|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 18, 2021 14:24:57 GMT -5
How could Matt Cain finish his career under .500?
|
|
|
A question
Nov 19, 2021 11:22:58 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by reedonly on Nov 19, 2021 11:22:58 GMT -5
The same way Bruce Bochy did.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 19, 2021 13:34:18 GMT -5
Intriguing answer, Reeder. One would have thought that as good a manager as Bruce was, he would have found a way to finish above .500. But the shocker is Matt.
We all know that Matt received scant run support in early in his career. That is a partial explanation. But Matt finished 14 games under .500, winning only 104 games in 13 seasons. That's an even 8 wins per season, which is unfathomable.
Early on, Mark argued that Matt had blown a lot of leads in his career, but I looked it up, and that wasn't the case. Quite honestly, that's the only time I can remember Mark's being wrong here.
Later in his career Matt DID receive good run support. He wound up his career with 920 runs of support while yielding only 910 runs himself. With a fine pitcher like Mark and a positive run differential, it's hard to imagine him below .500 -- let alone 14 games below.
I can figure out the answers to many things baseball, but this is one question I can't answer. That is why I asked it. I am baffled by it.
|
|
|
A question
Nov 19, 2021 14:26:08 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Islandboagie on Nov 19, 2021 14:26:08 GMT -5
During some of Cain's best seasons the Giants were a scrappy offense that won a lot of games in the later innings, sometimes in extra innings. Cain kept us in those games.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 19, 2021 14:49:27 GMT -5
Matt, that's an excellent answer. Based on the number of decisions Matt received in his best four seasons of 2009 through 2012 compared with the number of decisions he received in his four full seasons surrounding the subject four, Matt "should" have received 15 more decisions in those four seasons you mentioned, resulting in about 10 more wins and 5 more losses. That would have raised him from 14 games below .500 to nine games below. It doesn't appear your answer covers the entire difference (particularly when based on his slightly positive run differential we would have expected him to be a game or two ABOVE .500), but it's the best answer I've heard. Anyone have any other ideas that might complete our analysis? Good job, Matt. See, you CAN answer questions!
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Nov 20, 2021 20:23:05 GMT -5
Yes, I can. Hopefully this doesn't mean you're going to talk about Matt Cain everyday for 2 years straight.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 20, 2021 20:30:42 GMT -5
I don't think Matt has quite the impact on American life that some other topics might have. I wish we could come up with more valid ideas about why Matt is so far below .500, but your explanation certainly explains part of it, and it's the best explanation I've come across. You're pretty hot on DeSclafani too!
|
|
|
A question
Nov 20, 2021 20:32:46 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Islandboagie on Nov 20, 2021 20:32:46 GMT -5
Another reason is simply the Giants didn't score very much, so Matt had to pitch a lot of stressful innings without a lead. Also, before and after Tim Lincecum's prime years, Matt was asked to be the ace. It's no coincidence that Timmy's best years tended to be some of Matt's best years. I think Matt faired much better as a #2 than he did as a #1. Matt was a workhorse, not a dominating force like Timmy. It still surprises me that his winning percentage is under .500, I think he deserves better than his record indicates.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Nov 20, 2021 23:56:31 GMT -5
How could Matt Cain finish his career under .500? I can tell for a fact that he did it by losing more games than he won.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Nov 21, 2021 14:23:05 GMT -5
Matt was 21 games under .500 from 2013-17. That was when his elbow gave out. Aside from 2012, his contract was horrible, maybe worse than Zito's. So, 5 years pitching with bad elbow, 4 years pitching when the Giants were bad, 4 years pitching healthy when the Giants were good.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 21, 2021 15:50:31 GMT -5
That was a good idea, Reeder. I looked, and Matt's record from 2013 through 2017 "should" have been 20-37 based on his run differential. Either he was unlucky or un-clutch -- maybe a little of each. We've not accounted for about 2/3rds of the differential, and it's likely that back in his early years when he got very little support, he was either unlucky or un-clutch as well. Based on the research I did years ago, I would say he was more unlucky than anything else.
So, on balance, it would appear that Matt was a bit unlucky through 2012. My gut tells me he was more un-clutch later on, but I'm merely guessing. Anyway, we've likely REDUCED the uncertainty in one of the Giants' situations I have been most confused about. If anything, we would have exceeded his run differential with his record, but it's surprising how close it often works out, regardless of how good the pitcher is. As an example, Jack Morris is in the Hall of Fame in part because he was believed to be exceptionally clutch, but his won-loss record and run differential correlate quite closely.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Nov 21, 2021 17:48:31 GMT -5
In 2014, Cain revealed that he had been pitching with bone chips in his arm for about ten years. It probably worsened in April 2013 during that Cardinal game when he gave up nine runs in one inning.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 21, 2021 18:07:44 GMT -5
You could be right. He started off the season allowing no runs and four hits in six innings -- then gave up nine runs against the Cardinals. He did have a highly effective stint from June 7 through June 29 where he posted a 1.82 ERA over 34.2 innings in five starts. And in fact, from June 7th on, he posted a 3.03 ERA in 110 innings over 18 starts. Actually, he didn't miss a start or even a day after that Cardinals game, and his ERA after the Cardinals game was 3.76. He posted a 1.61 ERA over 28 innings in four starts in September/October.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Nov 21, 2021 20:11:19 GMT -5
You could be right. He started off the season allowing no runs and four hits in six innings -- then gave up nine runs against the Cardinals. He did have a highly effective stint from June 7 through June 29 where he posted a 1.82 ERA over 34.2 innings in five starts. And in fact, from June 7th on, he posted a 3.03 ERA in 110 innings over 18 starts. Actually, he didn't miss a start or even a day after that Cardinals game, and his ERA after the Cardinals game was 3.76. He posted a 1.61 ERA over 28 innings in four starts in September/October. He's not a guy to complain but I thought that Cardinal game was way out of character for him and I felt that is the exact moment where his problems began. I remember he tried to pitch through it and 9 runs scored all in one inning. The bone chips were not disclosed to the general public at that time so it probably was exacerbated then. Later in 2013, he was hit on the pitching arm by a line drive. After that, it was forearm then hamstring. Maybe the bone chips started moving around more in 2013 into the joint causing him irritation. At any rate, I am not shocked that Matt Cain had a W-L record of less than .500 but nowadays, sabermetrics would give that bit of data a lot less weight than in the past.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 22, 2021 15:37:14 GMT -5
Matt had bone chips for a long time, and the Giants knew it. The bone chips weren't yet causing any problem, but then as you mentioned, they began to move or grow, eventually necessitating surgery.
|
|