The Rise of Josh Beckett

by SenorGato88 on Oct 4, 2007 2:56 AM EDT Comment 55 comments

Those who know the story of how this guy turned it on in Boston do tell...the guy has looked absolutely amazing all season.

I ask this because despite all the BS...this is the kind of pitchers major league teams dream of come draft day. 6'5, 230, wide shoulders, strong legs, Texan attitude, 98 MPH fastball, big ass curveball, great control, nasty movement on all his pitches...how can seeing him turn into a very good pitcher (with potential for greatness) not draw the curiosity of prospect hounds...even this late into this career?

0 recs | Comment 55 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

This is a waste post...

I'm ripped out of my mind watching the Red Sox/Angels game. I really just needed some place to write it down.

I love baseball.

by SenorGato88 on Oct 4, 2007 2:49 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

BTW

Speaking of an "I love baseball" moment, I was gonna put this in its own diary but decided it wasn't worth the effort...

People with ESPN Classic oughta set their TiVos, they're doing this thing called Drive-Through Classics on Tuesdays at midnight, I think.

This week was Game 5 of the 1995 ALDS between Seattle/NYY...including the relief battle between the Big Unit and Black Jack McDowell, a young PR named Alex Rodriguez, and of course Edgar. Sweet Edgar.

Next week is the 86 WS, I believe.

by Yakker on Oct 4, 2007 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Best. Sport. Ever.

by SenorGato88 on Oct 4, 2007 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh and...

TBS sucks...Jose Mota ROFL

by SenorGato88 on Oct 4, 2007 2:55 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Bah

TBS is sure as hell better than espn and fox. Tim Mccarver, Joe Buck, and basically everyone on espn except orel hersheiser are all mindlessly stupid. TBS is kind of bland and meh, but it sure is nice to actually be able to watch a baseball game again without having some ego driven fool play by play guy or idiot color man blathering on constantly.

by AucklandGM on Oct 4, 2007 4:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ehh.

If it's not Pete and Skip (and it won't be, ever again), then yes, TBS does kinda suck.

But to paraphrase, they're the worst baseball broadcast network out there, except for all the others.

by mraver on Oct 4, 2007 9:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here's what I don't get about TBS

Why would they get Don Orsillo to do games for them in the postseason, and then not put him on the Red Sox broadcast? How does that make sense? You could have the Sox home play by play guy, who has watched the team all season and has all kinds of insights into the players and team as a whole, or two guys who basically haven't watched a Red Sox game all season, who throw out the most generic statements possible about everyone involved.

Normally that doesn't bother me about the postseason, since you gets dummies like McCarver and Buck calling every game anyway; however, if you're going to hire Orsillo to do the games, why not put him on the game he'll be the most informative on? I know he's just the play by play guy, but still.

Also, Jose Mota is just...awful.

by Pawtucket Pat on Oct 4, 2007 9:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Orsillo?

Sean McDonough and Jerry Remy should do play by play for every professional baseball game.

In fact, the playoff schedule should revolve around their ability to be in the booth for every game.

by Curtis Pride on Oct 4, 2007 9:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah

I loved McDonough too, but I have to admit that Orsillo isn't bad. Besides, McDonough has been gone for a looooooooooong time now.

by Pawtucket Pat on Oct 4, 2007 9:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If Jerry Remy announced every game..

...I'd stop watching baseball.

Just the thought of the sound of his voice makes me queasy.

by dkdc on Oct 4, 2007 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I agree, but

95% of sideline/dugout reporting is pointless crap now anyway. They interrupt a game to tell how hard player x is go-getting because they decided to in a pregame strategy session or other crappy drivel like that. Unless its injury related those reporters are pointless goons anyway, so who cares who they are? At least most of the football broadcasters get it and have good looking women as the sideline reporter most of the time, so it's not a total waste of air time...

by AucklandGM on Oct 4, 2007 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

hhaha

this is why i still rate Homer highly....somethin about those Texas flamethrowers....like theyre breeded for big-game pitching

by daveh33 on Oct 4, 2007 3:28 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

No one will tell the tale of Josh Beckett?

Fine.

by SenorGato88 on Oct 4, 2007 10:56 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

beckett

in 2001 as at age 21, beckett destroyed A/AA batters in 140ip with 203k and 34bb, 1.54era and .83 WHIP.

in 2003 at age 23, beckett struck out over a batter per inning in the bigs with a 3.04era and 1.32 whip in 140IP.

He led the marlins to a world series victory, over the yankees. overall post season line.

3-0, 2.11era 47k in 42ip. in the world series he pitched 16.1 innings, gave up 2 ER and struck out 19 yankees.

his first year in boston was an aberration. it was against his trend. he is no longer getting blisters, has finally sitting around 200 innings (2 year in a row now) and is still relatively young at 27 years old. Josh beckett is a very good pitcher~

by the last mr e on Oct 4, 2007 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well...

I don't mind talking about Beckett, considering his 2001 season is probably the single best pitching season I've ever seen in a pitcher. It's head and shoulders better than anything I've seen in prospects before or since, better than Hughes, Joba, Clay, Kershaw, Burnett, Riley, anyone. So his performance was clearly perfection when it comes to prospecting pitchers.

And then, he's been pretty damn good as a major leaguer, considering he broke into the majors at 21. He has a 1.23 career WHIP and almost 1000 ks, and is only 27. His first year in Boston was terrible, far out of line with his career ratios, so it's no real surprise he bounced back this year.

I've always been a big Beckett fan, mainly because of the fact he's a Texan, got great stuff, his 2003 playoff performance and that 2001 season still stands at the high water mark for minor league pitching performances in my book.

by beastball on Oct 4, 2007 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

First year in Boston

Boston fans will know more, but my understanding is that it took him a while to adjust to pitching down in the zone in Boston, which was a better fit for the AL and for Fenway.

He was used to blowing his 4-seamer past people, and he fought the change his first year. This year, he's bought into the approach and the results speak for themselves.

by Yakker on Oct 4, 2007 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Whoa

hang on. Now, beckett had a nice 2001 and I like beckett a lot, but most of it came in the minors and there's no way his 2001 even comes close to pedro martinez in any of his 1999-2003 seasons. Especially 2000 1.74era, .74 whip, 284K and 128hits in 217IP... It was like God himself came down to play catch.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Oct 4, 2007 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agree 100%...

I'm a huge Pedro fan, and think he may be the best pitcher in the history of the game. For Beckett, I meant minor league performance. Because there is no equal to Pedro during that stretch. However, I've never seen a pitching prospect do what Beckett did in the minors in 2001.

by beastball on Oct 4, 2007 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No equal to Pedro's peak?

Are you kidding me?

How about Maddux '92-98
Koufax '63-66
Gibson- '66-70

Pedro's great-absolute HOF, but calling him the best pitcher ever is just indefensible

If it wasn't for disappointments, I wouldn't have any appointments.

by kings33 on Oct 4, 2007 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

ERA+

Pedro's peak was the most impressive. He posted a 1.74 ERA in 2000 when the next best ERA qualifier (Clemens) had a 3.70.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL_2000.shtml

When Koufax and Gibson had great years there were other non HOF pitchers posting ERAs like 2.11. Pitching in the 60's was nothing like pitching in the late 90s and early 00s.

by McLovin on Oct 4, 2007 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maddux

So, it's on par with Maddux '94... ERA+ not demonstrably better. And I'll give Maddux the edge because he did pretty much the same thing 2 years running, and the original poster was talking about a series of years, not just 1.

If it wasn't for disappointments, I wouldn't have any appointments.

by kings33 on Oct 4, 2007 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fair enough...

Let's compare Maddux in 94 and 95, and Pedro in 1999 and 2000.

+ERA: Pedro holds #1 and #9. Maddux holds #4 and #5
WHIP: Pedro holds #1 and #54. Maddux holds #5 and #33
K/BB: Pedro holds #6 and #9. Maddux holds #83 and out of the top 100.
K/9: Pedro holds #2 and #9. Maddux is unranked.
BB/9: Neither pitcher for either season ranked in the top 100.

So who do you think was the better, more dominant pitcher during their respective 2 year stretches? Certainly counters your assertion that the idea Pedro had a historic stretch as being indefensible.

by beastball on Oct 4, 2007 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry...

For +ERA, I meant Pedro holds #2 and #9, not #1.

by beastball on Oct 4, 2007 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

Great seasons for Pedro... and I never said he didn't have an historic year.

Maddux was never a K pitcher... never had Pedro's velocity, which (to me) makes his being right there in ERA+ the more impressive.

But I'm not even saying that Pedro didn't have the Best Season Ever - honestly I don't know what that is for sure, and BBref won't factor in park factor adjustments. Let's call them both clearly top 10 seasons...

I just can't put a guy who's been as injury prone into the title of Best Pitcher Ever

If it wasn't for disappointments, I wouldn't have any appointments.

by kings33 on Oct 4, 2007 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'll concede...

that his injury problems have robbed him of the chance to clearly be the best pitcher ever to play. However, the fact he sits #15 in career Ks even given his battles with injury is just a testament to how good of a pitcher he was when he was pitching.

Consider, even coming back from shoulder surgery he still got 32 ks in 28 innings is impressive. I think he's got a few more quality years left in him.

by beastball on Oct 4, 2007 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

park factor adjustments

well, ERA+ factors that in.....

by bleedjaxblue on Oct 4, 2007 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Except

Pedro did it in the AL East, Maddux did it in the NL East.

by ajohnst1 on Oct 4, 2007 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Furthermore...

Let's look at his career averages because I'll be the first to admit that Pedro's injury record is a blemish. Even so he still should easily be mentioned in the discussion of best pitcher of all time.

Career WHIP: #3
Career +ERA: #1
Career K/9: #3
Career K/BB: #3

Even speaking to his lack of durability, he's still #15 in career Ks.

If those rankings alone don't easily justify him as a contender, if not strong evidence that he is the best pitcher in history, then I don't know what would.

by beastball on Oct 4, 2007 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually

I didn't call him the best pitcher ever.
but doing so actually IS completely defensible.
First of all, maddux never, EVER, came close to the kind of domination pedro did, especially in 2000. Not to mention pitching in a weaker offensive league, so don't even bring him into the discussion.
Pedro is 3d all-time in career WHIP.
5th all time in hits/9
3rd in K/9
3rd in k/bb ratio
All while pitchin in the greatest hitting era yet.
His career ERA+ (160) is 12 points better than any other pitcher who ever played the game.

"calling him the best pitcher ever is just indefensible"
That only shows how absolutely little you know about baseball.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Oct 4, 2007 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't get personal...

You don't know me, nor from one post can you determine everything I know about baseball.

That would be like me telling you you don't know anything about message boards, because I clearly replied to Artie who called Martinez the best ever.

Maddux absolutely has to be in the discussion about a great peak... which again, was Artie's comment. ERA+ are nearly identical for '04 vs Pedro's 00...

That said, I don't think Maddux is the best pitcher ever... I think Clemens has the best career of anyone I've seen.

I think Martinez falls into a class with Koufax, which is really nice company... but when we start the discussion of best ever, he's still 100+ wins shy of being in the conversation for me. The longevity's just not there.

PS - Don't even start with the non-great 300 winners... 300 doesn't automatically put you in the discussion, but there are plenty of dominant 300+ winners who were truly great for a very long time for me to draw a line that 200 wins isn't enough to make you the best pitcher ever.

If it wasn't for disappointments, I wouldn't have any appointments.

by kings33 on Oct 4, 2007 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you want to say...

that Clemens had the best combination of durability and ability, then that would be hard to argue against. Clemens has been incredible.

But, I think the statistical evidence indicates that when he's pitched, Pedro has been one of the best, if not the best, pitcher in history. Whether you want to examine isolated peaks, or career ratios. And his career totals aren't anything to be sneezed at.

I normally place less value on wins because it's too much out of the individual's control. But that's just me.

I will be the first to admit that his injury history is a blemish on his record, but there are very few pitchers who measure up to Pedro when he was healthy. I also think it's a fair statement to make that his 2000 season is the best single season in history, which was really where this thread began because that's what I meant to say. That Beckett's 2001 minor league season was the best I'd ever seen in the minors, and Pedro's 2000 season was the best I'd ever seen in the majors.

by beastball on Oct 4, 2007 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You said

That Pedro being in the discussion was indefensible.
Obviously, it's not indefensible because his career numbers make as compelling a case as any pitcher's do.
Therefore, it is not indefensible and you are wrong.
Case closed.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Oct 4, 2007 7:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd suggest...

checking http://www.baseball-reference.com/, and checking how Pedro's 2000 season stacks up to the single season records across history.

