think he’s a bit underappreciated on this board … but … he has no argument. Perez is the better prospect. Doesn’t mean Perez will be better, but he’s the better prospect … easily.

Meanwhile Reckling throws just as hard, hides the ball better and has more movement on his fastball. Reckling already has a ++ curveball, a + changeup and has baffled AA hitters at age 19/20.

The only part of this that is even slightly true is that Reckling seemingly hides the ball well. Better velocity? No. Reckling sits what, like 89-91? His velocity was by far the worst of the pitchers in the Futures Game. Plus plus curve? Maybe +, not “plus plus”. Curve does look great but his command of it isnt quite there yet. Plus changeup? Not really. Could be someday but he’s very inconsistent with it now. “Baffled” AA hitters? Only by the loosest definition of the word. I also dont think many see a whole lot of projection left in him.

Perez is a number of tiers above Reckling as a prospect. Reckling is a very good prospect in his own right, but Perez is close to an elite one. Reckling really needs to improve his command and polish his change and curve a bit. I still don’t love him because he doesnt have great velocity on his fastball, but it does have a lot of sink and he has great pitchability. There’s a lot to like about Reckling but there’s just a ton to love about Perez.

Then I saw and clicked the link. Sorry if this ruins the “score keeping”
lol…mlb is full of idiots.

On the Yankee board when they got Freddy Guzman someone wrote that is was so great that we were building our system.

Is it necessary to bring a debate you’re having over there, over here? You know you’re right, do you really need others to back you up.

Look, most people will put Martin Perez above Reckling. However as an Angel fan myself I am pretty fond of Reckling and believe he doesn’t get as much coverage on this website (nor do many Angel prospects) unlike say a Martin Perez.

However your claim that Reckling ‘will never have the control to be a good major league starter’ is just as ‘outrageous’ as a claim that Perez is not the higher ranked prospect.

“Of course if you ask uneducated id!ot Rangers fans they’ll tell you Perez every time”.

Well, meet an uneducated idiot White Sox fan to tell you the Perez is better. I’m not usually one to play scout or make posts like this but I just couldn’t pass this opportunity up.

Some facts:
- Reckling was 20 at AA, Perez was EIGHTEEN!
- He got rocked in AA as an EIGHTEEN year old (in FIVE starts). So would 99% of EIGHTEEN year olds.
- Using a guy’s record to project him as the better pitcher is completely stupid.
- Perez’ stuff is better.
- Perez’ posted superior K (except in his FIVE starts at AA) and BB rates.

It’s not to say that Reckling won’t be a good pitcher, but this dumb White Sox fan is taking the guy who “will never be a successful Major Leaguer.”

for some of the top pitchers for a blog post and the first 2 names I was looking at were Reckling and Perez. I am looking for players in the recent past and trying to find comps. It seems like the most similar comp is Oscar Villareal from 2001. Not a screaming compliment. He is a tough one to find a comp for, as there haven’t been a lot of 20 year olds in the Texas league that have thrown the kind of innings he has in that league. To me he is the second best pitching prospect in the Angels system after Jordan Walden but not far behind him at all.
I am a bigger fan of Martin Perez than Reckling. The only other 18 year old I have stats on in the Texas league is Felix Hernandez in 2004. Looking at Perez’ SALLY stats, the comparables jump out as Matt Cain and Franc Liriano. We will have to wait and see who ends up better, but I think it is pretty clear Perez has the edge at this point.

Martin Perez…more projection, better stuff, younger and technically at the same level.

Reckling is a good prospect (probably top 100 in most cases), but Perez is top 25…the end.