The Kids

[klaiggeb]

Clearly, some of our kids have blossomed.

Rodriguez, Suarez, and Moronta in particular.

Others look close; Slater...IF the jackass will EVER learn to turn on a pitch and get the barrel out front!

Hanson has had his moments.

Stratton looks like he's finally turned the corner.

In limited, VERY limited time, Chris Shaw looks incredibly over matched.

Then again, he's faced some dynamic pitching.

Of course, so does our entire team.

Not enough at bats, but I'm looking forward to him hitting against some NORMAL Major League pitching.

Duggar, I thought, was really on an accelerated learning curve. His injury was a killer for him because he was just about ready to take the first steps to establish himself.

Fluke, fluke injury.

Ray Black shows promise IF he stops believing he can throw that fastball by everyone, and start using more off speed stuff to set up the gas.

I'd like to see better command of that gas, too.

Something he's never had much success doing until this year.

There are some good pieces in place.

Maybe not superstars, but good players.

And it's important to know and remember you DON'T need a team of superstars to win.

We did it 3 times with some really good, not quite superstar, players.

A good move or 2 in the off season, and we can do it again in a couple of years.

[sfgdood]

The young pitchers you mentioned all impressed me. We have a real future with them. The only thing is it seems to me that all of them are middle of the rotation type guys and none has ace stuff. So either Bumgarner finds his fastball in the offseason, or we might need to get what we can for him. Reyes and Ray could eventually become our 8th and 9th inning guys.

I was sad to see Duggar's season end too, but he got plenty of time in the bigs and showed he belongs. His defense is top shelf and he doesn't look overwhelmed at the plate. I see him improving every year. He didn't do so great that he wont be motivated to improve, so that's why I believe he will. Maybe Mac can get back to where he was before his injury...that would be a big help. Or maybe Shaw shows the pop we've been reading about. Some things to look forward to. I'm also looking forward to seeing Joey Bart and Heliot Ramos and maybe some of our draft picks in San Jose next year.

Now if we can get rid of the dead weight like Panik, Belt and some others and bring in some young studs that would be a good "building block" in the rebuilding process.

[rog]

In 2010 the Giants had Tim Lincecum and Buster Posey as superstars.

In 2012 it was Bumgarner and Posey, as it was in 2014.

The Giants weren't loaded with superstars, but they certainly had them.

We talk about Madison as being great in the postseason, and indeed he has been one of the best. But go back and look at Matt Cain in 2010.

[sfgdood]

I don't have to "go back and look"...I have it on DVD and more than that I have my memory. EVERYTHING about that season is forever etched in my memory, especially September and October. Matt was phenominal but he never did anything like Madison did in 2014 Game 7.

[klaiggeb]

Superstars, to ME, are players who do it year, after year after year.

Mays
McCovey
Aaron
Griffey.

NOT Posey and Lincecum, who only did it for a couple.

[sfgdood]

I see superstar players a little differently. The guys you hold out as superstars are HOF players that transformed the game and are once in a lifetime type guys. There can and should be room for guys to be superstars that are not up to those standards.

You definitely show bias--once again--against Posey who is a SIX time All Star, NL ROY, NL MVP, Gold Glove, 4 time Silver Slugger, Hank Aaron Award winner, and NL Comeback POY. To me, that's a slam dunk HOFer...might as well make out the disc for his jersey retirement ceremony. The fact that you exclude him from superstar level is kind of mind-boggling. But of course, comparing just about anyone to the likes of Aaron and Mays is pretty unfair for starters.

Lincecum...I believe you have it in for Tim because you hate when others compare Tim to--or even rank Tim ahead of--Juan Marichal in Giants lore. You get personally offended when more recent Giants are revered over those from the earlier days of the franchise in SF. I, for one, am certainly not going to say Tim was better than Juan...but you seem to deliberately downplay the greatness Tim had. Yes his greatness was somewhat fleeting, but it was no less spectacular. You cannot downplay a 2 time CY winner just because he wasn't competing for that award against the likes of Koufax and Gibson. Once again...a DEFINITE superstar in his own right, if only for a good 3 or 4 years. He also is a Babe Ruth Award winner.

[sfgdood]

BTW, Tim's career 3.74 ERA, while not awesome, certainly points out how dominant he was in the early years. 3 seasons under 3 in ERA. 3 time SO leader, 4 years with 200+ Ks, and 2 other years where he came within 10 of 200. Anyone that dominant is a Superstar in my book.

[klaiggeb]

I'm not questioning his early dominance, Randy, he was all that and more.

BUT we're talking about all 3 seasons in which we won the World Series.

In 2012 and 2014 he was anything BUT a Superstar.

Look at the players I listed, and I could have listed more.

They didn't just have a couple of dominant years, they had a bunch! 10 or more.

I could and should have added the likes of:

Koufax
Gibson
Marichal
Sphan

They dominated for a long, long... long time.


From my days, I would have listed Timmy in the same catagory as one of my favorites; Chris Short of the Phillies. He had some really DOMINANT years, but really, only dominated in 64, 65, and 67.

Other than those years, he was just "good."

Which ain't too shabby.

[sfgdood]

like i said...we just have different definitions of superstardom. I believe it can be fleeting. A year, maybe even a part of a year. To me a superstar is a player good enough to be talked about and marveled at from across the country, not just in his market. It doesn't have to be for a specified length of time. It can come and go. You believe it has to be sustained. To me sustained greatness is more than superstardom, it is HOF material. But many one time superstars do not sustain it.

An actor can make one or two great movies, achieve superstardom and then never come close after that. He can lose his status as a superstar and maybe achieve it again later, maybe not. Same thing with other forms of entertainers. But at different moments in time they can be a superstar and other times not so much.

[Islandboagie]

I don't even think being a superstar requires accomplishments or a impressive body of work. It's all based on popularity. If indeed Lincecum, Posey or Bumgarner were not superstars it's because they played in San Francisco and not on the east coast.

But they were superstars. I think Lincecum was on the cover of many magazines, and he was on the cover of the MLB video game. Posey was the first "face of baseball" on the MLB network, and Bumgarner became a household name after the 2014 post-season. They were all well known by the masses at one time or another.

[klaiggeb]

We are not going to agree.

And please, Randy, stop with the I hate Posey and Timmy Horse s _ _ t!

That is so far from the truth it defies logical reason.

I acknowledge that Posey is a very, very good player, and an outstanding catcher.

But he doesn't fit MY DEFINITION of Super star, so we're never going to agree.

Timmy had 4 years when he was arguably the BEST pitcher in the game; 2008-2011

But at age 28...Twenty...freaking....eight, he was basically done.

I've explained why until I'm beyond blue in the face.

I don't and never did hate him.

I didn't like the hair, didn't like the antics, but he was OUT FREAKING UN HITTABLE for four years.

THAT, IMHO, does not even come close to Super Stardom in my book.

Do it for 5-10, and then we're in the same conversation.

Was Will Clark, or Jack Clark or Al Kaline, or Matt Kemp, or Chase Utley a super star?

Ryan Howard?

They sure put up great numbers.

There were very good to great players, but never super stars.

We're never going to agree, and that's okay

[rog]

I don't have to "go back and look"...I have it on DVD and more than that I have my memory.


Rog -- And what memories they are! Did you remember that Cain didn't give up an earned run in any of his three starts? That was what I meant by "go back and look." I think most of us didn't realize or have forgotten it. Tim Lincecum won the MVP of the World Series, but that was in great part because he got two more starts than Matt. Matt was rock solid.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4808/kids#ixzz5QFYAFsEW

[rog]

Superstars, to ME, are players who do it year, after year after year.

Mays
McCovey
Aaron
Griffey.

NOT Posey and Lincecum, who only did it for a couple.


Rog -- In the long run, I definitely agree with your definition, Boly. But for several years both Tim and Buster were considered at or right at the very best at their positions. They were indeed superstars AT THAT MOMENT.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4808/kids?page=1#ixzz5QFZcNYXL

[rog]

Lincecum...I believe you have it in for Tim because you hate when others compare Tim to--or even rank Tim ahead of--Juan Marichal in Giants lore.


Rog -- Clearly Boly can speak for himself, but I don't think you are correct here. I think Boly LOVED Tim's performance level, but he thought Tim's mechanics were all wrong (and in the long run was arguably proved correct) and at a lesser level, wasn't enamored with Tim's appearance and off-field antics.

I don't think Boly was threatened if someone if someone said that Tim was better than Juanito, because he was wise enough to know that they were clearly wrong.

There was and is no bigger fan here of Tim than I, but I was objective enough to realize that Tim wasn't as good as Juan. There was a time when I thought he MIGHT be. You had to see Tim pitch in AAA to fully know what I mean.

There is huge irony involved here. Tim won consecutive Cy Young Awards, but unless you remember what you have seen here previously, you would be SHOCKED at how little Cy Young support Marichal got. Would you have in your wildest thoughts have guess that Juan got only one vote for the Cy in his entire career -- and that it was a third-place vote at that?

But that was circumstantial. Tim would have had to continue his pitching of his first five seasons for at least another decade to have been rightfully compared to Juan.

I will say that as exciting as the elegant Juanito was, Tim was even more exciting with his pitching. I think he is the most EXCITING Giants starter ever. But at his very best, he wasn't quite Juan Marichal.

Tim's 2.48 and 2.62 ERA's in his two Cy Young seasons were spectacular, but Juan put up 2.10, 2.13 and 2.23. In addition, of course, to 2.41, 2.43, 2.48, 2.76 and 2.94.

Now, if you want to compare Clayton Kershaw his 2.37 ERA to Sandy Koufax and his 2.76, I'm with you on the young guy. But Clayton's relatively poor postseason performances make that a tough comparison as well.

It will be intriguing to see if Clayton finally improves his postseason pitching. His 2.37 career ERA is by far the lowest since the dead ball era.

Anyone remember that Clayton was picked ahead of Tim in the 2006 draft -- although behind Evan Longoria. Anyone remember the guy picked immediately before Tim? You could win thousands of bar bets with that last one.

Which, by the way Randy, is just one reason why I disagreed with you on how good high draft picks should be expected to become. With Tim, Madison, Buster, Zack Wheeler and probably Joey Votto, the Giants have done amazing well.

Anyone remember who was drafted immediately behind Tim?




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4808/kids?page=1#ixzz5QFaEmJ00

[klaiggeb]

Rog -- Clearly Boly can speak for himself, but I don't think you are correct here. I think Boly LOVED Tim's performance level, but he thought Tim's mechanics were all wrong (and in the long run was arguably proved correct) and at a lesser level, wasn't enamored with Tim's appearance and off-field antics.


***BINGO! You nailed it, Rog!!!! You said it even better than I could have!

[rog]

I don't even think being a superstar requires accomplishments or a impressive body of work. It's all based on popularity.


Rog -- I have to disagree strongly with you here, Boagie. I think what you're describing isn't superstar but rather what is often known as "rock star." Tim was a "rock star" because of his popularity and for four seasons a superstar for his performance.

Here's something I just remembered about Tim's rookie season. When the Giants called him up, I had seen four of Tim's five starts, and his dad had seen the other. I asked Chris how well he thought Tim would do that rookie season. Chris replied that he didn't know, although I'm almost certain he thought they would be excellent. I told him my predictions.

And here is the weird thing. I watched Tim pitch on August 11th. He struck out the side on 10 pitches in the first inning. He pitched another scoreless innings before he gave up a home run to Freddy Sanchez of all people and saw his season decline from there. (Remember, the Giants shut him down that season with about a month to go.)

The weird thing is that before Tim gave up those runs, he was on pace for almost EXACTLY the numbers I had predicted for him -- ERA, strikeouts and walks. In the end, Tim didn't reach the ERA I had predicted, winding up at 4.00.

Boly and Don will enjoy this one: I made my predictions by looking at Warren Spahn's rookie numbers and adjusting them to better fit Tim. Not the most sophisticated of methods, but for brief time that August 10th afternoon against Freddy Sancez and the Pirates, unbelievably accurate. Lucky, but unbelievably accurate.

But after 108 innings, Tim was on course for almost exactly the numbers I had predicted. Even with all the luck I had, I think one could have concluded that I knew a fair amount about Tim after seeing him in San Jose, Stockton and Fresno.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4808/kids?page=1#ixzz5QFfUbmbS

[rog]

Matt was phenominal but he never did anything like Madison did in 2014 Game 7.


Rog -- That depends on how one looks at it. Certainly Madison's five scoreless innings to hold off the Royals in Game 7 of the World Series were among the best and most clutch of all time -- especially considering how many innings he had already thrown in the Series. But Matt's feat was impressive as well. He also gave up no earned runs -- in 21 innings.

Madison was spectacular that day. Matt was amazingly consistent over the full 2010 postseason.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4808/kids?page=1#ixzz5QFqPEel4

[rog]

BINGO! You nailed it, Rog!!!! You said it even better than I could have!


Rog -- What is it they say about a blind squirrel?

You and I disagree a lot, and sometimes I misunderstand you, but somehow -- maybe it's our age! -- when Randy doesn't understand you, I usually do.



Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4808/kids?page=1#ixzz5QFs79PRd

[rog]

There were very good to great players, but never super stars.


Rog -- Very good examples, Boly. The one player I might disagree on would be Al Kaline. I think you believe what you saw -- and what makes me either agree or come close to agreeing with you -- was that Al was CONSISTENTLY excellent rather than spectacularly excellent.

He did it long enough though that I might consider him to be a superstar. 3007 hits.

But I'm going to have to back off and go along with you. Keep in mind that I don't consider Pete Rose to be a superstar either. If I'm not going with Pete, I certainly can't go with Al.

You mentioned Ryan Howard, whose career parallels Tim's to a bit, even though one was a pitcher and the other a position player. Both players were fabulously spectacular or spectacularly fabulous early in their career. Both set early salary records as a result. And both flamed out more quickly than expected -- Tim especially, of course.





Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4808/kids?page=1#ixzz5QFskXpcH

[klaiggeb]

I might have played down Al too much.

You get 3007 hits, you're a superstar.

[rog]

For what it's worth, I felt that the Giants had two superstars in each World Series.

In 2010 it was Tim and Buster.

In 2012 and 2014 it was Madison and Buster.

In 2010 Matt Cain put in a superstar performance in the postseason, but while he consistent and perhaps underrated, I don't think he was a superstar that season.

By the way, something like Willie Mays, Buster hasn't been a wonderful postseason performer. Madison is one of the greatest ever in that regard.

[rog]

This incredible, Boly. Now you've convinced me that Al WASN'T a superstar, and I've convinced you he WAS! I think it's a really close call that comes down in part to one's definition of superstar.

You and I may differ a bit too in that you define superstar as being a long-term thing, and I believe a player -- like Tim -- can be a short-term superstar. Again, perhaps mostly definition.

It's kind of like how Boagie and I disagree on whether the Giants were a true dynasty. It mostly comes down to definition. And generally-speaking I have high standards. My personal Hall of Fame is much smaller than the actual one. Yet I would consider Tim to be a short-term superstar.

Neither of us would consider him to close to being a long-term superstar though, and isn't that a shame?

[rog]

A player needs to play at least 10 years to make the Hall of Fame. I was going to say that my definition of a long-term superstar would be someone who is the best player at his position or very close to it for about 10 years or more. But then I thought of Sandy Koufax. I guess if you play at an all-time high level for five or six seasons, you would also qualify.

Not surprisingly, Willie Mays to me is a great example of a superstar. For 13 straight years -- from 1954 through 1966 -- he played at an extremely high level. Willie could be on an all-decade team for both the fifties AND the sixties.

[klaiggeb]

I agree with the 10 years to be a superstar.

Kaline really does fit.

he was always one of my favorites, but he didn't really play on any very good Detroit teams other than 1961 and 1968.

And in 1968, he was hurt.

If not for his last 2 years, he would have been an All Time, .300 hitter.

Great arm, outstanding defender in both RF, but also CF, which most people aren't aware was where he also played.

He played 1B, too, in 1968. Had to when Cash got hurt or they needed his bat in the line up against a tough lefty

They finished 5th or 6th through most of his prime years.

[rog]

You said it even better than I could have!


Rog -- But not nearly as concisely! Thanks, Boly.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4808/kids#ixzz5QL6QZOji

[rog]

outstanding defender in both RF, but also CF, which most people aren't aware was where he also played.


Rog -- You got me on that one, Boly! The context gives this one away, but who was the center fielder the day Willie hit four home runs? This fielder caught the line drive Willie hit the one time he didn't homer.

This one isn't too hard either: Who was the batter who made the Giants' final out with Willie an on deck circle away from getting a chance at number five? How did the Braves' fans in Milwaukee react?




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4808/kids?page=1#ixzz5QL78GZsI

[klaiggeb]

I believe it was Hank Aaron.

[rog]

It was indeed Hank Aaron who played center field and caught Willie's line drive the one time he didn't leave the yard -- in Willie's third at bat I believe. The batter who made the final out for the Giants was Jimmy Davenport, and with Willie in the on deck circle waiting for a chance at number five, the Braves fans booed Davenport's out.

To show the vagaries of the game, just two nights before, Warren Spahn had no-hit the Giants. Some say bunting for a base hit to break up a no-hitter goes against the book, but I believe the Giants were behind just 1-0, and Matty Alou tried one of his famous drag bunts. Spahn himself cut the ball off and recorded what I believe was the second out of the top of the ninth. This is the same Warren Spahn who was around 40 and fell off the mound toward the third base side. Nice fielding on his part, although Matty's bunt couldn't have been unexpected.

When I think of Harry The Hat Walker's theory of hitting down on the ball, I think of Maury Wills and Matty. We've talked about nicknames, and certainly Harry the Hat is one of the good ones. We've been talking about Tim Lincecum, and his three nicknames were The Freak, The Franchise, and Big Time Timmy Jim. Those are bad, and the last one in particular is creative. I'm not sure, but I think Big Time Timmy Jim came from The McCovey Chronicles.

[Islandboagie]

When I think of Harry the hat I think of Cheers.

[klaiggeb]

Harry the Hat!

Great character! and lead to an even better one on Night Court!