TheRightAnswerInFlushing

This guy will have a better career than Rogers.

In a normal draft, where there are trades, I would dismiss this as smoke, but it is probably legit given the fact that there can be no trades. Padres Notebook: Team eyes Weaver with top draft pick By: JOHN MAFFEI - Staff Writer SAN DIEGO ---- There are other names on the board, but the Padres have identified the man they want with the No. 1 pick in the June Amateur Draft. Right-hander Jered Weaver, the brother of Dodgers starter Jeff Weaver, spun his magic again Friday night, throwing a four-hit shutout against UC Irvine. He's 11-0 with a 1.00 ERA. In 80 2/3 innings, he has allowed 40 hits, walked 11 and struck out 118 pub123.ezboard.com/fbrewe...eenFromWeb

1) Walking a batter every other inning is not alarming to me, no. Not at all, in fact. If he were walking a batter per inning, I would agree. A batter every 2 innings is just not a big deal at this stage of his career. I mean, Kerry Wood walked 218 guys in 296 minor league innings from ages 18 to 21. It comes out to 6.6 walks per 9 innings. That's FAR worse than what Verlander is doing now, and I think it safe to say that any team in major league baseball would jump at the chance to have Kerry Wood. I'm sure that Kerry Wood's control was bad in high school, too. However, the Cubs were smart enough to look at his raw stuff and say "this kid is a top 5 pick." You can learn control, but you don't learn a 100mph fastball and two dynamite breaking balls. 2) Further, Wood's control has improved as a pro. It hasn't become great or even good, but it's much improved over where it was a an 18-21 year old. He has averaged 4.6 walks per 9 innings in his pro career, and even that number is a little spiked by the season after Tommy John surgery. Still, 4.6 walks per 9 innings is a big improvement over 6.6 walks per 9 innings. It's a 30 percent reduction in walks. If Verlander realized a 30% reduction in walks as a pro, he'd go from walking about 4.5 guys per 9 innings to 3.1 guys per 9 innings---a very manageable number. He may even improve further. Randy Johnson walked 328 guys in 423 innings in the minor leagues between ages 22 and 25. Taht comes out to an average of 7 walks per 9 innings. In 18 seasons in the major leagues, he has averaged 3.6 walks per 9 innings---almost a 50% reduction in walks per 9 innings. Good closers really are a dime a dozen. There are usually 1-3 elite guys followed by a bunch of guys who nobody thinks are very good. Closers are extremely prone to injury and tend not to last very long. People forget all of the once-dominant closers who suddenly disappeared. Very rarely do you see closers that are effective for extended periods of time with the same team. They tend to wander much more than good starters? Why? Because people aren;t going to let go of a starter; they're much harder to replace. Closers tend to have one good year, one bad year, and get passed around the league.

On Verlander's control The degree by which he is missing is roughly inferable from his walk total, which is not that high. It's not low, but it's not what I would call alarming. His walk total is low enough to let you know that he is throwing a fair number of strikes. Guys who throw that many strikes generally are not missing "consistently" by big margins. If you want to tell me that he has stretches of 10-15 minutes where he can't hit the broad side of a barn, I'll buy it, but, then again, so do a LOT of pitchers Besides, he's a kid. You're talking about a kid, here. If you're going to make draft selections based upon who is the best pitcher RIGHT NOW, you might be making a huge mistake. You have to "project" these players as best you can. When I look at Verlander, I'm thinking about what Verlander will be in 2006, not what he is in 2004. Randy Johnson didn't get any control until after age 30. Clemens always struggled with control, albeit not to the degree that Johnson did. On Street First, I would like to say that I outrightly reject the notion of a "closer prospect." The best closers, for the most part, have been failed starters. Good starters are rare finds, and good closers are a dime a dozen. That's why so many of the great closers began as starters. They tried them as starters, they failed, and then they had them try another role---closing. Particularly, Street just does not have great stuff. He seems like a less-impressive version of Ryan Wagner. Street reminds me a lot of a guy in the Mets' system named Royce Ring. Ring was a #1 pick of the White Sox in, I believe, 2002. Like Ring, Street strikes me as more of a "setup" prospect than a closer prospect, and because I already made my feelings on closer prospects well-known, you can just imagine how I feel about SETUP prospects.

Oh, I forgot something. I want to know about Thomas Diamond, RHP, New Orleans. Reports are few and far between. Anyone have any opinions or info?

1) On Verlander. He really ought to be the number one pick. Walks schmalks. It's not as if he's walking a batter an inning or something absurd. His control isn't "that bad" now, and it's a safe bet to assume that it will improve to some degree. Control can be learned or, at the very least, improved. You can't teach what he did against Virginia Commonwealth. You can spend all say tutoring a guy, but it's not going ot get him throwing 99mph, as Verlander was against VCU. I was immensely interested in reports from that game because it was a top-drawer pitching matchup, so I read a lot of articles. However, only now did I hear that he hit 99mph "several" times. I had heard that he had hit 97, which, up until now, was the highest I had heard from any credible source, but never before did I hear of "99." There were some reports of 98 in 2003, but they weren't substantiated. When a kid throws "several" pitches at 99 en route to striking out 16 guys, you have to stand up and admire that. It'd still be impressive even if he were one of these dime-a-dozen closer prospects who can throw high-90s for an inning, but when you consider that this guy is out there, throwing high 90s in the later innings, you see why this guy has to be the #1 pick on merit. 2)On Niemann. Very disappointing news---especially when it appeared that Niemann was starting to get back on track. In his prior start, reports were that he was consistently between 94 and 95, hitting 96 a few times. That began to make me think that his arm was healthy. As you know, I have expressed much concern about his health in the past. This latest news of an injury-shortened outing wherein he was between 87 and 92 is very disheartening. Obviously, there are fluctuations in velocity from one start to the next, but, simply put, you don't go from throwing 94-96 to throwing 87-92 unless there is something wrong, physically. That's way out of the normal range. 3)On Wade Townsend. You know, I really haven't heard anything about this guy in 2004. He seems to be getting lost in the mix between Weaver's statistical dominance and Verlander's mind-boggling radar gun readings. Because I expect both Weaver and Verlander to be gone by the time that the Mets are set to choose, I have been looking for more information on Townsend. I realize that he is having a good statistical year, but I had heard that his velocity was down. Does anyone know more about what he has done in 2004?

? I didn;t say that there were "no" great pitchers who didn't have big fastballs. I said that the "vast majority" of great pitchers have big fastballs. There are exceptions, but the rule stands: people who throw 95+ are far more likely to become "great" pitchers than those who don't. As a side question, what is everyone's feeling on Niemann after he has showed improved performance and velocity?

There are some other points I'd like to make. 1) As to what percentage of "pitching" is composed of velocity/stuff, I would say 65% is velocity/stuff and 35% is control/command. There are many people--even top pitchers--who dispute this, but I attribute that ostensible disagreement more to their desire to promote the "cool/scientific" method of pitching than to admit that their success had more to do with what is below their heads than what's in their heads. My arguments for this ratio are all based on empirical evidence. Go look at the truly "GREAT" pitchers. I'm not talking about "good" pitchers or the "very good" pitchers, who, by way of travesty, found their way into the HOF. I'm talking about the all-time greats. Walter Johnson, Bob feller, Clemens, Martinez, Gibson, Seaver, Randy Johnson, etc. It's just an undeibale fact that the "vast" majority of the all-time greats were guys that threw 95+. Now, you can believe that, by some freak of nature, the guys who got the best fastball also got the best control/command OR you can realize that something is up. Now, many of them had above average command and control as well, but the degree to which their stuff was above average far exceeded to degree to which their command was above average. They didn't have the best command. There were loads of pitchers with better command---pitchers who never approached the kind of seasons that these guys had. It just seems to me that, when you talk about the GREAT pitchers (the guys in the "first tier" of the HOF), about 70% of them are 95+ guys. 2. Colbyjack, I believe, referenced Zach Greinke above. It was an appropriate reference. He is very similar to Weaver, although I think his secondary and tertiary pitches are better than Weaver's. I do not like Greinke for the same reason that I don't like Weaver. I firmly believe that Greinke is going to have a very rough go of it in the major leagues. I don't even expect him to throw all that well in AAA. Simply put, the number of RIGHTHANDED pitchers who can come up to the major leagues throwing 87-90 (which is where Greinke throws) and be better than a #3 is VERY SMALL. 3) On judging "command/control" from college statistics. This has proved to be a VERY perilous endeavor. I cannot warn people enough about doing this. Simply, I can't even recall the number of times that pitchers who developed reputations for "outstanding command" at the collegiate and minor league levels came up to tthe majors and were wild. It happens a TON to pitchers like Weaver. WHY? While Weaver has "extraordinary" stuff relative to the bulk of other division I-A pitchers, his stuff grades as only slightly above major league average. In college, he can overpower the hitters. He can CONFIDENTLY throw strikes because he knows that there aren't too many hitters who can touch him. He can come right down the heart of the plate with a 92 mph fastball, get up in the count 0-1 and 0-2 and then nibble on the edges. He gets ahead early, and then he can nibble, stay on the edges, avoid the fat part of the bat, etc. It happened with Aaron Heilman AND Paul Wilson. Wilson had a reputation for great command at Florida State and, in 1995, he walked only 24 guys in 120 innings (1.8 BB per 9 IP). However, the next year, when he was called up the the majors, he walked 71 guys in 149 innings, which came to 4.3BB per 9 IP. Heilman walked 31 guys in 114 innings for Notre Dame (2.4 BB per 9 IP) and then walked only 76 in 241 innings (2.8 BB per 9 IP) between AA and AA. When he was called up to the Mets last year, he walked 41 guys in 65 innings for an average of 5.7 BB per 9 IP. These are only 2 examples, but I could give a hundred others. Heilman was a guy who used his 88-92MPH fastball to get ahead at the lower levels. Then, after getting up in the count, he would throw his fastball at the edges and try to get hitters to dive for junk out of the zone. As they did with Wilson,people mistaskenly viewed his low walk totals as "good control/command." In reality, of course, both of them just rode their stuff to low walk totals. Their command was decent, but not great or even very good. WHEN they came to the major leagues, they saw that it was much harder to get ahead in counts. First, the hitters were more selective. Second, you couldn't just wind up and throw a 90-92 mph fastball down the plate on the first pitch and expect to get either a swing and a miss or weak contact. They both tried that. What happens to pitchers like Weaver and Greinke is that they get to the major leagues and, naturally, they try to do the same thing that rbought them so much success at lower levels. However, their fastballs, which were overpwering at lower levels, just don't faze major league hitters. They start off trying to get ahead with the vanilla stuff they used in college, and it starts getting whacked off the "400 sign," so they immediately lose confidence. Then, they start nibbling from the outset, they fall behind, and it all goes downhill.

Well,let's be clear. I didn't say that "pitching is 75% stuff and 25% command." What I said is that, when deciding whom to choose in this draft, stuff would constitute 75% of my decision and command would constitute 25%. That's very different from saying that "pitching is 75% stuff and 25% command. The reason why I value stuff over command at this point is that none of the pitchers eligible for this draft--or any draft--is a finished product. They all have a lot of developmental time left, and while a guy like Verlander can LEARN command, Weaver will never learn a 95mph fastball. All of these pitchers, including Weaver, should spent AT LEAST a good 1 1/2 seasons in the minor leagues. I realize that there is a lot of nonsensical talk about bringing Weaver straight to the majors, but that won't happen--or shouldn't. They talk like that about a lot of players, but those kinds of jumps 1) rarely happen and b) often wind up retarding a player's career. You might see it with a closer, but no starter or position player is going to go from the draft to the major leagues. It's just a bad idea. My point is that, at this stage of their careers, I don't care as much about command as I do stuff. Command can be improved, but stuff almost always stays the same or gets worse unless you find a new pitch like, say, Mike Scott. Verlander can develop command, whereas Weaver is never going to develop a better fastball or secondary pitches. Personally, I am terrified that the mets will wind up with Weaver. It could very well happen. If SD passes on him, he will almost certainly be a Met because the Tigers are not going to draft another Weaver after the PR disaster with his brother. My first choice would be to take Verlander. If Verlander is not available, I would choose between Townsend, Niemann, and Drew. Niemann has, I think, re-emerged as a legit top 5 choice. I am wary of his elbow, but I saw where he was again hitting "94" and "95" in his last outing, and that's a considerable improvement from the high 80s/low90s he was showing earlier.

I have to respectfully disagree with Colbyjack. While opinions are opinions, I think you are wrong in your statement that "developing command/control" is just as difficult as developing stuff. Simply, there are loads of flame-throwers who later developed command (Ryan, Koufax, Randy Johnson, etc) and NO pitchers who lacked stuff and then developed great stuff. No one comes out of college throwing 88 and then gets to 95 as a pro. You might find that with some high school kids, but not with college kids. College kids are too far along the developmental chain to suddenly develop better stuff. It just doesn't work that way. Some pitchers lose velocity after college and some keep their velocity, but, I'd say only 2 % to 3% gain velocity, and even when pitchers gain, they don't go from throwing 88 to throwin 95. Maybe they add 2 mph. On the other hand, as I said above, Nolan Ryan, Randy Johnson, and Koufax all battled back from early career command/control problems to become hall of fame quality pitchers. In the cases of Koufax and Randy Johnson, they didn't go from terrible command to just "okay" command. They went from terrible command to truly outstanding command.

As to Guthrie, Weaver has very similar stuff. He might not have done as well as Weaver in college, but I really don't care all that much about performance at the collegiate level when it comes to pitching prospects. That one guy might have a 1.50 college era while another might have a 4.50 college era really, in my estimation, means nothing in terms of value as a prospect. There are tons of collegiate pitchers who have very good numbers but just can't make it in the high minors or majors. Lenny Dinardo and Aaron Heilmann come to mind. Now, neither of them did quite as well as Weaver has done this year, but both had seasons comparable to what Weaver did last year, and the larger point is that success in college isn't really worth that much. What you look for in collegiate pitchers is stuff and command with, I would say, 75% emphasis on stuff and 25% on command. You don't rank command as high because, unlike stuff, it can be learned and improved to a great degree.

I've danced around saying this for a while, but I will now make my position abundantly clear: jered Weaver is overrated. VERY overrated. His fastball is generally 90-92, and his second and third pitches are barely above major league average. To me, he's Jeremy Guthrie. Also, you cannot really put too much stock in performance at this level. Collegiate baseball is generally agreed to be about equivalent to high A ball. In fact, it's my opinion that it might even be a little worse. More accurately, I think it's between low A ball and high A ball. There are a LOT of pitchers who do well at that level and then get killed at the higher levels because they lack stuff. I think you're going to see that with Weaver. He can get away with 90-92 and two other average to average-plus pitches while playing for Long Beach State, but it's my feeling that, were you to put him on a double-A club this year, he'd get hammered.

I've never seen Bailey, so I don't know, but if he's getting it up into the mid-90s, he has an appreciably better fastball than greinke. I'm not as high on Greinke as most. Greinke is very polished, but it has been my experience that low strikeout totals above A ball are usually a very bad sign for right-handed pitchers. I don't really care about strikeouts at the major league level, but, in the minors, they are usually a decent indication of the quality of a guy's stuff. Not always, but usually. Greinke struck out only 34 guys in 53 innings at AA. I do realize, however, that he was very young for the league.

If the Mets passed up Jeff Allison at #12 in 2003, I doubt they would take any HS pitcher at #3--especially a right-hander. None of these guys has Allison's stuff.

It would be great if the Tigers blew it and selected someone other than Verlander. Is there any chance that the Tigers will fire Dombroski and re-hire Randy Smith before the draft? *crosses fingers* Someone made a very astute point: if the Padres do not select Weaver, it affects the draft quite a bit because Detroit is not going to take another Weaver with the bad blood between them and his brother, Jeff.