Chuck Lofgren
by Fundamentals on May 13, 2007 9:30 PM EDT
Email
PrintHas anybody been following his stats? I think he tends to get overlooked a little because of other top pitching prospects in that division and his own organization, but its difficult to ignore the numbers he is putting up right now. His May numbers (last three starts) are 1-0, 1.74 ERA, 16 Ks, 5 BB, 9 H, .138 opp BA in 20.2 innings. Also included in that is 5.1 hitless innings earlier in the week and 7 hitless innings today. Year to date numbers are 3-2, 2.88 ERA, 40.2 IP, 28 H, 42 Ks, 15 BBs, .196 opp BA. That at AA as a young 21 y/o. I don't think he's in the same level as Adam Miller right now in that organization, but it looks like he is working that way.
26 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Response
This isn't to speak poorly of him, as those types of guys are now making a fine living on a $12+M/year salary. That's one very valuable player for the Tribe, especially given that he's a lefty.
Response II
He's got a solid four-pitch repertoire and nobody hits their weight against him.
If he's a number 3 innings eater, my question is what does a number 1 starter have to show in the minors?
Chuck Lofgren is a big-time prospect with a big-time arm. Don't let anybody else tell you otherwise.
by grandslam on May 13, 2007 10:04 PM EDT reply actions
re:
hmm
by Rayman @ Minor League Ball on May 13, 2007 10:45 PM EDT up reply actions
re
One of his offspeed pitches (his curveball, I
Hello limozeen,
I know Lofgren has worked on his changeup and it's better than it was, but I think his curveball was considered pretty good even a few years ago, so I'm guessing it's at least above-average.
I agree with you that he's likely not a #1 like say an Adam Miller could be, but I don't think a #2 is out-of-the-question, though like I said, I'd probably say there's a 20% chance he's a #2, versus an 80% chance he's a #3-#4 guy.
Just my 2 cents. :-)
Take care and have a great day!
Not many pitching prospects increase their K
Hello limozeen,
I understand your point, but keep in mind that very few pitching prospects, even top pitching prospects, increase their K rates by moving up through the Minors - it gets more difficult to K higher-level Minor League players because they are more experienced, more skilled, and more disciplined than lower-level Minor League players.
That's why no one really expects top pitching prospects to strike out 10+/9 IP at the ML level; heck, even 9+/9 IP at the ML level is a bit rare in its own right - there's only a handful of starters who can claim that. We have to keep in mind that top pitching prospects don't have to emulate Johan Santana to be a legitimate ace at the ML level.
Just my 2 cents. :-)
Take care and have a great day!
aces do
J.Santana
P.Martinez
J.Smoltz
R.Halladay
and of course almost equal number don't.
I think the top pitchers you can't go by the numbers but just watch and see how they dominate. Whether it's the hitter weakly hitting groundout after groundout or having high k's. Doesn't really matter to me.
Agreed on KOs or GOs!
Regarding Halladay, I presume you're using his 2007 numbers, because his 2006 K rate was 5.40 K/9 IP, and has actually been under 9 K/9 IP his entire ML career (6.34 K/9 IP,) so like you suggested, I don't think ML aces have to strike out a batter an inning, especially if they throw hard and can induce weakly-hit groundballs. It's worked well for Halladay throughout his career, earning him a Cy Young, and many thinking he's the best RH pitcher in baseball. Brandon Webb is another one who comes to mind who has strong GO ratios and a solid to above-average KO ratio as well.
That's why I think it's relevant you check out the GO ratio as well as the K ratio. Adam Miller gets many GOs, which mainly explains why he only struck out 2 the other night; he had 17 GOs out of 21 outs - that's an extremely high number of GOs for any pitcher, even groundball specialists like Wang, Westbrook, and Lowe.
Just my 2 cents. :-)
Take care and have a great day!
Response
But he doesn't throw mid-90s. He throws high 80s-low 90s, and might touch the lower end of the mid-90s here and there. I have not heard anything more optimistic about his velocity than that. Personally I expect him to be a 88-90 guy in the majors, which would be just fine.
I'm not sure why my response was construed as badmouthing Lofgren. I'm sure the Indians would be thrilled if he ended up being a #3 starter relative to the rest of the AL. I think it's a tremendous compliment to him.
He was once regarded as possibly being a #2,
Hello Fundamentals,
Yes, Lofgren has looked quite good for most of this season; he sometimes gets overlooked, but if he keeps this up, he'll likely get more press and become more of a blue-chip prospect.
He still has to work on having more consistent command, as his BB rate is still a bit high (15 in 40.2 IP, though that's not as high as I thought it was - it's actually an improvement to this point - 3.33 BB/9 IP; it was 3.48 BB/9 IP last year in High-A) and he can get wild at times, but the low H rate (28 in 40.2 IP - 6.21 H/9 IP) and the very good K rate (42 in 40.2 IP - 9.31 K/9 IP) is certainly very promising and why a #2 ceiling might not be out of the question yet.
Just my 2 cents. :-)
Take care and have a great day!
Hi IndiansFan!
Remember that the league is an extreme pitchers league. This is why I was still huge on H.Ramirez when everyone and their mother wrote him off. I looked so cool when he became rookie of the year :P
Lofgren is nice but I'd rather see how he does at higher levels.
Another funny thing that happens as pitchers progress - they have higher pitchers / inning as the hitters have more patience and can also fight off pitches. This will do two things. One is that the pitchers velocity will drop. The other is the mistakes within the zone will be amplified.
That's why the Indians didn't move him up to
Hello pedrophile,
I can understand the "cautiously optimistic" approach; like I said, I still think he's probably more of a #3-#4 guy, but I've cracked the door open ever more slightly that he could be a #2; like I said, from 0-10% to 10-20% - not much of a change, but I'm giving him a bit more of a chance, probably because I'm impressed with what he has done at AA so far - SSS understood.
I'm impressed that his H rate is as low as it is and that his K rate is as high as it is; granted, it's early, but based on his High-A season last year, I thought he'd get off to more of a slower start and work his way up. He's had one or two poorer outings, mostly with command, but he seems to get better with his command with each outing, including his outing on Sunday where he went 7.0 IP, gave up no hits, with 1 BB and 6 K.
By the way, no offense, but the stats I've seen from this link suggest that Canal Park (Akron's Home Park) is more of a hitter's park than a pitchers park, so I'm not sure the EL is so much of a pitchers' league anymore.
Just from looking at AA teams like Bowie, Erie, Harrisburg, and Reading, there are some park factors that are under 1, but I think there are just as many, if not more, that are at or over 1, so I'm not sure the EL is as much of a pitchers' league as you're implying, though I can't say for sure (and even that link I provided says that this isn't an exact science, so who knows for sure? :-)
At any rate, I agree that we need to see more of Lofgren at higher levels before we can determine how high his ceiling really is, but I think handling the AA test at a high level so far is a pretty good sign that Lofgren can become a very solid to good ML pitcher at some point in the relatively near future for the Indians, even enough so to be considered a blue-chip prospect (not as high as Miller, but still enough to be a legitimate blue-chip prospect.)
Just my 2 cents. :-)
Take care and have a great day!
reply
There is no true way to qualify a leagues park factor. But if we were to guess and say the eastern league was 120% a hitters league. Then a park that was 110% hitters park would be 0.90 in the park factors - thus tricking you to think it was an extreme pitchers park.
I totally agree about not giving up the ghost he can be a #2. Look at Guthrie on Baltimore this year. Not sure how long this lasts but cool ...
Good point; I'm actually confused by the SO
park, doesn't that mean there are more SOs, not fewer? Or am I reading too much into it?
anything over 1 is considered a hitters' park, relative to that stat, whereas under 1 is considered a pitchers' park relative to that stat.
Akron's 2006 numbers are the following -
R = 1.14
H = 1.09
2B = 1.21
HR = 0.90
BB = 1.04
SO = 0.74
I'm not sure if the 0.90 and 0.74 favors pitchers or not; does that mean there are fewer HRs and more Ks or fewer HRs and fewer Ks? If there are fewer Ks, wouldn't that favor the hitter, not the pitcher? I think I'm confused regarding the stats, now that I thought about them a bit more. :-)
The 2004-2006 Weighted Park Factors for Akron:
R = 1.10
H = 1.07
2B = 1.03
HR = 0.84
BB = 0.98
SO = 0.81
Again, I'm not sure how to take the 0.81 SO - I thought that anything under 1 (according to the article) would make it more of a pitcher's park, but if that's the case, wouldn't that mean more Ks, since more Ks would favor a pitcher and fewer Ks would favor a batter? I know a higher H rate would favor the hitter, so that seems straightforward, but I'm not sure about the SOs.
Any help would be appreciated! :-)
Take care and have a great day!
I've heard anywhere from 89-96 as of 2006!
Regarding his velocity, I've heard anywhere from 89-96 MPH regarding his fastball; if he can consisently hit anywhere from 92-96 MPH, I think he has a better chance to be a #2 than if he's only hitting, say, 89-91, since that would help him have more leeway in the strike zone and probably help him maintain a higher K rate as well since there would be more separation between his fastball and his offspeed stuff.
A main reason I believe Cliff Lee never became a #2 like Peter Gammons and some others thought a few years back is because Lee's velocity has dropped, I'm guessing to his trying to gain better command and not walk as many hitters (which he has done, but his K rate also has fallen as well,) so that's why he's more of a #3-#4 guy. I could see Lofgren becoming that, but I also could see him becoming a bit better than Lee if he can maintain his current pace (SSS understood) - right now, his K rate is up, his BB rate is down, and his H/9 IP rate is just over 6, which is quite good, especially for a 21-YO at AA.
It will be interesting to see what he can do, but I think his stock is improving a bit from even before the season began; I think many questioned the K rate dropping in his very solid season last year and started to wonder, can be a top-of-the-rotation guy or will he be more of a #3-#4 guy? When he was first drafted and up to about a year after that, I thought he could be a #2 guy; then when I heard about his velocity dropping and his having inconsistency with his offspeed pitches and command, I thought more a #3-#4 guy; now with his solid improvement at AA to this point, I'd say anywhere from #2-#4 - I think #3-#4 is still probably more likely, but I'd give him more of a chance for a #2 pitcher than I would have at this time a year ago, say 20%-30% chance now, compared to a 0%-10% chance a year ago.
Overall, I'm excited about Lofgren's progress and potential; even if the Indians can't resign C.C. (I still wish they would, but I have serious doubts they will,) the Indians could still have a very nice rotation with Miller, Carmona, Lofgren, Lee/Westbrook/Sowers/Martin, etc.
Just my 2 cents. :-)
Take care and have a great day!
C.Lee
Now he has a high 80's fastball with good deception but very flat fastball. Probably looks like a low 90's fastball that is flat. And of course it will continue to lose velocity. He's done IMO.
I hear so often "lets just try him as a starter" or "it can't hurt" or so many other reasons to try and try again as a starter. If you wait too long it's too late to move a pitcher to the pen.
Guys with poor mechanics, one pitch, and high pitch counts are the ones most likely to break down. Move them to the pen early I say.
Response
I think the same thing happened to Lee, I don't think he was ever going to throw THAT hard as a ML pitcher.
His K rate didn't suck last year. 125 Ks in 140 innings. All things together I would consider the increase in Ks fairly marginal so far. He hasn't gone past 7 innings in any start and seems to be going 5-6 innings most of the time. It's not like he's pulling a Gio Gonzalez and threatening to put up double digit Ks in any given start.
Thoughts on Lee!
No offense, but there have been many starters throughout ML history who have moved to the bullpen later on in their careers and done quite well - look at Dennis Eckersley as one example.
Personally, I think it's harder to try to move them from a reliever to a starter - you have to get them stretched out to minimize the chance of them having an injury, plus the fact that they have to pace themselves more and focus on having 3-4 quality pitches instead of just 1-2.
Therefore, I think it makes more sense to try to work with them as starters first - starters are more valuable, you get them more innings for their development (which is why many ML organizations will have their reliever prospects starting in the Minor Leagues, such as the Indians have done with Rafael Perez, Juan Lara, and Tony Sipp, among others,) and it's easier (to me at least) to turn them into relievers - you don't have to stretch them out; I think the mental side of having a reliever's mentality and being able to warm up in about 12 pitches anytime you're called upon is more difficult than the actual pitching on the mound because a starter is used to having his 5-day routine, whereas as a reliever, you don't have that type of set routine. The biggest challenge/change a former starter might have as a reliever pitching-wise probably would be coming in with men on base and you having to have good command right away, but I think the mental side and the lack of a preset routine like a starter has would be more difficult for a starter-turned reliever. Just a guess on my part. :-)
I think you mentioned this before, and I agree with you (and so do some LGT posters) that Lee should be shifted to the bullpen at some point - he probably would regain some velocity and it was mentioned during his start today that he was having more trouble with the RH batters than he was with lefties (he shut down Cust for the most part, but gave up a HR to Crosby, among some other hits, including a single or double to Shannon Stewart.)
