|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 29, 2021 11:12:36 GMT -5
Reed, at the end of the year, even Kapler said his bullpen was worn out... a sentiment I believe that was echoed by Farhan.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 29, 2021 13:53:09 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure Farhan or Kapler -- or both -- said something about the bullpen being worn out. Reeder made a good point that Wood messed things up a bit when he missed time due to COVID. I mentioned that psychologically, they could have been tired AFTER the four days of rest. For instance, people are vulnerable to illness after they've worked really hard for a long time. Somehow their bodies hold up during the stress, but once the stress is over, their health "guard" seems to be down.
After never having pitched as many as 100 innings in a single month, the Giants' bullpen pitched more 55 innings over that amount when we combine the overage in August with September/October.
Yet the bullpen had its 2nd and 3rd best months despite all that work. And after a day off the final month of the season, they had a temporary lapse on Tuesday, giving up three runs, but then yielded only one over a whole bunch of innings the last five days of the season.
So my question for Boly, who knows so much more than we because he has pitched above the high school level and is a sociology major, just what was the psychology and physiology that allowed the bullpen to stay so strong during their time of highest work, then have some of its members more or less collapse after four days off and with the added rest of the easy postseason schedule?
I have some ideas myself, which I more or less mentioned above, but I'm curious to get added insight from someone who has "been there."
One more question I should ask: Why was the bullpen so tired in the games the Giants lost, yet pitched extremely well in their two wins and in the close Game 5 loss?
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 29, 2021 17:08:37 GMT -5
Rog- One more question I should ask: Why was the bullpen so tired in the games the Giants lost, yet pitched extremely well in their two wins and in the close Game 5 loss?
Boagie- In the first game they only had to hold a 4-0 lead with 1.1 innings left, Webb took care of the other 7.2 innings. As I said before, since Doval hadn't been with the club for long, he was somewhat well rested..he took care of the 9th. That means outside of Doval and Webb we needed the rest of our pitching staff to get just 1 out.
In the third game, the bullpen did pitch well. Wood pitched great, but he only went 4.2, so the bullpen had to hold off the Dodgers for 4.1 innings. Two of those innings Doval held the Dodgers scoreless, so that left 2.1 innings for Rogers and McGee. I give our staff credit for that game, they certainly did their job. But most of the heavy lifting was done by Wood and Doval who were both fairly rested.
In the 5th game the Bullpen didn't pitch very good, and they certainly didn't pitch "extremely well." Webb got us into the 8th inning, Rogers got in trouble in the 8th which made us bring in Doval early - who managed to get the last out. But then Doval got hit around in the 9th which led to the winning run. In my opinion Doval was overused in that series, because everyone else was overused prior to that.
I mentioned my displeasure when Doval was used in game 1 when it wasn't a save situation...you discredited my opinion then, and that decision came back to bite us in the ass in game 5. That has a LOT more to do with why we lost than the Scherzer/Flores matchup, but I expect that you wouldn't realize that since you don't really understand the game.
Being overused in a series like that allows the other team to get a good look and make adjustments, which I believe is exactly what happened to Doval, and a significant reason for why the Dodgers won and we lost.
I'm not going to beat up Kapler for those decisions, because he's still new to this and I think there's room for improvement, but Bochy would not have made the same mistake, especially with a rookie. I have to believe since Kapler was a ball player he realizes the mistakes he made and isn't as blind to at as you are, Rog.
Speaking of blind, have you not seen the numerous times Boly has said he blocked you and isn't reading your posts anymore, Rog? Why do you keep asking him questions when he can't see what you're posting? I find it funny that you lecture everyone else about paying attention to all the details, yet you tend to ignore the elephant in the room, even when it's sitting on your head.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 29, 2021 22:15:59 GMT -5
When I said the bullpen pitched "extremely well" in the wins and in Game 5, I meant overall. They pitched eight innings and gave up only one run (although it proved very costly). I should have clarified, but it appears you were mostly searching for something to disagree with. You could have made a comment such as, "If you meant that the bullpen pitched very well in Game 5, I have to humbly disagree. But if you meant in the three games overall, I agree with you. They DID pitch quite well, giving up only one run in eight innings. Sadly, that run was the one that lost the series."
You said you mentioned your displeasure with using Doval in a non-save situation in Game 1 and that I discredited your opinion. I don't even remember your mentioning it. What did I say?
I will say this: I don't like using closers in non-closer situations, but I also recently mentioned that I like to see relievers pitch as close to every other day as possible. It had been six days since Camilo had pitched, and the most days he could pitch in a row even if he pitched in Game 1 was two. I don't think I said anything to disagree with you, as to be honest, I could see it either way in this situation. Would it have been good to save Camilo for Game 2 unless other guys got into trouble? Normally I would say yes. But there were two factors that would have mitigated my opinion: First, the five straight days off. Second, it WAS the playoffs, and the lead was only one run out of save range.
This looks like a situation I wouldn't have felt strongly about either way. If you find what I said that made you feel I disagreed with you, let me know what it was. But I can make an argument in either direction on this one. Perhaps it was someone else who disagreed.
Doval pitched just once against the Dodgers in the regular season (on September 5th, more than a month before the Giants began the postseason). He faced them three times in seven days -- with two days off between each time he faced them. Can you see a reason that would have caused him to be either tired or overexposed? He has thrown only 74 pitches against them in his career. Unlike some relievers, he's not just a one-pitch pitcher, you know.
As for Boly, someone could always copy what I posted. I was asking him for his "expert" opinion. Or Boly himself could come to his senses. I'm sorry I upset Boly, but do you think that either he or you upsets me less than I upset you guys? At least you're tough enough to read at least some of what I post, Matt. You're just really weak at answering questions -- mostly in the political realm where you don't read nearly as much or, even more importantly, as broadly as I do. Look at the references I use. I go out of my way to quote you things from middle-of-the-road sources, while you and Boly almost always refer to the right, if you provide a reference at all.
For months now I have gone out of my way to try to find out why people who aren't dumb and whom in many cases I respect support such a bad, bad man. I was hoping that people I respect such as you and Boly could do so.
You speak of my being blind and a sheep, but I go out of my way to get a broad perspective, whether it be sports or politics.
No offense, but Doval was NOT overused in the Dodgers series. He pitched three times in seven days. The pitchers who were used the most often were Brusdar Graterol and Tyler Rogers, four times each, and Doval, Treinen and McGee, three times apiece. The three Giants relievers who were used more than twice combined for a 2.79 ERA, although Rogers was probably lucky in that regard.
If you think throwing 47 pitches over seven days is too much, especially with two days or rest between each appearances, I guess we'll have to disagree. Especially after five straight days off. Looked at another way, Doval pitched 3.2 innings in three games, throwing 47 pitches, over a 12-day period. How is that being overused?
I think you simply want to quarrel with virtually everything I say. Myself, I try to compliment you or at least agree with you when I can do so in good conscience. But if throwing 47 pitches over a dozen days is being overused, I must have been asleep over the 67 seasons I've followed baseball.
One thing we should realize is that despite the best-laid plans of mice and men, not everything works out all the time. And we should realize that since the Giants pitched the Braves against the Dodgers but didn't come close to outhitting the World Champions, it was their hitting more than their pitching that beat the Giants in the playoffs. The Giants' pitching was virtually as good in the playoffs as it had been in the regular season (3.48 ERA in the playoffs compared to 3.24 in the regular season), but they could average only 2.00 runs per game in the playoffs compared to a robust 4.96 per contest in the regular season.
The Giants simply did NOT lose the playoffs because of their pitching. Their pitching was fine. It was their hitting that collapsed.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 29, 2021 22:24:45 GMT -5
In the 50 days from August 25th through the end of the playoffs on Octcober 14th, Camilo Doval pitched 21.0 innings in 20 games. How was that being overused?
I might add that in those 20 games, two of which were for Sacramento, his ERA was 0.43. Does that sound like a tired or overused pitcher?
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 29, 2021 22:51:39 GMT -5
The only run the Giants' bullpen gave up in the playoffs that truly mattered was the one Doval surrendered. No question that was about as critical as s run could be, but the Giants did NOT lose to the Dodgers because their bullpen -- and Doval in particular, since he was the one who yielded the critical run -- was tired.
And, frankly, they didn't lose because the bullpen wasn't good enough. They lost mostly because their bats, which had scored the 2nd-most runs in the league, fell silent at just the wrong time.
Remember how fine the Giants' bullpen was in 2010? They had Brian Wilson, Sergio Romo, Santiago Casilla and Jeremy Affeldt, then added Javier Lopez and Ramon Ramirez at the trade deadline. Last year's Giants bullpen was essentially just as good (2.97 ERA) as the 2010 bullpen (3.05 ERA).
I'm not saying last year's bullpen will be as good over their careers as the 2010 bullpen wound up being. (Romo is still pitching.) I'm not saying they'll be as good next season as that bullpen was in 2011 (3.04 ERA). I'm not expecting them to be. But I am saying that based on earned run average, last year's squad was basically as good as the 2010 bullpen.
And remember how fine the starters were with Lincecum, Cain, Bumgarner, Sanchez and Zito? The 2010 starters posted a 3.54 ERA on the season. Even though in 2010, Oracle was a sharp pitchers' park, while last season it was a neutral park, last season the Giants starters posted a 3.44 ERA.
Overall, the Giants' road ERA last season was 3.22, four-tenths of a run lower than their 3.62 road ERA in 2010.
Again, I don't expect the present Giants starters to be as good next season as the 2010 starters were in 2011. And I don't expect them to pick up another Ryan Vogelsong, who became for over a year, one of the most consistent Giants starters in their time in SF.
But the point is that the Giants' pitching was REALLY good last season. And it held up fairly well in the playoffs. The hitting was really good, too. But it didn't hold up well at all in the postseason.
|
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Jan 5, 2022 12:42:35 GMT -5
I'd be a little leery about things Duane Kuiper says at the moment. He's been dealing with some health issues and new grand children so he's not fully engaged with what's happening on the Giants. His KNBR interviews are not really that informative and seem more like a chore to him so what he says does not necssarily reflect the opinions of anyone else. Castellanos makes sense for the Giants in a few ways by being a needed bat in the middle of the lineup. However, there's a few more negatives on the ledger. He is probably going to want a five year contract and he is not the best fielder.
Grant Bisbee did a Castellanos and player X comparison where player X was a better fielder and more durable and Castellanos had more power but both had really bad K/BB ratios. Otherwise, both were eerily similar. This was one of the scariest Player A vs Player X comparisons I've ever seen. Player A is Castellanos at age 29. Player X was Aaron Rowand at age 29, the year before he came to the Giants. Draw your own conclusions. Castellanos wants at least a seven year deal. No way Farhn does that. |
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Jan 5, 2022 18:49:45 GMT -5
I'd be a little leery about things Duane Kuiper says at the moment. He's been dealing with some health issues and new grand children so he's not fully engaged with what's happening on the Giants. His KNBR interviews are not really that informative and seem more like a chore to him so what he says does not necssarily reflect the opinions of anyone else. Castellanos makes sense for the Giants in a few ways by being a needed bat in the middle of the lineup. However, there's a few more negatives on the ledger. He is probably going to want a five year contract and he is not the best fielder.
Grant Bisbee did a Castellanos and player X comparison where player X was a better fielder and more durable and Castellanos had more power but both had really bad K/BB ratios. Otherwise, both were eerily similar. This was one of the scariest Player A vs Player X comparisons I've ever seen. Player A is Castellanos at age 29. Player X was Aaron Rowand at age 29, the year before he came to the Giants. Draw your own conclusions. Castellanos wants at least a seven year deal. No way Farhn does that. |
|
|
|
Post by reedonly on Jan 7, 2022 16:12:23 GMT -5
You are right, Reed; 7 years for a guy who can't play a lick of defense is nuts. I would prefer they just use someone in the system but I don't think there is anyone ready from AAA to step in. Ramos is the only one who has even gotten to Sacramento and struggled. Luciano, Matos, and Pomares are still in single A. There are a couple of problems with our minor league system. Most of the really good prospects are too low in the system and not enough prospects in certain positions (first base, starting pitcher). This is where COVID really hit the Giants hard in that it cost their players a year of minor league experience time. Castellanos should be viewed at as more of a final piece and not someone to build a team around. I mentioned earlier that Bisbee said his slash line last year resembled Aaron Rowand's the year before he came to the Giants (except with more power, less defense). He would make sense only if the team had a core in place as the Giants did during the championship run. Where Castellanos does not make sense is that the money they give him could be used to extend one of the young players who start to step up. |
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Jan 7, 2022 18:35:20 GMT -5
I would prefer they just use someone in the system but I don't think there is anyone ready from AAA to step in. Ramos is the only one who has even gotten to Sacramento and struggled. Luciano, Matos, and Pomares are still in single A. There are a couple of problems with our minor league system. Most of the really good prospects are too low in the system and not enough prospects in certain positions (first base, starting pitcher). This is where COVID really hit the Giants hard in that it cost their players a year of minor league experience time. Castellanos should be viewed at as more of a final piece and not someone to build a team around. I mentioned earlier that Bisbee said his slash line last year resembled Aaron Rowand's the year before he came to the Giants (except with more power, less defense). He would make sense only if the team had a core in place as the Giants did during the championship run. Where Castellanos does not make sense is that the money they give him could be used to extend one of the young players who start to step up. |
|
