Minor League Update: A 2008 Prospects List
Rather than my usual off-day roundup of what's going on in the minors, I want to take a broader look at what's going on in the farm system. I'm taking another look at a top prospects list I made in August, naming each player and deciding, based on his performance so far this year, whether his stock has risen or fallen.
There's been a bunch of bad news on the farm this year. It's only six weeks or so of baseball, any farm system will have its ups and downs, and there are enough "up"s below that it would be premature to say there's a pattern, but it's still a pretty bleak picture.
Just to be clear, this isn't a new top prospects list. It's a new look at the one I made in August.
1. Pedro Alvarez - DOWN. Now batting .214 with 32 strikeouts in 103 at bats after four-strikeout performance on Sunday. Good power, plenty of walks and a good Spring Training suggest that all this might be fixed with some changes in approach, but other 2008 draftees (Justin Smoak, Buster Posey, etc.) are passing him by. It's too early to panic, but not too early to be concerned.
2. Andrew McCutchen - EVEN. Cooled off after hot start and still hasn't proven he can dominate AAA, but 13 extra-base hits and more walks than strikeouts give reason to hope his transition to the big leagues will be smooth. Still only 22; still a very good prospect.
3. Jose Tabata - DOWN. Got off to a poor start at Class AA Altoona. Currently shut down with a hamstring injury. I'm not even going to discuss WifeGate.
4. Brad Lincoln - UP. Has quietly pitched well for Altoona; has had six starts, and none of them have been bad. He turns 24 in two weeks, so it's unlikely he'll be the ace the Pirates hoped they were getting with the fourth pick in the 2006 draft, but he should at least be useful.
5. Bryan Morris - DOWN. Currently shut down with shoulder trouble.
6. Neil Walker - DOWN. Has made no progress while repeating at Class AAA Indianapolis. Nobody wants a good defensive third baseman who'll hit .210 with a .250 OBP. Some comments here at Bucs Dugout about the possibility of having him catch once or twice a week are interesting. At this point, I'd settle for a Brandon Inge-like career.
7. Jamie Romak - DOWN. This was admittedly an aggressive ranking for Romak, but not even his detractors could have predicted he'd be this bad. He has a .453 OPS at Altoona with 32 strikeouts against five walks. If I made another top 20 prospects list today, I'd leave him off it entirely.
8. Dan McCutchen - EVEN. Actually, "even" is probably generous. McCutchen gets a little slack for starting his pro career late and having less pro experience than most 26-year-olds, but he's still at the age when he needs to produce. He has a strikeout per inning at Indianapolis, which is good, but he also has half a walk per inning to go along with serious flyball tendencies. Strikeouts or no, that's not a recipe for success in the majors.
9. Robbie Grossman - UP. Currently holding his own at Class A West Virginia, which is no small feat for a 19-year-old. Grossman isn't showing much power yet, but that's to be expected at his age. He's a good prospect.
10. Ross Ohlendorf - UP. Has pitched fairly well as a member of the Pirates' rotation, although he needs to strike out more batters to sustain success.
11. Jimmy Barthmaier - DOWN. Should miss the rest of the year with Tommy John surgery.
12. Chase D'Arnaud - EVEN. Recent cold streak leaves him with an .839 OPS at West Virginia, which is good but not great for an early-round draftee from a major college program.
13. Quinton Miller - EVEN. Hasn't pitched yet, which is to be expected.
14. Jarek Cunningham - DOWN. Cunningham will miss the entire season with an ACL tear. The good news is that there should be no ill effects when he returns next year. His 2008 debut was easily the strongest of any 2008 draftee.
15. Justin Wilson - DOWN. This is actually just barely a "down." I'm not sure how much to read into Wilson's stats so far. He's only pitched 22.2 innings, and they're the first of his pro career. He's also at Lynchburg, which was probably an aggressive assignment. He has 16 strikeouts, which isn't bad. He's also getting a lot of outs on the ground. He's worth watching.
16. Jim Negrych - UP. If Negrych could field at all, he'd probably be one of the better infield prospects in the minors. Unfortunately, he can't. He is, however, too good a hitter for the Eastern League, and he's probably going to be a pretty interesting big league bench player. Think Bobby Hill with way better contact ability.
17. Dan Moskos - DOWN. Terrible.
18. Wes Freeman - EVEN. Hasn't played yet.
19. Nelson Periera - EVEN. Hasn't pitched yet; will probably debut at State College.
20. Shelby Ford - DOWN. Has floundered at Indianapolis. Has fourteen strikeouts against just one walk, which suggests he's every bit as lost as his other numbers indicate.
* * *
If I were making another top 20 prospects list today, I'd take a hard look at the following players not listed above:
Ronald Uviedo, SP, Lynchburg. The Pirates moved him from the 'pen to the rotation this year, and suddenly he looks like one of their best pitching prospects.
Michael Dubee, RP, Lynchburg. Quietly acquired a few weeks ago for minor league utilityman Andy Phillips, Dubee has been just about unhittable for the Hillcats, striking out 19 batters in 12.1 innings. He's a good candidate for a midseason promotion.
Michael Colla, RP, Lynchburg. The 2008 14th-rounder has piled up 14 strikeouts and a 1.42 ERA in 12.2 innings.
Jordy Mercer, SS, Lynchburg. 2008 3rd-rounder is holding his own.
Calvin Anderson, 1B, West Virginia. Eight strikeouts for every walk so far, which is terrible, but it's hard to complain too much when a guy slugs .547. If the strike-zone issues are at all representative, he'll have to make adjustments to have success at higher levels.
0 recs |
70 comments
|
Comments
Charlie
Are you saying that all 24 players mentioned are better prospects than Pearce? Huh? He can’t be that bad, can he?
by Illinois Pirate Fan on May 10, 2009 6:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I didn’t include him for some reason, either because he was in the big leagues at the time or because he’d had too many at bats to really be considered a prospect. Nyjer and Luigi were out for the same reason.
by Charlie on May 10, 2009 6:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You probably didn't include him...
…because he’s got 177 ML AB, and thus exhausted his rookie eligibility.
by Vlad on May 11, 2009 9:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So what about Pearce?
Even though he wasn’t on the list last August (when he was on the 25 man roster after all), he’s a prospect today.
At best, he’s a potential call up this year — either in July if Mario gets traded, or anytime if Monroe, Moss or Morgan come up lame. At worst, he’s a potential 1B next year after Mario’s contract expires.
It looks to me like after a very slow start, Pearce has revved it up. He’s .272, .347, .505, with 6 HR and only 16 K’s in 103 ABs.
He’s just turned 26 and is repeating AAA, and I’m not sure management even remembers his
name. But he’d have to be somewhere on the list if it were written today. Right now no one else in Indianapolis is within 50 points of Pearce’s slugging percentage.
For comparison sake, Garret Jones is 28 and is hitting .260, .317, .438 at Indy, with 3 HR and 16 K’s in 96 ABs.
by WstCstBucco on May 11, 2009 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
When people write up prospect lists...
…a lot of them restrict it to players who still qualify as rookies. As such, Pearce wouldn’t be on any future lists, either.
He’ll have to content himself with being a promising young player instead of a prospect.
by Vlad on May 11, 2009 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
a cubs fan here
i’ve been lurking due to donald veal-related reasons. i really appreciate minor league updates. even if it isn’t my team.
whatcha think you guys send us a low level guy and call it (the veal thing) even? he might be better with time in AAA, and you aren’t letting him go. any names you think would be reasonable? thanks for the intel.
by tim815 on May 10, 2009 6:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
That’s a good idea. It would be much better for Veal’s development. My sense is that the Pirates wouldn’t give up much of a prospect, though, and there isn’t a lot of pitching at the lower levels… do the Cubs have any need for AAAA depth types of players?
by Charlie on May 10, 2009 6:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
have anyone that can play third?
they don’t hafta hit much, just cover the hot corner til ramirez shoulder heals.
by tim815 on May 11, 2009 8:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That sounds like Walker.
Not sure I’d trade him for Veal, though.
by Vlad on May 11, 2009 9:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm confused
Wouldn’t Veal still have to clear waivers to be sent down, even with a trade?
Last year, we worked out a deal for Meek with Tampa so that we could send him down for seasoning. But he had options.
Anyone know how this works?
by lost_zero on May 11, 2009 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No
Veal this year and Meek last season couldn’t be sent down because they were Rule V picks, who by definition, must remain on the 25-man roster the entire season unless a deal is worked out with the team they came from. You’re confusing Rule V status with a player who is out of options. Rule V players usually have 3 option years remaining since, they were not on a 40-man roster at the time they were chosen. If we work out a deal with the Cubs for Veal his Rule V status will be recinded and we can use one option year to send him down without him clearing waivers.
by WestCoastBuc on May 11, 2009 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rule 5 players have to clear waivers when they're being returned...
…but not if the team holding the pick works out a trade for him with the team from whom he was drafted. I’m not sure why it works that way, because it seems counterintuitive, but it is what it is.
by Vlad on May 11, 2009 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It probably works that way
because it is giving teams a chance to claim the Rule V player who never got the chance during the draft because another team, in this case the Pirates, drafted him.
by WestCoastBuc on May 11, 2009 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, I mean...
…I don’t know why a Rule 5 pick being traded to the team that drafted him doesn’t have to be exposed to waivers first. That’s the standard procedure for any player being DFAed.
by Vlad on May 11, 2009 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He wasn't DFA'd though; it's all tradeoffs
If he’s ultimately returned to the Cubs, the Cubs still have to add him to the 40-man or then DFA him. I don’t see Rule V as equal to DFA.
I think the process makes sense in that right now Veal has to stay on the 25-man. But if the Pirates pay a “fee” of sorts (cash or player), they get the right to use his options. It’s as if the trade happened in the offseason and the Pirates added him to the 40-man, thus no DFA. But the Pirates took a risk (tradeoff) that some other team could have drafted him.
by azibuck on May 12, 2009 9:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You misunderstand me.
When a Rule 5 guy is returned by the team that drafted him, he’s first put on waivers. If he’s claimed, he goes to the claiming team, and is subject to the typical Rule 5 restrictions on the new team’s roster. Only if he passes all the way through waivers is the player’s original team given the option of buying him back (for half of the original Rule 5 price). They can then assign him outright to the minors, as he’s cleared waivers (assuming that it’s his first outright assignment, of course).
That’s why Jose Bautista played for like four different teams in the year he was drafted. Whenever one of them waived him, he got claimed by someone else, and we never got to the stage where we had the option to re-purchase him. And it’s why he had to stay up with the big club after we re-acquired him in the Benson trade. He’d still never passed through waivers, and we would’ve had to try and slide him through before “returning” him to ourselves.
by Vlad on May 12, 2009 9:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I still don't understand then
The post I’m replying to goes over Rule 5, I think we’ve both got a handle on that. But above that you said,
…I don’t know why a Rule 5 pick being traded to the team that drafted him doesn’t have to be exposed to waivers first. That’s the standard procedure for any player being DFAed.
He, effectively, was waived/non-rostered, and claimed/drafted by Pgh. I know it’s not exactly apple to apples for a number of reasons, but I don’t really see a difference between the current situation and one where the Cubs had added Veal to the 40-man last offseason, then DFA him today and Pgh claims him. I know the differences, I just don’t understand why you think he should have to pass all the way through waivers before a trade between the clubs.
by azibuck on May 12, 2009 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Clubs should be able to trade him at any time.
That’s standard procedure for Rule 5 picks. The part that doesn’t make sense is where, after being traded in that way, he doesn’t have to go through waivers in order to be assigned to the minors. For consistency’s sake, the Rule 5 restrictions should still be in place – they would be if we were trading Veal back to the Cubs, for example, so it doesn’t make sense that they’d be waived under this one circumstance.
by Vlad on May 12, 2009 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think that's fair to the player
He doesn’t have to go though waivers because post-trade he’s on the 40 man roster. Taking it one step further, if the teams work out a trade and next week Pgh decides to drop him from the 40 man, he goes through waivers.
by azibuck on May 12, 2009 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pre-trade, he was on the 40-man roster, too.
The issue at hand is the 25-man, not the 40.
by Vlad on May 13, 2009 10:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If I had to rank the top 5 TODAY...
I’d be moving Lincoln up AT LEAST 1 spot…and maybe more.
by Thunder on May 10, 2009 6:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, Lincoln would be 3rd, especially since I’m a Tabata age skeptic for whatever reason. And Grossman is up to 5 or 6 since he has the potential to turn out very good for a CF, although he could be a bust.
by ddff22 on May 10, 2009 6:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Alvarez
It’s WAAAAY too early to panic about Pedro Alvarez. Yes, his strikeouts are alarming, and I’m not going to make excuses for him because he has to be more patient. But, honestly, if he were in Double-A, I think he would be doing a lot better. He would see a better quality of pitches on a consistent basis (as long as he had protection in the lineup) and would be able to develop quicker, in my opinion. Some of you may agree, some may disagree. This is just my opinion. But he doesn’t have any protection in Lynchburg’s lineup so the pitchers he faces can throw anything they want up there to him, which is where his patience comes in. He has walked a lot, but he should probably have even more walks. Yes, his patience has to get better, but I think he would really take off in Double-A.
by thelumberco. on May 10, 2009 7:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The worst thing
is the 10 errors.
by Suffering Buc on May 10, 2009 10:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not worried about the errors.
He wasn’t drafted for defense and will probably move to first. The Pirates are doing the right thing by allowing him to play his most challenging defensive position for as long as possible, and hopefully that will straighten out some of those kinks, but it’s pretty inconsequential right now.
www.sixtyftsixin.com
by Sixty Feet, Six Inches on May 11, 2009 12:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed. I read a good Q&A a while back where someone asked about Alvarez’s strikeouts, and the answer came back that due to the lower talent level in A ball, a lot of pitchers see a legit power guy like Alvarez that will probably get promoted mid-year and start pitching around him or intentionally walking him to get to the next guy. The younger players usually get fed up with that pretty quickly and start swinging. Remember that he wasn’t striking out very often earlier this year.
Eventually he’ll learn that he’s going to make a better case for himself to get promoted if he lays off the bad pitches and just takes the walk, regardless of how fed up he is with it.
www.sixtyftsixin.com
by Sixty Feet, Six Inches on May 11, 2009 1:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
also....
I know people don’t like to put a lot of stock into spring training, BUT he was hitting nearly .400 against legit pitching in spring training and not striking out that much. I know it was just spring training, but still…he was facing mostly Triple-A pitching and doing very, very well.
by thelumberco. on May 11, 2009 1:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also, I wouldn’t be too upset if Pedro Alvarez carved out an Adam Dunn-esque career.
www.sixtyftsixin.com
by Sixty Feet, Six Inches on May 11, 2009 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Calvin Anderson
WTM’s profile is important to remember, specifically concerning the “the level of competition in the SWAC and the lack of good coaching” Anderson experienced during his college career.
Let’s also be positive about Brad Lincoln chances of competing for a job in Pittsburgh next year.
Jim Negrych is going to have knock the cover off the ball on a regular basis to find a spot on a 25-man roster with his terrible defense and the fact teams carry so many pitchers now.
I’d like to see Dan Moskos traded for some other minor league project/prospect. He’s done nothing so far, and he knows Pirate fans didn’t want him in the first place.
Robbie Grossman struck it rich last year with his signing bonus, and let’s pull for him to develop into a top-notch prospect. It’s early to be sure, but we’ve got to search for the glimmers of hope.
Pedro Alvarez’s performance so far is depressing.
I bet we see Andrew McCutchen in Pittsburgh no later than the start of the second half of the season.
One thing is for sure: We’ve got a lot of work to do next month in the draft to build on what we believe was an excellent one in 2008.
by patthatt on May 10, 2009 7:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I really like Chi-Hung Cheng
Chi-Hung Cheng is a 23 year old lefty from Taiwan for the Hillcats. He’s 3-1 and a 4.33 ERA. I know the ERA is high but what I’ve seen of him he looks pretty good. I know he’s a long way from the big club, but I can see him pitching in Altoona in the next few months, maybe with the big club in a few years. Now how many jersey’s would they sell with Chi-Hung on the back ? Eh ? That’s a license to print money !
by Ketcham Bruce on May 10, 2009 7:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Cheng IS interesting, isn't he.
He was just starting to get notice as a prospect with Toronto when he tore his labrum. Pre-injury, he had an absolutely killer curveball – it’d be interesting to see how much stuff he’s working with right now.
by Vlad on May 11, 2009 9:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Brian Friday??
Oversight…or not rated high enough?? I noticed he finally played today, ear infection kept him out if I recall correctly. I know he was outside your top 20 last year. Would you put him in the hard look category??
by Thunder on May 10, 2009 8:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Not until he actually DOES more, although with a month or so of really good hitting he’d make the list. I guess it’s not too consistent of me to put Mercer in there and not Friday, though.
by Charlie on May 10, 2009 9:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm loving that Phillips trade.
I don’t get how we got a legit prospect for Andy Phillips.
by Suffering Buc on May 10, 2009 10:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn’t call Dubee legit. More legit than Phillips, yes, but I doubt he’ll light the world on fire. Nice to see a great performance out of him so far, though. I’d love to see him prove me wrong.
www.sixtyftsixin.com
by Sixty Feet, Six Inches on May 11, 2009 1:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Alvarez was 0 for 4 with four K’s tonight in a loss to Salem.
by Suffering Buc on May 10, 2009 10:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
A word on D. McCutchen
Charlie, I think you may be reading into Daniel McCutchen’s fly ball tendencies too much. His status as a AAA pitcher makes it nigh impossible to actually track down good batted ball data, but I can tell you what I know from having seen him pitch in Indianapolis several times.
He is a fly ball pitcher for sure, that’s absolutely true. He has some problems with gopher balls at times, but that’s a decreasing problem.
The thing to know is that most of the fly balls batters hit off of him never leave the infield. Balls that DO make it to the outfield are usually lazy flies. He’s also been inducing a lot more grounders lately.
GB/FB data is nice, but it’s important to know that a GB pitcher isn’t necessarily preferred. There are bad ground ball pitchers and good fly ball pitchers. I like GB better because it increases the chances of double-play balls, but I’ll take a whole bunch of infield flies as well, especially when coupled with a great K/BB ratio.
Another thing to note is that his HR issues only started to pop up last year. Even then, he gave up 22. That’s not great, but a lot of aces like Santana and Sabathia give up even more. I think he’ll be able to correct it.
I’d like to see the Bucs give McCutchen a shot in the rotation this year. He can’t do much worse than Jeff Karstens as a #5 guy, and he’ll likely be an improvement.
www.sixtyftsixin.com
by Sixty Feet, Six Inches on May 11, 2009 1:26 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
?
“GB/FB data is nice, but it’s important to know that a GB pitcher isn’t necessarily preferred. There are bad ground ball pitchers and good fly ball pitchers.”
Can you expand? I’ve never heard this theory anywhere; where did you read it?
by ILLZ on May 11, 2009 9:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd guess that a bad GB pitcher...
…would be ones with other holes in his profile, like a high LD rate.
As for the FB thing, some pitchers do appear to have a repeatable skill at inducing popups. If McCutchen is one of those (and I don’t know whether he is or isn’t), it makes him more effective than his pure ratios would indicate.
by Vlad on May 11, 2009 9:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know someone that’s a SABR member (thinking of joining myself) and he said that there was a discussion at the conference one year about frequently misused stats. BABIP, strand rate, etc. GB/FB was one of them.
Basically, 80% of pitching is still K/BB/HR. (McCutchen is gold on 2 out of 3 of those, by the way.) GB is not the third true outcome. Thus, there’s not really a “good” GB/FB ratio, because as long as the out is made, the reason is irrelevant.
GB pitchers tend to fare a bit better because they’re more likely to keep the ball in the park, and they tend to be more consistent (either good or bad).
However, it’s not always the case.
There are very successful pitchers with fly ball tendencies. Think of Rich Harden; he’s a notorious fly ball pitcher, yet he consistently dominates when he’s healthy. Same goes for Kerry Wood. When Barry Zito was most effective, it was because he was constantly able to induce weak popups…he’s only had one full season with more GB than FB, which was in 2005. Jered Weaver is a pitcher with an average K rate, a low walk rate, and a low HR rate despite a consistently high FB rate. Lay statisticians have been waiting for the other shoe to drop for the entire four years he’s been in the minors, ignoring the fact that his numbers and ratios are right in line with what he did in the minors.
Contrast that with some pitchers who consistently keep the ball on the ground, yet aren’t very good. Most of the Pirates rotationf or the past 10 years or so can be an interesting case study for this. Take into account Jake Westbrook, who really only had one good year despite his GB% always being somewhere close to 60.
Also, ground ball pitchers tend to give up far more line drives than their fly ball counterparts. Intuitively, this makes sense. If a person is a fly ball pitcher, chances are a fly against them is what they wanted to happen. On the other hand, if their goal is to keep it on the ground, chances are that anything in the air is a mistake.
Ground balls also tend to lead to more unearned runs than do flies. The unearned ones count just as much as the earned ones. The article I’m about to link uses Derek Lowe as an example.
For further reading, see this article from The Hardball Times: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-truth-about-the-grounder/
www.sixtyftsixin.com
by Sixty Feet, Six Inches on May 11, 2009 1:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
moss sucks bench laroche and trade everyone now!!!!
oh wait, is this actual baseball discussion on this blog? i almost forgot what that was like.
interesting thoughts. i wish i had something else to add.
by johnnycuff on May 11, 2009 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
oh wait, is this actual baseball discussion on this blog?
That’s gold, dude.
I'd rather be dead than singing "Satisfaction" at forty-five. -- M. Jagger
by cocktailsfor2 on May 11, 2009 8:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the “probability of line drive given ball in the air” metric is pretty close to useless. In the linked article, the author undermines his whole argument by saying the lack of overall FB’s is the main driver of the LD:FB ratio.
To summarize his point, “Here’s a bunch of numbers that look flashy and interesting and make me sound credible. They don’t apply to baseball, but my point is still valid.” Another, less self-biased way to say what he found would be that “GB pitchers and FB pitchers have about the same LD%. Since LD’s account for a significant portion of good hits, GB:FB ratio isn’t quite as important as it might seem. Still, since GB and FB pitchers have about the same LD%, and GB’s are generally better than FB’s, all other things equal, GB’s are still better than FB’s.”
It’s an interesting point about earned runs, though. GB pitchers have immunity from bad infielders while FB pitchers get blamed for their CF’s poor range. I didn’t realize until now how that skews ERA.
charity standing orders
by BadMaafala on May 11, 2009 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The thing to know is that most of the fly balls batters hit off of him never leave the infield. Balls that DO make it to the outfield are usually lazy flies.
But, as I understand it, the pitcher doesn’t have much control over what happens to a fly ball, whether it’s a lazy fly or a homer. In fact, the article you link below says almost exactly that. And as McCutchen encounters better hitters in the majors, some of those lazy flies are likely to BECOME homers.
Of course there are good FB pitchers and bad GB pitchers. But being a GB pitcher is definitely an advantage, all other things being equal. Westbrook, for example, is only an average pitcher despite lots of ground balls, but the ground balls are still an asset for him. The problem with him is that his strikeout rate is very low. And Rich Harden is a great pitcher when healthy despite the fly balls, but he also strikes out many more batters than most pitchers. Barry Zito’s success or lack thereof correlates very strongly with his strikeout and walk rates.
So McCutchen can be a good MLB pitcher despite high FB rates, sure—but his strikeouts and walks will have to be pretty good for that to work. Right now, they’re decent, and they could be better.
by Charlie on May 11, 2009 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Decent?
I’m of the impression that 27 K and 13 BB (1 intentional) in 26.1 innings is pretty good. Over a batter an inning. 2.08 is a better K/BB ratio than any of our pitchers so far except, surprisingly, Duke. I’m not saying McCutchen will be a star, just that he deserves a shot, and that he’d already probably be an improvement over Karstens. I’d rather see him get some ML experience under his belt sooner rather than later.
www.sixtyftsixin.com
by Sixty Feet, Six Inches on May 11, 2009 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
By and large, you are correct, Charlie.
HR/F tends to regress toward 10% for all pitchers.
The only real exception is the one I noted earlier, with infield fly rates.
by Vlad on May 11, 2009 5:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't Forget About Hague
I’ve never seen him play, but he has a nice pedigree.
Had a good first year last year. Was moved to 1B in Lynchburg to accomodate Alvarez.
I have not checked his stats this year.
by thegunner on May 11, 2009 11:00 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Kind of a slow start.
.260/.330/.310. Only 100 AB, though. Definitely still worth keeping an eye on.
by Vlad on May 11, 2009 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A couple of questions
For Charlie:
1- Where are the two guys from India? How are they doing?
For all:
2- Diaz and Jaramillo are doing very well, and are good/natural catchers, which Doumit is not. What about moving Doumit to right field for good when he returns? Moss & Co. would be bench players, as they should.
by Pirate in Montana on May 11, 2009 11:32 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
i'm not charlie, but...
1. check their blog. they’re both out with the flu right now but seem to believe they’ll be playing A ball, presumably short season state college. they’re also learning the joys of FICA taxes being deducted from their paychecks.
2. with doumit’s injury history, particularly with his hamstrings this probably isn’t a good idea. it has been tried before but was abandoned several years ago, as was playing him at first base.
by johnnycuff on May 11, 2009 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Doumit's bat loses a lot of value as a 1B/OF.
He’s one of the best-hitting catchers in baseball right now, but would be only average-ish at one of those positions.
Also, both Jaramillo and Diaz are a bit over their heads right now (though I’m certainly not complaining). As fragile as Doumit is (at all positions, not just catching), it’s good to know that we have some talent backing him up.
by Vlad on May 11, 2009 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The biggest reason
Is that Jaramillo is overperforming. He’s walking a lot, which he’s done for his whole career, which is good, but that’s about the only sustainable offensive skill he has.
Already, he’s starting to come back down to Earth, as a lot of his previous success was due to an unsustainable LD% and BABIP. He was hitting something like a 30% LD%, which just isn’t normal. Even players with excellent bat speed like BJ Upton can usually only push it to 24% or so, and Jaramillo’s bat isn’t that fast.
Other reasons have already been touched on, like the fact that Doumit’s bat loses value at other positions and he’s also really bad defensively in said positions.
Something that’s frequently ignored about Doumit that I feel is unjust is how far he’s come defensively behind the plate. It seems like he’s getting better every year. Why ruin a good trend?
www.sixtyftsixin.com
by Sixty Feet, Six Inches on May 11, 2009 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Anybody else notice the big bounce...
…in Gabriel Alvarado’s K rate? That was always the big hole in his profile before this season, and while he’s having some trouble with HR now, it’s still an interesting step forward.
by Vlad on May 11, 2009 11:44 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Good answers...
Anyway, Diaz and Jaramillo looks like a good tandem at catcher, and not only because they are hitting well. I still believe Doumit is not a good defensive catcher.
I am “old school” as it relates to what was the best a team could do. As long as the team was strong defensively through the middle, it was mostly o.k. The middle included the catcher, 2B, SS, and CF. At least Doumit can catch throws from the outfield… [smile]
by Pirate in Montana on May 11, 2009 12:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Scheppers
A player who would have been in the Top 20 — had we signed him — had a rough outing:
According to BA: “St. Paul Saints righthander Tanner Scheppers wasn’t as overpowering Sunday as he was in his first exhibition start, this time allowing five runs on five hits over four innings, though he did show a mid-90s fastball again.”
by bolton on May 11, 2009 2:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
at this point
teams are probably less concerned with the results than they are with how his stuff looked. if he was throwing mid 90s with the supposedly fantastic breaking ball but gave up a few home runs or something then i doubt this would do anything to hurt his draft status.
by johnnycuff on May 11, 2009 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep.
Also, to be honest, it’s a pretty tough step up in competition from college ball to the American Association. Most of the regulars have at least played A+/AA ball, and a few are MLB vets (Scheppers’s team has Craig Brazell, Todd Self, and Kerry Ligtenberg, for example).
by Vlad on May 11, 2009 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't have any problem with the team
not signing Tanner Scheppers when he had a serious shoulder injury. There was too much risk.
And the team came up with the big money to sign Robbie Grossman and Quinton Miller before the deadline, and we get an additional second round pick this year for not signing Scheppers. I think the team did an outstanding job with the draft last year-all things considered.
by patthatt on May 11, 2009 4:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
Obviously he recovered very well from his shoulder injury, but if this new regime has signed its second rd. pick that had a major shoulder injury for millions of dollars, and then he’s out of baseball in three or four years because he could never recover from the inury, this new management would have been run out of town quicker than Littlefield and Co.
by thelumberco. on May 11, 2009 5:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You just can’t take that risk with his injury and with the Pirates’ notorious draft busts over the years.
by thelumberco. on May 11, 2009 5:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not signing Hinske probably would have provided most of the money
needed to sign Scheppers. What made it a good move (without hindsight) to pass on Scheppers was that we got an extra second round pick this year, which is a lot more important than the chump change it would have taken to sign him.
by WestCoastBuc on May 11, 2009 5:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
They already had the money to sign Scheppers.
They were offering him a little above slot even after Miller inked on the day of the signing deadline.
The issue was that they just didn’t think at that point that he was worth the money he was asking – their “dollar sign on the muscle” wasn’t as high as his.
by Vlad on May 11, 2009 5:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
BEST Book EVER Written About Scouting ---- By Far --- By Kevin Kerrane
by thegunner on May 11, 2009 11:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely.
I think it’s out of print now, which is a damn shame. You can still get used copies for a couple of bucks, though.
I’d recommend it to any Pirate fan – there’s a lot of Pittsburgh content, particularly a good section on Howie Haak.
by Vlad on May 12, 2009 9:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Dollar Sign on the Muscle"
My grandfather gave me that book when I was a teenager. Still have it somewhere in my things in West Virginia.
by patthatt on May 11, 2009 7:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
New Scheppers rumor...
in an ESPN chat last week…Keith Law (usually anti Pirate)…indicated that he believes that Tanner Scheppers has signed the necessary waiver that would allow the Pirates to redraft him in this year’s Amateur Draft in June. Of course, assuming he makes it to the Pirates selection slot, and assuming the Pirates want him.
by Thunder on May 12, 2009 11:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

by 













