THURSDAY MINORS FINAL 5/25 ... $$$$ Pitchers on Parade

Every team literally has a guy who pitches at the top of rotation, but obviously there's only a couple true aces out there.

If Anderson.... or any draft pick for that matter... develops into a guy who consistently pitches in the middle of a MLB rotation; that's obviously a very successful pick.

I think people spend far too much time trying to argue over whether someone projects at a #1/#2/#3 ect... you just need to develop good, durable and consistent pitchers. Very likely none of them will become a true ace, but that's OK.
 
Enscheff said:
Umm, you think every team has 2 legit TOR starters? OK bud...
Click to expand...

I don't really know what you are referring to as a top of the rotation starter.

You've defined a player you haven't seen play as a #3 starter and rightly said that a #3 starter is a good and valuable thing.

You haven't really said what a top of the rotation starter is except to say there are three prospects in all of baseball who might be one.

Is this synonymous with the term "Ace". Does it only refer to Hall of Famers?

If so, what is a #2 starter?
 
Southcack77 said:
I don't really know what you are referring to as a top of the rotation starter.

You've defined a player you haven't seen play as a #3 starter and rightly said that a #3 starter is a good and valuable thing.

You haven't really said what a top of the rotation starter is except to say there are three prospects in all of baseball who might be one.

Is this synonymous with the term "Ace". Does it only refer to Hall of Famers?

If so, what is a #2 starter?
Click to expand...

I'm referring to the widely accepted 20-80 scouting scale literally everyone references when talking about prospects:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/scouting-explained-the-20-80-scouting-scale/
 
Enscheff said:
I'm referring to the widely accepted 20-80 scouting scale literally everyone references when talking about prospects:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/scouting-explained-the-20-80-scouting-scale/
Click to expand...

Well, you didn't use the 20-80 scale prior to this post, so that is confusing.

Also that scale doesn't define "top of the rotation starter" which is also confusing.

So, based on this scale, is a TOR in your view equal to a #1 Starter? A #1 or #2 starter? Something else?

I'm assuming you mean a #1 since you think only three prospects in all of baseball might amount to a TOR starter.
 
Southcack77 said:
I'm assuming you mean a #1 since you think only three prospects in all of baseball might amount to a TOR starter.
Click to expand...

That's probably accurate. Pitchers that develop into consistent 5+ WAR pitchers are rare. That's also not to say a pitcher can't be a TOR level starter for a given year. That happens. But to consistently do it for even a 3-4 year stretch? Only a handful will attain that.
 
Preacher said:
Every team literally has a guy who pitches at the top of rotation, but obviously there's only a couple true aces out there.

If Anderson.... or any draft pick for that matter... develops into a guy who consistently pitches in the middle of a MLB rotation; that's obviously a very successful pick.

I think people spend far too much time trying to argue over whether someone projects at a #1/#2/#3 ect... you just need to develop good, durable and consistent pitchers. Very likely none of them will become a true ace, but that's OK.
Click to expand...

Two things that are often talked about in these conversations are ceiling and projection. They aren't the same thing but often people are arguing back and forth with each other on them. Ceiling is the best a player can realistically become. Projection is more what you think a player will actually be.

Both of these things come into play when you're selecting a draft pick. If you're picking a pitcher in the top three you usually want him to have a TOR ceiling. It's foolish to project any pitching prospect as a TOR starter but you at least want that to be a possibility. I think this is where the dispute over Anderson comes in. Picking at 3, we had our choice of any pitcher in the draft. There were a lot of pitchers in that draft that project as middle of the rotation starters. Some will attain that, others will bust. But a lot have that projection.

The question over whether Anderson was who we should have targeted comes in with his ceiling. If his ceiling is a number 3 starter then he really shouldn't have gone at 3. If he has a TOR ceiling but looks more likely to be a middle of the rotation guy, then there's a much better argument to take him 3rd.
 
thewupk said:
That's probably accurate. Pitchers that develop into consistent 5+ WAR pitchers are rare. That's also not to say a pitcher can't be a TOR level starter for a given year. That happens. But to consistently do it for even a 3-4 year stretch? Only a handful will attain that.
Click to expand...

I think there may be a few more at a given time in the minors, though it might not be guys who are identified.
 
striker42 said:
Two things that are often talked about in these conversations are ceiling and projection. They aren't the same thing but often people are arguing back and forth with each other on them. Ceiling is the best a player can realistically become. Projection is more what you think a player will actually be.

Both of these things come into play when you're selecting a draft pick. If you're picking a pitcher in the top three you usually want him to have a TOR ceiling. It's foolish to project any pitching prospect as a TOR starter but you at least want that to be a possibility. I think this is where the dispute over Anderson comes in. Picking at 3, we had our choice of any pitcher in the draft. There were a lot of pitchers in that draft that project as middle of the rotation starters. Some will attain that, others will bust. But a lot have that projection.

The question over whether Anderson was who we should have targeted comes in with his ceiling. If his ceiling is a number 3 starter then he really shouldn't have gone at 3. If he has a TOR ceiling but looks more likely to be a middle of the rotation guy, then there's a much better argument to take him 3rd.
Click to expand...

I'm just not sure the Braves would have passed over someone they strong believed in to work a draft strategy.

i genuinely thing they really liked Anderson and think he had a higher ceiling that you folks want to put on him.

I realize this is a different draft but beyond Greene, I'm not seeing a ton of difference in the raw stuff of the pitchers being discussed and Anderson. They all seem to work in the low 90s and flash 95-96.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top