Battle of the Pitching Millers Smackdown
by John Sickels on Mar 7, 2026 12:34 PM EST
in News
95 comments
Prospect Smackdown: Battle of the A. Millers: Andrew Miller vs. Adam Miller
Background and Intangibles
Andrew Miller: A college star at the University of North Carolina, Andrew Miller was rated as the top college pitcher in the 2006 draft, and probably the best overall player in the draft, by many experts. He fell to sixth overall due to worries about his bonus demands. The Tigers signed him for $3.55 million, including a major league contact that puts his guaranteed money over $5.4 million in the long run. Miller made his major league debut late last summer. There are no serious complaints about his work ethic or intangibles, and despite some command issues he looked comfortable in a major league environment.
Adam Miller: Adam Miller was drafted by the Indians in the supplemental first round in 2003, out of high school in McKinney, Texas. After a mediocre rookie ball debut, he blossomed as one of the best pitching prospects in the game in 2004. Elbow problems slowed him down in '05, but he rebounded fully in '06. His work ethic and intangibles are rated as exceptional, although he can sometimes be a bit emotional.
Advantage: Well, this is a matter of taste, I guess. Andrew Miller had a higher amateur profile and was more highly-regarded on draft day than Adam Miller. But Adam has proven himself more fully in pro ball, and his rehab work to come back from the elbow injury has really impressed a lot of people in regards to his personality and drive to succeed. Call it a wash I guess, or maybe a slight edge to Adam.
Physicality, Health, and Tools
Andrew Miller: Andrew Miller is 6-6, 210 pounds, born May 21, 1985. He has been healthy and durable throughout his college career. Some scouts don't like his delivery and worry that he stresses his arm a bit much, but so far it hasn't been a real problem. His fastball is outstanding for a lefthander at 92-94 MPH, hitting 97 at times, with plus sinking action. His slider is outstanding. His changeup is mediocre and will need to be improved, but he's got the aptitude to pick it up with more experience. He has all the physical tools needed to be a dominant starter at the major league level, provided he refines his command a bit more.
Adam Miller: Adam Miller is 6-4, 195 pounds, born November 26, 1984. Health was a major problem in 2005: a sore elbow wiped out much of his season, and reduced the quality of his stuff when he did pitch. But he rebounded fully in '06, regaining his 92-95 MPH fastball (hitting 97-98 at times), as well as his nasty slider. His changeup is still a work in progress but is better than it used to be. His mechanics are clean, and don't obviously stress his shoulder or elbow, although even pitchers with perfect mechanics can still get hurt. He has all the physical tools needed to be a dominant starter at the major league level, provided his health holds up.
Advantage: Both pitchers throw with similar velocity; both have excellent sliders; both need to improve their changeups. Overall I think you have to give Andrew Miller a slight edge here, since finding a power lefty is harder than finding a power righthander.
Performance and Polish
Andrew Miller: Andrew Miller in his career at North Carolina went 27-9, 2.77, with a 325/140 K/BB ratio in 309 innings. He pitched ten innings for the Tigers last year, allowing nine runs with a 6/10 K/BB ratio, but the sample was small and no one expected him to dominate in the majors right off the bat. Andrew is an extreme ground ball pitcher, with a ratio in excess of 4:1 in college ball.
Adam Miller: Adam Miller has a career minor league record of 27-20, 3.41 with a 387/116 K/BB ratio in 396 innings. He went 15-6, 2.75 in Double-A last year, with a 157/43 K/BB in 154 innings, allowing just 129 hits. When healthy, his K/BB, K/IP, and H/IP ratios have all been excellent. He is a ground ball pitcher, although not to the same extreme extent as Andrew Miller.
Advantage: Comparisons here are quite difficult, as we don't have directly comparable stats to look at. In general, Adam has better control and polish than Andrew right now, but he also has been learning his craft in a pro environment rather than in college, and Andrew is hardly raw given his experience level. Perhaps a slight edge for Adam.
Projection
Andrew Miller: Assuming the expected command refinements, Andrew Miller projects as a number one starter at the major league level. At worst he would be a power closer from the left side if the changeup is a problem, but I don't expect it will be in the long run.
Adam Miller: Assuming continued good health, Adam Miller projects as a number one starter at the major league level. At worst he'd be a number three type if his stuff levels out or slips a bit.
Advantage: PECOTA mean 5-year VORP for Andrew Miller is 51.8. PECOTA mean 5-year VORP for Adam Miller is 59.1....very close! Note that I take PECOTA projections for pitchers especially with large grains of salt. PECOTA doesn't like either of these guys as much as traditional scouts or my own analysis does. But I find it interesting that PECOTA projects them so closely.
.
Summary
Maybe a SLIGHT edge on intangibles for Adam Miller, Andrew gets a slight edge on tools, Adam gets a slight edge on current polish and performance, they rate even on projection. I rated Adam at Number Six on my pitching prospect list, and Andrew at Number Seven. It's really, really close but overall I think Adam is just a HAIR better.
0 recs |
95 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Interesting
Good writeup overall. A lot will depend on that change up and command issue for Andrew.
Two good pitchers in what is becoming a great young pitching division.
by VtTigers on Mar 7, 2026 12:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
agreed
adam miller, on the other hand, has a significant minor league career, and i'm surprised pecota is so down on him. i guess it makes sense to penalize him pretty heavily for the lost 2005 when he was recovering from injury.
by jpahk on Mar 7, 2026 4:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What's the over/under....
Just kidding, I love your write-ups, indiansfan. Just got to give you a little grief.
by Boxkutter on Mar 7, 2026 1:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
holy s**t
by jpahk on Mar 7, 2026 8:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I take it you took the "under"? :-)
I just seen this message - I take it you took the under, huh? :-)
Take care and have a great day!
by indiansfan on Mar 8, 2026 12:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow
by Yakker on Mar 7, 2026 1:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Andrew Miller's fastball
two-seamer has a lot of sinking movement and is 92-94
four-seamer goes 95-97
just to clarify that when he's hitting 97 it isn't because he's "reaching back," it has more to do with grip.
by ian on Mar 7, 2026 1:31 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Good point
by VtTigers on Mar 7, 2026 1:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know where this fits but...
by Mike Green on Mar 7, 2026 3:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
A few video clips of...
by El Diablo on Mar 7, 2026 4:29 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Go...
I've been looking for some videos of minor leaguers. Thanks.
by eeleye on Mar 7, 2026 6:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What about the injury?
Do you think the injury could come back or be a problem in the future?
by niallmack on Mar 7, 2026 5:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
i'll second this
by limozeen on Mar 7, 2026 5:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Adam is more proven than Andrew to this point!
No offense, but Adam is more proven than Andrew to this point, not to mention, has superior command of all of his pitches, including the offspeed stuff. Andrew does not have that level of command yet, and especially against professional hitters. That is why ranking Andrew ahead of Adam at this point doesn't seem right to me - we don't know for sure what Andrew will do against professional hitters.
Yes, we can project he'll do well, but Adam has already done that, and quite dominantly as well. Also keep in mind that Adam is only 6 months older than Andrew, so Andrew doesn't have much more projection than Adam, if any, based on age.
Plus, Adam's fastball is plus, his slider is plus to plus-plus, and his changeup and 2-seam fastball are at least ML-average, so it's not like Andrew has THAT much of an advantage stuff-wise over Adam, if at all.
Admittedly, I've seen Adam pitch more than Andrew, but I'm pretty sure from the reports I've read that Adam has GREAT command of his offspeed stuff, whereas Andrew doesn't at this point - he still needs to develop his offspeed stuff; Adam has to polish up the changeup and 2-seamer. Adam is clearly ahead of Andrew offspeed stuff-wise in terms of quality AND command, and their fastballs are essentially the same, velocity-wise. In my mind, that has to put Adam ahead, besides the fact that Adam has dominated up through AA; Andrew hasn't at this point, and from what I've heard, Andrew is supposed to start at AA in 2007 (I may be wrong on this.)
Again, I'm going to mention this, but I find it amazing that most bring up Adam's elbow injury, yet few bring up Hughes' shoulder inflammation from the end of 2005. Both pitchers dominated pretty well in 2006 (albeit Hughes did dominate a little more,) yet most mention that Miller's injury should knock him down, but Hughes' injury rarely, if ever, gets mentioned.
I don't get that because, if I'm correct, a shoulder injury is usually considered more serious than an elbow injury, yet few, if any, bring up Hughes' shoulder injury.
I'm not saying that Adam's injury shouldn't be taken into account - it should always be considered and monitored - but by the same token, Hughes' injury should also be taken into account, considered, and monitored as well. Yet, I've seen many more mention Miller's elbow injury than Hughes' shoulder injury. And while Adam does not have a clean bill of health, neither does Hughes - I think that is something to keep in mind; neither have the bill of health that both Bailey and Gallardo have (I don't think Gallardo has had any sort of injury, just like I'm pretty sure Bailey has not.) Therefore, I think it should be taken into account for both pitchers, not just Adam.
Just my 2 cents. :-)
Take care and have a great day!
by indiansfan on Mar 7, 2026 5:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
stuff
Thus far in spring training, Andrew has worked 4 innings giving up 4 hits, 2 walks, 1 run, and 5 Ks. I fully expect him to pitch very well in the minors this year and be up in Detroit's rotation in 2008.
by dj on Mar 7, 2026 6:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Stuff
Thats what I think his value really is. A groundball pitcher with strikeout abilities. I consider those relatively hard to find.
The slider isn't quite as good as Randy Johnson's. It is a similar pitch but doesn't break as fast. But if he can throw 3-4 of those for strikes per outing its going to be really tough to lay off of.
by VtTigers on Mar 7, 2026 8:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How ironic - sounds very similar to Adam!
I think you were referring to Andrew, but your description of "a groundball pitcher with strikeout abilities" sounds VERY similar to Adam, who had a G/F ratio of 1.88 (I believe) last year himself, not to mention around a 9.2 K/9 IP last year (and it was 9.7 K/9 IP in the second half when he regained more fastball velocity.)
That's probably why these two are so similarly matched. Each will have their own favorite, and each will have reasons why the one is better, but based on stuff, ceiling, and what they have done to this point, the advantage would have to go to Adam.
Like I said, Andrew may eventually be a bit better (though he might equal Adam eventually as well,) but as of now, I think John has it right - Adam is ahead of Andrew by a slim margin, mostly because he has more experience and better command of all of his pitches, which don't lack "stuff" in their own right.
Just my 2 cents. :-)
Take care and have a great day!
by indiansfan on Mar 7, 2026 8:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought you were, as I mentioned! :-)
by indiansfan on Mar 7, 2026 9:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
From your explanations
It should be interesting to see how it shakes out I really like Adam's slider. I like Andrew's slider as well as long as he throws it for strikes.
The only real big difference I see is polish and which hand they use.
by VtTigers on Mar 7, 2026 9:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed!
I agree with the difference part - I didn't realize Andrew was such an extreme groundball pitcher. The more I read of Andrew, the more I think of Adam.
In other words, Adam seems like a more polished version (and a mirror version, of course. :-) If Andrew turns out to be Adam in a year or two (without the elbow injury, of course,) that wouldn't be bad at all, since Adam is projected to be a #1 as well. And at this point, Andrew doesn't have Adam's command - if Andrew can duplicate that, he'd certainly be a dominating pitcher like Adam is projected to be.
Just my 2 cents. :-)
Take care and have a great day!
by indiansfan on Mar 7, 2026 9:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No offense, but Adam's slider is just as good -
Hello dj,
No offense, but you must not be that familiar with Adam's slider - it's plus to plus-plus - his slider is every bit as good as Andrew's, and on top of that, he has command of his. I'm not sure the same can be said for Andrew, and certainly not against pro hitters.
Adam's slider has always been considered "nasty," and he has regained it after the elbow injury. Combine that with an equally potent fastball, and in my mind, Andrew has no advantage in either area. Combine that with Adam's command and experience at this point, and Adam has the advantage, not Andrew.
Could Andrew be better someday? It's certainly possible, but at this point, Adam is better. And as John said, Adam, not Andrew may have the slightest advantage in projection.
For the record, in Adam's one ST outing against the Tigers:
2 IP, 0 H, 0 R, 0 ER, 0 BB, 2 K
I also expect Adam to handle AAA and be up in the Indians' rotation by 2008.
Just my 2 cents. :-)
Take care and have a great day!
by indiansfan on Mar 7, 2026 8:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think both Millers will be in the majors in 2008
by VtTigers on Mar 7, 2026 8:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
miller
I've seen more than one right handed batter swing at a slider from Andrew Miller that ended up hitting them it broke so much. Watching him in Chapel Hill, it was unreal. I also watch quite a bit of AAA ball with the Durham Bulls so I have a pretty good idea of how his pitches stack up to high end minor leaguers. His slider is just filthy at times. Yes, he struggled with his control in limited action in Detroit last year coming straight out of college, but who cares? Or are you telling me that a guy with a 3.5/1 K/BB ratio in college and 9/1 in A ball last year can't throw strikes?
by dj on Mar 8, 2026 4:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My thoughts on Andrew!
I'm NOT saying Andrew's slider isn't good, but from what I've read and heard, he doesn't have consistent command of it yet, which is understandable if it breaks that much. And pro hitters are more likely to be able to lay off of a bad slider or crush a hanging slider than most college hitters would, because pro hitters are the best of the best - most college hitters never make it to the pros. That's why you really can't compare college stats to pro stats - you try to translate that to the Minors and to the MLs, but it's not that easy. That's why I'd really like to see what Andrew can do over a full professional season before ranking him too highly, even though I would still rank him highly, but I have a hard time putting him over four guys who have high ceilings of their own and have dominated AA. That's just my opinion and my reasoning - I'm not saying it's right or wrong - it's just my opinion and reasoning.
No offense, but again, pitching in college ball and pro ball are two different animals, which a recent thread here talked about, specifically, what level of pro ball would most college programs be at. I think most said between Low-A and High-A; I think a few said AA, and there were also a few who said that it was more like SS-A, depending on what college program it was.
NC and ACC ball is pretty highly regarded, I believe (I'm not a huge college baseball fan, just because I don't get to see very much of it - otherwise, I'd probably be more into it) - even so, I doubt that many would say it's at a AA level; I'm guessing Low-A to High-A, based on the other thread.
My point: Most professional hitters, even in the Minor Leagues, are more disciplined than college hitters. As was said in the other thread, most pro hitters will hit most college pitching, just like most pro pitchers will handle or dominate most college hitters - they're not at the same level.
Therefore, just because Andrew showed great command in college or even at Low-A doesn't guarantee that he's going to have pinpoint command right off-the-bat at AA or AAA or the ML. It's not the same level. To expect him to even have a 2.5-3 K/1 BB ratio at any of those levels right off the bat is probably unrealistic, though possible.
Does that mean Andrew will never have good command? Of course not - I'm saying it will take time. Besides that, you pitch a lot more in pro ball than you do in college ball - the season is longer and there are virtually no off-days in pro ball, whereas in college ball, you have a bit more time off. Who knows how Andrew will adjust to that? That's why I say, give him, Lincecum, Kershaw, and these other fine pitching prospects time to show what they can do at the pro level before we start calling them the best pitching prospects in the game. Is that unreasonable to ask?
Therefore, comparing college ball directly to pro ball isn't totally accurate - that's why John said it was sort of hard to compare stats under his performance and polish section.
Just my 2 cents. :-)
Take care and have a great day!
by indiansfan on Mar 9, 2026 1:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Command is command and control is control
He does need to refine his command on that slider but he certainly has been improving it every season.
by VtTigers on Mar 9, 2026 2:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My thoughts!
John - excellent write-up - I learned a lot about both pitchers. :-)
(Boxkutter - thanks for the grief, LOL! :-)
If I may add something to John's write-up, Adam Miller also developed a 2-seam fastball in 2006 to help him handle lefties better; with that and his improved changeup, he kept lefties to something like a .198 BAA in 2006.
Since he's thrown the changeup longer (since 2004 I believe,) I'm guessing his changeup is better at this point, but it sounds like the 2-seam fastball could be a solid pitch for Adam as well.
Mike Green - I can understand your point, but keep in mind that Jacobs' Field has become more of a neutral, or even a slight pitcher's park over the last few years - it's no longer the launching pad it used to be.
I'm guessing the weather conditions - it seems like the southern wind doesn't come as early in the summer as it used to - it seems like mid-June to early-July before there is a carrying effect from the southern wind. That might last through the middle to end of August, but even on some Summer days in recent years, the wind doesn't carry the ball like it used to, so it's no longer a hitter's park like it was in the 1990s. While Comerica is arguably more of a pitcher's park than Jacobs' Field, it's not as much of an advantage as you are implying.
Regarding the defense, as has been mentioned, Peralta couldn't see very well last year due to an eye problem, which he has now had LASIK surgery to correct. While that won't directly help him become faster, it could indirectly because he'll be able to spot the ball coming off the bat quicker and be able to get a quicker first step, which could help him improve his range some, enough for him to be adequate to solid defensively at SS. He couldn't even see Victor Martinez's pitch selection signs from his SS position last year, so it's reasonable to conclude that he couldn't see the ball coming off the bat that well either, which probably affected his range to some extent. I doubt Peralta wins any Gold Gloves, but an improvement over last year's defensive struggles is certainly possible.
For what it's worth, so far this spring, I think he's made no errors or 1 error at most.
As for Marte, even though he has made something like 2-3 errors in ST and has looked shaky at times with some ground balls, I think most Indians' fans (and it seems, the Indians too) are concerned more about how quickly he develops with his bat than with his glove, as he has always been a pretty solid defender. So, I think most are thinking he'll be fine, and probably a defensive upgrade over Aaron Boone - arguably, the 3B defense improved last year after Marte took over on a full-time basis.
Therefore, I don't think the IF defense will be as problematic in 2007 as it was in 2006 for those two main reasons. While Peralta probably doesn't match Guillen's glove and Marte's defensive potential doesn't match up to Inge's actual defensive performance, I don't think the defense is THAT bad where it will hurt Adam Miller long-term. Plus, unlike 4/5 of the ML rotation (outside of Sabathia,) Miller also has the capability of getting Ks when he needs to, so Miller won't have to totally rely on the IF defense like Westbrook, Sowers, or Byrd do either.
In my opinion, as long as Hector Luna isn't used often, if at all, on the IF, the defense should be improved from last year. :-)
(In case you don't know, Luna has made 4 Es in 5 ST games, by far, the worst of any Indians' defender. Right now, it looks like either Mike Rouse or Luis Rivas will make it as the backup middle IF; there are still questions on whether Inglett can handle SS, plus he's had a hamstring injury for the last few days, which is why he hasn't been playing, but he's only made 1 E in like 2 or 3 ST game, so even he's ahead of Luna in my opinion.)
This is just my opinion, but I think these are the top 4 pitching prospects in the game, based on both potential AND performance to this point:
Philip Hughes
Homer Bailey
Adam Miller
Yovani Gallardo (in some order - it depends on what factors you consider, though Hughes probably ranks #1 virtually any way you slice it.)
The following have great potential, but really do not have a long-enough track record in my opinion to really consider putting over the four guys above when you take everything into consideration:
Tim Lincecum
Andrew Miller
Luke Hochevar
Clayton Kershaw
These four may become the new "four-some" next year because they'll have longer track records to analyze (including their first full-year in pro ball,) plus the fact that if the previous four stay healthy, all four will probably make their ML debuts in 2007, and perhaps, all losing their prospect status for 2008, which further increases the chances that the latter four will replace, or perhaps, overtake the previous four for the best pitching prospects in baseball.
Just my 2 cents. :-)
Again, great write-up John! Keep up the great work!
Take care and have a great day!
by indiansfan on Mar 7, 2026 5:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I love prospect smackdowns
by revans37 on Mar 7, 2026 6:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
What sealed Adam Miller....
Lets see:
Good command
Great stuff
Great work ethic
Self motivator
This guy is going to be something.
by SenorGato88 on Mar 7, 2026 9:26 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Virtually dead even
My opinion on who I'd take first changes pretty much every day. I don't think Andrew is quite as unpolished as some are suggesting . . .he's continued to refine his repertoire and his control every year. I also think he looks like the type of guy who should pitch better against batters with wooden rather than metal bats.
I think I'll go with Andrew for today. He's got such tremendous movement on his pitches that it's hard to believe that he gets that kind of zip on them at the same time.
by mrkupe on Mar 7, 2026 10:41 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
The question of what college ball is to pro ball
Hello mrkupe,
Again, that question about what level of competition North Carolina was facing as compared to what it would be in pro ball comes up again. I doubt it's AA; High-A - possibly; Low-A - more likely.
That's not to diminish what Andrew has done, but college and pro ball aren't exactly the same thing - you pitch more in the pros, you face the best competition in the pros, and more mistakes get punished in the pros. Andrew hasn't faced that yet, whereas Adam has, which is why I think Adam does have the slight advantage, as John suggested.
In addition, Andrew still has much more work in refining his command than you might be suggesting - his career BB/9 IP rate at NC was 4.08, and that was against less-disciplined college hitters. Adam's career BB/9 IP in pro ball is 2.64, against more experienced, more disciplined, and older hitters. His walk rate in 2006 was nearly the equivalent of Hughes' (2.52 to Hughes' 2.48,) so in my opinion, Andrew has a ways to go before matching or even coming close to Adam's command. And as many pitching prospects (even ones equivalent or even better than Andrew) have proven in the past, command is not automatic - even the most heralded pitching prospects don't always refine their command enough to reach their full potential. I'm not saying Andrew won't - I'm just saying it's not automatic that he will either, no matter how good his stuff is.
Like I said, each will have their favorite, and make arguments for why they think the one is better than the other, but I agree with John when he gives Adam the advantage over Andrew, based on everything Adam has done compared to what Andrew has done.
Like I said before, I can't see putting Andrew, Tim (Lincecum,) Luke (Hochevar,) and Clayton (Kershaw) over guys like Hughes, Bailey, Miller, and Gallardo, who have dominated AA competition - NO college program, not even NC, is going to match AA level of competition. As someone else mentioned in another thread the other day, most AA pitchers will handle NC hitters, while most AA hitters will handle the NC pitchers. While Miller might fare better than his teammates, a bump in the road or two would not be unexpected, especially since he has not faced the level of competition, nor the patience of AA hitters before.
This is the main reason in my opinion that Adam ranks higher than Andrew at this point, especially since Adam's "stuff," intangibles, and projectability are comparable or even favorable to Andrew's.
Just my 2 cents. :-)
Take care and have a great day!
by indiansfan on Mar 7, 2026 11:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
there's one thing i'm not clear on yet
by jpahk on Mar 8, 2026 12:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Are you joking or are you serious?
First, are you asking me that question?
Second, are you joking or are you serious? I'm asking this honestly because I think you're kidding with me, but I just want to be sure. :-)
Based on the reasons I've given, yes, I think Adam is ahead of Andrew, by a small margin.
Just my 2 cents. :-)
Take care and have a great day!
by indiansfan on Mar 8, 2026 12:16 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
The question is if you would feel the same way
:-)
by VtTigers on Mar 8, 2026 12:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
stop avoding the question!
by jpahk on Mar 8, 2026 1:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, and I already did!
VtTigers - yes, I would say Adam is more advanced than Andrew, even if Adam was a Tiger and Andrew was an Indian - while I'd be excited about Andrew's potential, for me, to say he is a better pitching prospect than someone who has proven more at the higher levels, especially in the fashion he has, and with comparable stuff, just doesn't make sense to me.
Don't get me wrong - I can see the argument, and I think it is close, but for me, I'll take the pitcher with comparable stuff and better command who has proven something at a higher level than a highly-touted prospect with great potential.
Just my opinion on that!
jpahk - LOL - you've been reading my posts, right? :-) If you need a clue, try the subject line of my very first post (by time, not by order) in this thread - that should give you a pretty good idea. :-)
Here's another clue:
Which one would come in a dictionary first? There's your answer. :-)
Take care and have a great day!
by indiansfan on Mar 8, 2026 1:10 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
You know I was being sarcastic right?
by VtTigers on Mar 8, 2026 1:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
in all seriousness
i don't have a horse in the indians-tigers race. (i like both teams, but i'm a semi-jaded A's fan.) but i've seen andrew pitch in the CWS and his brief bullpen stint with detroit, and i was pretty wowwed by his slider and 2-seamer. now i know adam can light up the radar gun, so if his slider was as good as you say--why would anybody rank andrew ahead? answer: they wouldn't. adam may have a fine breaking ball, but andrew's slider is the best pitch thrown by either miller.
furthermore, his command is improving. you point out that he had a high walk rate at UNC, which is true. but a closer look reveals that he was walking nearly 5 batters per 9 IP as a freshman and sophomore, and cut that down to under 3 as a junior. at the same time he boosted his K rate and became even more of a GB pitcher. this is a guy who is figuring it out rapidly. and with his ceiling, that's just scary.
it really is a matter of preference--nobody can be blamed for wanting the guy who is closer to the show and already very good, but at the same time, andrew has an undeniably higher upside. that's why he was the consensus #1 player in his draft class (a class which is looking very strong so far). so it's mildly annoying to me when you (indiansfan) keep insisting that adam's pitches are just as good, and his ceiling is just as high. the general consensus seems to be that it's not. it's still perfectly fine to prefer adam because he is more of a finished product, but you're stretching the limits of credulity when you try to argue that adam is as good or better in every way, which is what it seems like you're trying to do.
by jpahk on Mar 8, 2026 1:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually....
Yes, Andrew Miller is a power lefty...the rarest of rare in baseball. But he also comes along with a bunch of flaws:
- Command is iffy, especially of offspeed pitches.
- Mechanics, though the Tigers aren't an idiot orginization when it comes to pitchers and mechanics.
- Control
I'm actually at a loss as to why Adam Miller isn't talked about more often.
by SenorGato88 on Mar 8, 2026 2:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Tigers...
They don't seem to want to mess with Andrew so I am going to trust them. I honestly think the mechanics concerns are a bit overblown with Andrew.
I agree with the rest though command/control is an issue with his offspeed stuff.
I like Adam more overall at this point but I think Andrew has more perceived value if they both reach the same level because he is left handed.
by VtTigers on Mar 8, 2026 2:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
shiny new toy
on the other hand, more often than not the best overall talent in a draft class is a pretty freaking great prospect. just going by recent years, 2005 had upton/gordon; 2004 had weaver/drew; 2003 had delmon; 2002 had the other upton; 2001 had prior/mauer/teixeira. (note that i'm not going by who's turned out the best or was drafted #1, but by the consensus top talents going into the draft at the time.) i admit that there was nobody in 2000, but 2000 was an anomalously horrible draft year.
as for andrew miller in particular, not only is he the ultra-rare power lefty, he's the so-rare-as-to-be-unheard-of power lefty groundballer. can anybody even think of an example of such a beast? the closest that comes to mind right now is mark mulder, but miller's slider could definitely be better than any of mulder's breaking pitches (though obviously mulder is much better at changing speeds), and he also seems to be more extreme in getting ground balls than mulder. i'm at a loss to come up with a reasonable comp. some sort of mixture of mulder and bj ryan? (i'd say randy johnson, but i can't bring myself to compare anyone to randy johnson. no matter how similar they might seem, johnson has been so extraordinary that it can't be a useful comparison.)
by jpahk on Mar 8, 2026 2:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You're right - I can't think of a comparison...
Hello jpahk,
You make a very good about "power lefty groundballer" - I really can't think of one. Heck, outside of Kevin Brown and probably a few others, there aren't too many "power righty groundballers," but I honestly can't think of a "power lefty groundballer."
In fact, are there that many lefty groundballers? Most lefties either are deceptive by changing speeds (Moyer, Rogers) or throw hard (Santana, Sabathia, Kazmir, Ryan, Wagner, etc.) but I can't think of a power lefty groundballer.
Like I said before, it will be very interesting to see how Andrew develops - I, personally, just like to not rate new draft signings who haven't had a chance to show what they can do in pro ball over guys who have high ceilings of their own and have proven themselves (and dominated) AA ball. It's just my opinion and reasoning - I'm not saying it's right or wrong; I just would like to see some meaningful pro data (not a small sample size) before rating guys like Andrew Miller and Tim Lincecum over guys like Hughes, Bailey, Gallardo, and Adam Miller.
Just my 2 cents. :-)
Take care and have a great day!
by indiansfan on Mar 9, 2026 2:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
power righty groundballers
you're right, there are just not that many lefty groundballers at all. mulder, rogers, ... i'm running out of names. oh, i just thought of somebody--andy pettitte. he actually may be the best comp for andrew miller: big lefty, throws pretty hard, gets lots of ground balls. and he's had a hell of a career. the big difference is that pettitte eats RHBs up with his cut fastball, whereas miller can embarrass them with his slider. if miller can learn to be as amazing at holding baserunners as pettitte, he could set records for double plays induced.
looking for other names, i see that pettitte's #1 PECOTA comp is chuck finley. i don't remember if finley was a ground ball pitcher. indiansfan, you must have watched him (assuming you are at least as old as i am, which is not that old)--do you know?
by jpahk on Mar 9, 2026 12:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
From what I recall, I'd say no!
No, I'd say Finley was more of a flyball pitcher, though I'd have to look it up to be sure, but I don't recall Finley ever being considered a groundball pitcher while he was in Cleveland, at least (the media and others would talk about him being a flyball pitcher.)
Like you, that's why I'm having trouble coming up with a power groundball lefty. Regarding the power groundball righties, I didn't realize Webb throws hard enough to be considered a power pitcher, though I knew about his groundball tendencies.
As for Carpenter, I didn't realize he got so many groundballs - I knew him as a strikeout pitcher, but I was not aware of his GB/FB ratio (that's a stat I should look up more often - any advice on a good site that provides GB/FB ratio on past players?)
Take care and have a great day!
by indiansfan on Mar 9, 2026 6:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
webb
i don't know where to get historical GB/FB data either--that's why i asked you about finley instead of looking it up myself. for current players, BP and HBT both track this sort of thing. i like BP because not only do they give you the numbers, they tell you what percentile that kind of performance represents.
by jpahk on Mar 9, 2026 7:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the info.!
Thanks for the info. on BP & HBT - I have to check out those sites more often.
I also see your point about Webb compared to the others - he's averaged 6-7 K/9 IP, much more than the other four you mentioned, who were mostly in the 3-5, maybe up to the 6 range at best (Lowe, specifically.)
Take care and have a great day!
by indiansfan on Mar 9, 2026 8:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
oh and by the way
by jpahk on Mar 8, 2026 2:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Response
I'm really not impressed by any argument that just cherry-picks the stats that back the guy that you want to like more anyways. There are good and compelling reasons to choose Adam Miller over Andrew Miller. Homerism is not one of them.
Breaking things down:
- Their 4 seamers are basically even
- Adam's change is ahead at this point, but to be fair we need to see what Andrew's change looks like when he really gets into developing it
- Andrew's slider is ahead, but Adam's slider is very good as well (say it's like comparing a 70 pitch to a 65 pitch, scouting wise)
- As for 2 seamers, I'd inclined to say it's the same as the slider, but it may be personal preference. Given Andrew's ridiculous GB ratio (against metal bats, no less), I'm inclined to give it to him, but at the same time Adam has a fine pitch with good command
- Adam has better overall control, and is capable of exhibiting it better against higher level competition at this point
by mrkupe on Mar 8, 2026 2:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
thank you for writing this
At this point, I consider it a HUGE victory that indiansfan has admitted Philip Hughes might be more highly rated than Adam Miller (even if it is mostly in the context of saying how much closer the two are than people realize).
Anyway, I find it funny that indiansfan has REPEATEDLY referenced the fact that "John chose Adam over Andrew for a reason" as evidence of some underlying truth about the difference between the two, yet he has failed to once acknowledge that John ranked those two pitchers sixth and seventh (not second overall, as indiansfan would have you believe). So, either, John's word is not the word of God, or it's time for indiansfan to fess up that there are a few other pitchers you'd take before Adam Miller. Personally, I'd go with both.
Sorry for the rant. And, indiansfan, I do love you. No disrespect intended. But there's only so much propaganda I can take. And I think it's fair to let you know how it comes off (at least to some of us). If you want me to take your assessments more seriously, you have to concede a little more, as painful as I think it must be for you to find fault in your own team's players.
by bleedjaxblue on Mar 8, 2026 3:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My thoughts!
bleedjaxblue - I appreciate your thoughts and candid words. Trust me, I'm NOT trying to spread propaganda here - I'm trying to remind the many that seem to have forgotten how Adam Miller was highly regarded after the 2004 season, has regained his form after the 2006 season, yet somehow, many are questioning him even having a #1 starter-ceiling, having a great slider, or that he has improved his changeup (all of which John also said.) How is that propaganda?
Besides that, he HAS proven more than Andrew at this point. There's no denying that.
If you want to see me make negative remarks about some Indians' players, check out the following comments:
Michael Aubrey
Brad Snyder
Franklin Gutierrez
Andy Marte
Andy Marte
Chuck Lofgren
I hope this proves I'm not a homer - I try to be as unbiased as I can; what amazes me is that Adam Miller virtually gets no mention as being one of the better pitching prospects in the game (Top 4, along with Hughes, Bailey, and Gallardo - check all the stats for yourself at TheBaseballCube between the four and ask yourself if that is a stretch - in my mind, it isn't.) Plus, many still have doubts on whether he's a number 1 starter, how good his slider really is, etc. Like I said, very few, if any, question Philip Hughes' stuff or ceiling, even though he had a shoulder injury in 2005, the same year that Adam suffered the elbow injury.
To my knowledge, shoulder injuries are usually considered more serious than elbow injuries, yet most don't even bring up Hughes' injury, but Adam Miller's often is. Is that fair? I don't think so. Of course, Adam's elbow should be taken into consideration, but why then is there virtually no mention of Hughes' shoulder? Hughes bounces back and does well - there's no mention of it; Miller bounces back and does well - and there's all these lingering doubts. Is a difference of roughly 1 K/9 IP really a reason to keep asking whether Miller is really a #1 starter, when he was definitely considered that after 2004, virtually without question? What did Adam Miller not do in 2006 to prove that he is back to his old self - he had a 9.2 K/9 IP ratio in his first stint in AA, and it was 9.7 K/9 IP in the second half when his fastball velocity returned to its 2004 velocity. Is there any reason to doubt that his slider is that good in its own right, when it was considered to be a "wicked" slider back in 2004? What has Adam Miller not shown to prove that he has that old slider back?
And, how can Adam be put behind someone who has thrown very few professional pitches, who has weaker command, who is essentially the same baseball age, and who has faced weaker competition than Miller has? Based on projection, even though the stuff is similar? (mrkupe pointed out the similarities in their sliders; the fastballs are essentially identical, the changeups are essentially identical, and both throw 2-seamers, with Andrew's probably being a bit better than Adam's because Adam just started throwing his in 2006, not as long as Andrew has thrown his.)
I don't think it's cut-and-dry, at all, that Andrew is better than Adam, and being that many have split opinions on who is better, I think that tells you right there that their ceilings are essentially the same - as a #1 starter, no more or less for either of them. How is that propaganda when you analyze everything from the stats to the quality of pitches, to the command of those pitches, to the competition faced, to the baseball age? Is Andrew really that superior to Adam? I don't think so. As I mentioned in my last post, Andrew is very good in his own right, but the "shiny new toy" and the flamethrowing lefty ideas likely factor into that ranking as well.
I'm just reminding you guys that Adam Miller is still one of the better pitching prospects (Top 5) in the game, and has essentially proven as much as Hughes, Bailey, and Gallardo, plus has been mentioned by Callis as having equivalent stuff and an equivalent ceiling, even though Adam doesn't get the mention or the praise that those three do.
I'm sorry if you think I'm a homer, but two main things to consider -
- I don't post on every prospect (partly because I don't have time to - I do have other obligations) - I read many threads (though not all); most of my knowledge deals with Indians' prospects, so many of my comments will be about Indians' prospects. I have commented on other prospects though, including Hughes, Bailey, and others. Therefore, you may think that all I'm doing is "boosting" Indians' prospects, but as you seen above and below, that is NOT the case.
- As proven above, I have knocked down some Indians' prospects:
I've reduced Lofgren's ceiling from a #1 starter to a #2-#3 starter.
I've criticized Brad Snyder's lack of strike zone judgment, even questioning why BA had him ranked in their Indians' Top 10 List - unfortunately, I can't find the link at LetsGoTribe - if I find it later, I'll post it if I still can.
I've criticized Franklin Gutierrez's projected ceiling, thinking he'll never hit for 30-HR power; in fact, I've even advocated trading him in the right deal.
So, as you can see, I am not a homer. Just because many of my comments about Indians' prospects are positive, doesn't make me a homer. I've always provided facts, stats, etc. to back up what I am saying or suggesting - whether you agree with it or not is up to you - that's what makes this site interesting for baseball fans. If we all had the same views, it would get to be pretty boring, wouldn't it?
Therefore, no offense, but what you consider "propaganda," I don't. Hopefully, you'll also see it's NOT "propaganda" or "homerism" - that's where you don't supply any rational reasons for what you are saying or suggesting. When I say or suggest something, I always back it up - whether you choose to agree with it or not, that's up to you. That's one of the main reasons this site gets so many visitors - to encourage and stimulate discussion and debate.
Just my 5 cents. :-)
Take care and have a great day!
by indiansfan on Mar 8, 2026 4:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
you understand that....
Your idea of being critical of Indians players is SEVERELY warped. You say Chuck Loefgren MAY not be an ace, but is as a two. You TWICE say you think people have too high expectations of Marte, who is just playing bad because of "jitters," and say you think he can be "Aramis Ramirez or better" and yet you link to this as you DISCOUNTING an Indians prospect. I'm scared to even open the links for nonprospects like Snyder and Aubrey to find out what tiny concession (in the midst of grandiose undue praise) you make.
Listen -- I have no problem with people posting more about their favorite teams. Scratch that -- I both expect it and want it. You're an expert on your own team, and I will learn way more if I hear about what you have to say (having watched them or followed them daily) than what other people do.
But, the danger of listening to fans is that they often have warped and biased evaluations of their own players. This is where it becomes difficult for others, because, as much as we'd like to get information from the best source possible, that source becomes misleading when it can't see the world through a more objective lens.
I would hope you can look back at the way you've evaluated Indians prospects in a few years and realize that you might be overselling some of them.
by bleedjaxblue on Mar 8, 2026 1:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It's called reevaluating your own projections and
Hello bleedjaxblue,
No offense, but what I said in those threads regarding guys like Gutierrez, Lofgren, and Marte actually came from scouting reports and media reports back within the past few years. If I have the chance, I'll try to find some sources for you, or if you like, you can do some research on your own, but I'm not making up that stuff.
Gutierrez was projected AT ONE TIME to hit for 30-HR power; however, both here and on LetsGoTribe, I've been doubting Gutierrez's power since at least 2005, and probably 2004 as well. The Vero Beach park factor did factor into why most dropped his ceiling, and it dropped it for me as well, in addition to his only hitting 6 HRs in 2004.
However, I also took into account the fact that it was his first year in the Indians' system, and more importantly, I took into account that the Indians were modifying his swing because they didn't believe that his Dodgers' farm system swing would produce at the ML level, so I wasn't totally writing him off - I wanted to see what he would do with that new swing once he became comfortable with it. After seeing his stats and hearing the reports for a few months or so in 2005, I started to think he might be a 20-HR guy at best, and I'm not even sure he'd do that now - probably more 10-15 HRs at best.
As for Lofgren, when he was coming up through the system, many (not just me) were talking about him being a potential ace because he had a mid-90s fastball and the makings of a solid breaking pitch (curveball, I believe); when his velocity dropped the following year to a consistent 89-93, occasionally hitting as high as 96-97, many dropped their ceiling on him, and so did I, down to a 2-3 pitcher (and I'm pretty sure I said 2-3; 2 at best, 3 at worst, barring injury or total collapse of course, which can happen to any prospect.) And I know there was at least another poster or two (maybe pedrophile?) who agreed with me on him being a 2-3; I believe mrkupe said 3-4. Was calling him a 2 really that outrageous or "selling him" as you claim I do?
No offense, but that's called reevaluating a prospect based on new data, which just about everybody does. I'm pretty sure you'd probably done it at one point as well - if you talked about Zack Greinke being an ace or Colt Griffin an ace, you've done it, because it's unlikely many, if any, are projecting for either of them to become #1s now (I see Greinke becoming a #2-#3 pitcher now, by the way.)
No offense, but this comment:
"You TWICE say you think people have too high expectations of Marte, who is just playing bad because of "jitters," and say you think he can be "Aramis Ramirez or better" and yet you link to this as you DISCOUNTING an Indians prospect. I'm scared to even open the links for nonprospects like Snyder and Aubrey to find out what tiny concession (in the midst of grandiose undue praise) you make."
What are you wanting me to do - totally rip Marte, Snyder, Aubrey - extract every possible negative and mention nothing that is positive, since you seem to imply that there is nothing positive about any of these prospects? What does "think people have too high expectations of Marte" mean to you - is that not a negative? In other words, doesn't that mean I don't think as highly of Marte as many others do, including several scouts, who themselves compared Marte to guys like Ramirez with his upper-200s BAs, 30 HRs, and solid defense. They projected Marte to be a .270, 30 HR, 100 RBI guy just within the last year or two, so the comparisons to Ramirez were more apt than you are implying.
What you need to realize is, I'm not making up stuff when I post this - most of the stuff I do write comes from sources, whether it be national media, local media, sources from other fans who post on LetsGoTribe, my own Internet research, etc. I'm not just dreaming up this stuff. I do add my opinions in there like every other poster on this site does, yet you go ahead and rip into my analysis and claim I'm a "used car salesman" or that I'm "blowing up my team's prospects," which I haven't done as I showed you above. Just because I didn't absolutely destroy Marte or Snyder or Aubrey or Lofgren doesn't mean that I praised them endlessly either.
In Marte's case, it's too early (in my opinion) to say he's a bust; heck, he hasn't even started one Opening Day yet. As for Lofgren, he's coming off a pretty solid season at High-A, at age 20; while his consistent command still needs work, he has made some progress (that is a fact - look at his 2006 BB numbers compared to 2005 and 2004.) So, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that Marte could still be a decent player with 20-30 HR power in time and Lofgren could have a 2-3 ceiling. Only time will tell. Do I think they're the best prospects at their positions - HECK NO! Yet, you make it sound like that's what I was saying, when I clearly wasn't.
What do you want me to do - go ahead and post every negative and ignore any and all positives about Indians' prospects instead? I have mentioned both positives and negatives - I've mentioned about Gutierrez's lack of power, Adam Miller's elbow injury and the need for him to use his changeup more, Lofgren still needing to work on his command to keep his pitch count down (which is why he wasn't advanced to AA in the second half of last season,) Snyder's high K rate not improving after 2 years in AA, Aubrey's lack of advancement due to his injuries - those are ALL negatives that I have mentioned either on here and/or LetsGoTribe. I don't know how much more negative I can get than that.
"I would hope you can look back at the way you've evaluated Indians prospects in a few years and realize that you might be overselling some of them."
Again, it's called reanalyzing and remodifying your lists; even the professional experts do that - do you think they overrated guys like Zack Greinke, Colt Griffin, Justin Upton, Michael Aubrey, Jeremy Guthrie, Bobby Brownlie, etc.? What happened to them on future lists? They got pushed down and their ceilings lowered, just like I did with my lists and ceilings. Because I didn't totally destroy them, that means I wasn't "critical" and that "my idea of being critical is WARPED"?
Like I said, I bet you also overrated some prospects as well and then lowered them later on as well - virtually everyone has, yet you take me to task for it. On top of that, you say you "mean no disrespect," yet I've done no differently than the paid experts - I gathered information about a prospect, tried to base where his ceiling was at; when more data came in and it signalled that this player wasn't as good as first projected, I lowered my expectations of him.
Because I talk more about Indians' prospects than others, I'm considered a "used car salesman" because I've brought out more positive qualities on these prospects than negative qualities, even though the prospects I talked about had more positives than negatives at the times when I talked about them.
When the outlook on them changed, I modified my view on them accordingly to reflect fewer positives and more negatives, just like virtually everyone else did, but because I didn't exemplify the negative and eliminate or severely limit the positive, you think my "being critical of Indians players is severely WARPED."
I'm sorry, but I don't agree with your assessment. I'm sorry if you think I'm a "used car salesman," but your assessment of how I analyze (Indians) prospects seems a bit harsh, to say the least. You call it "propaganda," even though I've mentioned several negatives - if I wanted to spread propaganda, don't you think that I would have mentioned everything that was positive and provided no resources/links/analysis/data to back up what I was saying? And while I can't guarantee that I have provided links or resources on every thread I've participated in, I have brought up links and resources in several of my threads over the past two years I've been here.
Just something to think about.
Take care and have a good day.
by indiansfan on Mar 9, 2026 3:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
listen....
I take a pretty conservative approach. That says NOTHING about re-evaluating prospects through time, and I'm not sure what part of what I wrote made you think I didn't believe in that.
You seem to take a "ceiling" approach, which perhaps the wording you choose to use doesn't convey, as what you SEEM to be saying is that these are LIKELY outcomes.
For instance, you understand when you are DOWNGRADING Andy Marte to "Aramis Ramirez or better" (whatever the limits on " or better" are), you are comparing him to a guy who was the #5 prospect in baseball in 1998, made the majors at age 20, hit .300 with 40 doubles, 34 HRs at age 23, and has hit 36, 31 and 38 homers in the past three seasons, all with OPSs over 900. There are two prospects in baseball right now who I MIGHT compare to Aramis Ramirez, let alone "or better." Both of them MIGHT be much better. But I wouldn't say it that way. Needless to say, I would call it at the upper-end of ANY projection for Marte to have A-Ram's career (and, no, I'm not judging him prematurely, but on the body of his work compared to the extremely high level of success Aramis Ramirez has had).
Now, if all you're saying is, "Marte could still have a peak like A-Ram," then I can understand where you're coming from. And then it's just a miscommunication of language, because that's not what the words on the page convey as your attitude.
I'm not saying you should focus on "nothing but the negative" -- there's no reason to use extremes all the time. But, it's like jpahk originally said: You refuse to concede ANYTHING on Indians players. Adam Miller had the better command, the better stuff, the better projectability, the better experience, the better background, whatever you wanted to say. It seems to me you've got a long way to go before you're "extract[ing] every possible negative and mention[ing] nothing that is positive."
(Just as an example of how you're thinking about positives and negatives too strongly, you say I think there's "nothing positive about Marte." I've said NOTHING to suggest this. I think he's a fine prospect. I have lowered my expectations for him, but I think he still has a substantial ceiling. However, if you were to ask me about him, and it were to be in a context where I was trying to "sell" him, I would say, "You don't come across too many prospects who have the raw power of Marte; 20+ homers in the Southern and Int'l Leagues at 20/21 is nothign to sneeze at. He's got a high chance of busting, but I have to believe that, at such a young age, he's got the ability to grow. Even if he never figures it out, he could be a Gold Glove version of Tony Batista." You see how I don't IGNORE his weaknesses, but also sell his strengths? To me, it's a much more compelling argument to anticipate the faults others will find in your analysis than to turn your back on the problems -- or handwave them away. But, if it's you style, then it's not a crime. I merely wanted to point out the difference in what you're doing versus many others on this site.)
Anyway, like I said, I didn't mean to make this personal, and I hope I haven't offended you. And, just so you know, I would actually take Adam Miller before Andrew. But I thought you should also know that I would take MANY people's scouting reports of those two before yours.
by bleedjaxblue on Mar 9, 2026 3:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Part of what I said is what John said!
First, no, I don't take it personally. It's more-less a difference of evaluating prospects and a difference in ranking them. Virtually everyone has a different way of evaluating prospects - that's why very few, if any, prospect lists are exactly the same.
While I appreciate your thoughts on writing "better" reviews, no offense, you seem to be "reading too much" into my words, as well as the idea of "having an attitude." (Maybe you don't mean "attitude" as being arrogant; if so, then I apologize and would suggest you use a different word, such as "position.") I've never portrayed (or at least, intended to portray) as being an absolute expert who is never wrong at grading prospects - that would be pretty absurd, right? I'm sorry if you think of me that way, but I've already changed my opinions on Indians prospects over the past few years - for instance, mrkupe is the one who alerted me to the drop in Lofgren's velocity, which I was not aware of, which caused me to reconsider and drop his ceiling from a #1 to a #2-#3.
Regarding Marte's ceiling, YES, that's exactly what I mean - when I write about Marte hitting .270, 30 HR, 100 RBIs (which is what many scouts said,) that was what was to be considered his peak performance, or what most scouts seen him being at his best. When I talk about prospects, that's what I mean - their "ceiling" or best-case scenario - they could certainly fall below that.
Again, I think there are many ways to discuss prospects, from whether you have a more conservative approach to more of a ceiling approach. Again, I don't think there's a right or wrong way to do it - that's why the evaluation of many prospects can be so different, even though most evaluations will lead you to the same general conclusion. As you yourself said, you agree with me that Marte could have the potential of Ramirez, so we essentially have come to the same conclusion.
"You refuse to concede ANYTHING on Indians players."
Again, how can you say this? You mention Adam Miller, but actually, most of what I mentioned was quoted from John's smackdown - he's the one who mentioned that Adam had the projection advantage:
"Maybe a SLIGHT edge on intangibles for Adam Miller, Andrew gets a slight edge on tools, Adam gets a slight edge on current polish and performance, even on projection."
Personally, before I read John's analysis, I actually thought that if anyone had the projection advantage, it was Andrew because he's roughly 6 months younger than Adam. Otherwise, I might have said even, but I would NOT have said Adam, and I'm quite honest when I'm saying that. I was honestly surprised that John said that - you'd have to ask him why he said that because I really don't know.
So, in essence, my mistake was quoting John (I'm NOT saying John made a mistake; just that I should have stayed with my own opinion - that was the mistake. I'm sorry about that.) However, I feel that my scouting reports have been more unbiased than you are implying - you cite one example regarding my analysis Miller, part of it where I used John's information, and make it sound like I can't make an unbiased analysis. I even praised Andrew as saying he was a highly regarded pitching prospect in his own right with a high ceiling, but I want to see him play a professional season before I start rating him above the four I mentioned because I prefer to rate prospects higher based on both ceiling AND performance - I'm cautious or conservative in that regard.
By the way, in that same information John provided -
Adam throws up to 98, Andrew throws up to 97 - slight advantage for Adam, but you can also call it a draw, as I'd probably would; now, if Adam is throwing 100 again (and I can't verify if he is or not, as I've heard different reports on this,) then I would give an advantage to Adam, because a 3-mile difference can make a bit more difference.
Command-wise, you have to say Adam has the better command right now; I mean, is there any reason to say that he doesn't? I'm not saying Andrew can't duplicate that command in time, but let's face it - even if Andrew would keep the same command he displayed at NC, where he walked 3/9 IP in his last year, that would still be behind Adam. And, being that ACC baseball probably does not equal AA-level of baseball, does it seem reasonable to conclude that Andrew's walk rate could go up a bit, say to 3.5-4 BB/9 IP at AA, which is considerably higher than Adam's 2.5 BB/9 IP at AA? You'd have to say that Adam has the better command at this point.
Therefore, what did I say that was false or untrue? Adam has equal or slightly better velocity, and Adam also has the better command. I said NOTHING about his background, at all. As for experience, I said that Adam has faced a tougher level of competition, because I'll think you'll agree with me that most AA pro hitters are better than most college hitters, even at a great program like NC.
Therefore, I'd appreciate it if you stick to what I said and try to figure out why I said it (if I didn't make it clear enough,) rather than "putting words in my mouth." Okay?
And again, how can you make the comment that I concede "NOTHING about Indians' prospects" when I've already mentioned lowering Lofgren's ceiling from a #1 to a #2-#3, mentioning Miller's elbow injury and saying that he needs to use his changeup more, doubting Gutierrez's power, doubting Marte's overall ability to hit, questioning why Brad Snyder is still rated #8 on BA's Top 10 Indians Prospect List when his strikeout rate has been horrendous at AA Akron for two seasons now (that was a topic on LetsGoTribe - you can search for it if you like.)
I think that proves your statement about me "conceding NOTHING about Indians' prospects" is false.
Regarding your Marte critique, nice analysis on his positives, but no offense, you really didn't mention his negatives either, outside of his "high bust potential." I've mentioned where he has never hit for a high BA and that he has a long pull-happy swing, which I've always had concerns about. That's why I had serious doubts he'd even hit .270 at the ML level. I've mentioned on more than one occasion that he doesn't use the whole field enough.
And again, I'm not trying to "sell" these prospects; I'm presenting what I know about them and may offer an opinion on them. Others will chime in and offer what they know and what they think, then I see if I agree with them or not, and we go from there discussing the prospect(s). That's the main point of this site - to discuss and learn about different prospects from different organizations.
Like I've said before, everyone has their own style of writing and their own way of evaluating prospects. There's no right or wrong way of doing it (within reason, of course,) but it would be appreciated if you DON'T presume what I am saying. There are others on this site who don't have a problem with the way I write, and they enjoy reading what I write as well. If you have a question or something you don't understand, ASK me about it; don't just presume what I'm saying and declare that that's what I said - I don't think my writing is that mysterious to not know what I am saying, for the most part, but if there is something there that you have a question on, please feel free to ask, and I'll elaborate on it and try to make it more clear. Okay?
Take care and have a good day.
by indiansfan on Mar 9, 2026 5:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
misreading John's quote
You believe John is dividing the victories as follows:
ANDREW'S ADVANTAGE: "Andrew gets a slight edge on tools"
ADAM'S ADVANTAGE: "Maybe a SLIGHT edge on intangibles for Adam Miller...Adam gets a slight edge on current polish and performance, even on projection."
I'm pretty sure you are misreading the word "even" though.
The word "even" is not meant to suggest "Adam EVEN wins on projection." It's meant to say "Andrew and Adam come out dead even on projection."
Therefore, the split is:
Andrew: tools
Adam: intangibles, polish, performance
deadlock: projection
I misread it the first time too, so I see where you could make a mistake. But I'm pretty confident in the latter reading of the sentence.
Also, what do you make of the fact that John gives Andrew the edge in tools?
by bleedjaxblue on Mar 9, 2026 11:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the correction!
Thanks - I can see now what you mean by "even" on projection; you're right - I took the wrong meaning of the word "even."
Like I said before, I thought if anyone had the edge, it would be Andrew. At worst for Andrew, it would be even.
Thanks for the clarification.
As for tools, it makes sense that a power lefty would have more value than a power righty because power lefties are more rare than power righties. Besides that, I can see Andrew having the advantage because he doesn't have an injury history like Adam does.
Just my 2 cents.
by indiansfan on Mar 9, 2026 6:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No offense, but you're "stretching"...
Hello jpahk,
No offense, but I think you're stretching Andrew's "ceiling" a bit. How can Andrew have a higher "ceiling" than a #1 starter, which you've already agreed with me that Adam Miller has that ceiling? Is there a higher ceiling?
I'm sorry if it annoys you, but John also said that Adam, not Andrew, has the slight advantage in projectability, and he also said that both were #1s. That means Andrew = Adam, not Andrew > Adam.
LetsGoTribe poster "indianinkslinger" asked BA's Jim Callis in a recent chat about why Miller was always looked unfavorably compared to Hughes, Bailey, and Gallardo. Callis' reply: "It's strictly the injury problem, not a matter of ceiling or stuff."
You can see the thread yourself where indiansinkslinger mentions this here (it's the second reply from the top.)
Though this is NOT that chat (I don't think,) you can see more of what Callis thought of Adam Miller here (look around halfway down for "Jason from Dallas, TX.") That chat was from March 1, 2007.
Now, let me ask you - would you say that Andrew Miller's ceiling is higher than Philip Hughes', Homer Bailey's, or Yovani Gallardo's? As Callis mentioned, Adam Miller's ceiling is no lower than those three, so unless you can say that Andrew has a higher ceiling than all four, how can you possibly say that Andrew's is higher than Adam's? John himself said that Adam's projectability is a bit better than Andrew's. To me, that means their ceilings are equal, not Andrew's ceiling being higher than Adam's ceiling, or vice-versa.
Therefore, while there are those who put Andrew over Adam, there are others that put Adam over Andrew - like you said, it's a matter of preference.
Again, I'm suspecting you haven't seen Adam Miller's slider - it too was considered a great pitch in its own right, and by all accounts, he has regained it. How it directly compares to Andrew's, I couldn't say for sure, but IF Andrew does have an advantage in that category, I can bet it's a small one because I know Adam's slider is quite good in its own right. It has been rated to be at least a plus pitch.
[mrkupe - I just seen your reply - thank you for adding some numbers to the discussion - I did not know them off-hand, but I knew their sliders were close to each other; as I said, if Andrew has an advantage with his slider, it's a small one.]
Plus, how was Adam Miller arguably the top pitching prospect in baseball after the 2004 season, yet now is being ranked behind a promising, but unproven, college draftee? It's probably partly because Andrew is that good, along with the fact that many are still unconvinced that Adam is back to his old self after his elbow injury, even though his 2006 season says otherwise. Adam was getting comparable praise to Andrew just 2.5 years ago as being the top pitching prospect in the game. Yet, the only real downfall for Adam in that time period was the elbow injury, which affected his performance in 2005. In 2006, he slowly worked his way back to form, yet Andrew is put ahead of him, when he has thrown very few professional innings, yet Andrew isn't considered ahead of Hughes and Bailey (and maybe Gallardo too.) Most likely, it's the injury, not Miller's stuff or ceiling, that is leading to many putting Andrew over Adam because Miller's stuff and ceiling have not changed since he was the top pitching prospect in 2004. Plus, LeftyAce88's idea of Andrew being "the shiny new toy" may have something to do with it as well. I also agree with the idea that Andrew may be perceived higher because he is a fireballing lefty, which is rarer than a fireballing righty. That may also be why some rate Andrew higher than Adam.
I'm not denying that Andrew is a great pitching prospect in his own right, nor am I denying that Andrew made progress in his junior year, but again, college ball and pro ball are two different animals, and as was discussed in a recent thread, most college programs are probably no higher than Low-A, maybe High-A in a few cases (NC might be one of them, then again, might not - I'm not sure.) But I think few, if any, would say that NC and ACC baseball = AA ball, which is all the more reason why Adam is the better pitcher right now - he has dominated a higher level of competition than Andrew has. I don't think there's any way to deny that - that's a fact. That's why Adam deserves the higher ranking, not Andrew. John concluded that in a very close ranking - Adam is slightly higher than Andrew.
Overall, they're both very good pitching prospects with #1 ceilings, and ironically, both have the ability to strike out guys AND get groundball outs at higher than average rates. I guess you could call them "power groundball pitchers" or "groundball power pitchers." :-)
Just my 2 cents.
Take care and have a great day!
by indiansfan on Mar 8, 2026 3:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
from today's Callis chat:
Jim Callis: We'll let Goose open the lightning round. Andrew, though I also like Adam a lot."
I'm reading your link, but I don't see the part about "not a matter of ceiling or stuff. Maybe that's somewhere else, because the whole thing's paraphrased in this link? Anyway, there Callis simply says why he's SO unfavorably compared, not why he would be equal or better.
Also, the argument "how much better can you be than a number one starter?" doesn't work for me at all. How about a Hall of Famer? And how much better than a Hall of Famer can you be? How about an ELITE Hall of Famer. Are you really telling me there is no way of discriminating between Chien-Ming Wang (a number-one starter), Don Sutton (a Hall of Famer) and Steve Carlton (an elite Hall of Famer)?
There's plenty of ways of differentiating ceilings, even when two players have high ones. Which one has a higher one between Andrew and Adam is a really, really close question. Even John says so (since you seem to be in the habit of taking his word as authoritative, but also black-and-white today). But there's SOMETHING besides entirely bogus arm injuries that make a lot of reputable prospecting sites take Andrew of Adam (and NOT consider Adam the second best pitching prospect in baseball), and I don't see how anyone can have a serious conversation with you about it until you start admitting that there even might be some reasons.
by bleedjaxblue on Mar 8, 2026 4:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It wasn't from today's Callis chat!
It wasn't from today's Callis chat - the post by indianinkslinger was made back on March 1, 2007. I looked for the link, but didn't find it. I'll have to ask indianinkslinger for it, but I don't suspect he lied about it.
Here is the direct comment from him.
And no offense, do you really believe Chien-Mien Wang is a #1 starter? Very few would. Most would consider Wang a #3, maybe a #2, but not a #1. As for determining ceiling, isn't it a little early to even consider the Hall of Fame for both Adam and Andrew - when I talk about ceiling for a prospect, I'm talking about #1-#5, or perhaps a reliever to a closer, NOT whether they're going to make the HOF or not - a LOT of factors go into whether one makes the HOF or not. Both have the potential to do so, but who's to say at this point if either will make it, or even which one is the better HOF if they both make it - it's WAY too early for that.
And by the way, BOGUS arm injuries - are you referring to Adam Miller or Philip Hughes? Look up "Philip Hughes' shoulder injury" on Google and see about the shoulder inflammation he had in 2005 that caused the Yankees to shut him down before the end of the season.
And no offense, I presume where you keep referring to me mentioning Miller as the #2 pitching prospect in baseball, I said in "terms of command," because his command is better than both Gallardo's and Bailey's. I did NOT say that Miller was the flat-out #2 pitching prospect in baseball - I said if you take into account their command of their pitches and offspeed stuff, you COULD make the argument that Miller is second only to Hughes because of his command. I can see why Bailey is considered #2 when you consider everything; I was focusing on their command of their pitching repertoire when I made that statement.
Please consider the whole statement before replying to it - thank you.
Take care and have a good day!
by indiansfan on Mar 8, 2026 5:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
no....
https://www.minorleagueball.com/comments/2007/2/26/19343/4260/25#25
It's pretty hard to dispute what you were saying there, isn't it?
-------------------------
As for the "bogus" arm injury, i was referring to the way YOU treat Miller's. I KNOW Hughes was hurt. Like you, I'm surprised it isn't brought up more often.
One thing I would assume, though, is that the reason Jim Callis treats Hughes' and Miller's injury differently is that he believes Miller's mechanics will lead to more of the same, while Hughes' won't. It's not like these guys aren't professionals -- I'm pretty sure they all remember Hughes had an arm injury, and went to the lengths to discuss how that should factor into the rankings versus how Miller's should.
In conclusion, I am with you Hughes arm injury should be brought up more often. I also assume there is SOME good reason for it (that only people with a better understanding of pitcher injuries than I could say with certainty). And, as a final thought, I would wonder what you hope to prove by saying "Hughes is as big an injury risk as Miller"; this makes me believe I should downgrade Hughes as a prospect, not upgrade Miller.
-------------------------
Finally, I KNOW your link wasn't from yesterday's chat. I just thought you'd want to hear the latest on how Callis felt.
Meanwhile, I've gone to your link TWICE now and seen the same thing: a paraphrase as a Jim Callis quote by an Indians fan saying Callis told him that the main difference between the ranking of Hughes, Bailey, And. Miller, Gallardo, et al. and Adam Miller is that Miller was injured.
What I see NO reference to is that this is because they have equal ceilings. Furthermore, I see nothing in there that says "Adam Miller would be ranked as high or higher if not for the injuries"; I just read that he said "the big gap between them is the injuries." Beyond this, the entire thing is paraphrased (and by an Indians fan on an Indians chatboard), so I have some suspicions about some of Callis' nuances being "lost in translation."
Anyway, I'm not saying it's impossible that Callis believes what you say he does. But the link you're providing sure doesn't say it. Yet you've used the DIRECT QUOTE saying that this is NOT about "ceiling." Where are you getting this from? You can't just write quotes for people, you know.
by bleedjaxblue on Mar 8, 2026 1:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
god help us all
by wily mo on Mar 8, 2026 3:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Response
Whatever Hughes' shoulder issue was, however, it certainly wasn't comparable to Adam Miller nearly blowing a ligament in his elbow and coming thisclose to TJ surgery. And what bothers me most about is not that it happened in the first place (because these things do happen and pitchers do persevere through them), but that so many people seem to think that there's a pretty decent chance of it happening again.
by mrkupe on Mar 8, 2026 5:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sometimes Organizations...
I know the Tigers have done that with Verlander in 2005 and with Jair Jurrjens last season. Neither situation was serious or even a real injury but they needed an excuse in the media to shut them down.
It would be interesting to know the severity of this injury for Hughes.
by VtTigers on Mar 8, 2026 5:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
As I said, #2 based on command!
No offense, but you need to reread all of what I said in that post -
"I ranked Bailey 4th because he has weaker command than the three ahead of him, and like I mentioned, Miller's command is better than Gallardo's. As has also been mentioned in past threads, it's not just how hard you throw, but also if you can command the fastball and the offspeed stuff - right now, Miller ranks right up there with Hughes and Gallardo. Bailey is a bit behind."
As I said before, based on command, I would rank Miller #2, Gallardo #3, Bailey #4; if you take everything (projection, age, level, stuff,) into account, and I did say this in a thread several months ago, it would be Bailey, Miller, Gallardo.
No offense, but you need to read everything, not just the list.
As for Miller's "bogus" arm injury, I've mentioned his elbow injury on more than one occasion - how can you possibly make that comment? I did say he fully recovered from it, based both on his performance and the fact that there was no relapse, as well as the fact he got stronger and regained most to all of his previous velocity. That doesn't mean he couldn't reinjure it again, but by all accounts, he is healthy now.
And like I said, little to no mention is made of Hughes' injury - in fact, I wouldn't have even known about it if I hadn't done a Google search on Philip Hughes, so I was pretty surprised to see that Hughes doesn't have a clean bill of health either, yet virtually no one makes any mention of it, almost like Hughes gets a "free pass," which I don't think is fair.
Like you said, I guess the reason they don't mention it is because they don't think he's as likely to reinjure it as Miller is to reinjure his elbow, probably because Hughes throws a curveball and Miller throws a slider. However, IF I'm correct, it was reported by the local media and Indians.com that Miller injured the elbow trying to pump up the fastball for Indians' brass in Spring Training 2005 - recall that he did hit 101 with it in the Carolina League playoffs in 2004 - that was the reason given why Miller hurt his elbow.
Now, that's not to say that the slider couldn't aggravate it, but I don't think it's an automatic that the slider will definitely injure the elbow and require Miller to have TJ surgery. Only time will tell, but I'm hopeful Miller stays healthy.
Regarding Miller and Callis, indianinkslinger said on LetsGoTribe: "I also questioned why Miller was compared so unfavorably to Hughes, Bailey et.al. Callis said it is strictly the injury problem, not a matter of ceiling or stuff."
To me, that means that Miller's stuff and ceiling are NOT what put him behind Hughes and Bailey; it's his injury problem.
I'm sorry if I quoted before as if it was Callis saying that; indianinkslinger made that statement, based on what Callis told him. I'm checking to see if there is a link available to that actual conversation/chat.
I do appreciate the link on how Callis feels; like I've said before, I think Andrew Miller IS a good prospect in his own right, but I prefer to wait until there is more data before ranking recently drafted pitching prospects like An. Miller, Lincecum, Hochevar, and Kershaw above established high-ceiling pitching prospects who have handled/dominated AA like Hughes, Bailey, Gallardo, and Miller. It's just my opinion and my reasoning - I'm not saying it's right or wrong; it's just my own opinion and reasoning.
Just my 2 cents.
Take care and have a good day.
by indiansfan on Mar 9, 2026 3:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
you mean....
I'm surprised you're really making do this, but explain the quotes from THIS thread: https://www.minorleagueball.com/comments/2007/1/31/221938/676/15#15
"I agree with that ranking - I think Hughes is just out ahead of Miller with Miller "breathing down his neck"; Bailey, though I can see an argument for him being second, still has considerable work to do with both his command and his secondary pitches, whereas Miller is more advanced in both areas, which I think could give him more of an edge for the #2 spot, even though most don't think Miller is of that caliber, but I would argue he is. .... As between Miller and Hughes, I could see Miller overtaking Hughes if Miller continues to progress - his velocity, I believe, is just a tick better than Hughes right now (I think Hughes reaches 96, maybe 97; I know Miller reaches 98 for sure, and might be 99-100 himself,) and there is still a chance Miller could regain all of his old velocity (where he hit 101 in the Carolina League playoffs in 2004,) though I don't think the Indians or Miller are concerned about that now because part of Miller's progression over the past year is his transformation from being more of a thrower to more of a pitcher. ... Like you said though, the difference between all three of them is small, but I could see Hughes and Miller, #1-#2, with Bailey being #3."
So there, you say Miller should probably be ranked second, and is more projectable than the guy in first. Are you going to make me post more? Because I have them.
by bleedjaxblue on Mar 9, 2026 4:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If I'm correct, your quote wasn't from that thread
bleedjaxblue,
No offense, I don't know why you want to keep analyzing my posts and dissect every word I write.
The thread you pointed to actually states this:
"Personally, I would rate Adam Miller higher than Gallardo, but the Top 4 in my opinion would be Hughes, Bailey or Miller (then the other; I think there's convincing arguments you could make for Bailey being #2 and there are convincing arguments you could make for Miller being #2) then Gallardo. But essentially, the four of them are within eyelashes of each other or breathing down the necks of each other; I don't think there's considerable difference between the four at this point, outside of Bailey's weaker command and not quite as much polishment on his breaking stuff, so I suppose you could even make the argument Bailey is #4 of the four, but again, it's splitting hairs between the four of them in my opinion."
Let me make this clear: I said, you could make an argument for Adam Miller to be the #2 pitching prospect behind Hughes IF you take into account their command, as well as their development of their offspeed stuff. Miller is ahead of Bailey in both areas, and is a bit ahead of Gallardo in terms of his walk rate, plus the fact that Baseball America had doubts that Gallardo was a true #1 starter. I did not hear those same concerns from them about Miller not being a #1. That's also why I put Miller ahead of Gallardo, though I did have Gallardo #3 over Bailey IN TERMS OF COMMAND.
Think of it like two different prospect lists, one based on command, one based on overall factors. If I was just going on command, I'd put Miller #2, Gallardo #3, and Bailey #4. If I'm going overall on projection, command, stuff, level, etc., I'd put Bailey ahead of Miller, with Gallardo #4, but I also said that Hughes, Bailey, and Miller were so close to each other that there really wasn't that much difference between the three. I had Gallardo a bit of a way behind those three AT THAT TIME. Now, I'd probably put Gallardo in that same group based on what he did in 2006, ahead of An. Miller, Lincecum, Hochevar, and Kershaw, just because the previous four have dominated AA, whereas the other four have not yet. That's just my opinion and my reasoning - I'm not saying it's right or wrong.
"So there, you say Miller should probably be ranked second, and is more projectable than the guy in first. Are you going to make me post more? Because I have them."
What are you trying to prove? You say, "you didn't mean to make this personal," yet you are almost "threatening" to post more of my posts, just to try to prove something that you "think" I said, even though I explained to you my thought process when I wrote that post, and the ones before it too.
Besides that, my posts are nothing more than an opinion anyway. Do you really want to carry on with this?
Personally, I don't, and not because I think you're right and I'm wrong. I know what I wrote and what I was thinking at the time. Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly enough (for you at least,) but now, you want to go try and prove that you know exactly what I was thinking and what my main ideas were.
Besides that, I really don't have time to try to defend myself against all your accusations about me "conceding NOTHING about the Indians' prospects," when I have proven otherwise, nor try to redefend those opinions I have that are not shared by the majority of people here or elsewhere. They're opinions!
My track record speaks for itself - some people don't like the way I write, others do. Some don't like the way I evaluate prospects, others do. Some don't agree with my opinions, others do. As the old saying goes, "you can't please everyone."
I try my best to back up my opinions with facts and I try to learn more about Indians' and other team's prospects, just like everyone else here does. Why you want to continue with this, I really don't know.
Whatever you choose to do, I'd ask that you carefully consider what you are doing before you decide to do it. I don't come here to cause problems, nor to have them. I'm not looking to make enemies, okay? If you want to disagree with my analysis and my opinions, that's fine. But, these personal "attacks" and trying to prove that you're right and that you know exactly what I was thinking and saying is pretty pointless, being that I explained what I was thinking and writing at that time.
Again, I'd ask you to read the whole post, and not take bits and pieces out of it, to understand my entire point of view.
And again, I don't know why you want to do this - I do what virtually everyone else here does, post what I know, learn from others, form an opinion, defend it, revise it if need be, and go from there. Yet, you want to analyze every word I wrote, every sentence I made, and for what? To prove that you know my writing and thinking better than I do?
I think this is pointless, for everyone here. If I were you, I'd stop this "detective work" so we can get back to discussing baseball prospects, like we usually do on this site.
I'd like to apologize to John and everyone here for this thread getting out of hand because of a few opinions I stated. I never intended for this to happen - therefore, to the best of my ability, I'm going to cut this conversation off - if bleedjaxblue wants to continue with it, that's his choice, but I choose to end it. I think I've defended myself more than enough, regardless of whether others (including bleedjax blue) agree or not.
Again, I'm sorry.
by indiansfan on Mar 9, 2026 5:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
good lord
indiansfan, i apologize if i opened the floodgates on this one. i certainly didn't mean for this to happen. while i agree, to some extent, with bleedjaxblue that you take a very biased view when writing about cleveland prospects, i don't have a problem with that. many, many people do that regarding their favorite team. the only reason i pointed it out in the first place was that i thought you might be want to made aware that that's how you're coming across to some of us, not so that somebody would take it as an invitation to dissect everything you've ever written and rip you for it. i hope it stops.
by jpahk on Mar 9, 2026 12:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm sure I'm going to regret posting this...
I realize this is pointless, but I see no reason, just because indiansfan is exceptionally nice and earnest, that he should be allowed to post things on this site that would get anyone else RIPPED, but yet you can't even really debate him. If I'm nice (unlikely to ever happen, I admit), does everyone have to cater to whatever I say? I hope not. I hope people will still hold me accountable for my words.
by bleedjaxblue on Mar 9, 2026 12:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
okay
by jpahk on Mar 9, 2026 12:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
fair enough
by bleedjaxblue on Mar 9, 2026 12:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No problem, jpahk!
No problem - I know that wasn't your intention, and I DO appreciate the feedback. Personally, I didn't think I was THAT biased, if I was biased. I thought I had included enough negatives that have been mentioned in the media and such, as well as from my own observations and research, but I guess I haven't. I'll have to keep that in mind in the future.
Maybe it's because I know a bit more about the Indians' prospects because I hear and read more about them than other teams' prospects, even though I do try to read and research those prospects, but I'll admit that it's harder to learn more information on other teams' prospects when you don't hear about them as much and don't get to read as much about them, both due to not knowing where to go for reliable information, plus not having a whole lot of time to look for that information. So my knowledge about other teams' prospects isn't as "in-depth" as my knowledge about Indians' prospects, which might lead to my analysis appearing to be more "biased" than I think it is. That's just a guess on my part - I'll have to reconsider that in future posts.
bleedjaxblue - as I mentioned to jpahk, I appreciate the feedback, but I don't appreciate the ripping, and being here two years, to the best of my knowledge, I don't recall someone getting ripped to this extent for opinions he's made in the past (and please, don't go start researching trying to provide some example of when someone else got ripped to this extent - it could have happened, but I don't recall it.)
As wily mo has mentioned a couple times, enough already. Let's let this go and move on. Okay?
by indiansfan on Mar 9, 2026 7:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
definitely
by bleedjaxblue on Mar 9, 2026 8:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
+1 - agreed!
by indiansfan on Mar 9, 2026 8:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
just one thing i wanted to reply to
while we're comparing projection/ceiling, yes, i would say that andrew has a higher ceiling than gallardo, and it's not close. compared to bailey or hughes, it is close, but i'd take andrew by a hair over both of them on ceiling alone (or maybe even with bailey, even though i think bailey is the third-best prospect of the three). baseball america, whose job it is to basically look at player's ceilings based on their physicality and stuff, ranked andrew ahead of bailey, gallardo, adam, lincecum--every pitching prospect except hughes (and matsuzaka, who is already a finished product). i don't agree with their rankings, but because they do follow the game so closely, i respect their opinion a lot when it comes to evaluating somebody from a scouting standpoint.
by jpahk on Mar 8, 2026 3:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes! :-)
Yes, I suspected as much, LOL! :-) (The :-) certainly gave me that impression!)
Take care and have a great day!
by indiansfan on Mar 8, 2026 1:42 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
SHINY NEW TOY SYNDROME and ANDREW MILLER
by SenorGato88 on Mar 8, 2026 11:04 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
though I get your point....
On the other hand, I'd probably take Adam over Andrew, so I don't mean to argue too much.
by bleedjaxblue on Mar 8, 2026 11:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
greg miller
by wily mo on Mar 8, 2026 3:47 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
none of them stacks up to
by jpahk on Mar 8, 2026 4:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
ugh
by jpahk on Mar 8, 2026 4:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
hometown bias
The bias isn't someone saying that a #3 ceiling could be a #1. It's saying a #1 ceiling who has very little likelihood of reaching that ceiling will probably turn out as a #1.
In this case you have two superstar talent pitchers, one of whom had a very serious injury. I'll take Andrew Miller.
by ian on Mar 9, 2026 1:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
BleedJax
Why do you state this? If anything I would think it would be the reverse. Millers injury was a one time thing where he tried to impress very early in spring and was over-throwing. Based on Hughes very strict pitch counts it seems they are worried about protecting the shoulder.
Having said that - Miller had a much more serious injury. I agree. But I would think Miller has nothing to do with mechanics. Hughes' injury might.
by pedrophile on Mar 10, 2026 3:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
why I said it?
But, why would I make that assumption?
Because Miller is docked for his injury, after he seems to have fully recovered and returned to his old, dominant form. Docking someone for a serious injury right after it happens is one thing. But this isn't. He's already recovered and reestablished himself. So why are even the most serious scouting sites still lower on Miller than on other top prospects? He's docked more than Hughes, Liriano or Kazmir (top 10 prospects from '07, '06 and '05, respectively, on BA's top 100), all of whom had suffered serious injuries in their past. I don't think it's crazy to make the assumption, then, that scouts believe the injury situation for Miller is more likely to crop up again for Miller than for these other guys. How do you assess the differences in evaluation, if not made as a statement about likelihood of reinjury?
(By the way, I really DON'T have a strong stance myself on this issue. I'd be genuinely curious to know why else it is that prospecting sites are making this judgment IF NOT for what I have stated. Is it mechanics specifically? I have no idea. I'm just using the word "mechanics" to fill in for "the way Miller throws, given his body, is more likely to lead to a career of injuries than the same situation for Hughes." Also, I'm really NOT arguing that people shouldn't be more concerned about Hughes than they are; they probably should be.)
by bleedjaxblue on Mar 10, 2026 4:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hi
Adam Miller was trying to throw bullets in either his first or second bullpen session and hurt himself. It was a stupid thing to do. It was very obviously an over-exertion injury and they stated so.
Whether he gets further injuries will more likely be based on his mechanics. I've previously mentioned to IndiansFan about really wanting Miller back to full velocity - the reason for this is if he is not at full velocity then there must be residual damage. As far as I'm concerned Miller has a small to insignificant amount of damage in his arm.
With Hughes I think his damage is probably less.
Why is Miller's injury talked more or considered more?
Well, Miller did miss a year and Hughes did not. Long term risk or not everyone will remember Miller losing a year and Hughes didn't lose much. I think it's as simple as that.
by pedrophile on Mar 11, 2026 4:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed about HOW the injury occurred!
I've also heard the same thing about how Miller's injury was caused - it wasn't the slider; he was trying to overthrow the fastball to impress the Indians' brass after hitting 101 MPH the previous season in the Carolina League playoffs. That's where he injured the elbow.
I know that a slider is considered to be more stressful on the arm/elbow than a curveball is, which is probably why many are talking more about Miller's injury, but that's a good point pedrophile brought up about the injury - Hughes' didn't knock him out for a year, whereas Miller's did. That too probably factors partly into the rankings as well, and as I mentioned from one of the Callis chats, he mentioned that the injury did lead to Miller's ranking being lower than it would have been if Miller hadn't been injured - Callis said that his ceiling and stuff are NOT the reason for a ranking that some might consider to be lower than one would think (he also mentioned that Niemann's injury affected his ranking as well, and even moreso than Miller's ranking was affected.)
Just my 2 cents. :-)
Take care and have a great day!
by indiansfan on Mar 11, 2026 5:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
so the premise here....
I'm not averse to the explanation, but I would find it interesting if that is indeed the case.
by bleedjaxblue on Mar 11, 2026 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
either
Go on any site and you will always see references to Adam Miller and his injury, rarely will you see this for Hughes. If Hughes' injury was that minor why would he have strict pitch counts?
IMO all the negative injury hype (much of it justified) hurt Miller while Hughes had very little negative feedback, after all he had an amazing season.
One further point:
Maybe Miller has higher chance of elbow injury. But the actual risk to career is slightly higher with a shoulder because rarely do pitchers recover from this.
by pedrophile on Mar 11, 2026 7:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's a great point!
"One further point:
Maybe Miller has higher chance of elbow injury. But the actual risk to career is slightly higher with a shoulder because rarely do pitchers recover from this."
That's a great point you make, and I think that's what I was trying to emphasize when wondering why Hughes' shoulder injury isn't mentioned more often. I'm NOT saying to ignore Miller's injury, but at the same time, I don't think Hughes' injury should just be "swept under the rug" (like it seems it has been by many) and act like it's nothing - I think it too should be mentioned and kept an eye on as well - like I said before, a shoulder injury is usually considered more serious than an elbow injury because nowadays many pitchers have come back from elbow injuries and been effective, while far fewer have come back from shoulder injuries and been effective.
Just my 2 cents. :-)
Take care and have a great day!
by indiansfan on Mar 11, 2026 7:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
on shoulder injuries
if it's the latter (which is what I had believed to be the case) -- where you're worried that the player will never recover their initial velocity, etc, after the injury, but, once they prove they can, then they're in the clear -- then i can see why hughes' injury is mentioned as often, and, further, why it should no longer have much effect on his rankings.
if it's the former, and shoulder injuries are considered worse because they never go away, then yankees fans really should be a little more considered about hughes' future, regardless of what his childhood nickname was.
by bleedjaxblue on Mar 11, 2026 7:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
my understanding
Shoulder has either rotator cuff or labrum as the typical injuries. While they can help the labrum, if it's a severe tear goodbye career to the pitcher. Over and done as far as I'm concerned.
Rotator cuff and be fraying which isn't that severe but it does indicate there is future risk for a tear. A torn rotator cuff is obviously bad news and the player probably will never return to full strength.
Pedro is hoping after surgery he is better. He won't be vintage Pedro, but since he's been pitching on this injury for about 5 years it is possible he will be better than at any time during this period. Possible but not likely IMO.
Elbow injuries also heal very slowly but with TJ there is a possibility of coming back 100%. I do think TJ has a lower success rate than people credit it for. Look at how much it set back Dustin McGowan, he'll be lucky to have any type of career now.
What we don't know is what type of injury Hughes really had. It was described as a strain, but a strain is really a tear (but minor). Was it just muscular or what? It truly could be a nothing injury to be honest.
by pedrophile on Mar 11, 2026 10:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
good info!
by bleedjaxblue on Mar 12, 2026 12:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
no problem
A few things I forgot:
The shoulder is much more complicated than the elbow. Take that for whatever it's worth.
A shoulder injury can be something as simple as a strain (minor tear) of a muscle.
An elbow injury will almost always be an injury to the elbow itself.
So while I'm pessimistic to damage done to the actual shoulder (socket, ligaments, etc.) it is also possible to be more minor and short term than the elbow.
by pedrophile on Mar 12, 2026 6:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the info. pedrophile!
I too thank you for the info.; I wondered also how elbow injuries compared to shoulder injuries in whether it was as likely for a pitcher to reinjure his elbow after he had done it once like bleedjaxblue was asking with the shoulder or if it wasn't as likely.
I've always heard shoulder injuries are considered more serious because once you injure the shoulder, it's usually never the same, even after surgery (Carpenter is one exception,) but TJ surgery gives the pitcher a better chance at full recovery (though I also think that not everyone who has TJ surgery recovers fully or gains more velocity on his fastball like many seem to believe.)
Again, thanks for the info. - greatly appreciated!
Take care and have a great day!
by indiansfan on Mar 12, 2026 12:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think what's important to note is that...
Hello bleedjaxblue,
I think when people read many experts' opinions on Adam Miller and the concern for his elbow, I think most presume it was the slider that caused the damage to his elbow, when it supposedly wasn't.
Now, that doesn't mean the slider can't injure his elbow, but I think it's important to point out that the slider WAS NOT the reason he injured his elbow in the first place. Whether it will in the future, who knows, but by and large, Miller has clean mechanics (he's not like Liriano, for instance, even when throwing the slider.) Of course, clean mechanics don't guarantee a pitcher will stay healthy (look at Mark Prior, for instance.)
Just my 2 cents. :-)
Take care and have a great day!
by indiansfan on Mar 11, 2026 7:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
