|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 24, 2021 16:59:06 GMT -5
Last spring I was high on Stroman because he was going to use his change up much more. That pitch worked well for him last season too, as did his cutter. but his slider was less effective. Still, he lowered his ERA to 3.02. But to me it appeared his improvement was more illusory than real. His xERA in particular was much higher, at 4.33. His 3.49 FIP and 3.54 xFIP were good, but his SIERRA was just OK at 3.86.
Marcus' improvement stemmed from two primary things: His walks were down to 2.21 per nine innings. I don't see why he can't keep up something close to that. His career mark is just 2.61. But his Batting Average on Balls In Play fell by 20 points from his career mark. Yet Statcast said his hard-hit rate tied the highest of his career, indicating the low BABIP was likely a bit lucky and hence not likely to be sustained.
I like Marcus, but I like Ray and Gausman better. They have much better strikeout stuff. Fan Graphs has them ranked Ray, Stroman and Gausman. Fan Graphs likes his steadiness over his career. They downgraded Kevin for being essentially a two-pitch pitcher.
I easily like Ray the best of this group. If the Giants sign Wood, Ray and Cobb to go along with Anthony, they last three have fewer syllables combined than DeSclafani. I'm getting excited about what a rotation of Ray, Webb, Wood, DeSclafani and Cobb might turn into. And perhaps all for not much more than $50 million per season. That would still leave money for more hitters.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Nov 24, 2021 17:14:55 GMT -5
I was only comfortable having Webb on the mound in October, Rog. Everyone else gave me an unsettling feeling. It would appear the Giants felt the same since they started Webb game 1 and held him until game 5. They could have pitched him in game 4 but I got the sense they didn't want anyone else pitching game 5. Why we would bring back a veteran staff that was being carried by a kid with very little big league experience is beyond me.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 24, 2021 18:45:38 GMT -5
Think about what you said, Matt. No question the Giants viewed Webb as their ace entering October, as well they should have. But the reason they pitched him in Game 5 instead of Game 4 was because that way he didn't have to pitch on short rest. It would have been STUPID to pitch him in Game 4. Look at it this way: It mattered that he pitch in game 5 only if he won it, right? And if he instead pitched in Game 4 and won, there would have BEEN no Game 5. I agree with you that if there had to be a Game 5, the Giants wanted Logan to pitch it, but their bigger wish was that Game 5 wouldn't even be necessary. While we all agree that Logan was the ace of the staff by season's end, I can't agree with you that Logan CARRIED the staff. Remember, Alex Wood had a 1.02 ERA in September and October including the playoffs, and DeSclafani weighed in at 2.75. In fact, both of them posted ERA's during that period that were lower than Logan's 3.06. Didn't you read in a previous post that DeSclafani, Gausman and ESPECIALLY Wood didn't collapse in September and October as you said before? Easily the Giants' best pitcher in September and October was Wood. That's part of why he was my first choice of the starters to keep. Why weren't you comfortable with Wood on the mound in October, Matt? Yes, we would like a pitcher who went deeper into games, but the Giants had a good bullpen, and in September and October, not one of their starters pitched better than Wood. Webb would have been best, but he wasn't Wood. I'm not saying that Webb wasn't the ace. He was, and he was the right choice for games 1 and 5. But to say that Webb carried the rest of the staff down the stretch and into October just isn't factual. Is it?
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 24, 2021 20:09:02 GMT -5
Here is what Fan Graphs said about DeSclafani's free agency:
It’s really not that complicated sometimes. When Anthony DeSclafani is healthy, he’s a pretty good starting pitcher, as we saw in 2021. We also saw that in 2015, his first full season in the big leagues, and in ‘19, which was almost a mirror image of this season other than the home runs, which were mostly driven by playing in Great American Ball Park. DeSclafani’s problem is that in his four other seasons in the majors, he’s averaged just over 10 starts with an ERA of nearly four-and-a-half. He’s a high-risk/high-reward type who might make playoff starts for your team, or might be unavailable come October. That combination of upside and concern tends to affect length more than AAV in terms of offers, and DeSclafani should have a large number of suitors willing to offer far more than the $6 million he earned in San Francisco this season.
The median crowdsourcing salary for Anthony was only 2/$19 million, far less than the Giants paid him. However, the average crowdsourcing salary was 2.55 year/$33.5 million, pretty close to what he actually received. MLBTR had his contract pegged at 3/$42 million, so he signed for the same amount of time and $7 million less than they expected.
If DeSclafani remains healthy, this contract could work out very well for the Giants. Even though Anthony pitched only 33 innings in 2020, Fan Graphs valued his performance at $46 million over the past three seasons. All that value came in his two healthy seasons.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 24, 2021 20:12:24 GMT -5
I REALLY like the Wood signing, assuming it happens. Alex finished 9th in the Cy Young voting in 2017 when he went a potent 16-2 with a 2.72 ERA. With him even more so than Anthony, health is the key issue. If they can stay healthy, we'll likely be quite pleased with the results. A lack of health was the reason the Giants were able to get them so cheaply in the first place.
Remember too that this continues to set a nice precedent of players signing with the Giants, having the coaches help them improve, then re-signing with the team for bigger dollars. We WANT San Francisco to become a preferred destination for free agents of all types.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Nov 24, 2021 21:02:27 GMT -5
Rog- Think about what you said, Matt. No question the Giants viewed Webb as their ace entering October, as well they should have. But the reason they pitched him in Game 5 instead of Game 4 was because that way he didn't have to pitch on short rest. It would have been STUPID to pitch him in Game 4.
Boagie- I wish decisions were that simple, Rog. It had almost nothing to do with short rest. Teams want to win during the postseason, Buehler pitched the 1st and 4th game on "short rest." Webb was held off because they thought their best shot at winning the 5th game was with Webb pitching at home (he had better numbers at home.) Matchup wise I thought Webb would be better up against Buehler because the Giants couldn't square up anything off Urias. But I get the decision...point is, Webb was the guy they were being strategic with, the rest were just fillers. Wood did pitch well, but only for 4 innings.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Nov 25, 2021 12:11:45 GMT -5
I heard on ESPN that they got a sense that the Giants were willing to settle for the split in LA because they knew they had Webb going in game 5. We've seen too many teams come back after being down so that probably was not the correct mindset. That said, Webb essentially being a rookie, it might have been too much to ask for him to go game 4.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 25, 2021 19:21:22 GMT -5
Matt, you're not thinking clearly on this issue.
For starters (no pun), how could you only have confidence in Webb when the Giants' best pitcher in September was Wood? DeSclafani too had been better than Logan in September. A season is far more than September, and there is little if any question Webb was the guy to go with in Game 1 and Game 5, but you should have had more faith in the other three starters than you did. Given that Mr. Zaidi, who knows more about it than all of us here on the board put together, believes in those guys. If not, he wouldn't be re-signing or trying to re-sign them.
So let's look at Game 4. It simply didn't make sense to use Webb in that game unless fully necessary -- for at least two reasons. First of all, if one has the choice of using a guy on normal rest or rushing him back to the mound, there is really no choice. Sometimes guys perform well on short rest, but overall the results haven't been good. If it had come down to Webb on short rest in a GAME 5, it could have made sense. But since the Giants could still pitch Webb even if they lost Game, the choice was an easy one. This is a bit simplistic, but it came down to using a guy with a 3.03 ERA on short rest -- or using a guy with a 3.17 ERA on regular rest, and then having the 3.03 guy ready on regular rest if needed.
One more big advantage of saving Webb for Game 5: If the Giants had won in four, Webb would have been available to start Game 1 in the NLCS.
And finally, the icing on the cake. The Giants were long on chemistry, and not skipping DeSclafani -- who had been the #2 or #3 starter during the season -- seemed a logical chemistry move. Quite honestly, even if Game 4 had been a GIANTS elimination game, it probably wouldn't have made sense to rush Webb. But since either the Giants were going to win in Game 4 or he would be able to pitch Game 5 on normal rest, the decision was clear.
There was no valid reason to suddenly lose faith to lose faith in Gausman, DeSclafani and Wood. And there was no valid reason to rush Webb.
The rest were hardly fillers. Webb was clearly the guy to go with in Game 1, but he hadn't even been the Giants' best pitcher in September. In fact, one could easily have argued that he had been only their third-best in the final month, behind both Wood and DeSclafani, both of whom posted far better September ERA's than Logan.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 26, 2021 10:54:03 GMT -5
Matt -- I was only comfortable having Webb on the mound in October, Rog.
Rog -- You were only comfortable with Webb, Matt? I was comfortable with each of the Giants' top four starters and because of his improvement over the year, was ecstatic to have Logan out there. Why were you merely comfortable with him?
As for re-signing DeSclafani and Webb, the Giants re-signed Anthony for 3/$35. Despite the fact that Anthony was healthy only two of the past three seasons, Fan Graphs has his pitching valued at $$46 million over that period. He's only 31, and he's healthy now. There is little reason to expect the Giants won't get their money out of him, especially since his four seamer, two seamer and slider were the best last season they had ever been, and his change up enjoyed its second-best season in his arsenal.
We don't know exactly what Wood will be signing for (or presumably even if some other team might swoop in and grab him before he signs the solid line), but it's said to be just at or above 2/$20. His fastball was the best last season it had ever been, and his breaking ball had its second-best season. Alex's swinging and called strike rate was the highest of his career. Alex was valued at over $20 million last season alone, so the pact wouldn't seem to be a huge gamble.
One could argue that DeSclafani and Wood were the Giants' two best starters the final month of the season. They had the two lowest ERA's in the rotation over the final month plus the playoffs. Webb was the best surprise of the Giants' pitching staff last season, but DeSclafani and Wood were very pleasant developments too, much as had been the case with Kevin Gausman the year before.
In fact, the Giants both scored the second-most runs in the National League and enjoyed the second-best ERA. Of course we'd like to see them improve on even those numbers in 2022, but wouldn't we settle for a repeat of both? I think we all agree the Giants aren't as good as they showed in 2021. I saw an over/under figure for them in 2022 of 89.5 wins, which probably isn't a horrible guess. But to say three of their top four starters in 2021 were just fillers doesn't seem accurate.
I believe there are very few baseball people who think that starting Webb in Game 4 would have been a good decision. Away from this board, I haven't read a single word of criticism for the decision to start him in Game 5 instead. Starting him in Game 4 would have been a desperation move, and the Giants weren't in a desperate position.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Nov 26, 2021 11:40:47 GMT -5
Gausman faded significantly in the second half. I think part of it was possibly due to lack of spider-tack and that he lost command of the splitter. Gausman had a whole bunch of excuses in July such as wife's difficult pregnancy, newborn, fatigue. I would be a little wary of him and I think what the Giants would get will be like second half Gausman. BABIP in first half was really low and second half was high. OPS after June was significantly higher. If I were the Giants and if I thought his first half was due in part to spider-tack, I'd throw his first half stats out the window and let him walk. He may feel he deserves top dollar but I think top dollar would be a mistake. KNBR said that the Giants are now looking at Matz. I was wrong about them not wanting to sign Desclafani and Wood but it would make sense for them to save a bit of money and go after Cobb and Matz on short term deals rather than to give Gausman a contract of three years or more at top dollar. He had a good 2021 but my every instinct is screaming not to sign Gausman to a big payday. Looks like Matz' agent played the Giants and Mets to get Matz a four year deal with St Louis. No way he's worth four years.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Nov 26, 2021 11:42:25 GMT -5
Using Scherzer and Urias out of their usual roles in the NLDS didn't help the Dodgers in the NLCS.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Nov 27, 2021 18:23:02 GMT -5
Rog -- You were only comfortable with Webb, Matt? I was comfortable with each of the Giants' top four starters and because of his improvement over the year, was ecstatic to have Logan out there. Why were you merely comfortable with him?
Boagie- I can only be so comfortable in a post-season series. So yes, I was comfortable with Webb, and I was somewhat comfortable with Wood, because Wood had pitched in the post-season before and lefties tend to fair better against the Dodgers. Gausman and Desclafani were less comfortable for me. They had both been knocked around by the Dodgers before, so I wasn't too optimistic with them on the mound.
That was my gut feeling going into the series.
As it turns out, my intuition was fairly accurate since Webb and Wood pitched well, while Gausman and Desclafani didn't.
The thought behind me claiming Webb should have probably pitched game 4 was only because Urias was scheduled to pitch game 5 and he was pitching as well as Webb. The post-season to me is all about getting the best matchups, and I felt he would have given us the bigger advantage matching up against Buehler, rather than Urias.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 27, 2021 19:59:47 GMT -5
Buehler had a 2.55 ERA against the Giants last season; Urias was at 2.61. Over their careers, Buehler has gone 2.19 against the Giants; Urias is more than a run higher at 3.38. Buehler's ERA last season was 2.47. and he finished 4th in the MVP voting; Urias was at 2.96 and finished 7th in the voting. I was the first to tout Urias here (around six years ago), but I know no one who believes he is a better pitcher than Buehler.
How good is Logan Webb on three days' rest? He didn't pitch on rest that short last season, so no one knows. How good is he on four days' rest? Really good. I know no one who would have pitched Logan Webb on short rest in Game 4. Hey, it couldn't have worked out worse than the way the Giants played it. But it wouldn't have been the right move. It would have been a desperation move when desperation wasn't needed.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 27, 2021 19:59:57 GMT -5
Or at least wasn't called for.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 27, 2021 20:05:00 GMT -5
Just in case you're STILL not convinced despite all the facts I've laid out for you, Matt, Logan's home ERA this season was a spectacular 1.96. On the road he was a mediocre 4.08, more than twice as high. Where was Game 4 played? Game 5?
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Nov 27, 2021 20:44:10 GMT -5
I already mentioned Webb's good numbers at home. So that's old news.
I'm not saying Kapler blew it by having not pitched Webb in game 4. I'm just saying if we had matched up the rotation differently it could have given us the series. It definitely wouldn't have been ideal to pitch Webb on short rest, but it could have made the difference. Afterall, Buehler was on 3 days rest as well and the Dodgers won that game.
I'm also not saying Urias is a better pitcher than Buehler, but at the time Urias was nearly untouchable for the Giants offense. Yes, Buehler had some past success against the Giants, but in Buehler's last few starts against the Giants they started to figure out how to put up some runs on him.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Nov 27, 2021 22:43:29 GMT -5
It was me that said it, not Boly. And I still maintain I don't think Verlander is worth 20 or 25 million at his age. Thank you, boagie.
I don't read nor answer any of his posts.
I just figured out how to do that, also. The Thanksgiving "guilt" posts were the last straw. Made me want to vomit. When a person points a finger accusing others of no morals, three fingers are pointing back.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 28, 2021 16:06:20 GMT -5
So let's just get to the bottom line: Should the Giants have started Logan Webb in Game 4? I've seen no one outside this board who has even suggested it, although it's possible someone has.
Here's an idea, Matt. Use the old draw a line down the yellow pad method of analysis. Put the pros on one side and the cons on the other. Then see which side weighs the more heavily.
Here, I understand that while Buehler had pitched well against the Giants overall this season and extremely well in his career, they got six runs against him the last time he had faced them. Urias pitched well against the Giants too, but he also gave up six earned runs (seven total) against the Giants. It just came earlier in the season.
But the main reason not to pitch Webb in Game 4 was that he would have been pitching on short rest, something he hadn't done even once during the season. His chances of pitching poorly would have been increased, as well perhaps as his chances of injury.
Good point about the three fingers pointing back, Reeder. I am well aware of that. And I too make mistakes. But the primary difference between both Matt/Boly and I is that I study things carefully, trying to get as many sides of an argument as I can. They -- especially Boly -- go more with gut feelings.
Look at their posts, particularly in Matt's case on the political board. He backs up his opinions with more opinions. I try hard to get the facts, then go with them and logic. Look at the sources I provide. They're as neutral as I can find. Boly and Matt don't provide nearly as many facts, and when they attempt to, their sources are almost always right-wing, not neutral.
Re-read some of the posts, and you will see a pattern of facts and logic from my side (not that I'm always right, but at least I've tried to get a neutral viewpoint, rather than one that comes from the far-right or far-left). You will see a pattern of few facts and much opinion from Matt and Boly.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 28, 2021 17:30:17 GMT -5
One thing I will say, Matt, is that if you ARE correct that the Giants should have started Logan Webb in Game 4, that would be a bigger idea than my point that Gabe Kapler shouldn't (and shouldn't have) overreact(ed) to the Dodgers' use of the Opener in Game 5. Yes, I think my idea was a good one, and it was kind of born out when Wilmer Flores made the final out. But having La Stella and/or Yastrzemski available to pinch hit likely would have still resulted in the Giants' losing. Yes, I think that would have given them a better chance to win, but it likely wasn't a night and day difference.
Starting Webb in Game 4 COULD have made a highly significant difference. And you are right, Matt, that if Matt had pitched Game 4 and pitched as he did in Game 5, the Giants likely would have won in four. We don't know that for sure, but I certainly would have liked their odds.
But here are factors to consider:
. We don't know how Webb would have pitched with shorter rest, and the overall history of doing that in the postseason hasn't been good. In other words, the odds were clearly better than Webb would pitch better with normal rest.
. We didn't know how Buehler would pitch compared to Urias. A lot of facts favored Buehler, but whereas Urias' bad outing against the Giants had come at misdeason, Buehler's had come later (closer to the playoffs).
But can't we agree that by far the biggest factor was that we didn't (and still don't) know how well Webb would pitch on short rest. We do know that the postseason history a using starters on short rest has been mixed at best.
Do we know of a single pitcher who was used unnecessarily on short rest with his team AHEAD? The only examples I know of came when teams were in desperate must-win situations.
I think the decision you are suggesting was more important than the decision I suggested. But I think that I had clearer logic for my decision than you had for yours. Certainly your decision wouldn't have worked out WORSE than what the Giants actually decided. But that doesn't make your decision right.
Why, though, would you risk starting Webb early? Was it truly certain enough both that Webb on short rest and DeSclafani on a day longer rest would be better matched against that pair than if both pitched on normal rest? If so, why didn't anyone else recommend it? Or did someone else indeed recommend it, and I simply haven't been able to find it? Did they offer any reasons for their recommendation beyond what you have mentioned here? Did you yourself recommend it before Games 4 and 5, or afterward? I honestly don't know.
As for my recommendation, I would have LOVED to see La Stella instead of Flores against Scherzer. But the Giants likely would have lost anyway, much as they very likely would have lost even if the umpire didn't very unfortunately end the NLDS with a bad call.
It was still a great season. The Giants did, after all, win more games in the regular season than any other season in their long history.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 28, 2021 19:15:41 GMT -5
Here are some strong facts that show it probably wouldn't have been a good idea to start Logan Webb on short rest. The table was put together about eight years ago by Bleacher Report:
Postseason Starts on Short Rest, 2000-2013 Starts IP ERA WHIP K/9 BB/9 H/9 HR/9 Avg. GSc Team Record 54 287.0 4.80 1.42 8.2 3.5 9.2 1.1 48.7 20-34
Note that the pitchers on average didn't go deeply into games (especially for that era), and they had high ERA's and WHIP's. Obviously ERA is the most important of these stats, save the final one that I will mention. Strikeouts weren't bad for that era, although perhaps that is because for the most part, only top pitchers would be used on short rest. Walks, hits and homers were high.
Worst of all, team records were only 20-34. Given that teams were bringing back top pitchers, wouldn't we have expected the overall record to be .500 or probably higher?
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 28, 2021 19:18:09 GMT -5
This also backs up not going with starters, even very good ones, on short rest:
Dallas Keuchel was arguably the best pitcher in the American League in 2015, but his great stats go out in the window with the arrival of the MLB postseason. Keuchel is the latest starter to take the mound on short rest, and pitchers have mostly failed in playoffs past when veering off their regular routines. The gamble Houston and other playoff teams will make starting their pitchers on short rest could decide their fates this postseason.
According to stats from MLB.com, the numbers are largely stacked against starters who go on three days of rest or fewer in the wild-card era. Since 1995, 78 pitchers have started playoff games and turned in a 31-47 record with a 4.59 ERA. Considering each team was starting their money pitchers in these postseason games, that record and earned run average are mediocre at best.
The statistics are even scarier when discussing elimination games like the wild-card game Keuchel drew against the Yankees in New York. There have been 20 pitchers starting a do-or-die game in the modern era on short rest. Only seven of those 20 managed to post a quality start (at least 6.0 IP and 3 ER or fewer) and just two finished seven innings. Their team records are 10-10 in these winner-take-all scenarios.
In other words, teams like the Astros are facing a 50-50 chance when they pencil in the club’s best pitcher on short rest. Complicating things are the fact Dallas Keuchel has never started a game without his full four days of rest, and that’s before you take into account his performance at home in 2015 (15-0, 1.46 ERA) versus his numbers on the road (5-8, 3.72 ERA).
sabathia Jason Miller/Getty Image On the bright side for teams gambling on postseason starters, anything can happen in the postseason. There is absolutely no reason for Dallas Keuchel to feel he is at a disadvantage facing the Yankees. In two starts against New York, Keuchel did nothing but spin zeros against the Bronx Bombers: 2-0, 0.00 ERA, 16.0 IP, 9 H, 21 SO. Saying he dominated the Yankees would be an understatement, and one of those games was in the Bronx.
The best case scenario for MLB playoff teams would be to have starters do what C.C. Sabathia did in the 2009 postseason for the Yankees. Among the 23 pitchers who made their playoff starts on short rest since 2004, only Sabathia has turned in over seven innings while allowing two earned runs or fewer, according to MLB.com statistics. The Yankees won that game 10-1 over the Angels en route to the 2009 ALCS win.
(With news Sabathia will miss the 2015 postseason while dealing with alcohol problems in a rehabilitation center, the Yankees will not have the chance to see a repeat of such heroics.)
Of course, how teams play on the road matters as well. In the case of the Houston Astros, they headed to New York with a 33-48 record. But the most important player on the team is the one toeing the rubber for his team. Recent MLB postseason history says that represents a huge gamble.
Stats courtesy of MLB.com.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 28, 2021 19:57:20 GMT -5
This is probably the best analysis I've seen -- and it's from less than two months ago. I have tried to analyze based on each of their points.
When you are handicapping starters in the postseason, it’s best to avoid ones on short rest.
But Should You Rely Strictly On The Numbers? Not all short-rest starts are the same, however, as modern examples of pitchers such as Curt Schilling and Clayton Kershaw show. That said, there are many other factors that must be taken into consideration when evaluating the risk of betting on a pitcher with less-than-normal rest.
*It’s important to consider how the pitcher has performed against a certain opponent in the past, as well as the individual matchups he’ll face. If he’s had success against a certain team and hitters, that needs to be taken into consideration.
*If a pitcher is riding a hot streak, one less day of rest might not cool them off.
Rog -- Was Logan Webb on a hot streak? Depends on how one defines the term. He had pitched extremely well four days before, pitching 7.2 innings of shutout ball. But he had actually been outpitched by DeSclafani in the season's final month.
*The state of the team’s bullpen can also have an impact on what a starter on short rest is expected to do. If the relievers behind him have been used extensively in previous games, the starter might have to pitch further into the game and run the risk of losing steam altogether. As a manager, I would certainly feel a lot better if my starter the previous night pitched deep into the game and needed minimal assistance from the guys in the ‘pen.
Rog -- The bullpen wasn't overly rested. Tyler Rogers had pitched 1.2 innings the previous day; Jake McGee 0.2 innings; closer Camilo Doval 2.0 frames. However, the Giants had been off the day before that, and aside from those top three relievers, none of other relievers had pitched at all either of the past two days.
*Another thing to consider when starting a pitcher on short rest also relates to the shape of the bullpen. That is, what’s going to be asked of him in his short-rest game? In some cases, the starting pitcher may bear a heavy burden of carrying a team on his back. In other cases, he may be needed to keep the game close while letting his team’s offense shoulder a heavier load. If the other team is starting its red-hot ace, more might be expected of the starter working on short rest. Again, knowing the matchups provides crucial information.
Rog -- Buehler is an excellent pitcher, but he hadn't fared well two starts back against the Giants, and he had been just mediocre in his most recent start against them. Buehler himself was going on short rest, so it seemed reasonable the Giants could score some runs against him.
*How have the pitcher’s previous starts been? Did he cruise along with little or no trouble? Or, did he face a lot of high-pressure situations that might have taxed him mentally and physically? If he’s had to frequently pitch his way out of tough situations in close games he may be even more depleted when asked to pitch on short rest.
Rog -- Webb's previous outing hadn't been particularly stressful, although it WAS an important playoff game.
Again, the risk of starting a pitcher in the postseason can be like gambling on a new stock. The rewards might be great, but the potential downfalls could be even greater. It’s a short-term gamble that’s just that – a gamble.
Rog -- I would think that it becomes an even greater gamble when the pitcher has no experience starting on short rest. The first time is probably the riskiest. If the pitcher shows he can handle the situation, one would think the risk would be lower the second time. If he shows he may not be able to handle it, he may not be used on short rest again.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Nov 28, 2021 21:10:56 GMT -5
Gausman to Toronto 5y/$110m. Two years and about $50 million too much. I'm hearing that the fifth year was the dealbreaker because the Giants were worried about the strain on the arm caused by the splitfinger when Gausman hits 35. We may not like the deal too much in 2022 but I think 2023 and after, we will be glad that the Giants did not sign him. Based on BABIP and NL West familiarity, I think we should put a little more weight on his 2021 second half stats than on his first half.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Nov 28, 2021 21:20:40 GMT -5
Semien at 7y/$175m makes Crawford a bargain and just made Correa, seager, and Story richer. I'm hearing Scherzer is being linked to the Mets at 3 to 4 years at $42mm AAV. If you put Scherzer's contract next to Verlander's, Verlander's does not look so bad in comparison but Boagie is right that it is risky for a guy who will be 39 next season coming off of TJ.
The Giants are in on Robbie Ray along with Texas, Minnesota, and Detroit so we might hear something in a few days. The Jays signing Gausman probably means that the Jays are no longer going with Ray. Remember, if the Giants sign Ray, it will cost them their second highest pick and $500000 in international slot money.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Nov 29, 2021 11:35:25 GMT -5
Rog- Why, though, would you risk starting Webb early? Was it truly certain enough both that Webb on short rest and DeSclafani on a day longer rest would be better matched against that pair than if both pitched on normal rest? If so, why didn't anyone else recommend it? Or did someone else indeed recommend it, and I simply haven't been able to find it? Did they offer any reasons for their recommendation beyond what you have mentioned here? Did you yourself recommend it before Games 4 and 5, or afterward? I honestly don't know.
Boagie- I had considered it before game 3, if the Giants had lost game 3 and were down 2-1 going into game 4, I think Webb might have been considered for game 4. They ended up winning game 3, but it was clear the Giants offense was struggling. At that point, if you follow the standard thing to do in that situation, Webb pitching in game 4 was off the table. It only really occurred to me to start Webb in game 4 when I learned Buehler would be starting for the Dodgers. Webb outpitched Buehler 4 days prior by a considerable margin, so if you're going with matchups I think the best advantage the Giants had for games 4 or 5 was pitching Webb against Buehler when both were on short rest. I liked that matchup better than Webb against Urias eventhough both were on normal rest for a game 5. I'm not sure if I discussed that here, but I felt Webb vs. Urias was going to be a toss up.
Again, I'm not saying Kapler made the wrong choice, he went with the traditional move in that situation. I can't blame him for playing it the way he did.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Nov 29, 2021 12:46:35 GMT -5
Semien at 7y/$175m makes Crawford a bargain and just made Correa, seager, and Story richer. I'm hearing Scherzer is being linked to the Mets at 3 to 4 years at $42mm AAV. If you put Scherzer's contract next to Verlander's, Verlander's does not look so bad in comparison but Boagie is right that it is risky for a guy who will be 39 next season coming off of TJ. The Giants are in on Robbie Ray along with Texas, Minnesota, and Detroit so we might hear something in a few days. The Jays signing Gausman probably means that the Jays are no longer going with Ray. Remember, if the Giants sign Ray, it will cost them their second highest pick and $500000 in international slot money. I was very, very bothered by Gausman's ineffectiveness in the second half, so much so that I wanted us to let him walk and sign someone else.
I didn't want Scherzer, nor Verlander for various reasons, age and injury topping my list.
However, there simply weren't many other options out there outside of Strohman and Ray.
