Hanson or Flowers?

by bravitos5122 on Nov 17, 2008 9:31 PM EST Comment 35 comments

Who has had the more impressive AFL? These two guys have been by far the best players there. Hanson's OPS is around is SLUGGING 1.000 because of his 12 homers to go with a batting average close to .400.

Hanson today went 5 IP 1 H 0 R 10 K

I would go Hanson because he a pitcher and I think its more difficult to dominate a very talented league after you have thrown 150 IP in a year but Flowers has been nothing short of remarkable.

0 recs | Comment 35 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Wow...

this is not even a question. Hanson is a potential front line starting pitcher and Flowers is a good hitter, but is not likely to stick at catcher.

by joegonzo on Nov 17, 2008 10:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Flowers sticks at catcher

… if he gets traded.

by parish on Nov 18, 2008 11:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Probably not

He’s near 250 lbs and already has had knee problems. Very unlikely he sticks behind the plate for any team.

by was385 on Nov 18, 2008 2:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Good point on size

I was reacting to what seems to a tendency to underestimarte his defense.

by parish on Nov 18, 2008 2:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah

there are a lot of mixed reactions on his defense and whether in time it will be good enough to stick behind the plate but I think his size makes it pretty much a moot point.

by was385 on Nov 18, 2008 3:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

hanson

because there are several hitters whose numbers are looking like they are playing on the rookie level on a video game, most pitchers aren’t doing well at all and the hitters are pretty decent this year, flowers numbers are just dumb though

by IHateMitchMustain on Nov 17, 2008 10:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

hey joedeafzo

what does their potential have anything to do with the question?

by IHateMitchMustain on Nov 17, 2008 10:58 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

sorry...

didnt read the question mr imgayformitchmustain.

by joegonzo on Nov 17, 2008 11:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

thanks

we all thought you had fully read the question, way to clear that up moron

by IHateMitchMustain on Nov 17, 2008 11:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

hanson because the AFL is a strong hitters league

Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.

by doublestix on Nov 17, 2008 11:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Hanson

These were clearly the top two players in the league, but Hanson’s numbers are just insane. Pitchers just don’t put up lines like he has in the AFL. You’ll see hitters go on binges like Flowers does, but Hanson’s numbers are… insane.

by mraver on Nov 17, 2008 11:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Flowers

Hanson is overrated who will be exposed in the majors.

Now raise your goblet of rock. It's a toast to those who rock!

by Dewey Finn on Nov 17, 2008 11:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

he'll be exposed all right

as an 11k/9 Schilling at his peak stud

by wobatus on Nov 17, 2008 11:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

haha

ok…

Hanson is gonna have a real sore neck from watching the HRs fly out of Turner Field.

Now raise your goblet of rock. It's a toast to those who rock!

by Dewey Finn on Nov 17, 2008 11:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

for the newer guys like me...

historically, have pitchers not been able to adjust and learn to throw the ground ball? His FB/GB ratio is improving (slightly). Could it be that better catchers will help as he moves up? Better pitching coaches?

Like anyone, he should have some adjustments to make. yeah, he will have big leaguers taking him out of the yard.

I am just having a hard time seeing him at 6’6", with a funky delivery and power stuff being a dumpster fire.

He came from nowhere, had junior college coaching out of highschool, probably came from a poor HS system (poor HS coach) if he went to a JC.

To me it seems as if he is making the most of his professional opportunity and ability, and improving.

by davidsabin on Nov 18, 2008 1:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Generally speaking, pitchers' GB/FB ratios stay rather constant

unless they add a new pitch or otherwise radically alter their arsenals.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 18, 2008 3:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

I gotta agree. Very few pitchers survive long without at least 50% GB rates. Some are able to, but those are usually some of the better pitchers around. Where you can take an average pitcher (like Aaron Cook) and he can be very good because he gets hitters to pound the ball into the dirt.

"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile

by Boxkutter on Nov 18, 2008 1:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I really hope your joking

Let’s look at the all the pitchers with over 100 IP and FIP of 4.00 or lower since 2004.

So theres 219 total there, and only 50 have GB% of at least 50, that would be 22.8 of the pitchers.

by bigboy1234 on Nov 18, 2008 2:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The question isn't "what percentage of those pitchers are groundballers?"

It’s “what percentage of groundballers (versus what percentage of non-groundballers) are those pitchers?” You’ve inverted the causality here.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 18, 2008 3:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Huh?

