Will Carroll (BP) On Lincecum
by nate050904 on Jan 30, 2007 2:39 PM EST
Email
PrintHMGould (SoCal): Tim Lincecum's one of the most intriguing guys to come up in a while. Do his size and unorthodox delivery suggest a healthier or more effective career as either a starter or reliever? Is there anything different you'd do to protect that unusual talent?
Will Carroll: I LOVE his delivery. The more I see it, the more I like it, and I wonder every day if that's teachable. I like him as a starter -- no fact to show that he can't handle it yet -- but I think he could dominate as a reliever. Different? I wouldn't try to change his delivery, that's for sure. I might let him throw MORE than most at his level.
159 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Haha
How's the weather on the Island of I hate Lincecum? Looks like your island is continuing to to grow smaller and smaller.
Continue hating, the support for him is well founded and he's going to continue raising his stock once the season rolls around. Gonna be long summer for ya. Have fun pulling your hair out.
Well said
by nate050904 on Jan 30, 2007 3:12 PM EST up reply actions
HOW
by nate050904 on Jan 30, 2007 3:22 PM EST up reply actions
Nate
Also, you mention BA, Sickels, and everyone else as if they had all the answers without realizing that there are a lot of variables and a lot of different ways of analyzing young players, and even the most knowledgeable of scouts and prospecteers is wrong very frequently.
This site is built on people who love prospects coming in and chatting, throwing around thoughts, and coming to their own conclusions. You seem to want to dismiss that. Imagine if every time someone posted their thoughts on a prospect they were met with Nate090504 screaming "Are you a scout?! What do you know?! That would sort of suck...
Here's an idea: in the future, why don't we just reprint BA's top 100 list as our own so we don't have to do any original thinking? What that work better for you?
While I agree
Opinions, same or different, are fine, but when you challenge a commonly held opinion by the vast majority of experts in the field, you should have better footing than Havok has had.
Well
Agree to a point
On the other hand, I can see his point on Lincecum being overrated, based only on his expectations. I don't doubt that Lincecum can become a good pitcher, but I see things like Will Carroll saying he would take Lincecum over any other pitcher currently in professional Baseball, and I can't help but think that someone needs to take a step back and reevaluate the history of prospects, specifically hot fireballing young pitchers.
Interesting study
It is at least something that supports what you're saying, but I think all the stuff out there about Lincecum and who it's coming from far out-weighs any conclusion we can derive from that single study, especially given that Linc isn't a real good fit within those categories.
well..
As for the weight, being 5'9"-5'10" as he really is makes his 160-170lb weight quite normal and actually above-average for his size.
by youALREADYknow on Jan 30, 2007 4:37 PM EST up reply actions
havok
I think you have reasonable fears that Lincy's small stature mught affect his durability. But this article provides nothing relevant to Lincecum's case. To say otherwise is disengenuous.
Note that I also have sopme problems with Gassko's studty design and conclusions, but that is a separate topic altogether.
I woory about Lincecum, too, FWIW, and will pass over him with my top spot. But not because of a Hardball Times article, just because of a fear of the unknown.
Wow, that sounded really harsh
Well according to that
by thedude @ Minor League Ball on Jan 31, 2007 11:41 AM EST up reply actions
IMO
Will you stop already
The point stands
Pedro and Oswalt?
Oswalt drop in strikeouts over the last 3 years is a red flag to me that's he's not quite right either. He's on my list of guys to go down in the near future.
there's some truth to this
But what do we expect from Lincecum? Is anything short of a 15-year career a failure? To my eye, he has pitching skill as of today to challenge most major league pitchers. And I do buy into most of this talk about his mechanics taking stress off his arm, to the extent such a thing is possible - and for all I know about it, which isn't much. But if he dominates for six years and then breaks down, I'm going to go ahead and say I was right about him.
Healthy enough
I can't believe
Completely Missed the Point
Had to know you'd upset somebody if you talked bad about God (Pedro). Nobody was nitpicking him, I said he's amazing. I will say its more than a little naive to say "he has injury issues after 14 seasons in MLB".
I had an opportunity to talk to Tom House at a pitching clinic about Pedro about 6 years ago and his assessment was he was lazy early in his career, paid no attention to arm care and strength training which led to him injuring his shoulder. From that point on, NO ONE has ever worked harder to stay on the mound than he has. He didn't specifically tell me, but from the shoulder strengthening regimen he described it sounds like Pedro has been pitching with a significant rotator cuff tear for years.
If you've ever had a rotator cuff tear, there are times when you can get it loose and you hardly feel it at all, other times you can hardly lift your arm. I've been there and in my opinion its clear this is where Pedro is at and has been for a long time.
Labrum is a different story, when its done, most of the time, you are done.
interesting.
Tom House
what is your point?
Prior did have great mechanics. You think perfect mechanics keep your arm from breaking down? lol, I hope not.
The point
Yet those very same people who thought highly of Prior are probably knocking down Linc right now due to his size.
Again
I like this kid's arm, but I would be the least surprised person in the world if he broke down this year. But then I stopped being surprised at pitchers breaking down a long time ago.
IMO, the single biggest factor in whether a pitcher breaks down sooner rather than later (they all do eventually) is the amount of effort they exert. The simple physics of the matter tell you a pitcher of smaller stature exerts more energy to produce the same velocity.
Effort?
Tall people
The Ryan comp....
I dont really know about the comment on delivery.
Yet again though, neither comp was about Ryan's numbers or career. You could have made the same Noal Ryan comp with Colt Griffen's velocity but that doesnt mean I would project him to have that sort of career.
Bust
88 mph
But I wonder how many here have even seen him pitch. I have -- on three separate occasions. And I will be very surprised if he's not the real deal.
Oh, I've also scoured the internet for information on him. And I have recently sent his dad (Chris) an e-mail. It was Chris that taught Timmy his delivery -- the one that has confused many but which Will Carroll is wondering if it can be taught to others, since he thinks it is such a wonderful delivery. And don't forget, Will wrote the book "Saving the Pitcher," which I finished last week. If you want to learn about what causes injuries to pitchers and how they can better avoid them, it is a very nice read.
So arguably the press's top expert on baseball injuries and pitching mechanics LOVES Timmy's delivery. Would you like to know why?
Timmy has never missed a start, nor even had a sore arm. He was seen comfortably throwing long toss foul pole to foul pole the day after he threw 146 pitches in his two-hit, 18-strikeout shutout of UCLA last spring. Timmy pretty consistently hits the 94-97 range with his fastball -- and has been clocked as high as 101. That 146th pitch in his shutout was registered at 95, right in his normal range. Does that sound to you as if he were tiring?
On, I forgot to mention that his fastball isn't his best pitch. His curve ball has been called as good as any in the majors. Maybe that's how he struck out 15.6 batters per nine innings last summer -- a figure much higher than any other pitcher in organized ball. He also has a decent slider, changeup and knuckleball.
But back to Timmy's dad. Chris' motion is said to be so close to Timmy's that one can't tell them apart on film. And Chris was timed at 88 mph. So what, you ask? Chris was 55 years old at the time.
In other words, 33 years from now Timmy could still be Livan Hernandez.
Thanks for the info
I'll say this, from experience, just because it doesn't bother him at his young age to throw 146 pitches doesn't mean there aren't any effects. I averaged 130 pitches an outing in college and never had any problems until........well, until I had problems.
P.S. His duece on film looks excellent.
Good Point
And let's not forget that Will Carroll is likely acutely aware of Timmy's college pitch load -- and Will clearly isn't worried, having stated that he would take Timmy as the pitcher around whom to build his franchise for the next 10 years.
Regarding the actual workload that Timmy faced in college, I haven't been able to find out much before his junior (2006) season. I did find that he threw a verified 165 pitches in a game during his sophomore year, but aside from that, the most I have seen was the 146-pitch shutout over UCLA. I found one other game in which he threw 130+ pitches. But most of the games I have seen (and that is not a huge sampling) Timmy didn't throw all that many pitches.
Timmy threw 125 1/3 innings at the University of Washington last spring. That is over two full games less than the 144 Jered Weaver threw during HIS junior year of college. The 125 1/3 innings were thrown over nearly four full months. Timmy started once on only three days' rest, but his other 16 starts were on the normal four or more since his last start.
He made five relief appearances of between 1/3 of an inning and two innings. The relief appearances seemed to be designed to fill in gaps during which it would have been too soon to start him again and in which without the relief appearances it would have been too long between starts.
It appeared to me that over a seven month period last spring and summer, Timmy threw several hundred fewer pitches than Matt Cain, three and a half months his junior. My original estimate was between 500 and 600 fewer, but I then came across the game in which Timmy threw 130+ pitches. So let me conservatively estimate the Timmy threw between 200 and 400 fewer pitches than Matt did. And Matt's larger number of pitches came over six months, not seven. If we counted the pitches Matt threw in spring training, the gap would likely grow by 200 to 300 more pitches.
In the case of both Timmy and Matt, it is important that they throw more strikes. Matt didn't throw as many innings as Jason Schmidt because Jason averaged over a pitch per inning LESS than Matt. At Matt's rate of last season, he would throw about 120 pitches over seven innings. Although I think Matt can handle such a workload, that may be too many pitches for the long run. Surprisingly, Barry Zito is another pitcher who throws a lot of pitches per inning.
Timmy threw fewer pitches per inning last season, but that was also at a much lower level. While Timmy would benefit in the pitch count department from almost certainly having fewer strikeouts, he also would allow more hits (He was below one hit every two innings in the minors.), necessatating more pitches. Even though major league hitters often make better contact and don't go as deep in the count, I don't think Timmy will improve on the approximately three walks per nine innings he allowed last season for several seasons to come. As I mentioned, the key is getting ahead in the count. If he fails to do so, he will almost certainly give up more walks, hits and homers.
But if Timmy were able to strike out a dozen hitters per nine innings (down from the 14, 15 and 16 he posted in college and pro last season), if batters hit the normal .300 on Balls in Play against Timmy, he would yield about eight hits per inning, unless he gave up a very large number of homers. And my suspicion is that like Matt Cain, Timmy will hold batters to a number BELOW the normal .300 on Balls in Play. So I would expect him to yield seven or eight hits per nine innings -- fewer if his control enables him to get ahead consistently.
Thus my sense is that barring serious control problems, Timmy could be effective as a starter this season. And I would say it is almost certain he will be up some time this year. The only question would seem to be how early. And the answer would seem only to be April through September.
question
just joking :)
Lincecum; S or RP?
Great
I believe he's going to start.
by nate050904 on Jan 30, 2007 3:06 PM EST up reply actions
The Giants
SP Stacked?
Morris
A Wildcard?
I just don't see how the guy is a question mark, much less more of a question mark than a guy like Noah Lowry. You know what you're getting with Morris--mediocre/league average production and a ton of innings. Nothing questionable about it.
by Pawtucket Pat on Jan 30, 2007 4:28 PM EST up reply actions
Even so...
Morris
In the rotation
Morris
by nate050904 on Jan 30, 2007 3:14 PM EST up reply actions
the Giants
Despite the Giants having some solid options in their rotation (Cain, Zito, Lowry, and if not this year in the future Jonathan Sanchez) and a relatively weak bullpen with no clear cut closer, the Giants know that Lincecum as a #1 ACE pitcher is still more valuable to them then as a dominant closer.
In fact, with that in mind, I'd look at the Giants to possibly use one of their 3 first round draft picks to maybe address that issue by drafting a college closer. Possibly one of the following three: LHP Cole St. Clair Rice, LHP Daniel Moskos Clemson, or RHP Josh Fields Georgia. These guys all have two dominant pitches that would allow them to conceivably reach the majors pretty quickly and make an impact on the Giants bullpen.
But, I still think that Lincecum needs some more time before he comes to the majors. He needs to work on his changeup and developing his offspeed arsenal so that hitters dont just wait on his straight fastball--because major league hitters can hit 98 mph fastballs. His breaking ball is awesome right now, Lincecum just needs to work on that changeup.
Finally, I think that this offseason will be great for Lincecum to rest because he threw so many innings last year between college and his pro-debut. But, I hope the Giants continue to let him long toss between starts. It reminds of Leo Mazzone when he was with the Braves. He always wanted his pitchers to throw more so that they woudl build up their arms. He was also known for having his pitchers throw more than usual between their starts.
by z4 landshark on Jan 30, 2007 3:36 PM EST up reply actions
Too Many Innings?
Timmy threw too many innings in 2006? You're joking, right? He threw precisely 164.0 innings, including his start in the California League playoffs. You might be surprised to know that Timmy is three and a half months older than Matt Cain and yet likely threw several hundred fewer pitches than Matt -- and did so over one more month.
If you want to know something about Timmy, I can probably help you. And if it's a good enough question that I don't know the answer to, I'll see if his dad can answer it.
Wow
by nate050904 on Jan 30, 2007 3:04 PM EST reply actions
There are two camps when it comes to Lincecum
Two: People who have seen him throw, and realize most of the reports and praise don't do him justice.
I think expectations are so high that he has his work cut out for him, and people are right to be speculative; especially considering there have been so many prospects to fall short of great expectations in recent memory. We are moving into a new era of baseball, however. Whereas the past ten years have been dictated by great hitters, the next ten years will be dictated by great pitchers. And while I don't want to make the comparison, Lincecum certainly looks to have all the capacities of a young Sandy Koufax. If the chips fall well in Lincecum's favor, he's going to show what Koufax could have done sans the latter-career injuries.
You've been reading have you?
by nate050904 on Jan 30, 2007 3:26 PM EST up reply actions
Haven't even picked up that book
re: two camps
How about
"Fits" is a perfect way to state it
How do you explain
Utley
My opinion
If all teams saw him (they all have quality scouting) then they would all proscribe to the one camp and would of course draft him. But they didnt. So the 2 camps is obviously oversimplified and maybe possible someone actually saw him and didn't think it was God pitching. Yes - loads of sarcasm.
I love Lincecum. But to imply that either you are a fool and havn't seen him OR you've seen him and think he's the absolute best is what is driving Havok and others mad here.
I hear you
I am willing to bet
more...
I'm not anti-Lincecum, although rating him the 7th-best pitching prospect on my top-100 probably labels me as such by his more avid fans. And I agree that the second thoughts by other teams may grow as he continues to progress. But with 8 of the 9 players taken before him, I could understand how they could have been taken ahead of him. And a year before, I think that many would have thought you daft to suggest that Lincecum would go before Ian Kennedy, so it wouldn't have utterly shocked me to see Lincecum fall even farther.
In general, players' values can change a lot over time, and Lincecum's took a big spike upward due to his great 31 innings in A-ball. I would assert that if he'd been unable to find the strike zone during that time, all the "mechanics" and "size" arguments would have been moot. I think next year will be telling for him, as he hits the upper minors (unless he vaults to SF right away, which I think is unlikely). Until he shows a similar dominance of AA hitters, I don't really care how good he looks when he's pitching.
In a way, he represents a flaw in prospect lists... I honestly don't think he can be rated super-high this year, but if he emerges as reaching his upside, he won't be eligible for a list next year, although he'd be highly ranked on an organizational "under 25" list.
Wow, the world is black and white, huh?
lincecumvision
http://detectovision.com/?p=680
quoting from the link:
"
Injury risk factors for pitching include:
1) Velocity (higher velo = less health risk)
2) Workload (more pitches under strain = more health risk)
3) History (proven ability to handle workload without stiffness = less health risk; see Matsuzaka)
4) Pitching mechanics
5) Shape of pitches (sideways-breaking pitches torque elbow ligaments; vertical pitches are easy on elbow)
6) Body shape (longer, whippier, more centrifugal motions = less health risk)
7) Pitcher age and handedness (older = less health risk; LH = less health risk)
Tim Lincecum rates "less health risk" on 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7a. Factor #1 is hugely in his favor, as it was for Johnson, Ryan, Seaver, Clemens, etc.
He rates "high health risk" on 2, having been subjected to 130- and 140-pitch counts in college. He is RH, leaving 7b a less desirable factor than if he were LH.
On 6, he is six foot even, a mild health risk compared to a 6'5" pitcher, but he has a light, whippy, centrifugal motion, leaving #6 a neutral factor.
=====
Intuitively -- summing it all up -- the fact that Lincecum's arm feels very comfortable after 140-pitch outings is the most important consideration. The fact that his arm is never sore should not be minimized.
"
http://detectovision.com/?p=628
"Lincecum's K's are artificially high for the same reason that his BB's are artificially high. College hitters can't find his pitches with a sonar."
Yeah
Wouldn't be the
A little suspicious
Centrifugal force isn't a real force -- so how does "center-fleeing" motion relate to body shape? And how does an increase in a motion that seems to have a ficticious cousin affect injury rates? Is this in the link? If so, I'll read. Too tired otherwise ;-)
Pickin' nits
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centripetal
don't think it's explained in the link
What it does
If you look in the dictionary, centrifugal force is defined as "pulling away from the center when it is in orbit or rotating about a center." This is false. Say you have ball tied to a piece of string and rotate it quickly in a circle above your head - the same as planet revolves around the sun. Once you get it going, you let it go. If the concept of centrifugal force were true, the ball would fly directly outward in the exact same direction the string was pointing when it was released, or at least it would fly outward on an arced path. This is not what happens. The ball will travel in a direction that is at a 90 degree angle to the string as that was the direction of it's velocity the instant it was released - the link has an illustration of this. This happens so fast that people just assume it flew straight outward. The ball merely continues it's path based on the velocity it had when released.
Anyone using the term to centrifugal to describe a forces on a pitcher doesn't really have a good grasp of physics and you have to question, if not discount the validity of their assertion(s) when they are based on a ficticious force.
Centrifugal
I know you're just trying to be funny,
Physics Discussion on a Minor League Baseball Site
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0811114.html
Maybe it's not a force in it's truest sense, but without it circular motion would not exist.
semantics
yes
so if you want to talk about a pitcher's motion in terms of centrifugal force, that makes perfect sense. relative to the pitcher (who is turning), there is definitely a "force" that pushes the ball away from the axis of rotation. in order to keep the ball "stationary" in that reference frame (i.e. moving in a circular path), there has to be a counterbalancing inward (centripetal) force, which in this case is the pitcher pulling the ball inward. when he releases, this centripetal force disappears and the ball moves outwards in the rotating frame (but in a straight line in the non-rotating, inertial frame).
by the way, good old gravity is a fictitious force as well--according to the general theory of relativity, gravity too is not a true force but a byproduct of doing physics in a non-intertial reference frame. exactly the same as centrifugal forces. that doesn't mean that there's no such thing as gravity, or that you can't analyze a problem using the force of gravity.
and yes, i'm a physicist. sorry for the lecture.
all right
i get what you're saying, but i think you're nerding up a little bit here. in my opinion, to say a pitcher uses "whippy, centrifugal motions" does not imply that he uses centrifugal force which does not exist to impart velocity to the ball's vector. (the "whippy force" isn't even in the dictionary!) it's intended to describe the style of delivery - to distinguish a pitcher who throws by rotating his whole body (like a centrifuge), from the hips, rather than just throwing all-arm, from the shoulder. (everyone rotates their body some when they throw, of course, but i think you'll agree that lincecum does so more than most.)
"centrifugal force" may not impart any velocity to the ball, but spinning it in a circle does, and the word centrifugal suggests that context. more of a word picture than an equation. i don't see any particular problem with using it.
Nerd checking in
The arm, on the other hand, does move at a high enough speed to produce a good amount of force - centripetal force.
Actually...
I'm sorry, but if you've seen him pitch
I sort of don't trust anyone who calls Lincecum overrated.
by loney4Life on Jan 30, 2007 4:12 PM EST reply actions
and his
well...
More on topic: 22 teams passed on Phillip Hughes.I bet they are upset about that.
by caintastic on Jan 30, 2007 4:42 PM EST up reply actions
SuperBowl week!!!
Look at the 2000 NFL draft..
1 Cleveland Courtney Brown DE Penn State
2 Washington LaVar Arrington OLB Penn State
3 Washington Chris Samuels T Alabama
4 Cincinnati Peter Warrick WR Florida State
5 Baltimore Jamal Lewis RB Tennessee
6 Philadelphia Corey Simon DT Florida State
7 Arizona Thomas Jones RB Virginia
8 Pittsburgh Plaxico Burress WR Michigan State
9 Chicago Brian Urlacher MLB New Mexico
"Under-sized" Urlacher fell to #9. Tell me those teams don't don't regret passing him up... Washington is guilty twice!!!
guilty 2x
Yeah, I know
I don't know
Not all of them....
what do any of these guys
he's talking 04
like others said....
I can see
I find it extremely hard to argue against
by Fett42 @ Minor League Ball on Jan 30, 2007 4:22 PM EST reply actions
Amen
What kind of f'ing idiot argues against that guy being a ridiculous prospect?
I don't care if he was 3'5" 80lbs with herpes... to say he's overrated with that kind of stuff, performance, and history is borderline mental disorder.
If anything, he's underrated since there isn't a damn prospect in baseball with that combination of stuff, performance, and history.
by youALREADYknow on Jan 30, 2007 4:35 PM EST up reply actions
I think...
You're a sicko
Plus
Don't tempt me
Here's to cutting off Lincecum's legs!
i dunno about that
To the Batter, He Appears to Throw Easy
If you watch a video of Timmy from behind the batter, you will be surprised at how easy Timmy seems to be throwing. If you watch a video of him from the third-base side, you will be amazed at how he seems to leap off the mound in a manner that has been compared to Nolan Ryan, who didn't turn out too bad.
Now, do you want to know what could de-rail Timmy? In order to be great, he must throw a high percentage of first-pitch strikes IMO. Once he gets ahead of a hitter, that hitter is in a world of hurt. But if the hitter gets ahead, Timmy DID have a high walk rate in college (although he cut it in his final season and cut it by about a third more in the minor leagues).
Another thing to consider. During the regular season, Timmy struck out 58 of the 122 batters he faced. That's 47.5%, or a cool 20%+ higher than Johan Santana. Sure, it was only Class A -- but 47.5%?!!!
And perhaps even more impressive, the average pitcher yields a line drive to about one out of every six hitters. Timmy yielded one (which was caught for an out) to the 122 batters he faced. The average pitcher would have allowed about 20 line drives. Timmy allowed ONE. One. It is just possible that is where he could one day rank among the pitchers of his day.
Ummm
Also, am I the only person who thinks calling a 20-something year old "Timmy" consistently is a little creepy?
by Jgaztambide on Jan 31, 2007 12:26 PM EST up reply actions
hahaha
by realityconquest on Jan 31, 2007 6:38 AM EST up reply actions
ok, so you're saying he's overrated as a prospect
by loney4Life on Jan 30, 2007 4:36 PM EST reply actions
Looking forward to 2007
Link
Thanks.
by iyfblcommish on Jan 30, 2007 6:26 PM EST reply actions
linc-a-vid
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/events/draft/y2006/tracker/search.jsp?sc=lastName&sp=L&pg=2
(click the '350k' link to the right of lincecum's name for this one)
Linc-oln
Lincoln
He looks kind of smallish also (?).
Thanks Bob
Maybe it was the camera angle, but did it look 'odd' when Lincoln's elbow peaked out from behind him?
One More Link
http://www.pitchsmarter.com/101/timlincecum_baseballbiomechanics.pdf
Tell ya what
I'm sold, this kid looks like the real deal to me.
unorthodox?
I don't see anything out of the ordinary. A couple points I will touch on:
He's clearly a straight over the top delivery, nothing wrong with that if that's his natural arm slot. As is the case with this arm slot though, it tends to cause some head tilt at release, which he shows a little bit of. Usually you get the head tilt because you've got a low elbow relative to the shoulder, in this case, its a compensation to avoid front shoulder impingement at the pectoral muscle.
He stands a little taller at release than I would like (glove side pulls just a little). At his size (he sure doesn't look 6 foot) he needs to maximize his stride/release ratio. In short, I think he can get more out of his delivery.
Overall he's compact and balanced. He generates top velocity withouting appearing to exert max effort. I don't see any immediate risk of injury other than the fact that small righties eventually break down. That's just what they do.
I think that's Havok's main argument
What on earth does this have to do
the brain hemisphere thing
wily mo
At least this happens for me.
Do you know any left-handed players that are switch hitters? I'm guessing when they are hitting right-handed they would have that same sweet swing from the other side of the plate.
dunno about that
hmmm
Hmmm, not sure that narrows things down at all?
Rickey Henderson: throws left but bats right
by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Feb 1, 2007 8:12 PM EST up reply actions
if I remember correctly....
guesses
I'm thinking that Ricky may have had more power hitting left but would have had a flatter and better contact swing from the right side which suits his speed game.
I hit left and had plenty of power but had contact issues. I could move to the right side and it was so much easier for contact but my power was gone. Another weird thing - I loved facing lefty pitchers, I don't know why.
I think there are a lot of weird phenonema because many lefties are taught from a young age to do most things as a righty.
High walk rate
Linc
Plus Will Caroll is one of the few people I trust when it comes to baseball injuries. If he thinks Linc will be fine, then I think he will be fine.
Oswalt/Hudson
by bl on Jan 31, 2007 2:18 AM EST up reply actions
The difference between Oswalt and Hudson
I personally like the Oswalt comparison a lot more, because their fastballs are very similar. It gives us something beyond just size at least.
From Freshman to Fresh
One line drive from 122 hitters. 58 strikeouts. 14 hits. One impressive pitcher.
Overrated?
I've seen several eyewitness accounts that have Tim hitting 98 MPH with his fastball, but most of those accounts have him sitting between 94-96 MPH with an occasional 98 MPH.
The night I saw him was his second Cal League game in San Bernardino. His fastball that night was 91-94. Never got higher than 94 on the stadium gun. Now, I know stadium guns are a bit suspect, but by my eyeball estimates, he wasn't anywhere close to 98 that night. His fastball command was a bit shaky that night and from the second inning on, he threw about 60-70% curveballs which he had much better control of than the fastball. I will say that he gave up a couple of drives to the CF wall in situations where hitters knew he had to throw a fastball for a strike and were sitting on it. If figured that both drives would have been HR's for a major league hitter.
I'm not a scout, but if I was, I would have rated his fastball a 60 that night and his curveball a 70+. Assuming that his fastball was a bit off that night, he probably has two 70 pitches. Pretty darn good. Enough to justify all the ecstasy? Hmm.....I'm not sure. I want to see him start out in AA or AAA and see what he does.
The fact that he has the great curveball to go with the fastball probably makes him a better pitcher than Matt Cain right now, but I still think Cain has more upside and wouldn't be at all surprised to see Cain be the eventual #1 and Lincecum the #2.
Addendum
Size. He definitely is not large for a pitcher but his body is very well proportioned and solid, wiry looking.
by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 31, 2007 2:21 AM EST up reply actions
I think it will be the reverse
While you could be right here, I think it will be just the reverse. I agree with you that Timmy is probably already better than Matt Cain, but given that he hasn't yet pitched above High A, I'm certainly not sure of that.
I like Matt's fastball better -- even though I think Timmy has a couple of mph more than Matt does. (While you cited 91-94 on the gun you saw, he has pretty consistently hit 94-97 on the San Jose gun, and has reached 98 on occasion.) Matt's fastball has a lot of hop, which enables him to succeed well with it even if he gets it up. I think Timmy needs to keep most of his fastballs down.
But let's not forget that as good as Timmy's fastball is (and it's probably a 70), his curve is even better.
Timmy is also one HECK of a competitor. According to his dad, Timmy doesn't care whether he starts or relieves -- he just wants to pitch. That is what Timmy himself said when he was interviewed on a Giants telecast during a Sunday game after he signed but before he made his first minor-league appearance.
I think Timmy should be a starter -- and can probably throw more pitches per game than most. The one thing that is intriguing about him as a closer is that I think he could darn near pitch every day.
Officially unfair, harsh and stupid?
"HOW is he overrated? Have you seen him pitch? Are you a scout? Because if your not then don't speak."
"None of what you said is fair at all. I doubt there are any scouts on this site, so saying "if you're not a scout don't speak" is A) harsh and B) Stupid. Are you a scout? Oh, you're not? Well then I don't want to hear another opinion of yours on this board ever again."
As I look at the three partial posts above, I see a lack of logic. The first poster says that "Lincecum is officially the most overrated prospect to come along in a long time." He doesn't issue any disclaimers such as "I'm not a scout, but." He doesn't say "IMO" or "It appears to me." Rather, he makes an "official" statement as if it were fact.
The second poster asks HOW is he overrated and asks for the qualifications for the person who says Timmy is overrated.
The third poster then says, "None of what you say is fair at all" and goes on to call the second poster's comments "harsh and stupid." Well, why the heck are the comments NOT fair? To me the unfair statement was made by the first poster (and perhaps by the second poster, for calling the second poster "stupid," when in fact the second poster -- right or wrong -- doesn't appear to be at ALL stupid). The FIRST poster was the person who made a brash "official" statement and didn't bother to provide the slightest shred of evidence to back it up. The second poster asks HOW Lincecum is overrated and questions the first poster's credentials for making an "official" statement. And you say it is HE who is unfair, harsh and stupid?
Let's get real here. The first statement was the unfair one. Now I'm not saying that the statement isn't right -- except for the "official" part. Let's assume for a moment that Timmy IS "the most overrated prospect to come along in a long time." Does that make the first poster's statement "official?" I think not.
If the first poster had indicated that he didn't have any special credentials but was merely stating his opinion, didn't make it an "official" proclamation and possibly even gave a few reasons for his opinion, I don't think anyone would have challenged it. (Questioned it, perhaps, but not challenged it.)
I have said essentially that I DON'T think Timmy is overrated. I have given my reasons, I have stated my qualifications (which include having seen him pitch three times and having done perhaps a hundred or more hours of research on him, including contacting his father) and I have made it clear that I am merely stating my opinion -- that it is possible that Timmy COULD be overrated.
I think my presentation has been fair and as objective as I could humanly make it. I think the first poster was well out of line. I think the second poster was proper in calling him on his brash "official" statement. And I think the third poster -- while no doubt well intentioned -- was WAY off the mark.
Just my humble opinion. That and more money than I even likely realize (since I don't drink coffee) will get you the latte of your choice.
Incidentally, the opinion I state here is the kind of opinion that if you don't have it, that's why you need it. :)
dude
This is a forum. What we do is state opinions. All the time. Sometimes right sometimes wrong. Who cares?
What we don't need is people telling us we are wrong or stupid or how to post our opinions etc.
ps: "Timmy" is overrated. Why? Because he's thrown very few innings and who knows if he'll be an injury risk. This is totally aside from whatever size he is. Niemann is huge, and was scouted has have a great pitchers build, but can't keep healthy for whatever reason.
He's thrown very few innings and at a low level - so let's just wait and see a bit. That is all.
Am I stating fact or opinion - you can decide that for yourself ;)
What?
To the meat of your post: You say that the 2nd person was totally in line to say, essentially, "I'm not a scout, you're not a scout, but I disagree with you, so shut up, you're worthless, and furthermore your opinion is wrong." He countered a lack of evidence with relatively little evidence of his own, and at that point it becomes a he-said-she-said battle of whom do you believe. Is it evidence to say what some other guy said? Sure, but on what level since these lists have been proven to be wrong as often (or much more often) than they are right? Why can't we formulate our own opinions if I'm every bit as intelligent and coherent as any scout? You yourself don't seem to be an objective source. And even if you are, why should we just take what you and Nate say at face value and just hop on the Lincecum bandwagon? It is clear from your posts that while you do say such safety-net things like "I have made it clear that I am merely stating my opinion -- that it is possible that Timmy COULD be overrated" when you blatantly don't believe that he is overrated. Anything "COULD" happen. We will only know if he has been in fact overrated in around 3-5 years time. What is a blog except the forum for people to express their opinions? You are misinterpreting "it's official" as an alleged statement of "I am right no matter what" when truly all it is is a figure of speech. OBVIOUSLY (since you appear to enjoy using capitals as your own figure of speech -- which I think many people would say is more obnoxious than something like "it's official") it isn't official. MLB hasn't said, "Hey guys, Tim is overrated."
Additionally, you say you stated your credentials, but judging by them, I wonder if you're an unbiased objective source. Once one spends many hours looking at something (as you say, over a hundred hours) one certainly notices all the specifics. But, unfortunately, sometimes one loses sight of the forest in favor of the trees. This is not necessarily negative -- you may have seen some tree that clues you in that Lincecum is the next Nolan Ryan. But... There Is No Such Thing As A Pitching Prospect, and for a reason. Bad things happen. To good people. And to pitchers. And something bad might happen to Lincecum.
Note, though, that at this point I think it's ridiculous to term anyone "the next" anything, since inevitably the person will not mimic their look-alike's production. Best case scenario, he's Nolan Ryan or Johan Santana or (better yet) Tim Lincecum. Worst case, he's Kerry Wood Lite or Tim Lincecum. Either way, he's Tim Lincecum.
For the record, I am a HUGE Lincecum fan, and think he's the bees knees. I guess you can consider my post a devil's advocate type-a thing. I'm big on people not following things (or voting politically) blindly.
well
also, being able to say "it's certainly possible that X is true" even when you clearly believe Y (the opposite) isn't any kind of contradiction; in fact it's a MASSIVELY valuable reasoning skill. maybe the single most important. i wouldn't get on his case about it; rather i'd try to emulate him.
I respect it
some thoughts
Harden - he wasn't mentioned but should probably be in the discussion. Very similar injuries as Hudson.
Centrifugal force - it's not technically a force. But for all intents and purposes it is. You don't just "feel" like you are being pushed away from the center. You are. But it is not one force doing this. It is the changing force vectors which are causing this. There is no need to say it doesn't exist as we all know what we are referring to and that does exist. If you turn hard in a car and the doors are open you are making a visit to the sidewalk.
Size studies - that study only shows that size alone isn't the huge factor people treat it as. But that test doesn't correlate size versus velocity does it? And does it take into account max effort versus lesser effort? I'm willing to bet that when two pitchers throw 98 the small guy is more likely to be throwing max effort. There are a million factors of course like mechanics, genetics, etc.
But I'll take the Lackey type over the Lincecum type any day. Whether it's fact or not I feel more comfortable with this and I think many GM's would feel the same.
that's really what i want to see
exactly
Not many guys throwing 90 can just throw 85 and survive and only throw 90 when they want to blow it by players. Santana throws 89-92 a large part of the game and throws 95 or 96 when he feels like it. This seems much healthier than someone throwing max all game long and having to reach back for more when tired. Ouch!
153 posts
or ...
hahaha
We have had three diaries in the past few months that have gotten over 200 posts. The first and single most inflamatory issue was religion, our views about spirituality, and whether it has any place in this world. The second was a post about a kid unjustly sent to prison for oral sex with a minor that brought up undertones of racism, morality and its basis in religious teachings, and whether our justice system is indeed just.
The third longer post occured when someone dared to call Tim Lincecum over-rated. Pretty inflamatory. You can definitely see why 152 other people felt the need to respond.
Not to spark another 152 responses, but it is amazing that people are so unwilling to entertain the thought that a college pitcher, pitching at a major college program, who dominated A-/A+ for 31.2 innings could possibly be over-rated. "Small sample size" and "UW is as tough as San Jose" are too quick thoughts that pop to mind. Not that the scouting reports aren't awesome.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
