clayton richard

by variablesdont on May 30, 2009 3:50 PM EDT Comment 21 comments

i promised this update in the other thread, and with richard's 7 inning, 7 K performance, i think there's enough (but never really enough) data to start to present it.

i want to start off by saying that i had the wrong information previously. in baseball america's 2009 prospect handbook, this is said about richard:

at 6'5", richard is a taller version of mark buerhle. he works quickly and throws strikes with 3 pitches, including an 88-92 MPH fastball with natural sink that induces lots of groundballs.

that's the information i was going on, which is why, when i looked at richard's pitch f/x data from his first 2 starts this season, i was absolutely floored. he was touching 96 (and it's actually better than that; in this relief appearance on may 8th, he touched 98. i know!). anyway, going from 88-92 MPH to 96, is absolutely not a typical progression for a 25 year old.

however, i took a look back at one of his starts from last season, and he was touching 94. it's a lot easier step to make going from 94 to 96, than it appeared, when i thought he went from 92 to 96 (98).

so, basically, richard's profile right now has him throwing 5 pitches, a 4 seam FB that touches 96, a 2 seam FB that he uses to pound the lower half of the strike zone and get GBs, 2 breaking balls which are entirely unremarkable, and a changeup which appears to be mediocre in regards to anything except getting GBs.

after looking a little closer, i guess that, unless one of his offspeed pitches takes a step forward, his top end is gonna be around a 3.50 ERA, with probably a lot of GBs, a few Ks, and limited HRs and BBs. i think any person who'd toss that aside and simply say 'that's not good eonugh' is probably someone who hasn't been around long enough to know his ass from a hole in the ground.

anyway, the next player i'll look into will be francisco liriano.

1 recs | Comment 21 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Do you ever capitalize the first word in a sentence?

Its called grammer.

Rebuild and Restock.

by trademaker on May 30, 2009 5:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

actually

it’s called grammar

" You know...
I think this technique of using the ninth inning of close ballgames as extended spring training for pitchers who’ve missed time due to injury might not be a great idea."
by eponymous_coward on May 14, 2009 1:16 PM PDT

by U-God on May 30, 2009 6:13 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

It is called grammar.

Unless you’re being sarcastic, in which case I guess its called grammer.

by NateHST on May 30, 2009 6:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

My spell check has been lying to me then

Rebuild and Restock.

by trademaker on May 30, 2009 6:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

no.

there’s a rule on the internet that whenever you attempt to correct someone else’s grammer, someone else is gonna correct yours.

now, you weren’t even correcting my grammar, you were criticizing my syntax.

oh, and if you still have no idea what anyone else is talking about, here’s an instructional video.

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 30, 2009 6:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Muphry's Law!

Which is, of course, a variation on Murphy’s Law.

by thejd44 on May 30, 2009 7:24 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Haha Rec'd

Rebuild and Restock.

by trademaker on May 30, 2009 8:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Haha

Thanks for the Video

Rebuild and Restock.

by trademaker on May 30, 2009 8:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

My spell check has been lying to me then

Rebuild and Restock.

by trademaker on May 30, 2009 6:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry about the 2 times i said that

my computer messed up

Rebuild and Restock.

by trademaker on May 30, 2009 6:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually

Like I posted in the other thread, when he was drafted in 2005, BA was reporting that Richard topped out at 94 out of Michigan.

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

by WayneCampbell08 on May 30, 2009 6:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

i saw that.

i also took a look at his draft profile on mlb.com, which said this, “Big frame and broad-shouldered. Long arms and big hands. FB in the low 90s. Slider shows potential w/ hard break. Good athlete. Competes. Solid make-up.”

he wasn’t in BA’s 2007 or 2008 books, and then in this one, it says he throws 88-92. is there a phrase for being ‘phil roger’d’.

he was throwing 94 last year, so we know that. but here’s a question, if he’s 6’5" and left handed, and we know that he was throwing 94, then why wasn’t he more prominent on peoples’ radars?

this is a guy with very good control, very good velocity, good GB tendencies, and he was major league ready.

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 30, 2009 6:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

why wasn't he more prominent?

because he was in the white sox organization. no one cared about white sox prospects until this season.

the guy who’s site you’re on had him in his books, noting his sleeper potential. and, yes, never use BA for white sox prospects because you will be phil roger’d.

and, while i didn’t have a gun on him in the minors, his velocity reportedly started ticking back up last year. he was usually around 90 prior to that. supposedly a mechanical change.

White Sox Minor League Updates: http://twitter.com/SouthSidelarry

by larry on May 30, 2009 7:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually

He was listed in the depth charts under left handed starters in 2007 & relievers in 2008. It’s in the 2006 book under the best fastball section on the draft picks page.

I’m guessing his velocity went down when his workload went up after college. The reason you didn’t hear about him is the same reason why you don’t hear about Astros’ prospects, they were ranked in the bottom 5 those two years. Then he does poorly in his first couple go-arounds in the majors.

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

by WayneCampbell08 on May 30, 2009 11:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

He doesnt throw that hard regularly

Sits around 90 every time Ive seen him and fangraphs supports this. 89.9mph avg fastball last year. 91.5 this year. He may have hit upper 90’s but its not a regular thing or a step forward.

His stuff isnt that great. Looks more like a 4-5 guy on a hot streak to me. I guess I could see a 3, but I dont see a whole lot to get excited about.

Touching upper 90’s makes me wonder if he doesnt have a future as a good late inning reliever. Lack of a decent offspeed offering would also fit that mold.

by alskor on May 30, 2009 11:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I dont know now...

You got me thinking…

Im going to reevaluate him. Good points on this page.

by alskor on May 30, 2009 11:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I too have been surprised by Richard’s velocity, as I’ve watched a couple of MLBTV starts of his recently. I don’t think the stuff is good enough to sustain throwing that hard without refining his control on his breaking pitches.

In the starts that he struggles, he is routinely behind on his first 2 pitches.

With all that said, IMO, Richard is a prototype 4/5 with slightly more upside than a typical 4/5 type because he’s pretty raw with pitching. His numbers in the minors last year were at least partially fluky, though he’s doing a bit to redeem himself now.

Even still, this is the same Clayton Richard who did not deserve to make the White Sox out of S/T, so we’ll see if it holds up.

by WrenFGun on May 31, 2009 9:43 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs