Wandy Rodriguez--Breakthrough?
So far into 2007, Wandy Rodriguez is putting up some seriously impressive component numbers. In 77 IPs so far this year, he's registering ratios of 8.26 K/9, 2.09 BB/9, and 3.94 K/BB, which are #1/#2 starter-type credentials. In fact, those almost exactly mimic Aaron Harang's numbers for the year.
What do people who've seen him regularly think? Is he a good bet to keep putting up these kinds of #s this year, and will his counting stats like W/L come into line? Has he been doing anything different, or is it just that he's locating better?
Thanks for any thoughts.
0 recs |
10 comments
Comments
Numbers
Anyway the peripherals have been great and considering his age, these numbers could be legit and a sign of good things to come, but i still remain on the fence and would like to see more consistency and him go deeper into games because often he doesn't make it past the 5th or 6th.
by jlost284 on Jun 19, 2007 6:04 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
take a look at the link
Variables Don't; Constants Aren't
by overlord on Jun 19, 2007 7:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm liking him
by Team Moneyball on Jun 19, 2007 9:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Talk to me
by jrose643 on Jun 19, 2007 10:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It's mainly command and determination
Another key, imo is that he is also much more determined in key situations. He used to be the master of the big inning, but this year, he tends to fight through those situations. In short, he has emotionally matured.
I've been fascinated watching him lately, as he seems to either throw an excellent pitch, or he misses badly. You can simply watch his follow through, on a fastball or curveball, and determine which variety it will be.
In sum, it's definitely a breakthrough of sorts as he was really bad, and I waiver on his future. He still has the same limitations of a very flat and hittable fastball, and no change up to speak of. Unless he develops an effective change, I see him peaking at a possible high 3 ERA, but more likely a mid 4 ERA, or regressing back towards 5.
by jbm on Jun 19, 2007 10:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Numbers better than he is
I think his numbers are just a fluke. He has no plus pitches and has had quite a few lucky outs that saved his era. He is one that should implode any minute. He is listed at 5' 10" I think but looks more like 5' 8" with little power. He has never impressed me and I have seen him a lot. His control has been solid this year but he has just dodged bullets. His numbers are way better than what he will end up at. I think it was St. Louis that demolished him last year with HR's in one game. He is due for a very nasty run of starts because those weak pitches are going to move up and get drove out of the park eventually.
On his best, his K's per inning go way down and his era gets closer to 5.00 by the end of the year. I wish for better since I am a Stros fan but he is very hittable and really has AAA stuff at best. Watch for his HR's given up to really rise. I have never been a fan of his stuff and I watch his games and am amazed that he has not been eaten alive yet.
Sampson is a much better pitcher. He has the potential to be a number 3 but his age is very high and he surely is not a prospect. I love the way he trusts his stuff and forces batters into groundballs. He could have a solid future in the organization. The Angels just lit him up but they can just plain hit and he had a rough game.
As for the Astros being unwatchable, lately they have been really putting some runs up and since Adam Everett broke his leg the lineup just seems to be clicking. If Berkman does what he is capable of and the rest of the team stays hot they may be a team to keep an eye on the rest of the way.
by bbaffert on Jun 20, 2007 4:45 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Thanks
His BABIP is actually a little high so far at .311, though he's traditionally had a worse-than-league-average BABIP (perhaps it's the park or that flat FB another poster mentioned). His strand rate isn't unnaturally high. In fact, it's slightly below league average at 69.4% (someone mentioned in a previous diary he struggled from the stretch, but a 2% divergence isn't statistically significant).
I love debating guys like this. The eyes and the stats tell two completely different stories. My instincts from watching him last year are like yours. Poor stuff, lack of mental toughness, etc. But man, these numbers are something else. Maybe we'll chalk it up to small sample size.
by Yakker on Jun 20, 2007 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Calling my shot
by jrose643 on Jun 20, 2007 8:13 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Pussballer
by HuskerBob on Jun 20, 2007 8:55 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Curveball
by Shamus on Jun 20, 2007 1:04 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs














