- Ted Lilly is a 33 year old who stands 6-1, 190. The lefty has a medium frame that can add more muscle. He comes from an over the top release with a classic drop and drive delivery with a good hip turn that helps him hide the ball. His fastball shows some fade and sink and he will add and subtract from it. His slider shows good bite, but it can also hang. His curveball is a big breaking 12-6 while his change shows good fade and sink. Classic # 4 starter and a good innings eater.
1st: FB (86-91), SL (82-84), CU (81), CB (72-73)
2nd: FB (84-89), SL (80-85), CU (81), CB (71)
3rd: FB (85-91), SL (82-85), CB (72)
4th: FB (89-90), CU (79-81), CB (69-71)
5th: FB (82-87), SL (84-85), CU (82-84), CB (66-70)
6th: FB (86-91), SL (82-85), CU (81), CB (72-75)
7th: FB (87-89), SL (77-85), CU (80-81)
- Brian Moehler, a 6-3, 225 pound righty opposed him. The 37 year old has a medium to big frame that is maxed out. He comes from a high 3/4 release. His fastball is a 2-seam with some fade and sink. His change shows some sink and fade. His curveball is a 12-6 offering with okay depth. His cutter has some cut and sink. He battled his command a little bit in this outing, but did get hit around. He is a swingman who works best bouncing between roles. Sadly, the Astros have to many of these.
1st: FB (85-88), Cut (84-88), CU (78-80), CB (75-79), SL (78-82)
2nd: FB (86-88), Cut (83-87), CU (79-80), CB (75-78), SL (82)
3rd: FB (86-88), CB (77)
- Brandon Backe comes from a 3/4 release with a fastball that shows some fade and a little sink, a slider that is a 2-7 offering with good bite, a 12-6 curve with okay depth and a cutter that has little visible cut. Another swingman.
4th: FB (89-91), SL (83-84), CB (78), Cut (88-91)
5th: FB (87-92), SL (82-84), CB (74-79), Cut (87-90)
6th: FB (87-91), SL (81-83), CB (70-73), Cut (86-88)
- Alberto Arias comes from a high 3/4 release with a fastball that has good fade and sink and a power curve with good downward action that is a 1-8 offering. He is the only for sure major leaguer I saw from the Astros pitching tonight that I would want in my pen. His fastball command can be spotty.
7th: FB (90-94), CB (80-82)
8th: FB (91-94), CB (81-82)
- Tim Byrdak finished the game for the Astros. He comes from a high 3/4 release with a fastball that has some fade, a change with some fade and sink and a sweeping 3-9 slider. He struggled to command his pitches and was missing down and appeared to be nibbling. Useful as a 2nd lefty, but that is about it.
9th: FB (88-92), SL (83-86), CU (82-87)
- Aaron Heilman is a 30 year old who stands 6-5, 225. The right hander has a big frame that can add a little more muscle. He comes from a 3/4 release. His fastball shows good fade and sink. His slider is a 2-7 offering that shows good bite. His change shows good fade and sink and generates weak contact, as it looks like a fastball out of his hand. Good multi-inning reliever who can serve as a bridge to your closer with his ability to get out both lefties and righties.
7th: FB (93), SL (82-84)
8th: FB (92-93), SL (81-84), CU (83-87)
- Sean Marshall is a 26 year old who stands 6-7, 220. The lefty has a big frame that can add a lot more muscle. He comes from a high 3/4 release. His fastball has some fade. His slider is a 10-4 offering with decent bite and his curve is a big breaking 11-5 offering. Major league pitcher, just don't know what role. He doesn't have a wipeout breaking pitch, so I think he would fit better as a # 5 starter.
9th: FB (87-89), SL (84-85), CB (73-75)
Off tomorrow.
Tim, I am curious about how you define number one starters, number two, etc. I've noticed I disagree with you and many other BIS interns when it comes to these definitions. It seems like you and other guys base what "number" a starter is based on his stuff.
ReplyDeleteYou call Ted Lilly a classic number four starter. I think that's a slap in the face. He's been a very good pitcher the last two and a half seasons, well above average. Since 2007 he has a 3.8 ERA, 1.162 WHIP and a k/bb ratio better than three. In my eyes, that's a good number two starter. He's been durable as well. So why is he a number four in your eyes?
Sorry to make a double post, but I also noticed you called Haren a number two. If Haren's a two, who's an ace? Can you name 20 pitchers better than Haren? How do you define an ace?
ReplyDeleteDon't mean to sound accusatory; I'm genuinely curious. I see Dan Haren as one of the very best pitchers in the game.
I think an ace has 3 plus pitches with plus command. There are only a handful of them in baseball and these are guys you would pay over 100 million in a good economy with no questions asked.
ReplyDeleteA # 2 is the next echelon and are many teams # 1 starters. These guys have 2 plus or 3 above average pitches with plus command and consistently get into the 7th or 8th inning for you.
A # 3 starter to me is a guy who has 1 plus pitch and 2 above average pitches with above average or better command.
A # 4 starter to me is a guy who has at least 2 above average pitches with at least above average command.
A # 5 starter is a guy who has at least 3 average pitches and at least average command.
I think Lilly is a # 4 for a couple of reasons:
1) Lilly does not have a real plus pitch in my eyes, just 2 above average offerings (in his SL and CB) and I found his fastball slightly above average and his change average.
2) To get the services of a Ted Lilly, I wouldn't pay him over 50 million, which is the floor for a # 2 starter to get paid in my opinion.
In regards to Haren, I believe there are only a couple of true "# 1's" in baseball right now. The guys that are there right now, in my opinion are Johan Santana and Tim Lincecum from the guys I have seen this year. I call Haren a # 2 because his FB velocity was down when I saw him, though his command was still plus. His only real plus pitch was his curveball and his split and cutter were above average offerings.
I believe there are a ton of 2's in baseball and I would even call Brandon Webb a borderline 2 (with the borderline between 1 and 2). I just believe there are very few true aces in baseball.
Everyone has different means of scouting and evaluating the talent. I don't consider it accusatory and am glad to have some dialogue going on here.
You say you wouldn't pay 50 mil for Lilly, but it's looking now like he'll easily be worth that much over four years. The Cubs got him for four years/38 mil. Fangraphs had his value at $15 mil in 2007, 12.1 mil last year and already worth $5.9 mil this season (and that's if he doesn't throw another pitch the rest of the year). He'll easily outproduce the contract he got from the Cubs, and he'll probably be worth 50 mil over just four years. Incidentally, I'd argue he has a plus curveball, but that's a matter of opinion as well.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like what you're calling an ace I'd call a superstar/Hall of Fame talent. By your definition, these guys wouldn't be aces: CC Sabathia and Ben Sheets anchored the Brewers' rotation down the stretch last year, yet both of those guys only had two plus pitches so by your definition neither is an ace.
I think we're also probably talking about slightly different things, because I was looking at pure production while you're looking at a pitcher's arsenal. I guess on Haren we'll have to agree to disagree, because I see a pitcher with his numbers, a fastball consistently in the low 90s, a plus curve and two other above average pitches as an ace. I can't come up with ten pitchers I'd definitely rather have over Haren. You mention Lincecum, but I'm not even sure I'd take him over Haren. Then again, that's all about preference too. I'm big on control guys and k/bb ratio. Haren's walk rates are superb, and while Lincecum Ks more, he walks a lot more than Haren.
Then again, I'm here to learn more about the scouting stuff anyway, so maybe I'll have a different view after a full season at BIS.
I don't mind command issues as much if they show an ability to strike guys out and generate weak contact from hitters. I fall for that common trap and love pitchers like a Jonathan Sanchez that show K stuff and believe they will eventually learn command.
ReplyDeleteI don't call Lilly's curveball a plus pitch b/c it isn't thrown hard enough to be a K pitch to most hitters. If he threw it to a hitter expecting a fastball, they can flick their wrists and foul it off.
Shouldn't an ace be a superstar/hall of fame talent? If you get paid 20 million a year, you should be a superstar.
When I write up these reports, I look at arsenal only, mainly because I can go to the stats after the season (when I combine these blog views into scouting reports similar to those I did in the minors) and will put a final say on my thoughts of that pitcher in '09. Will some of these opinions change? Likely.
So your telling me, if your starting a team today, you would take Haren over Lincecum?
You know me, I enjoy debating. I could list 10 pitchers I would take over Haren, but it is all personal preference, as I love big-time fastballs and strikeout numbers and can live with some walks. A control artist will need to rely on their defense (and some luck) to be succesful more then a pitcher that relies on K's.
And Lilly is probably a # 3 starter taking into account his ability to hide the ball. I just have a hard time believing he can stay a # 3 past this season with his fastball already greatly fluctuating (whether by design or not).
And I will always take things like Fangraphs monetary worth with a grain of salt b/c they are reactionary measurements as opposed to preactionary measurements. When you give a contract, you are paying for the future, not the past.
Let's take an example of a pitcher I thought had no chance of making the bigs when I saw him in AAA: Andy Sonnanstine. Statistically, he was 193.1 IP, 37 BB, 124 K. I assume he was a pitcher you liked with those types of numbers. Fangraphs has him worth 16.1 million for his season. Now, would you pay Sonnanstine that much? This year, he is 63, 18, 33. Worth .2 million.
Now, how does that stat help a GM? This stat just isolated his performance and presented a numerical value. I have issues with these stats due to them telling you nothing. Everyone can look at his line from last year and tell you he pitched extremely well. What this stat doesn't say is he pitched over his head (my personal belief).
And would you give Lilly 6 millions dollars for 3 months of work? Would a MLB team readily fork over 6 million if they knew he would go down with a season ending injury in mid-June? (As you can tell, I am not a big fan of that stat..., sorry for the rant)
The Cubs very well may have paid him six million for what he's done so far. He's easily been their best pitcher this season, and without him they'd probably be in trouble at this point.
ReplyDeleteI didn't say the value system was a good indicator of future performance. It is a good way to show what a player has been worth in a given season. It shows that Lilly has already almost earned his entire contract.
Lilly has a strikeout rate of 7.7 k/9 innings throughout his career. Seems like he gets enough strikeouts with that curve to me.
Incidentally, I like fangraphs' monetary value system more for position players because it factors a player's defense into his value. That's something that's useful for GMs.
Here's a couple guys I can come up with for you off the top of my head: Tom Glavine and Greg Maddux. I'm not sure I'd call either a superstar talent. Neither had plus fastballs, so by your scale neither was an ace. I know we've had this discussion in the past, but my personal view is I don't care how a pitcher gets hitters out as long as he's getting them out.
As far as Haren vs. Lincecum, I only said I wasn't sure. My preference for evaluating pitchers is to look at strikeouts, walks and to a lesser extent, home runs allowed because those are the only things unaffected by defense. Haren has a much better k/bb rate, which is why I'm not sure. Plus the Giants abused the crap out of Lincecum last season so I'm a little nervous about him in the future, but that's really another point entirely.
You can name ten pitchers you'd take over Haren, and I'm just guessing that I'd disagree with some of them. I guess that's a result of having opinions.
Lilly gets most of his K's through his SL or FB (in the outing I did, he struck out 4, 1 on a slider looking, 1 on a curveball in the dirt and 2 on fastballs). That was a kind of ignorant remark Steve as that kind of suggested that he gets all his K's on deuces.
ReplyDeleteI just don't buy the whole concept of a player out-performing his contract or anything like that. He has the contract. You pay him no matter what. You hope he continues to do well. That stat is a stat for fans as another means to evaluate their GM in my opinion.
And your probably right, if I saw Glavine or Maddux today,I wouldn't think of them as my prototypical ace. But, Greg Maddux for sure I would give that money to. Obviously the scales I utilize aren't black and white and a lot it is my feel with a pitcher too.
If a GM needs to utilize that monetary value stat for their views on a player's defense, he has a lot of problems. Stat may be useful to an agent (though they will always ask more then their percieved value early on), but an individual team should be able to have a good idea on defenders from the 82 games they play at that ballpark.
Pay a pitcher 6 million because of a good 3/4 first half? Who are you now? Scott Boras?? :-)
To jump into your convo, and add my own personal feeling. I have disagreed with Tim a lot in the past. Haren is clearly an ace and if it wouldn't be for the 'pen would have a couple more wins. You have to take more than just "stuff" into account. An ace is going to go out there and grind for you, he is going to fight every time he takes the ball. He won't get rattled, he will be physically and mentally tough even if he doesn't have his best stuff on that day. Halladay doesn't blow people away (only 88 K's in 103 IP) compared to other pitchers who are at 1 K/inn. Yet i would take him in a heart beat b/c he is going to go out there and fight like hell to get a win. Just like Maddux always did. Don't think i'm saying that all an ace needs is heart, b/c that's not what i'm saying. He clearly has to have a good arsenal of plus pitches to go with above average command. I think there are a lot more than a handful though Tim. There are atleast 15 true aces out there.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tim though that I would rather have a guy who is going to strike guys out then one who is going to be a control freak. The ability to miss bats can get you out of jams where as a control guy needs to rely on a little luck and solid defense. I would take Lincecum in a heartbeat over Haren. Haren also has the ability to miss bats, lets not make him out to be a control freak who rely's on his defense to get out. However, I would much rather have a guy like Javier Vazquez than a guy like Kevin Slowey. Even though Vazquez is 4-5 while Slowey is 9-2.
I would also agree that fangraphs is something for the fans. No way in hell would anyone pay Lily 6 million for a little over 2 months of work. That's nice to look at and see what he was valued at maybe after the season but someone like A-Rod will never live up to his contract. Anyway, it's fun to talk baseball
Disagreed with Tim a lot in the past? Lol, that may be even be an understatement.
ReplyDeleteThere probably about 15, we went over them at work and had around that number.
Don't let it come across as I don't think Haren is a very talented pitcher. I just think he is operating on such a smaller margin of error (fastball has been 88-90 the 2 times I have seen him) then a guy I would consider a true ace.