goddamnit A's

[msgkings322]

We like to call that Onus probandi . You can repeat it, but repeating it alone doesn't carry the argument. Your response to the projections I cited was "they're just projections." Well sure, but they're respected, considered, sophisticated projections. They are not always right, but they're an INDICATOR of what the learned baseball public thinks. That public thinks the Giants staff is better.

Here's another tack:

ERA+ for 09, 10, 11, 3 year avg

Kennedy: n/a, 111, 137, 124 (2 yr avg)
Hudson: 115, 138, 118, 124
Cahill: 96, 138, 97, 110

Tim: 173, 114, 130, 139
Cain: 148, 124, 123, 132
Bum: 246 (only 10 IP), 131, 111, 121 (2 yr avg)

What I notice from these stats is that NOBODY has come CLOSE to Tim's 2009. Not fucking CLOSE. Thus, he is CLEARLY the highest upside guy in the bunch, AND he's got the highest average too.

What I also notice is that if you were to slot the six pitchers by average ERA+, you'd get this:

1. Tim
(drop 7 points)
2. Cain
(drop 8 points)
3a. Kennedy
3b. Hudson
5. Bum
(drop 11 points)
6. Cahill

Which also jibes with my "gut" and actually watching these guys pitch for the last three years. Simply said: Timmy is better than Matt by a good margin, Matt is better than Kennedy/Hudson/Bum by a good margin, and Cahill sucks hind tit by quite a bit.

So, no, Kennedy ISN'T just as good as Tim or Matt. Where I will agree is that he's in the conversation with being as good as Bum or Hudson, but he's a #3 on our staff.

Final aside -- re: Bum "getting shelled at any time." If you take away that miserable 1/3 of an inning vs. the Twins on June 21, his 2011 looks like this:

204.1 IP 193 H 65 ER 46 BB 2.86 ERA 1.17 WHIP

...and an ERA+ of about 125. My point is that except for that one horrific outing, he was 25% better than the entire league at the age of 21, after being 31% better than the league at the age of 20. The Snakes have nothing close to that.

Your data is solid, I think you convinced me the Giants SP is a bit better. Not a ton, a bit, 1-5. Remember their 4-5 are probably better than ours.

Still, I feel the Dbacks have slightly better odds to take the division. I haven't looked but I bet (heh) Vegas agrees.

 

[tzill]

We like to call that Onus probandi . You can repeat it, but repeating it alone doesn't carry the argument. Your response to the projections I cited was "they're just projections." Well sure, but they're respected, considered, sophisticated projections. They are not always right, but they're an INDICATOR of what the learned baseball public thinks. That public thinks the Giants staff is better.

Here's another tack:

ERA+ for 09, 10, 11, 3 year avg

Kennedy: n/a, 111, 137, 124 (2 yr avg)
Hudson: 115, 138, 118, 124
Cahill: 96, 138, 97, 110

Tim: 173, 114, 130, 139
Cain: 148, 124, 123, 132
Bum: 246 (only 10 IP), 131, 111, 121 (2 yr avg)

What I notice from these stats is that NOBODY has come CLOSE to Tim's 2009. Not fucking CLOSE. Thus, he is CLEARLY the highest upside guy in the bunch, AND he's got the highest average too.

What I also notice is that if you were to slot the six pitchers by average ERA+, you'd get this:

1. Tim
(drop 7 points)
2. Cain
(drop 8 points)
3a. Kennedy
3b. Hudson
5. Bum
(drop 11 points)
6. Cahill

Which also jibes with my "gut" and actually watching these guys pitch for the last three years. Simply said: Timmy is better than Matt by a good margin, Matt is better than Kennedy/Hudson/Bum by a good margin, and Cahill sucks hind tit by quite a bit.

So, no, Kennedy ISN'T just as good as Tim or Matt. Where I will agree is that he's in the conversation with being as good as Bum or Hudson, but he's a #3 on our staff.

Final aside -- re: Bum "getting shelled at any time." If you take away that miserable 1/3 of an inning vs. the Twins on June 21, his 2011 looks like this:

204.1 IP 193 H 65 ER 46 BB 2.86 ERA 1.17 WHIP

...and an ERA+ of about 125. My point is that except for that one horrific outing, he was 25% better than the entire league at the age of 21, after being 31% better than the league at the age of 20. The Snakes have nothing close to that.

Edit: I'm an idiot; I used Tim Hudson's stats instead of Daniel Hudson's. D. Hudson's ERA+ for the last three years are n/a, n/a, 113 and so his average is 113. He's fifth in the list, slightly ahead of Cahill. So to recap:
1. Tim....7 point drop 2. Matt....8 point drop....3. Kennedy 4. Bum....8 point drop 5. Hudson 6. Cahill.

The staffs are not really comparable.

 

[tzill]

Your data is solid, I think you convinced me the Giants SP is a bit better. Not a ton, a bit, 1-5. Remember their 4-5 are probably better than ours.

Still, I feel the Dbacks have slightly better odds to take the division. I haven't looked but I bet (heh) Vegas agrees.

I don't think you can categorically say that Collmenter is better than Song.

2011 ERA+:

Collmenter -- 117 in 154 IP
Song -- 132 in 179 IP.

Projections:

Collmenter 3.33 ERA 1.16 WHIP in 165 IP
Song 3.94 ERA 1.38 WHIP in 196 IP

There is a case that Josh might be better, but it's certainly not a foregone conclusion.

There is also an argument that we have a far superior #1 (Tim vs. Kennedy), a far superior #2 (Matt v. Hudson), a superior #3 (Bum v. Cahill) a better #4 (Song v. Collmenter). Only in the #5 slot would we truly suffer by comparison.

 

[msgkings322]

I don't think you can categorically say that Collmenter is better than Song.

2011 ERA+:

Collmenter -- 117 in 154 IP
Song -- 132 in 179 IP.

Projections:

Collmenter 3.33 ERA 1.16 WHIP in 165 IP
Song 3.94 ERA 1.38 WHIP in 196 IP

There is a case that Josh might be better, but it's certainly not a foregone conclusion.

There is also an argument that we have a far superior #1 (Tim vs. Kennedy), a far superior #2 (Matt v. Hudson), a superior #3 (Bum v. Cahill) a better #4 (Song v. Collmenter). Only in the #5 slot would we truly suffer by comparison.

So who's got the better shot at the division?

 

[tzill]

So who's got the better shot at the division?

Too early to say. To me it looks kind of even. But, injuries will decide it, as injuries always do. If they lose Kennedy, Upton, Montero or Putz for any length of time they're fucked.

 

[msgkings322]

Too early to say. To me it looks kind of even. But, injuries will decide it, as injuries always do. If they lose Kennedy, Upton, Montero or Putz for any length of time they're fucked.

Agreed re injuries. I thought Drew going down last year would've hurt them more.

 

[Heathbar012]

Agreed re injuries. I thought Drew going down last year would've hurt them more.

If the Giants had played better in August, it would have. I'm not trying to take anything away from the Diamondbacks. They had a great season, and Kirk Gibson deserves his award. He kept them from giving up when Drew went down, but it definitely helped that SF went 10-19 (with 9 of those losses coming to the Astros, Pirates, Padres and Cubs [Ouch]).