Article written by

Baseball writer... sort of.

18 comments
RedneckNinja
RedneckNinja

Lincecum is still a top-tier or an "elite" pitcher, he's just on a very,very, very BAD offensive team. He'd be right in the discussion for the Cy Young if this Giants team could score at all. His W-L record is an indictment on how bad this offense is. Lincecum, Cain, and Vogelson would all be right around 20-5 if this team could average 4 maybe 5 runs. I think I saw a stat the other day that in 10 of 12 losses, he either got 1 run or 0 runs of support.

maze
maze

Lincecum has had a great year. For the media and the fans to start beating up on him is ridiculous. Halliday's stats have gone up and down like a rubber ball over the years- as have Lee's. Why didn't you talk about how they have not been consistent or did you write them off when one or two of their stats went down? I may not be an expert in stats, but aren't the stats of walks per inning and strikeout to walk ratio related? No one will deny that his walk stats could be improved. But what about Lincecum and his era? That has actually gone down. So ignore that and just look at walks? Stats should be looked at as part of an overall picture. This was not done here. Lincecum is coming off of a very short off season and as a WS winner. Their has to be some letdown and some exhaustion. If you want to denigrate him for something why no try that. Or for the lack of support he has had to deal with from the team. I really am at a loss a to why SF Giant fans and the press are treating Lincecum like a has been. The "pinnacle" -THE GUY IS 27- what planet are you from? THIS IS HIS FOURTH FULL YEAR. And this is but one year for goodness sake. Why aren't you saying thank to Lincecum for another great season, sorry so much of the rest of the team stunk?

maze
maze

correction-there instead of their.

TSF
TSF

While Lincecum has clearly declined, I would wait a year before calling it a trend. Lincecum is a player who performs best when he's comfortable, and after losing Bengie Molina in 2010 and Buster this last May, his weakness might be psychological. I've always hoped that Lincecum will have another Cy Young year, because his third will speak much more than his first two - even without 98 mph heat, he would stil be capable of dominating enemy hitters.

JoshF
JoshF

It's waaaaay too soon to be signaling a death knell for Lincecum as a dominant, Cy-Young level pitcher. The likely Cy Young this year (Halladay) entered his current streak of dominance at age 31. There's no evidence that Lincecum has suffered any physical or mental problem that would force him to continue a downward trend, and no evidence I'm aware of that pitchers don't regularly have upswings and downswings that last as long as 2 years. In short, there's no way to predict whether Lincecum will be the best pitcher in baseball next year, or the 4th-best starter on the Giants. Assuming that a trend will continue in a logical error.

Liem
Liem

Good points, but I'm not sure I agree entirely with the assessment of Timmy. The disagreement may simply be over what you mean by "top-tier" pitcher and how you project the statistical trends. Certainly Lincecum has "declined" since his Cy-Young years, but then again every former Cy-Young award pitcher has declined from his Cy-Young year. Lincecum still has fantastic numbers, as you mentioned. His 9.4 K/9 rate is still ridiculously high, making the BB/9 very manageable. Furthermore, since control is something that pitchers are able to maintain or even improve with age, Lincecum could actually reverse the BB/9 trend, returning to a 2010 level at 3.2. Also, Lincecum's K/9 is still so high (top 4 among qualifiers) that even a modest slowing in the downward trend could result in a better K/BB ratio. (I'm thinking something like a 9.1 K/9 and a 3.2 BB/9 for a 2.84 K/BB) That in turn could result in Lincecum, currently 18th in Fangraphs WAR among pitchers, being among the top 10 pitchers again, certainly qualifying him for "top-tier" by my definition.

@rog61
@rog61

The distressing aspect of Lincecum's stat trends is the BB rates. One would expect his uber-elit K rates to decline (and since they're still exceptionally good, that's not that bothersome), but the huge raise in BB rates (which in an elite pitcher we could also expect to decline) is more worrisome, and in each of the past two years he's had a prolonged streak where he simply lost his command altogether. That's worrisome going forward.

RoneFace
RoneFace

I don't understand your logic on giving Halladay the Cy Young at all. For MVP you give a statistical break down but the Cy Young race boils down to "it feels like Halladay has been in first place all year so we should give it to him?" That seems kind of lazy to me. While Kershaw has 1 more start at the moment and I'm not sure if Halladay will finish with an equal number or not, Kershaw currently has more K's, a lower ERA, more innings pitched, and a lower WHIP. The only statistical category where Halladay has an edge is in BB, which is great, but since Kershaw has actually given up fewer base runners I'm not sure how much that matters. Halladay also has a 7-5 edge in CG but since Kershaw will likely finish the season with about the same number of innings pitched I don't see that as a big selling point for Halladay. And yes I did mention wins because Kershaw is winning just as much as Halladay while playing on a worse team. It's not the end all be all in the conversation but it's not nothing either. So to recap who has the advantage where: Kershaw Wins Innings ERA WHIP K's K's/9 SHO BAA OBPA SLGA OPSA Halladay BB CG K/BB G/F HR/9 I think Kershaw has been the best pitcher in the NL in 2010. That doesn't mean you have to make a case against Halladay or say that he's had a terrible 2010, he just wasn't quite as dominant in my view. However, I expect Halladay to actually win because of what you mentioned above: the feeling among most of the voters that Halladay has been in "first" by a wide margin all year. It just feels like he's already won it, and I fear there are a lot of voters who won't actually take a fresh look at the stats once the season ends.

Chris
Chris

Seems to me like a results vs. skill argument. WHIP, BAA, OBPA, SLGA, OPSA are all dependent on more than skill. The park you play in, the defense behind you, and the randomness/luck of baseball. I'm not saying they're not good stats to look at, but to compare two pitchers and give the advantage to one because of the slight difference in those stats isn't logical. People want to discount certain sabermetric stats such as FIP, xFIP, or SIERRA, but in reality, they're the difference between skill and results. Obviously, a pitcher leading the league in those stats (ERA, WHIP, etc.) is likely one of the best, if not the best, pitcher in the league, but I don't agree with using them to compare and contrast two pitchers at the top. To me, it's like comparing Matt Kemp and Justin Upton, saying Upton is slightly better because he's scored 97 runs to Kemp's 95. Halladay ERA+: 159 , Kershaw ERA+: 156 The difference in their BABIP (Halladay .305, Kershaw .276), is likely the difference in why you see a better WHIP, better BAA, and potentially better ERA. Halladay's K/BB of 7.03 to Kershaw's 4.53 is where the slight advantage in this award has to go to Halladay. Don't call it a HUGE difference, but nobody is close to Halladay. Since you clearly like results, let's look at WPA. Measures "clutch" performance, which whether skill related or not, measures context. Halladay leads Kershaw (4.05 to 3.46)

RoneFace
RoneFace

I saw the difference in BABIP I just don't think .276 is far enough below MLB average to indicate a large degree of luck. If Kershaw had a .175 BABIP that might be a bit of an outlier but I think a guy with ridiculous stuff can induce more weak contact than the average pitcher. As far as park factors I understand why it's interesting to look at I just think there's something to be said for taking advantage of the hand you're dealt. Kershaw is also a strikeout pitcher which really wouldn't change if he played in another park. A guy like Matt Cain or Ryan Vogelsong is more likely to be impacted negatively by playing in a hitters park. I don't discount the value of sabermetric stats, I just think they are better used for contracts than end of season awards. Those stats tend to tell you more about what is likely to happen in the future based on past events which is obviously useful in determining who is likely to be better going forward. However the end of season awards aren't about anything other than the results of the 1 season. Maybe the way Kershaw performed this year is in some ways unsustainable, but that doesn't change the fact that he did perform that way this year. You can say that some of the stats I mentioned include luck, and maybe that's true, but 162 games is a pretty fair sample size to deal with and I find it hard to believe that any consistently repeated result is purely a byproduct of luck. Plus, even if it was all luck that doesn't change the fact that it still happened. Should the Giants forfeit their championship last year because they had some good fortune (health, Brooks Conrad, etc) along the way? Does the result somehow mean less because of that "luck?"

Wilson
Wilson

Ground Ball Percentage: Halladay 50.8% Kershaw 42.9% Infield Fly Ball Percentage: Halladay 15.7% Kershaw 14.5% Line Drive Percentage: Halladay 18.7% Kershaw 18.4% Left on Base %: Halladay 77.2% Kershaw 77.4% BABIP: Halladay .307 Kershaw .276

seeingwhatsticks
seeingwhatsticks

Did Halladay pitch better or does it just seem like Halladay pitched better?

Paapfly
Paapfly

Results versus "how well they pitched."Aren't they close enough, though, that Halladay deserves the edge because he pitched better?

Paapfly
Paapfly

I don't want to discount your argument for a couple of reasons: 1) it's not really a bad one at all and 2) the race is close enough that, for me, Kershaw could close the gap in the next 3 starts.That said, I disagree. (One more thing: I didn't really get into my reasoning why I like Halladay, as I mostly deferred to Jon. I essentially agreed in our choice, but didn't get much into the mechanics of why; Jon's thoughts are his alone.)I disagree for a couple of reasons specifically. First, Halladay pitches in the toughest division in the NL, Kershaw the weakest. Did the Giants even face Halladay this year? I can't recall, but I know Kershaw got Bochy's crappy hitters three or more times.Another reason is their home parks. Kershaw gets half his turns in Chavez, a great pitchers park, while Halladay gets Philly, which is more hitter friendly (though not to the extent some will have you believe.)I think those two factors alone are enough to explain the very small difference in ERA.Are they close? Sure, I just think Halladay has pitched a bit better and against stiffer competition.I could be swayed. Someone can probably find exactly who has faced tougher competition by batter.Anyway, I respect your opinion and they are both pretty deserving.

RoneFace
RoneFace

I'm not sure who has faced who how many times and I'm definitely too lazy to look that up, but here's how the NL East and WEst teams rank in terms of offense (excluding the Dodgers and Phillies for obvious reasons): 3. Colorado 655 4. Arizona 650 6. NY 641 8. Atlanta 589 10. Florida 571 13. Washington 548 15. San Diego 537 16. San Francisco 484 Without knowing which pitcher faced which teams how many times I'm not sure that represents much of a difference in quality of competition. Clearly San Diego and San Francisco have been inept offensively, but it's not like Washington and Florida have been particularly special themselves and Colorado and Arizona have been very good. I personally don't put a ton of stock in quality of competition faced because I think for the most part that stuff tends to work itself out by the end of a 162 game season (it's also why I don't buy into the "AL East is sooooooooo hard for the Sox and Yanks" meme). And you're right about Halladay not facing the Giants this year. He missed them in both series.

Paapfly
Paapfly

Thanks, Otis. This helps a LOT.

oldjacket
oldjacket

Bpro has a quality of opponents report that lists the OPS of the batters that a pitcher has faced. It looks like Kershaw has faced ever so slightly worse hitters, just two points of OPS less than Halladay. The park difference is tracked in the same report, and it's quite remarkable. Kershaw's weighted park factors have amounted to 95 (5% less than neutral), whil Halladay's have been 102 (2% higher than neutral). That's a big freaking difference.

Kumar
Kumar

Sorry, all I can think about right now is Brandon Belt, and how he has been criminally mishandled.