2014 Baseball Thread

[WilsonBlvdHoya]

Oct 5, 2014 16:36:16 GMT -5 hoyainspirit said:

Lookout. Three in a row, here we come.

#WeWontStop

[CAHoya07]

I was very surprised when Matt Williams (one of my all-time favorite Giants by the way) took Zimmermann out. He was only at 100 pitches, and while Panik got a hard-earned walk, Zimmermann was still pitching very well - the Giants had barely done anything against him all game. I could see it if the Giants got another runner on, or if they were starting to hit Zimmermann hard, but they weren't. I told my friend at the bar at the time, "They might regret this," and sure enough...

Obviously in my many years of watching baseball I had never seen anything quite like Saturday night, and definitely not in a playoff environment. It was odd in that neither team gave themselves very many opportunities. Usually in these extra inning games there are bases loaded jams and things like that, but on Saturday, there just weren't. It was, dare I say, boring for a while, like a 0-0 soccer game played mostly around midfield with very few shots on goal. As for the result for Nats fans, I think it's just another lesson that baseball can be cruel in many ways. In all my years of being a Giants fan, I had experienced many years of "torture" of a different variety before that term became famous during our 2010 run (2002 World Series loss vs. the Angels the biggest example). But while us Giants fans are feeling pretty good after eeking out two close victories in DC, and now having our ace on the bump for a potential close-out game at home, we do not have to look very far in our own past to see a team coming back from a 2-0 deficit to win a divisional series (Giants did it in 2012 NLDS against the Reds, and all 3 games we won were on the road). Obviously the Nats will be playing with urgency, but I think the Giants will too, because they know better than anybody that the longer you let a team hang around, the more likely something weird could happen. And it's not like the Nats are playing really poorly, I think they're just not really hitting - and that can change in an instant.

Should be fun today, AT&T Park should be rocking on a Monday afternoon. Also, I get that TV governs these start times, but 2pm PST/5pm EST on a Monday? When there's only one other series happening after a couple ALDS sweeps? I guess it's done so that the games don't overlap much and so East Coast folks don't have to stay up too late to watch the finishes (LAD-STL starting at 6pm PST/9pm EST will probably end past midnight anyways), but I'm not so sure I'm a fan. I want to say I remember the days when playoff games during the week were always at night, primetime, and MLB didn't necessarily care if games overlapped a bit, but I guess the times have changed. I guess this format won't be changing anytime soon, and I suppose daytime baseball during the week isn't necessarily a bad thing. Go Giants!

[guru]

Oct 6, 2014 1:59:51 GMT -5 CAHoya07 said:

I was very surprised when Matt Williams (one of my all-time favorite Giants by the way) took Zimmermann out. He was only at 100 pitches, and while Panik got a hard-earned walk, Zimmermann was still pitching very well - the Giants had barely done anything against him all game. I could see it if the Giants got another runner on, or if they were starting to hit Zimmermann hard, but they weren't. I told my friend at the bar at the time, "They might regret this," and sure enough...

Obviously in my many years of watching baseball I had never seen anything quite like Saturday night, and definitely not in a playoff environment. It was odd in that neither team gave themselves very many opportunities. Usually in these extra inning games there are bases loaded jams and things like that, but on Saturday, there just weren't. It was, dare I say, boring for a while, like a 0-0 soccer game played mostly around midfield with very few shots on goal. As for the result for Nats fans, I think it's just another lesson that baseball can be cruel in many ways. In all my years of being a Giants fan, I had experienced many years of "torture" of a different variety before that term became famous during our 2010 run (2002 World Series loss vs. the Angels the biggest example). But while us Giants fans are feeling pretty good after eeking out two close victories in DC, and now having our ace on the bump for a potential close-out game at home, we do not have to look very far in our own past to see a team coming back from a 2-0 deficit to win a divisional series (Giants did it in 2012 NLDS against the Reds, and all 3 games we won were on the road). Obviously the Nats will be playing with urgency, but I think the Giants will too, because they know better than anybody that the longer you let a team hang around, the more likely something weird could happen. And it's not like the Nats are playing really poorly, I think they're just not really hitting - and that can change in an instant.

Should be fun today, AT&T Park should be rocking on a Monday afternoon. Also, I get that TV governs these start times, but 2pm PST/5pm EST on a Monday? When there's only one other series happening after a couple ALDS sweeps? I guess it's done so that the games don't overlap much and so East Coast folks don't have to stay up too late to watch the finishes (LAD-STL starting at 6pm PST/9pm EST will probably end past midnight anyways), but I'm not so sure I'm a fan. I want to say I remember the days when playoff games during the week were always at night, primetime, and MLB didn't necessarily care if games overlapped a bit, but I guess the times have changed. I guess this format won't be changing anytime soon, and I suppose daytime baseball during the week isn't necessarily a bad thing. Go Giants!

Tough loss, but this thing isn't over yet. Nats are a really good team and I'd be shocked if they don't demonstrate that before the series is finished, even if they go down.

I don't follow the Giants closely enough to understand why Bumgarner is considered such an ace? He has ten losses this season, and almost every season seems to lose in the double digits. I know he has great stuff and can be overpowering at times, but Fister's numbers compare favorably. Has he come up big in past playoffs (I honestly haven't watched either of the Giants recent runs).

[Thomas]

guru, I haven't followed the Giants that closely either, but I'll respond to your question anyway. I think a lot of the Bumgarner hype is based on how he shut down the Pirates in the "play-in" game last week. He also had big playoff games when they won the 2012 title. San Francisco's pitching staff had been similar to the current Nationals pitching because they had 3 number 1 starters in Cain, Lincecum and Bumgarner. Bumgarner was considered the 3rd best pitcher among them, even though he was very good. Lincecum has fallen off in recent years and I believe Cain is injured, so Bumgarner is the MAN now!!

I think Bumgarner will end the Nationals season later today because the Nationals batters pretty much got shut down by Tim Hudson and Jake Peavy, imagine what Bumgarner will do to them!! To me, the good news is that the Nationals have positioned themselves with the great pitching staff and mixture of young and very good hitters/position players to be a 90+ win team for the next several years. Also, the other teams in the National League East are being run by incompetent people and/or look to be in total disarray, that's another plus for the Nationals. They should have plenty of playoff opportunities in the future and can reverse what's going on now and what happened in 2012. CAHoya07 pointed out the torture he and other Giants fans felt prior to the run they've put together starting in 2010. That can easily happen with the Nationals.

[guru]

Oct 6, 2014 10:39:44 GMT -5 Thomas said:

guru, I haven't followed the Giants that closely either, but I'll respond to your question anyway. I think a lot of the Bumgarner hype is based on how he shut down the Pirates in the "play-in" game last week. He also had big playoff games when they won the 2012 title. San Francisco's pitching staff had been similar to the current Nationals pitching because they had 3 number 1 starters in Cain, Lincecum and Bumgarner. Bumgarner was considered the 3rd best pitcher among them, even though he was very good. Lincecum has fallen off in recent years and I believe Cain is injured, so Bumgarner is the MAN now!!

I think Bumgarner will end the Nationals season later today because the Nationals batters pretty much got shut down by Tim Hudson and Jake Peavy, imagine what Bumgarner will do to them!! To me, the good news is that the Nationals have positioned themselves with the great pitching staff and mixture of young and very good hitters/position players to be a 90+ win team for the next several years. Also, the other teams in the National League East are being run by incompetent people and/or look to be in total disarray, that's another plus for the Nationals. They should have plenty of playoff opportunities in the future and can reverse what's going on now and what happened in 2012. CAHoya07 pointed out the torture he and other Giants fans felt prior to the run they've put together starting in 2010. That can easily happen with the Nationals.

True - you're probably right about today, but Bumgarner seems like much more of a power pitcher than those other 2 guys. Maybe paradoxically, Nats seem to do better against those types of pitchers than guys who throw cutters. We'll see. The Nats need to start hitting, and it's a tough task to get back on track against another team's ace.

[TBird41]

If the Giants were "clutch", why do they miss the playoffs in odd years?

[SFHoya99]

Oct 6, 2014 9:08:36 GMT -5 guru said:

Oct 6, 2014 1:59:51 GMT -5 CAHoya07 said:

I was very surprised when Matt Williams (one of my all-time favorite Giants by the way) took Zimmermann out. He was only at 100 pitches, and while Panik got a hard-earned walk, Zimmermann was still pitching very well - the Giants had barely done anything against him all game. I could see it if the Giants got another runner on, or if they were starting to hit Zimmermann hard, but they weren't. I told my friend at the bar at the time, "They might regret this," and sure enough...

Obviously in my many years of watching baseball I had never seen anything quite like Saturday night, and definitely not in a playoff environment. It was odd in that neither team gave themselves very many opportunities. Usually in these extra inning games there are bases loaded jams and things like that, but on Saturday, there just weren't. It was, dare I say, boring for a while, like a 0-0 soccer game played mostly around midfield with very few shots on goal. As for the result for Nats fans, I think it's just another lesson that baseball can be cruel in many ways. In all my years of being a Giants fan, I had experienced many years of "torture" of a different variety before that term became famous during our 2010 run (2002 World Series loss vs. the Angels the biggest example). But while us Giants fans are feeling pretty good after eeking out two close victories in DC, and now having our ace on the bump for a potential close-out game at home, we do not have to look very far in our own past to see a team coming back from a 2-0 deficit to win a divisional series (Giants did it in 2012 NLDS against the Reds, and all 3 games we won were on the road). Obviously the Nats will be playing with urgency, but I think the Giants will too, because they know better than anybody that the longer you let a team hang around, the more likely something weird could happen. And it's not like the Nats are playing really poorly, I think they're just not really hitting - and that can change in an instant.

Should be fun today, AT&T Park should be rocking on a Monday afternoon. Also, I get that TV governs these start times, but 2pm PST/5pm EST on a Monday? When there's only one other series happening after a couple ALDS sweeps? I guess it's done so that the games don't overlap much and so East Coast folks don't have to stay up too late to watch the finishes (LAD-STL starting at 6pm PST/9pm EST will probably end past midnight anyways), but I'm not so sure I'm a fan. I want to say I remember the days when playoff games during the week were always at night, primetime, and MLB didn't necessarily care if games overlapped a bit, but I guess the times have changed. I guess this format won't be changing anytime soon, and I suppose daytime baseball during the week isn't necessarily a bad thing. Go Giants!

Tough loss, but this thing isn't over yet. Nats are a really good team and I'd be shocked if they don't demonstrate that before the series is finished, even if they go down.

I don't follow the Giants closely enough to understand why Bumgarner is considered such an ace? He has ten losses this season, and almost every season seems to lose in the double digits. I know he has great stuff and can be overpowering at times, but Fister's numbers compare favorably. Has he come up big in past playoffs (I honestly haven't watched either of the Giants recent runs).

I feel like I'm diving into a ridiculously long discussion here, but it's because losses are a terrible way to evaluate pitchers.

Fister is a very nice pitcher and had a great year. However, his year this year is completely driven, in comparison to other years, by allowing less hits on balls in play. Opponents are batting .262 on balls in play (Batting Average on Balls In Play); Fister's career average, like most pitcher's, is around .300. Without this, he'd likely have an era around 3.90.

Of course, he hasn't allowed those hits -- but here's the thing -- pitchers who allow a low BABIP don't show any tendency to repeat that. Players who hit a lot of HRs one year tend to do it next year. Pitchers who strike out a lot of guys or don't walk them tend to keep striking them out or not walking them in the future.

But guys who don't allow hits on balls in play don't tend to repeat it. Which means don't count on a 2.47 ERA going forward, especially not with a declining K rate.

Bumgarner is, on the other hand, a strikeout pitcher who doesn't walk a lot of guys. Not only does that fit the traditional definition of ace, it's a skillset that is likely to repeat year after year until Bumgarner ages. He's had two straight years of ERAs below 3.00 and you can likely expect his ERA to linger right around 3.00 going forward. He's fundamentally a BETTER pitcher than Fister from a skillset standpoint.

[guru]

Oct 6, 2014 13:53:35 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

Oct 6, 2014 9:08:36 GMT -5 guru said:

Tough loss, but this thing isn't over yet. Nats are a really good team and I'd be shocked if they don't demonstrate that before the series is finished, even if they go down.

I don't follow the Giants closely enough to understand why Bumgarner is considered such an ace? He has ten losses this season, and almost every season seems to lose in the double digits. I know he has great stuff and can be overpowering at times, but Fister's numbers compare favorably. Has he come up big in past playoffs (I honestly haven't watched either of the Giants recent runs).

I feel like I'm diving into a ridiculously long discussion here, but it's because losses are a terrible way to evaluate pitchers.

Fister is a very nice pitcher and had a great year. However, his year this year is completely driven, in comparison to other years, by allowing less hits on balls in play. Opponents are batting .262 on balls in play (Batting Average on Balls In Play); Fister's career average, like most pitcher's, is around .300. Without this, he'd likely have an era around 3.90.

Of course, he hasn't allowed those hits -- but here's the thing -- pitchers who allow a low BABIP don't show any tendency to repeat that. Players who hit a lot of HRs one year tend to do it next year. Pitchers who strike out a lot of guys or don't walk them tend to keep striking them out or not walking them in the future.

But guys who don't allow hits on balls in play don't tend to repeat it. Which means don't count on a 2.47 ERA going forward, especially not with a declining K rate.

Bumgarner is, on the other hand, a strikeout pitcher who doesn't walk a lot of guys. Not only does that fit the traditional definition of ace, it's a skillset that is likely to repeat year after year until Bumgarner ages. He's had two straight years of ERAs below 3.00 and you can likely expect his ERA to linger right around 3.00 going forward. He's fundamentally a BETTER pitcher than Fister from a skillset standpoint.

I understand the numbers breakdown but for someone with such a rep I'd think he would be more than 17 wins over .500 in five seasons on a team that has won two world series. Even if wins and losses are such a terrible way to judge pitchers.

Skillset wise, Bumgarner seems a lot like Strasburg. Guess he's seen as a big game pitcher whereas Strasburg hasn't proven to be that as of yet.

[Thomas]

Oct 6, 2014 12:04:36 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

If the Giants were "clutch", why do they miss the playoffs in odd years?

I believe 2011 was the year Buster Posey blew out his knee when a guy ran him over at the plate. I can't really explain what happened last year(76-86), maybe that was just a fluke. But the 10 straight postseason wins, 6 straight postseason road wins and being the only team to lose the first 2 games of a 5-game at home, and then winning the next 3 on the road at Cincinnati is clutch to me.

[TBird41]

Oct 6, 2014 16:21:13 GMT -5 Thomas said:

Oct 6, 2014 12:04:36 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

If the Giants were "clutch", why do they miss the playoffs in odd years?

I believe 2011 was the year Buster Posey blew out his knee when a guy ran him over at the plate. I can't really explain what happened last year(76-86), maybe that was just a fluke. But the 10 straight postseason wins, 6 straight postseason road wins and being the only team to lose the first 2 games of a 5-game at home, and then winning the next 3 on the road at Cincinnati is clutch to me.

If they are so clutch as an organization, why did they lose those two games to Cincinnati? Was it so they could be extra clutch in the next three games?

[CAHoya07]

Oct 6, 2014 16:23:26 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

Oct 6, 2014 16:21:13 GMT -5 Thomas said:

I believe 2011 was the year Buster Posey blew out his knee when a guy ran him over at the plate. I can't really explain what happened last year(76-86), maybe that was just a fluke. But the 10 straight postseason wins, 6 straight postseason road wins and being the only team to lose the first 2 games of a 5-game at home, and then winning the next 3 on the road at Cincinnati is clutch to me.

If they are so clutch as an organization, why did they lose those two games to Cincinnati? Was it so they could be extra clutch in the next three games?

Why do I feel like you have an agenda with these posts, TBird? And how "clutch" have the Minnesota Twins been this century? Or maybe you just don't like the term "clutch"? I think that's it.

Anyways, tough day for the Giants today that swung on one play - Bumgarner's poor decision and execution in his throwing error to third base. Something overlooked in all this is that left fielder Travis Ishikawa (only playing because of injuries to Pagan and Morse) did not do a good job backing up while the ball was bouncing around in the bullpen. Really only one run should have scored on that play, not two. I hope the series does not turn on that one play, I've seen it happen before on an error (see Reds 3B Scott Rolen, 2012 NLDS). Should be another interesting game tonight.

[Thomas]

CAHoya07, I don't really like the term clutch because I think of the CLOWNS on ESPN who use it all the time, but it's easier to use that word than the phrase "He(or the team) Plays Very Well In High Pressure Games"

I believe yesterday's game set a record for scoreless innings when the game was scoreless heading into the 7th inning. I thought the Giants would win 1-0 or 2-0 because Bumgarner would outlast Fister, and the Giants would get a run or 2 off of a Nationals reliever. I was surprised that Bumgarner threw it to 3rd on that play. Throwing to first would've been an easier play and then he could work his way out of the jam. He(and Fister) had been in total control up to that point. Maybe he thought he should throw to 3rd because he knew runs would be hard to come by in the game with the way he and Fister were pitching. It felt like the winning team would only need 1 run to win.

When the Nationals scored 2 runs it had to be a crushing blow to the Giants. I did get uneasy when Storen came in, gave up a run and had 2 runners on with less then 2 outs. The Nationals definitely have hope now because Gio Gonzalez and whoever is scheduled to pitch Game 5(if they win today) is better than Vogelgsong and their Game 5 pitcher. Plus, the Nationals hitters should be a lot more confident at this point after they scored 4 runs yesterday

[TBird41]

It's not about the Giants. Or the Cardinals. It's about small sample sizes and the need to make an inability to perform in a small sample size about the moral failings (or moral superiority) of players / organizations.

It's the same vein as the BS about the "Twins Way" that we got when the Twins were good.

[hoyainspirit]

Go Nats!

[hoyarooter]

Oct 7, 2014 9:04:51 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

It's not about the Giants. Or the Cardinals. It's about small sample sizes and the need to make an inability to perform in a small sample size about the moral failings (or moral superiority) of players / organizations.

It's the same vein as the BS about the "Twins Way" that we got when the Twins were good.

The Twins were good?

I jest.

The critique of Kershaw's regular season above is totally misplaced. Kershaw had one really horrific start this season, in early May against the Diamondbacks, when he lasted less than two innings and gave up six or seven runs. We all know how good the Snakes were this season. That game aside, Kershaw's ERA this year was around 1.5. He dominated everybody. He just missed leading the league in strikeouts, despite spending four weeks on the disabled list. Plus, he's now led the majors in ERA for four consecutive seasons. His performance is not a fluke. However - that said, small sample size or no small sample size, if Kershaw gags again today, his third Cy will come with a great big asterisk which says "but he doesn't have the cajones to pitch in the playoffs." And I'm calling BS right now to the readymade excuse that ooo, he's pitching on three days rest. His routine has been totally disrupted. In 1965, Sandy Koufax pitched a complete game shutout in game 7 of the World Series on two days rest (sorry, TBird, but I know that's before your time). If Kershaw wants to be mentioned in the same breath as Koufax - and that's happening a lot here in LA - he needs a first rate performance today.

[Thomas]

I agree hoyarooter!! People can claim that the postseason is a "small sample size", but it's the MOST IMPORTANT sample size. As Mike Trout found out in his 3 postseason games(where he went 1-12), there is a huge difference between the regular season and the postseason. I have no doubt that M.Trout will do a lot better when he returns to the postseason in the future, but I'm sure he was somewhat overwhelmed by the pressure of the postseason where he was expected to be great and his team was an overwhelming favorite to beat the Royals. We'll see if Clayton Kershaw can redeem himself and save the Dodgers season in moments. If he gets pounded by St.Louis again, he'll still be considered an all-time great pitcher, but the comparisons to Peyton Manning and Greg Maddux will get louder!!!

[SFHoya99]

I'd argue this, but it's not 1998 anymore and since the myth of any significant clutchness has been debunked nine million times on the internet.

You can google it. Or not. But everyone else has moved on from this concept.

[hoyarooter]

It's a good thing I didn't bet on these series. I would have gone 0-4.

[hoyainspirit]

Congrats to you Giants fans. !

[hoyainspirit]

It was a fun baseball season. Until it wasn't.