Real? Or an Illusion?

[klaiggeb]

Of course I didn't get to see the game.

Why should anyone down here?

The Dodgers have blocked ANYONE not having Spectrum cable from getting the game, so I didn't see it.

That will all change in July, as we move into our new home up in Idaho.


So I didn't get to see Pomeranz pitch last night.

Bochy's post game sounded impressed.

in fact, him retiring 14 of 15 after the 1st seemed impressive.

Pomeranz said he made some adjustments, and that would appear to have worked.

But if it's arm angle, if it's release point, my question is, can he maintain it?

Thus the title of this thread; Real or an illusion.

I guess we'll see, but not having viewed last night's game, I can only hope and wonder.

Opinions from those of you who saw the game?

[rog]

I haven't seen the game yet. We've had a wedding, a trip and now some drama in the past week, so I'm behind in just about everything.

[sfgdood]

Im glad you wont have to miss the Giants/Dodgers games anymore Boly. I remember the days when those series were the ONLY ones televised locally

[Islandboagie]

He seemed to have a lot more sharp movement on his pitches, Boly.

But who cares really?

It's only a matter of time before we have to get rid of Pomeranz and the rest of these jokers and start building a real team.

[rog]

I love it when the Giants' veterans perform, since that increases their trade value.

Buster Posey has become kind of a symbol of today's Giants: Once a great player, now he's overpaid, and his injuries have slowed him down tremendously. Significant parallels between his career and that of the recently-retired Joe Mauer. Very, very sad.

Hopefully he can get healthy enough to bounce back, but his hip may be a limiting factor too big to overcome.

[klaiggeb]

Totally agree, Boagie.

That's why I'm pulling for him to do well!

I want his trade value increased so we get more in return.

Same with Jeffy.

I thought he pitched well yesterday, increasing his value, too.



I'm also get so sick and tired of watching umpires, game after game after game, calling pitches 1,2,3 inches off the plate, strikes.

It's gotten old.

No. It is old.

[rog]

Jeff's ERA this season is better than he's pitched. The problem is that teams now see that.

It looks to me like the Giants are getting in a decent position to eat salary though. It's going to take them a few years to bounce back, meaning that barring a very top free agent who isn't too old, there seems little reason to spend a lot of free agent money. Instead, use that money to buy down contracts and get decent young players in return who might help when the Giants get good again.

The trend right now is for the top potential free agents to re-sign rather than test the market. The owners have finally begun to use the power we've said all along that they have, and potential free agents are a little worried. That means there are fewer players worth spending money on, which may raise their prices but don't make it attractive for teams like the Giants to spend a lot.

Now that Dallas Keuchel and Craig Kimbrel have re-signed (as was obvious, right after the draft), the market for Madison Bumgarner and Will Smith becomes more inviting from the Giants' standpoint.

[klaiggeb]

Jeff's ERA this season is better than he's pitched. The problem is that teams now see that.

Sorry, rog, but for me, that statement is a real, "huh?" moment.

I have been a massive critic of Jeffy for years now, but when I see him being more effective, being a 'pitcher,' at least to the point that he can achieve, I compliment it.


Your opinion of players constantly confounds me; the ones in whom you see and upside, and the ones in which you see the down side.


Again, I'm confounded by your statements of who has value and who doesn't.


Every single July we see teams making nuts-o deals for players because they 'believe' they can get them to the playoffs.

I don't see that as being any different this year.

In my "what can we get back" post, I said as much.

And then you argued, "depends upon what you consider top tier."

Top tier, is top tier

2nd and third tiers are 2nd and 3rd tiers.

I'm going on the consensus of the so called "experts."

Nothing more.

Sheesh.

[rog]

And then you argued, "depends upon what you consider top tier."

Top tier, is top tier


Rog -- I don't know if you ever had kids do definitions in your Spanish class, but if you asked a student to define in Spanish "nivel superior," and he told you the definition was "nivel superior," would you have given him credit for a correct answer?

Even professional evaluators can differ slightly in their definition of top tier. And if one says something like top tier is a top 5 prospect for a team, the #9 prospect on one team may be a much better prospect than the #5 prospect on another.

Even if you say defined "top tier" as a top 100 prospect overall, different prospect evaluators rate players differently inside and outside the top 100.

That's why I asked you what you meant by top tier. You've heard the statement that one man's ceiling is another's floor or that one man's trash is another's treasure? Different people have different definitions of top tier, which is why I asked what yours was.

I think if the Giants get a player who is something of a consensus top 100 pick (as, for instance, Heliot Ramos likely would have been entering the season, although much closer to the bottom than the top) for Madison, they can feel pretty good.

Of course it also depends on how he performs. Today he certainly helped his value.

One of the things I find intriguing quite ironic about trading Madison is that he has blocked eight teams, but if push comes to shove (and as Keuchel and Kimbrel just found out), he'll make a lot more money in the future if he gets traded and loses the compensation aspect of free agency.

Your idea of going with the consensus of the experts is a good one. But by top tier, do you mean top 100? Top 50? Top 20?

I'm hoping the Giants' scouting has stepped up to where they will get more in return than most think. I'll use the Eduardo Nunez trade as an example. It wasn't popular at the time, but I think it's much more highly regarded now.

I read a rumor that Farhan wants a top 5 pick or two top 15 picks for Madison. But even that is a bit nebulous. A #5 pick in one system might be less than a #10 pick in another. The Giants, for instance, have been thought to have a strong top 3, but their #4 and $5 prospects weren't much more highly regarded than the #14 and #15 picks.

Just how top tier do you consider top tier to be? How second tier is second tier? How third tier is third tier? I'm kind of more used to seeing prospects rated either as A, B, C or lessor, or else by their 20-80 scouting grades. And of course, even then the scouts differ on their grades.

And remember that in terms of expectations, the Giants are hoping for prospects who will be good enough that they control them for up to seven seasons at the major league level, and the team trading for Madison will be getting perhaps as little as two months -- and from their perspective, hopefully close to a full month of postseason performances as well.

I don't think the Paxton trade is working out all that well for the Mariners thus far, although with prospects it usually takes time. But remember that while one could argue on behalf of Madison or of Paxton as being the more valuable pitcher, but the Yankees got two full seasons (less any injuries) from Paxton, while whoever gets Madison will get only two months of regular season. IIRC the Mariners got a top 50 prospect and two of what you might refer to as Tier 2 prospects, again depending on the definition.

I think the Giants will do better PROPORTIONATELY for Madison -- partly because his salary will likely be less on average -- but it's tough to overcome that the Yankees will likely get somewhere between four and six times as much time from Paxton as the team trading for Madison will get from him. And so far this season, Paxton's ERA is about a run lower than Madison's.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5358/real-illusion#ixzz5qOpuyGok

[klaiggeb]

I'll make it simple:

If 3 or 4 out of 5 experts say a kid is top tier, IMHO, he's top tier.

Same with the other slots.

But if, and when, Zaidi gets off his can, I don't just want him making deals for talent, I want deals for talented guys WITH character.

Don't want to see any Ryan Leaf type guys here. Ferrari talent, Chevy Volt brain

[rog]

I'll make it simple:

If 3 or 4 out of 5 experts say a kid is top tier, IMHO, he's top tier.


Rog -- You haven't made it simple, Boly. Which five experts are you using? When you say "top tier," is that a 50 scouting grade, or a 55, or a 60, or a 65?

For starters, which of the Giants' prospect would you define as "top tier"? Would that extend beyond Bart, Ramos and Bishop? I can assure you that no one would trade any of those three for Madison.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5358/real-illusion#ixzz5qRogbbEU

[rog]

Ferrari talent, Chevy Volt brain


Rog -- I understand what you're saying here, but I suspect that the Chevy Volt has a pretty good "brain" in it.

As for the character aspect, the Giants have long emphasized it, and I don't see that changing soon.

[rog]

Which player do you think the Giants can get back for Madison that you would find acceptable, Boly? If not just one player, which two players would you take?

As you pointed out, the Giants need to pray for injuries!

[klaiggeb]

You continue to ask these type of questions, Roger and I continue to tell you I don't follow our prospects much less those of another team.

I've also answered this question before; 1, perhaps 2 top tier prospects is what I expect.

[rog]

I see the Yankees as one of the best possible trade partners. They've simply got a LOT of young talent all over the place. I think they could give the Giants a decent prospect or young player or two and not feel it much.

And of course the better Madison pitches, the rosier the return picture gets. He's been better of late.

I still like the idea of packaging both Madison and Smith and getting a truly good prospect. Depending on how one defines top tier, I don't think the Giants can get a top tier prospect for Madison alone. The Mariners got three prospects for Paxton, but depending on one's definition, only one was top tier. And remember, that was for two YEARS of Paxton's services, not two months.

[klaiggeb]

Agree, the Yankees, from what everyone is saying, is the best, most likely spot.

As long as he doesn't go to an NL team, I'll be happy.

But Madison might refuse a trade to an AL team because he won't get to hit.

I know if I was him, that would be a thought on my mind.


On the other side, he'd be closer to his home.

[rog]

As long as he doesn't go to an NL team, I'll be happy.


Rog -- I'm not sure why we should care where he goes. He's going there for little more than two months and a postseason, then he's eligible for free agency. Let's say he goes to an NL team and shuts out the Giants three times after the trade. That gets them three losses closer to the high draft choice they need.

Why would it matter much to Madison if he hit for two months or not? Certainly he's prefer to do so, but for two months, so what? What he doesn't want to do -- unless he wants to re-sign with the Giants -- is get in the way of getting traded at all. That would likely cost him tens of million in his next contract.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5358/real-illusion#ixzz5qVC4tuKs

[klaiggeb]

Because I don't want to have to face him, now, or ever.

And at the season's end, I want him back.

[rog]

How much would you be willing to pay for Madison, Boly? Let's say he wants six years. How high would you go? The Giants are paying Johnny Cueto somewhere around $130 million for his six seasons. Madison will have just turned 29 when he becomes a free agent. Johnny was about four months older.

The difference is that Madison has clearly been declining for over two seasons, while Johnny's situation was a little more questionable. Johnny had put up a 2.44 ERA with Cincinnati, but then went 4.76 in the two months after he was traded to Kansas City. In the 2015 ALDS, Johnny was just decent, and he was bad in his NLCS start. But in the World Series, he pitched a beautiful 1 run, 3 hit game, although he lost it 1-0.

One could argue that Madison is more of a winner than Johnny, but the run support of the two pitchers doesn't back that up. Based on the runs Johnny has received and the runs he's given up, he "should" have won 128 games. His 125 wins is pretty much right there. Madison "should" have won 126 games, and he's won only 113.

The two have pitched without about 100 innings of each other. Madision's ERA has been a quarter of a run lower. One can make a strong argument that because his career got off to a better start than Cueto's, he's been slightly the better pitcher. And of course in the postseason, he's been one of the best ever.

But in the regular season -- and even if we throw in the postseason -- he's been a little light on wins. That's not to say that Madison hasn't been an excellent pitcher. He certainly has. If he can reinvent himself, with his great postseason record, he could have a shot at the Hall of Fame with a long career. But for all the run support he's received, he's won fewer games than we would expect.

Madison is certainly a hard-nosed competitor. No question. Does that enable him to win more games than someone else with the same run support? That is a question that is hard to give a positive response to. The evidence isn't especially kind in backing it up.

What I want back is the OLD Madison, and especially the Madison of the postseason. I don't think we'll ever see that again though. Even Hall of Famer Robin Roberts wasn't as consistently good after he reinvented himself. One positive though is that Madison has been better of late. But will that remain a consistent trend? It surely would be nice if that were the case at least until after the trade deadline.

[klaiggeb]

Don't know. A pretty fair amount.

it's not like he's ancient, but I'm not sure if I'd go 6 years.

5, maybe.

Then again, with Bochy gone, and a metrics guy in, he might not want to come back to the Giants.

[rog]

Madison will be expensive. And he may well get six years if that's what he's going for. I'm assuming, of course, that he continues to pitch about the same as he has been.

Free agents are big gambles because they're "overpaid" while younger guys are "underpaid." And they're gambles because a player's peak usually occurs sometime in his last 20's. Because of the wear and tear on their arms, pitchers in particular are risky.

As an example, Johnny Cueto has pitched well for the Giants' when he's been healthy -- he simply hasn't been healthy a lot, especially after what was a good first season with the club. Sadly, that's not unexpected with pitchers, which is something the Giants need to remember with the already-declining Madison if they choose to sign him again.

The chances of Madison's earning his new contract likely aren't very good.

[rog]

You questioned why I stated that Jeff Samardzija hasn't pitched as well as his ERA, Boly. There is a TON of evidence backing up my statement.

. May 22nd Jeff lost 9-2 to the Braves. He pitched very poorly, giving up six runs. Because of an error, all six were unearned. If they had been earned, his ERA would be about 0.80 higher. If half had been earned, it would be 0.40 runs higher. Even the lesser figure is significant.

. Jeff's ERA is 3.72. If he were to maintain it, it would be the 2nd-lowest ERA of his career. Does this feel like the 2nd-best season of his career?

. If Jeff were truly pitching to his 3.72 ERA, we would likely feel he had an average chance to end the season with approximately that ERA. Does anyone here expect Jeff to end this season with a 3.72 ERA?

. Jeff's fielding independent ERA's are 4.62, 5.04 and 4.82. They average more than a run higher than his actual ERA, indicating he's been lucky to have an ERA as low as it is.

. Not that won-loss record means a huge amount, but Jeff has only a 3-5 record. If he had truly pitched to his ERA, we would likely feel that he had been unlucky in wins and losses. Does anyone feel that way?

. Jeff has allowed a .414 slugging percentage. Based on how the ball has been hit against him, that figure "should" be .440.

. Jeff's hard-hit of 41% is a career worst that is nearly half again as high as his career average.


Jeff began the season pitching well, but he's fallen off. I mentioned early on that it appeared he could no longer throw hard enough to be effective, even though he had a low ERA at that point. After not allowing a single home run in his first three starts, he's allowed 11 home runs in his last 10. Jeff pitched well in April, but he hasn't pitched well since.

What is it you're seeing in Jeff that makes you believe he's pitching as well or better than that 3.72 ERA would indicate? You have complained about all the home runs he has allowed in the past, yet his 1.46 HR/9 is the highest of his career by over 10%.

[klaiggeb]

I'm a massive critic of Jeffy, Roger, but I'll give him his due, here.

I don't care what the numbers say. I know what I've seen and he's pitched better than I've seen him pitch in a while.

Good enough that someone in need of a starter would take him.

Wouldn't get a top tier prospect in return, but maybe a 2nd or 3rd tier guy, and that's fine with me.

I just want him gone, out of the way, and the kids on the hill.

[rog]

I don't care what the numbers say. I know what I've seen and he's pitched better than I've seen him pitch in a while.


Rog -- This is why we usually disagree. You "know what (you've) seen," and "don't care what the numbers say." Yes, you know what you've seen through your own eyes, but I'm sure you'll admit they're not perfect. Why is it that when someone else sees things differently than you, you just assume that you're right?

As for not caring what the numbers say, that's simply ignorance. If Jeff is pitching so well, why is it that he is giving up home runs at a career rate (your primary criticism of him)? He's now given up 11 homers in his past 51 innings. That's nearly two homers per nine innings. Why is is that all three of the primary objective defense independent ERA measures have him at well above his career average? Why is it that if not for the six runs in his May 22nd game ALL being unearned, his actual ERA would be above his career mark (as is his run average this season)?

If you truly know what you see, it should be easy for you to bring facts to support it, yet you don't care what the numbers say, showing that you're not all that interested in the facts. If Jeff is pitching so well, why are opponents hitting the ball hard against him nearly half again as often as over the course of his career?

Where we definitely agree is that we want him traded. He isn't likely to contribute when the Giants are good again. But since MLB teams are objective and fact-oriented as well as scouting-oriented, and since their scouts may be seeing Jeff's pitching differently than you are, I don't think the Giants can even trade Jeff without eating significant contract. Even then, as you point out, they're unlikely to get much of a return.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5358/real-illusion#ixzz5qeRcPvMm

[klaiggeb]

What I've 'seen' is him getting outs.

Quality outs, if you like.

His game has huge holes in it, no question.

I don't want him on the team, and haven't for quite a while.

Right now ALL I care about is his trade value.

[rog]

Almost every pitcher gets quality outs. Even poor pitchers get more outs than they give up hits.

I'm not sure what you consider to be quality outs. If we're talking about outs with runners in scoring position, they've been hard for Jeff to come by. He's faced 51 batters this season with runners in scoring position, and he's retired only 30 of them -- and one of those on a sacrifice fly. With runners in scoring position, batters are hitting .341 against him, with a 1.003 OPS. Jeff has NOT been a quality pitcher with runners in scoring position.

Which other quality outs were you referring to? Many of Jeff's outs have come on hard-hit balls. Remember, his hard-hit rate is nearly half again as high as his career rate.

So he hasn't gotten a good percentage of outs with runners in scoring positions, and many of his outs have come on hard-hit balls, so I'm not sure which quality outs you're referring to.

[klaiggeb]

To me, there is a difference, a vast difference, between outs, and quality outs.

Quality outs are not outs where the guy scorches the ball...right at someone.

Like Pablo did last night.

110 mph line drive to the CF.

Or hard hit balls with warning track power.


Of course every pitcher gets good outs, but how many?


All too often in the past I've seen Jeffy give up ropes... or long, long fly balls, that someone ran down; that were for outs which, when combined with the other hard hit balls he gave up, made for, IMHO, a poor outting.

Jeffy had way too many of those.

I look at outs as if I was pitching.

That's why the numbers, other than exit velocity, don't mean much to me when evaluating outs.

[rog]

There is no way we can remember all the outs for a pitcher. And some balls will make a bigger impression than others.

I mentioned that Jeff has given up nearly 50% more hard-hit balls this year than his career average, and his average exit velocity is his highest since exit velocity began being measured in 2015.

This is why statistics are so important. They're objective. In this case, simply measurements. Our memories are affected by many things, including our declining memories.

The way you are defining quality outs, you are certainly correct there is a significant difference between OUT and QUALITY outs. But Jeff is allowing the ball to be harder hit this season than ever, so the quality of his outs has declined, not increased.

When a pitcher is allowing harder contact, it's tough for him to be getting more quality outs. This is why I have such a problem when you make comments such as "I don't care what the numbers say. I know what I've seen." We don't always know what we've seen. If we truly did, we would all have seen the same thing, because we would have seen what actually happened.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5358/real-illusion#ixzz5qgsUdsRa

[rog]

I may have figured out why you think Jeff has pitched well this season. After the first inning, he HAS pitched well -- and that is likely what you remember most. But Jeff's first inning ERA is 8.31. Take away the first inning and Jeff HAS been good. Take away the first inning, and he has an excellent 2.63 ERA. I believe that is what you're remembering.

What is surprising though is that Jeff WAS good in April. That seems to be what you're focusing on. But in May and June, he hasn't been good.

In March and April, Jeff gave up 10 runs in six starts. In May and June, he's allowed 25 runs in seven starts. Jeff has allowed 15 more runs in one more start when we compare March/April and May/June. In his six March/April starts, Jeff allowed just 24 hits. In his seven May/June starts he's allowed 37. In his six March/April starts, he allowed just 3 home runs. In his 8 May/June starts, he's given up 8.

Somehow you seem to be remembering the post-first-inning Samardzija and the March/April version. Since the end of April, Jeff hasn't been very good. If you look back at our posts, I believe you will see that I thought the March/April Jeff was indeed better (and specifically mentioned cutting back on his home runs). I worried about his loss of velocity, but I saw that he was pitching better. But since April, he' hasn't been the same pitcher.

Now, Jeff has rectified his situation so far in June, with a 3.18 ERA. It's really May in which he was bad, as shown by his 5.55 ERA that month.

If we want to see how much different Jeff was in May, he gave up 21 runs in five starts that month. He's allowed only 14 runs in his eight starts in March, April and June.

Maybe when you say Jeff has pitched better, you're thinking of his last two starts. I guess that's the good news. After that horrible May, maybe he's getting it back together again. Let's hope so. The Jeff of March, April and June is tradeable.

[klaiggeb]

I'm looking at 4 of his last 5 starts.

You're right, after his usual "Lazy" first inning, he has pitched better than I've seen him pitch since he's been here.