Porcello not a power pitcher?

by lemonjello on Jun 10, 2008 5:45 PM EDT Comment 21 comments

I imagine it's too early to get concerned about Porcello, but this article does not describe as the flamethrowing power pitcher that everybody thinks that he is.

This isn't a flame-throwing, 95(-mph) kid," Matlack said. "He'll touch 95 and touch 96, and most of those are thrown when he's behind in the count, which I find interesting. He's more of a sinker-ball guy at 91-92, and that's not bad. "I'm not so sure that the world hasn't had a misconception about this kid. He was touted as this flame-thrower, but he told me in Oneonta when I first met him last summer, 'I need you to understand that they think I throw harder than I throw.' I said, 'What?' He said, 'Yeah, I can throw hard, but it's usually pretty straight. I don't always get favorable results. I'm a sinker-ball thrower.

Thoughts? Would you still rank Porcello as a top 15-20 prospect if he is throwing mostly 91-92 mph sinkers? It would explain his low strikeout rates.

0 recs | Comment 21 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Response

A 91-92 MPH sinker is a very tough pitch to hit. He’s got the mid-90s velocity to flash whenever he wants it. He’s got a plus breaker and another that should be average.

In other words, the kid’s arsenal sounds plenty good to me. He might need a little time to learn how to mix those pitches properly, but no complaints here.

by mrkupe on Jun 10, 2008 5:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Additionally, the fact that an 18-year old kid realizes he works better throwing 92 with movement than 96 straight is pretty damn impressive. Most prospects that age seem to be content to just light up the radar gun.

"Karma - there it was. The meaning of life, straight from Carson Daly's lips to my morphine-laced ears." -Earl Hickey

by BLee2525 on Jun 10, 2008 7:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sounds like Zack Greinke

Maybe, like Greinke, as he gets older he’ll find better use for the mid-90s heat.

He's extremely quick and good.

by battlekow on Jun 10, 2008 8:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

more comparisons...

was it nate silver over at baseball prospectus last week who compared porcello to jon garland? garland touches 95 and generally sits in the low 90s. and obviously he’s a sinkerballer. sounds about right to me so far.

it's time to accept that we're powerless when it comes to the white sox and turn ourselves over to a higher power: KW

by larry on Jun 10, 2008 10:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

except

Greinke has better control, better secondary stuff, and better pitching instincts.

by pedrophile on Jun 11, 2008 12:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Garland's also 10 years older.

I find Porcello’s thought process on his pitching to be very encouraging.

by GuyinNY on Jun 11, 2008 9:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

except when nate silver does a PECOTA comp, it's to a player in a particular year

so it’s 1999 jon garland who he’s being compared to.

it's time to accept that we're powerless when it comes to the white sox and turn ourselves over to a higher power: KW

by larry on Jun 11, 2008 10:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I didn't mean Porcello is similar to Greinke as a pitcher

Just the preternatural understanding of how to pitch at a young age.

He's extremely quick and good.

by battlekow on Jun 11, 2008 10:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

why

is it good to have less velocity?

Also, why do people assume a mid 90’s pitch won’t have movement?

When we heard about Porcello it was as a mid-90’s pitcher. The scouts didn’t say it was flat or we would have down-graded him. The scouts didn’t say he couldn’t maintain that heat or we would downgrade him.

The fact he is switching to a sinking fastball because his 4 seamer is too flat and maybe to maintain velocity is very smart and the best thing to do. But it certainly puts a HUGE hit on his value and ranking.

by pedrophile on Jun 11, 2008 12:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

He is how old?

Top velocity for most pitchers is between 23-27 years old.

by buccoben on Jun 11, 2008 12:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Response

I never said anything about it being “good” to have less velocity. But most pitchers cannot throw a mid-90s fastball with pronounced movement on it. Off the top of my head, the list goes . . .Joba Chamberlain, Felix Hernandez, Chien-Ming Wang? Fausto Carmona on a good day? I think Brandon Webb’s sinker usually works best from 89-92.

The Garland comp mentioned above seems pretty decent to me . . .except that Porcello could very well add more velocity and has better breaking stuff.

