Which Snubbed Giants Have An All-Star Case to Make?

First off, congratulations to Tim Lincecum and Brian Wilson for making the NL All-Star roster. I know Lincecum hasn't been as dominant as in years past, but take this into consideration: despite his "off-year" Lincecum is still ranked fourth in the National League in FIP (ahead of Ubaldo Jimenez actually). So, despite him probably not being as big a "shoe-in" as the past two seasons, Lincecum was certainly deserving of the berth. As for Wilson, I've been harping that he's been one of the league's best closers, and his numbers go beyond saves. In terms of FIP, he's the fourth-best reliever in the National League. That is a far cry from 2008, his previous All-Star season, when his FIP was 3.93.

However, there are some notable exceptions on this Giants roster. Aubrey Huff, Matt Cain, Andres Torres, and Juan Uribe are all names that deserved some All-Star attention, but didn't get the invite today. Unfortunately, it seems like any of them getting in is a long shot at this point. None of the Giants players listed are in the running for the fan "vote-in" (Heath Bell, Carlos Gonzalez, Joey Votto, Billy Wagner, and Ryan Zimmerman were the final five candidates chosen).

So, which Giants players have beefs, and which ones probably aren't All-Star worthy? Let's break down each player's "candidacy."


Aubrey Huff
.290 average, 15 home runs, 47 RBI, .391 wOBA, 17.4 wRAA, 2.6 WAR.

Huff probably is the most legitimate All-Star out of all the Giants players snubbed. He is ranked behind only Joey Votto and Albert Pujols in terms of wOBA for NL first baseman, and his 17.4 wRAA is tied for fourth out of NL first basemen as well. In addition to his offensive skills, Huff has shown tremendous defensive ability (4.2 UZR/150 at first base; 7.5 UZR/150 in the outfield) and flexibility (he has started at first base, left and right field). Thus, it's no surprise Huff's WAR is 2.6, which values to about $10.4 million dollars, according to Fangraphs.

So, why isn't Huff an All-Star? He's coming off an atrocious year, and he is playing for a Giants roster that has made more noise for their pitching and LACK of offense. It's really unfair. Huff is doing what Adrian Gonzalez did a year ago, but while Gonzalez has gotten the respect, Huff's incredible first half has been swept under the rug by the fans, players and of course, Charlie "I hate the Giants players" Manuel.

To illustrate my point that Huff is an All-Star-caliber player this year? He has a higher wOBA than All-Star first base reserves Gonzalez (.386) and Ryan Howard (.367). And, Huff's WAR is almost one and a half points better than Howard's (1.3).

Did Huff Get Snubbed?
Huff deserved an All-Star berth, but this system for first basemen is flawed to begin with. The fact that Joey Votto didn't make the roster is a travesty. Huff, unfortunately, is a victim at a position where fans, players and managers value big flies and hype more than actual overall performance.


Matt Cain
6-7 record, 2.93 ERA, 1.14 WHIP, 3.60 FIP, 2.1 WAR.

Cain was an All-Star last year, and his year this season has been pretty similar to his 2009. He still has been pretty lucky (.262 BABIP) and his high xFIP (4.70) suggest that he may be due for a tough stretch sometime soon, but Cain has still been solid as the Giants' second-best pitcher behind Lincecum. Cain has showed improved control (2.93 BB/9, the first time it's been under three in his career), and he has already thrown almost as many complete games (three) as last season (four).

The main difference between Cain of this season and Cain of last year has been the record. Last year, Cain went 10-2 in the first half of the season, and it seemed to ride him into an All-Star berth. Don't believe the record has any effect? Look at Ubaldo Jimenez, who's advanced numbers are actually LESS impressive than a season ago. What has gotten him into the All-Star game? His 14-1 record trumps his 6-9 record in the first half a season ago.

Much like Jimenez isn't a better pitcher than he was a year ago (though he certainly should have gotten more credit), Cain isn't much WORSE a pitcher in 2010 in comparison to 2009. It's just that the run support hasn't been great (typical for Cain) and he hasn't gotten as lucky.

Did Cain Get Snubbed?
The problem with Cain is that he may have not been an All-Star caliber pitcher last year if not for his 10-2 record. He doesn't have great strikeout stuff, and his BABIP shows that he has been lucky this year (though his 76.4 LOB percentage suggests he hasn't been as lucky as 2009, when his LOB percentage wasn't under 83 percent for the first three months of play). Cain is a very good pitcher, don't get me wrong. But is he an All-Star like Lincecum based on the numbers? That might be harder to prove, especially when Cain isn't ranked in the Top-15 of NL Starting Pitchers in terms of FIP.


Andres Torres
.275 average, .819 OPS, 15 stolen bases, .370 wOBA, 11.0 UZR, 3.0 WAR.

Torres would have been a great story for the All-Star team. The 33-year old journeyman who went from poor, free swinging slap hitter with the Detroit Tigers to patient, speedy hitter with pop to the Giants. Torres has all the credentials of an All-Star candidate: great speed (15 stolen bases on 18 attempts), great defense (27.1 UZR/150), excellent run generation (10 wRAA), and plate patience (0.68 BB/K ratio).

Unfortunately, the powers that be felt Michael Bourn and his .319 wOBA was a better candidate in the outfield (seriously, I hate this "Every team needs one All-Star" rule; the Fresno Grizzlies have more All-Star candidates than the Houston Astros).

Torres can certainly rank up there with the best outfielders in the National League. However, Torres unfortunately plays at a position where the talent level is very deep. Torres' wOBA ranks him 12th out of NL outfielders. Fellow All-Star Snubs like Andrew McCutchen and Colby Rasmus look to be far more enticing candidates than Torres, though Torres' defensive value does give him an edge (He has the second-best UZR out of NL outfielders).

Did Torres Get Snubbed?
When you look at him in terms of pre-season hype and offense alone? No. There are a lot better outfielders offensively than Torres (though that shouldn't take anything away from Torres' season). However, when you look at his defense, and add that with his offensive numbers? Torres looks a lot more like an All-Star-worthy player. Unfortunately, it's offense, not defense and overall value that generate hype for an All-Star berth, and that killed Torres' chances before it could get started.


Juan Uribe
.256 average, 12 HR, .335 wOBA, 2.6 wRAA, 1.6 WAR.

Would you believe me if I told you that Uribe, going into today, was the third-best shortstop in terms of wOBA? Would you believe me if I told you that Uribe has been better offensively than Jose Reyes, who made the All-Star team, and Uribe's higher wOBA and wRAA prove it?

Well, it's the truth, and though he has cooled recently, Uribe still could make an argument that he has been one of the National League's better shortstops this season. Uribe has hit with some surprising pop (12 home runs) and he has done this despite his BABIP (.262) being shockingly low (the league average is .299 and his BABIP last year was .325).


Did Uribe Get Snubbed?
I love Uribe, but no. He didn't. The National League shortstop position is shockingly shallow in terms of talent beyond Troy Tulowitzki and Hanley Ramirez. Uribe is simply the best of a rather mediocre bunch. Furthermore, Uribe's minus-6.6 UZR/150 at shortstop this year has killed any overall value he might have, and despite a high BB/K ratio (0.57), he has swung at more pitches outside the strike zone this year (32.2 percent in comparison to 31 percent last year) and has a higher whiff percentage in 2010 (12.2 percent) than in 2009 (11.5 percent). Uribe is a solid utility infielder to have, but he's no All-Star.

New Poll Up: Which Giants Deserve to Make the NL All-Star Team?

Just a quick post. I put up a poll on the sidebar asking which Giants deserve to make the All-Star game in Anaheim this year. I narrowed it down to eight guys who have a realistic chance of making it:

Tim Lincecum, Matt Cain, Brian Wilson, Aubrey Huff, Juan Uribe, Freddy Sanchez, Pablo Sandoval, and Andres Torres.

I left out Jonathan Sanchez from the list because of his inconsistency and Buster Posey and Pat Burrell because they don't have that many games under the belt.

You can vote for multiple guys on the list. In my opinion: I would think five guys are deserving: Lincecum, Cain, Wilson, Huff, and Torres. Uribe has been good, but I can't see him getting a boost over Troy Tulowitzki (who was an MVP candidate until he got hurt) and Hanley Ramirez (though he certainly is a better candidate than guys like Jimmy Rollins and Orlando Cabrera, as Crazy Crabbers notes). Also, I put Sandoval on this list more out of formality, since his year hasn't been as good as last season. As for Sanchez, he too has been awesome, but I'm not sure if his sample is large enough in comparison to other second baseman in the league.

Would love any input on your all-star picks. You can vote for real on MLB.com. It would be nice to see some Giants position players on the NL roster for once.

Three Up, Three Down: A Look at Cain and Lincecum's Last Few Starts

Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain are the two anchors of the Giants starting rotation (sorry Barry Zito!) and it makes sense why. Both are young (Lincecum is going to turn 26 years old in June; Cain is 25 years old), both have incredible credentials (Lincecum is a two-time All-Star and Cy Young winner; Cain was an All-Star last season) and both have solid stuff.

Yet it's been a different story for the two pitchers lately. Lincecum has been struggling on the mound, while Cain is excelling. You can point out the traditional numbers. Lincecum has pitched 15.1 IP and is 0-2 and has allowed 14 ER in his last three starts against Arizona, Washington and Colorado. Cain has pitched 25 IP and is 2-1 with two complete games and only allowed one ER in his last three starts.

When you look at the numbers, it's hard to see which Giants pitcher won the last two Cy Young awards.

So, what is up? Why is Lincecum performing so poorly and why is Cain suddenly looking like a Cy Young candidate again? (Though it's kind of a losing battle when your competition is Ubaldo Jimenez and Roy Halladay.)

I can point to three possible reasons:

1.) Walks (Increase for Lincecum; drop for Cain).
2.) Pitch counts (Lincecum throwing too many pitches; Cain pacing himself well).
3.) Luck (Cain's been getting lucky; Lincecum hasn't).

In terms of the first point, Lincecum's walk totals have been ridiculous the past three games. He has given up five walks in EACH of his past four starts (a total of 20 BB). Before the Houston game on May 15? Lincecum had only allowed 10 walks in his seven previous starts COMBINED.

Cain on the other hand, has been the polar opposite. Cain has only allowed four walks total in his past three starts (which explains why he is 2-1, and should be 3-0 had his offense showed up against Oakland).

What has been the reason for Lincecum's tremendous number of free passes in comparison to Cain? Cain has been better throwing strikes the past few starts, while Lincecum simply can't find the strike zone.

In his past three starts, Cain has thrown 63, 68 and 60.5 percent of his pitches for strikes. As for Lincecum? In his last few appearances, he has only thrown 59, 58 and 60.3 percent of his pitches for strikes.

Look at the Pitch F/X statistics from Brooks Baseball for Lincecum and Cain in their last starts alone:




Lincecum against Colorado on May 31.

Pitch Statistics
Pitch Type	Avg Speed	Max Speed	Avg H-Break	Avg V-Break	Count	Strikes / %	Swinging Strikes / %	Linear Weights	Time to Plate
FF (FourSeam Fastball)	90.94	93.8	0.30	8.92	48	28 / 58.33%	0 / 0.00%	0.9153	0.410
CH (Changeup)	83.70	85.7	-2.65	2.98	32	25 / 78.13%	8 / 25.00%	-0.2762	0.443
CU (Curveball)	78.19	81.1	2.25	-6.62	27	12 / 44.44%	3 / 11.11%	-0.0760	0.480
FT (TwoSeam Fastball)	92.65	97.7	-6.95	8.32	13	10 / 76.92%	1 / 7.69%	-0.4363	0.404
Pitch classifications provided by the Gameday Algorithm and may be inaccurate. Pitch Type LWTS correspond to how many runs were likely to score on a particular pitch based on average run expectancy when each pitch was thrown and what happened as a result. Negative scores indicate more effective pitches. Time to Plate is the time, in seconds, that it takes an average pitch of this type to reach the plate. This is strongly correlated with velocity, but also factors in movement.

Cain against Colorado on June 2.

Pitch Statistics
Pitch Type	Avg Speed	Max Speed	Avg H-Break	Avg V-Break	Count	Strikes / %	Swinging Strikes / %	Linear Weights	Time to Plate
FF (FourSeam Fastball)	90.96	93.1	-4.96	10.40	67	40 / 59.70%	5 / 7.46%	-0.2139	0.413
CH (Changeup)	84.67	90.6	-7.53	3.76	27	17 / 62.96%	5 / 18.52%	-1.5402	0.444
SL (Slider)	85.40	85.4	2.05	1.36	1	0 / 0.00%	0 / 0.00%	0.0421	0.435
CU (Curveball)	76.39	82.7	3.59	-5.12	16	10 / 62.50%	1 / 6.25%	-1.3495	0.492
FT (TwoSeam Fastball)	92.20	92.9	-6.96	7.78	2	1 / 50.00%	0 / 0.00%	-0.0183	0.403
Pitch classifications provided by the Gameday Algorithm and may be inaccurate. Pitch Type LWTS correspond to how many runs were likely to score on a particular pitch based on average run expectancy when each pitch was thrown and what happened as a result. Negative scores indicate more effective pitches. Time to Plate is the time, in seconds, that it takes an average pitch of this type to reach the plate. This is strongly correlated with velocity, but also factors in movement.

Judging by the graphs, Cain was extremely efficient with his fastball, slider and curve balls, throwing the latter two pitches for strikes over 60 percent of the time. As for Lincecum, he was efficient with his two seam fastball (he threw it 76 percent of the time for strikes) as well as his changeup. However, you couldn't say the same out of his curveball (only a 44.4 percent strike percentage).

To make matters worse, Lincecum didn't make a lot of Rockies hitters whiff with his pitches, especially the fastball. Sure, his changeup was effective in terms of making batters whiff, but his changeup has always been that valuable this season (According to Fangraphs, it is valued at 3.97 runs above average per 100 fastballs). His fastballs though? He threw 38 total fastballs (four and two seamers combined) and only got Rockies hitters to whiff once.

How did Cain do with his fastballs? Out of the 41 fastballs he threw, he got Rockies hittes to whiff five times. That's not exactly mindblowing, but it certainly is better than Lincecum.

Hence, Lincecum's stuff just isn't blowing hitters away, and that may be reason why Lincecum is being more nitpicky, trying to paint the corners when he really should be just throwing, which I believe is what Cain is doing when you look at his Pitch F/X (Cain isn't K'ing guys, but he's throwing strikes, which is important). Unfortunately, this has only produced more balls for Lincecum, and more walks as a result.

It has also caused Lincecum to throw more pitches per inning.

Here is a look at Lincecum and Cain's pitch by innings in their last starts:


Lincecum

Inning-by-Inning Pitch Totals
Inning	Pitches in Inning	Strikes in Inning	Strike% in Inning	Cumulative Total Pitches	Pitch LWTS in Inning
1	11	8	72.73	11	-0.834
2	35	21	60.00	46	0.467
3	14	10	71.43	60	-0.862
4	19	10	52.63	79	0.505
5	22	14	63.64	101	0.592
6	19	12	63.16	120	0.258

Cain

Inning-by-Inning Pitch Totals
Inning	Pitches in Inning	Strikes in Inning	Strike% in Inning	Cumulative Total Pitches	Pitch LWTS in Inning
1	10	6	60.00	10	-0.834
2	20	13	65.00	30	-0.350
3	17	8	47.06	47	-0.532
4	11	6	54.55	58	0.611
5	21	13	61.90	79	-0.034
6	7	5	71.43	86	-0.561
7	13	7	53.85	99	-0.532
8	14	10	71.43	113	-0.848

Because of Lincecum's inability to throw strikes, the pitch counts have been massive in certain innings. He threw 19 or more pitches in four of the six innings pitched on Memorial Day (including a Jonathan Sanchez-esque 35 pitches in the second). Cain has been much more efficient, for he only threw 19 or more pitches in two of the eight innings he pitched in last night's win.

