Double-A Transition Monitor

In his last 12 starts, however, he's thrown 81.1 IP, giving up 47 H and 24 BB (.87 WHIP, 2.65 BB/9) with 93 Ks (10.29 K/9) and a 1.77 ERA.

If his fastball were 3 mph quicker, he'd be talked about as a top 10 pitching prospect in all of baseball.

Overall, I like B+ as a grade for Tyler.

Looking at simple HR/9 will dramatically overrate Clippard. He's a flyball pitcher, so he's going to give up his fair share of homers no matter what.

Somehow for Clippard GB:FB is a deal breaker that makes him dismissable by some?

If you look at the numbers and his age, he is a solid B+.  Good strikeout rate, low WHIP, good ERA, young and all the numbers are better when you take out the injury influenced starts.

The issue is he does not have the great speed on his fastball, which scouts like because it is a measureable thing that they can report.  So do you rely on that or his results so far?  There are other things that matter, such his funky delivery, good placement, good secondary pitches.

People focusing on things like top FB speed miss the great curve of a Zito or the deceptive delivery of a Willis or the placement and grit of a Maddux.

So do you listen to the scouts or look at results?

A ton of pitchers that scouts like bomb in the majors and a large number of pitchers the scouts hate do well.

The question is, which is a better predicitor?  Stas or scouts.

He succeeds bc of his delivery and placement not raw velocity.

Raw velocity is not everything so saying that TP won;t succeed bc he is in the 90 mph range is silly.

We may not be measuring that thing.  But that doesn't mean that it is not measurable or that it is not important.

He may have great
command
movement
ability to change speed
deceptive delivery
ability to hide his pitches

but he has something - that sample size is too large to be a fluke.

Now, that thing, whatever it is, may not translate to the majors.  But it might.  I am unconvinced that a bunch of scouts can tell.  The average scout, like most professions, is average.  No better able to predict a players performance than a weatherman can preditc the weather next month.

Petit had an 11.2 K/9 entering this season. Yet no scout thought he could be an ace, and he's gotten shelled this year.

Sam Militello--who both scouts and statheads adored--had a 10.4 K/9 in the minors and a 1.87 ERA. But he didn't make it.

There are dozens more examples of prospects with great strikeout rates who never made it. Many of those demises were predicted by scouts, because they had the advanced command to dominate minor leaguer hitters, but lacked the stuff to consistently get out big leaguers. To ignore that is foolish.

You have to account for all information...scouting reports, statistics, medical history, etc. They're all valuable. But just saying, "Look at those strikeout numbers--he must be good!" is every bit as naive as looking only at his velocity readings.

155.2 IP 188 H 74 BB 101 SO 5.61 ERA

pretty horrendous all the way around, now my point isnt to say petit will be maddux just saying that you cant say petit wont be an ace just because of one year

i cant and wont argue that petit and clippard will be anything more than the scouts suggest, just that a small sample size concludes very little...and i like the post 2 above, its not just stats, its not just scouting, its everything together...and even still it can mean very little (ie edwin jackson, had the stats, scouts loved him...got to the bigs and his control went out the window)