I suspect this idea will get shot down from a LOT of directions, but here it is: 

How about Matt Cain and Edgar Renteria for Dustin 'Pedroia?

The Giants get the reigning AL MVP, and a guy who won it at age 24, at that.  They greatly improve their middle infield, save a lot of salary and have control of Pedroia through 2015, whereas Cain can leave after 2011.  They open up a spot for Madison Bumgarner -- or they don't think he's ready, Joey Martinez or Kevin Pucetas.

The Red Sox get a fabulous starter to replace the injured and seemingly not recovering Diasuke Matsuzaka, they get to move their shortstop Nick Green back to the second base position he is more familiar with, and they get an experienced shortstop in Renteria.

Would the Red Sox make the deal?  Would the Giants?  Should they?  I'm leaving myself really exposed on this one.  Have at it!

Today is just another example of how the Giants have shown Matt Cain a horrible lack of run support and some cases such as this game, a lack of bullpen support.  Certainly Matt, who has been the most consistent of the Giants' fine starting rotation this season, pitched well enough to win -- and during the inning in which he was pinch hit for, finally received decent run support and seemed in great position for win #3 on the season, a win which would have brought his record to a perfect 3-0 after just four starts.

I mention Rxmeister because while he is one of the most knowledgeable posters anywhere, on another now-defunct Giants board got sucked up the thinking that Matt Cain can't hold a lead.  Today, of course, he didn't get that chance -- although he certainly kept the Giants in the game with his fine start, to the point where their three-run outburst in the eighth seemed guaranteed to provide him with another win.  But my research into Matt's career showed me two things:

First, Matt hasn't blown very many leads in his numerous losses and in fact has never blown one of more than two runs (although I'm going from memory here).  Most of the relatively few leads he has blown have been early in the game, which in theory should have given the Giants time to come back -- assuming they had any hitting, of course.  (Matt has received the second-worst run support of any starter not just in one season, but in each of the past two.)  Matt has never blown a lead after the sixth inning that resulted in his being charged with the loss.

Second, while Matt hasn't yet become the type of pitcher Giants fans perhaps incorrectly assumed he would be (at least not until this season to date), he has greatly improved the consistency of his pitching, beginning in late July, 2007.  That in theory should give him more opportunity for wins -- but once again that assumes the Giants get him runs.

Last season Tim Lincecum won 18 games; Matt, just seven.  And no question Tim outpitched Matt, fashioning an ERA that was over a run lower than Matt's.  But an even bigger problem for Matt -- who actually pitched well enough to have been expected to finish with a record slightly over .500 -- was that the Giants scored about a run and three-quarters less per nine innings more for Tim than they scored for Matt.

So those who think Matt can't hold a lead aren't very accurate in their perception, and those who don't think he has been consistent are ignoring the considerable improvement he has made in that area of the last year and three quarters (about a season and a half).

Last season Matt finished in the top 10 in the National League in quality starts.  Doesn't that demonstrate more than a modicum of consistency?  I believe that he finished in the top 10 (or perhaps just outside it) in 2007, as well -- although that was based on his phenomenal April and the consistency he developed late in July of that season.

Everyone here knows how much I love Tim Lincecum's pitching.  But in truth, Matt Cain is one of the most underrated starters in the game.  Now that he's finally getting some run support, he's beginning to show it.  If he had received better bullpen support today, he would have shown it even further.

As I looked more deeply into Wendell Fairley's .138 start at Augusta this season, the picture got even worse.  (Fortunately, we're talking about only 29 at bats, so Wendell has plenty of time to reverse this situation.)

Not only has Wendell struck out 13 times in those 29 at bats, he has yet to hit a line drive.  Not one.  He has yet to beat out a ground ball or have one find a hole.

Wendell's four hits in those 29 at bats have come on the five fly balls he has hit.  My sense is that three of those four fly ball hits were balls that weren't hit hard, but merely fell in.

Why do I feel that way?  Only one of the four hits went for extra bases, a triple.  Clearly that ball was hit hard enough to get past the outfielders.  The other three?  With Wendell's speed, if they had been hit hard at all, wouldn't he have been able to convert them into at least doubles?

So it may be that in 29 at bats thus far this season, Wendell has hit the ball hard in fair territory only once.

Ouch!

I was blessed to be able to watch Madison Bumgarner's season debut in person and his second outing on TV.  I missed his third outing today entirely.

Mad Bum has an exceptional fastball.  Not an exceptionally fast one (he was consistently between 91 and 93 in the game I saw live, exceeding 94 only once or twice), but one that seems very hard to hit, perhaps due to his three-quarters delivery.

In that start, he didn't use his secondary pitches as much as I would have liked (since those are the pitches he needs to refine), but against the Dodgers late in spring training, he threw an awesome curve to strike out Juan Pierrre and a fine change up to fan Manny Ramirez on three pitches.  Bumgarner allowed just one hit while striking out four in that three-inning outing.

What is perhaps most impressive about Mad Bum is the way he pounds the strike zone for a southpaw power pitcher.  He has walked only two batters in 16 innings, and those two were consecutive.  Last season he walked a total of 21.

Although Barry Zito might have disproved me today with seven shutout innings, I think Mad Bum could pitch as well as Barry RIGHT NOW, even though Madison is still just 19 and will remain so through two-thirds of the season.

IMO if Madison Bumgarner remains healthy, he will go on to a fabulous career.

Great control by Tim Lincecum today.  His velocity was still down a touch.  (Remember, two days ago he was out sick and was even examined for the possibility of a serious problem.)  But this might have been the best control he has shown.

Not sure of the exact number of strikes he threw in his 98 pitches, but I think it was right around 75.  His 13 strikeouts came on five curves, three fastballs, three change ups and two sliders.  Many of Tim's called balls seemed to just miss.

You no doubt saw Tim as quoted that his rhythm problem was caused by a lack of timing between his forward thrust and his back torque as he generates that thrust.  This was resulting in an inconsistent landing spot and also a lower release point, which can cause the fastball to sail sideways more and his curve to dive into the dirt.

Tim said he looked at video, which he has done nearly all his life but probably got away from now that he's in the majors.  Tim's dad told me Tim had figured it out or soon would.

I think we can safely say he had it figured out today.  One of the best starts of his career.  Probably his most efficient.  To have more strikeouts (13) than pitches per inning (12.1) is quite an accomplishment, particularly for a power pitcher.

Tim next pitches a week from today.  I think there is a chance the Giants will have scored again by that time.  :)

Continue reading this post »

I mentioned in the post on Brian Wilson's far better performance when he had regular work that there are several different types of saves.  I listed five types, with the toughest one being when a pitcher entered the game with runners on second and third )or with the bases loaded) and no outs -- in a one-run game.

Now I see that Bill James has a name for such saves (although he limited his to bases loaded, not runners only on second and third).  He calls such saves Extreme Houdini saves.

One of the points I made in my previous post was that two- and especially three-run saves were easy saves that any decent pitcher should achieve a high percentage of the time.  But the Houdini saves are darn tough.

How tough?  So tough that there have been only eight Extreme Houdini saves since 1974 -- and none since 2000.

I think most relief pitchers in general and closers in particular would benefit from more regular work.  Wilson appears to be a prime candidate.  I think baseball is ripe for a re-examination of how closers are used.

If the Giants had used Brian Wilson on a strict schedule of no more than two days in a row and no more than two days between appearances, he would have missed out on only two of his 47 save opportunities last season.  That doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice to make, given that his ERA when used regularly was several runs lower than when he wasn't.

Let's see closers making more tough saves (and perhaps even the occasional Extreme Houdini) and fewer two- and especially three-run saves.  Sometimes the time when a true Houdini is needed is in an earlier inning -- when the bases might be loaded with no outs or one out.  Why not use the closer in such critical situations?

If the fire isn't doused in that particular situation, there most likely won't be a game for the closer to save later.  Saves are important.  Team wins are even more so.

Harry Houdini was at his best when his tricks were tough.  He proved his stuff by making escapes on one else could make -- not by making the routine ones.

Continue reading this post »

It

Continue reading this post »

The first-ever gathering of the McCovey Chronicles brethren and sisteren at the appropriately titled McCovey Chronicles' Restaurant at McCovey's Cove East was a rousing success -- at least for me.  What great people and great Giants fans I was permitted to meet.

After the event, appropriately capped by a Giant win after inappropriately being temporarily thrown off track by yet another Giants arsonist, I was able to spend time conversing with DeLorean and his wife, girlfriend, could I marry her if you ever get tired of her?

And naturally we talked about ... cars.  Turns out this lovely thing drives the exact same car I do.  Mazda.  MX 5 (aka Miata).  Charcoal. Black top.  I thought about telling DeLorean that he could just HAVE my car, and I would drive home with HER.

But I didn't, since I had spent the lovely evening sitting next to the delicious (offered me dessert -- no, not THAT kind, you lecherous thing, you), delightful, charming and talented Baron, sexily adorned in her finest McCovey Chronicles T-shirt.  Well, yeah, she was wearing pants, too.

Oh, and I brought my friend Jim, the only guy I know who looks as goofy as I.  He had never met ANYONE like the McCoven.  But then, neither had I.

So as I walked to my car, cursing myself for choosing it over DeLorean's prized possession, I ran into none other than Toothpick, so nicknamed by none other than Willie McCovey himself.  Toothpick, who was one of the two nice people who greeted us at the front door and helped us figure out why there was no reservation under the obvious name, "McCovey Chronicles" and under what name the actual reservation -- I was beginning to have some -- was made.

And Toothpick had the most wonderful suggestion for our next gathering, the one after they add "Chronicles" to the restaurant's name.  Hopefully that gathering will be soon and become maybe a twice-a-season-or-so event, perhaps even with a hot stove league session.  Toothpick suggested that we call ahead and ask if they would reserve the "McCovey Room" for us -- the one in the back where Willie himself eats when he visits, the one with the mementos under glass, right under your place mat.  The private room with the two TV's!  The one where we can scream our celebration of the inevitable Giants win without causing heart attacks among the startled patrons.

Toothpick said the McCovey Room has a two-hour limit, but that when we tell them that we ARE The McCovey Chronicles, they might be willing to waive it -- presumably if we promise them a Giants win!

Anyway, I just wanted to thank all involved for a WONDERFUL time.  It was really cool to meet all you fabulous people and CRAZY-mad fans.

Oh, I wanted to tell Baron and she and I would make a strange and wonderful couple, since I'm strange and she's wonderful.

And DeLorean, if you ever need help ...

And, no, Jim and I are not gay.

I'm sure our posters noticed the new keystone combination employed -- and, yes, even played -- by the Giants last night. They may even have noticed that Dave Roberts was playing left field and batting third, cleverly disguised as Freddie Lewis.

They probably noticed that after the trade deadline Jose Castillo was no longer playing second base and that Omar Vizquel and Rich Aurilia weren't starting, period.

But in last night's second inning, did they notice the name change made by the Giants' first baseman -- you know, that good-looking young man with the crew cut who keeps hitting line drives that hang up for the outfielders to catch?

Yes, in the second inning of last night's game, in the court of public opinion, that first baseman changed his name to John Balker.

Before there were closers, there were firemen.  Of course there were -- and remain -- arsonists such as Tyler Walker and Jack Taschner, but that is why firemen are needed.

So what is the difference between a closer and a fireman?  The closer pitches the final inning, hopefully mopping up the affair in a positive manner.  The fireman comes in when things are dangerous, puts out the fire, and keeps the game safe until it is over.

Obviously the Giants chose to use Brian Wilson as the closer in Tim Lincecum's last two starts -- but since he was going to come in after arsonists Walker a week ago and Taschner last night, he didn't get the chance.

The answer, of course, is that Brian should have been used as a fireman, entering the game in the eighth inning when things could get hot, and finished out the game.  Would he have a league-leading 29 saves if he were used in this manner?  Probably not.  Would he have made a bigger contribution to Giants' wins? Almost certainly.

The save rule has distorted how a team's best relievers are used.  The object of the game has been perniciously distorted.  Back in the days of the fireman, the object was to win the game.  Now the object seems to be to get the closer as many saves as possible.

So the closer is used for the ninth inning -- even if the difference is three runs.  Teams score three runs or more only once in 16 innings.  Does it make more sense to bring in your best pitcher into a situation in which the average pitcher will still allow your team to win more than 15 out of 16 times?

Or would it make more sense to bring in that great reliever into a one-run game when the opponents have the bases loaded with no one out and their cleanup hitter at the plate?  Even if the game is an inning that is earlier than the ninth?

Should a team's best reliever be brought in only in one-inning save situations and in some games just to keep him from getting rusty since there haven't been any save situations?  Or would it be better to bring him in earlier in a game, when the situation is the most dangerous but when he might have to pitch more than an inning to earn the save?

In other words, would it be better to use a combination of arsonists and a closer to hope to win a game -- or would it be better to use a fireman to put the fire out, or possibly even preventing the fire from developing, say to begin the eighth inning of a one-run game?

As Yogi the Berra always says, only you can prevent baseball fires.

I have a question to pose.  This season the two top Giants everyday rookies, John Bowker and Freddie Lewis, have hit .274 and .273, respectively.  Lewis' career average is .283, while since all Bowker's at bats are this season, his is the same .274 as his season's average.

So my question is this:  Which player is more likely to maintain or improve his seasonal batting average, and why?

I have done some research on the matter and have some ideas, but before I get into them, I'm curious as to what others think -- and their reasons for doing so.

Continue reading this post »

Continue reading this post »

Entering this season many Giants fans looked at Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain as Twin Towers of Twirling.  They figured both were potential aces, All-Stars and even Hall of Famers.

Suddenly Lincecum has emerged as the potential hardware bearer, while Cain has struggled to get the lead out.  Matt uncharacteristically gave up nine earned runs in one start.  Tim has given up nine earned runs total in eight starts.

Why the sudden split in direction by the two 23-year-olds?

Continue reading this post »

Because inquiring minds want to know, here is where Timothy LeRoy Lincecum's middle name came from.

Continue reading this post »

Yes, this is about Tim Lincecum -- but my purpose is to get others to broaden it out.

Continue reading this post »

If you aren't into Tim Lincecum or game-by-game pitching, don't read this.

Continue reading this post »

Sorry about the title.  I just wanted to see if you were paying attention.  :)

Continue reading this post »

I apologize in advance to anyone who is tired of reading about Tim Lincecum.  If you are, one of two courses of action are available to you:

First, you could take the obvious step of ignoring this post.

Second, you could read it and possibly learn something about one of the most exciting young pitchers in baseball.

Unfortunately I could only listen to this game on radio.  To make matters worse, I had technical problems with my computer (I think "mechanical problems" is a euphism for "operator error.") so I missed Tim's first inning.  I do know that he recorded three straight air outs in the inning on nine pitches, six of which were strikes.  Tim didn't strike out a batter -- but then went on to fan nine hitters in his final four innings of work.

On the evening, Tim threw only 67 pitches (It was drizzling throughout his effort.), 43 (64%) of them strikes.  On the 58 pitches I recorded, 21 were balls, 13 were called strikes, 10 were swinging strikes, 11 were foul balls and three were put into play (none for hits).  Guessing at Tim's first inning, let's proffer 67 pitches, 24 balls, 14 called strikes, 11 swinging strikes, 12 foul balls and six balls in play.

In the final four innings, Tim threw only six strikes and seven balls to the 13 batters he faced.  Assuming his nine first-inning pitches would indicate at least two first-pitch strikes in the inning, he would wind up at seen first-pitch strikes and nine balls.  To be honest, that's about as poorly as he did last year.  Worse, of the six batters to whom I listed and recorded first-pitch balls, Tim immediately threw ball two to four of the six.

But Tim seemed to be able to throw strikes when he needed to, walking only one (which came on a batter to whom he went 2-0, 2-1, 2-2, 3-2, walk).

The Giants' announcers were most impressed with his ability to throw his change up for strikes on 3-1 and 3-2 counts.  They said he had all four pitches working tonight.

One poster asked how Tim did when he fell behind, so here are the results after 1-0, 2-0 and 3-2.  Tim had no 3-0 or 3-1 counts.  The results are over the game's last four innings, since I missed the first.  With only nine pitches in the first inning, though, Tim likely wasn't behind more than one hitter.

1-0 -- Walk, two popups, one ground out, two strike outs.

2-0 -- Walk, popup, two strike outs.

3-1 -- Walk and three strike outs.

Clearly Tim was well able to pitch from behind tonight -- even though that isn't always the case.

I will endeavor to find out he did when behind in the count last season and will make a follow-up post here.

It took me darn near three hours to access the Giants/Rangers game on mlb.tv after a late Easter brunch.  Neither two mlb.tv customer service guys or I could figure out the problem -- but finally it just went away.

Which finally allowed me to watch the game, which showed primarily a continuation of the good things Lincecum has been doing this spring and resulted in a very solid, although not dominating, outing in which only two of the seven hits he yielded was hit hard.

Once of them, a two-run homer by Ben Broussard in the second, was REALLY hit hard.  When Tim leaves his fastball up in the zone -- especially against lefthanded power hitters -- they can sometimes hit it a long way.  And Broussard certainly did, easily clearing a high center field fence.

Interesting, by my count (and with no speed gun I could misname a pitch here or there) all but one of the hits off Tim came on such fastballs -- up, but not over the hands.  The only hit on an offspeed pitch as far as I could tell was a bloop single to left.

Tim continued to start most batters off with strikes, throwing first-pitch strikes to 16 of the 25 batters he faced.  While that was down a bit from his other starts that I have logged, it was still nearly 10% higher than the paltry 55% he recorded last season.  Incidentally, the Broussard homer came after a first-pitch ball

Tim also continued his trend of lots of ground balls and strikeouts.  He fanned seven in his six innings (96 pitches, 59 strikes), two by fastball, three on his curve and two with his change up.  Three were called; four were swinging.

He also recorded nine of his other 11 outs by ground ball, with one coming on a fly ball and another on a line drive.  The seven hits came on four ground balls, one line drive and two fly balls, one of them (Broussard) hit -- very -- hard.

So Tim's spring remains marked by lots of strikeouts, ground balls and hits -- mostly singles not hit hard.  He is still striking out more than a batter per inning, even if we don't include his minor league start in which he fanned eight in five innings.  He has yielded only the one home run.  His walks have been improving.  His strike percentage -- especially on first pitches -- is up.

The only real problems Tim has had this spring have been a somewhat shaky defense and a BABIP against of right around .400 (and actually slightly above it, I believe).  Most of the hits Tim has yielded have been up the middle or toward the lines.  He hasn't given up much in the alleys.  I know I was (somewhat rightly) criticized here for saying the Giants fielders should mostly cheat the middle and the lines (which would open up some L-A-R-G-E holes), but those are the directions most batters hit against Tim.

They have a hard time pulling his fastball, although lefty hitters often hit his curve down the first-base line.  A very high percentage of hits against Tim go up the middle.  Even most of the homers he yields (and particularly the hardest-hit ones) tend to be close to center field.

Tim's pitching splits haven't really differed much between lefty hitters and righthanders.  Righty hitters actually hit for the higher average, but lefties walk more and hit for more power against Tim.

For some, this was probably pretty boring.  But I do know a few of you are interested in learning how one of the young pitchers with seemingly a very high potential accomplishes his task.

Compliments of Joe Ritzo, radio announcer for the San Jose Giants, here is a summary of Tim Lincecum's start today for the San Jose Giants against the Stockton Ports (A's):

Roger,

I'm not in Scottsdale right now, but here are Lincecum's numbers from today's start:

5 innings
5 hits
2 runs
1 BB
8 SO
1 HBP
85 pitches (only three times did he go to a 3-ball count)

Hope that helps.

I mentioned in my original post on Tim's start that there was a limit to what one can learn from listening to a start on the radio.

Fortunately I am now in Arizona for the first time in many years and was fortunate enough to sit near a couple of guys who witnessed Tim's Wednesday start first-hand.  Here is what I learned (and it's all good).

First of all, despite giving up six hits in two innings, Tim wasn't hit hard.  In fact, the guys said that his first inning, the one in which he yielded all eight of his runs, was a defensive farce.  In particular they cited the key blow of the inning, a bases-loaded, bases-clearing double to center field.

Apparently Aaron Rowand, who even today didn't look at all like a Gold Glove center fielder and seems to be having a hard time adjusting to the high sky of Arizona, froze on the double and was unable to get back on it despite it's falling "10 or 15 feet" short of the warning track.

There was a double over Rowand's head today -- one which was a legitimate double but which Rowand twisted and turned on and conceivably MIGHT have had with a better route.  I asked if the double off Tim was similar.  They said no, that the double off Tim was a much easier play, that Rowand just seemed to freeze, presumedly losing the ball in the high sky.

So Tim wasn't really hit hard.  It sounded as if as few as one of the six hits was hard-hit and a legitimate hit.

Secondly, as I later reported, Tim WAS trying out his slider -- and apparently leaving it up where it could be hit.  In the words of these guys, it seemed as if Tim was frequently getting hitters 0-2 and then experimenting with the slider.  They were particularly impressed with Tim's change up, which they said was really dropping off.

According to PITCH/fx, Tim's fastball and change have very similar horizontal movement -- but the change up drops quite a bit more.  When I chart Tim without a speed gun, I rely on the late drop of the pitch (as well as the batter's swing) to know if it is a fastball or a change up.

I mentioned in a previous post that Tim's control in the game was very intermittent.  Perhaps his experimenting with the slider had a fair amount to do with that.

Now the bad news is that it sounds as if Tim's new slider definitely isn't where he wants it to be.  But the good news is that he apparently pitched MUCH better than the four runs, six hits, two walks and one hit batsman would initially indicate.

It sounds more as if he pitched closer to what his four strikeouts in two innings might have shown.

Tim likely has three more starts.  His next one is Monday.  Although I will still be in Arizona until the early evening, the game is a ways away in Tucson, so I will likely see if I can get a late check out and watch it on mlb.tv.  I will likely be able to see his pitches better that way than if I were to go to Tucson, unless I got very lucky with my ticket.

Tim's next three starts will obviously be more important than his first three.  My guess is that his pitch-count limits will be 70, 80 and 90, respectively.

I have no idea what Tim's focus will be in the final three starts, but clearly the end objective will be to be ready for the opening of the regular season.  It appears Tim will open the Giants' second series (Padres?)and that the Giants will use only four starters the first time or two around, given the off-days that are available.

What I WOULD focus on if I were Tim would be control, particularly of his first pitch, something he seems to indeed have improved on, and on deciding how he should be using or not using his new slider.

Clearly having another pitch would be a bonus, as long as is at least a plus pitch.  But with what I would consider to be three plus-plus pitches already, I think all Tim needs to be an outstanding pitcher is control -- and that all he needs (besides health, of course) to become an all-time great is command.

Of course, NEITHER good control nor especially good command is a certainty.  But I think Giants' fans will like what they see from Tim this season -- a LOT.  Maybe even enough to take their minds off how many years back one will have to go to find a team that has scored as few runs as the Giants are likely to score.

As an aside, it appeared to me that barring a collapse, Eugenio Velez made the Giants' roster with his outstanding game today.  I don't think he'll hit, but the guy can flat-out fly.

It's hard to tell as much as one would like from listening to an outing on the radio, and I probably wouldn't even have mentioned Tim Lincecum's outing today.

Except that it was a bad one.  Six hits, two walks and one hbp in two innings can't be too good.

Here are the silver linings (which don't take away from a rough outing):

.  12 first-pitch strikes out of 15 batters.

.  39 strikes (66%) on 59 pitches.

.  Four strike outs and one ground out in two innings.

.  Curve and change seemed to be working well, but I'm guessing the fastball was being hit when Tim left it up in the zone.

I am leaving for the Phoenix area tomorrow night, so I'm hoping I will get to see Tim pitch on Sunday.  If not, he will likely pitch on Monday, a game that will be on mlb.tv.

Tim Lincecum was an apparently missed call from a very good outing today, and still wound up with a good one --his three runs yielded in just 2 1/3 innings not withstanding.

Tony Clark, just chosen as the Player of the Game by mlb.tv in the Padres' 9-6 win, doubled in two runs on a 3-2 hanging curve ball or slider from Tim.  Yet that could have been Tim's most impressive batter faced had things gone just a bit differently.

Tim made Tony look bad with swing throughs on a low, outside change and a low, inside curve on the first two pitches of the at bat.  Tony then barely checked his swing on a fastball or possible slider low and inside.  Then to be honest, Tony froze and was struck out by a high, outside fastball on which he couldn't get off a swing.  Unfortunately the umpire, who I felt had a generous zone otherwise, particularly on high pitches, appeared to freeze too.  I was shocked when the pitch wasn't called strike three (for what would have been Tim's fourth strikeout in 2 2/3 innings), and the neutral TV announcers also thought it was strike three.

The next pitch, in almost the same spot, could have been called strike three, as well, although I thought it just missed.

So after making Clark look bad with the change up and curve, Tim almost struck him out with each of his next three fastballs.  Then he hung his curve or slider, his worst pitch of the game.

Tim threw 34 strikes on 51 pitches (67%) and would have had a very impressive 35 strikes on 49 pitches (72%)had that 1-2 fastball been called a strike.  10 of Tim's 13 first-pitches were strikes (77%), an even more impressive development.  

Tim recorded three outs by strikeout, three on ground balls and one on an air out (a line drive to right).  Over his first two starts, Tim has now recorded eight outs on ground balls, four on strikeouts and just two on air outs.

If Tim pitches as well this season as he did on his first 49 pitches today, he will indeed have the breakout season I am expecting.