PDA

View Full Version : Matt Cain, Tim Lincecum, Cole Hammels or Justin Verlander



lincecum98
10-21-2007, 03:49 PM
Who would you take if you were starting a new team?

Gigantes4Life
10-21-2007, 04:03 PM
I may be a bit biased, but I'm so confident Matt Cain is going to be a stud someday, and not too far away.

Buckwheat
10-21-2007, 04:32 PM
1. Verlander
2. Lincecum
3. Hamels
4. Cain
5. Buchholtz
6. Chamberlain

WhyDuquette
10-21-2007, 04:36 PM
1. Verlander
2. Hamels
3. Lincecum
4. Cain
5. Buchholtz
6. Chamberlain

McJoe
10-21-2007, 05:26 PM
i think its cain i really think that guy is going to be awesome and if sanfran still sucks then very few ppl will notice and the quicker he gets out of there the better....id rank them:

1. Cain
2. Verlander
3. Hamels
4. Chamberlin
5. Buchholz
6. Lincecum

not a fun group for lincecum to be mentioned in...5 aces and a 2 or 3 pitcher right there...lincecum (if zito bounces back) could be the 4th starter on his own team

Phillies2606
10-21-2007, 05:29 PM
1. Hamels
2. Cain
3. Verlander
4. Lincecum
5. Bucholz
6. Chamberlain

Jilly Bohnson
10-21-2007, 06:01 PM
Verlander
Lincecum
Hamels(he'd probably be #1 for me if not for injury problems)
Cain(****ty control, he's the white Carlos Zambrano, but that's still pretty damn good)
Bucholz
Chamberlain

Verlander's IMO a no brainer, he's durable, has amazing stuff, and the strides he made from 06 to 07 are huge, his ERA didn't get that much better, but he "learned how to pitch" so to say and struck out A LOT more guys and didn't sacrifice too much control to do so. If I were a betting man I'd say he's going to keep improving in that regard.

Lincecum's a rock. Great stuff, as far as I know he's never really been hurt, his delivery is unorthodox but hasn't lead to any problems yet, the only real knock is his control. He's probabably going to be a 100 walk guy, although with his ridiculous K rate and the fact that his stuff is nearly unhittable, it shouldn't hurt him too much.

Hamels is sick. Lots of K's, good control, lefty, and has very good stuff. If not for his injury history he'd probably be my number 1.

Matt Cain is like Lincecum light IMO, not quite as good stuff, but not quite as bad control. I'd like to see him get more K's though. Guys with stuff as good as him should have a higher K/9 than Cains 7.34 from this year.

Bucholz and Chamberlain are unknowns for the most part. Neither has even 30 ML innings under their belt. From my limited experience watching them though I'd go with Buchholz. I'd imagine as a starter the difference between Joba's and Clay's stuff isn't all that big, but Joba has the added wrinkle of being out of shape and an injury concern.

Gigantes4Life
10-21-2007, 06:09 PM
Wow, I really can't believe everyone's putting Lincecum ahead of Cain.

Sbank
10-21-2007, 06:17 PM
Justin Verlander
Cole Hammels
Matt Cain
Tim Lincecum
Joba Chamberlain
Clay Buchholtz

JoshJones08
10-21-2007, 06:42 PM
1. Verlander
2. Joba
3. Linececum
4. Cain
5. Buckholtz
6. Hamels

-BayAreaJunkie-
10-21-2007, 08:16 PM
Cain has way more potential than Lincecum. And Lincecum is loaded with potential. Do you guys not realize that Cain is younger than Lincecum? Cain just turned 23 and in his sophomore season posted a 3.65 ERA while his team disappointed him almost every outing. Not many young pitchers can pitch lights out and have his bullpen/offense blow it for him almost everytime out there and keep pitching like a stud.

Gigantes4Life
10-21-2007, 08:34 PM
And already have the 2nd most 1 hitters of all-time.

