PDA

View Full Version : Giants lose mind


blandman
10-22-2013, 10:33 PM
Resign Lincecum for $35 million over two years. The guy had ERA+'s of 68 and 76 the last two years.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/9864620/tim-lincecum-agrees-two-year-contract-san-francisco-giants

doublem23
10-22-2013, 10:45 PM
The fact that this team run by this management has managed to win 2 of the last 3 World Series (4 by the end of next week) should tell you how much random lucky nonsense goes into this sport.

blandman
10-23-2013, 08:42 AM
The fact that this team run by this management has managed to win 2 of the last 3 World Series (4 by the end of next week) should tell you how much random lucky nonsense goes into this sport.

Or they just got sentimental after those two titles.

This deal is just BAD.

doublem23
10-23-2013, 08:58 AM
Or they just got sentimental after those two titles.

This deal is just BAD.

I don't know, Sabean already had a pretty solid reputation as a terrible GM but it looks like San Francisco hit the jackpot when the normally smart Rays whiffed HORRIBLY on Tim Beckham in draft that contained guys like Buster Posey, Pedro Alvarez, and Eric Hosmer...

Irishsox1
10-23-2013, 09:21 AM
He's 30 years old, he hasn't been injured and it's only a 2 year deal. It's not like it was a 7 year Barry Zito deal. If Lincecum doesn't work, he's been decent out of the pen.

blandman
10-23-2013, 09:33 AM
I don't know, Sabean already had a pretty solid reputation as a terrible GM but it looks like San Francisco hit the jackpot when the normally smart Rays whiffed HORRIBLY on Tim Beckham in draft that contained guys like Buster Posey, Pedro Alvarez, and Eric Hosmer...

Sabean benefited from tremendous pitching a bit, but he's not as horrible as the impressions. He, obviously, is still doling out big contracts to dubious players (most work out for him though). But he's changed his tune on the draft since his early days (when he made Kenny Williams look like the monopoly guy), and the Giants have benefited tremendously.

blandman
10-23-2013, 09:35 AM
He's 30 years old, he hasn't been injured and it's only a 2 year deal. It's not like it was a 7 year Barry Zito deal. If Lincecum doesn't work, he's been decent out of the pen.

It's $17.5 million each of the next two seasons for a guy with a 4.86 era the last two years in a pitcher's park. That's not just an overpay, that's a good $17 million more a year than he should be getting. He hasn't pitched well enough to deserve a guaranteed contract. His ERA plus numbers place him as dead last among qualifying starters the last two seasons. He has been the worst regular pitcher in baseball.

DumpJerry
10-23-2013, 10:07 AM
I'm still trying to figure out whose mind the Giants lost and when they became a repository of minds.

russ99
10-23-2013, 11:36 AM
I don't know if this is a vast overpay like some claim.

He would have been the 2nd best starter FA after Price, and IMO, he'd get close to or more than that on the open market for staff ace reputation alone, despite the underlying numbers.

LoveYourSuit
10-23-2013, 11:40 AM
Still waiting for the market to correct itself.

Or I was promised this 10 years ago.

blandman
10-23-2013, 12:03 PM
I don't know if this is a vast overpay like some claim.

He would have been the 2nd best starter FA after Price, and IMO, he'd get close to or more than that on the open market for staff ace reputation alone, despite the underlying numbers.

What on Earth are you basing that on? In 2012 his ERA+ (which accounts for ballparks and defense) was 88th out of 88 pitchers and in 2013 he was 77th out of 81 pitchers. His WAR was negative 2.3 in that span. At best he's a reclamation project, and that's if you think he'll gain back the over 4mph he lost on his fastball two years ago. Why not simply extend the qualifying offer? I doubt anyone offered him the $13 or so million it would take him to turn it down, and nothing about what's happening to him suggests he won't be just as bad in the future.

TDog
10-23-2013, 12:13 PM
I don't know, Sabean already had a pretty solid reputation as a terrible GM but it looks like San Francisco hit the jackpot when the normally smart Rays whiffed HORRIBLY on Tim Beckham in draft that contained guys like Buster Posey, Pedro Alvarez, and Eric Hosmer...

The 2010 title had a lot to do with Sabean picking up players at deadline and on waivers, relievers for the most part. The Giants in September 2010 were an appreciably better team than the Giants of June 2010. The 2012 title was a team Sabean built around pitching and Buster Posey. Sabean had a lot to do with the two championships.

doublem23
10-23-2013, 12:19 PM
The 2010 title had a lot to do with Sabean picking up players at deadline and on waivers, relievers for the most part. The Giants in September 2010 were an appreciably better team than the Giants of June 2010. The 2012 title was a team Sabean built around pitching and Buster Posey. Sabean had a lot to do with the two championships.

Which basically proves my original point, the dude spent most of his career as a GM as a laughingstock and then he magically overnight turned into a genius? No, it's spelled L-U-C-K.

blandman
10-23-2013, 12:32 PM
Which basically proves my original point, the dude spent most of his career as a GM as a laughingstock and then he magically overnight turned into a genius? No, it's spelled L-U-C-K.

He changed his philosophy, especially in regards to the draft. That's making your own luck.

TDog
10-23-2013, 12:47 PM
Which basically proves my original point, the dude spent most of his career as a GM as a laughingstock and then he magically overnight turned into a genius? No, it's spelled L-U-C-K.

Or It could mean that the people doing the laughing were wrong, defining Sabean by the Zito signing, or the person being laughed at improved by learning from mistakes. There wasn't anything lucky about the Giants winning the World Series in 2010 and 2012. Getting out of the National League was a bit more of a struggle for the Giants last year, and there may have been a bit of luck with the genius running the Nationals shutting down Strasburg, which may or may not have impacted the NLCS, but every team who made the NL postseason last year was clearly superior than every team who made the AL postseason last year.

In 2010, Sabean went out and got exactly what the team needed to catch and overtake the Padres before and after the trading deadline. The Giants were lucky that the players performed as they were capable. They were lucky that more players didn't get more seriously injured. But that really isn't being lucky.

Teams don't win World Series championships because of luck.

Huisj
10-23-2013, 01:03 PM
Teams don't win World Series championships because of luck.

But they usually don't win them without some either.

RCWHITESOX
10-23-2013, 03:19 PM
It's $17.5 million each of the next two seasons for a guy with a 4.86 era the last two years in a pitcher's park. That's not just an overpay, that's a good $17 million more a year than he should be getting. He hasn't pitched well enough to deserve a guaranteed contract. His ERA plus numbers place him as dead last among qualifying starters the last two seasons. He has been the worst regular pitcher in baseball.

The worst! I don't think so. There were quite a few pitchers who were worse than he was last year. Just on the White Sox staff alone there was Danks and Axelrod.

Foulke You
10-23-2013, 03:29 PM
I thought this article offered a lot of insight into the signing:

http://www.mccoveychronicles.com/2013/10/22/4898934/tim-lincecum-contract-analysis

blandman
10-23-2013, 06:10 PM
The worst! I don't think so. There were quite a few pitchers who were worse than he was last year. Just on the White Sox staff alone there was Danks and Axelrod.

Read my other post. He's dead last over the last two seasons in the only two advanced metrics that matter for pitchers, ERA+ and pWar

CoopaLoop
10-23-2013, 06:49 PM
I don't like the Pence contract either.

As for Lincecum, GM's have to be sitting there saying what the **** did you just do to this offseason's pitching market.

I figured he'd get 10-12 mill per because of his name, but this is crazy.

Huisj
10-23-2013, 07:17 PM
Read my other post. He's dead last over the last two seasons in the only two advanced metrics that matter for pitchers, ERA+ and pWar

Well there you have it, look no further than ERA+ and pWar for the absolute info on how good someone has been and will be!

If ERA+ is the end all be all, why does ERA have a surprisingly low year-to-year correlation compared to other stats that are much less prone to large fluctuations?

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/basic-pitching-metric-correlation-1955-2012-2002-2012/

SoxSpeed22
10-23-2013, 07:25 PM
This could actually work out pretty well for us, since we have starting pitching depth. Other teams could have difficulty securing FA pitchers and get desperate to trade for one. Or they could just overpay them all. Who the heck knows?

blandman
10-23-2013, 07:31 PM
Well there you have it, look no further than ERA+ and pWar for the absolute info on how good someone has been and will be!

If ERA+ is the end all be all, why does ERA have a surprisingly low year-to-year correlation compared to other stats that are much less prone to large fluctuations?

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/basic-pitching-metric-correlation-1955-2012-2002-2012/

Because it's not a prediction stat, it's relative to how good a player is right now. ERA+ takes performance and adjusts to make all outside factors even. If you want correlation for future seasons, you don't use ERA+. I used ERA+ because it's past performance that Lincecum is being signed for, and ERA+ is the most unbiased measure of recent performance.

Huisj
10-24-2013, 10:43 AM
Because it's not a prediction stat, it's relative to how good a player is right now. ERA+ takes performance and adjusts to make all outside factors even. If you want correlation for future seasons, you don't use ERA+. I used ERA+ because it's past performance that Lincecum is being signed for, and ERA+ is the most unbiased measure of recent performance.

The correlation article is looking at actual data from actual seasons that actually happened. It's looking at what pitchers did in certain consecutive seasons to see which stats are more stable and which are more prone to large fluctuations even when other things point to the pitcher performing more or less the same. It can be useful for trying to predict future performance, but those correlations are not calculated from an unknown future performance. Those are based on how good a pitcher has been and is right now.

I would argue that ERA+ is good at telling how many runs a pitcher gave up in a way that normalizes it to ballpark and competition, but that the Giants are not basing the contract they gave to Lincecum solely on that aspect of his past performance. ERA+ can fluctuate (just like actual ERA) significantly and be impacted by strange things, and the Giants probably are looking deeper than that and saying that when looking at a bigger picture, Lincecum's recent past performance isn't as bad as a glance at ERA+ might say it was.

TheVulture
10-24-2013, 11:48 AM
The worst! I don't think so. There were quite a few pitchers who were worse than he was last year. Just on the White Sox staff alone there was Danks and Axelrod.

If every pitcher better than Axelrod was making 17.5/mil a year, the average pitching staff would run about 200 million a year. Just having to bring up Axelrod should nail home the point. If you have to cite Axelrod's performance in a single season where he should have been playing semi-pro ball to begin with to dispute a claim that Lincecum is the worst pitcher overall over the last two years, only says to me that the claim Lincecum was the worst over those two years has validity.

I wouldn't agree Danks was worse, either, when you consider ballpark factors and the fact the Sox had a far inferior defense.

I'm starting to think people are disagreeing just because its blandman...paying 17.5 million for a guy you wouldn't even put in your playoff rotation is ridiculous.

TDog
10-24-2013, 02:19 PM
But they usually don't win them without some either.

Generally a team can't win a championship without luck, but that luck doesn't make them lucky to win a championship. The Red Sox on Wednesday night were lucky to score five runs in the first two innings when they could have scored none because the Cardinals played such uncharacteristically poor defense. That doesn't mean it was a lucky win.

The Yankees might have lost the 1941 World Series but for a strike-three passed ball in the ninth. Giants in 2012 went into an NL postseason in which Steven Strasburg wasn't pitching, and hypothetically, it is possible he could have beaten them. The Mariners in 2003 were lucky that the Cubs collapsed after a fan behaved badly when it looked like their season was over. In addition to the Pierzynski ACLS strikeout that led to an ACLS win, the White Sox were lucky a double-play ground ball went through the legs of a Red Sox player in Game 2 of the 2005 ALDS. The 1983 Orioles were lucky the White Sox screwed up on the bases in Game 4 of the ALCS. That doesn't mean any of those teams were lucky to win the World Series or won the World Series because of luck.

There are plenty of teams that get lucky breaks that don't capitalize on them to win championships. It doesn't mean the teams that do capitalize on lucky breaks are lucky to win. The Cardinals are not unlucky to have lost because their shortstop made errors and the team can't catch an infield fly at the pitcher's mound.

By the same token, the White Sox were very unlucky in 2013. It doesn't mean they would be in the World Series if luck had gone their way.

blandman
10-24-2013, 02:34 PM
The correlation article is looking at actual data from actual seasons that actually happened. It's looking at what pitchers did in certain consecutive seasons to see which stats are more stable and which are more prone to large fluctuations even when other things point to the pitcher performing more or less the same. It can be useful for trying to predict future performance, but those correlations are not calculated from an unknown future performance. Those are based on how good a pitcher has been and is right now.

I would argue that ERA+ is good at telling how many runs a pitcher gave up in a way that normalizes it to ballpark and competition, but that the Giants are not basing the contract they gave to Lincecum solely on that aspect of his past performance. ERA+ can fluctuate (just like actual ERA) significantly and be impacted by strange things, and the Giants probably are looking deeper than that and saying that when looking at a bigger picture, Lincecum's recent past performance isn't as bad as a glance at ERA+ might say it was.

If ERA+ truly doesn't do a good job at discounting outside factors, there's still a matter of his actual ERA of 4.89 over the last two seasons in what's probably the best pitcher's park in the game. He's still dead last in pitcher's who qualify for enough innings over that span. His peripherals are also terrible. His physical skills have also degraded (and it's measurable across the board on all of his pitches, from velocity to movement). They're not paying based off his ability the last two years, or if they are they're not using any kind of analytic that is available to anyone else.

Huisj
10-24-2013, 03:36 PM
If ERA+ truly doesn't do a good job at discounting outside factors, there's still a matter of his actual ERA of 4.89 over the last two seasons in what's probably the best pitcher's park in the game. He's still dead last in pitcher's who qualify for enough innings over that span. His peripherals are also terrible. His physical skills have also degraded (and it's measurable across the board on all of his pitches, from velocity to movement). They're not paying based off his ability the last two years, or if they are they're not using any kind of analytic that is available to anyone else.

Which peripherals are terrible?

mzh
10-24-2013, 04:59 PM
If the White Sox had signed him to this deal we would have burned down the internet.

winstonage
10-25-2013, 05:41 PM
Lincicum is a back of the rotation pitcher at this point. They could get the same production from Scott Feldman for the same money, but over 4 years.