Discussion
by John Sickels on Sep 6, 2008 10:39 AM EDT
Email
PrintI'm on the road, and don't have all the stuff I need to write up Carlos Rosa. So we will table that until I get home. In the meantime, here is a discussion question for you.
If you could have either Madison Bumgarner or Jhoulys Chacin for your favorite team, which would you pick? Why?
36 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I picked Chacin
Has played at a higher level (in a hitters league), has better secondary stuff (from what I’ve read) and induces more GBs with still very good SO rates. He has room to fill out which would likely increase the velocity on his FB (already has had a small velocity increase this year correct?).
It’s really to early to tell with neither of the pitchers facing advanced hitting yet but I’ll go with Chacin for now. Someone said in another thread Bumgarner had a plus slider which I’ve never heard before (BA and Mayo both have said he has a slurve that was average to below average?) and an improving CU which was viewed as below average entering the season while I’ve heard Chacin has an average CB and CU both of which have plus potential. Will be interesting to see what happens with them. Obviously both have climbed charts fast this year.
I'll say Bumgarner
They both played in the same league for much of this season, and Bumgarner had the better line there across the board, although Chacin did move up a level and continue to perform.
But Bumgarner also has the edge with his size, a bit better fastball (though obviously both are very good), a bit higher ceiling, and he’s a lefty to boot. He’s also almost 2 years younger, though I tend to not always think that matters that much for a pitching prospect (as younger often comes with increased injury risk at that age). But he also has a bit better “pedigree” as a #10 draft pick just a year ago.
Chacin is ahead in the secondary stuff, but I’ll bet on Bumgarer continuing to develop there, with what he’s shown so far.
Bumgarner
Because he is 2 years younger, and has better stamina. Here is the analysis
Bumgarner has the better line for sure, 1.46 ERA, led all minor league levels. Better High School track record for Bumgarner. Born in 89’. Consistent innings eater.
Overall, there is really not a big argument behind this: Mad Bum is the better one.
(I am going to the San Jose Giants game today, tickets on sale!)
Better Stamina?
Why exactly does he have better stamina? Didn’t Chacin pitch more innings?
"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 Sep 6, 2008 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions
more innings per start
may not mean more stamina, but bumgarner apparently goes deeper into games.
As said in another thread, Chacin had a strict limit on how many innings per game he was allowed to go as the season went on to limit his innings. Regardless of the situation (how many pitches thrown) he wasn’t allowed to go more than 5 IP.
http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_10009118
http://www.purplerow.com/2008/7/27/580650/machine-s-innings-to-be-th
This seems like a pretty clear choice
Both have performed very well, and Bumgarner is a potential ace.
BCB's "very own marginally deserving all-star!"
Mad Bum
He is on my favorite team, so it’s not a hypothetical. Admittedly, I followed him closer than I did Jhoulys Chacin, but the reason to go with Mad Bum is that he’s more dominant, with better control at a younger age (20 months), is bigger and left-handed. Of course, I’m biased.
Proud adopted parent of future big league slugger Thomas Neal
by nostocksjustbonds on Sep 6, 2008 2:53 PM EDT reply actions
vote for bum
I just worry about Chacin … for no reason that I really can pinpoint off the top (i mean, there haven’t been any health reports, so this is really just a gut feeling). if chacin stays healthy, though, I think he’ll be the better pitcher. But if you are asking me to pick now, I would go with Bum, who I think is safer. Again, just a gut feeling.
I agree. This site is severely underrating him and the love for Bum on this site is getting to ridiculous proportions. I mean I always thought the love of Lincecum was ridiculous but Bum doesn’t even have his kind of stuff and is getting the same amount of love. If Bum falters in AA and AAA, I hope this poll is close by. Everyone can flame away for me not drinking the Bumgarner kool-aid!
/me shrugs
Response
In fairness, it might just be as close as you think it is.
Like, say . . .what if most of your voters think that on a scale from 1 to 10, 10 being the best, Madison Bumgarner is a “8.7” and Jhoulys Chacin is a “8.5”? That’s actually really very close. You’re asking people to choose which prospect they like more without evaluating the degree to which we like either prospect.
Theoretically, yeah
But I think the difference between them is actually pretty significant. Chacin is a very good pitcher; he has excellent control, gives up few homeruns and strikes out a solid amount of people, but at this point there appears the possibility that Bumgarner is outstanding. For most of this year they played at the same level. Despite Bumgarner being two years younger: where Chacin’s control was very good (2.4 BB/9), Bumgarner’s was sensational (1.3), where Chacin’s K rate was solid (K/9 of 8), Bumgarner’s was phenomenal (10.4). Chacin did better in A+ ball, but not so much so as to counteract the dramatic differences between their performances at A ball. In terms of grades, I’d probably say Chacin deserves a B+ while Bumgarner an A-; i.e. not a massive difference, but a substantial one nonetheless.
www.loftylantern.com
Response
Okay. Now show me something that doesn’t involve statistics.
Bumgarner’s a hell of an arm and I’m a big fan. But Chacin’s still the more developed pitcher, and it’s not unreasonable to me to suggest that if you stuck Bumgarner and Chacin against major league caliber competition at this point, Chacin would do much better. Then, of course, you’d say “well yes, but Bumgarner is two years younger than Chacin, so you would expect that!” And to that I would say, “indubitably good sir, but as we all know young players and especially pitchers do not develop on a linear curve. Oftentimes, a pitcher’s raw stuff declines as he gets older, even as he develops better control and better pitches which compensate for that loss. In addition, many pitchers never do manage to develop their pitches properly, so the fact that a player has already made significant progress in that area counts for much more than most people acknowledge.”
Yes, I like Bumgarner more. But Chacin really isn’t far behind at all. He not only does everything you could ask for out of a young pitcher, but – more importantly – he does it the way you’d like to see him doing it.