JAYZFAN9
10-21-2007, 09:51 PM
1.verlander





3. everyone else on the list

BlackMage
10-22-2007, 07:37 AM
Verlander, Hamels, Cain, Lincecum

Jilly Bohnson
10-22-2007, 06:07 PM
Cain has way more potential than Lincecum. And Lincecum is loaded with potential. Do you guys not realize that Cain is younger than Lincecum? Cain just turned 23 and in his sophomore season posted a 3.65 ERA while his team disappointed him almost every outing. Not many young pitchers can pitch lights out and have his bullpen/offense blow it for him almost everytime out there and keep pitching like a stud.

While I don't follow the Giants as closely as you, here's how I think of it. As a Cubs fan, there are obvious Prior and Wood parallels here. Wood had maybe the best stuff of anyone in the past 15 years not named Pedro Martinez or Randy Johnson, however his control was lacking. Prior on the other hand had very good stuff, although not nearly as good as Wood's or several other pitchers around, but had great control to go along with it. In terms of stuff I'd say Lincecum is Wood and Cain is Prior. However, in this case both guys have bad control. Cain's is better than Lincecums, but unlike Prior it's not better by enough to make up for the difference in pure stuff.

I obviously don't follow these guys as closely as you do, but that's just how I see it and think about it.

Gigantes4Life
10-23-2007, 06:20 PM
While I don't follow the Giants as closely as you, here's how I think of it. As a Cubs fan, there are obvious Prior and Wood parallels here. Wood had maybe the best stuff of anyone in the past 15 years not named Pedro Martinez or Randy Johnson, however his control was lacking. Prior on the other hand had very good stuff, although not nearly as good as Wood's or several other pitchers around, but had great control to go along with it. In terms of stuff I'd say Lincecum is Wood and Cain is Prior. However, in this case both guys have bad control. Cain's is better than Lincecums, but unlike Prior it's not better by enough to make up for the difference in pure stuff.

I obviously don't follow these guys as closely as you do, but that's just how I see it and think about it.

The difference between them is that Cain has literal no-hit stuff. And probably more than anyone in baseball already. He's thrown 7 1 hitters already in his career. 1st all-time is Randy Johnson with 13. So it's taken Randy 20 years to get to 13 and it's taken Cain about 2 to already have over half of Johnson. Another thing about Cain is that he;s not that wild. Cain's K/BB rate is 2:1 and his BB/9 IP is just under 2.5. That's not too shabby.

-BayAreaJunkie-
10-23-2007, 06:41 PM
The difference between them is that Cain has literal no-hit stuff. And probably more than anyone in baseball already. He's thrown 7 1 hitters already in his career. 1st all-time is Randy Johnson with 13. So it's taken Randy 20 years to get to 13 and it's taken Cain about 2 to already have over half of Johnson. Another thing about Cain is that he;s not that wild. Cain's K/BB rate is 2:1 and his BB/9 IP is just under 2.5. That's not too shabby.

Amen to those stats.

YankeeFan28
10-23-2007, 06:42 PM
The difference between them is that Cain has literal no-hit stuff. And probably more than anyone in baseball already. He's thrown 7 1 hitters already in his career. 1st all-time is Randy Johnson with 13. So it's taken Randy 20 years to get to 13 and it's taken Cain about 2 to already have over half of Johnson. Another thing about Cain is that he;s not that wild. Cain's K/BB rate is 2:1 and his BB/9 IP is just under 2.5. That's not too shabby.

Now wait, were all 7 of his 1 hitters complete games?

Gigantes4Life
10-23-2007, 06:49 PM
Now wait, were all 7 of his 1 hitters complete games?

No, but neither were Johnson's. He still has 3 CG 1 hitters, I don't know about Johnson.

The minimum for my stat was 6 IP.

lincecum98
10-23-2007, 10:32 PM
The difference between them is that Cain has literal no-hit stuff. And probably more than anyone in baseball already. He's thrown 7 1 hitters already in his career. 1st all-time is Randy Johnson with 13. So it's taken Randy 20 years to get to 13 and it's taken Cain about 2 to already have over half of Johnson. Another thing about Cain is that he;s not that wild. Cain's K/BB rate is 2:1 and his BB/9 IP is just under 2.5. That's not too shabby.

