Andrew Brackman: Lets call a spade a spade.

by templeUsox on Mar 24, 2007 3:18 PM EDT Comment 65 comments

I was mocked and taunted before the start of the college season when I suggested that Andrew Brackman was just plain not very good.

"He can stay at 96 in the 6th"

"He's a freak talent"

Yada, yada, yada.

Can we get smart about this please? This is truly a theater of the absurd. When I draft a college pitcher, I would like someone who has exhibited a trace of dominance in his career. Brackman has been mediocre AT BEST this season. Can people get past the optimistic scouting reports and the numerous BA fluff pieces and finally realize that he's nothing more than a gimmick. I know a sucker is born every minute, but if Brack goes in the 1st round, some team is really looking to throw away 1 million dollars.

0 recs | Comment 65 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

It's called

projectability...

a guy who's 7'0" and can throw 100MPH doesn't grow on trees...

He's raw. He just gave up basketball to pursue his baseball career. He's not as advanced as David Price but, he does have A LOT of projectability and that's what teams like.

by nate050904 on Mar 24, 2007 3:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm familiar with the term projectability...

I'm also familiar with the terms "results matter." This isn't high school any more for Brackman and at some point that potential needs to translate. It's not like this is his first time stepping on a baseball field. He has been playing baseball his whole life.

Oh and by the way, nice little outing today vs. Wake:

4 IP, 9 H, 5 ER, 2/3 K/BB

Stay strong Brack.

by templeUsox on Mar 24, 2007 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You would have passed on this guy too

http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/johnsra05.shtml

based on college statistics.

I'm not saying you are wrong about his future results. You certainly could be right. But you write like you are his just dropped girlfriend.

"Strikeouts are good...groundballs are better. Home runs are okay...but walks SUCK!" Mike Caldwell

by Torncuff on Mar 25, 2007 7:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Long developing Unit

To be fair, that's not the best counterexample. Ideally a Top 5 pick college pitcher should, in theory, be someone that's pretty close to major league success and will soon be an ace or close to it. Johnson was in his 8th full year after being drafted before he posted an ERA+ over 108. He obviously turned out great but whatever concerns there might have been about his college performance were probably justified for a while.

Of course, it's my opinion that Hall of Famers should never be used as a basis for comparison. By definition they are unique and special players that are just different than everyone else. I'm sure that major league history is littered with guys who, like Johnson, had great stuff with bad control but instead completely failed to take steps forward like he did.

by Jim Wisinski on Mar 25, 2007 8:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

2nd round pick

I think he was 36th pick overall. Not a top 5 pick by any means.

What were his college numbers? Do you have a link? I couldn't find them anywhere.

by pedrophile on Mar 25, 2007 11:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nope

No, I couldn't find them either. I didn't mean for what I said to come out quite that way, I know when Johnson was drafted but I did a poor job of representing my overall point.

by Jim Wisinski on Mar 26, 2007 12:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

your point was valid

and Brackman could become an ace. But to consider him top 5 is a big stretch IMO. I'm totally agreed with you that in a 1st round pick you want either the safer fast return OR a very high upside player with a very good chance on reaching that potential.

There are tons of raw guys that throw hard that project well. If the guy is a project I want him to throw hard and have devastating stuff if his control is terrible.

by pedrophile on Mar 26, 2007 1:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

sounds like

that projectable pitcher from Notre Dame. The one who throws 96 with a sharp curve you never dominated but played football. Heard he was pretty good at football too. What's his name?

LOL on a serious note, i sort of agree with Temple on most accounts but I think he at least has the K Rate. Samardzija had neither. Though brackman's walk rate and ERA is quite scary for a top 5 pick.

by Metty5 on Mar 24, 2007 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually...

I would prefer a better K rate from him if I were looking at him. If his stuff is that good and that dominating when he can keep it in the strike zone, then I would prefer a K rate around 11/9 instead of less than 9/9.

Of course, I don't really know anything about the kid because I don't really pay attention to college baseball. But what I have read here, and with his stats, he won't be at the top of my draft board this summer unless those stats drastically improve and I read some good scouting reports about him.

by Boxkutter on Mar 24, 2007 6:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

DUH

Good point, except for the fact that he was a 5TH ROUND pick.

Mahalo

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

by WayneCampbell05 on Mar 26, 2007 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

5th round pick

that was given top of the first round money

by fewgoodcards on Mar 26, 2007 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Season numbers:

40.1 IP, 41 H, 3.79 ERA, 38/15 K/BB

Damn. That screams Top 5 pick.

by templeUsox on Mar 24, 2007 3:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

So who

would you take over him, as far as college pitchers go?

Price, ok?

Im not sure anyone else clearly tops him prospect wise...though i could be blanking on someone
Certainly not Wes Roemer

by nms on Mar 24, 2007 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would take...

Ross Detweiler, James Simmons, and Sean Morgan over him off the top of my head.

by templeUsox on Mar 24, 2007 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Do you realize

who has Mizzou St has been playing?

I dont think Detwiler has faced a team that made the postseason last year.
The best programs Detwiler has faced are Minnesota or 15-12 Dallas Baptist.

Missouri St has also played South Dakota State and Ark-Little Rock...its easy to rack up numbers on them.

Simmons is good but doesnt have Brackmans stuff. Hes faced decent competition but not on the level that Brackman has and will face. The best offense SImmons faced (Oklahoma) smacked him around.
He was impressive against good, but not great, teams like San Deigo State, San Fran and Nevada.

Sean Morgan has been lights out but, again, his team hasnt faced anyone.
The one legit team Morgan faced (USC) hit him around. The 2nd best program hes faced would be Loyola Marymount or wright State.
Thats kind of lacking

Its really hard to make definitive judgements based on stats so early in the year with lost of teams eating up cupcakes.

by nms on Mar 24, 2007 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Of course...

you're assuming two things:

That I would take these players over Brackman based only on their performance thus far. Which is not true.
Brackman has faced a tough schedule. Which he hasn't. William & Mary, Gardner Webb, Western Carolina, Maryland, Virginia Tech, and Wake Forest today. That could probably be qualified as a "decent" schedule, but there isn't one top 30 team on it and he has yet to face the real teeth of the ACC. In short, he should have been better against these teams, considering the level of talent he supposedly has.

by templeUsox on Mar 24, 2007 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

oh yea...

and Jake Arietta. That's a no-brainer. I can't believe I forgot about him.

by templeUsox on Mar 24, 2007 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And for the record...

I would like to note that Joe Savery's exclusion is intentional. He falls into the same category at Brackman, IMO.

by templeUsox on Mar 24, 2007 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

How is that?

Joe Savery I understand has some inury problems but the guy is a lefthanded starter when healthy who throws the ball in the Mid 90's and has some polish to go along with it.

by NYYLover1000 on Mar 24, 2007 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

arrieta

its not like arrieta has exactly been lights out this year either. 39 innings, 33 hits, 14 earned runs (3.23 ERA), 20 walks, 52 strikeouts. sure the strikeout numbers look good, but that is a ton of walks for a guy that is supposed to be a polished pitcher. also that western carolina team that you are calling a cupcake for brackman smacked around arrieta. i'm not saying i am a brackman fan, but he is probably a better option than arrieta.

by fewgoodcards on Mar 24, 2007 5:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't put words in my mouth...

I listed Western Carolina with a bunch of teams which I said amounted to a decent schedule. I have no idea how that equates to me saying they are a "cupcake." I actually follow them quite a bit. And while I don't think they're anything special I am a believer in Blake Murphy.

by templeUsox on Mar 24, 2007 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

sorry

i just assumed that when you said he hadn't faced a good schedule and then listed them as one of the teams that you were implying they were an easy team.

one question: why do you put brackman down b/c of his stats, but arrieta has been nowhere near as good as he was last year, is walking a batter every other inning, and his stuff is average and you consider him a no brainer first round pick?

by fewgoodcards on Mar 24, 2007 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Where do you find...

that his stuff is average? This isn't Barry Enright we're talking about. Arietta has a fastball that can sit in the low-90's and touch the mid-90's, a good slider, and from what I saw a plus change-up. He also has a striking build which scouts would love.

It's no stretch to see him as a first rounder.

And read what I said before: the pitchers I would take ahead of Brackman are not being judged solely on their body of work. Just as I am not judging Brackman solely on his body of work in 2007. Arietta has a body of work to examine, and from that I think he has control will improve.

by templeUsox on Mar 24, 2007 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That should read...

the pitchers are not being judged solely on their body of work in 2007.

by templeUsox on Mar 24, 2007 6:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

average stuff

i have seen him pitch 3 times i while you are right that he has a great body and i love his delivery, he does have average stuff. it is true that he can sit in the low 90's, but the highest i have even seen him was 93 and that is what i would call average for a righthander. i disagree with your assessment that he has a plus change-up. he does have very good arm speed on it, but he leaves it up in the zone a lot and it has no fade on it. straight change-ups up in the zone will get crushed by good hitters. his slider is a good strikeout pitch, but he can't throw it for a strike. it is always low, away, and in the dirt which is good on 0-2, but he needs something he can drop in for a strike when he is behind in the count. i just think a guy with that type of repetoire needs better control than 20 walks in 39 innings.

i think he will go in the first round, but what i was getting at was you implied that anyone who takes brackman in the first round is crazy and i think arrieta is behind brackman.

by fewgoodcards on Mar 24, 2007 6:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And by the way...

Lets not lose light of the fact that Keith Law, in all his self-importance, said he would take Andrew Brackman over David Price. I think it would be appropriate for some accountability there.

by templeUsox on Mar 24, 2007 3:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

ok.

Seeing as Keith Law is a professional, his opinion is considerably more valid than yours...

I'll be the first A+ prospect...

by ufoboy90 on Mar 25, 2007 7:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd call his freshman season

Dominant, with a 2.09 ERA in 43 innings allowing only 32 hits while striking out 43 and allowing no homers.

This year hes gone 36 innings of 2.97 ERA ball while striking out 36, giving up 32 hits and walking 12.
State hasnt played a great sced this season but theyve played a decent one. Brackman shut out a top 20 Coastal Carolina team. States also played teams like TCU, ECU, Western Carolina (dont scoff at the name, theyve beaten CLemson, UGA, GT and i think South Carolina too), Pepperdine, Greensboro, UNC Wilmington.
We're getting into the conf season now, so we'll see how good he is in the grind of the ACC but right now he seems to be doing fine.

He had one horrible year and because of that youre saying hes never had a good year?

Where are you coming from?

by nms on Mar 24, 2007 3:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

You should...

check his updated stats. They're awesome.

by templeUsox on Mar 24, 2007 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

im looking

at the stats on States site.
Ok, so he pitched 4 mediocre innings and now his numbers are a little worse but still good.

Whats the issue. Hes got a fine start to the year going and if he pitches well in the ACC im not sure what the problem is...how good do his #s need to be for you?

by nms on Mar 24, 2007 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

In other news

I got to watch price last night and came away thoroughly unimpressed. He threw hard and hid the ball well but that is about it. His control was poor and he seemed uncomfortable in a big game environment. The radio announcers for the game even commented that he looked like he was pitching scared. Just one game FWIW...

by Dfarth on Mar 24, 2007 3:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Of course...

David Price can be given the benefit of the doubt, since he put up a 10 IP, 4 H, 14/2 K/BB line last weekend against a very good Mississippi team. Also, Price calmed down after the first two innings last night and pitched well after that.

by templeUsox on Mar 24, 2007 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah...

something like 375 pitches his last 3 outings....

by slurve on Mar 24, 2007 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Right

I wasn't trying to say he wasn't any good - just that last night was my one chance to see him this year and he didn't pitch well...

by Dfarth on Mar 24, 2007 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And...

that's a legitimate concern with Price, and something you would like to see curbed.

by templeUsox on Mar 24, 2007 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn't call...

40.1 IP, 41 H, 3.79 ERA, 38/15 K/BB

I wouldn't call that good.

I would say that was extremely disappointing for someone who was talked so highly about to start the season and projected as a top 5 pick. I look for some semblance of dominance. If you can't dominate a college lineup, you are going to have problems in the pros. This isn't like a hitter, who can have a projectable frame, but it doesn't show in the performance yet. Brackman has a "plus" fastball right now. Against hitters who aren't very good, and he's only played like 2 ACC games, he should be able to dominate with his fastball alone. Even Luke Burnett has shown the ability to strike a batter out and he's considered "raw" as well.

by templeUsox on Mar 24, 2007 3:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

god

I'm not a minor leagues expert by any stretch, but I know that you're not making a single legitimate point.

Matt Garza in his first 43 college innings:
9.55 ERA, 31:21 K:BB, 8 HR, 9 WP
Second year, 90 innings:
4.90 ERA, 1.52 WHIP

What's your point? PROJECTABILITY is a pretty key factor, you know.

by Lt Melmo on Mar 24, 2007 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sample Size

I guess this is the reason why the Draft isn't in March. Let's wait until after the season to see what his numbers are, OK? 40 IP is still a little too small to make any conclusive predictions IMO.

Mahalo

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

by WayneCampbell05 on Mar 26, 2007 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Right...

and Garza was appropriately ranked the 72nd best college player in the country prior to his junior year, and he earned his way up into the 1st round. That's all I ask of Brackman. Stop letting your mystique do the talking for you.

And I would argue that projectability really isn't as important in college. At some point, you are what you are. I argued the same thing when John Mayberry and Daniel Bard were projected as first rounders the last two years, so I'm just being consistent.

by templeUsox on Mar 24, 2007 4:09 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

not as important in college?

The kid is 6'10 and throws 100. You think that those stats(distorted by a few recent bad innings) represent his ability? I don't care how much time it takes to work the polish on him, a kid with that frame and raw talent is worth a high draft pick.

by Lt Melmo on Mar 24, 2007 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well...

that's obviously the same philosophy some teams have which is why he is probably guaranteed a top 10 pick. I just disagree.

by templeUsox on Mar 24, 2007 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Copout

It doesn't matter where Garza was actually picked. If you could draft him again now knowing how well he'd do in the minors despite his crappy early college stats, you'd draft him pretty high, right? Who cares where someone DESERVES to be drafted. The deserve to be drafted as high as someone cares to pop them. The issue is ceiling and the likelihood of achieving it, and with Brackman the sum of that will be pretty irresistible.

by igreen01 on Mar 25, 2007 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Can I ask a question?

If Daniel Moskos becomes a starter, I heard on BA podcast he can be a front line starter, can he be a #1 starter at the ML level or at least a #2.

by NYYLover1000 on Mar 24, 2007 4:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

moskos

if you ask templeUsox, moskos can't be any good. look at his stats, 15.2 innings, 11 hits, 5 earned runs, 10 walks, 19 strikeouts. obviously he is not dominating.

by fewgoodcards on Mar 24, 2007 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well if you asked...

me, I would say I don't think he can make a conversion from a relief pitcher to a #1 type starter. That doesn't seem that absurd.

by templeUsox on Mar 24, 2007 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

#1 starter

i didn't say he could be a #1 starter, and i don't even think he should be moved from the pen. all i was saying is that his stats are bad and that is your basic argument against brackman. i was just trying to say that stats are not the most important thing with amateur players. sure we look at them b/c that is about all most of us have to go on, but i think some people worry about them too much.

by fewgoodcards on Mar 24, 2007 5:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You keep...

on committing this fallacy of saying that I only am judging players on their body of work THIS YEAR. I am not. I'm sure Moskos can be a fine reliever. Whatever. I don't consider him a necessarily exciting prospect like some others, but I think all this year's relief pitchers are being overrated for some reason.

by templeUsox on Mar 24, 2007 6:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

overrated

it seems like everyone is overrated to you. i'm just curious, who would you consider some of your favorites for the draft? maybe your top 5 or top 10. it just seems like price is the only guy you like. i know you were very high on jared prince, but he has been absolutely abysmal so far this year.

by fewgoodcards on Mar 24, 2007 6:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

My top 10

Let me preface this by saying I don't think the top of this draft is very strong. That's mainly to do with a lack of college position player depth. After the top 3 players I see a drop-off:

David Price
Matt Wieters
Rick Porcello
Matt Harvey
Matt Mangini
Jason Heyward
Nevin Griffith (this is obviously surprising to most, but I'm a believer)
Ross Detwiler
Josh Vitters
Michael Burgess
Justin Jackson

BTW, don't give up on Prince. He's coming alive.

by templeUsox on Mar 24, 2007 7:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nevin Griffith

You are right, the Nevin Griffith ranking is surprising, to me at least. I can't possibly criticize your ranking since the draft is such an inexact science that is more a matter of personal preference, but I am curious as to why you are so high on him.

A few reports I have read on him have him sitting comfortably this year around 92-93 topping out at 95, which is up from his junior year and can certainly be considered a plus pitch for such a young player. He also seems to have good makeup and developing breaking pitches (specifically his curve). With that said, he does appear to be a very projectible pitcher worthy of a later first round choice at the moment.

