Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Bullpen Mechanics > Discussion
Bullpen Mechanics
— A Scout's View

Wednesday, March 07, 2007

Controlled Fury: Tim Lincecum

Last year, I wrote an article where I reviewed the 1st round picks in last year’s draft

Here’s what I said about Tim Lincecum:

#10 - San Francisco Giants - P Tim Lincecum

Really goes after it. Check out how his front leg, just before landing, seems to step over an imaginary object and then land? This helps the hips turn faster. He couples it with a late hand break and a very quick arm. At 10, he’s a steal. THIS is how you use your body to throw. Straight over the top release point in which he is forced to yank his head out of the way. Might scare some, doesn’t scare me…..certainly not when you’re this efficient with your body. This is my #1 pick, hands down.

Grade: A+

Time will tell with young T-Link (that’s my attempt at a nickname) with respects to his degree of success in the majors. However, in this article, we’ll examine my above review and see, once we slow him down on video, if I was close to my initial assessment.

Shall We?

The controlled fury that is Tim Lincecum:

TEMPO

I always start with tempo. And with T-Link, I’m not going to spend too much time on it.  He’s quick, he’s aggressive and there’s not much to not like in this department. From top of knee lift to release, he’s at around 22 frames. That’s with him turning his front leg substantially towards 2nd (which takes more time). Ok, I’m rambling. He’s good, really good.

ARM ACTION

That’s got to be one of the quickest arms anywhere. That is just insane. He “loads his shoulder” well. His elbow “picks up” the ball.
What’s not to like?
There is one thing I don’t like that I missed in my draft review. He breaks his hands earlyish, which I personally don’t like because it makes the arm slow down to wait for the body. I would rather have a quick, uninterrupted, continuous motion of the arm. He doesn’t come to a full stop by any means, but it is a break in momentum.  However, what he does to delay bringing the arm forward too quickly is to kinda tuck it behind his right hip.

Another benefit of having a quick tempo?
Your arm doesn’t have to wait long, because the body is basically making the arm move forward.

So, am I nitpicking about his early hand break?
I could be.

LOWER BODY

This is where it gets REALLY interesting. I mean, check this out….

1) See how he leads with his butt/hips as he carries his body forward? That’s just phenomenal.

2) why did I stop the animation on frames 11 and 16?

Recently, I wrote an article breaking down Matt Cain (the article at The Hardball Times, and the link to the comments here at BBTF).

He seems like he’s stepping over something, doesn’t he? This “stepover” move is a magic velocity secret. Done correctly, it is an easy way to pick up a few MPHs.

I also mentioned this when I did the review on the draft.
Anyway, the reason I stopped the animation is to isolate that part of his lower body mechanics. Focus on his very athletic position and movements in the frames just before getting to frame 11. How aggressive is Lincecum’s move? Outstanding, just outstanding.
These above points lead us to…..

3)Is he basically jumping off the mound?

It sure looks like it. Watch the side clip.  That’s 97 mph from just that much closer to the plate. The things he’s done before (his aggressive lead with his hips and butt, his push off the mound and his “stepover”) have put him in a position where he can now rotate his upper body aggressively into release from a little closer to the plate. 

MORE ROTATIONAL MADNESS

Focus on his midsection and torso
I stopped the animation above on frame 4 to highlight this position. Watch his belt buckle as an indicator. At that point, his lower body is facing forward as his upper body is still closed. That tension, that separation helps his upper body uncoil voilently into release.

But he moves his head out of the way!
Yeah, so what. Pitchers with high release points need to move their head out of the way in order to make room for the arm. Here’s Mike Mussina, for example.
Some say that this makes it harder to throw strikes. It may, but I’d rather have a pitcher keep his natural arm slot and work with it, especially when you’re as efficient as Tim Lincecum.

FRONT SIDE AND FOLLOW THROUGH

I won’t spend too much time here. He does a pretty good job of firming up his front side prior to release. His follow through is indicative of the power and effort he has put into the pitch.

SUMMARY

I’m almost too giddy in praise of Tim Lincecum. The power he can generate out of a 5’10”, 155 lb body is just plain ridiculous. Of course, there’s injury risk. He’s young, he’s aggressive, and his mechanics are uncommon. We know a little about his college workload. I can see why some may shy away from someone like this. Like I said in the draft review,

Might scare some, doesn’t scare me.

As always, comments and questions are welcome.

 

 

 

ChadBradfordWannabe Posted: March 07, 2007 at 03:25 PM | 44 comment(s)
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Randomly Fluctuating Defensive Metric Posted: March 07, 2007 at 04:46 PM (#2308145)
Reminds me of Tim Hudson a little bit.
   2. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: March 07, 2007 at 05:29 PM (#2308170)
I wish I could do this

What prevents one from imitating his motion? Fear of injury?
   3. ChadBradfordWannabe Posted: March 07, 2007 at 05:51 PM (#2308175)
I wish I could do this

What prevents one from imitating his motion? Fear of injury?


You must've caught my "I wish I could do this" comments before my final edit...lol.
In my case, probably lack of athleticism was the culprit.
   4. G A Delgado Posted: March 07, 2007 at 06:28 PM (#2308197)
I've always noticed this about T-Link, but this breakdown is great CBW, I wish I could do this also. I might try it and see if I can pick up a some MPH on my 85 mph fastball.
   5. Honkie Kong Posted: March 07, 2007 at 06:46 PM (#2308211)
Is that the biggest front leg extension ever?
His leg almost lands off the mound...
He reminds me more of Oswalt than Tim Hudson though.

Is that big front foot plant going to cause any hip problems?
   6. David de Sportszilla (aka DeadTeddy8) Posted: March 07, 2007 at 06:49 PM (#2308214)
Good stuff. I'm happy to know Lincecum's on the way to my Giants, but I'm just as happy to see breakdowns like this on the web. Thanks.

Oh, and his nickname is Tim the Enchanter.
   7. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: March 07, 2007 at 07:50 PM (#2308263)
You must've caught my "I wish I could do this" comments before my final edit...lol.

That might explain the crapping out it did when I posted. Surprised the post made it.
   8. ChadBradfordWannabe Posted: March 07, 2007 at 07:55 PM (#2308270)
<quote>I've always noticed this about T-Link, but this breakdown is great CBW, I wish I could do this also. I might try it and see if I can pick up a some MPH on my 85 mph fastball.</quote>

I'm gonna try the big jump too. Maybe it'll get me to not open up too soon.

<quote>Is that the biggest front leg extension ever?
His leg almost lands off the mound...
He reminds me more of Oswalt than Tim Hudson though.</quote>

I have no way to quantify that kind of thing, but there was a guy for the Rockies (I want to say last name House--Craig? maybe that had the biggest jump off I'd ever seen. And to me, yes, he's more Oswalt than Hudson.
   9. Who Swished In Your Cornflakes? Posted: March 07, 2007 at 08:06 PM (#2308275)
Oh, and his nickname is Tim the Enchanter.

That's the name I'm going with for him, though T-Link is certainly quicker. The reason for Tim the Enchanter? I love Monty Python and I am quite literally enchanted with Linecum's delivery. I'd never seen it before so I'm glad this was up. Thanks, CBW.

I'm always intrigued by small power pitchers. I think it started back in Little League with a fellow on my team. Short guy, tiny frame. But he threw his entire body into one pitch. He won repeatedly. Hitters feared him. The fathers were the unfortunate suckers who got to warm him up in the bullpen. One of his pitches hit my father in the foot and made his big toe swell up and turn purple. The toe stayed discolored for about a year.
   10. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 07, 2007 at 08:13 PM (#2308277)
Very interesting CBW, thanks for doing this. Tim Linecum was the subject of some good debates on Royals boards. He seemed to be the favorite of most Royals posters for the #1 pick. His strikeout totals are amazing. Had the Royals taken him I'm pretty convinced (a) they would have tinkered with his delivery, messing him up; or (b) he would have gotten hurt. I still think he's an injury risk, but the upside is huge.

Do you think he can handle the workload as a starter or would he be more effective letting loose as a reliever?
   11. ChadBradfordWannabe Posted: March 07, 2007 at 08:22 PM (#2308281)
AG#1--

I'd like to see the Johan Santana career usage pattern for him. I'm pretty certain that he can handle both.
   12. Steve Treder Posted: March 07, 2007 at 08:48 PM (#2308300)
I'd like to see the Johan Santana career usage pattern for him.

Santana's usage pattern with the Twins has been something of a model of how to best handle a very young, exceptional talent.