Wow that's enough said, Cain is probly the most dominate out of all these pitchers, but he need the RUN SUPPORT!!!!!!!!!!

Jilly Bohnson
10-23-2007, 11:43 PM
The difference between them is that Cain has literal no-hit stuff. And probably more than anyone in baseball already. He's thrown 7 1 hitters already in his career. 1st all-time is Randy Johnson with 13. So it's taken Randy 20 years to get to 13 and it's taken Cain about 2 to already have over half of Johnson. Another thing about Cain is that he;s not that wild. Cain's K/BB rate is 2:1 and his BB/9 IP is just under 2.5. That's not too shabby.

His BB/9 for his career is 3.81 and for this year is 3.555. It's not too bad, but it is below average.

And Nolan Ryan had 7 no hitters, he still wasn't even a top 5 pitcher. That stat doesn't mean anything really except that it means when he's on he's REALLY on. Cain's real good, but I'd definately take Lincecum over him.

Jilly Bohnson
10-23-2007, 11:45 PM
Wow that's enough said, Cain is probly the most dominate out of all these pitchers, but he need the RUN SUPPORT!!!!!!!!!!

While his amount of run support was ridiculously low, he is NOT the most dominant. Hamels and Verlander were better by a pretty good margin this year.

cwilson21
10-24-2007, 07:42 PM
Um Francisco Liriano?

Damix
10-24-2007, 08:31 PM
1. Verlander
2. Hamels
3. Chamberlain
4. Cain
5. Bucholtz
6. Lincecum

Gigantes4Life
10-25-2007, 12:08 AM
His BB/9 for his career is 3.81 and for this year is 3.555. It's not too bad, but it is below average.

And Nolan Ryan had 7 no hitters, he still wasn't even a top 5 pitcher. That stat doesn't mean anything really except that it means when he's on he's REALLY on. Cain's real good, but I'd definately take Lincecum over him.


How can you use his career stuff? He's been getting much better every year, that's not a fair comparison. In his 1st season, he didn't even really have a change, it was just fastballs.

One Nut Kruk
10-25-2007, 08:49 AM
Um Francisco Liriano?

Um Nelson Liriano?

SportsFan61105
10-25-2007, 08:56 AM
Hamels By a huge lead over verlander.

Letsgobrewers!
10-26-2007, 01:31 AM
Personally, I would have to go with Yovani Gallardo, myself.

Gigantes4Life
10-26-2007, 01:52 AM
Well I hope you're never my GM.

RedHeadsRule
10-28-2007, 06:17 PM
Verlander...

Humongo
10-28-2007, 06:22 PM
King Felix maybe?

SportFan4Life
10-28-2007, 06:32 PM
A lot of fans view Cain below Lincecum because of his record...:rolleyes:

lincecum98
10-28-2007, 10:32 PM
King Felix maybe?

gets injured to much

yanks25113
10-29-2007, 02:34 AM
i dont think u can even rank joba and bucholtz yet cuase u havent seen wut either of them can really do... it be interesting to c wut lincecum does the next year as well cuase i think he has the ability to be better than all of these guys... but as of right now i would have to rank
1.)hammels
2.)cain
3.)verlander
4.)joba ( based on the stuff i have seen as a yankee fan its just filthy)
5.)lincecum
6.)buckholtz (outside of one start he hasnt been as good as any of these guys)

all of these guys could move anywhere on the list they are among the best talents in the mlb and will be for years to come... dont be surprised to see hughes on the list next year!!!

Liney3506
10-29-2007, 02:42 AM
I think its Hamels, Verlander, Cain, Lincecum, Buch, then Joba. Hamels is just sick, and he can get it done even when he's not striking out 12 in 7 innings.

fishfan79
11-02-2007, 01:22 PM
verlander is far above the rest of them

Kazmir should be on that list too

pollox
11-02-2007, 06:07 PM
wheres my boy mcgowan

cwilson21
11-02-2007, 06:54 PM
McGowan no thanks. Nothing spectacular about him.

Buckwheat
11-02-2007, 07:06 PM
wheres my boy mcgowan

McGowan will be a pretty good pitcher someday but comparing him to Verlander, Lincecum, Hamels, etc is just simply INSANE.

xander
11-03-2007, 06:30 PM
I'm a Giants fan, so this may be a bit biased, but I think Lincecum and Cain combined will win more cy youngs then all those other names combined.

kyubi256
11-12-2007, 03:27 PM
all will have stellar careers but JV wins by a landslide IMO. He is just amazing...

here is how i'd rank them

Justin Verlander = ace, cy young candidate every year. 18-21 wins per year
Cole Hamels = ace, cy young candidate every year. 16-19 wins per year (Phillies just don't seem to score for him)
Joba Chamberlain = His stuff is fantastic. Lets see how he handles a full year. I am looking at ace with 18-21 wins every year but have to see...
Clay Buccholz = Amazing potential and amazing stuff. Had a No Hitter this year... A good #2 behind Beckett. 15-18 wins every year
Tim Lincecum = A good #2 or ace in the SF team. Too raw though, i would assume 12-15 wins every year
Matt Cain = He's good and when on is untouchable but i can't see him being more than a 12-16 game winner per year

bartoron
11-12-2007, 03:31 PM
I would definitely take Verlander. He's a young superstar who unlike most of the other pitchers in the poll, has already proven how great he is.

DjD3990
11-14-2007, 01:39 AM
1. Verlander^^^^^^agree
2. Hamels/Kazmir
3. Cain...uderrated due to his record but had great #'s
4. Lincecum

brails92
11-14-2007, 01:41 AM
verlander

ZHawk1123
11-14-2007, 02:22 PM
Verlander...

SJ5382
11-14-2007, 03:45 PM
Verlander. He should not even be in this poll; he is much more proven than any of these guys.

SaosiNH
11-14-2007, 04:32 PM
Verlander>Hamels>Cain

bosox3431
11-15-2007, 07:33 PM
Cain has way more potential than Lincecum. And Lincecum is loaded with potential. Do you guys not realize that Cain is younger than Lincecum? Cain just turned 23 and in his sophomore season posted a 3.65 ERA while his team disappointed him almost every outing. Not many young pitchers can pitch lights out and have his bullpen/offense blow it for him almost everytime out there and keep pitching like a stud.

i know he's banned but Cain is not younger then Lincecum, why do people keep saying this, Lincecum was born 6-15-84 while Cain was born 10-1-84

ill take verlander

GIANT4LIFE
11-17-2007, 12:55 AM
Verlander
Lincecum
Hamels(he'd probably be #1 for me if not for injury problems)
Cain(****ty control, he's the white Carlos Zambrano, but that's still pretty damn good)
Bucholz
Chamberlain

Verlander's IMO a no brainer, he's durable, has amazing stuff, and the strides he made from 06 to 07 are huge, his ERA didn't get that much better, but he "learned how to pitch" so to say and struck out A LOT more guys and didn't sacrifice too much control to do so. If I were a betting man I'd say he's going to keep improving in that regard.

Lincecum's a rock. Great stuff, as far as I know he's never really been hurt, his delivery is unorthodox but hasn't lead to any problems yet, the only real knock is his control. He's probabably going to be a 100 walk guy, although with his ridiculous K rate and the fact that his stuff is nearly unhittable, it shouldn't hurt him too much.

Hamels is sick. Lots of K's, good control, lefty, and has very good stuff. If not for his injury history he'd probably be my number 1.

Matt Cain is like Lincecum light IMO, not quite as good stuff, but not quite as bad control. I'd like to see him get more K's though. Guys with stuff as good as him should have a higher K/9 than Cains 7.34 from this year.

