MOD II: nationals
by variablesdont on May 21, 2009 11:55 AM EDT
40 comments
i'm quite familiar with gibson for a few reasons. firstly, he was drafted by the philadelphia phillies in the 36th round of the 2007 draft. as a fan of the phillies, and as someone who ran their mock draft, and participated in prospect-centric discussions on phillies-centric message boards, i was well aware of gibson's potential and his value.
in his first year at mizzou, gibson had a 77:19 K/BB ratio in 67 innings while functioning as missouri's shutdown reliever. he moved into the rotation in 2008, and put up a 96:23 ratio in 88 IP. he had just been pretty good, with regards to ERA, straddling a 4.00 ERA each year, but growing his stature steadily.
but for this pick, it's not so much about the numbers. what i see in gibson that makes me think he's an equal value to strasburg, even though he's not an equal talent is as follows.
gibson has two plus offspeed pitches. it's not just that his slider and his changeup are both good to great in terms of deception and break, it also figures in the fact that he can throw both for strikes, seemingly at will.
gibson also has a FB that hits 95, though it's mostly thrown in the low 90s with sink. this makes at least some sense, considering he throws on a downward plane from a 6 foot, 6 inch frame. he also can throw this pitch for a strike, seemingly at will.
performance wise, and this is the reason that i did not want to release his name in the last thread, he has had some clunkers. on march 29th, following a 9 inning, 16 K game the week before, gibson threw up this clunker: 2 IP, 7 H, 7 ER. on april 24th, his line was 6.2 IP, 9 Ks, 2 BBs, 9 H, 7 ER. this was following a 9 inning complete game in which he allowed 11 H and 3 ER, while throwing 132 pitches (90 of which were strikes). in his last start before yesterday, he went 8 innings, giving up 7 H, 4 ER, and throwing 112 pitches (82 of which were strikes). and then yesterday, on 11 days rest, he threw 6 innings, allowed 3 H, 0 ER, and had 7 K, with 3 BBs.
on the season, gibson's line is this:
98.2 IP, 89 hits, 123 strikeouts, 18 walks, 3.47 ERA
what i was hoping to see in this last start was the dominance that he had earlier in the season. that might have been a little too much to hope for, considering he was coming off 11 days rest, and he hadn't really been that good for a while, but i was hoping i'd get at least a glimpse of that yesterday.
i still haven't made my decision, but when comparing strasburg with gibson, i see gibson has better offspeed stuff, has better control, better command, better stamina, and he was facing a higher level of competition. strasburg has velocity on gibson, but gibson's no slouch there. combined with my concerns about strasburg adjusting to a 5 day rotation, and my general concerns about a 21 year old starting pitcher whose value is almost solely derived from sitting 96-98 and touching 100, i think the argument has more merit than many have given it.
some references i used in writing this:
the baseball cube, which lists gibson's stats in his first two years (2007, 2008).
missouri's season stats page, which contain gibson's 2009 stats.
missouri's game log, where gibson basically pitches the first game of any three game series
kyle gibson's MLB.com draft profile
0 recs |
40 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Questions
How does Gibson having fewer innings in more appearances show “more stamina”? What do you call it when Strasburg maintains his velocity through the end of the game?
How does Gibson’s 1.64 BB/9 to Strasburg’s 1.68 show “better control”?
How does Gibson’s 6.83 K:BB to Strasburg’s 9.47 show “better command”?
BA calls Strasburg’s slider “plus”. Manuel has Gibson’s fastball as sitting in the low-90’s and falling into the high-80s later in games, likes his slider, and calls his changeup “effective”. How do you justify preferring the Gibson package to a plus-plus fastball, a plus slider, and a change that is thrown for strikes? Strasburg’s third pitch is superfluous. The fact that he even bothers to have one is a positive.
Gibson’s draw is that he is a polished college pitcher in a weak draft. No reasonable source I’ve seen has his fastball as touching 95. 92-93, yes. He should be a solid pitcher, sure—but he’s the kind of guy only the Pirates would draft first overall.
by PissedMick on May 21, 2009 12:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I can't believe now that I wasted my time typing that.
Go away, before I’m persuaded to waste more time on you.
by PissedMick on May 21, 2009 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well
He’s 3 for 3 in being wrong. Strasburg pitched 102 innings in 14 starts while Gibson has 99 IP in the same number of starts (with one relief appearance). Care to make up any other imaginary reasons VD?
I reject your reality and substitute my own.
by WayneCampbell08 on May 21, 2009 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Founder of the Johnny Giavotella fan club.
by doublestix on May 21, 2009 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What A Joke
Saying Strasburg relies solely on a fastball shows you know nothing about him. Do the honorable thing and resign. You have no business being the Nats’ GM.
I reject your reality and substitute my own.
by WayneCampbell08 on May 21, 2009 3:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Latest Mock Draft has Gibson falling to Nats #10
so we should draft him at 1 because ??
Get a DC guy to do this draft
by VladiHondo on May 21, 2009 3:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'd nominate you
I’m out of town and thing you’d do well
by NFA Brian on May 21, 2009 6:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was thinking you'd be perfect
I’m not up on anything past the 1st round!
by VladiHondo on May 22, 2009 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
joke
can we vote this guy off the island
by jelder09 on May 21, 2009 3:54 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
hm..
If you like Gibson so much, why would you not just volunteer to draft for Seattle? Weak and/or incorrect arguments aside, it’s hard to see how this isn’t just for attention.
Even if you were taking a more credible stance, the purpose of MOD (as I’ve understood it the past few years, anyhow) is to generate discussion about players and reach a consensus. The director guides the discussion and is responsible for actually being at the draft to make picks – that’s the role. No one’s looking for some smart ass know-it-all to try to reinvent the wheel. I don’t think there’s anyone here who thinks Gibson over Strasburg is a good idea. You know, besides you.
http://rswanzey.blogspot.com
by rswanzey on May 21, 2009 4:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
+1
I have yet to find a national writer, for any major publication, that has Gibson #1, much less one advocating any other pitcher outside of Strasburg.
I could see an argument based upon position player vs. pitcher and the attrition rates of each, but to base your entire presumption upon that your personal preference for another pitcher that goes against the not only the wants of the rest of the National fans on this site, but also flies in the face of everything in the national and local Washington media has published.
I agree with the others that this is getting to the point that the National fans as a whole need to decide if they should proceed with finding a new Director.
by laxtonto on May 21, 2009 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I lol-ed
I was still holding out hope that VD would make a sensible argument. This works too, though, I guess.
by RedSoxFaithful on May 21, 2009 5:12 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This really can't be part of your actual rationale
he was drafted by the philadelphia phillies in the 36th round of the 2007 draft. as a fan of the phillies, and as someone who ran their mock draft, and participated in prospect-centric discussions on phillies-centric message boards, i was well aware of gibson’s potential and his value.
That you even offer this as explanation confuses me.
by aCone419 on May 21, 2009 10:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
he was
most likely drunk last night when he wrote this. so don’t even waste your time trying to argue with him
by psugator on May 22, 2009 9:28 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Urge to argue rising....
Ok, it’s revealed, the pick is just about what I thought it could be. And now I can tell you all the reasons you are mistaken.
First, Baseball America thinks “Major league organizations may not see a prospect like Strasburg for another 20 or 30 years, so the Nationals will not let him pass with the No. 1 pick.” In other words, he’s head and heels above the rest. Obviously you disagree.
Now he’s why your disagreement is mistaken:
1) How many front line #1 starters throw in the low 90s to start their career? Not that many. Most start young in the 92-94 range (or higher) and then slowly dip down while their secondary pitches improve. So, the prototypical #1 starter fits the mold of Strasburg, but not necessarily Gibson
2) On a related note, Gibson is a big guy (6’6") yet he only throws in the high 80s, low 90s? Don’t you think something is wrong with that? I’m not claiming injury, but more that his mechanics that help his pitchability detract from his ability to throw harder, which is why he’s forced to sit in a lower range.
3) Offspeed material – I’ll admit, its close. Gibson’s slider and change have both been rated as above average pitches. But Strasburg’s curve is already +. The fact that strasburg doesn’t have a third pitch means he hasn’t NEEDED a third pitch to dominate the league. Imagine if Strasburg has + fastball, ++ curve AND just an average change. That is still extraordinarily more dominant than + fastbal, avg to + slider and change.
4) Level of competition – I’m not really sure where you are getting this from. Across college, baseball is relatively on an even keel. You make it sound as if Strasburg is pitching in Division III while Gibson is in I-A, which obviously isn’t the case. Strasburg faced a top 25 team twice, 15IP 5ER 28K. Obviously Gibson faced better hitters over the course of the season, but its not as if that is such a significant different in college. That’s like saying you should always pick a college guy over a HS guy because college guys have faced a higher level of competition (yes, little emphatic).
5) Better Command/Control/Stamina – Someone else argued the numbers. You can argue that Gibson may have more pitchability, and that’s fine. But “pitchability” guys are usually the ones overrated and then flail when their stuff doesn’t match their moxie. Not really sure how you can even make the stamina argument (as someone mentioned above) so I’ll stick to his points.
6) I quote you as saying “My general concerns about a 21 year old starting pitcher whose value is almost solely derived from sitting 96-98 and touching 100, i think the argument has more merit than many have given it.” So, in other words, your wrong. As mentioned above, ++ curveball. Likely the most dominant curve in the draft. How is that escaping your purview?
7) I quote you as saying “gibson also has a FB that hits 95, though it’s mostly thrown in the low 90s with sink. this makes at least some sense, considering he throws on a downward plane from a 6 foot, 6 inch frame.” The implication is, that this downward plane is existent for Gibson but not Strasburg. Strasburg is 6’5", throws on a similar downward plane, and has the better fastball.
8) You say “combined with my concerns about strasburg adjusting to a 5 day rotation” and still have yet to justify your reasoning. Show me anything that says that he could have trouble adjusting, or that power pitchers have trouble adjusting. Shouldn’t all pitchers, regardless of their velocity, have trouble adjusting to a 5 day schedule? Just because you throw 90 v. 95 doesn’t mean the preparation before each start is not the same or that you need less rest. If strasburg was not durable, lets say he missed a start due to soreness, the point may be valid. He goes out there every time, pitches 7 innings plus, no complaints, goes again next week. It’s a concern without any basis in fact.
I hope this provides a good summary of why you are mistaken in thinking Gibson has equivalent value to Strasburg. If not , I could come up with another 6 or so, but I got tired of typing.
by thudean on May 22, 2009 10:00 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
i'm making three calls with this
1) that gibson will be a great starter.
2) that strasburg is not the best value
3) that gibson would not be available at 10.
the first one comes down to my history of picking and projecting pitchers. i could address each of your points, but i don’t think anyone’s reading it at this point. the way i project pitching has been explained here, here, and here. i have a great feel for gibson, and i’m very comfortable going out on a limb in saying that he’ll be a great pitcher.
sorry for shafting your arguments, because you actually made a well reasoned post, but people made their minds up as soon as i expressed doubt about strasburg, and i guess i didn’t express my views well enough for people to step back and actually take what i said at face value.
anyway, my 3rd call is the main stickup right now. when the draft was announced, and i first expressed my doubts about strasburg, gibson was rising up the draft board. he was 5th in AS’s projected mock for two weeks, and it looked like he’d be off the board well before 10.
since then, his stock has kinda stagnated, and a bunch of high schoolers have overtaken him on the draft boards. that might be how it plays out, and if it is, the whole thing is an abortion regardless of who ends up the better pitcher, but that’s not the way it was looking when this started.
human beings, who are almost unique in their ability to learn from the experiences of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
by variablesdont on May 22, 2009 11:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"i could address each of your points, but i don't think anyone's reading it at this point."
I call bullshit. We’re all reading it, and the only major posts you’ve made since you took over have been the main posts in each of your two MODs.
The other posts you’ve made have either been a.) hyping up a mystery pitcher, b.) begging for John to understand, c.) responding to flame wars, and d.) complaining that you’re being unfairly critiqued. I, for one, was actually rooting for you to make sense when I made my arguments in your first MOD, but then you sort of never responded to any of them. In fact, I think this is the first argument that you’ve actually responded to, and the response is basically “i dont want to respond because nobody cares anyway”.
by RedSoxFaithful on May 22, 2009 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i can go point by point, but that's not what these people are looking for
and the reason i didn’t come back at you in the last thread was that, at a certain point, it’s just me talking and haters hating.
you don’t hear about gibson, probably for much the same reason that you don’t hear about blake hawksworth; they’re just not as sexy as the top guys. strasburg’s ass has been crowned for 15 months now, and noone’s really gone in depth to look for anyone else.
you want me to address some of these points, fine, but it’s not gonna be what you’re looking for.
we’ll start with his velocity.
it seems like there’s a consensus that gibson sits 88-92, but thudean poses an interesting point, “Gibson is a big guy (6’6”) yet he only throws in the high 80s, low 90s? Don’t you think something is wrong with that?"
my response to that would be that he’s also throwing 120 pitches per game, and if he maxed out his velocity, he’d probably be under the knife 14 starts into his season. thud also goes on to say “I’m not claiming injury, but more that his mechanics that help his pitchability detract from his ability to throw harder, which is why he’s forced to sit in a lower range,” and this is something with which i have a bone to pick. it’s not that his mechanics help his pitchability and detract from his maximum velocity, but rather that he’s learned in college what jamie moyer learned a long time ago: when you get into a jam, you take velocity off your pitches, instead of putting it on.
and that’s not to say he won’t pick up velocity, or to say he hasn’t already; he’s got the physical potential to throw, maybe not as hard as strasburg, but right up there with most human SPs. he might not be AJ burnett right now, but he could very well be dan haren.
“Command/Control/Stamina:”
his stamina comes down to the fact that he threw 5 complete games in a season in which he made 14 starts. his ratio of strikes to balls in most of those starts was 2:1, which puts his ratio of strikes to pitches throw at 80/120 in those games. in his 132 pitch outing on april 17th, 90 of those pitches were strikes. in his most dominant outing, when he struck out 15 against oklahoma, he threw 80/118 for strikes. it may be a far leap to say he has command of three pitches, but if he’s only throwing 88-92, as you’ve said, i think that’s a point in his favor.
“You say "combined with my concerns about strasburg adjusting to a 5 day rotation" and still have yet to justify your reasoning. Show me anything that says that he could have trouble adjusting, or that power pitchers have trouble adjusting. Shouldn’t all pitchers, regardless of their velocity, have trouble adjusting to a 5 day schedule? Just because you throw 90 v. 95 doesn’t mean the preparation before each start is not the same or that you need less rest. If strasburg was not durable, lets say he missed a start due to soreness, the point may be valid. He goes out there every time, pitches 7 innings plus, no complaints, goes again next week. It’s a concern without any basis in fact.”
throwing 96+ MPH takes effort. i’ve been a little too aggressive in saying it, but i don’t think it’s at all beyond the pale to say that a guy who throws 96+ MPH with 16+ K/9 IP in a 7 day rotation against a low class of hitter will, when transitioning to a 5 day rotation against AA/AAA/MLB hitters either lose velocity over the course of a 25+ start season (and i don’t mean he’ll have a dead arm period, i mean he simply won’t be able to hit his high gear anymore, and his low gear will be more 93-96 than 96-99. i know, i know, that’d still be excellent, but it’s not what you’re paying for), lose his ability to pitch into the 7th, 8th, or 9th innings while maintaining a massive K rate (i think this is the point i first envisioned. i looked at strasburg, and i saw rich harden, who is great, and who is dominant, but who also has warts, and is not the second coming of this guy from back then). there’s also the possibility that, like harden, his body will just wear down and he’ll have durability and health issues early and often in his career.
human beings, who are almost unique in their ability to learn from the experiences of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
by variablesdont on May 23, 2009 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i can go point by point, but that’s not what these people are looking for
actually, that’s EXACTLY what people are looking for.
Founder of the Johnny Giavotella fan club.
by doublestix on May 23, 2009 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Response
See, we can actually have a conversation about this when you try.
Velocity – Strasburg, at present, throws high 90s. We agree on that point. However, he’s STILL throwing high 90s 100+ pitches into a game (or so reports have said). So, what you are saying is, a pitcher who throw 96-98, but maybe dips to 94-96 in 7th-9th a couple of times is a bad thing?
Also you say “he’s learned in college what jamie moyer learned a long time ago: when you get into a jam, you take velocity off your pitches, instead of putting it on.” Ok, so Gibson’s learned to do that now because he’s HAD to do it. In the alternative, Strasburg has not needed to pitch in that fashion. Just because Gibson does it now does not mean Strasburg can’t or won’t do it in the future. These pitchers aren’t going to be frozen in time and Strasburg has just as much chance to learn how to put on and take off from his fastball as Gibson can learn to put more on. Same concept, and is a wash with Strasburg in the lead because he HAS the velocity.
Also on the point on velocity, I’ve read a few times (won’t quote off the top) that Gibson has continuously been expected to pick up velocity and has not. To me, that implies that something in his delivery prevents him from juicing it up more on a regular basis. Its not that he can’t or won’t, but that he hasn’t.
Control/Command/Stamina – I won’t deny that Gibson may have the lead on this point. But, control/command/stamina is a comparison. Its not a significant lead and many here likely will argue that there is no lead or Strasburg is ahead. Strasburg has put up similar peripherals throughout the year. The difference though is overwhelmed by the quality difference in the pitches.
Harden Comparison – I take issue with comparing Strasburg to Harden. They are completely different type of pitcher body types. When you learn about Strasburg, about the conditioning he went through to get his body to where it is today, you see some dedication first off. Second, you see that Strasburg is 6’5" – a prototypical body type for a power pitcher. In the alternative, Harden is 6’1", which is slightly undersized. Although maybe a stigma, pitchers who throw 93+ and are under 6’2" are considered more of an injury risk because of their physique and that they can’t have the same muscle mass as taller players. So, to compare Harden to Strasburg I think is inappropriate based on the body type.
For me, if you get Strasburg, a peak performance is 200IP 3.00-ish ERA 200K+ (maybe by season 2, assuming 180IP or so season 1 on the safe side) with a medium somewhere around 195IP 3.50 ERA 200K+. If I’m trying to project Gibson, his stuff and abilities would peak at what could be a middling year for Strasburg (200IP 3.50-ish ERA 175K). While a good starter, Strasburg has the ability to be infinitely better.
Now, I want to take a stab at a point I don’t think you’ve made here, but have elsewhere – the cost. Strasburg will cost alot, we get that. But, he makes some of it back for the team. Considering the hype, the correlated media frenzy, followed by the correlated sales boost from having the “best college pitcher in at least a decade”, maybe they get more butts in the seats, sell more merchandise and get people excited again for a team that has been merely mediocre. Even if you still think that for the money and the talent, Gibson is the better pick, baseball, as a business, says Strasburg has to be the top pick. There is no one more marketable and no one that could make that much of an impact on a franchise that needs a pick me up.
by thudean on May 23, 2009 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Heh
I love how you keep digging a bigger hole every time you speak up. BTW, congratulations on making this all about you. In two threads, there has been zero discussion about any other prospects the Nats’ should take just because you had to stroke your ego and try to look smarter than you are.
Another case in point is your bragging on Gibson’s excessively high pitch counts in his first few starts of the season. The idea that those 130 pitches may have contributed to his getting shelled in subsequent starts never has occurred to you, has it? If anything, SDSU is doing a good job from abusing Strasburg’s arm and to me it’s a positive and not a negative that Steven hasn’t had as many CGs as Gibson.
Anyways, I’m done with you and these threads. You’ve hijacked the entire process and have contributed nothing to upcoming draft. Hope you’re happy with yourself. Adios.
I reject your reality and substitute my own.
by WayneCampbell08 on May 23, 2009 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
thank you for illustrating the reason i haven't dipped into these threads more
human beings, who are almost unique in their ability to learn from the experiences of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
by variablesdont on May 23, 2009 6:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And that is the reason why people want ot get rid of you
if you are unwilling to run the exercise the way it was intended, people get frustrated by it. It is not rocket science.
by laxtonto on May 26, 2009 10:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"The way [you] project pitching"
Here is the problem. Thinking that you have some sort of special insight because you tabbed guys like Edwin Jackson, Ricky Romero, Shaun Marcum, Gavin Floyd, and Rob Tejada is idiotic. None of these guys are special. In fact, of the ones who’ve started for a full season, any positive value they’ve put up has been mostly good luck.
You’re not smarter than everyone else. If you were, you’d be able to back up your assertions in ways that weren’t so damn funny.
by PissedMick on May 22, 2009 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Haha
I was looking up a scouting profile on Brooks Brown and accidentally stumbled onto this guy’s old blog. I think it’s pretty clear that this is just one of those guys who falls in love with mediocre pitchers because when they’re right they can boast knowing more than everyone else, and when they’re wrong, no one noticed anyway:
of the 2006 draftees, i prefer (brooks) brown to (brett) anderson because of brown’s ability to get the most favorable outcome. anderson’s immaculate record combined with his FB tendencies scare me off a little bit.
Brown’s “most favorable outcome” is usually to do anything but strike the batter out, with his impressive 15/18 BB/K in 49 IP between AA/AAA at age 24. I don’t know who that Anderson guy is, must be some non-prospect, but he has a good fastball so he must be bad.
http://variablesdont.blogspot.com/2008/01/2008-arizona-diamondbacks.html
http://rswanzey.blogspot.com
by rswanzey on May 27, 2009 6:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh come on
I’m still reading my own arguments, and if I took the time to actually refute your reasoning, you should at least have the “decency” to do the same.
That being said, I’ve read your pitcher projection thing, and honestly, I have no idea what you like. The only thing I saw that gave any insight was “I’m not a velocity whore”, which in itself may explain your odd distaste for Strasburg. Oh, I also saw you have some odd love of Craig Hansen, though he continues to flounder. Just remember that for every guy you pegged right, you also probably pegged another and got him wrong. You can’t admit the positives while ignoring the negatives.
Oh, reason number .. whatever I was at, quote today from Mike Rizzo, National GM, “We have to talk about the three-ton elephant in the room,” said Mike Rizzo, the acting general manager of the Nationals. “He’s on the top of our board, but he pulled an oblique muscle [Wednesday]; I saw him walk off the mound holding his side. But if the draft was today, we would select Stephen Strasburg. Then we would go about the process of trying to sign him.” If they can do it, you can too!
So, I’m curious, what you got?
by thudean on May 22, 2009 5:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Strasburg doesn't need to be the "best value"
OK – well that was to grab attention. Really I mean that best value has different meanings. I believe the alot of teams, including the Nats, would rather have a $22 million talent that they pay $20 million for than a $15 million talent that they pay $10 million for. (Time horizon equal) . Reason being that its difficult in the free agent market to get the remaining $7 million in talent for $10 million. Its difficult for the Nats to get a $7 million talent in free agency (the difference) for
The question for a Nats GM at this point needs to be “who is the better pitcher” because they aren’t going to out talent people in the free agent market.
Plus what is valuable about paying 1st overall pick slot money to a player who is is a #5 to #15 talent? Also don’t you think in the real world Gibson would ask for about as much as Strasburg if you’d take Gibson above Strasburg? Especially knowing the PR disaster that would take place if the Nats didn’t sign him. If you have next to no leverage, you might as well take the better talent, and that’s Strasburg.
by SLK on May 23, 2009 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i'm so glad
we had to wait for days on end to hear your ‘surprise’ pick. you are a joke.
by psugator on May 22, 2009 10:31 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Wasted Breath
But still VD’s second reason is hilarious. It also shows how desparate he is to scrounge up reasons to support his stance. I’m sure he doesn’t even know what best value means. I just want to ask how is overdrafting the 5th or 6th best pitching prospect a bigger value than the overwhelming favorite for best pitching prospect?
I reject your reality and substitute my own.
by WayneCampbell08 on May 22, 2009 9:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
From BA latest draft chat
Kevin (San Diego): Aside from Strasburg, does Alex Whit have the best pure stuff in this draft? I was real surprised he was rated the second best right hander when Gibson and Crow are more consistenent and have better command.
John Manuel: White’s stuff is better than Gibson and Crow’s, in that he pitches off the fastball more than Gibson (who pitches off his slider too much for my liking), and has secondary stuff superior to that of Crow. Also, White is a plus athlete, plus compete, very good track record. But pure stuff? Scheppers is better than these other guys in pure stuff. Amond HS guys, Jacob Turner has better stuff as well, and Shelby Miller is in that discussion. Kyle Heckathorn and Rex Brothers too.
So you like Gibson when he is not even considered to have the 2nd best stuff either?
by laxtonto on May 26, 2009 11:34 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Don't know why you spent all the time talking about Gibson
when you pick him it will be invalidated by Sickels, and Strasburg assigned to the Nats.
Talk about the 10 pick and the 1st pick in the 2nd round, etc. – that’s the crux of it – Nats (hopefully – bad track record so far) getting 3 1st round talent kids. Instead, all we get is worthless speculation on only one pick.
by VladiHondo on May 26, 2009 12:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
lol
Can anyone imagine the rebellion that would ensue if real non-armchair GM Mike Rizzo actually believed this bullshit?
http://rswanzey.blogspot.com
by rswanzey on May 26, 2009 1:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Recent Keith Law Article
Mock draft of the first round found here – http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/draft2009/insider/news/story?id=4206996
Guess who goes number 10 to the Nationals? Kyle Gibson! So okay, you’ve sold me on Kyle Gibson for the 10th pick.
by thudean on May 27, 2009 11:29 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 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.
