|
Post by reedonly on Dec 1, 2021 16:47:49 GMT -5
One guy that is intriguing as a possibility to fill in the back end of the rotation is Greinke. As a personality, he's been a jerk and I've always could not stand him. However, where he is at as a pitcher now is that he is not getting the swing and miss that he used to get and gave up a lot more home runs last year. If he would accept a contract at the level of a back end starter, he might be of some use. Even though there were questions about his stamina last season, he did eat up 170 innings. From his month-by-month performance, I don't think he's a sticky stuff guy since he was pitching well up though July. If stamina is an issue, Greinke might benefit from some workload management.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 1, 2021 18:53:29 GMT -5
All of Zack's ERA figures -- actual and estimated -- were over four. His strikeouts per nine fell off to a career low just above six. I might be willing to gamble five million on him, but he's projected at 1/$15.
If their health is progressing well, I'd be extremely interested in Rodon and also interested in Clayton K. I see far more upside with them than with Zack. If there were a medical explanation for Zack's fall off and it looks like it's fixed or fixable, I would feel differently. One day he will likely join Clayton in the Hall of Fame.
And your point that stamina could be the issue, Reeder, might make him a more viable candidate. Actually, it may have been injury-related. Zack's ERA was 3.41, then he gave up six runs on August 29th and didn't pitch again for 15 days (probably on the IL). He went on to pitch quite poorly in his three remaining starts on the season. Even though he gave up only one run on August 18th and two on August 23rd, his problems may already have begun by then. Starting with 8/18, he struck out only 13 batters in his 27.1 innings on the season.
Looked at another way, Zack struck out a halfway reasonable batter every 20 pitches over his first 24 starts, but fell off to a very subpar one batter per 32 pitches in his final six.
Lots of question marks for a guy who's projected at 1/$15, or essentially Brandon Belt money. I'm far more excited by the three pitching contracts the Giants have locked up.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 1, 2021 19:37:07 GMT -5
DeSclafani, Wood and Cobb -- Any idea how their teams fared in the 76 games they started last season? 52-24, for a winning percentage of .684. That's better overall even than the Giants' record winning percentage last season, and Cobb's .667 was FAR higher than the Angels' .475.
If DeSclafani, Wood and Cobb pitch close to their 2021 seasons and are even reasonably healthy, their signings will have been very good ones. The Giants seem to be spending their money wisely.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 1, 2021 19:59:22 GMT -5
The Cubs are said to be signing Marcus Stroman. The Giants still seem to have around $60 million to spend for 2022, but it's doubtful they'll spend more than the value they can find.
Here could be a nice source of another starter or two and/or a position player or two: Trades. Because they have plenty of money available, the Giants could be in position to trade for players whose salaries their teams are trying to unload. Perhaps they could even be the facilitator between two other teams, taking on salary in exchange for prospects. It involved only them and the other teams (Angels?), but remember they picked up Will Wilson in such a deal, taking on a $12 million contract.
After decades of fighting budget or salary cap limits, suddenly the Giants are in fine position salary-wise. That's what investing for value does.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 1, 2021 20:57:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 1, 2021 23:36:54 GMT -5
Alex Cobb seems like a nice fit for the number five spot in the rotation. But certainly he is not a difference maker. I still would like Marcus stroman, in lieu of Robbie ray, because we lose draft picks with Robbie ray, plus he's likely to be as expensive or more expensive than Kevin gausman was Krukow said last week that after the first series, you do not necessarily attach a number to a starter. Whomever is pitching first that day is considered the starter and then go from there. Also, they might alternate lefty-righty to give a different look.
I only assign a number to a starter to signify where I want him in the rotation. By that I mean my number one guy will start the most games the number two guy will start the next number of games and so forth. For me a number five guy is someone I can skip in the rotation and using long relief if there's a day off and I can get my number one guy up there and going again. So in a sense Mike krukow was right, and in a sense he is wrong. At least that is my opinion
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 2, 2021 4:54:47 GMT -5
If a team goes with a 5-man rotation and all remain healthy, each of the five starters will have a very similar number of starts. Certainly a team would like to have its pitcher who starts the season opener pitch the most games, and if he doesn't pitch in the All-Star game, he will likely pitch a game or two more than the other starters who remain healthy.
Teams rarely skip a starter. It happens on occasion, but for the most part, if there is a day off, the other starters can use the extra day of rest. Another point is that if a team opens on the road, it will sometimes have the pitcher it considers to be its second-best starter start the home opener rather than the second game of the season.
Pitchers also change as the season goes on. Logan Webb began the season as the Giants' #3 starter, but he finished it #1. Sometimes pitchers are placed in the rotation somewhat based on seniority and/or previous accomplishment, as opposed to precisely how the team expects them to do.
When talking about prospects, a guy who is a potential #1 is a stud. A guy who is a potential #2 is usually a guy who pitches well but doesn't have quite the strikeout stuff of a #2. A "middle of the rotation" prospect is definitely a notch down on the stuff scale, while a potential #5 is usually a guy with little pure stuff but some pitchability.
Where a pitcher actually pitches in the rotation usually depends on how good the team's other starters are. Sometimes teams like the Dodgers have multiple #1's. Kershaw, Bauer, Scherzer, Buehler. But they can't all start the first game. Sadly, many teams don't have a true #1 or sometimes even a true #2. They usually simply put the best they can in those spots. Those are the teams who are more likely to go with an Opener of have a bullpen game.
But we might be surprised how seldom a pitcher is skipped. As an example, well over half of Kevin Gausman's starts came with five or more days of rest, not the usual four. Logan Webb made nine starts on either five or six days' rest. Exactly half of Anthony DeSclafani's starts came on extra rest. Nearly half of Alex Wood's starts came with extra rest (not counting his three starts after being injured).
If Alex Cobb pitches like a true #5 starter, the Giants won't be happy with his performance.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 2, 2021 5:24:02 GMT -5
The Giants top four starters are now Logan Webb, Anthony DeSclafani, Alex Wood and Alex Cobb. That quartet started 102 games last season, and their teams won 74 of those games. That's a winning percentage of .725. I'm guessing no other team has four starters who won at that clip.
You may have guessed, by the way, that this quartet got a lot of run support. It ran from a low of 4.72 runs per nine for DeSclafani to 6.39 runs per nine for Cobb. Even if these four guys improve next season, they likely won't put up as good a record. But as long as they're healthy, they should pitch pretty well.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 2, 2021 9:13:07 GMT -5
Krukow said last week that after the first series, you do not necessarily attach a number to a starter. Whomever is pitching first that day is considered the starter and then go from there. Also, they might alternate lefty-righty to give a different look.
I only assign a number to a starter to signify where I want him in the rotation. By that I mean my number one guy will start the most games the number two guy will start the next number of games and so forth. For me a number five guy is someone I can skip in the rotation and using long relief if there's a day off and I can get my number one guy up there and going again. So in a sense Mike krukow was right, and in a sense he is wrong. At least that is my opinion The way Krukow was talking about it was more from a team support standpoint. Whoever is going that day is your number one and the team behind him has to back him up.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 2, 2021 9:16:56 GMT -5
One guy that is intriguing as a possibility to fill in the back end of the rotation is Greinke. As a personality, he's been a jerk and I've always could not stand him. However, where he is at as a pitcher now is that he is not getting the swing and miss that he used to get and gave up a lot more home runs last year. If he would accept a contract at the level of a back end starter, he might be of some use. Even though there were questions about his stamina last season, he did eat up 170 innings. From his month-by-month performance, I don't think he's a sticky stuff guy since he was pitching well up though July. If stamina is an issue, Greinke might benefit from some workload management. A couple of caveats on Grineke. From what Houston said, it was a stamina issue and not some sort of injury. Second is that Greinke should not expect to get the big bucks that he is used to. He is a number four level starter now.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 2, 2021 11:00:23 GMT -5
I only assign a number to a starter to signify where I want him in the rotation. By that I mean my number one guy will start the most games the number two guy will start the next number of games and so forth. For me a number five guy is someone I can skip in the rotation and using long relief if there's a day off and I can get my number one guy up there and going again. So in a sense Mike krukow was right, and in a sense he is wrong. At least that is my opinion The way Krukow was talking about it was more from a team support standpoint. Whoever is going that day is your number one and the team behind him has to back him up. Totally understand.
We are, however, talking about different things.
He's talking about an appearance issue; The player's psyche, if you will
I'm talking about who gets more starts and who do I want pitching and in what order for the playoffs.
But here's the thing; the players know who is the number 1 guy, 2 guy and so forth.
I mean seriously, Mr. Krukow, do you really believe the players didn't know that Gaus and Webb were the 1 & 2 guys?
His argument further doesn't work for me when you take pitchers out of the equation and look at line ups.
Does anyone really believe that in 1965 with Mays hitting 3, McCovey hitting 4 and Hart hitting 5, that that effected the players psyche?
Of course not.
Those were the teams 3 best hitters.
Lincecum, Cain, Bum, Vogey and Sanchez in 2010
Was there any doubt who was the number 1, 2 or 3?
Cain might have pitched more innings, but Timmy was the #1 guy clear and away!
Certainly Vogey nor Bum nor Sanchez was thinking they should be one of the top 3 guys.
I have a ton... a ton of respect for Krukow, but here, I think he's wrong.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 2, 2021 11:17:20 GMT -5
You're right in one sense and I think he was just trying to play up the team aspect.
He was talking about the lockout today and the thing that was most important was that they have to get it done in time for players to get enough spring training in, so by mid-February when pitchers and catchers usually report. We had abbreviated ST in 2020 and 2021 and this resulted in a massive increase of soft tissue injuries so it would be prudent for both sides to come to agreement by then. Also, on KNBR, they were stressing that this is not about the top level players, its more about the middle to lower tier players and the early morning guy Copeland specifically mentioned that this was all about guys like Wade Jr, not about Scherzer and Semien. One thing on the table is that everyone becomes a FA by age 29.5 so there's less screwing around with service time (like Kris Bryant).
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 2, 2021 11:19:57 GMT -5
The way Krukow was talking about it was more from a team support standpoint. Whoever is going that day is your number one and the team behind him has to back him up. Totally understand.
We are, however, talking about different things.
He's talking about an appearance issue; The player's psyche, if you will
I'm talking about who gets more starts and who do I want pitching and in what order for the playoffs.
But here's the thing; the players know who is the number 1 guy, 2 guy and so forth.
I mean seriously, Mr. Krukow, do you really believe the players didn't know that Gaus and Webb were the 1 & 2 guys?
His argument further doesn't work for me when you take pitchers out of the equation and look at line ups.
Does anyone really believe that in 1965 with Mays hitting 3, McCovey hitting 4 and Hart hitting 5, that that effected the players psyche?
Of course not.
Those were the teams 3 best hitters.
Lincecum, Cain, Bum, Vogey and Sanchez in 2010
Was there any doubt who was the number 1, 2 or 3?
Cain might have pitched more innings, but Timmy was the #1 guy clear and away!
Certainly Vogey nor Bum nor Sanchez was thinking they should be one of the top 3 guys.
I have a ton... a ton of respect for Krukow, but here, I think he's wrong.Mays said it messed him up when he hit 2 or 4 so that's why he always hit #3. I think he might have gotten that a bit wrong because he might have been more productive as a #2 but I guess back in the day, #3 was the man.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 2, 2021 11:27:12 GMT -5
The way Krukow was talking about it was more from a team support standpoint. Whoever is going that day is your number one and the team behind him has to back him up. Totally understand.
We are, however, talking about different things.
He's talking about an appearance issue; The player's psyche, if you will
I'm talking about who gets more starts and who do I want pitching and in what order for the playoffs.
But here's the thing; the players know who is the number 1 guy, 2 guy and so forth.
I mean seriously, Mr. Krukow, do you really believe the players didn't know that Gaus and Webb were the 1 & 2 guys?
His argument further doesn't work for me when you take pitchers out of the equation and look at line ups.
Does anyone really believe that in 1965 with Mays hitting 3, McCovey hitting 4 and Hart hitting 5, that that effected the players psyche?
Of course not.
Those were the teams 3 best hitters.
Lincecum, Cain, Bum, Vogey and Sanchez in 2010
Was there any doubt who was the number 1, 2 or 3?
Cain might have pitched more innings, but Timmy was the #1 guy clear and away!
Certainly Vogey nor Bum nor Sanchez was thinking they should be one of the top 3 guys.
I have a ton... a ton of respect for Krukow, but here, I think he's wrong.Remember, at the beginning of 2021, Webb was the #5 guy so it also has to do with motivating a pitcher to do his best to move up in the pecking order as the season progresses. For example, Cobb is probably looked at as the #4 or 5 but with his skill set of inducing ground balls and giving 5 to 6 good innings, he could move up if one of the others falters or gets injured. I think what Krukow is saying is that they start out with a rotation of 1-2-3-4-5 at the beginning of the season and it doesn't necessarily stay that way and at the end of a season, it could be something different.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 2, 2021 12:40:37 GMT -5
I think it is very realistic to look at Cobb as the #4 pitcher. Webb, DeSclafani and Wood were effective least season, and they're the incumbents. Kind of tough though to look at him as the #5 guy, since at the moment they have only four starters. They certainly have candidates for #5, and they'll have even more before the season starts, but right now there are only four guys assured of their place in the rotation.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 2, 2021 12:41:03 GMT -5
Webb may indeed have entered last season as the #5 guy, but he started the third game.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 2, 2021 12:48:18 GMT -5
I believe, Boly, that you were talking about 2011, not 2010. I don't think in 2010 Ryan Vogelsong was pitching in the United States, let alone for the Giants.
You are right that in 2011 there was no question Tim Lincecum was the Giants' #1. Matt Cain looked like the proven #2. But after that, it got murky. Bumgarner didn't have the experience, and Vogelsong was simply trying to establish himself. It seemed reasonable to anoint Madison #3, and Ryan was an extremely strong #4. Sanchez lost his spot in the rotation, leaving Barry Zito as the #5.
I think you're actually kind of mixing both 2010 and 2011 together. The beauty of both 2010 and 2011 though was that by the end of each of those seasons, the Giants had a very strong and deep top four starters.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 2, 2021 13:02:45 GMT -5
In 1965 it wasn't nearly as simply as Mays' batting #3, McCovey #4 and Hart #5. Have you forgotten that Mays and McCovey were often shifted between #3 and #4 based on the hand of the starting pitcher?
In fact, only Mays batting in the #3, #4 or #5 spot every start. Willie batted #3 91 times and #4 on 57 occasions. McCovey batted 2nd 7 times, 3rd 67 times, 4th 67 times, 5th 7 times and 6th 4 times. (Don't forget that it took Willie Mac a long time to be completely established against southpaws, even though he hit them well in his rookie season of 1959.) Hart batted second 1 times, 3rd 2 times, 4th 37 times, 5th 102 times and sixth 15 times.
Funny how our memories are sometimes good, but rather short.
As to Mays' liking to hit 3rd more than 2nd or 4th, his best OPS in those three spots was .994 batting cleanup, and at .950, it was second-best hitting second. As you mentioned, Reeder, in today's game, Willie would have been a spectacular #2 hitter. Although he started only 115 games there, Willie's very best hitting came in the #6 spot, where he posted a 1.035 OPS.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 2, 2021 13:04:44 GMT -5
The beauty of this discussion is that Mr. Zaidi said it best when he said the Giants weren't simply trying to build a strong rotation, they were trying to get guys who could start 162 games. Last season 13 different pitchers started games for the Giants, and the season didn't turn out too badly.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 2, 2021 16:25:51 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.
Weird tweet from Gausman today: "One of the biggest factors for me at this point in my career is I want to go somewhere and win," Gausman said about the decision to leave the Giants for the Blue Jays. "I want to win a championship. That's really my goal. I was on the best team in baseball last year. We had the best winning season in franchise history, but didn't get the job done. That kind of left a bad taste in my mouth and, you know, I'm hungry for that." Well, someone giving up four ER in the NLDS probably should not be making tweets like that. Krukow said that it was tough to lose Gausman because he was good in the clubhouse but he looks at it as if it were a trade of Gausman for Cobb. And a whole lot more cash. I don't feel we are losing clubhouse presence because there were hints of foreign substance use and he just called Toronto fans "best fans in baseball". As far as I'm concerned, Kevin, you're outta here and don't let the door hit you on your way out. Farhan probably saw all this, also and that may be why he did not match the Blue Jays' offer.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 2, 2021 19:16:16 GMT -5
Boly said he'd like to believe -- LIKE to believe the reason Mr. Zaidi didn't pay Gausman what he was asking was Robbie Ray. In reality, the reason was even better -- Mr. Zaidi didn't think Kevin was worth the money. I'm just guessing here, but I have a feeling Mr. Zaidi might have gone the AAV of $22 million, but not the fifth season. He and Kevin may have been even further apart than that.
Boly, don't you believe Cobb at 2/$20 was a much better value than Gausman at 5/$110? If so, you should be delighted the Giants signed Cobb and saved the money for later.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 3, 2021 10:35:51 GMT -5
Next year's free agent pitching class is even worse than this year's so don't expect an upgrade there. Just for perspective, Giants did not get one of the top 10 FA pitchers but got #11, 12, and 15.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 3, 2021 10:35:59 GMT -5
I can't disagree with Zaidi's strategy in landing back end starters thus far. He's getting them on short and/or inexpensive contracts hoping they have the incentive to pitch their way into a big contract, much like Gausman did. But, other than Webb we really don't have a frontline starter. What we have is Webb, and a handful of #4 guys, maybe a #3 in Cobb. If we plan to be successful in the post-season we are going to need another frontline arm. I'm not sure if Zaidi believes that's a priority.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 3, 2021 11:01:35 GMT -5
I can't disagree with Zaidi's strategy in landing back end starters thus far. He's getting them on short and/or inexpensive contracts hoping they have the incentive to pitch their way into a big contract, much like Gausman did. But, other than Webb we really don't have a frontline starter. What we have is Webb, and a handful of #4 guys, maybe a #3 in Cobb. If we plan to be successful in the post-season we are going to need another frontline arm. I'm not sure if Zaidi believes that's a priority. That was exactly my point, boagie.
We have 1 front line guy and a bunch of...'guys.'
That's not how you build a world series contender, much less a world championship team.
I agree, it doesn't look like a priority and IMHO, THAT is a massive, massive mistake.
Wouldn't be so bad IF...IF we had some farm guys close... but we don't.
And since Beede still can't throw strikes on a consistent basis, I don't see that changing much, soon.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 3, 2021 11:30:43 GMT -5
I can't disagree with Zaidi's strategy in landing back end starters thus far. He's getting them on short and/or inexpensive contracts hoping they have the incentive to pitch their way into a big contract, much like Gausman did. But, other than Webb we really don't have a frontline starter. What we have is Webb, and a handful of #4 guys, maybe a #3 in Cobb. If we plan to be successful in the post-season we are going to need another frontline arm. I'm not sure if Zaidi believes that's a priority. That was exactly my point, boagie.
We have 1 front line guy and a bunch of...'guys.'
That's not how you build a world series contender, much less a world championship team.
I agree, it doesn't look like a priority and IMHO, THAT is a massive, massive mistake.
Wouldn't be so bad IF...IF we had some farm guys close... but we don't.
And since Beede still can't throw strikes on a consistent basis, I don't see that changing much, soon.the problem is that the free agent starters for the most part are just "guys" also. If we talk about the quality of the FA starters, Strohman, Ray, and Gausman were at the top and for most of their careers, they've been just average or placeholders. I mentioned before that of the list of free agent starters, Gausman, Desclafani, and Wood were near the top of the list so there wasn't going to be improvement in this area if they went the free agent route, instead, spending more just to stay even. And next year's free agent class is similar to worse in quality to this year's so money saved for next season might not be a viable option, either. Maybe if they can't get pitching, they might upgrade the offense. In recent years, they could bid on a good pitcher like Cole or Bauer but outside of Scherzer, the quality of pitching is a step below and not deserving of the huge contract.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 3, 2021 11:35:18 GMT -5
That was exactly my point, boagie.
We have 1 front line guy and a bunch of...'guys.'
That's not how you build a world series contender, much less a world championship team.
I agree, it doesn't look like a priority and IMHO, THAT is a massive, massive mistake.
Wouldn't be so bad IF...IF we had some farm guys close... but we don't.
And since Beede still can't throw strikes on a consistent basis, I don't see that changing much, soon. the problem is that the free agent starters for the most part are just "guys" also. If we talk about the quality of the FA starters, Strohman, Ray, and Gausman were at the top and for most of their careers, they've been just average or placeholders. I mentioned before that of the list of free agent starters, Gausman, Desclafani, and Wood were near the top of the list so there wasn't going to be improvement in this area if they went the free agent route, instead, spending more just to stay even. And next year's free agent class is similar to worse in quality to this year's so money saved for next season might not be a viable option, either. Maybe if they can't get pitching, they might upgrade the offense. In recent years, they could bid on a good pitcher like Cole or Bauer but outside of Scherzer, the quality of pitching is a step below and not deserving of the huge contract. This was the scenario a few years ago when the Giants lost out on Greinke and then gave big money to Samarzdija and Cueto. Samarzdija was an "innings eater" and just a "guy" and in retrospect, I would have rather rewarded Bumgarner back then instead of giving big money to Shark. It would have worked out the same but at least Bumgarner would have been better off.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 3, 2021 16:37:39 GMT -5
I think it's foolish to say the Giants are Webb and three #4's. It's possible it might turn out that way, but DeSclafani, Wood and Cobb each have #3 or #2 potential. Let's look at last season and see what makes up each of the five starters.
The average major league ERA last season was 4.26. Relievers put up somewhat better ERA's overall than starters, since they don't have to pitch as many consecutive innings. Let's say the average starter last season was around 4.40. Just off the top of our heads, that means a #1 is around 3.50 or less. A #2 is say between 3.50 and 4.00. A #3 is between 4.00 and 4.50. A #4 between 4.50 and 5.00. A #5 above 5.00.
Last season DeSclafani was 3.17, so he pitched BETTER than a #2. If I were to project, I would say his ERA this season is likely to be in the #2 range. Same with Wood. Quite possibly Cobb too. These guys are basically #2's -- if they're healthy. Wood doesn't go very deeply into games, so perhaps we could downgrade him to a #3 -- but he'a also capable of putting up a #1's ERA, so perhaps that "Wood" be too harsh. (The Giants used to have a pitcher named Harshman, by the way -- Jack Harshman, who pitched for them in 1948, 1950 and 1952, also playing a little first base.)
If we evaluate the Giants' rotation, we would probably say they're very strong 1 through 4, with health being the biggest risk. They don't have a #5 yet, but that shouldn't be a problem. I'm not sure what they didn't like about Aaron Sanchez last season, but unless he's a chemistry risk, I certainly wouldn't mind giving him a minor league or even a small major league contract.
I don't want to understate the health risk -- even with Logan Webb. Pitchers are inherently unhealthy. That's why Mr. Zaidi is talking about having plenty of starters to fill up 162 games.
Someone said the Giants need another starter if they want to win the World Series. Certainly wouldn't hurt, and I suspect they'll be looking for a strong one at the trade deadline if not this winter. But if all four starters are healthy for the postseason, that's all a team needs. It's during the REGULAR season that a team needs a fifth starter; in the postseason, four guys is plenty with all the days off.
The Giants aren't through adding starting pitchers, but they're not underrating their existing four as we are.
Circling back on ERA's for numbers 1 through 5 starters, last season there were 19 qualifying pitchers with ERA's below 3.50. There were nine with ERA's between 3.50 and 3.99. There were five with ERA's between 4.00 and 4.49. Three more with ERA's between 4.50 and 4.99, and three others with ERA's above 5.00. Of course nowhere near all starters reach qualifying innings pitched (162).
If we lower the threshold to 20 starts, we find there were 35 starters with ERA's below 3.50. 21 with ERA's between 3.50 and 3.99. 24 between 4.00 and 4.49. 18 between 4.50 and 4.99. 21 at 5.00 and above. So maybe we should change the numbers to something more like this:
#1 -- below 3.30
#2 -- 3.30 to 3.89
#3 -- 3.90 to 4.39
#4 -- 4.40 to 4.89
#5 -- 4.90 and above
Based on that, the Giants have four starters who should be #3's or better. The Giants do need to add a little more, since five starters are needed during the regular season, and they need more injury protection. Last season the four starters the Giants have for 2022 posted a combined 3.40 ERA. Wouldn't we take that for 2022 if they all stay reasonably healthy?
The old adage is that you can never have too much starting pitching, so the Giants should and will add even more starters. But their rotation already has a chance to be pretty good. And the Giants spent only about $80 million on it for two, two and three seasons. Some people here simply don't have the vision to be happy until something actually happens.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 3, 2021 22:50:48 GMT -5
Rog- I think it's foolish to say the Giants are Webb and three #4's. It's possible it might turn out that way, but DeSclafani, Wood and Cobb each have #3 or #2 potential. Let's look at last season and see what makes up each of the five starters.
The average major league ERA last season was 4.26. Relievers put up somewhat better ERA's overall than starters, since they don't have to pitch as many consecutive innings. Let's say the average starter last season was around 4.40. Just off the top of our heads, that means a #1 is around 3.50 or less. A #2 is say between 3.50 and 4.00. A #3 is between 4.00 and 4.50. A #4 between 4.50 and 5.00. A #5 above 5.00.
Boagie- I'm not talking about being average or slightly above average, I'm talking about competing in the post-season. On an "average" team, Wood and Desclafani would be perfectly fine starting in the #2 or #3 spot, pitching 130-150 innings and watching the playoffs at home. But that's not what we should be aiming for. We SHOULD be aiming to make Desclafani and Wood the #4 and #5 pitchers. That's what I envisioned when I heard all the talk about how active we were going to be this offseason.
You're right, Desclafani and Wood pitched well last season. Based on their 2021 numbers (if you didn't know any better) you could make the case that Wood could be a #3, and Desclafani could be a #2. But neither are very durable, and neither have frontline starter stuff. In small samples they get the job done, sometimes. Neither has established themselves as someone you can count on to battle, they either have it or they don't. And if they don't have it, guess what happens? They get yanked and the bullpen comes in. A frontline starter doesn't have that luxury, if they don't have their best stuff they have to battle and find a way to win, or at very least keep their team in the game. Desclafani and Wood were coddled last season with lots of offense and quick hooks if they struggled. Sure, they may build on last season and have a good 2022, but it's also rather likely they shit the bed and become another Johnny Cueto in the foreseeable future.