I have great faith in Farhan and I'd like to believe...I'd LIKE to believe, there is a reason he didn't give Kevin that kind of money. And I'm hoping that reason is Robby Ray.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 29, 2021 12:55:13 GMT -5
I don't feel bad about not re-signing Gausman and would like it if that means Toronto is out on Ray, as one would expect. It did make me think about why Toronto, who should know more about Ray than anyone, chose Gausman over Ray. Maybe they had them ranked similarly and the tie-breaker was being in position to get the compensation. I hate the idea of giving up the compensation, particularly the international money, but I do like Ray a lot.
Whether the Giants are willing to give up the compensation to sign Ray may tell us a lot about their philosophy in finding the balance between winning now and keeping it going. I would imagine the Giants have set a limit as to how high they will go for Ray, based not only on his salary, but on the compensation as well. Much as I'd love to sign Ray, my gut tells me not to do it. I guess it comes down to the price. But given the compensation, I wouldn't go anywhere close to what Gausman got, even though I like Ray clearly better.
I believe Semien at 7/$175 is an extreme overpay. I felt going into free agency that he might become the most overpaid of the group, and to me, that still seems to be the case. I expect him to fall back considerably this season, and at 31, he's not old, but certainly not young either given the five-year pact.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 29, 2021 13:10:55 GMT -5
I think you are right, Matt, that had the Giants lost Game 3, Kapler might have gone with Webb. That would have been a desperation situation, which changes the dynamic a bit. Still, the Giants would have needed to win BOTH Game 4 and Game 5, so I would have been disappointed if they had "panicked" -- my word, not a word I would have expected from other observers -- and moved Logan up a day.
That 4.80 average ERA for playoff starters used on short rest from 2002 through 2013 is scary, especially given that those starters were moved up because they were very GOOD starters. The 20-34 record was even scarier.
As you know, I think it would have been a bad mistake to move Webb up when only one win was needed, and there were two games to get it in, but even had they been down two games to one, they would have needed to win BOTH games. Even if Logan had won Game 4, it wouldn't have mattered if they had lost Game 5. And given the drag on a starter's performance that often occurs when he is moved up, I think the Giants' best chance of winning BOTH games would have been to use DeSclafani in Game 4 and Webb on normal rest in Game 5, rather than risk a poor performance or even injury by moving Logan up.
By the way, I AM blaming Gabe for starting Tommy La Stella in Game 5 and "wasting" him. The Giants very likely would have lost anyway, but I think having La Stella available for that key situation against Scherzer would have been the right move. Tommy is having surgery on his Achilles, so perhaps part of Gabe's decision was simply to use Tommy early to limit the strain on his Achilles. As I have mentioned, I don't blame him for starting Yastrzemski, even though initially I emailed you that I would start only Crawford among the lefty hitters (and bat him third). I didn't realize at that time how bad Slater had hit against right-handers, although I would have batted Austin eighth to lessen his chance of facing a righty in his first at bat.
I'm not down on Flores, but he has hit southpaws much better than righties, and he is now 0 for 18 against Scherzer. Horrible call, but it was sad that the game came down to such a poor match up, especially since it was avoidable.
Still, Kapler was really good last season, wasn't he? I had more doubts when he was hired than when Mr. Zaidi was (I had none then), and both were simply outstanding last season. They richly deserved their honors.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 29, 2021 13:15:59 GMT -5
Lock up Wood as expected, then sign Cobb, and I'll be willing to more closely examine my fear of giving up compensation to sign Robbie Ray, as much as I like him. Robbie more than TRIPLED his K/BB ratio from 2020 to 2021. Robbie has long had the stuff; all he lacked was control. Last season he found it.
I'm torn about the compensation. But I have no significant concerns about Wood or Cobb, neither of whom require compensation. And I feel good about the DeSclafani re-signing, particularly at what I view as a good price.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 29, 2021 13:25:26 GMT -5
MLBTR mentioned a possible $26 million annual average for Robbie Ray. I assume that would be for at LEAST four seasons. Without compensation, I might be willing to go 4/$144 for Robbie, but at that salary, the compensation makes me say "no."
So now I need to come up with another choice beyond Wood and Cobb. Anyone got any ideas?
|
|