Not a Rookie: Tim Lincecum

by John Sickels on Feb 10, 2008 5:52 PM EST in News Comment 58 comments

Not A Rookie: Tim Lincecum

First, the easy stuff.

Tim Lincecum was a really good college pitcher at the University of Washington. He was first drafted in 2003, a 48th round pick by the Chicago Cubs out of high school in Renton, Washington. As a freshman in 2004 he went 10-3, 3.53 with a 161/82 K/BB ratio in just 112 innings. As a draft-eligible sophomore in 2005 he went 8-6, 3.11 with a 131/71 K/BB in 104 innings, but most clubs felt he would return to school for his junior year and he was drafted in just the 42nd round by the Indians. Everyone respected his performance, but there were questions about his command and his mechanics. In 2006 his stuff took another step forward, his command improved slightly, and he went 12-4, 1.94 with a 199/63 K/BB in 125 innings.

On draft day, some teams rated him as a mid-to-late first round pick, concerned about his smallish stature, his still-erratic control, and his heavy college workload. He ended up going 10th overall to the Giants in the first round, which was actually a few slots lower than his most ardent supporters expected. He was brilliant in his pro debut in A-ball, then was promoted to the majors last spring after a 4-9, 0.29 start in Triple-A. In his major league debut, Lincecum went 7-5, 4.00 with a 150/65 K/BB in 146 innings. His major league stats were exactly what we should have expected: lots of strikeouts, not many hits, a few too many walks, dominant performances mixed with some erratic outings.

And so we come to the hard part. What happens now?

Lincecum's pre-2007 PECOTA comps were intriguing and bring up names you might expect: Francisco Rodriguez, Kerry Wood, Pedro Martinez, Juan Pizarro, Nolan Ryan are the top five. Others interesting matches include Ken Brett and Balor Moore, two fireballing lefties from the 70s who never really panned out. We also see Dennis Eckersley, Tom Gordon, and Sandy Koufax on the list. The 2008 PECOTAs aren't out yet.

His Sim Scores based on the 2007 season are much less impressive: Paul Moskau, Gordon Rhodes, Doug Drabek (not a good match really), Brian Williams, Lynn McGlothen, Steve Blass. Obviously this is not a list designed to make you feel good about his chances, and keep in mind that Sim Scores don't adjust for the era of play and are not very useful in small sample sizes like this.

Statistically at least I don't think we can conclude much other than the obvious: he strikes a lot of guys out, but still needs to improve his command. Some similar pitchers in the past turned out to be excellent, and some of them flamed out. We already knew that.

So this comes down to scouting. Many of you have seen Lincecum pitch more often than I have, and I would be very interested in your observations. Here are my opinions, but don't let that influence you overmuch, I want to know what you think.

First off, his size. Some people worry that he's not a huge guy, being just 5-11 and 170 pounds officially. Personally I don't really care about that. I'm more impressed by the fact that he's incredibly athletic. I've always felt the whole short right-hander thing was overemphasized by some people, and in the case of guys like Pedro Martinez or Greg Maddux or Roy Oswalt, the premium athleticism and wiry strength is much more important than the lack of height. In this regard Lincecum reminds me of someone like Bob Feller, who wasn't a big guy at all in terms of height, but was so athletic and strong that it didn't matter. Note that "strong" in this sense is not the same thing as just bulk muscle. It's the combination of strength and flexibility that I'm talking about. I think Lincecum has that.

Lincecum's mechanics are somewhat unorthodox but he repeats them very well. The leg kick also reminds me of Feller somewhat. His pitch counts at Washington were high, but he apparently has a rubber arm and has never shown ill effects. His control is better than it used to be, and with more experience it will probably improve further.

What kinds of problems can derail a young talent like this? Injuries and control problems are the two main dangers. I don't think his injury risk is any higher than for any other pitcher his age, as I think his athleticism cancels out the college workload issue. That doesn't mean his injury risk is zero, or even below average, mind you. It just means that it isn't higher-than-average, which it normally would be given the mileage on his arm.

As for the control issue, his track record shows steady improvement:

6.57 BB/9IP in 2004 (Washington)
6.12 BB/9IP in 2005 (Washington)
4.52 BB/9IP in 2006 (Washington)
4.00 BB/9IP in 2007 (San Francisco)

That's a nice graph. If it continues, he'll be one of the best pitchers in baseball very soon. If his control stabilizes where it is right now and does not improve, he'll be what he is now, an above average, occasionally brilliant, but erratic enough to not push into the elite category. If his control goes backwards, well that's where guys like Steve Blass come in, though keep in mind that Blass was actually a very good pitcher for several years before his control vanished. If he gets hurt all bets are off.

Looking at it in terms of possible outcomes:

Best Case Scenario: Hall of Fame type talent (Pedro Martinez, Sandy Koufax, Bob Feller, Nolan Ryan, Roger Clemens)
Medium Case Scenario: Very good at times but perhaps erratic or injury prone (Kerry Wood, Tom Gordon, Steve Blass)
Worst Case Scenario: Gets hurt and/or immediate control collapse (Paul Moskau, Balor Moore, etc.)

So, what's my call?

I think he will stay healthy and avoid catastrophic injuries. His control will improve somewhat, but not quite enough for him to end up in the absolute elite category...you won't see Pedro-like 8-1 K/BB ratios out of Lincecum. He will be a legitimate number one starter for several years, win 197 major league games, and will pocket a Cy Young Award in 2012 at the age of 28 before starting a slow fade as his stuff gradually declines.
Not Bob Feller or Roger Clemens, but a damn good career.

What's your guess?

0 recs | Comment 58 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

My guess

Kelvim Escobar type career, but if he had stayed a starter the entire time, which is a good thing.

Rios is the next Juan Gonzales, thats right, I said it.

by KaoticKlown on Feb 10, 2008 5:59 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Lincecum

Will be an ace, better than Cain IMO. He has three plus-plus pitches from what I have seen and his changeup may well get as many strikeouts as his mid-nineties heat and stellar curve. A long, healthy, all-star career. Might be a fringe Hall of Famer if his stuff is preserved, but I don't think it will be and he will see an Oswalt like decline in his late twenties/low thirties. He reminds me of Roy Oswalt more than anyone else I have seen.

Haven't the PECOTAs for him come out yet?

by Daniel Berlyn on Feb 10, 2008 5:59 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Oswalt

While I think the comparison is good, Oswalt hasn't faded in his late 20s. He's thrown slightly fewer innings the last two years, but still what would be considered a full slate, and his effectiveness has remained steady.

Where Anne hath a will, Anne Hathaway.

by woodstein52 on Feb 11, 2008 12:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oswalt

I believe this is the decline he was referring to:

8.1 K/9
7.0 K/9
7.2 K/9
6.6 K/9

However, I'd note that Oswalt is still an effective pitcher and should continue to be so if he can continue to increase his GB rates (from 42% in 2004 up to 53% in 2007). Nothing novel here. As the best power pitchers age, they often find different ways to get people out. But Oswalt's ridiculous K/9 rates are probably a thing of the past.

by Yakker on Feb 11, 2008 1:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My guess is he the new conehead

I vote for similarity to David Cone Dominant early on (some people forget Cone was an awesome K man), lingers late into career to the point he is almost forced out. So yes, future ace and close to HOF worthy given 200 wins is the new 300.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/coneda01.shtml

by dlpme77 on Feb 10, 2008 6:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I like that comp

Though it would be interesting to see if he could could evolve the way Cone did from 1997-1999.

FJM, down in the trenches doing the Lord's work.

by zdavis2512 on Feb 10, 2008 8:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Timmy Talk

Word is that Timmy is going to unveil a hard slider that behaves much like a cutter. Here's a couple of links:

http://www.mercurynews.com/sportsheadlines/ci_8210696

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/09/SPFLUV4JN.DTL

I'm concerned that the slider may put him at higher risk of injury, and may distract from the more important tasks of controlling the FB and curve and perfecting the changeup. From his banter, it sounds like Matt Cain thinks it's a nutty idea too. Think those two might have a friendly rivalry going?

Here's some snappy discussion of the Timmy news over on mccoveychronicles.com:

http://www.mccoveychronicles.com/story/2008/2/9/41511/63776

Here's an interesting video clip of a discussion of Tim's mechanics and pitches. Great video illustrations comparing/contrasting his delivery with Koufax and Oswalt, two pitchers he's been compared to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aYXDjEpjf4&feature=related

Just to whet your appetites for the upcoming season, here's a couple of videos showing Tim striking out 12 D'Backs and then 8 Buccos:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=gwDmOBrZTVM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eG6mBwRXzuw&feature=related

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 10, 2008 7:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Here's a link to some neat pics and discussion about Matt and Tim's joint Q/A at the Giants Fanfest yesterday. Notice the Beatles/moptop doo that Timmy is sporting:

http://www.mccoveychronicles.com/story/2008/2/9/22356/30346

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 10, 2008 7:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Great stuff DB

Also, in response to John I'd say that your perdiction of Timmy's career kinda reminds me of Roy Oswalt... if we will grant that Oswalt is at least BEGINNING to decline some (his k's are going down, a sign of that). I'm one of Tim's biggest fans and I'd tend to think that he is going to be absolutely one of the elite.

I will say that a career like Osawlt's in length with even more dominance than Roy in his peak years might be my prediction for Tim's career but, we'll have to wait and see. I'll go with 233 wins just to throw my hat in if thier is an over/ under.

by casejud on Feb 10, 2008 7:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Tim and Tim

When I think of Oswalt, I also think of Tim Hudson, another K/9 guy who has had success "re-inventing" himself as he gets older. (He's also around 6-feet, wiry strong, and very athletic, FWIW.)

As it sounds like (barring serious injury) Oswalt or Hudson are Lincecum's floor, that's pretty d*mn good.

by Yakker on Feb 11, 2008 1:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

PECOTA

The spreadsheet has these four as comparables:
Billy Loes, Rich Harden, Tom Gordon, Al Downing

by ecpoladian on Feb 10, 2008 7:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Comps

So the comps have Timmy's career turning into anything from Sandy Koufax to Billy Loes? BFD! You could do just as well by putting up a list of all the pitchers in baseball history and throwing darts at them blindfolded. Excellent illustration of the value of comps.

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 10, 2008 8:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Unique and highly talented players

Often have unusual comps. They are definitely better for the average or somewhat above average players then for the outliers.

Still whenever any Hall of Famers show up on your comp list, it is a good sign.

by BIgMax on Feb 11, 2008 8:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Average

So average players have average players for comps? Wow! Yet another hot news flash there!

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 12, 2008 12:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i guess that's one way....

....to twist and misread what he wrote, if your affirmative goal was to gain nothing from what he said.

by bleedjaxblue on Feb 12, 2008 1:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

So.....

Average players have more accurate comps because they compare to other average players. How is that a misrepresentation of what he said?

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 13, 2008 1:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

you're treating it....

....like all average players, by virtue of being "average," are all average in the same way.

for instance, Lyle Overbay and Willy Taveras might both be "average" players who would have good comps. but the system wouldn't be accurate if it listed these two as comparable to each other.

the point is, when a player has a normal skill-set, the system comes up with decent feedback. the list of comparable players might be a mixed bag of successes and failures, but it'll at least be reliable and explicable.

i would imagine this would continue to be true of "great" but "average" players -- say, Manny Ramirez. though he's not "average," there's nothing exceptional about the type of production he's had, his skill-set or his career path.

the way in which "unique" players have bad comps is that it spits out seemingly random comps.

sure -- it's pretty intuitive that someone who is unique can't be comped. though i think the post was as much about the need to ignore that data for Lincecum, who he was also labeling as "unique." but the definition of "average" is a little different than you're treating it as, as well. and i definitely don't think that post deserved a sarcastic reply, particularly one intentionally cutting away from what it was actually saying.

by bleedjaxblue on Feb 13, 2008 2:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Fair Enough

I didn't really mean to attack the person who wrote that post. I was more reacting to a more general notion that comps have anything more than entertainment value.

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 13, 2008 9:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Comps

I believe that comps do indeed have value, if nothing else than to show how varied outcomes can be based on individual talent, luck and health.

by sharksrog on Feb 13, 2008 3:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Those

are some terribly pessimistic comps.

If Lince can get control of that change against lefties he will be upper echelon.

by Daniel Berlyn on Feb 10, 2008 7:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Control

By the end of last season, Tim Lincecum's change up -- developed just last winter -- had become his most effective pitch. Leaving the pitch fairly consistently low and outside to lefthanded batters right after his callup, Tim developed much better control of the pitch the last couple of months of the season.

IMO the key to Tim's development is indeed his control -- but perhaps more than anything else, his control of his first pitch. Tim threw only about 55% first-pitch strikes last season, far below a master such as Greg Maddux at 73%.

When Tim DID throw a first-pitch strike, his walk rate was similar to Maddux. When he threw a first-pitch ball, his walk rate was similar to a young Sandy Koufax.

If Tim's slider, developed this winter, truly becomes a strikeout pitch as he said at the Giants' fanfest it appeared to be becoming, that would give Tim four top pitches. But he has never lacked for stuff.

I believe his top key will be getting ahead in the count. When his first pitch was a strike last season, Tim actually had very good control in the at bats. When he got to two strikes on a hitter -- regardless of the number of strikes -- batters hit only something like .130 against him, with a high percentage striking out.

In order of importance, I see:

Control
Command in the strike zone
New top pitch(es).

Just with #1 I believe Tim can become one of the top pitchers in the game. With #2 he can remain one even as his stuff ultimately drops off. If he achieves all three, I truly believe he will become an all-time great.

Don't forget that Tim's dad was clocked at 88 mph at the age of 52. It doesn't seem likely, but it's not impossible that Tim's career could extend out further than even Hoyt Wilhelm's.

IMO Tim has a talent for the ages. He merely needs to control it, command it and continue to develop it.

by sharksrog on Feb 13, 2008 3:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Control

Will be everything with this kid. IMO, simply stating his walk/9 IP rate is a poor barometer. The underlying theme for Lincecum for me is that even his strikes lack control at this point in his career.

My prediction, Lincecum goes through this year and next dealing with this erratic performance, amazing one start, can't get of the 5th the next, high K's. In the offseaon of 2009-2010 we hear from his wonderful fans about how he is making some mechanical adjustments, the end result of which is that he takes out a little of the linear energy. Just when the baseball community is writing him as good but never going to be great, he comes back in 2010 the dominant pitcher everyone he hopes.

My reasoning for the above has several reasons, but I believe he will change when the Giants are on the verge of being good again, which I think will be 2010. My red flag is that if he doesn't change in this timeframe, I see him going downhill. I don't see him maintaining a place in the "good but not great" range of pitchers. He has too many variables in play to keep all those balls up in the air.

Baseball Instructor - www.frozenropes.com

by HuskerBob on Feb 10, 2008 10:32 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

You know nothing about Lincecum's starts

I charted Lincecum's PQS starts and he was very dominating all season long, except for a 4 start stretch that started about a month into his MLB career. He was lost then and was clearly overthrowing to compensate. His performance was not that erratic, certainly better than the vast majority of pitchers today, based on PQS. He was among the elite in terms of DOM%.

Lincecum will be dominant in 2008, he was that good in 2007 and looks to continue that this season.

by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Feb 11, 2008 5:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

ok, homer

I don't make statements off the cuff. If I say something I've usually looked at it pretty closely. I am offended that you think I know nothing about Lincecum's starts, but then you did find a couple invented stats to support you so you get bonus points. My rebuttal to your invented stats that there are so many variables involved in your overall performance type evaluation I honestly don't know exactly what that says about the pitcher, and MORE IMPORTANTLY, how is addresses the issue I raised.

I said IMO Lincecum's control issues extend beyond simply walks and I will support that now. Short of a pitch by pitch analysis, there are other indicators that show strike zone wildness for pitchers, the biggest of which is wild variations in GB/FB ratio. Almost all pitchers as the season wears on and their arm wears down exhibit some fluctuation in their ratios because they lose their ability to locate as functional strength is gradually declining. However, through the majority of the season, a pitcher's ability to maintain consistent ratios, to me, indicates his ability to control the strike zone.

Oswalt was used as a comparison in this thread so I will go there. Quickly looking through his 2007 game log do you realize he went through the all-star break without having his ratios flipped (i.e. more flyballs than groundballs)? What does this say? He's putting the ball where he wants on a consistent basis and getting results he desires - 21 consecutive starts. Maddux, understanding that its not fair, even to the great Timmy to compare him to the greatest ever, NEVER had his ratios flip at age 41.

Reviewing Lincecum its very clear he is not in this elite class of controlling the strike zone. His ratios are all over the place, from a 15:4 all the way to a 7:13 and fluctuating from start to start all the way through July, stabilizing in August then all over the place again in September, including that 7:13 ratio against Arizona on Sept 10. August was encouraging and I would right off Sept to the end of a long season, so the indicators are good in my mind that he was making progress, but I'm not ready to say that one month means he turned the corner.

Oswalt and just about any elite pitcher you chart are bad comparisons in my mind right now in terms of Lincecum's ability to control the strike zone. For a VERY GOOD comparison of the ratio fluctuations (and IMO control of the strike zone) take a look at Kerry Wood's 2003 season.

Baseball Instructor - www.frozenropes.com

by HuskerBob on Feb 11, 2008 12:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Good stuff, as usual

You convinced me.

gogotabata: "I'm like the biggest Walden fan around here (adult division)..."

by siddfynch on Feb 11, 2008 3:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Don't Disagree

With the ultimate conclusion, however, it should be noted that Oswalt and Lincecum operate in different home pitching environments (vis a vis the relative harm/merit of FBs). Tim may have been perfectly comfortable inducing harmless FBs at Pac Bell, something Oswalt could not risk doing in Houston.

by Yakker on Feb 11, 2008 4:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Can't argue that

My gut is that his ratio fluctuations coupled with his relatively high walk totals suggest its not by design though.

Baseball Instructor - www.frozenropes.com

by HuskerBob on Feb 11, 2008 11:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, I agree

Although, in theory the fluctuation could be the result of Lincecum having trouble executing the opposite strategy (i.e., inducing weak FBs).

Either way, your point about his command still stands.

by Yakker on Feb 12, 2008 12:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

As one would expect

As one would expect, when Tim kept the ball down, he tended to get more ground balls. When he got it up, his strikeouts sometimes went up, but so did his hits, particularly of the extra-base variety.

by sharksrog on Feb 13, 2008 4:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Last season

Last season Tim showed the dominance one would expect from him -- and the inconsistency of a rookie. Aside from a horrible -- and I do mean horrible -- June and seemingly tiring in his last few starts, Tim pitched quite well, quite well indeed.

Overall his success seemed to correlate fairly closely with his control.

by sharksrog on Feb 13, 2008 3:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

As usual

As usual, Husker, your analysis continues to intrigue me. You and I often wind up with somewhat different conclusions, but I get the feeling that your analysis is quite good. At the very least I find it quite exciting to read and consider.

You and I see the Giants as having the possibility of becoming good at about the same time. You said you saw them on the verge in 2010, which would mean 2011 at the earliest. That is my timetable, as well.

Although I think they should take the best available prospect with their #5 overall pick in the 2008 draft, ideally that player would be a college infielder or catcher who wasn't too far away from the majors. With Lincecum, Angel Villalona, the #5 pick from this year's draft and six of the top 51 picks in last year's draft, the Giants could be on their way to renewed respectability.

But this present decade is lost.

by sharksrog on Feb 13, 2008 3:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think

that with what he has shown in his rookie year alone, he will be a top pitcher by the end of 2009.

by Daniel Berlyn on Feb 10, 2008 10:44 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

and by "what he showed in '07"

you mean "not being as good as Gallardo"?

by Galt on Feb 10, 2008 11:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

jeepers

Zomg! He wasn't as good as Jake Peavy, either!

I encouraged JS not to feature Lincecum (http://www.minorleagueball.com/comments/2008/1/26/124347/102/29#29) precisely to avoid the flame wars his career seems to feature on baseball sites. I have been pleased mostly to have been wrong about the attendant comments to this feature -- and also pleased that you showed up to represent the fringe. Ali G says 'respek,' my man. Good show.

On-topic, I've mostly been right about what he'd do in the majors (viz http://www.minorleagueball.com/comments/2007/5/5/112725/7358/71#71 -- I was a bit off on HR/9 and ERA, but I feel pretty good about that guesstimate). My bet here is that potential injuries aside, he's a good, occasionally brilliant, and mostly frustrating pitcher for his career. No Pedro, but no flameout either.

by wcw on Feb 11, 2008 1:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

not bashing

Peavy is 27 and has been in the league for 6 years. So it stands to reason that Lincecum wouldn't be as good yet. But by saying that based on his dominance last year, that he'd be the most dominant pitcher in '09, it would stand to reason that Lincecum was the best rookie pitcher or at least the best pitcher of his age group.

But he wasn't. Gallardo was better in both accounts. And that's including Gallardo's laughably bad start in Colorado.

by Galt on Feb 11, 2008 8:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

uh

that first guy didn't say "the" top pitcher, he said "a" top pitcher. lincecum and gallardo could both be "top pitchers" at the same time, etc.

by wily mo on Feb 11, 2008 8:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Nice looking back

It was nice looking back at my reaction to your predictions, wcw. I said that I thought they were pretty good -- except that he would give up more homers.

You were closer on ERA than I -- and the ERA you predicted was almost exactly what his Fielding Independent ERA was (3.58 IIRC).

My predictions for Tim were very close (although I was high on strikeouts)for most of the season, but when he seemingly tired in his last few starts, my variances went from mostly very small to just small -- or in some cases even a little bigger.

But although Tim was a little unlucky with his ERA, I had him pegged pretty closely -- except that I was about a strikeout and a half per nine innings over. Part of that I blame on less-than-ideal pitch calling. And part of it is that I may have overestimated how many batters Tim can strike out. We'll know more after this season, which I believe will be a breakout season for Tim.

If Tim continues his control improvement and his new slider indeed is a strikeout pitch as he believes, Tim will be VERY tough to hit in 2008. Tim has one of the best fastballs in the game -- and yet his fastball was arguably only his third-most effective pitch last season.

First-pitch strikes. The more he throws, the tougher he will be to hit -- and the tougher he will be to draw a walk from.

And if his slider becomes his fourth plus plus pitch, Katie bar the door!

by sharksrog on Feb 14, 2008 2:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Possibly not a fair comparison

In a single season, luck can enter into a player's or pitcher's results. It might not be fair to say that Gallardo outpitched Lincecum in 2007 (although Yovani was indeed VERY, very good aside from that one horrid start).

Not only did Lincecum strike out more batters and allow fewer hits per inning, his line drive percentage was an excellent 15.4%, while Yovanni's was a very poor 23.7%.

Believe me, I'm a big Gallardo fan and would love to have EITHER pitcher on my team. But for you to blithely say that Gallardo outpitched Lincecum in 2007 was likely an oversimplification.

by sharksrog on Feb 13, 2008 4:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

536 Wins

5 losses....

Halfway through the 2008 season, the Giants start to use him as their #3 and #5 starter. He only gets in 49 starts in 2008, but for the rest of his career, he averages just over 60 starts per season. He usually goes 9 innings in most games, unless he was closing the night before... then he only goes 8 innings. He averages 15/K per 9 with all the other outs being weak grounders to 1B.

He also is the closer for the Giants to start the 2010 season. He ends his career with over 300 saves after he finds a way to be credited with Wins and Saves in all his starts.

He retires after 2016 after he becomes the career wins and K leader. He figures he got his 10 seasons in, so now he is a lock for the HOF. He then replaces Drew Carey as host of The Price Is Right. This only lasts a year when producers fire him for winning both showcases of every showcase showdown, even though he is the host.

He then returns to baseball as a DH for the A's. He hits an average of 50 HRs a year for another 10 years to give him his mandatory 500 career HRs. When he retires for good this time, he is immediately elected into the Baseball HOF, but he refuses to go, stating that he belongs in a higher echelon than all other players.

It is then that longtime stalker, SharksRog opens the Hall of Lincecum. Lincecum funds the building though when he finds a way to un-neuter and spay your pets. He is still spiteful towards TPIR.

"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile

by Boxkutter on Feb 10, 2008 11:29 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

when will he find the time

to fix his teeth?

by Galt on Feb 11, 2008 12:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Chuck Norris

Mocks Timmy about his teeth. Tim asks Chuck to get in the batters box against him. After two blazing fastballs, Timmy snaps off one of his nasty trade mark curve balls. Chuck Norris's knees buckle and he actually craps his pants. Once he's finished cleaning up the mess, he roundhouse kicks Timmy in the mouth. For a moment, Timmy is upset, but then Chuck gives him a mirror, and he sees that all his teeth are perfect!

They meet up for Sunday Brunch every week, and Tim is thinking about firing his agent and hiring Chuck to replace him.

I'm proud to have seen #756

by Azantor on Feb 11, 2008 2:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sim scores

I believe that would make Al Spalding his most comparable.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/spaldal01.shtml

http://www.chop-n-change.com

by alexwithclass on Feb 11, 2008 12:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Great stuff!

Great stuff, Boxkutter! I am merely hoping to live until 2042, when Tim finally retires at the age of 58. :)

by sharksrog on Feb 13, 2008 4:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Giants fan's opinion

As a Giants fan who lives on the east coast it is not easy to watch a lot of their games. That being said, I would go out of my way last year to watch any game Lincecum pitched...

How good is he going to be? Nobody knows...

When the Giants drafted Lincecum you heard he threw the ball 94-98, (which turned out to be true) and he had a nasty curve that he could spot anywhere for a strike(which turned out to not be true). The curve CAN be nasty, but it varies from start to start.

As of right now Lincecum can not paint the corners with his fastball consistently, and he does not always have good control over his curve or change. In fact, I would say his change is even nastier than his curve. Everybody talks about the 12 K game against Arizona, but I think he was even nastier in his third start against the Astros (when he went head to head with Oswalt). His change was lethal that game. It made people look an 8 year old against their father. I was on top of my chair at a bar in North Carolina screaming how good this kid was going to be. That kind of excitement is usually reserved for football season or the NCAA tourney around here.

Can he be as good as Pedro? Absolutely he can. Will he? I have no idea, but something tells me a Oswalt/Cone comp is more accurate.

It's all up to Tim. He has 3 plus pitches in his arsenal (and now he is adding a slider). Can he learn to control all of them and have them all become consistent? Can he remain healthy? From what I hear, he is a cocky, arrogant kid. If I wanted to hang out with him that would be bad. Considering he is a pitcher I would put that down as another plus in his book. We will see what happens....

by Deputy Dingleberry on Feb 11, 2008 1:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

The tough one

The tough one for me was driving 400 miles round trip from the Bay Area to watch Tim pitch in Fresno on a Sunday afternoon -- only to find that the game had been rained out about an hour before start time. The next night I made the same round trip only to see Tim pitch the worst I saw him pitch in the minors, showing the wildness that sporadically plagued him after his May 6th (Willie Mays' birthday) callup.

What was amazing about that game was that while Tim clearly struggled with his control, he also allowed nary a hit in 6 1/3 innings.

by sharksrog on Feb 13, 2008 4:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not Bob Feller

You're right, he isn't Bob Feller. He's Bob Feller+

by ChrisLDuncan on Feb 11, 2008 6:37 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I believe

I believe there is a good possibility that Tim Lincecum will wind up with a better career than Bob Feller, but I certainly wouldn't ordain him as such yet.

by sharksrog on Feb 13, 2008 4:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

lincecum

lincecum ungodly, nasty stuff, and can't command any of his pitches, but he can control his fastball (throw for strikes).

That control's been enough for mlb hitters not gain too much with a passive approach. Right now, his curve, change are swinging pitches and when mlb hitters wait him out, can take advantage. Improves control of those, will be a pure domination machine with 4 swinging pitches. 2 strikes and less than 3 balls, may as well head back to the dugout. Most ace pitchers just have 1.

Don't think Lincecum will ever be a command pitcher, tho that's part of his upside potential. Zambrano's a good control pitcher, but still walks to many mainly due to an attitude problem. Doesn't realize how exponentially dominating he would be if just would walk 3 per 9 rather than 4 per nine. That Zambrano could do better is evident in his 0 outs walk ratio (where walks do the most damage) - has an excellent one.

Think Lincecum's delivery will minimize arm health issues..could be a DURABLE Santana/Peavy on roids.

Lincecum has the most unlimited potential of any pitcher and with his mound presence, delivery, and pitch development selection, one of the best chances to reach it. Far better than Oswalt, Kofax, - a superior, right handed Randy Johnson type career - just a purely dominating, long - term pitching machine.

by dryice on Feb 12, 2008 9:39 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Koufax

Are you seriously saying that Lincecum will be better than the best prime the game's ever seen? It's huge enough if he can be Koufax any year from 61-66 for a season, much less string them together like that.

I can buy the Oswalt comparison. I can tolerate Feller (though, Lincecum's stuff isn't nearly as good). But Sandy Koufax was the best of all time in his prime.

by GuyinNY on Feb 12, 2008 11:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Top prime

Pedro Martinez had a longer and better prime than did Sandy Koufax. Walter Johnson also had a fabulous prime.

Tim Lincecum had a similar season at age 23 to the one enjoyed by Koufax, although Tim's was a bit better than Sandy's. You could look it up.

by sharksrog on Feb 13, 2008 4:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

From Tim's standpoint

From Tim's standpoint, he needed to get his fastball over better for a first-pitch strike. From catcher Bengie Molina's standpoint, Bengie didn't do a very good job of calling Tim's pitches IMO -- particularly when he was ahead in the count.

It took Bengie a while to learn how good Tim's curve and change up were. Tim actually pitched better in games caught by Bengie than by backup Guillermo Rodriguez, who had caught Tim at Fresno. But that was because Tim had much better control in the games caught by Bengie, even though Guillermo did a better job of calling the pitches IMO.

Perhaps I'm not giving Bengie enough credit for Tim's good games with Bengie behind the plate. But when Tim is keeping his fastball down, he doesn't NEED to throw many off-speed pitches, not that he might not be even more effective if he did so.

by sharksrog on Feb 13, 2008 4:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Rose-colored glasses

Anyone else finding it somewhat comical to read these projections for Timmy right in the middle of the past top 50 lists? You know, the lists where the attrition rate for the top pitching prospects is absurdly high?

by drwmsu1 on Feb 12, 2008 1:53 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Irrational Exuberance

Yes, there is definitely still some irrational exuberance surrounding Tim Lincecum. I still love having him on my team, though.

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 13, 2008 1:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Certainly

Certainly I have worked hard to contain any irrational exuberance regarding Tim Lincecum, Dr. :)

by sharksrog on Feb 13, 2008 4:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I would like him

on my team as well. But man, I have read on this thread comps to Feller, Pedro, Koufax and Maddux. Lets calm down a bit, everyone. Kee-ripes!

by drwmsu1 on Feb 13, 2008 8:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

koufax

was a great pitcher once he reigned in his control sufficiently so batters couldn't wait out his basically 2 pitch repoitore hard moving 4-seamer fastball, devastating 12-6 ..rough beginning,..then 6 superb years where he was basically unhittable.. then arm fell off.

Lincecum IS basically unhittable..his fastball is actually a 2-seamer which when thrown hard can even more devastating than a 4 seamer because of the downward movement (see Zambrano's which is still nothing like Lincecum's), change up induces wild swings, hard 12-6 curveball like Koufax's, adding another pitch...his ride is already a lot smoother than Koufax's early years, and adding control with his full body delivery (lowering chance of injury)...a lot of COULD there..not WILL

by dryice on Feb 13, 2008 1:16 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

The wonderful thing to contemplate

The wonderful thing to contemplate is that last season while Tim Lincecum had his control problems, he actually had a lower walk rate than Sandy Koufax at the same age, than Pedro Martinez in Pedro's first full season and -- incredibly -- than Greg Maddux in Greg's first full year.

With stuff already in the Martinez/Koufax class and with Tim adding a pitch per winter thus far, if Tim improves his control, he will be very, very good. If he develops some command, he will likely be great. And if he can do all that with four or more pitches, he could be among the all-time greats.

Tim has mechanics and genetics that could promote a very long, highly successful career. Yes, he's one of the smallest pitchers in the game, but he may well be the most flexible -- and flexibility would seem to be a great asset for a pitcher to have.

by sharksrog on Feb 13, 2008 4:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not sure about that

I'm not sure we won't see Pedro-like 8-1 K/BB ratios from Tim Lincecum as his control improves. Last season as an inconsistent rookie, Tim had K/BB ratios of 6-1 or better in a quarter of his starts and of 8-1 or better in a sixth of his 24 outings.

I'm not necessarily saying that he will have as many as Pedro, but Tim's K/BB ratio of 2.31 last season was better than Pedro's 2.09 ratio in Pedro's first full season. Pedro's strikeout rate was higher than Tim's, but so was his walk rate. And while Pedro made only two starts among his 65 appearances in his first full season, all of Tim's 24 appearances came in a starting role.

If Tim's appearances had been mostly in relief, he likely would have been even more dominant. That said, Pedro was two years younger (21) than Tim (23) in Pedro's first full season.

Tim could well have a career as good as the great Bob Feller's. Tim has exhibitted better control and more dominance than Bob (although hitters also strike out more today than they did in Bob's day), while posting a similar hit rate. Bob's home run rate was lower (as was the case overall in his day), but Tim actually had a pretty decent home run rate last season and was particularly strong in that regard after his first month in the big leagues.

Tim yielded only six homers in his last 107 1/3 innings last season -- and only one dinger in his final six starts.

As for his equalling the great Roger Clemens, I happen to think Roger is probably in the top five pitchers of all time. I would see that as Tim's ceiling. Can he pitch as long as Roger has? Well, he likely won't be taking steroids as Roger appear to have done, but Tim does have good genes. Don't forget that Tim's dad Chris was clocked at 88 mph -- at the age of 52.

In a best-case scenario, Tim could have a Pedro Martinez-like peak coupled with the longevity of Clemens. I don't see Tim as being highly susceptible to injury, but I guess a likely worst-case scenario for him would be that he loses flexibility and effectiveness as he ages, that his new slider isn't effective and that he doesn't improve his inconsistent control.

Barring serious injury, it appears that Tim's career will likely be between good-to-very good and sensational. Of course, there's that old TINSTAAPP thing.

But if I were the Giants, I would be looking to lock Tim up while he still might be relatively affordable. And as a long-time Giants' fan, I can say that I'll be watching closely every fifth game and that the remainder of the Giants' action will primarily come from the low minors this season.

Oh, and Matt Cain's not bad either. :)

by sharksrog on Feb 16, 2008 4:15 PM EST reply actions 0 recs