Grayson Rodriguez 2019

[weams]

11 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Stellar outing last night, 5 innings of one-hit shutout ball, 6 K’s, no walks.   

Law still says not a number 1...

66 pitches on that outing. Keith, go make a souffle.

[Frobby]

10 minutes ago, weams said:

Law still says not a number 1...

66 pitches on that outing. Keith, go make a souffle.

In fairness, nothing that happens in low A really tells you if a guy will be a 1.    

[WalkWithElias]

2 hours ago, weams said:

Law still says not a number 1...

66 pitches on that outing. Keith, go make a souffle.

How many "1s" are there in the majors? 

[Aglets]

43 minutes ago, WalkWithElias said:

How many "1s" are there in the majors? 

30 if my math is correct. 

[WalkWithElias]

50 minutes ago, Aglets said:

30 if my math is correct. 

Yes, I assumed someone would make this crack. 

I would not consider the O’s as having a “1.” I don’t even think we have a 2. On a good day Cashner has been a 3. 

There are plenty of teams that don’t have a dominant ace, which is how I think Law is defining a 1 when he says Rodriguez is not a 1. 

Love prospect analysis that breaks down into semantics of a 1 v TOR v upside of a 3 v backend. 

[Hallas]

 

2 hours ago, WalkWithElias said:

Yes, I assumed someone would make this crack. 

I would not consider the O’s as having a “1.” I don’t even think we have a 2. On a good day Cashner has been a 3. 

There are plenty of teams that don’t have a dominant ace, which is how I think Law is defining a 1 when he says Rodriguez is not a 1. 

Love prospect analysis that breaks down into semantics of a 1 v TOR v upside of a 3 v backend. 

Since no one wants to be the best pitcher on the worst pitching team in the league, as you've pointed out, my general benchmark is "pitchers that would be the best pitcher on an average or better pitching staff."  Limiting it to the top 15 starters seems to produce pitchers that would more accurately be described as "#1" or "Ace."  In 2018, the 15th best pitcher by WAR had around 4 and a half wins.  In 2019, it's around 2.5 wins (which would scale out to 5 wins over a full season.)  This level of production seems to be a reasonable lower bound for a #1 starter.

 

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, WalkWithElias said:

Love prospect analysis that breaks down into semantics of a 1 v TOR v upside of a 3 v backend. 

Yeah, that stuff drives me nuts.    Put it this way — if GrayRod can develop into a guy who throws 180 innings a year at an ERA+ of 110, I’ll consider him a solid no. 2 and go home happy.    But others might call that a no. 3.    All I know is, whatever that is, the O’s don’t have one.   

[TheDeau52]

10 hours ago, Frobby said:

In fairness, nothing that happens in low A really tells you if a guy will be a 1.    

Correct, but it also doesn’t tell you he’s not a #1, which is what’s he’s proclaiming.

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, TheDeau52 said:

Correct, but it also doesn’t tell you he’s not a #1, which is what’s he’s proclaiming.

No, I don’t think it’s reciprocal.    In many cases, you will know in low A that a pitcher won’t be a no. 1.    But I don’t think that can be said about Rodriguez.   

That said, there are at least 150 starting pitchers in low A right now, and at most 2-3 of them will become a no. 1 starter.    So, the odds favor Law being proven right in the end.   

[TheDeau52]

47 minutes ago, Frobby said:

No, I don’t think it’s reciprocal.    In many cases, you will know in low A that a pitcher won’t be a no. 1.    But I don’t think that can be said about Rodriguez.   

That said, there are at least 150 starting pitchers in low A right now, and at most 2-3 of them will become a no. 1 starter.    So, the odds favor Law being proven right in the end.   

I never said it’s reciprocal, nor that Rodriguez will be a #1; I’m simply pointing out that he made a claim that Rodriguez is not a #1. Certainty in either direction with a dominating low-A ball pitcher is not prudent.

[Frobby]

11 minutes ago, TheDeau52 said:

I never said it’s reciprocal, nor that Rodriguez will be a #1; I’m simply pointing out that he made a claim that Rodriguez is not a #1. Certainty in either direction with a dominating low-A ball pitcher is not prudent.

I generally don’t like characterizing players in binary terms.    It’s all about odds, and nobody’s odds are better than, say, 20% at the A-ball level.    What I’d like to know from Law is, who in A ball does he think has a better chance of becoming a no. 1 than Rodriguez.   

[TheDeau52]

15 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I generally don’t like characterizing players in binary terms.    It’s all about odds, and nobody’s odds are better than, say, 20% at the A-ball level.    What I’d like to know from Law is, who in A ball does he think has a better chance of becoming a no. 1 than Rodriguez.   

I don’t either. Baseball is littered with high-performing prospects who flame out, as we all know. I’m simply stating that it’s illogical either way to pass judgment on a high-performing player, as Law has done. It would also be illogical for him to say that he is a #1 at this point.

[ChuckS]

It gets silly when the analysts try to peg a particular player a no. 1, no. 2, 3, or whatever so early in their development.

I prefer potential TOR, potential MOR, and potential BOR labels.  Clearly, Rodriguez has TOR potential based on the stuff and command he has shown and the idea that he could continue to improve in both categories.  

I don't think anyone would put a TOR label on Drew Rom. That doesn't mean Rom doesn't become Tom Glavine and GrayRod doesn't become Sidney Ponson.  

[Luke-OH]

Y’all are reading way to far into someone asking Law if he’s a 1 and Law replying no. Is there ace ceiling, yes, is that the likely outcome, no.

[TheDeau52]

3 minutes ago, Luke-OH said:

Y’all are reading way to far into someone asking Law if he’s a 1 and Law replying no. Is there ace ceiling, yes, is that the likely outcome, no.

I don’t think this conversation would have happened if Law had put it the way you just did.