Mephistopheles

Tampa Bay is up 4-2 in the bottom of the 8th and Kansas City just beat Minnesota 4-3. We could pick up a game on all!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/14/AR2006081401361.html Baltimore looks to be interest. and here: http://www.japanbaseballdaily.com/pacificleague8-28-2006.html Oh, and Daisuke Matsuzaka started last night: 9 IP, 6 H, 3 ER, 14 K, 1 BB That is his third 14 K game of the season and came after a K SO start. This year he has had 1 10 K games 2 11 K games 2 12 K games 1 13 K games 3 14 K games

The wierdest thing about Wuertz is that his number one comp on PECOTA is Brad Lidge. Lidge has crashed and burned but oh well. The weird thing here is that PECOTA doesn't take in account a pitcher's repetoire and Lidge and Wuertz have similar ones.

He got his degree in communications and journalism but taught geometry? Weird. I guess he hasn't taken many statistics courses in his life.

RichHillIsABeast, less is more.

*and I probably am* Is there any way to make the number of messages that are displayed on a page of a thread go up? Right now it seems way too few for my tastes. Thanks.

Team L-W Pct GB ------------------------------- Kansas City 85-48 .361 -- Pittsburgh 81-52 .391 4 Tampa Bay 80-52 .394 4.5 Chicago Cubs 78-54 .409 6.5 Washington 76-55 .420 8 The Cubbies gained a game on the Royals and Pirates today!

I wasn't talking about PERA, I was talking about FIP. There are several different peripheral ERAs. I understand what you're saying but we should at least account for some of the pure luck and we should account for defense, but if you're not going to adjust those things you shouldn't used earned run average, you should use run average or even better fair RA. I guess you'd also want to try to add "clutchiness" or whatever they have at fangraphs to the MVP award. Better yet, why don't we take the next step for starters and use WPA to analyze them. Even better, let's just give the award to a closer because in WPA there's simply no chance that a starter is more valuable than a closer. Eh, whatever. I don't agree with it, but there's enough room in the world for both schools of thought.

The shroud of Corey Patterson haunts me. He's turned it on of late, put his K rate has remained relatively constant all season long as well as his BB rate. What is he? Mike Cameron with a little less walks? Sure he's got the tools, but it's not as if this discipline problem is a new develop. For what it is worth, I also suspect you're going to see Veal ahead of Pie in several minor league lists including Baseball America's and BA's lust for tools.

I guess we should have an 08 thread. I like Kyle Russell and Jordan Danks out of UT myself. At the HS level the best pitcher I know about is Aaron Hicks.

All of your theory based on consistency and how wins correlates to giving a team a chance to win can actually be measured using SNLVAR. Currently: 1. 6.7 Johan Santana 2. 5.8 Roy Halladay 3. 5.4 Dan Haren 3. 5.4 Justin Verlander 3. 5.4 Barry Zito And why should peripheral ERAs be used to a certain extent? For one if the pitcher's ERA is not line with his peripherals ERA than we can come to two logical conclusions: A.) He was very lucky and/or B.) His defense played extremely well behind him. Should we really give him an Cy Young because his defense was better? If you want to give a player an award because of something that is pure dumb luck (essentially having your ERA out of line with your peripheral ERA by a significant margin), then you have to do it in the MVP voting. I guess we should evaluate MVPs based on RBI and R, since there is a pure dumb luck factor there too.

You can find a lot of stuff on most of the top guys somewhere in this thread. Right now the top five prospects are probably two college arms (Vandy's David Price and NC State's Andrew Brackman), one college bat (Georgia Tech's Matt Wieters), a prep pitcher (Connecticut's Matt Harvey) and a prep toolsy shortstop, (North Carolina's Justin Jackson). The strength of this draft lies in the high school class. There's also a bunch of talented college lefties, both starting and in relief. Next year's college bats should be even more impressive. It might be worth losing 100 games to get Pedro Alvarez or Justin Smoak.

Good very good. As for this thread, wouldnt it be better to look at the race this way? Team W-L Pct GA Streak L10 --------------------------------------------------- Kansas City 47-85 .356 -- Lost 1 4-6 Pittsburgh 50-81 .382 3.5 Lost 3 4-6 Tampa Bay 52-79 .397 5.5 Lost 4 4-6 Chicago Cubs 54-76 .415 8 Lost 3 2-8 Washington 55-75 .423 9 Lost 2 2-8

Forum horse? I guess I'll take that as a compliment, but I need some ZZZZs of the non-Carlos variety. It's 1 AM and I have class at 8, boo.