He said “very few pitchers survive long without at least 50% GB rates” and over 75% of pitchers survive without that 50+ GB.

by bigboy1234 on Nov 18, 2008 4:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

gb rate

People get a little obsessive about it. Hanson will be damn good, which is quite obvious. Homers or not. Maybe not right off the bat, but check back in a few years.

Man, he is on fire right now.

by wobatus on Nov 18, 2008 9:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I've been beating this drum for awhile

This recent obsession with groundballers is a weird phenomenom considering how most of the best pitchers in the majors are neutral or flyballers.

Yes, a groundball is slightly better than a flyball (even though it has a higher likelyhood of being a hit, there’s almost zero chance for it to be a HR). But it’s certainly a far less important component stat than K-rate or BB-rate.

If a pitcher can sustain a high K-rate and low BB-rate in the majors, he’s going to be a quality big league starter regardless of his GB%.

by dkdc on Nov 18, 2008 9:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

OK, so, the original statement by boxcutter was dopey

Nonetheless, it would be highly interesting if groundball pitchers were disproportionately among the population of good (or bad) pitchers, n’est ce pas?

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Nov 18, 2008 2:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

sore neck?

i don’t think hanson’s neck will be sore. the only necks that will be sore are those of the opposing batters turning back at the mound to get a look at the mother fucker who just k’ed their ass.

I heard Tim Lincecum will win 1 Cy Young & 11 Tim Lincecums. Question is, how many Cole Hamels will he win?

by the pinstripes on Nov 18, 2008 2:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Successful flyball pitchers

Kazmir. Santana. Sheets. Matsuzaka, Nolasco, Matt cain (ok, he doesn’t have the w-l down pat yet). And to a lesser degree Hamels, Shields, Danks. hell even Peavy go/fo only 1.11 this year, Lincecum 1.3. Not like a lot of these guys are big time groundballers. K rate and k/bb is more important than gb rate alone.

by wobatus on Nov 18, 2008 3:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I always think of Schilling, personally.

Guy who was always hurt by flyballs and homers, but it never stood in his way… except early in his career…

by alskor on Nov 18, 2008 4:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

schilling

Yeah, my mention of schilling as a comp led to dewey’s “sore neck” reply. :)

by wobatus on Nov 18, 2008 5:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hanson by a mile

by alskor on Nov 17, 2008 11:32 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

15ks per 9 in AFL

.175 batting avg against over his full year in high A and AA?

28 innings, 10 hits, 1 homer, 7 walks, 49ks in Arizona? Is it hard to hit homers in Arizona Fall League? LOL.

Sure, it’s a small sample size, Dewey, like Holland in AA. You have a Hanson blind spot. BTW, I love Holland. I won’t attempt to compare the two. :)

by wobatus on Nov 18, 2008 9:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hanson

So with his very strong finish to the season, and his dominant AFL, where do you have Hanson ranked in the top 100, where do you have him ranked out of pitching prospects, and do you see him becoming an ace type pitcher?

The reason I ask is because although he had good numbers earlier in the season, he wasn’t touted as highly, so I’m curious to see how far he moved up.

by DJSlam on Nov 18, 2008 10:27 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Most of the lists I've seen around here have him around 20

21-23, actually, is what I’ve seen the most. Personally, I think he’s a top 10-15 guy. Not quite the upside of some of the guys at the top, but a solid #2 with fringe #1 upside? Certainly, IMO.

by mraver on Nov 18, 2008 11:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Is Hanson's 2008 > MadBum's 2008?

I think it is.

by parish on Nov 18, 2008 11:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

People are in love with his FB

And to be fair, if you’re going to fall in love with a FB, it oughta be his. But I just don’t know about putting Sally League pitchers in the top 5.

by mraver on Nov 18, 2008 11:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

#9

I ranked him the 9th best pitching prospect in the game so that would probably translate to the 20’s or thereabouts but I have to say I’m leaning more towards a 10-15 ranking as mraver points out below.

Does anyone remember a pitching performance like this in the AFL? I don’t.

What he’s doing is pretty amazing fly baller or not. I guess you don’t have to worry about a strained neck when you k 15 per 9.

I heard Tim Lincecum will win 1 Cy Young & 11 Tim Lincecums. Question is, how many Cole Hamels will he win?