I doubt the Indians will move him to the bullpen any time soon due to his new contract though; in fact, it's probably more likely he'll get traded at some point in the future as a SP than he will get moved to the bullpen (though I could be wrong, and I hope I am - I would like to see what Lee could do out of the bullpen - I think he could be quite solid.)
Just my 2 cents. :-)
Take care and have a great day!
for sure
Zumaya and Papelbon were moved early in their career. I think C.Lee should have been as well. T.Sipp was a good move to put him in the pen.
It's almost like the team knows the best place for a pitcher is in the pen but they won't move him there unless he proves he can't handle starting. If the team believes he should be a reliever then make him a reliever.
That's a good point!
I think it's true that almost every pitching prospect will be tried out as a starter first, even many college relievers, just because starters are considered more valuable and quality relievers are probably easier to come by via other means (trades, FA, etc.,) rather than quality starters.
I do agree with you that sometimes teams will wait too long to determine that a pitcher should be a reliever - heck, look at the Indians and Jason Davis - they couldn't decide for the longest time whether he was a starter or reliever before finally settling on the reliever role. The Indians also had similar trouble in deciding Guthrie's future ML role as well.
I also agree that I think a move to the bullpen for Lee would help increase his velocity and make him more like he was when he was coming up through the Expos' and Indians' Minor League systems. Plus, Lee would only have to worry about two pitches, not have to worry as much about stamina (he seems to falter around the 6th inning in almost every start) and would only have to go through a batting order 1-2 times at most, which might be better for him since he always seems to struggle around the 6th inning, which is usually around the 3rd time through the batting order as well.
Lefties are only hitting .200 off of him in 2007, compared to .258 for RHers, but over the last 3 seasons (2004-2006,) there isn't much difference between righties and lefties; righties hit at a .266 clip off of him, while lefties hit .264, so he might be more of a long reliever or a reliever who could go multiple innings, rather than just a straight lefty-matchup guy or LOOGY.
Of course, the biggest reason the Indians won't consider shifting Lee to the bullpen now is because of the contract he now has - they wouldn't consider paying $3-$4 million for a reliever who's not a closer. Therefore, I don't see them shifting Lee to the bullpen anytime soon. Like I said, I think Lee would be more likely to be traded as a SP down the road rather than being turned into a reliever - the Indians must think he can be a better starter than reliever.
Just my 2 cents. :-)
Take care and have a great day!
Hi IndiansFan!
Lee could be a huge addition to the pen because of his control. You really need some guys there that don't get themselves into trouble. Lee would be great in this role.
I do think his velocity could be up in the 90-93 range and with his deceptive delivery it would appear as a mid-90s pitch from a lefty.
The bigger thing may be the 2nd/3rd time through the lineup on why he falters. His velocity does drop, sure. But the guy has a flat fastball and only has two pitches. So when they sit on his fastball he is in trouble if he misses his location at all. Fortunately for him he doesn't miss too often.
I think he can be a very solid setup man. And I honestly believe having two lights out setup men can be more important than a top closer. Don't get me wrong, you can't have a bum closer. But a Todd Jones type will do.
Random side note
for some reason
by realityconquest on May 14, 2007 8:24 AM EDT up reply actions
I'm not aware of that policy! :-)
Maybe the Indians have figured out something regarding how well top pitching prospects perform and progress depending on how much stubble they have. :-)
I'll have to consider that when doing future prospect analysis - how much stubble do they have? I guess, the more stubble, the more potential they have. :-)
Take care and have a great day!
Lofgren's approach to getting Fernando Martinez
Hello everyone,
Jay of LetsGoTribe alerted me to this nice BA piece on Lofgren and how he approached getting Fernando Martinez out - you can read it here.
Take care and have a great day!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
