Controversial Prospect: Trevor Cahill
by John Sickels
on Jun 16, 2008 12:21 PM EDT
Trevor Cahill was drafted by the Oakland Athletics in the second round of the 2006 draft, out of high school in Vista, California. He had strong academics and a Dartmouth scholarship, leading to signability concerns, but Oakland got the job done and he signed in time to make four starts in the Arizona Rookie League, pitching just nine innings due to a strained rotator cuff, but posting an 11/7 K/BB ratio.
In 2007 he went 11-4, 2.73 with a 117/40 K/BB in 105 innings for Kane County in the Midwest League, with just 85 hits allowed, three homers given up, and a 1.73 GO/AO ratio. In 2008 so far, he's 5-4, 2.78 with a 103/31 K/BB in 87.1 innings for Stockton in the California League, with 52 hits and three homers allowed, with a 2.19 GO/AO ratio.
Obviously these are excellent numbers...strong ground ball tendency, excellent K/IP and H/IP marks, few homers allowed, non-horrible walk rate. But Cahill generates different opinions from scouts and observers. Although his velocity has picked up some (hitting 93 MPH at times this year), he still works mostly in the 89-92 range, not plus velocity, granted his fastball has strong sinking action. His curveball and changeup are both fine offerings, and his intelligence and confidence are big assets.
However, the lack of a big-time massive plus velocity heater causes some to project him as more of a Jeff Suppan control, inning-eating type than a true future ace. Others point out that not every great pitcher has great velocity, and Cahill's intelligence and guile are huge assets. The sabermetric case points to the combination of strikeouts and ground balls as a big positive.
Personally I am on the pro-Cahill side, though I want to see exactly what happens to him when he reaches Double-A. I gave him a strong grade B in the book this year, and have no problems raising that to Grade B+ given what he's done in the Cal League. I would like to see his walk rate come down a little, and I also have some concerns about whether that rotator cuff issue will recur at some point. But overall there is a lot more to like here than there is to dislike.
0 recs |
141
comments
Email
PrintComments
Some may project him to be a Suppan type
While others are projecting him to be a Webb type.
by sully10x on Jun 16, 2008 12:43 PM EDT 0 recs
Only guys here
No reputed publications have compared him to Webb to my knowledge. Sure they may say he has a great sinker like Webb but I have not read Sickels, Baseball America, or Baseball Prospectus actually compare Cahill to Webb. Also, the source that stated his pitches were similar to Webb and Halladay was a member of the A’s scouting staff. One could see how this is not the least bit free of bias. Cahill is a very good prospect but likely will fill the role of a number 3 on a staff (not that it isn’t a very important role).
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on
Jun 16, 2008 12:51 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Believe it or not, the websites that you mentioned aren’t the only one’s that know anything.
by sully10x on
Jun 16, 2008 1:17 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Can you give me a source from somebody other then an A's scout?
If so, I would really appreciate it. There are lots of other great sites out there, but these are the big 3 when it comes to prospects.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on
Jun 16, 2008 1:21 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Don't sweat Sully
I’m sure next year’s edition of Baseball America Handbook & Baseball Prospectus will change Lil Billy’s tune. Cahill’s strong performance (leading minors in Ks, excellent groundball rate) will definitely earn him more respect in these publications (BA/BP).
Now raise your goblet of rock. It's a toast to those who rock!
by Dewey Finn on
Jun 16, 2008 3:45 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Im in Cahill's corner
Ive been able to catch a few port games this season and Cahill’s been very impressive. Aside from the stats, the way the kid carries himself out there is very encouraging. In one particular instance, the Umpire behind the plate had a very tight zone, missing oin several borderline calls. The kid roled with the situation, didnt show any body language and worked through. I like his makeup and couple that with the fact that he does have plus stuff (despite the lack of an overpowering fastball), I think Trevor has an excellent career at the pro level. A big league legit number 2 is not out of the question.
Cain is Able ...
by Norcalfan10 on Jun 16, 2008 1:30 PM EDT 0 recs
Cahill to AA
Q: William from Chicago asks:
How would you rank these guys, in terms of future MLB success? Cahill, Tillman, McAllister, Hellickson, Volstad, Jaime Garcia, Betances, Bumgarner, and Jarrod Parker…I know, it all depends on health, but what do you think? Thanks.
A:
Ben Badler: Off the top of my head, Cahill, Tillman, Volstad, Garcia, Parker, Hellickson, Bumgarner, Betances.
http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/prospect-hot-sheet/2008/266330.html
http://www.oursportscentral.com/services/releases/?id=3660931
Trevor Cahill will join the team tonight and will replace Scott Moore, who was assigned to Single – A Stockton this morning. Cahill has had an outstanding season thus far in Stockton, as he was named to the California League All-Star team, while posting a 2.78 ERA and a 5-4 record.
by Asfan4ever723 on Jun 16, 2008 5:55 PM EDT 0 recs
It is one thing to like the guy
but projecting him to be Brandon Webb is way to damn much IMO
by nms on Jun 16, 2008 6:12 PM EDT 0 recs
what about Gallardo
that was one of Cahill’s BP comps
by Bravesin07 on Jun 16, 2008 6:16 PM EDT 0 recs
lol
Cahill crazy here.
When is the last pitcher with a solid 90mph sinker with a good curve become a top pitcher? Hughes has a little more heat, a better curve, better control, and yet struggled. I think Hughes will be just fine. But Cahill doesn’t bring much to the table except as a safe bet as a solid mlb contributor.
An ace or #2 starter? Whomever is thinking this is on crack. Webb is throwing much more gas with nasty movement. Halladay has a top notch curve, awesome cutter, throws 95, is very efficient, and has no fear.
Those are horrible comps IMO. It’s like saying Petit was like Maddux because of his really low walk rate. And before you laugh it off many did make the comps. Well, I think they did ;)
by pedrophile on Jun 16, 2008 11:32 PM EDT 0 recs
+1
I have been stating this for a long time. Cahill will likely become a solid #3 starter and that should be looked at as a good thing.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on
Jun 16, 2008 11:37 PM EDT
up
0 recs
+1
i thought he was Tyler Clippard last year, and this year has made it much MORE true than before.
alright—maybe he’ll end up a little better than Clippard. but i’m willing to bet that that comp holds up a whole lot better than a lot of these others.
by bleedjaxblue on
Jun 18, 2008 2:51 AM EDT
up
0 recs
I don't know about that
Granted, sample sizes are small, but when comparing their numbers at the same levels, Cahill was better. Sure, their K/9 and BB/9 were similar (with Clippard walking fewer guys and Cahill striking out more), but Cahill gave up significantly fewer hits and HRs. Especially impressive is that his numbers were so much better in the Cal league than Clippard’s numbers in the FSL.
That being said, as much as I would love to think that Cahill has ace potential, until he proves himself at AA I will have to be content with saying that he is a promising, but not quite elite, prospect.
by ozzman99 on
Jun 18, 2008 10:22 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Tyler Clippard is an extreme flyball pitcher, while Cahill is the opposite. That is the major difference between Cahill and many other pitching prospects. You can’t compare someone like Clippard to Cahill.
by sully10x on
Jun 18, 2008 4:15 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Exactly
Now raise your goblet of rock. It's a toast to those who rock!
by Dewey Finn on
Jun 18, 2008 4:48 PM EDT
up
0 recs
sure i can
mature approaches, not so stellar arms, but big breaking pitches that are located well. fools minor leaguers and put up absurd ratios, but tells you little to nothing how they’ll do against big leaguers.
and DONE.
by bleedjaxblue on
Jun 19, 2008 12:57 AM EDT
up
0 recs
You don’t see that they are two completely opposite pitchers? Clippard has no pitch comparable to Cahill’s change. Clippard telegraphs his pitches in the majors. Don’t you think theres a reason Clippard never got the hype Cahill is getting. Clippard throws a 4 seam at 88-91. Cahill’s sinker is about that. Cahill does indeed through a 4 seamer and consistantly sists in the low to mid 90’s in it (on a radio-cast, the announcer mentioned several times him sitting in the mid 90-s with it)
And, Cahill’s knuckle-curve >> anything Clippard throws.
Not to mention, Clippard was a 9th round pick with virtually no history before his stint in AA.
Cahill was a top 100 pick, and has 2 full seasons of dominating performance, including the best hitters league in the minors.
May I rest my case.
by sully10x on
Jun 19, 2008 1:53 AM EDT
up
0 recs
your points
may be valid.
but you sure seemed to skip over this {mature approaches, not so stellar arms, but big breaking pitches that are located well. fools minor leaguers and put up absurd ratios, but tells you little to nothing how they’ll do against big leaguers.}
not much of a discussion when you refuse to discuss. ;)
by pedrophile on
Jun 19, 2008 8:33 AM EDT
up
0 recs
I didn’t skip over that. I discussed that Cahill throws in the low 90’s with much sinking action.
by sully10x on
Jun 19, 2008 11:05 AM EDT
up
0 recs
yes you did
I didn’t see once where you acknowledged a point or replied to one.
by pedrophile on
Jun 19, 2008 8:42 PM EDT
up
0 recs
completely opposite?
well, i agree that flyballs are “completely opposite” of groundballs. no, i don’t see how they are, therefore, completely opposite pitchers, especially since, like every other ratio Cahill’s putting up in the minors, i don’t think it’ll be particularly indicative of how major leaguers handle his pitch style.
if Cahill sits in the mid-90s - ACTUALLY - then that’s great. but i’ll bet money, when you first see him in the majors, you’ll never, ever see a radar reading like that. i’m pretty sure there were 20 posters on this site who kept inflating Clippard’s velocity in the same way, until he “sat at 92, and could hit the mid-90s” too. he doesn’t, and never will.
it’s easy to say that Cahill’s knuckle-curve and sinker are better than anything Clippard throws. i don’t think Clippard’s pitches are really all that special from the descriptions of them. again, there were 20 fans vouching for the absurdity of Clippard curveball on this site, or adding in third plus pitches that he threw.
it doesn’t really matter what league you’re in when you have better command with off-speed pitches than most minor leaguers—i agree that minor leaguers won’t hit you well.
i’m not really sure what it means that Clippard had “virtually no history before his stint in AA.” looking at his Baseball Cube page it looks very similar historically to Cahill’s. the only difference is that Clippard was a 9th round pick, while Cahill was a 2nd round pick.* this would speak heavily in Cahill’s favor if he were greatly hyped out of the draft, or was loved by scouts after either of his first two years in the big leagues. except, he wasn’t. he received little love, and was widely dismissed, DESPITE his ostensibly solid production. that speaks loads about Cahill. now, when his numbers of reached the Clippard-Slowey-Inman-etc-etc-etc-haven’t-you-caught-on-to-these-stories-yet? point of absurdity, some people have started praising what he does do right, or talk about how his pitches “are better than we used to say.” i don’t buy it.
- = I think it’s easy to exaggerate this difference, too. Outside of the first round, there’s usually no elite talent. And the 9th round isn’t the point where you’re throwing darts at the dart board, either. I’m not saying there’s NO difference between the two. But I wouldn’t overstate it, either.
by bleedjaxblue on
Jun 19, 2008 12:06 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I'm a little confused
You concede that Cahill’s pitches are better than Clippard’s. You looked at their stats, but apparently missed the part where Cahill didn’t allow anywhere near as many hits as Clippard. Yes, his BB rate was slightly higher, but so was his K rate. The key differences are that Cahill induces more grounders, leading to far fewer hits and homers. Take a look at those 2 stats again. It’s really not even close. Cahill is far superior to Clippard. Now I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that a hitter that gives up fewer hits and fewer homers will probably also give up fewer runs, especially with a major league defense behind him.
So to review, better pitches, better stats, but somehow you think they are the same?
by ozzman99 on
Jun 19, 2008 6:16 PM EDT
up
0 recs
umm
I don’t think anywhere he admitted that Cahill had better pitches.
let’s review shall we?
Over-rated pitchers, hyped velocity, hyped offspeed pitches, struggle in majors then forgot about when they struggle.
ps: why do you say more grounders induce less homers? Actually many times grounder type pitchers give up MORE homers. Silva had this problem, Lowe at times, and many ground ball pitcher. They thrive on the sinker so much that when it doesn’t sink they are done.
Also, many flyball pitchers are top-notch pitchers. Groundball isn’t the be-all and end-all. Not even close.
Talking stats exclusively is a crazy way to talk about minor leaguers. It’s almost all about projectability. Stats are ok. They are not the bible though.
by pedrophile on
Jun 19, 2008 8:42 PM EDT
up
0 recs
ok
After re-reading his post, I see that I misunderstood him (about Cahill’s pitches being better than Clippard’s).
I say grounders result in fewer homers, because VERY few grounders result in homers. Yes, a pitcher whose only effective pitch is a sinker will likely struggle when his sinker isn’t working. But a lot of people feel that Cahill has 2 or even 3 plus pitches.
You say Cahill is over-rated. Where is your evidence of that?
No one is talking stats exclusively. I personally haven’t discussed scouting reports for a couple of reasons. One is that others have discussed them already, I don’t see the need to repeat them. The other is that when one person says Cahill has 3 plus pitches and another says he has none, we don’t seem to make any progress. Stats aren’t everything, but at least they are closer to being objective.
by ozzman99 on
Jun 19, 2008 11:46 PM EDT
up
0 recs
well
obviously grounders don’t result in hr’s. My point is that many ground-ball pitchers are HR prone. It might not be the norm but it certainly isn’t uncommon. Also, BABIP on grounders is higher than fly balls. It’s not that cut and dried.
evidence? lol
Scouting reports “almost” always over-rates rookies. So when I hear one scout say a guy has 3 plus pitches I discredit it. When I start to hear many scouts saying it then I take notice.
by pedrophile on
Jun 21, 2008 5:09 AM EDT
up
0 recs
I’m not sure where you are getting your information, because ground-ball pitchers virtually always allow less HR, and have lower BABIP. Your statement is just incorrect.
Anyway, Cahill has always had low BABIP’s due to his ground ball tendencies, and he has allowed 6 minor league homers total, in over 200 innings pitched.
by sully10x on
Jun 21, 2008 11:10 AM EDT
up
0 recs
really?
My point is that many ground-ball pitchers are HR prone. It might not be the norm but it certainly isn’t uncommon.
That was my point. Which isn’t correct. I say “many” not most nor all nor the average. There are a decent amount of Silva’s out there.
While Cahill has indeed had very good numbers I’m cautious until he faces better competition for an extended period.
I just don’t think he’s that good.
by pedrophile on
Jun 21, 2008 4:01 PM EDT
up
0 recs
ok
Talking stats exclusively is a crazy way to talk about minor leaguers.
Scouting reports "almost" always over-rates rookies.
Ok, so if neither stats nor scouting reports are useful for evaluating prospects, what exactly do you use?
by ozzman99 on
Jun 21, 2008 12:46 PM EDT
up
0 recs
hahaha
nice try
the first statement is saying not to use stats “exclusively”. Which I think anyone would agree.
the second is saying scouts over-rate rookies. And if you read the full paragraph you would realize I don’t react on one scout. I wait until it’s more reliable when multiple scouts report something.
Neither one of which says stats are useless. Neither says scouting is useless.
But it was a nice try to make me look like a fool. Maybe next time.
by pedrophile on
Jun 21, 2008 3:52 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I'm sorry
When you said “scouting reports ‘almost’ always over-rate rookies,” I foolishly assumed that “almost always” was not only plural, but also covered most scouts. Gee, what was I thinking? Obviously, “almost always” is synonymous with “one scout.”
by ozzman99 on
Jun 22, 2008 12:59 AM EDT
up
0 recs
seriously
In dismissing stats, you say that it’s “It’s almost all about projectability.” If it’s almost all about projectability, then it couldn’t be about stats very much at all. So stats are of little value. You go on to say that almost all scouting reports overrate rookies. If almost all of them overrate rookies, then very few of them are accurate. Therefore, as a whole, scouting reports are also of little value. I’m not trying to make a fool out of you. I am not putting words in your mouth. Maybe you are just given to hyperbole and are overstating your case. But it sure appears that you are contradicting yourself.
by ozzman99 on
Jun 22, 2008 1:09 AM EDT
up
0 recs
well
other than acting like an ass “gee, what was I thinking” by your tone of voice you seem to be missing the logic.
scouting reports ‘almost’ always over-rate rookies. That doesn’t mean the report has little or no value. Not even close to that. But when I hear a pitcher is throwing high 90’s with a quality changeup -> what I take from that is the pitcher touched high 90’s and threw SOME quality changes.
Most times we don’t get the full context of the scouting report just a clipped portion of what the scout said. A scout could be talking about projection when talking about a pitchers offering. Or he could be talking about that particular game.
Pitchers stuff varies from game to game and even varies throughout the game. Some have good stuff early in the game and it fades fast. Some take a while to heat up. Others have more some games and much less others. Or the quality of the breaking pitches, or consistency, varies from start to start. So you can see how scouting reports can be off.
Also, part of the reason is they are talking about what the player may become not what they are right now. And of course the likelihood of someone at BA or elsewhere of quoting the one or two comments glowing praise as it makes for better press.
That doesn’t in any way mean the reports have little or no value.
Stats? I dismiss more stats when it’s at a lower level and believe in it more at a higher level. Also, again I try to bring in context. With a pitcher like Cahill who has an advanced feel for the game they typically rip apart lower level competition. This doesn’t really mean he will do well or poorly.
by pedrophile on
Jun 22, 2008 9:33 AM EDT
up
0 recs
But why
Why does Cahill have such an advanced feel for the game?
He has been pitching for 3 years of his life. He probably has less pitching experience than any other pitcher in High-A, and now he is in AA.
by sully10x on
Jun 22, 2008 11:12 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Ted Lilly
has been pitching forever and has no clue.
Some guys just have a feel for it and some don’t.
Also, being able to locate breaking pitches in the lower levels slaughters the hitters. If you can locate breaking stuff and change speeds you can put up Nintendo numbers.
by pedrophile on
Jun 22, 2008 12:13 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Actually
If you can locate breaking stuff and change speeds, you can get anyone out at any level. It’s the guys with the great arms but no control or secondary pitches that dominate the lower minors but struggle as they move up. Cahill’s own teammate, Henry Rodriguez, is a prime example of this. At low levels, you can K guys just thru sheer velocity, even if you aren’t in the strike zone. It’s the higher level hitters that lay off and make you throw strikes.
by ozzman99 on
Jun 22, 2008 12:25 PM EDT
up
0 recs
not really
There are tons of college level guys that dominate in the lower levels because of locating breaking stuff and changing speed. Many of these don’t succeed in the higher levels.
Things like locating breaking pitches that start in the zone but end as balls works a lot in the lower levels. Many swings and misses. But MLB hitters don’t usually offer at these pitches.
So they have to throw breaking stuff and locate within the zone. That is why consistent action on the ball is so important in MLB and not nearly as much in the minors. Hanging pitches get destroyed.
Then there is the ability to miss bats within the zone on breaking pitches. This mostly comes down to stuff.
and there is much more but I’m lazy to type more ;)
knowing how to pitch, locating breaking pitches, changing speed, etc. —> this is important. But I think people are seriously underestimating stuff here.
by pedrophile on
Jun 22, 2008 2:00 PM EDT
up
0 recs
ok
You make good points here. I can accept your argument. Or, more correctly, I can’t really make an intelligent rebuttal.
I think my point originally was that people are making too big a deal about whether Cahill’s fastball sits at 91 or 95. It seemed to me that the only criticism of him was a lack of velocity. I really don’t buy the argument that a pitcher can’t be successful without a 95+ fastball, even if he has a very good sinker and change. As I said above, I am not convinced that Cahill is elite. At the same time, to simply dismiss him as another Clippard without any discussion is as ridiculous as calling him the next Webb.
by ozzman99 on
Jun 22, 2008 2:53 PM EDT
up
0 recs
never saw him as a clippard
Clippard was billed as a mid to back end starter. Personally I think he is a AAAA pitcher.
Cahill is billed by many as a front of rotation pitcher. I see more of a mid to back end pitcher. Which every team should be happy to get.
It’s possible he becomes more. It’s just that without the velocity to become a front of rotation starter you must be elite in most other ways.
by pedrophile on
Jun 22, 2008 5:39 PM EDT
up
0 recs
+1
I am obviously not the biggest Cahill fan but he is far superior to Tyler Clippard. This comparison really makes no sense tome.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on
Jun 19, 2008 11:56 PM EDT
up
0 recs
from BA chat
Q: Brett from Long Island asks:
When will Trevor Cahill be moved up to AA Midland? Does he have top-of-the-rotation potential?
A:
Ben Badler: I can’t imagine it should take him much more time to reach Midland. He does have top of the rotation potential with his nasty fastball/curveball combination, good delivery and athleticism.
Q: Doug from NYC asks:
Trevor Cahill- next Brandon Webb? Also- what is to make of Rick Porcello’s lack of K’s?
A:
Ben Badler: Slapping a perennial Cy Young-caliber comp on a guy is unfair, no matter how much you (or I) love Cahill. Porcello is a 19-year-old in High A… that he has a 1.98 ERA through 36 innings, 3 walks per nine and even 5.5 K’s per nine is superb. He’s facing much, much older, more advanced competition than anything he ever saw in high school. It’s important to know what the stats mean, but it’s also just as important to know what they don’t mean.
by Asfan4ever723 on Jun 16, 2008 11:47 PM EDT 0 recs
Link please
If I remember correctly, Badler also states that Cahill will likely not be a top 10 prospect.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on
Jun 17, 2008 12:02 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Yet
He also says he will be a top 5 pitching prospect by years end.
by sully10x on
Jun 17, 2008 1:12 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Is Cahill Really a "Controversial Prospect"
Who is on the anti-Cahill side? His stats are mind blowing and I haven’t read anything really negative about him.
by delmonfan on Jun 18, 2008 10:52 AM EDT 0 recs
There is nothing negative about Cahill....
It’s just people refuse to give him respect. I realize that the Webb/Halladay comparisons are unfair at the moment, but to say his ceiling is just a mid-rotation starter is premature as well. The bottom line is that Cahil has a disgusting sinker/knuckle curve combo. He gets strikeouts in the bunches along with a ton of groundballs. What’s not to like??? It seems a lot of people are hung up on the fact that Cahill doesn’t throw 95 mph. He is now in AA and perhaps he can prove one way or another, of what he really is; potential ace or innings eater.
Now raise your goblet of rock. It's a toast to those who rock!
by Dewey Finn on
Jun 18, 2008 11:34 AM EDT
up
0 recs
In this thread alone
Some people compare him to Brandon Webb, others to Tyler Clippard. I think that’s pretty controversial.
http://bocropleasestopswingingatbadpitches.blogspot.com/
by thejd44 on
Jun 18, 2008 1:54 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Webb comparisons
The thing I think of is that Brandon Webb sure was no Josh Beckett, or something. Heck, he wasn’t even Brian Taylor, or many other insanely hyped pitchers.
Webb has smarts. He’s gotten only better, after he was real good initially, then struggled for a year. He developed new pitches, as well. What I heard is on top of his great sinker, he now has a top changeup he’s just developed the last few years.
So, you can’t compare an A ball pitcher to Webb, even remotely.
Prospecting is interesting business. How many people would rank Ian Kennedy higher than Cahill? I wouldn’t give you a plug nickel for Kennedy. Just another overhyped Yankee prospect. Cahill, I own in a keeper Yahoo league. He’s going nowhere.:)
by billybgame on
Jun 18, 2008 5:22 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Just for good measure
Cahill’s first AA start:
6.0 IP, 2 H, 1 R, 3BB, 6 SO, 11-1 GO/AO
by sully10x on Jun 20, 2008 11:54 PM EDT 0 recs
Response
I can understand some caution with Cahill, but looking at the numbers, two things are very clear:
1) Lots of guys can’t make contact with his pitches
2) Of the guys who do make contact with his pitches, very few do it well enough for it to matter
One might suggest that he’s simply going to be exposed at higher levels due to his heavy use of a high 80s-low 90s sinker. Then again, the counter-argument is that as he moves to higher levels of competition, the infield defenses playing behind him will be of markedly better quality. His pronounced groundball tendencies suggest that he may well be the type of pitcher who actually looks better statistically at higher levels of competition, and quite frankly while I have my doubts that things could get much better for him, at the very least I don’t see a reason why he should have a significant dropoff in the quality of his results on balls in play.
So okay, we accounted for the second of the two things I mentioned before, but I jumped ahead and didn’t address the first. Can Cahill keep making guys swing and miss as he moves to higher levels? The answer is yes, although he’ll probably have to make some adjustments. There’s been some criticism that while he can throw his breaking stuff for strikes reasonably well, he often prefers to throw it out of the zone and get guys to chase. Obviously, he’s managed to do just fine with that thus far, but eventually he’s going to face disciplined batters and he may get himself into trouble if he can’t/won’t throw his secondary pitches for strikes. On the other hand, his secondary pitches aren’t fringy by any means. His change is fine enough for his age and his curve is good enough to be an out pitch at high levels, given some more time.
So basically . . .about the worst thing I can say about Cahill is that he doesn’t look like a guy who’s going to be in Oakland three months from now. He has some things he needs to improve upon, like all young pitchers do. But for a guy at his stage of development, he is really, really good.
by mrkupe on Jun 22, 2008 11:23 PM EDT 0 recs
comment
His change is fine enough for his age and his curve is good enough to be an out pitch at high levels, given some more time.
Sure. But to assume either will actually happen is a huge assumption.
TB had a young pitcher with an electric fastball, dominant change, improving breaking ball (but somewhat erratic). The breaking ball was always erratic leading so serious problems. The fastball stayed flat and eventually lost velocity.
by pedrophile on Jun 23, 2008 1:10 AM EDT 0 recs
Response
I don’t think anybody is assuming anything to be set in stone, especially when we’re talking about a 20 year old pitcher. But you know . . .he’s in the minor leagues for a reason. It’s because he doesn’t have the skills necessary for being an effective major league player. This is true for like almost every prospect (even the really good ones) in the minor leagues. That’s why prospect watchers tend to focus on the things that a minor league player does have rather than what he doesn’t have just yet, and why that focus tends to reverse itself once a player reaches the major leagues. The list of good things about Cahill is much longer than the list of bad things, and many of the bad things are simply derived from the lack of experience that comes with being 20 years old.
As for Brazelton, he was a very different prospect. His fastball, despite its velocity, didn’t produce groundballs by the bushel like Cahill’s does, which turns them into totally different animals the moment two identical batters make contact with two fastballs, one thrown by each pitcher. In a nice coincidence, though, mentioning him makes it much easier to elucidate my points. Brazelton had the raw material to be a pretty good major league pitcher, I’m sure we agree upon that. But he was pushed to the majors long before he was ready to take batters of that quality on in any more than a trial setting. He had his flaws just like every prospect – unfortunately for him, nobody gave him the time or training needed to rectify those flaws when it could have made a difference.
by mrkupe on
Jun 23, 2008 1:35 AM EDT
up
0 recs
I can agree with much of that
point being guys with better stuff can afford to make more mistakes, to have pitches be a little more erratic, etc. A pitcher like Cahill has a little less room for error. And guys like Kennedy or Clippard have even less room for error.
by pedrophile on
Jun 23, 2008 8:40 AM EDT
up
0 recs
I listened to Cahills AA start on radio
And from the way the broadcaster talked about his pitches, he was in awe by his sinker, curve, and change, while his slider was striking most of the people out.
He was most impressed by his change and slider which he said he didn’t know how good they were. So, Cahill throws 5 pitches (sinker, 4seam, curve, change, slider), with many of them having a chance to be plus pitches. (sinker, curve already are; change slider have potential to be) and Cahill slings his 4seamer in at 93 so I don’t see what the big beef about his velocity is. The fact that he is willing to take a couple ticks off in order to make his ball move is a testament to his skill and knowledge.
by sully10x on Jun 23, 2008 1:46 PM EDT 0 recs
I agree completely...
Cahill is very advanced for his age in his approach to getting batters out.
Right now it seems people are hung up on outdated writeups of Cahill.
The kid is making major progress and developing quickly this year.
Now raise your goblet of rock. It's a toast to those who rock!
by Dewey Finn on
Jun 23, 2008 3:19 PM EDT
up
0 recs
you want to know what i'm looking forward to?
after Cahill settled firmly into the back of some rotation after struggling several years to stay in the big leagues at all, how quickly people will deny that these blatantly exaggerated scouting reports on Cahill were ever made, and how they will therefore not be instructive at all when looking at the next puss-armed mature kid who puts up a pretty K/BB in the minors.
really.
it’ll be fun.
it won’t be like banging my head into the wall at all.
by bleedjaxblue on Jun 23, 2008 7:06 PM EDT 0 recs
You are pathetic.
And sad, And I’m looking forward to you eating crow.
You think it’s a pretty K/BB ratio…. look at every statistic in the book, he is excelling in it.
Bottom line: PEOPLE CANT HIT OFF HIM.
by sully10x on
Jun 23, 2008 7:39 PM EDT
up
0 recs
well, i'm certainly sad
anyway, i thought the bottom line was MINOR LEAGUERS CAN’T HIT OFF HIM.
i’m pretty sure you’ll get the difference one of these years. i’ll cross my fingers for you. because i HATE seeing people burned again and again. it’s like watching a little bird run into a clear window repeatedly. breaks my heart.
so, yes. i am pathetic indeed. the box scores indicate it must be true, and i heard a radio announcer repeat it.
by bleedjaxblue on
Jun 23, 2008 7:57 PM EDT
up
0 recs
exactly
here is a pitcher in the majors:
Fastball: consistently 95-97
Sinker: low 90’s
Cutter: a little less?
Curve: sharp late break
Change: nice action and deceptive motion
Slider: hard break. Better out of the zone than in the zone only negative
He has a way better fastball than Cahill, actually 10x better as sully’s name would attest. His other stuff is so much better. And yet his ERA is above 4. Why? Because MLB is difficult. It really is.
btw – my name is Dustin McGowan one of the best pitching prospects in baseball.
by pedrophile on
Jun 23, 2008 11:08 PM EDT
up
0 recs
First of all
Isn’t McGowan very good?
Are you praising Cahill here?
And then, to break the comparisons, Cahill is 3 year younger in A+, lets up significantly less HR, induces significantly more ground balls, and has been much more difficult to hit in the minors.
by sully10x on
Jun 24, 2008 12:44 AM EDT
up
0 recs
honest question
just so i can get a sense of exactly where your head is at right now:
do you genuinely believe that Trevor Cahill’s scouting report is comparable in any way to Dustin McGowan’s?
i’m not asking about “who was more difficult to hit in the minors. i get it. it’s not JUST the K/BB ratio. i’m all over that.
what i’m asking is, if you asked someone with a good reputation that scouts all 30 major league teams (or at least receives unbiased reports about them all professionally), do you think ANY of them would say that Cahill’s stuff is as good as McGowan’s?
or close to as good?
or is likely to be as good in 3 years?
or will EVER be as good?
i think that your answer is yes, because, the way you list what he throws, that’d probably be the case.
what the rest of us who are, shall i say, “a little more grounded” are saying is…....not so much. and what’s crazy is that you’ve elevated his “pure stuff” not just from the point of being passable up to the point of being truly elite in terms of raw talent to complement his great polish.
by bleedjaxblue on
Jun 24, 2008 2:48 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Whatever you may think
of Cahill’s supporters, rooting for a guy to fail is a little mean-spirtited and totally uncalled-for, don’t you think?
by ozzman99 on
Jun 24, 2008 1:53 PM EDT
up
0 recs
hahahahah.....ummmmm, no, i don't
boy—who could imagine rooting for different outcomes in sports?
shouldn’t we all just be pulling for everyone to win? that’s possible, right? i wouldn’t want some team’s feelings to get hurt.
incidentally, even if what you said wasn’t completely bat-sh*t insane to begin with, i’d hardly say that what i said was:
1) mean-spirited - to say you’re looking forward to when someone becomes just an alright major leaguer isn’t - it’s not like i said, “i can’t wait until he gets injured”
2) directed at Cahill in the slightest - it isn’t, since it’s about his fans and the scouting reports they’ll use for future pitchers
3) represented “rooting” - “rooting” is saying, “boy—i hope he does (blank)”; what i said was a sarcastic comment about how frustrating it will be when someone does something
i will be waiting for your apology for calling my post “totally uncalled-for” and “mean-spirited.”
by bleedjaxblue on
Jun 24, 2008 2:37 PM EDT
up
0 recs
what?
Rooting for one team to win and one team to lose is not at all similar to hoping that one specific player struggles to reach and stay in the majors. If you can’t see that difference, then I just can’t help you.
Don’t hold your breath on the apology you don’t deserve.
by ozzman99 on
Jun 24, 2008 11:44 PM EDT
up
0 recs
complex sentences
apparently to complex to follow thoughts, so i’ll help you out:
you want to know what i’m looking forward to?.....
how quickly people will deny that these blatantly exaggerated scouting reports on Cahill were ever made, and how they will therefore not be instructive at all when looking at the next puss-armed mature kid who puts up a pretty K/BB in the minors.
oh yeah, huh.
oh—but you point out that that REQUIRES Cahill to struggle.
question, though: how is that different than rooting against a team? do you think that your arch-rival’s players are going to do fantastically, but their team is going to suck?
so, right now, are you rooting for Nick Adenhart to become more part Pedro Martinez, or more part Brett Tomko? because i KNOW you root for all players to succeed.
believe me—i’m not holding my breath. i just figure you shouldn’t be able to say anything that knee-jerkingly inane without someone pointing it out.
by bleedjaxblue on
Jun 25, 2008 12:06 AM EDT
up
0 recs
let's try this again
Hoping that a particular team loses and hoping that a 20 year old never reaches his potential are 2 very different things. You can keep misinterpreting me and then arguing with yourself or you can actually read my post, take a minute to understand it, and then respond.
by ozzman99 on
Jun 25, 2008 12:34 AM EDT
up
0 recs
gosh. goly.
he’s 20.
ergo, i can’t root for him not to reach the potential his fans have for him as a professional baseball player.
that’s like rooting for him to get cancer and die.
again, you do realize teams are made up of players. and you also do realize that “not becoming a superstar baseball player” is not like wishing a pox on the Cahill household. and you do realize that i didn’t even say ANYTHING about hoping what Cahill would or wouldn’t do.
everything else aside, if Cahill became a back-of-the-rotation starter, he WOULD be reaching his potential.
by bleedjaxblue on
Jun 25, 2008 1:32 AM EDT
up
0 recs
everything else aside, if Cahill became a back-of-the-rotation starter, he WOULD be reaching his potential.
Ok, that’s your opinion. Most people here disagree with you. Why does that make you so upset? Being in the minority doesn’t make you right, just as being in the majority doesn’t make them right either.
Ok, I will give you your apology. I was wrong. I misread your post. You don’t want Cahill to fail, you want his fans proven wrong. I am sorry for misunderstanding you. The error was in my interpretation, not in your post or wording.
No, why are you so upset that people like Cahi