MLB 2011 Part Two

Off Topic
681

[quote]scj119 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]scj119 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Lincecum would have been considered a legit ace on any team this year. If all his stats were the same but his win/loss record was below .500 he’d still be an ace. It’s more indicative of how pathetic the Giants’ offense and ability to stay healthy was this year.
[/quote]

Yes pitchers can have great seasons and have below a .500 record, thanks for makign my point for me[/quote]

My point is that there isn’t some magical combination of stats that automatically makes someone an “ace”. Saying a pitcher isn’t an ace because his k/bb ratio isn’t good enough is asinine [/quote]

Correct, and I worded it too strongly. It would be more accurate to say that I’ve noticed a trend that 90% of the pitchers I consider extremely good happen to have a K/BB above 3. It’s a correlation that I noticed after the fact, NOT a single definition of “ace” as my post may have implied. My bad.[/quote]

No prob. I really was just keyed in on your comment that a pitcher has to have a 3 to 1 K to BB ratio to be an ace. I guess the distinction I am trying to make here is that while most aces DO have a great K/BB ratio, they aren’t aces by virtue of that particular statistic. Typically, when an ace pitches like an ace, he’ll rack up an impressive ratio. But you can pitch like an ace and not have a great ratio as well. It’s just more rare.

682

I’d also argue that WHIP is more important than any other statistic other than ERA and W/L record. Basically, with a low WHIP you aren’t constantly putting runners on base and having to pitch out of jams. If you can get outs and keep runners from getting on base, it doesn’t really matter how you go about it.

For instance, when I was in high school I was the clear ace of my team. Yet, I didn’t rack up big strikeout numbers. I threw pretty hard, but I threw a very live sinker and I just pounded the inside part of the plate with it early and often. Hitters swung earlier in the count as a result since I was always around the plate. And I could afford to just come right after everyone because I had good stuff, but also because I had a VERY good defense behind me. I still hold my conference’s record for most double-plays induced in a game with 5 in 7 innings. Now, I could have tried to strike out every hitter I faced, and I would have significantly improved my strikeout totals/rates. But I might have walked more guys as a result and I definitely would have thrown more pitches and been out of the game earlier and may even have worn down as the season progressed as a result. But that isn’t what it took for me to win games. Hell, I threw a complete game shutout in a game where I had two strikeouts and three walks, but I only threw 71 pitches in 7 innings. I was able to come back on short rest and throw well in (and win) a huge game only three days later. I might not have been able to do that if I had racked up 12 strikeouts on 100 pitches. So by NOT trying to strikeout batters I was actually more valuable to my team than if I DID try to strikeout everyone.

The mark of a really good PITCHER is one who pitches for the strikeout only when he needs it and otherwise tries to get hitters out early in the at-bat.

683

I hope you guys are watching the second game in the Red Sox-Yankee Double Header. It’s been great so far.

684

One thing about the k/BB ratio - Dan Haren is the leader in the AL.

I wouldn’t consider him an ace, but everyone else around him on the list of leaders I would.

685

[quote]therajraj wrote:
One thing about the k/BB ratio - Dan Haren is the leader in the AL.

I wouldn’t consider him an ace, but everyone else around him on the list of leaders I would.[/quote]

I’d consider him an ace. I think he’s suffered from poor run-support this year. I don’t think you have to be the best pitcher on your team to be an ace. Cliff Lee, Hamels and Halladay are all aces in my book, as are Cain and Lincecum. Cain is probably about as low as I’d go.

What exactly do you guys consider an “ace” to be? I’m thinking that the top 15 to 20 starters in the bigs are aces: Halladay, Cain, Lincecum, Lee, Hamels, Greinke, Sabathia, Verlander, Hernandez, Lester, Weaver, Haren, Kershaw, Kennedy (just this year), Shields, Price and maybe even Beckett and Tim Hudson would qualify as aces over the last several years in my mind.

686

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
One thing about the k/BB ratio - Dan Haren is the leader in the AL.

I wouldn’t consider him an ace, but everyone else around him on the list of leaders I would.[/quote]

I’d consider him an ace. I think he’s suffered from poor run-support this year. I don’t think you have to be the best pitcher on your team to be an ace. Cliff Lee, Hamels and Halladay are all aces in my book, as are Cain and Lincecum. Cain is probably about as low as I’d go.

What exactly do you guys consider an “ace” to be? I’m thinking that the top 15 to 20 starters in the bigs are aces: Halladay, Cain, Lincecum, Lee, Hamels, Greinke, Sabathia, Verlander, Hernandez, Lester, Weaver, Haren, Kershaw, Kennedy (just this year), Shields, Price and maybe even Beckett and Tim Hudson would qualify as aces over the last several years in my mind.[/quote]

If you’re going to put Price as an ace, then you have to put Romero in there too. He’s had a better year.

I also think Ian Kennedy is highly overrated and he’ll be exposed in the post season. But who knows, playoffs are always a crap shoot. Just look at last year.

Some people are pretty elitist with their definition of an ace. Basically if they’re not in the conversation for a Cy Young regularly, they aren’t an ace.

Only true aces to some:

AL - Verlander, Sabathia, Weaver, Lester, Hernandez

NL - Kershaw, Lincecum, Halladay, Lee

But as I said earlier, to me it’s a lowish ERA (under 3) and a fuck load of innings IP (220+).

687

But I do think there is a “Cy Young Tier” then a “pretty good tier”

I guess I would put the guys we both listed as “Cy Young Tier” and everyone else you mentioned in the “pretty good tier”

688

Ellsbury just gave Boston some breathing room.

689

Boston and Tampa are tied for the WC!!

690

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Boston and Tampa are tied for the WC!![/quote]

This actually annoys me. If they finish the season tied it gives the Tigers a huge advantage in the division series. The tigers do not need any gifts on their way to the CS

691

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Boston and Tampa are tied for the WC!![/quote]

This actually annoys me. If they finish the season tied it gives the Tigers a huge advantage in the division series. The tigers do not need any gifts on their way to the CS[/quote]

Hey Bonez,

I wanted to ask you something. I might be going to an ALDS game, have you ever sat in the bleachers? How is it? Thinking I might put up a little more to get an actual seat instead of sitting on a long bench.

Also, anything to know about going to the Bronx or Yankee Stadium in general?

692

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Boston and Tampa are tied for the WC!![/quote]

Well, since the Braves are swirling the drain, I am pulling for Tampa… This is the worst baseball year ever…for me. I HATE corporate ownership

693

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Boston and Tampa are tied for the WC!![/quote]

Well, since the Braves are swirling the drain, I am pulling for Tampa… This is the worst baseball year ever…for me. I HATE corporate ownership[/quote]

This has been a crazy month, I wasn’t expecting any races and now we are looking at least one upset most likely. I can’t believe STL might overtake ATL for the WC spot. I hear the ATL bullpen has been worked to death.

694

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Boston and Tampa are tied for the WC!![/quote]

Well, since the Braves are swirling the drain, I am pulling for Tampa… This is the worst baseball year ever…for me. I HATE corporate ownership[/quote]

This has been a crazy month, I wasn’t expecting any races and now we are looking at least one upset most likely. I can’t believe STL might overtake ATL for the WC spot. I hear the ATL bullpen has been worked to death.[/quote]

These WC races have been great to watch. Can’t wait to see how it plays out over the next couple days. Hopefully we see some playoffs to get into the playoffs…

and I’m going to the Giants game tonight. It will be interesting to see two teams take the field that have nothing to play for.

695

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Boston and Tampa are tied for the WC!![/quote]

This actually annoys me. If they finish the season tied it gives the Tigers a huge advantage in the division series. The tigers do not need any gifts on their way to the CS[/quote]

Hey Bonez,

I wanted to ask you something. I might be going to an ALDS game, have you ever sat in the bleachers? How is it? Thinking I might put up a little more to get an actual seat instead of sitting on a long bench.

Also, anything to know about going to the Bronx or Yankee Stadium in general?[/quote]

Ive never sat in the bleachers. Very uncomfortable. But it seems like a fun experience. Sit in the right field bleachers. The left field bleachers are very far from the field. There are obstructed views if you sit right along the wall of the center field resturant/bar.

The Bronx is fine. Just stay near the stadium. Theres 2 big bars and a few smaller ones. And nothing else of note in the area. There is a subway stop right at the stadium.

696

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Boston and Tampa are tied for the WC!![/quote]

This actually annoys me. If they finish the season tied it gives the Tigers a huge advantage in the division series. The tigers do not need any gifts on their way to the CS[/quote]

Hey Bonez,

I wanted to ask you something. I might be going to an ALDS game, have you ever sat in the bleachers? How is it? Thinking I might put up a little more to get an actual seat instead of sitting on a long bench.

Also, anything to know about going to the Bronx or Yankee Stadium in general?[/quote]

Ive never sat in the bleachers. Very uncomfortable. But it seems like a fun experience. Sit in the right field bleachers. The left field bleachers are very far from the field. There are obstructed views if you sit right along the wall of the center field resturant/bar.

The Bronx is fine. Just stay near the stadium. Theres 2 big bars and a few smaller ones. And nothing else of note in the area. There is a subway stop right at the stadium.

[/quote]

Yeah so I decided agains the bleachers because of the comfort factor. Sitting just left of the bleachers in section 231.

I won’t be veering too far away from the stadium, I hear South Bronx is one of the worst places to live in the country.

697

So are you Giants fans worried about Bochy fucking over Brandon Belt again next year?

If I were a GIants fan, it would bug the fuck out of me if they continued to keep Aubrey Huff in the everyday lineup next year and continue to give Belt less ABs. Even a platoon situation would be a bad idea.

698

Anyone else perplexed by Francona’s decision to bat Jed Lowrie clean up??

699

[quote]therajraj wrote:
So are you Giants fans worried about Bochy fucking over Brandon Belt again next year?

If I were a GIants fan, it would bug the fuck out of me if they continued to keep Aubrey Huff in the everyday lineup next year and continue to give Belt less ABs. Even a platoon situation would be a bad idea.[/quote]

No. He’ll play left field and then move to first when Huff’s contract is up. Bochy already announced yesterday that Huff won’t play anymore this season so that they can get a better look at not only Belt, but also Brett Pill at first base.

It would definitely bug the fuck out of me if Belt lost at-bats next year, but he still has to produce. He’s shown some power, but he’s still only hitting about .215 or somewhere around there. The bottom line is that Huff was more productive than Belt this year, even when taking into account the disparity in at-bats. So really, I have a problem with Bochy giving at-bats to ANY player who is less productive than a suitable alternative.

I will say this though: I fully envision a scenario where Huff continues to struggle next year and Belt shows some defensive deficiencies in left field and Bochy eventually shitcans Huff and relegates him to the bench while Belt plays first. I also wouldn’t be surprised to see the Giants eat Huff’s remaining year and release him or try to trade him. I expect the Giants to look into trading Jonathan Sanchez, keeping Zito on as a long reliever, perhaps pursuing Beurhle in the offseason as a 5th starter, shitcan Andres Torres, resign Keppinger for one year, sign Beltran or perhaps even creatively free up some money and try to sign a big name like Matt Kemp. In fact, as expensive as he’d be, Kemp would be a perfect fit for the Giants.

Righties hit for more power than lefties do in that park by a long shot. Kemp could easily put up numbers like he’s put up this year and in 2009, he could man centerfield for a year and then move to right when Gary Brown is ready to play every day in center, which could be sometime next season. With him in right and Brown in center and maybe Nate Schierholtz in left, that could potentially be the best defensive outfield in the NL. Kemp, Sandoval and Posey batting 3, 4, 5 would be a nice middle of the lineup by anyone’s standards. I don’t know if they have the money to make this kind of a signing, but if it’s just a matter of losing a couple million a year until Zito’s contract is off the books then they should jump at the chance to sign Kemp.

700

Rays down 1 with bases loaded (yanks) just turned a 5-4-3 triple play. .