Bucholz and Chamberlain are unknowns for the most part. Neither has even 30 ML innings under their belt. From my limited experience watching them though I'd go with Buchholz. I'd imagine as a starter the difference between Joba's and Clay's stuff isn't all that big, but Joba has the added wrinkle of being out of shape and an injury concern.

the only reason cain's k/9 went down is becuz he lost the mentality of peavy and gained the mentality of a smart workhorse. in 2005 and 2006 he was going for the strikeout always, and in 2007 he went for the quick outs. the pitching coach got him that way becuz someone with his frame shouldnt be pitching 6 innings he should be going atleast 7 1/3 if not 8.

Joba Rules!!
11-19-2007, 07:19 PM
Matt Cain doesn't deserve to be on this list.....Timmy by far, I think I'd pick Joba if I could though.:)

lincecum98
11-20-2007, 12:44 AM
Matt Cain doesn't deserve to be on this list.....Timmy by far, I think I'd pick Joba if I could though.:)

Matt Cain definiatly deserves to be on this list! He got absolutly no run support, when he is on he is better than all of the other choices.

metsrock229
11-20-2007, 04:41 PM
Justin Verlander

AlexStr
07-13-2009, 06:24 PM
lol

Driven
07-13-2009, 07:58 PM
Yeah, hilarious right? :confused:

McJoe
07-13-2009, 08:17 PM
i know he's banned but Cain is not younger then Lincecum, why do people keep saying this, Lincecum was born 6-15-84 while Cain was born 10-1-84

ill take verlander

um....I guess no one caught this yet but.........

Lincecum = 6/15/84 = June 15th, 1984
Cain = 10/1/84 = October 1st, 1984

Yes October comes AFTER June on this planet.......

However having said that the answer is Lincecum by a ton. Lincecum is the 3rd best pitcher in baseball already and he is continuing to prove it. He may unseat Doc or Santana soon, he is that good.

However this poll is from years ago so my former answer of Matt Cain is now incorrect. I still love Cain.

Kyle916
07-13-2009, 08:26 PM
Whoops... I didn't even pay attention. I just voted and was very confused.

This is interesting though.

hoggin88
07-14-2009, 12:35 AM
I'm kind of surprised. People picking 26 year old Verlander over 25 year old Lincecum and 24 year old Cain, both of whom have better numbers.

theproof
07-14-2009, 01:03 AM
I was confused too. I didn't know this thread was started in 2007. I was reading some of the posts on the first page and I was thinking in my head. What the hell is everyone smoking?

hoggin88
07-14-2009, 01:41 AM
I was confused too. I didn't know this thread was started in 2007. I was reading some of the posts on the first page and I was thinking in my head. What the hell is everyone smoking?

Yeah, I was confused too for sure. Then it just now hit me that the thread was probably bumped. Sure enough it was.

I was racking my brain trying to think of why the hell so many people would be picking Verlander over Lincecum.

AirJordanXVIII
07-14-2009, 10:58 AM
Easily Lincecum. That kid is nasty.

He would be followed by Verlander then Hamels.

Bozarkian
07-14-2009, 06:08 PM
Thiiis is ********
verlander should be in 2nd or 3rd...no doubt

Bozarkian
07-14-2009, 06:08 PM
haha, it bleeps...

Kyle916
07-15-2009, 04:26 AM
^You do realize this thread is from 2007 right?

Sportfan
07-15-2009, 10:49 AM
:pity:


interesting to see how verlander got so much more love in 07

willthethrill22
07-17-2009, 01:51 AM
I was confused when I saw what people posted, then I looked at the date. Seems how times have changed.

VenezuelanMet
07-17-2009, 07:29 AM
:laugh2: It's always funny seeing old threads on the boards.

Even though Verlander sucked in 2008 he has been beast this year so the poll is not too bad, i'd still put him second on that list today behind Lincecum, obviously.

No one saw Lincecum coming this fast :laugh:

todu82
07-17-2009, 08:41 AM
Tim Lincecum

Saint Brian
07-17-2009, 10:16 AM
Lincecum.

This thread is hilarious!