Overrated Pitching Prospect
by John Sickels on May 5, 2007 11:27 AM EDT
in News
Email
PrintWho is the Most Overrated Pitching Prospect currently in the minor leagues?
Discuss.
257 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Hochevar
I'd take about 10 pitching prospects over him right now.
In the majors, I'd say Mike Pelfrey since I was never sold on him surviving as a starter in the majors with his lack of a repertoire. I think one day he'll settle in as a dominant relief pitcher though once he gets the slider up to par.
give hochevar some time
he'll be mowing down the competition by the end of may.
by overlord on May 5, 2007 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions
He's really
Elbert
this is an endorsement of Miller over Elbert?
I agree with every one of those statements. I just happen to agree with every one of those statements even more when you change the "he" to refer to Greg Miller.
Tim Lincecum
I think I might go with Andrew Miller here. BA ranked him ahead of Gallardo, the other Miller, Garza, and a few others. The results haven't been there so far this year, and I don't think he'll be as good as his hype.
I seem to remember a BA snippet about him saying that scouts were disappointed with him this year, stuff is flatter, etc. I'll see if I can find it
I'd agree
As for Pelfrey, Chin Hui Tsao is a great example of a guy completley destroying the minors with a great fastball but got exposed by the lack of secondaries in the majors . though in Tsao's case injury and bad workload management probably played just as much of a role.
overrated.. that's hard
Hochevar is your classic good skills pitcher without exceptional stuff..so signing this guy #1 doesn't seem necessary..
but what the heck..safe pick
underrated wud be easier - Lincecum
by dryice on May 5, 2007 12:07 PM EDT reply actions
Lincecum
Not that it's impossible, but Christ people, be conservative.
Galty
I am going with Like Hochevar here.
actually
I'd be very interested to see a community 2007 projection as well as a community career projection.
If the community projection is not assumed to be in line with once-in-a-decade (if that) anomolies that Liriano and Weaver put up last year, I'd be shocked.
Aside from your new introduction to SharksRog
Sorry, but that's the definition of overrated - and I like Lincecum.
I agree with the nomination of Lincecum
I just don't think he's head and shoulders above other excellent (and often younger) pitching prospects out there who only get a fraction of the attention that Lincecum does.
by FI @ Minor League Ball on May 5, 2007 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions
UNDERRATED
My only comment is that I believe you will come to regret your comment, just as some scouts from the teams with the first nine picks last year are likely gulping and hoping that Tim doesn't do especially in the majors and that their own pick turns out better.
We honestly DON'T know for sure how Tim will do in the majors. We still won't know even after tomorrow night, although we will have had our first peak.
What we DO know is that Tim has blown away the other top AAA prospects -- including Phil Hughes of the 6 1/3 inning no-hitter this week -- in most statistical categories, including two of the most important -- called strikes and swinging strikes. Perhaps it will be different with major league hitters, but the fact is that AAA hitters have had a harder time even making contact with Tim's strikes than perhaps any AAA pitcher in over a decade.
My prediction is that when his career is over, Tim will be known as the fourth-greatest Giant of all time, behind only Willie Mays, Barry Bonds and Christy Mathewson. Sure, I could take a much less aggressive posture and increase my chances of being right.
But I may have seen more of Tim's minor-league career than anyone in the world aside from Tim himself. I have witnessed 40 2/3 of the 69 2/3 innings he has thrown in the minors. And I am telling you what my heart believes.
It's not as if I'm overly enamored with Giants prospects, either. I haven't been very high on them because there have been precious few to honestly get excited about. I even incurred the wrath of some Giants fans when I dared to post after Matt Cain's first start that his high number of foul balls indicated to me that he might become a #2 starter instead of a #1 as almost all Giants fans were assuming.
Today I believe Matt will likely become a capable #1 starter. I view his as the Giants #1 so far this season, easily ahead of Barry Zito. But the irony is that he likely is about to become #2, as I intimated could be the case. It's not that Matt has let me down. It's that another even better Giants pitching prospect has suddenly arisen.
I would think I could get pretty good odds on Tim's eventually making the Hall of Fame. But I hope to live long enough to attend his induction. Maybe I won't have to worry about that. But my heart and mind tell me it is a real possibility.
About as strong as the possibility that I have seen more of Tim's minor-league career than anyone aside from Tim himself.
Wow
This is why I asked
Now, I hope you'll apologize for saying his post won the worst post award.
by ajohnst1 on May 5, 2007 7:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Perspective
It really appears that you're giving a lot of attention to one great pitching prospect and inflating his value because you're ignoring others. I mean, do you know how hard Adam Miller can throw or what Yovani Gallardo's third-best pitch is? If you paid such intense attention to other great prospects I think you'd gain some perspective on Lincecum.
"What we DO know is that Tim has blown away the other top AAA prospects"
Again, it appears that you're ignoring other impressive performances. I really wouldn't say that Lincecum has "blown away" Yovani Gallardo's early performance, for example. I think Lincecum has been better, but we're talking about the difference between 42 and 46 strikeouts and 8 or 11 walks. Both are excellent, and Gallardo is significantly younger and has a longer track record of success as a pro, so I'm sure someone could make a reasonable case for him if they wanted. There are other great Triple-A performances, too. Just look.
by FI @ Minor League Ball on May 5, 2007 11:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed
my rationale
With Gallardo and others, we at least have some evidence that he remains very effective when facing other pro teams a few times during the season.
by FI @ Minor League Ball on May 6, 2007 5:52 PM EDT up reply actions
More than once?
The first time came against Stockton last season. Tim pitched better the second time, allowing only one scratch infield hit and three walks in five innings, striking out nine (on 73 pitches).
This season he faced the Tacoma Raniers in two straight starts. In the first, he gave up four hits and two walks, striking out nine in seven innings. In the second, he yielded just three hits and no walks, striking out 11 in 6 2/3 innings.
The evidence thus far would seem to show that teams don't adjust all that well to Tim. He is two-for-two in doing even better in second appearances.
Ludicrous
It's just not possible to fruitfully predict a man's entire career -- especially to project him to be a better pitcher than oh, say, Juan Marichal, to take as an example one great pitcher whom you think Lincecum will be better than -- based on such a small amount of information, statistical, scouting, or otherwise, especially if one is going to make such radical claims. What happens if he goes to the pen eventually, as some believe he will? What happens if his arm explodes into a zillion tiny pieces, which is a strong possibility with any young pitcher and seems especially indicated in Lincecum's mechanics (as much as that's possible)? I would say that there is roughly a 90% chance that Tim Lincecum is not a Hall of Famer. That's fine; if someone goes into his career with a 10% chance of joining that elite company, he's pretty dang good.
You've mentioned your "heart" as well as your "mind" in both of these posts. It seems pretty clear to me that one of them is not as engaged as the other.
JEE-sus
Rabble rabble rabble.
You're welcome . . .
Deduce?
I think one should form his own opinion based on all the facts he has at his disposal. We probably shouldn't forget that this very argument was no doubt used against Christopher Columbus, but it turned out to be a very flat argument.
Intelligence
Ludicrous?
You said Tim threw with a bizarre motion and suffered from a lack of control. The motion is actually considered to be highly efficient and healthy by none other than Will Carroll of BP, mlb.com and si.com, who said he would take Tim as the pitcher he would start a franchise with for the next 10 years. Tim definitely DID have a lack of control, but he has actually cut his walks in half as a professional compared to his freshman and sophomore years. And pitchers such as Sandy Koufax and Randy Johnson overcame control problems much more severe than Tim's control problems today.
As for your saying that Tim doesn't have a 10% chance of being a Hall of Famer, I recently saw an article at Hardball Times or some such place that indicated that something like 7-10% of players playing at least semi-regularly in the majors at a given time go on to become Hall of Famers. I, too, was surprised the percentage was nearly that high. But the article had numbers by decade to back it up. So you are essentially saying Tim has about the same chance as the average player playing today. I don't believe that to be true.
You say that my mind and my heart aren't equally engaged in my evaluation of Tim, but I believe you are absolutely wrong about that. If my heart were taking over, I would jump all over the rationale going around the Bay Area that Tim was being squeezed in his first start. Instead -- and in part because live at the game I sensed that COULD be true -- I have looked at each of Tim's pitches at least twice on DVR and have concluded that while there were nearly 10 very close pitches, umpire Jim Reynolds called about the same number of pitches I would have called balls, strikes, as he called balls on pitches I would have called strikes. And some of the pitches were so close they could darn near have been called either way.
I have mentioned that there is far more downside than upside to my prediction. I could have taken a more conservative tack. But as for what I truly expect to happen, you have seen it. I posted with my mind and my heart, and I put a lot of each into my opinion.
There is no QUESTION I could be wrong. And if I am wrong, the odds are about 99% that I will have overrated Tim rather than underrated him. I didn't leave much upside on the table. But I posted what I believe, and it is my opinion that there is a fairly good chance that 10 year from now you will be saying that guy was crazy all right -- crazy like a fox.
Irrational Exuberance
+1
Interestingly, probably the only pitcher who's had better numbers than Tim (without really looking anything up) in AAA in the last decade or longer is Felix himself. Tim's numbers are a little better...but he's 22, Felix was 19.
by ajohnst1 on May 5, 2007 8:35 PM EDT up reply actions
King Felix/Prince Tim
I like this topic...Daisuke Matsuzaka?
by eeleye on May 5, 2007 12:24 PM EDT reply actions
Whether you consider him a prospect is moot...
by eeleye on May 5, 2007 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions
what are you trying to say?
2, if he does go to MLB and gets smashed, you are right, he will be just like hot sh!t.... stinking up the place.
that's why
People have christened him as the second coming already.
It is basically impossible for Lincecum to meet expectations unless he is a top 5 pitcher in the majors this year, and a perrennial Cy Young contender thereafter.
to clarity..
by eeleye on May 5, 2007 9:54 PM EDT up reply actions
I think (sometimes)
Evidence please
What evidence can you provide that Tim is injury-prone? I believe just the opposite. I believe his training, his flexibility and his motion make him far LESS vulnerable to injury than the average pitcher.
The more I think about Tim's being named as overrated, the more it frustrates me. I understand it, I really do. I know his small size and unusual motion make him appear to be injury-prone. I realize it is hard to imagine that he won't fall off quite a bit once he reaches the majors.
But the results -- the FACTS -- strongly support Tim in both areas.
Want to know why I think Tim will be good? Who is the last pitcher you know whose OPS allowed has doubled from AAA to the majors? (Or put another way, which batter has doubled his OPS from AAA to the show?)
If Tim's OPS allowed DOUBLES in the majors, he will still be better than average. No, Tim probably WON'T do as well in the majors. It's pretty hard to imagine he will maintain his 0.29 ERA. But the point is that Tim has a LOT of wiggle room before he becomes even only an AVERAGE big league pitcher.
Whether Tim stars or bombs tomorrow night, I'm still 100% behind him. How many pitchers actually LOWER their ERA's from Class A to AAA? It's not unprecedented, but it's rare. And it almost ALWAYS comes from a pitcher whose Class A ERA was far higher than the 1.35 ERA Tim put up last year in Class A. How many out there expected him to LOWER that ERA by over a full point? How many actually expected him to keep his ERA within a point of where it was? Within TWO points?
It will be a while before we know how Tim will fare in the major leagues. But few pitchers in history have brought such an impressive track record with them when they arrived.
Small sample size alert
But to say things like, "If Tim's OPS allowed doubles from AAA to the majors, he'll still be great, and that won't happen," is just silly. In fact, to base any kind of long term predictions on Tim's minor league numbers (however impressive they might be) is ill advised. He's made, what, 13, 14 pro starts? That's an extremely small sample size, as you are undoubtedly aware.
This is what kills me about Tim Lincecum, and why I could see how he might be overrated. His numbers in college were great, but he walked too many guys. He hasn't had that problem in the minor leagues, but he's thrown less than 100 professional innings, and it's definitely possible that he'll have command problems in the majors.
I have to admit that I've never seen Lincecum pitch. I also have to admit that his numbers so far have been absolutely unbelivable. But I'm reserving judgment until he's pitched a little more. When it comes to pitchers, skepticism is always justified, especially with a guy with as short a minor league resume as Lincecum's.
I know I'm going to get blasted for this, so let's get it over with.
by ajohnst1 on May 5, 2007 8:14 PM EDT up reply actions
No, no
The only thing I would quarrel with is that I shouldn't make such a lofty projection based on seeing seven of his starts. Logically, you are absolutely correct.
But all I have to go on is those seven starts, the accomplishments he has made in the NCAA, the Cape Cod summer league, Class A and AAA, as well as everything I have been able to read or view about him.
Sure, I could play it safe and merely say that I think he will be an above-average pitcher. Or I could go the slightest bit out on a limb and say I think he'll make the All-Star team at least once during his career.
But in my heart I truly believe he will become one of the best pitchers we have seen. And I'm a very analytical guy. I realize it is easy to get carried away, and it is certainly possible that is just what I am doing.
But the more I see and learn about Tim, the more convinced I become. Ever since I saw him make those two long tosses at calleaguers.com, I have thought I was seeing something special. And I believe that now more than ever.
I will still believe it even if he gets shelled tomorrow. I wouldn't go on blindly believing it forever, but my belief is plenty strong enough to absorb a bad outing or two.
As for injury-prone
I understand he's been a total freak, injury-wise, up to this point in his career. He may well always have that rubber arm, and he might never get hurt.
But any kid who throws the number of pitches Lincecum did in their early 20s HAS to be considered an injury risk. The abuse he took in college was insane.
I remember reading that Kerry Wood took all kinds of abuse in high school, and had similarly insane pitch counts. Yet Wood was a guy that (as far as I know) had no significant injury history before he reached the major leagues, and he had a pretty awesome minor league career too. We all know what happens next. Wood went from being a "freak" and a "horse" to being on the disabled list six or seven times. I'm not suggesting Wood and Tim are comparable, but based on what little I know, their injury situation seems similar.
Just because Tim hasn't ever had a major injury doesn't mean he's God. It doesn't mean he's immune. Heck, it doesn't even mean "due." All it means is that he's a guy with a small frame, who throws max-effort (even if he does have a good delivery like you say, he's still max-effort), and who has been abused like crazy throughout his college career.
by ajohnst1 on May 5, 2007 8:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Dice-K
by foolintherain on May 5, 2007 9:30 PM EDT up reply actions
I think Tim will be solid
And to Trevor, I DO consider Dice-K to be a big injury risk...I was really concerned about his workload when he came over and I still am.
by ajohnst1 on May 5, 2007 10:43 PM EDT up reply actions
same here
by foolintherain on May 5, 2007 11:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Lincecum...
Also, Lincecum also has that awkward delivery, which is why I thought he would eventually be susceptible to injury.
by eeleye on May 5, 2007 9:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Two questions
First, why am I "crazy" if I don't think Tim Lincecum is a big injury risk.
Second, could you share with me Tim's pitch count from each of his games in his three seasons at the University of Washington? Or at the very least the pitch counts of which you are aware that make you so fearful.
Two (2) answers
As for your second question, I tried to look up some of the numbers on Google. Unsurprisingly, college pitch counts are pretty tough to dig up. But you said I should provide you with the pitch counts I'm aware of which make me so fearful, so I shall. I confirmed this in my search, but you'd already given me the only numbers I needed.
In 2005, a 165 pitch nine inning start (!). Multiple 140+ pitch starts, and relief outings and long toss between starts...I'm guessing that if you could provide me with more details about his pitch counts, I'd be even more worried. A 165 pitch nine inning outing is criminal abuse of a pitcher, as far as I'm concerned. Like I said before, just because Tim hasn't had any problems doing what he does doesn't mean he won't have problems in the future, especially if he's allowed to keep doing it.
Does that clear everything up? If you can find the info on Tim's pitch counts, I'd love to see it, both for the minors and for Washington.
Oh, and one other thing. Anyone out there who understands pitcher abuse points (PAPs)? I was able to find Tim's PAP for 2005 and 2006.
In 2005 it was 430,068, fifth most among all college pitchers.
In 2006, it was down, to a paltry 321,533.
I have no idea what these numbers mean. But they sound scary.
by ajohnst1 on May 6, 2007 3:31 AM EDT up reply actions
he
by foolintherain on May 6, 2007 4:02 AM EDT up reply actions
agree
the few cases of pitchers with good mechanics who SURVIVE the abuse may end more more immune to breakdown.
linecum keeps the thrust off his elbow and shoulder thru using his body to generate velocity so as good as bet as any to hold up.
Pitchers most comparable to him,, Guidry and Oswalt,,aren't breakdown examples.
Another thing, a small sample size makes a projection off those stats more RISKY...but can't just automatically throw in some discount factor to downgrade the projection..no basis for that at all.
In other words, if the planet pluto produced super-pitching beings, one of them can down to earth..best he could do would be to put up stats comparable to Linecum's while waiting around till Ortiz got injured.
by dryice on May 6, 2007 8:28 AM EDT up reply actions
+1
Besides, I'd take that delivery every minute of every year if you told me that I could throw 95 consistently instead of topping out at 80 (on a good day) like I do now!
Work Load
by ajohnst1 on May 6, 2007 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions
And...
Carlos Zambrano was abused heavily at a young age, about the age that Lincecum is now. In all but one of the years in which he's been in the rotation full time, he's been in the top 10 in PAP and mostly in the top 3 (the only year in which he wasn't in the top 10, he was #11 - 2003). And that "heavier frame" stuff is junk, it's just crap that scouts write down when the dude is fat and his mechanics are questionable.
Either way, I'm stoked for tonight's game; get to watch Timmah in HD.
Actually
Those are both worse than "cheap, above-average when healthy".
And I think this proves my original point
Zambrano's a guy who I would have expected to get hurt by now, and he hasn't (unless you count his instant messaging injury). But that doesn't mean he isn't a risk.
by ajohnst1 on May 6, 2007 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions
er..
A nonunique issue applied uniquely to a single prospect strikes me as.. odd.
by wcw on May 6, 2007 6:11 PM EDT up reply actions
No, what's odd is
Go back and read a few of the posts above this one. I argue that Lincecum's college workload makes him an increased injury risk, which would be true for ANY YOUNG PITCHER. He built up a ton of pitcher abuse points, threw long toss after 140 pitch starts, threw a 165 pitch 9 inning game, etc. big injury risk, right?
Noooo, my friend. You see, Tim Lincecum's delivery is special. His arm is special. He's never had to ice his arm, he's never been sore, and he's handled all that abuse with no observed side effects. Ergo (according to a LOT of people on this board), Lincecum is NOT an increased injury risk. In fact, he isn't an injury risk at all. Obviously, this is completely wrong because, as you say, all pitchers are injury risks.
This is why Tim Lincecum is overrated. People pimp his incredible rubber arm like he's never going to get hurt, and that's where a lot of the irrational exuberance surrounding Lincecum comes from. But the truth is that Lincecum is a big injury risk.
by ajohnst1 on May 6, 2007 6:24 PM EDT up reply actions
SharksRog != "people"
Try this little test: scroll up and down the comments and count the number of unique posters who think Lincecum is a risk (this includes me, if that is not clear), those who think he is riskier than usual (this does not include me), and those who like SharksRog think he is a magical pitching eld who will never be hurt.
by wcw on May 6, 2007 6:35 PM EDT up reply actions
the question wasn't....
if you're really going to be a pain about it and demand it, i will make this a research project and find you 20 different posts made in the past few months (all by people besides SharksRog) who have made comments to suggest Lincecum is in an entirely different boat regarding injury than the common mortal pitching prospect.
if you're going to be reasonable about it, you'll spare me the trouble and admit that the man-love for Lincecum has been rampant on this site for months now, and it's hardly limited to one person. the question was "overrated," and the answer has to be someone who has gotten buzz that they're not worthy of. since no pitching prospect in history could be worth the buzz Lincecum's received, he IS overrated.
yeah, okay
My deeply unscientific impression is that (as for every prospect, ever) there is a tiny, hardcore element of true believers in this particular great white hope. If you really want to make your point, draw a sample of reputable commentators ahead of time (BP, BA, Sickels, et alia), then report back.
Internet cranks like me are not "people", we are a deeply skewed sample of obsessives.
by wcw on May 6, 2007 8:06 PM EDT up reply actions
ahhh! got it!
i'm pretty sure my "test" is the same as your "test," except mine gives a broader picture of hype by allowing access to other on-topic diaries.
your new "test" is challenging -- it's pretty bold to make my assignment to locate or else generate things said by experts. but it's also largely irrelevant. what are these group of men able to tell me about how "overrated" some is? to "know" overrated, you have to both recognition of actual talent (advantage goes to professionals, though the nonprofessional can slightly compete with their skill) and you have to have a genuine pulse on public perception. In your proposed assignment, I wouldn't be allowed to draw points from the writings of the fans -- stiffling the very voice I'm trying to gauge.
anyway, I'm sure the "experts" have made fewer irrational comments -- I think you get to stay a prospector if people continue to not blow up in your face. but you can't tell me that a select group of "experts" are anything but a WORSE attempt to get a pulse on the public perceptions: Which are what determine things like "overrated"
I just want...
by uga007 on May 7, 2007 5:18 AM EDT up reply actions
I guess
by uga007 on May 7, 2007 5:19 AM EDT up reply actions
OK...
by uga007 on May 7, 2007 5:23 AM EDT up reply actions
read twice, rant once
>>Lots of people talk about Lincecum like he's immune to injury. Go back and read a few of the posts above this one.<<
(ajohnst1)
>>Try this little test: scroll up and down the comments and count the number of unique posters<<
(wcw reply)
It should be clear from my various posts that what I find potentially makes a prospect overrated are his rankings by BA, BP, KG, Sickels, et cetera, et alia.
That I encouraged aj1 to test the validity of his own assertions does not change that.
by wcw on May 7, 2007 9:34 AM EDT up reply actions
Um...
But, I don't think it's Lincecum. His limited sample size says that he's got the stuff to make guys look bad at the big league level, and he should get his shot in the show. Yes, he's an injury risk. But his upside makes it worth the potential problems, and he's in the right system for pitcher development.
How Big of Prospects Were the Top 4
Max effort
Andrew Brackman
by eeleye on May 5, 2007 12:27 PM EDT reply actions
Here Comes Temple
by Torncuff on May 6, 2007 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Minor Leagues
I agree with Hochevar myself though I'm also not a huge believer in Garza.
Andy Sonnastine
??? wtf
Plus, have you ever SEEN him pitch?
Not to mention, let's compare Towers minor league numbers to Sonnanstine's.
K/9: Towers - 6.48, Sonnanstine - 8.43
H/9: Towers - 9.91, Sonnanstine - 7.66
ERA: Towers - 3.96, Sonnanstine - 2.55
There's no comparison. The ONLY similarity is BB/9.
by youALREADYknow on May 5, 2007 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah
by FI @ Minor League Ball on May 5, 2007 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree with this
Garza
by TT @ Minor League Ball on May 8, 2007 9:33 AM EDT up reply actions
Homer Bailey
+ 1
He reminds me of Kerry Wood and Josh Beckett. He'll throw as crazy hard as Wood did, but like Beckett his curveball will be inconsistent.
I'm not a Pelfrey fan either.
+1
I would have said Pelfrey, but since he is in the Majors, he is exempt from this.
Not a big believer in Garza either. I know he tore up the minors last season, but I don't think he will be a top of the rotation arm either.
Oh, and Hughes... I bet he won't win a game for at least another month! Overrated!
And just to reply to the Lincecum comments, I think they are warranted. The kid has so much hype right now, he very well may be overrated. Going into the season, he may have been slightly underrated by some, but I think it has gotten to the point that if he doesn't have an ERA under 2.50 and K/9 of 13, some will be disappointed.
Improper grounds
People here and also on the Giants blogs have called me way too overly optimistic about Tim, and I certainly don't expect him to do that well.
My predictions for him if he came up soon enough to make 30 starts (which is still possible, although not likely) were for a 3.25 ERA and 10.5 strikeouts per nine innings. I feel those are conservative predictions and that Tim might well exceed them, but I certainly don't expect him to strike out more than 13 batters per nine innings. I think the 2.50 is possible. But I am certainly not EXPECTING him to better that number. And I certainly won't call his first season less than a success if he is between 2.50 and my predicted 3.25.
er..
Me, I think TL will look like this if he gets a couple dozen MLB starts in 2007: 9 K/9, 4 BB/9, 0.5 HR/9, ERA ~3.5. Them's great numbers for a 23-year-old, but given his minor-league record, that's what I think he can do.
by wcw on May 5, 2007 8:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Good projection
I figure Tim has GOT to throw a few fastballs up that get a bit too much plate -- and I'll be he hangs 10 or 12 curves this season. :)
Tim has indeed given up only 15 homers in his three college seasons and his pro career to date, but personally I projected him for 19 homers in 186 innings, or 0.92 homers per nine.
I tried to pick numbers that I thought would make good over/unders. Based on 30 starts (which is a couple more than he'll likely make), here those numbers are:
186 IP
140 H
75 BB
19 HR
218 K
3.25 ERA
By the way, it's a very small sample, and it's only AAA, but in 13.0 innings with runners on, Tim gave up only one hit. In 6 1/3 innings with RISP, he yielded none.
Andrew Miller
swarzak
Pelfrey Definitely
Hughes!
I'm going with Pelfrey. I think he's still going to settle in as a solid above average MLB starter, but not going to fulfill his potential.
Runner up and sort of reaching a bit: Elbert. His stuff is top notch. Just look at the opposing batting averages. However, high pitch counts and walks will do him in. Still plenty of time to work on that, but it could definitely catch up to him if that doesn't happen. I guess I see him as having as high of potential of any of the "top" guys to "miss" as a player many think he can be.
lots of comment
Elbert is generally thought of as a higher ranked prospect than both Miller and Hochevar. But the guy has no control what so ever. Now if he lower his bb/9 to less than 4 this year I'll be impressed and change my mind, but right now he's even worse in bb/9 department than Oliver Perez when he was in the minors.
I'm going with...
by bballfanlvnv on May 5, 2007 3:21 PM EDT reply actions
Slowey?
thoughts?
by cool hand Charlie on May 5, 2007 3:47 PM EDT reply actions
Cmon now...
by sdbaseballfan on May 5, 2007 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Everyone has been saying
I'm just saying
I don't dislike Slowey, on the contrary, i think he has some great intangibles. But i don't think its a stretch to try and call out a guy rated in the top 75 of the whole minors as being overrated. makes sense to me...
So can his stuff/control work in MLB?
by cool hand Charlie on May 5, 2007 6:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Who does this remind me of?
Sounds like John Maine to me. He struck out a ton of guys in the lower minors by relying on his fastball control. He had some growing pains in AAA and the majors, but he's doing just fine now. And he's mostly doing it with his fastball.
way off base
from what i've heard of slowey he might be the VERY opposite type pitcher from john maine...maine works off a fastball that hes gotten up to 94-95 and also has that rare quality of "exploding" or just getting on the hitter way before they're expecting it...its how he can live upstairs without giving up too many hrs
so basically, maine is blessed with a nuts fastball whereas slowey seems to do it on control, control and more control
by Rob Castellano on May 6, 2007 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions
not to mention
Slowey hasnt had any growing pains in AAA.
he's posted a 28/2 K/BB ration in 25.2 IP
by cool hand Charlie on May 6, 2007 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Do you remember Maine as a prospect?
He's a finesse righty who lives on the corners. He doesn't allow a lot of homers because he pitches for a National League team in Shea Stadium and he avoids the middle of the plate.
I understand the urge to re-evaulate a pitcher's stuff to justify how well he is pitching, but my argument is that Maine in the minors is similar to Slowey in the minors.
Sickels said "he doesn't blow the ball past people with pure velocity...his command has been excellent."
Will Lingo wasn't sure Maine "has enough stuff to get big league hitters out as a starter, but should at least be a useful bullpen arm."
Regardless of what Maine is now, he put up tremendous numbers in the minors and he didn't throw hard.
yeah
"gives up" should be "gave up"
well
2007 GB/FB: .80
2006 HR/FB: 12.6% (league average ~11%)
2007 HR/FH: 4.4%
I really see no reason to expect Maine's HR drought to continue. He's still one of the most prolific flyball pitchers in baseball (would have been 5th lowest GB/FB in baseball had he qualified last year).
Fly ball % isn't all that matters
re:
his stuff can certainly work...there will be some homeruns, and even a comparable career to radke would have him as a #2-#3 guy on most staffs...people try to use the "ace" tag on him because his comparables (radke on the middle...maddux on the top end) have mostly been aces, but his most close comparables were aces on bad staffs or bad teams...
his ascension to top pitching lists is more a product of consistently proving critics wrong...no one's saying he'll be the next clemens...but a guy who tosses out a 3.50 era and a 1.15 whip with low walk totals can be on my staff anyday...especially if he's #3 or #4 like seems to be his destiny if he stays in minnesota....
well
Look at the raw numbers.
by hotshotschamp on May 6, 2007 5:44 AM EDT up reply actions
well
My answers are Adam Miller and Tim Lincecum. Honorable mention to Homer Bailey, who I've become less and less enamored with over the last few years.
I understand Lincecum gets alot of hype,
Included
Something sound
No offense, but An. Miller has gotten much more
Hello limozeen,
If Adam had gotten as much press as Andrew got, I could see an argument for Adam being a bit overrated because he hasn't flat out dominated AAA (though looking at his numbers, his K rate is higher than I thought it was.) However, Andrew got far more press as if he was equivalent to the other 5 (Hughes/Bailey/Ad. Miller/Gallardo/Lincecum) and he's not anywhere close to those guys - all 5 of them are holding their own or dominating at AAA - if anyone is overrated, it's Andrew Miller, young or not young, great stuff or not great stuff. Fact of the matter is, he's not dominating High-A like most expected him to.
Looking at Andrew's numbers to this point:
1-3, 3.93 ERA, 6 G, 6 GS, 2 CG, 1 SHO, 34.1 IP, 37 H, 18 R, 15 ER, 1 HR, 11 BB, 23 K, 4.13 GO/AO, .270 BAA
While the overall numbers are pretty solid, for a guy who was supposed to be up there with Hughes/Bailey/Ad. Miller/Gallardo/Lincecum, he's not living up to that hype. I mean, when you have an ERA just under 4, give up more than 1 H/IP, strike out just over 6/9 IP, and have a BAA not far under .300 (.270) at High-A , how can you say that Andrew is not overrated and Adam is?
Here's Adam's numbers at age 22 at AAA:
3-0, 2.32 ERA, 5 G, 5 GS, 1 CG, 0 SHO, 31.0 IP, 25 H, 9 R, 8 ER, 0 HR, 11 BB, 30 K, 1.58 GO/AO, .217
If anything for me, Adam's BB rate is a bit high compared to his previous BB rates, but hardly disastrous, as that's still just about 1 BB/3 IP, which isn't bad at all. Like I said, I was surprised to find Adam's K rate of just under 9 (8.71) - while Adam's BB rates of late have been higher, so have his Ks as well, which probably explains why he's nearly striking out a batter an inning.
To me, Adam is not overrated, especially when he wasn't mentioned nearly as much as Andrew was. Between the two, Adam is living up to the hype more than Andrew is at this point.
Sure, Andrew has time to recover, but let's face it, it's not likely he's going to be up and contributing in the second half of this year like some were predicting for him. That's overrated in my book.
Like I said, Adam may not be blowing away the IL, but is doing well enough at age 22, and he didn't get anywhere near the press Andrew did, so I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that Adam's overrated, while also saying that Andrew isn't.
Therefore, I'd like to hear your reasons why you think Adam is overrated, yet Andrew isn't - I don't see how you can say that and would be curious to know how you came to that conclusion. Adam's overall numbers are better than Andrew's, and Adam is 2 levels higher than Andrew, not to mention only 6 months older.
As for Garza, he didn't get the press Andrew did either; I think many were expecting him to dominate after he did so well at the ML level last year. I could see how some might think he's overrated, but I think that's more that some were expecting too much out of him too soon - after all, he only had 5 AAA starts last year, so I wouldn't call Garza overrated either.
I think he was rushed and now is fully experiencing and adapting to AAA - I don't think the IL seen him enough to get a gauge on how to attack him, which they seem to be doing a better job of to this point (26 H in 27 IP and a .263 BAA.) As well, Garza may have been initially disappointed at not making the Twins' roster, plus probably had some things he needed to work on, things that probably didn't hurt him in 5 AAA starts last year. Now, those things are getting exposed more, but would have likely hurt him more at the ML level, which is probably why the Twins had him start 2007 at AAA in the first place.
As for Lincecum, he might be a bit overrated only because there's been so much hype; it sounds like he should finish the year with a 0.00 ERA and strike out every batter he faces at the ML level by the press he's getting. That's not going to happen (Pedro didn't do it in his dominant days, and I think most would agree that Lincecum is not Pedro yet, if he ever is,) so in that sense, the hype is leading to him being overrated, but, in his defense, he is dominating so much and living up to his previous hype (and then some) that he's just receiving such a high level of hype now that he might only be slightly overrated, only because of the publicity, not because of a lack of performance (he's outperformed every other top pitching prospect, including Hughes, to this point.)
As for Bailey, he received a lot of hype as well, and I do agree with you on that one; I've never been convinced about Bailey being able to command his stuff, and so far, he still hasn't been able to gain command of his offspeed stuff (13 BB in 27.1 IP) like the other 4 (Hughes/Ad. Miller/Gallardo/Lincecum) have, so yes, I do think Bailey is overrated. I wouldn't be surprised if he eventually becomes a closer, one who would only have to command two pitches in order to be successful, as I'm not sure he'll have enough command of his offspeed stuff in order to be able to dominate ML hitters like many were expecting him too. He can overpower Minor League hitters with his fastball, but that likely won't work against ML hitters without 1-2 offspeed pitches to complement it.
Unless he improves the command of that breaking stuff AND has the confidence to be able to use it at any time (which he hasn't done to this point, not in Spring Training, and from what I've heard, hasn't done at the AAA level either to this point,) I don't see where he'll be the great frontline starter that many were projecting for him. He does have time to prove he can be that frontline starter, but still has much work to do in that regard, more than the other 4 top pitching prospects because the other 4 are more able to work in their offspeed stuff and not have a high BB/IP, two key ingredients to being successful and even dominating at the ML level.
Just my 2 cents. :-)
Take care and have a great day!
I think
You're right - I did exaggerate!
As you pointed out, I did exaggerate; of course, even the biggest Lincecum supporters aren't expecting Lincecum to be perfect in ERA or Ks, but with all the hype he's getting, it almost seems that way at times, which is probably why some might think he's overrated.
I think he's only overrated in the sense that people are holding him up to such a high standard that if he struggles at all, even if just for a few starts while getting his feet wet in the Majors, some might start to get down on Lincecum, which wouldn't be fair. It's quite possible Lincecum, like virtually every pitcher, will hit a bump or two in the road at the ML level, but that doesn't mean he can't or won't be great.
Based on his performance, he's not overrated; in fact, he might have even been a bit underrated by some when he was drafted, since some questioned whether he could do that well in the Minors with his unusual delivery and be ready for the Majors as quickly as he appears to be.
So, yes, I was exaggerating a bit, but with all the hype he's getting, I think many are expecting Lincecum to just come up to the Majors and take over where he left off from the Minors with no difficulty, which I think might be a bit unrealistic. It's likely there will be a bump or two in the road at some point, but with the way Lincecum has dominated AAA, it's likely he'll get past that minor bump or two he'll probably encounter at some point, whether it be due to hitters laying off pitches Minor Leaguers haven't, or Major Leaguers being able to foul off some of the strikes he's throwing that Minor Leaguers haven't. Even a guy like Mark Prior wasn't able to duplicate what he did in the Minors at the Major League level that often.
Just my 2 cents. :-)
Take care and have a great day!
Hype
I bet! :-)
I can imagine - many have complained about the Giants' farm system not producing much in recent years, especially in hitters, so when word came through that a "stud" like Tim Lincecum was coming up and was as close to a sure thing as you can probably get in a pitching prospect, I bet the media had a "field day" with that story.
Otherwise, I'm guessing most of the talk is about Bonds' pursuit of Aaron's HR record and all the tangent stories along with it (was Bonds on steroids, who will be there when he hits that HR, where will he hit, Schilling's recent comments about it, etc.) It probably was a welcome relief at first to hear something not related to Bonds, yet still be something regarding the Giants. :-)
I too heard that "seventh day" line from someone here on MinorLeagueBall.com and thought it was funny. That's why I think the hype surrounding Lincecum is so much that it would be hard for anyone, Lincecum or even Johan Santana, to live up to that much hype, even though I know they're not really expecting Lincecum to be "other-worldly," but it sure sounds that way from the media hype.
That's why I can see why some might think Lincecum is overrated, not because of his lack of domination, but because of all the media attention and hype he's receiving - I don't think anyone could live up to that much hype, Santana included (though he'd come close.)
Just my 2 cents. :-)
Take care and have a great day!
writeups
Andrew Miller is, in my opinion, the best pitching prospect in the 2006 draft. That was my opinion on draft day, that was my opinion after Lincecum blew away the minors last year, and that's my opinion today. Miller's got a combination of size, downward plane, movement, groundball tendencies, and a killer out pitch that will make him a very good Major Leaguer. I hesitate to rank him in the top 15 (and don't) because he's got to clean up his control. I think he's a better bet to do so than Lincecum, for various reasons I'll get into in a second.
Matt Garza is my second-favorite pitching prospect, if we assume Phil Hughes is still a prospect. Everything I see from him is ideal...mechanics, stuff, control, out pitch, he's got it all. He was rushed to the majors last year, and struggled to get his control right after tweaking his neck in spring training, but neither is a long term issue. I think people confuse immediate success with long-term potential way too often. Garza has shown the ability to make adjustments at every level, and I have confidence that he will be a very good pitcher.
I'm getting down on Homer Bailey, who I was probably wrong to list in the top ten last year. Bailey still has a hell of an arm, but I question whether he'll develop a third pitch or a semblance of control. I gave him the benefit of the doubt for what I viewed as shoddy control because his BB/9 was good, which in retrospect was a big mistake. I made a note to watch his numbers as he climbed the ladder, thinking that a black mark against his control would be slipping BB/9s and K/9s as batters learned to lay off the curveball. Late last year and early this year seem to show that Bailey need work. I'll give him a half-season to prove it's a real trend before I move him back.
Adam Miller is a pretty obvious answer for overrated, because people talk about him as if he's up there with Garza, Hughes, and Lincecum. He's really not. To a lesser extent, Miller has faced slipping control and strikeout numbers at higher levels, something that I expected more than I did for Bailey. I don't think Miller has great control. More importantly, he's got the scariest arm history of any well-regarded pitcher in the minors, and any attempt to gloss that over is foolish and short-sighted. It's career value here, and ignoring potential problems down the road because of gaudy minor-league numbers is wrong.
Tim Lincecum is overrated for similar reasons. First, I have always had my doubts about his control. Even Homer Bailey, whose control I suspected early on, managed very good BB/9 numbers because he had a fantastic out pitch and simply overmatched hitters by making them swing through it. Despite having one of the nastiest curves in baseball, Lincecum has never done this, which I believe speaks volumes about his control. When minor leaguers lay off, they get on base. When major leaguers lay off, they can work the count, draw walks, and oh yeah, they can hit 98 MPH fastballs up there too. Second, I think there are serious issues with Lincecum's health. We've never seen a pitcher of his stature throw so many breaking balls with such a high-energy motion. It could be that he's a bionic baseball-throwing machine, but I tend to be skeptical of supposed uniqueness among prospects. I just can't believe that Lincecum's unique stature, motion, and velocity don't make him an increased injury risk.
control
well-reasoned
by FI @ Minor League Ball on May 6, 2007 1:00 AM EDT up reply actions
Say What (Say Hey!)
First, his control.
Second, he has no strong out pitch.
Third, he is a health risk.
Let's take them one-by-one:
Tim's control isn't his strong suit, but it also isn't his Achilles heel anymore. Tim cut his walk rate by about a third his final year in college, and he has cut it by another third as a professional. In his last three starts, Tim has either allowed no walks or no hits -- and twice it was no walks. His strike ratio in AAA was within one strike per 500 pitches of Phil Hughes', and Phil is NOTED for his control. Tim threw 62 strikes (72%) in 86 pitches in his last outing.
And you are right that Tim doesn't have a single out pitch -- he has three. I don't have breakdowns for the whole season, but over his first two starts this season, Tim had a higher swing-through rate with his change than anyone had in the majors last season. His curve swing-through rate was right there with the best in the majors last season. And his fastball was swung on and missed about 30% more frequently than any major leaguer's fastball last season. Sure, we're talking AAA, but at least we're talking sense.
And, heaven forbid, he could become injured tomorrow, in his first major-league start. But what you don't seem to understand is the lack of needing ice, the lack of even a sore arm, the ability to long toss from foul pole to foul pole the next day after throwing his 146th pitch at 95 mph the day before. You don't understand that he has spent an inordinate amount of time strengthening his core and making it more flexible. You don't understand that it one looks at his delivery in slow motion from the side, it appears that his body is the catapult and that his arm is merely being pulled along.
Hey, you could wind up being right on any or all of your points. But the evidence thus far says otherwise.
re:
I don't see these as neccessarily good things, save the alleged lack of sore arms. Every third guy who arrives in the majors is allegedly a freak who can't get hurt. I don't buy it with Tim Lincecum any more than I buy it with Matsuzaka, or I've bought it with anybody else. Foul-pole-to-foul-pole long-toss in the wake of a 145-pitch outing is a neat trick, but it's also extremely dangerous, and not an argument in favor of future health. It's a stupid idea, is what it is.
You don't understand that it one looks at his delivery in slow motion from the side, it appears that his body is the catapult and that his arm is merely being pulled along.
And to that, I say you might do well to look at this. Catapult, slingshot, whatever -- what does it mean?
Also, this "you don't understand" device of yours is very condescending.
Sorry
Who are these "every third prospects" who are immune to injury?
Have you read Will Carroll's book "Saving the Pitcher?" Will knows a thing or three about pitching mechanics, and he has chosen Tim Lincecum as the pitcher he would start his francise with for the next 10 years.
. . . and further
If it were really as simple as this, wouldn't everybody spend more time strengthening their core and making it more flexible, thereby rendering them indestructible?
Let me ask you this
dude
Second, the evidence basically proves my point on control, and the evidence is that UNLESS LINCECUM IS A TRULY UNIQUE PITCHER, he is an inflated injury risk. He could very well be unique, but a few AAA innings don't prove that in the least.
You say
out pitch
This
"Tim Lincecum is overrated for similar reasons. First, I have always had my doubts about his control. Even Homer Bailey, whose control I suspected early on, managed very good BB/9 numbers because he had a fantastic out pitch and simply overmatched hitters by making them swing through it. Despite having one of the nastiest curves in baseball, Lincecum has never done this, which I believe speaks volumes about his control."
At best the "has never done this" is ambiguous.
As for your comment that comparing two starts in AAA to a full season in the majors, that isn't really what I was attempting to do. I fully realize that AAA isn't the majors and that two starts make for a very small sample. But I would ask you which pitchers at any level of professional ball you can identify who had two back-to-back starts with such dominance. And those weren't even Tim's two best starts.
I could look really dumb if Tim doesn't pitch really well in the future. But unlike most people, I am not afraid to go out on a limb if that limb is one my mind and heart both truly believe in.
Sorry, but I disagree about your assessment of
Hello limozeen,
Sorry, but I disagree on your assessments of the Millers and Garza.
First, no offense, but did you check out the Minor League numbers for Adam Miller and Matt Garza?
Miller's career Minor League BB/9 IP rate: 2.64
Garza's career Minor League BB/9 IP rate: 2.26
That's not a huge difference - besides that, so far, Miller has walked 11 in 31.0 IP (3.19 BB/9 IP,) Garza has walked 11 in 25.0 IP (3.96 BB/9 IP.) Small sample size is understood, but looking at their Minor League track records and what they've done in AAA to this point, I don't see how you can claim that Garza has good command and Adam doesn't; many scouts would disagree with your assessment of Adam not having good command. Adam has always gotten high praise for his stuff, command, and work ethic.
As for Adam's declining K rate, since when was 8+/9 IP considered bad (it's currently 8.71 at AAA, after having a 9.22 K rate in AA last season, 9.5 in the second half after regaining his full velocity)?
As for Garza's K rate, small sample size would seem to apply - you're basing his 10+ K/9 IP on 32 starts?! His K rate at the ML level in 9 starts was 6.84, and while that might not be a totally accurate indicator of what his K rate might be once he's fully established at the ML level, I'm guessing his K rate will be closer to 6.84 than it will be to 10+. At this rate, I don't see why Adam Miller can't strike out 6.84 K/9 IP or even a bit higher than that, over 7, at the ML level, based on what he has done when he's been healthy.
Speaking of Adam's health, again, as has been mentioned before, Adam will always have the elbow injury as part of his medical record; there's nothing he can do about that except go pitch and do as well as he can, and if he hasn't dominated, he's been pretty close to dominating since he returned healthy, which he has been for over a year now. From what I have seen and heard, most experts put Miller behind Hughes, Bailey, and Gallardo, and while Miller's 2007 K rate might not be as high as Gallardo's, it's essentially as good as Hughes, and Miller's GO ratio is considerably better than Gallardo's, so I don't think he's that far behind them, if he is at all. He's dominated in his own way at AAA, more via the GO and K, rather than just the K.
As I also mentioned before:
- Miller injured his elbow trying to overthrow his fastball in 2005 ST, in front of Indians' brass, NOT by throwing his slider. This doesn't mean he can't injure it on the slider, but his slider was NOT the reason he injured his elbow in the first place, and from reports I've heard, his plus slider has returned; he's been allowed to throw it for about the last year, and to this point, no problems throwing it.
- Miller is more inclined now to get guys out as quickly as he can, saving himself to go deeper into games, rather than trying to strike everyone out on overpowering fastballs like he tried to in the past. That's why he was able to throw a complete game shutout at AA Akron last year on just 97 pitches, yet still struck out 11 batters. His GO ratios over the last few years have been around 2/1 or so, showing that he can dominate via the GO as much as he can with the Ks - if you look at both his GO and K ratios, you'll see he's doing just as well as the other top pitching prospects, but that he's dominating differently - his H/9 IP = 7.26, his BB/9 IP = 3.19, his K/9 IP = 8.71, his GO/AO = 1.58, and his BAA = .217. Those are not numbers that indicate he's struggling or even just holding his own - he's dominating at AAA without the gaudy K rate that Gallardo is putting up.
However, based on Lincecum's Minor League track record, he's dominating a lot more than Andrew Miller is, who you claim isn't overhyped.
I can understand your point about trying to project the best ML starters based on mechanics, stuff, command, etc., but results also have to factor into it. The point of the matter is, Andrew was hyped so much that most expected him to blaze through the Minors like Mark Prior did, as Miller got close to that level of publicity, yet Miller will need considerably more time than Prior did to reach the Majors and establish himself than Prior did. At this point, it's Andrew who is not living up to the hype, not Adam or Lincecum.
Same thing with Bailey - I agree with you that Bailey got compared to Hughes right away and was expected to be as polished and as dominant as him, yet Bailey's command isn't near Hughes, nor Ad. Miller, nor Gallardo; in fact, Adam Miller, not Homer Bailey or Yovani Gallardo, was the one who matched Hughes' impressive command at AA (2.48 to 2.52) in 2006, proving again that Adam Miller is not out of his league when you start talking about comparing him to Hughes/Bailey/Gallardo. And while ST stats don't mean much, it was Adam who performed the best when you talk about him, Hughes, Bailey, and Gallardo, not allowing a run in ST.
In fact, if I am correct, it was in a Baseball America chat last year that questioned whether Gallardo was a true #1, thinking he was more of a #2-#3; there was no mention of that regarding Adam Miller. While I would think Gallardo is now regarded as a #1, what has Adam done to think that he won't be a #1 either? He's done more to this point to be that #1 starter than Bailey (lack of offspeed command,) Garza (limited sample size and stuff doesn't quite match up with Adam's,) and Andrew Miller (Miller still needs a reliable 3rd offering; Miller has 4 offerings - above-average to plus 4-seam fastball, average to above-average 2-seam fastball, plus-plus slider, average changeup.)
Therefore, I disagree with your assessment; while Adam's injury will always be a concern, you need to judge him more on what he is doing now; no one is knocking Hughes for the shoulder injury he suffered a few years ago (same year as Miller suffered the elbow injury if I remember correctly.) Heck, few even talked about it, yet many keep mentioning Adam's elbow, even though Miller has been healthy for over a year, has regained his stuff, and has performed as well or even slightly better than expected since returning to full strength from his elbow injury. Just because he doesn't have a gaudy K rate of 10+/9 IP doesn't mean he's not a #1-type starting pitching prospect when you consider he also has had good to great GO ratios, plus a low BB/9 IP rate, and a very solid H/9 IP rate.
Just my 2 cents. :-)
Take care and have a great day!
Response
He didn't say Miller's K rate was bad. He said it was declining. He also said nothing about Miller's work ethic . . .I'm sure he works very hard. Lots of players work hard.
"As for Garza's K rate, small sample size would seem to apply - you're basing his 10+ K/9 IP on 32 starts?!"
32 starts is a full season's statistical record. Adam Miller had a whopping 26 starts last season - so in other words, let's just throw out whatever he did last year, because the sample isn't big enough!
Of course, I'm sure you realize I'm being facetious. But I think the point is made.
Miller looks like a fine prospect. Although I'm mildly skeptical of your "scouting report" on him. If he had multiple above-average pitches with an average change right now there's no other reason why the Indians wouldn't have him in the majors right now other than that they want to win fewer games.
Then again, Jeremy Sowers certainly seems to be adding his voice (and his left arm) to those supporting Miller's promotion to the majors, so we'll see.
That's not the reason Adam's not in the MLs!
"It's kind of rude to suggest that he isn't looking at the stats. I'm pretty sure we all look at the stats."
Sorry if it sounded rude, but I was referring more to the fact that limozeen isn't calling Andrew overrated, but is calling Adam overrated - to me, it seemed he didn't even take into consideration what the two have done to this point. Adam has been consistently performing at a high level since he was drafted except for the year he came back from his injury, 2005.
Andrew, for all the publicity he received (and yes, Prior got more, but Andrew got his fair share too, from being the D'Rays' 3rd-Rd pick out of HS and being highly thought of, to being considered the best college pitcher in baseball at NC, even mentioning he could be the #1 pick when he was drafted out of college - he received quite a bit of press,) Andrew is NOT living up to the hype so far. Maybe Andrew is working on the changeup and or maybe the Lakeland D is costing him, but we don't know that for sure. In any case you'd still think he would have a higher K rate than what he has, especially since Jeremy Sowers, the pitcher with "below-average stuff," had a 9.46 K/9 IP at High-A at the same age Andrew is about to turn (22.) Adam Miller, in his injury-rebound year of 2005 where he was only throwing 90 MPH or so, still had a 6.79 K/9 IP rate. If Andrew's stuff is as good as it has been made out to be, you'd think he would have a higher K rate than that. Plus, how do you explain Andrew giving up 37 H in 34.1 IP (9.71 H/9 IP)? Is he just hanging that changeup and A-ball hitters are teeing off on it? It's possible, but far from conclusive. By comparison, Sowers gave up 7.57 H/9 IP while in High-A at the same age, with "lesser stuff."
Miller's high GO ratio is worth noting (4.13,) but still, combined with his other less than impressive stats that I've mentioned in an earlier post, he's still underachieving in my book (and others as well,) especially when many thought he would be ready to help Detroit in the second half of this year. Unless Andrew really starts excelling, I don't see that happening, which isn't necessarily a bad thing - he is only 22 - but that still makes him overrated because many made it sound like he would quickly find that 3rd pitch and be ready to contribute in Detroit's rotation in the 2nd half of 2007, which isn't likely to happen at this rate.
Regarding Garza's 32 starts (actually 28,) the main problem with his 28 starts is that they are spread out over three levels; how do we know if Garza would have kept that high K/9 IP rate the entire time if he had remained at that level? At least Adam was at one level for more than a few starts, so his 9+ K/9 IP seems more legitimate to me than Garza's 10+ K/9 IP rate at 3 levels, being that Garza made no more than 10 starts at any level. Like I said, I think Garza's K rate falling off that much at the ML level in 2006, as well as his early AAA returns from 2007, might show that Garza is not more likely to strike out more hitters than Adam Miller will at the ML level, something limozeen implied when he said that "Miller is not at Garza, Hughes, or Gallardo's level." I'm not convinced Garza is anywhere near a 10+K/9 IP pitcher based on less than 30 starts at 3 different levels - hitters in those leagues probably only seen him once, maybe twice, and had no time to make any adjustments, so I think his K/IP rate is really subject to SSS, moreso than Miller's K rates because hitters got to see him more than once at those levels, yet they still didn't fare any better against him the second, third, or fourth time they seen him. The same can't be said for Garza because he wasn't there long enough for hitters at those levels to make any adjustments against him. Now that AAA hitters are seeing him again, he's giving up more hits than he did last year, and his K rate has also dropped from 10+ to 9+, comparable to what Miller is doing at AAA.
As for Adam not being in the Indians' rotation, it's not because he doesn't have "multiple plus pitches"; here's his arsenal:
94-98 MPH fastball with good movement and good command - that's an above-average pitch
Plus slider (upper 80s to around 90 MPH from what I've heard) - above-average pitch
That's multiple above-average pitches; his 2-seam fastball is average to above-average, but we'll call it average for now; his changeup has been labelled as "ML-average," so again, average.
So, it doesn't seem to me that the reason the Indians are keeping him down in AAA is because he's lacking multiple above-average pitches.
Here are 3 reasons why I think he's still down in AAA:
- As I've mentioned before, it's likely the results of Wright and Sabathia being rushed has something to do with them being more cautious with Miller - Wright was injured in his second year from too much of an inning increase between the low Minors and the upper-Minors/MLs. Sabathia didn't become an ace until late 2005, near the end of his fifth full season in the Majors; if he had gone to AAA like some were advocating, it's probable that Sabathia would have become an ace much quicker.
- As I've also mentioned before, Fausto Carmona was deemed the 6th starter when the season began; he filled in for Lee when he was injured (quite well, I might add,) and will fill in for Westbrook while he's out. And, contrary to what some might believe, Fausto is a legitimate prospect; he's not just a "default" option - his stuff has been said to be better than everyone in the Indians' rotation outside of Sabathia - he hasn't fully harnessed it yet, but being that his K rate as a starter did increase to 9.11 after an increase to the mid-90s with his velocity over the past year or so, there is hope that Carmona could still be a #2-#3 starter, better than either Westbrook or Lee. At the very least, he gives Miller more time to gain AAA experience and harness his stuff so he's not rushed.
- The Indians have NO plans to put Miller in the bullpen; the Indians don't believe in bringing up starting pitching prospects to the Majors and inserting them into the bullpen before giving them bullpen experience down in the Minors. You can see that with how they have handled Carmona, Rafael Perez, Tony Sipp, etc. And right now, there are no plans to put Miller in the Buffalo bullpen - they see him as a starter and they see him as having the greatest impact as a ML starter.
The Indians aren't the only ones taking this cautious approach - the Brewers (Gallardo), Giants (Lincecum - didn't get the call until a month into the season when there was strong evidence he was ready beginning the season,) and Twins (Garza/Slowey) are all doing it (or have done it) as well. It's likely Hughes wouldn't be up yet either if not for the injuries; are you also suggesting that all of these teams' pitching staffs are that superior that they can't accommodate these top pitching prospects either? Are you also suggesting that they're trying to lose or is it possible that they're not ready yet either?
Just because a young pitching prospect with ace potential is showing flashes of solid or even brillant performances doesn't mean that you bring them up right at that moment. Look at what happened with Matt Garza of the Twins last year - he looked brilliant in the Minors last season, did fairly well for the most part at the ML level, but the Twins sent him back to AAA to start 2007, and what's happening? He's not faring nearly as well as he did last season (H/9 IP rate is up from 5.29 to 9.36 and his BB/9 IP rate is up from 1.85 to 3.96) - therefore, was he rushed and wasn't truly ready, which is why he's still in AAA now?
That's the main reason why the Indians aren't bringing up Miller yet - when Miller is brought up, they want him to be as ready as he can be, with minimal chance of him being sent down because he's not ready. They feel it's better if he gets adequate AAA experience first before bringing him up. I don't think it's accurate to think that Miller isn't as good as some are making him out to be because the Indians haven't brought up yet; the Indians would prefer to have Miller ready to come up, stay, and contribute at the ML level, rather than have what happened to the Twins and Garza - Garza still isn't ready to return, and that's with the weak Ponson in that rotation. You can't fault Miller or the Indians for taking the cautious road - better to be sure that he's ready than take a chance and set him back for a bit, especially when the Indians' rotation has been solid for the most part during the month of April (and that was with a sputtering Indians' offense through the first few weeks of April as well.)
Just my 2 cents. :-)
Take care and have a great day!
a thought
Well, yes and no. I'll take you at your word on the overthrowing in front of the brass story, as I've never heard it but it's no the kind of thing I follow closely. But even if it is true, it's possible that it happened because of overexertion on top of wear-and-tear from the slider; ie, the slider, over a long period of time, was responsible for setting up the circumstances under which overthrowing led to an injury. I'm not saying it's neccessarily the case, but the idea that the slider was "NOT the reason he injured his elbow" isn't supportable, completely.
Thanks for the clarification!
Thanks for the clarification - what I meant to say was, "the slider was NOT the pitch he injured his elbow on." The slider could have been part of the reason why Adam injured his elbow (I don't know if it was a combination of the slider and overthrowing, just the slider, just overthrowing on that particular day, etc.,) but I meant to say that it was the fastball he injured his elbow on, overthrowing it in front of Indians' brass.
I'll see if I can find a reference or two for you, but I've seen it referenced a few times, so I'm pretty sure it's a true account of how he injured the elbow.
Take care and have a great day!
man
interesting
>way predictive of major league control.
This is an interesting thought. Do you have anything more than anectdotal evidence to back it up? My suspicion is that it does have some predictive value, but nearly as much as other indicators such as GB% and K rate.
Excuse me . . .
oh . . .
I'm curious...
My gut doesn't buy it, but I don't have any real statistical evidence to back that up, which is why I ask if you do.
thanks in advance!
poor word choice
You have to mix scouting (or in this case, other people's scouting) with your statistical analysis. If you hear that a pitcher has a really good out pitch, you have to wonder if their control is really as good as advertised. If their BB/9 jumps at any level, it probably isn't. If it stays really, really good, it probably is. That doesn't happen too often though (Liriano).
I can see that...
But, back to the point, I do feel that, in general, past BB/9 ratios are a good predictor and future BB/9 ratios, while outlier performances, like a stint of extraordinarily high BB/9, can be taken with a grain of salt.
But, I'd be very interested to find a pitcher with poor minor league BB/9 ratios who went on to quickly post strong BB/9 numbers in the majors.
King Felix
by wcw on May 7, 2007 9:46 AM EDT up reply actions
That is true...
Like, for instance, I don't think anyone would say that Greg Miller's current BB/9 wouldn't indicate a problem with control, and that his BB/9 would be poor in the majors. Or maybe someone would?
It's okay; I used poor word choice as well
Hello limozeen,
Thanks for the explanation - I can see more of the reasoning behind what you mentioned earlier.
However, as I mentioned, Adam has maintained around a 2.5 BB/9 IP rate throughout his Minor League career, outside of his injury-recovery year of 2005. Even at AA, it was 2.52 BB/9 IP.
So far in AAA, Miller has walked 13 in 37 IP, a 3.12 BB/9 IP rate, so it's a bit high, but it's still early as well. We need more data to know for sure regarding AAA, but based on Miller's track record through 2006, I'd say by your own method of evaluating pitchers' control, Adam seems to pass the test of having good control of his pitches, including his slider and fastball, at this point.
Just my 2 cents. :-)
Take care and have a great day!
we shall see
It's a legitimate concern - no doubt!
It's a legitimate concern, no doubt; I'm hopeful he stays healthy, but of course, there are no guarantees. Right off the top of my head, I'm not sure if I can name anyone who has had an elbow injury, yet didn't have TJ surgery at some point down the road. I suppose there's been a few who never had TJ surgery and remained healthy, but I can't think of any, so his elbow injury will always be a concern, but so far, knock on wood, he's looked more like the Miller from 2004 (even striking out 7 in 7 IP last night,) so performance-wise, he's doing more-less what one might expect, but there's no question the injury will always be a part of his record and make one wonder whether a similar or worse elbow injury will occur again at some point down the road.
As you mentioned, we'll just have to see how healthy he remains - I'm hopeful he will.
Take care and have a great day!
What about Adam's control don't you like?
First, I apologize if I came off as rude regarding you "not reading the stats"; my main point in that comment was that you seemed to ignore what Andrew is doing now and what Adam has done, including what he is doing now. You have to take that into consideration when you consider who's overrated and who isn't, and in my opinion, I don't see how you can say Adam is overrated and Andrew isn't when you take what they are doing into account.
I'm not saying Andrew is a bad prospect and I'm not saying that Andrew will never be a #1 front-of-the-rotation starter. All I'm saying is is that many thought he would be up in the Tigers' starting rotation by the second half of 2007, ready to contribute - all he had to do was develop his changeup and he'd be ready. Right now, it looks likely he won't be up contributing in the Majors in 2007 unless he really starts putting up stellar numbers, and his H/IP, K/IP, and BAA are anything but stellar so far, in High-A. That's why I think he's overrated for the time being. At some point, he may live up to the hype, but he hasn't so far.
As for Adam, I don't know why you think he doesn't have good control - Adam has always been praised by scouts and media for having good control of his fastball, and he has good control of his offspeed stuff as well. He's always had better control/command etc. than Bailey, so I'm a little surprised that Bailey only gets honorable mention from you - Bailey's BB/9 IP and K/9 IP rate is considerably worse than Miller's at AAA so far (4.29 to 3.19 BB/9 IP, 5.93 to 8.71 K/9 IP.)
Like several others, I too would like to hear why you made this comment:
"It is my firm belief BB/9 at the minor league level is in no way predictive of major league control."
What do you use to predict ML control? Miller has had solid to good GO ratios for the last few years; it's currently 1.58 GO/AO this year, it was around or over 2 last year, and I think it might have been around there the year before (where can I find this info. for past seasons?) Miller's K rate has always been around or over 9, outside of 2005, and his H rates have always been under 8. In addition, Miller emphasizes trying to get batters out in as few pitches as possible - he threw a complete game shutout on just 97 pitches at AA, yet still struck out 11. I don't see how you can come to that conclusion that Miller doesn't have good control, even if you don't use his low BB rates that have been around 2.5 BB/9 IP.
I'll be very interested to see your thoughts on why you think Miller doesn't have good control. And again, I apologize if I offended you - I figured you read the stats, but you didn't seem to give them much consideration when declaring that Adam was overrated and Andrew wasn't, since the stats and overall data seem to suggest otherwise in my opinion.
Just my 2 cents. :-)
Take care and have a great day!
Miller/Linc
Hughes will be good once he adjusts to MLB.
Garza is fine, but doesn't wow me. However, he's not in anyone's top ten either, unlike the Hughes/Bailey/AnMiller/Lincecum quartet, so I don't see him as over- or underrated.
Bailey was my choice for most-overrated, so we agree there.
I don't love or hate Adam Miller, but like Garza he's not in top-ten-prospect lists. The question here is "overrated", so for me he doesn't count.
Lincecum's rated appropriately high with Hughes and Andrew Miller, to my mind. I might like him better than Hughes and equivalent to AnMiller. All young pitchers are injury risks. It's my guess that his walk rate will not go up much in the majors. Felix Hernandez's dropped, remember?
by wcw on May 6, 2007 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Slowey? ? ?
The 1st Round Tar Heel Combo takes the overrated cake, Miller is more highly touted and much more overrated, having said that Bard won't pan out either.
Can't wait to see that AA rotation with Miller and Sleeth for years to come.
by Tom Servo on May 5, 2007 4:17 PM EDT reply actions
Andrew Miller...
For a 22 year old in A-Ball
And if you want dominance, Hochevar's start against San Antonio was awesome (I was there, actually). 7 2/3, 2 hits, no walks, no runs, 11 strikeouts. And he did it on an 85 pitch count.
by ajohnst1 on May 5, 2007 9:01 PM EDT up reply actions
For a 24 year old in Double -A
How about the fact that you are talking about ONE Hochevar start, the only one that he has not allowed a run, while Miller has had three such games? Oh yeah, the strikeout rate still isn't as high.
But Miller
And Hochevar's K-rate is higher. Miller has a good GB/FB ratio...but for a top five pitching prospect, it's not that impressive to me.
He still isn't as overrated as Lincecum.
by ajohnst1 on May 5, 2007 10:49 PM EDT up reply actions
OK
I also think what a lot of people are forgetting is this is player development time. It it quite possible that Miller (and Hochevar) are working on strengthening their weaknesses, as opposed to just relying on what are already strengths.
Looks like we're on the same page then
Miller, as someone else mentioned, is being talked about like he's knocking on the door to the big leagues (as Adam Miller/Gallardo/Lincecum/Hughes are), but he's just not. He's a 22 year old pitching in A ball. He's pitching OK, maybe even better than Hochevar is, but he's not pitching like a top five pitching prospect, which I guess is my point.
I think Hochevar is basically meeting expectations. He's around 30th on most lists I've seen, behind about 10 other pitchers, and I think that's justified (except for anyone who puts Pelfrey ahead of Hochevar, which has already been discussed elsewhere in the thread).
by ajohnst1 on May 6, 2007 3:44 AM EDT up reply actions
Age
Hochevar may be older than Miller, but Miller still has more mileage on his arm and thus more experience. I think that aspect is much more important than simply looking at their DOBs.
No, it isn't. Not for a top college pitcher...
Check Verlander's high A stats. 11ks/9, under 2 bb/9, about a 1 WHIP. THAT'S dominant.
Miller's sitting at 6ks/9, almost 3bb/9, and 1.4 WHIP. Hardly good stats at all.
And when I think dominant, I think of Hoch, who has also been mentioned here, almost the same line as Miller's best game, but he had 5 more Ks in the same amount of innings and at a level higher.
So yeah, Miller is overrated, for sure. I think Pelfrey is way out of bounds too.
Probably right
And we should ignore Hoch's being nearly 2 years older when we think of the one game Hoch was dominant this year.
HAHAH!
Miller was very highly rated, and hasn't performed up to expectations, so, imo, given his performance, he's overrated.
Doesn't mean he's terrible, worthless, no-good, never-will-be, but it does mean that given the hype around him during the off-season, and given his performance up to the point this diary was started, he's overrated.
Adenhart and Patton
mine
Scott Elbert- lack of control of electric stuff. Although he showed great control in his firt 3 starts of this year, it seems shoulder tendonitis caused the 6 walk 4th start. Dodgers are doing the right thing by taking it extremely slow with him. He is overrated right now but he still has the ability to turn it around
Nick Adenhart- The lack of strikeouts are a concern. Top pitching prospects should be able to strike out over 1 an inning in the lower minors. His other peripherals are outstanding, especially the homerun rate. But i cant see him becoming a top tier starter although he is a pretty safe bet to be a consistent #3.
Jeff Niemann- Massive potential but i cant trust him to have a productive career due to constant injuries.
I'll second Adenhart
I agree with sdbaseballfan, Adenhart looks more like a No. 3 or No. 4. He doesn't have the K rates (22.5% since start of 2006) to have a good chance of turing into a top-of-the-rotation starter.
by afoster on May 5, 2007 5:19 PM EDT reply actions
Striking out 8 per nine
Plenty of guys can have success without striking out a batter an inning or more. ESPECIALLY given the fact that he has given up all of 3 home runs since the start of last season. Anyone who can keep a HR rate like that is going to have a damned good chance to succeed. I also believe last years performance was evidence enough of his health.
From the Braves
by themurph @ Minor League Ball on May 5, 2007 7:55 PM EDT reply actions
re: Miller
When you look at a lefty that throws mid 90s consistently with his 4 seamer and has one of the best sliders you will see, what's not to like?
by dj @ Minor League Ball on May 5, 2007 10:56 PM EDT reply actions
What's not to like?
Of course it's ridiculous to try to draw any definitive conclusions about any prospects given we're only a month into the season, but John posted the diary after the first month to poll opinions after a month's worth of performance.
To counter an opinion based on sample size is to beg the nature of the diary in the first place.
yeah, but
What possible excuse could he have?
The way Andrew was hyped, he was
Hello dj,
Young or not young, great stuff or not great stuff, Andrew isn't putting up the numbers you'd expect out of a pitching prospect who was compared to or even was ranked ahead of guys like Hughes/Bailey/Ad. Miller/Gallardo/Lincecum. All 5 of those guys are at AAA, either holding their own (Bailey due to the poor walk rate, but has a good H rate) or dominating (Hughes/Gallardo/Ad. Miller; Lincecum is in a class by himself when it comes to domination.)
Yet, Andrew isn't putting up those stats at a level 2 levels lower; and, outside of Adam, who is only 6 months older than Andrew, the others are all younger than Andrew.
Therefore, that's why many, including myself, think Andrew is overrated at this point. Yes, it's a small sample size (but it also is for Lincecum, yet he wasn't as highly thought of as An. Miller when he was drafted, and Lincecum is dominating at AAA,) but with all the hype Andrew was getting, I think most were expecting him to make short work of the Minors and be up to Detroit by the second half of 2007, and unless Miller starts dominating in all aspects quickly, that isn't likely to happen (probably not even as a reliever like last season, since Detroit doesn't have to bring him up unless they feel he's ready.)
This doesn't mean Andrew is a bad prospect or that he can't live up to the hype eventually, but for right now, he's overrated when compared to the other top pitching prospects because he's not even coming close to their overall stats and he's two levels lower, not to mention older than all of them except Adam Miller.
Just my 2 cents. :-)
Take care and have a great day!
hello indians fan
I'll repeat. The kid has made 6 starts as a professional. If you'd like to draw conclusions then go ahead. As for this post, it wasn't asking for conclusions based on a month of play, it was asking for who the most overrated pitching prospect in the minors was. For some prospects, that includes 4 or 5 years of starting in the minors. For others, it includes a handful of games.
by dj @ Minor League Ball on May 6, 2007 9:52 PM EDT up reply actions
and one other point
Bonderman
Verlander
Rogers
Robertson
Maroth
Ledezma
Tata
Miner
Who's spot was he going to take? He was perhaps 15th on the list of potential starters in Detroit this year back in March. Not one single fan in Detroit expected him to be in a Tigs uniform before perhaps another September callup.
by dj @ Minor League Ball on May 6, 2007 9:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Perhaps the fans didn't, but I believe the
Hello dj,
I'd have to look it up, but I believe there were some baseball-related publications and some media outlets who thought that Miller was so polished that he could contribute this year (2nd half of 2007.) If I recall correctly, he just needed a third pitch and he'd be ready to help out Detroit as soon as the second half of 2007.
Like mrkupe mentioned to me about Adam Miller, do you think those other guys would block Andrew if he was ready to contribute? I doubt it. Outside of Bonderman and Verlander (stuff,) and Rogers (being a veteran starter,) I don't think the others would stand in Andrew's way. Miner has been used out of the bullpen for sure; I'm not sure if Tata has also, and hasn't been all that impressive at AAA. Ledezma has also been used as both a starter and as a reliever at the ML level. As for Maroth and Robertson, they don't match up stuff-wise, so I think one of those could be moved to the bullpen if need be if Andrew was ready. Maroth came out of the bullpen when he came back from his arm injury last season, so it could be done with him, and Robertson pitched out of the bullpen for the Marlins, so it's not like room couldn't be made for Andrew if he was ready to contribute at the ML level.
However, Andrew isn't likely to be ready at that point as some had thought, so it really is a moot point, but if he was ready, it's doubtful Detroit wouldn't make room for him in some way, regardless of the presence of Ledezma, Tata, and Miner being ahead of him in the pecking order.
Also, in regards to your post about "he's only had 6 professional starts," John didn't put him off-limits; if that were the case, Lincecum shouldn't be considered overrated either because he's only had a handful of professional starts himself. Yet, many think Lincecum is overrated because of all the publicity he is receiving. So, Andrew seems to be fair game, and with all the publicity he received before the draft, when he was drafted, when he pitched for Detroit last season, and when he started the 2007 season, he was well-publicized and highly regarded as being arguably the best pitcher in that draft and likely a fast mover through the Minors, but so far, he's not progressing that quickly. That's why I think he's overrated; whether he lives up to his ceiling or not, that's too early to tell, so I agree with you on that point.
Just my 2 cents. :-)
Take care and have a great day!
You're right - sorry!
Sorry - I thought Tim Lincecum was born in 1985, not 1984; I didn't see that when I was researching the dates (probably because I was looking through all their birthdates, LOL! :-)
So, yes, Lincecum is actually older than the rest (except Garza,) including Adam Miller, who was born in Nov. 1984.
In fact, here are their birthdates from oldest to youngest:
Matt Garza - Nov. 26, 1983
Tim Lincecum - June 15, 1984
Adam Miller - Nov. 26, 1984
Andrew Miller - May 21, 1985
Yovani Gallardo - Feb. 27, 1986
Homer Bailey - May 3, 1986
Philip Hughes - June 24, 1986
I never knew Garza and Ad. Miller had the exact same birthdates, with Garza being exactly one year older than Adam. :-)
Take care and have a great day!
Response
In fact, I think I'll get my choice out of the way. Homer Bailey. Love the arm but he's WAY too much of a thrower at this point, even relative to what you'd expect of a minor league prospect, for me to push too hard. I can't put him down too much because hey, he's 21, pitching in AAA, and looked mighty fine last year while coasting on his fastball. This being said, I ask myself a simple question: "Based on what we know about what (insert prospect name here) is capable of in terms of repertoire, approach, etc., how much success could they have at the majors progressing along their current path?" Lincecum is off the charts. Hughes and Gallardo are both rating very highly. Adam Miller looks respectable. I don't think Bailey has a shot at doing anything other than getting crushed with what he looks capable of doing.
Like I said, I can't push him down TOO far. He's got time on his side and he's got an excellent, excellent fastball. Putting him alongside the premier few pitching prospects is a mistake at this point though, IMO. He's certainly got the raw talent to put everything together, but it's going to take some time if it happens. In any case, I have a hard time putting him ahead of guys who are showing impressive repertoires with two or three good pitches. There's just a lot more to project major league success from.
As for Andrew Miller, I understand the argument, but let's be honest. We all knew the guy needed a changeup, he even said it himself. Now, I haven't seen any of his starts (and I'd gamble that few if any of you have seen any of them, either), but isn't it at all possible that he's working on that pitch against the lower level competition before he gets pushed? I agree with limozeen - this guy was considered an ELITE talent pre-draft last year, has pitched a minimal number of innings and appears to have lost none of the ability that made him so coveted, and we're going to push him down on the basis of a couple of bad starts? Doesn't really make sense to me.
I'm not sure where the talk that Andrew Miller was supposed to be something like Mark Prior comes from. Mark Prior was an amazing talent coming out of college, showing multiple awesome pitches and outstanding control. As far as pitching prospects go, going over the guys from the last few years, I'm pretty sure that Prior the prospect would trash virtually anybody save maybe Felix Hernandez or Tim Lincecum in a direct comparison.
I too remain mildly concerned about Adam Miller. I mostly bring him up because same silly talk concerning injuries in a comparison between him and Hughes is rearing up again. For the last time: Adam Miller partially tore a ligament in his pitching elbow and came THISCLOSE to needing TJ surgery, and there isn't a strong reason to think that it won't happen again. Phil Hughes said that his shoulder was a little sore a couple of times, something that probably happens a lot more often w/prospects than we would ever know about, and was promptly shut down well before anything bad actually happened. I'm still waiting for somebody to show me evidence of an actual injury that occurred, especially something on the order of a partially torn elbow ligament. And if you can't, then sorry, the argument just isn't going to hold up.
I do think people are overrating Adam Miller on the basis of a nice stretch run in AA last year. He's a fine prospect, though.
Just to see what would happen . . .who's the better prospect, Tim Lincecum or Adam Miller? And if you think I'm doing this just to trigger the inevitable (and wordy) showdown between SharksRog and indiansfan . . .well, shh. :)
thanks for that
Prior
To me, if Lincecum was 4 inches taller and weighed 50 pounds more, he would have been considered the next Prior. 3 outstanding pitches, unparalleled success in college, and no hint of arm problems in his past.
Speaking of which, I'll throw my 2 cents into the discussion. If you want to call Lincecum overrated because of his potential control problems, I will not argue. The walks are a bit of a concern, and it will be interesting to see when he runs into more patient major league hitters. But the injury concerns are so overblown it's rediculous. Injury experts love his mechanics, and he's had zero hints of arm problems despite being overworked in college. The injury concerns are mainly based on his size, but the way he throws the ball, his body type will easily handle the stress. A more conventional arm slot and delivery would hinder his ability to stay healthy IMO.
I'm curious again...
"appears to have lost none of the ability that made him so coveted"
I agree with another poster that his 2006 cup o coffee probably set expectations too high, but then that's the basis of being underrated or overrated. From how people rated him and talked about him this off-season, I think many thought he could make it to the bigs in 2007. But given this thread, and the limited performance that it allowed, his performance, in every way, has been very disappointing.
It's possible things are going on that I'm unaware of, like working on another pitch or something like that. During our top 100 debate, I think Brickhaus posted something to explain Davis's and McGee's summer struggles related to Tampa keeping them from throwing their best pitch. Do you have any articles or anything that supports the theory that Miller is working on something else, which would explain his struggles?
Thoughts on Adam Miller!
No offense, but Miller also had a dominant stretch in 2004 before he injured his elbow - some even considered him the top pitching prospect in the Minors at the end of 2004, the same year that Hughes and Bailey were drafted and just entering pro ball.
He had a 2.77 BB/9 IP and 10.48 K/9 IP at Low-A and a 2.49 BB/9 IP and 9.55 K/9 IP rate at High-A. Another factor I forgot to mention to limozeen regarding Miller's control: His HR/9 IP rate has been under 1 his entire career, usually around 0.50 or so (0.53 between Low-A and High-A in 2004 and AA in 2006; I excluded his 2005 numbers since Miller was not the same pitcher, not in terms of his command or stuff.)
So, no offense, Miller's track record has been more consistent than his "hot streak" at AA last year; I think many are struggling to put more weight on his 2004 and 2006 numbers since Miller was virtually the same pitcher in those two years, whereas he wasn't in 2005. Granted, you can't just erase 2005 from the record books, but at the same time, you can't put too much stock into the numbers themselves because Miller didn't have his command or velocity - it's not likely he'd struggle at SS-A and High-A, two levels he clearly handled before 2005, if not for his elbow injury and the loss in command and velocity because of it.
Of course, you have to keep Miller's injury in mind when you evaluate him, but again, it seems a bit unreasonable to go ahead and consider him overrated mostly because he's had an injury when he has been healthy for over a year and has picked up from where he left off at High-A after the 2004 season. Many pitching prospects have had injury problems and have overcome them. Just because Miller has had an injury doesn't mean it will happen again; you keep it in mind, but you base his ranking and ceiling on what he can do and what he is doing. If you want to put an asterisk next to his name to mark the injury, that seems reasonable, but knocking him down prospect rankings or calling him overrated seems extreme to me. I didn't hear Hamels being called overrated even though he's had a multitude of injuries, despite his great numbers in limited Minor League starts.
So far, I've heard more-less that Miller's elbow injury is the main reason why he's the most overrated pitching prospect. Bailey would qualify more for that than Miller would in my opinion - Miller likely could hold his own at the ML level right now if need be; I couldn't say the same for Bailey because he walks too many and he can't command his offspeed stuff well enough to keep ML hitters from hitting his fastball. From what I have also heard, Bailey is not throwing that offspeed stuff enough in order to develop it into reliable pitches he can use at the ML level, and Bailey has gotten as much or more hype than Miller ever did (all the comparisons versus Hughes, for example) - Of the top 4 (Hughes/Bailey/Ad. Miller/Gallardo,) Bailey should be the clear-winner over the other three for most overrated in my opinion.
As for Andrew Miller, again, for a guy who got a lot of publicity, moreso than Adam did when he was drafted, he's not moving very quickly, nor putting up dominating numbers, something Jeremy Sowers did at virtually the same age (Miller turns 22 in a few weeks) at the same level. He should still be putting up better numbers regardless of whether he's working on his changeup or not - it's not like he's throwing all changeups or even 50% changeups. For his H/IP, K/IP, and BAA to be as unimpressive as they are, that makes me a bit suspicious and pessimistic about him being up with the other four I mentioned and Lincecum at this point, which is why I think Andrew Miller is also in the running for "most overrated pitching prospect" at this point.
As for Hughes' injuries, check out what John said in May 2006 here. While Hughes may have alleviated concerns about his stamina to some extent with his 2006 performance, you have to keep in mind that Hughes hasn't been perfectly healthy either. Miller's elbow injury was more serious, but Hughes has had his own problems; fortunately for both, neither has had recurring problems from those injuries.
Just my 2 cents. :-)
Take care and have a great day!
Response
Cole Hamels had obscene statistics in the minors. In his first pro season, didn't he strike out something like 40+ percent of all batters he faced? Did he ever stop looking awesome, despite all the injuries? Isn't he striking out more than a batter an inning in the MAJORS, right now?
Yes yes, I've read what John had to say. I'd also note that John does not have a medical degree, nor has he ever pretended to. He does not even have access to Phil Hughes' medical records. Of course, I don't either . . .which puts me right about on the same page. And personally, I'm of the opinion that there's nothing much to see here other than typical young pitcher type stuff. An ache here and there. And both times he was shut down, the team emphasized that it was totally precautionary, that they'd rather be careful with their golden arm. I'm not about to count organizational caution against a prospect.
That's my point regarding Miller's High-A stats!
All the more reason why Miller's High-A stats raises an eyebrow for me; yes, his GO rate is very impressive, but he's still giving up a high H/9 IP rate, has an unimpressive K/9 IP rate (lower than Adam's in his injury year,) and an unimpressive BAA. Of course, Sowers doesn't have the same type of stuff, and he'll probably never strike out 9+/9 IP, though as I've mentioned, a rebound of his K rate to around Moyer's levels (around 5 K/9 IP) is a possibility once he can concentrate on one league (whether he does that at the ML level or returns to AAA like Garza is doing now, we'll find out eventually, depending on how Jeremy responds to his last outing,) but if Sowers can put up that great of a K rate at High-A, why can't the more heralded Andrew Miller put up a K rate comparable or even better than that? He has better stuff than Sowers, and it's highly unlikely he's throwing nothing but changeups, so why isn't his K rate higher?
As others have mentioned, if someone could provide evidence that he is working on his changeup and throwing it more often than his other pitches, that could help to explain his less than impressive High-A stats, but for right now, I think he and Bailey are both vying for most overrated pitching prospect, due to the fact that neither is living up to the advanced billing both have received to this point.
Regarding Hughes' injuries, yes, I can understand being cautious with a young pitching prospect; the Indians have done that with Miller, and of course, Miller's injury was more serious than Hughes, but the Yankees still seen enough there to shut him down; if it had been normal aches and pains like pitchers normally get after pitching, the Yankees likely wouldn't have shut him down, so while I wouldn't knock him down as much as I'd knock down Miller, I still wouldn't totally ignore those injuries either. John mentioned about the question in stamina; right now, Hughes is out with a hamstring injury, so I think the question needs to be asked, will Hughes be able to live up to his potential or will he be one who is often injured?
I think I read somewhere (maybe it was on this site) that some question whether he puts too much force on his landing leg when he lands. I noticed that his back leg really seemed to come up farther than I noticed most pitchers' back leg when he pulled his hamstring. It just makes me wonder how durable he is - was he just trying too hard to snap off that curveball to Teixeira or will he be a pitcher who will have constant injuries? Only time will tell.
Just my 2 cents. :-)
Take care and have a great day!
Most Overrated?
As for Lincecum, I think has the stuff to produce now (who cares if he's a max effort pitcher, there are several in the league...), but that shouldn't make him overrated. I've noticed a lot of people posting absurd things, and granted I've done it once or twice, mostly in jest or sarcastically, but he looks like he doesn't have anything left to prove at AAA, like Garza last year.
As for Garza, I don't think he's overrated, but more likely rushed. I think Lincecum might suffer from that as well, but I like Garza's chances to produce now as much as Lincecum's.
the question was
Right
Besides, no one is saying you have to be good to be the number one pick. Darin Erstad was a number one overall pick, for Pete's sake.
Hochevar is probably the 10-15th best pitching prospect in baseball, and probably about 30th overall. I don't think he's done anything to exceed or fall short of those rankings, so I don't think he can be the most overrated.
by ajohnst1 on May 6, 2007 3:49 AM EDT reply actions
Andrew Miller
I would like ot see him k a bi tmore, but his k-bb is fine as is his BAA. and as mentioend his gb rate is astronmical. Sure he asn't been completely dominate so far, but he really has only had 1 bad outing(and most of that accounted for horrible d)so far.
I'd sat Timmy and Hughes are the most overrated. Hughes I think is more of a #2-#3 down the line, obviously still very good, just not ace or #1 other than maybe his first few years.
I think Timmy will be instant impact. I just don't see him having a very long career or staying at sp. I guess we'll see.
by Bondomania on May 6, 2007 9:44 AM EDT reply actions
None of Andrew Miller's numbers are good...
I think, in retrospect, the fact that the tigers started him in High-A is more of a true indication of their idea of how far along he is developmentally. I know they placed Verlander there because they worried about control issues, which he licked right away. Miller is not handling that level nearly as well.
After a nice bounce back
Unjust Comparisons
A more logical way would be to look at overrated by level. Most overrated prospect in the majors, in AAA, in AA, and so on. Pelfrey has been mediocre at best, but 4 MLB starts in 2007 do not reasonably change Pelfrey's status as a prospect that much. Remember, he had a total of 2 starts beyond AA before this season and only one season of professional experience.
As for Matsuzaka, he almost has to be excluded from this discussion based on prior expectations and contract status. If he doesn't win 15 and have an ERA under 4 he will be considered dissapointing based on his hype, which is unreasonable expectations for any rookie pitcher with zero American professional baseball experience. He's really in a different category along with the Cubans, Japanese and Koreans who are established and then come over to the U.S. His level of expectation should be of a guy making $100 million, not that of a true prospect. He may be dissapointing, but a better comparison would be to other MLB 2006 free agent signings than to guys like Scott Elbert and Luke Hochevar who will be lucky to get more than a sniff of MLB expereince this season.
I don't agree
by ajohnst1 on May 6, 2007 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Hmmm....
Comparisons
"torn up?"
His control was crap, that was my complaint.
by wcw on May 7, 2007 1:11 AM EDT up reply actions
Victorino's homer?
by ajohnst1 on May 7, 2007 3:03 AM EDT up reply actions
I disagree
Now Howard's homer, that was ripped.
by wcw on May 7, 2007 9:41 AM EDT up reply actions
You are such
His command was crap, predictably, and he got punished for it. When you allow 10 baserunners in 5 innnings you're acutally pretty lucky to only give up four runs.
by ajohnst1 on May 7, 2007 10:13 AM EDT up reply actions
you like me, you really like me!
We agree TL's control was crap, which you can confirm by checking two messages or so back.
Why you're talking about expected runs (I'd peg three singles, two homers and five walks at around six runs expected, off the top of my head) eludes me, but please go on.
An optimist, I suspect that you might have something to say, now that (let's hope) you're finished insulting me.
Eh
I'm just not sure what point you were trying to make about not seeing balls hit solidly against him. Even if Victorino's homer was wind-blown, he still should have made whatever you think constitutes solid contact...it was a hanging breaking ball. Maybe he got lucky with the wind and the heat, but that was a bad pitch.
Tim's an impressive prospect, but he's still overrated, and his debut did nothing to convince me otherwise. Guys weren't getting great swings (except Howard), but he wasn't giving them many strikes, either. And he won't be successful until he does.
by ajohnst1 on May 7, 2007 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions
er..
Your assessment is solid, but I can't see it as useful in a world where all pitching prospects are always overrated. Tell us something we don't know, like a list of most-to-least overrated pitching prospects.
That would interest more people here than just me, I bet.
by wcw on May 7, 2007 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions
I think Lincecum is most overrated
I also think Bailey and Andrew Miller are overrated, based on what they've done to justify the hype. And I posted at the end of the diary that I'm not a big fan of Royals' prospect Tyler Lumsden, who isn't a top 100 guy, but he's a player a lot of people in KC had high hopes for and he has been awful for the last two seasons.
by ajohnst1 on May 7, 2007 6:43 PM EDT up reply actions
hey, look..
So among the Big Four, you're down for Hughes as best, I'm down for Lincecum. You're down for Lincecum as worst, I'm down for Bailey.
Give it five years, and we'll check back.
The safe money, of course, is on none-of-the-above.
by wcw on May 7, 2007 7:36 PM EDT up reply actions
I was at the game,
Unlike Pelfrey, Lincecum was dominant in Spring Training and in the minors. He's only pitched 1 games, give him a few more before passing judgement.
Pelfrey has been lit up since last year's call up. Pelfrey is overrated. Then again Pelfrey has less than 20 appearances. He could go on to have a good career, but he's definitely not a number 1 starter.
Actually
For me, it's close between Lincecum and Hughes for number one, and now both are in the majors (both a little rushed, too, I think). I'd take Gallardo over both Andrew Miller and Homer Bailey, and I might even take Bailey over Miller.
by ajohnst1 on May 8, 2007 12:35 AM EDT up reply actions
My take
In the first "game," Tim had only his fastball and his control. He grooved a curve to Shane Victorino and wound up giving up two hits and one walk to the first 11 batters he faced, while striking out five. Tim threw 30 strikes and 16 balls.
In the second "game," Tim had only his fastball. He threw only 23 pitches in 54 pitches. To those dozen batters, he yielded two hits and four walks, striking out no one.
On that one day at least, Tim showed he could pitch reasonably well with just one pitch -- as long as he had his control. Once his control left him, pretty much ALL was lost.
Let's see how he does in subsequent starts, in most of which he will have his control along with his best pitch, his curve. His plus change will likely be a frequent participant, as well.
Of the four components of fastball, curve, change and control, I believe Tim can dominate with three or more, can pitch acceptably with just two -- but is horrible with only an uncontrolled fastball.
best thing for linc...
obvious that whatever's he doin down there...
aint mlb training
picked up a bad case of garza disease (overreliance on fastball)
by dryice on May 9, 2007 9:58 AM EDT up reply actions
the worst thing.....
by Tom Servo on May 6, 2007 3:03 PM EDT reply actions
When was the last time there was a thread this lon
by eeleye on May 6, 2007 9:03 PM EDT reply actions
LOL
by SmokeyJoeWood on May 7, 2007 9:05 AM EDT up reply actions
Scott Elbert
Tim Lincecum
by The Congo Hammer on May 6, 2007 9:23 PM EDT reply actions
"Miller should be better":
Surely not performance nor current pitching arsenal.
by youALREADYknow on May 6, 2007 9:40 PM EDT up reply actions
I'll second that...
by jp1 on May 7, 2007 1:13 AM EDT up reply actions
I love me some King Felix
The Ervin Santana crack seems especially misspecified, mind you. What was the point of that one?
by wcw on May 7, 2007 1:35 AM EDT up reply actions
The point is...
Pitchers at 19 or 20 just don't have control and the quality of pitches good enough to get out most major league hitters. It's very rare, more so than for hitters I'd say. Other than C.C. Sabathia there hasn't been an impact starting pitcher 20 or younger since Dwight Gooden & Fernando Valenzuela in the 1980s. But hitting wise you could say Migel Cabrera, Ken Griffey Jr., Alex Rodriguez & Andruw Jones all made a fairly large splash by the time they hit 20 in the 1990s.
ervin?
Here what baffles me is the inclusion of Ervin-vs-Free Johan.
Ervin vs Free Johan minor-league stats
18-22, 9 K/9, 3 BB/9, .6 HR/9, 1.2 K/H
17-20, 9 K/9, 4 BB/9, .8 HR/9, 1.1 K/H
King Felix vs TL minor-league stats
17-19, 11 K/9, 4 BB/9, .4 HR/9, 1.5 K/H
22-23, 15 K/9, 3 BB/9, .4 HR/9, 4 K/H
Ervin's stats look not unlike Free Johan's and he was a little older at each level. TL's blow away King Felix's, but he was a ton older.
What's your argument there exactly?
Ervin v Johan
Tim closer to Felix than Ervin to Johan
I can't see it
As far as injury prospects, look at Lincecum's slight build. Start putting 200 plus innings a season under him and he's an injury waiting to happen. Personally, I think he'll end up a closer a la Billy Wagner and it wouldn't suprise me if he is as successful as Wagner has been in that role. I think Lincecum is great, but like I said it's Dwight Gooden, C.C. Sabathia & Felix Hernandez in the last twenty plus years for starters who are twenty or under at the major league level. Unless Hernandez eats his own weight in Twinkees like Sabathia or attempts to begin snorting his breakfast like Gooden, he should continue to be better than Lincecum.
You look at the numbers Lincecum was putting up in college two or three years ago and the numbers Hernandez was putting up in the majors at the same age and there's no way anyone can see Lincecum as having a greater career arch than Hernandez. It might happen because injuries can always happen, but it couldn't be predicted based on any sort of performance up to this point. Hernandez would have to regress before you could begin to think Lincecum will become the better pitcher.
Say what?
But as we have seen from another great prospect in Francisco Liriano, health IS quite important -- and I happen to believe Tim's odds of having it are greater than Felix's.
You could be right that starters' innings will take a toll on the slightly-built Lincecum, but thus far there is no such indication. It appears to me that Tim's motion puts less strain on his arm than almost anyone aside from Tim Wakefield.
..better?
But I like TL better.
What makes you think Mister High-A, high-G/F is going to best Mister 97-MPH?
partly
Major league hitters will have more success with Lincecum's fastball (which he threw way too often tonight). Hurts Lincecum.
That said, I don't think that Miller will be better than Lincecum. While Lincecum's dominance in AAA doesn't tell a huge story, Miller's lack of dominance in A-ball does.
erm..
I thought TL's big problems tonight weren't overthrowing the FB, but getting one man-it-was-a-weirdly-hot-day-in-SF, lucky HR from Shane "600 OPS in the PCL at age 23" Victorino (and I like him, but he's no home-run threat), and throwing a ton of balls. The HR to Howard I had actually expected.
And (as above) I like AnMiller for his GB, just not as much as Lincecum for his Ks. The one I really don't buy as a top-ten-among-all-prospects talent is Bailey.
Horrible pitch
The good news is that the pitch DID break. It wasn't a total hanger. But it was put in a place begging for it to be a home run any place BUT a hangar.
For all of you who said Pelfrey...
Obviously not.
by uga007 on May 7, 2007 5:21 AM EDT reply actions
how can it be pelfrey if...
by haplo53 on May 7, 2007 12:14 PM EDT reply actions
Mis-rated
TYLER LUMSDEN
He's a power lefty in the high minors, but he walks too many guys and he can't seem to get any strike outs. With the stuff he has, he ought to be awesome, and he isn't. I know he's not a top 100 prospect or anything, but he's definitely overrated.
by ajohnst1 on May 7, 2007 1:05 PM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
