Project Prospect Top-25 Pitchers
by gore51 on Oct 4, 2009 12:09 AM EDT
Email
Printhttp://www.projectprospect.com/article/2009/10/01/top-25-pitching-prospects
1 Stephen Strasburg RHP CH is a wild card but his FB and CB are both MLB-ready pitches; mechanics aren't perfect 21.2 WAS NCAA
2 Brian Matusz LHP Flew through minors thanks to 4 potential above-average pitches; commands at the knees 22.7 BAL MLB
3 Daniel Hudson RHP Too good to be true? Showing lots of FB/CH movement in bigs; needs a out pitch for righties 22.6 CHW MLB
4 Neftali Feliz RHP Still a bit raw but has ace potential thanks to FB that sits in mid-90s and outstanding slider 21.4 TEX MLB
5 Jeremy Hellickson RHP Works off 90-93 FB that he pounds zone with; outstanding CH; CB is solid but inconsistent 22.5 TB AAA
6 Wade Davis RHP Commands straight, 90-94 FB well; CB can be filthy and SL is a good pitch; CH isn't special 24.1 TB MLB
7 Carlos Carrasco RHP We love the movement on his FB, CH and CB, but we'll admit that he's still raw; ace upside 22.5 CLE MLB
8 Jhoulys Chacin RHP Has question marks and upside; great movement on sinking FB; CH is his out pitch; good SL 21.7 COL MLB
9 Madison Bumgarner LHP Strength is good command of deceptive FB; SL has improved -- still inconsistent, though 20.2 SF MLB
10 Kyle Drabek RHP Finesse guy with a power arsenal; a pitcher more than thrower; 92-96 FB; CB is a K pitch 21.8 PHI AA
11 Martin Perez LHP Throws sharp hammer curve, dirty slider and straight, 94-96 FB -- mediocre FB command 18.5 TEX AA
12 Christian Friedrich LHP Best pitch: devastating CB that he commands well; 90-94 FB w/ good sink; CH could be ave. 22.2 COL A+
13 Hector Rondon RHP Raw w/ upside; 91-94 FB -- misses over the plate a bit too much; impressive SL and CH 21.6 CLE AAA
14 Junichi Tazawa RHP Deceptive pitcher has huge 12/6 CB, good FB movement and strong CH; excellent command 23.3 BOS MLB
15 Mike Leake RHP Awesome command of 90-93 FB that has a lot of movement; impressive CH; big GB guy 21.9 CIN NCAA
16 Jon Niese LHP His 88-92 FB moves a lot + is deceptive -- commands it well, too; CB can be a knee-buckler 22.9 NYM MLB
17 Jake Arrieta RHP Good athlete; 3 promising secondary pitches; straight 90-93 FB w/ inconsistent command 23.6 BAL AAA
18 Jenrry Mejia RHP Owner of a filthy 94-98 FB that has hard, cutting action; CH has excellent movement 20.0 NYM AA
19 Casey Kelly RHP Outstanding athlete has three pitches that could be ave. or better: 86-90 FB, CB and CH 20.0 BOS A+
20 Michael Montgomery LHP Up-and-down 1st full season; was tough to hit, missed a lot of bats and adjusted well to A+ 20.3 KC A+
21 Jarrod Parker RHP No. 1-2 stuff, near-MLB ready, but elbow injury could steal some time; FB command lacking 20.9 ARI AA
22 Kevin Mulvey RHP Big CB has emerged as a K pitch; great, sinking FB -- not always sharp; could be a no. 3-4 24.4 ARI MLB
23 Brad Lincoln RHP Thrower more than a pitcher; hard and heavy 2 and 4-seamer; promising CB is inconsistent 24.4 PIT AAA
24 Matthew Moore LHP Has MLB stuff; very good CH, disgusting CB, explosive 88-91 FB -- isn't always sharp 20.3 TB A
25 Zeke Spruill RHP Gets nasty sink with 91-92 FB; CH may already be a plus pitch; his CB is a good pitch, too 20.1 ATL A
Honorable Mentions
26 Julio Teheran RHP Had some dominant Low-A outings at end of the season, including 7 no-hit innings on 9/2 18.7 ATL A
27 Stolmy Pimentel RHP Began year w/ very good CB, finished w/ outstanding -- we heard a Zito comp for the pitch 19.7 BOS A
28 Casey Crosby LHP Recovered from high walk rates in April/May to have plenty of dominating 2nd-half outings 21.1 DET A
29 Zach Britton LHP Sick GB rates + steady performance and improving command = 2010 breakout candidate 21.8 BAL A+
30 Zack Stewart RHP Fast-riser has MLB stuff; question is if he can handle a starter's work load going forward 23.0 TOR AAA
Obviously a slightly bizarre list with extremely high and low rankings. projectprospect.com wants to stress the their "rankings put a lot of weight into floor as well as ceiling". Some of these rankings are extremely gutsy such as Daniel Hudson at #3, Carlos Carrasco at #7, Zeke Sprulli at #25, Stomly Pimentel and Julio Teheran as HMs, Mike Leake at #15, and Kevin Mulvey at #22.
81 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The whole list is a joke.
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Oct 4, 2009 2:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Drabek over Carrasco is a joke
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Haha
Lol.
Founder of www.projectprospect.com
by Adam Foster on Oct 31, 2009 12:14 AM EDT up reply actions
Well let's be honest
You don’t make a name for yourself if you simply publish the same stuff as everyone else, I like that they take a fresh take on things and take a different approach at times. Just because they don’t make a list that conforms to the generally accepted rankings doesn’t mean it’s wrong or bad. As long as it’s adding to the discussion it should be welcomed.
Check out my baseball analysis blog FANalytics
or follow me on twitter
by jbluestone on Oct 4, 2009 1:05 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
It's cool to be different
If you can, you know, back it up.
"Chicks dig the long ball, although fat chicks will settle for warning track power" - Nick Diamond
sacrificing accuracy for being different
means one needs to remove the proverbial stick from the proverbial place where the sun don’t shine.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
Where's the evidence that it's less accurate?
And you can’t count your opinion.
Well, obviously none of them are quote unquote "accurate".
What I mean is, forgoing prospects that others unanimously agree deserve a certain placement just for the sake of being different is just stupid.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
The phrase in question is "taking a different approach"
That’s not being different for its own sake. It’s providing a different perspective.
Really, all anyone has here is strawman arguments and unjustified self-importance.
Am I wrong?
in the long run
someone will end up being right and someone wrong. Carrasco will have a better career than, say, Withrow, or he won’t. Although that doesn’t mean, I suppose, that the pick was wrong per se, but it won’t be borne out by events.
I think in general you are right, but there is some aspect of the reasoning, if you read the comments and the chat thread, where their analysis seems a little suspect. Lyles didn’t make it for a couple of reasons, one being the fear his stuff wouldn’t translate at higher levels (a first that I am hearing…but then again Bumgarner, even if he lost a couple of ticks, evidently threw a softer than i knew even last year). More telling was when the guy said Lyles K rate went down in the second half. Someone pointed out several problems with that line of thought. First, he had a couple of games just back from a slight injury or layoff in July. But even WITH those 2 games, his k rate barely dropped. And he also pointed out one might expect with a young pitcher, and he is very young, having some falloff as the season went on.
So there can sometimes seem to be a slight willfullness in people’s lists. I like Stolmy Pimental and Kevin Mulvey, but not too many people like them better than Lyles, and that includes a lot of if not all of the well-known prospect evaluators. And cerainly, BA, john, etc have all “missed” guys by over or underrating, although much of that is guys just suddenly changing and you could not have guessed it.
It is great to have unique perspectives, and I really like Project Prospect in that regard. They had Withrow in their pre-season top 200. Ike Davis too. Lots of folks did not due to injury or poor first year results. I do suspect there is a slight bit of going out on a limb to get discussion going. hell, if Lyles has a much better career than Mulvey, they can just say well, we went with floor. Which will be harder if Mulvey ends up godawful.
But they do give their reasoning and put a lot of work and actual scouting into it. Overall it adds to the sum information and the discussion quite a bit.
Lyles
His k rate first half was 11.21. Second half 9.41. In his last 10 games, tossing out 2 starts right after he had a 12 day layoff, his k rate was 10.4.
That was part of the reasoning given for him falling off the list, and I think whoever it was that replied nailed them a bit for that being a fairly specious reason. And why despite the fact that Mulvey, Pimental and others, obviously more advanced guys while Lyles may never sniff the majors if he gets hurt, etc., are ranked ahead of him, I will still think Lyles is a better prospect. As will almost everyone else.
wow
No mention at all of Matt Latos ?
Deolis Guerra = Daniel Cabrera ?
I tend to think so
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Oct 4, 2009 3:12 AM EDT reply actions
No, he doesn't.
He has hit 95 in the past, but all of the reports I’ve seen this season has him at 88-91.
Tools Whore
As somebody who does some stuff for PP from time to time
I don’t always agree with their lists either. However, in both his top 25 hitters and pitchers lists, Adam was meticulous in his collection of research and first hand accounts. Whether you love or hate the list, understand he spent many hours trying to get it right and didn’t pull names out of a hat or make instant judgments based on stats like so many other sites do.
by ScoutingTheSally on Oct 4, 2009 8:14 AM EDT reply actions
+1
I would happily bet that those in her acting like they know better, don’t.
I like the placement of Niese
His addition of a cut fastball should help make his 2 and 4 seamers more effective, and he’s still got the great curve. I expect him to have a nice little breakout next year.
Community Position Lists
Slightly off topic, but the not really, you guys want to prove we can beat this list as a group? :P
Hey guys, I run a music blog. alternative, powerpop, punk, electronica, screamo, etc etc, check it out. http://muzikdizcovery.blogspot.com/ artist interviews and many other stuff. free cookies! (not really, but still) :D
We can't...
unless we all do hours of research. This list may seem strange, but I am sure it is much better than we think it is.
People need to go take a look at anyones top 100 or whatever lists
for as long as they have been around, whether its BA, or BP or Sickels, or whomever, most of the prospects on those lists dont even make it to the majors…. and most, especially pitchers…. yet somehow we always laugh or insult people who dare to produce a list that is counter to what everyone believes…
Statements like …. the exclision of “said prospect” causes this list to lose credibility…… is just asinine and just plain inaccurate. I remember when David Luciani of Baseball Notebook, dared to put Delmon young at like #15 or something, and had guys like Hunter pence, and jay bruce etc. rated ahead of him…. he was laughed out, told he was an idiot, threatened even to the point he considered quitting the industry….. and yet…. he has been dead on about Delmon Young, and the other guys…… so just because someone dares to take a different approach, doesnt mean they are stupid for not following what others deem as conventional wisdom.
so can we please stop with pretending that there is a set amount of names thatr belong, and if we dont see some of them, then that work has no credibility.
Last time i checked the greatest player in our game, never even made a top 100 list (albert pujols), I don’t recall Ryan Braun being rated above Alex gordon anywhere… Pablo Sandoval is one of the best hitters in baseball, I dont think he made any top 100 lists, certainly not top 25…. So again, NO ONE KNOWS, so lets stop pretending like we have some sort of special gift of predicting the future….
How about when we see something we disagree with, we engage in productive intelligent discussion and debate about the difference of opinion, and further the conversation instead of throwing insults out and ruining any chance of something productive coming out of this.
Check out my baseball analysis blog FANalytics
or follow me on twitter
by jbluestone on Oct 4, 2009 10:40 AM EDT reply actions 2 recs
Huzzah!
You’ll never find anyone whose opinion actually matters putting down the hard work of another like this. It’s the guys who follow prospects as a hobby, and want to make themselves feel good about their knowledge. Guess what, guys: You’re really not special.
Wordology 101
if a list isn’t credible, is it incredible?
where is Chris Withrow?
was he 26 to 30?? or not even there?
Withrow
He said he had Withrow around 100 of his top 100, same with Matzek and Turner. He had Elbert 31.
He also said he was going to look for more reports on Withrow.
He really seemed to like Mulvey’s curve as a swing and a miss pitch and thinks he will make a good number 4 as a floor.
I think the list is defendable, Mulvey being a particular stretch. Niese has better control than Withrow, and he strikes out a decent amount of batters and is a groundball lefty.
I might not agree with carrasco’s placement but I think some people are being blinded by the e.r.a.
Lyles being completely off the list i also found a bit surprising.
It will be interesting to compare results 4-5 years out.
weirdest list ever.
Niese, Strasburg, Carrasco and Bumgarner are really high, too high.
Re:
“rankings put a lot of weight into floor as well as ceiling”
I think this is ridiculous. In my opinion the only way to value prospects is to pretend like you were a GM. Consider which player you would rather own. Sure, every GM like to have a good LOOGY and those guys do have value – but every single one of them would take a guy who has ace upside over those guys. How many GMs out there prefer Carlos Carrasco to Martin Perez? Or Kevin Mulvey to Matthew Moore? Ridiculous…
Um
GMs consistently value floor far more than prospect watchers. Why? Because they know that if they can actually get a #4 starter out of their farm system, they don’t have to pay someone to fill that role.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Depends on the team probably
If you have a team where there are a lot of holes you need to fill cheap, it’s not a bad thing to have a bunch of guys who have decent upsides, but high downsides. If you’re the Yankees and a starter will only crack the rotation if they’re elite, then you probably want riskier pitchers with high upsides but a much higher risk of flaming out.
