Jump to content

James Shields


SJB23
 Share

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 7, 2015 -> 11:12 AM)
DP arguments about strikeouts are beyond lame. If you hit the ball there are no strike em out, throw em outs either. Strikeouts are fine if you are Mike Trout. They are not fine when you fan 140 times and have an OPS under .700, which there were several in 2014, including Flowers. I think there were 36 players that fanned over 100 times and had an OPS under .700. If you cannot hit, at least move runners around some other way. No one freaks out at run producers fanning. Its the ither guys. 100 strikeouts in a season used to be embarrassing, now 4 guys a team on average reach that level and far beyond. Strikeouts are way up, runs are down. Hit the ball.Some of those will become hits. Some will become errors. Some will be iuts that don't make a difference. Some will become walks as you foul off a tough pitch or 2. Some will be double plays but not nearly enough to offset the good that can happen if you just hit the ball.

 

Or, ya know... pitching is in a dominant era right now? Why are you putting all the onus on the hitter?

 

Trends like this have happened for as long as baseball has existed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 447
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (fathom @ Feb 7, 2015 -> 03:49 PM)
I still can't decide how I feel about it if the Cubs sign Shields. He would definitely make their team a lot deeper this year, but I think they can spend their money better next offseason for Price, Cueto or Zimmermann.

 

Seriously, you shouldn't worry about them so much. It's kind of ridiculous. They affect nothing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (fathom @ Feb 7, 2015 -> 03:49 PM)
I still can't decide how I feel about it if the Cubs sign Shields. He would definitely make their team a lot deeper this year, but I think they can spend their money better next offseason for Price, Cueto or Zimmermann.

That's exactly what I would do. No matter the team, wait one more year for a better crop to choose from. A few people around here have mentioned this is what the Sox should do instead of going after Shields and I agree. IMO, shields is not worth what hes looking for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StRoostifer @ Feb 7, 2015 -> 04:08 PM)
That's exactly what I would do. No matter the team, wait one more year for a better crop to choose from. A few people around here have mentioned this is what the Sox should do instead of going after Shields and I agree. IMO, shields is not worth what hes looking for.

 

Reasons to not go for him:

 

Save that money for Samardzija

Or if you resign Samardzija before next offseason, use it to make a competitive offer for someone like Cueto

Or see if one of Montas or Danish can get to the show in time.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Feb 7, 2015 -> 04:14 PM)
Reasons to not go for him:

 

Save that money for Samardzija

Or if you resign Samardzija before next offseason, use itto make a competitive offer for someone like Cueto

Or see if one of Montas Danish can get to the show in time.

 

Don't really see them giving Shark an extension along with throwing money around to someone else. I think they should sign Beachy now, and then either extend Shark or go for someone else next off season. Maybe get involved with one of the last guys to sign when his price is down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Feb 7, 2015 -> 04:14 PM)
Reasons to not go for him:

 

Save that money for Samardzija

Or if you resign Samardzija before next offseason, use it to make a competitive offer for someone like Cueto

Or see if one of Montas or Danish can get to the show in time.

Agreed except, not sure if the Sox could do both Shark and a FA but JR surprised me this year so I wouldn't rule it out.

 

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Feb 7, 2015 -> 04:21 PM)
Don't really see them giving Shark an extension along with throwing money around to someone else. I think they should sign Beachy now, and then either extend Shark or go for someone else next off season. Maybe get involved with one of the last guys to sign when his price is down.

Love the idea of Beachy! Could be a guy that helps for that second half push for the post season. A 2016 rotation of Sale, Shark, Q, Beachy and Rodon would be pretty damn good! That's if the Sox find a way to keep Shark around and find a trade partner for Danks but I'm getting juuuust a bit ahead of myself. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4:20pm: It’s not known which teams remain involved in the bidding, but one involved club was told that a decision is expected soon, tweets Nightengale.

 

4:07pm: The Padres “badly” want Shields and remain the favorites, but they’re being told that there are other teams still heavily involved in the bidding, tweets Bob Nightengale of USA Today Sports. Meanwhile, Jim Bowden of ESPN and MLB Network Radio tweets that there’s no “impasse” between the two sides, but rather that Shields simply must decide whether or not to accept San Diego’s “last and final offer.”

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/02/late...es-shields.html

 

 

Wonder if the division will come today?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 7, 2015 -> 11:51 AM)
Or, ya know... pitching is in a dominant era right now? Why are you putting all the onus on the hitter?

 

Trends like this have happened for as long as baseball has existed.

Not like this one. 7000 more strikeouts in 2014 than 2005. It was the era that de-emphsized contact and changing the approach with 2 strikes. Now that the ball and players aren't as juiced, it had really changed the game. I don"t think Mike Trout needs to choke up with 2 strikes, but Barry Bonds all roided up choked up. It is the one thing in sabermetrics I will never understand. Strikeout as a hitter meant very little, your strikeout rate as a pitcher drops or rises, big news.

 

Guys who hit 4 homers strike out 140 times. jason Giambi led the AL in strikeouts with 140 in 2003. Batting average with strikeouts is .000. If you put the ball in play, on average there is a 30% chance you will get a hit.

Edited by Dick Allen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 7, 2015 -> 05:50 PM)
Not like this one. 7000 more strikeouts in 2014 than 2005. It was the era that de-emphsized contact and changing the approach with 2 strikes. Now that the ball and players aren't as juiced, it had really changed the game. I don"t think Mike Trout needs to choke up with 2 strikes, but Barry Bonds all roided up choked up. It is the one thing in sabermetrics I will never understand. Strikeout as a hitter meant very little, your strikeout rate as a pitcher drops or rises, big news.

 

Guys who hit 4 homers strike out 140 times. jason Giambi led the AL in strikeouts with 140 in 2003. Batting average with strikeouts is .000. If you put the ball in play, on average there is a 30% chance you will get a hit.

There's another ingredient though - how many Chris Sales were there in 2005? The number of incredible pitchers seems to have surged over the past 5 years to a level that we haven't seen before (maybe in no small part based on the effectiveness of TJS and pitchers willingness to push themselves to it?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 7, 2015 -> 05:05 PM)
There's another ingredient though - how many Chris Sales were there in 2005? The number of incredible pitchers seems to have surged over the past 5 years to a level that we haven't seen before (maybe in no small part based on the effectiveness of TJS and pitchers willingness to push themselves to it?)

So you are saying despite that being the era of Pedro Martinez and Randy Johnson, and Johan Santana in his prime and Roger Clemens, there are so many more great pitchers that would add 7000 strikeouts a season?

 

If you really thimpnk it is pitchers and not approaches, next time MLB Network shows a game from the 80s watch it. You will see a huge difference.

 

In the steroid era when hitting 30 homers was no big deal, striking out wasn't as big of a deal. You have to manufacture runs now. Fanning kills that.

Edited by Dick Allen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (fathom @ Feb 7, 2015 -> 03:49 PM)
I still can't decide how I feel about it if the Cubs sign Shields. He would definitely make their team a lot deeper this year, but I think they can spend their money better next offseason for Price, Cueto or Zimmermann.

 

 

The Cubs should be looking at this the same way the White Sox are, albeit with at least a one year lag before competing.

 

Their best year from Shields is likely to come in 2015, when they could get a great Shields performance and still be a .500ish team.

 

The odds are pretty darned high unless the Tigers completely implode, they're going to make a huge effort to extend Price...as they've already lost Scherzer, Fister, Porcello and Smyly and have one of the worst farm systems in the game at this point (reminiscent of the White Sox from 2011-2012).

 

A lot of teams like the Yankees and Red Sox have stayed out of the mix and will likely be dipping their toes next time around...not to mention the Giants will be in an even year again, haha.

 

Finally, if the Nationals do win it all, they're going to have the financial resources to keep an ace and push out the likes of Gio or Roark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 7, 2015 -> 06:27 PM)
So you are saying despite that being the era of Pedro Martinez and Randy Johnson, and Johan Santana in his prime and Roger Clemens, there are so many more great pitchers that would add 7000 strikeouts a season?

 

If you really thimpnk it is pitchers and not approaches, next time MLB Network shows a game from the 80s watch it. You will see a huge difference.

 

In the steroid era when hitting 30 homers was no big deal, striking out wasn't as big of a deal. You have to manufacture runs now. Fanning kills that.

I think that giving a list of 3 or 4 names is missing the fact that there are 10 or 15 guys doing that same kind of stuff right now, yeah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 7, 2015 -> 05:55 PM)
I think that giving a list of 3 or 4 names is missing the fact that there are 10 or 15 guys doing that same kind of stuff right now, yeah.

There were the same amount of top guys then. But by all means, ignore how the approach at the plate has changed, which probably is all about money. They don't ding you in arb for high strikeouts. If they did, strikeouts would be way down. The overall k rate has increased 50% the last 40 years. It is higher now than before the DH.

 

11 pitchers struck out 180 or more last year.

Edited by Dick Allen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 01:02 AM)
There were the same amount of top guys then. But by all means, ignore how the approach at the plate has changed, which probably is all about money. They don't ding you in arb for high strikeouts. If they did, strikeouts would be way down. The overall k rate has increased 50% the last 40 years. It is higher now than before the DH.

 

11 pitchers struck out 180 or more last year.

 

is that a testament to better pitcher and pitching instead to the hitters not be as good.

 

i would like to know how many hitters has hit 40 or more hrs, 30 or more hrs and 20 or more hrs. in each of the decades since 1990.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 7, 2015 -> 07:02 PM)
There were the same amount of top guys then. But by all means, ignore how the approach at the plate has changed, which probably is all about money. They don't ding you in arb for high strikeouts. If they did, strikeouts would be way down. The overall k rate has increased 50% the last 40 years. It is higher now than before the DH.

 

11 pitchers struck out 180 or more last year.

There's also good evidence that umpires are calling a larger strike zone these days.

 

Anyway, yes, if you compiled a list of top 10 pitchers in 2005 and top 10 pitchers in 2014, you'd find that both lists had ten people on it. I fully agree, there were the same number of top 10 pitchers. There were even the same number of top 20 pitchers, top 30 pitchers, and top 40 pitchers.

 

My point is - if you put them all in the same pool, most of the top 10 pitchers would be from the recent year. The top 10 right now >>> the top 10 in 2005 if they were put one against another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 02:30 AM)
There's also good evidence that umpires are calling a larger strike zone these days.

 

Anyway, yes, if you compiled a list of top 10 pitchers in 2005 and top 10 pitchers in 2014, you'd find that both lists had ten people on it. I fully agree, there were the same number of top 10 pitchers. There were even the same number of top 20 pitchers, top 30 pitchers, and top 40 pitchers.

 

My point is - if you put them all in the same pool, most of the top 10 pitchers would be from the recent year. The top 10 right now >>> the top 10 in 2005 if they were put one against another.

 

interesting opinion, i like it. i also didn't see it.

 

in that list, you do have to admit that there will always be exceptional pitcher who will stand out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 7, 2015 -> 08:30 PM)
There's also good evidence that umpires are calling a larger strike zone these days.

 

Anyway, yes, if you compiled a list of top 10 pitchers in 2005 and top 10 pitchers in 2014, you'd find that both lists had ten people on it. I fully agree, there were the same number of top 10 pitchers. There were even the same number of top 20 pitchers, top 30 pitchers, and top 40 pitchers.

 

My point is - if you put them all in the same pool, most of the top 10 pitchers would be from the recent year. The top 10 right now >>> the top 10 in 2005 if they were put one against another.

 

If you are basing your comparison of the top ten lists on stats, how are you accounting for the 2005 pitchers having had to face (for at least some of their careers) roided hitters?

 

Also, as was asked earlier, how is it that Ks are better for pitchers than any other kind of out, but neutral for hitters? That question is never answered.

Edited by asindc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 7, 2015 -> 06:55 PM)
I think that giving a list of 3 or 4 names is missing the fact that there are 10 or 15 guys doing that same kind of stuff right now, yeah.

 

There aren't 10-15 current pitchers that are as good as Pedro, Clemons, and Johan in his prime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (asindc @ Feb 7, 2015 -> 10:04 PM)
There aren't 10-15 current pitchers that are as good as Pedro, Clemons, and Johan in his prime.

I remember how Liriano looked when he came into the league in 06. He made Johan look less than spectacular. Chris Sale does that all the bloody time, and Sale isn't the best pitcher in the league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 7, 2015 -> 10:23 PM)
I remember how Liriano looked when he came into the league in 06. He made Johan look less than spectacular. Chris Sale does that all the bloody time, and Sale isn't the best pitcher in the league.

All other things equal, he just might be. What do you think his numbers would be if he pitched half his games at Dodger Stadium or Petco and faced the NL West half the time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 7, 2015 -> 09:23 PM)
I remember how Liriano looked when he came into the league in 06. He made Johan look less than spectacular. Chris Sale does that all the bloody time, and Sale isn't the best pitcher in the league.

So there was 7000 more strikeouts in the major leagues last year than in 2005 because of Chris Sale. He did have 208. That would be Randy Johnson's 14th highest total.

Edited by Dick Allen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many pitchers from this current generation are going to make the Hall of Fame or even make it to 200 wins?

 

There might be more focus on pitching than ever before...but it's obviously going to shift back to hitters at some point, because casual fans clearly prefer offense to defense.

 

If that wasn't the case. soccer/football would be much more popular in the US than it is.

 

 

 

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/226964-...-the-90s/page/8

 

Take the "Top 30 pitchers from the 90's" and adjust their statistics to the new norm of the last few seasons for offense.

 

Yet another factor is the fascination with radar gun readings, many of which have been cranked up 2-3 MPH higher than reality in order to get fans more excited about numbers in the 100's.

 

Are we to believe pitchers magically are throwing much harder in the last five years than at any time in history, after basically having the notion that guys in the 50's and 60's like Sudden Sam McDowell, Ryne Duren or Nolan Ryan threw that much harder than anyone in modern baseball?

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 7, 2015 -> 11:43 PM)
So there was 7000 more strikeouts in the major leagues last year than in 2005 because of Chris Sale. He did have 208. That would be Randy Johnson's 14th highest total.

Do you understand what I mean when I say "straw man argument"?

 

You simply ignore facts to fit your Hawk-ish narrative.

 

Pitching in 2015 is better in every single way than it was in 2005. Across the board. Proof is in looking at ERA+ and OPS+ in pitchers and hitters, respectively. Did Pedro have the best season of any pitcher in the history of the game? Yes (taking into account the steroid era). Does that change the fact that on AVERAGE pitchers are better than they were when he pitched? No. The stats that constitute "average" (or a 100 OPS+ or ERA+) have changed. A lot.

 

Today the average batting average in the majors is .251 with a .700 OPS. In 2005 the average BA was .264 with a .749 OPS.

 

That's a significant difference. Are you really saying that hitters are WORSE in an age with better medicine, technology, nutrition and training than they were ten years ago? You're really saying that?

 

You really think that a giant strikeout-affirming conspiracy is what has led to the average ERA dropping from 4.28 in 2005 to a whopping 3.74?? Or is it just that pitchers don't get HURT as much anymore, or when they do, they come back stronger? Is it just that conditioning and training has improved so dramatically, that they're able to do things that pitchers couldn't do 10 years ago? And that's leading to the rise in strikeouts? To most of us - obviously - the answer is yes.

 

I have a hard time believing any kid grows up saying "it doesn't matter if I strike out"

Edited by Reddy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...