Weird outing by Tim Lincecum

by sharksrog on Apr 3, 2008 5:31 PM EDT

If you aren't into Tim Lincecum or game-by-game pitching, don't read this.

Very strange outing by Tim Lincecum last night, his very first game as a reliever since his junior year of college.

Both the Dodgers and Giants pulled their starting pitchers when weather made it appear there was a good chance that early on in last night's game the rains would come and wash the game out, forcing it to be replayed today. Seemingly by the boards went an intriguing matchup of exciting young 23-year-olds Chad Billingsley and Lincecum.

After three scoreless innings, it appeared that the ball game would indeed become official, so both Billingsley and Lincecum were brought in in relief. They weren't so much reluctant starters as merely late ones.

Lincecum proceeded to walk Russell Martin on four 97 and 98 mph fastballs. After striking out Andre Ethier with an 86 mph change, it appeared he had struck out Kent on a high outside 97 mph fastball on which Kent didn't seem to have held up. But the appeal was denied, and after Kent fouled off a change up and two fastballs, Lincecum walked him on a low inside change up.

Andruw Jones then hit a potential double play ball, but inexperienced Giants second baseman Eugenio Velez made a poor relay on what would have been a close play no matter what, leaving runners on first and third with two outs.

James Loney then flared a low outside change up down the left field line for a single that put the Dodgers ahead 1-0. Matt Kemp ended the inning by hitting a 95 mph fastball to deep center for the final out.

The Giants tied the score while the rain continued to fall, and the umpires had the tarp brought out.

After a 74-minute rain delay, Billingham was replaced, but the Giants gambled that the looseness of Lincecum could allow him to remain in the game. And while Lincecum continued to struggle with his control, he held the Dodgers at bay before being replaced after the seventh inning. Lincecum himself singled and scored the go-ahead run, garnering his first relief win, 2-1, as Brian Wilson notched the save by recording the game's final four outs.

Despite walking four hitters in four innings, Lincecum threw a better-than-average 64% strikes. As is often the case, he had spurts of wildness, but generally threw strikes after three balls. Unfortunately, despite four strikeouts, he wasn't finishing batters as well as usual (as 23 foul balls on 84 pitches would clearly indicate).

So here is the good, the bad and the ugly.

The good: Only one ball (a line shot double to right center by Loney) was hit hard off Lincecum. He had four strikeouts and missed a fifth on Kent by the slightest of fractions on a checked swing. Six of his eight non-strikeouts outs were on the ground.

The bad: He walked the first batter he faced and allowed the leadoff hitter in each of his four innnings to reach. Four walks in four innings may be symmetrical, but it certainly isn't good.

The ugly: The weather -- and Tim 's being brought back into it after the 74-minute delay. Tim may not have handled the inclement weather as well as he did in his five-inning no-hit tuneup last Friday night, but he seemed to suffer no ill effects from the delay. In the game's final inning, he brought back his curve ball, which he hadn't used until then in either of his last two appearances -- instead relying primarily on fastballs and change ups, with an occasional slider thrown in. I'm not sure why Tim disdained use of what was considered coming out of college to be his best pitch, but he was again effective with it when he brought it out.

In summary, weird night -- all the way from the strange weather and pre-game removal of both starters to Tim's being brought back after the long rain delay to his actually scoring the winning run after just his fourth career hit.

Tweet Comment 12 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Hold the presses

Newsflash: Tim Lincecum just took a dump. I think that should be worthy of a new thread here on Minor League Ball (j/k)

Seriously, I get why you like Lincecum - Giants fans don't have much talent to watch. But why are you fawning over Lincecum and not Matt Cain? Cain and Lincecum are both good young pitchers. I don't see why Lincecum is worthy of all this attention and praise over Cain or any other good young pitcher.

by grandslam84 on Apr 3, 2008 8:58 PM EDT reply actions

That's a very good question

You raise a very good question, Slammer. There are some Giants fans who would take Matt over Tim -- and given that the trade rumors over the winter were about Tim and not Matt, perhaps the Giants' brass are among them.

So here is how I see it.

I see Matt as being the very solid type of pitcher every team would like to build around. While if you looked up April as a separate entity, May through July as a group and August and September as a group, you would be surprised at how inconsistent Matt was last season, overall I consider him to be one of the most solid pitchers in the majors -- certainly more proven than Lincecum in Tim's less than one full season.

But I prefer Tim because I feel he has far more capacity to make batters miss -- and thus a far higher ceiling. Tim struck out nearly half the batters he got two strikes on last season. If I were a hitter, that would make me want to swing earlier in the count. But then I wouldn't be as likely to capitalize on Tim's only weakness -- his control.

Matt Cain's success has come primarily from holding opponents to a very low BABIP. I just don't see that continuing over his career. Nor do I see him suddenly becoming a huge strikeout pitcher after two-plus seasons of above-average but not scintillating strikeout abilities. Since Matt is far more a fly ball pitcher than Tim, I see him giving up more homers -- although they are about equal over their respective careers and Matt was the better of the two last season.

Most of the very best pitchers are above-average strikeout pitchers and above-average ground ball pitchers. Tim is one of the best strikeout pitchers in baseball, and he is above-average at keeping the ball on the ground. Thus I see his ceiling as being Hall of Fame, while I see Matt's ceiling as All Star. Anyone would take EITHER pitcher. But personally I would go for the potential Hall of Famer.

One can argue that Tim's violent motion and small size make him an injury candidate, but I feel that his using his entire body to pitch makes him less of an injury candidate than others. Matt is a horse that I don't expect to have injury problems either, but I feel Tim's motion is more efficient and thus puts less strain on his arm.

Matt's inability to finish hitters off as well as Tim results in his throwing more pitches, which limits his innings. Matt has averaged slightly more innings per start than Tim, but I believe that will change as Tim's control improves and as the Giants extend him further into games. That said, I hope the Giants continue to protect Tim's arm (aside from their bringing him back into the game last night after a 74-minute rain delay) and use Matt less himself. The 120+ pitches Matt threw in his season's debut Tuesday night were too many IMO.

When all is said and done, I believe Tim will give up slightly fewer hits than Matt, as well as fewer homers. Tim is almost certain to have the higher strikeout rate. As for walks, that one could go either way. Matt's 1.80 bb/9 over the last two months of last season was highly impressive. Prior to that sudden reversal, he had walked MORE batters per nine last season than had Tim.

Tim will likely also get more ground ball outs, which should lead to more double plays.

Tell me this, Slammer. Wouldn't you take the guy who is likely to give up fewer hits and fewer homers while striking out far more and gaining more ground ball outs? Particularly when it is far less than certain that he will also give up more walks?

EITHER Cain or Lincecum is a fine choice. I think merely that Lincecum is easily the better choice of two pitchers who like fine wines will hopefully get even better with age (for a couple of years, at least).

by sharksrog on Apr 3, 2008 9:22 PM EDT up reply actions

So Many Things In Your Post

I disagree with.

"you would be surprised at how inconsistent Matt was last season"

Lincecum has been "inconsistency" defined in his 1+ years in the bigs.

"Since Matt is far more a fly ball pitcher than Tim, I see him giving up more homers "

With the wild fluctuations of Lincecum's ratios last year from game to game your only basis for this statement is the "end" numbers. At this point, you don't know either way. With Lincecum's lack of command to this point, I would lean the other way in terms of homers allowed.

"Matt Cain's success has come primarily from holding opponents to a very low BABIP. I just don't see that continuing over his career. "

BABIP may be a function of luck and defense to a point but its also a VERY CLEAR indicator of pitch quality. Late movement keeping the hitter from making consistent hard contact. There is NOTHING that says Cain can't continue his BABIP based on the quality of his pitches.

"The 120+ pitches Matt threw in his season's debut Tuesday night were too many IMO."
"but I feel Tim's motion is more efficient and thus puts less strain on his arm."

As you said, the above two are opinions. IMO, the 85 or so pitches Lincecum threw last night wrapped around a rain delay are considerably more stressful than Cain's 120 pitches. Number of pitches on a given night are NOT harmful in and of itself, but rather the amount of rest in between. You ever see a pitcher blow out his arm on the 120th pitch of a game in the 9th inning? No, he'll do it in the first inning of the next start without proper rest.

"Wouldn't you take the guy who is likely to give up fewer hits and fewer homers while striking out far more and gaining more ground ball outs? "

A bit rhetorical, but I agree, which is why I would take Cain.

Baseball Instructor - www.frozenropes.com

by HuskerBob on Apr 4, 2008 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions

Again, you make great points

Once again you make great points, Husker.

I agree that Tim has been very inconsistent as a major leaguer. I was merely commenting that while I view Matt as something of a rock, I was amazed about the end of June or the beginning of July when I realized that after just a FABULOUS April (12 hits in 30 innings), Matt hadn't been pitching very well since April showers were replaced by May flowers.

You also make a good point regarding home runs, although I still think Tim will give up fewer. Since giving up a lot of homers (six IIRC) in May and June, Tim has cut his homer rate drastically, giving up only six since.

There are two things that could send this "battle" in Matt's direction. If Matt can come close to sustaining his 1.80 bb/9 rate over last season's last two months and convert that into increased command as well, that would bode well for Matt's keeping the ball in the park. Also, Matt was most vulnerable to homers last season with his slider, which actually was quite good in his debut this season.

So while I think Tim will give up fewer home runs than Matt (They are virtually tied right now, with Matt at .73 HR/9 and Tim at .72 HR/9.), I'm not as confident about it as that he will be a better pitcher overall.

BABIP can indeed be controlled by pitchers to a degree. I usually use Pedro Martinez as my model for a great pitcher of today, and IIRC, opponents' BABIP against Pedro is about .290, or 10 points or so below the major league average. Johan Santana's is around .285. Matt is around .270, and I feel it will gravitate back toward at least Santana/Martinez level. Meanwhile, Lincecum is around .295, which I feel is highly sustainable.

Since Tim gives up more grounders than Matt and since grounders are hits more often than fly balls, it is reasonable that Matt's career BABIP will be as low as or lower than Tim's. But Matt's higher fly ball total is likely to result in more home runs. And since Tim clearly strikes out more than Matt, if Matt's BABIP is even close to Tim's, Tim's BA against will be lower.

If Tim's BA against and homers against are lower, the only way Matt is likely to keep up is with better control. The 1.80/9 over last season's final two months is promising, but prior to that time, Matt had a higher BB/9 than did Tim.

BABIP most closely corresponds to line drive rate, and Tim's 15.3% career mark is even better than Matt's 16.5%. I believe the signs point to Tim's giving up fewer hits and home runs while striking out more batters. The walks rate is up for grabs, and how close these two turn out is likely dependent on how much (if any) Matt can beat Tim in that category.

According to PITCH/fx, last season the movement on Tim's and Matt's fastballs and changes were similar. Tim's curve had far more down-em. More has been said about Tim's late movement than about Matt's, although I believe Matt may have a little more late hop on his fastball, which enables him to get away with some fastballs high in the zone. I think Tim is harder to pick up than Matt.

I guess for both young Giants' pitchers their success may ultimately be defined by their control and their command. But if those things are nearly equal between the two, I believe Lincecum wll prove to be clearly the better pitcher (assuming both remain healthy, and I have high hopes for each, particularly Lincecum).

I agree with you that Tim's 84 pitches in just four innings Wednesday night was designed to take more out of his arm than Matt's "120" pitches in 5 2/3 innings, particularly since Matt's total turned out to be 113. Still, while Tim averaged an uncharacteristic 21 pitches per inning (My criticisms of his outing were both his lack of control and his unusual inability to put batters away -- which as you would point out, may have been related to a lack of command.), Matt averaged 20 per inning. The bad weather and Tim's having to come back after a 74-minute rain delay may have tilted things against Tim (and probably did) with regard to potential arm strain.

But Tim has incredible flexibility and tremendous core strength for a guy his size -- and has never had to even ice his arm. Matt's arm health has been great in recent years, but I believe he did have at least one problem early in his career in organized ball. Matt threw only 93 innings combined in his first two seasons of pro ball.

Liked your comment about the importance of rest in between starts. While Tim was put in a tough position Wednesday night, he had thrown only 67 pitches in the start he made five days prior. He faced rain problems in each of those two starts, but as far as we know, he didn't sustain any damage.

You like Matt because you seem to think he will give up fewer hits and homers and strike out more while also getting more ground balls. I would be shocked if Matt bested Tim in more than two of those categories and surprised if he finished ahead of Tim in more than one. I would probably put the over/under at one category -- and wouldn't be shocked if Tim won them all.

If that is the case, I would be shocked if Tim didn't become the better pitcher. Now notice I didn't mention walks. I think that one is about 50/50 and is an area in which Matt could narrow the overall competition. But I will be surprised if Matt winds up the better of the two -- even though his career ERA right now is 3.68 compared to Tim's 3.95.

IMO Tim will greatly improve on his career ERA, while I think Matt's is pretty close to where it belongs. Last season Matt's 3.64 ERA was a third of a run better than Tim's 4.00. Yet their Fielding Independent Pitching may have been a better indicator of how each truly pitched. In that case, Tim's 3.56 was a fifth of a run better than Matt's 3.76.

A final comment -- you make a great point about the effect of throwing pitches on a pitcher's arm. Matt's season high last year was 130 pitches, while Tim's was 116. Because Matt doesn't finish hitters as well as Tim, he throws more pitches per inning. Thus, if their innings are approximately equal, Matt will almost certainly throw more pitches. Matt is a horse. But he's still human -- at least as far as I know. :)

Matt made it a goal last season to cut down on his pitches per inning so he could go further into games. He did improve -- yet his pitches per inning still remained higher than Tim's. Tim's greater ability to finish off hitters helps him keep his pitch count lower than Matt. Only if Matt can significantly improve his control and/or his ability to finish off hitters is he likely to get his pitch count per inning below Lincecum.

Regarding Lincecum's questionable return Wednedsday night after a 74-minute rain delay, Brian Sabean says that they looked at how quickly Tim warms up (sometimes in as few as 15 or 20 pitches) and his likely experience growing up in the Northwest with weather-related problems. One observer who has followed Tim closely over his career felt Tim was stiff, particularly in his first inning -- BEFORE the rain delay. Ironically, it didn't start raining until the third inning -- and Tim was brought in to start the fourth.

Tim has indeed dealt with a lot of inclement weather growing up, but I think the Giants are wise to remain quite cautious so that they don't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Likewise with Matt and his silver eggs.

by sharksrog on Apr 4, 2008 6:07 PM EDT up reply actions

We could

Talk and talk in this thread and I think alot of what you are saying is very interesting. I admit I don't break down statistics nearly as much as most on this site and I'm leery of combinations of pure stats. Nonetheless you points seem to be pretty valid, with just a touch of homerism. :)

The most interesting comment you made was this one though:

"Brian Sabean says that they looked at how quickly Tim warms up (sometimes in as few as 15 or 20 pitches)"

I apologize in advance for asking a leading question, but I'm wondering, being as in tune as you are with all things Lincecum, have you looked at Tim's numbers/ratios/strike %/command beyond about the 25 pitch mark? I find that number (15 to 20 pitches) of warm up pitches remarkable for a starting pitcher. I find it extremely difficult to believe that he can leave the bullpen knowing exactly what has that day after so few pitches. With 4 pitches in his arsenal we're talking about throwing each of them 5 times max before going to the mound? Very interesting.

Baseball Instructor - www.frozenropes.com

by HuskerBob on Apr 5, 2008 10:27 PM EDT up reply actions

more importantly

when warming up it will be mostly fastballs. The pitch you should control the most. So he will have only 2 or 3 of each type of his weaker pitches. Just exactly how would you determine what is/isn't working?

by pedrophile on Apr 5, 2008 10:55 PM EDT up reply actions

Scott Proctor

had a pretty good appearance in that game.

2 IP, 0 H, 0 R, 0 BB, 1 K

by Scott Proctor Fan Club on Apr 3, 2008 11:33 PM EDT reply actions

Merkin Valdez

Merkin Valdez was even better, posting a line of 2 IP, 0 H, 0 R, 0 BB, 4 K. Merkin was consistently hitting between 95 and 98, which isn't bad for a guy a year and a half removed from Tommy John surgery.

by sharksrog on Apr 4, 2008 3:11 AM EDT up reply actions

Darn, Husker!

Darn, Husker, you make good points. Personally I don't really subscribe to throwing so few warmup pitches, and I suspect Tim does so only on pretty warm days. What Tim DOES do is start out throwing long toss, beginning at not much more than 60 feet, but then extending out to about three times that distance on occasion.

My experience has been that he doesn't have the identical way of warming up every time, possibly because of differences in weather and how his arm feels at the time. My experience has also been that he throws more warmup pitches than the number cited by Brian Sabean -- but then I haven't seen most of Tim's warmups.

I do recall that one very cold night in Fresno a year ago I watched Tim's complete warmup. When he finished, I was fearful that he wasn't really loose, given the weather. He preceded to go out and strike out the side or something close to it, somewhat relieving my worries.

Incidentally, Tim also does a lot of stretching before he even begins to throw. And stretching is a greater part of his workout routine than perhaps any pitcher of whom I am aware.

As for determining which pitches are working, as Pedro asked, from what I have heard from other pitchers, sometimes their pitches are working in the bullpen, then seem to disappear as soon as the game begins. And sometimes the opposite is true.

Personally I didn't like the idea of the Giants' sending Tim back out to pitch. Other observers agreed. I didn't think Tim pitched particularly well Wednesday night, although it was more a case of walks and not being able to finish hitters off than of balls being hard hit. In fact, only one ball was hit hard off Tim, giving him a 10% line drive rate. None of the four grounders or five fly balls he yielded were hard hit. Nor, of course, was the sacrifice bunt he yielded. The one line drive was a double to right center by James Loney on a 2-2 fastball, and it was crushed.

Tim actually pitched much better in his final two spring training outings (six or seven hits and no hits) than he pitched in "relief" Wednesday. In the five-inning no-hitter over Oakland in his last pre-season outing, he was facing a lineup that wasn't strong. Even so, given that only six batters were able to put the ball in play, he was indeed pitching quite well.

I guess the Giants were caught somewhere between a rock and a hard place with regard to how to use Tim that night. When the game began, I think both teams felt the most likely result was a rainout. So they withheld their starters so that they could pitch the makeup the next day.

When the game reached the fourth inning and it seemed the game would indeed reach a decision, both starters entered as relievers. The difference was that Chad Billingsley wasn't brought back after the 74-minute rain delay, while Tim was.

by sharksrog on Apr 6, 2008 1:00 AM EDT reply actions

question / leading question

stretching before a game IMO is stupid.

yes STUPID

ok, ok, not so drastic. But most strecthing should be done after the workout. Before should be very very light stretching. I've known people to do heavy strecthing before but too often it's injuries.

Before a game it should be jumping jacks and other similar things. After is stretching.

by pedrophile on Apr 6, 2008 9:54 PM EDT up reply actions

Couldn't agree more

as far as stretching goes.

A bullpen has very little to do with "warming up" but rather getting a feel for your pitches. I don't know that I've heard of any pitcher throwing less than 40-45 pitches in the pen, understanding that only the last 10 or so are game speed and never 100%.