The Top 23 Cubs Prospects 23 & Under

[CubsWin]

Marmol has also only been pitching for 4 years, so he still has a way to go in improvement. How much better will Carlos get in the next 3 seasons? His ceiling is higher than Gallagher's.

Excellent point, I had forgotten about that. Marmol definitely moves up but I still think you are underestimating how remarkable it is for Gallagher to have achieved what he has at the age of 20.

 

 

My point was that Prior at AA was able to locate his fastball better than Gallagher has so it's not a fair comparison.

Unless you've studied film and compared them side by side, how can you know something like that. I mean, I readily agree that Prior is likely the better pitcher, but all we've heard from the beginning with Sean is his control and how he can locate his fastball. Before he was able to do that at 88-91 mph, now he is doing it 91-94 mph. That sounds a lot like what Prior does to me.

 

 

All in all, I don't think it's far fetched to imagine Sean with a low-90s fastball, a plus slider, plus curve and an average change, along with good control in the big leagues. But I get the feeling his breaking pitches still need some work.

And you are probably right about his breaking pitches still needing some work, but he certainly has the time to work on them, HE'S 20! He'd be young for the Low-A MWL!

 

Again, since this is a 23 & under list, I'm valuing age a little more and current performance a little less.

[ChiefsVoice]

Using W's to analyze SPs in the majors is pretty worthless. Using it to grade pitchers in the minors is even worse. The jump from A+ to AA is considerable.

 

so you'd rather they lose? that makes a lot sense. Why even have Low A and High A then if you are just gonna discount everything the players do here and just go off potential?

 

Wins are a poor metric to rate a pitcher by anywhere, but especially in the low minors where pitchers don't go as long and relievers aren't always the best.

 

Kc wasn't talking about wins or losses as a team stat but just that they are an incomplete and poor stat to judge a pitcher with. I'd rather judge a pitcher based on peripheral stats involving walk and strikeout rates, WHIP, BAA, etc. At the lower levels of the minor leagues, scouting and "potential" is still very important since the players haven't played professionally for long and have a ways to reach a finished product. Also at the lower levels, prospects can be playing against far less advanced competition which will allow them to rack up the stats.

 

I completely disagree. You pay a pitcher to win. While it shouldnt be the only stat used to judge it MUST be used. Especially in this league. It shows that a pitcher has the ability to go 5 innings and pick up a win. More importantly it shows the ability to keep a team in the game and get a win.

 

my bigger point to start with is that on one hand you have Sean Gallagher who as a 19 year old started in the MWL and was 14-5 and is now 20-5 as a 20 year old....on the other hand you have Pawelek who is 19 years old and for various reasons NOT EVEN in the MWL yet. There is no way he will win 20 by this point next season. So you cannot possibly say Pawelek is better or even has more potential than Gallagher at this point. Who knows if Mark will even get to AA...Sean has already won there....

 

For some reason everyone likes to take shots at Sean and I don't get it. He threw 91-92 here last season so moving up to 94-95 by adding muscle isnt that big of a jump....

 

He'll be at Wrigley by September 2007

[CaliforniaRaisin]

My point was that Prior at AA was able to locate his fastball better than Gallagher has so it's not a fair comparison.

Unless you've studied film and compared them side by side, how can you know something like that. I mean, I readily agree that Prior is likely the better pitcher, but all we've heard from the beginning with Sean is his control and how he can locate his fastball. Before he was able to do that at 88-91 mph, now he is doing it 91-94 mph. That sounds a lot like what Prior does to me.

 

Oops, my fault. I meant to say he had better control, not necessarily better location on his fastball.

 

All in all, I don't think it's far fetched to imagine Sean with a low-90s fastball, a plus slider, plus curve and an average change, along with good control in the big leagues. But I get the feeling his breaking pitches still need some work.

And you are probably right about his breaking pitches still needing some work, but he certainly has the time to work on them, HE'S 20! He'd be young for the Low-A MWL!

 

Again, since this is a 23 & under list, I'm valuing age a little more and current performance a little less.

 

Heh, I just valued prospects the same as I would if there was no age restrictions. I thing I value him pretty highly.

[Warpticon]

Using W's to analyze SPs in the majors is pretty worthless. Using it to grade pitchers in the minors is even worse. The jump from A+ to AA is considerable.

 

so you'd rather they lose? that makes a lot sense. Why even have Low A and High A then if you are just gonna discount everything the players do here and just go off potential?

 

Wins are a poor metric to rate a pitcher by anywhere, but especially in the low minors where pitchers don't go as long and relievers aren't always the best.

 

Kc wasn't talking about wins or losses as a team stat but just that they are an incomplete and poor stat to judge a pitcher with. I'd rather judge a pitcher based on peripheral stats involving walk and strikeout rates, WHIP, BAA, etc. At the lower levels of the minor leagues, scouting and "potential" is still very important since the players haven't played professionally for long and have a ways to reach a finished product. Also at the lower levels, prospects can be playing against far less advanced competition which will allow them to rack up the stats.

 

I completely disagree. You pay a pitcher to win. While it shouldnt be the only stat used to judge it MUST be used. Especially in this league. It shows that a pitcher has the ability to go 5 innings and pick up a win. More importantly it shows the ability to keep a team in the game and get a win.

 

Look out, here it comes...

 

Wins don't tell you anything that can't be derived from other numbers. I can look at a 5 IP, 3 ER line and tell that a guy kept the team in the game without factoring in the quality of the bullpen or his team's offense in the won/lost column. I can look at a 6 IP, 1 ER line and tell he did a better job, but he may easily have gotten the win in the first game and not in the second. And wins absolutely don't project. A pitcher isn't going to get to take his bullpen, offense, and opposition with him to the majors, so why should they make a difference in how quickly he gets there? A starting pitcher's job is to go as many innings as possible while giving up as few runs as possible. If he's doing that, his job is done. There's no need to incorporate a team stat to determine that.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Using W's to analyze SPs in the majors is pretty worthless. Using it to grade pitchers in the minors is even worse. The jump from A+ to AA is considerable.

 

so you'd rather they lose? that makes a lot sense. Why even have Low A and High A then if you are just gonna discount everything the players do here and just go off potential?

 

Wins are a poor metric to rate a pitcher by anywhere, but especially in the low minors where pitchers don't go as long and relievers aren't always the best.

 

Kc wasn't talking about wins or losses as a team stat but just that they are an incomplete and poor stat to judge a pitcher with. I'd rather judge a pitcher based on peripheral stats involving walk and strikeout rates, WHIP, BAA, etc. At the lower levels of the minor leagues, scouting and "potential" is still very important since the players haven't played professionally for long and have a ways to reach a finished product. Also at the lower levels, prospects can be playing against far less advanced competition which will allow them to rack up the stats.

 

I completely disagree. You pay a pitcher to win. While it shouldnt be the only stat used to judge it MUST be used. Especially in this league. It shows that a pitcher has the ability to go 5 innings and pick up a win. More importantly it shows the ability to keep a team in the game and get a win.

 

I think the ability to go 5 is pretty important, but the other stuff is secondary. Sure, you pay a pitcher to win. But if that were all you were paying for, then he better go 9 everytime and you wouldn't need a reliever. There are many things that can get in the way of a pitcher getting a win while they perform well - the bullpen blowing the lead or the offense not scoring being prime examples (just ask Clemens last year, Randy Johnson the year before and Kerry Wood throughout his career). The ability to keep a team in the game can be better judged by ERA, etc. If a pitcher gives up 1 run in 6 and loses 1-0, he has successfully kept his team in the game but got a loss.

 

my bigger point to start with is that on one hand you have Sean Gallagher who as a 19 year old started in the MWL and was 14-5 and is now 20-5 as a 20 year old....on the other hand you have Pawelek who is 19 years old and for various reasons NOT EVEN in the MWL yet. There is no way he will win 20 by this point next season. So you cannot possibly say Pawelek is better or even has more potential than Gallagher at this point. Who knows if Mark will even get to AA...Sean has already won there....

 

I agree that Gallagher, just one year older than Pawelek, being 3 levels more advanced is very impressive. You don't need to tell me, I have Sean rated higher than Mark. But I rate him higher not because of his impressive W-L record but because of his stuff, control, and other stats - which are impressive. I think one can argue that Pawelek has more potential than Gallagher - Pawelek has the ceiling of an ace pitcher while Gallagher's ceiling is supposed to be lower.

 

For some reason everyone likes to take shots at Sean and I don't get it. He threw 91-92 here last season so moving up to 94-95 by adding muscle isnt that big of a jump....

 

My "shots" are just the reasons why I ranked him lower than Pie, Marmol, Marshall and Cedeno (and for the record, I think Gallagher has a higher ceiling than Marshall - but Marshall is holding his own in the big leagues which is why I rated him higher).

 

He'll be at Wrigley by September 2007

 

Actually, I think he'll get there earlier.

[CubsWin]

Using W's to analyze SPs in the majors is pretty worthless. Using it to grade pitchers in the minors is even worse. The jump from A+ to AA is considerable.

 

so you'd rather they lose? that makes a lot sense. Why even have Low A and High A then if you are just gonna discount everything the players do here and just go off potential?

 

Wins are a poor metric to rate a pitcher by anywhere, but especially in the low minors where pitchers don't go as long and relievers aren't always the best.

 

Kc wasn't talking about wins or losses as a team stat but just that they are an incomplete and poor stat to judge a pitcher with. I'd rather judge a pitcher based on peripheral stats involving walk and strikeout rates, WHIP, BAA, etc. At the lower levels of the minor leagues, scouting and "potential" is still very important since the players haven't played professionally for long and have a ways to reach a finished product. Also at the lower levels, prospects can be playing against far less advanced competition which will allow them to rack up the stats.

 

I completely disagree. You pay a pitcher to win. While it shouldnt be the only stat used to judge it MUST be used. Especially in this league. It shows that a pitcher has the ability to go 5 innings and pick up a win. More importantly it shows the ability to keep a team in the game and get a win.

 

Look out, here it comes...

 

Wins don't tell you anything that can't be derived from other numbers. I can look at a 5 IP, 3 ER line and tell that a guy kept the team in the game without factoring in the quality of the bullpen or his team's offense in the won/lost column. I can look at a 6 IP, 1 ER line and tell he did a better job, but he may easily have gotten the win in the first game and not in the second. And wins absolutely don't project. A pitcher isn't going to get to take his bullpen, offense, and opposition with him to the majors, so why should they make a difference in how quickly he gets there? A starting pitcher's job is to go as many innings as possible while giving up as few runs as possible. If he's doing that, his job is done. There's no need to incorporate a team stat to determine that.

I completely agree with what you said, and it was very well said. But...

 

While the win is a stat to be considered last, I do think it can have something to say about a pitcher's competitiveness in certain situations that probably can't be derived from other numbers. Maybe a metric for runners allowed and runs allowed with a 1-run lead, 2-run lead, 1-run deficit and 2-run deficit. Just looking at the overall number of wins may not be so telling, but digging deeper can reveal a pitcher's consistent ability to keep his team close even on days when he might not have his best stuff.

 

Still, without question other stats are far more revealing about a pitcher's ability. For me, the magic triangle of numbers without getting deep into sabermetrics (which I still need to educate myself on) is BAA or Hits per inning, Ks/Inning and K/BB. IMO, that trio of stats along with ERA can paint a good picture of what a guy is capable of.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Look out, here it comes...

 

Wins don't tell you anything that can't be derived from other numbers. I can look at a 5 IP, 3 ER line and tell that a guy kept the team in the game without factoring in the quality of the bullpen or his team's offense in the won/lost column. I can look at a 6 IP, 1 ER line and tell he did a better job, but he may easily have gotten the win in the first game and not in the second. And wins absolutely don't project. A pitcher isn't going to get to take his bullpen, offense, and opposition with him to the majors, so why should they make a difference in how quickly he gets there? A starting pitcher's job is to go as many innings as possible while giving up as few runs as possible. If he's doing that, his job is done. There's no need to incorporate a team stat to determine that.

I completely agree with what you said, and it was very well said. But...

 

While the win is a stat to be considered last, I do think it can have something to say about a pitcher's competitiveness in certain situations that probably can't be derived from other numbers. Maybe a metric for runners allowed and runs allowed with a 1-run lead, 2-run lead, 1-run deficit and 2-run deficit. Just looking at the overall number of wins may not be so telling, but digging deeper can reveal a pitcher's consistent ability to keep his team close even on days when he might not have his best stuff.

 

But then you're not talking about Wins, you're looking beyond them to find a measure of a player's aptitude, just like when you look at other metrics like you mentioned in the part of the post I snipped.

[Rob]

I completely agree with what you said, and it was very well said. But...

 

While the win is a stat to be considered last, I do think it can have something to say about a pitcher's competitiveness in certain situations that probably can't be derived from other numbers. Maybe a metric for runners allowed and runs allowed with a 1-run lead, 2-run lead, 1-run deficit and 2-run deficit. Just looking at the overall number of wins may not be so telling, but digging deeper can reveal a pitcher's consistent ability to keep his team close even on days when he might not have his best stuff.

 

Actually, if memory serves correctly, I seem to recall seeing a study that proved there's extremely little correlation seen between the numbers and reputations for "pitching to the score." From year to year, pitchers show very little, if any, ability "above and beyond" what they already have to control scoring in those sorts of situations.

 

Of course, that's only true if my memory is to be trusted... though it usually is.

 

Still, without question other stats are far more revealing about a pitcher's ability. For me, the magic triangle of numbers without getting deep into sabermetrics (which I still need to educate myself on) is BAA or Hits per inning, Ks/Inning and K/BB. IMO, that trio of stats along with ERA can paint a good picture of what a guy is capable of.

 

Personally, I'm a fan of RA instead of ERA... then WHIP, K/9, and K/BB

[CubsWin]

Look out, here it comes...

 

Wins don't tell you anything that can't be derived from other numbers. I can look at a 5 IP, 3 ER line and tell that a guy kept the team in the game without factoring in the quality of the bullpen or his team's offense in the won/lost column. I can look at a 6 IP, 1 ER line and tell he did a better job, but he may easily have gotten the win in the first game and not in the second. And wins absolutely don't project. A pitcher isn't going to get to take his bullpen, offense, and opposition with him to the majors, so why should they make a difference in how quickly he gets there? A starting pitcher's job is to go as many innings as possible while giving up as few runs as possible. If he's doing that, his job is done. There's no need to incorporate a team stat to determine that.

I completely agree with what you said, and it was very well said. But...

 

While the win is a stat to be considered last, I do think it can have something to say about a pitcher's competitiveness in certain situations that probably can't be derived from other numbers. Maybe a metric for runners allowed and runs allowed with a 1-run lead, 2-run lead, 1-run deficit and 2-run deficit. Just looking at the overall number of wins may not be so telling, but digging deeper can reveal a pitcher's consistent ability to keep his team close even on days when he might not have his best stuff.

 

But then you're not talking about Wins, you're looking beyond them to find a measure of a player's aptitude, just like when you look at other metrics like you mentioned in the part of the post I snipped.

Yeah, you're right. I was thinking the same thing as I wrote it.

 

I used to find that aptitude by looking into the circumstances of a pitcher's victory, but with the onset of sabermetrics, you no longer have to.

[Mephistopheles]

Generally I like to look at xFIP or some sort of modified form of DIPs that accounts for G/F and a league average BABIP. After that it's K:BB, stuff (not stuff score) and K/9. Stuff is a lot more important in the lower minors. This affects a guy like Sean Gallagher, and more infamously Ian Kennedy. Raw hitters have problems with average to above-average curveballs. A lot of pitchers with fringe-average fastballs and good curveballs have inflated K rates in the low minors, thus deflated ERA and RAs. I think stuff can be a very good indicator as to how much a pitcher's ratios will degrade as he progresses through the minors. Sadly a guy like Sean Gallagher or Mitch Atkins rates lowly on something like this whereas a guy like Veal ranks highly on it. You also sometimes see inflated G/F in the low minors, but that's a different story entirely.

 

Anyways to go off on a tangent to Veal. Im quite worried with him. His control sucks, that's no secret. The underlying theme in his stat line is that he is an EXTREME flyball pitcher. This is quite rare in the low minors where HR rates are low due to weaker hitters and a more GB and speed oriented game. The formula is quite simple:

 

Flyball Pitcher = HR Pitcher

 

HR + BB = Runs, lots of them

[Outshined_One]

Anyways to go off on a tangent to Veal. Im quite worried with him. His control sucks, that's no secret. The underlying theme in his stat line is that he is an EXTREME flyball pitcher. This is quite rare in the low minors where HR rates are low due to weaker hitters and a more GB and speed oriented game. The formula is quite simple:

 

Flyball Pitcher = HR Pitcher

 

HR + BB = Runs, lots of them

 

There's reason for concern with Veal, but the Cubs' MO is really apparent to me at this point regarding how they treat pitchers making their full season debut. Basically, they just try to get their pitchers through the majority of a full season at one level and then typically promote the guy in the last week or two if he does well enough. Remember, one of the biggest concerns with Veal in the draft was his ability to maintain his stuff over the course of a full season.

 

Also, he has a decent road ahead of him as a pitcher with two pitcher's leagues in Daytona and West Tenn. I think he'll improve as time goes on.

[Mephistopheles]

Yeah but the parks really do not have much to do with G/F rates.

[Outshined_One]

Yeah but the parks really do not have much to do with G/F rates.

 

Not necessarily, but those long fly balls in Daytona and West Tenn might be out of the park or off the wall in Des Moines.

[CubsWin]

Generally I like to look at xFIP or some sort of modified form of DIPs that accounts for G/F and a league average BABIP. After that it's K:BB, stuff (not stuff score) and K/9. Stuff is a lot more important in the lower minors. This affects a guy like Sean Gallagher, and more infamously Ian Kennedy. Raw hitters have problems with average to above-average curveballs. A lot of pitchers with fringe-average fastballs and good curveballs have inflated K rates in the low minors, thus deflated ERA and RAs. I think stuff can be a very good indicator as to how much a pitcher's ratios will degrade as he progresses through the minors. Sadly a guy like Sean Gallagher or Mitch Atkins rates lowly on something like this whereas a guy like Veal ranks highly on it. You also sometimes see inflated G/F in the low minors, but that's a different story entirely.

 

Anyways to go off on a tangent to Veal. Im quite worried with him. His control sucks, that's no secret. The underlying theme in his stat line is that he is an EXTREME flyball pitcher. This is quite rare in the low minors where HR rates are low due to weaker hitters and a more GB and speed oriented game. The formula is quite simple:

 

Flyball Pitcher = HR Pitcher

 

HR + BB = Runs, lots of them

I agree that there is reason for concern, but unless there is a metric that shows how many of those fly ball outs were hit deep, then being a flyball pitcher doesn't necessarily equate to giving up a lot of HRs. They're not getting a lot of hits off of him and they are swinging and missing a lot, so maybe they aren't getting great wood on a lot of those flyballs, I don't know.

 

Would I be happier if he threw more groundballs? Of course. Especially given the configuration of Wrigley Field, but, whereas flyballs are definite concern, the stats I think carry more weight here are H/IP and K/IP. Both are looking real good.

 

Clearly he needs to improve his control and gain some sink on his pitches to cause more groundballs, but if he can do that over the next 2 1/2 seasons, the Cubs will have one exciting 24-year-old lefty power pitcher with stuff that makes hitters miss on their hands.

[rawaction]

For the record, I would still have Pie #1. Also, I think the 3 pitchers close to or in the majors (Marmol, Marshall, Gallagher) are extremely close. Before the season, I would have said, Marshall had the highest ceiling, Gallagher had the most attainable ceiling, and Marmol had the best stuff. Now, it's really hard to say. Marmol is electric, but Gallagher has amazing stuff. I bought into the "not-projectible" argument, but what he is doing this year says otherwise. I might put Gallagher ahead of the group because of his age.

[TXCubsFan]

Since the present day Cubs leave a lot to be desired, I figured a thread dedicated to the Cubs prospects with the brightest futures would be good right now. I know, potential Cub contributors like Rich Hill and Angel Guzman can't be included on this list, but so what, we've talked a lot about them already. The 21st, 22nd and 23rd names might be a challenge to identify, but that's part of fun.

 

1. Sean Gallagher - AA (20)

 

Commanding a fastball in the low-to-mid 90s at age 20 with a repertoire of breaking pitches that also has the scouts talking, Sean Gallagher has to have the brightest future of any Cubs prospect at the moment.

 

2. Felix Pie - AAA (21)

 

I almost put Felix at #1, but his struggles at AAA are cause for concern. Of course, then I remembered that he is two years too young for his level and that he's got plenty of time. His mix of age, work ethic, attitude, physical skills, past performance and undiscovered ceiling more than qualify him for the #2 slot and possibly have him top this list.

 

3. Ronny Cedeno - ML (23)

 

He might not be considered a prospect anymore, but since he is still just 23, that's a good thing. Through the first 2 1/2 months of his first full major league season, he is hitting right around the .300 mark. His athleticism is eye-popping. His range at SS is remarkable and he has yet to be thrown out stealing in 5 attempts. In 310 career ABs, his line reads .297/.330/.394. He is on pace to strike out 100 times this season, but at age 23, he's got time to improve in that area and add some power.

 

4. Carlos Marmol - ML (23)

 

Even if he was still in West Tenn, his numbers would justify a high ranking on this list, but seeing his stuff first hand and seeing the success he's having at the ML level pushes him even higher, for now. We'll see how he does in today's game...

 

5. Sean Marshall - ML (23)

 

Much like Marmol, Marshall's performance at the ML level, though mixed, has to place him high on a list like this one. He doesn't possess the electric stuff that Marmol has been flashing, but his poise, intelligence, excellent curve and fastball that tops out in the low 90s have him being seen as a fixture in the Cubs rotation for years to come.

 

6. Mark Pawelek - Short Season A (19)

 

Only because of his age is he this high. He has pitched very little since joining the Cubs, but being left-handed, 19 and very talented is a deadly combination. The little we have seen of him has looked good and in the "what have you done for me lately" world of message board prospect rankings, that's good enough.

 

7. Donnie Veal - Low A (21)

 

The Don is beginning to figure out the MWL and should be promoted soon. He's got all the right stats headed in the right direction. He just earned his 5th win last night to go 5-3 on the season through 14 starts averaging just over 5 innings per. He has allowed only 44 hits in 73 2/3 IP while striking out 86. His WHIP is now down to 1.14. He's a power lefty who can make 'em miss. That's pretty rare. And if he gets promoted this season, he'll be ahead of schedule.

 

8. Mark Reed - Low A (20)

 

Mark turned 20 back in April and has been hitting ever since. He has posted a line of .323/.374/.404 while being a year too young for his level. He is proving he can stick at the catcher position which makes him all the more valuable, as does being a left-handed hitter with a bit of pedigree.

 

9. Randy Wells - AA (23)

 

Wells has better numbers than Marmol did at West Tenn so far this season. Heck, he's got better numbers than Mark Prior did at West Tenn back in '02, but he needs to do what he is doing a little longer before I become a believer. Still, 4-2 with a ERA of 1.12 and a WHIP of 0.89 through 11 starts can't be overlooked.

 

10. Mitch Atkins - Low A (20)

 

Mitch won't turn 21 until October, and he is dominating the MWL with a 6-1 record, 2.24 ERA and a WHIP of 1.08.

 

Other names still to be ranked: Eric Patterson - AA (23), Juan Mateo - AA (23), Jake Fox - High A (23), Brian Dopirak - AA (22), Jae Kuk Ryu - AAA (23), Geovany Soto - AAA (23), Scott Taylor - Low A (19), Ryan Harvey - High A (21), Jonathon Mota - Low A (19), Jon Mueller - AAA (22), Scott Moore - AA (22), Dylan Johnston - Low A (19), Robinson Chirinos - Low A (22), Darin Downs - Short Season A (21), Nate Spears - High A (21), Grant Johnson - High A (23), Miguel Negron - AA (23), Billy Petrick - Inj. (22), Todd Blackford - Low A (21).

 

Did I miss anyone? Have at it, Cubs fans...

 

Nice job. Looking at this list and the success of the Cubs' pitching prospects lately, I think Hendry and Co. can be rightly proud in identifying and developing pitching talent. I hope someday they can do the same with OFs. Colvin will be the first test.

[Mephistopheles]

Not necessarily, but those long fly balls in Daytona and West Tenn might be out of the park or off the wall in Des Moines.

 

No. I am not talking about GO/FO. I am talking about all balls hit off the bat. Each batted ball is classified as one of three things, a flyball, groundball or linedrive.

 

I agree that there is reason for concern, but unless there is a metric that shows how many of those fly ball outs were hit deep, then being a flyball pitcher doesn't necessarily equate to giving up a lot of HRs.

 

HRs allowed are essentially a function of park and outfield flyballs. The pitcher really does not have any control on how far outfield flyballs go. This is especially true in the low minors where a majority of the hitters are weaker than in the upper levels, thus FB pitchers generally have deflated home run rates outside of the Cali League. A pitcher does have some control over infield popups, but that's not how something like xFIP calculates HRs. They only use outfield flies. I've tracked each start made by Donald Veal thus far in the season and came up with this chart:

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f189/kctigers23/DonaldVeal001.jpg

As you can see Veal has given up a lot of outfield flyballs, but only 6.3% of them have gone for home runs. League average in the pros is about 11.5% and at Wrigley it's a bit higher. This is certainly an issue considering he will pitch half his games here. He can be great despite the HRs because of his K rate, but he will need to do a lot of work on that walk rate in order for that to happen.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Just like kc said, my concerns with Veal is the combination of his walks with the amount of flyballs he gives up - which will surely turn into more HRs in the PCL and the big leagues.

[CubsWin]

Incredible work, kc.

 

Where did you get that chart? You didn't make that, did you? Wow.

[cubweiser03]

I really like Marmol. Really. Im putting him as my #1, i like his stats in AA and love what i see in the majors. I really like his stuff. If he doesnt make it as a starter he will rule as a setup man.

 

Gallagher appears to be the man too.

Marshall. Im not enamored with his stuff yet. He could take some time, he has a good foundation of pitches. If he can start walking people less and get more control of his pitches he will be good. I dont see why he cant get better control, needs consitency.

 

Randy Wells. I havent played much attention to him this year but hes on my radar now. If you aint going to throw hard from the right side i like it if your secondary pitch is a changeup not a curve or slider. Nice stats this year for him.

 

Cedeno is better in the field than i thought. He handles the bat really well. If he didnt handle the bat so well id be worried about his OBP. I think he has the bat skills to improve his BB. He can foul off the tough pitches, just needs to lay off the bad pitches out of zone more often.

 

Mark Reed. Ive totally forgotten about this dude.

[Mephistopheles]

Incredible work, kc.

 

Where did you get that chart? You didn't make that, did you? Wow.

 

I didn't make it. I picked it up from "38Special" using it to follow Yankee prospects at NYYFans.com. I modified it considerably. I added home/away splits, level splits, month splits that are automatically calculated, nonconference and conference splits for NCAA players I followed, xDIPS, BABIP, GB%, IF/F and LOB%. The format wasn't mine, so I can't take credit although a lot of the formulas were inaccurate. I fixed those. I want to add opponents EqA and normalized stats, but that's a lot of work. I'll do it eventually. Probably when I am at school and have a lot more free time on my hands.