Cain or Lincecum?

by slitheringslider on Dec 5, 2007 2:24 PM EST

With all those rumours flying around about the Blue Jays sending Alex Rios to the Giants for Cain/Lincecum, I have been thinking about the pros and cons of each pitcher and can't decide which of the two I rather have. Both can potentially be front of rotation starter, but I can't help but feel that Lincecum's ceiling may be higher than Cain's. However, the stature argument also concerns me, will he break down in the near future? If you are the GM of the Jays, who would you rather have, Cain or Lincecum? Discuss

Poll

If you are the Blue Jays GM, who would you rather trade for?

Matt Cain

93 votes

Tim Lincecum

113 votes

206 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 58 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Cain

I'd want Cain(salary considerations aside). Lincecum might have a better short term upside, although that is not at all clear to me either. Cain is a horse and is much more likely to have a long career. Don't underestimate the quality of Cain's stuff either. He's much more than just an innings eater. Someone calculated that with league average run support last season, Cain would have gone 17-8, or something like that.

by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 5, 2007 2:14 PM EST reply actions

Wow

I don't know why that surprises me DB but, it does. I still dont see what would make anybody think Lincecum will have a short career but, even if he does it looks like it will be short but SWEET.

My personal opinion is that Timmy is going to be so good that even the most optimistic of reports wont be good enough except maybe the ones who compared him to God. Hes not gonna be quite that great.

Thats said. Matt Cain pitched in the Cal-League the same year and Felix Hernandez and at least one fine fellow though cain was a better propect! Thats some fine priase when you combine it with the fact he has PERFORMED as well as Felix so far.

I could see taking either one but, I do NOT see any appreciable health risks between the 2. I would hate to pick. Do NOT do it Giants! Seems like a decent deal but, think of something else!

by casejud on Dec 5, 2007 2:25 PM EST up reply actions

Tim Alderson

by Galt on Dec 5, 2007 2:33 PM EST up reply actions

Injury vs Stamina

I guess I'm not so worried about injury with Tim as I am stamina. He's just so small and puts so much effort into every pitch. He seemed to wear down pretty quick at times this past season and seemed to have trouble going deep into consecutive games.

by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 5, 2007 3:01 PM EST up reply actions

Stamina

Tim Lincecum threw 145 pitches or more in college several times. The day after he struck out 18 UCLA Bruins on 145 pitches, he comfortably threw long toss from foul pole to foul, as was his wont.

by sharksrog on Dec 6, 2007 4:58 PM EST up reply actions

Felix > Cain

as a big leaguer.

by SenorGato88 on Dec 5, 2007 3:06 PM EST up reply actions

Really?

Felix: 465.2 IP, 3.92 ERA, 136 BB, 418 K, 48 HR, 1.29 WHIP.

Cain: 437 IP, 3.73 ERA, 185 BB, 372 K, 36 HR, 1.23 WHIP.

Felix secondary stats are a bit better, but Cain keeps the ball in the park better and has a lower WHIP and ERA.

I'd say they are very, very close as major leaguers.

by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 5, 2007 3:29 PM EST up reply actions

just imagine

if Felix got to play in the weakest offensive division in the weaker league while facing pitchers 11% of the time.

by Galt on Dec 5, 2007 3:32 PM EST up reply actions

Imagine

Wasn't that a John Lennon song? Doesn't Felix pitch in a pretty friendly park himself?

by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 5, 2007 3:34 PM EST up reply actions

yeah, that's the same

by Galt on Dec 5, 2007 3:44 PM EST up reply actions

From Your #s

Felix: 3.07 K/BB
Cain: 2.01 K/BB

Doesn't seem very, very close to me.

by Yakker on Dec 5, 2007 4:44 PM EST up reply actions

One Stat?

I guess if you think K/BB is the only stat that matters.

by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 5, 2007 5:08 PM EST up reply actions

and continue to ignore

that Cain pitches in the weakest division in baseball and faces pitchers instead of DHs.

by Galt on Dec 5, 2007 5:10 PM EST up reply actions

Round and Round

We've been having this argument since Cain and Felix were in the Cal League and Cain just keeps on putting up better numbers. I'll keep Matt Cain, thank you.

by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 5, 2007 5:12 PM EST up reply actions

And I'll take...

the 21 year old showing fine control, electric stuff, groundball tendencies, similar/better K rates while in the stronger league facing a DH.

by SenorGato88 on Dec 5, 2007 5:35 PM EST up reply actions

Can you please

Explain how the NL West is described as the worst division in baseball? First of all Cain doesnt get to face the Giants...second the Rockies have a very good lineup as well as do the Padres (They do, check where they rank in runs scored on the road) and then the D'Backs... then the Dodgers who have a lot of good hitters.

I love Felix but, people act like hes the only prospect that exists and his career basically parallels Cains to this point. Cain has electric stuff as well.

by casejud on Dec 5, 2007 6:43 PM EST up reply actions

It's not just the NL West...

it's the NL in general.

The NL just sucks compared to the AL.

by SenorGato88 on Dec 6, 2007 3:27 AM EST up reply actions

Well

I was going off of your #s.

There are many more stats I could quote that matter more to me (GB rates, etc.), but the fact is that you noted the two pitchers' Ks and BBs.

by Yakker on Dec 5, 2007 7:11 PM EST up reply actions

And......

Yes, I noted their K and BB rates as well as some other important stats that you are totally ignoring. Felix got hurt by the longball his rookie season. A lot of folks said both that and Cain's low HR rates were flukes. So what happened last year? Felix gives up 20 and Cain gives up 14. Cain had a lower WHIP despite giving up more walks suggesting that he, in fact has better stuff that is harder to hit.

I mentioned the K and BB to try to show a fair comparison and then you and others just glom onto that as if they are the only stats that count for anything.

by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 5, 2007 7:59 PM EST up reply actions

I like Cain but

His stuff doesn't compare to Felix Hernandez. Hernandez has a better fastball, plus-plus slider and curve. And His Change up while his weakest pitch is a plus pitch as well.

In performance yea Cain might have Hernandez beat but in tools and physical ability Felix have him beat in almost every single category.

by NYYLover1000 on Dec 5, 2007 8:29 PM EST up reply actions

Stuff

Maybe Felix has better looking stuff, but is it really better? Let's look at BAA:

Cain-.221

Felix- .260

That's a pretty significant difference, wouldn't you say? How do you explain that if Felix really has better stuff?

by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 5, 2007 8:42 PM EST up reply actions

Defense

Cain had a DER of .722 (the defensive equivalent of a .278 BABIP) last year, while Felix had a .667 (equivalent of .333 BABIP).

Oh, and let's not lose sight of the fact that we're conflating NL and AL stats, which only makes the gap between Felix and Cain more pronounced.

by Yakker on Dec 5, 2007 9:18 PM EST up reply actions

Gap?

You mean the gap between how much better Matt Cain has performed than "King" Felix?

by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 5, 2007 11:46 PM EST up reply actions

BAA is not really going to tell you

how good somebody stuff is really.

I will admit though, that Felix was pretty hittable this year.

Nevertheless, Stuff is what you are physically able to do. And to me Felix has more ability.

Now look if you wanna talk about who's the better pitcher or who's pitch better, you certainly make the case Cain is better than Felix, but not as talented as Felix, which is no knock Cain though.

by NYYLover1000 on Dec 5, 2007 9:44 PM EST up reply actions

stuff

do you really think he has a better fastball than Cain? If so why do you believe he was so hittable?

by pedrophile on Dec 5, 2007 11:33 PM EST up reply actions

Well Hernandez does get alot of

GB when he's on and some of those GB may become hits, albeit he has a very good D behind him but sometimes GB do find holes.

Again Stuff is all about physical ability. You can't just say well Cain is harder to hit so he has better stuff than Felix.

Hey Dan Haren has a lower BAA than Daniel Cabrera but stuff wise or on pure physical ability Cabrera beats him.

Of course when you take in account League and DH, there is some difference.

Again I am just saying that Felix has argubaly the best pure stuff in baseball, although you can make the arguement that Cain's the better pitcher.

by NYYLover1000 on Dec 6, 2007 12:03 AM EST up reply actions

Physical Ability vs "Stuff"

I don't equate physical abillity with "stuff" in my mind. Stuff is quality pitches. For a fastball, it would include both velocity and movement, especially late movement. For breaking pitches, it involves degree of break in two planes. For a changeup, it would include how much it looks like a fastball and now much it fades late.

I might concede that Felix has better breaking "stuff", although Cain's is improving rapidly.

I believe Cain's fastball, while it may be a tick lower in velocity, is better "stuff" than Felix's or just about anybody. Nobody, and I mean nobody gets solid wood on Cain's fastball. It has one of the greatest late hops I've ever seen, and I've been watching baseball for over 40 years now.

by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 6, 2007 12:21 AM EST up reply actions

Nobody?

I agree with you that Matt Cain's fastball has a great hop on his fastball. But to say that nobody gets solid wood on it wouldn't seem to be correct.

Based on Josh Kalk's wonderful pitch chart at www.hardballtimes.com, Matt gave up three homers on fastballs, three on sliders, and none on either curves or change ups on Matt's pitches measured by Josh last season. I'm not saying the fastball isn't Matt's best pitch -- merely that saying no one gets solid wood on it is a fallacy.

by sharksrog on Dec 8, 2007 1:44 PM EST up reply actions

Felix v Cain

There's so much more than K/BB ratios in Felix's favor, it's not funny.

Look at league. Look at GB rates. Look at xFIP #s. Heck, just look at age.

However, to your point about HRs, note that 2007 park factors indicate that Safeco played almost dead neutral to HRs, while Pac Bell suppressed them by about 19%. Adjust for that, and the gap closes from 6 to about 3.

WHIP (or ERA) is a poor stat to use for comparison (and really god-awful for future projections) because it depends on things that have nothing to do with the pitcher. To wit, Felix's DER (the rate at which the fielders behind him convert batted balls into outs) last year was .667, which is just horrible, while Cain's was .722. To be blunt, Felix's defense let him down.

To anticipate your counter, Felix and Cain had the exact same LD%, 16.1, so it wasn't like Felix was giving up tons of rockets while Cain was inducing weak grounders. In fact, with grounders, which are second only to infield flies in fielding conversion rate, Felix was vastly superior, 61% to 39%, more than making up for the 3% advantage Cain had in infield flies.

I know I'm just whistling Dixie, because I'm not gonna change your mind, and you're not gonna change mine. But Felix is really a far better pitcher than Cain, and that's no knock on Cain.

by Yakker on Dec 5, 2007 9:14 PM EST up reply actions

Defense

It may not be entirely the fault of Felix' teammates. High flyballs, whether to the IF or OF are much easier to field than GB's. Also, LD% doesn't tell you whether the GB's were soft bouncers to the second baseman and SS or screamers through the hole or down the line.

The really interesting thing about these pitchers is that the flyball pitcher gives up fewer HR's than the GB pitcher. How does that work?

by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 5, 2007 11:52 PM EST up reply actions

Now

who's fixated on one stat, HRs allowed?

Honestly, 20 to 14 really isn't a very big difference in the first instance.

When you account for the Pac Bell suppression rate of 19%, adjust for the NL/AL, and note that Felix's HR/F rate (which research says settles at 11-12% for most pitchers before luck), it's really a fairly useless stat, at that.

by Yakker on Dec 6, 2007 1:28 PM EST up reply actions

Fixated?

I mention a stat in one post and now I"m fixated? Why yes, I do believe Matt has done a significantly better job of keeping the ball in the park than Felix.

Matt Cain: 437 IP/36 HR's= 12.2 IP/HR.

Felix Hernandez: 465 IP/48 HR= 9.6 IP/HR.

Pretty significant, don't you think?

Yes, I'm fixated on that stat alright, also the ERA, WHIP, BAA. Cain comes out on top in all of those. And just to show you how fixated I really am, I will mention once again that Felix has better K and BB numbers.

They are both excellent, exciting young pitchers. I hope they will get a chance to pitch against each other in the WS someday soon. Now, woudn't that be a treat?

by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 7, 2007 1:57 AM EST up reply actions

Still Not

Accounting for leagues and parks.

by Yakker on Dec 7, 2007 12:32 PM EST up reply actions

Yadda Yadda Yadda

Bottom line: Cain has pitched better at every step. The "King Felix" crowd has always pointed to age, which is by now a non-factor, and a few peripheral stats. Cain has always had the edge in results.

Once again, I think they are both excellent young pitchers who should have long and successful careers barring unexpected injury.

by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 7, 2007 1:55 PM EST up reply actions

Every step of the way

Matt Cain may well have pitched better every step of the way than Felix Hernandez, but he also was older.

by sharksrog on Dec 7, 2007 6:49 PM EST up reply actions

BFD!

They both have 5 years of professional experience 2+ at the MLB level. At this point, age is a non-factor.

by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 8, 2007 1:56 AM EST up reply actions

Age

Age is almost always a factor -- if for no other reason that a player who is two years younger may have the opportunity to play for two years beyond the other player.

Incidentally, I suspected but didn't check out before that Matt DIDN'T blow Felix away every step of the way -- which of course he didn't.

Felix had a slight advantage in Low A, a tiny advantage in AA and a huge advantage in AAA. Matt had a clear advantage in High A.

Matt did have the advantage in rookie ball, since Felix skipped it.

I would give the advantage to Matt in the majors, although I think Felix has the higher ceiling.

Your comment that Matt Cain has pitched better at every step than Felix Hernandez is false.

by sharksrog on Dec 8, 2007 1:37 PM EST up reply actions

This post has been....

kind of quoted for truth.

by SenorGato88 on Dec 6, 2007 3:29 AM EST up reply actions

Thanks

I think.

by Yakker on Dec 6, 2007 1:25 PM EST up reply actions

Only kinda

because I didn't actually copy and past your post.

Summed up my thoughts perfectly and all I had to do was agree.

by SenorGato88 on Dec 7, 2007 6:00 PM EST up reply actions

Line drives

Line drive percentage correlates more closely than any other type of batted ball to batting average on balls in play.

by sharksrog on Dec 8, 2007 1:46 PM EST up reply actions

Feliz vs. Matt

I agree that Matt Cain has slightly outpitched Felix Hernandez, but I like Felix's potential more. On the other hand, Matt IS a guy whose health I feel is likely to be better than Felix's.

by sharksrog on Dec 6, 2007 5:00 PM EST up reply actions

Just what the doctor ordered

Dr., what makes you think that Matt Cain will have a much longer career than Tim Lincecum when Will Carroll wouldn't trade Tim for any other pitcher in the game. Have you read Will's book, "Saving the Pitcher?" I would be happy to send you my copy.

by sharksrog on Dec 6, 2007 4:57 PM EST up reply actions

argh, tough

Cain clearly has the frame which you prefer for a pitcher (blah blah blah, yes I realize there are outliers like Pedro, Oswalt, etc who have succeeded as starters), but Cain hasn't really made the improvements that would be expected. His '07 was largely identical to his '06 except for an improvement in homers given up and slight improvement in his BB rates (which coincided with a drop in Ks). He's also younger than Lincecum.

I guess, given that I think they are pretty close in value right now, I'd prefer to have Lincecum given that you can have him for an extra year.

by Galt on Dec 5, 2007 2:15 PM EST reply actions

Improvement

You may not be able to see it in the nymbers, but Cain was a completely different pitchers by the end of the year. Still had the great fastball, but there was a striking increase in usage, confidence and command of his secondary stuff. He's making himself into a complete pitcher.

by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 5, 2007 2:25 PM EST up reply actions

Maybe he was hurt last year.

I saw him pitch and he was barely topping 92 on a warm night in New York.

He was just not impressive at all.

by Galt on Dec 5, 2007 2:32 PM EST up reply actions

92?

I didn't see every game, but I did see most of them. He was his usual 92-98, mostly 94-96 all year including his starts in September.

by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 5, 2007 2:55 PM EST up reply actions

not once

all game did he top 93. I didn't look at the radar for every single pitch, but Shea would say "Fastball -93" (or lower) pretty consistently.

I guess there's a chance that their radar is rubbish, but it was there. I just don't remember him being especially strong. I think he had a decent game, but he was absolutely not dominant.

by Galt on Dec 5, 2007 3:09 PM EST up reply actions

New York

Cain's only appearance in NY was on May 31 against the Mets. His line was 7 IP, 10 H, 4 R, 2 BB, 5 K's, so that was not one of his stronger games. I don't recall seeing that game so can't comment on radar gun readings. I can tell you he was generally 92-96 MPH with a mean of about 94 most of the season including in September. His last start? Sept 25 against SD: 7 IP, 5H, 2 R, 1 BB, 8 K's.

by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 5, 2007 3:32 PM EST up reply actions

Shea

I think we have a slow gun. I always see John Maine at 88 MPH when on TV it is between 92-94.

Remember: baseball guys... baseball...

by JD Sussman on Dec 5, 2007 3:32 PM EST up reply actions

Fast

Matt Cain does have a very good fastball. If he could bring his other pitches up to the level of his fastball, he would be a monster.

by sharksrog on Dec 8, 2007 1:47 PM EST up reply actions

Numbers

You CAN see the difference in Matt Cain's end of the season in just one number -- walks. The last two months of the season or so Matt cut his walks about in half. VERY impressive.

Matt also was uncanny during April. But for about two and a half months in the late spring and early summer, Matt had a very high WHIP.

I like Matt a LOT. I think he will be an All-Star. I just happen to think that Tim Lincecum's ceiling is far higher (or lower, when it comes to ERA).

by sharksrog on Dec 6, 2007 5:03 PM EST up reply actions

I like Cain a tad bit better

...with Lincy, it seems like its still the honeymoon...Cain just seems to be getting better each month as well...and throw in the body differences, and thats enough for me to take Cain...though i love both of these guys

by daveh33 on Dec 5, 2007 3:33 PM EST reply actions

Better?

Matt Cain was definitely not better in May, June or July than he was in April. Matt may have been a little lucky in April, but he was FABULOUS.

by sharksrog on Dec 6, 2007 5:04 PM EST up reply actions

I'll go Lincecum

I'm afraid Cain is going to have a Sid Fernandez like fall, but I don't have anything to back that up rather then intuition and kind of similar early numbers. Fernandez had a good career and all but was disappointing considering how promising he started

by Trenchtown on Dec 5, 2007 3:52 PM EST reply actions

I dont get it

I'd go Cain. He is the same age, has shown he can put up great numbers (even if that does not translate to a great record) and isnt the same injury risk?

Lincecum seems like a novelty...

by znyfan on Dec 5, 2007 4:38 PM EST up reply actions

Cain vs Lincecum

I would think the Giants know best, and they will NOT trade Cain for Rios, but are entertaining moving Lincecum.

by kashman on Dec 5, 2007 8:49 PM EST up reply actions

Fall?

I don't expect a fall from Matt, although I agree it is possible. Matt's tremendously improved control the last two months of the season don't appear to me to be the precursor of a fall.

by sharksrog on Dec 6, 2007 5:05 PM EST up reply actions