But there's nothing really new about it; it's essentially following Earl Weaver's advice that the best way to break in a young pitcher is in the long relief/spot starter role. Very few teams do it any more, instead sticking to the modern orthodoxy of rigid role specialization. But throughout history, there have been quite a few pitchers who went on to great success after being broken in with at least a year or two in some manner of the long relief/spot starter pattern:

- Nolan Ryan
- Gaylord Perry
- Sandy Koufax
- Don Drysdale
- Bob Feller
- Bob Gibson
- Jim Palmer
   13. ChadBradfordWannabe Posted: March 07, 2007 at 09:05 PM (#2308311)
You're right Treder. It's nothing new. When I read Weaver's book, I was amazed with how many things I agreed with him with.
   14. Der Komminsk-sar Posted: March 07, 2007 at 09:09 PM (#2308315)
Santana's usage pattern with the Twins has been something of a model of how to best handle a very young, exceptional talent.
IIRC, it was also criticized pretty heavily in these parts at the time. Free Johan! indeed...

Lincecum does need to learn how to hit the zone more often though - no matter how rubber armed he might be.
   15. ChadBradfordWannabe Posted: March 07, 2007 at 09:20 PM (#2308326)
AS we speak here, Lincecum is getting tagged by the Brewers. Welcome to the bigs, kid.
   16. obsessivegiantscompulsive Posted: March 08, 2007 at 12:24 AM (#2308433)
Great article, CBW! Keep up the good work!

I would also note that the Giants have been doing it with Brad Hennessey and Kevin Correia, though more Hennessey than Correia.

I would also note that Weaver liked to do that for a few reasons. One is that it is tough enough adjusting to the big leagues, so it gives the guy a year to acclimate himself to the major league lifestyle. The second is that he gets to put the pitcher through his paces and observe him in a close way he couldn't when the guy was in the minors. The third is that he can pick and chose the situations the pitcher is put into and Weaver was selective because he wanted to put the pitcher in situations where he could succeed. That's my foggy memory, I read a few years back, please correct as needed.

But it's a great book, totally recommend it to anyone.

Speaking of Monty Python and the "stepping over", makes me think of the Ministry of Silly Walks. :^)

Lastly, the Giants clearly want him to be a starter. They have stated this over and over again, if they had their choice, he would be a starter. It's a no-brainer but some people get so down on Sabean that they think he can't figure that one out. Besides, Sabean has been totally touting Brian Wilson as the closer of the future, if Lincecum is relieving he should be the closer.

As of right now, if the Giants were to bring Lincecum up as a long-relief/spot starter, that would take Brad Hennessey's role so that won't be a loss. But there's still Sanchez, who could also benefit from a long-relief/spot role too.
   17. vortex of dissipation Posted: March 08, 2007 at 12:48 AM (#2308444)
Great article - again. I don't have much to add, except that I'm really enjoying these articles, and am learning a lot. As someone who spent four years as student manager/statistician for the UW baseball team in the late 1970s, I'm rooting for this fellow Husky to make it...
   18. Gaelan Posted: March 08, 2007 at 01:05 AM (#2308454)
I drafted Lincecum in my diamondmind league based upon your draft review. Thank you.
   19. Greg Maddux School of Reflexive Profanity Posted: March 08, 2007 at 01:14 AM (#2308458)
IIRC, it was also criticized pretty heavily in these parts at the time. Free Johan! indeed...

As it should have been. Stashing their best pitcher in the bullpen for half the 2003 season and nearly costing themselves a division title was moronic, especially considering he'd already thrown over 200 innings in the majors.
   20. Walt Davis Posted: March 08, 2007 at 08:52 AM (#2308616)
Of course it doesn't always work. Tha Astros did that with Scott Elarton but he fell apart. The Dodgers kinda did it with Dreifort ... every time I look at that career, I still can't understand what they were thinking when they signed him to that contract.

As to Lincecum, that seems like a LOT of force coming down on that front leg. But I know slightly less about pitching mechanics than I do particle physics.
   21. Los Angeles Waterloo of Black Hawk Posted: March 08, 2007 at 09:01 AM (#2308620)
I must say: my entire body is in pain after watching this guy's motion. It seems like the very elements that make his motion powerful threaten to tear his body asunder.

I hope I'm wrong. Good luck, kid.
   22. ChadBradfordWannabe Posted: March 08, 2007 at 01:58 PM (#2308657)

As to Lincecum, that seems like a LOT of force coming down on that front leg.


It is, and that's the beauty of it with respect to mechanical efficiency. It becomes a matter of risk/reward. If he wasn't as aggressive, how hard woud he throw? 88-90? we don't know-maybe he'd last longer in the bigs if he toned it down a bit. However, I'd rather have a guy throwing at his maximum ability for say 7-8 years than at a reduced ability for 15 years. Does that make me a "peak" guy in HOF credentials' discussions?
   23. Walt Davis Posted: March 08, 2007 at 07:51 PM (#2308907)
Well my concern is more injury -- i.e. risk of nasty, career-altering injury early as well as risk of continually diminishing ability if it just leads to "aches and pains".

As to "maximum for 7-8" vs "reduced for 15" ... I suspect someone like Mussina could have had a higher peak, but I quite like his career. Certainly better than, say, Jim Maloney or Gary Nolan. (I know, I'm cherry-picking) That's not to say I think you're wrong necessarily.

I can't explain it or defend it, but I tend towards "peak" for hitters but "career" for pitchers. Though I'm more impressed by a career very good hitter (Eddie Murray) than I am by a career very good pitcher (Sutton). Go figger. But anyway, other than Koufax (and I probably support him less than any other fan), I don't know that there's a single short-career pitcher I'd put in my HOF (deadball guys excluded).

Sorry, please don't hijack this into a peak vs career HoF debate, this article is more interesting than that.
   24. Steve Treder Posted: March 08, 2007 at 08:25 PM (#2308932)
As it should have been. Stashing their best pitcher in the bullpen for half the 2003 season and nearly costing themselves a division title was moronic, especially considering he'd already thrown over 200 innings in the majors.

No. There's room for debate, as there is in the usage pattern of virtually every pitcher. But to call the Twins' handling of Santana "moronic" is, well, you know ...

In the first place, the issue of course of the risk/reward tradeoff of maximizing current value vs. long-term value. Obviously no one can never know, but it is absolutely a good possiblity that the Twins wouldn't have enjoyed the fully-healthy-and-effective 230-inning seasons they've gotten from Santana in 2004-05-06 had they worked him harder prior to 2004, including in 2003.

And in the second place, to describe how they used Santana in 2003 as "stashing him in the bullpen" is inaccurate. They used him in the bullpen; they got 27 relief appearances and 48 innings out of him in the first half of the season, which is a highly useful innings-eating reliever, in addition to his four first-half starts. Then they got 14 starts out him in the second half. Overall, his workload of 45 games and 158 innings in 2003 was very significant, nothing resembling the neglect that "stashing" infers.
   25. Steve Treder Posted: March 08, 2007 at 08:28 PM (#2308934)
Of course it doesn't always work.

Alas, these are pitchers. Nothing always works. The issue is to prudently decide what's most likely to work, striking the best balance between short-term and long-term returns.
   26. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: March 08, 2007 at 08:46 PM (#2308946)
Steve:

Have you referred to the "Weaver Approach" when talking about Santana around Gleeman? Because I witnessed him climb ALL OVER some folks at his blog in the comments section when they made the same exact reference.

I am not clever enough to sift through his blog's archives and quote his comments. But I distinctly recall him stating that such suggestions were "nonsense" and "utter cr*p".

Just letting you know.........
   27. Der Komminsk-sar Posted: March 08, 2007 at 09:21 PM (#2308977)
Alas, these are pitchers. Nothing always works. The issue is to prudently decide what's most likely to work, striking the best balance between short-term and long-term returns.

Moreover, I'd say the team needs to focus on its interests, rather than those of the pitcher.
I thought the Twins should have put him in the rotation some time earlier than when they actually did ... while I don't know if the outcome they got is better than what they would have had they made him a regular rotation guy sooner, I'm sure they'll take the actual outcome. :)
   28. Steve Treder Posted: March 08, 2007 at 09:47 PM (#2309000)
Have you referred to the "Weaver Approach" when talking about Santana around Gleeman?

I've never had the pleasure of that conversation with Aaron. I'll be sure to file it away for the next time I want to spike his blood pressure!
   29. Steve Treder Posted: March 08, 2007 at 10:00 PM (#2309013)
I'd say the team needs to focus on its interests, rather than those of the pitcher.

Absolutely. But the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

while I don't know if the outcome they got is better than what they would have had they made him a regular rotation guy sooner, I'm sure they'll take the actual outcome.

Yep. In an ideal world, they'd have been getting 300 innings out of him since he was 21. But that's isn't close to realistic.

So the question becomes, what's the best overall value the Twins have been realistically likely to extract from Santana? While what they have gotten isn't necessarily optimal, it's surely closer to optimal than many alternative scenarios, which include his encountering serious injury, or his being limited far more tightly than he has, such as in a closer role.
   30. Walt Davis Posted: March 09, 2007 at 09:46 PM (#2309672)
I have no way of knowing of course, but I have doubts the Twins did what they did intentionally. In 2002, his third season, they followed the "Weaver model" giving Santana 13 relief appearances and 13 starts. He did quite well with those 13 starts (3.13 ERA and 89 K in 74 IP and about 1.3 WHIP). This was the third season in which he'd gotten a mix of relieving and starting. Note in 2002, the Twins intended rotation was Radke, Milton, Reed, Mays and Lohse -- all guys they were pretty high on and (mostly) paying good money. I don't think they thought of Santana as one of their best 5 starting options. Heck, he started the season in AAA -- so he ended up pitching 156 IP that year anyway.

But then the next year, at the age of 24, after seemingly proven himself as a starter, the Twins did it again, putting him in the pen to start the year. 24's not usually considered too young for a starter. Moreover, in spring 2003, Eric Milton got hurt and rather than turning to Santana, the Twins went out and signed Kenny Rogers (amazingly, unsigned as of Mar 17). If not for Mays (especially) and Reed stinking up the joint, Santana probably never sees the rotation. He ended up pitching just as many innings in 2003 as in 2002.

I might believe the Twins were "Weavering" in 2002. But in 2002, Santana showed he was ready to be a starter and there's little reason (see below) why they shouldn't have made him a full-time one at age 24. Their actions in 2003 -- keeping their rotation from the previous year, signing Rogers when Milton went down -- suggest they still didn't see him as a starter. So while he got treated in a Weaver fashion, I don't think that was the Twins' intent. I suspect that's the crux of Aaron's argument -- that plus he predicted Santana to lead the league in Ks or something preseason if I remember so he's annoyed that his "shock" prediction got thwarted by "dumb" Twins management. :-)

The counter-argument would run like this. Reed was 38 and in the last year of his contract so the Twins may have seen Santana as his replacement for 2004 and still wanted to baby him. But that still leaves the mystery of why they preferred Lohse (who the Twins made a full-time starter at 22 and was 24 in 2003) and why they turned to Rogers. Not to mention that pitching 156 IP at ages 23 and 24 is still a pretty heavy load.

The Lohse-Santana comparison might also shed light on this. At the age of 20, Santana had thrown 160 IP in the Houston farm system. Then at 21, he threw 86 major-league innings (as a Rule 5, they had to keep him on the roster). That looks pretty standard. Why they didn't put him in the minors at 22 I can't say.

Lohse, the same age, threw 165 IP in the Cubs farm system at age 20 then 167 at 21. He remained in the minors at the start of age 22 but remained a full-time starter and was called up by the Twins. The Twins essentially used him as a full-time starter from the beginning. Why give Santana the Weaver treatment and not Lohse? There might be reasons related to their specific mechanics and makeup but I think the most likely explanation is that the Twins didn't treat Santana that way on purpose, it's just how things worked out even though they didn't think he was a better starting prospect than Lohse or better option than Reed/Rogers/Mays.
   31. Barnaby Jones Posted: March 12, 2007 at 06:02 AM (#2310595)
Balk.
   32. Raoul Duke Posted: March 12, 2007 at 06:08 AM (#2310596)
Balk.

Spot on.
   33. ChadBradfordWannabe Posted: March 13, 2007 at 11:47 AM (#2311184)
Update:

Lincecum went 3 scoreless Sunday. 2 H allowed, 0 walks, 4 K's
   34. Dick Mills Posted: April 26, 2007 at 04:12 PM (#2346361)
Tim Lincecum does what the large majority of major league pitchers do not do in order to throw harder with "less" stress. He understands how to build forward momentum into an exceptionally long stride of 123% of his height. This is good.

I can think of two very hard throwers of the past who understood how to build forward momentum into a long stride - Nolan Ryan and Sandy Koufax. Both threw high volume pitch count games their entire careers. Nolan Ryan had many games of well over 150 pitches with little arm injury. Although his high leg lift may have slowed down his momentum he knew how to leap out there...Koufax the same way.

I believe the worst that could happen to Lincecum would be not allow him to throw high pitch bullpens and games. That recipe has worked well for Matsuzaka his entire career including many high school games of very high pitch counts. Pitch counts are not the problem. Not being fit to pitch is by saving the arm for the game. That clearly has not worked to prevent injuries.

A pitcher cannot become fit to pitch a game of 120 pitches if he is only throwing 40-50 pitch bullpens. Where does the extra 60-70 pitches come from for the game. When the body is not fit to pitch the body fatigues and the arm will not get to a mechanically sound position and the pitcher will try to gain his velocity from his arm...instead of his body.

The arm does not produce much velocity. The body stretches out from high momentum and is what delivers the arm. The arm is mainly the source of control...not velocity. Saving it for the game makes no sense.

Kerry Wood is a good example of today's pitching problems...mostly upper body throwers. Kerry Wood will begin playing catch next week here in Phoenix. If he does not work on developing better forward momentum with his lower body into a much longer stride, (100% or more) then he too, may end up tearing his rotator cuff even more.

I like what ChadBradfordWannabe is saying on this site. He is one of the few out there who understands the importance of speed of movement in pitching. Chad, congratulations!
Dick Mills
www.pitching.com
   35. ChadBradfordWannabe Posted: April 29, 2007 at 10:37 PM (#2349620)
Quick update--Lincecum has 14 K's through 6 scoreless innings today w/ no walks.
   36. ChadBradfordWannabe Posted: April 29, 2007 at 10:45 PM (#2349630)
So for the season so far...

31 IP, 12 H, 1 ER, 11 BB, 44 K

His K/9 is good, but his K% has to be off the charts right now. Quick guess is that he's K'd 44 out of 116 Batters faced.
   37. XV84 Posted: May 05, 2007 at 01:08 AM (#2354772)
Making his debut this Sunday vs Cole Hamels on Sunday Night Baseball on ESPN. What a great matchup.
   38. ChadBradfordWannabe Posted: May 18, 2007 at 12:51 PM (#2368067)
Last night....Lincecum/Oswalt. In terms of mechanical efficiency, these are 2 of the best. You have heard me mention Oswalt as an example of a guy who does it right. For us mechanics geeks, it doesn't get any better than this.
   39. Mattbert Posted: May 22, 2007 at 04:56 AM (#2373884)
Cripes, his arm action is faster in the first slow-mo clip than mine is at full speed. That's ridiculous.

The only thing that scares me about his delivery is his landing. Not that he gets such amazing extension, but that he lands on his heel and then stiffens up his left leg as the rest of his body comes forward. You can see how he kind of "pops up" right after he releases the ball. He's got some flex in the leg initially, as it's not popping him up so violently that he has trouble locating the ball, but like Stormcrow I'm a little concerned about how that shock will affect his hips as he ages.

Other than that, I like what I see too. Really nice arm angle.
   40. dudley Posted: August 22, 2007 at 02:28 PM (#2494893)
this kid is simply amazing and a thrill to watch. i've been watching baseball for 30+ years now and rarely do i get this excited over a pitchers delivery.

he hides the ball like an old school turn of the century player and that huge sweeping overhand delivery is mezmerizing.

even after players have faced him a few games, i think it's still going to take them 2 or 3 at bats in a game to be able to hit this guy. he's deceptive and throws darts up there

Giants fans are lucky to have the oppertunity to watch him, i could watch him pitch all day long, he's a beautiful work of art, poetry in motion.
   41. ChadBradfordWannabe Posted: September 13, 2007 at 06:29 PM (#2523332)
Does anyone else think that it is time to shut him down for the year? Giants are going nowhere and this is the perfect time. Pitchers are a weird bunch. Lincecum just got his ERA under 4.00 and he's thrown a lot. 3.99 (his ERA now) looks much better than 4.00 to us. As much as I'd like to see him continue, I think it's time. The signs of fatigue are showing. His velocity is a little down. Time to shut him down...
   42. James Darnell's #1 Fan Posted: September 13, 2007 at 06:54 PM (#2523354)
They still have him scheduled to pitch to San Diego this saturday, though, I agree that it is time to shut him down; but knowing Bochy he will let him pitch the rest of the season to "go through the learning curve".
   43. XV84 Posted: January 13, 2008 at 10:01 PM (#2667433)
Lincecum and Gallardo comparison:

http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa173/xvue84/pitching clips/lincecumVSgallardoslow.gif
http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa173/xvue84/pitching clips/lincecumVSgallardosuperslow.gif

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Harveys Wallbangers
for his generous support.

Page rendered in 0.4296 seconds
71 querie(s) executed

Page rendered in 0.4296 seconds
71 querie(s) executed