|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 7, 2021 19:18:17 GMT -5
From Alex Pavlovic at NBC Sports Bay Area:
Even without signing another ace type, the Giants have the makings of another strong rotation. Webb was one of the best pitchers in baseball for the final four months of the season and took a leap in two postseason starts, holding the dangerous Dodgers lineup to one run over 14 2/3 innings. Webb had an ERA+ of 135 for the season, and DeSclafani (129), Wood (107) and Cobb (119) are all coming off good years.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 9, 2021 5:31:19 GMT -5
Last season #4 starters had ERA's around the 4.40-4.89 range. Last season DeSclafani, Wood and Cobb were each a run or more lower than that. Do you guys know something the rest of the baseball world doesn't know, or should we trust Farhan?
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 14, 2021 10:17:51 GMT -5
Boogie is correct. I want a Matt Cain type but that's not available. The three pitchers they signed are very brittle. Great example, Reed! Saber metric geeks just point to numbers and really never see any deeper. So...yeah, Descla and Woods had much better numbers than the average pitcher, but as boagie pointed out they had to be treated gently, pulled early Unfortunately, I might be one of those that you might call a geek. I look at the numbers like the back of a baseball card, create splits if need be. I go as far as BABIP but probably not too much in terms of things like launch angles, Pecota, and so forth. I figure, if I don't understand them fully, I probably should not quote or use the information. Its more important to me to look at the big picture rather than to focus on a certain metric that may or may not mean anything. Mostly, its sample size, trends (such as foreign substance effect) or how did a player accumulate those numbers. I think Farhan and his group know better than to just go by the numbers and Kapler learned this year that it was not all about the spreadsheet. The amount of information out there is overwhelming, a lot of it superfluous and not everyone knows how to evaluate it properly. For me, it starts with the baseball card.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 14, 2021 10:55:54 GMT -5
I turn to "Baseball Reference" with just about any uncertainty I have. I too evaluate players with trends, situations and just about all the data that's given to me. Sometimes to re-educate myself on what happened in a certain game I will look at the box score and the play by play information. Baseball comes with an unusually high amount of information so it's hard to store it all in just our memory alone. I don't criticize the act of looking up data, I criticize the incorrect use of that data. I don't question the professionals that use the data to scout players. I think they're using that data honestly, looking at all the numbers to assess that player. On the other hand, some wannabe scouts cherry pick the information to suit their narrative. I think you know who I'm talking about. I think you are very honest in your assessment of players, much like the professionals, Reed. But when you say it starts with the Baseball card, I have to respectfully disagree. I think it starts with watching the game.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 14, 2021 11:43:31 GMT -5
I turn to "Baseball Reference" with just about any uncertainty I have. I too evaluate players with trends, situations and just about all the data that's given to me. Sometimes to re-educate myself on what happened in a certain game I will look at the box score and the play by play information. Baseball comes with an unusually high amount of information so it's hard to store it all in just our memory alone. I don't criticize the act of looking up data, I criticize the incorrect use of that data. I don't question the professionals that use the data to scout players. I think they're using that data honestly, looking at all the numbers to assess that player. On the other hand, some wannabe scouts cherry pick the information to suit their narrative. I think you know who I'm talking about. I think you are very honest in your assessment of players, much like the professionals, Reed. But when you say it starts with the Baseball card, I have to respectfully disagree. I think it starts with watching the game. Most of the night games go on too late for me and I am usually in bed by 7 so I cannot watch as much as I would like. I usually have to get out of bed by 4:30 every morning and most of the time, that's the first time I see whether the Giants won or lost. That's why I have to go with the baseball card approach.
When I was growing up, there was an article in Sports Illustrated about ranking pitchers. George and Dick Sisler came up with a formula and gave a ranking to the pitcher along with a number beside it. The thing was that it was fairly accurate and seemed correct in its assessment and rankings. They later revealed the formula about three months after they first published the mysterious numbers and it turned out to be something like 2 times IP minus hits added to 4/3 strikeouts - walks, I don't remember the exact formula. Turns out that they figured out a formula that pre-dated WHIP and factored in durability and control and only used the numbers on the stat line. The problem I have with the use of sabermetric crowd is that they do too many adjustments to their numbers. I get it that they are trying to adjust for different eras and ballparks, and so forth but, like you say, its adjusted to fit their narrative.
I work with people who are always trying to tweak the data to hit certain desired metrics. Its similar to these sabermetric guys trying to crunch numbers. I figure if people have enough resources and do their jobs correctly, the metrics will take care of itself. This is sort of like Bill Walsh saying "the score takes care of itself". I don't respect these guys who try to micromanage and try to manipulate number to fit a narrative. I suspect one of those guys is AJ Preller and I think the Giants are smart enough not to just rely on their ipads.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 14, 2021 11:44:02 GMT -5
I turn to "Baseball Reference" with just about any uncertainty I have. I too evaluate players with trends, situations and just about all the data that's given to me. Sometimes to re-educate myself on what happened in a certain game I will look at the box score and the play by play information. Baseball comes with an unusually high amount of information so it's hard to store it all in just our memory alone. I don't criticize the act of looking up data, I criticize the incorrect use of that data. I don't question the professionals that use the data to scout players. I think they're using that data honestly, looking at all the numbers to assess that player. On the other hand, some wannabe scouts cherry pick the information to suit their narrative. I think you know who I'm talking about. I think you are very honest in your assessment of players, much like the professionals, Reed. But when you say it starts with the Baseball card, I have to respectfully disagree. I think it starts with watching the game. Baseball reference is wonderful.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 14, 2021 13:34:40 GMT -5
Great example, Reed! Saber metric geeks just point to numbers and really never see any deeper. So...yeah, Descla and Woods had much better numbers than the average pitcher, but as boagie pointed out they had to be treated gently, pulled early Unfortunately, I might be one of those that you might call a geek. I look at the numbers like the back of a baseball card, create splits if need be. I go as far as BABIP but probably not too much in terms of things like lauch angles, Pecota, and so forth. I figure, if I don't understand them fully, I probably should not quote or use the information. Its more important to me to look at the big picture rather than to focus on a certain metric that may or may not mean anything. Mostly, its sample size, trends (such as foreign substance effect) or how did a player accumulate those numbers. I think Farhan and his group know better than to just go by the numbers and Kapler learned this year that it was not all about the spreadsheet. The amount of information out there is overwhelming, a lot of it superfluous and not everyone knows how to evaluate it properly. For me, it starts with the baseball card. Reed, I sincerely doubt anyone would call you a geek.
Geeks don't listen, they make up their minds based upon numbers and that, as Baretta used to say, "Dat's da name a dat tune."
You have always shown you listen and are open to new thoughts and ideas.
The typical stats geek thinks that anything not based upon numbers and numbers alone is nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 14, 2021 14:09:15 GMT -5
If we examine what one writes, we can get insight into how he thinks.
For instance, what can we glean when someone writes "Descla and Woods had much better numbers than the average pitcher, but as boagie pointed out they had to be treated gently, pulled early"?
First, we can tell this is likely an old-time baseball fan, one who hasn't changed much with the game. Eating innings isn't nearly as important as it used to be, because we've learned that pitchers tend to pitch much better in short bursts.
I mentioned Giants Hall of Famer "Iron Man" McGinnity recently. That he came by his nickname honestly, pitching 400 innings in each of his first two seasons with the Giants and averaging 344 innings per season over his 10-year career. But nobody pitches 400 innings anymore. Not even 300 frames. In fact, only four pitches reached even 200 innings in 2021. Only six pitchers made 30 starts and averaged over six innings per game.
So the person begins by not recognizing how the game has changed.
Then he talks about how both DeSclafani and Wood have to be protected. In the case of Wood, he's right. Alex has long been a good pitcher, but he's had a hard time staying healthy. Last season he was able to make only 26 starts, and he averaged only 5 1/3 innings per start. I should mention that while this type of fan talks about the importance of pitching in the postseason, he usually also fails to recognize that 5 1/3 innings is MORE than starters now average in the postseason. So he's right about limiting Wood's innings, but hasn't yet realized that in today's game, MOST starters don't average many innings. And in the postseason, FEW pitchers average many innings.
But this person makes his biggest mistake by painting DeSclafani with the same brush as Wood. DeSclafani finished 31st in the majors with 167.2 innings pitched. If we judged by innings only and realize by definition there are 30 #1 starters, Anthony while being "treated gently, pulled early" came within an inning and a third of being a #1 starter. Anthony tied for the league major league lead in shutouts with two, and both of his shutouts were of the 9-inning variety. He tied for fourth in complete games, once again of the 9-inning variety. (Several of the shutouts and complete games by other pitchers came in 7-inning double header games.)
Saying that DeSclafani was "treated gently, pulled early" was less than factual. (When people believe lies, they tend to tell more of them, as well, since lying becomes no big deal.) It should be noted that the 167.2 frames wasn't Anthony's career high, and in 2019 he also came within an inning of that total. This person doesn't evaluate Anthony very accurately because he hasn't looked closely enough at what Anthony actually has DONE, and he doesn't fully comprehend how the game has changed.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 14, 2021 14:13:35 GMT -5
By the way, saying "Saber metric geeks just point to numbers and really never see any deeper" shows a mind that gets into generalizations and doesn't often look deeper.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 14, 2021 14:40:20 GMT -5
Let's take a look at the statement "Geeks don't listen, they make up their minds based on numbers ..."
We know this statement to be wrong, since it is a generalization, and almost all generalizations have exceptions. But even more importantly, we know that people who look at science and at numbers are trying to find the truth. They make their minds up based on facts. Those who don't trust science or numbers are tend to be far less open-minded. They tend to make up their minds based on feelings, not facts. They are far more likely to fall for lies, since the facts don't get in their way nearly as much as the facts guide those who place their faith in science and numbers.
People who make statements such as those about "geeks" tend to distrust numbers, to believe that the number lie. In reality, the numbers DON'T lie, but they are often misinterpreted. And since those who make these types of statements tend not to understand numbers well, they are more likely to misinterpret.
These types of people have a hard time differentiating between the necessary babying of Alex Wood and Anthony DeSclafani's ability to pitch 166.2 or more innings in half his last six seasons.
Here is something that person didn't know and probably wouldn't have been likely to consider anyway, since he doesn't understand numbers well, and they don't matter enough to him. Kevin Gausman finished sixth in the majors in innings pitched, so clearly he wasn't "babied." Last season Kevin and Anthony pitched about the same number of innings beyond the sixth inning, and each pitched more than three times as many innings beyond the sixth as Alex did. If one says that Anthony was "babied," he would have to say the same thing about the pitcher who finished sixth in the majors in innings pitched. Lumping Kevin and Anthony for endurance would have been far more accurate than lumping Anthony and Alex, as the poster did.
The poster doesn't put down numbers just to put down numbers, but he doesn't properly understand them, and hence undervalues what they can tell us. Which can lead to a significant undervaluing of DeSclafani.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 14, 2021 14:46:24 GMT -5
I thought about this last night: Yes, I would rather have Kevin Gausman than Anthony DeSclafani, but it may be closer than it seems. Kevin had the better season of the two in 2021, but it was reasonably close. And whereas Kevin never truly regained his fine pitching after the crackdown on sticky stuff, Anthony put together a stellar final month of the season in which his ERA was only 2.25. Kevin's 4.05 was close to twice as high.
I think I would go with Kevin, but at three times the cost?
I far prefer Andrew and the two Alex's at $81 million to Kevin at $110 million. I don't think it's even close.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 14, 2021 14:57:22 GMT -5
I want to answer Matt by saying that Mark understands and uses stats, and he's the best poster here. Now that Randy is gone, Boly is the person who is most often wrong, and he is among the crowd that basically doesn't trust numbers because he doesn't properly understand them. I've gotten to know both Mark and Boly pretty well, and it appears to me that Mark makes his judgments based on facts, while Boly makes his based more on feelings.
What you're calling "geeks," Matt are basically analytical people. Analytical people are much more fact-oriented and generally make more accurate judgments.
As for whether analytical people are more open-minded, I strongly believe they are. The scientific method is about making a hypothesis and testing it. It's about finding facts, and facts can and should change minds. When Boly almost proudly calls himself a dinosaur, do you think he's telling us how open-minded he is?
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 14, 2021 15:02:56 GMT -5
When Boly said "The typical stats geek thinks that anything not based upon numbers and numbers alone is nonsense," he was making one of the most inaccurate statements ever made on this board. For starters, Boly isn't wise enough to avoid using absolutes, and absolutes are almost always wrong.
What is perhaps the most important thing in the world? Love. And love isn't based on numbers. What Boly said is ludicrous. Remember this is the guy who didn't favor the hiring of Farhan -- solely for non-baseball reasons. He said the Eduardo Nunez trade gave the Giants an "enema," without bothering to get the facts. Boly has a lot of good things about him, but we have to believe him at our own risks.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 14, 2021 15:07:06 GMT -5
I agree with Matt that judgment in baseball starts with watching the game. It began for each of us with watching and playing the game. There are significant differences though in how each of us has continued his education.
I guess perhaps Boly finally realizes he was overemphasizing the importance of having played the game beyond high school -- not that there aren't some advantages -- now that Farhan has showed Boly that despite not having played the game beyond high school, he know more about the game than all of us here put together.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 14, 2021 15:09:39 GMT -5
By the way, Reeder was right too. He meant that STATISTICALLY it starts with the stats that are on the back of the baseball card, and that is correct IMO. That's perhaps the biggest reason we loved baseball cards so much when we were kids. We could get a basic framework on each player's performance.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 14, 2021 15:38:14 GMT -5
Someone mentioned that DeSclafani's ERA against teams over .500 was 5.77 compared to a sparkling 1.96 against teams below .500. Remembering that part of the reason good teams are good is sometimes pitching more than hitting, I thought it would be worth looking at how he fared against the top 15 run-scoring teams aside from the Giants. There things are a little more balanced, as his ERA is 3.62. If we take out his disastrous season against the Dodgers -- a trend he hopefully will break, and remember he did shut them out the last time he faced them in the regular season -- his ERA against those top run-scoring teams drops to 2.59. Remember, if we take out his horrible pitching against the Dodgers, his remaining ERA on the season was 2.37.
If Anthony could straighten himself out against the Dodgers, he would have the potential of pitching at the level of a #1 pitcher. Even including his horrendous season against them last season, he pitched at the level of a #1. But I think a more objective view of him is as a #2. He's pitched at the level of a low #2 or high #3 over his career, posting an ERA between 5% and 10% better than the average starter ("average" would seem to define a #3).
Let me ask this question: How can Anthony be considered only a #4 starter when his ERA is clearly above average for a starter? Wouldn't a #4 by definition need to have an ERA that is BELOW AVERAGE? As a related aside, the career ERA's of both Alex's also are clearly above average for a starter. And remember, all three are coming off good seasons. It's not as though like Madison Bumgarner, they're showing signs of decline.
Madison is a fine example of a pitcher who was once clearly a #1, but who has pitched at the level of a #5 over the past two seasons after pitching at the level of a #2 in 2019. Is Madison a #4 starter now, or would we still rank him as high as a #3? He pitched at the level of a #4 in 2021.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 15, 2021 7:59:46 GMT -5
Arizona is very unhappy with Mad Bum's contract. If the Giants feel that he can be adjusted and Arizona sends a lot of cash.....? They are so fed up, the Giants might not have to trade much prospect to get him.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 15, 2021 8:03:15 GMT -5
Hjelle might be the first of the farmhands to get a crack with the big club. He is on the 40 man and seems to have the best command. Harrison has the highest ceiling and I think they are working with him to slow things down to get more control.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 15, 2021 9:28:16 GMT -5
Hjelle kind of took a step backward last season after not pitching in 2020, but he does seem to be the closest. Excellent body control for such a big man, but not yet the stuff to go along with it. When he was drafted, I felt maybe he was tipping his pitches, but Boly said no.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 15, 2021 9:33:38 GMT -5
Someone mentioned that DeSclafani's ERA against teams over .500 was 5.77 compared to a sparkling 1.96 against teams below .500. Remembering that part of the reason good teams are good is sometimes pitching more than hitting, I thought it would be worth looking at how he fared against the top 15 run-scoring teams aside from the Giants. There things are a little more balanced, as his ERA is 3.62. If we take out his disastrous season against the Dodgers -- a trend he hopefully will break, and remember he did shut them out the last time he faced them in the regular season -- his ERA against those top run-scoring teams drops to 2.59. Remember, if we take out his horrible pitching against the Dodgers, his remaining ERA on the season was 2.37. If Anthony could straighten himself out against the Dodgers, he would have the potential of pitching at the level of a #1 pitcher. Even including his horrendous season against them last season, he pitched at the level of a #1. But I think a more objective view of him is as a #2. He's pitched at the level of a low #2 or high #3 over his career, posting an ERA between 5% and 10% better than the average starter ("average" would seem to define a #3). Let me ask this question: How can Anthony be considered only a #4 starter when his ERA is clearly above average for a starter? Wouldn't a #4 by definition need to have an ERA that is BELOW AVERAGE? As a related aside, the career ERA's of both Alex's also are clearly above average for a starter. And remember, all three are coming off good seasons. It's not as though like Madison Bumgarner, they're showing signs of decline. Madison is a fine example of a pitcher who was once clearly a #1, but who has pitched at the level of a #5 over the past two seasons after pitching at the level of a #2 in 2019. Is Madison a #4 starter now, or would we still rank him as high as a #3? He pitched at the level of a #4 in 2021. I saw that DeSclafani did not just struggle against the Dodgers. He had two bad games against Atlanta and a bad game against Philadelphia. He missed pitching against some of the better teams such as Milwaukee, Houston, and Oakland. The trend here is that if the Giants had gotten by Los Angeles in the NLDS, he likely would have struggled against Atlanta in the NLCS. during the regular season, he may attain being a #2 but in the playoffs, he's clearly no better than a #3.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 15, 2021 11:17:27 GMT -5
I'm guessing arm fatigue.
The previous year only like 19ish innings and with us a couple of complete games.
It took it's tole isn't best guess.
Still just a middle of the rotation guy but my guess is we will see something in the middle operformances last year
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 15, 2021 15:47:59 GMT -5
Perhaps we should define what a #2 pitcher IS. Given that there are 150 rotation spots available in the major leagues, to me the 31st through 60th top starters are #2's. Isn't that the logical definition? There are 30 #1's; 30 #2's; 30 #3's; 30 #4's: 30 #5's. 150 total.
Last season there were exactly 60 pitchers who pitched at least 100 innings and had an ERA below 4.00. Aren't those guys the #1's and #2's? Among those with at least 100 IP and an ERA below 4.00, Anthony DeSclafani ranked #24 in ERA. Last season even though he was only the 3rd-best starter on the Giants, he pitched at the level of a #1.
Now, he's NOT a #1 IMO. Last season, yes. But going forward, no. He was injured and lousy in 2020. In 2019, he pitched at the level of a #2. In 2016, his ERA was #26 among those pitching 100 or more innings, so he was arguably a #1 that season -- and a high #2 at worst. Doesn't that sound like a #2?
Taking career ERA's back to 2014 when Anthony entered the league, there are right at 60 active starters with ERA's below 4.00. Anthony is right behind them at 4.06. That might move him down to a high #3, but given that two of his best seasons have come in the past three, that too seems to indicate a #2.
I will be willing to agree with anyone that Anthony is no better than a #3 if you can name 60 starters who are better than Anthony. Try it. It's a lot harder than you think. If you can't come up with 60 starters who are clearly better than Anthony, isn't it frivolous to say he's clearly no better than a #3?
I continue to think the problem is that being a #2 isn't as good as many think it is. Just name those 60 who are better and give sound arguments WHY they are better, and you will have a convert.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 15, 2021 15:49:07 GMT -5
Perhaps arm fatigue was an issue with Anthony last season. He missed a couple of starts along the way and slumped in August. But in September he was arguably the Giants' best starter with a 2.25 ERA.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 17, 2021 10:05:47 GMT -5
Perhaps we should define what a #2 pitcher IS. Given that there are 150 rotation spots available in the major leagues, to me the 31st through 60th top starters are #2's. Isn't that the logical definition? There are 30 #1's; 30 #2's; 30 #3's; 30 #4's: 30 #5's. 150 total. Last season there were exactly 60 pitchers who pitched at least 100 innings and had an ERA below 4.00. Aren't those guys the #1's and #2's? Among those with at least 100 IP and an ERA below 4.00, Anthony DeSclafani ranked #24 in ERA. Last season even though he was only the 3rd-best starter on the Giants, he pitched at the level of a #1. Now, he's NOT a #1 IMO. Last season, yes. But going forward, no. He was injured and lousy in 2020. In 2019, he pitched at the level of a #2. In 2016, his ERA was #26 among those pitching 100 or more innings, so he was arguably a #1 that season -- and a high #2 at worst. Doesn't that sound like a #2? Taking career ERA's back to 2014 when Anthony entered the league, there are right at 60 active starters with ERA's below 4.00. Anthony is right behind them at 4.06. That might move him down to a high #3, but given that two of his best seasons have come in the past three, that too seems to indicate a #2. I will be willing to agree with anyone that Anthony is no better than a #3 if you can name 60 starters who are better than Anthony. Try it. It's a lot harder than you think. If you can't come up with 60 starters who are clearly better than Anthony, isn't it frivolous to say he's clearly no better than a #3? I continue to think the problem is that being a #2 isn't as good as many think it is. Just name those 60 who are better and give sound arguments WHY they are better, and you will have a convert. The problem is that the number #2 on your biggest rival is Julio Urias.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 17, 2021 10:13:23 GMT -5
I'm not hearing too much on the #5 slot. They haven't mentioned if it would be the use of an opener or if its someone in house. Because of the lockout, I have not heard that they would be going after another free agent and push Cobb down to the #5. I would suspect Beede gets the first crack at it or the other plan is to stretch out one of the relievers (like Castro).