Thus, the more efficient pitching style of Cain in the past few starts (to compare, Lincecum went 5.2 IP and threw 121 pitches; Cain went 8 IP and threw 113 pitches) has been more effective for Cain and the Giants in general (the Giants are 2-1 in his last three starts; the Giants are 0-3 in Lincecum's last three starts).

That being said, not all hope should be lost on Lincecum, and Cain shouldn't be raised too quickly as the Giants ace this season. Yes, Lincecum isn't blowing guys away with his fastball. Yes, Lincecum is throwing too many pitches. Yes, Lincecum is having trouble with his command and finding strikes.

However, Lincecum hasn't been getting lucky (in comparison to Cain, who has).

For starters, the numbers that really jump out with Lincecum are his groundball and flyball numbers. You think, considering he has allowed 14 ER, Lincecum would be allowing a lot of big flies, right?

Actually, that hasn't been the case. Lincecum has induced 23 groundballs and 15 flyballs in his past three starts. He has also allowed nine line drives in the last few starts as well.

What's more interesting though is the fact that over the past three starts, his flyballs and line drives allowed have gone down, and the groundballs have gone up. (For example: he induced 14 groundballs and allowed only four flyballs and one line drive in his last outing.)

Despite that improvement, Lincecum just hasn't gotten lucky. He has allowed 17 hits, which gives him a BABIP of .361 in his last three starts. Lincecum is not going to carry a BABIP that high for the rest of the season, especially considering his career BABIP (.302) hovers around the league average (.300 give or take a couple of points each year).

As for Cain, he has allowed 34 flyballs, 20 groundballs and 10 line drives in his previous three starts. How many hits has Cain given up? Only 10, which gives him a BABIP of .156 in those starts. Now, pitchers are going to have good stretches, but to have that low a BABIP and to only average six strikeouts a game during that three game span? Well...you have to credit that more to luck than anything else (but considering Cain's history, he deserves all the luck he can get).

So Cain is up, Lincecum is down. The important thing to remember? They both are fine. Sure, Lincecum's stuff isn't dominant (especially his fastball), but that was the case in the beginning of the season, when he was dealing, as well. The only difference is that unlike in April, Lincecum is overpitching and isn't throwing strikes. The strikes will come, and eventually, so will the efficient innings, and considering Lincecum's strikeout ability (he still has a 10.42 K/9 this year), Lincecum will look like his Cy Young form again.

As for Cain, he's looking solid and his efficiency is comforting, especially considering that has been an issue with some Giants starting pitchers this year (Lincecum, Sanchez especially; Zito not so much). However, Cain isn't a dramatically better pitcher than Lincecum, even during this three game stretch. Cain has just been better at throwing strikes and is getting lucky. Just as Lincecum is bound to turn it around and look closer to his career form, the same should be expected of Cain: he'll get less lucky, regress and return back to career form (though Cain's career form still is pretty good).

A Look at Zito, Cain and Sanchez's Performances Against the Rockies

Today was a tough one for the Giants. Aaron Rowand graced Giants fans with his presence back at the top of the lineup, Jhoulys Chacin mowed the offense down and the Giants, once again, avoided the sweep for the third straight series.

It sucks that the Giants played three, top shelf National League teams (St. Louis, Philadelphia and Colorado) and came "Oh-So Close" to sweeping each one. Then again, you can't argue with six out of nine, especially against those caliber of teams.

While the Giants couldn't finish off the Rockies today, Giants fans have to be optimistic about their chances in the NL West. What made the Giants so successful this weekend? Well, I think it's safe to say that Giants fans can thank the starting rotation, specifically Barry Zito and Matt Cain.

If you break down Zito, Cain and Jonathan Sanchez's performances over the weekend, they all show some interesting things.

First, let's look at Zito's numbers on last Friday's start (information courtesy of Brooks Baseball.net and their Pitch F/X tool).

Pitch Statistics
Pitch Type	Avg Speed	Max Speed	Avg H-Break	Avg V-Break	Count	Strikes / %	Swinging Strikes / %	Nibbleness	Time to Plate
FF (FourSeam Fastball)	85.96	87.6	6.37	10.20	33	19 / 57.58%	2 / 6.06%	6.22	0.437
CH (Changeup)	74.24	75.9	6.88	2.68	12	8 / 66.67%	1 / 8.33%	4.15	0.503
SL (Slider)	78.36	81.5	-3.92	1.81	20	14 / 70.00%	2 / 10.00%	8.17	0.476
CU (Curveball)	73.14	76.5	-5.34	-10.98	25	16 / 64.00%	4 / 16.00%	8.65	0.526
FT (TwoSeam Fastball)	85.59	87.5	9.25	7.59	29	18 / 62.07%	1 / 3.45%	4.74	0.438
Pitch classifications provided by the Gameday Algorithm and may be inaccurate.

From the information above, you can see that Zito was extremely effective with his breaking pitches, specifically his slider and curve ball. Last Friday's start was just another example of Zito's success this year: his fastball velocity is up early this year, which makes his curve and slider, even more effective.


Last year, and in 2008, when his fastball velocity waned in April, he got mashed, simply because the curve and slider were too close in terms of velocity to his fastball (Thus, it being easier for hitters to adjust). That hasn't been the case this year, and Zito arguably has been the Giants' best pitcher this April (it's either him or Tim Lincecum). Granted, his low BABIP (.209) is still a concern (how will his numbers look when his BABIP eventually rises?) but you can't argue with the results from the big lefty.


Cain also posted an impressive start yesterday, finally earning some run support, and also struck some guys out too boot (eight in eight innings pitched), en route to his first victory of the year.


What is most impressive about Cain's start though is how he bounced back despite rough second and third innings in terms of pitch count.

Inning-by-Inning Pitch Totals
Inning	Pitches in Inning	Strikes in Inning	Strike% in Inning	Cumulative Total Pitches
1	16	14	87.50	16
2	22	12	54.55	38
3	27	17	62.96	65
4	11	9	81.82	76
5	13	8	61.54	89
6	8	6	75.00	97
7	12	9	75.00	109
8	13	10	76.92	122

After the second and third, I didn't think Cain would go more than six (seven at the max). The pitch count was high at 65 after the third, and by the fourth, the Giants had already produced a decent impact in terms of run support to cover the Giants right-hander.


However, Cain buckled down and performed admirably. After throwing 49 pitches in the second and third inning combined, and only throwing 29 strikes (his strike percentage in the second and third combined was 59 percent), Cain buckled and threw 57 pitches over the next five innings (including 42 pitches for strikes). Additionally, Cain kept bringing the heat, as his fastball velocity still stayed in the 90-93 MPH range, even after he got past the 100 pitch mark.


Say what you want about Cain: he doesn't strike a lot of guys out, he puts too many ball in play, he doesn't get enough run support, etc. The kid is tough and has a lot of mental makeup, as evidenced by his excellent start against the Rockies.


Unfortunately, you can't say the same of Sanchez and his start today.


If you look at the first inning, Sanchez looked to be on his way to another unbelievable performance. He threw only eight pitches in the first inning, all of them for strikes. The second inning though, he started to show some warning signs. He threw 33 pitches in the two innings combined, 20 of the pitches for strikes (60.6 percent).


And then, in true, "Brian De Palma Post-Mission Impossible" fashion, Sanchez fell off a cliff in the fourth. He threw 32 pitches, and only 15 for strikes (46.88 percent). Though he only allowed one run that inning, he continued to struggle into the fifth, unable to regain the control he had shown in the first inning. It was safe to say, by the fifth, it was just a slippery slope for the Giants in general, especially considering the fact that Chacin was owning the Giants' hitters today like the Kardashian sisters owning athletic stars with their...ugh..."qualities".


Bottom line though for Sanchez? His problem today proved to be the problem he's had his whole career: consistency with his command.


Check out the strikezone plot for him in today's game.

Not exactly impressive, huh? A lot of white in that strike zone.


Then again, you have to expect games like this from Sanchez. He has incredible strikeout stuff, but his control is going to wane up and down. That's just the reality of who he is as a pitcher. The problem is, you wish these games happen against the Astros and Nationals, teams whom the Giants have a good shot against in terms of getting run support to back up "off" performances like this one today from Sanchez.


Unfortunately, it happens against the Rockies and against an impressive pitcher like Chacin. Oh well. You can't win 'em all, right?


What can we take away from the Giants' two through four pitchers and their performances this weekend? Zito continues to be efficient, Cain can bounce back and Sanchez needs to better composure from inning to inning if he wants to be more like Johan Santana and less like Oliver Perez.

Could Jonathan Sanchez Have a Better Year than Matt Cain for the Giants?

After last night's seven inning, 10 strikeout performance against the Padres, Jonathan Sanchez has caught the attention of the baseball nation once again.

Not only is Sanchez ready to breakout (as I hinted this off-season), but he is already on his way in doing so. Despite his record being 1-1 in three starts this year, Sanchez is posting a 1.86 ERA, a 0.98 WHIP and a FIP (fielding independent pitching on an ERA scale) of 1.46.

After years of speculation and disappointment, Sanchez is finally reaching his potential and is another important cog in the Giants' already impressive starting pitching rotation.

However, one question remains that isn't being widely discussed amongst those in Giants nation:

Could Sanchez be a better pitcher in 2010 than Matt Cain?

When you look at the big picture, it doesn't matter. The Giants have both pitchers, so it shouldn't be that big of a deal, right? As long as they both do well, it's a win-win for the Giants.

That is true, but to a point.

First off, Cain is coming off a very big extension (he'll be owed $27.5 million dollars over the next three seasons), so Cain is being paid and treated as the Giants' number two option of the future behind Tim Lincecum.

However, while Sanchez did sign an extension this year to avoid arbitration for another year (he signed a one-year $2.1 million deal this off-season), Sanchez could make a case that he may be just as valuable if not more than Cain after the 2010 season is finished.

Like I said, it know it sounds like blasphemy to some. Saying Sanchez is better than Cain to Giants fans is like saying Rocky II is better than Rocky I to die hard movie lovers (though I like Rocky IV the best, simply for guilty pleasure/patriotic/great music during the fight scene reasons).

If you look deeper at the numbers though, the gap between Cain and Sanchez is closer than it seems.

First off, look at what Sanchez and Cain have done so far in three starts:

Cain: 0-0 W-L, 18.2 IP, 3.86 ERA, 1.13 WHIP, 2.91 FIP, 5.79 K/9, 1.45 BB/9, 4.00 K/BB, .295 BABIP, 1.55 GB/FB.
Sanchez: 1-1 W-L, 19.1 IP, 1.86 ERA, 0.98 WHIP, 1.46 FIP, 12.57 K/9, 3.72 BB/9, 3.38 K/BB, .286 BABIP, 0.70 GB/FB.

Now, these are just their numbers after three starts. They could easily change for the better or worse over the course of the season. However, after looking at these numbers so far it's safe to say that Sanchez has performed better and has seemed to be the more impressive and dominating pitcher.

I know Cain fans (and I'm one of them too, by the way) will say "Cain is walking less guys! Things will turn around for him soon! Sanchez walks too many and that's dangerous if you're a pitcher!"

I agree. Cain's walk rate is almost a point and a half lower than it was last year (his 3.02 BB/9 was the lowest of his Major League career). However, the concerning aspect of Cain's pitching so far this year has to be his strikeout rate, which is 5.45. While I think it could improve as the season goes on, the decrease in strikeouts over Cain's career hasn't made Giants fans feel easy.

In 2006, his first full year with the Giants, his K/9 was 8.45. Last year, it was 7.07.

Sanchez on the other hand, has improved his ability to strike out guys as he has gained more Major League experience (his rookie year in 2006, his K/9 was 7.45; last year, it was 9.75).

What could be a reason for this? Well, despite having an advantage in velocity (Cain averaged 92.6 MPH on his fastball last year while Sanchez averaged 91.7 MPH), Cain simply allows too much contact as a pitcher. His contact rate last year was 80.7 percent and that has been the same case this year as he has a contact rate of 83.2 percent. In comparison, Sanchez has never had a contact rate over 78.4 percent, and that was during his rookie season (his contact rate was 73.8 percent in 2009, and is currently 71.6 percent this year).

(Furthermore, to put things into context, the league average contact rate for a pitcher is around 80 percent, usually.)

Another startling category where Sanchez holds a significant advantage is Sanchez' swinging strike percentage, which has been superior to Cain's over their respective careers. Last year, Sanchez had a swinging strike percentage of 10.9 percent (he has only had a swinging strike percentage under 10 once, back in 2006 when it was 9.4 percent). This season he has been unbelievable in that category, posting a 14 percent swinging strike percentage.

As for Cain? His swinging strike percentage last year was 9.1. His highest swinging strike percentage was 9.4 percent in 2008, and this year, it has suffered a big drop through the first three games as it hovers at 7.1 percent.

What does the mean? Well, considering the league average in this category is around 8.5 percent from season to season, Sanchez is a superior pitcher when it comes to missing bats while Cain may be little better than league average in terms of making batters miss.

Overall, there could be a lot of reasons why Sanchez has performed better this season and is a better strikeout pitcher than Cain. It could be Sanchez's delivery, which has been recognized as very deceptive by many baseball experts and scouts throughout Major League Baseball. It could be that Sanchez's breaking stuff and secondary pitches are far superior than Cain's, which explains why Sanchez is able to strikeout guys at a better rate than Cain despite having a slower fastball.

Whatever the reason, in my opinion, if Sanchez can't be considered better than Cain, then he should be at the same level or very close to the level of the Giants' 25-year-old right hander. While Cain does walk less guys and has been a better groundball pitcher this season, neither of those things have been very characteristic of Cain in his career. He has never had a GB/FB ratio over one (Sanchez on the other hand did it twice in 2007 and 2008), and while his walks have declined every year since his first full year in the rotation, he certainly is not a sub-two BB/9 pitcher.

Granted, Cain and Sanchez in the grand scheme of things is a wonderful thing for the Giants and San Francisco baseball fans. They both will provide great numbers and great outings throughout the course of the 2010 season.

That being said, things will get tough after the 2010 season when Sanchez will hit his second year of arbitration. If he ends up having a better year than Cain in 2010, the Giants will be hard-pressed to give him a "Cain-esque" contract by Sanchez's management team.

And, with re-signing Tim Lincecum, Pablo Sandoval and Buster Posey to long-term deals a priority down the road, it will be interesting to see if managing partner Bill Neukom will be open to shelling out that kind of cash to the 27-year-old left-hander from Puerto Rico.

The PG Beat: Giants Complete Sweep, Cain Solid, Ishi and Bowker Go Yard, Rowand and Renteria Erupt

Three games. Three wins. You can't complain too much with that. Could it have been a prettier win? Sure. Are the Astros probably going to be competing in the basement of the NL Central with the Pittsburgh Pirates? Most likely. Nonetheless, it's good to see the Giants get off to such a great start in the first series of the 2010 season.

As for today, the Giants bats really came out in a 10-4 victory. Unlike yesterday, where singles and double plays ruled the day, the Giants actually put some oomph behind the ball. Like yesterday though, the Giants got sterling outings once again from their starting pitcher (Matt Cain) and bullpen (Jeremy Affeldt and newcomer, former Dodgers and Prince Fielder disturber Guillermo Mota went 2.1 IP and allowed only one hit, an infield single to Michael Bourne).

Here are some of the notes from today's game.

-- Cain didn't get the victory today in true Cain style. He pitched well the whole game with a tight lead, but had a bad inning in the seventh due to a couple of bad breaks (Rowand almost had Sullivan's triple). When Affeldt came in to hold the lead and get one out, Bourn got a huge break by Uribe not charging it more, thus, tying the game and costing Cain the win.

Other than the seventh though, there wasn't much more Cain could do. In 6.2 IP, Cain had five strikeouts and allowed only six hits. What's even more amazing? Cain had zero walks and threw 66 strikes out of his 98 pitches thrown today (67 percent).

(Incredible stat: in the Giants first three games, the starting pitchers have allowed only a combined one walk. One! Yes, it's early, and yes, it's only three games, but the Giants pitching has shown incredibly command so far in the season, which is surprising because usually this early, they're still working out the kinks from Spring Training.)

Another impressive note about today? Cain neutralized Hunter Pence and Carlos Lee today, as they went a combined 0-for-8 with two strikeouts (each having one). Yes, Pedro Feliz had two doubles, but when you neutralize the three-four hitters like Cain did today, chances are you're going to win.

Was it as impressive as Zito and Lincecum's starts? No, but Cain certainly proved today that he is capable of having another solid season in 2010.

-- John Bowker and Travis Ishikawa both went yard today, a good sign that the Giants young players aren't as bad as Henry Schulman likes to believe. Bowker's hit was an absolute blast, but more importantly, he had a pretty good day, though many would be cautious by his 1-for-4 performance. Bowker didn't strike out and from what I saw he looked very comfortable at the plate. This is a far cry from last year, when he was swinging at everything and anything in his callup mid-season from Fresno. Sure, Bowker might not be playing everyday, but I think Bowker is certainly capable of putting up solid stats in the Majors this year.

As for Ishikawa? Any other park and that's probably a fly out or off the wall. At Minute Maid, it's a home run, but I'll take it. The startling thing was that Ishikawa hit it out on a 1-2 count. Striking out was a big problem with Ishikawa last year (27.3 percent strikeout rate), so to see him not only make contact (72.2 percent contact rate, which was one of the lowest contact rates out of Giants regulars) but make good contact on two strikes is promising. I'm hoping that Ishikawa will get a start sometime during the Atlanta series. Nothing against Aubrey Huff, but getting Ishikawa at-bats wouldn't hurt, especially if he can show that he is capable of hitting like he did in the second-half of 2009.

-- Maybe I reverse jinxed him, but Rowand put up a solid line today. 4-for-6 with a triple and two RBI and a run score. That's a far cry from his 0-for-10 output that he put up in the first two games of the series. Does that mean Rowand should be the leadoff hitter for good? I'm not sure, but it's nice to see that he is capable of bouncing back in a big way after starting out the series so terribly at the plate.

Yet he wasn't the only "underachieving" veteran who had a big game. Renteria was great at the plate. Sure, he still doesn't hit with any power (he hit five singles, and drew a walk in his 5-for-5 performance today), but he showed much better plate discipline today in comparison to what Giants fans have seen from him before. In three games, Renteria has eight hits, three RBI and has scored two runs. Granted, it's only one series, but if Renteria can continue to stay healthy and continue his solid plate approach, then perhaps having him as the everyday shortstop won't be such a bad thing like it was last season.

Overall, a great way to start the year for the Giants. The team isn't winning pretty, but the promise of Bowker and the solid play from Renteria, the starting pitching and the bullpen these three games definitely bodes well for the Giants as they continue to progress during the 2010 season.

Now, the Giants come back home to AT&T for their home opener where they will face a very ballyhooed Braves team (Cox's last year; dark horse to make playoffs) who have a very ballyhooed player (Jason Heyward). Jonathan Sanchez will be on the mound in the home opener. Though I'm optimistic he can have a solid start, I'm not optimistic that he'll have less than two walks in Friday's opener. Sorry, I'm just not ready to believe that yet (though I wouldn't be surprised to see him have over seven strikeouts).

Why Madison Bumgarner May Be Closer to Matt Cain than Tim Lincecum

Madison Bumgarner is going to start the year in Triple-A Fresno, and isn't going to be lining the chalk line with his Giants teammates this Opening Day in Houston.

As a Giants fan, it is disappointing because Bumgarner started out as the leading candidate for the fifth spot in the rotation after having a solid, short stint in the Majors last season. In 10 IP, Bumgarner posted a strikeout rate of nine, a K/BB ratio of 3.33, a WHIP of 1.10, and an ERA of 1.80. While some numbers of Bumgarner's were a bit startling (4.60 FIP, .248 BABIP) for the most part, you couldn't ask for anything more from Bumgarner in his Major League debut.

Despite the solid September and the vote of confidence by Giants management this off-season, Bumgarner didn't exactly duplicate his minor league and September success this Spring, posting a 6.43 ERA and walked eight batters in 11 innings pitched. While his velocity was concerning (Bumgarner's fastball ranged from 87-89 MPH throughout the Spring), his walk numbers were particularly alarming considering that hasn't been a problem so far in Bumgarner's professional career.

So, what is the verdict now on Bumgarner? It's safe to say that his value has dropped, but should the Giants being throwing the towel in on the promise Bumgarner showed back in 2008 when he was dominating the South Atlantic League?

Absolutely not, and for two reasons.

1.) He's only 20-years-old.
2.) Comparing him to Tim Lincecum is unfair.

In terms of the first point, you can't really argue with that. 20-years-old is that 20-years-old. Bumgarner has a lot of time to develop, and there is no rush to bring him up to the Majors right away. Thus, you can't argue much with that point.

Point number two, however, I'm sure will generate a lot of debate.

As a Giants fan, the common person to compare Bumgarner to is Lincecum. It's natural. Lincecum has been the best pitcher on the Giants the last two years (as evidenced by his two Cy Youngs); Bumgarner has been best pitcher in the Giants' minor leagues the past two years.

After that though the comparisons end.

For starters, Lincecum broke into the Majors a lot older than Bumgarner mainly because Lincecum played three years of college baseball at the University of Washington (Bumgarner started playing professionally right out of high school). So, when Lincecum broke into the Majors by 2007, Lincecum was an already developed pitcher at the age of 23.

Comparing Lincecum to Bumgarner is comparing red apples to green apples. They are similar, but they are not the same thing.

Once you get past that Bumgarner isn't Lincecum and shouldn't be compared or held to the standard of Lincecum, then things get better for Bumgarner.

Especially when you compare him to Matt Cain.

First off, Cain is a good pitcher. You can make the argument that he was lucky last year, that he's not a sub-three ERA pitcher by nature, whatever. However, Cain certainly belongs on this Giants roster and he definitely was worth the contract extension he received a week ago.

Yet when you look at Cain's Single-A to Double-A stints in the minors and compare it to Bumgarner's (and it makes more sense because Cain, like Bumgarner, entered professional ball right out of high school), the comparison isn't all that farfetched like the Lincecum one.

First off, Cain's K/9 rates are more promising than Bumgarner's, not to mention more consistent. In his first three stints, Cain posted rates of 10.9, 11.0 and 7.5 (Single-A, Advanced Single-A, Double-A, respectively). Bumgarner posted rates of 10.42, 8.51, and 5.80 (Single-A, Advanced Single-A, Double-A, respectively).

As you can see, Bumgarner suffered dramatic drops in terms of striking guys out as he advanced through the Giants system. Cain on the other hand suffered a drop from San Jose to Norwich (Double-A), but for the most part, his rates remained solid (and they have remained solid in the Majors as well, as evidenced by his 7.5 K/9 average in four-and-a-half Major League seasons).

Despite the difference is strikeouts, Bumgarner has shown better control in the minors so far than Cain did from Single-A to Double-A.

Cain's BB/9 rates were 2.9, 2.1 and 4.2 from Single-A to Double-A. Bumgarner posted rates of 1.33, 1.48 and 2.52. And if that isn't enough, Bumgarner has posted  better K/BB ratios than Cain did in the minors despite the relative disadvantage in K/9 rates in comparison to Cain (Single-A: 3.75 for Cain, 7.81 for Bumgarner; Advanced Single-A: 5.24 for Cain, 5.75 for Bumgarner; Double-A: 1.80 for Cain, 2.30 for Bumgarner).

Also, in terms of WHIP, Bumgarner posted better numbers in that category (0.93, 0.99, 1.03) than Cain (1.10, 1.03, 1.31) from Single-A to Double-A.

Why is this important? Because Cain and Bumgarner may be very similar pitchers. Cain, despite starting out as a strikeout pitcher early in his professional career, has developed a knack for control (3.02 BB/9 rate last year) as well as getting ahead of batters early (61.2 percent first-strike percentage). Bumgarner pitches very similarly. He doesn't walk guys and he doesn't allow a lot of hits, despite not having incredible strikeout percentages, much like Cain.

Of course, this is going to have its disadvantages. Much like Cain, Bumgarner will be very susceptible to having fluctuating BABIP and FIP numbers from season to season (mainly because he allows the ball to be put in play so much), which could effect his other numbers. So, it wouldn't be surprising to see Bumgarner in the Majors have seasons where he's winning 10-plus games and posting an ERA in the two-range, and other seasons where he's losing 10-plus and has an ERA in the high-three to four range as well. It all depends on how lucky Bumgarner is and how solid the defense is behind him (What Cain has experienced in his tenure as a Giant).

Bumgarner not being the next Lincecum is not necessarily a bad thing. To be honest, that is an echelon very few pitchers ever reach in their lifetimes. However, as evidenced by the incredible control and command Bumgarner has shown in the minors, there is not doubt that he could at the very least be the next Cain, if not better.

And considering Cain was an All-Star and a Cy Young candidate for most of the season last year, I don't think a lot of Giants fans can argue with that.

Why Re-Signing Matt Cain Makes Sense (And Why Brian Wilson Does Not)

On March 28th, San Francisco Giants general manager Brian Sabean made a big move to solidify the Giants' pitching staff: he re-signed left-handed setup man Jeremey Affeldt, closer Brian Wilson and starting pitcher Matt Cain to contract extensions.

The extensions seem to be preemptive measures by Sabean to take care of their pitching situation right away. Affeldt was in the last year of the two-year contract he signed in 2008, and Cain and Wilson were going to have be in arbitration the next couple of seasons. With these deals, he basically has delayed Affeldt's contract negotiations at least another season, and doesn't have to worry about Wilson's arbitration status until his last year in 2013. As for Cain, all his arbitration years are settled, and all Sabean has to worry about for the time being is when he becomes a free agent in 2013.

The deals aren't cheap, especially in Cain and Wilson's case. Cain is due $27.25 million over the next three seasons while Wilson is due about $19 million over the next three seasons. Considering the two were making around three million dollars COMBINED in 2009, I think it's safe to say that Cain and Wilson (and their agents) will be very happy as they start the 2010 season.

I have already voiced my opinion on the Affeldt deal, so I do not feel there is any need to go over it again. That being said, I am intrigued by the Cain and Wilson deals, manly because I have very mixed feelings about it.

My initial feelings? I like the Cain deal, but I am not sure about Wilson.

First off, to start with Cain, he may not be Tim Lincecum and I am not sure if he will repeat his 2009 numbers, especially in terms of ERA. I don't know if he will get lucky enough to be a sub-three ERA pitcher over his career. Why do I believe this? His strikeout rates aren't great (he has been only in the eight-range once in his career, in 2006 when it was 8.45) and his GB/FB rates aren't impressive either (last year it was 0.92, and that was the best ratio of his Major League career).

So why do I like Cain so much?

Because he is a proven innings eater, he is improving his control and he is only 25-years-old (he is going to be 26 in October).

Just look at Cain's numbers over the course of his career. He has pitched 190-plus innings since 2006, the first year he became a full-time starter in the rotation. In addition, Cain has never allowed more hits than innings pitched in his career. To me, that's promising, even surprising considering he isn't a strikeout artist in the Lincecum/Jonathan Sanchez mold.

However, while Cain has done well in minimizing hits as a pitcher, his control has been an issue over his career. Last year, he made great strides to take care of those problems.

In 2009, his walk rate was 3.02, the lowest of his career (in comparison, in 2008, his walk rate was 3.76 and in 2007 it was 3.56). Yes, his strikeout rate went down to 7.07 (it was 7.69 in 2008), which hurt his K/BB ratio (it was 2.34, only a 30 point improvement from 2008). However, I can live with the drop in K/9 if his BB/9 corresponds as well. Do I think Cain can continue that trend? Absolutely. Look at his first-pitch strike percentage, which jumped from 58.5 percent in 2008 to 61.2 percent in 2009 (it has improved steadily as well since his rookie season). Cain is getting ahead of batters more often, and by getting ahead, Cain is putting himself in more advantageous situations, which accordingly, leads to more success.

Now, a lot of Giants fans believe Cain made dramatic progress last season as a pitcher (mostly because his win totals jumped up). I'm not exactly in that camp, and I know some other writers out there in blogosphere believe the same. That is not a bad thing though. Cain has had a FIP under four since 2005 (the league average varies from the 4.30-4.50 range). According to Fangraphs' WAR (Wins Above Replacement) value translated into dollar amounts, Cain has been worth $16.5, $16.6 and $16 million dollars each season the past three seasons. Thus, the Giants have been getting serious return on their investment in Cain, and if anything, Cain should continue to give the Giants organization return on their investment as he continues to polish up his command and pitch more innings.

In my mind Cain is a solid investment from a baseball executive's standpoint. From a Giants fan's perspective, the deal is even better because Cain is a solid player who gets the job done (whether or not the hitters get the job done around him is a different story). Therefore, this deal not only was must-do for the Giants, but it also turned out great since I don't believe the Giants overpaid for Cain at all (if anything, they were able to get Cain at a good, bargain price).

That being said, my feelings about Wilson aren't quite the same.

Yes, Wilson did show tremendous upside last year. Yes, he was better in 2009 than his All-Star season in 2008. Yes, his strikeout rates were great (10.33) and his walk rates improved from 2008 (4.04 to 3.26). That being said, there are some discouraging numbers in Wilson's case.

His O-Swing percentage (pitches outside the strike zone hitters swing at) was 18.5 percent in 2009 (the league average is 25.1 percent). He has only had an O-Swing percentage in the 20 percent range in his Major League career (2007, when it was 24.7 percent).

His numbers in high leverage situations are also questionable when you look at what he did last year. His walk rate was 6.03 and his K/BB ratio in high leverage situations was 1.78 (and he had a 10.75 K/9 rate in high leverage situations mind you). Furthermore, his fly ball rates are the highest in high leverage situations (38.8 percent in high leverage situations in comparison to medium and low leverage situations, where it is 36.6 and 32.7 percent, respectively), as are his HR/FB ratios (9.7 percent).

What does this mean? Well, in terms of the first point, Wilson doesn't get a lot of people to chase outside the strike zone. That is discouraging from Wilson's standpoint mainly because he has only two pitches he throws with any regularity (he throws his fastball 69.5 percent and his cutter 24.5 percent of the time). Hence, he is not getting hitters to chase out of the zone with his off-speed stuff, and batters are sitting on his fastball because they know he has trouble locating with his off-speed pitches.

That is not good when you're a pitcher in general, but it is amplified when you are a closer, as we have seen in Wilson's case too often the past couple of seasons.

Now, I know Wilson is a likable guy. I admit he is our best closer since Robb Nen. That being said, that's why I think so many fans are in the Wilson bandwagon. The Giants haven't had an average closer since Nen was put on the shelf, and now that the Giants have a guy who is above-average, fans think he is the second-coming of Nen or worse, the next Mariano Rivera/Trevor Hoffman-esque closer.

At this point in his career though, Wilson isn't the next Nen and he isn't the next Rivera or Hoffman. He is a good closer, but that's it: a good, but not great closer.

Therefore, I don't know why the Giants can't wait until after 2010 to re-structure his contract, and let him prove this season on the field that he is getting better as a closer. They got the deal done before arbitration this year (the initial one), who says the Giants management can't do it again?

In Cain's case, I see improvement or at the very least the continued progress of his maturity as a pitcher in 2010. In Wilson's case, I can't see that definitely. He could have a great year, or he could have an off-year. He's just too much of a wild card to predict because a.) he has great stuff and velocity (a point that makes me inclined to believe the former) and b.) his performance in high leverage situations over the past two season has been wildly inconsistent (which makes me inclined to believe the latter).

What makes me less inclined to jump on this extension bandwagon for Wilson is that the Giants have good relievers in the wings. I believe Dan Runzler is good. I believe Sergio Romo is good. I believe Waldis Joaquin is good. Heck, I believe Henry Sosa can be good if moved to the bullpen.

There is a lot of wealth in the farm system in terms of relief arms, so there shouldn't be a rush to figure out Wilson's future. The same can't be said of the starting pitching, especially after Tim Alderson and Scott Barnes were dealt last July, so you can understand in Cain's case.

Of course, I am not naysaying Wilson. I am just a believer that unless a closer is "Top Tier" (in the Rivera, Nathan, K-Rod, Soria mold), then I don't believe a team should pay big bucks for that closer (look at the White Sox and Giants in 2005 who got burned on Billy Koch and Armando Benitez, guys who weren't "Top Tier" but were paid like "Top Tier" closers).

Is Wilson capable of reaching that status? Yes. He has the stuff and he has improved his command in 200 (especially in the second-half), so there is hope. That being said, he isn't there yet, and I don't know why the Giants can't be patient and just wait it out, letting Wilson prove it on the field rather than in the conference room.

Arizona's Edwin Jackson or the Giants' Matt Cain? Who's the Better Pitcher?

I am very intrigued by new Arizona Diamondbacks pitcher Edwin Jackson, who arrived from Detroit in a massive three-way trade this off-season (the New York Yankees, the third team, received Curtis Granderson). Jackson should be more than a familiar face to Giants fans. Last year, he made the American League All-Star team for Detroit, and he spent his first five years in professional ball in the Dodgers organization.

In many ways, Jackson was sort of a revelation last year. While he had been touted as a solid prospects during his Dodger days, he never really lived up to the expectations prior to 2009. He didn't get much opportunity in Los Angeles (he only pitched in 19 games for the Dodgers), and when he was traded to Tampa Bay, he struggled immensely.

In his three years with the Rays (2006-2008), he posted ERA numbers of 5.45, 5.76 and 4.42 and WHIP numbers of 1.84, 1.76 and 1.51. Granted, Jackson wasn't as bad as his record (19-26) or his ERA indicated in Tampa (his FIP numbers were 4.52, 4.90 and 4.88 with the Rays), but it was safe to say he wasn't the top prospect that everybody imagined during his Dodger days (he was rated the No. 4 prospect by Baseball America prior to the 2004 season).

However, Jackson turned it around Detroit, and suddenly, he became one of the hottest pitchers in baseball. Jackson went 13-9 with a 3.62 ERA and a 1.26 WHIP. When the Diamondbacks acquired him this off-season to pitch along with Dan Haren and Brandon Webb, many people deemed the Diamondbacks to have one of the most underrated rotations in baseball in 2010.

So what's Jackson have to do with Matt Cain?

In many ways, Cain and Jackson had very similar 2009 seasons. They were both guys who were better than their last couple of years prior to 2009 indicated, and they both had some skeptical numbers or qualities that made baseball fans and experts question whether or not they were as good as they were in the first half of the season in 2009. Furthermore, both Cain and Jackson had drop offs down the stretch, and both their teams barely missed out on the playoffs.

With these similarities between Cain and Jackson evident (almost creepy too), who is due to have the better 2010? Who is the better pitcher in general?

If you look at their overall profiles, it's easy to see that Cain is the better pitcher and not only is he due for another solid season in 2010, but Jackson may be primed for a dropoff in his first season in Arizona.

First off, Cain has had a better history of control and command of his pitches than Jackson. Yes, Jackson posted a better walk rate than Cain last year (2.94 to Cain's 3.02), but Cain posted a better BB/K ratio than Jackson last year (2.34 to Jackson's 2.30). To make matters worse for the new Diamondbacks pitcher, Jackson has struggled immensely in the past with walking hitters.

In 2008, Jackson posted a walk rate of 3.78. The season before that, his first year as a full-time starter for the Rays, he had a walk rate of 4.92.

As for Cain? He posted a walk rate of 3.76 in 2008 and 3.56 in 2007. Furthermore, he posted BB/K ratios of 2.04 and 2.06 in 2008 and 2007. Until last year, Jackson never posted a BB/K ratio over two in his Major League career. Bill James and CHONE take this into great consideration, as they project Jackson to have a BB/K ratio of 1.63 (James) and 2.07 (CHONE) in 2010. James projects Cain to have a BB/K ratio of 2.43 and CHONE expects a 2.28 BB/K ratio for Cain.

Yet control is not the only area where Cain excels over Jackson. Cain is also a better strikeout artist than Jackson.

Last season, Cain had a strikeout rate of 7.07 percent while Jackson had a 6.77 percent strikeout rate. The funny thing about those strikeout numbers was that it happened to be a down year for Cain (he posted a 7.69 percent strikeout rate in 2008), and an up year for Jackson (he posted a 5.30 percent strikeout rate with the Rays in 2008). Additionally, Jackson has only posted a strikeout rate above seven once (in 2007 with the Rays), while Cain has only had a strikeout rate below seven once (2005, his rookie year).

Now, I know there were some red flags with Cain's 2009 season. His FIP didn't really correspond with his ERA (his ERA was 2.89 while his FIP was 3.89), he had a low BABIP (.268) and he had a high left-on-base percentage as well (81.6 percent). While Jackson did post a similar disparaging difference between ERA and FIP (3.62 ERA to 4.28 FIP), his numbers in BABIP (.281) and left-on-base percentage (76.7 percent) were closer to the league average than Cain.

Do those numbers mean Cain will be a frontline ace next year? Most likely not, since they will probably go up (in terms of BABIP) and go down (LOB percentage) in 2010. However, he should remain better than Jackson despite the changes in those respective categories.

For starters, Cain has a better variety of pitches than Jackson. In 2009, Cain threw his fastball 62.8 percent of the time, his slider 12.8 percent of the time, his curve 12.6 percent of the time, and his changeup 11.8 percent of the time. That's a pretty solid, four-pitch repertoire for a starting pitcher.

As for Jackson, he only threw two pitches last year: a fastball and slider. He threw his fastball 65.2 percent of the time and his slider 27.4 percent of the time. Jackson has two other pitches (a curve and change) but he only threw the pitches a combined 7.4 percent last year, which shows that he doesn't have a whole lot of confidence behind those third and fourth pitches, unlike Cain.

If Jackson only throws two pitches, he must be really effective with them, huh? Not exactly. Despite having a faster fastball than Cain (Jackson averaged 94.5 MPH on his fastball last year while Cain averaged 92.6 MPH), Cain was actually more effective with his fastball by leaps and bounds.

In 2009, Cain's fastball was valued at 28.6 runs above average. Jackson's? It was valued at -9.1 runs above average. Granted, Jackson's slider was very effective (it was valued at 17.7 runs above average), but considering he only has two pitches that he has confidence in, the negative value on his fastball (and it has never had positive value in his time in the Major Leagues) is a major warning sign for those who expect Jackson to duplicate his 2010 numbers in 2009.

Jackson did have an advantage in Cain in some areas (he had a lower contact rate than Cain) and some categories between the two were identical (both had 0.92 GB/FB rates), but for the most part, Cain looks better than Jackson on paper and it is no surprise to see why many projections are more skeptical of Jackson in 2010 than Cain.

Will one guy steal the National League Cy Young next year from Tim Lincecum? Probably not. Yet in terms of effectiveness, if you have to choose between these two pitchers (and you know you're not going to get both) in a fantasy draft (or pay money for them in a live auction draft), then Cain should be the guy to go with. He may or may not be an All-Star again in 2010 (unlike Jackson, who in my mind is for sure not), but he'll still be a solid, if not stellar complement to Lincecum in the Giants rotation.

Five good things San Francisco Giants fans will remember from 2009

With the Giants' season officially over, I think it is time to go in retrospective mode over the Giants' 2009 campaign. While there are some things to be disappointed about (mostly concerning the Giants inability to make the playoffs for a sixth-straight year), this really was a great season by the Bay. The Giants finally have seemed to take a turn for the better, and the lofty promises and patience that was preached by GM Brian Sabean in 2007 seem to finally be coming to fruition.

Thus, with that optimism in mind, I wanted to look over five good things Giants fans will remember from this 2009 season.

1. Tim Lincecum and Pablo Sandoval are the "real deal"

--To be frank, I think a lot of Giants fans were worried about these two players (because I know I was). Tim Lincecum was coming off a Cy Young Award-winning season, and Pablo Sandoval was coming off a very hot 41-game, late-season stretch.

However, the main question was this: are these two players capable of putting together back-to-back good seasons? Or are they one-hit wonders in the mold of Mark Fidrych and Angel Berrora?

Well, both guys answered the call, and not only came up with more than stellar statistical seasons, but they have both solidified themselves as concrete figures for this Giants organization.

While Giants fans won't know until later this month if Lincecum will win his second-straight Cy Young, he certainly put up the numbers to merit consideration. This year, Lincecum carried the Giants rotation on his back again, and maintained his reputation as a strikeout, inning-eating artist.

Even though his record was not as good as his 2008 campaign (he was only 15-7 this year after going 18-5 in 2008), his ERA was better (2.48 this year in comparison to 2.62 in 2008), he allowed 14 less walks, and 'The Freak" posted a better WHIP as well (1.04 in comparison to 1.17 in 2008).

And when you also factor in that he lead the National League in strikeouts again (with 261), as well as shutouts (two) and complete games (four), then the case for Lincecum to repeat as the Cy Young seems incredibly stronger.

As for Sandoval, the "Kung Fu Panda" lived up to the preseason hype many experts bestowed upon him in Spring Training. Sandoval led the Giants in every offensive category, highlighted by a .330 batting average, 25 home runs, 90 RBI and .943 OPS. Sandoval pretty much carried the Giants offense the whole season, and if the Giants are able to get a hitter to offer some protection to stocky, third baseman, then it's crazy to think what Sandoval will be capable of in terms of offensive numbers in the future.

With a little help, we could see Sandoval verge into Vlad Guerrero territory. Seriously. That's how impressive his 2009 season was considering the lack of help around him.

2. Matt Cain is a solid No. 2 starter (though not an ace)

--A lot of Giants fans wondered if Cain was a victim of bad luck, or if he was simply not as good a pitcher as we once thought back when he first broke into the league in 2005. However, Cain was able to avoid the pitfalls of the last couple of years (e.g. lack of run support), and was able to put together a solid, All-Star caliber season as evidenced by his 14-8 record, 2.89 ERA, 1.18 WHIP and four complete games.

However, despite Cain's solid year and numbers, Cain faded after having a hot first half of the season. He ended up going 2-6 in his last 13 starts, with five no decisions (which aren't completely his fault, considering he had some pretty good outings during those four NDs, including a game against Pittsburgh where he threw nine innings of shutout ball).

While that late-season fade doesn't destroy Cain's reputation completely as a pitcher, any argument that Cain could be a better ace of the staff than Lincecum was discredited by the end of the year.

Cain is a very good pitcher, and the Giants should look forward to the young, dynamic punch of Lincecum and Cain for a long time. That being said, Cain should only be thought of as a No. 2 starter, and not as a potential No.1 like some people were thinking back in the first half of the season.

3. This Giants bullpen could be very good

--This may be the most stable and promising the Giants bullpen has looked in Sabean's tenure as GM in San Francisco. The Giants are locked up at the closer position in Brian Wilson, who followed up his solid 2008 season with an even better 2009 campaign. Wilson pitched more innings this year than in 2008, and while he had less saves, (38 to 41 in 2008), he had a better ERA (2.74 to 4.62 in 2008), a better WHIP (1.20 to 1.44 in 2008) and a better SO/BB ratio (3.07 to 2.39 in 2008).

Yet Wilson is just the tip of the iceberg. The Giants will return Jeremy Affeldt, (who is coming off a season where he had a 1.73 ERA and 1.17 WHIP) and Sergio Romo, who will both be a lethal 7th and 8th inning set-up punch. Furthermore, the young arms in the bullpen showed a lot of promise as well. Waldis Joaquin has the potential to be a fireballer, and Dan Runzler impressed with his superb velocity and command in his short September callup. Even Joe Martinez, who struggled as a starter, showed some potential to be a very good long-reliever next year for the Giants.

I think it's safe to say that the prospects of the Giants bullpen are a lot better than the days when the Giants had guys like Jack Taschner and Matt Herges as the prime setup guys.

4. The Giants finally got some bang for their buck in terms of Free Agents

--I remember reading a post on a blog earlier this year about the Giants, and a fan complaining that the Giants' problem was they never struck it rich with any players they signed to cheap deals. They used the Russell Branyan in Seattle comparison and said that the Giants either overpaid their veterans, or got production from within, but never really got more than they paid for when it came to free agents.

Well...that changed this year thanks to Juan Uribe and Andres Torres.

Both Uribe and Torres made a combined 1,400,000 dollars this year and yet they brought an incredible amount of production to the Giants lineup. Uribe hit 16 home runs and 55 RBI, while Torres hit six home runs, eight triples, stole six bases (and was only caught once) and posted a .343 OBP (third best on the team).

In comparison, Edgar Renteria, who shared shortstop duties with Uribe at the end of the year, only hit .250 with five home runs, and 48 RBI and he was paid eight million dollars, over four times what Uribe and Torres made combined.

I bet Giants fans wish they could've done that one again, huh?

5. Randy Johnson getting his 300th win and Jonathan Sanchez's No-Hitter

--I think for the most part Randy Johnson will be known as a bust in his tenure in San Francisco. He pretty much only played for three months during the season, and he was far from the "Big Unit" we knew back in Seattle and Arizona.

However, RJ will be known for some key things: his tutelage to the pitching staff (especially Jonathan Sanchez), perhaps playing his last season for his hometown team (he is from Walnut Creek) and of course, notching his 300th win.

While it was against Washington, it was a cool little moment that added to his illustrious career and also brought some much needed attention to a Giants team that hadn't got any big-time press since Barry Bonds left.

Then, after RJ notched 300, the Giants got even more press, thanks to Jonathan Sanchez, who threw the first Giants no-hitter in 33 years (the last one to do it was John "The Count" Montefusco who threw one in 1976). Sanchez's no-hitter was an incredible moment, mainly because it came from a pitcher whom many Giants fans thought was a disappointment, and was on the verge of being traded.

Instead, Sanchez turned his season around after the no-hitter, and could be a dark horse pitcher next year that may be on the verge of having the kind of breakout Matt Cain had this season. Sanchez's stuff has always been undeniable, but in the second-half, he finally was able to put it together with his command.

If he can fully get a hold of his command to go along with his great stuff, the National League better take note. Yet what makes this prospect great though is that it seems like it is capable of happening, and I don't think Giants fans like myself would feel that way had it not been for the no-hitter in late June.

And to add even more fairy dust on those two great moments from Johnson and Sanchez, it was nice to see some Giants milestones that didn't have the word "tainted" attached to them.