Chad Billingsley?????

billywaz · Post by **billywaz** » Wed Apr 02, 2008 10:57 pm

Can anyone explain this to me????

Chad Billingsley-R- Dodgers Apr. 3 - 1:15 am et

Chad Billingsley, scratched originally due to an incoming storm, entered Wednesday's game in the fifth inning and got one out before a rain delay brought his night to an end.

We'd say the Dodgers couldn't have played it any worse, but the Giants did the same thing, only they left their young stud, Tim Lincecum, in after the 72-minute delay. Esteban Loaiza, who was supposed to start Saturday, replaced Billingsley when play resumed. We're guessing that Billingley will get the call on Saturday after throwing 21 pitches tonight.

Is he made of metal, and they were afraid he would be struck by lightning?

Maybe it is early, but I don't get it.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 1:19 am

The decision by both managers to put stud young pitchers out in the weather after not starting them for the same reason IS puzzling.

I have a lot more fault with Bochy rather than Torre though. To put Lincecum back out there after an hour and a half delay is laughable. I know the end result was good for the Giants and Lincecum owners but it should be interesting to track Lincecum to see if he suffers any ill-effects over the next few weeks.

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 2:14 am

They showed some doppler crap during the game and it appeared that the bad weather was over. This is why I don't pay attention to weather forecasts. As for the made of metal, you don't let a guy sit for over an hour and put him back out there. You don't get good health or good results that way.

crazytown · Post by **crazytown** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 3:52 am

I have yet to see the statistics that state a pitcher is more likely to sustain an injury after a long delay. If someone has this information I would like to see it.

Thanks

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 4:09 am

Originally posted by crazytown.gov:

I have yet to see the statistics that state a pitcher is more likely to sustain an injury after a long delay. If someone has this information I would like to see it.

Thanks A little bit like asking your mom for stats on boys running with scissors.

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 4:10 am

Originally posted by crazytown.gov:

I have yet to see the statistics that state a pitcher is more likely to sustain an injury after a long delay. If someone has this information I would like to see it.

Thanks I think it is more common sense about loose vs. tight than something they decided based on data. Anyone who's watched baseball with any kind of regularity knows that pitchers aren't so sharp after a really long inning for their offense or a delay. Lincecum was okay last night, but he wasn't shy about walking people.

Aside from Billingsley being able to get a K here and there, he is not that impressive a pitcher anyway and I doubt he was going to do any better than the one run in three innings Loaiza got so you are better off with a full start on Saturday than the three cheap innings that wouldn't have amounted to a win last night.

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 4:17 am

Originally posted by bjoak:

Aside from Billingsley being able to get a K here and there, he is not that impressive a pitcher anyway Is he better than Burnett?

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:02 am

Originally posted by King of Queens:

quote:Originally posted by bjoak:

Aside from Billingsley being able to get a K here and there, he is not that impressive a pitcher anyway Is he better than Burnett?

[/QUOTE]Not at all. You're trying to give me a hard time, but it's an untenable position. Wow, maybe you missed him against the Yankees yesterday.

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:32 am

Originally posted by bjoak:

quote:Originally posted by King of Queens:

quote:Originally posted by bjoak:

Aside from Billingsley being able to get a K here and there, he is not that impressive a pitcher anyway Is he better than Burnett?

[/QUOTE]Not at all. You're trying to give me a hard time, but it's an untenable position. Wow, maybe you missed him against the Yankees yesterday. [/QUOTE]Untenable? C'mon Brian, it's not nearly as apples-to-oranges as you think. The two had similar ADPs, both based on potential. Billingsley's younger and has more upside. Burnett has more of a track record, but much of it is up-and-down.

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 6:28 am

I said untenable because he doesn't have any skills that are better than Burnett's in any appreciable way, i.e. he's not better on giving away free passes, getting groundballs, etc. But also, I think, it is easier to go around saying this stuff before the season and not when I can look at the latest box score and point out that my guy is doing exactly what I said he'd do--against the Yankees no less--and your guy only pitched 1/3 of an inning.

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:39 am

Originally posted by bjoak:

and your guy only pitched 1/3 of an inning. That's not untenable. That's unfair.

Let's revisit this in May.