The Top 20 Pitchers Age 25 & Under
by alskor on Jul 20, 2010 5:28 PM EDT
Email
Print
Here it is.
Full Article: http://bit.ly/cPjx2z
(for those with trouble w/ bit.ly links for whatever reason, here is the full link: http://bullpenbanter.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=231:the-top-20-pitchers-age-25-a-under&catid=18:articles&Itemid=11)
The Top 20 Position Players Age 25 & Under
1. Stephen Strasburg
2. Felix Hernandez
3. David Price
4. Ricky Romero
5. Yovani Gallardo
6. Chad Billingsley
7. Clayton Kershaw
8. Clay Buchholz
9. Mat Latos
10. Tommy Hanson
11. Julio Teheran
12. Phil Hughes
13. Martin Perez
14. John Danks
15. Brett Anderson
16. Derek Holland
17. Neftali Feliz
18. Brian Matusz
19. Aroldis Chapman
20. Tyler Matzek
The Rationale
1. Stephen Strasburg - Already dominating with the best stuff of any pitcher in baseball.
2. Felix Hernandez - Its hard to believe he’s only 24 years old. Does everything well, but not quite as well as Stras.
3. David Price - Finally emerging as a FOR starter. Expect the K’s to continue to rise. If you look at raw strikeout numbers you may be more inclined to give an edge to guys like Kershaw, Billingsley & Gallardo over guys like Price, Romero & Buchholz... let me remind you here that the latter three don't get to face #8 hitters and pitchers like the former do.
14. John Danks - Very good but not great across the board. This is the first place where I feel I've conceded to a bird in the hand (Danks) being better than two in the bush (highly projectable young arms). Danks justifies this approach in my opinion compared to the two guys with shoulder problems below. We've entered a highly volatile area of the list that I changed oh, a hundred times. Very little to differentiate these guys.
19. Aroldis Chapman - Loads of potential despite some serious concerns. Don’t be fooled too much by his struggles. He was given a very aggressive assignment. The ceiling is very, very high and he's shown amazing strengths to his game (plus plus velocity, slider has been fantastic) along with some concerning lows (control, command, changeup).
The rationale for the rest can be found in the full article. As is a rather large list of Honorable Mentions. A list of the top Fantasy Prospects Age 25 & Under is coming up soon.
As always, thanks for reading. Very interested to hear the opinions of the many posters I respect here. Thanks again...
-alskor
312 comments
|
6 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Rare breed
Romero is really great and gets overlooked simply due to geography. Not only does he strike out batters at a stellar rate, but he also gets tons of ground balls. That is a SIERA darling, if you ask me.
Come check out Bullpen Banter!
Follow Bullpen Banter on Twitter
Follow me on Twitter
Remember: baseball guys... baseball...
Bingo.
I think scouting wise he certainly compares favorably to anyone as well… its not just numbers… but man, the numbers are good.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
Dammit. I meant to use the Romero comment as one of the ones here.
Here it is:
4. Ricky Romero – Tremendously underrated. Romero does everything well with plus stuff and plus velocity. 22nd among starters in K/9 and 5th in groundball percentage. KLaw is still right… rather have Tulo, but this pick no longer looks catastrophically bad like it once did.
So:
-Plus stuff
-Great Out Pitch
-Plus Velocity
-LH
-Major League Success
-Lots of K
-Tremendous GB%
-Pedigree (1st round pick – not huge in itself, but its not like he came out of nowhere).
He compares extremely favorably to the elite pitchers on this list. Its time for everyone to realize this is one of the best young pitchers in the game IMO.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
No Jair Jurrjens?!?!
He’s been great so far early in his career.
Should have been a HM.
I will add him now, thanks. Got lost in the shuffle. I don’t think he’s anything spectacular, though.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
What happened with Jurrjens
He was a fairly early cut from consideration for top 20. Doesn’t stike out enough, walks too many, doesn’t keep the ball on the ground enough.
…but quite obviously he’s better than many of the HMs. He wasn’t good enough to be on the list or on the first tier of HMs off it (Montgomery, Hellickson types)… but then I missed him when I went looking for guys I missed because he was too much better than those kind of guys (Andy Oliver, Alex Torres, etc…). Stupid move on my part.
I wouldn’t be shocked if there were one or two more of these. I tried to be thorough and spent hours double checking the last few days, also asking friends if they saw anyone I missed, etc…. but there are just soooo many good young pitchers that it really isn’t hard to fall through the cracks.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
I won't quibble too much
But I’d certainly at least put JJ on the same tier as Hellickson and Montgomery. Yeah, he’s not going to be an ace, but he’s already shown he can handle a 215 inning workload and his peripherals at least paint him as a solid #2, at worst a good #3. I think he’s at least on the same level as those 2.
I can see an argument for Jurrjens being on the same tier as Hellickson and Montgomery, but it’s one completely founded on risk aversity. Jurrjens certainly isn’t a #2 or an above-average #3 — he’s never posted a K/9 higher than 6.6 or a BB/9 lower than 3.1, and his GB% has fallen dramatically since 2008.
Don’t get me wrong — he’s a really nice asset to have on hand through his cost-controlled years, but the perception most have of Jurrjens far outstrips the reality.
by PhillyFriar on Jul 20, 2010 9:05 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Go check out his FIP
He ranked 22 in the league last year and and 19th the year before that. How is that not #2 or #3 level? A lot of teams don’t have 1 guy ranked that high, let alone 2 or 3.
Honestly I think he's starting to get underrated
By the people who blindly follow xFIP as if its the be all and end all of pitching stats. It completely ignores a very real skill, so it will serious underrate a particular type of pitcher.
I don’t blindly follow xFIP, but I think it’s pretty clear that that and SIERA are by far the beat measures of a pitcher’s ability. And when I look at those numbers for Jurrjens over the past year+, in conjunction with mid-6 K/9 rates, mid-3 BB/9 rates, and a GB% that’s trending mightily in the wrong direction, I simply don’t see a blueprint for sustainable success at a #2 starter’s level. I’m sorry, but I don’t care what his FIP says when it is so blatantly contradicted by every other important stat out there.
by PhillyFriar on Jul 20, 2010 9:37 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Also should say that I get particularly into it when debating Jurrjens, mostly as a byproduct of wayward Braves fans touting him as a young ace and a superior pitcher than, say, Cole Hamels.
by PhillyFriar on Jul 20, 2010 9:40 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Trust me I've gotten sick of some of it too
I don’t see JJ as an ace, just a solid #2 or good #3 assuming he is actually better than average in terms of HR/FB. He’s clearly not as good as his ERA makes him seem.
As for Cole Hamels and him, I think its very close. I’d like to think they’re equal, but I know there is a strong case for Hamels over JJ (and not so much vice versa).
Hamels is better than JJ
However, that’s no slight on Jurrjens. Furthermore, ranking any A ballers over JJ is absolutely ridiculous at this point imo.
I heard Tim Lincecum will win 1 Cy Young & 11 Tim Lincecums. Question is, how many Cole Hamels will he win?
by the pinstripes on Jul 23, 2010 12:48 AM EDT up reply actions
I can't really speak for SIERA as I don't have a BP subsciption
But xFIP is going to underrate guys that have better than average HR/FB rates. Now maybe Jurrjens isn’t a guy who really has that skill, but after almost 500 IP its certainly looking that way.
xFIP is designed to correlate better with the entire population of pitchers by ignoring a real skill that a few pitchers have. It works great on the whole, but it will be fairly inaccurate for particular guys. That’s just what happens when you’re trying to make a simple model that works well for a lot of people.
I agree with PhillyFriar.
He’s okay… more of a #3 for me. I don’t see the argument… his peripherals really pain him as more of a #3.
I would still like him on my team… just not elite.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
No his peripherals don't paint him that way
Only his K/9 and BB/9 do. Using FIP, which also includes HR/9, paints him as one of the top 20 to 25 pitchers in baseball from 2008 to 2009.
So...
-he’s a great pitcher except for mediocre walk and strikeout rates…
-and we’re ignoring this season altogether…?
-and he’s had shoulder problems.
He performed admirably the last couple seasons…sure. If you want to bet on him continuing to perform that well you’re welcome to do so but I think the smart money is against it.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
Since when does better than a solid #3 mean a great pitcher?
I wouldn’t call his BB and K rates mediocre. They aren’t anything special, but they’re solid.
I’m ignoring this season because he’s only thrown 41 innings and he got dropped into the rotation mid-season without the normal preparation.
He’s had shoulder soreness in the first week back in a throwing program after the offseason. It something that should be watched, but shouldn’t be a huge concern. It also has nothing to do with whether or not his peripherals only paint him as a solid #3.
I didn’t say I was betting on him continuing to perform as well as he had the past 2 seasons. If he did, that would make him a borderline #1 or a good #2. I simply said he should be a solid #3 or a good #3. See the difference there? I am in fact predicting regression, just not as large as an amount as the rest of you.
The real problem here (and also with Cain)
is that we’re comparing him here with guys who have similar abilities to prevent HRs AND have elite K and BB rates. I just can’t see an argument for either over many of these guys – even if we ascribe this strong an ability to both Cain and Jurrjens.
In some cases where they have superior HR rates I’m still picking guys with vastly superior BB and K rates and/or GB rates…
Again, my position is not that either Cain or Jurrjens is a bad pitcher – I don’t think that at all. There’s just some really talented guys I’d take first.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
That's irrelevant to what we've been discussing
At no point have I said that you should have ranked Cain or JJ. I just thought you were underrating JJ by saying he was clearly behind Hellickson and Montgomery. I also thought it was unfair to look at Cain solely through the scope of xFIP as it clearly underrates him.
BTW I really appreciate the effort...Great job
I don’t want to give the wrong impression. I think the ordering is pretty good. I disagree with a few but I know that’s an inevitability. That’s why I won’t argue about particular placements, just more general things and the logic behind some of the rankings.
Thanks.
You made some good points. I’m not sure I entirely agree, but they’re good arguments. I was under the impression you were arguing more for Jurrjen’s inclusion on the list.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
He might make the back end of my list
I certainly don’t feel strong enough about it to really argue. Now if he has posts a similar FIP and this year and keeps up the low HR/FB I might feel more strongly a year from now.
Jurrjens
I can see leaving him off the list but agree that he gets slightly underrated. It’s going to far, as PhillyFriar did, to say that he’s not an above average #3. As someone who’s argued pretty hard against those overrating him as an ace, I think you’d have to have a pretty exacting definition of a #3 starter not grant JJ the distinction of being a pretty good one. I’d argue that at his best he’s been a #2/3 guy, straddling the line.
by blackoutyears on Jul 21, 2010 5:31 PM EDT up reply actions
I think Latos and Bilingsly should be flip-flopped
Also #20 i have a hard time agreeing with but can’t say its wrong
Wow Blackburn makes nearly identical money as Baker does now....
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Jul 20, 2010 5:42 PM EDT reply actions
Also Danks ahead of Brett Anderson is a BIG surprise to me...
Wow Blackburn makes nearly identical money as Baker does now....
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Jul 20, 2010 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions
That is almost entirely about Anderson's health.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
I'd think a healthy Anderson would slide ahead of Billingsley too.
Sad to see how his career has started.
by Kenneth Arthur on Jul 20, 2010 7:47 PM EDT up reply actions
cool
that is understandable
Wow Blackburn makes nearly identical money as Baker does now....
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Jul 21, 2010 5:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Its certainly debatable.
I didn’t want to overreact to Latos’ hot start this year… I really like him, though.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
I hate you so much!!!!
J/k. Appreciate the hard work that goes into something like this.
Thanks
I’m just kind of glad its over… very, very difficult to do.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
Ha!
+1000. Die, Alskor, die!!! I’m in the camp that questions Romero that high, just because the peripherals don’t blow me away. I think there’s room to get better, and I am impressed by the ground ball and strikeout rates and his ability to keep the ball in the park, but he seems very good as opposed to truly elite at this point. But then, after the Top 3, I’d say there’s a bit of a drop. Price’s results and Romero’s are actually fairly similar, but I think Price has an edge in terms of stuff.
I haven’t seen the HM list, but how close was Jaime Garcia for you? Obviously it would be nice to see him roll right through year’s end — three of his last four starts have been pretty mess actually — and he needs to do it again next year, but what are your thoughts?
by blackoutyears on Jul 20, 2010 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions
I knew to whom you were referring
Garcia is definitely an injury risk; seems like he was constantly held back by injuries leading up to the TJ. But, he gets some credit for overcoming that and not letting it stall his development. And how many starters with 100+ IP have allowed four homers or fewer this year? In fact, of the 93 hits he’s allowed, only 17 have gone for extra bases?! That’s astonishing.
by blackoutyears on Jul 20, 2010 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Re:
He has been effective. I just wonder how long the Cards let him go. His career high in IP was 155 in 2006 but he threw 38 in 2009 and 122 in 2008.
Good point
I was similarly worried when Leake made the Reds rotation out of ST because it’s extremely difficult to limit a pitcher’s innings at the major league level. Imagine if in September STL and CIN are still separated by a game or two and either team has to skip starts for or shut down their pitcher. And that’s not even taking into account the prospect of post-season innings. The temptation to blow right past the innings limit, and damn the torpedoes, may be too much.
by blackoutyears on Jul 21, 2010 5:38 PM EDT up reply actions
When Romero is locating, he has 3 plus pitches
I think people are just remembering how much he struggled in the minors.
Good call on Garcia. He’s outpitched his peripherals this year, but he’s another lefty with really good ground ball tendencies who could merit inclusion toward the back end of this list. Upside isn’t huge and has some health questions of his own, but I’d personally give him the nod over Matzek.
by PhillyFriar on Jul 20, 2010 6:17 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
He's definitely outpitching periphs
but he could regress a bit and still be very, very good. He has a better strikeout rate than I expected, so he’s bolstering the groundballs by missing bats. I didn’t expect to be as impressed as I was when I started following him this year. Actually, he strikes me the same way Gallardo does, but for different reasons.
The lack of upside is a good point. I think he is who he’s going to be. OTOH, the same could be said of Mike Leake, a guy I’d consider for this list. Leake may out pitch a third to half of the names on this list over his career when all is said and done, though more by dint of consistency and guile than any sort of dominance.
by blackoutyears on Jul 20, 2010 6:28 PM EDT up reply actions
…and good call on Leake, who I also totally forgot about. I’m a tad risk averse and would probably give Leake the nod over some of the riskier upside guys here, but I understand the caveats re: his ceiling.
Food for thought though: how would the prospect community feel about Leake if he had posted really good numbers at Double-A and Triple-A this year?
by PhillyFriar on Jul 20, 2010 6:35 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Would you take Leake over Jurrjens?
I think its an interesting comparison. Jurrjens has the better K rate, similar BB rate, and similar GB rate. Far ahead in FIP and slight edge in xFIP. Definitely proven he can handle the workload better. I just wonder because you seem down on Jurrjens, but seem to like Leake.
That is an interesting comparison. Computer’s on the fritz so don’t have the numbers in front of me, but off the top of my head, I’ll admit I’m a sucker for ground ball pitchers and lean towards Leake (incidentally, it’s Jurrjens’ regression in that area that scares me the most). I also think he has more room to improve given that he essentially jumped straight from college ball to the majors, and I expect the K and BB to improve in subsequent seasons while Jurrjens have held steady.
As you said though, fascinating comp, though as an unabashed Leake fanboy I’m probably the wrong person to ask.
by PhillyFriar on Jul 20, 2010 11:31 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Jurrjens has an edge
in sample size. I’m very interested to see where Leake is in a couple of years and how they might compare. What he’s shown while jumping straight to the majors is, frankly, amazing. I think he’s a bit of an outlier at this point due to the unusual circumstances of his career path.
They do make for an interesting comparison though. They’re both pitchers that, for me at least, need to be seen. I don’t think the metrics quite do justice to either, and I’d take either in a heartbeat if I were looking to build a long haul rotation. Jurrjens’ shoulder issue is worrisome, but we could be talking about Leake’s arm just as easily in two years. Between injuries and guys just taking sudden leaps forward, pitching lists of this sort are just too damned volatile. The one thing that I think everyone can agree on — per Alskor’s initial list — is that there seem to be a LOT of promising young pitchers all of a sudden.
by blackoutyears on Jul 21, 2010 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions
Garcia probably should have been a HM.
Dammit. There’s the second one. I’ll add him on. That’s a good catch.
I don’t think he’s quite this good nor was I particularly high on him as a prospect, though….
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
Really?
The only reason I followed him when he was finally healthy was the scouting reports. Even when hurt he garnered the best reviews in the Cards system, though that’s not exactly a Herculean feat, I know. lol
I don’t know if he’s THIS good either, and he has slipped of late, but I’m keeping an eye on him. I think he has the skillset to be very effective if he can stay healthy. And he’s in the Reds’ division, so I watch him the way Cards fans probably scrutinize Cueto/Leake/Volquez. I know we’re probably going to be facing Wainwright and Garcia for the next half deade (Carp’s gotta go sometime, right?), so I hope Garcia isn’t this good.
by blackoutyears on Jul 20, 2010 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions
I just thought injuries would mean a future in the pen for him.
Secondary offerings aren’t spectacular, either.
Kind of wrote him off.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
Funny
I saw him in 2008 and he topped out at 91; couldn’t throw a secondary pitch for a strike; and I thought he was a bullpen guy at best. Even talked to a scout who said “he’s got some decent pitches but it’s not dominating stuff.” Just goes to show you…
Interesting on both counts
And yeah, banking on pitchers to cooperate with your expectations will only confound. lol
by blackoutyears on Jul 21, 2010 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, then, what can I say? I suppose these kind of lists really aren't for you...
Last year you were probably pretty shocked by how high people had Stephen Strasburg…
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
No, I had Stras as the #1 prospect in baseball
Comparing Teheran to Starsburg is laughable.
Teheran right now is about equal to Hughes 4 years ago.
No need to be nasty
We talked about this in the other thread. Its your choice of the title “TOP 20 ….” that gives people pause. These aren’t the top 20 pitchers, these are the pitchers with the top potential.
I'm not being nasty...
I just don’t think there’s a place for the “how can you put a guy in A Ball over the pitcher on my favorite team” argument. Quite obviously that’s a flawed methodology. If we didn’t put any guys in A ball over any major leaguers that would leave us with a less than desirable result. We know that some of the guys in A ball are going to end up better than some of the guys in the majors. He admits as much -
Comparing Teheran to Starsburg is laughable.
Teheran right now is about equal to Hughes 4 years ago.
His problem isn’t that Teheran is in A Ball at all, clearly. He just doesn’t like the placement over his guy… which is a totally valid opinion – I had them right next to each other. It’s not like I dislike Phil Hughes or even that I think Teheran is much better. I think they’re roughly equal. His problem is with my assessment of Teheran. If he’s got a point to make on that front I’m more than willing to listen.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
A point?
Let’s see… Hughes was doing what Teheran is doing right now in 2006 (except he was doing it in AA)
Hughes has a 3.65 ERA, 3.59 FIP, 8.11 K/9, and 2.58 BB/9 in the AL East.
Last year he had a 3.03 ERA, 3.22 FIP, 10.05 K/9, and 2.93 BB/9.
It has absolutely nothing to do who my favorite team is. He just so happened to be the first major leaguer you put behind a guy in A ball. Teheran is a great prospect, but Hughes has already shown he can do it in the majors.
Well
I certainly give some credit for showing you can do it in the majors, but nowhere near as much as you apparently.
Hughes’ rates from last year are boosted as a result of pitching out of the pen.
Let me ask you this: What is it you don’t like about Teheran?
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
Teheran
It isn’t that I don’t like Teheran (he would be my #2 pitching prospect behind Hellickson) , he just has a longgggg way to go before he gets to the majors. There are tons of pitchers that look great in the low minors and never live up to the hype. Hughes has already shown he can dominate against major leaguers, Teheran has dominated A ball.
Right. That's what I was saying above...
You don’t have a material disagreement with these placements, you simply have an ideological difference about how to do these types of lists. if you take that position there isn’t much common ground for us to discuss.
While many pitchers have great A ball numbers they don’t live up to, Teheran has fantastic stuff and has thoroughly impressed scouts. I’m buying it but I understand where you’re coming from.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
I can see the argument for Hughes, but Teheran has a pretty good one as well
Highest upside of any pitcher in the minors. He’s progressing at a similar rate to Hughes and dominating to a similar degree. His fastball is every bit as good and his current change up is far better than the show me one that Hughes has. Hughes on the other hand has better breaking stuff but Teheran has plenty of time to further develop his (obviously no guarantee). Teheran has a higher upside at this point, but Hughes is a far more sure thing. Alskor’s going out on a limb, but I think its defensible.
Yeah, like I said Hughes has the better breaking stuff
While Teheran has a much better change up
Teheran over Hughes
Is not defensible in any way shape or form. I can’t believe some of the stuff I’m reading from guys I truly respect.
Just sayin’
I heard Tim Lincecum will win 1 Cy Young & 11 Tim Lincecums. Question is, how many Cole Hamels will he win?
by the pinstripes on Jul 23, 2010 12:51 AM EDT up reply actions
+1
Maybe I’m just naive, but I just don’t get this Buchholz love. He’s not even pitching as well as he did last year (less K’s, more BB, lower GB%), and he wasn’t even that good last year (4.09 xFIP)… his exceedingly lucky HR/FB rate (and possibly the Red Sox infield defense) is the only thing keeping his ERA down at this point. The only statistical advantage he has on Hughes is GB%, and while that is significant, Buchholz just doesn’t seem to miss enough bats or have good enough command of his supposed “great” stuff to combat the significant advantages that Hughes has in K/9 and BB/9.
Quickly, I would also include Mat Latos and Brett Anderson being ranked ahead of Buchholz… Latos has significantly improved his GB% this year while maintaining stellar K/9 and K/BB rates. Anderson, in my mind, has just been a flat-out better pitcher. If he had a shoulder injury, I’d be concerned obviously, but it’s an elbow, and that’s much easier to deal with. Even with TJS, I’d rank him ahead of Buchholz right now.
This
Comparing Buchholz with the much-maligned Matt Cain, I see:
1) They’re within a couple of months of the same age with very similar career MLB K/9 and BB/9,
2) Buchholz has a substantially higher GB%,
3) Cain is already established as a 200+ IP workhorse, and
3) Cain has a lot more PA on which to base an assumption that his low HR/FB and BABIP are repeatable events.
What I don’t see is how those add up to Buchholz in the top 10 and Cain dismissed as a “mid-rotation starter” who doesn’t seem to be anywhere near the top 20.
I can see Buchholz ahead of Cain with the right amount of “OMG GB%!” and “his better velocity will mean something eventually!” squinting (though I don’t agree, as I think Cain’s durability outweighs that), but I don’t understand how they can occupy entirely different tiers in the young pitcher universe.
People can still dream on what Buccholz can be
While Cain already has an established performance level. I agree with what you’re saying, though I do think Buccholz has better stuff and thus an argument to be ranked higher. However, I tend to think they should be ranked much more closely than they are.
Also, I think alskor would admit that he’s a sucker for good GB rates, so I’m sure that has a lot to do with it.
Yup.
Buchholz was the best pitching prospect in baseball a couple years back. His stuff is significantly better than Cain’s. He throws harder than Cain. He has two MLB out pitches. He has a track record of minor league high K rates. He’s still figuring it out. I don’t put much emphasis on having proven something a the MLB level. I’m projecting the future, not telling you what already happened.
High GBs and High K numbers is where its at. Buchholz has extreme GB numbers and I think the Ks will come.
Also, if Buchholz was pitching in San Francisco, in the NL the last few years he’d have some pretty damn good numbers.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
I love Buchholz
but doubt he would have done great in SF the past couple of years. He has serious composure issues on the mound. I think he is starting to get over this. The league would have helped a little but the meltdowns would still be there.
I do like him more going forward. I do think you underrate Cain. Maybe he is going for more FB because his environment encourages it. And if he was the way you envision him his road numbers would be much worse and they are not.
Cain struck out guys at a higher rate in AAA
I do think you’re really overrating Buccholz’s ability to strike guys out. He hasn’t struck out more than a guy an inning since a short stint in AA in 2008. Yeah, his K rates were great back in 2007, but I don’t think we should be assuming he’s that same guy anymore. His GB rates were significantly lower back then in the minors than they are now in the majors. He’s just pitching differently and he won’t keep up the GB rate if he looks to get back to striking out a ton of guys.
I'll disagree on some level; it seems like part of his problem is that he doesn't properly use his stuff
He’s got strong contact and whiff rates, both easily above-average, but his strikeout rate is below-average in spite of this.
I would argue that one of the biggest points in Buchholz’s favor is his GB rate, which has always been strong and sits at 51% so far in 2010.
It just seems like his numbers don’t quite match his stuff, because he shouldn’t have a K/9 near 6.
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Jul 23, 2010 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions
That might be part of it
Though the contact rate on his out of zone pitches this year is above league average. I think that’s certainly a better argument than saying his K rates were higher in the minors, so we should expect a big bounce back to elite status.
The minor league numbers don’t really support that. His last year with elite K rates came back in 2006 and 2007, and his GB rates were around 45% then against worse competition. I don’t think he can maintain his 50+% GB rate of the past few seasons in the majors while still pitching for strikeouts like he did back then.
I have to ask, isn’t it possible that part of his awesome GB tendency is due to weak contact with 2 strike pitches? Basically pitching to GB contact instead of the K? If he started pitching for Ks, wouldn’t that cause his GB rate to drop?
Oh, I can definitely see a scenario where his GB rate is directly related to the decrease in his K/9
And frankly, that’s what I’m worried about.
The increase in GB rate really excites me. But at the same time, if it’s at the expense of his above-average ability to miss bats, then I’m a bit skeptical as to whether it’s an overall long-term upgrade for Buchholz as a starter.
I’d love to compare one of his scouting reports from 2007 to a scouting report from today. His velocity is clearly up compared to then, at least according to Pitch F/X data, but I’m seriously concerned about the lack of strikeouts. At least in terms of his future as a top-of-the-rotation starter. I worry that he’ll never be able to balance his stuff, command, control and poise enough to become more than a good mid-rotation starter.
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Jul 24, 2010 2:50 AM EDT up reply actions
It doesn't worry me at all.
He posted excellent GB rates throughout the minors (47.7 career MiLB) ALONG with excellent K rates
People are putting too much emphasis on when he went back down after messing up his mechanics. Up to his MLB debut he was an elite K and elite GB rate pitcher with fantastic stuff, two plus secondary pitches, throws hard and was the #2 or #4 prospect in the game depending on who you asked.
I’m going to repost his BP scouting report from prior to the 2009 season:
Year In Review: After finishing the previous year on such a strong note, the Red Sox surprised some by starting Buchholz off at Double-A this season, but he blew away hitters at two levels before throwing a no-hitter in his second big league start, and establishing himself as the top pitching prospect in the game.
The Good: Buchholz is the total package with outstanding stuff, outstanding command and control, and outstanding mound presence. His four-seam fastball sits at 92-94 mph, can touch 97, and features excellent movement. It also isn’t even his best pitch. His plus-plus curveball is a true 12-6 breaker, and multiple scouts relay stories of batters falling down while trying to hit it. His changeup is also an above-average offering that features a late and heavy drop. He also mixes in a solid slider, and a two-seam fastball with some sink. His mechanics are smooth and sound, and he pitches with a fearless intensity.
The Bad: Anything here is nitpicking. At times, Buchholz becomes a bit too enamored with his secondary offerings, and needs to focus more on setting everything up with his fastball. Some felt this was solved at the big league level when Jason Varitek called all the pitches. Buchholz was shut down at the end of the season due to minor arm soreness, but it was done purely on a precautionary basis, and there are no long-term concerns.
Fun Fact: While at Angelina college, Buchholz was also the best hitter on the team, and would still have been drafted in the first ten rounds as an outfielder if he’d never pitched.
Perfect World Projection: Buchholz is one of the few pitching prospects around with true ace potential.
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6902
His changeup improved after that to the point many thought it was as good as the curve. AND he’s averaging almost 93.8 with the fastball now.
I have zero concerns he was too high on this list. I am slightly concerned I have him too low, in fact.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
He's not a 50+% GB pitcher if he goes for Ks
His minor league numbers point to that. He’d still post good GB rates (probably around 45% like his MiLB career), but he’s not going to maintain the elite GB rate and add the elite K rate. The K rates may move up some (7 to 7.5 per 9) with the same GB rate, but if you expect him to get back to 8.5 K/9, expect the GB rate to fall back to 45% or so. There’s nothing wrong with that and its still deserving of a high spot, but if you think he’ll combine the elite K rate with the 50+% GB rate, you’re probably going to be disappointed.
I think ~45 GB% and >8 K/9 is what i would project... and that's awesome.
YR – K/9 – GB%
05 – 9.8 – 51.4
06 – 10.44 – 44.2
07 – 12.20 – 46.2
08 – 9.15 – 44.7
This while he was young ARL with challenging assignments and still learning to pitch and developing his repertoire.
Honestly a lot of his problems with Ks is that he mixes his pitches too much and doesn’t pitch off the fastball (which is an excellent pitch itself). He’s been learning that more and more.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
That's definitely awesome
I’d actually slot him right were you do, I’d just drop Billingsley to 9 or 10, move Kershaw to 6 and bump Hanson to 7 (though I think he and Buchholz are basically even), but that’s really just minor stuff.
Its funny because I think both Hanson and Buchholz basically need to learn how to pitch, but they’re on the exact opposite ends of the spectrum. Hanson doesn’t mix his pitches well enough, pitching almost exclusively off his 4 seam and slider combo, even to LHH. Buchholz on the other hand seems to throw the kitchen sink at people because he has so much confidence in all his pitches.
Buccholz is nastier...
and I really like his future. He should be really nice for a long time.
Hughes is going to be pretty good himself, but Buccholz has alot of upside and he’s in the right place for it.
Love
The Holland placement. I think people are forgetting about him but I love his arm action and stuff from the left side.
Wondering if Lamb might have been 21?
Ugh...either him, Montgomery or Hellickson.
They were all in the top 20 at one point…
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
Agreed
It’s bemusing that Holland may not have a rotation spot waiting for him when he’s done rehabbing.
by blackoutyears on Jul 20, 2010 6:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Not bemusing
It might not be wise to count on him being consistent coming off extended DL time, but give him a long rehab, bring him up in time to be eligible for the playoff roster and see what happens.
Freude schöner Götterfunken, Tochter aus Elysium, Freude!
Bemusing to me
because the Rangers seem committed to running Tommy Hunter and Feldman (who’s as unlucky this year as he was lucky in 2009) out there instead, and mostly because they seem to think it’s in Holland’s best interests to impress upon him the fact that he’s not guaranteed a spot. You could make an argument that Holland should be considered over Feldman at the least.
I can see your primary argument, but unless the Rangers are running away with the division, sitting on Holland in Oklahoma until the playoffs may cost them. If he’s healthy, and pitching as he was directly prior to the injury (those one-inning relief stints aside), then he’s one of their five best starters. Hunter is currently out-performing his FIP by two full runs. Considering that, maybe he’ll regress drastically enough that the natural order will assert itself.
by blackoutyears on Jul 21, 2010 6:35 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm certain
that if Holland is completely healthy and ready after a few rehab starts he’ll be considered. He’s better than Feldman.
Freude schöner Götterfunken, Tochter aus Elysium, Freude!
Yeah.
I was praying for Holland to be included in a Lee deal. Darn Rangers and their newfound pitching smarts.
by Kenneth Arthur on Jul 20, 2010 7:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Solid list
Definitely not an easy thing to do, and while I’m sure there will be arguments to come regarding individual pitchers, I don’t think anyone is terribly out of place here.
My only quibble would be Anderson — certainly justifiable to drop him based on the elbow scare, but aside from that, I’m not seeing much to dislike. Stuff has really ticked up in the past few years, gets grounders, strikeouts and walks are good (and should, I think, continue to improve) — in fact, while I don’t have the numbers in front of me, I have to think that many of the same arguments you laid out for Romero apply for Anderson too.
Overall though, great job here.
by PhillyFriar on Jul 20, 2010 6:11 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
Zach Britton
Can you explain what you mean by “I’m not sure how many bats hill miss”? I’ve seen that same exact phrase on 5-6 different list and it seems like a regurgitation. Hes a GB pitcher, the best one in the minors based on the numbers, so why is “missing bats” important?
How many ground ball pitchers with meh K rates become FOR starters? That’s why it’s important.
(Not saying that that’s necessarily the case with Britton, who I like an awful lot. Just saying it’s a legitimate concern for any pitcher.)
by PhillyFriar on Jul 20, 2010 6:20 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
"Why is missing bats important?"
Its the single most important thing a pitcher can do. Missing bats correlates extremely well with success & with major league success – more than any other thing a pitcher can do.
If Britton is only striking out 5.5 guys per 9 in AAA (SS) and 7.0 in AA what kind of K rates will he post in the majors? This indicates to me his stuff probably isn’t going to be deceptive enough for him to be a real front line guy. He does enough other things well to be a really good prospect despite that. I don’t think where I place him is any kind of insult.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
Specifically missing bats/K rate is extremely strongly linked to AVG against.
The less bats you miss the higher your AVG against will be. The higher your AVG against is, the more runs will be scored against you.
Obviously other things are important… for examples, sometimes prospects fool minor leaguers by compiling high K rates working up in the zone… that’s not a great recipe for MLB success, either. Britton does the other things a pitcher needs to do really well. He’s a very good prospect. His K rates still ding him enough to miss my top 20.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
I wasn't questioning your placement
So much as your recycled argument. Again, I’ve seen it on too many list. I happen to think a guy with an extreme GB rate can be a damned good pitcher with a K per 9 at around 6
Think Tim Hudson or Greg Maddox.
I certainly think he can be a damned good pitcher.
He’s one of the better HMs.
Fwiw, I think I was one of if not the first to really promulgate that argument around here (not that it would make it any better in your eyes).
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
Groundballs
must be paired with strong strikeout rates if you expect long term success. Not saying the guy has to be Brandon Webb, but we’re talking about elite talent and upside, ADLC, not solid. Maddux, for instance, actually had fairly good whiff rates right into his early 30s. OTOH, he also didn’t walk anyone, which is another piece of the puzzle. 1.8BB/9IP in 5000+ IP is amazing.
by blackoutyears on Jul 20, 2010 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Also
Did you just use Maddux as a point of comparison? You must know how problematic it is to compare anyone to him…
by blackoutyears on Jul 20, 2010 6:47 PM EDT up reply actions
???
That may be the hair-splittingest post I’ve seen all week. I’m sure you can probably bloviate on it in a way that appears to justify it, but I’ll invite you to save the explanation. As a fellow Mick, that’s blarney.
by blackoutyears on Jul 22, 2010 7:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Even if we're differentiating the two...
I don’t think we should ever do either one.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
LOL
No Bumgarner? Get serious. What would he have to do to gain your respect? Do you ever even watch him pitch?
"There ain’t much to being a ballplayer, if you’re a ballplayer." - Honus Wagner
Been waiting for that shoe to drop
I didn’t want to be the one to bring his name up. He’s too polarizing for me. Add Bumgarner to the list of things you can’t discuss in polite company.
by blackoutyears on Jul 20, 2010 6:35 PM EDT up reply actions
I prefer guys with good secondary pitches.
and… you know… good K rates.
He’s a HM. Its not like he’s a bad prospect/pitcher… but he wasn’t close to cracking this list.
The last time you did this I thought you were joking.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
MadBum has at least a good cut FB that he he can throw to either side of the plate and can throw for stirkes. Once again, I ask, when was the last time you actually saw him pitch more than one or 2 pitches on a highlight show?
"There ain’t much to being a ballplayer, if you’re a ballplayer." - Honus Wagner
Let’s set aside the fact that he won’t turn 21 until August (making him by far the youngest on your list besides Matzek, Perez, and Teheran who are nowhere near the majors) and compare his actual results to the results of the guy you have ranked #1 on your list. Over their last 4 games (I’m throwing out Bumgarner’s first game that he pitched versus Boston this year – clearly a case of nerves) here’s what MadBum and Strasburg have done;
Strasburg: 3-1, IP=23.1, ER=6, H=17, BB=9, K=27, WHIP=1.16, ERA=2.31, BAA=.195
Bumgarner: 3-1, IP=26.2, ER=5, H=25, BB=6, K=19, WHIP=1.16, ERA=1.69, BAA=.238
Now, I’m not saying that MadBum is as good as Strasburg, or has the same potential, but he’s certainly in the same conversation. Also, when MadBum reaches the same age as Strasburg is now next July, it’s no stretch to project that he’ll be performing even closer to the stats that Strasburg is putting up now.
"There ain’t much to being a ballplayer, if you’re a ballplayer." - Honus Wagner
You guys are so quick to point fingers at anybody that brings up a lucid and fact-based discussion of a legitimate top-ranked prospect, without 1 single cogent thing to add. You’re the ones that are bringing this down a level.
"There ain’t much to being a ballplayer, if you’re a ballplayer." - Honus Wagner
You just tried comparing Bumgarner to Strasburg, therefore you jumped the shark
You claimed he’s in the same conversation. He’s not and not even the Giants FO would agree with you. Strasburg is unprecedented, while Bumgarner is a solid prospect with good command of an above average fastball, underwhelming secondary stuff, and good deception.
by nixa37 on Jul 20, 2010 8:12 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
No no
he’s saying that Bumgarner succeeds in a style similar to Strasburg’s, except with the opposite hand and different pitches.
by blackoutyears on Jul 27, 2010 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Well if I asked you to tell me why David DeJesus was better than Albert Pujols, many people would just dismiss it.
Look, I’m an AVID Felix Hernandez fan and even I’m not arguing that he’s better than Strasburg. Nobody is saying that Bumgarner isn’t a talent, but this is just ridiculous.
And using a 4-start sample size isn’t going to convince anyone of anything.
by Kenneth Arthur on Jul 20, 2010 8:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Humbled Fan FTW
Comparing four starts and making that pronouncement is a new brand of hubris.
by blackoutyears on Jul 21, 2010 6:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes, it is a stretch
Their peripheral stats are not even remotely comparable. Bumgarner’s strikeout rate is 17% both in AAA and the majors this year. Strasburg’s strikeout rate in the majors is 35%.
Bumgarner’s small MLB sample xFIP is a respectable 4.00. Strasburg’s slightly larger sample size xFIP is a MLB-best 2.11. Expecting similar performance out of these pitchers going forward is preposterous.
What do WHIP or BAA have to do with anything?
If you’re going to make the argument, use stats that matter. Remove strikeouts from those two equations, and they’re just not repeatable skills.
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
My Team
Come to think of it, I’m pretty pissed Cosart didn’t crack your top 20.
by PhillyFriar on Jul 20, 2010 7:00 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
I’d take Jordan Zimmermann before a couple guys in your top twenty, let alone the honorable mentions.
this i agree with
I heard Tim Lincecum will win 1 Cy Young & 11 Tim Lincecums. Question is, how many Cole Hamels will he win?
by the pinstripes on Jul 23, 2010 12:54 AM EDT up reply actions
I'd prefer to see either Cain or Cahill over Chapman
I like Chapman, but I don’t think he warrants a top 20. Cain has been consistently good with little run support and I’m buying Cahill’s numbers this year, simply because he is keeping the ball down more consistently like he should.
Other than that, this is really great stuff.
Yeah, Cain deserves to be in the top 20. This guy is putting way too much emphasis on potential and hype, and not enough on actual major league results. I guarantee you that several years in the future when you compare their performances after 1000 major league innings pitched and 4 years service time, 25% of these pitchers won’t put up anything close to the numbers that Cain already has at age 25.
"There ain’t much to being a ballplayer, if you’re a ballplayer." - Honus Wagner
Lets talk actual major league results
Matt Cain’s career ERA is 3.50. Matt Cain pitches in a park that hides his flaws and is actually much closer to a true talent 4.50 ERA starter. He doesn’t strike out a lot of guys (~7/9 and trending down into the 6s recently), walks too many(>3/9) and is an extreme flyball pitcher(35% GB rate). He’s… just… not… that good at any aspect of pitching. He’s okay. A solid mid-rotation starter who plays in a park that makes him look a lot better. His career xFIP is 4.52, 4.73 this season and has been over 4 every season of his career.
Good not great.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
While I agree for the most part xFIP clearly isn't a good measure for Cain
I think we can safely say at this point that his ability to limit HR/FB is real and not just random luck. We are talking about 1000 IP with a 6.8% HR/FB. I think the 3.89 FIP is a better measure of his true talent than the 4.52 xFIP.
His ballpark definitely helps
His true talent level probably lies somewhere in between those two numbers.
Its clearly much closer to his FIP
His career FIP on the road is still more than .5 lower than his xFIP.
Or... can we say he plays in a home park with a park factor consistently below 1.000 and often substantially so...?
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
Sure that helps, but it doesn't completely explain it
He has a career FIP of 3.92 on the road compared to a 4.46 xFIP. At home those numbers are 3.87 and 4.54, so either way xFIP clearly isn’t an accurate measure. His HR/FB is still just 7.3% on the road throughout his career.
I still think its just odd groupings/luck
Though he does have a high IFFB%.
I just can’t buy that he allows such an extreme amount of balls to be hit in the air but still maintains the ability to keep them in the ballpark. I wouldn’t expect that to continue with the HRs… the poor GB percentage… yes.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
Why not?
This has been debated before, and though xFIP does correlate a little better for all pitchers, it does so at the expense of disregarding a legitimate skill. There are pitchers that limit their HR/FB beyond above average IFFB%. I don’t know why this would seem odd. If pitchers have a measure of control over opponents batting average, why not HR/FB as well?
And it seems a little ridiculous to disregard a sample size this large. We’re talking about a 1000 IP sample size with a way below average HR/FB rate. To think after this long its luck and not skill seems strange. You’re a smart guy Al, I don’t know why you’d just accept HR/FB as a non-skill.
I didn't say it was a non skill...
I’m just highly skeptical he could have such a high degree of this skill while at the same time demonstrating such a poor command of the overall skill of keeping the ball on the ground. We have here a player with two similar skills and he’s at the far extreme of each on opposite sides. Doesn’t pass the sniff test. I don’t accept there is something about his repertoire or way he pitches that allows ~19% LDs, ~45% FBs and is yet somehow able to strongly limit hard hit flyballs from going out of the park. I think it has to do more with luck and the parks he pitched in (as well as random noise).
I accept some of this is skill… but not to the extent you seem to be saying. He’s also been lucky.
I understand its a statistically significant sample. Unless you can explain to me what about the way he pitches is producing this strange effect I’m going to continue considering his HR/FB rate a strange outlier. I’m certainly willing to listen to what you have to say, though. I mean… does he leave pitches up that get hard… but not in the spots that result in HRs? I’m very skeptical it is something Cain is doing that is responsible for most of this.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
Significant number of FB
That are either hit too high or just off the sweet spot to be hit out. There are a few FB pitchers that rank highly on the HR/FB leaderboard. Brandon Webb is on of the worst despite being a GB pitcher. Maybe sinkers that are hit in the air are more likely to go out than 4 seamers because you don’t usually get way under a sinker when you put it in the air.
wow
No Cain? Any one of the guys in the minors would love to even have a sniff at what Cain has done.
And Martin freakin Perez over Danks? Danks is an ace. Perez has good stuff but also serious question marks. Just because he throws harder doesn’t mean he has higher upside.
Danks is an ace.
This requires an extremely liberal definition of “Ace.”
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
by alskor on Jul 20, 2010 8:35 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
why?
He has pitched mid 3’s ERA in the AL in one of the better hitters parks. What more do you want?
Better peripherals
They were pretty ugly last year even though the ERA was still good. He’s a tough guy to get a read on right now, but if he keeps it up this year I could see him moving up a good bit next year.
ugly?
great hit rate, solid whip, high hr rate but park driven. not sure what isn’t to like.
K rate was down, BB rate was up
FIP of 4.59 and xFIP of 4.44
I also think the HR rate last year might be closer to his true talent level, but its tough to get a read because its moved around so much.
He's a better pitcher than he was in 2009, though
His K is back up and his BB is back down, although his 2.3 K/BB isn’t as good as his 2008 mark of 2.79. Then again, he’s also improved his GB rate nearly 5% since then, so he’s clearly making some adjustments.
I don’t know if I’d call him an ace, but that’s only under the assumption that we’re not simply talking about the top-30 pitchers in baseball.
Plus, it’s worth giving him some credit for durability.
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Jul 21, 2010 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Hey, that's why he is where he is.
Which I thought was a pretty aggressive placement.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
It's a little aggressive, but I buy into it
You have to give him some credit for already being so good, as well as the fact that he appears to be a legitimate workhorse.
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Jul 21, 2010 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions
The ranking is ok, having him behind Perez is the real problem.
Is Perez any better than a Jacob turner or Casey Crosby type of great arm high upside HS pitcher with secondary stuff concerns? There are just far far too many questions to put him there.
With Danks you have a guy with a 3.5 ERA in the AL in a jitters park that is durable and the only concerns are if his Fip or xFIP shows he has been lucky (for 3 years straight). Seems like you are nitpicking with one and ignoring the pink elephant with the other.
I have not heard that
I heard quality change that projected as plus and a curve that flashed plus at times. That is great potential and he is very young. But so many times we hear that and it doesn’t work out. And Perez has serious stamina concerns. Maybe he will answer those concerns with better conditioning and growing into his body. But they are valid concerns.
Totally Agree
On the stamina and body concerns. Also would say there are control/command concerns. But I’m not particularly concerned about the secondary stuff.
to clarify
on the secondary stuff I don’t have any more concerns with him than with any other fairly raw AA pitcher.
It’s just that many seem to overlook that very often secondary pitches do not develop in a linear way and being young for the level does not mean those pitches will in fact develop.
recent reports
from both mr. kupe and I believe the other was Trip Somers over at bbtia.com say that his changeup has taken a big step forward. I’m sure mrkupe will speak to what he sees tonight at Perez’s game. This will be his second time seeing him in the last month. He’ll be able to tell us if his change has found more consistency and if it is as dominant as the last time he saw him.
thats what I want to hear
I have heard he had a good change but it’s the consistency that is critical.
Also, I would really like to hear about his command (dont care about the control) and how he fares later in the game. Does he tire early? Does it affect his breaking pitches? His location? Velocity?
I haven't heard
reports of his velo dropping. He’s had bouts of command trouble this year, and talked of a mechanical tweak. But the command/location issues haven’t seemed to come because of fatigue, they sometimes happen early, mid, late. Seems more of a consistency thing.
Freude schöner Götterfunken, Tochter aus Elysium, Freude!
Thus why I made the comment about him keeping it up
Like I said, he’s a tough guy to get a good read on right now because his performance has jumped around so much. If he keeps his current pace up for the rest of the season, I could see him moving up some. Still, the xFIP isn’t great this year and he’s never been this good in HR/FB before, so I have some doubts that its real talent.
I wasn’t disagreeing with the ranking at all, just trying to give some possible reasoning to pedrophile.
Aces
Satchel, I’d hazard that there aren’t 30 aces period. Not every team has one if we’re being honest, unless we’re plowing the infertile terrain of conflating a team’s #1/best starter with an ace.
by blackoutyears on Jul 21, 2010 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm sorry but John Danks
IS NO ACE
and you could never convince me otherwise
I’m sure he’s somewhere between a #3 and #2 starter at best…. I don’t care what is FIP was last year…
Wow Blackburn makes nearly identical money as Baker does now....
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Jul 21, 2010 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions
I like the list a lot
and I think the only major question I have is the omission of Brandon Morrow, who I would slot around #15, based on his stuff, strikeout rate and the adjustments he seems to be making now that he’s in Toronto.
He’s striking out 10.12 per 9, and has whittled his walk rate to a reasonable 4.12 per 9, and while his homer rate is a little on the lucky side, it’s not outrageously so.
His FIP is 3.31, and his xFIP is 3.92 in a tough division in a tough park, and he still sits in the mid 90s with his fastball.
Thanks
I really need to see him do it more… and stay healthy
I’m encouraged by his showing this year but he still has some major flaws in his game. His control is a huge red flag for me.
He probably should be on the HM list despite that.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
Anderson should be a little higher..
And Cahill should be there somewhere… prob one higher than Holland.
"Carter's 25-game hitting streak isn't any normal streak. He's 46 for 97 (.474 average) during the run, adding 16 walks and compiling 81 total bases in the process. I'm out of superlatives for what he's doing." - Kevin Goldstein
Cahill earned his spot
"The key to winning baseball games is pitching, fundamentals, and three run homers."
by fourfingerwoo on Jul 21, 2010 12:09 AM EDT up reply actions
Billingsley?
I don’t really think he belongs on this list at all, let alone at 6. He simply hasn’t produced all that much at the Major League level, and he only qualifies for this list by a week and a half anyway.
+1
But then again, I hated him as a 20-year-old too. He certainly is not ahead of his rotation-mate.
by realitypolice on Jul 21, 2010 2:53 AM EDT up reply actions
Lol
Wow, this is just completely ignorant. I guess you were in a coma for 2006, 2007, 2008, and the first half of 2009? Not to mention this year (Compare his ERA to his FIP and xFIP, he’s been unlucky).
"Stop exploding you cowards!!!"
You got me!
I’m sorry, I just see a guy with a declining K rate (9.0 in 2008, 7,6 this year) who consistantly walks more than 3 batters per 9 (a career low 3.1 this year!) and can only hope to imagine that there are 15 more pitchers younger than him who are also better. I also couldn’t possibly remember 2007 or 2008 because that was so long ago!
Since 2006, Billingsley is 41st in WAR amongst pitchers. Here is the list of pitchers who are within 1 WAR of Billingsley over that timeframe:
Ervin Santana
Ted Lilly
Gil Meche
Jon Garland
Scott Baker
Tim Hudson
Bronson Arroyo
John Danks (1.6 more than Billingsley since 2008, yet is 8 spots lower on the list)
Ryan Dempster
Jose Contreras
Wandy Rodriquez
Ben Sheets
Brad Penny
Francisco Liriano
Other than Liriano, who is only there because of the injury he suffered at the end of 2006, there isn’t one pitcher on that list that I would get excited about. A list of Top anything should be a list that has exciting names on it. Chad Billingsley is a nice pitcher. But I’m going to say this one more time, with added context, in case it was hard for anyone to interpret: he simply hasn’t produced ALL THAT much at the Major League Level (as in enough to justify his placement on this list), and he only qualifies for this list by a week anyway.
Also, for the record, his career FIP and xFIP are higher than his ERA.
In the future, I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t attack me personally by throwing words around like “ignorant”.
Please, tell me how this statement by you is not ignorant. It's flat out wrong
He simply hasn’t produced all that much at the Major League level,
Billingsley was one of the top pitchers in baseball for the first half of 2009, and then many people believe Billingsley was hiding an injury or having ill effect from breaking his leg in the offseason before the 09 season. From May of 2008 to Mid June of 2009 Billingsley was one of the better pitchers in baseball, definitely one of the top under 25. He had a rough end to 2009 but he’s doing much better this year, unless you look at just the ERA, and if you do, then I don’t think much else has to be said.
Yes he’s striking out less this year, but he just struck out 3 and walked 2 in his last start which was a CGSO…does the 3 strikeouts make his start any less good? I’m thinking…no.
"Stop exploding you cowards!!!"
by Ivdown on Jul 23, 2010 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
FWIW
everyone on that list has produced quite a bit at the major league level, ajake57. I agree that Billingsley’s been somewhat of a disappointment and is overrated based on his former prospect status, but your list actually caused me to reassess him a bit as I have a healthy respect for most of those guys. I think most pitchers would be very happy to have Tim Hudson’s career for instance. And I’d ‘get excited’ over having almost every one of those guys in the middle of my favorite team’s rotation. Arroyo, in fact, currently resides there. lol
by blackoutyears on Jul 27, 2010 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Solid pitcher
Not nearly at the level of the guys who made the top 20 though. Unlikely to ever be anything more than a solid #2, more likely he ends up a good #3.
Darvish Is better then more then half the pitchers here.
And there is no way someone in their right mind, contract aside, would take someone like Holland or Matzek over a guy like Cain.
Kershaw is top 4 at absolute worse.
+1 +1 +1
"The key to winning baseball games is pitching, fundamentals, and three run homers."
by fourfingerwoo on Jul 21, 2010 12:10 AM EDT up reply actions
He didn't include any amateurs
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
I didnt.
Strongly considered Taillon… but decided to duck the whole issue. Pitchers are tough that way… I DID include Harper on my position players, though.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
Including Tallion would've been really premature in my opinion
You have Matzek at 20, and not only was he considered a better prospect coming out of HS, but he’s already pitching in full-season ball, too.
There’s just way too much projection involved in Tallion right now.
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Jul 21, 2010 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Considered a better prospect coming out of HS
by who?
Taillon isn’t worlds ahead of Matzek but hes comfortably ahead (at least in the overall pundit/expert scouting circuit). Matzek’s great but Taillon is special. I think you could argue Matzek > Taillon based on him pitching in full season ball but not based on “prospect status” out of HS.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Jul 21, 2010 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions
Jim Callis, for one
They’re probably more of a toss up, but I’d take Matzek. No, that isn’t a slight. Taillon is a top 25 prospect.
Yeah, Tallion is a really great prospect, but I've heard from multiple sources that Matzek was the better prospect coming into his respective draft
And it’s really more so about how well Matzek finished his senior year, and not because Tallion is underwhelming in any way.
Here’s what Callis had to say:
Coming into their senior seasons, Taillon would have ranked ahead of Matzek. But considering how Matzek finished his senior year, Taillon’s inconsistency this spring (a 19-strikeout no-hitter last Tuesday notwithstanding) and the fact that Matzek is a lefthander, I’d give Matzek the edge. That’s really splitting hairs, however.
My point isn’t necessarily that Matzek is way ahead of Tallion.
Rather, my point is that if Matzek is No. 20 on this list, Tallion doesn’t belong there. Because not only was Matzek considered the better prospect coming into the draft, but he’s already had an extra year of development and he’s in Single-A.
Just because Matzek is on the list doesn’t mean that Tallion deserves to be there, too. Not yet, at least.
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Jul 21, 2010 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions
If I were including Amateurs
Taillon would be right after Matzek. Ranaudo would be after Bumgarner, Purke would be right behind Hellickson.
http://milbprospects.blogspot.com/
by Matt Garrioch on Jul 21, 2010 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions
So you'd put all those guys ahead of Teheran?
Seems a little unfair for a guy with the arguably the best upside in the minors that’s already dominating high-A at 19.
I'd put Teheran ahead of all of those guys, except maybe Hellickson
I think that Teheran is a legitimately special pitcher.
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Jul 22, 2010 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions
Ha ha
so true, PF. And it makes it hard to credit that quote, as Taillon had a lot of baseball left after that game (what was that, his fifth starts of the year?), so comparing his incomplete senior year to Matzek’s was, at best, premature. I have no opinion about which was better — they both look pretty great — but I read a lot of pundits around draft time saying that they liked Taillon better than any h.s. arm in the 2009 draft. Callis just wasn’t one of ’em.
by blackoutyears on Jul 21, 2010 6:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Part of the point is that Matzek finished his senior year really, really strong.
Matzek was reportedly touching 98 with his fastball in his final few starts of his senior year, and there aren’t many left-handed starters that can touch 98 while sitting 94-96.
Obviously his stuff isn’t playing at that level right now, and it might not ever again, but right now I’m just talking about how Matzek was viewed before the 2009 draft.
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Jul 22, 2010 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions
Right
but Taillon finished well too, so comparing his season when it’s 1/3 of the way done to Matzek’s complete season doesn’t make much sense when reading Callis’s quote. I think Matzek looked, and looks, great, and I read the same reports you did on his late-season velocity. OTOH, Taillon had equally legit velo and solid command of two plus pitches, and at this point does not have concerns about his ability to hold velocity. We’ll see how he looks when he’s pitching every fifth day in A-ball. I think the whole argument of which is better is sort of pointless, but as long as Callis was going to make it he should probably have waited until Taillon was finished…
by blackoutyears on Jul 22, 2010 7:32 PM EDT up reply actions
I just think that if you have two monster young pitchers
And both are out of high school, both sit in the mid-90’s and can touch the 97-98, both have two potentially devastating other pitches, and both were considered the top HS pitcher in their class.
They were essentially regarded in the same manner, and I’m sure there would be evaluators on both sides of the argument if you asked all of them to choose just one.
Basically, I see two guys who were really, really close coming out of high school, but most of the time I see that Matzek was ever so slightly ahead of Tallion. I’ve seen Tallion ahead of Matzek at times, too.
But with all that said, looking at the top-20 pitchers ages 25 and under, unless you were absolutely crazy about Tallion and absolutely preferred him to Matzek as respective draft prospects, I don’t know how you put him ahead of Matzek.
Matzek is already in full-season ball and he’s left-handed. Those are two pretty large advantages for Matzek right there. I’m just skeptical that Tallion can make up for those advantages right now.
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Jul 23, 2010 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions
Handedness
is overrated, and I’m seeing a lot more opinion among scouts that reflects that. Half a year in the low minors is no advantage worth speaking of. Let’s talk when they’ve both faced Double-A hitting.
And you seem to think I’m debating Matzek vs. Taillon when I’m clearly not. I’m sta6ing my opinion my opinion that it makes no sense to compare the complete senior year of Matzek to the not-even-halfway-done senior year of Taillon as Callis did. Since I’ve also stated that I consider debates over which is better to be “pointless”, I’m not sure why you’re responding as if I were arguing Taillon over Matzek. I guess people just read what they want to read.
by blackoutyears on Jul 27, 2010 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions
+1
Satchel is trying to make it sound like it is a slam-dunk that Matzek was better coming out of HS. That is flat out not the case. Even when asked to Callis, Jim’s reply was “well, I guess I would take Matzek because he is a lefty.” That sounds to me like they were basically tied, so he went with the lefty.
Yes
But the idea that Taillon is at a different level doesn’t really have any merit. He was more hyped than Matzek or Turner because his stocked soared during the summer rather than the fall (like Matzek and Turner).
Moreover
While Matzek is a “pro” his raw stuff is not as strong now as it was in HS. In his senior year he touched 98 and was touted as having a mid 90s heater. All reports I’ve seen this year have him sitting 90-92.
Not sure how that translates into a “stock up”
Also, notwithstanding Callis’chat comment overall BA ranked taillon higher on their recent best picks of the decade list
Fat man is no more,
Bursting on through Heaven's Door
Come on in, says Bill
I'm absolutely not trying to make the case that Matzek was a slam-dunk
There’s pretty much no such thing as a slam-dunk high school pitcher.
My point is that Tallion isn’t light years ahead of where Matzek was at the same time. So when you factor in the extra development and experience that Matzek has, along with the fact that he’s left-handed, I think it’s fair to argue that if Matzek is No. 20 on this list, Tallion doesn’t belong.
I’m not agreeing with the placements of these guys, I’m simply arguing that if Matzek is the last guy on this list, Tallion doesn’t deserve to be ahead of him yet.
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Jul 22, 2010 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions
I can buy that
Just seemed like you were making an argument for Matzek being a better HS prospect, when the it seems like everyone is split on the two. They are very comparable coming out of HS for sure, with neither one being that slam-dunk you were referring to.
That being said, I don’t mind “punishing” Matzek for his 2010 performance. His control has been horrid thus far. Seems like he has taken a half-step backward in the prospect world.
I'd love to see Cain change parks/divisions
and then when he becomes a consistent 4.20/1.30 pitcher, everyone will say, “oh, he’s just not comfortable with that team”.
by PissedMick on Jul 22, 2010 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Danks and Anderson are a lot better than you think
I can understand the injury penalty for Anderson, but on talent alone I couldn’t put either guy lower than 6 or 7 on this list.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Jul 21, 2010 12:01 AM EDT reply actions
Brett Cecil and Brandon Morrow
are at least deserving of honourable mentions. (though I guess Morrow turns 26 soon)
My top 25
1 Felix Hernandez , P , SEA
2 Stephen Strasburg , P , WSH
3 David Price , P , TB
4 Brett Anderson , P , OAK
5 Phil Hughes , P , NYY
6 Clayton Kershaw , P , LAD
7 Tommy Hanson , P , ATL
8 Neftali Feliz , P , TEX
9 John Danks , P , CHW
10 Ricky Romero , P , TOR
11 Yovani Gallardo , P , MIL
12 Brian Matusz , P , BAL
13 Chris Tillman , P , BAL
14 Rick Porcello , P , DET
15 Trevor Cahill , P , OAK
16 Mat Latos , P , SD
17 Martin Perez , P , TEX
18 Aroldis Chapman , P , CIN
19 Tyler Matzek , P , COL
20 Jeremy Hellickson , P , TB
21 Mike Leake , P , CIN
22 Wade Davis , P , TB
23 Jesse Litsch , P , TOR
24 Jair Jurrjens , P , ATL
25 Madison Bumgarner , P , SF
http://milbprospects.blogspot.com/
Better list.
"Carter's 25-game hitting streak isn't any normal streak. He's 46 for 97 (.474 average) during the run, adding 16 walks and compiling 81 total bases in the process. I'm out of superlatives for what he's doing." - Kevin Goldstein
Yeah... Litsch is a weird choice..
333 innings of MLB ball with respective FIP and xFIP marks of 4.79 and 4.66, not to mention a lack of durability and injuries in the past.
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Jul 21, 2010 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions
Yeah,
Litsch is too high. Made an adjustment and Joba would be the new #25.
http://milbprospects.blogspot.com/
by Matt Garrioch on Jul 21, 2010 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Is that Joba as a reliever, though?
I’m skeptical that Chamberlain will ever return to the rotation at this point.
I’m also pretty worried that we might’ve seen Joba’s arm peak like three years ago, because he’s gone from sitting 96-98 in relief to 94-96.
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Jul 21, 2010 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Goodness
Replacing Litsch with Joba? He is just intent on having one goofy AL East pick in there.
Joba still has a ton
of potential. He has just got yanked around a lot. I have no AL East bias, that is for sure.
http://milbprospects.blogspot.com/
by Matt Garrioch on Jul 21, 2010 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Joba and ESPECIALLY Litsch are both pretty awkward choices
compared to others you could have like Jaime Garcia just to name 1
Wow Blackburn makes nearly identical money as Baker does now....
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Jul 21, 2010 5:52 PM EDT up reply actions
I could literally find 70+
better choices than Jesse Litsch, yuck…ok otherwise, Yo too low and Porcello really shouldn’t be higher than 25 at the best.
If you did have an AL East bias
it would be an ever bigger slight not to include Clay Buchholz, did you forget him or is it because he’s turning 26 soon
Brandon Jacobs of Lowell > Brandon Jacobs of NYG
It's because he's 26 soon.
http://milbprospects.blogspot.com/
by Matt Garrioch on Jul 22, 2010 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm not sure I could agree with Tillman/Porcello/Cahill ahead of some of the guys you have them ahead of.
by Kenneth Arthur on Jul 21, 2010 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Perez
Matzek, Chapman have higher ceilings and could advance past them, but I can’t put them there yet.
http://milbprospects.blogspot.com/
by Matt Garrioch on Jul 21, 2010 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Matzek ahead of Teheran?
Are you just assuming an injury here? I really don’t know why you’re so down on Teheran. What exactly does Matzek have on him?
I'm not down on Teherean
He is a small guy, 150 LBS. I’m concerned he will break down or loose some movement if he bulks up. He has great stuff and if I would take into account what he’s doing ths season, I bet he would be at the end of the top 25 or close. If he does what he’s doing in AA, he will get to top 15.
I love the potential with him as well as Matzek.
http://milbprospects.blogspot.com/
by Matt Garrioch on Jul 21, 2010 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions
But how is he behind guys like Taillon, Ranaudo, and Purke?
Other than size, I don’t see one thing those guys have on him, and he has the advantage of dominating in high-A. I honestly don’t even see what Matzek has on him. Is this all just because of how you rate draft position and bonus? Does the fact that Teheran only got 850,000 hold him back or something?
Ranaudo
is closer to the majors. I love Taillon’s stuff and makeup and prefer him to Teheran. It has nothing to do with his signing bonus.
Purke has had ace type stuff every time I have seen him.
In my formula I have floor and ceiling. Teheran has a 9 ceiling, Taillon, Matzek, and Purke have 10’s.
I love his changeup and it’s not that I don’t really like him. If he would have a 10 ceiling, it would move him to behind Gallado.
http://milbprospects.blogspot.com/
by Matt Garrioch on Jul 22, 2010 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions
If Teheran has a 9 ceiling, you're underrating his upside
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Jul 22, 2010 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions
You have to be kidding
In what would is Ranaudo, who has never throw a single pitch as a professional, closer to the majors than Teheran, who is already dominating high-A. That’s just ridiculous. How can you defend that?
How do you explain Teheran having a lower ceiling than all of those guys? This is a guy who consistently gets referred to as having the highest upside of any pitcher left in the minors. He throws easy 93-94 gas with a plus change and a solid curve that’s still developing. I take his fastball change combo over any of the guys you listed, and we have no idea how Taillon’s and Purke’s breaking stuff will translate with the pro ball.
The only reason I brought up signing bonus is because you used than as an explanation of Teheran’s relatively low ranking in the past. I know you’re trying to take a numbers based approach and its a novel idea, but if you’re going to use your own subjective inputs as well, you have to get them right. If you’re only giving Teheran a 9 for upside, then that’s a big part of your problem.
i would put cash $$$ on ranuado reaching the big leagues first
especially considering Teheran is a Brave. Better career? Teheran. More upside? Teheran. Reaches big leagues first? Ranuado.
The whole Teheran ceiling=9 is absurd to begin with, but not quite as absurd as saying that there are only 10 standards for a floor and ceiling to begin with
Adoptive parent of Kyle Nicholson
I'm not so sure about that
Ranaudo’s not going to sign until August 15, so he won’t get much pro work in this year, and he’s not a lock to blow through the minors. At best, Ranaudo will be starting in AA next season, same as Teheran, and I wouldn’t exactly bet on Ranaudo outperforming Teheran from the get go there. Add in that Ranaudo’s going to be on the Red Sox, who seem to bring pitchers along relatively slowly (unless you’re talking about him moving to the pen) and who are pretty set in their rotation, and I don’t see it. Maybe if you see Ranaudo moving to the pen to get him up early, but I don’t consider that being more pro ready, just taking a different development path.
I agree that Ranuado won’t play much this year, but I could see him spending some time in A+ ball, and either starting next year in AA or getting quickly promoted there. I could see him and Teheran both spending the majority of 2011 in AA, but I could see Ranuado getting pushed to AAA by the end of 2011, spending 1/2 the season of 2012 in AAA and making his MLB debut in late-2012. Teheran seems like he’ll spend 2010 in A+, 2011 in AA, 2012 in AAA, and open 2012 either in AAA for 1/2 a year ala Tommy Hanson, or be inserted into the ATL rotation.
Basically, I see Ranuado’s ETA as later-2012, and Teheran’s as early-2013, hardly a difference, but I could also see Teheran suffering some setbacks that will delay his path more than Ranuado, which is why I’d put my money on Ranuado to reach the MLB first
Adoptive parent of Kyle Nicholson
See I don't think the Braves will be that slow with Teheran
You bring up Hanson, and I think that could be an enlightening example. He was about a year older than Teheran when he reached A+, spent about 2/3 of a year there, and a little over a year between AA and AAA. I see no reason to think the Braves will have Teheran spend over 2 year at those two levels, unless of course he starts struggling, but I honestly think struggles are more likely for Ranaudo than Teheran.
Personally I think its more likely that Teheran gets a taste of AA at the end of this year, starts in AA next year, and makes his AAA debut at some point later that year. Then he’ll start out in AAA in 2012, and if everything looks good, make his debut with the big club later that year. So yeah, I probably see Teheran in the bigs by the midway point of the 2012 season. Obviously this is fairly aggressive (and assumes no major struggles), but no more so than what the Braves did with Hanson.
except for Tommy Hanson was a U.S. born JuCo draftee
I just feel that with the language barrier, violent mechanics, and youth, that ATL will be extremely cautious with Teheran. They’ve moved him slowly up to this point, and I don’t see why they won’t continue to.
Adoptive parent of Kyle Nicholson
They've moved him up slowly?
He made 14 total starts in Danville and 14 total starts in Rome before being moved up. That’s the equivalent of about a 1/2 season per level so far, and there has already been some talk about him getting moved up to AA.
I don’t know his mechanics would keep him from moving up quick. The Braves aren’t likely to make any major changes at this point and he doesn’t seem to have a problem with losing command because of the mechanics. Maybe they’re more of a max effort type, but I don’t see why this would slow him down.
The language barrier really isn’t much of an issue at this point. His English is already quite good and I imagine in 2 years or so he’ll be perfectly fluent. He really only uses a translator for more complicated instructions at this point.
I don't get
this “max effort” tag with Teheran. There’s effort there, but certainly not max effort. Brendan Donnelly is max effort. Teheran lands without a stepover in excellent fielding position with good arm decelaration while mustering plus velo. He absolutely needs to generate more of his power with his lower half — his pitching coach stated as much in a BA piece this week when he referred to the need for Teheran to “utilize other energy sources” — but he’s not max effort. I’d hazard that there’s less effort in his delivery than in Johnny Cueto’s, as just one example.
I couldn’t say his command wasn’t affected — that’s more a scouting determination, and some scouts do find his command to be variable — but his control is great, as demonstrated by his very good walk rate.
by blackoutyears on Jul 27, 2010 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions
A lot of it his arm circle
He doesn’t smoothly circle the ball back, he forcefully pushes it down at the hand break, slows for an instant, than brings it up quick.
Like I said, his mechanics may be more of a max effort type, but I don’t think its something that should be changed or slow him down. If they make him more likely to be injured (and I’m not saying they do) then so be it. He’s probably not as successful without them, so don’t change anything and hope for the best.
But
that’s not max effort by any reasonable definition, so I disagree with the premise. If he wasn’t using his lower half at all I coudl see it, but he actually does generate a good bit of his velo with his push off the rubber. Effort? Yes. Max? Not even close.
by blackoutyears on Jul 28, 2010 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree with you, but
Most people don’t share our view of what constitutes max effort. As I understand it, most scouts view “max effort” deliveries as those with more violent arm movements and less controlled leg movements. Teheran probably qualifies on both (kicks the front leg out straighter than most), thus why I said he his mechanics may be more of a max effort type. Like I said, I don’t think they’re a big issue, but I won’t just dismiss someone who disagrees.
Max effort = smooth to most scouts
Watching a game I heard an announcer mention effortless delivery for Stras. The other announcer got a chuckle out of that and said anyone throwing 99 is not throwing effortless. I guess if it looks smooth people assume the pitcher isn’t giving the same effort. Lol
I do think
Ranaudo is bullpen bound. Not his peak value there, but I could see him taking over as closer if the don’t re-up Papelbon.
http://milbprospects.blogspot.com/
by Matt Garrioch on Jul 22, 2010 8:24 PM EDT up reply actions
10 standards
isn’t enough, but qualitatively going to smaller increments seems futile to me. It would take all of my time to just be constantly adjusting them.
It is a good start, I add in other quantitative elements, a floor, a ceiling, age, level, league, etc.. This gives me a number and a % to further analyze their polish, flaws and skills.
It is complex the way it is. I would like to add more but I don’t have the ability right now.
http://milbprospects.blogspot.com/
by Matt Garrioch on Jul 22, 2010 8:21 PM EDT up reply actions
yeah I see, I just don't think that your formula is the best way to look at prospects
I mean, I like your system more than some people on this site, but I think you need to take a larger step back and really assess everything the player offers, not just plugging some numbers into a formula that hasn’t even been proven to work.
Adoptive parent of Kyle Nicholson
That's actually one thing
my system does well is assessing everything the guy offers. It is just hard to know what to really put emphasis on when doing the rankings.
It hasn’t been proven to work but I want to stick with it, improve it and make it the best it can be. There will never be a perfect prospecting system but I want to do my best at it.
Like I posted to nixa37, I was told by someone today to be proud of what I do if I believe I am good at it so go to this link posted about a month ago and read this:
http://milbprospects.blogspot.com/2010/06/couple-sleepers.html
then go to baseball america and read the prospect bulletin by Ben Badler posted today and tell me what I do doesn’t work pretty well.
http://milbprospects.blogspot.com/
by Matt Garrioch on Jul 23, 2010 1:53 AM EDT up reply actions
unfortunately, i don't have a subscription to BA
however, I’m guessing you just wanted to prove that your call on Carlos Perez was a good one? Which I would agree with fully, as Perez was a guy I liked quite a bit (I still can’t, and won’t say the same about Aderlin Rodriguez though).
However when you say:
my system does well is assessing everything the guy offers. It is just hard to know what to really put emphasis on when doing the rankings.
I would partially agree. It is true that your formula does take into account many different things, but what makes it faulty is that it is all based off of your own personal number generating; which isn’t necessarily bad, it’s just no better than anybody else’s.
Also, by inputing the minor league statistics, you end up with some pretty wacky data, and what I meant by “but I think you need to take a larger step back and really assess everything the player offers, not just plugging some numbers into a formula that hasn’t even been proven to work” is that after your formula gives you a rough idea of what sort of value the player has, it would probably be beneficial to go back and make sure that you agree with it, because I mean really, you’d be hard-pressed to find somebody who’d take a Jesse Litsch over a Jair Jurrjens.
I’m pretty impressed by your experimental work, and it’s nice to see you sticking with it and sticking by your formula, I just think it could be advantageous to hybridize your system a little bit, instead of just sticking to the cut and dry results your formula produces
Adoptive parent of Kyle Nicholson
It is a constant work in progress.
I have changed it immensely since I started doing this and I am constantly working on improving it. The current version is much improved comapred to the original and I do step back and analyze it.
Any time you put your opinion into something, it could mess with it, but when I just run the numbers and posted what it came up with, I got tore apart. The raw numbers simply tell you who has good skills and is having a good season, not neccesarily a good prospect. I have to add in my version of scouting information to make it what it is.
The Litsch thing was a mistake. I copy and paste a lot and he must have recieved someone else’s numbers accidently. He shouldn’t be close to the top 25. Shit happens.
The point I was making about the BA article is that my post had 5 of the 10 players Badler mentioned, not just Perez. Only one of those players was not in my database and he hadn’t played pro ball yet and I must have missed his signing.
http://milbprospects.blogspot.com/
by Matt Garrioch on Jul 24, 2010 7:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Wow..
I can defend it because it is my opinion. I believe Ranaudo and Teheran are on similar time tables to the majors but Ranaudo could step in sooner. If you don’t agree, that is fine. It isn’t ridiculous. It sounds to me like you under rate high level college baseball. That’s fine, it’s your opinion and it’s not ridiculous.
I’m not afraid of Taillon and Purke’s breaking pitches converting with the pro ball. These guys are all very good players and the difference between 19 and 27 is minimal. If I was a GM and had to pick between Taillon, Purke, Matzek and Teheran, I would pat myself on the back, because that is a situation you can’t fail at.
Finally, how can my SUBJECTIVE input be wrong and your SUBJECTIVE input be right? How can you defend that?
http://milbprospects.blogspot.com/
by Matt Garrioch on Jul 22, 2010 8:17 PM EDT up reply actions
People still generally expect you to be able to defend your opinion. It just seems very strange to me that you think a guy that’s never thrown a professional pitch and was terrible this past season in college is more major league ready than a guy dominating high A ball. It’d be one thing if we were talking about a guy who was coming off a dominating season, but Ranaudo wasn’t good (and no I don’t particularly care about him dominating overmatched college kids using wood bats).
Nice to see you’re not afraid, but that still doesn’t mean it will. And this is why I don’t understand your system, you’re using a numbers based approach that somehow is able to rate guys with no numbers ahead of a guy with great numbers and scouting reports solely because of one subjective input from you. You don’t see any issue at all with that?
I can say your subjective input is wrong because basically everyone who does this for a living seems to disagree with it. Teheran is constantly talked about as the guy with the highest ceiling among minor leaguers, yet you’ve somehow rated him outside of your top tier ceiling prospects. And you’ve still yet to defend/justify it. If you think you’re right and everyone else is wrong, at least make an argument as to why. Why is Teheran’s ceiling lower than these other guys? His fastball is as good as anyone you listed, with the possible exception of Taillon, Taillon is the only guy younger, he’s got the best change of the group, he’s performing at the highest level of the group, and he’s dominating. What factor do you see that overrides all these things in Teheran’s favor?
Ranaudo was hurt a lot.
I can write off most of what he did this spring and after he came back from his injury, his stuff was as good as it had been. I don’t base a lot on college stats, I look at them, but don’t draw definative conclusions from them. Ranaudo has a bulldog attitude and 2 plus pitches. I agree, what he’s doing on the Cape is against inferior competition but good stuff is good stuff. I think most scouts would consider top college ball equal to short season or low A ball, so if these players are inferior, that means he should be in Hi A ball.
When I began doing this, I used almost strictly numbers. I have never been satisfied by the output and I continue to tweak it. I have added my floor and ceiling and I continue to research players to make it the best I can. If you look at Teheran’s numbers last year, 6.7 K/9, 2.6 BB/9, 1.41 WHIP, not really future Hall of Fame type numbers. This year his dominance has improved a ton and his walks rate has even improved.
If I updated his floor and ceiling right now, he would be a 10, not a 9. There are currently 7 players in the minors that I give a 10. I will add a few, remove one, maybe two, this year when I revise my numbers but it is VERY rare for me to give this rating.
I have added a lot more scouting to my approach as well. I have watched dozens of hours of video on draft picks, dozens of college baseball games and read any information I can find for free anywhere on the net(I do subscribe to BA though), and glean what I can from it. If I am going to use subjective information, I want it to be as accurate as it can be, and you can ask me about any player in the minors that has any prospect value at all, and I can probably give you some valuable information on him.
I was told by someone today to be proud of what I do if I believe I am good at it so go to this link posted about a month ago and read this:
http://milbprospects.blogspot.com/2010/06/couple-sleepers.html
then go to baseball america and read the prospect bulletin by Ben Badler and tell me I don’t know what I’m doing.
http://milbprospects.blogspot.com/
by Matt Garrioch on Jul 23, 2010 12:31 AM EDT up reply actions
I know about Ranaudo's injuries
But at the same time, if he were in the minors and struggling like that, we’d still probably hold it against him. As for the plus pitches, like I always say, I want to see it with the pro ball before I get too excited. Especially on a pitch like a spike curve, I could see the smaller seems possibly being a problem.
I guess the question I would ask is why not just go ahead and update ceilings and floors for the outliers that may make a list like this before you publish it? Especially when it can make this much of a difference in your rankings? It just seems strange to be doing this with some outdated scouting, unless you maybe want to make a note beforehand that this would have been your ranking before the season.
As I’ve said in the past, I really respect what you’re trying to do. I may really disagree with it at times, but just having some semblance of a ranking of players as deep as yours is a feet in and of itself. I couldn’t name more than 10% of the prospects you take the time to rank.
I appreciate that
and I respect your opinions. I enjoy the back and forth. I should have made a note that it’s mostly based on last year, besides the amateurs. If I was going to do a full write up like Alskor, I would have put more into it. I just ran a report and posted it. I am still taking summer classes and don’t have the time to update all these guys as I go.
Most of the qualitative portion will get done at the end of the year when I update stats for the 3198 players in my database, updating it with however many of the 1525 drafted players sign. I also need and add to my 255 for the 2011 draft and 113 for the 2012 draft and scout these guys and rank them.
I truly want to have the deepest rankings available and I want to have them be respectable. If I can’t get the top guys right, how can I say the lower guys are right.
http://milbprospects.blogspot.com/
by Matt Garrioch on Jul 23, 2010 1:41 AM EDT up reply actions
I'm also pretty sure that 150 lbs number is from his signing
Looking at the pic here he still looks pretty skinny, but he’s not a beanpole or anything. Minor’s listed at 210 and he doesn’t look that much thicker in the pic right above.
Giants pitchers
I think I’d take Cain over MadBum
Proud father of Mike Krukow (who is more than 3 times my age)
Grab Some Pine, Meat
Still cheering for Kevin Frandsen
John Bowker: One of the 3 best OF's on the Giants roster
That's what I was waiting for!
I’m reading all this hate because I don’t have Teheran on here while Kershaw is doing so well this year.
I love Kershaw. Hughes is more polished, while Kershaw has more potential. If Kershaw had more consistent control, he would be higher. Until then, I have Hughes higher. It’s a big step that Kershaw has taken this year though.
http://milbprospects.blogspot.com/
by Matt Garrioch on Jul 22, 2010 8:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Its not because you don't have Teheran on here as much as
You saying a bunch of amateurs without his track record would rank above him, apparently because they have a significantly higher ceiling than the guy consistently credited with the highest ceiling of any pitcher in the minors.
Oh and Matzek ranking in the top 20 while Teheran didn’t make it, even though Teheran is younger and doing better at a higher level with more refined stuff, doesn’t exactly help either.
You’re welcome to stick with more polished guys on your list, but when you leave off a more polished guy with such a high ceiling while ranking less polished guys with similar ceilings, things don’t look quite right.
Since the may 4th Brewers start
Kershaw has walked more than 3 batters in a game 2 times (4 and 5 respectively).
"Stop exploding you cowards!!!"
Btw, i wasn’t mocking you, I just don’t see why Hughes would be higher, plus Kershaw’s the man :)
Ok, I see what you mean about being more polished, but having less potential. What is great about Kershaw is he is finally starting to get his walks under control, and he brought his BB/9 in 2010 down a full point in about a month’s span. In about 2 years I expect Kershaw to only be behind 1 or 2 pitchers on this list by then, and one of them would be Strasburg. Even then I think Kershaw COULD be higher (wishful thinking, haha).
"Stop exploding you cowards!!!"
Jhoulys Chacin should at least be an honorable mention, right?
3.77 xFIP as a 22 year old in the big leagues with a 9.49 K/9 and 3.95 BB/9. His massive GB% hasn’t shown up in the bigs, but 44.5% is still solid with his other rate statistics.
He's very close.
Just behid Joba.
http://milbprospects.blogspot.com/
by Matt Garrioch on Jul 21, 2010 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Hanson is too low
Nobody would take Bills over Hanson. Hanson has pitched pretty damn awesome thus far in his career and there is plenty to suggest he will continue to improve.
He explained his reasoning for putting them there.
You can’t really argue with that, since it is his list.
I have a question
At what point is the cutoff where you say a pitcher is what he is going to be? After how many innings/years can you say their secondary offerings aren’t going to develop anymore? A lot of the people who cover the rangers and are much smarter than I am say that Feliz’s secondary pitches aren’t good and won’t be good enough to be a starter.
Feliz only has 266 IP in the minors, with 122.2 being AA or above. He had just turned 21 when they promoted him to the majors and is still only 22. Can we say with some certainty that his secondary pitches won’t develop? We all knew his fastball was good enough to come up and work out of the bullpen. Now that he’s had so much success, I’m worried they won’t give him another chance to start. If he is given another chance, I can’t imagine it will be a smooth transition. He could really use the time in AAA to develop as a starter.
Holland has 260.1 IP in the minors, with only 68.2 being AA or above. Are the Ranger’s too aggressive with their prospects? Would Feliz and Holland have been better served to spend a year in AAA starting? Would Perez have been better served to not skip A+(I understand the Ranger’s hate Bakersfield).
At what point is the cutoff where you say a pitcher is what he is going to be?
I’m not sure there is a right answer to this… a billion factors go into that evaluation and its kind of a “feel” thing. Very subjective, and, I imagine, responsible for much of the differences people have.
A lot of the people who cover the rangers and are much smarter than I am say that Feliz’s secondary pitches aren’t good and won’t be good enough to be a starter.
I don’t think this is true anymore. This was an issue a couple years back… but we saw a lot of improvement there in 2009. His slurve is at least an average pitch and the repertoire is pretty electric when taken altogether.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
People keep saying that
and he keeps getting guys out with secondary stuff. Obviously he’s throwing them less often this year, and so it’s harder to iron out inconsistencies, but I think it’s pretty lazy to just say Feliz has no secondary pitches, or that they can’t be good enough for him to start.
Freude schöner Götterfunken, Tochter aus Elysium, Freude!
Jordan Zimmermann
Obviously an injury concern, but I would like to think he’s an honorable mention. He pitched very well last year in his debut, and his rehab has gone very well. Thoughts?
www.pbfantasysports.com
^^ check it out
by Preston Barclay on Jul 21, 2010 10:05 AM EDT reply actions
I actually saw his last rehab start in Potomac.
The numbers look good in high A so far but I know that his last start he seemed to have fastball command and still be working on his breaking stuff and was given a mandate to throw at least 10 changeups because that’s a pitch he’s still trying to learn. The Nats sell him hard because they have noone else of significant merit behind Strasburg, but I think you’d have to have some MLB data to include him on a list like this one.
On a desperate search for Sunshine at Nats Park.
by souldrummer on Jul 21, 2010 10:47 AM EDT up reply actions
True
but 0 walks in his first 9 rehab innings out of TJ is pretty damn impressive.
I suppose and his velocity is a tick faster according to reports.
It’s the secondary pitches that will determine if he’s a two or a strikepounding 4 though and we have to see how he does with those at the big league level I think.
On a desperate search for Sunshine at Nats Park.
Yeah, he easily could have been.
Forgot him because of the injury, but I did include Parker. He probably merits a HM.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
I'd put him ahead of Matusz if/when he is healthy.
http://milbprospects.blogspot.com/
by Matt Garrioch on Jul 21, 2010 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Amazed at the lack of consideration for the Jays young staff
Romero is perhaps a little too favoured, i’d have him at or around 10 but the likes of Cecil/Rzepczynski/Morrow (for five more days) are all worth at least consideration and aren’t far behind him. If you rate him so high the other three should at least get a mention. Solid results, above average K/9, improving BB/9 and GB/FB and high swinging strike %age make all three ML quality starters.
I don't buy Rzepczynski at all.
I’ve been pretty vocal about that around here. Morrow and Cecil I’ve conceded above deserve HMs… but they aren’t nor should they really have had a legit shot at the top 20 IMO. Morrow has massive control problems, Cecil… I like him some… but neither the results nor the stuff are that great. Clear mid rotation guy. Morrow is a lot more interesting… and yet flawed. I need to see more of this new Morrow before I jump on board.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
Fair enough if you don't rate Cecil
but I think your misguided, the results have been more than passable and his stuff rapidly improving. Geez his changeup is still only a few months old and is already a new plus pitch.
Ooh, chance for a Jurrjens/Cecil comparison.
To start with i’d argue that both should be HM, they’re both young major league calibre starters who can flash #2 starter potential. Jurrjens is the better pitcher in terms of history but i’d consider them to have a similar ceiling.
This season i’d argue that Cecil’s improved control and additional pitch, compared to Jurrjens being a step off the pace due to his injury and continued control issues has Cecil maybe a shade ahead at this time. Next season i’m expecting almost identical quality with them both at full strength and under a 4.00 ERA, with Jurrjens being about .20 ERA ahead due to the league he plays in.
As a fantasy owner i’d take Jurrjens for the coming season, if I had to pick one for a new franchise i’d probably take Cecil given he’s a lefty and has less of an injury history. Either way it’s a straight toss up, both have questions over their stuff but have proven critics wrong for the most part so far.
What injury history?
He tweaked his shoulder in his first week back in a throwing program after the offseason and then pulled his hamstring. That is the entirety of his injury history as far as I can tell. Not really something I’d worry about for a guy that through 140 innings a year from 19-21, 188 at 22, and 215 at 23 without any real arm problems.
I don’t disagree that Cecil deserved an HM. Even alskor admitted as much, but you responded by saying the ranking was misguided, so I assumed you were pushing for him to crack the top 20. I was simply pointing out that seemed to be a stretch since Jurrjens didn’t make it and he seems to be at worst even with Cecil. While their stuff and strikeout and walk numbers are similar, I’d take Jurrjens simply because he’s more proven in terms in innings and he’s shown a significantly better FIP.
that is not the full extent of Jurrjens' shoulder injury history
He had to be put on the DL due to shoulder inflammation when he was with Detroit:
http://beck.mlblogs.com/archives/2007/08/shoulder_inflam.html
Interesting
Definitely something to keep an eye on.
Though the fact that he wasn't shutdown for the season
Makes me think it wasn’t anything too serious. I’d hope the Tigers wouldn’t being throwing 21 year old in relatively meaningless games if there were any questions about his arm’s health.
Yes! I love the Romero hype
I’ve been trying to get people on the Ricky Romero train for a while now.
I even wrote a piece over at BtB harping on Romero’s brilliance back in mid-May
A left-hander that can miss bats and keep the ball on the ground like Romero is a truly rare bird. He’s not mentioned as one of the best young pitchers in baseball nearly enough.
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
Brett Anderson vs. Ricky Romero
Great Writeups. Thoroughly enjoy them and the work that goes into them.
I happen to be evaluating a Dynasty (5×5) trade that may have a few other pieces but includes an SP exchange of Brett Anderson (I give up) for Ricky Romero (I get). I’ve been approaching this as if Anderson is worth more and thus I need some value pickup in the rest of the deal.
Do others feel differently?
Thanks
Fat man is no more,
Bursting on through Heaven's Door
Come on in, says Bill
Injuries may even that trade out though
not sure you would be able to get much more.
by asyouwish33 on Jul 21, 2010 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Anderson probably has more statistical upside
Because he pitches in a pitcher’s park and he doesn’t pitch in the AL East.
But at this point, I think they’re really close in terms of true talent. I’d probably take Anderson if I knew he was healthy, though.
I like baseball.
I write for Beyond the Box Score and The Hardball Times Fantasy
by Satchel Price on Jul 21, 2010 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions
I feel that with Anderson's shoulder problems I would cut bait if I could.
I’d rather have Romero right now anyway.
If it was a draft and not a trade and you had your choice – Romero or Anderson – who would you take? If its Romero (it is for me) you should do the trade.
…but yeah, ask for more. Always ask for more.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
Elbow?
I thought that Anderson’s injury was in the elbow. Started as forearm tightness (a pre-cursor) to elbow trouble and was eventually, MRI’d, etc as a strain.
Shoulder injuries to me are a much more long term negative for pitchers than at least the initial bout of elbow problems.
Fat man is no more,
Bursting on through Heaven's Door
Come on in, says Bill
Definitely elbow
Has not had shoulder issues
"The A's have to be setting some record this year for simultaneously maximizing team quality and player anonymity. I guess that’s sort of their thing though." - Luke in MN
yikes
perhaps your miss information about anderson’s injury explains your indefensibly low ranking. he has probably the third or fourth highest upside on this list , and unless you’re sure he’s going to have tommy john, he can’t be placed below 9.
I could have sworn I heard it was shoulder problems...
Didn’t he leave the last game he got injured with “shoulder discomfort?” I’m 99% sure that was how it was announced initially.
Looking now, it clearly was just elbow… probably slide him up to ~10.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
yep
romero, price, kershaw, gallardo, latos, anderson, and hanson are bunched together at nos. 3-10 for me, with anderson at or near the back due to present injury and concerns about a pattern.
im not as high on billingsly or buchholz and would slot them in the next tier (10-20) with hughes, cueto, danks, feliz, matusz, jurjens, cahill, and hellickson. guys who i believe will be solid 2-3 starters or closers, but lack “ace” potential.
also, holland is too high, especially considering that his injury actually is to his shoulder, and it looked extrememly awkward when he was injured.
Porcello
Do you think if he had continued success this season after last year that he’d be on this list? Or are his lack of strikeouts so far in his career a determining factor?
Considering
he would have been drafted this season if he went to college, he is still an impressive young player, even with the low K rate so far.
http://milbprospects.blogspot.com/
by Matt Garrioch on Jul 21, 2010 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Good call
Porcello could take a step forward next season — shoot, this one — and make his omission look glaring. Like I said…volatile.
by blackoutyears on Jul 21, 2010 6:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Kershaw
Odd to say this because he was ranked 7th, but he is underrated on this list. I have a hard time taking any of the guys 3-6 over him. Price, for example, is a darn similar pitcher – great stuff with “comes and goes” control. To me they should be right next to each other – not much separates one from the other.
Price's control is significantly better than Kershaw's
It always has been. Kershaw gets more strikeouts, while Price get’s more ground balls and allows fewer walks. A case can certainly be made for either guy, by I’d lean Price largely because he’s doing his work in the AL East.
Good list, biggest ommision in my eyes...
Great stuff, love the work put into this. Here’s my gut feel, because I admit the numbers are not looking good right now. When you look at this list 2-3 years from now, the biggest omission will be Frederick Alfred Porcello. Thought to be the best arm in the draft two years ago, just turned 21, rushed to the bigs, and showing glimpses of awesomeness. Admittedly, he hasn’t been missing bats, hasn’t been showing the CB, and struggled the first half of the season something fierce. Just a gut feel, but I still see a front of the rotation workhorse buried inside somewhere.
ProspectTube.com
You Video. You Scout.
by ProspectTube.com on Jul 21, 2010 5:56 PM EDT reply actions
Kershaw behind Bills?
That’s unusual. Kerhaw’s got much more potential than Bills, but I guess Bills can be more of a horse (200 innings in 2008).
"Stop exploding you cowards!!!"
Some Stats
Yankees #8 hitters .280/.356/.402 (.224/.316/.309 ninth)
Red Sox #8 hitters .253/.339/.449 (.244/.309/.369 ninth)
Tampa #8 hitters .269/.335/.376 (.251.321/.398 ninth)
Toronto #8 hitters .251/.306/.467 (.245/.301/.396 ninth)
Orioles #8 hitters .224./.284/.319 (.229/.270/.271 ninth)
Cubs #8 hitters .273/.364/.416 (.182/.236/.251 ninth)
So THIS is the reason why Price is rated higher than Kershaw, Billingsley, Gallardo? Really?
And if that’s enough proof for you that your reasoning is incredibly biased and absolutely false, there’s this :
AL #8 hitters .243/.309/.368 (.244/.303/.349)
NL #8 hitters .253/.333/.382 (.186/.235/.260)
NL #8 HITTERS ARE BETTER THIS YEAR!!!!!!!
I reject your reality and substitute my own.
by WayneCampbell08 on Jul 22, 2010 11:20 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
That's an incredibly flawed approach to this and that was not "why" Price was above those guys.
The major difference between AL and NL #8 hitters is in OBP – I’ll give you three guesses why that is and the first two don’t count. The rest of the differences in the lines are just random variation. Do a study of the last 15 years and let me know what you find. I think we both know the answer.
Rather than debate this on the obviously flawed merits (and I’m pretty sure you see the flaws here – you posted the #9 hitters line after all!) I’m just going to use some tautology to infuriate you more:
The reason NL #8 hitters are hitting better is because they get to face inferior NL pitchers!
I really have no idea why you thought this was such a major part of my reasoning in the placements. I just mentioned it as one of many factors in their K rates, and the emphasis is mostly on the #9 hitters (ie pitchers). Of pitchers with >30 ABs, there are only 10 guys who have a K rate of less than 25%. The rest are over… and often WAY over.
Bottom line: Do you really want to take the position that the AL guys wouldn’t see any boost to their K rates if they pitched in the NL? I think that’s pretty indefensible.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
Lol
Yes, all NL pitchers are obviously inferior. God that is an INCREDIBLY dumb statement.
"Stop exploding you cowards!!!"
wow, you got him
because that is exactly what he said.
No
That’s the reason YOU gave for ranking Price over Clayton, Chad & Yovanni. I’m just using your own faulty logic against you. That was the one and ONLY rationale you used in your original post. You think Price’s K’s will rise because you assumed something you didn’t go to the trouble of finding out. BTW, it took me all of 10 seconds to find that data on Baseball-Reference.com.
To answer your question : Yes, there might be a slight increase in K rates when moving to the NL but it’s not nearly as pronounced as you assume that it is. Here’s another stat that took all of 10 seconds to find out.
AL DH .248/.328/.422
Just how much of a difference on a pitcher’s stats does a perfectly average hitter like that have over a pitcher that bats twice a game? Again, it took another 10 seconds to calculate the average number of PA for pitchers in the NL. Finally, if NL pitchers were as bad you think they are, then they would have many fewer PAs.
I reject your reality and substitute my own.
by WayneCampbell08 on Jul 25, 2010 8:12 PM EDT up reply actions
While I love what he's done for the Nats...
and baseball as far as publicity goes, you could not f’n pay me to take Strasburg over Felix Hernandez.
Oh...
or Price. I can’t wait to see where that guy is in 5 years…he’s like a skinny CC Sabathia with stuff that probably grades out a little better across the board…better fastball, better breaking ball, and the change is probably ahead of where CC’s was earlier in the decade.
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.
