Hard Fastballs, Soft opposition

by OldProspects on Sep 7, 2008 5:51 PM EDT

Over the last few weeks there have been a series of debates about whether pitchers like Neftali Feliz and Madison Bumgarner are stronger than pitchers like Jhoulys Chacin and Derek Holland. Most people seem to think that Feliz and Bumgarner are stronger prospects, but the question of just how much stronger they are has been fought bitterly.

A number of people have tried to argue that Feliz and Bumgarner's success at lower levels should be downgraded because they rely primarily on their fastballs. They say that considering you can't rely strictly on a terrific fastball at the higher levels, therefore they will face more difficulties than Holland and Chacin who have better secondary stuff.

Intuitively, this seems sensible but I'm wondering if it's true. Considering none of these pitchers (with the arguable exception of Holland) have had consistent, outstanding success at AA or higher levels, it seems like they all have to improve a lot. Those people seem to be arguing that a pitcher with a good fastball and a decent breaking ball in the low minors is more likely to become a good major league pitcher than one with a terrific fastball and an uncertain breaking ball.

I have a problem with this argument on a number of counts. First, if Holland's and Chacin's secondary stuff were as strong as some seem to believe, then it should show up in their stats. They should have blown A ball hitters away at the same rates that Feliz and Bumgarner do; I don't understand why an A ball hitter is supposed to be decimated by a terrific fastball, but not by a terrific curveball. Second, pitchers with as good fastballs as Bumgarner and Feliz might be able to get away without an excellent breaking pitch even in the majors; certainly they'll need a good or even a decent breaking ball, but their secondary stuff probably doesn't have to be as strong as Chacin's or Holland's would.

I'm wondering what other people think; are there any pitchers like Feliz and Bumgarner in the past? Did their secondary stuff develop or did they flail in the higher levels?

2 recs | Comment 36 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Well a lot of pitchers who rely primarily on their FB end up as RP. I’m not saying that is what will happen to them but it’s been shown over and over (without giving specific examples) that you need more than just 1 pitch to be successful against advanced hitting. It’s definitely possible that Bumgarner/Feliz could develop breaking pitches and CUs and turn into the aces so many on baseball forums seem to think they are already destine to become but until they do I’d have a hard time saying I think Bumgarner or Feliz will be more successful or say that I’d rather have them on my team than pitchers who are more pitchers than throwers.

by jfish26101 on Sep 7, 2008 6:28 PM EDT 0 recs

Holland

Has sat in the mid 90’s this year, not sure that qualifies as soft. Also I’m not sure about MadBum but Feliz has been using plenty of offspeed stuff lately in AA.

Getting back to your topic though I think its more a case by case bases. Depends on how good the fastball and how good the offspeed pitches.

by groundingout on Sep 7, 2008 6:35 PM EDT 0 recs

Response

“I don’t understand why an A ball hitter is supposed to be decimated by a terrific fastball, but not by a terrific curveball.”

Correct. In fact, I’d venture that the opposite is true – a huge separator between low level hitters and higher level hitters is that lower level hitters get weeded out quickly by even mediocre breaking balls. However, there is a significant change as you move up in levels – at higher levels, quality fastballs play up much better than quality breaking balls. Sometimes you have a 2006-2007 Rich Hill, a guy whose breaking ball is so good that it plays up at any level. But usually not.

It may seem counter-intuitive to think this way, but if you’re looking for such a case in development, Troy Patton comes to mind as a guy who had a lot of success in the lower minors as a power curve guy and then changed his approach to succeed at higher levels, although obviously injuries have taken their toll on him and it remains to be seen how if at all he will perform in the majors.

As for guys similar to Feliz, I can think of . . .well, a ton. You’ll find at least one guy pretty much every year who’s similar to him and maybe more. Homer Bailey was a guy I thought of right away. The 20 year old Bailey was an even better prospect than the 20 year old Feliz, mostly a fastball guy with potential for good secondary pitches. But obviously you can see how that’s gone.

Bumgarner? I can’t think of any good comps for him off the top of my head. Power lefties with sterling command at his age are far and few between. Scott Kazmir was a similarly dominant teenager with great command for his age, but he was doing it with a 70 slider and didn’t have the control that Bumgarner appears to have (although it should be noted that much of this may be owed to the aforementioned 70 slider). Most power lefties struggle with command in their youth, so it’s pretty spectacular to see a kid who actually can count that among his strengths.

This is probably why Bumgarner attracts as much attention as he does. The present stuff, the projection, the command from the left side, it’s not only a great package, but it’s a very unique package that has the potential to be something special. Once you’ve seen a few cycles of prospects go through the development pipeline . . .I don’t want to say that things aren’t exciting any more (although considering the similar cycle of posters on minorleagueball.com I may be on to something here), but you start to see how the vast majority of prospects fit into a fairly comfortable range of projection outcomes. Bumgarner is a guy who might just not fit.

by mrkupe on Sep 7, 2008 7:29 PM EDT 0 recs

Well I agree partially with your first paragraph but low level hitters also generally have lower bat speed and poorer plate discipline/pitch recognition. That partly reinforces what you said but a 95 mph FB isn’t as dominate in the MLB as it is in low A. Almost every hitter can catch up to a 95 mph FB in the majors, you simply can’t just go up there and overpower them with FB after FB. I know some have said Bumgarner has made huge strides with his other pitches but I haven’t seen him which means until analysts start saying that I’m going to go ahead and keep thinking his secondary stuff is below average.

I’m horrible at comps so wont even try. Maybe Braves can drop by and bless us with his awesomeness. I don’t know if he has seen any of the guys we have been discussing though in person so it might be more difficult for him. I actually enjoy his write ups from games.

by jfish26101 on Sep 7, 2008 7:53 PM EDT up 0 recs

The question isn't

whether FB pitchers like Feliz and Bumgarner will need to improve; of course they will. The question is whether they are more or less likely to improve enough to be good major league pitchers than other top prospects like Holland and Chacin

www.loftylantern.com

by OldProspects on Sep 7, 2008 8:36 PM EDT up 0 recs

Well that is definitely a case by case scenario that nobody can really project with 100% accuracy. Unless I’m misunderstanding you, your basically just asking if it’s possible a pitcher who only has a great FB at early stages can become an ace with several high quality pitchers? You wont know if Bumgarner will/can do that till he does.

by jfish26101 on Sep 7, 2008 8:45 PM EDT up 0 recs

The argument that some have made

And not to put words in your mouth, but I believe you’re sympathetic to it, is that pitchers who have both a good fastball and good secondary stuff in the low minors are more likely to become good starters than pitchers in the low minors with outstanding fastballs and questionable stuff. Of course it is a case by case matter, and we’re dealing with guesswork. My point was that I suspect both categories of pitchers have roughly equal chances to excel at the higher levels. I also argued that pitchers who could excel at lower levels using primarily a fastball should not be overly downgraded because of their imperfect breaking balls, because having an outstanding fastball is useful not only against A ball hitters, but major leaguers as well, even if at the higher levels they will need better breaking pitches as well

www.loftylantern.com

by OldProspects on Sep 9, 2008 12:26 AM EDT up 0 recs

I’m not downgrading him I’m just because he seemingly only has a plus FB right now with plus command/makeup, I’m just saying a pitcher with one plus pitch isn’t as good as a pitcher with two or more and unless/until he develops his secondary stuff I can’t see ranking him higher than others who already have.

Chacin’s FB is nothing to laugh at either. He sat at low 90’s (91-92) reaching mid 90’s (94-94) with movement and control before the season began but have heard he has filled out a bit and added velocity. Bumgarner sits at 94-95 touching 98 I believe, it’s quite possible Chacin is right there.

I’m not downgrading Bumgarner just saying people’s ranking of him is a bit to much. I saw someone earlier saying he was the best pitching prospect in the minors. A true ace by definition usually means you have 2-3 plus pitches with plus command and makeup so I guess that I just don’t think that quite fits Bumgarner yet while it might already fit Chacin. If your simply projecting him to be better, I also confused since Teheran was completely overlooked as a C/C+ type prospect based on his small sample even though everything I’ve ever read about him says he will be a 1/2 type SP in the majors when he is older. The arguements don’t match up which leads me to believe that this is simply bias in favor of Bumgarner over almost anyone else (which is why I keep comparing his treatment to Lincecum who got the exact same treatment but at least was somewhat justified by his stuff which was far superior to Bumgarner).

by jfish26101 on Sep 9, 2008 9:23 AM EDT up 0 recs

I guess I deserve

this for going with the cheap contrast between hard and soft in my title; of course Holland and Chacin have very good fastballs too. And, of course, I think that Holland and Chacin are terrific prospects as well – though not quite as good as Bumgarner and Feliz. I was just talking about how people emphasize their breaking pitches as how they catch up to Bumgarner’s and Feliz’s better fastballs.

I judge pitchers primarily by their results, considering age, level and of course scouting reports. I think Bumgarner is a better prospect than Chacin and Holland because his results are better, especially when considering the other factors. I have difficulty understanding the argument that Chacin and Holland are truly better pitchers, with extra advantages, strengths that don’t seem to be appearing on the baseball field. Rox Girl made an interesting argument that could explain that for Chacin at least, but I’m wary.

I have to say that I have trouble understanding why you’re so surprised that people on this forum generally believe that Bumgarner is a stronger prospect than Chacin and certainly Teheran, and have even suggested that maybe there is a ballot-stuffing campaign (though why, I have no idea). I certainly don’t think that he is the best pitching prospect, but I’d be interested to see any ranking system that didn’t put him in the top 10, and I suspect most will put him in the 5 best pitching prospects. In yesterday’s Baseball America chat, for example, one analyst went so far as to argue that he had the best pitching performance of any minor league prospect. Because we’re dealing with a teenage prospect, that doesn’t mean he will be a superstar, and it doesn’t even mean that he will be good. Because we’re dealing with a pitcher, there is a reasonable chance he won’t even be decent. It doesn’t mean that Teheran or Chacin won’t be terrific pitchers, or even better than Bumgarner. I do think, however, that at this point there is a better chance that Bumgarner will be than Chacin, and a significantly better chance that he will than Teheran

www.loftylantern.com

by OldProspects on Sep 9, 2008 11:11 AM EDT up 0 recs

That ballot stuffing thing was because they are getting 1000+ posts in a matter of a couple days. Remembering back to the community prospect lists which were some of the most participated in threads I can remember ever on this forum NEVER reached that high in even more time allowed to vote. The Fowler/Snider thread got 1000+ votes in like 60 hours or something which seems crazy.

As far as the topic at hand, I to said Bumgarner was better than Teheran but it’s the gap you all are saying between them I have a problem with. Also as far as the BA chat, having the best performance doesn’t mean they are a better pitcher. Is Cliff Lee the best pitcher in MLB? Is he top 5? Is he having perhaps the best season? Maybe but certainly top 5 but I wouldn’t say he is one of the best 5 pitchers in all of baseball right now. Your taking one season of exceptional numbers and projecting them to continue regardless of the competition and regardless of the fact that almost all analysts seemed to think only a few months ago that his secondary pitches were all below average. You say you take scouting reports into account when ranking players but it must be like 1% of the formula based on your posts. I don’t mean that disrespectfully by any means since I enjoy most of these posts (despite having differences of opinions) but your logic seems off.

Some of the reasons you think Bumgarner is so much better than Teheran would support why Chacin would be looked at as a better pitching spect than Bumgarner but they don’t seem to apply in that comparison. It just seems like you are using what you want, when you want to support what you think which I don’t feel is objective. I’m getting awfully close to giving up on these threads as I have the “Braves Farm System” thread because of that. It defies logic as to how a pitcher with 2-3 plus pitches is worse than a pitcher with 1 plus pitch. You have said so yourself in other posts I believe (or someone said it in the same threads) and yet you continue to say Bumgarner (the guy with 1 plus pitch) is better than Chacin (the guy with 2-3 plus pitches). Stats (ESPECIALLY in the minors) don’t mean and tell everything.

by jfish26101 on Sep 9, 2008 5:56 PM EDT up 0 recs

Though it's possible

for a finalist for Minor League player of the year to not be a top 10 pitching prospect the following year, I don’t think that will happen in Bumgarner’s case. This doesn’t of course matter at all, except to say it’s not exactly a rogue position to think he’s one of the best pitching prospects in the league.

You’re right that I think that performance matters a lot more than scouting reports, unless there seems to be a strong reason why what the scouts see is not present in the statistics. In none of these cases, does that appear to be happening. To convince me, you would have to explain why despite Chacin having better stuff than Bumgarner, his performance was not as good despite being two years older and at the same level. Rox Girl offered a possible explanation which didn’t quite persuade me, but I can at least understand it. You’re repeating that Chacin has better stuff, which just emphasizes my question, then why doesn’t he pitch better.

I think what’s happening here is that you’re judging prospects primarily based on scouting reports and I’m judging them primarily based on statistics. These are two different logics, both with their own advantages and own disadvantages. I don’t understand how it defies logic to consider a separate logic.

www.loftylantern.com

by OldProspects on Sep 9, 2008 7:16 PM EDT up 0 recs

Because…wait for it…brace yourself…numbers don’t mean everything in the minor leagues! You do know what the minor leagues are for right? They are to develop their young, raw players into polished major league players. Like I said very early in this thread or at least one of the threads, maybe Chacin is working on a specific part of his pitching game. Maybe his pitching coach has him using his curveball over and over. Maybe he is having him throw his slider for strikes to get used to it. There are dozens of reasons as to why Chacin’s numbers may not be better than Bumgarners but if the Giants were smart they wouldn’t let Bumgarner just go out there and blow his FB by everyone because they HAVE to know that wont work when he reaches the higher levels. He should probably be going out there and throwing the pitches he needs work on over and over and over and not worrying about his results. The minor leagues are basically a 1-5 year long pre-season. Something like 50% of BA’s top 100 never become MLB average MLB players because they see a performance and immediately project that into MLB success. I’ve never said Bumgarner will fail or wont develop other MLB quality pitches but I really think this much projection is dangerous. I’m not going to project a 18 year old pitcher to be top 5-10 baseball prospect in the league or project him higher than a 20 year old with superrior stuff. /me shrugs

/end my side of the argument.

by jfish26101 on Sep 9, 2008 7:26 PM EDT up 0 recs

I understand your point and you offer a number of possible explanations for why their performances were different, but I have no way of knowing whether any particular one is true. I, personally, do not know how much time Bumgarner worked on his secondary stuff this year, and whether that’s more or less than Chacin. I don’t know how much either improved their breaking pitches. If you do, I’d be interested in hearing it. Of course numbers aren’t the only thing, not in the majors, and especially not in the minors and I wouldn’t argue otherwise. Of course we’re always dealing with guesswork in regards to prospects. That being said, when a pitcher who is two years younger does better at the same level or one level below an older pitcher, I think we have to take notice.

In regards to stuff, Chacin has currently the better breaking pitches, while Bumgarner has the better fastball and better control. Considering neither of them has the stuff to excel in the major leagues at the moment, and both have to improve significantly, it seems to me an open question of which will do that better. I understand your argument that it’s better to have already a strong breaking ball in the low-minors than it is to have a questionable breaking ball and a terrific fast. I don’t even necessarily disagree with it in theory. In this case, I’m not persuaded. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree

www.loftylantern.com

by OldProspects on Sep 10, 2008 1:45 PM EDT up 0 recs

+1

"Because…wait for it…brace yourself…numbers don’t mean everything in the minor leagues! "

correct, see homer bailey. to take it one step further, nobody knows how any pitching prospect will fare once they reach the majors. i can assure you of one thing, most will fail.

p.s. speaking of teheran, does anyone know why he only logged 15 innings this year?

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 Sep 10, 2008 3:22 PM EDT up 0 recs

I didn't mean to imply that they were unprecedented

I appreciate your comps, though. In general, I basically agree with everything you say

www.loftylantern.com

by OldProspects on Sep 7, 2008 8:35 PM EDT up 0 recs

Ubaldo Jimenez

Ubaldo Jimenez has a big FB. Fangraphs.com has Ubaldo throwing 70% FB’s on the year. and according to them he has the fastest average FB in the majors(SP’s) at 94.9 mph. It says he mixes in a change up, Slider and curve ball about 10% of the time each. I’m not sure how his secondary stuff plays in MLB. But there is no doubt that he is pretty successful as a SP in Coors using his FB 70% of the time.

Here is the link to fangraphs Ubaldo Jimenez page where i took this info from.

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=3374&position=P

Go Pirates!!!

by cool hand Charlie on Sep 7, 2008 8:45 PM EDT 0 recs

chris young is another SP i remember being successful with his FB% up in the 70s.

actually checking him on josh kalk’s site, he’s thrown 78% FBs this year.

it’s possible, but usually, there’s another factor in the success, other than just a tremendous FB.

ANATOMY OF ERA:
Variables Don't; Constants Aren't

by variablesdont on Sep 7, 2008 8:55 PM EDT up 0 recs

Ankiel

Madbum could turn out like ankiel, who also had nice command, great fastball at lower levels. Although he was dominant in high A by the end of his 18 year old season.

Not making a direct comp, just saying you never know where these guys are gonna end up.

by wobatus on Sep 8, 2008 1:01 PM EDT 0 recs

Get Real

YOU may not know. I, on the other hand, DO. At least i can make an educated guess. Ankierl and Madison are NOT similar.

by casejud on Sep 10, 2008 2:42 AM EDT up 0 recs

Yeah, I mean, Ankiel has way more raw power

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Sep 10, 2008 9:33 PM EDT up 0 recs

Yeah...

someone understands me. Thanks. Loved your movies BTW.

by casejud on Sep 10, 2008 11:00 PM EDT up 0 recs

Differing organizational philosophies play a big role in this

I have a problem with this argument on a number of counts. First, if Holland’s and Chacin’s secondary stuff were as strong as some seem to believe, then it should show up in their stats. They should have blown A ball hitters away at the same rates that Feliz and Bumgarner do; I don’t understand why an A ball hitter is supposed to be decimated by a terrific fastball, but not by a terrific curveball.

Some organizations stress the importance of pitching to contact more than others do. Colorado’s system is one of these, I’m guessing Milwaukee’s might be as well. With Chacin, I’m pretty certain that he could be striking out a lot more if he wasn’t specifically being instructed to use his defense and he has the command to follow this direction. It’s part of the reason why his K% is reversing a normal pattern and has actually gone up with each step up the ladder. He’s needing to use the K more as a weapon against more advanced hitters. The Rockies preach conservation of pitches and energy as a way of counteracting the fatigue caused by altitude. With the drop-off to mid-reliever level having a bigger impact a mile above sea level, they would rather have starters be good over many innings than dominant over just a few.

The Giants during the Sabean era have loved the K and in cases like Lincecum and Cain it’s proven very successful, whereas in cases like Jonathan Sanchez, where they sacrifice some hard contact and added walks for those high K rates, the results are more mixed. I think Bumgarner will be more of the former than the latter for them, but his K percentage would be lower if he was in the Rockies system (no doubt with a higher GB%), and Chacin’s would be higher if he was with the Giants.

by Rox Girl on Sep 8, 2008 2:07 PM EDT 0 recs

That's an interesting argument

I have no idea if it’s true, but it would explain a lot.

www.loftylantern.com

by OldProspects on Sep 8, 2008 4:37 PM EDT up 0 recs

You can't teach a guy to throw 95 mph...

If we’re talking lower levels of the minors, give me the guy with the plus fastball, with command of it, and an ability to sustain it deep into games. You can always teach a changeup or breaking pitch.

Of course, it’s a matter of degree as well. If the difference in the fastballs isn’t that great, then yes you certainly might prefer the guy with the better repertoire. But if there is a really significant difference in ceiling, I would tend to bet on the guy with a greater chance of beign an ace. Part of this is that pitching prospects seem to be inherently risky anyway, so I think you might as well aim high. A true top of rotation SP is such a valuable commodity, you have to give yourself a chance to develop one.

And, the fastball is the most important pitch. Most MLB pitchers are pitching off the fastball, throwing mostly fastballs. I’d rather have a guy with a plus plus fastball and average secondary pitches, than an average fastball, and two plus complimentary pitches.

by acerimusdux on Sep 8, 2008 3:39 PM EDT 0 recs

Sorry

Sorry I wrote my post without reading yours I did not mean to repeat a lot of what you were saying. But you know what they say: Great minds….

by Franchise55 on Sep 8, 2008 11:49 PM EDT up 0 recs

Exactly

Offspeed pitches can be taught. Command can be refined through practice. Velocity is something you either have, or you don’t. It is the one thing in a pitcher’s reportoire that cannot be taught or learned over time. That is why people tend to drool over the kid that throws 97 with no offspeed pitches rather than the kid that throws 90 with good offspeed pitches.

Now, some pitchers that fall into the second category seem to bump up their velocity out of nowhere (Holland being a great example).

by guru4u on Sep 10, 2008 11:40 AM EDT up 0 recs

Couldn't agree more

I will never understand why the critism against Bumgarner is that he is only getting people out with his fastball. I would venture to guess that if anything the one pitch that should be the easiest to hit for even a non-prospect is the fastball, especially if there is no off-speed offerings to upset the timing of the batter.

I would also go out on a limb and say that of all the pitches a pitcher can have in his repetoire the a great fastball is the most likely to play at the higher levels. (Especially from the left side, which is something that cannot be overstated) Take Lincecum for example, everybody was drooling over his curve early in his career but he probably uses that the least now and relys heavily on the FB and CU.

The thing is that you cant teach the FB, but you can learn off-speed stuff. Bumgarner may never develop his slider and change into plus pitches but I dont think he has to in order to succeed at higher levels. Everything is built off the fastball and if you have a great one adding even average off-speed stuff to them will make a pitcher tough to hit.

I think we keep forgetting that most pitchers dont have plus potential with all their pitches, most have one or maybe two plus pitches and servicable secondary stuff. And if I was choosing pitching prospects I would put those with plus fastballs above those with plus off-speed stuff.

by Franchise55 on Sep 8, 2008 11:43 PM EDT 0 recs

I sort of agree,

Bumgarner’s fastball is good enough that he doesn’t need the secondary stuff to be plus to succeed at higher levels, but he won’t succeed as much and may even wind up being a Billy Wagner type of reliever if it doesn’t come around. That in itself would be very valuable, but not quite the ace in waiting people here seem to expect. Don’t think it’s not a concern for him, either. On Friday night I sat a couple of rows in front of him as he was charting the game in Asheville (don’t ask me why he wasn’t doing it from the dugout, but he was at the scout’s table in civies instead) and he was talking to somebody that knew him well about how to approach Darin Holcomb, who has MLB quality wrist control. Their best solution was just to dial it up for a couple of pitches and hope Holcomb’s wrists can’t keep it in play, and then hope he chases some junk for strike three. While Holcomb is somewhat unique in the SAL, that type of hitter is far more prevalent at upper levels and is especially common in the majors.

My second point would be that this argument doesn’t seem to recognize that Chacin and Holland have plus fastballs as well. Chacin can hit the mid 94 but works in the low 90’s with a two-seamer that has Cahill like sink. Holland has really good movement as well and primarily uses a mid-90’s four seam fastball which is just a tick below Bumgarner’s, so it’s not like we’re talking about a couple of soft tossers here. If you were talking about a pitcher with only plus off-speed stuff like Will Inman or Yusmeiro Petit vs Bumgarner, than yeah, take MadBum any and every time, but that’s not the case on the two examples cited in the diary.

Finally, the last paragraph states exactly why Chacin should be considered more strongly than he is. He has three plus pitches right now in the FB, CU and curve. I’ve had a couple of scouts tell me that they really like his slider’s potential as well. Not only that, he has plus command. Like you say, most pitchers don’t even have three pitches with plus potential. The main problem scouts have with Chacin is that he doesn’t have a single pitch that grades as a consensus 70 (a couple of scouts I’ve talked to do put his CU there), but three at 60, one at 50 with plus command isn’t something you see very often with any pitcher at any level. Bumgarner has one at 80, one at 50 (the curve), and one at 40. I’m not really up on Holland, but if that Newberg’ link is correct, his FB is at 70 right now. I understand he’s got a plus change-up and average breaking pitch.

Two plus pitches, an average third pitch, plus-plus command and plus make-up equals a potential #1 starter. Chacin is on the brink of qualifying with a little more command, and frankly I’d like to see him get one pitch that’s a consensus 70. Holland sounds pretty close as well. Both easily fit into a #2 category. Bumgarner right now scouts better as a closer (one dominant pitch, one average pitch, plus plus makeup) with ace potential, but the other two seem a lot closer from a scouting perspective. While it’s true that you can teach secondary pitches, refining them to the plus category is a lot easier said than done.

by Rox Girl on Sep 9, 2008 9:21 AM EDT up 0 recs

I completely agree

If what I’ve been hearing from fans and chats from analysts match up with what they write this off-season about Chacin, those some 500+ people who voted for Bumgarner are either wrong to rank him ahead of Chacin at this stage in their careers or simply going off projection. I’d rather have the guy showing it right now which is why I picked Bumgarner over Teheran (but which is also why I don’t think their rankings shouldn’t be to far off because I’ve read his secondary stuff is already advanced with a plus FB).

by jfish26101 on Sep 9, 2008 9:34 AM EDT up 0 recs

But Bumgarner barely has a CU from the reports I read from earlier in the year. I’m still interested to hear what people say about him now but take Santana who was arguably the best pitcher in the majors for years. I’ve heard several people argue that his FB wasn’t a plus pitch and really was nothing that outstanding but what truly made him effective was his secondary pitches especially his CU. Bottom line however you look at it is you need more than 1 pitch and until Bumgarner has more pitches he can throw to MLB hitters he shouldn’t be ranked as high as some are ranking him. He may get by the first or second way through a MLB lineup with mostly only a FB but he will get hammered after that and as scouting reports make it to teams they will just sit on it.

by jfish26101 on Sep 9, 2008 9:30 AM EDT up 0 recs

I dont know how you can say that “until Bumgarner has more pitches he can throw to MLB hitters he shouldn’t be ranked as high as some are ranking him.” I thought that quite a bit of prospect rankings had to do with projection and who is to say that a projected view of Bumgarner doesn’t have him developing average or even above average secondary stuff. It happens all the time pitchers learn pitches, and I would be willing to bet that Bumgarner would be able to do the same. Couple that reasonable projection with a plus fastball and I dont have any problem putting him in the top 5 pitching prospects in the game.

I think that we are forgetting something about Bumgarner. The fact that his father didnt allow him to throw breaking balls. This is why I have a hard time jumping on the scouting report bandwagon. Most of the time when a HS or College pitcher has negatives written about his pitches it is because a scout has seen them and realizes they’re not up to par. But Bumgarner’s breaking balls were a complete unknown. We dont know if he has the ability to master them we have never seen him try, but I am not willing to write him off as being a fastball only pitcher when he has only been learning and throwing his off-speed stuff for a year now.

by Franchise55 on Sep 9, 2008 4:13 PM EDT up 0 recs

But why should he be ranked above players who already have those tools? Why should someone you are projecting to have the tools someone else already has be ranked above them? If we are talking projection then again Teheran has to be considered fairly close to Bumgarner. Again you all seem to be using what supports your case when it does and ignoring it when it goes against it. Bottom line is still that Chacin seems to already be there in terms of stuff.

by jfish26101 on Sep 9, 2008 6:01 PM EDT up 0 recs

Look, why do you have to be so darn argumentive? Can’t you just drink the kool-aid like the rest of us?

Ok seriously, you want to know why I would rank Bumgarner above someone with an already established 3 pitch repetoire? Simply put, I think that when Bumgarner develops his secondary stuff he will be a more desirable commodity.

I get the fact that projecting Bumgarner to learn breaking balls on the fly is a slippery slope that has led the hype train to a lot of messy wrecks. But what Bumgarner has done this year while throwing his FB 75% of the time is something that you cant ignore. I have yet to hear a response as to why Bumgarner despite having only a FB outperformed pitchers who have great fastballs and secondary pitches as well.

by Franchise55 on Sep 9, 2008 7:07 PM EDT 0 recs

“Look, why do you have to be so darn argumentive? Can’t you just drink the kool-aid like the rest of us?”

Well I’m trying to ignore it but at the same time I can’t ignore the fact that as he goes up levels the hitters become increasingly more difficult to get out if all you have is a MLB quality FB. Hitters will sit on it and have the bat speed to catch up to it. He is young and has time for you to rank him as the best pitching spect if he develops like he needs to. I’ve never said he wont I just think you should be catious and not ignore the other pitchers who have already been able to do.

by jfish26101 on Sep 9, 2008 7:19 PM EDT up 0 recs

I agree

that Bumgarner would most likely not be able to survive with only a MLB caliber fastball but we can not say that for sure because we dont know exactly how good his fastball is. For all we know his fastball could be the perfect mix of velocity, location, deception, and movement that makes it a truly unique pitch. Now I wont go so far as to say that he will able to be a #1 starter with only one ++pitch or even a starter at all but I could see him having a pretty nice career as a closer. If that were the case I would still consider him a pretty nice prospect, maybe not top 5 or 10 but still anyone especially pitchers that carve out a legitimate MLB career have to be considered a success.

by Franchise55 on Sep 9, 2008 10:10 PM EDT 0 recs