If Hill can locate the fastball and curveball he can be fine. The two pitches are good enough he can be a solid starter without an above average third pitch. He does need at least a show me twoseam or change to righties. Something that fades. He might not be a good fit for the Cubs, as he's prone to flyballs. Send him to Washington and he could be John Patterson 2005.

Guys don't look now but Miguel Cabrera is leading the league in WARP.. 1. 9.8 Cabrera (+.9 WAA from Defense) 2. 9.7 Beltran (+1 WAA from Defense) 3. 9.0 Pujols (+1 WAA from Defense) Of course these are using FRAA/FRAR, which I noted that each are getting about +1 win over average at their position. FRAR sucks ass so factoring in say ASB UZR, you'll see that Cabrera is about 2 wins overrated by this method, Pujols is about worth as much as he should, and Beltran is a win UNDER what he should be. And in WS: 1. 27 Beltran 1. 27 Pujols 3. 24 Berkman Perhaps Beltran's the real MVP. If the Cards continue to flop, he might just get it. If the Fish make the playoffs, the voters gotta give it to Cabrera.

Eh, about Pawelek. He's got the potential for three above average to plus pitches from the left side, which warrants a top five spot in just about any farm system, but while I don't value plus makeup for a prospect way down the food chain, I do think that a bad makeup can mean prospect death way down the food chain. I am not saying Pawly has bad makeup, but eh it makes you wonder at this point. He's also lost a year of advancement because of it. Had he performed well at Peoria. He could be on the A+/AA plan next year that Gallagher took this year. However, I think they will give him a fullseason at Peoria like they did Atkins. Although they may not. Who knows.

VORP: 1. 56.1 John Smoltz 2. 54.8 Carlos Zambrano 3. 54.5 Brandon Webb 4. 54.2 Chris Carpenter 5. 52.4 Roy Oswalt WARP*: 1. 7.2 Carlos Zambrano 1. 7.2 John Smoltz 3. 7.1 Brandon Webb 4. 6.8 Bronson Arroyo 5. 6.2 Roy Oswalt *Personally, I hate WARP for pitchers. PRC** 1. 105 John Smoltz 2. 102 Chris Carpenter 3. 100 Carlos Zambrano 4. 97 Brandon Webb 5. 95 Jason Schmidt **Not all-inclusive. It doesn't factor in a pitcher's value at the plate. Win Shares: 1. 17 Brandon Webb 2. 16 Carlos Zambrano 3. 13 Chris Carpenter 4. 13 Bronson Arroyo 5. 12 6 Tied Given this information, I'd have to say: 1. John Smoltz 2. Carlos Zambrano 3. Brandon Webb 4. Roy Oswalt 5. Chris Carpenter Factoring in what voters will vote: 1. Brandon Webb 2. Chris Carpenter 3. Carlos Zambrano 4. John Smoltz 5. Roy Oswalt

Ooh, big UF fan here. Don't go there though. I go to a small school that you've never heard of. I've been looking at Rice and ND for graduate school but we'll see. I've got a couple years to go. Well the Cubs value tools over production. I value production over tools. So obviously there are going to be some differences there. Although in drafting HS players, it's certainly tools over production and nearly the same in college, as there are a lot of differences between them. Where have I ever said I didn't like Veal or Gallagher at all? I think they're solid prospects, but I am not all over either of them. Veal's biggest problem are the walks, he can work that out because he has plus 'stuff'. Gallagher's shown solid command in the past, and has good K rates. So after an adjustment period he can probably improve on the walk totals. I value Ks the most in pitching prospects. Then walks and GB rates about equally. So I don't hate Veal and Gallagher, but they've each got some work to do. Gallagher's stuff is quite a bit better than Taylor's at this point in their careers. He's got middle of the rotation stuff, and rates pre BB AA totals. They do concern me of course. But if there is ever a time for adjusting, its when someone has shown the ability in the past - Taylor has not. Veal's got stuff that's among the best in all the minors, but he's got some stuff to work on. As of right now Veal and Gallagher have a lot more projectability on their stuff AND stats as Taylor. Of course you already knew that. Everyone knows they're better prospects. As for the hitters, eh there's not much there. I shouldn't have to tell you that. The Cubs system has a lot of high potential pitchers based on their stuff, but they have little to do with position prospects. Again, I shouldn't have to tell you that. If a guy doesn't have the stats I like, but has plus stuff - I'd be much more inclined to like their chances of developing. Taylor doesn't fit either of the two at this point in his career. Then again the Cubs organization values things different than me! Actually, I am not stupid enough to do this, but I'd go with: 1. Donald Veal 2. Felix Pie 3. Mark Pawelek 4. Sean Gallagher 5. Eric Patterson By not being stupid enough I mean I won't list the Cubs top 5 bases soley on my thoughts. If a lot of players like but I dont, I know I have just my opinion and know that's not always right and I should account for that. The Cubs' system right now is not that good. They are in the bottom third of the league so it should come to no ones surprise that prospects people like are few and far between. Also I'm the most negative person here. If you haven't noticed that yet, just remember that. I am very tough on all prospects. Not just ours ](*,)

His age is a plus. His makeup his a plus. Everything else isn't except MAYBE command. I am pretty sure my coin is related to the flyball argument. There are only two outcomes of a flyball. It's either a home run, or it's not. When it's not it can be a double or an out, but that's involved with BABIP. Sure he can progess, add velocity and such - but is he going to add a dominant two-seam fastball or a dominant sinker to get the ball on the ground more? Not likely. Year to year groundball to flyball rates are among the most consistent stats in baseball, in some studies they have been shown to be more consistent than things like K's per 9. So when a player starts off as a drastic flyball pitcher, I am inclined to believe that the likelihood of him becoming a groundball pitcher is very, very low. The flyball rate thing is more than likely going to be a thing that's going to haunt him all the way through his career. No, there aren't more flyballs in Low A compared to High A. League G/F rates as you progress through the minors are pretty much the same at every stop, unlike HR/FB, K/9, BABIP, etc. If there is any flaw in my analysis it's that you don't like statistics. I've taken the stats that have the least year-to-year volatility (K/9, BB/9, GB/FB) and shown that in two of the three, he's among the WORST at them. It's not like he's league average in K/9 and GB/FB. He's at the bottom.

Eh, innings eater? That's a bit premature. Again, against stronger hitters who hit more HRs off him, I doubt he'd last as long. I've never bought into the innings eater remark. I'd rather a guy give me quality innings than eat them. I guess there's something there if you buy into it. Harsh? Probably. I am a harsh person. I am not all over Donald Veal because Flyballs + Walks = A crap load of runs, K's be damned. Sure, there are some quirks he can learn about pitching. He MIGHT be able to squeak out an additional K or so. He MIGHT be able to get his BB/9 down .5 or so. However, is he going to go from a 4.5 K/9 in a high K league to a 7.5? Not likely. Very very unlikely. If he gains some MPH's that's great. I'd love for him to K more guys...then I would like him. However, I am not going to bank on him doing it. In other words I want to see the MPH's before I 'give him prospect credit' for them. Sure Sean Gallagher took the step up this year, but he's the exception not the rule. I don't grade guys on confidence/makeup much in low A. Why? Because they're so far off their tools and production means so much more to their value. Confidence/makeup may make a AAAA player a MLB starter, but it won't make a AA player an MLB starter. It really means little at this point. He could help sure. But can I project a guy who projects to have no K's and should be prone to HRs as a ML starter? No. ML closer? No. ML setup man? MAYBE. ML mopup man? Yes. I am not saying he can't/won't develop into a MLBer. I am just saying he's not a guy I like for reasons I have outlined.

Well if you took the time to read it, you would realize that my argument wasn't just something that was outside the norm. The heart of my argument is that as he progresses through the minors hitters will hit more HRs off him due to the environment he will pitch in. I guess you're right. We should acknowledge that HR/FB rates fluctuate greatly, but tend to regress towards the mean.... But we should never take the next step and factor out these inconsistencies. That's real smart. It would be like watching John Doe flip a coin on heads 4 times out of 25 flips. Then expect him to flip it on heads 4 times the next 25 flips. Brilliant

Scott Moore was rated the best defensive 3B in the Southern League by BA. I don't know if it means much, Mateo was given the league's best fastball.

Eh, I just knew John Hill was from England and is big into BABIP and such. He's also been away from TCR for awhile as well.

Would he happen to be TCR's John Hill? Ughh...I don't know what I was thinking. I guess I was thinking the other Taylor we took that year for a second.