Eric Hurley

by MHD on Feb 19, 2007 3:41 PM EST

I guess I expected people to be higher on him with how he ended his season at AA last year. Reading Rotoworlds report on him today calling him a future #3 seemed a little conservative to me. They also mentioned him losing velocity, pitching 90-93 with his fastball. I always thought that Hurley worked in the 93-95 range reaching 97/97. It sounds like he has an above average slider with an improving change up. As it, the biggest weakness right now appears to be the change up.

Here are some of his numbers for 2006.
BB/9---2.80
HR/9---1.04-- Concern
H/9---7.43
K/9---8.93
LD%---11%
Fly%---38%
GB%---41%

Why do people frown on him slightly, but believe someone like Nick Adenhart will be a stud?

For the sake of arguement, I am not factoring in the ballpark that Hurley will pitch 1/2 his MLB starts in.

Tweet Comment 12 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

well.....

Adenhart is a year younger, for one, though I don't think that makes the hugest difference with pitchers.

I think a lot of it has to do with the background -- that Adenhart was supposed to be a stud, got injured, but now that he's healthy looks like he never lost what he had. I don't know the whole scouting report on either, but my impression was that Adenhart has better stuff on the whole.

Also, the homerun rates are absurdly low for Adenhart, while his walkrates in similar leagues at similar ages are lower than those of Hurley.

Maybe there are other reasons too. All in all, though, I'd take Adenhart in a second over Hurley.

by bleedjaxblue on Feb 19, 2007 3:55 PM EST reply actions

Well...

I'd have to agree. I think Adenhart's stuff is overall better. As well the fact that Texas has a hard time developing pitching prospects or having them succeed at the next level. I too like Adenhart a fair amount more then Hurley but, Hurley might be a #2. I never go by Rotoworld when it comes to prospects. I just don't trust their stuff as much as I trust BA, BP, and John.

by nate050904 on Feb 19, 2007 4:03 PM EST up reply actions

Minor league parks, too

Another reason, which was mentioned on the Casey Kotchman thread, is that Angels hitting prospects seem to be often overrated because the Angels minor league system, on the whole, is comprised of launching pads.

By the same token, Angels pitching prospects tend to be underrated. If they succeed, as Adenhart has, in the most hostile minor league environments, they are all the better as prospects.

Now, I don't know what the Texas minor league parks are like (I'd imagine that they're at least a little bit hitter friendly), but I seriously doubt they're as bad as the Angels' minor league parks. So that's another edge for Adenhart, I think.

by ajohnst1 on Feb 19, 2007 9:01 PM EST up reply actions

Adenhart's HR rates

...are especially impressive when you consider that he gave up ONE home run at Rancho Cucamonga last season, in 52 and 1/3 innings.

This is the same park where Brandon Wood played half his home games in 2005...you know, when he had 98 extra base hits, 43 home runs, and a 1.055 OPS. (Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find out his home/road splits for 2005)

Now, I know not all minor league hitters are Brandon Wood. But damn...seriously? ONE home run? At Rancho Cucamonga? That's good.

by ajohnst1 on Feb 19, 2007 9:20 PM EST up reply actions

for most other comparisons....

....I'd definitely bring up the ballpark in favor of Adenhart. The Rangers play in all the same leagues as the Angels, though, and it's not like there are really ANY safe haven in the California or Texas leagues. Maybe the Angels park is a little more extreme, though I definitely wouldn't count on it. The point is, age aside, their performances should be fairly comparable without too much adjustment.

by bleedjaxblue on Feb 19, 2007 11:44 PM EST up reply actions

Not taking anything

Away from Adenhart at all. Just trying to figure out the difference in some opinions.

I love Adenhart's GB rate and is always something I like to look at when evaluating pitchers. Right now Adenhart has what it sounds as a fastball reaching 93-95 and a good change up. His K/9 were around 8.2 and BB/9 around 2.4 which are both pretty nice. He is still developing a curveball, and my biggest concern with him is that he has already had Tommy surgery. I know that the surgery isn't what it used to be, but it is still a red flag to me.

by MHD on Feb 19, 2007 4:17 PM EST reply actions

not that I trust Rotoworld particularly either

But part of the difference is just how conservative people are projecting prospects. Personally, I think saying a pitcher will end up being a #3 isn't a bad thing at all. If that's his UPSIDE, then that's something else, but decent number threes are a lot harder to come by than most prospect hounds realize.

Of course, I have no idea if that's what Rotoworld was doing -- I have no reason to believe they are more conservative and/or realistic in their projections than anyone else. However, without knowing that, I have trouble saying whether Rotoworld is unnecessarily "frowning" on him, since I think a #3 is a decent evaluation of Hurley. All I can say is, in comparison, I'd take Adenhart in a second, because of the stats, age, organization history and scouting reports.

by bleedjaxblue on Feb 19, 2007 6:04 PM EST up reply actions

Rotoworld is

a little off base imo. I saw Hurley consistently throw in the mid-90's late in the season, up to 96, and read the other scouting reports. His upside, even if he adds no more velocity, is better than a #3 I think. Now, he does need to keep improving that changeup, but the fastball command is really good, and his slider has come along.

by Brett Perryman on Feb 19, 2007 7:59 PM EST reply actions

I didn't mean for this

To become a Hurley vs Adenhart thread, although there has been some good valuable information about the Adenhart in here so far.

I guess since we have come this far, does anyone think Adenharts K's will increase, or is he going to be more of an around 8 k/9 guy?

I think Hurley would project more from the scouting reports to have a k/9 around 9... is that fair? I think if his change up does come around and becomes a useable 3rd pitch in the show he could be an all star quality pitcher.

by MHD on Feb 19, 2007 10:05 PM EST reply actions

hurley doesnt get as much attention

because of rangers prospects before him. people figure that because other prospects bombed before him, then by god he will too. i mean honestly, if hurley were in the a's, twins', or dodgers' organization, hed be one of the most talked about pitchers in the minors. but he's not, he plays for the rangers, so therefore he is doomed to fail. i dont know about you, but that way of thinking really irks me. but you know what, other people can keep undervaluing him because all thats gonna do is help me on draft day!

by rangersfan24 on Feb 19, 2007 11:07 PM EST reply actions

Ballpark in Arlington

is not as bad as its reputation I think. It ranked only 13th in homers allowed, folks, and Hurley will be just fine there, as will Brandon McCarthy who should get a boost coming from the worst park for homers in Chicago.

by t ball on Feb 19, 2007 11:28 PM EST reply actions

Hurley

I weas scouting players for my DMB draft and I came across those MLB.com draft videos and was VERY impressed with Hurley.

Tried to do the link for it but i cant make it work. Go to events on the home page, 2004 draft 1st round and he was pick 30.

Adenhart was impressive too. I thought it was interesting that Adenhart and Brandon Erbe, at least from HS, had earily similar size and deluiveries. And that was BEFORE I found out they are from the Baltimore area.

I actually like Erbe a bit better than Adenhart. though I admit I havent seen them lately. Erbe's results are a bit better.

It would be a tough call but I MIGHT take Hurley over Erbe, than Adenhart but, I really think they are all fine pitching prospects.

Not really what you asked, I know. I agree with the previous posters on the REASONS behind Huley being underated. I just think SEEING a guy on video or in person adds a whole extra element to things. A guy becomes REAL instead of somewhat of an abstrct legend.

casedog

by casejud on Feb 20, 2007 1:41 AM EST up reply actions