I don't understand this argument
Before I explain my disagreement, we should note that we’re basically of the same opinion – that Bumgarner is slightly better than Chacin. We’re debating over tiny amounts of difference.
You’re right that I’m probably over-emphasizing statistics over scouting reports, but I don’t understand the argument behind this sentence: “It’s not unreasonable to me to suggest that if you stuck Bumgarner and Chacin against major league caliber competition at this point, Chacin would do much better.” Why would Chacin, who pitched significantly less well against the same opposition in A ball, pitch significantly better than Bumgarner in the major leagues? (Of course the difference would be mild – I’d be surprised if either could have an ERA below 5 in the majors right now) If Chacin is so much more developed than Bumgarner that he would survive against major league hitters, then how do A ball hitters have a chance against him?
www.loftylantern.com
Because the coaches had him tinkering around with his stuff? Maybe he didn’t just go out there and throw FBs all day long. I think what mrkupe said about which one would fair better in the MLB right now is spot on. He has a better overall arsenal to use and his secondary pitches are more advanced. Plus he induces FAR more GBs so with a MLB defense behind him his numbers could potentially increase where Bumgarner is basically just a flyball pitcher with an amazing FB at this stage of his development. As I said in the “Braves farm system” thread, his season is amazing and his control is outstanding but I think people should wait and see how the rest of his arsenal develops before saying he is an ace. I’m not trying to take anything away from him and you can say I’m being pessimistic but I just think it’s getting carried away far to early. :(
I’m just amazed at this community. First people say that the gap between Teheran (superior stuff and younger) and Bumgarner is huge based on the fact that he pitched at a higher level with success. I disagree although I do think Bumgarner is the better prospect now but OK fair enough. Whatever tickles your pickle.
Now people are arguing that Bumgarner is significantly better than Chacin (who is older but has superior secondary pitches and close to an equal FB but has pitched in the higher level). WTF? So first, Bumgarner gets the nod based on pitching at the higher level but that arguement doesn’t hold weight when it’s switched around?
Basically, as I said earlier in response to John’s post, people have just fallen in love with Bumgarner and are giving him the Lincecum treatment (funny both players happen to be on the same team) even though he doesn’t have near the repertoire.
No I’d take Chacin.
Also Teheran is like 16-17 months younger than Bumgarner I believe while Bumgarner is 18-19 months younger than Chacin I believe. Someone can look them up and do the math but I’m pretty sure Bumgarner isn’t two full years younger than Chacin and pretty sure Teheran is more than one year younger than Bumgarner at the same time. So you have:
- Teheran with superior scouting reports and about 1.5 years younger than Bumgarner.
- Bumgarner with better control, an equal FB and dominating low A while being 1.5 years older than Teheran but 1.5 year’s younger than Chacin.
- Chacin who dominated high A, has superior secondary stuff and scouting reports to Bumgarner.
Bottom line, the biggest arguments for Bumgarner over Teheran are numbers at a higher level while not really taking scouting reports into account or age. The biggest arguments for Bumgarner over Chacin are numbers and age while ignoring numbers at a higher level and again scouting reports. Basically Bumgarner has the best stats while being in the middle level with the weakest scouting reports as far as pitches go and yet on this forum is overwhelmingly looked at as the far better prospect. Comes down to numbers vs. scouting again I suppose and I think the pro Bumgarner group is getting carried away far to early.
“Ignoring” isn’t the best word probably but I think it’s safe to say the pro Bumgarner community is diminishing what they want to give Bumgarner the edge and the arguments/reasoning in these two instances conflict.
argh
That is supposed to be a reply…I never did like this type of forum added with the fact you can’t edit your posts and it’s pretty user unfriendly. Of course I still think this version appearance wise is better than the previous but both lose a lot of points with me functionality wise.
I'll add this...
I don’t know who I’d pick because I don’t follow the minors that much, but Andrew Baggarly, a Giants writer, had an interview with the Augusta pitching coach. It’s located Here. Put whatever faith you want in the fact that he had an erratic curve, a devloping slider, and a developing change.
The Basil Fawlty Moderating Strategy:
"We could run a nice blog here if we didn't have all these members getting in the way."
How is my adopted son almost twice as old as I am? Nevermind...Go Omar! Warm the Bench!
Well all I have handy with me are the following:
BA in 2008
Teheran:
FB: 94-95
CU: advanced CU 81-82 with good sinking action
CB: 78-79 with late, hard bite
Chacin:
FB: 89-92, touching 94 with movement
CU: reliable pitch he throws to both sides of the plate with plus potential
CB: plus potential
Bumgarner:
FB: 92-94 touching 97
Slurve: when he is on top of it, hard sweeping action away from LHH
CU: experimental pitch
McKamey 2008
Teheran:
FB: 86-93 with good movement (4 stars)
CB: 75-79 advanced pitch (3 stars)
CU: 79-82, plus pitch now (4 stars)
Mayo’s ’07 draft report
Bumgarner:
FB: 89-95 with late life and natural tail but well below average
CB: 70-73 with slurvy action
Slider: 79-82 with slurvy action
CU: 78-82 with good feel
I’ve read others (mostly from BA) but it sounds like Bumgarner is behind the other two with all his pitches except the FB. You can say that Chacin/Teheran both have room to fill out and add strength (velocity) but at the same time that Bumgarner has time to develop his other offerings. Fact still remains that Chacin has pitched with success at a higher level (the main arguement for Bumgarner over Teheran) but with more advanced pitches.
Mayo's '07 draft report
the “but well below average” comment should be on CB.
Anyone think this poll has been screwed around with?
800 votes for Bumgarner in 3 days? It wasn’t even at 500 when I checked it yesterday.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
