Guess it depends on who you believe at this point.

Huge? I don’t think so. All you need is a FB to get through high A (which he hasn’t reached yet) so you really need to take what Bumgarner has done with a grain of salt. Everything I’ve read about Teheran says he has excellent stuff and is still much younger than Bumgarner is. Like I said, sure Bumgarner has blown up and his numbers look extremely impressive but you have to take those with a grain of salt. I gave him the nod over Teheran but it can’t be that far off and certainly not a “huge differential” like you said. All things considered, you really don’t know much about how Bumgarner is going to progress once he reaches advanced levels.

and I have, of course, no idea what rating he’ll give to Teheran and Bumgarner, but he tends to be pretty conservative on young pitchers who have yet to excel in pro ball, no matter how good their stuff is. For example he gave last year both Bumgarner and Feliz B-s. You can argue that those ratings were too low. For John, though, a B- to an 18 year old pitcher doesn’t mean that he thinks he won’t develop, but that he’s simply factoring in the high probability that he may not. He gave Teheran a C+ last year, and I’d be surprised if he went much higher than that this year. I think Bumgarner, on the other hand, will certainly receive a B+ and quite possibly an A- from him. Take that for what it’s worth.

I don’t think anybody is ignoring Teheran’s stuff, and nobody is discounting his ceiling, but I think you’re a bit too interested in scouting reports. There are many young pitchers with terrific scouting reports, but very few succeed. This doesn’t mean that Teheran won’t be the exception to that rule, but it does mean he has to prove himself. Until he does, he’s simply potential.

I also don’t understand the argument that because A ball isn’t as difficult as AA ball, therefore we should practically ignore the stats there. The truth is that most pitchers don’t succeed at A ball, and virtually none dominate like Bumgarner did. It is especially rare for an 18 year old to do so. You’re right to say that simply because he succeeded at A ball, particularly because of his weak secondary stuff, we should not assume that he will now excel at higher levels. But that he succeeded there is a very, very good sign. Even if all it shows is that he has a terrific fastball and outstanding control, those are telling facts. A very good fastball is an asset in the major leagues as well as in the minor leagues, and even if Bumgarner needs to add better breaking pitchers to complement it, he is strides closer to being a top major league pitcher. Those are steps that Teheran needs to make before being considered in Bumgarner’s class. I should note that there is a huge difference between saying that Teheran is a worse prospect than Bumgarner and saying that Teheran will be a middle reliever or that Bumgarner will be an ace. I just think that Bumgarner has, at this point, a significantly higher chance of becoming a very good pitcher than Teheran.

Re:Braves system vs. Giants system, Lincecum vs. Bumgarner – about the first, I don’t care. The second is obviously nonsense, and I don’t think anybody here is arguing otherwise.

If you showed me two pitchers, one a 20-year old in high A and the other a 19-year old in low A, identical scouting reports, identical stats, I would estimate that the older version is about 50% more valuable as a prospect. Having one less level to fail at is enormous.

When it is, as in this case, THREE less levels to fail at, and a lot more innings pitched to boot… I mean, it’s not close. The only way you could rate those two as comparable is if Bumgarner’s scouting report was actively crappy, which is bizarrely far from true. He was the #10 overall pick. That means he is good at baseball.

I see no problem whatsoever with having a full letter grade difference between the two.

They are not arguing that teheran has any less potential than bumgarner, but that he is less developed and unproven. Nobody is trying to belittle his stuff at all, but stuff is just stuff until you can prove that you know how to control and use it as bumgarner has.

This doesn’t make any sense to me “We will see what happens in 5 years and unless Bumgarner is one of the top 5 pitchers in the majors while Tehearn ends up as a middle reliever, you were wrong.” I didn’t see anywhere where someone predicted teheran to be a middle reliever or bumgarner a top 5 starter. That isn’t to say there shouldn’t be a gap in between their prospect status. Bumgarner has proven himself to have amazing stuff (yes he has a good slider as well as a changeup) with possibly the best command in the minors. To say his stats automatically make him a lock for the majors is absurd but it would be equally absurd to say they don’t matter and that we should only look at scouting reports. Take the first 2 games where the giants tried to tweak his mechanics, and his ERA on the season is 0.90. Meanwhile, teheran has barely played professional ball. It is impossible to predict how well he will do, every year there are talented arms with high potential that never put it together or get injured, etc.; stuff does not equate results).

As for the comparison between the two farm systems, I have to say that the giants have much more depth that you give them credit for. They possibly have the greatest depth at pitching of any team in the majors with pucetas, sosa, tanner, joaquin, jarvis, king, barnes, etc. Meanwhile recently promoted pablo sandoval was killing all levels this year posting a .360 ba while schierholtz batted over .320 in AAA with power (played for team USA). This year through the draft we aquired kieschnik, gillaspie (predicted first round pick by many), crawford (was a first round pick before this year), as well as the number 3 international prospect in rafael rodriguez. I think in a matter of 2-3 years, the giants organization has been able to create a system with both high end talent and depth. I know relatively little of the braves organization so I can’t make a fair comparison but I think the giants deserve a little more credit than the 4 players you mentioned earlier.