On the mound at this point

[klaiggeb]

Once such a strong point, now so many questions marks.

Bum 'should' be better now that he's healthy.

Cueto? Man. After his blister he was NOT the guy I thought he was.

Samardzija? Eats innings. That's important. But he has GOT to be significantly better, longer in each game.

We can live with a 4.00 ERA, but not much higher.

Blach: Which guy will we have? The world beater or the pitching machine we had in the 2nd half?

Stratton: He sure impressed everyone with his 2nd half. Roger doesn't believe he can be anywhere close to that, but I'm not so sure. That incredible rotation velocity on his breaking stuff... THAT sets him apart.

If we need a 6th guy... then who?

Beede's not fit for the role. At least not yet.

Are we going to sign some rag? Which is exactly what I think IS going to happen.



In the Pen.

A healthy Melancon is a must

Dyson? Was he for real when we got him? Sure seemed to be.

Can Law be close to what he was?

Can strickland STOP throwing so many fast balls and start to PITCH?

Was what we saw from Crick the real thing?

And who in the heck is going to be a Lefty who can actually THROW STRIKES and get people out?

Ya'll might be secure with Smith, but I'm not. Not coming back from TJ surgery.

THAT recovery is going to take at least 1/2 a year.

I was hoping we'd sign Watson, but I haven't heard a rumble about that.


Bottom line: I am MOST concerned HERE, on the mound, IF we signed the guys I had had in the other post.


Hmmm... Maybe Doug Henry is available. Sabean thought he was the answer once.

Or Marichal... maybe he's got just one more good.... naw!

We'll see.

boly

[rog]

Just yesterday I was thinking about Stratton and his curveball spin rate. It's impressive. He strikes out only about an average number of hitters though, and while he's a bit a ground ball pitcher, he's not a pronounced one. One factor that is bothersome is that he walked nearly a batter every two innings.

But after struggling through the minors with injuries, he might be putting it together. It's time. He's 27.

[klaiggeb]

Stranger things have happened.

and it's not like we're asking him to be a top of the rotation kind of guy.

4 or 5, IMHO, fits him nicely.

boly

[rog]

Four or five is probably where his ERA will be. Low fours would be great. I saw one projection that had him at 4.41 IIRC. That would be just fine for a pitcher of Stratton's capabilities. In fact, it would be more than fine.

Stratton's ceiling is likely a 4, and his floor is likely long reliever. It probably is at least as likely that he will become a Four A pitcher as that he'll be a 3.

Give me 4.41 right now, and I'll jump all over it.

[rog]

Samardzija? Eats innings. That's important. But he has GOT to be significantly better, longer in each game.


Rog -- To say that the guy who led the league in innings has got to go longer in each game is too much. To say he needs to lower his ERA is quite realistic.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4219/on-mound-point?page=1#ixzz520tOCcTl

[klaiggeb]

Okay, Rog, I'll bite; Why did you IGNORE THIS PART of the post about Jeffy going longer?

"...But he has GOT to be significantly better, longer."

What you did is cherry picking at its worst.

When taken in context comment makes a ton of sense.

Yeah. He eats innings, but if he's giving up more runs because of it, what good is eating innings?

You might be happy with his 4+ ERA, but I'm not.

And you shouldn't be either.

He's the # 3 guy, for crying out loud on a team that is based upon PITCHING and defense!

Sheesh!

If you're happy with that, we have no common ground from which to open a discussion.



Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4219/on-mound-point#ixzz521TQUAwC

[rog]

I'm sorry, Boly. I did misinterpret. When you posted "But he has GOT to be significantly better, longer in each game." I took it to mean he has got to pitch better AND longer in each game. What you meant was that he has got to pitch better FOR longer in each game.

I hope you understand and will forgive me for my confusion. Now that I know what you meant -- as opposed to what I THOUGHT you meant, it makes perfect sense. What I should have done is had you clarify what you meant. I didn't even think of the possibility of how you actually meant it, and I should have taken the time to do so.

Again, my apologies.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4219/on-mound-point#ixzz521nEpBdh

[klaiggeb]

Of course I accept your apology, Rog.

Heaven knows I've done the same thing.

boly