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 17, 2021 11:27:49 GMT -5
Perhaps we should define what a #2 pitcher IS. Given that there are 150 rotation spots available in the major leagues, to me the 31st through 60th top starters are #2's. Isn't that the logical definition? There are 30 #1's; 30 #2's; 30 #3's; 30 #4's: 30 #5's. 150 total. Last season there were exactly 60 pitchers who pitched at least 100 innings and had an ERA below 4.00. Aren't those guys the #1's and #2's? Among those with at least 100 IP and an ERA below 4.00, Anthony DeSclafani ranked #24 in ERA. Last season even though he was only the 3rd-best starter on the Giants, he pitched at the level of a #1. Now, he's NOT a #1 IMO. Last season, yes. But going forward, no. He was injured and lousy in 2020. In 2019, he pitched at the level of a #2. In 2016, his ERA was #26 among those pitching 100 or more innings, so he was arguably a #1 that season -- and a high #2 at worst. Doesn't that sound like a #2? Taking career ERA's back to 2014 when Anthony entered the league, there are right at 60 active starters with ERA's below 4.00. Anthony is right behind them at 4.06. That might move him down to a high #3, but given that two of his best seasons have come in the past three, that too seems to indicate a #2. I will be willing to agree with anyone that Anthony is no better than a #3 if you can name 60 starters who are better than Anthony. Try it. It's a lot harder than you think. If you can't come up with 60 starters who are clearly better than Anthony, isn't it frivolous to say he's clearly no better than a #3? I continue to think the problem is that being a #2 isn't as good as many think it is. Just name those 60 who are better and give sound arguments WHY they are better, and you will have a convert. AD produced good numbers in 2016 but he had an oblique strain that sidelined him for 2 months in 2016 and also re-injured it in 2018. I'm not sure anyone could say he was a #1 in 2016 if he missed most of April and all of May (April 3 to June 9, to be precise). Also, no one has mentioned that he missed all of 2017 with a sprained UCL. If a player is on the disabled list, every other major league pitcher is ranked higher. AD may have produced a 3.17 ERA last season but I think the chances of him repeating that are much less than the chances of him landing on the IR.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 17, 2021 13:42:16 GMT -5
I agree with you, Reeder, that the chances of DeSclafani going on the IL are greater than his repeating his 3.17 ERA. I would put the probability of either happening at less than 50%, but spending at least some time on the IL seems definitely the greater possibility.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 17, 2021 13:43:51 GMT -5
Perhaps we can agree that Anthony is a #2 overall, but not a #2 on a playoff team. One thing that seems obvious is that he's much more than the #4 Boly and Matt said he is. The key is staying healthy. If he does that, he'll likely pitch at at least the level of a #3.
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Dec 17, 2021 23:29:49 GMT -5
Perhaps we can agree that Anthony is a #2 overall, but not a #2 on a playoff team. One thing that seems obvious is that he's much more than the #4 Boly and Matt said he is. The key is staying healthy. If he does that, he'll likely pitch at at least the level of a #3. I cannot say that AD is a #2 overall unless he's on a bad pitching staff or a team that is just playing out the schedule. The Giants have playoff aspirations and each potential playoff team has a least two pitchers better than AD and if he goes on the IL, he is of no value. We can agree to disagree because its all just semantics anyway. The contract seems fair and if AD himself thought he was a #2, he probably might have tried for more money.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 18, 2021 12:49:53 GMT -5
I would say Anthony is about the 50th-best starter in the game. That would make him just below an average #2 (which would be the 45th-best starter). I think I may like Alex Wood even better, although Alex has had more health issues. My sense though is that if Logan Webb continues to pitch like a true #1, Anthony and the two Alex's will do a decent job as #2 through #4. If the Giants want to be a top team again, it would be nice to pick up someone like Carlos Rodon, who probably become their best (not necessary healthiest) pitcher. A rotation of Rodon, Webb, DeSclafani, Wood and Cobb would have outstanding depth. If the Giants were able to fulfill my idea of also adding Sonny Gray, they would probably have the best six-man staff in the game. Given health issues, I suspect that as often as not, only five of the six would be healthy. If all six were healthy in the postseason, coupled with a few very good relievers, they could be excellent. In the postseason I like the idea of having two starters slip into the role of being ready to pitch long relief if any of the four starters is having an off game. Starters in the postseason go only about five innings on average anyway, so one could see a situation in which a team has a starter, then a "finisher" and then the short relievers to enter the fray as needed. A quarter of a century ago I had the idea of four starters, four "finishers" (guys who were capable of pitching starter innings) and two "closers." That basic framework could work well in a postseason. Heck, a team might even be able to get by with "only" 11 pitchers. Four starters and two "finishers" could form a nice postseason foundation.
|
|