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
Hence, Andrew Brackman and Joba Chamberlain
The opposite sides of the same coin, one could say.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
I Understand
But it’s like they are overvaluing floor just to get parody in their list and I think it’s stupid. Of course if you are certain that a pitching prospect will turn into a #4 you take him over a guy with upside but who has a great chance of flaming out (like Andrew Brackman). Again, any GM would do this. But do you guys really think Carrasco’s floor is higher than say Perez or Bumgarner? I mean Carrasco’s career minor league ERA is 4.23 in 853 innings. His ERA in the upper minors was 4.5+ over like 500 IP. He doesn’t even have spectacular walk or K rates. I see no reason at all to believe he has ace upside and honestly I think his floor is a AAAA guy.
As an aside, I don’t hate Carrasco – I am just using him as an example of why I think this list is stupid. Again, I think lists should be based on how you (if you were an MLB GM) would value players. If you want to take into account a small market approach vs a big market approach that’s fine. I still doubt you would be able to find many/any GMs that would take Carrasco over Perez.
I think you meant "parity"
but parody works really, really well here . . .
Carrasco's k/rate and bb/rate
I guess these rates aren’t “spectacular” as you say, but he was 2nd in the IL in k rate per 9 and 4th in k/bb. In 193 2/3rds AAA innings over 2 years He struck out 194 and walked 58.
Frankly he seems a little homer-prone to me, but the k/bb is certainly there and these guys see something in him, I suppose. It is quirky, and i would not take Carrasco over Perez. Then again, Perez wasn’t exactly lights out in AA. Yes, he is extremely young, but he barely has pitched above A ball, so wait and see. Not like Perez is all that far below carrasco. 7 versus 11.
Ok, not that I believe this list to be a sterling list by any means
But on your point, I think you’ve got it a bit wrong here. GMs are forced to work within a strict budget. A baseball team is, after all, a business, first and foremost. To take on a guy like a Martin Perez will cost a team upwards of half a million at least. That’s a lot of money to invest in a player who has never thrown a professional pitch. Of course every team would love to have Albert Pujols at every position on the field. But the fact of the matter is that even Pujols wasn’t regarded as a prospect with the upside that he has tapped into.
Conversely, someone such as Delmon Young, who was considered a slam dunk prospect, cost the Tampa Bay Rays $3.7 million, and he is now a 4th outfielder in Minnesota. Each player is a risk investment, and as a GM, it is necessary to locate so called hidden value. Of course it seems now that Matt Moore is more valuable than Kevin Mulvey. But, if their current projection holds, Moore could very well wind up being paid 300-400% more than Mulvey overtime, while Mulvey could still offer 75-80% of Moore’s value.
Basically, what I’m saying is that Project Prospect actually is viewing this list from a GMs perspective. They temper huge upside guys (feliz, Strasburg, et al) with solid inning eaters with solid #3 upside (Neise, Mulvey, et al). This is how most GMs tend to build their rotation. And if you look around the league, most successful rotations are shaped this way.
Alex White should be on here
Otherwise, this is generally an excellent list— very few A-ball arms, relatively few of the “big stuff/crap performance” guys.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Looks like a slider to me, from his movement charts...
It’s usually at or above 0 vertical movement.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
It's a curve grip
The Rangers and Feliz have said so. It does act like a slider sometimes though.
The 2009 Texas Rangers offense: sigh...
It’s frankly very clear that Project Prospect emphasizes likelihood to make the majors over the natural tools, which IMO, is the better way to go, though I do think they’re a little low on some of the toolsier players that have had some high minors successes (namely Mejia, Moore and Crosby to some extent).
Carlos Carrasco and Hector Rondon are the too most underrated prospects in the minor leagues, though it’s no surprise since the Indians are populated with underrated players (Putnam, Jeanmar Gomez..). I don’t think I would have Chacin above Friedrich, personally.
If we are going top 25
I would put Trevor Reckling in there. He is not ace potential, but the guys got the potential.
First we had a Salmon and now we have a Trout, let's see the same results.
Seems pretty clear to me
There are questions about the potential of his potential, potentially. Despite this, he has the potential to be a very good prospect, but not a potential ace. Potential.
This list is pretty trash. I’m as high on Spruill as anyone is and I know he’s nowhere near the prospect this list would have you believe. Beyond Strasburg they essentially ignore all the good pitching that was just drafted.
Their list always stink.
Q: If on-base pct is so important then why don't they put it on the scoreboard? -Failcoeur
A: Because the Braves don't want to show their fans how bad you suck.
isn't this spam?
i’m not sure how it isn’t blatent site advertisement…but i guess that’s just me…
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
by "this"
do you mean the original post, or your own comment? the referent is pretty vague . . .
also: I would guess most spam posts don’t generate 80+ posts of analysis and/or critique . . .
also: a better definition of insanity would be to do the same thing over and over again in the same conditions each time and expecting different results . . . repeating the same pick up line on the girl who just threw her drink in your face the last time is insane (or perhaps genius, she may think it’s crazy hot), but trying out that same line on her slightly chunkier, drunker friend is a good definition of sanity . . .
and blatant is w/ an “a” . . .
also, a blatant advertisement would wear its purpose on its sleeve and say “you must visit this site”! if the list were simply an advertisement for projectprospect, then it is an advertisement in subterfuge (an advertisement pretending to be something else), and not a blatant advertisement
other than that, good hustle. carry on . . .
wonderful post
so glad you could contribute…
i made a spelling error, God forbid…
and i would not be okay in john’s shoes with this…it’s like walking into target and putting up the wal-mart advertisement all over the store…think they wouldn’t take that down?
many of us pay for john’s book and for services on other sites…and if i wanted to read that website, i’d visit it…it’s posted on this site very frequently, and i (and other posters in other offseasons) would have no problem with john deleting it, frankly…
the responses generated is not a measure of quality of post…there have been flame wars galore that generated more responses than quality baseball discussions….
keep up the work, though
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
silliness
John makes it very clear what is and isn’t allowed on his site
why make up new things to be concerned about, for John’s sake?
I mean, making fun of, or critiquing something that you think is dumb or wrong from your own perspective is perfectly respectable, but to pretend to do it out of some exalted sense of responsibility or altruism? silliness.
nothing on John
he does a great job on this site…a discussion took place last offseason or the offseason before about this topic and a number said if john wanted to restrict other sites being mentioned, we wouldn’t have a problem with that….that’s not making a thing up…just a discussion among posters…
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
I think the distinction is
that it tends to be the readers of minorleagueball posting these lists, and not BA, projectprospect, etc. Like if I did a fanpost that said hey i have a prospect blog, come check it out, that’s one thing. But if someone else said, come check out who that idiot wobatus ranked number 37, that is something else entirely. It’s also different if you are just regurgitating the free stuff or if you are giving away the paid content, which is indeed a no-no.
also
John gets a lot of people discussing these lists HERE and not at BA or project prospect. That adds to the hits here and to ad rates i suppose in some attenuated way. I know John doesn’t want to get in trouble for having the paid stuff cut and pasted here, but it’s free content. It is free advertising of the free stuff for BA and PP and eyeballs for John.
exactly
i guess my point was that with the number of contributors that frequent this site, i’m never quite sure if a poster of a PP article is a contributor or a blog reader…
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
Maybe the stores where you live are different
from the ones where I live, but our local Walmart posts ads of competitors right at the entrance because they will match the sale prices. Good business move, show your customers what is available elsewhere while keeping them in your store to spend money they might spend at a competitor. Same kind of idea here really, it’s probably better for John for these lists to be posted here and discussed because it keeps the page views on his site and should only increase his advertising revenue.
RIP Nick Adenhart
but if he's making money
off of their pay content, he could be in for a lawsuit…
wal-mart here does not do that, and definitely not in the twin cities area as target won a lawsuit against wal-mart because of their posting of target’s materials in their store as the presentation of the materials was copyrighted, and wal-mart had to pay in order to pay for that…it was a local court decision around here, but i have to imagine that it could be done nationally if target wanted to put the money into a federal case…
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
pay content
but that’s the point. It isn’t pay content. The lists are free. The full write-up and chat are not free. That’s a no-no and pretty much observed. However, some mention of the chat discussions are being mentioned. But in fairly generic terms. Would need a call from the site monitor on that one.
No one's posting subscriber content here
when that happens, it gets removed as it is absolutely wrong for it to be posted in the first place. That’s not what’s happening though, it’s free content that is posted here for discussion. No one is posting chat transcripts that are behind the subscriber wall or anything of the sort so I don’t see what there is to be worried or concerned about in the first place.
As for the Wal-Mart vs. Target lawsuit….I’m not a lawyer so I can’t speak definitively on it, but it doesn’t seem to me that sales prices would be material you can copyright, so I’m confused as to how that would work honestly. We have some lawyers/law students around here, maybe one of them can shed some light here?
RIP Nick Adenhart
the prices
are not the issue…it was directly posting the advertisement as the advertisement itself was a copyrighted production of their art and design team…
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
i would, yes
and i think quite a few others have posted the same…
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
You would... ?
I’m aching to find out what you would do.
twas
a response to jibs’ comment…..thought i hit the reply button on his post…
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
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.
