Tim Lincecum

by John Sickels on Aug 14, 2007 3:07 PM EDT in News

Thinking about Tim Lincecum.

Some random thoughts about the Giants fireballer.

Obviously his career is off to a good start: 6-3, 3.88 in 18 starts with a 121/51 K/BB ratio in 111 innings. He's allowed just 86 hits, holding major league hitters to a .214 average. He's been particularly effective since the All-Star Break, with a 2.52 ERA although his walk rate is still rather high. Indeed, too many walks is the only real negative in his profile. He's been a bit vulnerable to the gopher ball with 11 dingers given up, eight of them to left-handed hitters, but I don't think it's going to be a huge problem for him in the long run.

His ERA+ right now is 112, which is good (especially for a rookie) although not Cy Young Caliber. Lincecum is certainly a lot of fun to watch, and if he makes further progress with his command he does have it in him to win Cy Young Awards. But there's no guarantee of that. There are lots of ways this could pan out.

At age 23, Nolan Ryan posted an ERA+ of 117 and posted a 125/97 K/BB in 132 innings for the Mets, so the parallel with Ryan that a lot of people like to put up does make a certain amount of sense. Indeed, Lincecum's command is better than Ryan's was at the same stage. Of course, for every Ryan who put his fireball stuff together and has a brilliant career, there are dozens who are effective for much shorter stretches, or mediocre, who get hurt, or who lose their command and never develop. Lincecum's pre-season PECOTAs include guys like Kerry Wood, Pedro Martinez, Juan Pizarro, Curt Simmons, Dennis Eckersley, Tom Gordon, and Sandy Koufax, but also Ken Brett, Baylor Moore, Jose De Leon and Dave Boswell, guys with great stuff and flashes of success but who never put it together consistently. Any parallel of those outcomes remains entirely possible. Declaring Lincecum as the next Bob Feller based on very good (though not unbeatable) performance in 18 major league starts shows lack of historical perspective.

This may sound like I'm trying to bash Lincecum, but nothing could be further from the truth. He is an extremely impressive young pitcher who could become a superstar, and we should enjoy the ride. He's a great investment, and I suspect that several teams wish they had drafted him. But he is still a 23-year-old pitcher with balky command, and rubber arm or not, he is not Bob Gibson just yet. Let's have some patience and see what happens.

Tweet Comment 49 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

nicely written john

level headed analysis of what Tim's future might hold. he's an exciting player to watch, i will stop what im doing when i see him pitching.

Babe Ruth and Travis Snider back to back!!!

by realityconquest on Aug 14, 2007 3:13 PM EDT reply actions

Half

of the fan base here just had their eyes bug out of their head while falling over dead before they even hit the floor.

Retract your blasphemy before more innocent Lince-felators loose their lives needlessly!!!

You realize that prospect lists have a time horizon of like 5-10 years, not 5-10 days, right?

by slurve on Aug 14, 2007 3:45 PM EDT reply actions

Yeah!!

Oh wait, I aint a fellator of anybody.

Sure do love Timmy though and will always get a kick out of how a guy with an awesome talent ended up being an underdog. How ironic :)

"Hell, I could say I am pregnant with Carl Crawford's baby" Elijah Duke's mom

by casejud on Aug 14, 2007 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions

10th pick

Huge UNDERDOG... psh

by JD Sussman on Aug 14, 2007 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions

most hyped/loved prospect in recent memory

Underdog?

by Curtis Pride on Aug 14, 2007 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions

Consider this...

First, Lincecum could have been selected 1st overall, his talent was that good, KC was considering him. Instead he fell to 10th.

Second, he's about 5'10" and everybody has been telling him that he can't do this, that, or the other.

Third, because of his unorthodox pitching mechanics, everybody has been telling him that he can't do this, that, or the other.

Lastly, can you name the latest pitching prospect who shut down AAA hitters cold?

by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Aug 14, 2007 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions

Cole Hamels

Was just as good last year, if not better. I'd argue better.

by Tyler on Aug 14, 2007 7:01 PM EDT up reply actions

Maybe he was

So BOTH of them are pretty awesome I would say. Cole WAS "The Shit" in the minors (1.40 or something stupid. he still didnt have a 0.29 in AAA though. I know we are splitting hairs but,he wasnt quite as awesome.

by casejud on Aug 14, 2007 7:10 PM EDT up reply actions

Slowey

Liriano
Gallardo

That's just in the past three years.

The fact that he's got horrible control and a tiny frame aren't minor issues. The "underdog" you refer to are because people were being logical about his possibile shortcomings and drawbacks.

It's very rare that someone that tiny with such bad control becomes the superstar that so many on this board are expecting.

So the fact that many are being cautious that for him to fill his billing he needs to be a generational pitcher, makes him an underdog?

by Curtis Pride on Aug 14, 2007 7:24 PM EDT up reply actions

No, it is because

HE is a generational pitcher. Not rare at all for someone his size to be a good pitcher , BTW... I should go grab the list.

His conrol is not BAD either BTW. Not at all. It is a little bit spotty and inconsistent and is part of what makes him so good. Just wait until he harnessess it.

Isnt there ANYBODY out there who hadnt seen him who when they finally did wondered what the other big league team's problem is? Doesnt his talent just jump right out at you?

by casejud on Aug 15, 2007 12:52 AM EDT up reply actions

I've watched him pitch 3 or 4 times

And when you watch him I dont think once in a generation. The stuff is awesome but the control is what will keep him from being what you see.

If you want a once in a generation pitcher look at Pedro, he was striking out over 10 per 9 and walking under 3. That is dominant.

Lincecum is very good, and he should be a multiple all-star and win a Cy Young or two, but this site seems a little too much in love with him. He has pitched 111 innings of 3.8 ERA ball, that is not that amazing. And yes some teams would be helped if they had picked him, but the concerns were real, he has a weird delivery, he is very small...those are legit concerns and concerns that can't be answered in one year. If in 6 years he is still healthy and putting up CY young caliber numbers then we can say unequivocally that the other 9 teams were done but until then I am not willing to go that far

by Kanst42 on Aug 15, 2007 9:46 AM EDT up reply actions

this "love" is not blind

I would say 111 innings of 3.8 ERA ball with over a strikeout per inning for someone with less than a half season in the minors is very, very good, if not amazing. At this point he is doing it almost exclusively on talent. The command should improve over time and the experience he gains will make him even better.

Will Carroll of Baseball Prospectus chose Lincecum as THE starter he would want to build a team around for the next 10 years. Even more amazing- he made that statement in Sept of 2006, barely after Lincecum made his pro debut in Rookie ball.

I don't think this site is "too much in love with him." A lot of people are expecting big things from this little guy. Sure there are concerns and questions, just like there would be with any young player. I just think he is someone people want to root for, a player they hope does well. And from what we have seen so far, those expectations are not totally unrealistic.

by baseballjunkie on Aug 17, 2007 3:02 AM EDT up reply actions

Response

Being the 10th pick in the entire draft says an awful lot about just what kind of prospect everybody thought Tim Lincecum was, none of it bad. I'm not really sure why everybody interprets this as "dissing" Lincecum . . .sometimes teams just have a better feel for a particular prospect on a personal level, or they've scouted him more heavily. It's not like 9 teams thought Lincecum sucked and would never amount to anything. It's just that 9 teams thought that the player that they chose was a better fit for their organization. For all we know, each of those 9 teams had Lincecum as the No. 2 player on their draft board.

The teams that passed up Matt Garza a couple of years ago didn't get this sort of treatment, and Garza looks pretty dynamite out there. Joba Chamberlain didn't go until No. 41 this year . . .what does that say about all of the teams that passed him up?

The truth is, when you're dealing with players this talented, you're going to inevitably have a certain degree of uncertainty surrounding their future success relative to each other. So there's no point in obsessing over who the most talented kid happens to be, because you're just not going to know the real answer to that question for a good long while no matter what you're thinking. This is to say nothing for all of the other factors that help to determine future success other than raw talent.

by mrkupe on Aug 14, 2007 7:39 PM EDT up reply actions

This is where i tend to disagree

i have read quite a few comments from guys on major league staff's and they speak of "hitting" in the draft all the time. Sure, If you draft 2 guys who are BOTH sucessful that is one thing ...like if Hochevar turns out to be a solid starter... but when there are so many misses it isnt just "Oh well, these things happen" guys lose their jobs when they screw up. Drafting Tim wwould have been quite a boon to several teams who passed him. Shoot, the Mariners may be leading their division if they had the guy and Brtandon Morrow is GOOD.

If Greg Oden went 10th in the draft i the NBA everyone would be saying he got DISSED.

or if Calvin Johnson went 10th thwe same.

The best talent went 10th and the draft isnt as much of a crapshoot as some think or at least it SHOULDNT be. That was Billy Beane's whole point right?

by casejud on Aug 15, 2007 12:58 AM EDT up reply actions

Andrew Miller

was the consensus top talent entering the draft, and he didn't go 10th.

by drwmsu1 on Aug 15, 2007 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions

That is part of WHY

he is so loved.

Haven't you heard the saying "Everbody loves an underdog"?

by casejud on Aug 14, 2007 7:08 PM EDT up reply actions

Sure

But its more than his draft status that makes him an underdog that people root for but, for people who KNOW the draft and had an idea of how good (and unique) he was...he's our underdog man.

by casejud on Aug 14, 2007 7:12 PM EDT up reply actions

Question for John or anybody else for that matter

I wonder if any of the pitchers who flamed out that you mentioned had Tim's record in their College days.

I always thought that the most interesting thing about Tim's drafrting at #10 and his subsequent DIS-evaluation at this site for having only 30+ Pro innings to evaluate despite having 340+ Innings at a HIGHER level (UW) was kind of silly.

Now roughly the SAME thing is going on with David Price. He isn't included on some prospect lists because he doesnt have supposed PRO EXPERIENCE. When will we learn and when is it okay to evaluate somebody? After 50 IP in the Cal League or after 300 in a top NCAA conference?

This is what should have been learned from Tim Lincecum... a pitching talent from what they do in College! Metal bats and older, better hitters tghan the XCal- League. David Price is already an (relatively) old vet. Why wouldn't HE do the same thing next year? What do you think?

"Hell, I could say I am pregnant with Carl Crawford's baby" Elijah Duke's mom

by casejud on Aug 14, 2007 3:56 PM EDT reply actions

Price

Price isn't on lists because he's not signed, and thus not a part of affiliated baseball, not because he has no pro experience. The minute he signs, he becomes a top 15 prospect.

Vice-Chairman of the Sonnanstine Underground Railroad

by Brickhaus on Aug 14, 2007 5:54 PM EDT up reply actions

College Stats

I think it is safe to say that great college stats can be somewhat predictive of future success, but you have to remember that other factors come in to play.

Here are some stat lines from a few guys' last year in college:

Player A: 156.0 IP, 14-2, 2.02 ERA, 109 H, 27 BB, 204 K, 7 CG, 4 SH, 0.87 WHIP, 11.77 K/9
Player B: 125.1 IP, 12-4, 1.94 ERA, 75 H, 63 BB, 199 K, 3 CG, 2 SH, 1.10 WHIP, 14.29 K/9
Player C: 104.0 IP, 11-3, 2.86 ERA, 88 H, 18 BB, 139 K, 3 CG, 0 SH, 1.02 WHIP, 12.03 K/9
Player D: 114.0 IP, 9-5, 1.97 ERA, 87 H, 19 BB, 146 K, 10 CG, 1 SH, 0.93 WHIP, 11.53 K/9

All four players are statistically very similar though their careers in pro ball have not all gone the same.

Player A is Kris Benson, the number one overall pick in 1996. Benson didn't make a terribly quick move through the minors. He pitched two full seasons in the minors before sticking with the Pirates in 1999. His season in AAA was unimpressive with a 5.37 ERA, 1.36 WHIP and 7.44 K/9. Injuries have marred his career since 2001 and its hard to say what he would have been like had he stayed healthy, but he never looked consistently dominant in the majors despite eye-popping college stats.

Player B is Lincecum. We all know his story. He does have the highest K/9 of the bunch, but he also has the highest WHIP and highest BB/9 by far.

Player C is Bryan Bullington, another 1/1 pick for the Pirates. Like Benson, Bullington has been injured, but he never had numbers even close to his college stats at any level above A ball. He looks like he might yet be productive.

Player D is Tim Stauffer, 1/4 pick of the Padres in 2003 out of Richmond. Stauffer moved through three levels in 2004 and got a healthy look at the majors in 2005 without much success. He has spent most of the last two years in AAA and hasn't been very impressive. He could still have a productive career, but he seems to have peaked as a AAAA starter.

What does all of this mean? I don't know for sure. Obviously it shows that even great-looking prospects can be sunk by injuries. Lincecum has been injury-free so far, but there are no guarantees. It also tells us that even dominant college stats do not guarantee ML success. Even without significant injury, Tim Stauffer has disappointed. I'm sure there are many more examples of both success and failure.

I think it just reinforces what most of us know. There are no sure things when it comes to baseball prospects.

by knightgalt on Aug 14, 2007 9:26 PM EDT up reply actions

Thats not what I see

I see that the last 2 were NOT dominating enough and the top player (Benson) also wasnt as dominant as Lincecum

I see all 4 as doing as well as their college numbers would suggest Lincecums numbers were the best ...also showing that the walks were the least significant number ther, hits and K's being more important... then Benson, then Stauffer and Bullington.

You just have to know how to INTERPRET the numbers.

now take a look at david price and tell me what you see...

Player E: 133.1IP, 11-1, 2.63 ERA, 95H, 31BB 194K's, 5CG 1SHO, .95 WHIP and 13.10 K/9

The thig to look at is K's to hit ratio. Lincecum was DOMINANT and so is Price, and Benson was also dominant. So dominant was Benson that despite having a lot of arm problems he has fashioned himself a decent big leahue career.

by casejud on Aug 15, 2007 1:08 AM EDT up reply actions

If college stats are a good tool

Do you like Jered Weaver better then Lincecum. Weavers stats in his final year are arguably better then Timmy's

144 IP 81 H 213 K 20 BB 3 CG 2 SHO 0.71 WHIP 13.3 K/9

by Kanst42 on Aug 15, 2007 9:54 AM EDT up reply actions

Weaver is a real good pitcher

Of course i like him. He is one of the other guys who basically didnt nees ANY minor league seasoning to come in and get big league hitters out and, I dont know, that impresses me. Do I like him "MORE"? Perhaps. Weaver has had even MORE sucess than Tim. I like em BOTH okay?

by casejud on Aug 15, 2007 11:06 AM EDT up reply actions

Confrences too

I think the confrence also should be noted with those stats. In my opinion, the Pac 10 and ACC are loads better than whatever confrences Ball State and Richmond are in.

by HectorLuna on Aug 15, 2007 9:50 AM EDT up reply actions

+1

<eom>

by wcw on Aug 15, 2007 11:49 PM EDT up reply actions

Appologize for illiteracy...lol

...YOU CAN evaluate a pitcher from what they do in College!

...than the Cal- League...

"Hell, I could say I am pregnant with Carl Crawford's baby" Elijah Duke's mom

by casejud on Aug 14, 2007 3:58 PM EDT reply actions

timmy

"should we be talking about this....."

every day's a holiday, every meal a banquet.

by larryp2sickels on Aug 14, 2007 4:16 PM EDT reply actions

Remember this...

If the Tigres signed Porcello to a ML contract he will be TWO YEARS YOUNGER than Lincecum when he makes his ML debut.

Oh, and Tom Gordon isn't a very reassuring comp....

by BlueEyesAustin on Aug 14, 2007 5:44 PM EDT reply actions

Well

I'm a Royals fan so I remember Gordon's early career pretty well. I give him credit that he reinvented himself as a good reliever, however.

And no I am not on the Lincecum wagon. At all.

by BlueEyesAustin on Aug 14, 2007 9:36 PM EDT up reply actions

You dont like the guy??

Whats not to like man? He comes in and bucks down hitters dude. He has a little bit of a control issue but, is SHOWING progress AND getting people out m,ost the time. Hes been great. What is your problem?

by casejud on Aug 15, 2007 1:12 AM EDT up reply actions

Moving forward

When the Giants signed Brian Sabean to a two year extension, the plan was for the organization to "move forward", which in all likelihood means Barry Bonds will no longer be the face of the organization.
What better new face for the organization than a kid who looks like the batboy and exudes the exuberance of a Little Leaguer, yet makes major league sluggers look overmatched.
Lincecum has been proving his detractors wrong his whole career. He's the kind of athlete you just want to root for. Kudos to the Giants for giving him the opportunity when 9 other teams passed on him.

by baseballjunkie on Aug 14, 2007 6:53 PM EDT reply actions

Timmy L.

He's no Mike Harkey.

Whatever happened to Clear Pepsi?

by Buddy on Aug 14, 2007 9:49 PM EDT reply actions

The Talent is There

If you want to compare him to shorter pitchers, Oswalt and Harden come to mind, but I don't see what being short has to do with anything really.

His upside is immense, but players won't hit .214 against him forever.

He's got to cut down on the walks.

Some pitchers do, and get to that next level.

Others never get over that hurdle.

Someone please put out that fire in our bully!

by sportznut3081 on Aug 14, 2007 10:47 PM EDT reply actions

Lets bet

I'll BET you that when Timmy retires the average against him will be something close to .214 maybe a little higher but under .230

by casejud on Aug 15, 2007 1:10 AM EDT up reply actions

Just a point of reference.....

Pedro's career BAA is .231

Clemens' is .229

RJ's is .218

Claiming Lincecum will be under .230 is some pretty high ground.

I guess we shall see.

I don't doubt the ability, but its far too early to tell.

Bonderman, Verlander, Miller, Porcello, OH MY!

by sportznut3081 on Aug 15, 2007 2:05 AM EDT up reply actions

Saw Him Pitch

For the first time in person a couple weeks ago against the Braves. He looks like one of those Little League kids, uniform super baggy, crooked teeth, no facial hair...

And then he rocks into his delivery, and all you see is body movement. Speaking of that delivery, if pitching mechanics have advanced so much over the years, why do so many guys go down with devastating arm injuries? Hell, if the kid's funky motion works for him, who cares? If it doesn't, at least he can blame it on his dad.

I'm pumped about this kid. So if he has arm trouble, maybe he turns into a guy like Jason Schmidt for a few years. Is that so bad? Let's be realistic; not everybody who lights up the minors is gonna be the next Koufax, Feller or Gooden.

But like Koufax said, "I'd trade my career for his future."

I'm proud to have seen #756

by Azantor on Aug 15, 2007 3:03 AM EDT reply actions

History teaches us that

Ultimately, the degree of success young pitchers realize is dependent on how they are handled by management early in their careers.

If G-man management continues to allow the Franchise to throw over 100 pitches per outing, or toss over 200 innings/year, history has proven that management isn't just risking their luck. They are trying it.

I believe that it is difficult to compare any young pitcher in the current era to the Gibsons', the Ryans,' or even the Fellers' of the world, because, in an important sense, these men were statistical outliers....Pitchers who dominated over a number of years, despite being overworked.

(As a side note, one of the more fascinating career pitching stats I have ever seen is Gibson's ratio of career wins (251) to career complete games (255).)

TL has sick skills and the mental toughness to be one of the best pitchers in his era, irrespective of his height or size. It is up to G-man management to manage him properly.

by flexballer14 on Aug 15, 2007 7:31 AM EDT reply actions

Lincecum

In the interest if disclosure. I like Lincecum and own him in a sim league. My concerns are only about his control. I have no issues with his wacky delivery. There are many pitchers whose deliveries make coaches shudder but never experience arm problems. As I understand it, his dad instructed him on a strict stretching routine for his arms, legs and back. Which helps keep him limber and obviously flexible. This should help keep any leg injuries away.
As far as his control. What I see is a guy who lives off his fastball alot. And he has given up some very long HRs on fastballs. I dont believe he has much control of his wicked curve, or his change. And he throws those and hopes there strikes..lol. Thats the impression I get.
I would like to see him throw more changes to keep hitters off balance.
For his future, I do see him getting his walks under control. And I do think he wins a few Cy Youngs... I will say 3 of them... Every other indication is the kid is going to be special. His home park wont hurt either. If he does control the walks and stays healthy, we could be looking at a very special player. Those are big ifs, but imagine the possibilities...

by Maxima231 on Aug 15, 2007 6:42 PM EDT reply actions

Well of course

He will win 3 Cy Youngs. Every player profiled and talked about on this site is a sure-fire HOFer.

Lincecum is definitely NOT a generational talent. Not even close.

Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est.

by HuskerBob on Aug 16, 2007 5:57 PM EDT up reply actions

Definitely?

That's a pretty strong statement there, Husker. I agree that there is just a bit of irrational exhuberance on this site for Young Tim, but if you've seen him on one of his dominating days, he's mighty darn impressive.

by DrBGiantsfan on Aug 17, 2007 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions

Husker...

usually I respect your opinions on pitching but you need to back this up. What don't you like about him? Is it his amazing deceptiveness? Or perhaps his blazing fastball. Oh I got it... it's that nasty hook that makes people look stupid. No wait it must be that rubber arm.

I really just don't see anything not to like at this point and I have watched all his games (even the bad ones). Sure he has control issues but shit... he has been pretty damn effective.

by caintastic on Aug 17, 2007 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions

Why

Does he need to back anything up? All he said was that Tim wasn't a once in a generation prospect. This coming barely 5 years after the last once in a generation prospect in Mark Prior who probably was a better prospect coming out of college at the time.

So you like that he's walking over 4 per 9IP? So you like that his pitch counts are routinely in the 100s? Mahalo

Matt

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.

by WayneCampbell05 on Aug 17, 2007 6:14 PM EDT up reply actions

Matt...

Why does he need to back anything up? Well because he is saying that there is no way that Lincecum is a once in a generation guy. That is pretty definitive but if he can't back it up then it really doesn't mean anything.

As far as the Prior thing goes:
Prior
Iowa PCL Age 21: 1-1 3GS 1.65era h/9 7.16 bb/9 4.41 k/9 13.22
Lincecum
Fresno PCL age 23: 4-0 6GS .29era h/9 3.48 bb/9 3.48 k/9 13.35
hmm... seems like Tim gets the edge on that one.
Lets look at 1st year in the league:
Prior
Cubs age 21: 6-6 19GS 3.32era h/9 7.56 bb/9 2.93 k/9 11.34
Lincecum
Giants age 23: 7-3 19GS 3.95era h/9 7.04 bb/9 4.02 k/9 9.67
Edge to Prior but their numbers are not that far from each other's.

In my opinion Prior would have been a once in a generation guy had he not gotten hurt. Lincecum, provided he doesn't get hurt, looks like a once in a generation guy as well.

Salud

Caintastic

by caintastic on Aug 20, 2007 6:46 PM EDT up reply actions

nah

again, is he better than all these guys?

Felix, Liriano, Verlander, Cain, Hughes, Hamels, Buchholz, Bedard, Santana, Lackey, Bonderman, Sabathia, Webb, etc. ?

IMO - not a chance.

by pedrophile on Aug 21, 2007 9:19 AM EDT up reply actions

Every guy you list has had more...

experience than has Lincecum (other than Buchholz and Hughes both of whom I think Lincecum is better than). In my opinion it is a stupid comparison. Is a rookie as good or better than guys that have been in the league longer than he has? Probably not yet. Will he be better than those guys? I think he will be better than Felix, Liriano (Health), Cain, Hughes, Buchholz, Bedard, Lackey, Webb and Bonderman. If he stays healthy he has got a great chance.

by caintastic on Aug 21, 2007 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions

yeah

Don't you know a generation is one three-month slot, guys?

by limozeen on Aug 21, 2007 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions

Context Kills

Prior was 2 years younger than Lincecum
Prior pitched in a much worse pitcher's park
Prior's K:BB ratio was significantly better (3.87 vs 2.41) ... that's over 50% better dude

And you think that their number's are not that far off?????

What I find really amazing is that anybody is scrolling this far down still. :) Mahalo

Matt

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.

by WayneCampbell05 on Aug 21, 2007 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions