Tillman

[Il BuonO]

No offense, Roy, but I've watched more Tillman this year than just about anyone on the board. When you go back and watch his minor league starts, and offer scouting reports on his stuff, get back to me. Thanks.

But here:

He needs to throw his curveball for strikes. He needs to locate better (down) within the zone. he needs to work on his mechanics are narrow some of the variation in his velo. He needs to make sure he keeps his change-up down and with fade. The curveball and the location are the real important issues.

I would agree with your analysis of the CB overall, but there are instances when he absolutely uses it very effectively.

The sequence in the 7th against Seager when he had him 0-2 he buries it for strike three. He did it earlier as well for a swing and miss, but along with the CU they both could improve.

However, while I was concerned with the velocity at first glance, I am actually satisfied that by the end of the game he was hitting 93-94 with his FB.

The cutter may be the pitch that is throwing some people off as his velocity goes.

[Flash- bd]

Not trying to steal LJs thunder here but I really think it's ironic, again, that everyone is gushing about Tillman right now, after this outing; his FB control was not particularly good (missed his spots a lot), he was up in the zone pretty consistently (see plot below), and his FB velocity--as has been much discussed--was down (at 91.1 it was his lowest single game avg. this year). The one thing he did do a good job of, I guess, is consistently throwing strikes but he was helped a great deal by very impatient and ineffective Mariners hitters (never threw more than 12 pitches in an inning, ump's K-zone was also somewhat favorable). He also was able to drop off a few of those curves low in the zone, as a strike out pitch, which is encouraging, but for every one of those he also threw a curve he didn't get on top of which ended up well high and away.

This performance was a far cry from what he did against Seattle in Seattle, and from the performance against Cleveland, IMO. It's probably the least impressed I've been with him since the Twins start. I can't tell whether to be impressed by how well his stuff plays on a bad day or whether just to put it down to Seattle's bad hitting--the truth is probably somewhere in between but Seattle's hitters were seriously giving him outs tonight and he had pretty good luck with balls hit into play, esp. FBs tending to be right at OFers.

Looks like he had 6 SwSt out of 99 pitches, so about 6% SwSt, also down from previous outings. Fangraphs has his xFIP at 3.73 today and FIP at 2.13, a full 2.5 runs and .90 runs higher respectively.

I still think he'll regain some of that velocity he had in his first 3 starts, as has been suggested by others it takes a bit to recover from the flu and when asked about his velocity being down he recognized it (ie, suggesting that he's used to his velocity being higher, as LJ has reported from AAA this year) and seemed pretty nonplussed about it. Maybe he won't be the 94.9 he was @Seattle, but I can see him being the 93.0 he was against Cleveland, where he sat 91-93 early in the game and then was more 92-95 in the last couple innings. If that happens, as expected, he'll be fine long term, but I think if his velocity is was it was today things get pretty difficult for him in terms of maintaining long term results....it's not that you can't win games at the ML level with a 91.0 avg FB velocity with a good changeup and an effective but somewhat erratic curve, but as Tim Lincecum will tell you it becomes a lot more difficult when your control isn't pinpoint or even above-average, and I think to call Tillman's control above-average would be a mistake, and I'm not sure that's likely to change with time. That's why the FB velocity is so important...makes the margin for error when he misses a bit bigger and his change plays up a lot more with added velocity, and his curve becomes even that more of an easy strike 1 pitch/eye-level changer even if it isn't on for him.

Either way, I think if Tilly was facing a different team tonight the results might've been a lot different. While I was glad to see him go 7 1/3 and pad his ERA (and help me in my bet with Moose ) this outing did less than the previous, IMO, to convince me of Tillman's long-term staying power.

[Pickles]

Not trying to steal LJs thunder here but I really think it's ironic, again, that everyone is gushing about Tillman right now, after this outing; his FB control was not particularly good (missed his spots a lot), he was up in the zone pretty consistently (see plot below), and his FB velocity--as has been much discussed--was down (at 91.1 it was his lowest single game avg. this year). The one thing he did do a good job of, I guess, is consistently throwing strikes but he was helped a great deal by very impatient and ineffective Mariners hitters (never threw more than 12 pitches in an inning, ump's K-zone was also somewhat favorable). He also was able to drop off a few of those curves low in the zone, as a strike out pitch, which is encouraging, but for every one of those he also threw a curve he didn't get on top of which ended up well high and away.

This performance was a far cry from what he did against Seattle in Seattle, and from the performance against Cleveland, IMO. It's probably the least impressed I've been with him since the Twins start. I can't tell whether to be impressed by how well his stuff plays on a bad day or whether just to put it down to Seattle's bad hitting--the truth is probably somewhere in between but Seattle's hitters were seriously giving him outs tonight and he had pretty good luck with balls hit into play, esp. FBs tending to be right at OFers.

Looks like he had 6 SwSt out of 99 pitches, so about 6% SwSt, also down from previous outings. Fangraphs has his xFIP at 3.73 today and FIP at 2.13, a full 2.5 runs and .90 runs higher respectively.

I still think he'll regain some of that velocity he had in his first 3 starts, as has been suggested by others it takes a bit to recover from the flu and when asked about his velocity being down he recognized it (ie, suggesting that he's used to his velocity being higher, as LJ has reported from AAA this year) and seemed pretty nonplussed about it. Maybe he won't be the 94.9 he was @Seattle, but I can see him being the 93.0 he was against Cleveland, where he sat 91-93 early in the game and then was more 92-95 in the last couple innings. If that happens, as expected, he'll be fine long term, but I think if his velocity is was it was today things get pretty difficult for him in terms of maintaining long term results....it's not that you can't win games at the ML level with a 91.0 avg FB velocity with a good changeup and an effective but somewhat erratic curve, but as Tim Lincecum will tell you it becomes a lot more difficult when your control isn't pinpoint or even above-average, and I think to call Tillman's control above-average would be a mistake, and I'm not sure that's likely to change with time. That's why the FB velocity is so important...makes the margin for error when he misses a bit bigger and his change plays up a lot more with added velocity, and his curve becomes even that more of an easy strike 1 pitch/eye-level changer even if it isn't on for him.

Either way, I think if Tilly was facing a different team tonight the results might've been a lot different. While I was glad to see him go 7 1/3 and pad his ERA (and help me in my bet with Moose ) this outing did less than the previous, IMO, to convince me of Tillman's long-term staying power.

Still want to tell us how stuff doesn't ever degrade, and a guy making his ML debut for the season might not be showing his best velocity?

Why do you need to be convinced? You already said that Tillman was AT LEAST a backend ML starter, and that was his absolute floor.

Snark aside, I quite impressed w Tillman so far this year, and for the O's, that's a terrific development. That doesn't mean you pencil him into the rotation next year. at this point, but you keep running him out there, and see if he can maintain.

[Flash- bd]

Still want to tell us how stuff doesn't ever degrade, and a guy making his ML debut for the season might not be showing his best velocity?

Why do you need to be convinced? You already said that Tillman was AT LEAST a backend ML starter, and that was his absolute floor.

Snark aside, I quite impressed w Tillman so far this year, and for the O's, that's a terrific development. That doesn't mean you pencil him into the rotation next year. at this point, but you keep running him out there, and see if he can maintain.

Haha! Laughable attempt to try and regain some face.

If anyone want to see the thread for themselves: http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php/123701-Hammel-Chen-Tillman-Britton-Gonzalez/page5?highlight=Hammel-Chen

I never said stuff doesn't ever degrade--in fact, I said the opposite, that it often degrades, and recognized it was a concern with Tillman.

All of my projections of Tillman's floor were based on him having the stuff he showed through his first 3 starts. If you read my posts all of them preface the projection with that idea, ie, on p. 1: "Guys with stuff as good as Tillman can pitch badly but still finish with an ERA of 4.50-4.75."

Finally, where in my above post did I say he wouldn't be AT LEAST a backend ML starter? Even if his velo is 91.0 avg. long term he's still a 5 starter at worst, IMO.

Snark aside, it would be silly not to pencil Tillman into the rotation next year. You give Tillman starts until something goes seriously wrong, because he has the upside of a TOR, and--as I've said--the floor of a BOR SP.

[Pickles]

Haha! Laughable attempt to try and regain some face.

If anyone want to see the thread for themselves: http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php/123701-Hammel-Chen-Tillman-Britton-Gonzalez/page5?highlight=Hammel-Chen

I never said stuff doesn't ever degrade--in fact, I said the opposite, that it often degrades, and recognized it was a concern with Tillman.

All of my projections of Tillman's floor were based on him having the stuff he showed through his first 3 starts. If you read my posts all of them preface the projection with that idea, ie, on p. 1: "Guys with stuff as good as Tillman can pitch badly but still finish with an ERA of 4.50-4.75."

Finally, where in my above post did I say he wouldn't be AT LEAST a backend ML starter? Even if his velo is 91.0 avg. long term he's still a 5 starter at worst, IMO.

Snark aside, it would be silly not to pencil Tillman into the rotation next year. You give Tillman starts until something goes seriously wrong, because he has the upside of a TOR, and--as I've said--the floor of a BOR SP.

Regain face? Why would I need to do that when I'm right and you're wrong?

You assured everyone that Tillman was AT LEAST a backend starter because of the stuff he'd shown through 2 starts (cause certainly you couldn't have been basing that on his 2nd start), and when people said, that is far too rosy, because there's no guarantee that his stuff won't revert, you poo-pooed it. Now, a couple starts later, and he isn't hitting 97 and sitting 94, you're backing off.

It's okay. I happen to agree w your assessment of Tillman by and large, but being older than 6 and watching baseball for more than 2 months, I know there are precious few guarnatees in the game, and fewer still with young pitchers. And that was the whole point of contention.

[Flash- bd]

Regain face? Why would I need to do that when I'm right and you're wrong?

You assured everyone that Tillman was AT LEAST a backend starter because of the stuff he'd shown through 2 starts (cause certainly you couldn't have been basing that on his 2nd start), and when people said, that is far too rosy, because there's no guarantee that his stuff won't revert, you poo-pooed it. Now, a couple starts later, and he isn't hitting 97 and sitting 94, you're backing off.

It's okay. I happen to agree w your assessment of Tillman by and large, but being older than 6 and watching baseball for more than 2 months, I know there are precious few guarnatees in the game, and fewer still with young pitchers. And that was the whole point of contention.

All hail the great, sagacious Pickles!!

I know better than to get in a pissing match with you because, frankly, while I don't consider the points I make to be complex at all they are quite clearly over your head. It's not an insult, it's just something that's been borne out in every interaction with you.

I linked the thread--go back and look at it, people will know what's what. I stand by all my points, including those above, and again--I'd be glad to told where I'm "backing off" my point.

In fact, this bump of the thread that I posted is looking rather prescient at this point, if I do say meself!

Part of why I made such a point about being so vocal about Tillman so early--and in this thread--is because I know that if Tillman throws about 3 more starts like he has today there are going to be hordes of people willingly pencilling Tillman into the rotation for next year. But is there any difference between 7 starts and 3 starts? That's a 4 start difference....4 starts in the span of a big league career--considering them strictly as data points--mean precisely nothing; it is just as absurd to pencil Tillman in after 3 starts as it is after 7. You can't make any worthwhile conclusions (or even assertions, for that matter)--from a statistical standpoint--from either.

Fact is, we're going off what our eyes tell us at this point, and there's a big fallacy going on if people are considering Tillman significantly more likely to succeed after 7 starts rather than 3 or 4. Truth is I only needed one start to tell me that Tillman was a guy very likely to have success at the big league level; I saw an impressive three-pitch mix against the Mariners with a repeatable wind-up and the kind of demeanor/attitude you want out of a pitcher, and I just don't see pitchers like that fail very often. That is why I made a point of being vocal--bordering on obnoxious, maybe--about my confidence in Tillman after his first start, second start, and third start, and in this thread.

And as for me saying that pitcher's stuff never degrades, here is what I said to your point about the possibility of Tillman's velocity dropping down to more average levels:

Now, to the bolded: I actually agree with this concern, and well, it concerns me. Once Tillman establishes his value--which, as you know, I'm confident he will--he might be an interesting trade candidate, especially if Dylan Bundy is in Baltimore.'

EDIT: also, let me qualify my optimism a bit. My optimism is based on the Chris Tillman we see right now--I am projecting Chris Tillman with the stuff and command he has now out into the future. That doesn't mean I'm not aware of all the terrible things that can befall a pitcher, just as I'm not unaware of the risk discussed just above. It's just that when I argue, I don't like to get into that TNSTAAPP stuff because we all know those risks and it makes for a boring argument. As someone--his name will come to me here soon and I'll edit, because he deserves credit--said on this board: if there's no such thing as a pitching prospect there's no such thing as a dependent/established pitcher. No one's going to factor in a possible drop in velocity or injury in Cole Hamels projection over the next 2-3 years--even though it's arguably equally as likely to occur in his case as it is in Tillman's--so why should I have to make such boring qualifications with Tillman as well?

Do you ever get tired of your straw-manery? You may think you look smart but as I said in the WAR thread, all of the intelligent posters on this board can see through your (pretty blatant) sophistry.

[GoldGlove21]

All hail the great, sagacious Pickles!!

I know better than to get in a pissing match with you because, frankly, while I don't consider the points I make to be complex at all they are quite clearly over your head. It's not an insult, it's just something that's been borne out in every interaction with you.

I linked the thread--go back and look at it, people will know what's what. I stand by all my points, including those above, and again--I'd be glad to told where I'm "backing off" my point.

In fact, this bump of the thread that I posted is looking rather prescient at this point, if I do say meself!

And as for me saying that pitcher's stuff never degrades, here is what I said to your point about the possibility of Tillman's velocity dropping down to more average levels:

Do you ever get tired of your straw-manery? You may think you look smart but as I said in the WAR thread, all of the intelligent posters on this board can see through your (pretty blatant) sophistry.

So once again, what is the point of this post? That people will evaluate Tillman over the last 7 starts instead of the last 3? That they will pencil him in as a starter moving forward? That what you see with your eyes might not paint the best picture of future performance or that 7 starts do not define the success of a true major league starter?

If that is the case than I agree for the most part, but my eyes have told me that Tillman and Gonzalez have stabilized the backed of the pen pretty well thus far and that both guys look more like pitchers than throwers at this point. I am not granting either guy a spot in the rotation in 2013, but I am more worried about a few of our other young arms at this point.

I just fail to see why your points in any post are anything more than an opponion. I for one am just happy to see most of our rotation outside of Britton doing well over the last couple of weeks and hope that they can keep it up.

[Flash- bd]

So once again, what is the point of this post? That people will evaluate Tillman over the last 7 starts instead of the last 3? That they will pencil him in as a starter moving forward? That what you see with your eyes might not paint the best picture of future performance or that 7 starts do not define the success of a true major league starter?

If that is the case than I agree for the most part, but my eyes have told me that Tillman and Gonzalez have stabilized the backed of the pen pretty well thus far and that both guys look more like pitchers than throwers at this point. I am not granting either guy a spot in the rotation in 2013, but I am more worried about a few of our other young arms at this point.

I just fail to see why your points in any post are anything more than an opponion. I for one am just happy to see most of our rotation outside of Britton doing well over the last couple of weeks and hope that they can keep it up.

I think you failed to get the gist of what was quoted. It's closer to the opposite of the bolded than it is the bolded.

Also, of course my posts are nothing more than an opinion. What else could they be? I'm no journalist...I'm not reporting here. I'm opining with the help of reason, facts, analysis, etc., as--I thought, maybe I am missing something-everyone else on this board is doing (or trying to do)?

[Pickles]

All hail the great, sagacious Pickles!!

I know better than to get in a pissing match with you because, frankly, while I don't consider the points I make to be complex at all they are quite clearly over your head. It's not an insult, it's just something that's been borne out in every interaction with you.

I linked the thread--go back and look at it, people will know what's what. I stand by all my points, including those above, and again--I'd be glad to told where I'm "backing off" my point.

In fact, this bump of the thread that I posted is looking rather prescient at this point, if I do say meself!

And as for me saying that pitcher's stuff never degrades, here is what I said to your point about the possibility of Tillman's velocity dropping down to more average levels:

Do you ever get tired of your straw-manery? You may think you look smart but as I said in the WAR thread, all of the intelligent posters on this board can see through your (pretty blatant) sophistry.

You're so intelligent it's painful. All the intelligent posters, who see right through sophistry, while misusing words and concepts, totally agree!

Again, you fail to miss the point of contention. Yes, you hedged yourself a bit in that Tillman thread when called on it, but that was after, you'd stated unequivocally that Tillman's floor was a backend starting pitcher. Clearly it's below that, and yes, a degradation of stuff is entirely possible and why his floor is below that.

You can't say when a pitcher is pitching well if he keeps pitching like this he'll be a good pitcher. Or you really haven't said too much have you? If that's the extent of your analysis of Tillman I'm sure we're all impressed.

BTW, since you're such the prognosticator, why don't you remind us all what you said Britton's floor was in that same thread? Or did you conviently forget what you proclaimed his floor was?

[Pickles]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned that I think is pretty important is that Tillman works across his body and hides the ball until very late. He looks a bit like Jered Weaver though Weaver does it to a larger extent. A motion like that tends to be hard on various body parts, but it also makes the fastball play up significantly. Even two years ago when Chris was pretty bad and his velocity was high 80s, he'd get swings and misses on fastballs in the zone. It definitely gets on hitters. I lost track of the number of hitters last night that thought they were on a fastball but fouled it over the other dugout. He did that to Casper Wells like 6 times.

91 mph from Tillman will likely play faster than 93 from Jake Arrieta. Jake throws with an open front hip/leg that allows the batter to see it earlier. It makes a ton of difference. It is also one of the reasons I'm not nearly as high on Jake as most folks. His FB velocity will have to be high to succeed due to his motion. Tillman won't have that issue from what I see from him.

He does that wrist wrap behind his body like Palmer.

People are definitely far too enamored w velocity. It's really one of the least important things once you reach the majors. I mean, yes, there is a certain threshold you need to have (save for a select few) but EVERYBODY in the MLs can hit 100 MPH fastball if he knows it's coming, usually a long way.

That's why I never got too worked up about Matusz' velocity this spring, which seemed to be everybody's main concern. He's a pitcher that can be successful working at 88, and he can get hammered working at 91. Tillman's a little less so, but he can be successful at 91 and unsuccessful at 94.

Pitching is deception.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Are the semantics about "Tillman's Floor" really all worth this?

[Flash- bd]

You're so intelligent it's painful. All the intelligent posters, who see right through sophistry, while misusing words and concepts, totally agree!

Again, you fail to miss the point of contention. Yes, you hedged yourself a bit in that Tillman thread when called on it, but that was after, you'd stated unequivocally that Tillman's floor was a backend starting pitcher. Clearly it's below that, and yes, a degradation of stuff is entirely possible and why his floor is below that.

You can't say when a pitcher is pitching well if he keeps pitching like this he'll be a good pitcher. Or you really haven't said too much have you? If that's the extent of your analysis of Tillman I'm sure we're all impressed.

BTW, since you're such the prognosticator, why don't you remind us all what you said Britton's floor was in that same thread? Or did you conviently forget what you proclaimed his floor was?

I think it's kind of unfair of us to dredge up this argument in this thread and bring the rest of the thread down with it, so can we agree that I'm making this response--it's my last (to you, anyways)--and you can respond afterwards? (but please, try to be reasonable.)

"You can't say when a pitcher is pitching well if he keeps pitching like this he'll be a good pitcher. Or you really haven't said too much have you? If that's the extent of your analysis of Tillman I'm sure we're all impressed."

I would've thought--after the numerous times I've called you out for straw-man(s) (straw-men? well, straw-man plural, whatever it be)--you wouldn't proceed to go ahead and do it time and time again, but you do. What I said was, again: "My optimism is based on the Chris Tillman we see right now--I am projecting Chris Tillman with the stuff and command he has now out into the future." (EDIT: This was after 3 starts with decidedly mixed results) That's quite a lot different than what you are claiming I said, but again, we've been through this time and time again and I know this kind of stuff flies over you.

All this nonsense about floor was an argument you desperately tried to pin unto me for lack of much else to say...again, this was my statement (which, again, I still see little wrong with--which sparked the whole thing):

Why? Britton posted a 4.61 ERA in a pretty bad rookie year. That's probably his floor. Hammel at worst probably regresses to the average 90-100 ERA+ guy he was before this year. Chen doesn't seem to me a guy likely to be above 4.50-4.75. Tillman's history is borderline useless because anyone who's watching him knows he's a different pitcher with different stuff. It's as useful comparing his track record with him as it is comparing , say, Brad Lincoln's. Guys with stuff as good as Tillman can pitch badly but still finish with an ERA of 4.50-4.75.

For me that's a pretty high floor. Gonzalez is the only one of those four I'd argue doesn't have a high floor, but you could even make an argument for him.

EDIT: and for the record, this was what I initially said about Tillman going forward, minutes after his first start, in this thread.

As whynot above says, it's really not about the results. Honestly, I was prepared to see Tillman limit Seattle to very little but still not be that impressed tonight. I predicted 5 2/3 IP with 1 ER and if that had been the case I would've said, fine, that's what I'd expect against this team.

But I think in cases like these we're so used to being burned by seeing a dominant performance like this--only to be followed by disappointment--that we react the other way, and overcompensate with our cautiousness. So let me be completely honest for a second: I saw a TOR starter today (as I said in my initial post). I don't expect him to be that, but that was a legitimate ace performance; he had a 3 pitch mix, all plus pitches, that he could throw in any count. His command was good. His mechanics were very consistent. His demeanor was good. Almost no one hit the ball hard. You note that he was in a huge park, but frankly this didn't come into play much at all: the longest FB of the game off an Oriole pitcher was the last one off Jim Johnson. Other than that, John Jaso's line drive double is probably about the only really hard hit ball (there was one other LD to Avery in LF for an out).

As you note, there's a difference between being a TOR starter and pitching like one. Jason Hammel pitches like one at times, but he's not one. Chen pitches like one at times, but he's not one. But there's not many players in the league (or in the minors) who can even compete stuff-wise with what Tillman was flashing tonight. Of course just because he pitched like a TOR starter doesn't mean he's going to all of a sudden become one, but there's not many people who can realistically say they have that upside. And even if they don't reach it, they tend to settle down as good #2-4 starters as we're seeing with Jason Hammel.

[CA-ORIOLE]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned that I think is pretty important is that Tillman works across his body and hides the ball until very late. He looks a bit like Jered Weaver though Weaver does it to a larger extent. A motion like that tends to be hard on various body parts, but it also makes the fastball play up significantly. Even two years ago when Chris was pretty bad and his velocity was high 80s, he'd get swings and misses on fastballs in the zone. It definitely gets on hitters. I lost track of the number of hitters last night that thought they were on a fastball but fouled it over the other dugout. He did that to Casper Wells like 6 times.

91 mph from Tillman will likely play faster than 93 from Jake Arrieta. Jake throws with an open front hip/leg that allows the batter to see it earlier. It makes a ton of difference. It is also one of the reasons I'm not nearly as high on Jake as most folks. His FB velocity will have to be high to succeed due to his motion. Tillman won't have that issue from what I see from him.

Yeah he is pretty tough to pick up and has been able to generate swings and misses up in the zone, even at lower velocity. Definitely more like Palmer than Weaver though as he's more straight and over the top with his motion. I thought he worked in/out pretty effectively today and it seemed like he was hiting the mitt pretty good on the corners today with movement on his FB or 2S or cutter. Really hard to tell sometimes what he's throwing. It seemed for a while he was really trying to get over the top and get that downward trajectory and keep the ball down at times. Seemed like he was struggling and a bit flustered that he couldn't do it. In the past that's when I've seen his stuff straighten out, but it was manageable today and he worked it out. I thought his FB vel got better and he eventually made it work to all 4 quadrants.

[Pickles]

I think it's kind of unfair of us to dredge up this argument in this thread and bring the rest of the thread down with it, so can we agree that I'm making this response--it's my last (to you, anyways)--and you can respond afterwards? (but please, try to be reasonable.)

"You can't say when a pitcher is pitching well if he keeps pitching like this he'll be a good pitcher. Or you really haven't said too much have you? If that's the extent of your analysis of Tillman I'm sure we're all impressed."

I would've thought--after the numerous times I've called you out for straw-man(s) (straw-men? well, straw-man plural, whatever it be)--you wouldn't proceed to go ahead and do it time and time again, but you do. What I said was, again: "My optimism is based on the Chris Tillman we see right now--I am projecting Chris Tillman with the stuff and command he has now out into the future." (EDIT: This was after 3 starts with decidedly mixed results) That's quite a lot different than what you are claiming I said, but again, we've been through this time and time again and I know this kind of stuff flies over you.

And that's different than saying, "If he continues pitching well he'll be a good pitcher", how exactly? "IF" his stuff and command remain as they are, he will be a good pitcher.

Honestly, and forgive me for my transparent stupidity which you've well diagnosed, I don't see the difference.

I've never disagreed w that. However, there is a REAL possibility they don't remain so, and thus, your "floor" projection is far too high.

But I guess that's a strawman.

[Frobby]

No offense, Roy, but I've watched more Tillman this year than just about anyone on the board. When you go back and watch his minor league starts, and offer scouting reports on his stuff, get back to me. Thanks.

But here:

He needs to throw his curveball for strikes. He needs to locate better (down) within the zone. he needs to work on his mechanics are narrow some of the variation in his velo. He needs to make sure he keeps his change-up down and with fade. The curveball and the location are the real important issues.

Ben McDonald, on the radio broadcast, said Tillman did not have his best stuff, including location on his curve, but was impressed that Tillman was able to succeed on Plan B. Hopefully he'll have better stuff/command next time vs. KC.