|
Jeffy
Mar 17, 2018 9:49:31 GMT -5
Post by klaiggeb on Mar 17, 2018 9:49:31 GMT -5
3 more HRs the other day, and of course, more rhetoric followed.
Same-old-same-old.
"I'm just working on stuff..."
And what's worse, fans believe that noise.
I, for one, do not.
This is the same "Jeffy" we've all been seeing since he came into the league; command issues; balls leaving the plate at one HECK of a lot more velocity than that which they arrived.
It's not the season, and yes, they are still smoothing out their deliveries; syncing up release points and what not, still refining new pitches... but 3 MORE HRs given up?
No.
Sorry, but that shouldn't still be happening.
Not at this stage of ST.
At this stage pitchers should be putting finishing touches on all of what I said above. Polishing and tightening up everything.
They only have a start or three left before the season does begin.
I've said it before, I'll say it again; he's not a #3 guy. He's a 4 or 5 at best.
But we don't have anyone else, and THAT concerns me.
|
|
|
Jeffy
Mar 17, 2018 11:25:34 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 17, 2018 11:25:34 GMT -5
No different than last season.
As I said, the Cubs were smart to pickup Chatwood when the Giants and others were drooling over Stanton. The feel I have for the rotation is the same feel I had for the outfield last season. I feel they needed to make a move. I hope Stratton and Blach pickup the slack, but I don't see that happening.
|
|
|
Jeffy
Mar 17, 2018 12:04:35 GMT -5
Post by klaiggeb on Mar 17, 2018 12:04:35 GMT -5
Blach... a number 5 at best.
He's a Kirk Rueter-type guy. Serviceable, but not one around whom one could build a staff.
I have a slightly higher ceiling for Stratton.
With that great breaking ball... he's got a chance to be a 3.
I see the rotation as you do, boagie. Not just a 'question mark,' but a HUGE question mark.
And until I see Cueto back to what he was, I'll be skeptical of him, too.
boly
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Jeffy
Mar 17, 2018 13:57:34 GMT -5
Post by sfgdood on Mar 17, 2018 13:57:34 GMT -5
Dude, you ALWAYS are skeptical and there really isn't anything wrong with that...but fortunately you aren't always right, especially when your skepticism is based on practice games in the HR friendly AZ air.
|
|
|
Jeffy
Mar 17, 2018 17:16:44 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 17, 2018 17:16:44 GMT -5
I don't think it's much of a question mark, Boly. I think we know what we're getting, and it's not good. The only question is if Cueto will be 2016 Cueto or 2017 Cueto. The rest aren't a mystery. Bum will be good, Blach, Stratton and Samardjiza (like last season) will pitch like #4 or 5 starters.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Jeffy
Mar 17, 2018 17:52:06 GMT -5
Post by sfgdood on Mar 17, 2018 17:52:06 GMT -5
Yes we do know what we get with the Shark. Some bad and some outstanding outings...and most importantly 200 IP every year. He has had some more consistent years where his ERA was in the mid 3s and others where he is right around 4ish. The innings are of utmost importance because we need a #3 that can spare the bullpen with 2 rooks in the 4 and 5 slots.
|
|
|
Jeffy
Mar 17, 2018 19:27:58 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 17, 2018 19:27:58 GMT -5
An ERA in the mid 3's or low 4's is acceptable. Mid 4's is not, not for a guy that is considered a #3.
|
|
|
Jeffy
Mar 17, 2018 19:36:05 GMT -5
Post by klaiggeb on Mar 17, 2018 19:36:05 GMT -5
Dude, you ALWAYS are skeptical and there really isn't anything wrong with that...but fortunately you aren't always right, especially when your skepticism is based on practice games in the HR friendly AZ air.
Randy, you nailed me on every point!
Especially the part about 'Not being right!'
and that's what I'm hoping for here.
But remember what I posted recently; last year I over looked holes I KNEW/SAW were there.
I won't do that again.
This time around, I'm trying to be more objective.
boly
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Jeffy
Mar 17, 2018 19:36:48 GMT -5
Post by sfgdood on Mar 17, 2018 19:36:48 GMT -5
I disagree...mid 4s can be acceptable for a 3 if He is going deep in games and the offense supports him well. The innings are more important than a low ERA. If Jeff behind Bum and Jonny goes below 4 in ERA, that's a bonus...his main job is to spare the bullpen.
|
|
|
Jeffy
Mar 17, 2018 22:28:48 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 17, 2018 22:28:48 GMT -5
Saying Jeff Samardjiza's main concern should be "saving the bullpen" is EXACTLY like saying Brandon Belt's main concern should be getting on base.
Bum and hopefully Cueto will be saving the bullpen a lot of innings as well as winning. I want Samardjiza to do the same, thats what he's paid to do. I don't like Samardjiza for the same reason you don't like Belt. The difference is Belt is wearing two World Series rings and contributed to getting them. Samardjiza hasn't done shit. It's time he start.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Jeffy
Mar 17, 2018 22:56:53 GMT -5
Post by sfgdood on Mar 17, 2018 22:56:53 GMT -5
I didn't say that IP should be his main concern...merely that it is the most consistent part of his game. Would I prefer more consistent dominance in the #3 spot? Of course! But for most teams they would gladly accept 200 innings and a 4-4.5 ERA. I don't see this as the same or comparable to what we get from Belt...and there's a lot more that disgusts me about Belt, not the least of which being he is one MLB's biggest wussies.
|
|
|
Jeffy
Mar 18, 2018 9:12:22 GMT -5
Post by klaiggeb on Mar 18, 2018 9:12:22 GMT -5
We're going to have to disagree on this one, Randy.
If your #3 is mid 4's in ERA... that, IMHO, is not just 'not good,' but terrible for the team.
If all a team has is 2 dependable starters, and by dependable I'm saying ERAs of 3.50 or lower, said team isn't going anywhere in the post season because it's likely not going to make the post season
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Jeffy
Mar 18, 2018 9:22:48 GMT -5
Post by rog on Mar 18, 2018 9:22:48 GMT -5
I never thought Randy would be the voice of reason -- and both Boly and Boagie bring up some good points here -- but Randy appears to be the voice of reason in this case. Let's take a look at some points, one by one:
Is Jeff Samardzija a #3 pitcher? Even if we ignore his leading the National League the innings pitched, even if we ignore the fact that he is a fly pitcher who had a lousy outfield behind him, even if we ignore that his peripherals -- except for home run rate -- were outstanding, that he is a fly ball pitcher who had a horrible outfield behind him, and that he likely was a tad unlucky with regard to his ERA, it's a simple math problem.
There are 30 major league teams, each with five starters. That's 150 major league starting pitchers at any given time. By definition, the top fifth are #1's, the next fifth #2's, etc.
In order for Jeff not to be a #3 pitcher, there have to be 90 pitchers who are better than he. If you guys are such good judges, name them. Take all the time you want. Research as much as is necessary. But simply name them, and you'll have proven Randy wrong.
Given that even if we ignore how outstanding he was with regard to strikeouts, walks and thus K/BB ratio and simply look at his ERA, it ranked #43 among all qualifiers. That sounds like a #2. Then again, there were many starters who didn't qualify by pitching 162 innings. Some of them might have been better than Jeff. But in order for Jeff not to have been a #3 pitcher, there had to be 48 of them.
Name them. Or let's make it simple: Off the top of your heads, name 50 starting pitchers better than Jeff. I'm not saying there AREN'T 50 starting pitchers better than Jeff, but if you guys are knowledgeable enough to say Jeff isn't a #3 starter, you should be able to name 50 guys off the top of your heads.
You guys simply don't realize that it doesn't take a great pitcher to be a #3 starter. One could even argue that Jeff is a #2. In fact, it's hard to argue that he wasn't the Giants' second-best starter, even in a rotation that going into the season had two of the top starters in baseball.
Now, let me give you a little hope here. Fan Graphs, a publication which knows more about the major leagues than all of here put together, has five projections for Jeff's ERA for this season. They range from 3.75 to 4.12. That fits even the overly "expectatious" definition you set forth, Boly.
You guys are building a straw man's argument. By misdefining what it takes to be a #3 starter, you are giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
You guys haven't really proven much of anything, because you're trying to prove the wrong thing. Take all the time you want. Then give us the names of the 90 starting pitchers who are better than Jeff.
When you have done so, and assuming the 90 pitchers you have listed truly ARE better than Jeff, you will have proven your point. In this case, if you can't prove your point, you likely don't have a valid one.
Randy is the voice of reason this time.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Jeffy
Mar 18, 2018 9:26:18 GMT -5
Post by rog on Mar 18, 2018 9:26:18 GMT -5
As to whether we should be concerned about Jeff, you are right, Boly, and you are also right, Randy.
It's late enough in spring training that we could, possibly even should, be concerned with Jeff's performance, especially since if he wants to improve his pitching, the quickest way to do so would be to limit the number of home runs he gives up.
But Jeff says he is working on his secondary stuff, presumably so he doesn't need to throw as many fastballs, something he has been criticized here for doing. We're kind of that time in spring training where it isn't too late to be working on stuff, but where it's not too early to begin having expectations of some kind of mastery.
We're on the cusp. And for now, both you guys are right.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Jeffy
Mar 18, 2018 9:28:09 GMT -5
Post by rog on Mar 18, 2018 9:28:09 GMT -5
By the way, Boly, I admire you for your attempt to be more objective. That's a tough transition to make, and I appreciate that you're attempting to take a difficlut journey. Do you see that while you make a good argument in one direction, Randy makes a good one in the opposite way and that this time you BOTH are right?
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Jeffy
Mar 18, 2018 9:37:22 GMT -5
Post by rog on Mar 18, 2018 9:37:22 GMT -5
Blach... a number 5 at best. He's a Kirk Rueter-type guy. Serviceable, but not one around whom one could build a staff. Rog -- Well put, Boly. Ty is a poor man's Kirk Reuter. And Kirk was something of a third starter, to bring this full circle with what Jeff is. So why is Ty only a poor man's version of Kirk? Kirk could make at least some pretense of getting right-handed hitters out. Since he has somehow been quite effective against lefty hitters (and this not been HORRIBLE), he might make a good LOOGY, one who could also be used as a long reliever when needed. That is likely his best role, but because the Giants are short on starting pitching and because Ty hasn't been horrible by any means, he's probably going to be at least as good as most team's #5's. The average #5 starter is pretty bad, which is why teams are almost always trying to improve that spot. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4342/jeffy?page=1#ixzz5A6vfnJyZ
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Jeffy
Mar 18, 2018 9:38:55 GMT -5
Post by rog on Mar 18, 2018 9:38:55 GMT -5
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Jeffy
Mar 18, 2018 9:41:32 GMT -5
Post by rog on Mar 18, 2018 9:41:32 GMT -5
But remember what I posted recently; last year I over looked holes I KNEW/SAW were there. I won't do that again. Rog -- And that is good recognition on your part, Boly. Probably part of the reason you weren't totally confident in what you saw is that just half a season earlier, you thought you were seeing a team that was the best in SF Giants' history. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4342/jeffy?page=1#ixzz5A6ybO6Kp
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Jeffy
Mar 18, 2018 9:46:38 GMT -5
Post by rog on Mar 18, 2018 9:46:38 GMT -5
Saying Jeff Samardjiza's main concern should be "saving the bullpen" is EXACTLY like saying Brandon Belt's main concern should be getting on base. Rog -- Hitters' first concern in almost every case should be in getting on base, since by doing so, they avoid using up 4% of their team's offensive game. If a hitter goes 0-for-4, he's used up nearly a sixth of his team's offensive opportunities. Brandon has more power than the average hitter, but arguably his best trait is that he uses up far less than his fair share of outs. In Jeff's case, by the way, he got opposing hitters to USE UP more outs than any other pitcher in the National League. As Randy points, out, that has some value. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4342/jeffy?page=1#ixzz5A6z6Rvn6
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Jeffy
Mar 18, 2018 9:56:43 GMT -5
Post by rog on Mar 18, 2018 9:56:43 GMT -5
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Jeffy
Mar 18, 2018 9:58:42 GMT -5
Post by rog on Mar 18, 2018 9:58:42 GMT -5
there's a lot more that disgusts me about Belt, not the least of which being he is one MLB's biggest wussies. ~Dood Rog -- I have to say I agree with you here, Randy. Brandon should ignore the several concussions he's had and simply go out there and play. Or perhaps that's what he's doing right now. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4342/jeffy?page=1#ixzz5A72yZDYU
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Jeffy
Mar 18, 2018 10:05:37 GMT -5
Post by rog on Mar 18, 2018 10:05:37 GMT -5
Here is how I feel about a quote that followed Jeff's last outing:
"Fastball command is, as he put it, his 'bread and butter,' but he's looking to take some of the predictability out of his sequencing."
If Jeff's means that fastball command SHOULD be his bread and butter, I'm right with him. If he's saying command IS his bread and butter, I'm thinking he should move quickly on to the main course.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Jeffy
Mar 18, 2018 10:06:32 GMT -5
Post by rog on Mar 18, 2018 10:06:32 GMT -5
On the other hand, getting predictability out of his sequencing would almost always be a good thing.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Jeffy
Mar 18, 2018 10:12:46 GMT -5
Post by rog on Mar 18, 2018 10:12:46 GMT -5
Rog -- Here is another quote:
"We're learning about it," Samardzija said. "Where to use it here and there, and obviously, we'll have that [split-fingered fastball] for late in the counts when the season starts. But for now, we're trying to mix that changeup in and see where it's at.
"That change of speeds is always something that I've needed and haven't had in my repertoire. To have that is good, and it's just another aspect you can go to out there."
Rog -- This is good. He's recognizing something Boly has pointed to in the past. It does kind of contradict though the idea that he doesn't care.
Pitchers are often too predictable as to which pitches they will be throwing at which times. Part of that is setting up a hitter, which is good, but if a pitcher becomes too predictable, clearly it hurts him similarly to tipping his pitches. It's kind of a mental tipping of pitches rather than in a physical manner.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Jeffy
Mar 18, 2018 10:26:35 GMT -5
Post by rog on Mar 18, 2018 10:26:35 GMT -5
I have a slightly higher ceiling for Stratton. With that great breaking ball... he's got a chance to be a 3. Rog -- I'm going from memory here, but I was encouraged by an article on Chris in Fan Graphs. I'm guessing the author was Enos Sarich, who lives in the Bay Area and thus sees a lot of the Giants and gets to talk with their players on a fairly consistent basis. The article pointed out how much better Chris's curve ball command was much better when he returned to the Giants after a tough time to open the season in San Francisco and then some "improvement" time in Sacramento. Sarich pointed out that gives Stratton the ability to be a good pitcher. He also pointed out there will be days when Chris's command won't be as good, and he will be somewhat easy prey. The difficulty with Stratton and particularly Blach is that they have to be too fine. Here is an oddity about Ty though. As I have pointed out before, his 91 mph fastball has been his most effective pitch. That likely comes from good location and unpredictability in pitch sequencing. Ty must learn to get right-handed hitters out though in order to be successful as a starter. Without it, he's merely hanging on much of the time. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4342/jeffy?page=1#ixzz5A78evMe3
|
|
|
Jeffy
Mar 18, 2018 11:16:14 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 18, 2018 11:16:14 GMT -5
Is Jeff an average #3 starter? Perhaps. But I'm expecting the Giants to be better than average, so naming 90 better pitchers is meaningless, and a meaningless argument.
If league average is ok with you, then Jeff is going to be just fine, and not making the playoffs anytime soon will be fine too.
I expect better. I expect the same type of teams we had during the 3 championship runs. How do we forget so easily what got us there? A 4.42 ERA from our 3rd best starter doesn't get us there.
I hope Jeff has a breakthrough season and finally establishes himself as a frontline starter, but at his age and demeanor, I know that's a long shot.
|
|
|
Jeffy
Mar 18, 2018 12:24:44 GMT -5
Post by klaiggeb on Mar 18, 2018 12:24:44 GMT -5
When I talk a number 3 or 5 guy, I'm ALWAYS talking "ideally."
When one looks at the situation as Rog did, taking into count our CRAPPY outfield last year, that buoys my hopes and assuages my fears 'somewhat.'
What Rog said is true; a bad group of ball butchers in the outfield can KILL a pitcher's ERA, and likely did for Jeffy who is a fly ball pitcher.
But all that said, I EXPECT a mid to high 3's guy as my #3.
Is that always do-able?
Likely not, but the Dodgers have managed to do it, why can't we?
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Jeffy
Mar 18, 2018 16:55:17 GMT -5
Post by sfgdood on Mar 18, 2018 16:55:17 GMT -5
Your expectations for a #3 are unreasonable in this day and age Boly...it's that simple. There were 17 Starting pitchers in mlb (out of 150+) that meet your definition of "dependable" with an ERA of 3.50 or lower in 2017. There were only 29 that were under 4. It's a hitters league now...which is another reason I'm disgusted with Belt's low numbers.
|
|
|
Jeffy
Mar 18, 2018 17:35:44 GMT -5
Post by klaiggeb on Mar 18, 2018 17:35:44 GMT -5
Randy: There were 17 Starting pitchers in mlb (out of 150+) that meet your definition of "dependable" with an ERA of 3.50 or lower in 2017. There were only 29 that were under 4. It's a hitters league now...
***boly says***
Are you serious?
I mean, I know you are, but THAT is flat out ridiculous!
If that's the BEST pitcher's can do, then you're right; I'm clearly out of touch with what's going on.
Of course that doesn't change my comment about LA.
Last year Ryu had an ERA of under 4.00 and he was their 3rd or 4th starter.
Sheesh!
I'll acquiesce based upon the reality of the numbers, but I still think it's a good ideal for which to shoot.
boly
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Jeffy
Mar 18, 2018 19:46:26 GMT -5
Post by sfgdood on Mar 18, 2018 19:46:26 GMT -5
To take it one step further...44 starting pitchers had an ERA under 4.5...that means on average, teams have less than 1.5 pitchers with an ERA under 4.5
|
|