What Boly and I (and probably Reed) want is some stability in the rotation. Someone who's proven year after year that they can be successful at being near the top of a rotation and physically able to pitch 180-200 innings. With Desclafani and Wood you're not getting that.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 4, 2021 6:54:14 GMT -5
Boogie is correct. I want a Matt Cain type but that's not available. The three pitchers they signed are very brittle.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 4, 2021 9:16:28 GMT -5
The big issue is health. All three guys have pitched well when healthy, but they haven't always been healthy. That's also why the Giants were able to bring them back or pick them up reasonably.
In a best-case scenario, the Giants find a way to make a good trade for say one of the Cincy starters. They now have prospects they can give up. But how much are we willing to give up? In retrospect, even though the Giants didn't give up any of their best prospects, I doubt they would make the Kris Bryant trade if they had it to do over again. But they didn't give up Zack Wheeler this time. You know. The guy who just finished 2nd in the Cy Young voting.
Of course we'd all like a Matt Cain type. Tim Lincecum in his prime would be even better. And we'd like 180 to 200 innings. More, if possible. But do you guys know how many pitchers pitched 180 innings last season? That would be 20. Not even one per team. And of those 20, only 11 reached 183 innings.
Which puts Anthony DeSclafani back in perspective. In the last two full seasons, DeSclafani has pitched 166.2 and 167.2 innings. His ERA's were 3.89 and 3.17. Last season he was 31st in innings pitched and 13th in ERA. In 2019 and 2021 Anthony WAS a Matt Cain type. Last season by ranking 31st in innings pitched and 13th in ERA, Anthony was not only a #2, he was right on the verge of being a #1. When one combines ERA and innings pitched, how much doubt is there that he was a top 25 pitcher. In fact, there were only nine other pitchers who pitched as many innings as Anthony and had an ERA as low as he.
And you know what? While Alex Wood almost certainly won't get in that many innings, he might pitch as well or even better than Anthony. Five years ago Alex finished 9th in the Cy Young voting, going 16-3 with a 2.72 ERA. We're talking about the guy who came back from a COVID absence to post a 1.38 ERA in September and October, then threw 4.2 shutout innings at the Dodgers in the playoffs. No, he didn't go even five innings, but guess what? Starting pitchers in the playoffs don't average even five innings anymore, or if they do, they do so just barely.
Cobb is a little more of a flyer. But if anything, he may look BETTER coming in than Kevin Gausman did two years ago.
So here is my challenge to you guys, Matt and Boly. Which pitcher or pitchers should the Giants have signed that they didn't, or which pitcher or pitchers should they be signing or trading for now? You guys are quick to criticize, but you seldom have good ideas for improvement, and even less often do you back those ideas up with facts, analysis and logic.
I would LOVE to see you guys prove me wrong here. We'd ALL like good ideas. Heck, I'd love it if you guys would simply answer questions factually and logically. Far too often, you don't even answer them at all.
Let me circle back to DeSclafani. As Reeder said, we'd all love a Matt Cain type. Well, the past two full seasons, Anthony has BEEN a Matt Cain type. In 2010, Matt threw his career high in innings. He finished 11th in the majors in innings pitched and 20th in ERA. Last season Anthony finished 13th in ERA and 31st in innings pitched. That's a pretty decent Matt Cain impression, especially when we compared Anthony to Matt's BEST season for innings pitched. (It was Anthony's 2nd-best season for IP.)
Would we all like to see the Giants get even MORE starting pitching? Of course. Is there still time to do so? Yes. Will the Giants ADD more starting pitching? That too is almost certainly a yes.
Here's a question: The Giants signed three guys who are most likely in the 3.50 to 4.00 range. The question is health. Would we rather they have signed three such pitchers, or three guys who are likely to throw 160-180 innings, but would be more likely to pitch in the 4.00 to 4.50 range?
The Giants spent about $80 million, and they got these guys for at least two years each. How would we have BETTER spent that $80 million?
|
|