Trevor Cahill > Brandon Webb?

by Dewey Finn on Jan 4, 2009 6:47 PM EST Comment 87 comments

It's no secret that I am a HUGE Trevor Cahill fan. I've compared his upside to that of Brandon Webb in the past. However, I now feel that he could be even better than Webb. They are very similar pitchers who use the same repertoire (sinking fastball, curve, change). Webb's career GB% is 64.3, Cahill's 2008 GB% was 62. The difference that I see is that Cahill's stuff is better in comparison to Webb. Webb's avg fastball velocity over his major league career is 88.1 mph. Unfortunately, I dont have an exact record of Cahill's avg fastball velocity, although various scouting reports indicate that his hard sinking fastball sits in the low 90s and can touch mid 90s occaisonally. Furthermore, his curveball (knuckle curve) is a true out pitch and is better than Webb's hook. Although Webb's changeup is currently better, Cahill has developed his in becoming a very good (above average pitch). If he continues to work on it, it may become a plus pitch. From a physical standpoint, Cahill and Webb have similar builds (6'3, 210 & 6'2, 220 respectively). Do I think Cahill will immediately start putting up Webb-like numbers upon promotion to the majors? Certainly not. However, Cahill is much further along in his development at a younger age with better stuff and performance. The only thing lacking for Cahill is command/ control. In my opinion, this issue is blown out of proportion. Cahill tries to make hitters chase, not because he can't consistently locate. Anyways, Brandon Webb also had command/control issues early on in his career.

Lets look at their minor league numbers for A-, A+, AA:

Webb (age 21) Low A - 3.24 ERA, 1.14 WHIP, 9.7 K/9, 4.9 BB/9

Cahill (age 19) Low A - 2.73 ERA, 1.19 WHIP, 10.0 K/9, 3.4 BB/9

Webb (age 22) High A - 3.99 ERA, 1.34 WHIP, 8.8 K/9, 2.4 BB/9

Cahill (age 20) High A - 2.78 ERA, 0.95 WHIP, 10.6 K/9, 3.2 BB/9

Webb (age 23) Double A - 3.14 ERA, 1.32 WHIP, 7.2 K/9, 3.5 BB/9

Cahill (age 20) Double A - 2.19 ERA, 1.16 WHIP, 8.0 K/9, 4.6 BB/9

Career MiLB Stats:

Webb - 357.0 IP, 3.71 ERA, 1.33 WHIP, 8.1 K/9, 3.2 BB/9, 0.3 HR/9

Cahill - 238.2 IP, 2.68 ERA, 1.09 WHIP, 10.0 K/9, 3.7 BB/9, 0.3 HR/9

In my opinion, Trevor Cahill matches up extremely well to Brandon Webb. Needless to say, I can't wait for Cahill's promotion to the big club. With a great defense and pitcher friendly home park, I think he can put up impressive numbers almost immediately and eventually put up Webb-like stats (with the potential for even better).

4 recs | Comment 87 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

People develop differently

in every aspect of life, just because one’s numbers are better at the same age really doesn’t mean anything at all. You know how many prospects have [had] better numbers than the career minor league numbers of Brandon Webb, even pitchers with similar styles? A ton. If prospecting was easy enough to compare major leaguer’s numbers at the minor league level with current prospects, it would be an exact science. It doesn’t work.

by Deech on Jan 4, 2009 7:02 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Webb

He was one of those guys that got by prospect evaluators. He also had three years taken way by the University of Kentucky. Danny Haren is another guy that kind of slipped through the cracks.

by CoolCat23 on Jan 4, 2009 7:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Webb is a lofty comparison

I understand the similarities in there repertoire but I think there is a big difference between dominating Low minors hitters with a sinking fastball and dominating MLB hitters. I know this difference is present for every prospect but I think it especially big for sinkerballers. Most MLB players feast on fastballs, so the skill that a righty can conistently get such poor contact on a ~90 MPH fastball like Webb is something I am reluctant to bestow on a prospect.

That said I think the bit of extra zip on the fastball and the quality of Cahill’s knuckle-curve mean that he will K enough guys that his GB rate won’t have to be as good as Webb’s for him to be a very good MLB pitcher.

by DiegoAsFan on Jan 4, 2009 7:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, webb was never considered a top prospect

I have never seen a sinker move the way I see Webbs move, part of his growing pains in his 2nd year in the majors was figuring out how to throw it for strikes.

Check out my baseball analysis blog FANalytics

by jbluestone on Jan 4, 2009 7:44 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Nope.

He does have similarities to Webb in that both of them are sinkerballers with good breaking pitches. But Webb’s sinker grades out even higher and his command of the pitch is damned near uncanny. Webb also has a nice changeup, which is something that Cahill has the potential to duplicate but is by no means a given yet.

Cahill has a couple of small advantages . . .his velocity is probably a little better and his curve (while still a rather unpolished weapon) has a shot at being plus-plus. But there’s a lot of projection you still have to do with him, and trying to project him into a pitcher who is Brandon Webb’s equal or superior seems like a stretch.

If he’s successful, as I’ve noted before on here, I think he’ll end up being rather similar to Webb. But that might end up meaning that he’s a No. 2 or 3 starter rather than a perennial Cy Young candidate.

by mrkupe on Jan 4, 2009 7:52 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Of course

Stuff does not determine the quality of a major league pitcher. Greg Maddux’s and Tom Glavine’s stuff besides their change ups, graded out as average their entire careers. While guys like Kip Wells and Jamie Wright both have above average arsenals, but have flamed out.
An ace has to have the mental part of his game perfected before, he can truly become an ace.

by CoolCat23 on Jan 4, 2009 8:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Why?

Why is it that everyone forgets maddux had a plus FB in his early years?

by cubsfan1 on Jan 5, 2009 5:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Of Course

His best years in the majors when he threw a 90 mph fastball from ‘93-’96

by CoolCat23 on Jan 6, 2009 7:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The way some people go fishing in these threads, this could be a Bassmasters forum.

by Forza Hudd on Jan 4, 2009 8:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Brandon Webb

is way too good to be worse than Cahill

by METSMETSMETS on Jan 4, 2009 8:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

No.

Brandon Webb is possibly the most valuable pitcher in baseball.

by aCone419 on Jan 4, 2009 8:41 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Bit of a stretch...

But definitely top-10 and possibly top 5.

by demondeaconsbaseball on Jan 5, 2009 7:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

not really

http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/12/baseballs-most-valuable-pitchers-2006-2008/

He’s finished 1st, 2nd, and 2nd in the Cy Young voting the past three years, but people still seem to be underrating him. No pitcher is a better bet to give you 230 IP in the 140-155 ERA+ range.

by aCone419 on Jan 5, 2009 10:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yep

comparing Cahill to Webb is ridiculous

Wait 'til the year after next

by NothinG on Jan 5, 2009 3:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That sound you just heard

… was Dewey’s posts hitting a new low.

No, Trevor Cahill is not better than Brandon Webb. As much as we love the art of prospecting here, there are cases where minor league stats don’t mean shit, and I’d imagine that Webb’s is one of those cases. When Trevor Cahill starts dominating in the major leagues, then you can call me. Until then, be prepared to be called out by the masses for moronic shit such as this.

Also, I’m 85% sure that this post could be classified as trolling.

by RedSoxFaithful on Jan 4, 2009 9:45 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

"This post" being Dewey's, not mine.

by RedSoxFaithful on Jan 4, 2009 9:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Just to further clarify

When I say that Dewey’s post is essentially trolling, here’s what I mean.

1.) Dewey has to be aware that the majority of people here think he has no idea what he’s talking about (and if he is not aware of that, he is incredibly naive).
2.) It is a fact that Dewey IS aware of the ridiculous, pointless rec-ing bandwagon that follows him around, as he’s proven in comments elsewhere.

So, when Dewey starts a thread with a title along the lines of “OMG, JASON NEIGHBORGALL YOU GUYZ, BETTA THAN NOLAN RYAN?!??/?” with a body pointing out meaningless, unrelated stats and saying “SIMILAR? PERHAPS.”, further proving the basis of event 1, that he HAS to know that event 2 will occur. It’s f—-in’ common sense.

by RedSoxFaithful on Jan 4, 2009 9:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think he just has 3 accounts, and recs all his posts right after he makes them to get them up there.

facepalm.jpg

by Zonis on Jan 4, 2009 10:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

we've proven

we’re the Recs have come from so don’t be ignorant…

by Navi's_Navy on Jan 4, 2009 11:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

you are the recs

mystery solved everyone!

(Before you call people ignorant, the word you are looking for is “where”.)

Nice Robot

by azruavatar on Jan 5, 2009 8:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

I pointed this out to Dewey last week, more less saying that continuing these were nothing less than asking for it.

by slurve on Jan 4, 2009 10:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And you need to grow up. He is posting threads for discussion on a…wait for it…wait for it…DISCUSSION BOARD. The post you +1’d is completely off base and everyone who continues to walk around the website as if it was your own and say what can and can’t be posted are simply ridiculous. Dewey isn’t being rude, he isn’t being hateful, he isn’t doing anything wrong. Perhaps you should place your hatred on the people who keep rec’ing his threads if you dislike them so much or simply not read them.

by jfish26101 on Jan 5, 2009 12:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i agree with this

but ill be slightly less angry. i agree, his posts arent the best and some of them seem absurd. but if you dont like them, you certainly dont have to rip dewey to shreds.

"My group runs some frogloks down the hall to finish them off and POP! RASTER! If there was a way to scream louder than caps in EQ I was doing it. Man I am straight panicking because I know I have NO CHANCE soloing and the party has run off. I'm in my hotel room; it's like 5am, and I am straight hollering, in EQ and in real life. Bottom line is the group comes back, heals me, and kills Raster! WOOT!" -Curt Schilling on his favorite memories in the video game "EverQuest"

by travdog6 on Jan 5, 2009 1:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m not angry, just feed up and frustrated with this community. This site does have a few problems but none of them are Dewey’s doing.

by jfish26101 on Jan 5, 2009 2:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Holy mis-guided over-reaction Batman

Take your hands off the keyboard and take a deep breath. I’m not one of these guys ripping into Dewey. I also haven’t joined the band of fools who think it’s funny to rec every one of his posts.

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2008/12/28/703053/julio-teheran-phenom#11005687

The reason I posted a plus one is that it seems to me and obviously a few others that there is a hint of trolling in Dewey’s actions. Not saying that’s what he’s doing consciously, but the flavor is there.

Now kindly take your crusade and aim at someone who has/is being mean-spirited towards Dewey, who I really don’t have any major problems with.

by slurve on Jan 5, 2009 8:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You have a habit of doing this. You make posts then come back and say you were joking or being sarcastic or were misinterpreted all the time and just pass it off the reader’s fault for not picking up on your unique sense of humor and posting style. Dewey is not a troll and nothing he has done shows “hints of trolling” so just read his posts for what they are and discuss them or ignore them.

by jfish26101 on Jan 6, 2009 1:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You're an idiot

And a whiner.

I’m not joking in this case.

I think it’s pretty plain to see that I have no real ill-will towards Dewey, yet you continue to try and spin it into just that.

by slurve on Jan 6, 2009 4:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m not spinning anything. I posted based on what I saw then you told me it wasn’t like that…just like the thread you started asking where the community collaboration on a top 100 is and then said you were joking. /me shrugs

I do appreciate the personal insults. Way to prove my point.

by jfish26101 on Jan 6, 2009 12:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You've proven mine

with your utter lack of reading comprehension and reasoning.

Again, it’s quite obvious that I have not been one of the people railing against Dewey. Insanely obvious. For the most part, I’ve stayed clear of his threads except for a few offerings of advice for him to back off the throttle just a bit. He even agreed that I may have a point, but has since gone back to business as usual.

Obviously you chose to see what you want to see as it enables you to whine about things and “be the bigger man” and make you feel good about yourself with your self-righteous BS. I do feel sorry for your types. Say what you have to say – I’m done here.

Carry on as you see fit Dewey – the philanthropist brigade has taken up your cause.

by slurve on Jan 6, 2009 12:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wow

that is just so far off base in regards to the siddfynch list. It’s not exactly an inside joke, but if you weren’t around for the two years slurve did the same thing and ran into issues, or didn’t read the early threads where there was some poking fun at one another between sidd and slurve, then you did totally misunderstand that whole fanpost slurve made. I knew that somebody would overreact about it eventually, because they didn’t know the background/history of the whole thing.

"So's your mom"-David Sloane

by gatling on Jan 6, 2009 1:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh no I’ve been here and have seen the “background/history” but it just seems half of slurve’s posts are quickly following by a counter reply saying he is being taken the wrong way. He +1’d someone’s post that said Dewey was trolling and it is nothing remotely close to trolling. I didn’t make a huge deal over him asking where the list is, I made a big deal over the group of posters overreacting to Dewey’s posts.

by jfish26101 on Jan 6, 2009 1:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

So

if you’ve seen it, and knew that what you said above about the siddfynch list wasn’t correct, why say it all then? You tried using that as support for your point about the Dewey issue, but now that it’s been pointed out that you were wrong, you’re kind of backtracking like you accuse slurve of. Seems a little disengenuious to me.

Anyway, as for the whole issue with Dewey regarding people slamming him, recc’ing his posts, etc., here is my take on it. I don’t agree with everything Dewey says, but he’s got a right to make his opinion heard. It seems to me though that with threads like this one, the Rasmus/Anderson ones, the phrasing/titles of the threads are such that they kind of create controversy. And while controversy certainly sells and draws interest, it’s not going to draw just “happy shiny people” coming in and praising or agreeing with the author’s point of view. But when you take on a topic with such flamability as Rangers vs. A’s, Cahill > Webb, Rasmus not a top prospect, you have to be a big boy deal with whatever comes your way. You can’t expect everyone to play nice with such controversial conversations, that just isn’t going to happen. It’d be nice if everyone was as polite as indiansfan, but that’s certainly not way the world is, unfortunately.

I don’t believe that it’s fair for people to personally attack Dewey because he has different opinions, but I just don’t buy him as an innocent party in all of this either. If you discuss sensitive/heated issues, you’re bounded to end up with polar opposite ends of the spectrum, and as the debate goes further inevitably there will be name calling, insults, etc. It’s not right, but it’s reality. So what you have to do is decide if you can handle the potential negative feedback you’ll get. If you can’t, then maybe be a little less….I don’t know if confrontational is really the word I want here, but don’t be so brazen(maybe) with your opinion, tone it down and you won’t have as much “heat” on you. If you can deal with the insults/feedback(remembering you don’t really know these people, and what do their opinions of you really matter), then go ahead and be bold with your statements. But don’t be bold and then pretend like you’re suprised and hurt that anyone lashed out against you. I don’t think that “trolling” was the right word for what Dewey has done, because he’s not strictly trying to incite a flame war or attack a particular group, but he has pushed the envelope definitely with controversial topics/opinions.

"So's your mom"-David Sloane

by gatling on Jan 6, 2009 2:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I didn’t say it wasn’t correct, I think there is probaly a part of slurve posting that fanpost that is a shot at him for not getting it out when he said it was. I’m not backpeddling at all, just no need to make it a larger issue than I already did. Nothing is going to make slurve change his posting behavior much like many others here who drive other posters away since Sickels is perhaps to lenient in his moderating of his site. There is nothing wrong with giving people the freedom to post what/how they want but there does need to be a line and unfortunately he tends to be reactive rather than proactive with people who cross it. I’m not saying slurve crossed it but many have with their treatment of Dewey who is probably helping get page hits for John with his “trolling” posts.

by jfish26101 on Jan 6, 2009 2:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think

you’re off base still. That would like saying that KBR was really taking a shot at slurve with his post in said diary, which I don’t believe is true either. Slurve may not use smiley faces or other things to easily indentify sarcasm/joking from serious posts, but as someone who’s been around here as long as you have, it’s not hard at all to discern the tone and real meaning of the post from someone like slurve. He certainly doesn’t hide it when he is attacking someone.

"So's your mom"-David Sloane

by gatling on Jan 6, 2009 3:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

To be fair.....

I was taking a shot at slurve!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;)

"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 Jan 6, 2009 3:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

haha

Gatling, regardless he +1’d a post saying Dewey was trolling. Maybe 90% of his posts are meant to be joking and sarcastic but that is what he did. He said I 2nd this post, that is why I made the post I did. Then when he came back at me, I posted my observation of him seemingly always having to reply to someone “overreacting” to his sarcastic posts. If you call someone a douche bag and they get offended, saying I was joking doesn’t change anything. Maybe I overreacted but I don’t think I did and it’s pointless to continue this really. I understand your point, I agree mostly with your observations of the whole reason I replied in the first place (the reaction people have to Dewey) but I disagree and stick with what I said. /me shrugs

by jfish26101 on Jan 6, 2009 3:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Bravesin07?

Sounds sorta like him.

by stogies on Jan 5, 2009 3:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No he's not.

Founder of the Johnny Giavotella fan club.

by doublestix on Jan 4, 2009 10:09 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Can some of you atleast...

Put your hatred for me aside and open your eyes to the fact that I am trying to make a logical argument that Trevor Cahill has the POTENTIAL to be a great pitcher. Perhaps even better than Brandon Webb.

I find it very irksome that you guys go on the offensive against me without even reading what I have to say. You see the name ‘Dewey Finn’ immediately attack. How am I ‘trolling’? How am I ‘asking for it’? This is just ridiculous.

Now raise your goblet of rock. It's a toast to those who rock!

by Dewey Finn on Jan 4, 2009 10:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Hmmm

Are you Bravesin’s evil twin brother?

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

by WayneCampbell08 on Jan 4, 2009 11:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hehehe

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2008/12/15/693018/community-prospect-list-10#10738253

by slurve on Jan 4, 2009 11:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You just can't project someone to be that good

When Sickels compared Wieters to a Piazza-Mauer hybrid, he didn’t say he’s likely to be a better player than those two guys’ strengths combined. Webb is a hall of fame caliber pitcher, and has been a uniquely excellent pitcher over the last few years. You can’t project a guy to be better than that when he’s only a prospect.

Also, statistical analysis of the two guys side by side simply doesn’t work. Webb has a legendarily odd development path, where his minor league performance wasn’t particularly good.

by aap212 on Jan 4, 2009 11:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

they get kinda mad

cause that’s a pretty silly comparison. Prospect vs. Cy Young winner…hmmmmm…who wins that battle…. Anywho, you make pointless comparisons like that all the time, and they get kinda annoyed at all the fanposts you make out of them. Sometimes it seems like youre specifically trying to get people to read your threads and provoke pissed off reactions, like that time you made that thread about Colby Rasmus sucking.

by boonitez on Jan 6, 2009 8:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What out....

you’re now a marked man – the philanthropist brigade / trolling definition police may come after you!

by slurve on Jan 6, 2009 8:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I REPENT! I REPENT!

COLBY RASMUS SUCKS!!! IM SORRY! IM SORRY!

by boonitez on Jan 6, 2009 11:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

-1

Brandon Webb is a fair comparison for evaluation purposes, but not many pitchers live up to Webb’s last 3 years or his potential future.

by bryeic on Jan 4, 2009 11:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

But somebody probably will

I’m not arguing that it will be (or won’t be, for that matter) Trevor Cahill, but though Brandon Webb is an outstanding pitcher, it isn’t like he’s unprecedented or unrepeatable. I think we’ve learned too well the lesson about how difficult it is to predict any precise player to be a superstar, and forgotten that there will be a few superstars who are currently prospects. If most players don’t develop to their 100% scenarios, some will.

Consider this: in the last 20 years, we’ve had a number of players who will probably be considered amongst the historical greats. On the pitching side, Maddux, Clemens (overlooking steroids for the moment), Randy Johnson, and Pedro will all be discussed as perhaps the greatest pitchers in history. On the hitting side, Ken Griffey Jr. was one of the best CFs, and Barry Bonds was a little better, even before Griffey got injured every day and Bonds started taking more steroids than god. Mike Piazza was the greatest hitting catcher in history, and A-Rod and almost certainly Pujols will be discussed as amongst the greatest players not named Ruth. Though a number of these players were massive prospects, for none of them – none of them – was this their 50% result. For some, it was their 150% result.

It’s possible that the last twenty years were exceptional but I suspect not. It’s too early to say, but Hanley Ramirez and David Wright and Miguel Cabrera already look like potentially great players. Of course if you predict a player will be an historical great, you’ll look foolish very many more times than not, but consider this: what if you had said in 1986 that you think Greg Maddux will one day be considered one of the greatest pitchers of all time?

TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems

by OldProspects on Jan 5, 2009 10:53 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Last time I checked...

Nobody else was posting anything nearly as interesting or thought provoking as DF. Everyone needs to calm the F down. If you disagree with what the post is saying, say “I disagree because of XYZ”. Don’t attack people personally. Grow up.

by spoondoggie on Jan 4, 2009 11:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

+1

Back off the guy… At least he’s trying to start worthwhile discussions even if this one is a bit absurd. Everyone enjoyed Dewey’s lists when he was making them and he contributes on a regular basis and puts time and thought into his posts, that’s more than I can say for most of you.

by hockey4001 on Jan 5, 2009 12:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It's starting discussion over whether or not he's posting BS or not

by NateHST on Jan 5, 2009 2:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ah

The inevitable backlash against the backlash much like the hysteria over the insidious Friends theme song ….

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

by WayneCampbell08 on Jan 5, 2009 5:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Why is it you only seem to pop up in flame wars?

"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 Jan 5, 2009 9:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If Cahill > Webb

i’ll be shocked. But he’s got a chance because of his stuff. All prospects have the chance to reach their potential, that’s why/how john makes his living. If it were possible to determine with 100% accuracy how good a prospect will eventually be, a lot of people would be out of work.

by spoondoggie on Jan 4, 2009 11:27 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

You can reasonably say that Webb is Cahill's upside

But projecting any player to be a Cy Young winner is wishcasting.

by mraver on Jan 5, 2009 12:20 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

How about projecting the Cy Young award to be named after someone else in a few years? Those silly Giants’ fans. :D

by jfish26101 on Jan 5, 2009 12:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I suppose I should throw in I’m joking since threads on this site quickly fly off the deep end. Lincecum is a great pitcher, I don’t think it’s that far off to project the top tier of elite pitching prospects to be in the running for Cy Young awards.

by jfish26101 on Jan 5, 2009 1:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

To Dewey's defense

I appreciate that Dewey just doen’t follow along with the consensus in ranking his players. He has his own mind on many prospects is isnt afrad to share his feelngs. I disagree with much of what he says, but I also agree with many of his opinions that fly in the face of this site’s convential wisdom. Thats one of the great things about prospecting, nobody views every player exactly the same.

More importantly, Dewey seems to be respectful of other posters, even when those posters take personnal shots at him.

by wolviex18 on Jan 5, 2009 1:52 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Cahill

How many Cy Youngs? 3? 4?

Cahill is going to be a first ballot hall of famer. He will receive 100% of the vote.

His sinker can strike out Chuck Norris.

I'll warm up with you anytime

by ufoboy90 on Jan 5, 2009 2:15 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Bullshit

Nothing can strike out Chuck Norris except Chuck Norris taking three pitches because he’s bored with hitting.

by thejd44 on Jan 5, 2009 4:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Nice try

If Chuck Norris is tired of hitting, the pitcher just intentionally walks him.

by demondeaconsbaseball on Jan 5, 2009 7:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

impossible

nobody is stupid enough to throw something in chuck norris’s general direction for fear that he will throw it back straight through their face!

by hockey4001 on Jan 5, 2009 10:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Or hit it straight back

Or am I thinking of Albert Pujols?

by demondeaconsbaseball on Jan 5, 2009 12:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Actually, Norris would just roundhouse kick the ball back instead of swinging at it.

by mikev on Jan 6, 2009 6:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Cahill

He is probably a better prospect then Webb was in this stage of their careers and ages, but what Webb did after he hit the big leagues is remarkable and not easily duplicated. You could argue that Jhoulys Chacin has similar stats to Cahill off the top of my head, including extreme ground ball tendencies, but I wouldn’t go putting him above Webb either. Webb is an every year Cy Young Award candidate. In the major leagues already. Doing it against the best in the world. It’s just unfair and silly even to make a comparison like this. It’s ok to be excited about a prospect, but remember that Cahill is going to be pitching in the American League, a far more dangerous hitters league. And until Cahill does it on the big stage, there’s no sense in even making this argument.

by loop on Jan 5, 2009 10:44 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Just a follow-up to my earlier post

I probably could have been a little less personal, but the controversy surrounding Dewey in the past couple weeks is getting really irritating, and there are simple ways to stop.

One of those ways, for instance, is for Dewey to realize that his posts are being closely monitored by the community, and rethink things for a second when he’s about to argue that a prospect who has barely gotten to AA is better than (or even has the potential to be better than) one of the best pitchers in the game. It’s not unreasonable to ask Dewey to have a little bit of a filter with what he posts.

I don’t think I’ve personally attacked him in this post, just trying to figure out what good he could have possibly thought was going to come from this sort of thread, with this sort of thread title.

by RedSoxFaithful on Jan 5, 2009 11:12 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Also, to stay on topic

I suppose I’ll weigh in on the actual contents of Dewey’s post.

What is so remarkable about what Brandon Webb did is that he turned “just OK” minor league stats into great, Cy Young award-winning major league stats. That is incredibly uncommon, and in that respect, it’s not even really fair to compare him with an actual, honest-to-God prospect, using only minor league stats. It’s like comparing apples to oranges, I think, because Webb’s current legacy does not stem from his minor league stats, and was not even really built from them, whereas it is likely that what we see from Cahill now is what he will build upon once he gets to AA, AAA, and the majors.

So, while parts of their games are comparable, and while it is likely that Trevor Cahill will be a comparable (though likely inferior) pitcher to Brandon Webb, it is not fair to compare their minor league stats in order to arrive at the conclusion that you arrived at. Minor league stats just aren’t relevant for Webb, while they likely will be relevant for Cahill.

by RedSoxFaithful on Jan 5, 2009 11:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

agreed.

by son of wes on Jan 5, 2009 9:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Disagree

I think it is is unreasonable to ask Dewey to have a little bit of a filter with what he posts. The reason is because Dewey rarely does anything uncalled for in his posts. Dewey does not swear, rarely makes a personal attack (unlike you and your Dewey vendetta) and is bringing up new debate about prospects. I would rather read original opinions on prospects (i.e. Dewey’s prospect lists) then the same old arguments. I don’t always agree with what Dewey says but I would rather disprove him with facts and not make myself look foolish by insulting him which you did earlier in this post. It seems that Dewey’s biggest ‘problem’ is that he does not like Brett Anderson. Well get over it people!!!!!! A lot of members of the community think he is an overrated prospect. People seem to forget that this is a MESSAGE BOARD. John makes money by having people come here (i.e. advertising revenue). Dewey not only has every right to participate, he SHOULD participate as that is what a message board is for.

"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 Jan 5, 2009 12:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It's just weird.

Dewey is really not a problem. . .as others have said, this is a discussion board. Posting is not a bad thing. And it’s getting rather ridiculous that all of the umpteen million threads that he posts are being filled with other posters encouraging him to step back.

He’s really no different from like 95 percent of the people who post here. While I certainly do not think more of his opinion and disagree with him quite often, I do not think LESS of his opinion, either.

You can interpret my comments however you wish.

by mrkupe on Jan 5, 2009 12:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

dewey

echoing other’s statements here. Just because I might not agree with him, I enjoy reading his posts and I hope he keeps it up. Without guys like him this board would be even duller than it already has become. People are so quick to demean others and their posting, but at the same time refuse to post topics themselves. Is that because they are scared of people doing the same thing to them or they just have nothing positive to contribute to the community here? I don’t know but its a little tiring reading flame wars in every post, and it really should never come to that. You don’t agree with his stance, like me, state that in your post and move along. There should be no personal attacks on a baseball discussion board. It’s childish.

by loop on Jan 5, 2009 1:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

you all know you just stepped into his trap

by Asfan4ever723 on Jan 5, 2009 2:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I could use the same argument

to say that Brett Anderson or Rick Porcello will be better than Brandon Webb. Or every pitcher in the minors with a high GB%, a good (not necessarily great) fastball, and good (not necessarily great) stats.

by matts89 on Jan 5, 2009 2:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

DO IT!!!!!!!!!

I will love to read a well thought up write up on Porcello or Anderson. I am guessing that Dewey compared Cahill to Webb because that is the pitcher Cahill is most compared to.

"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 Jan 5, 2009 2:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You go Dewey!

Yeah, it is far-fetched, but don’t go saying it can’t happen. Cahill will PROBABLY not be >Webb, but he MIGHT be >Webb. And wouldn’t that be something!

by journeymen on Jan 5, 2009 5:41 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I might be a pony!

by aCone419 on Jan 5, 2009 5:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Here's an argument I will buy..

If you were to say that Cahill’s pitching style most closely resembles Brandon Webb, I could see that.

If you were to say that Cahill has the potential to be a top-of-the-rotation starter, maybe even an All-Star, I could see that.

To combine the two and say in any way Cahill could be better than Brandon Webb? No, I don’t think so. I’ll wait to see him go a year in the show before I even think of doing that.

by Forza Hudd on Jan 5, 2009 10:11 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Damn

Using this logic, Brett Anderson > Johan Santana.

The A’s rotation is going to be great!

Never, Never, NEVER give up

by hero66 on Jan 5, 2009 11:48 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

im going to make a suggestion for a small alteration that would greatly improve this post

write “could” in front of trevor cahill in the title. and then say cahill has better minor league numbers. ok so that was two alterations.

by travdog6 on Jan 6, 2009 12:48 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I think that was deliberate to stir up discussion. I’m not sure Dewey is saying he will definitively but just that it’s possible and not out of the question to think it might happen. You are correct though, that small change would probably clear up some of these problems but in my opinion he shouldn’t have to alter his posting because he hasn’t really been doing anything wrong in the first place.

by jfish26101 on Jan 6, 2009 1:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Correct

Perhaps I should have been more clear. The point that I was trying to make is that Cahill has the potential to be possibly better than Webb. Will it happen? Who knows until Cahill gets some major league innings under his belt. However, up to this point, Cahill has done extremely well and there is good reason to be optimistic about his future. I used Webb as a comparison because the two are very similar pitchers. Webb blossomed much later in his development, whereas Cahill has been more effective at a young age (minor league wise of course). Bottom line, to say that Cahill wont be as good as Webb is just as ridiculous as me say that he will. Therefore, I definitely should have used better language when making this post. My intentions were that Cahill has tremendous potential. Thanks for the input Travdog6 and jfish26101.

Now raise your goblet of rock. It's a toast to those who rock!

by Dewey Finn on Jan 6, 2009 1:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wow, you all suck

Let’s get on someone for posting a thread that at least takes a stance on something.

No, it’s much better that everyone just starts a new thread linking some other site’s rankings of some team’s farm system, or people post about their fantasy league.

Better yet, how about everyone just post about how awesome we all are on this board and how we’re smarter than everyone else.

Christ, people have been comping Cahill to Webb for the last two years, now Dewey is a jackass for making the same comp?

Get over yourselves.

by Galt on Jan 7, 2009 1:16 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Cahill debut

So when does he hit the bigs? April 09 or are we going to let him get some additional minor league innings work?

Ripken.....thanks for the memories...

by bodyiq on Jan 7, 2009 2:11 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Short message from an occasional visitor

I love John Sickels’s blog. I visit whenever I can, though other things take priority for me, especially during the offseason. I post comments on most visits and occasionally start a discussion.

But I find the bickering (whether you are for or against this Dewey fellow) totally obnoxious and unreadable. If I post something like, “Brewers will win it all this year, and here’s why..”, hopefully readers would rather dismantle my arguments using stats, numbers, or just common sense, rather than trying to dismantle my value as a human being and as a poster. Attacks ad hominem are meaningless and add nothing to the site. In fact they detract in a way that likely drives the community you wish existed here away.

So my suggestion is, if you think a post is ridiculously off-base, explain why you feel differently. Don’t bother telling us how the poster is stupid or a troll or whatever. Because it turns out that you ruin your community by trying to ‘protect’ it.

Ichiro, on facing Daisuke Matsuzaka for the first time: "I hope he arouses the fire that's dormant in the innermost recesses of my soul."

by DaleCoop14 on Jan 7, 2009 4:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs