Promising Starter Prospects Bring Hope for the Future

[SteveA]

6 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Sure, and they throw harder, strike more guys out and probably walk fewer guys.

Someone with Scotty's exact profile very possibly woudln't make it out of the minors.

So.... would that be a mistake by his team, possibly depriving themselves of a guy who would put up about a 110 ERA+ in 1500 innings in his 24-30 years, or do you think that that McGregor wouldn't be able to come close to that level of success today [obviously the innings would be different]?

And if you answer the latter (McGregor wouldn't be able to do what he did today), then I'd like to know what it is about today's hitters that makes you think that?   Are Mike Trout, Giancarlo Stanton, Nelson Cruz, Carlos Correa and company THAT much better than George Brett, George Bell, Paul Molitor, Rod Carew, and Jim Rice that a guy who could have very good success in 1978-1984 wouldn't even be able to make the majors in 2015-2021?

[Three Run Homer]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

I've always discounted AAA but I think it has a purpose now that they are using ML balls.

This has never made sense to me.  Why not use the same balls throughout the minor leagues?  For that matter, why can't MLB buy the NCAA athletic departments enough equipment so that college players can use wood bats?  If you are trying to evaluate players, wouldn't you want to make minor league and college ball as informative as possible by playing with the same equipment as they use in MLB?  

[SteveA]

5 hours ago, tntoriole said:

Sure...that 83 Phillies lineup...none of those guys could play today either anyway, that Schmidt guy particularly......and absolutely no way could the guy who shut them down in the World Series pitch in today’s game ..lol.     Because these hitters today are so off the charts good  that consistently varied offspeed pitching locations never causes them any problems...LOL. 

McGregor was initially 91-92 and then in his first season coming over from the Yankees, he and George Bamberger completely changed his approach as a lefthander using one of the best changeups, curves of that era with pinpoint control and knowing how to pitch different speeds, different locations. .     Dylan Bundy should be so lucky to have a 20 WAR career. 

How fast was Jered Weaver?  I forget....did he play recently or was it in the 1980s?    I guess that Greg Maddux guy would not be able to do much with the likes of Chris Davis...

 

 

Zach Davies?

[SteveA]

1 minute ago, Three Run Homer said:

This has never made sense to me.  Why not use the same balls throughout the minor leagues?  For that matter, why can't MLB buy the NCAA athletic departments enough equipment so that college players can use wood bats?  If you are trying to evaluate players, wouldn't you want to make minor league and college ball as informative as possible by playing with the same equipment as they use in MLB?  

I think the substance they use to juice the major league balls must be really expensive.   Maybe plutonium or something like that.   They can't afford to go deep in all the minor leagues with it.

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, SteveA said:

Zach Davies?

6.5 K/9

[SteveA]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

6.5 K/9

I was talking more about velocity.   He tops out around 90.5 this year and has typically been 88-89 with his FB.   And he is off to an excellent start.

But your point is certainly noted.   There's more to getting Ks than FB velo.

[Philip]

7 hours ago, Greg Pappas said:

It's cool to disagree, but not cool to try to disparage my take as 'fan boy feelings'.  Anytime a poster, whether here, on Twitter, or anywhere else, begins to sling insults, I lose respect for them and shut down the discussion on my end. 

You are wise. Internet or not, courtesy is required.

[El Gordo]

Abandon all hope ye who enter here.

[Can_of_corn]

8 hours ago, SteveA said:

So.... would that be a mistake by his team, possibly depriving themselves of a guy who would put up about a 110 ERA+ in 1500 innings in his 24-30 years, or do you think that that McGregor wouldn't be able to come close to that level of success today [obviously the innings would be different]?

And if you answer the latter (McGregor wouldn't be able to do what he did today), then I'd like to know what it is about today's hitters that makes you think that?   Are Mike Trout, Giancarlo Stanton, Nelson Cruz, Carlos Correa and company THAT much better than George Brett, George Bell, Paul Molitor, Rod Carew, and Jim Rice that a guy who could have very good success in 1978-1984 wouldn't even be able to make the majors in 2015-2021?

I don't have the numbers handy but yea, overall the hitters today are more dangerous.  The OPS of balls put into play has gone up, HR are at an all time high despite a much higher K rate.

You have to miss bats to have sustained success.

[ReclaimTheCrown]

8 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

6.5 K/9

How much of the higher K/9 that you are referencing is due to those very same hitters that today try to do more damage from a power perspective? Even some of the legendary strikeout guys from back in the day (Bob Gibson 7.2, Steve Carlton 7.1, Tom Seaver 6.8.... I just picked three well-known guys, maybe there are other examples of much higher K rates) did not have eye-popping strikeout rates from today’s standards (Max Scherzer 10.5, Clayton Kershaw 9.7, for example). 

So while I totally agree that a guy that strikes out 3.8 per 9 wouldn’t survive today, isn’t it possible that the same Scotty McGregor would miss a sufficient amount of bats in today’s game because hitters are trying to do much more damage? Not saying he would hang Kershaw numbers, but I’d think perhaps enough to be viable today. Just think you may be ignoring the other side of the equation, which is the susceptibility of today’s hitters to striking out; guys simply didn’t have as many strikeouts back then because hitters were much more focused on putting the ball in play. 

Interesting debate, though. 

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, ReclaimTheCrown said:

How much of the higher K/9 that you are referencing is due to those very same hitters that today try to do more damage from a power perspective? Even some of the legendary strikeout guys from back in the day (Bob Gibson 7.2, Steve Carlton 7.1, Tom Seaver 6.8.... I just picked three well-known guys, maybe there are other examples of much higher K rates) did not have eye-popping strikeout rates from today’s standards (Max Scherzer 10.5, Clayton Kershaw 9.7, for example). 

So while I totally agree that a guy that strikes out 3.8 per 9 wouldn’t survive today, isn’t it possible that the same Scotty McGregor would miss a sufficient amount of bats in today’s game because hitters are trying to do much more damage? Not saying he would hang Kershaw numbers, but I’d think perhaps enough to be viable today. Just think you may be ignoring the other side of the equation, which is the susceptibility of today’s hitters to striking out; guys simply didn’t have as many strikeouts back then because hitters were much more focused on putting the ball in play. 

Interesting debate, though. 

I stated that if McGregor had a bump in his K rate to something in the 6 range that he would be viable.   I would be interested in any evidence that he used to throw over 90 however.

Now the Phillies were mentioned.  Obviously the 1983 Philies were a lot more successful compared to their peers than the 2018 Phillies.  But strictly from a power perspective it goes the other way.   Yes, Mike Schmidt hit 40 HR in 1983.  Care to guess how many other Phillies had 20 home runs(0)?  10(3)?   On the 2018 Phillies they had four players with 20 and seven in double digits. 

The 83 Orioles had two hitters with 20+ HR, and only three more in double digits.  In comparison, despite the trades and huge amount of suck the 2018 Orioles had the same number of 20 HR hitters and five more in double digits.

It was a significantly different game.

[tntoriole]

8 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

6.5 K/9

 

5 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I don't have the numbers handy but yea, overall the hitters today are more dangerous.  The OPS of balls put into play has gone up, HR are at an all time high despite a much higher K rate.

You have to miss bats to have sustained success.

 

K rates are higher today because players strike out more.   Not because pitchers are better or faster.   Many modern Chris Davis, Ryan Howard types never would have made the big leagues in the 1970s because hitting less than .200 and striking out at mammoth rates meant you were not suitable for the game the way it was played then.  The game is different now but that goes both ways.   Scott McGregor's K rate would likely be significantly higher today than during an era when hitters did not strike out near as much as they do today.    If I am Jim Palmer sitting in the booth over the years watching the sorry excuses that parade out there as big league pitchers on the mound for us, it must drive him crazy at times. 

 

The question of whether past players would hold up against those playing today is an eternal and unanswerable question in baseball....I liked Ty Cobb's answer in a 1958 interview best. 

 

"With all the great players playing ball right now, how well do you think you would do against today's pitchers?

Ty Cobb: Well, I figure against today's pitchers I'd only probably hit about .290

Louis Prima: .290? Well that's amazing, because you batted over .400 a... a whole bunch of times. Now tell us all, we'd all like to know, why do you think you'd only hit .290?

Ty Cobb: Well, I'm 72 f—ing years old you ignorant son of a b—ch.

 

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, tntoriole said:

 

 

K rates are higher today because players strike out more.   Not because pitchers are better or faster.   Many modern Chris Davis, Ryan Howard types never would have made the big leagues in the 1970s because hitting less than .200 and striking out at mammoth rates meant you were not suitable for the game the way it was played then.  The game is different now but that goes both ways.   Scott McGregor's K rate would likely be significantly higher today than during an era when hitters did not strike out near as much as they do today.    If I am Jim Palmer sitting in the booth over the years watching the sorry excuses that parade out there as big league pitchers on the mound for us, it must drive him crazy at times. 

 

The question of whether past players would hold up against those playing today is an eternal and unanswerable question in baseball....I liked Ty Cobb's answer in a 1958 interview best. 

 

"With all the great players playing ball right now, how well do you think you would do against today's pitchers?

Ty Cobb: Well, I figure against today's pitchers I'd only probably hit about .290

Louis Prima: .290? Well that's amazing, because you batted over .400 a... a whole bunch of times. Now tell us all, we'd all like to know, why do you think you'd only hit .290?

Ty Cobb: Well, I'm 72 f—ing years old you ignorant son of a b—ch.

 

That isn't accurate.

More velocity does lead to more strike outs.   Do you think velocity has been trending up for decades by chance?  You think it is a coincidence that the players of yore with the big strikeout numbers (Johnson, Feller, Johnson, Ryan) just happened to throw harder than their peer group?

Ty Cobb can say whatever he liked but he never had to get in there against 103 MPH.

[tntoriole]

6 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I stated that if McGregor had a bump in his K rate to something in the 6 range that he would be viable.   I would be interested in any evidence that he used to throw over 90 however.

Now the Phillies were mentioned.  Obviously the 1983 Philies were a lot more successful compared to their peers than the 2018 Phillies.  But strictly from a power perspective it goes the other way.   Yes, Mike Schmidt hit 40 HR in 1983.  Care to guess how many other Phillies had 20 home runs(0)?  10(3)?   On the 2018 Phillies they had four players with 20 and seven in double digits. 

The 83 Orioles had two hitters with 20+ HR, and only three more in double digits.  In comparison, despite the trades and huge amount of suck the 2018 Orioles had the same number of 20 HR hitters and five more in double digits.

It was a significantly different game.

 

Scott McGregor was 3-5 in 1977 with a 4.42 ERA. But the next season, he improved to 15-13 and a 3.32 ERA. He said he was changed by some advice he got from Weaver and Orioles pitching coach George Bamberger.

"When I came up, I was throwing everything hard -- my fastball hard, my slider hard," McGregor said. "Earl told me I needed to work at another speed. He said he wanted my curve to be in the 60s and to use my changeup more."

He worked with Weaver and heeded his advice. He said his fastball dropped from about 91 mph to the high 80s, but was more effective because he was changing speeds. His changeup also became his best pitch. But it wasn't easy learning how to pitch differently.

[tntoriole]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

That isn't accurate.

More velocity does lead to more strike outs.   Do you think velocity has been trending up for decades by chance?  You think it is a coincidence that the players of yore with the big strikeout numbers (Johnson, Feller, Johnson, Ryan) just happened to throw harder than their peer group?

Ty Cobb can say whatever he liked but he never had to get in there against 103 MPH.

Strike out rates today are not trending up compared to the 1970s?   And who throws 103?  One pitcher?     Not any pitcher on this team in the last 50 years.