The mrkupe Top 25 Pitchers (of doom)

by mrkupe on Dec 29, 2007 12:55 AM EST Comment 43 comments

Greetings and salutations. I've spent the last two months under a huge pile of schoolwork trying to finish up my degree, and it's only been recently that I've gotten to really focus on things that I like to write about, like minor league baseball.

I decided to jump back into the fray by introducing my own top 50 prospects list. However, I'm pulling a John Sickels on this one and dividing those 50 prospects into two lists of 25, one comprised of pitchers and the other of position players. I would go into the reasons for that, but I think John has elaborated in the past on using such a methodology, and quite frankly I agree with it. While you could not combine the two lists to get my exact top 50 prospects (more than 25 hitters in that top 50, most likely), I think this system tends to display my feelings about players more accurately. I'm posting the first list of 25, that of pitchers, right now. I'm almost finished with the second list, but am going to hold it for another day or two.

A few house rules:

I place a somewhat higher premium than many on a player's present ability to contribute at the major league level. That means that not only do I incorporate a player's injury status into my thought process, but I also consider flaws in the player's approach that would cause them to fail at the major league level. In an interesting counter-balance, I actually hold this principle against younger prospects (who have more time to adjust) less often than I do against older prospects who are typically more set in their ways. One might think that favoring younger, riskier players in this respect would contradict myself. I think it just provides a more comprehensive perspective for myself.

I do not put much weight on how hard a player throws as an independent factor. Major league baseball players know how to hit a 95 MPH fastball, and this is in fact one of the things that differentiates a major leaguer from a minor leaguer. As a result, I tend to consider a pitcher's velocity as something within the overall context of the pitcher's approach and traits - more simply put, I evaluate guys as pitchers first, throwers second.

Am I a stathead? Nope. Am I a scouting junkie? Nope. I personally think I'm right in the middle of the spectrum. I do love evaluating statistics but I'm not married to them; this is but one of many reasons why I did not major in engineering or accounting.

Do I think I am always right? Nope. I encourage debate, dissent, outright kicking and screaming (away from the computer please). I feel confident in my opinions and the reasoning behind them, but truth be told, it's all essentially a learning exercise.

In any case, on with the show. Enjoy.

Buchholz, Clay
Chamberlain, Joba
Price, David
Kershaw, Clayton
Porcello, Rick
Kennedy, Ian
Cueto, Johnny
Gonzalez, Gio
McDonald, James
Davis, Wade
Horne, Alan
Morales, Franklin
Mulvey, Kevin
McGee, Jacob
Adenhart, Nick
De Los Santos, Fautino
Parra, Manny
Bailey, Homer
Anderson, Brett
Cortes, Dan
Alderson, Tim
Cahill, Trevor
Miller, Adam ("to be a pitching prospect, one must, in fact, pitch")
Robertson, Tyler
Volstad, Chris

0 recs | Comment 43 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Thank you

I think this is a well thought out list, and while I could debate certain placements of pitchers, I think you expressed your methods well, and respect this list. Now that I've said that, I am curious why you have McDonald so high. Not questioning it, it's just that everything I've read is a bit polarizing. What do you think his ETA is?

by killa on Dec 29, 2007 1:04 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Response

His overall standing might be something of an indictment of how weak the current crop of arms is past the top bunch, but I like McDonald. Good repertoire and amazing production, especially for a guy who hasn't been dedicated to pitching for all that long. I think experience and physical maturity can go a long way towards fixing his flaws as a prospect, and he's already a pretty good find as is.

ETA? Probably best to assume late 2008, maybe mid-2009 if he needs a little extra consolidation time.

by mrkupe on Dec 29, 2007 1:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No Hochevar?

I think Luke Hochevar should slip in around 15 or so...I'd like to hear why you left him off.

by ajohnst1 on Dec 29, 2007 1:04 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Response

Hochevar just missed, actually. Command is a major concern, especially given his age. He trips ALL the usual red flags (hit rate, HR rate, K rate). His stuff is good but not great, and it's hard to project him as more than a mid-rotation guy IMO until he polishes his game. Still a solid prospect though.

by mrkupe on Dec 29, 2007 1:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

ugh

I'm going to start the "Alan Horne is Overrated Fan Club" or something.. Good lord. I don't get it.. whatever it is about Horne I'm missing it. That said I cannot really say too much else.

by cubsfan2883 on Dec 29, 2007 1:06 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Horne

I believe he is too high as well.

by doublestix on Dec 29, 2007 1:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Horne

He might be a little too high on the list, but he is pretty good. Yankees seem to be overated by some, and underated (people saying 'YANKEE HYPE') by others.

http://yankeesmtom.blogspot.com/

by hallofamer2000 on Dec 29, 2007 1:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Response

Good fastball, good breaking stuff, good change, gets groundballs, gets strikeouts, improving control. He's always had the talent and is just now living up to it. I see no reason not to recognize that.

I can understand that you might like other prospects better - obviously, I feel the same way. But really, I don't see much to not like about Horne at this point.

by mrkupe on Dec 29, 2007 1:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

McGee?

Seems low to me. I like him quite a bit more than that...Convince me I'm wrong. :)

by doublestix on Dec 29, 2007 1:15 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Response

Love his stuff, but worried about secondary pitches and control at higher levels. I was worried about it last year, worried about it early this year, and his AA stint did nothing to ease my concerns. I'm sure he'll be fine against lefties, but right now advanced RH batters are going to have him in trouble.

Very high upside, but he's also very high risk at this point. If you were grading on just absolute upside, I'm sure he rates much higher. Reality is that he has some work to do, both in terms of actual development and of turning it into successful performance against advanced competition. Southpaws with this sort of profile often break your heart.

by mrkupe on Dec 29, 2007 1:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks!

I thought his secondary pitches were slightly more refined. This changes my thoughts on him, if ever so slightly. :)

by doublestix on Dec 29, 2007 1:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

hmmm..

I understand you put emphasis on if they can contribute now but I think Guerra is better then some of the pitchers you have on there.

by Maine Man on Dec 29, 2007 1:24 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Guerra

I don't know about mrkupe, but Guerra falls right around the #50 pitching prospect for me. I know you're gonna rave about what he did at A+ this year, but IMO uninspiring numbers are uninspiring no matter what - even despite his ARL. K/9 is the most important indicator at the low levels, and his wasn't good.

Biggest Omission? Jordan Walden.

Joba the.... PWN3D!

by ufoboy90 on Dec 29, 2007 2:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Overall Good... THough I do not get Cortes

I do not mind a guy with low ceiling or a guy that is far away from making the bigs but both kind of bother me.

To me Cortes is a middle of rotation inning eater still a long way from making it.

by novaoakland on Dec 29, 2007 1:32 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Cortes

Scouting reports sound good, and he shows a nice trend of improvement. I'm not bullish on him but I think he can be a pretty good one.

by mrkupe on Dec 29, 2007 1:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

re:

What makes you think that of Cortes? Just curious.

by doublestix on Dec 29, 2007 1:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well his stuff was my first thought

Though my preconcieved notions were reinforced by BP who stated they saw his "perfect world projection" as #3 inning eater.

by novaoakland on Dec 29, 2007 5:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

BP said that?

Gotta call BS on BP's part. He's got the best stuff in the entire system, fastball 93-96 and has touched 99, better curve than Hochevar (his is good, too), and a slider and changeup (which I haven't heard updates on lately).

Callis ranked him as the #41 prospect in the game in his ESPN chat.

Jim (Washington, DC): What's the upside potential of Daniel Cortes of the Royals? He seems like a very unheralded prospect up to this point.

SportsNation Jim Callis: (2:37 PM ET ) Big, big upside. As I mentioned, I rated him right ahead of Hochevar. Cortes has a slightly better fastball and a slightly better curveball. He has to be near the top of the list for combination of upside and unhype.

by doublestix on Dec 29, 2007 1:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Nah

BP liked him a lot. Had Cortes as their 3rd best prospect, gave him 3 stars. I havent heard anywhere that he throws as hard as youre saying though. I like him a lot, but I dont think he throws quite as hard as youre saying, and Ive seen it listed pretty consistently with BP's report other places as well. Low to mid 90's. Good stuff. Inconsistent command, Needs to work on secondary stuff...

BP:

"Cortes took every part of his game a major step forward in 2007, finishing the year with impressive statistics and equally impressive scouting reports."

"Good: Big and aggressive, Cortes lives off his 91-94 mph fastball which features some cutting action that makes him especially effective against left-handed hitters. He throws a hard breaking ball that features good downward action, and shows some feel for a change."

The knock on him:

"Bad: Cortes can struggles with his command at times, but like everything else, he improved throughout the season. His secondary pitches, especially his changeup, need to be improved, and he'll need to mix them in more at the upper levels, as opposed to relying primarily on his fastball. He sometimes gets into trouble by working too high in the strike zone."

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6936
(Subscribers only)

by alskor on Dec 29, 2007 1:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm just...

Passing on info I got from a guy who saw him pitch, and has talked to Royals scouts/player development people about him.

Also from the Royals.com website--

"Cortes is 6-foot-5, has put on some needed weight and shows a 94- to 96-mph fastball as well as a good curveball. He emerged splendidly"

Beat writers probably aren't the most reliable, but I assume he ASKED someone about him before writing that up.

by doublestix on Dec 29, 2007 5:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Also from BA...

just another source for his velocity...

"creates good angle with his fastball, which climbed to 92-93 mph this season."

by beastball on Dec 29, 2007 10:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

BP liked him yet called him

a 3rd starter inning eater.

A guy that far from bigs with a limited ceiling is just not someone I like that much.

by novaoakland on Dec 30, 2007 9:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But...

"3rd starter" and "inning eater" arent insults. Those are both good things to be.

Not everyone can have an ace ceiling.

If you thought for a second about who fits that description in the majors that's a pretty good ceiling.

by alskor on Dec 30, 2007 10:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Like I said

3rd starter is very good. However that combined with him only making it to A ball means he should not be a top 20 pitching product.

IF after AAA he is still seen as #3 inning eater than by all means have him in top 10.

by novaoakland on Dec 31, 2007 10:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My 2 Cents

I agree with the McDonald is too high crowd. I saw him pitch last summer in San Bernardino against the SJ Giants. He K'd 13 that night, so must have had pretty good stuff. Maybe it was just that night, but he lived above the belt in the strike zone. Got a lot of swing throughs on pitches up there, but also gave up two of the longer HR's I've seen in Cal League competition and lost the game. My concern is that a pitcher who tries to live up in the zone with a FB that tops out at 92 MPH might give up a whole lot of taters in the the majors.

Agree with those who think Wade Davis and Jake McGee are too low.

As a Giants fan, it's nice to see the enthusiasm for Tim Alderson, but I'm not sure he's the best pitching prospect in the organization. Henry Sosa should get some consideration and Madison Bumgarner was drafted 12 spots higher for some reason.

IMO, Mulvey, Adenhart and Brett Anderson might be too high and Morales might be too low.

Nice list, though.

by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 29, 2007 1:36 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Rohrbough, Tilman, Hurley, Patton?

Where would they all rank on this? Patton would seem to earn any premium placed on present ability to contribute at the major league level.

Good list, and thanks for indicating your criteria. These criteria made these 4 guys jump to mind, though. All four are injury-free, Patton and Hurley are close to the Show, and Tilman and Rohrbough seem to have good ingredients while showing a knack for learning to be more than just throwers.

by siddfynch on Dec 29, 2007 1:52 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Response

The last three were all pretty close to making it. Reasons the guys you listed did not make it:

Patton - K rate dropping to hideous levels worries me. To be honest, I simply don't think he'll be successful enough to warrant such a high placement. I think he's a probable No. 4 starter.

Hurley - Two pitch guy who gives up a ton of HRs. If he's not fooling minor leaguers, how confident can we feel in forecasting major league success? He almost made it on but I don't have a good feeling about where this one is going. I think I mentioned this in another thread, but Hurley makes me think of a poor man's Jeremy Bonderman. That sounds good on the surface until you actually look at Bonderman's performance. I think it's rather fitting for how I feel about Hurley at this point.

Tillman - Actually I quite like him. I shadow-drafted him for the White Sox last year, with an appreciation for his killer curve and projection. For the moment though I'm seeing a guy who's basically living off a breaking ball and while that might get him through A ball, he's going to need to show me more before I get too attached.

Rohrbough - Intriguing guy but would like to see more of him, just don't have a good feel for him yet. Good helium alert guy, though.

by mrkupe on Dec 29, 2007 2:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Answers make sense

About what I would have guessed. I;m still sorting out my own thoughts on all 4 guys.

Now, for my critique - I think that your placement of Ian Kennedy smacks of blind man love. Also, we should take away your keyboard for typing V-O-L-S-T-A-D. (Perhaps you meant to type H-U-R-L-E-Y.)

I also salute you for having the cajones to put Alderson and Cahill on there, and for bumping Bailey so low. I think the Cahill placement is pretty good, you're a little hard on Bailey (to keep the homoerotic theme going), and there are probably better long-shot flyers than Alderson.

Good list, though, and I like getting to see the rationale behind it.

by siddfynch on Dec 29, 2007 3:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Tommy Hanson

I have had a chance to see both he and Rohrbough pitch and what I saw was absolutely amazing! About where would Hanson fall?

by Jay212033 on Dec 29, 2007 3:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What

a great list. I'm looking forward to the position player rankings.

by Cherith Cutestory on Dec 29, 2007 2:20 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

+1

Hey fish, leave those kids alone!

by The Congo Hammer on Dec 30, 2007 1:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Tough for me to Believe

That you would rather have Horne than Morales or Parra than Homer Bailey...I know that you aren't a NY homer but it is tough not to notice that Joba, Kennedy, Horne, and Mulvey are rated as high here as on any list I've seen...

Also strange that you rated Porcello at fifth overall and that Jarrod Parker - who had a very similar scouting report - didn't even make the top 25.

Also, I would have liked to see Jordan Walden on before some of the guys at the backend.

by Dfarth on Dec 29, 2007 9:34 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Response

Heh, I hate NY teams with a passion. It's just that I happen to like talented players more.

Bailey's obviously got a great arm, but he did next to squat developmentally in my eyes this year. He's still a one pitch guy at higher levels with crappy control, and the fact that he went a year without doing much about it adds weight to an argument that he will continue to not do much about it. Morales is such a crapshoot - I'm convinced he's either going to post a 3.50 or a 6+ ERA next year in the majors. All the guys after him have more questions, which is why I'm fine with him where he is.

As for Parker, he should really be on here, and he was on my first draft. He somehow got deleted . . .I'll adjust the list to incorporate him, thanks for making me aware.

Walden? Another interesting helium alert guy but I'm waiting just a little bit longer. Scouting reports look good but would like to see some full-season results before feeling confident that his stuff is going to stick around this time. I don't see the rush with this one.

by mrkupe on Dec 29, 2007 12:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Bailey, 1 pitch?

What pitch are we talking about? His fastball?

What about his curveball that he threw for strikes 67% of the time in the major leagues last year? The same curveball that allowed 1 XBH off of it all season in the majors, and it was a double.

As for his development.... I don't know how much you watched him, but from April to June, I saw improvements until he was injured prior to his June 26th start. When he came back in September, his curveball was a tighter pitch with a little more bite to it. I saw quite a bit of development in him, granted I watched him pitch 15 times last year and I really doubt you did.... so looking at the numbers you really can't see any 'improvement'.

For what its worth, Bailey pitched like this when he was not pitching on a bum groin:

AAA - 2.31 ERA, 58.1 IP, 39 hits, 3 HR, 24 BB, 51 K, 1.08 WHIP.

MLB - 35ip, 28 hits, 3.86 ERA, 1 HR and then the less attractive numbers, 18 BB and 20 K. Still, a 1.31 WHIP.

Were his numbers really that bad?

http://www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Dec 29, 2007 1:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Doug

I love your creative ways for supporting Bailey, but you've got to stop separating his numbers. There are 100 guys you could do that for each year to support your points, and the fact is that even AFTER separating them, they aren't that good. If you take out Brandon Erbe's starts when he got bombed, he probably looks like a great prospect, but the fact is that he still got bombed. Now, I agree that Bailey is probably better than he showed last year, but you've got to admit that his stock has (for good reason) fallen.

by killa on Dec 29, 2007 1:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Bombed is different than pitching injured

Getting lit up because you had a bad day is different than getting lit up because you were pitching injured.

Bailey was injured enough that he spent 8 weeks on the DL last season, so we aren't talking he was pitching with a slightly tired arm here. There is a difference.

As for his stock dropping some, sure I can see that (although I don't agree with it after watching him pitch 15 times this year), but did his stock fall from being a top 5 prospect to be a 50-75 prospect? Ranking him as the #18 pitching prospect is throwing him at about that spot and there is no way his stock dropped that much.

http://www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Dec 29, 2007 5:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Indians fanboy

wondering how close Chuck Lofgren is to getting on this list. Maybe next year? What would it take?

by doubledribble on Dec 29, 2007 11:59 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Lofgren

Not very close at the moment. He totally crapped out in AA - too many hits and walks, not enough Ks. I can deal with one or even two of the three, but all three is cause for alarm. Scouting-wise his stuff is pretty good but I've been concerned for a while that he would deteriorate at higher levels.

Basically he just needs to start putting things together. Throw better strikes and more of them. I liked him quite a bit a couple of years ago, thinking that he would make for a pretty good No. 3 LH starter, and certainly the raw tools are still for that.

by mrkupe on Dec 29, 2007 12:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Carlos Carrasco

Needs to be on here.

by sully10x on Dec 29, 2007 12:53 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Parra

I love how high you have him (or that he's on here at all). Criminally underrated at the moment.

http://rswanzey.blogspot.com

by rswanzey on Dec 29, 2007 2:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

bold

i like your list. i have some of the usual complaints (morales too low, hurley, horne too high), you get several important things right:

the top. buchholz, joba, price, kershaw. exactly right. and that's big.
bailey and miller. i didn't have the guts to run them down quite that far on my list, but i agree with the idea that it's crazy to keep them up in the top 5 or 10 just out of inertia.

by jpahk on Dec 29, 2007 3:02 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

bailey and miller

big difference there. miller is dead to me; as far as i'm concerned anywhere in the top 25 pitchers is still way too high. but i still have bailey as the #5 pitcher and think people are bailing on him (and hughes) way too soon due to overreaction to non-arm injuries.

by wily mo on Dec 29, 2007 3:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Love the list

Looking forward to the position players.

A few comments from myself if i may:

Much much too harsh on Bailey, but i guess i understand your reasoning.
Gio Gonzalez: really nice numbers but i'm turned off by them somewhat since he was repeating his level. Like him but i think #8 is too high. Swap him with Morales and i'm satisfied.
Like to see those controversial rankings of both McDonald and Horne

Questions: