the team is 9-3 when he starts(yeah, run support) and, if you throw out his 2 worst starts, when he really got
bombed, May 6 vs. PITT and APR 4 vs. MIL....his numbers look a little like:

60 IP      49 H     18 r - 17er     3 HR      31 BB    59 K        and    2.55 ERA

and yesterday makes 4 QS in a row where he alowed only 2 runs and pitched 6 or more innings…

i think Cain has plateau’d – think he needs to be a #1 in his mind and its not going to happen here with Lincecum around

You say it isn’t even close between Cain and Sanchez? I was going to make an argument based on Matt’s being proven, while Jonathan’s success has been rather brief. Maybe I could have made an argument on behalf of Matt since he hasn’t had arm problems (at least since early in his minor league career) while Jonathan has had some arm difficulties each of the past two seasons.

But I wasn’t going to say it wasn’t even close - because I believe that this season Jonathan has pitched as well as - if not slightly better than—Matt.

I would take Matt over Jonathan for his stability (although he’s actually been quite erratic during his brief career and has had surprisingly few quality starts for a guy who until recently was considered the Giants’ ace) and for Matt’s better arm health. But I actually believe Jonathan has a higher ceiling.

I had never seen Matt pitch prior to his major league debut. But it became clear in that debut that even while he was pitching phenomenally in that month-plus in 2005 he didn’t get enough swing-throughs to be considered a clear-cut ace. After watching Matt’s 14-pitch battle with Todd Helton in which Todd kept fouling off pitch after pitch before flying out to very deep left center field, I made the comment on another board that Matt might be only a #2 pitcher rather than the #1 he was projected to be.

I was pretty much verbally castrated for that remark, but we now see that indeed Matt might not be a #1—and the guy who asked this question apparently believes it is possible Matt is already on the Giants’ #3 (although I don’t yet agree).

I like Matt a lot. I think he’s got a great baseball attitude—confident yet humble. Willing to be honest and take responsibility. But he has actually been quite inconsistent in his career and has only a 60% quality start rate. That’s certainly not horrible, but it’s also not ace-like.

I do think Matt is on track this season after a slow start. Take that one horrid start in mid-April away, and he actually has pitched well. But we know how badly Matt struggled in 2006 before bouncing back strongly after missing a start much as Barry Zito did this season. We also know that he was FABULOUS in April of last year before posting an awful WHIP in May through July—and then bouncing back with a very nice August and September in which he walked only 1.80 batters per nine innings and seemed to have solved his control problem.

This season has shown that clearly wasn’t the case. But I still like Matt as a solid #2—just not as a #1. Which with the Giants he thankfully doesn’t have to be.

Misch makes me long for Correia.

how much upside is left for Cain?

I don’t want to see Jonathan Sanchez pitch quite 200 innings this season. Given his past arm problems and his never having approached 200 innings before, I would be happier with 180-190.

According to PITCH/fx, last season Matt’s change up was a nice second pitch. It wasn’t as effective as Tim Lincecum’s, but Matt got his change over far more frequently than Tim did.

PITCH/fx also confirmed that Matt’s slider was a home run pitch—and indeed Matt is using it less this season (not that it has helped his homer rate). For whatever reason, I think Matt has lost a little off his fastball, which has resulted in his higher number of homers.

But like you, I like his curve and change, the latter of which he sadly hasn’t controlled nearly as well this season. I think Matt has turned the corner and expect a good final four months from him. But I don’t think he’s an ace, and my best guess would be that he won’t become one.

i dont get the feeling he’s going to live up to what was expected of him around here- maybe they were too high…(yes of course, maybe im high)

I don’t see what is wrong in asking questions. You are correct that it may be too soon for us to formulate great answers, but I see nothing wrong with asking questions. Isn’t that what it’s all about—asking qustions so we can learn?

There was a poster on another Giants board who said two years ago he wouldn’t trade Matt Cain for Miguel Cabera. I told him he was crazy (at least on that particular topic).

I certainly wouldn’t trade Matt just to trade him, but if the Giants could get a package anything like the one the A’s got for Dan Haren, I would indeed pull the trigger.

Matt Cain hasn’t pitched excellently for the Giants, let alone excellent. Matt’s career ERA is 3.82. That’s good pitching—but it isn’t excellent pitching.

Before the season I had a gentlemen’s bet with a pitching coach whose screen name is “Husker Bob.” Bob said he thought Matt Cain would give up fewer home runs than Tim Lincecum. You can guess which side of that argument I took.

The count now stands at Matt 11, Tim 3. IMO Husker Bob was overlooking that Tim is more of a ground ball pitcher than Matt—and that Tim is also a BETTER pitcher than Matt.

Matt Cain is not a phenom—at least not so far. A 3.82 ERA doesn’t show a phenom.

I agree with you that Matt is the Giants’ biggest candidate to throw a no-hitter, although I wouldn’t have Tim too far behind.

I believe it was here that I posted that thought a year ago April, and someone asked me why I felt that way. I can’t remember exactly what my reply was, but it has to do with Matt’s amazing ability to keep people from hitting the ball hard in play when he is really, really on. Tim strikes out more, but his BABIP isn’t as low as Matt’s.

I think over time their BABIP’s against will come closer together, but when he is on, Matt seems to have a great ability to get away with high strikes with his fastball—even moreso IMO than Tim. Matt gets more hit out, but he gets fewer hit hard enough for hits.

Throwing no hitters has virtually nothing to do with how good a pitcher one is, as is amply proved by the many many extraordinary pitchers who never did it and the legions of mediocre ones who did. If neither Matt nor Tim throws a no-hitter does that suggest that they’re both inferior Giants pitchers to Ed Halicki?

Your point about Tim and Matt both being Giants is the best one of all. That said, while I would hate to see a negative competition between the two, I would like to see Matt push Tim a bit more.

But what about Barry Zito? :)

Is the fact that we have a ton of prospects that have shown the potential to HIT in the low TWOS!!!!

I mean, that’s even better than pitching in the three’s, right??