Troy Patton

[mikezpen]

Weaknesses: Rotation of 82-84 MPH slider. Deception of 79-81 MPH change-up. Repeating arm slot (high to low ¾). Effort to delivery

That is real ominous. It means arm strain now and arm injury in the future. I like this guy, but someone's got to work w/him.

[NoVaO]

I could see him above Liz because of the uncertainty around being a SP/RP but you'd put him above Erbe? Has he really fallen off that much??

I had Erbe at #7 behind both Liz and Olson at the end of the year...that may have been a bit too low when I think about it, but the fact that Erbe had no loss of stuff and no hidden injury actually gives me more concern because despite not losing anything off his stuff, he still put up pretty awful numbers.

If he bounces back with a strong year, he'll probably move right back into the top 3 list for me. But he needs to prove last year was a fluke, too.

[Jammer7]

We'll see if Kranitz can smooth out his delivery and decrease his amount of effort. Patton could be anywhere around 7-9 on our list. He's similar to Olson in that he's close to his ceiling and knows how to pitch with solid FB command. I wonder about the soundness of his shoulder and the dip in his velocity. I think he was a good pick up because he's been successful and he's just 22. I don't have a huge concern about the lack of k's last season. We don't know what the pitching coaches in Houston had him working on. But, if he doesn't progress and regain the velocity, he'll may end up a LH set-up guy with his varied arm slots.

[mark_beckens]

My biggest concern with Patton is his lack of strikeouts. The very low swinging strike % in the majors last year doesn't help (this concern is obviously tempered by the very low number of innings). The low K-Rate wouldn't be nearly the concern if it was coupled with a high groundball rate (low K-Rate and High FB Rate = not a good combination).

Baseball HQ had him forecasted as producing a 4.78 ERA with a 5.3 K-Rate, but only a 2.5 BB-Rate. This is what they had to say about him:

He was ranked as their 2nd best prospect last offseason (he didn't qualify this year). This is what they had to say last year:

IMO, strikeouts are very overrated. ERA and WHIP mean more to me then K's. Getting batters out, anyway possible is the only thing that matters.

[Mackus]

IMO, strikeouts are very overrated. ERA and WHIP mean more to me then K's. Getting batters out, anyway possible is the only thing that matters.

Looking back at data, ERA is the best way to see who had the best season. But when trying to project who will continue to be good in the future, K-rate and BB-rate are the best indicators of future performance. Far moreso than ERA or WHIP.

[mark_beckens]

Looking back at data, ERA is the best way to see who had the best season. But when trying to project who will continue to be good in the future, K-rate and BB-rate are the best indicators of future performance. Far moreso than ERA or WHIP.

But, striking guys out is only one way to get them out. Guys with great fastballs strike alot out. Guys with awesome sliders get K's along with knee bending curveballs. If you throw strikes, don't walk guys and make guys put the ball in play for your defenders to make plays. Are able to command the strikezone, throw all your pitches for strikes on any count, those are better pitchers, IMO, then guys who just throw gas and throw it by hitters. An example would be Tom Glavine or Mark Buehrle.

[Mackus]

But, striking guys out is only one way to get them out. Guys with great fastballs strike alot out. Guys with awesome sliders get K's along with knee bending curveballs. If you throw strikes, don't walk guys and make guys put the ball in play for your defenders to make plays. Are able to command the strikezone, throw all your pitches for strikes on any count, those are better pitchers, IMO, then guys who just throw gas and throw it by hitters.

All valid points, but it is a fact that K/9 and BB/9 rates (or more simply K/BB ratio) is the single best predictor of future performance. You can take any one stat you want and pick guys based on that, and I'll take K/BB, and I'll come out way ahead.

Obviously the best way is to use a myriad of stats and scouting to find the guys who are most likely to grow and succeed, but K/BB is the best quick indicator of future success.

[psudragon]

But, striking guys out is only one way to get them out. Guys with great fastballs strike alot out. Guys with awesome sliders get K's along with knee bending curveballs. If you throw strikes, don't walk guys and make guys put the ball in play for your defenders to make plays. Are able to command the strikezone, throw all your pitches for strikes on any count, those are better pitchers, IMO, then guys who just throw gas and throw it by hitters.

I agree with you that K's are just one way of getting a batter out, but K-rate is the best (although not perfect) way of OBJECTIVELY measuring a pitching prospect's "stuff," just like BB-rate is the best objective way to measure a pitcher's control.

So when you are projecting how a 20 year old will do 4 years from now if/when he makes the major, K-rate and BB-rate are the best way to extrapolate that

[Pre-Highlanders]

I know about K-rate. I respect K-rate. K-rate is a friend of mine. K/BB is the first thing I look at in a MiL pitcher's stats. BUT, do any of you stat wizards know whether there is a consensus on what stats (if any) tell us whether a pitcher is Moyerlicious - that is to say, capable of being a good to very good major leaguer without putting up huge K/9's?

[Mashed Potatoes]

I know about K-rate. I respect K-rate. K-rate is a friend of mine. K/BB is the first thing I look at in a MiL pitcher's stats. BUT, do any of you stat wizards know whether there is a consensus on what stats (if any) tell us whether a pitcher is Moyerlicious - that is to say, capable of being a good to very good major leaguer without putting up huge K/9's?

I'm not a stat wizard but many pitchers have shown the ability to succeed with a low K rate if it's coupled with an extrame groundball rate. So groundball rate is my answer.

[Pre-Highlanders]

Thanks for the info 1970!