Keith Law on Arrieta's ML Projection

[TJ Wrangler]

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 

I noticed that too...something I forgot to put into my analysis. So I guess the general consensus is that he's pitching like and at best projects to be a decent number 2 starter?

[Lucky Jim]

I noticed that too...something I forgot to put into my analysis. So I guess the general consensus is that he's pitching like and at best projects to be a decent number 2 starter?

I think he maximizes his results. His results say #2. His stuff plays a bit more #3-like (to me - I'm surely not trained in this).

You'd like to see more missed bats or - absent that - a GB% somewhere north of 45%.

But that's just me. A comparison would be a healthy Spoone - who I think had a high #2 upside before his labrum issue even though he had comparably pedestrian K rates.

More movement, more GBs, and miniscule HR rates.

Still, Guthrie is - and I don't mean this weakly - a gentleman and a competitor and a great guy to have on your staff. If he was taking the mound in game 3 of the World Series, I'd be pretty cocky about our chances. Game 2? Hmmmm.

[wayne25]

He was no known as having the best "stuff" on the Olympic Team. Strasburg takes that crown.

I think #3 is a good estimate for Arrieta. Law was asked what is his ceiling, but that wasn't really what he answered, you can tell because he said "proabbly a 4 now" meaning if he improves some things, he could be better.

I think his absolute ceiling is much closer to the front of the rotation, but if he develops into a solid #3, that'd be fine.

HOW, can you be fine with Matusz being a # 3 when he was the number 4 pick overall in the COUNTRY,,,? Hell, this is why we should have taken an impact bat. You don't use that high a pick on a guy who is not a legtimate ace, or who has indisputable stuff to be an ace. Matusz does not qualify on either count.

[Mackus]

HOW, can you be fine with Matusz being a # 3 when he was the number 4 pick overall in the COUNTRY,,,? Hell, this is why we should have taken an impact bat. You don't use that high a pick on a guy who is not a legtimate ace, or who has indisputable stuff to be an ace. Matusz does not qualify on either count.

Read my post again, champ.

[Lucky Jim]

HOW, can you be fine with Matusz being a # 3 when he was the number 4 pick overall in the COUNTRY,,,? Hell, this is why we should have taken an impact bat. You don't use that high a pick on a guy who is not a legtimate ace, or who has indisputable stuff to be an ace. Matusz does not qualify on either count.

Square peg, meet oblong hole. Seriously, are you following here?

[tywright]

Well, those two pitches profile a guy best as a late-inning reliever. Arrieta needs to improve his change if he wants to really be projected as a front-end guy, but that's what part of this coming year is going to be about. Law was spot on in saying that Arrieta has some control issues, and that's the most important part of being able to throw the change. If he throws strike one with good fastball command, the change can be something he can use against righties and lefties. Right now, it's only a good weapon against lefties because he falls behind in the count a lot.

The slider is what it is, but he needs that change to get recognition as a front-line starter.

Of course he needs a change (which he does but needs better command) and probably another offspeed pitch (he has a slow curve) to be a #2. I was just talking about his strikeout pitches.

[TJ Wrangler]

HOW, can you be fine with Matusz being a # 3 when he was the number 4 pick overall in the COUNTRY,,,? Hell, this is why we should have taken an impact bat. You don't use that high a pick on a guy who is not a legtimate ace, or who has indisputable stuff to be an ace. Matusz does not qualify on either count.

I beg to differ. Matusz is going have a Tom Glavine type career. I haven't been this high on an Orioles pitching prospect in ages.

[nobdyweird]

I beg to differ. Matusz is going have a Tom Glavine type career. I haven't been this high on an Orioles pitching prospect in ages.

Talk about a bold prediction there, especially for someone who has only pitched in the AFL so far.

Matusz was a safe pick and said if he had to compare himself/style/arsenal to someone, it would be Cole Hamels. I'll take that. Tall, lanky lefty with 4 above average pitches.

Let's not jump the gun in comparing someone to a hall of famer, 300 win pitcher, as that will invariably lead to disappointment. It's fun to think and believe a guy will be an HOF pitcher, and I hope you're right, but it's ridiculous to compare a guy who has yet to pitch for his organization to an MLB HOF'er.

[allstar1579]

The idea of needing an "ace" is somewhat overrated (to me, at least.)

I mean, having two very good #2s is fine, to me. Heck, even Stotle will tell you that #1 refers to package and not results. No?

Totally agree, I think we've talked about this before. The only difference between a #1 and #2 is intangibles. That bulldog mentality, the wanting the ball, the mental ability to be a streak breaker. I think Jake has that, but like you guys said, until he refines his stuff a bit, it's what I see making him more of a #2 than a #3. My take, is you give me a rotation with 5 #2's and we win the world series. Even a rotation with 5 #3's is going to be a 90-win team with a half way decent offense.

[allstar1579]

Of course he needs a change (which he does but needs better command) and probably another offspeed pitch (he has a slow curve) to be a #2. I was just talking about his strikeout pitches.

The way he uses his fastball and curve to compliment and set up each other is what makes him so good. Then he's got that slider for an out pitch. As long as he fine tunes that control problem on the fringe, he could be a very successful pitcher with 3 pitches. A good pitcher can change speeds and set up pitches to offset a lack in repertoire.

[Stotle]

The way he uses his fastball and curve to compliment and set up each other is what makes him so good. Then he's got that slider for an out pitch. As long as he fine tunes that control problem on the fringe, he could be a very successful pitcher with 3 pitches. A good pitcher can change speeds and set up pitches to offset a lack in repertoire.

But now you're touching more on pitchability, which is great but usually not the bread-and-butter of a front-end starter. I don't disagree with what you are saying (and I'm not sure you're claiming he's a future #1/2) but your description is closer to a mid-rotation guy.

Just my thoughts...

[bigbird]

He's an Oriole prospect of course he doesn't project high:rolleyes: If he were with Boston or NYY he'd be a top ten prospect.

[Stotle]

He's an Oriole prospect of course he doesn't project high:rolleyes: If he were with Boston or NYY he'd be a top ten prospect.

WIth regards to Law, I'm not sure that's true. I don't know for sure, but I'd guess he has Matusz and Tillman ahead of any other Yankees/Red Sox pitching prospect. Perhaps Arrieta, as well (though Bowden/Brackman?).

[Big Mac]

HOW, can you be fine with Matusz being a # 3 when he was the number 4 pick overall in the COUNTRY,,,? Hell, this is why we should have taken an impact bat. You don't use that high a pick on a guy who is not a legtimate ace, or who has indisputable stuff to be an ace. Matusz does not qualify on either count.

He was talking about Arrieta.

[TakebackOPACY]

Great thread. I just wanted to add that I have no problem with Law's projection. If Jake Arrieta does pan out to be a legit #4 starter in the majors and Matusz and Tillman both pan out to be better than that, we'll be very competitive. If Arrieta actually becomes a legit #3... the O's will be back.

And while I'm typing this, someone who is reading this thread and/or contributing is talking with Ken Weinman. It's a good call, by the way.