I don’t doubt that it may take some time for Porcello to put everything together. But the kid has all the raw tools needed to be a hell of a pitcher.

by mrkupe on Jun 11, 2008 3:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

One More

Carlos Zambrano has a fastball with alot of movement in the mid 90s.

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

by WayneCampbell08 on Jun 13, 2008 12:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

He will be fine

I saw Porcello pitch in person in High School. In High School Porcello would sit about 93-95 with a hammer curve and good change. He often didnt need to even use his other pitches because his fastball was so dominant and if as he says it was straight well how many high school hitters can hit a 95 mph straight fastball any way.

I think this shows more the intelligence and maturity of Porcello to realize that he is a better pitcher at 91-92 with sink than pumping it in at 95 straight. It has also been said that with better extension Porcello could actually add a few mph to his fastball not to mention with the general strength he will gain. In high school he would hit the high 90’s several times and was first clocked at 98 at the WWBC in Florida the summer before his Senior year. That was in front of countless scouts who i am sure could tell the difference between a straight fastball and a sinker.

In my opinion, Porcello is saying what he thinks will make him a more successful pitcher, i think he still has that mid 90’s heat but is making the adjustment that most young pitchers don’t make by taking a little off to get movement and better location.

Take a look at what the guys at Saber Scouting had to say about him in their scouting report.. http://www.saberscouting.com/2008/04/16/rickporcelloreport2-2/

by Kazmir2657 on Jun 11, 2008 2:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

He's 19 years old

Sounds like he could be another Michael Bowden which isn’t bad but could be more of a #3 instead of a #1.

by Bravesin07 on Jun 10, 2008 7:47 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Bowden

is a nice pitcher, but has always been more of a flyball pitcher. That comp doesn’t really work for Porcello.

http://mvn.com/milb-yankees/

by lemonjello on Jun 10, 2008 10:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

please

stop.with.the.comparisons.i.beg.you.

by hybrid on Jun 11, 2008 6:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Porcello

Porcello has tons of time to develop, and this sort of talk only serves to show how developed in his sense of “how” to pitch. In any event, Porcello has a great arm and if he’s already at 91-92 on his sinker, we can reasonably hope for him to reach Wang velocity levels on it. Furthermore, because there’s plenty of time for Porcello to develop, he can still get that big 4 seamer to move more as time goes on by tweaking his delivery.

There’s alot to like about this kid, and the Tigers should be ecstatic to have him.

by GuyinNY on Jun 11, 2008 9:37 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

boy... its amazing the swings in hype you see here.

Here is a link to a nice in-depth scouting report that i trust

http://www.saberscouting.com/2008/04/04/rickporcelloreport/

"You also must admit, that outside of the facts, I made a compelling argument!"

by jbluestone on Jun 11, 2008 1:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

peronally, i prefer tim alderson

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 Jun 11, 2008 3:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Interesting comment

Is there something specifically you like better? Stuff? Mound Presence? Last name? I haven’t seen either pitch in person, and actually haven’t seen Alderson at all – video, pictures, nothing. I know the Giants were aggressive with his placement this year, but I don’t know much about him stuff-wise other than the fact that he pitched out of the stretch in high school (and still may).

by ProspectTube.com on Jun 12, 2008 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Porcello/Alderson

The Giants said they preferred both Madison Bumgarner and Tim Alderson to Rick Porcello. I suspected at the time that might have been a CYA since in reality they didn’t want to spend the money Porcello would command.

It is interesting that this year they seem willing to play Buster Hosey, who will likely command at least as much as Rick received last summer. So the Giants have changed their philosophy, improved their budget—or were being honest when they said they preferred Mad Bum and Timmy Two to the poor man’s cello.

Right now I would rank Mad Bum #1 among the trio. He is pitching a level lower than either Porcello or Alderson, but he is truly dominating—particularly after a slow start. I would rank Porcello #2, since I think his mechanics make him a better injury avoidance risk than either Bumgarner or Alderson.

All three are looking pretty good, and if Mad Bum can stay healthy, he is looking EXTREMELY good. If he stays healthy, I can see his being the Giants’ #2 starter behind only Tim Lincecum. It is quite possible that when David Price makes the majors, Madison will replace him as the #1 lefty prospect in the minors.

It is possible Bumgarner will become as good as Barry Zito is. :)

by sharksrog on Jun 17, 2008 5:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs