Impact Rookie Pitchers in 2006

by SethSpeaks on Jan 24, 2006 2:25 PM EST Comment 16 comments

Which rookie pitcher will have the biggest impact on his team and baseball in 2006?

Over the past two days, I have posted my rankings of the Top 20 Impact Hitters and Top 20 Impact Pitchers for 2006. Obviously this is a subjective list, but kind of fun to start thinking about.

To see my Top 20 Rookie Impact Pitchers of 2006 with some thoughts, go to http://www.sethspeaks.net/012406.htm. I'd love to hear your thoughts on who I left off the list, maybe some surprise guys, and who is ranked too high.

mlb.com's Jonathon Mayo told me that he would probably rank Justin Verlander higher. What do you think?

Poll

Which 2006 Rookie Pitcher will have the biggest impact in 2006?

Scott Olsen

11 votes

Jonathon Papelbon

33 votes

Francisco Liriano

102 votes

Anthony Reyes

25 votes

Paul Maholm

7 votes

Rich Hill

4 votes

Dustin McGowan

13 votes

Justin Verlander

40 votes

Matt Cain

100 votes

Joey Devine

6 votes

341 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 16 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Others

You could also include Craig Hansen (if you're including Devine), Scott Hirsh, and Scott Baker (though i'm not certain if Baker is a rookie technically)

by Jgaztambide on Jan 24, 2006 3:20 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

hansen

He's #15 on his list.

"Chuck Lamar, you're fired"- Stuart Sternburg.

by Tyler on Jan 24, 2006 3:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

ahh

I was just going off the poll above, didn't bother to check out the list.

by Jgaztambide on Jan 24, 2006 3:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Scott Baker.

If he's eligible, he should definitely be on that list.

by Justin & Joe on Jan 24, 2006 4:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

52 innings

Seth only included true rookies. Scott Baker pitched two more innings than the maximum. It remnds me of Lew Ford, who had one at bat more than the maximum in 2003 and would have won the ROY in 2004, or Joe Mauer, who played in one game more than the maximum in 2004 and would have won ROY in 2005.

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Jan 24, 2006 9:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

clarification

I just wanted to make one quick adjustment to 'cmathewson's' posting.

Actually, Lew Ford and Joe Mauer had less than the 130 plate appearance limit to maintain Rookie status. However, there is a second rule that says that a player can only be on the team's active roster for a certain number of days before he loses eligility. So, actually Ford was on the active roster for one too many GAMES in 2003 or he would have been a lock for 2004 rookie of the year. I think that Mauer was on the active roster for two games or something like that over the limit, or he would have been the easy choice for 2005 rookie of the year.

This is a fair rule. Think about it for pitchers. The innings limit is 50 innings. What if a reliever is on the major league roster the whole season and pitches just 48.2 innings over 52 games. Should that guy still be considered a rookie.

Also, it is time on the "active roster" rather than just on the big league roster now. Remember in the early 90s that both Chipper Jones and Larry Walker missed full seasons before their rookie years. If I recall, their injuries happened and they were put on the Major League disabled list. Because they were on the Major League roster the full seasons, they were not eligible for Rookie of the Year the following seasons. After that, the rule was changed.

Sorry if this is too much information. I don't claim that it is all 100% accurate. For instance, I don't know the number of days on the roster that is the limit. Other details may be slightly off as well, so if anyone has the correct information, please feel free to correct me.

by SethSpeaks on Jan 25, 2006 12:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Mauer over Street?

Call me an A's homer (and perhaps I am to an extent) but I don't think Mauer would have won. You might be able to convince he deserved to have won (he definately would have contended) but is only 9 HRs (even for a catcher with a near .800 OPS) enough to convince voters away from a closer with ERA under 2?

"The difference between Kobe and Jose Canseco is that Kobe doesn't believe in giving his teammates any shots."

by vignette17 on Jan 25, 2006 12:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

Long-term, I'd rather have Mauer, but Street would have won the award for his 2005 performance.

by jc3 on Jan 25, 2006 8:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

rule

I think the rule is fair. But that Minnesota is known to flaunt it year after year by taking away rookie eligility to hurt arbitration cases is terrible. And they can't pretend they are poor with the richest owner in Baseball.

by pedrophile on Jan 25, 2006 1:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Arbitration

Does winning Rookie of the Year really make a difference in how much a player is awarded in arbitration. If I'm not mistaken, I thought the first arbitration award had to do with the cumulative performance of the first three years.

A good argument could be made that teams delay the arbitration service clock, but I am not sure this is necessarily the case with the Twins. I think they are hesitant to call up young players to sit on the bench or participate in reduced roles. A good example will be Liriano this year. Unless he wins a spot in the rotation out of the Spring, he will be sent down to the minors. This will not necessarily be used to delay Liriano's clock, but to make sure that he pitches every fifth day and builds up innings, rather than being the 4th or 5th reliever out of the pen and have an irregular pitching schedule.

Minnesota Twins - 2006 World Series Champions

by drjim on Jan 25, 2006 11:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Major League Experience

If the Twins were playing games Mauer would not have been made the starter in 2004, he would have started at AAA. Likewise Santana won a roster spot in spring training his second year when they could have easily sent him to the minors. They sent him to the minors his third year to turn him into a starter. It worked pretty well. Likewise they called up Crain in 2004 when they could have waited.

It seems to me the Twins make roster decisions based on who is ready to help the team, not arbitration and free agent eligibility. There are fans out there who don't agree with the roster decisions and then come up with conspiracy theories for why it was made. I haven't seen any where that appeared to be the case.

by TT on Jan 25, 2006 2:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Joel Zumaya

Zumaya still a year away am assuming???

by Roadkill on Jan 24, 2006 7:56 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Nippert

Nippert may not be a great prospect, but at this point he may be the #4 starter for the DBacks. And BA listed him #5 (before the Young trade) on the Dbacks Top 10, which is one of the very best systems. Many guys in your Top 20 are not set to be in the MLB rotation on opening day, so I think Nippert belongs in there somewhere.

Also, the following should at least be honorable mention:

C. Resop (where have you heard that Bowyer will be the closer? Borowski seems to be the guy to start the year at least. Then, Resop may have as good a chance as Bowyer to be next in line.)
Josh Johnson (I think he has a better chance than Sanchez to get into the rotation this year)
R. Nolasco (ditto)
E. Volquez (if Diamond and Danks are listed, he should be, too)
F. Nieve
D. Eveland (will be in MLB - may end up starting)
T. Gorzellany
F. Carmona

by rhd on Jan 24, 2006 9:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Nippert

I don't think that he will start in the D'Backs rotation unless he has a spectacular Spring Training. The D'Backs currently have Webb, Ortiz, Hernandez, Batista and Halsey/Vargas. While it's arguable that Nippert will probably do no worse than 2 or 3 (or 4??) of those pitchers, I think he'll start in Tucson and be up by mid-season.

by William K on Jan 25, 2006 2:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs