Giants release Pierzynski

[giants8307]

I don't think rueter is a #5. He's around a #7-8 . If he NEEDS a good defense behind him, he isn't really that good. He's just relying on the talent of his team. The rest of the rotation is pretty good though, IMO. I guess I just think more highly of lowry, foppert, tomko...

As for offense, I've been hearing Magglio might be going for a 1-year deal to raise his value(a la Nomar). The Chronicle also reported the Giants will have 5-8 Mill for another FA. Maybe Magglio for 1 year 8 M...?

[Lofunzo]

I don't think rueter is a #5. He's around a #7-8 . If he NEEDS a good defense behind him, he isn't really that good. He's just relying on the talent of his team. The rest of the rotation is pretty good though, IMO. I guess I just think more highly of lowry, foppert, tomko...

As for offense, I've been hearing Magglio might be going for a 1-year deal to raise his value(a la Nomar). The Chronicle also reported the Giants will have 5-8 Mill for another FA. Maybe Magglio for 1 year 8 M...?

I agree about Rueter being a #7 or 8 starter but I disagree about if you need the defense behind you, then you're not very good. Many pitchers like Maddux or Glavine learned that you don't need to strike everyone out to be successful. It usually cuts down on the pitches and can lengthen careers..

[SaintsOfTheDiamond]

I don't think rueter is a #5. He's around a #7-8 . If he NEEDS a good defense behind him, he isn't really that good. He's just relying on the talent of his team. The rest of the rotation is pretty good though, IMO. I guess I just think more highly of lowry, foppert, tomko...

As for offense, I've been hearing Magglio might be going for a 1-year deal to raise his value(a la Nomar). The Chronicle also reported the Giants will have 5-8 Mill for another FA. Maybe Magglio for 1 year 8 M...?

I agree about Rueter being a #7 or 8 starter but I disagree about if you need the defense behind you, then you're not very good. Many pitchers like Maddux or Glavine learned that you don't need to strike everyone out to be successful. It usually cuts down on the pitches and can lengthen careers..

I agree completely. I think Maddux and Glavine are prime examples of that. I personally think K's are overrated, but I'll probably never convince anyone of that .

[giants8307]

I don't think rueter is a #5. He's around a #7-8 . If he NEEDS a good defense behind him, he isn't really that good. He's just relying on the talent of his team. The rest of the rotation is pretty good though, IMO. I guess I just think more highly of lowry, foppert, tomko...

As for offense, I've been hearing Magglio might be going for a 1-year deal to raise his value(a la Nomar). The Chronicle also reported the Giants will have 5-8 Mill for another FA. Maybe Magglio for 1 year 8 M...?

I agree about Rueter being a #7 or 8 starter but I disagree about if you need the defense behind you, then you're not very good. Many pitchers like Maddux or Glavine learned that you don't need to strike everyone out to be successful. It usually cuts down on the pitches and can lengthen careers..

Glavine doesn't strike everyone out, although he has had some pretty good K/9 ratios in the past(6-8). However, he doesn't allow HR's or walks, which is more than I can say for rueter. So, i guess I agree that if you can keep the ball down and throw strikes, you can be successful.

Maddux on, the other hand, has consistently been around 7K/9. Thats pretty good. I'd say he actually is a SO pitcher. He had 204 K's in 1998. Not too shabby.

[TheYanks04]

Maddux was also getting the benefit of 36 inch strike zones back then. Maddux got his share of ks, esp. for a control pitcher.

[LBJackal]

Maddux also didn't have a WHIP of 1.50 - if you're not going to K anybody you're at a huge disadvantage and have to severely limit baserunners which Rueter doesn't do.

There are 3 main things a pitcher controls: K's, BB's, and HR's. Of all pitchers, that's about all that separates them. There are other small factors but none nearly as big as K's, BB's, and HR's.

[Lofunzo]

I don't think rueter is a #5. He's around a #7-8 . If he NEEDS a good defense behind him, he isn't really that good. He's just relying on the talent of his team. The rest of the rotation is pretty good though, IMO. I guess I just think more highly of lowry, foppert, tomko...

As for offense, I've been hearing Magglio might be going for a 1-year deal to raise his value(a la Nomar). The Chronicle also reported the Giants will have 5-8 Mill for another FA. Maybe Magglio for 1 year 8 M...?

I agree about Rueter being a #7 or 8 starter but I disagree about if you need the defense behind you, then you're not very good. Many pitchers like Maddux or Glavine learned that you don't need to strike everyone out to be successful. It usually cuts down on the pitches and can lengthen careers..

Glavine doesn't strike everyone out, although he has had some pretty good K/9 ratios in the past(6-8). However, he doesn't allow HR's or walks, which is more than I can say for rueter. So, i guess I agree that if you can keep the ball down and throw strikes, you can be successful.

Maddux on, the other hand, has consistently been around 7K/9. Thats pretty good. I'd say he actually is a SO pitcher. He had 204 K's in 1998. Not too shabby.

I agree with you and TheYanks04. The difference between those 2 are that they got strikeouts because they were great pitchers. The got them because they changed speeds and moved the ball around. They weren't your typical fireballers. It also has to do with the strikezones, like Yanks said.

As for Maddux specifically, he is a unique case. While a great pitcher, I feel that there are a few reasons for his high K amounts other than that he was a SO pitcher:

1. Durability - If you stay healthy and get more starts, you are gonna get more K's.
2. Movement and changing speeds - Keep hitters off balance and you will get more K's.

He has averaged around 162 K's per season for his full MLB seasons. With the amount of starts per season, that's not too many. Too me, his K's are more a sign of compilation than they are because he was a strikeout pitcher.

[giants8307]

I don't think rueter is a #5. He's around a #7-8 . If he NEEDS a good defense behind him, he isn't really that good. He's just relying on the talent of his team. The rest of the rotation is pretty good though, IMO. I guess I just think more highly of lowry, foppert, tomko...

As for offense, I've been hearing Magglio might be going for a 1-year deal to raise his value(a la Nomar). The Chronicle also reported the Giants will have 5-8 Mill for another FA. Maybe Magglio for 1 year 8 M...?

I agree about Rueter being a #7 or 8 starter but I disagree about if you need the defense behind you, then you're not very good. Many pitchers like Maddux or Glavine learned that you don't need to strike everyone out to be successful. It usually cuts down on the pitches and can lengthen careers..

Glavine doesn't strike everyone out, although he has had some pretty good K/9 ratios in the past(6-8). However, he doesn't allow HR's or walks, which is more than I can say for rueter. So, i guess I agree that if you can keep the ball down and throw strikes, you can be successful.

Maddux on, the other hand, has consistently been around 7K/9. Thats pretty good. I'd say he actually is a SO pitcher. He had 204 K's in 1998. Not too shabby.

I agree with you and TheYanks04. The difference between those 2 are that they got strikeouts because they were great pitchers. The got them because they changed speeds and moved the ball around. They weren't your typical fireballers. It also has to do with the strikezones, like Yanks said.

As for Maddux specifically, he is a unique case. While a great pitcher, I feel that there are a few reasons for his high K amounts other than that he was a SO pitcher:

1. Durability - If you stay healthy and get more starts, you are gonna get more K's.
2. Movement and changing speeds - Keep hitters off balance and you will get more K's.

He has averaged around 162 K's per season for his full MLB seasons. With the amount of starts per season, that's not too many. Too me, his K's are more a sign of compilation than they are because he was a strikeout pitcher.

I certainly agree that k/9 is a better stat to look at than k/season. I also agree that you don't have to be a fireballer to get k's. I think changing speeds is actually more important than having great "stuff"(I could never hit a change-up ). However, 7k/9 is pretty good. People just don't think of him as a "K" guy because he doesn't have a plus fastball.

Interesting note: When maddux had his three best years(ERA-wise), he had VERY impressive stats in either k's, HR's allowed, or walks allowed.

[SaintsOfTheDiamond]

While it does help to have a larger strike zone, they also had to earn it. They didn't just come into the majors with an extra 6" on the plate.

[Lofunzo]

I don't think rueter is a #5. He's around a #7-8 . If he NEEDS a good defense behind him, he isn't really that good. He's just relying on the talent of his team. The rest of the rotation is pretty good though, IMO. I guess I just think more highly of lowry, foppert, tomko...

As for offense, I've been hearing Magglio might be going for a 1-year deal to raise his value(a la Nomar). The Chronicle also reported the Giants will have 5-8 Mill for another FA. Maybe Magglio for 1 year 8 M...?

I agree about Rueter being a #7 or 8 starter but I disagree about if you need the defense behind you, then you're not very good. Many pitchers like Maddux or Glavine learned that you don't need to strike everyone out to be successful. It usually cuts down on the pitches and can lengthen careers..

Glavine doesn't strike everyone out, although he has had some pretty good K/9 ratios in the past(6-8). However, he doesn't allow HR's or walks, which is more than I can say for rueter. So, i guess I agree that if you can keep the ball down and throw strikes, you can be successful.

Maddux on, the other hand, has consistently been around 7K/9. Thats pretty good. I'd say he actually is a SO pitcher. He had 204 K's in 1998. Not too shabby.

I agree with you and TheYanks04. The difference between those 2 are that they got strikeouts because they were great pitchers. The got them because they changed speeds and moved the ball around. They weren't your typical fireballers. It also has to do with the strikezones, like Yanks said.

As for Maddux specifically, he is a unique case. While a great pitcher, I feel that there are a few reasons for his high K amounts other than that he was a SO pitcher:

1. Durability - If you stay healthy and get more starts, you are gonna get more K's.
2. Movement and changing speeds - Keep hitters off balance and you will get more K's.

He has averaged around 162 K's per season for his full MLB seasons. With the amount of starts per season, that's not too many. Too me, his K's are more a sign of compilation than they are because he was a strikeout pitcher.

I certainly agree that k/9 is a better stat to look at than k/season. I also agree that you don't have to be a fireballer to get k's. I think changing speeds is actually more important than having great "stuff"(I could never hit a change-up ). However, 7k/9 is pretty good. People just don't think of him as a "K" guy because he doesn't have a plus fastball.

Interesting note: When maddux had his three best years(ERA-wise), he had VERY impressive stats in either k's, HR's allowed, or walks allowed.

I agree about the K/9 but my calculation is around 6.28, which is quite a bit under 7 for a career that long.

While it does help to have a larger strike zone, they also had to earn it. They didn't just come into the majors with an extra 6" on the plate.

I understand what you are saying and agree to a point but shouldn't a strike still be a strike and a ball a ball??