Aroldis Chapman vs. Michael Pineda
by southpaw360 on Aug 21, 2010 7:03 PM EDT
Email
Print
xxxxx
Aroldis Chapman (Cincinnati Reds) vs. Michael Pineda.(Seattle Mariners) Both are basically the same age. Pineda has plus control and stuff. Chapman has plus stuff and ok control out of the bullpen. Pineda is a starter and Chapman is most likely a reliever. Pineda has been slightly injury prone in his short career in the minor leagues. Chapman has been healthy from what I can tell. Which player would you rather have on your favorite team?
69 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
this
my faith that Chapman can figure it out as a starter is dwindling. If he is a reliever going forward, then he is a borderline top 100 guy, and Pineda is a top 25 type guy. Even if Chapman had no concerns about relieving he would be about 20 for me because of the aforementioned control issues (primarily). I think its too premature to move him yet, and they might just be trying to save his arm, but regardless, its Pineda.
"Most likely a reliever"
I don’t think it’s accurate to say that about Chapman. For this year, sure. But there’s no way a guy with his stuff doesn’t get at least a couple years to figure things out as a starter, especially considering the money it took to get him. I guess you can still believe that come 2013 that’s the most likely outcome, but I’d at least like to see the guy get his shot before saying so.
I think the thing that will hurt him the most is the depth of Cincinnati's rotation
If he establishes himself as a dominant reliever in September, I could easily see him taking the Neftali route.
http://bullpenbanter.com/
right
the Reds have been very careful to say that they do not see Chapman as a reliever going forward. he was moved to the ‘pen earlier this year to 1) limit his innings and 2) see if he could make a positive contribution in Cincy this season. they’ve said he will be up by Sept 1st and will be eligible for the postseason roster as well.
that being said, Pineda is a hell of a pitcher. i like ’em both.
by Charlie Scrabbles on Aug 22, 2010 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions
yeah, it makes this post feels too much like a loaded question
I’d be willing to accept that his chances of being a reliever are likely higher at this point than his chances as a starter, but at no point would I make the jump to say they were slim. He hasn’t been here that long and his mechanics a pretty sound for a guy with that velocity, so it’s hard to convince me that he should only be viewed as a reliever moving forward. Control can be learned, not to say it’s easy or it will happen, but it’s something someone can pick up along the way, unlike a 100+ mph fastball.
Pineda.
Yeah, I’m a Mariners fan and therefore biased, but what I keep hearing about Michael Pineda is tantalizing and shaping up into more of an assurance while everything I hear about Chapman contains way too many uses of the word “potentially”.
This isn’t to say Chapman goes no where. I don’t know if he will or not. That’s really up to him at this point. But, of the two, there’s a lot of reason to be excited about Pineda now. If that doesn’t work, Pineda is also currently the much cheaper option.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Aug 22, 2010 4:37 AM EDT reply actions
Well I was skeptical of Chapman from the beginning. A lefty hitting 100 on the gun but poor command, it surely makes you dream but I thought everyone throwing him in their top 20 right off the bat was really jumping the gun.
Now I’m still worried a little about Pineda’s elbow (I believe it was his elbow?) but he really has done a lot to wipe away my questions about him. I’m still not ready to put the #1 label on him but I can definitely see a #2/#3 if healthy, possibly more but I want to see more of him first. He has had one heck of a year, that is for sure.
Chapman has a big fastball that stays big into the late innings. He will be a starter. The Reds are grooming him to help them down the stretch in a K-Rod like fashion, and keeping his innings down in the process. I really like keeping Chapman in the pen for the rest of the year. And yes, I still rank him higher than Pineda.
+1
late velocity is huge and covers for a lot of control problems. Plus, I’m not sure what people expected from him?
To be fair,
a BB/9 under 5 would have been nice.
Sure, but at the same time I think people are being a little harsh on the control.
If Chapman had started in the Carolina League and dominated everyone for the first two months of the season before moving up and showing some command issues, I feel like he’d be a top-10 lock. The fastball has been everything it was advertised as and the slider has been far better. Yes, Chapman has some control problems to sort out, but for a 22-year-old getting his first taste of professional baseball in America and adjusting culturally, I don’t think this year can really be called anything but a success. As for moving to relief, anything to that effect is ridiculously premature. The Reds didn’t give him $30 million to move him to the bullpen after 4 very impressive months, they just wanted to limit his innings and get him in Cincinnati this year to help out their first place team. It’s not a long term plan and if that’s the reason anybody thinks he ends up as a reliever, it’s flawed logic.
Chapman.
As a Mariners fan it pains me to say it, but the twin kickers here are Pineda’s injury history and Chapman’s handedness advantage. A lefty who can hit 100mph is very rare indeed.
I like both players, and Pineda is light years ahead in terms of polish. Maybe it’s because I grew up watching Randy Johnson become absolutely lethal once he harnessed his arsenal, but I’ll take the lefty with the huge fastball and breaking ball and erratic command.
kind of surreal
A year ago, if you had compared just about anybody to Michael Pineda and put “more likely to remain as a starter” as a plus for Pineda, I would have been blown away. I’m not yet convinced that this isn’t one of those deals where the injury-prone guy manages to bust out due to fluky good health and then the wheels come off as soon as the next season starts. Also known as “pulling an Adam Miller”.
Pineda's...
concerns are all durability. There’s no question on repertoire or command.
yeah, but it's a pretty big concern for me
He’s spent a fair amount of time on the shelf already and I don’t feel very good about his chances in the future of avoiding injury. He has a good arm when healthy, though. I think I’d probably have him at Grade B+ at the moment.
if he's a top end B+
that puts him pretty high at the moment, if you take out MLB debuted players. i’m not sure there are many more than 10 A/A- guys right now, among yet to debut prospects.
by auclairkeithbc on Aug 22, 2010 5:51 PM EDT up reply actions
If by a fair amount of time...
you mean half of one season, then sure, I guess.
People talk about Pineda as if he’s had some kind of chronic, recurring injury. That’s not the case. He was shut down with elbow soreness, nothing was wrong structurally, and he did not require surgery. He came back firing bullets, his velocity jumping several MPH. It’s a bit of a red flag, but to even mention Pineda and Adam Miller in the same sentence is going a bit too far.
Adam Miller, age 21, 2006 season
Came back after an elbow injury limited him in 2005, pitched ~155 innings in 2006. Stuff was at pre-injury levels. Had a million things go wrong with him afterwards. That’s what I mean by “pulling an Adam Miller” – coming back from injury with a jump in innings pitched, results, and quality of stuff, only to completely fall apart the next season. Detroit Tiger fans might want to call it “pulling a Casey Crosby”. I don’t really care, I’m sure you what I’m talking about. What I’m obviously not trying to say is, “Pineda will miss the better part of the next 4 seasons with various injuries”. I wasn’t comparing Pineda to Adam Miller (although they do have some remarkable similarities, come to think of it).
I suspect long-term Pineda will be a better candidate for relief work than starting in a major league rotation, although he may well be an excellent relief option. It’s a good package overall though, which is why for the moment he is most likely getting a B+.
Is there any reason at all...
that you think Pineda is a likely reliever besides durability? He’s had one injury, that didn’t even require surgery (and again, nothing was structurally wrong with his elbow).
Obviously I’ll feel better about him once that missed time is 2-3 years behind him, but plenty of pitchers return from injuries far more serious than Pineda’s to have long careers. In terms of stuff, there’s no reason why Pineda shouldn’t start.
The durability tab is thrown around a lot when someone gets injured
…they should send down Huntington & Nutting, because they aren’t ready, either. - royshowell
by Marinerfanjake on Aug 22, 2010 8:39 PM EDT up reply actions
pineda
Secondaries are promising but erratic. Mechanically it’s been noted (both pre and post missed time) that he puts a lot of stress on his elbow. While I’m not much of one for mechanics, concerns about his delivery leading into missed time leading into continued concerns is enough to bug me. I’m not sure why this seems like a controversial or contrarian opinion . . .before this year, I got the impression that most thought he was destined for the pen, and I can’t believe that 100 innings in one season would suddenly make him a strong bet to pitch at the front end of a rotation (where he’d be expected to log lots of innings).
He is a good prospect, I’m just not about to let the hype train go out of control.
oh, and also
How did this post end up into a defense of my opinion of Pineda? It’s a well thought out opinion.
Your understanding of the scouting consensus on Pineda...
differs greatly from my own.
His secondaries were inconsistent to start the year but by the time he arrived in Tacoma he was mixing in all three pitches with regularity and they all played as plus offerings.
W/R/T mechanics, you should have stopped at “I’m not much of one for mechanics.” Mechanical analysis means less than nothing.
Mostly though, I just have no idea where you got the impression that most though Pineda was headed for the bullpen. No clue. Like, feel like you must be confusing him with another player no clue.
fine
Clearly we’re not talking about the same pitcher here. You clearly think he’s a better prospect than I do, and you have the right to your opinion. You wanted my opinion, and I gave it to you. I did so, however, under the assumption that you wanted my opinion so that you could understand my POV, not so you could try to trash my POV. I was mistaken as to the benevolence of your intentions, my bad. I’m stepping away from this one.
Hm, I really didn't see this as a heated argument...
I just fundamentally didn’t understand where you were coming from. I’ve never read anyone talk about Pineda as a future bullpen arm. Like, ever.
Not to interject...
But I’m sure plenty of folks were worried he was destined for bullpen duties when his elbow got sore last year. Whether anybody said it or not is another story. Add into the mix a lot of comparisons made with Pineda looking like Rafael Soriano and you can start to see a pattern of behavior.
What’s funny is Soriano was doing just fine as a starter until he actually did blow his elbow and require TJ surgery. The Mariners still tried to keep him as a starter, but he eventually became pigeonholed as a reliever.
Pineda has only suffered soreness. He’s never actually injured himself. Thus, it’s awfully premature to start thinking of him in relief pitcher terms right now. The M’s have also been very careful with him, making sure he doesn’t over exert himself, pitch into high pitch counts, and are keeping him on a strict inning count this season.
I guess what I am saying is don’t declare another 9/11 before the plane has been hijacked. He’s doing fine and should be given the benefit of the doubt as a starting prospect until he proves otherwise.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Aug 23, 2010 8:52 AM EDT up reply actions
"Mechanical analysis means less than nothing"
I think this opinion is just as ridiculous as the people who say pitcher X is definitely going to get injured because of his mechanics.
It really isn't.
Show me a study that has shown any kind of predictive value of looking at any type of mechanical issue. It’s not out there.
The field of biomechanics is in its absolute infancy in terms of this precise type of knowledge. Your average scout commenting on mechanics and likelihood of resulting injury is asserting more knowledge than the greatest minds in the field, anywhere on Earth. If you can think of a legitimate reason that baseball scouts know more about the relationship between biomechanics and breaking points of different body parts than Ph.Ds at MIT who devote their lives to the study of precisely that question, I’m all ears.
Because Ph.Ds at MIT give two craps about pitching mechanics
As a former student, I can tell you that was my biggest interest going into the school and I never found a single professor that cared. They need to get research funded and there is no money in that sort of thing. Maybe its changed some, as Biomechanics only became a major option for the class of 2008 or 2009, but my guess is it hasn’t.
And no, I wouldn’t necessarily take the average scouts opinion on a guys mechanics as having much predictive value, but at the same time if multiple people had that opinion before he had elbow problems and then he had elbow problems, I’m going to lend it a little more credence.
There is a big difference between scientifically proving something and having usable knowledge in the discipline. No, there isn’t any precise knowledge regarding the biomechanics of pitching in general. That doesn’t mean its meaningless for someone to point out a guy that’s late getting his forearm vertical, because we know intuitively that leads to more stress on the elbow because the arm has to rotate more in the same amount of time. Some guys can get away with it because they have freakish genetics, but that doesn’t mean that the general population of pitchers who do that aren’t more likely to be injured.
Completely ignoring an area of study because there isn’t a great deal of scientific knowledge there is dumb. Sure, take it with a grain of salt, but don’t ignore it. The same thing that you’re saying about biomechanics could be said about pretty much any part of sabremetric research done. None of that stuff is peer reviewed or even taken seriously in the math community. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t add to our understanding of the game.
I don't ignore an area of study...
I think there’s a lot to be learned in the field. As I understand it from talking to a student at Cambridge, there is a lot of interesting modeling work being done, but the entire field is still very poorly understood.
What I don’t buy into at all is unsourced quotes from scouts who say after the fact that a guy’s mechanics are problematic. I also don’t buy pointing to specific things and predicting specific injuries. Peoples bodies move in completely different ways. Joints rotate differently, and absorb stresses differently. No blanket “intuitive” knowledge about joint stress has ever proven to have any kind of predictive value as far as I know.
Like I said I just didn't like you saying:
“Mechanical analysis means less than nothing.”
Sure, you don’t have to take it as gospel or anything, but don’t generalize all mechanical analysis as being worthless. Look at what the person has to say and his reasoning for saying it. Don’t just dismiss it because its an unproven science (and from what you’re saying now, it sounds like you don’t dismiss all of it, just some).
It sounds like we're actually pretty close on this...
although you certainly have much more actual knowledge on the subject.
I just get a bit annoyed when people with no technical expertise whatsoever make comments that assert as fact information that does not yet exist in the entire catalogue of human knowledge. When third parties take those opinions as gospel truth, it tends to lead to really bad discussions.
by slamcactus on Aug 23, 2010 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah I'd agree with that
Some people are way more confident in what are essentially educated guesses than they should be.
and yet you do the exact same thing
you are asserting as factual information that mechanical analysis means nothing.
...really pedrophile?
You’re aware that you don’t have to prove a negative, right?
You’ve written a lot on this site, and I know you’re an intelligent, thoughtful person, but this comment is beneath you. It’s on the burden of people who hold up vague comments from scouts that they don’t like a particular motion to prove that this opinion means something.
When a group of people who have no technical background make assertions that the best minds in the world couldn’t either prove or disprove, because the entire discipline isn’t advanced enough even to evaluate the question, I’m pretty comfortable discounting it. Particularly when nobody has ever provided any evidence that suggests those opinions have actual predictive value.
I’m open to mechanical analysis meaning something some day. Someone has to give a reason why the analysis is worth a damn first, though.
And by reason, I mean valid reason.
Not “pitcher X had the inverted W and got injured so obviously the scouts are right.”
obviously
And I do understand the reaction. There are so many that come out of the woodworks after the fact. But there are some mechanical things that if not proven scientifically are at least agreed upon by most in the sport.
For example holding the pitchers glove arm in for maintaining control.
Another mechanical issue of note is arm slot. Pedro Martinez and many other pitchers had shoulder injuries. And in his case and many other cases the only way they were able to pitch effectively, sans surgery, was to lower their arm slot. This relieved stress on the shoulder. Since it was a multi-year solution for Pedro and others that would (most likely) eliminate muscular problems.
Based on this happening to many pitcher all of whom have the same way of relieving stress leads me to believe certain arm angles do cause more stress – at least for a damaged arm. And I believe it also puts the same stress on an undamaged arm but the effect isn’t seen. But that part is just my belief.
Nothing of the above is a new discovery. And it doesn’t solve problems or predict injuries. But I believe there is some precedent on some angles and some actions that put more stress. Predicting an injury is impossible, not even almost impossible. But I do think there are several things that can contribute to higher stress.
IMO these things can contribute to tiny red flags.
I would be shocked if there was ever any solid predictive model for injuries. But I do think as we learn more we will be able to identify more red flags. Predicting how each pitcher can handle extra stress due to high pitch counts, high arm angles, the “M”, etc. is something we probably will never know.
This is very possible...
but the flip side of it is that so much of physical activities like pitching has to do with muscle memory and conditioning that tweaking deliveries to achieve lower arm slots or to remove the inverted w could very well produce injuries of their own.
Though we’re still probably a ways apart, I do appreciate your phrasing your approach in a qualitative “see what works” way rather than as a basis for predictions about specific players.
I'm of the opinion that its really too late to make major changes after age 20 or 21
Even at that point it might be possible, but with the amount of work it would take, the risk of injury getting there, the risk of losing stuff, and just the general unknown it doesn’t seem worth it. You can make some tweaks at that point (see Mike Minor) but you really need to work with the foundation that’s there. The only time I might consider wholesale changes is when someone is coming back from a major injury where they’re missing a whole year anyway.
agreed
I wouldn’t suggest changing a pitchers mechanics unless it was to improve the stuff of the pitcher. Or to try and get a more consistent release point.
Otherwise leave it alone.
I do think it’s of some value to watch pitchers mechanics and if you see some red flags and you see more than the usual arm injuries then we might have something. Or if a pitcher is lowering his arm slot then there might be an issue.
Yeah, I’m really really reluctant to apply specifically to individual pitchers. There are some pitchers I’m a bit cautious of. But that doesn’t mean they can’t have long careers. Just because a motion puts undue stress on the shoulder doesn’t mean they don’t have the musculature to handle it, or they might not be pitching when fatigued, or their ligaments are a little stronger, etc.
This doesn’t mean the particular motion isn’t bad for a pitcher. Just that we don’t know how much of an effect it will have – too many variables.
obviously you don't have to prove the negative
but you are still stating something as factual. You may be correct, I’m not disagreeing with that. What I’m pointing out is the similarities between you being upset over “factual” statements and then you presenting something as factual.
You're right.
Saying “it means nothing” is inarticulate shorthand for “it has no basis in actual knowledge and has never been shown to have predictive value, so it should not inform your opinions on pitchers.”
My statement, quoted above, was unnecessarily terse and absolutist. I still put no stock in statements “scout X says player Y has troubling mechanics,” though.
In case this is a case of it being difficult to read tone on the internet...
that was a genuine retraction/backpedaling/attempt to explain the nuances of my earlier blunt statement. No snark whatsoever intended.
understood
and it’s why I’m trying to be more polite, than in the past, because it’s so hard to read the tone of a statement online.
Also if you could get me the name of that researcher I'd really appreciate it
At least if by a student at Cambridge, you meant a student at MIT in Cambridge. If you’re talking about Cambridge in England, then don’t worry about it. I think I might be moving back up to Boston in a few months, and I’d love to connect with a professor interested in sports mechanical analysis.
Not surprised
MIT seems to have an aversion to any research that’s at all sports related.
Sloan is pretty much completely separate
It has one major (management) and is pretty much looked down upon by everyone who isn’t apart of it. Its a step above majoring in a humanity at MIT.
I figured as much
But really, do universities do significant biomechanical sports research anyway? I haven’t seen much of it.
Yeah not too many that I know of
I know UF does some 3D modeling stuff. I actually expect that bigger state schools with huge sports budgets might lead the way on this.
Even when I tried to get some professors to look at some mathematical stuff I did with baseball, no one had any interest and I was basically told that no professors had any interest in sports stuff.
Speaking of 3D modeling
A professor I talked to at Brown has a group using 3D motion tracking to model the effects of wooden/metal bats. Unfortunately it’s run by the med school, and I’m not a med student, so it’s nearly impossible to get access, but it does look interesting.
We had one math professor doing sabermetrics work, but he didn’t get tenure and left for a more teaching-friendly situation, so we basically have nobody doing any of it anymore. Kind of disappointing, and speaks to the state of the field in academia right now.
I'm also not sure what the hub-bub is about regarding his innings after injury.
He pitched 133 innings in 2008. Only 47 in 2009 because he was shut down with elbow soreness. Now he’s due to pitch about 140 this season. This doesn’t sound like a significant strain to me.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Aug 23, 2010 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions
did his velocity spike a lot this year?
If so then it’s worth watching what happens next year. While it might not be indicative there have been a lot of cases when there is a sudden velocity spike to have problems the following year. I’m not predicting this for Pineda but it is worth watching.
Yes. Well, probably.
He maxed out at 96 last year pre-injury, and hit 98 this year, though that was on the Tacoma gun which could easily have been running 1-2mph hot.
1-2 is no big difference for maxing out
If his average velocity spiked a lot I wouldn’t be too concerned anyways but it would bear watching.
Slam is, I think, understating the velocity improvement.
It’s more like he touched 96mph last year at the most, sitting in the 92-94 range comfortably, whereas now he’s sitting in the 95-98 range comfortably and has (reportedly) touched 100mph. I look at it like diminishing returns on WAR values, after you get to the 90s, the value of the extra win is greater. Picking up 3mph on average on your fastball after already being over 90 is a huge gain.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Aug 24, 2010 2:30 AM EDT up reply actions
Thanks for the info
It makes him an even better prospect. I will be watching carefully next year though for injuries.
I've never seen any report of him touching 100.
Where does that come from?
Don't really trust Pineda....
Chapman wins for health and handedness.
I don't really get the health comps. Pineda has been healthy all year, Chapman has been healthy all year - and this is Chapmans first season in the pros.
That being said, I don’t think the Reds paid Chapman that much to not be a starter eventually.
He wins on “stuff” and Pineda wins on polish. He’s been soooo good throughout his career and now he’s hitting upper-90s.
I’d pick Pineda today but Chapman could overtake him shortly down the line.
by Kenneth Arthur on Aug 23, 2010 11:46 AM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Minor League Ball
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
