clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Better? Worse?

New, comments

Cain and Lincecum, then pray for tendons numb. If you can think of a better rhyme to allude to the old Sain and Spahn saying - "Spahn and Sain, then pray for rain" - you must be some sort of genius. But that's not the point. The point is that the Giants have two pitchers worth building around. Really worth building around. The rest of the baseball world is jealous of this. You can see it in their eyes. When people make fun of the Giants for not developing any outfielders of note since the U.S.S.R. invaded Afghanistan, you can tell that they're just jealous of Cain and Lincecum.

The rest of the team...not so much jealousy directed toward those guys. Cain and Lincecum form quite a start to a rebuilding team, though, and that's not even noting the potential of both Noah Lowry and Barry Zito, the young arms (Jonathan Sanchez, Pat Misch) close to the majors, the young arms (Clayton Tanner, Henry Sosa, Ben Snyder) not-so-close to the majors, and the young arms (2007 draft class) really-not-so-close to the majors. There's a pretty nice stockpile of young pitching here.

So the question: Is this better or worse than having a stockpile of young hitting talent without young pitching talent? The obvious example of the bizarro 2007 Giants would be a team like the 2003/2004 Texas Rangers, who were getting players in the lineup like Hank Blalock, Mark Teixiera, Michael Young, Kevin Mench, and Laynce Nix, but suffering though some absolutely horrible starting pitching at the same time. The ERAs of their starters went 4.85, 5.49, 6.10, 7.11, 7.30 in 2003. The Ballpark at Arlington was an extreme hitter's park, but good gravy. That's a bad bunch in 1995 Coors Field.

Also of note: Just because pitchers are riskier than hitters, doesn't mean that hitters are always locks to succeed. Blalock looked like a first-ballot Hall-of-Famer until he filed a Ben Grievance. Mench and Nix never did much. Young and Teixiera became stars, but it wasn't enough to make up for the total lack of pitching development.

Would you trade the Giants' position for that of an organization filled with no-pitch/all-hit youngsters? Is it easier to build a competent staff around a fantastic offense, or a fantastic staff around a competent offense? Maybe this is the wrong time to bring up the discussion topic, as Noah Lowry is continuing to morris down his trade value, which hurts the Giants' chances not only at a fantastic staff, but a competent offense as well.

I feel like an eye doctor. Better or worse? (flips something) Better or worse? About the same? (flips something else) Better? (flips something) Worse? About the same? (flips something else, and allows mild disgust to creep into his voice because you're getting the answers wrong) Better? Worse? (more flipping, more disgust)

The question still stands.