Tim Linceum, Ready For the Majors?

Eh

I've got no huge problem with a guy getting his first taste of the majors in the pen, even as a closer. I think it can really help a pitcher along in their development process, simplifying things for them in that that they can focus on refining and commanding two pitches rather than the three or four they might need as a starter. When/if you move them back to the rotation, they've got a nice base to work with as they have confidence in a couple of pitches to get ML hitters out and can work in other, less refined elements of their repertoire.

by mrkupe on Mar 11, 2007 9:58 PM EDT reply actions

I like

what I see and I've been on side of the Lincecum supporters here, but like the flip-side of "the sky is falling" let's not get ahead of ourselves here... it is only 6 IP so far. Who has he faced?

Did you watch the game Doc?

I ate a Grand Slam @ Denny's yesterday... pooped out a 2 run double today.

by slurve on Mar 11, 2007 10:01 PM EDT reply actions

The Mariners

Split squad. Reed. Bloomquist and Vidro hitting 1 2 3. Ibanez was in the lineupat least but, the lineup wasnt very good. He did buck everybody down though...wow!

casedog

by casejud on Mar 12, 2007 12:16 AM EDT up reply actions

Didn't See It Myself

Some folks who heard Jon Miller's description on the radio are reporting that the fastball was hitting 96 MPH and Miller described the curveball as "unhittable."

Much as I'd like to see Tim as a starter, I have to admit that a shutdown closer is a mighty valuable property to have. I know the value of a closer is denigrated in some circles, but I've seen firsthand what can happen to a team when you lose your closer(Robb Nen) and how hard they can be to replace(Worrell, Herges, Hermanson, Benitez).

Ideally, Tim becomes a great starter and Brian Wilson, or somebody else, becomes the next great closer, but right now, closer is a much more glaring need for the Giants than any part of the rotation.

by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 12, 2007 12:51 AM EDT up reply actions

I disagree

A quality starter is worth a lot more than a closer. Furthermore, I don't think the Giants have the bats or the health to compete with the rest of the NL West. The team is so old that the players could get hurt and the giants have very little depth to work from. They have a good rotation in Zito, Cain, Lowry, Morris and Sanchez. But the lack of Bullpen is so high, and the lack of bats is too that 1 more arm isn't going to help them. Let Timmyboy progress in the minors and start his clock when the team needs him. As a closer or setupman he'll only be helping the team overcome last two maybe 3rd.

by JD Sussman on Mar 12, 2007 2:44 AM EDT up reply actions

Strange but true

Russ Ortiz is the leading candidate to be the #5 starter at this point. But considering the injury and flakiness history of everyone in that rotation except Cain, you'd have to think Sanchez, Hennessey (big trade bait at this point) or someone else would get at least a handful of starts in 2007.

by Flynn Blake on Mar 12, 2007 4:00 AM EDT up reply actions

Ortiz

Ortiz has pitched very well so far this spring. He looks like he has the inside track on the #5 starter spot. Even if he returns just to the form he had before the trade to Atlanta, he could be Sabean's best pickup of the winter. 13-15 win potential at no risk. Even better, the D'backs will be paying him millions not to play for them.

by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 12, 2007 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions

Good stuff

Thanks for the laugh. Russ Ortiz winning 15 games? Oh, my. That's a good one. [wipes tear from cheek]

I know you're not one to care about things like xFIP and such, and it's a good thing. Ortiz's fielding independent numbers are frightening. Oh, and he's a mortal lock for 100 BBs if you give him 200 IPs. Could make for some very long games at PBP this year.

by Yakker on Mar 12, 2007 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions

Well...

I suspect if he pitches 200 innings, he will have had SOME success as he wouldn't be getting yanked in the 4th everytime out.

I ate a Grand Slam @ Denny's yesterday... pooped out a 2 run double today.

by slurve on Mar 12, 2007 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions

Think of it this way...

The Giants will likely not be in the playoff race in 2007 (unless Barry Bonds somehow puts up another 2001 season). So, what's the harm in letting Ortiz win the #5 spot in the rotation? The downside is he turns into what he is, and they cut him and let one of the kids take his place. The upside is he pitches really well (again, circa 2001), and the Giants flip him at the trade deadline to a contender needed a #5 starter (St Louis?) for a prospect or two.

Very low risk, high reward scenario. I oftentimes wonder why more bottom-feeder teams don't try experiments like these. It's practically a no-lose situation.

by guru4u on Mar 12, 2007 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions

low risk, perhaps

but I think the arguments against Ortiz are that the rewards aren't that high, nor are that they likely to occur. he's been a pretty horrendous pitcher in every sense of the word for a while now, and i don't see why he'd be any more likely to deliver a "reward" than any other waiver wire pickup. the guy throws in the mid-80s with bad command, and, as you said, hasn't pitched particularly well in 5 years. You want to know who's still available that sounds EXACTLY like that right now? jose lima.

having said all that, signing him IS low-risk, and i'm sure the damage is nearly non-existant. i'd rather see sanchez or hennessey starting than ortiz, though, if i were a giants fan.

by bleedjaxblue on Mar 12, 2007 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions

No

Russ Ortiz is not a good pitcher. We can debate whether he was ever a good pitcher (I will point to fielding independent numbers and horrific ratios, you will point to win totals, low ERAs, and perhaps mention that he "just knows how to win"), but the truth is he is done.

There's no risk here, I suppose, other than the risk of having Ortiz suck for a bunch of games for the Giants in April/May. I mean, MLB pays for the baseballs so I guess if RussO loses a bunch in McCovey Cove it's not SF's problem.

by Yakker on Mar 12, 2007 4:02 PM EDT up reply actions

Go Ahead and Scoff

You all might want to check out Ortiz' numbers from the Orioles last year after Leo tinkered with his deliverly. I understand he's never going to be a #1 or #2 starter, but if he's back to his former Giants form, he'll be one of the better #5 pitchers in baseball. I'll come back in October to serve up crow to all you guys who are dumping on him right now.

I also understand he could revert to bad, old habits, but again, there's no risk, at least financially speaking.

by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 12, 2007 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions

Russ

Which numbers are you talking about from Baltimore? The 23/18 K/BB ratio? Or perhaps the 59 Hs in 40 IPs? Or maybe my own personal favorite, the 15 HRs in 40 IPs.

As for serving up crow, put me down for a double helping. If Russ gives the Giants 75+ IPs at a sub 5.00 ERA, I'll be shocked.

by Yakker on Mar 12, 2007 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions

I'll take the HR's as well

Dukes is Jurastically better than Bradley. After all Dukes has been playing baseball ever since T-ball.

by pedrophile on Mar 12, 2007 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions

Oops

I was obviously remembering something wrong, but I will still predict that Russ has a sub 5 ERA for the Giants this year.

by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 12, 2007 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions

seems possible...

provided they yank him from the rotation in under 40 innings. i'm afraid "small-sample size" is the only way Russ Ortiz ends up sub-5.00 next year.

by bleedjaxblue on Mar 12, 2007 6:04 PM EDT up reply actions

Maybe

If they added a 5th base. You know, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and then home. That could help. Although Russ would probably just walk the bases full anyway (including the extra one).

by Yakker on Mar 12, 2007 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions

maybe not....

....after you add on a four, fifth, sixth and seventh ball until it's a full count. Now if they just set up a giant fan in the bleachers to try to keep some of those gopher balls in the yard, that ERA may creep under 5.00 yet....

by bleedjaxblue on Mar 12, 2007 6:25 PM EDT up reply actions

OK Guys

I get it!! We'll see who ends up eating the crow.

by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 12, 2007 7:51 PM EDT up reply actions

one thing I don't understand here....

....so maybe I missed the reasoning by the Giants brass, but why Russ Ortiz the favorite to be the 5 next year? I wouldn't be arguing with you for a second if you said Jonathan Sanchez or Brad Hennessey has a chance to be well above league average as 5s. Why go with one guy who's been among baseball's worst the last few years over one of them?

by bleedjaxblue on Mar 12, 2007 8:09 PM EDT up reply actions

Sanchez and Hennessey

Sanchez may eventually be a much better pitcher than Russ Ortiz. Just not this year. He's showing in ST what I've been saying all winter...he needs more seasoning. Look for Sanchez to be in the Fresno rotation to start the season.

IMO, Hennessey has not upside. What you see is what you get. Ortiz, in the past, has turned in many seasons better than Hennessey will ever have.

You guys are just way too fixated on the last two years with Russ and not considering that there may have been a reason why he sucked so bad and now it's corrected. Also again, we're not talking about Russ filling the #1, #2, #3, or #4 starter slot. We're talking about the #5 starter here. Assuming he continues to pitch well this spring(I admit he always seemed to be on the edge of disaster, even in his best years) the only guy who I might rather see in the #5 slot is Tim Lincecum himself.

by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 13, 2007 12:53 AM EDT up reply actions

if what Sanchez needs....

....is more seasoning, what Russ Ortiz needs is a blindfold, a cigarette and a wall to line up against, because someone should kindly put a cap on (and in) his big league career.

seriously, though, if he is throwing faster -- and maintains that velocity -- that's at least a first step in the right direction. i'll have to see it before i believe it, though. and i'll happily take this as a gentleman's bet to see who eats crow for a sub-5.00 ERA.

as for hennessey, why are you so down on him? i suppose he has somewhat limited upside, but he seems to get a lot of people chasing sinkers and chopping them into the ground. certainly, if russ ortiz is "above-average" as a 5, brad hennessey is as well.

by bleedjaxblue on Mar 13, 2007 1:32 AM EDT up reply actions

Hennessey

You might want to take a peek at Henny's peripheral stats. Not too much there to like. He's not as much of a groundball pitcher as you might thing either.

by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 13, 2007 2:02 AM EDT up reply actions

reminds me of

mark redman

If the giants dont jerk him back and forth between starting and relieving, and they give him a chance at the rotation, I certainly think he could do slightly above, if not correctly above average.

by wildthang on Mar 13, 2007 2:30 AM EDT up reply actions

Good Comp

Yeah, I'm down with comparing Hennessey to Redman. I'd also take Ortiz' career over Redman's in a second. Redman has had one season with a sub-4 ERA, Ortiz has had 4 the most recent being in 2003. 2004 he was only slightly over 4.

by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 13, 2007 9:03 AM EDT up reply actions

Ortiz under 5 ERA

Ortiz takes a line drive off the gonads which deflects to 1st base for an out, sadly he is finished for the year with a 0.00 ERA and comeback player of the year (or go-away player of the year depending on your POV).

Dukes is Jurastically better than Bradley. After all Dukes has been playing baseball ever since T-ball.

by pedrophile on Mar 12, 2007 10:35 PM EDT up reply actions

Wouldn't that make him

the comebacker player of the year?

by Yakker on Mar 12, 2007 10:39 PM EDT up reply actions

YouTube

would go crazy over it!!!

I'm not one for watching the pain of others so probably would only watch it about 100 times before I severely injure a stomach muscle laughing.

Did you ever see the one of the guy golfing in his backyard where he ricochets one right back into the crown jewels? Always good for mixed company.

Dukes is Jurastically better than Bradley. After all Dukes has been playing baseball ever since T-ball.

by pedrophile on Mar 13, 2007 12:02 AM EDT up reply actions

Ortiz

The numbers we are talking about are once Ortiz became a full-time reliever and started working full-time with Mazzone to straighten himself out. He got his ERA down to the 4's while relieving, but was still getting batted around while starting there. I'm sure you are familiar also with the saber rule that HR/FB is a mean that pitchers regress to, so it is not useful to refer to the HR's he gave up in limited innings. Then he got the ERA even lower pitching in the Puerto Rico winter league. And he has been doing very well in spring training.

If you are going to focus on saber stats, then yeah, no one is going to win the argument about Ortiz, but he was regularly winning 15-20 games while having such "poor" stats, particularly his high walk rate. Yes, wins are a poor indicator generally for a pitcher, but when a player is regularly doing that, you have to question whether he is the exception to the saber rules.

Perhaps he falls into another category of pitchers who are able to be successful while flouting the DIPS rules, as outlined by Tom Tippett of Diamond Mind in his article about DIPS and where DIPS fail.

The fact is, if he gets a spot in the rotation, he's the 5th starter. If he is back to his old form prior to joining the D-backs (perhaps Arizona is NY to his Ed Whitson?), he is a mid-to-low 4 ERA starter and that is GREAT for a 5th starter, no matter how he gets it done.

There was a great article on The Hardball Times where the author analyzed each team's #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5 starters and compiled the average ERA by that position. He found that the #5 starter is generally pretty bad. So even if Ortiz sucked, he would not be much worse than any other team's #5 starter, but if he was back to normal, he would be a huge advantage over other teams.

And the rotation has the potential to be all at or around (or even below) 4.00 ERA, Zito, Morris, Cain, and Lowry has done it before and recently, so the Giants could potentially have a rotation full of 4-ish ERA starters, which would be a team full of #2's and 3's according to that THT article.

Now will they? Probably not, but with Zito/Cain paired as #1/#2, the pair will likely be right in there and good against the league average for the two positions, and Morris/Lowry paired as #3/#4, again, the pair will likely be right in there and good against the league average for the two positions. Add to that a decent Ortiz and you have the makings of a good rotation, and that's if they just do average for what they had recently done. If a couple of them over-achieve, then the Giants should be very strong in the rotation, with Lincecum coming up by mid-year if there was space.

by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Mar 12, 2007 8:53 PM EDT up reply actions

haven't read the article you are talking about...

but I'm curious to hear Tom Tippett's account for why a pitcher like Russ Ortiz would flout the DIPS rules. I understand, for instance, the assertion that sinkerballers don't need to post as high a K/9 to be successful, but what on earth does Russ Ortiz do that would allow him to be an exception to the rule?

Furthermore, when recently HAS he been an exception to the rule? He's been horrible recently. I don't have access to his stats as a reliever or his Puerto Rican stats, but I have trouble believing that the former were that great (since, in 40.1 TOTAL, he still posted an 8.48 ERA in Baltimore, meaning he either pitched precious few innings in relief rendering your stats pretty meaningless or he wasn't all that good then either). As for Puerto Rican stats -- again, not having seen them -- I have trouble taking them as an argument that a veteran pitcher is doing well. You're never supposed to analyze winter league stats. Even if I were going to, why would I be surprised that a long-time major leaguer can put up reasonable stats while pitching a few innings there?

One question for you, though -- while he was "pitching better," did he break the DIPS rules? Or were his peripherals improved for that short period? (I'm sure it's pretty insignificant either way, given that we're talking about next-to-no innings, but I still think you need to present that evidence if you're going to make the claim that Ortiz is exceptionally uneffected by DIPS.)
----------------
Another final point on peripherals -- when people say "this guy's peripherals belie the fact that he's effective," I'm willing to buy into the notion somewhat. But his "effectiveness" is still measured by runs given up, not by wins. I will never believe an argument of any kind that says that some pitchers possess a talent at "earning wins" (a completely arbitrary stat) that is not predicted by runs allowed, run support and stochastic randomness. The fact that he's won 15 games several times doesn't make me think for a second that this may come from a talent. The low ERAs earlier in his career? Maybe. I don't think so, but maybe.
--------------------
And, on a closing note, I don't think it's particularly appropriate to compare Russ Ortiz from a few years ago (and whatever success he may or may not have "earned") and now, simply because Russ Ortiz cira '01 was an entirely different pitcher than the one now. Unless Ortiz (unbeknownst to me) has miraculously recovered his velocity, he was throwing around 86 when I saw him with the D-backs last year. In his heyday with the Giants, he sat around 93, maxed out at 95. He still had no command, but at least he had decent stuff. How do you propose this soft-tossing, fly-ball-tastic pitcher with no control duplicate his success from back then? You might as well point to Sammy Sosa's stats in '98 as a projection of how he'll do with the Rangers now, since Russ back then and Russ now are NOT the same pitcher.

by bleedjaxblue on Mar 12, 2007 9:27 PM EDT up reply actions

Low 90's

Russ is reportedly throwing in the low 90's which is where he was before the Arizona disaster. Apparently Mazzone found something in the way he was starting his delivery, not extending enough or something that was scrubbing the velocity off.

by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 13, 2007 12:47 AM EDT up reply actions

The fact that any Giant fan

let alone any baseball fan is arguing that Russ Ortiz "could" be a viable fifth starter is lunacy. His is not a good starter, taking a risk on him is not going to pan out, and he is just a sack of crap that somehow landed a big league job. It's incomprehensible on the level of astronaut kidnappings and celebrity death baby mamma drama.

Like someone else said, who did Hennesey and Sanchez piss off to not have a shot at the 5th starter? Who wouldn't love to see Hennessey succeed and pick up the name Kid Cognac?

by wildthang on Mar 12, 2007 9:33 PM EDT up reply actions

+1 -- sack of crap; has a contract

perfect description

i mean, ANYONE might turn out to have an ERA below 5.00 for a year. in the last two seasons, the dodgers gave fliers to scott erikson and aaron sele. sele turned out nicely, erikson bombed as expected. however: 1) sele did a lot of things ortiz DOESN'T, like have impeccable command and throw mostly giant 12-6 curves to make up for the fact he was sitting in the mid-80s with the fastball; and 2) i'm still not sure it's any more likely that sele/ortiz/erikson would pan out than a random replacement level player. giving russ ortiz a contract isn't a crime, since it was cheap, but it's not a move that has any genuine chance of turning into something decent.

by bleedjaxblue on Mar 12, 2007 9:56 PM EDT up reply actions

Yeah

but the argument isn't that RussO's not a sack of crap. It's that everyone's 5th starter is a sack of crap. Plus, he's a heckuva nice guy.

Now, some might call that defeatist; others might call it realistic. I call it the ticket to an NL West title for the Dodgers.

by Yakker on Mar 12, 2007 10:17 PM EDT up reply actions

Closers

I know what he's saying - a good closer can be invaluable in the "right" circumstances. In 2004 the Cubs had 24 blown saves. They missed the playoffs by 3 games that year. Some would argue some formula that closers are worth a few amount of wins in the overall scheme of things. Well, I know what I saw and it was painful to watch. They handed over lead after lead the second half of the year only for the pen to blow it. If they had a shutdown closer, they mave won the division, not just the WC. Hell, you could of put 2 more quality starters on that team, but what good would it have done if the pen blows the lead handed to them in the 7th/8th inning?

I agree, overall a starter has more value, but if you don't have a pen to back him up, it don't mean a thing. I think some under-estimate the value of a good closer.

I ate a Grand Slam @ Denny's yesterday... pooped out a 2 run double today.

by slurve on Mar 12, 2007 7:10 AM EDT up reply actions

Issues

Everybody in the NL West has issues. Adding a lights out arm to the bullpen could be the difference that Giants need.

by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 12, 2007 10:49 AM EDT up reply actions

You say that now buddy...lol

but when a really great talent comes along you forget about a guy like Noah Lowry pretty quick and whos the G's #5 this year? Is it REALLY going to be Russ Ortiz? or Jonathan Sanchez.

That being said I have watched Lincecum lots ( I live in Seattle) and he WOULD make a GREAT closer.

My vote is for long man 2-3 awesome innings at a time. 40-50 games 100-120 Ip. He can help the team there.

casedog

by casejud on Mar 12, 2007 2:29 AM EDT reply actions

5'th Starter

Looks like it's probably going to be Ortiz. He might be a lot better than their 5'th best starter by the time the season is over. This ain't the Russ who stunk it up in AZ. BTW. AZ is paying his salary!

by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 12, 2007 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions

Well.....

We certainly will see. A bad outing didn't change much about him last week... this week I don't think a good outing does either.

Basically if the Giants feel he is ready he will go north. I think they take him north out of the bullpen.

Only time will tell though....

by VtTigers on Mar 12, 2007 3:54 AM EDT reply actions

In the pen

Start the kid in the bullpen.

http://whiteyball.wordpress.com

Whats that have to got to do with anything?

by whiteyball on Mar 12, 2007 7:07 AM EDT reply actions

Cain issues..

What's up with Matt Cain? It seems his ST numbers look bad (yeah, tell me they are only ST numbers), but as a fan, this scares me. Yesterday, 4in, 3runs, 5 hits, 1bb, 3k and a hr (Mike Morse).

I guess if hes BB level is down, he may be improving control. I know ST is about trying new stuff and getting rust off, but I have real high hopes for this kid and really like his stuff.

by ChrisRef19 on Mar 12, 2007 10:57 AM EDT reply actions

Cain

If you read some of the summaries on here: http://giantsjottings.blogspot.com, it sounds like Cain has had some bad luck with poor fielding behind him. I'm not worried about him at all... I'm actually really encouraged that his walk rate is way down.

by jponry on Mar 12, 2007 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions

Thanks

Nice blog. I too am encouraged by the walk rate. I love his FB and hope he has a great future a head of him.

by ChrisRef19 on Mar 12, 2007 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions

Dammit

it is spring Training.

by NYYLover1000 on Mar 12, 2007 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions

No

He needs at least half a year in the minors before the Giants bring him up

by King Felix 21 on Mar 12, 2007 1:24 PM EDT reply actions

Major league ready?

Now there is news that the Bosox are interested in Benitez?
So who are the front-runners for the closing position should this happen?

Fan of Fenway

by bodyiq on Mar 12, 2007 1:44 PM EDT reply actions

Brian Wilson

Taschner's also having a good spring so far, but if this happens (and I personally would not count on it), BW's probably the guy.

by Yakker on Mar 12, 2007 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions

Brian Wilson

Wilson is clearly auditioning for the post-Mando closer role. He has the stuff. Command and experience are the issues with him.

by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 12, 2007 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions

Brian Wilson is the closer if no Armando

Sabean has said repeatedly that the Giants would be comfortable going into the season with Wilson as the closer if Benitez was somehow (injury, trade) not available.

Taschner has some closer experience in AAA but Wilson is the guy the Giants are going with unless he suddenly looks the Russ Ortiz of 2005-6.

by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Mar 12, 2007 8:56 PM EDT up reply actions

For his sake

I really hope that BW doesn't have to close right away. He needs to refine his command, and I'd much rather he get at least--at least--40 IPs under his belt this year before getting tossed into the cooker.

Personally, I would consider JT if only to not expose BW too early. I really don't want the kid to pull a Joey Devine.

by Yakker on Mar 12, 2007 10:15 PM EDT up reply actions

one note about ortiz

big ol russ put on some weight after he signed that big contract with arizona which certainly affected his ability to get major league hitters out. from the end of last season till this spring training, i have heard reports that he lost AT LEAST 10-15 pounds--he has slimmed down to the russ ortiz that giants fan knew back in the dusty baker era.

another point that i want to make is: ya, he may not throw 93 like he used to be able to, but its not necessary for him if he has his cutter working. back in the day, his cutter was one of the top cutters in baseball and at times it was tough to make good contact off him. in 01 for example he allowed 7.7 hits per nine.

Bottom line: he has upside because he has gotten rid of the weight that I believe was hindering his performance. he has that drive again which was lacking after he received that big contract. i think theres a good chance that he could get a sub 5 era pitching in the NL West. if he wins that 5 spot and holds on, he is also a durable pitcher who can throw 200+ innings. the best thing is, the Dbacks are paying him anywhere from 7 to 8 million this year and the giants get him for league minimum!! ill take that any day.

Giants '08

by z4 landshark on Mar 12, 2007 11:00 PM EDT reply actions

poor giants fans

its quite sad sometimes, the mass ramblings of madmen.

by wildthang on Mar 12, 2007 11:04 PM EDT up reply actions

"he has upside"

if russ ortiz has "upside," i'd really like to hear a list of the pitchers in triple-A and above who you believe DON'T have upside.

the only good thing you can say about russ is that he's cheap. and, according to you, less fat than he used to be. after that, any compliments thrown russ's way should be coming from his mother, not a level-headed baseball fan.

by bleedjaxblue on Mar 13, 2007 12:02 AM EDT up reply actions

ortiz

bleedjaxblue, are you going to disagree that he didnt at least used to have a good cutter?? come on now...i saw him break way too many dodger bats with that pitch for you not to give him at least some credit. :) by the way, i got tickets to some giants dodgers games this year, and im already pumped!

i try not to be a "rambling madman" but i strongly believe that he could achieve less than a 5.00 era if injuries dont strike and if he maintains the focus he has now.

Giants '08

by z4 landshark on Mar 13, 2007 1:04 AM EDT up reply actions

definitely

he had one. he was tough to hit, because of the cutter and his "effective wildness." the peripherals always suggested he wasn't as good as his ERA/wins, but he was always promising in terms of pure stuff. i always drafted him in fantasy on the premise that he'd gain some control and really make something of himself. sadly, he never got the control, and quickly lost his stuff.

if it were 1999 all over again, i'd say he has plenty of upside. but, at these speeds, the cutter almost hangs. i just can't see him turning back the clock and becoming an effective pitcher again. sure, stranger things have happened. but i wouldn't take "focus" in spring training as a sign he's able to get major leaguers out. a lot of veterans battling for a position put up good stats.

got tickets for the first dodgers-giants series, too. i'm stoked.

by bleedjaxblue on Mar 13, 2007 1:28 AM EDT up reply actions

Delusions of Grandeur

OK, so now we know what it takes to upstage Tiny Tim Lincecum, in his own thread: A good ol' fashioned smackdown over Russ Ortiz.

Wow.

by Yakker on Mar 13, 2007 1:33 AM EDT reply actions

Giants

Ortiz= :-(

So this (along with Barry's eternally bizarro antics) is what Giants fans are talking about?
Let's talk about some of the good things that are happening within the system.............................................................................................. ...................Cain?.......Lincecum?.......
No more Ortiz, please...

Fan of Fenway

by bodyiq on Mar 13, 2007 7:12 PM EDT reply actions

Lining up the top prospects

It appears to me that the top three consensus pitching prospects are Philip Hughes, Homer Bailey and Tim Lincecum, in that order. Perhaps the most pervasive consensus is that Hughes and Bailey rank 1,2, with the primary question being merely their order therein.

Certainly Hughes and Bailey have the advantage over Lincecum in age by two years, but in addition to being more dominant, Lincecum enjoys a HUGE advantage over the other two with regard to line drive rate.

Last season in Class A, Hughes yielded 8 line drives in 30 innings. That's one line drive every 3.75 innings Bailey gave up 22 line drives in his 71 Class innings, or one every 3.07 innings. Both are very good numbers, as one might expect from arguably the top two pitching prospects in the game.

But Lincecum blew each of them away, albeit in a small sample, as was the case with both the other pitching prospects. Lincecum yielded only one line drive in 32 innings. Using the new math, that's one per 32.00 innings (actually 31.67, since Tim pitched 31 2/3 innings).

In other words, while both Hughes and Bailey were clearly above average in avoiding line drives, Lincecum was eight times more successful in doing so than Hughes and 10 times better at it than Bailey.

Lincecum's strikeout rate was the best in organized baseball by a fair amount. But it would appear that given that the line drive represents the most square contact a batter can make with a pitch, Tim's incredible one line drive (which was caught by the shortstop, at that) in 31 2/3 innings may well be the most incredible stat among all prospects.

In fairness, Tim DID give up three homers, so he wasn't fooling everyone. I saw one of the three blasts, and it was one of the hardest homers I have ever seen hit at any level. That pitch came in fast and clearly went out faster.

But when it came to keeping batters from squaring up on the ball well enough for them to hit a line drive, Lincecum might have been the best thing since Eddie Feigner.

If Eddie was the King, I'm dubbing Tim "the Prince." How about "The Prince of Prolificity?" Or if he keeps his line-drive rate anywhere near as low as it was last season, "The Prince of Chintz."

by sharksrog on Mar 14, 2007 3:33 PM EDT reply actions

Nice.....

That's a sweet little nugget there SharksRog! I just wonder how long it will be before he makes the big club. Are we in waiting for an injury to occur?

Fan of Fenway

by bodyiq on Mar 14, 2007 5:22 PM EDT reply actions

The E-Lincecum-Ator

The Giants are said to believe that if they used Tim in their rotation right now, he wouldn't embarass himself. They are also said to be waiting to bring him up at a time when he can DOMINATE.

They seem to have made up their minds, but if Tim should throw, say, four dynamite innings on Friday (following Matt Cain), they might have to begin to take another look. Tim was awful in facing his first five batters in spring training. He gave up four hits, none of them cheapies, and three runs.

But he ended that inning with a double play and then pitched a 1-2-3 inning with two strikeouts to close out his day. Overall the outing was pretty bad, with three earned runs in just two innings, yet he still threw only 32 pitches, or a highly-acceptable 16 per inning.

Then on Sunday he gave up only two scratch hits in three innings, striking out four and extending his walkless streak to the five innings he has pitched this spring. 51 of his 73 pitches have gone for strikes, and he has gone to three balls on only two batters and two two balls on only two others.

The Giants would like to send Tim back to Fresno to transition his dominance in college and the minors to where he can also dominate in the majors. If he keeps throwing as he has over his last 4 2/3 innings, allowing no walks and no hard-hit balls, recording all his outs via strikeouts or ground balls, they just might come to the conclusion that he has already completed that transition.

He could also revert to that way he pitched to those first five batters. But his dominant success since then is at least raising the possibility that his poor start may have been due to nerves.

Beginning with his 38-inning stint in the 2005 Cape Cod Summer League, he has recorded 68 strikeouts in those 39 innings there, followed by 199 strikeouts in 125 NCAA innings in 2006, followed by another 68 strikeouts in 39 innings in Class A (including the playoffs), followed by six strikeouts in five innings thus far during spring training.

Since those first five batters this spring, Tim's curve has been virtually unhittable -- even in the rare air of Arizona. The Giants now feel he has three pitches of major-league caliber (including both a fastball and curve that are rated between 70 and 80 on the 20-80 scale), and he has worked on at least two others.

Tim's only real weakness has been control. That is why his newfound control this spring is so exciting. If Tim can consistently get ahead of hitters, I don't believe they can consistently hit him.

And I'm talking right now. Only a small percentage of Tim's last 208 innings have come against major leaguers, but he has struck out an incredible 341 batters in that time. That's a mere 14.8 K's per nine innings pitched. Nearly 55% of the outs Tim has recorded during that period have come via the strikeout.

And that mere one line drive he gave up during his 32 regular-season innings is quite an indication that even when batters DO get their bats on the ball against Tim, they have a difficult time hitting it hard.

by sharksrog on Mar 15, 2007 3:01 AM EDT reply actions

ummm

You are using 30 innings to compare the 3 ignoring age difference and the fact that Hughes & Bailey continued to dominate in AA.

Wait until Lincecum does something late in spring or in AA before going off on him, until then it's small sample size in the extreme.

No-one has any clue how he will respond to the 5 day rotation or more advanced hitters, let's wait and see.

Dukes is Jurastically better than Bradley. After all Dukes has been playing baseball ever since T-ball.

by pedrophile on Mar 15, 2007 7:21 AM EDT up reply actions

Ummm, no

I didn't ignore the two-year age difference between Tim Lincecum and both Philip Hughes and (Inside the Park) Homer Bailey, specifically mentioning it. Perhaps I SHOULD have mentioned that both the younger pitchers went on to do well in AA, but I assumed everyone who would read my comment would already be aware of that.

I agree with you regarding the small sample size, but do you honestly think that Hughes or Bailey has EVER had a 32-inning stretch at any level in the minors in which he has given up just ONE line drive?

Yes, we will be even more convinced about Tim once we see him do something later in the spring (perhaps as soon as his next appearance following Matt Cain tomorrow), although I don't think we'll see him at AA. He will likely open the season at AAA Fresno, a mere three hours drive from San Francisco.

You say we have no idea how he'll respond to the five-day rotation or to more advanced hitters, but in fact we do. Tim has pitched effectively at a variety of levels in roles from starter to starter/reliever to closer. In the 2005 Cape Cod League he fashioned a sub-1.00 ERA in three starts before being hit in the noggin with a line drive. So his Harwich team moved him to closer, where he continued to flourish.

He led the NCAA by a landslide in strikeouts in 2006, while starting 17 games and relieving in five others. In the minors later in the year, he pitched every fifth day, striking out minor-league batters at an even faster rate than the collegiate hitters he had faced.

Is it guaranteed that Tim will go on to a fabulous career? Of course not. But when I first saw him pitch, I just kind of KNEW. Before he pitches, you wonder why they let this guy who looks like a high school freshman play ball with men. Then when he begins throwing pitches to his opponents, it is he who looks like the adult and the opposing hitters like children.

If Tim ultimately fails, you will have every right to say, "See, I told you so." More likely it is I, as a Giants fan, who will have the last laugh.

It's probably one of those things where you just had to be there. But go to these sites and tell me what you think:

http://www.calleaguers.com/LincecumTim0326.html

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/mechanics/discussion/controlled_fury_tim_lincecum/

http://detectovision.com/?p=680

http://detectovision.com/?p=628

http://www.pitchsmarter.com/101/timlincecum_baseballbiomechanics.pdf

by sharksrog on Mar 15, 2007 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions

hello sharksrog

I do realize you mentioned the age. But you did compare 30 innings which IMO is meaningless. And as far as age: How many line drives do you think Homer Bailey would give up in a low rookie level team over 30 innings?

<<<<You say we have no idea how he'll respond to the five-day rotation or to more advanced hitters, but in fact we do. Tim has pitched effectively at a variety of levels in roles from starter to starter/reliever to closer. In the 2005 Cape Cod League he fashioned a sub-1.00 ERA in three starts before being hit in the noggin with a line drive. So his Harwich team moved him to closer, where he continued to flourish.<p> He led the NCAA by a landslide in strikeouts in 2006, while starting 17 games and relieving in five others. In the minors later in the year, he pitched every fifth day, striking out minor-league batters at an even faster rate than the collegiate hitters he had faced.>>>>

In 2004 to 2006 he was in NCAA which is one start per week as a starter.

Then he became a professional during 2006 and pitched 27 2/3 innings over 6 games started. That is 4 2/3 innings per start.

I would never suggest 6 starts with an average less than 5 innings would constitute proving he can handle every 5th day.

Not only that how will his numbers be affected by:

Seeing more advanced talent (high-A isn't that difficult for quality college pitchers) that are also close to his age and talent group
Seeing teams more than once (6 games doesn't allow this)
Facing hitters 3rd and 4th time in a game (4 2/3 with a low WIP doesn't allow this)
Having to pitch when tired in the game

I'm not stating he is a bad prospect, he is a top one. He just has an awful lot of questions to answer this year. Just because you love the prospect doesn't make the questions go away.

Dukes is Jurastically better than Bradley. After all Dukes has been playing baseball ever since T-ball.

by pedrophile on Mar 15, 2007 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions

Just a Guess

There is really no way of knowing, of course. But let's make a guess based on how much Homer's line drive rate went up after he advanced from Class A to AA last season.

Homer yielded 22 line drives in 71 innings in High A. He gave up 26 line drives in 68 innings in AA. I'm going to guess that Homer would have yielded something like 10 line drives in 70 innings in Short-season A (or perhaps 16 line drives in 70 innings in Low A). That would be 4 line drives in 30 innings in Short-season A or 5 line drives in 30 innings in Low A.

The sample is still small, of course (which is your best argument IMO), but even adjusting classification for age Homer winds up yielding perhaps four or five times as many line drives as Tim.

These are just guesses, of course, but I think they're reasonable ones. Even if Tim had yielded two or three line drives instead of just one, he probably would have done better in that regard even on a age-equalized basis than Homer.

I'm open to your own personal estimates. Although I am going to continue to disagree on a few things, I think you have asked reasonable questions and made reasonable arguements here. Even though we may wind up agreeing to disagree, I applaud you for that.

We are, after all, talking about reasonablesness -- not certainty.

by sharksrog on Mar 15, 2007 11:56 PM EDT up reply actions

agreed

with all your estimates.

I do think there are two factors you do not take into account.

You are pro-rating. It's possible the 30 innings were a hot stretch. Still 1 line drive is very very low.
That line drives are that important. Take the 3 hrs Lincecum gave up and convert them to line drives and the numbers are close. Or do many other things.

Anyways, I do agree with much or almost all of what you say.

My bigger issue is the 7 innings every 5 days for 6 months instead of 4 1/2 innings every 5 days for one month or 7 innings every 7 days.

I wouldn't be shocked if he followed a Harden route. Total and absolute domination followed by injury problems. But who knows until we see him with a real workload?

oh, and yeah, it's about good discussions where we both learn more. I'm quite happy to learn I'm wrong when I hear about something I never heard of. I'm here to learn not to brag how smart I am. We have sightings of Gleeman, A Foster, and my fav Will Carroll, as well as others here. They all know a hell of a lot more than either of us.

Dukes is Jurastically better than Bradley. After all Dukes has been playing baseball ever since T-ball.

by pedrophile on Mar 16, 2007 1:22 AM EDT up reply actions

Every 5th Day

Tim wasn't just a one-game-a-week pitcher at the University of Washington. Over a period of about 15 weeks last spring, Tim made 17 starts and five relief appearances for the Huskies. Most of his starts were made on four or five days' rest, just like a regular major leaguer, and one was made on just three days' rest. Generally when he went a full week between starts surrounded the times he pitched in relief. Between college and the minors, Tim pitched 164 innings, which would have been enough to qualify for the ERA title had he pitched them all in the majors.

Tim hasn't pitched much against talent about the Class A level, but since he shook off the jitters in the first inning of his first start in spring training, he has thrown 4 2/3 scoreless innings, allowing only two hits and no walks while striking out six. The two hits were of the scratch variety, and no ball has been hit hard during that time. I mention this because this spring is the first time he has had the opportunity to face batters above Class A.

Tim saw virtually all the Pac-10 teams more than once during each season -- and perhaps as many as six times during his three seasons in Washington. I saw both the only two games he pitched against the same team as a minor leaguer.

The first time he faced Stockton (at home), he gave up two runs, including a homer that went out of the park at a faster speed then he threw the pitch. The second time against them -- on the road, no less -- he limited them to a solitary scratch infield hit, walked three and struck out nine.

It was the most dominant of the three performances he made that I viewed. And it came against the only team that saw him for a second time.

Tim no doubt faced batters three and four times on many occasions in college, but he wasn't allowed to pitch deeply into games in the minors until his very last start, when he went seven full innings on 94 pitches. In that game he faced batters at least three times, and he pitched quite well against them. The only run he allowed came early in the game. The last pitch he threw in that game was a 96 mph fastball which resulted in his 10th strikeout.

You may be right about Tim's never having had to pitch in a game when he was tired. He doesn't seem to get tired. He threw 146 pitches a year ago in a two-hit, 18-strikeout shutout over UCLA. The 146th pitch was a 95 mph fastball that resulted in his 18th strikeout.

How many pitchers do you know that still throw 95 mph (Tim's usual range is 94-97 mph.) after 145 pitches? Oh, and as is his wont, he comfortably threw long toss foul pole to foul pole the very next day -- after NOT icing his arm after the game. (He doesn't ice. Doesn't feel the need.)

There are just so many amazing facts about Tim. He's just not your normal pitcher. To relieve pressure, he walks on his hands or does backflips. He still throws 95 mph after 145 pitches. He comfortably throws long toss the very next day -- foul pole to foul pole. He never ices. He's never missed a start. He's never even had a sore arm.

The guy almost doesn't seem human. Given that his dad threw 88 mph at the ripe old age of 55, Tim has been given the genetics, the training routine and the motion to pitch in a manner we haven't seen before.

Every point you make about him is a good one. But I have to admit that nary a one worries me.

Tim will pitch again tomorrow. Let's see how he does.

Oh, one more thing. In the (Class A) games I've seen him pitch, teams don't even get many foul balls off him. They mostly swing and miss, take a strike or put the ball feebly into play.

In his appearance on Sunday -- against major league and near-major league hitters, he had 10 swing throughs among his 29 strikes. He had 8 called strikes. 7 balls were put in play. Only 4 pitches were fouled. When over 60% of your strikes aren't touched, you're fooling a lot of hitters.

Tim's fastball (which has been clocked as high as 101) was very good, but it was his waterfall curve that most baffled the Seattle hitters. His change was also effective. Tim is also working on at least two more pitches -- although it has been written that like Randy Johnson, he probably needs only two.

Seeing is believing. I hope you get a chance to see Tim pitch. Coming soon to a major league ballpark near you. :)

by sharksrog on Mar 16, 2007 3:15 AM EDT up reply actions