I mean how many dominant pitchers have existed with anything less than a 98 MPH fastball and a super-mega-plus breaking ball?

BA rated it the top breaking ball in the minors last year. It's a 12/6 yacker that comes in at the knees and ends up in the dirt. And it's 20 MHP slower than his fastball.

His slider is above average ans his change is average. So he does have room for improvement there. But lots of guys get by with two good to excellent pitches. Bert Blyleven, for example.

but what makes Gallardo overrated? He followed a stellar 06 with a stellar first half here, including a few strong showings in the bigs. He's shown more than a lot of other more touted guys have.

I'd say limozeen read that just fine, actually.

May I suggest a little charity here? It's not a matter of reading comprehension but of interpretation, especially in the cryptic catecombs of the blogosphere. You know as well as anyone that two-line comments are open to a variety of interpretations. The principal of charity suggests that we interpret them in the best possible light.

In particular, if this is what he meant, he's a fool:

Garza's stuff is not all that good

I don't know how anyone can say something like that if he knew anything about Garza. He has the best stuff of any Twins starter. He has better stuff than most prospects or recent rookies--just a notch below Verlander. Anyone who's seen him pitch would conclude that his stuff is plenty good to be a top starter in the league.

Garza struggles with command, as most power pitchers do in the first couple of years of breaking into the big leagues. Stuff is not his problem.

So perhaps they were trying to read him so that he didn't sound like a fool. Something like, "Let's not get too excited about one start. Let's see consistent command for a month before we determine how good he is." That's a sensible position.

"Its pretty clear that what he was saying was that despite having a good game, Garza's stuff is not all that good. I doubt he is right, but it doesn't turn his last start into a negative to say his next start will be."

1. He never said he had a good game. All he said were negatives. Agreed, the "good game" was implied by the fact he DIDN'T do anything but bash Garza and suggest he got lucky, but you're putting words into the entry that aren't even there to make it seem like it was more positive.
2. Neither limozeen (just speculating) nor I thought that the fact Garza won meant he necessarily had a good game. The word "negative" pretty clearly refers to "how you think they'll do in the future" with prospects. And here we are, on a prospect site.

When a prospect who had been struggling has a good start, the question is always "was this a step forward or not?" The poster in question said "absolutely not." limozeen asked "How can you say this wasn't a step forward?" Somehow, you misinterpeted limozeen's question into being, "Didn't Garza win?" which is a ridiculously stupid and nonsensical question. Given your misunderstanding, I see the reason you felt a need to correct limozeen. However, I believe it would behoove you to receive a bit of reading comprehension yourself before you misunderstand any more conversations.

so you've finally put down a tractable hypothesis!

that what I said limozeen was talking about (Garza's start suggesting he wouldn't be successful in the future) and what you claim he's talking about are different.

one problem, my friend -- limozeen already agreed with me about what he was saying. and, if he isn't as repulsed by you as I am, I'm sure he'll kindly reconfirm that he was NOT using the word "start" in your strict (and, may I add, ridiculous) sense of the word.

since limozeen WAS talking about pitches and some of us who are a little better at reading were able to figure out that he MEANT the pitches, it's really only you having a problem here, is it not? you want to talk about what interests YOU -- that "the start" was successful. don't mind the rest of us if we don't care, or at least not when you insert that commentary as if it were a correction of what others were talking about.

Finally, the substance comes out. I was waiting...

Garza has two fastballs, as most pitchers do. His four seamer has little movement, but he throws it hard (95-97). If he locates it and uses it mostly to get strikeouts above the letters, it doesn't need to have movement.

The two seamer runs a little down and in to right handers. But the more effective aspect of it is he comes over the top and creates a downward plane with it, similar to Joe Nathan. At 92-94, it's a hard sinker. I would like to see him take a little off of it once in a while when he really needs a ground ball. Sinkers thrown too hard straighten out. He needs to work on this, but as long as he locates with it on the corners and down, he'll be fine.

The curve (79) is his best pitch, IMHO, but his arm speed is noticeably slower than the other pitches he throws, so good hitters lay off of it. That's also something to work on, but if he uses it right, it can be a good pitch to get over in counts when they don't expect it. And if they try to hit it, they will miss. It's just not hittable.

The slider is hard (89). And he throws it at the same arm speed as the fastball, so it's an effective pitch for him, especially since it gives the hitter a different look at the breaking ball, which will make the curve more effective.

The change (82) is the pitch that he's worked on the most in the last three months, and it's coming around. He has good control of it, but, like a lot of young pitchers, he hates getting hit off of it. He uses it as a show-me pitch more than the strike-out pitch it could be. As he goes along, he'll use it more, especially against the better hitters who can catch up to his fastball.

Overall, I would say he has a very good repertoire for a rookie. He has stuff to work on. But if he locates with the stuff he has, he can dominate. I wouldn't say movement is the deal breaker, 'cause when he locates with his pitches and mixes them up, he's effective.