It was almost laughable

[klaiggeb]

I have said many many times over the years that the Giants have the dumbest, stupidest hitters in baseball, and last night was another classic example.

It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

On the pregame show, Rich Aurilia was asked about Godley and his breaking stuff; how he'd attack him.

Rich said that since Godley throws over 40% breaking balls, he'd hunt the breaking ball early in the count because he often tries to steal strikes with a 'get it in' curve.

THAT is a good plan, especially if Godely doesn't have his good snapper.

Well, he didn't have that good snapper last night, and what did the giants do; over and over and over, TAKE that 'get it in' breaking ball.

What were they doing? And to me, and I'm guessing to Rich, also, they hunted the fastball.

They constantly fell behind in the count and thus were easy prey.


Sheesh.


If it wasn't so predictably said, so ridiculously stupid...It would be laughable.

Instead, it was just sad.

No plan, or bad plan, and no win against a guy with an almost 5 ERA.

I'm guessing the deal is that: Make and execute a plan against Corbin...but don't even bother against Godley.

That's what it looked like from here...

And to think that I had fallen into the same trap again; thinking they had a chance...

Man!

Am I an idiot to get sucked in again!

[rog]

There's another side to this story as well. It explains why it isn't as simple for a hitter to come up with a game plan and likely explains why the Giants seemed like dummies.

Godley throws his curve ball so often because it has been his only positive pitch this season -- and a plus plus pitch at that. His fastball has been poor. His slider has been poor. His sinker has been poor.

As Boly will tell us, hitters often try to eliminate a pitch, at least in some situations based on how they believe they are being set up.



One thing we can clearly see: Godley's high ERA hasn't been because he throws so many curve balls. It has been because his fastball, slider and change up have been ineffective.

I would think it smart to eliminate the good pitch and sit on one or more of his bad ones.

I understand Richie's thinking, and because of his fine hitting I consider him to be the #2 SF Giants shortstop behind only Brandon Crawford. Having hit over 30 homers in a season, Richie could even be ranked #1.

But some hitters out there would tell you that thinking is backwards.

Since Godley throws the curve 40% of the time, it is likely some hitters have indeed sat on the curve. Apparently it hasn't done them much good. Zack's curve has been as good as his fastball, slider and change up have been bad.

Richie knows a whole lot more about hitting than I do, but is it possible his approach was in fact backwards?

Now, if Zack is using the curve ball in certain counts in a get-it-in fashion, a hitter might look for a hanger. But my sense is that some hitters have tried that. Nonetheless, hitters are struggling against the curve ball and hitting his other three pitches well.

Does it make sense to sit on a pitcher's best pitch -- especially when it is best by a mile?

A somewhat opposite pitch might be to sit on the fastball and slider. They aren't very good pitches, and Zack throws them over half the time. (He throws the change up only once out of every 20 pitches.)

I understand Richie's game plan. But could it be, Boly, that it is bass ackwards? Does it really make sense to sit on by far the pitcher's best pitch?

Ultimately the game plan may depend on the hitter. Some hitters may feel they are good enough curve ball hitters and/or can adjust well enough to his other pitches that they would employ Richie's strategy. Other players may think it is wise to stay away from a pitcher's best pitch until he has to throw it.

I don't know this, by the way, and I could be way off base, but while Zack may throw the pitch for a get-it-in strike sometimes, my guess is that he uses it even more for his kill pitch. In fact, that may be a good part of why it has been his best pitch. He may save it for when he is ahead in the count and hitters will chase it.

Hitters chase one out of every three of Zack's pitches outside the zone, and I'll be his chase rate is even higher on curve balls.

Again, I don't know which game plan is better -- Richie's or the opposite. Perhaps as stated earlier, that depends on the hitter.

But I feel strongly about two things:

. Godley's high ERA hasn't been because he throws so many curve balls. It has been because his fastball, slider and change up have been ineffective.

. While Richie's plan might be the best for certain hitters, it isn't the only game plan for every hitter. In fact, it appears hitters overall have fared better by NOT using his game plan.


Clearly it didn't work out, but that may be simply because the Giants are in a team slump right now. It may be that they tried to break the slump by being so "dumb" they were actually smart.

What I'm looking for here is simply an admission that Richie's strategy isn't so obvious as to make a different strategy automatically dumb.

Yeah, I know. I haven't played the game at a high level. But I do know something about how a pitcher sets up a hitter, and I do know which pitches have worked best for a pitcher over the course of the season.

That best pitch this season for Zack -- and it hasn't even been close -- has been his curve ball. His poor season has been due to his bad fastball, slider and change up far more than it has been due to his very good curve ball.

Is it possible there is another side to the coin that Richie didn't mention?

[klaiggeb]

Why do you always take the opposing point of view in every discussion, Roger?

Why?

"Richie knows a whole lot more about hitting than I do, but is it possible his approach was in fact backwards?"

That baffles me, and makes me wonder if you do the same thing with Barbara.

Maybe I should talk to her for some pointers.

Richie could hit, and the one thing I always liked about him was that he always had a plan.

Bonds had a plan.

Will Clark had a plan.

This Giant team, nor the last few years, seem to EVER have a plan!

They're constantly sitting fastball 2-0, 3-1 and CONSTANTLY getting fooled!

Pitchers haven't been throwing many fastballs in those counts for YEARS, so why are WE so slow to catch on?


These are the facts as I see them.

1-Richie had a plan and he expressed what it was and gave reasons why.

If it's backwards, who in the frickin' hell cares!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's like pitching backwards.

2-I didn't see ONE giant, not one, smart enough to sit on the 'get it in' breaking ball.

Not one.

And they SHOULD have been doing that, or at least THOUGHT about it!

For crying out loud! That's the way Godley pitches!

But no, we couldn't do that.

3-We fell behind in counts early, and were always hitting from a defensive posture.

4-IF they had a plan, it didn't work, and should have been abandoned around the 4th inning.

5-IF they had a plan, they didn't execute it very well.



Bottom line: As Rich and Estes said, this is a .500 club; why should we expect ANYTHING better of them?

Only a fool like me did.

[rog]

1-Richie had a plan and he expressed what it was and gave reasons why.

If it's backwards, who in the frickin' hell cares!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's like pitching backwards.


Rog -- I don't think so. Pitching backwards is designed to keep the hitter off balance. Having a plan that is backwards (which it may or may not be, and it might depend on the hitter) may be hitting into a pitcher's strengths rather than his weakness.

Would hitting a pitcher's pitch rather than hitting his lesser stuff be considered a good plan? Again, it may depend on the hitter. It might be that laying off the pitch hoping the pitcher will throw up a lollipop and then being aggressive with it is a good strategy -- sort of the hitter setting the PITCHER up. Willie Mays was known to do it.

I simply think there may have been more than one good approach, and it may have differed from batter to batter. I don't think the Giants were necessarily dummies for not doing it Richie's way. Maybe Richie's point was that looking for Godley's best pitch in certain situations would catch him by surprise.

Another thought just came to me. We talk about baseball as a team game, and indeed there are certain aspects to it. Might not it be a good strategy to have different hitters take different -- and as in this case, perhaps opposite -- game plans against a starting pitcher. Eventually the pitcher and catcher would figure out which batter was using which strategy, but early on when the pitcher may be at his strongest, might it not confuse him slightly, or at the very least keep him a little off balance -- especially if hitters used a different game plan than he was expecting?

I'm sure hitters don't like being set up by pitchers. I suspect they would rather be the setter upper, not the settee. A pitcher tries not to pitch in a predictable pattern. On the first strike at least, might not team hitters vary their approach -- perhaps going the opposite way the pitcher expects. I think maybe looking for cripple curves on the first pitch might have been a good strategy and perhaps would have kept Godley from throwing his best pitch as often.

As for sitting on his fastball, I think with many -- probaby most -- pitchers that is a good strategy early in the count. Most hitters hit the fastball better than other pitches. But Zack throws it only one out of four times, so it may not be as effective against him as against other pitchers. On the other hand, his fastball isn't as good as most pitchers' fastballs, so when one does find it, it's more hittable.

I don't necessarily think Richie's strategy was a bad one -- especially for certain hitters. But I don't think we should consider the Giants' hitters stupid because they didn't all use it -- or even because none of them used it.

My point of view is that if it looks like someone is doing something stupid, at least look at what he MIGHT have been thinking before saying he's a stupid dummy.

When we said that the Giants were the dumbest, stupidest hitters, did we even consider any other game plan besides the one Richie recommended?

As for Barbara and me, we like to jab and then laugh. We don't fight; we laugh. We take neither ourselves, each other, or us as a couple too seriously.

As many mistakes as I make, I'm glad she laughs!

[rog]

Bottom line: As Rich and Estes said, this is a .500 club; why should we expect ANYTHING better of them?


Rog -- A .500 team might play at .450 or at .550. The longer a team plays at .500, the tougher it is to get to .550 (or .450) because of the time factor. I don't think it was unreasonable to think the Giants had a small chance entering the season. They needed pretty much everything to go right, and one could argue that since most things seem to have gone wrong, they have actually played better one might expect.

Better luck by Panik and McCutchen at the plate might have led to a couple more victories. Having a healthy rotation might have picked up a few more.

I thought it would have been far better to blow it up, just as Randy suggested. But I didn't think it was foolish to think the Giants had a chance -- as long as one realized it was a small chance, not a big one.

Here's something to think about. Randy and I disagree on seemingly almost everything. If we agree on something, might that not be something to take quite seriously?


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4792/laughable?page=1#ixzz5PgqSfUPV

[rog]

-I didn't see ONE giant, not one, smart enough to sit on the 'get it in' breaking ball.

Not one.

And they SHOULD have been doing that, or at least THOUGHT about it!


Rog -- What do we know that tells us they DIDN'T think about it? Maybe they simply decided to lay off his best pitch and see if they could hit his weak ones.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4792/laughable?page=1#ixzz5Pgrx5ha6

[rog]

By the way, Boly. Barbara gets in more jabs than I. She has so much more to work with!

[klaiggeb]

Rog -- What do we know that tells us they DIDN'T think about it? Maybe they simply decided to lay off his best pitch and see if they could hit his weak one

***boly says***

Because they didn't do it, to number 1 above, and horse crap, to number 2.

Like I said in my post, Rog, whatever plan they had, it was a bad one and SHOULD HAVE BEEN dropped the 2nd time through the order.

They are THE DUMBEST bunch, consistently, that I've EVER seen, going on 3 years now.

[rog]

I just didn't have time to chart every Giants hitter against Godley, but since we've been complaining most about Andrew McCutchen's approach at the plate, I thought I'd chart him.

First at bat, leading off the game for the Giants:

0-0 Took fastball right down the middle. Would have been a pitch to hit, but Andrew did what a lead off hitter is supposed to do with the first pitch

0-1 Swung and missed at a fastball over the plate low and inside.

0-2 Emergency swing on a curve ball low and outside the strike zone and was able to ground it foul down the first base line.

0-2 Swung and missed at a fastball over the plate inside and probably a couple of inches low. Strikeout


Second time at bat:

0-0 Grounded out to shortstop on a fastball over the plate up and in.


Third time at bat:

0-0 Took a fastball high and outside for ball one.

1-0 Took a very nice get-it-in curve ball over the plate low and inside.

1-1 Flied to right on a fastball strike high and outside.


Now, this is just one batter, but while Andrew went 0 for 3 (despite having had previous success against Godley), his approach seemed just fine.

He took one fastball down the middle, but as the lead off hitter he's supposed to take the first pitch.

His second time up, he grounded out on an up and in fastball he might have hit better, but he was aggressive.

His third trip, he took a get-it-in curve ball, but it was a good pitch that he might not have swung at even had he been looking for it.

Overall, Andrew was aggressive and while it didn't appear he was looking for the curve ball early in the count the only one he got was a good one. He saw just eight pitches in three at bats despite taking the game's first pitch to the Giants.

On this night at least, I don't think there was anything wrong with Andrew's approach at the plate, and it turned out to be his last night of the season with the Giants, so it's the one we're left with.

[klaiggeb]

I wasn't talking about Andrew's approach, Roger, I was talking about a couple of things.

1-For the 16th consecutive game, Andrew took a fat fastball right down the middle.

2-The entire TEAM didn't have a good approach.

[rog]

I understand. I had time only to chart the pitches to Andrew.

Mark pointed out earlier that some of the pitches Andrew was taking were pitches he should take as a lead off man. In this game, he took only the get-it-in fastball on the first pitch and a pretty good get-it-in curve ball. He swung at six of the eight pitches he faced.

[klaiggeb]

Not down the damned middle, Rog.

Maybe the first at bat of the game...maybe.

But after that, uh uh.

No way.

PUll the damned trigger and swing the freaking bat.

[rog]

Not down the damned middle, Rog.

Maybe the first at bat of the game...maybe.


Rog -- And that was the only fastball strike he took. 16 games taking a strike down the middle -- unless it is the first or possibly second pitch of the game -- is obviously too many. In this particular game though, Andrew took only the first fastball and a pretty well located curve. He also took a ball. He swung at five strikes, missing two, fouling one and putting two in play.

I have little doubt Andrew has been taking too many balls down the middle -- although he'll be taking them elsewhere now -- but in this particular game, I thought he was aggressive enough and that as far as I could tell, his game plan was a good one.

Clearly he wasn't sitting on the curve, but he was aggressive on the fastball -- and that is what he got six out of eight pitches. Godley got him this time, but for the most part Andrew avoided Godley's best pitch (the curve) and made the pitch of decision a fastball. That approach didn't work in this game, but it may have had something to do with Andrew having gone 5 for 12 with a double and a home run against Godley entering the game. He had struck out six times however, so the approach wasn't totally successful.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4792/laughable#ixzz5PoLqfFPZ

[rog]

Here's an amazing coincidence: With the Giants, Andrew McCutchen his .255/.357/.415/.772. In his final 16 games he hit .255/.359/.418/.777. That's about as close as it gets.

In his time with the Giants, Statcast felt that the way Andrew hit the ball, he should have hit .269/.371/.468/.839. Last season for the Pirates he hit .279/.363/.486/.849. Those numbers are quite close as well. To add to the close comparison, Statcast felt Andrew should have hit for .274/.358/.475/.833.

According to Statcast, Andrew hit the ball about as hard this season as he did last year, but there is evidence that his lesser results were due in great part to bad luck. Maybe with the Yankees his luck will change.