You really don't have to go any further than #2 in +ERA and #1 WHIP, but his #6 in K/BB ratio and #9 in K/9 rankings just show how thoroughly he dominated the league with power and control. So yeah, when you look, it's very easy to argue that his 2000 season was the best single season, of any pitcher in history. In fact, it's harder to argue that it wasn't the best single season in history.

It's also easy to argue that his 97-03 would stack up with the guys you mentioned and it's also easy to argue that his stretch was the best in history.

I think some people forget how good Pedro was because of his injuries in Boston and because it was right in the middle of the media focus on offense.

by beastball on Oct 4, 2007 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't understand the basis for argument

The guy is here is talking about how Beckett owned the minor leagues and people are talking about Pedro, Maddux, and Koufax.

The statement was about Beckett's MINOR LEAGUE SEASON.

Why this started an entire subthread argument is beyond me.

by Curtis Pride on Oct 4, 2007 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Because we can

Have you ever been in a person to person baseball argument that didn't veer off wildly on a tangent?

Artie - FWIW, I enjoyed our back & forth.

If it wasn't for disappointments, I wouldn't have any appointments.

by kings33 on Oct 4, 2007 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

back and forth, huh?

more like Hammer (Artie) versus Nail (kings33).

Much like Red Sox Nation still thinking they have the upper hand on their so-called Yankees rivalry. What is it now 26-2? Not much of a rivalry. Much like Hammer versus Nail.

I'm just stirring the pot here while having a little fun. No need to start a flame war. Just playing.

by So Cal Bob on Oct 4, 2007 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

By the Logic

Celtics fans have ammo against the Spurs fans?

I think not.

by Curtis Pride on Oct 4, 2007 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

you think wrong

Celtic history is FAR SUPERIOR to anything San Antonio has done. What a lame take.

by So Cal Bob on Oct 4, 2007 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

who cares about "history"?

What kind of lame-ass response is that when arguing about a team.

"I know that you love San Antonio and they've been great for the last decade, and are currently great, but the Celtics were unstoppable in 1959!"

"Ummn, yeah, OK, that's swell. Aren't they all dead now? It's like saying Paris Hilton is impressive because the history of her name. Her grandad was smart. That has nothing to do with the current team. They have a different owner, generations of different players, different GM, different building. Just because they have the same name is completely pointless. So f'n what"

"Well yeah, but The Celtics have great HISTORY!"

That the Yankees won 26 world championships to 2 means exactly zero. Even the 1996-2007 argument, while much more pertinent, is also pretty useless. There has still be more than 80% turnover in their lineups between those years and even the remaining players aren't the same level of skill they were at that time.

Basically anyone that cites "history" of a timeframe longer than about 5 years whenever talking about any team, is grasping at straws.

by Curtis Pride on Oct 4, 2007 6:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

to each his own

what franchise has hung more banners? End of story. Do you forget Bird, McHale, Parrish, Archibald, DJ, et al form the 80's?

Your argument is like saying the Indianapolis Colts have a better franchise than the 49'ers because they have won in the last decade and the Niners have sucked.

Your take is hilarious. Winning today and recently doesn't change the winning history of storied franchises. I'm sure the Mighty Ducks rock when compared to the Red Wings, huh?

This sounds like someone coming from their teens or early twenties.

I'll take the Yankees history over any team in baseball even though they haven't won a World Series recently. Apparently you are a flavor of the month person.

by So Cal Bob on Oct 4, 2007 6:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The colts do have a better franchise

You are going to argue that the 49s have a better franchise? Their TEAM is their franchise. Present and future potential. Not past. It's not some aggregation of previous teams.

The Niners had a better franchise in the 80s. The colts had a better franchise in the 60s. The Colts are much better now.

by Curtis Pride on Oct 4, 2007 7:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh yeah, I enjoyed the tangent...

We had a separate long thread debating Beckett's 2001 season in the context of pitcher's minor league seasons. That was a good one.

While I've been a Pedro fan for a while (since he was traded to Mon from LAD for DeShields), I haven't debated the Pedro thing in a long time, and it was fun to dig into it and just see how dominate he really was (and is). And it's always fun to check out how his 2000 season stacks up, and just how incredible it was given the context in which it was done.

I think the fact he was a top 10 starter with a shredded shoulder is further testament to his talent, and could be another point to argue his being the best pitcher ever.

So I don't need much of an excuse to check things like that out, especially during a relatively boring day at work.

by beastball on Oct 4, 2007 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Woah, head and shoulders better than

Anything you've seen in prospects before or after? If you're talking about what you prototypically want to see out of a pitching prospect (size, frame, stuff, control, mechanics, etc...), sure. But the best pitching prospect to come along in a long, long time is no doubt Felix Hernandez. The guy has been so far ahead of the learning curve since he was 17 he hasn't been able to see it for years. He's accomplished more for his age than anyone you can name since Doc Gooden. He was an everyday Major Leaguer at the same age Beckett didn't even sign his first professional contract.

by elrey34 on Oct 4, 2007 9:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh yeah...

I'm a fan of Felix as well, I picked him up in my league after his stint in the northwest league.

That said, Felix's first full year in 2004 doesn't come close to Beckett's first full year in 2000.

So I wasn't speaking in terms of their ranking in terms of prospects, although there could be some debate about which was a better prospect, but I meant to comment on his his performance, statistically speaking.

Statistically speaking, I still stand by Beckett's 2000 season for best minor league season I've ever seen, and there has been some good ones.

by beastball on Oct 4, 2007 10:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Gotcha. All clear now.

by elrey34 on Oct 4, 2007 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also, you mentioned Hughes

not being as good of a prospect as Beckett was, but I disagree on that too. They have similar frames as they are both 6-foot-5 and around 220, they both had the ability to miss tons of bats and had shown exceptional command for their ages. But here's what Hughes has over Beckett in his tool box -- very good groundball tendencies.

And to bring the whole age thing back into the conversation...

Beckett 21: Dominating High-A/Double-A
Hughes 21: Already proven he's done with Double-A and Triple-A; getting his feet wet in the Majors; many experts considered him Major League ready when he was 20.

by elrey34 on Oct 4, 2007 10:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah...

you know, to derail this conversation just a bit, but I tend to try and evaluate prospects based on years of minor league experience. So I'm not going to hold it against Gordon that he spent some developmental years in college.

So, while age is useful for projection, I try not to hold it against guys who are moving through the minors at a good clip, like someone like Pence.

But, back to the subject at hand, I would take Beckett's first full season over just about anyone's, and in terms of his peak value as a prospect, I don't know anyone in this recent crop that would measure up. But that's just me. Remember, BA ranked him over Prior as the #1 prospect in the game, so he came with a fair degree of fan fare. Even Felix had to play second fiddle to Delmon.

A 203/34 K/BB or 5.97 ratio is ridiculous (not to mention it went with about a .8 WHIP).
Joba was good at 135/27 or 5 with ~1.00 WHIP.
Buchholz at 171/35 or 4.89 is good with ~1.00 WHIP.
Hughes' last "full" season was 168/34 or 4.94 is also good with ~.8 WHIP.
Ankiel's first full season was 222/50 or 4.44 and ~1.20 WHIP.
Matt Riley's 99 was good at 189/59 with ~1.10.
A.J. Burnett in 98 with 186/45 with a 1.00. Clemens first year was good, but he was out of the minors too fast.
Prior's first partial year was 79/18 with ~1.15.
Felix's 2004 was 172/47 with a ~1.15.

Who else?

by beastball on Oct 4, 2007 10:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting.

I much prefer bringing age into the equation because great success against much older competition shows for very advanced skills. The problem I have with guys like Hunter Pence are that if they reach the Majors at 24 or older, they have less room (time) for error if they are to fulfill their potential. Whereas with a guy like Delmon, he can falter for the next few years before breaking out and no one sane would say he'll never make it -- just like his teammate Upton. I'm very optimistic about guys who break into bigs before they're 22 because they likely dominated leagues filled with guys way older and experienced than they are by overcoming them with pure talent combined with skills that they just picked up. They're likely fast learners, which bodes very well for their future as a Major Leaguer. I often associate a guy who spent a lot of time in the Minors as a prospect who wasn't good enough to advance when he was younger. I'm not saying there aren't exceptions -- there is a big exception for pitchers because developing in time for their reflexive peak isn't necessary since they're not the ones who have to react to a 95 fastball -- but merely the general rule.

by elrey34 on Oct 5, 2007 1:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hit post too soon again.

My point is, while Beckett's numbers were terrific in that season, when you take age into consideration, it becomes less impressive. Let's say you were to take Felix this year, his age 21 season, and put him in High-A like Beckett. My money says he puts up similar numbers, considering he's made huge strides since the last time he was in High-A when he was 17 (while putting up a 11.15 K/9, 2.54 BB/9, 4.38 K/BB lines in a severe hitter's park and hitter's league). The reason Beckett wasn't in the Major Leagues when he was 21 was because he was deemed unready -- unlike Hughes and Felix.

Don't get me wrong here. Beckett doing that well at that level at that age was phenomenal. It goes right in line with the Bill James rule of thumb of blue chip prospects: Tearing up High-A at 20, Double-A at 21 or Triple-A at 22. In fact, I think he could have been ripping up Double-A and Triple-A when he was at that age, and I have no flipping idea why he was promoted so conservatively. But this is where comparing a little less impressive numbers at a higher level and younger age comes into play. The numbers may not be as mind-boggling, but the amazement is what the prospect is doing to competition older and more experienced than he is.

What also comes into play at that instance is what I consider more important than being impressed by the numbers -- tools scouting. This is ultimately what determines what level of play the player is ready for. Just by observing how much Beckett was toying with hitters at that level would show that he was ready for the show much earlier than he got there. This is the reason why so many people this year said that Hughes was ready from the start of the season. But instead, he started the season in the Minors because the Yankees wanted to see the pretty numbers at the higher levels.

by elrey34 on Oct 5, 2007 1:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just a few points to make...

I evaluate age v comp differently for hitters and pitchers because experience has shown me that physical maturation has more predictable results with hitters than pitchers. So while it is a factor for both, I tend to temper it more with pitchers than with hitters.

Part of your second post goes to my next point, I tend to try and not hold promotion schedules against the player, but against the team. Beckett's numbers clearly showed he wasn't being challenged, neither in A+ or AA or really, in the majors either where he had 4 starts in 2001. He was clearly ready for the majors in 2001. Guys like Pearce and Pence, both probably could have thrived with a slightly more aggressive promotion schedule.

A third point is that I temper age v comp with years experience as a pro. I'm not going to hold it against Gordon for being 22 in AA. It was his debut, and pretty impressive at that. I may not like that he held out a year to sign a big contract, but I'm not going to hold it against him for being 21 in his first full year, considering there was nothing he was missing, he was the perfect pitching prospect, mid-90s heat, great pitchers body, 4 plus pitches (FB, a Blyleven curve, change, and a sniker), and his performance was close to perfect as well.

But, in the end, it impossible to say how these guys would stack up against one another had they been prospects at the same time. Beckett got a ton of hype when he was a prospect, and he was the #2 pick, he debuted as the #19 prospect without throwing a pitch, went to #3 overall after half a season in the midwest league, and ended his minor league career as the #1 prospect overall. In that year, he was 21, he had 4 plus pitches, pitched comfortably in the mid-90s, and dominated the minors like no one else had or has since.

Anyway, I like arguing these points and reviewing the stats of some of these guys. I've just never seen anything like what Beckett did in 2001.

by beastball on Oct 5, 2007 1:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

In my third point...

The "him" I'm referring to not liking holding out and not logging a full season until 21 is Beckett. He held out after being drafted, losing a year, then he pitched half a season in the Midwest league before being shut down with shoulder issues. Then he completely dominated in A+, AA and to a lesser degree the majors in 2001.

by beastball on Oct 5, 2007 1:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Another Point

Beckett had 2 tours on the DL in 2000 so I think the Marlins were just being overly cautious with their bonus baby and not, as you claim, they didn't think he wasn't ready for the majors. "Offseason tests diagnosed a small tear in his labrum, fraying in his rotator cuff, bicep tendinitis and an impingement." - Direct quote from my 2002 BA Prospect Handbook

Also, Josh had more innings pitched at the AA level so to imply that he was just a A+ pitcher is flat out wrong. I still have his major league debut against the Cubs on video tape somewheres. I had him and Mark Prior on my NL fantasy team and had dreams of future championships in my eyes. sigh

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.

by WayneCampbell05 on Oct 6, 2007 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs