Keith Law on Arrieta's ML Projection

[Stotle]

It depends entirely what you mean when you say a "no. 3." If you mean, "someone who would be a no. 3 in a good contending rotation" then I'd agree. If you mean "someone who would be a no. 3 in an average major league rotation" then I think that's too low.

Put it this way - what is Jeremy Guthrie? If he's considered a no. 3, then I have no trouble projecting Arrieta as a no. 3.

My guess would be Law is describing a poor man's AJ Burnett.

[AVencill]

Since I saw Arrieta all of last year, I'll go ahead and offer up my opinion of Jake. I think the back injury he suffered really affected his command as his numbers ballooned post-injury, but settled down right before he left for Japan, so I see Law's point there about command.

Pre-injury, Arrieta looked like a #2, possible #1 pitcher to me with a dynamite fastball, a very solid slider, and decent breaking stuff. The back injury affected him with location, combined with some bad outings against some of the best hitting clubs in all of single-A.

Personally, I can see him slipping to a #3, but not a #4. He's got the makeup, swagger and "bulldog mentality" along with a bit of cockiness to become the best pitcher he can. In addition, I don't think he's someone to move into the bullpen, not yet at least with the experience he accrued in 2008. We've put enough pitchers into our "crystal ball bullpens." Next year in Bowie will be a telltale about his future ceiling as a ML-quality starter.

[Frobby]

My guess would be Law is describing a poor man's AJ Burnett.

In scout's parlance, what is Guthrie?

[TJ Wrangler]

My guess would be Law is describing a poor man's AJ Burnett.

Now I know you definitely stole that idea from me. :laughlol:

[TJ Wrangler]

In scout's parlance, what is Guthrie?

Since Stotle and I are good for similar answers (or at least stealing my Arrietta comments ), I'd say he's an average number 2 starter. When he was throwing harder in 2007, he was probably a strong number 2 starter. I saw him throw 98 a few times.

Guthrie doesn't stike out a lot of guys. He also doesn't walk a lot of guys. He could be unlucky and have a less than stellar year, but I'd say he's pitching up to his potential now.

That said, I'd say he has a plus fastball and an average curve/slider and change up. When you have Guthrie's control, thats enough to be a decent number 2 starter.

I'd have to get a good look at his mechanics one day to really say how much of a long term future he could have.

[Stotle]

Now I know you definitely stole that idea from me. :laughlol:

Sorry, JGard....already made the comp a couple of months ago:

http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1497035&postcount=10

[Lucky Jim]

Since Stotle and I are good for similar answers (or at least stealing my Arrietta comments ), I'd say he's an average number 2 starter. When he was throwing harder in 2007, he was probably a strong number 2 starter. I saw him throw 98 a few times.

Guthrie doesn't stike out a lot of guys. He also doesn't walk a lot of guys. He could be unlucky and have a less than stellar year, but I'd say he's pitching up to his potential now.

That said, I'd say he has a plus fastball and an average curve/slider and change up. When you have Guthrie's control, thats enough to be a decent number 2 starter.

I'd have to get a good look at his mechanics one day to really say how much of a long term future he could have.

Seems a good #3 to me. Somewhat inconsistent command in the zone, but over all good control. No real out pitch. A plus FB, and average curve and slider. Both the curve and (especially) the slider have flashes of being better than average, but he tends to hang them when he tires. Decent GB rates are belied by tendency to give up HRs. Mechanics are repeatable, and he's athletic. Does seem to tire.

[Stotle]

In scout's parlance, what is Guthrie?

Well, very little projection left so he is essentially at his ceiling now (I'd say). Plus-FB (command) and average to above-average secondary stuff. Holds velocity and spin into the middle/late innings. Good stamina. Commands fastball to all quadrants.

I'd be comfortable anywhere from a very good #3 to a solid-average #2 -- I tend to be conservative, so I'd call him a very good #3. He's really right on the line, for me, though -- no issues with him being labeled a fringy-#2.

[Stotle]

Seems a good #3 to me. Somewhat inconsistent command in the zone, but over all good control. No real out pitch. A plus FB, and average curve and slider. Both the curve and (especially) the slider have flashes of being better than average, but he tends to hang them when he tires. Decent GB rates are belied by tendency to give up HRs. Mechanics are repeatable, and he's athletic. Does seem to tire.

Man, posted while I was typing! I agree with all of this (I'd call his breaking stuff above-average -- which I use interchangeably with fringe-plus or "55"). Maybe tires, but he maintains his stuff pretty well. Good #3? Sounds right to me.

[Lucky Jim]

Apparently we disagree about whether or not he maintains. Otherwise, in agreement.

He's one of those guys who an orthodox appreciation of his skillset says #3, but whose recent results say slightly better. Bumping him up to a #2 doesn't hurt anything.

His FB command is great. His secondary command, less so. (To clarify my command/control statement. BTW.)

[Stotle]

Apparently we disagree about whether or not he maintains. Otherwise, in agreement.

He's one of those guys who an orthodox appreciation of his skillset says #3, but whose recent results say slightly better. Bumping him up to a #2 doesn't hurt anything.

His FB command is great. His secondary command, less so. (To clarify my command/control statement. BTW.)

Great, now I have to pay attention to whether or not he "maintains" so I know whether or not you have this over me........it doesn't take much to shake my confidence.

[TJ Wrangler]

Sorry, JGard....already made the comp a couple of months ago:

http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1497035&postcount=10

I stand corrected. I just find it funny since I just pm'ed you the same thing not long before you posted that.

[Stotle]

I stand corrected. I just find it funny since I just pm'ed you the same thing not long before you posted that.

Yeah, I know. That's why I agreed with you! Just yanking your chain a bit. I think your read is pretty spot on w/r/t Arrieta.

[TJ Wrangler]

Seems a good #3 to me. Somewhat inconsistent command in the zone, but over all good control. No real out pitch. A plus FB, and average curve and slider. Both the curve and (especially) the slider have flashes of being better than average, but he tends to hang them when he tires. Decent GB rates are belied by tendency to give up HRs. Mechanics are repeatable, and he's athletic. Does seem to tire.

It seems like our disagreement is on his control, which is why I bumped him from 3 to 2. I also liked seeing him hit 98 frequently in 2007, so maybe I have that in my mind still.

[Lucky Jim]

It seems like our disagreement is on his control, which is why I bumped him from 3 to 2. I also liked seeing him hit 98 frequently in 2007, so maybe I have that in my mind still.

Yes, I wasn't clear. I think he commands his fastball very well (as Stotle said, "to all quadrants). But as he tires - and even sometimes earlier - he fails to command his secondary pitches within the zone, leaving many of them up and over the plate.

Pitches 61-75 107 6 19 5 0 1 4 9 1 23 1 1 .178 .246 .252 .498 Pitches 76-90 112 5 25 5 1 3 12 7 1 18 4 0 .223 .275 .366 .641 Pitches 91-105 79 6 19 1 0 8 14 7 0 20 1 1 .241 .302 .557 .859