However, what do you see in him that raises his status to a top 10 player in the draft ahead of other HS pitchers, like for example Neil Ramirez, Jack McGeary and Tanner Robles?

by CW on Mar 25, 2007 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

griffith

high school stats don't mean a whole lot (unless they are bad), but so far this year for griffith

26 innings, 12 hits, 8 walks, 46 strikeouts

by fewgoodcards on Mar 26, 2007 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i like the list

Id probably add someone like Kyle Russell and maybe Neil Ramirez as well.

by npurcell on Mar 25, 2007 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I didnt hear it

but I would assume BA was saying Moskos, if moved to the rotation, would be a frontline college starter...not that he projects as a 1 or 2 in a big league rotation

by nms on Mar 24, 2007 9:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yea, I was hearing it on BA podcast,

and they were talking about how a good amount of scouts felt that Moskos and even Brett Cecil if they moved from the pen to a starting role, they have enough upside to be front line starters.

by NYYLover1000 on Mar 24, 2007 9:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Verlander

I don't know much about Brackman, but Verlander was a guy with stuff but so-so results in college. The Tigers SCOUTED him, thought they could fix his mechanics, and voila.

by ian on Mar 24, 2007 4:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Verlander...

IMO was much better in college than given credit for.

He had dominant K rates, did not give up HRs, and his control was bad but not disgusting (high 3s).

Considering that...plus his arm which was absolutely sick...I think those knocks are overrated.

by SenorGato88 on Mar 24, 2007 7:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not a Brackman man either....

and theres a couple reasons.

His height actually annoys me. MLB pitchers over 6'5 are pretty hard to find, and many of those tall guys never seem to get it in order. Guys like RJ and Chris Young are more the exception than the rule. Considering hes not

His numbers in college are not dominant. Guys like Garza again...are more exceptions than rules, and honestly...look at Verlander in college...he wasn't bad at all. He had dominant K rates, and bad but not scary bad control.

Brackman's got a smaller sample size than Verlander in college, isn't/wasn't as dominant, his height is more of a burden than anything else...honestly he's a monster risk as a top 5 pick.

by SenorGato88 on Mar 24, 2007 5:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, people forget that

Verlander had back to back years in college where he set the record for the most K's in Old Dominion.

by NYYLover1000 on Mar 24, 2007 9:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Speaking of ODU...

don't sleep on junior catcher David Burns (.369/.468/.612, 21/11 BB/K) or Sophomore pitcher Anthony Shawler.

Burns could be a nice little 3rd-5th round catcher selection.

by templeUsox on Mar 24, 2007 9:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good stuff templeUsox

as ususal. Thanks.

I think that God in creating Man somewhat overestimated his ability. - Oscar Wilde

by Skellig on Mar 25, 2007 7:09 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Comparables

I'm really struggling to find good comparisons - guys with good velocity and drafted in the first round despite so-so ncaa numbers. Randy Johnson and Jeff Smardzija are not great comparisons... just evidence that people tend to remember recent prospects or big name players when searching for comparisons.

Wyatt Allen comes to mind, but he was a late first-round pick and never had more than ~95mph velocity during his college career.

Has anyone mentioned Brad Lidge yet? His numbers at Notre Dame were not spectacular, but he earned a $1M bonus in the first round due to his projectability and 97mph fastball. He turned out to be a great acquisition for the Astros.

by FI on Mar 26, 2007 7:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

samardzija

why is samardzija not a good comparison? because he wasn't a first round pick? he may be the best comparison of all. two sport player, little baseball experience, great fastball, not dominating statistics. sure he wasn't a first rounder, but he was paid top of the first round money which imo is just as important.

another good comp is chad hutchinson. he was another two sport guy with a big time arm that didn't have much success in college. he was a 2nd round pick, but was given a big time bonus. the got a cup of coffee in the big leagues, but he wasn't very good once he got above A-ball.

by fewgoodcards on Mar 26, 2007 9:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

followup

Well, Samardzija is probably a better comparison than I gave him credit for.

The reason I don't think he's a particularly good comparison isL
a) his velocity was a notch below what guys like Lidge and Brackman were capable of as an amateur
b) Samardzija didn't pick up many K's in college, and that's not Brackman's problem.
c) Nobody projected Samardzija as high in the draft even assuming he promised to give up football. Most had him pegged as a supplemental round pick or second rounder all the way.

by FI on Mar 26, 2007 10:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

BA

baseball america had samardzija ranked at #20 on their final draft tracker before the draft, so i think it is wrong to say that no one had him projected high even assuming there was no football.

by fewgoodcards on Mar 27, 2007 11:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

not a good comp

because templeUSox is arguing Brackman isn't a first rounder. The more quality 2nd or later round comparables the more you are making his point.

And money and slot are not direct comparables. Not only is there the intrinsic value in the slot there may also be other things in the contract like guaranteed call-up etc. that you would expect to find in a 1st round pick that you will not see in a later round with first round money.

by pedrophile on Mar 26, 2007 10:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs