 PA, .125 OPS

Anthony Rizzo -- 8 PA, .250 OPS

Jason Heyward -- 7 PA, .571 OPS

Joey Votto -- 6 PA, 1.100 OPS


Some pretty decent hitters on that list. No question Votto has gotten him (along with most other pitchers in the game; Joey was one of five major leaguers with an OPS of 1.000 or higher last season. But one of the other five was Blackmon, who has yet to get a hit off Blach in a dozen tries. Combined, the only two lefty hitters who posted a 1.000 OPS last season have posted a .367 OPS against Blach.

Among the others, Seager has hit him decently; the others have all been failures.

So the "Votto" argument doesn't hold -- unless, perhaps, it's specifically Votto and not the fine lefty hitters -- including Blackmon and Rizzo -- he represents.

2. Another objection: Ty doesn't have a put-away pitch.

So? He's limited left-handed hitters to a .566 OPS. Isn't it usually more important to get the batter out than specifically to strike him out?

3. Ty has limited lefties to that .566 OPS. He's allowed righties a .809 OPS. Clearly the object is to pitch to lefty hitters and avoid righties. A LOOGY is brought into the game to face primarily lefty hitters. A starter can't avoid right-handed hitters, particularly if the lineup is stacked against him.

4. Ty has a 3.15 ERA and a 1.05 WHIP as a reliever. As a starter he stands at 4.59 and 1.33.

5. Ty has really struggled with #2 hitters (858 OPS), #3 hitters (.877 OPS) and #4 hitters (.957 OPS). His second time through the lineup he has allowed a .872 OPS, and the third time through a .815 OPS. Clearly the Giants don't want him facing the #2, #3 and #4 hitters the third time through the lineup, which would usually limit him to a four of five inning start. They might not want him to face those three hitters a second time, which would limit the start to two or three innings.

6. Ty has limited hitters to a .422 OPS his first time facing them in a game as a reliever.


Pretty much everything above points to Ty's being most successful when he faces lefty hitters, for the first time in the game, out of the bullpen. He is least successful facing righty hitters, for the second and third times through the lineup, as a starter.

A manager's job is to put a player in position to succeed. Doesn't the evidence suggest that would be as a LOOGY? Or would we prefer Josh Osich or Steven Okert?

Osich has fared well against lefties over his career, yielding only a .656 OPS, but last season that soared to .827. Okert hasn't fared particularly well against left-handed hitters either, allowing a .744 OPS over his career and .784 last season.

My personal choice would be to use Josh in a variety of relief roles. But whenever possible, I would use him as a LOOGY, a situation his effectiveness splits show him to be well-suited for.

What arguments do we have for NOT giving him a shot as a LOOGY? The two arguments we've made thus far don't hold water.

[klaiggeb]

It makes a lot of sense.

Would you want Kirk Rueter as a LOOGY?

No.

Jamie Moyer as a LOOGY?

No.

Jim Kaat in his later years?

NO.

A loogy HAS to have a kill pitch, and as I've said multiple times, Ty does NOT.

Nor does he have a deceptive delivery.


Since you've never pitched at a high level Rog, let me help explain.

Now this might not be a LOOGY point, but it's still the same.

When I started, and I started a LOT, I had all game to work hitters and set up pitches for later in the game.

I used ALL of my arsenal; Normal, 3/4 delivery fastballs, sinkers and breaking stuff.

Submarine fastballs and breaking balls.

Sliders and change ups.

When I came in to get ONE hitter?

There was no time to fart around.

I had to go right at the guy.

I not only HAD to throw strikes, but I couldn't set the guy up teasing him.

I needed my best stuff and right now, frequently, for me, that was the over hand curve ball, or drop, as we used to call it.


THAT'S what a loogy has to do; go right at the guy with his best stuff, and he needs a kill pitch to finish him off.


If you don't understand that, Rog, it's because you've never been the guy on the mound.

I'm not saying that in a critical way, nor in a 'talking down to you way,' it's simply a fact.

I can bitch and moan all I want about how my financial manager manages my money, but I'm talking from a naive position.

Until I'VE DONE IT, I can't say he's doing it wrong.

boly

[Rog]

Would you want Kirk Rueter as a LOOGY?

No.

Jamie Moyer as a LOOGY?

No.

Jim Kaat in his later years?

NO.


Rog -- Thanks for answering for me, but might I take them one by one?

Kirk Rueter would likely have been fine as a LOOGY. He got lefties out pretty well (although not as well as Ty has thus far). But he was more valuable as a starter, so, you are right -- but probably not for the reason you were thinking.

Jamie Moyer wasn't very good against lefties, so, no. He too was more valuable as a starter.

Until the very end, when he wasn't really very good against batters of either hand, Kitty Kaat would have been OK as a LOOGY. But he has 285 wins to show that he too was much more valuable as a closer.

A LOOGY is probably the 8th or 9th pitcher on a team -- at best. A LOOGY is a LOOGY because he isn't good enough to be a starter, closer or set up man. He's a guy who can get left-handed hitters out OK, but not righties. If he could get righties out, he wouldn't have to be a LOOGY.

Thus far in his career, Ty Blach has gotten lefty hitters out better than ANY of the three guys you mentioned. In the case of Moyer, he's been FAR better against them. Seriously, would you rather have Osich or Okert as the Giants' LOOGY than Blach? I'd certainly give him a shot at it. He can't get right-handed hitters out well.

Would it be better for Blach to have a kill pitch, or to simply get left-handed batters out? If he had a kill pitch, he could probably be a starter, closer or set up man.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4100/cain-giants#ixzz4vz1c8lGs

[Rog]

THAT'S what a loogy has to do; go right at the guy with his best stuff, and he needs a kill pitch to finish him off.


Rog -- What a LOOGY's main role is to accomplish is to get lefty hitters out. It really doesn't matter how he does it, as long as he gets it done. Ty Blach has shown a nice ability to get left-handed hitters out. Would he do well as a LOOGY? I don't know. But I'd certainly be willing to give him a try.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4100/cain-giants?page=1#ixzz4vz5Q5EI2

[Rog]

I can bitch and moan all I want about how my financial manager manages my money, but I'm talking from a naive position.


Rog -- What you have a right to complain about -- or at least question -- is his results.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4100/cain-giants?page=1#ixzz4vz66AqPZ

[Rog]

When I started, and I started a LOT, I had all game to work hitters and set up pitches for later in the game.

I used ALL of my arsenal; Normal, 3/4 delivery fastballs, sinkers and breaking stuff.

Submarine fastballs and breaking balls.

Sliders and change ups.


Rog -- Of course. I'll be though if you got in a tough spot early, you focused more on getting the batter out -- not on setting him up for later in the game.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4100/cain-giants?page=1#ixzz4vz6RkHLo

[Rog]

I had to go right at the guy.

I not only HAD to throw strikes, but I couldn't set the guy up teasing him.


Rog -- Depends on the situation. In some cases, it isn't the end of the world to walk a guy. In some cases, it is.

If you DID throw strikes and get ahead in the count, you COULD set up the guy by teasing him. To some extent you could still do so even behind in the count if you had the luxury of an open base.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4100/cain-giants?page=1#ixzz4vz8nNAbq

[Rog]

Here are the three keys that indicate Ty has a shot at being a decent LOOGY:

. He has gotten lefties out extremely well. It's righties he's struggled with.

. He's done a fine job the first time through the lineup -- especially as a reliever. It is the second and third times through the lineup that have given him trouble. As a LOOGY, he wouldn't need to worry about the second or third times.

. Against the top five lefty hitters he's faced the most -- Corey Seager, Charlie Blackmon, Cody Bellinger, Anthony Rizzo and Joey Votto, each likely among the best 25 lefty hitters in the game -- Ty has limited them to a .204 batting average and a .265 SLG. That's the kind of hitting the GIANTS do!

Against these five All-Star/MVP candidate hitters, Ty has yielded seven singles and three doubles in 49 at bats. No triples. No home runs. Two walks. Got that? TWO walks. Two. Has he thrown them strikes? Yes. Have they hit them? No. He has hardly a strikeout against any of them, but he's DOMINATED these five great hitters. Not each and every one of them. Votto has a single and a double against him -- plus a walk -- in five at bats. Seager has two singles, two doubles and a walk in 14 at bats. But Blackmon and Rizzo haven't been able to hit him with the so-called ten foot pole, and he has limited Bellinger to three singles.

It would be hard to expect any pitcher in the majors to have had better results against these five hitters as a group. I'm going to guess that there aren't ten pitchers who have faced these five batters 50 or more times who have done better. There may not be five. There may not be any.


The only decent argument one can make against Ty in any regard that I've seen is that he doesn't have a kill pitch. That may be true, but he's killed these five excellent hitters as a group without one. We're talking about five guys who may finish in the top 20 in this year's NL MVP voting. Apparently he's given the old comfortable 10 for 49. With no homers and only two walks.

Madison Bumgarner has pitched pretty well to these five hitters too, limiting them to a .299 batting average, a .364 SLG and 11 walks in 77 at bats. But even Madison hasn't been nearly as good against them as Ty has.

Ty gets lefties out. He gets the TOP lefties out. He gets batters out the first time he pitches to them. Don't those sound like excellent LOOGY qualifications?

A LOOGY's about the 8th, 9th or 10th best pitcher on a team's staff. Put Ty Blach in the right situations, and don't you think he can be that? Certainly there is nothing in his results to date that would indicate otherwise.

Of course, we'd hate to see him get in the way of Josh Osich and Steven Okert.

[Rog]

By the way, if I hadn't looked up what has actually HAPPENED, I wouldn't have picked Blach as a good LOOGY candidate either. He certainly doesn't LOOK like one. He looks like a guy who is just crafty enough to keep you in the game.

But I would say that in the small sample that is thus far his career, few pitchers in history have gotten as much out of their stuff against lefty hitters as Ty has.

Will he be able to continue it in the future? I can't say I'm exceptionally confident. As I said, he doesn't LOOK the part. But my point here is that he's shown enough -- even against the very better lefty hitters in the game -- that he deserves a shot at being a LOOGY ahead of Osich and Okert. I think his being given a shot, given how little competition he would face, is pretty close to a no-brainer.

The eye test tells me there is little reason to believe he should be a LOOGY. MY results test tells me there is little reason to believe he SHOULDN'T be. If I were the Giants, I would simply give him a shot and see how it turns out. Really, how much do they have to lose?

Thus far in his major league career, Ty Blach has gotten out lefty hitters. He hasn't gotten out righties. He's been very good the first time through the lineup. He's been poor the second and third times. When we look at those things that have actually HAPPENED, does LOOGY cry out Osich or Okert?

[klaiggeb]

I had to go right at the guy.

I not only HAD to throw strikes, but I couldn't set the guy up teasing him.


Rog -- Depends on the situation. In some cases, it isn't the end of the world to walk a guy. In some cases, it is.

If you DID throw strikes and get ahead in the count, you COULD set up the guy by teasing him. To some extent you could still do so even behind in the count if you had the luxury of an open base.

***boly***

This is what I meant Rog, when I said "if you haven't pitched..."

If I'm a Loogy, I'm NOT out there to play or tease the guy.

I HAVE to get him out.

That's the job of the Loogy.

Get that one out guy, they don't bring in the LOOGY to walk a guy.

By your statement I can see you've not been on the mound in that situation.

Thus you're "theory" is nothing more than that, and it's not what has to be done.

boly

[Rog]

I think I sometimes differ from others here in that I tend to base my opinions on what has actually HAPPENED or what can at least be backed up. Others seem to be directed more by what they FEEL and what they think things should be.

That's not to say I'm always right. That most certainly isn't the case.

But I do tend to get to my conclusion in an informed and logical manner. To me, that's about the best a person can do in a world with few black's or white's, and many shades of gray.

[klaiggeb]

When we look at those things that have actually HAPPENED, does LOOGY cry out Osich or Okert?

***boly says***

What you did is called "Cherry Picking."

You picked 2 examples that HAVEN'T worked out.

But they BOTH have out pitches or deceptiveness in their deliveries.



Lopez is the perfect Loogy example among dozens over the years.

Out pitch, deceptive delivery.

Roger, you're looking at numbers and applying them to a situation that ONLY fits in Sabermetrics.

They DON'T work in the real world.

As I continue say, You've NEVER pitched so you can't understand.

boly

[Rog]

What you did is called "Cherry Picking."

You picked 2 examples that HAVEN'T worked out.

But they BOTH have out pitches or deceptiveness in their deliveries.


Rog -- What I did wasn't CLOSE to cherry picking. It was talking reality. It was talking 2018, which seems somewhat .

I haven't given up on either Osich or Okert, but so far they'e been big disappointments. If I had to choose right now, I would give the first LOOGY shot to Blach. He hasn't yet had a chance to show he can handle the role -- and he's shown some rather nice possible indications that he can. Neither Osich nor Okert has shown yet that he can do it. Doesn't mean they can't in the future.

Personally I'd like to have TWO LOOGY's -- or at least have three or more southpaw relievers. Even four would be fine. That would be four lefties and four righties in the pen. So I'd be OK if all three guys we talked about come through, and Smith returns to do well too. The way I rank them right now is Smith way ahead, then Blach, then Osich and Okert.

If looking at the situation as it stands today is cherry picking, then I guess I've got plenty of fruit for the winter.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4100/cain-giants#ixzz4w0EnSKaz

[Rog]

This is what I meant Rog, when I said "if you haven't pitched..."

If I'm a Loogy, I'm NOT out there to play or tease the guy.

I HAVE to get him out.

That's the job of the Loogy.

Get that one out guy, they don't bring in the LOOGY to walk a guy.

By your statement I can see you've not been on the mound in that situation.

Thus you're "theory" is nothing more than that, and it's not what has to be done.


Rog -- LOOGY's are used in a lot of ways. And in only one does it really matter if the LOOGY has a kill pitch, which by the way, Lopez didn't really have, at least not as I understand the term. To me a kill pitch is a strikeout pitch. Any pitch that can be put into play can result in a hit or other runner advancement.

If you're a LOOGY and you're not out there to tease a guy, that's great -- as long as you get him out. As you said, you have to get the out. You didn't say you had to STRIKE him out. If you need a strikeout, Blach isn't your man. If you need Blach to get a left-handed hitter out -- even a tough left-handed hitter -- so far in his career he HAS been that man.

As for a LOOGY walking a guy, it can happen without being a bad result. It can happen when the guy the LOOGY is pitching to is the key hitter of the inning, there is an open base, and the hitter is pitched around rather than allowed to beat you. It can happen when a right-handed batter pinch hits and the next hitter provides a better matchup.

You seem to be totally ignoring that Blach has DOMINATED (results-wise) the top five lefty batters he has faced the most often. When you hold Seager, Blackmon, Bellinger, Rizzo and Votto to just over a .200 average, don't give up a homer in 49 at bats, and walk just two, how much better do you want a guy to BE?

If a LOOGY has a kill pitch, that's great. But would you rather have Blach, who gets the lefties out, pitching to them -- or rather have Osich and Okert, who don't get them out (consistently)?

What's foolish is putting Blach in the rotation if you don't have to. He can't get right-handed hitters out, and as a starter, he's going to face plenty of them. As a LOOGY, he won't face as many.

And thus far he's been excellent against left-handed hitters -- even the best ones. Why have him face a lot of hitters he does poorly against when you can use him in a way that he faces the guys he gets out?

You're not happy with Blach facing Seager, Blackmon, Bellinger, Rizzo and Votto when he has thus far dominated them? I don't expect him to continue to do as well, but I think he's got a shot at doing well enough.

Just answer this: If Blach is incapable of being a LOOGY, how has he dominated five of the top 20 or so lefty hitters in baseball? I'm trying to think which other lefties in the National League are as good as those guys are. As a group, they hit close to .300 and averaged around 30 home runs.

If Blach can get those guys out -- as well as the other left-handed hitters he's faced -- why WOULDN'T you give him a shot at LOOGY? As nearly as I can tell, it's because he doesn't fit your model for a LOOGY. It certainly isn't because he hasn't gotten lefties out.

And a LOOGY is a flawed pitcher, for crying out loud. It's not like he's one of your top pitchers. He's a guy who can get lefties out but not righties. Thus far Blach has fit that description to a T.

You're probably also a guy who thinks set up men can't close, that they don't have the makeup. Guess what? A lot of them can.

Getting back to Blach, why in the world do you want to put him in a position where he's failed, when it would be easy to put him in a position in which he has succeeded?

I too would rather have a reliever with a great pitch. But plenty of relievers have fared well because they know how to pitch and are put in the right situations.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4100/cain-giants?page=1#ixzz4w0HXLj1k

[Rog]

By the way, earlier I mispoke when I said that I would like to see Josh (Osich) in a variety of roles. I think it was clear I meant Ty, but I wanted to clear things up in case there was any doubt.

[Rog]

Roger, you're looking at numbers and applying them to a situation that ONLY fits in Sabermetrics.

They DON'T work in the real world.


Rog -- If I'm cherry picking and looking at numbers and applying them to situations that fit only in sabermetrics, it should be easy for you to find numbers that show I'm wrong.

But in reality, sabermetrics work as a supplement to scouting, and that is why teams that didn't spend any money on sabermetrics are now spending plenty.

Neither you nor I know how Blach would perform as a LOOGY. But the facts say he might. The facts say he has pitched quite well against lefty hitters, even the best of them. You sit there and say he doesn't have a kill pitch, so he can't be a LOOGY. I say he's gotten the lefty hitters out.

What I'm saying is true. What you're saying is questionable.

I'd rather back my opinion up with something that is a fact than something that is merely my own opinion. I'm talking about what HAS happened. You're talking about what you think would happen in the future.

You might be right. But I don't think you've given us a good reason why.

All I'm saying is give him a chance. He might fail, whereas Osich and Okert thus far have failed to succeed. Give the guy a shot and see what happens.

Don't be closed-minded. That's really all I'm asking. Think about where being closed-minded has caused you to, say, misjudge the Giants' 2017 outfield.

Not that I'm all right and you're all wrong. That certainly isn't the case. But I'm using tools that you aren't, which certainly doesn't hurt my ability to judge, evaluate and predict. There are no doubt things you see that I don't, but you haven't yet pointed them out to me.

I think one reason we differ here is that you're treating a LOOGY as if he's a highly important pitcher on a team. Not that the he ISN'T important, but he's not one of the best pitchers on the team. Remember back when you didn't even know what a LOOGY WAS? In part that was because you weren't expanding your knowledge of the game, but in part it was because a LOOGY ISN'T as important as a closer, set up man or starter.

You have been down on George Kontos for quite a while, but George provided FAR more value to the Giants than Osich and Okert have provided together.

I would try Ty out as a LOOGY, and if he isn't getting enough work -- which he likely wouldn't until he learns to get righties out as well as lefties -- I would use him in other relief roles as well. And as an emergency starter.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4100/cain-giants?page=1#ixzz4w0OD99Fp

[Rog]

Do we know the reason Javier Lopez was used as a LOOGY? It was because he wasn't good enough to be a starter, set up man or closer.

Javier was pretty good in that role, since it kept him from facing right-handed batters even half the time. One flaw he had was that he walked too many hitters though. He may have gone right after the hitter, but he walked too many of them anyway.

As a Giant, he threw only about two out of every five pitches in the strike zone, and his strike ratio wasn't particularly good. His FIRST pitch strike ratio was good though. Looking at his numbers, I would say he was good at getting ahead -- and then he toyed with the hitter. A little too often his toying resulted in a walk.

It's interesting that among the three teams he pitched over 100 innings for, he was lousy with the Rockies, good with the Red Sox, and very good with the Giants.

Javier didn't pitch well enough in 2016 to be brought back for 2017, but surprisingly 2015 was the best full year of his career.

[klaiggeb]

Roger, have I ever tried to give you instructions on how to be a CPA?

Or an accountant?

No.

That's your area of expertise.

But here you're trying to explain to me how to be a 1 out, lefty guy when you've never pitched in that situation.

With respect, I'm done with this discussion because clearly, nothing I can say will change your mind, nor influence you in any way.

You've made up your mind, and that's it.

boly

[Rog]

Actually, Boly, I'm open. I specifically stated that there is no way we can know for sure at this point whether Ty would make a good LOOGY or not. There is, however, strong factual (statistical) evidence to support it.

Your biggest point has been that Ty can't be a LOOGY because he doesn't have a kill pitch. The question I would ask then is how he has pitched so excellently against lefty hitters, including some of the best in the game?

As for your point that I've never been a LOOGY myself, you are absolutely correct. But you've never been one in the major leagues either, and the game has changed a lot at the major league level since you played.

But let's suppose you're right, and that it is hard for a LOOGY to get left-handed hitters out if he doesn't have a kill pitch. For the most part, I agree with you. But the question still remains as to how Ty has fared quite well against left-handed hitters (.592 OPS) and even better against the top five he's faced six or more times. Part of it is likely the small sample size, but he's faced 189 lefty hitters, which isn't just a few games either.

My personal guess is that Ty won't continue to pitch as well against lefty hitters, but that he'll pitch better against them than Josh Osich and Steven Okert. You say that's cherry picking, but it's actually his competition for the spot -- assuming the Giants give him a shot at it.

If believe that a LOOGY can't succeed without a kill pitch or an unorthodox motion, it should be easy for you to find a dozen or so unsuccessful LOOGY's who failed for just that reason. Otherwise, you're simply making your decision based on how you pitched years ago at a lower level.

Remember, if a LOOGY had a true kill pitch, he'd also be getting right-handed hitters out and should qualify for a role much higher than that of a LOOGY.

Not in any way to say that Ty is anything close to Sandy Koufax, but the fact is that against lefty hitters, he's allowed a .566 OPS compared to Sandy's .598.

A year ago you didn't think Denard Span was a platoon player. Clearly he is.

We don't know if Blach would make a good LOOGY or not. But given that in his small sample he's fared as well against left-handed hitters as Sandy Koufax did and hasn't been worth much against righty hitters, why not give him a shot to see how well he can perform in the LOOGY role?

It's against righties -- where Ty's .809 pales in comparison to Sandy's .594 -- that their primary difference lies.

Ask yourself, given that he doesn't have a kill pitch and that he doesn't have a funky motion, how is it that Ty has gotten lefty hitters out so well? In other words, why not try to learn from the situation rather than reject it out of hand?

I haven't made up my mind. I honestly don't know the answer. I see encouraging signs, but we've seen only a little of Ty. You act as if you know the answer, but I don't think you know either. All I'm suggesting is that rather than here in cyberspace, the question get asked on the field.

As a side note, aside from 2015, Ty has been good against lefties throughout his carer. It's against right-handed hitters that he's declined as he's faced better and better ones. The primary difference I see is that he induces a lot more ground balls against left-handed hitters, and that of course is almost always good.

Give the guy a try. Maybe he'll simply prove you right, Boly. Maybe he won't, which would provide a nice reward to the Giants. If Ty could do a nice job as a LOOGY and be able to pitch long and middle relief as well, he could provide visible value.

Let Ty pitch to left-handed batters, and avoid having Denard Span face left-handed pitchers.

By the way, Denard's .284/.804 against righties last season compares to the overall hitting of Lorenzo Cain last season. Lorenzo got on base more often, while Denard showed more power. If only Denard could play defense.

Denard's .226/.576 against southpaws doesn't compare with the overall stats of any player who played regularly. The closest was Alex Gordon, who had a horrible season at just .209/.608. Alex was the worst qualifying hitter in the majors in 2017.

Against right-handed pitching, Denard was more than capable last season for a center fielder. Sadly, his glove is no longer that of a center fielder.

And coming full circle, Ty Blach has been a very good pitcher against lefty hitters -- and a poor one against right-handed hitters. That continues his pattern from the minor leagues, although the disparity has become much more pronounced as he has faced better right-handed hitters.

I'd like to ask Charlie Blackmon -- who will almost certainly finish in the top in the NL MVP voting -- if he thinks Ty could be a LOOGY. Perhaps he would say that he doesn't think so, that his 0 for 12 against Ty has been really comfortable.

Ty didn't pitch much relief last season, but on April 21, he was used as something of a LOOGY against the Rockies. The Giants led 6-4, and the Rockies had Tony Wolters, a pinch hitter and then Charlie Blackmon coming up. Ty retired all three. Had he allowed one of them to reach, he might have pitched to DJ LeMahieu. Had he allowed to runners, he almost certainly wouldn't have been allowed to face Nolan Arenado. That's pretty much LOOGY pitching, and Ty did just fine.

On April 2, he was used as a LOOGY against the Diamondbacks. In the 8th inning, Derek had given up three straight singles, allowing Arizona to tie the game at 2-2 with runners on first and second and no one out. Ty induced Jake Lamb (who finished 12th in the majors with 105 RBI's) to ground into a double play. He was then relieved by Hunter Strickland to pitch to the right-handed hitting Yasmany Tomas. That's definitely LOOGY pitching, and he excelled.

On April 11, he relieved Jeff Samardzija with the Giants leading 3-0, two outs and a runner on first base. He faced one batter -- Lamb again -- and got Jake to line out to end the inning. That's LOOGY pitching.

On April 15, he began the 7th inning with the game tied 1-1. He faced a right-handed hitter, a switch hitter and two lefty hitters, leaving when right-handed hitting Lorenzo Cain came to the plate. He was mediocre at best, allowing a walks and a hit by pitch while retiring two. That's LOOGY pitching, although it isn't LOOGY pitching at its best.

Then Madison Bumgarner began his career as a mountain bike rider, and Ty became the 5th starter. But early last season he was used a fair amount in the LOOGY role and performed pretty well.

So now we've got Ty pitching to lefties very well, pitching well the first time he faces hitters, and pitching rather well when used in a few games early last season as a LOOGY.

Too bad he doesn't have a kill pitch or an unusual motion. If he did, it sounds like he might make a pretty good LOOGY.

[Rog]

Do you see why I'm frustrated here, Boly. The more I stumble into things about Ty, the more it looks like he could make a good LOOGY -- including doing pretty well at the role when he was used in it early last season.

You make comments that have nothing to do directly with how Ty has pitched and then accuse me of being closed-minded. You say my theory is not what has to be done. I agree it doesn't have to be done -- but the Giants might benefit if it were.

One statement I don't know for sure but feel reasonably confident about: If Ty pitched as a LOOGY and faced Denard Span, he might fare well in that match up.