Discussion Question: Which Pitcher Would You Rather Have?

That makes a huge difference to me when I’m trying to evaluate their repertoires.

But I’m pretty certain prospect B is Stetson Allie. Prospect A, that’s a toughie off the top of my head. Sounds a lot like Zach Lee (who has been up to 97 mph this year), or any one of about 15 guys from the Twins system. Also Jordan Lyles, but I don’t think you were going for major league pitchers.

Handedness (as I mentioned before) and level of competition make a huge difference to me . . .in fact, I’d go so far as to say that I pretty much have to throw out the numbers since they aren’t accompanied by info regarding the competition.

You definitely have to take prospect A. He has decent present stuff and time on his side. Even if he doesn’t develop the ability to miss bats, his proficiencies in changing speeds and throwing strikes give him a decent floor at the back end of a rotation.

I might have given a different answer, however, had prospect B’s control problems not been quite so severe. Some wildness is to be expected out of hard-throwing young arms (and to a certain extent, it’s not even undesirable), but you could halve that walk rate and it’d still be way too high to project a major league rotation future with much confidence.

A can improve his stuff, but can already use what he has. B has better stuff now, and may still improve, but if he can’t control it he’s worthless as a pitcher. A new/better pitch is far easier to learn than control, as simple as that.

One thing I would think is important is whether scouts considered Prospect A “projectable.” That’s part of how I read “skinny.” If there’s a decent probability he could add a few miles per hour to his fastball, I would think that matter.

A. He still has some projectibility and the breaking pitch is still in development. so the K’s could come as he fills out, gains a couple of ticks and improve his breaking pitch.

I do think B has a higher ceiling though as he is already throwing in the upper 90’s and has a plus breaking pitch and he is missing bats. Even if he doesn’t figure out his command, he could become a great reliever.

I’m sure this is a trick question, using “arbitrary endpoints” to sway the answer. But prospect b’s stats and lack of control immediately project to a reliever, while the prospect A projects to a starter. And Starter ceiling always wins out over reliever ceiling.

both for its high correlation to better command and also lower likelihood of injury.

Had to go with choice B…well, because.

It just seems to me that RHP who can look good in low-A with good command and a solid change are legion. I realize A has a few more things in his favor, his size and weight imply there might be some projection there, but for a RHP I’d still rather have the breaking ball than the change.

For B, I had to be tempted by two present plus pitches. Command is obviously a concern, but from the descriptions it sounds like these are small samples as well, and he really hasn’t had much a chance yet to work with pro coaches and refine his mechanics. And I assume “short-season A” means something like the NYPL, where the level of competition isn’t that far off from low-A. At this level, I really have to lean towards upside.

10 walks per nine, but was that only over 5 or 10 starts or something?

I suppose we can infer that information from the leagues they played in, but it still makes a big difference. Without any knowledge of past history I’d probably go with Player A but depending on history prior to this season that could easily change.

…and they definitely have pitcher B. I took B because a pitcher gaining control and command of his pitches is more likely than a pitcher adding 5-10 mph to his fastball. Had Allie been a long-time pitcher, I’d be worried a lot about his control problem. But he wasn’t a long-time pitcher when he was drafted.

B is the more interesting prospect.

Player A is a nice prospect to have if you’re the Yanks or Sox who just need some cheap roleplayers every year.

I took prospect A in the poll. But then I thought about it. Velocity and body build isn’t teachable. Control and mechanics are. They are roughly the same age and any injury history is not disclosed. Thinking about this again I’m switching to prospect B. The fact that he already has another plus offering and a build that suggests endurance is icing.

is the hardest thing a younger pitcher can learn. Pitcher A I think has a chance to get that fastball higher. Stuff may suck but with epic control you can do anything. Look at Lee’s career. I’ll take me some command and control.

I’m almost positive it’s red sox pitcher Raul Alcantara
i’m so happy for once i can name the player!

The phrase “serious command issues” scares me. With A’s height and build, you could see a few ticks being added to his fastball, too, as he grows into his frame.

Both are still in early development. Ideally, A would bulk up a bit and hopefully add a couple ticks, though not completely necessary. He will need the breaking ball to at least be average. Probably not projected to be a top of the rotation guy.

B is a high ceiling guy, though he likely needs to learn how to dial that fastball down a bit to get better control. Can’t tell too much without seeing data (which may or may not be available), but intuitively I think that could be a cause.

works best as a cautionary piece. With the blindfold on I’d probably take Player B, but I’ve been following both of these guys for over two years, and I’d take Salcedo every time. I had a similar choice years ago between Scott Baker and Homer Bailey and took Baker (acquired Bailey later). Haven’t regretted that one.

I don’t like SP prospects without good change ups.